Machiavelli, Volume I — Niccolo Machiavelli — John Shaqi
Machiavelli, Volume I
Niccolo Machiavelli · en
The _Discorsi_, printed in Rome by Blado, 1537, are not included in the
present edition, as the first English translation did not appear until
1680, when almost the entire works of Machiavelli were published by an
anonymous translator in London. But some account and consideration of
their contents is imperative to any review of the Florentine's political
thoughts. Such Discorsi and Relazioni were not uncommon at the time. The
stronger and younger minds of the Renaissance wearied of discussing in
the lovely gardens of the Rucellai the ideas of Plato or the allegories
of Plotinus. The politics of Aristotle had just been intelligibly
translated by Leonardo Bruni (1492). And to-day the young ears and eyes
of Florence were alert for an impulse to action. They saw glimpses, in
reopened fields of history, of quarries long grown over where the ore of
positive politics lay hid. The men who came to-day to the Orti
Oricellarii were men versed in public affairs, men of letters,
historians, poets, living greatly in a great age, with Raphael, Michael
Angelo, Ariosto, Leonardo going up and down amongst them. Machiavelli
was now in fair favour with the Medici, and is described by Strozzi as
_una persona per sorgere_ (a rising man). He was welcomed into the group
with enthusiasm, and there read and discussed the _Discorsi_. Nominally
mere considerations upon the First Decade of Livy, they rapidly
encircled all that was known and thought of policy and state-craft, old
and living.
[Sidenote: Their Plan.]
Written concurrently with _The Prince_, though completed later, the
_Discorsi_ contain almost the whole of the thoughts and intents of the
more famous book, but with a slightly different application. '_The
Prince_ traces the progress of an ambitious man, the _Discorsi_ the
progress of an ambitious people,' is an apt if inadequate criticism.
Machiavelli was not the first Italian who thought and wrote upon the
problems of his time. But he was the first who discussed grave questions
in modern language. He was the first modern political writer who wrote
of men and not of man, for the Prince himself is a collective
individuality.