Not a lot to say about this book. I read it for a few reasons: 1) A college professor told me every college student should read it before graduating. Well, I didn't make that goal, but I figured better late than never. 2) It gets referenced a lot and I wanted to have a better understanding of what everyone is referring to. 3) I found it on sale at Barnes & Noble + I had a gift card to Barnes & Noble = impulse purchase.
Overall I found it fascinating. If Machiavelli wasn't right in everything he said, he certainly made a good case for it. Admittedly he backed up his statements with examples from history that I was not familiar with so I find it hard to argue with him. The one thing I will argue with him on is his statement that a prince should study war above all things (by prince he means sovereign. He uses the word the way I would use "king"). While I recognize that this must have been very important for a prince at that time (not so much now), I highly doubt it was the only thing a prince should study. Machiavelli himself listed a plethora of examples of a prince needing to understand people, both the specific people around him, as well as how people operate in groups.
I will even agree with Machiavelli's most infamous statement that it is better for a prince to be feared than loved. His reasoning for this is basically that goodwill in and of itself is not enough to keep men from rising up against you and he's right. Men, in general, are selfish and short-sighted and whatever love they bear for their prince is unlikely to be enough to prevent them from rising against him when times get tough. Machiavelli does not say that it is not good for a prince to be loved and I'm afraid that's how this statement is often interpreted. What he actually says is that, if it were possible to be both feared and loved, that would be ideal but, seeing as how that is rarely, if ever, possible, one must choose and the best choice of the two is to be feared.
According to the notes in my translation, the section of this piece that caused the most offense was the one preceding his famous line about fear vs. love. In said section, Machiavelli discusses the various traits a prince should have. I'm not going to list them all but he basically says that, while it sounds like a good idea thing to possess all those traits men think of as virtuous and to abstain from all traits viewed as undesirable, it's just not possible. Machiavelli goes on to list virtuous princes who were overthrown and princes with less than favorable reputations who maintained solid kingdoms throughout their lives. The fact of the matter is that, while one might wish to be thought of as honest and virtuous, possessing those qualities, particularly in the extreme, can lead a monarch to serious problems. Anyone who has seen the first season of Game of Thrones knows that.
My guess would be that where Machiavelli really upset people was when he said it didn't matter whether a prince was religious or not, although it was usually a good idea to appear religious.
DISCLAIMER: I used the term "men" to mean mankind in general because I didn't feel like writing "men and women" every time. So don't take it personally, guys.
No comments:
Post a Comment