The Importance of Philippe Bénéton

Philippe Bénéton is a French political scientist who should be better known to Anglo-American and English language audiences. Hoping to bring greater attention to his work, I will focus on one of his contributions, an essay on Niccolo Machiavelli’s art of writing. Bénéton’s Niccolo Massimo: Essai sur l’art d’écrire de Machiavel (Paris: Editions du Cerf, 2018), currently the last book he has written, published in 2018, offers an illuminating study of Niccolò Machiavelli’s distinctive writing style and its role in shaping political thought. Bénéton approaches Machiavelli’s works not just as treatises of political philosophy but as literary masterpieces designed to provoke, engage, and challenge readers. His analysis situates Machiavelli at the intersection of politics and literature, showing how Florentine’s strategic use of language was fundamental to his intellectual legacy. Through a nuanced examination of works like The Prince and Discourses on Livy, Bénéton reveals the complexities of Machiavelli’s rhetorical and philosophical methods.

Bénéton’s central thesis is that Machiavelli’s writing was multi-layered, crafted to speak to both immediate and future audiences. His works combine practical advice for rulers with philosophical provocations for intellectuals, creating texts that transcend their historical context. Bénéton argues that this duality is not accidental but a deliberate strategy employed by Machiavelli to maximize the reach and impact of his ideas. By addressing the concerns of Renaissance rulers while embedding more profound reflections on power and morality, Machiavelli ensured his relevance across generations.

One of the most striking aspects of Bénéton’s analysis is his emphasis on the contradictions in Machiavelli’s writings. Rather than viewing these contradictions as weaknesses, Bénéton interprets them as calculated rhetorical strategies. In The Prince, Machiavelli’s pragmatic advice often contrasts sharply with the republican ideals celebrated in Discourses. This duality, Bénéton suggests, is central to understanding Machiavelli’s genius. Machiavelli compels readers to wrestle with the tensions between power, ethics, and governance by engaging readers on multiple levels.

The essay also highlights Machiavelli’s mastery of rhetorical techniques, including irony, historical analogy, and ambiguity. Bénéton demonstrates how these tools allowed Machiavelli to navigate the political constraints of his time while encouraging readers to engage critically with his ideas. Whether employing irony to mask controversial views or historical examples to lend credibility to his arguments, Machiavelli’s writing reflects a profound understanding of the power of language. Bénéton’s analysis reveals how these techniques contribute to the enduring appeal of Machiavelli’s works.

Ultimately, Bénéton positions Machiavelli as a pioneering thinker whose legacy extends beyond political science to encompass the art of writing. His essay invites readers to appreciate Machiavelli as both a philosopher and a literary strategist whose works continue to inspire debate and reflection. By exploring the interplay between form and content in Machiavelli’s writings, Bénéton provides a fresh perspective on one of history’s most complex and influential figures.

I

Philippe Bénéton, in his Niccolo Massimo, provides an intricate exploration of Machiavelli’s writing style, illustrating how he elevated prose to an art form that served as both a vehicle for political strategy and a tool for intellectual engagement. Bénéton argues that Machiavelli’s works are more than static texts; they are dynamic, multi-layered compositions that operate on several levels. Through his analysis, Bénéton reveals how Machiavelli’s use of language was as much a strategic maneuver as the political advice contained within his works. Far from merely presenting advice for rulers, Machiavelli’s prose invites active interpretation, demanding engagement from a wide range of readers.

One of the hallmarks of Machiavelli’s writing, as Bénéton demonstrates, is its ability to communicate simultaneously with different audiences. In works like The Prince and Discourses on Livy, Machiavelli employs rhetorical techniques that address rulers seeking practical advice while also speaking to scholars and intellectuals interested in more profound philosophical questions. This layered approach ensures his works remain relevant and accessible across diverse readerships. Bénéton emphasizes that this duality in Machiavelli’s prose is not accidental but a deliberate strategy showcasing his mastery of communication.

