The question of whether or not existence precedes existence is important in determining whether or not something has an essential nature. It has already been determined that both Castiglione and Machiavelli must believe that archetypes exist because otherwise their attempts to define the traits of those archetypes would be futile. However, they are unable to perfectly define their respective archetypes. A close reading of their texts reveals that the archetypes within each are not perfect, and therefore cannot be considered ideal types of the courtier and prince as they attempt to define them. Neither Castiglione nor Machiavelli is able to perfectly articulate the traits of their particular statesmen to possess. Both of their texts have inconsistencies and therefore do not support the notion of either archetype. Because they cannot define the essential nature of that which they seek to define it can be argued that the archetypes they seek to define do not exist.
Castiglione
The Book of the Courtier specifically deals with articulating the perfect courtier. It is a court game in which the participants “[…] want to know what kind of man must be one who deserves the name of a perfect courtier and has no shortcomings whatsoever” (39). Clearly this book seeks to create the archetypal courtier in as far as the ideal type of courtier is concerned. However, a careful reading of the book reveals a courtier that is problematic and incomplete, and therefore not perfect.
The form of The Book of the Courier is that of a dialogue. Castiglione is imitating the form Aristotle in the fashion of other humanists who imitate the classicists. However, there is one aspect of Aristotle’s dialogues that Castiglione does not imitate and that has to do with the notion of truth. There is no clear truth in this book. In the Renaissance it was believed by humanists that there is such a thing as a truth and one can uncover it through reason. In Aristotle’s dialogues Plato was the one character who spoke the truth. In The Book of the Courtier there are many characters that answer questions in an attempt to define the true courtier, but none of them represents truth in the same way that Plato does. This is problematic, because the reader is not given a clear idea on who it is that is to be believed as speaking the truth, there are some who stand out as such, but not one clear one. Much of the definition is therefore merely conjecture, and cannot be believed as truth. Without a clear definition of the archetypal courtier, it can be said that one does not exist in the book and therefore the very existence of an archetypal courtier comes under suspicion
One instance in which this lack of definitive truth undermines the archetype is when the participants of the dialogue discuss the courtier’s age. They never come to any conclusion on the age of the perfect courtier. Many of the qualities of the perfect courtier “are fitting only for the young” (122). It is also postulated “every age brings with its own cares with it” (122). Cardinal Bembo puts forward that perfect love is only possible with an old man who will not be hung up on the beauty of a woman thereby forgoing perfect love, which is the love of God. The participants of the dialogue are intent on creating the perfect courtier, not as one that transcends age, but one who is at the perfect age. It would seem then that the perfect courtier is merely a snapshot in time, and instance whose traits could never perfectly match that of the archetypal courtier who is necessity must exist temporally.
One of the most interesting points that Castiglione deals with in his definition of the perfect courtier has to do with the notion of sprezzatura. It is a difficult word to define, a word in which there is no easy translation into English. Bull translates it as “nonchalance which conceals all artistry and makes whatever one says or does seem uncontrived” (67). The implication is that the perfect courtier must be performing all the time without being seen to be performing. This is impossible to put into practice because it assumes that all observers see only what the actor intends them to see. This is not always the case, there is always a chance that one can see the effort and therefore the courtier is not fulfilling the trait of acting in sprezzatura. Because it is impossible to know that all people will perceive this nonchalance even the courtier who adheres most rigorously to acting with sprezzatura cannot be do so fully. The observation of sprezzatura is as subject as the interpretation of its meaning and therefore it is not a quality which can be said to define the archetypal courtier.
The final and possibly the most poignant point in determining that the archetypal courtier as defined in The Book of the Courtier is that the dialogue never concludes. It ends at dawn after the fourth night and concludes with the suggestion that they start earlier the next day to avoid talking through the night again (345). This seems to suggest that Castiglione gave up on his game of trying to determine the perfect courtier. It suggests that the perfect courtier can never be perfectly defined.
Machiavelli
Machiavelli’s The Prince is not an obvious attempt to construct an archetype. Machiavelli’s goal is to “debate how these principalities can be governed and maintained” (5). As such, it reads like a handbook for new princes, but is very much an attempt to define the perfect prince. It is clear throughout the text that Machiavelli is attempting to define the traits that when followed correctly create the perfect, and therefore archetypal, prince. However, like Castiglione, he falls short of defining the archetypal prince. Like The Book of the Courtier, The Prince is problematic in terms of its conflicting logic. The archetypal prince that Machiavelli seeks to define remains elusive because it is imperfect.
It is important to articulate exactly the type of prince that Machiavelli sets out to define at the outset because it is only in understanding the specific enterprise that Machiavelli undertakes will one be able to understand the conflicts within. The prince that he seeks to define is that of the new principality (5), the goal of whom is to seize and maintain power. Machiavelli chooses to define neither princes who gain hereditary power, as “there are far fewer difficulties in maintaining one’s rule than in new principalities”, nor does he choose to deal with republics (5). The prince of the new principality is needs the specific traits that Machiavelli outlines so that he is prepared for all adverse conditions and can readily handle them, as well as win conquest. This is the prince that Machiavelli seeks to define the archetype for, and it is this archetype that after completing the text leaves the reader with many unanswered questions.
One of the most glaring omissions in the text is that Machiavelli never discusses how the state will be ruled under the prince. Presumably the perfect prince would set up the perfect principality, and yet Machiavelli mentions little to do with internal affairs. He never gives the reader a sense of institution or deals with a system of polity. As the goal of the prince is to obtain and maintain power, it seems unlikely that the actions of one man, even if that man is the head of principality, can maintain power and loyalty without some kind of established system of power. The prince must entrust some power to some system of polity. The prince that is erected by Machiavelli seems to have little concern with commerce. No doubt commerce is vital to the well-being of his people and very important to maintaining his ministers loyalty. Machiavelli acknowledges that the prince must choose “competent and loyal” ministers to his administration (75). In order to maintain loyalty of the ministers the prince “must pay him honour, enrich him, put him in his debt, [and] share with him both honours and responsibilities” (75-6). A new prince could not possibly have the wealth necessary to “enrich” his ministers and therefore the money must come from somewhere outside the principality. Machiavelli devotes three chapters to organizing militarily, an important endeavor given the hostile climate between principalities at the time. This is why he states that “[a] prince […] must have no other object or thought, nor acquire the skill in anything, except war, its organization, and its discipline” (47). Prowess in the art of war according to Machiavelli is how principalities are won, the prince who neglects the art of war risks losing his state (47). Thus, the archetypal prince according to Machiavelli is a warrior, not a statesman or a bureaucrat.
Another reason the prince must be an expert warrior is that people despise the unarmed man (46), and the archetypal prince must “avoid anything which will make him […] despised” (58). Machiavelli’s prince is one who rules with an iron hand, one to be “regarded that no one ever dreams of trying to deceive or trick him” (59). Essentially the warrior prince commands loyalty through fear and awe. This becomes problematic when one considers that Machiavelli also suggests that the prince “fortify their own towns and not […] worry about the country around ” (35). Of course the prince he is creating will be obligated to him upon seeing their houses and all their possessions burned if they are attacked because of their respect for the prince, but that is a gamble that the prince must take. Also, the prince must have his town adequately prepared for such eventuality. In the principalities of Germany cited by Machiavelli as being well prepared for such events with provisions of food and water, but the new prince may not have the time to prepare for such circumstances. This presents a problem with the planning of the new prince as defined by Machiavelli. Without adequate stores, which under most of the circumstances Machiavelli deals with, the prince would not be able to support his subjects in the event of an attack if such an attack should occur early in his reign. And, it is probably that an attack would happen quickly after the prince seizes power, as the princes of surrounding principalities would no doubt recognize the upstart principality as weak. Thus, the archetypal prince is foiled, and rendered not and archetype.
The traits that have been treated as problematic in Machiavelli’s archetypal prince to this point could possibly be reasoned through better, and therefore abated, but one point that is conspicuously present is Machiavelli’s treatment of fortune. It is conspicuous in its presence because it is one point that he deals with that deals with metaphysics. Fortune is virtually impossible to define in the way that Machiavelli attempts and equally elusive to appropriately deal with. He defines fortune as “the arbiter of half the things we do,” the other half being within our control (70). This is a dubious definition at best. It is an attempt to quantify a metaphysical concept in order to solidify it into reality. Of course fortune is that which is beyond the princes direct control and therefore something not of this world. The prince can be on his guard as Machiavelli advises (80), but he cannot be on his guard against everything. Machiavelli suggests that the impetuous prince can be on his guard against fortune in such a way that he can adapt to whatever circumstances he may face, but at the same time not get complacent and react the same way to each unexpected turn of events. As such the archetypal prince must remain impetuous, not circumspect. This is a problem because a prince who takes this advice to heart and vows to act impetuously is in effect acting in circumspect. The decision to prepare to act impetuously is no circumspect than the one who builds the walls in preparation for the flood. It is impossible to deal with fortune in any other way than circumspect, which goes against the definition articulated by Machiavelli and therefore the archetype is imperfect and not an archetype.
Conclusion
It is clear that neither Castiglione nor Machiavelli were able to fully realize the archetypes they were attempting to articulate. Without adequate definitions it cannot be said that these archetypes exist. Because these archetypes cannot be said to exist they cannot be said to have an essential nature. From this it can be inferred that because Castiglione and Machiavelli could not record the essence of the professions they wrote about, neither of their texts supports the notion the essentialism precedes existence. Without the ability to define archetypes there is no evidence to support either the existence of the archetype or its essential nature. This is not to infer that archetypes do not exist, or that they do not have essential natures, but based on the evidence from The Book of the Courtier and The Prince there are no archetypes and because they do not exist they cannot be said to have essential natures.
Works Cited
Archetype. “Descartes to Gender and science.” Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Ed. Craig, Edward. 10 Volumes. New York: Routledge, 1998.
Castiglione, Baldesar. The Book of The Courtier. Trans. George Bull. Toronto: Penguin Books, 1967.
Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince. Trans. George Bull. Toronto: Penguin Books, 1967.
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2000.
Machiavelli refers to “the present ruin of Italy” (39).
