This article argues that Machiavelli’s chapters on the Decemvirate ( D 1.35, 1.40-45) advance an internal critique of the juridical discourse of sovereignty. I first contextualize these chapters in relation to several of Machiavelli’s potential sources, including Livy’s Ab urbe condita, Dionysius of Halicarnassus’s Roman Antiquities, and the antiquarian writings of Andrea Fiocchi and Giulio Pomponio Leto. I then analyze Machiavelli’s claim that the decemvirs held “absolute authority” ( autorità assoluta)—an authority that was unconstrained by either laws or countervailing magistrates. (...) I proceed to argue that Machiavelli’s account of the decemvirs’ election contains a web of allusions to the lex regia, the “royal law” by which the Roman people were thought to have conveyed their sovereign power to an emperor. By modeling the decemvirs’ election on the lex regia, Machiavelli reveals the political limitations of the doctrine of popular sovereignty; moreover, he illustrates that even free and fair elections can easily give rise to tyranny. (shrink)

Recent developments in Europe and the United States (US) attest to an increasing fascination with and nostalgia for the strong leaders of the past – especially those that emerged in the aftermath of the creation of nation states and during the period between the First World War and the end of the Cold War era. Considerations of the “strongman syndrome” have a long lineage in premodern European and Islamic political thought. The famous Italian humanist Leonardo Bruni (ca. 1370–1444), for example, (...) provides in his History of the Florentine People a narrative of the events that led to the ascension, ten-month rule and downfall of Walter VI of Brienne in 1342 in Florence. Writing one hundred years earlier, the historian and political writer Żiyā' al-Dīn Baranī (ca. 1285–1357) in his History of Fīrūz Shāh analyzes the failed leadership of the sultan of Delhi, Muḥammad b. Tughluq (r. 1324–1351). This article presents an exploration of specific variants of autocratic leadership in Renaissance Florence and the Delhi Sultanate – as recorded in Bruni’s and Baranī’s writings, respectively – which demonstrates that both authors seek to offer reflections on the emergence and gradual degeneration of strongman rule that are embedded in a broader discussion of the didactic value of the study of history and its relevance to good government. Both Bruni and Baranī highlight the transience of political authority and the dangers that can arise when a leader is out of touch with the overall social climate, alienates his constituency and operates without popular consent. A detailed examination of premodern modes of envisioning strongman rule can yield fresh insights into the circumstances that incubate the strongman syndrome and the ascent of strong leaders that are still timely today. (shrink)