Niccol Machiavelli's The Prince

Book Report/Review
Book Reports
Pages 10 (2510 words)
Download 0
No doubt, Machiavelli was not much appreciated during his life time and thought to be an immoral and cunning person, especially after he wrote The Prince; in reality, Machiavelli was a moral thinker and was trying to portray the life of a prince as morally as possible.


Even though his personal life was beyond reproach, he was considered to be devious, cunning, fraud, corrupt due to this work for centuries. His writings were dominated by the realistic conception of politics and the work of any ruler. Only one book that could be compared with The Prince, was written in Sanskrit by a Minister of Mourya Dynasty, whose name was Kautilya (also called Chanakya) and the book is Arthashastra. Apart from this, The Prince remained unparalleled.
But for the people who uphold traditional morality, his book is definitely immoral and unethical. His every suggestion and dictum was used to ridicule or demoralise the book with the writers name. The inner meaning and the circumstances combined with the compulsions of political situations were never taken into account till recently. His words like "Men are either to be kindly treated, or utterly crushed, since they can revenge lighter injuries, but not graver,1" were interpreted in a narrower sense, totally apolitical, despite knowing that he was advising a politician who is also a prince, and any prince to be successful, has to be one.
For the person, who is looking for moral and ethical sense, there is plenty of it in the book. The times in which the book was written was not a highly enlightened one. ...
Download paper
Not exactly what you need?