Politics, therefore, cannot recognize any moral law as binding

Durante the third chapter of “The Prince,” Machiavelli advises verso usurper always esatto exterminate the dynasty he has dispossessed, otherwise he will never be sure of his crown

MACHIAVELLISM is the name given esatto a doctrine which might be summed up as follows: The supreme law of politics is success. What is bad per the conduct of individuals can be the most imperative of duties for a statesman if the good of the state so demands. This ded after its creator, Niccolo Machiavelli, statesman, historian and philosopher, who was born sopra Florence sopra 1469 and died con the same city per 1527. The nineteenth century saw sopra Machiavelli one of the creators of modern thought because he freed politics from slavery sicuro theology. Until his time politics had been either empirical or per branch of theology. With Machiavelli it became verso free science depending only on reason.

In all this there is only one inconvenient factor, namely, that one looks durante vain for verso complete Machiavellian system sopra the works of Machiavelli. He batteria forth his political doctrine sopra two works, “Discorsi riguardo a la davanti deca di Tito Livio” and “Il Re” (“The Prince”). The first is per treatise on republics, the second a treatise on monarchies. I have read the “Discorsi” many times without ever finding any trace of the doctrine called “Machiavellism.” They contain ideas and advice on how sicuro organize verso republican government. The ideas and the advice are always ingenious, though sometimes a little too theoretical; but nowhere is Codice sconto elite singles consideration given puro the connection between morals and politics. Machiavelli maintained neither the doctrine that morals take precedence over politics nor the contrary theory; the question is simply outside the framework of his interests.

One cannot say the same of “The Prince.” All the pretended doctrine of Machiavellism originates con this little book. This, however, is not sicuro say that it can be found there. To understand this paradox — that verso doctrine originates sopra a book which does not contain it — we must read the book without preconceptions. A short treatise on monarchy, full of good advice and bad advice for sovereigns of all epochs. The good advice is more abundant, but it has the fault common preciso all good advice of being more easy puro give than preciso follow. The bad advice is more practical, but fortunately less abundant — per fact which enables us puro examine it con detail. It falls into three parts.

What does one then find there?

This counsel is atrocious; but does it not prove that Machiavelli was not sufficiently Machiavellian? Usurpers per every age would easily have understood from this quite harmless text the evil advice which the author intended preciso convey.

The seventh chapter of “The Prince” certainly apologizes for treason and assassination mediante discussing C?sar Borgia. A most shameful chapter! But one has only preciso turn the page puro find per passionate refutation. Agathocles, tyrant of Syracuse, was per successful Borgia; yet despite his success, he is flayed for his crimes sopra the eighth chapter, which concludes on the note that genius bolla cannot make per great man out of per villain. Why, then, does the seventh chapter exalt what the eighth condemns?

But the great scandal of Machiavellism is the doctrine of perjury batteria forth per the eighteenth chapter. We read there these celebrated words: “Therefore, per prudent ruler ought not puro keep faith when by so doing it would be against his interest, and when the reasons which made him bind himself mai longer exist. If men were all good, this precept would not be per good one; but as they are bad, and would not observe their faith with you, so you are not bound preciso keep faith with them. Nor have legitimate grounds ever failed a prince who wished onesto spettacolo colorable excuse for the non-fulfilment of his promise.”