Everand Logo

Welcome to Everand!

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

    Only $11.99/month after trial. Cancel anytime.

    The Prince
    The Prince
    The Prince
    Ebook231 pages1 hour

    The Prince

    By Murat Ukray and Niccolò Machiavelli

    3.5/5

    ()

    Switch to audiobook
    Read preview

    About this ebook

    The Prince (Italian: Il Principe) is a political treatise by the Italian diplomat, historian and political theorist Niccolò Machiavelli. From correspondence a version appears to have been distributed in 1513, using a Latin title, De Principatibus (About Principalities). But the printed version was not published until 1532, five years after Machiavelli's death. This was done with the permission of the Medici pope Clement VII, but "long before then, in fact since the first appearance of the Prince in manuscript, controversy had swirled about his writings"


    Although it was written as if it were a traditional work in the Mirror of Princes style, it is generally agreed that it was especially innovative, and not only because it was written in Italian rather than Latin. The Prince is sometimes claimed to be one of the first works of modern philosophy, in which the effective truth is taken to be more important than any abstract ideal. It was also in direct conflict with the dominant Catholic and scholastic doctrines of the time concerning how to consider politics and ethics.


    Although it is relatively short, the treatise is the most remembered of his works and the one most responsible for bringing "Machiavellian" into wide usage as a pejorative term. It also helped make "Old Nick" an English term for the devil, and even contributed to the modern negative connotations of the words "politics" and "politician" in western countries. In terms of subject matter it overlaps with the much longer Discourses on Livy, which was written a few years later. In its use of examples who were politically active Italians who perpetrated criminal deeds for politics, another lesser-known work by Machiavelli which The Prince has been compared to is the Life of Castruccio Castracani.


    The descriptions within The Prince have the general theme of accepting that ends of princes, such as glory, and indeed survival, can justify the use of immoral means to achieve those ends.

    LanguageEnglish
    PublishereKitap Projesi
    Release dateApr 10, 2015
    ISBN9786155565090
    Author

    Murat Ukray

    YAZAR:MURAT UKRAYYetkinlikler:Aynı zamanda bir yazar olan ve yaklaşık genel araştırma konuları ile fizikle ve birleşik alan kramı ile ilgili 2006’dan beri kaleme aldığı yaklaşık 12 eseri bulunan Murat UKRAY, yine bunları kendi kurmuş olduğu çeşitli web siteleri üzerinden, kitaplarını sadece dijital elektronik ortamda, hem düzenli olarak yılda yazmış veya yayınlamış olduğu diğer eserleri de yayın hayatına e-KİTAP ve POD (Print on Demand -talebe göre yayıncılık-) sistemine göre yayın hayatına geçirerek okurlarına sunmayı ilke olarak edinirken; diğer yandan da, projenin SOSYAL yönü olan doğayı korumak amaçlı başlattığı "e-KİTAP PROJESİ" isimli yayıncılık sistemiyle KİTABINI KLASİK SİSTEMLE YAYINLAYAMAYAN "AMATÖR YAZARLAR" için, elektronik ortamda kitap yayıncılığı ile kitaplarını bu sistemle yayınlatmak isteyen PROFESYONEL yayıncılar ve yazarlar için de hemen hemen her çeşit kitabın (MAKALE, AKADEMİK DERS KİTABI, ŞİİR, ROMAN, HİKAYE, DENEME, GÜNLÜK TASLAK) elektronik ortamda yayıncılığının önünü açan e-YAYINCILIĞA 2010 yılı başlarından beri başlamıştır ve halen daha ilgili projeleri yürütmektedir..Aynı zamanda YAZAR KOÇLUĞU ve KUANTUM & BİRLEŞİK ANA KURAMI doğrultusunda, kişisel gelişim uzmanlığı konularında da faaliyet göstermektedir..Çalışma alanları:Köşe yazarlığı yapmak, Profesyonel yazarlık (12 yıldır), Blog yazarlığı, web sitesi kurulumu, PHP Programlama, elektronik ticaret sistemleri, Sanal kütüphane uygulamaları, e-Kitap Uygulamaları ve Yazılımları, Kişisel gelişim, Kuantum mekaniği ve Birleşik Alan teorisi ile ilgili Kuramsal ve Uygulama çalışmaları..

