The Prince

By Niccolò Machiavelli and Lucille Margaret Kekewich

Translated by C.E.Detmold. With an Introduction by Lucille Margaret Kekewich.

Written in 1513 for the Medici, following their return to power in Florence, The Prince is a handbook on ruling and the exercise of power. It remains as relevant today as it was in the sixteenth century. Widely quoted in the Press and in academic publications, The Prince has direct relevance to the issues of business and corporate governance confronting global corporations as they enter a new millennium.

Much of what Machiavelli wrote has become the common currency of realpolitik, yet still his ideas retain the power to shock and annoy. In the words of Norman Stone, The Prince is 'a manual of man-management that would suit a great many parts of the modern world'.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Wordsworth Editions
• Release date: Feb 1, 2013
• ISBN: 9781848704886

Niccolò Machiavelli

Niccolò Machiavelli (1469-1527) was an Italian diplomat, philosopher and writer during the Renaissance era. Machiavelli led a politically charged life, often depicting his political endorsements in his writing. He led his own militia, and believed that violence made a leader more effective. Though he held surprising endorsements, Machiavelli is considered to be the father of political philosophy and political science, studying governments in an unprecedented manner that has forever shaped the field.

Book preview

Machiavelli

The Prince

Translated by

C. E. Detmold

with an introduction by

Lucille Margaret Kekewich

WORDSWORTH CLASSICS

OF WORLD LITERATURE

The Prince first published

by Wordsworth Editions Limited in 1997

Published as an ePublication 2013

ISBN 978 1 84870 488 6

Introduction and Notes © Lucille Margaret Kekewich 1997

Wordsworth Editions Limited

8B East Street, Ware, Hertfordshire SG12 9HJ

Wordsworth® is a registered trademark of

Wordsworth Editions Limited

Wordsworth Editions is

the company founded in 1987 by

MICHAEL TRAYLER

All rights reserved. This publication may not be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of the publishers.

Readers interested in other titles from Wordsworth Editions are invited to visit our website at

www.wordsworth-editions.com

For our latest list of printed books, and a full mail-order service contact

Bibliophile Books, Unit 5 Datapoint,

South Crescent, London E16 4TL

Tel: [phone]

Fax: [phone]

[e-mail]

www.bibliophilebooks.com

For my husband

ANTHONY JOHN RANSON

with love from your wife, the publisher

Eternally grateful for your

unconditional love

Contents

Introduction

References

List of Editions Used

The Prince

Niccolò Machiavelli to the Magnificent Lorenzo

1. How many kinds of principalities there are, and in what manner they are acquired

2. Of hereditary principalities

3. Of mixed principalities

4. Why the kingdom of Darius, which was conquered by Alexander, did not revolt against the successors of Alexander after his death

5. How cities or principalities are to be governed that previous to being conquered had lived under their own laws

6. Of new principalities that have been acquired by the valour of the prince and by his own troops

7. Of new principalities that have been acquired by the aid of others and by good fortune

8. Of such as have achieved sovereignty by means of crimes

9. Of civil principalities

10. In what manner the power of all principalities should be measured

11. Of ecclesiastical principalities

12. Of the different kinds of troops, and of mercenaries

13. Of auxiliaries, and of mixed and national troops

14. Of the duties of a prince in relation to military matters

15. Of the means by which men, and especially princes, win applause or incur censure

16. Of liberality and parsimoniousness

17. Of cruelty and clemency, and whether it is better to be loved than feared

18. In what manner princes should keep their faith

19. A prince must avoid being contemned and hated

20. Whether the erection of fortresses, and many other things which princes often do, are useful or injurious

21. How princes should conduct themselves to acquire a reputation

22. Of the ministers of princes

23. How to avoid flatterers

24. The reason why the princes of Italy have lost their states

25. Of the influence of fortune in human affairs, and how it may be counteracted

26. Exhortation to deliver Italy from foreign barbarians

Appendices

A. The History of Florence

B (i). Public affairs are easily managed in a city where the body of the people is not corrupt; and where equality exists, there no principality can be established; nor can a republic be established where there is no equality

B (ii). What nations the Romans had to contend against, and with what obstinacy they defended their liberty

B (iii). To found a new republic, or to reform entirely the old institutions of an existing one, must be the work of one man only

C. To Francesco Vettori, his benefactor

D. The art of war

E. History of Florence

F. Of how many kinds are republics and of what sort was the Roman republic

Introduction

The making of a theorist: negotium

Between 1494 and 1498 much of the population of Florence had been gripped by a kind of religious revivalism, inspired to a great extent by the apparent fulfilment of a prophecy made by Fra Girolamo Savonarola. He had predicted that Italy would be invaded by the armies of the French king as a punishment for its sins. Sure enough in 1494 Charles VIII had invaded and Piero de’ Medici, the unofficial head of the Florentine state, fled, leaving Florence to God and the patricians. Despite the Christian fervour felt by many people, it did not prove to be a sound basis for the restoration of republican rule. Some former Medici supporters, and others who disliked Savonarola’s style of moral leadership, succeeded in undermining his credibility as a holy man and eventually managed to utilise his condemnation by the Papacy to have him burned (Appendix A: Guicciardini, History of Florence, 16). It was just after these traumatic events that Niccolò Machiavelli achieved the position of second chancellor (secretary) to the republic. He started a career of negotium, or public service, which provided the raw material for his later life as a writer, when another violent political change forced him out of the government into otium, or a leisurely existence.

Machiavelli entered the inner circles of government influenced by two very different political experiences: the domination of one great family and the brief theocracy of Savonarola. He had been born in 1467, the year when Lorenzo and Giuliano de’ Medici succeeded their father as the leading citizens of Florence. The city and its territories remained in theory a republic ruled by a series of councils and elected officials. In practice, since the middle years of the fifteenth century, all organs of government had been dominated by the powerful and wealthy family of the Medici and its supporters. After his brother Giuliano’s assassination, Lorenzo (the Magnificent) presided over a state which achieved enormous prestige and influence through the work of its scholars and artists, but which enjoyed very limited political power. Fortunately for the integrity of Florence, none of the other principal states of Italy – Milan, Venice, Naples and the Papal States – had sufficient force at their disposal to pose a serious threat. The death of Lorenzo de’ Medici in 1492, when Machiavelli was in his twenties, marked the beginning of a turbulent period in Italian politics.

The new pope, Alexander VI, was anxious to establish his children, especially Cesare Borgia, in rich principalities. The corruption and profligacy of the Papacy was a major theme in the sermons of Savonarola, and set it on a collision course with Florence. The French king’s presence meant that any state which could win his support would enjoy a great advantage over its rivals, unless they could attract yet more foreign aid from either the emperor or the King of Spain. So there were many lessons which an observant and ambitious young man could learn from the brutal de-stabilisation of Italy which occurred in the 1490s. The strongest of his political instincts seems to have been to favour the republican form of government. By this Machiavelli and his contemporaries did not mean a democracy on the twentieth century French or American model, but a state controlled by its citizens. Citizenship was a privilege confined to native-born males who owned sufficient property to give them a right to a voice. A relatively small proportion of the population of Florence would have qualified as citizens in the fifteenth century, and even after the demise of the Medici, a limited number of families held most of the power. Machiavelli’s preference for a republic was, however, modified by an appreciation of the difficulties and dangers faced by the Italian states. For this reason he did not discount the possibility of princely rule when circumstances required it. The Medici regime had after all safeguarded the independence of Florence. What he disliked above all was a government which was motivated by ideology: Savonarola’s intransigence had increased the danger of losing the benefits gained from the flight of the Medici. It was fine to proclaim the supremacy of religion and morality, but it was fatal to sacrifice the interests of the state in their defence.

Machiavelli’s republicanism cannot solely be explained by his Florentine birth: a humanist education would have instilled the same values. Most of what is known of his early life comes from the diary of his father: Bernardo Machiavelli was a lawyer, a landowner on a modest scale, and a humanist. He was the partner of Bartolomeo Scala in a dialogue about the law which survives in the Archives at Siena. Scala was first chancellor to the republic until his death in 1497, and it may have been through his good offices that Niccolò Machiavelli was given a post. His education had prepared him for the high standards expected of a Florentine civil servant, for sixteen years earlier his father had put him to school with a highly respected humanist, Paolo Ronciglione.

A principal part of the motor which drove the Italian Renaissance in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries was the enormous respect felt by scholars, artists and politicians for Roman antiquity. It was generally accepted that Rome had been at her greatest whilst she adhered to her republican institutions, putting strong armies in the field with which she united the Italian peninsula under her rule and started to build up an empire. Her senate and public servants were patriotic and incorruptible, her women virtuous and her children obedient. Her decline and ultimate fall was caused by the emperors, who perverted her institutions for their own selfish purposes. It followed that a regeneration of Italian society and political life could best be achieved by a return to the values held under the Roman republic. The work of Hans Baron (especially The Crisis of the Early Italian Renaissance) has demonstrated that this nostalgia for the Roman past was heightened during the early Renaissance by writers and jurists who saw in the free city republics of Italy the revival of what was best in antiquity.

The destruction of Savonarola did not also entail the dismemberment of the Florentine republic. Its institutions had survived throughout the period of Medici rule and had been enhanced in 1494, when Piero fled, by the introduction of a Great Council, ‘the soul of the city’. (Felix Gilbert, 9) Its functions were to vote, but not to discuss, taxes and to choose the members of a series of committees, which carried out the executive functions of government. As second chancellor Machiavelli worked most closely with the Ten of War: despite their alarming title they were mainly concerned with foreign relations and in avoiding involvement in wars. Yet the republic was already embroiled in one destructive internal conflict: its subject city of Pisa, an important port and trading outlet, had revolted immediately after the Medici left, and the war to subdue it dragged on for ten years. Other problems which beset the Ten and their chancellor were the presence of the French in Italy and of Cesare Borgia, supported by the pope his father, on their borders. The Florentines were traditionally the allies of the French, but the king expected unswerving loyalty and large sums of money as the price of his not very effective support.

Throughout his fourteen years as chancellor Machiavelli was regularly sent on missions both to the allies of Florence and to her potential enemies. Whilst the republic was fortunate enough not to be one of the many Italian states to which the great foreign powers could legitimately make a claim, most of them instinctively distrusted a people who had ejected their ruler. Although the hapless Piero de’ Medici was soon killed in battle he had plenty of relations who were pressing for the restoration of their house, and one of them was an influential cardinal. Machiavelli learnt much from his diplomatic missions: his views can be recovered both from the many reports he sent back to his masters and from his later writings. Four visits to Louis XII of France taught him how insignificant the Italian states were in power and wealth in comparison with the greater European powers. He received very little support from his own government which, because of the dispersed nature of its authority, seemed weak and vacillating besides a monarchy where decisions could be taken swiftly and necessary resources provided rapidly (Quentin Skinner, Machiavelli, chapter 1).

Machiavelli’s encounters with Cesare Borgia, duke of Valentino, are famously recorded in The Prince. His initial meetings impressed him greatly: here was a man of action unburdened by ideological or moral baggage which could impede his rise to power in central Italy. But Cesare’s fortune lasted only as long as his father’s life: his ruthless daring was no match for the new pope, Julius II, who was just as ruthless and a great deal more powerful. By the time of Cesare’s sudden death a few years later, fighting as a mercenary for the king of Navarre, Machiavelli had realised how badly the duke had miscalculated, but this did not prevent him from using him as a model in his later writings.

Machiavelli did not get the full measure of Julius II on his visit to Rome in 1503, when he reported the process of his election. Three years later, when he followed the formidable pontiff around central Italy, he had formed a better idea of his capacities and ambition. Retrospectively he saw that Julius had further destabilised the balance of power in Italy, already undermined by French incursions, and created the conditions which allowed the emperor and Spain to exploit it for their own ends. In 1507 Machiavelli had an opportunity to study German political institutions at close quarters as he and Francesco Vettori, who was to become his lifelong friend, were sent to discover the intentions of the Emperor Maximilian towards Italy. They achieved very little for, as Sydney Anglo said, Maximilian’s ‘ . . . schemes were . . . shrouded in the inpenetrable secrecy of those who haven’t the faintest idea of what they are doing’ (p. 23). Instructions from the Florentine government were unsatisfactory and often – conveyed in such unpromising containers as messengers’ boots and loaves of bread – illegible. Machiavelli formed a low opinion of Maximilian. He invariably preferred men of action to procrastinators. He did, however, admire the way in which the German city states functioned within the empire, seeing them as retaining some of the excellence of the ancient Roman republic (Appendix B, i, Discourses 1, 55).

Increasingly the energies of Machiavelli and his masters had to be concentrated on the dangerous situation on their own borders. The alliance of Julius II and France, which had allowed them to make depredations on the Italian states unchecked, broke down and changed to mutual hostility. This did not suit Florence, since both powers expected her support. After unsuccessful attempts to please both sides the republic adhered to her traditional friendship with France, but there were no French armies available to protect her, and it was an easy matter for the Pope to restore the Medici. The soldiers of his ally, the king of Spain, invaded Florentine territory in 1512 and besieged the town of Prato. The local militia, who were meant to defend it, had been organised by Machiavelli a few years earlier in an attempt to dispense with mercenary armies. They failed miserably and the town fell. The terms for peace included the return of the Medici led by Giuliano, a son of Lorenzo the Magnificent. He already enjoyed the support of a faction amongst the patricians of the city, and immediately set about dismantling republican institutions, especially the Great Council. He even had the hall where it had met demolished. There was no bloodbath, but some leading members of the previous regime went into exile, and Machiavelli was dismissed from office. He suffered an even greater misfortune in the following year when he was falsely accused of participating in a futile little plot against the Medici. He was imprisoned and tortured but maintained his innocence. After a swift release he retired to his farm at San Casciano, about seven miles from Florence. He spent most of the rest of his life there, always hoping that he would be re-employed by the state and nearly always being disappointed.

The work of retirement: otium

(i) The Prince

In the early years of his enforced retirement Machiavelli filled his time by supervising work on his land, drinking and playing cards in the local tavern, reading and writing (Appendix C, letter to Franceso Vettori). He had, of course, been writing for many years and his first treatise, The Prince, most closely resembles the numerous letters and reports which he had sent back to the Florentine government during his career as second chancellor. It was dedicated in 1513 to the newly restored Giuliano de’ Medici, offering him ‘knowledge of the actions of great men, which I have acquired by long experience of modern affairs and a continued study of ancient history’ in the hope that ‘you attain that greatness which fortune and your great qualities promise’

Reviews for The Prince

[harrod_1 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Interesting

[velmeran · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

While I understand that his take is controversial, I have to tell you, it makes sense. It's not nice, but it is practical.

[reganrule · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Thought rereading this might shed some light on the Trump presidency until I realized that there is a crucial difference between realpolitik and realityTVpolitiking.

[bnielsen_30 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Et klassisk værk om hvorledes en fyrste bør regere.Indeholder 26 kapitler: "Om forskellige arter af fyrstevælder og måder at erhverve dem på", "Om de arvelige fyrstevælder", "Om blandede fyrstevælder", "Hvorfor Darius' rige, som Alexander erobrede, ved dennes død ikke gjorde oprør mod hans efterfølger", "Hvorledes man skal styre de byer og fyrstevælder, der før erobringen havde egne love", "Om erhvervelsen af et nyt fyrstevælde ved egne våben og dygtighed", "Om erhvervelsen af et nyt fyrstevælde ved fremmede våben og lykkens hjælp", "Om fyrster, der når herredømmet ved forbrydelser", "Om folkefyrster", "Hvordan alle fyrstevælders kraft skal måles", "Om gejstlige fyrstevælder", "Om forskellige arter stridskræfter og om lejetropper", "Om hjælpetropper, blandede og egne tropper", "Om en fyrstes militære opgaver", "Hvad der skaffer menneskene og især fyrsterne ros eller dadel", "Om gavmildhed og gerrighed", "Om grusomhed og mildhed, og om at det er bedre at blive frygtet end elsket", "Hvorvidt en fyrste altid skal stå ved sit ord", "Man må undgå ringeagt og had", "Om fæstninger eller andre forholdsregler, der træffes af fyrsten, er til nytte eller skade", "Hvorledes en fyrste skal optræde for at vinde anseelse", "Om fyrsternes statssekretærer", "Hvorledes man skal undgå smiger", "Hvorledes Italiens fyrster har tabt deres stater", "Hvad skæbnen formår i de menneskelige anliggender, og hvorledes man skal kæmpe imod den", "Opråb om at befri Italien fra barbarerne".I denne bog behandler forfatteren kun fyrstedømmer. Han indleder med at sige at arvestater er meget lettere at bevare end nyerhvervede stater. Han betoner at folkets gunst er vigtig at bevare og at man bør bosætte sig i en nyerobret stat. Man bør svække de stærke naboer og støtte de svage uden at styrke dem.Udmærket læsning. Machiavelli argumenterer for sine synspunkter, fx at lejetropper og hjælpetropper kun er af det onde, og har mange underbyggende eksempler.En manual for at opnå og bevare magt

[mithril_1 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Fascinating historical perspective.

[bookomaniac-1 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Zeer geromantiseerde inleidingIntussen overbekende politieke theorie (efficiëntie gaat voor op ethiek). Moeilijke lectuur

[karl6steel · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

First time reading it since my 1989 Great Books course at Evergreen. A lot of fun to teach. The Dover edition, so far as I can determine, is perfectly serviceable, and, presuming I'm rating the right book, is improved vastly by including excerpts from The Discourses. Complicates things nicely for the students.

[piggelin_1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

A book still relevant today in the 21th century. Even if some of the described techniques are neither adviseable nor morally and legally possible in today's society.

[alcracka · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

I'm weirdly pleased that The Prince lives up to its reputation: it is indeed Machiavellian. Here's his advice on conquering self-governing states (i.e. democracies): "The only way to hold on to such a state is to reduce it to rubble." Well then.

I'd like to say that any guy whose last name becomes a synonym for evil is a badass, but Machiavelli wasn't; he was a failed minor diplomat who wrote this in a failed attempt to get reemployed. Stupid attempt, too; anyone who hired him would be advertising that he espoused Machiavellian values. This book was published. And as he himself advises, "A leader doesn't have to possess virtuous qualities, but it's imperative that he seem to possess them."

So I'll go with this: anyone whose last name becomes a synonym for evil has written a good book.

I hope to match that effect with my first novel. Working title: "Unicorns are Pretty."

So if Machiavelli was such a loser, how did his book get so famous? It's not because it's great advice; it sortof isn't. I think it's because it's just a ton of fun to read. It's chock full of over-the-top quotes like the ones above. It's really funny.

Which brings up a recurring topic for debate: did he intend for this to be taken seriously, or is it satire? I think it's the former: mixed in with the zany stuff is a fair amount of common-sense advice. He could certainly have included that to make the zany stuff pop more, or to camouflage it a bit, but I prefer to think he meant the whole thing seriously. And it's not like any of it is advice someone hasn't followed at some point. (See my first quote above: yeah, we've tried that.)

Translation review: this is the very latest translation. Parks has gone to great trouble to reduce the crazy complexity of Machiavelli's sentences - I know this from reading his excellent Translator's Note - and I appreciate that. He's also tried hard to make it accessible to modern audiences, and sometimes I think he's tipped a tiny bit overboard on that front. "When a ruler occupies a land that has a different language...then things get rough." "Difficult" would have been perfectly clear; "rough" is too colloquial. We want to be able to read our classics, but we don't need to pretend they were written yesterday.

That's a relatively minor complaint, though; this is a clear and easy translation. Good intro, too. And a glossary of proper names at the back, so you can sort out the various contemporary figures you don't recognize.

I'll close with my favorite quote: "It's better to be impulsive than cautious; fortune is female and if you want to stay on top of her you have to slap and thrust."

Machiavelli: kindof a dick.

[judithrs · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

The Prince. Niccolo Machiavelli. 2008. Our book club chose this classic of how to get and keep political power because it was an election year. What surprised several of us was how mild it seemed. We decided we were no longer idealistic and had lived too long to be shocked at what lengths a man in power will go to maintain that power

[tommi180744 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

A very sharp commentary on the art and business of politics when ruling a nation/people. As it did for previous generations this 16th Century tome has many pertinent pointers for today's would-be establishment elite: however, the pitfalls of power & being consumed by the desire for authority that it also mentions have been neglected by so many ill-equipped & haplessly inadequate Leaders of the 20th/21st centuries it would appear many of them were not concentrating when they read Machiavelli's masterpiece!

[lostvampire_1 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

A Great Book!

[bookworm12_1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

The Prince is filled with advice for leaders hoping to hold on to their positions. This book does a great job at describing situations of power and statesmanship. From political and corporate power struggles to attaining advancement, influence and authority over others, Machiavelli’s observations apply. He gives advice based on the example of many leaders who came before, especially those in Italy. I loved reading this while watching Game of Thrones. So much of the advice is applicable. The show is all about vying for the throne and multiple people desperately maneuvering to get closer to the power. The book is all about the different ways of ruling, gaining favor, ruling with fear, etc. I loved seeing how the advice in The Prince was so perfectly mirrored in the different actions of characters on GOT. Every Lord or Prince in GOT takes a different route in their struggle for power and each one is like an example acting out the pros and cons of the advice in The Prince. So much of the book deals with the tightrope leaders must walk between being loved and feared…“Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than feared or feared than loved?”Just like being a parent, the ruler must decide which is more important to him. If he is only feared there is always the chance of disloyalty and revolt. If he is only loved than people might not respect his leadership and will rise against him. It is a difficult decision to make. BOTTOM LINE: Ruling has always been a cutthroat profession. One must almost always chose between making your subjects love you or fear you and that decision is at the heart of this book. I enjoyed reading about the different ruling styles and once again realized that not much has changed in politics. “This has been figuratively taught to princes by ancient writers, who describe how Achilles and many other princes of old were given to the Centaur Chiron to nurse, who brought them up in his discipline; which means solely that, as they had for a teacher one who was half beast and half man, so it is necessary for a prince to know how to make use of both natures, and that one without the other is not durable.”“Therefore, one who becomes a prince through the favour of the people ought to keep them friendly, and this he can easily do seeing they only ask not to be oppressed by him. But one who, in opposition to the people, becomes a prince by the favour of the nobles, ought, above everything, to seek to win the people over to himself, and this he may easily do if he takes them under his protection. Because men, when they receive good from him of whom they were expecting evil, are bound more closely to their benefactor; thus the people quickly become more devoted to him.”“But to exercise the intellect the prince should read histories, and study there the actions of illustrious men, to see how they have borne themselves in war, to examine the causes of their victories and defeat, so as to avoid the latter and imitate the former”“A prince, therefore, ought always to take counsel, but only when he wishes and not when others wish; he ought rather to discourage everyone from offering advice unless he asks it; but, however, he ought to be a constant inquirer, and afterwards a patient listener concerning the things of which he inquired.”

[lisamaria_c · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

His very name has become, like that of Hobbes and Nietzsche, a byword for a cold, brutal ruthlessness. It's even said on the Wiki that he helped make "Old Nick" a term for the Devil (something the introduction to my edition denies) and political philosopher Leo Strauss called him "the teacher of evil." His book The Prince is one of the most influential books of all time and is known as the Bible of realpolitik, and Machiavelli is seen by some as the father of political science. In a letter Machiavelli claimed his "little work" (it's less than a hundred pages in paperback) was designed to examine the state, "discussing what a principality is, what kinds there are, how they are acquired, how they are maintained, why they are lost." The heart of his advice to the ruler is to be "prepared to vary his conduct as the winds of fortune and changing circumstances constrain him and … not deviate from right conduct if possible, but be capable of entering upon the path of wrongdoing when this becomes necessary." Thus The Prince can be said to be at the other end of the scale to utopian thinking; it's utterly pragmatic. And given my lack of sympathy for utopian schemes, you'd think this would be more to my taste. Yet in some ways I see both approaches as similar. Both sorts of thinking believe that ends justify the means. Utopian schemes from Plato to Mao willingly bend humans like pretzels to fit their ideals--Machiavelli wants his rulers to manipulate, deceive, and force his subjects to his ends, without worrying about whether the means are moral. Without caring about principles, what's left is just naked power. So why rate this so high? Well, I at least appreciate Machiavelli's style compared to that of so many political thinkers. One thing at least all commentators agree on is that his writing is succinct and lucid--and memorable. Hard to forget such precepts as "politics has no relation to morals" and "it is better to be feared than loved" and "a prince never lacks legitimate reasons to break his promise" and "Fortune is a woman, and if you want to stay on top of her, you have to knock her around." The man can turn a phrase. Fun and chilling to read at the same time--and great insight into politics and the minds of many politicians. And given Machiavelli's experience as a diplomat and head of a militia, and his deep pragmatism, it's not like even principled statesman working for their ideals should ignore his advice--if only as a warning.

[wildbill_1 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

This is a book that has been sitting on the shelf of my set of Great Books of the Western World since before I started college. That and the fact that it was written in the 1500's surely qualify it as a TOME. It is a very short book which made great changes in the thinking about political statecraft. His book is a frank discussion of the use of immoral means to achieve the goals of The Prince.For Machiavelli the sole goal of the Prince was to obtain power and hold it. Using historical models he sets out the most effective means to attain this end. The nobles and the people are the two forces that hold political power in the State as he sees it. Machiavelli goes into detail about how to deal with each of these. The nobles have their own bases of power and act in their pursuit of their own interests. For this reason it is important for the Prince that they fear him rather than love him.In his discussion on fortresses he makes the statement that the best fortress is the love of the people. A state that is prosperous and ruled fairly is the best way to achieve the love of the people. The Prince must also cultivate the love of the people through great achievements building a charisma that draws them to him.The art of war is a very important part of Machiavelli's discussion. Mercenaries are the most dangerous troops to use. They fight for their own reasons and are only loyal to the Prince as long as he is able to pay them. Auxiliary troops drawn from the people are more likely to remain loyal as long as their love for the Prince is constant.Machiavelli's ideas inaugurated modern politics and statecraft. His was original and unencumbered by the ideas of the past. He established new rules for the practice of statecraft. He was excoriated for his immorality but his ideas quickly gained precedence. Last year I read The Thirty Years War. Many of the principles set forth by Machiavelli appeared in the actions of the rulers in that war. They used mercenaries to a great extent and were often ruined by them. Morality was absent in their dealings with each other. They practiced the code of attaining power that Machiavelli established.

[elosoblanco · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

If I were more of a historian I would have been able to dive deeper into this book. Missing some context, I struggled with a few bits and pieces of Machiavelli's statements, but the rest of his ideas and examples are pretty easy to follow. I see how this book, in the hands of the wrong person, could lead to cruelties, however, I also totally see what the book is getting at, and I enjoyed reading it.

[mrslee_1 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

I read this because it is one of those books everyone says should be read. It wasn't terribly long, the translation was easily understandable and I thought I would give it a try.What surprised me, was that I enjoyed it. I found Machiavelli's teaching style very good. He sets forth a principle, then illustrates it with examples from both ancient history and his times. It was easy to go from there and find examples in our modern times of most of the principles he set forth. I found myself marveling at his insight into human nature and the practicalities of leadership in a fallen world.Needless to say, I now feel myself prepared to take on the leadership of any minor principality which would have me. World, beware!

[tadad_1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Despite the aura that has grown up around this book, I don't think it's as shocking to readers in the 21st century as it evidently was to those in the early 16th; it seems pretty much "politics as usual." In fact, it seems refreshingly honest about politics, never attempting to obscure the acquisition and maintenance of power with claims of high or noble purposes.I also found it interesting that...at least as far as I was concerned...there was a connotation to the term 'Machiavellian' that was a bit more self-interested than the philosophy he actually espouses.This is definitely a book worth recommending.

[nickdreamsong · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

My job requires me to function in a highly politicized work environment. I work with a large group of department heads, providing counsel on issues pertaining to the fine art of people management. Some of them are philosopher kings and others are callous despots. I have found that rereading THE PRINCE every few years reminds me of the basics. Whether the princes are in the courts of the Italian peninsula during the Renaissance or in the offices of a large corporation at the dawn of the 21st century, people with authority act in similar ways. There is much to be learned from this amazing little book.

[irenef_288826 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Other people have reviewed The Prince's content. I gave this book four stars; I would have given it five if the translation were better. This edition (Dover Thrift) is certainly economical, but the sentences are long, convoluted, and reverse subject and object. It took me a while to get through even though it runs only 71 pages. I had to sit there and wrestle with the verbiage as I went.Otherwise, thought-provoking and a handbook of international relations.

[wyvernfriend · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Pretty illustrations intermingled with the text to show the period during which this is written. Not terribly fond of the translation, will have to try another one to get a better feel for the text, probably a good historical and close to the original style of the book but feels a bit forced. It's an interesting look at power and how power is won or lost and while many people have taken inspiration from it to take power not many of them seem to have read the portions on keeping power.I believe I read this years ago in college but it was interesting to go back and read it again for no purpose other than pleasure. Many authors could get inspiration for how to set up governments and how to keep power in the hands of both the good and bad guys.

[stillatim · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

Well, you probably know about this book. Now, I'm sure that I could have read it much more closely and come up with some very interesting material to think about. But honestly- it's just not that interesting. If you're easily shocked or titillated by the idea that powerful people are powerful because they're immoral, you will be shocked and titillated. If you didn't spend your formative years reading Cicero's 'De Oficiis,' on the other hand, you won't be surprised. And honestly, if you've read a newspaper in the last century, Machiavelli won't teach you anything. He has a bunch of nice stories to illustrate his points, but without knowing the context of the stories he tells it's difficult to know why I should care. The chapter on republics is interesting, granted. But to be honest I think I'd rather read someone who knows a lot about Machiavelli than the man himself. Skinner, here I come.

I should say, too, that the Cambridge edition is excellent. 'The Prince' is in desperate need of annotation, and the editors do an excellent job of making things clear without making the text unreadable.

[starkravingmad_1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Now understand why it's a classic 

[jkepler_9 · Rating: 1 out of 5 stars]

I can see how it had a huge influence in humanistic politics--it lends itself to realpolitik.

[hermit_9_1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

The definitive classic in binary political logic. But then as someone once said, there are 10 kinds of people, those who understand binary and those who don't.

[elizabeth5michele · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Read this simply because I had heard interesting things and it was indeed an interesting read with some interesting themes and ideas. A must for anyone considering politics.

[msnikki · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

The ultimate take no prisoners guide to ruling your world. Written as a guide to the monarchy, as the name suggests, but completely applicable to modern life.Some magazines have named it as a key componant to the cliched 80s Fortune 500 executive and it is easy to see why.A great well thought out read.I highly recommend it.

[angelic55blonde · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

This is an excellent book. It is straightforward and easy to read. It was a political treatise that offered advice on how a prince could gain and keep power. The book is actually dedicated to one of the Medici family members. Many people belive the reason he did this was to win favor of Lorenzo de’ Medici, then-governor of Florence. Machiavelli was involved with politics but had lost his job so he had hoped to land a position within the Florentine government. Unfortuantely, this plan did not work for him. This is a great book and everyone should read it.

[kade_11 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

To many autodidacts, this book is a bible of political science, a gross misconception that reinforces the cynical view of politics perpetuated in popular culture. This wouldn't bother me if it weren't for the fact that people read the Prince, and then think there's no other bibles to political science. The Prince is to modern political theory what Sun Tzu is to Clausewitz's Von Krieg. It has come before, and is useful for tracing a linear path and building upon what comes before, but if you're a complete neophyte to political science and think this comes packed with all the answers, you're grossly off the mark, and your time would better be spent on John Locke's Second Treatise (which actually is a lighter read), Hobbes' Leviathan, Marx's First and Third Manuscripts, Burke's Reflections, or Rosseau's Social Contract. Highly recommended for political scientists to see the origin of their discipline.

[surreality_1 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

The original Italian text and German translation in parallel print. Allusions and references to most events and people given as examples are added to facilitate reading. A coldly pragmatic look at power play and its tools. Chilling at times, but rational and also clever. It's a very practical approach to the philosophy of power, and despite almost all examples being Machiavelli's contemporaries, the ideas still hold true. A fascinating text to read.