The Discourses Summary & Study Guide

Description
The Discourses Summary & Study Guide includes comprehensive information
and analysis to help you understand the book. This study guide contains the
following sections:

Plot Summary
Chapters
Characters
Objects/Places

Themes
Style
Quotes

This detailed literature summary also contains Topics for Discussion and aFree
Quiz on The Discourses by Niccol Machiavelli.
The famous fifteenth and sixteenth century Italian political philosopher Niccolo
Machiavelli is widely regarded to have founded the field of political science. His
best known work is The Prince, wherein Machiavelli advises princes of
principalities how to rule. The term "Machiavellian" originates in Machiavelli's
pragmatic advice, which seemed amoral to many. However, in the Discourses,
Machiavelli is focused on the structure, nature and evolution of republics. It is
much longer than The Prince and covers nearly all the major subjects of political
science. Since the Discourses concerns republics, it is widely regarded as modern
republican political theory's founding work.
The full title of the Discourses is Discourses on the First Ten Books of Titus Livius
(or Discourses on Livy). The book purports to be a commentary on works of
Roman historian Titus Livius (known as Livy), specifically those books which cover
the history of the Roman Empire between the eighth and third centuries B.C.E.
However, Livy's work is only a touchstone for Machiavelli's observations about the
nature of political life and the laws governing it. Machiavelli often utilizes Livy's
accounts of the Roman Empire to illustrate his points, but that is the main
function of the text.
The Discourses is an extensive work and is divided into three volumes with
different, though related, subject matters. The first book concerns the structure
of a republic, discusses warfare with respect to republics and analyzes the nature
of individual leadership in the republic. In the first book, Machiavelli affirms the
ancient Greek view that all political societies decay systematically into their
vicious counterparts, monarchies into tyrannies, democracies into anarchy, and
so on. Aristotle argued that the problem could be counteracted by mixing the
different forms of government.
Machiavelli agrees with Aristotle only in principle, though not with his arguments.
Machiavelli conceives of the task of a political order to deal with the natural flux
of the social order. Republics are intended to be lively cultures that preserve
liberty and use liberty or promote the general welfare. But flux naturally gives
rise to situations that threaten the integrity of republics, such as dissension,
conspiracy, war, religious change, cultural change, natural disasters and the like,
which inevitably lead to degeneration.
The second book concerns the growth of the Roman Empire, which Machiavelli
believes was essential to the flourishing of Roman political order. Thus,

Machiavelli is a kind of imperialist who thinks that conquest and government is

required by many social circumstances to protect a republic's integrity, though
many wars should be avoided for a number of reasons. Strong armies must
always be preserved. Oddly, Machiavelli not only appeals to Roman practice but
also to Roman military tactics and technology despite advances, for example,
defending the use of infantry over artillery.
Book three draws eternal truths from the example of the great men of the Roman
Empire. Virtuous and great leaders have a crucial function in maintaining a
flourishing society. They govern the people but also have the ability to incite
them to virtue and great works, not only as citizens, but as warriors. Both forms
of virtue are necessary to prevent republics from being destroyed from without
and decaying from within. Machiavelli expresses moderate trust in the people,
often arguing that the people are wiser than princes, though leadership is
required in cases of danger.

Study Guide on Niccol Machiavellis

Discourses on Livy
Machiavelli titles his work Discourses on Livy, Livy being an ancient Roman historian.
Yet in the Preface, he claims to have taken a path as yet untrodden by anyone (51). What
exactly is new about the Discourses? What role will history play in the project, and how is
it different from how it has hitherto been used? (Consider especially the Preface.)
What is meant by freedom in this work? What exactly does it include? Consider
especially Chapters 1618, as well as the following:

The desires of free peoples are rarely pernicious to freedom because they arise either
from being oppressed or from suspicion that they may be oppressed (17).
[The common utility drawn from a free way of life] is being able to enjoy ones things
freely, without any suspicion, not fearing for the honor of wives and that of children, not
to be afraid for oneself (45).
He will find that a small part of [the people] desires to be free so as to command, but all
the others, who are infinite, desire freedom so as to live secure (46).
What seems to be the objective of political rule in this work? How does it compare with
that found in The Prince? Consider the general nature of his recommendations, as well as
the primary goods he considers.
What role does religion play in ordering a republic or principate, according to
Machiavelli?

Consider what Machiavelli says about Numa and religion in the Roman state (I.11). For
example:
o Whoever considers well the Roman histories sees how much religion served to
command armies, to animate the plebs, to keep men good, to bring shame to the
wicked (3435).
o I conclude that the religion introduced by Numa was among the first causes of the
happiness of that city (35).
o What major benefits does Machiavelli emphasize in I.13, 14, and 15?
What notion of the common good does Machiavelli espouse in this work? Does achieving
it feature prominently in his political recommendations? Depending on your answer, how
does this fit with Machiavellis ends in The Prince?
[Internal conflicts] have engendered not any exile or violence unfavorable to the
common good but laws and orders in benefit of public freedom (16).

So a prudent orderer of a republic, who has the intent to wish to help not himself but the
common good, not for his own succession but for the common fatherland, should
contrive to have authority alone . . . (29).
That Romulus was of those . . . and that what he did was for the common good and not
for his own ambition . . . (29). (See also p. 30.)
Within the sphere of politics, do the princes ends justify his means? Is there anything
which Machiavelli sees as forbidden to the prince by the very nature of the act?
In every decision of ours, we should consider where are the fewer inconveniences and
take that for the best policy, because nothing entirely clean and entirely without suspicion
is ever found (22).
It is very suitable that when the deed accuses him, the effect excuses him; and when the
effect is good, as was that of Romulus, it will always excuse the deed (29).
See also pp. 12, 31, 50, 54.
It is necessary . . . to presuppose that all men are bad, and that they always have to use
the malignity of their spirit whenever they have a free opportunity for it (15). What
implications does this judgment have for Machiavellis political analysis and counsel?
What practical effects does Machiavelli see coming from the tension and strife between
different humors in the state? In what ways are they harmful? Is it possible to reconcile
the beneficial results of social strife with the common good, which would seem to
demand civil peace?

