Everand Logo

Welcome to Everand!

  • Discover millions of ebooks, audiobooks, and so much more with a free trial

    Only $11.99/month after trial. Cancel anytime.

    The Prince: The Original Classic
    The Prince: The Original Classic
    The Prince: The Original Classic
    Ebook175 pages3 hours

    The Prince: The Original Classic

    By Niccolò Machiavelli and Tom Butler-Bowdon

    3.5/5

    ()

    Read preview

    About this ebook

    THE HANDBOOK FOR LEADERS

    The Prince is often regarded as the first true leadership book. It shocked contemporary readers with its ruthless call for fearless and effective action. With simple prose and straightforward logic Machiavelli's guide still has the power to surprise and inform anyone hoping to make their way in the world.

    This keepsake edition includes an introduction by Tom Butler-Bowdon, drawing out lessons for managers and business leaders, and showing how The Prince remains vital reading for anyone in the realm of business or politics.

    LanguageEnglish
    PublisherWiley
    Release dateSep 14, 2010
    ISBN9780857080974
    The Prince: The Original Classic
    Author

    Niccolò Machiavelli

    Niccolò Machiavelli was born on 3 May 1469 in Florence during the city-state's peak of greatness under the Medici family. In 1494, the year the Medici were exiled, Machiavelli entered Florentine public service. In 1498 he was appointed Chancellor and Secretary to the Second Chancery. Serving as a diplomat for the republic, Machiavelli was an emissary to some of the most distinguished people of the age. When the Medici were returned to Florence in 1512, Machiavelli was forced into retirement. In the years that followed he devoted himself to literature, producing not only his most famous work, The Prince, but also the Discourses on the First Decade of Titus Livius (First Decade here means First Ten Books), his Art of War and The History of Florence. In 1527 the Medici were once again expelled from Florence, but before Machiavelli was able once again to secure political office in the city he died on 22 June 1527.

    Read more from Niccolò Machiavelli

    Related authors

    Related to The Prince

    Related ebooks

    Politics For You

    View More
    View More

    Related podcast episodes

    Related articles

    • Article

      The 40 Greatest Books To Read Before You Die

      Apr 25, 2021

      Books, books, books. They will increase your lifespan, lower your stress and boost your intelligence. They will give you fuller, thicker hair. Whatever the breathless claims about reading, one thing is certain: losing yourself in a great novel is one

      14 min read

    • Article

      Niccolò Machiavelli

      Feb 28, 2020

      Hailed as the father of modern politics, Niccolò Machiavelli has long been synonymous with everything bad about the political sphere. His name, turned adjective as ‘Machiavellian’, conjures up images of a cunning, sly and manipulative figure, hell-be

      5 min read

    • Article

      The Ethics Of Political Power

      Jul 30, 2018

      The Ethics Of Political Power
      3 min read

    • Article

      'The Family Medici' Vividly And Clearly Tells The Story Of One Clan's Merciless Self-aggrandizement

      Mar 28, 2018

      The Medici men and women portrayed by Mary Hollingsworth are generous art patrons, but always with the end goal of burnishing their own reputations and making Florence their sole possession.

      3 min read

    • Article

      Building A New World On The Ruins Of The Old

      Jan 26, 2023

      IN 1698 WHITEHALL PALACE CAUGHT fire. The vast warren of buildings, which had been central to the monarchy since the 1530s, was destroyed. When the area was eventually rebuilt, it was not kings and queens who returned but prime ministers and their go

      4 min read

    • Article

      Pulsating Panorama Of A Complex Decade

      Apr 1, 2022

      SOMETHING VERY EXCITING is happening in the world of Civil War and Cromwellian studies. At long last the mid-seventeenth century is getting a measure of the public attention it deserves. Recently, readers have enjoyed Paul Lay’s Providence Lost (2020

      4 min read

    • Article

      Catherine Fletcher

      Dec 31, 2020

      Catherine Fletcher
      4 min read

    • Article

      Catholic Hysteria

      Apr 25, 2019

      Catholic Hysteria
      8 min read

    • Article

      The Man Who Saved The Firm

      Apr 29, 2021

      AMID ALL THE JUSTIFIED TRIBUTES paid to the Duke of Edinburgh after his death on 9 April there seemed little or no recognition of one crucial point about him. It was accepted that, once he had found his feet as consort, he brought much influence and

      4 min read

    • Article

      Betrayal Of The Knights Templar

      Jan 31, 2024

      Betrayal Of The Knights Templar
      11 min read

    • Article

      Bombastic Lecture On The Evil Empire

      May 26, 2022

      IN 2008, CAROLINE ELKINS did a great service for students of empire. Together with several other eminent historians, she served as an “expert witness” in the four-year high court trial, brought against the British government by five elderly Kenyans o

      5 min read

    • Article

      Machiavelli And The Medici

      Jun 17, 2021

      Machiavelli And The Medici
      1 min read

    • Article

      Letters

      May 12, 2022

      I feel that the article concerning Napoleon (April) was unfair to its subject. While his later career frequently saw his original ideals undermined by the reality of power, he was from the first a believer in the revolution, as his letters and genera

      3 min read

    • Article

      The Queen Of The World

      Sep 8, 2022

      The Queen Of The World
      14 min read

    • Article

      Running The Rule Over Ages Of Empire

      Nov 24, 2022

      NO HAGIOGRAPHY OF EMPIRE is offered by Dominic Lieven, but the level of wisdom offered about the vital human aspects of imperial rulership make this a quietly devastating rebuttal of some of the cruder anti-imperialist critiques of our superficially

      5 min read

    • Article

      When in Romania…

      Oct 28, 2021

      Children of the Night: The Strange and Epic Story of Modern Romania Paul Kenyon (Head of Zeus, £25) Jessica Douglas-Home is an author and founder of the Mihai Eminescu Trust, which helps preserve the heritage of Saxon Transylvania ALTHOUGH ROMANIANS

      4 min read

    • Article

      'The Pope Who Would Be King' Details The Birth Of The Modern Papacy

      Apr 17, 2018

      Pope Francis, the current supreme pontiff of the Catholic Church, wields two different kinds of authority, one vast and one minuscule. The vast one is obvious: The Pope is seen as the heir to St. Peter, the spiritual leader of the world's more than 1

      3 min read

    • Article

      2022 Books Of The Year

      Nov 24, 2022

      2022 Books Of The Year
      14 min read

    • Article

      Letters

      Dec 21, 2023

      The painting selected to illustrate William Shakespeare in the December issue (En- counters) is captioned: “A c1610 painting of William Shakespeare, kept in the Cobbe Collection, is thought to be the only portrait of the English playwright to have be

      4 min read

    • Article

      Welcome

      Nov 7, 2019

      Welcome
      1 min read

    • Article

      The End Of Empire

      Mar 11, 2023

      The End Of Empire
      2 min read

    Related categories

    Reviews for The Prince

    3.5/5

    21 ratings73 reviews

    What did you think?

