Abstract

In The Profession and Vocation of Politics, Weber argues that Machiavelli’s Prince is «harmless» in comparison to Kauṭilya’s Arthaśāstra. Some contemporary comparative political theorists similarly argue that the Arthaśāstra is a fully realistic speculum principis free from moralistic considerations, while The Prince’s supposed realism is in fact moderated by Machiavelli’s republicanism. An opposite viewpoint suggests that Kauṭilya’s extremism, unlike Machiavelli’s republican realism, would breed the sovereign’s ruin in our age. In this article, I take a via media, arguing for the contextual and non-substantive nature of the difference between these authors and their main works.