What do you think?
Rate this book
Machiavelli The Prince
Story of Italian Political figure Niccolo Machiavelli who was once identified as Satan,his turbulent times, lofty ideals, and leadership
Paperback
Published January 1, 1963
4 people are currently reading
13 people want to read
About the author
George Bull
79 books3 followersBull was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature in 1981 and a Vice-President of the British-Italian Society in 1994.
He was awarded an OBE in 1990. George Bull was made Knight Commander of the Order of St Gregory in 1999, and was awarded the order of the Sacred Treasure, Gold rays with Neck Ribbon (Japan) in 1999.
Librarian Note: There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name.
He was awarded an OBE in 1990. George Bull was made Knight Commander of the Order of St Gregory in 1999, and was awarded the order of the Sacred Treasure, Gold rays with Neck Ribbon (Japan) in 1999.
Librarian Note: There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
August 21, 2025
It was all going so well until the bit about fortune being a woman. Nonetheless, some great tips for improving my civ game
October 5, 2024
A BOOK THAT HAS INFLUENCED PEOPLE AS DIVERSE AS HENRY VIII AND TUPAC SHAKUR
Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli (1469-1527) was an Italian historian, politician, diplomat, philosopher, humanist, and writer based in Florence during the Renaissance. He was for many years an official in the Florentine Republic, with responsibilities in diplomatic and military affairs. He also wrote Discourses.
He wrote this book to "Lorenzo the Magnificent, Son of Piero Di Medici," hoping that he would be invited back to public service. (Machiavelli had been accused of conspiracy against the Medici family, and was exiled after being imprisoned and even tortured for three weeks.) In his introduction, he commends his "knowledge of the deeds of great men which I have acquired through a long experience of modern events and a constant study of the past... it is necessary to be a prince to know thoroughly the nature of the people, and one of the populace to know the nature of princes."
He suggests, "one ought never to allow a disorder to take place in order to avoid war, for war is not thereby avoided, but only deferred to your disadvantage." (Pg. 42) Of a duke who allowed the appointment of Julius II as Pope, he advises, "he ought never to have permitted any of those cardinals to be raised to the papacy whom he had injured, or who when pope would stand in fear of him. For men commit injuries either through fear or through hate... whoever thinks that in high personages new benefits cause old offenses to be forgotten, makes a great mistake." (Pg. 58)
He observes, "it would be well to be considered liberal; nevertheless liberality such as the world understands it will injure you, because if used virtuously and in the proper way, it will not be known... But one who wishes to obtain the reputation of liberality among men, must not omit every kind of sumptuous display, and to such an extent that a prince of this character will consume by such means all his resources... There is nothing which destroys itself so much as liberality, for by using it you lose the power of using it, and become either poor and despicable, or, to escape poverty, rapacious and hated... It is, therefore, wiser to have the name of a miser, which produces its disgrace without hatred, than to incur of necessity the name of being rapacious, which produces both disgrace and hatred." (Pg. 86, 88)
He famously says, "From this arises the question whether it is better to be loved more than feared, or feared more than love. The reply is, that one ought to be both feared and loved, but as it is difficult for the two to go together, it is much safer to be feared than loved, if one of the two has to be wanting." (Pg. 89-90) He goes on, "a prudent ruler ought not to keep faith when by doing so it would be against his interest, and when the reasons which made him bind himself no longer exist. If men were all good, this precept would not be a good one; but as they are bad, and would not observe their faith with you, so you are not bound to keep faith with them." (Pg. 92-93)
He notes, "The choice of a prince's minister is a matter of no little importance... The first impression that one gets of a ruler and of his brains is from seeing that men that he has about him. When they are competent and faithful one can always consider him wise, as he has been able to recognize their ability and keep them faithful. But when they are the reverse, one can always form an unfavorable opinion of him, because the first mistake that he makes is in making this choice." (Pg. 114)
He also points out, "there is no other way of guarding one's self against flattery than by letting men understand that they will not offend you by speaking the truth; but when every one can tell you the truth, you lose their respect. A prudent prince must therefore take a third course, by choosing for his council wise men, and giving these alone full liberty to speak the truth to him, but only of those things that he asks and of nothing else... Beyond these he should listen to no one, go about the matter deliberately, and be determined in his decisions." (Pg. 116)
This classic book (written when Machiavelli was desperately applying for a JOB, so to speak) does not represent Machiavelli's actual political philosophy; see his Discourses, for his own ideas.
Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli (1469-1527) was an Italian historian, politician, diplomat, philosopher, humanist, and writer based in Florence during the Renaissance. He was for many years an official in the Florentine Republic, with responsibilities in diplomatic and military affairs. He also wrote Discourses.
He wrote this book to "Lorenzo the Magnificent, Son of Piero Di Medici," hoping that he would be invited back to public service. (Machiavelli had been accused of conspiracy against the Medici family, and was exiled after being imprisoned and even tortured for three weeks.) In his introduction, he commends his "knowledge of the deeds of great men which I have acquired through a long experience of modern events and a constant study of the past... it is necessary to be a prince to know thoroughly the nature of the people, and one of the populace to know the nature of princes."
He suggests, "one ought never to allow a disorder to take place in order to avoid war, for war is not thereby avoided, but only deferred to your disadvantage." (Pg. 42) Of a duke who allowed the appointment of Julius II as Pope, he advises, "he ought never to have permitted any of those cardinals to be raised to the papacy whom he had injured, or who when pope would stand in fear of him. For men commit injuries either through fear or through hate... whoever thinks that in high personages new benefits cause old offenses to be forgotten, makes a great mistake." (Pg. 58)
He observes, "it would be well to be considered liberal; nevertheless liberality such as the world understands it will injure you, because if used virtuously and in the proper way, it will not be known... But one who wishes to obtain the reputation of liberality among men, must not omit every kind of sumptuous display, and to such an extent that a prince of this character will consume by such means all his resources... There is nothing which destroys itself so much as liberality, for by using it you lose the power of using it, and become either poor and despicable, or, to escape poverty, rapacious and hated... It is, therefore, wiser to have the name of a miser, which produces its disgrace without hatred, than to incur of necessity the name of being rapacious, which produces both disgrace and hatred." (Pg. 86, 88)
He famously says, "From this arises the question whether it is better to be loved more than feared, or feared more than love. The reply is, that one ought to be both feared and loved, but as it is difficult for the two to go together, it is much safer to be feared than loved, if one of the two has to be wanting." (Pg. 89-90) He goes on, "a prudent ruler ought not to keep faith when by doing so it would be against his interest, and when the reasons which made him bind himself no longer exist. If men were all good, this precept would not be a good one; but as they are bad, and would not observe their faith with you, so you are not bound to keep faith with them." (Pg. 92-93)
He notes, "The choice of a prince's minister is a matter of no little importance... The first impression that one gets of a ruler and of his brains is from seeing that men that he has about him. When they are competent and faithful one can always consider him wise, as he has been able to recognize their ability and keep them faithful. But when they are the reverse, one can always form an unfavorable opinion of him, because the first mistake that he makes is in making this choice." (Pg. 114)
He also points out, "there is no other way of guarding one's self against flattery than by letting men understand that they will not offend you by speaking the truth; but when every one can tell you the truth, you lose their respect. A prudent prince must therefore take a third course, by choosing for his council wise men, and giving these alone full liberty to speak the truth to him, but only of those things that he asks and of nothing else... Beyond these he should listen to no one, go about the matter deliberately, and be determined in his decisions." (Pg. 116)
This classic book (written when Machiavelli was desperately applying for a JOB, so to speak) does not represent Machiavelli's actual political philosophy; see his Discourses, for his own ideas.
July 21, 2025
0€10 Kilomet Anderlecht
*Tekst is opgebouwd als een reeks van beslissingsbomen: als dit, doe dan dat. Maar als zus, doe dan zo. Het deed me denken aan de Summa Theologica waar on de sententiae op gelijkaardige wijze conclusies worden getrokken. Het is de methode die overeenkomsten vertoont, denk ik.
*Machiavelli heeft wel een heel negatief beeld van de "common man" die altijd voor zijn eigen hachje zal kiezen en wier keuzes nooit op grond van deugd gemaakt worden maar alleen uit eigenbelang.
*Ik werd getroffen in hoofdstuk VI (New principalities acquired by one's own arms) door de verwijzing naar Mozes (die het heilig land veroverde; behalve dat het niet Mozes was maar Jozué) als "armed prophet" die slaagde in tegenstelling tot unarmed prophets die niet zullen slagen. Zou het in Machiavelli's hoofd zijn opgekomen dat Jezus, als de nieuwe Mozes (Bergrede!) een "unarmed prophet" was? Zou Machiavelli gedacht hebben aan Mattheus 20:17-28 (cfr Mc10:42) waarin Jezus de manier waarop de machtigen der aarden met ijzeren vuist regeren afwijst? Is het toevallig dat Machiavelli alleen maar naar het oude testament verwijst?
*Lezing van dit boek laat me zien dat ik helemaal niets weet/wist van de geschiedenis van Italië.
