Assignment

On
Niccolò Machiavelli’s The Prince: An Evaluation

[Course Title: Major I]

Political Science
Course Code: 202

Submitted By
Darshana Chetry

UID
SF0121017
B.A.LL.B.’26

Faculty In-Charge
Dr. Mayengbam Nandakishwor Singh

1
 Table of Contents

Title Page No.

1. Introduction………………………………………………………….3-4

1.1 Scope and Objectives…………………………………………4

1.2 Literature review………………………………………………5
1.3 Research questions…………………………………………….5
1.4 Research methodology…………………………………………5
1.4.1 Approach to Research………………………………………5
1.4.2 Type of Research……………………………………………5
1.4.3 Sources of data collection…………………………………...5
1.4.4 System of citation and footnoting…………………………...5

2. About Machiavelli………………………………………………………6
2.1 Machiavelli’s Life……………………………………………...7-8

3. Niccolò Machiavelli’s Views……………………………………………9

3.1 Machiavelli’s Views on Religion………………………………9-10
3.2 Machiavelli’s Views on Ethics…………………………………..10
3.3 Machiavelli’s Views on State or Power……………………….10-12
3.4 Machiavelli’s Views on Separation of………………………..12-14
Ethics and Religion from State.

4. Evaluation of The Prince……………………………………………...15-18

5. Conclusion………………………………………………………………19

6. References………………………………………………………………..20

2
Chapter 1:
Introduction
Machiavelli was a 16th century Florentine philosopher known primarily for his political ideas.
His two most famous philosophical books, The Prince and the Discourses on Livy, were
published after his death. His philosophical legacy remains enigmatic, but that result should not
be surprising for a thinker who understood the necessity to work sometimes from the shadows.
There is still no settled scholarly opinion with respect to almost any facet of Machiavelli’s
philosophy. Philosophers disagree concerning his overall intention, the status of his sincerity, the
status of his piety, the unity of his works, and the content of his teaching.

The Prince is a detailed examination of how to gain and keep political power. It has 26 chapters
and a dedication to Lorenzo de Medici at the start. The dedication announces Machiavelli's
intention to discuss great men's conduct and princely administration principles in plain terms. In
order to please and enlighten the Medici family, he does so. The 26 chapters of the book are
arranged into four sections: Chapters 1-11 go over the various types of principalities or states,
Chapters 12-14 go over the various types of armies and how a prince should conduct himself as a
military leader, Chapters 15-23 go over the prince's character and behavior, and Chapters 24-26
go over Italy's desperate political situation. The concluding chapter is a request that the Medici
family provide the prince who will lead Italy out of its disgrace.

Through his chapters he tries to explain different aspect. He gives some instruction regarding
some of the important factors. These are:

 The types of armies

If a prince wishes to stay in power, he must always pay great attention to military matters.
Machiavelli describes four different types of armies:

1. Hired warriors or mercenaries, who are hazardous and unreliable.

2. Auxiliaries, or troops borrowed from other rulers, also dangerous and unreliable.
3
 3. Native troops, by far the most desired type made up of one's own residents or subjects.
4. Mixed soldiers, who are a mix of native troops and mercenaries or auxiliaries, are
nevertheless less acceptable than a fully indigenous army.
 The character and behavior of the prince:

For princes, Machiavelli advocates the following traits and behaviors:

1. It is preferable to be stingy rather than generous;

2. It is preferable to be ruthless rather than merciful.
3. If maintaining commitments would be detrimental to one's interests, it is preferable to
break them.
4. Princes must avoid becoming despised and detested; the people's goodwill is a stronger
defense than any fortification.

His influence has been enormous. Arguably no philosopher since antiquity, with the possible
exception of Kant, has affected his successors so deeply. Indeed, the very list of these successors
reads almost as if it were the history of modern political philosophy itself. Bacon, Descartes,
Spinoza, Bayle, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Hume, Smith, Montesquieu, Fichte, Hegel, Marx, and
Nietzsche number among those whose ideas ring with the echo of Machiavelli’s thought. Even
those who apparently rejected the foundations of his philosophy, such as Montaigne, typically
regarded Machiavelli as a formidable opponent and deemed it necessary to engage with the
implications of that philosophy.

1.1 Scope and Objectives

 To study about Machiavelli.
 To evaluate his views.
 To study his instructions to a Prince.
 To analyze the different themes in The Prince and evaluate them.

4
1.2 Literature Review:
The article published by Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, explains Machiavelli’s all
aspect of life, his youth, him as a philosopher. It also studies his philosophical themes and
some influence on him as well as his writings. It also explains about Machiavelli’s Corpus.

The article published by Yale Insights, which was written by Robert P. Harrison explains
about what can we learn from Machiavelli and his renowned philosophy. He also talks about
his various writings and his philosophical take on all.

In this article by Drishti Blog, titled Machiavelli’s Prince and his Idea of Statecraft, the
author explains about Machiavellianism. He also explains Machiavelli’s methodology, and
also talks about his different views.

1.3 Research Questions:

1. Who was Niccolò di Bernardo Dei Machiavelli?

2. What are the different views of Machiavelli?
3. What are the different themes of The Prince? Evaluate.

1.4 Research Methodology:

1.4.1 Approach to Research:

Doctrinal research has been used in writing this project. Books and journal articles  have been
used while writing this research project which were taken from library and online resources.
1.4.2 Type of Research:
Explanatory type of research has been used while writing this project because various concepts
were needed to be explained.
1.4.3 Sources of data collection:
Secondary data sources were used in writing this research project, which involved books,
journals, web sources etc.
1.4.4 System of citation and footnoting
The researcher has followed the Bluebook 20th Edition system of citation throughout the project
to maintain uniformity.

5
Chapter 2:
About Machiavelli
Niccolò di Bernardo Dei Machiavelli was an Italian Renaissance diplomat, philosopher and
writer, best known for The Prince, written in 1513. He has often been called the father of modern
political philosophy or political science. For many years he served as a senior official in the
Florentine Republic with responsibilities in diplomatic and military affairs. He wrote comedies,
carnival songs, and poetry. His personal correspondence is of high importance to historians and
scholars. He worked as secretary to the Second Chancery of the Republic of Florence from 1498
to 1512, when the Medici were out of power.

Machiavelli's name came to evoke unscrupulous politicians of the sort Machiavelli advised most
famously in The Prince. Machiavelli considered political battles, not through a lens of morality,
but as though they are a board game with established rules. His experience showed him that
politics has always been played with deception, treachery and crime. He also notably said that a
ruler who is establishing a kingdom or a republic, and is criticized for his deeds, including
violence, should be excused when the intention and the result is beneficial. Machiavelli’s Prince
was much read as a manuscript long before it was published in 1532 and the reaction was mixed.
Some considered it a straightforward description of "the evil means used by bad rulers; others
read in it, evil recommendations to tyrants to help them maintain their power." The term
Machiavellian often connotes political deceit, deviousness, and realpolitik. Even though
Machiavelli has become most famous for his work on principalities, scholars also give attention
to the exhortations in his other works of political philosophy. While much less well known than
The Prince, the Discourses on Livy (composed c. 1517) is often said to have paved the way of
modern republicanism.

6
2.1 Machiavelli’s Life:

Niccolò di Bernardo Dei Machiavelli was born in Florence, Italy, the third child and first son of
attorney Bernardo di Niccolò Machiavelli and his wife, Bartolomea di Stefano Nelli. The
Machiavelli family is believed to be descended from the old marquesses of Tuscany and to have
produced thirteen Florentine Gonfalonieres of Justice, one of the offices of a group of nine
citizens selected by drawing lots every two months and who formed the government, or Signoria;
but he was never a full citizen of Florence because of the nature of Florentine citizenship in that
time even under the republican regime. Machiavelli married Marietta Corsini in 1502.

Machiavelli was born in a tumultuous era in which popes waged acquisitive wars against Italian
city-states, and people and cities often fell from power as France, Spain, and the Holy Roman
Empire battled for regional influence and control. Political-military alliances continually
changed, featuring condottieri, who changed sides without warning, and the rise and fall of many
short-lived governments. In 1494 Florence restored the republic, expelling the Medici family that
had ruled Florence for some sixty years. Shortly after the execution of Savonarola, Machiavelli
was appointed to an office of the second chancery, a medieval writing office that put Machiavelli
in charge of the production of official Florentine government documents. Shortly thereafter, he
was also made the secretary of the Dieci di Libertà e Pace.

In the first decade of the sixteenth century, he carried out several diplomatic missions, most
notably to the Papacy in Rome. Florence sent him to Pistoia to pacify the leaders of two
opposing factions which had broken into riots in 1501 and 1502; when this failed, the leaders
were banished from the city, a strategy which Machiavelli had favored from the outset. From
1502 to 1503, he witnessed the brutal reality of the state-building methods of Cesare Borgia
(1475–1507) and his father, Pope Alexander VI, who were then engaged in the process of trying
to bring a large part of Central Italy under their possession. The pretext of defending Church
interests was used as a partial justification by the Borgias. Other excursions to the court of Louis
XII and the Spanish court influenced his writings such as The Prince.

At the start of the 16th century, Machiavelli conceived of a militia for Florence, and he then
began recruiting and creating it. He distrusted mercenaries, and instead staffed his army with
citizens, a policy that was to be repeatedly successful. By February of 1506 he was able to have

7
marching on parade four hundred farmers, suited (including iron breastplates), and armed with
lances and small fire arms. Under his command, Florentine citizen-soldiers defeated Pisa in
1509. Machiavelli's success did not last. In August 1512 the Medici, backed by Pope Julius II,
used Spanish troops to defeat the Florentines at Prato. In the wake of the siege, Soderini resigned
as Florentine head of state and left in exile. The experience would, like Machiavelli's time in
foreign courts and with the Borgia, heavily influence his political writings. The Florentine city-
state and the republic were dissolved, and Machiavelli was deprived of office and banished from
the city for a year. In 1513, the Medici accused him of conspiracy against them and had him
imprisoned. Despite being subjected to torture, he denied involvement and was released after
three weeks.

Machiavelli then retired to his farm estate at Sant'Andrea in Percussina, near San Casciano in Val
di Pesa, where he devoted himself to studying and writing his political treatises. He visited
places in France, Germany, and Italy where he had represented the Florentine republic.
Despairing of the opportunity to remain directly involved in political matters, after a time, he
began to participate in intellectual groups in Florence and wrote several plays that (unlike his
works on political theory) were both popular and widely known in his lifetime. Politics remained
his main passion and, to satisfy this interest, he maintained a well-known correspondence with
more politically connected friends, attempting to become involved once again in political life. In
a letter to Francesco Vettori, he described his experience:

When evening comes, I go back home, and go to my study. On the threshold, I take off my work
clothes, covered in mud and filth, and I put on the clothes an ambassador would wear. Decently
dressed, I enter the ancient courts of rulers who have long since died. There, I am warmly
welcomed, and I feed on the only food I find nourishing and was born to savour. I am not
ashamed to talk to them and ask them to explain their actions and they, out of kindness, answer
me. Four hours go by without my feeling any anxiety. I forget every worry. I am no longer afraid
of poverty or frightened of death. I live entirely through them.

Machiavelli died in 1527 at the age of 58 after receiving his last rites. He was buried at the
Church of Santa Croce in Florence. An epitaph honoring him is inscribed on his monument. The
Latin legend reads: TANTO NOMINI NULLUM PAR ELOGIUM ("So great a name (has) no
adequate praise" or "No eulogy (would be) a match for such a great name").

8
Chapter 3:
Niccolò Machiavelli Views
3.1 Machiavelli Views on Religion
The novelty in Machiavelli’s writings was his attitude towards religion and morality, which
distinguished him from all those who preceded him. He was critical in his attack on the Church
and its clergy for their failure to provide moral inspiration. Machiavelli was anti-church and anti-
clergy, but not anti-religion. He considered religion as necessary not only for man’s social life,
but also for the health and prosperity of the state. It was important within a state because of the
influence it wielded over political life in general. Though an indispensable part of civic life, it
was never an end in itself. As a political tool, princes and rulers were to use religion in their
power struggles effectively, but responsibly and cautiously, otherwise it could be disastrous.
Religion was good only if it produced order, for peace brought forth fortune and success.
Machiavelli’s attitude towards religion was strictly utilitarian. It was a social force and did not
have any spiritual connotation. As a social force, it played a pivotal role because it appealed to
the selfishness of man through its doctrine of rewards and punishment, there by inducing proper
behavior and good conduct that was necessary for the well-being of the society. Religion
determined the social and ethical norms and values that governed human conduct and actions.
Machiavelli was categorical that public spirit was crucial to the stability of the state. One of the
key determinants of public spirit was religion, and the other, liberty. He advised the prince to do
anything and everything possible to cultivate belief in religion, even if the ruler in his personal
capacity was irreligious or had very little faith in religion. He admired qualities like courage,
self- assertiveness, fortitude, ambition, vitality, intelligence, fame and strength which religion
should ideally foster. By his own preference, he criticized Christianity, for it made men
effeminate, charitable and weak, glorifying qualities like renunciation, humility, lowliness, other
worldliness, asceticism, charity, and patience under injustice. A civic religion for Machiavelli
should install fear and respect for authority and help in the inculcation of military velour. He
dismissed the Christian view that an individual was endowed with a divine element and

9
supernatural end. Though Machiavelli was critical of Christianity, he retained the basic Christian
views on the differences between good and evil. For instance, he regarded murdering one’s co -
citizens, betraying one’s friends, disloyalty and irreligiousness as lack of virtue not entitled to
glory. Machiavelli was clear that Italy needed a religion similar to one that ancient Rome had, a
religion that taught to serve the interests of the state. He was categorical that Florentines needed
political and military virtues which Christian faith did not impart.

3.2 Machiavelli Views on Ethics

The notion of morality is a universal feature of human life. It is a very complex field of enquiry
with wide range of literature. The complex nature of morality makes it vulnerable to conflicting
analysis, positions and debatable issues which have remained unresolved. But be that as it may,
some working definitions have been given that could aid one in having insight to what morality
stands for. The term morality is said to have appeared in the fourth century in the writings of
Saint Ambrose, from the Latin mores. It is concerned with personally held ethical beliefs,
theories of obligations and the social elements that reinforce it. The idea of morality is equally
used to refer to a system of principles and judgements shared by cultural, religious and
philosophical communities with common belief of what constitute right and wrong. Human
being is constituted in such a way that not all actions befit his nature. Some kind of actions is
antithetical to his nature and militates against his well-being. While some other kind of actions
promotes his general well-being and leads to happiness and self-fulfillment. In other words, man
is expected to engage in actions that are considered morally right and refrain from actions that
are considered morally wrong.

3.3 Machiavelli Views on State or Power

It has been a common view among political philosophers that there exists a special relationship
between moral goodness and legitimate authority. Many authors believed that the use of political
power was only rightful if it was exercised by a ruler whose personal moral character was strictly
virtuous. Thus, rulers were counseled that if they wanted to succeed, that is, if they desired a
long and peaceful reign and aimed to pass their office down to their offspring, they must be sure
to behave in accordance with conventional standards of ethical goodness. In a sense, it was
thought that rulers did well when they did good; they earned the right to be obeyed and respected
inasmuch as they showed themselves to be virtuous and morally upright. Machiavelli criticizes at

10
length precisely this moralistic view of authority in his best-known treatise, The Prince. For
Machiavelli, there is no moral basis on which to judge the difference between legitimate and
illegitimate uses of power. Rather, authority and power are essentially coequal: whoever has
power has the right to command; but goodness does not ensure power and the good person has
no more authority by virtue of being good. Thus, in direct opposition to a moralistic theory of
politics, Machiavelli says that the only real concern of the political ruler is the acquisition and
maintenance of power. In this sense, Machiavelli presents a trenchant criticism of the concept of
authority by arguing that the notion of legitimate rights of ruler ship adds nothing to the actual
possession of power. The Prince purports to reflect the self-conscious political realism of an
author who is fully aware on the basis of direct experience with the Florentine government that
goodness and right are not sufficient to win and maintain political office. Machiavelli thus seeks
to learn and teach the rules of political power. For Machiavelli, power characteristically defines
political activity, and hence it is necessary for any successful ruler to know how power is to be
used. Only by means of the proper application of power, Machiavelli believes, can individuals be
brought to obey and will the ruler be able to maintain the state in safety and security.
Machiavelli's political theory, then, represents a concerted effort to exclude issues of authority
and legitimacy from consideration in the discussion of political decision-making and political
judgment. Nowhere does this come out more clearly than in his treatment of the relationship
between law and force. Machiavelli acknowledges that good laws and good arms constitute the
dual foundations of a well-ordered political system. But he immediately adds that since coercion
creates legality, he will concentrate his attention on force. He says, “Since there cannot be good
laws without good arms, I will not consider laws but speak of arms” (Prince CW 47). In other
words, the legitimacy of law rests entirely upon the threat of coercive force; authority is
impossible for Machiavelli as a right apart from the power to enforce it. Consequently,
Machiavelli is led to conclude that fear is always preferable to affection in subjects, just as
violence and deception are superior to legality in effectively controlling them. Machiavelli
observes that one can say this in general of men: they are ungrateful, disloyal, insincere and
deceitful, timid of danger and avid of profit. Love is a bond of obligation which these miserable
creatures break whenever it suits them to do so; but fear holds them fast by a dread of
punishment that never passes. (Prince CW 62; translation revised) As a result, Machiavelli
cannot really be said to have a theory of obligation separate from the imposition of power;

11
people obey only because they fear the consequences of not doing so, whether the loss of life or
of privileges. And of course, power alone cannot obligate one, inasmuch as obligation assumes
that one cannot meaningfully do otherwise. Concomitantly, a Machiavellian perspective directly
attacks the notion of any grounding for authority independent of the sheer possession of power.
For Machiavelli, people are compelled to obey purely in deference to the superior power of the
state. If I think that I should not obey a particular law, what eventually leads me to submit to that
law will be either a fear of the power of the state or the actual exercise of that power. It is power
which in the final instance is necessary for the enforcement of conflicting views of what I ought
to do; I can only choose not to obey if I possess the power to resist the demands of the state or if
I am willing to accept the consequences of the state's superiority of coercive force. Machiavelli's
argument in The Prince is designed to demonstrate that politics can only coherently be defined in
terms of the supremacy of coercive power; authority as a right to command has no independent
status. He substantiates this assertion by reference to the observable realities of political affairs
and public life as well as by arguments revealing the self-interested nature of all human conduct.
For Machiavelli it is meaningless and futile to speak of any claim to authority and the right to
command which is detached from the possession of superior political power. The ruler who lives
by his rights alone will surely wither and die by those same rights, because in the rough-and-
tumble of political conflict those who prefer power to authority are more likely to succeed.
Without exception the authority of states and their laws will never be acknowledged when they
are not supported by a show of power which renders obedience inescapable. The methods for
achieving obedience are varied, and depend heavily upon the foresight that the prince exercises.
Hence, the successful ruler needs special training.

3.4 Machiavelli Views on Separation of Ethic and Religion from State

There have been different discussions regarding the role of ethics in politics. To some, it is
impossible to separate these whereas some opine that separation of ethics from religion is
imperative to ensuring proper political development. Among the political philosophers who
founded the idea of separation of ethics from politics, the Italian political philosopher and
politician Niccolò Machiavelli is the most prominent. Before Machiavelli, politics was strictly
bonded with ethics, in theory, if not in practice. According to an ancient tradition that goes back
to Aristotle, politics is a sub-branch of ethics, ethics being defined as the moral behavior of

12
individuals, and politics being defined as the morality of individuals in social groups or
organized communities. Machiavelli was the first theorist to decisively divorce politics from
ethics, and hence to give a certain autonomy to the study of politics. Machiavelli wrote “The
Prince” to serve as a handbook for rulers, and he claims explicitly throughout the work that he is
not interested in talking about ideal republics or imaginary utopias, as many of his predecessors
had done: “There is such a gap between how one lives and how one should live that he who
neglects what is being done for what should be done will learn his destruction rather than his
preservation,” he writes. To Machiavelli, the state was not a means to an end but was an end in
itself, with its own interests. State power was an end in itself and not a means to gig her moral
end of promoting social welfare. Public necessity knows no law. State actions were not to be
judged by individual ethics. Machiavelli prescribes a double standard of conduct for the ruler and
for the individual citizens on the basis that the ruler is a creator of law and also of morality for
moral obligations must ultimately be sustained by law. As such he is above both. It will be the
ruin of the state, were it to be weighed down by individual ethic. Public and private standards of
conduct were different. It was always wrong for an individual to tell a lie but sometimes
necessary and good for the ruler to do so in the interest of the state. The state has no ethics. It is a
nonethical entity. Machiavelli believed that the justice of the state was the interest of the
sovereign. The safety of the state was the supreme law. “It is necessary for a prince wishing to
hold his own to know how to do wrong,” says Machiavelli in this regard. Machiavelli believed
that the state was the highest form of human association and had a superior claim to a man’s
obligations. Reasons of state must outweigh any ethical considerations. Public interests were the
most potent of all motives for political action. Public standards of action were different from
private standards. It is wrong for a private individual to kill but it is not wrong for the state to kill
by punishment for crime. The state hangs a murderer because public safety demands it and
because public interests are more important than private interests of the criminal. Private
interests of ethics have nothing to do with public action. Public conduct is neither inherently
good, nor bad. It is good if its results are good. A good citizen may be a bad man of whom
patriotism is the only moral law. Citizen acts for himself; the state acts for all and therefore the
same principles of conduct do not apply to both. The state is neither moral nor immoral but is
non-moral. It is not a moral entity like the individual and, therefore, individual ethics do not
apply to it. Machiavelli had little place for ethics, or for that matter, for religion, in a system or

13
political philosophy and that formed the chief difference between him and the medieval writers.
Aristotle had already distinguished ethics from politics but had not separated the two whereas
Machiavelli brought about a complete divorce between them. Moral virtues had their own value
but he refused to assign them any place in his scheme of things. Machiavelli agrees that qualities
like liberality, mercy, fidelity, courage, chastity and sincerity make a good man and adds: “It
would be most praiseworthy for a prince to possess all the above-mentioned qualities which are
held to be good.” But, “one cannot call it a virtue to murder one’s fellow citizens, to betray one’s
friends, to be without faith, without mercy, without religion.” Here, the word virtue is used by
Machiavelli in the conventional sense. Morality was not denied but was subordinated to politics
and, therefore, Machiavelli, is not immoral but unmoral in his polities. To him, there is no
absolute good or evil. That is good which serves the interests of the individuals and of the
community and which brings security. With the end justifying the means, Machiavelli may be
called the “founder of utilitarian ethics”. Machiavelli not only separated morality from politics,
but also relegated religion to a very subordinate position in his political system, and it is because
of this that we think that the modern study of politics begins with Machiavelli.

14
Chapter 3:
Evaluation of The Prince
The separation of politics and ethics is the most revolutionary component of The Prince. Political
law was usually related to a higher, moral law in classical political thought. Machiavelli, on the
other hand, believes that political action should always be evaluated in terms of its practical
results rather than some high ideal. Another notable element of The Prince is that it is
significantly less theoretical than previous political theory works. Many previous theorists had
concocted hypothetical concepts of ideal or natural states, but Machiavelli used historical data to
establish The Prince in reality. The book is addressed to the current ruler of Florence, and it is
clear that Machiavelli wants the prominent men of his period to take his advice seriously. It is
more of a practical guidance for a ruler than an abstract philosophical book. Machiavelli's text
also stands out when it comes to the concept of free choice. For explanations of plagues,
famines, invasions, and other tragedies, mediaeval and Renaissance philosophers often turned to
religion or ancient literature; they believed that preventing such events was beyond human
power. When Machiavelli argues in The Prince that human may protect themselves from
disaster, he exhibits an incredible faith in the power of human self-determination and supports
his trust in free will over supernatural destiny.

