El Príncipe

Por Nicolás Maquiavelo

En los duros momentos de su reclusión en San Casciano, acusado de conspiración contra los Médici, Maquiavelo compuso este tratado de doctrina política con la finalidad tanto de alcanzar el favor de aquellos que le habían privado de la libertad y recuperar su antiguo empleo de canciller como de ser útil a Florencia. En "El Príncipe" recogió sus reflexiones, experiencias personales y ejemplos históricos destinados a cimentar sobre bases sólidas el poder del futuro gobernante, un príncipe que llevase a cabo el sueño de Julio II: la liberación de Italia de los "bárbaros". Y lo dedicó a Lorenzo de Médici. Su fama de libro perverso, de manual de déspotas, y la polémica interpretación todavía no cerrada sobre el verdadero fin y significado de sus palabras explican la fascinación que esta obra sigue causando siglos después de su publicación.

• Idioma: Español
• Editorial: Ediciones Akal
• Fecha de lanzamiento: 7 nov 2017
• ISBN: 9788446032908

Vista previa del libro

Akal / Básica de Bolsillo / 204

Serie Clásicos del pensamiento político

Nicolás Maquiavelo

EL PRÍNCIPE

Introducción y notas: Manuel M.ª de Artaza

Traducción: Fernando Domènech Rey

En los duros momentos de su reclusión en San Casciano, acusado de conspiración contra los Medici, Maquiavelo compuso este tratado de doctrina política con la finalidad tanto de alcanzar el favor de aquellos que le habían privado de la libertad y recuperar su antiguo empleo de canciller como de ser útil a Florencia. En El Príncipe recogió sus reflexiones, experiencias personales y ejemplos históricos destinados a cimentar sobre bases sólidas el poder del futuro gobernante, un príncipe que llevase a cabo el sueño de Julio II: la liberación de Italia de los bárbaros. Y lo dedicó a Lorenzo de Médici.

Su fama de libro perverso, de manual de déspotas, y la polémica interpretación todavía no cerrada sobre el verdadero fin y significado de sus palabras explican la fascinación que El Príncipe sigue causando siglos después de su publicación.

Manuel M.ª de Artaza es doctor en Historia por la Universidad de Santiago de Compostela y profesor de Teoría del Estado y de Historia de las Instituciones Político-administrativas de España en la Facultad de Ciencias Políticas y Sociales de dicha Universidad.

Diseño de portada

Sergio Ramírez

Reservados todos los derechos. De acuerdo a lo dispuesto en el art. 270 del Código Penal, podrán ser castigados con penas de multa y privación de libertad quienes sin la preceptiva autorización reproduzcan, plagien, distribuyan o comuniquen públicamente, en todo o en parte, una obra literaria, artística o científica, fijada en cualquier tipo de soporte.

Nota editorial:

Para la correcta visualización de este ebook se recomienda no cambiar la tipografía original.

Nota a la edición digital:

Es posible que, por la propia naturaleza de la red, algunos de los vínculos a páginas web contenidos en el libro ya no sean accesibles en el momento de su consulta. No obstante, se mantienen las referencias por fidelidad a la edición original.

© Ediciones Istmo, S. A., 2000

© De la primera edición en Básica de Bolsillo, Ediciones Akal, S. A., 2010

Sector Foresta, 1

28760 Tres Cantos

Madrid - España

Tel.: [phone]

Fax: [phone]

www.akal.com

ISBN: 978-84-3290-8

Estudio preliminar

Casi quinientos años después de su publicación (1532), El Príncipe sigue siendo una obra que atrae y fascina a numerosos lectores. Sin duda, su fama de libro perverso, de manual de déspotas condenado por la Iglesia, pero también por gobernantes, moralistas y pensadores políticos a través de los siglos, explica, en buena medida, el interés del público por conocer las páginas que han otorgado a su autor, Nicolás Maquiavelo, el título de maestro del mal. Sin embargo, en El Príncipe no sólo se ha encontrado al consejero de tiranos por antonomasia o al padre de la denostada razón de Estado. En efecto, con el paso del tiempo las interpretaciones de este breve tratado u opúsculo, como lo llamó el propio Maquiavelo, se multiplicaron, dando lugar a una polémica todavía no cerrada sobre su verdadero fin o significado. Así, contra la opinión generalizada hasta entonces, pero siguiendo una línea ya aparecida en el siglo XVI y en sintonía con Spinoza, Rousseau lo consideraba en el Contrato Social (1762) «el libro de los republicanos», pues, so pretexto de dar lecciones a los reyes, desenmascaraba su proceder despótico ante los pueblos. Pero ha sido en el transcurso de los últimos ciento cincuenta años cuando El Príncipe se ha reinterpretado más veces y no sólo de forma negativa, calificándolo de escrito belicista, anticristiano, protofascista o totalitario, sino también de manera positiva hasta convertir a Maquiavelo en un hito, e incluso mito, de la modernidad. De hecho, el consejero de tiranos pasó a ser, según opinión aún hoy muy extendida, el fundador de la Ciencia Política moderna –entendida como un saber del poder separado de la ética–, el padre de la Teoría del Estado o un ardiente patriota italiano. En cualquier caso, en los inicios del tercer milenio la pluralidad interpretativa de El Príncipe no parece tener trazas de solucionarse y, tal vez, como afirmó Benedetto Croce, la cuestión de Maquiavelo no se resuelva nunca; pero quizá, si seguimos las pautas historiográficas que desde hace más de medio siglo insisten en situar a los hombres en su espacio y en su época, podamos, al menos, evitar buena parte de las contaminaciones, interesadas o ingenuas, que tanto han distorsionado la imagen de Maquiavelo y su obra. Ya lo dijo antes el proverbio árabe: «Los hombres se parecen más a su tiempo que a sus padres». Así pues, en las próximas páginas nos acercaremos a un contexto histórico distinto y distante con el cual, pese a compartir inquietudes, no tenemos la familiaridad que con frecuencia se ha pretendido.

