Discourses on Livy

Discourses on the First Ten Books of Titus Livius (Discorsi sopra la prima deca di Tito Livio) is in many ways a different work from The Prince, although how different it actually is has been a matter of dispute. In the second chapter of The Prince Machiavelli himself makes a distinction between the books in terms of subject matter: while that book is about principalities, the Discourses is about republics. Nominally a commentary on Livy’s work on Roman history, theDiscourses has been read as a rather abstract book: the historical examples Machiavelli uses are meant to teach the reader more general, eternal truths about the political reality.

Machiavelli has a lot to say about how a republic should be managed. The book is divided into three books with different themes: first Machiavelli talks about the internal structure of the republic; after this he reasons about matters of warfare; finally he returns to the theme ofThe Prince, individual leadership.

According to the classical view of Plato and others, all constitutions tend to degenerate into worse ones. This is because of their essential weaknesses. Aristotle thought the problem could be solved by having a “mixed” constitution, and Machiavelli agrees with this conclusion, but for different reasons: in contrast to the classical philosophers, Machiavelli suggests that the main task of political institutions is to deal with contingency. In general Machiavelli has in mind a picture of a republic with a vibrant, free political culture, and in which dissent is not only tolerated but institutionally channeled to further the common good.

Machiavelli believes in military might in foreign policy. “Necessity” is an important concept for him, and he uses it to determine whether or not the republic should fight a war: necessary wars should be fought, others not, and the republic should always be prepared for a necessary war. A crucial point is that offensive wars can be necessary as well. Thus Machiavelli argues not just for having a strong army; he also advocates using it for imperial purposes. Again, Machiavelli relies heavily on the example of the Romans—even in technical matters, although military technology has surely made advances since the Roman Empire.

Republics too need strong leaders. In the third book of the DiscoursesMachiavelli explores the twofold role virtuous individuals play in political culture. First, they inspire and beget virtue in others, and citizen virtue as well as military virtue is vital in protecting the republic from internal as well as external dangers. Although Machiavelli has confidence in the multitude, individual leadership is necessary in some particular affairs. The second function of virtuous men is to prevent corruption. All peoples tend to become corrupt in time, and this is because they gradually lose their fear and respect for the law. Therefore a founding father figure is needed to perform “excessive and notable” executions to refresh people’s memories.

http://www.timoroso.com/philosophy/machiavelli/introduction

The Prince

The Prince (Il Principe) is Machiavelli’s most famous book. It is also one of the most famous works in the history of political philosophy, although it is perhaps not as philosophical as the Discourses.

The fame of the book rests on its objective and pragmatic approach, even to the point of cynicism, to political action. Machiavelli makes observations about the actual conduct of political leaders and looks at whether or not they achieve the results they set out to achieve. He then uses these considerations as a basis of practical recommendations, and these recommendations frequently go against common morality. Does the end, political stability, justify the means?

It is not obvious what Machiavelli wanted to achieve by writing The Prince. In the dedicatory letter he appears to be requesting a job working for the Medici government, but it has been noted that he undermines his own case by some of the advice he gives in the work (Chapter XXIII). Particularly the ending of the book has been interpreted by some to mean Machiavelli’s ideal was a unified Italy, and that he justifies his immoral advice with patriotic aims.

http://www.timoroso.com/philosophy/machiavelli/introduction

Machiavelli's Place in Western Thought

What is “modern” or “original” in Machiavelli's thought? What is Machiavelli's “place” in the history of Western ideas? The body of literature debating this question, especially in connection with The Prince and Discourses, has grown to truly staggering proportions. John Pocock (1975), for example, has traced the diffusion of Machiavelli's republican thought throughout the so-called Atlantic world and, specifically, into the ideas that guided the framers of the American constitution. Paul Rahe (1992) argues for a similar set of influences, but with an intellectual substance and significance different than Pocock. For Pocock, Machiavelli's republicanism is of a civic humanist variety whose roots are to be found in classical antiquity; for Rahe, Machiavelli's republicanism is entirely novel and modern. Likewise, cases have been made for Machiavelli's political morality, his conception of the state, his religious views, and many other features of his work as the distinctive basis for the originality of his contribution.
Yet few firm conclusions have emerged within scholarship. One plausible explanation for the inability to resolve these issues of "modernity" and "originality" is that Machiavelli was in a sense trapped between innovation and tradition, between via antiqua and via moderna (to adopt the usage of Janet Coleman 1995), in a way that generated internal conceptual tensions within his thought as a whole and even within individual texts. This historical ambiguity permits scholars to make equally convincing cases for contradictory claims about his fundamental stance without appearing to commit egregious violence to his doctrines. This point differs from the accusation made by certain scholars that Machiavelli was fundamentally “inconsistent” (see Skinner 1978). Rather, salient features of the distinctively Machiavellian approach to politics should be credited to an incongruity between historical circumstance and intellectual possibility. What makes Machiavelli a troubling yet stimulating thinker is that, in his attempt to draw different conclusions from the commonplace expectations of his audience, he still incorporated important features of precisely the conventions he was challenging. In spite of his repeated assertion of his own originality (for instance, Machiavelli 1965, 10, 57-58), his careful attention to preexisting traditions meant that he was never fully able to escape his intellectual confines. Thus, Machiavelli ought not really to be classified as either purely an "ancient" or a "modern," but instead deserves to be located in the interstices between the two.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/machiavelli/#4

Morality, Religion, and Politics about Machiavelli

These basic building blocks of Machiavelli's thought have induced considerable controversy among his readers going back to the sixteenth century, when he was denounced as an apostle of the Devil, but also was read and applied sympathetically by authors (and politicians) enunciating the doctrine of “reason of state” (Viroli 1992). The main source of dispute concerned Machiavelli's attitude toward conventional moral and religious standards of human conduct, mainly in connection with The Prince. For many, his teaching adopts the stance of immoralism or, at least, amoralism. The most extreme versions of this reading find Machiavelli to be a “teacher of evil,” in the famous words of Leo Strauss (1957, 9-10), on the grounds that he counsels leaders to avoid the common values of justice, mercy, temperance, wisdom, and love of their people in preference to the use of cruelty, violence, fear, and deception. A more moderate school of thought, associated with the name of Benedetto Croce (1925), views Machiavelli as simply a “realist” or a “pragmatist” advocating the suspension of commonplace ethics in matters of politics. Moral values have no place in the sorts of decisions that political leaders must make, and it is a category error of the gravest sort to think otherwise. Weaker still is the claim pioneered by Ernst Cassirer (1946) that Machiavelli simply adopts the stance of a scientist—a kind of “Galileo of politics”—in distinguishing between the “facts” of political life and the “values” of moral judgment. Thus, Machiavelli lays claim to the mantle of the founder of “modern” political science, in contrast with Aristotle's classical norm-laden vision of a political science of virtue. Perhaps the mildest version of the amoral hypothesis has been proposed by Quentin Skinner (1978), who claims that the ruler's commission of acts deemed vicious by convention is a “last best” option. Concentrating on the claim in The Prince that a head of state ought to do good if he can, but must be prepared to commit evil if he must (Machiavelli 1965, 58), Skinner argues that Machiavelli prefers conformity to moral virtue ceteris paribus.
In direct contrast, some of Machiavelli's readers have found no taint of immoralism in his thought whatsoever. Jean-Jacques Rousseau long ago held that the real lesson of The Prince is to teach the people the truth about how princes behave and thus to expose, rather than celebrate, the immorality at the core of one-man rule. Various versions of this thesis have been disseminated more recently. Some scholars, such as Garrett Mattingly (1958), have pronounced Machiavelli the supreme satirist, pointing out the foibles of princes and their advisors. The fact that Machiavelli later wrote biting popular stage comedies is cited as evidence in support of his strong satirical bent. Thus, we should take nothing Machiavelli says about moral conduct at face value, but instead should understood his remarks as sharply humorous commentary on public affairs. Alternatively, Mary Deitz (1986) asserts that Machiavelli's agenda was driven by a desire to “trap” the prince by offering carefully crafted advice (such as arming the people) designed to undo the ruler if taken seriously and followed.
A similar range of opinions exists in connection with Machiavelli's attitude toward religion in general, and Christianity in particular. Machiavelli was no friend of the institutionalized Christian Church as he knew it. The Discourses makes clear that conventional Christianity saps from human beings the vigor required for active civil life (Machiavelli 1965, 228-229, 330-331). And The Prince speaks with equal parts disdain and admiration about the contemporary condition of the Church and its Pope (Machiavelli 1965, 29, 44-46, 65, 91-91). Many scholars have taken such evidence to indicate that Machiavelli was himself profoundly anti-Christian, preferring the pagan civil religions of ancient societies such as Rome, which he regarded to be more suitable for a city endowed with virtù (Sullivan 1996). Anthony Parel (1992) argues that Machiavelli's cosmos, governed by the movements of the stars and the balance of the humors, takes on an essentially pagan and pre-Christian cast. For others, Machiavelli may best be described as a man of conventional, if unenthusiastic, piety, prepared to bow to the externalities of worship but not deeply devoted in either soul or mind to the tenets of Christian faith. A few dissenting voices, most notably Sebastian de Grazia (1989), have attempted to rescue Machiavelli's reputation from those who view him as hostile or indifferent to Christianity. Grazia demonstrates how central biblical themes run throughout Machiavelli's writings, finding there a coherent conception of a divinely-centered and ordered cosmos in which other forces (“the heavens,” “fortune,” and the like) are subsumed under a divine will and plan. Cary Nederman (1999) extends and systematizes Grazia's insights by showing how such central Christian theological doctrines as grace and free will form important elements of Machiavelli's conceptual structure.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/machiavelli/#4

Some random sentences from Machiavelli's thoughts.

A wonderful seriese of vedios about Machiavelli

They talk in depth about Machiavelli's thinking and his famous book, "The Prince."

Machivelli and "The Prince"

It is a really good piece about general ideas about Machiavelli and "The Prince."
form "You Tube"

Some comments about Machiavelli's later influence, especially of "The Prince."

During the last 500 years The Prince has been a favorite of numerous political leaders—Louis XIV, Napoleon Bonaparte and Benito Mussolini being among the most famous in the long list of powerful men. Because of the purely technical lessons one can learn from the book, it is useful to all politicians no matter what their ideologies are. This may have contributed to the popular belief that the book is just a manual on how to gain power by any means necessary, with no regard to how you should use that power. This is the Shakespearean view of the man as the “murderous Machiavel”.

There is also the long tradition of interpreting Machiavelli’s works as patriotic exhortations. The idea can be found in Hegel, and during the 19th century Italian Risorgimento Machiavelli was recognized as an important early proponent of Italian unity. According to the patriotic view, the final chapter of The Prince can be taken to summarize all of his work.

Many see in the Discourses the seeds of modern republicanism[contradicts to the hieratic society from the teaching of the church]. Jean-Jacques Rousseau even puts forth the theory that in the Discourses Machiavelli presents his true, republican view, while The Prince is a satirical work. But it has to be said that Machiavelli’s republicanism is not based primarily on moral principles, but also on amoral considerations: a republic is simply a more powerful and enduring political and military machine.

Machiavelli’s legacy is the strongest in political science. Many authors have claimed that his goal was above all to understand and explain political phenomena in scientific terms. Although this is a controversial statement about his true aims, his influence on political science is unquestionable. If he did not yet separate politics from ethics, he paved the way to those who did.

http://www.timoroso.com/philosophy/machiavelli/introduction

1520, Machiavelli finally got a job from the Medici

In 1520 Machiavelli was finally rewarded for his efforts: the Medici assigned him the task of writing the history of Florence. The Florentine Histories (Istorie fiorentine) is his longest work. It includes the period between years 375 and 1492, but the main focus is on the events that took place after 1434.

In the work Machiavelli follows the ideals of humanist historiography. He is not just reporting facts in a chronological order, but also adds to them and interprets them. The goal is not just to tell everyone “what really happened”, but also to find in particular historical incidents universal moral lessons: history is meant to elevate the reader[similar to the notion of progress in the Enlightenment]. Particularly notable are the invented speeches by important historical figures.

The Histories is Machiavelli’s last major work. It was completed in 1525 and presented to Clement VII, the Medici pope. In 1527, Rome fell, the Medici were again forced to leave both Rome and Florence, and Niccolò Machiavelli was again unemployed. He died later that year, and was buried in the Basilica di Santa Croce.

 Machiavelli’s grave. Florence, Basilica di Santa Croce.

http://www.timoroso.com/philosophy/machiavelli/introduction

Background about Machiavelli's life

Niccolò Machiavelli (1469–1527) was born in Florence as a lawyer’s son. He was educated according to the humanist ideals of the Renaissance with the focus on Latin and the classics, but beyond that, few details are available about his childhood and youth. It is known that he spent his youth in a city with continuous political instability and tumults: notable events include the Pazzi conspiracy and its aftermath, the end of Medici rule, and the reign of the Dominican friar Girolamo Savonarola. The fall of the friar was a formative experience for Machiavelli, and it is used as an example inThe Prince (Chapter VI).

Soon after Savonarola was toppled and burned, Machiavelli entered public office in the Florentine republic. Under the titles of Secretary of the Second Chancery and Secretary to the Ten of Liberty and Peace, he was assigned different kinds of tasks. Among the most important of these were diplomatic missions. During these, he had the opportunity to learn from many of the most skilled leaders of his time in Italy and neighboring regions, and some of his writings from this period are duplicated inThe Prince as well.

In 1512 the Medici returned to Florence, which meant the end for the republic. First Machiavelli lost his job; the next year he was accused of conspiring against the new government and was tortured. Although he was freed soon, Machiavelli found himself unemployed with no political future. He decided to go into voluntary exile in the countryside, and in the following years he occupied himself with thinking, reading and writing.

http://www.timoroso.com/philosophy/machiavelli/introduction

Niccolo Mchiavelli (overview)

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niccol%C3%B2_Machiavelli

Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli (Italian pronunciation: [nikkoˌlɔ makjaˈvɛlli], 3 May 1469 – 21 June 1527) was an Italian philosopher, humanist, and writer based in Florence during the Renaissance. He is one of the main founders of modern political science.^[1] He was a diplomat, political philosopher, playwright, and a civil servant of the Florentine Republic. He also wrote comedies, carnival songs, poetry, and some of the most well-known personal correspondence in the Italian language. His position in the regime of Florence as Secretary to the Second Chancery of the Republic of Florence lasted from 1498 to 1512, the period in which the de' Medici were not in power. The period when most of his well-known writing was done was after this, when they recovered power, and Machiavelli was removed from all functions.

View about religion

Machiavelli explains repeatedly that religion is man-made, and that the value of religion lies in its contribution to social order and the rules of morality must be dispensed with if security required it. InThe Prince, the Discourses, and in the Life of Castruccio Castracani, he describes "prophets", as he calls them, like Moses, Romulus, Cyrus the Great, and Theseus (he treats pagan and Christian patriarchs in the same way) as the greatest of new princes, the glorious and brutal founders of the most novel innovations in politics, and men who Machiavelli assures us have always used a large amount of armed force and murder against their own people. He estimated that these sects last from 1666 to 3000 years each time, which, as pointed out by Leo Strauss, would mean that Christianity became due to start finishing about 150 years after Machiavelli.^[21] Machiavelli's concern with Christianity as a sect was that it makes men weak and inactive, delivering politics into the hands of cruel and wicked men without a fight.

While fear of God can be replaced by fear of the prince, if there is a strong enough prince, Machiavelli felt that having a religion is in any case especially essential to keeping a republic in order. For Machiavelli, a truly great prince can never be conventionally religious himself, but he should make his people religious if he can. According to Strauss (1958, pp. 226–227) he was not the first person to ever explain religion in this way, but his description of religion was novel because of the way he integrated this into his general account of princes.

Machiavelli's judgment that democracies need religion for practical political reasons was widespread amongst modern proponents of republics until approximately the time of the French revolution. This therefore represents a point of disagreement between himself and late modernity.^[22]