[I]n every republic are two diverse humors, that of the people and that of the great, and
that all the laws that are made in favor of freedom arise from their disunion (16).
So there is nothing that makes a republic so stable and steady as to order it in a mode so
that those alternating humors that agitate it can be vented in a way ordered by the laws
(24).
[G]ood examples arise from good education, good education from good laws, and good
laws from those tumults that many inconsiderately damn (16).
[S]o many accidents arose in it [Rome] through the disunion between the plebs and the
Senate that what an orderer had not done, chance did (14). What role does chance play
generally in Machiavellis account of the forces which shape a republic? How is this
shown in the history of Rome?
Has Christianity changed the nature of government? What differences, if any, can be seen
in Machiavellis treatment of pagan and Christian government? Consider especially I.12.
Consider Machiavellis description of how governments arose among men in the
beginning, and how they progress through different regimes: These variations of
governments arise by chance among men. For since the inhabitants were sparse in the
beginning of the world . . . (1113). What does this vision reveal about Machiavellis view
of the world? Is this description based on historical evidence, speculation, or something
of both? If regime change is natural and inevitable, what does this mean for the ruler of a
state?
Suggested use: This study guide includes a few questions and observations about
Niccol MachiavellisDiscourses on Livy. Among possible uses, one could consider these
comments while reading the work; or one could use them as starting points for a
classroom discussion.

Book I[edit]
Machiavelli notes that Rome's actions as recounted by Livy proceeded either by "public
counsel" or by "private counsel," and that they concerned either things inside the city or
things outside the city, yielding four possible combinations. He says that he will restrict
himself in Book I to those things that occurred inside the city and by public counsel (I 1.6)
The preface to Book I explains why Machiavelli wrote the Discourse. He notes that he
brings new modes and orders, a dangerous task given the envy of men, but one
motivated by the desire to work for the common benefit of everyone. He also notes that
while his work may not be perfect, it deserves to be heard, because it will aid others after
him in fulfilling his vision. He complains that the Italian Renaissance has stimulated a
desire to imitate the ancients in art, law, and medicine, but that no one thinks of imitating
ancient kingdoms or republics. He traces this to an improper reading of history that
suggests that imitation of ancient political virtue is impossible. He declares his intention to
overcome this view of the ancient world by examining Livy and modern politics.
Book one begins by explaining how a city is formed, which is done by either natives to
the area or foreigners, citing specific examples such as Athens and Venice. Machiavelli
then explains this idea and states that this greatly changes the way a city is viewed, in
particular for Rome. Discussing then the different types or species of republics, he
states people typically say they can be principality, aristocrat, and popular. He then tries
to determine what type of republic Rome was, which he states was mixed with the
qualities of aristocrats and principality.
Machiavelli then delves into more historical events. Once the Tarquins left Rome there
seemed to be peace and alliance between the Romans and the plebs, but this in fact was
untrue. This disunity actually allowed for the Roman Senate to become stronger. Moving
on, he says that a republic has the opportunity to emerge as an empire, like Rome, or just
maintain what it is. Also, allowing people to accuse citizens of sins is necessary in
creating a republic, but calumnies are harmful.
Machiavelli ranks then which rulers are most praiseworthy, the first of which being
leaders who lead due to religion, then those who lead because they created a republic or
kingdom. Religion in Rome was cited as a primary cause for joy in the city as it is truly an
important element. He also states that Livy gives many examples of when religion was
utilized to restructure the city. The Samnites were defeated by the Romans several times
and in order to change this they decided find a new approach to their religion.
Discussing then freedom, Machiavelli explains that freedom becomes an issue once a
type of government shifts. He explains that the Romans were not corrupt when they
regained their freedom and could thus keep it. Questioning what mode a free state can
be maintained in a corrupt city, he states that Rome had orders, which kept the citizens
checked.

He then goes into a discussion of the rulers of Rome and how a strong or weak Prince
can maintain or destroy a kingdom. He continues, to say that after a weak prince a
kingdom could not remain strong with another weak prince. Luckily, the first three kings
each had a certain strength, which aided the city. Romulus was fierce, Numa was
religious, and Tullus was dedicated to war.
The book then slightly shifts focus to discussing the reformation of a state. Machiavelli
explains that if one wants to change a state they must keep some elements of the
previous state. Also, he says that a Prince or republic should not deny citizens
necessities.
He then conveys that that having a dictatorial authority was beneficial for the City of
Rome because, for instance, Caesar was able to be honest with this tyranny. Continuing
with this, weak republics are not truly able to make important decisions and that any
change will come from necessity.
The themes of pride and corruption appear many times throughout The Discourses and
Machiavelli believes that it is very easy for a person to be corrupted. It is also good for a
soldier to have the desire to fight for personal pride and glory.
Interestingly, towards the end of Book One, Machiavelli adds that great accidents that
occur in a city usually come with some kind of sign. This sign could be divine or seen
through a revelation. He gives the particular example that in Florence right before the
death of Lorenzo de Medici the Elder, a cathedral was hit by lightning.
Also, Machiavelli explains that Livy stated that people are strong together, but weak
when alone giving the example of the Roman plebs. Livy additionally feels that the
multitude is wiser than the one prince. Thus, Book One examines a variety of issues that
occur when creating a state, and looks at it with specific examples from Rome and other
parts of Italy.[3]

Book II[edit]
Chapter one debates whether Virtue or Fortune had more of a cause of the empire that
the Romans acquired. There were many opinions equally distributed to both sides, and
there is not final consensus on which had more of a cause, virtue or fortune.
Chapter two discusses what people the Romans had to combat, and that they obstinately
defended their freedom. He believes that we have lost our love of freedom, and we need
to get it back.
Chapter three talks about how Rome had its rise to power through their ruining of
surrounding cities, making Rome the primary power of the region.
Chapter four lists the three modes of expanding that republics have taken. Also,
Machiavelli gives the reasoning and background information for why these three modes
of expanding that the republic took were necessary.

Chapter five talks about how memories can be lost due to issues such as language
barriers, floods, or even plague.
Chapter six talks about how the Romans went about making war. He claims that their
goal for war was to be short and massive.
Chapter seven talks about how much land the Romans gave per Colonist. He claims that
this would be tough to determine because it depended on the places where they sent the
colonists.
Chapter 8 discusses the cause why peoples leave their ancestral places and inundate
the country of others. He blames it either on famine or on war that has taken over their
land and they must move on to something new.
Chapter 9 he talks about what factors commonly cause wars. He says there are many
different reasons for disputes.
Chapter 10 talks about how the common opinion of money being the sinew of war is
actually incorrect. Faith and benevolence of men is what makes war what it is.
Chapter 11 talks about the idea that becoming friends with a Prince who has more
reputation than force is not something that would go unnoticed. People were looking for
good connections, and the prince who has a better reputation is better off than the one
with better force.
Chapter 12 talks about whether it is better to wait to be attacked if you feel it is coming, or
if you should make the first move.
Chapter 13 talks about how a person comes from base to great fortune more through
fraud than through force. He thinks that fraud is just quicker and easier, so force is not
needed.
Chapter 14 talks about how men confuse themselves into believing that through humility,
they will conquer pride. Claims that humility and pride are two separate things and do not
go hand in hand.
Chapter 15 claims that the resolutions of weak states will always be ambiguous, and that
slow decisions, no matter who or what is making them, are always hurtful.
Chapter 16 talks about how much the soldiers of his time did not conform to the ancient
orders. Values and ideologies were being lost, and soldiers just were not the same as
they used to be.
Chapter 17 talks about how much artillery should be esteemed by armies in the present
times, and whether the opinion universally held of it is true. Many different opinions are
voiced in the chapter, and each has a valid argument to go along with it.

Chapter 18 talks about how the Authority of the Romans and by the example of the
ancient military infantry should be esteemed more than the horse. Claimed that the
military esteemed the military on foot much more than military on horseback.
Chapter 19 talks about how the acquisitions by Republics that are not well ordered and
that do not proceed according to Roman virtue are for their ruin, not their exaltation.
Chapter talks in detail about the different outlooks people have.
Chapter 20 talks about and asks what danger the prince or republic runs that avails itself
of Auxiliary or mercenary military. Says that having these services admits you are weak
and is not something that is necessarily respectable.
Chapter 21 says the first praetor the Romans sent anyplace was to Capua, four hundred
years after they began making war. Claims that the Romans were changing things and
were acting differently from past precedents.
Chapter 22 talks about how false the opinions of men often are in judging great things.
Says that the best men are treated poorly during the quiet times because of envy or from
other ambitions.
Chapter 23 talks about how much the Romans, in judging subjects for some accidents
that necessitated such judgment, fled from the Middle Way.
Chapter 24 claims that fortresses are generally much more harmful than useful. They did
not build fortresses to protect them because they were of another virtue to that of building
them.
Chapter 25 says to assault a disunited city so as to seize it by means of its disunion is a
contradictory policy. He is saying that taking advantage of someone while they are
already down is something that should not be done.
Chapter 26 claims vilification and abuse generate hatred against those who use them,
without any utility to them. He is saying that the abuse that men do to women is
something that brings hatred not only from the victim, but from everyone who hears about
it as well.
Chapter 27 says for prudent princes and republics, it should be enough to conquer, for
most often when it is not enough, one loses. He is saying that people should be happy
with what they get, because if they try to get more than they can handle, they end up
losing it all.
Chapter 28 says how dangerous it is for a Republic or a Prince not to avenge an injury
done against the public or against a private person.
Chapter 29 claims that fortune blinds the spirits of men when it does not wish them to
oppose its plans. This means that fate will take its toll on what men do and do not do.
Chapter 30 says that truly powerful Republics and Princes buy friendships not with
money, but with virtue and reputation of strength.

Chapter 31 talks about how dangerous it is to believe the banished. He is talking about
how there should be no circumstances in which someone should believe another
individual who has been kicked out of the country. Clearly they did wrong, and one does
not need that kind of negative influence in one's life.
Chapter 32 talks about how many modes the Romans seized towns. He talks about the
different advantages to seizing towns in different ways, both weighing the pros and cons
such as cost and efficiency.
Chapter 33 talks about how the Romans gave free commissions to their captains of
armies. They valued these men and what they did so much that they were willing to give
free commissions in order to show them how they felt about them.

Book III[edit]
Chapter 1 of Book 3 starts with a heading: "If one wishes a sect or republic to live long, it
is necessary to draw it back often towards its beginning."[4] Machiavelli admits that "all
worldly things"[5] have a natural ending. If any of these worldly things are altered and
changed from its normal course, "it is for its safety and not to its harm."[5]Machiavelli,
however, desires to talk about exceptions to this rule, "...mixed bodies, such as republics
and sections". For these things, "alterations are for safety that lead them back toward
their beginnings."[5] He is referring to the state of a republic when he ends the first
paragraph, declaring that, "...it is a thing clearer than light that these bodies do not last if
they do not renew themselves."[5] Since a republic must be led towards its beginning, "all
the beginnings of sects, republics, and kingdoms must have some goodness in them, by
means of which they must regain their reputation and their first increase."[5] If that
goodness is ever corrupted, "unless something intervenes to lead it back to the mark, it of
necessary kills that body."[5] This return toward the beginning is done either through
prudence from outside of the republic or from within the republic.[5] Machiavelli cites an
example from Roman history: when the Gauls, referring to them as the French, sacked
Rome in 387 B.C. He believes that the Gauls' aggression was necessary, "if one wished
that that it be reborn and, by being reborn, regain new life and new virtue, and regain the
observance of religion and justice, which were beginning to be tainted in it."[5] He refers to
the period before the sacking, when the Roman tribunes were given consular power and
"they did not observe any religious ceremony."[5] Romans had lost sight of "the other good
institutions ordered by Romulus and by other prudent princes than was reasonable and
necessary to maintain their free way of life."[6] In Machiavelli's opinion, the sacking of
Rome was deserved since the Romans had lost sight of all the things their forefathers
had told them to follow. Machiavelli, in fact, refers to Gaul's attack on Rome as an
"external beating".[7] The usage of that phrase puts the event in a punitive light, as if
Rome is a disobedient child being beat back into shape. This event was necessary "so
that all the orders of the city might be regained and that it might be shown to that people
that it was necessary not only to maintain religion and justice but also to esteem its good
citizens and to take more account of their virtue than of these advantages that it