Además, conoceremos los datos esenciales de la biografía de Maquiavelo y, de esta forma, «bañados por la atmósfera mental de su tiempo» –decía el medievalista francés Marc Bloch–, entraremos a continuación en el análisis de las cuestiones más destacadas de El Príncipe.

Nicolás Maquiavelo y su tiempo

El difícil equilibrio político italiano

Nicolás Maquiavelo vino al mundo en mayo de 1469 en la ciudad de Florencia. Por aquel entonces, Italia era un espacio políticamente muy fragmentado donde reinaba un equilibrio inestable entre cinco potencias –Milán, Florencia, Venecia, los Estados Pontificios y el Reino de Nápoles– enfrentadas desde hacía décadas. Según veremos, se trata de las mismas potencias italianas protagonistas de El Príncipe; por tanto, parece oportuno aproximarnos a ellas antes de entrar en el análisis que sobre la actuación de cada una y en su conjunto hizo Maquiavelo en 1513[1].

Pues bien, al norte, en la zona más rica, urbanizada y densamente poblada de la península, las ciudades-Estado de Florencia, Milán y Venecia fueron ampliando desde el siglo XII sus dominios territoriales hasta convertirse en el XV en cabezas de unos poderosos «estados regionales» que englobaron a otras ciudades más débiles sometidas por la fuerza[2]. Éste fue el caso de Pisa, sujeta a Florencia desde 1409, y de cuya rebelión a fines del siglo XV nos habla Maquiavelo en El Príncipe. De todos modos, junto a los «estados regionales» dirigidos por pujantes centros económicos (bancarios, manufactureros y comerciales), entre los cuales no podemos olvidar a Génova, existían en el norte señores feudales laicos y eclesiásticos tan importantes como el duque de Saboya o el obispo de Trento. Y es que tradicionalmente se ha hecho un hincapié excesivo en la singularidad urbana de este ámbito geográfico, donde, es cierto, se situaban algunas de las ciudades más importantes de Europa, minusvalorando la notable presencia señorial y su influencia en los acontecimientos políticos. Por otro lado, no debemos olvidar la vinculación del norte de Italia al Sacro Imperio Romano Germánico, pues, pese a que en la práctica las comunas ciudadanas eran independientes de los emperadores desde las primeras décadas del siglo XIII, el Imperio siguió condicionando la realidad política italiana. No en balde, sendos títulos ducales otorgados por emperadores legitimaron a los Visconti y a sus herederos como señores de Milán a fines del siglo XIV, y a los Medici de Florencia en 1532. Pero asimismo los Della Scala en Verona, los Este en Ferrara o los Gonzaga en Mantua se convirtieron en príncipes gracias a la obtención de títulos del emperador. De esta forma culminaba un proceso iniciado en los últimos años del siglo XIII, durante el cual los gobiernos republicanos de las ciudades fueron siendo sustituidos paulatinamente por otros de carácter personal más o menos despótico. En la mayoría de los casos la transformación de una ciudad-Estado republicana en una «ciudad-principado»[3] fue propiciada por luchas políticas internas entre facciones, o bien por revueltas populares contra los grupos dirigentes. Entonces, el podestà, un árbitro de origen foráneo dotado temporalmente con plenos poderes para restablecer la paz, o el capitano del popolo, una figura similar, aunque por lo general aupada por las masas, podían aprovechar el momento y alzarse con el control de la ciudad, erigiéndose en señores (signori). Paralelamente, las repúblicas de Venecia y Florencia se fueron convirtiendo en regímenes oligárquicos sin el menor asomo de participación popular; aunque, a diferencia de la amplia base aristocrática de la Serenísima, en Florencia el poder efectivo estaba en manos de una sola familia desde 1434: los Medici, que se impusieron previamente a los Albizzi.

En el centro de Italia se encontraba la cuarta potencia en discordia: los Estados Pontificios, un conflictivo agregado de pequeñas ciudades, feudos laicos y territorios eclesiásticos sujeto nominalmente al papa, quien desde Roma intentó imponer su discutida autoridad como un monarca más a fines del siglo XV. Y ya por último, al sur, en el territorio más pobre, rural y menos densamente poblado de la península, estaba el gran Reino de Nápoles, (el Regno) el Reino por antonomasia. En el pasado, Nápoles, junto con Sicilia, había formado parte de una unidad política más extensa: el Reino de las Dos Sicilias. Pero en 1282 el levantamiento de los sicilianos contra la casa de Anjou, dinastía francesa que arrebató el trono a los descendientes del emperador Federico II Hohenstaufen en 1266, puso fin a la unión. A su vez, los reyes de Aragón, beneficiarios del alzamiento siciliano, terminarían expulsando a los Anjou de Nápoles. Fue así como en 1443 Alfonso V el Magnánimo pasó a ser también Alfonso I de Nápoles. Sin embargo, la reunificación de Nápoles y Sicilia fue efímera y la lucha entre franceses y aragoneses por el dominio napolitano se reabrió después de 1494, zanjándose definitivamente la disputa a favor de Fernando el Católico en los primeros años del siglo XVI. El examen de la política del rey de España y su enfrentamiento con los soberanos franceses son dos temas centrales de El Príncipe, pues, a juicio de Maquiavelo, Fernando «merece prácticamente la consideración de príncipe nuevo, porque, de un rey débil, ha pasado a ser por fama y por gloria el primer rey de los cristianos»[4].

Según dijimos al principio, Maquiavelo vio la luz en el contexto de un equilibrio político inestable. Se trataba del fruto de la Paz de Lodi, firmada en 1454 entre Venecia y Milán y a la que terminaron adhiriéndose las demás potencias, pues todas tenían buenos motivos para poner fin a sus luchas, casi ininterrumpidas desde los años veinte. En efecto, las guerras que habían ensangrentado Italia no establecieron un vencedor claro, pero terminaron haciendo ver a los contendientes el peligro de una intervención extranjera favorecida por sus disputas. No olvidemos cómo Nápoles había sido el escenario de un enfrentamiento franco-aragonés, mientras que el célebre caudillo mercenario Francesco Sforza, después de haberse hecho con el ducado de Milán en 1450, barajó la posibilidad de pedir ayuda al rey de Francia para mantenerlo frente a los venecianos y sus aliados, quienes consideraban al condotiero un usurpador. De todas formas, a esa amenaza se sumaba otra más próxima y temible: la de los turcos otomanos, que acababan de conquistar Constantinopla en 1453. En esta coyuntura, los esfuerzos conciliadores del papado auspiciaron la Paz de Lodi y una Liga italiana, bendecida por Nicolás V en febrero de 1455, cuyo fin prioritario iba a ser la defensa contra los turcos y el alejamiento de la monarquía francesa de los asuntos italianos. A partir de entonces se estableció el equilibrio entre las potencias y sus aliados durante veinticinco años. Un equilibrio difícil a la vista de las transgresiones del tratado, pero que, en cualquier caso, evitó una nueva escalada bélica. Con todo, las posteriores renovaciones de la Liga no lograron cumplir su objetivo y desde principios de los años ochenta estallaron las hostilidades de forma generalizada. En 1482 la agresión de Venecia contra Ferrara suscitó la alianza de Milán, Florencia y Nápoles contra la Serenísima, y en 1486, Ferrante, hijo bastardo de Alfonso de Aragón, combatía en su reino napolitano una rebelión baronial que reprimió con extrema dureza. Como consecuencia de ella, el papa Inocencio VIII decidió pedir la intervención del rey de Francia, quien unos años más tarde vio favorecidas sus pretensiones al trono napolitano como heredero de los Anjou, gracias a la actitud del duque usurpador de Milán, Ludovico el Moro. Éste, sintiéndose cercado por sus enemigos, se arrojó en manos de Carlos VIII, y el monarca galo no dudó en aprovechar la oportunidad para entrar en Italia. En 1494 comenzaba la invasión francesa, el «castigo celeste» profetizado desde Florencia por el prior del convento dominico de San Marcos: fray Girolamo Savonarola.

Una vez traspasados los Alpes, el ejército francés se paseó por la península y Carlos entró en Nápoles sin apenas encontrar resistencia el 22 de febrero de 1495. No obstante, su éxito fue breve. Una alianza de las potencias italianas, salvo Florencia, a la que se sumaron los Reyes Católicos y el Imperio, le obligó a retirarse a Francia a los pocos meses de su coronación como rey de Nápoles. Una vez más, los angevinos eran derrotados, aunque no tardarían en volver a tierras italianas. En 1499, el sucesor de Carlos, Luis XII, emprendía una nueva campaña, iniciando tras la toma de Milán otro período de guerras y de sucesivos reveses para los reyes de Francia. Al final, Enrique II terminó aceptando la hegemonía española sobre Italia en 1559 (Paz de Cateau-Cambrésis).