Machiavelli begins by defending why he, an ordinary citizen, should know more about the art of
ruling than kings. He defends himself with a metaphor: a person standing on top of a mountain is
best positioned to observe the landscape below, while a person standing below is best positioned
to survey the mountain. "To truly know the nature of people, one must be a prince, and to
thoroughly comprehend the nature of prince, one must be an average citizen," Machiavelli

15
writes. This notion implies that an observer's detached perspective is a more dependable
guidance than actual experience, and a better way of refining the art of ruling.

The Prince is meant to advise, instruct, and influence the minds of rulers. In it, Machiavelli
proposes two different rules of conduct: one for the monarch and one for the common people. To
put it another way, the general population should adhere to the traditional definition of morality
and obey it. The prince or ruler, on the other hand, has only one moral goal to pursue: the best
interests of his state. As long as it serves his state's interests, the monarch can defy traditional
morality. Machiavelli describes his strategy in The Prince as "developing maxims or principles
for successful political behavior from history and experience." It's correct to the extent that he
uses historical instances to support his point of view.

In his book ‘The Prince’, Machiavelli deals with various themes throughout his chapters. These
themes help to find out his main idea behind this writing and what he is trying to convey. These
themes are discussed in details.

1. Statesmanship and Warcraft: Good laws, according to Machiavelli, flow

naturally from a strong military. In The Prince, he outlines the relationship
between emerging governments and conflict with his famous phrase, "the
possession of sound armed forces signifies the presence of sound laws."
Machiavelli claims that effective war is the very foundation upon which all states
are founded, rather than the usual idea of war as a necessary but not definitive part
of state growth. The Prince spends a lot of time detailing how to fight a good war:
how to successfully protect a city, how to treat people in newly acquired regions,
and how to avoid domestic insurgency that would detract from a successful battle.
However, Machiavelli's definition of war includes more than just military force, it
also includes international diplomacy, domestic politics, tactical strategy,
geographic mastery, and historical study. Machiavelli's way of viewing practically
all state problems via a military lens was a relevant innovation in political
thinking in the context of Machiavelli's Italy, when towns were continually
threatened by neighboring princes and the area had suffered for many years from
power struggles.

16
2. Goodwill and Hatred: A prince must avoid his people's hatred in order to stay in
power. It is not required for him to be adored; in fact, being feared is often
preferable. Being despised, on the other hand, can lead to a prince's demise. This
argument may appear to contradict Machiavelli's statements on the utility of
cruelty, but Machiavelli only promotes cruelty if it does not jeopardize the
people's long-term goodwill. The best protection against home insurgency and
foreign attack is always the people's goodwill. Machiavelli cautions kings against
actions that can incite animosity, such as confiscating property or abolishing
established institutions. Even fortifications, which are generally valued for
military purposes, should be evaluated largely on their ability to rally support for
the prince. Indeed, a ruler may stop worrying about provoking the wrath of his
subjects only when he is certain that those who despise him would never be able
to rise up against him. Obtaining the people's goodwill, on the other hand, has
little to do with a desire for the population's general satisfaction. Rather, goodwill
is a political tool used to keep the prince's reign stable.
3. Free Will: The terms "prowess" and "fortune" are frequently used by Machiavelli
to describe two separate methods in which a prince can rise to power. "Prowess"
relates to a person's abilities, whereas "fortunate" connotes chance or luck.
Machiavelli's goal in authoring The Prince was to figure out how much of a
prince's success or failure is due to his own free choice and how much is due to
nature or the environment in which he lives. This question is specifically
addressed by Machiavelli to the failures of previous Italian princes. Machiavelli
also explores the function of fortune in human affairs. He makes an attempt to
reconcile free choice with determinism by claiming that fate determines half of
human acts and free will controls the other half. However, Machiavelli also
contends that people can protect themselves from the fluctuations of fortune by
exercising foresight, which is a skill he advocates throughout the book. Thus,
Machiavelli can be understood as believing in people' ability to mold their own
fates to some extent, but also believing that human control over events would
never be absolute.

