1 - The First Phase: Machiavelli’s Reception Between 1880 and 1914

Summary

Throughout the nineteenth century, conceptions of Machiavelli took a drastic turn. During the first half of that century, he was an object of disdain (so much so that it is not possible to identify any texts or authors analyzing his writings) and rejection, a symbol of evil incarnate. Machiavelli was invoked or referred to (it is more difficult to assert for sure whether he was effectively read) as a benchmark when vilifying conducts and people. This is a starting point that must be taken into account, because it was formulated by the leading public figures and intellectuals of nineteenthcentury Argentina, the “founding fathers” of the country as a modern nation, and also because it was an opinion that stemmed from a liberal perspective. Argentine foundational liberalism blacklisted Machiavelli, as is visible not only in the fact that, as an author, he does not seem to have been either particularly read or consulted, but also in the fact that his name was invoked in the context of censoring certain forms of behavior and public figures.

Then, starting in 1880, such considerations began to change. Tellingly, in parallel with the consolidation of the national State, a complex process whose organization spanned three decades between the adoption of the Argentine Constitution in 1853 and the 1880s, Machiavelli began to be seen as an author with vision, who had suggested ground-breaking principles such as the need for political union and the State. This shift in perspective (to put it briefly, going from an author of “evil” to an author of the State) did not necessarily involve a transition from negative judgements to positive opinions. In tune with a controversy that went beyond Argentina's borders, the author of The Prince continued to be the object of criticism, largely because he was taken as a key intellectual figure, almost a precursor, of tendencies considered disturbing in international politics at the turn of the twentieth century, such as militarist nationalism and imperialism.

The persistence of such a critical assessment, however, stemmed from a significant disconnect. The topics and phenomena associated with his work had changed (regarding the State and nationalism, not tyranny or despotism), as did the perception of its relevance.