What do you think?
Rate this book
The Prince and Other Writings
One of the foremost examples of modern philosophy, Niccolò Machiavelli’s The Prince is notorious for the morality it expounds, often summarized by the phrase, “The end justifies the means.” With The Prince, Machiavelli’s intent was to provide practical advice for rulers and politicians, especially in regard to the unification of Italy. An important read for those interested in history, politics, ethics, and human nature, The Prince is now available as part of the Word Cloud Classics series, providing a chic and affordable addition to any library. Lexile 1430L
190 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1502
275 people are currently reading
3072 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 - 30 of 147 reviews
February 7, 2017
"The Prince" is not only timeless, but a great book to read for anyone interested in the combination between human psychology and state development. I think the translator did a beautiful job on this particular edition, and I'm happy I bought myself a collectible one, bound in leather and giving off the feel of an old book. Reading it, I kept being surprised, as I always am, at how much humans have not changed for centuries and centuries on end. How can we bring about such development and yet remain just as we were in the olden days? I think "The Prince" should be mandatory reading for everyone in the world; it speaks of power, it speaks of organization, it speaks of states and taxes and war and criminality... it somehow whispers from the 15th century about what the 21st is. And I'm sure it will speak about the 22nd, the 23rd and so on...
October 8, 2012
A great political philosophy book, but it's a shame most people tend to miss the fact that the book is about how a leader should be pragmatic to ensure the best for the state, not how to be inconsiderate puppy-kicker. In fact, the oft-quoted line "It is better to be feared than loved" is false: the line, in full, is "From this there arises a dispute: whether it is better to be loved than feared, or the contrary. The reply is that one should like to be both the one and the other, but as it is difficult to bring them together, it is much safercto be feared than to be loved if one of the two has to be lacking." As if to prove Machiavelli right, the Medici, whom Machiavelli wrote the book for, sought to be loved by everyone, but ultimately ended up in debt. Machiavelli then goes on to say that a prince should be feared in a way that does not inspire hatred. Add in the fact that Machiavelli actually supported a republic and we have a great example of irony: Machiavelli wasn't very machiavellian.
April 4, 2010
Want to know the difference between the Renaissance and present-day society? If Machiavelli had written The Prince today, it would be called Ruling Principalities for Dummies. In the fifteenth century, manuals for prospective rulers took the form of profound philosophical treatises. In the twenty-first century, they're bullet-point lists bound in bright yellow covers with a cartoon on the front. Part history and part philosophy, The Prince is a glimpse into the mind of a Renaissance thinker. As much as it is an exploration of politics, it is also an exploration of personality, a fact that becomes much clearer when it's held up next to Machiavelli's other works, such as The Life of Castruccio Castracani and Discourses on Livy.
If one wants to be reductionist, one can boil down The Prince to a manual on how to keep power. Machiavelli focuses in particular on princes who are new to their principality, as hereditary princes simply need to continue the practices of their predecessors that made the people content enough not to revolt. New princes must establish control over their state, whether it's one they have recently conquered or one they've seized in a coup.
I think it's a mistake to reduce The Prince though. What sets Machiavelli apart is his style, the way he articulates his arguments and advances his philosophy for ruling a principality. He draws on specific cases, both from ancient (usually Roman) history and recent events in 15th-century Italy. Consequently, I've learned more about Italian history from The Prince than any other source. Fifteenth-century Italy was one fucked up place, and it's no wonder that Machiavelli felt the need to write The Prince.
In both The Prince and Discourses on Livy, Machiavelli makes heavy use of examples from ancient Rome. In comparing contemporary Italy to the times that preceded it, Machiavelli usually finds his own time lacking. Although he's a staunch republican, if you read only The Prince, you probably wouldn't know it. Maybe Machiavelli wrote it only as an attempt to get into the good graces of the Medicis. From the way he speaks wistfully of Rome—both republic and empire—I couldn't help but get a sense that Machiavelli's outlining what he sees as the qualities Italy needs in a leader who will restore the country's former glory. As a student of history, Machiavelli knows that Italy was once strong—and unified. Even in Discourses, Machiavelli says that only a single man can found a republic (Chapter 9: "How It Is Necessary for a Man to Act Alone in Order to Organize a Republic Anew. . ."). The Prince, then, is a programme for good leadership of a state. More than just keeping power, The Prince is about being great (a condition that Machiavelli never conflates with morality).
For those of us who live in democracies, we don't always have a clear understanding of exactly what duties occupy the mind of a prince. Machiavelli's writing has certainly been eye-opening and educational for me, simply because he comments on matters that I would never think about. Nevertheless, I have no doubt that some aspects of Machiavelli's pragmatic advice still apply. For example, chapters 17, 18, and 19 elucidate the difference between applying necessary cruelty and engendering contempt or hatred. Machiavelli is, if anything, meticulous in his reasoning. He has no scruples about "misremembering" history or, as is the case in his biography of Castruccio Castracani, outright fabricating it. But when it comes to his arguments, each one is carefully constructed and advanced in order to convince.
I have nothing but praise for this particular edition as well. It's a serendipitous Christmas gift from a friend. I had to read a few chapters of The Prince for a philosophy class, so I took the opportunity to read the entire book (and the "other writings" included here). This edition has notes at the end of every chapter that explain historical references, possible translation problems, and most importantly, mistakes made by Machiavelli. The introduction, timeline, and brief biography of Machiavelli were also helpful in providing context—as previously mentioned, I found this book an informative source of Italian history as well as political philosophy. The inclusion of both The Prince and excerpts from Discourses on Livy provides a contrast of Machiavelli's work that's quite useful. I found The Prince more comprehensive (although this could be bias, as the book only has excerpts from Discourses), but Discourses is a fascinating look at Machiavelli's republican sensibilities, as well as his thoughts on the use of religion in republics.
The Prince is essential for anyone interested in political philosophy. Machiavelli's work has retained its fame for a reason: it is both a philosophical and a rhetorical masterpiece. It's a mistake to write it off either as satire or as some sort of dark endorsement of immoral deeds. That scholars more intelligent and more knowledgeable than I still debate some of the meaning behind Machiavelli's words attests to the their complexity. As for me, while I don't think I'll be acquiring a new principality any time soon, now I feel more prepared should that happen.
