Customer Reviews

Discourses

5 star:		(11)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

These are Machiavelli's essays on the lessons to be learned from Titus Livy's first ten books about Roman history. Though other works existed, Machiavelli chose Livy's histories because Livy was an eye witness to the fall of the Roman Republic.

Machiavelli's purpose for writing The Discourses can be summed up in one line: "The multitude is wiser and more constant than a prince." More to-the-point, however is the later phraise: "A corrupt and disorderly multitude can be spoken to by some worthy person and can easily be brought around to the right way, but a bad prince cannot be spoken to by anyone, and the only remedy for his case is COLD STEEL."

With every stroke of his pen, Machiavelli sets out to prove the superiority of a republican form of government. He values freedom of the citizenry above all else, and provides princes everywhere with grizzly tales of what happens when it is restricted. His influence on the Founding Fathers, and particularly on the works of Paine and Jefferson, is evident. Our current leaders would find themselves more secure if they stuck to Machiavelli's principles.

Machiavelli's second most famous work, this book deals with the author's commentary on the way the Roman Republic was run and why it was so successful in expanding its borders. He stresses the reason it was so stable and successful was the solid core of reasonable laws, a standing army of professional soldiers and plunder/tribute from surrounding countries.

He illustrates the ways in which the good ideas of the ancient Romans could be applied in contemporary politics (it was written during the XVI century).

Unlike the Prince, which propandasizes his personal political opinions and describes the ideal ruler, the Discourses deal mainly with mundane economic and social issues, with little personal opinion.

It is filled with anecdotes about the lives of interesting or exceptional Romans and is not that difficult a read at all. In reading it for my first-year history class, I found it was a very good summary of the complicated life of the Roman Republic (it deals very little with the time of the Empire).

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.

Although much can be learned from modern writers about the history of Italy, the sentiments and evaluations of politicians and historians of this period (sixteenth century) are unique to their day. It is wonderful to read Machiavelli's evaluation of Livy's historical accounts and see why certain actions which would be shunned by modern writers made perfect sense then. Such accounts help the reader not to be trapped in his own day's thought processes, but have an expanded scope of history. Very enlightening!

I'd recommend this book to anyone who might've enjoyed books like Sun Tzu's "Art of War" or Robert Greene's "The 48 Laws of Power" or even someone who is even religious (Muslim, Christian, etc.) who might not be too afraid of understanding the perspective of a politician. I mix in religion because, perhaps to someone who subscribes to a more "pious" take on life, Machiavelli may hold a severely secular stigma. But this book may offer an alternative, if even more secular, view on the decisions made by religious/state leaders like Moses and Muhammad. As for those who also are into government conspiracy theories I'd also recommend this book- mix it with what you already think and you may come up with some more original theories of your own! ;)

Machiavelli comes across as a learned observer of mankind and expresses a rare understanding of the continual state of flux of mankind. Through his studies of history and in comparing past events to "present" (circa 1500s) ones Machiavelli makes strongly supported arguments throughout the discourses. Where Robert Greene falls short in "48 Laws" I believe is Machiavelli's stronger point- applying the [quite helpful] description of the characteristics of the parties involved which helps the reader summate the outcomes [of many of the events that are described throughout his discourses] right along with the reading. "48 Laws" does this well at times but falls short of this fluidity with many of his examples which can leave a certain level of disparity between the example(s) given and the "Law" to which it applies.

In summary I'd note that this is one of the few books that I wish didn't finish. I don't agree with him on every point, but I admire the proofs to his arguments on every page.

THIS IS ABOUT the edition with Ninian Hill Thomson as the translator. i returned it, which is exceedingly rare for me, because the table of contents lacked the descriptive notations and there was no commentary or introductory analysis with the edition. the book itself is also in a cumbersome format, but that could have been excused. i sent it back and bought the modern library edition (prince and discourses combined) instead.

The 16th century Florentine statesman Niccolò Machiavelli is mostly known for his work "The Prince", arguably the most ill-reputed book ever written, perhaps apart from Hitler's "Mein Kampf". However, "The Prince" seems to have been a purely empirical study of Italian politics, or perhaps even a rhetorical exercise. In other words, Machiavelli didn't really mean it! At least that's one possible interpretation (yes, the most charitable one).

So what were Machiavelli's real positions? Many scholars believe that these are laid out in "The Discourses", a work almost unknown to the general public. Its full title is "Discourses on the First Ten Books of Titus Livy". Using the ancient Roman Republic as his model, Machiavelli attempts to analyze the role of fortune and virtue in history, the art of war, and the best system of government. There are certain similarities between "The Discourses" and "The Prince". Both works contain their fair share of pragmatic Realpolitik. On the whole, however, "The Discourses" show Machiavelli in a much better light than "The Prince". Machiavelli actually turns out to be an advocate of a democratic republic! Indeed, since Machiavelli supported the republican side during the political conflicts in Florence, it's safe to assume that *this* is the real Machiavelli.

"The Discourses" is not a particularly systematic work. It contains no fully worked-out political theory, and suffers from bad editing. (Machiavelli even admits this in his foreword.) The most interesting part is Book One, which deals with constitutional issues. Book Two, about the expansion of the Romans, is moderately interesting, while Book Three is the most disjointed. Since Machiavelli discourses on ancient Roman history, a working knowledge of the subject might be handy when reading his work. Despite the somewhat confusing character of "The Discourses", the main lines of argument are still discernible.

Machiavelli clearly believes that a free republic is the best form of government. The republic should have a division of power between the elite groups and the common people, something akin to the ancient Roman system where power was divided between patricians and plebeians. The republic should not use foreign, mercenary troops to defend itself. It must use its own soldiers. This is a point to which Machiavelli returns again and again, apparently since he believed that the Italian city-states of his own day lost their freedom due to reliance on mercenaries and even foreign officials. Wide income or class differentials are negative. Citizens should be frugal or even poor. A true citizen should be ready to serve in any position, high as well as lowly. A dictator might be temporarily appointed during a state of emergency, but only for a limited period, and only under constitutional forms. (A similar system existed in the Roman Republic.)

There is a great deal of ambivalence in "The Discourses" towards the common people. On the one hand, they are seen as a safeguard against tyranny. On the other hand, Machiavelli feared the fickleness and passions of the mob, and exclaims that a crowd without a head is useless. Despite his notion that wide income differences are negative, he nevertheless opposes the Agricultural Law, which would have re-distributed property in the Roman Republic from the upper class to the plebeians. There is also a contradiction between wanting the citizens to be frugal, and keeping patricians in power. Perhaps Machiavelli subconsciously identified the Roman patricians with the "bourgeois" middle class of his own time? In another part of "The Discourses", he explicitly writes that aristocratic nobles idly living off large estates should be literally exterminated! From his middling position, Machiavelli was equally suspicious of both landed gentry and the lower classes. Still, he seems to veer towards the latter.

Naturally, Machiavelli cannot refrain from giving some very pragmatic and "Machiavellian" advice in his work. His view of religion is typical in this regard (and the childish attempts of the translator to explain away the anti-Christian remarks as pro-Christian are perhaps even more typical). To Machiavelli, religion is a political tool, nothing more. If the people is religious, it's easier to keep in line. Rulers should uphold the religious traditions of their society, whatever these might be, and whatever they might think of them in private. However, one should never sacrifice the good of the state for a religious principle, and Machiavelli gives an almost humorous example of how the Romans attempted to circumvent a bad augury while still pretending to believe in it! He further states that paganism was better than Christianity, since paganism made people more virile, warlike and freedom-loving. Christianity has made people more prone to tolerate bad governments in the hope of heavenly salvation, rather than to fight for freedom in the here and now. (One almost waits for Nietzsche's statement that Christianity is a slave morality!) The out-spoken Machiavelli even questions whether Friar Savonarola (whom he supported) really was a prophet conferring with angels, although he quickly qualifies this by saying that the Friar was a very holy man, etc. (Savonarola was the leader of a republican revolution in Florence in 1494.) Please note that Machiavelli didn't mind Savonarola *claiming* that he spoke to angels, as long as this was politically useful. He makes a similar point about the ancient Roman king Numa, who claimed to have frequent meetings with a supernatural nymph about grave matters of state.

There is a great deal of ambivalence in Machiavelli's discussions about the Roman military expansion. He claims that Roman expansion was due to the Romans forming alliances with other peoples (albeit under Roman leadership), allowing non-Romans to settle in Rome, and letting conquered cities keep their own laws and traditions. In other words, he attempts to paint the Roman imperial expansion in as benign and "republican" light as possible, presumably to avoid the obvious problem that it eventually replaced the republic with an autocratic empire. However, he also admires the peoples who resisted the Roman expansion, seeing them as free republics. As a good Florentine, Machiavelli naturally feels a certain anachronistic aversion to the Roman conquest of "Tuscany" (actually Etruria). The discourses capture the dilemma in the following sentence: "Had the Romans not prolonged offices and military commands, they would not have attained such great power in so short a time, and, had they been slower in making conquests, they would also have been slower to arrive at servitude". Precisely. Here Machiavelli finally says what we somehow want him to say: imperial expansions leads to...well, empires, not republics!

Finally, I noticed that Machiavelli has some problems with Sparta and Venice. They don't conform to his more democratic republican model, and yet, Machiavelli is forced to admit that both these polities were very stable and lasted for an extremely long time. Somehow, you get the feeling that he treats them as anomalies in a world where everything else is in constant flux. The discourses also contain an interesting discussion about how Spartan and Venetian imperial expansion eventually led to their downfall.

"The Discourses" are an interesting early attempt to formulate a modern, moderately democratic republicanism. Readers who previously saw Niccolò Machiavelli as some kind of monster, might get a more positive picture of the man. He may not have been perfect, but at least he comes across as an honest statesman wrestling with difficult issues.

This is the real Machiavelli.

Considering the social and cultural landscape of the contemporary West, one cannot help but wonder whether we can pull out of our downward slide, and what are the odds of doing so.

An interesting analysis of this issue is provided by Machiavelli, in his "Discourses" (1517). In this deeply insightful book, a commentary on the work of the Roman historian Titus Livius (Livy), Machiavelli examines the ebb and flow of the Roman republic, applying its lessons to the affairs of his own era, and to the life of nations in general. (Note that this is the republican period of Rome, c. 510 - 44 BC, before the advent of the great emperors.)

Let's start with the bad news. Machiavelli is not particularly optimistic about a country's ability to adapt to new circumstances:

"There are two reasons why we are unable to change when we need to: In the first place, we cannot help being what nature has made us; in the second, if one style of behavior has worked well for us in the past, we cannot be persuaded we would be better off acting differently. The consequence is that one's fortune changes, for the times change, and one's behavior does not. Another consequence is that cities are destroyed, for the institutions of a republic are never modified to suit changing circumstances...Change comes too late because it is too difficult to accomplish."

If that weren't enough of an obstacle, we are also subject to the whims of fortune; i.e., to circumstances that are beyond our control:

"If you will think sensibly about how people's lives are shaped, you will see that often events and accidents occur against which the heavens were determined we should have no protection. Seeing this sort of thing happened to the Romans, who were so skillful, pious, and well-organized, it is not surprising that it happens much more often to cities or regions who lack these advantages."

Machiavelli goes on to relate Livy's account of Rome's near-demise following an invasion from southern France, which wasn't repelled until the barbarians were threatening the Capitol itself. The Romans, at that time still relatively vulnerable, could not pull together until their very heart was threatened:

"Fortune, in order to make Rome all the greater and build her up to the power she eventually attained, judged it necessary to give her a nasty shock...but did not want, at this point, to destroy her completely...In order to bring [change] about, the whole society must feel endangered; it is not enough for just one individual to change his mind."

It doesn't require much imagination to apply this wisdom to the contemporary West. Consider the mass immigration from the Third World, leading, in some European countries, to a now-foreseeable usurpation of the native population and culture. It is likely that only a shock of great magnitude would be capable of stalling this locomotive. One can only hope that, as was the case with the Roman republic, "fortune" does not intend to destroy us completely.

There are, still, many things that can be done to stave off ruin, says Machiavelli. It is not inevitable. But the task is great, and can only be accomplished by the clarion call of first principles. This is the subject of the chapter entitled "On how, if you want a movement or state to survive for long, you must repeatedly bring it back to its founding principles." Here, we read that

"there is nothing more essential in any form of communal life, whether of a movement, a kingdom, or a republic, than to restore it the reputation it had when it was first founded, and to strive to ensure there are either good institutions or good men who can bring this about, so that one is not dependent on having some external intervention before reform can occur...it is so dangerous there are no circumstances in which one should hope for it."

Machiavelli also emphasizes that to be successful, our behavior must be adapted to the era in which we live. Bold, impetuous action may be perfect at one moment yet disastrous at another. When the Roman army was broken and demoralized, General Fabius avoided defeat against Hannibal by being cautious. Later, when a bold strike was needed, the daring Scipio was appointed to the task. The switch, a fortuitous adaptation, could be accomplished because

"a republic can adapt itself more easily to changing circumstances because it can call on citizens of differing characters. Someone who is used to proceeding in a particular way will never change."

We certainly possess "citizens of differing characters." But will the right ones be called upon at the right time?

Machiavelli's Discourses... a book that is a compendium of historical events analyzed in such a way as to obtain a lesson that is both precise as well as eternal. I think that all who consider going into politics or any kind of management role should be handed a copy of this book. And by any kind of management I mean from management of a state to managing a home and family. It is practical, ruthless and efficient. You can glimpse its central premises through the actions of those who succeed.
The translation of this book is flawless and delivers the full content of the author's message.
I'm convinced that this was a life changing book for me to read, it certainly affected my perspective of events around me and my way to interact to them. It is a self help book if you can interpret it beyond the historical dressing.
I strongly recommend this book to anyone who has an interest in history, management, or politics.

This book describes how Rome was being governed as a Republic and gets into detail about the wars they fought. Even for Machiavelli these writings we distant history and what really surprised me was the way this book has been written and translated.

Being an admirer of Rome and its golden age this book really gave me new insights, despite reading a lot of other books about this subject. As in Machiavelli's most famous book 'The Prince' politics are again the major subject. It is really astonishing to see the details and consequences of the actions that are being taken.

If you would like to know more about Rome, history or politics, grab a copy of this book.