The ambiguity embedded in Machiavelli’s writing is a central focus of Bénéton’s analysis. This ambiguity allows readers to find meaning tailored to their perspective and intellectual capacity. For contemporary rulers, The Prince offered straightforward advice on acquiring and maintaining power. However, the same text provides subtle critiques and reflections on the nature of power, governance, and morality for more discerning readers. Bénéton argues that this multi-faceted nature of Machiavelli’s prose is what has allowed his works to endure and remain subject to endless reinterpretation.

Bénéton highlights Machiavelli’s use of stylistic tools like irony, allegory, and historical analogy to deepen the resonance of his works. For example, Machiavelli’s frequent references to historical figures and events serve a dual purpose: they provide concrete examples to illustrate his points while simultaneously encouraging readers to draw parallels with their own contexts. This rhetorical technique enables Machiavelli to bridge the gap between past and present, reinforcing the universality of his insights while engaging readers in active reflection.

Irony is another crucial element of Machiavelli’s style that Bénéton thoroughly examines. In The Prince, Machiavelli often appears to endorse morally dubious tactics, such as deception and cruelty. However, Bénéton contends that these endorsements are frequently accompanied by subtle hints of skepticism or critique, encouraging readers to question the advice at face value. This use of irony creates a dual-layered narrative that caters to literal and interpretive readings, ensuring that Machiavelli’s works provoke thought and challenge assumptions.

Bénéton also underscores the pedagogical aspect of Machiavelli’s writing. Rather than presenting a singular, definitive doctrine, Machiavelli’s prose invites readers to grapple with the complexities of governance and human nature. His arguments are often presented in a way that forces readers to confront uncomfortable truths, such as the necessity of ruthless action in pursuing political stability. By engaging readers this way, Machiavelli ensures that his works remain intellectually stimulating and resistant to simplistic interpretations.

The notion of Machiavelli as a “teacher of evil” is critically reassessed by Bénéton, following Leo Strauss’s path in his Thoughts on Machiavelli. While Machiavelli’s pragmatic approach to politics has often been misunderstood as an endorsement of amorality, Bénéton argues that his works reflect a deeper engagement with the ethical dilemmas of leadership. Machiavelli’s advice to rulers is rooted in recognizing the harsh realities of power. Still, an awareness of political actions’ moral and social consequences temper it—for example, his advice to the Prince regarding using cruelty well (so it produces the greatest benefit and avoids the greatest of harms) and avoiding being hated.  This nuanced portrayal challenges the reductive label often applied to Machiavelli’s philosophy.

Bénéton’s analysis also situates Machiavelli’s writing within the broader tradition of Renaissance humanism. Machiavelli’s engagement with classical sources, such as Livy and Tacitus, reflects his intellectual debt to antiquity while showcasing his innovative approach to political theory. By blending historical analysis with contemporary concerns, Machiavelli bridges the gap between classical and modern thought, a feat that Bénéton sees as central to his literary genius.

The interplay of form and content in Machiavelli’s works is another aspect that Bénéton examines. Machiavelli’s prose is characterized by its clarity, brevity, and precision, qualities that enhance its rhetorical impact. At the same time, his use of allegory and metaphor adds layers of meaning that invite deeper exploration. Bénéton argues that this combination of stylistic elegance and intellectual depth is what makes Machiavelli’s writing so compelling and enduring. Thus, Bénéton’s exploration of Machiavelli’s writing style underscores its complexity, versatility, and enduring relevance. By blending straightforward political advice with nuanced rhetorical strategies, Machiavelli crafted works that transcend their historical context to engage readers across generations. Bénéton’s analysis reveals a writer whose mastery of language was integral to his success as a thinker and whose works continue to challenge and inspire those who encounter them.

II

Philippe points out that Machiavelli wrote during a period of intense political instability in Renaissance Italy, where city-states vied for dominance, and shifting alliances were common. According to Bénéton, these conditions shaped Machiavelli’s art of writing, which demanded subtlety, adaptability, and a keen understanding of human nature. His experiences as a diplomat and his observations of power dynamics informed his use of language to address not only the immediate concerns of his time but also broader philosophical questions about power, governance, and human behavior.

