The Prince is a 16th-century political treatise by the Italian diplomat and political theorist Niccol Machiavelli. From correspondence a version appears to have been distributed in 1513, using a Latin title, De Principatibus (Of Principalities). However, the printed version was not published until 1532, five years after Machiavelli's death. This was done with the permission of the Medici pope Clement VII, but "long before then, in fact since the first appearance of The Prince in manuscript, controversy had swirled about his writings". Although it was written as if it were a traditional work in the mirrors for princes style, it is generally agreed that it was especially innovative. This is only partly because it was written in the vernacular Italian rather than Latin, a practice which had become increasingly popular since the publication of Dante's Divine Comedy and other works of Renaissance literature. The Prince is sometimes claimed to be one of the first works of modern philosophy, especially modern political philosophy, in which the effective truth is taken to be more important than any abstract ideal. It was also in direct conflict with the dominant Catholic and scholastic doctrines of the time concerning politics and ethics.
The Prince, by Niccolo Machiavelli, is a 16th-century political treatise. The Prince is sometimes claimed to be one of the first works of modern philosophy, especially modern political philosophy, in which the effective truth is taken to be more important than any abstract ideal. It was also in direct conflict with the dominant Catholic and scholastic doctrines of the time concerning politics and ethics. The Prince has the general theme of accepting that the aims of princes-such as glory and survival-can justify the use of immoral means to achieve those ends. Although it is relatively short, the treatise is the most remembered of Machiavelli's works and the one most responsible for bringing the word "Machiavellian" into usage as a pejorative. It even contributed to the modern negative connotations of the words "politics" and "politician" in western countries. In terms of subject matter it overlaps with the much longer Discourses on Livy, which was written a few years later. Machiavelli emphasized the need for realism, as opposed to idealism. Along with this, he stresses the difference between human-beings and animals since "there are two ways of contending, one in accordance with the laws, the other by force; the first of which is proper to men, the second to beast". In The Prince he does not explain what he thinks the best ethical or political goals are, except the control of one's own fortune, as opposed to waiting to see what chance brings. Machiavelli took it for granted that would-be leaders naturally aim at glory or honor. He associated these goals with a need for "virtue" and "prudence" in a leader, and saw such virtues as essential to good politics and indeed the common good. That great men should develop and use their virtue and prudence was a traditional theme of advice to Christian princes. And that more virtue meant less reliance on chance was a classically influenced "humanist commonplace" in Machiavelli's time, as Fischer says, even if it was somewhat controversial. However, Machiavelli went far beyond other authors in his time, who in his opinion left things to fortune, and therefore to bad rulers, because of their Christian beliefs. He used the words "virtue" and "prudence" to refer to glory-seeking and spirited excellence of character, in strong contrast to the traditional Christian uses of those terms, but more keeping with the original pre-Christian Greek and Roman concepts from which they derived. He encouraged ambition and risk taking. So in another break with tradition, he treated not only stability, but also radical innovation, as possible aims of a prince in a political community. Managing major reforms can show off a Prince's virtue and give him glory. He clearly felt Italy needed major reform in his time, and this opinion of his time is widely shared. Machiavelli's descriptions in The Prince encourage leaders to attempt to control their fortune gloriously, to the extreme extent that some situations may call for a fresh "founding" (or re-founding) of the "modes and orders" that define a community, despite the danger and necessary evil and lawlessness of such a project. Founding a wholly new state, or even a new religion, using injustice and immorality has even been called the chief theme of The Prince. Machiavelli justifies this position by explaining how if "a prince did not win love he may escape hate" by personifying injustice and immorality; therefore, he will never loosen his grip since "fear is held by the apprehension of punishment" and never diminishes as time goes by. For a political theorist to do this in public was one of Machiavelli's clearest breaks not just with medieval scholasticism, but with the classical tradition of political philosophy, especially the favorite philosopher of Catholicism at the time, Aristotle. This is one of Machiavelli's most lasting influences upon modernity.
Sotatieteiden ylittämätön klassikko nyt ensimmäistä kertaa suomeksi!Firenzeläisen filosofin ja valtiomiehen Niccolo Machiavellin (1469-1527) Dell'arte della guerra eli Sotataidosta ilmestyi vuonna 1521, ja se on yksi maailman suurimmista sotatieteen ja poliittisen teorian klassikoista. Kirjaa ovat käyttäneet oppaanaan monet maailman suurista sotapäälliköistä, muun muassa Fredrik Suuri ja Napoleon I, samoin sotateoreetikko Carl von Clausewitz.Machiavelli esittelee kirjassa oppejaan dialogin muodossa. Firenzeläisessä Orti Oricellarin puutarhassa päähenkilö Fabrizio Colonna ja hänen tuttavansa ruotivat sotilaallisen organisaation ja strategian perusteita, sotilaiden motivoimista, vihollisen lannistamista, väijytysten välttämistä ja taktisen ja strategisen edun saavuttamista erilaisissa olosuhteissa. Dialogia värittävät lukuisat esimerkit antiikin ajan sodankäyntitekniikoista.Suomentaja Antti Immonen on filosofi, joka on kääntänyt aiemmin kymmeniä kirjoja eri aloilta. Machiavelli-asiantuntijat dosentti Mikko Lahtinen ja sotilasprofessori Marko Palokangas ovat kirjoittaneet teoksen merkitystä valaisevan johdannon.
