The Prince
by Niccolò Machiavelli
On This Page
Description
Il Principe ( The Prince ) is the famous text by Florentine public servant Niccolo Machiavelli, in which he outlines the best strategy by which a prince can acquire, maintain and protect his state. Published posthumously, the text departs from his previous works, but is that for which he is remembered, and which has produced the adjective "Machiavellian". Machiavelli directives for maintaining a secure state are direct and at times brutal, taking the view that the ends justify the means.Tags
Recommendations
Member Recommendations
2below Each one is fascinating in its own right but I think reading both (or reading them concurrently, as I did) provides an interesting perspective on two seemingly opposed extremes.
141
timoroso Guicciardini, a friend and colleague of Machiavelli, wrote a book of maxims sometimes profound in themselves, other times interesting to compare to Machiavelli's opinions. The subject matter for both is essentially the same: how to act in a politically and ethically thoroughly unstable world.
31
MeisterPfriem Münkler discusses and places Machiavelli in the context of the political and economic realities facing Florence in the second half of the 15th century as well as within the intellectual history of political thought from Antiquity and Medieval ages. This is an immensely thorough work. Published in 1982 it takes into consideration all important relevant literature .
22
119
Member Reviews
Given that Machiavelli's classic how-to course in duplicitous pragmatism is a re-read of something I've studied fairly recently, I was surprised how much new food for thought I gleaned from this last tête à tête with The Prince. It just goes to show how sometimes reading for pleasure can bring out a whole different set of impressions than reading for edification. When I tackled this as part of a college seminar (the same one I keep banging on about, for those keeping track at home), we viewed it primarily through the lens of Renaissance constructions of identity and the self-made man - an interesting, but narrow, focus. It certainly is a work rife with claims about self - about which groups people belong to, and in fact about how the show more world is divided into groups in the first place. Machiavelli is able to refer, for example, to "the ruin of Italy," implying that Italy can be understood as a unified concept, capable of being ruined - and yet his political analysis of current events is still dominated by the formation and breakdown of piecemeal alliances among all the individual nation-states that would not be unified into modern "Italy" until the nineteenth century. He captures a moment when the nation is just beginning to coalesce, when people are just beginning to believe that someone from Venice might have something in common with a Florentine that she didn't share with a Parisian, though all three cities were erstwhile outposts of the Roman Empire.
Likewise, Machiavelli is way ahead of his time in the proto-scientific application of "method." While the Renaissance was characterized by a huge influx previously unknown biological, lingual, human and animal specimens into Europe, botanists and entomologists were just beginning to get the idea of classifying these specimens, of grouping them by type. (For more on this fascinating process, and the difficulties in deciding which characteristics to group by, see Steven Asma's Stuffed Animals and Pickled Heads: The Culture and Evolution of Natural History Museums.) People had cabinets of wonders, but not organized, methodical collections of specimens. While Machiavelli was writing The Prince, only the very earliest so-called "methodists" were beginning to work on the problem of classification in plants and bugs. And yet, listen to Machiavelli trace the branching of possibilities, for all the world like the Linneus of practical politics:
He goes on like this: appended territories either share a language/culture with the conquerors, or they don't; ministers are either appointed, or hereditary; new principalities can be ruled by devastation, relocation, or oligarchy; and so on. One could actually draw a diagram of the bifurcating either/or choices Machiavelli gives new princes, much like a modern plant-classification guide will have you answer a series of questions (leaves or needles? opposite- or alternate-branching?) to identify a botanical specimen. All this has fascinating implications for a culture in turmoil, in which citizens sought for new ways to define themselves and each other faced with the breakdown of relatively stable Medieval ways of life.
None of this, though, addresses the real reason The Prince is famous: not for its proto-scientific methodology or nascent nationalism, but because it earned Machiavelli the reputation of not being a very nice guy. You know, because he says things like
Not too troubled by conventional morality. And the first time through I took all this at face value, but since then I've heard some interesting murmurings: it seems some scholars argue that Machiavelli intended The Prince as SATIRE. Think about it: Machiavelli himself spent almost his entire life as a devoted civil servant in the Florentine REPUBLIC. In 1512 the Medicis reconquered Florence, arrested and tortured Machiavelli, and exiled him to his country estate. He then wrote a book ostensibly dedicated to Lorenzo de Medici, all about how difficult and treacherous it is to be a prince in a principality one just conquered - especially a principality in which the citizens are accustomed to freedom. Sound familiar? This time through, then, I decided to read with an ear for satire - and doing so not only convinced me that of Machiavelli's satirical intent, but increased my enjoyment of his achievement many times over. Take, for example, this passage, which actually seems to break through the wall of satire and enter into a straight-up impassioned threat on behalf of the downtrodden Florentine republicans:
If you were Lorenzo de Medici, how would you feel reading this passage? Would you feel like the author were dispassionately encouraging you to sack and pillage Florence? Or would you read here an assurance that the republican citizens would never forget, and would rise up against their oppressor no matter what he did or said? Yeah, I'm inclined to the latter view.
One of my favorite such double-edged pieces of advice comes later in the essay, when Machiavelli is discussing how princes should cultivate an appearance of many virtues (generosity, compassion, etc.), while all the time preparing to act in the opposite way should the need arise. He says
This is such a brilliant double-bind into which Machiavelli puts Medici. Since Medici is indisputably a new prince, he must either be cultivating a false appearance of virtue (and be incapable of holding onto his territory without resorting to hypocrisy), or else he's NOT a hypocrite, in which case he's setting himself up to lose his kingdom.
Obviously, The Prince is not limited to satire: Machiavelli genuinely is fascinated by the art and science of political conquest, and the reasons one ruler is able to hold on while another is overcome. It speaks to his subtlety, and the razor-sharpness of his classifying mind, that he is able to craft simultaneously a serious political study and a scathing send-up. I thoroughly enjoyed both aspects of The Prince this time around, and am looking forward to spending some time, next, with my old friend Michel de Montaigne. show less
Likewise, Machiavelli is way ahead of his time in the proto-scientific application of "method." While the Renaissance was characterized by a huge influx previously unknown biological, lingual, human and animal specimens into Europe, botanists and entomologists were just beginning to get the idea of classifying these specimens, of grouping them by type. (For more on this fascinating process, and the difficulties in deciding which characteristics to group by, see Steven Asma's Stuffed Animals and Pickled Heads: The Culture and Evolution of Natural History Museums.) People had cabinets of wonders, but not organized, methodical collections of specimens. While Machiavelli was writing The Prince, only the very earliest so-called "methodists" were beginning to work on the problem of classification in plants and bugs. And yet, listen to Machiavelli trace the branching of possibilities, for all the world like the Linneus of practical politics:
All the states, all the dominions under whose authority men have lived in the past and live now have been and are either republics or principalities. Principalities are hereditary, with their prince's family long established as rulers, or they are new. The new are completely new, as was Milan to Francesco Sforza, or they are like limbs joined to the hereditary state of the prince who acquires them, as is the kingdom of Naples in relation to the king of Spain. Dominions so acquired are accustomed to be under a prince, or they are used to freedom; a prince wins them either with the arms of others or with his own; either by fortune or prowess.
He goes on like this: appended territories either share a language/culture with the conquerors, or they don't; ministers are either appointed, or hereditary; new principalities can be ruled by devastation, relocation, or oligarchy; and so on. One could actually draw a diagram of the bifurcating either/or choices Machiavelli gives new princes, much like a modern plant-classification guide will have you answer a series of questions (leaves or needles? opposite- or alternate-branching?) to identify a botanical specimen. All this has fascinating implications for a culture in turmoil, in which citizens sought for new ways to define themselves and each other faced with the breakdown of relatively stable Medieval ways of life.
None of this, though, addresses the real reason The Prince is famous: not for its proto-scientific methodology or nascent nationalism, but because it earned Machiavelli the reputation of not being a very nice guy. You know, because he says things like
Settlements do not cost much, and the prince can found them and maintain them at little or no personal expense. He injures only those from whom he takes land and houses to give to the new inhabitants, and these victims form a tiny minority, and can never do any harm since they remain poor and scattered. All the others are left undisturbed, and so should stay quiet and as well as this they are frightened to do wrong lest what happened to the dispossessed should happen to them.
Not too troubled by conventional morality. And the first time through I took all this at face value, but since then I've heard some interesting murmurings: it seems some scholars argue that Machiavelli intended The Prince as SATIRE. Think about it: Machiavelli himself spent almost his entire life as a devoted civil servant in the Florentine REPUBLIC. In 1512 the Medicis reconquered Florence, arrested and tortured Machiavelli, and exiled him to his country estate. He then wrote a book ostensibly dedicated to Lorenzo de Medici, all about how difficult and treacherous it is to be a prince in a principality one just conquered - especially a principality in which the citizens are accustomed to freedom. Sound familiar? This time through, then, I decided to read with an ear for satire - and doing so not only convinced me that of Machiavelli's satirical intent, but increased my enjoyment of his achievement many times over. Take, for example, this passage, which actually seems to break through the wall of satire and enter into a straight-up impassioned threat on behalf of the downtrodden Florentine republicans:
Indeed, there is no surer way of keeping possession than by devastation. Whoever becomes the master of a city accustomed to freedom, and does not destroy it, may expect to be destroyed himself; because, when there is a rebellion, such a city justifies itself by calling on the name of liberty and its ancient institutions, never forgotten despite the passing of time and the benefits received from the new ruler. Whatever the conqueror's actions or foresight, if the inhabitants are not dispersed and scattered, they will forget neither that name nor those institutions, and at the first opportunity they will at once have recourse to them, as did Pisa after having been kept in servitude for a hundred years by the Florentines.
If you were Lorenzo de Medici, how would you feel reading this passage? Would you feel like the author were dispassionately encouraging you to sack and pillage Florence? Or would you read here an assurance that the republican citizens would never forget, and would rise up against their oppressor no matter what he did or said? Yeah, I'm inclined to the latter view.
One of my favorite such double-edged pieces of advice comes later in the essay, when Machiavelli is discussing how princes should cultivate an appearance of many virtues (generosity, compassion, etc.), while all the time preparing to act in the opposite way should the need arise. He says
You must realize this: that a prince, and especially a new prince, cannot observe all those things which give men a reputation for virtue, because in order to maintain his state he is often forced to act in defiance of good faith, of charity, of kindness, of religion. And so he should have a flexible disposition, varying as fortune and circumstances dictate. [...] A certain contemporary ruler, whom it is better not to name, never preaches anything except peace and good faith; and he is an enemy of both one and the other, and if he had ever honored either of them he would have lost either his standing or his state many times over.
This is such a brilliant double-bind into which Machiavelli puts Medici. Since Medici is indisputably a new prince, he must either be cultivating a false appearance of virtue (and be incapable of holding onto his territory without resorting to hypocrisy), or else he's NOT a hypocrite, in which case he's setting himself up to lose his kingdom.
Obviously, The Prince is not limited to satire: Machiavelli genuinely is fascinated by the art and science of political conquest, and the reasons one ruler is able to hold on while another is overcome. It speaks to his subtlety, and the razor-sharpness of his classifying mind, that he is able to craft simultaneously a serious political study and a scathing send-up. I thoroughly enjoyed both aspects of The Prince this time around, and am looking forward to spending some time, next, with my old friend Michel de Montaigne. show less
Given Machiavelli's seemingly genuine Republican beliefs, The Prince is a highly ambiguous read. I tend to side with those who proffer that this is irony or a parody. To pepper a text about holding power with suggestions said in the very same tone, designed to provide openings for an authoritarian to be haplessly overthrown, makes the book richer. Especially, as it was written in the vernacular. As I stated earlier, it's fascinating and ambiguous. Glad I finally got to it.
I know how this book is often taken, but there is a degree to which the moral ambiguity of Machiavelli’s advice does manage to align with a sustainable ethic in which the people ruled by a Prince are allowed to pursue their ends. To be sure, this ethic is not always keyed to a moral categorical but insofar as the interests of citizenry and the Prince are in accord, a stable ethic can emerge. It is a political ethic, if I am using the term correctly, that is prudent and expedient and that relies on a variety of means (some virtuous and some not) to achieve its goals without disturbing social and political equilibrium.
Among those means, the most interesting one is fear. It is frequently noted in the book that a ruled populace may be show more easily persuaded to accept a form of rule but that populace is not easily fixed to a regime of rule. And trying to achieve that fixity through love is not nearly as effective or as reliable as fear. Fear creates a space of uncertainty for shady and subtle maneuvering because fear can be decentralized and still be an effective means of control. There can be fear of a person’s specific wrath but also a more ambiguous “fear of …” which includes the things one can be protected from. In desiring to be protected from those fears people may be willing to submit a governed existence that is less equal but at least seems fair in the trade off.
