Renaissance Men: Shakespeare, Machiavelli, and Macbeth

Gloucester

“I’ll smile, and murder whilst I smile

I can add colours to the chameleon

Change shapes with Proteus for advantages

And set the murderous Machiavel to school”

Henry VI- by William Shakespeare

Machiavellian (adj.): using clever but often dishonest methods that deceive people so that you can win power or control

In today’s English, “machiavellian” is used to describe unscrupulous politicians or sly conmen. If someone is machiavellian, they are unambiguously a villain.

But did Shakespeare share his modern readers’ understanding of the word? Exploring Machiavelli’s ideas, and tracing the tracks of their influence between the publication of The Prince (1532) and Macbeth (written around 1606), can open up valuable seams of analysis for a student aiming to write a full marks GCSE essay.

Machiavelli’s philosophy was a product of both political chaos and cultural revival. Life in Florence at the turn of the 16th century was turbulent, and he personally tasted the bitter cold of defeat, disgrace, imprisonment, and torture before he wrote The Prince. But this period also brought with it a revolution in art, literature, architecture, education, and -importantly for this piece - philosophy. The Renaissance was partly a nostalgic yearning for days of former glory, and Machiavelli was one of its most famous (or infamous) products.

What made Machiavelli a more controversial export of the Italian Renaissance was that, rather than experiment with frescoes or domed cathedrals, he proposed (at least for a select few) a pagan and an emphatically “non-Christian” morality. For a Christian, a moral life was and still is characterised by a devotion to God, forgiveness, humility, purity, charity, and obedience. But for Machiavelli, such traits, if imbued into the character of a Prince, became fatal weaknesses.

For Machiavelli, personal morality was not only irrelevant to the task of statecraft, but actively harmful. It was impossible, suggested Machiavelli, to be both an effective leader, and a good Christian. He posited that political power had to be ruthlessly maintained, with the ultimate goal of glorifying the state. Stability was the necessary foundation of prosperity and wellbeing, and it was the “Prince” (whether s/he be a king, queen, duke or lord) who was charged with its care. If that meant that some innocent people were to be slaughtered, so be it. If it meant lying and deceiving to divide and manipulate one’s enemies, then that was a small price to pay. He famously said that a prince must, “act against mercy, against faith, against humanity, against frankness, against religion, in order to preserve the state.”

Such thought was controversial: it challenged the status quo, it challenged the supremacy of the Catholic Church, and it challenged the shared moral assumptions of the previous one thousand years. Though it was anathema to the Catholic Church, Machiavelli's ideas became part of the political landscape of Tudor England; statesmen such as Thomas Cromwell and William Cecil were often accused of practising his ruthlessly pragmatic methods.

Standing as he did at the very beginning of the modern age, Machiavelli’s reputation in Shakespeare’s England is well documented, and considering the three kings of Macbeth and assessing their Machiavellian credentials is a wonderful way to grab your examiner’s full attention.

So, how do Duncan, Macbeth, and Malcolm fare when held to Machiavelli’s standard?

Duncan

There’s no art

To find the mind’s construction in the face.

He was a gentleman on whom I built

An absolute trust.

“Any man who tries to be good all the time is bound to come to ruin among the great number who are not good.”― Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince

“Good king Duncan” is often handled very gently by teachers and students, but Machiavelli would have lambasted him for a weak and ineffectual ruler. The play opens with his nation in the midst of war, threatened by internal and external foes, and with Duncan clinging to power thanks mainly to the skill of his servants, Macbeth and Banquo. After surviving the treason of Macdonwald and Cawdor, Duncan fails to learn his lesson. Instead, he puts himself at the mercy of Macbeth, the one man among his inner circle who is entertaining thoughts of regicide. Such naivete is unforgivable to the Machiavellian standard, and though Duncan pays for his naivety with his life, it is Scotland that truly suffers, enduring Macbeth’s tyranny and a second civil war before order is restored.

Macbeth

For mine own good,

All causes shall give way.

3.4

"A prince is despised if he is considered changeable, frivolous, effeminate, pusillanimous, and irresolute."

It is tempting to think that, as Macbeth shares none of Duncan’s scruples, that he must therefore be the true Machiavellian ideal. Such reasoning would be shallow indeed, as Macbeth’s kingship, whilst bloody and brutal, is guided mainly by whimsical ambitions and paranoia. He has no philosophy or system to guide his reckless violence, and in this quotation he rejects the duties of a king. The “causes” Macbeth declares redundant are the very essence of what Machiavelli prized: stability, peace, and prosperity for his nation. Far more egregious from a political perspective is that all of Macbeth's attempts to gain and maintain power ultimately weaken him. He is brutal, but he is also ineptMacbeth fails the test as miserably as Duncan does, though for different reasons.

Malcolm

My first false speaking

Was this upon myself. What I am truly

Is thine and my poor country’s to command—

4.3

“The lion cannot protect himself from traps, and the fox cannot defend himself from wolves. One must therefore be a fox to recognize traps, and a lion to frighten wolves.”
― Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince

It is Malcolm who Shakespeare portrays as his and Machiavelli’s ideal king. The archetypal prodigal son realises that to stay in the aftermath of his father’s murder would be fatal. Instead, he leaves, gathers his strength, steels himself in the despair and hopelessness of exile, and returns to Scotland as a servant, not a masterful tyrant. The lines quoted here follow an often overlooked exchange where he manipulates Macduff into revealing his true loyalty. Where Duncan was naive, Malcolm is shrewd and cunning. Where Macbeth is selfish and tyrannical, Malcolm is just.

Teachers and online content creators have been predicting a question on “kingship in Macbeth” for years. Although it has yet to materialise, and may never come in so many words, this knowledge is applicable to a range of questions. Whenever you discuss Macbeth and kingship, or Shakespeare and his patron, James I, you can include an interesting discussion of Machiavelli’s philosophy of kingship, and climb rapidly up the mark scheme.^