≡ [PDF] The Prince Niccolo Machiavelli Adolph Caso Rufus Goodwin 9780937832387 Books

The Prince Niccolo Machiavelli Adolph Caso Rufus Goodwin 9780937832387 Books

Download As PDF : The Prince Niccolo Machiavelli Adolph Caso Rufus Goodwin 9780937832387 Books

The Prince Niccolo Machiavelli Adolph Caso Rufus Goodwin 9780937832387 Books

32,634 words, 26 chapters, additional material
W. K. Marriot translation

Why was this written? If I wanted to conquer a country and become its prince, the first thing I’d need to know is how to get my own personal military. I didn’t find that information in this book. It seems to have been written for men who already have their own personal militaries. Yet most of the advice is about conquest. If they have their own personal militaries, why wouldn’t they already be experts in conquest?

Someone who is already a prince would need to know about what to do after the conquest. He needs to know how to deal with his subjects and how to deal with other rulers without going to war. There should have been an entire chapter on diplomacy and international trade. The alternative to these things is destroying your own principality with perpetual war. Along these lines, after Machiavelli wrote THE PRINCE and before he published it, he wrote a small work entitled “The Life of Castruccio Castracani of Lucca” that illustrated the importance of caution and diplomacy instead of endless conquests. The key was that princes should keep the limitations of their successors in mind when planning military campaigns. After all, princes die young sometimes.

Nothing clear is presented about how a prince should deal with his subjects. A prince might need to kill them, but should leave their property and women alone. He should disarm them so they can’t overthrow him. But what if the principality is being invaded and he needs armed subjects to help him fight the invaders? Liberality is the quickest way to be despised by the subjects, but they should be given festivals and spectacles. It’s confusing and I may have missed it, but he provides no historical examples of princes that prevented unrest and those who failed to do so.

What’s also confusing is what everyone focuses on when they talk about this book. I'm referring to the morality of the prince. Must he have a moral duty, breaking conventional rules only when they interfere with this duty? Or is it permissible for him to be a beast who only cares about his own pleasure and glory? I’m not sure what this book really says about that.

However, THE PRINCE is a valuable early work of political science. The method is pretty good. Ideas are developed from axioms of human nature, then backed up with historical examples. It’s worth reading.

2.8 stars


Tags : The Prince [Niccolo Machiavelli, Adolph Caso, Rufus Goodwin] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Machiavelli needs to be looked at as he really was. Hence: Can Machiavelli, who makes the following observations,Niccolo Machiavelli, Adolph Caso, Rufus Goodwin,The Prince,Dante University of America Press,0937832383,History & Theory,Political,Political ethics;Early works to 1800.,Political science;Early works to 1800.,Early works to 1800,Non-Fiction,PHILOSOPHY Political,POLITICAL SCIENCE History & Theory,Philosophy,Political Ideologies - Radicalism,Political ethics,Political science,Political science & theory,Social & political philosophy,Social History,TEXT,POLITICAL SCIENCE Political Ideologies Democracy,PoliticsInternational Relations

The Prince Niccolo Machiavelli Adolph Caso Rufus Goodwin 9780937832387 Books Reviews

The idea of "reviewing" this is more than a little silly -- it's arguably the most influential non-religious work of all time -- but I thought a few comments & historical notes might still be worthwhile.

"The Prince" was essentially the first work of political realism in Western thought -- the first work of Western political philosophy that concerned itself not with the ideal government (as Plato had done in his _Republic_) but with the practical realities of getting and holding power. To describe the impact and influence of that willingness, that first notion that conventional morality might not be the best guide to success, would be as impossible a task as trying to summarize the influence of Galileo. Napoleon is rumored to have written extensive annotations to this book; Stalin allegedly kept a copy on his nightstand. Half of Shakespeare's villains (Iago, Richard III, etc.) derive their character in whole or part from this text.

Most of this book is extraordinarily controversial, even today, yet still fundamentally difficult to argue against; there's a reason the Catholic Church kept it on the _Index Librorum Prohibitorum_ for centuries. If you're looking for food for thought, it's here.

This particular kindle edition is fairly good; the text is cleanly presented with few typographical or scanning errors, and the translator has clearly made a significant effort to present the text as accurately as possible in a modern translation, with several footnotes detailing possible alternate translations of particular words, etc. In addition to the text of _The Prince_, this edition also includes two shorter historical works by Machiavelli, "Descriptions of the Methods Adopted by the Duke Valentino When Murdering Vitellozzo Vitelli, Oliverotto da Fermo, the Signor Pagolo, and the Duke di Gravina Orsini," and "The Life of Castruccio Castracani of Lucca." ("Duke Valentino" is an alternate name for Cesare Borgia). Both additional texts are, in essence, case studies of how contemporary historical figures achieved success by acting according to the precepts which Machiavelli outlines in the main body of the text, and as such are very useful and interesting companion reads.

As a final note, if anyone has recommendations for histories of Italy in this time period, please link me to them in a comment -- after reading this, I want to read more about the era. Thanks!
A great thesis worth multiple readings. This collection of essays and letters are one man's fascinating take on politics and war. The only thing which takes away from the overall work are the appendices which try to spoon-feed conclusions as opposed to providing context for the greater work.

To be able to read and understand this book correctly, you must be prepared to spend some time understanding the politics and conflicts of the time. That being said, it's the only way to do it and be able to grasp more than surface conclusions. Being able to read and understand the work changed my understanding of not just politics, but also my interactions with different groups both socially and in my work life.
I often heard of this book but never read it and after reading it I am sorry I didn't pick it up sooner. Some people think that the book is cruel and calculating, but I think it is very insightful of how governments take over countries and keep their citizens in line. Some times it means killing the old administration (literally) and other times it means employing citizens in new territories that you are trying to take over. The writing wasn't convoluted at all. It was very clear and well written. This is definitely a book you can read over and over again.
32,634 words, 26 chapters, additional material
W. K. Marriot translation

Why was this written? If I wanted to conquer a country and become its prince, the first thing I’d need to know is how to get my own personal military. I didn’t find that information in this book. It seems to have been written for men who already have their own personal militaries. Yet most of the advice is about conquest. If they have their own personal militaries, why wouldn’t they already be experts in conquest?

Someone who is already a prince would need to know about what to do after the conquest. He needs to know how to deal with his subjects and how to deal with other rulers without going to war. There should have been an entire chapter on diplomacy and international trade. The alternative to these things is destroying your own principality with perpetual war. Along these lines, after Machiavelli wrote THE PRINCE and before he published it, he wrote a small work entitled “The Life of Castruccio Castracani of Lucca” that illustrated the importance of caution and diplomacy instead of endless conquests. The key was that princes should keep the limitations of their successors in mind when planning military campaigns. After all, princes die young sometimes.

Nothing clear is presented about how a prince should deal with his subjects. A prince might need to kill them, but should leave their property and women alone. He should disarm them so they can’t overthrow him. But what if the principality is being invaded and he needs armed subjects to help him fight the invaders? Liberality is the quickest way to be despised by the subjects, but they should be given festivals and spectacles. It’s confusing and I may have missed it, but he provides no historical examples of princes that prevented unrest and those who failed to do so.

What’s also confusing is what everyone focuses on when they talk about this book. I'm referring to the morality of the prince. Must he have a moral duty, breaking conventional rules only when they interfere with this duty? Or is it permissible for him to be a beast who only cares about his own pleasure and glory? I’m not sure what this book really says about that.

However, THE PRINCE is a valuable early work of political science. The method is pretty good. Ideas are developed from axioms of human nature, then backed up with historical examples. It’s worth reading.

2.8 stars