Rating: 
Summary: Great little period piece (and it's not what you've heard)
Review: I can think of only a few books that have been as much written and talked about as Niccolo Machiavelli's The Prince. The work is so well known that it is usually referred to by just the name Machiavelli, as if the book itself had that name. What's surprising is how little resemblance there is between the talk and reputation of Machiavelli and the actual content of this book (he did write other ones too). Certainly, this is a guide, addressed in the second person to the prince or would-be prince of sixteenth century Italy (including many references to current events, endnoted for the modern reader's benefit), and it contains much hard-headed advice about keeping, and to a lesser extent gaining, political power. But only a small fraction is truly objectionable for today's world. A fair amount is of little value only because it is so dated.One needs to read through about half the book (a few hours, maybe) to find something other than reasonable advice and observations. Some observations and advice from the Machiavellian master: keeping power in a principality is different than in a republic (about which he discusses almost nothing in this work), and hereditary princes face different difficulties than new ones. A kingdom comprising a central authority and clear laws is hard to conquer, because of good organization and lack of internal dissent upon which to rely. It is then easy to rule simply by keeping in place much of the structure. A kingdom with many hereditary nobles is easily conquered by finding help on the inside, but once established hard to hold, because those same nobles will always rise up. A prince that lives among his people will have fewer difficulties than one that rules from afar. A state that looks after its defense will last longer than one that does not. Mercenary armies are the worst; native soldiers defending their homes are the best. A generous prince that weakens the state will be neither loved nor feared. Get the idea? It's probably on the subject of fear that Machiavelli gets most of his criticism. Between love and fear from his people, a prince should choose fear and act accordingly. There are certainly problems that come with this sort of thinking. He makes frequent mention of Cesare Borgia as a nearly ideal leader, despite the man's known cruelties. Here, though, one should probably remember the time and place of this book's writing. And, I must point out, even on the subject of cruelty there is a certain logic. A new ruler that eliminates his enemies quickly and then moves on is far, far less likely to earn the hatred of his people than one who just dishes it out slowly, year after year, without any discernment. In this practical advice book, Machiavelli then points out that the prince should never be hated by the people. In fact, he shows a great deal of respect for people, and his advice generally has the flavor of treating them well, but only whenever possible. This, again, is where he gets into trouble. As his reputation states, he does indeed recommend that a prince break his word whenever he needs to, that he should act good when it doesn't hurt him, and so forth. But the flip side is that he does recommend acting for the good whenever possible. He advises that the prince should praise and honor citizens of good ability and talent, and that he should do whatever possible to allow them to make the city prosperous and strong, that he should not fear the advice of a good minister. It is clear that Machiavelli does not think at all highly of those megalomaniacs that regularly abuse their positions to the detriment of the community. I think that if Machiavelli were writing today, besides updated his examples, he would use the word respect more. Of course, the book is in translation between two languages and five centuries. But I think the main point he was trying to make was that a prince should do whatever possible to gain respect by the people and by other princes. This would seem to combine the ideas of earning love if possible, fear if necessary, and avoiding hatred. In closing, now that I've read The Prince, I don't accept either popular idea about how Machiavelli himself thought. As I've stated above, he certainly does not come across as the conniving, evil minded little man striving to stab his mother in the back. But I also don't believe this was intended as a satire, nor as a bitter condemnation of the tactics he espouses. Firstly, he apparently sent the first copy of it to Lorenzo de Medici, not something he would likely do if it were meant as a mocking critique. Perhaps he wanted his old job back. Or perhaps it was just customary to pay tribute to the man, the way Galileo did when naming Jupiter's moons after him (Medici). But considering that after reading the work it is neither so evil as often portrayed, nor as critical as also portrayed, I think The Prince should probably be taken simply at face value. There's nothing hidden here. This is nothing more or less than a clear-headed contemporary (for that time) account of effective government.
Rating:
Summary: A world without an absolute
Review: What makes The Prince relevant even after 500 years in my view is the flexibility of Machiavelli's view. It is not Machiavelli's theory that reality is molded into; to him, the given are the circumstances, and to those he proposes "remedies." As can be imagined, such approach entails an enumeration of possible options for the given situations, so thus structured is his treatise. The remedy Machiavelli chooses for each given situation is relative to the set of options, and, 1) is independent of moral values (good/evil), 2) is based on the utility/effectiveness of it, and, 3) (as perhaps can be deduced by the previous two qualities) is the _logical_ choice based on common sense. The reader is required to be well versed in neither theory nor classics to appreciate Machiavelli's arguments, though being knowledgeable in the latter would definitely help understanding the dynamics of the examples he writes of. I disagree with people who regard Machiavelli's arguments of being unethical. In other words I refute the prevalent meaning of the word "Machiavellian". I suspect, though without proof, that the word had been coined in a time when stricter moral codes (Christianity) were intact, and have been carried over to this age as convention. I do acknowledge that some of his arguments may sound politically incorrect even in our days, nevertheless think that human beings, rulers if not everyone, have been acting on the basis of his principles from time immemorial.
Rating: 
Summary: Hard to read.
Review: A bore. Maybe just because I had to read it for class, and I hated the teacher, but I had an awful time with this book.
Rating:
Summary: Interesting read
Review: An excellent perspective in the legalities, construction, and maintenance of a principality. This book not only does the forementioned feats, but also gives enlightening insight to social interactions amongst the common man, which is relevant even to this day.
Rating:
Summary: Machiavelli tells it like it is
Review: A book describing tactics for politics and warfare, this illustrates the gains that can be exploited when power is mixed with an understanding of human nature. Critics and utopian dreamers deride Machiavelli as a manipulative fascist, but this couldn't be further from the truth. Machiavelli simply understands the concepts of ambition and sociology, among many other things. These very instinctive human traits may be at times deplorable, but Machiavelli didn't invent them. He's just pointing them out and showing how they're used to further one's pursuits. A very interesting read indeed.
Rating: 
Summary: Must reading if you wish to consider yourself well read
Review: I read Machiavelli at age 25, right after I graduted college. I found it a tad dry and boring but I still learned from it. Anyone who wishes to be able to argue and win or "manipulate" others <hehehe> should read Machiavelli. Required reading for all attorneys, politicians, military officers and anyone else in any serious leadership position. Or anyone who just wishes to be well read. Eric
Rating: 
Summary: Loads of Machiavellis out there even today...
Review: Certain reviewers have argued that "The Prince" lacks in modern relevance. While there is merit to this point one must also entertain these thoughts:
-Machiavelli wrote this guidebook to serve the rulers of his time and not ours, but more importantly:
-had he lived in our times his book would've been as accurate as it was for when he lived. This is obvious by the fact of how well he has grasped human nature. Indeed, "The Prince" is a handbook on how to rule a nation, a kingdom or a folk in easy steps. He asserts that a leader must understand basic human nature function in order to be a succesful leader. By "succesful" he doesn't (obviously) mean "good to the people" but that he doesnt lose his grip on power. "Unsuccesful" in machiavellian terms means merely to lose power due to ineefective leadership. And what would "innefective" then mean? Innefective, in that sense, would mean a leader who does not know how to implement fear but simoultaneously respect (a tight rope that one), a leader who isn't constantly watching his subordinates for suspicious behaviours and who doesnt take measures to keep them "satisfied" (jump from one rope onto another then), a leader who doesnt understand the pulse of the people he rules over thus putting himself in danger of being overthrown, a leader who doesn't grasp the basic techniques of manipulation of the people may those be through religion, education, or direct politics. Machiavelli's advice moves along those lines as he tries to aid the "Prince" in overcoming these difficulties (political counseling anyone?). This book has been termed "cynical" because it promotes ruthlessness, cunning, and manipulation. Well, anybody who doesnt understand that this is what politics are all about to begin with has a very shallow definition of cynicism. The "Prince" is fundamentally honest, and yes, while cynicism is basically honesty expressed in emphasis Macchiavelli is not a cynic, that's not his intention(s), he was just a very servile political advisor of his time and he was quite good at doing his job.
Problem is, the world has always been full of Machiavellis especially when one looks at the ruling "elite". The interesting part? Most of them have not even read machiavelli by all probabilities. They wouldn't need to, since human nature becomes anyway corrupted by power, and when it does, it then automatically functions in "Machiavellian" frequencies.
That's precisely the logical fault that certain people make when they argue about the "relevance" of this book in modern times. The relevance is direct and self evident. It lies in the effect of power (and the means to keep it) and human nature as it becomes corrupted by it. If one reads the modern political handbooks available he will find that they all repeat fundamentally the same techniques. Yes they have adapted to current balances, but if you want to read the "Prince" and "enjoy" its straightforwardness then you have to use a little (just a little) imagination.
Rating:
Summary: Treatise on Power
Review: Perhaps one of the most misunderstood books ever written, the Prince by Niccolo Macchiaveli is a must read if for no other reason than to dispell the horrible misinterpretations of the author's intent. The Prince is a collection of essays for a young Medeci prince (Florence, Italy), who must learn how to be a good leader. The ends, for Macchiaveli, do not justify the means. Many of us oversimplify the role of the modern statesman, assuming that those with the power will always rule. Macchiaveli, however, analyzes the role of the Prince in creating, keeping, and maintaining order. Those with power, as we well know do not always keep their power. The Prince is the cornerstone of much of our modern political philosophy. At the heart of the Prince is man's ability to become better through knowledge. Even a Prince needs instruction.
Rating:
Summary: Great Advice for princes, but you are not a Prince are You?!
Review: Read it, but don't follow it.
Rating:
Summary: How to rule the world...
Review: How to rule the world when the rest of the world is ruled by wimps! Not really, but this book proves that strong, aggressive leaders are the only ones who can get things done (even look at more recent history - Winston Churchill and Neville Chamberlain are a perfect example). This book not only talks about how to reign supreme, but how to avoid scandal, etc. Perfect for the young ambitious politicians and business executives out there. This edition in particular is good too because it has several things most others don't - a lengthy introduction explaining Machiavelli's character, and some recorded history by Machiavelli (History of the Duke Valentino's Conquests, Life of Castruccio Castracani) all in all a good read, and a word of advice to those ambitious and forgetful - write commentaries after every chapter, it helps with language skills and you'll have philosophical points on paper an easier to access.
|
