Sign in with Facebook
Sasha's Reviews > The Prince
The Prince
by
by
I'm weirdly pleased that The Prince lives up to its reputation: it is indeed Machiavellian. Here's his advice on conquering self-governing states (i.e. democracies): "The only way to hold on to such a state is to reduce it to rubble." Well then.
I'd like to say that any guy whose last name becomes a synonym for evil is a badass, but Machiavelli wasn't; he was a failed minor diplomat who wrote this in a failed attempt to get reemployed. Stupid attempt, too; anyone who hired him would be advertising that he espoused Machiavellian values. This book was published, after all. And as he himself advises, "A leader doesn't have to possess virtuous qualities, but it's imperative that he seem to possess them."
So I'll go with this: anyone whose last name becomes a synonym for evil has written a good book.
I hope to match that effect with my first novel. Working title: "Unicorns are Pretty."
So if Machiavelli was such a loser, how did his book get so famous? It's not because it's great advice; it sortof isn't. I think it's because it's just a ton of fun to read. It's chock full of over-the-top quotes like the ones above. It's really funny.
Which brings up a recurring topic for debate: did he intend for this to be taken seriously, or is it satire? I think it's the former: mixed in with the zany stuff is a fair amount of common-sense advice. He could certainly have included that to make the zany stuff pop more, or to camouflage it a bit, but I prefer to think he meant the whole thing seriously. And it's not like any of it is advice someone hasn't followed at some point. (See my first quote above: yeah, we've tried that.)
Translation review: this is the very latest translation. Parks has gone to great trouble to reduce the crazy complexity of Machiavelli's sentences - I know this from reading his excellent Translator's Note - and I appreciate that. He's also tried hard to make it accessible to modern audience. It's a clear and easy translation. Good intro, too. And a glossary of proper names at the back, so you can sort out the various contemporary figures you don't recognize.
I'll close with my favorite quote: "It's better to be impulsive than cautious; fortune is female and if you want to stay on top of her you have to slap and thrust."
Machiavelli: kindof a dick.
I'd like to say that any guy whose last name becomes a synonym for evil is a badass, but Machiavelli wasn't; he was a failed minor diplomat who wrote this in a failed attempt to get reemployed. Stupid attempt, too; anyone who hired him would be advertising that he espoused Machiavellian values. This book was published, after all. And as he himself advises, "A leader doesn't have to possess virtuous qualities, but it's imperative that he seem to possess them."
So I'll go with this: anyone whose last name becomes a synonym for evil has written a good book.
I hope to match that effect with my first novel. Working title: "Unicorns are Pretty."
So if Machiavelli was such a loser, how did his book get so famous? It's not because it's great advice; it sortof isn't. I think it's because it's just a ton of fun to read. It's chock full of over-the-top quotes like the ones above. It's really funny.
Which brings up a recurring topic for debate: did he intend for this to be taken seriously, or is it satire? I think it's the former: mixed in with the zany stuff is a fair amount of common-sense advice. He could certainly have included that to make the zany stuff pop more, or to camouflage it a bit, but I prefer to think he meant the whole thing seriously. And it's not like any of it is advice someone hasn't followed at some point. (See my first quote above: yeah, we've tried that.)
Translation review: this is the very latest translation. Parks has gone to great trouble to reduce the crazy complexity of Machiavelli's sentences - I know this from reading his excellent Translator's Note - and I appreciate that. He's also tried hard to make it accessible to modern audience. It's a clear and easy translation. Good intro, too. And a glossary of proper names at the back, so you can sort out the various contemporary figures you don't recognize.
I'll close with my favorite quote: "It's better to be impulsive than cautious; fortune is female and if you want to stay on top of her you have to slap and thrust."
Machiavelli: kindof a dick.
Sign into ŷ to see if any of your friends have read
The Prince.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
March 17, 2010
–
Started Reading
March 17, 2010
– Shelved
March 19, 2010
–
Finished Reading
March 26, 2010
– Shelved as:
2010
July 19, 2011
– Shelved as:
reading-through-history
December 29, 2013
– Shelved as:
top-100
January 2, 2015
– Shelved as:
rth-lifetime
Comments Showing 1-42 of 42 (42 new)
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
JSou
(new)
Mar 19, 2010 02:26PM
Wow, didn't you just start this yesterday?
reply
|
flag
Day before yesterday. It's only 100 pages long, and I "worked from home" this afternoon.
Awesome review, Alex! Your favorite quote is the literary equivalent of those ridiculous t-shirts you can buy in touristy beach towns, or Tijuana.
Thanks Cindy!And good call, you're totally right. I should have a t-shirt made. Ten years later one person will get the joke and it'll be worth all the times I get slapped.
Oh my God, Jessica. It's...it's breathtaking. You're a
genius.
I think I'm actually going to have that made. It's only like $25 on Cafepress to do that sort of thing.
The picture and the tightening of the quote really perfect it. What font did you use? I want it to look exactly like this.
My gods, that's brilliant! Crud, I'm laughing so hard over here that my eyes are watering.So, Alex, what happens when the first stranger approaches you says, "Right on, Machiavelli"?
I can't remember the exact font I used, it was one of the gothic ones though.If you do get it made you have to let us know how it turns out.
That is breathtakingly awesome :-D You must buy this t-shirt and then take a picture of yourself in it to use as your profile picture. We all await w/ baited breath and anticipation.
Awesome review, Alex. Awesome t-shirt, Jessica!
If you write a book titled Unicorns are Pretty, I'll definitely buy and read it!
I'm sad you left out more funny comments from his book. You couldve squeezed one or two more in :)
Excellent review. Been trying to find time to read The Prince, and I probably will (eventually), but this is a great source of background information and a clear-cut opinion.
Thanks man! Hope you get to it. It's fun stuff.
hahabest review of the book, the quote made me buy the book!
Machiavelli was a die hard republican. The book is not so much what should be done its what works. To better understand Machiavelli, read "The Discourses."
Thanks! I was worried for a minute there because my monthly quota of pedantic dorks trying to look intellectual on my reviews hadn't been met yet, but then here you are! WHEW.
I disagree with the belief that machiavelli was machiavellian, he was a man who watched political activities around him for he was an ambassador. He only wrote about what he saw, therefore these are not his evil ideas bit are actions that he saw were working for power and he of course shared his knowledge.
Source: my course in political philosophy
Source: my course in political philosophy
Alex, you give the translator's name as Parks. That doesn't correspond with the name of the translator of the edition this review is attached to, which is Russell Price, as you'll discover in the Editors' note on page vii. Which edition was translated by Parks?
It's a ŷ thing; they mix up the editions. You should see a note somewhere that mentions this review is of a different edition and provides a link.
OK, thanks Alex. I've found ŷ' record of the edition you read.
I don't think it's, to a discernible extent, satire. The book has no markers that show it as being anything satirical at all. His admiration for Cesare Borgia, his recurrent advice to not upset the people by damaging their wealth and honor, his open contempt for weak leaders, the fact that this work ties in with his other works to build a comprehensive view of leadership and many more things all points to this being a serious (not that satire is not serious) work of political philosophy. Your claim that the book is satire is weak and unfounded. All the advice in this book is pragmatic for rulers and is backed with precedent set by other leaders.
I agree with you, Saad. I wrote: did he intend for this to be taken seriously, or is it satire? I think it's the former: mixed in with the zany stuff is a fair amount of common-sense advice. He could certainly have included that to make the zany stuff pop more, or to camouflage it a bit, but I prefer to think he meant the whole thing seriously. And it's not like any of it is advice someone hasn't followed at some point.
Sorry for the mix up. I musnt have read the review properly
Love your review to this. Currently reading the Parks edition too (mainly for the fact I like Penguin Deluxe covers). I'm not really into politics at all, so reading this because of the Borgias and historical value. Not sure what I think of it overall.
Un livre toujours aussi passionnant même plus de 500 ans après son écriture !
A book everyone's still passionate about, more than 500 years after it was written!(Did I get that right?)
Firstly, kudos on reading the book. Most people haven't. I'm mainly writing this comment to enrich your experience of this work. Use it or don't.Your review contains a few errors.
Machiavelli didn't appear to agree with what he wrote. That's primarily what made him lose his job, a position in the Republic of Florence. I assume you deduced he sought employment with it from the foreword to Lorenzo Medici. But other facts suggest that employment wasn't his goal. This is also what makes the story behind the book so divisive.
The Prince was not published until after Machiavelli's death. Also, he authored a different earlier book, The Discourses of Livy, that speaks at length about what creates stable governments, especially republics. He refers to it in the introduction of The Prince. It's a more difficult read, but still very interesting.
The reputation of a Machiavellian only developed after his death, specifically as the word became heavily used by Shakespeare and his peers several decades later. It was never applied to Machiavelli during his lifetime.
Indeed, he was a known supporter of republics and liberty, which is why he lost his job. The Medicis returned to Florence and kicked out the constitutional republic led by Piero Soderini, Machiavelli's employer, that briefly formed there after they were chased from the city. Machiavelli wasn't just fired - he was tortured for his beliefs and support of the republic over a Medici principiality.
This is a primary reason why many believe The Prince was written more as a warning and expose than a manual. Though he did address the book to a Medici ruler, that could still have been a sly ploy to expose the habits of totalitarian rulers. It's not a coincidence that he frames a lot of the writing around Cesare Borgia. Again, he might seem to be praising Cesare, but his other work and his conduct in life tells us Machiavelli was not in favour of what the Borgia Pope's son got up to.
There is a fantastic Ted-Ed video on Youtube that explains the controversy around The Prince and its reputation. I really recommend watching it.
These aren't errors so much as differences of opinion, James. I considered whether the book was meant as satire - or, in your words, an expose - but I ended up on the other side of that debate.You're right that it wasn't, like, published published until after his death, but it was circulated and known during his lifetime. Semantic debate there.
All that said, it's been a very long time since I read this and I wouldn't be totally shocked to find that I switch my views on a re-read. You make some good points. It's still on my shelves; maybe one of these days I'll get back to it!
Thanks Alex, and fair enough. I didn't come to my conclusion on the book alone but only after some broader research around the era - started, ironically, by looking into Michelangelo on an unrelated topic. But once the picture of the politics of the era started to emerge, I found it hard to see Machiavelli in the way you do.
Still, each to his own. Thanks for the reply.
Entertaining review!And yes, after I read the final quote in your review I immediately thought “what a dick!�
Alex wrote: "Thanks! I was worried for a minute there because my monthly quota of pedantic dorks trying to look intellectual on my reviews hadn't been met yet, but then here you are! WHEW."Whew indeed. How dare he comment on your review with FACTS and KNOWLEDGE. This is strictly a space for silly funnies.
He actually commented "The book is not so much what should be done its what works," which is neither facts nor knowledge nor spelled right, and also yes.
Why did you choose to quote that sentence instead of the one right before it where he says, "Machiavelli was a diehard republican"? This is both a fact, and knowledge, that you did not seem to be aware of when you wrote the review. Did you really think I wouldn't notice this, when I could easily scroll up and see what he "actually" said? Speaking of misrepresentation, you should have just admitted that you got Machiavelli wrong in your review. Instead, you chose to respond insultingly to a polite comment for no reason. Also, it's interesting you call out his grammar mistake. It's almost, dare I say, pedantic of you.
Oh my god you're so boring
"Seinfeld is unfunny" the review.
A lot of people (not only kissinger) still take this as a how-to. Same type of folks who took inspiration from Gordon Gekko’s greed is good speech - i.e. sociopaths.
Hilarious review. That last quote, misogynistic as it was, made me laugh out loud.
