What do you think?
Rate this book
Selected Political Writings
Here are The Prince and the most important of the Discourses newly translated into spare, vivid English. Why a new translation? Machiavelli was never the dull, worthy, pedantic author who appears in the pages of other translations, says David Wootton in his Introduction. In the pages that follow I have done my best to let him speak in his own voice. (And indeed, Wootton’s Machiavelli does just that when the occasion renderings of that most problematic of words, virtu, are in each instance followed by the Italian). Notes, a map, and an altogether remarkable Introduction no less authoritative for being grippingly readable, help make this edition an ideal first encounter with Machiavelli for any student of history and political theory.
272 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1994
34 people are currently reading
725 people want to read
About the author
Niccolò Machiavelli
1,847 books4,967 followers
The Prince
, book of Niccolò Machiavelli, Italian political theorist, in
1513 describes an indifferent ruler to moral considerations with determination to achieve and to maintain power.
Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli, a philosopher, musician, and poet, wrote plays. He figured centrally in component of the Renaissance, and people most widely know his realist treatises on the one hand and republicanism of Discourses on Livy .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niccol%...
1513 describes an indifferent ruler to moral considerations with determination to achieve and to maintain power.
Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli, a philosopher, musician, and poet, wrote plays. He figured centrally in component of the Renaissance, and people most widely know his realist treatises on the one hand and republicanism of Discourses on Livy .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niccol%...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews
March 9, 2024
the Discourses were fine but I think Machiavelli is guilty of a lot of the judgements that he warns against
September 19, 2022
Useful translation and best selection I know of, since the entire Discorsi are not worth reading (Roman sources, like Appian, Sallust, Polybius, and Dio Cassius, or Livy himself, etc., give a better sense of Roman history; see also A Critical History of Early Rome).
It could have included influential passages from the Florentine History chronicle, e.g. book VIII, chapter 29 on San Giorgio and the Genoese Republic. Or the poor in Florence in revolt against the rich, etc., i.e. the making and breaking of Florentine democracy. Maybe there is more political correspondence to be included, I don't know.
Machiavelli's writing on politics was influential beyond what almost anyone can imagine, especially on republicanism and his chief argument that a people have to be willing to die for democracy or live old in a dictatorship. With the example of the Swiss battling it out (mostly referred to as the "German republics") against the Habsburg monarchy, Machiavelli shows that the Swiss republic of today would simply not exist the way it does, as a country with the most direct democracy in the world, had it not fought bloody and drawn-out wars in Machiavelli's day (the vast 1525 peasant's revolution is the Elsass/German/Swiss/Austrian example par excellence of bellicose Machiavellianism). And with examples from Livy, he tries to argue how the poor manage to retain their freedom in Rome, with the collaboration --and not the annihilation-- of the rich, with institutional inclusion that should avoid oligarchic or aristocratic corruption like the plague.
This complex, but straight-forward, political philosophy had implications for the early modern world that were hard to unsee, especially for protestants. They were immediate in the 1525 revolution and, later, during the English Civil Wars, in Scotland and England, the implications had sunken in, spiraling out of control (or so the late Thomas Hobbes argued) in a war killing hundreds of thousands. Machiavelli’s Florentine Histories had a role in the Financial Revolution (e.g. including the 1688 Glorious Revolution), in mediating between company founders and political pamphleteers in Northern Europe and the 15th-16th century Casa di San Giorgio with his description of Genoese bank politics (as shown by Carlo Taviani in his 2022 book: "The Making of the Modern Corporation"). He stayed important in the 18th century revolutions, e.g. in Paoli's vision of the Corsican republic in the 1760s. In America, Machiavelli was less well understood by the framers of the constitution (Adams, Morris, etc.), as argued by Eisel Mazard in No More Manifestos, even if influential, along with Polybius and Harrington's Oceana (influenced by Machiavelli, as shown by Paul Rahe in Against Throne and Altar). Did Machiavelli's star wane from then on? Not really, since it resurged in 19th century Europe (e.g. in Germany). But Marxism with its notion of class war and dictatorship of the proletariat certainly came to replace bellicose pro-Roman tribune Machiavellism that advocated a class-overreaching war on dictatorship, leading to a new (perhaps hybrid) conception of revolution in European politics.
A curse on the university of Geneva and its professors that did not let me read this book for the courses, even though Machiavelli's name —connected to his Discorsi— was mentioned in 5 different ones.
It could have included influential passages from the Florentine History chronicle, e.g. book VIII, chapter 29 on San Giorgio and the Genoese Republic. Or the poor in Florence in revolt against the rich, etc., i.e. the making and breaking of Florentine democracy. Maybe there is more political correspondence to be included, I don't know.
Machiavelli's writing on politics was influential beyond what almost anyone can imagine, especially on republicanism and his chief argument that a people have to be willing to die for democracy or live old in a dictatorship. With the example of the Swiss battling it out (mostly referred to as the "German republics") against the Habsburg monarchy, Machiavelli shows that the Swiss republic of today would simply not exist the way it does, as a country with the most direct democracy in the world, had it not fought bloody and drawn-out wars in Machiavelli's day (the vast 1525 peasant's revolution is the Elsass/German/Swiss/Austrian example par excellence of bellicose Machiavellianism). And with examples from Livy, he tries to argue how the poor manage to retain their freedom in Rome, with the collaboration --and not the annihilation-- of the rich, with institutional inclusion that should avoid oligarchic or aristocratic corruption like the plague.
