Commanding Lady Fortune: Machiavelli’s Theory of History Essay

Commanding Lady Fortune: Machiavelli’s Theory of History Machiavelli opens his Discourses on Livy by declaring that what will follow will be entirely revolutionary—â€Å"a path yet untrodden by anyone†Ã¢â‚¬â€but then quickly backs down from such assertions, shifting his focus away from his own efforts to the modern views of the ancients, and leaving the nature of this revolutionary undertaking ambiguous (Discourses, 5) . Indeed, the purpose of the whole work is repeatedly skirted in the preface. Machiavelli instead focuses on the distinction between the moderns and the ancients, mourning the superficial modern adoption of ancient ideas in art and law that lacks a deeper understanding of the philosophical underpinnings of ancient thought. He leaves us with only a vague description of his purpose in writing the Discourses—â€Å"so that those who read these statements of mine can more easily draw from them that utility for which one should seek knowledge of histories† (Discourses, 6). What the specific utility of history is, however, and what is so novel about his treatment of it, Machiavelli does not say. However, within the preface, and throughout his subsequent treatment of the idea of history in both the Discourses and The Prince, it becomes clear that he is indeed arguing something revolutionary through his use of history as a guide for politics. He chastises the moderns for â€Å"judging that imitation is not only difficult but impossible—as if heaven, sun, elements, men had varied in motion, order, and power from what they were in antiquity,† that is, for being deceived by Christianity into believing that its inception had fundamentally altered the nature of the world, and that a distinction between the ancients and the moderns is anything... ...lf than of the prince he has been hired to serve, meaning that, because Machiavelli also believes in a human nature that is at its foundation, deeply self-serving, a monarch can have no true advisors and is doomed to failure (Prince, 93). In a republic, however, men like Machiavelli are free to look out for their own good while charting a course for the state, as both goods are aligned (Discourses, 130). While the prince of a republic may himself only possess the second kind of mind and be unable by his nature to come to such a broad understanding of history and the causality of human events that Machiavelli has, it is enough that he has among his advisors such men as Machiavelli. Thus, ultimately, Machiavelli’s â€Å"yet untrodden path† turns out to be the creation of a method for government that is premised on the ability to master every kind of manifestation of fortune. Commanding Lady Fortune: Machiavelli’s Theory of History Essay Commanding Lady Fortune: Machiavelli’s Theory of History Machiavelli opens his Discourses on Livy by declaring that what will follow will be entirely revolutionary—â€Å"a path yet untrodden by anyone†Ã¢â‚¬â€but then quickly backs down from such assertions, shifting his focus away from his own efforts to the modern views of the ancients, and leaving the nature of this revolutionary undertaking ambiguous (Discourses, 5) . Indeed, the purpose of the whole work is repeatedly skirted in the preface. Machiavelli instead focuses on the distinction between the moderns and the ancients, mourning the superficial modern adoption of ancient ideas in art and law that lacks a deeper understanding of the philosophical underpinnings of ancient thought. He leaves us with only a vague description of his purpose in writing the Discourses—â€Å"so that those who read these statements of mine can more easily draw from them that utility for which one should seek knowledge of histories† (Discourses, 6). What the specific utility of history is, however, and what is so novel about his treatment of it, Machiavelli does not say. However, within the preface, and throughout his subsequent treatment of the idea of history in both the Discourses and The Prince, it becomes clear that he is indeed arguing something revolutionary through his use of history as a guide for politics. He chastises the moderns for â€Å"judging that imitation is not only difficult but impossible—as if heaven, sun, elements, men had varied in motion, order, and power from what they were in antiquity,† that is, for being deceived by Christianity into believing that its inception had fundamentally altered the nature of the world, and that a distinction between the ancients and the moderns is anything... ...lf than of the prince he has been hired to serve, meaning that, because Machiavelli also believes in a human nature that is at its foundation, deeply self-serving, a monarch can have no true advisors and is doomed to failure (Prince, 93). In a republic, however, men like Machiavelli are free to look out for their own good while charting a course for the state, as both goods are aligned (Discourses, 130). While the prince of a republic may himself only possess the second kind of mind and be unable by his nature to come to such a broad understanding of history and the causality of human events that Machiavelli has, it is enough that he has among his advisors such men as Machiavelli. Thus, ultimately, Machiavelli’s â€Å"yet untrodden path† turns out to be the creation of a method for government that is premised on the ability to master every kind of manifestation of fortune.