Machiavelli, Mandragola, and the Comedy of Everyday Life

[Anonymous No.22830112]

I’ve been reading some of the plays and letters of Machiavelli recently and i thought I’d do a short write up of my thoughts. Machiavelli is a much-abused writer by both his fans and his critics: Both seem to wish him the monster they expect him to be. But nothing humanises like familiarity, and though i never shared the aforementioned views, i want to talk about Machiavelli ‘historico, comico et tragico’ as he signs himself—the author, ‘historical, comic and tragic’—through ‘la mandragola’ and his personal letters.
Machiavelli says in one of his letters that ‘the end of a comedy is to hold a mirror to private life’; Comedy is a heightened reflection of the everyday, which uses transgression of social mores to both create humour and reaffirm these very values. It is interesting to see, then, the Florence Machiavelli mirrors in La Mandragola, and how it reflects what he valued and cherished. As a brief summary, La Mandragola is a play about cuckoldry. In the play, the young gentleman ‘Callimaco’ returns to Florence from France with the intention of wooing a fabled beauty ‘Lucrezia’. However, upon arriving he finds Lucrezia is already married, so Callimaco and his servant must contrive a way around her husband and into her bed. Finding out that the couple are having trouble conceiving, the two hatch a plan involving an ersatz cure made of the root of a Mandrake. Disguised as a doctor, Callimaco offers Nicia (the husband) the potion, but warns him that the first person to sleep with the woman who takes it will die soon after. cooperating with a corrupt Friar, the pair trick Nicia into forcing a disguised Callimaco to have sex with Lucrezia to draw off the mandrakes curse, with the play resolving in Lucrezia giving Callimaco an open invitation to come back whenever he wants. A fairly standard plot of New Comedy, but the abnormal resolution brings the comic tropes into a different light.

[Anonymous No.22830113]

>>22830112
As already noted, comedy creates humour from the breaking down civic relations, but always would resolve in the affirmation of the traditional moral order of society; the greedy and proud are cheated, the pure lovers are united, the clever servant succeeds in helping their masters. But that La Mandragola resolves with an affirmation not of the traditional mores of Christian Florantine society tells us about the private order Machiavelli wished to promote. It is the lech, the parasite, the corrupt friar, and the cheating wife that are affirmed, and the upstanding and moral lawyer that is cuckolded at the closing act. Such a closing may appear to confirm everything critics accuse Machiavelli of, as the paramount destroyer of public morality. But I think this is a naïve reading of the play. Machiavelli saw the world of human action as buffeted by the winds of fortune and chance (fortuna). Living in a city riven within and without by political faction, his concern was occupied with the attainment of ‘autonomia’—the power to act autonomously of fortune. Moral action is necessarily conditional on voluntary action. Thus, what is virtuous is those characteristics and actions which allows one to act autonomous in a world of fortuna—‘virtu’. With this, Machiavelli inverted an idea of the time that moral actions (honestas) will result in practical outcomes (utilitas), showing that instead it is practical action (utilitas) that will result in moral possibilities (honestas). This is the underlying current that unites the ostensibly contradictory political ascriptions of Machiavelli, and also provides the key to understanding the resolution of La Mandragola.
Comedy is a genre characterised by constant change and invention; it is a mirror to the world of fortuna and virtu par excellence. Machiavelli’s characters align on the concepts perfectly; the amorous ambition of Callimaco, the invention of the parasite Ligurio, the avarice of the corrupt Friar Timoteo—all are active agents in the world who share personalities to overcome fortuna. Messer Nicia, on the other hand, is the static moraliser, who does not steer his own life but is steered by others (like his namesake ‘Nicias’ of the Pelloponesian War). His idiocy makes him ‘impotent’, in opposition to the ambitious virility of Callimaco. The resolution of the play suggests that Callimaco impregnates Lucrezia, and the child Nicia will raise is not his own. Yet, the victory of these rogues does not result in civic disorder but in civic order. As while Nicia is unwitting of the true reason, the main problems of the play have been resolved: Callimaco beds Lucrezia, Lucrezia’s ‘infertility’ is ‘cured’, and Nicia will have a ‘son’ to pass on his name. Ligurio wins his prize and Timoteo provides alms to his flock. It is through the virtu of each conspirator that things are resolved; had the play followed Nicia’s moralising lethargy, his wish would remain unfulfilled.

[Anonymous No.22830117]

>>22830113
Thus we see an echo of the world Machiavelli cherished: a world where individuals fight with their tenacity of mind and character against their allotted fortunes. When reading his letters, this sentiment is especially pronounced. Riddled through the correspondences are tales of Machiavelli’s time in exile, small stories of his dinners, his forays into Florence, the trifles he and his friends get into. While clearly despairing his situation, Machiavelli writes about these occurrences with joy: his friend who paid too much for a leg of ham and tried to recoup it by charging guests at his dinner party; the lumber salesman who tricked him by bundling the logs loosely around straw; the games he plays at the tavern that “bring on a thousand disputes and countless insults” over a single lira. “Involved in these trifles, I keep my mind from growing mouldy”. There is a particularly funny story he recounts of a man in Florence ‘Brancaccio’ who, having visited a male prostitute, claimed to be his rival ‘Fillipo’, and directed the bill to his house. Fillipo, baffled by the arrival of the prostitute, manages to turn the tables and revenge him by leading the prostitute to a place where Brancaccio was speaking so that he may point him out in public, letting everyone know of Brancaccio’s amorous encounter. There is a visible glee that shines through the gloom of his exile when he recounts these stories. For Machiavelli, the bartering, rinsing and haggling, the cheating and arguing, are all signs of a vitality in people, of virtu—though battered by fortuna, he finds life laced with the comedic heroics of common people. In the prologue to La Mandragola, Machiavelli asks aloud:
>If such material seems unsound
>Argument, and far too spare
>For a man of serious pretense
But knowing how dearly Machiavelli treats the private trifles that populate his plays, and the philosophical roots that ground them, the answer is surely that they are as important as his proscriptions of state. He rejoins:
>The sole reward he may hope to reap
>Is for all to stand aside and snicker,
>Decrying what they see and hear.
>And that is why, if we look deep
>Today the ancient virtues flicker,
>And high endeavors disappear;
To decry Callimaco or Ligurio is to decry the same elan vitae that inspires great princes and republics. Though we may not be engaged in the high politics of the state, i feel Machiavelli would want us, like him, to find comedy in exile. To live and appreciate the virtu we can find in daily trifles, and see the comedy in everyday life. Perhaps that is why all his portraits depict him with a grin.

[Anonymous No.22830712]

Bump

[Anonymous No.22830839]

>>22830112
Dude start a blog or something

[Anonymous No.22831697]

>>22830112
Great thread. WIsh I had more to contribute but I've never read La Mandragola.

[Anonymous No.22831988]

>>22830112
Wait, were you the Iago guy?

[Anonymous No.22832624]

Bump

[Anonymous No.22832954]

>>22831697
It's a fun play. But, more notable for being written by Machiavelli than for its quality in and of itself. I'm not sure if i'd recommend it unless you just want to read more Machiavelli.
>>22831988
Yes i made that thread.

[Anonymous No.22833123]

>>22830112
damn this is good, I thought it was just a funny cuck play. I don't know how you got so much out of it

[Anonymous No.22833946]

One last bump

[Anonymous No.22833965]

good thread, thanks

[Anonymous No.22834320]

>>22830112

[Anonymous No.22834324]

>>22830112
>>22830113
>>22830117
are you a Straussian

[Anonymous No.22834331]

>>22830113
What happens if Nicia finds out that he's been had?

Better yet, what if Nicia had planned his marriage with more foresight?

[Anonymous No.22834733]

>>22830112
>Machiavelli is a much-abused writer by both his fans and his critics
Have you never wondered WHY that happens, beyond mere superficiality?

[Anonymous No.22834750]

tl;dr

[Anonymous No.22835296]

Actually reading Machiavelli and not the superficial shit, super based. Would recommend Erica Benner's work on him but sounds like you don't need it. Have you read the Discourses on Livy?

[Anonymous No.22835880]

>>22834733
>that image
kek

[Anonymous No.22836565]

>>22834324
I wouldn't consider myself a Straussian, no.
>>22834331
I think it is in the nature of the character not to find out. He is portrayed throughout the play as someone heavily swayed by the appearance of truth rather than its reality. The way that Callimaco tricks Nicia into accepting the story of the Mandrake potion is by putting on the facade of a doctor from France. The running gag in their conversation is that Callimaco will speak in nonsense Latin and Nicia will be astounded by his apparent learnedness, showing that (though a lawyer) he himself doesn't know Latin despite considering it a sign of legitimation; 'He'd think an ass can fly, if told in Latin'. It makes comedic sense for him to accept the appearance of his own virility in having a child over the reality of his impotence and cuckoldry. It is thematically concise.
On the foresight point, the fatal flaw of Nicia is his stupidity and his impotence (which again i think share an identity in Machiavelli's mind). Callimaco even notes at the start of the play that Lucrezia is unassailable:
>I'll tell you. In the first place, I have to overcome Madonna Lucrezia's own nature, since she is completely virtuous and not interested in affairs of the heart. Secondly, she has a husband who is very rich, who lets her have her way in all things and, although he isn't young, doesn't appear to be all that old. Third, she doesn't have relatives or neighbors whom she meets at parties, dances, or other kinds of entertainment where young women generally go to have fun.
And it is only through her husband and her mother and Friar that he can reach her. Nicia's marriage is actually (accidentally) very prudent—it is that he can't adapt to changing situations that makes him able to be cuckolded. And that is kind of the point. We see a fairer contest of wits in his play 'Clizia', which is fun but i think less thematically powerful than La Mandragola. In a way, if Nicia was more capable, he wouldn't be Nicia.
>>22835296
Yes, i think it is his magnum opus. I've been meaning to read some of Benner's work so i might bump it up the reading list a bit on your recommendation. Thanks.

[Anonymous No.22836598]

>>22836565
I appreciate the elaborate and insightful commentary you've provided. But I have some reservations.
>I think it is in the nature of the character not to find out. He is portrayed throughout the play as someone heavily swayed by the appearance of truth rather than its reality.
I know, I know. I can concede that for the sake of the literature. But I think I'm more concerned about the implications of the play, which is to grab life by the horns, practice virtu, and embrace the idea of "to the victor go the spoils." Without any comment on the morality of the situation, the idea of being a masterful manipulator of appearances, and then treating the rubes as if they deserve it, seems foolish to me in the long run. Few people are so incompetent as to not care about the world in which they place the stake, even if they're bad at managing it, so there will always be opportunities for people to see through the ruse. At some point, your fortune runs out, and then what? There's a point in The Prince where Machiavelli writes about "if only Cesare Borgia had foreseen this", and I thought to myself, "holy cope, he's lucky he got as far as he did fighting against the forces of history."
>Nicia's marriage is actually (accidentally) very prudent—it is that he can't adapt to changing situations that makes him able to be cuckolded.
I don't recall the exact situation that made him impotent. Old age? Bad genes? An injury? Or a dead bedroom? The cuckoldry is only prudent for Nicia if all other options had been exhausted.

[Anonymous No.22836620]

>>22830112
Why does everyone fixate on the prince, and ignore everything else?

[Anonymous No.22837211]

>>22836598
I mean, all theatre heightens reality for dramatic effect. Most of the things Machiavelli recounts in his letters aren't as high stakes as the plot of La Mandragola. There is less harm in selling half-stacked bundles of wood than there is in risking death to sleep with a married woman. Machiavelli was intimately familiar that eventually you can be struck down when fortuna catches up with you after all. But i think he would say that while being impetuous can invite ruin, it is better to run the risk than invite it through passivity. And even if it does catch up to you, it's only another opportunity to demonstrate virtu—most setbacks aren't so disastrous that you can't try again. Even after being tortured and exiled, Machiavelli still found ways to regain some of his standing in Florence. Plus, in fairness, in The Discourses his ideal republican citizen directs their virtu towards political and external ends, while remaining very internally honest and cohesive. But they still have the same vital character.
I don't think it is mentioned what makes Nicia impotent. But it is confirmed in 'Clizia' that Lucrezia gave birth, so she wasn't the infertile one. They say that he has tried a bunch of cures (under the absolute assumption Lucrezia is the sterile one) before turning to Callimaco's Mandrake ruse. So i don't think there was going to be a child other than through cuckoldry.

(As an aside, personally i think the use of Borgia as an instructive model in The Prince is mostly due to of the coincidence of the Borgia–Alexander IV and Lorenzo–Clement VII parallel making it more rhetorically effective to spur the Medici's on to try a risorgimento. I know the eventual failure of Borgia is part of why people consider The Prince satirical (to revenge his own mistreatment by sending the Medici's on a disastrous endeavour), but i think there is enough in Machiavelli to suggest he earnestly wanted the Medici to create a strong autonomous Italy under Florantine–Papal rule (after all, Machiavelli was a Guelph) and was giving legitimate advice. And to that end, even if Borgia had imperfect virtu, he was too convenient a figure to ignore.)

[Anonymous No.22837305]

>guy who wrote The Prince also staged a casual's NTR doujin for profit

[Anonymous No.22837535]

>>22836620
The prince is the cool sexy bad girl that promises to give you a blow job on your first date. Discourses on Livy is the awkward nerdy girl that takes a month and comes with plenty of teeth. Most guys will just take the herpes.

[Anonymous No.22837719]

>>22836620
The first time I hear about Mandrake it was in the Poe story Fall of the House of Usher. The main character reads the story (satire against marriage about a woman being possessed) to foreshadow the creepy incestuous themes of the story.

[Anonymous No.22837772]

Its threads like this why I still visit this place

[Anonymous No.22837785]

>>22834733
he was a athiest?

[Anonymous No.22838813]

[Anonymous No.22839379]

bump

[Anonymous No.22840768]

>>22838813
Glad to see you're still around