A defining feature of Machiavelli’s strategic writing, as Bénéton explains, is his adept use of historical parallels. Machiavelli rooted his theories in concrete and relatable narratives by drawing from Roman history and other historical sources. In The Prince and Discourses on Livy, historical examples serve not only to illustrate Machiavelli’s arguments but also to provide a sense of timeless authority. Bénéton argues that these examples are carefully selected and framed to resonate with the experiences of his contemporary audience, demonstrating the cyclical nature of power and human behavior.

For instance, Machiavelli frequently invokes the actions of Roman leaders to underscore his principles of virtù and fortuna. Bénéton points out that these historical anecdotes serve a dual purpose: they lend credibility to Machiavelli’s arguments by situating them within a well-regarded classical tradition and challenge readers to draw parallels between historical events and their own political circumstances. By doing so, Machiavelli provides practical guidance and engages readers in a deeper reflection on the universal principles of leadership and governance.

The influence of classical antiquity on Machiavelli’s thought is another crucial aspect of Bénéton’s exploration. Machiavelli’s writings are deeply rooted in the classical tradition, drawing on the works of Roman historians such as Tacitus and philosophers like Xenophon (pointing to both the Cyropedia and the Hiero). Bénéton points out that Machiavelli’s engagement with classical sources draws parallels between historical and contemporary political situations and legitimizes his ideas through the authority of classical tradition. His analysis underscores how Machiavelli’s integration of classical thought contributes to the depth and richness of his political analysis.  For example, consider the case of Aristotle in Machiavelli. He argues that while Machiavelli held as an authority Aristotle’s classification of virtues and regimes, he used them as another matter. Regarding the former, see how Machiavelli uses the virtues in Chapter XV of The Prince, only to suggest some virtues are better to appear to have than to have, and some vices are what needs must be done to achieve the good for your state and its people.

As for Aristotle’s classification of regimes, Bénéton points out that Machiavelli refers to it, via Polybius, at the beginning of the Discourses (I, 2) and then immediately casts it aside. Bénéton notes the other references from Aristotle that Machiavelli engages are almost entirely drawn from Chapters 10, 11, and 12 of Book V of Politics and concentrated in Chapters XVII-XVIII-XIX of The Prince, which are the most radical chapters of the work. Aristotle addresses tyranny, which, in his view, is the most perverse regime, and he analyzes the methods of tyrants, their weaknesses, and the reasons behind the uprisings or conspiracies of the oppressed. Bénéton notes that Machiavelli transforms Aristotle’s observations on tyranny into advice for the prince. Where Aristotle says that contempt and hatred are the leading causes of revolts against tyrants, Machiavelli says that the prince must “avoid contempt and hatred.”  In contrast, Aristotle observes that confiscating property and offenses against women are sources of hatred towards the tyrant. Machiavelli concludes that the prince must abstain “from the property of his citizens and subjects, and their women.” Bénéton thus points out that the tyrant has given way to the prince, and the perversity of the regime has disappeared.

Another critical aspect of Machiavelli’s art of writing, as analyzed by Bénéton, is his use of rhetorical questions and assertions. These devices are not merely ornamental but serve as tools to challenge the reader’s assumptions and provoke critical thought. In The Prince, Machiavelli questions the nature of power, the morality of political actions, and the role of fortune in human affairs. Often left unanswered, these questions compel readers to grapple with the complexities of governance and consider Machiavelli’s insights in light of their own experiences and beliefs.

Through rhetorical questions, Machiavelli confronts the reader with uncomfortable truths about the nature of politics. For example, his assertion that it is better for a ruler to be feared than loved challenges traditional notions of virtuous leadership. Bénéton highlights how this approach forces readers to reconsider their preconceived ideas about morality and political necessity. By engaging readers in this way, Machiavelli ensures that his arguments are not passively accepted but actively interrogated and debated.

One of the most intriguing elements of Machiavelli’s writing, as explored by Bénéton, is his use of subversive irony. This technique is particularly evident in The Prince, where Machiavelli appears to endorse ruthless and unscrupulous tactics. However, Bénéton argues that this endorsement is often accompanied by subtle hints that invite astute readers to question the sincerity of Machiavelli’s advice. This irony creates a dual-layered text, with one message directed at superficial readers and another, more nuanced message aimed at those who engage deeply with the text. He interprets Machiavelli’s use of irony as both a protective and a pedagogical strategy. By couching controversial ideas in ironic language, Machiavelli shields himself from potential backlash while simultaneously encouraging critical readers to discern the true meaning of his words. This layered approach reflects Machiavelli’s awareness of his time’s political and social constraints and his skill in navigating them through his writing.

A central theme in Bénéton’s analysis is that Machiavelli’s writings were crafted for a dual audience. On one level, they address rulers and political leaders, offering pragmatic advice on governance and power. On another level, they speak to a broader audience of intellectuals and thinkers, challenging them to engage with his ideas’ more profound philosophical implications. This duality is evident in Machiavelli’s use of language, which is at once accessible and richly layered with meaning.

Bénéton emphasizes that Machiavelli’s art of writing transforms the reader from a passive recipient of knowledge into an active participant in the interpretive process. By presenting deliberately provocative or ambiguous arguments, Machiavelli invites readers to engage with his ideas on a deeper level. This interactive quality of his writing is a testament to his rhetorical skill and understanding of communication dynamics.

Contradiction is another hallmark of Machiavelli’s art of writing, as identified by Bénéton. In The Prince, Machiavelli advocates for fear over love as a governing principle, while in Discourses, he celebrates the virtues of republican governance. Bénéton argues that these apparent contradictions are not inconsistencies but deliberate rhetorical strategies. By presenting opposing viewpoints, Machiavelli compels readers to wrestle with his arguments’ complexities and arrive at their own conclusions.

Bénéton also highlights Machiavelli’s strategic use of subtle messaging within historical contexts. For instance, his commentary on the actions of figures like Cesare Borgia is layered with both admiration and critique. This ambivalence reflects Machiavelli’s ability to balance offering practical advice and maintaining a critical perspective. Bénéton suggests that this nuanced approach allows Machiavelli’s works to transcend their immediate historical context and remain relevant across time.

The interplay of virtù (human agency) and fortuna (chance) is central to Machiavelli’s writings. Bénéton examines how Machiavelli uses rhetorical devices to explore this dynamic, often presenting it through historical examples and allegories. By illustrating the tension between these forces, Machiavelli challenges readers to consider the limits of human control and the role of adaptability in achieving success.

Bénéton underscores Machiavelli’s mastery of language as a tool of influence. From the clarity of his prose to the sophistication of his rhetorical techniques, Machiavelli’s writing reflects a deep understanding of the power of words. His strategic use of language enables him to engage with diverse audiences and to convey complex ideas in a compelling and accessible manner.

Bénéton concludes that Machiavelli’s art of writing is a testament to his brilliance as both a thinker and a communicator. By combining historical analysis, rhetorical sophistication, and philosophical depth, Machiavelli created works that continue to resonate with readers and scholars alike. Bénéton’s analysis invites us to appreciate the enduring relevance of Machiavelli’s writing as a strategic tool for engaging with the complexities of politics and power.

III

Philippe Bénéton’s Essai sur l’art d’écrire de Machiavel takes a thoughtful approach to the contradictions present in Machiavelli’s works, presenting them not as flaws but as deliberate rhetorical strategies. One of the most striking examples Bénéton examines is the contrast between the lion-and-fox metaphor in The Prince and the republican idealism celebrated in Discourses on Livy. In The Prince, Machiavelli advises rulers to embody the fox’s cunning and the lion’s strength, emphasizing pragmatism and adaptability. In contrast, Discourses extols the virtues of collective governance, civic participation, and the moral integrity of a republic. Bénéton argues that these contradictions reflect Machiavelli’s intent to address multiple audiences and contexts rather than a fundamental inconsistency in his philosophy.

