Amelot de la Houssaye (1634–1706) was a French historian, translator and literary critic. He commentated heavily in the footnotes of his translations in works like Machiavelli’s The Prince, as well as many other authors in which he would reveal his ideas on the virtue of prudence. Amelot’s translation of the texts, given the growing wealth and literacy of the French merchants in his time, transformed prudence from a practical wisdom and virtue of rulers to a value used in everyday life. Amelot translated these works to transform prudence into a virtue of self-interest; he drew from Machiavelli and Tacitus, extrapolating their ideas about princes into ideas on how this class of merchants should deal with each other. He sees self-interested prudence as a virtue in which one must intensely understand and manage their appearances while making balanced decisions each step of the way. This is important particularly in a society full of flatterers trying to appease the absolute monarch Louis XIV. In this world of appearances and deceptions, the prudent person must learn how to manipulate their own appearances to succeed. To Amelot, the alternative to prudent deception would be naive honesty, putting whoever conducts himself purely honestly at a disadvantage because others will know how to deceive him for their own interests. I will show that Amelot’s prudence requires careful decision making, which in turn requires a mastery and understanding of one’s self.
Prudence, for Amelot, involves intense management of one’s appearances — never appearing too intelligent or powerful, so that one may get what they want. He says in the footnotes of his translation of La RocheFoucauld that “The best Defence against a secret Enemy, is to make believe you are not aware of his Snares.” (RocheFoucauld, p. 34). Amelot was concerned about people who were surrounded by the dishonest, who would trick them for their own gain. By appearing to be unaware of these designs, a prudent person who has been afflicted with flatterers can keep the advantage of knowing who he can trust without having to confront it directly and risk losing his upper hand. Amelot, in translating Tacitus, is aware of these “flatterers,” who adulate incessantly for their own gain. He says in his footnotes that “Every Prince at the beginning of his Reign is subject to mistrust,” and therefore he must study to “observe their Countenances and their Discourses.” (Tacitus, p. 9). Amelot knew that people in positions of growing influence would begin to have flatterers at their heels, people who only have their personal interests at heart and will be dishonest to achieve their own goals. The prudent man, in this situation, then, not only has to know about these designs, but also has to keep the appearance of not knowing — like Machiavelli, he saw the value in deception, because showing flatterers truth and honesty is only a disadvantage for yourself, if those flatterers are simply trying to make their own gains upon your trust.
For Amelot, these appearances require an awareness of what the truth is — truth, as an understanding of yourself in addition to what the actual reality is around you, so you can know when a flatterer is being dishonest. To know these truths for the prudent man is to surround yourself with people who you can actually trust, men of intelligence and wit, who will criticize you honestly when you ask them for it instead of singing your praises whenever they can. Amelot references Gracian in his footnotes of Tacitus, saying that “it was the Custom for many Princes to carry their Jester along with 'em,” because these Princes were prudent enough not to use these Jesters simply for entertainment, “but for Information.” (Tacitus, p. 15-16). He continually makes reference to these authors across his translation commentaries; by offering his opinion and showing the similarities between them, it’s clear that he intended to show the importance of appearances, deception and understanding through deliberation are relevant to one another, and to his ultimate goal of establishing prudence as a rational self-interest. The prudent man, says Amelot in his footnotes of Gracian, by surrounding himself with those he can trust and to deliberate with, can “talk like the common people, but think, act and believe quite differently from them” (Gracian, p. 42). He does so by being silent most of the time, but when he does choose to communicate, it is “to but a few, and those as knowing as himself.” (Gracian, p. 43). By understanding how the common person thinks, and knowing what they want to see in one’s self, a prudent individual can coldly analyze a situation and know how he must act to appease the people who seek to gain from him, minimizing the harm done to himself and any gains the flatterers might make.
Ultimately, Amelot believed that prudence comes down to making smart decisions, especially in choosing the less bad over the worse. In many cases, especially in an environment where it is not advantageous to act honestly, there may not be an available “virtuous” option. In Louis XIV’s kingdom, where acting virtuously may involve putting yourself in a position against people who have power over you, and will execute their will (or you) at the slightest infraction, acting according to virtuous principle can be a life-threatening risk. Amelot saw prudence as a pragmatic philosophy, one in which you must understand, consider, and most importantly, act. There is no reason to refuse action simply because there are no virtuous options. He emphasized the importance of moderation and balancing one’s decisions, and never to sway too far in one direction, lest you expose that you have principles that those more powerful than you would consider undesirable. Amelot’s footnote in Gracian connects this idea with Tacitus, where “he says that the best actions have oftentimes pernicious consequences, when they are not perpetrated with Judgment and Discretion.” (Gracian, p. 12). “Best” here means that no matter how high the quality of action is, no matter how virtuous, they can be incredibly costly if one does not conduct them prudently, that is, with an understanding of how these decisions will make one appear. For Amelot, the prudent man who has awareness of his appearances and can make decisions based on that awareness is somebody who can manipulate any situation to be in his favor. Moreover, he favors the gains people make from the value of their own judgment (prudent manipulation of appearances) rather than those that proceed from fortune. He saw Princes as individuals who were raised believing that they were better than every man, forgetting that “they are men themselves.” (Tacitus, p. 54). Amelot shows himself to be in favor of those who make something of themselves, through their own work and decisions, as opposed to the fortunes of a prince, never being an “Admirer of those things that proceed rather from Fortune then Judgment.” (Tacitus, p. 103). In the context of Louis XIV’s absolute monarchy, however, it is important for prudent individuals to tread carefully; one misstep can cost one their life. Thus it’s important to strike a balance in such interactions, and Amelot highlights this difficulty, because if “you Flatter him [Prince] continually, you incur his Contempt; if you deal too frankly and freely with him, you meet his Indignation.” (Tacitus, p. 24). For Amelot, this balance can only be achieved through a combination of awareness of self, ability to change that self as necessary, and the ability to take action through careful decisions. Amelot’s project of prudence is to demonstrate how cultivating judgment and self-awareness enables individuals to gain not only the insight to recognize the best possible course of action but also the strength to execute it wisely. Amelot’s prudence is a strategic means of achieving one’s goals.