Guidelines for writing an interpretive essaydo not use the w

GUIDELINES FOR WRITING AN INTERPRETIVE ESSAY
DO NOT USE THE WORDS “INCREDIBLE,”
“UNBELIEVABLE,” OR “AWESOME” UNLESS YOU KNOW
EXACTLY WHAT THEY MEAN AND YOU USE THEM
CORRECTLY.
Write a five- to seven-page essay on ONE of the following:
SEQ CHAPTER h r 1
(1) Many rulers have found justification for dictatorship in
Machiavell’s The Prince. How would Locke criticize
Machiavelli’s The Prince?
How would Marx/Engels criticize Locke’s Second Treatise on
Government?
Be sure to discuss the issues of rulers who are above the law or
have no morality, and the role of private property in politics and
society.
(2) Machiavelli, Locke, and Marx have opinions about human
nature. How do these authors' conceptions of human nature lead
them to their conclusions?
1. SOURCES
Use only assigned readings and lecture notes. You are not
required to produce a research paper for this course, so it will
not be necessary to use outside sources. This assignment is an
exercise in interpreting material that has been covered in the
course. Therefore, DO NOT CONSULT INTERNET SITES. I

am not interested in other people’s ideas about the books or the
authors. I am interested in YOUR ideas.
II.
EXPLANATION
An interpretive essay involves critical and creative thinking
about the issues raised by the material covered in lectures,
discussions, and readings. A simple narration of facts will not
result in a good essay. What you will need to do is present
arguments, that is, a series of related propositions supported by
evidence. This assignment allows you to be the historian, for
you will offer your own perspectives on history.
III.
FORMAT
Every essay must have an introduction, a body, and a
conclusion.
1. Introduction: The introduction should be in the form of a
thesis statement. Whatever form it takes, it should include the
major points you are going to make and your argument (thesis).
2. Body: In the body of the essay, you supply the evidence that
“proves” the thesis. Here you present the relevant facts (not just
any piece of information that comes to mind) in a logical
manner. A “logical manner” means a carefully thought-out
presentation that leads the reader to an understanding of your
point of view, much in the manner that one follows a series of
steps in a mathematical proof. History, however, is unlike
mathematics because in history there is no one single “right”
answer. That is why the logic of your argument is so important;
you must convince the reader that your argument is “right.”
Do not merely state your ideas. Explain them fully. It should
not be left to the reader to infer meaning from the evidence
presented or to “read between the lines.”

3. Conclusion: The conclusion of an interpretive essay should
include a brief summary of the main points of the argument
presented in the body of the paper. The concluding paragraph is
your last chance to convince the reader of the validity of your
point of view, so try to make it as clear and persuasive as
possible.
4. Bibliography of work cited. On a separate sheet of paper, list
the works cited. List them in alphabetical order by last name
(surname) of the author. Do not pad the bibliography; list only
those things actually cited.
Example:
Locke, John. Second Treatise on Government. On Line:
Gutenberg.org/files/7370
Machiavelli, Niccolò. The Prince. New York: Bantam Books,
1981.
IV. WRITING
Unfortunately, we are not born with good writing skills. We
must learn them. Therefore, we should always be prepared to
work hard when composing an interpretive essay. Write, review
what you have written, and edit.
1. Good grammar, spelling, and punctuation are necessary
components of all academic essays. Grammatical errors weaken
the logic and presentation of your argument.
2. Good organization is also very important. Think carefully in
order to find the best way to organize the source material to
support your argument. Bad organization breaks the logic.
3. All papers must be printed or typed, double-spaced, using
font size 12 with approximately one-inch margins on the left,

right and bottom of the page. Please do not try to play with the
margins or use large fonts in order to make your paper look
longer. This does not fool anyone. Rather, it annoys the person
who will be grading your paper.
4. Avoid the use of colloquialisms and slang. These do not
belong in an academic paper.
5. Contractions, also, are not used in formal, expository
writing. Thus, instead of “he didn’t ” write “he did not.”
6. Use the past tense when writing about events that occurred
in the past. Use the present tense when discussing an author
and his or her work.
7. Minimize or avoid altogether the use of the passive voice.
For example, one often reads sentences like, “They were
impressed by his manner.” “His manner impressed them”
communicates the same idea more directly.
V. CITATIONS AND PLAGIARISM
This is not a formal, research paper, so you do not need to use
footnotes or endnotes, although you may use them if you so
desire. Immediate citation in the text will be acceptable. When
citing a text, give the author and the page number in
parentheses immediately following the citation.
Example: “There can be no proper relation between one who is
armed and one who is not.” (Machiavelli, p. 54).
AVOID PLAGIARISM! You commit plagiarism if you present
the words or ideas of another person as your own. Intellectual
integrity is the foundation of all academic disciplines.
Plagiarism is a grave offense, for which one can be dismissed
from the University of California. Although intent is basic to
plagiarism, many students unknowingly commit acts, which,

technically speaking, constitute plagiarism. If you adhere to the
following rules conscientiously, you will not have any problems
in this regard.
1. When citing the exact words of another author, or when
citing a portion of text, always place the material in question
inside quotation marks, and then immediately and exactly
identify the source.
2. If you borrow a phrase, or more importantly, an idea from an
author or text, you must identify the source, i.e., acknowledge
that the phrase or idea is not your own creation.
3. Do not use another student’s work. First and foremost, do
not use “re-cycled papers,” papers produced by students in the
past and saved in the hope that they might be useful to a friend
who happens to be taking the same course at a later date.
Teaching assistants and instructors are keenly aware of this
practice, and keep a sharp eye out for such “re-cycled” work.
Another form of cheating is to get a paper off the internet. Just
remember: your paper has to be submitted through
SafeAssignment, which allows us to track down the source of
papers taken off the web. These forms of cheating will result in
a judicial investigation and possible expulsion from the
University. If you are called to attend a disciplinary meeting,
you may bring your lawyer.
4. Since this is NOT a group assignment, DO NOT SHARE your
work with other students. Treat it like a test, which you would
also not share with a fellow student. If you loan your paper to a
fellow student who then copies material from you, then you
have facilitated cheating. As a result, you will be called before
the student disciplinary committee. If you borrow a fellow
student’s paper and then steal some of it, you have committed
plagiarism and will be called before the student disciplinary
committee. You will be put on academic probation and possibly
expelled from the University. Always remember this: SUBMIT

ONLY YOUR OWN WORK.
5. Make certain that all paraphrased material is written in your
own style and language.
6. A general rule: when in doubt, cite. You will not have any
problems if acceptable citations are provided for all borrowed
items.
3
Manifesto of the Communist Party
by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels
February 1848
Written: Late 1847;
First Published: February 1848;
Source: Marx/Engels Selected Works, Vol. One, Progress
Publishers, Moscow, 1969, pp. 98-137;
Translated: Samuel Moore in cooperation with Frederick
Engels, 1888;
Transcribed: by Zodiac and Brian Baggins;
Proofed: and corrected against 1888 English Edition by Andy
Blunden 2004;
Copyleft: Marxists Internet Archive (marxists.org) 1987, 2000,
2010. Permission is granted to
distribute this document under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution-Share-Alike License.
Table of Contents
Editorial Introduction
...............................................................................................

....................... 2
Preface to The 1872 German Edition
..............................................................................................
4
Preface to The 1882 Russian Edition
..............................................................................................
5
..............................................................................................
6
Preface to The 1888 English
Edition....................................................................................
........... 7
............................................................................................
10
Preface to The 1892 Polish Edition
...............................................................................................
12
Preface to The 1893 Italian
Edition....................................................................................
........... 13
Manifesto of the Communist
Party.......................................................................................
......... 14
I. Bourgeois and Proletarians
...............................................................................................
......... 14
II. Proletarians and Communists
...............................................................................................
.... 22
III. Socialist and Communist Literature
........................................................................................ 28
1. Reactionary Socialism
............................................................................................. ..

........ 28
A. Feudal Socialism
...............................................................................................
....... 28
B. Petty-Bourgeois Socialism
....................................................................................... 29
C. German or “True” Socialism
.................................................................................... 29
2. Conservative or Bourgeois Socialism
............................................................................... 31
3. Critical-Utopian Socialism and
Communism.................................................................... 32
IV. Position of the Communists in Relation to the Various
Existing Opposition Parties ............. 34
Letter from Engels to Marx, 24 November 1847
.......................................................................... 35
Draft of a Communist Confession of Faith
................................................................................... 36
The Principles of Communism
...............................................................................................
....... 41
Demands of the Communist Party in
Germany............................................................................. 55
The Paris Commune. Address to the International
Workingmen’s Association, May 1871......... 58
Endnotes
...............................................................................................
......................................... 67
2 Introduction
Editorial Introduction

The “Manifesto of the Communist Party” was written by Marx
and Engels as the Communist
League’s programme on the instruction of its Second Congress
(London, November 29-December 8,
1847), which signified a victory for the followers of a new
proletarian line during the discussion of the
programme questions.
When Congress was still in preparation, Marx and Engels
arrived at the conclusion that the final
programme document should be in the form of a Party manifesto
(see Engels’ letter to Marx of
November 23-24, 1847). The catechism form usual for the
secret societies of the time and retained in
the “Draft of a Communist Confession of Faith” and “Principles
of Communism,” was not suitable for
a full and substantial exposition of the new revolutionary world
outlook, for a comprehensive
formulation of the proletarian movement’s aims and tasks. See
also “Demands of the Communist
Party in Germany,” issued by Marx soon after publication of the
Manifesto, which addressed the
immediate demands of the movement.
Marx and Engels began working together on the Manifesto
while they were still in London
immediately after the congress, and continued until about
December 13 when Marx returned to
Brussels; they resumed their work four days later (December
17) when Engels arrived there. After
Engels’ departure for Paris at the end of December and up to his
return on January 31, Marx worked
on the Manifesto alone.
Hurried by the Central Authority of the Communist League
which provided him with certain
documents (e.g., addresses of the People’s Chamber (Halle) of
the League of the Just of November

1846 and February 1847, and, apparently, documents of the
First Congress of the Communist League
pertaining to the discussion of the Party programme), Marx
worked intensively on the Manifesto
through almost the whole of January 1848. At the end of
January the manuscript was sent on to
London to be printed in the German Workers’ Educational
Society’s print shop owned by a German
emigrant J. E. Burghard, a member of the Communist League.
The manuscript of the Manifesto has not survived. The only
extant materials written in Marx’s hand
are a draft plan for Section III, showing his efforts to improve
the structure of the Manifesto, and a
page of a rough copy.
The Manifesto came off the press at the end of February 1848.
On February 29, the Educational
Society decided to cover all the printing expenses.
The first edition of the Manifesto was a 23-page pamphlet in a
dark green cover. In April-May 1848
another edition was put out. The text took up 30 pages, some
misprints of the first edition were
corrected, and the punctuation improved. Subsequently this text
was used by Marx and Engels as a
basis for later authorised editions. Between March and July
1848 the Manifesto was printed in the
Deutsche Londoner Zeitung, a democratic newspaper of the
German emigrants. Already that same
year numerous efforts were made to publish the Manifesto in
other European languages. A Danish, a
Polish (in Paris) and a Swedish (under a different title: “The
Voice of Communism. Declaration of the
Communist Party”) editions appeared in 1848. The translations
into French, Italian and Spanish made
at that time remained unpublished. In April 1848, Engels, then
in Barmen, was translating the
Manifesto into English, but he managed to translate only half of

it, and the first English translation,
made by Helen Macfarlane, was not published until two years
later, between June and November 1850,
in the Chartist journal The Red Republican. Its editor, Jul ian
Harney, named the authors for the first
time in the introduction to this publication. All earlier and many
subsequent editions of the Manifesto
were anonymous.
The growing emancipation struggle of the proletariat in the ’60s
and ’70s of the 19th century led to
new editions of the Manifesto. The year 1872 saw a new
German edition with minor corrections and a
preface by Marx and Engels where they drew some conclusions
from the experience of the Paris
3 Introduction
Commune of 1871. This and subsequent German editions (1883
and 1890) were entitled the
Communist Manifesto. In 1872 the Manifesto was first
published in America in Woodhull & Claflin’s
Weekly.
The first Russian edition of the Manifesto, translated by
Mikhail Bakunin with some distortions,
appeared in Geneva in 1869. The faults of this edition were
removed in the 1882 edition (translation
by Georgi Plekhanov), for which Marx and Engels, who
attributed great significance to the
dissemination of Marxism in Russia, had written a special
preface.
After Marx’s death, the Manifesto ran into several editions.
Engels read through them all, wrote
prefaces for the 1883 German edition and for the 1888 English
edition in Samuel Moore’s translation,

which he also edited and supplied with notes. This edition
served as a basis for many subsequent
editions of the Manifesto in English – in Britain, the United
States and the USSR. In 1890, Engels
prepared a further German edition, wrote a new preface to it,
and added a number of notes. In 1885,
the newspaper Le Socialiste published the French translation of
the Manifesto made by Marx’s
daughter Laura Lafargue and read by Engels. He also wrote
prefaces to the 1892 Polish and 1893
Italian editions.
This edition includes the two earlier versions of the Manifesto,
namely the draft “Communist
Confession of Faith” and “The Principles of Communism,” both
authored by Engels, as well as the
letter from Engels to Marx which poses the idea of publishing a
“manifesto,” rather than a catechism.
The Manifesto addressed itself to a mass movement with
historical significance, not a political sect.
On the other hand, the “Demands of the Communist Party in
Germany” is included to place the
publication of the Manifesto in the context of the mass
movement in Germany at the time, whose
immediate demands are reflected by Marx in this pamphlet.
Clearly the aims of the Manifesto were
more far-reaching the movement in Germany at the time, and
unlike the “Demands,” was intended to
outlive the immediate conditions.
The “Third Address to the International Workingmen’s
Association” is included because in this
speech Marx examines the movement of the working class
manifested in the Paris Commune, and his
observations here mark the only revisions to his social and
historical vision made during his lifetime
as a result of the development of the working class movement
itself, clarifying some points and

making others more concrete.
The Communist League, an international association of workers,
which could of course be only a
secret one, under conditions obtaining at the time,
commissioned us, the undersigned, at the
Congress held in London in November 1847, to write for
publication a detailed theoretical and
practical programme for the Party. Such was the origin of the
following Manifesto, the
manuscript of which travelled to London to be printed a few
weeks before the February [French]
Revolution [in 1848]. First published in German, it has been
republished in that language in at
least twelve different editions in Germany, England, and
America. It was published in English for
the first time in 1850 in the Red Republican, London, translated
by Miss Helen Macfarlane, and
in 1871 in at least three different translations in America. The
French version first appeared in
Paris shortly before the June insurrection of 1848, and recently
in Le Socialiste of New York. A
new translation is in the course of preparation. A Polish version
appeared in London shortly after
it was first published in Germany. A Russian translation was
published in Geneva in the sixties1.
Into Danish, too, it was translated shortly after its appearance.
However much that state of things may have altered during the
last twenty-five years, the general
principles laid down in the Manifesto are, on the whole, as

correct today as ever. Here and there,
some detail might be improved. The practical application of the
principles will depend, as the
Manifesto itself states, everywhere and at all times, on the
historical conditions for the time being
existing, and, for that reason, no special stress is laid on the
revolutionary measures proposed at
the end of Section II. That passage would, in many respects, be
very differently worded today. In
view of the gigantic strides of Modern Industry since 1848, and
of the accompanying improved
and extended organization of the working class, in view of the
practical experience gained, first in
the February Revolution, and then, still more, in the Paris
Commune, where the proletariat for the
first time held political power for two whole months, this
programme has in some details been
antiquated. One thing especially was proved by the Commune,
viz., that “the working class
cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and
wield it for its own purposes.”
(See The Civil War in France: Address of the General Council
of the International Working
Men’s Association, 1871, where this point is further developed.)
Further, it is self-evident that the
criticism of socialist literature is deficient in relation to the
present time, because it comes down
only to 1847; also that the remarks on the relation of the
Communists to the various opposition
parties (Section IV), although, in principle still correct, yet i n
practice are antiquated, because the
political situation has been entirely changed, and the progress
of history has swept from off the
earth the greater portion of the political parties there
enumerated.
But then, the Manifesto has become a historical document which

we have no longer any right to
alter. A subsequent edition may perhaps appear with an
introduction bridging the gap from 1847
to the present day; but this reprint was too unexpected to leave
us time for that.
Karl Marx & Frederick Engels
June 24, 1872, London
Preface to The 1882 Russian Edition
The first Russian edition of the Manifesto of the Communist
Party, translated by Bakunin, was
published early in the ‘sixties by the printing office of the
Kolokol [a reference to the Free
Russian Printing House]. Then the West could see in it (the
Russian edition of the Manifesto)
only a literary curiosity. Such a view would be impossible
today.
What a limited field the proletarian movement occupied at that
time (December 1847) is most
clearly shown by the last section: the position of the
Communists in relation to the various
opposition parties in various countries. Precisely Russia and the
United States are missing here. It
was the time when Russia constituted the last great reserve of
all European reaction, when the
United States absorbed the surplus proletarian forces of Europe
through immigration. Both
countries provided Europe with raw materials and were at the
same time markets for the sale of
its industrial products. Both were, therefore, in one way of
another, pillars of the existing

European system.
How very different today. Precisely European immigration
fitted North American for a gigantic
agricultural production, whose competition is shaking the very
foundations of European landed
property – large and small. At the same time, it enabled the
United States to exploit its
tremendous industrial resources with an energy and on a scale
that must shortly break the
industrial monopoly of Western Europe, and especially of
England, existing up to now. Both
circumstances react in a revolutionary manner upon America
itself. Step by step, the small and
middle land ownership of the farmers, the basis of the whole
political constitution, is succumbing
to the competition of giant farms; at the same time, a mass
industrial proletariat and a fabulous
concentration of capital funds are developing for the first time
in the industrial regions.
And now Russia! During the Revolution of 1848-9, not only the
European princes, but the
European bourgeois as well, found their only salvation from the
proletariat just beginning to
awaken in Russian intervention. The Tsar was proclaimed the
chief of European reaction. Today,
he is a prisoner of war of the revolution in Gatchina 2 , and
Russia forms the vanguard of
revolutionary action in Europe.
The Communist Manifesto had, as its object, the proclamation
of the inevitable impending
dissolution of modern bourgeois property. But in Russia we
find, face-to-face with the rapidly
flowering capitalist swindle and bourgeois property, just
beginning to develop, more than half the
land owned in common by the peasants. Now the question is:
can the Russian obshchina, though

greatly undermined, yet a form of primeval common ownership
of land, pass directly to the
higher form of Communist common ownership? Or, on the
contrary, must it first pass through the
same process of dissolution such as constitutes the historical
evolution of the West?
The only answer to that possible today is this: If the Russian
Revolution becomes the signal for a
proletarian revolution in the West, so that both complement
each other, the present Russian
common ownership of land may serve as the starting point for a
communist development.
Karl Marx & Frederick Engels
January 21, 1882, London
The preface to the present edition I must, alas, sign alone.
Marx, the man to whom the whole
working class of Europe and America owes more than to any
one else – rests at Highgate
Cemetery and over his grave the first grass is already growing.
Since his death [March 14, 1883],
there can be even less thought of revising or supplementing the
Manifesto. But I consider it all the
more necessary again to state the following expressly:
The basic thought running through the Manifesto – that
economic production, and the structure of
society of every historical epoch necessarily arising therefrom,
constitute the foundation for the
political and intellectual history of that epoch; that
consequently (ever since the dissolution of the

primaeval communal ownership of land) all history has been a
history of class struggles, of
struggles between exploited and exploiting, between dominated
and dominating classes at various
stages of social evolution; that this struggle, however, has now
reached a stage where the
exploited and oppressed class (the proletariat) can no longer
emancipate itself from the class
which exploits and oppresses it (the bourgeoisie), without at the
same time forever freeing the
whole of society from exploitation, oppression, class struggles –
this basic thought belongs solely
and exclusively to Marx.*
I have already stated this many times; but precisely now is it
necessary that it also stand in front
of the Manifesto itself.
Frederick Engels
June 28, 1883, London
* “This proposition,” I wrote in the preface to the English
translation, “which, in my opinion, is destined to do for
history what Darwin’ s theory has done for biology, we both of
us, had been gradually approaching for some years
before 1845. How far I had independently progressed towards it
is best shown by my Conditions of the Working Class
in England. But when I again met Marx at Brussels, in spring
1845, he had it already worked out and put it before me
in terms almost as clear as those in which I have stated it here.”
[Note by Engels to the German edition of 1890]
Preface to The 1888 English Edition

The Manifesto was published as the platform of the Communist
League, a working men’ s
association, first exclusively German, later on international, and
under the political conditions of
the Continent before 1848, unavoidably a secret society. At a
Congress of the League, held in
November 1847, Marx and Engels were commissioned to
prepare a complete theoretical and
practical party programme. Drawn up in German, in January
1848, the manuscript was sent to the
printer in London a few weeks before the French Revolution of
February 24. A French translation
was brought out in Paris shortly before the insurrection of June
1848. The first English
translation, by Miss Helen Macfarlane, appeared in George
Julian Harney’ s Red Republican,
London, 1850. A Danish and a Polish edition had also been
published.
The defeat of the Parisian insurrection of June 1848 – the first
great battle between proletariat and
bourgeoisie – drove again into the background, for a time, the
social and political aspirations of
the European working class. Thenceforth, the struggle for
supremacy was, again, as it had been
before the Revolution of February, solely between different
sections of the propertied class; the
working class was reduced to a fight for political elbow -room,
and to the position of extreme
wing of the middle-class Radicals. Wherever independent
proletarian movements continued to
show signs of life, they were ruthlessly hunted down. Thus the
Prussian police hunted out the
Central Board of the Communist League, then located in
Cologne. The members were arrested
and, after eighteen months’ imprisonment, they were tried in

October 1852. This celebrated
“Cologne Communist Trial” lasted from October 4 till
November 12; seven of the prisoners were
sentenced to terms of imprisonment in a fortress, varying from
three to six years. Immediately
after the sentence, the League was formally dissolved by the
remaining members. As to the
Manifesto, it seemed henceforth doomed to oblivion.
When the European workers had recovered sufficient strength
for another attack on the ruling
classes, the International Working Men’ s Association sprang
up. But this association, formed
with the express aim of welding into one body the whole
militant proletariat of Europe and
America, could not at once proclaim the principles laid down in
the Manifesto. The International
was bound to have a programme broad enough to be acceptable
to the English trade unions, to the
followers of Proudhon in France, Belgium, Italy, and Spain, and
to the Lassalleans in Germany.*
Marx, who drew up this programme to the satisfaction of all
parties, entirely trusted to the
intellectual development of the working class, which was sure
to result from combined action and
mutual discussion. The very events and vicissitudes i n the
struggle against capital, the defeats
even more than the victories, could not help bringing home to
men’ s minds the insufficiency of
their various favorite nostrums, and preparing the way for a
more complete insight into the true
conditions for working-class emancipation. And Marx was right.
The International, on its
breaking in 1874, left the workers quite different men from
what it found them in 1864.
Proudhonism in France, Lassalleanism in Germany, were dying
out, and even the conservative

English trade unions, though most of them had long since
severed their connection with the
International, were gradually advancing towards that point at
which, last year at Swansea, their
president [W. Bevan] could say in their name: “Continental
socialism has lost its terror for us.” In
fact, the principles of the Manifesto had made considerable
headway among the working men of
all countries.
* Lassalle personally, to us, always acknowledged himself to be
a disciple of Marx, and, as such, stood on the ground of
the Manifesto. But in his first public agitation, 1862-1864, he
did not go beyond demanding co-operative workshops
supported by state credit.
8 Preface to the 1888 English Edition
The Manifesto itself came thus to the front again. Since 1850,
the German text had been reprinted
several times in Switzerland, England, and America. In 1872, it
was translated into English in
New York, where the translation was published in Woorhull and
Claflin’s Weekly. From this
English version, a French one was made in Le Socialiste of New
York. Since then, at least two
more English translations, more or less mutilated, have been
brought out in America, and one of
them has been reprinted in England. The first Russian
translation, made by Bakunin, was
published at Herzen’ s Kolokol office in Geneva, about 1863; a
second one, by the heroic Vera
Zasulich, also in Geneva, in 1882. A new Danish edition is to be

found in Socialdemokratisk
Bibliothek, Copenhagen, 1885; a fresh French translation in Le
Socialiste, Paris, 1886. From this
latter, a Spanish version was prepared and published in Madrid,
1886. The German reprints are
not to be counted; there have been twelve altogether at the least.
An Armenian translation, which
was to be published in Constantinople some months ago, did not
see the light, I am told, because
the publisher was afraid of bringing out a book with the name of
Marx on it, while the translator
declined to call it his own production. Of further translations
into other languages I have heard
but had not seen. Thus the history of the Manifesto reflects the
history of the modern working-
class movement; at present, it is doubtless the most wide
spread, the most international
production of all socialist literature, the common platform
acknowledged by millions of working
men from Siberia to California.
Yet, when it was written, we could not have called it a socialist
manifesto. By Socialists, in 1847,
were understood, on the one hand the adherents of the various
Utopian systems: Owenites in
England, Fourierists in France, both of them already reduced to
the position of mere sects, and
gradually dying out; on the other hand, the most multifarious
social quacks who, by all manner of
tinkering, professed to redress, without any danger to capital
and profit, all sorts of social
grievances, in both cases men outside the working-class
movement, and looking rather to the
“educated” classes for support. Whatever portion of the working
class had become convinced of
the insufficiency of mere political revolutions, and had
proclaimed the necessity of total social

change, called itself Communist. It was a crude, rough-hewn,
purely instinctive sort of
communism; still, it touched the cardinal point and was
powerful enough amongst the working
class to produce the Utopian communism of Cabet in France,
and of Weitling in Germany. Thus,
in 1847, socialism was a middle-class movement, communism a
working-class movement.
Socialism was, on the Continent at least, “respectable”;
communism was the very opposite. And
as our notion, from the very beginning, was that “the
emancipation of the workers must be the act
of the working class itself,” there could be no doubt as to which
of the two names we must take.
Moreover, we have, ever since, been far from repudiating it.
The Manifesto being our joint production, I consider myself
bound to state that the fundamental
proposition which forms the nucleus belongs to Marx. That
proposition is: That in every
historical epoch, the prevailing mode of economic production
and exchange, and the social
organization necessarily following from it, form the basis upon
which it is built up, and from that
which alone can be explained the political and intellectual
history of that epoch; that consequently
the whole history of mankind (since the dissolution of primitive
tribal society, holding land in
common ownership) has been a history of class struggles,
contests between exploiting and
exploited, ruling and oppressed classes; That the history of
these class struggles forms a series of
evolutions in which, nowadays, a stage has been reached where
the exploited and oppressed class
– the proletariat – cannot attain its emancipation from the sway
of the exploiting and ruling class
– the bourgeoisie – without, at the same time, and once and for

all, emancipating society at large
from all exploitation, oppression, class distinction, and class
struggles.
This proposition, which, in my opinion, is destined to do for
history what Darwin’ s theory has
done for biology, we both of us, had been gradually approaching
for some years before 1845.
How far I had independently progressed towards it is best
shown by my “Conditions of the
Working Class in England.” But when I again met Marx at
Brussels, in spring 1845, he had it
9 Preface to the 1888 English Edition
already worked out and put it before me in terms almost as clear
as those in which I have stated it
here.
From our joint preface to the German edition of 1872, I quote
the following:
“However much that state of things may have altered during the
last twenty-five
years, the general principles laid down in the Manifesto are, on
the whole, as
correct today as ever. Here and there, some detail might be
improved. The
practical application of the principles will depend, as the
Manifesto itself states,
everywhere and at all times, on the historical conditions for the
time being
existing, and, for that reason, no special stress is laid on the
revolutionary
measures proposed at the end of Section II. That passage would,
in many respects,

be very differently worded today. In view of the gigantic strides
of Modern
Industry since 1848, and of the accompanying improved and
extended
organization of the working class, in view of the practical
experience gained, first
in the February Revolution, and then, still more, in the Paris
Commune, where the …
Download free eBooks of classic literature, books and
novels at Planet eBook. Subscribe to our free eBooks blog
and email newsletter.
The Prince
By Nicolo Machiavelli (1532)
http://www.planetebook.com/
The Prince�
Nicolo Machiavelli, born at Florence on 3rd May 1469. From
1494 to 1512 held an official post at Florence which included
diplomatic missions to various European courts. Imprisoned
in Florence, 1512; later exiled and returned to San Casciano.
Died at Florence on 22nd June 1527.
�Free eBooks at Planet eBook.com
INTRODUCTION

Nicolo Machiavelli was born at Florence on 3rd May 1469. He
was the second son of Bernardo di Nicolo
Machiavelli, a lawyer of some repute, and of Bartolommea
di Stefano Nelli, his wife. Both parents were members of the
old Florentine nobility.
His life falls naturally into three periods, each of which
singularly enough constitutes a distinct and important era
in the history of Florence. His youth was concurrent with
the greatness of Florence as an Italian power under the
guidance of Lorenzo de’ Medici, Il Magnifico. The downfall
of the Medici in Florence occurred in 1494, in which year
Machiavelli entered the public service. During his official
career Florence was free under the government of a Re-
public, which lasted until 1512, when the Medici returned
to power, and Machiavelli lost his office. The Medici again
ruled Florence from 1512 until 1527, when they were once
more driven out. This was the period of Machiavelli’s liter -
ary activity and increasing influence; but he died, within a
few weeks of the expulsion of the Medici, on 22nd June 1527,
in his fifty-eighth year, without having regained office.
YOUTH Aet. 1-25—1469-94
Although there is little recorded of the youth of Ma-
chiavelli, the Florence of those days is so well known that
the early environment of this representative citizen may be
The Prince�
easily imagined. Florence has been described as a city with
two opposite currents of life, one directed by the fervent
and austere Savonarola, the other by the splendourloving

Lorenzo. Savonarola’s influence upon the young Machiavel-
li must have been slight, for although at one time he wielded
immense power over the fortunes of Florence, he only fur-
nished Machiavelli with a subject of a gibe in ‘The Prince,’
where he is cited as an example of an unarmed prophet
who came to a bad end. Whereas the magnificence of the
Medicean rule during the life of Lorenzo appeared to have
impressed Machiavelli strongly, for he frequently recurs to
it in his writings, and it is to Lorenzo’s grandson that he
dedicates ‘The Prince.’
Machiavelli, in his ‘History of Florence,’ gives us a pic-
ture of the young men among whom his youth was passed.
He writes: ‘They were freer than their forefathers in dress
and living, and spent more in other kinds of excesses, con-
suming their time and money in idleness, gaming, and
women; their chief aim was to appear well dressed and to
speak with wit and acuteness, whilst he who could wound
others the most cleverly was thought the wisest.’ In a letter
to his son Guido, Machiavelli shows why youth should avail
itself of its opportunities for study, and leads us to infer
that his own youth had been so occupied. He writes: ‘I have
received your letter, which has given me the greatest plea-
sure, especially because you tell me you are quite restored in
health, than which I could have no better news; for if God
grant life to you, and to me, I hope to make a good man of
you if you are willing to do your share.’ Then, writing of a
new patron, he continues: ‘This will turn out well for you,
but it is necessary for you to study; since, then, you have no
longer the excuse of illness, take pains to study letters and
music, for you see what honour is done to me for the little

skill I have. Therefore, my son, if you wish to please me, and
to bring success and honour to yourself, do right and study,
because others will help you if you help yourself.’
OFFICE Aet. 25-43—1494-1512
The second period of Machiavelli’s life was spent in the
service of the free Republic of Florence, which flourished, as
stated above, from the expulsion of the Medici in 1494 until
their return in 1512. After serving four years in one of the
public offices he was appointed Chancellor and Secretary to
the Second Chancery, the Ten of Liberty and Peace. Here we
are on firm ground when dealing with the events of Machi-
avelli’s life, for during this time he took a leading part in the
affairs of the Republic, and we have its decrees, records, and
dispatches to guide us, as well as his own writings. A mere
recapitulation of a few of his transactions with the states-
men and soldiers of his time gives a fair indication of his
activities, and supplies the sources from which he drew the
experiences and characters which illustrate ‘The Prince.’
His first mission was in 1499 to Catherina Sforza, ‘my
lady of Forli’ of ‘The Prince,’ from whose conduct and fate
he drew the moral that it is far better to earn the confidence
of the people than to rely on fortresses. This is a very notice-
able principle in Machiavelli, and is urged by him in many
ways as a matter of vital importance to princes.
In 1500 he was sent to France to obtain terms from Lou-
The Prince�
is XII for continuing the war against Pisa: this king it was

who, in his conduct of affairs in Italy, committed the five
capital errors in statecraft summarized in ‘The Prince,’ and
was consequently driven out. He, also, it was who made the
dissolution of his marriage a condition of support to Pope
Alexander VI; which leads Machiavelli to refer those who
urge that such promises should be kept to what he has writ-
ten concerning the faith of princes.
Machiavelli’s public life was largely occupied with events
arising out of the ambitions of Pope Alexander VI and his
son, Cesare Borgia, the Duke Valentino, and these char-
acters fill a large space of ‘The Prince.’ Machiavelli never
hesitates to cite the actions of the duke for the benefit of
usurpers who wish to keep the states they have seized; he
can, indeed, find no precepts to offer so good as the pat-
tern of Cesare Borgia’s conduct, insomuch that Cesare is
acclaimed by some critics as the ‘hero’ of ‘The Prince.’ Yet
in ‘The Prince’ the duke is in point of fact cited as a type of
the man who rises on the fortune of others, and falls with
them; who takes every course that might be expected from
a prudent man but the course which will save him; who is
prepared for all eventualities but the one which happens;
and who, when all his abilities fail to carry him through,
exclaims that it was not his fault, but an extraordinary and
unforeseen fatality.
On the death of Pius III, in 1503, Machiavelli was sent
to Rome to watch the election of his successor, and there he
saw Cesare Borgia cheated into allowing the choice of the
College to fall on Giuliano delle Rovere (Julius II), who was
one of the cardinals that had most reason to fear the duke.

Machiavelli, when commenting on this election, says that
he who thinks new favours will cause great personages to
forget old injuries deceives himself. Julius did not rest until
he had ruined Cesare.
It was to Julius II that Machiavelli was sent in 1506, when
that pontiff was commencing his enterprise against Bolo-
gna; which he brought to a successful issue, as he did many
of his other adventures, owing chiefly to his impetuous
character. It is in reference to Pope Julius that Machiavelli
moralizes on the resemblance between Fortune and wom-
en, and concludes that it is the bold rather than the cautious
man that will win and hold them both.
It is impossible to follow here the varying fortunes of
the Italian states, which in 1507 were controlled by France,
Spain, and Germany, with results that have lasted to our
day; we are concerned with those events, and with the three
great actors in them, so far only as they impinge on the per-
sonality of Machiavelli. He had several meetings with Louis
XII of France, and his estimate of that monarch’s character
has already been alluded to. Machiavelli has painted Ferdi -
nand of Aragon as the man who accomplished great things
under the cloak of religion, but who in reality had no mer-
cy, faith, humanity, or integrity; and who, had he allowed
himself to be influenced by such motives, would have been
ruined. The Emperor Maximilian was one of the most in-
teresting men of the age, and his character has been drawn
by many hands; but Machiavelli, who was an envoy at his
court in 1507-8, reveals the secret of his many failures when
The Prince�

he describes him as a secretive man, without force of char -
acter—ignoring the human agencies necessary to carry his
schemes into effect, and never insisting on the fulfilment of
his wishes.
The remaining years of Machiavelli’s official career were
filled with events arising out of the League of Cambrai,
made in 1508 between the three great European powers al-
ready mentioned and the pope, with the object of crushing
the Venetian Republic. This result was attained in the battle
of Vaila, when Venice lost in one day all that she had won
in eight hundred years. Florence had a difficult part to play
during these events, complicated as they were by the feud
which broke out between the pope and the French, because
friendship with France had dictated the entire policy of the
Republic. When, in 1511, Julius II finally formed the Holy
League against France, and with the assistance of the Swiss
drove the French out of Italy, Florence lay at the mercy of the
Pope, and had to submit to his terms, one of which was that
the Medici should be restored. The return of the Medici to
Florence on 1st September 1512, and the consequent fall of
the Republic, was the signal for the dismissal of Machiavelli
and his friends, and thus put an end to his public career, for,
as we have seen, he died without regaining office.
LITERATURE AND DEATH Aet. 43-58—1512-27
On the return of the Medici, Machiavelli, who for a few
weeks had vainly hoped to retain his office under the new
masters of Florence, was dismissed by decree dated 7th No-
vember 1512. Shortly after this he was accused of complicity
in an abortive conspiracy against the Medici, imprisoned,

and put to the question by torture. The new Medicean peo-
ple, Leo X, procured his release, and he retired to his small
property at San Casciano, near Florence, where he devoted
himself to literature. In a letter to Francesco Vettori, dated
13th December 1513, he has left a very interesting descrip-
tion of his life at this period, which elucidates his methods
and his motives in writing ‘The Prince.’ After describing his
daily occupations with his family and neighbours, he writes:
‘The evening being come, I return home and go to my study;
at the entrance I pull off my peasantclothes, covered with
dust and dirt, and put on my noble court dress, and thus
becomingly re-clothed I pass into the ancient courts of the
men of old, where, being lovingly received by them, I am fed
with that food which is mine alone; where I do not hesitate
to speak with them, and to ask for the reason of their ac-
tions, and they in their benignity answer me; and for four
hours I feel no weariness, I forget every trouble, poverty
does not dismay, death does not terrify me; I am possessed
entirely by those great men. And because Dante says:
Knowledge doth come of learning well retained,
Unfruitful else,
I have noted down what I have gained from their conver-
sation, and have composed a small work on ‘Principalities,’
where I pour myself out as fully as I can in meditation on
the subject, discussing what a principality is, what kinds
there are, how they can be acquired, how they can be kept,
why they are lost: and if any of my fancies ever pleased you,
The Prince10

this ought not to displease you: and to a prince, especially
to a new one, it should be welcome: therefore I dedicate it to
his Magnificence Giuliano. Filippo Casavecchio has seen it;
he will be able to tell you what is in it, and of the discourses
I have had with him; nevertheless, I am still enriching and
polishing it.’
The ‘little book’ suffered many vicissitudes before at-
taining the form in which it has reached us. Various mental
influences were at work during its composition; its title and
patron were changed; and for some unknown reason it was
finally dedicated to Lorenzo de’ Medici. Although Machia-
velli discussed with Casavecchio whether it should be sent
or presented in person to the patron, there is no evidence
that Lorenzo ever received or even read it: he certainly
never gave Machiavelli any employment. Although it was
plagiarized during Machiavelli’s lifetime, ‘The Prince’ was
never published by him, and its text is still disputable.
Machiavelli concludes his letter to Vettori thus: ‘And as
to this little thing [his book], when it has been read it will be
seen that during the fifteen years I have given to the study of
statecraft I have neither slept nor idled; and men ought ever
to desire to be served by one who has reaped experience at
the expense of others. And of my loyalty none could doubt,
because having always kept faith I could not now learn how
to break it; for he who has been faithful and honest, as I
have, cannot change his nature; and my poverty is a witness
to my honesty.’
Before Machiavelli had got ‘The Prince’ off his hands he
commenced his ‘Discourse on the First Decade of Titus Liv-
11Free eBooks at Planet eBook.com

ius,’ which should be read concurrently with ‘The Prince.’
These and several minor works occupied him until the year
1518, when he accepted a small commission to look after
the affairs of some Florentine merchants at Genoa. In 1519
the Medicean rulers of Florence granted a few political con-
cessions to her citizens, and Machiavelli with others was
consulted upon a new constitution under which the Great
Council was to be restored; but on one pretext or another it
was not promulgated.
In 1520 the Florentine merchants again had recourse to
Machiavelli to settle their difficulties with Lucca, but this
year was chiefly remarkable for his re-entry into Florentine
literary society, where he was much sought after, and also
for the production of his ‘Art of War.’ It was in the same year
that he received a commission at the instance of Cardinal
de’ Medici to write the ‘History of Florence,’ a task which
occupied him until 1525. His return to popular favour may
have determined the Medici to give him this employment,
for an old writer observes that ‘an able statesman out of
work, like a huge whale, will endeavour to overturn the ship
unless he has an empty cask to play with.’
When the ‘History of Florence’ was finished, Machiavel-
li took it to Rome for presentation to his patron, Giuliano
de’ Medici, who had in the meanwhile become pope un-
der the title of Clement VII. It is somewhat remarkable that,
as, in 1513, Machiavelli had written ‘The Prince’ for the in-
struction of the Medici after they had just regained power
in Florence, so, in 1525, he dedicated the ‘History of Flor -
ence’ to the head of the family when its ruin was now at

The Prince1�
hand. In that year the battle of Pavia destroyed the French
rule in Italy, and left Francis I a prisoner in the hands of
his great rival, Charles V. This was followed by the sack of
Rome, upon the news of which the popular party at Flor-
ence threw off the yoke of the Medici, who were once more
banished.
Machiavelli was absent from Florence at this time, but
hastened his return, hoping to secure his former office of
secretary to the ‘Ten of Liberty and Peace.’ Unhappily he
was taken ill soon after he reached Florence, where he died
on 22nd June 1527.
THE MAN AND HIS WORKS
No one can say where the bones of Machiavelli rest, but
modern Florence has decreed him a stately cenotaph in San-
ta Croce, by the side of her most famous sons; recognizing
that, whatever other nations may have found in his works,
Italy found in them the idea of her unity and the germs of
her renaissance among the nations of Europe. Whilst it is
idle to protest against the world-wide and evil signification
of his name, it may be pointed out that the harsh construc-
tion of his doctrine which this sinister reputation implies
was unknown to his own day, and that the researches of
recent times have enabled us to interpret him more reason-
ably. It is due to these inquiries that the shape of an ‘unholy
necromancer,’ which so long haunted men’s vision, has be-
gun to fade.
Machiavelli was undoubtedly a man of great observa-
tion, acuteness, and industry; noting with appreciative eye
whatever passed before him, and with his supreme literary

1�Free eBooks at Planet eBook.com
gift turning it to account in his enforced retirement from af-
fairs. He does not present himself, nor is he depicted by his
contemporaries, as a type of that rare combination, the suc-
cessful statesman and author, for he appears to have been
only moderately prosperous in his several embassies and
political employments. He was misled by Catherina Sforza,
ignored by Louis XII, overawed by Cesare Borgia; several
of his embassies were quite barren of results; his attempts
to fortify Florence failed, and the soldiery that he raised as-
tonished everybody by their cowardice. In the conduct of
his own affairs he was timid and time-serving; he dared not
appear by the side of Soderini, to whom he owed so much,
for fear of compromising himself; his connection with the
Medici was open to suspicion, and Giuliano appears to have
recognized his real forte when he set him to write the ‘His-
tory of Florence,’ rather than employ him in the state. And
it is on the literary side of his character, and there alone,
that we find no weakness and no failure.
Although the light of almost four centuries has been fo-
cused on ‘The Prince,’ its problems are still debatable and
interesting, because they are the eternal problems between
the ruled and their rulers. Such as they are, its ethics are
those of Machiavelli’s contemporaries; yet they cannot be
said to be out of date so long as the governments of Europe
rely on material rather than on moral forces. Its historical
incidents and personages become interesting by reason of
the uses which Machiavelli makes of them to illustrate his
theories of government and conduct.
Leaving out of consideration those maxims of state

The Prince1�
which still furnish some European and eastern statesmen
with principles of action, ‘The Prince’ is bestrewn with
truths that can be proved at every turn. Men are still the
dupes of their simplicity and greed, as they were in the days
of Alexander VI. The cloak of religion still conceals the vic-
es which Machiavelli laid bare in the character of Ferdinand
of Aragon. Men will not look at things as they really are, but
as they wish them to be—and are ruined. In politics there
are no perfectly safe courses; prudence consists in choosing
the least dangerous ones. Then —to pass to a higher plane—
Machiavelli reiterates that, although crimes may win an
empire, they do not win glory. Necessary wars are just wars,
and the arms of a nation are hallowed when it has no other
resource but to fight.
It is the cry of a far later day than Machiavelli’s that
government should be elevated into a living moral force,
capable of inspiring the people with a just recognition of
the fundamental principles of society; to this ‘high argu-
ment’ ‘The Prince’ contributes but little. Machiavelli always
refused to write either of men or of governments otherwise
than as he found them, and he writes with such skill and in-
sight that his work is of abiding value. But what invests ‘The
Prince’ with more than a merely artistic or historical inter -
est is the incontrovertible truth that it deals with the great
principles which still guide nations and rulers in their rela-
tionship with each other and their neighbours.
In translating ‘The Prince’ my aim has been to achieve
at all costs an exact literal rendering of the original, rath-
er than a fluent paraphrase adapted to the modern notions

of style and expression. Machiavelli was no facile phrase-
monger; the conditions under which he wrote obliged him
to weigh every word; his themes were lofty, his substance
grave, his manner nobly plain and serious. ‘Quis eo fuit un-
quam in partiundis rebus, in definiendis, in explanandis
pressior?’ In ‘The Prince,’ it may be truly said, there is rea -
son assignable, not only for every word, but for the position
of every word. To an Englishman of Shakespeare’s time the
translation of such a treatise was in some ways a compara-
tively easy task, for in those times the genius of the English
more nearly resembled that of the Italian language; to the
Englishman of to-day it is not so simple. To take a single
example: the word ‘intrattenere,’ employed by Machiavelli
to indicate the policy adopted by the Roman Senate to-
wards the weaker states of Greece, would by an Elizabethan
be correctly rendered ‘entertain,’ and every contemporary
reader would understand what was meant by saying that
‘Rome entertained the Aetolians and the Achaeans without
augmenting their power.’ But to-day such a phrase would
seem obsolete and ambiguous, if not unmeaning: we are
compelled to say that ‘Rome maintained friendly relations
with the Aetolians,’ etc., using four words to do the work
of one. I have tried to preserve the pithy brevity of the Ital -
ian so far as was consistent with an absolute fidelity to the
sense. If the result be an occasional asperity I can only hope
that the reader, in his eagerness to reach the author’s mean-
ing, may overlook the roughness of the road that leads him
to it.
The following is a list of the works of Machiavelli:

The Prince1�
Principal works. Discorso sopra le cose di Pisa, 1499;
Del modo di trattare i popoli della Valdichiana ribellati,
1502; Del modo tenuto dal duca Valentino nell’ ammazzare
Vitellozzo Vitelli, Oliverotto da Fermo, etc., 1502; Discor-
so sopra la provisione del danaro, 1502; Decennale primo
(poem in terza rima), 1506; Ritratti delle cose dell’ Alemag-
na, 1508-12; Decennale secondo, 1509; Ritratti delle cose di
Francia, 1510; Discorsi sopra la prima deca di T. Livio, 3
vols., 1512-17; Il Principe, 1513; Andria, comedy translated
from Terence, 1513 (?); Mandragola, prose comedy in five
acts, with prologue in verse, 1513; Della lingua (dialogue),
1514; Clizia, comedy in prose, 1515 (?); Belfagor arcidiavolo
(novel), 1515; Asino d’oro (poem in terza rima), 1517; Dell’
arte della guerra, 1519-20; Discorso sopra il riformare lo
stato di Firenze, 1520; Sommario delle cose della citta di
Lucca, 1520; Vita di Castruccio Castracani da Lucca, 1520;
Istorie fiorentine, 8 books, 1521-5; Frammenti storici, 1525.
Other poems include Sonetti, Canzoni, Ottave, and Can-
ti carnascialeschi.
Editions. Aldo, Venice, 1546; della Tertina, 1550; Cam-
biagi, Florence, 6 vols., 1782-5; dei Classici, Milan, 10 1813;
Silvestri, 9 vols., 1820-2; Passerini, Fanfani, Milanesi, 6 vols.
only published, 1873-7.
Minor works. Ed. F. L. Polidori, 1852; Lettere familiari,
ed. E. Alvisi, 1883, 2 editions, one with excisions; Credited
Writings, ed. G. Canestrini, 1857; Letters to F. Vettori, see
A. Ridolfi, Pensieri intorno allo scopo di N. Machiavelli nel
libro Il Principe, etc.; D. Ferrara, The Private Correspon-

dence of Nicolo Machiavelli, 1929.
DEDICATION
To the Magnificent Lorenzo Di Piero De’ Medici:
Those who strive to obtain the good graces of a prince
are accustomed to come before him with such things as
they hold most precious, or in which they see him take most
delight; whence one often sees horses, arms, cloth of gold,
precious stones, and similar ornaments presented to princ-
es, worthy of their greatness.
Desiring therefore to present myself to your Magnifi-
cence with some testimony of my devotion towards you,
I have not found among my possessions anything which I
hold more dear than, or value so much as, the knowledge
of the actions of great men, acquired by long experience in
contemporary affairs, and a continual study of antiquity;
which, having reflected upon it with great and prolonged
diligence, I now send, digested into a little volume, to your
Magnificence.
And although I may consider this work unworthy of your
countenance, nevertheless I trust much to your benignity
that it may be acceptable, seeing that it is not possible for
me to make a better gift than to offer you the opportunity
of understanding in the shortest time all that I have learnt
in so many years, and with so many troubles and dangers;
which work I have not embellished with swelling or magnif-
icent words, nor stuffed with rounded periods, nor with any
extrinsic allurements or adornments whatever, with which
so many are accustomed to embellish their works; for I have

wished either that no honour should be given it, or else that
the truth of the matter and the weightiness of the theme
The Prince1�
shall make it acceptable.
Nor do I hold with those who regard it as a presump-
tion if a man of low and humble condition dare to discuss
and settle the concerns of princes; because, just as those
who draw landscapes place themselves below in the plain to
contemplate the nature of the mountains and of lofty plac-
es, and in order to contemplate the plains place themselves
upon high mountains, even so to understand the nature of
the people it needs to be a prince, and to understand that if
princes it needs to be of the people.
Take then, your Magnificence, this little gift in the spirit
in which I send it; wherein, if it be diligently read and con-
sidered by you, you will learn my extreme desire that you
should attain that greatness which fortune and your oth-
er attributes promise. And if your Magnificence from the
summit of your greatness will sometimes turn your eyes to
these lower regions, you will see how unmeritedly I suffer a
great and continued malignity of fortune.
CHAPTER I. HOW MANY
KINDS OF PRINCIPALITIES
THERE ARE, AND BY

WHAT MEANS THEY
ARE ACQUIRED
All states, all powers, that have held and hold rule over men
have been and are either republics or principali-
ties.
Principalities are either hereditary, in which the family
has been long established; or they are new.
The new are either entirely new, as was Milan to Fran-
cesco Sforza, or they are, as it were, members annexed to
the hereditary state of the prince who has acquired them, as
was the kingdom of Naples to that of the King of Spain.
Such dominions thus acquired are either accustomed to
live under a prince, or to live in freedom; and are acquired
either by the arms of the prince himself, or of others, or else
by fortune or by ability.
The Prince�0
CHAPTER II. CONCERNING
HEREDITARY
PRINCIPALITIES
I will leave out all discussion on republics, inasmuch as in
another place I have written of them at length, and will
address myself only to principalities. In doing so I will keep
to the order indicated above, and discuss how such princi -
palities are to be ruled and preserved.
I say at once there are fewer difficulties in holding he-

reditary states, and those long accustomed to the family of
their prince, than new ones; for it is sufficient only not to
transgress the customs of his ancestors, and to deal pru-
dently with circumstances as they arise, for a prince of
average powers to maintain himself in his state, unless he
be deprived of it by some extraordinary and excessive force;
and if he should be so deprived of it, whenever anything
sinister happens to the usurper, he will regain it.
We have in Italy, for example, the Duke of Ferrara, w ho
could not have withstood the attacks of the Venetians in
‘84, nor those of Pope Julius in ‘10, unless he had been long
established in his dominions. For the hereditary prince has
less cause and less necessity to offend; hence it happens that
he will be more loved; and unless extraordinary vices cause
�1Free eBooks at Planet eBook.com
him to be hated, it is reasonable to expect that his subjects
will be naturally well disposed towards him; and …

Guidelines for writing an interpretive essaydo not use the w

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Guidelines for writing an interpretive essaydo not use the w (20)

More from ssuser47f0be (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Guidelines for writing an interpretive essaydo not use the w