What do you think?
Rate this book
Discourses on Livy
The Discourses
Few figures in intellectual history have proved as notorious and ambiguous as Niccolò Machiavelli. But while his treatise The Prince made his name synonymous with autocratic ruthlessness and cynical manipulation, The Discourses (c. 1517) shows a radically different outlook on the world of politics. In this carefully argued commentary on Livy's history of republican Rome, Machiavelli proposed a system of government that would uphold civic freedom and security by instilling the virtues of active citizenship, and that would also encourage citizens to put the needs of the state above selfish, personal interests. Ambitious in scope, but also clear-eyed and pragmatic, The Discourses creates a modern theory of republic politics.
Leslie J. Walker's translation, revised by Brian Richardson, is accompanied by an introduction by Bernard Crick, which illuminates Machiavelli's historical context and his new theories of politics. This edition also includes suggestions for further reading and notes.
Leslie J. Walker's translation, revised by Brian Richardson, is accompanied by an introduction by Bernard Crick, which illuminates Machiavelli's historical context and his new theories of politics. This edition also includes suggestions for further reading and notes.
544 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1517
About the author
Niccolò Machiavelli
1,621 books4,472 followersNiccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli was an Italian political philosopher, musician, poet, and playwright. He is a figure of the Italian Renaissance and a central figure of its political component, most widely known for his treatises on realist political theory (The Prince) on the one hand and republicanism (Discourses on Livy) on the other.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 290 reviews
September 17, 2007
Yes, you had to read The Prince, because your professor had to fit something of Machiavelli's into the class, and so she chose the shortest of his works to keep the students bitching to a minimum. The Prince represents a small subset of Machiavelli's concept of government. The recommendations from The Prince are a necessary evil that must be tolerated for a short time. The Discourses are a more substantial analysis of the preferred type of government for the long term.
Thank your professor that she gave you more free time that semester for whatever it is you do with your free time, but curse her that she distorted your view of Machiavelli by recommending an extreme abbreviation of a much fuller concept. This is the same crap as when you just read the Grand Inquisitor and thought that you got everything of value out of the Brothers Karamavoz. The truth is you probably got the exact opposite of Dostoevsky's main theme. It is like reading literature in the same way that the bound prisoners in Plato's cave viewed the world- truncated.
Thank your professor that she gave you more free time that semester for whatever it is you do with your free time, but curse her that she distorted your view of Machiavelli by recommending an extreme abbreviation of a much fuller concept. This is the same crap as when you just read the Grand Inquisitor and thought that you got everything of value out of the Brothers Karamavoz. The truth is you probably got the exact opposite of Dostoevsky's main theme. It is like reading literature in the same way that the bound prisoners in Plato's cave viewed the world- truncated.
February 13, 2013
The common wisdom goes that Machiavelli's discourses present to the reader the author's republican side, whereas The Prince was more aimed at the 'godlike rulers' - indeed, under the cover of a commentary of Livy, one of the foremost classical text of Roman origin, Nicolo takes us on a journey not unlike the one he proposed to the reader of The Prince. Distinguished once again by his penetrating insights prefiguring psychology, sociology, political sciences, and calling upon strategy and common sense but with a verve and method at time borrowing from philosophy, it is yet again his amoralism that will leave it's most lasting impression:
But if here again Machiavelli attempt to remain ever neutral, to cater as much to the the ruler as to the insurgent, maybe more than in The Prince one can now outline first the peculiar ideological order that sustain his worldview (Virtus, Necessitas, Prudentia and Fortuna) and maybe more importantly, the hushed moral preferences that connect back his writings to his life-long dedication to the republican ideals.
The book, beyond providing any reader with this much needed second angle to examine Machiavelli's peculiar opinions also make for an excellent, entertaining read: less so, maybe, than The Prince, mainly because the book is presented as a commentary, and lacks the sustained transitiveness of his more famous work, but it is none the less woven tightly with dozens of examples, taken either from 'recent' Italian history (undearstand late Quatrocento and early XVIth century) or from Greek and Roman history, with which the author intend to illustrate his comprehensive encyclopedia of cunning decepetion, of crowd psychology, of war strategy, etc.
Whereas as we said earlier, not all of his ideas appear as daring and original as they did in The Prince, many of the examples make up for this lack by providing the eager reader with as many epic tales of daring and heroic or vicious and manipulative deeds that shaped ancient history: any aspiring George R. Martin will find in this book a condensé of the plots, all the scheming Greeks and Romans have to offer, and they certainly had nothing to learn from the Lannisters!
So. All in all if you have an interest in either early modern mindset, in political theory or in Machiavelli in particular, this is a necessary read. It does genuinely provide a necessary counterpart to his magnum opus and give this peculiar character the moral depth popular memory robbed him from.
But if here again Machiavelli attempt to remain ever neutral, to cater as much to the the ruler as to the insurgent, maybe more than in The Prince one can now outline first the peculiar ideological order that sustain his worldview (Virtus, Necessitas, Prudentia and Fortuna) and maybe more importantly, the hushed moral preferences that connect back his writings to his life-long dedication to the republican ideals.
The book, beyond providing any reader with this much needed second angle to examine Machiavelli's peculiar opinions also make for an excellent, entertaining read: less so, maybe, than The Prince, mainly because the book is presented as a commentary, and lacks the sustained transitiveness of his more famous work, but it is none the less woven tightly with dozens of examples, taken either from 'recent' Italian history (undearstand late Quatrocento and early XVIth century) or from Greek and Roman history, with which the author intend to illustrate his comprehensive encyclopedia of cunning decepetion, of crowd psychology, of war strategy, etc.
Whereas as we said earlier, not all of his ideas appear as daring and original as they did in The Prince, many of the examples make up for this lack by providing the eager reader with as many epic tales of daring and heroic or vicious and manipulative deeds that shaped ancient history: any aspiring George R. Martin will find in this book a condensé of the plots, all the scheming Greeks and Romans have to offer, and they certainly had nothing to learn from the Lannisters!
So. All in all if you have an interest in either early modern mindset, in political theory or in Machiavelli in particular, this is a necessary read. It does genuinely provide a necessary counterpart to his magnum opus and give this peculiar character the moral depth popular memory robbed him from.
November 13, 2024
چند منبع تکمیلی میتواند در شرح بیشتر کمککننده باشد:
۱. درسگفتار کوک، که پیشتر در شرح شهریار نیز معرفیاش کرده بودم.
۲. گفتار هفتم در کتابی از لئو اشتراوس به ترجمهی فرهنگ رجایی با عنوان «فلسفهی سیاسی؛ مقالاتی منتخب»
۳. چند مقاله با ترجمهی زانیار ابراهیمی و در کانالش:
گفتارهای ماکیاولی و خاستگاههای پیشااومانیستیِ اندیشههای جمهوریخواهی نوشته کوئینتین اسکینر
https://t.me/zaniarebrahimii/57
ماکیاولی و ادبیات کلاسیک نوشته لئو اشتراوس
https://t.me/zaniarebrahimii/47
ماکیاولی اشتراوس نوشته هاروی منسفیلد
https://t.me/zaniarebrahimii/29
پیامبر و مفتّش: یا کلیسایی که با سرنیزه ساخته شده است، دوامی ندارد: حاشیه ای بر مقاله هاروی منسفیلد " ماکیاولیِ اشتراوس " نوشته جِی. جی. ای پوکاک
https://t.me/zaniarebrahimii/18
۱. درسگفتار کوک، که پیشتر در شرح شهریار نیز معرفیاش کرده بودم.
۲. گفتار هفتم در کتابی از لئو اشتراوس به ترجمهی فرهنگ رجایی با عنوان «فلسفهی سیاسی؛ مقالاتی منتخب»
۳. چند مقاله با ترجمهی زانیار ابراهیمی و در کانالش:
گفتارهای ماکیاولی و خاستگاههای پیشااومانیستیِ اندیشههای جمهوریخواهی نوشته کوئینتین اسکینر
https://t.me/zaniarebrahimii/57
ماکیاولی و ادبیات کلاسیک نوشته لئو اشتراوس
https://t.me/zaniarebrahimii/47
ماکیاولی اشتراوس نوشته هاروی منسفیلد
https://t.me/zaniarebrahimii/29
پیامبر و مفتّش: یا کلیسایی که با سرنیزه ساخته شده است، دوامی ندارد: حاشیه ای بر مقاله هاروی منسفیلد " ماکیاولیِ اشتراوس " نوشته جِی. جی. ای پوکاک
https://t.me/zaniarebrahimii/18
January 22, 2016
Dans cet ouvrage, Nicolas Machiavel, Florentin de la renaissance, livre les réflexions que lui ont inspirées la lecture des dix premiers livres de l'histoire de Rome de Tite-Live, tout en nuançant les avis de l'historien romain par sa propre expérience politique comme diplomate. Machiavel sent le souffre, dans la mesure où son nom nous a légué un adjectif fort peu recommandable : machiavélique. On l'applique à ceux qui sont parfaitement dénués de scrupules ou de pitié, pour qui la fin justifie les moyens, et qui subordonnent la morale à l'intérêt. C'est une répugnance compréhensible que nous inspire un tel caractère, mais il ne faudrait pas pour autant négliger les avis de celui que Montesquieu appelait justement le très pénétrant Machiavel. Également, le père de l'esprit des Lois faisait grand cas de Tite-Live: il m'avait poussé à le lire, et c'est tout naturellement que je me suis précipité sur le présent ouvrage dès que j'ai découvert son existence.
Utiliser l'histoire pour comprendre les lois de la science politique, et mieux prévoir l'avenir : Hérodote avait déjà ce souci, et les meilleurs historiens ont travaillé à léguer à la postérité ce κτῆμα ἐς ἀεί, ce trésor pour toujours, car ce sont toujours de choses humaines qu'il s'agit, en dépit des siècles qui s'écoulent. L'autre voie, c'est la voie spéculative des utopies et des systèmes: c'est imaginer le monde tel qu'il devrait être, sans se laisser arrêter par ce qu'il est, mais au risque de se laisser éblouir par ce qui ne pourrait être. Pour Machiavel, s'appuyer sur un savoir solide est fondamental, car les rêves de société parfaite ont fait long feu: l'impatience des antiques à parvenir à une synthèse a été mise à mal par les constats des modernes. L'échec de la secte chrétienne lui saute aux yeux, alors que c'est en Italie où elle est la plus puissante qu'elle est la moins respectée, et qu'au moment même où il compose son ouvrage, Luther s'active en Allemagne à la renverser. Ce n'est pas une boussole qu'il nous fournit, mais une carte précise et minutieuse. Si une partie de sa doctrine peu être dégagée comme un système, une autre partie semble juste être des règles sans liens établi avec le reste, comme s'il avait formé une ébauche qu'il appartiendrait à la postérité de compléter.
La doctrine de Machiavel découle pour un état d'une exigence première : la sécurité, le besoin de se regrouper pour assurer la jouissance de ses biens et la sûreté des personnes. Cette sécurité peut être troublée soit par des facteurs internes ou externes. Le remède souverain que Machiavel préconise, c'est la liberté. La liberté fait les meilleurs armées, chacun luttant avec plus d'ardeur. Se reposer sur sa richesse pour sa sécurité est absurde: c'est au contraire la voie la plus courte pour être asservi. Mais la liberté assure aussi une sécurité intérieur, grâce à une lutte constante entre riches et pauvres. Machiavel considère qu'il est souhaitable qu'aucune faction ne l'emporte jamais sur l'autre, mais que chacune se batte sans relâche pour l'emporter : c'est ainsi que la liberté est cultivée, et il faut beaucoup moins craindre les légers troubles qu'ils provoquent qu'une trompeuse tranquillité bientôt annonciatrice de servitude et de ruine.
Pour autant, il ne fait pas mystère de son attachement net pour le peuple, qu'il juge beaucoup plus sage et à même de prendre les bonnes décisions nécessaires à son salut. Il tranche avec l'opinion classique des anciens: il était d'usage de fustiger l'humeur changeante de la foule, et la démocratie était fréquemment dénigrée. Machiavel démontre que si la foule est inconstante, c'est bien pire pour les riches et les puissants, qui sont de beaucoup les plus en proie aux passions de l'avidité et de la superbe, choses par lesquelles la foule n'est pas corrompue. Pour conserver la liberté, l'expédient qu'il préconise avec la liberté, c'est un état riche, et des citoyens pauvres. Machiavel n'aime pas la noblesse, et, en fervent républicain, adepte comme il est des solutions extrêmes, il plaide sans ambages pour le fer. En dehors de son système, il évoque de nombreuses règles qu'il serait fastidieux d'énumérer, mais qui souvent se rapportent à la conduite de la guerre, ainsi que sa préparation: toutes choses très nécessaire à la sécurité de l'état, principe primordial chez Machiavel.
La méthode de Machiavel consiste à exposer chaque règle le plus clairement possible, puis de citer les exemples antiques et modernes à partir desquels il l'a inférée. Lorsque cette règle est paradoxale, il en explique la raison. Le ton qu'il emploie est celui de l'objectivité, et la seule passion qui ressort, c'est le dépit de voir le peu de cas que ses contemporains aux affaires font du savoir qu'ils gagneraient à mettre à profit, et qu'ils dédaignent par présomption, manque de prudence et folie. Il fustige également le christianisme, pour avoir insufflé trop de patience chez les bons à souffrir les abus des méchants, ce qui a finalement encouragé ces derniers plutôt que les avoir contenus. Le plus souvent, ses exposés en imposent grandement, car il joint l'expérience au savoir livresque, et semble animé par le pur amour de la vérité, n'hésitant pas à la montrer même sous ses aspects les plus laids et les moins plaisants. N'est ce pas un peu triste d'affirmer que nous n'agissons bien que lorsque finalement la nécessité nous presse ? Aussi, la rigueur de certaines de ses opinions ne manqueront pas de mettre sérieusement notre sens moral à l'épreuve, surtout qu'il déconseille toujours fortement la voie moyenne, celle qui le plus souvent est vouée à l'échec.
Il suffit d'avoir des yeux pour constater que l'idéal républicain que Machiavel avait lu dans Tite-Live et corrigé avec son expérience, avant de le jeter sur le papier, est devenu en grande part notre réalité d'aujourd'hui. Aussi, je ne saurais trop conseiller la lecture de ce petit texte, dont le plus grand mérite est une grande clarté nécessaire pour l'intelligence du monde, et que j'ai de beaucoup préféré au Prince. Je pense qu'on gagnera beaucoup à la lecture préalable de Tite-Live, laquelle est aussi édifiante qu'agréable. Cette édition doit aussi être louée pour la richesse de son appareil critique, qui ne manque jamais de préciser les sources des allusions de Machiavel, et les corrige lorsque celles-ci ont été gauchies.
December 10, 2017
Niccolò Machiavelli is known today for two things: the adjective “Machiavellian,” and the book from which that adjective is derived, "The Prince," which provides advice for monarchs who accede to power. But Machiavelli wrote more than one book, and his second-most-famous book is this one, "Discourses on Livy." In it, he provides advice for the founding, structuring, governing, and maintenance of republics, along with advice to individuals holding power, and a good bit of practical military advice. All this he extracts primarily from the extant writings of the historian Livy (64 B.C.– A.D. 12) on early Roman history, although he also brings in much other matter, including his own personal experiences and then-current events (Machiavelli wrote "Discourses" about 1517). Thus, this book is part history, part mirror of princes, and part advice to those holding power in a republic on how not to get killed.
Of course, using Rome as a frame for political thoughts is pretty much the oldest continuous line of political thought going, and "Discourses" is one of many Renaissance and modern books revolving around that theme. Each such writing reflects not only Rome, but its own times. For example, Montesquieu’s "Considerations on the Causes of the Greatness of the Romans and their Decline," written 250 years after "Discourses", has many commonalities with "Discourses," but also many points of difference. "Considerations" is a book of the Enlightenment; "Discourses" of the Renaissance. Moreover, "Discourses" is a much longer book that makes much broader claims to offer a complete approach to the good governance of a republic. At at the same time, "Discourses" is also narrower than "Considerations"—it is arranged into 142 different chapters, each with a precise focus, usually drawing on a few very specific events from Roman history, often buttressed by more recent examples. History is used both mechanically in the form of examples of happenings, and for its illumination of human nature in the service of understanding how humans act. The cumulative effect, like a wall made up of many bricks, is very impressive, but each building piece is small in scope.
It is therefore hard to summarize this book. "Discourses" is nearly 400 dense pages, and it does not lend itself to any kind of pithy summation. Much of the book is devoted to carefully categorizing different historical events that have, or can be shown to have, political implications, and then making distinctions among them. What is more, scholars have spent their lives trying to reconcile apparent contradictions between "Discourses and "The Prince," given that the former appears to strongly endorse republics and rejects terror, while the latter exalts one-man rule and implicitly endorses, if not terror, a harsh regime. The translators and interpreters of this edition, the husband and wife team of Julia Conaway Bondanella and Peter Bondanella, take the position that there is little contradiction between the books, claiming that in "The Prince" Machiavelli focuses on the individual who founds a state and "Discourses" focuses on the larger set of people necessary to maintain a state. However that may be, the book is still hard to boil down (although the Bondanellas add a lot with their notes and Introduction).
Nonetheless, being fond of hearing my own voice in type, I will say a few things, both in general about the book and drawing lessons for applicability to today. Machiavelli has little fondness for the idea that people are naturally good, and his thoughts on that give a good idea of his style, which is both direct, and difficult for today’s readers. “As is demonstrated by all those who discuss civic life—and every history is filled with such examples—it is necessary for anyone who organizes a republic and establishes laws in it to take for granted that all men are evil and that they will always act according to the wickedness of their nature whenever they have the opportunity, and when any wickedness remains hidden for a time, it arises from a hidden cause that is not recognized by those who lack experience of its contrary, but time, which people say is the father of every truth, will eventually uncover it.” This is, if anything, the core principle of the book, that no man can be trusted to be virtuous, so a combination of social structures and clear, objective thinking based on history is necessary to produce the best possible results for a republic, which for the same reason is not likely to be as good as hoped, or to last as long as might be desired.
Machiavelli’s definition of “republic” is not what we think of when we hear that word, which is, basically, a democracy with a few fripperies, like an upper and lower house in the legislature. On the contrary, for Machiavelli, ancient Sparta was much a republic as Athens. For him, what is not a republic is a monarchy, whether the prince is a tyrant or a just man, or an oligarchy that is equivalent to a monarchy. A government that represents all important sectors of society is a republic, but that does not at all mean that every individual has a voice. Thus, in Rome, the plebeians normally had almost zero direct influence—but their interests were aggressively attended to by the extremely powerful tribunes of the plebs, who could veto almost any action of the state. Machiavelli’s purpose, therefore, is not to push democracy or an expanded franchise. It is to recommend the most perfect form of republican government that is practical. Thus, not only is Machiavelli’s definition of republic very catholic, he strongly endorses institutions such as the Roman dictator, granted absolute power by the magistrates for a term of months (but unable to modify institutions, and thus not a structural danger, unlike the decimvirs, whom Machiavelli excoriates).
It is also important to note that Machiavelli sees conflict among groups in society as inherent, necessary, and desirable in creating the best form of government. In these days of vicious conflict among various sectors of American society, the Platonic vision of societal harmony as the ideal republic has a lot of resonance, but Machiavelli (just like Montesquieu) has little sympathy for this. He sees such conflict, or at least some conflict, along with its underlying dynamic of tensions, as necessary for the smooth, organic operation of a republic, since it reflects inevitable human nature. Such conflict is potentially very dangerous, of course. It has to be channeled by well-designed sociopolitical structures. But without conflict, a society cannot function, at least not well or for long. This line of thinking is the basis of our modern theories of separation of powers.
Of course, Machiavelli’s focus was on conflicts based on self-interest, not ideological conflicts of the modern type. On the other hand, he was very familiar with conflicts based on religion, having lived through, among other events, the turmoil surrounding the rule in Florence of Girolamo Savonarola, which perhaps contributed to his cynical, instrumental view of religion. He would doubtless not have had any sympathy with any modern political ideology, and less sympathy for an ideology’s necessary destructive effect on social structures. Machiavelli’s’ view of Christianity was basically Nietzschean—he (correctly) recognized it as having “more often glorified humble and contemplative men rather than active ones. . . . This way of living [Christianity] seems, therefore to have made the world weak and to have given it over to be plundered by wicked men, who are easily able to dominate it, since in order to go to paradise, most men think more about enduring their pains than avenging them.” At least Machiavelli, if he showed up today, would recognize our society and its relationship with Christianity. He would find other sources of conflict bizarre—not so much relatively crisp, if stupid, ideological ones like classical Marxism, but the howling idiocy of social media, “being woke,” autonomic individualism, sexual fluidity, and so forth, all informed by a complete lack of education and reasoning, of the type Machiavelli valued so very highly. If he showed up today, he’d probably immediately kill himself so he could exit the scene as fast as possible.
With these basics as the frame, most of the book is, directly, or indirectly, an analysis of possible sociopolitical structures, ranging from the relatively minor and technical (requiring that public officials be “subject to indictment,” that is, both be under the rule of law, and be capable of being curbed if overly ambitious to the detriment of the body politic, although Machiavelli warns false accusations must be severely punished), to the major (how to manage transitions from monarchies to republics). Much of the book consists of contrasts between republics and princes, for example, discussing whether forming treaties with princes or republics is better (answer: republics are slower and harder to come to agreements with, but for the same reason, less likely to break the agreement). In all things, though, he emphasizes action over words. “I believe that one of the great means of exercising prudence that men can employ is to abstain either from threatening anyone or from injuring them with words, for neither of these actions take any strength away from the enemy, but the first makes him more cautious and the second increases his hatred toward you and makes him think more actively of harming you.” At no point is a complete, point-by-point plan offered; instead, presumably the reader is expected to make his own way through the thicket of recommendations and come up with his own plan for his own republic, informed by what Machiavelli has offered.
Relatively narrow object lessons abound, mostly taken from history. For example, Machiavelli cites Manlius Capitolinus, who saved Rome from the Gauls in 390 B.C., and was greatly rewarded, but was later executed for stirring up civil unrest. “After having instituted rewards for a good deed and punishments for an evil one, and after rewarding a man for having acted well, if that same individual later acts badly [the republic] punishes him without any regard whatsoever for his good deeds. When such regulations are well observed a city lives in freedom for a long period of time; otherwise it will always come to ruin very quickly, because if a citizen who has rendered some distinguished service to his city adds to the reputation his deed has brought him additional audacity and the confidence that he will be able to undertake without fear of punishment some action that is not good, he will become in a brief time so insolent that every element of civic life will disappear.”
Machiavelli believes that once a republic (which he often calls a “city”) has become defective, in whatever way, it is very hard to correct the problem, “for most men will never agree to a new law that concerns a new order in a city unless a certain necessity shows that it is required, and since this necessity cannot arise without risk, it is an easy thing for that republic to be ruined before it can be brought to perfection in its organization.” His example for this is not an episode from Roman history, but from Florentine history, and in fact from his own life—the destruction in 1512 of the Florentine republic Machiavelli had served, to be replaced by Medici rule. Thus, establishing a republic with the best institutions possible ab initio is important, which to Machiavelli means a mixed government, with elements of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. This was not original to Machiavelli (it was an emphasis of the Greek historian Polybius, for example), but Machiavelli in a sense resurrected the doctrine for the modern world, to be followed by various Enlightenment thinkers and by the American Founding Fathers (which is why a certain brand of neoreactionaries, followers of Leo Strauss, are very focused on Machiavelli’s political thought).
Discourses notes that broad public participation in meeting the needs of the republic is important. Machiavelli loathes mercenaries (“foreign henchmen”); he insists that only with citizen soldiers can a republic long prevail. The same is true for non-military matters. For example, if people evade taxes, the republic lacks virtue, and therefore strength. Talking of emergencies, “When these [virtuous] republics need to spend some amount of money for the public welfare, the magistracies or councils that have the authority to do so assess all of the inhabitants of the city at 1 or 2 percent of their income [and people pay on the honors system].” One can only wonder what Machiavelli would think of our modern American republic, where most people pay no income tax at all, and others are assessed at rates exceeding 50% as a matter of course, forced to pay at the point of government guns. Probably not much, is my bet.
Machiavelli even attacks gun control, or rather, the philosophy behind gun grabbers. Noting “How One Should Not Make Threats First and then Request Authority,” he says “how much stupidity and how little prudence there is in asking for something and later declaring: ‘I want to do such and such evil deed with this,’ for one must not reveal one’s intentions, but instead should attempt to obtain what one wants by any means possible. For it is enough to ask somebody for his weapons without saying ‘I want to kill you with them,’ because when you have his weapons in hand, you can then satisfy your desire.” Although Michael Bloomberg may not want to kill us deplorables (though he may), he certainly wants to make us more killable, and he and the various stooges he funds with his vast fortune, such as “Everytown For Gun Safety” (or whatever names his shill groups are going by today), have clearly been taking notes, because they will rarely admit their true goal of total gun confiscation, instead purveying almost any lie in the service of disarming the American people. Machiavelli would approve of the method as competently done, if not necessarily of the end.
Innumerable examples applicable to America today appear, mostly casting us in a negative light. “I do not believe there is any worse example in a republic than to make a law and then not to observe it, and even more so when it is not observed by the person who made it.” That pretty much sums up the entire governing method of the Democratic/judicial/media complex, as they cackle over Hillary’s email crimes and Robert Mueller’s team of vicious partisan hacks twists the law to overthrow Trump’s election by any means necessary. This, of course, will not end well, not least because “Men who begin to suspect they are about to suffer some evil protect themselves in every possible way from such dangers and become more daring and less cautious in attempting something new [i.e., new and harmful to the republic].” It’s almost like everything old is new again, or never got old at all, which is pretty much Machiavelli’s basic point.
Another principle Machiavelli expounds is that people like Hillary Clinton deserve suppression, since their acts are signs of decay. “The [republics] that have the best organization and the longest lives are, however, those that can renew themselves often through their own institutions, or that come to such a renewal through some circumstance outside these institutions.” This renewal is not necessarily a gentle process, nor one confined to republics, though the principle is universal. “Those who governed the Florentine state from 1434 until 1494 [i.e., the first period of Medici, princely, rule] used to say . . . that it was necessary to take the state back every five years or it was otherwise difficult to preserve it, and what they called ‘taking the state back’ meant striking the same terror and fear into the hearts of men that they had instilled upon first taking power, when they struck down those who had, according to that way of life, governed badly. But when the memory of such a beating fades away, men grow bolder in making new attempts and in speaking evil, and it therefore necessary to make provision against this by bringing the state back to its beginnings.” And rigor is necessary—as he says of his patron and mentor, the republican Piero Soderini, who led Venice until overthrown by the Spanish (who returned the Medici), “He believed that he could overcome those many who opposed him out of envy without any unusual acts, violence, or disorder, and he did not know that time does not wait, kindness is insufficient, fortune varies, and malice receives no gift that placates her.”
It’s not all good for Republicans, though. Machiavelli notes “That It Is Necessary for Those Who Wish Always to Enjoy Good Fortune to Change With the Times.” “When a man with one mode of conduct has been very prosperous, it is impossible to persuade him that he can do as well by proceeding in a different manner; it happens in this way that fortune varies for a single man, because she brings about the changes in the times while he fails to modify his methods.” Conservatives who spend their days pushing Reaganism, #NeverTrumpers who think all we need to do is elect another Bush, and such lot should all take notice. New methods are needed for new times.
Mixed in with all this are chapters with more down-to-earth advice, often combined with military tactical advice, such as “That One Should Not Jeopardize All of One’s Fortune or All of One’s Forces; and, for This Reason, Defending Passes Is Often Dangerous.” There are chapters that are wholly technical: “How Much Land the Romans Gave to Their Colonists” and “How Much Value Should Armies in the Present Day Place on Artillery; and If the Generally Held Opinion About Artillery Is True.” There are sonorous chapters full of macro advice: “Weak States Are Always Ambiguous in Their Decisions, and Slow Decisions Are Always Harmful.” Machiavelli also offers advice that is practical on a micro level as well as a macro level, such as (in the midst of several chapters relating to gratitude, rewards, and their role in civil structures) quoting Tacitus, “Men are more inclined to repay injury than kindness: the truth is that gratitude is irksome, while vengeance is accounted gain.” Examples of this in practice are legion—observe, for example, Donald Trump’s treatment of Steve Bannon, who got him elected. There are combination chapters: “Wealth Is Not, Contrary to Popular Opinion, the Sinew of Warfare,” which advises that “good soldiers are the sinew of war and not gold, because gold is an insufficient means of finding good soldiers, but good soldiers are a more than sufficient means of finding gold.” Ha ha. And, finally, there are chapters that are just odd, like “Before Important Events Happen in a City or a Province, Signs that Foretell Them or Men Who Predict Them Appear.”
[Last paragraph is first comment.]
Of course, using Rome as a frame for political thoughts is pretty much the oldest continuous line of political thought going, and "Discourses" is one of many Renaissance and modern books revolving around that theme. Each such writing reflects not only Rome, but its own times. For example, Montesquieu’s "Considerations on the Causes of the Greatness of the Romans and their Decline," written 250 years after "Discourses", has many commonalities with "Discourses," but also many points of difference. "Considerations" is a book of the Enlightenment; "Discourses" of the Renaissance. Moreover, "Discourses" is a much longer book that makes much broader claims to offer a complete approach to the good governance of a republic. At at the same time, "Discourses" is also narrower than "Considerations"—it is arranged into 142 different chapters, each with a precise focus, usually drawing on a few very specific events from Roman history, often buttressed by more recent examples. History is used both mechanically in the form of examples of happenings, and for its illumination of human nature in the service of understanding how humans act. The cumulative effect, like a wall made up of many bricks, is very impressive, but each building piece is small in scope.
It is therefore hard to summarize this book. "Discourses" is nearly 400 dense pages, and it does not lend itself to any kind of pithy summation. Much of the book is devoted to carefully categorizing different historical events that have, or can be shown to have, political implications, and then making distinctions among them. What is more, scholars have spent their lives trying to reconcile apparent contradictions between "Discourses and "The Prince," given that the former appears to strongly endorse republics and rejects terror, while the latter exalts one-man rule and implicitly endorses, if not terror, a harsh regime. The translators and interpreters of this edition, the husband and wife team of Julia Conaway Bondanella and Peter Bondanella, take the position that there is little contradiction between the books, claiming that in "The Prince" Machiavelli focuses on the individual who founds a state and "Discourses" focuses on the larger set of people necessary to maintain a state. However that may be, the book is still hard to boil down (although the Bondanellas add a lot with their notes and Introduction).
Nonetheless, being fond of hearing my own voice in type, I will say a few things, both in general about the book and drawing lessons for applicability to today. Machiavelli has little fondness for the idea that people are naturally good, and his thoughts on that give a good idea of his style, which is both direct, and difficult for today’s readers. “As is demonstrated by all those who discuss civic life—and every history is filled with such examples—it is necessary for anyone who organizes a republic and establishes laws in it to take for granted that all men are evil and that they will always act according to the wickedness of their nature whenever they have the opportunity, and when any wickedness remains hidden for a time, it arises from a hidden cause that is not recognized by those who lack experience of its contrary, but time, which people say is the father of every truth, will eventually uncover it.” This is, if anything, the core principle of the book, that no man can be trusted to be virtuous, so a combination of social structures and clear, objective thinking based on history is necessary to produce the best possible results for a republic, which for the same reason is not likely to be as good as hoped, or to last as long as might be desired.
Machiavelli’s definition of “republic” is not what we think of when we hear that word, which is, basically, a democracy with a few fripperies, like an upper and lower house in the legislature. On the contrary, for Machiavelli, ancient Sparta was much a republic as Athens. For him, what is not a republic is a monarchy, whether the prince is a tyrant or a just man, or an oligarchy that is equivalent to a monarchy. A government that represents all important sectors of society is a republic, but that does not at all mean that every individual has a voice. Thus, in Rome, the plebeians normally had almost zero direct influence—but their interests were aggressively attended to by the extremely powerful tribunes of the plebs, who could veto almost any action of the state. Machiavelli’s purpose, therefore, is not to push democracy or an expanded franchise. It is to recommend the most perfect form of republican government that is practical. Thus, not only is Machiavelli’s definition of republic very catholic, he strongly endorses institutions such as the Roman dictator, granted absolute power by the magistrates for a term of months (but unable to modify institutions, and thus not a structural danger, unlike the decimvirs, whom Machiavelli excoriates).
It is also important to note that Machiavelli sees conflict among groups in society as inherent, necessary, and desirable in creating the best form of government. In these days of vicious conflict among various sectors of American society, the Platonic vision of societal harmony as the ideal republic has a lot of resonance, but Machiavelli (just like Montesquieu) has little sympathy for this. He sees such conflict, or at least some conflict, along with its underlying dynamic of tensions, as necessary for the smooth, organic operation of a republic, since it reflects inevitable human nature. Such conflict is potentially very dangerous, of course. It has to be channeled by well-designed sociopolitical structures. But without conflict, a society cannot function, at least not well or for long. This line of thinking is the basis of our modern theories of separation of powers.
Of course, Machiavelli’s focus was on conflicts based on self-interest, not ideological conflicts of the modern type. On the other hand, he was very familiar with conflicts based on religion, having lived through, among other events, the turmoil surrounding the rule in Florence of Girolamo Savonarola, which perhaps contributed to his cynical, instrumental view of religion. He would doubtless not have had any sympathy with any modern political ideology, and less sympathy for an ideology’s necessary destructive effect on social structures. Machiavelli’s’ view of Christianity was basically Nietzschean—he (correctly) recognized it as having “more often glorified humble and contemplative men rather than active ones. . . . This way of living [Christianity] seems, therefore to have made the world weak and to have given it over to be plundered by wicked men, who are easily able to dominate it, since in order to go to paradise, most men think more about enduring their pains than avenging them.” At least Machiavelli, if he showed up today, would recognize our society and its relationship with Christianity. He would find other sources of conflict bizarre—not so much relatively crisp, if stupid, ideological ones like classical Marxism, but the howling idiocy of social media, “being woke,” autonomic individualism, sexual fluidity, and so forth, all informed by a complete lack of education and reasoning, of the type Machiavelli valued so very highly. If he showed up today, he’d probably immediately kill himself so he could exit the scene as fast as possible.
With these basics as the frame, most of the book is, directly, or indirectly, an analysis of possible sociopolitical structures, ranging from the relatively minor and technical (requiring that public officials be “subject to indictment,” that is, both be under the rule of law, and be capable of being curbed if overly ambitious to the detriment of the body politic, although Machiavelli warns false accusations must be severely punished), to the major (how to manage transitions from monarchies to republics). Much of the book consists of contrasts between republics and princes, for example, discussing whether forming treaties with princes or republics is better (answer: republics are slower and harder to come to agreements with, but for the same reason, less likely to break the agreement). In all things, though, he emphasizes action over words. “I believe that one of the great means of exercising prudence that men can employ is to abstain either from threatening anyone or from injuring them with words, for neither of these actions take any strength away from the enemy, but the first makes him more cautious and the second increases his hatred toward you and makes him think more actively of harming you.” At no point is a complete, point-by-point plan offered; instead, presumably the reader is expected to make his own way through the thicket of recommendations and come up with his own plan for his own republic, informed by what Machiavelli has offered.
Relatively narrow object lessons abound, mostly taken from history. For example, Machiavelli cites Manlius Capitolinus, who saved Rome from the Gauls in 390 B.C., and was greatly rewarded, but was later executed for stirring up civil unrest. “After having instituted rewards for a good deed and punishments for an evil one, and after rewarding a man for having acted well, if that same individual later acts badly [the republic] punishes him without any regard whatsoever for his good deeds. When such regulations are well observed a city lives in freedom for a long period of time; otherwise it will always come to ruin very quickly, because if a citizen who has rendered some distinguished service to his city adds to the reputation his deed has brought him additional audacity and the confidence that he will be able to undertake without fear of punishment some action that is not good, he will become in a brief time so insolent that every element of civic life will disappear.”
Machiavelli believes that once a republic (which he often calls a “city”) has become defective, in whatever way, it is very hard to correct the problem, “for most men will never agree to a new law that concerns a new order in a city unless a certain necessity shows that it is required, and since this necessity cannot arise without risk, it is an easy thing for that republic to be ruined before it can be brought to perfection in its organization.” His example for this is not an episode from Roman history, but from Florentine history, and in fact from his own life—the destruction in 1512 of the Florentine republic Machiavelli had served, to be replaced by Medici rule. Thus, establishing a republic with the best institutions possible ab initio is important, which to Machiavelli means a mixed government, with elements of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. This was not original to Machiavelli (it was an emphasis of the Greek historian Polybius, for example), but Machiavelli in a sense resurrected the doctrine for the modern world, to be followed by various Enlightenment thinkers and by the American Founding Fathers (which is why a certain brand of neoreactionaries, followers of Leo Strauss, are very focused on Machiavelli’s political thought).
Discourses notes that broad public participation in meeting the needs of the republic is important. Machiavelli loathes mercenaries (“foreign henchmen”); he insists that only with citizen soldiers can a republic long prevail. The same is true for non-military matters. For example, if people evade taxes, the republic lacks virtue, and therefore strength. Talking of emergencies, “When these [virtuous] republics need to spend some amount of money for the public welfare, the magistracies or councils that have the authority to do so assess all of the inhabitants of the city at 1 or 2 percent of their income [and people pay on the honors system].” One can only wonder what Machiavelli would think of our modern American republic, where most people pay no income tax at all, and others are assessed at rates exceeding 50% as a matter of course, forced to pay at the point of government guns. Probably not much, is my bet.
Machiavelli even attacks gun control, or rather, the philosophy behind gun grabbers. Noting “How One Should Not Make Threats First and then Request Authority,” he says “how much stupidity and how little prudence there is in asking for something and later declaring: ‘I want to do such and such evil deed with this,’ for one must not reveal one’s intentions, but instead should attempt to obtain what one wants by any means possible. For it is enough to ask somebody for his weapons without saying ‘I want to kill you with them,’ because when you have his weapons in hand, you can then satisfy your desire.” Although Michael Bloomberg may not want to kill us deplorables (though he may), he certainly wants to make us more killable, and he and the various stooges he funds with his vast fortune, such as “Everytown For Gun Safety” (or whatever names his shill groups are going by today), have clearly been taking notes, because they will rarely admit their true goal of total gun confiscation, instead purveying almost any lie in the service of disarming the American people. Machiavelli would approve of the method as competently done, if not necessarily of the end.
Innumerable examples applicable to America today appear, mostly casting us in a negative light. “I do not believe there is any worse example in a republic than to make a law and then not to observe it, and even more so when it is not observed by the person who made it.” That pretty much sums up the entire governing method of the Democratic/judicial/media complex, as they cackle over Hillary’s email crimes and Robert Mueller’s team of vicious partisan hacks twists the law to overthrow Trump’s election by any means necessary. This, of course, will not end well, not least because “Men who begin to suspect they are about to suffer some evil protect themselves in every possible way from such dangers and become more daring and less cautious in attempting something new [i.e., new and harmful to the republic].” It’s almost like everything old is new again, or never got old at all, which is pretty much Machiavelli’s basic point.
Another principle Machiavelli expounds is that people like Hillary Clinton deserve suppression, since their acts are signs of decay. “The [republics] that have the best organization and the longest lives are, however, those that can renew themselves often through their own institutions, or that come to such a renewal through some circumstance outside these institutions.” This renewal is not necessarily a gentle process, nor one confined to republics, though the principle is universal. “Those who governed the Florentine state from 1434 until 1494 [i.e., the first period of Medici, princely, rule] used to say . . . that it was necessary to take the state back every five years or it was otherwise difficult to preserve it, and what they called ‘taking the state back’ meant striking the same terror and fear into the hearts of men that they had instilled upon first taking power, when they struck down those who had, according to that way of life, governed badly. But when the memory of such a beating fades away, men grow bolder in making new attempts and in speaking evil, and it therefore necessary to make provision against this by bringing the state back to its beginnings.” And rigor is necessary—as he says of his patron and mentor, the republican Piero Soderini, who led Venice until overthrown by the Spanish (who returned the Medici), “He believed that he could overcome those many who opposed him out of envy without any unusual acts, violence, or disorder, and he did not know that time does not wait, kindness is insufficient, fortune varies, and malice receives no gift that placates her.”
It’s not all good for Republicans, though. Machiavelli notes “That It Is Necessary for Those Who Wish Always to Enjoy Good Fortune to Change With the Times.” “When a man with one mode of conduct has been very prosperous, it is impossible to persuade him that he can do as well by proceeding in a different manner; it happens in this way that fortune varies for a single man, because she brings about the changes in the times while he fails to modify his methods.” Conservatives who spend their days pushing Reaganism, #NeverTrumpers who think all we need to do is elect another Bush, and such lot should all take notice. New methods are needed for new times.
Mixed in with all this are chapters with more down-to-earth advice, often combined with military tactical advice, such as “That One Should Not Jeopardize All of One’s Fortune or All of One’s Forces; and, for This Reason, Defending Passes Is Often Dangerous.” There are chapters that are wholly technical: “How Much Land the Romans Gave to Their Colonists” and “How Much Value Should Armies in the Present Day Place on Artillery; and If the Generally Held Opinion About Artillery Is True.” There are sonorous chapters full of macro advice: “Weak States Are Always Ambiguous in Their Decisions, and Slow Decisions Are Always Harmful.” Machiavelli also offers advice that is practical on a micro level as well as a macro level, such as (in the midst of several chapters relating to gratitude, rewards, and their role in civil structures) quoting Tacitus, “Men are more inclined to repay injury than kindness: the truth is that gratitude is irksome, while vengeance is accounted gain.” Examples of this in practice are legion—observe, for example, Donald Trump’s treatment of Steve Bannon, who got him elected. There are combination chapters: “Wealth Is Not, Contrary to Popular Opinion, the Sinew of Warfare,” which advises that “good soldiers are the sinew of war and not gold, because gold is an insufficient means of finding good soldiers, but good soldiers are a more than sufficient means of finding gold.” Ha ha. And, finally, there are chapters that are just odd, like “Before Important Events Happen in a City or a Province, Signs that Foretell Them or Men Who Predict Them Appear.”
[Last paragraph is first comment.]
January 13, 2021
I once started reading this book before having read Livy. That was a mistake. How Livy thinks and the stories he told are necessary in order to follow Machiavelli's methodology.
Machiavelli weaves Livy’s History of Rome by using the past to enlighten his present while shaping the present to reflect the past. Machiavelli gets one big thing really wrong in his story telling: history doesn’t repeat itself, it only rhymes. Machiavelli is looking for universal truths when they really aren’t there. That doesn’t mean this book doesn’t knock it out of the ball park, because Machiavelli connects the past with the present such that we can better understand the future.
Machiavelli definitely has a fascist bent to him that overlaps with how Trump acts naturally without having ever read a book. If Trump were capable of writing a book he would have written this book. He knows the power of the big lie, of dividing, conquering or neutering ones opponents. Machiavelli has all of Trump within this book. That tells me that Machiavelli is feelings based not thinking based within his conclusions, because Trump has never had a thought about a thought in his life.
Machiavelli upends all of comity, reason and pretense that made up what was thought of as history. Machiavelli’s The Prince is written with the sophistication of a comic book and is for children to quote from it who want to sound impressive. The Discourses is written for adults who want to understand the world as it really is and clearly breaks the mode of everything that came before it and is worthy of consideration today, and I think if not for this book Machiavelli would have disappeared from history. At least, in his life time and shortly after this was the more famous of the two books, and I know that David Hume was greatly influenced by this book and not Machiavelli’s other books.
Machiavelli will say that we are dissatisfied with our present, long for the past, and have hope for the future. According to Machiavelli, everyone that is not one of us needs to be vanquished or made into an ally through assimilation and the worst of all options would be to appease them. Machiavelli thinks Orientals and the French are effeminate, women are useless and strong leadership needs the big lie to be most effective.
The big lie needs no rapport with reality. What is most important is not for it to be believed as such, but, rather, to let the supporter be in on the secret and have them made to believe they are special because they think that others are controlled but not them making them all the more special and part of an elite group worthy of excluding others since they are part of the secret.
There are other themes beyond enabling fascism that Machiavelli deals with such as, Fortune is more important than skill, order is necessary for control, fear is preferable to love for controlling those who are not you or your group, virtue is necessary, and necessary warring is the best war. Ultimately, Machiavelli is arguing the relevant merits of Princes verse Republics while using history and recent experiences in making his points.
Within this text one gets real peeks into how a delusional leader today will think and try to destroy the world while others enable his delusions all the while knowing they are special and they are in on the fraud and it is the others who are the fools.
BTW, Dante puts fraudsters in the highest bolge (zone) in the eighth circle of hell since their offense is only exceeded by the traitors of one’s country or belief system. Perhaps, we should put Trump and his accolades into the ninth circle also.
Machiavelli weaves Livy’s History of Rome by using the past to enlighten his present while shaping the present to reflect the past. Machiavelli gets one big thing really wrong in his story telling: history doesn’t repeat itself, it only rhymes. Machiavelli is looking for universal truths when they really aren’t there. That doesn’t mean this book doesn’t knock it out of the ball park, because Machiavelli connects the past with the present such that we can better understand the future.
Machiavelli definitely has a fascist bent to him that overlaps with how Trump acts naturally without having ever read a book. If Trump were capable of writing a book he would have written this book. He knows the power of the big lie, of dividing, conquering or neutering ones opponents. Machiavelli has all of Trump within this book. That tells me that Machiavelli is feelings based not thinking based within his conclusions, because Trump has never had a thought about a thought in his life.
Machiavelli upends all of comity, reason and pretense that made up what was thought of as history. Machiavelli’s The Prince is written with the sophistication of a comic book and is for children to quote from it who want to sound impressive. The Discourses is written for adults who want to understand the world as it really is and clearly breaks the mode of everything that came before it and is worthy of consideration today, and I think if not for this book Machiavelli would have disappeared from history. At least, in his life time and shortly after this was the more famous of the two books, and I know that David Hume was greatly influenced by this book and not Machiavelli’s other books.
Machiavelli will say that we are dissatisfied with our present, long for the past, and have hope for the future. According to Machiavelli, everyone that is not one of us needs to be vanquished or made into an ally through assimilation and the worst of all options would be to appease them. Machiavelli thinks Orientals and the French are effeminate, women are useless and strong leadership needs the big lie to be most effective.
The big lie needs no rapport with reality. What is most important is not for it to be believed as such, but, rather, to let the supporter be in on the secret and have them made to believe they are special because they think that others are controlled but not them making them all the more special and part of an elite group worthy of excluding others since they are part of the secret.
There are other themes beyond enabling fascism that Machiavelli deals with such as, Fortune is more important than skill, order is necessary for control, fear is preferable to love for controlling those who are not you or your group, virtue is necessary, and necessary warring is the best war. Ultimately, Machiavelli is arguing the relevant merits of Princes verse Republics while using history and recent experiences in making his points.
Within this text one gets real peeks into how a delusional leader today will think and try to destroy the world while others enable his delusions all the while knowing they are special and they are in on the fraud and it is the others who are the fools.
BTW, Dante puts fraudsters in the highest bolge (zone) in the eighth circle of hell since their offense is only exceeded by the traitors of one’s country or belief system. Perhaps, we should put Trump and his accolades into the ninth circle also.
January 20, 2022
In the DISCOURSES, Machiavelli teaches that passions always have and always will dominate politics even in an enlightened republic. Thus, reason alone will rarely carry the day. Sometimes other means of persuasion must be employed to sustain the continued success of the republic.
Like in his more famous book, THE PRINCE, but with more sophistication, Machiavelli defends the perogative of a republic to bend to necessity. He cites many examples, mostly plucked from Livy, illustrating how and when a republic may bend to necessity. That history is not merely Roman. Greece, Venice, Florence and the Papal States also supply lessons supporting Machiavelli’s arguments. To a limited extent, Machiavelli goes even further and suggests patterns of problems that can arise in the political life of a republic. But to the extent this theme can be found in the DISCOURSES, it is not scientific and not very enlightening.
It is noteworthy that, in THE DISCOURSES, Machievelli expresses a strong preference for republican over aristocratic or dictatorial politics. Republics endure more successfully, in his view. This was a bit unexpected for a reader like me who was familiar only with THE PRINCE.
The disappointment for me in the DISCOURSES is that Machiavelli offers no principled way to distinguish between “bending to necessity” and mere expediency. It may be that he believes that there is no such principle. His many examples illustrate that circumstances are too varied and factually complex to be organized into rules. Thus, politics is an art, not a philosophy or science. The most talented politicians will know when to act undemocratically in order to save the republic like a great artist knows how to create a work of art.
Of course, Machiavelli’s discussion is far removed and of diluted relevance to our political life today, at least our political life in the western democracies. Machiavelli predates and does not anticipate the widespread adoption of “the rule of law”. The rule of law changed the entire conversation.
As for Machiavelli’s relevance to authoritarian regimes today, he would not be a fan. That may surprise some readers. Generally, Machiavelli does not like dictators, even as he defends situational use of dictatorial practices. Today’s authoritarian regimes do not understand that resort to dictatorial practices, though unavoidable at times, should be sparing and rare.
Like in his more famous book, THE PRINCE, but with more sophistication, Machiavelli defends the perogative of a republic to bend to necessity. He cites many examples, mostly plucked from Livy, illustrating how and when a republic may bend to necessity. That history is not merely Roman. Greece, Venice, Florence and the Papal States also supply lessons supporting Machiavelli’s arguments. To a limited extent, Machiavelli goes even further and suggests patterns of problems that can arise in the political life of a republic. But to the extent this theme can be found in the DISCOURSES, it is not scientific and not very enlightening.
It is noteworthy that, in THE DISCOURSES, Machievelli expresses a strong preference for republican over aristocratic or dictatorial politics. Republics endure more successfully, in his view. This was a bit unexpected for a reader like me who was familiar only with THE PRINCE.
The disappointment for me in the DISCOURSES is that Machiavelli offers no principled way to distinguish between “bending to necessity” and mere expediency. It may be that he believes that there is no such principle. His many examples illustrate that circumstances are too varied and factually complex to be organized into rules. Thus, politics is an art, not a philosophy or science. The most talented politicians will know when to act undemocratically in order to save the republic like a great artist knows how to create a work of art.
Of course, Machiavelli’s discussion is far removed and of diluted relevance to our political life today, at least our political life in the western democracies. Machiavelli predates and does not anticipate the widespread adoption of “the rule of law”. The rule of law changed the entire conversation.
As for Machiavelli’s relevance to authoritarian regimes today, he would not be a fan. That may surprise some readers. Generally, Machiavelli does not like dictators, even as he defends situational use of dictatorial practices. Today’s authoritarian regimes do not understand that resort to dictatorial practices, though unavoidable at times, should be sparing and rare.
April 25, 2023
Fünf Sterne für die Ausgabe mit überaus instruktivem Vorwort, gerade im Verhältnis zum Principe, sowie für die Zeittafel. Vier Sterne für Macchiavelli.
Persönliche Befangenheitserklärung
Ich war sicherlich nicht der Erste, bei dem der irgendwie skandalisierte Fürst weit unter dem Erwartungshorizont geblieben ist. Es brauchte daher drei Anläufe, um das dünne Heftchen zu bewältigen. Der Hinweis, dass es sich um ein Nebenwerk handelte, die eigentlichen Macchiavelismen aber im Hauptstück Discorsi zu finden seien, ließ mich einen Schritt weiter gehen und diese Ausgabe anschaffen. Das großartige Vorwort erfüllte meine vorrangigen Erkenntnisbedürfnisse. Für eine sinnvolle Lektüre, fehlte mir, wie schon beim Principe, der Rahmen der Entstehungszeit, auch wenn die sehr instruktive Zeittafel nichts wissenswertes auslässt. Tatsächlich fühlte ich mich erst nach Dumas Borgias und dem Renaissancepanorama mit anschaulicher Darstellung der Konflikte, vertraut genug mit der Materie, um wirklich etwas mit den Discorsi anfangen zu können.
Wie kann Italien wieder so stark und einig werden wie das alte Rom, bzw. ein Stadtstaat wie Florenz ein solches Werk mit Aussicht in Erfolg in Gang bringen?
Vor diesem Hintergrund befragt M seinen Livius wie ein frommer Mensch die Bibel, das bedeutet, er glaubt buchstäblich sämtliche Schöpfungslegenden und Gründungsmythen, bevor er sie in seine politischen Maximen oder Handlungsanweisungen umwandelt, die z.T. überzeitlich gültig sind.
In diese kurzen Analysen streut er eben Parallelen aus der jüngeren Geschichte ein, auch den einen oder anderen Hinweis auf den Principe, den ich mir noch mal vornehmen werde. Wer eine Kritik eines absolut inhumanen Unterwerfungsregimes erwartet, wird hiermit nicht glücklich werden. Dafür wird die Genese vieler dieser berühmt-berüchtigten Maximen deutlicher.
Das frappierende daran ist: die alten Römer liegen schon ewig zurück, das Stadtstaaten-Italien auch schon gut 500 Jahre. Trotzdem wirken viele Einsichten Macchiavellis immer noch aktuell, auch vor dem Hintergrund des hybriden Dritten Weltkriegs. Aber ähnliche Erfahrungen machen etliche Gläubige ja tagtäglich noch mit der Bibel.
Angesichts kurzer und kürzester Kapitel und einer schlüssigen Verweisstruktur auf andere Aspekte desselben Vorgangs kann man die Discorsi Häppchenweise genießen, aber sicher nicht am Stück verschlingen. Es ist eine lehrreiche Beikost in Sachen Antike, bzw. Renaissancewissen über die Welt der Alten, das sich auch nützliche Grundlage für das Verständnis von Wielands Aristipp erwiesen hat.
Denn Athen, Sparta, Syrakus und andere Institutionen kommen natürlich auch nicht zu kurz und oft sogar ziemlich schlecht weg, bis hin zur ziemlich planlosen Welteroberung von Alexander, die keinerlei Gesamtstrategie für den dauerhaften Erhalt des zusammen gerafften Reiches aufwies.
Viele Geschichten sprechen für sich oder sind nur allzu bekannte Legenden, aber selbst einem Altphilologen würde ich dazu raten, vorher eine nicht allzu abstrakte Darstellung über das Renaissance-Italien zu lesen. Es muss ja nicht Dumas Sachbuchbestseller von Anno 1840 sein, aber gerade in Sachen florentinische Fehler und Borgia-Beutezüge, die sich mit Macchiavellis Leben kreuzen, war mir der Auftakt zur Reihe Berühmte Verbrechen eine große Hilfe.
Die Schwächen des Modells, das Macchiavelli für die aktuell beste Besetzung seines Profils hielt, kommen bei Dumas auf keinen Fall zu kurz, auch nicht die geliehenen Machtpositionen, die Aufstieg und raschen Niedergang dieses Phänomens begünstigten.
Persönliche Befangenheitserklärung
Ich war sicherlich nicht der Erste, bei dem der irgendwie skandalisierte Fürst weit unter dem Erwartungshorizont geblieben ist. Es brauchte daher drei Anläufe, um das dünne Heftchen zu bewältigen. Der Hinweis, dass es sich um ein Nebenwerk handelte, die eigentlichen Macchiavelismen aber im Hauptstück Discorsi zu finden seien, ließ mich einen Schritt weiter gehen und diese Ausgabe anschaffen. Das großartige Vorwort erfüllte meine vorrangigen Erkenntnisbedürfnisse. Für eine sinnvolle Lektüre, fehlte mir, wie schon beim Principe, der Rahmen der Entstehungszeit, auch wenn die sehr instruktive Zeittafel nichts wissenswertes auslässt. Tatsächlich fühlte ich mich erst nach Dumas Borgias und dem Renaissancepanorama mit anschaulicher Darstellung der Konflikte, vertraut genug mit der Materie, um wirklich etwas mit den Discorsi anfangen zu können.
Wie kann Italien wieder so stark und einig werden wie das alte Rom, bzw. ein Stadtstaat wie Florenz ein solches Werk mit Aussicht in Erfolg in Gang bringen?
Vor diesem Hintergrund befragt M seinen Livius wie ein frommer Mensch die Bibel, das bedeutet, er glaubt buchstäblich sämtliche Schöpfungslegenden und Gründungsmythen, bevor er sie in seine politischen Maximen oder Handlungsanweisungen umwandelt, die z.T. überzeitlich gültig sind.
In diese kurzen Analysen streut er eben Parallelen aus der jüngeren Geschichte ein, auch den einen oder anderen Hinweis auf den Principe, den ich mir noch mal vornehmen werde. Wer eine Kritik eines absolut inhumanen Unterwerfungsregimes erwartet, wird hiermit nicht glücklich werden. Dafür wird die Genese vieler dieser berühmt-berüchtigten Maximen deutlicher.
Das frappierende daran ist: die alten Römer liegen schon ewig zurück, das Stadtstaaten-Italien auch schon gut 500 Jahre. Trotzdem wirken viele Einsichten Macchiavellis immer noch aktuell, auch vor dem Hintergrund des hybriden Dritten Weltkriegs. Aber ähnliche Erfahrungen machen etliche Gläubige ja tagtäglich noch mit der Bibel.
Angesichts kurzer und kürzester Kapitel und einer schlüssigen Verweisstruktur auf andere Aspekte desselben Vorgangs kann man die Discorsi Häppchenweise genießen, aber sicher nicht am Stück verschlingen. Es ist eine lehrreiche Beikost in Sachen Antike, bzw. Renaissancewissen über die Welt der Alten, das sich auch nützliche Grundlage für das Verständnis von Wielands Aristipp erwiesen hat.
Denn Athen, Sparta, Syrakus und andere Institutionen kommen natürlich auch nicht zu kurz und oft sogar ziemlich schlecht weg, bis hin zur ziemlich planlosen Welteroberung von Alexander, die keinerlei Gesamtstrategie für den dauerhaften Erhalt des zusammen gerafften Reiches aufwies.
Viele Geschichten sprechen für sich oder sind nur allzu bekannte Legenden, aber selbst einem Altphilologen würde ich dazu raten, vorher eine nicht allzu abstrakte Darstellung über das Renaissance-Italien zu lesen. Es muss ja nicht Dumas Sachbuchbestseller von Anno 1840 sein, aber gerade in Sachen florentinische Fehler und Borgia-Beutezüge, die sich mit Macchiavellis Leben kreuzen, war mir der Auftakt zur Reihe Berühmte Verbrechen eine große Hilfe.
Die Schwächen des Modells, das Macchiavelli für die aktuell beste Besetzung seines Profils hielt, kommen bei Dumas auf keinen Fall zu kurz, auch nicht die geliehenen Machtpositionen, die Aufstieg und raschen Niedergang dieses Phänomens begünstigten.
November 7, 2024
يتحدث مكيافيلي في كتابه المطارحات عن تاريخ الجمهورية الرومانية، بقراءة المؤرخ الروماني تيتيوس ليفي، لكن با استنتاجاته الخاصة عن الحرب، والسياسة، وكيفية انشاء الدولة وضمان ديمومتها مع استعراض التاريخ الروماني واحداثه. وكما يرأها مكيافيلي فهي اعظم امبراطورية وضعت في ميزان البشر. لو قلت ان الكتاب يتحدث في السياسة بغالبه وعن الحروب والحصون، سأكون وضعت جزء قليلًا منه تحت النظر، لكن اعظم فائدة في نظري علمني إياها هذا الكتاب هي الخبرات التي تحصدها من أعاظم الرجال وكيفية عملهم للأمور، واتخاذهم للقرارات. من الفوائد الأخرى دراسة التاريخ الروماني وما قبل الروماني، بمعنى العالم القديم، مقدونيا واثينا واسبارطة وفارس، واستعراض قصصهم، ومافيها من فائدة ودروس عظيمة. يضعك الكتاب في وضعيات حقيقة للمشكلة ومع استعراض المؤلف يجعلك تفكر معه، وكأنك تخاطبه وتحاول إيجاد الحل.ما فهمته وعرفته عن وجه حق ان من يقرأ التاريخ يمكنه ان يتنبئ بالحاضر. قضيت في قراءة الكتاب اكثر من سنتين، تارة استثقله وتارة اقرأ كتاب اخر، حتى عزمت وانهيته، لكن ياله من كتاب رائع، لو كأن بأمكاني لوضعته في قائمة عشر كتب يجب ان تقرأها في حياتك. يجب ان أشير ان كتاب الأمير لا يتعدى 1% من ما هو موجود بالمطارحات، بل اظنه هو التكملة والخاتمة الأعظم لما كتبه مكيافيلي بالسياسة.
January 17, 2022
چطور ممکنه کسی حدود ۵۰۰ سال پیش آنقدر صادقانه نوشته باشه؟ بااینکه با همۀ حرفاش قطعاً موافق نیستم، همین که بدون تلاش برای زینت بخشیدن به باورهایی که در تصور عموم جلوۀ چندان خوشایندی ندارن، صادقانه حرف میزنه خیلی بهدلم مینشینه. انگار به هیچ وجه خودش را سانسور نمیکنه تا به مذاق کسی خوش بیاد. علاوهبراین، اینکه دین و اخلاقیات رو از سیاست جدا میدونسته واقعاً سزاوار ستایشه. در نهایت دلیل مهمی که ماکیاولی رو همچنان برای من خوندنی میکنه اینه که با اینکه داره دربارۀ سیاست و کشورداری حرف میزنه، نکاتی که میگه در روابط انسانی هم تا حد زیادی صادق هستند و این متنش رو چند لایه و عمیقتر از پیش میکنه.
February 9, 2011
While Niccolo Machiavelli is famous for his "evil" book, the Prince, I believe this is his real masterpiece. In this book, he tries to identify what can be called the "macro" foundations of a well working republic, and his source material is the historical comparison of the Roman Empire (from the books of Titus Livius) and contemporary cities and republics. The language of the book is very compelling, and it is usually hard to argue with anything in the book.
I suggest this book to anyone interested in politics or political sciences, since there are not many books like this one. Also, it is a good exercise to compare this book with The Prince.
I suggest this book to anyone interested in politics or political sciences, since there are not many books like this one. Also, it is a good exercise to compare this book with The Prince.
May 17, 2015
هذا الكتاب هو أهم كتب مكيافلي وإن لم يكن اشهرها، ففيه زبدة تجاربه وخلاصة فهمه واشتغاله بالتاريخ متبعا في ذلك ابن خلدون حذو النعل بالنعل في منهجيته وأسلوبه وبعض الملاحظات التي تتطابق معه تطابقا غريبا,
سوى أنه في بحثه هنا رامق تاريخ روما بعين حديدة وأنظار فريدة لم يسبق إليها، ومعه إيمان خفي في أصله وثني بالنظر إلى الحظ وتقلباته ..
وخلاصة الكتاب طرح ممتاز للكيفية التي بها تبقى الدولة عمرا طويلا سالمة من الهرم .. وهو ما بحثه ابن لخدون قبله وإن لم يدخل في تفصبالاته مدخل مكيافلي
فكأنه هنا يرى التاريخ لعبة أو أحجية يستمتع بفك ألغازها ومعرفة قوانينها.
كتاب مهم ..
اما خيري حماد فخير من ترجم لمكيافلي ..
سوى أنه في بحثه هنا رامق تاريخ روما بعين حديدة وأنظار فريدة لم يسبق إليها، ومعه إيمان خفي في أصله وثني بالنظر إلى الحظ وتقلباته ..
وخلاصة الكتاب طرح ممتاز للكيفية التي بها تبقى الدولة عمرا طويلا سالمة من الهرم .. وهو ما بحثه ابن لخدون قبله وإن لم يدخل في تفصبالاته مدخل مكيافلي
فكأنه هنا يرى التاريخ لعبة أو أحجية يستمتع بفك ألغازها ومعرفة قوانينها.
كتاب مهم ..
اما خيري حماد فخير من ترجم لمكيافلي ..
December 11, 2023
The Niccolò Machiavelli of The Prince is only a fraction of the thinker who appears in the pages of Discourses. The advice Machiavelli gives to princes shows only a third or less of the full range in The Discourses, for in that latter book he also discusses republics (his preferred form of government) and kingdoms. For most of his examples, he relies on the first ten books of Titus Livy's history of Rome. Many of the examples are set in the author's present day, around 1500 CE.
Machiavelli was a loyal member of the Florentine republic who had some sharp words about his fellow countrymen:
Machiavelli was a loyal member of the Florentine republic who had some sharp words about his fellow countrymen:
The third type of army is one in which there exists neither a natural ardour, nor yet discipline to supplement it; as is the case with Italian armies in our day, which are quite useless and never win unless they come across an army which happens for some reason to run away. There is no need to cite further instances, since every day they afford evidence of how utterly lacking they are in valour.Reading this book is like sitting down with one of the great thinkers of the Renaissance and picking his brain on the subjects of governance and warfare—with the result that The Discourses is actually fun to read.
February 13, 2016
إن من يقرأ مطارحات مكيافيللى لا يسعه أن يتخيل أن هناك حاكماً واحداً من حكام هذه الأيام لم يقرأ لمكيافيللى أو لم يطبق فى حكمه ولو قدر ليس بالضئيل من أرائه السياسية .
وإنا لنشعر بأن الفلسفة السياسية المكيافيللية هى بمثابة الرحم الذى خرجت منه الفلسفة السياسية الحديثة المعاصرة رغم كل ما طرأ عليها من تطور .
وبنية كتاب المطارحات متعددة الجوانب ولا يسعنا أن نشمل جميع أبعاد الكتاب بالحديث إلا أنه يجب الإشارة إلى أن مكيافيللى قد إتخذ من الكتب العشرة الأولى لتيتوس ليفيوس المؤرخ الرومانى بعض المواضيع المستمدة من تاريخ الإمبراطورية والجمهورية الرومانية القديمة كشاهد إثبات على صحة أرائه .
يعرض مكيافيللى بعض القضايا كموضوع للنقاش ثم يشرح ما يعتقده من أراء يجب إتباعها فى بعض المواقف أو الأزمات السياسية وما يصلح من طرق لبعض المواقف دون الأخرى أو ما يصلح وما لا يصلح فى كل زمان أو تبعا للظروف الراهنة .
ثم يمضى ليتخذ من الحوادث التاريخية الرومانية شواهد على صحة أرائه إلا أننا نجده يعقد مقارنة ضخمة فى الكتاب بين أساليب الرومان القدماء فى معالجة القضاية ونظائرها عند الفلورنسيين المحدثين من أبناء مدينته . فنجده يسرد الحوادث التاريخية الرومانية مادحا النواحى التى إتخذتها هذه المدينة فى حل مشاكلها والحفاظ على وحدتها وزيادة عظمتها ومغتبطاً بالنتائج التى أسفرت عنها
وفى المقابل نجده يذم الأساليب الإيطالية الحديثة لما فيها من ضعف وفشل وما لها من أسوأ النتائج فى دعم إنقسام المدن الإيطالية وخضوعها للأجانب كالفرنسيين والإسبان على الدوام .
وهو يبدأ كتابه بتأسيس المدينة على أسس من الحرية ويمضى إلى ما تتطلبه الحروب اللازمة للحفاظ على هذه الحرية ماراً بوضع القوانين وما يصلح منها للحفاظ على حرية الدولة ووحدتها . ذلك أن حرية الدولة ووحدتها هما المحوران الرئيسيان اللذان تدور حولهما كامل فلسفة مكيافيللى السياسية
ودائماً ما يطرح مكيافيللى جانباً ما ينبغى على الإنسان فعله ويهتم فقط بما يفعله الإنسان بحق وعلى الدوام . فهو يهتم فقط بالنواحى والأساليب العملية ولا يبالى بكل المثاليات التى غالبا ما تتعارض مع الواقع ولا تؤدى إلا للفشل وإستغلال الآخرين لك .
وإذا ما أردنا كعادتنا البشرية أن نصدر حكماً على فلسفة مكيافيللى العملية وإذا أردنا أن ننشد فى حكمنا جانب العدل دون التطرف فعلينا الأخذ فى الإعتبار بروح القومية التى نمت فى عصر النهض وبلغت أوجها وةد تشربت فى مكيافيللى ثم تجسدت فى كتاباته وهى روح معذبة لأنها تتوق لما لا تجده وهى تسعى لوحدة دولتها الإيطالية وإستعادة عظمتها السابقة فى ظل فساد مستشرى من الملحدين إلى أعلى رجال الدين ومن العوام إلى الملوك والأمراء .
ورغم كل ما قيل وكتب من أراء محايدة أو متطرفة فى التأييد أو المعارضة لكتابات مكيافيللى فستظل كتاباته هو من أمهات الكتب فى الفلسفة السياسية الحديثة .
وإنا لنشعر بأن الفلسفة السياسية المكيافيللية هى بمثابة الرحم الذى خرجت منه الفلسفة السياسية الحديثة المعاصرة رغم كل ما طرأ عليها من تطور .
وبنية كتاب المطارحات متعددة الجوانب ولا يسعنا أن نشمل جميع أبعاد الكتاب بالحديث إلا أنه يجب الإشارة إلى أن مكيافيللى قد إتخذ من الكتب العشرة الأولى لتيتوس ليفيوس المؤرخ الرومانى بعض المواضيع المستمدة من تاريخ الإمبراطورية والجمهورية الرومانية القديمة كشاهد إثبات على صحة أرائه .
يعرض مكيافيللى بعض القضايا كموضوع للنقاش ثم يشرح ما يعتقده من أراء يجب إتباعها فى بعض المواقف أو الأزمات السياسية وما يصلح من طرق لبعض المواقف دون الأخرى أو ما يصلح وما لا يصلح فى كل زمان أو تبعا للظروف الراهنة .
ثم يمضى ليتخذ من الحوادث التاريخية الرومانية شواهد على صحة أرائه إلا أننا نجده يعقد مقارنة ضخمة فى الكتاب بين أساليب الرومان القدماء فى معالجة القضاية ونظائرها عند الفلورنسيين المحدثين من أبناء مدينته . فنجده يسرد الحوادث التاريخية الرومانية مادحا النواحى التى إتخذتها هذه المدينة فى حل مشاكلها والحفاظ على وحدتها وزيادة عظمتها ومغتبطاً بالنتائج التى أسفرت عنها
وفى المقابل نجده يذم الأساليب الإيطالية الحديثة لما فيها من ضعف وفشل وما لها من أسوأ النتائج فى دعم إنقسام المدن الإيطالية وخضوعها للأجانب كالفرنسيين والإسبان على الدوام .
وهو يبدأ كتابه بتأسيس المدينة على أسس من الحرية ويمضى إلى ما تتطلبه الحروب اللازمة للحفاظ على هذه الحرية ماراً بوضع القوانين وما يصلح منها للحفاظ على حرية الدولة ووحدتها . ذلك أن حرية الدولة ووحدتها هما المحوران الرئيسيان اللذان تدور حولهما كامل فلسفة مكيافيللى السياسية
ودائماً ما يطرح مكيافيللى جانباً ما ينبغى على الإنسان فعله ويهتم فقط بما يفعله الإنسان بحق وعلى الدوام . فهو يهتم فقط بالنواحى والأساليب العملية ولا يبالى بكل المثاليات التى غالبا ما تتعارض مع الواقع ولا تؤدى إلا للفشل وإستغلال الآخرين لك .
وإذا ما أردنا كعادتنا البشرية أن نصدر حكماً على فلسفة مكيافيللى العملية وإذا أردنا أن ننشد فى حكمنا جانب العدل دون التطرف فعلينا الأخذ فى الإعتبار بروح القومية التى نمت فى عصر النهض وبلغت أوجها وةد تشربت فى مكيافيللى ثم تجسدت فى كتاباته وهى روح معذبة لأنها تتوق لما لا تجده وهى تسعى لوحدة دولتها الإيطالية وإستعادة عظمتها السابقة فى ظل فساد مستشرى من الملحدين إلى أعلى رجال الدين ومن العوام إلى الملوك والأمراء .
ورغم كل ما قيل وكتب من أراء محايدة أو متطرفة فى التأييد أو المعارضة لكتابات مكيافيللى فستظل كتاباته هو من أمهات الكتب فى الفلسفة السياسية الحديثة .
September 3, 2016
The Discourses by Niccolo Machiavelli is the famous political schemers treatise on Republican government compared to principality (or dictatorship). He is, of course, famous for his work "The Prince" which is classic bedtime reading for any want-to-be dictator or authoritarian ruler. The Discourses, however, take his political theories into new depths, examining the playoffs between populism, voting, citizenship, warfare and the conduct of state officials, to name a few. All of these categories are examined with examples from Titus Livy's The History of Rome, as well as modern (in Machiavelli's time) historical examples centered mostly in Italy and especially around Florence, at the time an independent City State.
Machiavelli's analysis on when it is right to create a Republic, when it is not, and all the nuts and bolts that go with that decision is fascinating. He takes into account the social, political, cultural and religious realities of areas to try and make sense of why certain decisions are made or were made in antiquity and in his own time. The examination of these aspects of inner workings of a Republic are fascinating and relevant in many ways even to modern times. As a classic however, be aware that much in this book may be antiquated or irrelevant, and some of course flat out off the mark. His look at artillery and battlefield tactics seems off, as he decries the need for battle width and plays up the classic Roman Army division tactics.
The one actual complaint I have about this book in particular is the organization. Issues that one would think should be logically placed in the same section are separated. Sections completely unrelated to the previous ones follow each other. This book seems a bit rambling, and whether it is this particular publication, or that Machiavelli had not organized the sections before he passed, or what have you, it can be a bit jarring.
That aside, the Discourses is an interesting look at 16th century political thought, as well as a critical analysis of the ups and downs of Roman History. It makes for interesting reading, and is recommended for those interested in political theory, Roman History or autocratic/Republican thought.
Machiavelli's analysis on when it is right to create a Republic, when it is not, and all the nuts and bolts that go with that decision is fascinating. He takes into account the social, political, cultural and religious realities of areas to try and make sense of why certain decisions are made or were made in antiquity and in his own time. The examination of these aspects of inner workings of a Republic are fascinating and relevant in many ways even to modern times. As a classic however, be aware that much in this book may be antiquated or irrelevant, and some of course flat out off the mark. His look at artillery and battlefield tactics seems off, as he decries the need for battle width and plays up the classic Roman Army division tactics.
The one actual complaint I have about this book in particular is the organization. Issues that one would think should be logically placed in the same section are separated. Sections completely unrelated to the previous ones follow each other. This book seems a bit rambling, and whether it is this particular publication, or that Machiavelli had not organized the sections before he passed, or what have you, it can be a bit jarring.
That aside, the Discourses is an interesting look at 16th century political thought, as well as a critical analysis of the ups and downs of Roman History. It makes for interesting reading, and is recommended for those interested in political theory, Roman History or autocratic/Republican thought.
December 28, 2012
I read this along with "The Prince" and (as can be deemed by my review of that work), it was certainly very interesting comparing Machiavelli's views in the two works. In "The Prince" (about contemporary political ills, and addressed to Lorenzo De' Medici) there is a strong authoritarian sentiment expressed, while in "The Discourses" (largely about Ancient Rome), there are strong republican sentiments -- trust of the will of the people and of freedom and liberty. While it could be said that Machiavelli was writing about two different periods (the then and the now), which entailed different circumstances, and while it could be argued that his views in "The Prince" were only drastic and temporary solutions, it is also interesting to look at contradictions in his views expressed in these two works (much as one could do much later with the writings of Hegel, for example). It is, for obvious reasons, easier to agree with the overall thesis of this work than "The Prince," but both are certainly worthwhile reads (and filled with historical references that make notes very handy).
June 19, 2022
A repetition of and also a complement on Machiavelli's thinking in Il Principe, but more mature and elaborate. By its nature rather fragmented thoughts, but essential to know the thinking of M.
December 1, 2021
Insgesamt ist Discorsi wohl ok. Man könnte sie als die langweiligen Schwestern des fürstlichen Bruders beschreiben, die den Inhalt dieses auf 400 statt 150 Seiten wiedergeben. Wenn man den Fürsten gelesen hat kann man auf Discorsi getrost verzichten.
December 27, 2022
Çevirisi çok zor bir bir iş, farkındayım. Ama gerçekten baya kötü bölümleri var. Bir çok yerde İngilizcesine başvurmadan anlaşılamıyor. Çeviri hatası zannettiğim bir iki yerde de, aslında problemin Türkçenin yanlış kullanımı olduğunu farkettim. İlla Türkçesinden okuyacaksanız İngilizcesiyle karşılaştırarak okuyun. Benim karşılaştırdığım edisyonda arkaik kelimeler ve anlamlandırmalar çoktu, zor oldu.
Kitabın kendisi ise olağanüstü. Savaş metodu hakkında yazdıkları şüpheli. Top, kaleler vs. Ama yönetimi inceleme metodu bugün bile çığır açıcı. İnanılmaz berrak. Belki de vasatı kabullendiğimiz içindir. Livius'a şöyle bir göz atmadan, ya da onun hakkında biraz ayrıntılı bilgi sahibi olmadan okumak çok zor olabilir. Virtue'nun farklı kelimelerle karşılanması ama orjinal metindeki durumu devamlı hatırlatılması çok güzel olmuş. Machiavelli'deki kavramın ne kadar kapsamlı olduğunu iyi vermiş. Günümüzdeki her sorunu içermiyor doğal olarak. Ama Cumhuriyet'in ve yoksulların tarafında olmanın yönetişimsellikten gelen argümanlarının o zamanlardan bile olduğunu görmek insanı neşelendiriyor. Hem de Roma ve kısmen o zamanlarki Avrupa analiziyle. Yönetim ve demokrasi sorunları için -şirket yönetimine bile uyarlanabilir bu anlatılanlar- baya argüman var.
Kendime not: Yoğun okumamsı bir metod tutturduğum için uzun sürdü. Referanslar ve yorumlar kitabın üstünde.
Kitabın kendisi ise olağanüstü. Savaş metodu hakkında yazdıkları şüpheli. Top, kaleler vs. Ama yönetimi inceleme metodu bugün bile çığır açıcı. İnanılmaz berrak. Belki de vasatı kabullendiğimiz içindir. Livius'a şöyle bir göz atmadan, ya da onun hakkında biraz ayrıntılı bilgi sahibi olmadan okumak çok zor olabilir. Virtue'nun farklı kelimelerle karşılanması ama orjinal metindeki durumu devamlı hatırlatılması çok güzel olmuş. Machiavelli'deki kavramın ne kadar kapsamlı olduğunu iyi vermiş. Günümüzdeki her sorunu içermiyor doğal olarak. Ama Cumhuriyet'in ve yoksulların tarafında olmanın yönetişimsellikten gelen argümanlarının o zamanlardan bile olduğunu görmek insanı neşelendiriyor. Hem de Roma ve kısmen o zamanlarki Avrupa analiziyle. Yönetim ve demokrasi sorunları için -şirket yönetimine bile uyarlanabilir bu anlatılanlar- baya argüman var.
Kendime not: Yoğun okumamsı bir metod tutturduğum için uzun sürdü. Referanslar ve yorumlar kitabın üstünde.
January 25, 2019
Machiavelli's genius is as follows: The core idea is that human nature is unchanging over time. People may think history cannot be learned from but history comprises of the actions of people and people act by their passions and passions are invariant. Greatness is possible. It can only be through freedom. The prerequisite to freedom is to be truly independent - i.e. not dependent on the will of others. Greatness can only be achieved if men are driven towards a common good. But men are not naturally inclined to be good; they are malign and wicked, and act out of their own self-interest. So they must be compelled to it through brute force, laws and religion. This is the escape from servitude to others thus achieving freedom thus achieving greatness. Paradoxical and inconsistent? Well, the end justifies the means.
January 8, 2022
This was a great read.
I liked it a lot. It was a pretty big read, but worthwhile.
Not as good as Epictetus, but a good philosophy and political read.
Would recommend!
3.8/5
I liked it a lot. It was a pretty big read, but worthwhile.
Not as good as Epictetus, but a good philosophy and political read.
Would recommend!
3.8/5
January 26, 2020
Niccolo Machiavelli doesn't deserve his maligned reputation. I can say that after reading The Prince and now Discourses on Livy, a book he refers to in the introduction of The Prince. I can only assume his detractors were too lazy or deceptive to bother reading Discourses, for it shows that Machiavelli's heart really did belong to republics and not tyrants.
Around twice the size of The Prince, it is written in a similar fashion where each chapter focuses on a very specific question. Chapters can range from half a page to several pages, and they cover a lot of ground. In Discourses, the content is spread over 3 books of around 30 to 50 chapters each (all collected in one volume). It comes in at roughly 500 pages and is very densely packed with information. Call Machiavelli what you want, but poorly-read or a lazy researcher are not among them.
Discourses mulls the questions of what makes good republics tick, with some reference to principalities as well (The Prince is primarily about running principalities). Today, we can roughly divide them as democracies and dictatorships, though it's important to remember that 500 years ago those concepts weren't as refined as they are today. A republic in the 1500s was not exactly the cradle of human suffrage and equal representation that today's liberal democracies are. Nor was every principality quite as vile and extreme as modern dictatorships.
That being said, Discourses is a very modern work. Its author sat closer to our time than the ancient civilisations he studied for this book. The main body focuses on Titus "Livy" Livius' history of the Roman Republic, but Machiavelli also cites other sources including Plutarch and Xenophon. At the same time, he draws contemporary examples from his own time (a bit of a bonus if you have an interest in the Renaissance period).
Machiavelli looks methodically at different situations that arise when running a city state, which in today's age can apply to countries. While some of the advice is no longer applicable due to its age or the modern condition (for example, his context for a military sometimes doesn't apply to modern democracies), an astounding amount of this work still stands and rings very true. Other than being a great researcher, Machiavelli was also a shrew observer of human habits.
His reflections on what the Roman republic, and other ancients, did right and wrong, are applicable to modern life. He even points out the need for a free media, though he called it the necessity for being able to publicly criticise people in power or of reputation.
This was a magnificent read. Machiavelli is thorough, citing different examples from history. His views also give perspective.
Today we wrestle with the problem of rationalism vs spirituality and how to derive meaning without losing our objectivity. Machiavelli saw a similar problem in his world, except he felt religion's focus on the afterlife had robbed humanity of the pursuit of honour, which translated into acting for today, not a distant paradise. There is so much more - I'm very glad I made many notations that I can revisit.
If you've read The Prince, but not Discourses on Livy, you only have a third of the picture. If you've read neither, I completely recommend both. Machiavelli nails practical politics, social science and the irrational rationality of people.
Note: Read an edition that offers explanatory notes in the back. Some references will be obscure or seem curious without a little modern explanation.
Around twice the size of The Prince, it is written in a similar fashion where each chapter focuses on a very specific question. Chapters can range from half a page to several pages, and they cover a lot of ground. In Discourses, the content is spread over 3 books of around 30 to 50 chapters each (all collected in one volume). It comes in at roughly 500 pages and is very densely packed with information. Call Machiavelli what you want, but poorly-read or a lazy researcher are not among them.
Discourses mulls the questions of what makes good republics tick, with some reference to principalities as well (The Prince is primarily about running principalities). Today, we can roughly divide them as democracies and dictatorships, though it's important to remember that 500 years ago those concepts weren't as refined as they are today. A republic in the 1500s was not exactly the cradle of human suffrage and equal representation that today's liberal democracies are. Nor was every principality quite as vile and extreme as modern dictatorships.
That being said, Discourses is a very modern work. Its author sat closer to our time than the ancient civilisations he studied for this book. The main body focuses on Titus "Livy" Livius' history of the Roman Republic, but Machiavelli also cites other sources including Plutarch and Xenophon. At the same time, he draws contemporary examples from his own time (a bit of a bonus if you have an interest in the Renaissance period).
Machiavelli looks methodically at different situations that arise when running a city state, which in today's age can apply to countries. While some of the advice is no longer applicable due to its age or the modern condition (for example, his context for a military sometimes doesn't apply to modern democracies), an astounding amount of this work still stands and rings very true. Other than being a great researcher, Machiavelli was also a shrew observer of human habits.
His reflections on what the Roman republic, and other ancients, did right and wrong, are applicable to modern life. He even points out the need for a free media, though he called it the necessity for being able to publicly criticise people in power or of reputation.
This was a magnificent read. Machiavelli is thorough, citing different examples from history. His views also give perspective.
Today we wrestle with the problem of rationalism vs spirituality and how to derive meaning without losing our objectivity. Machiavelli saw a similar problem in his world, except he felt religion's focus on the afterlife had robbed humanity of the pursuit of honour, which translated into acting for today, not a distant paradise. There is so much more - I'm very glad I made many notations that I can revisit.
If you've read The Prince, but not Discourses on Livy, you only have a third of the picture. If you've read neither, I completely recommend both. Machiavelli nails practical politics, social science and the irrational rationality of people.
Note: Read an edition that offers explanatory notes in the back. Some references will be obscure or seem curious without a little modern explanation.
Read
October 2, 2021He tenido el libro de Maquiavelo en mi mesita de noche para leer algunos pasajes de vez en cuanto. La idea siempre ha sido leer el libro a cuenta gotas y nunca de golpe.
Es curioso la manera de pensar y escribir de hace 500 años y como las ideas han ido evolucionando desde entonces. Hay cosas anticuadas, otras modernas y todas interesantes. Maquivaleo declara su pensamiento político apoyando sus argumentos con pasajes de la historia de Roma y la "reciente" de Florencia.
Como politólogo de formación es un gozo leer este tipo de libros. Volverá a mi mesita de noche.
Es curioso la manera de pensar y escribir de hace 500 años y como las ideas han ido evolucionando desde entonces. Hay cosas anticuadas, otras modernas y todas interesantes. Maquivaleo declara su pensamiento político apoyando sus argumentos con pasajes de la historia de Roma y la "reciente" de Florencia.
Como politólogo de formación es un gozo leer este tipo de libros. Volverá a mi mesita de noche.
November 27, 2022
The Discourses is Machiavelli's longest and most detailed work of political philosophy. It's a very complex book, but even a superficial reading will reveal a great deal. The Prince is a short "how to" for dictators; this is a much broader and deeper work. Broader, in that it covers republics, history, military affairs, political theory. Deeper, in that here Machiavelli lays out a whole philosophy of history and gives moral analysis absent from the Prince.
This is Harvey Mansfield's translation, with a lengthy preface, pointing out a number of interesting aspects, and points in the book deserving attention.
Notes from re-reading, in 2022:
- There's quite a lot of technical material about military affairs, tactics, etc. Machiavelli was the organizer of the Florentine militia and secretary to the war board; I would be surprised if there were more than a few dozen contemporaries better-qualified to discuss the topic.
- Machiavelli had held high posts in the Florentine government between the fall of Savonarola and the return of the Medici. One of the strands in the book is his efforts to explain why he did what he did - why a militia? why alliance with France vs Spain? Why conciliate Caesare Borgia?
- I don't understand how anybody could think of him as a good republican or good Christian. He makes basically no reference to God, heaven or hell. He does not care. When he talks about providence, it's as "fortuna" in strikingly pagan terms. He treats Christianity as one religion among many. He explains that sometimes to achieve great ends you have to murder your family.
He has a preference for republican government but it's for strikingly amoral reasons. He explains that republics have various advantages (e.g. being able to change their rulers to suit conditions). But he's as willing to give advice on overthrowing a republic to establish a tyranny as the other way around. And he believes there are times when a tyranny might be the more viable option.
- Parts of the argument are strikingly reminiscent of ibn Khaldun. Machiavelli believes there is a cycle of growth, decadence, decay, conquest that communities cycle through. (This is a wildly un-christian thought, by the way: it denies a providential plan and implicitly assumes an eternal world).
This is Harvey Mansfield's translation, with a lengthy preface, pointing out a number of interesting aspects, and points in the book deserving attention.
Notes from re-reading, in 2022:
- There's quite a lot of technical material about military affairs, tactics, etc. Machiavelli was the organizer of the Florentine militia and secretary to the war board; I would be surprised if there were more than a few dozen contemporaries better-qualified to discuss the topic.
- Machiavelli had held high posts in the Florentine government between the fall of Savonarola and the return of the Medici. One of the strands in the book is his efforts to explain why he did what he did - why a militia? why alliance with France vs Spain? Why conciliate Caesare Borgia?
- I don't understand how anybody could think of him as a good republican or good Christian. He makes basically no reference to God, heaven or hell. He does not care. When he talks about providence, it's as "fortuna" in strikingly pagan terms. He treats Christianity as one religion among many. He explains that sometimes to achieve great ends you have to murder your family.
He has a preference for republican government but it's for strikingly amoral reasons. He explains that republics have various advantages (e.g. being able to change their rulers to suit conditions). But he's as willing to give advice on overthrowing a republic to establish a tyranny as the other way around. And he believes there are times when a tyranny might be the more viable option.
- Parts of the argument are strikingly reminiscent of ibn Khaldun. Machiavelli believes there is a cycle of growth, decadence, decay, conquest that communities cycle through. (This is a wildly un-christian thought, by the way: it denies a providential plan and implicitly assumes an eternal world).
July 9, 2019
Principality, Aristocracy, democracy... These "good" ways of government can easily turn into their relevant "bad" ways, tranny, oligarchy, anarchy. Machiavelli states this quite early in the book and in a very clear fashion, and builds up from there his 500+ pages of discourses. Though the book is different from the Prince that its focus is rather republic than principality (and that it's significantly longer), his overall writing style of an instruction manual and his extremely rational approach is the same. Overall a very insightful book, even if at times you wonder about the value of some specific discourses (after all 500 years have passed since then and you're likely not interested in whether you should use cavalry in your army or not.) Certainly a 4.5 star at least...
August 12, 2021
Review to follow
October 21, 2024
el pana le sabía pero igualito me van a cogEr en el examen
March 15, 2022
Like The Prince, the Discourses on Livy admits of various interpretations. One view, elaborated separately in works by the political theorists J.G.A. Pocock and Quentin Skinner in the 1970s, stresses the work’s republicanism and locates Machiavelli in a republican tradition that starts with Aristotle (384–322 bc) and continues through the organization of the medieval city-states, the renewal of classical political philosophy in Renaissance humanism, and the establishment of the contemporary American republic. This interpretation focuses on Machiavelli’s various pro-republican remarks, such as his statement that the multitude is wiser and more constant than a prince and his emphasis in the Discourses on Livy on the republican virtue of self-sacrifice as a way of combating corruption. Yet Machiavelli’s republicanism does not rest on the usual republican premise that power is safer in the hands of many than it is in the hands of one. To the contrary, he asserts that, to found or reform a republic, it is necessary to “be alone.” Any ordering must depend on a single mind; thus, Romulus “deserves excuse” for killing Remus, his brother and partner in the founding of Rome, because it was for the common good. This statement is as close as Machiavelli ever came to saying “the end justifies the means,” a phrase closely associated with interpretations of The Prince.
Republics need the kind of leaders that Machiavelli describes in The Prince. These “princes in a republic” cannot govern in accordance with justice, because those who get what they deserve from them do not feel any obligation. Nor do those who are left alone feel grateful. Thus, a prince in a republic will have no “partisan friends” unless he learns “to kill the sons of Brutus,” using violence to make examples of enemies of the republic and, not incidentally, of himself. To reform a corrupt state presupposes a good man, but to become a prince presupposes a bad man. Good men, Machiavelli claims, will almost never get power, and bad men will almost never use power for a good end. Yet, since republics become corrupt when the people lose the fear that compels them to obey, the people must be led back to their original virtue by sensational executions reminding them of punishment and reviving their fear. The apparent solution to the problem is to let bad men gain glory through actions that have a good outcome, if not a good motive.
In the Discourses on Livy, Machiavelli favours the deeds of the ancients above their philosophy; he reproaches his contemporaries for consulting ancient jurists for political wisdom rather than looking to the actual history of Rome. He argues that the factional tumults of the Roman republic, which were condemned by many ancient writers, actually made Rome free and great. Moreover, although Machiavelli was a product of the Renaissance—and is often portrayed as its leading exponent (e.g., by 19th-century Swiss historian Jacob Burckhardt)—he also criticized it, particularly for the humanism it derived from Plato, Aristotle, and the Roman orator Cicero (106–43 bc). He called for “new modes and orders” and compared himself to the explorers of unknown lands in his time. His emphasis on the effectual truth led him to seek the hidden springs of politics in fraud and conspiracy, examples of which he discussed with apparent relish. It is notable that, in both The Prince and the Discourses on Livy, the longest chapters are on conspiracy.
Throughout his two chief works, Machiavelli sees politics as defined by the difference between the ancients and the moderns: the ancients are strong, the moderns weak. The moderns are weak because they have been formed by Christianity, and, in three places in the Discourses on Livy, Machiavelli boldly and impudently criticizes the Roman Catholic church and Christianity itself. For Machiavelli the church is the cause of Italy’s disunity; the clergy is dishonest and leads people to believe “that it is evil to say evil of evil”; and Christianity glorifies suffering and makes the world effeminate. But Machiavelli leaves it unclear whether he prefers atheism, paganism, or a reformed Christianity.
Republics need the kind of leaders that Machiavelli describes in The Prince. These “princes in a republic” cannot govern in accordance with justice, because those who get what they deserve from them do not feel any obligation. Nor do those who are left alone feel grateful. Thus, a prince in a republic will have no “partisan friends” unless he learns “to kill the sons of Brutus,” using violence to make examples of enemies of the republic and, not incidentally, of himself. To reform a corrupt state presupposes a good man, but to become a prince presupposes a bad man. Good men, Machiavelli claims, will almost never get power, and bad men will almost never use power for a good end. Yet, since republics become corrupt when the people lose the fear that compels them to obey, the people must be led back to their original virtue by sensational executions reminding them of punishment and reviving their fear. The apparent solution to the problem is to let bad men gain glory through actions that have a good outcome, if not a good motive.
In the Discourses on Livy, Machiavelli favours the deeds of the ancients above their philosophy; he reproaches his contemporaries for consulting ancient jurists for political wisdom rather than looking to the actual history of Rome. He argues that the factional tumults of the Roman republic, which were condemned by many ancient writers, actually made Rome free and great. Moreover, although Machiavelli was a product of the Renaissance—and is often portrayed as its leading exponent (e.g., by 19th-century Swiss historian Jacob Burckhardt)—he also criticized it, particularly for the humanism it derived from Plato, Aristotle, and the Roman orator Cicero (106–43 bc). He called for “new modes and orders” and compared himself to the explorers of unknown lands in his time. His emphasis on the effectual truth led him to seek the hidden springs of politics in fraud and conspiracy, examples of which he discussed with apparent relish. It is notable that, in both The Prince and the Discourses on Livy, the longest chapters are on conspiracy.
Throughout his two chief works, Machiavelli sees politics as defined by the difference between the ancients and the moderns: the ancients are strong, the moderns weak. The moderns are weak because they have been formed by Christianity, and, in three places in the Discourses on Livy, Machiavelli boldly and impudently criticizes the Roman Catholic church and Christianity itself. For Machiavelli the church is the cause of Italy’s disunity; the clergy is dishonest and leads people to believe “that it is evil to say evil of evil”; and Christianity glorifies suffering and makes the world effeminate. But Machiavelli leaves it unclear whether he prefers atheism, paganism, or a reformed Christianity.
January 9, 2016
I loved the book. Very informative concerning history of Rome and on understanding how politics goes even to this day; "History repeats itself" thingy. Machiavelli is a political scientist not a philosopher, kindly check my review on The Prince. That is a good thing actually, the reasoning and conclusions of this book are empirical and practical. He mentions examples from Rome and from his own time too, I can't resist but to also mention to myself examples from our own time. Machiavelli understood his time better by reading Livy, we too can understand our time better by either reading Livy or Machiavelli.
-----
Inherited Kingdoms are bad because the new king is not necessarily a good one. If a king was elected by a consul then it was possible that the kingdom to thrive for centuries. (Saudi Arabia is somehow following this).
Best system is of three independent parts of government (Autocratic, Aristocratic, Democratic) that are competing with each other (checks and balances). I find similarities with the modern system of 3 branches of government (Executive, Judicial, Legislative). Also with "healthy" 3-parties-system instead of Democratic-Republic system of USA for example.
A "prince" is different from "tyrant". The first might execute "end justifies means" but once the system is stable he must be good to his people. The second is bad and can exist in a (fake) democratic system, hence Husni Mubarak etc.
To assign a tyrant who will rule efficiently in case of emergency is a healthy measure, but with keeping the Parliament in standby to take back its authorities once the emergency state is lifted. What Romans did in time of peace was to assign the Consul of Ten while abolishing democratic parliament. What happens is that the Ten became tyrants and Rome was ruined.
-----
First book was very theoretical and I benefited from it on Political Science. Second and Third books where mainly historical and I did enjoy them though I couldn't comment on them since they are about History and theories. However, my understanding of his "fortune" changed. I thought it was just a having a low statistical chance but reading deeper, it seems a real thing just like being poor or rich, unlucky or lucky.
-----
Inherited Kingdoms are bad because the new king is not necessarily a good one. If a king was elected by a consul then it was possible that the kingdom to thrive for centuries. (Saudi Arabia is somehow following this).
Best system is of three independent parts of government (Autocratic, Aristocratic, Democratic) that are competing with each other (checks and balances). I find similarities with the modern system of 3 branches of government (Executive, Judicial, Legislative). Also with "healthy" 3-parties-system instead of Democratic-Republic system of USA for example.
A "prince" is different from "tyrant". The first might execute "end justifies means" but once the system is stable he must be good to his people. The second is bad and can exist in a (fake) democratic system, hence Husni Mubarak etc.
To assign a tyrant who will rule efficiently in case of emergency is a healthy measure, but with keeping the Parliament in standby to take back its authorities once the emergency state is lifted. What Romans did in time of peace was to assign the Consul of Ten while abolishing democratic parliament. What happens is that the Ten became tyrants and Rome was ruined.
-----
First book was very theoretical and I benefited from it on Political Science. Second and Third books where mainly historical and I did enjoy them though I couldn't comment on them since they are about History and theories. However, my understanding of his "fortune" changed. I thought it was just a having a low statistical chance but reading deeper, it seems a real thing just like being poor or rich, unlucky or lucky.
March 25, 2015
This book stands in stark contrast to Machiavelli's most famous work The Prince. On one hand The Prince is viewed as cynical and immoral while on the other The Discourses is considered to be full of prudence and wisdom. The book's overarching theme is to analyse events in history, particularly Roman, and then apply them as principles for governing. I read this book because I wanted to see how it would compare to Machiavelli's other works that I have read and also I had heard positive things about its content. This book is still applicable today because most of its principles pertain to republican political systems, such as the U.S.A., and have not been as much affected by the massive increase in technology since its composition. If you are interested in republics or enjoy Machiavelli's other works I would highly recommend The Discourses.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 290 reviews