Nicolo Machiavelli

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 28

Page |1

NICOLO MACHIAVELLI: CONTRIBUTION


TO POLITICAL SCIENCE

SUBMITTED ON:
AUGUST 26th,2013

SUBMITTED TO:

Dr. Kamal Narayan


Faculty, Political Science, H.N.L.U., Raipur

SUBMITTED BY:
Muskan Khatri
Roll No. 87, Section B
Semester 2, B.A., LL.B (Hons)

HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY,


UPARWARA, NAYA RAIPUR, CHHATTISGA
Page |2

DECLARATION
I hereby declare that this project work titled “NICOLO MACHIAVELLI:

CONTRIBUTION TO POLITICAL SCIENCE” is my own work and represents my own

ideas, and where others’ ideas or words have been included, I have adequately cited and

referenced the original sources. I also declare that I have adhered to all principles of academic

honesty and integrity and have not misrepresented or fabricated or falsified any

idea/data/fact/source in my submission.

Muskan Khatri

Roll no 113, Section A

B.A. LLB., 1st semester


Page |3

Acknowledgements

The practical realization of this project has obligated the assistance of many persons. I

express my deepest regard and gratitude for SIR KAMAL NARAYAN. Her consistent

supervision, constant inspiration and invaluable guidance have been of immense help in

understanding and carrying out the nuances of the project report.

I would like to thank my family and friends without whose support and encouragement, this

project would not have been a reality.

I take this opportunity to also thank the University and the Vice Chancellor for providing

extensive database resources in the Library and through Internet. I would be grateful to

receive comments and suggestions to further improve this project report.

I feel highly elated to work on the topic “NICOLO MACHIAVELLI: CONTRIBUTION TO

POLITICAL SCIENCE”.
Page |4

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………………5
OBJECTIVES………………………………………………………………………………7
SCOPE OF METHODOLOGY…………………………………………………………….7
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY…………………………………………………………...7
ORGANISATION OF STUDY……………………………………………………………..7
BIOGRAPHY……………………………………………………………………………….8
POLITICA IDEAS…………………………………………………………………………10
MACHIAVELLI’S ACTUALITY: CONTRIBUTION TO POLITICAL THOUGHT……23
CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………………………..26
REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………………...28

INTRODUCTION
Page |5

Machiavelli  was the first thinker who freed political science or theory from the clutches of
religion and morality. He was not interested in high moral or religious principles. His main
concern was power and the practical or political interests of the state. It would be the primary
concern of the prince in particular and government in general to protect the interests of state.

In this connection R. N. Berki writes:


“He is also renowned for being exceptionally outspoken and candid in his views, writing
with a clinical detachment or sometimes even cynicism about issues. Such as the use of
violence and deception in politics”.

In other words Machiavelli was the first thinker who took an unequivocal stand in regard to
the relationship between religion, morality and virtue on the one hand and politics on the
other. He adopted a very clear stand about politics, religion and morality.
He never denounced virtue, morality and religion. But what he emphasized is that the domain
of morality and religion is quite different from that of politics and the prince must maintain it
in his treat mental of politics.
Machiavelli strongly advocated a dichotomy between morality and religion on the one hand
and politics on the other. But Skinner is of opinion that. This dichotomy is not Machiavelli’s
own creation or discovery.
Aristotle in his Politics adopted such form of dichotomy and Machiavelli scrupulously
adopted Aristotelian method. Aristotle held the view that the “qualities which deserve
admiration in a prince may be different from those which deserve admiration in a
private citizen”.
Even many other thinkers following Aristotle and Machiavelli said that “the virtues of the
rulers are one thing; the virtues of the people are another.” In this way Machiavelli
established a separate set of virtues for the prince or the ruler.
In The Prince he emphasized that the prince must follow a virtue which is “creative”—
creative in the sense that the virtue of the prince would be able to maintain the state. With the
help of his virtues the prince would “fight off” his enemies.
We, therefore, find that Machiavelli used the word “virtue” not in any conventional sense.
The supreme objective of a prince is always to maintain the unity of his state and to bring it
under good administration. People of the state always demand that they are not to be
oppressed and exploited.
It is the primary duty of the ruler to look after it and if any ruler fails to achieve it he is unfit
for the post of ruler or to be called a prince. At the same time Machiavelli declared that if a
prince or ruler fails to achieve this objective he cannot demand obligation from his subjects.
In this way Machiavelli had established a new norm for politics and that norm is politics has
nothing to do with the conventional type of morality or ethics.
Page |6

We further observe that Machiavelli denounced his contemporary political theories because
they failed to emphasize the importance of power. In his opinion power is the most important
aspect of political theory.
Even today we cannot deny this concept power politics or practical politics does not give full
recognition to morality or religion. Last of all we hold the view that he built up a wall
between politics and religion not guided by personal preference but by the prevailing
situation of his time.
Page |7

OBJECTIVES OF STUDY

1. Biography of Machiavelli

2. Nicolo Machiavelli’s political ideas.

3. Machiavelli’s actuality: Contribution to development of political science.

SCOPE OF STUDY
The scope of study includes the purview within which the project work lies. This topic has

been clearly enunciated with the help of articles from magazines, newspapers and other such

e-article databases that have been explored. The subject explores the methods of studying

political science, their merits-demerits and the difference between the methods.

METHODOLOGY OF STUDY

This project work is descriptive & analytical in approach. It is largely based on secondary &

electronic sources of data. Internet & other references as guided by faculty of political

science are primarily helpful for the completion of this project. My research methodology

requires gathering relevant data from the specified books and other online sources .Several

magazines and reports and journal were used in the study .

ORGANISATION OF STUDY
Firstly, the introduction of the study is discussed to know what the project is dealing with.

Definition and meaning of Political Science is discussed to make study more easy. Also

definitions of method is studied to know exactly what method is. Then various methods of

studying Political Science is discussed which is centre of the study.