    Read more from Murat Ukray

    Related to The Prince

    Related ebooks

    Philosophy For You

    View More
    View More

    Related podcast episodes

    Related articles

    • Article

      Niccolò Machiavelli

      Feb 28, 2020

      Hailed as the father of modern politics, Niccolò Machiavelli has long been synonymous with everything bad about the political sphere. His name, turned adjective as ‘Machiavellian’, conjures up images of a cunning, sly and manipulative figure, hell-be

      5 min read

    • Article

      Catherine Fletcher

      Dec 31, 2020

      Catherine Fletcher
      4 min read

    • Article

      The Ethics Of Political Power

      Jul 30, 2018

      The Ethics Of Political Power
      3 min read

    • Article

      Betrayal Of The Knights Templar

      Jan 31, 2024

      Betrayal Of The Knights Templar
      11 min read

    • Article

      Machiavelli And The Medici

      Jun 17, 2021

      Machiavelli And The Medici
      1 min read

    • Article

      A Way With Words

      Nov 11, 2023

      A Way With Words
      3 min read

    • Article

      Fortune’s Fool

      Apr 16, 2020

      Fortune’s Fool
      4 min read

    • Article

      Worst Pope of All Time?

      Oct 17, 2018

      Worst Pope of All Time?
      5 min read

    • Article

      A Clash Of Civilisations?

      May 14, 2020

      A Clash Of Civilisations?
      7 min read

    • Article

      Family Drama

      Feb 18, 2021

      Family Drama
      4 min read

    • Article

      Cult Of The SUN KING

      Nov 7, 2019

      Cult Of The SUN KING
      12 min read

    • Article

      Welcome

      Nov 7, 2019

      Welcome
      1 min read

    • Article

      Michael Wood On…

      Apr 13, 2023

      Michael Wood is professor of public history at the University of Manchester. He has presented numerous BBC series, and is the author of several books including The Story of China (Simon & Schuster, 2021). His Twitter handle is @mayavision FOR 1,500 Y

      3 min read

    • Article

      'The Pope Who Would Be King' Details The Birth Of The Modern Papacy

      Apr 17, 2018

      Pope Francis, the current supreme pontiff of the Catholic Church, wields two different kinds of authority, one vast and one minuscule. The vast one is obvious: The Pope is seen as the heir to St. Peter, the spiritual leader of the world's more than 1

      3 min read

    • Article

      Pulsating Panorama Of A Complex Decade

      Apr 1, 2022

      SOMETHING VERY EXCITING is happening in the world of Civil War and Cromwellian studies. At long last the mid-seventeenth century is getting a measure of the public attention it deserves. Recently, readers have enjoyed Paul Lay’s Providence Lost (2020

      4 min read

    • Article

      Q&A

      Feb 17, 2022

      Q&A
      3 min read

    • Article

      The Age Of Transformation

      Jan 19, 2023

      The Age Of Transformation
      9 min read

    • Article

      “Elizabeth I Was A Free Woman In Charge Of Her Fate. Perhaps That’s Why Catherine De Medici Despised Her”

      Jul 7, 2022

      Rhiannon Davies: Your book Blood, Fire and Gold follows two powerhouses of early modern Europe, Elizabeth I and Catherine de Medici. Can you briefly introduce us to them? Estelle Paranque: I’ll start with Elizabeth I of England, daughter of Henry VII

      9 min read

    • Article

      Catholic Hysteria

      Apr 25, 2019

      Catholic Hysteria
      8 min read

    • Article

      6 Myths Of The Russian Revolution

      Mar 18, 2021

      When we discuss the Russian Revolution of 1917, we are actually talking about two separate events that took place within the same year; the first was a spontaneous movement that overthrew the reigning tsar, Nicholas II, while the second was an orches

      9 min read

    • Article

      The World Of Louis Ix

      May 5, 2023

      Louis IX, who came to the throne twelve years later, was heir to these developments, and he reigned for the better part of half a century, during the most vibrant decades of the thirteenth century. His reign, initially aided by the regency of his for

      11 min read

    • Article

      An Age Of Ambivalence

      May 14, 2020

      In The Third Man (1949), Graham Greene’s enigmatic anti-hero Harry Lime famously exclaimed that “in Italy, for 30 years under the Borgias, they had warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renai

      2 min read

    Related categories

    Reviews for The Prince

    3.5/5

    3,156 ratings72 reviews

    What did you think?

