Although repeated attempts have been made over the last half-century to make sense of Machiavelli's Discourses on Livy as an exposition of classical republicanism, such endeavours are bound to fail. After all, Machiavelli rejected the teleology underpinning the discursive republicanism of the ancients, and his understanding of the ends pursued by republics was profoundly at odds with the understanding predominant in ancient Greece and Rome. If he had a classical mentor, it cannot, then, have been Aristotle or Cicero or one (...) of the ancient historians. If he had such a mentor, it was surely Lucretius, the leading Roman critic of ancient political idealism--a figure so important to the Florentine that in the late 1490s he copied by hand in its entirety De rerum natura and that he drew on it throughout his subsequent career. Machiavelli's republicanism is best understood as an appropriation, critique and reworking of ancient Epicureanism. (shrink)

In A History of Florence, Machiavelli recounts revolts, especially of the Ciompi of 1378, which display the repeated surfacings of the desire for freedom navigating ceaselessly between the desire to abolish freedom through the recourse to absolute power and moments when virtue triumphs over fortuna and achieves an order that, while fragile, makes the antagonisms fit in such a way that instead of fights they become debates. For Machiavelli, the speeches made in these situations serve to both analyze the circumstances (...) within which the struggles take on meaning and to display the desire for freedom carving out its path using the energy deployed via the negativity of the desire not to be dominated. Key Words: Ciompi • domination • Florence • guilds • license • Machiavelli • non-domination. (shrink)

ABSTRACT The Discourse on Florentine Affairs contains a proposal for constitutional reform in which Machiavelli directly addresses Pope Giovanni de’ Medici. With the aim of contributing to the recent radical republican readings of Machiavelli, this paper argues that the best way to understand the Discourse is to read it as an example of Machiavelli’s use of irony. Machiavelli disguises his radical republican ideas in the Discourse with paradoxes, omissions and implausible reforms that, though clearly leaning towards a popular republic, are (...) presented as part of the oligarchic or princely option that was defended by the Medici. His subtle critique of the Medici’s client-based politics, his implicit rejection of the oligarchic mixed regime, his description of the institution of such pro-popular magistrates as the Provosts and the Gonfaloniers of the Companies of the People, make one suspect that Machiavelli is hiding a disguised preference towards a popular, rather than a mixed, republic. (shrink)

Scholars have cited the influence of Lucretius on Machiavelli as important to framing Machiavelli’s position on the freedom of political agents. Some scholars like Roecklin and Rahe argue that Machiavelli was a determinist based on Machiavelli’s rejection of the clinamen; others argue with Brown and Morfino that Machiavelli’s affirmation of Lucretian natural principles left room for the freedom of agents. However, this paper takes a different approach by arguing that Machiavelli successfully resists identification with either of these positions. I argue (...) here that Machiavelli affirms a notion of agency that reflects the influence of the Lucretian notion of mixed bodies where human actions emerge from an irreducible multiplicity of subjective and objective factors. I also argue that Machiavelli structures the narratives describing the actions of his agents in a way that supports interpreting their actions as both contingent and necessary. (shrink)

In his Florentine Histories, Machiavelli offers an ambivalent portrayal of the revolt of the textile workers in late fourteenth-century Florence, known as the tumult of the Ciompi. On the face of it, Machiavelli's depiction of the insurgent workers is not exactly flattering. Yet this picture is undermined by a firebrand speech, which Machiavelli invents and attributes to an unnamed leader of the plebeian revolt. I interpret this speech as a radical and egalitarian vector of thought opened up by Machiavelli's text. (...) The revolutionary address reveals an untimely and not entirely self-conscious political radicalism, a plebeian politics that repudiates the logic of oligarchic privilege and is simultaneously not available for subsumption under the mantle of civic republicanism. (shrink)

This essay examines the two means by which Machiavelli thought republics could address the political problem of predatory socio-economic elites: Healthy republics, he proposes explicitly, should consistently check the “insolence of the nobles” by establishing constitutional offices like the Roman tribunes of the plebeians; corrupt republics, he suggests more subtly, should completely eliminate overweening oligarchs via the violent actions of a tyrannical individual. Roman-styled tribunes, wielding veto, legislative and accusatory authority, contain the oppressive behavior of socio-economic elites during normal republican (...) circumstances. By contrast, having overthrown a republic grown corrupt through oligarchic encroachment on the commonweal, Machiavelli suggests that Greek-styled tyrants lay the foundation for a more robust—that is, more egalitarian and martial—republic down the road by eliminating elites entirely and by instituting economic redistribution and military reforms. (shrink)