I count religion but a childish toy,
  And hold there is no sin but ignorance.

When the Counter-reformation had begun in Italy, and desperate efforts were being made to check the speculative freedom of the Renaissance, the Principe was condemned by the Inquisition.  Meanwhile it was whispered that the Spanish princes, and the sons of Catherine de’ Medici upon the throne of France, conned its pages just as a manual of toxicology might be studied by a Marquise de Brinvilliers.  Machiavelli became the scapegoat of great political crimes; and during the religious wars of the sixteenth century there were not wanting fanatics who ascribed such acts of atrocity as the Massacre of S. Bartholomew to his venomous influence.  Yet this book was really nothing more or less than a critical compendium of facts respecting Italy, a highly condensed abstract of political experience.  In it as in a mirror we may study the lineaments of the Italian despot who by adventure or by heritage succeeded to the conduct of a kingdom.  At the same time the political principles here established are those which guided the deliberations of the Venetian Council and the Papal Court, no less than the actions of a Sforza or a Borgia upon the path to power.  It is therefore a document of the very highest value for the illustration of the Italian conscience in relation to political morality.

The Principe opens with the statement that all forms of government may be classified as republics or as principalities.  Of the latter some are hereditary, others acquired.  Of the principalities acquired in the lifetime of the ruler some are wholly new, like Milan under Francesco Sforza; others are added of hereditary kingdoms, like Naples to Spain.  Again, such acquired states have been previously accustomed either to the rule of a single man or to self-government.  Finally they are won either with the conqueror’s own or with borrowed armies, either by fortune or by ability.[1] Thus nine conditions under which principalities may be considered are established at the outset.

[1] The word Virtu, which I have translated ability, is almost equivalent to the Greek [Greek:  arete], before it had received a moral definition, or to the Roman Virtus.  It is very far, as will be gathered from the sequel of the Principe, from denoting what we mean by Virtue.

The short chapter devoted by Machiavelli to hereditary principalities may be passed over as comparatively unimportant.  It is characteristic of Italian politics that the only instance he adduces of this form of government in Italy is the Duchy of Ferrara.  States and cities were so frequently shifting owners in the sixteenth century that the scientific politician was justified in confining his attention to the method of establishing and preserving principalities acquired by force.  When he passes to the consideration of this class, Machiavelli enters upon the real subject