The essential writings of Machiavelli (14 page)

Selections from
T
HE
D
ISCOURSES

Machiavelli wrote
Discourses on the First Ten Books of Titus Livius
during his years of exile from Florentine politics, between 1512 and 1519. The work was published posthumously in 1531, one year before
The Prince.
If
The Prince
was a treatise on the ideal autocratic ruler
, The Discourses
are a vigorous championing of a republican form of government. Artists of the Renaissance looked to ancient Rome for inspiration in painting, sculpture, and literature, but
The Discourses,
despite taking Roman historian Livy as their point of departure, are extremely original. In them Machiavelli proposes for the first time a pragmatic study of Roman history, institutions, and politics, in search of guidance that would lead Renaissance Italy out of its dangerous and chaotic political conditions
.

The Discourses
are divided into three books, which are themselves divided into 142 chapters
—
mirroring the 142 books of Livy’s
Histories.

N
ICCOLÒ
M
ACHIAVELLI
TO
Z
ANOBI
B
UONDELMONTI
AND
C
OSIMO
R
UCELLAI
, G
REETINGS
¹

I am sending you a gift which, though it might not correspond to the obligations I owe to you, is without doubt the greatest gift that Niccolò Machiavelli can send you. In it I have gathered all that I know and have learned from my long experience and constant reading about the affairs of the world. No one can ask more of me, and no one can complain that I have not given more. You might be disappointed by the meagerness of my intelligence when what I narrate is weak, or when my judgment is erroneous, or when I may be mistaken in points of reasoning. And yet I am not sure whether you or I have more cause to be obliged to the other: I to you, who have compelled me to write what I would never have written of my own accord, or you to me, who in my writing have fallen short of your expectations. So I hope that you will accept this gift in the spirit in which all things are accepted by friends, where the intention of the giver is more important than the quality of the thing given. But the one satisfaction I have is that though my narration might be mistaken in many of its details, the one detail in which I have definitely not erred is in choosing you above all others to whom to address these
Discourses
, for in addressing them to you I feel that I am showing gratitude for the benefits I have received. Furthermore, I believe I have managed to avoid the usual practice of writers, who, blinded by ambition or covetousness, dedicate their works to a prince, praising him as if he had every commendable quality when they ought to condemn him for having every shameful attribute. So as to avoid this error I have not chosen those who are princes, but those who have the kind of infinite good qualities that make them worthy to be princes; not those who could heap rank, honors, and wealth on me, but those who would do so if they had the means. Men who want to judge others properly must esteem those who are generous, not those who can be generous—those who know how to rule, not those who rule even though they do not know how. Historians praise Hiero of Syracuse more when he was a private citizen than they do Perseus of Macedon when he was king: because all Hiero was missing to be a prince was a principality, while the only kingly attribute that Perseus of Macedon had was a kingdom.
²
Therefore I hope you will enjoy this good or bad work that you yourselves have requested from me, and should you be misguided enough to find these ideas of mine pleasing, I will not refrain from sending you the rest, as I have promised. Farewell.

1.
Zanobi Buondelmonti (1491–1527) and Cosimo Rucellai (1495–1519) were young Florentine intellectuals with whom Machiavelli had frequent discussions in the Orti Oricellari, which were the gardens of the Palazzo Rucellai, the magnificent palace belonging to Cosimo’s family.

2.
Hiero II of Syracuse (d. 216
BCE
). See also
The Prince
, chapter 6, in which Machiavelli quotes a slightly altered line from Justin referring to Hiero as having “lacked nothing to make him a ruler except a kingdom.” Also Polybius, in
Histories
(Book I, chapter 8), describes Hiero as always having had “a nature ideal for kingship and the administration of a state.” Perseus of Macedon (d. c. 165
BCE
) was the last king of Macedonia. Plutarch writes in
Parallel Lives
(Aemilius Paulus, 8) that Perseus, though a king, “was incapable of carrying out his designs, as he lacked courage and had a brutal nature that was beset by faults and diseases, among which greed was foremost.”

BOOK I
P
REFACE

Because of the envious nature of man, it has always been more perilous to establish new systems and institutions than to seek out new lands and seas, because men are more eager to blame than to praise the actions of others. Nevertheless, driven by the natural desire I have always had to work without fear on things that I believe bring a common benefit to everyone, I have decided to set out on an untrodden path. I am aware that this might bring me trouble and hardship, though it might also bring rewards from men who will view the result of these efforts with kindness. If my meager talent, my scant experience of present things, and my weak knowledge of ancient things make this attempt imperfect and of little use, they will at least open the way for someone with greater skill, eloquence, and judgment to carry out my intention, which, if it does not deserve praise, should at least not deserve blame.

Consider how much honor is attributed to antiquity. To cite just one example, think how often a man will buy a fragment of an ancient statue at a great price just to have it near him, to honor his house and have it imitated by those who delight in this art and are then compelled to replicate it in all their works. But when I consider the most skillful actions that the histories show us, actions accomplished in ancient republics and kingdoms by kings, generals, citizens, legislators, and others who strove to benefit their native land, I see that those actions are admired rather than imitated—or, I should say, they are avoided in every way. Indeed, no trace remains of that ancient process. I can only be amazed and saddened at the same time. So much more so when I see in the civil disputes that arise between citizens, or in the illnesses to which men succumb, that we always turn to the decrees and remedies that the ancients pronounced or prescribed: because civil laws are nothing more than the decrees pronounced by ancient jurisprudents, which, categorized, teach our present jurisprudents to judge. Nor is medicine anything more than experiments undertaken by ancient doctors on which present doctors base their diagnoses. And yet not a single prince or republic turns to the examples of the ancients for the organization of the state, the maintaining of states, the governing of kingdoms, the organization of an army, the conduct of war, the passing of judgment on their subjects, or the expansion of their dominion. This arises not so much from the weakness to which our present religion has brought the world,
³
or the ill that single-minded idleness has wreaked on many Christian provinces and cities, as from not having a true understanding of history. Reading the histories, we do not extract the meaning that is in them, nor do we relish the flavor they contain. The result is that countless people who read the histories take pleasure in the range of incidents they portray without thinking of imitating them, as they believe such imitation to be not only difficult, but impossible. As if the sky, the sun, the elements, and mankind had changed their motion, order, and power from what they had been in antiquity. Wishing to free men from this error, I have deemed it necessary to write these discourses on all the books of Livy that have survived the ravages of time, explaining, with my knowledge of ancient and modern things, whatever I deem necessary for better understanding these books, so that readers of my discourses can take from them more easily what is necessary to understand history. Even though this undertaking is difficult, with the help of those who have encouraged me to bear this burden, I trust I will carry it far enough toward the destined place so that another might have to travel only a short distance.

3.
Machiavelli develops his argument of how Christianity brought weakness to the world in Book II, chapter 2: “Ancient religion only beatified men who were filled with worldly glory, such as generals and princes, while our religion glorifies men who are humble and contemplative rather than men of action. Our religion also places the highest value on humility, debasement, and disdain for worldly matters, while ancient religion placed the highest value on greatness of spirit, strength of body, and everything that makes men strong.”

CHAPTER ONE
O
N THE ORIGINS OF CITIES IN GENERAL, AND
R
OME IN PARTICULAR

Those who read about the origin of the city of Rome, its legislators, and how it was organized will not be surprised that so much excellence was sustained for so many centuries in that city, nor that Rome later managed to gain such an empire. As I would first like to discuss Rome’s origins, I propose that all cities are built either by men born where the city was built, or by foreigners. The former case occurs when people live dispersed in many small communities and do not feel that they are living in safety, because, owing to the locations of these communities and the small number of people living in each, they cannot on their own resist the force of those who attack them. Nor can they unite in time to defend themselves once the enemy has arrived. (And even if they did manage to unite, they would be forced to abandon many of their refuges and so fall easy prey to their enemies.) To escape these dangers, the people living in these scattered communities unite either spontaneously or because they are stirred by one among them who is prominent in authority, and settle together in a single place more suitable to live in and easier to defend.

Athens and Venice are two examples among many of such cities. Athens was built under the authority of Theseus by inhabitants who had been living in dispersed communities.
⁴
In the case of Venice, many people gathered on the little islands at the head of the Adriatic Sea in order to escape the wars that after the decline of the Roman Empire raged every day in Italy with the arrival of new waves of barbarians. These first Venetians gathered without a prince to govern them, with the intention of living under laws that seemed most apt to sustain them. This succeeded only because of the long period of peace that their situation on the islands afforded them, as the sea had no harbor and the peoples attacking Italy did not have boats with which to overrun the islands. Thus the most modest beginning was enough to lead the Venetians to the greatness they have achieved.

The second case, when foreigners build a city, involves either free men or men who depend on others. Such are the colonies sent out by republics or princes either to relieve their lands of overpopulation or to defend a land that has been newly acquired, and they want to do this securely and without expense. The Romans built many such cities throughout their empire. Such cities were built by a prince, not for him to live in, but for his glory, as Alexandria was built by Alexander the Great. Since these cities do not have a free beginning, they rarely make much progress or grow to be counted among the capitals of an empire. This was the case with the building of Florence. It was founded by the soldiers of Sulla, or possibly by the inhabitants of the mountains of Fiesole, who, reassured by the long period of peace under Emperor Augustus, came down to live on the plain above the Arno River. But since Florence was built under the Roman Empire, it could not initially grow except at the pleasure of the emperor.

The builders of cities are free when a populace, either under a prince or of their own accord, are forced by disease, hunger, or war to abandon their native land and look for a new place to live. Such a populace will settle in cities that they find in the lands they acquire, as Moses did, or build new cities, as Aeneas did.
⁵
In such cases we know the skill of the builder and the fate of what he built, a fate more or less happy depending on the extent of its founder’s skill. His skill can be distinguished first by the site he has chosen, and second by the organization of the laws. Man acts either by necessity or by choice, and it is recognized that he shows greater skill where there is less choice. Hence the question arises whether it is not better to choose a barren site to found a city, so that its inhabitants are forced to work hard and are less beset by idleness, and therefore live in harmony. This way, the barrenness of the site gives them less cause for discord. This was the case in Ragusa
⁶
and many other cities built in similar places. Such a choice would without doubt be wiser and more advantageous if men were content to live from their own resources and not seek to control those of others. But as men can secure themselves only with power, it is necessary to avoid barren terrain and settle in the most fertile regions, where the fercundity of the land allows them to multiply so that they can defend themselves from those who attack and subjugate those who challenge their prosperity. As for the idleness such a site might inspire in its inhabitants, one must organize things in such a way that any hardship not imposed by the site will be imposed by the laws. One must imitate those wise men who have lived in lands that were most pleasant and fertile, lands likely to produce indolent men unfit for any effective military activity. To remedy the shortcomings which the pleasantness of the land would have caused to make men indolent, rulers who are wise have made military training obligatory for men who are to become soldiers. As a result, they became better soldiers than the men of those states that were naturally rough and barren. Among the pleasant countries was the kingdom of the Egyptians,
⁷
which, despite its land being most abundant, had laws that imposed the kinds of hardship that produce excellent men. Had their names not been lost in the ravages of time, they would have merited more praise than Alexander the Great and many others whose memory is still fresh. And whoever considers the Egyptian sultanate and the institutions of the Mamluks and of their army before the Grand Turk, Sultan Selim, destroyed them
⁸
would have seen the prodigious training that was imposed on soldiers, and would have seen how they shunned the indolence that the mildness of the land might have induced had they not avoided it by means of the strictest laws.

I propose, therefore, that it is more prudent to settle a fertile place when this fertility can be subjugated to the laws. The architect Dinocrates rates had gone to Alexander, who wanted to build a city to his glory, and shown him how he could build it on top of Mount Athos, a place that was secure and that could also be constructed to represent a human form. This would have been a most wonderful and rare thing, worthy of Alexander’s greatness; but when Alexander asked Dinocrates how the inhabitants would live, he replied that he had not thought of that. Alexander laughed, and casting aside Mount Athos had Alexandria built on a site where men would gladly want to live because of the abundance of the land and the convenience of the Nile and the sea.
⁹

So whoever examines the building of Rome, if he takes Aeneas as its founding father, will regard it as one of the cities built by foreigners, and if he takes the founder to be Romulus,
¹⁰
a city built by men born in that place. In either case, he will regard it as having had a free beginning without being dependent on anyone. He will also see, as I will discuss further on in my discourses, how much hardship was imposed on the city by the laws made by Romulus, Numa,
¹¹
and the other early rulers, so that the fertility of the place, the convenience of the sea, the frequent victories, and the greatness of the empire did not manage to corrupt it for many centuries, maintaining it in more glory than any other city or state was ever adorned with.

And because the things accomplished by Rome and which are celebrated by Livy came about either through private or public decisions, either inside or outside the city, I will begin my discussion with the matters that occurred within the city and by public decision. I believe these merit more comment, and will add to them everything dependent on them. With these discourses I will end this first book, or rather this first part.

4.
According to Greek myth, the legendary king and hero Theseus, after fighting the Minotaur in the labyrinth in Crete, had united the scattered communities of Attica into a single Athenian state.

5.
In Machiavelli’s interpretation, Moses, after leading the Israelites out of Egypt, sought towns to settle in, whereas the Trojan hero Aeneas had, according to legend, founded Rome after the destruction of Troy..

6.
Today the Croatian port town of Dubrovnik.

7.
The Mamluk sultanate, 1250–1516.

8.
The Ottoman sultan Selim I defeated the Mamluk armies at the battles of Marj Dabiq in 1516 and Raydaniyah in 1517, bringing Egypt under Ottoman rule.

9.
Vitruvius (first century
BCE
), in his preface to Book II of
De architectura
, reports that Dinocrates said: “I have created a design for shaping Mount Athos into the statue of a man. In his left hand there will be a great city with strong fortifications, and in his right hand a bowl to capture all the rivers from the mountain, which will pour from the bowl into the sea.” To which Alexander replies: “I am delighted, but anybody who would found a city in such a place would be censured for bad judgment.”

10.
Romulus was the legendary founder and first king of Rome, who was said to have ruled from Rome’s founding in 753 until 715
BCE
.

11.
Numa Pompilius was the legendary second king of Rome, said to have ruled from 715 to 673
BCE
.