Always heard about the man and the book but it was difficult trying to follow and understand. Gave up three quarters of the way through. Did learn a little something though.

Forget about Covey and the habits of highly effective people and any other book you have ever glanced at to try to pick yourself up and guide yourself out of the rat race and have a look at the greatest specimen ever conceived of the self-help genre. The Prince is a mysterious, multi-layered magnum opus with shocking and provocative insights into politics, psychology, religion, and life. Not for the lazy or shallow reader.

This review was submitted on the web page presenting Mansfield's translation.

I have been using Wootton's translation of The Prince in a university program where the texts are set by the faculty. This year we changed to the Mansfield translation and I've requested that we return to Wootton's.

In his attempt to provide an "accurate" translation of the Italian, Mansfield made the mistake of many translators in overlooking the clarity of his English prose.

For example, where Wootton writes, "he increased the strength of one of the most powerful Italian states," Mansfield writes, "he . . . increased the power of a power in Italy." (15) There are other odd uses of diction in Mansfield, for example, where Wootton speaks of a "founder," Mansfield uses the word "introducer." (23) And though concise in places, Mansfield has a tendency to write long sentences, perhaps in imitation of the Italian, where Wootton is more to the point.

If you're still not convinced, compare the following passages:

Wootton: "So, too, with those who, having been private citizens, were made emperors of Rome because they had corrupted the soldiers. Such rulers are entirely dependent on the goodwill and good fortune of whoever has given them power. Good will and good fortune are totally unreliable and capricious."

Mansfield: ". . . as also those emperors were made who from private individual [sic] attained the empire through corrupting soldiers. These persons rest simply on the will and fortune of whoever has given a state to them, which are two very inconstant and unstable things."

I ordered this book for a college class. It arrived on time and in great condition.

Machiavelli's "The Prince" is a guide of morality-void techniques for acquiring and maintaining political power and ultimately, political fortune. Written nearly 500 years ago, this blueprint for tyranny is just as relevant today. As his compass, Machiavelli uses history, both ancient and contemporary. In 500 years, no one has proven him wrong. Here's a flavor for you innocents out there: "For, in truth, there is no sure way of holding other than by destroying, and whoever becomes master of a City accustomed to live in freedom and does not destroy it, may reckon on being destoyed by it". War is Machiavelli's wet dream: "A Prince, therefore, should have no care or thought but for war, and for the regulations and training it requires, and should apply himself exclusively to this as his peculiar province; for war is the sole art looked for in one who rules". Espousing the virtues of the noble lie, Machiavelli follows up with, "men are so simple, and governed so absolutely by their present needs, that he who wishes to deceive will never fail in finding willing dupes". And with this quote, I now challenge anyone to dispute the Machiavellian nature of the American Corporate State as written about in Don't Weep for Me, America: How Democracy in America Became the Prince (While We Slept). All the parallels are brought to light, always through the eyes of George Orwell. Get informed. Your city (country) is being destroyed...

A worthwhile investment. It can teach you a lot about old European politics. If you have ever peered into European history, you would have had to anticipate Machiavelli's sentiments. If you were royalty would you take his advice?

Heard THE PRINCE by Niccolo Machiavelli, one of those books
that I've always meant to read . . . but just never got around to do so.

Now I finally had the opportunity (as a result of being able to listen to it
while driving) and am glad I did--particularly because of its relevance
to what's currently happening in politics . . . also, as a result, I now
have a better understanding of the term Machievellianism . . . or
that any means, however unscrupulous, can justifiably be used
in achieving political power.

Though originally written in the 16th century, THE PRINCE is still
remarkably up to date . . . the examples used by Machiavelli
feel like they come from today's headlines . . . also, they pertain
to many situations wherein power is utilized--both in business
and in the political arena.

There were many quotes that got me thinking; among them:
* Hence it is necessary for a prince wishing to hold his own to know
how to do wrong, and to make use of it or not according to necessity.

* We have not seen great things done in our time except by those
who have been considered mean; the rest have failed.

And this final one:
* If men were entirely good this precept would not hold, but because
they are bad, and will not keep faith with you, you too are not bound
to observe it with them. Nor will thee ever be wanting to a prince
legitimate reasons to excuse this nonobservance.

I found it interesting to learn that Machievelli wrote this book
after he was fired as Secretary to the Second Chancery of the
Signoria . . . methinks that had he been around now, Tim Russert
and/or other political commentators could well be out of job.

Without a doubt, Nicolo Machiavelli has to be the most dissembling, evil man I've ever read. Though he covers it well in his constantly changing subjects and demeanor I would have not wanted to be around him in the 16th century. I would have never trusted him not to ensnare me in one of his plots!

What more to write that others haven't? It's The Prince, Machiavelli's work, chances are you're coming in with a lot of preconceived notions, assumptions, or just intrigue.

First, the writing style. The book is divided into short essays. This makes it great for reading for 5 minute bursts or sitting down and reading at leisure. The language is natural and flowing, for the most part. Some of the references are to "contemporary" actions, which unless you study fifteenth-century Italian politics will be a bit over your head. Still, points are made, and examples usually at least have a sentence of background.

Now, the content. Not being in the business of power, I can't attest to the efficacy of the claims. The author certainly does a good job of making his case: using examples, hypotheticals, abstract theories and a dash of reason. I do now look at things like office politics, organized crime and international relations in a new light, trying to understand if the concepts still apply. Surprisingly, a number of them seem to play out no matter the stakes or timeframe. So for a new perspective, this book does deliver.

Not much to say that hasn't already been said. Everyone who invests themselves in really reading The Prince, though, should also find time to sit down and read the dedication to The Prince and follow it up with the dedication to Machiavelli's Discourses.

For the life of me, I don't understand why Niccolo Machiavelli was vilified as mean-spirited. This book cuts through the camouflage of pretense and lay's out the logical and methodical steps of acquiring and maintaining power. It also correctly presupposes, given all men being equal, that our true nature is that of selfishness unless we're forced to be or do otherwise. If you want to cut through the maze of political correctness and learn a something about human nature read this book, it's fun and revealing.

This book will make you see history in a different light, and is insightful into how kings and rulers have viewed thier powers and responsibilities.

This book is the ultimate reference on leadership. Seizing and holding power. Machiavelli discusses his views on Italy, military forces, Politics, enemies, Alexander the great, Popes, Rome and Sparta, Venetians, Florentines, Biblical references, Governments, Religion and Warfare.

He discusses many great rulers among Italy and individually discusses their victories and defeats...He points out who made the mistakes and who did what was correct to achieve greatness.

Contains Advice, philosophical points of view, different perspectives on what these Princes and Rulers could have done to gain power in their kingdoms, all from Machiavelli's point of view and its dead on brilliant. There's also lines in this book that have prevailed over 100's of years that you will recognize immediately. I highly recommend this to anyone.

The Prince is a classic work of political science. Unfortunately, this version of the book is not suitable for serious study or anything academic. This version is from an amateur publishing outfit! If you compare it with legitimate academic translations, sometimes it's not even accurate. I had to buy another (legit) version to be able to write my college papers, just a warning.

received item in perfect condition faster then any of the other 7 items I'd ordered the same day.

If you would spend almost $10 to buy a classic book with bad translation and poor proof-reading. Plus if you read carefully, the logics of many sentences and agruments could not be linked together, as if this book was translated from its original Italian text in a big rush. I think you would be interested in knowing that you can buy the same book "The Prince and Other Writings" published by Barnes & Noble Classics for less dollars but with almost prefect translation and referencing. Thanks.

Published in 1532, dedicated to Lorenzo de' Medici, The Prince by Machiavelli is an advanced political science treatise in defence of civilization against barbarianism by way of a single specially disciplined sovereign ruler, a prince.

The Prince by Machiavelli is a brief but complex political management system designed to be run by a prince administered using a series of protocols for any given situation based on Machiavelli's interpretation of the history of the rise and fall of world governments with an emphasis on the Roman Empire and current trends in 16th century monarchy rule.

Machiavelli's analysis of the historical record paved the way for princes to develop awareness of the problem of emergent barbarianism both internal and external. Machiavelli highlighted the need for a prince to always remain liked but indicated that being wanted did not necessarily mean being kind and showed how a cruel prince could also be beneficial to the state which would function, sometimes better, under ruthlessness depending on certain conditions.

Machiavelli was able to successfully understand the different types of principalities and how princes come to power and how they could retain that power tactically. He often cited historical sources to prove his points. The Prince teaches how to acquire cities and how they should be ruled especially after being annexed. In this respect it is also a war treatise although it deals with gain by means other than war. However this is not unusual for a warfare discourse. There are methods of determining strength and calculating a response and so The Prince is a strategic book that has its bases in game theory. The different types of soldiers and how they behave is given a considerable amount of coverage and how a prince should treat them.

The character of a prince becomes a central theme especially concerning how a prince is to be perceived by others. Religion is dealt with and for its time The Prince surprisingly declared Popes potential enemies that could, and would, undermine a monarchy if it was to their advantage. Machiavelli was able to show how a fortress is important for defence but that attack can, and does, come from within. He also had a system to increase a prince's popularity and noted areas in which a prince could socially falter. The book rounds up with a directive to implement these ideas when fortune should arise and to be always on guard against barbarianism which can come from within.

The Prince remains a classic essential in the development of game theory. There are many parallels between this work and the Art of War by Sun Tzu. In fact Machiavelli wrote another book using that very same title. Machiavelli sees power brought into the grasp of one hand by adapting military tactics internally within government operations as opposed to outwardly using them to defeat the enemy. This work is all about controlling what has been gained.

The Prince and its author Machiavelli are often condemned for not only tolerating mistreating people but for advising it in a lot of circumstances especially to prove authority and to take any possible threatening might away from the people. Proponents argue that without a rule of law with stiff penalties people would become barbaric and the system would deteriorate into even more unbearable situations. It is completely open about dealing out harsh measures to guarantee the survival of the state by any means necessary. However The Prince does contain methodologies that incorporate and use control based on kindness but these methods are few and far between.

Overall this book's influence on politics and business cannot be underestimated. Ultimately it is a must read being a very powerful book about being very powerful.

Many of Macchavelli's principal relate to both the Political world and the business world. It should be in every library.

This could be quite hard for those who lack the concentration, it can a valuable book for those who want to obtain a leadership position.

The first item was lost in the mail. I contacted Amazon and they sent me another one right away.

"The Prince" is essentially a "how-to" guide for royalty durring the 1400's in Italy. I'm not going to make this review very long... a short review for a short book. It gets one star. Why? It's a very out dated classic. The advice and philosophical ramblings handed out in this book is quite specific to its time and place, and unlike, say The Communist Manefesto, for example, are no long relevant to us. In fact, it would probably be downright criminal today to run your country in the way Machiavelli suggests you do. This book would be a good read if you are interested in the history of Italian principalities durring this time period. Other than that, there is really no reason to read it. The morality of the book is actually very objectionable, and on top of that... its REALLLLLY borring.

It's probably considered to be a classic work of literature because it is just old. That's all. If I wrote some crap right now about the mythical underpants gnomes, and it survived for 600 years, people in 2600 BC would probably be saying "FIVE STARS for the Underpants Gnome Chronicals. This a great relic from the year 2007! Such insight into their ideology and beliefs...."

This book is for serious philosophical readers.

Machiavelli broke down a raw and ruthless political idea. I read the Art of War before this book, and they are similar. However, Machiavelli is much more aggressive. If you're reading this book for entertainment, it can be dry at times. Nonetheless, the information in this book is timeless, and should be an enjoyment for interested readers only.

How to be in charge, and how to stay that way. At least in an Italian political sense amidst the power structures of the time.

Some of this is of course relevant to a lot of situations. More so if you are a dictator as opposed to being the Minister for Water Supply or the Arts, of course.

An interesting book.

This is an interesting book, especially for those involved in social and political issues. In some moments, Machiavelli's words shock us because he suggests some cruel and even evil means for the Prince to achieve success. However, the book's "Introduction" and the "Translator's note" warn us that these ideas were common in the Machiavelli's time (1469-1527). Some parts of the book are a little boring because they refer to several people (princes, kings, popes, etc) and facts which are unknown for the common reader (like me). Nevertheless, the general principles defended by Machiavelli in each chapter are not lost by those aspects, and we can understand them perfectly. There is one especially rich chapter, the one entitled "whether it is better to be loved than feared, or rather feared than loved". I had a great time reading it.

In The Prince, Machiavelli basically outlines the foundations of government as they were in Italy and the rest of Europe in the Middle Ages. While is he often criticized, the truth of the matter is that he was not creating these guidelines...he was simply outlining them. They already existed, and they had been used countless times, which is where Machiavelli draws his examples from. That is a part of what makes The Prince such a great read - every point and every suggestion or "rule" is outlined clearly and in easy language, and accompanied by a then-current example.
The Medicis were a fascinating family, and for anyone interested in their impact on Italian history and culture, this book is very informative. Machiavelli dedicated The Prince to Giuliano de' Medici, and depending on how much you know of the Medici family and their ruling practices in general, it is very interesting to note the relationship between the guidelines in this book and the history of the Medici's governmental policies.
This book provides a thorough analysis of European politics and morals during the Middle Ages. While some of the suggested guidelines may seem at first to be unethical or based on practical success, keep in mind that to understand the full meaning of the text, you must interpret it while keeping in mind a sense of the realities of the time, which have obviously changed. In keeping with our present sense of values, Machiavelli may seem cruel and ruthless, but read it and put it in the perspective of Italy in the Middle Ages. It makes for a much deeper, clearer read.

This small classic is a window into the politics of Italy in the Renassance and for centuries to follow. Machiavelli was a discredited Florentine diplomat who wrote this work as an effort to win the admiration of the Medici who will rule Florence. It is based on his hero Cesare Borgia, son of Pope Alexander VI (a psychopath although Machiavelli may not have realized it). It is claiomed to be the source of the theory that the "ends justify the means." It wshould be read carefully and followed by the Discourses of the same author.

This is a political survival manual.

Place the book in the context of the time and place it was written. Italy was divided into several rival states, or principalities, whose incessant competition was of a largely economic, political, and military nature. Added to this was the factor of foriegn intervention, as the French and Spanish armies were keen on making as much of Italy their own. Italy, was a dangerous place to play the "Great Game" of power.

Niccolo Machiavelli served Florence honorably as both a militia-leader and bureaucrat. "The Prince", provides insight into the realities of surviving politically and militarily against enemies from within and without. Within a state, there will be various factions conspiring for the prince's favor, or against him. Outside the state, there are rival states.

This manual has been unfairly maligned as "an evil book". Having read it, I am at a loss to explain the negative hype. Anyone with a common-sense comprehension of the world will see the logic in his assertions.

Machiavelli begins by classifying the types of principalities (states) as they existed in his time, and the various means by which a prince comes to power. Among other things, he describes the best type of troops to employ (native-born rather than mercenaries or foriegners), and how to organize and utilize them (See Machiavelli's "Art of War" as well.). He expounds on the values of forming alliances and good relations with the citizenry. Machiavelli endorsed arming the common citizens, and maintaining favorable laws and commercial practices that allowed them to flourish, as a means of establishing a powerful foundation of rule.

There is also advice on ethics, selection of staff, forming foriegn alliances, etc. Through cautionary tales and historical examples, he makes his points clearly understood.

Every young man should read this book before the age of 21 and find himself through it. Several other reviewers have eloquently illustrated the merits of this classic text quite nicely, but what it comes down to is that each of us must find his own way.

This work is brutal and it is honest. You will face yourself in it. It is this face you must recognize and choose your life-path at that point. If more of us did this one thing, we would have a much more cohesive society.

Niccolo Macchiavelli has been totally misunderstood throughout modern western history. I have read the Prince and his comments on Livy at least three times and I fail to see how this misunderstanding has arisen. The only explanation is that Macchiavelli's analysis flies in the face of the prevarications that inform most modern political systems.
Macchiavelli was clearly an idealist who preferred republican government, but was he also a realistic Italian nationalist who had good reasons to believe that a strong Italian monarchy would be the only form of government that could wrest control of the many parts of Italy dominated by foreign adventurers and then reunite the peninsula.
His goals wre laudable and the methods which he prescribed to achieve them were necessary given the various and complex political situations at the time. In fact if the Medicis had been able to follow his advice and coalesce an italian state out of the chaos that reigned in the peninsula, all Italians would have benefitted greatly.

A very good yet short book. I recommend this book to everyone.
Don't pass this one up!

The separation of ethics from politics is a key component in Machiavelli's political theory. What matters is the end results. Machiavelli has tapped into the darkest and truest elements of the human nature. You have to read "the prince" to understand today's politcs and politicians.
The book is a disturbing reading that is based on reality in politics.

This book is exactly what i expected. Its a handbook for the young poli-sci major or entrepreneur. It tells you exactly how to get to powerful positions and how to keep them. It has become my new bible.

I purchased this book thinking it was a political book, and it certainly can be, but it is also much more. Machiavelli's principles are applicable to any sort of situation that involves bureaucracy, such as the professional world in addition to ruling and power.

The infamous pamphlet that established the basic strategies for military and city-state conquest for ages. Machiavelli looks to Caesar Borgia as his model of the ideal, calculating militant leader. Machiavelli calls for an appeal to the people through fear and respect, insisting that they must be treated well enough to maintain control. He writes: "Is it better to be loved or feared, or vice versa? I don't doubt that every prince would like to be both; but since it is hard to accommodate these qualities, if you have to make a choice, to be feared is much safer than to be loved. For it is a good general rule about men, that they are ungrateful, fickle, liars and deceivers, fearful of danger and greedy for gain."

The Prince is the bible of modern realpolitik. It is a cynical tract containing twenty six guidelines for taking (and maintaining power). Machiavelli supports his arguments with an astonishing depth and breadth of understanding of military history, and this work remains one of the great accounts of military strategy, along with Thucydides and Hobbes.

This author simply gets one of the worst wraps in history. Machiavelli is usually looked at as a sinister, manipulative individual, but quite frankly, the guy is a realist. He simply called it like he saw it, and just like today, nobody wants to hear it.

National politics are not the only application for these words. This book applies to national, regional, local, business, and familial politics. To ignore it is foolish, to not read it is ignorant, and ignorance is not bliss in this instance. Reading this is by no means a guarantee to the corner office, but those who do can pick out when someone is trying to obtain that position. If you are a student of psychology or a people watcher, this book is in some ways deviously comical to use as a field guide.

For those aspiring individuals, you would do yourself well to read this, study it, and apply it. The concepts will work, even today, which is why this is necessary reading for all current and aspiring executives in the world. Whether to recognize the tactics or for manipulation or both the choice is yours alone. It's all about the relationships.

So, this idea of progress of being able all of a sudden to come into possession of perceptions that had not been accessible to us before, meant that now the self could now possibly be seen in ways that it had not previously been seen, and this was the hallmark of Renaissance humanists. When one looks at texts such as Niccolo Machiavelli's, (1469-1527) "The Prince," 1513, it becomes obvious that there is a different kind of emphasis that started to take shape around the notion of the self. This becomes particularly evident when you begin to compare Machiavelli and the Prince to works such as Sophocles and the Antigone. So, Machiavelli's theories of self aware role playing is essentially what he espouses, you have to be a self aware actor and performer. He is really the first; post modernism is always accredited with this notion that identity is performance. There is no such thing as identity it does not have a palpable existence, identity is merely the sum total of things you do, and the things you do are inconsistent. So this thing we call identity can only be the result of this kind of illusory coherent series of actions and representations consequently, the self itself is very questionable and very unstable and people always talk about this as one of the hallmarks of postmodern thinking. What I think is interesting is to read Machiavelli and think of him as the first postmodernist, as kind of a pre modern postmodernist. He has ideas about the self and about identity that come right out of postmodern thinking. He is so much about performing and role-playing, the self-made self, that whatever result you want you make it and you make it by the way you act, and the way you perform. Artful manipulation this is a challenge to the kinds of traditional definitions of the self as inspired by Divinity. In Machiavelli, of course, the Devine has no matter at all it has no place. Only what he talks about Fortuna, luck and not the Devine is what plays the ultimate role in determining the kind of life you are going to have. She quotes him "Fortune is the arbiter of ½ the things we do the other ½ to be controlled by ourselves." Therefore, there you have it, ½ luck, ½ our determination and your will so, that is about all you have to go on. So, where does that leave you, the luck part you can't do much about. Therefore, you have to focus on the ½ that you can do something about the ½ that you control. That is what his book the "Prince" is about that ½ and the rest of it you will never be able to control. "The prince need not necessarily have good qualities, but you should certainly appear to have them, you should appear to be compassionate faithful to his word, kind guiles and devout, and indeed you should be so, but his disposition should be such that if he needs to be opposite he knows how. You must realize this that a prince, especially a new prince cannot observe all the things that give men a reputation for virtue, because in order to maintain his state he is often forced to act in defiance of good faith, of charity and kindness or religion. He should know how to do evil if that is necessary." Therefore, at this point you can find this theme of the human agent who can invent himself. Therefore, the person can decide to invent himself. This kind of thinking, I think this is still how we think about ourselves, I think that this is still how we think about identities. This is a very modern idea, and it ties into this very modern idea about taking responsibility for one's self, which we adhere to. It has been just as debatable and just as contestable back then as it has been now. Even in the secular literature of the Renaissance there is always evidence of this kind of deep rooted skepticism about to which the extent we can be fully controllable or fully controlled agents.

Recommended reading for anyone interested in history, psychology, philosophy, and literature.

"... to do so and when his reasons for making the pledge are no longer operrative."

We live in an era of high definition television, Internet, fast cars, space travel when change is the word of the day and everything seems to become outdated before tomorrow arrives, and then you come accross a book like this... You realise that there is something in our nature that has not changed that much. I read the book in disbelief, amazed by how contemporary this text is despite the fact that Niccolo Machiavelli wrote this book five hundred years ago.

Machiavelli wrote this book after losing a high powered position in the Florentine state. It is believed he wrote the book in 1513, or at least he started working on the book that year. You read the text I quoted in the title of my review and you cannot escape the thought of how well that applies to today's politics - in any country. The quote captures the essence of the book, a political manifesto that was applied in practice a hundred years later by Richellieu, the creator of "raison d'etat" concept.

Machiavelli is focused on stating the principles of acquiring and sustaining political power in Italy. His belief is that a true leader is a person with political abilities, fortune and military skills. While sifting through history to find examples that support his organisation of various power systems, Machiavelli uses his sharp observations to discuss human nature and attach them methodically to an arsenal of skills that a successful prince needs to master. Thus the book becomes something that can be used in debate about history, politics, human nature, sociology or I dare say economics.

This book is excellent material for people that have a deep belief that humans are bad and they can be managed mainly through fear: "For this can be said about the generality of men: that they are ungrateful, fickle, dissembling, anxious to flee danger, and covetous of gain. So long as you promote their advantage, they are all yours...". This lack of trust is present throughout the book and Machiavelli does not discriminate in his conclusion between classes. The poor and the rich are alike when it comes to interest. In my view, this is a conundrum for Machiavelli: he generalises men as being untrustworthy and yet he talks about loyalty and patriotism, especially when it comes to himself.

The book is more than a study of human nature and politics. While reading it I started to understand much better the Italian history. It is clear in my view why Italy is so fragmented and the politics of this country so volatile. It goes back to hundreds of years of struggle for power between influencial families. During this time they have become experts in diplomacy and in finding the right balance of power. I found amazing how papacy has managed to survive in a landscape littered with stories of ruin, deceit, death and temporary success. Italy has been a battle ground between papacy, powerful Italian families, French and Spanish emperors. That country has lots of old memories that, I believe, still have strong a presence in today's affairs.

It is interesting that Machiavelli noted that a strong pricipality could be based on strong cities. He uses the example of German cities that have strong fortifications, moats and artilery and "... they have enough work of the sort that is the mainstay of the city to keep the populace engaged at their usual crafts for the space of a year". This is the description of economic power, the seed of the future capitalism. I found interesting that although he noted the importance of the economic capacity, he missed it from the list of critical elements to success, limiting it to include only the political and the military.

Machiavelli's principles of power in politics can be applied to warfare in business. He discussess extensively what a prince should do to maintain power when conquering new territories. I worked for a couple of years in a company that was an aggressive acquirer and I can say that Machiavelli's observations apply incredibly well to many scenarios of acquisitions, especially if they are hostile. Apart from mergers and acquisitions, some of the studies on human nature that is revealed when people have a new leader apply quite well to today's politics that is played even at department level. There are a few lessons there. An example is that if the new ruler conquers a new territory the chances of preserving the territory increase greatly if the ruler moves residency in the new territory. This is what the Turkish sultan did to preserve the Greek territory. I find that instructive, in today's terms, to follow more closely to see if an acquiring company has a high ranking officer moving to new territory belonging to the acquired company.

Machiavelli is a master of language. He manages to express human beliefs touching on a primitive cord and makes you pay attention and wonder. He is, however, biased too much towards the idea that humans are either evil or greedy or arrogant or stupid. I supose that one could forgive that considering the living conditions he endured when he wrote the book. Nowadays, he could have published the same book, cash in the royalties, make a movie, and make a very comfortable living. Here is a fragment from a letter he wrote to his friend, Francesco Vettori: "...Meanwhile lunchtime arrives and, together with my family, I eat whatever food my poor house and scanty patrimony afford. Having lunched, I return to the inn. There I generally find the innkeeper, a butcher, a miller, and two kiln-tenders. In their company I idle the rest of the day away playing at cricca and tricchetrach - games that give rise to a host of quarells, cutting remarks, and insults. Often we fight over a penny and are heard yelling as far off as San Casciano. Set down among these lice, this is how I keep the mould from my brain and find release from Fortune's malice. I am content to have her beat me down this way to see if she won't become ashamed"

Great book, worth every penny and every minute. To be served with a good glass of wine, or a cup of tea in a quiet environment. Get ready for surprises, interesting associations and intellectual delight.

This is more of a guideline handbook than a novel. It is well written and simple to understand. It teaches a lot about power and politics. Although it was written centuries ago, there are still traces of Machiavelli tactics still being used today.

You have to think of Niccolo Machiavelli in one of two ways--he was either extremely obsequious in writing The Prince, or extremely patriotic and selfless in aiding Lorenzo DeMedici. Regardless of interpretation, the book is set up to be consise, and to convey all the political knowledge Machaivelli acquired in his many years of service in only ninety pages--but this consiseness is both a boon, and a toll to the reader. It is a short read, but by no measure is it an easy read. All the translations opt for a very formal, almost pedantic, degree of writing, when Italian is nowhere near as formal as this edition, and most every other produced, makes it out to be.

We're currently reading the book in my sophomore English class; it truly is a wealth of knowledge, but to get rich, you have to invest.--if that's not too obscure a thing to say.

For a book as brief as THE PRINCE, its impact on history has been at least as great as almost any other work. Over the centuries, it has gotten a bad reputation as some sort of guidebook for evil. But back when it was first written in the 16th century, Machiavelli indeed intended it as a guidebook, but neither for evil or for good. Rather he wrote it for a specific purpose. It was written expressly for the ruler princes of the Italian city-states who he believed could best benefit. Although its precepts are generalized to fit most country's ruling elite to a certain extent, the advice was tailored to fit the only government with which he was most familiar, his own. His motivation for writing has been construed as a bald grab for power, with Machiavelli as Mephistopheles and the grabber as a power hungry Dr. Faustus. The truth is more prosaic. His sole concern was the security of Italy. Concepts such as good, evil, war, peace, love, and hate were irrelevant only insofar as they productively led to this security. Those who read THE PRINCE today and try to follow his advice will find that such advice simply cannot be applied when the host country can reasonably call itself democratic. Consider an American politician who reads Chapter 17: "Of Cruelty and Clemency, and Whether It Is Better to Be Loved or Feared." Machiavelli could not have conceived of a leftist judiciary ruled by the edicts of Political Correctness which would not inconvenience even one's enemies to protect one's friends or even oneself. In the 16th century, rulers could and often did take actions that were harmful to a few for the betterment of the many. Similarly such a politician today may read Chapter 18: "In What Ways Princes Must Keep Faith." Here Machiavelli argues that since the world is often run by unscrupulous and faithless dealers, one need not be overly concerned with keeping one's word given to those reprobate leaders. Can you imagine what some politicians would say when they realize that they are dealing with world leaders who may not always be honest but we must act nobly in any case? Despite the resurgence in interest in THE PRINCE, such interest is likely to remain in the academic arena until such time as our governmental system of checks and balances is replaced by one with which Machiavelli is more familiar.

Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527)wrote THE PRINCE as a "how to" book. While this book was written in Renaissance Italy, THE PRINCE is a timely classic of political thought that has been badly distorted by shallow media men and historians too cowardly to carefully examine political reality.

Machiavelli wrote THE PRINCE in an attempt regain political position, and he offered good practical advice to his "patron" or anyone else who had interest in political power. Machiavelli knew that political power was not for the timid. He advised a potential prince on how to retain power. Probably without intending to do so, he also advised those who did not have political power but wanted it.

Some of Machiavelli's suggestions include showing intense force while feigning mercy. Machiavelli argued that a prince should instill fear rather than love because love is more fleeting and temporary. Machiavelli taught a potential prince that he should blame and severely punish advisors if these advisors followed the prince's orders. In other words, Machiavelli advised princes that if a policy went awry or cause resentment, a prince should scapegoat his subordinates with punishment rather than admitting blame or admitting error.

Some have argued that Machiavelli's THE PRINCE was also a call for Italian unity or what was later known as Nationalism. Machiavelli advised that military forces should be composed of native troops loyal to the ruler as opposed to mercenaries. Mercenaries were not to be trusted as they were loyal to paymasters rather than a prince of polity.

Readers should note that Renaissance was not united. There were several political units such as principalities, city-states, Austrian-German controlled areas, the Papal States, etc. Machiavelli knew that often these rulers called on "outsiders" to do their dirty work vs. their enemies. Machiavelli was not the only Italian who realized that such outside "help" often made Italy a battleground for other Euroepean rulers to the detriment of the Italians. This is why Machiavelli wanted a united Italy.

Naive readers and dull pundits have associated Machiavelli with evil political disigns. This is not true. Machiavelli found the situation in Italy into which he was born. The political divisions and intrigues were the facts of political life, and Machiavelli made a reasoned response to it.

Machiavelli's THE PRINCE is also important because of the warning he gave to readers. Whether he intended to or not, Machiavelli alerted readers how political power actually works as opposed to lofty speeches, constitutions, etc. In other words, the alert reader should beware. Another important lesson that Machiavelli teaches that political power is often composed of powerful groups whose survival and prosperity can last if there are compromises. In other words, freedom is an important byproduct of these compromises.

One may note that Machiavelli's THE PRINCE was written was written when crowned princes and rulers were trying to concentrate their power. The old Medieval system of controls (checks and balances) were undermined. There were fewer restrictions of parliaments, vassals, Cathlic Church controls, etc. to limit a monarch's power. In other words, Renaissance rulers were able to use political and economic dislocations to rid themselves of prior controls.

THE PRINCE is an invaluable guide to understanding actual political power. Machiavelli was sure of himself because he was witness to rapid changes in political power, and he clearly understood the events that were unfolding even if others were not. Those who assign evil intentions to Machiavelli betray their own naivete rather than any actual understand. If readers have a difficult time with THE PRINCE, they owe it to themselves to give the book a more careful read.

I love this little book. I only wish Mr. Machiavelli had written more - much more. One word says it all: honest. This book tells it like it is. Not for the politically correct, but for those who appreciate an honest take on politics and government. If you love books that say it like it is, no matter the politics, then you'll likely enjoy this small book. Amazingly refreshing for 1530 AD. Like I said above, I only wish Mr. Machiavelli had written more.

Cynical but accurate pronouncements to get a person through life, if you enjoy the art of grovelling. (Many times necessary to advance, if that is your agenda.)

This is supposed to be a good book, a life changing book, but its a hard read. A hard read. I find it boring myself.

The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli is considered by some to be a dictator's handbook. With this knowledge going in, I thought I would be reading a Mein Kampf of sorts. I was wrong. Machiavelli writes matter-of-factly about simply how a Prince should keep power over his citizens.

This originally was not even meant to be published. Machiavelli wrote it to get a job with Lorenzo de' Medici of Florence from which Machiavelli was recently expelled, when the French conquered it several years earlier. Machiavelli was once an ambassidor to France and was able to observe how princes obtained power. This was a sample of his knowledge, so that Lorenzo would be impressed. It worked. Another goal of this book was to unite Italy. This goal was not achieved for another 350 years.

The 70-odd pages makes this a brisk read (to put it mildly).

The book starts off with the various types of princedoms around the world and the advantages and disatvantages to each.
This is followed by historcial examples of princedoms that held power well.
Then Machiavelli talks how a prince should address certain problems such as: how a prince should be looked at, how to get an army together, how to rule foriegn colonies, how to create an image of yourself, how to worship, who you should surround yourself by.
This is followed by calling for the differant city-states of Italy (it is 1510) to unite.

The Prince talks a lot about Ceasar Borgia, his "ideal" prince.

The book may be 500 years old, but it is not dated. This is a great read for any person interested in politics (and you can see were every dictator went wrong).

There are several classical books that withstood the test of time and in one way or another deserve attention. One of them is "The Prince". Why? Its applicability to the democratic state remains a question, however I'm sure politicians read it for how to make one nation the dominating force in the global community. But, if you're not interested in international relations (how to rule over a principality), read this for its uncanny insight into the darkness of the human nature. Believe it or not, it is a great psychology tool. Of course its center stage is reserved for the leader of a monarchy. But then again forget about what's obvious and focus on what's written between the lines. Take for example the following statement:

"...men are wretched creatures who would not keep their word to you, you need to keep your word to them."

Here is the perfect example of how a mid-16th century writer characterizes the eternal and unchangeable human nature. Time and again he addresses the lack of trust one should put in people and how one is to handle his enemies. Many of us have already established our own framework of how to do this, but checking this framework against such a historical artifact would be extremely beneficial.

In addition, the book possesses a wealth of historical information on the topic of political strategy and to be fair - all of us can take advantage of a political lesson (especially in this day and age).

A short and quick read, I recommend it not only for its lessons, but for the mere fact that history deemed it worthy of preservation.

-by Simon Cleveland

In the pantheon of classic literature, there are books teachers make you read, books you read on your own, and books you think you've read because everyone talks about them as though you ought to have read them.

The Prince is the third type. Read it, and discover that the term "Machiavellian" has come to mean something that I doubt Machiavelli really intended. Read it, and discover that Machiavelli may have been more of an optimist than people realize.

In a reading group recently, members had three different translations of the book. When we argued about what Machiavelli was saying in the section on ecclesiastical states, we realized that we were coming from different directions, so we each read the versions of several passages. The consensus was that this translation is perhaps the most cynical translation into English and may be the most "faithful" to the modern, popular idea of Machiavelli.

In the absence of any guiding morality, politics becomes a naked struggle for power; The Prince gives shrewd advice as to how to play this game successfully. Every page is littered with truths, universal in both application and occurrence. The defeat of Louis XII at the hands of Ludovico, for example, foreshadowed the grim realities of post-modern warfare (Vietnam, Toledo, Mogadishu, Israel/Palestine, Sri Lanka, Iraq, etc.) and the gradual eroding of the soldier/civilian distinction ('...no matter how powerful one's armies, in order to enter a country one needs the goodwill of the inhabitants'). Machiavelli portrays Ferdinand II of Aragon as a man who accomplished great things under the cloak of religion, but who in reality had no mercy, faith, humanity, or integrity. Similar feats of deception were achieved in modern times by charismatic tyrants like Idi Amin, Colonel al-Qaddafi, Fidel Castro, Charles Taylor and Saddam Hussein. After re-reading chapter three - on 'those who come to power by crime' - I instinctively drew comparisons with praetorians like Salazar, Dollfuss, Kissinger, Nixon and military strongmen/stratocats like Noriega, Chavez, Musharraf, Franco and Pinochet. Old habits die hard.

In a world of tragic constraints on our personal morality, Machiavelli is still worth refuting. I am inclined to think that the moral world is much less tidy than many philosophers are prepared to admit. Rules are rules, and exceptions are exceptions. I want political leaders to accept the rule, to understand its reasons, even to internalise it. But I also want them to be smart enough to know when to break it. The ethical (as opposed to political) problem can be summed up as follows: do we treat people as a 'means to an end' or as 'ends' in themselves? There is, I believe, a logical difficulty in the latter view, since it gives no way of reaching a decision when two men's interests clash. If each is an end in himself, how are we to arrive at a principle for determining which shall give way? In Machiavelli there is no such problem. Power is for those who have the skill to seize it in a free competition. A ruler will perish if he is always good; he must be like a fox in order to recognise traps, and a lion to frighten off wolves. The true belief is one that augments one's power, the false belief the one that detracts from it. Simple power politics.

Machiavelli's outlook owes much to the anarchy of Italian life during the Renaissance; most of the rulers of states had acquired their position by treachery, and retained it by ruthless cruelty. The evils of papal corruption were obvious, but nothing was done about them. And to make matters worse, every Italian ruler was prepared to invoke the aid of any foreign power, even the Turk, in spite of the threat of a foreign invasion. For these reasons, Machiavelli's interests lie chiefly in (a) national independence, (b) security, and a (c) well-ordered constitution. It's the meat-and-potatoes of conservative thought. Machiavelli's prose is honest, consistent and opposed to cant. He knows, as I do, that no matter how watertight our moral convictions, there are always legitimate cases of 'dirty hands', of doing wrong to do right. In politics there are no perfectly safe courses; prudence consists in choosing the least dangerous ones.

Being writen almost 500 years ago, this book is LESS outdated than the today's newspaper.This happens because human nature, changed nothing in more than five centuries.I'm an (unemployed) agronomist, here in Brazil.I read this book more than twelve years ago.This book is excelent for me.
I don't know your sex, country, profession, religion or social class.But I must tell you that, this book is an excelent source about politics, power, war and peoples.This is a book for all times, peoples and religions.

"Anyone who picks up Machiavelli's The Prince holds in his hands the most famous book on politics ever written," reads the first sentence from the introduction. What intrigues me most about this book is Machiavelli's rare perspective of moral good and spiritual integrity. Machiavelli states humanistic behaviors and the problems of society during the Renaissance. Discussing morality and what should be done during certain situations, Machiavelli directly points out what qualities a prince needs in order to rule for the betterment of the state. For example, "A Prince must learn to be able to not be good, and use this ability or not according to necessity." Machiavelli has always had a way of thinking that if a prince cannot be both feared and loved, it would be better to be feared by citizens. Before reading this, I always thought love would tie everything together. The Prince has given me a new perspective; it has shown me that we, humankind, have many faults, and we can take advantage of the bond of love. Machiavelli has shown that fear is strengthened by the dread of punishment, which is effective.

Using his knowledge, Machiavelli provides hope for future princes in that they can establish a stable, secure, and peaceful kingdom. The best prince is able to decide which route is the best to take, not solely based on a strict moral code, but by Machiavelli's teachings. I enjoy the fact that this is not a rulebook. The Prince is a reference guide to political and military strategy, not acquired through special insight, but through Machiavelli's own experiences from Italian politics.

The Prince is truly a work of art, written for a mature audience, and for all who enjoy literature at its finest.

I haven't don't a critical analyses of many translations, but having cursorily read various parts from various translations and wholly loving Machiavelli's writings for the insights it yields into Renaissance Florence and today, I can only add to previous comments by commending the Robert Adams translation. It is the least dry, most humorous one I've encountered, with the wit (read: sarcasm) shining through. An Adams translation of The Discourses does not exist, unfortunately.