The Prince (Oxford World's Classics)

Machiavelli based his work in The Prince upon his basic understanding of human nature. He held that people are motivated by fear and envy, by novelty, by desire for wealth, power and security, and by a hatred of restriction. In the Italy in which he was writing, democracy was an un-implemented Greek philosophical idea, not a political structure with a history of success; thus, one person's power usually involved the limitation of another person's power in an autocratic way.

Machiavelli did not see this as a permanent or natural state of being -- in fact, he felt that, during his age, human nature had been corrupted and reduced from a loftier nobility achieved during the golden ages of Greece and Rome. He decided that it was the corrupting influence of Christianity that had reduced human nature, by its exaltation of meekness, humility, and otherworldliness.

Machiavelli has a great admiration for the possible and potential, but finds himself inexorably drawn to the practical, dealing with situations as they are, thus becoming an early champion of realpolitik carried forward into this century by the likes of Kissinger, Thatcher, Nixon, and countless others. One of the innovations of Machiavelli's thought was the recognition that the prince, the leader of the city/state/empire/etc., was nonetheless a human being, and subject to all the human limitations and desires with which all contend.

Because the average prince (like the average person) is likely to be focussed upon his own interests, a prince's private interests are generally in opposition to those of his subjects. Fortunate is the kingdom ruled by a virtuous prince, virtue here not defined by Christian or religious tenets, but rather the civic virtue of being able to pursue his own interests without conflicting those of his subjects.

Virtue is that which increases power; vice is that which decreases power. These follow Machiavelli's assumptions about human nature. Machiavelli rejected the Platonic idea of a division between what a prince does and what a prince ought to do. The two principle instruments of the prince are force and propaganda, and the prince, in order to increase power (virtue) ought to employ force completely and ruthlessly, and propaganda wisely, backed up by force. Of course, for Machiavelli, the chief propaganda vehicle is that of religion.

Whoever reads Roman history attentively will see in how great a degree religion served in the command of the armies, in uniting the people and keeping them well conducted, and in covering the wicked with shame.

Machiavelli has been credited with giving ruthless strategies (the example of a new political ruler killing the deposed ruler and the ruler's family to prevent usurpation and plotting is well known) -- it is hard to enact many in current politics in a literal way, but many of his strategies can still be seen in electioneering at every level, in national and international relations, and even in corporate and family internal 'politics'. In fact, I have found fewer more Machiavellian types than in church politics!

Of course, these people would be considered 'virtuous' in Machiavellian terms -- doing what is necessary to increase power and authority.

The title of this piece -- the virtues of Machiavelli, must be considered in this frame; certainly in no way virtuous by current standards, but then, it shows, not all have the same standards. Be careful of the words you use -- they may have differing definitions.

Perhaps if Machiavelli had lived a bit later, and been informed by the general rise of science as a rational underpinning to the world, he might have been able to accept less of a degree of randomness in the universe. Perhaps he would have modified his views. Perhaps not -- after all, the realpolitikers of this age are aware of the scientific framework of the universe, and still pursue their courses.

This is an important work, intriguing in many respects. Far shorter than the average classical or medieval philosophical tome, and more accessible by current readers because of a greater familiarity with politics than, say, metaphysics or epistemology, this work yields benefits and insights to all who read, mark, inwardly digest, and critically examine the precepts.


Brutally realistic   October 28, 2006
Nicholas Whyte (Oud Heverlee, Belgium)
7 out of 7 found this review helpful

I found this classic work very thought-provoking. The style is a little reminiscent of Sun Tzu's The Art of War - less staccato, of course, and with rather too many references to events contemporary to Machiavelli which I have only dimly heard of, if at all. Machiavelli's strictures on statecraft for the autocratic ruler are not hugely relevant for Western democracies, where the executive's freedom to do what they want is (thank God!) hemmed in by many legal and political restrictions.

But for a number of the countries that I take an interest in, which have democratic form but not content, his analysis is actually a much better explanation of their rulers' behaviour, and a useful metric for predicting whether they will succeed or fail, than any appeal to democratic theory. To take one example that is no longer contemporary, I read the passage on a Civil Principality, "where a leading citizen becomes the prince of his country, not by wickedness or any intolerable violence, but by the favour of his fellow citizens", and thought of Eduard Shevardnadze and his downfall.

And indeed some of his strictures have a wider application than merely to autocratic rulers' domestic policies. His observation that while you may have to choose being feared over being loved, you must avoid at all costs being hated, has obvious read-through to external as well as internal interventions in any country's politics.

The last few chapters - on choosing the right person to be your right-hand man, while at the same time avoiding the attentions of flatterers - are obviously to be seen in the light of the entire book being a job application; but they are none the less important observations on the psychology of leaders and their advisers.

So yeah, an excellent read.


It gets a bad press but the reality is different   March 2, 2007
Ibrahim Ali (London)
5 out of 7 found this review helpful

It is of comfort to know that the tactics once described in this book were seen as ruthless, unfortunately today anybody accustomed with the co-operate world will have most likely witnessed these Machiavellian schemes first hand. Nevertheless it is a short but insightful read, despite the general perception a great deal about morality is made in this book and some courses of action are looked down upon as being unworthy. There is a certain brutality to some of the actions suggested, but they are for the common good. However this book is how to be successful, not how to be nice and it suggests some sensible methods in how to achieve those goals. It is most famous for its "is it better for a Prince to be loved or hated?" question but there are a few other gems of quotes contained within its pages, not least the extremely sexist one concerning fortune "...because fortune is a woman, and if you wish to keep her under it is necessary to beat and ill-use her; and it is seen that she allows herself to be mastered by the adventurous rather than by those who go to work more coldly. She is, therefore, always, woman-like, a lover of young men, because they are less cautious, more violent, and with more audacity command her."


Read alongside The Discourses   October 7, 2006
Lark (Ireland)
4 out of 9 found this review helpful

In The Prince Machavelli wrote about power from the perspective of princely powers, The Discourses is how the Citizenry can exercise power in a republic.

Both a masterpieces of realpolitik.


A Very Modern Translation Which is Easy to Read   May 22, 2008
Mrs. K. A. Wheatley (Leicester, UK)
This book is about power and the politics of maintaining it for an individual. It is a classic of Renaissance Literature which inspired hot debate in its day and continues to exercise us now. This translation by Peter Bondanello is marvellous and really makes the work accessible and makes it seem incredibly modern and pertinent.

The book is written as a kind of rhetorical set piece, supposedly to the head of the Medici family in which Machiavelli purports to curry favour and gain a position of his own by explaining how someone powerful might go about becoming the saviour of Italy from the ravages of the foreign invaders it was suffering from at the time.

The Introduction by Maurizio Viroli is well worth reading, explaining some of the more complex issues and high lighting key themes in the text. He also debates whether this was in fact a begging letter from Machiavelli or more a show of skill on his part for the sake of skill itself.

My one criticism would be that the idea of 'virtu' is here translated as 'virtue', and further readings (particularly of the excellent OUP A Very Short Introduction To) show that the Renaissance idea of 'virtu' and our modern definition of 'virtue' are not the same, and yet the idea of 'virtu' is what a great deal of Machiavellian thought hinges upon.