Abstract
While most scholars who have discussed the letters of Elisabeth and Descartes exchanged in 1646 on the subject of the Prince focused on Descartes, whether he was Machiavellian or not, I shall deal here more in depth with the position of Elisabeth. I shall address then four main points: the so-called “methodological” question raised by Descartes about the Prince and quickly dismissed by Elisabeth; the issue of political realism, that is one of the great themes of Machiavelli’s thought; the problem of the “good man,” namely whether and how the natural law can bind in a “wicked” world; Elisabeth’s focus on the passions against Descartes’s political and providential mereology. Finally, I shall try to draw some more general conclusions as regards the place of Elisabeth in the broader context of seventeenth century political philosophy, especially in regard to Hobbes.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The most extensive study on Descartes’s politics is Guenancia (1983). On the letters on Machiavelli see ibid. 322–333. Guenancia considers Descartes neither as a Machiavellian nor as a follower of the theory of raison d’état. Negri (1970, 164) denies that Descartes was Machiavellian, because the thought of the Florentine was misunderstood by the French politiques as a simple tactics of cruel and savage government. By contrast, the classical study by Thuau (2000, 84) presents Descartes’s politics as a demi-machiavélisme. Similarly Mesnard (1936, 204–212). Canziani (1980, 372) focused on the “compromise between realism and morals” made by Descartes. More radically, Rahe (1992) described Descartes as “a heir of Machiavelli” and established a tight parallelism between the généreux and the Prince (ibid. 288), which is against any sense of Cartesian morals. Quite strangely, Taylor (2001) oscillates between Descartes as a “reactionary” (referring to the Discours, 76), “radical reformer” (91), and a “Machiavellian of sorts” (101). In the end, he presents “the Cartesian sovereign” as “Machiavelli’s prince with a conscience” (102). One can find a fine and balanced analysis of these letters, in Shapiro’s Introduction (Shapiro 2007, 32–49).
- 2.
Guenancia (2008, 112). Also Negri (1970, 200–201), while briefly commenting on the letter exchange between Elisabeth and Descartes, focuses only on the contribution of the latter and does not point at the debate on Machiavelli. Similarly Canziani (1980, 370–339) looks at the correspondence on Machiavelli almost exclusively from the Cartesian side.
- 3.
Naudé (1723, 3–38). A critical review of Machiavelli’s early modern interpretations can be read in Bayle’s Dictionary, art. Machiavel (on this point, remark E).
- 4.
In this, Elisabeth seems to follow in the steps of Machiavelli who recommended, in judging actions of men and especially of princes, “to look at the goal” (si guarda al fine) Il Principe, XVIII (Machiavelli 1977, 74).
- 5.
The couple of terms: “acquire”/ “maintain” (acquistare/tenere) stands out in the famous chapter on the great legislators: Moses, Cyrus, Romulus, Theseus (Il Principe, VI; Machiavelli 1977, 31). Governare and mantenere are the main topics of the book, from the beginning (ibid. II, 16). On this very topic see: XIX, 80; XX, 85 (tenere securamente lo stato). Especially a “new prince,” in order to “maintain” (mantenere) the state, must act against faith, charity, humanity, even religion (ibid. XVIII, 73).
- 6.
Similar considerations in Elisabeth to Descartes, 1st December 1646; AT IV, 580; S 152): “I blame the tyrants only for their initial plan to usurp a country and for the initial undertaking of it; for afterwards the path which establishes them in power, however harsh it is, will always lead to less public harm than would a rule contested by battle.”
- 7.
See Machiavelli, Il Principe, XV (Machiavelli 1977, 65): uno uomo, che voglia fare in tutte le parti professione di buono, conviene rovini infra tanti che non sono buoni. The same concept is expressed ibid. XIX (Machiavelli 1977, 80), but with a meaningful qualification: “especially when the community (be it people, army, or the great) is corrupted.” A similar qualification on the passage quoted above (ibid. XV, 65). In reality, Machiavelli’s discourse is more complex and cannot be reduced to crude immoralism, as Descartes does. According to the Florentine, the prince must learn to be good or not so according to the circumstances (volendosi mantenere, imparare a poter essere non buono, et usarlo e non usare secondo le necessità). He must not necessarily and always be “wicked.” On the contrary, it would be better not “to leave the good, but to be ready to do evil when it is necessary” (non partirsi dal bene, potendo, ma sapere intraprendere nel male, necessitate: Il Principe, XVIII; Machiavelli 1977, 74). On every occasion, Descartes blurs these important distinctions to flatten Machiavelli’s discourse at the level of the most pejorative Machiavellism, reduced to the technique of violent and deceitful power, following the interpretation prevailing in France among the “politiques.”
- 8.
See the long letter to Elisabeth, 12 January 1646 (AT IV, 351–357; S 129–32), that can be seen as a moral treatise against Machiavelli, even though the Florentine is not mentioned. Descartes claims “that there are always more good than evil things in this life”; that even selfish people have to work for the others if they want to be esteemed and to get advantages in return; and finally that the best behavior is “to follow the common path and to believe that the principal finesse is to avoid using finesse.” Obviously, the wordplay on the French term “finesse” hints at Machiavelli’s famous “cunning.”
- 9.
Consider also the condemnation of bigotry in Les Passions de l’âme, III, 190 (AT XI, 471–72) and the attack on the dévots in the Dedicatory epistle to Elisabeth, attached to Principia philosophiae (AT VIII A, 2).
