What do you think?
Rate this book
Niccolo Machiavelli's The Prince on The Art of Power: The New Illustrated Edition of the Renaissance Masterpiece on Leadership
- GenresNonfictionHistory
272 pages, Hardcover
First published April 7, 2009
21 people are currently reading
152 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews
February 9, 2021
The pictures got me through this book
February 4, 2023
This is not, as I once thought, a veiled political commentary disguised in a fictional account of a prince. But neither is it solely theoretical philosophizing about a hypothetical ideal state of human governance. Instead, Machiavelli systematically and critically evaluates historical and contemporary political events to logically demonstrate the effectiveness of various methods of gaining power and then, what is perhaps harder to achieve, retaining it.
Right off the bat, I realised that a working knowledge of Italian history, and more broadly European history, would contribute massively to my appreciation of Machiavelli’s argument as he often points to real life examples to provide illustrations. Alas, it has been a while since I’ve brushed up on my medieval European politics and it shows. I actually found the essays at the end of this edition to be really helpful in understanding the context and immediate significance of this work.
That said, apart from some allusions to what are assumed to be well-known historical events for his readers, Machiavelli is extremely readable and easy to understand. He writes logically and progresses from one point to another, weaving in more detailed analyses as he goes into subsections of his topic. I’m not sure how much the translation of the text plays into that, as I obviously didn’t read it in medieval Latin, but it was accessible and entertaining enough that I’m definitely interested in reading other works of his, so I’d say that’s a translation well done.
Machiavelli first isolates his topic, mentioning the various prominent types of government and then identifying which one his essay will treat on. He is discussing monarchy, but not exclusively the hereditary kind. He does talk about various cases of hereditary princes, but he also talks about princes who rise to power from among the people or military. Either way, there are dos and don’ts that must be followed to ensure holding power, both by preventing being conquered by other nations and by avoiding internal civil unrest.
Directed externally, a leader must be ruthless and decisive, not giving away power to other nations, even through apparent alliances. Instead, a country should develop its own military defense made up of its ordinary citizens who will fight for love of their country, not hiring mercenaries or utilizing the armies of allied nations. In conquering, a country needs to establish colonies and actually inhabit the land it has conquered otherwise there is a greater risk of uprising. In subduing either conquered people or rebellions, a prince is wiser to act with immediate and total destruction, rather than half-hearted measures that drag the conflict on in perpetuity. Basically, Machiavelli argues, seeming ruthlessness right at the beginning is actually less cruel than the cruelty that must necessarily accumulate over time if you allow the conflict to drag on through an effort to show mercy.
Because Machiavelli does not recommend cruelty as a defining mode of governance. It doesn’t keep people on your side, and people on your side is what’s really important if you want to stay in power long-term. Instead, it’s a better strategy to let other people take out your enemies or do things that would seem cruel, then, when there’s an outcry against that action, you can appear virtuous and not condoning that behaviour by then publicly executing the person who did what needed to be done to keep you in power.
Because when there is anything apparently virtuous or moral to be done, it doesn’t benefit you as a ruler unless you are seen to be doing it. None of this biblical “give your alms in secret” stuff. When you’re a ruler and want a reputation that keeps you in the people’s good graces, you bet you trot that virtue out “to be seen by men.”
Over all, I may have only gleaned a fraction of the interesting arguments and practical recommendations for rulership, but I was impressed with Machiavelli’s logic and general understanding of human nature as it emerges in a group. I wasn’t quite as clear on how he thought one was to reconcile individual morality and social collaborative good.
One of the essays in this edition addressed this seeming inconsistency that has been criticised in Machiavelli’s work by arguing that Machiavelli simultaneously held to two different ethical standards, one which was personal or individual, and one which was public or societal. In his work on the art of power, he is obviously dealing with the public ethics of a ruler, and in no way negating any individual moral compass that an individual, either as a subject or ruler, might have. Basically, he just seemed to advocate being able to put it aside for the good of the country: “Hence it is necessary for a prince wishing to hold his own to know how to do wrong, and to make use of it or not according to necessity.”
And that’s the crux of the matter. I am by no means in agreement with all of Machiavelli’s view on this, but I understand it, from a purely logical, practical, and operational standpoint.
I guess my question is, if morality doesn’t hold in all circumstances and in all applications, how is it true morality? If ethics are only applicable in personal relationships on an individual level, but may be dispensed with for the good of the whole, how are ethics universal? I guess if Machiavelli’s case is true, then the answer is that they are not.
A point also brought up in one of the essays in this edition is that each generation has its own sins. Each generation thinks the morals of its previous generation reprehensible. What is praised in one time may be demonized in the next. I don’t think that’s hard to acknowledge in our time either. That is certainly true of Niccolò Machiavelli, who, though working with commonly accepted values of his time, was so (literally) demonized throughout subsequent history that he is the reason the devil has been referred to colloquially as “Old Nick,” and to be called “machiavellian” is almost exclusively a condemnation of self-serving, unscrupulous, manipulative behaviour.
I think there’s a lot to be learned from The Prince, even if only in being aware of how some people think and understanding this type of power, though there is much more he addresses, including productive societies and economics. It’s also unsurprising that I encountered a lot of familiar ideas in The Prince that I hadn’t realised originate from it.
Despite it being generally decried as somehow immoral, the fact is that Machiavelli demonstrates an acute awareness of universal human nature, flaws and strengths, and, as per the blurb, is incredibly relevant to society at any time. So then my other question is, if you think the philosophy presented in The Prince is evil, what do you think human nature is?
Right off the bat, I realised that a working knowledge of Italian history, and more broadly European history, would contribute massively to my appreciation of Machiavelli’s argument as he often points to real life examples to provide illustrations. Alas, it has been a while since I’ve brushed up on my medieval European politics and it shows. I actually found the essays at the end of this edition to be really helpful in understanding the context and immediate significance of this work.
That said, apart from some allusions to what are assumed to be well-known historical events for his readers, Machiavelli is extremely readable and easy to understand. He writes logically and progresses from one point to another, weaving in more detailed analyses as he goes into subsections of his topic. I’m not sure how much the translation of the text plays into that, as I obviously didn’t read it in medieval Latin, but it was accessible and entertaining enough that I’m definitely interested in reading other works of his, so I’d say that’s a translation well done.
Machiavelli first isolates his topic, mentioning the various prominent types of government and then identifying which one his essay will treat on. He is discussing monarchy, but not exclusively the hereditary kind. He does talk about various cases of hereditary princes, but he also talks about princes who rise to power from among the people or military. Either way, there are dos and don’ts that must be followed to ensure holding power, both by preventing being conquered by other nations and by avoiding internal civil unrest.
Directed externally, a leader must be ruthless and decisive, not giving away power to other nations, even through apparent alliances. Instead, a country should develop its own military defense made up of its ordinary citizens who will fight for love of their country, not hiring mercenaries or utilizing the armies of allied nations. In conquering, a country needs to establish colonies and actually inhabit the land it has conquered otherwise there is a greater risk of uprising. In subduing either conquered people or rebellions, a prince is wiser to act with immediate and total destruction, rather than half-hearted measures that drag the conflict on in perpetuity. Basically, Machiavelli argues, seeming ruthlessness right at the beginning is actually less cruel than the cruelty that must necessarily accumulate over time if you allow the conflict to drag on through an effort to show mercy.
Because Machiavelli does not recommend cruelty as a defining mode of governance. It doesn’t keep people on your side, and people on your side is what’s really important if you want to stay in power long-term. Instead, it’s a better strategy to let other people take out your enemies or do things that would seem cruel, then, when there’s an outcry against that action, you can appear virtuous and not condoning that behaviour by then publicly executing the person who did what needed to be done to keep you in power.
Because when there is anything apparently virtuous or moral to be done, it doesn’t benefit you as a ruler unless you are seen to be doing it. None of this biblical “give your alms in secret” stuff. When you’re a ruler and want a reputation that keeps you in the people’s good graces, you bet you trot that virtue out “to be seen by men.”
Over all, I may have only gleaned a fraction of the interesting arguments and practical recommendations for rulership, but I was impressed with Machiavelli’s logic and general understanding of human nature as it emerges in a group. I wasn’t quite as clear on how he thought one was to reconcile individual morality and social collaborative good.
One of the essays in this edition addressed this seeming inconsistency that has been criticised in Machiavelli’s work by arguing that Machiavelli simultaneously held to two different ethical standards, one which was personal or individual, and one which was public or societal. In his work on the art of power, he is obviously dealing with the public ethics of a ruler, and in no way negating any individual moral compass that an individual, either as a subject or ruler, might have. Basically, he just seemed to advocate being able to put it aside for the good of the country: “Hence it is necessary for a prince wishing to hold his own to know how to do wrong, and to make use of it or not according to necessity.”
And that’s the crux of the matter. I am by no means in agreement with all of Machiavelli’s view on this, but I understand it, from a purely logical, practical, and operational standpoint.
I guess my question is, if morality doesn’t hold in all circumstances and in all applications, how is it true morality? If ethics are only applicable in personal relationships on an individual level, but may be dispensed with for the good of the whole, how are ethics universal? I guess if Machiavelli’s case is true, then the answer is that they are not.
A point also brought up in one of the essays in this edition is that each generation has its own sins. Each generation thinks the morals of its previous generation reprehensible. What is praised in one time may be demonized in the next. I don’t think that’s hard to acknowledge in our time either. That is certainly true of Niccolò Machiavelli, who, though working with commonly accepted values of his time, was so (literally) demonized throughout subsequent history that he is the reason the devil has been referred to colloquially as “Old Nick,” and to be called “machiavellian” is almost exclusively a condemnation of self-serving, unscrupulous, manipulative behaviour.
I think there’s a lot to be learned from The Prince, even if only in being aware of how some people think and understanding this type of power, though there is much more he addresses, including productive societies and economics. It’s also unsurprising that I encountered a lot of familiar ideas in The Prince that I hadn’t realised originate from it.
Despite it being generally decried as somehow immoral, the fact is that Machiavelli demonstrates an acute awareness of universal human nature, flaws and strengths, and, as per the blurb, is incredibly relevant to society at any time. So then my other question is, if you think the philosophy presented in The Prince is evil, what do you think human nature is?
December 31, 2024
Oh the horror, more interesting historiography and critical literature than the text itself
January 6, 2017
A fascinating read I shall surely refer to many times in the future! (For research purposes, not personal strategy.)
December 19, 2019
This book is to statecraft, what "On War" (Carl Von Clausewitz) and "The Art of War" (Sun Tzu) is to military planning and strategy. I would recommend this book to any person that's serious about enlightenment!
February 14, 2024
Most of all, I enjoy the discourse around this work and Niccolo Machiavelli's intentions. In other works, Machiavelli seems to be passionately in favor of republics as opposed to monarchies / principalities. So the question with "The Prince" becomes: why did Machiavelli write a guide on taking / maintaining power through the governmental structure of a principality, if he sees them as less preferable to republics?
Some consider this work a satire meant to alarm the masses on the unethical behavior that is intrinsic to operating a principality. Others consider that Machiavelli saw the history of government as cyclical, in that they start as principalities, morph into republics, before collapsing into anarchy, until principality is once again developed, restarting the cycle. Then there are those that saw this work as a last ditch effort to gain favor with his government leaders (which consisted of a principality) so that he could once again reestablish himself in a high ranking position.
Whatever the case, I enjoy this discourse much more than the actual work. Reading through it was often a slog, as I really did not enjoy reading on the historical and contemporary examples he provides to back up his ideas.
His ideas on maintaining stability through a position of power are intriguing and controversial, but not practical or sustainable in modern day contexts. One may draw some use from them if some creative liberty is exercised. For instance, Machiavelli argues that private fortresses are not a good idea for leaders to build and occupy, as they breed suspicion and contempt in the people. With some creative liberty, I could apply this concept to my own life by ensuring that I do not distance, separate, and / or wall myself off from those I work with on a regular basis. This connection is a bit of stretch. While your mileage may vary with such creative liberties, I don't think practical application is an ideal use of this work.
Some consider this work a satire meant to alarm the masses on the unethical behavior that is intrinsic to operating a principality. Others consider that Machiavelli saw the history of government as cyclical, in that they start as principalities, morph into republics, before collapsing into anarchy, until principality is once again developed, restarting the cycle. Then there are those that saw this work as a last ditch effort to gain favor with his government leaders (which consisted of a principality) so that he could once again reestablish himself in a high ranking position.
Whatever the case, I enjoy this discourse much more than the actual work. Reading through it was often a slog, as I really did not enjoy reading on the historical and contemporary examples he provides to back up his ideas.
His ideas on maintaining stability through a position of power are intriguing and controversial, but not practical or sustainable in modern day contexts. One may draw some use from them if some creative liberty is exercised. For instance, Machiavelli argues that private fortresses are not a good idea for leaders to build and occupy, as they breed suspicion and contempt in the people. With some creative liberty, I could apply this concept to my own life by ensuring that I do not distance, separate, and / or wall myself off from those I work with on a regular basis. This connection is a bit of stretch. While your mileage may vary with such creative liberties, I don't think practical application is an ideal use of this work.
March 15, 2014
Anyone that enjoys history and incredibly thought provoking reads then I would definitely recommend this.
Review on this version of The Prince: I did not necessarily have to read this nor did I plan on reading it in the first place-- I just saw this copy at work, loved the design, then saw the illustrations and quality of paper. Totally fell for it! It's a gem of a copy for anyone that enjoyed THE PRINCE.
Review on this version of The Prince: I did not necessarily have to read this nor did I plan on reading it in the first place-- I just saw this copy at work, loved the design, then saw the illustrations and quality of paper. Totally fell for it! It's a gem of a copy for anyone that enjoyed THE PRINCE.
May 27, 2023
The actual content of the prince I found to be useful and engaging. However, this specific publication has a foreward and afterward that provides little in the way of additional value. The afterward especially was written much like a college essay.
December 26, 2021
Lovely illustrations. The actual book is from p.27 to p.185, and the rest are essays and dedications and introductions.
January 30, 2025
Firstly, this edition has a great introduction that sets up some background on the original author. Very informative, does its job.
Secondly, the actual text of The Prince is good, but I find myself disappointed about… well how not Machiavellian it is? The book absolutely has valuable wisdom in it, and there are certainly some parts that cross a line morally speaking. But “Maybe it’s better to be known as cruel then nice” isn’t that controversial, nor is it really new. Also, it might just be because I am living 800 years later, but Machiavelli does not seem to be as anti-Christian as claimed, in fact he makes plenty of religious arguments in the book to support his arguments. As even the supplemental essays state, Machiavelli probably wasn’t the first person to advocate many of these ideas; see Dante’s Inferno etc.
Lastly, everything else about this version is just “extra”. The pictures didn’t add anything for me, they are there to pad the page count. The two essays (yes, there are two supplements about 2/3 through this version) are nice in hindsight. If you must include them, the first essay needed to be cut by 10 or so pages, the second was fine as is.
Overall, I would give “The Prince” a 3.5 stars, it’s really not as conniving as people make it out to be. A man a long time ago said plain things that probably are true (Being loved doesn’t make you an efficient leader, nor does being extremely hated) and things that are probably false (the enemy of your enemy absolutely can be your friend). However, less is more, and this version I would give a 2.5 stars, leading to my 3 star rating.
Secondly, the actual text of The Prince is good, but I find myself disappointed about… well how not Machiavellian it is? The book absolutely has valuable wisdom in it, and there are certainly some parts that cross a line morally speaking. But “Maybe it’s better to be known as cruel then nice” isn’t that controversial, nor is it really new. Also, it might just be because I am living 800 years later, but Machiavelli does not seem to be as anti-Christian as claimed, in fact he makes plenty of religious arguments in the book to support his arguments. As even the supplemental essays state, Machiavelli probably wasn’t the first person to advocate many of these ideas; see Dante’s Inferno etc.
Lastly, everything else about this version is just “extra”. The pictures didn’t add anything for me, they are there to pad the page count. The two essays (yes, there are two supplements about 2/3 through this version) are nice in hindsight. If you must include them, the first essay needed to be cut by 10 or so pages, the second was fine as is.
Overall, I would give “The Prince” a 3.5 stars, it’s really not as conniving as people make it out to be. A man a long time ago said plain things that probably are true (Being loved doesn’t make you an efficient leader, nor does being extremely hated) and things that are probably false (the enemy of your enemy absolutely can be your friend). However, less is more, and this version I would give a 2.5 stars, leading to my 3 star rating.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
February 15, 2024
An absolute gorgeous book in terms of selection of art pieces placed throughout its pages.
“The Prince” itself is a blunt piece of literature that has been debated hotly to what the true intentions of Machiavelli were. The essays at the end of this edition are fantastic at portraying and exploring some of those arguments. One central to myself is that individuals that seek power (political or religious) will hold themselves to another standard of morality. Justifying any actions in the pursuit of the continuation of the institution they deem proper. It’s not hard to see with this commentary that is why the catholic church condemns this piece of literature, as many religious leaders (spreaders of fanaticism) don’t follow their own religious morality when spreading that very thing to hold onto its followers.
Overall a great edition of this work!
“The Prince” itself is a blunt piece of literature that has been debated hotly to what the true intentions of Machiavelli were. The essays at the end of this edition are fantastic at portraying and exploring some of those arguments. One central to myself is that individuals that seek power (political or religious) will hold themselves to another standard of morality. Justifying any actions in the pursuit of the continuation of the institution they deem proper. It’s not hard to see with this commentary that is why the catholic church condemns this piece of literature, as many religious leaders (spreaders of fanaticism) don’t follow their own religious morality when spreading that very thing to hold onto its followers.
Overall a great edition of this work!
December 9, 2023
Meh, overrated guy
April 3, 2025
Would’ve been super interesting, if only I were some king in the Middle Ages. Shines a very unique light on some issues though
Comment; I would recommend to read Berlin’s essay before reading the actual book, it is mind blowing
Comment; I would recommend to read Berlin’s essay before reading the actual book, it is mind blowing
February 16, 2025
This book is a pretty good read, but I'm not a medival king trying to stop a peasant revolt. It's a nice read to see from an anthropological perspective.
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews