Interpretations of Machiavelli are legion. No other political author has provoked either the same volume of critical responses or caused such sharp disagreement about his purposes. Machiavelli is variously described as the Galileo of politics, the first political scientist, a realist, a pragmatist, a cynic.
Conversely, he is artistic and intuitive, rather than scientific. Or, he is the founder of the doctrine of ‘reason of state’ he is an advocate of realpolitik, a cold technician of political life. He is condemned as an evil ideologue, a despot, an absolutist, a teacher of evil, an anti-Christ. He is hailed as an anguished humanist and admired as a passionate patriot, an embryonic utilitarian, the father of Italian Nationalism, a giant of the Enlightenment and a committed republican.
A partial explanation for such conflicting views lies in his own lack of rigour as well as tensions, contradictions and ambiguities within and between his works which make them vulnerable to different readings. But what is it about Machiavelli that stirs such passionate and enduring interest?
