The Prince

By Niccolò Machiavelli

Contains Active Table of Contents (HTML) and ​in the end of book include a bonus link to the free audiobook.

The Prince is the most controversial book about winning power - and holding on to it - ever written. Machiavelli's tough-minded, pragmatic argument that sometimes it is necessary to abandon ethics to succeed made his name notorious. Yet his book has been read by strategists, politicians and business people ever since as the ultimate guide to realpolitik.

How can a leader be strong and decisive, yet still inspire loyalty in his followers? How do you keep your enemies in check? Is it better to be feared than loved? When is it necessary to break the rules? This shrewd handbook on how power really works answers all these questions by examining regimes and their rulers around the world and throughout history, from Roman emperors to renaissance Popes, from the savagely cruel Hannibal to the utterly devious Cesare di Borgia.

• Language: English
• Publisher: LHN Books
• Release date: Jul 18, 2020
• ISBN: 9782380373189

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

Chapter 1

Of the Various Kinds of Princedom, and of the Ways in Which They Are Acquired

All the States and Governments by which men are or ever have been ruled, have been and are either Republics or Princedoms. Princedoms are either hereditary, in which the sovereignty is derived through an ancient line of ancestors, or they are new. New Princedoms are either wholly new, as that of Milan to Francesco Sforza; or they are like limbs joined on to the hereditary possessions of the Prince who acquires them, as the Kingdom of Naples to the dominions of the King of Spain. The States thus acquired have either been used to live under a Prince or have been free; and he who acquires them does so either by his own arms or by the arms of others, and either by good fortune or by merit.

Chapter 2

Of Hereditary Princedoms

Of Republics I shall not now speak, having elsewhere spoken of them at length. Here I shall treat exclusively of Princedoms, and, filling in the outline above traced out, shall proceed to examine how such States are to be governed and maintained.

I say, then, that hereditary States, accustomed to the family of their Prince, are maintained with far less difficulty than new States, since all that is required is that the Prince shall not depart from the usages of his ancestors, trusting for the rest to deal with events as they arise. So that if an hereditary Prince be of average address, he will always maintain himself in his Princedom, unless deprived of it by some extraordinary and irresistible force; and even if so deprived will recover it, should any, even the least, mishap overtake the usurper. We have in Italy an example of this in the Duke of Ferrara, who never could have withstood the attacks of the Venetians in 1484, nor those of Pope Julius in 1510, had not his authority in that State been consolidated by time. For since a Prince by birth has fewer occasions and less need to give offence, he ought to be better loved, and will naturally be popular with his subjects unless outrageous vices make him odious. Moreover, the very antiquity and continuance of his rule will efface the memories and causes which lead to innovation. For one change always leaves a dovetail into which another will fit.

Chapter 3

Of Mixed Princedoms

But in new Princedoms difficulties abound. And, first, if the Princedom be not wholly new, but joined on to the ancient dominions of the Prince, so as to form with them what may be termed a mixed Princedom, changes will come from a cause common to all new States, namely, that men, thinking to better their condition, are always ready to change masters, and in this expectation will take up arms against any ruler; wherein they deceive themselves, and find afterwards by experience that they are worse off than before. This again results naturally and necessarily from the circumstance that the Prince cannot avoid giving offence to his new subjects, either in respect of the troops he quarters on them, or of some other of the numberless vexations attendant on a new acquisition. And in this way you may find that you have enemies in all those whom you have injured in seizing the Princedom, yet cannot keep the friendship of those who helped you to gain it; since you can neither reward them as they expect, nor yet, being under obligations to them, use violent remedies against them. For however strong you may be in respect of your army, it is essential that in entering a new Province you should have the good will of its inhabitants.

Hence it happened that Louis XII of France, speedily gaining possession of Milan, as speedily lost it; and that on the occasion of its first capture, Lodovico Sforza was able with his own forces only to take it from him. For the very people who had opened the gates to the French King, when they found themselves deceived in their expectations and hopes of future benefits, could not put up with the insolence of their new ruler. True it is that when a State rebels and is again got under, it will not afterwards be lost so easily. For the Prince, using the rebellion as a pretext, will not scruple to secure himself by punishing the guilty, bringing the suspected to trial, and otherwise strengthening his position in the points where it was weak. So that if to recover Milan from the French it was enough on the first occasion that a Duke Lodovico should raise alarms on the frontiers to wrest it from them a second time the whole world had to be ranged against them, and their armies destroyed and driven out of Italy. And this for the reasons above assigned. And yet, for a second time, Milan was lost to the King. The general causes of its first loss have been shown. It remains to note the causes of the second, and to point out the remedies which the French King had, or which might have been used by another in like circumstances to maintain his conquest more successfully than he did.

I say, then, that those States which upon their acquisition are joined on to the ancient dominions of the Prince who acquires them, are either of the same Province and tongue as the people of these dominions, or they are not. When they are, there is a great ease in retaining them, especially when they have not been accustomed to live in freedom. To hold them securely it is enough to have rooted out the line of the reigning Prince; because if in other respects the old condition of things be continued, and there be no discordance in their customs, men live peaceably with one another, as we see to have been the case in Brittany, Burgundy, Gascony, and Normandy, which have so long been united to France. For although there be some slight difference in their languages, their customs are similar, and they can easily get on together. He, therefore, who acquires such a State, if he mean to keep it, must see to two things; first, that the blood of the ancient line of Princes be destroyed; second, that no change be made in respect of laws or taxes; for in this way the newly acquired State speedily becomes incorporated with the hereditary.

But when States are acquired in a country differing in language, usages, and laws, difficulties multiply, and great good fortune, as well as address, is needed to overcome them. One of the best and most efficacious methods for dealing with such a State, is for the Prince who acquires it to go and dwell there in person, since this will tend to make his tenure more secure and lasting. This course has been followed by the Turk with regard to Greece, who, had he not, in addition to all his other precautions for securing that Province, himself come to live in it, could never have kept his hold of it. For when you are on the spot, disorders are detected in their beginnings and remedies can be readily applied; but when you are at a distance, they are not heard of until they have gathered strength and the case is past cure. Moreover, the Province in which you take up your abode is not pillaged by your officers; the people are pleased to have a ready recourse to their Prince; and have all the more reason if they are well disposed, to love, if disaffected, to fear him. A foreign enemy desiring to attack that State would be cautious how he did so. In short, where the Prince resides in person, it will be extremely difficult to oust him.

Another excellent expedient is to send colonies into one or two places, so that these may become, as it were, the keys of the Province; for you must either do this, or else keep up a numerous force of men-at-arms and foot soldiers. A Prince need not spend much on colonies. He can send them out and support them at little or no charge to himself, and the only persons to whom he gives offence are those whom he deprives of their fields and houses to bestow them on the new inhabitants. Those who are thus injured form but a small part of the community, and remaining scattered and poor can never become dangerous. All others being left unmolested, are in consequence easily quieted, and at the same time are afraid to make a false move, lest they share the fate of those who have been deprived of their possessions. In few words, these colonies cost less than soldiers, are more faithful, and give less offence, while those who are offended, being, as I have said, poor and dispersed, cannot hurt. And let it here be noted that men are either to be kindly treated, or utterly crushed, since they can revenge lighter injuries, but not graver. Wherefore the injury we do to a man should be of a sort to leave no fear of reprisals.

But if instead of colonies you send troops, the cost is vastly greater, and the whole revenues of the country are spent in guarding it; so that the gain becomes a loss, and much deeper offence is given; since in shifting the quarters of your soldiers from place to place the whole country suffers hardship, which as all feel, all are made enemies; and enemies who remaining, although vanquished, in their own homes, have power to hurt. In every way, therefore, this mode of defence is as disadvantageous as that by colonizing is useful.

The Prince who establishes himself in a Province whose laws and language

Reviews for The Prince

[zoes_human · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

Historically significant but miserable to read. Doubtless it's incredibly brilliant. Unfortunately just in a way that reminds me of everything I hate about humanity.

[fdholt · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

This is the ultimate “how-to” book for anyone who wants to rule a country and stay in power for a long time. He states that good arms and good laws make for success, whether one inherits or conquers an area. His examples are drawn from antiquity as well as the Italy of his day. Niccolò Machiavelli wrote this book to get back into favor with the Medici’s who ruled vast parts of Italy at this time; however the book was not widely read until after his death.My copy includes an excellent introduction by translator Thomas Bergin, along with footnotes and a bibliography. There is also a map, necessary to those of us unfamiliar with the political divisions of the time.I had always assumed that Machiavelli was sneaky, cunning and evil (think the word “machiavellian”) but I don’t think this is really the character of the man. He may have written this to curry favor with the current rulers. That doesn’t make him a bad person.Even though The prince doesn’t have examples of a democratic republic, the book is still pertinent today in that good arms and good laws are necessary for peace. The country who does not heed this advice is in trouble! Perhaps this should be required reading for all lawmakers in the world.

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

The reasons why The Prince endures the ages while the rest of Macchiavelli's philosophy gathers dust in the back of an old library warehouse are chiefly 1) it's a really short treatise, and 2) it angries up the blood. The best way by far to get a best-seller is to write anything that pisses everyone off. The drawback is, it confounds the messages of any works that were only meant to be understood in context.

[jwhenderson_1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

I have read this several times over the last twenty years, in the Basic Program and with an independent study group. That it is still relevant and worth rereading is because it is considered by most to be the authoritative text on statesmanship and power (how to obtain it as well as an illustration of its trappings), although certainly a shrewd one. From this arises an argument: whether it is better to be loved than feared. I reply that one should like to be both one and the other; but since it is difficult to join them together, it is much safer to be feared than to be loved when one of the two must be lacking. Essentially, Machiavelli advocates letting your people have their property and women, but making sure that they know what you are capable of doing if they step out of line. His seemingly amoral approach lends a modern realistic touch to this masterpiece that shows how little humanity has changed over the centuries.

[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.

[clfisha · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

I do not often (or um ever) find myself reading political treatises but the evils of Machiavellian politics is so hyped I was intrigued.Broken down into different methods of acquiring, then keeping land, then to turning to discuss various details such the merits of fear or how to gain nobility its a short, eminently readable and fascinating account of politics of a very different time.Its not really evil, more that the morality question is just ignored. Take his wonderful advice on keeping your word: Don't (although the trick is you must always been seen to be keep it). So immoral and it cynical maybe (whether meant as a satire or not I cannot comment) but I found it hard to be offended by it, especially if viewed in a historical context and it definitely needs that context otherwise it would be a much poorer book.

[jemgirl202 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

The Prince written by Niccolo Machiavelli is a philosophical take on governement and control. He is known to be one of the founders of modern political science. Machiavelli lived in the city of Florence where he was a high placed official, however when the city was taken over, he was removed from all his positions. The major theme throughout the entire book is self preservation or self preservation of the person who has power or governmental control. He focuses on the pricipalities type of government. There are two kinds a new principality or a hereditary one. There are also to types of peoples: ones who are accustomed to living free and ones who were under rule. He talks about how hereditary principalities are the best type of take over. The Prince or family knows the people. The people are also accustomed to the laws and the family in charge. Machiavelli states his concern about when one state takes control of another. It can cause problems especially if the person is foriegn. If a foriegner takes control of a state and speaks another language, he will never be accepted as a ruler. There are 5 errors that can be made: destroy minor powers, increase the power of one who is already powerful, brought in a powerful foriegner, one does not live there themselves and do not send colonies there. If one of these errors are made failure will most likely occur. Another issue he addresses is how to rule what was a free state. There are three ways according to Machiavelli. One, is to destroy the people. Two, is to go live there is person. Three, is to allow them to live under their own laws. He also discusses Ecclesiastical rule and how they are usually secure and prosperous. They gain power through ability or fortune and are sustained by the ancient institutions of religion. They usually have no need to defend and usually allow the subjects to govern themselves. He believes that this rule is upheld by a higher cause that humans can not take away. One of the key abilities of a ruler is strength. The ruler must NOT be dependant on armies or anyone else and must learn to depend on themselves with their own strengh. If they dont have their own strength, they will fail. He goes into many more virtues of a ruler. I like this read. He backed up all his ideas with examples from history and the outcomes. However all the rules and virtues one must follow seems so impossible to follow. Some of the rules even seemed to contradict the others. Maybe that is the whole point of his arguement, it is impossible to be a perfect ruler. One will always have imperfections in their rule but one must try not to make fatal mistakes.

[rizeandshine · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Princely Rule for Dummies, this scientific analysis of a social system is actually well-suited as a leadership guide to anyone wishing to gain and hang onto an important position of power in many areas of life, including politics and business. In this book, Machiavelli discusses the themes of power, human nature, warcraft, free will, virtue and more. It was originally written specifically for Lorenzo de Medici with his future as well as the government of 16th century Italy in mind, and does not necessarily include an all-encompassing view of Machiavelli's political thinking. In fact, based on his other works, I think we can conclude that the author preferred a republic form of government. Even within The Prince, Machiavelli tells us the purpose of politics is to promote a common good. A prince must strive to be virtuous, but virtue (or admired trait) should never take precedence over the state. For example, while generosity may be admired by others, it can be detrimental to the future of the state and should therefore be avoided.I wasn't sure how to rate this book as I'm not a political science major nor out to get ahead in business. It was thought-provoking and actually quite easy to read, considering the time of its authorship as well as the subject matter. The author provides many examples of great and not-so-great leaders and their power struggles, as well, so I'd definitely recommend it for anyone studying politics or history.

[pjsullivan_1 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Does Machiavelli deserve his sinister reputation? Is he advocating evil in this book? Or only describing it? His focus is not on defending, but on acquiring and governing; that is, on imperial conquest and dominance over others. This book is about aggression. He claims that human conditions do not permit princes to be good, and he is right about that. They never will. But do human conditions compel people to become princes? In seizing a state, he says, cruelty is necessary. No doubt this is true, but is seizing a state necessary? Is it moral? Machiavelli's model prince was Cesare Borgia, a ruthless imperialist, mass murderer, and rapist. Machiavelli admired him for his power, then criticized him when he lost his power. He praises King Ferdinand of Spain for his "pious cruelty," calling it an "admirable example." Yes, Machiavelli deserves his sinister reputation. He worshipped power, believing it to be beyond good and evil. This book is a portrayal of statecraft as it is practiced in the real world, but it is also a how-to book on gaining and maintaining dominance over others. It raises interesting issues, without necessarily resolving them. It can be useful as food for thought, but don't try this at home!

[jimocracy · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

This was mediocre and boring. I was expecting great insight and all I got was my time wasted.

[justindtapp · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

I should have read this book (free for Kindle) years ago. Machiavelli's works on ancient history came up frequently in a different book I read recently, and he has been cited in several other books on my lists. Alas, I've now read this work. I find some of the oft-cited passages I hear are somewhat taken out of context.

The version I read had a brief biographical sketch of Machiavelli, which was helpful. Machiavelli is foremost a historian, so he cites examples of rulers and conflicts both from Florentine and Italian history, the current Ottoman state, Greco-Roman history, and the Bible.

He starts by looking at the failures of statecraft-- how a monarch can lose a state which he has conquered or inherited. Louis XII was one such object of failure in his aims on Italian provinces. He talks of how one holds a free Republic, you either have to destroy it or make it a tributary while encouraging development of an oligarchy there to maintain defacto control. This seems like it's played out accurately in world history.

Machiavelli's "it's better to be feared than loved" is in the context of a Prince who takes a territory who was originally not his own. There will likely be unrest, so the advice is to do some large act of cruel suppression up front to quell dissent and then do small acts of benevolence over time to keep the populace pacified. If a ruler drags out the cruelty, he will breed hatred which is the ultimate failure of a monarch. The ruler must appear to be capable of both cruelty and mercy, so that he appeals more broadly, and where possible he should have an underling be the "bad cop" enforcer. It'd be best to be both feared and loved, but you will always have to give one of those up and it's best to give up love. The great projects of history, according to Machiavelli, were done by rulers who were remembered to be mean and not kind.

It's always a bad idea to rely on foreign mercenaries for your army. Machiavelli marks the decline of Rome with the hiring of Goths to do soldiering at the cost of the Roman army. France was making the same mistake in relying on Swiss mercenaries at the time of his writing. Building fortresses are of no defense when the people hate you.

A ruler has to be "liberal" in his spending. Games and welfare for the people, benefits for the standing army. This is obviously hard to do unless you're conquering and expropriating-- otherwise you bankrupt your treasury. The Prince gains glory and reputation by accomplishing big tasks-- namely conquering territories and enriching the kingdom.

The Prince should also seem to be a man of integrity. The great rulers abandon virtue when they have to-- sometimes they have to break their word in order to protect their position or the state. This is acceptable so long as not done in such a away that the people despise him. The prince should be virtuous but also know how and when to get his hands dirty.

A Prince should have a few advisors that he listens to and that he rewards for speaking honestly and openly; he should ignore all other opinion. The Prince should always make sure his advisors and viceroys know that their positions-- their wealth, authority, and very lives-- are at the whim of the Prince so that they don't go seeking their own gain or become corrupt.

A Prince is someone who believes he has the power to shape world events, that everything isn't left to "fortune" or random chance forces of history. He yields that authority and has other men follow him.

I enjoyed this book, it's obviously a 5 star classic.

[trilliams · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Bombastic at times, though quite entertaining. Still not sure when Tupac is coming back.

[santhony_35 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

For Christmas, I ordered an mp3 player (Library of Classics) that was pre-loaded with 100 works of classic literature in an audio format. Each work is in the public domain and is read by amateurs, so the quality of the presentation is hit or miss. The Prince is a very well-known and controversial work of political theory written by 15th century Florentine Niccolo Machiavelli. The work is famous for advocating a very cynical, manipulative and violent form of governance, but I was somewhat surprised after hearing the work in its relative short entirety by its simplicity and reputation.Machiavelli essentially describes the various forms of government in existence at the time and throughout the then history, and comments on the strengths and weaknesses of each. He breaks down these forms by methods of attaining and maintaining power, using many examples at his disposal. He is particularly enamored of the leadership style of Cesare Borgia, the bastard son of Pope Alexander VI.In criticizing Machiavelli’s choice of the ideal Prince, one must consider the time and place of his existence. It would be hard to argue against the Renaissance Italian city and Papal states being among the most politically volatile and complicated landscapes to traverse in recorded history. In addition to the feudal Princes of Milan and Florence (among others), the Venetian Republic and the regions nominally under the control of the Vatican, the Kings of France and Spain also showed up frequently in force. Mercenary forces were rampant and alliances and power blocs shifted constantly. If you were not a cynical, crafty, even duplicitous ruler, you likely didn’t last long.The work is relatively short and largely simple in its classifications and analysis, making arguments and suggestions that at times seem glaringly obvious, but it must be remembered that this was written in the 15th century and as a collection of political thought and history, was unique for its time. Much of what is contained in the book holds true to this day, though current political constructs make much of Machiavelli’s writing appear politically extreme and his name has become synonymous with a repressive, reactionary, heavy handed and duplicitous style of leadership.My version of The Prince also included The Life of Castruccio Castracani of Lucca, also penned by Machiavelli, a very short biography of one of the most well-loved and successful princes of the era.

[jasonli_1 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

A charming tome on military history and the politics around being a good ruler in 16th-century Italy. Not as cut-throat as it's caricatured to be; if anything Machiavelli is simply trying to be cold and analytical about the military victories of his time.

[dandelionroots · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Am now a Machiavelli groupie. Need to read his alluded to work(s) on Republics STAT. Ah, my first historical crush."Since it is my object to write what shall be useful to whosoever understands it, it seems to me better to follow the real truth of things than an imaginary view of them. For many Republics and Princedoms have been imagined that were never seen or known to exist in reality. And the manner in which we live, and that in which we ought to live, are things so wide asunder, that he who quits the one to betake himself to the other is more likely to destroy than to save himself; since any one who would act up to a perfect standard of goodness in everything, must be ruined among so many who are not good."

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[sandydog1_1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Cold, calculating, and objectively cruel. You can't help but to think about today's political leaders.

[caffeinated_1 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

It's scary how informative this is. If you want to know what it's like to put aside your conscience and be a_real_politician, then reading this will not disappoint. It's prudent and insightful as to what was possible for a prince. (4 1/2)

[jontseng · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Extremely Machiavellian. But actually tamer than one expects.

[soylentgreen23 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Could it be that we have Machiavelli wrong? Is he really the devil? Having read his short treatise on what he suggests a newly crowned prince to do to maintain control of his territory, I admit that some of what he suggests is harsh, but I don't think he's evil. Not by a long shot.

[ragnell_1 · Rating: 1 out of 5 stars]

I'm fascinated with politics, but I can't read this edition. The font and the paragraph structure are distracting from the actual words. My eyes would not let me finish it.

[ragwaine · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

Just too dry. If you read it slow and took notes it would probably be good.