726 Machiavelli, Niccolò
argue that a subversion of values was far from the
mind of this much maligned yet celebrated Flo-
rentine statesman and diplomat. The Prince is not a
detached academic exercise in political philosophy,
motivated solely by negation. It does not, therefore,
set out to undermine the significance of well-
entrenched humanistic values. In advocating immo-
rality, Machiavelli merely recognized the world as
it was, and men as they were, and merely sought to
achieve a specific end. In the giddy world of politics,
what counted was success, not virtue. Moreover,
virtue did not lead to success.
Thus, even though he exhorts the prince to be
ruthless to the masses, he insists that the prince
must build his state on the goodwill of the people,
be sensitive to their susceptibilities, and bind the
citizens together and achieve stability by nourishing
a national religion. A prince “will be despised if he
has a reputation for being fickle, frivolous, effemi-
nate, cowardly, irresolute. . . .” He should “strive to
demonstrate in his actions grandeur, courage, sobri-
ety, strength.”
Machiavelli’s objective was not idealistic, but
practical and earthly. In his appreciation of life, here
rather than hereafter, and an essentially secular, real-
istic, and modern outlook, he was much ahead of his
time and showed remarkable courage of conviction.
His intention was not to subvert ethical values but
to ignore them as they appeared to serve no practi-
cal purpose in the context of the anarchic political
developments of his time.
There is thus much in The Prince to suggest that
subversion of humanistic values is not central to
it. The gap that had existed between the medieval,
scholastic interpretation of ethics and the world of
reality drew attention to itself as it impinged upon
the minds of thinkers in post-medieval times. Eth-
ics—the moral principles that must guide and govern
man’s actions—in the context in which Machiavelli
places them, receive a new definition as they are sub-
jected to the challenge of the changing times.
Gulshan Taneja
nationaliSm in The Prince
There is some truth in scholarly assertions that, as
Machiavelli was as a citizen of Florence, all his con-
cerns for the state as well as the welfare of the citizen
in The Prince are focused on the city where he was
born and where he spent most of his adult life. The
nation, thus, for him was Florence. Yet Machiavelli
drew a line between the Italians and the barbari, the
foreigners. He looked upon all Italians and Italian
city-states as bound together culturally and racially
as one people.
A strong current of nationalistic sentiment suf-
fuses The Prince and gives it its fundamental motiva-
tion. Machiavelli witnessed destructive factional feuds
within Florence as well as other Italian city-states.
Commerce forced Naples, Milan, Venice, and Flor-
ence to fight for control over Italy. Repeated French
and Spanish inroads into the Italian territories over
the centuries had destroyed Italian sovereignty. Weak
rulers, an indifferent populace, and inadequate mili-
tary resources had further debilitated a once glorious
civilization. The Italian nation was not only marked
by conflicts and dissension in the 16th century, it was
also fated to remain a nation in bedlam, commo-
tion, and disarray until the end of the 19th century.
The decline and fall of this civilization from its great
Roman past to a state bereft of all glory, stability, and
peace was a sorry spectacle to behold.
Machiavelli was saddened by the murky politics
of his day. Fired by his admiration of Rome and
Roman institutions, and thus inspired, he goes on to
call upon a brave prince to “introduce a new order
bringing honour to himself and prosperity to one
and every Italian.” “. . . leaderless, lawless, crushed,
despoiled, torn, over-run, . . . Italy is waiting to see
who can be the one to heal her wounds . . . and
cleanse those sores that have now been festering for
so long.” When Machiavelli says in a letter to Guic-
ciardini that he loves his country more than his soul,
he speaks from his heart.
Only a unified nation, politically independent
and intellectually free, can lead to a stable and peace-
ful society working for the welfare of its citizenry.
Only then does it become possible for citizens to live
harmoniously. But before its people can so benefit, a
nation has to define itself as an independent political
entity, able and powerful to withstand the assault of
its natural enemies, both from within and without.
Hence Machiavelli’s insistent call for a savior whose
political objectives he defines with ruthless clarity
and much attention to detail.