    Tap to rate

    Review must be at least 10 words

    • 3/5
      Interesting
    • 4/5
      While I understand that his take is controversial, I have to tell you, it makes sense. It's not nice, but it is practical.
    • 5/5
      Fascinating historical perspective.
    • 3/5
      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
    • 5/5
      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.
    • 2/5
      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.
    • 4/5
      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.
    • 3/5
      You’ve witnessed it too, or something similar: Your city’s NFL team has a 13-point lead at home with six minutes to go, plus 1st down and possession—should be a sure win, right?—but then they turn over victory to the opponent, losing the game in regulation.It’s stuff like this that Machiavelli just hated. Except that, with Renaissance Italy bedeviled by an absence of NFL teams even the passage of five centuries hasn’t repaired, his annoyance was with princes whose misadventures cause them to blow it when trying to keep power.Machiavelli’s advice? Be prepared to flout fairness. That competitors and coaches should overreach the rules makes sense. It’s impossible to be penalized for an infraction each time. And once the game is over, no NFL victory is ever overturned, no defeat nullified, no team put on probation. So why would a Head Coach repudiate advices given in The Prince? Well, he might repudiate them if he doesn’t mind increasing the risk of losing his head (isn’t that what happens when the head coach is axed?). Otherwise . . .Going beyond the morality of winning at games, there is a fundamental question: Is it virtuous to speak the truth and keep promises? Machiavelli teaches, the editor of my edition advises, that the real or true standard is that no one should keep a promise when by doing so he would diminish his own power and when the conditions which occasioned the promise are gone.That’s troubling. But also brilliant at unveiling much of what is disappointing in political action and discourse to idealistic or more hopeful people. Word is such persons may find a less alienating brand of political thought in Niccoló’s The Discourses.Note on Translation: The Editor of the edition I read, Angelo M. Codevilla, stresses that he made his translation more literal than is the custom to better illustrate how Machiavelli uses language to subvert commonplace ideas about virtue. This seems a good objective but the translation is no easy text—I would not want to read one that’s even a little bit less welcoming.
    • 2/5
      Just too dry. If you read it slow and took notes it would probably be good.
    • 3/5
      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.
    • 3/5
      Extremely Machiavellian. But actually tamer than one expects.
    • 1/5
      I can see how it had a huge influence in humanistic politics--it lends itself to realpolitik.
    • 5/5
      It's easy to be a cynic about this book, but there is some very good psychological advice here. Such as, after a victory, make friends with your enemies, and you'll be able to trust them more than your allies, who now that you have won, will be looking to take advantage of you or overthrow you. Your enemies, on the other hand, will be grateful for your mercy.
    • 5/5
      It would be absurd to "review" the most important book on politics ever written. Go read it if you haven't already. It is very funny too.
    • 5/5
      Everyone relates this book as explaining how to be an unethical (possibly immoral) self-centered person to attain success by back-stabbing and the like. It gives tips on how to play people against one another, etc.I must say that honestly it is really just common sense stuff. Obviously these are all undesirable traits to find in someone, and in fact I avoid people who live their lives with any resemblance to the methods in the book, but none of this is new. Basically it is all just politics as usual. Watch a group of how teenage girls interact with one another, ostracize a friend for a while, steal each other's boyfriends, etc. You'll learn everything you need to know about The Prince.
    • 4/5
      Bombastic at times, though quite entertaining. Still not sure when Tupac is coming back.
    • 3/5
      A classic, but a difficult read. I love the idea that Machiavelli's world is really no different to modern times.
    • 4/5
      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.
    • 3/5
      I *think* this book is wicked, and I *hope* that all who choose to read it choose to see its wickedness.And I do *not* feel guilty for saying a book is Bad when I believe that its ideas would be harmful if employed against human beings. There is nothing heroic about being immoral, no matter what Shrewd Policies say so, or what Glorious Nation says so. Also, comparing Machiavelli to Baldassare Castiglione, as is often done, seems to me to be quite mad. Would it not be better to compare him with Hitler or Stalin or Mussolini or Nero or *any other Caesar*? Were not all these men Princes with a Capital P? I mean, if I were rating him based on how well he does as a propaganda writer for an imaginary dictatorship, I'd have said that he's done rather well with *all that*. But being a propaganda writer for an imaginary dictatorship is worthless, and being a real propaganda writer for a real dictorship is worse than worthless, is it not?But, oh, wait, I forgot, since it's written in a good style in some foreign original, and since its ideas would have helped the Florentine elite out-flank the Papacy and the French several eternities ago, we must surely make ourselves forget what fair flowers are trampled down into the earth by this kind of thinking. Although I'll say that I personally found it to be basically boring (especially the random-Renaissance history-of-backstabbing stuff that I found difficult to care about) and sometimes stupid (the citizens of a conquered republic will want to get their lost freedom back, but if you go to live in the same city as them, your semi-divine presence will magically make them lose their desire for freedom), stupid even from his own point of view. (If you do this, nothing good will happen for you, but if you only do this, nothing but good things will happen. It's like he's one of those guys trying to sell you a watch--like he's going to open up his coat and it'll be full of watches, and he'll say, 'Wanna buy a watch? A watch like one of these will make you powerful and strong, so that nothing bad will happen to you.' He's like a tinker or a knacker who thinks he's the Grand Doge of Doge-land.) It's also so abstract that it can't be anything other than theory (somehow I think it would have to be different to be social or political science), and yet it is so mucked up in details and precedents and examples that it's hardly good as theory, either. Not to mention the fact that he never even explains what you'd want a prince for, or what good a prince is meant to aim at. If "every art...seems to aim at some good" and all arts have some purpose (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, first sentence) what is the purpose of the prince's art, and what good does he aim at? Machiavelli almost doesn't have an answer, and he doesn't even bother to address the question, except for the nationalist agitprop bit at the end, which I hope no-one mistakes for philosophy. Also, the odd forays into military matters are to me little more than tokens that this man did not really know what sort of book he wanted to write, or what purpose he was trying to accomplish. A dilettante, if I may use the Italian word. Although I suppose that even a dilettante, armed with delusions of gradeur and with guns in his hands, might be dangerous and harmful enough, but I certainly do not see what good might ever have come from this. Furthermore, some people seem to think that Machiavelli was good to be amoral (read that phrase again) because he 'liberated' politics from religion and morality and so on. My only reply is that no-one can compel you to read Aristotle's 'Nicomachean Ethics' before you read his 'Politics', or force you to read Epictetus before trying to get through John Locke--and yet anyone who seriously thinks that politics has no connection at all, whatsoever, with ethics, needs their head examined for holes, or dents. Or, better yet, such people should be encouraged to read a few books about the Nazis or something. 'Be generous with other people's money,' says Machiavelli. 'Well, yeah, that's what the Jews are for,' says Hitler. 'And that's what the unwashed barbarians are for,' says Caesar. (See how I paired a modern and an ancient example, just like old Nicc-y. I guess that makes it all okay, somehow.) And as for his famous dictum that, concerning fear and love, that is it best to be both feared and loved, but, that if one must choose, it is safer to be feared than loved--well, if I point out that both Hitler and Stalin, and every other Caesar and proponent of Caesarism, would agree with this statement--having said that, does it make anyone who did not already so believe understand the necessity of subordinating politics to ethics in philosophy, and, indeed, in real life? I was also amused, and yet somehow, also unsurprised, to see the brave, good, "unarmed prophet" Machiavelli, so describe the "great feats" of Ferdinand of Aragon, in a chapter called "Of What A Prince Should Do To Acquire Prestige", that the reader, unless he or she were previously informed of the matter, would walk away without the slightest impression that there was a certain girl named Isabella in the mighty monarch's life, a woman who, my sources tell me, may have been of some slight importance in the history of Spain, and the killing of Jews and Muslims and other such acts of "pious cruelty" which brought the noble Ferdinand "much honor". He also goes through the next chapter, "Of The Advisers Of Princes" without once correcting his mistake. I can only wonder how many students of ethics would accept the phrase "pious cruelty" as being valid. But perhaps I might venture an informed guess...It is certain, however, and good to mention, that it is a blessing that we live in a free society, where we are free to read this non-sense if we choose to. In any real tyranny, I suppose that this sort of thing would surely be swiftly suppressed. ~eh, but we were just trying to have fun. THEN READ A NOVEL!!(5/10)
    • 5/5
      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.
    • 5/5
      Thought rereading this might shed some light on the Trump presidency until I realized that there is a crucial difference between realpolitik and realityTVpolitiking.
    • 4/5
      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
    • 3/5
      Zeer geromantiseerde inleidingIntussen overbekende politieke theorie (efficiëntie gaat voor op ethiek). Moeilijke lectuur
    • 5/5
      A Great Book!
    • 4/5
      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!
    • 3/5
      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.
    • 5/5
      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.
    • 4/5
      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.”
    • 4/5
      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.
    • 5/5
      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.

    Book preview

    The Prince - Niccolò Machiavelli

    001

    Table of Contents

    Title Page

    Copyright Page

    Introduction

    MACHIAVELLI’S WORLD

    THE ORIGINALITY OF THE PRINCE

    JUSTIFYING FORCE

    OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE

    MACHIAVELLI’S SUCCESS LAWS

    MACHIAVELLI’S FINAL, POWERFUL MESSAGE

    SOURCES

    THE EFFECTIVE LEADER

    Other works by Machiavelli

    Timeline

    ABOUT TOM BUTLER-BOWDON

    THE PRINCE

    DEDICATION: TO THE MAGNIFICENT LORENZO DI PIERO DE’ MEDICI

    I - OF THE VARIOUS KINDS OF PRINCEDOM, AND OF THE WAYS IN WHICH THEY ARE ACQUIRED

    II - OF HEREDITARY PRINCEDOMS

    III - OF MIXED PRINCEDOMS

    IV - WHY THE KINGDOM OF DARIUS, CONQUERED BY ALEXANDER, DID NOT, ON ALEXANDER’S ...

    V - HOW CITIES OR PROVINCES WHICH BEFORE THEIR ACQUISITION HAVE LIVED UNDER ...

    VI - OF NEW PRINCEDOMS WHICH A PRINCE ACQUIRES WITH HIS OWN ARMS AND BY MERIT

    VII - OF NEW PRINCEDOMS ACQUIRED BY THE AID OF OTHERS AND BY GOOD FORTUNE

    VIII - OF THOSE WHO BY THEIR CRIMES COME TO BE PRINCES

    IX - OF THE CIVIL PRINCEDOM

    X - HOW THE STRENGTH OF ALL PRINCEDOMS SHOULD BE MEASURED

    XI - OF ECCLESIASTICAL PRINCEDOMS

    XII - HOW MANY DIFFERENT KINDS OF SOLDIERS THERE ARE, AND OF MERCENARIES

    XIII - OF AUXILIARY, MIXED, AND NATIONAL ARMS

    XIV - OF THE DUTY OF A PRINCE IN RESPECT OF MILITARY AFFAIRS

    XV - OF THE QUALITIES IN RESPECT OF WHICH MEN, AND MOST OF ALL PRINCES, ARE ...

    XVI - OF LIBERALITY AND MISERLINESS

    XVII - OF CRUELTY AND CLEMENCY, AND WHETHER IT IS BETTER TO BE LOVED OR FEARED

    XVIII - HOW PRINCES SHOULD KEEP FAITH

    XIX - THAT A PRINCE SHOULD SEEK TO ESCAPE CONTEMPT AND HATRED

    XX - WHETHER FORTRESSES, AND CERTAIN OTHER EXPEDIENTS TO WHICH PRINCES OFTEN ...

    XXI - HOW A PRINCE SHOULD BEAR HIMSELF SO AS TO ACQUIRE REPUTATION

    XXII - OF THE SECRETARIES OF PRINCES

    XXIII - THAT FLATTERERS SHOULD BE SHUNNED

    XXIV - WHY THE PRINCES OF ITALY HAVE LOST THEIR STATES

    XXV - WHAT FORTUNE CAN EFFECT IN HUMAN AFFAIRS, AND HOW SHE MAY BE WITHSTOOD

    XXVI - AN EXHORTATION TO LIBERATE ITALY FROM THE BARBARIANS

    001

    This edition first published 2010

    Introduction copyright © Tom Butler-Bowdon, 2010

    The material for The Prince is based on the complete 1910 edition of The Prince, by Niccolò Machiavelli, translated by Ninian Hill Thomson, published by P. F. Collier & Son Company, New York, and is now in the public domain. This edition is not sponsored or endorsed by, or otherwise affiliated with Ninian Hill Thomson, his family or heirs.

    Registered office

    Capstone Publishing Ltd. (A Wiley Company), The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, United Kingdom

    For details of our global editorial offices, for customer services and for information about how to apply for permission to reuse the copyright material in this book please see our website at www.wiley.com.

    All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, without the prior permission of the publisher.

    Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print may not be available in electronic books.

    Designations used by companies to distinguish their products are often claimed as trademarks. All brand names and product names used in this book are trade names, service marks, trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners. The publisher is not associated with any product or vendor mentioned in this book. This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is sold on the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. If professional advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought.

    Library of Congress Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

    9780857080783

    A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

    Set in 11/15pt, NewBaskerville-Roman by Thomson Digital, India

    , Padstow

    AN INTRODUCTION

    BY TOM BUTLER-BOWDON

    Machiavelli’s The Prince has the reputation for being ‘bad’. It is said to have been bedtime reading for Napoleon, Hitler and Stalin, and Shakespeare used the term ‘Machiavel’ to mean a schemer who was happy to sacrifice people for evil aims. Relentlessly attacked by religious figures, it was put on the Catholic Church’s index of prohibited books, and was equally reviled by Protestant reformers.

    Yet, in contrast to centuries of popular maligning of Machiavelli, recent research has focused on his ethics and the fact that he was a genuine moral philosopher and well-rounded Renaissance man whose overriding wish was to be useful. Indeed, as Yale’s Erica Benner suggests, The Prince is best seen not as a guide on how to be ruthless or self-serving, but rather as a lens to see objectively the prevailing views of the day, and to open the eyes of the reader as to the motives of others. With this knowledge, the new leader can act in an effective way, making sure their essentially noble goals are kept in sight.

    The Prince continues to fascinate, shock, repel and inspire the person of today as much as it did the reader of the 16th century. Although written as a kind of showcase of its author’s knowledge of statecraft in order to gain employment, and very much concerned with the events of his day, the book’s timeless insights into the nature of power and human motivation have transcended its original setting.

    MACHIAVELLI’S WORLD

    To fully appreciate the work we need to get a sense of the times in which its author lived.

    Niccolò Machiavelli was born in the city-state of Florence in 1469. Of a respectable family, his father was a lawyer who provided him with a good education in rhetoric, grammar and Latin. Yet this branch of the Machiavelli family was never wealthy, and while still in his teens Niccolò began working for the Florentine state.

    At this time Florence was ruled by Lorenzo de’ Medici, the great Renaissance patron of arts who had made Florence the leading state in Italy. But the city’s humanist outlook and wealth brought with it a perception of moral decline, most notably from the outspoken Dominican friar, Girolamo Savonarola. His urging of the creation of a ‘Christian commonwealth’, of which God was sovereign, proved popular, and following the expulsion of the Medici a republic with a fair amount of democratic representation was instituted. Though Savonarola was executed four years later at the instigation of Pope Alexander VI, who saw him as a threat to the church’s power, the republic itself continued. Machiavelli’s working life spanning 14 years thus began under the powerful but autocratic Medici dynasty and continued in a republic.

    At 29, Machiavelli was made Secretary of the Second Chancery of the Republic, and Secretary of the Ten of Liberty and Peace, a foreign affairs and military committee. He was now one of the top civil servants of the republic, a confidant of Pier Soderini, its administrative head, and was constantly deploying and refining his significant rhetorical skills in the preparation of speeches and briefings. He was sent on many diplomatic missions, and able to observe first-hand the most powerful figures of his day including Louis XII, King of France, Emperor Maximilian I and Pope Julius II. He was also part of legations to neighbouring Italian states, which at that time included the Duchy of Milan, the Venetian republic, the Kingdom of Naples and the Papal States.

    Though Machiavelli relished this interesting work, it revealed to him the limits to Florence’s power and the vulnerability of the Italian states in general. Given this, it is then easy to understand his admiration for Cesare Borgia, the Duke Valentino, who through his military prowess created a new power base in the Romagna region of eastern Italy. Machiavelli spent three or four months at his court, and so gained an estimation of him as the paragon of a ‘new Prince’; that is, one who does not inherit a state but creates or takes one. He devotes considerable space in The Prince to Borgia. For Machiavelli, it did not matter that Borgia had a reputation for cruelty and brute force. Rather, the qualities he displayed were just what Italy needed if it was ever to become anything more than a collection of smallish states run by corrupt families, or propped up and controlled by foreign powers.

    When however, in 1512, the Medicis were restored to power in Florence with the help of Pope Julius II, Machiavelli’s career came to a sudden end. He was relieved of all his duties and forbidden to leave Florentine territory, but worse was to come. The following year he was accused of plotting against the new regime and thrown into prison where he was tortured. But he made no confession of guilt and was released in a few weeks. Without a source of income, he retreated to the family farm in Percussina, just south of Florence. There, working outdoors during the day and retiring to his study at night, he read histories and biographies of the great figures of classical Rome and Athens, and wrote. This study of history, combined with his deep experience in state affairs, he believed could result in a valuable contribution to political philosophy, and it was here that he finished composing Il Principe, or The Prince.

    For his remaining years he was a man of letters, writing a history of Florence, ironically commissioned by the Medici, and other works including his Art of War, the only historical or political work to be published while he was still alive. He died in 1527.

    THE ORIGINALITY OF THE PRINCE

    In the 14th-16th centuries there developed a whole genre of guidebooks for princes, known as specula principlis (‘mirror-for-princes’). These were generally composed for young men about to inherit kingdoms. A notable example, Erasmus’ The Education of a Christian Prince, published only a couple of years after Machiavelli had finished The Prince, exhorted rulers to act as if they were saints, arguing that successful rule naturally corresponds with the goodness of the ruler. Centuries before, Augustine provided a template against which every society and ruler would be judged through the Middle Ages. Written just after the collapse of the Roman Empire, Augustine’s The City of God provided a stark contrast to the flawed political structures of man, proposing that the fulfilment of human beings lay in turning inward to God.

    When we appreciate the hold that such idealizations had over the medieval imagination it is possible to understand the shock that The Prince had created. For not only did Machiavelli not believe that, given human nature, a truly ‘good’ ruler or perfect state could exist, but in fact he viewed the incursion of religious ideals into politics as damaging to the effectiveness of states. While a believing Christian himself, who saw the value of religion in creating a cohesive society, he felt that the direct involvement of the Church in state affairs ultimately corrupted both state and Church. There was no better example of this than the Papal or ecclesiastical states, actual bounded lands within Italy which in Machiavelli’s time during the reign of Pope Alexander VI became a very earthly, powerful force which could make big states like France tremble. Alexander himself had several mistresses and sired many illegitimate children, grew personally very rich through his conquests, and relentlessly advanced his son Cesare Borgia’s military campaigns through the sale of indulgences (Church dispensations of sin offered at a price). The Pope’s corrupt activities fomented a backlash that would eventually come in the form of the Protestant Reformation.

    Machiavelli devotes a chapter to these states in The Prince, but he weighs his words carefully, noting with some sarcasm that since they are set up and supported by God himself . . . he would be a rash and presumptuous man who should venture to discuss them. But he does

    Enjoying the preview?
    Page 1 of 1