The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli

He who believes that new benefits will cause great personages to forget old injuries is deceived.

Niccolo Machiavelli is widely known for this work in particular, a work which he wrote in an effort to gain the favor of the then-ruling Medici family. The same Medici who had him tortured and imprisoned. Machiavelli did, at least, practice a bit of what he preached. He bore no grudges where the grudges did not serve a purpose. Of course, it would seem the Medici already knew some of the lessons Machiavelli had to teach, for they never gave him the new benefit of a position in their government, but left him crushed and impotent (but for his writing).

The translation I read is an old one (1908) by W. K. Marriott. He includes a somewhat defensive introduction in which he praises Machiavelli and downplays the extent to which this work was an effort to curry favor with the Medici. His introduction and translator’s note are, themselves, interesting. He sets forth a great deal of Machiavelli’s biographical details for readers unfamiliar with them.

The work is an attempt to set forth principles on how princes may obtain and keep principalities. He gives a great deal of advice, often demonstrating his points with ancient or contemporary examples. I have not read any of his contemporaries, but his insights into political machinations sound like they are the result of watching cable television and modern-day politics. Neither men nor politics have much changed.

If men were entirely good this precept would not hold, but because they are bad, and will not keep faith with you, you too are not bound to observe it with them…But it is necessary to know well how to disguise this characteristic, and to be a great pretender and dissembler; and men are so simple, and so subject to present necessities, that he who seeks to deceive will always find someone who will allow himself to be deceived.

And, so, Machiavelli was first of all a pragmatic man, both in his own life (flattering the Medici) and in his writings. He did not exactly shun or ignore morals, but believed that living a morally blameless life was a good way to lose a kingdom.

[F]or a man who wishes to act entirely up to his professions of virtue soon meets with what destroys him among so much that is evil. Hence it is necessary for a prince wishing to hold his own to know how to do wrong, and to make use of it or not according to necessity.

There is more here than only the reputation. The book is short, but packed with biting insights and wit. I could quote the thing at length, but then there would be little else for you to discover. Machiavelli does present a very jaded and cynical view of man and politics, but that is precisely why it is so brilliant. You need look no further than the reports that British Petroleum (BP) allegedly advocated for the release of one of the Lockerbie terrorists to see a present day example of pragmatism overriding any sense of ethics or morality. Name a politician and I will find you a quote that describes his rise or downfall. Pull a quote and I will show you a modern-day politician who provides the anecdotal evidence of its truth.

This is not, I would say, a guide to how to live. It is atrocious for that. Unless, of course, you aspire to power and glory. In that case, I suppose you could do worse. For the rest those of us more interested in literature than in elected office, however, Machiavelli had a novelist’s eye for capturing and pithily dissecting human nature.

9 Responses to The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli

  1. An interesting choice of read. I have this myself, but haven’t read it yet. You remind me I should.

    What made you pick this one as your next read out of interest? And can I tempt you to Castiglione’s The Courtier by way of comparison?

  2. Kerry says:


    It was short, it was on my Kindle, and it nicely complements The Secret Agent. And it had been on my TBR for a ridiculously long time, like about a decade.

    So, if you ever hear me say it’s on the TBR, but don’t see me read/review it right away (Crumey, Sputnik Caledonia), I will eventually get to it.

    I don’t currently have a copy of the Castiglione work and I am trying to work through some books on my shelf (which include a number of Canadian works KfC recommended), so I will have to take an immediate pass. But it does go on the TBR…..Thanks!

  3. Biblibio says:

    I kind of think of Machiavelli as the original political blogger. There’s this rant-y quality to “The Prince” (and even more so to “The Discourses”, which I liked a great deal more), and that, oh, disconnect. Like Machiavelli can say whatever he likes because it can’t be traced back to him. It’s not how people write in newspapers today, but it has something in common with some blogs. Or I could be imagining things… Either way, it’s a pretty weird read. Somewhat hard to swallow, but very very interesting…

  4. Kevin Neilson says:

    It would be interesting to carefully read Machiavelli with a vigilant eye to his own dissemblings as he exerts his comparative advantage over the Medici: words, ideas. Cheers, Kevin

  5. Mish says:

    I’ve had the Prince on my reading list simply because, but didn’t know about its background. My course of study included the Medicis so your post makes it more intriguing.

  6. Kerry says:

    Biblio: I like that “the original political blogger”. Great description, I think. And it is very, very interesting.

    Kevin: Yes, I do not know enough about the Medicis to tell if some portions are subtle digs disguised with flattery. He does have an excellent pen.

    Mish: I think Kevin would enjoy your review. I would to, frankly. My Italian history is so weak as to be almost non-existent. If you have studied the Medicis, I think it would be a very interesting read, indeed.

  7. Great review Kerry … have you read Rushdie’s The empress of Florence? I hadn’t then (and still haven’t) read Machiavelli but that novel and your review have given me a different perspective to that of “evil” as is often touted. Cynical pragmatism as you say is more the thing – and, unfortunately, plus ça change is even more the thing!

  8. Kerry says:

    I must shamefacedly admit to not reading any Rushdie. He is always there waiting, but I never quite “get to” him. This has been going on for as long as my intention to “get to” The Prince.

    I am glad you mentioned The Enchantress of Florence. It likely would be a good companion work to Machiavelli. Of course, Midnight’s Children has close parallels with The Master and Margarita, a favorite of mine. And, The Satanic Verses has its appeal too.

    Apparently, I need to pick up some Rushdie…

    I like your point about “evil” and plus ca change. Well and truly said.

    • And, I haven’t yet read The master and Margarita. I have gone to pick it up from bookshops many times feeling I must read it but so far the current size of the tbr has stepped in to stop me. One day, though, temptation will be too great and I’ll be one step closer!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: