|
The Prince and Other Writings (Barnes & Noble Classics)
|
| Price: |
37 new or used available from $1.24
Average customer review:
Product Description
Defining human nature as inherently selfish, Machiavelli proposes that social conflict and violence are natural phenomena that help determine the ablest, most versatile form of government. Asserting that idealism has no place in the political arena, The Prince primarily addresses a monarch’s difficulties in retaining authority. Considered the first expression of political realism, it has often been accused of advocating a political philosophy in which “the end justifies the means.” Indeed the emphasis in The Prince on practical success, at the expense even of traditional moral values, earned Machiavelli a reputation for ruthlessness, deception, and cruelty. Many scholars contend, however, that the author’s pragmatic views of ethics and politics reflected the realities of his time, as exemplified by the Medici family of Florence.
Debates about Machiavelli’s theories are as lively today as they were 450 years ago, but no one questions the importance of his fundamental contribution to Western political thought. This newly translated edition also includes Machiavelli’s Letter to Francesco Vettori, The Life of Castruccio Castracani, and excerpts from the Discourses on Livy.
Wayne A. Rebhorn
Product Details
- Amazon Sales Rank: #648084 in Books
- Published on: 2004-10-21
- Original language: English
- Number of items: 1
- Binding: Hardcover
- 272 pages
Editorial Reviews
Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.
All of Machiavelli’s works, and especially The Prince, can be read as a series of responses to the crises he was living through, to the personal crisis he experienced when the Florentine republic fell in 1512, and to the larger crises involving Italian and international politics, the theoretical conception of the state, and the vision of the ruler. Or perhaps it would be better to say that his texts are not just passive responses to those crises, but active attempts to define, to give voice to, what was happening in the world around him, and indeed to promote action in that world as well. In them Machiavelli is asking over and over the same questions: why are we Italians so weak, so much unlike our Roman ancestors? Why have we become the prey of the larger states around us? And how can we remedy this situation? What sort of state and what sort of ruler will allow us not just to maintain our independence, but perhaps to regain some of the glory of ancient Rome? Bound up with these questions was Machiavelli’s more personal one: why did I fail, and how can I get back the political role I once played in the republic? As he tries to answer these questions in The Prince, the Discourses, and his other works, he also grapples with the problem of how to make sense out of history, how to extract useful lessons from it so that we can avoid the mistakes of the past.
Although Machiavelli theorizes about politics throughout his works, he takes pains to separate what he is doing from the work of pure theorists. Thus, at the start of chapter 15 in The Prince, he distinguishes himself from those who “have imagined republics and principalities for themselves which have never been seen or known to exist in reality.” Instead, he tells us, he writes about la verità effetuale della cosa, “the effectual truth of the matter.” By “effectual truth” he means a truth—about politics as well as about human nature—that has an effect in the real world, rather than something more purely speculative or contemplative. Although More’s Utopia might seem to be the sort of work about an imaginary republic that Machiavelli is objecting to here, it was written in 1515 and 1516, some two years or so after Machiavelli started working on The Prince. Nevertheless, More’s thought-experiment about the best of all possible states grows out of a long tradition, which Machiavelli surely knew, of imagining ideal states and rulers, a tradition that stretches back into antiquity and that has Plato’s Republic as one of its clear progenitors. Moreover, there was a genre of political writing to which both authors are responding in their books, a genre called the speculum principis, the “mirror for princes,” in which authors composed idealized portraits of princes and their duties in order to offer instruction to rulers and rulers in training. The great Dutch Humanist Desiderius Erasmus had written just such a volume, the Institutio principis christiani (The Education of a Christian Prince), for Charles V, and published it in 1516. Like many works in this genre that stretch back well into the Middle Ages, Erasmus’s book offers sober advice stressing the importance of Judeo-Christian morality as the basis for governing. While More’s Utopia fits quite comfortably into this genre in many ways, Machiavelli’s Prince can almost be read as a parody of its idealistic moralizing, for his book repeatedly underscores the gap between morality and politics, insisting that a prince who tries to do good in a world full of bad people will inevitably come to grief. Machiavelli takes the name of the genre seriously: he tries to reflect in the “mirror” of his book what real princes really do—and must do—in the real world if they are to obtain and maintain political power.
In keeping with his preference for an effectual truth that bears fruit in the real world, Machiavelli stresses the importance of judging human beings and their deeds in terms of how things turn out in the end. This is not the same thing as saying that the end justifies the means, although sometimes Machiavelli is interpreted that way. Revealingly, in chapter 18 of The Prince, “How Princes Must Keep Their Word,” he uses a phrase that shows just how different his thought is on this subject. The phrase occurs just after Machiavelli has declared that a prince must appear to be “all mercy, all loyalty, all sincerity, all humanity, all religion,” although he need not actually have any of these qualities. The reason is that men in general judge things by appearances and that the few who may perceive the truth will be overwhelmed by the many who do not. Moreover, he continues, “in the actions of all men, and especially of princes, where there is no court of appeal, one looks at the outcome.” “One looks at the outcome”: si guarda al fine. Machiavelli’s statement here may seem to suggest he is saying that the end or outcome justifies whatever means the prince might use to achieve it—in other words, that a good end makes even the most wicked means morally acceptable. But what he is really saying is that people will judge a prince’s means to be good as long as he succeeds and the outcome is beneficial to them. Machiavelli admits, both here and in his works generally, that morality may be a good thing, but it is not what drives people’s behavior in the real world. What he is not saying, however, is also important, for by not declaring that the end justifies the means for the prince, he is not offering the prince a convenient way out of the moral dilemma he faces, which results from the fact that if he wants to gain and keep political power, he has to do despicable things that cannot really be justified morally by the end he pursues. If one could argue that a prince who does evil does it simply in order to bring about some greater moral good—defined as, say, political stability or economic welfare— then this problem would vanish. Such a move was precisely the one made by political theorists in Machiavelli’s wake who came up with the idea of ragione di stato or raison d’état—namely, that some serious and morally unimpeachable “reason of state” could justify the most criminally culpable acts. By contrast, what Machiavelli is saying is harder, more uncomfortable, more thought-provoking, and more cynical: sometimes the prince must do evil simply because he cannot gain or preserve power otherwise, but as long as he succeeds and people benefit from it, they will not be upset.
Customer Reviews
An excellent edition of an important philosophical work.
The term "Machiavellian" is frequently used to describe ruthlessness and brutality in a leader, and most people who have read about Machiavelli but have not actually read Machiavelli's own works assume that he believed "the ends justify the means." However, this is a common misperception. His actual words are: "[. . .] in the actions of all men, and especially of princes, where there is no court of appeal, one looks at the outcome" (pg. 77). He does not, here or anywhere else in his writing, attempt to provide any moral justification for ruthlessness, but merely says that a leader will always be judged by his people based on the end result of his actions. He was very pragmatic in his outlook on princely rule, and sought to explain the actions that would and would not be effective in gaining and maintaining the rule of a nation.
Another point of some confusion is the saying that "it is better to be feared than to be loved." Again, this is not quite what Machiavelli meant. His actual words are: "[. . .] there arises a dispute: whether it is better to be loved than feared, or the contrary. The reply is that one should like to be both the one and the other, but as it is difficult to bring them together, it is much safer to be feared than to be loved if one of the two has to be lacking" (pg. 72). It is also noteworthy to point out that the word "fear" at the time Machiavelli was alive was less synonymous with its modern meaning than it was with the word "respect." He was saying that a prince's throne is more secure if he is feared/respected but not loved than it is if he is loved but not feared/respected. Machiavelli does not say that a prince who is feared is the moral better of one who is loved.
"The Prince" is a truly fascinating work of philosophy, describing the ideal conduct (in mechanical and not moral terms) of an effective sovereign. Despite the fact that it is entirely concerned with the government of principalities, Machiavelli himself was a republican, and believed that the most effective form of government would combine elements of a principality, an aristocracy, and a democracy. His motivation to write "The Prince" came from his desire to ingratiate himself with the Medici family, the ruling power in Florence at the time, and also from his belief that only a single, strong ruler would be powerful enough to unify and liberate a then-factionalized Italy.
The book is not an easy read, but is more accessible than, say, Rousseau's "Social Conract" (I'm not equating the topics of these two books, but just comparing literary style). Machiavelli tends to use very long, complex sentences, and it's easy to get derailed before reaching the end of one. Some of his sentences easily take up a third of a page. This particular translation has made things a little simpler, and in the introduction the translator admits to breaking up some of Machiavelli's longer sentences into multiple shorter ones. The translator also includes helpful notes to supplement the text, which aid the reader's understanding. I do wish, though, that he'd placed these as footnotes rather than at the end of each chapter, since they are quite copious and having to flip back and forth after every few sentences can be distracting. Nevertheless, the content of "The Prince" is definitely worth the time and concentration it takes to read.
Readers who do not already have a detailed knowledge of pre-16th century Italian and ancient Roman history will no doubt have additional difficulties understanding Machiavelli's work. Being Italian, he used examples primarily from Italy's political history and from his studies of Rome. The translator's notes do help somewhat, but do not provide a full background. Machiavelli also, at times, misrepresents history either inadvertantly, or purposefully so as to better back up his arguments. He also has a tendency to over-simplify things, and does not take into account that real life is rarely as clear-cut as he presents it.
One thing I like about this edition of "The Prince" (2003 Barnes & Noble printing w/ translation by Wayne A. Rebhorn) is that it includes some of Machiavelli's other writings. "The Life of Castruccio Castracani of Lucca" is interesting for a couple of reasons. It was intended to show an example of someone who had the proper princely qualities (by Machiavelli's standards). However, to make Castracani fit more completely his conception of the ideal prince, Machiavelli fabricated many aspects of his life. This piece serves more as an insight into Machiavelli's character than as a biography of Castracani. The other writings included are a letter Machiavelli sent to his friend Francesco Vettori, concerning "The Prince," and several excerpts from his "Discourses on the First Ten Books of Titus Livy," which were written at the same time as, and are supplementary to, "The Prince." At the end there is a selection of comments, contemporary and modern, from others regarding Machiavelli's writing, as well as four critical-thinking questions to help a reader better analyze the text.
While many things have changed since Machiavelli wrote "The Prince" in c.1513, much of what he says is still relevant to some degree. The basic concepts he presents can be adapted for application in just about any position of leadership. However, it must always be remembered that this book was only meant as a technical guide, and does not attempt to justify itself on moral grounds. "The Prince" is also a worthwhile read for the reason that it will give the reader a better, more complete understanding of the term "Machiavellian," and the ability to recognize when it is or isn't being used correctly, as well as the ability to use it correctly themself. This is a must-read for anyone interested in political philosophy, and has much to offer whether you agree with Machiavelli's ideas or not.
It is safer to be feared than loved
This book, which was expertly translated by Professor Wayne Rebhorn of the University of Texas at Austin, provides an excellent view of the seminal work of a Renaissance scholar: Niccolo Machiavelli. Professor Rebhorn also included a few of the lesser known works of Signor Machiavelli: The Letter to Francesco Vettori, The Life of Castruccio Castracani, along with selected excerpts from the Discourses on Livy.
Machiavelli's frequently quoted line, "It is better to be feared than loved," actually has a somewhat different meaning that is not always seen in modern times. " ... è molto più sicuro essere temuto che amato, quando si abbi a mancare dell'uno de' dua." "It is much safer to be feared than loved, when one has to lack either of the two." Which is my own translation.
As Professor Rebhorn mentioned in a lengthy and informative introduction, sometimes the translator is a traitor (traduttore tradire). Dr. Rebhorn went to great lengths to explain his own philosophy of translation, and his efforts to properly convey the Renaissance thoughts of Machiavelli into present day English. As a life-long student of the Italian language, I appreciated the detailed nature of Professor Rebhorn's premise to make the language of Machiavelli more understandable. Especially to those of us who are not Renaissance scholars.
"The Prince" should be required reading for all students of the Renaissance. As you will see, Machiavelli was more than a political figure. He was a great historian, diplomat, and son of the Republic of Florence.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this intriguing book.
Great Hardcover of a Classic
There's not much to say. It's a great hardcover edition of a must-read for just about everyone out there. In terms of philosophical importance, the examination of this book must be included in your curriculum (be it personal or via formal education).
