The Prince

Description

Machiavelli’s highly influential treatise on political power The Prince shocked Europe on publication with its advocacy of ruthless tactics for gaining absolute power and its abandonment of conventional morality. Niccoló Machiavelli drew on his own experience of office under the turbulent Florentine republic, rejecting traditional values of political theory and recognizing the complicated, transient nature of political life. Concerned not with lofty ideal but with a regime that would last, The Prince has become the bible of realpolitik, and it still retains its power to alarm and to instruct. In this edition, Machiavelli’s tough-minded and pragmatic Italian is preserved in George Bull’s clear, unambiguous translation.
For more than seventy years, Penguin has been the leading publisher of classic literature in the English-speaking world. With more than 1,700 titles, Penguin Classics represents a global bookshelf of the best works throughout history and across genres and disciplines. Readers trust the series to provide authoritative texts enhanced by introductions and notes by distinguished scholars and contemporary authors, as well as up-to-date translations by award-winning translators. ChronologyMapIntroductionTranslator’s NoteSelected BooksMachiavelli’s Principal WorksLetter to the Magnificent Lorenzo de Medici1IHow many kinds of principality there are and the ways in which they are acquired5IIHereditary principalities5IIIComposite principalities6IVWhy the kingdom of Darius conquered by Alexander did not rebel against his successors after his death13VHow cities or principalities which lived under their own laws should be administered after being conquered16VINew principalities acquired by one’s own arms and prowess17VIINew principalities acquired with the help of fortune and foreign arms20VIIIThose who come to power by crime27IXThe constitutional principality31XHow the strength of every principality should be measured34XIEcclesiastical principalities36XIIMilitary organization and mercenary troops39XIIIAuxiliary, composite, and native troops43XIVHow a prince should organize his militia47XVThe things for which men, and especially princes, are praised or blamed49XVIGenerosity and parsimony51XVIICruelty and compassion; and whether it is better to be loved than feared, or the reverse53XVIIIHow princes should honour their word56XIXThe need to avoid contempt and hatred58XXWhether fortresses and many of the other present-day expedients to which princes have recourse are useful or not67XXIHow a prince must act to win honour71XXIIA prince’s personal staff75XXIIIHow flatterers must be shunned76XXIVWhy the Italian princes have lost their states78XXVHow far human affairs are governed by fortune, and how fortune can be opposed79XXVIExhortation to liberate Italy from the barbarians82Glossary of Proper Names86Notes99 “[Machiavelli] can still engage our attention with remarkable immediacy, and this cannot be explained solely by the appeal of his ironic observations on human behaviour. Perhaps the most important thing is the way he can compel us to reflect on our own priorities and the reasoning behind them; it is this intrusion into our own defenses that makes reading him an intriguing experience. As a scientific exponent of the political art Machiavelli may have had few followers; it is as a provocative rhetorician that he has had his real impact on history.” –from the Introduction by Dominic Baker-Smith Niccolò Machiavelli (1469-1527) was a Florentine statesman who was later forced out of public life. He then devoted himself to studying and writing political philosophy, history, fiction, and drama.
George Bull is an author and journalist who has translated six volumes for the Penguin Classics: Benvenuto Cellini’s Autobiography, The Book of the Courtier by Castiglione, Vasari’s Lives of the Artists (two volumes), The Prince by Machiavelli and Pietro Aretino’s Selected Letters. He is also Consultant Editor to the Penguin Business Series. After reading history at Brasenose College, Oxford, George Bull worked for the Financial Times, McGraw-Hill World News, and for the Director magazine, of which he was Editor-in-Chief until 1984. His other books include Vatican Politics; Bid for Power (with Anthony Vice), a history of take-over bids; Renaissance Italy, a book for children; Venice: The Most Triumphant City; and Inside the Vatican.
Anthony Grafton teaches European intellectual history at Princeton University.

INTRODUCTIONReaders have differed sharply in their assessments of The Prince, as well as the character of its author, Niccolò Machiavelli, since the book’s publication in 1532. In his own time, Machiavelli was known as the author of histories, poems, and plays (including a widely produced popular comedy). Highly respected as a statesman, he represented Florence on foreign missions and wrote reports admired for their style and substance. But the Catholic Church censured Machiavelli for his criticism of Christianity and for the tone and content of the political counsel he offered, especially in The Prince. By the seventeenth century, the name Machiavelli had become synonymous with diabolical cunning, a meaning that it still carries today. Modern readers exhibit the same ambivalence about Machiavelli himself, alternately recognizing him as a precursor of the discipline of political science and recoiling from the ruthless principles he frequently articulates. Both views of Machiavelli, as innovative modernist and cynical politician, have their origins in The Prince.

Machiavelli wrote The Prince in 1513, just after he was forced to leave Florence as a political exile. Dedicated to Lorenzo de’ Medici, the book is Machiavelli’s advice to the current ruler of Florence on how to stay in power. It was also his effort, though unsuccessful, to gain an advisory post in the Medici government. The Prince was not published until five years after Machiavelli’s death. Leaders as diverse as Oliver Cromwell, Frederick the Great, Louis XIV, Napoleon I, Otto von Bismarck, and John F. Kennedy have read, contemplated, and debated Machiavelli’s ideas.

Machiavelli’s treatise makes a clear break from the Western tradition of political philosophy that preceded him. Beginning with Plato and Aristotle, the thinkers of this tradition were concerned with issues of justice and human happiness, and with the constitution of the ideal state. Until its final chapter, The Prince is a shockingly direct how-to manual for rulers who aim either to establish and retain control of a new state or to seize and control an existing one. Rather than basing his advice on ethical or philosophical principles, Machiavelli founds his political program on real-life examples. When explaining what a prince should or should not do in pursuit of his ambitions, Machiavelli cites the actions of well-known historical and contemporary leaders, both successful and unsuccessful. Throughout The Prince, Machiavelli explicitly aims to give an unsentimental analysis of actual human behavior and the uses of power. “I have thought it proper,” Machiavelli writes of a prince’s conduct toward his subjects, “to represent things as they are in a real truth, rather than as they are imagined” (p. 49).

The accuracy of Machiavelli’s view of human nature and the social world is debatable. Is Machiavelli simply being clear-sighted and objective, or is he providing spurious justifications for the worst impulses of those who seek power? In The Prince, the results of actions are what matter. Murder, the incitement of quarrels among citizens, the purchase of temporary loyalties, and betrayal: all are permissible—indeed, recommended—if they advance the prince’s goal of attaining and securing power. In Machiavelli’s view, the preservation of the state warrants such actions, since the state is necessary to ensure security, peace, and order for the people. He sets the ambitions of the prince and the need of the people for order side by side, seeing the two as complementary. Perhaps they are, or perhaps this equation is merely a self-serving way for those who crave power to defend injustices. To what extent the means that Machiavelli promotes in The Prince are justified by the ends, and whether the means actually bring about the ends, remain open questions.

Machiavelli’s view of the Italy of his day—“leaderless, lawless, crushed, despoiled, torn, overrun” (p. 83)—underwrites the advice he gives in The Prince. It also leads him to end his treatise with an “Exhortation to liberate Italy from the barbarians.” Machiavelli calls for “a new prince…to introduce a new order” (p. 82) that would bring unity and stability to the often warring city-states of the Italian peninsula. In this portion of The Prince and in some of his other writings, Machiavelli appears more idealistic and friendly toward a form of government that would give citizens a say. In his Discourses, Machiavelli portrays the ideal government as a republic that allows groups with differing opinions to speak openly.

Machiavelli thus sets the stage for an enduring discussion among his readers. Is he best understood as a seeker of unity and peace, concerned to make his advice practical and effective? Is he an opportunist offering aid and comfort to would-be tyrants? Do the moral and political goals he outlines in the final chapter of The Prince justify the actions he advocates in the preceding chapters? These questions seem destined to remain with us as long as Machiavelli’s book continues to occupy a central place in modern political thought.

ABOUT NICCOLÒ MACHIAVELLIWhat we know of the personal character of Niccolò Machiavelli (1469-1527) is at odds with the treachery implied in the adjective derived from his name. Evidence suggests that Machiavelli was an upright man, a good father, and a husband who lived in affectionate harmony with his wife, Marietta Corsini, who bore him six children. Throughout his life, Machiavelli was a zealous republican. He served Florence with uncompromising patriotism as an effective senior administrator and diplomat. But his single-minded service to the republic of Florence ended when the army of the Holy League of Pope Julius II returned the Medici family to power as benevolent despots of the city. In the resulting political purge, Machiavelli not only lost his position in the city government but, when a conspiracy against the Medicis was uncovered in early 1513, he also was accused of complicity simply because his name was on a list taken from the conspirators. Thrown into prison and subjected to the kind of torture that forced blameless men to confess their guilt, Machiavelli nevertheless maintained his innocence and was eventually released.

Reduced to poverty, and with restrictions placed on his movements around the city, Machiavelli sought refuge in the little property, outside Florence, that he had inherited from his father. There he produced not only The Prince, which he completed between the spring and autumn of 1513, but also a variety of political commentaries and histories and a number of well-received literary works. After the death of Pope Julius II in 1513, the son of Lorenzo de’Medici (called the Magnificent) became Pope Leo X—one of three popes the Medici family produced. It was Machiavelli’s hope that by dedicating The Prince to Lorenzo de’Medici, son of the most famous of all the Medicis, he would obtain an office that would return him to public life. That hope was in vain. Machiavelli died at the age of 58, still exiled from Florence.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONSWhy does Machiavelli support his arguments by citing examples of real historical and contemporary rulers? Why does he emphasize his “long acquaintance with contemporary affairs and a continuous study of the ancient world” (p. 1)?
 

Does The Prince present justice as nothing more than the interest of the stronger?
 

What constraints on a prince’s freedom of action does Machiavelli recognize?
 

Does Machiavelli believe that ethical considerations have a role to play in the conduct of a prince?
 

According to Machiavelli, what roles do fate and fortune play in human life?
 

Does Machiavelli believe that political entities are created by human effort, or do they exist naturally?
 

In securing the state, to what extent should a prince be motivated by the happiness of the people?
 

Why does Machiavelli believe that a prince must be willing to use force to achieve his ends?
 

According to Machiavelli, do moral ends justify immoral means?
 

How does Machiavelli define virtue?
 

Why does Machiavelli end his work with a plea for the House of Medici to liberate Italy?
 

FOR FURTHER REFLECTIONUnder what circumstances is someone charged with upholding the law justified in breaking it?
 

Must political power always be a corrupting influence on those who possess it?

RELATED TITLESI Samuel and I Kings (Old Testament); Matthew 22 (New Testament)
These books in the Bible deal with the tensions between religious and political loyalties.

Aristotle, PoliticsIn this exploration of the ideal state, Book V, concerning the maintenance of political power, is an especially pertinent antecedent to Machiavelli.

Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (1651)
The author presents a grim vision of human beings in their natural state, which becomes the basis for his argument that a practically omnipotent government is necessary to secure a basic level of justice and elementary freedoms.

John Locke, The Second Treatise of Civil Government (1690)
Chapter 14 examines the circumstances in which government can act in violation of the law or in the absence of law. Chapter 19 concerns the right of the people to overthrow a ruler or government when either has abused his power.

James Madison, “The Federalist No. 10” (in The Federalist) (1787-88)
This essay addresses the problem of factions that inevitably develop among citizens and the ways of controlling their detrimental effects without infringing on liberty.

Plato, The StatesmanOne of Plato’s major works of political philosophy, this dialogue explores the nature and virtue of a king or statesman.

Seventeenth Chapter: Concerning Cruelty and Clemency, and Whether It Is Better to Be Loved Than Feared…Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, it is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with. Because this is to be asserted in general of men, that they are ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly, covetous, and as long as you succeed, they are yours entirely; they will offer you their blood, property, life, and children, as is said above, when the need is far distant; but when it approaches they turn against you. And that prince, who, relying entirely on their promises, has neglected other precautions, is ruined; because friendships that are obtained by payments, and not by greatness or by nobility of mind, may indeed be earned, but they are not secured, and in time of need cannot be relied upon; and men have less scruple in offending one who is beloved than one who is feared, for love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails….

Twenty-First Chapter: How a Prince Should Conduct Himself So as to Gain Renown…A prince is also respected when he is either a true friend or a downright enemy, that is to say, when, without any reservation, he declares himself in favour of one party against the other; which course will always be more advantageous than standing neutral; because if two of your powerful neighbours come to blows, they are of such a character that, if one of them conquers, you have either to fear him or not. In either case it will always be more advantageous for you to declare yourself and to make war strenously; because, in the first case, if you do not declare yourself, you will invariably fall a prey to the conqueror, to the pleasure and satisfaction of his who has been conquered, and you will have no reasons to offer, nor anything to protect or to shelter you. Because he who conquers does not want doubtful friends who will not aid him in the time of trial; and he who loses will not harbour you because you did not willingly, sword in hand, court his fate….
GB

Additional information