CHAPTER THREE
Machiavelli: the Man, His Major Works, His Ideas,
and His Patrimony
Among the major characteristics of the Renaissance period were its belief in the
potentialities of human mind and that is what was neglected throughout the previous
period, the Middle Ages, which were completely "preoccupied with the universal and the
transcendental."1
One of the most important and widely read Renaissance thinkers was the Italian
philosopher, political theorist, and diplomat Niccolo Machiavelli. He was the central
figure of the political scene of the Italian Renaissance, a tumultuous period of plots, wars
among city states, and continued shifting alliances. Bertrand Russell stated, "The
Renaissance, through it produced no important theoretical philosopher, produced one
man of supreme eminence in political philosophy: Niccolo Machiavelli."2
This chapter is devoted to deal with Machiavelli as a man, his political and
philosophical ideas, and his best known work, The Prince. This pamphlet was the direct
cause of Machiavelli's fame as a sinister and ruthless politician. He was always
associated with corrupt and totalitarian government. Machiavelli had come to be
identified almost exclusively with this book. During the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries, Machiavelli's name would be used as a synonym of deviousness and cruelty to
the point that no thinker was so demonized as Machiavelli.
3.1. Machiavelli: Biographical Information
One of the very few political thinkers of the five preceding centuries, Niccolo
Machiavelli persisted enjoying the memory of the present time in spite of the elapsed
years. His name remained outstanding in the popular culture of the present-day as much
as in the academic halls.3 C. R. Verma provides us with a very condensed description of
this political philosopher. He says,
41
Niccolo Machiavelli, the most distinguished versatile genius of the
Italian Renaissance, an embodiment of the rarest quintessence of
human intelligence and intellect, a master-mind of the Art of
Governing, a shrewd diplomat and a subtle politician, a pragmatic
thinker and a practicalist, a profound political scientist and a
political philosopher, an outstanding prototype of worldly wisdom
and prudence, a historian-poet and a dramatist , a pious man and an
amoralist was born at Florence on May 3, 1469.4
Niccolo Machiavelli was the son of a Florence lawyer Bernardo and Bartolomea de
Nerli, from the neighbourhood of Santa Trinita. His family was prominent in Florence. It
was neither wealthy nor powerful. Poverty was not enough cause to prevent Machiavelli's
father from providing him with good education and that is what enabled Machiavelli to
learn rhetoric, grammar, and Latin. It is very important to mention that Machiavelli never
learned Greek even though Florence was one of the Greek scholarship centers, and that is
why he was not acquainted with the original copies of the great works of Greek
philosophy and historiography. Latin world, in contrast, was quite easy for him. Although
that little is known about Machiavelli's youth, one of the truths that is known for certain
about his early life is that "he copied out Lucretiu's De rerum natura (on the Nature of
Things), the great poem describing the origins of nature-the sea, plants, and animals-and
the condition of man."5
Machiavelli was the first male child after two daughters. His mother was a pious
woman. She was a writer of hymns and religious poems and that is what indicated that
Machiavelli might have learned his skills of writing from her, "but over divisions on
religion he stood with his father and the Roman historians." He grew up very close to his
father while the choice of his younger brother, Totto, was to go into priesthood.6
Machiavelli’s mother died in 1496 and his father in 1500.7
As a leading administrator in the new Florentine republic, Machiavelli's first
appearance in the unstable political scene was in 1498 after defeating the ruling regime.8
In the period from 19 June 1498 until 7 November 1512, Machiavelli was elected to serve
in the chancery of the Florentine republic which consisted mainly of "a body of quasi42
permanent officials who administered the republic's internal and external affairs, carrying
out policies which had been determined by the city's magistrates and councils.”9
Machiavelli used to help the political faction that disposed Girolamo Savonarola, the
dominant religious and political figure of Florence. In the same year of Savonarala's
execution, Machiavelli was appointed as the head of Second Chancery of the Republic. In
his position as a Chancellor and Secretary to the Ten of Liberty and Peace, "a sensitive
government agency dealing chiefly with warfare and foreign affairr's," Machiavelli
played an important role in both local politics and diplomatic missions as a diplomat in
foreign countries.10 In his occupation, Machiavelli was depending on the help of a group
of assistants like Andrea di Romolo, Agostino Vespucci, and Biagio Bounaccorsi. He
trusted them as faithful friends. During the period from 1499 to 1512, Maciavelli got the
chance to meet the prominent leaders of that time such as the King of France, Louis XII,
the Pope Julius II, the Emperor Maximilian I, and the Duke of Valentino, Cesare Borgia.
Machiavelli visited many Italian courts in addition to France and the Tyrol. His
occupations helped him to obtain new discernments into real political situations and "to
know directly the minds, the ambitions, the vices, and the (few) virtues of the political
leaders who were shaping the destiny of Italy and Europe."11
In 1502-3, Machiavelli concentrated on how Cesare Borgia enlarged his land-holding
in Italy depending on a mixture of skilled statesmanship and cruelty.12
Machiavelli won the honour of establishing and commanding the militia of Florence.
He got benefit of his occupation in the republic government in addition to the personal
effect he had on Soderini to adopt the idea of forming a citizen militia. In 1505,
Machiavelli received the chance that he was looking for "when the mercenaries employed
by the city in the interminable assault on Pisa raised a serious mutiny." The commands of
ten companies did not agree to go on fighting. Machiavelli's attitude towards this
treachery was an elaborated plan for the aim of substituting the mercenaries by founding
citizen militia. His desire was achieved in 1506 when the government supported the idea
of reviving the militia giving the agreement to recruit ten thousands men and to provide
them with "arms, uniforms and pay."13
43
Machiavelli always believed that the mercenaries would not be dependable to form
enough army for the task of defending the republic and that is why he was authorized to
recruit and drill Florentine soldiers in order to found the seed of a patriotic army. In 1509,
this army was in a position to retake the city of Pisa which was lost to the French by
Piero II. This achievement represented the highpoint of Machiavelli's military and
diplomatic post. In The Prince, he always emphasized the significance of having patriotic
army rather than depending on mercenaries.14
In 1512, the Spanish forces invaded Italy and helped the Medici to overcome the
republic army and to dismantle the government. The Medici, a family which had
governed Florence during long periods, returned to authority and as a result Machiavelli
was fired from his post and deported into a form of internal exile.15
In 1513, Machiavelli was mistakenly accused of plotting against the Medici. He was
arrested and tormented for several weeks. After this occurrence, although pardoned, he
was obliged to retire from public life and that is what offered him the suitable climate and
the occasion to devote himself to literary pursuits. A few days after they discharged him,
on 18 March 1513, Machiavelli wrote the following lines to his friend Francesco Vettori
in Rome.
As for turning my face toward Fortuna, I should like to get this
pleasure form these troubles of mine, that I have borne them so
straightforwardly that I am proud ofmyselffor it and consider
myself more of a man than IbelievedI was. And if these new
masters of ours see fit not to leave me lying on the ground, I shall
be happy and believe that I shall act in such a way that they too will
have reason to be proud of me. And if they should not, I shall get
on as I did when I came here: I was born in poverty and at an early
age learned how to scrimp rather than to thrive.16
Machiavelli wanted to inform his friend that he had faced the false responsibility of a
plot against the Medici. He talked about his bravery of being patient to endure the pain
which was inflicted on him in order to extort an acknowledgment which would lead him
to execution. He mentioned another painful case, his dismissal from his occupation.
44
Machiavelli was also providing significant report about himself and his style of dealing
with life. "He was telling his friend that very early on in his life he had accustomed
himself to look at men and life from the side of poverty, exclusion, and adversity."17
After several attempts to gain the contentment of the Medici and as a result of the
help of his friends whom he did not stop his in insistence for interceding, Machiavelli
began to come back to the favour of the ruling family. In 1520, he was authorized by the
Cardinal Giulio de Medici to compose the History of Florence, it was achieved in 1525
and proffered to the Cardinal, who ascended the Papal throne as Clement VIII in Rome.
There were forthcoming tasks from the Medici government, but time did not aid
Machiavelli who could not achieve full participation as he died on 21 June 1527.18
According to David K. Fray, the Florentine again was able to remove the Medici out
of Florence and refounded the republic. Machiavelli ran to regain the post that he had lost
several years ago, but his hopes were in Vain. They were frustrated because of the fame
that The Prince had established which had made thepeople of Florence think that
Machiavelli was like the Medici. As a result he did not retake his occupation. Months
later, Machiavelli fell ill, his health started to fail him, and he died.19
Machiavelli political books became widely famous in 1564. They were considered
dangerous and put on the Church index of officially forbidden books.20 The
misrepresentation and misunderstanding of his works depicted them as almost diabolical
works. The clergy were the most violent attackers of his writings. The first great edition
of Machiavelli's works was issued in 1782. It was a date from which his fame as the
founder of modern political sciences steadily increased.21
In his writing with the assistance of his imagination, Machiavelli was able to know
how to take advantage of the wide experience he had gained for the goal of converting it
into a new shape and that is what enabled Machiavelli to leave a great personal seal on
the history of political thought.
He would always remembered be by the political leaders ofall hues
and colours and the Lords of political philosophy, would continue
to hold him in high esteem. World statement would never forget his
45
great goodly suggestions and advice on the art of governing a
state.22
3.2. Machiavelli: the Major Works
"Diplomacy's loss was posterity's gain. A miserable soul, who continued to follow
political affairs with the painful longing of a spurned lover, Machiavelli produced two
classics of political thought…"23 A small pamphlet called The Prince was Machiavelli's
first writing while he was spending his enforced retirement. It was ultimately the one
most often associated with Machiavelli's name, to be studied with details separately. The
Discourses on the Ten Books of Titus Livy, henceforth The Discourses, was
Machiavelli's another major contribution to political philosophy. It was an explanation of
the precepts of republican rule edited as a formula of a series of comments on the works
of the well-known historian of the Roman Republic. Unlike The Prince, The Discourses
took a long period of time to be written completely. Machiavelli almost commenced to
write The Discourses in 1514 and finished writing in 1519. It was published
posthumously in 1531.24
Some writers claimed that The Prince and The Discourses were inconsistent with
each other in treating the subject of government. This idea, according to George H.
Sabine, is not acceptable putting in the consideration the circumstances in which The
Prince was written. "Both books present aspects of the same subject_the causes of the
rise and decline of states and the means by which statesmen can make them permanent”.
These two books showed specific features that caused Machiavelli's fame, the use of
unethical means for achieving political aims and the belief that government should
mainly depend on force and craft.25
The Discourses supplied good guidance to those who tried to found or repair a
republic, "a form of government based on popular consent and control". It was three
books in one. Book I shed light on the inner constitution of the republic. Book II tackled
the affairs of war. Book III was, to a large extent, like the tenets of The Prince in dealing
with individual leadership.26 In The Discourses, Machiavelli concentrated on the
46
principles that kept the state away from corruption. He shed special light on the religious
rites as a key element in controlling the society.27 In this respect, he said:
Those princes and those republics which desire toremainfree from
corruption, should above all else maintainincorrupt the ceremonies
of their religion andshould hold them always in veneration; for
there can be no surer indication of the decline of a country than to
see divine worship neglected.28
The Discourses was dedicated to Zanobi Buondelmonti and Cosimo Rucellai, "two
of the greatest exponents of the Orti Oricellari in Florence, where aristocratic young
people met in order to discuss politics, art and literature."29
Machiavelli's other important contributions was a military treatise under the title The
Art of War. Unlike The Prince and The Discourses, it was the only book that was
published during Machiavelli's life time.30 The Art of War was divided into a preface and
seven books which arranged as series of dialogues that took place in Orti Oricellari. It
was "a dialogue in the humanist tradition of imitating classical forms."31
The purpose of this book was mentioned by Fabrizio within the opening pages when
he stated:
To honor and reward virtue, not to have contempt forpoverty, to
esteem the modes and orders of military discipline, to constrain
citizens to love one another, to live without factions, to esteem less
the private than the public good, and other such things which could
easily be added in these times.32
3.2.1. The Prince: an Introduction
The Prince was the first of Machiavelli's major writings from his period of enforced
retirement during which he stayed in his farmhouse in Sant’ Adrea in Percussina, a few
miles south of Florence.33 Machiavelli wrote this treatise with the aim of convincing "the
dedicatee of the book that he knew well the art of the state, even if he had served the
republic.", and his knowledge of this art was "better than the Humanist rhetoricians and
the contemporary practitioneers."34 The Prince was the child of Machiavelli's whim, "a
47
pamphlet which is to bear the title The Prince, and then sets out to dedicate it to one of
the men in power, a prince, who-the author fervently hopes-will repay him in princely
fashion with silver and situation."35 Bertrand Russel supported this idea saying that “The
Prince was designed to please the Medici, and that, when it was written, a Medici had
just become Pope (Leo x).36
Peter Bondanella did not agree with the idea that Machiavelli wrote this pamphlet in
order to please the Medici for the sake of getting an occupation in the new government
that the Medici had founded in Florence or in Rome under the protection of the Medici
Pope Leo x. The fixed fact, according to Bondanella, is that Machiavelli tried to get a
position from this family, but he did not compose his little treatise for the goal of
obtaining the favour of the Medici. His hope was to be offered a new employment in
recognition of his unquestionable abilities in the art as a merit for his qualifications and
impeccable honesty, but not as a reward for cajolery. Bondanella's witness to support his
idea was the following extract taken from the famous letter that Machiavelli sent to his
friend Francesco Vettori on 10 December 1513.37
Then again, I am anxious for the House of Medici tobegin using me
at some negotiation or other, if they are ever to begin. If I should
not succeed in winning them afterwards I would always be sorry I
had not given them the book. Then again, if they were to read it
they would see that I was not sleeping or idling all those fifteen
years that I devoted to statecraft. Anybody, it seems to me, should
be glad to have the services of a man who has acquired so much
experience at the expense of other employers. Of my
trustworthiness there could be no doubt. Having so long kept faith
with people, I would not be likely to begin betraying now. A man
who has kept his word loyally for forty-three years, as I have, could
not change his nature very easily. The fact that I am a poor man is
proof of my loyalty and honour.38
But the last three lines of Machiavelli's dedication to Lorenzo de Medici can be
interpreted as an attempt to win Medici favour. It would be better for Machiavelli not to
write these lines. They embrace a lot of exploring and that is what reflected a bad effect
on the great value of the previous speech. At the end of the dedication, Machiavelli said
48
"If Your Magnificence will at some time turn your eyes from the summit of your high
position toward these low places, you will realize to what degree I unjustly suffer a great
and continuous malignity of fortune."(The Prince, p .6)
The Prince is undoubtedly a distinguished landmark in the history of political
philosophy. It is:
A skilful artifice in statecraft, a mighty manual in the art of
Government and governing, a pole-star to guide the sailing ship of
rulers, princes, princedoms and political leaders at the helm of
state-affairs, state administration and its management. It is an
exploration into the very genesis, origin of the formation and
acquisition of a Government, … a guidelines for rulers, kings and
princes, hereditary princedoms and other forms of Governments
newly formed and acquired. It is a recipe for all the ills that inflict
the states and the statesmen, kings and kingdoms, a golden-touch
to transmute the functioning of a Government safe and secure, a
panacea for the ailments of a state, its citizens and the subjects.39
Machiavelli never based any political discussion on Christian or biblical ground.
Depending on historical examples, The Prince was a political treatise that offered
advices disregarding all moral and ethical values. It was the first book to divorce
statecraft from the ethics and that is why it could be seen as unique. In The Prince,
Machiavelli did not tell what typical prince or principality was, but he illustrated by
examples the successful princes in getting and maintaining power. All of his examples
were driven from his personal observations written during his occupation as a diplomat
for Florence and his deep reading of ancient history.40
Although The Prince was a short book, it was the most remembered of
Machiavellie's writings. The unscrupulous methods Machiavelli used to suggest his
prince was the direct cause that made his name synonym to a nefarious political
conspiracy bringing the term "Machiavellian" to be used widely as a disdainful term.
"Such a ruler's first duty, Machiavelli argued, was to do anything it took to secure and
maintain power, even if that meant overriding customary moral convention."41 It means
all the means could be used for the aim of founding and preserving the power. The worst
49
and the treasonable deeds of the governor were justified. The aims of the prince should be
consented in spite of the use of immoral means for the sake of achieving these aims and
that is what represents the main theme of this political treatise. It is, of course, the end
justifies the means.
In England, Machiavelli's book was forbidden by the Tudor politicians. Its "practical
cornerstone creeds were interpreted negatively and reductively." It was one of the reasons
that help in emerging "Old Nick", an English term which indicated a link between
Machiavelli and the Satan.42
3.2.2. The Price: a Summery
Concentrating on the most important points in this book, with quotations, the
summery will go forward chapter by chapter. The Prince consisted of twenty-six
chapters in addition to the dedication. It was originally written to be presented to
Giuliano de Medici, who may well esteem this treatise. After Giuliano's death,
Machiavelli changed the dedication to Lorenzo de Medici, who almost did not read it.43
The dedication could be seen as a letter in which Machiavelli qualified his book as a
summery of his knowledge of the deeds of great men that came as a result of a long
experience in modern matters and constant study of the history of the Old Ages. This
letter was skillfully employed by Machiavelli to draw "attention to his own actions and
good services."44 Machiavelli wanted to say that "he knew the art of the state better than
anyone else and that his expertise was safer than the traditional wisdom that had inspired
Medicean rule since the days of Cosimo."45 About this Machiavelli said:
I have not found among my belongings anything that I might value
more or prize so much as the knowledge of the deeds of great men
that I have learned from a long experience in modern affairs and a
continuous study of antiquity. Having with great care and for a long
time thought about and examined these deeds…(The Prince, P. 5)
50
I
How Many Kinds of Principalities There Are and the Ways They Are
Acquired
In this chapter, Machiavelli mentioned that the states were of two types, republics
and principalities. Then he explained that the principalities were either hereditary or new.
The new principalities were completely new as was "Milan for Francesco Sforza”, or
similar to an addition added to an old state, like "the kingdom of Naples for the king of
Spain." (The Prince, P. 7)
II
Of Hereditary Principalities
Machiavelli stated that the hereditary emirate could be governed easier than the new
one because of two reasons. The first was that the people in the hereditary emirate were
familiar with their prince and his family, the good prince needed no more than track the
paces of the preceding princes. The second was that the people loved their prince and his
family unless he committed fatal mistakes that hurt them.(The Prince, pp. 7-8)
III
Of Mixed Principalities
Machiavelli concentrated on the ways used by the Romans to govern the acquired
territories. He said:
In the regions they conquered the Romans followedthese rules very
carefully. They sent out colonies, had dealings with the less
powerful without increasing their strength, put down the powerful,
and did not allow powerful foreigners to gain prestige there.(The
Prince, P.12)
Machiavelli supported the princes who wished to acquire more provinces describing
this wish as an ordinary thing. The princes who were able to achieve this task should not
51
be blamed. Those who were not able to do so and constantly tried even if they badly
affected their emirates should be condemned. (The Prince, P.14)
He advised the prince not to avoid the necessary war saying that "one should never
allow disorder to persist in order to avoid going to war, because one does not avoid a war
but, instead defers it to your disadvantage." (The Prince, P.15)
At the end of this chapter, Machiavelli inferred an important rule which, according to
him, rarely failed. He believed that anyone who helped another to be powerful came to
destroy himself “because that power has been brought about by either through cunning or
by force; and both of these two qualities are suspect to the one who has become
powerful.” (The Prince, P. 15-16) In regard to this rule, it seemed that Machiavelli had
read the line of poetry uttered by the Arabic poet Man Bin Aus Al Muzni who belonged
to the pre-Islamic period.
46
‫وﻟَﻤﺎ إﺳﺘَﺪّ ﺳﺎ ِﻋﺪُهُ َر َﻣﺎﻧﻲ‬
‫ﯾﻮم‬
ٍ ‫اﻟﺮﻣﺎ َﯾﺔَ ُﻛ ّﻞ‬
ِ ُ‫أ ُ َﻋ ِﻠ ُﻤﮫ‬
In this line, the poet addressed someone saying: I teach him everyday how to fling the
javelin, but when he learnt flinging accurately, the first to be killed was me.
