Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.52 AVERAGE
3.52 AVERAGE
I’m marveled by how many people misunderstand the purpose of this book, because they simply don’t get that a reader (while reading a classic, especially a non-fiction one) should ALWAYS insert the book in its political and social context in order to get the best out of it.
I probably am a little too obsessed with Machiavelli (he is one of my favorite writers/historical figures ever and I’ll defend him until my last breath), but my heart bleeds everyone someone reads “The Prince” and only sees this aspect of Niccolo’s personality because he was much more than that.
So, I’ll try to put into words the way his works should be looked at.
“The Prince” was written in a very difficult period for Florence. After Lorenzo De Medici’s and Girolamo Savonarola’s death, Florence became a republic and stayed this way for twenty years.
Machiavelli -who, I want to highlight this, was a fervent REPUBLICAN and who believed that everyone, despite their social state or wealth, should participate and rule the State (he thought that the Roman constitution was the best way to administrate a State because it made possible for everyone to have power, but I’ll get into this after having explained Florence’s history)- managed to get a very high position in the government (but not as high as he wanted because his family wasn’t rich enough): his abilities were noticed by Soderini, Florence’s golfaloniere (the highest position during the Republic, but sorry I don’t know how to translate this), who made him direct foreign embassies such as the one to Cesare Borgia (funny detail: during this embassy he met Leonardo Da Vinci and the two of them probably planned to steal a river. Not even kidding).
Machiavelli was very impressed with Cesare’s ability (even though he got to see his ultimate demise, but oh well) and, writing The Prince, used his (idealized) figure to show the model of the perfect Prince.
All was going well, until 1512: this is the year when De Medici’s family, in particular Pietro, Lorenzo’s son, got to return in Florence and to successfully cancel all the republican institutions previously built.
A conspiracy was then discovered and Machiavelli was one of the suspects so he was imprisoned and tortured before being released: he obviously lost his position and was forced in a sort of exile away from Florence.
He lost his main purpose in life, the thing he always wanted to do: really, I would have been desperate in his position (also given the fact his best friend didn’t do anything to help him at all THANK YOU FOR NOTHING FRANCESCO VETTORI REALLY).
He was desperately looking for a way to do politics again and to give his contribute to Florence, because he knew that was the thing he excelled at, but he couldn’t do anything while Pietro and the Medici didn’t trust him.
And this THIS was the backstory that leads to The Prince and Discourses on Livy.
Because, yes, YES, Machiavelli didn’t write only the Prince (shocking, right?): he wrote SO MANY THINGS (one of the best comedies in all the Italian Renaissance, just to begin with), about so many different subjects (even a poem, a terrible poem, I have to admit).
Ok, but I’m digressing, sorry. Let’s go back to The Prince and Discourses on Livy.
The Prince was a how-to-rule guide for the Medici.
He looked at Italy’s situation with a cynical realistic eye and realized that morals and ethic wouldn’t have done any better to his city: this book wasn’t written in a “What I’m saying is right and I see absolutely no problem with it, it can be applied everywhere and at any time without any difference” way.
Nope.
It was written in a “I know what I’m saying is shocking and morally wrong and I’m not saying it isn’t but IN THIS SITUATION I realize that we can’t do much better than this so I’m just trying to give you some advices based on my experience and my mistakes in order not to make you fail and not to see my city destroyed” way.
Machiavelli didn’t like monarchy.
At all.
He, as I said before, was a REPUBLICAN, but thought that only a Prince could pull Italy together once again and give it stability: then, and only then, after a balance was established, the Republic would have been possible.
He believed that a Republic was the best form of government possible to mantain a State, while monarchy was the best way to built it in the beginning.
So, he wrote “Discourses on Livy” a book thrice as long as the Prince where he discussed about the Roman Republic and how it was the best way possible to rule a country because the power was given to the PEOPLE (to the People, I want to highlight this too): it’s beautiful, I’m trying to make everyone read this because it’s so inspiring.
He didn’t get his position back and, after the Medici lost their power, he was send away from Florence AGAIN because aristocrats didn’t trust him (he tried to cooperate with the Medici, after all): he was so heartbroken by this that he died a few months later.
And yes, yes, he wrote about how it is better to be feared than loved and how in all our actions we must look for the main purpose but it’s so REDUCTIVE when you talk about him in this way.
Because Machiavelli was the first to look at the State with a critical eye and say “Look, I don’t like what I’m saying but I’m saying it because I believe it is the best thing we can do to make our city work and I’lm try my best to improve Florence, by actual actions or my writing”
Because Machiavelli was the one who wrote that we can change our fate, because luck only takes 50% of our destiny and we can, we MUST try our best to improve the reality we live in. And we can’t give up, no matter what the odds are.
Because Machiavelli was the one, in a time where aristocracy ruled the city, who wrote about how EVERYONE should rule together.
Because in the XVI century Machiavelli talked about abortion, freedom of speech and openly contested the Church more than once.
Because Machiavelli didn’t give up and tried, tried and tried again and didn’t succeeded at the end, but, oh well, he gave his heart, his soul into his purpose. Because Machiavelli was an unlucky man who had all his books censored, condamned, burnt for centuries because they were so goddamn immoral and evil, and no one for ages even tried to understand what he was really trying to say.
Because I’m honestly sick of people reading his books without any kind of background knowledge and then claiming the right of criticizing it without even thinking about his words because “Ahahah. He is so evil and soulless and he represents the Slytherin House so well”.
Because if I have to hear or read someone stupid enough to criticize his works only because they seem shocking and wrong one more time... oh God, I’ll seriously lose my temper.
I probably am a little too obsessed with Machiavelli (he is one of my favorite writers/historical figures ever and I’ll defend him until my last breath), but my heart bleeds everyone someone reads “The Prince” and only sees this aspect of Niccolo’s personality because he was much more than that.
So, I’ll try to put into words the way his works should be looked at.
“The Prince” was written in a very difficult period for Florence. After Lorenzo De Medici’s and Girolamo Savonarola’s death, Florence became a republic and stayed this way for twenty years.
Machiavelli -who, I want to highlight this, was a fervent REPUBLICAN and who believed that everyone, despite their social state or wealth, should participate and rule the State (he thought that the Roman constitution was the best way to administrate a State because it made possible for everyone to have power, but I’ll get into this after having explained Florence’s history)- managed to get a very high position in the government (but not as high as he wanted because his family wasn’t rich enough): his abilities were noticed by Soderini, Florence’s golfaloniere (the highest position during the Republic, but sorry I don’t know how to translate this), who made him direct foreign embassies such as the one to Cesare Borgia (funny detail: during this embassy he met Leonardo Da Vinci and the two of them probably planned to steal a river. Not even kidding).
Machiavelli was very impressed with Cesare’s ability (even though he got to see his ultimate demise, but oh well) and, writing The Prince, used his (idealized) figure to show the model of the perfect Prince.
All was going well, until 1512: this is the year when De Medici’s family, in particular Pietro, Lorenzo’s son, got to return in Florence and to successfully cancel all the republican institutions previously built.
A conspiracy was then discovered and Machiavelli was one of the suspects so he was imprisoned and tortured before being released: he obviously lost his position and was forced in a sort of exile away from Florence.
He lost his main purpose in life, the thing he always wanted to do: really, I would have been desperate in his position (also given the fact his best friend didn’t do anything to help him at all THANK YOU FOR NOTHING FRANCESCO VETTORI REALLY).
He was desperately looking for a way to do politics again and to give his contribute to Florence, because he knew that was the thing he excelled at, but he couldn’t do anything while Pietro and the Medici didn’t trust him.
And this THIS was the backstory that leads to The Prince and Discourses on Livy.
Because, yes, YES, Machiavelli didn’t write only the Prince (shocking, right?): he wrote SO MANY THINGS (one of the best comedies in all the Italian Renaissance, just to begin with), about so many different subjects (even a poem, a terrible poem, I have to admit).
Ok, but I’m digressing, sorry. Let’s go back to The Prince and Discourses on Livy.
The Prince was a how-to-rule guide for the Medici.
He looked at Italy’s situation with a cynical realistic eye and realized that morals and ethic wouldn’t have done any better to his city: this book wasn’t written in a “What I’m saying is right and I see absolutely no problem with it, it can be applied everywhere and at any time without any difference” way.
Nope.
It was written in a “I know what I’m saying is shocking and morally wrong and I’m not saying it isn’t but IN THIS SITUATION I realize that we can’t do much better than this so I’m just trying to give you some advices based on my experience and my mistakes in order not to make you fail and not to see my city destroyed” way.
Machiavelli didn’t like monarchy.
At all.
He, as I said before, was a REPUBLICAN, but thought that only a Prince could pull Italy together once again and give it stability: then, and only then, after a balance was established, the Republic would have been possible.
He believed that a Republic was the best form of government possible to mantain a State, while monarchy was the best way to built it in the beginning.
So, he wrote “Discourses on Livy” a book thrice as long as the Prince where he discussed about the Roman Republic and how it was the best way possible to rule a country because the power was given to the PEOPLE (to the People, I want to highlight this too): it’s beautiful, I’m trying to make everyone read this because it’s so inspiring.
He didn’t get his position back and, after the Medici lost their power, he was send away from Florence AGAIN because aristocrats didn’t trust him (he tried to cooperate with the Medici, after all): he was so heartbroken by this that he died a few months later.
And yes, yes, he wrote about how it is better to be feared than loved and how in all our actions we must look for the main purpose but it’s so REDUCTIVE when you talk about him in this way.
Because Machiavelli was the first to look at the State with a critical eye and say “Look, I don’t like what I’m saying but I’m saying it because I believe it is the best thing we can do to make our city work and I’lm try my best to improve Florence, by actual actions or my writing”
Because Machiavelli was the one who wrote that we can change our fate, because luck only takes 50% of our destiny and we can, we MUST try our best to improve the reality we live in. And we can’t give up, no matter what the odds are.
Because Machiavelli was the one, in a time where aristocracy ruled the city, who wrote about how EVERYONE should rule together.
Because in the XVI century Machiavelli talked about abortion, freedom of speech and openly contested the Church more than once.
Because Machiavelli didn’t give up and tried, tried and tried again and didn’t succeeded at the end, but, oh well, he gave his heart, his soul into his purpose. Because Machiavelli was an unlucky man who had all his books censored, condamned, burnt for centuries because they were so goddamn immoral and evil, and no one for ages even tried to understand what he was really trying to say.
Because I’m honestly sick of people reading his books without any kind of background knowledge and then claiming the right of criticizing it without even thinking about his words because “Ahahah. He is so evil and soulless and he represents the Slytherin House so well”.
Because if I have to hear or read someone stupid enough to criticize his works only because they seem shocking and wrong one more time... oh God, I’ll seriously lose my temper.
listened as an audiobook so i felt that the overall story was lacking but the individual chapters kinda popped off
This isn't as Machiavellian as you might think (how ironic), but it does offer rather crafty advice. I agree that Machiavelli wrote as much advice as he wrote satire, and his account of Italian politics and world history is witty and generally quite entertaining to read.
This particular edition is the very latest translation. I appreciate the excellent translator's note which shows that Parks tried to capture as much of Machiavelli's voice as he could, but I felt as if the language was rather colloquial and didn't capture Machiavelli's authorial intent. It felt as if Machiavelli was literally speaking - but that wasn't his intention. I haven't read any of the other translations or the original so I'm not even sure if it's Machiavelli's or Parks' voice that is so prominent throughout the book. So I have mixed feelings about the translation.
This particular edition is the very latest translation. I appreciate the excellent translator's note which shows that Parks tried to capture as much of Machiavelli's voice as he could, but I felt as if the language was rather colloquial and didn't capture Machiavelli's authorial intent. It felt as if Machiavelli was literally speaking - but that wasn't his intention. I haven't read any of the other translations or the original so I'm not even sure if it's Machiavelli's or Parks' voice that is so prominent throughout the book. So I have mixed feelings about the translation.
challenging
dark
informative
inspiring
reflective
slow-paced
dark
informative
reflective
fast-paced
informative
medium-paced
I actually pretty surprised how much I didn’t disliked this book. I’m definitely not the target audience for it, specially considering that the target audience is a prince in 1513 . Also I didn’t appreciate the sexist remarks at the end of one of the chapters and I don’t really agree with some things Machiavelli said in this book.
But he did have some good ideas that would helpful applied now a days. And the rest of it you can forgive him, because he lived in the 15th century.
But he did have some good ideas that would helpful applied now a days. And the rest of it you can forgive him, because he lived in the 15th century.
challenging
informative
inspiring
reflective
slow-paced