The Machiavellian in the White Devil - Essay Example

The Machiavellian in the White Devil The Prince is a text that was so far ahead of its time that Machiavelli’s influence can still be felt today. The reason for this is that he took such a different approach from his predecessors of political thought; as opposed to writing about an ideal government in an ideal world, such as Aristotle or Plato, he wrote about how he actually saw the world. What was so striking about his work was the way in which he discussed the means one should follow in order to rise to power without any regard for the morality of the actions implied. Machiavelli seemed to take no time to regard the implications of his words; to him right and wrong didn’t matter, only power. Perhaps he most succinctly expressed this aspect of his work when he wrote: For there is such a difference between the way men live and the way they ought to live, that anybody who abandons what is for what ought to be will learn something that will ruin rather than preserve him, because anyone who determines to act in all circumstances the part of a good man must come to ruin among so many who are not (1634). While Machiavelli might not have commented on the moral nature of his work, others took it upon themselves to do so. Today, the term ‘Machiavellian’ brings with it only negative connotations of characters who are blood-thirsty for power and have no regard for morality. This comes from many works of art that attempted to show the error of anyone that would truly take Machiavelli’s advice to heart. Two such works that portray the classic Machiavellian are The White Devil by John Webster and Sejanus: His Fall by Ben Jonson. Both seventeenth century plays, by examining these plays, we can see how the sharp criticisms made of characters and governments suggest what would follow if the advice of Machiavelli was taken without concern for the moral implications of the actions. The Machiavellians in these plays never achieve that which they desire, because the consequences of their actions always catch up to them before they can reap the benefits. Sejanus: His Fall is a historical tragedy; it is based on the Sejanus of Rome, who was able to rise through the ranks with help of the emperor, and who was not satisfied with being almost as powerful as the emperor himself. In this particular work, there are two characters that should be viewed as Machiavellians, Sejanus, for his ruthless ambition, and Tiberias, the emperor who took the necessary steps to keep Sejanus from deposing him. In Sejanus himself, we can see Machiavelli’s lack of concern for morals. Seemingly, there is no act that he considers to be below him: “The monstrosity of his deeds cannot obscure the delight Sejanus takes in performing them” (McDonald 290). Also, his thirst for power is never ending: “Is there not something more, than to be Caesar?/ Must we rest there?/…/Winds lose their strength, when they doe emptie flie,/ Un-met of woods or buildings; great fires die,/ That want their matter to with-stand them” (V.13-19). Here Sejanus is stating that his thirst for power might not even stop at just becoming emperor. With an ambition such as his, it would drive him to try to attain even more, for if he were to stop, it might apparently go out. This is in line with what the typical Machiavellian would exhibit, pure, unadulterated lust for more and more power. Even though Tiberius was the one who helped Sejanus rise to power, he had no qualms about turning around and attempting to depose him with the very power that was given to him by Tiberius. Obviously, Sejanus had about as much time to consider morality and its relation to power as Machiavelli did himself. Sejanus, though, is not able to overthrow Tiberius, and meets his end due to Tiberius as he is torn limb from limb by a mob. Machiavelli would have said that he went wrong because he was not “slow in believing and acting, and should make no one afraid of him, his procedure should be so tempered with prudence and humanity that too much confidence does not make him incautious, and too much suspicion does not make him unbearable” (1636). Here Machiavelli is warning those who would not proceed with caution in there endeavors. He is also ignoring Machiavelli’s advice about the way to use violence: “For the one who uses violence to destroy, not the one who uses it to mend, must be reprehended” (84 Bougher). Here Machiavelli is stating that there is a certain way in which to use violent acts. They must, in he end, accomplish some sort of higher good, as opposed to being merely destructive towards those that get in a prince’s way. This is exactly what Sejanus was guilty of; the violent acts he performed served no purpose other that the removal of the people that were in his way. This being the case, people began to outright fear him, and this is what in particular made its way back to Tiberius, warning him of the impending threat from Sejanus. Tiberius should be considered as the other character that shows traits of the Machiavellian. He, in fact, is a better representative of Machiavelli’s ideas as he is the character that triumphs in the end and retains his power: “Machiavelli recommends to a Tiberius the steps he should take for protection against a Sejanus” (Bougher 85). Basically, Machiavelli reverses the maxim of “keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.” Machiavelli sees those closest to a prince as the people that should be regarded with the most caution: “the prince must guard himself against conspiracies by fearing those more on whom he has conferred favors than those on whom he has done excessive