Talk:The Prince/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Napoleon's comments

I read the book quoted as a references, and it specifically said the comments were a forgery made some time after Napoleon's death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.80.204.2 (talk) 20:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Foucault's Pendulum article

I removed this from the trivia section:

In Umberto Eco's book Foucault's Pendulum the character Casaubon debunks the saying "The end justifies the means" as being attributed to Machiavelli's The Prince, saying that it is uttered by Machiavelli in the center of Hell in the novel...?

I looked on the Foucault's Pendulum article and found no similar reference, and the phrasing here is strange and unclear. Also, an ellipsis followed by a question mark has no place in an encyclopedia.

59.145.121.3 13:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Oops, forgot to sign in. Benandorsqueaks 13:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Full summary

I was going to add the full summary from http://www.publicbookshelf.com/public_html/Outline_of_Great_Books_Volume_I/complete_text.txt but decided not to at the last minute. It's about 2800 words yet doesn't really summarize the text in a usable way. Better summaries exist on the Internet. Mrwojo 00:15 Oct 9, 2002 (UTC)

Ferdinand II of Aragon

I read somewhere that Ferdinand II of Aragon could be an inspiration. True? -- Davidme —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidme (talk • contribs) 05:52, 9 March 2003

It's possible. The most common thought appears to be that Machiavelli's main inspiration was Cesare Borgia. --Mrwojo 18:53 Mar 9, 2003 (UTC)

External Resources

What criteria are required for an external resource? I'm trying to build a site that is specifically about "The Prince", but the outlink keeps getting cut from the page, any thoughts?. The Prince, web project aggregating all available information on the book.

I don't know that's really a question for Wikipedia. How to create a successful site that everyone can rely upon isn't really what we do. I will say that the site in question appears to be the work of one person, advancing his view of Machiavelli. Given that, none of its essays would count as reliable sources. Other than those essays, it merely has a public domain translation of the Prince; more reliable, stable, and established sites already provide that. RJC TalkContribs 03:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the wiki reliable sources definition is its abrasive idealism. With respect to natural science, mathematics, and other logical or observable models of knowledge, I concede that there are experts who are familiar with a wider variety of "information". Political diatribes cannot have experts; Machiavelli is more than 300 years dead, no one living today has any idea what the author intended the meaning of the text to be. The question isn't to the quality of the website. The question is to the requirement for a source on a purely subjective matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.191.34.52 (talk) 00:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

In controversial or subjective subjects, it’s even more important that sources meet the criteria of WP:RS, not less. On a subject like what Machiavelli really meant, Wikipedia should report what well-known Machiavelli scholars claim, and describe the arguments between them. At least then it is easy for readers to track down information on who those scholars are, what their other work is, their potential biases, the extent of their expertise, etc. Linking to a self-published website with its own theories about Machiavelli’s true meaning on the other hand carries a high risk of conferring authority on a source that readers should be highly skeptical of, without leaving them the same ability to dig down that they would have with the claims of prominent scholars. –jacobolus (t) 08:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
This discussion is now mixing a few subjects, so let me separate them out a bit:-
  • Concerning reliable sourcing and the article's body, I've just made a lot of changes to the article, and have tried to now mention a lot more about the theories that can be found in secondary sources. I think I need to include a bit more mention about Baron for example. Can you post notes on anything you see needing fixing? See my section for such discussion below.
  • Concerning external links, the WP:RS page is not the reference you need. See {{WP:EL]], which is less strict. Generally speaking the Wikipedia community tends to accept that external links are not taken as recommended reading in the way that the main bodies and sources are. We have some leeway, and in general I'd say it is nearly always better to try discussing things in terms of what is good for the article first, and only start quoting rules at each other if we really get bogged down?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Eh. I wouldn’t put self-published minority explanations of Machavelli in the links either (for the same reasons I cited). But it’s somewhat immaterial, as this discussion is quite old; I was just answering 72.191.34.52. –jacobolus (t) 22:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I did not look at the link, but just wanted to point to the right WP page about such things.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Satire

I removed the following:

It must be noted, however, that The Prince, akin to Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal, was an immense satire.

I have never ever heard it called satire, let alone an immense satire. Any views?

FearÉIREANN 23:30 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Is it satirical? One could say that, but its hardly a "provable" statement. Unless someone specifically can be quoted as saying "immense satire", that seems to be a bit much. Pizza Puzzle —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pizza Puzzle (talk • contribs) 23:43, 15 June 2003
I agree with Pizza. Perhaps the person who added in the line could mention a source which so describes the book. FearÉIREANN 23:45 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)
It so happens that I have an essay on Machiavelli in my Makers of Modern Strategy, and in the essay everything in the The Prince is taken completely seriously, not least because it's completely consistent with M.'s personal involvement with the warfare and politics of his time, also with his work The Art of War. Just to be cynical, I can imagine that an academic who'd never been shot at by an enemy soldier might think that Machiavelli was just having a bit of fun. Stan 23:48 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)
It's clearly not correct to baldly assert it's satire, but Spinoza and Rousseau, among others, read The Prince as political satire rather than political science. -- Someone else 23:49 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)
QED. :-) Rationalists would have a hard time understanding Machiavelli's Italy... Stan 05:10 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Indeed, hum, this is jolly. For those who kill over words, satire must seem deadly funny indeed. The political cartoon and standup comedy, not to mention Saturday Night Live, have more to tell us than most textbooks. When Albert Gore appeared on SNL as Trent Lott, to help get the latter fired, and also with Phish, the better to mock the War on Drugs, and the next day refused to run for President, was that political satire, or science? Hoom. Rationalism is dangerous, yes, but, let us not awaken fools too quickly. They may see what we are doing and "rationally" be afraid. EofT
This is the first time I've heard it alleged that Il Principe was a satire. Machiavelli dedicated the book to a Medici in hopes of getting a job. If he really was attempting to "backhand" Lorenzo de Medici, as is said in the "Critical Approach is Needed" section below, he did a very poor job of it. As a result of the book he was comissioned to write a history of Florence for the Medicis and when Florence was once again a republic, he was denied employment because of his associations with the Medici. As is noted in the "Satire" section he was a "lifelong republican," indeed he says in the Discorsi "the governments of the people are better than those of princes." Still, Machiavelli was a man who very much wanted to return to political power. 76.105.199.134 (talk) 01:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)Iulus
Regarding the entry above: the prince could be considered as partially a satire, in that the layout mimicked a cliche of the time, "A Prince's Mirror".
However it was as result of Machiavelli's correspondence with Rome, that Savanorolla was hanged and burned in the public square. While Machiavelli may have been mocking "A Prince's Mirror", the advise he gives (e.g. slaughter the entire royal family to avoid latter rebellion) should be taken seriously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.124.90.97 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 16 June 2004
The article should mention that one of its interpretations is as a satire. --Mrwojo 14:26, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Agreed--I don't have a source, but I learned in school about it being a satire as well, a response to the Medicis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.143.10 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 12 January 2006
Yes, this most certainly should be looked at witht he view that it is a work of satire. Machiavelli was a life long republican and opponent of the Medicis. Upon their return to the city he was forced into exile where he wrote this work. It is only logical to consider that The Prince is an attack on the Medicis rather that a complete reversal of his poliical views. --70.179.127.107 (talk)
This probably goes too far: that the Prince is a satire is one interpretation, but it doesn't represent the consensus of scholarly opinion on the matter, nor even that of the majority. --RJC Talk 13:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
In fact the consensus of scholarly opinion is that this is NOT a satire. There is no reason to believe it was "a complete reversal of his political views" and it unquestionably reflected the political realities in Europe at the time. Actually, many of his arguments continue to be relevant today, which is why this is essentially the cornerstone of political thought literature.--Spyde (talk) 00:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Is it satire? Significantly, Jean-Jacques Rousseau thought so. In one of the many footnotes within The Social Contract, Rousseau has this to say: "Machiavelli was a proper man and a good citizen; but, being attached to the court of the Medici, he could not help veiling his love of liberty in the midst of his country's oppression. The choice of his detestable hero, Caesar Borgia, clearly enough shows his hidden aim; and the contradiction between the teaching of the Prince and that of the Discourses on Livy and the History of Florence shows that this profound political thinker has so far been studied only by superficial or corrupt readers. The Court of Rome sternly prohibited his book. I can well believe it; for it is that Court it most clearly portrays." eikosan 11:49, 29 Apr 2009

It might be worthwhile to note that Rousseau deemed it a satire. Still, I find Rousseau's interpretation to be based on one-upsmanship; it seems as though he's just trying to have things his way, seem smart, and redeem Machiavelli's name for his own purposes. That said, I have actually known a person who was taught The Prince as if it were a satire. This interpretation does exist, but in my opinion it should be mentioned as a fringe theory. Personally, I think these sorts of interpretations--based on few facts and a LOT of gullible goodwill--are incredibly misleading and damaging; they should be noted on Wikipedia almost as cautionary tales. I agree with what someone posted above, that only out-of-touch academics could ever perform the mental double-think acrobatics necessary to deem The Prince a satire. That's not to say that at times Machiavelli couldn't be cunning in his own right, but other than Rousseau (separated from Machiavelli by three centuries and a gulf of culture and language) there's really no commentator of any significant merit who believes that The Prince was anything other than what it bills itself as: a straight-faced guidebook on how to rule with an iron fist. Not that every satire must be humorous, but there are no "punchlines" in The Prince, as there are in Swift's works. I struggle to understand what the basis of the supposed "satire" would be. It's not as though Machiavelli writes things like "A Prince should put all dissenters to public, painful death; this will ensure the sadistic masses some entertainment while also ensuring the Prince himself a place in Heaven." No, Machiavelli's advice is actually very logical and serious. There is no satire that I can see. Note that Rousseau only commented on The Prince in this respect ONCE, and then only in a skimpy little footnote. 66.82.162.13 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC).

Diderot also thought it was a satire. In fact it appears to have been the mainstream view (perhaps adopted from Spinoza) of the Enlightenment philosophes. Quentin Skinner in the podcast Philosophy Bites referenced in this wiki article says it has "elements of satire": namely when the prince is described as a centaur -- not a complete Ciceronian honorable man but half beast, or at least someone who knows how to be a beast when it is absolutely necessary (Aristotle, not referenced by Machiavelli or Skinner, had said that political leaders had to have different virtues than ordinary people). Skinner does stress that The Prince is specifically written as a manual for new rulers, i.e., upstarts who have recently and illegitimately seized power. (The fact that Machiavelli is not addressing legitimate rulers is arguably in itself a sort of satirical framework. At the time of writing he had just gotten out of jail, where he had undergone horrendous tortures by those to whom the book was addressed). Other historians tell us that fifteenth century humanist enconiums to tyrants featured exaggerated rhetorical effects that amounted to concealed satire. In the 1930s, one writer, Ralph Roeder, in his book "Man of the Renaissance", calls the doctrine of Machiavelianism "the martial law of the soul". The problem with it is that it is designed for emergency use only, but rulers are quick to descend the slippery slope in which every little thing is called an emergency. And when Machiavellianism becomes permanent, then the state of instability and constant warfare that characaterized the Renaissance also become permanent. Mballen (talk) 18:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Rousseau spent years in Italian-speaking Savoy and then several more years as assistant to the French ambassador to Venice. His Italian was perfect and he was steeped in Machiavelli's writings, especially the Discourses.173.56.198.96 (talk) 02:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Lauro Martines also raises the possibility (which he depicts as originating with Machiavelli himself) that the Prince could actually be taken as a handbook on how to overthrow a tyrant:

The Prince is an astoundingly protean work, because, in laying down the rules for taking and holding the power of an absolute prince, it is at the same time demystifying the process. In the course of teaching the would-be prince, Machiavelli also, as it were, undoes his teaching by allowing his lessons to go out to the enemies of the prince -republicans. Copies of the manuscript began to circulate in about 1516. Consequently, although he dedicated the work to Lorenzo de' Medici the Younger, in the hope thereby of seeming to shed his republican credentials, he was able to suggest, years later, thanks to the book's insidious duplicity, that he had actually written The Prince as a disguised primer for republicans. In fact, longing to return to government, he composed it with a view to the reward of an office in the new Medici regime.--Lauro Martines, "Princely charm", Times Literary Supplement September 23,2005.

Martines also goes on to say that:

Political scientists and statesmen cherish The Prince, because of the work's supposed X-ray view of the anatomy of power. They do not always realize that they are in the hands of one of the masters of Italian prose and a thinker of extraordinary imagination. Often, just when seeming most factual in a claim or observation, Machiavelli is riding on a distortion or an outright fiction. He had no trouble embroidering accounts and departing from facts, in order to drive home his lessons, to maintain his lively polarities and to turn political realities into leaner, more muscular matter. Politics was better grasped as action seen in blacks and whites, and expressed in "either-or" phrasing, such as in choosing between nobles or people, cruelty or mercy, love or fear, and honesty or reason of state. Playing fast and loose with historical evidence, despite his earnest commitment to the study of history, is a tic that runs through Machiavelli's major writings, not only The Prince but also, for example, The Art of War, where his civic patriotism overrides military common sense, and the Florentine Histories, composed for a Medici lord in the 1520s.--Martines (2005)

Mballen (talk) 20:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


From here: http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1457764&cid=30237098

"Every time I see or hear of a reference to "The Prince", or a leader is referred to as Machiavellian, I smile at the irony. Machiavelli was being SARCASTIC when he wrote that. He was kidding! Machiavelli was ahead of his time in holding the ideals of personal freedom and responsibility, equality, and all that jazz which are diametric opposites of the views espoused in "The Prince". He worked hard as a politician to build Florence into a shining beacon of how a society should be run, and a family called the de' Medici came along, seized power, (using techniques from the, at the time, as-yet-unwritten book, "The Prince") and turned the shining beacon into a cesspool of corruption, with rampant nepotism, greed, etc.

Stripped of his position, and having been barred from holding any political office by the de' Medici, after a lifetime of public service, embittered, Machiavelli wrote "The Prince" basically saying: "if you want to grab, hold, and expand your political power," (adding under his breath, "like those de' Medici bastards,") he continued, "this is what you do..." (He could not insult them openly, he had already been imprisoned and tortured by them once, and I guess he wasn't "feeling strong" anymore.)

It was not meant literally! I guess the De Medici had the last laugh though, whether by their actions or not, Machiavelli's name is associated NOT with his own good and noble life's work, but with the behaviours and beliefs of those he most loathed and despised. For a better idea of what this great Renaissance figure really thought, try instead his "Discorsi sulla prima deca di Tito Livio", or "Discourses on the first ten books of Livy", (Titus Livius, Roman historian)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.173.180.248 (talk) 07:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


I maybe wrong, but I seem to recall my university history course discussed The Prince in some detail; whether or not it's satire is something that historians are debating, for several reasons. First, the views in the book are contradictory to what he wrote in other books. Secondly, he dedicates it to a people who more or less removed him from his home city-state's power.

I think, frankly, that it would be poor of this article to not include some mention of it being possibly satire. I don't believe such a view in a minority within the historian community that doing so would be giving undo weight.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 23:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It is the sort of thing that must be supported with reliable sources. And it is a sufficiently minor view among those engaged in research on the matter that not much can be said about it without giving it undue weight. I cannot recall a single article published in a peer-reviewed outlet that argued that it was a satire, although I can recall some high school teacher saying something like that. Perhaps someone in history could point to this thesis's respectable contemporary following, for it's a non-topic in political science. RJC TalkContribs 03:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

But there are such articles out there. For instance Garrett Mattingly argues The Prince is satire in The American Scholar 27 (1958): 482-491. A link: http://www.idehist.uu.se/distans/ilmh/Ren/flor-mach-mattingly.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.69.100.176 (talk) 19:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It may be a non-topic in political science, but it would be in history or philosophy. Here's a lecture about it; http://records.viu.ca/~Johnstoi/introser/machiavelli.htm And yes, it is true that it's a minority, but I'm not sure if it's minor to the point that discussing the view would be giving undue weight to the topic. It might be giving undue weight if The Prince was solely a political science text, but it's not, it's also of interest to fields like history. For example, Garrett Mattingly wrote this essay on the topic, but he was a professor of European history, not political science.
After the Christmas Break, I'll look up the section in my University History Textbook and see what it says.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 07:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The standard interpretation is now that there is an overall coherency to his works (on a side note, this is the way analyses of Rousseau and a lot of other seemingly contradictory thinkers are erring too), which would rule it out as a satire. It could be advocating treachery. It could be specifically targeted at the New Prince. It could be an exhortation to nationalism. It could be an attempt to overcome the obfuscation and idealism of prior political theory. It could be an attempt to win his job back, which is not satire. Calling it a satire is really quite an esoteric evaluation by most standards. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 21:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a great discussion and I've certainly learned some things from it that I didn't already know. Like the above commentator I still think that calling it a "satire" is a gross simplification. Some of the arguments in the pro-satire camp don't quite add up. Machivelli played fast and loose with historical facts? So have MANY authors, especially pre-modern ones. Playing loose and fast with historical facts does not mean the work is a satire. Some of Machivelli's statements in The Prince don't accord with his expressed opinions elsewhere? Philosophers and statesmen change their expressed views all the time to suit the given audience and given situation. Rousseau saying that Machiavelli was a "good man" does not mean that The Prince is a satire. Saying that the work contains "elements of satire" is a long way from concluding that the entire work, or the work overall, is a satire. The article states that Diderot "believed the work was a satire", but I would like a quote from Diderot with the word "satire" in it. If all Diderot says is something along the lines of "Machiavelli gets a bad rap. He was a gentleman. The Prince is a lot more enlightening, valuable and good-to-read than people say", then that doesn't mean he considered the whole work to be a spoof...

...I do think it's very well worth remembering that Machiavelli was writing with some cunning on his own part. He was looking to satisfy a certain audience. That's why I've always (like some in the pro-satire camp) felt that the term "Machiavellian" really doesn't make sense as it's used. Machiavelli was not a perpetrator of crimes against humanity, he was simply describing how political power might be retained at all costs. But to call the work a "satire" would go so far as to mean that the advice within The Prince was not meant to be taken seriously. And it certainly was. These were rules to rule by. For The Prince to be a "satire", Machiavelli's advice would have to be blatantly poor, or so deceptive as to DELIBERATELY bring about the fall of anyone who took it. This is not the case. Is there some trickiness on Machiavelli's part? Of course. But that doesn't mean he was writing something like "A Modest Proposal", which is a biting criticism hardly serious at any level. You can study many, many, many complicated writings of master authors and stylists and uncover similar sorts of tricky tactics. But just because there's a lot of subversive tactics going on within The Prince's prose doesn't mean that the work is a satire or the opposite of what it presents itself as on the surface level. It just means that there's a lot of twisting levels to the book, not that the ultimate essence of the book is a deliberate refutation of what book purports itself to be. Lastly, I think the anecdotal information about Machiavelli being a "humanitarian", or an early champion of freedom or whatever, is completely beside the point. I'm sure some military commanders could and should be considered those things as well, yet they can still instruct men on how to kill each other on the battle field. That's like saying that a cookbook with a few meat dishes in it is obviously a "satire", and that its dishes are never meant to actually be cooked, should the author turn out to be a vegan someday. Vegans can write recipes with meat in them, and admirable men can also write advice that aids tyrants. (Apologies for the long post!) 66.82.9.12 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC).

Because nowadays the words "satire" includes an element of humor or sly winking at the audience, seeing the satire in The Prince is hard. In today's terms, I'd say it was more a cynical exploration of loveless politics, an exploration of all tyranny's methods and tactics. It is a work that inspires horror in all right-hearted people; only those who are not horrified will use the tactics therein. It is empty of the sarcasm that usually marks satire, because it was written by a broken man crying desperately to wake up the "ordinary people" he blatantly calls blind in the text, people who only see appearances and miss the bigger picture he tries to expose. Satire? Technically. --BlueNight (talk) 16:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter whether we consider this to be a satire. We're Wikipedians; just humble editors. We need to state what The Prince is based on the most credible sources we can find. What we think of the book's tone, or even whether we agree with the assessment made by the best sources in the field, is simply irrelevant.—♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 20:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The Ruler

Il Principe, translated in English to me as a Belgian, means The Ruler. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thundercloud (talk • contribs) 11:44, 29 February 2004

One of the meanings of "Prince" is as a synonym for "ruler", a leftover from when most of the world was ruled by monarchies, and not so commonly seen used that way any more. Stan 14:37, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

see also?

OK, this is probably a stupid question- but why does the end say "see also Leonardo da Vinci?" -FZ

Not sure. Removed it. --Mrwojo 14:26, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Probably because Machiavellia and da Vinci were contemporary Florentines, but the link is inappropriate for Il Principe. 76.105.199.134 (talk) 01:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)Iulus

See also: lie? Really? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.138.29.230 (talk) 01:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Link: Art of War

This article links to the Chinese work. I'm too new to know the best way to fix this. Can someone else advise? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.124.90.97 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 16 June 2004

"The end justifies the means"

The attribuition of the above maxim (the end justifies the means) to Machiavelli and The Prince is a common mistake. In reality Machiavelli never said such a thing, and it is nowhere to be found in his works (I am referring to the original italian works). The maxim is simply an interpretation and however strongly it may be 'proved' it remains simply so: a subjective interpretation of Machiavelli's work. In this respect, the Italian Wikipedia site for Il Principe is better in that it states, and I quote: "("si habbi nelle cose a vedere il fine e non il mezzo", scrive nei Ghiribizzi scripti in Perugia, con la constatazione che l'espressione "il fine giustifica i mezzi" non si riscontra tanto in Machiavelli quanto nella critica gesuitica alle sue opere)".

--Sapienza 08:50, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Could you translate the above Italian sentence into English? --Mrwojo 14:26, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Of course: "thus we see in all things the end rather than the means". So writes in Perugia, with the that the maxim "the end justifies the means" does not figure in Machiavelli, but is found in the gesuit critique of his works". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sapienza (talk • contribs) 17:48, 26 November 2004

Insertion from Ch. VIII

Unless we are going to turn this article into a textual interpretation of The Prince, the section on Agothocles doesn't belong here as a counterpoint to the statement that Machiavelli wanted politics freed from burdensome moralizers. I say this because 1) the passage is poorly translated and 2) it does not provide unambiguous support for the position for which it is adduced. Rather than turn the article into a place in which to quibble over the proper interpretation of a clever turn of phrase, we should just omit this. NPOV might be better preserved by noting that a statement is disputed by a minority than by trying to make that minority's case. --RJC 28 June 2005 15:24 (UTC)

The beautiful absurdity of encyclopedias that give equal time to ridiculous popular culture and millennia-old classics

Would anyone object to my adding the following line to the top of the article?

This article is about the book. For the little green dude with the weird head shape, see Katamari Damacy.

Just kidding. Best to just go with "This article is about the book. For other uses, see Prince (disambiguation)." -Silence 00:06, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Good idea (and great lvl2 head), I'm adding it to the top of the article.--Andymussell 02:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Advice on English translations

(This question would apply to any work not written in English.) Would it be reasonable to review the English translations? Is there a public domain translation as good as copyrighted translations? bkm, pdx, oregon, usa, scabland@gmail.com

Perhaps the wikisource link should be more prominent, or somehow mentioned; I would expect that most readers of the article wouldn't know that the book was available for free online. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Prince There's a discussion of this on its talk page....--76.21.22.240 22:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Another XHTML version

There's another version of the book, with dedication page which is slightly better for printing than the existing text linked to. I'm not going to link to this one myself as it's on my web site. http://www.kirit.com/Niccol%C3%B2%20Machiavelli/The%20Prince KayEss | talk 11:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

No Analytical Discussion?

The Prince is a masterpiece of political science, perhaps the birth of "modern" political thought; leaders carry this book in their pockets and quote from it, even in nations that call themselves democracies. Nobody could think of anything that could be said on the way the book is interpreted, how it is utilised both during the Renaissance and in modern times, discussion on famous quotes such as "the ends justify the means"? Absolutely nothing at all? 71.235.66.254 06:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

question about the prince.

how does machiavelli describe politics both past and present? and how might this challange the concepts of democracy

Critical Approach is needed

I read The Prince and it has a different COVER than the one presented here. Needs to say something about the different art used to represent him or that states the art represents one whom would be the Prince. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rev.j.dave (talk • contribs) 06:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The Prince is indeed a satire and that absolutely needs to be presented in the Wiki article.

Machiaveli was exhiled from his beloved Florence and tortured by the De Medicis- he held no love for them. He wrote and published The Prince on his own and delivered it himself to those who had been part of the Florentine Republic before the De Medicis took over.

From the satirical introduction that slyly backhands Lorenzo at every turn to the grossly missquoted "the ends justify the means", to the fact that every example of a Prince in the book ends in absolute failure-- The Prince is a handbook of how NOT to rule and how citizens can rise up against a tyrant.

Time needs to be taken to present this as a counter to the creation of American Political Scientists (of which I'm one) that Machiaveli is "straight" in his advocating rule by power.

I think changing the article to suit this view would be to diverge from the spirit of an encyclopedia, which is not normally taken to be the presentation of a minority viewpoint, even if the particular editor agrees with it. In any case, to say that Machiavelli's reputation is a construction of American political science types is a bit of a stretch: Skinner and Pocock are historians, and Machiavelli had a bad reputation long before the American Political Science Association split off from the American Social Science Association a century ago.
Incidentally, Moses, Cyrus, Romulus, and Theseus turn out rather well, as I recall, as did Alexander VI, Julius II, and Ferdinand the Catholic. It's a bit of an exaggeration to say that every example of a Prince in the book ends in absolute failure. The modern princes tend to fare worse than their ancient counterparts, but that's part of Machiavelli's point, isn't it: he counsels a return to ancient virtue, which was understood politically, which therefore presumed the prior establishment of a political community, which means that those standing at the founding moment (i.e., Princes) are beyond any applicable concept of virtue and vice beyond success, including the Christian virtues which are the cause of his contemporaries' weakness. I'm not going to push this interpretation as the only one, or even say that it represents the consensus of Machiavelli scholars. It does, however, explain why the Prince has a nastier surface than the Discourses without turning the former into a satire, a position that is neither demanded by the text nor shared among those who make it their business to study Machiavelli. RJC Talk 20:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Avoiding Contempt section needs to be edited!

Fair use rationale for Image:The Prince.jpg

Image:The Prince.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use.

There is currently.--76.21.22.240 22:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

There is that, currently.--76.21.22.240 22:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

current page doesn't reflect that.--76.21.22.240 22:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

N/A--76.21.22.240 22:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

BetacommandBot 23:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Publication Date

The recent change of the date of publication in the info box brings up an interesting issue. Which date should be used? The original date of 1513 when he finished it, or 1532 when it was first published at large? Personally, I think that 1532 is more accurate, since that was when it was first published for the public. Thoughts? sdgjake 15:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Publication refers to when the book was made available to the public, 1532. If the Bantam edition says 1513, that's just another reason not to trust it. RJC Talk 15:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

This article full of dubious claims

Reading through this article, seemingly every other sentence makes some at least arguable claim; particularly those about Machiavelli's intent are suspect, as Machiavelli was a deep and subtle thinker, hard to summarize with the brevity of this article. This article should be much more cautious in such assertions, and should provide citations where possible. I'd add “fact” tags to every dubious un-sourced statement, but they would overwhelm the text of the article, so I will refrain. I may try to clean some of this up if I have time sometime (many other projects; finite time), but someone with Machiavelli expertise should really take a look at it. Currently, it makes a rather poor showing for Wikipedia. --jacobolus (t) 07:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Quotes on Contentment

This article quotes the following: "...most men are content as long as they are not deprived of their property and women." but Google widely returns the following: "When neither their property nor their honor is touched, the majority of men live content."

Are both of these accurate quotes? Or do they have the same source? Bushcutter (talk) 17:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

From Chapter XVII: (il principe) "si astenga dalla roba de' sua cittadini e de' sua sudditi, e dalle donne loro", which, literally translated, means: "let the prince stay away from his citizens' and subjects' property, and from their women".--Pebbles (talk) 17:47, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Query on wording

In the section on "Fortune" there is a line which runs: "However, the attitude encapsulates Machiavelli's view of power and his understanding of the lust which follows it." In the context of the discussion, I think "precedes" should replace "follows". Ironiclogic (talk) 13:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, Be bold! I'm not sure I would say that lust lies at the root of a desire for power, but I'm also not sure what the sentence as currently worded is trying to say. RJC Talk Contribs 21:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

What is the Prince

I'm not interested in adding this, but The Prince has been described to me as being ambiguous in that it can be seen EITHER as prescription OR description.24.10.111.154 (talk) 05:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see, taken at face value (as opposed to the view that it's some kind of satire, attempt to deceive Princes, or whatever), 'The Prince' is prescription from start to finish, but it gets called description by those who wish to follow its prescriptions, as this is one of many sanitizing devices such people use to make the book and its followers seem less evil and/or insane than they actually are. In fairness many of the followers may believe their own sanitizing. For instance Tony Blair's adviser Jonathan Powell claims that he is a Machiavellian as is Blair (which he intends as a compliment). But if Powell really was a true Machiavellian, he would have advised Blair to ensure that his rival Gordon Brown met with some unfortunate fatal accident; and if Blair really was a true Machiavellian he would have ensured Powell met with such a fatal accident himself to ensure that future advisers feared Blair enough to avoid timidly failing to advise him to bump off rivals like Brown; and so on. In any case I have my (unprovable) doubts that Machiavelli is the true author, and that this may be what explains the evil/insane prescriptions. I suspect that it is satire by a neo-Savonarolan thinker, as neo-Savonarolans were making something of a comeback in Florence shortly before its publication in 1532 (5 years after Machiavelli's death), and the book can be seen as satirical criticism of the Savonarolans main enemies, the Medici, the Florentine Republicans (including Machiavelli) and the Borgias (who had Savonarola burnt at the stake). I know there is a manuscript 'copy' of The Prince allegedly dating to the 1520s, but, if genuine (fakes might be profitably sold to collectors), it's written by one B. Bonaccorsi (allegedly a friend of Machiavelli's), so perhaps he's the real author and a false friend of Machiavelli's. At any rate such a satirical purpose might explain the evil and/or insane murderous advice that the book is continually prescriptively spouting, while never mentioning that there can be downsides to such behaviour, which is partly why the book's hero, the unusually brutal Cesare Borgia, came to a sticky end soon after the death of his father Pope Alexander VI. Note that if the book really were 'description', then all princes would be like Cesare Borgia, and he wouldn't be the notable villain that he is - and of course in any case Cesare wasn't really a Prince (i.e a ruler) but merely the enforcer for a Prince (his father the Pope), details which don't matter in a work of satire but would matter if the book were intended as serious advice. However I suspect it might be hard to find reliable sources to support any of the above views (especially the highly speculative one that he is not the author, which may easily be ill-informed rubbish on my part), and without such support they can't go into the article. (But if anybody can find reliable sources to support any of them, I'd be delighted to see them in the article). Tlhslobus (talk) 20:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
However, a bit more research now leads me to think that he really is the author, and that the problems that lead me to suspect that he wasn't are best explained by Mary Dietz's theory (already documented in the criticism section) that The Prince is a work of political deception, intended to help overthrow the Medici and restore the republic (out of republican idealism and/or a desire for revenge upon those who had just tortured him horribly earlier in 1513, the year it seems to have been written) by giving them bad advice hidden amid some seemingly good advice. It didn't work but, unfortunately for us, the insistence of self-styled 'realists' and 'political scientists' on admiring it as sound 'description' instead of recognizing it as deliberately unsound 'prescription' (bad advice) has been corrupting governments and consequently harming ordinary people ever since Tlhslobus (talk) 23:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Date of writing

I suggest amending the note to the statement that the Prince was written in 1513 to point to David Wootton's thesis that: "The Prince thus appears to have been written in three stages: Chapters one through twenty-five were written between July and December 1513; chapter twenty-six, probably in early 1515, when Machiavelli hoped for employment; and the dedication, in 1516." (Introduction to The Prince, Hackett 1995, xix-xx). Wootton's discussion here is important because the date of composition is intimately bound up in the interpretation of the Prince as a whole against the background of M.'s career and events in this period. It also has implications for the vexed question of the relationship of the Prince to the Discourses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmratzan (talk • contribs) 02:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it would be good to note Wootton's thesis, but I don't think that it should take over the article or that interpretations should be made in its light. There is very little consensus concerning what Machiavelli intended or how the Prince should be interpreted. We should try to keep the article neutral with regard to those such disputes. RJC Talk Contribs 03:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

some problems with the article

so this is a list of problem quotes annotated (full disclosure i think Leo Strauss was correct in his declaration) that said this is a list of things which i believe to be disputable not absolutely wrong. therefore as whenever there is significant controversy it seems like the best approach is simply to pull an Aristotle and divide and classify those views. this is not global warming where we can say one side is right this is interpretation of literature. therefore this list represents things that i think need to be modified or removed to avoid advocacy in this article. while some of this is nitpicky the word choice in this article will determine the readers impressions as much as anything so seems like its worth changing.

my problems in order

intro: "The treatise is not representative of the work published during his lifetime" (troubling generalization to appear in the introduction. while its certainly true that there are difference in his work between the prince and say the discourses there are also large similarities. ultimately this sentence seems unnecessary and problematic in that it seems to tell the reader, you can sort of ignore this book cause its not what Machiavelli really meant)

overview: (overview of the overview this section just doesn't read encyclopedic. it begins by apologizing for the prince and then attempts to explain it away by reference to the times. furthermore it does this before actually describing the prince. if an overview section is needed make it overview and save analysis and apologies for after a novice reader has actual read what the book says)

"According to Machiavelli, the greatest moral good is a virtuous and stable state, and actions to protect the country are therefore justified even if they are cruel" "http://xkcd.com/285/ justify this with specific text please (preferably from an academically respected translation). and make it from the prince if you'd be so kind. and include in that a discussion of how machiavelli used the word virtu. if you cant find explicit text to support this put this in analysis sections not as naked truth. if you can't do this with text from the prince make note of where this claim comes from.)

"Machiavelli explains to the reader, the "Magnificent Lorenzo de' Medici"[3], member of the Florentine Medici family, the best ways to acquire, maintain, and protect a state. The methods described therein have the general theme of acquiring necessary ends by any means" the content is fine but this is a confusing section. perhaps this would be better: Often coupled with the prince is an introductory letter written by Machiavelli. it explains that the book is given as a gift for Lorenzo de' Medici from Machiavelli. This letter and the gift of the book are striking in the fact that Machiavelli was both strong participant in the ousting of the medici from Venice a few years earlier and in that Machiavelli was tortured by the medici after they took back control over venice" if no one objects i'll add this in once i get back from the holidays to my own version of the prince with citations for all of this

Summary:

"Not intending his writing to be a scholarly treatise on political theory, Machiavelli wrote The Prince to prove his proficiency in the art of the state, offering advice on how a prince might gain and keep power" claims about intent of a writer absent direct evidence about intent are always suspect. furthermore it seems like this language is over broad and generally unclear.

"Machiavelli justified rule by force rather than by law. Accordingly, The Prince seems to justify a number of actions done solely to perpetuate power. It is a classic study of power—its acquisition, expansion, and effective use" (my reading is that he simply does not justify anything. he never claims to be moral simply advocates things as ways to maintain or grow power. basically once again language that makes questionable statements in a vague and imprecise way (though to him to maintain power one must grow in power)


Defense and military is written as if it were from the view of the not a reader but from machiavelli... anyway i'm tired and i'll finish later / rewrite the whole thing then post it for commentary before replacing the article Beckeckeck (talk) 12:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Overlord

I notice that the 'Evil Overlord' list is in the Similar Works section. Can someone provide a good reason for its inclusion?

History of the book.

This article is basically just a summary of the book. While that's important, it perhaps goes on a bit too long -- detailed summaries aren't really what Wikipedia is for. More importantly, though, aside from some very brief introductory paragraphs, the article provides no other information about the book beyond what you could find in its text -- nothing about the circumstances under which it was written (which are somewhat unusual and noteworthy), nothing about how it was first published and the circumstances under which it came to attract so much attention, and only a very, very short and vague section on reactions to it. Perhaps these aspects need to be improved? --Aquillion (talk) 03:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

am working on the article

Just a heads up that I have been making occasional edits and intend to keep doing it. I know I have not yet done much proper sourcing, but I certainly do intend to leave it that way. I am trying to get the article into a form I know that CAN be better sourced. Attaching the right sourcing is easier in weekends! Please feel free however to point to anything that looks unsource-able or wrong or incomprehensible. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


Section 2 right now is a kind of grab bag of some interesting bits from the book. I do not say that summarizing the book is the final goal but given that this section already dominates the article I may try making a draft of a real summary of the book on my userspace. It need not be used, but:- If there is going to be a section which summarizes the book, I am thinking it needs to be more strictly done. If there is going to be some other way of explaining the book I am thinking it might more easily develop from such an attempt than from the current section 2. Comments welcome.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Adding some sources to the synopses would be a good thing.--Nemonoman (talk) 13:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
The article has a lot of sources and synopses, so you could explain in a bit more detail what you mean?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

File:The Prince.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:The Prince.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Importance of secondary sources: current editing

There has been some back and forth of edits, involving the deletion of the Gilbert secondary source. I would like to call for comments from editors. The diff: [1]--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

In the original text, every time a point was made, it digressed to some quote by Gilbert, breaking the flow of ideas. This new version is a more succinct summary. An historian's perspective on Machiavelli is of secondary interest. If you're going to use that, at least insert it at the end of the section so that the main body of text remains cohesive.Kurzon (talk) 07:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
I do understand your point and have sympathy for it, but just summarizing a book, without any reference to secondary sources, is controversial on Wikipedia? The Gilbert source were simple and uncontroversial ones put in to give context, which is often something readers of Machiavelli sorely need, because people often misunderstand which things in Machiavelli are new or not, and this is exactly one of the big interests many people have in Machiavelli (i.e., which things were his innovations). Please comment on that, and please I would request to not continue those deletions of this source too quickly because we have already had some reverts, and I think it is better to slow down a bit and now ask for comment for more editors.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
I think WP:NOR is quite clear that we should cite secondary sources rather than interpret the primary sources ourselves. Given, 1938 is a bit old, but the solution there is to supplement it with newer sources. It should be removed only if it has been thoroughly discredited or if we already have 2-3 contemporary sources for a statement and it is simply cluttering the page. It is better to have a statement cited to an old source, however, than to have statements not supported by a source. RJC TalkContribs 13:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
I restored my edits and added the Gilbert references to the end of them. Is this compromise satisfactory?Kurzon (talk) 15:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Commentary on last chapter

But it is unusual that the Medici family's position of Papal power is specifically named as something they should use as a personal power base, just as the Borgia family had recently attempted, and as is discussed throughout the book. (Pope Leo X was pope at the time and a de Medici.)

- I don't think this is "unusual", Machiavelli wanted the Medici Pope to unite Italy wheras he thought the Borgia Pope was responsible for Italy's "enslavement [by] the barbarians."ProfNax (talk) 05:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that feedback. The sentence, which was probably mine, does not intend to say that such ideas are unusual, but it does intend to say that putting such advice in writing was a new and shocking thing. (It is still a bit shocking if you think about it. The position of the church was different in society and politics - powerful and trusted. Imagine a newspaper editor writing in public that he thinks a judge should use his position in the legal system to create a change of regime, and make a member of his own family the new president.) ...So anyway I have tried to tweak the wording and I hope it works better, but it is of course just my attempt and if others can do better.... --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The word pigliare in the title of the last chapter

User:Enok has insisted on changing the first verb in last chapter title in this article, converting the word "seize" to "liberate", and I would like to register a concern about it and request comment. My own notes follow:

  • In edit comments, Enok has cited two English translations which are online, one on Wikisource and one in an online "collection of children's literature is a part of the Educational Technology Clearinghouse". One is from 1910 and the other from 1916. In that period I would say that it is not controversial to say that English translations of classic works like this did not aim at being literal.
  • The more modern translations, including ones which state their aim as trying to be more literal, all seem to translate as "seize" or similar. For example Harvey Mansfield in 1985, and Stephen J Milner in 1995 both have seize. Leo Paul S de Alvarez in his 1999 commentary has "lay hold of". Allan Gilbert in 1989 (Volume I of Chief Works and Others) uses "grasp" which is clearly closer to seize than to liberate.
  • While Enok registers that he/she is Italian, the word in Italian texts is wikt:pigliare which wiktionary describes as "pigliare: (transitive) A more familiar form of prendere, to take." Italian on the other hand has a straightfoward word for liberate, liberare, which does not seem to have pigliare as a synonym. I have looked at other dictionaries and this seems indisputable? In fact this word is also used in the title of this same chapter, which is an exhortation to liberate/seize Italy and free her from the barbarians.
  • I believe the chapter headings were originally in Latin, not Italian. In Latin the text said "capessendum". Again using wiktionary for convenience, this is the accusative feminine singular of capessendus, "which is to be snatched". So also in Latin this does not say liberate, (but once again the second verbal word in the title clearly does).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:41, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
It's also a very famous quote.--Enok (talk) 10:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Enok, the original language of the main text of the Prince is indeed Italian, but the titles are in Latin. How can you not know? :) (In many Italian translations they are translated, I know.)
  • I can not see how citing very old translations is any kind of evidence or argument that the word should be liberate. Please explain further. Apart from this very famous case, does pigliare ever mean liberate for example? And more to the point what about Latin capessendum?
  • You are right that it is a very famous quote and that is a good reason to be careful. Many centuries later the quote has become a famous moment for Italian nationalism. But Machiavelli made a title which included two verbs, one appealing to the self-interest of his hoped for princely readers, and one appealing to Italian nationalism. Such a mixture is quite typical (and I would say important) in Machiavelli. Getting rid of this complexity in order to give a simpler message to modern readers is typical of 19th century and early 20th century translators, but not necessarily something we need follow?
  • Have you got any remark about all the strong sources I gave which are more modern and scholarly counter examples? I think according to WP policy we should see that as important.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Because we are dealing with the translation of something from the sixteenth century, I don't think that modern language skills are relevant here. The question of what capessendam would mean to a sixteenth-century speaker of Florentine Italian is one for scholars, and I trust that modern translators have engaged in that kind of scholarship. We should rely on how they translate the title, rather than on how we might translate it. Mansfield has "seize." Corrado Vivanti translates capessendam as pigliare. The Dover Thrift Edition doesn't try to translate the full title at all: "An Exhortation to Liberate Italy from the Barbarians" (rather than capessendam ... libertatemque). It uses the public domain (read: old) translation of N.H. Thompson. I'd say the best sources are on the side of having "seize" separate from "liberate." RJC TalkContribs 14:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
The titles are in Latin, but they are accompanied by a translation into Italian made ​​by Machiavelli himself. Even in the text of the paragraph the word "liberate" is used and the concepts clearly refer to that idea ("free Italy from the barbarians"; liberty and freedom are the same word in Italian). I can't find the original text, but here is another source of 1814. --Enok (talk) 18:52, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I had not heard Machiavelli made the translations himself. How, then, are they omitted from the text of the Vivanti critical edition and relegated to endnotes? What is the history of the various Italian translations of the titles? RJC TalkContribs 21:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Well even if he did translate the Latin titles, if both the Italian and Latin do not say liberate, why would we use 19th and early 20th century translations as a reference to "prove" otherwise? Again; it is a known characteristic of those translations that they are trying to "help" people understand, and removing complexity.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:31, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on The Prince. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Length of Summary Section

I think the summary section is longer than the Cliffs Notes for this book. If it is to be kept at this length, I feel it needs to have a separate page.

It's generally opposed to have a separate "Plot Summary of X" page, though. A page-name suggestion would be appreciated. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:16, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Prince. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:13, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Prince/Archive_1&oldid=1142313306"