Scan barcode
dyno8426's review against another edition
4.0
"To understand the nature of the people it needs to be a prince, and to understand that of princes it needs to be of the people."
With these credentials in his preface to The Prince, Niccolo Machiavelli appeals to the Medicis (who were ruling Italy in the beginning of 1500s and had imprisoned him) with his political knowledge and usefulness as an advisor. The author lending his name to this popular term like Kafkaesque, what does it really mean to be "Machiavellian"? An individual characteristic that makes someone inhumanly and pragmatic towards a goal and capitalising on opportunities towards that goal with a cunning foresightedness and self-serving manipulativeness. It's not just this political strategist's history that provides the legacy of this term, but also this very book which formally captures the author's ideologies towards the real relationship between a ruler and the subjects and maintaining power/control at all costs.
Written as a 101-course on social engineering on how to princes/kings should rule their principalities/kingdom, it surveys the contemporary political landscape of Italy and its neighbouring European kingdom and covers the various political scenarios in which any ruler might find himself/herself. Through an admirably precise observation of the nearby history, it draws evidence and strengthens its ideas with confidence and composure. Whether a kingdom is inherited naturally through succession, or is a foreign acquisition, it could be usurped by military leaders, or is meant to control areas that are previously ruled by distributed powers/common people, Machiavelli provides an an aggregate analysis of the collective psychology. The book provides directives on how survive transitions of powers in such cases and also perpetuating them in times of crisis. These observations often meander around the fragmented ruling classes in Italy, their successes and failures, the foreign invasion problem from Spain and France that plagues Italian kingdoms, the role of Christianity in augmenting the power of certain Kings (with Italy holding a special seat in Christianity). Cesare Borgia is supposed to be the model on which The Prince derives some of its major lessons, with whom Machiavelli directly worked for some time, and directly quotes in this book for reference.
Upon revisiting the impressive parts through my notes, here is a condensed list of adjectives that any king should have according to Machiavelli: popular, unfeelingly practical, goodwill treasurer, accessible, extravagant to loyal, ruthless to disloyal, foresighted, self-reliant, freedom curbing, follower of great men/women, does not have "crutches" support for his/her power, carefully and very particularly severe/cruel, devout militarist, first to war, frugal with economy, better-feared-than-loved, fickle-proof, adventurous, and most importantly, hypocritical enough to "look good" and shield oneself from hatred. One might observe that more beloved and intuitively expected ideals of patriotism and compassion are more or less ignored in the book. In fact, it borderlines on giving impressions of evil and selfishness that are anti-thesis of a conventional good ruler. This gives controversial but universally recognised shades to the book. By the definition of a classic, it has sustained its relevance and novelty despite the long gone times of monarchy. The social engineering tactics and psychological insights into the mentality of public points to a more basic attribute within individuals of human societies - a desire to rule, or be ruled. Both ultimately deal with the idea of acquiring power (over one's own folks or others through comparison) and conquering over others in order to survive. While this book would have undoubtedly been referred to popularise the methods of cruelty and ruthlessness, it carries that universal appeal of stability and self-reliance that will attracts people and even justifies certain means for certain ends.
With these credentials in his preface to The Prince, Niccolo Machiavelli appeals to the Medicis (who were ruling Italy in the beginning of 1500s and had imprisoned him) with his political knowledge and usefulness as an advisor. The author lending his name to this popular term like Kafkaesque, what does it really mean to be "Machiavellian"? An individual characteristic that makes someone inhumanly and pragmatic towards a goal and capitalising on opportunities towards that goal with a cunning foresightedness and self-serving manipulativeness. It's not just this political strategist's history that provides the legacy of this term, but also this very book which formally captures the author's ideologies towards the real relationship between a ruler and the subjects and maintaining power/control at all costs.
Written as a 101-course on social engineering on how to princes/kings should rule their principalities/kingdom, it surveys the contemporary political landscape of Italy and its neighbouring European kingdom and covers the various political scenarios in which any ruler might find himself/herself. Through an admirably precise observation of the nearby history, it draws evidence and strengthens its ideas with confidence and composure. Whether a kingdom is inherited naturally through succession, or is a foreign acquisition, it could be usurped by military leaders, or is meant to control areas that are previously ruled by distributed powers/common people, Machiavelli provides an an aggregate analysis of the collective psychology. The book provides directives on how survive transitions of powers in such cases and also perpetuating them in times of crisis. These observations often meander around the fragmented ruling classes in Italy, their successes and failures, the foreign invasion problem from Spain and France that plagues Italian kingdoms, the role of Christianity in augmenting the power of certain Kings (with Italy holding a special seat in Christianity). Cesare Borgia is supposed to be the model on which The Prince derives some of its major lessons, with whom Machiavelli directly worked for some time, and directly quotes in this book for reference.
Upon revisiting the impressive parts through my notes, here is a condensed list of adjectives that any king should have according to Machiavelli: popular, unfeelingly practical, goodwill treasurer, accessible, extravagant to loyal, ruthless to disloyal, foresighted, self-reliant, freedom curbing, follower of great men/women, does not have "crutches" support for his/her power, carefully and very particularly severe/cruel, devout militarist, first to war, frugal with economy, better-feared-than-loved, fickle-proof, adventurous, and most importantly, hypocritical enough to "look good" and shield oneself from hatred. One might observe that more beloved and intuitively expected ideals of patriotism and compassion are more or less ignored in the book. In fact, it borderlines on giving impressions of evil and selfishness that are anti-thesis of a conventional good ruler. This gives controversial but universally recognised shades to the book. By the definition of a classic, it has sustained its relevance and novelty despite the long gone times of monarchy. The social engineering tactics and psychological insights into the mentality of public points to a more basic attribute within individuals of human societies - a desire to rule, or be ruled. Both ultimately deal with the idea of acquiring power (over one's own folks or others through comparison) and conquering over others in order to survive. While this book would have undoubtedly been referred to popularise the methods of cruelty and ruthlessness, it carries that universal appeal of stability and self-reliance that will attracts people and even justifies certain means for certain ends.
nate_maulding's review against another edition
challenging
dark
informative
slow-paced
3.75
Wonderful reflection on power, leadership, and oppression. Interesting concept that one can take both literally and ironically (Machiavelli was incredibly clever).
sophiadale's review against another edition
challenging
informative
reflective
fast-paced
4.5
I read in part because it’s a classic and I’d heard of being “Machiavellian” and would like to consider myself to be “well-read” one day, and also in part because I wanted to practice reading formal text with a lot of referentials as I study for the LSAT. What I didn’t expect was how engaging the simple prose would be and how quickly it would pass. I reflected on many aspects of our modern government and how this thinking might be reflected in social or business dynamics. Really useful, thought provoking, and interesting read that surprised me in its applicability.
And it was worth the cheeky laugh discovering that Michael Scott cribbed his answer to the age old question of if it’s better to be loved or feared (spoiler, Michael’s answer “both” was not far off from Machiavelli’s! I laughed!)
The “Simon & Schuster Pocket Books: Enriched Classic” edition had a fantastic introduction, useful footnotes with brief summaries of relevant historical events or figures, and notes with excerpts from scholars on the text or context. Incredibly helpful in understanding as I read on my own and without any classroom instruction. Strongly recommend!
And it was worth the cheeky laugh discovering that Michael Scott cribbed his answer to the age old question of if it’s better to be loved or feared (spoiler, Michael’s answer “both” was not far off from Machiavelli’s! I laughed!)
The “Simon & Schuster Pocket Books: Enriched Classic” edition had a fantastic introduction, useful footnotes with brief summaries of relevant historical events or figures, and notes with excerpts from scholars on the text or context. Incredibly helpful in understanding as I read on my own and without any classroom instruction. Strongly recommend!
shellydav's review against another edition
5.0
A must read for anyone interested in politics--at the very least, you will understand all the references to Machiavelli!
maddie_is_literate's review against another edition
Its Machiavelli. Need I say more?