Discourses on Livy · Chapter
Chapter X explained
Machiavelli contrasts the praise due to founders of republics and kingdoms with the blame due to founders of tyrannies, using Roman emperors as examples.
What happens
Machiavelli contrasts the praise due to founders of republics and kingdoms with the blame due to founders of tyrannies, using Roman emperors as examples. He argues that good emperors who ruled justly were secure and beloved, while bad emperors perished violently. He urges rulers to imitate virtuous founders like Romulus rather than destroyers like Caesar, and to learn from history that tyranny leads to infamy and danger.
Themes in this chapter
Leadership and Moral Character
Machiavelli contrasts the security and glory of good emperors (Titus, Nerva, Marcus) with the downfall of bad ones (Caligula, Nero), emphasizing that personal virtue and just rule protect a prince.
Virtù and Fortune
The chapter argues that good emperors relied on their own good lives and the goodwill of subjects (virtù), while bad emperors depended on armies and fortune, which failed them.
Historical Cyclicality and Human Nature
Machiavelli uses the pattern of good and bad emperors to show how history repeats: adoption brought good rulers, hereditary succession brought ruin, illustrating cyclical decline.
Characters to notice
- Caesar
Cited as a destroyer of Rome, contrasted with Romulus the restorer; his glory is said to be exaggerated by corrupt historians.
- Romulus
Praised as a founder who restored Rome, in contrast to Caesar who destroyed it.
- Brutus
Mentioned as Caesar's enemy, praised by historians who dared not criticize Caesar directly.
- Catiline
Compared to Caesar; Machiavelli says Caesar is more hateful than Catiline because he acted on his evil desires.
- Scipio
Held up as a model for private citizens in a republic to emulate, unlike Caesar.
- Titus
Listed among the good emperors who ruled justly and were secure without legions.
- Marcus Antonius
Mentioned as one of the good emperors (Antoninus Pius or Marcus Aurelius) who ruled well and were safe.
- Nero
Cited as an example of a bad emperor whose depraved life led to his downfall despite military power.
Key passages
“For of the twenty-six emperors from Caesar to Maximinus, sixteen came to a violent, ten only to a natural death; and though one or two of those who died by violence may have been good princes, as Galba or Pertinax, they met their fate in consequence of that corruption which their predecessors had left behind in the army.”
Out of twenty-six emperors, sixteen were murdered or killed, and only ten died naturally. Even good emperors like Galba and Pertinax were killed because the army had been corrupted by earlier bad rulers.
Machiavelli uses this statistic to argue that corruption in the military, inherited from previous rulers, can doom even virtuous princes.
“And in truth the prince who seeks for worldly glory should desire to be the ruler of a corrupt city; not that, like Caesar, he may destroy it, but that, like Romulus, he may restore it; since man cannot hope for, nor Heaven offer any better opportunity of fame.”
A prince who wants lasting fame should wish to rule a corrupt city so he can reform it, like Romulus, rather than destroy it like Caesar. No greater chance for glory exists.
Machiavelli contrasts the destructive ambition of Caesar with the constructive ambition of Romulus, urging rulers to be restorers.
“But let him who desires to know how historians would have written of Caesar had they been free to declare their thoughts mark what they say of Catiline, than whom Caesar is more hateful, in proportion as he who does is more to be condemned than he who only desires to do evil.”
If you want to know what historians really thought of Caesar, look at how they condemned Catiline. Caesar is worse because he actually carried out his evil plans, while Catiline only plotted.
Machiavelli argues that historians praised Caesar only out of fear, and that his actions were more harmful than Catiline's intentions.