appeared to them they lacked through their works."[6] According to Machiavelli, "this good
emerges in republics either through the virtue of a man or through the virtue of an
order."[6] Interestingly enough, later on Machiavelli states that it is not preferable to have
renewal carried out by an external force as "it is so dangerous that it is not in any way to
be desired."[8] In the Roman Republic, "the orders that drew the Roman republic back
toward its beginning were the tribunes of the plebs, the censors, and all the other laws
that went against the ambition and the insolence of men."[6] Before the taking of Rome by
the Gauls, the executions of such famous Romans as "the sons of Brutus"[6] or "that of
Maelius the grain dealer",[6] because they were "excessive and notable"[9] drew Romans
back from any dangerous or tumultuous behavior. Machiavelli reasons that "Unless
something arises by which punishment is brought back to their memory and fear is
renewed in their spirits, soon so many delinquents join together that they can no longer
be punished without danger."[10] He relates this to his native Florence, where "from 1434
up to 1494", such things were done "to regain the state...otherwise, it was difficult to
maintain it."[11] Machiavelli then asserts that "this drawing back of republics toward their
beginning arises also from the simple virtue of one man, without depending on any law
law that stimulates you to any execution."[10] He gives examples of particularly great
Romans like Horatius Coclus and Gaius Mucius Scaevola who were "of such reputation
and so much example that good men desire to imitate them and the wicked are ashamed
to hold a life contrary to them."[10] Machiavelli venerates these Romans much like their
countrymen did. Machiavelli then turns his attention toward the renewal of sects, arguing
that "...our religion, which would be altogether eliminated if it had not been drawn back
toward its beginning by Saint Francis and Saint Dominick."[10] "For with poverty and with
the example of the life of Christ they brought back into the minds of men what had
already been eliminated there."[12]
Machiavelli begins Chapter 2 declaring that, "There was never anyone so prudent nor
esteemed so wise for any eminent work of his than Junius Brutus deserves to be held in
his simulation of stupidity."[13] He is referring to the way in which Brutus assassinated
Caesar in an effort "to live more securely and to maintain his patrimony..."[13]Machiavelli
believes that "From his example all those who are discontented with a prince have to
learn: they should first measure and first weigh their forces, and if they are so powerful
that they can expose themselves as his enemies and make war on him openly, they
should enter on this way, as less dangerous and more honorable. But if they are such
quality that their forces are not enough for making open war, they should seek with all
industry to make themselves friends to him..."[13] Machiavelli describes a middle path
where you can enjoy the fortunes of the prince you have become familiar with, but not fall
into ruin should he encounter it; one keeps his distance but also quite close. Machiavelli
believes this to be impossible, however, stating that "one must be reduced to the two
modes written above--that is, either distance oneself from or to bind oneself to them.
Whoever does otherwise, if he is a man notable for his quality, lives in continual
danger."[14] Machiavelli concludes the chapter, writing, "Thus one must play crazy, like

Brutus, and make oneself very much mad, praising, speaking, seeing, doing things
against your intent so as to please the prince."[15]
The heading for Chapter 3 states "That it is necessary to kill the sons of Brutus if one
wishes to maintain a newly acquired freedom."[14] Citing one of Junius Brutus's ancestors,
who sentenced his own sons to death when they threatened the young Roman Republic,
Machiavelli writes that, "...after a change of state, either from republic to tyranny or from
tyranny to republic, a memorable execution against the enemies of present conditions is
necessary. Whoever takes up a tyranny and does not kill Brutus, and whoever makes a
free state and does not kill the sons of Brutus, maintains himself for little time."[15] He
compares it to an event in recent Florentine history when Pieri Soderini, a Florentine
statesman, was appointed gonfalonier (the highest rank in Florentine government) for life.
His rule was unpopular and many believe he did things out of self-interest rather than for
the good of the state. Soderini would eventually go into exile. Machiavelli believes that
since he did not know how to act like Brutus, he lost "not only his fatherland, but his state
and his reputation."[16]
The heading of Chapter 4 is, "A prince does not live secure in a principality while those
who have been despoiled of it are living."[16] Machiavelli begins the chapter citing Livy:
"The death of Tarquin Priscus, caused by the sons of Ancus, and the death of Servius
Tullius, caused by Tarquin the Proud, show how difficult and dangerous it is to despoil
one individual of the kingdom and to leave him alive, even though on might seek to win
him over by compensation."[16] This event functions as advice to future princes, "every
prince can be warned that he never lives secure in his principality as long as those who
have been despoiled of it are living."[17]
The topic of Chapter 5 is "What makes a king who is heir to a kingdom lose
it."[17] Machiavelli starts the chapter relating the story of Tarquin the Proud (also known as
Lucius Tarquinius Superbus), the last king of Rome, "When Tarquin the Proud had killed
Servius Tullius, and there were no heirs remaining of him, he came to possess the
kingdom securely, since he did not have to fear those things that had offended his
predecessors. Although the mode of seizing the kingdom had been extraordinary and
hateful, nonetheless, if he had observed the ancient orders orders of the other kings, he
would have been endured and would not have excited the senate and plebs against him
so as to take the state away from him."[17] Tarquin's tyranny over the people of Rome
would lead to his overthrow and incredibly negative status in Roman history. From
Tarquin's example can modern princes learn how to run their kingdom: "Thus princes
may know that they begin to lose their state at the hour they begin to break the laws and
those modes and those customs that are ancient, under which men have lived a long
time."[18] It is in a prince's interests to rule well for "when men are governed well they do
not seek or wish for any other freedom."[18]
Chapter 6 pertains to conspiracy. Machiavelli believes that the danger of conspiracy must
be raised as "many more princes are seen to have lost their lives and states through

these than by open war. For to be able to make open war on a prince is granted to few;
to be able to conspire against them is granted to everyone."[19] He cites the verdict of
Cornelius Tacitus as someone everyone should fellow, as it says that "men have to honor
past things and obey present ones; and they should desire good princes and tolerate
them, however they may be made. And truly, whoever does otherwise, most often ruins
himself and his fatherland."[19] Machiavelli immediately makes it clear that "the prince who
has excited this universal hatred against himself has particular individuals who have been
more offended by him and whose desire to avenge themselves."[20] Much like how in
Chapter 5, there is incentive to being a good ruler. Machiavelli writes that "property and
honor are two things that offend men more than any other offense, from which the prince
should guard himself."[20] Of honors taken away from men, women are incredibly
important. He cites an example in modern Italy of when Giulio Belanti moved against
Pandolfo Petrucci, tyrant of Sienna, after his daughter had been stolen to be made
Pandolfo's wife.[20] Another motivator for conspiracy is when a man feels the desire to free
his fatherland from whoever has seized it. This was primarily what drove Brutus and
Cassius to conspire against Caesar.[21] Machiavelli gives examples of how any man can
create a conspiracy, ranging from the nobleman who assassinated King Philip of
Macedon to the Spanish peasant who stabbed King Ferdinand in the neck."[22] He asserts
that "all conspiracies are made by great men of those very familiar to the
prince."[23] Though any man can lead a conspiracy, only great men can perfectly execute
it. Dangers are found in conspiracies at three times: before, in the deed, and
after.[24] Machiavelli writes that when a conspiracy has been exposed, it takes a great
man to surrender only himself and not his fellow conspirators. The modern examples of
these kind men are few, but Machiavelli cites Livy's example of "...the conspiracy made
against Hieronymus, king of Syracuse, in which Theodorus, one of the conspirators was
taken, was taken and with great virtue concealed all the conspirators...the conspirators
trusted so much in the virtue of Theodorus..."[25] Another example from Roman history
Machiavelli raises is the Pisonian conspiracy against Nero. He then takes examples of
conspiracy to his own time, writing of the conspiracy of the Pazzi against Lorenzo and
Giuliano de' Medici.[26] Failure to execute a conspiracy results only from the executor's
own cowardice and lack of spirit.[26] According to Machiavelli, an example can be found in
Livy's writings when "after Marius had been taken by the Minturnans, a slave was sent to
kill him, who, frightened by the presence of that man and by the memory of his name,
became cowardly and lost all force for killing him."[26] He establishes that "conspiracies
that are made against the fatherland are less dangerous for the ones who make them
than those against princes."[27]
The topic for Chapter 7 summarizes the entire entry: "Whence it arises that changes from
freedom to servitude and from servitude to freedom are some of them without blood,
some of them full of it."[28] Machiavelli cites the bloodless expulsion of the Tarquins from
Ancient Rome and from his own period, the expulsion of the Medici family in 1494, as
examples of such nonviolent changes.[28]

The heading of Chapter 8 is, "Whoever wishes to alter a republic should consider its
subject."[29] Machiavelli begins Chapter 8 stating that "...a wicked citizen cannot work for ill
in a republic that is not corrupt."[29] He cites the example of the Romans Spurius Cassius
and Manlius Capitolinus. Spurius's hopes to win over the Plebs with gifts were dashed
when they refused him, knowing that it would cost them their freedom. If the Plebs had
been wicked, they would have accepted Spurius's tyranny.[29]Camillus was another man
who misunderstood the Roman people. Machiavelli concludes that "Two things are to be
considered here: one, that one has to seek glory in a corrupt city by modes other than in
one that still lives politically; the other (which is almost the same as the first), that men in
their proceedings-- and so much the more in great actions-- should consider the times
and accommodate themselves to them."[30]
Chapter 9 concerns "How one must vary with the times if one wishes always to have
good fortune."[31] Machiavelli writes, "I have often considered that the cause of the bad
and of the good fortune of men is the matching of the mode of one's proceeding with the
times."[31] He continues, saying that "...he comes to err less and to have prosperous
fortune who matches the time with his mode...and always proceeds as nature forces
you."[31] Machiavelli gives the example of Scipio Africanus, who was able to turn the tides
of the Punic Wars "with his slowness and caution."[31] His behavior matched the state of
the Roman republic and its army at the time. He raises the example of Piero Soderini
again, who "proceeded in all his affairs with humanity and patience. He and his fatherland
prospered while the times were comfortable to the mode of proceeding; but as times
came later when he needed to break with patience and humility, he did not know how to
do it, so that he together with his fatherland were ruined."[32]
Chapter 10 pertains to the fact that "a captain cannot flee battle when the adversary
wishes him to engage in it in any mode."[33] Machiavelli refers to those princes or
republics who send out others to represent them in war as "effeminate."[34] He believes
that these republics and princes are following the footsteps of Fabius Maximus, "who in
deferring combat saved the state for the Romans."[34] They misinterpret this great
Roman's deed, however, as according to Machiavelli, it "is nothing other than to say:'Do
battle to the enemy's purpose and not yours.'"[34] If one hides in his city, far from the field
of battle, he "leaves one's country as prey to the enemy."[34] If one hides within the city
with his army, they will be besieged, starved, and forced to surrender. Machiavelli's next
point is that "one ought to wish to acquire glory even when losing; and one has more
glory in being conquered by force than through another inconvenience that has made you
lose."[35]
Machiavelli begins Chapter 11 explaining the considerable power to the tribunes of the
plebs: "The power of the tribunes of the plebs in the city of Rome was great, and it was
necessary, as had been discoursed of by us many times, because otherwise one would
not have been able to place a check on the ambition of the nobility, which would have
corrupted that republic a long time before it did corrupt itself."[35] The Tribunes worked

together with many other Romans to overthrow those who sought to corrupt the Republic.
Machiavelli concludes from the Roman example that "...whenever there are many powers
united against another power, even though all together are much more powerful,
nonetheless, one ought always to put more hope in that one alone, who is less mighty,
than in the many, even though very mighty."[36] Machiavelli desires to talk about modern
examples, however; he brings up when, in 1483, all the Italian states declared war on
Venice. When they could no longer field an army, they corrupted the duke of Milan and
were able to regain any towns they had lost and part of the state of Ferrara.[36]
The heading for Chapter 12 states, "That a prudent captain ought to impose every
necessity to engage in combat on his soldiers and take it away from those of
enemies."[37] According to Machiavelli, this is an important duty for the captain of any
army. In the second paragraph, Machiavelli states, "when he assaults a town, a captain
ought to contrive with all diligence to lift such necessity from its defenders, and in
consequence such obstinacy-- if they have fear of punishment, he promises pardon, and
if they had fear for their freedom. he shows he does not go against the common good but
against the ambitious few in the city, which has many times made campaigns and
captures of towns easier."[38] From Livy's writing, Machiavelli cites an example when
Camillus, already inside of the city of the Veientes with his army, commanded, loud
enough for the inhabitants to hear him, that no one should hurt those who are unarmed.[39]
Chapter 13 begins with a question: "Which is more to be trusted, a good captain who has
a weak army or a good army that has a weak captain."[39] Machiavelli's raises the story of
Coriolanus, a Roman exile who transformed the conquered Volusci into a functional
fighting force. There have also been moments in Roman history when an army has
performed better after the deaths of their consuls.[39] At the end of the chapter, Machiavelli
asserts that "a captain who has time to instruct men and occasion to arm them is very
much more to be trusted than an insolent army with a head made tumultuously by it."[40]
Chapter 14 concerns "What effects new inventions that appear in the middle of the fight
and new voices that are heard may produce."[41] Machiavelli cites the example of
Quintius, who "seeing one of the wings of his army bending, began to cry out loudly that it
should stand steady because the other wing of the army was victorious, and--this word
having given spirit to his men and terrified the enemy-- he won."[41] This chapter concerns
sudden events that may happen in the midst of heated battle. According to Machiavelli,
"...a good captain among his other orders ought to order whoever are those who have to
pick up his voice and relay it to others, and accustom his soldiers not to believe any but
them and his captains not say anything but what has been commissioned by
him."[42] Such actions would control the morale of the army.
Chapter 15's topic is "That one individual and not many shout be put over an army; and
that several commanders hurt."[43] Machiavelli references an incident in Roman history
when the Romans created four tribunes with consular power to control the colony of
Fidenae. "They left one of them for the guarding of Rome and sent three against the

Fidantes and the Veientes. Because they were divided among themselves and disunited,
they brought back dishonor and not harm."[43]
Chapter 16 pertains to "That in difficult times one goes to find true; and in easy times not
virtuous men but those with riches or kinship have more favour."[44] Machiavelli writes that
"It has always been, and will always be, that great and rare men are neglected in a
republic in peaceful times."[44] He continues with this point, referencing Nicias of Athens:
"For while Athens was at peace, he knew that there were infinite citizens who wished to
go ahead of him; but if war was made, he knew that no citizen would be superior or equal
to him."[45] He relates this belief to a moment in Florentine history; when, in 1494, "the city
came upon one individual who showed how armies have to be commanded, who was
Antonio Giacomini. While dangerous wars had to be made, all the ambition of the other
citizens ceased, and in the choice of commissioner and head of the armies he had no
competitor..."[46]
At the beginning of Chapter 17, Machiavelli asserts that "A republic ought to consider
very much not putting someone over any important administration to whom any notable
injury had been done by another."[47] He brings up the consul Claudius Nero, who
"throughout the city he was spoken of indecently, not without great dishonor and
indignation for him."[48]
The heading for Chapter 19 declares that "Nothing is more worthy of a captain than to
foretell the policies of the enemy."[49] Close to the end of the Roman civil war between
Brutus and Cassius and Marc Antony and Octavian, Brutus won the battle on his wing
but Cassius believed that Brutus had actually lost. Thinking the battle to be all but over,
Cassius killed himself.[50] Machiavelli relates the point of Chapter 19 to a moment in
modern history; when, in 1498, Florence went to war with Venice and was able to predict
the enemy army's movements and win the war.[51]
In Chapter 19, Machiavelli states that "it appears in governing a multitude, it is better to
be humane rather than proud, merciful rather than cruel."[52]
Chapter 20 concerns the story of Camillus when he was besieging the city of the Falsci.
A schoolmaster of the noblest children of the city ventured out and offered the children to
the Roman camp. Camillus refused the offer, and after binding the hands of the
schoolmaster, gave rods to each of the children and escorted them back into the city
while they beat him. When the Falsci heard of Camillus's good act, they willfully
surrendered the city without putting up a fight. Machiavelli concludes from the story that
"Here it is to be considered with this true example how much more a humane act full of
charity is sometimes able to do in the spirits of men than a ferocious and violent act..."[53]
Chapter 21 is titled "Whence it arises that with a different mode of proceeding Hannibal
produced those same effects in Italy as Scipio did in Spain."[54] When the Roman Scipio
Africanus entered Spain, his humanity and mercy immediately made the entire province
friendly to him. In a similar manner, when Hannibal marched through Italy, many cities

rebelled and followed him.[55] Machiavelli believes such things occurred because "men are
desirous of new things, so much that most often those who are well off desire newness
as much as those who are badly off...this desire makes the doors open to everyone who
makes himself head of an innovation in a province."[55]Eventually both leaders were
rejected by the people who had once accepted them in these provinces.
Chapter 22 is titled "That the hardness of Manlius Torquatus and the kindness of Valerius
Corvinus acquired for each the same glory."[56] Machiavelli begins the chapter relating the
story of "two excellent captains in Rome at one and the same time, Manlius Torquatus
and Valerius Corvinus. They lived in Rome with like virtue, with like triumphs and glory,
and each of them, in what pertained to the enemy, acquired it with like virtue; but in what
belonged to the armies and to their dealings with the soldiers, they proceeded very
diversely. For Manlius commanded his soldiers with every kind of severity...Valerius, on
the other hand, dealt with them with every humane mode and means and full of a familiar
domesticity."[57] As one can assume from the title, two very different men achieved very
similar glory. Later on, Machiavelli asserts that "to command strong things one must be
strong; and he who is of this strength and who commands them cannot then make them
observed with mildness. But whoever is not of this strength of spirit ought to guard
himself from extraordinary commands and can use his humanity in ordinary ones..."[58] He
concludes the chapter stating that the behavior of Manlius and Valerius fit specific needs:
"the proceedings of Valerius is useful in a prince and pernicious in a citizen, not only to
the fatherland but to himself: to it, because those modes prepare the way for tyranny; to
himself, because in suspecting his mode of proceeding, his city is constrained to secure
itself against him to his harm. So by the contrary I affirm that the proceeding of Manlius is
harmful in a prince and useful in a citizen, and especially to the fatherland..."[59]
Chapter 23 concerns "For what cause Camillus was expelled from Rome."[60] According to
Machiavelli, "Titus Livy brings up these causes of the hatred: first, that he applied to the
public the money that was drawn from the goods of the Veientes that were sold and did
not divide it as booty; another, that in the triumph, he had his triumphal chariot pulled by
four white horses, from which they said that because of his pride he wished to be equal
to the sun; third, that he made a vow to Apollo the tenth part of the booty of the
Veientes..."[61] When the people were denied their part of the loot, they rebelled against
Camillus.[62]
Referring to the Roman Repuiblic, Machiavelli begins Chapter 24 establishing that "...two
things were the cause of the dissolution of that republic: one was the contentions that
arose from Agrarian law; the other, the prolongation of commands. If these things had
been known well from the beginning, and proper remedies produced for them, a free way
of life would have been longer and perhaps quieter."[63] If one was to decipher
Machiavelli's statement into modern terms, he believes that bureaucracy resulted in the
demise of the Roman Republic.

In Chapter 25. Machiavelli states that "the most useful thing that may be ordered in a free
way of life is that the citizens be kept poor."[64] He recalls the story of the great
Cincinnatus, who, when the Rome was in grave danger, was made dictator by the Senate
and saved the Republic. When the battle was over, he surrendered his power and
returned to his small villa. His humbleness or "poverty" became something future
Romans tried to emulate.[65] Machiavelli concludes the chapter writing, "One could show
with a long speech how much better fruits poverty produced than riches, and how the one
has honored cities, provinces, sects, and the other has ruined them..."[65]
Chapter 26's title is "How a State is ruined because of women."[65] He summarizes his
own thoughts close to the end of the chapter: "In this text are several things to be noted.
First, one sees that women have been causes of much ruin, and have done great harm
to those who govern a city, and have caused many divisions in them."[66]He raises the
example of Lucretia, whose rape by Tarquin the Proud's son ultimately led the exile of the
Tarquin family from Rome and destruction of the Roman monarchy.[66]
Chapter 27 concerns "How one has to unite a divided city; and how that opinion is not
true that to hold cities one needs to hold them divided."[67] Referring to when the Romans
handled tumult the leaders of a divided city they had recently conquered (Ardea),
Machiavelli believes that there are three possible ways to handle the leaders of rebellion
within a held city: "...either to kill them, as they did; or to remove them from the city; or to
make them make peace together under obligations not to offend one
another."[67] Machiavelli relates this belief to when, in his own times, Florence conquered
the city of Pistoia. The Florentine rulers tried all 3 methods when handling the feuding
houses of the city.[68] He establishes that it is impossible to rule a divided city.[68]
The heading for Chapter 28 states that "One should be mindful of the works of citizens
because many times underneath a merciful work a beginning of tyranny is
concealed."[69] Machiavelli relates it to a moment in Roman history when there was
considerable famine and the wealthy man Spurius Maelius planned to distribute grain to
win over the favour of the Plebs. Maelius planned to become dictator with this favor but
was executed by the senate before he could do so.[69]
Chapter 29's topic is "That the sins of peoples arise from princes."[70] Machiavelli
establishes that "Princes should not complain of any sin that the people whom they have
to govern commit, for it must be that such sins arise either by negligence or by his being
stained with like errors."[70] A king should not punish his citizens for pillaging in war when
he is himself a known pillager.[70] Machiavelli relates this belief held by man rulers to a
quote from Lorenzo de' Medici: "And that which the lord does, many do later; For all eyes
are turned to the lord."[71]
Chapter 30 pertains to how envy must be eliminated if there is to be good work between
people in the name of the republic and that if one sees the enemy, he must order the
defense of his city.[71] In Rome's early history, envy between great Romans led to a

dysfunction in the army and failures in war.[72] Referring to envy, Machiavelli believes that
"in many times that the cause that men cannot work well, since the said envy does not
permit them to have the authority that is necessary to have in things of
importance."[72] Machiavelli does think this envy can be eliminated when "either through
some strong and difficult accident in which each, seeing himself perishing, puts aside
every ambition and runs voluntarily to obey him"[72] or "...when, either by violence or by
natural order, those who have been your competitors in coming to some reputation and to
some greatness die."[72]
The heading for Chapter 31 states "Strong republics and excellent men retain the same
spirit and their same dignity in every fortune."[73] If the leader of a republic is weak, then
his republic will be weak.[73] Machiavelli raises the modern example of the Venetians,
whose good fortune created a sort of "insolence" that they failed to respect the powerful
states around them and lost much of their territorial holdings.[74] Machiavelli asserts that is
necessary to have a strong military in order to have a state with "good laws or any other
good thing thing [sic?]."[75]
Chapter 32 concerns "what modes some have held to for disturbing a
peace."[76] Machiavelli cites several examples from the Punic Wars.[77]
The heading for Chapter 33 asserts that "If one wishes to win a battle, it is necessary to
make the army confident both among themselves and in the captain."[78]Machiavelli lists
out the methods to do so: "...that it be armed and ordered well, that [its members] know
one another. Nor this confidence arise except in soldiers who have been born and lived
together. The captain must esteemed of a quality that they trust in his prudence."[78] Once
an army trusts, they win.[78]
Chapter 34 pertains to "What fame or word or opinion makes the people being to favor a
citizen; and whether it distributes the magistracies with great prudence than a
prince."[79] Machiavelli brings up the example of Titus Manlius who, upon rescuing his
father, the "filial piety"[79] displayed inspired the people and led to Titus Manlius being put
in second command of the tribunes of the legions.[79]
Chapter 35 concerns "What dangers are borne in making oneself head in counseling a
thing; and the more it has of the extraordinary, the greater are the dangers incurred in
it."[80] Machiavelli writes that "since men judging things by the end, all the ill that results
from it is attributed to the author of the counsel; and if good results from it, he is
commended for it, but the reward by far does not counterbalance the harm."[80] He brings
up the present story of the Sultan Selim who, after receiving faulty military advice and
losing a great part of his army, killed the men who gave him this advice.[80]
In Chapter 36, Machiavelli tackles "The causes why the French have been are still judged
in fights at the beginning as more than men and later as less than women."[81]Machiavelli
believes that this stereotype first arose in Livy's writings; when the Romans did battle
with the Gauls. The Gauls were quick to start fights but in actual combat failed

spectacularly.[80] He writes that while the Roman army had fury and virtue, the army of the
Gauls only had fury, which, more often than not, lead them into embarrassing battles.[82]
In Chapter 37, Machiavelli wonders "Whether small battles are necessary before the
main battle; and if one wishes to avoid them, what one ought to do to know a new
enemy."[83] Pondering this question, Machiavelli writes, "For I consider, on one side, that a
good captain ought altogether to avoid working for anything that is of small moment and
can produce bad effects on his army: for to begin a fight in which all one's force are not at
work and all one's fortune is risked is a thing altogether rash...On the other side, I
consider that when wise captains come up against a new enemy who is reputed, before
they come to the main battle they are necessitated to make trial of such enemies with
light fight for their soldiers..."[83]
In Chapter 38, Machiavelli writes of "How a captain in whom his army can have
confidence ought to be made."[84] In a captain demanding of his troop to follow his deeds,
not his words, there seems to be great success.[85]
The topic of Chapter 39 is "That a captain ought to be a knower of sites."[85] It is
necessary for a captain to have knowledge of other countries.[85]
In Chapter 40, Machiavelli states, "Although the use of fraud in every action is detestable,
nonetheless in managing war it is a praiseworthy and glorious thing, and he who
overcomes the enemy with fraud is praised as much as the one who overcomes it with
force."[86] Fraud in war means fooling the enemy.[87] He raises the story of Pontus, captain
of the Samnites, who sent some of his soldiers in shepherds clothing to the Roman camp
so that they could be lead them into an ambush where Pontus's army was waiting.[87]
Chapter 41 establishes "That the fatherland ought to be defended, whether with ignominy
or with glory; and it is well defended in any mode whatever."[87]
Chapter 42 is quite short and can be summarized in its heading: "That promises made
through force ought not to be observed."[88]
Chapter 43 pertains to the fact that "Men who are born in one province observe almost
the same nature for all times."[89] The nature of things in the present is not much different
than it was in Livy's time.[89] According to Machiavelli, "Whoever reads of things past in
our city of Florence and considers also those that have occurred in the nearest times will
find German and French people full of avarice, pride, ferocity, and faithlessness, for all
those four things have much offended our city in diverse times."[89]
The point of Chapter 44 can be summarized in its heading: "One often obtains with
impetuosity and audacity what one would never have obtained through ordinary
modes."[90] There is great reward to being ambitious in key moments like a battle.[90]
In Chapter 45, Machiavelli wonders, "What the better policy is in battles, to resist the
thrust of enemies and, having resisted it, to charge them; or indeed to assault them with
fury from the first."[91] he raises the story of Decius and Fabius, two Roman consuls at war

with the Samnites and Etruscans. They attacked the enemy in two entirely different
manners, one slow and defensive, the other exhausting his army in a furious manner.[91]
Chapter 46 concerns that "not only does one city have certain modes and institutions
diverse from another, and procreates men either harder or more effeminate, but in the
same city one sees such a difference to exist from one family to another."[92] Machiavelli
believes not to be the result of bloodline, but education.[92]
Chapter 47 is incredibly short and can be summarized in its heading: "That a good citizen
ought to forget private injuries for love of his fatherland."[93]
In Chapter 48, Machiavelli believes that "when one sees a great error made by an
enemy, one ought to believe that there is deception underneath."[93] He cites examples
from both his town time (when Florence went to war with Pisa in 1508) and Rome was at
war with the Etruscans.[94]
The final chapter of Book 3 concerns the fact that "A republic has need of new acts of
foresight every day if one wishes to maintain it free; and for what merits Quintus Fabius
was called Maximus."[94] Quintus Fabius was a Roman censor who took all the young
Romans who failed to understand the basics of the Republic and "derived under four
tribes, so that by being shit in such small spaces they could not corrupt all Rome.[95] Due
to the expediency of this fix, and the fact that it was well received by the people of Rome,
he gained the name "Maximus".[95]

Fortune[edit]
In Book I of the Discourses, Machiavelli expresses an interesting view of Fortune and its
role in shaping history. While discussing the religion of the Romans, Machiavelli
acknowledges that Numa Pompilius introduced religion as a social tool to keep the
people in line and obedient. The way in which Numa used religion to tame a savage
people convinces Machiavelli that religion was absolutely necessary for maintaining a
government. But despite Machiavellis belief that religion was a fictional social construct,
he still believes in the power and influence of fortune. For Machiavelli fortune plays a
large role in affecting history; without fortune the Roman government would have never
broken from the cycle of government demonstrated by Polybius. Fortune acted as a
similar force to the role of gods, yet it was completely different in the sense that religion
was man made and fortune existed naturally and benefited those who demonstrated
good virtues.[96]

Reception and reaction[edit]

Francesco Guicciardini, Machiavelli's friend, read the book and wrote critical notes
(Considerazioni) on many of the chapters. Jean-Jacques Rousseau considered
theDiscourses (as well as the Florentine Histories) to be more representative of
Machiavelli's true philosophy:

Machiavelli was a proper man and a good citizen; but, being attached to the court of
the Medici, he could not help veiling his love of liberty in the midst of his country's
oppression. The choice of his detestable hero, Cesare Borgia, clearly enough shows his
hidden aim; and the contradiction between the teaching ofThe Prince and that of the
Discourses on Livy and the History of Florence shows that this profound political thinker
has so far been studied only by superficial or corrupt readers. The Court of Rome sternly
prohibited his book. I can well believe it; for it is that Court it most clearly portrays.
Rousseau, The Social Contract, Book III.