Among commentators, there are a few consistently made proposals concerning what was most new in Machiavelli's work.
Political science Machiavelli is sometimes seen as the prototype of a modern empirical scientist, building generalizations from experience and historical facts, and emphasizing the uselessness of theorizing with the imagination. While he viewed the classical approach to government to be self-limiting and harmful in many cases, he nonetheless attributes this to a false understanding of political history. Moreover, he studied the way people lived and aimed to inform leaders how they should rule and even how they themselves should live. Machiavelli denies the classical opinion that living virtuously always leads to happiness. For example, Machiavelli viewed misery as "one of the vices that enables a prince to rule." Machiavelli stated that "it would be best to be both loved and feared. But since the two rarely come together, anyone compelled to choose will find greater security in being feared than in being loved." In much of Machiavelli's work, he often states that the ruler must adopt unsavoury policies for the sake of the continuance of his regime. Because cruelty and fraud play such important roles in his politics, it is not unusual for certain issues (such as murder and betrayal) to be commonplace within his works. Machiavelli also places his focus specifically on the beginnings and foundations of political societies, where a lawful government has to be established by extralegal methods. A related and more controversial proposal often made is that he described how to do things in politics in a way which seemed neutral concerning who used the advicetyrants or good rulers. Strauss takes up this opinion because he asserted that failure to accept the traditional opinion misses the "intrepidity of his thought" and "the graceful subtlety of his speech". Italian
anti-fascist philosopher
Benedetto Croce (1925) concludes Machiavelli is simply a "realist" or "pragmatist" who accurately states that moral values, in reality, do not greatly affect the decisions that political leaders make. Croce also stated that Machiavelli is an "enigma that will never be resolved". German philosopher
Ernst Cassirer (1946) held that Machiavelli merely adopts the stance of a political scientista
Galileo of politicsin distinguishing between the actuality of politics instead of providing value judgements on political morality. With a focus on Machiavelli's ideas on the foundations of cities and societies,
Louis Althusser stated that Machiavelli was a "theorist of beginnings". The role that Machiavelli places on political violence has been debated by academics as well. Winter states that Machiavelli is both an advocate and a critic of political violence, and viewed violence as a vehicle to attain the desired political results.
Sheldon Wolin describes Machiavelli's recommendation to use violence as an "economy of violence", aimed to preserve a stable political order.
Fortuna and Virtù Machiavelli's own concept of virtue, which he calls "virtù", is original and is usually seen by scholars as different from the traditional viewpoints of other political philosophers. Virtù can consist of any quality at the moment that helps a ruler maintain his state, even being ready to engage in necessary evil when it is advantageous. Harvey wrote of Machiavelli's followers that: "In attempting other, more regular and scientific modes of overcoming fortune, Machiavelli's successors formalized and emasculated his notion of virtue." Mansfield describes Machiavelli's usage of
virtù as a "compromise with evil". Mansfield however argues that Machiavelli's own aims have not been shared by those he influenced. Machiavelli argued against seeing mere peace and economic growth as worthy aims on their own if they would lead to what Mansfield calls the "taming of the prince". An example of Machiavelli's wide usage of the word can be found in his assessment of criminal rulers, as he seems to ascribe as well as detract the label of "virtuous" to their actions in establishing their dominion, leading scholars to debate whether he is actually following or intentionally subverting the traditional doctrine of moral and political virtue.
Fortuna is not an original concept, and was adopted by Machiavelli, however his novel use of the idea became central to his political thought. The way in which Machiavelli viewed that a statesman must use his virtue in order to conquer fortune, has been seen as differing from the ancient philosophers, including the Greek and Roman versions of the concept. Najemy has argued that this same approach can be found in Machiavelli's approach to love and desire, as seen in his comedies and correspondence. Najemy shows how Machiavelli's friend Vettori argued against Machiavelli and cited a more traditional understanding of fortune. Cary Nederman says of Machiavelli's use of
fortuna that: "Machiavelli’s remarks point toward several salient conclusions about Fortuna and her place in his intellectual universe. Throughout his corpus, Fortuna is depicted as a primal source of violence (especially as directed against humanity) and as antithetical to reason. Thus, Machiavelli realizes that only preparation to pose an extreme response to the vicissitudes of Fortuna will ensure victory against her. This is what virtù provides: the ability to respond to fortune at any time and in any way that is necessary." On Machiavelli's use of
virtu, Quentin Skinner noted that "properly understood, the princely virtues are among the qualities that go to make up the virtù of a truly virtuoso prince, thereby helping him to fulfil his primary duty of maintaining the state in a condition of security and peace." Strauss concludes his 1958 book
Thoughts on Machiavelli by proposing that "The difficulty implied in the admission that inventions pertaining to the art of war must be encouraged is the only one which supplies a basis for Machiavelli's criticism of classical political philosophy." and that this shows that classical-minded men "had to admit in other words that in an important respect the good city has to take its bearings by the practice of bad cities or that the bad impose their law on the good".
Religion Machiavelli shows repeatedly that he saw religion as deriving from human origin, and that the value of religion lies in its contribution to social order and the rules of morality must be dispensed with if security requires it. In
The Prince, the
Discourses and in the
Life of Castruccio Castracani he describes "prophets", as he calls them, like
Moses,
Romulus,
Cyrus the Great and
Theseus as the greatest of new princes, the glorious and brutal founders of the most novel innovations in politics, and men whom Machiavelli emphasizes have always used armed force, being willing to kill those who did not ultimately agree with their vision. He estimated that these sects last from 1,666 to 3,000 years each time, which, as pointed out by Leo Strauss, would mean that Christianity became due to start finishing about 150 years after Machiavelli. Machiavelli's concern with Christianity as a religion was that it made the Italians of his day "weak and effeminate", delivering politics into the hands of cruel and wicked men without a fight, as well as celebrated humility and otherworldly things, instead of being focused on the tangible world. While Machiavelli's own religious allegiance has been debated, it is assumed that he had a low regard of contemporary Christianity. Machiavelli is generally seen as being critical of
Christianity as it existed in his time, specifically its effect upon politics and humanity in general. In his opinion, the Christianity that the Church had come to accept allowed practical decisions to be guided too much by imaginary ideals and encouraged people to lazily leave events up to providence or, as he would put it, chance, luck or fortune. Machiavelli took a radically different view, and opined that the pagan religion, given its faults, was preferable to Christianity as it championed martial warfare. Some scholars, like Sebastian De Grazia and Maurizio Viroli, view that Machiavelli viewed religion more intimately than previously thought. In contrast, Nathan Tarcov has noted that Machiavelli's praise of religion, in actuality, provides cover for his
anti-clericalism and antipathy towards Christianity proper. Vickie Sullivan similarly argues that, for Machiavelli, Christianity made the practice of free government impossible. Machiavelli engages with the view of the
Averroes that the world was eternal, and as such had no creation, and he also discusses the causes of religious sects rising and falling, ascribing them to human and natural causes. In the Prince, Machiavelli discusses the ecclesiastical principate, which included regimes like that of the Catholic Church in Rome and the
Ottoman Empire in Turkey. Machiavelli seems to have admired Islam and the Muslim conquerors such as
Selim I. “The desire for the reform of the church of Rome,” Federico Chabod would write, was "rooted in him in quite different motives" than those that drove the dissidents and the reformers of the time”. While
fear of God can be replaced by fear of the prince, if there is a strong enough prince, Machiavelli felt that having a religion is in any case especially essential to keeping a republic in order. For Machiavelli, a truly great prince can never be conventionally religious himself, but he should make his people religious if he can. According to he was not the first person to explain religion in this way, but his description of religion was novel because of the way he integrated this into his general account of princes. Machiavelli's judgment that governments need religion for practical political reasons was widespread among modern proponents of republics until approximately the time of the
French Revolution. This, therefore, represents a point of disagreement between Machiavelli and late modernity.
Terminology Stato Another term of Machiavelli's that scholars debate over is his use of the word
stato (literally translated as "state"). Whenever he uses the word, it usually refers to a regime's political command to which a leader takes a hold of, and rules over himself. Generally he believes that in all states, there exists two humors, that of the great, who wish to rule and oppress others, and that of the people, who do not seek to oppress. Mansfield states that, while the state is a personal entity, he "laid the foundation for the modern state in his general and impartial advice to acquire
stato." In contrast to the classical political theorists, Machiavelli viewed expansion as the primary goal for all states, replacing the cultivation of moral virtue proper. Machiavelli adopted yet differed from Polybius' cyclical theory of civilizations. He mixes the concept of the "cycle of regimes" with the cycle of civilizations, which are two separate and distinct concepts.
Glory Glory plays a central role in Machiavelli's political thought, drawing heavily on the Roman ideal of gloria, which emphasized public recognition for one's achievements, especially in warfare or public service. Robert Black wrote that "whereas for Machiavelli the end of politics was glory, either of the individual or of the political community." And added that because glory "satisfies only the selfish aspirations of a ruler or a state," it can "scarcely be regarded as a moral norm."
Republicanism The majority of scholars have taken into account Machiavelli's admiration of, and recommendations to, republics, and his contribution to republican theory. Machiavelli gives lengthy advice for republics in how they can best protect their liberties, and how they can avoid those who would ultimately usurp legitimate authority. Machiavelli was an ardent supporter of republican politics, and it is well attested that he preferred rule by a republic than that of a principality. Machiavelli viewed that republics are, in general, more trustworthy, more flexible in that they can elect leaders that are able to adapt to the times, and that public opinion can be relied upon more than the opinion of princes. However, he believed that republics needed the same glory seeking leader that was described in The Prince. For example, Machiavelli viewed that there could never be a republic or kingdom that had good orders unless it was founded by a man who was "one alone" (
uno solo), or had absolute power. Machiavelli praised the Roman institution of the
dictatorship, and stated that it "produced great effects" for Rome, in contrast to other political thinkers who either decried this practice or who omitted it from their works. He also stated that even in republics that a multitude is useless without a "head", or a leader to direct them. Machiavelli at various points of his works even teaches aspiring rulers to usurp civil liberty to institute a princely regime. Machiavelli's ideal republic has also been noted for its harshness by thinkers such as
Guicciardini and
Montesquieu with both criticizing Machiavelli's support of punitive violence. Machiavelli's republicanism has been described as
populist, but Viroli asserts that at no point does Machiavelli praise
democracy. Commentators have no consensus as to the exact nature of his republicanism. For example, the "Cambridge School" of interpretation holds Machiavelli to be a civic humanist and classical republican who viewed that the highest quality of republican virtue is self-sacrifice for the common good. However this opinion has been contested by scholars who believe that Machiavelli has a radically modern view of republics, accepting and unleashing the self interest of those who rule. Some scholars have even asserted that the goal of his ideal republic does not differ greatly from his principality, as both rely on rather ruthless measures for conquest and empire.
Humors To Machiavelli, all states are thus oppressive in nature, with the ruling class seeking to perpetuate their political power over, and at the expense of, the masses. Machiavelli viewed both humors to be in constant conflict with one another, and that this conflict is at the crux of all political societies.
Necessity Machiavelli frequently uses the word "necessity", though he does so in a wide variety of senses. Sometimes he uses the word to refer to something that needs to be done, other instances he uses the term referring to choice. ==Influence==