injuries” (Bougher 83). Tiberius more or less paraphrases this aspect of Machiavellianism when he states: “They are dreadful Enemies, we raise/ With favors, and make dangerous with praise” (III. 637-8). This is an aspect of the play that more or less directly states a tenet of Machiavelli. Also, Sejanus is “ungrateful” (Western 1636) such as Machiavelli states men are. This leads him to not care whether or not Tiberius was in fact the person responsible for his original ascension into power. By knowing the ways of the world, Tiberius could see that Sejanus was not happy with the large amount of power that he had been given, and that he was thirsting for more. In this way Tiberius concluded that the person who he had the most to fear from was the person who he had given the most power to. In the end, however, it was apparent that Tiberius himself still retained more power than he had given away. As was mentioned, Sejanus showed no regard for the morality of his actions, and Jonson’s point was to attack this sort of attitude. We can see how endless pursuit of power and disregard for morals led to the end of Sejanus: “In Sejanus Jonson wants to show why a society becomes corrupt and what differentiates the good from the bad in society” (Hamilton 268). Jonson used the lack of morals found in Machiavelli to illustrate that people without such morals would eventually cause their own downfall. However, it should be noted that if Sejanus had not allowed himself to grow “incautious,” he just might have succeeded in accomplishing his goal. This, in a sense, undermines the point that Jonson was attempting to make. Even though Sejanus met the end that was in correlation to the point that Jonson was trying to make, this was not necessarily the only conclusion that could have possibly happened. In this way, Jonson’s assertion that “good men at court” (Evans 251) was necessary for a society is undermined as Machiavelli’s claims show a way in which the character being criticized most could have succeeded in his amoral goals. As Machiavelli was concerned with politics, the aspect of politics in the play that shows Machiavellianism is in the conflict over the treatment of Isabella. In specific, it takes place between Medici’s Florence and Brachiano’s Padua with Rome playing an intermediary. Power was gained through alliances and marriages between powerful families, and part of the trouble that Brachiano and Vittoria found themselves in had to do with their severing those powerful political ties. As open warfare would not have been an ideal resolution for any involved, the character Francisco avoids that through the use of Machiavellian methods of subterfuge in order to resolve the conflict in his favor. There are more direct examples, however, of Machiavellianism in the play. While there are mainly two characters that should in a sense be considered Machiavellians, a good portion of the cast of The White Devil could be could considered Machiavellians. Though Vittoria is usually considered to be the “white devil” of the title, it is important to note that “Almost every character in the play is deceitful” (Franklin 35). In attempting to show the dangers inherent in the kind of thinking that Machiavelli promoted, Webster crafted a play in which the deceitful characters never received exactly what they were after, making it a very moral play. Lodovico, a character from the beginning who is suffering for his deeds, accpets the fact that he has been banished: “You are justly doom'd; look but a little back/ Into your former life: you have in three years/ Ruin'd the noblest earldom” (I.i). His anger over his banishment stems not from the fact that it took place, but from the fact that other people have done exactly what he has done yet are not punished the same as him: “I wonder then some great men 'scape/ This banishment: there 's Paul Giordano Ursini,/ The Duke of Brachiano, now lives in Rome,/ And by close panderism seeks to prostitute/ The honour of Vittoria Corombona” (I.i). This being the case, Lodovico should be regarded as a character who from the very beginning is an example to the audience of the effects of the disregard for morality. In this way his actions in the play are less of an example of the true Machiavellian character type. Also, by the end his character turns out to be very much not what Machiavelli would have advocated. He turns into avenger, being responsible for the deaths of Flamineo, Vittorio, and Brachiano. Even though he has been discovered as the perpetrator of this act, he still proclaims “having finish'd this most noble deed,/ Defy the worst of fate, nor fear to bleed” (VI.i). He is stating here that this was a noble act of revenge, and therefore he shall not suffer the consequences of his actions. Having previously been banished for similar acts, he most assuredly will suffer a terrible fate. This is a very self-sacrificing attitude, which is the very opposite of what a Machiavellian would express. The character whose actions most closely resemble the Machiavellian is Flamineo. Flamineo even states directly an aspect of Machiavellianism outright in regards to Brachiano’s death: “Very likely./ Those are found weighty strokes which come from th’hand,/ But these are killing strokes which comes from th’head./ O, the rare tricks of the Machiavillian” (V.III. 192-5). It is not through direct action of one character to another, but the character’s insidious, indirect actions, such as those performed by Flamineo, that truly show the ideas of Machiavelli. While Vittorio and Brachiano show a lack or regard for morals in their plotting against their spouses, ultimately Flamineo is the