|
The Prince (平装)
by Niccolo Machiavelli
| Category:
Politics, Power, Strategy for Success |
| Market price: ¥ 78.00
MSL price:
¥ 68.00
[ Shop incentives ]
|
| Stock:
In Stock |
MSL rating:
 Good for Gifts |
| MSL Pointer Review:
A realistic map of how power is achieved and maintained. |
| If you want us to help you with the right titles you're looking for, or to make reading recommendations based on your needs, please contact our consultants. |
|
| |
AllReviews |
1 2   | Total 2 pages 12 items |
|
|
Bill Slocum (MSL quote), USA
<2006-12-27 00:00>
Niccolo Machiavelli is created with laying the foundation for modern statecraft; certainly you have to admire his stones.
Sitting in comfortable but barren exile, he wrote a how-to manual to the polity that disposed of him, presuming to explain to Lorenzo di Medici how his kinsmen messed up Italy. He spends five-sixths of the book calling out the mistakes of others, then devotes the rest to plead for a job. If some scholars are to be believed, he even makes passing, jesting mention to the fact the Medicis tortured him for his presumed republican allegiances: "I will not here speak of republics, having already treated of them fully in another place," is how he begins Chapter 2.
Machiavelli got some piecework for his troubles, but never managed a return to grace. But like a phrase from a book "The Prince" famously spurns, the stone the builders rejected became the cornerstone. Machiavelli is the Big Daddy of realpolitick, must reading for even the most dovish of diplomats. The nobles he mentions in the book, distant beacons he aspired to serve, today are best remembered for peopling Machiavelli's book.
So what about that book? "The Prince" is enjoyably bitter and pungent fare, every paragraph seemingly polished for inclusion in Bartletts or the Cynics Handbook. Reformers should know that no deed goes unpunished; "on every opportunity for attacking the reformer, his opponents do so with the zeal of partisans, the others only defend him half-heartedly, so that between them he runs great danger." Occupiers of Iraq may not be Machiavellian enough, hunkered down in the Green Zone rather than heeding Niccolo's words about "although you may have fortresses, they will not save you if you are hated by the people." (Of course, Machiavelli's ideas for subduing a restive populace would not go over well on CNN.)
Machiavelli may have been a misread humanist somewhat lost in translation, as some here argue, but it's hard to match that with his warning against princes who wish to be good. "Therefore it is necessary for a prince, who wishes to maintain himself, to learn how not to be good, and to use this knowledge and not use it according to the necessity of the case."
"The Prince" is great bedside company for the chronically bitter. Machiavelli was clearly smarting from his hurts, both as an out-of-work diplomat and a man without a country, and the wisdom he draws upon is the sort one will recognize especially acutely during the low moments of his or her life.
I can't say I'm all that won over by Machiavelli's wisdom, though. His use of Cesare Borgia as the ultimate prince is famously not borne out by history, and there's a scattershot selection of Roman emperors offered up near the end, in which he enthuses about the nastiness of some and deplores the milk of human kindness in others, then acknowledges nearly all of the bad emperors mentioned (like Commodus of "Gladiator" fame) came to bad ends. "In both ways there were some who had a fortunate and others an unfortunate ending," Machiavelli concludes, his book's weakest moment.
"The Prince" is a brave book, though, with a lot of sharp points; you can see the merits in his various arguments without agreeing with them. One senses any prince would be better-armed with this book in their library; were it the only book he ever read, he'd probably find the sharpest point to be the pike his head rested upon. |
|
|
A reader (MSL quote), USA
<2006-12-27 00:00>
Niccol Machiavelli's book The Prince is one of the most important political works in history. Many politicians and businessmen throughout the ages have used Machiavelli's practical political advice to their advantage. If one is looking for entertainment, look elsewhere; however, for the sheer wealth of political advice and commentary that Machiavelli brings forth in The Prince, it is definitely worth reading for anyone, especially for those with an interest in politics.