*Kan ik als hoofd van een team toch ook niet dingen van Machiavelli leren?
edit: Jezus als "unarmed prophet". Jezus zegt van zichzelf (Mt10:34-42) dat hij niet gekomen is om vrede te brengen maar het "het zwaard". Zijn persoon roept weerstand op en geweld. Zonder twijfel niet "het zwaard" waaraan Machiavelli dacht. Wat hen verbindt is de luciditeit over de permanentie van geweld in deze wereld.
Interessant vind ik bij deze associatie dan ook vers 41 van hetzelfde hoofdstuk 10 van Mattheus waarin Jezus belooft dat wie een profeet in zijn hoedanigheid als profeet ontvangt het loon van een profeet zal ontvangen. En gezien de rest van de perikoop bestaat dat loon in "het kruis" dat transformeert in het leven.
*Tekst is opgebouwd als een reeks van beslissingsbomen: als dit, doe dan dat. Maar als zus, doe dan zo. Het deed me denken aan de Summa Theologica waar on de sententiae op gelijkaardige wijze conclusies worden getrokken. Het is de methode die overeenkomsten vertoont, denk ik.
*Machiavelli heeft wel een heel negatief beeld van de "common man" die altijd voor zijn eigen hachje zal kiezen en wier keuzes nooit op grond van deugd gemaakt worden maar alleen uit eigenbelang.
*Ik werd getroffen in hoofdstuk VI (New principalities acquired by one's own arms) door de verwijzing naar Mozes (die het heilig land veroverde; behalve dat het niet Mozes was maar Jozué) als "armed prophet" die slaagde in tegenstelling tot unarmed prophets die niet zullen slagen. Zou het in Machiavelli's hoofd zijn opgekomen dat Jezus, als de nieuwe Mozes (Bergrede!) een "unarmed prophet" was? Zou Machiavelli gedacht hebben aan Mattheus 20:17-28 (cfr Mc10:42) waarin Jezus de manier waarop de machtigen der aarden met ijzeren vuist regeren afwijst? Is het toevallig dat Machiavelli alleen maar naar het oude testament verwijst?
*Lezing van dit boek laat me zien dat ik helemaal niets weet/wist van de geschiedenis van Italië.
*Kan ik als hoofd van een team toch ook niet dingen van Machiavelli leren?
edit: Jezus als "unarmed prophet". Jezus zegt van zichzelf (Mt10:34-42) dat hij niet gekomen is om vrede te brengen maar het "het zwaard". Zijn persoon roept weerstand op en geweld. Zonder twijfel niet "het zwaard" waaraan Machiavelli dacht. Wat hen verbindt is de luciditeit over de permanentie van geweld in deze wereld.
Interessant vind ik bij deze associatie dan ook vers 41 van hetzelfde hoofdstuk 10 van Mattheus waarin Jezus belooft dat wie een profeet in zijn hoedanigheid als profeet ontvangt het loon van een profeet zal ontvangen. En gezien de rest van de perikoop bestaat dat loon in "het kruis" dat transformeert in het leven.
January 26, 2025
I picked this up in a used bookstore eons ago because I occasionally get on a “Classics” kick and want to see what all of the fuss is about. If ever a book needed to be in a digital format though, it is this one. I could probably spend the rest of my life studying World Civ to be comfortable with all of the name dropping and history references. OR you could click a link and get a summary from Wikipedia and be done with it. And done with it I am: This type of patriarchal “leadership” is stale and cringy and there are too many other good books and stories from other corners of the world to read. Hats off to the translator of this version though. I’m limited to English.
January 24, 2025
Reflection: After reading Tony Blair's book "On Leadership" recently, I realised that it follows the style of the magnificent "The Prince."
The original Renaissance ruler's handbook, this book has inspired so many throughout history, and the name Machiavelli has become notoriously feared.
"The Prince" offers timeless advice to those interested in statecraft. With the digestible translation by George Bull, the book is a must-read for lovers of history or politics.
A timeless classic. Therefore, I give it 5/5.
The original Renaissance ruler's handbook, this book has inspired so many throughout history, and the name Machiavelli has become notoriously feared.
"The Prince" offers timeless advice to those interested in statecraft. With the digestible translation by George Bull, the book is a must-read for lovers of history or politics.
A timeless classic. Therefore, I give it 5/5.
October 1, 2024
"But since my intention is to say something that will prove of practical use to the inquirer, I have thought it proper to represent things as they are in real truth, rather than as they are imagined."
October 12, 2024
Despite his very harsh ideas, the author does take a stance against criminals as heads of state, which disqualifies Trump. Machiavelli also warns against leaders who surround themselves with flatterers or with advisors who just day what the leader wants to hear.
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews