Learn more Download now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Learn More Shop now Learn more Shop Fire Shop Kindle Learn More Shop now Shop now Learn more

Customer reviews

4.5 out of 5 stars

on 8 July 2004
In the course of my political science training, I studied at great length the modern idea of realpolitik. In that study I came to realise that it was somewhat incomplete, without the companionship of 'The Prince', by Niccolo Machiavelli, a Florentine governmental official in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. 'The Prince' is an oft quoted, oft mis-quoted work, used as the philosophical underpinning for much of what is considered both pragmatic and wrong in politics today. To describe someone as being Machiavellian is to attribute to the person ruthless ambition, craftiness and merciless political tactics. Being believed to be Machiavellian is generally politically incorrect. Being Machiavellian, alas, can often be politically expedient.
Machiavelli based his work in 'The Prince' upon his basic understanding of human nature. He held that people are motivated by fear and envy, by novelty, by desire for wealth, power and security, and by a hatred of restriction. In the Italy in which he was writing, democracy was an un-implemented Greek philosophical idea, not a political structure with a history of success; thus, one person's power usually involved the limitation of another person's power in an autocratic way.
Machiavelli did not see this as a permanent or natural state of being -- in fact, he felt that, during his age, human nature had been corrupted and reduced from a loftier nobility achieved during the golden ages of Greece and Rome. He decided that it was the corrupting influence of Christianity that had reduced human nature, by its exaltation of meekness, humility, and otherworldliness.
Machiavelli has a great admiration for the possible and potential, but finds himself inexorably drawn to the practical, dealing with situations as they are, thus becoming an early champion of realpolitik carried forward into this century by the likes of Kissinger, Thatcher, Nixon, and countless others. One of the innovations of Machiavelli's thought was the recognition that the prince, the leader of the city/state/empire/etc., was nonetheless a human being, and subject to all the human limitations and desires with which all contend.
Because the average prince (like the average person) is likely to be focussed upon his own interests, a prince's private interests are generally in opposition to those of his subjects. Fortunate is the kingdom ruled by a virtuous prince, virtue here not defined by Christian or religious tenets, but rather the civic virtue of being able to pursue his own interests without conflicting those of his subjects.
Virtue is that which increases power; vice is that which decreases power. These follow Machiavelli's assumptions about human nature. Machiavelli rejected the Platonic idea of a division between what a prince does and what a prince ought to do. The two principle instruments of the prince are force and propaganda, and the prince, in order to increase power (virtue) ought to employ force completely and ruthlessly, and propaganda wisely, backed up by force. Of course, for Machiavelli, the chief propaganda vehicle is that of religion.
Machiavelli has been credited with giving ruthless strategies (the example of a new political ruler killing the deposed ruler and the ruler's family to prevent usurpation and plotting is well known) -- it is hard to enact many in current politics in a literal way, but many of his strategies can still be seen in electioneering at every level, in national and international relations, and even in corporate and family internal 'politics'. In fact, I have found fewer more Machiavellian types than in church politics!
Of course, these people would be considered 'virtuous' in Machiavellian terms -- doing what is necessary to increase power and authority.
Perhaps if Machiavelli had lived a bit later, and been informed by the general rise of science as a rational underpinning to the world, he might have been able to accept less of a degree of randomness in the universe. Perhaps he would have modified his views. Perhaps not -- after all, the realpolitikers of this age are aware of the scientific framework of the universe, and still pursue their courses.
Bondanella and Musa, professors at my university, use 'The Prince' at the centrepiece of this collection, which also includes excerpts from 'The Art of War', 'The History of Florence', and 'The Discourses'. They also include in their entirety 'Belfagor', 'The Mandrake Root', and 'The Life of Castruccio Castracani of Lucca'. There's also a remarkable and humourous collection of personal correspondence of Machiavelli, showing he had quite a sense of humour. These are only seven out of 250 of his letters known to exist - a collection of all these letters would also be worthwhile reading.
This is a great collection, introduced by an essay by Bondanella and Musa, and a very good bibliography, divided into subjects.
0Comment| 7 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
TOP 1000 REVIEWERon 8 March 2012
I liked this book. I liked its price and I liked its utility as a reference work. I even liked Machiavelli.

Leading on from an interest in the Borgias, The Prince seemed a good background source to the period, but a little research showed that although an important book it is not wholly representative of Machiavelli's views, as it was written for a specific and limited audience. The idea of a general reader was attractive, particularly as the Discourses on Livy seemed to be an important corollary to The Prince.

CONTENTS: This is a reader and not a complete works. The Prince is complete. the Discourses are heavily abridged and there is a selection of a few letters, his play The Mandrake Root and selections from The Art of War, The Life of Castruccio Castracani of Lucca, A Fable: Belfagar, The Devil Who Took A Wife and The History of Florence. Each of these selections is preceded by a short Editors' Note. Thus there is more than The Prince, which is why the book is so useful. The fame, or infamy, of The Prince has turned the name Machiavelli into a metonym for amoral, unscrupulous realpolitik. This reader redresses the balance.

THE BOOK: There is no index, notes, maps nor illustrations but it does have a scholarly introduction. It is part of the Portable series designed for ". . .compactness and readability. . . not met by other compilations." And so it does with over 570 pages of text in a slightly bold but very readable Times Roman fount with 38 lines per page. There is a 32 page introduction plus a 10 page closely typed bibliography. Overall it looks a solidly printed book, almost impressed, which could just as easily have been printed by a Caxton in 1479 rather than in 1979.

GUICCIARDINI: I was hoping to compare Machiavelli's work with that of Francesco Guicciardini's private writings recorded in I Ricordi, where he put his private thoughts and observations about the times. Unfortunately English translations of Guicciardini do not seem to be readily or cheaply available. For those who are both e-enabled and can read Italian I Ricordi is available free or nearly free as an e-book for Kindle.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse

Need customer service? Click here

Sponsored Links

  (What is this?)