← All chapters

Discourses on Livy · Chapter

XXXIX explained

Machiavelli observes that the same desires and passions recur across different nations and times, using the example of Florence's mistaken abolition of the Ten of War in 1494 and Rome's similar attempt to abolish the consulship through the

What happens

Machiavelli observes that the same desires and passions recur across different nations and times, using the example of Florence's mistaken abolition of the Ten of War in 1494 and Rome's similar attempt to abolish the consulship through the Terentillian law, both of which led to worse outcomes until the original institutions were restored.

Free preview opens on this chapter — companions, themes, and character notes appear beside the text.

Narrative arc

Story tension across the book — this chapter sits in Exposition.

SetupEscalationClimax
  • Setup
  • Escalation
  • Breaking point
  • Aftermath
  • Closing

The emotional and psychological peak occurs when the Claudian censor, driven by the family’s ingrained haughti…

Full beat labels and climax notes unlock in the reader.

Follow the arc while reading

Themes in this chapter

Characters to notice

  • Titus Livius

    Livy is the source for the Roman historical example of the tribune Terentillus and the conflict over consular power.

Key passages

  • “Anyone comparing the present with the past will soon perceive that in all cities and in all nations there prevail the same desires and passions as always have prevailed”

    By studying history, one sees that human desires and passions are constant across time and place.

    Machiavelli's core thesis on historical recurrence.

  • “the people recognizing their mistake, and that the evil was in the disease and not in the physician, reinstated the magistracy of the Ten.”

    The Florentines realized the problem was the war itself, not the magistrates, so they restored the Ten of War.

    Illustrates the error of blaming institutions for underlying problems.

  • “so much greater was their hatred of the name than of the thing.”

    The commons hated the title 'consul' more than the actual power it represented.

    Highlights the irrationality of the Roman commons in their conflict with the nobles.