The Prince by Niccollo Machiavelli marks the greatest turning point in the history of political philosophy, in the sense that it is inscribed and normalized as the locus classicus of modernity. Political thought is detached from its conventional roots to establish the centralized state, which is rapidly moving towards secularization; the absolute is relativized, weakened within the multifaceted and diverse forces of human material; God is invoked; the function of thought is linked to a method that converges with the components of existing reality. Nevertheless, there has never been consensus on Machiavellian philosophy as a whole. Which other thinker has presented so many facets to the scholars of his ideas, so many, dissimilar and heterogeneous, masks? The satanic demon, the angel of darkness, the uprooter of classical-Renaissance humanism, gradually transforms, through the centuries, into an advocate of absolute statism, fiery patriotism, moderate democratism, organizational prudence. Which other thinker—and he is not even a recognized philosopher—has made his readers disagree or agree on his purposes so deeply, so intimately, and so widely?