17
 4. Virtue: Virtues, according to Machiavelli, are qualities that others admire, such
as kindness, compassion, and piety. He claims that while a prince should
constantly endeavor to appear good, acting virtuously for the sake of virtue might
be harmful to the principality. If using vices like cruelty or dishonesty benefits the
state, a prince should not necessarily shun them. Cruelty and other vices, like
virtue, should not be pursued for its own sake: virtues and vices should be viewed
as means to an end. Every action taken by the prince must be evaluated in terms
of its impact on the state, rather than its intrinsic moral value.
5. Human Nature: A variety of characteristics, according to Machiavelli, are
inherent in human nature. People are primarily self-centered, however their love
for others can be acquired or lost. So long as they are not victims of something
horrific, they are pleased and cheerful. They may be trustworthy in good times,
but in bad times, they will rapidly become greedy, deceptive, and profit-driven.
People appreciate dignity, kindness, courage, and piety in others, but the majority
of them lack these qualities. Ambition is widespread among individuals who have
gained some authority, but the majority of people are content with their current
situation and do not wish for higher position. After receiving a favor or service,
people will naturally feel a sense of obligation, and this tie is usually difficult to
break. Nonetheless, allegiances are won and lost, and goodwill is never
unconditional. Such observations regarding human nature are frequently used to
justify the book's instructions to princes. While Machiavelli's political arguments
are backed up by solid historical evidence, his assertions about society and human
nature can sound more like assumptions than observations.

The evaluation of The Prince is done on the philosophical ideas that are being implied by
Machiavelli in his book. The Prince shows us how the world seems when viewed just from a
demoralized standpoint. It makes a concerted effort to define, in the most practical terms
imaginable, the kind of virtue that a prince must possess in order to achieve his goals. One of the
book's most important discoveries is that in order to be an effective ruler, you must understand
how to orchestrate the semiotics of power so that you don't have to use power to achieve your
goals.

18
Conclusion
Through this book Machiavelli put forth the reality of how exactly a prince has to be for an
efficient functioning of his state. He explains everything in s very realistic manner. His ideas
were based on his observation and experience. He had a deep-rooted interest in politics. He
closely observed everything surrounding him and wrote this book as an instruction to the prince.
But some of the critics are of the view that it is rather a warning that shows what will happen if
all the powers are rested upon the prince. Though in the present time his theory has not much
relevance, because of the fact that there is no monarchy here. Democracy is what prevails here.
And people choices and rights must be given equal priority. But he is right in saying that state
should be an utmost priority of a ruler. Because it is the duty of the ruler to keep state above him
but not above its people. Therefore, it will be rightful to say that Machiavelli’s theory doesn’t
hold much relevance in the present time.

19
References:
1. WGTN, https://www.wgtn.ac.nz/lals/resources/paul-nations-resources/readers/mid-
frequency-graded-readers/Prince-Adapted2.pdf (Last accessed 14 May, 2022)

2. YALEINSIGHTS, https://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/what-can-you-learn-machiavelli
(Last accessed 17 May, 2022)

3. INTERNET ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PHILOSOPHY, https://iep.utm.edu/machiave/#SH3a

(Last accessed 17 May, 2022)

4. DIVA-PORTAL, https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:21990/FULLTEXT01.pdf
(Last accessed 18 May,2022)

5. Dilawar Sherzai, Politics and Ethics, OUTLOOK AFGANISTAN (2014)

6. DHRISHTIIAS, https://www.drishtiias.com/blog/machiavellis-prince-and-his-idea-of-
statecraft (Last accessed 18 May,2022)

7. RGU, https://rgu.ac.in/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Download_611.pdf (Last accessed 18

May, 2022)

20