Page |8

BIOGRAPHY
Niccolò Machiavelli was born in Florence on May 3, 1469, to Bernardo and Bartolomea.
Though the family had formerly enjoyed prestige and financial success, in Niccolò’s youth
his father struggled with debt. Nevertheless, his father was actively interested in education
and provided young Niccolò with access to books.
The world of Machiavelli’s youth was one of great ferment in matters political, intellectual,
and ecclesiastical. Florence was among the many Italian city-republics frequently contested
by the larger political powers of the day—the papacy and the Holy Roman Empire, along
with France and Spain. New editions and translations of classical Greek and Roman texts
provided the material for the intellectual movement known as the Renaissance, which
combined an interest in Christianity with a newfound curiosity about classical culture.
Meanwhile, although the Church had always been important politically in Europe, in
Machiavelli’s time the Church’s involvement in worldly politics included its direct
participation in wars of acquisition.
Florence had risen to prominence as a banking center, and the Medici banking family had
been the effective rulers of Florence since 1434. Machiavelli’s youth saw a failed attempt on
the Medici dynasty by the Pazzi family in 1478, in addition to the dramatic rise of the
Dominican friar Savonarola. When Machiavelli was twenty-five, Charles VIII of France
invaded Italy, and the subsequent departure of the Medici family left Florence in the hands of
Savonarola. After a tumultuous rule of under four years, Savonarola was executed, and Piero
Soderini re-established republican government.
It was under Soderini’s republic that Machiavelli, now almost thirty, became Second
Chancellor of the Florentine Republic, an important position involving both internal and
diplomatic duties. After the restructuring of the republic in 1502 and the subsequent
appointment of Soderini as gonfaloniere, Machiavelli’s influence grew. He undertook
diplomatic missions to many of the great European powers and worked intensely to improve
the Florentine militia. In doing so he made not a few enemies.
Machiavelli was married from 1501 till his death, with his wife Marietta bearing seven
children. His extramarital activities were occasionally a source of scandal.
1512 saw the restoration of Medici rule after Cardinal Giovanni de Medici, soon to be elected
Pope Leo X, reconquered Florence along with Pope Julius II. Machiavelli was removed from
office in the change of regime and was arrested for conspiracy against the Medici.
Machiavelli produced his most important literary and political writings during the subsequent
years when he retired to his estate outside Florence, while not abandoning his political
ambitions. His first work, The Prince, which he finished toward the end of 1513, carries a
dedication to Lorenzo de’ Medici—perhaps reflecting Machiavelli’s hopes of returning to
political life. Around the same time he was also composing his Discourses on Livy, a larger
undertaking not finished till 1517 at the earliest. Neither political treatise, however, was
published in his lifetime; the Discourses reached print in 1531, The Prince in 1532.
Page |9

Following 1513, Machiavelli continued to exercise his literary skills. His Golden Ass, though
never completed, was written in 1517, followed in the subsequent year by his
comedy Mandragola. At the beginning of the 1520s Machiavelli brought out his Life of
Castruccio Castracani (1520), was commissioned by the Medici to write his Florentine
Histories (published 1525), and published his Art of War (1521).
After the defeat of Florence by the Holy Roman Empire in 1527, a new Florentine Republic
was declared. Just over one month later, Machiavelli died. His political legacy, however, had
just begun.
P a g e | 10

POLITICAL IDEAS
1. Absolutism:

At the beginning of the 16th century we see a very important aspect of modern political
theory which can simply be stated as modern absolutism. In the opinion of Sabine,
Machiavelli is the father of this absolutism.
He suggested the separation between religion, morality and politics. In political matters the
king will have the last word to say and all other centres must submit to political power.
In the words of Sabine:
“Absolute monarchy overturned feudal constitutionalism and the free city-states, on which
medieval civilization had largely depended….Ecclesiastical rulers were everywhere subjected
more and more to royal control and in the end church’s legal authority disappeared”.
Both Renaissance and Reformation drastically cut the wings of church and papacy which
created vacuum in social and political fields and this was forthwith filled up by the
emergence of absolute royal power.
Hence absolute royal power became the order of European politics. The growth of absolute
monarchy, like that of feudal constitutional monarchy, took place in almost every part of
western Europe.
The question is why the absolute monarchy came to be the order of the day of European
politics. In the medieval period the church or the Ecclesiastical authority in all possible ways
discouraged the people to ignore the financial issues which ultimately resulted in the
complete stagnation of economy. Both Renaissance and Reformation enlightened people’s
mind, thought and outlook and this, in turn inspired them to go out in search of money and
wealth.
In the new situation and atmosphere the medieval institutions were remodelled and partially
revolutionized to cope with the new situation. Before Renaissance and Reformation trade and
commerce were local and they operated in certain fixed routes.
After these two, both trade and commerce became international or, we can say, the operation
of trade and commerce expanded considerably. The wealth of many nations increased beyond
imagination and simultaneously many people having considerable enterprise came to be the
owners of newly created wealth.
That is wealth, power and enterprise were in the hands of few persons and they came to be
called capitalist class or bourgeois class. Before Renaissance and Reformation, in European
society there was class of nobility and after these two there arose a new class—the capitalist
class and finally the old class of nobility was forced to submit to the class of capitalists.
P a g e | 11

The capitalist class saw that the citadel of wealth and property would face insecurity if
military power and administration remained out of its control. In other words, the bourgeois
class was very much eager to control the power and military of the state.
The power of the kings in all practical senses must be absolute but it must remain under the
control and supervision of the capitalists. At the time of Machiavelli the capitalists were
rising quite rapidly and they sought royal protection for the growth of trade and commerce.
The meteoric rise of the power of kings appeared to be salubrious to the bourgeoisie.
This class thought that with the help of the royal power it would be able to secure its wealth,
because the king was the authority of military and bureaucratic administration. Machiavelli
fully understood the social, economic and political situation of Italy and at the same time he
thought that only an absolute monarch or prince with enormous power could save Italy.
Democracy, liberalism, people’s rights etc. had very little importance to him. Only an
absolute monarchy was the need of the day.
Machiavelli was a great patriot and nationalist. He was convinced that only a powerful king
could unite divided Italy. A powerful prince could hasten the economic progress.
A united Italy was badly needed and a prince with enormous power at his disposal could
achieve it. Like other Italians Machiavelli held the church responsible for the miserable
condition of Italy.
So we hold the view that the prevailing situation forced Machiavelli to strongly argue for a
strong monarchy. Machiavelli was a practical man and he had wide interests and curiosity in
politics.
Italy of his time was weak politically and militarily. She was cornered in European politics.
This ignoble position of Italy pained Machiavelli and he decided that Italy must be saved at
any cost. Installation of an absolute power was the only solution.
Absolute power of the prince was the only way. In support of his conclusion Machiavelli
drew examples from ancient history of various European states.
It means that at first he took a decision or selected a way and after that he gathered “facts in
support of his decision. This some people call Machiavellian. The word Machiavellian is also
used to denote “some action on the part of a state, a politician or even a friend. By calling an
action Machiavellian we mean that it is selfish, cunning and without any moral justification”.
Though Machiavellism is used in pejorative sense we think that it is unjust because his
method of analysis and objective cannot be subject of denouncement. The objective situation
compelled him to advocate for an absolute power and separate politics from morality and
religion. Many people may not like him or even may denounce him but a neutral assessment
will support him.

Machiavelli and Renaissance:

Many critics of Western political thought prefer to call Machiavelli as the child of
Renaissance. W. T. Jones says “Machiavelli was the child of Florence and of the
Renaissance. All the qualities which characterise his city and his age appear in his own
personality”.
P a g e | 12

An important aspect of Renaissance is that, coming under its influence, man began to judge
and value everything, specially politics, in a new light. Even they scanned the values such as
morality, justice, religion.
In the Middle Ages man was mesmerized by the church, Pope and, above all, by religion. He
had no independent thinking power.But the advent of Renaissance changed this situation and
man began to think of religion, values etc. by applying his own reason.
Machiavelli also adopted it. He broke the traditional path. He analysed social, political
conditions in the light of new thought, reason and perspective. So both ordinary men and
Machiavelli changed their line of thinking and way of values.
He thought that man was not created simply to follow the advice of church and adopt certain
religious principles.
He also observed that the orthodox religion has considerably dwarfed his power of thinking
and ability to follow or adapt reason. This created a precarious situation in the Italian society.
He observed that Renaissance everywhere of Europe created a new thought and advancement
of learning. Renaissance inspired man to know more and to advance forward. But the people
of Italy remained in darkness.
Machiavelli arrived at the decision that the people of Italy must be saved from this position
and new thought shall be injected in their “blood”. Being influenced by Renaissance he
thought in this line.
The study of history inculcated a new idea in his mind and that was the service and loyalty to
God and church could never be a factor of social upliftment. For this purpose it is required
that man must serve society and man. The influence of religion, ethics and morality must be
removed and people must be made practical.
He declared that in public affairs religion, morality and ethics must have no status. Only a
powerful prince with absolute power at his disposal can achieve this. W. T. Jones writes: “A
product of Renaissance, such as Machiavelli repudiates the old medieval nation of an
objective moral order, determined by God, and in accordance with whose prescriptions men
live best.
On the contrary, for him that life is best which brings fame, distinction, honours, and
reputation to a man” Needless to say that Machiavelli received his materialistic outlook from
the Renaissance. The Renaissance taught man the important lesson that if man desires better
living and better situation he must look to the material situation—and not to God or religion
or morality. All these are subjective and cannot help man to attain overall upliftment.
Before Renaissance man was the doll at the hands of Pope and this resulted in the loss of
reason and rationality. But he must think that he is endowed with reason, rationality, and
power of judgment. By applying all these qualities he can considerably improve his material
condition.
The subservience to God, morality, religion has no power to change and improve man’s
material condition. People of post-Renaissance period acquired this idea and Machiavelli
thought it prudent to apply it for the general improvement of Italian society. This is
materialism, and we also call it Machiavellism.
P a g e | 13

2. Reason of the State:

The most revolutionary aspect of Machiavelli’s idea about politics is the reason of the state.
Ebenstein writes: Before Machiavelli all political writings—from Plato and Aristotle through
Middle Ages to the Renaissance—had one central question—The end of the state.
Political power was assumed to be a means only—a means to the service of higher ends such
as justice, the good life, freedom or God—Machiavelli ignores the issue of the end of the
state in the extra-political terms. He assumes that power is an end in itself and he confines his
inquires into the means that are best suited to acquire, retain, and expand power.
The fact is that the central concept of Machiavelli’s political philosophy is the power of the
state and, without power, the state is almost nothing. Studying history he formed the
conclusion that only power can save Italy. If there is any message in The Prince, then it is that
the sole objectives of the prince shall be to acquire power to make the state self-sufficient in
all respects so that it can compete with other states. This is called the reason of the state.
The concept—reason of the state—is regarded by many—constitutes the central idea of
Machiavelli’s political theory or ideas. It means that a state may have many ambitious aims
but the most important one is to strengthen its position by acquiring power because without
power a state is almost nothing.
A true prince must accumulate physical power by any means and apply it for the sake of the
state. In the Discourses he said: “A prince must build on sound foundation, otherwise he is
bound to come to grief.
The main foundations of every state are good laws and good arms”. Why so much emphasis
on arms and power? Machiavelli had a thorough knowledge about human nature. In order to
fight human beings of this nature a prince must have enormous power.
The power of the prince means the power of the state. Hobbes also held the same view. The
point, however, is, these issues or aspects have met at a single point and this point is—the
nature of society, the nature of human beings and the duty of the prince. These three have
constituted the concept of reason of the state.
Speaking about the reason of the state (or regione di state) Skinner maintains “Machiavelli’s
The Prince was first printed in 1532, and thereafter the Machiavellian defenders of region di
state showed an increasing disposition to argue that if the main aim of the political theorist is
to offer genuinely useful advice on how to maintain one’s state, then the less edifying aspects
of prevailing political practice ought to be acknowledged and even recommended rather than
merely outlawed”.
Skinner also observes that many have condemned his concept- reason of the state. But it is to
be well-remembered that there was no alternative way.
He wanted to save Italy from further deterioration and, in order to achieve that ambitious
goal; the state of his imagination must have a positive and clear role. He did not think of a
state in Platonic background.
Some critics also say that Machiavelli’s attitude towards religion, ethics and morality is
unpardonable. But his idea of state and reason of the state are impressive.
P a g e | 14

He possessed a clear conception about human nature and for such nature a powerful state is
essential. Here lies the reason of the state. From history he collected numerous instances why
a very powerful state is needed.
Machiavelli was a practical man and he was not guided by any sentiment. That built up his
reason of the state.

3. Power Politics and Self-Sufficient State:


Machiavelli’s two concepts—power politics and self-sufficient state—are closely connected.
J. R. Hale in his article—Machiavelli and the Self-Sufficient State—observes: It is
noteworthy how much Machiavelli sees politics as a battle—a constant struggle for power.
All politics, in his sense, are power politics.
After the Second World War the whole world was in the grip of power politics which means
most or all the big powers converted the whole world into a battle-field.
The leaders of the super or major powers believed that war was the only way to solve all the
problems. Machiavelli, almost in the same way, treated war as the only instrument capable to
solve social and political problems. He writes in The Prince “Therefore, if a prince wants to
maintain his rule he must learn how not to be virtuous, and to make use of this or not
according to need.
Everyone realizes how praiseworthy it is for a prince to honour his word or to be straight-
forward rather than in his dealings; nonetheless contemporary experience shows that princes
who have achieved great things have been those who have given their word lightly, who have
known how to trick men with their cunning, and who, in the end, have overcome those
abiding by honest principles.”
In the theory of power politics there is no place of honesty and scruples. The sole aim of the
prince or ruler of the state would be to achieve the goal. This goal is the interest of the state.
To make the state powerful so that it can fight any ill-design of another state.
In the thought and action of the prince the only idea will get priority: The state must be made
powerful at any cost because without military power the state is quite incapable to achieve its
objective.
In The Prince Machiavelli has elaborately discussed the concept of power: “There are two
ways of fighting: by law or by force. The first way is natural to men, and the second to beasts.
But as the first way often proves inadequate one must need have recourse to the second.
So a prince must understand how to make a nice use of the beast and the man…. Prince must
know how to act according to the nature of both and that he cannot survive otherwise”
(Machiavelli: The Prince). Machiavelli advised his prince to make a proper use of both law
and brute force and in this way he was supposed to achieve success.
He advised his prince to sacrifice honesty, morality, religion for the benefit, or, more
generally, for the cause of the state. It would never be regarded prudence on the part of the
prince if he sacrifices the interest of the republic at the altar of honesty and religion. This is
regarded as the reason of the state.
The interest of the state will be achieved if it is made all-powerful. He could not see anything
of the state outside or beyond power. Both for survival and development of state power is
P a g e | 15

indispensable. In the Discourses he has elaborated this idea. He supported his contention by
drawing instances.
Another part or aspect of Machiavelli’s contribution to politics is his idea of self- sufficient
state. His idea of power politics reason of state and self-sufficient state are all closely related,
J. R. Hale in his illuminating article—Machiavelli And the Self- Sufficient State has thrown
ample light on this aspect.
He says that Machiavelli did not appeal to the Christian morality or religion for the benefit of
the state. To him the state was all-in-all and he was not prepared to sacrifice a small part of
the interest of the state.
Without a powerful state people’s progress and welfare would remain unfulfilled. It is the
reason of the state or raison d’tat. If the raison d’tat is achieved or successfully established
the state will achieve the status of self-sufficiency. So behind the concept of power politics
there was an idea of a self-sufficient state in his mind.
The word self-sufficient is really a comprehensive term. But to Machiavelli it had a definite
connotation. In order to be self-sufficient a state first of all must be powerful so that it can
defeat the ill-motives of foreign states.
After a state has achieved self-sufficiency in power (especially military power) it can land on
other activities. The military power is at the top of all considerations.
In the concluding part of his analysis J. R. Hale writes “Machiavelli’s assumption that the
state must pursue a policy of self-interest in terms of raison d’etat is not a Bible morality, was
later echoed by theorists like Hegel, and men of action like Bismarck and Hitler.
Today the problem which Machiavelli stated is as urgent as ever” We think that what was
true at the time of Machiavelli is still correct. Today the big or super powers are continuously
fighting to establish their over-all supremacy.
They do not know where they will reach. Machiavelli thought that the accumulation of
military power was the most prudent way to establish one’s supremacy. It was wrong. Even
today the big or super powers think in the same line. It is also wrong.
However, Machiavelli of Florence is not dead; he is still alive in the minds of the leaders of
today’s big powers.
Hale concludes:
We can throw away Machiavelli the bogey, but, if we are to think realistically about politics
the state and the super-state perhaps we still need the pugnacious common sense of
Machiavelli the man”. Both in national and international fields, power and politics are all-in-
all. So we cannot blame Machiavelli.

4. Politics and Religion:


Renaissance, Luther, Calvin and Machiavelli are almost contemporary. Both democracy and
individualism are the products of the Renaissance. But simultaneously despotism emerged
along with them.
Church and papacy were forced to surrender their supremacy and dictatorial manner or
functioning and the vacuum created in this way were forthwith filled up by the rise of
monarchy.
P a g e | 16

The dominating power of kings became absolutely prominent. Out of democracy,


individualism and despotism, only despotism was able to draw special attention of
Machiavelli.
McClelland aptly observes:
In the Discourses Machiavelli makes it perfectly clear that the ruthless rule of a new prince is
only one of the forms of government.
Machiavelli was quite acquainted with various forms of government including democracy or
republicanism. But he preferred dictatorship or despotism as the most suitable form of
government.
It is generally observed that he was the chief supporter of despotism because in his judgment
only a despotic ruler could save Italy from the despicable condition. Somehow he arrived at
the conclusion that a strong and powerful ruler was needed for Italy. Democracy could not
save her. To Machiavelli politics was an end and its mechanism was military power.
He was chiefly concerned with the mechanics of government. He studied history of many
European states and the knowledge he gathered was that Italy needed an autocratic
government.
“He was not a prisoner of indecision. It was his conviction. He writes almost wholly of
the mechanics of government, of the means by which states may be made strong of the
politics by which they can expand their power”.
According to Sabine and many others political and military measures are of primary interest
because Machiavelli thought that only these two had the power to save a state. He strongly
advocated a separation between politics and religion and without this separation the state
could not reach its goal. His open declaration was that the purpose of politics was to preserve
and augment political power.
He was so adamant in this respect that he was not prepared to make any compromise. The
policy adopted by the prince may be cruel, faithless or lawless, but that, is quite immaterial.
The point is whether it could help the prince to achieve success.
The policy of the prince is quite moral or ethical and he is religious-minded but it is useless
so far as its capacity to achieve success is concerned.
Machiavelli was not against morality, religion, ethics etc. Rather, he was indifferent. That is,
he adopted an indifferent stand or attitude towards these. It is called moral indifference.
In Discourses he made the following observation “our religion places the supreme happiness
in humility, lowliness, and a contempt for worldly objects, whilst the others on the contrary,
places the supreme good in grandeur of soul, strength of body.
These principles seem to me to have made men feeble and caused them to become an easy
prey to evil minded men”. In this passage we find that he did not suggest to be immoral or
anti-religious. He was of opinion that religion; morality etc. should be kept aside for special
and personal use.
If a prince wants to achieve success he must make serious efforts to separate religion and
morality from politics. He should use these for his personal use only.
The prince must not hesitate to use immoral means and unethical ways and corrupt practices
to achieve success in political fields.
P a g e | 17

