O Príncipe: Tradução direta do original italiano do século XVI

De Maquiavel

Eis uma nova tradução de "O Príncipe", de Nicolau Maquiavel, realizada por Antonio Caruccio-Caporale diretamente do original italiano do século XVI. Esta nova versão chega com quase duzentas notas e algumas retificações em relação às traduções existentes no mercado. A doutrina de Maquiavel, imortalizada neste livro, demonstra uma maneira cética de encarar o ser humano; sua concepção de poder pregava a prática acima da ética, pois tudo é válido contanto que o objetivo seja manter-se no poder. Citado incessantemente há quase quinhentos anos, "O Príncipe" é tido como um modelo imoral de praticar o poder, mas é seguido à risca por quase a totalidade daqueles que estão no poder, até nos dias atuais.

• Idioma: Português
• Editora: L&PM Editores
• Data de lançamento: 1 de jan. de 1998
• ISBN: 9788525407986

Pré-visualização do livro

caparosto

O PRÍNCIPE[1],[2]

---

De Nicolau Maquiavel

para o Magnífico

Lourenço de Médicis[3]

De praxe, aqueles que desejam obter os favores de um Príncipe apresentam-se a ele com os pertences que lhe são mais caros e à vista dos quais veem que ele mais se encanta. Por isso, frequentemente, vemo-los presenteá-lo com cavalos, armas, tecidos tramados em ouro, pedras preciosas e alfaias desse tipo, dignos da Sua grandeza. Assim, desejoso de apresentar-me a Vossa Magnificência com alguma prova de minha submissão, nada encontrei, em meu cabedal, que prezasse e estimasse tanto quanto o entendimento das ações dos grandes personagens, o qual adquiri na detida observação[4] dos episódios modernos e na leitura incessante dos antigos episódios sobre os quais longamente e com grande atenção meditei, para ora condensá-los num pequeno volume que a Vossa Magnificência remeto.

Mesmo considerando esta obra demasiado humilde para ser-lhe apresentada, tamen[5] Sua humanidade é para mim uma garantia de que Ela a receberá com simpatia, haja vista que maior dom não poderia eu fazer que o de oferecer-lhe um meio de poder rapidamente perceber o que compreendi no curso de muitíssimos anos, com grande custo e risco pessoais. E este livro, eu não o enfeitei nem o sobrecarreguei com longos períodos, com palavras sonantes e empoladas, nem com algum outro arrebique ou ornamento amaneirado com os quais muitos adornam suas obras: por meu intento, ou nenhum mérito distinguirá meu livro, ou apenas a novidade da matéria e a sua gravidade o farão lograr boa acolhida. Tampouco desejaria que a um homem de reles e modesta condição fosse imputada a presunção de ousar discorrer a conduta política dos príncipes e de preceituar-lhe as regras: ora, assim como aqueles que, desenhando paisagens, se postam na rasa planície para contemplar a feição dos montes e dos píncaros, e se empoleiram sobre esses a fim de melhor considerar as planuras, assim, para conhecer a natureza dos povos, é preciso ser Príncipe, e para conhecer a dos príncipes, ser do povo.

Destarte, receba, Vossa Magnificência, este singelo dom com o mesmo espírito que me anima a enviá-lo. Lendo-o e considerando-o atentamente, nele notará meu grande anseio de que Ela eleve-se à majestade que a fortuna e que os seus outros atributos lhe prometem. Se Vossa Magnificência, do alto de sua magnanimidade, vez por outra voltar os olhos para cá embaixo, saberá o quanto me degrada suportar o meu fado (fortuna), infinda e perenemente funesto[6].

[1]. Esta tradução realizou-se com base na edição das Opere de Niccolò Machiavelli, publicada por Riccardo Ricciardi Editore (Milão-Nápoles) em 1954, conforme o original do século XVI (em dialeto toscano). Valeu-se, ainda, no que concerne às notas de caráter histórico, das impecáveis versões francesas editadas por Gallimard e Flammarion, ambas de 1980, algumas das quais aditadas às notas da edição italiana. Como matéria de curiosidade ao leitor, conservamos (há poucas coisas que podemos conservar quando lá se vai meio milênio!) a divisão dos parágrafos tal como a concebera Maquiavel, a despeito das suas eventuais incorreções (consideradas à luz dos cânones modernos da redação em italiano e em português).

[2]. O título não é do próprio Maquiavel, que havia intitulado o seu livro De principatus (em português: Dos Principados). Será cerca de cinco anos após a sua morte que os primeiros editores, Blado e Giunta, rebatizarão a obra.

[3]. Não se deve confundir aquele a quem O Príncipe é dedicado com Lourenço (Lorenzo), o Magnífico, morto em 1492. Trata-se aqui de Lourenço, Duque de Urbino em 1515, neto do Magnífico e nascido no ano da morte deste; filho de Piero e sobrinho do Papa Leão X. Possuía a insígnia de Capitão Geral da República, mas (a partir de 1513) governou Florença apenas de direito e não de fato.

[4]. A experiência das coisas modernas e a lezione (leitura) das antigas: eis as duas fontes do conhecimento, segundo Maquiavel.

[5]. Maquiavel emprega amiúde estas expressões latinas (tamen, demum, etiam, praesertim, praeterea, etc.) que eram, então, de uso corrente no estilo redacional das chancelarias. Com efeito, o leitor não deverá imputar a Maquiavel qualquer afetação retórica, pelo contrário: essas locuções, extremamente corriqueiras à época, revelam, na verdade, a sua busca de uma expressão fácil e de compreensão imediata.

[6]. Discreta alusão à sua esperança de vir a ser reempregado na administração pública. Em sua carta de 10 de dezembro de 1513 a Francesco Vettori (um oratore, isto é, um Embaixador de Florença; neste caso, na Santa Sé), anuncia ao amigo haver escrito O Príncipe (De principatibus) (não ainda em sua versão definitiva), exprimindo-lhe o pungente sofrimento de ver-se excluído da atividade política.

I

---

Quantos são os tipos de principado e como

conquistá-los

Quot sint genera principatuum

et quibus modis acquirantur

Todos os Estados e todos os governos que exerceram ou exercem certo poder sobre a vida dos homens foram e são repúblicas ou principados. Um principado, ou é hereditário, quando é longeva a soberana linhagem de seu Senhor, ou é nascente. E este, ou é inteiramente nascente, como foi Milão para Francesco Sforza[1], ou consiste num apêndice do Estado hereditário do Príncipe que o assenhoreou, como o Reino de Nápoles para o Rei de Espanha[2]. Domínios assim conquistados, ou costumam viver sob o jugo de um Príncipe, ou conservam-se afeitos à liberdade; e sua posse se dá, ou com o concurso de armas alheias, ou com recurso às suas próprias; ou graças à fortuna, ou graças ao mérito (virtù)[3].

[1]. Francesco Sforza (1401-1466), filho do condottiere Muzio Attendolo, o próprio Francesco sendo um dos mais destacados líderes populares e militares da época, e que, em fevereiro de 1450, derrotou a República Ambrosiana, tornando-se o senhor de Milão.

[2]. O Rei da Espanha é Fernando, o Católico (1452-1516) [diz-se também Ferdinando ou Ferrando], que, juntamente com o Rei da França, Luís XII, conquistou o Reino de Nápoles, em detrimento dos aragoneses (sua própria família), mormente de Frederico de Aragão. Após uma guerra vitoriosa contra o seu aliado em 1504, ele anexou Nápoles e a Sicília ao Reino da Espanha.

[3]. Virtù (que, por via de regra, o termo português virtude traduzirá) é um dos termos-chave do vocabulário maquiavelino. Virtù e fortuna são as duas forças antagonistas – mas também complementares – nas quais concentra-se o essencial da vida e da ação políticas: a primeira representa o princípio ativo, que galvaniza a energia humana; a segunda constitui os limites externos e intrínsecos que opõem-se a essa ação (estejam eles demarcados pela sorte, pelo acaso, ou pelas condições exteriores do arbítrio humano, vale dizer, pela situação concreta em que vive o sujeito). Aditamos entre parênteses essas duas palavras essenciais do texto original sempre que as correspondentes diretas em português não satisfizeram semântica ou estilisticamente as necessidades da tradução. Ainda quanto a estas, note-se que as palavras principe e principato, no original, ganham emprego em seus sentidos mais amplos, razão pela qual foram diversas vezes traduzidas por soberano, senhor, etc. (quando tratava-se de um rei, de um poderoso condottiere, etc.); governo, poder, trono, etc. (no caso, por exemplo, de um império). Noutras passagens, particularmente as de cunho teórico, conservamos príncipe e principado em suas mais largas acepções.

II

---

Dos principados hereditários

De principatibus hereditariis

Não discorrerei a vida das Repúblicas, já que o fiz amplamente alhures[1]. Deter-me-ei somente sobre os principados, retramando sobre a tela acima urdida e discutindo de que modo podem eles ser governados e preservados.

Afirmo que é muito menor a dificuldade de conservar os Estados hereditários, onde arraigou-se a linhagem do seu Príncipe, que os novos Estados, porquanto para tanto bastará não preterir a ordem ancestral. Ademais, restará temporizar de acordo com as injunções, de sorte que, se normalmente hábil, qualquer Príncipe permanecerá indefinidamente soberano em seu Estado, a menos que deste seja ele privado por uma força extraordinária e sobrepujante. Ainda neste caso, ao menor revés do ocupante, ele reaverá o seu principado.

In exemplis, temos na Itália o Duque de Ferrara[2], que só resistiu às investidas dos venezianos, em 1484, e do Papa Júlio, em 1510, graças à ancianidade de sua estirpe naqueles domínios. Do fato de não ter tantas razões nem tanta necessidade de espezinhar os seus súditos decorre que o Príncipe natural é mais benquisto. Se vícios dissolutos não o fazem malvisto, é razoável que o povo consigo simpatize. No tempo e na longa sucessão do poder hereditário embotam-se a memória e as razões de toda inovação, pois que sempre uma mutação deita as bases para a edificação de outra.

[1]. Nos Discursos Sobre a Primeira Década de Tito Lívio, cuja escrita limitava-se, então, ao primeiro livro.

[2]. Duque de Ferrara: designação genérica de dois duques de Ferrara: Hércules d’Este (1433-1505), batido pelos italianos na guerra do sal, rematada no Tratado de Bagnolo (7 de agosto de 1484), e Afonso I d’Este (1486-1534), que foi temporariamente privado de uma parte dos seus domínios por Júlio II, em razão de não haver aceito a paz firmada por este Papa com os venezianos em 1510, bem como a nova orientação antifrancesa da sua política (a Santa Aliança). Inflamado por sua própria tese, Maquiavel omite que ambos os duques eram homens de grande mérito, tanto político quanto militar.

III

---

Dos principados mistos

De principatibus mixtis

Com efeito, um principado novo apresenta dificuldades. Em primeiro lugar, se ele não é de todo novo; se ele surge como parte de um principado maior (o todo pode ser chamado principado misto), as alternâncias [em seu governo] resultam, acima de tudo, de uma natural dificuldade, constante em todos os principados novos, qual seja, a de que, acreditando em melhorias, os homens facilmente substituem o governante. E é ilusória essa crença que os faz pegar em armas contra o senhor: mais tarde, por experiência, compreenderão que a sua situação deteriorou-se. Decorre daí uma outra necessidade, natural e ordinária, a de sempre melindrares aqueles dos quais és o novo Príncipe, seja pela presença das tuas tropas de ocupação, seja através de uma infinidade de outras injúrias que seguem-se a uma nova conquista, de sorte que terás como inimigos todos os que lesaste ao ocupares este principado, e tampouco poderás consolidar a amizade daqueles que abriram-te o caminho, pela impossibilidade de recompensá-los do modo que esperavam sê-lo e pela gratidão que impedirá que adotes contra eles remédios mais fortes. Isto porque, por mais poderoso que seja o próprio exército, necessita-se sempre da ajuda da gente local para o ingresso nas suas terras. É por essas razões que o Rei Luís XII de França, havendo rapidamente tomado Milão, rapidamente a perdeu, e, para esta primeira perda, bastou que se lhe opusessem as forças de Ludovico [Sforza][1], porquanto aquela gente que abrira-lhe as portas, frustrada e decepcionada quanto ao futuro que concebera, não podia suportar o desgosto que lhe causara o novo Príncipe.

É bem verdade que, por uma segunda vez reconquistadas as terras sublevadas, perdê-las será mais difícil: o senhor, por ocasião de uma [nova] rebelião, terá menos escrúpulos em salvaguardar a sua posição, castigando os insurretos, desmascarando os suspeitos, firmando-se onde achava-se vulnerável. De sorte que, se, na primeira vez, para arrebatar Milão do domínio francês, bastara que um Duque Ludovico incitasse as fronteiras ao tumulto[2], para uma segunda destituição foi preciso que todos se unissem contra a França e que fossem aniquiladas e expulsas da Itália as suas milícias[3] – o que advém das razões antes aludidas. Sem embargo, da primeira como da segunda vez, Milão foi retomada.

Foram mencionadas as razões gerais da primeira perda; resta agora examinar as razões da segunda e saber que remédios teria o Rei de França ou outro monarca que se encontrasse em idêntica situação para poder melhor sustentar-se em sua conquista, coisa que ele não logrou.

Digo, então, que estes Estados conquistados que se incorporam a um Estado mais antigo, ou comungam da mesma origem e da mesma língua, ou não comungam. Quando sim, torna-se muito fácil conservá-los, sobretudo se não estão acostumados a viver livremente. Para possui-los de forma segura, basta haver-se extinto a estirpe do Príncipe que o dominava, pois que, quanto ao mais, mantendo-se os seus antigos privilégios e não havendo alteração nos costumes, os homens viverão pacificamente, como constatamos na Borgonha, na Bretanha, na Gasconha e na Normandia, que há tanto tempo vivem sob a égide da França. Ainda que haja certas disparidades de língua, os costumes são todavia semelhantes e moldam-se facilmente uns aos outros. Aquele que conquista [este tipo de Estado], querendo mantê-lo seu, deve atentar a duas coisas: uma, em extinguir a linhagem

Avaliações de O Príncipe

[harrod_1 · Nota: 3 de 5 estrelas]

Interesting

[velmeran · Nota: 4 de 5 estrelas]

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

[reganrule · Nota: 5 de 5 estrelas]

Thought rereading this might shed some light on the Trump presidency until I realized that there is a crucial difference between realpolitik and realityTVpolitiking.

[bnielsen_30 · Nota: 4 de 5 estrelas]

Et klassisk værk om hvorledes en fyrste bør regere.Indeholder 26 kapitler: "Om forskellige arter af fyrstevælder og måder at erhverve dem på", "Om de arvelige fyrstevælder", "Om blandede fyrstevælder", "Hvorfor Darius' rige, som Alexander erobrede, ved dennes død ikke gjorde oprør mod hans efterfølger", "Hvorledes man skal styre de byer og fyrstevælder, der før erobringen havde egne love", "Om erhvervelsen af et nyt fyrstevælde ved egne våben og dygtighed", "Om erhvervelsen af et nyt fyrstevælde ved fremmede våben og lykkens hjælp", "Om fyrster, der når herredømmet ved forbrydelser", "Om folkefyrster", "Hvordan alle fyrstevælders kraft skal måles", "Om gejstlige fyrstevælder", "Om forskellige arter stridskræfter og om lejetropper", "Om hjælpetropper, blandede og egne tropper", "Om en fyrstes militære opgaver", "Hvad der skaffer menneskene og især fyrsterne ros eller dadel", "Om gavmildhed og gerrighed", "Om grusomhed og mildhed, og om at det er bedre at blive frygtet end elsket", "Hvorvidt en fyrste altid skal stå ved sit ord", "Man må undgå ringeagt og had", "Om fæstninger eller andre forholdsregler, der træffes af fyrsten, er til nytte eller skade", "Hvorledes en fyrste skal optræde for at vinde anseelse", "Om fyrsternes statssekretærer", "Hvorledes man skal undgå smiger", "Hvorledes Italiens fyrster har tabt deres stater", "Hvad skæbnen formår i de menneskelige anliggender, og hvorledes man skal kæmpe imod den", "Opråb om at befri Italien fra barbarerne".I denne bog behandler forfatteren kun fyrstedømmer. Han indleder med at sige at arvestater er meget lettere at bevare end nyerhvervede stater. Han betoner at folkets gunst er vigtig at bevare og at man bør bosætte sig i en nyerobret stat. Man bør svække de stærke naboer og støtte de svage uden at styrke dem.Udmærket læsning. Machiavelli argumenterer for sine synspunkter, fx at lejetropper og hjælpetropper kun er af det onde, og har mange underbyggende eksempler.En manual for at opnå og bevare magt

[mithril_1 · Nota: 5 de 5 estrelas]

Fascinating historical perspective.

[bookomaniac-1 · Nota: 3 de 5 estrelas]

Zeer geromantiseerde inleidingIntussen overbekende politieke theorie (efficiëntie gaat voor op ethiek). Moeilijke lectuur

[lostvampire_1 · Nota: 5 de 5 estrelas]

A Great Book!

[tommi180744 · Nota: 4 de 5 estrelas]

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!

[judithrs · Nota: 3 de 5 estrelas]

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

[karl6steel · Nota: 5 de 5 estrelas]

First time reading it since my 1989 Great Books course at Evergreen. A lot of fun to teach. The Dover edition, so far as I can determine, is perfectly serviceable, and, presuming I'm rating the right book, is improved vastly by including excerpts from The Discourses. Complicates things nicely for the students.

[starkravingmad_1 · Nota: 4 de 5 estrelas]

Now understand why it's a classic 

[elosoblanco · Nota: 3 de 5 estrelas]

If I were more of a historian I would have been able to dive deeper into this book. Missing some context, I struggled with a few bits and pieces of Machiavelli's statements, but the rest of his ideas and examples are pretty easy to follow. I see how this book, in the hands of the wrong person, could lead to cruelties, however, I also totally see what the book is getting at, and I enjoyed reading it.

[wildbill_1 · Nota: 5 de 5 estrelas]

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.

[lisamaria_c · Nota: 5 de 5 estrelas]

His very name has become, like that of Hobbes and Nietzsche, a byword for a cold, brutal ruthlessness. It's even said on the Wiki that he helped make "Old Nick" a term for the Devil (something the introduction to my edition denies) and political philosopher Leo Strauss called him "the teacher of evil." His book The Prince is one of the most influential books of all time and is known as the Bible of realpolitik, and Machiavelli is seen by some as the father of political science. In a letter Machiavelli claimed his "little work" (it's less than a hundred pages in paperback) was designed to examine the state, "discussing what a principality is, what kinds there are, how they are acquired, how they are maintained, why they are lost." The heart of his advice to the ruler is to be "prepared to vary his conduct as the winds of fortune and changing circumstances constrain him and … not deviate from right conduct if possible, but be capable of entering upon the path of wrongdoing when this becomes necessary." Thus The Prince can be said to be at the other end of the scale to utopian thinking; it's utterly pragmatic. And given my lack of sympathy for utopian schemes, you'd think this would be more to my taste. Yet in some ways I see both approaches as similar. Both sorts of thinking believe that ends justify the means. Utopian schemes from Plato to Mao willingly bend humans like pretzels to fit their ideals--Machiavelli wants his rulers to manipulate, deceive, and force his subjects to his ends, without worrying about whether the means are moral. Without caring about principles, what's left is just naked power. So why rate this so high? Well, I at least appreciate Machiavelli's style compared to that of so many political thinkers. One thing at least all commentators agree on is that his writing is succinct and lucid--and memorable. Hard to forget such precepts as "politics has no relation to morals" and "it is better to be feared than loved" and "a prince never lacks legitimate reasons to break his promise" and "Fortune is a woman, and if you want to stay on top of her, you have to knock her around." The man can turn a phrase. Fun and chilling to read at the same time--and great insight into politics and the minds of many politicians. And given Machiavelli's experience as a diplomat and head of a militia, and his deep pragmatism, it's not like even principled statesman working for their ideals should ignore his advice--if only as a warning.

[bookworm12_1 · Nota: 4 de 5 estrelas]

The Prince is filled with advice for leaders hoping to hold on to their positions. This book does a great job at describing situations of power and statesmanship. From political and corporate power struggles to attaining advancement, influence and authority over others, Machiavelli’s observations apply. He gives advice based on the example of many leaders who came before, especially those in Italy. I loved reading this while watching Game of Thrones. So much of the advice is applicable. The show is all about vying for the throne and multiple people desperately maneuvering to get closer to the power. The book is all about the different ways of ruling, gaining favor, ruling with fear, etc. I loved seeing how the advice in The Prince was so perfectly mirrored in the different actions of characters on GOT. Every Lord or Prince in GOT takes a different route in their struggle for power and each one is like an example acting out the pros and cons of the advice in The Prince. So much of the book deals with the tightrope leaders must walk between being loved and feared…“Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than feared or feared than loved?”Just like being a parent, the ruler must decide which is more important to him. If he is only feared there is always the chance of disloyalty and revolt. If he is only loved than people might not respect his leadership and will rise against him. It is a difficult decision to make. BOTTOM LINE: Ruling has always been a cutthroat profession. One must almost always chose between making your subjects love you or fear you and that decision is at the heart of this book. I enjoyed reading about the different ruling styles and once again realized that not much has changed in politics. “This has been figuratively taught to princes by ancient writers, who describe how Achilles and many other princes of old were given to the Centaur Chiron to nurse, who brought them up in his discipline; which means solely that, as they had for a teacher one who was half beast and half man, so it is necessary for a prince to know how to make use of both natures, and that one without the other is not durable.”“Therefore, one who becomes a prince through the favour of the people ought to keep them friendly, and this he can easily do seeing they only ask not to be oppressed by him. But one who, in opposition to the people, becomes a prince by the favour of the nobles, ought, above everything, to seek to win the people over to himself, and this he may easily do if he takes them under his protection. Because men, when they receive good from him of whom they were expecting evil, are bound more closely to their benefactor; thus the people quickly become more devoted to him.”“But to exercise the intellect the prince should read histories, and study there the actions of illustrious men, to see how they have borne themselves in war, to examine the causes of their victories and defeat, so as to avoid the latter and imitate the former”“A prince, therefore, ought always to take counsel, but only when he wishes and not when others wish; he ought rather to discourage everyone from offering advice unless he asks it; but, however, he ought to be a constant inquirer, and afterwards a patient listener concerning the things of which he inquired.”

[piggelin_1 · Nota: 4 de 5 estrelas]

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.

[alcracka · Nota: 5 de 5 estrelas]

I'm weirdly pleased that The Prince lives up to its reputation: it is indeed Machiavellian. Here's his advice on conquering self-governing states (i.e. democracies): "The only way to hold on to such a state is to reduce it to rubble." Well then.

I'd like to say that any guy whose last name becomes a synonym for evil is a badass, but Machiavelli wasn't; he was a failed minor diplomat who wrote this in a failed attempt to get reemployed. Stupid attempt, too; anyone who hired him would be advertising that he espoused Machiavellian values. This book was published. And as he himself advises, "A leader doesn't have to possess virtuous qualities, but it's imperative that he seem to possess them."

So I'll go with this: anyone whose last name becomes a synonym for evil has written a good book.

I hope to match that effect with my first novel. Working title: "Unicorns are Pretty."

So if Machiavelli was such a loser, how did his book get so famous? It's not because it's great advice; it sortof isn't. I think it's because it's just a ton of fun to read. It's chock full of over-the-top quotes like the ones above. It's really funny.

Which brings up a recurring topic for debate: did he intend for this to be taken seriously, or is it satire? I think it's the former: mixed in with the zany stuff is a fair amount of common-sense advice. He could certainly have included that to make the zany stuff pop more, or to camouflage it a bit, but I prefer to think he meant the whole thing seriously. And it's not like any of it is advice someone hasn't followed at some point. (See my first quote above: yeah, we've tried that.)

Translation review: this is the very latest translation. Parks has gone to great trouble to reduce the crazy complexity of Machiavelli's sentences - I know this from reading his excellent Translator's Note - and I appreciate that. He's also tried hard to make it accessible to modern audiences, and sometimes I think he's tipped a tiny bit overboard on that front. "When a ruler occupies a land that has a different language...then things get rough." "Difficult" would have been perfectly clear; "rough" is too colloquial. We want to be able to read our classics, but we don't need to pretend they were written yesterday.

That's a relatively minor complaint, though; this is a clear and easy translation. Good intro, too. And a glossary of proper names at the back, so you can sort out the various contemporary figures you don't recognize.

I'll close with my favorite quote: "It's better to be impulsive than cautious; fortune is female and if you want to stay on top of her you have to slap and thrust."

Machiavelli: kindof a dick.

[mrslee_1 · Nota: 3 de 5 estrelas]

I read this because it is one of those books everyone says should be read. It wasn't terribly long, the translation was easily understandable and I thought I would give it a try.What surprised me, was that I enjoyed it. I found Machiavelli's teaching style very good. He sets forth a principle, then illustrates it with examples from both ancient history and his times. It was easy to go from there and find examples in our modern times of most of the principles he set forth. I found myself marveling at his insight into human nature and the practicalities of leadership in a fallen world.Needless to say, I now feel myself prepared to take on the leadership of any minor principality which would have me. World, beware!

[tadad_1 · Nota: 4 de 5 estrelas]

Despite the aura that has grown up around this book, I don't think it's as shocking to readers in the 21st century as it evidently was to those in the early 16th; it seems pretty much "politics as usual." In fact, it seems refreshingly honest about politics, never attempting to obscure the acquisition and maintenance of power with claims of high or noble purposes.I also found it interesting that...at least as far as I was concerned...there was a connotation to the term 'Machiavellian' that was a bit more self-interested than the philosophy he actually espouses.This is definitely a book worth recommending.

[nickdreamsong · Nota: 5 de 5 estrelas]

My job requires me to function in a highly politicized work environment. I work with a large group of department heads, providing counsel on issues pertaining to the fine art of people management. Some of them are philosopher kings and others are callous despots. I have found that rereading THE PRINCE every few years reminds me of the basics. Whether the princes are in the courts of the Italian peninsula during the Renaissance or in the offices of a large corporation at the dawn of the 21st century, people with authority act in similar ways. There is much to be learned from this amazing little book.

[irenef_288826 · Nota: 4 de 5 estrelas]

Other people have reviewed The Prince's content. I gave this book four stars; I would have given it five if the translation were better. This edition (Dover Thrift) is certainly economical, but the sentences are long, convoluted, and reverse subject and object. It took me a while to get through even though it runs only 71 pages. I had to sit there and wrestle with the verbiage as I went.Otherwise, thought-provoking and a handbook of international relations.

[wyvernfriend · Nota: 5 de 5 estrelas]

Pretty illustrations intermingled with the text to show the period during which this is written. Not terribly fond of the translation, will have to try another one to get a better feel for the text, probably a good historical and close to the original style of the book but feels a bit forced. It's an interesting look at power and how power is won or lost and while many people have taken inspiration from it to take power not many of them seem to have read the portions on keeping power.I believe I read this years ago in college but it was interesting to go back and read it again for no purpose other than pleasure. Many authors could get inspiration for how to set up governments and how to keep power in the hands of both the good and bad guys.

[stillatim · Nota: 2 de 5 estrelas]

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.

[jkepler_9 · Nota: 1 de 5 estrelas]

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

[hermit_9_1 · Nota: 4 de 5 estrelas]

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.

[elizabeth5michele · Nota: 4 de 5 estrelas]

Read this simply because I had heard interesting things and it was indeed an interesting read with some interesting themes and ideas. A must for anyone considering politics.

[msnikki · Nota: 4 de 5 estrelas]

The ultimate take no prisoners guide to ruling your world. Written as a guide to the monarchy, as the name suggests, but completely applicable to modern life.Some magazines have named it as a key componant to the cliched 80s Fortune 500 executive and it is easy to see why.A great well thought out read.I highly recommend it.

[angelic55blonde · Nota: 4 de 5 estrelas]

This is an excellent book. It is straightforward and easy to read. It was a political treatise that offered advice on how a prince could gain and keep power. The book is actually dedicated to one of the Medici family members. Many people belive the reason he did this was to win favor of Lorenzo de’ Medici, then-governor of Florence. Machiavelli was involved with politics but had lost his job so he had hoped to land a position within the Florentine government. Unfortuantely, this plan did not work for him. This is a great book and everyone should read it.

[kade_11 · Nota: 4 de 5 estrelas]

To many autodidacts, this book is a bible of political science, a gross misconception that reinforces the cynical view of politics perpetuated in popular culture. This wouldn't bother me if it weren't for the fact that people read the Prince, and then think there's no other bibles to political science. The Prince is to modern political theory what Sun Tzu is to Clausewitz's Von Krieg. It has come before, and is useful for tracing a linear path and building upon what comes before, but if you're a complete neophyte to political science and think this comes packed with all the answers, you're grossly off the mark, and your time would better be spent on John Locke's Second Treatise (which actually is a lighter read), Hobbes' Leviathan, Marx's First and Third Manuscripts, Burke's Reflections, or Rosseau's Social Contract. Highly recommended for political scientists to see the origin of their discipline.

[surreality_1 · Nota: 5 de 5 estrelas]

The original Italian text and German translation in parallel print. Allusions and references to most events and people given as examples are added to facilitate reading. A coldly pragmatic look at power play and its tools. Chilling at times, but rational and also clever. It's a very practical approach to the philosophy of power, and despite almost all examples being Machiavelli's contemporaries, the ideas still hold true. A fascinating text to read.