1. Machiavelli, Discourses
PHIL 219
Machiavelli, Discourses

2. Niccolò Machiavelli (1469-1527)
Machiavelli was born in Florence, near the beginning of the Italian Renaissance.
It was a time of great political and social upheaval in the cities that dominated the Italian peninsula.
Politically, the disunity of the area made it ripe for both domestic and foreign intrigue.
Socially, the Renaissance marked a profound transformation in the understanding of the individual and their relationship to the world that had characterized the classical and medieval worlds.
Machiavelli’s political philosophy is marked by this upheaval.

3. A Transformation
As we’ve seen, a basic assumption made by the political philosophers of the ancient world is that politics is continuous with ethics.
Machiavelli was the first theorist to decisively divorce politics from ethics, and thus establish the study of politics as a discipline in its own right.
Machiavelli wrote his most famous work, The Prince, as a handbook for rulers, and he insists repeatedly that he is not interested in talking about ideal or utopian political communities as we’ve seen Plato and Aristotle do.
For this reason, Machiavelli is sometimes identified as a political realist—his practical ambitions require him to address the realities of human nature and of human political communities. 

4. The Prince
Despite this purported realism, we have to acknowledge that the handbook he produced has had very little real impact.
Apparently, it wasn’t even read by the prince to whom it was addressed, Lorenzo de Medici.
If anything, Machiavellianism is more of a slogan than a movement.
What makes the work significant is that it presents us with a theory of human nature (and the political communities which such nature makes possible) that breaks definitively with the moral vision of the ancients and prepares the way for that of the modern era.
“…it is much safer to be feared than loved…For one can say this about men: that they are ungrateful, fickle, simulators and deceivers, avoiders of danger, greedy for gain…(284-5).

5. Virtù and Fortuna
The two central concepts of his analysis of the possibilities of the political in The Prince are virtue and fortune.
Given his claim about human nature, the aim of The Prince is to define, in the most realistic terms possible, the sort of virtue that a prince must possess if he wants to succeed in achieving his objectives. 
’Virtue’ is a term with all sorts of moral resonances, and Machiavelli is at pains to divorce his treatment of the concept from that of his ancient predecessors.
A better translation of ‘virtù’ might be ‘effective’ or ‘adaptive.’
The obstacle to effectiveness is fortune or chance, the unavoidable instability of the future. That’s why it’s better to be feared than loved.
Love is fortuitous, you cannot rely on it, people fall in and out of love. Fear in contrast is a constant emotion.

6. One Other Implication
Another (more troublesome?) implication of Machiavelli’s ‘realism’ is that it underwrites a new theory of political authority.
Following the passage cited above, Machiavelli notes that, “…love is held together by a chain of obligation which, since men are wretched creatures, is broken on every occasion…but fear is sustained by dread of punishment which will never abandon you” (285).
According to his analysis in The Prince, a well-ordered political system has two foundations: laws and power. These two are not equally basic. As he insists, power (“fear of punishment”) creates laws.
In other words, the legitimacy of law rests entirely upon the threat of coercive force; authority is impossible for Machiavelli as a right apart from the power to enforce it.
We can call this the Coercion Theory of Authority: authority is a function of the power to coerce obedience.

7. The Prince vs. Discourses
One possible reason why The Prince has had little practical impact on political life is that it has a minimal goal.
In both The Prince and Discourses, Machiavelli makes a distinction helpful in understanding the differences between the two works.
The distinction is between a ‘minimal’ account of the political and a ‘full’ account.
The former is dominated by the goal of security, the latter by the goal of liberty.
Though Discourses employs the same conceptual apparatus as The Prince, its goal is not merely identifying the conditions for a stable political society, but rather a political society in which the freedom of the community is realized in the relationships between its members and enshrined in the roles and institutions within which they participate.

8. Discourses On Livy
The title of our book suggests that Machiavelli is devoting himself to commenting on the work of a Roman historian, Titus Livius, and while he does use Livy’s work as a starting point, the work ranges far beyond a mere commentary. 
The actual aim of Discourses is to articulate his argument to the conclusion that the best form of government is a republic.
A republic is a democratic form of government where the public good is the common concern of citizenry.
Aristotle’s ‘polity’ is a republican form, as is the modern notion of a ‘commonwealth.’
The overarching concern animating Machiavelli’s argument is the recognition of the vulnerability of republican forms of government to oligarchic and tyrannical impulses (the problem of factions again!).
The first book concerns the structure of a republic, seeking to identify which of these structures is most able to resist these impulses. 
The second book concerns foreign policy and particularly the benefits and dangers of imperialism.
The third book addresses the qualities necessary to the rulers and citizens of a republic.

9. Book I, Chapter 1 Concerning the Origin of Cities
Unlike either Plato or Aristotle, Machiavelli's discussion of the origin of cities is historical, rather than conceptual.
As he notes, all cities are either built by people native to an area or emigrants to an area.
In the first case, the principle is typically necessity (e.g., banding together against aggression) in the second the principle is a kind of freedom (we choose to live here rather than there).
This second type of city flourishes or fails due to two distinguishable factors: the choice of site and the institution of laws.
With regards to site, the operative question is whether to choose a site that offers ease (fertile) or a site that requires struggle.
Though Machiavelli recognizes some advantages to both, he ultimately sides with ease as it is more attractive to possible citizens.
This decision in turn puts the emphasis on laws. Given the natural laziness of humans, cities thus situated need the discipline of laws to flourish.

10. Chapter 2 Kinds of States
Machiavelli identifies three basic constitutional forms: Principality, Aristocracy, and Democracy.
These are essentially the same as the three acceptable forms specified by Aristotle.
Distinguishing himself from Aristotle, he insists that the three unacceptable forms are properly understood as deficient instances of these three. 
Like both Aristotle and Plato, Machiavelli understands these forms to be both contingent and liable to degeneration, "...all the forms of government...are far from satisfactory, the three good ones because their life is so short, the three bad ones because of their inherent malignity" (297-8).
Like Aristotle, though, he believes that there is the possibility of arresting this degeneration, in his case, by mixing the strong points of each of the various good forms.

11. The Case of Rome
Rome is his constant touchstone throughout the work, and in this context he looks to Rome as an example of an appropriate mixture.
Rome, unlike Sparta for example, was not gifted with a political 'genius' who gifted her city with an enduring set of laws and institutions.
Rather, the tension between the political classes in Rome provided the impetus for the reform of the, not entirely inadequate, legal framework instituted by the early monarchs.
With the emergence of the Roman republic, this tension allowed for the development of laws suitable for the civic freedom instituted in the republic.
The dual executive of the consuls retained many of the functional powers of the monarch, but shared them with the Roman senate (an aristocracy). 
Later, as the strife between the two institutions became more an more untenable, the plebes (common people) asserted themselves and balance the two with a third, democratic, principle.

12. Chapters 9 and 10 The Necessity and Limits of the Executive
Picking up on an already pervasive renaissance theme (the 'great person'), Machiavelli insists that all political transformation or reform requires the agency of a single agent (299c1).
As a corollary to this theme, Machiavelli also insists that this person's actions are justified by the goodness of their goal (ends justify the means) (ibid.).
In this sense, the actions of the instituting agent are lawless (prior to the law).
This justifying principle does not extend, however, beyond this instituting genius, but must, if the political transformation is to persist, be enshrined in laws, which fundamentally reverses the justifying principle.
It is not the end, but conformity with the law which from there on justify any political choice.
The end must be a good one though. A tyrant's actions are also lawless, but as the end is bad, these actions are never transformed into law.
Just as much (and as justly) as we praise the genius, we criticize the tyrant.

13. Book II Preface
Machiavelli's pessimistic view of human nature is on full display here.
The preface opens with a discussion of the nostalgia that often characterizes our recollection of times past, which not infrequently is in contrast to the critical eye we turn to present circumstances.
In addition to the obvious explanation (we only remember the good stuff), Machiavelli offers some other trenchant psychological observations.
The fear and envy which are frequently a feature of our understanding of present circumstances is absent in recollection, as you cannot fear or envy the past.
As human appetites and interests change, their judgments are likely to change too.
The insatiability of human appetites inclines us to be dissatisfied with our present circumstances, and as they say, 'the grass is always greener...'.
The point of this discussion is to clear away any preconceptions or prejudices in anticipation of the issue which is the focus of Book II: the measures necessary to sustain a republic.

14. Book III, Chapter 1 Original Principles
As we've already seen, Machiavelli accepts that political communities, as worldly, finite things, decline.
In the case of all composite things (houses, just as much as societies), this decline is arrested most effectively, if the elements are addressed individually, and at their most basic, fundamental level.
In the case of a republic, political and social corruption requires a return to the founding principles, a return that is typically motivated by a shock to the body politic (e.g., the sacking of Rome by the Gauls).
As we've seen, for a Republic, these founding principles are identical to the virtues of the citizens.
"The conclusion we reach, then, is that there is nothing more necessary to...a republic, than to restore it to the prestige it had at the outset, and to take care that either good institutions or good men shall bring this about..." (306c1).

15. Chapter 8 & 9 Context is Everything
Clearly, if this sort of renovating work is going to be successful, the renovators must attend to the character of the materials that they have to work with, as well as what the prevailing circumstances require.
In the case of the renovators of a republic, the materials are the citizenry and the prevailing circumstances are the changing times and mores offered by fortune.
"...a republic has a fuller life and enjoys good fortune for a longer time than a principality, since it is better able to adapt itself to diverse circumstances owing to the diversity found among its citizens than a prince can do..." (308).