Be Like the Fox: Machiavelli in his World

by Erica Benner

“Remarkable, engaging.… Be Like the Fox  can be read with pleasure by anyone interested in the craft of politics and the life of ideas.”― New York Times Book Review In the five hundred years since he wrote The Prince , Machiavelli’s name has been linked to tyranny and the doctrine that “the ends justify the means.” But that is not what he stood for. In  Be Like the Fox , Erica Benner takes us back to Renaissance Florence, where newly liberated citizens fought to build a free republic after the Medici princes were exiled. Machiavelli dedicated his life to this struggle for freedom. But despite his heroic efforts, the Medici soon swept back into power. Forced out of politics and prevented from speaking freely, Machiavelli had to use his skills of foxlike dissimulation to defend democracy in an era of tyrannical princes. Drawing on his letters, political writings, hard-hitting satirical dramas, and conversations with kings and popes, Be Like the Fox reveals Machiavelli as an unlikely hero for our times.

Genres: History, Biography, Nonfiction, Politics, Philosophy, Italy, Biography Memoir

384 pages, Paperback

First published May 9, 2017

Reviews

[Roman Clodia · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is very much a political biography rather than a personal one, a 'life and times' of Machiavelli rather than a psychological study of the man. Benner builds on a solid scholarly foundation of primary sources and delivers from them a lively, mostly accessible, account of the struggles for power in Florence during Machiavelli's lifetime.

In some ways, this is another rise and fall of the Medici with interventions from Savonarola and Cesare Borgia at various parts of the history. Machiavelli himself, not always as central as Benner might wish, works as a diplomat, helps establish a short-lived citizen army, then falls foul of the ruling powers and comments from the margins via plays, poetry and political discourses.

Benner is very positive, almost hagiographical, about her subject but it's difficult to get a sense of the 'real' man - not necessarily her fault as the period doesn't lend itself to displays of interiority, but disappointing all the same. We know he marries and has five children, we hear briefly of his infatuation with a courtesan, but the book focuses on his political personality, his politicised friendships such as that with Francesco Vettori.

It's not new, of course, to read The Prince as irony but there are contradictory moments such as when Machiavelli asks the advice of his friends as to whether he should present it to Guiliano de'Medici (p.247), odd if it's intended as an exposé of the Medici family's political manipulations?

Benner has a jaunty style of writing: the narrative is in the present tense with embedded quotations distinguished typographically according to who is 'speaking' (italics for Machiavelli himself, bold for Savonarola's ranting, for example). There are places where the complications of wars and changing alliances between France, the papal powers, Florence and other Italian city states get a little hard to keep hold of and a historical time-line would have been handy for quick look-ups. Overall, though, this is a lively, intelligent and enjoyable re-look at Machiavelli's role in Florentine politics.

I read a review copy via Amazon Vine.

[Glen · Rating 5 out of 5]

I won this book in a goodreads drawing.

Machiavelli is a controversial figure in history. Erica Benner tries to explain the man and his writing in the context of his time and his experiences. She argues that much of what we think we know of him comes from a knee jerk letter written by an Englishman, who maybe didn't even know Italian that well.

She argues that Machiavelli actually favored the rule of law, and that many have read his writings and found the wrong moral.

I wouldn't be surprised if this were true. Benner makes a good argument.

[Richard Levine · Rating 4 out of 5]

I came to this book never having read The Prince and generally being pretty uninformed about the political drama and craziness of Italy in the 15th and 16th Centuries (I never even watched The Borgias -- although now I'm tempted!), which I thought would make me a less than ideal reader of this book. But now, I don't know -- perhaps I was just the type of reader author Erica Benner was hoping for.

Starting without any preconceptions about how evil and Machiavellian the man must have been, I was pretty open to Benner's thesis: that Machiavelli wasn't a bad dude at all -- an accomplished diplomat and writer, someone very much in favor of the Florentine Republic and against tyrants -- and that The Prince, the work that made his name synonymous with treachery and unscrupulous power plays, was written not just ironically, but with the aim of tricking future Medici rulers of Florence into abusing their power so badly that they'd arouse public hatred and self-destruct. I'm not sure that each and every piece of her argument fits together perfectly; but on the whole, her book -- using elements of Machiavelli's biography, his letters, his other political writings and satirical plays -- seemed to make a pretty strong case that he did not really believe much of the infamous and unethical advice contained in The Prince, and that given the times in which he lived and his relative lack of status and power, he was actually a somewhat heroic figure.

On the other hand, as a reader I sometimes did feel a little handicapped by my ignorance of Italian politics in the Renaissance. The book takes us through Machiavelli's career as a political adviser and diplomatic envoy for Florence, which means trying to keep track of innumerable Popes, Kings, Dukes, Medicis, and Borgias (not to mention Strozzis, Vitellis, and Vettoris); invasions of one Italian state by another; shifting alliances with France, Spain, the Holy Roman Empire. . . . Benner does provide a Cast of Characters at the front of the book, which helps (but only so far), and there were times I wasn't quite able to follow some new diplomatic development that sounded important but was barely explained in the text. I don't fault the author too much, because including enough background detail to explain the complete political context of Machiavelli's world doubtless would have added hundreds of pages to the book. I should have just taken a Renaissance history course in college.

But overall, I still found this to be an interesting and provocative read.

[Nia · Rating 3 out of 5]

While it was fascinating to see that Nicolo Machiavelli was a little bit like Dennis the Menace, in fact, almost the class clown at times, but brilliant, person, the book really really dragged much of the time. I loved the fact that the author points out time and again how Machiavelli was marked by his family experience of the debt that his father inherited, as well as Nicolo's habit of questioning everything. And his common Sense way of dealing with pretty much everyone. And I love that incident of taking advantage of the credulity of the monks to get better treatment based on their assumptions of importance. The sad thing is that it may be human nature to assume that hierarchy marks importance, and to believe in an inherited right to command. That he was able to rise above such ideas is interesting, and also important to note that not everyone has to be a product of their own times. We can rise above the times that we live in, and we can learn not to be hierarchical. It just takes a collective effort of education, and willingness to believe in the best of ourselves, and to work to bring out the best in ourselves.

[Laura · Rating 3 out of 5]

From BBC Radio 4 - Book of the week:
A new interpretation on the importance of The Prince in Machiavelli's life and subsequent reputation.

His name has of course become a by-word for political machination, but this new biography by Erica Benner challenges the notions that Machiavelli was simply a satanic cynic.

She suggests that, in context, he emerges as his era's staunchest champion of liberty who refused to compromise his ideals to fit the corrupt times in which he lived. As often as he advocates extreme measures for dealing with the enemy, he actually balances this with respect for the law in sentences such as "victories are never secure without some respect, especially for justice" and "cities have never expanded either in dominion or in riches if they have not been in freedom."

So this book is an attempt to redress the balance.

Read by Toby Jones
Written by Erica Benner
Abridged by Polly Coles

Producer: Clive Brill
A Brill production for BBC Radio 4.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08k1stv

[James Taylor · Rating 3 out of 5]

I really wanted to enjoy this book. And while the author had an intriguing idea, I don’t really think that she pulled it off. While she clearly knows her subject intimately and is obviously a very competent writer I just didn’t find that the book ever excited me.

[Keith · Rating 4 out of 5]

Be Like the Fox: Machiavelli In His World is an informative and useful book, most especially for two kinds of reader. First, people like me who read The Prince and The Discourses on the First Ten Books of Titus Livy ever so long ago. Erica Benner’s book serves as a vivid refresher to both Machiavelli’s political thought and to the historical events in Fifteenth-century Italy. I remember first reading The Prince in an undergraduate class and realizing I would understand it all much better if I knew the historical background. This book is also recommended to anyone who is about to read Machiavelli. I think reading Benner’s biography first would be a great help in understanding Machiavelli.

Benner’s method is useful. She writes what is essentially a political biography of Machiavelli’s life. There are some personal details of his youth and family life; however not enough is known to fill in these gaps. Nevertheless, his thought can be illumined by a comparison of his life and times. The structure of the book are sections of historical detail, in particular explaining who the major actors were, buttressed by many quotes from Machiavelli's work as well as from his contemporaries.
Benner adroitly merges different voices into the biographical narrative. Here is an example from the book. The bold type is a quote from Friar Savonarola; the italicized section is a quote from Machiavelli’s Discourses and the plain text is Benner’s explication.

The people will live amidst rejoicing and the singing of psalms. The boys and girls will be like angels.

When founding a new republic, Niccolò writes in his Discourses, it’s wisest to presuppose that all men are bad, and that they always use the malignity of their spirit whenever they have the opportunity.

Founders of new institutions should assume that a large part of human nature inclines most people to behave badly, at least now and then: to take more than their share of power or wealth, to profit from other people’s weaknesses, to cheat, lie, betray promises. Inclinations like these can’t be rooted out of our species; human nature itself cannot be reformed so that more and more people become reliably angelic. That is why prudent founders have built strong checks on human badness into their constitutions.

Overall, this presentation works very well, although I must admit I occasionally lost track of the speaker when there were two different voices being presented at the same time. Finally, as to Benner’s interpretation of Machiavelli’s teaching, she adheres to a theory of Machiavelli that sees him as a philosopher of freedom:

“When reading the Prince, one often has the impression that the book speaks in two different voices, sometimes in the same sentence. One voice is louder, tough, ambitious, impatient to set aside moral scruples for the sake of gaining an advantage. The other is less attention-grabbing and, for readers on the lookout for signature Machiavellianisms, far less intriguing. Yet it is this lower-key voice that recommends the book’s most practical measures, the policies that tend to produce lasting power and security, not just dazzling but problematic results.”

Machiavelli may not have been a democrat but he was a republican (classically defined in both cases). There are many who still adhere to a conception of Machiavelli as a teacher of evil. Often his advice is hard-hearted for a often cruel world but the ideal state for him seems always to be one in which all are happy. Neither oligarchy nor aristocracy can accomplish that. Machiavelli's pragmatic republicanism seems much the best of all possible worlds.

[Mike · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a masterful written biography about a 16th century Florentine. Machiavelli was a political philosopher with civic involvement and ambition. The ambitions did not come easy. He was an optimist, an emissary, a philosopher, a teacher, a man ahead of his time.

I was familiar with his work through the 'Prince', but the authoritarian, dictatorial persona of that book does not come across at all in this biography.

The storyline is truly astounding. Think 1518 Florence and an advocacy of a Republic form of government, a tax system that does not exasperate the wealthy and the poor, a citizen army, and considering the opinions of political opponents.

[Alper Çuğun · Rating 4 out of 5]

Machiavelli a nice guy and enlightened statesman? I'll take it in this fun and insightful book that draws from his entire oeuvre and the broader history of Florence. Read carefully and you'll find a lot of good advice to be gleaned from this take.

[Karen Chung · Rating 5 out of 5]

One man's experience with and study of political power struggle. Fascinating parallels to modern times.

[Tom Peebles · Rating 3 out of 5]

No consensus exists today among historians, philosophers and those interested in the genealogy of political thinking about the objectives and outlook of Niccolò Machiavelli (1469-1527), the Florentine writer, civil servant, diplomat and political philosopher. The adjective “Machiavellian” refers to principles and methods of expediency, craftiness, and duplicity in politics. Common synonyms for “Machiavellian” include “scheming,” “cynical,” “shrewd” and “cunning.” For some, Machiavellian politics constitute nothing less than a prescription for maintaining power at any cost, in which dishonesty is exalted and the killing of innocents authorized if necessary.

Machiavelli earned this dubious reputation primarily through his best known work, The Prince, published in 1532, five years after his death, in which he purported to advise political leaders in Florence and elsewhere – “princes” – on how to maintain power, particularly in a republic, where political leadership is not based on monarchy or titles of nobility and citizens are supposed to be on equal footing. But many consider Machiavelli a genuine proponent of republican government whose thinking foreshadowed modern democratic ideas. Erica Benner, author of two other books on Machiavelli, falls squarely into this camp.

Benner portrays Machiavelli as a “thorough-going republican,” and a “eulogist of democracy” who “sought to uphold high moral standards” and “defend the rule of law against corrupt popes and tyrants” (p.xvi). She discounts the shocking advice of The Prince as bait for tyrants. Machiavelli wore the mask of helpful advisor, Benner writes, “all the while knowing the folly of his advice, hoping to ensnare rulers and drag them to their ruin” (p.xv). As a “master ironist” and a “dissimulator who offers advice that he knows to be imprudent” (p.xvi), Machiavelli’s hidden intent was to “show how far princes will go to hold on to power” and to “warn people who live in free republics about the risks they face if they entrust their welfare to one man” (p. xvi-xvii).

Benner encourages a deeper look at Machiavelli’s major writings, particularly The Prince and his Discourses on Livy, nominally a discussion of politics in ancient Rome, to discover Machiavelli's layered insights on several key questions about republican governance: how can leaders in a republic sustain power over the long term; how can a republic best protect itself from threats to its existence, internal and external; and how can a republic avoid lapsing into tyranny. Benner’s title alludes to Machiavelli’s observation that a fox has a particular kind of cunning that can recognize traps and avoid snares. Humans need to emulate a fox by being “armed with mental agility rather than physical weapons” and by developing a kind of cunning that “sees through ruses, decent words or sacred oaths” (p.151).

Benner advances her view of Machiavelli as a forerunner of modern liberal democracy by placing the Florentine “squarely in his world, among his family, friends, colleagues and compatriots” (p.xix). Rather than setting out Machiavelli’s thinking on governance as abstractions, she has integrated his writings into dialogues, using italics to indicate verbatim quotations – a method which, she admits, “transgresses the usual biographical conventions” but nonetheless constitutes a “natural way to show [her] protagonist in his element” (p.xx). It is a clever look at Machiavelli and his world.

That world centered on Florence, already at its height as the center of the artistic and cultural flourishing known as the Renaissance. But Benner’s story lies elsewhere, focused on the city’s cutthroat political life, dominated by the Medici family. Bankers to the popes, patrons of Renaissance art, and masters of political cronyism, the Medici exercised close to outright control of Florence from the early 15th century until thrown out of power in 1494, with the assistance of French king Charles VIII, at the outset of Machiavelli’s career. They recaptured control in 1512, but were expelled again in 1527, months before Machiavelli’s death, this time with the assistance of Hapsburg Emperor Charles V.

Lurking behind the Medici family were the popes in Rome, linked to the family through intertwining and sometimes familial relationships. In a time of rapidly shifting alliances, the popes competed with rulers from France, Spain and the mostly German-speaking Holy Roman Empire for worldly control over Florence and Italy’s other city-states, duchies and mini-kingdoms, all at a time when ominous challenges to papal authority had begun to gather momentum in other parts of Europe.

Machiavelli served as a diplomat for the city of Florence and held several high-level civil service positions, including secretary, or administrator, for Florence’s war committee. Throughout his career, he lobbied for Florence to abandon its reliance upon mercenaries with no fixed loyalties to fight its wars. Her urged Florence to cultivate its own home grown fighting force, a “citizens’ militia.” His civil service career came to an abrupt halt in 1513, shortly after Guiliano de’ Medici, with the assistance of Pope Julius II and Spanish troops, wrestled back control over Florence’s government. The new regime accused Machiavelli of participating in an anti-Medici coup. He was imprisoned, tortured, and banished from government, spending most of the ensuing seven years on the family farm outside Florence.

Both The Prince and the Discourses on Livy took shape during Machiavelli’s period of forced exile, during which he drew upon his long experience in government to formulate his guidance to princes on how to secure and maintain political power. Although both works were published after his death in 1527, Benner uses passages from them -- always in italics -- to illuminate particular events of Machiavelli’s life. Extracting from these passages and Benner’s exegesis upon them, we can parse out a framework for Machiavelli’s ideal republic.

To maintain power over the long term, leaders need to eschew short-term gains and benefits and demonstrate, as Benner puts it, a “willingness to play the long game, to pit patience against self-centered impetuosity” (p.8), above all by securing the support of the people the prince purports to govern. Machiavelli’s long game thus hints at the modern notion that the most effective government is one that has the consent of the governed.

Machiavelli’s ideal republic was not a democracy based upon direct rule by the people but rather upon the rule of law. Upright leaders should put public laws above their own or other people’s private feelings, he maintained. They should resist emotional appeals to ties of family or friendship, and punish severely when the laws and the republic’s survival so demands. Arms and justice together are the foundation of Machiavelli’s ideal republic.

Several high-profile executions of accused traitors and subversives convinced Machiavelli that a republic should not dispense with its established legal procedures when faced with internal threats. No matter how serious the offense, exceptional punishments outside the confines of the law “set a corrupting precedent” (p.121). Machiavelli’s lifelong dream that Florence cultivate its own fighting force rather than rely upon mercenaries to fight its wars with external enemies arose out of similar convictions.

During Machiavelli’s time in exile, the disputatious German monk Martin Luther challenged a wide range of papal practices, setting in motion the Protestant Reformation and, with it, more than a century of bloody conflict in Europe between Protestants and Catholics. The Prince became an instrument in the propaganda wars stirred up by the Reformation, Benner contends, with Machiavelli demonized “mostly by men of religion, both Catholic and Protestant” (p.xv), who saw in the Florentine’s thinking a challenge to traditional relations between church and state. These men of religion rightly perceived that the church would have little role to play in Machiavelli's ideal republic. Machiavelli’s works earned a place on the Catholic Church’s 1557 Index of Prohibited Books, one of the Church’s solutions to the heresies encouraged by the Reformation, where they remained until 1890.

Benner’s Machiavelli, an “altogether human, and humane” (p.xvi) commentator and operative on the political stage of his time, exudes few of the qualities associated with the adjective that bears his name. The ruthlessly duplicitous Machiavelli – his “evil double” (p.xiv), as Brenner puts it -- is barely present in her account. By using Machiavelli’s writings to create dialogues with the principal actors of his time, Benner has produced a “real time” account that is almost Shakespearean, turning on intrigue and foible in the pursuit and exercise of power, and on the shortsightedness not only of princes and those who worked for them and curried their favor, but also of those who worked against them and plotted their overthrow.
But Benner's story is not always easy to follow. Readers unfamiliar with late 15th and early 16th Florentine politics may experience difficulty in visualizing the big picture amidst the continual conspiring, scheming and backstabbing. At the outset, in a section termed “Dramatis Personae,” she lists the story’s numerous major characters by category (e.g., family, friends, popes), and readers will want to consult this helpful list liberally as they work their way through her rendering of Machiavelli. The book would have also benefitted from a chronology setting out in bullet form the major events in Machiavelli’s lifetime.

For a more detailed review, please see my blog, and feel free to copy any comments there also:
https://tomsbooks.wordpress.com/2018/...

[Fellow · Rating 3 out of 5]

Historia florencji opowiedziana przez pryzmat opowieści o życiu Nicholo Machiavellego. Książe, którego mnie uczono na uczelni nie jest interpretowany właściwie. Ta książka nie jest podręcznikiem sprawowania władzy - jak się o nim powszechnie uważa a sposobem na złapanie przeciwników republikanizmu w pułapkę. Nie jest to wspaniała, rekomendowana pozycja ale za samo to, że pozwoliła mi zbudować dodatkowy kontekst wokół księcia i jego autora - uważam ją za wartościową.

[Karlan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Here is the story of 15th C Florence with a never ending cast of exciting characters. The biography is wonderfully readable. For those of us who have not thought of Machiavelli since college days, it all seems new and amazing. Highly recommended to those who enjoy historical fiction, too.

[Vivi · Rating 3 out of 5]

A solid primer into the political and historical environment of Machiavelli's time.

Things to take from this:

🌟 The dude lived through an 18 year failed republic, and through an authoritarian regime

🌟 He was probably a hypochondriac. And he was very much an optimist, a proto-liberal and the 15th/16th-century version of a patriot. Our friend is crazy for citizen militias over mercenaries. He also was often helpless and ignored when giving prudent advice. Had to watch many a poor foreign policy decisions...all ending terribly for Florence.

🌟 Was tortured after a plot to kill Giuliano de' Medici was discovered and a list of potential collaborators fell out of one of the conspirators' pockets. Machia was #7 on the list of 20 so there he goes on the strappado. From this, he realizes the need for more subtlety when criticizing the ruling powers.

🌟 He wrote satirical plays in (semi-forced) semi-retirement that appealed to both the patricians and the masses. Satire was a fixed but subtle style that Machiavelli often employed, due to the influence of early historians & philosophers. Loved debating political philosophy with lads both young and old.

🌟Machiavelli wrote The Prince dedicated to Lorenzo di Piero de' Medici for a job application. Here, Benner kinda argues that Machia always hoped for a greater version of a republic, and never gave up these hopes for reform. As a result, he couldn't live without some degree of political action, and therefore, hoped to convince the autocracy to slowly convert to a republic over time. So he needed a job and wasn't just some dude who wanted to be liked again. However, the same book wasn't published until after his death, for his satire may have been too "obvious".

🔥🔥Machia has a whole mood of a friend in Biagio Buonacccorsi, responsible for ye olde :> great sayings:

"May he have bloody shit in his arsehole, Biago vents in a letter to his friend." (probably wishing dysentery on Ser Antonio)

"Be patient...To tell you the truth, you can rot in hell for asking for so many things."

"I am so sick and tired of making excuses for you', Biagio tells him. You take too little account of the opinions of men who can destroy you, you treat them and underlings like your Biagio too coldly, rushing ahead with your plans as if you could never take a wrong step. Blame falls on me, since we are friends and the closest of colleagues, and yet I keep on sticking my neck out. Go and retch. You are a latrine cover, and anyone who wants you can pick you up with a stick."

On a serious note, the book gives a layered perspective to other Machiavelli works such as The Prince or The Discourses but this book is really a political biography rather than an analysis of his work. That's all fine (except if you consider the fact that the author could be cherry-picking information to fit the narrative), but mostly the problems were with the writing. Quotes were quoted with quotation marks, or in italics, or paraphrased without in-text citations. This leaves any sane reader wondering whether Machia had truly conversed as such, or if it was a product of Benner's imagination. Benner also brings her own philosophical interpretations and clearly understands the subject matter, but at times your average reader (me) can't tell if its Machia speaking or not. Also the introduction of persons was abrupt- at one point there was one Lorenzo and then welp theres another Lorenzo, mostly written by their first names, so the Dramatis Personae section is a must.

Otherwise an accessible book into the world of chaotic Florence. 3.5/5

[Bookworm · Rating 2 out of 5]

Read 'The Prince' many years ago in school and remember liking it a great deal. Had been eager to red this, especially considering the life and times we live in and perhaps how maybe a few more of our politicians could read someone like Machiavelli. Since it had been so long I had forgotten that the premise was that Benner wanted to look at his life and legacy and examine whether we should call things "Machiavellian" given what he may or may not have meant.

Benner interweaves Machiavelli's biography with his writings plus the political and societal context of his life in an attempt to paint a more full picture of him but I'm not sure if I can buy her premise. It probably has to do a lot with my lack of familiarity with this time period and the history around it in general but I just didn't find the book particularly compelling. I thought it might have worked better if perhaps Benner had taken his work and worked around the context instead of trying to put the writings in the context of the history. Goal remains the same but I wasn't interested in a lot of the details.

Overall the feeling I got was that it was just better to read 'The Prince'. Other people (particularly political scientists, students, etc.) may find this useful. It may have been too long/I should have re-read 'The Prince' to get a better understanding for me.

Glad my library had this. Recommend as a borrow unless you need it for extensive research.

[Daniel Schotman · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not so good as her other 2 books on Machiavelli. Her first and her second were really more textual interpretations in terms of influence and tryping to explain the text itself, as in her second book. The Prince.

This was not much a biography of Machiavelli's life than a sort of history of his diplomatic dealings with numerous illustrious figures he had in his long carreer and how he dealt with these people and situations. As such it was not really what I was expecting, though still rather interesting. What I only would have liked to see then is how these people and events exactly influenced Machiavelli's witing. But unfortunately this is not really worked out in detail. Though there are numerous quotes from various texts, the relation is never really worked out.

Great in terms of gaining a better idea on Machiavelli's work as a Civil Servant in serbice of the City Of Florence, not so good when you'd wish to obtain a better understanding of Machiavelli's work. For that you can better turn to her other two books.

As such I thought the title was somewhat misleading as it is also never really explained how this title relates to the book. I would say that Machiavelli was a great diplomat, not cunning, devious or anything. But that he was an even greater writer and teacher to others.

[Steven Kaminski · Rating 5 out of 5]

REALLY fascinating book. I read the Prince when I was 14....the Discourses when I was in Japan. And when I was reading them I had this idea that Machiavelli was writing those books specifically for the audience that was paying him...the rulers who employed him as a negotiator and civil servant. But as this book convincingly argues he was actually writing for a much broader audience and that fundamentally changes what he was trying to say, Because Machiavelli (and I didn't know this) was a playwright. He wrote satirical plays presented both to the ruling class but also the masses. When you look at his writings through that lens in many ways he was sort of warning what could happen if the ruling class abused its power...that is far different than just writing for an audience of his employer. He was kind of trying to educate the masses of what they should expect and should respect in leaders. And even though he was in the center of massive political upheaval (remember he was jailed, expelled from his home and later recalled) in his books is this thread of a framework to the rule of law and what those should mean. That's powerful stuff....

[Tom Axworthy · Rating 3 out of 5]

Erica Benner has written a defence of Machiavelli in a political biography which is as much a history of his ideas as it is of his life.Machiavelli is still a very controversial figure: the great political theorist Leo Strauss described him as "a teacher of evil" because of his amoral and shocking book the Prince.Tyrants had always done terrible things but Machiavelli broke with Aristotle, Cicero and the church fathers who had applied morality to all by arguing that the state had its own rules free of moral restraint.It was shocking then and it still is today.In the Prince Machiavelli 's model is Cesare Borgia -a moral monster.Benner is very good however in describing the brutality of Renaissance politics with coup and counter coup , war and slaughter so one understands that Machiavelli was describing the reality of his time .Our era is just as brutal but at least through human rights and international law we try not to give our rulers a free pass.

[Van Jackson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Brilliant. Historically contextualizes Machiavelli--a time period about which I knew little despite having read his entire body of work--and provides a plausible explanation for some of the inconsistencies/tensions/contradictions in The Prince and The Discourses. She argues that the man was a pro-Republic and anti-monarchy philosopher but was captive to the politics of his time. To write a treatise on Republicanism at the time he wrote The Prince would have been to sign his own death warrant. So he wrote a semiotic, double-tongued book--an attempt to hide its true meaning while currying favor with the power structures of his day. Some readers may not like this book for its deeply revisionist take on Machiavelli, but she backs up her core argument well. Fascinating even for a casual reader.

[Paul · Rating 3 out of 5]

dit boek bevatte voor mij niets nieuws in vergelijking met biografieen van Machiavelli die ik eerder las. De vorm is wel nieuw, een crossover tussen wetenschappelijke en romantiserende biografie. Die stijl (citaten plukken uit brieven zonder serieuze contekstvermelding bv) in combinatie met de pretentieuze toon ('een nieuwe duiding') is voor mij meteen het manco van dit boek. De claim wordt niet waargemaakt. Waarom ontbreken andere bografieen en wetenschappelijke studies in literatuurlijst en voetnoten? Waarom wordt niet ingegaan op de politieke filosofie en geschiednis van het republikanisme? Een verwijzing naar bv Pockock e.a. had kunnen helpen om de these van dit boek ("Nicoolo deugde, wat men er ook ook denkt!' )wat meer inhoudelijk te positioneren.

[Phil · Rating 4 out of 5]

A wonderful biography of Machiavelli that gave me a great deal of Renaissance Italy political history along the way. I could really relate to Niccolo throughout his life. His desires for a better world and disappointment at his own ability to realize it in his own time were really humanizing.

[Jim Swike · Rating 3 out of 5]

A good reference book, not a great read. I thought I would learn more. Maybe you will feel differently, enjoy!

[LG · Rating 2 out of 5]

I liked the idea more than the execution. A blog post would have worked for me.

[Brandon Notar · Rating 3 out of 5]

I had to renew this 8 times to finish it.

[Marks54 · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a thoughtful and readable political biography of Machiavelli by a top political theorist with ties to Yale, Oxford, and the London School of Economics. Her intent is to provide a rich introduction to the life of Machiavelli that brings his core issues to light in ways that are relevant for both the time of Renaissance Florence and today. She succeeds in this admirably and I will make a point to find more of her books.

Why is a biography of Machiavelli a challenge? To start with, he is likely the most read and commented on political theorist of the past 500 years. Saying something new might not be so easy. Second, Machiavelli is one of the most misunderstood and vilified writers ever, whose name is synonymous with amoral power seeking and whose works were on the Vatican's Index of forbidden books well into the 19th century. Third, Machiavelli's work has been the subject of controversey among careful analysts due to the rich textures of his writing and the the irony inherent in many of his works. There are multiple levels of meaning in the Prince and the Discourses and it is not surprising that scholars have divided between good and bad interpretations of Machiavelli's work.

Benner is clearly in the camp of the "good" Machiavelli who sought to promote republican values over those of tyranny but who was also prudent about publishing his writings in an environment that was often harsh to political or theological criticisms. Benner tells the story of Machiavelli's life by focusing on the critical political events he was involved with and then judiciously moving from the facts of Machiavelli's life to what he and others wrote about that life and its political challenges as he was working through it or reminiscing about it later in life. I am well of the arguments for studying books like the Prince or the Discourses by sticking to the text. Benner's point, however, is to study Machiavelli's life, and in doing so I can only see value in situating his work into the broader political context within which he lived and was employed. The result is a masterful and convincing picture of the author of the Prince that is believable and highly informative. The political logic of Machiavelli is also compelling, especially in our contemporary age of brutally partisan politics, confusions in understanding the world, and rising stakes of apparently unending political conflict. It is not at all surprising to me that Machiavelli is relevant and Benner has done a great service to those interest in learning about him.

This is a very good book.

[Loraine · Rating 4 out of 5]

As an afficianodo of political philosophy, I've always held Niccolo Machiavelli's work in high esteem. And any careful examination of his teachings will reveal that he isn't quite the amoral mastermind that his name has become synonymous with. In fact, the thing that stands out most about his work is that he seems to speak from both sides of his mouth, both advising the power-hungry tyrant while also advocating for the merits of a happy and equitable republic. This book delves into the roots of this dichotomy, and lays bare the truth of o Machiavelli's subversive intentions and why he wrote the way he did. It provides a very clear understanding of Machiavelli's true political thought, and it's surprising just how fiercely democractic it is.

His most ardent belief, and his passion project, was that Florence absolutely needed it's own militia, composed of it's own citizenry. Florence was only capapble of employing mercenaries for military protection, and this proved to be ineffective and ripe for corruption, over and over again. Only a citizen, whose entire existence is bound up in the struggle, could defend his own republic with a passion (and therefore effectiveness) that hired guns could never be motivated to achieve. In this concept, Machiavelli highlights the power of patriotic love and it is a central theme that runs through the rest of his philosphy.

He stresses the importance of a well-ordered political economy because ensuring a decent living for all citizens is one of the main foundations of a state's military power. He emphasizes how popular sentiment can make or break a head of state: "if the people hold you in hatred, fortresses do not save you." He advocates, with the health and longevity of the replublic in mind, for the rule of just laws over the rule of a single man. He argues that a rich public, funded by taxes and sumptuary laws, makes for a safer and freer society. He expounds, with impressive feverency, the degree to which people will fight against their oppressors. And he does all this while appearing to compliment the (naked) emperor's clothes.

I love this shit. This is why I hold a degree in poly-sci. Also, as a hilarious aside, I learned that Machiavelli's greatest fear was to be shunted off to some godforsaken countryside and forced to teach children how to read. It conjured up a hilrious mental image of this great strategist banging hsi head on the wall as he's stuck in a room full of little Ralph Wiggams.

[Bill Tyne · Rating 5 out of 5]

As a diplomat, Machiavelli sought to protect the freedoms of the Florentine Republic in turbulent times. As architect of the militia he looked to defending the Republic by enlisting men from all classes and, through fair treatment and discipline equally imposed on all ensured that they were invested in the defence of a Republic that granted freedoms and a good measure of justice to them. As an author, poet, and playwright, he used irony with skill to criticise the abuses and tyranny of those who use their privilege and position to take power. Given the brutal nature of politics of the time, it's hardly surprising that Machiavelli was subtle by cloaking his views through satire and deadpan irony, evensong he was still tortured when the Republic returned to Medici rule and some of his friends were found guilty of plotting against the Medici.
The portrait of Machiavelli, which comes through in this biography, is of a tireless defender of freedoms of civil liberty and opponent of tyranny and the selfish rule of prince's (whether they are true prince's or the de facto prince's arising from overmighty families who take power and pass it on down the generations of their family as the Medici did). His colleagues in the chancery were clearly close, joking with him in letters and longing for his return when he was out on diplomatic mission (the cover was more of a tyrant and not fun to work with). Those he came into contact with as a diplomat thought highly of him, and many became close friends.
While no Saint Machiavelli was, without doubt, one of the good guys living through difficult and turbulent times.
Providing an excellent portrait of Machiavelli, Benner also gives us a colourful and detailed history of Italy and Florence in particular, at that time. Nepotism, corruption, brutality, and plain stupidity are rife. Rotten Popes, powerful bankers, turned rulers and tyrants, and warring emperors and kings stomp all over the pages of this volume where Nicco tries to protect his piece of Italy by dealing with them all (often in person) hoping to curb their ambitions and stay the hand of their armies.

[Frank McGirk · Rating 4 out of 5]

I knew very little about the politics of Italy during the early 16th century, though I had heard of the Medici and Strozzi, and of course Machiavelli. I read The Prince in graduate school, and I remember being intrigued, but not much of it stuck with me.

I'll be curious what sticks with me from this book. I was quite taken with Machiavelli's view on Fortune, that those who are "fortunate," that is, blessed without merit, usually come crashing down as dramatically as they rise, and that all we can do is labor intelligently enough to survive the worst downturns and be prepared for its upswings. Based on his own writing, however, I'm not sure it holds water.

Benner shows how Machiavelli time and again, hides his true meaning in The Prince and other writing by heaping sham praise on the fortunate who then fell, but there weren't many (any?) examples of those (at least in his more recent time period) for whom prudence paved the way for success for much longer than the lucky.

From the standpoint of privilege, Machiavelli is an interesting character. Landed but indebted, so he can't hold many offices, he is worse off than many of the diplomats he moves among for part of his life, but still much higher than the peasant class. He is through his life dedicated to the preservation of the Florence, but seemingly sees no irony in subjugating Pisa in order to enrich the Republic of Florence.

Still, he is likable pragmatist who believes that a healthy republic makes sure all its members are healthy and happy, that there isn't too great a distance between their wealth and power and that all are held to the same standards by the law.

A very interesting book overall. Machiavelli was a diplomat of varying prestige of a relatively minor power in a period of mass upheaval. I think he did alright.

[Bill Newell · Rating 4 out of 5]

When I visited my daughter's political science class on Family Day her first year at Smith, I witnessed a discussion of one of the classic conundrums of political theory: How could Machiavelli write, in rapid succession, both The Prince (a notorious guide to unscrupulous dictators which spawned the adjective ‘Machiavellian’) and The Discourses (extolling and advising free republics)? She and her classmates were pushed to close textual analysis, which I greatly admired, but struggled to answer the question, as have scholars ever since it was written.
I believe that question has now been definitively answered by Erica Benner in her Be Like a Fox: Machiavelli in His World (W.W. Norton & Co., 2017), 360 pp., which I just finished reading. She makes a rock-solid case that The Prince was written ironically, because a straight-forward approach would have got him fired, black-balled, and banished, if not murdered. Indeed, he offers counsel that would inherently appeal to a tyrant, but which, if followed, would likely bring on his demise.
Even if you’re not interested in political theory, you’ll find fascinating and instructive Benner’s recounting of his depiction of Cesare Borgia, whose lucky rise to power (thanks to foreign powers), megalomania and narcissism, ineptitude at ruling what he conquered, and eventual demise bear striking similarities to Donald Trump without the tweets.
Be Like a Fox is seriously scholarly work of political history, but it’s surprisingly accessible and entertaining. In no small part that’s because it is replete with imagined dialogue, using wording drawn from his other published and unpublished works and those of his confidants.
A la Siskel & Ebert, I give it two thumbs up.

[MH · Rating 4 out of 5]

A biography of Machiavelli with a focus on how his professional life and his active involvement in Florentine politics influenced his writing, and vice versa, Benner contextualizes Machiavelli's work within his world and with his intended readers and audiences, showing him to be fiercely republican rather than cold-eyed and calculating. And there's a lot to contextualize - between the competing factions of civic and religious leaders in Florence; the Medicis and their many enemies; Rome, the French and the Spanish; and various Italian city-states and Florentine client-states, Machiavelli was personally involved in a wide range of intrigues and embassies over the decades Benner covers. Benner tells her story cleanly, though, and rarely strays away from Machiavelli and Florence, making this complicated history much easier to follow, and her frequent use of quotations from his writings and letters makes a convincing case for seeing The Prince as an ironic outlier and Machiavelli as a greatly misunderstood political thinker.

I was lucky enough to win a copy of this book through a Goodreads giveaway.