Everyone knows Niccolo Machiavelli’s (1469-1527) status as a seminal political theorist, but few are also aware that he was a first-rate playwright and satirist. His play Mandragola (probably written around 1519) is one of the outstanding comedies of the Italian Renaissance stage (it can be found here: http://archive.org/details/TheMandragola). And chances are, you’ve never even heard of it. Of course, once you learn the plot, you’ll get a pretty good idea why you’re not likely to see this play staged by your local community college theatre group anytime soon. Our modern commissars of political correctness dare not allow it.
Machiavelli opens the play with a brief prologue in which he warns off any anticipated critics:
Should anyone seek to cow the author by evil-speaking, I warn you that he, too, knows how to speak evil, and indeed excels in the art; and that he has no respect for anyone in Italy, though he bows and scrapes to those better dressed than himself.”
This was no idle threat. Invective and calumny were common pastimes among the literati in Italy then (as now), and few could sling mud as well as Machiavelli.
The play is set in Florence. Callimaco, our sensual protagonist, prides himself on his game skills with women. He hears someone praise the great beauty of Lucrezia, the wife of Nicias. Although Callimaco has never seen her, he at once decides that he must seduce her, if only so he can sleep peacefully. However, Lucrezia is also known for her virtue, and this may be an obstacle.
Callimaco sees an opening when he learns that Nicias is depressed over Lucrezia’s failure to conceive a child. Callimaco bribes a friend to introduce him to Nicias as a doctor. Callimaco tells Nicias that he has a special “medicine” that can make any woman fertile; but the only problem, says Callimaco, is that the first man who sleeps with a woman taking the special potion may die. Callimaco generously offers to “risk his life” to sleep with Lucrezia, and the gullible beta-male Nicias eventually agrees.
Lucrezia, however, remains modest and is not keen on the plan. Fortunately for Callimaco, Lucrezia’s mother is especially desirous of grandchildren. So the mother bribes a priest for twenty five ducats to advise Lucrezia, in the confessional, to agree to the plan. The bribed priest convinces her. She drinks the potion, sleeps with Callimaco, and becomes pregnant. Basically, everyone is happy at the end; everyone gets what they wanted. Callimaco can rest at ease, knowing he has slept with the beautiful Lucrezia; Nicias has a child; and the priest can recite benedictions.
All in all, the play is a brilliant comedy. It is also amazing to learn that it was performed successfully in 1520 before Pope Leo X in Rome. The fact that the play celebrated sex and seduction, and totally ridiculed the clergy as frauds, bothered him not at all. In fact, the Pope liked it so much that he asked Cardinal Giulio de Medici to award Machiavelli a commission as a writer.
What can we conclude from all this? What is surprising—even shocking—for modern audiences is the theme that fraud and deception are actually good things. Not only is fraud not punished, but it is actually presented as a virtue, as long as everything turns out all right in the end. In other words, game creates its own morality. It is finally refreshing to hear someone celebrate the unadorned and unapologetic pursuit of sensualism.
The biographers tell us that in his personal life, Machiavelli fully enjoyed the pursuits of the flesh. When close to fifty years of age, he wrote to a friend, “Cupid’s nets still enthrall me. Bad roads cannot exhaust my patience, nor dark nights daunt my courage…My whole mind is bent on love, for which I give Venus thanks.” He also sent detailed letters of his sexual adventures to his friends, some of which are so frank that publishers to this day hesitate to print them.
If Mandragola were made into a film today, we can just imagine how it would be watered down. Feminism and political correctness would completely neuter its satiric impact, its pungent sexuality, its salty ribaldry. It would probably be turned into an ode to girl-power, with your standard Hollywood metrosexual beta male in the role of Callimaco, and the other men reduced to simpering lackeys. Picture a dour and snarky Jennifer Aniston as Lucrezia, lecturing the audience in dreary monologues on the evils of male sexuality. Imagine Seth Rogen in the role of Callimaco, now safely beta-ized; and visualize Jack Black in a standard jibberish-spewing appearance as Nicias.
Powerfully written, and a brilliant satire. Just don’t expect to see it staged anytime soon.
Read More: The Shortness of Life
Really enjoyed hearing about this. Even moreso, enjoyed hearing the Pope’s reaction to it.
Ahhh…the days when Western Civilization was vital, patriarchal, and alive.
We have declined a long way, haven’t we? Hopefully ROK will help to lay some of the intellectual foundation for a renaissance in masculine virtues.
What’s even funnier to think about is if this play, by some miracle, were produced in an unadulterated fashion today, I think women would love it.
Because subconciously they want to have the Alpha’s babies and they want to use Betas as a means of support for their spawn. This idea ties in with a theme I recently read about women. A study was done and women’s natural inclination is to have one man (or men) they’re having sex with and others they are merely using for emotional (and financial) support.
La Mandragola would also serve as a stern warning to potential Betas out there.
All true, but the one thing missing is that the wife of the beta was actually innocent in all this; and most of these dumb whorrish modern women will think they are as virtuous as she was while they spread their legs to the winds.
That’s a good point, but was she totally innocent? I’d have to see the play in question for myself, but two important questions are unanswered. Number one, was she truly dumb enough to believe Callimaco? Number two, if she didn’t really believe him, did her desire play a role in her deciding to go through with it?
I read online that Lucrezia later accepts Callimaco as her lover on a more permanent basis because she thinks it was divine providence that brought them together. Does she really believe that? Or is that just an excuse to hop in bed with him, as modern women do with Alpha males?
Very interesting philosophical questions. All this discussion makes me want to see the play.
Agreed. I only made the speculation after reading this post. I have no idea if she was innocent or not in Machiavelli’s work.
Of course, plays now are like low reading level books with colorful pictures for single mother’s kids. Essentially they only care about the physical action. The few words they do hear were preselected before hearing them and only heightening the increase in arousing whatever they were already looking for. For the kids, an arousal for quick but useless learning; before a possible lifetime of prison stays and child support checks like us they can never pay since they were rarely disciplined to pay attention.
For the wymmins, quick and useless learning plus the gift of being taken to pound town sans warm body the morning after. Unless she is already up making breakfast. And a lifetime of telling herself how much smarter she is than all those guys who won’t even take her for IVF after 50 let alone marry her. Poor dear; yes, I will allow you to have a milkshake with that while I eat! Who says I can’t multi-task being a guy?
Honestly, like great chefs, most of the greatest actors are men. Since anything outside of fifty shades of grey is beyond most American women, I guess it is up to us not just to save males, but culture, philosophy, nations, and the world too.
If the play is even still being performed, I will see only after I have read the book; sometimes I can’t stand the way some of these writers try to interpret great works with the post-modernist slant. As if all history could be summed up in a rainbow, or communist sentiment?
If a play or movie is about that topic, than so be it, red it up. Yet if we are talking something about Roman, Jewish, Asian, or some other ancient culture’s history, or some other time or place; do it right! I just saw the latest movie rendition on Ben-Hur. WOW! That was done really, really well. No post-modernist or new age slant on the story; but well based historically, and from the people of that era’s point of view being researched and properly attempted. Check it out, even if you hate the story, it was well done.
“Honestly, like great chefs, most of the greatest actors are men.”
Shakespeare had it right when he said all the world is a stage, and we are merely actors upon it.
And I agree, I don’t want to see a modern spin (bastardization) of this play. I want to see it in its original context, so I guess I’ll have to read the book, too.
That’s precisely why they’d love it: Woman gets to whore herself out for the alpha, but it’s not even her fault – it was the priest who told her to do it!
Whores are always looking for reasons to absolve themselves of culpability for infidelity. Their life has no relation to the play, but they’ll come away thinking “hey, I’m just as blameless for cheating as Lucrezia was!”
This is exactly the point I was trying to make. “Woman gets to whore herself out for the alpha, but it’s not even her fault – it was the priest who told her to do it!” Or in today’s world, her best friend, daytime television, or feminism tells her to do it.
Sugar and spice and everything nice? Bwahahahahaha. Not in a million years.
“Thanks to Callimaco’s machinations, Nicias became a willing cuckold and
Callimaco got to father a child – and have it raised – by a beautiful
woman and her Beta provider.”
Maybe it should have been called “The Cuckoo”.
And it’s obvious to me that sterile men get cuckolded far more than others.
That’s probably true about sterile men.
But even if I was sterile, I would never allow that to happen with any woman I was associated with. There is nothing more devastating from a biological perspective than unknowingly raising another man’s offspring. Knowingly allowing yourself to be cuckolded is even worse. It is the ultimate act of submission.
Who knows, in another ten years of feminist leadership, we might actually see these creatures who pass for men forced to watch the “second virginal consecration of their own,” as apparently it is legal to even keep the douche on the hook after he discovers her treachery. Why not make it legal to force him to watch the guy whose hell spawn he will be raising in the act? I bet the word equality rings in these tramps ears as they read words like these? If they will not be led by reason, why not try the proverbial “hook in the mouth” and have them led?
Just finished reading for school, in act 4 they reference Saint Cuckoo, “the most honored saint in France.”
There is nothing special about The Mandrake – there was nothing special about it back then and neither is today (except of course being written by the same author as The Prince). I mean, it’s whole about witty way to get sex with dumb man’s wife, but there is nothing new at all – that and much more was there already 150 years before in Boccaccio’s Decameron…
Regarding Machiavelli’s “lighter” works, I personally liked Belfagor more (and its message, which is basically “woman is sometimes worse than archdevil”)…
And calling it “brilliant satire”? Lol, it just ridicules stupid burghers/merchants – probably the most common butt of jokes these days
Yeah, I just don’t really get the point. Nor do I think modern audiences would find it as “shocking” as the author of the article here hopes – just kind of pointless.
(actually, if the author find the deception really awful, it’s probably because the pickup-artist community has such a THING about cuckoldry. I don’t think most normal people today care much about adultery in fiction.)
Interesting, so his more literary work was not all that huh? Will look into to it as I had no idea he wrote theater plays.
Machiavelli would have loved this story:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=189918&s=3d360618b3cd20819e604c39415b2854
The pope’s lack of reaction to the portrayal of the clergy is evidence of the conditions that led to the Reformation.
“There is everything in Rome but an honest man.” ~Martin Luther
Au contraire. The Pope appreciated Machiavelli because he understood that’s how human nature operates.
Luther, OTOH, was the first libtard.
Luther a libtard? What absolute bollocks! Translating the Bible into the common language (continuing Wycliffe and Hus’ work) so that the proles could read it for themselves. Sounds verrry liberal to me.
Luther also knew the reality of human nature, read “the bondage of the will” sometime.
Was Pope Leo the tenth the one that Martin Luthor went after?
Will check……………YUP! So the rumor I heard was actually true, he was sleeping with a harem while forcing men to pay for their dead’s ascendance to heaven through the “indulgences.”
For those who don’t know, the indulgence was essentially the Papal raping of the people while they suffered. If I was a priest back then, I would come to your house after you just had a funeral and say “Well, there is an issue Mr and Mrs. So and so, your dear ole’dad did not quite make it to heaven! BUT, pay me this “small indulgence” and we will pray extra hard (read take your money to the bank laughing) and though you are suffering, the Lord will provide. And dear ole’dad will not suffer in purgatory or hell!”
I believe these “salesman’s” offspring now run used car dealerships?
The world is truly a business, Mr. Beale. It is not for the faint of heart. Even though his philosophy was responsible for the death of millions, Marx had it right when he said religion is the opiate of the masses. Organized religion has been taking that fact to the bank for thousands of years.
I think, if rumor is correct, I know why Pope Leo X was not offended at all. I believe I read he had his own harem when that was obviously not allowed the common Catholic, let alone the highest of the Clergy.
Other than that, great choice to read about. It makes me wonder about all of us who read this site? It always amazes not what great men have achieved, but what they did “not” try their hand at. Men of that era in Italy were well known for dabbling in everything, and I don’t just mean several women. I mean art, literature, engineering, philosophy, music and many others; chief among them was Leonardo of Vinci. He was a jack of so many trades, but what set him apart was how many he mastered, maybe even by today’s standards?!
I think in our modern era I tend to think that maybe men today are to simplistic, more a one trick pony then a jack of many trades and a master of some. Yet I think I am wrong now. I am an electrician, communications electrician, somewhat of an electronics technician, I dabble in the arts and two instruments ( I am not good at these or the art mind you, as in I probably should not say I cannot do them), I am AA level in one or two sports, and Div 2 in two.
I am working on a second degree, and blah, blah bliggity blah. I am not saying this to impress, but I imagine that many of you are the same. What I mean is that I am happy to realize that we are still growing and learning, and that our descendants will hopefully be doing the same?
I am grateful for the post, as I will look at this later. Thanks.
You get it, Jesse.
The Renaissance popes were great patrons of the arts. They also did whatever the hell they wanted. It was a great party until the Reformation came along (!).
The take-away ethics expressed by the play are basically : (1) the ends justify the means, (2) a little fraud with women never hurt anyone, and (3) five minutes of alpha is worth a lifetime of beta.
We all would do well to remember these three lessons.
True, and to remember that the alphas running the show will punish you for not doing what they say, but doing as they do.
Holding the keys of power corrupts, and is why I never trust any politician or person of positional authority. If they have not gone to the dark side, it is only a matter of time.
It is like the Lord of the Rings when Gandelf is Schooling Frodo about the ring. Frodo offers the ancient evil up, and Gandelf, being of strong inner fortitude instructs him to put it away and never bring it up again! “I would want to use it for good, but it would destroy me…” Something like that?
Leo X kept one face to the rare public appearance, but was a monster behind the veil.
Quite sad.
You said “seminal”. Huh uh huhuhuh
I read this on Wikipedia. I don’t know how true this is. Malachi Bogdanov directed a film called The Mandrake Root in 2008 low budget release in mostly English and some Italian. It was produced by the European Drama Network for on line video. Reframe has it in North America. It is on DVD too. The article says it’s close to the original, but set in Sassari, Sardinia province, Italy instead of Florence(Firenzi) Italy(Italia). I hope this helps.
I read this on Wikipedia. I don’t know how true this is. Malachi Bogdanov directed a film called The Mandrake Root in 2008 low budget release in mostly English and some Italian. It was produced by the European Drama Network for on line video. Reframe has it in North America. It is on DVD too. The article says it’s close to the original, but set in Sassari, Sardinia province, Italy instead of Florence(Firenzi) Italy(Italia). I hope this helps.
I should say the article says the film is a video on demand(internet) from European Drama Network and Reframe. Google this if you wish. Enjoy.
Love this article.
Just ordered from Amazon Machiavelli’s biography by Capponi based on your posting.
I had no idea he was a playwright. He sounds like my kinda guy!
Glad you found it useful. Mandragola is an enjoyable read.
Machiavelli was an acute student of history and can be studied with great profit. His Discourses on Livy are also very good.
As readers of ROK probably know by now, I am a big proponent of classical and Renaissance scholarship.
In today’s world, Shakespeare would be labeled a hater, a misogynist, an old dead white man.