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

Only $11.99/month after trial. Cancel anytime.

The Prince
The Prince
The Prince
Ebook126 pages2 hours

The Prince

Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

3.5/5

()

Read preview

About this ebook

It was Niccolò Machiavelli who essentially removed ethics from government. He did it with this book, when he asserted that The Prince (president, dictator, prime minister, etc.) does not have to be concerned with ethics, as long as their motivation is to protect the state. It is this questionable belief that in many ways had lead to the modern world as we know it. His assertion was that the head of state must protect the state no matter the cost and no matter what rules he or she breaks in the process. If you want to understand modern politics you must read this book.
LanguageEnglish
Release dateAug 15, 2013
ISBN9781617208461
Author

Niccolò Machiavelli

Niccolo Machiavelli was an Italian politician, diplomat, founding father of political science, and author of the preeminent political treatise, The Prince. Born in Florence, Italy, Machiavelli held many government posts over his lifetime and often took leading roles in important diplomatic missions. During his time visiting other countries and nation states, Machiavelli was exposed to the politics of figures like Ceasare Borgia and King Louis XII, experiences which would inform his writings on state-building and politics. Machiavelli’s political career came to an abrupt end when the Medici overthrew Florence, and he was held as a prisoner under the new regime. Tortured for a short time, he was released without admitting to any crime or treason. At this point, Machiavelli retired and turned to intellectual and philosophical pursuits, producing his two major works, The Prince and Discourses on the First Ten Books of Titus Livy. He died in 1527 at the age of 58.

Read more from Niccolò Machiavelli

Related to The Prince

Related ebooks

History & Theory For You

View More

Related articles

Reviews for The Prince

Rating: 3.7154290328104995 out of 5 stars
3.5/5

3,124 ratings72 reviews

What did you think?

Tap to rate

Review must be at least 10 words

  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    Interesting
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    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.
  • Rating: 1 out of 5 stars
    1/5
    I'm fascinated with politics, but I can't read this edition. The font and the paragraph structure are distracting from the actual words. My eyes would not let me finish it.
  • Rating: 2 out of 5 stars
    2/5
    Just too dry. If you read it slow and took notes it would probably be good.
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    This is a classic and available in many translations. The one pictured above isn’t the one that I have, but it is probably close enough. Avoid ones with lots of commentary and dreck added. Read the true Nick and think for yourself. I first read this while in college, but for pleasure (don’t go there). Then I reread it for a history course several years later. I think that I got more out of it the second time around making it one of those fairly rare books with true reread potential. There is probably more here than I got out of it, but it isn’t my main period and there are other fish to fry...Even though Machiavelli was never a military commander, his grasp of the essentials of political strategy and it’s sometimes necessary extension, military force is excellent. This book is not for the whifty, politically correct whiners in the crowd, however. One must place this treatise in the context in which it was written, Machiavelli wrote this after being kicked out of office by Lorenzo de’ Medic in 1512. The Italy of his time was a collection of small city states at nearly constant war.The following quote sums things up quite nicely:"It must be understood, that a prince ... cannot observe all of those virtues for which men are reputed good, because it is often necessary to act against mercy, against faith, against humanity, against frankness, against religion, in order to preserve the state."
  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    Does Machiavelli deserve his sinister reputation? Is he advocating evil in this book? Or only describing it? His focus is not on defending, but on acquiring and governing; that is, on imperial conquest and dominance over others. This book is about aggression. He claims that human conditions do not permit princes to be good, and he is right about that. They never will. But do human conditions compel people to become princes? In seizing a state, he says, cruelty is necessary. No doubt this is true, but is seizing a state necessary? Is it moral? Machiavelli's model prince was Cesare Borgia, a ruthless imperialist, mass murderer, and rapist. Machiavelli admired him for his power, then criticized him when he lost his power. He praises King Ferdinand of Spain for his "pious cruelty," calling it an "admirable example." Yes, Machiavelli deserves his sinister reputation. He worshipped power, believing it to be beyond good and evil. This book is a portrayal of statecraft as it is practiced in the real world, but it is also a how-to book on gaining and maintaining dominance over others. It raises interesting issues, without necessarily resolving them. It can be useful as food for thought, but don't try this at home!
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    I do not often (or um ever) find myself reading political treatises but the evils of Machiavellian politics is so hyped I was intrigued.Broken down into different methods of acquiring, then keeping land, then to turning to discuss various details such the merits of fear or how to gain nobility its a short, eminently readable and fascinating account of politics of a very different time.Its not really evil, more that the morality question is just ignored. Take his wonderful advice on keeping your word: Don't (although the trick is you must always been seen to be keep it). So immoral and it cynical maybe (whether meant as a satire or not I cannot comment) but I found it hard to be offended by it, especially if viewed in a historical context and it definitely needs that context otherwise it would be a much poorer book.
  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    The Prince written by Niccolo Machiavelli is a philosophical take on governement and control. He is known to be one of the founders of modern political science. Machiavelli lived in the city of Florence where he was a high placed official, however when the city was taken over, he was removed from all his positions. The major theme throughout the entire book is self preservation or self preservation of the person who has power or governmental control. He focuses on the pricipalities type of government. There are two kinds a new principality or a hereditary one. There are also to types of peoples: ones who are accustomed to living free and ones who were under rule. He talks about how hereditary principalities are the best type of take over. The Prince or family knows the people. The people are also accustomed to the laws and the family in charge. Machiavelli states his concern about when one state takes control of another. It can cause problems especially if the person is foriegn. If a foriegner takes control of a state and speaks another language, he will never be accepted as a ruler. There are 5 errors that can be made: destroy minor powers, increase the power of one who is already powerful, brought in a powerful foriegner, one does not live there themselves and do not send colonies there. If one of these errors are made failure will most likely occur. Another issue he addresses is how to rule what was a free state. There are three ways according to Machiavelli. One, is to destroy the people. Two, is to go live there is person. Three, is to allow them to live under their own laws. He also discusses Ecclesiastical rule and how they are usually secure and prosperous. They gain power through ability or fortune and are sustained by the ancient institutions of religion. They usually have no need to defend and usually allow the subjects to govern themselves. He believes that this rule is upheld by a higher cause that humans can not take away. One of the key abilities of a ruler is strength. The ruler must NOT be dependant on armies or anyone else and must learn to depend on themselves with their own strengh. If they dont have their own strength, they will fail. He goes into many more virtues of a ruler. I like this read. He backed up all his ideas with examples from history and the outcomes. However all the rules and virtues one must follow seems so impossible to follow. Some of the rules even seemed to contradict the others. Maybe that is the whole point of his arguement, it is impossible to be a perfect ruler. One will always have imperfections in their rule but one must try not to make fatal mistakes.
  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    Princely Rule for Dummies, this scientific analysis of a social system is actually well-suited as a leadership guide to anyone wishing to gain and hang onto an important position of power in many areas of life, including politics and business. In this book, Machiavelli discusses the themes of power, human nature, warcraft, free will, virtue and more. It was originally written specifically for Lorenzo de Medici with his future as well as the government of 16th century Italy in mind, and does not necessarily include an all-encompassing view of Machiavelli's political thinking. In fact, based on his other works, I think we can conclude that the author preferred a republic form of government. Even within The Prince, Machiavelli tells us the purpose of politics is to promote a common good. A prince must strive to be virtuous, but virtue (or admired trait) should never take precedence over the state. For example, while generosity may be admired by others, it can be detrimental to the future of the state and should therefore be avoided.I wasn't sure how to rate this book as I'm not a political science major nor out to get ahead in business. It was thought-provoking and actually quite easy to read, considering the time of its authorship as well as the subject matter. The author provides many examples of great and not-so-great leaders and their power struggles, as well, so I'd definitely recommend it for anyone studying politics or history.
  • Rating: 2 out of 5 stars
    2/5
    Used for classes and evil essays.
  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    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.
  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    This is an interesting book on Political Philosophy, I think it falls under Realism.
    Machiavelli doesn't want to systematize but simply shares from his experience.
    As I kept reading the book, I had to reflect a lot of the ideas and try to draw conclusions from this world. I think, most of what he says stands True.

    I learnt about power distribution in a political system.
    Machiavelli says if it is concentrated with just one person (King), and people under him are servants, then if the King is toppled, it is easier to maintain the Kingdom in the long run. This reminds me of North Korea, I do not see a long future for it anyway.

    Meanwhile, if there are nobles, barons who share some influence then it will be difficult to maintain if toppled. I was thinking of China, which I used to think has a good political system.
    They do not waste time in election et cetera, however, the disadvantage in Chinese political system is that, if a new political party takes over, they will maintain the whole population under control. Meanwhile, it is difficult in America because the power is distributed differently. I can see how the Founders of America were cautious and knew all systems inside out.

    I was surprised to find that Machiavelli supports people who believe in God for defense (Army) are better. He goes on to say that it is easier to train them as they will be Loyal to you.
    The people who depend only on money will desert you. He says ministries who only think of them are fickle minded, this reminds me of political system of Tamil Nadu. I wonder how long the Government can run? Based on Machiavelli's writings, not long.

    He also talks about weakness of mercenaries, which, I think was one of the causes of downfall –– Roman and Ottoman Empire.
    The Ottoman Empire's Janissaries started to decline in power due to lack of training, corruption.

    The Roman empire started to bring mercenaries from Germanic tribes. There's always a tension between common people and nobles. Machiavelli says, common people are more important and the Prince ought to give them first priority.

    "As the observance of religious rites is the foundation of a republic's greatness, so disrespect for them is the source of its ruin."

    "Where a fear of God is lacking, the state must either fail or be sustained by a fear of the ruler which may substitute for the lack of religion."


  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    Although The Prince is Machiavelli's best-known work, his Discourses on the First Ten Books of Titus Livius is a more comprehensive treatment of the same subjects.
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    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.
  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    The introduction to Italy at the beginning of the book is almost worth more than the book itself. However it is a decent read and one that can happily be chalked off the "must read that one day" list without feeling one has completed a chore.The core of the book is somewhat repetitive in that the advice given seems to boil down to a relatively few nuggets, but in some ways that was maybe his point, that no matter the situation the best course of action doesn't vary all that much.The biggest surprise to me was how much Italy was a real concept even when the city states and provinces were the methods of governance, I guess I'd always thought it was only when the state was brought together that it really existed, but it was obviously in people minds and, indeed, Machiavelli's dreams.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    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.
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    I highlighted this book like crazy. It's not necessarily that I agree with what he says in practice, but rather that the principles which he enumerates can be redefined and reused in a modern context, replacing "the prince" with "the people." I could write a long, lengthy treatise on the matter. I will say though that move of it is taken up in examples which are rather tedious in the process of reading itself.
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    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.
  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    A classic, but a difficult read. I love the idea that Machiavelli's world is really no different to modern times.
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    Some things never change, and so it is with The Prince by Machiavelli. Completely deplete of any moral concerns, this short book is the complete "how-to" manual in governing the masses through manipulation, cruelty and random acts of beneficence. A must read for anyone interested in the realms of politics. Scary stuff.
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    As has been true the past 500 years, any would-be power monger's bedside table unadorned with a copy of this slim treatise is shamefully naked. This is an excellent translation by Peter Constantine, filled with helpful footnotes and capped by a solid bibliography.
  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    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)
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    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.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    In this day when the US is concerned with using mercernaries versus militia, occupying other countries, and still trying to hang on to democracy, this short book with examples from his own time and place make this a good current read.
  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    Looking to make a rise to power? Interested in the many ways to maintain a small province? Planning on conquering a neighboring city and winning the hearts of the people?The Prince is for you.By that introduction I did not mean to underplay the significance of The Prince. I found that much of what Machiavelli said on the maintaining power in provinces after war to be very relevant, an impressive accomplishment seeing as how this book dates to the 1500s. Most notably the guideline about which people are easily conquered, and the ease in which that group can be maintained falling into two distinct categories; Do they speak the same language and do they follow the same religion? While reading this book I considered America's venture into the Middle East, and was quite astonished to see the similarities. This book is practically a guide on political strategy and the acquisition of power.If I knew how to add half a star to my review I would. :D
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    Some authors make the bestseller lists; some win Nobel prizes; only a precious few are eternalized in the language itself. Machiavelli earned his place in our consciousness and our vocabulary with a single work, “The Prince”, at once a shocking, rivetting, thought-provoking and ultimately unforgettable portrayal of power politics in the Renaissance that remains as fresh and relevant now as it was in the early 16th century. Machiavelli wrote from internal exile after losing his government position with the dissolution of the Florentine republic and the return to power of the Medicis. Having survived imprisonment and torture, he was allowed to retire to his farm where he grappled with the sudden change in his fortunes and took refuge in a study of the lessons he had learned while in government. The result was “The Prince”, essentially a master plan for attaining and holding power. Most infamous for Machiavelli’s refusal to bow to either sentiment or idealism, the handbook for the mega-ambitious stresses the essentially practical reality of power and warns that "it is often necessary to act against mercy, against faith, against humanity, against frankness, against religion, in order to preserve the state."
  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    The reasons why The Prince endures the ages while the rest of Macchiavelli's philosophy gathers dust in the back of an old library warehouse are chiefly 1) it's a really short treatise, and 2) it angries up the blood. The best way by far to get a best-seller is to write anything that pisses everyone off. The drawback is, it confounds the messages of any works that were only meant to be understood in context.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    Am now a Machiavelli groupie. Need to read his alluded to work(s) on Republics STAT. Ah, my first historical crush."Since it is my object to write what shall be useful to whosoever understands it, it seems to me better to follow the real truth of things than an imaginary view of them. For many Republics and Princedoms have been imagined that were never seen or known to exist in reality. And the manner in which we live, and that in which we ought to live, are things so wide asunder, that he who quits the one to betake himself to the other is more likely to destroy than to save himself; since any one who would act up to a perfect standard of goodness in everything, must be ruined among so many who are not good."
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    A charming tome on military history and the politics around being a good ruler in 16th-century Italy. Not as cut-throat as it's caricatured to be; if anything Machiavelli is simply trying to be cold and analytical about the military victories of his time.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    For Christmas, I ordered an mp3 player (Library of Classics) that was pre-loaded with 100 works of classic literature in an audio format. Each work is in the public domain and is read by amateurs, so the quality of the presentation is hit or miss. The Prince is a very well-known and controversial work of political theory written by 15th century Florentine Niccolo Machiavelli. The work is famous for advocating a very cynical, manipulative and violent form of governance, but I was somewhat surprised after hearing the work in its relative short entirety by its simplicity and reputation.Machiavelli essentially describes the various forms of government in existence at the time and throughout the then history, and comments on the strengths and weaknesses of each. He breaks down these forms by methods of attaining and maintaining power, using many examples at his disposal. He is particularly enamored of the leadership style of Cesare Borgia, the bastard son of Pope Alexander VI.In criticizing Machiavelli’s choice of the ideal Prince, one must consider the time and place of his existence. It would be hard to argue against the Renaissance Italian city and Papal states being among the most politically volatile and complicated landscapes to traverse in recorded history. In addition to the feudal Princes of Milan and Florence (among others), the Venetian Republic and the regions nominally under the control of the Vatican, the Kings of France and Spain also showed up frequently in force. Mercenary forces were rampant and alliances and power blocs shifted constantly. If you were not a cynical, crafty, even duplicitous ruler, you likely didn’t last long.The work is relatively short and largely simple in its classifications and analysis, making arguments and suggestions that at times seem glaringly obvious, but it must be remembered that this was written in the 15th century and as a collection of political thought and history, was unique for its time. Much of what is contained in the book holds true to this day, though current political constructs make much of Machiavelli’s writing appear politically extreme and his name has become synonymous with a repressive, reactionary, heavy handed and duplicitous style of leadership.My version of The Prince also included The Life of Castruccio Castracani of Lucca, also penned by Machiavelli, a very short biography of one of the most well-loved and successful princes of the era.

Book preview

The Prince - Niccolò Machiavelli

Chapter I: How many sorts of Principalities there are, and how many wayes they are attained to.

All States, all Dominions that have had, or now have rule over men, have been and are, either Republiques or Principalities. Principalities are either hereditary, whereof they of the blood of the Lord thereof have long time been Princes; or else they are new; and those that are new, are either all new, as was the Dutchy of Millan to Francis Sforce; or are as members adjoyned to the hereditary State of the Prince that gains it; as the Kingdom of Naples is to the King of Spain. These Dominions so gotten, are accustomed either to live under a Prince, or to enjoy their liberty; and are made conquest of, either with others forces, or ones own, either by fortune, or by valor.

Chapter II: Of Hereditary Principalities.

I will not here discourse of Republiques, because I have other where treated of them at large: I will apply my self only to a Principality, and proceed, while I weave this web, by arguing thereupon, how these Principallities can be governed and maintained. I say then that in States of inheritance, and accustomed to the blood of their Princes, there are far fewer difficulties to keep them, than in the new: for it suffices only not to transgress the course his Ancestors took, and so afterward to temporise with those accidents that can happen; that if such a Prince be but of ordinary industry, he shall allwaies be able to maintain himself in his State, unless by some extraordinary or excessive power he be deprived thereof; and when he had lost it, upon the least sinister chance that befalls the usurper, he recovers it again. We have in Italy the Duke of Ferrara for example hereof, who was of ability to resist the Venetians, in the year 84, and to withstand Pope Julius in the tenth for no other reason, than because he had of old continued in that rule; for the natural Prince hath fewer occasions, and less heed to give offence, whereupon of necessity he must be more beloved; and unless it be that some extravagant vices of his bring him into hatred, it is agreeable to reason, that naturally he should be well beloved by his own subjects: and in the antiquity and continuation of the Dominion, the remembrances and occasions of innovations are quite extinguished: for evermore one change leaves a kind of breach or dent, to fasten the building of another.

Chapter III: Of mixt Principalities.

But the difficulties consist in the new Principality; and first, if it be not all new, but as a member, so that it may be termed altogether as mixt; and the variations thereof proceed in the first place from a natural difficulty, which we commonly finde in all new Principalities; for men do willingly change their Lord, beleeving to better their condition; and this beliefe causes them to take armes against him that rules over them, whereby they deceive themselves, because they find after by experience, they have made it worse: which depends upon another natural and ordinary necessity, forcing him alwaies to offend those, whose Prince he newly becomes, as well by his soldiers he is put to entertain upon them as by many other injuries, which a new conquest draws along with it; in such manner as thou findest all those thine enemies, whom thou hast endammaged in the seizing of that Principality, and afterwards canst not keep them thy friends that have seated thee in it, for not being able to satisfie them according to their expectations, nor put in practice strong remedies against them, being obliged to them. For however one be very well provided with strong armies, yet hath he alwaies need of the favor of the inhabitants in the Countrey, to enter thereinto. For these reasons, Lewis the twelfth, King of France, suddenly took Milan, and as soon lost it; and the first time Lodwick his own forces served well enough to wrest it out of his hands; for those people that had opened him the gates, finding themselves deceived of their opinion, and of that future good which they had promised themselves, could not endure the distastes the new Prince gave them. True it is, that Countreys that have rebelled again the second time, being recovered, are harder lost; for their Lord, taking occasion from their rebellion, is less respective of persons, but cares only to secure himself, by punishing the delinquents, to clear all suspicions, and to provide for himself where he thinks he is weakest: so that if to make France lose Milan the first time, it was enough for Duke Lodwick to make some small stir only upon the confines; yet afterwards, before they could make him lose it the second time, they had need of the whole world together against him, and that all his armies should be wasted and driven out of Italy; which proceeded from the forenamed causes: however though both the first and second time it was taken from him. The generall causes of the first we have treated of; it remains now that we see those of the second; and set down the remedies that he had, or any one else can have that should chance to be in those termes he was, whereby he might be able to maintain himself better in his conquest than the King of France did. I say therefore, that these States which by Conquest are annexed to the ancient states of their conqueror, are either of the same province and the same language, or otherwise; and when they are, it is very easy to hold them, especially when they are not used to live free; and to enjoy them securely, it is enough to have extinguished the Princes line who ruled over them: For in other matters, allowing them their ancient conditions, and there being not much difference of manners betwixt them, men ordinarily live quiet enough; as we have seen that Burgundy did, Britany, Gascony, and Normandy, which so long time continued with France: for however there be some difference of language between them, yet can they easily comport one with another; and whosoever makes the conquest of them, meaning to hold them, must have two regards; the first, that the race of their former Prince be quite extinguished; the other, that he change nothing, neither in their lawes nor taxes, so that in a very short time they become one entire body with their ancient Principality. But when any States are gaind in a Province disagreeing in language, manners, and orders, here are the difficulties, and here is there need of good fortune, and great industry to maintain them; and it would be one of the best and livelyest remedies, for the Conqueror to goe in person and dwell there; this would make the possession hereof more secure and durable; as the Turk hath done in Greece, who among all the other courses taken by him for to hold that State, had he not gone thither himself in person to dwell, it had never been possible for him to have kept it: for abiding there, he sees the disorders growing in their beginnings, and forthwith can remedy them; whereas being not there present, they are heard of when they are grown to some height, and then is there no help for them. Moreover, the Province is not pillaged by the officers thou sendest thither: the subjects are much satisfied of having recourse to the Prince near at hand, whereupon have they more reason to love him, if they mean to be good; and intending to do otherwise, to fear him: and forrein Princes will be well aware how they invade that State; insomuch, that making his abode there, he can very hardly lose it. Another remedy, which is also a better, is to send Colonies into one or two places, which may be as it were the keys of that State; for it is necessary either to do this, or to maintain there many horse and foot. In these colonies the Prince makes no great expence, and either without his charge, or at a very small rate, he may both send and maintain them; and gives offence only to them from whom he takes their fields and houses, to bestow them on those new inhabitants who are but a very small part of that State; and those that he offends, remaining dispersed and poore, can never hurt him: and all the rest on one part, have no offence given them, and therefore a small matter keeps them in quiet: on the other side, they are wary not to erre, for fear it befalls not them, as it did those that were dispoild. I conclude then, that those colonies that are not chargeable, are the more trusty, give the less offence; and they that are offended, being but poor and scattered, can do but little harme, as I have said; for it is to be noted, that men must either be dallyed and flattered withall, or else be quite crusht; for they revenge themselves of small dammages; but of great ones they are not able; so that when wrong is done to any man, it ought so to be done, that it need fear no return of revenge again. But in lieu of Colonies, by maintaining soldiers there, the expence is great; for the whole revenues of that State are to be spent in the keeping of it; so the conquest proves but a loss to him that hath got it, and endammages him rather; for it hurts that whole State to remove the army from place to place, of which annoyance every one hath a feeling, and so becomes enemie to thee; as they are enemies, I wis, who are outraged by thee in their own houses, whensoever they are able to do thee mischief. Every way then is this guard unprofitable. Besides, he that is in a different Province, (as it is said) should make himself Head and defender of his less powerfull neighbors, and devise alwaies to weaken those that are more mighty therein, and take care that upon no chance there enter not any foreiner as mighty as himself; for it will alwaies come to pass, that they shall be brought in by those that are discontented, either upon ambition, or fear; as the Etolians brought the Romans into Greece; and they were brought into every countrey they came, by the Natives; and

Enjoying the preview?
Page 1 of 1