What do you think?
Rate this book
The Political Philosophy of Niccolo Machiavelli
All students of Western political thought encounter Niccolo Machiavelli's work. Nevertheless, his writing continues to puzzle scholars and readers who are uncertain how to deal with the seeming paradoxes they encounter.
The Political Philosophy of Niccolo Machiavelli is a clear account of Machiavelli's thought, major theories and central ideas. It critically engages with his work in a new way, one not based on the problematic Cambridge-school approach. Geared towards the specific requirements of students who need
to reach a sound understanding of Machiavelli's ideas, it is the ideal companion to the study of this influential and challenging philosopher.
The Political Philosophy of Niccolo Machiavelli is a clear account of Machiavelli's thought, major theories and central ideas. It critically engages with his work in a new way, one not based on the problematic Cambridge-school approach. Geared towards the specific requirements of students who need
to reach a sound understanding of Machiavelli's ideas, it is the ideal companion to the study of this influential and challenging philosopher.
- GenresPhilosophyPolitics
216 pages, Paperback
First published June 1, 2015
1 person is currently reading
36 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
February 22, 2022
Machiavelli is, next to Plato, perhaps the most famous political thinker in our tradition, and also among the most controversial.
The term “Machiavellian” is in common use today, no doubt employed by many who know little if anything about his life or writings. The term carries with it a sinister overtone going back at least to Shakespeare’s portrayal of an evil King Richard III who calls himself a “Machiavel.”
Catastrophic changes in social, economic, political, cultural and in all other fields were brought about by the Renaissance and all these changes created a tremendous influence upon Machiavelli, the famous son of Florence, the centre of Italian Renaissance.
No man of his age saw so clearly the direction that political evolution was taking throughout Europe. No man was more clearly aware of the moral and political corruption that went with the decay of long accustomed loyalties and pieties.
He held very important positions in the affairs of the state and by virtue of his position he came in close contact with both the administration and different classes of people, particularly nobility. This enabled him to be a practical man. He portrayed the entire Italian society, particularly the Florentine one. Machiavelli was a great nationalist. He knew and loved Italy more than any other Italian in his time did.
Unification and strength, vis-à-vis the power of the state were of prime importance to him. Again, for the attainment of these two objects he advised the prince to adopt any measure.
He has become the central figure of great controversy and it is not surprising that the controversy still persists. We the ordinary people do not like to be drawn into the vortex of controversy. But Machiavelli thrived on it. No wonder, we regard him as a great patriot. The patriotism of Machiavelli is above any doubt. Critics and scholars may differ on his ideas but not on his patriotism.
But in the course of centuries the reception and interpretation of Machiavelli’s thought has become complicated, the source of numerous scholarly disputes.
Is he a “teacher of moral evil”? Or is he, without endorsing them, providing a sober and detached view of the actualities of human conduct, thereby becoming a catalyst for the modern social sciences?
Is he the advocate of absolute princely power or the defender of republican government?
Is The Prince a handbook for rulers or is it a satire on princely rule, intended to warn the public about princes? Is he calling for a great act of founding a new order implying a vision of what we have come to know as the modern state?
Does his discussion of “Fortuna” suggest that human ingenuity must always be defeated by historical contingency, or is there room for human choice and action to create a new order which might restore, in a new form, the lost greatness of Roman antiquity?
Was The Prince written in hope of release from exile and in search of employment from the Medici in the Florentine government?
Or was it written for the “attentive reader” who would see a much larger purpose?
Among the questions widely debated among students of po liti cal philosophy today, a central question is, What is “modernity”? What do we mean when we use this term?
At what point might we say modernity came to sight?
What distinguishes the “modern” from the “ancient”? Is the character of politics in our time markedly diff erent— for better or worse— from politics in earlier times?
Such debates quickly and inevitably bring Machiavelli to the forefront. He is taken to instantiate the emergence of a distinctly modern understanding of the human condition and of politics, fostering a dramatic change in human self- understanding.
There is as well much debate about a “crisis” of modern Western civilization. Th is results in part from the destructiveness of the twentieth century, which called into question the belief in progress toward perpetual peace and prosperity. But there is also widespread concern for what may be called a spiritual crisis, a crisis of meaning, a fear that we do not know what the right order of society is or whether the West can any longer provide the model for the future of the world.
We are aware of infinite variety which encourages cultural and moral relativism at the same time that that variety is defended as a source of the freedom for us to make up our own purposes and to pursue them.
But what then is the right use of our freedom thus understood?
Freedom comes to be associated with creativity rather than with the effort to conform our character to the right order of things. Is “right order” simply whatever orders can establish themselves and prolong their historical presence?
Do we mean to say that our purpose is to defi ne our own purposes and then pursue them? Does this mean that outside of what ever commitments we may happen to make and establish as conventional wisdom, anything and everything is permitted?
This is itself an ancient argument, well known to Plato (for example, in the Gorgias).
But whereas Plato’s Socrates offers the possibility of resisting this argument, Machiavelli embraces it when he tells us in chapter 6 of The Prince, speaking of the legendary founders of political orders: “And as one examines their actions and lives, one does not see that they had anything else from fortune than the opportunity, which gave them the matter enabling them to introduce any form they pleased.” In short, he is arguing that the order we have is not to be judged by its conformity to a hypothetical transcendent order, but by its capacity to persist through time, reflecting the creative genius of those who brought it into being as a fortress against the chaotic and violent forces of nature.
A wonderful read.
The term “Machiavellian” is in common use today, no doubt employed by many who know little if anything about his life or writings. The term carries with it a sinister overtone going back at least to Shakespeare’s portrayal of an evil King Richard III who calls himself a “Machiavel.”
Catastrophic changes in social, economic, political, cultural and in all other fields were brought about by the Renaissance and all these changes created a tremendous influence upon Machiavelli, the famous son of Florence, the centre of Italian Renaissance.
No man of his age saw so clearly the direction that political evolution was taking throughout Europe. No man was more clearly aware of the moral and political corruption that went with the decay of long accustomed loyalties and pieties.
He held very important positions in the affairs of the state and by virtue of his position he came in close contact with both the administration and different classes of people, particularly nobility. This enabled him to be a practical man. He portrayed the entire Italian society, particularly the Florentine one. Machiavelli was a great nationalist. He knew and loved Italy more than any other Italian in his time did.
Unification and strength, vis-à-vis the power of the state were of prime importance to him. Again, for the attainment of these two objects he advised the prince to adopt any measure.
He has become the central figure of great controversy and it is not surprising that the controversy still persists. We the ordinary people do not like to be drawn into the vortex of controversy. But Machiavelli thrived on it. No wonder, we regard him as a great patriot. The patriotism of Machiavelli is above any doubt. Critics and scholars may differ on his ideas but not on his patriotism.
But in the course of centuries the reception and interpretation of Machiavelli’s thought has become complicated, the source of numerous scholarly disputes.
Is he a “teacher of moral evil”? Or is he, without endorsing them, providing a sober and detached view of the actualities of human conduct, thereby becoming a catalyst for the modern social sciences?
Is he the advocate of absolute princely power or the defender of republican government?
Is The Prince a handbook for rulers or is it a satire on princely rule, intended to warn the public about princes? Is he calling for a great act of founding a new order implying a vision of what we have come to know as the modern state?
Does his discussion of “Fortuna” suggest that human ingenuity must always be defeated by historical contingency, or is there room for human choice and action to create a new order which might restore, in a new form, the lost greatness of Roman antiquity?
Was The Prince written in hope of release from exile and in search of employment from the Medici in the Florentine government?
Or was it written for the “attentive reader” who would see a much larger purpose?
Among the questions widely debated among students of po liti cal philosophy today, a central question is, What is “modernity”? What do we mean when we use this term?
At what point might we say modernity came to sight?
What distinguishes the “modern” from the “ancient”? Is the character of politics in our time markedly diff erent— for better or worse— from politics in earlier times?
Such debates quickly and inevitably bring Machiavelli to the forefront. He is taken to instantiate the emergence of a distinctly modern understanding of the human condition and of politics, fostering a dramatic change in human self- understanding.
There is as well much debate about a “crisis” of modern Western civilization. Th is results in part from the destructiveness of the twentieth century, which called into question the belief in progress toward perpetual peace and prosperity. But there is also widespread concern for what may be called a spiritual crisis, a crisis of meaning, a fear that we do not know what the right order of society is or whether the West can any longer provide the model for the future of the world.
We are aware of infinite variety which encourages cultural and moral relativism at the same time that that variety is defended as a source of the freedom for us to make up our own purposes and to pursue them.
But what then is the right use of our freedom thus understood?
Freedom comes to be associated with creativity rather than with the effort to conform our character to the right order of things. Is “right order” simply whatever orders can establish themselves and prolong their historical presence?
Do we mean to say that our purpose is to defi ne our own purposes and then pursue them? Does this mean that outside of what ever commitments we may happen to make and establish as conventional wisdom, anything and everything is permitted?
This is itself an ancient argument, well known to Plato (for example, in the Gorgias).
But whereas Plato’s Socrates offers the possibility of resisting this argument, Machiavelli embraces it when he tells us in chapter 6 of The Prince, speaking of the legendary founders of political orders: “And as one examines their actions and lives, one does not see that they had anything else from fortune than the opportunity, which gave them the matter enabling them to introduce any form they pleased.” In short, he is arguing that the order we have is not to be judged by its conformity to a hypothetical transcendent order, but by its capacity to persist through time, reflecting the creative genius of those who brought it into being as a fortress against the chaotic and violent forces of nature.
A wonderful read.
May 24, 2025
Cogent overview of Machiavelli's political writing. Weirdly unnuanced in his descriptions of Cesare Borgia, as if he was some mustache twirling villain. Particularly thorough treatment of how Machiavelli influenced later political thinkers.
September 15, 2024
If the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is better than your writing, then forgive me for not recognising the significance of your masterpiece's existence.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews