You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.52 AVERAGE
3.52 AVERAGE
This work is the famous text which gave rise to the term "Machiavellian." I was expecting something truly formidable and while I definitely found that in The Prince, I was surprised to find humorous bits here and there as well. It is worth noting the contradictions within the text. Machiavelli takes extreme stances, encouraging monarchs to be cut-throat and tyrannical, but a few passages later, promotes positive behavior that would seem critical to a successful reign. I found his discussion concerning badly used and well-used cruelties in Chapter 8 to be interesting....
In summary, very enlightening if you are interested in early modern European monarchy and what may have directly or indirectly affected it.
In summary, very enlightening if you are interested in early modern European monarchy and what may have directly or indirectly affected it.
Always wondered what this often referenced book was actually like. Turns out just as harsh and blunt as expected. Small book but it packs a punch. And made me glad I don't have to rule a country.
It also made me go to sparknotes.com for the first time in several years.
It also made me go to sparknotes.com for the first time in several years.
This translation by WK Marriott that's in the public domain felt very roundabout and stuffy, and therefore much of the more historical quips about Ancient Rome or contemporary Italian politics went over my head. A re-read in the future with a different edition will hopefully clear things up.
Nevertheless, what I got out of this was a greater understanding of why this booklet was reviled in his day, as it is an amoral and secular manual (and at times a satire) on how one maintains power, as well as a comment on the absolute chaos that was Italian politics in his day.
An important work that everyone should read, even though I found it to be indulgent and obtuse.
Nevertheless, what I got out of this was a greater understanding of why this booklet was reviled in his day, as it is an amoral and secular manual (and at times a satire) on how one maintains power, as well as a comment on the absolute chaos that was Italian politics in his day.
An important work that everyone should read, even though I found it to be indulgent and obtuse.
Another book I’m not going to rate because no amount of stars can do it justice.
I’ll just say this: anyone who takes this book as a ‘how to’ and calls Machiavelli a conniving douchebag should really really read the first chapter and then look at the historical context.
I’ll just say this: anyone who takes this book as a ‘how to’ and calls Machiavelli a conniving douchebag should really really read the first chapter and then look at the historical context.
informative
reflective
medium-paced
3.5 stars. This was an assigned reading for a class, but it was a surprisingly quick and interesting read.
The Prince consists of a series of observations and words of advice on obtaining and maintaining power. Although Machiavelli refers to his hypothetical ruler as "the prince"--a stand-in term for any noble ruler--a lot of these concepts could easily apply to modern-day politicians. He advises leaders to strive towards an image of fairness and virtue, but not to shy away from taking decisive and ruthless action against enemies when necessary.
These theories are all very interesting, but part of the reason I struggled with this book at times was the extensive historical examples Machiavelli uses to illustrate them. I do enjoy history, but many of the leaders, battles, and conspiracies Machiavelli describes are too obscure for a modern reader who isn't an expert to understand. I skimmed a lot of those passages. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ It's definitely not the most enthralling read, but the reflections and implications for politics were still interesting enough to merit finishing the book.
Side note: I feel like a lot of fantasy authors could stand to read this. Maybe I'm being petty, but I've read way too many (YA especially) fantasy novels lately with exceptionally shitty world-building when it comes to political systems. Governments are oversimplified to the point that I feel as though I'm being talked down to, or at the very least that the author was too lazy to bother creating realistic political dynamics, systems, and history. The Prince forces the reader to consider certain political patterns and look at the way power is achieved and maintained in a more complex way--it's basically a self-help book on how to claim and hold onto a position of power.
Machiavelli takes a rather patriarchal perspective on politics--unfortunately, this is nothing unexpected considering it was written almost 500 years ago. Still, it's more than a bit annoying to spend the whole book reading about the accomplishments and capabilities of "great men". Women are mentioned only in passing, and only for the purpose of advising "the Prince" to refrain from regularly seizing the property (read as: wives) of men under his rule. Also, I know there were very few female monarchs who ruled in their own right during this time period, but damn the persistence of the patriarchy always gets me angry. There's at least one section that explains various actions taken by Ferdinand, King of Aragon and Castile, but it completely ignores the existence of Ferdinand's wife, Queen Isabella, whO IS ONLY ONE OF THE MOST FAMOUS AND POWERFUL MONARCHS IN ALL OF SPANISH AND EUROPEAN HISTORY.
Okay, rant over.
If you like politics and history, or you want to take over the world, you should definitely read this book.
This is technically my second time reading The Prince - when I read it in high school I absolutely hated it. I hated its brutal bluntness, how dour and serious it was, and how it felt like it lacked any sense of poetry or what I felt was good writing.
But times have changed, and I have changed.
I've wanted to reread it for a while, in part because of a talk I saw Salman Rushdie give in NYC a few years back. He makes many of the same points that he makes in this video, from a talk he gave in California, but I recall him going into even greater depth at the talk that I attended, and it left me more interested in revisiting this controversial tome.
As an adult (or something like it), I get what Rushdie means, and I appreciated it way more on my second go-through. This particular edition, the Penguin Classics edition with introduction, translator's notes, and a modern translation by Tim Parks also helped with some of the context around the book and its origins. For example, many people read anti-The Prince literature before they ever had the opportunity to read the work itself, because the work itself wasn't properly published for a long time - and after it was, the Pope banned it. I also really appreciated Parks' translation, which breathed some life into the text and made it feel a bit less stodgy or rote than some of the others.
Some of the important context here is that Machiavelli was crushed by the very system that he writes about. He's not writing as someone who's exalted by it or thrilled by it - this is essentially his meditations on power and how it works, and boy howdy does it feel spot on, especially under Tr*mp's ghastly regime.
It was also particularly interesting to read this after reading Hope in the Dark, about the counter movements to this kind of power. There's an interesting discourse to be had about/between the two of them, as The Prince, in showing how authoritarian power is most effective, also reveals its greatest weaknesses. In fact, Parks discusses a theory held by some leftist/liberal thinkers that that was partly Machiavelli's real intent, to expose the ways that power is in the hands of the people.
Lots of food for thought in here, so for that alone I think this will definitely be something I return to.
But times have changed, and I have changed.
I've wanted to reread it for a while, in part because of a talk I saw Salman Rushdie give in NYC a few years back. He makes many of the same points that he makes in this video, from a talk he gave in California, but I recall him going into even greater depth at the talk that I attended, and it left me more interested in revisiting this controversial tome.
As an adult (or something like it), I get what Rushdie means, and I appreciated it way more on my second go-through. This particular edition, the Penguin Classics edition with introduction, translator's notes, and a modern translation by Tim Parks also helped with some of the context around the book and its origins. For example, many people read anti-The Prince literature before they ever had the opportunity to read the work itself, because the work itself wasn't properly published for a long time - and after it was, the Pope banned it. I also really appreciated Parks' translation, which breathed some life into the text and made it feel a bit less stodgy or rote than some of the others.
Some of the important context here is that Machiavelli was crushed by the very system that he writes about. He's not writing as someone who's exalted by it or thrilled by it - this is essentially his meditations on power and how it works, and boy howdy does it feel spot on, especially under Tr*mp's ghastly regime.
It was also particularly interesting to read this after reading Hope in the Dark, about the counter movements to this kind of power. There's an interesting discourse to be had about/between the two of them, as The Prince, in showing how authoritarian power is most effective, also reveals its greatest weaknesses. In fact, Parks discusses a theory held by some leftist/liberal thinkers that that was partly Machiavelli's real intent, to expose the ways that power is in the hands of the people.
Lots of food for thought in here, so for that alone I think this will definitely be something I return to.
One of those books that make me dread reading. I'm sure it has some academic and historical value. I'm just saying as a piece of writing, I deeply did not enjoy it. It was ponderous, poorly paragraphed, and went on far too meanderingly and incoherently.
I guess I read this to see what the hype is about and what people mean when they reference Machiavelli or say that something is Machiavellian. The book needs to be edited better--some of the typos are maybe on purpose but others are likely not. I'm glad for the introduction and end notes, as they talk about how The Prince should be read and interpreted. It makes a lot of sense in the context of Machiavelli's day. I had to read this fairly quickly because it's due back at the library tomorrow and I can't renew it (someone else is waiting for it). But glad to have this deadline.
"Machiavelli denies attributes of virtue to those who, in capacity of leadership, use the means for themselves personally and not for those whom they represent or govern. Machiavelli's concern is that leaders, at all levels, need to fulfill the role of governing for the benefit of the people, and to defend them at all costs." pg. 9
"Virtue does not necessarily stand alone as the most important attribute of those in private or public life. The second most important attribute is astuteness, which mean strength, street smart. Its counterpart would be weakness or appeasement--attributes that generate danger and self-destruction. Leaders have to be virtuous and astute, diligent in their comportment as the caretakers of their people, and be aware of what other leaders and nations do. Machiavelli would build dams before, not after, floods." pg. 9
"Machiavelli wrote The Prince as a manual to enlighten leaders on ways to good government in spite of the compulsive aggressiveness existing in all of us. He would have seconded government programs that allow the largest number of people to pursue the maximum amount of happiness. He realized that happiness is attainable only when governors lead the governed in an atmosphere of harmony and balance." pg. 12
"In 1594 Charles VIII of France made his irruption into Italy to make good his claim to Naples against the House of Aragon, and so helpless was the country to defend herself against attack, that he was able to march from the north through Florence and Rome to Naples, to take possession of that kingdom, and to return to France by the same route, without once meting any serious opposition. From that time onwards, throughout Machiavelli's life, Italy was seldom entirely free from the invasions of one foreign army or another, and there followed a period of bewildering confusion during which the Emperor, the French, the Swiss, and the Spaniards, the Pope and the more powerful Italian states were all at war and all alternately enemies and allies of each other, while every part of Italy suffered in turn from the desolation of the country and the brutalities of the foreign soldiery. Such were the chaotic conditions which prevailed in Italy in Machiavelli's day, and which stirred him to search for some means of restoring his unhappy country to a more peaceful state." pg. 16-17
"It is important to realize that, in writing The Prince, Machiavelli was working out the details of one part of his general scheme for the reorganization of Italy, and that he was only dealing with the transitional period while the tyrant would be gradually acquiring dominion over the country; he was considering the difficulties that would be met with, and how they could be overcome. His view was that the conqueror would have to be a man of iron will, prepared to devote his life to the one object in view, and absolutely indifferent to the morality of his methods, to the interests of individuals, or to the temporary sufferings of the nation, provided he could achieve his purpose." pg. 19
"In this book, then, Machiavelli boldly advocated those principles of conduct by which alone he believed that it would be possible for his super-tyrant to dominate Italy. He was not concerned with the morality of the prince's behavior; he was making a scientific exposition of the methods by which a certain object might be attained. He was not endeavoring to expound how a perfect state should be ideally governed; he was showing how very imperfect states, and especially newly created states, were in fact successfully governed. And lastly, he was not putting forward a scheme for permanent government of a settled state, but merely stating the methods that should be employed by his tyrant to keep the recently conquered territories under control until he should have completed the subjection of the whole of Italy and united it into a single state." pg. 19
"It is in a new Principality that the difficulty arises. Firstly, even if the Principality is not completely new, but a new part of one--and this we can call a mixed Principality--then the possibility of changes arise from a problem natural to all new Principalities: namely, that men change leaders gladly in hopes of improvement in their lot. This belief leads them to take arms against the new leader too, because they have been deceived and see from experience that things have gotten worse. This happens usually and quite necessarily because a new leader always offends his new subjects either by using force or by other injustices associated with the acquisition of a new Principality. Obviously, those you offend become your enemies. You cannot satisfy your friend either because their expectations are disappointed too, or can you oppose them since they helped you. Indeed, even if you are well armed, whenever you enter a new province you need the help of provincial leaders." pg.33
"Therefore, colonies cost less, remain loyal, and make less trouble. The victims can't make trouble because they are poor and dispossessed. Note that you have to be either soft or harsh, because men take offense easily at small insults, but they can't react against hard measures. When you offend someone, be sure they are incapable of revenge. By placing troops there, the cost is much more and much more goes into the surveillance of all the renegade elements of the state so that its acquisition becomes a losing proposition. Troops offend many more people what with hosing and requisition, which harms everybody. Everybody becomes the enemy and they can do harm because, though conquered, they remain at home. Occupation is therefore unproductive while coloinzation is useful." pg. 35
"Louis therefore made these five mistakes: he lost support among the minor lords; he gave more power to an already powerful ruler; he put a powerful foreign potentate in; he didn't come to live there; and he didn't plant colonies. He could have escaped the consequences of these errors if he had not made a sixth error by seeking to strip Venice of its acquired possessions." pg. 38
"One can draw a general rule from this, which rarely fails--whoever helps someone else to power gets ruined. The reason is that it takes industry or force to make someone powerful, and both of these are suspect in the mind of the one who becomes powerful." pg. 39
"In the case of occupied states that have been used to living with their own laws in liberty, there are three modes of holding them: first, to ruin them; second, go live personally in them; third, let them live according to their laws while extracting tribute and creating a faithful oligarchy that will keep the state friendly. Such an oligarchy knows that the Prince created the state and they know they are dependent on his friendship and power and do everything they can to maintain it. It is easier to preserve a city by allowing it to live in liberty according to the customs of its citizens than by any other method." pg. 44
"Besides, like all things born too suddenly in nature, they have no roots and branches, so at the first adversity they die. If those suddenly raised to power have no virtue besides what they have from fortune, they fall. Only those with virtue know how to conserve what has been given them and can make up afterwards what others have from the start." pg.
"Having narrated the actions of the Duke [Cesare Borgia, Duke Valentin], I would not know wherein to reprove him--in fact, he seems to me to be worthy of imitation to all who would rise to rule by fortune and the arms of others. Having a grand spirit and lofty aims, he could not govern otherwise. His only obstacles were Alexander's death and his own sickness. Whoever finds it needful in a new Principality to secure himself against enemies, gain friends, to win by force or deceit, be loved and feared by the populace, follow and uphold his soldiers, terminate those who could hurt him, innovate new orders in place of old customs, be strict, grateful, magnanimous and liberal, cut down unloyal militia, create a new army, keep the friendship of Princes and Kings in such a way that they help one or respect one, one could not find a better example than that of the Duke." pg. 55-56
"Whoever considers this life, and Agatocle's action, will not find much left to fortune; not by anyone's favor was Agatocle helped, but by military intervention beset by many inconveniences and dangers. This was brought him to power and maintained his Principality. Nor can one say it was virtue when he killed citizens, betrayed friends, walked without faith, without piety, and without religion. By this means, he could achieve power but not glory. Still if you consider Agatocle's virtue in facing and overcoming danger, and his greatness in facing and overcoming obstacles, there is nothing by which to judge him worse than any good Captain. Despite his extreme cruelty and inhumanity and his wickedness, he stands among great-celebrated men. But this cannot be attributed either to fortune or virtue. Without either, he reached his goal." pg. 60
"I believe this is because of the good and bad use of cruelty. Cruelty well used (if one can ever say cruelty is good) is when it is practiced suddenly and decisively, but not prolonged. The practicant converts to practices more useful for his subjects. Cruelty badly used is when although slight at the beginning, it grows more widely used in time. Those who work the first way can rectify their state with God and with men, as Agatocle did. Those who practice the second way fail. Note that in taking a state the occupier has to act quickly and commit the worst offenses right away, so that he doesn't have to go on offending everyday. This way, giving no more offense, he can reassure and benefit others. Who doesn't do this, either out of timidity or bad advice, always has to have the dagger in hand. He can't count on anyone because no one can count on him. Offense has to be done all at once so as to be over and forgotten, while favors should be dealt out bit by bit slowly so that they can be savored better. A Prince has to live with his subjects free to vary the good and the bad. This is because in bad times he has no room to maneuver and has to act harshly out of necessity while when he does good, if he is to constrained, he gets no credit for what he does." pg. 61-62
"A Principality arises when either the people or the prominent citizens see an opportunity to dominate: the prominent leaders, scared of the populace, back the reputations of one of their own so that they can work their purposes under his shadow. Or the populace, scared of the prominent citizens, sees an opportunity to raise one of their own who will defend their interests. One who assumes leadership with the help of the prominent citizens or oligarchy has more trouble maintaining his position than one raised by the populace. A Prince raised by other prominent leaders finds himself constrained because the others surrounding him are his equals and will not be commanded by him or easily managed." pg. 65
"The interest of the populace is more honest than that of prominent citizens who want to command and oppress, while the populace only want to be free of oppression." pg. 65
"The Prince cannot quickly seize absolute power. The citizens and subjects, used to the commands of the magistrates, and in cases of conflict, won't obey the Prince. They will always doubt him in difficult times. Such a Prince cannot rely on things as they are when there is peace and people count on the Prince. Then they want to do and promise everything for him, and--when there is no danger--to die for him. But in difficult times, when the state needs the support of its citizens, few come forward. This is more dangerous the more exceptional the need. So a Prince needs to find a way to make the citizens at all times in all ways dependent on the sate and on him, and only then will they remain faithful." pg. 67
"The main fundamentals that a state--new, old, or mixed--has to have are good laws and a strong army. Good laws do not come without strong security; where the army is strong, one needs good laws. Leaving the question of good laws aside, let's discuss armies. The forces a Prince uses to defend his state are either his own, or they are mercenaries, auxiliaries, or mixed forces. Mercenaries and auxiliaries are useless and dangerous. A state based on mercenary forces will never be solid or secure. Mercenary forces are not united; they are ambitions, undisciplined, and disloyal. They are careful of friends, villainous with enemies, not fearing God, and faithless among men. Attack and defeat are the same to them. In peacetime, they rob you. In war, the enemy ruins you. The reason is that nothing keeps them in camp except a miserable wage, not enough for them to die for you. They want to be soldiers as long as there is no war, but when war comes, they flee and run away." pg. 75
"Mercenary captains are either excellent soldiers, or not. If they are, you can't trust them because they aspire to glory themselves--either by putting you down, or putting others down that you don't intend to harm. If they are no good as soldiers, they ruin you anyway. If someone answers this happens no matter who the soldier is, I have to answer that there is a difference in how armies work under Princes or in Republics. The Prince must be his own captain; in a Republic, one of the citizens assumes the captaincy. When he is not a valiant man, he has to be replaced. When he is valiant, it is hard to contain him within the law. But from experience, one sees Princes and Republican armies make progress, Mercenaries do nothing but damage. An armed Republic falls to its own dictator from within less easily than an army raised from outside." pg. 76
"His soldiers cannot esteem a Prince who does not understand militias, besides other problems, nor can he trust them. He must therefore never lose sight of war exercises, and in peace he has to stay armed more than in war. He can do this in two ways: one, operationally; two, mentally. Operationally, besides constantly maintaining and disciplining the troops, a Prince must always hunt. This hardens the body to hardship but also helps the Prince learn the nature of the landscape and places, the ways of mountains, valleys, plains, and he gets to understand the rivers and swamps and to respect them. This knowledge is useful in two ways: he gets to know his own country the better to defend it, but also gets to know terrain and what to expect about other and new places. . . A Prince who lacks this skills lacks the first thing needing in a Captain. All this helps in finding the enemy, pitching camp, leading the troops, settling the order of the day, and staking sites to your advantage." pg. 84-85
"A wise Prince will do likewise. He will never be lazy in peacetime but will be industrious in preparing to have all ready in times of adversity so that, when fortune changes, he can meet it and resist." pg. 85
"Starting from the above, liberality is generally considered good. Nonetheless, liberality, as it is usually practiced, is harmful. As, usually practiced, virtuously, as it should be, liberality is not recognized; it does not protect you against charges of avarice. To win from men praise for liberality, you need to exercise sumptuousness at every opportunity. The trouble is ostentation will consume enormous amounts of spending. To keep up the reputation of liberality, the Prince will have to exercise strong fiscal policies and do all he can to raise money. This will turn the populace against him. When he is poor, no one will admire him. Having offended everyone and pleased on a few, he becomes vulnerable. When he realizes this and tries to change course, he gets a reputation for miserliness." pg. 89
"A Prince who travels with the armies and lives off the prey, sacking and pillaging, lives off others and must practice liberality in every way. Otherwise, the solders will not follow him. It is best to liberally distribute the goods of others. . .Spending the wealth of others tarnishes no reputation but adds to it. Only spending your own resources hurts you. Nothing harms your own resources like liberality. As you spend, you deplete the resources for spending. You become either poor or impoverished, or, to escape poverty, rapacious and hateful. Of all things that a Prince needs to avoid are becoming withdrawn and hated. Liberality leads to that. It is wiser to be known as a miser, which gives you a bad but not a hated name, than to desire to bask in the name of liberality and be reduced to infamy as a rapacious and a hated ruler." pg. 90
"A Prince should ignore charges of cruelty and make his priority the unity and faith of his subjects. Many times, it is better to take a hard line than to let compassion and softness lead to disorder and riots. These are counter to the public good. Disciplinary action only hurts a few--the offenders. Among Princes, it is hardest for the new Prince to avoid charges of cruelty, because new states are full of threats. . . From this arises the question: should a Prince better be feared, or loved? The answer is: he should be both, but because it is hard to be both at the same time, it is much safer to be feared than loved, if one must renounce to one or the other." pg. 93-94
"I conclude that as to being feared or loved that being loved makes you depend on others while being feared helps you depend on yourself so that a Prince should rely on himself, and not on others. All he needs to do is avoid being hated." pg. 95
"To practice deceit is harmful; appearing to have these qualities is useful as it is to appear compassionate, faithful, human, honest and religious, and at the same time be able to change to the opposite. He must know that a Prince, and particularly a new Prince, cannot always observe those qualities that men hold well since in order to maintain the state as needed, he may have to act contrary to good faith, charity, humanity, and religion. Thus he needs to have a variable nature capable of changing with the winds of fortune and situations, and know how to act not just by the good but, if need be, by the bad." pg. 97
"So a Prince needs to take care never to let escape from his lips anything contrary to these five qualities, seeming always to be compassionate, faithful, honest, humane, and religious. Nothing is more important than to seem to be religious. Men judge more by appearances than by deeds. Everyone can see, few people can actually perceive and judge. Everybody can see what you seem to be; few can judge what you actually are. Those few do not dare to oppose the majority, who control the state that defends them." pg. 97
"One of the first ways of avoiding plots is to be loved by the masses. . . .In short , the conspirators have to deal with fear, jealousy, and possible punishment, while on his side the Prince has majesty of the Principality, the laws, his friends and estate to protect him. . . .I conclude that a Prince need not worry about conspiracies when he enjoys popularity." pg. 100
Book: borrowed from SSF Main Library.
"Machiavelli denies attributes of virtue to those who, in capacity of leadership, use the means for themselves personally and not for those whom they represent or govern. Machiavelli's concern is that leaders, at all levels, need to fulfill the role of governing for the benefit of the people, and to defend them at all costs." pg. 9
"Virtue does not necessarily stand alone as the most important attribute of those in private or public life. The second most important attribute is astuteness, which mean strength, street smart. Its counterpart would be weakness or appeasement--attributes that generate danger and self-destruction. Leaders have to be virtuous and astute, diligent in their comportment as the caretakers of their people, and be aware of what other leaders and nations do. Machiavelli would build dams before, not after, floods." pg. 9
"Machiavelli wrote The Prince as a manual to enlighten leaders on ways to good government in spite of the compulsive aggressiveness existing in all of us. He would have seconded government programs that allow the largest number of people to pursue the maximum amount of happiness. He realized that happiness is attainable only when governors lead the governed in an atmosphere of harmony and balance." pg. 12
"In 1594 Charles VIII of France made his irruption into Italy to make good his claim to Naples against the House of Aragon, and so helpless was the country to defend herself against attack, that he was able to march from the north through Florence and Rome to Naples, to take possession of that kingdom, and to return to France by the same route, without once meting any serious opposition. From that time onwards, throughout Machiavelli's life, Italy was seldom entirely free from the invasions of one foreign army or another, and there followed a period of bewildering confusion during which the Emperor, the French, the Swiss, and the Spaniards, the Pope and the more powerful Italian states were all at war and all alternately enemies and allies of each other, while every part of Italy suffered in turn from the desolation of the country and the brutalities of the foreign soldiery. Such were the chaotic conditions which prevailed in Italy in Machiavelli's day, and which stirred him to search for some means of restoring his unhappy country to a more peaceful state." pg. 16-17
"It is important to realize that, in writing The Prince, Machiavelli was working out the details of one part of his general scheme for the reorganization of Italy, and that he was only dealing with the transitional period while the tyrant would be gradually acquiring dominion over the country; he was considering the difficulties that would be met with, and how they could be overcome. His view was that the conqueror would have to be a man of iron will, prepared to devote his life to the one object in view, and absolutely indifferent to the morality of his methods, to the interests of individuals, or to the temporary sufferings of the nation, provided he could achieve his purpose." pg. 19
"In this book, then, Machiavelli boldly advocated those principles of conduct by which alone he believed that it would be possible for his super-tyrant to dominate Italy. He was not concerned with the morality of the prince's behavior; he was making a scientific exposition of the methods by which a certain object might be attained. He was not endeavoring to expound how a perfect state should be ideally governed; he was showing how very imperfect states, and especially newly created states, were in fact successfully governed. And lastly, he was not putting forward a scheme for permanent government of a settled state, but merely stating the methods that should be employed by his tyrant to keep the recently conquered territories under control until he should have completed the subjection of the whole of Italy and united it into a single state." pg. 19
"It is in a new Principality that the difficulty arises. Firstly, even if the Principality is not completely new, but a new part of one--and this we can call a mixed Principality--then the possibility of changes arise from a problem natural to all new Principalities: namely, that men change leaders gladly in hopes of improvement in their lot. This belief leads them to take arms against the new leader too, because they have been deceived and see from experience that things have gotten worse. This happens usually and quite necessarily because a new leader always offends his new subjects either by using force or by other injustices associated with the acquisition of a new Principality. Obviously, those you offend become your enemies. You cannot satisfy your friend either because their expectations are disappointed too, or can you oppose them since they helped you. Indeed, even if you are well armed, whenever you enter a new province you need the help of provincial leaders." pg.33
"Therefore, colonies cost less, remain loyal, and make less trouble. The victims can't make trouble because they are poor and dispossessed. Note that you have to be either soft or harsh, because men take offense easily at small insults, but they can't react against hard measures. When you offend someone, be sure they are incapable of revenge. By placing troops there, the cost is much more and much more goes into the surveillance of all the renegade elements of the state so that its acquisition becomes a losing proposition. Troops offend many more people what with hosing and requisition, which harms everybody. Everybody becomes the enemy and they can do harm because, though conquered, they remain at home. Occupation is therefore unproductive while coloinzation is useful." pg. 35
"Louis therefore made these five mistakes: he lost support among the minor lords; he gave more power to an already powerful ruler; he put a powerful foreign potentate in; he didn't come to live there; and he didn't plant colonies. He could have escaped the consequences of these errors if he had not made a sixth error by seeking to strip Venice of its acquired possessions." pg. 38
"One can draw a general rule from this, which rarely fails--whoever helps someone else to power gets ruined. The reason is that it takes industry or force to make someone powerful, and both of these are suspect in the mind of the one who becomes powerful." pg. 39
"In the case of occupied states that have been used to living with their own laws in liberty, there are three modes of holding them: first, to ruin them; second, go live personally in them; third, let them live according to their laws while extracting tribute and creating a faithful oligarchy that will keep the state friendly. Such an oligarchy knows that the Prince created the state and they know they are dependent on his friendship and power and do everything they can to maintain it. It is easier to preserve a city by allowing it to live in liberty according to the customs of its citizens than by any other method." pg. 44
"Besides, like all things born too suddenly in nature, they have no roots and branches, so at the first adversity they die. If those suddenly raised to power have no virtue besides what they have from fortune, they fall. Only those with virtue know how to conserve what has been given them and can make up afterwards what others have from the start." pg.
"Having narrated the actions of the Duke [Cesare Borgia, Duke Valentin], I would not know wherein to reprove him--in fact, he seems to me to be worthy of imitation to all who would rise to rule by fortune and the arms of others. Having a grand spirit and lofty aims, he could not govern otherwise. His only obstacles were Alexander's death and his own sickness. Whoever finds it needful in a new Principality to secure himself against enemies, gain friends, to win by force or deceit, be loved and feared by the populace, follow and uphold his soldiers, terminate those who could hurt him, innovate new orders in place of old customs, be strict, grateful, magnanimous and liberal, cut down unloyal militia, create a new army, keep the friendship of Princes and Kings in such a way that they help one or respect one, one could not find a better example than that of the Duke." pg. 55-56
"Whoever considers this life, and Agatocle's action, will not find much left to fortune; not by anyone's favor was Agatocle helped, but by military intervention beset by many inconveniences and dangers. This was brought him to power and maintained his Principality. Nor can one say it was virtue when he killed citizens, betrayed friends, walked without faith, without piety, and without religion. By this means, he could achieve power but not glory. Still if you consider Agatocle's virtue in facing and overcoming danger, and his greatness in facing and overcoming obstacles, there is nothing by which to judge him worse than any good Captain. Despite his extreme cruelty and inhumanity and his wickedness, he stands among great-celebrated men. But this cannot be attributed either to fortune or virtue. Without either, he reached his goal." pg. 60
"I believe this is because of the good and bad use of cruelty. Cruelty well used (if one can ever say cruelty is good) is when it is practiced suddenly and decisively, but not prolonged. The practicant converts to practices more useful for his subjects. Cruelty badly used is when although slight at the beginning, it grows more widely used in time. Those who work the first way can rectify their state with God and with men, as Agatocle did. Those who practice the second way fail. Note that in taking a state the occupier has to act quickly and commit the worst offenses right away, so that he doesn't have to go on offending everyday. This way, giving no more offense, he can reassure and benefit others. Who doesn't do this, either out of timidity or bad advice, always has to have the dagger in hand. He can't count on anyone because no one can count on him. Offense has to be done all at once so as to be over and forgotten, while favors should be dealt out bit by bit slowly so that they can be savored better. A Prince has to live with his subjects free to vary the good and the bad. This is because in bad times he has no room to maneuver and has to act harshly out of necessity while when he does good, if he is to constrained, he gets no credit for what he does." pg. 61-62
"A Principality arises when either the people or the prominent citizens see an opportunity to dominate: the prominent leaders, scared of the populace, back the reputations of one of their own so that they can work their purposes under his shadow. Or the populace, scared of the prominent citizens, sees an opportunity to raise one of their own who will defend their interests. One who assumes leadership with the help of the prominent citizens or oligarchy has more trouble maintaining his position than one raised by the populace. A Prince raised by other prominent leaders finds himself constrained because the others surrounding him are his equals and will not be commanded by him or easily managed." pg. 65
"The interest of the populace is more honest than that of prominent citizens who want to command and oppress, while the populace only want to be free of oppression." pg. 65
"The Prince cannot quickly seize absolute power. The citizens and subjects, used to the commands of the magistrates, and in cases of conflict, won't obey the Prince. They will always doubt him in difficult times. Such a Prince cannot rely on things as they are when there is peace and people count on the Prince. Then they want to do and promise everything for him, and--when there is no danger--to die for him. But in difficult times, when the state needs the support of its citizens, few come forward. This is more dangerous the more exceptional the need. So a Prince needs to find a way to make the citizens at all times in all ways dependent on the sate and on him, and only then will they remain faithful." pg. 67
"The main fundamentals that a state--new, old, or mixed--has to have are good laws and a strong army. Good laws do not come without strong security; where the army is strong, one needs good laws. Leaving the question of good laws aside, let's discuss armies. The forces a Prince uses to defend his state are either his own, or they are mercenaries, auxiliaries, or mixed forces. Mercenaries and auxiliaries are useless and dangerous. A state based on mercenary forces will never be solid or secure. Mercenary forces are not united; they are ambitions, undisciplined, and disloyal. They are careful of friends, villainous with enemies, not fearing God, and faithless among men. Attack and defeat are the same to them. In peacetime, they rob you. In war, the enemy ruins you. The reason is that nothing keeps them in camp except a miserable wage, not enough for them to die for you. They want to be soldiers as long as there is no war, but when war comes, they flee and run away." pg. 75
"Mercenary captains are either excellent soldiers, or not. If they are, you can't trust them because they aspire to glory themselves--either by putting you down, or putting others down that you don't intend to harm. If they are no good as soldiers, they ruin you anyway. If someone answers this happens no matter who the soldier is, I have to answer that there is a difference in how armies work under Princes or in Republics. The Prince must be his own captain; in a Republic, one of the citizens assumes the captaincy. When he is not a valiant man, he has to be replaced. When he is valiant, it is hard to contain him within the law. But from experience, one sees Princes and Republican armies make progress, Mercenaries do nothing but damage. An armed Republic falls to its own dictator from within less easily than an army raised from outside." pg. 76
"His soldiers cannot esteem a Prince who does not understand militias, besides other problems, nor can he trust them. He must therefore never lose sight of war exercises, and in peace he has to stay armed more than in war. He can do this in two ways: one, operationally; two, mentally. Operationally, besides constantly maintaining and disciplining the troops, a Prince must always hunt. This hardens the body to hardship but also helps the Prince learn the nature of the landscape and places, the ways of mountains, valleys, plains, and he gets to understand the rivers and swamps and to respect them. This knowledge is useful in two ways: he gets to know his own country the better to defend it, but also gets to know terrain and what to expect about other and new places. . . A Prince who lacks this skills lacks the first thing needing in a Captain. All this helps in finding the enemy, pitching camp, leading the troops, settling the order of the day, and staking sites to your advantage." pg. 84-85
"A wise Prince will do likewise. He will never be lazy in peacetime but will be industrious in preparing to have all ready in times of adversity so that, when fortune changes, he can meet it and resist." pg. 85
"Starting from the above, liberality is generally considered good. Nonetheless, liberality, as it is usually practiced, is harmful. As, usually practiced, virtuously, as it should be, liberality is not recognized; it does not protect you against charges of avarice. To win from men praise for liberality, you need to exercise sumptuousness at every opportunity. The trouble is ostentation will consume enormous amounts of spending. To keep up the reputation of liberality, the Prince will have to exercise strong fiscal policies and do all he can to raise money. This will turn the populace against him. When he is poor, no one will admire him. Having offended everyone and pleased on a few, he becomes vulnerable. When he realizes this and tries to change course, he gets a reputation for miserliness." pg. 89
"A Prince who travels with the armies and lives off the prey, sacking and pillaging, lives off others and must practice liberality in every way. Otherwise, the solders will not follow him. It is best to liberally distribute the goods of others. . .Spending the wealth of others tarnishes no reputation but adds to it. Only spending your own resources hurts you. Nothing harms your own resources like liberality. As you spend, you deplete the resources for spending. You become either poor or impoverished, or, to escape poverty, rapacious and hateful. Of all things that a Prince needs to avoid are becoming withdrawn and hated. Liberality leads to that. It is wiser to be known as a miser, which gives you a bad but not a hated name, than to desire to bask in the name of liberality and be reduced to infamy as a rapacious and a hated ruler." pg. 90
"A Prince should ignore charges of cruelty and make his priority the unity and faith of his subjects. Many times, it is better to take a hard line than to let compassion and softness lead to disorder and riots. These are counter to the public good. Disciplinary action only hurts a few--the offenders. Among Princes, it is hardest for the new Prince to avoid charges of cruelty, because new states are full of threats. . . From this arises the question: should a Prince better be feared, or loved? The answer is: he should be both, but because it is hard to be both at the same time, it is much safer to be feared than loved, if one must renounce to one or the other." pg. 93-94
"I conclude that as to being feared or loved that being loved makes you depend on others while being feared helps you depend on yourself so that a Prince should rely on himself, and not on others. All he needs to do is avoid being hated." pg. 95
"To practice deceit is harmful; appearing to have these qualities is useful as it is to appear compassionate, faithful, human, honest and religious, and at the same time be able to change to the opposite. He must know that a Prince, and particularly a new Prince, cannot always observe those qualities that men hold well since in order to maintain the state as needed, he may have to act contrary to good faith, charity, humanity, and religion. Thus he needs to have a variable nature capable of changing with the winds of fortune and situations, and know how to act not just by the good but, if need be, by the bad." pg. 97
"So a Prince needs to take care never to let escape from his lips anything contrary to these five qualities, seeming always to be compassionate, faithful, honest, humane, and religious. Nothing is more important than to seem to be religious. Men judge more by appearances than by deeds. Everyone can see, few people can actually perceive and judge. Everybody can see what you seem to be; few can judge what you actually are. Those few do not dare to oppose the majority, who control the state that defends them." pg. 97
"One of the first ways of avoiding plots is to be loved by the masses. . . .In short , the conspirators have to deal with fear, jealousy, and possible punishment, while on his side the Prince has majesty of the Principality, the laws, his friends and estate to protect him. . . .I conclude that a Prince need not worry about conspiracies when he enjoys popularity." pg. 100
Book: borrowed from SSF Main Library.