Discourses

 As mentioned last class, Machiavelli's Discourses (full title Discourses on Livy) are his lesser known, but arguably most important work. The Discourses were written after The Prince, are much longer, and represent his more mature or developed political philosophy. Similar to The Prince, Machiavelli's method of writing is fairly simple, he examines historical sources and tries to derive some kind of insight or truths about politics from them. Unlike The Prince which mostly (but not exclusively) looked at contemporary rulers, in this later work Machiavelli looks to the ancient Roman Republic, before it became an empire ruled by an emperor. Livy refers to the ancient Roman historian Titus Livius (64 or 59BC-12 or 17AD, the dates of his life are not certain) who chronicled the history of the republic. Machiavelli is basically reviewing his writings and giving his own commentary on them. The downfall of the republic and its transformation into an empire is a fascinating and very deep topic that unfortunately we cannot go into too much here. 



What is most interesting about The Discourses is that they show a drastically different political philosophy from what Machiavelli is most known for. Machiavelli's name is synonymous with ruthless political leaders who will do anything to stay in power, however despite his views that justified some kind of monarchical rule, or in modern terms a dictatorship or authoritarian rule, Machiavelli actually prefers a republican government of the people rather than the single rule of a prince or king. In Book 1 Chapter 58 Machiavelli declares, "The governments of the people are better than those of princes." This should surprise people given what Machiavelli is most known for. However, on closer analysis it may not be that surprising after all.

Why does Machiavelli prefer a government of the people? It is certainly not for moral reasons. From our more modern point of view we might say a government of the people is better for moral reasons. Whether it be distrust of any single person being justified or fit to rule over others, or the belief in the equality of people, most people today would argue a republican government (from Latin "res publica" or people's business) is morally better than a government ruled by one person, summed up by Lincoln's famous phrase "government of the people, for the people, by the people." Machiavelli, on the other hand, argues that this type of government is actually better suited for survival in the chaotic world of politics that he lived in. The reasons will be clear once I have explained his idea of "virtú."

In his writings, Machiavelli identifies the skill of ruling as virtú. This is not the same as virtue, which means good or noble characteristics. The ancient idea of virtue, according to the Greeks, identified several different virtues, the most important being temperance (moderation), courage, wisdom, and justice. This is pretty much what most people would call virtue today. Virtú are the characteristics that Machiavelli identifies as being necessary to rule, which as we discussed last class would hardly match with the Greek idea of virtue. Again, Machiavelli urges a ruler to imitate the lion and the fox, break promises, murder rivals and do whatever is necessary to remain in power. However, behind these behaviors there is another attribute that Machiavelli values even more, and that is adaptability or flexibility. A good ruler must change as the circumstances change and be able to shed old habits and develop new ones as the situation calls for it. Those who cannot or will not, and become rigid and stuck in their ways are almost certainly doomed to failure. As I said last class, Machiavelli did not enjoy violence for violence sake, but saw that there may be situations where it is necessary, and it is the quality of being able to read the situation and determine what must be done that he values above all else.

It is for this reason Machiavelli prefers a government of the people to rule by one person. A government of the people is simply more adaptable than a government by one person. Since a government of the people will feature multiple rulers, and see periodic changes of leadership he regards this as a system that would be better able to change as circumstances demanded, even if there was a bad government, there are at least mechanisms in place (elections, limited terms of office) that could remove a bad government and get a better government in there. What do you do if you have a bad king? You are pretty much stuck with him until the old bastard dies, someone overthrows him, or there is a revolution. Even if you have a "good" king what is to prevent him from degenerating as he gets older, and become stuck in his ways? It is this adaptable quality that Machiavelli sees as an important element in republican government rather than monarchy. Keep in mind, Machiavelli discusses virtú in The Prince as well, so he is using the same kind of logic or reasoning he uses in The Prince, he is just taking this idea to its logical conclusion, which would be what is the most adaptable type of government overall.

Florence, Italy in Machiavelli's era


Besides this, Machiavelli could hardly be accused of having any moral reasons for preferring republican government to a monarchy as I have already said. Indeed, much like Machiavelli's ideal prince, he encourages republican governments to be ruthless, conqueror other cities, maintain a large military (Machiavelli spends an extremely large part of the text arguing for the need of cities to train their own militaries and not rely on foreign mercenaries), and do whatever is possible to maintain an independent city. I should point out again, that in Machiavelli's days, although there were large kingdoms, there were also city-states like Florence, and when Machiavelli speaks of republican governments he is mainly referring to cities like Venice and Florence. It should also be stressed that his notion of the people was

Doge of Venice

quite limited as it was in actual republics of his day. The republic of Venice, for example, had an extremely limited notion of the people, or who was a citizen and entitled to vote, a far cry from Lincoln's sentiment, and who was literally assassinated when he publicly came out for giving freed slaves the right to vote.

Next class, we will look at John Locke's Second Treatise of Government.

For the assignment choose a quote from The Discourses, write out the quote, explain what it means, and why you chose it.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Declaration of Independence

Image
signing of the Declaration of Independence by John Trumbull   The American Declaration of Independence from 1776 is one of the most important political documents ever written. Its historical importance is unquestioned, but it is also very important as work of political philosophy for it addresses several of the key themes of political philosophy. The English writer G.K. Chesterton called this the creed of America, meaning it expresses the core values of American political culture, just as a creed represents the core values of a religion. The most famous phrase from the declaration, and the creed Chesterton refers to is: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Gov...
Read more

Marx and Nietzsche

Image
Last class we went over some of Marx's critiques of capitalism. Marx of course advocated for socialism, but what exactly would socialism be like? Marx was vague on what socialism would be like but he did explain these ideas to some extent in his "Critique of the Gotha Programme" (1875, although not published until 1891). The Gotha Programme was a political platform of the German Social Democratic Worker's Party of Germany which Marx and his writing partner Engels worked in association with. As the title suggests Marx was critical of many aspects of this platform. This party eventually became the Social Democratic Party of Germany and is one of the major political parties in Germany even today. Marx's main argument was against what he saw as the reformist approach to socialism advocated by the party as opposed to the revolutionary approach he advocated. The debate between reform and revolution is still a major issue that separates many socialist movements today. Ma...
Read more

Immanuel Kant

Image
  Kant (1724-1804) is one of the most important philosophers ever. His writings on perception and knowledge are still read to this day and many still consider Kant to be the final word on these matters. However, just as important is his political philosophy. In this class, we will cover two of his most important essays "Perpetual Peace" (1795) and "What is Enlightenment?" (1784) Kant's essay "Perpetual Peace" was written during the waning days of the French Revolution after the most violent episodes of the revolution had occurred. Many of the leaders of the revolution had been killed, often as a result of in fighting among the leaders of the revolution. When the revolution began, in almost no time at all, all the kings of Europe had mobilized armies to crush the revolution in France. They obviously saw this momentous event of overturning the monarchy and establishing a government by the people as a direct threat to their rule and sought to crush this m...
Read more