The Prince and Other Writings

Rating:
Summary: An excellent edition of an important philosophical work.
Review: 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.