From Machiavellian Policy to Parliamentary Reason of State: Sketches in early Stuart political culture

Machiavellianism and reason of state were expressions of the same need for a secular approach to politics, to statesmanship and statecraft. In early Stuart culture the presence of anti-Machiavellian themes is strongly intertwined with the rejection of royal prerogative, the attack on the cunning policies of James’s and Charles’s courts, and with the languages of reason of state and political necessity. But while Machiavellianism never acquired a fully positive meaning, reason of state could take the shape of good political reason distinguished from a false Machiavellian practice. Certainly the two traditions should not be confused with each other as they expressed different views and approaches toward the state and the government. The aim of this essay, therefore, is to highlight some developments in Machiavellianism and reason of state in order to clarify where they converge and diverge by using the issue of policy as a guideline. I will thus describe the stages of an arc moving from Machiavellian policy to a dictatorial power, extra legem, at the disposal of a legitimate sovereign, be it monarchical or parliamentary. While Machiavelli’s influence was crucial in the definition of policy as prudence, his role was only secondary in English debates on reason of state. Nonetheless, Machiavellian policy came to be integrated and put at the disposal of the sovereign for the well-being of the state within a frame designed by an early form of constitutional reason of state.