These contradictions, Bénéton asserts, broaden the scope of Machiavelli’s work. By presenting opposing viewpoints, Machiavelli ensures that his writings resonate with diverse audiences, from autocratic rulers to republican thinkers. For rulers, The Prince offers a pragmatic guide to power; for intellectuals and future generations, it invites reflection on the ethics and complexities of governance. As Bénéton sees it, this dual purpose gives Machiavelli’s works their enduring relevance and capacity to provoke debate across centuries.

Bénéton emphasizes that the contradictions in Machiavelli’s writings are not random but carefully constructed to engage readers critically. For example, the pragmatic advice in The Prince—such as the necessity of deceit or cruelty—is counterbalanced by Machiavelli’s discussions in Discourses about the moral and societal benefits of virtue and civic responsibility. This juxtaposition forces readers to confront the tension between political necessity and ethical principles, a theme that lies at the heart of Machiavelli’s thought. According to Bénéton, this deliberate ambiguity is a testament to Machiavelli’s rhetorical genius and his understanding of the complexities of human nature and politics.

While Bénéton admires Machiavelli’s literary brilliance, he does not hesitate to critique the political philosophies underpinning his works. Because of The Prince’s rhetorical sophistication and intellectual depth, Bénéton finds certain Machiavellian tactics to be ethically troubling. The advice to rulers to prioritize power above morality or to employ deceit and cruelty as political tools raises profound ethical concerns. Bénéton challenges readers to question whether Machiavelli’s realism justifies such tactics or whether they represent a dangerous form of moral relativism.

Bénéton’s critique extends to Machiavelli’s apparent embrace of expediency over principle. While Machiavelli’s pragmatism has been lauded as a cornerstone of modern political science, Bénéton warns against the potential consequences of divorcing politics from ethics. He points out that while Machiavelli’s advice may be effective in achieving short-term stability, it risks undermining the long-term moral foundations of society. This critique counterbalances the admiration for Machiavelli’s intellectual achievements, providing a nuanced perspective on his legacy.

At the same time, Bénéton acknowledges the historical context in which Machiavelli wrote. Renaissance Italy was a time of political turbulence, and the realities of his era shaped Machiavelli’s advice. His writings reflect a world in which the pursuit of power often trumped ethical considerations. Bénéton argues that while this context does not absolve Machiavelli of ethical responsibility, it helps explain his works’ stark realism. By situating Machiavelli within his historical milieu, Bénéton provides a deeper understanding of the motivations and constraints that shaped his philosophy.

Bénéton’s essay ultimately positions Machiavelli as a pioneer in political science and literary strategy. Machiavelli’s ability to combine practical advice with profound philosophical reflection sets him apart as a thinker who transcended the boundaries of his time. Bénéton’s analysis highlights the dual nature of Machiavelli’s work: as a manual for power and as a meditation on the moral dilemmas of leadership. Bénéton argues this duality makes Machiavelli’s works so compelling and relevant to modern readers.

In exploring Machiavelli’s dual role as a political theorist and a literary artist, Bénéton enriches our understanding of how political ideas are shaped and transmitted. He demonstrates that Machiavelli’s rhetorical choices—his use of contradiction, irony, and layered meaning—are integral to his philosophical project. By analyzing these literary strategies, Bénéton provides insights into how Machiavelli’s works continue to influence political thought and communication.

Bénéton also emphasizes the pedagogical value of Machiavelli’s writings. The contradictions and ambiguities in his works are not obstacles but invitations to deeper reflection. They challenge readers to engage critically with the text, question their assumptions, and grapple with the ethical and practical dilemmas of governance. Bénéton sees this as one of Machiavelli’s greatest contributions: his ability to provoke thought and foster intellectual engagement.

In conclusion, Bénéton’s Niccolo Massimo: Essai sur l’art d’écrire de Machiavel offers a nuanced and comprehensive exploration of Machiavelli’s legacy. By examining his works’ contradictions, ethical challenges, and literary strategies, Bénéton positions Machiavelli as a figure of enduring complexity. His analysis invites readers to appreciate Machiavelli not only as a pioneer of political science but also as a master of rhetorical and literary art whose works continue to inspire and challenge us.

Print