Today we see a constant deployment of the “fear of …” strategy of securing and holding power. Sometimes and in some places this may be a tangible fear of a person or of a particular regime of control, but sometimes fear is mobilized as fear of economic loss, fear of disadvantage, fear of losing out, or the more diffuse fear of “other,” which is easily attached to beliefs, ways of life, and whole groups of people. The distributed presence and mobilization of fear seems to be a lesson captured in this book that has strongly persisted. show less
Among those means, the most interesting one is fear. It is frequently noted in the book that a ruled populace may be show more easily persuaded to accept a form of rule but that populace is not easily fixed to a regime of rule. And trying to achieve that fixity through love is not nearly as effective or as reliable as fear. Fear creates a space of uncertainty for shady and subtle maneuvering because fear can be decentralized and still be an effective means of control. There can be fear of a person’s specific wrath but also a more ambiguous “fear of …” which includes the things one can be protected from. In desiring to be protected from those fears people may be willing to submit a governed existence that is less equal but at least seems fair in the trade off.
Today we see a constant deployment of the “fear of …” strategy of securing and holding power. Sometimes and in some places this may be a tangible fear of a person or of a particular regime of control, but sometimes fear is mobilized as fear of economic loss, fear of disadvantage, fear of losing out, or the more diffuse fear of “other,” which is easily attached to beliefs, ways of life, and whole groups of people. The distributed presence and mobilization of fear seems to be a lesson captured in this book that has strongly persisted. show less
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 show more 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.” show less
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 show more 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.” show less
I read Clausewitz’s “On War” last year. Now that I’ve absorbed Machiavelli’s “The Prince,” I should be set to launch my campaign of conquest. I’ll be distributing favors to my friends (but not too many favors or too grand), exterminating my enemies (but surgically and briefly), cultivating the favor of the populace (but not antagonizing the nobles), and stacking the College of Cardinals with my men (but not blindly assuming they’ll elect a friendly pope).
The way I’ve phrased that makes it sound quaint, but Machiavelli feels startlingly relevant. He worked hard to understand why rulers succeed or fail, rather than waving his hands in the air and saying “great man” or “divine favor” or “fate.” Because he show more sought to comprehend the psychology of ruling when you don’t have the luxury of absolute power, and to distill that psychology into brief and workable guidelines, his work remains relevant half a millennium after publication.
One reason for this is surely that Machiavelli lived in what might have been an unparalleled historical nexus. I don’t know of any comparable clash of forces as existed in the Italian boot during Machiavelli’s lifetime. Within this narrow peninsula, every conceivable form of government existed, from republics to princedoms to theocratic states to imperial possessions. The kings of Spain and France contended with each other and with the German emperor and with the Pope-of-the-Year to control bits of Italy (always with a wary eye on the Turks) in a swirl of forged and broken and reforged alliances.
This cauldron of statecraft boiled over for decades in an atmosphere of rising science and literature, and Machiavelli took full advantage of his unique position in its center to examine and document the causes of both triumph and disaster for the aspiring prince. His roadmap to victory is readable, riveting, and timeless. You’ll have leisure to repent your neglect of it in the coming Pax Nathanica. show less
The way I’ve phrased that makes it sound quaint, but Machiavelli feels startlingly relevant. He worked hard to understand why rulers succeed or fail, rather than waving his hands in the air and saying “great man” or “divine favor” or “fate.” Because he show more sought to comprehend the psychology of ruling when you don’t have the luxury of absolute power, and to distill that psychology into brief and workable guidelines, his work remains relevant half a millennium after publication.
One reason for this is surely that Machiavelli lived in what might have been an unparalleled historical nexus. I don’t know of any comparable clash of forces as existed in the Italian boot during Machiavelli’s lifetime. Within this narrow peninsula, every conceivable form of government existed, from republics to princedoms to theocratic states to imperial possessions. The kings of Spain and France contended with each other and with the German emperor and with the Pope-of-the-Year to control bits of Italy (always with a wary eye on the Turks) in a swirl of forged and broken and reforged alliances.
This cauldron of statecraft boiled over for decades in an atmosphere of rising science and literature, and Machiavelli took full advantage of his unique position in its center to examine and document the causes of both triumph and disaster for the aspiring prince. His roadmap to victory is readable, riveting, and timeless. You’ll have leisure to repent your neglect of it in the coming Pax Nathanica. show less
"A prince must have no other object or thought in mind than war, and how to make it" [for it is by war that the fortunes of the city are attained, maintained, or lost].
Machiavelli is often misapprehended as advocating amorality. In fact he's the first to have recognized and written that to secure a greater good certain evils are inevitable, and that these evils rather than obstacles can be turned to the advantage of a cunning leader. Many will read Machiavelli and conclude he is nothing but force and fraud, which is not at all the case. He sought to provide the arms and ideas needed for pacifying Italy and ending it of constant internecine strife. He failed but is still worth reading. Much of his thinking is entirely correct, notably show more his understanding of war.
"Is it better to be loved or feared?" "Men love as they please but fear as the prince wills". But the best is to be loved by one's allies, and feared by one's enemies. A great leader must know whom to inspire and whom to terrify, and when to do of those theatrical acts.
Definitely worth reading and rereading since so many misunderstand his work. show less
Machiavelli is often misapprehended as advocating amorality. In fact he's the first to have recognized and written that to secure a greater good certain evils are inevitable, and that these evils rather than obstacles can be turned to the advantage of a cunning leader. Many will read Machiavelli and conclude he is nothing but force and fraud, which is not at all the case. He sought to provide the arms and ideas needed for pacifying Italy and ending it of constant internecine strife. He failed but is still worth reading. Much of his thinking is entirely correct, notably show more his understanding of war.
"Is it better to be loved or feared?" "Men love as they please but fear as the prince wills". But the best is to be loved by one's allies, and feared by one's enemies. A great leader must know whom to inspire and whom to terrify, and when to do of those theatrical acts.
Definitely worth reading and rereading since so many misunderstand his work. show less
A fascinating piece of literature that's telling of both its time and its place but also conceivably of all times and all places as it discusses one of the most fundamental aspects of the human condition, that being of the need for leaders of the people and the need for said leaders to rely on certain precepts and truths to maintain their leadership.
What Machiavelli does is strip away the romanticism and the idealism behind those men and women who lead and gets down to the basest and most inelegant brass tacks of gaining and holding control over an empire in its nascent stages, its turbulent middle years, or even in its decline, and though this treatise predates the beginnings of realpolitik by 340 some odd years I couldn't help but show more see, at the very least, the germs and the basic genesis of those ideas being discussed here.
I've read that The Prince is similar to Dante's Divine Commedia in its use of the, at the time, vernacular Italian, not to mention its use of then contemporary Italian politicians and religious figures (the roles oftentimes bleeding into one another as was characteristic of the era and the various city states) to illustrate its various points and to give it a much more poignant sense of immediacy. But what got me most of all regarding how this work was stylized was the tone, at least in my translation, which read at times almost like a pre-unified Italy gossip rag. Don't get me wrong this oddly enough doesn't detract from the text at all. Far from it, it actually humanizes Machiavelli and grounds his points as coming from a very human mind and makes his overall discussion much more telling and insightful. Basically, Machiavelli, to me, isn't making this stuff up. He's come to some divisive but very well grounded conclusions about what leadership is versus how it's depicted. Is he always right? He himself admits that exceptions exist and that even with the lockstep of his ideas there exists the potential for flexibility, so, even when he's wrong it doesn't tear his argument(s) down.
Though I definitely wasn't knowledgeable of the lion's share of the Italian history I was never bored and Machiavelli's knowledge of several different nations histories(Italian, Roman, Greek, Persian, the list is very long) was especially gripping and handled like a real writer with not only an agenda based ax to grind but a definite flair for the theatrical. Speaking of theater, there is also an idea long discussed that The Prince is at heart a satire. Maybe I'm picking up a few loose threads here and there of the comedy but I definitely do see some funny scenes played out here. I don't think it's a satire so much as a treatise on human failings and the comedy of trying to control the uncontrollable, that no matter how hard you try, what method you use, and who you choose to emulate, you can still get screwed over...the comedy is no better exemplified then when Machiavelli compares fortune to woman that needs to be 'rode roughly' and controlled tightly. Whether intended or not, that's just damn funny.
All in all it's a great read and definitely worth the little time to get through it. It's not only an incredible historical piece but the points laid down are, if not applicable depending on your mindset and where you stand on the idealism vs. cynicism scale, incredible samples of food for thought and debate. show less
What Machiavelli does is strip away the romanticism and the idealism behind those men and women who lead and gets down to the basest and most inelegant brass tacks of gaining and holding control over an empire in its nascent stages, its turbulent middle years, or even in its decline, and though this treatise predates the beginnings of realpolitik by 340 some odd years I couldn't help but show more see, at the very least, the germs and the basic genesis of those ideas being discussed here.
I've read that The Prince is similar to Dante's Divine Commedia in its use of the, at the time, vernacular Italian, not to mention its use of then contemporary Italian politicians and religious figures (the roles oftentimes bleeding into one another as was characteristic of the era and the various city states) to illustrate its various points and to give it a much more poignant sense of immediacy. But what got me most of all regarding how this work was stylized was the tone, at least in my translation, which read at times almost like a pre-unified Italy gossip rag. Don't get me wrong this oddly enough doesn't detract from the text at all. Far from it, it actually humanizes Machiavelli and grounds his points as coming from a very human mind and makes his overall discussion much more telling and insightful. Basically, Machiavelli, to me, isn't making this stuff up. He's come to some divisive but very well grounded conclusions about what leadership is versus how it's depicted. Is he always right? He himself admits that exceptions exist and that even with the lockstep of his ideas there exists the potential for flexibility, so, even when he's wrong it doesn't tear his argument(s) down.
Though I definitely wasn't knowledgeable of the lion's share of the Italian history I was never bored and Machiavelli's knowledge of several different nations histories(Italian, Roman, Greek, Persian, the list is very long) was especially gripping and handled like a real writer with not only an agenda based ax to grind but a definite flair for the theatrical. Speaking of theater, there is also an idea long discussed that The Prince is at heart a satire. Maybe I'm picking up a few loose threads here and there of the comedy but I definitely do see some funny scenes played out here. I don't think it's a satire so much as a treatise on human failings and the comedy of trying to control the uncontrollable, that no matter how hard you try, what method you use, and who you choose to emulate, you can still get screwed over...the comedy is no better exemplified then when Machiavelli compares fortune to woman that needs to be 'rode roughly' and controlled tightly. Whether intended or not, that's just damn funny.
All in all it's a great read and definitely worth the little time to get through it. It's not only an incredible historical piece but the points laid down are, if not applicable depending on your mindset and where you stand on the idealism vs. cynicism scale, incredible samples of food for thought and debate. show less
Members
- Recently Added By
Published Reviews
ThingScore 75
Machiavelli voor crisismanagers is een bespreking van zijn boek De Heerser, Il Principe. Daar is al zoveel door anderen over geschreven, dat ik mij voornamelijk beperk tot het beschrijven van tien lessen voor crisismanagers. Op basis van citaten die mij opvielen. Dat het er tien zijn is trouwens toeval.
added by Rizoomes
Kad je reč o umešnosti vladanja, ovo nezaobilazno delo bilo je i ostalo neprevaziđeno. Postalo je pojam!
Delo nastalo na velikom raskršću istorije, kada se odlučno odbacuje srednjovekovno metafizičko učenje i usvajaju empirički metodi razmišljanja, predstavlja ujedno fascinantno svedočanstvo razlaza između mita i realnosti, između vere i sumnje. Ovaj biser renesansne političke show more misli karakteriše realistično posmatranje političkih događaja i visoke moralne pobude koje su inspirisale autora. Vladalac je samo prividno apoteoza tiranina i kodeks pravila za ubijanje, čitav traktat o vladaocu svodi se na to da se u Italiji pronađe čovek koji će je ujediniti. Život i delo ovog poznatog firentinca obeležavaju kao teoretičara o osnivanju i održavanju država. show less
Delo nastalo na velikom raskršću istorije, kada se odlučno odbacuje srednjovekovno metafizičko učenje i usvajaju empirički metodi razmišljanja, predstavlja ujedno fascinantno svedočanstvo razlaza između mita i realnosti, između vere i sumnje. Ovaj biser renesansne političke show more misli karakteriše realistično posmatranje političkih događaja i visoke moralne pobude koje su inspirisale autora. Vladalac je samo prividno apoteoza tiranina i kodeks pravila za ubijanje, čitav traktat o vladaocu svodi se na to da se u Italiji pronađe čovek koji će je ujediniti. Život i delo ovog poznatog firentinca obeležavaju kao teoretičara o osnivanju i održavanju država. show less
added by Sensei-CRS
Lists
100 Books to Read in a Lifetime (That Are Older Than 200 Years)
415 works; 175 members
Books that changed the world
67 works; 63 members
The Telegraph's 110 Best Books: The Perfect Library
101 works; 18 members
Newsweek's Top 100 Books: The Meta-List
100 works; 18 members
Non-Fiction Worth Reading
1,015 works; 255 members
The Road to Freedom (Will Durant's 100 Best Books for an Education)
100 works; 8 members
Books That Changed Me
157 works; 47 members
Unread books
1,063 works; 84 members
Ten books that most shaped your view of history
91 works; 12 members
Harold Bloom - The Western Canon: B. The Aristocratic Age
231 works; 13 members
The Well-Educated Mind Reading Challenge
75 works; 7 members
Ancap Part 6 - Refutations
17 works; 1 member
Donald J. Trump Favorites
31 works; 1 member
GreatBooks Worldview Academy Lists
133 works; 4 members
Trinity College Booklist (1951): Class Two, Social and Psychological Scienc
60 works; 3 members
Well-Educated Mind
150 works; 3 members
Política - Clásicos
164 works; 2 members
Renacimiento
24 works; 1 member
Books set in Firenze (Florence, Italy)
35 works; 1 member
Shaykh Hamza's Book Recommendations
439 works; 3 members
Europe
205 works; 6 members
Books I Want to Read
36 works; 1 member
Reading LIst
648 works; 1 member
My List
302 works; 1 member
The Art of Manliness' 100+ Books Every Man Should Read
108 works; 2 members
How to Read a Book's Recommended Reading List
309 works; 10 members
bound
100 works; 1 member
Greatest Books, allegedly
484 works; 9 members
In Our Time books
4,934 works; 2 members
Mustich's 1000 Books to Read Before You Die: A Life Changing List
1,001 works; 19 members
Philosophy, Politics and Economics
61 works; 1 member
Robert B. Downs's Books that Changed the World
16 works; 1 member
BitLife
212 works; 4 members
New Lifetime Reading Plan by Fadiman and Major
225 works; 5 members
School Made Us Read It
380 works; 196 members
.
396 works; 1 member
el
1,139 works; 1 member
Works Cited in The Life and Death of Democracy by John Keane
278 works; 1 member
Philosophy, Politics, and Ethics from Oxford World Classics
11 works; 1 member
Ryan Holiday's Books To Base Your Life On
97 works; 2 members
Works cited in The New Science of the Enchanted Universe by Marshall Sahlin
141 works; 1 member
The Well-Educated Mind, Susan Wise Bauer, 2016
179 works; 3 members
Recommended Reading : 600 Classics Reviewed, Editors of Salem Press, 2015
634 works; 6 members
Books Read in 2024
4,623 works; 126 members
Favorite Books in Translation
320 works; 133 members
Italian Literature
556 works; 41 members
100 books that changed the world
31 works; 2 members
Rory Gilmore Book Club
193 works; 5 members
Banned or Challenged Books
400 works; 39 members
Books Set in Italy
167 works; 19 members
Great Books Favorites
71 works; 6 members
Best Library Reads of 2013
114 works; 1 member
Find
10 works; 1 member
1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die
1,448 works; 1,131 members
Generation Joshua
115 works; 3 members
CCE 100 Great Books List
145 works; 8 members
100 World Classics
99 works; 15 members
Read
293 works; 4 members
Blue Pyramid 1,276 Best Books of All Time
1,248 works; 32 members
Western World's Greatest Books - Project Gutenberg
295 works; 15 members
Books Featured on Readers' Review of the Diane Rehm Show
161 works; 8 members
A Reading List
100 works; 3 members
100 Most Recommended Works
100 works; 11 members
Daria Morgendorffer's Bookshelf
70 works; 5 members
Books Read in 2018
4,360 works; 110 members
10 Books that Screwed Up the World (And 5 Others that Didn't Help)
15 works; 1 member
KIB Non-Fiction Book Cloud
41 works; 1 member
Out of Copyright
244 works; 14 members
1964 College Preparatory Reading List
202 works; 8 members
Folio Society
831 works; 53 members
Best Political Fiction
92 works; 12 members
Overdue Podcast
805 works; 9 members
Books Read in 2005
174 works; 7 members
Books in the Bibliography of The Cold War by John Lewis Gaddis
192 works; 1 member
Talk Discussions
Past Discussions
Folio Archives 378: The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli 2006 in Folio Society Devotees (June 2024)
Author Information
449+ Works 42,949 Members
Niccolo Machiavelli was born on May 3, 1469 in Florence, Italy. He was a political philosopher, statesman, and court advisor. Starting out as a clerk, he quickly rose in the ranks because he understood balance of power issues involved in many of his diplomatic missions. His political pursuits quickly ended after he was imprisoned by the Medici show more family. He is best known for The Prince, his guide to power attainment and cutthroat leadership. He also wrote poetry and plays, including a comedy named Mandragola. He died on June 21, 1527 at the age of 58. (Bowker Author Biography) show less
Some Editions
Awards and Honors
Notable Lists
The 20 Most Popular Books Throughout History (09: 1532)
Series
Belongs to Publisher Series
Helikon Zsebkönyvek (4.)
Perpetua reeks (2)
Strenna [UTET] (1961)
Obras Inmortales (44)
Hackett Classics (1513)
Textos filosòfics (11)
Newton Compton Live (25)
The World's Classics (43)
Oriento-Okcidento (42)
Airmont Classics (56)
Perrin, Tempus (506)
Medallion Penguin Classics (L107)
Centopaginemillelire (246)
Everyman's Library (280)
Penguin Classics (L107)
Reclams Universal-Bibliothek (1218)
Work Relationships
Is contained in
Greatest Works of Niccolò Machiavelli: The Prince, The Art of War, Discourses on the First Decade of Titus Livius & History of Florence by Niccolò Machiavelli (indirect)
Il Principe - La Mandragola - Discorsi sopra la prima deca di Tito Livio by Niccolò Machiavelli (indirect)
The Prince - Special Edition with Machiavelli's Description of the Methods of Murder Adopted by Duke Valentino & the Lif by Niccolò Machiavelli
Has the adaptation
Is abridged in
Is replied to in
Has as a study
Has as a student's study guide
Common Knowledge
- Canonical title
- The Prince
- Original title
- Il Principe
- Alternate titles*
- De Principatibus
- Original publication date
- 1532
- People/Characters
- Niccolò Machiavelli; Lorenzo de' Medici; Cesare Borgia; Amerigo Vespucci; Hannibal
- Important places
- Florence, Tuscany, Italy
- Important events
- Italian Renaissance; Renaissance; 16th century
- Dedication
- Niccolo Machiavelli to Lorenzo the Magnificent, Son of Piero di Medici
- First words
- All the states, all the dominions under whose authority men have lived in the past and live now have been and are either republics or principalities.
It is customary for those who wish to gain the favour of a prince to endeavour to do so by offering him gifts of those things which they hold most precious, or in which they know him to take especial delight. - Last words
- (Click to show. Warning: May contain spoilers.)Valour against fell wrath Will take up arms; and be the combat quickly sped! For, sure, the ancient worth, That in Italians stirs the heart, is not yet dead.
- Original language
- Italian
- Canonical DDC/MDS
- 320.1
- Disambiguation notice
- This is the main work for The Prince. It should not be combined with any abridgement, adaptation, study guide, etc.
*Some information comes from Common Knowledge in other languages. Click "Edit" for more information.
Classifications
Statistics
- Members
- 27,859
- Popularity
- 139
- Reviews
- 304
- Rating
- (3.72)
- Languages
- 36 — Albanian, Arabic, Catalan, Chinese, Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, Esperanto, Estonian, Finnish, French, German, Galician, Greek, Hebrew, Hindi, Hungarian, Italian, Kazakh, Latin, Latvian, Lithuanian, Norwegian (Bokmål), Farsi/Persian, Polish, Romanian, Russian, Serbian, Croatian, Spanish, Swahili, Swedish, Tamil, Turkish, Portuguese (Portugal)
- Media
- Paper, Audiobook, Ebook
- ISBNs
- 1,180
- UPCs
- 3
- ASINs
- 390