Pero volvamos a 1494 y a la patria de Nicolás Maquiavelo: Florencia. Allí, la marcha de Carlos VIII hacia Nápoles provocó la caída de los Medici, según dijimos, los verdaderos amos del gobierno. Su régimen, denunciado como corrupto e impío desde el púlpito por Savonarola, daba paso a una república popular profrancesa fuertemente influida por el dominico y sus partidarios. De hecho, el «profeta desarmado» del cambio clausuró la denominada Ilustración florentina de la época medicea, y la capital de las artes y las letras se sumió en un clima de austeridad y rigorismo religioso, entre cuyos excesos destacó la quema pública de cuadros, libros y todo tipo de objetos considerados dañinos para la moral. No tardó, pues, en nacer un partido contra Savonarola, enemistado con la mayoría de los hombres de negocios, principales perjudicados por su política de austeridad. A estos enemigos internos se sumaba el papa Alejandro VI, que terminó condenando al fraile a causa de sus duras críticas contra los desórdenes de la Iglesia y la codicia de los pontífices. Esa condena papal, bien aprovechada por los opositores al dominico, terminó precipitando su caída. El 23 de mayo de 1498, Savonarola moría en la horca y, acto seguido, era quemado en la plaza de la Señoría. Unos días más tarde, recién cumplidos los veintinueve años, Nicolás Maquiavelo era nombrado secretario de la Señoría y pasaba a dirigir la segunda Cancillería de Florencia.

Maquiavelo, uomo pubblico

Nuestros datos sobre la infancia y la juventud de Maquiavelo son muy escasos. Nicolás, nacido el 3 de mayo de 1469, fue el segundo de los cuatro hijos de Bernardo Machiavelli, abogado que durante cierto tiempo también ejerció un cargo público (tesorero de la Marca), y de Bartolomea Benizzi. Sus antepasados habían sido señores de Montespertoli, pero desde el siglo XIII la Maclavellorum familia figuraba entre los habitantes de Florencia y en los siguientes doscientos años varios miembros del linaje ocuparon cargos importantes en el gobierno de la república. Sin embargo, como sucedió con los descendientes de otras antiguas estirpes florentinas, Maquiavelo no llegó a gozar de una ciudadanía plena. Ese derecho, pese a su ampliación por la «constitución» de 1494, estaba limitado a unos 3.000 de los alrededor de 90.000 moradores de la ciudad del Arno. En consecuencia, nunca pudo aspirar a una magistratura. Este hecho parece explicar la arrogancia y la amargura destilada en algunos de sus escritos[5]. Por otro lado, su familia, aun sin pasar estrecheces económicas, no disfrutaba de una situación desahogada. Los modestos bienes hereditarios se localizaban en el municipio de San Casciano, una pequeña aldea situada entre los valles de Greve y de Pesa, en concreto, en Sant’Andrea in Percussina, donde Maquiavelo escribió El Príncipe. De todos modos, a pesar de esta situación de partida y del ejemplo de un padre ordenado y económico que administraba con celo los ingresos y el modesto patrimonio familiar, Nicolás fue siempre, según sus propias declaraciones, «aficionado a gastar», y, claro, esa prodigalidad le granjeó muchas simpatías, aunque se quejó a menudo de tener un sueldo insuficiente. Por tanto, los apuros financieros le acompañaron desde antes de los años difíciles que siguieron a su salida de la administración (1513-1514).

En cuanto a

Comentarios para El Príncipe

[velmeran · Calificación: 4 de 5 estrellas]

While I understand that his take is controversial, I have to tell you, it makes sense. It's not nice, but it is practical.

[judithrs · Calificación: 3 de 5 estrellas]

The Prince. Niccolo Machiavelli. 2008. Our book club chose this classic of how to get and keep political power because it was an election year. What surprised several of us was how mild it seemed. We decided we were no longer idealistic and had lived too long to be shocked at what lengths a man in power will go to maintain that power

[chriswarren_1 · Calificación: 3 de 5 estrellas]

A classic, but a difficult read. I love the idea that Machiavelli's world is really no different to modern times.

[wildbill_1 · Calificación: 5 de 5 estrellas]

This is a book that has been sitting on the shelf of my set of Great Books of the Western World since before I started college. That and the fact that it was written in the 1500's surely qualify it as a TOME. It is a very short book which made great changes in the thinking about political statecraft. His book is a frank discussion of the use of immoral means to achieve the goals of The Prince.For Machiavelli the sole goal of the Prince was to obtain power and hold it. Using historical models he sets out the most effective means to attain this end. The nobles and the people are the two forces that hold political power in the State as he sees it. Machiavelli goes into detail about how to deal with each of these. The nobles have their own bases of power and act in their pursuit of their own interests. For this reason it is important for the Prince that they fear him rather than love him.In his discussion on fortresses he makes the statement that the best fortress is the love of the people. A state that is prosperous and ruled fairly is the best way to achieve the love of the people. The Prince must also cultivate the love of the people through great achievements building a charisma that draws them to him.The art of war is a very important part of Machiavelli's discussion. Mercenaries are the most dangerous troops to use. They fight for their own reasons and are only loyal to the Prince as long as he is able to pay them. Auxiliary troops drawn from the people are more likely to remain loyal as long as their love for the Prince is constant.Machiavelli's ideas inaugurated modern politics and statecraft. His was original and unencumbered by the ideas of the past. He established new rules for the practice of statecraft. He was excoriated for his immorality but his ideas quickly gained precedence. Last year I read The Thirty Years War. Many of the principles set forth by Machiavelli appeared in the actions of the rulers in that war. They used mercenaries to a great extent and were often ruined by them. Morality was absent in their dealings with each other. They practiced the code of attaining power that Machiavelli established.

[timoroso · Calificación: 5 de 5 estrellas]

It would be absurd to "review" the most important book on politics ever written. Go read it if you haven't already. It is very funny too.

[justindtapp · Calificación: 5 de 5 estrellas]

I should have read this book (free for Kindle) years ago. Machiavelli's works on ancient history came up frequently in a different book I read recently, and he has been cited in several other books on my lists. Alas, I've now read this work. I find some of the oft-cited passages I hear are somewhat taken out of context.

The version I read had a brief biographical sketch of Machiavelli, which was helpful. Machiavelli is foremost a historian, so he cites examples of rulers and conflicts both from Florentine and Italian history, the current Ottoman state, Greco-Roman history, and the Bible.

He starts by looking at the failures of statecraft-- how a monarch can lose a state which he has conquered or inherited. Louis XII was one such object of failure in his aims on Italian provinces. He talks of how one holds a free Republic, you either have to destroy it or make it a tributary while encouraging development of an oligarchy there to maintain defacto control. This seems like it's played out accurately in world history.

Machiavelli's "it's better to be feared than loved" is in the context of a Prince who takes a territory who was originally not his own. There will likely be unrest, so the advice is to do some large act of cruel suppression up front to quell dissent and then do small acts of benevolence over time to keep the populace pacified. If a ruler drags out the cruelty, he will breed hatred which is the ultimate failure of a monarch. The ruler must appear to be capable of both cruelty and mercy, so that he appeals more broadly, and where possible he should have an underling be the "bad cop" enforcer. It'd be best to be both feared and loved, but you will always have to give one of those up and it's best to give up love. The great projects of history, according to Machiavelli, were done by rulers who were remembered to be mean and not kind.

It's always a bad idea to rely on foreign mercenaries for your army. Machiavelli marks the decline of Rome with the hiring of Goths to do soldiering at the cost of the Roman army. France was making the same mistake in relying on Swiss mercenaries at the time of his writing. Building fortresses are of no defense when the people hate you.

A ruler has to be "liberal" in his spending. Games and welfare for the people, benefits for the standing army. This is obviously hard to do unless you're conquering and expropriating-- otherwise you bankrupt your treasury. The Prince gains glory and reputation by accomplishing big tasks-- namely conquering territories and enriching the kingdom.

The Prince should also seem to be a man of integrity. The great rulers abandon virtue when they have to-- sometimes they have to break their word in order to protect their position or the state. This is acceptable so long as not done in such a away that the people despise him. The prince should be virtuous but also know how and when to get his hands dirty.

A Prince should have a few advisors that he listens to and that he rewards for speaking honestly and openly; he should ignore all other opinion. The Prince should always make sure his advisors and viceroys know that their positions-- their wealth, authority, and very lives-- are at the whim of the Prince so that they don't go seeking their own gain or become corrupt.

A Prince is someone who believes he has the power to shape world events, that everything isn't left to "fortune" or random chance forces of history. He yields that authority and has other men follow him.

I enjoyed this book, it's obviously a 5 star classic.

[jontseng · Calificación: 3 de 5 estrellas]

Extremely Machiavellian. But actually tamer than one expects.

[mithril_1 · Calificación: 5 de 5 estrellas]

Fascinating historical perspective.

[ragwaine · Calificación: 2 de 5 estrellas]

Just too dry. If you read it slow and took notes it would probably be good.

[soylentgreen23 · Calificación: 3 de 5 estrellas]

Could it be that we have Machiavelli wrong? Is he really the devil? Having read his short treatise on what he suggests a newly crowned prince to do to maintain control of his territory, I admit that some of what he suggests is harsh, but I don't think he's evil. Not by a long shot.

[trilliams · Calificación: 4 de 5 estrellas]

Bombastic at times, though quite entertaining. Still not sure when Tupac is coming back.

[dypaloh · Calificación: 3 de 5 estrellas]

You’ve witnessed it too, or something similar: Your city’s NFL team has a 13-point lead at home with six minutes to go, plus 1st down and possession—should be a sure win, right?—but then they turn over victory to the opponent, losing the game in regulation.It’s stuff like this that Machiavelli just hated. Except that, with Renaissance Italy bedeviled by an absence of NFL teams even the passage of five centuries hasn’t repaired, his annoyance was with princes whose misadventures cause them to blow it when trying to keep power.Machiavelli’s advice? Be prepared to flout fairness. That competitors and coaches should overreach the rules makes sense. It’s impossible to be penalized for an infraction each time. And once the game is over, no NFL victory is ever overturned, no defeat nullified, no team put on probation. So why would a Head Coach repudiate advices given in The Prince? Well, he might repudiate them if he doesn’t mind increasing the risk of losing his head (isn’t that what happens when the head coach is axed?). Otherwise . . .Going beyond the morality of winning at games, there is a fundamental question: Is it virtuous to speak the truth and keep promises? Machiavelli teaches, the editor of my edition advises, that the real or true standard is that no one should keep a promise when by doing so he would diminish his own power and when the conditions which occasioned the promise are gone.That’s troubling. But also brilliant at unveiling much of what is disappointing in political action and discourse to idealistic or more hopeful people. Word is such persons may find a less alienating brand of political thought in Niccoló’s The Discourses.Note on Translation: The Editor of the edition I read, Angelo M. Codevilla, stresses that he made his translation more literal than is the custom to better illustrate how Machiavelli uses language to subvert commonplace ideas about virtue. This seems a good objective but the translation is no easy text—I would not want to read one that’s even a little bit less welcoming.

[hermit_9_1 · Calificación: 4 de 5 estrellas]

The definitive classic in binary political logic. But then as someone once said, there are 10 kinds of people, those who understand binary and those who don't.

[tullius22 · Calificación: 3 de 5 estrellas]

I *think* this book is wicked, and I *hope* that all who choose to read it choose to see its wickedness.And I do *not* feel guilty for saying a book is Bad when I believe that its ideas would be harmful if employed against human beings. There is nothing heroic about being immoral, no matter what Shrewd Policies say so, or what Glorious Nation says so. Also, comparing Machiavelli to Baldassare Castiglione, as is often done, seems to me to be quite mad. Would it not be better to compare him with Hitler or Stalin or Mussolini or Nero or *any other Caesar*? Were not all these men Princes with a Capital P? I mean, if I were rating him based on how well he does as a propaganda writer for an imaginary dictatorship, I'd have said that he's done rather well with *all that*. But being a propaganda writer for an imaginary dictatorship is worthless, and being a real propaganda writer for a real dictorship is worse than worthless, is it not?But, oh, wait, I forgot, since it's written in a good style in some foreign original, and since its ideas would have helped the Florentine elite out-flank the Papacy and the French several eternities ago, we must surely make ourselves forget what fair flowers are trampled down into the earth by this kind of thinking. Although I'll say that I personally found it to be basically boring (especially the random-Renaissance history-of-backstabbing stuff that I found difficult to care about) and sometimes stupid (the citizens of a conquered republic will want to get their lost freedom back, but if you go to live in the same city as them, your semi-divine presence will magically make them lose their desire for freedom), stupid even from his own point of view. (If you do this, nothing good will happen for you, but if you only do this, nothing but good things will happen. It's like he's one of those guys trying to sell you a watch--like he's going to open up his coat and it'll be full of watches, and he'll say, 'Wanna buy a watch? A watch like one of these will make you powerful and strong, so that nothing bad will happen to you.' He's like a tinker or a knacker who thinks he's the Grand Doge of Doge-land.) It's also so abstract that it can't be anything other than theory (somehow I think it would have to be different to be social or political science), and yet it is so mucked up in details and precedents and examples that it's hardly good as theory, either. Not to mention the fact that he never even explains what you'd want a prince for, or what good a prince is meant to aim at. If "every art...seems to aim at some good" and all arts have some purpose (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, first sentence) what is the purpose of the prince's art, and what good does he aim at? Machiavelli almost doesn't have an answer, and he doesn't even bother to address the question, except for the nationalist agitprop bit at the end, which I hope no-one mistakes for philosophy. Also, the odd forays into military matters are to me little more than tokens that this man did not really know what sort of book he wanted to write, or what purpose he was trying to accomplish. A dilettante, if I may use the Italian word. Although I suppose that even a dilettante, armed with delusions of gradeur and with guns in his hands, might be dangerous and harmful enough, but I certainly do not see what good might ever have come from this. Furthermore, some people seem to think that Machiavelli was good to be amoral (read that phrase again) because he 'liberated' politics from religion and morality and so on. My only reply is that no-one can compel you to read Aristotle's 'Nicomachean Ethics' before you read his 'Politics', or force you to read Epictetus before trying to get through John Locke--and yet anyone who seriously thinks that politics has no connection at all, whatsoever, with ethics, needs their head examined for holes, or dents. Or, better yet, such people should be encouraged to read a few books about the Nazis or something. 'Be generous with other people's money,' says Machiavelli. 'Well, yeah, that's what the Jews are for,' says Hitler. 'And that's what the unwashed barbarians are for,' says Caesar. (See how I paired a modern and an ancient example, just like old Nicc-y. I guess that makes it all okay, somehow.) And as for his famous dictum that, concerning fear and love, that is it best to be both feared and loved, but, that if one must choose, it is safer to be feared than loved--well, if I point out that both Hitler and Stalin, and every other Caesar and proponent of Caesarism, would agree with this statement--having said that, does it make anyone who did not already so believe understand the necessity of subordinating politics to ethics in philosophy, and, indeed, in real life? I was also amused, and yet somehow, also unsurprised, to see the brave, good, "unarmed prophet" Machiavelli, so describe the "great feats" of Ferdinand of Aragon, in a chapter called "Of What A Prince Should Do To Acquire Prestige", that the reader, unless he or she were previously informed of the matter, would walk away without the slightest impression that there was a certain girl named Isabella in the mighty monarch's life, a woman who, my sources tell me, may have been of some slight importance in the history of Spain, and the killing of Jews and Muslims and other such acts of "pious cruelty" which brought the noble Ferdinand "much honor". He also goes through the next chapter, "Of The Advisers Of Princes" without once correcting his mistake. I can only wonder how many students of ethics would accept the phrase "pious cruelty" as being valid. But perhaps I might venture an informed guess...It is certain, however, and good to mention, that it is a blessing that we live in a free society, where we are free to read this non-sense if we choose to. In any real tyranny, I suppose that this sort of thing would surely be swiftly suppressed. ~eh, but we were just trying to have fun. THEN READ A NOVEL!!(5/10)

[homeofharris · Calificación: 5 de 5 estrellas]

Everyone relates this book as explaining how to be an unethical (possibly immoral) self-centered person to attain success by back-stabbing and the like. It gives tips on how to play people against one another, etc.I must say that honestly it is really just common sense stuff. Obviously these are all undesirable traits to find in someone, and in fact I avoid people who live their lives with any resemblance to the methods in the book, but none of this is new. Basically it is all just politics as usual. Watch a group of how teenage girls interact with one another, ostracize a friend for a while, steal each other's boyfriends, etc. You'll learn everything you need to know about The Prince.

[stillatim · Calificación: 2 de 5 estrellas]

Well, you probably know about this book. Now, I'm sure that I could have read it much more closely and come up with some very interesting material to think about. But honestly- it's just not that interesting. If you're easily shocked or titillated by the idea that powerful people are powerful because they're immoral, you will be shocked and titillated. If you didn't spend your formative years reading Cicero's 'De Oficiis,' on the other hand, you won't be surprised. And honestly, if you've read a newspaper in the last century, Machiavelli won't teach you anything. He has a bunch of nice stories to illustrate his points, but without knowing the context of the stories he tells it's difficult to know why I should care. The chapter on republics is interesting, granted. But to be honest I think I'd rather read someone who knows a lot about Machiavelli than the man himself. Skinner, here I come.

I should say, too, that the Cambridge edition is excellent. 'The Prince' is in desperate need of annotation, and the editors do an excellent job of making things clear without making the text unreadable.

[datrappert · Calificación: 5 de 5 estrellas]

It's easy to be a cynic about this book, but there is some very good psychological advice here. Such as, after a victory, make friends with your enemies, and you'll be able to trust them more than your allies, who now that you have won, will be looking to take advantage of you or overthrow you. Your enemies, on the other hand, will be grateful for your mercy.

[jkepler_9 · Calificación: 1 de 5 estrellas]

I can see how it had a huge influence in humanistic politics--it lends itself to realpolitik.

[jwhenderson_1 · Calificación: 4 de 5 estrellas]

I have read this several times over the last twenty years, in the Basic Program and with an independent study group. That it is still relevant and worth rereading is because it is considered by most to be the authoritative text on statesmanship and power (how to obtain it as well as an illustration of its trappings), although certainly a shrewd one. From this arises an argument: whether it is better to be loved than feared. I reply that one should like to be both one and the other; but since it is difficult to join them together, it is much safer to be feared than to be loved when one of the two must be lacking. Essentially, Machiavelli advocates letting your people have their property and women, but making sure that they know what you are capable of doing if they step out of line. His seemingly amoral approach lends a modern realistic touch to this masterpiece that shows how little humanity has changed over the centuries.

[santhony_35 · Calificación: 4 de 5 estrellas]

For Christmas, I ordered an mp3 player (Library of Classics) that was pre-loaded with 100 works of classic literature in an audio format. Each work is in the public domain and is read by amateurs, so the quality of the presentation is hit or miss. The Prince is a very well-known and controversial work of political theory written by 15th century Florentine Niccolo Machiavelli. The work is famous for advocating a very cynical, manipulative and violent form of governance, but I was somewhat surprised after hearing the work in its relative short entirety by its simplicity and reputation.Machiavelli essentially describes the various forms of government in existence at the time and throughout the then history, and comments on the strengths and weaknesses of each. He breaks down these forms by methods of attaining and maintaining power, using many examples at his disposal. He is particularly enamored of the leadership style of Cesare Borgia, the bastard son of Pope Alexander VI.In criticizing Machiavelli’s choice of the ideal Prince, one must consider the time and place of his existence. It would be hard to argue against the Renaissance Italian city and Papal states being among the most politically volatile and complicated landscapes to traverse in recorded history. In addition to the feudal Princes of Milan and Florence (among others), the Venetian Republic and the regions nominally under the control of the Vatican, the Kings of France and Spain also showed up frequently in force. Mercenary forces were rampant and alliances and power blocs shifted constantly. If you were not a cynical, crafty, even duplicitous ruler, you likely didn’t last long.The work is relatively short and largely simple in its classifications and analysis, making arguments and suggestions that at times seem glaringly obvious, but it must be remembered that this was written in the 15th century and as a collection of political thought and history, was unique for its time. Much of what is contained in the book holds true to this day, though current political constructs make much of Machiavelli’s writing appear politically extreme and his name has become synonymous with a repressive, reactionary, heavy handed and duplicitous style of leadership.My version of The Prince also included The Life of Castruccio Castracani of Lucca, also penned by Machiavelli, a very short biography of one of the most well-loved and successful princes of the era.

[carterchristian1 · Calificación: 4 de 5 estrellas]

In this day when the US is concerned with using mercernaries versus militia, occupying other countries, and still trying to hang on to democracy, this short book with examples from his own time and place make this a good current read.

[gottfried_leibniz-1 · Calificación: 3 de 5 estrellas]

This is an interesting book on Political Philosophy, I think it falls under Realism.
Machiavelli doesn't want to systematize but simply shares from his experience.
As I kept reading the book, I had to reflect a lot of the ideas and try to draw conclusions from this world. I think, most of what he says stands True.

I learnt about power distribution in a political system.
Machiavelli says if it is concentrated with just one person (King), and people under him are servants, then if the King is toppled, it is easier to maintain the Kingdom in the long run. This reminds me of North Korea, I do not see a long future for it anyway.

Meanwhile, if there are nobles, barons who share some influence then it will be difficult to maintain if toppled. I was thinking of China, which I used to think has a good political system.
They do not waste time in election et cetera, however, the disadvantage in Chinese political system is that, if a new political party takes over, they will maintain the whole population under control. Meanwhile, it is difficult in America because the power is distributed differently. I can see how the Founders of America were cautious and knew all systems inside out.

I was surprised to find that Machiavelli supports people who believe in God for defense (Army) are better. He goes on to say that it is easier to train them as they will be Loyal to you.
The people who depend only on money will desert you. He says ministries who only think of them are fickle minded, this reminds me of political system of Tamil Nadu. I wonder how long the Government can run? Based on Machiavelli's writings, not long.

He also talks about weakness of mercenaries, which, I think was one of the causes of downfall –– Roman and Ottoman Empire.
The Ottoman Empire's Janissaries started to decline in power due to lack of training, corruption.

The Roman empire started to bring mercenaries from Germanic tribes. There's always a tension between common people and nobles. Machiavelli says, common people are more important and the Prince ought to give them first priority.

"As the observance of religious rites is the foundation of a republic's greatness, so disrespect for them is the source of its ruin."

"Where a fear of God is lacking, the state must either fail or be sustained by a fear of the ruler which may substitute for the lack of religion."

[tommi180744 · Calificación: 4 de 5 estrellas]

A very sharp commentary on the art and business of politics when ruling a nation/people. As it did for previous generations this 16th Century tome has many pertinent pointers for today's would-be establishment elite: however, the pitfalls of power & being consumed by the desire for authority that it also mentions have been neglected by so many ill-equipped & haplessly inadequate Leaders of the 20th/21st centuries it would appear many of them were not concentrating when they read Machiavelli's masterpiece!

[jasonli_1 · Calificación: 5 de 5 estrellas]

A charming tome on military history and the politics around being a good ruler in 16th-century Italy. Not as cut-throat as it's caricatured to be; if anything Machiavelli is simply trying to be cold and analytical about the military victories of his time.

[piggelin_1 · Calificación: 4 de 5 estrellas]

A book still relevant today in the 21th century. Even if some of the described techniques are neither adviseable nor morally and legally possible in today's society.

[rizeandshine · Calificación: 3 de 5 estrellas]

Princely Rule for Dummies, this scientific analysis of a social system is actually well-suited as a leadership guide to anyone wishing to gain and hang onto an important position of power in many areas of life, including politics and business. In this book, Machiavelli discusses the themes of power, human nature, warcraft, free will, virtue and more. It was originally written specifically for Lorenzo de Medici with his future as well as the government of 16th century Italy in mind, and does not necessarily include an all-encompassing view of Machiavelli's political thinking. In fact, based on his other works, I think we can conclude that the author preferred a republic form of government. Even within The Prince, Machiavelli tells us the purpose of politics is to promote a common good. A prince must strive to be virtuous, but virtue (or admired trait) should never take precedence over the state. For example, while generosity may be admired by others, it can be detrimental to the future of the state and should therefore be avoided.I wasn't sure how to rate this book as I'm not a political science major nor out to get ahead in business. It was thought-provoking and actually quite easy to read, considering the time of its authorship as well as the subject matter. The author provides many examples of great and not-so-great leaders and their power struggles, as well, so I'd definitely recommend it for anyone studying politics or history.

[mrs2starbucks · Calificación: 5 de 5 estrellas]

I highlighted this book like crazy. It's not necessarily that I agree with what he says in practice, but rather that the principles which he enumerates can be redefined and reused in a modern context, replacing "the prince" with "the people." I could write a long, lengthy treatise on the matter. I will say though that move of it is taken up in examples which are rather tedious in the process of reading itself.

[jgcorrea-1 · Calificación: 3 de 5 estrellas]

The reasons why The Prince endures the ages while the rest of Macchiavelli's philosophy gathers dust in the back of an old library warehouse are chiefly 1) it's a really short treatise, and 2) it angries up the blood. The best way by far to get a best-seller is to write anything that pisses everyone off. The drawback is, it confounds the messages of any works that were only meant to be understood in context.

[sandydog1_1 · Calificación: 4 de 5 estrellas]

Cold, calculating, and objectively cruel. You can't help but to think about today's political leaders.

[empress8411 · Calificación: 4 de 5 estrellas]

Having heard many thing about this book, I was eager to dig in and see what the fuss was about. I have to say, Machiavelli was an INTJ. His prose, his ideas, his assessments - all of them are logical, well-explained, and rational. I understand why people might assume he is conniving and evil. But truthfully, he's just practical and honest about what it takes to rule. If I ever decide to take over the world, Machiavelli will be my guide.