Machiavellism Quotes

“The most a historian can do is to take the particular processes of the historical world which he is supposed to elucidate, and let these events be seen in the light of higher and more general forces which are present behind and develop in these events; his task is to show the concrete sub specie aeterni. But he is not in a position to determine the essence of this higher and eternal force itself or to determine the relationship it bears to concrete reality. Thus he can only say that in historical life he beholds a world which, though unified, is bipolar: a world which needs both poles to be as it appears to us. Physical nature and intellect, causality according to law and creative spontaneity, are these two poles, which stand in such sharp and apparently irreconcilable opposition. But historical life, as it unfolds between them, is always influenced simultaneously by both, even if not always by both to the same degree. The historian’s task would be an easy one if he could content himself with this straightforward dualistic interpretation of the relationship between physical nature and intellect, as it corresponds to the Christian and ethical tradition of earlier centuries. Then he would have nothing more to do than describe the struggle between light and darkness, between sin and forgiveness, between the world of intellect and that of the senses. He would be a war-correspondent; and taking up his position (naturally enough) in the intellectual camp he would be able to distinguish friend from foe with certainty.”
― Friedrich Meinecke, Machiavellism: The Doctrine of Raison d'Etat and Its Place in Modern History

“The most a historian can do is to take the particular processes of the historical world which he is supposed to elucidate, and let these events be seen in the light of higher and more general forces which are present behind and develop in these events; his task is to show the concrete sub specie aeterni. But he is not in a position to determine the essence of this higher and eternal force itself or to determine the relationship it bears to concrete reality. Thus he can only say that in historical life he beholds a world which, though unified, is bipolar: a world which needs both poles to be as it appears to us. Physical nature and intellect,
causality according to law and creative spontaneity, are these two poles, which stand in such sharp and apparently irreconcilable opposition. But historical life, as it unfolds between them, is always influenced simultaneously by both, even if not always by both to the same degree. The historian’s task would be an easy one if he could content himself with this straightforward dualistic interpretation of the relationship between physical nature and intellect, as it corresponds to the Christian and ethical tradition of earlier centuries. Then he would have nothing more to do than describe the struggle between light and darkness, between sin and forgiveness, between the world of intellect and that of the senses. He would be a war-correspondent; and taking up his position (naturally enough) in the intellectual camp he would be able to distinguish friend from foe with certainty.”
― Friedrich Meinecke, Machiavellism: The Doctrine of Raison d'Etat and Its Place in Modern History

“In these ideas he did not allow himself to be confused by the superficial appearance presented by contemporary England, under the semi-Catholic government of James II, with its struggle between king and parliament. In this situation (he said) France must naturally reinforce King James, thereby fostering the religious opposition in England; but this measure might have doubtful consequences, since if England became Catholic it would also win back its political unity. In order that England might remain in her situation of political disunity, he wisely advised the King of France to check the commercial rivalry with England in order that the threat to English commercial interest should not bring king and people together again.”
― Friedrich Meinecke, Machiavellism: The Doctrine of Raison d'Etat and Its Place in Modern History

“There is a peculiar virtue in the political writings of important statesmen in which they describe the experiences of their political life. The ordinary political writer, however well trained he may be in politics and history, however energetically he may try to influence affairs (or, indeed, even succeed in influencing them), is nevertheless always bound to stand a little apart from events without ever actually taking part in them. His political perceptions will necessarily lack a certain final element, a certain strength, such as can only be present when the political reflections are permeated by the sum of an individual's personal experiences, gained in the course of responsible action, and by an individual's memory of his own painful endeavours and struggles.”
― Friedrich Meinecke, Machiavellism: The Doctrine of Raison d'Etat and Its Place in Modern History

“Amongst the most impressive pieces by which Gustav Freytag, in Bilder aus der deutschen Vergangenheit, showed the woes of the German people in the 17th century and its lifelessness and rigidity after the Thirty Years War, is the cutting satire on Ratio status of 1666, which he reprinted. In this a young and promising counsellor of the ruler is taken into the secret chambers where the arcana status are to be found: the cloaks of State, masks of State, spectacles of State, eye dust, etc., which are used in the work. Cloaks of State, beautifully trimmed on the outside but shabby on the inside, with names like salus populi, bonum publicum, coservatio religionis, etc., are used when one goes to meet the representatives of the people, when one wishes to make the subjects agree to pay subsidies, or when, under the pretext of a false doctrine, one wants to drive someone out of house and home. One completely threadbare cloak, which is in daily use, is called Intentio, good intentions; this is worn, when one is laying new insupportable burdens on the subjects, impoverishing them with forced labour, or inaugurating unnecessary wars. With the various spectacles of State, midges can be made into elephants, or little kindnesses on part of the ruler can be made into supreme acts of mercy. There is an iron instrument with which the ruler can enlarge the gullets of his counsellors, so that they can swallow great pumpkins. Finally, a ball of knotted wire, furnished with sharp needles and heated by a fire within, so that it draws tears from the eyes of the beholder, represents the Principe of Machiavelli.”
― Friedrich Meinecke, Machiavellism: The Doctrine of Raison d'Etat and Its Place in Modern History

“Thus, for example, one of the followers of Clapmar, the Dutch jurist Johannes Corvinus [...] recommended the rulers of an aristocratic republic to use the methods such that 'the plebs would be lured into believing that they had something which they did not have'. As for instance, that in the electing of officials the patricians should be obliged on pain of punishment to exercise their elective right, but that ordinary citizens should be under no such obligation. The latter would then certainly prefer to attend to their own livelihood, and leave the management of the State to the patricians. As an Arcanum of monarchy in its attitude towards the people, he recommended that laws which procured new power for the ruler should be arranged so that they appeared to rest on the assent of the people. [...] It seemed to him a simulacrum of monarchy, that the ruler should deliberately allow imprudent slanderous peeches to be made against him with impunity amongst the people, while at the same time noting the real defamers in order to protect himself against them. 'Indeed it is the prime art of government for a ruler, to be able to tolerate envy'.”
― Friedrich Meinecke, Machiavellism: The Doctrine of Raison d'Etat and Its Place in Modern History