A prince should not run after admiration. His subjects may throw him eulogy and admiration
for being honest and religious minded. But they will never forgive him for his failure in
political affairs.
Machiavelli recommends a double standard of morality and ethics—one for the ruler and the
other for the private citizens or persons. The reason suggested by Machiavelli is that the
supreme objective of the prince is to achieve success in political fields: Religion, morality
and ethics should not be allowed to stand on the way of success.
But the private persons have not such objectives and naturally they have the freedom to
follow moral and religious ways. Machiavelli has suggested that the virtue of a prince is
different from that of an ordinary person.
Skinner observes “the whole of Machiavelli’s advice is governed by a highly original sense
of what should be taken to constitute true virtu in a prince………. With Machiavelli the
concept of virtue is simply used to refer to whatever range of qualities the prince may find it
necessary to acquire in order to maintain his state and achieve great things”.
It is clear that morality, ethics and religion in the case of a prince are together called virtue
and the prince must adopt this virtue honestly. He should be least concerned with what
happens in religion or morality.
By recommending the above Machiavelli clearly indicated the separation between politics
and religion. This may also be called the “autonomy of politics”, which implies that the
politics has an exclusively different world. This is called secularism of politics or
secularisation of politics.
Machiavelli thought that politics and religion are different because their fields are separate.
He had a firm belief that for all sorts of corruption in politics, religion is absolutely
responsible.
A prince or a political man could never achieve success by scrupulously following religious,
moral and ethical means. If a man becomes prince he should avoid moral and religious ways
by all means.
There is emotion in morality and religion. A prince true to his name must give no recognition
to the religious and moral feelings. Explaining the stand adopted by Machiavelli Skinner
observes “if a ruler is genuinely concerned to maintain his state he will have to shake off the
demands of Christian virtue, wholeheartedly embracing the very different morality which his
situation dictates” It is to be noted here that “to maintain the state” and reason of the state are
concepts of immense importance and Machiavelli took these seriously.
A state must be maintained in the face of all odds or adverse situations and a judicious prince
must reject the conventional religion and morality. This is the fulcrum of Machiavellian
concept of secularization of politics.
If a prince honestly follows the Christian virtue that will stand on the way of success. Hence
he recommended two separate compartments—one for politics and the other for religion.
His clear view was that when the safety of our country is absolutely at stake there need be no
question of what is just or unjust, merciful or cruel, praiseworthy or disgraceful, but all other
considerations set aside, that course alone is to be taken which may save our country and
maintain its liberty. To him religion, ethics and morality were mystical concepts but the state
was a real element.
P a g e | 18

He was out and out a materialist and for that reason he refused to give proper recognition to
the mystical elements such as religion and morality State or politics has a separate and at the
same time real or concrete domain.
Florence was the birthplace of Machiavelli and birthplace of several celebrities. But this
Florence was in an ignoble position or situation which he could not tolerate. His idea was that
Florence or any other state was reality and in that sense politics was also a reality. But
religion is not a reality. Hence state and politics are reality.

5. Idea about State:


It would be wrong to brand Machiavelli as a systematic political philosopher or thinker or a
theoretician about state. His main concern was his birthplace Florence and overall progress of
Italy, especially Florence, an important centre of art and literature.
In The Prince he said:
“A prince must build on sound foundations of every state, new states as well as ancient or
composite ones, are good laws and good arms ” But above all the prince must focus his
attention On building up a powerful army.
Only an army can make a state self-sufficient. Here we like to note that Machiavelli’s state
was mainly a military state, it is not liberal or democratic state. He was not interested in
democracy at all. He thought that with the help of military strength a state can achieve its
object.
He was out and out a materialist and wanted to build up the concept of state on materialism.
He did not run after idealism, philosophy, morality etc. Even he did not think in those lines
and this was the special characteristic of Machiavelli’s state. G. W. Allen says: “He was
really concerned only with the actual states of his day. He had crude notions of how the states
came into being and he had the idea that all institutions tend to corruption owing to inherent
defects arising from the nature of man. He believed that out of corruption comes, or may
come, new healthy growth and that all tend to move in a circle. He conceived the state as
something very unstable”.
Machiavelli’s state was not only a military state, it was an absolutist state and above all it was
a secular state. It was a state quite indifferent to morality, to religion, to ethics. We can say he
predicted a twentieth century state—a state of power and politics.
Let us again quote Allen:
“Not only has it no vital relation to church it has no relation to God or to any cosmic
purposes.” He had a firm conviction that religion, politics and ethics could not cohabit. The
area of politics is absolutely separate from that of religion and morality. Today we frequently
talk about secular state. But it is to be remembered that several centuries ago Machiavelli, the
son of Florence, laid the foundation of such a state.”
Some interpreters of Machiavelli’s political thought are of opinion that he had an idea of
nation-state. He wanted to demarcate the boundary of each state to ensure the proper
administration and jurisdiction. In the opinion of a critic “That Machiavelli perceived the
advantage to a government of having subjects similar in language, customs and habits
of life, is quite clear.” In the last chapter of The Prince he had suggested that all the
foreigners were to be ordered to leave Italy.
P a g e | 19

He had the intention to convert Italy into one nation one state. This demand was revived in
twentieth century. Today we frequently talk about right to self-determination— Machiavelli
perhaps had that idea. Machiavelli had an apprehension that the foreigners were responsible
for the present condition of Italy.
He had an apprehension that if the prince proceeds to drive away all the foreigners from the
soil of Italy then armed conflict with other states was inevitable and, for that reason, he
suggested that a prince must proceed to build up a strong army to strengthen his defence and
must not depend on mercenaries because they are useless and dangerous. Some critics may
say that Machiavelli was a narrow-minded political thinker. May be so. But it is true that he
was a patriot and loved his motherland more than any other contemporary politician.

6. Omnipotent Legislator:

Machiavelli’s concept of state or his philosophy is closely connected with his notion of
omnipotent legislator.
He makes the following observation in Discourses:
“But we must assume, as a general rule, that it never or rarely happens that a republic or
monarchy is well-constituted, or its old institutions entirely reformed, unless it is done by
only one individual, it is even necessary that he whose mind has conceived such a
constitution should be alone in carrying it into effect.”
We have already observed that Machiavelli’s main concern was a well-ordered and properly
constituted state and he was fully conscious that law was the main instrument which was
capable of achieving this objective. His belief was that only a good prince was unable to
bring his state under proper administration.
Two instruments were necessary—one is good law and the other is well-regulated army. The
prince first of all will try to administer the state with the help of law and, where necessary,
army will be called. Interpreters of Machiavelli’s political thought are of opinion that he
advised his prince to rely mainly on law.
Sabine observes “The law-giver is the architect not only of the state but of society as well, with all its
moral, religious and economic institutions”.

Machiavelli received the importance of law from Greek political thought. In ancient Greece Solon (B.
C. 638-559) was of opinion that law was the chief instrument which could ensure justice. Needless to
say that Solon was a famous legislator.

He relied on good law and legislator on the ground that human nature was not always up to
standard—men are corrupt and self-interest seeking. To cope or fight with them good laws are
essential.

In his opinion human beings are selfish and egoist. To bring such persons under the administration,
law was essential and for that reason he heavily relied upon law. To sum up, in Machiavelli’s view,
law was the most important part of state administration.

But the question is why an omnipotent legislator. We have already quoted a long passage from
Discourses. He said “it never or rarely happen a republic is well- administered unless it is done by
only one individual.”
P a g e | 20

So we can easily conclude that he had no faith on any legislative body or legislature. His prince had
no limit to what extent he could go and similarly his law-giver had unlimited power to make law.

Machiavelli does not clearly say whether his omnipotent legislator and king is the same person or
not. But from his different comments in Discourses and The Prince it appears to us that he wanted to
entrust the powers of law-making and administration in the same hands.

An able prince, he hoped, would be able to make good laws which would build a solid foundation for
a prosperous state.

Sabine observes:

“He can tear down old states and build new, change forms of government, transplant populations
and build new virtues into the character of his subjects” A good administrator is also a good
legislator.

Machiavelli advised his prince to focus attention to both making of law and streamlining general
administration. We can say that all his contemporaries were thinking of a good and all-powerful
administration.

Like Plato, Machiavelli did not think of a philosopher king, but the idea of an able and powerful
administrator was quite active in his mind. This is an interesting aspect of Machiavelli’s political
thought which we can call “Machiavellism”.

Of course there are other aspects of Machiavellism but Sabine is of opinion that it is an important
aspect. Finally, Machiavelli says that to what extent a person is a good administrator and legislator
that requires to be judged by his success.

Assessment of Political Ideas of Machiavelli:

The assessment of Machiavelli’s political thought can best be described in the words of Sabine. He
says – “No man of his age saw so clearly the direction that political evolution was taking throughout
Europe. No man knew better than he the archaism of the institutions that were being displaced or
accepted more readily the part that naked force was playing in the process. Yet no one in that age
appreciated more highly the inchoate sense of national unity on which this force was obscurely
based. No one was more clearly aware of the moral and political corruption that went with the
decay of long-accustomed loyalties and pieties”.

This assessment of Sabine is perfectly correct. Machiavelli had profound knowledge about social and
political conditions of Italy and that created a lot of frustration and agony in his mind.

He was a great patriot and he thought that Italy could be saved from this ignoble condition. He, for
that reason, adopted an uncompromising stand. He, it is true, took an uncompromising attitude
towards religion, morality and ethics.

The dominating role of church and papacy was primarily responsible for the all-round deterioration
of human society. He pinpointed it and suggested a way out. We may not agree with his suggestion,
but the mere fact is that he had no other solution. “Indoctrinated as he was in the pagan revival in
Italy he was unable both by training and temperament to grasp the constitutional and the moral
ideals that European politics would carry over from the Middle Ages”

At the beginning of the sixteenth century constitutionalism was not highly rated as a good palliative
for social and political malady. He understood the malady and applied his knowledge and
experience. We may not agree but we cannot blame him.

He was a materialist and, at the same time, realist. Berki says that Machiavelli had clear conception
about all the aspects of his contemporary society. Let us quote few words from Berki – of course, in
P a g e | 21

truth Machiavelli’s cynicism and practical concern are not the most important things about him,
what we have to realise is that he had a clear and by no means ignoble, political vision” Every
political philosopher is the product of his time and Machiavelli is no exception. Plato, Aristotle, Marx
all luminaries fall within this category. He believed that only a powerful prince could save Italy.

If we judge Machiavelli in a conventional way it will be found that he was guilty—guilty in the sense
that he advised prince and politician to ignore morality and ethics. But he is to be judged in the
background of his time and if we do this our conclusion will be of different nature. He is a thinker par
excellence. His knowledge about contemporary political situation was really laudable. What he said
is quite natural. He was a patriot, he was a practical man. Applying the best of his knowledge he
advised the prince in such manner.

Dunning said “The influence of Machiavelli upon the history of political theories can hardly be
exaggerated. Not only the method and substance of his philosophy but also the marvelous literary
art with which it was expressed served to win for its universal attention” . We appreciate Dunning’s
assessment. His literary art is praiseworthy, but more praiseworthy is his good command over real
situation of his contemporary Italy.

His idea of power politics is absolutely pragmatic. His advice to the prince was— if he wants to
achieve unity and progress of his state his sole aim would be to make his state militarily powerful
and to that extent he must ignore Christian values, moral considerations and ethical judgments.

Interesting to note that in the second half of the twentieth century the leaders of the superpowers
followed the same track which created several crises.

We do not know whether Machiavelli’s prince followed his advice. But politician of seventies and
eighties of the twentieth century exactly did the same thing. Machiavelli’s state is the real state.

It is never the embodiment of Christian values or morality. The state has an autonomous
value and that value is the power of the state. This is the reason of the state or raison d’tat. He
advised his prince to make the republic as strong as possible so that it would have not to
depend upon others.
We know that erstwhile Soviet Union and United States did the same thing in the fifties and
sixties of the last century. In 1969 the 500th birth anniversary of Machiavelli was observed in
many parts of the Western World. This indicates that Machiavelli’s political thought has
lasting value and this relates to his concept of power and particularly power politics.
Machiavelli was quite aware that misdistribution of poverty was the chief factor of conflict
among the various classes of society. Both Marx and Engels recognized it. He believed that a
powerful prince with enormous military power could save the society from this evil. He did
not think of revolution. But it is not his fault. At the beginning of the sixteenth century the
socio-economic-political condition of Italy was not ripe for a revolution and for that reason
he did not lay emphasis on revolution.
“Machiavelli anticipates Hobbes in believing that the glory of a prince can consist of nothing
but the prosperity and contentment of his people” If a prince succeeds in unifying and
strengthening his republic that will ensure the all-round prosperity of the state. We can
remember that Thomas Hobbes also thought almost in the same line.
In his opinion the anarchy of the state of nature was not congenial for the progress of the
society and for that reason he suggested that a new society would be built up at the head of
which there shall be a powerful sovereign authority.
P a g e | 22

The sovereign authority will rule the state with law and sword. There is hardly any difference
between Machiavelli’s prince and Hobbes’ Leviathan. In the strictest sense, both are of the
same category.
Some critics charge him as the founder of fascism. The Michigan University has published a
collection of essays under the title—”Communism, Fascism and Democracy—The
Theoretical Foundations.
In one of the essays Machiavelli has been depicted as the supporter of fascism. Fascism does
not understand anything other than power and, more particularly, naked and unscrupulous
power. Machiavelli advised his prince to adopt such power. Like Machiavelli, Hegel was also
the worshipper of absolute power. Hitler was the disciple of these two thinkers.
Machiavelli was also a supporter of the bourgeoisie. As a result of Renaissance the trade and
communication among nations expanded at a meteoric rate and some adventurist people
earned a lot of money from trade and business. These people constituted a class called the
capitalist class.
his duty to support the cause if this class. His conviction was that an absolute monarchy
would be the best possible form of government. This led him to support absolute monarchy.
P a g e | 23

MACHIAVELLI’S ACTUALITY:
CONTRIBUTION TO THE DEVELOPMENT
OF MODERN POLITICAL SCIENCE
 
Machiavelli’s work has constituted the object of research and analysis from two
relatively opposite perspectives: the historical one and the moral one. The former sees
Machiavelli as “truly a man of his time” (A. Gramsci), excessively preoccupied by the
problem of unifying Italy. The latter harshly judges him on the grounds that he is amoral and
that he promotes cynicism and cruelty. Between the two, there is another perspective, the
scientific one. In its view, Machiavelli has in mind the creation of a positive political science.
Andrei Otetea, a Romanian historian, remarked: “Niccolò Machiavelli built a system that
summarises the experience and the political thinking of his time through sheer observation
and practice, as well as through studying Titus Livy”.[20]
Historical research comes to confirm Antonio Gramsci’s view that Machiavelli had
been a man of his time. He wrote: “We need to consider Machiavelli as a necessary
expression of his time, tightly connected to the conditions and demands of his time, which
resulted (1) from the internal struggles of Florence and from the special structure of the state,
which could not rid itself of the archaic remains of a feudalism that had become a nuisance;
(2) from the struggle between Italian states for a balance within the Italian territory, balance
that was prevented by the Pope’s existence, by municipal organisation and not a territorial
one; (3) from the struggles between Italian states for European balance; thus from the
contradictions between the need for an internal, Italian balance and the demands of European
states that were competing for hegemony”.[21]
“Through Machiavelli, as it was said, political science starts out on a new path, with
thoroughly new perspectives”.[22] Despite his declarations about the interest in the verita
effetuale della cosa, Machiavelli thought under the speciae aeternitatis. His conception had
the universal as its goal and this made him a man belonging to the Renaissance, and he left
beyond a new perspective on how to judge politics.
The Romanian historian Oţetea remarked: “The Renaissance brought an
understanding about science, coupled with a new view on society and on the art of
governing” He could be easily called a modern day Aristotle. “Machiavelli’s greatest merit”,
notices Horkheimer, “is to have recognised, very early, the possibility of a political science
which, in his view, corresponded with the new physics and the new psychology, and that he
expressed its fundamental traits in a simple, exact way”.
P a g e | 24

Of course, Machiavelli is not original through its topic as many before him had
studied politics and had done it so brilliantly, coming up with original works. What is original
about Machiavelli’s perspective is his method of approaching the political phenomenon:
“Machiavelli invents a realistic theory of politics. He bases the very ethical principles on the
principles of politics which, in turn, rely ontologically on the dialectic of purposes and means
[…] He is looking for cause and effect, believes in experience, in the lesson of history, in
actions. He discovers the psychology of people and that which is permanent about it. He
studies the universe of intent and action”.
The author of The Prince can be seen as one of the most profound political
psychologists for he grasped human nature’s negative side, its vices, dark passions and
hidden effects, reaching a deep level of scepticism, on which he built his Machiavellianism.
One thing is clear, though: “Machiavelli did not invent shrewdness, treason or political crime.
But he deduced a theoretical principle out of the political practice, a universally valid norm
and he conjured a decisive proof for the secularisation of thinking”. Machiavellianism as a
practical political attitude is a despicable and dangerous phenomenon. However, it is not
Machiavelli who is responsible for it.
Machiavelli made an error when he tried to separate politics and morality, and to
establish an ethics in conformity with the interests and maxims of power. He was wrong in
justifying absolute power, state reason as reason per se, and as a supreme principle of
governing. But, unveiling the intimate mechanism of power, the hidden face of politics,
without deformation and excuses, without illusions and compromise, he forewarned people
more than any creator of deforming utopias ever did. He shatters the view that politics would
pursue general good, as well as the belief in the sacred, divine power. We could say that he
humanises politics, placing it in a truer light and, through that, he helps us adopt a more
realistic attitude, in conformity with truth and reality. Burnham said: “if people generally
understood what Machiavelli had understood about the mechanism of power, they wouldn’t
still be disappointed in accepting leadership and they would know the necessary steps to take
in order to stand up to it”.
The observation of real political facts is Machiavelli’s prime method; however, this
has brought about the awareness that careful researching of historical truth represents an
indispensable source of knowledge as that which is essential, general, repetitive in politics
stands out as a gold nugget would. In fact, Machiavelli thought politics under a double
aspect: science and art. Political man is similar to a sculptor who shapes a wonderful creation
out of an amorphous material. Politics is creation, not just technique and craft; it requires
exceptional qualities from its leading figures who would then model it according to their
knowledge and virtues. It is no wonder then that one of the most famous Renaissance
P a g e | 25

historians, Burckhardt, believed that “out of all political architects, Machiavelli is the
greatest, without a doubt, without objection”.
We have already established that Machiavelli was read and interpreted in different
ways. Some saw The Prince as a code for tyranny and cynicism. Others, on the contrary, saw
in it a scientific work of incontestable worth, even an expression of humanism. These two
views constitute the extremes of the numerous interpretations available. According to the
ethical and political aspect, Machiavellian thought is a polarised one, as Croce and Gramsci
have pointed out. We subscribe to the view that considers as too simplistic the attempt to
analyse Machiavelli’s work according to the triad: moral, immoral, amoral, because
understanding it necessitates the use of nuances and subtleties.
Perhaps we are not exaggerating at all when we say that, of all political thinkers,
Machiavelli has become the less redundant, as many of his intuitions, observations and
judgements still remain true. He saw politics for what it was, vice and all, schemes and all.
What we could reproach him is that he stayed within the realm of politics exclusively, leaving
aside the intersection points, the opening gates to ethical and cultural aspects of life. That is
the reason why his work seems somewhat incomplete, although necessary. Even if we prefer
Kant and his case for humanity, Machiavelli is crucial for understanding that politics does not
take into account subjective wishes and moral reasons, for it contains its own ends and
reasons.
“Machiavelli brings about a radical change in the European political thought; new
concepts emerge, new perspectives arise with the evolution of modern political reality”. must
therefore admit that without his honest, blunt and realistic spirit, we might have remained in
the false paradise of illusions and utopia, without ever knowing the true face of politics.
P a g e | 26

CONCLUSION
“It is a strange desire, to seek power over others, and to lose your power over a man’s self.
The rising into place is laborious, and by pains men come to greater pains; and it is
sometimes base; and by indignities men come to dignities.”
Francis Bacon: Essays – Of Great Place
You did not intend to get into fights with fellow councillors, to confront staff, conspire to
defeat other members’ initiatives, lobby in back rooms, form cliques, build a secret power
base among staff and board members, to shout down another member at the table, or shoulder
your way to the front of the line during the photo op.

Well, most of us have done so. You didn’t do any of these things if you were happy to be
dominated by councillors with a stronger will, you didn’t care about your reputation, were
willing to fall in front of the bus for staff, or were simply hopelessly naïve.Surprisingly, even
if you didn’t play the power games, even if you didn’t race to get the media attention or staff
support before anyone else, even if you didn’t twist arms in the back rooms to get your vote
passed, you may still be popular, respected and get re-elected. It happens. It’s like the lottery:
someone, after all, wins.

Municipal politicians should appreciate Machiavelli. He understood that we have to make


decisions that ordinary citizens never have to. He examined the far-reaching consequences of
our decisions on both our communities and on ourselves. He said that politicians must do
what is necessary, not simply what we want to do, but we should be aware of the cost of our
choices, both in the present and for the future of our municipality.

Machiavelli is, however, for more than politicians. His rules and insights can be applied to
almost formal organization: they work as well for any board and committee, or corporate
management and executive hierarchies.

Although reviled by his critics as an amoral political philosopher, Machiavelli had a strong
sense of ethics and morality, bound up in his understanding of honour mixed with
responsibility. However, he understood that the ruler was not bound by the same rules of
morality that regular citizens lived by, and that rulers were often torn by having to choose
between morality and expediency.

Rulers make choices, rulers take risks. You learn this in your first term in office.

He recognized that leaders bear a burden of responsibility for the difficult choices they make,
and risks they take – a sometimes terrible burden. But adversity helps create stronger leaders,
too.

Doing What is Necessary

Machiavelli wrote that strong measures in the short term might be necessary even by the
kindest of rulers, in order to achieve a longer term goal. Any politician wrestling with a
municipal budget to both preserve services and keep taxes low will appreciate this.
P a g e | 27

He also understood that those harsh measures are unpopular and ultimately unsuccessful if
continued over the longer term. Many a democratic government has been voted out of office
for continued harsh measures like escalating taxes and user fees paired with reduced services.

Machiavelli understood, too, that the populace often viewed the barons and nobles – today’s
municipal staff or political appointees – with suspicion, jealousy and even hatred. He
counselled politicians that, if they had to choose between loyalty to the electorate or their
nobles, to choose the electorate. It is popular belief, he wrote, that,

“All who attain great power and riches, make use of either force or fraud; and what they
have acquired either by deceit or violence, in order to conceal the disgraceful methods of
attainment, they endeavor to sanctify with the false title of honest gains.”
The Florentine Histories: III, 3
This focus on staying in power wasn’t entirely selfish: Machiavelli tied the welfare of the
people and the state to the behaviour of the ruler. The better ruler’s actions directly define the
happiness of the people. Machiavelli stressed that the ruler built his or her state on the
goodwill of its people, not on personal glory or acquisitions.

Duty to the whole state is, for Machiavelli, the ultimate, noble cause for the ruler. The ruler,
he wrote, has the responsibility to protect the state, not simply guard his own power.

The state needs to be whole to be successful. Turmoil divides a state, and a divided state
leads to more trouble. Keeping order, and preventing turmoil and disruption, often means
stifling opposition and dissent.

He had no patience for dithering or a ‘middle road’ approach – he promoted swift, decisive
action when confronted with a challenge, and taking sides.

Throughout his works, Machiavelli showed respect for those who achieved greatness through
talent, brains and ability – that elusive term, virtu. He had little respect for those who relied
on fate or chance, but respected those who used fate to their own ends.

Machiavelli was, above all, a pragmatist.

While rulers walk a fine line between being good and cruel, between being loved and feared,
he always expected them to make the choices that benefited the state first, and their own
interests second.

In the end, municipal politicians will be judged like his rulers: by the good they do for their
municipality. The benefit to the state is the ultimate measuring stick. If everything you do is
simply to further your own glory, you are destined to fail.

In today’s climate of political correctness, his bluntness may seem amoral, but it would be
hypocritical of any politician not to acknowledge his truths and admire his candor.
P a g e | 28

REFERENCES
1. http://seejps.lumina.org/index.php/volume-i-number-4-the-exercise-of-power-500-
years-after-the-prince-was-written/53-machiavelli-s-role-and-importance-in-the-
history-of-political-thought-machiavelli-the-creator-of-a-new-political-paradigm.
2. http://history-world.org/The_Prince_T.pdf.
3. ianchadwick.com/machiavelli/addenda/why-machiavelli-matters/
4.

5.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy