Discourses on Livy

What Hacker News says

1. Joker_vDDec 2023
   Interesting how everyone always focuses (almost) entirely on The Prince and (almost) completely ignores his Discourses on Livy. Here's the thing: if you read the Discourses first, Machiavelli comes off as a staunch republican — and then when you read The Prince you just have to conclude that it could only be a brilliant satire, subtly aimed at Lorenzo Medici, because there is really no way he was not writing it tongue-in-cheek. And yet people take it completely at the face value and think that Machiavelli was keen on giving advice to the tyrant on how to tyrannize people more efficiently because he thought it was just the greatest way to run the world.
   Show morethread
2. anovikovDec 2021
   Agree, those wishing to actually understand Machiavelli should read "Discourses on Livy", rather than "Prince". He was an avid supporter of republicanism (not democracy, those didn't exist yet) and proven superiority of republican order vs aristocratic on many examples from his era as we as from the long past, starting with Roman Kingdom times - described by Livy.
   thread
3. throwaynowayApr 2021
   Others in thread have mentioned this, but if you want to get a feel for Machiavelli the Prince is not the right place. Discourses on Livy is much more like his actual view. Here is why:

   The first existence of the Prince is supposedly from 1513, while NM was still alive. However, the first printed version (which had to be approved by his arch rivals, the Medici's) wasnt available until 1532, 5 years after he died. Because of Italian politics at the time, NM was tortured by Medici family in 1513 (same year the first manuscript appeared...) because supposedly he was a political rival. Yet NM dedicated the Prince "To the Magnificent Lorenzo Di Piero De’ Medici". So was he a rival or not? Why would you release a manuscript like this which was surely scandalous when your political rivals already suspected you of being politically dangerous? Additionally, if this is your view of the world, why make it public? why not keep it hidden? Did the Medici release it merely to smear him as a purveyor of evil? Was he just sucking up to the Medici by honoring Lorenzo?

   If you are the Medici, why would you allow a book like this to be printed? They certainly could bring it off the presses if they wanted.

   In Chapter 1 of the Prince, NM tells us he is talking about Princes, not republics, and mentions he has written about republics elsewhere. His Discourses on Livy was not released until 1517 (unless there were earlier copies of that too, which is possible). So the original manuscript must have been edited to some degree from the (Medici) edition we read today.

   If you have followed my line of thinking carefully, one would have to scrub NM from any mentions of being an evil teacher, encouraging dark traits, etc.

   From wikipedia, final chapter of the Prince: "Pope Leo X was pope at the time the book was written and a member of the de Medici family. This chapter directly appeals to the Medici to use what has been summarized in order to conquer Italy using Italian armies, following the advice in the book. Gilbert (1938:222–30) showed that including such exhortation was not unusual in the genre of books full of advice for princes. But it is unusual that the Medici family's position of Papal power is openly named as something that should be used as a personal power base, as a tool of secular politics. Indeed, one example is the Borgia family's "recent" and controversial attempts to use church power in secular politics, often brutally executed. This continues a controversial theme throughout the book."

   I have two theories: 1) NM tricked Medici into publishing the text. 2) Medici wanted to slander NM.

   My guess is 2. Medici were not stupid. They were tyrants, but not stupid. Read Discourses to learn about NM.

   Show morethread
4. njrc9Dec 2018
   Your comment reminds me of Machiavelli’s work “Discourses on Livy” in which he writes, among other things, that discord (between the nobility and the common people) produced the liberty enjoyed by the Roman Republic. Machiavelli’s views on republicanism are very insightful, in my opinion, and offer an understanding of democratic government that may be more prospective of being actualized than what appears to be proposed in much of today’s discourse on democracy.

   By the way, I came across one of your HN comments in the past (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18127353) and immediately was impressed by your thinking. Ever since, I look forward to seeing your comments on HN. If you are interested, I would be greatly interested in hearing more of your thoughts expressed in the aforementioned comment of yours. My email is njrc900[at]gmail[dot]com

   Show morethread
5. paganelDec 2016
   His "Discourses on Livy" is also a pretty solid book.
   thread
6. rrggrrDec 2016
   We often forget The Prince was a job application, from an exiled and impoverished Machiavelli to the court of Medici. Parks seems to forget this inconvenient fact. Parks also forgets to mention that it was Machiavelli's Discourses on Livy, a book that disagrees with The Prince with numerological precision, that screams Machiavelli's love of a Republic over a monarchical or despotic rule, and that defines virtue in idealized, classical terms most embrace today.

   As Parks implicitly states, the difference between a man's message and his mission depends a great deal on who is reporting it. It is this difference, between The Prince and The Discourses, between marketing and motive, where Park may learn Trump, like Machiavelli, is no fan of Princes but is instead very much a man of the Signora and the Guild to the great benefit of a Republic. Park's piece is straight from the Medici playbook.

   Show morethread