What do you think?
Rate this book
The Prince
Machiavelli needs to be looked at as he really was. Hence: Can Machiavelli, who makes the following observations, be Machiavellian as we understand the disparaging term? 1. So it is that to know the nature of a people, one need be a Prince; to know the nature of a Prince, one need to be of the people. 2. If a Prince is not given to vices that make him hated, it is unsusal for his subjects to show their affection for him. 3. Opportunity made Moses, Cyrus, Romulus, Theseus, and others; their virtue domi-nated the opportunity, making their homelands noble and happy. Armed prophets win; the disarmed lose. 4. Without faith and religion, man achieves power but not glory. 5. Prominent citizens want to command and oppress; the populace only wants to be free of oppression. 6. A Prince needs a friendly populace; otherwise in diversity there is no hope. 7. A Prince, who rules as a man of valor, avoids disasters, 8. Nations based on mercenary forces will never be solid or secure. 9. Mercenaries are dangerous because of their cowardice 10. There are two ways to fight: one with laws, the other with force. The first is rightly man’s way; the second, the way of beasts.
144 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1513
About the author
Niccolò Machiavelli
1,631 books4,126 followersNiccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli was an Italian political philosopher, musician, poet, and playwright. He is a figure of the Italian Renaissance and a central figure of its political component, most widely known for his treatises on realist political theory (The Prince) on the one hand and republicanism (Discourses on Livy) on the other.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 12,913 reviews
November 11, 2011
That single statement boys and girls is the crux at the heart of the matter resting at the bottom-line of Niccolo Machiavelli’s world-changing classic on the defining use of realpolitik in governance and foreign policy. Despite popular perception, Machiavelli, whose name has often been used as a synonym for political ASSHATery, was not arguing that it’s better to be immoral, cruel and evil than to be moral, just and good. Rather, Machiavelli was demonstrating, through reasoned analysis based on numerous historical examples, that the most effective way to govern a population is through decision-making based on the current situation without muddying up the waters with considerations of morality.
Holy snickerdoodles that's amoral!! Uh...yes, by definition it is.
However, Machiavelli, in his famous use of end justifying means, supports the rightness of his position by citing numerous examples of “princes” who, in acting "all just and proper like” in relation to their neighbors and subjects, led their people right into the waiting arms of bondage and slaughter at the hands of those who were less vituous in their thinking. Should such murdered and subjugated populations thank the princes for their unwaivering morality? Machiavelli says HELLS NO. He argues that the Prince’s #1 priority is to safeguard his holdings and maintain stability within his borders. Allowing other considerations to affect such judgements will only provide an advantage to third parties who will exploit it. In the end, Machiavelli argues, fewer lives will be lost and less suffering incurred by the Prince who can govern EFFECTIVELY.
Not necessarily warm and fuzzy Sesame Street thinking, but there is some serious power to the reasoning. I wish we lived in a world in which that was not the case. I wish Machiavelli’s insights were not needed and that we lived in a world where loftier morals could carry the day. However, until we do, Machiavelli’s words provide much ringing truth and thought food.
PLOT SYNOPSIS
I don’t want to sound like a book report so let me just summarize briefly how the book is laid out.
Machiavelli wrote The Prince for Lorenzo de Medici, whose family ruled Florence at the time, as basically a job application. He wanted to get in good with the de Medici family secure a place at their court. The book, while jumping around a bit, can be divided into 3 or 4 sections, the last really being a summarizing “call to arms” to the Italian people that they need a wise prince to lead them back to the greatness of the Roman Empire.
Discounting the rah rah speech at the end, the other 3 sections deal with (1) the kinds of principalities and how they are acquired; (2) the proper organization of the military and the best kind of solider to comprise it; and (3) the internal make up of a princes court (i.e., associates and subordinates).
Section 1 is interesting and fun to read, but basically worthless for anything other than historical perspective. Machiavelli discusses territories won be conquest, inheritance or luck and talks about the various characteristics of each. While not exactly "awe-inspiring" in its perception, the narrative itself is interesting and Machiavelli’s “voice” is engaging.
Section 2 can be summarized as follows: Mercenaries well and truly SUCK and should not be used under any circumstances because their suckage will end up squandering your resources and giving squat in return. Therefore, the wise Prince keeps a standing army sufficient to protect the country’s interests.
Section 3 is the real meat of the work and contains the bulk of the advice that garnered Niccolo his much deserved reputation for suggesting the propriety of abandoning morality in governance. He speaks of the need of the Prince to be able to deceive and act against the "five" virtues of the righteous man when necessary for the betterment of his state and his people.
Therefore it is unnecessary for a prince to have all the good qualities I have enumerated, but it is very necessary to appear to have them. And I shall dare to say this also, that to have them and always to observe them is injurious, and that to appear to have them is useful; to appear merciful, faithful, humane, religious, upright, and to be so, but with a mind so framed that should you require not to be so, you may be able and know how to change to the opposite.Machiavelli discusses numerous examples of sovereigns who either benefitted from following such advice or, conversely, who suffered calamity for adhering to a sense of virtue.
The promise given was a necessity of the past: the word broken is a necessity of the present.
THOUGHTS
Ground-breaking and brilliantly insightful, especially for its time. So much of what Machiavelli says is now an ingrained part of political thinking that it comes across as DUH when you read it. However, it was Niccolo who first put forth these concepts that have become the dogma and foundation of modern political thought. He put the “real” in realpolitk. I don’t think the contribution he made to political theory can be overstated. It was The Prince that called out the distinction between what men “say” and what they “do.” He did not invent political immorality, but he did recognize it as an effective, and at time crucial, aspect of rule. Something the famous rulers of history have always known…and practiced.
In addition, I was surprised at how much fun the book was to read. Machiavelli includes dozens and dozens of brief vignettes about world history in supporting his ideas and does a great job keeping the reader engaged with colorful descriptions of past events. The book is also chalk-full of wonderful quotes that just jumped out at me as I was reading. Here are a few that I thought were intriguing:
The new ruler must determine all the injuries that he will need to inflict. He must inflict them once and for all…People should either be caressed or crushed. If you do them minor damage they will get their revenge; but if you cripple them there is nothing they can do. If you need to injure someone, do it in such a way that you do not have to fear their vengeance.”In addition to post-revolutionary purges and new government administrations, the above has also become a truism for business and is why corporations do “massive layoffs” rather than a series of smaller scale terminations. Gee, thanks Niccolo.
“My view is that it is desirable to be both loved and feared; but it is difficult to achieve both and, if one of them has to be lacking, it is much safer to be feared than loved.” Ah...just like the Godfather.
Oh…and lest the above not make it clear, for all his amazing contributions to world-history we should not lose sight of the fact that Machiavelli, for all his astuteness, was a bit of an asshole. While his work is engaging and wonderful reading and I give him full marks for “calling it like it is,” he is still not the kind of guy you want educating your children or providing life lessons. I admire his work, but the man comes across as quite a scummy, conniving douche.
You know, like a modern politician.
5.0 Stars. HIGHEST POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATION!!
July 30, 2019
This is no Little Prince, that's for sure. You must kill the fox, burn the rose, murder the businessman, if any of them tries to take control over your princedom. There's no time to be nice! There's only time to seem to be nice. At the end of the day, it is better to be feared than loved, if you can't be both. Nevertheless, keep in mind chapter 23.
The Prince was written in the 16th century and a couple of its ideas are too contemporary. It is a major treatise that influenced several political leaders throughout history. Machiavelli is widely regarded as the father of modern politics by taking away any trace of theology and morality from his works. (That is something no one has ever said before.) I should have read it long ago, but everything has its time, I suppose.
So, there are a lot of concepts that should just stay in the book and a few which you may apply to everyday circumstances. It delivers what you are waiting for, if you want to know how to have and keep power to yourself, no matter the head you are crushing, and all that using a fairly straightforward language. It is a short book and easy to understand, even though the notion of achieving glory, power and survival, regardless of how immoral you have to be... it is not difficult to comprehend; that we get.
Cruelty, wickedness, immorality; all those things apparently needed to achieve greatness, all of them printed long ago in the form of a little book, just like that... From a twisted point of view, sometimes, it is almost a bit funny.
It was an excellent read.
Lovely.
* Also on my blog.
The Prince was written in the 16th century and a couple of its ideas are too contemporary. It is a major treatise that influenced several political leaders throughout history. Machiavelli is widely regarded as the father of modern politics by taking away any trace of theology and morality from his works. (That is something no one has ever said before.) I should have read it long ago, but everything has its time, I suppose.
So, there are a lot of concepts that should just stay in the book and a few which you may apply to everyday circumstances. It delivers what you are waiting for, if you want to know how to have and keep power to yourself, no matter the head you are crushing, and all that using a fairly straightforward language. It is a short book and easy to understand, even though the notion of achieving glory, power and survival, regardless of how immoral you have to be... it is not difficult to comprehend; that we get.
Cruelty, wickedness, immorality; all those things apparently needed to achieve greatness, all of them printed long ago in the form of a little book, just like that... From a twisted point of view, sometimes, it is almost a bit funny.
It was an excellent read.
There is no other way to guard yourself against flattery than by making men understand that telling you the truth will not offend you. (137)
Lovely.
* Also on my blog.
April 30, 2019
أعطيتُ الكتاب 3 نجوم لكثيرٍ من الأسباب
فمع إختلافي مع غالبية آراءه إلا أنني أرى ميكافيللي رجلاً شديد الذكاء ويحب وطنه إيطاليا بطريقته الخاصة
كما أنه يسمِّي الأشياء بمسمياتها وهذا ما يجعله شريفا في نظري
أتفق مع ميكافيللي في رؤيته للحياة والبشر فهو "وكما جاء في مقدمة الكتاب" كان يقول أحياناًإنه لم يكن ليقدّم بعض ما قدمه من أقوال مريرة ساخرة لو أنَّ البشر كانوا عازفين عن الشر، ولو لم يكن بعضهم في أسفل سافلين
فيقول ميكافيللي "يجب على الحاكم العاقل ألا يحفظ عهدا يكون الوفاء به ضد مصلحته ،إن هذا المبدأ قد يكون شرّا لو كان جميع البشر خيرين ،ولكن لما كانوا جميعاً أشرارا ولن يراعواوفاءك معهم فأنت لذلك في حلٍّ من أن تحفظ عهدك معهم "ء
THE DUDE HAS A POINT ! :D
إذن نحن أمام رجل يتفهم الحياة والناس جيداً ويعرف نقائصهم وفضل أن يتناول الأشخاص كما هم لا كما يجب أن يكونوا _ كما قال فرنسيس بيكون
من أسوأ الجمل في هذا الكتاب هذه العبارة
"إن إهانتنا لإنسان لابد وأن تكون إهانة تغنينا عن أن نخشى معها إنتقامه"
!
أعجبني الكتاب وأظنّ قراءته مهمة للمهتمين بالسياسة و غير المهتمين كذلك
وسيساعدك كثيراً على فهم ما يدور من حولك خاصة في هذه الفترات الحساسة من تاريخنا مع ثورات الربيع العربي
August 22, 2021
Il Principe = The Prince, Niccolò Machiavelli
The Prince is a 16th-century political treatise by the Italian diplomat and political theorist Niccolò Machiavelli.
Machiavelli said that The Prince would be about princedoms, mentioning that he has written about republics elsewhere, but in fact he mixes discussion of republics into this in many places, effectively treating republics as a type of princedom also, and one with many strengths.
More importantly, and less traditionally, he distinguishes new princedoms from hereditary established princedoms. He deals with hereditary princedoms quickly in Chapter 2, saying that they are much easier to rule.
For such a prince, "unless extraordinary vices cause him to be hated, it is reasonable to expect that his subjects will be naturally well disposed towards him".
انتشاراتیها: (اقبال؛ جامی، پژواک؛ روزگار نو)؛ تاریخ نخستین خوانش: اول سپتامبر سال 1995میلادی؛ تاریخ دومین خوانش: روز هشتم سپتامبر سال1995میلادی
عنوان: شهریار؛ نویسنده: نیکولو ماکیاوللی؛ مترجم: داریوش آشوری؛ تهران، پرواز، 1366؛ در 135ص؛ 1374، در 195ص؛ چاپ دوم نشر مرکز، 1375، در 167ص؛ شابک 9643052222؛ موضوع: علوم سیاسی، اخلاق و سیاست از نویسندگان ایتالیا در سده 16م
عنوان: شهریار؛ نویسنده: نیکولو ماکیاوللی؛ مترجم: محمود محمود، تهران، اقبال، 1311، در 130ص؛ تهران، بنگاه آذر، 1324؛ در 140ص؛ چاپ دیگر: 1327؛ در 136ص؛ تهران، اقبال، 1357، در 140ص
عنوان: شهریار؛ نویسنده: نیکولو ماکیاوللی؛ مترجم: داریوش آشوری، تهران، اقبال، 1366، در 135ص
عنوان: شهریار؛ نویسنده: نیکولو ماکیاوللی؛ مترجم: مرتضی ثابتفر، تهران، جامی، 1387، در 191ص
عنوان: شهریار؛ نویسنده: نیکولو ماکیاوللی؛ مترجم: احمدرضا زرکش ک��شانی، تهران، پژواک، 1392، در 190ص
عنوان: شهریار؛ نویسنده: نیکولو ماکیاوللی؛ مترجم: نسرین مجیدی، تهران، روزگارنو، 1392، در 96ص
فهرست شامل: دیباچه؛ زندگی و روزگارش؛ جایگاه در اندیشه سیاسی؛ «شهری��ر» نامه ای از «نیکولو ماکیاوللی» به پیشگاه «لورنتسو دی پی یرو د مدیچی»؛
فصل یکم: پادشاهیها بر چند گونه اند و شیوه های فراچنگ آوردنشان؛
فصل دوم: در باب پادشاهیهای موروثی؛
فصل سوم: در باب پادشاهیهائی که از پیوستن چند قلمرو به یکدیگر پدید میآیند؛
فصل چهارم: چرا در پادشاهی داریوش که به دست اسکندر افتاد پس از مرگ اسکندر مردم بر جانشینان وی نشوریدند؛
فصل پنجم: در باب شیوه ی حکومت بر شهرها یا امیرنشینهائی که پیش از آن با قوانین خود میزیسته اند؛
فصل ششم: در باب کشورهائی که به نیروی بازوی خود میگیرند؛
فصل هفتم: در باب پادشاهیهائی که به زور بازوی دیگران گرفته اند یا به یاری بخت و ....؛
فصل بیست و ششم: فراخوانشی به رهانیدن ایتالیا از چنگال بربران
نام نامه
نقل از متن کتاب: شهریار: میباید از دو چیز در دل هراسان باشد، از «درون و رعایای خویش» و دیگری از «بیرون و از قدرتهای خارجی»؛ فصل نوزده پایان نقل نخست؛
کتاب «شهریار»، از اهمیت والایی برای اندیشه ورزان سیاسی، و سیاست پیشگان برخوردار است، ولی خواندنش را به همگان پیشنهاد میکنم؛ نثر کتاب نیز از آثار برجسته است؛
بهترین گزیده از متن کتاب: «باید بدانید که برای ستیزیدن با دیگران، دو راه در پیش است: یکی با قانون، دیگری با زور؛ روش نخستین در خور انسان است، و دومین روش ددان، و از آنجا که روش نخستین چه بسا کارآمد نیست، ناگزیر به دومین، روی میباید آورد؛ از این رو بر شهریار است، كه بداند چگونه روش ددان و انسان را نیک به کار بندد.»؛ پایان نقل دوم
تاریخ بهنگام رسانی 12/07/1399هجری خورشیدی؛ 30/05/1400هجری خورشیدی؛ ا. شربیانی
The Prince is a 16th-century political treatise by the Italian diplomat and political theorist Niccolò Machiavelli.
Machiavelli said that The Prince would be about princedoms, mentioning that he has written about republics elsewhere, but in fact he mixes discussion of republics into this in many places, effectively treating republics as a type of princedom also, and one with many strengths.
More importantly, and less traditionally, he distinguishes new princedoms from hereditary established princedoms. He deals with hereditary princedoms quickly in Chapter 2, saying that they are much easier to rule.
For such a prince, "unless extraordinary vices cause him to be hated, it is reasonable to expect that his subjects will be naturally well disposed towards him".
انتشاراتیها: (اقبال؛ جامی، پژواک؛ روزگار نو)؛ تاریخ نخستین خوانش: اول سپتامبر سال 1995میلادی؛ تاریخ دومین خوانش: روز هشتم سپتامبر سال1995میلادی
عنوان: شهریار؛ نویسنده: نیکولو ماکیاوللی؛ مترجم: داریوش آشوری؛ تهران، پرواز، 1366؛ در 135ص؛ 1374، در 195ص؛ چاپ دوم نشر مرکز، 1375، در 167ص؛ شابک 9643052222؛ موضوع: علوم سیاسی، اخلاق و سیاست از نویسندگان ایتالیا در سده 16م
عنوان: شهریار؛ نویسنده: نیکولو ماکیاوللی؛ مترجم: محمود محمود، تهران، اقبال، 1311، در 130ص؛ تهران، بنگاه آذر، 1324؛ در 140ص؛ چاپ دیگر: 1327؛ در 136ص؛ تهران، اقبال، 1357، در 140ص
عنوان: شهریار؛ نویسنده: نیکولو ماکیاوللی؛ مترجم: داریوش آشوری، تهران، اقبال، 1366، در 135ص
عنوان: شهریار؛ نویسنده: نیکولو ماکیاوللی؛ مترجم: مرتضی ثابتفر، تهران، جامی، 1387، در 191ص
عنوان: شهریار؛ نویسنده: نیکولو ماکیاوللی؛ مترجم: احمدرضا زرکش ک��شانی، تهران، پژواک، 1392، در 190ص
عنوان: شهریار؛ نویسنده: نیکولو ماکیاوللی؛ مترجم: نسرین مجیدی، تهران، روزگارنو، 1392، در 96ص
فهرست شامل: دیباچه؛ زندگی و روزگارش؛ جایگاه در اندیشه سیاسی؛ «شهری��ر» نامه ای از «نیکولو ماکیاوللی» به پیشگاه «لورنتسو دی پی یرو د مدیچی»؛
فصل یکم: پادشاهیها بر چند گونه اند و شیوه های فراچنگ آوردنشان؛
فصل دوم: در باب پادشاهیهای موروثی؛
فصل سوم: در باب پادشاهیهائی که از پیوستن چند قلمرو به یکدیگر پدید میآیند؛
فصل چهارم: چرا در پادشاهی داریوش که به دست اسکندر افتاد پس از مرگ اسکندر مردم بر جانشینان وی نشوریدند؛
فصل پنجم: در باب شیوه ی حکومت بر شهرها یا امیرنشینهائی که پیش از آن با قوانین خود میزیسته اند؛
فصل ششم: در باب کشورهائی که به نیروی بازوی خود میگیرند؛
فصل هفتم: در باب پادشاهیهائی که به زور بازوی دیگران گرفته اند یا به یاری بخت و ....؛
فصل بیست و ششم: فراخوانشی به رهانیدن ایتالیا از چنگال بربران
نام نامه
نقل از متن کتاب: شهریار: میباید از دو چیز در دل هراسان باشد، از «درون و رعایای خویش» و دیگری از «بیرون و از قدرتهای خارجی»؛ فصل نوزده پایان نقل نخست؛
کتاب «شهریار»، از اهمیت والایی برای اندیشه ورزان سیاسی، و سیاست پیشگان برخوردار است، ولی خواندنش را به همگان پیشنهاد میکنم؛ نثر کتاب نیز از آثار برجسته است؛
بهترین گزیده از متن کتاب: «باید بدانید که برای ستیزیدن با دیگران، دو راه در پیش است: یکی با قانون، دیگری با زور؛ روش نخستین در خور انسان است، و دومین روش ددان، و از آنجا که روش نخستین چه بسا کارآمد نیست، ناگزیر به دومین، روی میباید آورد؛ از این رو بر شهریار است، كه بداند چگونه روش ددان و انسان را نیک به کار بندد.»؛ پایان نقل دوم
تاریخ بهنگام رسانی 12/07/1399هجری خورشیدی؛ 30/05/1400هجری خورشیدی؛ ا. شربیانی
January 2, 2015
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 audiences, and sometimes I think he's tipped a tiny bit overboard on that front. "When a ruler occupies a land that has a different language...then things get rough." "Difficult" would have been perfectly clear; "rough" is too colloquial. We want to be able to read our classics, but we don't need to pretend they were written yesterday.
That's a relatively minor complaint, though; this is 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 audiences, and sometimes I think he's tipped a tiny bit overboard on that front. "When a ruler occupies a land that has a different language...then things get rough." "Difficult" would have been perfectly clear; "rough" is too colloquial. We want to be able to read our classics, but we don't need to pretend they were written yesterday.
That's a relatively minor complaint, though; this is 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.
October 5, 2021
Il Principe = The Prince, Niccolò Machiavelli
The Prince is a 16th-century political treatise by the Italian diplomat and political theorist Niccolò Machiavelli. From correspondence a version appears to have been distributed in 1513. However, the printed version was not published until 1532, five years after Machiavelli's death.
Machiavelli says that The Prince would be about princedoms, mentioning that he has written about republics elsewhere (a reference to the Discourses on Livy), but in fact he mixes discussion of republics into this work in many places, effectively treating republics as a type of princedom also, and one with many strengths. More importantly, and less traditionally, he distinguishes new princedoms from hereditary established princedoms.
Characters: Theseus, Alexander the Great, Louis XII, Cesare Borgia, Francesco Sforza, Niccolò Machiavelli, Pope Alexander VI.
تاریخ نخستین خوانش: ماه سپتامبر سال 1995میلادی
عنوان: شهریار؛ نویسنده: نیکولو ماکیاوللی؛ مترجم: داریوش آشوری؛ موضوع علوم سیاسی، اخلاق و سیاست از نویسندگان ایتالیا در سده 16م
ترجمه های دیگر از همین عنوان
مترجم: محمود محمود، تهران، اقبال، 1311، در 130ص؛ چاپ دیگر تهران، ا��بال، 1357، در 140ص
مترجم: داریوش آشوری، تهران، اقبال، 1366، در 135ص
مترجم: مرتضی ثابتفر، تهران، جامی، 1387، در 191ص
مترجم: احمدرضا زرکش کاشانی، تهران، پژواک، 1392، در 190ص
مترجم: نسرین مجیدی، تهران، روزگارنو، 1392، در 96ص
فهرت شامل
دیباچه؛
زندگی و روزگارش؛
جایگاه در اندیشه سیاسی؛
شهریار؛
نامه ای از «نیکولو ماکیاوللی»، به پیشگاه «لورنتسو دی پی یرو د مدیچی»؛
فصل یکم: پادشاهیها بر چند گونه اند، و شیوه های فراچنگ آوردنشان؛
فصل دوم: در باب پادشاهیهای موروثی؛
فصل سوم: در باب پادشاهیهائی که از پیوستن چند قلمرو به یکدیگر، پدید میآیند؛
فصل چهارم: چرا در پادشاهی داریوش، که به دست اسکندر افتاد، پس از مرگ اسکندر، مردم بر جانشینان وی نشوریدند؛
فصل پنجم: در باب شیوه ی حکومت بر شهرها، یا امیرنشینهائی که پیش از آن، با قوانین خود میزیسته اند؛
فصل ششم: در باب کشورهائی که به نیروی بازوی خود، میگیرند؛
فصل هفتم: در باب پادشاهیهائی که به زور بازوی دیگران، گرفته اند یا به یاری بخت
و ....؛
فصل بیست و ششم: فراخوانشی به رهانیدن ایتالیا از چنگال بربران
نام نامه
نقل از متن کتاب: (شهریار میباید از دو چیز در دل هراسان باشد، نخست از «درون و رعایای خویش»، و دیگری از «بیرون و از قدرتهای خارجی» فصل نوزدهم؛ پایان نقل نخست
کتاب «شهریار»، از اهمیت والایی، برای اندیشه ورزان سیاسی، و سیاست پیشگان برخوردار است، ولی خواندنش را، به همگان پیشنهاد میکنم، نثر کتاب نیز از آثار برجسته است
گزیده از متن کتاب: (باید بدانید که برای ستیزیدن با دیگران، دو راه در پیش است: یکی با قانون، دیگری با زور؛ روش نخستین، در خور انسان است، و دومین روش ددان، و از آنجا که روش نخستین چه بسا کارآمد نیست، ناگزیر به دومین، روی میباید آورد؛ از اینرو بر شهریار است، كه بداند چگونه روش ددان و انسان را نیک به کار بندد)؛ پایان نقل دوم
تاریخ بهنگام رسانی 09/09/1399هجری خورشیدی؛ 12/07/1400هجری خورشیدی؛ ا. شربیانی
The Prince is a 16th-century political treatise by the Italian diplomat and political theorist Niccolò Machiavelli. From correspondence a version appears to have been distributed in 1513. However, the printed version was not published until 1532, five years after Machiavelli's death.
Machiavelli says that The Prince would be about princedoms, mentioning that he has written about republics elsewhere (a reference to the Discourses on Livy), but in fact he mixes discussion of republics into this work in many places, effectively treating republics as a type of princedom also, and one with many strengths. More importantly, and less traditionally, he distinguishes new princedoms from hereditary established princedoms.
Characters: Theseus, Alexander the Great, Louis XII, Cesare Borgia, Francesco Sforza, Niccolò Machiavelli, Pope Alexander VI.
تاریخ نخستین خوانش: ماه سپتامبر سال 1995میلادی
عنوان: شهریار؛ نویسنده: نیکولو ماکیاوللی؛ مترجم: داریوش آشوری؛ موضوع علوم سیاسی، اخلاق و سیاست از نویسندگان ایتالیا در سده 16م
ترجمه های دیگر از همین عنوان
مترجم: محمود محمود، تهران، اقبال، 1311، در 130ص؛ چاپ دیگر تهران، ا��بال، 1357، در 140ص
مترجم: داریوش آشوری، تهران، اقبال، 1366، در 135ص
مترجم: مرتضی ثابتفر، تهران، جامی، 1387، در 191ص
مترجم: احمدرضا زرکش کاشانی، تهران، پژواک، 1392، در 190ص
مترجم: نسرین مجیدی، تهران، روزگارنو، 1392، در 96ص
فهرت شامل
دیباچه؛
زندگی و روزگارش؛
جایگاه در اندیشه سیاسی؛
شهریار؛
نامه ای از «نیکولو ماکیاوللی»، به پیشگاه «لورنتسو دی پی یرو د مدیچی»؛
فصل یکم: پادشاهیها بر چند گونه اند، و شیوه های فراچنگ آوردنشان؛
فصل دوم: در باب پادشاهیهای موروثی؛
فصل سوم: در باب پادشاهیهائی که از پیوستن چند قلمرو به یکدیگر، پدید میآیند؛
فصل چهارم: چرا در پادشاهی داریوش، که به دست اسکندر افتاد، پس از مرگ اسکندر، مردم بر جانشینان وی نشوریدند؛
فصل پنجم: در باب شیوه ی حکومت بر شهرها، یا امیرنشینهائی که پیش از آن، با قوانین خود میزیسته اند؛
فصل ششم: در باب کشورهائی که به نیروی بازوی خود، میگیرند؛
فصل هفتم: در باب پادشاهیهائی که به زور بازوی دیگران، گرفته اند یا به یاری بخت
و ....؛
فصل بیست و ششم: فراخوانشی به رهانیدن ایتالیا از چنگال بربران
نام نامه
نقل از متن کتاب: (شهریار میباید از دو چیز در دل هراسان باشد، نخست از «درون و رعایای خویش»، و دیگری از «بیرون و از قدرتهای خارجی» فصل نوزدهم؛ پایان نقل نخست
کتاب «شهریار»، از اهمیت والایی، برای اندیشه ورزان سیاسی، و سیاست پیشگان برخوردار است، ولی خواندنش را، به همگان پیشنهاد میکنم، نثر کتاب نیز از آثار برجسته است
گزیده از متن کتاب: (باید بدانید که برای ستیزیدن با دیگران، دو راه در پیش است: یکی با قانون، دیگری با زور؛ روش نخستین، در خور انسان است، و دومین روش ددان، و از آنجا که روش نخستین چه بسا کارآمد نیست، ناگزیر به دومین، روی میباید آورد؛ از اینرو بر شهریار است، كه بداند چگونه روش ددان و انسان را نیک به کار بندد)؛ پایان نقل دوم
تاریخ بهنگام رسانی 09/09/1399هجری خورشیدی؛ 12/07/1400هجری خورشیدی؛ ا. شربیانی
April 14, 2024
Italy in the early 1500's was a sad, dispirited land of constant wars, deaths, destruction, political betrayals, schemes of conquest by greedy aristocrats, trying to enlarge their petty Italian states, invasion by ruthless, foreign troops, from France, Spain, the Swiss, rulers being overthrown and killed, armies continuously marching, towns sacked, fires blazing, black smoke poring into the sky , mercenary soldiers, slaughtering the innocent, pestilence spreading, only the wise, the strong and the lucky could abide...Niccolo Machiavelli, during the Renaissance, was a successful politician , and astute diplomat , from volatile Florence, until losing power and influence there...exiled, living seven miles from his native city, bored, he had plenty of time to think, write letters to friends, the nobles and books... and knowing how treacherous men are. His most famous book, The Prince, based on the cunning Cesar Borgia, the illegitimate son of Pope Alexander VI, no silly words about the nobility of rulers, ( a brief history, the recent bloodbaths, cities and men making bad decisions, philosophical discussions, how a Prince can remain in charge, at whatever cost) should act for the good of the people, but the real facts ..."Men are wretched creatures"... "It is better to be feared than loved,"..."Never attempt to win by force what can be won by deception "...stated the experienced Machiavelli, he knew the hearts of the Princes. Having seen Cesar Borgia and talked at length with him, became an admirer, ( well aware of all his evil, the butchering, and deceit, it can be forgiven in these times ) ...this man could bring peace to his native country, by conquest... chase out the foul, foreign soldiers, unite Italy again, make her a mighty force ...But dreams are only dreams, somethings are not quite possible...."Men are simple", yet events can't be predicted..The Prince, still widely read, and quite important book on the ways of the world, told by a man who was involved during that turbulent era...While Cesar Borgia, The Prince, is greatly sanitized, into a better person, than he really was, this writer wanted to give the Italian reader hope, for a better, more prosperous future...in a land that he loved, the suffering and chaos must end... 500 years after this brilliant, but controversial little book was published, aspects of its contents will be recognized by modern audiences, a new adjective made, Machiavellian ...to deceive people , by clever methods, to gain power... nations rise and fall, the maps change, but men's avarice, do not...
March 9, 2024
Machiavelli considers that human desires and states of spirit are always the same. Thus, he studies the past and seeks explanations for the reality of his time in history. The account can predict future events and use the same old ways or fail, creating other forms of action. Machiavelli asserted that selfish interests drive all men with no particular personal ambition and material prosperity at any cost—homo hominis lupus (The man is the wolf of the man). Deprivations lead man to work and to associative life. However, conflicts arise in the associated groups since the individual seeks their interests in each group until then. Politics emerges as an instrument of power whose importance manifests in the search for tools and the definition of objectives to establish order and prevent the destruction of society. Machiavelli is called the father of modern civilization. Machiavelli traced the first ideas of the doctrine of the Modern State, that is, the absolutist state as necessary to be consolidated and strong without moral limitation for the action of the governing authority, and notably positivist conception away from the natural law. Machiavelli, there was an exchange of the classical doctrines of politics based on a limited government's ideas and the ethical bases (moral bases). The ends justify the means. For Machiavelli, the state was an end in itself. The supreme duty of the ruler is to maintain the order, power, and security of the country he governs. For this, the ruler must use the necessary means to enable him to achieve this obligation, adopting:
a) There must be confidence in the governed;
b) They should not expect loyalty or affection but respect in their decisions;
c) If need be, be cynical and misleading to convince the governed who are working for them;
d) Do good in small doses, but if you need to do something more substantial or violent, you must do it quickly so as not to cause horror or revolt but compliance and respect;
e) In the work, The Prince points out that rulers can be praised or hated;
f) The Prince must act in such a way as to avoid ruining himself but rather preserve himself. If necessary, he will launch against each other for his advantage or will let things happen;
g) The Prince must be prudent, and prudence is his chief virtue. He should use other attributes that have a careful way to avoid ruin. On the contrary, if he has vices, he should make them look virtuous, aiming at his security and well-being.
a) There must be confidence in the governed;
b) They should not expect loyalty or affection but respect in their decisions;
c) If need be, be cynical and misleading to convince the governed who are working for them;
d) Do good in small doses, but if you need to do something more substantial or violent, you must do it quickly so as not to cause horror or revolt but compliance and respect;
e) In the work, The Prince points out that rulers can be praised or hated;
f) The Prince must act in such a way as to avoid ruining himself but rather preserve himself. If necessary, he will launch against each other for his advantage or will let things happen;
g) The Prince must be prudent, and prudence is his chief virtue. He should use other attributes that have a careful way to avoid ruin. On the contrary, if he has vices, he should make them look virtuous, aiming at his security and well-being.
March 20, 2018
I don't know how come I never reviewed this one but recently I was visiting this friend of mine in south India, Pramod (yes, the one from Goodreads), when he showed me this not-so-popular smaller piece, allegedly written by the author in his last days, 'Le Gente' and never published - for common people about how they can succeed in social life using diplomacy.
There were only twenty copies of same written in 19th century, of which Pramod's was one. Since he is a sort of book-worshipper, he won't let me touch it. Needless to say, I stole it before starting on my return journey.
If he finds about this review, he might unfriend me and sue me for theft - so this review won't be here too long. Anyway, in case of a legal action, I can always take shelter in points 14, 16 and 17 below.
...Ever since my return, I have been made to understand that critics believe these copies to be forgeries, none of these copies completely agree amongst themselves. Moreover, the writing style and some of the words used, suggest a later day authorship.
That being said, I think mine (or Pramod's) made some good points, although they weren't all so original. It will seem them that past and present owners of these copies have been quoting them without mentioning their source.
Since document is medieval and vague, I have been able to translate it only partially. Google translator helps only so much. Here are a few tips I found (I will add more, whenever I’m able to decipher the rest of it):
1. Honesty might win you friends, but not the powerful ones. (The later will be your enemies.)
2. If you delay it to the last moment and pretend to be anxious, one of your friends will come in and want to help you finish the project. Best way to half your workload.
3. Tell them an obvious lie to begin with. This will make them think that you are a bad lier and they will be inclined to believe in your more-cleverly told lies.
4. If you hate doing something - do it wrong the first time, they won't ask you to do it again.
5. Honesty is a terrible policy, that is, unless you put it on auction,
or,
Character doesn't buy food - not unless you get a good price for it.
6. Always pretend to be extremely religious. It creates a halo effect and makes people invest in you, virtues you don't have. Also, if you are lucky, call it ‘Karma’, If you are unlucky, call it ‘God’s mysterious ways’. Always say 'God willing' whenever you make a promise - the best way to shrug off responsibility if you don't want to honor your promise.
7. A clever person always appreciates polite friends. They will let you walk all over them and take credit for their hard work. Nothing like them.
8. Never be on time. Let them wait for you. Teaches them b\how to value you.
9. Lying shows lack of art. The cleverness lies in telling people the selective truth. Still, if you have to lie, do. Scientists say there are alternative worlds in which almost everything is the truth. So, technically you can’t tell a lie. And you can’t be accused if people just assume that you are speaking only of this world.
10. Any show of your real sentiments is a weakness. The ability to show the sentiments that people want to see, even if you don’t have them, on the other hand, is a strength.
11. Never ever let the underdogs fool you into kindness.
12. Always have someone handy to blame* your failure upon.
13. Be quiet, and they will think of you as very wise. Be too talkative, and they will think of you as fools. A clever disguise both ways.
14. If they can’t prove it, you can’t be wrong.
15. If you say it repeatedly and are loud enough, it will become a truth.
16. The only crime is being caught. Criminals have got away with almost everything when they weren’t caught. So, make sure you are never get caught at anything. A clever person reads a law saying ‘Theft is punishable by law’ as ‘Being caught and proved a thief is punishable by law.’
17. At the end of the day, most advocates belong to Devil. And if you happen to come across a righteous one, Devil also happens to have most of the judges. However looking for a legal loophole before you leap is still more beneficial economically.
18. If you owe a bank five thousand dollars, the bank owns you. If you owe a bank five million dollars, you own the bank.
19. Gangsters and soldiers are boys. Managers, Lawyers, priests and politicians are women.
20. Nothing helps in creating money like an unhealthy conscience.
21. There are four kinds of people (the order is such that ones lower in the order have a better chance at being successful);
- those who are good, and are seen by others as good,
- those who are good but are seen by others as wicked.
- those who are and are seen by others as wicked,
- those who are wicked but are seen by others as good (thank you!).
* erroneously written in original Italian as 'lo borgeso' instead of 'lo biasimo'.
August 15, 2010
لا خلاف علي أن الكتاب صادم للغاية، عبر فيه ميكيافيللي عن أراء وأفكار سياسية تتعارض مع الكثير من المبادئ والأخلاق، نبعت فيه مواقفة من قاعدة هو من أرسى مبادئها "الغاية تبرر الوسيلة"، حيث كل شئ مباح للحكام والأمراء سعياً وراء ما أتفقت عليه رغبات البشر من نجاح وسيطرة وحكم، ففي سبيل ذلك يحق للحاكم أن يكذب وينقض عهده وينافق ويمكر لشعبه وينقلب علي من مد له يد العون وأن يغش ويخدع، ويصبح كل ذلك محمود بل ولا غني عنه للوصول للحكم والنجاح فيه.
شخص��اً،أفترضت خطأ أفكاره بحجة أن حكام أمثال عمر بن الخطاب وعمر بن عبد العزيز وصلاح الدين الأيوبي وسيف الدين قطز وغيرهم ممن نجحوا نجاح منقطع النظير فى الحكم لم تكن تلك شيمهم ولا مبادئهم، ولكني وجدت اختلاف أساسي مشترك بينهم في دوافعهم أنهم -جميعاً- لم يطمحوا للدنيا، وأهدافهم كانت أسمي من السيطرة والحكم، وهو إثبات أن أراء ميكيافيللي واقعية جداً طالما الهدف دنيوي بحت.
المدهش في الكتاب أنك بعد قراءته إذا حاولت أن تنظر حولك ستجد أن كل ما قاله ذلك الرجل يحدث بكل تفاصيله في كل بلاد الأرض وبدقة مرعبة، وهو ما يطرح سؤال مهم، هل ميكيافيللي هو من غير شكل العالم بأفكاره وأراءه، أم أنه فقط كان صادق وواقعي في تسجيل الوجه القميئ للسياسة البشرية؟
شخص��اً،أفترضت خطأ أفكاره بحجة أن حكام أمثال عمر بن الخطاب وعمر بن عبد العزيز وصلاح الدين الأيوبي وسيف الدين قطز وغيرهم ممن نجحوا نجاح منقطع النظير فى الحكم لم تكن تلك شيمهم ولا مبادئهم، ولكني وجدت اختلاف أساسي مشترك بينهم في دوافعهم أنهم -جميعاً- لم يطمحوا للدنيا، وأهدافهم كانت أسمي من السيطرة والحكم، وهو إثبات أن أراء ميكيافيللي واقعية جداً طالما الهدف دنيوي بحت.
المدهش في الكتاب أنك بعد قراءته إذا حاولت أن تنظر حولك ستجد أن كل ما قاله ذلك الرجل يحدث بكل تفاصيله في كل بلاد الأرض وبدقة مرعبة، وهو ما يطرح سؤال مهم، هل ميكيافيللي هو من غير شكل العالم بأفكاره وأراءه، أم أنه فقط كان صادق وواقعي في تسجيل الوجه القميئ للسياسة البشرية؟
January 22, 2016
کتاب درمانی
به کسایی که به تحلیل سیاسی علاقه دارن.
و خصوصاً به کسایی که آرمانگرا هستن یا تصور ساده ای از عرصه ی سیاست دارن و از پیچیدگی ها و غموضش بی اطلاعن.
ماکیاولی
نیکولو ماکیاولی (١٤٦٩-١٥٢٧)، از بزرگ ترین اندیشمندان سیاسی اواخر قرون وسطا و اوایل رنسانس، به خاطر سه نظریه ش معروفه:
نخست، معیار مشروعیت حکومت، قدرت است.
دوم، هدف وسیله را توجیه می کند.
سوم، بهتر است مردم از حاکم بترسند تا دوستش داشته باشند.
با همین سه مقدمه، میشه حدس زد که با چه کتاب هیجان انگیزی رو به رو هستیم. کتاب شهریار، مهم ترین کتاب این نویسنده است که توی اون دستورهای لازم برای رسیدن به حکومت و اداره ی اون رو تعلیم میده.
کتاب
کتاب از دو دسته دستورات و تعالیم تشکیل شده:
دستورات اخلاقی
ملاک نیکی و بدی چیه؟ آیا همه جا باید به آن چه از نظر مردم خوبه عمل کرد؟
چند فصل از نیمه ی دوم کتاب به این سؤال ها و سؤال های مشابه اخلاقی اختصاص داره.
و در نهایت، با لحنی طنزآلود حکم قطعی رو صادر میکنه:
دستورات عملی
در این بخش، بحث این نیست که چی خوبه و چی بده، بحثه اینه که چطور باید شهر رو در محاصره حفظ کرد، چطور باید در مناسبات سیاسی رفتار کرد، چطور باید قشون را اداره کرد، چطور باید احساسات مردم را مدیریت کرد، یعنی بحث دستورالعمل های حکومت داری.
در این بخش جزئیات و ظرافت هایی رو در امر حکومت تبیین می کنه که میشه حدس زد که رعایت شون یک شهریار حقیقی رو به جنون می کشه.
مثلث ماکیاولیستی
موقع خوندن کتاب، به تناوب یاد دو کتاب بزرگ دیگه می افتادم که با همین دید ماکیاولیستی واقع بینانه و عمل گرایانه به مسائلی مشابه می پرداختن و همین قدر برام لذت بخش بود خوندنشون.
یکی کتاب هنر رزم از سون تزو فرمانده چینی که شرح اداره ی لشگره.
دیگری قابوسنامه از کیکاوس بن اسکندر، پادشاه زیاری که شرح امور مختلف زندگی از جمله اداره ی حکومته.
یکی از این سه کتاب (هنر رزم) رو دارم و دو تای دیگه رو حتماً باید بخرم و علی الدوام بهشون رجوع کنم.
به کسایی که به تحلیل سیاسی علاقه دارن.
و خصوصاً به کسایی که آرمانگرا هستن یا تصور ساده ای از عرصه ی سیاست دارن و از پیچیدگی ها و غموضش بی اطلاعن.
ماکیاولی
نیکولو ماکیاولی (١٤٦٩-١٥٢٧)، از بزرگ ترین اندیشمندان سیاسی اواخر قرون وسطا و اوایل رنسانس، به خاطر سه نظریه ش معروفه:
نخست، معیار مشروعیت حکومت، قدرت است.
"عقل نمی پذیرد که شخص مسلّح با میل و رضای خود از شخص غیر مسلّح اطاعت کند."
دوم، هدف وسیله را توجیه می کند.
"شهریار عاقل نباید از اتصاف به ظلم بترسد، وقتی که به وسیله ی آن می تواند ناامنی و هرج و مرج را آرام کند."
سوم، بهتر است مردم از حاکم بترسند تا دوستش داشته باشند.
با همین سه مقدمه، میشه حدس زد که با چه کتاب هیجان انگیزی رو به رو هستیم. کتاب شهریار، مهم ترین کتاب این نویسنده است که توی اون دستورهای لازم برای رسیدن به حکومت و اداره ی اون رو تعلیم میده.
کتاب
کتاب از دو دسته دستورات و تعالیم تشکیل شده:
دستورات اخلاقی
ملاک نیکی و بدی چیه؟ آیا همه جا باید به آن چه از نظر مردم خوبه عمل کرد؟
چند فصل از نیمه ی دوم کتاب به این سؤال ها و سؤال های مشابه اخلاقی اختصاص داره.
و در نهایت، با لحنی طنزآلود حکم قطعی رو صادر میکنه:
"اگر شهریاری واجد تمام صفات نیک باشد، بی تردید شایسته ی ستایش تمام ابنای بشر است؛ اما تنها یک شهریار عاقل می داند که در موقع مقتضی باید بی دغدغه ی خاطر به اقدامات خشن و تند مبادرت کند، زیرا بدون این اقدامات نمی توان قدرت را حفظ نمود."
دستورات عملی
در این بخش، بحث این نیست که چی خوبه و چی بده، بحثه اینه که چطور باید شهر رو در محاصره حفظ کرد، چطور باید در مناسبات سیاسی رفتار کرد، چطور باید قشون را اداره کرد، چطور باید احساسات مردم را مدیریت کرد، یعنی بحث دستورالعمل های حکومت داری.
در این بخش جزئیات و ظرافت هایی رو در امر حکومت تبیین می کنه که میشه حدس زد که رعایت شون یک شهریار حقیقی رو به جنون می کشه.
مثلث ماکیاولیستی
موقع خوندن کتاب، به تناوب یاد دو کتاب بزرگ دیگه می افتادم که با همین دید ماکیاولیستی واقع بینانه و عمل گرایانه به مسائلی مشابه می پرداختن و همین قدر برام لذت بخش بود خوندنشون.
یکی کتاب هنر رزم از سون تزو فرمانده چینی که شرح اداره ی لشگره.
دیگری قابوسنامه از کیکاوس بن اسکندر، پادشاه زیاری که شرح امور مختلف زندگی از جمله اداره ی حکومته.
یکی از این سه کتاب (هنر رزم) رو دارم و دو تای دیگه رو حتماً باید بخرم و علی الدوام بهشون رجوع کنم.
December 10, 2008
In this book, Machiavelli makes his purpose clear: how to get power and keep it.
No happiness. No warm and fuzzy pats on the back. Definitely no hugs. No words of encouragement. Definitely nothing about being nice.
Being nice, in politics, in war, in struggles for power, often ends with one person winning and the other person being in prison, disgraced, exiled, or dead.
That was the context in which Machiavelli wrote this book. Italy at the time was a collection of warring states, not united. One power would seize control, and then it would be lost when that ruler died, or, worse, made a horrible mistake.
Machiavelli did the best thing he could - he took a step back, observed, took notes, and then presented his findings to the person he felt had the most promise at the time.
I love reading reviews about how the books is so this and that, so diabolical and evil and mean, and yet how so many people divorce it from the context it was written in, as if it was created in a vacuum. Remember, people - in his time, if you were a leader, you had some seriously scary decisions to make, and there was no room for emotion, for warmth, nor for sentimentality.
Sure, it might sound like a really screwed up and horrible way to live and think, but when you are a leader of a nation beset on all sides by those who would like nothing more than to invade your country, raze it, and then subject your people to being occupied (or worse), you do what you need to do in order to survive. When you are fighting for survival, all ends do justify the means because the goal is survival. Period.
Machiavelli understood this, and the product was this book. There is a damn good reason why so many people started calling him "the devil." Why the book was put on the Catholic Index of banned books.
The book makes no promises about being nice or this or that. It delivers on what it promises - how a person can gain and acquire power and keep it, and the sometimes ruthless actions necessary to maintain it and protect one's own self.
No happiness. No warm and fuzzy pats on the back. Definitely no hugs. No words of encouragement. Definitely nothing about being nice.
Being nice, in politics, in war, in struggles for power, often ends with one person winning and the other person being in prison, disgraced, exiled, or dead.
That was the context in which Machiavelli wrote this book. Italy at the time was a collection of warring states, not united. One power would seize control, and then it would be lost when that ruler died, or, worse, made a horrible mistake.
Machiavelli did the best thing he could - he took a step back, observed, took notes, and then presented his findings to the person he felt had the most promise at the time.
I love reading reviews about how the books is so this and that, so diabolical and evil and mean, and yet how so many people divorce it from the context it was written in, as if it was created in a vacuum. Remember, people - in his time, if you were a leader, you had some seriously scary decisions to make, and there was no room for emotion, for warmth, nor for sentimentality.
Sure, it might sound like a really screwed up and horrible way to live and think, but when you are a leader of a nation beset on all sides by those who would like nothing more than to invade your country, raze it, and then subject your people to being occupied (or worse), you do what you need to do in order to survive. When you are fighting for survival, all ends do justify the means because the goal is survival. Period.
Machiavelli understood this, and the product was this book. There is a damn good reason why so many people started calling him "the devil." Why the book was put on the Catholic Index of banned books.
The book makes no promises about being nice or this or that. It delivers on what it promises - how a person can gain and acquire power and keep it, and the sometimes ruthless actions necessary to maintain it and protect one's own self.
August 21, 2020
So, it seems there has been a bit of a mix up.
I had no idea what this was about, I just assumed I was going to read a fairly raucous fictional story about a Prince. So you can imagine my shock when I read the opening chapter.
I feel bad for giving this a one star as this is entirely my fault however it meets all the criteria, I had to drag myself through, I understood little and the only satisfaction I received was reaching the end.
Sorry Machiavelli.
I had no idea what this was about, I just assumed I was going to read a fairly raucous fictional story about a Prince. So you can imagine my shock when I read the opening chapter.
I feel bad for giving this a one star as this is entirely my fault however it meets all the criteria, I had to drag myself through, I understood little and the only satisfaction I received was reaching the end.
Sorry Machiavelli.
May 6, 2015
How to run things and hopefully remain popular but not give a monkey's if they hate you. How to instil enough fear in people that they at least show respect to your face.
Plenty of good lessons here for a politician, but adaptable by anyone if you don't mind being thought evil by your nearest and dearest. And I don't.
Plenty of good lessons here for a politician, but adaptable by anyone if you don't mind being thought evil by your nearest and dearest. And I don't.
January 27, 2022
The promise given was a necessity of the past: the word broken is a necessity of the present.
No, you don't understand.
It is double pleasure to deceive the deceiver.
I need someone to write a romance book about a hero that would be the exact replica of Niccolò Machiavelli.
Never attempt to win by force what can be won by deception.
Insightful, witty, manipulative, unscrupulous, ruthless, brilliant man of my dreams who'd rather overthrow the status quo than try to preserve it. ✨
Because there are three classes of intellects: one which comprehends by itself; another which appreciates what others comprehend; and a third which neither comprehends by itself nor by the showing of others; the first is the most excellent, the second is good, the third is useless.
If I were a ruler of Florence (Lorenzo di Piero de' Medici, yes, I'm looking at your portrait right now), I'd read this book to pieces.
Men ought either to be well treated or crushed, because they can avenge themselves of lighter injuries, of more serious ones they cannot; therefore the injury that is to be done to a man ought to be of such a kind that one does not stand in fear of revenge.
I'd read it before bed every night for the rest of my life.
Men judge generally more by the eye than by the hand, for everyone can see and few can feel. Every one sees what you appear to be, few really know what you are.
May 31, 2020
A young colleague of mine recently said ‘management is easy’. I smiled enigmatically and considered buying him a copy of ‘The Prince’ but I fear it would be wasted. I am now on my third copy of this book which, alas, I can only read in English. The George Bull translation (as reprinted in 1995) is the version I currently refer to.
I first read this book when studying economic history at high school in the second half of the last century. I was intrigued by Machiavelli’s advice even though I had little understanding of the Florentine Republic. I next read the book when looking more generally at political models and at Renaissance history. Since then, I’ve always had a copy: it is as relevant to understanding the art and practice of management as it is to a broader understanding of the models and processes of governance. It also provides some valuable contextual setting for those interested in the Medici.
So why is ‘The Prince’ still relevant? What can we learn from a treatise that was dedicated to Lorenzo de Medici (1492 - 1519) but not published until 1532, some five years after Machiavelli himself was dead?
Specific settings and circumstances may change: general human psychology and motivation does not. There is politics involved in all management. The chasm between management theory and practice is occupied by politics (in all senses) and complicated by the affairs, aspirations and expedient alliances of people.
Jennifer Cameron-Smith
I first read this book when studying economic history at high school in the second half of the last century. I was intrigued by Machiavelli’s advice even though I had little understanding of the Florentine Republic. I next read the book when looking more generally at political models and at Renaissance history. Since then, I’ve always had a copy: it is as relevant to understanding the art and practice of management as it is to a broader understanding of the models and processes of governance. It also provides some valuable contextual setting for those interested in the Medici.
So why is ‘The Prince’ still relevant? What can we learn from a treatise that was dedicated to Lorenzo de Medici (1492 - 1519) but not published until 1532, some five years after Machiavelli himself was dead?
Specific settings and circumstances may change: general human psychology and motivation does not. There is politics involved in all management. The chasm between management theory and practice is occupied by politics (in all senses) and complicated by the affairs, aspirations and expedient alliances of people.
Jennifer Cameron-Smith
January 28, 2024
The Prince is a political treatise written by a Florentine diplomat, Niccolo Machiavelli. In a time of foreign invasion and rule of the different parts of Italy, Machiavelli wrote this treatise and dedicated it to Lorenzo di Piero de' Medici of the Medici family in the hope that one strong ruler will emerge from that powerful house and drive the foreign rulers away from Italy.
This treatise is mainly concerned with the acquisition and preservation of power. It contains Machiavelli's detailed advice to the Princes on how to gain power and preserve it, enabling them to rule the kingdom for a lifetime and in glory.
Machiavelli, being a former diplomat and also a military commander for the Florentine Republic, wrote this based on his personal expertise. Thus one can see a comprehensive account of all the areas of concern that a ruler should consider when he comes to power, for according to Machiavelli, gaining power is easier than preserving it. However, the advice given by this treatise is controversial, for it advocates that to achieve glory the Prince must acquire power, and to survive being in power needs to resort to any means of conduct, even though they would be base and immoral. For example, Machiavelli says that the Prince must only be careful not to be hated and despised and that if he should choose between love and fear of his subjects that he should choose fear, for that will help him more to be in power. He also says what appears to the eyes of the subjects is what matters and to keep the appearance of being good, merciful, and religious. Machiavelli further says a good prince should be a good liar and a deceiver! Reading The Prince I wondered if all the leaders around the world had read this 16th-century treatise and taken Machiavelli's advice to heart.
As a normal "subject", I don't agree with Machiavelli's views. Then again, I'm no politician or any big shot who thinks of acquiring power. I'm only a disinterested reader. Nevertheless, from an objective point of view, there is some truth in Machiavelli's wisdom. Overall, it was an interesting read (despite its contents) and I really enjoyed reading the many historical events referred to in it.
This treatise is mainly concerned with the acquisition and preservation of power. It contains Machiavelli's detailed advice to the Princes on how to gain power and preserve it, enabling them to rule the kingdom for a lifetime and in glory.
Machiavelli, being a former diplomat and also a military commander for the Florentine Republic, wrote this based on his personal expertise. Thus one can see a comprehensive account of all the areas of concern that a ruler should consider when he comes to power, for according to Machiavelli, gaining power is easier than preserving it. However, the advice given by this treatise is controversial, for it advocates that to achieve glory the Prince must acquire power, and to survive being in power needs to resort to any means of conduct, even though they would be base and immoral. For example, Machiavelli says that the Prince must only be careful not to be hated and despised and that if he should choose between love and fear of his subjects that he should choose fear, for that will help him more to be in power. He also says what appears to the eyes of the subjects is what matters and to keep the appearance of being good, merciful, and religious. Machiavelli further says a good prince should be a good liar and a deceiver! Reading The Prince I wondered if all the leaders around the world had read this 16th-century treatise and taken Machiavelli's advice to heart.
As a normal "subject", I don't agree with Machiavelli's views. Then again, I'm no politician or any big shot who thinks of acquiring power. I'm only a disinterested reader. Nevertheless, from an objective point of view, there is some truth in Machiavelli's wisdom. Overall, it was an interesting read (despite its contents) and I really enjoyed reading the many historical events referred to in it.
August 30, 2019
الكتاب لا أبالغ إن قلت انه من أهم ما كتب في عالم السياسة وإدارة شؤون الدول
احتجت لقرائته مرتين مع تلخيص جاد في المرة الثانية لكثرة ما وجدت من تطابق أفكاره مع أحوال وشؤون دول عديدة قديمة وحديثة
حتى أنه يثير الشكوك حول الكتاب نفسه إن كان فعلا كتب قبل خمسمائة عام
أما محتوى الكتاب فهو ثلاثة أقسام :
الأول : يتحدث عن الدول ونشأتها وأنواعها وإدارتها ويورد أحداثا تاريخية
الثاني : يتحدث عن الجيوش والتحالفات والمعارك
الثالث : وهو الأهم والذي هو كما أعتقد ربط بين ميكافللي و الطغاة وذلك بسبب نصائحه للحكام للحفاظ على دولهم وإماراتهم بما تتضمن تلك النصائح من أشكال مختلفة من الخسة والنذالة وهو على ذلك يرى أنه ليس المهم ما يتصف به الأمير من صفات بقدر ما تفيد تلك الصفات في الحفاظ على الملك والهيبة والدولة
في عالم تعصف فيه المصالح والمؤامرات ويبتعد الكثير عن الله والحساب والعقاب واليوم الآخر فهذا الكتاب يعبر بدقة عما يحصل في عالمنا المعاصر
احتجت لقرائته مرتين مع تلخيص جاد في المرة الثانية لكثرة ما وجدت من تطابق أفكاره مع أحوال وشؤون دول عديدة قديمة وحديثة
حتى أنه يثير الشكوك حول الكتاب نفسه إن كان فعلا كتب قبل خمسمائة عام
أما محتوى الكتاب فهو ثلاثة أقسام :
الأول : يتحدث عن الدول ونشأتها وأنواعها وإدارتها ويورد أحداثا تاريخية
الثاني : يتحدث عن الجيوش والتحالفات والمعارك
الثالث : وهو الأهم والذي هو كما أعتقد ربط بين ميكافللي و الطغاة وذلك بسبب نصائحه للحكام للحفاظ على دولهم وإماراتهم بما تتضمن تلك النصائح من أشكال مختلفة من الخسة والنذالة وهو على ذلك يرى أنه ليس المهم ما يتصف به الأمير من صفات بقدر ما تفيد تلك الصفات في الحفاظ على الملك والهيبة والدولة
في عالم تعصف فيه المصالح والمؤامرات ويبتعد الكثير عن الله والحساب والعقاب واليوم الآخر فهذا الكتاب يعبر بدقة عما يحصل في عالمنا المعاصر
June 11, 2011
اقتباسات من الكتاب
الناس لا تؤمن بالجديد إلا بعد أن تجربه فعلا
المزايا يجب إعطاؤها للرعية جرعة جرعة حتى يستمتعوا بها ويشعروا بفائدتها
البسطاء من الناس على استعداد لقبول أي أمر واقع، ومن يخدعهم سيجد من بينهم من يقبل أن ينخدع بسهولة
من يصبح حاكما لمدينة حرة ولا يدمرها فليتوقع أن تقضي هي عليه، لأنها ستجد دائما الدافع للتمرد باسم الحرية وباسم أحوالها القديمة
لا يوجد أصعب من بدء نظام جديد لتسيير الأمور وتنفيذه
إن من يظن أن المنفعة الحديثة تمحو أثر الإساءة القديمة في نفوس العظماء يخطئ خطأ جسيما
التغرير بالأصدقاء، وفقدان العقيدة، والرحمة، والدين يمكن أن يصل بنا إلى القوة ولكن ليس إلى المجد
حسن ارتكاب الجريمة القاسية يمكن من جني الثمار فيما بعد
يجب على المنتصر أن يخطط لجميع جرائمه مرة واحدة حتى لا يضطر للعودة إليها في وقت آخر، وأن تكون له قدرة على اتخاذ تغييرات جديدة تؤكد للعامة الحرص على مصلحتهم ليكسبهم إلى صفه
من يصبح أميرا بواسطة النبلاء يعاني من مشكلات كبرى في سبيل الحفاظ على سلطانه أكثر من الذي يرفعه الشعب
الأمير الذي يعيش في مدينة قوية ويحبه شعبه لا يمكن أن يهاجم، ولو هوجم فإن من يهاجمه سيضطر إلى الانسحاب
لا توجد قوانين جيدة دون وجود أسلحة جيدة
عندما يطلب أحدهم من جاره أن يأتي للدفاع عنه بقواته، فهذه القوات تسمى قوات معاونة، وهي عديمة النفع مثل القوات المرتزقة
قد تكون هذه القوات (المعاونة) جيدة في حد ذاتها، لكنها دائما مصدر خطر على من يستعيرها..لأنها إذا خسرت المعركة فإنك تكون قد هزمت أما إذا كسبتها فإنك ستبقى أسيرا لتلك القوات
الأمير الذي يخفق في أن يلاحظ مشكلات إمارته في مهدها لا يمكن وصفه إلا بأنه غير حكيم
لا سلامة لأمير يحتمي بقوات غير قواته المسلحة
لن نرى رجلا مسلحا يطيع رجلا أعزلا، ولن نرى أعزل سالما بين أتباعه المسلحين
على الأمير ألا يحفظ عهدا يكون الوفاء به ضد مصلحته، وألا يستمر في الوفاء بوعد انتهت أسباب الارتباط به
الأعمال الصالحة قد تجلب الكراهية، كالأعمال الشريرة
البعض يظن أن على الأمير العاقل أن يثير العداء بين الرعية بدهاء حين تسنح الفرصة، حتى تزيد عظمته حين يسيطر عليه ويكبحهم
ليس هناك طريقة أمام المرء يقي بها نفسه شر التملق سوى أن يدع الناس يدركون أنه يحب أن يسمع منهم الحقيقة
إن طرق الدفاع الصالحة الوحيدة والأكيدة والدائمة هي تلك الطرق التي تعتمد عليك وحدك وعلى قدراتك وليس على الآخرين
الحظ يحكم نصف أعمالنا، ويترك لنا النصف الآخر تقريبا
السعيد هو من تتفق أعماله مع متطلبات العصر
الحظ يستسلم للشجاع أكثر من أولئك الذين يعملون بروية
الناس لا تؤمن بالجديد إلا بعد أن تجربه فعلا
المزايا يجب إعطاؤها للرعية جرعة جرعة حتى يستمتعوا بها ويشعروا بفائدتها
البسطاء من الناس على استعداد لقبول أي أمر واقع، ومن يخدعهم سيجد من بينهم من يقبل أن ينخدع بسهولة
من يصبح حاكما لمدينة حرة ولا يدمرها فليتوقع أن تقضي هي عليه، لأنها ستجد دائما الدافع للتمرد باسم الحرية وباسم أحوالها القديمة
لا يوجد أصعب من بدء نظام جديد لتسيير الأمور وتنفيذه
إن من يظن أن المنفعة الحديثة تمحو أثر الإساءة القديمة في نفوس العظماء يخطئ خطأ جسيما
التغرير بالأصدقاء، وفقدان العقيدة، والرحمة، والدين يمكن أن يصل بنا إلى القوة ولكن ليس إلى المجد
حسن ارتكاب الجريمة القاسية يمكن من جني الثمار فيما بعد
يجب على المنتصر أن يخطط لجميع جرائمه مرة واحدة حتى لا يضطر للعودة إليها في وقت آخر، وأن تكون له قدرة على اتخاذ تغييرات جديدة تؤكد للعامة الحرص على مصلحتهم ليكسبهم إلى صفه
من يصبح أميرا بواسطة النبلاء يعاني من مشكلات كبرى في سبيل الحفاظ على سلطانه أكثر من الذي يرفعه الشعب
الأمير الذي يعيش في مدينة قوية ويحبه شعبه لا يمكن أن يهاجم، ولو هوجم فإن من يهاجمه سيضطر إلى الانسحاب
لا توجد قوانين جيدة دون وجود أسلحة جيدة
عندما يطلب أحدهم من جاره أن يأتي للدفاع عنه بقواته، فهذه القوات تسمى قوات معاونة، وهي عديمة النفع مثل القوات المرتزقة
قد تكون هذه القوات (المعاونة) جيدة في حد ذاتها، لكنها دائما مصدر خطر على من يستعيرها..لأنها إذا خسرت المعركة فإنك تكون قد هزمت أما إذا كسبتها فإنك ستبقى أسيرا لتلك القوات
الأمير الذي يخفق في أن يلاحظ مشكلات إمارته في مهدها لا يمكن وصفه إلا بأنه غير حكيم
لا سلامة لأمير يحتمي بقوات غير قواته المسلحة
لن نرى رجلا مسلحا يطيع رجلا أعزلا، ولن نرى أعزل سالما بين أتباعه المسلحين
على الأمير ألا يحفظ عهدا يكون الوفاء به ضد مصلحته، وألا يستمر في الوفاء بوعد انتهت أسباب الارتباط به
الأعمال الصالحة قد تجلب الكراهية، كالأعمال الشريرة
البعض يظن أن على الأمير العاقل أن يثير العداء بين الرعية بدهاء حين تسنح الفرصة، حتى تزيد عظمته حين يسيطر عليه ويكبحهم
ليس هناك طريقة أمام المرء يقي بها نفسه شر التملق سوى أن يدع الناس يدركون أنه يحب أن يسمع منهم الحقيقة
إن طرق الدفاع الصالحة الوحيدة والأكيدة والدائمة هي تلك الطرق التي تعتمد عليك وحدك وعلى قدراتك وليس على الآخرين
الحظ يحكم نصف أعمالنا، ويترك لنا النصف الآخر تقريبا
السعيد هو من تتفق أعماله مع متطلبات العصر
الحظ يستسلم للشجاع أكثر من أولئك الذين يعملون بروية
January 3, 2020
I've given this remarkable book 5 stars not because it enjoys such a grand reputation, but because I thoroughly enjoyed reading it. Machiavelli may have been the only person in history to give such sound advice to his prince and at the same time to reveal an astonishing understanding of human nature. With very little imagination on the part of the reader, his thoughts apply equally well today as they did more than 500 years ago. Mankind is just as good—and as evil—as it was half a millennium ago. Human nature hasn't changed.
Read
June 20, 2019I think this was the first time that I read this book from cover to cover rather than dipping in and out of it, I feel that it's reputation is bleaker than it's bite, it seems no more cynical than observing to oneself, when an American political figure says something, that there is an election coming up, and it is far less cynical, or brutally practical than The Memoirs of Philippe de Commynes in my opinion.
It stands out perhaps on two grounds, one it completely avoids conventional Christian morality or conventional Christian moral authorities (but then as far as I recall so does Commynes), and more interestingly he makes the point that for the Prince, private virtues make for public vices, or as one observes of boy scouts, there is no point in doing a good deed unless they are certain that they are going to be observed and that a favourable report will reach the ears of the troop leader.
My overall impression of this short, readable study of how Machiavelli considered politics was conducted during his lifetime in Italy (mostly from Rome northwards) is that it is the work of a political pundit . And as it often the case with political pundits he has his favourite themes (Cesara Borgia, colonies, and a state maintaining it's own militia) which rather obscure his own analysis, also one can read him inside out. Machiavelli's great topic is the weakness of 'Italy' and it's exposure to 'barbarian' foreigners namely the French, Spanish, and Swiss, and the need for an ambitious prince in search of glory and wealth to follow his advise in order to be successful. But his advice from an inside out perspective reveals the weakness of his analysis and perhaps explains the weakness of the Italian dynasts of this period (perhaps this is always the case with political pundits - through what they don't say or consider they reveal the blindspots and failings of their times).
Written in exile to advertise his skills to the Florentine Medici regime in the hope of returning to political office Machiavelli recommends that a prince keeps two key groups on side: the people, and the nobles, in order to keep the people on side he recommends that you don't rob them too much and to avoid dishonouring their women. Tellingly though the only time the people in his analysis rise up in support of their Prince is when he is already dead. There seems to me as well to be more than a whiff of republicanism in his emphasis on citizen militias, and presumably there were reasons why such armed forces were not maintained by Italian states, precisely I guess because they were a threat to the power of the Italian Princes and their very ambitions that Machiavelli addresses himself to. It struck me, perhaps not very surprising from a man who was tortured, that he believes more in terrorism and treachery than in trust and theatre. Even in his own account we see that the terrorism of the Borgias, although it blazed a bloody trail across central Italy, could sink no deep roots, unlike the careful theatricality of some of their contemporaries.
Overall I felt that this was not so much realpolitik as fantasiepolitik, but perhaps that is always the case, and one senses that Machiavelli's vision of power politics was captivated by the drama of violence.
I was curious to note that although addressed to the Medicis, he doesn't lard on the praise of that family until the last few pages of his book and he never addresses the roots of their power - as bankers, instead as I said, he only has eyes to see violence as a means to gain and maintain power, not that I would want to claim that the Medici were non-violent, but the dagger was not the only tool in their political workshop, and as a result they managed to endure deep into the eighteenth century when they became extinct through natural causes.
It stands out perhaps on two grounds, one it completely avoids conventional Christian morality or conventional Christian moral authorities (but then as far as I recall so does Commynes), and more interestingly he makes the point that for the Prince, private virtues make for public vices, or as one observes of boy scouts, there is no point in doing a good deed unless they are certain that they are going to be observed and that a favourable report will reach the ears of the troop leader.
My overall impression of this short, readable study of how Machiavelli considered politics was conducted during his lifetime in Italy (mostly from Rome northwards) is that it is the work of a political pundit . And as it often the case with political pundits he has his favourite themes (Cesara Borgia, colonies, and a state maintaining it's own militia) which rather obscure his own analysis, also one can read him inside out. Machiavelli's great topic is the weakness of 'Italy' and it's exposure to 'barbarian' foreigners namely the French, Spanish, and Swiss, and the need for an ambitious prince in search of glory and wealth to follow his advise in order to be successful. But his advice from an inside out perspective reveals the weakness of his analysis and perhaps explains the weakness of the Italian dynasts of this period (perhaps this is always the case with political pundits - through what they don't say or consider they reveal the blindspots and failings of their times).
Written in exile to advertise his skills to the Florentine Medici regime in the hope of returning to political office Machiavelli recommends that a prince keeps two key groups on side: the people, and the nobles, in order to keep the people on side he recommends that you don't rob them too much and to avoid dishonouring their women. Tellingly though the only time the people in his analysis rise up in support of their Prince is when he is already dead. There seems to me as well to be more than a whiff of republicanism in his emphasis on citizen militias, and presumably there were reasons why such armed forces were not maintained by Italian states, precisely I guess because they were a threat to the power of the Italian Princes and their very ambitions that Machiavelli addresses himself to. It struck me, perhaps not very surprising from a man who was tortured, that he believes more in terrorism and treachery than in trust and theatre. Even in his own account we see that the terrorism of the Borgias, although it blazed a bloody trail across central Italy, could sink no deep roots, unlike the careful theatricality of some of their contemporaries.
Overall I felt that this was not so much realpolitik as fantasiepolitik, but perhaps that is always the case, and one senses that Machiavelli's vision of power politics was captivated by the drama of violence.
I was curious to note that although addressed to the Medicis, he doesn't lard on the praise of that family until the last few pages of his book and he never addresses the roots of their power - as bankers, instead as I said, he only has eyes to see violence as a means to gain and maintain power, not that I would want to claim that the Medici were non-violent, but the dagger was not the only tool in their political workshop, and as a result they managed to endure deep into the eighteenth century when they became extinct through natural causes.
October 9, 2023
This book is the perfect representation of the best and the worst of House Slytherin in the Harry Potter-verse. That is how I presented it to my class because after having to read this book in every single political course in university it gets boring, we all had to spice it up to get through it again.
“Everyone sees what you appear to be, few experience what you really are.”
Slytherin and The Prince: Slytherin House, which is known for cunningness, astuteness, ambition, thirst for power, self-preservation, but also fraternity, and that was the one point that drew me away from his way of thinking. He speaks of being cunning and virtuous to keep a principality, but in doing so, one must betray even their own friends, because one cannot trust even those closest to you.
To avoid contempt and hatred one must avoid taking the property or women of his subjects, he must also possess virtues for which he shall not be criticized, he must not rob the honour of his people, a prince must not be effeminate or cowardly, he shall try his best to be an heir, he must be wary of insurrection within his subjects, and external threats, so he must have a good army and good allies, one coming paired with the other, all of these so as to secure his place in the world. These are the basics of being a good prince, or so says Machiavelli, but I only see him and this book as a walking contradiction. Machiavelli basically says that it is all a matter of luck in the end, for no matter which of these rules you follow, if you have no luck on your side you can end up assassinated just like all others before you, so his points can only be used if you are lucky; and to be lucky you have to follow his steps, which makes the steps and luck mutually exclusive, indicating that one cannot happen without the other.
Honestly, now that I am out of school and it has been so long since I last studied it, my brain decided to forget it.
Machiavelli's last name is now a symbol of evilness, because of his politics, written down in this book. “If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared.”
“Everyone sees what you appear to be, few experience what you really are.”
Slytherin and The Prince: Slytherin House, which is known for cunningness, astuteness, ambition, thirst for power, self-preservation, but also fraternity, and that was the one point that drew me away from his way of thinking. He speaks of being cunning and virtuous to keep a principality, but in doing so, one must betray even their own friends, because one cannot trust even those closest to you.
To avoid contempt and hatred one must avoid taking the property or women of his subjects, he must also possess virtues for which he shall not be criticized, he must not rob the honour of his people, a prince must not be effeminate or cowardly, he shall try his best to be an heir, he must be wary of insurrection within his subjects, and external threats, so he must have a good army and good allies, one coming paired with the other, all of these so as to secure his place in the world. These are the basics of being a good prince, or so says Machiavelli, but I only see him and this book as a walking contradiction. Machiavelli basically says that it is all a matter of luck in the end, for no matter which of these rules you follow, if you have no luck on your side you can end up assassinated just like all others before you, so his points can only be used if you are lucky; and to be lucky you have to follow his steps, which makes the steps and luck mutually exclusive, indicating that one cannot happen without the other.
Honestly, now that I am out of school and it has been so long since I last studied it, my brain decided to forget it.
Machiavelli's last name is now a symbol of evilness, because of his politics, written down in this book. “If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared.”
January 14, 2020
I decided it was time to find out for myself what Machiavelli was about. After all, he is one of a small group of writers who have lent their names to an adjective in the English language (Dickens, Orwell and Kafka are others I can think of).
“The Prince” is a short tract, and whilst it had its moments, I found much of it quite dull. I hadn’t expected that. In the edition I read, the translator says in a foreword that “my aim has been to achieve at all costs an exact literal rendering of the original, rather than a fluent paraphrase adapted to the modern notions of style and expression.” He argues that the conditions under which Machiavelli wrote meant he had to weigh every word very carefully, and we should respect that in any translation. Fair enough, but it does result in some archaic language. For example, at one point the text refers to the “foundations and correspondencies” of States. In the notes the translator explains that the original was “Le radici e corrispondenze” and that in modern English “corrispondenze” would probably be rendered as “relations with other States”. I suppose a translation in the style of this edition is truer to the period than one rendered into modern English.
I think the book has limited relevance to today’s politics, at least in western democracies where the actions of governments are restrained by law. In Machiavelli’s time state power was exercised in arbitrary fashion. Probably the most relevant sections today are where Machiavelli discusses the necessity of a ruler projecting an image:
“Everyone sees what you appear to be, few really know what you are”
Machiavelli had a very cynical view of human nature, and personally I quite enjoyed his biting comments on this subject; “Because this is to be asserted in general of men, that they are ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly, covetous, and as long as you succeed they are yours entirely”. Probably the best known part of the book is where he discusses whether a ruler should try to be loved or feared (he thinks that ideally, it should be both), but he thinks a ruler should take care not to be hated, adding that he won’t be unless he is rapacious of women and property (he clearly views women as “belonging” to their menfolk, an attitude that would have been typical of his time). To illustrate his case he suggests the execution of a family patriarch would lead to a ruler being feared but not hated, but the ruler would be hated if he robbed the family of their wealth, “men more quickly forget the death of their father than the loss of their patrimony.” Ouch!
I understand that, despite his theorising, in his own time Machiavelli was rather unsuccessful as a diplomat. It’s a pity he never got to know of his worldwide fame today.
“The Prince” is a short tract, and whilst it had its moments, I found much of it quite dull. I hadn’t expected that. In the edition I read, the translator says in a foreword that “my aim has been to achieve at all costs an exact literal rendering of the original, rather than a fluent paraphrase adapted to the modern notions of style and expression.” He argues that the conditions under which Machiavelli wrote meant he had to weigh every word very carefully, and we should respect that in any translation. Fair enough, but it does result in some archaic language. For example, at one point the text refers to the “foundations and correspondencies” of States. In the notes the translator explains that the original was “Le radici e corrispondenze” and that in modern English “corrispondenze” would probably be rendered as “relations with other States”. I suppose a translation in the style of this edition is truer to the period than one rendered into modern English.
I think the book has limited relevance to today’s politics, at least in western democracies where the actions of governments are restrained by law. In Machiavelli’s time state power was exercised in arbitrary fashion. Probably the most relevant sections today are where Machiavelli discusses the necessity of a ruler projecting an image:
“Everyone sees what you appear to be, few really know what you are”
Machiavelli had a very cynical view of human nature, and personally I quite enjoyed his biting comments on this subject; “Because this is to be asserted in general of men, that they are ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly, covetous, and as long as you succeed they are yours entirely”. Probably the best known part of the book is where he discusses whether a ruler should try to be loved or feared (he thinks that ideally, it should be both), but he thinks a ruler should take care not to be hated, adding that he won’t be unless he is rapacious of women and property (he clearly views women as “belonging” to their menfolk, an attitude that would have been typical of his time). To illustrate his case he suggests the execution of a family patriarch would lead to a ruler being feared but not hated, but the ruler would be hated if he robbed the family of their wealth, “men more quickly forget the death of their father than the loss of their patrimony.” Ouch!
I understand that, despite his theorising, in his own time Machiavelli was rather unsuccessful as a diplomat. It’s a pity he never got to know of his worldwide fame today.
January 31, 2018
'We can say that cruelty is used well... when it is employed once for all, and one's safety depends on it, and then it is not persisted in but as far as possible turned to the good of one's subjects.'
The Prince is unlike anything I've read before. In many ways it feels like a truly evil book. Stalin, for example, kept an annotated copy of it. It reads as the blueprint for tyrants, despots, and politicians around the world - a guide to how the world of the powerful and the powerless truly works. But, sadly, it does work. It is not evil insofar as it is clearly correct in its observations. Which raised several questions in the process of reading it about how I live my life.
The book falls into a category known as 'Mirrors for Princes', being books designed to educate the children of powerful men how to rule. The Prince in particular is written as a letter from Machiavelli to Lorenzo de Medici in 26 sections. Each section contains a few nuggets of information, supported by evidence from contemporary politics or from the ancient world. While some of the language and style (reviewing the translation by George Bull) is definitely archaic, in many ways it feels very modern. To begin with these sections focus on defining, conquering, and subjugating principalities, with practical advice for princes on how to make, and hold on to, territorial gains. Later however the text shifts, and focuses more on the nature of being a ruler and how to play the political game. The jist of the book can be summarised as 'effective truth is more important than any ideals, and power and survival justify any means, even if they are immoral'.
As such after getting over frankly rather tiresome advice on whether or not to live in a newly-conquered territory or to govern from abroad, or the benefits of mercenaries versus a civilian army, the book takes a decidedly evil turn. Machiavelli praises men who do terrible, violent, underhanded deeds in the name of retaining power, and worst of all as a reader you can't help but see the logic to it all. These are the unspoken rules of how men like Tywin Lannister and Walter White in fiction stay at the top of the pyramid, and how men like Stalin and Saddam Hussein ruled with an iron fist. To see the rules of the game laid bare in front of you is a disconcerting experience, and makes you ask yourself: why do I not do this? While not a totally satisfying answer, perhaps I (erroneously?) value abstract ideals more than survival.
I have read discussion that The Prince may have been written as a satire (from the preface: 'to comprehend fully the nature of the people, one must be a prince, and to comprehend fully the nature of princes one must be an ordinary citizen') but to me this book is a comprehensive primer on how to rule and be feared. It is dangerous, fascinating, and demands to be read.
The Prince is unlike anything I've read before. In many ways it feels like a truly evil book. Stalin, for example, kept an annotated copy of it. It reads as the blueprint for tyrants, despots, and politicians around the world - a guide to how the world of the powerful and the powerless truly works. But, sadly, it does work. It is not evil insofar as it is clearly correct in its observations. Which raised several questions in the process of reading it about how I live my life.
The book falls into a category known as 'Mirrors for Princes', being books designed to educate the children of powerful men how to rule. The Prince in particular is written as a letter from Machiavelli to Lorenzo de Medici in 26 sections. Each section contains a few nuggets of information, supported by evidence from contemporary politics or from the ancient world. While some of the language and style (reviewing the translation by George Bull) is definitely archaic, in many ways it feels very modern. To begin with these sections focus on defining, conquering, and subjugating principalities, with practical advice for princes on how to make, and hold on to, territorial gains. Later however the text shifts, and focuses more on the nature of being a ruler and how to play the political game. The jist of the book can be summarised as 'effective truth is more important than any ideals, and power and survival justify any means, even if they are immoral'.
As such after getting over frankly rather tiresome advice on whether or not to live in a newly-conquered territory or to govern from abroad, or the benefits of mercenaries versus a civilian army, the book takes a decidedly evil turn. Machiavelli praises men who do terrible, violent, underhanded deeds in the name of retaining power, and worst of all as a reader you can't help but see the logic to it all. These are the unspoken rules of how men like Tywin Lannister and Walter White in fiction stay at the top of the pyramid, and how men like Stalin and Saddam Hussein ruled with an iron fist. To see the rules of the game laid bare in front of you is a disconcerting experience, and makes you ask yourself: why do I not do this? While not a totally satisfying answer, perhaps I (erroneously?) value abstract ideals more than survival.
I have read discussion that The Prince may have been written as a satire (from the preface: 'to comprehend fully the nature of the people, one must be a prince, and to comprehend fully the nature of princes one must be an ordinary citizen') but to me this book is a comprehensive primer on how to rule and be feared. It is dangerous, fascinating, and demands to be read.
May 20, 2011
قد ملأت شهرة هذا الكتاب السمع والبصر ...
حتى باتت قراءته واجبه ...
نجحت بفضل الله سبحانه اولا ...ثم صديق عزيز في الحصول ع نسخة جديدة عن دار الكرنك محققه بواسطة إيهاب كمال محمد ...
في البداية لقد استفدت من كلام المحقق أكثر بكثير من الكتاب ذاته ...
فمقدمه الكتاب غنية جدا ...ولا يمكن الاستيعاض عنها بمحتوى الكتاب ...ثم ان إضافاته في نهاية الكتاب جعلت من الكتاب بحث علمي متكامل عن السياسه قبل وبعد (مكيافيلي ) و العلاقة بين ابن تيميه (المفترى عليه من أتباعه) ومكيافيلي .
سأضع المنقول من الكتاب بين علامتي تنصيص "" "" وما لم يوضع بين علامتي التنصيص فهو لي (مسؤوله عنه بالكامل) ....
مكيافيلي المولود في فلورنسا في القرن الخامس عشر لميلاد المسيح ...والذي أسس مدرسة سميت بمدرسة (فن الخداع والغش)و أرسى قواعد (النظريه النفعيه)...
والقائل أن ""الغايه تبرر الوسيله "" هو صاحب هذا الكتاب ...الذي شاءت الاقدار ان يولد في مرحله مفصليه في تاريخ فلورنسا فيشهد سقوط الملكيه و اقامة الجمهوريه وعودة الملكية مره ��خرى ..الى جانب تقلب شأنه في كل مرحله منها مما دفعه للنظر في احوال الامراء والحكام وأخرج لنا هذا الكتاب الذي يعد دليل الحاكم الذكي للابقاء على عرشه ...إن أراد
كان من أوائل المبشرين بتفكير سياسي خالص يتجاوز الفكر الديني و السلطة الباباويه السائده في هذا العصر ..
وكان هو البوابه التي ولج منها جاك روسو ...فولتير ...جون لوك..و منتسيكو ليرسو قواعد الليبراليه وليُعتبر هو ابو التنوريين السياسيين ...
كتاب الأمير يعد الكتاب الاول في مجاله(حسب كلام المحقق) الذي يجمع بين السوسيولوجيا السياسيه و السيكولوجيا السياسيه ...كعلوم استحدثت بعد ذلك وأصبحت أسس دراسة العلوم السياسيه ...
واول كتاب يضع تعريف علمي حقيقي للسياسيه ""المعرفه الوصفيه التحليليه والتبصيريه للدولة وللظواهر المتعلقه بها""
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
بُهِرَ موسوليني بهذا الكاتب وقدم عنه أطروحته للدكتوراه وركز فيها على ...
1-فهم مكيافيلي لطبيعة البشر
2-موقفه من الملكيه
3-علاقة الفكر بالقوة والطبيعة الانسانيه
ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
��ُبما الدارس او القارئ لمكيافيلي يلاحظ قدرته الاستشرافيه العظيمة وفهمه الرهيب لطبيعة النفس البشريه ولكن يؤخذ عليه إنه لا يأخذ في الحسبان المشاعر النبيله المتوطنه في قلوب البشر ولا يتوقع الخير أبداً ...من بشري !
ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
يقع كتاب الامير في ثمان فصول ...
اولهم يتحدث عن الحكومات وانواعها : وكما يبدو من العنوان فقد لخص انواع الحكومات في جمهوريه وملكيه وقسم الملكيه ل وراثيه و حديثة النشأة ...ثم عاد وقسم حديثة النشأة لجديدة بالكامل و اخرى أضيفت الى أمارة ...
وسيسير باقي الكتاب حسب تلك التقسيمه في ثلاث خطوط متوازيه (كيف تغدو أميراً,كيف تحافظ على أمارتك من الاعداء الخارجيين,كيف تحافظ على عرشك)
فيرى مكيافيلي انك إذا كنت أميراً من هؤلاء الذين وثبوا ع العروش حديثا بفعل ثورة شعبيه فعليك ان تدرك ان بلد كهذه من الصعوبة بمكان أحتلالها ...كما ان خلعك عن عرشك يسير لأن الشعب ذو رأي وبأس ...ولكن إذا راقك الاحتفاظ بالعرش فعليك ان تكسب حب الناس ...او ان تجعلهم يهابوك ...
""الناس في عمومهم يحبون تبعا لأهوائهم و إرادتهم و يخافون وفقا لأهواء الاخريين ...والامير العاقل اللبيب هو الذي يعتمد على ما يقع تحت سلطانه لا تحت سلطان الآخريين وسطوتهم وكل ما يملكه ان يتحاشى و يتجنب كراهية رعاياه له وبغضهم لشخصه""
أما إذا كنت أمير على دولة مُحتله (قمت انت ومن معك بأحتلالها) فهناك عدة سينريوهات ..أما ان تكون قد قمت باحتلال البلده بعد ان كره الشعب حاكمه وهنا يمكنك أرساء قواعد ملكك ويمكنك ان تولي الاقليات من اهل هذه الدولة زمام الامور.
او تكون قمت باحتلالها بمساعدة أكابرها ...الحصول على دولة كهذه سهل لكن السيطرة عليها صعب للغايه لأن القوة ممزقه بين جهات عدة عليك ارضاءها جميعا ...هنا عليك ان تقييم في هذه الدولة ليستتب لك الامر ...
ويرى مكيافيلي ان أكبر ضمان للحيلولة دون احتلال بلد ما هو اعطاء اهلها هامش من الحريه ...فأن الشعوب الحره تهب للدفاع عن حريتها وتزداد المعركة ضراوة كلما زاد هامش الحريه ...بينما تحتاج الشعوب الخانعه لوقت طويل حتى تكافح وجود المحتل .
وهنا يعطي مكيافيلي نصيحه عظيمه لأي مُحتل ...""عليك ان ترتكب فظائع مرة واحده ثم يتوقف ليبعث الطمأنينه في نفوس الشعب "" بمعنى ان البطش شديد وجماعي ولمرة واحده حتى لا يفقد هيبته ورهبته في النفوس بينما النفع والرخاء بالقطاره...حتى يزيد من امتنان الرعيه له .
في رأي مكيافيلي ان بعض الحكام ورث السلطة لكن اولئك الذين حصلوا عليها دون ان يجري في عروقهم دم ملكي يتمتعون قطعا بمواهب عظيمه و ظروف أذكت قدراتهم الى جانب المكر والخسه أحيانا ...!
يلاحظ في فكر ميكافيلي تبنيه للسيادة و السلطة المطلقة ...
قد لايكون الكتاب هو الافضل ...لكن قراءته واجبه كتراث فكري
حتى باتت قراءته واجبه ...
نجحت بفضل الله سبحانه اولا ...ثم صديق عزيز في الحصول ع نسخة جديدة عن دار الكرنك محققه بواسطة إيهاب كمال محمد ...
في البداية لقد استفدت من كلام المحقق أكثر بكثير من الكتاب ذاته ...
فمقدمه الكتاب غنية جدا ...ولا يمكن الاستيعاض عنها بمحتوى الكتاب ...ثم ان إضافاته في نهاية الكتاب جعلت من الكتاب بحث علمي متكامل عن السياسه قبل وبعد (مكيافيلي ) و العلاقة بين ابن تيميه (المفترى عليه من أتباعه) ومكيافيلي .
سأضع المنقول من الكتاب بين علامتي تنصيص "" "" وما لم يوضع بين علامتي التنصيص فهو لي (مسؤوله عنه بالكامل) ....
مكيافيلي المولود في فلورنسا في القرن الخامس عشر لميلاد المسيح ...والذي أسس مدرسة سميت بمدرسة (فن الخداع والغش)و أرسى قواعد (النظريه النفعيه)...
والقائل أن ""الغايه تبرر الوسيله "" هو صاحب هذا الكتاب ...الذي شاءت الاقدار ان يولد في مرحله مفصليه في تاريخ فلورنسا فيشهد سقوط الملكيه و اقامة الجمهوريه وعودة الملكية مره ��خرى ..الى جانب تقلب شأنه في كل مرحله منها مما دفعه للنظر في احوال الامراء والحكام وأخرج لنا هذا الكتاب الذي يعد دليل الحاكم الذكي للابقاء على عرشه ...إن أراد
كان من أوائل المبشرين بتفكير سياسي خالص يتجاوز الفكر الديني و السلطة الباباويه السائده في هذا العصر ..
وكان هو البوابه التي ولج منها جاك روسو ...فولتير ...جون لوك..و منتسيكو ليرسو قواعد الليبراليه وليُعتبر هو ابو التنوريين السياسيين ...
كتاب الأمير يعد الكتاب الاول في مجاله(حسب كلام المحقق) الذي يجمع بين السوسيولوجيا السياسيه و السيكولوجيا السياسيه ...كعلوم استحدثت بعد ذلك وأصبحت أسس دراسة العلوم السياسيه ...
واول كتاب يضع تعريف علمي حقيقي للسياسيه ""المعرفه الوصفيه التحليليه والتبصيريه للدولة وللظواهر المتعلقه بها""
ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
بُهِرَ موسوليني بهذا الكاتب وقدم عنه أطروحته للدكتوراه وركز فيها على ...
1-فهم مكيافيلي لطبيعة البشر
2-موقفه من الملكيه
3-علاقة الفكر بالقوة والطبيعة الانسانيه
ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
��ُبما الدارس او القارئ لمكيافيلي يلاحظ قدرته الاستشرافيه العظيمة وفهمه الرهيب لطبيعة النفس البشريه ولكن يؤخذ عليه إنه لا يأخذ في الحسبان المشاعر النبيله المتوطنه في قلوب البشر ولا يتوقع الخير أبداً ...من بشري !
ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
يقع كتاب الامير في ثمان فصول ...
اولهم يتحدث عن الحكومات وانواعها : وكما يبدو من العنوان فقد لخص انواع الحكومات في جمهوريه وملكيه وقسم الملكيه ل وراثيه و حديثة النشأة ...ثم عاد وقسم حديثة النشأة لجديدة بالكامل و اخرى أضيفت الى أمارة ...
وسيسير باقي الكتاب حسب تلك التقسيمه في ثلاث خطوط متوازيه (كيف تغدو أميراً,كيف تحافظ على أمارتك من الاعداء الخارجيين,كيف تحافظ على عرشك)
فيرى مكيافيلي انك إذا كنت أميراً من هؤلاء الذين وثبوا ع العروش حديثا بفعل ثورة شعبيه فعليك ان تدرك ان بلد كهذه من الصعوبة بمكان أحتلالها ...كما ان خلعك عن عرشك يسير لأن الشعب ذو رأي وبأس ...ولكن إذا راقك الاحتفاظ بالعرش فعليك ان تكسب حب الناس ...او ان تجعلهم يهابوك ...
""الناس في عمومهم يحبون تبعا لأهوائهم و إرادتهم و يخافون وفقا لأهواء الاخريين ...والامير العاقل اللبيب هو الذي يعتمد على ما يقع تحت سلطانه لا تحت سلطان الآخريين وسطوتهم وكل ما يملكه ان يتحاشى و يتجنب كراهية رعاياه له وبغضهم لشخصه""
أما إذا كنت أمير على دولة مُحتله (قمت انت ومن معك بأحتلالها) فهناك عدة سينريوهات ..أما ان تكون قد قمت باحتلال البلده بعد ان كره الشعب حاكمه وهنا يمكنك أرساء قواعد ملكك ويمكنك ان تولي الاقليات من اهل هذه الدولة زمام الامور.
او تكون قمت باحتلالها بمساعدة أكابرها ...الحصول على دولة كهذه سهل لكن السيطرة عليها صعب للغايه لأن القوة ممزقه بين جهات عدة عليك ارضاءها جميعا ...هنا عليك ان تقييم في هذه الدولة ليستتب لك الامر ...
ويرى مكيافيلي ان أكبر ضمان للحيلولة دون احتلال بلد ما هو اعطاء اهلها هامش من الحريه ...فأن الشعوب الحره تهب للدفاع عن حريتها وتزداد المعركة ضراوة كلما زاد هامش الحريه ...بينما تحتاج الشعوب الخانعه لوقت طويل حتى تكافح وجود المحتل .
وهنا يعطي مكيافيلي نصيحه عظيمه لأي مُحتل ...""عليك ان ترتكب فظائع مرة واحده ثم يتوقف ليبعث الطمأنينه في نفوس الشعب "" بمعنى ان البطش شديد وجماعي ولمرة واحده حتى لا يفقد هيبته ورهبته في النفوس بينما النفع والرخاء بالقطاره...حتى يزيد من امتنان الرعيه له .
في رأي مكيافيلي ان بعض الحكام ورث السلطة لكن اولئك الذين حصلوا عليها دون ان يجري في عروقهم دم ملكي يتمتعون قطعا بمواهب عظيمه و ظروف أذكت قدراتهم الى جانب المكر والخسه أحيانا ...!
يلاحظ في فكر ميكافيلي تبنيه للسيادة و السلطة المطلقة ...
قد لايكون الكتاب هو الافضل ...لكن قراءته واجبه كتراث فكري
April 20, 2023
مكيافيللي
الغاية تبرر الوسيلة
حقًا؟
يقول سي طه عبد الرحمن، في كتابه "بؤس الدهرانية" عن مسألة الغايات النبيلة، والوسائل الغير ذلك، وعن مسألة أخلاق الحكم
هل من الأفضل لنا، أن يكون الحكم السياسي أخلاقي، أم أن يكون غير ذلك؟
بالطبع لن يتوانى أحد عن أن يفضل الحكم الأخلاقي، لكونه أقرب للسجية والفطرة
لكن السؤال هاهنا، والذي لم يطرحه طه، ولم يجبني عليه مكيافيللي
هل تقف الأخلاق عائقا أمام الحاكم؟
أعتقد أن النظر للتاريخ، والقريب منه حتى، سوف يجيبنا عن هذا السؤال.
"خذوا الحكمة من أفواه المطحونين"، -ولنجعلها مطحونين، لا كما خطرت على بالي قبل ذلك.
الشق التاريخي من الكتاب جيد، جيد للغاية، ولكنه ممل
استقراء التاريخ بهذا الشكل، والذي يؤكد، دوما، وبطبيعة الحال، عن كون السياسة، علما وضيعا، يجعلنا ندرك مدى المأساة
التاريخ لا يظلم أحدا، هكذا يقولون
لكنه، فيما يبدو، لا ينصر سوى الذئاب والماكرين، ولهذا، كانت دوما ما تقف الصعاب في وجه أي حاكم مصلح، أو حتى ثوري، ما دام ارتضى أن يرجع قراراته وحكمه لمرجعية أخلاقية.
هل هنالك من أمل؟
لا. فالسياسة تحتاج تمرس، وسرعة، وإدراك، وغدر، ونبذ لأي قيمة خلقية، طبعا حسب رؤية مكيافيللي. فأي حاكم يريد أن يكون حكمه أخلاقيا، فغالبا ما ينقلب عليه جموع الشعب
الكتاب في شقه النظري، مقبول، في شقه العملي، سيئ، ومقرف، ومثير للشك، والحنق على السواء
أعتقد أن الأمل الوحيد هو في قراءة التاريخ، وأخذ العبرة منه، لعلها، فيها بعد، تقودنا للطريق، ولا تكون عبرات.
لكن آفة حارتنا النسيان.
الغاية تبرر الوسيلة
حقًا؟
يقول سي طه عبد الرحمن، في كتابه "بؤس الدهرانية" عن مسألة الغايات النبيلة، والوسائل الغير ذلك، وعن مسألة أخلاق الحكم
هل من الأفضل لنا، أن يكون الحكم السياسي أخلاقي، أم أن يكون غير ذلك؟
بالطبع لن يتوانى أحد عن أن يفضل الحكم الأخلاقي، لكونه أقرب للسجية والفطرة
لكن السؤال هاهنا، والذي لم يطرحه طه، ولم يجبني عليه مكيافيللي
هل تقف الأخلاق عائقا أمام الحاكم؟
أعتقد أن النظر للتاريخ، والقريب منه حتى، سوف يجيبنا عن هذا السؤال.
"خذوا الحكمة من أفواه المطحونين"، -ولنجعلها مطحونين، لا كما خطرت على بالي قبل ذلك.
الشق التاريخي من الكتاب جيد، جيد للغاية، ولكنه ممل
استقراء التاريخ بهذا الشكل، والذي يؤكد، دوما، وبطبيعة الحال، عن كون السياسة، علما وضيعا، يجعلنا ندرك مدى المأساة
التاريخ لا يظلم أحدا، هكذا يقولون
لكنه، فيما يبدو، لا ينصر سوى الذئاب والماكرين، ولهذا، كانت دوما ما تقف الصعاب في وجه أي حاكم مصلح، أو حتى ثوري، ما دام ارتضى أن يرجع قراراته وحكمه لمرجعية أخلاقية.
هل هنالك من أمل؟
لا. فالسياسة تحتاج تمرس، وسرعة، وإدراك، وغدر، ونبذ لأي قيمة خلقية، طبعا حسب رؤية مكيافيللي. فأي حاكم يريد أن يكون حكمه أخلاقيا، فغالبا ما ينقلب عليه جموع الشعب
الكتاب في شقه النظري، مقبول، في شقه العملي، سيئ، ومقرف، ومثير للشك، والحنق على السواء
أعتقد أن الأمل الوحيد هو في قراءة التاريخ، وأخذ العبرة منه، لعلها، فيها بعد، تقودنا للطريق، ولا تكون عبرات.
لكن آفة حارتنا النسيان.
May 22, 2023
This book really opened my eyes to the way true power is exercised. Should be a 'foundational book' for anyone hoping to build a 'knowledge library' they can go back to throughout life. I often 'flip' through this book and just read whatever page I come upon. Always find something new even after multiple readings.
August 19, 2021
(Old review)
I honestly don't understand why this book is - by almost everyone (as it shows here on Goodreads, for example) - so praised. I read it last year, and I briefly re-read it just now, but the answer still hasn't come up. I simply don't like this book.
Sure, as a historical document, The Prince (1513), written by Machiavelli, might be interesting. And it offers us a glimpse of the state of Italy (especially Florence) in the late 15th and early 16th centuries. But I cannot help but cynically remark that people act like this little booklet contains a treasure of revelation on how to live your life. It simply doesn't.
As a study of statesmanship, one should read Montesquieu's d'Esprit de Lois, which offers a much more interesting (and complete) historical sketch of types of governments, the rule of law, etc. The Prince touches only on the type of government Machiavelli calls 'principate' (i.e. a republic ruled by a prince), and is rather dull and superficial.
The Prince is 'just' 100 or so pages of advice that wasn't asked for. Machiavelli dedicates this book to the new Medicean ruler of Florence, zooming in on how a prince should conduct himself in order to survive. It doesn't (nor should it) take 100 pages to get Machiavelli's message across: the prince should be prudential, opportunistic and strong willed. Or, to paraphrase Machiavelli, the prince should be a fox and a lion at the same time - act agressive to achieve your goals, leave nothing to chance, and when suited play Mr. Nice Guy to deceive.
As a piece of advice for modern day readers, it can not get any more base and shallow than that. This might explain the extreme popularity of the book: most people ARE rather base and shallow, and love to read pieces of worthless advice like this. Ignorance is bliss.
I can only remark the following: the contents of the book are - unless you are a Medicean ruler of 1513 Florence - not all that interesting (or original, for that matter); the book isn't written well (it reads like a collection of short summaries); and its message is clearly outdated and heavily context-dependent - meaning that copying and pasting its message to life in 2017 isn't all that helpful.
If you want to read on how to conduct yourself, study the works of moral philosophers like Plato or Kant. If you want to read on history of statesmen or statesmanship, study (again) Plato, Montesquieu,or de Tocqueville. If you want to read on politics in early 16th century Florence, study Machiavelli's The Prince. But please stop making all this noise about this book, it isn't all that special.
I honestly don't understand why this book is - by almost everyone (as it shows here on Goodreads, for example) - so praised. I read it last year, and I briefly re-read it just now, but the answer still hasn't come up. I simply don't like this book.
Sure, as a historical document, The Prince (1513), written by Machiavelli, might be interesting. And it offers us a glimpse of the state of Italy (especially Florence) in the late 15th and early 16th centuries. But I cannot help but cynically remark that people act like this little booklet contains a treasure of revelation on how to live your life. It simply doesn't.
As a study of statesmanship, one should read Montesquieu's d'Esprit de Lois, which offers a much more interesting (and complete) historical sketch of types of governments, the rule of law, etc. The Prince touches only on the type of government Machiavelli calls 'principate' (i.e. a republic ruled by a prince), and is rather dull and superficial.
The Prince is 'just' 100 or so pages of advice that wasn't asked for. Machiavelli dedicates this book to the new Medicean ruler of Florence, zooming in on how a prince should conduct himself in order to survive. It doesn't (nor should it) take 100 pages to get Machiavelli's message across: the prince should be prudential, opportunistic and strong willed. Or, to paraphrase Machiavelli, the prince should be a fox and a lion at the same time - act agressive to achieve your goals, leave nothing to chance, and when suited play Mr. Nice Guy to deceive.
As a piece of advice for modern day readers, it can not get any more base and shallow than that. This might explain the extreme popularity of the book: most people ARE rather base and shallow, and love to read pieces of worthless advice like this. Ignorance is bliss.
I can only remark the following: the contents of the book are - unless you are a Medicean ruler of 1513 Florence - not all that interesting (or original, for that matter); the book isn't written well (it reads like a collection of short summaries); and its message is clearly outdated and heavily context-dependent - meaning that copying and pasting its message to life in 2017 isn't all that helpful.
If you want to read on how to conduct yourself, study the works of moral philosophers like Plato or Kant. If you want to read on history of statesmen or statesmanship, study (again) Plato, Montesquieu,or de Tocqueville. If you want to read on politics in early 16th century Florence, study Machiavelli's The Prince. But please stop making all this noise about this book, it isn't all that special.
November 27, 2020
كتاب الأمير
كتاب لا يتعدي 150 صفحة ولكنه جمع كل دهاء السياسة علي مر العصور
الكتاب لمكيافيلي المعروف بشيطان الساسة والذي سميت علي اسمه السياسة المكيافيلية
يقع الكتاب في 26 فصل يقدم فيها مكيافيللي الممارسات السياسية الأفضل في الحكم وكيف يضمن الحاكم البقاء في عرشه بأي وسيلة ممكنة ويمكن قراءة هذا الكتاب بنظرتين مختلفتين نظرة أنه كتاب يقدم نصائح كيف تصبح حاكما ديكتاتوريا ومن أجل الحفاظ علي الحكم تحكم بالحديد والنار تاركا العدالة وراءك أو بنظرة أخري وهي نصائح للشعوب كيف يمكن للحاكم أن يتمادى في ظلمه من أجل العرش
تقييمي العالي للكتاب لا يعني أني أتفق علي ما فيه ولكن لا يمكن الإنكار أنه كتاب واقعي ومن أهم كتب السياسة التي نري محتواها وسنراها علي مر العصور
وفي النهاية لا أتفق مع الكثير من محتوي الكتاب والغاية أبدا لا تبرر الوسيلة
كتاب لا يتعدي 150 صفحة ولكنه جمع كل دهاء السياسة علي مر العصور
الكتاب لمكيافيلي المعروف بشيطان الساسة والذي سميت علي اسمه السياسة المكيافيلية
يقع الكتاب في 26 فصل يقدم فيها مكيافيللي الممارسات السياسية الأفضل في الحكم وكيف يضمن الحاكم البقاء في عرشه بأي وسيلة ممكنة ويمكن قراءة هذا الكتاب بنظرتين مختلفتين نظرة أنه كتاب يقدم نصائح كيف تصبح حاكما ديكتاتوريا ومن أجل الحفاظ علي الحكم تحكم بالحديد والنار تاركا العدالة وراءك أو بنظرة أخري وهي نصائح للشعوب كيف يمكن للحاكم أن يتمادى في ظلمه من أجل العرش
تقييمي العالي للكتاب لا يعني أني أتفق علي ما فيه ولكن لا يمكن الإنكار أنه كتاب واقعي ومن أهم كتب السياسة التي نري محتواها وسنراها علي مر العصور
وفي النهاية لا أتفق مع الكثير من محتوي الكتاب والغاية أبدا لا تبرر الوسيلة
August 30, 2013
كيف تكون لا أخلاقيا في 100 صفحة.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 12,913 reviews