- 10.
See Hobbes, De Cive, III, 26 (Hobbes 1983, 118): Quod tibi fieri non vis, alteri ne feceris. Later in the same text (IV, 23, 128) Hobbes argues that this general rule by which one can recognize the natural law is “almost” the same in Matthew’s Gospel (7: 12), where in reality the similar rule is expressed in positive terms: “do to others what you would have them do to you.” To say, as Elisabeth does, that the prince can hardly ever observe the golden rule is a strong claim, since that was considered to be the basis both of natural and Christian morality.
- 11.
On the connections between Hobbes and Machiavelli, see Rahe (2008, esp. 249–320).
- 12.
On the relation of the whole and the parts, see also Descartes to Balzac, 5 May 1631 (AT I, 291–92) and the commentary by Guenancia (2008, 172–74).
- 13.
- 14.
On the topic of Cartesian prudence, see also Descartes to Elisabeth, 3 November 1645 (AT IV, 334; S 126).
- 15.
On the epistemological limits of moral knowledge, especially in the measure of value, see Shapiro (2007, 46–48) and the chapter by Dominik Perler in this volume.
- 16.
It is noteworthy that in the same letter Descartes says to agree with Machiavelli’s principal précepte for a prince, to “eliminate one’s enemy completely or else make them into one’s friends, without taking the middle way” (ibid.).
- 17.
This letter was written during the famous querelle d’Utrecht, when Descartes was accused by the University and Dutch theologians. Previously, he had much praised Dutch “freedom” (AT I, 204).
- 18.
“The problem of ethics, on this view, is how not to lead a good life and achieve contentment but rather of reconciling these conflicting interests and the evaluations deriving from them. […] On this reading, the question of ethics, for Elisabeth, is essentially a political one” (Shapiro 2007, 48). On the issues raised by Hobbes and early modern Epicureans in anthropology, social philosophy, and ethics, see Paganini (2020).
- 19.
When Descartes read De cive, while opposing Hobbes, he recognized Hobbes’s skills in morals and politics (je le trouve beaucoup plus habile en Morale qu’en Métaphysique ni en Physique: AT IV, 67).
Bibliography
Bacon, F. (1624). De dignitate et augmentis scientiarum. Paris: Mettayer.
Canziani, G. (1980). Filosofia e scienza nella morale di Descartes. Florence: La Nuova Italia.
Descartes, R. (1996). Œuvres. Eds. Adam C. and Tannery P. Paris: Vrin (= AT).
Elisabeth of Bohemia & Descartes, R. (2007). The correspondence between Princess Elisabeth of Bohemia and René Descartes, trans. by Shapiro. L. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press (=S).
Hobbes, T. (1983). De Cive. The latin version. A critical edition by Warrender H. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Guenancia, P. (1983). Descartes et l’ordre politique. Paris: Gallimard.
Guenancia, P. (2008). Descartes contre Machiavel. In L. Bianchi, & A. Postigliola (Eds.), Dopo Machiavelli/Après Machiavel. Naples: Liguori.
Machiavelli, N. (1977). Il Principe e Discorsi sopra la prima deca di Tito Livio. In G. Procacci, & S. Bertelli (Eds.), Introduction. Milan: Feltrinelli.
Mesnard, P. (1936). Essai sur la morale de Descartes. Paris: Boivin.
Naudé, G. (1723). Considérations politiques sur les coups d’état. Suivant la copie de Rome, 1st edition (Rome, 1639).
Negri, A. (1970). Descartes o della ragionevole ideologia. Milan: Feltrinelli.
Paganini, G. (2009). Skepsis. Le Débat des modernes sur le scepticisme. Paris: Vrin.
Paganini, G. (2016). Descartes, Elisabeth e Campanella. Connessioni e reazioni intorno alla “terza nozione primitiva.” Rinascimento, 56, 139–166.
Paganini, G. (2020). Early modern epicureanism: Gassendi and Hobbes in dialogue on psychology, ethics, and politics. In P. Mitsis (Ed.), Oxford Handbook of Epicureanism Ancient and Modern (pp. 671–710). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Procacci, G. (1965). Studi sulla fortuna di Machiavelli. Rome: Istituto Storico Italiano per l’età moderna e contemporanea.
Rahe, P. A. (1992). Republics ancient and moderns. Classical republicanism and the American revolution. Chapell Hill and London: The University of North Carolina Press.
Rahe, P. A. (2008). Against throne and altar: Machiavelli and political theory under the English republic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rodis-Lewis, G. (1970). La Morale de Descartes. Paris: P.U.F.
Shapiro, L. (2007). Volume editor’s introduction. In Elisabeth of Bohemia & R. Descartes (2007), The correspondence between Princess Elisabeth of Bohemia and René Descartes (pp. 1–51). Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.
Taylor, Q. (2001). Descartes’s paradoxical politics. Humanitas, 14(2), 76–103.
Thuau, E. (2000). Raison d’état et pensée politique à l’époque de Richelieu. Paris: Albin Michel.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Paganini, G. (2021). Elisabeth and Descartes Read Machiavelli in the Time of Hobbes. In: Ebbersmeyer, S., Hutton, S. (eds) Elisabeth of Bohemia (1618–1680): A Philosopher in her Historical Context. Women in the History of Philosophy and Sciences, vol 9. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-71527-4_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-71527-4_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-71526-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-71527-4
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)