On Spinoza and Machiavelli on a New Prince, and the Fall of De Witt
There is a frequently quoted anecdote about Spinoza that after he heard that the De Witt brothers were murdered on August 20, 1672 in The Hague. The origin of the story is Leibniz. Here’s what he writes (in translation):
I spent a few hours with Spinoza after dinner. He told me that on the day of the murder of Messrs. de Witt he felt compelled to go out at night and to pin up somewhere near the place (of the murder) a piece of paper on which was written "Ultimi barbarorum!" But his landlord had locked the house against him because he would have exposed himself to the danger of being torn to pieces.*
Now, in scholarship this passage is used ordinarily as evidence that (i) Spinoza was a supporter of De Witt’s (republican) oligarchy and (ii) alert to the dangers of the mob (as opposed to a multitude). And that they do so is due to the (1719) biography of Spinoza by Jean-Maximilien Lucas who reports a version of this story and treats Spinoza’s reaction as a natural response to the murder of his patron.
However, in Lucas’ account (here is the German) the bit of about the piece of paper (and the landlord) are omitted. In fact, evidence for (i) and (ii) are present in Lucas’ version of the episode, but the real point of Lucas’ presentation is to exhibit the self-command of the philosopher/wise man. Here Spinoza is being turned into a modern Stoic:
In this spirit he shed tears when he saw his fellow citizens tearing their common father [De Witt] to pieces; and although he knew better than anyone what men are capable of, he could not help shuddering at the sight of this hideous and cruel spectacle: on the one hand he saw an unprecedented murder committed and an extraordinary ingratitude; on the other hand he saw himself deprived of an illustrious patron and the only support he had left. This would have been enough to overthrow an ordinary soul, but a soul like his, accustomed to overcoming inner shocks, was in no danger of succumbing. Since he always had himself under control, he soon got over this terrible event. When one of his friends, who had hardly left him, expressed his astonishment, our philosopher replied: "What would wisdom do us if, succumbing to the passions of the people, we did not have the strength to free ourselves of our own accord? to rise again?
Now, (recall) in the past I have expressed reservation about Spinoza’s commitment to (i). In my view the historical evidence for the claim that De Witt was a patron of Spinoza is very thin. And, in addition, as I pointed in blog posts and more reputable scholarship (here), it’s seems pretty obvious when you read chapters 8-9 of the Political Treatise that Spinoza himself was not an unqualified admirer of De Witt and may well have thought he had it coming (see, especially Political Treatise 8.44.) I was very pleased to see in the new Spinoza Lexicon (CUP, edited by Karolina Hübner and Justin Steinberg) that in the entry on Johan De Witt (1625-1672), Jonathan Israel comes to a very similar conclusion (while focusing primarily on chapter 9 of the Political Treatise; hereafter PT). Since Israel and I often have different takes on Spinoza, this is most welcome convergence.
Today I want to cast more aspersions on Leibniz’s version of the anecdote and, thereby, also develop a more Machiavellian reading of Spinoza’s response to the assassination of De Witt. So, as regular readers know (recall), I have become more sensitive to the fact that Spinoza reminds the readers of the TTP and PT that he is a careful reader of Machiavelli. In the PT, Spinoza explicitly alerts us that he has read Machiavelli’s Prince (PT 5.7) and Discourses (PT 10.1). In both cases he calls Machiavelli “acutissimus.” In fact, at PT 5.7, Spinoza strongly implies that he takes Machiavelli to be a wise man.
My starting point to develop my position is the observation that there is something misleading about treating the murder of De Witt and his brother as mob violence if we mean by that spontaneous bottom up resistance or anger. First, on that day it seems only the De Witt brothers were torn to pieces and killed by a mob, and I have seen no evidence of other victims or general lawlessness.
In fact, second, it’s important to realize that their murder was not a revolution or an uprising. They had already fallen from power in part as a political fallout from the setbacks suffered by the Dutch in war with France and England (their nominal ally) in 1672.
Third, the events of August 20, 1672 are better described as a targeted assassination or extra-judicial murder. (This is for obvious reasons not emphasized in Holland.) For, Johan De Witt, who was recovering from a previous assassination attempt on 21 June, had resigned as Grand Pensionary on August 4. And his political rival, William III, had been made Stadholder. He was, thus, a relatively easy target for a mob incited by his enemies when he picked up brother who had been tortured in prison. These are the facts. Now let me get to interpretation.
In Machiavelli’s technical sense William III was a “new prince.” Spinoza alerts us that he is familiar with this concept (PT 5.7). Now, in Chapter 6 of The Prince, Machiavelli explains how Borgia (the exemplary new prince) had pacified Romagna by sending in a henchman, Remirro, to generate law and order in brutal fashion. But once Remirro’s task had been completed, Borgia had Remirro “placed one morning in the piazza at Cesena in two pieces, with a piece of wood and a bloody knife beside him. The ferocity of this spectacle left the people at once satisfied and stupefied.” (Mansfield translation.)
On my interpretation of the events of August 20, 1672, William III followed Machiavelli’s principles. While he was already in power, he had his chief rival eliminated with a ferocious spectacle and thereby pacified the people, who could treat De Witt as a scapegoat for the year’s disasters, and to warn other opponents. If you look back at Lucas’ description that’s pretty much his description (grausamen Schauspiels). But while political fortunes shifted for supporters of De Witt (many of whom got pushed out of positions of power), there were no further assassinations. And William III (later the William of William & Mary) acted lawfully subsequently.
As an aside, I am not suggesting Leibniz’s version has to be false. It’s possible of course that Spinoza’s landlord had not read Machiavelli and thought (and Spinoza also thought), for example that there was a general riot going on.
Be that as it may, if Spinoza were a pure Machiavellian, then, upon further reflection he would not be taken aback by this scenario. As Spinoza puts it, “Machiavelli, ever shrewd, has shown in detail the means a Prince must use to stabilize and preserve his rule, if all he craves is to be master.” (PT 5.7 in Curley’s translation.)
Now one may think that the rest of PT 5.7 may cause trouble for my reading. I quote before I comment:
Why he did this may not be clear. If his purpose was good, as we must believe of a wise man, it seems to have been to show how imprudent many people are to try to remove a Tyrant from their midst, when they can’t remove the causes of the prince’s being a Tyrant. On the contrary, they give the prince more reason to fear, and so more reason to be a Tyrant. When a multitude has made an example of their prince, and glories in his assassination, as in a deed well done, they give the new prince such reasons.
One might think this is Spinoza’s commentary on the fall of De Witt and so a disguised warning to William III.
But while there is no reason Spinoza admired William III, I don’t think that reading can be right. The Dutch multitude did not remove De Witt; they killed him when he was already down. The scenario described in the quoted passage here is much closer to the execution of Charles I, who was then replaced by Cromwell who ultimately governed as a military dictator. (One can also insert some Roman examples.)
If there is a warning to the Dutch people, it occurs at the start of 5.8: “Perhaps Machiavelli also wanted to show how much a free multitude should beware of entrusting its well-being absolutely to one person.”** This clearly Spinoza endorses, but that’s also a criticism of the concentration of power in the circle of De Witt (as Israel also notes with a nod to PT 9.14).
**The rest of 5.8 is super interesting because Spinoza clearly interprets The Prince in light of the Discourses, and sees Machiavelli as a friend of republicanism. But I don’t think that material changes anything about my interpretation here.