character that is after power. Vittorio and Brachiano only pursue their lust for each other for no reasons by what it is. Flamineo, on the other hand, performs the deeds that he does because he hopes to rise in rank and gain power through ingratiating himself to Brachiano, who has the ability to grant him a higher rank and more power. Though they are deceitful in the methods and murderous in their outcomes, Brachiano and Vittorio might appear to some as more sympathetic since their actions are driven by something more noble than power. The full extent of Flamineo’s actions should be considered: “Flamineo panders his sister, murders his brother, drives his mother mad, and finally attemtps to murder his sister and his paramour” (McLeod 279). The reason, though, that Flamineo most resembles the Machiavellian though, is that in the end, he is really just trying to “advance his own case” (Sensabough 349). As Machiavelli states about the values of deceit: And the prince who has best known hot to act as a fox comes out best. But one who has this capacity must understand how to keep it covered, and be a skillful pretender and dissembler. Men are so simple and so subject to present needs that he who deceives in this way will always find those who let themselves be deceived (1638). As Vittoria was put on trial, she obviously was not the character who was able to follow this maxim by Machiavelli the most closely. Flamenio kept his deceit running the longest, yet he was still unable to hide the fact that he was being deceitful. More than just merely being deceitful, Machiavelli is stating that a prince must be able to be deceitful about being deceitful. According to Webster, that doesn’t appear to be possible, considering that the characters practicing deceitfulness for their own gain paid for it in the end. Isabella and Camillo represent characters that, according to Machiavelli, suffered their fate because “anyone who determines to act in all circumstances the part of a good man must come to ruin among so many who are not” (1634). Here is another case that detracts from the point that the author was attempting to make. Considering that “Webster’s emphasis upon deceptive appearances” (Layman 366) plays such a heavy role in the piece, it is inevitable that innocent characters would meet unfortunate ends. If Vittoria, Brachiano, and Flamenio had destroyed characters as unsympathetic and selfish as they are, then the play wouldn’t have been compelling, since nobody would have really cared if these terrible characters had been killed. It is precisely because they do not practice the kind of deceit that the other characters do that we want to see them avenged. However, since this was practically a necessary condition of the play in order for it to be compelling, it also proved Machiavelli’s point that anyone that acts in a certain way because it is the right way and the moral way will find themselves taken advantage of a meeting the sort of ends that Isabella and Camillo met. Again, it would seem that the realist Machiavelli can’t be disregarded completely by showing the harm his viewpoints entail. In attempting to prove him wrong, both playwrights showed aspects of how in the end it is unavoidable to demonstrate at least partially that Machiavelli was in fact correct about quite a few things. Neither playwright was completely unsuccessful in their attempts to show the dangers when morality is never considered in matters of personal gains. Each was able to demonstrate through their treacherous characters would happen in an immoral society. Still, it can’t be ignored that aspects of Machiavelli’s work at the same time were demonstrated in these anti-Machiavellian works. Perhaps the most realistic approach and useful approach would be to take the lessons taught by Machiavelli, Webster, and Jonson, and attempt to find a middle ground between attempting to live in a society the way people ought to live and still keep in mind that many people will not act in such a selfless manner. Works Cited Boughner, Daniel C., “Sejanus and Machiavelli.” Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900, Vol. 1, No. 2, Elizabethan and Jacobean Drama (Spring, 1961), pp. 81-100 Evans, K.W., “Sejanus and the Ideal Prince Tradition.” Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900, Vol. 11, No. 2, Elizabethan and Jacobean Drama (Spring, 1971), pp. 249-264 Franklin, H. Bruce, “The Trial Scene of Webster's The White Devil Examined in Terms of Renaissance Rhetoric.” Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900, Vol. 1, No. 2, Elizabethan and Jacobean Drama (Spring, 1961), pp. 35-51 Hamilton, Gary, “Irony and Fortune in Sejanus.” Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900, Vol. 11, No. 2, Elizabethan and Jacobean Drama (Spring, 1971), pp. 265-281 Jonson, Ben, Sejanus: His Fall. Available from Project Gutenberg at Layman, B.J., “The Equilibrium of Opposites in the White Devil: A Reinterpretation.” PMLA, Vol. 74, No. 4 (Sep., 1959), pp. 336-347 Machiavelli, Niccolo, Western Literature in a World Context. Eds. Paul Davis, Gary Harrison, David Johnson, Patricia Clark Smith, John Crawford, St. Martin’s Press, New York, 1995. McDonald, Russ, “Jonsonian Comedy and the Value of Sejanus ” Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900, Vol. 21, No. 2, Elizabethan and Jacobean Drama (Spring, 1981), pp. 287-305 Sensabaugh, George F., “Tragic Effect in Webster's The White Devil.” Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900, Vol. 5, No. 2, Elizabethan and Jacobean Drama (Spring, 1965), pp. 345-361 Webster, John, The White Devil, Available from Project Gutenberg at . Read More