    Tap to rate

    Review must be at least 10 words

    • 3/5
      Interesting
    • 4/5
      While I understand that his take is controversial, I have to tell you, it makes sense. It's not nice, but it is practical.
    • 5/5
      Thought rereading this might shed some light on the Trump presidency until I realized that there is a crucial difference between realpolitik and realityTVpolitiking.
    • 4/5
      Et klassisk værk om hvorledes en fyrste bør regere.Indeholder 26 kapitler: "Om forskellige arter af fyrstevælder og måder at erhverve dem på", "Om de arvelige fyrstevælder", "Om blandede fyrstevælder", "Hvorfor Darius' rige, som Alexander erobrede, ved dennes død ikke gjorde oprør mod hans efterfølger", "Hvorledes man skal styre de byer og fyrstevælder, der før erobringen havde egne love", "Om erhvervelsen af et nyt fyrstevælde ved egne våben og dygtighed", "Om erhvervelsen af et nyt fyrstevælde ved fremmede våben og lykkens hjælp", "Om fyrster, der når herredømmet ved forbrydelser", "Om folkefyrster", "Hvordan alle fyrstevælders kraft skal måles", "Om gejstlige fyrstevælder", "Om forskellige arter stridskræfter og om lejetropper", "Om hjælpetropper, blandede og egne tropper", "Om en fyrstes militære opgaver", "Hvad der skaffer menneskene og især fyrsterne ros eller dadel", "Om gavmildhed og gerrighed", "Om grusomhed og mildhed, og om at det er bedre at blive frygtet end elsket", "Hvorvidt en fyrste altid skal stå ved sit ord", "Man må undgå ringeagt og had", "Om fæstninger eller andre forholdsregler, der træffes af fyrsten, er til nytte eller skade", "Hvorledes en fyrste skal optræde for at vinde anseelse", "Om fyrsternes statssekretærer", "Hvorledes man skal undgå smiger", "Hvorledes Italiens fyrster har tabt deres stater", "Hvad skæbnen formår i de menneskelige anliggender, og hvorledes man skal kæmpe imod den", "Opråb om at befri Italien fra barbarerne".I denne bog behandler forfatteren kun fyrstedømmer. Han indleder med at sige at arvestater er meget lettere at bevare end nyerhvervede stater. Han betoner at folkets gunst er vigtig at bevare og at man bør bosætte sig i en nyerobret stat. Man bør svække de stærke naboer og støtte de svage uden at styrke dem.Udmærket læsning. Machiavelli argumenterer for sine synspunkter, fx at lejetropper og hjælpetropper kun er af det onde, og har mange underbyggende eksempler.En manual for at opnå og bevare magt
    • 4/5
      A very sharp commentary on the art and business of politics when ruling a nation/people. As it did for previous generations this 16th Century tome has many pertinent pointers for today's would-be establishment elite: however, the pitfalls of power & being consumed by the desire for authority that it also mentions have been neglected by so many ill-equipped & haplessly inadequate Leaders of the 20th/21st centuries it would appear many of them were not concentrating when they read Machiavelli's masterpiece!
    • 4/5
      A book still relevant today in the 21th century. Even if some of the described techniques are neither adviseable nor morally and legally possible in today's society.
    • 5/5
      I'm weirdly pleased that The Prince lives up to its reputation: it is indeed Machiavellian. Here's his advice on conquering self-governing states (i.e. democracies): "The only way to hold on to such a state is to reduce it to rubble." Well then.

      I'd like to say that any guy whose last name becomes a synonym for evil is a badass, but Machiavelli wasn't; he was a failed minor diplomat who wrote this in a failed attempt to get reemployed. Stupid attempt, too; anyone who hired him would be advertising that he espoused Machiavellian values. This book was published. And as he himself advises, "A leader doesn't have to possess virtuous qualities, but it's imperative that he seem to possess them."

      So I'll go with this: anyone whose last name becomes a synonym for evil has written a good book.

      I hope to match that effect with my first novel. Working title: "Unicorns are Pretty."

      So if Machiavelli was such a loser, how did his book get so famous? It's not because it's great advice; it sortof isn't. I think it's because it's just a ton of fun to read. It's chock full of over-the-top quotes like the ones above. It's really funny.

      Which brings up a recurring topic for debate: did he intend for this to be taken seriously, or is it satire? I think it's the former: mixed in with the zany stuff is a fair amount of common-sense advice. He could certainly have included that to make the zany stuff pop more, or to camouflage it a bit, but I prefer to think he meant the whole thing seriously. And it's not like any of it is advice someone hasn't followed at some point. (See my first quote above: yeah, we've tried that.)

      Translation review: this is the very latest translation. Parks has gone to great trouble to reduce the crazy complexity of Machiavelli's sentences - I know this from reading his excellent Translator's Note - and I appreciate that. He's also tried hard to make it accessible to modern audiences, and sometimes I think he's tipped a tiny bit overboard on that front. "When a ruler occupies a land that has a different language...then things get rough." "Difficult" would have been perfectly clear; "rough" is too colloquial. We want to be able to read our classics, but we don't need to pretend they were written yesterday.

      That's a relatively minor complaint, though; this is a clear and easy translation. Good intro, too. And a glossary of proper names at the back, so you can sort out the various contemporary figures you don't recognize.

      I'll close with my favorite quote: "It's better to be impulsive than cautious; fortune is female and if you want to stay on top of her you have to slap and thrust."

      Machiavelli: kindof a dick.
    • 5/5
      First time reading it since my 1989 Great Books course at Evergreen. A lot of fun to teach. The Dover edition, so far as I can determine, is perfectly serviceable, and, presuming I'm rating the right book, is improved vastly by including excerpts from The Discourses. Complicates things nicely for the students.
    • 3/5
      The Prince. Niccolo Machiavelli. 2008. Our book club chose this classic of how to get and keep political power because it was an election year. What surprised several of us was how mild it seemed. We decided we were no longer idealistic and had lived too long to be shocked at what lengths a man in power will go to maintain that power
    • 5/5
      A Great Book!
    • 3/5
      Zeer geromantiseerde inleidingIntussen overbekende politieke theorie (efficiëntie gaat voor op ethiek). Moeilijke lectuur
    • 5/5
      Fascinating historical perspective.
    • 3/5
      I read this because it is one of those books everyone says should be read. It wasn't terribly long, the translation was easily understandable and I thought I would give it a try.What surprised me, was that I enjoyed it. I found Machiavelli's teaching style very good. He sets forth a principle, then illustrates it with examples from both ancient history and his times. It was easy to go from there and find examples in our modern times of most of the principles he set forth. I found myself marveling at his insight into human nature and the practicalities of leadership in a fallen world.Needless to say, I now feel myself prepared to take on the leadership of any minor principality which would have me. World, beware!
    • 4/5
      Other people have reviewed The Prince's content. I gave this book four stars; I would have given it five if the translation were better. This edition (Dover Thrift) is certainly economical, but the sentences are long, convoluted, and reverse subject and object. It took me a while to get through even though it runs only 71 pages. I had to sit there and wrestle with the verbiage as I went.Otherwise, thought-provoking and a handbook of international relations.
    • 5/5
      Pretty illustrations intermingled with the text to show the period during which this is written. Not terribly fond of the translation, will have to try another one to get a better feel for the text, probably a good historical and close to the original style of the book but feels a bit forced. It's an interesting look at power and how power is won or lost and while many people have taken inspiration from it to take power not many of them seem to have read the portions on keeping power.I believe I read this years ago in college but it was interesting to go back and read it again for no purpose other than pleasure. Many authors could get inspiration for how to set up governments and how to keep power in the hands of both the good and bad guys.
    • 2/5
      Well, you probably know about this book. Now, I'm sure that I could have read it much more closely and come up with some very interesting material to think about. But honestly- it's just not that interesting. If you're easily shocked or titillated by the idea that powerful people are powerful because they're immoral, you will be shocked and titillated. If you didn't spend your formative years reading Cicero's 'De Oficiis,' on the other hand, you won't be surprised. And honestly, if you've read a newspaper in the last century, Machiavelli won't teach you anything. He has a bunch of nice stories to illustrate his points, but without knowing the context of the stories he tells it's difficult to know why I should care. The chapter on republics is interesting, granted. But to be honest I think I'd rather read someone who knows a lot about Machiavelli than the man himself. Skinner, here I come.

      I should say, too, that the Cambridge edition is excellent. 'The Prince' is in desperate need of annotation, and the editors do an excellent job of making things clear without making the text unreadable.
    • 4/5
      Now understand why it's a classic 
    • 3/5
      If I were more of a historian I would have been able to dive deeper into this book. Missing some context, I struggled with a few bits and pieces of Machiavelli's statements, but the rest of his ideas and examples are pretty easy to follow. I see how this book, in the hands of the wrong person, could lead to cruelties, however, I also totally see what the book is getting at, and I enjoyed reading it.
    • 5/5
      This is a book that has been sitting on the shelf of my set of Great Books of the Western World since before I started college. That and the fact that it was written in the 1500's surely qualify it as a TOME. It is a very short book which made great changes in the thinking about political statecraft. His book is a frank discussion of the use of immoral means to achieve the goals of The Prince.For Machiavelli the sole goal of the Prince was to obtain power and hold it. Using historical models he sets out the most effective means to attain this end. The nobles and the people are the two forces that hold political power in the State as he sees it. Machiavelli goes into detail about how to deal with each of these. The nobles have their own bases of power and act in their pursuit of their own interests. For this reason it is important for the Prince that they fear him rather than love him.In his discussion on fortresses he makes the statement that the best fortress is the love of the people. A state that is prosperous and ruled fairly is the best way to achieve the love of the people. The Prince must also cultivate the love of the people through great achievements building a charisma that draws them to him.The art of war is a very important part of Machiavelli's discussion. Mercenaries are the most dangerous troops to use. They fight for their own reasons and are only loyal to the Prince as long as he is able to pay them. Auxiliary troops drawn from the people are more likely to remain loyal as long as their love for the Prince is constant.Machiavelli's ideas inaugurated modern politics and statecraft. His was original and unencumbered by the ideas of the past. He established new rules for the practice of statecraft. He was excoriated for his immorality but his ideas quickly gained precedence. Last year I read The Thirty Years War. Many of the principles set forth by Machiavelli appeared in the actions of the rulers in that war. They used mercenaries to a great extent and were often ruined by them. Morality was absent in their dealings with each other. They practiced the code of attaining power that Machiavelli established.
    • 5/5
      His very name has become, like that of Hobbes and Nietzsche, a byword for a cold, brutal ruthlessness. It's even said on the Wiki that he helped make "Old Nick" a term for the Devil (something the introduction to my edition denies) and political philosopher Leo Strauss called him "the teacher of evil." His book The Prince is one of the most influential books of all time and is known as the Bible of realpolitik, and Machiavelli is seen by some as the father of political science. In a letter Machiavelli claimed his "little work" (it's less than a hundred pages in paperback) was designed to examine the state, "discussing what a principality is, what kinds there are, how they are acquired, how they are maintained, why they are lost." The heart of his advice to the ruler is to be "prepared to vary his conduct as the winds of fortune and changing circumstances constrain him and … not deviate from right conduct if possible, but be capable of entering upon the path of wrongdoing when this becomes necessary." Thus The Prince can be said to be at the other end of the scale to utopian thinking; it's utterly pragmatic. And given my lack of sympathy for utopian schemes, you'd think this would be more to my taste. Yet in some ways I see both approaches as similar. Both sorts of thinking believe that ends justify the means. Utopian schemes from Plato to Mao willingly bend humans like pretzels to fit their ideals--Machiavelli wants his rulers to manipulate, deceive, and force his subjects to his ends, without worrying about whether the means are moral. Without caring about principles, what's left is just naked power. So why rate this so high? Well, I at least appreciate Machiavelli's style compared to that of so many political thinkers. One thing at least all commentators agree on is that his writing is succinct and lucid--and memorable. Hard to forget such precepts as "politics has no relation to morals" and "it is better to be feared than loved" and "a prince never lacks legitimate reasons to break his promise" and "Fortune is a woman, and if you want to stay on top of her, you have to knock her around." The man can turn a phrase. Fun and chilling to read at the same time--and great insight into politics and the minds of many politicians. And given Machiavelli's experience as a diplomat and head of a militia, and his deep pragmatism, it's not like even principled statesman working for their ideals should ignore his advice--if only as a warning.
    • 4/5
      The Prince is filled with advice for leaders hoping to hold on to their positions. This book does a great job at describing situations of power and statesmanship. From political and corporate power struggles to attaining advancement, influence and authority over others, Machiavelli’s observations apply. He gives advice based on the example of many leaders who came before, especially those in Italy. I loved reading this while watching Game of Thrones. So much of the advice is applicable. The show is all about vying for the throne and multiple people desperately maneuvering to get closer to the power. The book is all about the different ways of ruling, gaining favor, ruling with fear, etc. I loved seeing how the advice in The Prince was so perfectly mirrored in the different actions of characters on GOT. Every Lord or Prince in GOT takes a different route in their struggle for power and each one is like an example acting out the pros and cons of the advice in The Prince. So much of the book deals with the tightrope leaders must walk between being loved and feared…“Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than feared or feared than loved?”Just like being a parent, the ruler must decide which is more important to him. If he is only feared there is always the chance of disloyalty and revolt. If he is only loved than people might not respect his leadership and will rise against him. It is a difficult decision to make. BOTTOM LINE: Ruling has always been a cutthroat profession. One must almost always chose between making your subjects love you or fear you and that decision is at the heart of this book. I enjoyed reading about the different ruling styles and once again realized that not much has changed in politics. “This has been figuratively taught to princes by ancient writers, who describe how Achilles and many other princes of old were given to the Centaur Chiron to nurse, who brought them up in his discipline; which means solely that, as they had for a teacher one who was half beast and half man, so it is necessary for a prince to know how to make use of both natures, and that one without the other is not durable.”“Therefore, one who becomes a prince through the favour of the people ought to keep them friendly, and this he can easily do seeing they only ask not to be oppressed by him. But one who, in opposition to the people, becomes a prince by the favour of the nobles, ought, above everything, to seek to win the people over to himself, and this he may easily do if he takes them under his protection. Because men, when they receive good from him of whom they were expecting evil, are bound more closely to their benefactor; thus the people quickly become more devoted to him.”“But to exercise the intellect the prince should read histories, and study there the actions of illustrious men, to see how they have borne themselves in war, to examine the causes of their victories and defeat, so as to avoid the latter and imitate the former”“A prince, therefore, ought always to take counsel, but only when he wishes and not when others wish; he ought rather to discourage everyone from offering advice unless he asks it; but, however, he ought to be a constant inquirer, and afterwards a patient listener concerning the things of which he inquired.”
    • 4/5
      Read this simply because I had heard interesting things and it was indeed an interesting read with some interesting themes and ideas. A must for anyone considering politics.
    • 5/5
      The original Italian text and German translation in parallel print. Allusions and references to most events and people given as examples are added to facilitate reading. A coldly pragmatic look at power play and its tools. Chilling at times, but rational and also clever. It's a very practical approach to the philosophy of power, and despite almost all examples being Machiavelli's contemporaries, the ideas still hold true. A fascinating text to read.
    • 4/5
      To many autodidacts, this book is a bible of political science, a gross misconception that reinforces the cynical view of politics perpetuated in popular culture. This wouldn't bother me if it weren't for the fact that people read the Prince, and then think there's no other bibles to political science. The Prince is to modern political theory what Sun Tzu is to Clausewitz's Von Krieg. It has come before, and is useful for tracing a linear path and building upon what comes before, but if you're a complete neophyte to political science and think this comes packed with all the answers, you're grossly off the mark, and your time would better be spent on John Locke's Second Treatise (which actually is a lighter read), Hobbes' Leviathan, Marx's First and Third Manuscripts, Burke's Reflections, or Rosseau's Social Contract. Highly recommended for political scientists to see the origin of their discipline.
    • 4/5
      This is an excellent book. It is straightforward and easy to read. It was a political treatise that offered advice on how a prince could gain and keep power. The book is actually dedicated to one of the Medici family members. Many people belive the reason he did this was to win favor of Lorenzo de’ Medici, then-governor of Florence. Machiavelli was involved with politics but had lost his job so he had hoped to land a position within the Florentine government. Unfortuantely, this plan did not work for him. This is a great book and everyone should read it.
    • 4/5
      The ultimate take no prisoners guide to ruling your world. Written as a guide to the monarchy, as the name suggests, but completely applicable to modern life.Some magazines have named it as a key componant to the cliched 80s Fortune 500 executive and it is easy to see why.A great well thought out read.I highly recommend it.
    • 4/5
      The definitive classic in binary political logic. But then as someone once said, there are 10 kinds of people, those who understand binary and those who don't.
    • 1/5
      I can see how it had a huge influence in humanistic politics--it lends itself to realpolitik.
    • 4/5
      Despite the aura that has grown up around this book, I don't think it's as shocking to readers in the 21st century as it evidently was to those in the early 16th; it seems pretty much "politics as usual." In fact, it seems refreshingly honest about politics, never attempting to obscure the acquisition and maintenance of power with claims of high or noble purposes.I also found it interesting that...at least as far as I was concerned...there was a connotation to the term 'Machiavellian' that was a bit more self-interested than the philosophy he actually espouses.This is definitely a book worth recommending.
    • 5/5
      My job requires me to function in a highly politicized work environment. I work with a large group of department heads, providing counsel on issues pertaining to the fine art of people management. Some of them are philosopher kings and others are callous despots. I have found that rereading THE PRINCE every few years reminds me of the basics. Whether the princes are in the courts of the Italian peninsula during the Renaissance or in the offices of a large corporation at the dawn of the 21st century, people with authority act in similar ways. There is much to be learned from this amazing little book.

    Book preview

    The Prince - Murat Ukray

    ends.

    Chapter I

    — How Many Kinds of Principalities There Are, And By What Means They Are Acquired

    All states, all powers, that have held and hold rule over men have been and are either republics or principalities.

    Principalities are either hereditary, in which the family has been long established; or they are new.

    The new are either entirely new, as was Milan to Francesco Sforza, or they are, as it were, members annexed to the hereditary state of the prince who has acquired them, as was the kingdom of Naples to that of the King of Spain.

    Such dominions thus acquired are either accustomed to live under a prince, or to live in freedom; and are acquired either by the arms of the prince himself, or of others, or else by fortune or by ability.

    Chapter II

    — Concerning Hereditary Principalities

    I will leave out all discussion on republics, inasmuch as in another place I have written of them at length, and will address myself only to principalities. In doing so I will keep to the order indicated above, and discuss how such principalities are to be ruled and preserved.

    I say at once there are fewer difficulties in holding hereditary states, and those long accustomed to the family of their prince, than new ones; for it is sufficient only not to transgress the customs of his ancestors, and to deal prudently with circumstances as they arise, for a prince of average powers to maintain himself in his state, unless he be deprived of it by some extraordinary and excessive force; and if he should be so deprived of it, whenever anything sinister happens to the usurper, he will regain it.

    We have in Italy, for example, the Duke of Ferrara, who could not have withstood the attacks of the Venetians in '84, nor those of Pope Julius in '10, unless he had been long established in his dominions. For the hereditary prince has less cause and less necessity to offend; hence it happens that he will be more loved; and unless extraordinary vices cause him to be hated, it is reasonable to expect that his subjects will be naturally well disposed towards him; and in the antiquity and duration of his rule the memories and motives that make for change are lost, for one change always leaves the toothing for another.

    Chapter III

    — Concerning Mixed Principalities

    But the difficulties occur in a new principality. And firstly, if it be not entirely new, but is, as it were, a member of a state which, taken collectively, may be called composite, the changes arise chiefly from an inherent difficulty which there is in all new principalities; for men change their rulers willingly, hoping to better themselves, and this hope induces them to take up arms against him who rules: wherein they are deceived, because they afterwards find by experience they have gone from bad to worse. This follows also on another natural and common necessity, which always causes a new prince to burden those who have submitted to him with his soldiery and with infinite other hardships which he must put upon his new acquisition.

    In this way you have enemies in all those whom you have injured in seizing that principality, and you are not able to keep those friends who put you there because of your not being able to satisfy them in the way they expected, and you cannot take strong measures against them, feeling bound to them. For, although one may be very strong in armed forces, yet in entering a province one has always need of the goodwill of the natives.

    For these reasons Louis the Twelfth, King of France, quickly occupied Milan, and as quickly lost it; and to turn him out the first time it only needed Lodovico's own forces; because those who had opened the gates to him, finding themselves deceived in their hopes of future benefit, would not endure the ill-treatment of the new prince. It is very true that, after acquiring rebellious provinces a second time, they are not so lightly lost afterwards, because the prince, with little reluctance, takes the opportunity of the rebellion to punish the delinquents, to clear out the suspects, and to strengthen himself in the weakest places. Thus to cause France to lose Milan the first time it was enough for the Duke Lodovico(*) to raise insurrections on the borders; but to cause him to lose it a second time it was necessary to bring the whole world against him, and that his armies should be defeated and driven out of Italy; which followed from the causes above mentioned.

    (*) Duke Lodovico was Lodovico Moro, a son of Francesco

    Sforza, who married Beatrice d'Este. He ruled over Milan

    from 1494 to 1500, and died in 1510.

    Nevertheless Milan was taken from France both the first and the second time. The general reasons for the first have been discussed; it remains to name those for the second, and to see what resources he had, and what any one in his situation would have had for maintaining himself more securely in his acquisition than did the King of France.

    Now I say that those dominions which, when acquired, are added to an ancient state by him who acquires them, are either of the same country and language, or they are not. When they are, it is easier to hold them, especially when they have not been accustomed to self-government; and to hold them securely it is enough to have destroyed the family of the prince who was ruling them; because the two peoples, preserving in other things the old conditions, and not being unlike in customs, will live quietly together, as one has seen in Brittany, Burgundy, Gascony, and Normandy, which have been bound to France for so long a time: and, although there may be some difference in language, nevertheless the customs are alike, and the people will easily be able to get on amongst themselves. He who has annexed them, if he wishes to hold them, has only to bear in mind two considerations: the one, that the family of their former lord is extinguished; the other, that neither their laws nor their taxes are altered, so that in a very short time they will become entirely one body with the old principality.

    But when states are acquired in a country differing in language, customs, or laws, there are difficulties, and good fortune and great energy are needed to hold them, and one of the greatest and most real helps would be that he who has acquired them should go and reside there. This would make his position more secure and durable, as it has made that of the Turk in Greece, who, notwithstanding all the other measures taken by him for holding that state, if he had not settled there, would not have been able to keep it. Because, if one is on the spot, disorders are seen as they spring up, and one can quickly remedy them; but if one is not at hand, they are heard of only when they are great, and then one can no longer remedy them. Besides this, the country is not pillaged by your officials; the subjects are satisfied by prompt recourse to the prince; thus, wishing to be good, they have more cause to love him, and wishing to be otherwise, to fear him. He who would attack that state from the outside must have the utmost caution; as long as the prince resides there it can only be wrested from him with the greatest difficulty.

    The other and better course is to send colonies to one or two places, which may be as keys to that state, for it is necessary either to do this or else to keep there a great number of cavalry and infantry. A prince does not spend much on colonies, for with little or no expense he can send them out and keep them there, and he offends a minority only of the citizens from whom he takes lands and houses to give them to the new inhabitants; and those whom he offends, remaining poor and scattered, are never able to injure him; whilst the rest being uninjured are easily kept quiet, and at the same time are anxious not to err for fear it should happen to them as it has to those who have been despoiled. In conclusion, I say that these colonies are not costly, they are more faithful, they injure less, and the injured, as has been said, being poor and scattered, cannot hurt. Upon this, one has to remark that men ought either to be well treated or crushed, because they can avenge themselves of lighter injuries, of more serious ones they cannot; therefore the injury that is to be done to a man ought to be of such a kind that one does not stand in fear of

    Enjoying the preview?
    Page 1 of 1