If one wants to be reductionist, one can boil down The Prince to a manual on how to keep power. Machiavelli focuses in particular on princes who are new to their principality, as hereditary princes simply need to continue the practices of their predecessors that made the people content enough not to revolt. New princes must establish control over their state, whether it's one they have recently conquered or one they've seized in a coup.
I think it's a mistake to reduce The Prince though. What sets Machiavelli apart is his style, the way he articulates his arguments and advances his philosophy for ruling a principality. He draws on specific cases, both from ancient (usually Roman) history and recent events in 15th-century Italy. Consequently, I've learned more about Italian history from The Prince than any other source. Fifteenth-century Italy was one fucked up place, and it's no wonder that Machiavelli felt the need to write The Prince.
In both The Prince and Discourses on Livy, Machiavelli makes heavy use of examples from ancient Rome. In comparing contemporary Italy to the times that preceded it, Machiavelli usually finds his own time lacking. Although he's a staunch republican, if you read only The Prince, you probably wouldn't know it. Maybe Machiavelli wrote it only as an attempt to get into the good graces of the Medicis. From the way he speaks wistfully of Rome—both republic and empire—I couldn't help but get a sense that Machiavelli's outlining what he sees as the qualities Italy needs in a leader who will restore the country's former glory. As a student of history, Machiavelli knows that Italy was once strong—and unified. Even in Discourses, Machiavelli says that only a single man can found a republic (Chapter 9: "How It Is Necessary for a Man to Act Alone in Order to Organize a Republic Anew. . ."). The Prince, then, is a programme for good leadership of a state. More than just keeping power, The Prince is about being great (a condition that Machiavelli never conflates with morality).
For those of us who live in democracies, we don't always have a clear understanding of exactly what duties occupy the mind of a prince. Machiavelli's writing has certainly been eye-opening and educational for me, simply because he comments on matters that I would never think about. Nevertheless, I have no doubt that some aspects of Machiavelli's pragmatic advice still apply. For example, chapters 17, 18, and 19 elucidate the difference between applying necessary cruelty and engendering contempt or hatred. Machiavelli is, if anything, meticulous in his reasoning. He has no scruples about "misremembering" history or, as is the case in his biography of Castruccio Castracani, outright fabricating it. But when it comes to his arguments, each one is carefully constructed and advanced in order to convince.
I have nothing but praise for this particular edition as well. It's a serendipitous Christmas gift from a friend. I had to read a few chapters of The Prince for a philosophy class, so I took the opportunity to read the entire book (and the "other writings" included here). This edition has notes at the end of every chapter that explain historical references, possible translation problems, and most importantly, mistakes made by Machiavelli. The introduction, timeline, and brief biography of Machiavelli were also helpful in providing context—as previously mentioned, I found this book an informative source of Italian history as well as political philosophy. The inclusion of both The Prince and excerpts from Discourses on Livy provides a contrast of Machiavelli's work that's quite useful. I found The Prince more comprehensive (although this could be bias, as the book only has excerpts from Discourses), but Discourses is a fascinating look at Machiavelli's republican sensibilities, as well as his thoughts on the use of religion in republics.
The Prince is essential for anyone interested in political philosophy. Machiavelli's work has retained its fame for a reason: it is both a philosophical and a rhetorical masterpiece. It's a mistake to write it off either as satire or as some sort of dark endorsement of immoral deeds. That scholars more intelligent and more knowledgeable than I still debate some of the meaning behind Machiavelli's words attests to the their complexity. As for me, while I don't think I'll be acquiring a new principality any time soon, now I feel more prepared should that happen.
January 12, 2025
This was an excellent translation of The Prince. I particularly enjoyed the translator's notes on the difficulties of preserving Machiavelli's complicated sentence structure and observations of untranslatable puns. I most enjoyed The Prince and Machiavelli's letter to a friend. The invented bio was hard to follow--I am wondering if this was an inside joke with his friends--and I did enjoy quite a bit of the Livy discourses, but the fact they were only excerpted made them hard to follow.
March 20, 2020
The book that provided rehab for my politics addiction.
I now watch each election with a cynical eye as people extol the virtues of different candidates with conviction and idealism. I know that these people have never read "The Prince" and if they did, failed to grasp its primary message. After reading this book I am even more proud of the fact that I have never voted for a presidential candidate from either of the two major parties.......and I have voted in every presidential election since 1984.
Politics and government will not change for the better or make the world a better place. Only one thing can bring about true change and improvement and that is the improvement of the human species itself. When human beings cease to suck this world will be a pretty fine place.
Stop devolving now!
I now watch each election with a cynical eye as people extol the virtues of different candidates with conviction and idealism. I know that these people have never read "The Prince" and if they did, failed to grasp its primary message. After reading this book I am even more proud of the fact that I have never voted for a presidential candidate from either of the two major parties.......and I have voted in every presidential election since 1984.
Politics and government will not change for the better or make the world a better place. Only one thing can bring about true change and improvement and that is the improvement of the human species itself. When human beings cease to suck this world will be a pretty fine place.
Stop devolving now!
February 23, 2015
I bought this pretty edition of "The Prince and Other Writings" because Robert Greene had quoted Machiavelli so often in his book "The 48 Laws of Power." I thought that Machiavelli wrote this book for himself and general knowledge, but it turns out that he had written this for a specific person already in power. Therefore, we are bombarded with waves of the names of countries, dukes, kings, sovereigns, territories, and regions, of that era without explanations. The language is really rigid and formal... its like trying to enjoy the terms & conditions of an insurance policy. Just like "The 48 Laws of Power", the overwhelming historical references are exhausting and repetitive. I was really looking forward to enjoying this book but I'm too turned off by it.
January 21, 2022
I have read The Prince twice.
In 2019 I read with GR Catching Up on the Classics. At that time I read this Oxford World Classics edition:
. I read a treatise on statecraft which I applied somewhat to business operations.
Now in 2022 I have read with GR Non Fiction Book Club. This time I read from the Barnes and Noble edition:
. This time with the help of others I read with, I came to understand that I was reading a plea for help. The goal that Machiavelli sought was something beyond personages and Alliance scene sought unification of the Italian States. It was an idea for the times. Other political a military entities were starting to unify.
So now I have a better understanding--nowhere at all completed what Machiavelli was writing. Yet I remain interested in how this text of The Prince can inform our current realities. So I plan to next read Sun Tzu and Machiavelli Leadership Lessons: Become a Better Leader Using the Timeless Principles from The Art of War and The Prince by River Williams
In 2019 I read with GR Catching Up on the Classics. At that time I read this Oxford World Classics edition:
. I read a treatise on statecraft which I applied somewhat to business operations.Now in 2022 I have read with GR Non Fiction Book Club. This time I read from the Barnes and Noble edition:
. This time with the help of others I read with, I came to understand that I was reading a plea for help. The goal that Machiavelli sought was something beyond personages and Alliance scene sought unification of the Italian States. It was an idea for the times. Other political a military entities were starting to unify.So now I have a better understanding--nowhere at all completed what Machiavelli was writing. Yet I remain interested in how this text of The Prince can inform our current realities. So I plan to next read Sun Tzu and Machiavelli Leadership Lessons: Become a Better Leader Using the Timeless Principles from The Art of War and The Prince by River Williams
October 11, 2017
This has to be one of the most interesting books that I've read for school. It's one that I wouldn't have picked up on my own, but one I didn't hate.
Also I started watching The Borgias because of this book and I'm addicted to it. The show also helped me understand the book a little more.
Also I started watching The Borgias because of this book and I'm addicted to it. The show also helped me understand the book a little more.
April 7, 2012
Here I will give my opinion of this particular translation of Machiavelli's famous treatise, that being The Prince and Other Writings, translated by Wayne A. Rebhorn. If you're interested in a detailed explanation as to why the book itself will remain a timeless classic, see other reviews.
Reading this book was like having a good friend explain the text using simple language. Mr. Rebhorn starts off with a few sections to paint Machiavelli within the context of his time, and follows every chapter with detailed footnotes that do everything from clarify Old Nick's meaning to correct his occasional inaccuracies. Some misrepresentations of historical events actually seem intentional on Machiavelli's part, which sheds light on his character even beyond the text. This is especially true in the additional readings.
Those additional works salt this translation to balance the bitterness of The Prince. They bring a much more humane view of the man, and give valuable insight into his lifestyle and mindset as he wrote The Prince and 'Discourses' alongside each other. Like twins born into a bad marriage, you do them a great disservice separating the two. They are incomplete without each other.
As far as the writing style is concerned, Rebhorn mercifully edit's Machiavelli's, er... 'longwinded' style down a bit (sentences no longer take up an entire page). Any words that may have many meanings or connotations lost in translation are explained beforehand, and the original word is placed alongside the translation in brackets. If his choice of translation requires explanation, Rebhorn includes them in the footnotes, which helps us avoid many of the misconceptions other translators only propagate. For example, the word 'Virtu' is used endlessly as the core of Machiavelli's philosophy, and while it can be translated into 'Virtue,' it also has a number other other decidedly less tasteful connotations. When other translators have tacked the letter 'e' at the end of Virtu and called it a day, it has sounded like Machiavelli endorses a particular behaviour when he's just remarking on its practicality. Rebhorn's dedication to a truthful portrayal of Machiavelli's spirit helps carry The Prince's intended tone, that of practical analysis in place of moral debate.
Alongside the above, the inclusion of the homework questions for a second read, as well as the recommended readings, this book really served to set a precedence for translations that I hope others will follow. I had attempted other translations of The Prince and was rewarded with only frustration - this one kept me riveted throughout.
TL;DR - If you plan to read The Prince, this is the edition you want.
Reading this book was like having a good friend explain the text using simple language. Mr. Rebhorn starts off with a few sections to paint Machiavelli within the context of his time, and follows every chapter with detailed footnotes that do everything from clarify Old Nick's meaning to correct his occasional inaccuracies. Some misrepresentations of historical events actually seem intentional on Machiavelli's part, which sheds light on his character even beyond the text. This is especially true in the additional readings.
Those additional works salt this translation to balance the bitterness of The Prince. They bring a much more humane view of the man, and give valuable insight into his lifestyle and mindset as he wrote The Prince and 'Discourses' alongside each other. Like twins born into a bad marriage, you do them a great disservice separating the two. They are incomplete without each other.
As far as the writing style is concerned, Rebhorn mercifully edit's Machiavelli's, er... 'longwinded' style down a bit (sentences no longer take up an entire page). Any words that may have many meanings or connotations lost in translation are explained beforehand, and the original word is placed alongside the translation in brackets. If his choice of translation requires explanation, Rebhorn includes them in the footnotes, which helps us avoid many of the misconceptions other translators only propagate. For example, the word 'Virtu' is used endlessly as the core of Machiavelli's philosophy, and while it can be translated into 'Virtue,' it also has a number other other decidedly less tasteful connotations. When other translators have tacked the letter 'e' at the end of Virtu and called it a day, it has sounded like Machiavelli endorses a particular behaviour when he's just remarking on its practicality. Rebhorn's dedication to a truthful portrayal of Machiavelli's spirit helps carry The Prince's intended tone, that of practical analysis in place of moral debate.
Alongside the above, the inclusion of the homework questions for a second read, as well as the recommended readings, this book really served to set a precedence for translations that I hope others will follow. I had attempted other translations of The Prince and was rewarded with only frustration - this one kept me riveted throughout.
TL;DR - If you plan to read The Prince, this is the edition you want.
April 27, 2020
Quite assuredly, any and all readers of Renaissance history, politics, and philosophy texts have either heard about or have already read Niccolo Machiavelli’s, “The Prince”. Combining equal parts treatise, complaint, guide/handbook, philosophical breakdown, and propaganda; Machiavelli was both bold and presumptuous but with a sound, political mind making him quite an enigma. Wayne Rebhorn translates and presents Machiavelli’s works in, “The Prince and Other Writings”.
Rebhorn’s edition of “The Prince and Other Writings” initially offers an ‘Introduction’ with a mini-biography of Machiavelli (albeit, much too brief) before diving head-first into a philosophical and analytical thesis deciphering “The Prince” and Machiavelli’s very thoughts and motives. This highlights a few troublesome weak points on Rebhorn’s behalf: 1) the length, which is entirely too long, drawn out, and needs a breather. Was the editor sick during this part of the manuscript? 2) A blatant absence of clear direction and clarity; losing reader attention. Rebhorn’s analysis reads like a college term paper. 3) Too many assumptions and excessive speculation – the text is pure hypothesis, conjecture, bias and opinion. The phrase, “You’re over-thinking this” – applies to Rebhorn’s introduction.
Flowing into Machiavelli’s “The Prince”; even readers familiar with the piece/subject will find it to be approachable and cohesive in tone. “The Prince” is best described as an oral history and political blurb stylized in an enthralling manner with equal measures of depth and simplicity. To a modern reader, “The Prince” hardly seems as controversial as it was during its period but yet, despite the content; the writing itself has a narrative feel that is classic in nature.
Machiavelli divided “The Prince” into rather short ‘chapters’ making the text accessible and memorable with Rebhorn supplementing each with endnotes. Even with this ease of flow; it is clear Machiavelli intended each section to be read and then rested/pondered before moving onto the next topic rather than reading at once from cover-to-cover.
“The Prince” was quite ahead of its time as the text applies to politics even in the modern world with a rational tone resulting in, “Ah ha! That makes sense!” - moments. As Machiavelli proceeds with the treatise, his writing becomes even more powerful and encapsulating but never in an over-the-top or forced way.
Machiavelli concludes “The Prince” rather abruptly but this is merely given the sensation to want to read more of his philosophy.
Rebhorn’s edition of “The Prince and other Writings” follows with, “The Life of Castruccio Castracani of Lucca”: a biography of Castracani written by Machiavelli to his comrades highlighting Castracani’s birth, childhood, and military/political career. In standard Machiavelli fashion, the biography is a riveting narrative with a steady pace. Machiavelli is certainly skilled at ‘storytelling’.
Rebhorn includes end notes proving fact from fiction and declaring Machiavelli’s tendency to fabricate reports in the biography. Despite this sensational habit, Machiavelli’s piece on Castracani maintains its readability and pleasurable tones.
“The Prince and Other Writings concludes with, “A Letter from Niccolo Machiavelli to Francisco Vettori” and Excerpts from Machiavelli’s “Discourses on the First Ten Books of Titus Livy”. Both sections provide insightful depth into Machiavelli as a person and his pragmatic mind with a hint of manipulative personality traits seeping through showing his whole person: positive and negative. This was a successful addition by Rebhorn, as it adds context to “The Prince and Other Writings” while making Machiavelli feel more ‘real’.
Rebhorn closes with a section of comments and statements made by various figures concerning Machiavelli, group discussion questions and a list of further reading materials solidifying “The Prince and Other Writings”.
“The Prince and Other Writings” is a strong presentation by Rebhorn bringing both Machiavelli as a man and his works to the forefront and encouraging reader perspective and analysis. “The Prince and Other Writings” is recommended for those interested in Renaissance history, philosophy, and modern-day politics.
Rebhorn’s edition of “The Prince and Other Writings” initially offers an ‘Introduction’ with a mini-biography of Machiavelli (albeit, much too brief) before diving head-first into a philosophical and analytical thesis deciphering “The Prince” and Machiavelli’s very thoughts and motives. This highlights a few troublesome weak points on Rebhorn’s behalf: 1) the length, which is entirely too long, drawn out, and needs a breather. Was the editor sick during this part of the manuscript? 2) A blatant absence of clear direction and clarity; losing reader attention. Rebhorn’s analysis reads like a college term paper. 3) Too many assumptions and excessive speculation – the text is pure hypothesis, conjecture, bias and opinion. The phrase, “You’re over-thinking this” – applies to Rebhorn’s introduction.
Flowing into Machiavelli’s “The Prince”; even readers familiar with the piece/subject will find it to be approachable and cohesive in tone. “The Prince” is best described as an oral history and political blurb stylized in an enthralling manner with equal measures of depth and simplicity. To a modern reader, “The Prince” hardly seems as controversial as it was during its period but yet, despite the content; the writing itself has a narrative feel that is classic in nature.
Machiavelli divided “The Prince” into rather short ‘chapters’ making the text accessible and memorable with Rebhorn supplementing each with endnotes. Even with this ease of flow; it is clear Machiavelli intended each section to be read and then rested/pondered before moving onto the next topic rather than reading at once from cover-to-cover.
“The Prince” was quite ahead of its time as the text applies to politics even in the modern world with a rational tone resulting in, “Ah ha! That makes sense!” - moments. As Machiavelli proceeds with the treatise, his writing becomes even more powerful and encapsulating but never in an over-the-top or forced way.
Machiavelli concludes “The Prince” rather abruptly but this is merely given the sensation to want to read more of his philosophy.
Rebhorn’s edition of “The Prince and other Writings” follows with, “The Life of Castruccio Castracani of Lucca”: a biography of Castracani written by Machiavelli to his comrades highlighting Castracani’s birth, childhood, and military/political career. In standard Machiavelli fashion, the biography is a riveting narrative with a steady pace. Machiavelli is certainly skilled at ‘storytelling’.
Rebhorn includes end notes proving fact from fiction and declaring Machiavelli’s tendency to fabricate reports in the biography. Despite this sensational habit, Machiavelli’s piece on Castracani maintains its readability and pleasurable tones.
“The Prince and Other Writings concludes with, “A Letter from Niccolo Machiavelli to Francisco Vettori” and Excerpts from Machiavelli’s “Discourses on the First Ten Books of Titus Livy”. Both sections provide insightful depth into Machiavelli as a person and his pragmatic mind with a hint of manipulative personality traits seeping through showing his whole person: positive and negative. This was a successful addition by Rebhorn, as it adds context to “The Prince and Other Writings” while making Machiavelli feel more ‘real’.
Rebhorn closes with a section of comments and statements made by various figures concerning Machiavelli, group discussion questions and a list of further reading materials solidifying “The Prince and Other Writings”.
“The Prince and Other Writings” is a strong presentation by Rebhorn bringing both Machiavelli as a man and his works to the forefront and encouraging reader perspective and analysis. “The Prince and Other Writings” is recommended for those interested in Renaissance history, philosophy, and modern-day politics.
July 18, 2018
An interesting view into the politics of Machiavelli's time, most of which could be adapted to work in context of present leaderships.
April 25, 2015
This book gave me a mind organism.
December 4, 2020
Watch out, guys. I'm ready to conquer and rule!
March 5, 2019
He is the father with realist approach.
September 19, 2020
(Disclaimer: In this book, there are three writings combined together: The Prince, A Description of the Methods Adopted by the Duke Valentino [aka Cesare Borgia] When Murdering Four Dudes and Discourses on the First Ten Books of Titus Livius - Book III)
When people mention about Niccolo Machiavelli, you will most likely imagine a scheming, wily fox trying to exhort devious means to seize and control power. However, the real Machiavelli was working peacefully for 15 years as a diplomat in the city state of Florence. When the Medici took over the city, he was kicked out from his job and was even accused of conspiring against the new ruler. After he had cleared his name, he decided to write a political treatise, The Prince, dedicated to the current ruler, Lorenzo de Medici, as an instruction guide for new princes and royals. Unfortunately, The Prince did not seem to get him a new cushy civil service job or help the ruler hold on to power for too long. The Medicis were toppled 11 years after The Prince was written, ironically just before Machiavelli died.
The Prince is a book that not only tells you to do bad stuff. Some of the things that it recommends to you are quite common sense. For example, it is never good to be too cruel or too kind to your people, as people may rebel against you. Furthermore, the ruler should try to justify his/her actions, so that the people can see the virtues that he/she is trying to exhort. However, knowing that common sense is not so common nowadays, it is a book that looks simple to follow, but hard to execute.
The Description of Duke Valentino trying to kill four dudes sounds like Shakespearean Macbeth without the tension and the involvement of the wife. The Discourses on the First Ten Books of Titus Livius - Book III seems to complement The Prince, by describing the way the ancient Romans try to control their army and their country. What I particularly like about the discourses is a long chapter describing how conspiracies should be done. For example, it is stupid to give long monologues before trying to kill your target, as your target may flee. That is why it is mind boggling how often is this method used by villains in various movies.
When people mention about Niccolo Machiavelli, you will most likely imagine a scheming, wily fox trying to exhort devious means to seize and control power. However, the real Machiavelli was working peacefully for 15 years as a diplomat in the city state of Florence. When the Medici took over the city, he was kicked out from his job and was even accused of conspiring against the new ruler. After he had cleared his name, he decided to write a political treatise, The Prince, dedicated to the current ruler, Lorenzo de Medici, as an instruction guide for new princes and royals. Unfortunately, The Prince did not seem to get him a new cushy civil service job or help the ruler hold on to power for too long. The Medicis were toppled 11 years after The Prince was written, ironically just before Machiavelli died.
The Prince is a book that not only tells you to do bad stuff. Some of the things that it recommends to you are quite common sense. For example, it is never good to be too cruel or too kind to your people, as people may rebel against you. Furthermore, the ruler should try to justify his/her actions, so that the people can see the virtues that he/she is trying to exhort. However, knowing that common sense is not so common nowadays, it is a book that looks simple to follow, but hard to execute.
The Description of Duke Valentino trying to kill four dudes sounds like Shakespearean Macbeth without the tension and the involvement of the wife. The Discourses on the First Ten Books of Titus Livius - Book III seems to complement The Prince, by describing the way the ancient Romans try to control their army and their country. What I particularly like about the discourses is a long chapter describing how conspiracies should be done. For example, it is stupid to give long monologues before trying to kill your target, as your target may flee. That is why it is mind boggling how often is this method used by villains in various movies.
June 26, 2017
Great practical advice for a prince. The background notes on his life helped me appreciate the book more. The excerpts from "Discourses" actually seemed better; it was more general, putting more of his keen observations together. The Prince offers exactly what its namesake needs. If you find that the tumultuous 16th-century political waves have washed you up onto the throne of a city or small province, then step one: you are probably already dead; step two: work the ol' noggin and keep everyone else's motivations in mind if not at heart.
September 5, 2017
It depends on how you're approaching this title on how you'd rate it. Literary style, dark & instructive, subject matter bleak but still relevant, historical lucid but amazing.
I read this as part of Brodsky's 83 books to read to have a decent conversation & I can assure you that it had improved my political knowledge, my historical understanding & my literary depth.
I was surprised by the number of people who commented whilst I was reading it, as though I'd sold my soul to the devil. Obviously its reputation precedes it as it doesn't seem out of place in our current political climate.
I read this as part of Brodsky's 83 books to read to have a decent conversation & I can assure you that it had improved my political knowledge, my historical understanding & my literary depth.
I was surprised by the number of people who commented whilst I was reading it, as though I'd sold my soul to the devil. Obviously its reputation precedes it as it doesn't seem out of place in our current political climate.
October 14, 2018
I really enjoyed this book, and would highly recommend it to any politics/history junkie.
The translation is very clear, plain, and easy to follow, and Rebhorn (the translator) took great pains to explain why he made certain stylistic choices in the introduction and footnotes.
Reading this as a total novice to Italian history, the footnotes in this edition are indespensible, and if you follow them closely, 'The Prince' reads like an especially engaging history of the Italian Wars, which also attempts to discuss the motivations and strategies behind the actions of various princes.
That said, if you put the questions of pragmatism and morality aside, I couldn't escape the sense that Machiavelli was just a bit of a nerdy guy who enjoyed writing about history. He didn't seem compelled to inject morality into his writing because he was just being frank about recent events (even though 'The Prince' was written to curry favor with the Medicis).
In his letter to Francesco Vettori, Machiavelli discusses his daily routine which started with trapping in the morning, then bugging the wood-cutters on his property for two hours while they were trying to work, and then heading to an Inn around the corner to play backgammon and cards all day. You get a really vivid picture of an unemployed guy in his mid-40s who had a lot of free time on his hands, and decided to kill some by writing about work.
His biography of Castruccio misconstrues facts, conflates characters, invents people from whole cloth, and eventually veers into just being a list of jokes. It seemed important for Machiavelli to demonstrate what he saw as ideal characteristics of a strong central leader, and in order to do so, he essentially wrote a half-fiction about a real person.
Interestingly, he makes a lot of observations, and shares opinions that have a strikingly familiar ring to them even 500 years after the fact. These works manage to retain a great deal of their relevance even today.
This probably goes without saying for a 500 year-old book, but its only major drawback is its accuracy - its awful. Thankfully, Rebhorn points out any of Machiavelli's mistakes, exaggerations, conflations, and fabrications in the footnotes - and he rather exhaustively lists Machiavelli's sources (mostly just Livy's history of Rome)
In terms of readability, relevance, and quality of content, I think this book is a must-read.
The translation is very clear, plain, and easy to follow, and Rebhorn (the translator) took great pains to explain why he made certain stylistic choices in the introduction and footnotes.
Reading this as a total novice to Italian history, the footnotes in this edition are indespensible, and if you follow them closely, 'The Prince' reads like an especially engaging history of the Italian Wars, which also attempts to discuss the motivations and strategies behind the actions of various princes.
That said, if you put the questions of pragmatism and morality aside, I couldn't escape the sense that Machiavelli was just a bit of a nerdy guy who enjoyed writing about history. He didn't seem compelled to inject morality into his writing because he was just being frank about recent events (even though 'The Prince' was written to curry favor with the Medicis).
In his letter to Francesco Vettori, Machiavelli discusses his daily routine which started with trapping in the morning, then bugging the wood-cutters on his property for two hours while they were trying to work, and then heading to an Inn around the corner to play backgammon and cards all day. You get a really vivid picture of an unemployed guy in his mid-40s who had a lot of free time on his hands, and decided to kill some by writing about work.
His biography of Castruccio misconstrues facts, conflates characters, invents people from whole cloth, and eventually veers into just being a list of jokes. It seemed important for Machiavelli to demonstrate what he saw as ideal characteristics of a strong central leader, and in order to do so, he essentially wrote a half-fiction about a real person.
Interestingly, he makes a lot of observations, and shares opinions that have a strikingly familiar ring to them even 500 years after the fact. These works manage to retain a great deal of their relevance even today.
This probably goes without saying for a 500 year-old book, but its only major drawback is its accuracy - its awful. Thankfully, Rebhorn points out any of Machiavelli's mistakes, exaggerations, conflations, and fabrications in the footnotes - and he rather exhaustively lists Machiavelli's sources (mostly just Livy's history of Rome)
In terms of readability, relevance, and quality of content, I think this book is a must-read.
July 4, 2020
Classic philosophy book. Goes over the hypothetical ways to get in power and stay in power. Good recommendation for those interested in psychology or taking courses.
June 9, 2022
My review of The Prince
September 1, 2024
It is, well, exactly what it sounds like: XVI-century musings on matters of government. I think it's worth reading only as a historic piece - for the sake of its influence or for insight on the time and location the author inhabited. At least to me, it didn't feel like it had universal/timeless appeal outside of that. As a modern reader not particularly invested in XVI century Florence, or the historical philosophy of government, it was boring 🤷♀️
I wanted to try out a Knickerbocker Classics edition, and picked up The Prince, as it's been on my TBR for ages. This edition includes other writings besides the titular Prince. Short as this book was, it turned out to be dull enough that I switched to an audiobook, otherwise I'd just abandon it.
I wanted to try out a Knickerbocker Classics edition, and picked up The Prince, as it's been on my TBR for ages. This edition includes other writings besides the titular Prince. Short as this book was, it turned out to be dull enough that I switched to an audiobook, otherwise I'd just abandon it.
June 17, 2021
In this case, I want to make it clear that my rating is not a reflection of how "good" the book was, but how much I got out of it. I'm not trying to trash a classic of philosophy and political thought. But I also don't read much about philosophy or political thought, and this work reminded me why.
It's dry as hell.
I admit to skimming, past a certain point, because especially in "The Prince," which leads the collection, Machiavelli follows an incredibly clear formula: open a chapter with his thesis statement, explain it a little in generalities, mention a few applicable real-world examples, and then go in-depth on one or more of those examples, before summing his point up at the end. I was able to skip most of the in-depth assessments, because they were basically meaningless to me, as I am not a student of Italian history and had no idea who most of the figures he mentioned were. Some of them continue to loom large in historical perspective today, but many don't.
What did I actually take away from this? Well, mostly, a rebuttal of the reason I read it in the first place. This is well outside my comfort zone, but I've been hearing the descriptor "Machiavellian" thrown around idly for years, and like many, I'd come to understand that it meant cruel or even flat-out evil. I thought, if this is such a foundational work that the author gets his own adjective, I should probably read it at some point, yes?
But I didn't get a sense of cruelty or evil from his philosophizing at all. Sure, he's definitely espousing "the ends justify the means" as an overall theme, and he advises duplicity in leaders, to project an image of what he considers "good" while sometimes doing bad behind the scenes in order to promote stability. So from a broadly modern perspective, he's less than perfectly moral. But he does spend a chapter pointing out that acquiring power through criminal activities isn't a strong foundation for power. And I discovered that the famous "better to be feared than loved" tidbit is a misquote.
He's not evil, or promoting evil. He's just a realist and a pragmatist, from a time in history and political structure incredibly different from ours. No, I personally don't agree with the idea that the only way for a prince to be a strong leader is to have a kick-ass military. But in context, I do understand why Machiavelli thought that, and advised his own patron thus. I don't think most of this is applicable to modern day life, but it's still useful to understand how Machiavelli changed political thought with his writing.
So I'm glad I read it, even if I didn't really enjoy it. I'm glad I have a more accurate understanding (even if it's still a basic one, because politics is Not My Thing) of what this famous person really said, versus what common knowledge claims he said. And while I don't think I was ever using it that much, I'm going to stop throwing around the term "Machiavellian," because it doesn't mean what I thought it meant, but I alone can't stop the tide of people using it incorrectly. (Or, if you want to be really pedantic, using it correctly because that's what the term has come to mean, even if that meaning is now divorced from its source. Because I can't in good descriptive faith argue that "Machiavellian" doesn't carry connotations of evil and cruelty--it does. What I am arguing is that it shouldn't, but that's not a fight linguistics will ever win.)
It's dry as hell.
I admit to skimming, past a certain point, because especially in "The Prince," which leads the collection, Machiavelli follows an incredibly clear formula: open a chapter with his thesis statement, explain it a little in generalities, mention a few applicable real-world examples, and then go in-depth on one or more of those examples, before summing his point up at the end. I was able to skip most of the in-depth assessments, because they were basically meaningless to me, as I am not a student of Italian history and had no idea who most of the figures he mentioned were. Some of them continue to loom large in historical perspective today, but many don't.
What did I actually take away from this? Well, mostly, a rebuttal of the reason I read it in the first place. This is well outside my comfort zone, but I've been hearing the descriptor "Machiavellian" thrown around idly for years, and like many, I'd come to understand that it meant cruel or even flat-out evil. I thought, if this is such a foundational work that the author gets his own adjective, I should probably read it at some point, yes?
But I didn't get a sense of cruelty or evil from his philosophizing at all. Sure, he's definitely espousing "the ends justify the means" as an overall theme, and he advises duplicity in leaders, to project an image of what he considers "good" while sometimes doing bad behind the scenes in order to promote stability. So from a broadly modern perspective, he's less than perfectly moral. But he does spend a chapter pointing out that acquiring power through criminal activities isn't a strong foundation for power. And I discovered that the famous "better to be feared than loved" tidbit is a misquote.
He's not evil, or promoting evil. He's just a realist and a pragmatist, from a time in history and political structure incredibly different from ours. No, I personally don't agree with the idea that the only way for a prince to be a strong leader is to have a kick-ass military. But in context, I do understand why Machiavelli thought that, and advised his own patron thus. I don't think most of this is applicable to modern day life, but it's still useful to understand how Machiavelli changed political thought with his writing.
So I'm glad I read it, even if I didn't really enjoy it. I'm glad I have a more accurate understanding (even if it's still a basic one, because politics is Not My Thing) of what this famous person really said, versus what common knowledge claims he said. And while I don't think I was ever using it that much, I'm going to stop throwing around the term "Machiavellian," because it doesn't mean what I thought it meant, but I alone can't stop the tide of people using it incorrectly. (Or, if you want to be really pedantic, using it correctly because that's what the term has come to mean, even if that meaning is now divorced from its source. Because I can't in good descriptive faith argue that "Machiavellian" doesn't carry connotations of evil and cruelty--it does. What I am arguing is that it shouldn't, but that's not a fight linguistics will ever win.)
January 19, 2016
Sem escrúpulos, em O Príncipe, Niccolò Machiavelli analisa e expõe o comportamento que um governador deve adotar para subir ao poder e manter-se no topo. Bem-sucedidos ou completamente arruinados, o escritor serve-se de vários exemplos para fundamentar as suas conclusões - homens que reconheceram a oportunidade gerada pela atribulação e se serviram dela para revelar as excecionais mentes e forças que os colocariam na História.
As relações são de grande importância, «o príncipe» deve garantir que mantém povo e nobres satisfeitos, que controla os seus inimigos e que não se deixa ultrapassar pelos amigos. Machiavelli explica que, na ascensão ao poder, são feitos vários inimigos e que, por ser impossível corresponder às expectativas dos amigos, esta ligação acaba por enfraquecer. Até às forças armadas a que recorre «o príncipe» deverá ter atenção, optando por usar apenas o seu exército sem recorrer ao favor de outros e sem contratar mercenários.
A escolha dos servos mais próximos deve ser também objecto de estudo; «o príncipe» não deve manter por perto homens ambiciosos que se preocupem mais com o seu próprio sucesso do que com o do seu governante, deve procurar homens que possa beneficiar e recompensar, comprando assim as suas fidelidades. À Igreja deve ser atribuído algum poder mas não o suficiente que lhe permita impor-se-lhe e de todos os homens deve esperar que se comportem de forma interesseira, corrupta e encará-los como potenciais traidores.
A imposição pela força é necessária, continua Machiavelli - «when they believe no longer, it may be possible to make them believe by force». É muito importante parecer ser liberal, tendo sempre em mente que a liberdade é, na verdade, perigosa para um governante. Assim, «o príncipe» deve parecer muita coisa mas, no entanto, ser efetivamente algo bem diferente, encarando sem escrúpulos que a virtude é fonte de ruína ao passo que a falta de caráter gera segurança e prosperidade. «for a man who wishes to act entirely up to his professions of virtue soon meets with what destroys him among so much that is evil.»
Niccolò Machiavelli aconselha «ao príncipe» que seja astuto como uma raposa mas forte e temido como um leão, deixando claro que é melhor ser temido do que amado desde que não despolete o ódio - «men have less scruple in offending one who is beloved than one who is feared». Ao povo, deve entreter com festivais e espetáculos e apoiar todas as artes.
Com o seu tom direto e conciso, «O Príncipe» reúne verdades intemporais, tornando-se uma excelente e inquietante fonte de reflexão política.
As relações são de grande importância, «o príncipe» deve garantir que mantém povo e nobres satisfeitos, que controla os seus inimigos e que não se deixa ultrapassar pelos amigos. Machiavelli explica que, na ascensão ao poder, são feitos vários inimigos e que, por ser impossível corresponder às expectativas dos amigos, esta ligação acaba por enfraquecer. Até às forças armadas a que recorre «o príncipe» deverá ter atenção, optando por usar apenas o seu exército sem recorrer ao favor de outros e sem contratar mercenários.
A escolha dos servos mais próximos deve ser também objecto de estudo; «o príncipe» não deve manter por perto homens ambiciosos que se preocupem mais com o seu próprio sucesso do que com o do seu governante, deve procurar homens que possa beneficiar e recompensar, comprando assim as suas fidelidades. À Igreja deve ser atribuído algum poder mas não o suficiente que lhe permita impor-se-lhe e de todos os homens deve esperar que se comportem de forma interesseira, corrupta e encará-los como potenciais traidores.
A imposição pela força é necessária, continua Machiavelli - «when they believe no longer, it may be possible to make them believe by force». É muito importante parecer ser liberal, tendo sempre em mente que a liberdade é, na verdade, perigosa para um governante. Assim, «o príncipe» deve parecer muita coisa mas, no entanto, ser efetivamente algo bem diferente, encarando sem escrúpulos que a virtude é fonte de ruína ao passo que a falta de caráter gera segurança e prosperidade. «for a man who wishes to act entirely up to his professions of virtue soon meets with what destroys him among so much that is evil.»
Niccolò Machiavelli aconselha «ao príncipe» que seja astuto como uma raposa mas forte e temido como um leão, deixando claro que é melhor ser temido do que amado desde que não despolete o ódio - «men have less scruple in offending one who is beloved than one who is feared». Ao povo, deve entreter com festivais e espetáculos e apoiar todas as artes.
Com o seu tom direto e conciso, «O Príncipe» reúne verdades intemporais, tornando-se uma excelente e inquietante fonte de reflexão política.
January 11, 2013
I first read the Prince by Niccolò Machiavelli after I was coming off of the Art of War by Sun Tzu, which was a book that was and still is critically acclaimed for its discussion of strategy and management. I was however let down, as the Art of War, in my eyes, did not live up to the expectations that had come before it and as a result, I felt a little disheartened in what was labeled as a classic. But upon learning of the Prince I thought that I would give the classics another chance and, in short, it not only a book that thoroughly intrigued me, but was a book that renewed my faith in the classics.
The Prince, for those who do not know, is a book written by Niccolò Machiavelli, a renaissance statesman and politician, for the then lord of Florence, who was new to his position. Since the book was written originally for the eyes of heads of state, Machiavelli does not attempt to sugar coat or dumb down the message that he wants to convey, making for a very concise straightforward read. This, in my opinion, was half of the greatness that this book had, and at times I was oftentimes taken aback by Machiavelli’s honesty. The other half of the books greatness was the reasoning that was put into his points, and from reading, one can begin to fathom the events that the author has seen, and the experience that he has derived from them.
All this being said, I highly recommend the Prince to anyone who is a fan of either history, philosophy, or you want to learn management and I give this book five shining stars.
The Prince, for those who do not know, is a book written by Niccolò Machiavelli, a renaissance statesman and politician, for the then lord of Florence, who was new to his position. Since the book was written originally for the eyes of heads of state, Machiavelli does not attempt to sugar coat or dumb down the message that he wants to convey, making for a very concise straightforward read. This, in my opinion, was half of the greatness that this book had, and at times I was oftentimes taken aback by Machiavelli’s honesty. The other half of the books greatness was the reasoning that was put into his points, and from reading, one can begin to fathom the events that the author has seen, and the experience that he has derived from them.
All this being said, I highly recommend the Prince to anyone who is a fan of either history, philosophy, or you want to learn management and I give this book five shining stars.
July 5, 2016
I am very glad this edition included some of the Discourses, because reading them I understood much more clearly why Machiavelli in his own writings proves how democracies are inherently better than princedoms, and that is because being a Machiavellian Prince is inherently impossible. One would have to embody too many opposing traits to successfully lead large groups of people that require different methods in attitude and enforcement, which leads to the necessity of others in the government, not just for implementing the Prince's will, but also for decision-making, which would inevitable lead to a power-struggle, though periods of relative peace while that struggle is in its early stages makes it seems like a Prince could rule successfully with this method. Even if a Prince could embody these different necessary roles, changes in behavior would lead to a lack of trust in the inconsistency, and where there is no trust there is conflict. Republics avoid this problem by removing the ability of the more affluent members from escalating their power struggles by attaching their power to both the people and similarly authorized persons whose support they need but will rarely ever be able to control.
Of course, that's my own rather simple analysis and quickly written essay-review, but it's fun to think about.
Of course, that's my own rather simple analysis and quickly written essay-review, but it's fun to think about.
July 20, 2015
Maybe I'm an ignorant to have not known who Machiavelli was before reading this book. It was pure coincidence that I stumbled upon this book at the book store and found the edition quite interesting so I purchased it. The fact that it was actually non-fiction, to me, is another reason why I subconsciously carried it to the till. Though many people have criticised how Machiavelli wrote this book for the sake of an important figure, namely a prince in power during his time, I don't see how it could have affected how he wrote the book at all. At first, I was entertained by the method this book was written, which resembles a manual on "How to Raise a Principality and Stick With It." But then it just seems to me that he is on the opinion that a prince must be ruthless and cruel to triumph, which I believe, is not true at all. He also speaks of killing as one would about doing the laundry: it's just something one must do at one point of one's life. But it also gives me a great understanding into the way people of those days view power and the world. The blame lay not only with Machiavelli, but also with society in the 1500s. All in all, a rather entertaining read in the social scientific sense. Read with critical mind, so as not to get sucked into every word he heeds.
November 29, 2015
Almost like reading the play book for modern politicians, Machiavelli's "how to" has been used for generations by "Princes" struggling to grasp or maintain their position. The editor makes the argument that Machiavelli wasn't proposing that the "ends justify the means" but all of his suggestions are means by which to maintain control. He frowns at times when suggesting that being dishonorable, cruel or dishonest is sometimes necessary, and then claims with a shrug that it must be done. Feigning religion is another of his suggestions. I wander what Machiavelli would think reading about our current politics.
March 24, 2010
I'm actually going to change my star rating of this book, but my previous review said that I really did not like it. Looking back, it wasn't really that terrible, but reads like a textbook. A really old textbook. Don't go into it expecting a page-turning adventure (even though I don't know why you would). And, going through AP Government, I realize how relevant Machiavelli was during his time, and that relevance lasts to the modern world.
August 7, 2018
It ought to receive a more detailed review, but a classic of its caliber already has an abundance of elaborate reviews to do it justice. Thus, simply commenting that this book of strategy is indeed as majestic and timeless as described should suffice.
Read
January 28, 2022Excellent for seeing how world leaders and governments act or might in general.Shows the hard line and darker side of human social/politico structure.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 147 reviews