Many ideas and references to The Prince can be seen today. The term "Machiavellian" is by far the most often used reference to The Prince today. The term is used in our culture to describe unscrupulous politicians; however, a careful reading of The Prince shows that, although advising such amoral ways of ruling, Machiavelli himself was not crooked, but rather was making commentary on politics. An example is Machiavelli's comment about war, "they [the Romans] knew that war may not be avoided but is deferred to the advantage of others."
The Prince is of interest historically because of the numerous references to events that demonstrate Machiavelli's point. However, The Prince is also relevant in today's world as the reader considers events that have happened since the writing of The Prince that demonstrate Machiavelli's points. Ultimately, The Prince is a great book worth reading for anyone. In the midst of all the political advice, Machiavelli even gives you a little personal advice, "He should do as prudent archers do when the place they plan to hit appears to [sic] distant... they set their aim much higher than the place intended..."
|
|
|
Joseph M (MSL quote), USA
<2006-12-27 00:00>
The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli is considered by some to be a dictator's handbook. With this knowledge going in, I thought I would be reading a Mein Kampf of sorts. I was wrong. Machiavelli writes matter-of-factly about simply how a Prince should keep power over his citizens.
This originally was not even meant to be published. Machiavelli wrote it to get a job with Lorenzo de' Medici of Florence from which Machiavelli was recently expelled, when the French conquered it several years earlier. Machiavelli was once an ambassador to France and was able to observe how princes obtained power. This was a sample of his knowledge, so that Lorenzo would be impressed. It worked. Another goal of this book was to unite Italy. This goal was not achieved for another 350 years.
The 70-odd pages makes this a brisk read (to put it mildly).
The book starts off with the various types of princedoms around the world and the advantages and disadvantages to each.
This is followed by historical examples of princedoms that held power well.
Then Machiavelli talks how a prince should address certain problems such as: how a prince should be looked at, how to get an army together, how to rule foreign colonies, how to create an image of yourself, how to worship, who you should surround yourself by. This is followed by calling for the different city-states of Italy (it is 1510) to unite.
The Prince talks a lot about Ceasar Borgia, his "ideal" prince.
The book may be 500 years old, but it is not dated. This is a great read for any person interested in politics (and you can see were every dictator went wrong).
|
|
|
Simon Cleveland (MSL quote), USA
<2006-12-27 00:00>
There are several classical books that withstood the test of time and in one way or another deserve attention. One of them is "The Prince". Why? Its applicability to the democratic state remains a question, however I'm sure politicians read it for how to make one nation the dominating force in the global community. But, if you're not interested in international relations (how to rule over a principality), read this for its uncanny insight into the darkness of the human nature. Believe it or not, it is a great psychology tool. Of course its center stage is reserved for the leader of a monarchy. But then again forget about what's obvious and focus on what's written between the lines. Take for example the following statement:
"...men are wretched creatures who would not keep their word to you, you need to keep your word to them."
Here is the perfect example of how a mid-16th century writer characterizes the eternal and unchangeable human nature. Time and again he addresses the lack of trust one should put in people and how one is to handle his enemies. Many of us have already established our own framework of how to do this, but checking this framework against such a historical artifact would be extremely beneficial.
In addition, the book possesses a wealth of historical information on the topic of political strategy and to be fair - all of us can take advantage of a political lesson (especially in this day and age).
A short and quick read, I recommend it not only for its lessons, but for the mere fact that history deemed it worthy of preservation.
|
|
|
John Lewis (MSL quote), USA
<2006-12-27 00:00>
In the pantheon of classic literature, there are books teachers make you read, books you read on your own, and books you think you've read because everyone talks about them as though you ought to have read them.
The Prince is the third type. Read it, and discover that the term "Machiavellian" has come to mean something that I doubt Machiavelli really intended. Read it, and discover that Machiavelli may have been more of an optimist than people realize.
In a reading group recently, members had three different translations of the book. When we argued about what Machiavelli was saying in the section on ecclesiastical states, we realized that we were coming from different directions, so we each read the versions of several passages. The consensus was that this translation is perhaps the most cynical translation into English and may be the most "faithful" to the modern, popular idea of Machiavelli.
|
|
|
Michael Jones (MSL quote), Wales
<2006-12-27 00:00>
In the absence of any guiding morality, politics becomes a naked struggle for power; The Prince gives shrewd advice as to how to play this game successfully. Every page is littered with truths, universal in both application and occurrence. The defeat of Louis XII at the hands of Ludovico, for example, foreshadowed the grim realities of post-modern warfare (Vietnam, Toledo, Mogadishu, Israel/Palestine, Sri Lanka, Iraq, etc.) and the gradual eroding of the soldier/ civilian distinction ('...no matter how powerful one's armies, in order to enter a country one needs the goodwill of the inhabitants'). Machiavelli portrays Ferdinand II of Aragon as a man who accomplished great things under the cloak of religion, but who in reality had no mercy, faith, humanity, or integrity. Similar feats of deception were achieved in modern times by charismatic tyrants like Idi Amin, Colonel al-Qaddafi, Fidel Castro, Charles Taylor and Saddam Hussein. After re-reading chapter three - on 'those who come to power by crime' - I instinctively drew comparisons with praetorians like Salazar, Dollfuss, Kissinger, Nixon and military strongmen/stratocats like Noriega, Chavez, Musharraf, Franco and Pinochet. Old habits die hard.
In a world of tragic constraints on our personal morality, Machiavelli is still worth refuting. I am inclined to think that the moral world is much less tidy than many philosophers are prepared to admit. Rules are rules, and exceptions are exceptions. I want political leaders to accept the rule, to understand its reasons, even to internalize it. But I also want them to be smart enough to know when to break it. The ethical (as opposed to political) problem can be summed up as follows: do we treat people as a 'means to an end' or as 'ends' in themselves? There is, I believe, a logical difficulty in the latter view, since it gives no way of reaching a decision when two men's interests clash. If each is an end in himself, how are we to arrive at a principle for determining which shall give way? In Machiavelli there is no such problem. Power is for those who have the skill to seize it in a free competition. A ruler will perish if he is always good; he must be like a fox in order to recognize traps, and a lion to frighten off wolves. The true belief is one that augments one's power, the false belief the one that detracts from it. Simple power politics.
Machiavelli's outlook owes much to the anarchy of Italian life during the Renaissance; most of the rulers of states had acquired their position by treachery, and retained it by ruthless cruelty. The evils of papal corruption were obvious, but nothing was done about them. And to make matters worse, every Italian ruler was prepared to invoke the aid of any foreign power, even the Turk, in spite of the threat of a foreign invasion. For these reasons, Machiavelli's interests lie chiefly in (a) national independence, (b) security, and a (c) well-ordered constitution. It's the meat-and-potatoes of conservative thought. Machiavelli's prose is honest, consistent and opposed to cant. He knows, as I do, that no matter how watertight our moral convictions, there are always legitimate cases of 'dirty hands', of doing wrong to do right. In politics there are no perfectly safe courses; prudence consists in choosing the least dangerous ones. |
|
|
Sheri Chiu (MSL quote), Hong Kong
<2006-12-27 00:00>
"Anyone who picks up Machiavelli's The Prince holds in his hands the most famous book on politics ever written," reads the first sentence from the introduction. What intrigues me most about this book is Machiavelli's rare perspective of moral good and spiritual integrity. Machiavelli states humanistic behaviors and the problems of society during the Renaissance. Discussing morality and what should be done during certain situations, Machiavelli directly points out what qualities a prince needs in order to rule for the betterment of the state. For example, "A Prince must learn to be able to not be good, and use this ability or not according to necessity." Machiavelli has always had a way of thinking that if a prince cannot be both feared and loved, it would be better to be feared by citizens. Before reading this, I always thought love would tie everything together. The Prince has given me a new perspective; it has shown me that we, humankind, have many faults, and we can take advantage of the bond of love. Machiavelli has shown that fear is strengthened by the dread of punishment, which is effective.
Using his knowledge, Machiavelli provides hope for future princes in that they can establish a stable, secure, and peaceful kingdom. The best prince is able to decide which route is the best to take, not solely based on a strict moral code, but by Machiavelli's teachings. I enjoy the fact that this is not a rulebook. The Prince is a reference guide to political and military strategy, not acquired through special insight, but through Machiavelli's own experiences from Italian politics.
The Prince is truly a work of art, written for a mature audience, and for all who enjoy literature at its finest. |
|
|
Karl Mohd (MSL quote), USA
<2006-12-27 00:00>
In attempting to preserve political unity and support, Niccolo Machiavelli was a failure. In theoretically describing the proper emotional and psychological ingredients of creating a powerful state as an observer, Machiavelli was a genius. Describing the fragmented nature of Italy's republic and family clan based political divisions, Machiavelli presented a short political treatise on how to accumulate, expand, maintain, and develop political power in creating a powerful central leader and figure. Using discrete examples of rational, self-interest based political moves in action, Machiavelli created a text that is essential reading for anyone seeking to understand the power moves in today's business and political environments. While many may deplore the unethical and dog-eat-dog nature of this mentality, it is a fact of human action that the principles described in this book have been used by almost anyone who finds themselves at the peak of bourgeoise control. A must read for those hoping to achieve this control and status and for those who deplore the current state of affairs and seek to change and control it through different means. |
|
|
Jeffrey Hauk (MSL quote), USA
<2006-12-27 00:00>
Anyone who picks up Machiavelli's The Prince holds in his hands the most famous book on politics ever written. Its closest rival might be Plato's Republic, but that book discusses politics in the context of things above politics, and politics turns out to have a limited and subordinate place. In "The Prince" Machiavelli also discusses politics in relation to things outside of politics, but his conclusion is very different. Politics according to him is not limited by things above it, and things normally taken to be outside politics - the "givens" in any political situation - turn out to be much more under the control of politics than politicians, peoples, and philosophers have hitherto assumed. The renown of "The Prince" is precisely to have been the first and best book to argue that politics has and should have its own rules and should not accept rules of any kind or from any source where the object is not to win or prevail over others. Without hesitation or reservation, five stars. |
|
|
A reader (MSL quote), USA
<2006-12-27 00:00>
With a nice foreword, this is a fine work on Niccolo Machiavelli.
At the onset, we learn that owe the existence of The Prince to Machiavelli's political denouement. When his boss Soderni lost the war for possession of Florence to the Medici, Machiavelli lost his job as a trusted political assistant. Later, suspected by the Medici of complicity in a plot to overthrow them, he was arrested, tortured, and then soon released after his innocence had been satisfactorily established. Machiavelli withdrew to the meager farm his father had left him. Seeking to recoup his political status, he wrote The Prince to ingratiate himself to Giuliano de Medici.
In short, The Prince lays out a set of different, no nonsense rules of governance depending on the different nature of extant and historical city states and the differing nature of how the ruler (Prince) came to power. The casual treatment of some of his harshest rules soon earned Machiavelli an egregious reputation.
Very interestingly, author Peter Turchin of War and Peace and War cites Machiavelli as the instigator of rational decision theory, which has been very successful at explaining much of economics and stock market behavior, but has been a miserable failure in describing why rational (self-centered) beings would use personally costly punishment for the better good of the society. (This is fascinating material in Turchin's book; see my review and the review of others.) Before Machiavelli, it was the concept of asabiya, an Arabic concept of solidarity used by the 14th-century Islamic scholar Ibn Khaldun to denote "mutual affection and willingness to fight and die for each other" which ruled political theory. Today, the latest experiments in mathematical sociology seem to say the world is part rational and part asabiyan.
|
|
|
|
1 2 | Total 2 pages 12 items |
|
|
|
|
|
|
