Discourses of Otium and Leisure
The contrast between the active Niccolò (the Florentine secretary) and the Niccolò of San Casciano (the “quondam segretario”, i.e. ex-secretary), who talks about his days spent in forced idleness at his estate in Sant’Andrea in Percussina, upholds a cultural tradition that spans the history of Latin and Italian literature, and is based on the doctrinal opposition between the industrious city and the idle countryside (cf. Sacchini, “Dalla solitudine,” 141-42, and Sberlati, “Villania e cortesia,” 65-114; Guidi, “L’ozio di San Casciano,” 10).
Otium and/as Social Distinction
Vettori’s description of otium in his previous letter from 23 November 1513 calls forth a notion of leisure as an aristocratic experience and thereby follows the tradition of Roman literature and historiography, which advocates honest otium (e.g. as represented by Cicero’s letters), but also praises otium as a form of social distinction (cf. Vickers, 7-9). Unlike the Greek tradition of scholé, these aristocratic ways of spending free time in leisure are not limited to mere contemplation and philosophical activity (for otiose leisure and social distinction in general cf. Fludernik, “Muße als soziale Distinktion,” esp. 163–67). They are part of the lifestyle of the Florentine ambassador who benefits from his privileged existence at the Roman courts and who indulges in erotic activities with courtesans and mistresses. However, M.’s reversal of this model exposes an almost anti-aristocratic conception of otium, for it describes his daily routine among common people, which is conditioned by the scarcity of his financial resources. By staging the diversity of forms and the heterogeneous discourses of otium and leisure, M. transforms his letter into a sort of a manifesto. The epistolary practice becomes part of a civic and political program. For this letter is not only intended to subtly present to his correspondent the disparity of their cases under the umbrella of a careful literary description and its sometimes comic effects, but it also displays an almost republican potential of otium and leisure as a social practice that encompasses all parts of life and thereby very different forms of community (see Frömmer, “Out of office”).
Strategic Otium and Retreat
As to the question of M.’s strategic use of otium and retreat, M.’s use of vocabulary in the letter is pertinent. For instance, M.’s comments on his wood trade echo what the general commissioner of the Florentine Forces, Pierfrancesco Tosinghi, wrote to M. about the imminent Spanish operations that would eventually lead to the defeat of the Florentine military defenses and to the sack of Prato: “et se non si fa una testa grossa a Prato veggo le cose nostre rovinare tutte” (“and if a stronghold is not raised in Prato, it will be our downfall”; (Tosinghi to M., 22 August 1512; our translation, italics added). M. adopts this wording when describing the disputes involved in negotiating prices and quantities of firewood: “…e tutti ne hanno fatto capo grosso [i.e. in military terms of the time also a ‘stronghold’], e in specie Battista [sc. the mayor of Prato], che connumera questa tra l’altre sciagure di Prato [sc. the “calamities of Prato”].”
The military vocabulary highlights the (perhaps unintentional) use of the example of Prato as an emblematic moment and turning point in M.’s politically ‘active’ life that, unsurprisingly, also marks M.’s most famous letter written during his forced inactivity in San Casciano. His (likely unconscious) re-appropriation of the vocabulary of Tosinghi’s letter might even point to a military conception of M.’s retreat to San Casciano, i.e. that his stay in the countryside is not only envisioned as a situation of otiose leisure forced upon the former secretary, but is, at the same time, part of a deliberate strategy of retreat (within a battle that might not be quite over yet). If so, it seems important to note that until the late eighteenth century and the French Revolution, retreat as one of several military strategies was not considered a prelude to defeat but a vital part of warfare (see esp. the remarks on the difference between ‘flight’ and ‘retreat’ in Schivelbusch, Rückzug, esp. 13–28; for a picaresque reformulation of this idea see chap. 28 of the Second Part of Cervantes, Don Quijote).
Correspondingly, M.’s new situation does not condemn him to passivity, but calls for different modes of action. Hence, as in M.’s letter to Vettori from 13 March of the same year, his uses of the verbs “operare”/“adoperare” (e.g. his hope that “questi signori Medici mi cominciassino adoperare” at the end of the letter) might be associated with his use of the same verb in the Libro dell’arte della guerra, which M., according to the Proemio, wrote “per non passare questi mia ociosi tempi sanza operare niente,” reclaiming thus for his writing the status of action, which in the end is dependent on his readers (e.g. the Medici who might be indirectly addressed by this letter to Vettori and to whom Il Principe will be dedicated). De Grazia (Machiavelli in Hell, 42) notes that M. in the same passage of the letter of 10 December 1513 uses the verb begin (or start) [“cominciare”] twice, in order to send a message to Vettori, stating that he hopes something new emerges from the opuscule he wrote (i.e. The Prince).