This complex, but straight-forward, political philosophy had implications for the early modern world that were hard to unsee, especially for protestants. They were immediate in the 1525 revolution and, later, during the English Civil Wars, in Scotland and England, the implications had sunken in, spiraling out of control (or so the late Thomas Hobbes argued) in a war killing hundreds of thousands. Machiavelli’s Florentine Histories had a role in the Financial Revolution (e.g. including the 1688 Glorious Revolution), in mediating between company founders and political pamphleteers in Northern Europe and the 15th-16th century Casa di San Giorgio with his description of Genoese bank politics (as shown by Carlo Taviani in his 2022 book: "The Making of the Modern Corporation"). He stayed important in the 18th century revolutions, e.g. in Paoli's vision of the Corsican republic in the 1760s. In America, Machiavelli was less well understood by the framers of the constitution (Adams, Morris, etc.), as argued by Eisel Mazard in No More Manifestos, even if influential, along with Polybius and Harrington's Oceana (influenced by Machiavelli, as shown by Paul Rahe in Against Throne and Altar). Did Machiavelli's star wane from then on? Not really, since it resurged in 19th century Europe (e.g. in Germany). But Marxism with its notion of class war and dictatorship of the proletariat certainly came to replace bellicose pro-Roman tribune Machiavellism that advocated a class-overreaching war on dictatorship, leading to a new (perhaps hybrid) conception of revolution in European politics.
A curse on the university of Geneva and its professors that did not let me read this book for the courses, even though Machiavelli's name —connected to his Discorsi— was mentioned in 5 different ones.
September 11, 2024
The discourses had some interesting insights. Still had the same like person of the prince but he genuinely seems like a guy who favored republican government. Any person who reads the prince imo should Aldo read the discourses to get a true understanding. Pretty good
July 18, 2024
The interesting thing about bundling both The Prince and highlights of the Discourses together is that it dispels many of the preconceived notions one would have of Machiavelli from popular culture. From what I gathered from this book The Prince was something of a job application, as the Pope was about to give some territory to an extended family member, and Machiavelli was hoping to get a job as his advisor. I don't think it's crazy to think that anyone in pursuit of a job would slightly alter their views to make it more appealing to a possible employer. However, even though Machiavelli gives so much advice to a future king or tyrant, in the Discourses he reveals that he believes a Republic with high social equality is actually the best way to organize society. In this respect, he cites Rome as his example, as soon as they got rid of their kings did the golden age of Roman expansion and culture arrive. Once Caesar took power, leading to a line of emperors, did Rome begin to decline. I found this view of history to be the most interesting aspect of Machiavelli. The only praise Machiavelli gives to religion is the practical advice that it can aid in social cohesion, but otherwise he seems almost critical of the conduct of the contemporary (of his time) catholic church. Some of his parlance, and glorification of pagan statesmen, makes him seem almost atheistic at times. In Machiavelli's world, one man taking control and bending an entire society to his will is exceedingly rare and difficult, worse the society he creates is inherently unstable and may collapse in his own lifetime. In a version of reality where there is no heaven or hell, only oblivion, what should an aspiring statesman aim for? The answer for Machiavelli is an empire, the fate of man and the fate of a city are the same, so why not aim for glory. Rome, as a republic, provided a higher standard of living for it's citizens and made it's mark on the world, not only in Machiavelli's time but in our own. Even though Rome itself is ancient history, it's legend has never died and we still talk about it's philosophers, statesmen, generals and Gods today. For Machiavelli, there can be no higher goal than for one to elevate their city or culture to this point, and ultimately, it is the work of many hands that make it possible.
Why should a state even exist in the first place? Why even have an elite class? My reading of Machiavelli leads me to think the answer to these questions is fear. As soon as a group of people cobble together enough resources to form a sustaining community it only takes one bad actor, either internally or externally, to lead to everything they've worked towards being destroyed. From this fear we have the creation of a military class, to deal with outside threats, and an elite class, to deal with internal threats. As soon as a private citizen gathers enough wealth to fear it being taken away by his neighbors, he begins to act in a manner such that he protects his private interests, that method being politicking. Machiavelli even counsels that a prince should consider killing these people as they might grow enough influence to challenge his own rule. However, an elite class is always bound to appear in any sort of community, and in Machiavelli's ideal republic, the elite, common people and military would all have a voice in a representative government. Even better if they all disagree with each other and thus keep the power hungry of each faction in check.
A city does not live in a vacuum, and thus Machiavelli asks readers to look to the past to see how great statesmen dealt with their neighbors. As a modern reader this call to look backwards is always funny, as from our perspective Machiavelli himself is starting to become an "ancient" author. I think as history becomes ever longer individuals like Machiavelli are important for their summaries of past events. Machiavelli gives the reader a highlight real of the great Roman and Greek statesmen as well as snippets of Italian history of his day, for some readers this might become all they know of these cultures. Many people, when they think about Italians, probably jump from the Romans to the Renaissance to today. It's important to remember that in-between these eras the statesmen who lived there were themselves thinking about their own history and wondering how they can grow and retain their status on the global stage. Machiavelli makes it apparent that just outside the doors were the foreign kings and mercenary armies doing their best to get inside, and what's worse, Italian factions would sometimes let them in, all for the pursuit of power.
Some quotes I liked:
Machiavelli may appear to teach the immoral pursuit of power by any means. In fact, he clearly teaches two sets of moral values: one deals with relations between states, where only success counts; the other, much more complex, concerns one's dealings with one's fellow citizens, where the means must be justified by the purposes they serve. To seize power, as Agis and Cleomenes did, in order to strengthen the republic is admirable; to seize it in order to establish a lasting tyranny, however benevolent, is shameful. Introduction xxii
Success, mastery of fortune, is important, but not all ends are worth pursuing, not all means justifiable. Machiavelli's virtuous man seeks not merely fame, but glory. There is nothing glorious or virtuous about unnecessary cruelty and bloodshed; on the other hand, a squeamish distaste for violence may make things worse in the long run. Machiavelli thus advocates "an economy of violence." Since history reflects the views of the victors, success, even if it involves murder or treachery, is likely to lead to glory, not infamy. There are some goals, however, that are in themselves shameful. No one should want to destroy good government in order to establish anarchy or tyranny; no one should want to be Caesar. Politicians should all aspire to establish sound government that enables the mass of society to live in security. This is the best recipe for success, but also the only goal that is morally admirable. Introduction xxx
Machiavelli repeatedly praises France, where royal despotism and aristocratic tyranny are kept within the law by parlements. This is the least one can hope for, although it is more than can be found in a tyranny or despotism. But better still is il vivere libero, or self-government. Most men, the plebs, want only security. A minority, the popolo, those who are true citizens, want to participate in political life. A few, the grandi, want to be leaders. Where there is great social inequality, particularly where the grandi are a landed aristocracy, with castles and armed retainers, popular self-government is impossible. But where there is a reasonable degree of equality, where the wealthy and privileged do not have things all their own way, then, in a city-state, popular self-government is possible, and wherever it is possible, it is desirable. Introduction xxxi
The Romans did in such matters what all wise rulers ought to do. It is necessary not only to pay attention to immediate crises, but to foresee those that will come, and to make every effort to prevent them. For if you see them coming well in advance, then you can easily take the appropriate action to remedy them, but if you wait until they are right on top of you, then the prescription will no longer take effect, because the disease is too far advanced. In this matter it is as doctors say of consumption: In the beginning the disease is easy to cure, difficult to diagnose; but, after a while, if it has not been diagnosed and treated early, it becomes easy to diagnose and hard to cure. So, too, in politics, for if you foresee problems while they are far off (which only a prudent man is able to do) they can easily be dealt with; but when, because you have failed to see them coming, you allow them to grow to the point that anyone can recognize them, then it is too late to do anything. The Prince pg.11
He who is the cause of someone else's becoming powerful is the agent of his own destruction; for he makes his protégé powerful either through his own skill or through his own strength, and either of these must provoke his protégé's mistrust once he has become powerful. The Prince pg.14
Generosity used skillfully and practiced as it ought to be, is hidden from sight, and being truly generous will not protect you from acquiring a reputation for parsimony. So, if you want to have a reputation for generosity, you must throw yourself into lavish and ostentatious expenditure. Consequently, a ruler who pursues a reputation for generosity will always end up wasting all his resources; and he will be obliged in the end, if he wants to preserve his reputation, to impose crushing taxes upon the people, to pursue every possible source of income, and to be preoccupied with maximizing his revenues. This will begin to make him hateful to his subjects, and will ensure no one thinks well of him, for no one admires poverty. The result is his supposed generosity will have caused him to offend the vast majority and to have won favor with the few. Anything that goes wrong will destabilize him, and the slightest danger will imperil him. Recognizing the problem, and trying to economize, he will quickly find he has acquired the reputation as a miser. So we see a ruler cannot seek to benefit from a reputation as generous without harming himself. Recognizing this, he ought, if he is wise, not to mind being called miserly. For, as time goes by, he will be thought of as growing ever more generous, for people will recognize that as a result of his parsimony he is able to live on his income, maintain an adequate army, and undertake new initiatives without imposing new taxes. The result is he will be thought to be generous towards all those whose income he does not tax, which is almost everybody, and stingy towards those who miss out on handouts, who are only a few. The Prince pg.49
Rulers either spend their own wealth and that of their subjects, or that of other people. Those who spend their own and their subjects' wealth should be abstemious; those who spend the wealth of others should seize every opportunity to be generous. Rulers who march with their armies, living off plunder, pillage, and confiscations are spending other people's money, and it is essential they should seem generous, for otherwise their soldiers will not follow them. With goods that belong neither to you nor to your subjects, you can afford to be generous, as Cyrus, Caesar, and Alexander were. Squandering other people's money does not do your reputation any harm, quite the reverse. The problem is with squandering your own. There is nothing so self-defeating as generosity, for the more generous you are, the less you are able to be generous. Generosity leads to poverty and disgrace, or, if you try to escape that, to rapacity and hostility. Among all the things a ruler should try to avoid, he must avoid above all being hated and despised. Generosity leads to your being both. So it is wiser to accept a reputation as miserly, which people despise but do not hate, than to aspire to a reputation as generous, and as a consequence, be obliged to face criticism for rapacity, which people both despise and hate. The Prince pg.50
For of men one can, in general, say this: They are ungrateful, fickle, deceptive and deceiving, avoiders of danger, eager to gain. As long as you serve their interests, they are devoted to you. They promise you their blood, their possessions, their lives, and their children, as I said before, so long as you seem to have no need of them. But as soon as you need help, they turn against you. Any ruler who relies simply on their promises and makes no other preparations, will be destroyed. For you will find that those whose support you buy, who do not rally to you because they admire your strength of character and nobility of soul, these are people you pay for, but they are never yours, and in the end you cannot get the benefit of your investment. Men are less nervous of offending someone who makes himself lovable, than someone who makes himself frightening. For love attaches men by ties of obligation, which, since men are wicked, they break whenever their interests are at stake. But fear restrains men because they are afraid of punishment, and this fear never leaves them. Still, a ruler should make himself feared in such a way that, if he does not inspire love, at lest he does not provoke hatred. For it is perfectly possible to be feared and not hated. You will only be hated if you seize the property or the women of your subjects and citizens. Whenever you have to kill someone, make sure you have a suitable excuse and an obvious reason; but, above all else, keep your hands off other people's property; for men are quicker to forget the death of their father than the loss of their inheritance. Moreover, there are always reasons why you might want to seize people's property; and he who begins to live by plundering others will always find an excuse for seizing other people's possessions; but there are fewer reasons for killing people, and one killing need not lead to another. The Prince pg.52
A ruler, therefore, should always take advice, but only when he wants to, not when others want him to; he should discourage everybody from giving him advice without being asked; but he should be always asking, and, moreover, he should listen patiently to the answers, provided they are truthful. But if he becomes persuaded someone, for whatever reason, is not telling him the truth, he should lose his temper. There are many who think some rulers who have a reputation for being prudent do not really deserve to be thought so, claiming that the rulers themselves are not wise, but that they merely receive good advice. But without doubt they are mistaken. For this is a general rule without exceptions: A ruler who is not himself wise cannot be given good advice. Unless, I should say, he hands over all decisions to one other person and has the good luck to pick someone quite exceptionally prudent. But such an exceptional arrangement will not last long, for the man who takes all the decisions will soon take power. But a ruler who is not wise, if he takes advice from more than one person, will never get the same advice from everyone, nor will he be able to combine the different proposals into a coherent policy unless he has help. His advisers will each think about his own interests, and he will not be able to recognize their bias or correct it. This is how it has to be, for you will find men are always wicked, unless you give them no alternative to be good. So we may conclude that good advice, no matter who it comes from, really comes from the ruler's own good judgment, and that the ruler's good judgment never comes from good advice. The Prince pg.72
There is one thing that all those who discuss political life emphasize, and that is evident from the history of every state: It is essential that anyone setting up a republic and establishing a constitution for it should assume that all men are wicked and will always give vent to their evil impulses whenever they have the chance to do so. Even when some evil impulse is restrained and concealed for a time, there is always some hidden reason for this, one we do not recognize because we have not seen the vicious behavior the evil impulse would normally give rise to. But time will make clear what it is, for time, as they say, gives birth to truth. The Discourses pg.92
Men never do anything that is good except when forced to. Where there is a good deal of freedom of choice, and this freedom can be abused, then everything quickly becomes buried in confusion and disorder. Therefore, people say hunger and poverty make men industrious, while laws make them good. Where something works well on its own, without the support of the law, then there is no need for a law. But as soon as good habits break down, then laws at once become necessary. The Discourses pg.93
But let us turn to the other particular characteristics of that city. I maintain those who criticize the clashes between the nobility and the populace attack what was, I would argue, the primary factor making for Rome's continuing freedom. They pay more attention to the shouts and cries that rise from such conflicts than to the good effects that derive from them. They do not take into account the fact that there are two distinct viewpoints in every republic: that of the populace and that of the elite. All the laws made in order to foster liberty result from the tensions between them, as one can easily see was the case in the history of Rome. For from Tarquin to the Gracchi, a period of more than three hundred years, the conflicts that broke out in Rome rarely resulted in men's being sent into exile, and even more rarely led to bloodshed. One cannot judge these conflicts as harmful, or the republic as divided, when over such a long period of time the differences between the parties led to no more than eight or ten citizens' being sent into exile, to a tiny number's being murdered, and indeed to only a few's being fined. Nor can there be any good grounds for calling a republic disorderly when it contains so many examples of individual excellence, for good individuals cannot exist without good education, and good education cannot exist without good laws, and good laws were the result of those very conflicts many people unthinkingly criticize. Anyone who scrutinizes the outcome of these conflicts will find they never led to exiles or murders that were contrary to the public good but always led to laws and institutions that favored public liberty. The Discourses pg.94
Why should a state even exist in the first place? Why even have an elite class? My reading of Machiavelli leads me to think the answer to these questions is fear. As soon as a group of people cobble together enough resources to form a sustaining community it only takes one bad actor, either internally or externally, to lead to everything they've worked towards being destroyed. From this fear we have the creation of a military class, to deal with outside threats, and an elite class, to deal with internal threats. As soon as a private citizen gathers enough wealth to fear it being taken away by his neighbors, he begins to act in a manner such that he protects his private interests, that method being politicking. Machiavelli even counsels that a prince should consider killing these people as they might grow enough influence to challenge his own rule. However, an elite class is always bound to appear in any sort of community, and in Machiavelli's ideal republic, the elite, common people and military would all have a voice in a representative government. Even better if they all disagree with each other and thus keep the power hungry of each faction in check.
A city does not live in a vacuum, and thus Machiavelli asks readers to look to the past to see how great statesmen dealt with their neighbors. As a modern reader this call to look backwards is always funny, as from our perspective Machiavelli himself is starting to become an "ancient" author. I think as history becomes ever longer individuals like Machiavelli are important for their summaries of past events. Machiavelli gives the reader a highlight real of the great Roman and Greek statesmen as well as snippets of Italian history of his day, for some readers this might become all they know of these cultures. Many people, when they think about Italians, probably jump from the Romans to the Renaissance to today. It's important to remember that in-between these eras the statesmen who lived there were themselves thinking about their own history and wondering how they can grow and retain their status on the global stage. Machiavelli makes it apparent that just outside the doors were the foreign kings and mercenary armies doing their best to get inside, and what's worse, Italian factions would sometimes let them in, all for the pursuit of power.
Some quotes I liked:
Machiavelli may appear to teach the immoral pursuit of power by any means. In fact, he clearly teaches two sets of moral values: one deals with relations between states, where only success counts; the other, much more complex, concerns one's dealings with one's fellow citizens, where the means must be justified by the purposes they serve. To seize power, as Agis and Cleomenes did, in order to strengthen the republic is admirable; to seize it in order to establish a lasting tyranny, however benevolent, is shameful. Introduction xxii
Success, mastery of fortune, is important, but not all ends are worth pursuing, not all means justifiable. Machiavelli's virtuous man seeks not merely fame, but glory. There is nothing glorious or virtuous about unnecessary cruelty and bloodshed; on the other hand, a squeamish distaste for violence may make things worse in the long run. Machiavelli thus advocates "an economy of violence." Since history reflects the views of the victors, success, even if it involves murder or treachery, is likely to lead to glory, not infamy. There are some goals, however, that are in themselves shameful. No one should want to destroy good government in order to establish anarchy or tyranny; no one should want to be Caesar. Politicians should all aspire to establish sound government that enables the mass of society to live in security. This is the best recipe for success, but also the only goal that is morally admirable. Introduction xxx
Machiavelli repeatedly praises France, where royal despotism and aristocratic tyranny are kept within the law by parlements. This is the least one can hope for, although it is more than can be found in a tyranny or despotism. But better still is il vivere libero, or self-government. Most men, the plebs, want only security. A minority, the popolo, those who are true citizens, want to participate in political life. A few, the grandi, want to be leaders. Where there is great social inequality, particularly where the grandi are a landed aristocracy, with castles and armed retainers, popular self-government is impossible. But where there is a reasonable degree of equality, where the wealthy and privileged do not have things all their own way, then, in a city-state, popular self-government is possible, and wherever it is possible, it is desirable. Introduction xxxi
The Romans did in such matters what all wise rulers ought to do. It is necessary not only to pay attention to immediate crises, but to foresee those that will come, and to make every effort to prevent them. For if you see them coming well in advance, then you can easily take the appropriate action to remedy them, but if you wait until they are right on top of you, then the prescription will no longer take effect, because the disease is too far advanced. In this matter it is as doctors say of consumption: In the beginning the disease is easy to cure, difficult to diagnose; but, after a while, if it has not been diagnosed and treated early, it becomes easy to diagnose and hard to cure. So, too, in politics, for if you foresee problems while they are far off (which only a prudent man is able to do) they can easily be dealt with; but when, because you have failed to see them coming, you allow them to grow to the point that anyone can recognize them, then it is too late to do anything. The Prince pg.11
He who is the cause of someone else's becoming powerful is the agent of his own destruction; for he makes his protégé powerful either through his own skill or through his own strength, and either of these must provoke his protégé's mistrust once he has become powerful. The Prince pg.14
Generosity used skillfully and practiced as it ought to be, is hidden from sight, and being truly generous will not protect you from acquiring a reputation for parsimony. So, if you want to have a reputation for generosity, you must throw yourself into lavish and ostentatious expenditure. Consequently, a ruler who pursues a reputation for generosity will always end up wasting all his resources; and he will be obliged in the end, if he wants to preserve his reputation, to impose crushing taxes upon the people, to pursue every possible source of income, and to be preoccupied with maximizing his revenues. This will begin to make him hateful to his subjects, and will ensure no one thinks well of him, for no one admires poverty. The result is his supposed generosity will have caused him to offend the vast majority and to have won favor with the few. Anything that goes wrong will destabilize him, and the slightest danger will imperil him. Recognizing the problem, and trying to economize, he will quickly find he has acquired the reputation as a miser. So we see a ruler cannot seek to benefit from a reputation as generous without harming himself. Recognizing this, he ought, if he is wise, not to mind being called miserly. For, as time goes by, he will be thought of as growing ever more generous, for people will recognize that as a result of his parsimony he is able to live on his income, maintain an adequate army, and undertake new initiatives without imposing new taxes. The result is he will be thought to be generous towards all those whose income he does not tax, which is almost everybody, and stingy towards those who miss out on handouts, who are only a few. The Prince pg.49
Rulers either spend their own wealth and that of their subjects, or that of other people. Those who spend their own and their subjects' wealth should be abstemious; those who spend the wealth of others should seize every opportunity to be generous. Rulers who march with their armies, living off plunder, pillage, and confiscations are spending other people's money, and it is essential they should seem generous, for otherwise their soldiers will not follow them. With goods that belong neither to you nor to your subjects, you can afford to be generous, as Cyrus, Caesar, and Alexander were. Squandering other people's money does not do your reputation any harm, quite the reverse. The problem is with squandering your own. There is nothing so self-defeating as generosity, for the more generous you are, the less you are able to be generous. Generosity leads to poverty and disgrace, or, if you try to escape that, to rapacity and hostility. Among all the things a ruler should try to avoid, he must avoid above all being hated and despised. Generosity leads to your being both. So it is wiser to accept a reputation as miserly, which people despise but do not hate, than to aspire to a reputation as generous, and as a consequence, be obliged to face criticism for rapacity, which people both despise and hate. The Prince pg.50
For of men one can, in general, say this: They are ungrateful, fickle, deceptive and deceiving, avoiders of danger, eager to gain. As long as you serve their interests, they are devoted to you. They promise you their blood, their possessions, their lives, and their children, as I said before, so long as you seem to have no need of them. But as soon as you need help, they turn against you. Any ruler who relies simply on their promises and makes no other preparations, will be destroyed. For you will find that those whose support you buy, who do not rally to you because they admire your strength of character and nobility of soul, these are people you pay for, but they are never yours, and in the end you cannot get the benefit of your investment. Men are less nervous of offending someone who makes himself lovable, than someone who makes himself frightening. For love attaches men by ties of obligation, which, since men are wicked, they break whenever their interests are at stake. But fear restrains men because they are afraid of punishment, and this fear never leaves them. Still, a ruler should make himself feared in such a way that, if he does not inspire love, at lest he does not provoke hatred. For it is perfectly possible to be feared and not hated. You will only be hated if you seize the property or the women of your subjects and citizens. Whenever you have to kill someone, make sure you have a suitable excuse and an obvious reason; but, above all else, keep your hands off other people's property; for men are quicker to forget the death of their father than the loss of their inheritance. Moreover, there are always reasons why you might want to seize people's property; and he who begins to live by plundering others will always find an excuse for seizing other people's possessions; but there are fewer reasons for killing people, and one killing need not lead to another. The Prince pg.52
A ruler, therefore, should always take advice, but only when he wants to, not when others want him to; he should discourage everybody from giving him advice without being asked; but he should be always asking, and, moreover, he should listen patiently to the answers, provided they are truthful. But if he becomes persuaded someone, for whatever reason, is not telling him the truth, he should lose his temper. There are many who think some rulers who have a reputation for being prudent do not really deserve to be thought so, claiming that the rulers themselves are not wise, but that they merely receive good advice. But without doubt they are mistaken. For this is a general rule without exceptions: A ruler who is not himself wise cannot be given good advice. Unless, I should say, he hands over all decisions to one other person and has the good luck to pick someone quite exceptionally prudent. But such an exceptional arrangement will not last long, for the man who takes all the decisions will soon take power. But a ruler who is not wise, if he takes advice from more than one person, will never get the same advice from everyone, nor will he be able to combine the different proposals into a coherent policy unless he has help. His advisers will each think about his own interests, and he will not be able to recognize their bias or correct it. This is how it has to be, for you will find men are always wicked, unless you give them no alternative to be good. So we may conclude that good advice, no matter who it comes from, really comes from the ruler's own good judgment, and that the ruler's good judgment never comes from good advice. The Prince pg.72
There is one thing that all those who discuss political life emphasize, and that is evident from the history of every state: It is essential that anyone setting up a republic and establishing a constitution for it should assume that all men are wicked and will always give vent to their evil impulses whenever they have the chance to do so. Even when some evil impulse is restrained and concealed for a time, there is always some hidden reason for this, one we do not recognize because we have not seen the vicious behavior the evil impulse would normally give rise to. But time will make clear what it is, for time, as they say, gives birth to truth. The Discourses pg.92
Men never do anything that is good except when forced to. Where there is a good deal of freedom of choice, and this freedom can be abused, then everything quickly becomes buried in confusion and disorder. Therefore, people say hunger and poverty make men industrious, while laws make them good. Where something works well on its own, without the support of the law, then there is no need for a law. But as soon as good habits break down, then laws at once become necessary. The Discourses pg.93
But let us turn to the other particular characteristics of that city. I maintain those who criticize the clashes between the nobility and the populace attack what was, I would argue, the primary factor making for Rome's continuing freedom. They pay more attention to the shouts and cries that rise from such conflicts than to the good effects that derive from them. They do not take into account the fact that there are two distinct viewpoints in every republic: that of the populace and that of the elite. All the laws made in order to foster liberty result from the tensions between them, as one can easily see was the case in the history of Rome. For from Tarquin to the Gracchi, a period of more than three hundred years, the conflicts that broke out in Rome rarely resulted in men's being sent into exile, and even more rarely led to bloodshed. One cannot judge these conflicts as harmful, or the republic as divided, when over such a long period of time the differences between the parties led to no more than eight or ten citizens' being sent into exile, to a tiny number's being murdered, and indeed to only a few's being fined. Nor can there be any good grounds for calling a republic disorderly when it contains so many examples of individual excellence, for good individuals cannot exist without good education, and good education cannot exist without good laws, and good laws were the result of those very conflicts many people unthinkingly criticize. Anyone who scrutinizes the outcome of these conflicts will find they never led to exiles or murders that were contrary to the public good but always led to laws and institutions that favored public liberty. The Discourses pg.94
April 12, 2022
Ppl on this app who are saying it was a good read are psychopaths… this man justifies murder 😑
July 13, 2008
I gave it a "2-Star" Review but, I mean, how do I give something like Machiavelli a rating. The bright side of having read Machiavelli is that I can confidently say things like "how Machiavellian" now. I, of course, have been saying that for a long time but had no idea what I was talking about.
January 23, 2015
Classic work must have for book shelves
May 6, 2019
A fine translation, really.
January 12, 2020
Machiavelli makes for an incredible read. This translation does him justice.
May 9, 2025
Superior translation of Machiavelli compared to the Penguin Classics translation, which is the only other I've read. Includes both the Prince and most of the Discourses on Livy (each taking up near-equal halves of the book) in a compact package. Clear and concise like Machiavel himself was. The approach he takes toward political science is scientific insofar as it is empirical, deriving from examples (his encyclopedic knowledge of Greco-Roman history, providing details about almost every single Roman Emperor as the reader progresses) that can then be applied to an accurate study and depiction of human nature.
I am personally conflicted on the approach he takes, because the results of this kind of science could be confounded by factors such as different cultures, histories, and instances of exceptions to the rule. Despite this issue I have, I tend to agree with him much more often than not. The assumption that nearly all people across the globe essentially function on the same fundamental principles often does succeed in precision. You could say what he's doing is "The Point" of the study of history, deducing practical maxims for government.
The life he lived was insane, being involved with the most powerful people in Europe at the time (which people in the highest tiers of government anywhere at any time are fucking crazy!): I read on the back of a library book that the period in Italy he lived through was basically if Game of Thrones was real and you'd be more entertained as well as enlightened if you read that history instead of watching a modern show or book series. Yet he loved it, somehow. The letter to his friend placed at the beginning of the book is touching and effectively communicates his desires. The emotions from which his insights sprang forth. I include a segment:
"I am happy for fate to see to what depth I have sunk, for I want to know if she will be ashamed of herself for what she has done. When evening comes, I go back home, and go to my study. On the threshold I take off my work clothes, covered in mud and filth, and put on the clothes an ambassador would wear. Decently dressed, I enter the ancient courts of rulers who have long since died. There I am warmly welcomed, and I feed on the only food I find nourishing, and was born to savor. I am not ashamed to talk to them, and to ask them to explain their actions. And they, out of kindness, answer me. Four hours go by without my feeling any anxiety. I forget every worry. I am no longer afraid of poverty, or frightened of death. I live entirely though them. And because Dante says there is no point in studying unless you remember what you have learned, I have made notes of what seem to me the most important things I have learned in my dialogue with the dead..."
I'd like to imagine he had a replica white Roman toga in his closet he put on, being an OG Roman LARPer. This was the very beginning of the Renaissance, anyway. But he probably just put on the costume he regularly wore in his days as a counsel.
His emphasis on freedom and "virtù" (a strange Italian word the translator does a good job of explaining in the introduction) and his indifference as to whether a government is a monarchy or republic/democracy, just so long as they get the job done, are interesting viewpoints developed thoroughly. I've heard people call him the "proto-Nietzsche" or a "revived Thrasymachus" as these figures occupy a similar "sadistic" space in Western philosophy (if you like this choice of word).
The part that sticks out to me the most as I write this is Book 1, Chapter 27 of the Discoursi. The chapter title is "On how it is only on very rare occasions that men know how to be either completely bad or completely good", citing an example Machiavelli saw in person between Pope Julius II and Giovampagolo Baglioni (who is implied should have killed the former since the Pope left himself powerless in front of such a man). I leave you with an excerpt:
"A truly wicked deed has its own grandeur or involves a certain nobility of conception: Most men are consequently not up to it. So Giovampagolo, who thought nothing of committing incest and murdering his relatives in public, did not know how to carry out an enterprise that would have caused everyone to admire his spirit. He had a legitimate opportunity, but to tell the truth he did not dare, though he would have won eternal fame for being the first person to show the clergy just how little one should respect people who live and govern as they do. He could have done something whose grandeur would have more than compensated for any disgrace or any danger that might have resulted from it."
I am personally conflicted on the approach he takes, because the results of this kind of science could be confounded by factors such as different cultures, histories, and instances of exceptions to the rule. Despite this issue I have, I tend to agree with him much more often than not. The assumption that nearly all people across the globe essentially function on the same fundamental principles often does succeed in precision. You could say what he's doing is "The Point" of the study of history, deducing practical maxims for government.
The life he lived was insane, being involved with the most powerful people in Europe at the time (which people in the highest tiers of government anywhere at any time are fucking crazy!): I read on the back of a library book that the period in Italy he lived through was basically if Game of Thrones was real and you'd be more entertained as well as enlightened if you read that history instead of watching a modern show or book series. Yet he loved it, somehow. The letter to his friend placed at the beginning of the book is touching and effectively communicates his desires. The emotions from which his insights sprang forth. I include a segment:
"I am happy for fate to see to what depth I have sunk, for I want to know if she will be ashamed of herself for what she has done. When evening comes, I go back home, and go to my study. On the threshold I take off my work clothes, covered in mud and filth, and put on the clothes an ambassador would wear. Decently dressed, I enter the ancient courts of rulers who have long since died. There I am warmly welcomed, and I feed on the only food I find nourishing, and was born to savor. I am not ashamed to talk to them, and to ask them to explain their actions. And they, out of kindness, answer me. Four hours go by without my feeling any anxiety. I forget every worry. I am no longer afraid of poverty, or frightened of death. I live entirely though them. And because Dante says there is no point in studying unless you remember what you have learned, I have made notes of what seem to me the most important things I have learned in my dialogue with the dead..."
I'd like to imagine he had a replica white Roman toga in his closet he put on, being an OG Roman LARPer. This was the very beginning of the Renaissance, anyway. But he probably just put on the costume he regularly wore in his days as a counsel.
His emphasis on freedom and "virtù" (a strange Italian word the translator does a good job of explaining in the introduction) and his indifference as to whether a government is a monarchy or republic/democracy, just so long as they get the job done, are interesting viewpoints developed thoroughly. I've heard people call him the "proto-Nietzsche" or a "revived Thrasymachus" as these figures occupy a similar "sadistic" space in Western philosophy (if you like this choice of word).
The part that sticks out to me the most as I write this is Book 1, Chapter 27 of the Discoursi. The chapter title is "On how it is only on very rare occasions that men know how to be either completely bad or completely good", citing an example Machiavelli saw in person between Pope Julius II and Giovampagolo Baglioni (who is implied should have killed the former since the Pope left himself powerless in front of such a man). I leave you with an excerpt:
"A truly wicked deed has its own grandeur or involves a certain nobility of conception: Most men are consequently not up to it. So Giovampagolo, who thought nothing of committing incest and murdering his relatives in public, did not know how to carry out an enterprise that would have caused everyone to admire his spirit. He had a legitimate opportunity, but to tell the truth he did not dare, though he would have won eternal fame for being the first person to show the clergy just how little one should respect people who live and govern as they do. He could have done something whose grandeur would have more than compensated for any disgrace or any danger that might have resulted from it."
November 19, 2021
As long as people are governed, Machiavelli's Prince is relevant and revealing. "The Prince" expands upon Plato, Aristotle, and many other classical theorists to provide insights and examples of good and bad rulers. He causes us to reflect on whether there can be a good conflict between citizens and government; between nations. He provokes thought in inquiring about the appropriate role, if any, with religion and ethics in governance. "Discourses" expounds upon "The Prince" with a focus upon manners of governance rather than individual leadership qualities; the city and state become the exemplar instead. He expands upon the glory and grandeur of liberty through the strength of a democratic republic - a society that gains vigor and longevity through the right of the populace to accuse and then have an avenue toward justice. Machiavelli repeatedly encourages us to learn from our observations, experience, and especially explore history for knowledge of the continual cycles of governance. This edition is well translated for ease of reading and should be requisite reading for all interested in history, philosophy, politics, and more. Machiavelli's thoughts have withstood the test of time across centuries and still serve as a warning to societies - perhaps now more than ever.
Read
August 12, 2025There are nights when the past returns not as memory, but as a tangible weight pressing against the chest, a presence felt in the ribs like a slow-burning coal. It speaks in silence, in the spaces between thoughts, reminding me that some histories are never truly left behind—they reside instead in the shadows of being.”
October 10, 2018
I only read The Prince out of this collection for a class. It had very interesting viewpoints and ideas, but was very repetitive and dry. I’d only recommend the read if you are interested in the subject/time period.
Read
June 25, 2024assigned: letter to Vettori; The Prince, dedication and chapters 1-14, 15-26; Discourses on Livy, dedicatory letter to Buondelmonti and Rucellai; book I: preface, chapters 1-6, 9-13, 16-17, 26-27, 34; book II, chapter 2; book III, chapter 1, 31
April 5, 2020
Fascinating analysis of what makes effective rulers. I think he's correct but also believe that he's too quick to disregard moral considerations which is very post-christian of him
January 29, 2022
This is a required reading for my uni class but I found it one of the most interesting and easy to read out of all of them… philosophy is really not my favourite subject
March 17, 2022
“If you are going to commit atrocities against your people, do them all at once” Nice
February 16, 2023
LOVE Machiavelli. I aspire to live by his principles but in a girl boss way (not in the Stalin way)
January 30, 2025
Discursos: Tomo III.
October 5, 2025
Discorso sopra Pisa
October 4, 2022
would have been a 5 star if he added a romance subplot
Read
January 14, 2025Had to read Letter to Vettori and The Prince and a bit of the discourses. Didn’t find it super original or insightful considering it’s reputation but wasn’t boring 👍🏽
May 13, 2010
This gets four stars because it was a stabby walk in the park compared to everything else assigned for class. I liked Wootton's translating job and the introductory essay was intriguing even to a political theory neophyte. Sprightly, mischievous. Kind of thrilling to read Machiavelli's casual tips to pre-emptively murder anybody who could stand in your way, and his provoking praise for Borgia and baffling scare tactics like leaving bisected corpses of scapegoated henchmen in public places. Excerpts from The Discourses were alright. He talks about Republicanism and the masses a lot, but apparently it all comes down to how to preserve the power and independence of the state.
April 4, 2013
Machiavelli goes in!
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews