Customer Reviews

Discourses on Livy

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

A careful translation, in modern English, of the Italian classic by Machiavelli. The translation strives for both accuracy and clarity, and the result is a modern English translation that never stoops to colloquial abstraction. The short introductory essay provides a helpful start for exploration of a complex work. The index of proper names, and the glossary (providing the translated Italian word beside the English) is thorough and very useful. In addition, the print quality of this book is delightful, particularly the visually appealing layout and typesetting, which makes the volume a pleasure to read, and a wonderful change from the paucity of visual design that goes into many versions of classics. This is a quality edition you'll want to add to your library, in either the hardcover or paperback versions. Recommended for anyone who would like to broaden their understanding of Machiavelli beyond The Prince.

This is an exceptionally difficult and probably misguided translation of a great work. The translator Harvey Mansfield has attempted to follow in the (important) tradition of literal translations for philosophically rich works (a la Allan Bloom's excellent Republic). The intended result is that the English reader can follow the argument very closely by following the words closely. This is useful for key Machiavellian concepts like "virtu," but Mansfield actually attempted to render every single word in the entire text by a single English word - for example, the Italian word "cosa," which means "thing" but also "matter", "affair", "what," or "which", is rendered by the word "thing" everywhere - which produces terrible, almost unreadable English. When an Italian says "Cosa facio?" he doesn't mean "Thing I do?", he means "What am I doing?" But the translator literally writes "thing I do" in this book. If you want to actually read Machiavelli, who was a fine writer and not stilted like this, try another translation. Mansfield has a very devoted following because of the work he has done for the Great Books at Harvard University, and I suspect that some of the good reviews here are more because of his popularity as a person than because the reviewers really believe this translation captures Machiavelli.

No one who wants to have a fair outlook of the whole political reflexions of Machiavelli, might get it without reading "Discourses.." (Discorsi...). There the reader will find another kind of Machiavelli. Not The Prince's, but another thinker. Deeper and broader, the main topic rather than how to get the power (as along The Prince), is now how to stabilize it. Livy's work is just a motive for Machiavelli's analizes. So, the frequent reference to ancient Greek or Roman history, serves as comparative model regarding the actual Italian and the lager European exuberant political universe. Instead the prince needed to unify Italy and set it free from foreing powers, the central figure is a republic capable to keep liberty alive and a "virtuosa" social life, in terms of participation in the power exercise. Most of the conclusions keep still today a wise validity. That's why after "Discourses..." (albeit it seems The Prince was written in the middle of the former's one composition years) one can talk rightly about a "republican" Machiavelli. If he was not father, at least he was uncle (a bright one) of the since many years called "protective republicanism". In few words: the book put in evidence his very scope and stature. Doubtless, "Discourses..." show us another kind of Machiavelli. Different from the often known one. But still more, different than the ignored one (although ignorance never has been and impediment for many people to speak improperly about "Machiavelli", "machiavellism" and "machiavellic".)

Niccolo Machiavelli, (1469-1527), writes the greatest treatise on keeping a republic vibrant by comparing Rome to republican Venice. Machiavelli has gained an unwarranted notorious reputation for his "evil" treatise on political thinking and acting through his authorship of "The Prince". "The Prince" received more notoriety than his politically erudite work "Discourses on the First Ten Books of Livy" in which Machiavelli espouses his belief that the Roman Republic was the best and most virtuous form of government to emulate. His breadth and understanding of Roman history is remarkable. Machiavelli's love of his country Florence, and the proud political work as a minor government administrator and ambassador Machiavelli performed during its years as a republic show through in this work. It was on his many ambassadorial trips to the French, Papal, and Italian courts that he learned to observe political leaders and their governmental institutions which formed the basis of his political theories in his many writings. My favorite quote from Machiavelli is; "It's better to act and repent then not to act and regret".

Modern philosophers starting with Machiavelli reject the classical view of politics as undemocratic and elitist. Only wealthy men of leisure would have time to develop the virtues and character necessary to rule. Machiavelli believed that man by nature was selfish and driven by ambition. Machiavelli is not interested in character formation and moral appeal but in building the right kind of institutions to govern society. Laws and justice would protect men from power hungry rulers. Modern philosophy is an out growth of the revolution that takes place in the natural sciences during the Enlightenment. The purpose of science is the conquest of nature man is in control of human life. Philosophers from Machiavelli on become sectarian. "Everything good is due to man's labor rather than to nature's gift."

As a retired Army officer and student of political philosophy, I found this to be an indispensable book to continue one's journey into political philosophy and history of Europe.

For those who love Machiavelli, this is great. The translation takes a while to get used to, but not too dificult. Great concepts and writing.

I'm happy with the book and everything but it took seriously way too long to get here. Its a good thing that I didn't need this book until later on in the semester because I ordered this the first week of school and it is now almost midterm and I just barely got the book.

It is important to note that Niccolo Machiavelli's most important work is this. He actually advocates for a tripartite government with checks and balances, like our own US gov't before Montesquieu and Locke. no mean feat! obviously, there was more to this theorist than "the end justifies the means." Morality was of importance to him after all. No doubt, this is a classic of political thought. It marks the end, for better or worse, of the Middle Ages conformity and a bold forging ahead toward the modern political horizons. Look it over!

There are two mean reasons to read Machiavelli:
Firstly, Machiavelli gives in his books a deep insight in political and psychological principals. Some comment on how these principals are - at times - conflicting. This I find Machiavelli's main strength: he shows that choices need to be made, that there isn't an unconditional best choice, but that the best choice is dependent upon circumstances (he tries to give insight in the circumstances) and that the worst is not to choose (consistently).
For instance: when one conquers a city, one can subject it's inhabitants by being making them love you, or fear you. Which one chooses is also dependent on whether you attack a new city, or a city previously under your control, if one wants to make an example out of them (and what kind), etc. Most important however is that one must choice between making your subjects love you or hate you (you can't torture a person and then try to win his love).
Secondly, it is worth reading Machiavelli because of his literary abilities. He writes with charm, ease and lack of difficult words, he gives interesting and innovative illustrations, he has written two books that are real pageturners but that also give a new and deeper insight in society (so new that their books are still read today, and not just by literary scholars).

The general applicability of the principal used above, can be seen at relations (most couples stay together because of love, but some because they fear retribution by their partner), at parent/child level (parents either making their children obey because of fear of punishment, or by giving them a sense of responsibility and trust), at companies (a manager can motivate employees by either making them fear for losing their jobs, or by making them share company ideals and values) and at governmental level (Saddam ruled Iraq by fear, while a real democracy must be run by love - or at least lack of fear - for their leader).
At all the previous examples one can see that both situations can work, but the greatest mistake is not to make a consistent choice. It would be as great a mistake for Osama Bin Laden to try and win American love for the Islam by sending planes in the Twin Towers, as for Bush to try and win Iraqi love for democracy and justice by making a policy out of torturing unconvicted Iraqi's (and violating other civil rights). (Hopefully there will be an inquiry that will convince Iraqi's that the torture in the Abu Graib prison wasn't government policy, so that the faith in America, democracy and justice will be restored).