Another example of M.’s use of military vocabulary is the term ‘badalucco’: “Ho infino a qui uccellato a’ tordi di mia mano […] dipoi questo badalucco, ancora che dispettoso e strano, è mancato con mio dispiacere” (“Until now, I have been catching thrushes with my own hands. […] Eventually this diversion, albeit contemptible and foreign to me, petered out—to my regret”). It usually denotes a small military clash, but in this letter it refers to M.’s futile pastimes in the woods and thus exposes the military structures of Machiavelli’s thought and writing (see also the use of the term in the Mandragola, Prol., 44: “Fien questo giorno el vostro badalucco”).
Otium, Literature and Intertextuality
Starting with his enigmatic quote from Petrarch’s Triumphus Eternitatis (for an interpretation in light of Vettori’s patronage see Najemy, Between Friends, 222–23 and fn. 13), the letter is teeming with intertextual references:
Horace
The Machiavelli–Vettori Letters between Rome and San Casciano evoke the contrast between the peacefulness of rural life and the restlessness of city life and the respective prevailing lifestyles in Horace’s satires. One can mention here Hor. II,6 for instance, and the depiction of daily routines between serene mornings and social practices of otium in the evenings on his beloved Sabine Farm in contrast to the permanent busyness in Rome. Whereas the Horatian appreciation of country life is structured by rather stable oppositions between the self-sufficient contentedness of country life and the agitation the Roman capital, Machiavelli’s correspondence is characterized by a continuous reversal of values and role models.
By describing his early morning activities, M. takes up Vettori’s allusions to Hor. Sat. I,6,100–31, which is, significantly, also a poem on the relationship between a poet and his patron, in a most intricate way (see Larosa, “Autobiografia e tradizione,” esp. 226–35): Whereas by his determination to return to political office M. seems to repudiate Horace and Vettori’s praise of doctum otium, which requires distancing from the world of politics, he has nevertheless adopted some Horatian habits himself – despite his getting up even before dawn, thus much earlier than his idle “Horatian” friend Vettori. Like Horace, who spends his mornings wandering about, reading, and writing (“ad quartam iaceo; post hanc vagor aut ego lecto aut scripto, quod me tacitum iuvet” / “I lie a-bed till ten; then I take a stroll, or after reading or writing something that will please me in quiet moments”; Hor. Sat. I,6,122–23), Machiavelli goes for a walk with the books of poets such as Dante, Petrarch, Tibullus, or Ovid “under my arm,” and, later on, works on his “opuscolo de principatibus.” One might also think of Horace’s Satire I,6 when Machiavelli describes the landscapes and the simple lifestyle of the countryside, as well as his mingling with more “popular environments” (cf. Larosa, “Autobiografia e tradizione,” 232–33). Another Horatian intertext, especially as to the confrontation between city and countryside and the imaginary swap between the living and working conditions of the two correspondents, might be Hor. Epist. I,14 (cf. Larosa, “Autobiografia e tradizione,” 238–40 and Bausi’s introduction to this letter in the volumes of Machiavelli’s Lettere in the Edizione Nazionale delle Opere, II, 1063–1066).
Moreover, as a “libertinus patre natus,” Horace, like Machiavelli, was a social climber: For instance, at the end of Satire I,6, he reclaims otium instead of negotium because he considers the freedom from the turmoil of political office as the conditio sine qua non of his writing under the patronage of Maecenas and Augustus. The Horatian (anti-)role model in M.’s letters might invite the reader to contemplate on the social diversifications and the different assessments of otium and leisure. Even more so as Hor. Epist. I,14 too is based on a relationship between master (Horace) and servant (his estate manager).
As Najemy suggested, in Vettori’s letter from December 3, 1514, which starts with a quote from Hor. Epist. I,1. the parallels between the relations of Machiavelli-Vettori-Medici on the one side and Horace-Maecenas-Augustus on the other become even more obvious (cf. Najemy, Between Friends, 295–96). The analogies between Horace’s and Machiavelli’s writing situations are striking. Similar to Machiavelli, who now seeks the favor of the former opponents of the popular government under Soderini, Horace had lost all hopes for a career in public service after the defeat of Brutus’ army at the battle of Philippi, but was then able to gain the graces of Brutus’ opponent Augustus through Maecenas’ patronage. It is very likely that Vettori and Machiavelli were aware of these biographical parallels. The details of Suetonius’ Vita of Horace, for instance, were part of the introductions to editions of his works and were often integrated in the commentaries (cf. Pausch, “Sueton”). They might also have read Crinito’s biography of Horace in De poetis latinis. In contrast to M., who aims for a political office, i.e. negotium, Horace stages his writing as a public service that evolves from otium and that, at the same time, requires the leisure of his readers, who need free time to dedicate to his poetry (cf. Eickhoff, “Inszenierungen von Muße”). M., on the other hand, in the dedicatory letter to The Prince presents his writing as the result of “una lunga sperienza delle cose moderne, ed una continua lezione delle antiche” (“long experience of modern things and constant reading about ancient things”), thus emerging from a prudent combination of otium and negotium.
Tibullus
Among the “minor poets” whose verses Machiavelli carries around in the book “under [his] arm” when walking in the woods he mentions Tibullus. Notably, just like his friend Horace, Tibullus not only divided his time between the city (of Rome, in his case) and the countryside, but, like M., lost part of his family fortune (cf. Sannicandro, “Tibullus”; as to Machiavelli’s situation see Boschetto, “«Uno uomo di basso e infimo stato»” and “Machiavelli’s Family and Social Background”). The passage of the letter in which M. describes his own estate as “questa povera villa e paululo patrimonio” calls to mind Tibullus’ autobiographical verses in the Elegiae, in which his lyrical I refers to the loss of large parts of his property (I,1,19), as a farmer “felicis quondam, nunc pauperis agri” (“a property once prosperous, now poor”). Further intertextual echoing in M.’s letter might result from the verse in which Tibullus’ lyrical alter ego expresses his hopes of finding a way to live simply off his diminished estate (“Iam modo iam possim contentus vivere parvo” / “If only, now at least, I can live content with little”; see Guidi, “L’ozio di Machiavelli,” 9). From this perspective, again, the otium litteratum in the countryside is part of a strategic use of topoi by social outcasts. It is worth noting that M. might have known Tibullus’ biography, especially as it was part of Pietro Crinito’s De poetis latinis, according to Bausi’s suggestion in his commentary on the letter in his commentary (see the edition of Machiavelli’s Lettere in the Edizione Nazionale delle Opere series II,1073).
Reading as Practice of Otium and Leisure
There has been considerable debate on the nature and objects of M.’s reading practice. There are two passages in the letter that are dedicated to the reading of classical texts. By presenting two different types of reading, they also invoke slightly different traditions of otium:
- After coming from the woods, where M. gets into various discussions and quarrels as to his trade, i.e. his negotium – which most interestingly points to Machiavelli’s political past and former colleagues (cf. Najemy, Between Friends, 230–31) – he goes for a walk, with “a book under my arm: Dante, Petrarch, or one of the minor poets like Tibullus, Ovid, or some such.” There has been an extensive philological discussion on the texts to which Machiavelli might be referring (see Inglese’s comment, 198 n. 24, Martelli, “Schede sulla cultura di Machiavelli,” 308–9; Najemy, Between Friends, 231–33; Guidi, “L’ozio di San Casciano,” 8–9 et passim). By perusing love poetry M. claims to reflect on his own erotic adventures (“leggo quelle loro amorose passioni et quelli loro amori, ricordomi de mia, godomi in pezzo in questo pensiero”). According to Francesco Bausi, these morning readings are characterized by a rather unsophisticated kind of immediacy and empathy, as well as by autobiographical identification (cf. Bausi, “Politica e poesia,” 386; see also Bolzoni, “‘Entro nelle antique corti’,” 176). According to Antony Grafton, Machiavelli’s scanning of ancient love poetry presupposes portable octavo editions, and it involves daydreaming, distraction, and the stimulation of erotic sensations (cf. Grafton, “The Humanist as Reader,” 180–81), thus pure leisure.
- The second famous reading scene takes place in the evening, after Machiavelli has removed his workday clothes “covered with mud and dirt, and put on the garments of court and palace.” It is marked by metaphors of transfer, dialogue, and communion, and culminates with M.’s announcement of his “opuscolo De principatibus,” which has been identified as The Prince. The dialogue with the ancients through the medium of texts/books is a humanist topos, which, as Christian Bec has documented in detail, is intertwined with the traditions of otium litteratum (cf. Bec, “De Pétrarque à Machiavel”). Furthermore, the famous passage on M.’s stepping “inside the venerable courts of the ancients” seems to adopt key elements of Seneca’s De brevitate vitae (14-15), whose author celebrates otium dedicated to sapientia (“Soli omnium otiosi sunt qui sapientiae vacant, soli vivunt; nec enim suam tantum aetatem bene tuentur” / “Of all men they alone are at leisure who take time for philosophy, they alone really live”; cf. Ferroni, “La struttura,” 268). With phrases that are strikingly similar to M.’s, Seneca claims that the contact with authors as “glorious fashioners of holy thoughts” (“clarissimi sacrarum opinionum conditores”), who are “born for us” (“nobis nati sunt”), enables the reader to “pass beyond the narrow limits of human weakness” (“egredi humanae imbecillitatis angustias”). Grafton distinguishes this second way of studying the classics, most likely conducted in folio and quarto editions, from M.’s reading of love poetry because here he does not seek distraction but knowledge and learning (cf. Grafton, “The Humanist as Reader,” 180–81). Nevertheless, M.’s imaginary dialogue with the ancients (as well as his epistolary dialogue with Vettori) leads to the writing of The Prince as a manual for (present and future) rulers. In light of his final appeal to his correspondent to forward his opuscolo to the Medici, M.’s reading and writing should not be limited to the otium of secluded intellectual life, but should be connected to his return into the realm of Florentine politics. According to Lina Bolzoni, M.’s reading of the ancients is thus aimed at bridging the gap between literature and political action by a practice of reading “in cui la realtà virtuale e fantasmatica della rievocazione dei grandi del passato si pone in alternativa al presente, e chiede polemicamente di varcare i confini, di penetrare nel reale, di tradursi in ‘ragione’ e azione” (Bolzoni, “‘Entro nelle antique corti’,” 187). Although Machiavelli’s version of the topos of the reader’s imaginary dialogue with his books is quite unique, it must be read in the light of civil humanism and its interpretation of otium as a preparation for political life (cf. Bec, L’umanesimo civile, 19 et passim). Giorgio Barberì Squarotti has argued the opposite, i.e. that M.’s imaginary communion with the ancients is part of a larger process of sublimating social reality and political choices and actions by theory (cf. Barberì Squarotti, “Narrazione e sublimazione”). For a grotesque metamorphosis of Machiavelli’s doctum otium, i.e. for his evening dialogue with the ancients in contemporary literature see Mari, “Il Centauro”, 89–90.
The status of this second, even more famous reading scene within the narrative strategy of the letter has also been subject to scholarly discussion. In view of the latter, posthumous success of Il Principe, M.’s literary conversation with the ancients is often regarded as the letter’s climax. According to Bausi, but also to Grafton, it is therefore based on a more methodological kind of reading and, in contrast to the more or less random, trivial reading of love poetry in the morning, it is part of an erudite culture (cf. Bausi, “Politica e poesia,” 386–87; Grafton, “The Humanist as Reader,” 180–81). Although M.’s “convivio notturno” (Inglese, “Introduzione,” 27) with the ancients is obviously closer to the classical and humanist tradition of otium doctum, the representations of love and eros are rooted in the classical and humanist discourse on otium as well (cf. Figorilli, “‘Il vivere senza faccende’,” 267 et passim): in the poetry of Catullus, for instance, whose lyrical I stages otium (conceived as a lustful retreat from the political and historical world marked by civil war but also as a precarious psychological state) as a precondition of poetry, as well as of the loss of self due to passion (cf. Zimmermann, “Otiosi sumus. Muße und Muse in Catulls Gedichten”; Woodman, “Some Implications of Otium in Catullus 51.13–16”). On the other hand, Peter Godman stresses the strategies of parody in the potentially ironic description of M.’s dialogue with the ancients. He reads this passage as a more or less hidden attempt to criticize but also outstrip contemporary humanists such as Marcello Virgilio, who had been able to keep his post under the new Medici regime (Godman, From Poliziano to Machiavelli, 256–58).
Otium, Leisure and Mixed Style
In contrast to Francesco Vettori’s letter, M.’s response is characterized by a mingling of both elevated and plain, and sometimes even grotesque styles, as well as by different levels of reality, and thus of otium, but also of more popular forms of leisure (cf. Frömmer, “Out of office”). Since the famous reading scene in the scrittoio adopts parts of the vocabulary M. used to describe his encounters in and around the “osteria” and the meal he shares with his family (cf. Bolzoni, “Entro nelle antique corti”, 176–77), it seems inadequate to devalue erotic leisure and the more popular or ‘common’ forms of otiose leisure such as gambling and drinking in the pub as compared to the erudite tradition of otium. Giorgio Inglese also stresses the letter’s careful display of all kinds of social, economic, political, and psychological realities (cf. Inglese, “Introduzione,” 26). The same holds true for the different kinds of otium and leisure staged in this letter, which range from erotic love, reading, gambling, and fighting in the pub to the high forms of otium doctum and the philosophical banquet. Paradoxically, M.’s virtuoso representation and intertwining of different kinds of and discourses on otium contribute to his goal of overcoming his situation of otiose leisure by serving as a political advisor, e. g. for the Medici or the pope.
