lOMoARcPSD|10768863

PLATO THEORY OF JUSTICE AND MACHIAVELLI PRINCE

Political science (University of Delhi)

StuDocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university

Downloaded by Sarita Bhagwana (bhagwanasarita@gmail.com)
 lOMoARcPSD|10768863

CPP ASSIGNMENT

BA (HONS.) POLITICAL SCIENCE

III YEAR, SEMESTER V

NAME - ISHIKA SINGHAL

ROLL NO. - 1917221

PAPER NAME - CLASSICAL POLITICAL PHILOSOPSHY

TEACHER IN CHARGE – DR. ROOPINDER OBEROI

INDEX-

1. Plato’s Theory of Justice and Critical Analysis Page 2-11

2. Machiavelli’s The Prince Page 11- 21

Downloaded by Sarita Bhagwana (bhagwanasarita@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|10768863

QUESTION 1: Explain Plato’s concept of Justice and along with the limitations/critical
aspects of Plato’s Philosophy in general and Plato’s concept of Justice in specific?

Answer:
Introduction

“Justice in the life and conduct of the State is possible only if it first resides in the hearts and souls of
the citizens.” - Plato

• According to Greek philosophy, the state comes into existence for the sake of life and continues for
the sake of a good life, which makes it essential to have a "just society and a just state." The concept
of Justice is the central theme of the Plato's Republic; its sub-title is entitled "Concerning Justice".
• The Republic is a Socratic dialogue written by Plato (428-347 BC) around 375 BC,
concerning the meaning of justice, morality or right conduct in a city-state ruled by a
Philosopher King. It did not refer to legality (Berki 1977; Cross and Woozley 1951). It is Plato's
best-known work, and has proven to be one of the world's most influential works
of philosophy and political theory, both intellectually and historically.
• Sabine says: “The theory of the state in The Republic culminates in the conception of justice.” The
purpose of The Republic is to ensure justice. The failure will invariably disintegrate the whole
society. The philosopher king will take every care to establish justice. That is why The Republic is
called a “treatise concerning justice” . By elaborating the doctrine of Justice, Plato wanted to combat
the false notions which the Sophists spread.
• Ideal state is the highest manifestation of morality, goodness and idealism and, naturally, in such a
state, justice cannot be relegated to an inferior position. Rather, it holds the highest position in the
state. He has treated justice as the most important virtue, a bond which holds a society together.
Hence it is the true principle of social life. The Republic deals with the bond and true principle of
social life. Different social classes are combined by the bond of justice and this makes the ideal state
a perfect one.

BACKGROUND OF PLATO AND CONTEXT OF

REPUBLIC -

• Plato (428/27-348/47 BC), was a Greek philosopher and a

prolific writer of the ancient Greece, born in 428/7 BC and
died in 348/7 BC. He was born in an aristocratic family
with both his parents being related to the class of nobles
and rulers in Greece.
• The ideas of Socrates and Pythagoras had deep influence
on his philosophy but most formidable influence was the political and social context of Greece

Downloaded by Sarita Bhagwana (bhagwanasarita@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|10768863

during the years he was growing up. He met Socrates in 407 BC and became his pupil and the death
of Socrates was a turning point in Plato’s life.
• He established his Academy in Athens, which he wanted to serves as a training school for future
philosopher rulers and The Republic served as a prospectus.
• During his lifetime, he wrote 23 genuine and 11 disputed dialogues and 13 letters of which The
Republic(380-370 BC), Statesman (360 BC) and The Law (350 BC) are the most popular ones.
• Plato was highly dissatisfied with the prevailing degenerating conditions in Athens after its
defeat by Sparta in the Peloponnesian War. He believed that The Athenian democracy was on the
verge of ruin and was ultimately responsible for Socrates’s death in 399 BC. He attacked the
vibrant participatory democratic system for its amateur meddlesomeness and excessive
individualism leading to factionalism and instability in society. This attack came in the form of
the construction of an ideal society in The Republic, in which justice reigned supreme, since Plato
believed justice to be the remedy for curing these evils.

FOUR CARDINAL VIRTUES OF GOOD COMMUNITY-:

• Plato has analysed the virtues or nature of a good community. An ideal state for Plato possessed
the four cardinal virtues of wisdom, courage, temperance or self-control and justice. Justice was
dependent on other three virtues and if society was managed and balance in a way that other
three virtues are effectively placed, Justice will be taken care of.

PLATONIC THEORY OF JUSTICE -

• Plato believed the state exists to fulfil the necessities of human life. The origin of the state, therefore,
owed its existence to the fulfilment of human needs, and the Greek philosophers saw society and
state as the same. Unlike other living beings, human beings do not merely seek survival but
essentially want to live a good life. Justice is the essential requirement to lead a good life. One
cannot lead a good life without meeting their needs, and it's possible to meet one's needs only in the
presence of Justice.

Downloaded by Sarita Bhagwana (bhagwanasarita@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|10768863

• Thus, after criticizing the conventional theories of justice presented differently by Cephalus,
Polemarchus, Thrasymachus and Glaucon, Plato gives us his own theory of justice according to
which the “State was the Ideal, of which justice was the reality”. Justice was the principle on which
the state had to be founded and a contribution made towards the excellence of the city.
• According to Plato, for achieving Justice it was important to establish an ideal state under the rule of
a Philosopher king who were men of wisdom who possessed intelligence, knowledge, and training
to govern.
• According to Plato, justice is not a legal concept but a moral concept, for it is based on the inner
nature of the human spirit. It is also not the triumph of the stronger over the weaker, for it protects
the weaker against the stronger. A just state, Plato argues, is achieved with an eye to the good of
the whole.
• Barker says: "Justice is, for Plato, at once a part of human virtue and the bond which joins men
together in the states. It makes man good and makes him social." Almost a similar view lzas been
expressed by Sabine. He says: "Justice (for Plato) is a bond which holds a society together."
• Plato in his philosophy gives very important place to the idea of justice. He used the Greek word
“Dikaisyne” for justice which comes very near to the word ‘morality’ or ‘righteousness’, it
properly includes within it the whole duty of man. It also covers the whole field of the individual’s
conduct in so far as it affects others.
• Plato contended that justice is the quality of soul, in virtue of which men set aside the irrational
desire to taste every pleasure and to get a selfish satisfaction out of every object and
accommodated themselves to the discharge of a single function for the general benefit.

JUSTICE IS BOTH INDIVIDUAL AND STATE (Private and Public Virtue):

Plato's idea of justice believes that just individuals and just society are interwoven. Plato strikes an
analogy between the human organism on the one hand and social organism on the other. Plato made
two important points here.

INDIVIDUAL : SOCIETY :
every individual was a functional society was visualized as a
unit, assigned a particular task harmonized, orderly whole, based
with clear-cut obligations and on the recognition of individual
privileges, which one was talents and contributions. The
expected to perform diligently functions of a society were
and meticulously. It also
broadly three—ruling, defence
underlined the fact that none were
and production.
born to render a specific function.
Certain levels of training and
skills were required

Downloaded by Sarita Bhagwana (bhagwanasarita@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|10768863

1. According to Plato, INDIVIDUALLY justice is a ‘human virtue’ that makes a person self-
consistent and good. Justice in the individual meant that every individual was assigned a place in
society according to one’s natural aptitudes and skills be based on the dominant aspect of one’s
soul. In other words, justice meant departmental excellence i.e,

“that one man should practice one thing only and that the thing to which his/her nature was
best adopted”.

Justice in a way meant harmony or balance and ordering of different aspects of an

individual’s nature by assigning it duty according to the characteristic feature of that individual.

2. Similarly, SOCIALLY, justice is a social consciousness that makes a society internally

harmonious and good. Plato argued that Justice at level of state would mean that the three
classes of rulers, warriors and the producing class are made of people whose souls reflect the
corresponding characteristics and members of each such class performed their functions
without interference in the activities of other classes. Justice was “one class, one duty; one
man, one work”. Meddlesomeness and interference, according to Plato, breed great injustice.
Interpreting Plato’s theory of justice from the background of specialisation Barker says—

“Justice is simply the specialization …it is simply the will to fulfil the duties of one’s station
and not to meddle with the duties of another station and its habitation is therefore in the mind
of every citizen who does his duty in his appointed place.”

• THEORY OF TRIPARTITE SOUL AND 3 CLASSES -

• Plato’s Theory of Justice was based on his argument that each human soul had three
aspects: rationality, spirit and appetite. He is influenced by Pythagoras’s idea about
three souls and three classes and adopts it to develop his theory of justice. Plato drew a
parallel between the three social classes and the three elements of the human soul. Each soul
had a corresponding social class. A just society recognized and educated every individual
talent according to the dominant element in one’s soul, and ordered these elements into
coherent classes.
• Each of these class corresponds to a particular kind of virtue. So, the virtue of rationality is
wisdom, the virtue of spirit is courage and the virtue of appetite is temperance. In each soul,
one of these parts is more dominant than the others and therefore the virtue attached with that
particular part of soul would be more reflective in the nature of that individual.
• NOBLE LIE / MYTH OF METALS: The Athenians believed that they were
autochthonous, children of the soil they lived on, and not the descendants of ancestors who
came from other lands. It was this illusion that Plato uses in his myth of the metals in
Republic which he proposes in a way to lent legitimacy to his idea of justice and sustain the
Ideal State, by convincing everyone of their rightful place in society, and the obligations their

Downloaded by Sarita Bhagwana (bhagwanasarita@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|10768863

stations in life entailed. Plato argued that the guardians should spread this ‘noble lie' that
the earth was their mother, and as the children of earth, they were born with some
metallic components in their bodies

RATIONAL SPIRITED APPETITIVE

• Vistue is Wisdom • Virtue is Courgae and • Virtue is Temperance

• Seeks to learn and gain Strength • seeks to fulfill desires for
knowledge of the Idea of • seeks Honour and love, wealth, hunger
Good. Victory

GOLD SILVER BRONZE

RULING / WARIIOR /
PRODUCER CLASS
PHILOSPHER CLASS AUXILIRY CLASS

GUARDIAN CLASS

1. RATIONAL: In the individual where the rational faculty is more dominant, according
to Plato, is fit to represent the ruling class, as they through their wisdom had the
competence to comprehend the idea of Good and their bodies were made of Gold.

2. SPIRITED: Similarly, those in whom spirit was the dominant faculty they ought to be
courageous and therefore are best suited to become auxiliaries. They are brave and can
defend the city well and were public spirited and ready to sacrifice material interests for the
common good of society. They were made of silver.

3. APPETITIVE: The individuals in whose soul the appetitive part dominates the others
have a fondness for material things and temperance was their virtue. So, they were
appropriate for jobs like trading, business or manufacturing and producing sector like
traders and artisans. They were made of Bronze.

Downloaded by Sarita Bhagwana (bhagwanasarita@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|10768863

• CONTROL BY GUARDIAN CLASS : Together the ruling class and the class of auxiliaries,
according to Plato shall constitute the guardian class. The apparently just arrangement was
controlled by the guardians. They would decide and place individuals in accordance with their
nature. He insisted that the artisans and producers would be willing to subordinate themselves to
the guardians. He was uncertain about how long this subordination would last. He even
recommended the use of force and rhetorical persuasion.
• JUSTICE IS NON-INTERFERENCE AND FUNCTIONAL SPECIALISATION:
Every member of the community must be assigned to the class for which he proves himself best
fitted. Hence Justice is a principle of non-interference, which keeps within proper bounds the
various classes of society, various individuals of each class and various elements in an individual’s
soul. It is a principle of functional specialization, which moves everyone to make a specialized
contribution to society. Specialization according to Plato leads to efficiency. Each class and each
individual will do their duty and none will interfere with other’s activities.
• Plato understood injustice to mean interference and meddlesomeness. Any interchange in jobs
between the three social classes would bring harm to the state and was the worst evil. On the
contrary, if the rulers, warriors and artisans performed their respective tasks, then such a state would
be just.
• Plato also said that human faculties were not hereditary. An individual’s functional role in
society was determined by his own natural aptitudes, and not by parental lineage. To ensure
that the parents did not manipulate to get the best for their child, they were made to give up their
child to the state, which in turn would categorize and educate him in the appropriate faculty that he
was endowed with. Hence the three classes identified by Plato working in proper correlation, will
insure the maximum of well-being throughout the state.

DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS OF JUSTICE IN REPUBLIC

In Republic, Plato presents his theory of justice as a

product of a dialogue between different characters
like Cephalus, Polemarchus, Thasymachus, Glaucon,
Adeimantus and Socrates. Socrates, as Plato’s
representative voice, invites and involves others on the
question and engaged them through dialectics. In the
process Socrates is presented as demolishing the idea of
justice forwarded by all others through deep questioning.

Downloaded by Sarita Bhagwana (bhagwanasarita@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|10768863

1. Traditional theory of justice (Cephalus and Polemarchus)

“Justice consists in speaking the truth, being honest in word and deed and paying one’s debt.” -
Cephalus

Cephalus identified justice with right conduct. The view point of Cephalus was criticized by
Socrates on the grounds that there may be cases in which this formula may involve the violation of
the spirit of right like it is not righteous to restore deadly weapons to a mad man or reveal truth if it
causes harm and hence is not a universally sound principle. With this all the listeners tacitly accepted
the (unstated) argument that justice had to be beneficial, or at least not harmful.

“Justice is giving everyone his due” - Polemarchus

The argument was continued by Polemarchus with a little alteration and pointed out that justice
meant “giving each man his due” or “what was fitting”. In short, doing “good to friends and harm
to enemies”. This is also a traditional maxim of Greek morality. And the contention of Polemarchus
was demolished by Socrates on three grounds that - this could imply doing ignoble acts for friends, it
is also difficult to know your true friends and enemies and just person having achieved human
excellence will not harm anybody even self.

2. Radical theory of justice (Thrasymachus)

“Justice is the interest of the stronger” - Thrasymachus

Thrasymachus from Sophist school of Thought who represented the new and critical view,
propounded the radical theory of justice as “might is right”.

1. Government governs for its own benefit by making laws that it thinks are right and violation
of them is punishable and is considered a violation of justice
2. Injustice is better than Justice. (because unjust man is stronger, wiser and happier than just
man.

Socrates retorts to this by saying that Governance is an Art and any Art aims at the advantage of its
recipient i.e wellbeing of citizens. The second argument is countered by Socrates by saying that
Justice implies superior character and intelligence while injustice means deficiency in both respects.
A just man is wiser because he acknowledges the principle of limit. It is agreed that the virtue of the
soul is justice and hence the life of a just man is better and happier as he performs his specific
functions and duty based on its virtue.

3. Pragmatic theory of justice (Glaucon)

“Justice is the interest of the weaker” - Glaucon

Downloaded by Sarita Bhagwana (bhagwanasarita@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|10768863

Glaucon puts forward a form of what was later to be known as a social contract theory, arguing we
are only moral because, it pays us or we have to be. Glaucon describes the historical evolution of
the society where justice as a necessity had become the shield of the weaker. A law emerged
whereby the strong and the weak contract with each other; the strong agreed not to inflict wrong,
and the weak accepted not to suffer injustice. Therefore, justice in these ways is something artificial
and unnatural.

Socrates condemned the position taken by Glaucon that justice is something which is external.
According to Plato, justice is internal as it resides in the human soul. It is, therefore, natural and
not artificial. It is therefore, not born of fear of the weak but of the longing of the human soul to do a
duty according to its nature.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF PLATO’S PHILOSOPHY

While Plato’s admirers have been numerous, he has had his share of critics too, beginning with
Aristotle. Most of his recent critics have been in the twentieth century within the liberal tradition.

1. The Platonic ideal was criticized by Aristotle for confusing unity with harmony; if a political
community was tightly organized and unified, it would cease to be a political association. The
essence of a state was its diversity, making it different from other organizations. The state and the
family represented two different kinds of organization, and both ought to remain that way without
either imitating the other. In view of the nature of the state and governance, it would be better for a
ruler to be worldly wise than to be wise in the world of ideas. Even a philosopher ruler would be
better off by being receptive to the views and perceptions of others, instead of merely acting upon his
vision of Truth
2. Lacks a Legal Definition to resolve conflict: According to Earnst Barker, Plato’s conception of
justice was more moral than legal. It is believed that such a conception of justice would lead to a
state where state may not be in a position to resolve clash of interest in a legalistic manner rather
the task of resolving clash of interest and establishing peace and order in society would be in hands
of philosopher king and queen and their idea of what is justice. Thus Barker while analyzing Plato’s
conception of justice he explains perhaps Plato confuses with the idea of moral duty with legal
confusion and hence the system of justice he hopes to achieve in an ideal state is more subjective.
Thus, he says that when justice is subjective it is perhaps no justice at all.
3. Monopoly of Absolute Power Leading to Totalitarianism : Another important criticism levied
against Plato’s theory of justice by Karl Popper in The Open Society and its Enemies(1945),
explains that Plato’s theory of justice leads one way or the other monopoly in the hands of king or
queen. Thus, Popper believed that such a concentration of political power in the hands of particular
class is bound to not only regenerate the class but also creates a class of dictators who would not
only be authoritarian but also discriminatory in nature. Thus, this system of justice which Plato

Downloaded by Sarita Bhagwana (bhagwanasarita@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|10768863

hoped would create an ideal state, Popper believed would actually create a totalitarian closed
authoritarian state. Further, Popper also expresses concern on lack of any constitutional safeguards
in republic against the abuse of unlimited power of philosopher’ kings in administering
justice.
4. Lacks Representation of the Producing Class in Politics:
Any state (including the one governed by the best and the wisest) would be diverse, which ought to
be represented and respected. A state that was intolerant to divergence of opinion would not only
be unjust, but also be inherently unstable. To ignore the political view of the humblest of citizens
and deny avenues for participation was not only patronizing and authoritarian, but also unhealthy.
The strength of a political system was derived from the participation of its citizen members, for
it ensured the accommodation of diverse interests and opinions through consensus. A political
society that strived to achieve a greater degree of unity by being insensitive to diversities would be
inherently weak. “A political judgement... is ‘true’ when it is public, not public when it accords to
some standard external to politics” (Wolin 1960: 63).
5. Excessive Regimentation of Individual in the Ideal State: While Plato’s scheme may apparently
seem liberating, it implied excessive regimentation with very little privacy and individuality.
Aristotle was the earliest of those who disagreed, giving a detailed reason as to why the family and
private property were important for the happiness of the individual and the welfare of the state. Both
Grube (1935) and Taylor (1926) dismissed Plato’s proposals as abhorrent for they did not take
into cognizance the deepest human emotions that marital and family life involved. Strauss
(1964) reiterating Aristotle looked to the family as a natural institution and questioned Plato’s
wisdom in abolishing it.

CONCLUSION

“Plato is philosophy and philosophy is Plato for out of Plato comes all things that are still written and
debated among men of thought” (Emerson 1965).

In the entire history of political thought no thinker evoked the admiration, reverence and criticism than Plato
(428/27–347 BC) did. He has also been credited for laying the foundations of the Greek political theory,
and he also explored, analysed and covered a wide range of philosophical perspectives and issues that
are to this day discussed.

Plato's theory of Justice is famously known as the Architectonic Theory of Justice. Justice for Plato was
the most important cardinal virtue required to achieve Eudemonia in society. The other three cardinal
virtues, namely Temperance, Courage, and Wisdom, would be cultivated by Traders, Soldiers and
Philosopher class, respectively, and Justice, the fourth virtue, would act as the architect establishing a
perfect state.

Downloaded by Sarita Bhagwana (bhagwanasarita@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|10768863

The Republic, his famous work, is the most important work that explains his idea of justice. Justice, for
Plato, lies in each class (and in each individual in his own class) doing his own job. Plato’s theory of
justice is, therefore, not a theory of juridical justice but is built on moral foundations, with a
clarification of virtues and classification of social classes.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS:

• A History of Political Thought- Plato to Marx by Subrata Mukherjee and Sushila Ramaswamy

ONLINE RESOURCES AND ARTICLES :

• https://itcollege.ac.in/itdc/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Dr-Nimisha-Singh-2.pdf
• https://www.politicalsciencenotes.com/plato/platos-theories-theory-of-justice-education-and-
communism/849
• http://www.surendranathcollege.org/new/upload/PARAMITA_CHAKRABORTYPlatos%20Theory
%20of%20Justice2020-04-22Plato%20on%20justice.pdf
• https://www.drishtiias.com/blog/platos-theory-of-justice
• https://egyankosh.ac.in/bitstream/123456789/24567/1/Unit-2.pdf

Downloaded by Sarita Bhagwana (bhagwanasarita@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|10768863

QUESTION 2: Explain the rationale behind Machiavelli’s book ‘The Prince’ and also
explain what advice does he give to the newly appointed princes.

Answer:
Introduction

“The lion cannot protect himself from traps, and the fox cannot defend himself from wolves. One must
therefore be a fox to recognize traps, and a lion to frighten wolves.”
― Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince

• All political thinkers from Plato, Aristotle to the Middle age (till 16th century) had concerned itself
with the central question of the end of the state and had considered state-power as a means to a higher
end conceived in moral terms.
• However, with Niccolò Machiavelli, an Italian diplomat, philosopher, and historian who lived
during the Renaissance a new phase of development of political philosophy sets in. He was more
of a practical politician rather than a political philosopher. His thought was largely determined by
the historical background of his life.
• The central theme of Machiavelli’s political ideas is power.
He highlighted power as an essential ingredient of politics.
According to him moral code of individual prescribed by the
church cannot provide guidelines to the ruler. For Machiavelli
absolute state was the End; and for this Means was power. i.e.
Every state must aim at maximizing its power. The failure of the
state it this enterprise will throw it into great turmoil.
Consequently, he confined his attention to the means best suited to
the acquisition, retention and expansion of power. He said the
sole aim of the ‘Prince’ was to make the country strong and united,
establish peace and order and expel the foreign invader. To achieve
this end any means would be satisfactory.
• He represented the dawn of a new age which rejected idealization and insisted on the need to grasp
the realities of politics. He was the first to grasp the tone of these changes, initiate a scientific study
of politics, and hence was honoured with the title of being the “first modern political theorist and
scientist” (Olschki 1976: 286–290).

Downloaded by Sarita Bhagwana (bhagwanasarita@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|10768863

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF MACHIAVELLI

• Nicolo Machiavelli was born at Florence on 3rd May 1469 to a neither rich nor aristocratic family.
His father was a reputed lawyer in Florence and was connected with the city’s Humanistic circle.
• His life falls naturally into three periods, each of which singularly enough constitutes a distinct and
important era in the history of Florence. His youth was concurrent with the greatness of Florence as
an Italian power under the guidance of Lorenzo de’ Medici, Il Magnifico. Niccolò was well-versed in
Latin, but not Greek and Cicero’s humanistic studies, which thrived in Florence, valued the willing
subordination of one’s private interests for public good, the desire to fight against tyranny and
corruption, and the need to perform noble acts in order to attain glory. Machiavelli’s writings
reflected these humanistic concerns.
• The downfall of the Medici in Florence occurred in
1494, in which year Machiavelli entered Diplomatic
public service. During his official career Florence was free
under the government of a Republic, At the age of 29, he
became the secretary to the second chancery with
responsibilities in foreign affairs—diplomatic,
administrative and military in nature—giving him
insights into the actual working of politics.
• In 1512, the Republic of Florence collapsed.
Machiavelli’s career suffered, for he was dismissed from
his position on November 7, 1512. Three days later, he was
ordered to be confined for one year. In 1513, he was
tortured and imprisoned, imprisoned, but subsequently
granted amnesty with the ascendancy of the new rulers, the
Medici family.
• It was during this period of forced retirement that he
induced his most memorable literary works out of which the "Prince"(1513) and the "Discourses
on the First Ten Books of Titus Livy" (1521) stand out most prominently. While the Prince
advised the ruler the ways and means to seize and keep power, the Discourses gave instructions on
the methods by which a new revolutionary regime could stay in power with the help of people’s
participation and a philosopher prince.
• Machiavelli was also influenced by the writings of Aristotle and Marsiglio. He learnt the idea of
separation of ethics and politics from Aristotle. The other important things which he borrowed from
Aristotle were the three-fold division of the states as Monarchy, Aristocracy and Democracy, and the
famous historical method. He felt the influence of Marsiglio in so far the idea of secularism and the
political utility of religion are concerned.

Downloaded by Sarita Bhagwana (bhagwanasarita@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|10768863

RENNAISANCE AND ITS IMPACT ON MACHIAVELLI:

• Hence, writing at a time of political chaos and moral confusion, Italian unification became the chief
objective for Machiavelli, under one National Monarch on the model of France and Spain. Like
Dante, he dreamt of a united, regenerated and glorious Italy. If the rotten politics of Italy affected his
thought, he was also influenced by the growing spirit of Renaissance which impelled men to re-
examine things from other than the clerical point of view. Being the chief exponent of this school of
thought, Machiavelli, according to Dunning,

"stood on the borderline between the Middle Ages and the Modern Ages. He ushered in the Modern Age by
ridding politics of the vassalage of religion."

To comprehend the full importance of Machiavelli’s writings and their context, it is important to understand
the series of cultural, economic, social and political changes that began in the fourteenth century called the
Renaissance. Its immediate impact was in Italy, which gradually spread to the rest of Europe by the late
fifteenth century.

Laski (1936: 31) rightly observes that “The whole of the Renaissance is in Machiavelli. There is its lust for
power, its admiration for success, its carelessness of means, its rejection of medieval bonds, its frank
paganism, its conviction of national unity makes for national strength. Neither his cynicism nor his praise of
craftiness is sufficient to conceal the idealist in him”

1. Rebirth of Human Spirit of Liberty, Self Confidence, Optimism and Creativity:

In contradiction to the medieval view, which had envisaged the human being as fallen and
depraved in an evil world with the devil at the centre, the Renaissance captured the Greek ideal of
the essential goodness of the individual, the beauty and glory of the earth, the joy of existence, the
insignificance of the supernatural and the importance of the present, as compared to an irrecoverable
past and an uncertain future. This was return to a pre-Christian attitude.
2. Rise of Humanism, affirming the dignity and excellence of the human being, became the basis of
comprehending the modern world. In contrast to the medieval Christian stress on asceticism, poverty,
humility, misery and the worthlessness of the earthly person, Humanism defended the freedom of

Downloaded by Sarita Bhagwana (bhagwanasarita@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|10768863

the human spirit and knowledge. The Renaissance signalled the breakdown of a unified Christian
society.
3. Emergence of Ambitious Human motivated by Self-Interest: Jacob Burckhardt (1818–1897) in
his classic, The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy (1860) pointed out that it was the conception
of the new human, the individual motivated by fame and glory, self-actualization and happiness,
rather than self-denial and religious faith that formed the essence of the Renaissance. The spirit of
individualism and the cult of privacy led to the growth of self-assertion and ushered in the idea of the
highest development of the individual.
4. Rise of Idea of Omnipotent Modern State: The idea of the modern state, omnipotent and omni-
competent, was worked out. The prince had to take charge of everything—preservation of public
buildings and churches, maintenance of the municipal police, drainage of the marshes, ensuring the
supply of corn, levying taxes and convincing the people of their necessity, supporting the sick and
destitute, lending support to distinguished intellectuals and scholars on whose verdict rested his fame
for the years to come.
5. Idea of a Secular State: More than anybody else, it was Machiavelli who could understand the
dynamics of this modern state and the modern individual. Equally important were the end of the
clerical monopoly and the replacement of papal supremacy by secular, sovereign, independent
states, each with its own national culture, identity and language. The nation state came into
existence and its success was determined not by religious or chivalric, but by political criteria.
6. Geographical Discoveries falsified the Medieval Ideas: Explorations and voyages led to
geographical discoveries, altering the perceptions regarding the world. The medievalists had viewed
the universe with a flat earth at the centre, hell beneath it and heaven as its canopy. The discoveries
of Christopher Columbus (1451–1506) and Vasco da Gama (1469–1524) enlarged the geographical
horizons beyond the Mediterranean basin and Europe. A new world map magnified the view of the
educated.
7. The onslaughts of these New Commercial, Entrepreneurial and Economic forces: New
geographical discoveries opened up new vistas of trade and religion. This led to growth in
commerce and economic development as the basis of modern capitalism. Cities and urban centres
emerged. Rational methods of bookkeeping and accounting and complex banking operations
mushroomed, eroding the taboo on moneymaking, entrepreneurship and the profit motive.
Education, science and humanism ended clerical monopoly, relegating religion to the private space.
The invention of printing, the establishment of libraries and universities increased and spread
literacy, and revived an interest in Latin classics.
8. Politically, Italy was divided into a number of small principalities and five large states: Milan,
Venice, Florence, the Papal Domain and Naples. Though culturally vibrant and creative, Italy
remained politically divided, weak, and a prey to the imperial ambitions of the French, German
and Spanish. Most of the Italian states were ruled by an oligarchy or an individual tyrant. All of

Downloaded by Sarita Bhagwana (bhagwanasarita@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|10768863

them were unable or unwilling to unite the entire peninsula. The Florentine Republic reflected
severe factional conflicts and institutional breakdown.

THE PRINCE (1513):

• “The Prince” was written as a

token of gratitude to
Lorenzo II de’ Medici (1492–
1519), Lorenzo the
Magnificient’s grandson, who
granted him amnesty in 1513
but was not published till
1532.
• The Prince is sometimes claimed to be one of the first works of modern philosophy, especially
modern political philosophy, in which the "effectual" truth is taken to be more important than any
abstract ideal. It is also notable for being in direct conflict with the dominant Catholic
and scholastic doctrines of the time, particularly those concerning politics and ethics.
• The 'Prince' of Machiavelli is the product of the prevailing conditions of his time in his country
Italy, As such it is not an academic treatise or value oriented political philosophy; it is in real sense
realpolitik. It is a memorandum on the art of government, is pragmatic in character and provides
technique of the fundamental principles of statecraft for a successful ruler-ship. It deals with
the machinery of the government which the successful ruler could make use of, The whole
argument of the Prince is based on the two premises borrowed mainly from Aristotle.
• One of these is that the State is the highest form of human association and the most
indispensable instrument for the promotion of human welfare, and that by merging himself in
the state the individual finds his fullest development, that is, his best self. Consideration of the
welfare of the state, therefore, outweighs any consideration of individual or group welfare.
• The second premise is that material self is the most potent motive force in individual and public
action. Machiavelli almost identifies the state with the ruler.
• These premises led him to the conclusion that the Prince is the perfect embodiment of shrewdness
and self-control who makes capital alike of his virtues and vices. This quality of tlie Prince
makes him worthy of successful seizure of power. According to Machiavelli: "Those things were
virtuous in a Prince which excelled in bringing success and power and that virtue lay in functional
excellence; these were ruthlessness, cunningness, deceitfulness, boldness and shrewdness along with
unflinching will." Undoubtedly, this is an idealised picture of an Italian tyrant of the 16th Century
who has influenced Machiavelli’s imagination.

Downloaded by Sarita Bhagwana (bhagwanasarita@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|10768863

SCIENCE OF STATECRAFT : ADVICE TO PRINCE

The Prince is a handbook on the “Art of government” and “State craft” foe new princes and royals . Clhapter
XVIII of the book gives Machiavelli’s idea of the virtues which a successful ruler must possess

1. Imitate Historical Figures: Machiavelli also advised the prince to imitate great figures from the
past, and cited the examples of Alexander the Great, Achilles, Caesar, and Scipio Cyrus. He
repeatedly referred to Moses, Cyrus, Romulus and Thesus as princes who attained their positions
through their own arms and ability, and so worthy of imitation.
2. Doctrine of Raison D’ Etat: It means “Reason of state”, i.e. for preserving and safeguarding the
state, all means adopted by the state are justified by Machiavelli. In politics, fair was foul and
foul was fair, depending on circumstances and situations. A prince had to be compassionate, humane,
loyal, and honest, while simultaneously willing to use force, fraud, deception and treachery in times
of strife, chaos and disorder, as principled politics would spell ruin. He must not allow himself to
be weighed down by all consideration of justice or injustice, good or bad, right or wrong, mercy
or cruelty, honour or dishonour in matters of the state.
3. End justifies the Means: It is a very famous statement of Machiavelli which he justified for the
“Reason of state”. He assumed that state is highest form of human association. State is to be
worshipped like a deity even by sacrificing the individual. A ruler must remember that whatever
brings success and power is virtuous even cunningness, shrewdness is justified. Politics is the
most precarious game. It can never be played in a decent and orderly manner. The state has some
primary objectives and responsibilities like protection of life, maintenance of law and order and
looking after wellbeing of its members. Hence state must have adequate means at its disposal.
4. Use Religion as a Social Force: 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. 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 use it to
realize his ends, even if the ruler in his personal capacity was irreligious or had very little faith in
religion. A civic religion for Machiavelli should instil fear and respect for authority and help in the
inculcation of military valour. 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.
5. A prince must combine the qualities of a lion and a fox: The two basic means of success for a
prince are-the judicious use of law and physical force, He must combine in himself rational as well
as brutal characteristics, a combination of 'lion’ and 'fox'. The imitation of the fox (cunningness,
foresight) will enable him to visualize his goal and means to achieve it. The imitation of the lion will
give him necessary strength and force to achieve that goal, when there is anarchy and indiscipline.

Downloaded by Sarita Bhagwana (bhagwanasarita@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|10768863

6. Use double standard of Morality: According to Machiavelli state actions were not to be judged by
individual ethics. He prescribes double standard of conduct for statesmen and the private citizens. He
said morality is not necessary for the ruler. The ruler is the creator of law as also of morality,
for moral obligations must ultimately be sustained by law and the ruler, as the creator of the state, he
is not only outside the law, but if the law enacts morals, lie is outside morality as well. There is
no standard to judge his acts except the success of his political expedience for enlarging and
perpetuating the power of his state. The state has no ethics. It is a non-ethical entity. For this purpose,
he may use instruments of lie,deception, conspiracy, killings and massacre etc. Because absolute
morality is neither possible nor desirable in politics.
7. Favoured despotic ruler over Republicanism: Machiavelli did not recommend the republican
form of Government, because republican form requires virtuous, honest and patriotic citizens.
According to Machiavelli, if in a society, men are corrupt and selfish and the law is powerless,
then normal administration is not possible at all. A superior power is essential for bringing the
society into order. The government with absolute power stops the excessive desires and control the
behaviour of the people. But at the same time, he also advised the prince to convert his monarchy
into a republic, if his heirs are corrupt and misuse their power for evil purposes.
8. Use of Violence is justified: Machiavelli was convinced that the use of violence could be controlled,
but could not be altogether eliminated. He recommended the cautious and judicious exercise of
despotic violence, for otherwise it would create widespread distrust and hostility towards the
government, resulting in instability. He saw violence as a shock therapy to cure corruption and
rejuvenate civic virtù.
9. Maintain a Strong Army of Citizens: He recommended constant military preparedness for the
preservation of the state. Prince should organize a strong army to meet any internal and external
threat to his power. Strong and regular army was must for a state for its own defence. The state try
to build up its own independent, regular and faithful army. Such an army should consist of its own
citizens and be prepared not only to defend its national borders but also to expand. The citizens must
be trained for army service and there should be compulsory military training for all able
persons. Mercenary soldiers should be rid of, as they may become the cause of lawlessness as they
are ot faithful.
10. Maintain Balance of Power: The ruler had to constantly try and expand the state’s territory and
play the balance of power game skilfully by appearing to be the defender of weaker states.
Machiavelli advised the prince to adopt a policy of coalition rather than remain isolated, for
neutrality was impossible both domestically and internationally. It would be better to support one
side and wage an honest war; otherwise, one became prey to the victor or got isolated in a later crisis.
The best thing to do was to join a weak rather than a strong state, for in case of a common victory the
gains would be marginal, but the losses would be low in case of a common defeat.

Downloaded by Sarita Bhagwana (bhagwanasarita@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|10768863

11. Exterminate the Family of Rulers to gain Territories: Furthermore, Machiavelli pointed out that
princes ought to exterminate the families of the rulers whose territories they wished to possess
securely. Opponents ought to be murdered otherwise they could plan their revenge. True
liberality consisted in being stingy with one’s own property but generous with that of others, a
prudent use of virtue and vice in order to be happy, conferring benefits little by little so that they
would be appreciated more strongly, never to leave a defeated foe wounded, for there would be a
sure retaliation, and causing sufficient injury so that they would hurt less and last for a short time.
12. Should try to win popularity of his people: Prince should try to win popularity, goodwill and
affection of his people. He should keep his subjects materially contented by not them. The prince
should not interfere in age old customs and traditions of his people because by nature people
are conservative. He should not have craving for wealth and women of his own subjects, for
these matters, if violated, affected men’s sensibilities, driving them to the point of resistance. He
should keep a watchful eye on his dissidents.
13. A Prince must have council of wise men and not of flatterers: Powerful government and internal
unity were essential for any state. Prince must choose wise men in his council and should give them
full liberty to speak the truth to him. He must ask them about everything and hear their opinion
and afterwards deliberate by himself in his own way.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS
Niccolò Machiavelli (1469–1527) commanded a sinister reputation as no other thinker in the annals of
political theory. “The murderous Machiavel” as William Shakespeare (1564–1616) called him, was
depicted on the Elizabethan stage as a professional inventor of stratagems, a guide to rogues, usurpers and
tyrants and the term “Machiavellism” symbolized villainy. The initial reaction to Machiavelli’s writings
was one of shock, and he himself was denounced as an inventor of the devil.

1. According to professor Dunning, the method of Machiavelli was historical more in appearance
than in reality. His decisions were mostly based on observation of what was taking place in his own
times and he made use of the past history to reinforce the conclusions already drawn. Sabine also
says it is wrong to say that Machiavelli followed the historical method.
2. Machiavelli suggested power politics is the Means and authoritarian absolute state is the End. This
thought of Machiavelli leads to absolutism and narrow nationalism. Power politics cannot be
End, it will lead to autocracy and war.
3. Machiavelli ignored individualism i.e. individual liberty, equality, justice etc. He sacrificed
individual at the alter of the state
4. One sided views of human nature – In view of Machiavelli men are universally bad. This is really
a very one sided view of human nature. He ignores the fact that much of civilization is based on the
social and co-operative instincts of men.

Downloaded by Sarita Bhagwana (bhagwanasarita@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|10768863

Interestingly, Machiavelli had his share of admirers.

Spinoza regarded him as a friend of the people for having exposed the Prince. Montesquieu regarded
him as a lover of liberty, an image that emerged in the Discourses (1514–1519) and not from the Prince
(1513). He separated Machiavelli from Machiavellanism and described him as a pioneer in political
sociology. As a disciple of Montesquieu, Rousseau projected Machiavelli as a Republican, a satirist of
tyranny and described him as a good citizen and an honourable man. Giovanni Gentile (1875–1944)
described him as a champion of democratic government rather than a supporter of despotism. This
view is reiterated by Viroli (1998) who interpreted Machiavelli not as an apologist of tyranny but a defender
of republican values such as justice and the common good. For the Enlightenment philosophers,
Machiavelli heralded in a new era. He was a historian who laid the foundations of a new science of
politics by integrating contemporary history with ancient past.

CONCLUSION
Modern power politics cannot be thought of without reference to Machiavelli and his book ‘Prince’. He was
the first exponent of power politics. Machiavelli was a product of the age of prolific change and of a period
that marked a definite reaction against the authority of the Pope and his preaching of spiritualism. He is
known for ushering in the Modern Age by ridding politics of the vassalage of religion. Machiavelli's
methods were historical but he was a political realist. He built his theories on the premise that men are
essentially wicked and selfish. According to him, state is the highest form of human association and an
indispensable instrument for the promotion of human welfare. A successful ruler or 'Prince' should be a
perfect embodiment of shrewdness and self-control, making full use of his virtues and vices. Two basic
means of success for a 'Prince' are judicious use of law and physical force. The ruler is creator of law
and of morality.

The admiration and hostility that Machiavelli received simultaneously were partly due to a
misunderstanding of the context in which he wrote his texts, and partly due to sheer ignorance about their
contents and implications (Allen 1967: 447). The Prince should be read along with his Discourses on the
First Ten Books of Titus Livius, so that one gets a balanced account of him. In the later tract he showed
his concern for the moral and political degradation in Italian public life, and the urgency to recreate a
healthier social life by resurrecting nostalgically the glory of their Roman ancestors.

Downloaded by Sarita Bhagwana (bhagwanasarita@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|10768863

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS:

• A History of Political Thought- Plato to Marx by Subrata Mukherjee and Sushila Ramaswamy

ONLINE RESOURCES AND ARTICLES :

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prince
• IGNOU: http://gdcganderbal.edu.in/Files/a8029a93-30ad-4933-a19a-
59136f648471/Link/Machavelli_e1dca529-2cf3-4db7-80f2-dac3ae2e6e88.pdf
• https://rgu.ac.in/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Download_611.pdf

Downloaded by Sarita Bhagwana (bhagwanasarita@gmail.com)