IV
Why the Kingdom of Darius, Occupied by Alexander, Did Not Rebel Against His
Successors After the Death of Alexander
In this chapter, Machiavelli defined two ways to govern all types of emirates. The
first was to be governed by the prince with the assistance of his servants who used to
help as ministers to rule the principalities. The second was that the kingdom could be
governed by the prince and barons who occupied this status as a result of "the antiquity
of their bloodline." (The Prince, P.16). In such cases, the barons had to have their own
dominations and subjects.
In many cases the victorious depended on his lords. Machiavelli gave 16th century
France as an instance to explain this case. These principalities were easy to occupy but
difficult to take hold of. When the people of the kingdom supported their governor, it
52
would be difficult to take hold of. This case could be solved by removing the old
bloodline of the prince. Machiavelli gave the example of the Persian empire of Darius III,
attacked by Alexander the Great, to explain this case.
V
How Cities or Principalities Should be Governed That Lived by Their Own Laws
before They Were Occupied
Machiavelli explained how to rule the occupied states which were habitual to
manage their affairs according to their own laws. He limited three ways. The first was to
destroy the old state and to found a new one. The second was that the victor had to live in
the occupied state. The third was to let the state to go on according to its own laws under
the condition of paying tax yearly. The victor had to leave a group of his followers in
order to keep his authority and to explain to the people the importance of their need for
the victor to protect and support them. It was insured to keep the state. But the strongest
way to govern the occupied state was to destroy this state completely. (The Prince,
PP.19-20)
VI
Of New Principalities Acquired by One's Own Troops and Virtue
Machiavelli maintained that reforming an existing order represented the most
serious and difficult things that they could do for the reason that the people were
naturally against the change. He emphasized that such a task needed consideration of the
greatest example of virtue in history. Machiavelli wanted to say that having qualities of
virtue was a key element if a prince wished to keep his principality. Quentin Skinner
commented saying that "the possession of virtu’ is likewise said to be crucial to the yet
higher end of achieving princely glory."47
Concerning this case, Machiavelli named examples of those who became princes by
their virtue, but not fortune. He mentioned "Moses, Cyrus, Romulus, Theseus, and others
of their kind." (The Prince, P.21). Any review of their achievements and their lives could
53
discover that fortune provided them nothing except a chance that they exploited. The
opportunity "made these men successful, and their outstanding virtue enabled them to
recognize that opportunity, whereby their nation was ennobled and became extremely
happy." (The Prince, PP. 21-22)
VII
Of New Principalities Acquired with the Arms of Other and by Fortune
The principalities which were acquired merely through fortune and the assistance of
the others were the hardest to take hold of. In such emirates, the prince stood fragile, he
might easily come to the power, but he would face difficulties later. The new prince was
not stable enough to command:
Such men depend solely upon two very uncertain andunstable
things: the will and Fortune of him who granted them the State. But
they do not know how, and are unable, to maintain their position.
They do not know how to hold their state, since if men are not of
great intelligence and virtue, it is not reasonable that they should
know how to command, having always lived as private citizens.
They are unable to do so, since they do not have forces that are
faithful and loyal to them. (The Prince, P. 24)
Machiavelli offered two examples. The first was about Francesco Sforda, a private
citizen who became the Duke of Milan through his great deal of virtues. The result was
that he was unable to maintain his emirate with ordinary effort. The second example was
that of Cesare Borgia, the Duke of Valentino, who first authorized a cruel man in order to
calm the emirate .Then Borgia executed this man representing that he was responsible
for cruelty. Borgia's fatal mistake was in creating Julius II the Pope, and that is what
caused his downfall. “One can only reproach him for creating Julius Pope, forin this he
made a bad choice…” (The Prince, P. 30)
54
VIII
Of Those Who Have Become Princes Through Wickedness
Machiavelli defined two ways by which an ordinary man could be a prince. The
first was to become a prince through wickedness and committing crimes. The king of
Syracuse, Agathocles, was the best instance of a stock man who occupied the position of
the emirate by perpetrating criminal acts. The second was that "a private citizen becomes
prince of his native city through the favour of his fellow citizens (The Prince, PP. 30-31)
There was no doubt that the prince who committed criminal acts as a means to gain
power was perfidious, and without ethics and religion. His crimes could facilitate the task
to "acquire power, but not glory." (The Prince, PP. 31) The Prince, in such cases, should
exchange the cruelty that he used in the first sense into useful achievement in order to go
on in living in his country without conspiracies.
IX
Of the Civil Principality
The civil principality was the emirate that its prince came to the head position
through the favour of the fellow citizens, but not through murders. Machiavelli added
that a man who hoped to reach emirate had to gain either the favour of the common
citizens or that of the nobility. The prince who came to power through the nobility, on the
one hand, would face big difficulties because the noble men would always be competitor
to the prince and would not leave him to manage the principality according to his point of
view. On the other hand, the prince who came through the common people would face
simple difficulties and would find all the citizens obeying his orders and that is what
represented the best environment to achieve justice. Nobles could be divided into two
types. The nobles who supported the prince "should be honoured and loved." Those who
did not support the prince were either coward, the prince "should make use of them." or
ambitious, the prince should be aware and "fear them as if they were declared enemies,"
they would try to find the occasion to remove him. (The Prince, PP. 36)
55
Machiavelli advised the prince, who came to power by the favour of the nobility, to
gain the friendship of his people in order to make his task of managing principality,
easier. In such situation the people would love and support the prince stronger than them
if he came to the principality through their favour. The people represented the best refuge
for the prince during distress time and that is why he had to gain their trust. A wise
prince should always look for a means which made his people need the state and the
prince "at all times and in every circumstances. Then they will always be loyal to him."
(The Prince, P. 37)
X
How the Strength of All Principalities Should Be Measured
A prince, according to Machiavelli, would be able to protect his emirate as a result of
his efforts to mobilize enough army for the task of repulsing enemies. The prince would
be in need of the protection of the others if he would seek defending behind his castle
during the times of danger and would not attack his enemies. In such cases, the prince
who had put in his consideration all the elements that he needed for strong defence would
be able to control everything during distress and he had to be clever in creating patriotic
feelings among his people as a method to make them patient and to activate them to go
on in protecting the city.
XI
Of Ecclesiastical Principalities
The religious emirates were acquired through bravery or fortune and were kept
without one or the other. These principalities were not in need to be guarded because
"they are protected by higher causes, that the human mind is unable to fathom, I shall not
discuss them: being exalted and maintained by God…" (The Prince, P. 40)
Before the coming of the Popes Alexander VI and Julius III, the papal power was
weak as a result of the disagreement among the Roman barons and the “brevity of the
reigns of the Popes…" (The Prince, P. 44) Their average of life expectancy was ten
56
years. The power of the Church was strongly increased by the Popes Alexander VI and
Julius II who used armed troops to weaken the others and collect money to support the
financial situation of the Church. (The Prince, PP. 41-42)
XII
Of the Kinds of Troops and Mercenary Soldiers
XIII
O) Auxiliary, Mixed, and Citizen Soldiers
XIV
A Pricnce's Duty Concerning Military Matters
The chapters XII, XIII, and XIV could be clubbed together under the title “The
Military Affairs.’’ It is clear, however, that Machiavelli shed great light on "the role of
sheer force in the conduct of government." He assigned three chapters to discuss military
affairs arguing that any state would be baseless without strong laws and strong army.48 In
these chapters, Machiavelli dealt with the types of armies and the procedures that the
state needed in order to be able to defend itself and to attack its enemies. "A selfsufficient Prince is one who can meet any enemy on the battlefield." The Prince had to
assemble a formidable army or fortify his city because it would be difficult to be
attacked.49
Machiavelli discussed one of the main points of this book, the use of the
mercenaries. As an experienced man in such fields, he resisted the use of the
mercenaries. If a prince used mercenaryarmies to help him to govern his state, he would
not be stable or secure. Mercenaries, according to Machiavelli, were of great ambition to
find their own greatness and less faithful to the Prince who employed them. (The Prince,
P. 43)
Machiavelli resisted the use of auxiliary soldiers borrowed from allies. He justified
his point of view saying that the auxiliary forces represented a danger larger than that of
the mercenaries because they were united under the command of a leader who might not
hesitate to turn against the employer.50 Machiavelli stated:
57
A wise prince has always avoided these soldiers andhas turned to
his own troops. He has preferred to lose with his own troops rather
than to win with those of others, Judging that to be no true victory
which has been gained by means of foreign troops. (The Prince, P.
48)
The preparation for war should be the main concern of the Prince. The art of war
should be the only art that should be fitting the leader. Machiavelli believed that ignoring
this art would be the direct reason that might cause the loss of the principality.
Machiavelli advised the prince to hunt frequently for the aim of keeping fitness of
his body and studying the landscape surrounding his principality and that is what
represented the best way to learn how to protect his state. For mind drilling, Machiavelli
advised the Prince saying:
The prince must read histories and in them consider thedeeds of
excellent men. He must see how they conducted themselves in
wars. He must examine the reasons for their victories and for their
defeats, in order to avoid the latter and to imitate the former. Above
all else, he must do as some eminent men before him have done,
who elected to imitate someone who had been praised and
honoured before them, and always keep in mind his deeds and
actions…(The Prince, P. 52)
XV
Of These Things for Which Men, and Particularly Princes, Are Praised or Blamed
Machiavelli preferred the evil to good for the sake of maintaining power.
Machiavelli justified the bad acts of the prince by the wickedness of the governed, the
people. He advised the prince how not to be good. A man who wanted to be good at all
times would come to ruin among those who were bad. Any prince wished to gain all the
good qualities, but it is impossible for the aim of preserving power. Bad acting was,
sometimes, inevitable to achieve this aim. Depravity, according to Machiavelli, could be
seen as an evil only if it imperiled the principality and that is why he had not to fear the
condemnation of the others. A prince should be wise enough to know how to avoid the
58
infamy of those vices that would be the direct cause of taking the state away from him.
(The Prince, PP. 53-54)
XVI
Of Generosity and Miserliness
In this chapter, Machiavelli stood strongly against bounty unless it was used as an
auxiliary factor to support the prince who was on his way to gain principality.The
openhanded prince either spent his wealth and that of his people or the money of the
others. In the first case, the prince should take care in order to avoid the crisis. In the
second, the prince had not to worry to be generous. Machiavelli maintained that the great
achievements were effected by those who were considered as stingy. In this respect he
gave the example of the Pope Julius II. Although he used to be generous as a means to
obtain the papacy, he “decided not to maintain this reputation, in order to be able to wage
war.’’ (The Prince, PP. 55-56)
XVII
Of Cruelty and Mercy, and Whether It Is Better to Be Loved Than to Be Feared on
the Contrary
Any prince wished to be described as a merciful prince, but he had to be aware in
using such mercy in order not to affect his situation badly. For the task of preserving his
state united, the prince had not to fear the accusation of being cruel. His cruelty would be
more merciful than the mercy of those who lead their people to dangerous disorder that
would cause different types of crimes. The cruelty of the prince in such cases subjected a
few persons to punishment.
Concerning the argument: whether it is better for the Prince to be loved than to be
fearful or the contrary. Machiavelli's opinion was that in view of the fact it was
impossible to unite them in one prince, it was better to be feared than to be loved. But the
prince had to avoid hatred.
59
Machiavelli ended this chapter by giving an important recommendation that the
prince should establish his foundation upon his own considerations that maintain the
security of the state provided he had to observe the avoidance of hatred.(The Prince,
P.57)
XVIII
How a Prince Should Keep His Word
According to Machiavelli, the princes who had effected great achievements were
those who broke their covenants and who were able to manipulate men's mind. At the
end, they triumphed over those who were sincere and kept their words.
He concluded that there were two ways of fighting, either according to the laws or
by force. The first was suitable to man and the second to wild animals. In many cases, the
first was not enough and that is why a prince should know the nature of the wild animal
and the man. The prince should be like a fox and a lion. He should be strong and
discerning at the same time in order to be able to frighten his enemies and to discover the
traps spun against him. Machiavelli added that a wise prince should not keep his pact
obligatory when such pact harms the advantage of the principality and when the reasons
that caused the pact were changed. Machiavelli supposed that all the men were vicious,
and none respect their word. As a result the prince needn’t be sincere in dealing with
them.
Machiavelli advised the prince not to obtain all good qualities, but it was very
important for him to represent having them. The prince should always take care of not
committing mistake to show that he was not filled with good qualities. He should appear
to be merciful, faithful with integrity, religious and humanity. (The Prince, PP. 60-62)
XIX
Of Avoiding Being Despised and Hated
Machiavelli stressed that in all cases the prince should work to avoid hatred. People
hate the prince who used to usurp their properties and women. Sometimes, it was
60
impossible to avoid the hatred of some members of the people, in such case the prince
should avoid the hatred of the most powerful group. He should assingn the negative
duties to someone else and keep the pleasant tasks for himself.
The prince should rule his subjects in such a way that his decisions are respected and
should be impossible to change. This will maintain his fame and will not be cheated. The
prince should put in his consideration two types of fear. The first was internalrepresented by his people and the second was external-represented by foreign forces. The
prince could protect himself against the last fear by establishing a strong army and by
affiliations. In regard to the second fear, the most powerful remedy a prince had against
plots was to avoid hatred. (The Prince, PP. 63-65)
Machiavelli concentrated on the parliament as an authority that could limit the
aspiration of nobles and satisfy the ordinary people by protecting their advantages. The
prince should respect the nobles but, at the same time he should be aware not to be hated
by the people. Sometimes, good acts breed hatred and that is why the prince, who wanted
to preserve his emirate, should not be good. In case, the group that the prince was in need
of support was corrupt, "whether it be the people, the soldiers, or the nobles-it is to your
advantage to follow their inclinations in order to satisfy them, and then good deeds are
your enemy." (The Prince, P. 67)
XX
Of Whether Fortresses and Many Things That Princes Employ Every Day Are
Useful or Harmful
As a method to keep their principalities secure, the princes used different plans.
Some of them divided the conquered lands. Others disarmed their people. Some planted
aversion among their people. Others tried to win the support of those who were suspected
at the beginning of their age. Some built fortresses and others destroyed them.
It was better for the new prince to arm his people as much as possible because they
would be his own. "But when you disarm them you begin to offend them. You show that
you distrust them, either for cowardice or for lack of loyalty. And both of these opinions
61
generate hatred against you". (The Prince, P. 72) When the prince acquired a new
principality, he should not arm the citizen, but those who supported him and the prince
should work to weaken them gradually with time.
A new Prince would be in need to acquire fame more than that of hereditary
principality. The reputation could be acquired by getting over difficulties imposed on
him such as having the occasion to face enemies and defeat them in the battlefield.
According to Machiavelli, it would be always easy for the prince to gain the credit
of those men who were enemies at the beginning of the state. Such men would be in need
to be supported for the sake of maintaining their position. They will aspire to serve the
prince faithfully as a method to remove the bad opinion against them and that is why the
prince could get benefit from them better than who "serve him with too much selfconfidence." (The Prince, P. 74)
A prince who had recently acquired a new province with the help of some of its
citizens had to put in his consideration the reasons that pushed them to help him. If it was
not for the sake of admiring him, but as a result of their hatred to the old prince, it would
be better to keep them as allies only because he could not get their satisfaction.
Machiavelli supported the idea of building fortresses describing it as an old method
used since ancient times. Depending on times and situations, the fortresses were either
useful or harmful. The prince who feared his people more than the foreigners should
build fortresses and vice versa. Moreover, the best fortresses were not to be hated by the
people. During distress time, fortresses would not save the prince whose people hated
him. (The Prince, PP.75)
XXI
How a Prince Should Act to Acquire Esteem
The prince could establish great esteem and be well respected by achieving the
following:
1. Showing himself as an extraordinary prince by effecting great deeds such as
Ferdinand of Aragon, the King of Spain at Machiavelli's time. He "had recourse to
62
a pious cruelty, always employing religion for his own purposes, chasing the
Marranos out of his kingdom and seizing their property." (The Prince, P. 76)
2. Showing himself as an extraordinary prince in managing the internal affairs such
as Messer Bernabo Visconti of Milan who used the principle of merit and
punishment.
3. The prince should be a true friend or a true enemy. He should declare himself as
an ally of one prince against the other. "Such a policy will always be more useful
than remaining neutral." (The Prince, P.77)
4. The prince should appear as a man who loved virtues by venerating virtuous men
and those of talents. He had to encourage his people to improve and develop their
profession. "No one should be afraid to increase his property for fear that it will be
taken away from him, while no one should shrink from undertaking any business
through fear of taxes”. (The Prince, P. 79)
XXII
Of the Prince's Private Secretaries
Any observer could be able to evaluate the prince's insight by looking at his
ministers and the men around him and that is why it was not an easy task for the prince to
define his ministers. When his retinue was skilful and faithful, the observer could always
consider the prince as a wise man for his ability to recognize them and to keep them loyal
and vice versa.
Machiavelli limited three levels of intelligence; "one understands on its own; the
second discerns what others understand; and the third neither understands by itself nor
thorough others." (The Prince, P.79) The first level was excellent, the second was very
good, and the third was incompetent.
On the one hand, the prince had to observe his minister always. If he sought his own
advantage more than that of the prince, he was a bad minister and untrusted simply
because he "must never think about himself, but always about his prince…" (The Prince,
63
p.80) On the other hand, the prince should appreciate the effort of his minister, honour
him, and make him rich.
XXIII
Of How to Avoid Flatters
It is a fact that the courts of princes were filled with flatterers. The best way the
prince had to follow in order to protect himself was by electing wise men to be his
retinue and giving only them the allowances to tell him the truth in the cases he asked
about. The prince should ask them about everything and listen to whatever they speak,
and then he should study the matter according to his point of view. In such council, the
prince should not forget to behave "in such a way that all will realize that the more freely
they speak, the more they will please him." (The Prince, P. 81) It is very important for
the prince to look for advice, but according to the rule that when the prince wanted, and
not when the others wanted. He should not listen to anyone who tried to give him advice
without his asking. The prince should be " a very frequent questioner, and then,
concerning the matters inquired about, a patient listener to the truth." (The Prince, PP.
81-82)
XXIV
Why Italian Princes Have Lost Their States
Machiavelli proposed that the new prince who was able to put in his consideration
the recommendations mentioned in The Prince would get pleasure in comfortable and
stable period of ruling as "if he had possessed it for a long time." (The Prince, P. 82)
Many Italian princes, such as the King of Naples, the Duke of Milan, lost their states
as a result of their failure in managing the military affairs of the states. Another reason
was that some of princes could not avoid hatred of their people which represented a
grave problem, or they had no ability to protect themselves from nobles. It was better for
those who lost their states not to blame fortune, but rather themselves for being remiss,
64
Since in peaceful times they never imagined thatthings might
change- not to consider the possibility of a storm in good weather is
a common defect among men-when adverse times finally arrived,
they thought about running away and not about defending
themselves.(The Prince, P. 83)
XXV
Of Fortune's Power in Human Affairs and How She Can Be Resisted
Machiavelli, to a specific extent, agreed with the idea that the affairs of this world
were governed by God and fortune. He thought "that Fortune is the arbiter of one half of
our actions, but that she still leaves the control of the other half, or almost that, to us."
(The Prince, P. 84) He compared fortune to a destructive river which One could avoid its
danger by establishing dams and bridges.
Machiavelli believed that fortune was changeable while men behaved obstinately.
He suggested that one had to be bold, but not careful. He stood against hesitation for
comparing fortune to a woman who "favoured those bold enough to treat her roughly."51
XXVI
An Exhortation to Seize Italy and to Free Her from the Barbarians
It was to be noted that Machiavelli used to address Lorenzo de Medici directly
through the dedication and the last chapter of The Prince. This chapter could be seen as
no more than an eloquent speech for Lorenzo to be Machiavelli's prince and to work
accordingly in order to achieve his dream, united Italy, by creating national army
reminding him that the Italian people were good fighters and they would be able to
achieve the task.
3.3. Machiavelli's Ideas and Opinions
Machiavelli was a distinguished personality among the great figures of his time, the
Renaissance period. He had considerable contributions in illuminating and reviving
European societies. Machiavelli's opinions came to be considered the beginning of the
65
new western notion in politics and that is why it is very important to elaborate them
starting with his methodology.
3.3.1. Machiavelli's Methods of Research
In his writings, Machiavelli tried to follow a new methodology. He denounced the
old method of research which was common during the Middle Ages. He developed a new
process, a scientific method of investigation based on observation and experiment.
Machiavelli employed the eyes of history to serve his aim of attending political issues.
He believed that all men resembled each other in all ages and that is why they had to deal
with the same type of dilemmas by using the same means. As a result, it was very
important to study the past for the sake of understanding the present and that is why
Machiavelli concerned about the ancient Greece in general and the history of the ancient
Rome in particular.
Machiavelli's historical method was historical in so faras history
was able to support his point of view in describing the present. It
was, thus, present to be found in the past; politics to be found in the
history. What were important in Machiavelli's writings were not the
conclusions drawn from history, rather the support to reinforce the
conclusions already drawn. He had used Livy, as Dunning tells us,
for the purpose of sustaining than for the purpose of discovering
principles.52
Machiavelli replaced the dedicative reasoning method used before with inductive
processes taking care that his conclusions should always bear indications of perception
rather than of reasoning. His clarification of the sense of the right and the wrong,
his belief in the radical selfishness of man, hisconception of fear and
its as dominant factors in human doings and his belief in a tendency
of corruption and ruin inherent in all institutions were such examples
arrived through perceptions rather than through reasoning.53
Machiavelli adopted the use of inductive processes in such a way that he was almost
similar to a scientist. He never admonished political actions, but he used to describe and
66
analyse them scientifically. Ernest Cassier stated that "Machiavelli studied political
actions in the same way as a chemist studies chemical reactions." Actually, Machiavelli
gained the discernment of both a scientist and an artist. On the one hand, he exercised his
role as a scientist in such cases that his study should build on observation and experiment.
On the other hand, he achieved his duty as an artist in making the best presentation of the
events.54
Machiavelli always tried to connect the reasons with the result and the analytic study
obtained from history as well. The main features of Machiavelli's methods of research
can be stated as below:
1. The use of history for the aim of induction of the events and the consequences
trying to expect whether these events would be reoccurred or not.
2. In the cases of reoccurred events, Machiavelli always tried to put general
recommendations that made the task of the governor easier. 55
3. He tried to direct his "effort to frame rules that could predict how men would
respond to political challenges and crises…’’56
It is very important to explain that Machiavelli's ideas and opinions were affected by
many factors, but the most important was the weakness of the state. Italy of his time was
in bad situation. It was very weak and embodied by a collection of five states. In the
south there was the kingdom of Naples, in the north, there was the duchy of Milan, in the
northeast, there was the aristocratic republic of Venice, and in the center, there were the
republic of Florence and the Papal state.57
The city states were controlled by forceful dynasties which were of high impact on
the papacy. The family that dominated the political life for a long period in Florence was
the Medici. The stout governor, Lorenzo di Medici died in 1492. After two years, and
looking for a republic, the Florentine used to revolt and fire his weak successor Piero II
who was humiliated by the French attack. The unstable period brought the fanatical
religious man Savonarola to the power. His fervent criticism of decay caused a schism
between Florence state and the papacy. One flamboyant manifestation of Savonarola's
67
regime was that the Florentines should inflam "their extravagant possessions and works
of art…" Savonarola was executed in 1498.58
3.3.2. Machiavelli's Opinion of Human Nature
There is no doubt that Machiavelli's opinion of human nature was a negative one. It
represented entire opposition of that to the humanists of this time who believe in the
potentialities of human mind as mentioned before in Chapter One. Machiavelli assumed
that human nature is not changeable and that is what enabled him to make generalization
in politics. Men, according to him, always reflected the same fundamental features,
although there are some exceptions as a result of their conditions of life, and these
features are not of the type which is traditionally admired.59
Machiavelli insisted that men's passions and desires do not change through history,
they are similar to each other and work according to the very manner "over time resets
upon a cosmology" and that is why it would be easy for a diligent one to predict future of
any state by examining the past.60 Machiavelli mentioned that:
If the present be compared with the remote past, it iseasily seen that
in all cities and in all peoples there are the same desires and the
same passions as there always were. So that, if one examines with
diligence the past, it is easy to foresee the future of any
commonwealth, and to apply those remedies which were used of
old; or, if one does not find that remedies were used, to devise
new ones owing to the similarity between events. (The Discourses,
1:39, P. 207)
Machiavelli's opinion of human nature affected his political ideas as a whole to the
point that behind almost "everything that Machiavelli said about political policy was the
assumption that human nature is essentially selfish, and that the effective motives on
which a statesman must rely are egoistic…"61 For Machiavelli, all men are vicious and as
a result he directed the statesman to begin with a sedate appreciation of human faults and
a specification to place them in the best possible use. Concerning this matter Machiavelli
stated that men:
68
are ungrateful, fickle, simulators and deceivers, avoiders of danger,
and greedy for gain. While you work for their benefit they are
completely yours, offering you their blood, their property, their
lives, and their sons, as I said above, when the need to do so is far
away. But when it draws nearer to you, they turnaway.(The Prince,
P.58)
It means that he wanted to teach the governor to found his policies on the idea that men
in general are bad and not trustworthily.
Human nature is deeply aggressive; men are of endless desires by nature. They want
to keep what they have in their hand and to gain more and more. As a result, men are in
constant conflict and rivalry which menace to cause endless chaos unless the force of the
law curbs it and that is why the power of the governor should be established on one fact
that safety can be there with a strong government. Machiavelli particularly confirmed
that the first target of the successful government should be the safety of property and life
for being "the most universal desires in human nature."62 In The Prince, he mentioned
that it was possible for a man to forgive his father's slaughter, but impossible to leave his
inheritance. Machiavelli extended this idea in The Discourses saying that "executions
should be reasonably few, but confiscation none at all."63
3.3.3. Machiavelli: Religion, Morality, and the Concept of Power
"Machiavelli's theory was a sword which was plunged into the flank of the body
politic of western humanity…" In this manner, Friedrich Meinecke concluded
Machiavelli's destructive impact on a world in which political actions should be in
complete harmony with the holy religious objectives. It was unbelievable to separate
politics from the supervision of Christianity which always represented the best bond to
unite the men with the nations. Meinecke blamed the Catholics and the Protestants for
permitting the rulers to trespass the limits of biblical morality.64
Ian Adams and R.W. Dyson state that Machiavelli was not in concord with the
spiritual issues that stamped the features of the Middle Ages. "He is on the whole hostile
to Christianity…" According to Machiavelli, the sincere commitment of the people to
69
Christian virtues of obedience would not succeed "in the cut-throat world of politics."
His first concern was to found a state and to keep it powerful in order to be able to
confront both the internal and the external threats. In The Prince, Machiavelli
concentrated on how a prince could be always forceful over people. In The Discourses,
he emphasized how a stout and successful republic could be established.65
Leo Strauss described Machiavelli as the teacher of evil for the reason that he taught
the governor how to favour the use of cruelty and fear rather than the use of love, mercy,
and foresight in dealing with his subjects.66 Strauss used to defend the customary point of
view saying:
In deed, what other description would fit a man who teaches lessons
like these: princes ought to exterminate the families of rulers whose
territory they wish topossess securely; princes ought to murder their
opponents rather than to confiscate their property since those who
have been robbed, but not those who are dead, can think of revenge;
men forget the murder oftheir fathers sooner than the loss of their
patrimony; true liberality consists in being stingy with one's own
property and in being generous with what belongs to others… we
are forced to say that Machiavelli was an evil man.67
The English writer Richard Hooker provides us with a succinct description of
Machiavelli's point of view or religion as an ideology:
A politic use of religion they see there is, and by it they would also
gather that religion itself is a mere politic device, forged purposely
to serve for that use. Men fearing God are thereby a great deal more
effectually than by positive laws restrained from doing evil; in as
much as those laws have no further power than over our outward
actions only, whereas unto men's inward cogitations, unto the privy
intents and motions of their hearts, religion serveth for a bridle.68
Politics was about obtaining and preserving power and nothing else. "Religion,
morality, etc. – that people associate with politics has nothing to do with this
fundamental aspect of politics- unless being moral helps one get and keep power."
70
Throughout the Renaissance, Machiavelli's disagreement to permit the moral judgments
to be considered in politics stamped him as an anti-Christ.69
N. D. Arora believes that Machiavelli's hatred of the papacy and the Church came as
a result of their bad role in planting discord among the Italians to the point that they
fought each other. Machiavelli was not against Christianity or any other religion, he was
a true Christian. He always appreciated and respected religious men, but he wished that
the papacy and the Church would try to limit their vitality to be directed to serve
education and religion. Machiavelli's aim was to separate politics form religion. "The
other-worldly phenomena should concentrate on other-worldly job. He would not allow
religion to guide politics; he would rather allow the state attain its ends with any or all
means possible." Rousseau, Arora mentions, adopted the opinion that Machiavelli
instructed the people the reality about the rulers, conduct rather than commemorating the
unethic. His ideas did not instruct the ethics nor directed the princes to promote it.70
Scott Erb maintains that there were resemblances between Plato and Machiavelli.
Both of them beheld their state in dilemma, but the difference between them was in the
rout that they used to deal with the crisis. Plato chose the idealistic way whereas
Machiavelli chose the realistic way. The state, according to Machiavelli, would not be in
need for a philosopher to be the head, but for a strong governor who should know what
he had to do. First of all he should learn not to be restricted by morality. He had to have
the ability of using cunning, cheating, and cruelty whenever he would need.71 The task
was the regularity of the state, but not how ethics should be followed. "The Prince must
be a beast if necessary."72 It was more significant for the ruler to be practical than to be
morally good. The ruler should always think of the suitable way that would keep him
powerful. It would be better for him to typify that he was virtuous without being actual
virtuous.73
Machiavelli believed that the prosperity of a state depended on the cleverness of the
ruler in adopting processes that could be able to keep the state stable and strong.
According to him, "there was no divine order of things, set down by God, which
establishes how states are to be operated." Machiavelli used to behold the sovereignty
71
and power through the eyes of a scientist who always emphasized the path to the final
target regardless of religion and ethics.74 Machiavelli's Prince should be always ready to
be cruel and ready not to keep his word, "advice totally at odds with Erasmus's emphasis
on Christian virtue and justice." 75
3.3.4. The Concept of the State
Machiavelli may not be a theorist of state, but he did make a plea
for the state. He may not be a political philosopher in the sense
Plato and Aristotle were before him or Hobbes, Rousseau, and
Marx were after him, but he had the insights of a political realist.
He might not have discussed theoretically the nature of the state,
but he did discus what a stable state could be or ought to be. 76
In The Prince, Machiavelli did not use the word 'Politico' or its synonym at all. The
noexistence of this word in the book which was “attacked as the keystone of the new
science of politics'' was not strange. The word politics and its equivalent would be fit
within a text in which the concentration of the discussion was on the city. The Prince
was a treatise that dealt with the discussion on the state of the Prince and how this state
could be ruled and kept.77
According to Machiavelli, the term 'state' was used to express dissimilar meanings.
In many examples, he used it to express the meaning of “the preeminent status or the
regime of a prince (or a citizen, or faction)". Another example included the use of this
term to indicate the meaning of "the territory over which a prince or a republic has
sovereignty." Concerning this meaning, Machiavelli's reaction to the Cardinal of Rouen
included that the Italians could not control the war art whereas the French did not take
care of the state art. Machiavelli wanted to say that the French had no knowledge about
the essential rule to be observed as a means to maintain their authority upon the
territories they occupied.78
In The Prince, Machiavelli used the word ‘state’ in the first sentence of the first
chapter. He used it to indicate the organization of the greatest political power in the form
72
of republics or principalities. The modern meaning given to this term by Machiavelli
during the Renaissance period became an important academic topic to be discussed.79
Machiavellian state, as named by Arora, existed for its own entity, it was of specific
order in which its security was restricted by the law, but the only objection was that the
safety of the state had to be the highest value. All the consideration should be put aside in
the case where the state was at stake, no question of what was just or unjust, merciful or
cruel, the resolution should be taken to save the country and to keep its liberty. "The
reason of the state is the state for its own sake… the end is itself." Machiavelli believed
in lay state. It was true that he stood against the papacy and the Church, but he was not a
foe of Christianity. The matter was that Machiavelli's concentration was not on religion,
but on "politics, power and the unity of the state." He tried to make religion serve politics
by directing the people to obey the laws and that is what would keep the stability of the
state.80
3.3.5. The Concept of Virtue
Machiavelli's vision of obtaining and keeping power was dominated by the term
"virtu’ '', an Italian word. The exact translation of this word into English is virtue and that
is what suggested morality and goodness. But Machiavelli used this concept to mean
something else. He used it to indicate specific personal characteristics of the Prince.81 All
leading theorists of princely government, on the one hand, supported the notion that the
Prince who wished to keep his principality and to effect his aim of honour, glory and
reputation, had to posses the "full range of Christian as well as moral virtues."
Machiavelli, on the other hand, used to deny this conclusion. He refused strongly the
common point of view that the best way to achieve the Prince's objectives was to behave
in "a conventionally virtuous way." Machiavelli suggested that if the Prince had to act
virtuously, he had not to forget to avoid as much as he can to act virtuously all times.
82
According to him, the Prince should represent that he was virtuous man, but not to act
virtuously.
73
To appear merciful, faithful, humane, trustworthy, religious, and to
be so; but with his mind disposed in such a way that, should it
become necessary not to be so, he will be able and know how to
change to the opposite… a prince, and especially the new prince,
cannot observe all those things for which men are considered good,
because in order to maintain the state he must often act against his
faith, against charity, against humanity, and against religion.(The
Prince, P. 61)
Machiavelli's virtue was not moral one. The prince’s virtue, for Machiavelli, could
be defined as "an astonishingly creative force, the key to maintaining his state and
enabling him to fight off his enemies."83 Another definition was that virtue "is a
particular kind of skill or aptitude, combined, of course, with the will to use it."84
3.3.6. The Forms of Governments
According to Machiavelli, the governments were divided into two types, republics
and principalities. "All states and all dominations that have had and continue to have
power over men have been, and still are, either republics or principalities." (The Prince,
P.7) The prince was devoted to study monarchies, "I shall set aside any discussion of
republics, because I have treated them at length elsewhere. I shall consider solely the
principalitly…" (The Prince, p.7)The Discourses was purported to "explain the structure
and benefits of a republic…"85
Of the two types of government, Machiavelli's “own personal preference will always
be for… a Republican form of government."86 Arora concludes that Machiavelli
preferred the republican form for the following reasons:
1. The people, as a whole, were wiser than the Prince.
2. They were, in general, no more vacillating than a prince.
3. The adjustment of the people in the choice of the rulers was in general sound and
often unimpeachable. This could not be the case in monarchies.
4. The princedom could better establish and found a state; the republic alone could
maintain it.
74
5. The republics kept faith better than princes.
6. The republics were better suited to changing conditions and circumstances of the
monarchies.87
In monarchy, the prince had unlimited power and that is why he was in a position
that enabled him to be the only man to stifle, and "if he is to survive, must stifle-the
manly impulses of those entire subject to him." It was quite the contrary in the republic;
every man could be a prince and could improve and support his virtue for protecting the
personal freedom, properties, and honour. "In a monarchy, Machiavelli said, only one
man is free; in a republic, all are free." Men in the republic helped each other knowing
that the collective effort was always better than that of anyone alone. Republics would be
more settled than the monarchies, more able to protect themselves, and more prosperous
in expanding their regions during wars because ''they give it freer range and so produce
sturdy, indomitable, self-reliant individuals." Republics could be constantly stable by
helping men to rival each other for the aim of creating without permitting anyone to get
extra power that could enable him to control the others.88 Machiavelli's essential
allegation, according to Quentin Skinner, was that if the people wanted to keep their
government away from being under the control of tyrannical individuals or groups, they
had to build a system that the government remained in the grip of all people.89
3.4. Machiavelli's Legacy
Machiavelli's Legacy can be elaborated by dealing with the terms, Machiavel,
Machiavellism, and Machiavellian. There is no doubt that all these terms were directly
associated with Machiavelli's name suggesting bad opinion because of the principles of
behaviour presented by this political thinker, especially in his shocking book, The
Prince. Each of these terms signified cunning, manipulating, and duplicity.
Machiavel could be defined as "a type of stage villain found in Elizabethan and
Jacobean drama, and named after the Florentine political theorist Niccolo Machiavelli,
whose notorious book… (The Prince, 1513) justified the use of dishonest means to retain
state power." 90 Martin Gray defined Machiavel as in below:
75
A Villainous STOCK CHARACTER in Elizabethan and Jacobean
drama, so called after the Florentine writer Niccolo Machiavelli
(1469-1527), author of The Prince (written 1513), a book of
political advice to rulers that recommended the need under certain
circumstances to lie to the populace for their own good and to
preserve power.91
In English literature, Machiavelli was made almost synonymous with the Satan. He
was linked with treason, criminal acts, atheism, and different types of double-dealings.
Characters, in early modern English drama, who saw that the moral and political stories
told by the powerful men in order to justify their status were no more than a cover for
their naked practicing of power and acted accordingly, were called Machiavels. The
doctrines of Machiavelli were understood as an advocate of deception and ruthlessness
for the sake of preserving power and government. The sinister and unscrupulous villain
in tragedy of revenge of Elizabethan and Jacobean drama came to be named
Machiavels.92
Machiavellism, according to Nuttall Encyclopedia, is:
The doctrine taught by Machiavelli in The Prince', that to preserve
the integrity of a State the ruler should not feel himself bound by
any scruple such as may suggest itself by considerations of justice
and humanity, the State he regards as too precious an institution to
endanger by scruples of that sort.93
According to Steven Marx,
Machiavellism refers to the outlook and behaviour praised by the
Florentine political theorist and diplomat, Niccolo Machiavelli …,
primarily in his treatises ThePrince and The Discourses on Livy
…, Machiavellism proposes a revisionary morality in which the
consolidation of political power in the state is regarded as the
highest human good, supplanting all other ethical values and
constraints.94
It means that keeping power would be the excuse that used to justify whatever the ruler
made, cruelty, cheating, and alike would be allowed to achieve this dogma.
76
Machiavellian was defined by J. B. Priestley as the term "came to mean powermongering and plotting without that generous altruism, that sound ethical basis, claimed
by all politicians who know their business."95 Machiavellian could also be defined as "a
term that has come, through the ages, to mean evil, doing what is politically expedient
rather than what is right."96 Simply, Machiavellian was a characteristic of behaviour in
different fields of life. Anyone who believed or acted according to Machiavelli's doctrine,
who tried to justify the means, even if dishonest, by the aim he wanted to achieve could
be described as Machiavellian. It is a fact that the term 'Machiavellian' derived its name
originally from Machiavelli and it is true that the term suggested many bad qualities
such as cunning, cruelty, and alike, but the question that one should find the suitable
answer for is, was Machiavelli Machiavellian?
In regard to the answer of this question one has to deal with two points of view.
First, Machiavelli was the most famous Machiavellian and his most Machiavellian book
was The Prince which was nourished by his personal experience and especially as a
diplomat. Second believed that Machiavelli was not Machiavellian, but he was
republican and patriotic and he was unfairly remembered as something that he was not.
Reginald Pole regarded Machiavell's doctrine as "an essentially secret teaching
whose poison was spreading through Christendom." The Prince, for Pole, "was written
by Satan in the same sense in which Scripture was written by God." It seemed that Pole
made great efforts to oppose Machiavelli and to see that his book, The Prince was
banned. Pole set his nephew, Henry Huntington, the task of tracking the translation of
many extracts of Osorio's De Nobilitate (1542) which included the first published attack
against Machiavelli. Another early attack on Machiavelli, "lancelotto Politi (De libris
christiano detestandis, 1551), may have known Pole's views, for his own argument is
quite similar", and that is what indicated that Pole's anti-Machiavellian ideas had some
subsequent influence although that his Apologia remained unpublished in this century,
the sixteenth century.97
In his Anti-Machiavelli, published in 1576, Innocent Gentillet attacked Machiavelli
as a result of "the cynical advice given to rulers in The Prince…" This advice was the
77
essential cause that made Catherine de Medici commit the carnage of the Protestants on
St Bartholomew's Day in 1572. Gentillet's situation against Machiavelli was built upon
the idea that Machiavelli did not respect the title of individuals. On the contrary, he used
to prop up the unscrupulous class of ruling, the Medici.98
Machiavelli's writings were widely republished, disseminated, and read even after
the decision of putting them on the index of banned books by the papacy in 1559. The
Prince was reviled by a huge array of critics including Frederick II, the Prussian crown
prince, who wrote a treatise named Anti-Machiavel in the middle of the eighteenth
century. Even today, one of the most habitual schools of interpretation concerning
Machiavelli drew this man as a "teacher of evil" and a supporter of tyranny who denied
the role of moral considerations in politics and realized the use of cruelty, treason, and
even violence as an important political techniques.99
In their book, Machiavelli: Shadow of the Devil, on Earth, the Arabic critics
Ahmed Nasif and Majdi Kamil considered Machiavelli as Machiavellian for teaching
practical methods and procedures that enabled the ruler to gain and keep himself
powerful lifelong regardless religious recommendations and ethical considerations for
using Cesare Borgia as an example to be followed.100
In this respect, it was important to mention that Machiavelli met Cesar Borgia, the
Duke of Valenteno, during a diplomatic mission for the Florentine republic government.
He spent the period from 7 October to 18 January 1503 at Borgia's court as an
ambassador.101 Machiavelli used Borgia’s act of treason and cruelty as an astonishing
example of how a young prince was able to gain power.102 No “one he met impressed
him more than Cesare Borgia."
103
Machiavelli formulated his own theory of effective
government in The Prince. He based his ideal prince on Cesare Borgia's life and that is
why Alex Sharp states saying:
Niccolo Machiavelli was not writing about his own ideas in The
Prince. Someone who is Machiavellian is really Borgian, because
The Prince is about Cesare Borgia, who was a prince of the
Catholic Church when he became a cardinal at age 18, only to
resign from that position to become the first Duke of Valence.104
78
Bertrand Russell maintained that Machiavelli's admiration of Borgia was no more
than an admiration for the skills he had, but not for his purposes. "The two things, love of
skill and patriotic desire for Italian unity, existed side by side in his mind, and were not
in any degree synthesized."105 Accordingly, Machiavelli admired Borgia for his
cleverness, and blamed him for having disrupted Italy.
David K. Fry agreed that Borgia was a cruel man and very much like the ideal prince
that is depicted in The Prince. Machiavelli did not really admire his policies, but he
believed that the Florentines could unite Italy with a leader like Cesare Borgia.106 Fry
defended the idea that Machiavelli was not Machiavellian. The Prince, according to him,
had been attacked as immoral treatise, Machiavellism had come to be a dogma according
to which the means were justified by the end. This view of Machiavelli was
unreasonable. His republican beliefs were very clear in almost most of his writings. In
The Prince, he was emphasizing on monarchies rather than on republic. It was correct
that The Prince, was Machiavelli's best known book, but it was The Discourses which
drew the most about Machiavelli's personality. The Prince was just a short book written
hastily to obtain influence with the ruling family, but TheDiscourses was a book in
which he tried to include his complete system of politics. The main idea of The
Discourses was the "superiority of the democratic republic and the ultimate reliance of
even the most despotic regimes on the mass consent of the people,’’
107
and that is what
presented Machiavelli's interest of common good.
Another witness that Fry shows to support the idea that Machiavelli was not
Machiavellian is his love of liberty. Machiavelli occupied a position in the republic
government of Florence. He worked hard for the sake of maintaining the Florentine
republic and played an important role to form and command the militia for the task of
protecting it. In 1512, when the republic had been fallen, he was arrested and tortured
because of a supposed plot against the Medici. In spite of being not trusted by the
Medici, Machiavelli, as a republican, always tried to find a way to come back into
politics. In The Prince, Machiavelli embodied himself differently for the aim of
obtaining a post with the Medici and that is why his depiction "as a supporter of corrupt
79
totalitarian rule is unfair because Niccolo Machiavelli strongly favoured republics’’.
Machiavelli’s love for Italy is another evidence. He spent most of his life time trying to
achieve the hope that he had for his country. He was patriotic, he was planning to reach
Italy to its full potential. He did not support the Medici totalitarian government, but he
tried to gain an occupation in this government for the aim of making it better.108
In his book, Machiavelli and Mystery of State, Donaldson mentions that John
Wolfe, "the London printer who produced surreptitious editions of several of
Machiavelli's major texts in the 1580s", and Alberico Gentili, "the brilliant international
jurist who lived in England and was a professor of law at Oxford,"109 took as their task
the matter of rectifying the impression of Machiavelli in their time. Both of them
believed that Machiavelli examined the subject of tyranny for the sake of opposing it
justifying this point of view by the idea that they found in the texts, a republican
tendency. They established their defence The Discourses rather than on The Prince.
Gentili's defence was represented by a recommendation that ambassadors acquainted
themselves Machiavelli's The Discourses for the aim of getting benefit of the political
and historical lessons. Wolfe's defence appeared as a preface to The Discourses at the
beginning of a volume which consisted of Machiavelli's two major works, The Prince
and The Discourses. In their defence, they emphasized -"Machiavelli's value as a guide
to the best way of drawing profit from the reading of history"110
Cary J. Nederman stated that if Machivelism embraced excessive opportunism under
the title of obtaining or keeping power for its own sake, Machiavelli did not merit to be
painted with tar by the brush of his own name because he clearly expressed a stable
commitment to certain fixed belief about essential political value. "Machiavelli was
without doubt a convinced republican who held that there were good reasons-practical as
well as moral-for the institution of self-government in preference to princely regimes."111
Guglielmo Ferrero insisted that the efforts of anyone who tried to find an entire
"Machiavellian system" within all of Machiavelli's works would be in vain. Machiavelli
explained his political doctrine in two books. The Discourses contained no trace of
Machiavelism, but consisted of ingenious ideas and advices on how to arrange a
80
republican government. Machiavelli did not keep the doctrine that ethical considerations
took precedence and did not have also the contrary theory. The pretended Machiavellism
originated in The Prince. This was not to agree, Ferrero said, that it occurred in this little
book. In order to comprehend this Paradox, one should read this treatise carefully
without preconceptions. One would find a short book on principalities, full of good and
bad advices for princes of all ages. The good advices were more abundant, they were
easy to give than to follow. The bad advices were more practical, but less abundant.112 It
was to be noted that Ferrero's endeavor to defend Machiavelli was in vain because he
spontaneously confessed that there was Machiavelism in some of Machiavelli's works
and specially in The Prince.
Another defence was built upon the idea that whether Machiavelli was
Machiavellian or not could be examined by two ways. Firstly, did Machiavelli mean
accurately what he mentioned in The Prince? As far as morality issues were involved,
The Discourses embraced the clarity and divinity of his moral situations. Secondly, if
Machiavelli meant what he wrote, did it mean that he helped the corrupt and totalitarian
rules in which the end justified the means? Machiavelli was very patriotic, his first dream
was to see united Italy. Even he did not support the totalitarian government of the
Medici, but he believed that by obtaining an occupation within this government he would
try to reform it and direct it to unite Italy.113
Finally, one has not to fear to conclude using the Arabic instance, sun beam cannot
be veiled by a sieve. Machiavelli was Machiavellian. His condemnation is justified in
spite of all the pretexts presented by those who defend him. Machiavelli must be
convicted not only for the reason that The Prince contains ethical and religious mistakes,
but for including special trends that caused huge injury throughout several centuries. It
becomes clear that the main aim of composing The Prince is to teach the princes or those
who are on their way to be princes how to govern their principalities by using the rod and
the scourge, and how to be tyrants. Although the word tyrant is not mentioned in
Machiavelli's treatise, all of his ideas suggest this word.
81
Machiavelli was of high impact on Elizabethan drama in general, and Christopher
Marlowe in particular. Machiavelli's influence was clearly reflected in the characters of
Marlowe's heroes to the point that Marlowe was accused as responsible for introducing
Machiavelli to Elizabethan drama.114 In his article, "Tragedy and Materialist Thought",
Hugh Grady states that Shakespearean drama was more harmonious with Machiavelli's
pragmatic philosophy than with received Christianity and particularly in his great
tragedies such as Hamlet and Othello. Each of these plays “in its own way posits a
universe indifferent to moral outcomes and a human world of autotelic power politics
and free-flowing, identity-shifting subjectivity."115 The following two chapters will be
dedicated to study in detail the influence of Machiavelli on the selected plays of Marlowe
and Shakespeare.
82
Notes
1.
_________
"Niccolo
Machiavelli
and
Galileo
Galilei",
in
http://www.radicalacademy.com/philmachiavelli.htm. p.1 of 7.
2.
Bertrand Russell, History of Western Philosophy, (London: George Allen &
Unwin Ltd., 1946), p. 465.
3.
Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince, ed. Cary J. Nederman, (London: Duncan
Baird Publishers Ltd., 2007), p. 8.
4.
C. R. Verma. Studies in Literature, (Delhi: Doaba House, 1998), p. 565.
5.
Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince, trans, and ed. Peter Bondanella, (New York:
Oxford University Press. 2005), p. ix. Subsequence references will be to this
edition.
6.
Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince, trans, and ed.Tim Parks, (New York: Penguin
Books Ltd., 2009), p. viii.
7.
Bamber
Gascoigne,
"Niccolo
Machiavelli",
in
http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/macchiave.htm, p. 1 of 6.
8.
Jeremy Harwood, Philosophy: a Beginner's Guide to the Ideas of 100 Great
Thinkers, (UK: Quercus, nd), p. 62.
9.
Robert Black, "Machiavelli, servant of the Florentine republic", in Machiavelli
And Republicanism, eds. Gisela Bock, Quentin Skinner, and Maurizio Viroli,
(New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990), p. 71.
10. ----------------
"Niccolo
Machiavelli
Biography",
in
http://people.brandies.edu/~teuber/machiavellibio.html, pp. 5-6 of 16.
11. Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince, ed. Peter Bondanellaa, pp. x-xi.
12. Niccollo Machiavelli, The Prince, ed. Anne Rooney, (London: Arcturus
Publishing Limited, 2008), p.12.
13. Quentin Skinner, The Foundations of Modern Political Thought., Vol. 1, (New
York: Cambridge University Press, 1998), p.174.
14. Niccollo Machiavelli, The Prince, ed. Anne Rooney, p.12.
83
15. Joseph V. Femia, "Maciavelli", in Political Thinkers From Socrates to the
2ed
Present,
ed., eds. David Boucher and Paul Kelly, (New York: Oxford
University Press, 2009), pp.163-164.
