What do you think?
Rate this book
The Portable Machiavelli
In the four and a half centuries since Machiavelli’s death, no single and unanimously accepted interpretation of his ideas has succeeded in imposing itself upon the lively debate over the meaning of his works. Yet there has never been any doubt about the fundamental importance of Machiavelli’s contribution to Western political theory. The Portable Machiavelli brings together the complete texts of The Prince , Belfagor , and Castruccio Castracani , newly translated by Peter Bondanella and Mark Musa especially for this volume. In addition, the editors include an abridged version of The Discourses ; a play, The Mandrake Root , in its entirety; seven private letters; and selections from The Art of War and The History of Florence .
574 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1979
About the author
Niccolò Machiavelli
2,234 books5,175 followers
The Prince
, book of Niccolò Machiavelli, Italian political theorist, in
1513 describes an indifferent ruler to moral considerations with determination to achieve and to maintain power.
Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli, a philosopher, musician, and poet, wrote plays. He figured centrally in component of the Renaissance, and people most widely know his realist treatises on the one hand and republicanism of Discourses on Livy .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niccol%...
1513 describes an indifferent ruler to moral considerations with determination to achieve and to maintain power.
Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli, a philosopher, musician, and poet, wrote plays. He figured centrally in component of the Renaissance, and people most widely know his realist treatises on the one hand and republicanism of Discourses on Livy .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niccol%...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews
February 12, 2020
5 stars because this collection gives a great overview of Machiavelli's writings. I'd previously read The Prince and The Discourses, but his novella, play, letters, etc. were all new to me. This volume nicely presents them with some background so you get a good taste of his writings without feeling like you are digging into a massive Collected Works of Machiavelli or something.
That said...there is a reason my professor refers to Machiavelli as a sexist pig. It doesn't come out as much in The Prince. It definitely does in some of his other works. Consider yourself warned.
That said...there is a reason my professor refers to Machiavelli as a sexist pig. It doesn't come out as much in The Prince. It definitely does in some of his other works. Consider yourself warned.
October 21, 2013
The year 2013 marks both the celebration of Italian culture in America and the five-hundred-year anniversary of Niccolò Machiavelli's The Prince. Written in 1513, but not published in its entirety until 1532, five years after Machiavelli's death, the author's heady advice has turned his last name into a pejorative adjective, synonymous with deceit, deception, ruthless manipulation, and state-sponsored violence. Irony number one: the man for whom Machiavelli penned the advice for died before he could enjoy it, and irony number two: the de'Medici family, who sponsored the work, never read it.
"The ends justifies the means" is the cliché most associated with Machiavelli. What he wrote, however, in Chapter XVIII of The Prince, is si guarda al fine, which is best translated as "one must think of the final result." Not quite the same thing -- not by a long shot. The context for the phrase is a discussion on whether the prince's words should convey certain virtues. Niccolò, who knew his Latin well, might have been thinking of the Ovidian phrase exitus acta probat, which translates into English as "the outcome justifies the deed," but that is very different from "one must think of the final result."
So Mr. M never wrote the phrase il fine giustifica i mezzi. Marie Antoinette never did say qu'ils mangent des brioches. Darwin, however, did indeed say survival of the fittest, but only as a metaphor for his theory of natural selection. Herbert Spenser would later apply Darwin's phrase to economic theory. Darwin's words were then adapted to support eugenics and other forms of sloppy thinking. Last but not least: Freud never said that where there's a taboo, there is a desire. Each one of these phrases wants to distill the complex personality and theories of prominent historic figures into a memorable sound byte, for the benefit of listless students in the future. It is part of that process of creating sound bytes, wrenching words out of historical context, that ends up transforming culture into banality.
The Prince is considered the handbook for crackpots, wannabee despots, and full-blown dictators on the one hand; the inspiration for tailless Gordon Geckos with or without an MBA, on the other. Lenin kept a copy of Il Principe at his bedside. Mafia dons supposedly cite it as the governing text of their "organization." Somehow, I think it takes a whole lot more than badda bing badda bang to read Don Niccolò's text. Yet it is rather amazing that Mr. M wrote the text at all. Even Tony Soprano lacked the creativity of the de'Medici family as literary patrons. The famiglia for whom Nicky had written and to whom he had dedicated his slim volume had him hoisted up strappado. Machiavellian, eh? Machiavelli endured six drops. The de'Medici family had reclaimed Florence and they were separating the chaff from the seed and wheat. See how cliché mitigates violence? Machiavelli, the diplomat, had nothing to confess to the de'Medici's henchmen. They let him hobble off to his estate. The Prince is a short work for good reason: he wrote the damn thing with both arms broken while recuperating.
Scholars have debated Machiavelli's intention in writing The Prince. The prevailing argument is that he was trying to curry favor with the de'Medicis. Machiavelli's models for leadership were found in the idealized past of a Greek democracy or a Roman republic. He saw that both societies had become corrupt from human weakness. The republic had become Christianized, lost its sense of oligarchy. He had hoped that his Prince would unite all the Italian cities and regions under a single government, but this new man was not to be the hero of the early republic, men such as Publius Valerius, Mucius Scaevola, Coriolanus, and Cincinnatus. Machiavelli wanted a thoroughly new type of man. Machiavelli's ideal man is found in Shakespearean creations: Iago in Othello, Macbeth, Richard of Gloucester in Richard III, and Edmund and Cornwall in King Lear. The Machiavellian education is complete in Prince Hal's journey from reprobate to militant royal in Henry IV and Henry V. The Modern Man is not Hamlet, the indecisive neurotic. Machiavelli's idea of virtue is not Christian, but semantically aligned to the Latin virtus, man.
Machiavelli, a diplomat, had witnessed popes waging war on city-states, the rise and fall of Florence and Venice, personal ups and downs, and the meddling of foreign powers. He despised the Borgias, who, though Italian by birth, were Spanish in origin. He detested the use of mercenaries in the army because there was no loyalty in them. The Catholic Church was to Italian aristocrats what the Empire was to the German prince electors: the institution through which they exerted their residual power in the age of the rising nation states. In matters of faith, for political expediency to avoid moral conflict, Machiavelli seems to have practiced a devout atheist.
In a bizarre twist of literary history, The Prince was roundly attacked in England long before there was an English translation. Edward Dacres would provide the first English translation in 1636, but not before Reginald Pole, the last Catholic Archbishop of Canterbury, had set the stage for a condemnation of Machiavelli in 1539. He declared Machiavelli an "enemy of the human race"; and that "the hand of Satan" had written The Prince. Pole's condemnation makes sense since he is Catholic. Henry VIII would become Fidei defensor (Defender of the Faith) in 1544. Even the Protestants who found Papist conspiracies everywhere were obligated to condemn Machiavelli because he espoused atheism. The French Protestant Innocent Gentillet, a Huguenot, saw Machiavelli's dark thinking as the cause behind the St. Bartholomew's Day massacres in 1572, so he wrote Discours sur les moyens de bien gouverner contre Nicolas Machiavel (1576). Voltaire would help Frederick the Great write Anti-Machiavel (1740), which was rather hypocritical since Frederick himself was wholly Machiavellian in his pursuit of power. Disfavor continued through the centuries.
Modern examples of the Prince all tend to be negative: Russia's Stalin, Cambodia's Pol Pot, China's Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping, and North Korea's Kim Jong iI and successor Kim Jong-un, but it would seem heretical to suggest that American politicians have exhibited Machiavellian traits. Hitler isn't a part of this list because he was a demagogue. Machiavelli's principles animated politics in Western Europe, its colonies, and its logical heirs, the United States. The Founding Fathers referred to the liberated United States as "our rising empire." The Founding Fathers were aristocrats and oligarchs who also understood that as they have rebelled so might those under them rebel against them. They feared a pure democracy. Jefferson worried about whether a republican government "would be practicable beyond the extent of a New England township." The founding few had an empire to build and they drew some of their strategies from Machiavelli.
"The ends justifies the means" is the cliché most associated with Machiavelli. What he wrote, however, in Chapter XVIII of The Prince, is si guarda al fine, which is best translated as "one must think of the final result." Not quite the same thing -- not by a long shot. The context for the phrase is a discussion on whether the prince's words should convey certain virtues. Niccolò, who knew his Latin well, might have been thinking of the Ovidian phrase exitus acta probat, which translates into English as "the outcome justifies the deed," but that is very different from "one must think of the final result."
So Mr. M never wrote the phrase il fine giustifica i mezzi. Marie Antoinette never did say qu'ils mangent des brioches. Darwin, however, did indeed say survival of the fittest, but only as a metaphor for his theory of natural selection. Herbert Spenser would later apply Darwin's phrase to economic theory. Darwin's words were then adapted to support eugenics and other forms of sloppy thinking. Last but not least: Freud never said that where there's a taboo, there is a desire. Each one of these phrases wants to distill the complex personality and theories of prominent historic figures into a memorable sound byte, for the benefit of listless students in the future. It is part of that process of creating sound bytes, wrenching words out of historical context, that ends up transforming culture into banality.
The Prince is considered the handbook for crackpots, wannabee despots, and full-blown dictators on the one hand; the inspiration for tailless Gordon Geckos with or without an MBA, on the other. Lenin kept a copy of Il Principe at his bedside. Mafia dons supposedly cite it as the governing text of their "organization." Somehow, I think it takes a whole lot more than badda bing badda bang to read Don Niccolò's text. Yet it is rather amazing that Mr. M wrote the text at all. Even Tony Soprano lacked the creativity of the de'Medici family as literary patrons. The famiglia for whom Nicky had written and to whom he had dedicated his slim volume had him hoisted up strappado. Machiavellian, eh? Machiavelli endured six drops. The de'Medici family had reclaimed Florence and they were separating the chaff from the seed and wheat. See how cliché mitigates violence? Machiavelli, the diplomat, had nothing to confess to the de'Medici's henchmen. They let him hobble off to his estate. The Prince is a short work for good reason: he wrote the damn thing with both arms broken while recuperating.
Scholars have debated Machiavelli's intention in writing The Prince. The prevailing argument is that he was trying to curry favor with the de'Medicis. Machiavelli's models for leadership were found in the idealized past of a Greek democracy or a Roman republic. He saw that both societies had become corrupt from human weakness. The republic had become Christianized, lost its sense of oligarchy. He had hoped that his Prince would unite all the Italian cities and regions under a single government, but this new man was not to be the hero of the early republic, men such as Publius Valerius, Mucius Scaevola, Coriolanus, and Cincinnatus. Machiavelli wanted a thoroughly new type of man. Machiavelli's ideal man is found in Shakespearean creations: Iago in Othello, Macbeth, Richard of Gloucester in Richard III, and Edmund and Cornwall in King Lear. The Machiavellian education is complete in Prince Hal's journey from reprobate to militant royal in Henry IV and Henry V. The Modern Man is not Hamlet, the indecisive neurotic. Machiavelli's idea of virtue is not Christian, but semantically aligned to the Latin virtus, man.
Machiavelli, a diplomat, had witnessed popes waging war on city-states, the rise and fall of Florence and Venice, personal ups and downs, and the meddling of foreign powers. He despised the Borgias, who, though Italian by birth, were Spanish in origin. He detested the use of mercenaries in the army because there was no loyalty in them. The Catholic Church was to Italian aristocrats what the Empire was to the German prince electors: the institution through which they exerted their residual power in the age of the rising nation states. In matters of faith, for political expediency to avoid moral conflict, Machiavelli seems to have practiced a devout atheist.
In a bizarre twist of literary history, The Prince was roundly attacked in England long before there was an English translation. Edward Dacres would provide the first English translation in 1636, but not before Reginald Pole, the last Catholic Archbishop of Canterbury, had set the stage for a condemnation of Machiavelli in 1539. He declared Machiavelli an "enemy of the human race"; and that "the hand of Satan" had written The Prince. Pole's condemnation makes sense since he is Catholic. Henry VIII would become Fidei defensor (Defender of the Faith) in 1544. Even the Protestants who found Papist conspiracies everywhere were obligated to condemn Machiavelli because he espoused atheism. The French Protestant Innocent Gentillet, a Huguenot, saw Machiavelli's dark thinking as the cause behind the St. Bartholomew's Day massacres in 1572, so he wrote Discours sur les moyens de bien gouverner contre Nicolas Machiavel (1576). Voltaire would help Frederick the Great write Anti-Machiavel (1740), which was rather hypocritical since Frederick himself was wholly Machiavellian in his pursuit of power. Disfavor continued through the centuries.
Modern examples of the Prince all tend to be negative: Russia's Stalin, Cambodia's Pol Pot, China's Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping, and North Korea's Kim Jong iI and successor Kim Jong-un, but it would seem heretical to suggest that American politicians have exhibited Machiavellian traits. Hitler isn't a part of this list because he was a demagogue. Machiavelli's principles animated politics in Western Europe, its colonies, and its logical heirs, the United States. The Founding Fathers referred to the liberated United States as "our rising empire." The Founding Fathers were aristocrats and oligarchs who also understood that as they have rebelled so might those under them rebel against them. They feared a pure democracy. Jefferson worried about whether a republican government "would be practicable beyond the extent of a New England township." The founding few had an empire to build and they drew some of their strategies from Machiavelli.
June 23, 2020
NOTA PREVIA: Leí esta obra por haber cursado la materia no-obligatoria de «Maquiavelo (autor)». Como breve reseña de la misma, anexo un fragmento de mi respuesta al examen final:
***
I.
Maquiavelo, según Gramsci, quiso intervenir en la política y en la historia de su país. ¿De qué modo lo llevó a cabo? Siguiendo el examen que expuso en su Historia de Florencia, lo hizo de la manera más honorable, la vía pública. Es decir que aconsejó con sabiduría a la república en su función de canciller, y dejó su legado de historiografía filosófica en sus obras escritas. ¿A quién imitaba al proceder de esta manera? A los moralistas romanos, a quienes respetaba por su educación humanista. Pero, a diferencia de estos, en vez de contar la historia para incitar a la imitación, se enfocó precisamente en lo que debe «despreciarse y evitarse», tal y como señala también en su historia florentina.
Se enfocó, pues, en desarrollar ciertos conceptos que también habían analizados los humanistas anteriores a él. Principalmente, el de la virtud [virtus] del verdadero hombre [vir]. En este sentido no es extraño que retome la consideración clásica respecto la virtud, que se contrapone a la fortuna. Entendiendo la primera ―siguiendo a Skinner (intérprete del autor florentino)― como las cualidades capaces de confrontarse con los vaivenes de la última. Y ésta, como una diosa que controla algunos bienes que desean los hombres, entre los cuales están el honor y la gloria.
Por otro lado, la virtud...
El resto del escrito se encuentra en mi blog: https://jsaaopinionpersonal.wordpress...
***
I.
Maquiavelo, según Gramsci, quiso intervenir en la política y en la historia de su país. ¿De qué modo lo llevó a cabo? Siguiendo el examen que expuso en su Historia de Florencia, lo hizo de la manera más honorable, la vía pública. Es decir que aconsejó con sabiduría a la república en su función de canciller, y dejó su legado de historiografía filosófica en sus obras escritas. ¿A quién imitaba al proceder de esta manera? A los moralistas romanos, a quienes respetaba por su educación humanista. Pero, a diferencia de estos, en vez de contar la historia para incitar a la imitación, se enfocó precisamente en lo que debe «despreciarse y evitarse», tal y como señala también en su historia florentina.
Se enfocó, pues, en desarrollar ciertos conceptos que también habían analizados los humanistas anteriores a él. Principalmente, el de la virtud [virtus] del verdadero hombre [vir]. En este sentido no es extraño que retome la consideración clásica respecto la virtud, que se contrapone a la fortuna. Entendiendo la primera ―siguiendo a Skinner (intérprete del autor florentino)― como las cualidades capaces de confrontarse con los vaivenes de la última. Y ésta, como una diosa que controla algunos bienes que desean los hombres, entre los cuales están el honor y la gloria.
Por otro lado, la virtud...
El resto del escrito se encuentra en mi blog: https://jsaaopinionpersonal.wordpress...
March 16, 2022
Machiavelli is one of the pivotal thinkers in our culture. He bridges the medieval and the Renaissance periods, and he has been immensely influential. He has often been cited as an example to avoid: too cynical, too violent, too corrupt. His books went through many translations and editions in the 16th century, and continue to be available and to be read. The Prince, The Discourses, The History of Florence, The Art of War may not have all the answers, or many of the right answers, but they raise a lot of the right questions. How can a republic overcome partisan divisions? What is the most stable form of political organization? Is it better for a ruler to be loved or to be feared?
This single volume provides several complete works and excerpts from some of the longer works. It provides a solid introduction to Machiavelli's thinking, so one can see for oneself if what is said about this seminal thinker is accurate.
This single volume provides several complete works and excerpts from some of the longer works. It provides a solid introduction to Machiavelli's thinking, so one can see for oneself if what is said about this seminal thinker is accurate.
September 24, 2024
Machiavelli studied how people lived and aimed to inform leaders on how they should rule and even how they should live. Machiavelli denied the classical opinion that living virtuously always leads to happiness. For example, Machiavelli viewed misery as "one of the vices that enables a prince to rule." Machiavelli stated that "it would be best to be loved and feared. But since the two rarely come together, anyone compelled to choose will find greater security in being feared than in being loved." In much of Machiavelli's work, he often states that the ruler must adopt unsavoury policies for the sake of the continuance of his regime.
A debated idea is that Machiavelli offered advice on conducting politics in a neutral way, whether tyrants or good rulers used it. It is generally accepted that Machiavelli aimed for realism, but scholars have been discussing how to characterize his morality for four centuries. His work "The Prince" led to the term "Machiavellian" becoming associated with deceit, despotism, and political manipulation. Leo Strauss leaned towards the traditional view that Machiavelli was intentionally advocating for evil, as he advised rulers to prioritize cruelty, violence, fear, and deception over values such as justice, mercy, temperance, wisdom, and love for their people. Strauss held this opinion because he believed that failing to accept the traditional view disregards the boldness of Machiavelli's thinking and the artful subtlety of his language, inspiring us with the revolutionary nature of his ideas.
The interpretation of Machiavelli's work is far from unanimous, reflecting the richness and complexity of his ideas. Italian anti-fascist philosopher Benedetto Croce saw Machiavelli as a 'realist' or 'pragmatist,' arguing that moral values have little bearing on the decisions of political leaders. German philosopher Ernst Cassirer viewed Machiavelli as a political scientist, a 'Galileo of politics, 'who distinguished between the 'facts' of political life and the 'values' of moral judgment. On the other hand, Walter Russell Mead has suggested that The Prince's advice presupposes the importance of ideas like legitimacy in changing the political system. These diverse interpretations not only shed light on Machiavelli's work but also contribute to its ongoing relevance, demonstrating the enduring interest in his ideas.
Machiavelli's views starkly contrast to his time's prevailing Christian beliefs. He was critical of Christianity, particularly its influence on politics and everyday life. In his opinion, Christianity and the teleological Aristotelianism accepted by the Church led to practical decisions being overly influenced by imaginary ideals. It also encouraged people to passively leave events up to providence, chance, luck, or fortune. While Christianity views modesty as a virtue and pride as sinful, Machiavelli took a more classical position, seeing ambition, spiritedness, and the pursuit of glory as good and natural traits. He believed these were part of the virtue and prudence that good princes should possess. Therefore, while it was traditional to say that leaders should have virtues, especially prudence, Machiavelli's use of the words 'virtù' and 'prudence' was unusual for his time, implying a spirited and immodest ambition. Mansfield describes his use of 'virtù' as a 'compromise with evil.' Machiavelli famously argued that virtue and prudence can help a person control more of their future rather than leaving it to fortune. This radical departure from Christian beliefs underscores the revolutionary nature of Machiavelli's ideas and their profound impact on political philosophy.
A debated idea is that Machiavelli offered advice on conducting politics in a neutral way, whether tyrants or good rulers used it. It is generally accepted that Machiavelli aimed for realism, but scholars have been discussing how to characterize his morality for four centuries. His work "The Prince" led to the term "Machiavellian" becoming associated with deceit, despotism, and political manipulation. Leo Strauss leaned towards the traditional view that Machiavelli was intentionally advocating for evil, as he advised rulers to prioritize cruelty, violence, fear, and deception over values such as justice, mercy, temperance, wisdom, and love for their people. Strauss held this opinion because he believed that failing to accept the traditional view disregards the boldness of Machiavelli's thinking and the artful subtlety of his language, inspiring us with the revolutionary nature of his ideas.
The interpretation of Machiavelli's work is far from unanimous, reflecting the richness and complexity of his ideas. Italian anti-fascist philosopher Benedetto Croce saw Machiavelli as a 'realist' or 'pragmatist,' arguing that moral values have little bearing on the decisions of political leaders. German philosopher Ernst Cassirer viewed Machiavelli as a political scientist, a 'Galileo of politics, 'who distinguished between the 'facts' of political life and the 'values' of moral judgment. On the other hand, Walter Russell Mead has suggested that The Prince's advice presupposes the importance of ideas like legitimacy in changing the political system. These diverse interpretations not only shed light on Machiavelli's work but also contribute to its ongoing relevance, demonstrating the enduring interest in his ideas.
Machiavelli's views starkly contrast to his time's prevailing Christian beliefs. He was critical of Christianity, particularly its influence on politics and everyday life. In his opinion, Christianity and the teleological Aristotelianism accepted by the Church led to practical decisions being overly influenced by imaginary ideals. It also encouraged people to passively leave events up to providence, chance, luck, or fortune. While Christianity views modesty as a virtue and pride as sinful, Machiavelli took a more classical position, seeing ambition, spiritedness, and the pursuit of glory as good and natural traits. He believed these were part of the virtue and prudence that good princes should possess. Therefore, while it was traditional to say that leaders should have virtues, especially prudence, Machiavelli's use of the words 'virtù' and 'prudence' was unusual for his time, implying a spirited and immodest ambition. Mansfield describes his use of 'virtù' as a 'compromise with evil.' Machiavelli famously argued that virtue and prudence can help a person control more of their future rather than leaving it to fortune. This radical departure from Christian beliefs underscores the revolutionary nature of Machiavelli's ideas and their profound impact on political philosophy.
August 26, 2025
This isn’t your average “how to rule” handbook—it’s a ruthless, sharp exploration of power that still echoes in our government today. Machiavelli strips away the idealism and goes straight for the real: appearances matter more than reality, fear is more reliable than love, and morality bends when stability is on the line.
What struck me is how much of The Prince feels timeless. Politicians today still rely on image, spin, and carefully crafted narratives just like Machiavelli advised rulers to do. They talk about serving the people, but behind closed doors deals, compromises, and “realpolitik” always come into play. The book doesn’t read like dusty Renaissance theory—it feels like a mirror held up to modern politics.
Machiavelli doesn’t tell you what’s right—he tells you what works. And maybe that’s why it’s both fascinating and a little unsettling to compare his advice with how power actually moves in our current government.
A must-read if you’re curious about the mechanics of power, politics, and human ambition.
What struck me is how much of The Prince feels timeless. Politicians today still rely on image, spin, and carefully crafted narratives just like Machiavelli advised rulers to do. They talk about serving the people, but behind closed doors deals, compromises, and “realpolitik” always come into play. The book doesn’t read like dusty Renaissance theory—it feels like a mirror held up to modern politics.
Machiavelli doesn’t tell you what’s right—he tells you what works. And maybe that’s why it’s both fascinating and a little unsettling to compare his advice with how power actually moves in our current government.
A must-read if you’re curious about the mechanics of power, politics, and human ambition.
February 15, 2019
This book is a must read for anyone who wants to understand how the power dynamics are applied in any modern industry in the present times. When i started out reading this book, I thought that this book might be based on the outdated concepts but i was completely wrong.
Machiavelli's Prince is still a valid read to the modern day.
Machiavelli's Prince is still a valid read to the modern day.
August 20, 2020
Nice introduction to the writings of an oft misquoted strategist. I say that mainly as this book up being very enlightening as to real thoughts on the nature of power.
Overall good starter to read further although the play and minor histories towards the end were somewhat heavy going after the previous content.
Overall good starter to read further although the play and minor histories towards the end were somewhat heavy going after the previous content.
November 12, 2018
I have new experience with precious book
February 24, 2020
I have a migraine 🤦🏽♂️
November 12, 2020
I’m sure if you liked war and learning how to fight, this would be up your alley. This collection of stories that included the Prince was absolutely mind numbing for me, though.
Read
August 12, 2025The Sun was hostile to me...
October 5, 2025
Del modo di trattare i popoli della Valdichiana ribellati
part-read
May 7, 2020Reviews of individual works in this edition/translation:
A Fable: Belfagor, the Devil Who Took A Wife
The Mandrake Root
Life of Castruccio Castracani
A Fable: Belfagor, the Devil Who Took A Wife
The Mandrake Root
Life of Castruccio Castracani
August 16, 2008
Niccolo' Machiavelli seemed to have had some inside contacts with the politico of the 1500's. Because of these contacts, The Prince reads like a discussion between an advisor and a politician. In fact, Machiavelli wrote this part of the larger work, Discourses, to one Lorenzo de' Medici, and later changed it to one Duke of Urbino. I list this out only to remind anyone who reads this that Machiavelli's infamous reputation as being cruel and heartless is unfounded. I believe that Machiavelli was going from two premises: 1) that to rule a country as a monarch, weakness is deadly and friends are few as well as hard to come by, and 2) human nature is not naturally altruistic, and when it is there is usually an ulterior motive. I do not believe that there are many honest individuals that would/can refute these two premises. Nevertheless, The Prince is full of one-liner tidbits of medieval wisdom concerning ruling fiefdoms surrounded by detailed examples of failed as well as successful attempts by other rulers and a few popes to overtake other fiefdoms.
In this collection is also one of Machiavelli’s novelettes, Belfagor the devil who took a wife. This is a little known story (evidently novelettes were the rage and most of Machiavelli’s are lost) that is sure to irritate the feminists and get a chuckle out of the chauvinists, which brings me to the point of this review: Machiavelli is probably well known because of his talent to irritate and provocate…a man after my own heart.
In this collection is also one of Machiavelli’s novelettes, Belfagor the devil who took a wife. This is a little known story (evidently novelettes were the rage and most of Machiavelli’s are lost) that is sure to irritate the feminists and get a chuckle out of the chauvinists, which brings me to the point of this review: Machiavelli is probably well known because of his talent to irritate and provocate…a man after my own heart.
April 29, 2008
This is a critical piece in anyones education. Politics and war are fought by those who believe in it. If you don't you will still need to understand them--just look at the world around you. If you read it with an open mind you might just learn something important about life though I wouldn't suggest assimilating the entirety of his hardliner approach.
I want it to be know that yes, I am a need. I read this for fun before I even dreamed of taking Political Theory.
I want it to be know that yes, I am a need. I read this for fun before I even dreamed of taking Political Theory.
May 10, 2012
A wide variety of insightful writings by one of the foremost thinkers of his age, The Portable Machiavelli demonstrates the author's divergent interests and talents. Known largely for The Prince, an examination of how a ruler should best control his territory and his people, Machaivelli the playwright also deserves credit, though as a military tactician and practitioner he appears to have fallen amusingly short.
January 1, 2009
better than most self help books. not entirely practical, but if you're climbing the corporate ladder, do digest some machiavelli before the board meeting. it might help your strategy.
April 14, 2008
Not an enjoyable read by any means, but its historically important so I guess I'll give it a 5
October 23, 2010
I read "The Mandrake" from this collection, a play by Machiavelli.
Read
August 25, 2011Partially read
November 20, 2016
I read The Prince every four years, just to keep score in the elections.
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews