Machiavelli and Guicciardini

In the third volume of his work on "Le Machiav6lisme", published in 1936, Charles Benoist deals with "le machiav6lisme apres Machiavel,"' devoting six chapters of his book to a discussion of the relation between Machiavelli and Guicciardini and endeavouring to prove that Guicciardini was greatly influenced in his thought by Machiavelli. This conclusion is refuted by V. Luciani who published last year in the Archivio Storico Italiano a critical survey of publications concerned with Guicciardini.2 Luciani criticizes Benoist on the ground that he has taken isolated sentences from Guicciardini's works and compared them with equally isolated passages from Machiavelli and that such a method cannot produce a sound result. While fully agreeing with what Luciani says about the superficiality of Benoist's approach, it seems to me that he goes too far when he adds that this failure is the inevitable outcome of any attempt to establish a connection between the works of Machiavelli and Guicciardini : "Non crediamo ad ogni modo che questi due spiriti, affini si, ma pur diversi tra loro per molti lati, abbiano subito l'influenza l'uno dell' altro, tanto piit che la mente del Guicciardini si era formato certamente prima che egli potesse avere conoscenza del Principe." The issue raised by Luciani is dependent, of course, on the meaning that is given to the word 'influence.' If only those factors that act upon man's mind while it is still being formed are considered as 'influence,' then Luciani is right, and there is no possibility that Machiavelli influenced Guicciardini. In his very first work, the Storie Fiorentine,3 which was completed before Machiavelli had begun to write the Prince, Guicciardini already reveals the distinctive traits which persist through the whole of his life. As early as this, he stands out as the Florentine patrician exhibiting the benefits and limitations of an outlook determined by class, he displays the keen, legally trained mind to which the rich intellectual heritage of the 15th century was only a useful instrument for practical ends, he shows himself possessed of an exclusive, passionate devotion to the world of history and politics. His mind, in its essential features, is definitely formed. Yet this is but the frame, and within it his political thought shows change and development. The various political projects which he drew up between 1512 and 15314 not only differ from one another because of adjustments forced upon him by changes in the political scene, but disclose a gradual transformation of his ideas on such problems as freedom, the powers of government or the ends of foreign policy. The clearest evidence, however, of his intellectual development lies in the difference of historical method and principles between the Storie Fiorentine of his youth and the Storia d'Italia, the work of the mature man. This development5 indicates that his thought must have been affected by outside factors, and that, in the broader sense of the word, it is possible to speak of influences upon him. In seeking the causes of this development, there is no reason to consider Machiavelli as the decisive factor. The driving force behind Guicciardini's incessant literary efforts and the development of his political thought is the bent of the Renaissance mind for speculation and, more especially, Guicciardini's own tendency to combine ragione and esperienza, that is to fit his practical experience into a rational system. Even so, we need not discard the possibility of Machiavelli's influence. The approach of the two men to political problems was very similar and Machiavelli's work must at least have aroused in Guicciardini the curiosity of the specialist. Since neither Benoist's attempt to prove Guicciardini's dependence on Machiavelli nor Luciani's argument against this possibility