5

Niccolò Machiavelli's Discourses on Livy, written between 1513 and 1519, are not as famous as The Prince, but possibly his best work. Its Italian title, Discorsi sopra la prima deca di Tito Livio, literally means "Discourses on the first decade/ten books of Titus Livius", i.e. the first ten books of Livy's history work Ab Urbe Condita Libri.

Does this mean that one should read at least these first ten books of Livy's history of Rome? Or, if it is not absolutely necessary, what would be the specific benefits of doing this? After glancing over the introduction to an English translation of the Discourses I was none the wiser.

  • Interesting question that begs for a systematic pedagogical answer. My view is that there would be two different pathways based on one's knowledge of ancient literature: deep vs not deep. If one is steeped in the classics then it should matter little whether one reads Machiavelli or Livy first. On the other hand if one is not so well read in the classics, reading Machiavelli first would obviously bias your understanding of Livy; reading Livy first would be less biasing but only as a function of where Livy fits in your understanding of the corpus of the classics. What is your objective? – DJohnson May 29 '18 at 17:01
  • @DJohnson I had six years of Latin at school and Livy was one of the authors we read back then - more than 20 years ago. My goal is understanding Machiavelli's political ideas rather than Livy's views. – Christophe Strobbe May 29 '18 at 18:31
  • Perhaps a reading-order tag? You'd have to ditch one of the others though ... – Rand al'Thor May 29 '18 at 23:31
  • @Randal'Thor I don't find the reading order tag a good match (based on its current tag wiki excerpt), since the question is not about in which order to read both works but about whether one should read Livy at all before reading the Discourses. – Christophe Strobbe Jun 21 '18 at 19:32
1

Now that I've finished reading an annotated translation of the Discourses on Livy (translated by Julia Conaway Bondanella and Peter Bondanella. Oxford University Press, 2008), I can answer my own question.

Livy's Ab Urbe Condita is Machiavelli's main source of citations and references, so there is a benefit in reading that book. However, Ab Urbe Condita is a long work and it is by no means Machiavelli's only source: the author also cites many other Roman and Greek authors and makes many references to the more recent history of Italy (mainly 1440 - 1510). So in order to be fully prepared for reading the Discorsi, one would also need to be familiar with the following works:

This is a lot to read, and Machiavelli often doesn't mention what the source of a specific statement of event is. This means that an annotated edition is very valuable for anyone who is not an expert in Ancient historiography and Italian history.

It is also worthwhile, though not necessary, to read a modern history of the Roman republic, in order to contrast a modern account of Roman history with the version that Machiavelli was familiar with. Machiavelli and the authors he cited did not have access to the archaelogical data and critically edited historical sources that present-day historians have, and this led to an overreliance on oral and written traditions. If Machiavelli had had access to a modern account of the history of Roman republic, it is unlikely that he would have glorified many of the historical figures he mentions in the Discorsi.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.