16. Maurizio Viroli, Machiavelli: Founders of Modern Political and Social
Thought, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), p.12.
17. Ibid.
18. __________
"Niccolo
Machiavelli",
in
http://plato.stanford.
edu/entries/machiavelli/, p. 3 of 22.
19. David K. Fray, "Niccolo Machiavelli", in http://www.ctbw.com/lubman.htm .
p. 2 of 3.
20. Bamber Gascoigne, "Niccolo Machiavelli", p. 3 of 6.
21. Max
Lerner,
"Niccolo
Machiavelli",
in
http://www.historyguide.
org/intellect/machiavelli.html, pp.1-2 of 3.
22. C. R. Verma. p. 565.
23. Joseph V. Femia, p. 164.
24. _______"Niccolo Machiavelli", in http://plato.stanford.edu/emtries/machiavelli/
pp. 2-3 of 22.
25. George H. Sabine and Thomas L. Thorson, A History of Political Theory, (New
Delhi: Oxford & IBH Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., 1973), p. 317.
26. __________ "Discourses on Livy", in http://en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Discourseson-Livy, p. 1 of 3.
27. Ahmed Nassif and Majdi Kamil, Machiavelli: Shadow of the Devil on Earth,
(Damascus: Arabic Darkitab, 2008), pp. 27-28.
28. Niccolo Machiavelli, The Discourses, trans. Leslie J. Walker, ed. Bernard
Crick. (London: Penguin Group, 2003), p.142. Subsequence references will be
to this edition.
29. ___________ "Discourses on Livy", in http: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourseson-Livy, p. 1 of 3.
84
30. __________"Nicolo Machiavelli: Criticism", in http://www.enotes.com/literarycriticism/machiavelli-nicollo, p. 2 of 6.
31. __________
"The
Art
of
War
(Machiavelli)'',
in
http://en.
wikipedia.org/wiki/The-Art-of-War-(Machiavelli), pp.1-2 of 3.
32. Niccolo Machiavelli, The Art of War, trans. Henry Neville, (New York: Dover
Publications INC., 2006), p. 7. Subsequence references will be to this edition.
33.
Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince, ed. Peter Bondanella, p. xiii.
34. Maurizio Viroli, From Politics to Reason of State, (New York: Cambridge
University Press, 1992), pp.153-154.
35. Count Carlo Sforza, The Living Thoughts of Machiavelli, (New Delhi: Rupa.
co., 2002), p.16.
36.
Bertrand Russell, p. 467.
37. Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince, ed. Peter Bondanella, p. xiii.
38. Count Carlo Sforza, p. 142.
39. C. R. Verma. p. 566.
40. _________"Machiavelli's The Prince", in http://www.emachiavell.com/The%20
Prince%20and520Machiavelli%20with%20Quote...,p. 3 of 13
41. Jeremy Harwood, p. 62.
42. Laurie E. Maguire, Studying Shakespeare: A Guide to the Plays, (USA:
Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2004), p.88.
43. ________"Niccolo Machiavelli'', in http://plato.stanford.edu.entries.machiavelli/
p. 2-3 of 22.
44. Mikael Hornqvist, Machiavelli and Empire, (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2004), p. 28.
45. Maurizio Viroli, p.154.
46.
Man Bin Auss Al-Muzni, Man Bin Auss’ Divan, ed. Noori Hamoodi and
Hatam Salih( Baghdad: Dar Al-Jahidh, 1977), p. 36
85
47. Quentin Skinner, Visions of Politics, Vol. 2, (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2002), p.144.
48. Quentin Skinner, The Foundations of Modern Political Thought, p. 130.
49. _________ "The Prince", in http://en.wikipedi.org./wiki/The -Prince, p. 9 of 19.
50. Ibid.
51. Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince, trans. George Bull, ed. Anthony Grafton,
(New York: Penguin Group, 1999), p. xxv.
52. N. D. Arora, Political Science for Civil Services Main Examination, (New
Delhi: the Tata McGraw Hill Education Private Limited, 2010). p.13. 4.
53. Ibid, p.13. 5.
54. Ibid.
55. Ahmed Nassif and Majdi Kamil, p. 30.
56. Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince, trans. George Bull, ed. Anthony Grafton,
p.xvi.
57. George H. Sabine and Thomas L. Thorson, p. 315.
58. Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince, ed. Ann Rooney, pp.10-11.
59. Ian Adams and R.W. Dyson, Fifty Great Political Thinkers (London:
Routledge, 2007), p. 39.
60. Maurizo Viroli, Machiavelli: Founder of Modern Political and Social
Thought, p. 17.
61. George H. Sabine and Thomas L. Thorson, p. 320.
62. Ibid. p. 321.
63. N. D. Arora, p.13.6.
64. Joseph V. Femia, p. 165.
65. Ian Adams and R.W. Dyson, p. 39.
66. N. D. Arora, p.13.10.
67. J.
H.
Bowden
"Thoughts
on
Machiavelli",
http://bowdenjh,wordpress.com.2010/04/03/thoughts-on-Machiavelli, p.3 of 4.
86
in
68. Jonathan Dollimore, Radical Tragedy, 3rd ed., (New York: Palgrave Macmillan,
2004), pp. 12-13.
69. Richard
Hooker,
"Machiavelli;
in,
http://www.wsu.edu:80801/-
dee/REN/MACHIAV/HTM, p.3 of 6.
70. N. D. Arora, p.13.10.
71. Scott Erb, "Machiavelli and Power Politics," in http://hua.umf.maine.edu/
Reading-Revoulutions/Machiavelli.html, pp. 3-4 of 10.
72. Souvik Mukherjee, "The Devil's Morals: Ethics in Machiavelli's The Prince", in
http://www.literature-study-online.com/essays /machiavelli.html, p. 2 of 4.
73. Alex, Scott, "Machiavelli's The Prince", in http://www.angelfire.com/md2/
timewarp.mavhiavelli.html, p. 2 of 3.
74. Ronnie Oldham, "Machiavelli's The Prince: A Modern Executive", in
http://www.pillowrock.com/ ronnie/ machiavelli. htm, pp. 1-2 of 6.
75. Siobhan Keenan, Renaissance Literature, (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press Ltd., 2008), p.10.
76. N. D. Arora, Political Science: for Civil Services Main Examination, p.13.9.
77. Maurizo Viroli, pp.128-129.
78. Ibid, p.129-130.
79. _________ "The Prince", in http://en.wikipedi.org./wiki/The -Prince, p. 4 of 19.
80. N. D. Arora, p. 13.9.
81. ___________
"Niccolo
Machiavelli'',
in
http://plato.stanford.
edu.entries.machiavelli/, p. 5 of 22.
82. Quentin Skinner, The Foundation of Modern Political Thought, p. 131.
83. Ibid, p.125.
84. Ian Adams and R.W. Dyson, p. 42.
85. ___________ "Discourses on Livy", in http: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/discourseson-livy, p. 1 of 3.
86. Quentin Skinner, The Foundations of Modern Political Thought, p. 124.
87. N. D. Arora, p.13.6.
87
88. Adams and R.W. Dyson, pp. 44-45.
89. Quentin Skinner, Visions of Politics, p. 163.
90. Chris Baldick, Dictionary of Literary Terms, (New York: Oxford University
Press, 2008), p.193.
91. Martin Gray, A Dictionary of Literary Terms, (Inida: Dorling Kindersley,
2008), p.166.
92. Sean McEvoy, Shakespeare: the Basics, (London: Routledge, nd), p.200.
93. _________Machiavellism",
in
http://www.fromoldbook.org./wood-
NuttallEncyclopedia/m/machiavellism.htm/, p.1 of 1.
94. Steven
Marx,
"Moses
and
Machiavellism",
in
http://cla.calpoy.edu/~smarx/publications/moses.html, pp.1-2 of 23.
95. J.B. Priesstly, Literature and Western Man, (New York: Harper and Brothers,
1960), p.16.
96. ________"Machiavellian Legacy", in http://www.epinions.com.review/
Niccolo-Machiavelli-s-the-Prince-by-Niccolo-Machiavelli, p. 1 of 3.
97. Peter S. Donaldson, Machiavelli and Mystery of State, (New York: Cambridge
University Press, 1998), p. 2 & 7-8.
98. Andrew Hadfield, Shakespeare and Republicanism, (New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2005), p. 32.
99. Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince, ed., Cary J. Nederman, p. 20.
100. Ahmed Nassif and Majdi Kamil, p. 22.
101. _________ "Cesare Borgia', in http://en.wikikpedia.org/wiki/Cesare-Brogia,
pp.1-3 of 7.
102. __________"The Prince" in http://en.wikipeidia.org/wiki/the-prince, p.4 of 19.
103. Claudia
Roth
Pierpont,
"The
Florentine",
http://www.newyorker.com/arts.critics/atlarge.2008/09/15/080915crat-atlargepierpont, p. 3 of 4.
88
in
104. Alex Sharp, "Who Was Cesare Borgia, Who was Machiavelli's Prince?", in
http://www.suitelol.com/content/who-was-cesare-borgia-meet-the-man-whowas-machia..., p.1 of 42.
105. Bertrand Russell, pp. 467-468.
106. David K. Fry, "Niccolo Machiavelli", in http://www.ctbw.com/lubman.htm, p.1
of 3.
107. David K. Fry, "Machiavelli Was Not Machiavellian”, in http://www.italianamerican.com/machi2.htm, p.1 of 3.
108. Ibid, p. 2 of 3.
109. Peter S. Donaldson, pp. 86 & 89.
110. Ibid. p. 94.
111. Niccolo, Machiavelli, The Prince, ed. Cary J. Nederman. p.19.
112. Guglielmo
Ferrero,
"Machiavelli
and
Machiavellism",
in
http:www.jstor.org/pss/20028942, pp. 2-3 of 3.
113. __________
"Niccolo
Machiavelli"
end
justifies
the
means",
in
http://www.oocites.com/undertaker3x/ Machiavelli.htm?201021, pp. 1-2 of 5.
114. U.M. Ellis-Fermor, The Jacobean Drama: An Interpretation, (London:
Methuem and Co. Ltd, 1965), p.11.
115. Hugh Grady, "Tragedy and Materialist Thought", in A Companion to Tragedy,
ed. Rebecca Bushnell, (USA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2005), p.140.
89