Scan barcode
criptics's review against another edition
5.0
The details on formation and discipline are very interesting
ilovegravy's review against another edition
2.0
I love how straightforward it was with implying this supposedly righteous idealogy of immorality.
I'm grateful it didn't feel like being force-fed with carefully organised old man's rambling. And I'm not at slightest amazed that "The Prince" perches on the highest branch of literature classics.
But in general.., I was bored and unmoved, alongside with constantly distracted by 'what's the point of reading this?' echoing in my mind.
Definitely a quarantine book. The best option for the worst scenario. Sadly, I picked it up not out of poor desperation, but with actual excitement and readiness. I had my hopes up for this one. They dissolved with the first 10 chapters.
In conclusion..
..sadly, your perception of the world order cannot be broadened by your OWN perception of the world order only in written.
I'm grateful it didn't feel like being force-fed with carefully organised old man's rambling. And I'm not at slightest amazed that "The Prince" perches on the highest branch of literature classics.
But in general.., I was bored and unmoved, alongside with constantly distracted by 'what's the point of reading this?' echoing in my mind.
Definitely a quarantine book. The best option for the worst scenario. Sadly, I picked it up not out of poor desperation, but with actual excitement and readiness. I had my hopes up for this one. They dissolved with the first 10 chapters.
In conclusion..
..sadly, your perception of the world order cannot be broadened by your OWN perception of the world order only in written.
callieju's review against another edition
4.0
lots of name dropping and i definitely did not get the references but that’s okay. tbh was not as bad as i expected
mandalor3960's review against another edition
2.0
It trully is a classical piece. Attempting to rate this book is difficult for me.
The book has some setbacks, as being not well versed in medieval history, the analogies of Machiavelli's ideas and those of contemporary/past princes were not as comprehensible as a result of my lack of knowledge in that area of history. Other times Machiavelli cited more ancient rulers like the Romans, Persians, and Greeks, and being more well versed in that area of history, the analogies flowed. My edition contained in the back of the book short history summaries on the figures Machiavelli cites. Other setbacks included some of the terms that Machiavelli used, and not knowing the medieval scene and context, one is limited in understanding the concepts that Machiavelli brings.
On the flip-side to this all, Machiavelli's piece provides a wealth of arguments and judgement that are so deep and profound, that it truly is a wonderful piece. The breakdown of social constructs and political foundations, Machiavelli never seems to deviate into opinionated beliefs without some form of historical support.
The book was slightly a bore to read, as a result of all the analogies within the text. If I were to rate this overall on it being a classical piece, it would surely receive 5 stars.
Rating Update 3/14/2019 - 4 to 3 stars. I found it slightly boring which should lower the rating from 4 to 3, because, although I may be apt to reading it again, it isn't the best thing to read. In hindsight, I feel like the book deserves 4 stars but I'm remembering an idealistic version of it rather than the actual content.
Rating Update 16 June 2019
With the adoption of my new rating system, a three star rating is befitting. I cannot recall how I felt after reading the book. A three star rating is a safe estimate. In hindsight, I am filled with a joy characteristic to that of a four star rating book, when I think of "The Prince". I feel that that would change to the liking of a three star rating book if I were to reread it.
September 14, 2019
Rating Update
I have lowered the rating of this book from three stars to two stars. I believe my envisionment of this book being the ruler's companion guide was not fulfilled, especially since this was a book that I loaned from the "free books" bookshelf, returned it after reading it, and did not think to acquire a personal copy, as I did with the nonfiction book "The Elements of Style". There are many criticisms mentioned in the original section of the review, and I am not sure to what extent they lower the book's rating to two stars, but they are sufficient enough to support my belief that I have envisioned a better version. Presently, I would substitute the medieval terms for my own choices, which would allow me to enjoy the book, however, I believe I did not enjoy the medieval setting and the constant breaks from the principles to digress from them using anecdotes. A reread will be necessary to remind myself of how I felt from reading "The Prince" the first time.
January 23, 2020
Update
I believe that since I believed, originally, that this was the principle guide to learn how to be a ruler, there were sections that were not as enjoyable.
I have debated rating this volume at three stars because, despite the boredom while reading, I enjoyed this as a guide to ruling. However, I do not believe this was my initial reaction and later reflection.
Moreover, I believe that my original review is full of fluffy, frivolous material that attempts to academically assess the value of the book, which does not reflect my personal reception of the book.
The book has some setbacks, as being not well versed in medieval history, the analogies of Machiavelli's ideas and those of contemporary/past princes were not as comprehensible as a result of my lack of knowledge in that area of history. Other times Machiavelli cited more ancient rulers like the Romans, Persians, and Greeks, and being more well versed in that area of history, the analogies flowed. My edition contained in the back of the book short history summaries on the figures Machiavelli cites. Other setbacks included some of the terms that Machiavelli used, and not knowing the medieval scene and context, one is limited in understanding the concepts that Machiavelli brings.
On the flip-side to this all, Machiavelli's piece provides a wealth of arguments and judgement that are so deep and profound, that it truly is a wonderful piece. The breakdown of social constructs and political foundations, Machiavelli never seems to deviate into opinionated beliefs without some form of historical support.
The book was slightly a bore to read, as a result of all the analogies within the text. If I were to rate this overall on it being a classical piece, it would surely receive 5 stars.
Rating Update 3/14/2019 - 4 to 3 stars. I found it slightly boring which should lower the rating from 4 to 3, because, although I may be apt to reading it again, it isn't the best thing to read. In hindsight, I feel like the book deserves 4 stars but I'm remembering an idealistic version of it rather than the actual content.
Rating Update 16 June 2019
With the adoption of my new rating system, a three star rating is befitting. I cannot recall how I felt after reading the book. A three star rating is a safe estimate. In hindsight, I am filled with a joy characteristic to that of a four star rating book, when I think of "The Prince". I feel that that would change to the liking of a three star rating book if I were to reread it.
September 14, 2019
Rating Update
I have lowered the rating of this book from three stars to two stars. I believe my envisionment of this book being the ruler's companion guide was not fulfilled, especially since this was a book that I loaned from the "free books" bookshelf, returned it after reading it, and did not think to acquire a personal copy, as I did with the nonfiction book "The Elements of Style". There are many criticisms mentioned in the original section of the review, and I am not sure to what extent they lower the book's rating to two stars, but they are sufficient enough to support my belief that I have envisioned a better version. Presently, I would substitute the medieval terms for my own choices, which would allow me to enjoy the book, however, I believe I did not enjoy the medieval setting and the constant breaks from the principles to digress from them using anecdotes. A reread will be necessary to remind myself of how I felt from reading "The Prince" the first time.
January 23, 2020
Update
I believe that since I believed, originally, that this was the principle guide to learn how to be a ruler, there were sections that were not as enjoyable.
I have debated rating this volume at three stars because, despite the boredom while reading, I enjoyed this as a guide to ruling. However, I do not believe this was my initial reaction and later reflection.
Moreover, I believe that my original review is full of fluffy, frivolous material that attempts to academically assess the value of the book, which does not reflect my personal reception of the book.
stevetw's review against another edition
4.0
Well, for starters, this book goes well beyond the sentence "Do whatever it takes to win." Detractors, chiefly those who want morality to rule all dealings, paint this book as advocating stabbing everyone else in the back at the earliest possible convenience. They take the whole book as being the line "It is better to be feared than loved." In reality, the book is so much more than this.
As has been stated ad nauseum by others, this book is ultimately about realpolitik. Bottom line, others will stab you in the back, so you need to be prepared for it and be willing to stab others in the back yourself. It doesn't advocate breaking alliances but says that there will be times that doing so is necessary, as will be breaking one's word. Anyone who thinks honesty is the best policy at all times is living a fantasy. Anyone who lets their hated boss know what they really think of them is likely to find themselves not working for this boss sooner than they had planned.
Finally, surprisingly, he is a big fan of the people. He states in several sections that it is more important to have the people on one's side than the nobility, if for no other reason that the nobles have more means to depose the prince, while the people outnumber the nobles. Whoa, betide the aristocracy of today if the masses were ever to remember this seemingly obvious fact.
Some criticisms, the thoughts do seem a little swingy in places. He seems to be a fan of republics, but then in portions of the Discourses, included in this edition, he says that republics oppress their people, while claiming that princes do not. In the meantime, in the Prince, he is a fan of republics. When he claims that multitudes are more constant than masses, he seems to jump through quite a few hoops and does quite a bit of cherry picking to "prove" this. and I'll grant that he did this because both of these works had intended audiences and purposes, but one should be aware of this fact as they're reading either one. I also wonder how one would take modern nationalism and mass media into account. Obviously, we can't fault him for not knowing that newspapers, and then radio, and then television, and finally the internet right on portable viewing devices, but these technologies make it very different how the people are impacted. In his view, the people won't care who the ruler is so long as they can prosper, but we see how proud modern people are to be American, or French, or Japanese, or whatever. I think these change the reality from anything he could have discerned from his time.
All in all, this is a must-read. The only thing, I would suggest a different edition. Daniel Donno, the translator of this edition, says he omitted some chapters that related to the military. Presumably, this is because they discuss military tactics and technology, which have obviously both moved on since Machiavelli's day, but I can't tell because they're not in this edition. Donno stated that he felt those chapters would be of little interest to modern (1966) readers, however, I would prefer to make that choice myself. I would also prefer to read the Discourses in their entirety rather than the piecemeal selections included here.
As has been stated ad nauseum by others, this book is ultimately about realpolitik. Bottom line, others will stab you in the back, so you need to be prepared for it and be willing to stab others in the back yourself. It doesn't advocate breaking alliances but says that there will be times that doing so is necessary, as will be breaking one's word. Anyone who thinks honesty is the best policy at all times is living a fantasy. Anyone who lets their hated boss know what they really think of them is likely to find themselves not working for this boss sooner than they had planned.
Finally, surprisingly, he is a big fan of the people. He states in several sections that it is more important to have the people on one's side than the nobility, if for no other reason that the nobles have more means to depose the prince, while the people outnumber the nobles. Whoa, betide the aristocracy of today if the masses were ever to remember this seemingly obvious fact.
Some criticisms, the thoughts do seem a little swingy in places. He seems to be a fan of republics, but then in portions of the Discourses, included in this edition, he says that republics oppress their people, while claiming that princes do not. In the meantime, in the Prince, he is a fan of republics. When he claims that multitudes are more constant than masses, he seems to jump through quite a few hoops and does quite a bit of cherry picking to "prove" this. and I'll grant that he did this because both of these works had intended audiences and purposes, but one should be aware of this fact as they're reading either one. I also wonder how one would take modern nationalism and mass media into account. Obviously, we can't fault him for not knowing that newspapers, and then radio, and then television, and finally the internet right on portable viewing devices, but these technologies make it very different how the people are impacted. In his view, the people won't care who the ruler is so long as they can prosper, but we see how proud modern people are to be American, or French, or Japanese, or whatever. I think these change the reality from anything he could have discerned from his time.
All in all, this is a must-read. The only thing, I would suggest a different edition. Daniel Donno, the translator of this edition, says he omitted some chapters that related to the military. Presumably, this is because they discuss military tactics and technology, which have obviously both moved on since Machiavelli's day, but I can't tell because they're not in this edition. Donno stated that he felt those chapters would be of little interest to modern (1966) readers, however, I would prefer to make that choice myself. I would also prefer to read the Discourses in their entirety rather than the piecemeal selections included here.
aaroninpages's review against another edition
5.0
"Its better to be impulsive than cautious for fortune is a woman"