The Prince by Niccolò Machiavelli: Final Review

Everytime I heard (or read) the word ‘Machiavellianism’, my mind would involuntarily relate it with cunning aspects. That’s why I had a doubt while deciding to add The Prince into my reading list. But, I was so curious about this book, and so I braced myself to pick it for my History Reading Challenge. I am glad I did it, because it turned out to be interesting; it widened my perspective of state’s ruler and power.

Machiavelli wrote The Prince to Lorenzo Di Medici as a guidebook for a prudent prince to keep his state prosperous.

“…for in the same way that landscape painters station themselves in the valleys in order to draw mountains or high ground, and ascend an eminence in order to get a good view of the plains, so it is necessary to be a prince to know thoroughly the nature of the people, and one of the populace to know the nature of princes.”

Although Machiavelli wrote especially of monarchy, most of his guides also benefit modern republican states. I have made a diagram of monarchy models, how to achieve and maintain it. But what I like most is his guides for being a prince, or a ruler. Some of his ideas are too unconventional and even cynical, that people put negative labels to Machiavelli. But I think we ought to separate our ideal with the prosperity of a country or state. I believe that stability is the key to prosperity, as without it, any rulers—competent though he was—would have difficulty to do anything. So, I agree with Machiavelli, that to be feared is more important for a ruler than to be loved; to be slightly miserly is better than to be overly generous. Because people, who love you in better times, could easily become your haters when things gone badly, and who knows….what would happen then? Whereas if you are feared, you can put stability over your state more easily, while at the same time you are trying to bring prosperity to your people.

In conveying his principles, Machiavelli seemed to be lack of consciences or morality. He advised us to always be good, but must be able to do evil when necessary—to be fox and lion at the same time. But, again, I think it is reasonable. To deal with vast multitude in a country is not a simple task; stability is always the key. Thanks to Machiavelli, now I understand these things; that seeking the right ruler is far different from having an ideal patron. Here are more of his analysis.

The Prince is not purely a history. Although Machiavelli used actual histories—mainly Italian rulers, but also other European ones, and even Greek and Roman’s leader—this book is more focusing on politics and power guide book and philosophy. Machiavelli’s analysis is thorough and sharp, and his writing is brave and blunt. But that makes this book more interesting…and classics!

Three and a half stars for The Prince.

~~~~~~~~~~

I read the Signet Classics paperback edition

This book is counted as:

3^rd book for History Reading Challenge 2014

3^rd book for Back To The Classics 2014 (A Classic by an Author Who Is New To You)

70^th book for The Classics Club Project

17^th book for WEM Self Project

The Prince: First to Third Levels of Inquiry

The Prince is not a pure history book, it is more a guide book to gain and maintain power in politics or statesmanship; however, Machiavelli based his analysis on historical great men and their way of ruling. As I found not every WEM inquires fit the book theme, I would only use some of them (for every stage of reading).

Grammar-Stage Reading

Does Machiavelli state his purpose for writing?

Machiavelli dedicated this book to Lorenzo Di Medici (nephew to Pope Leo X). He analyzed actions of great men regarding politics and statesmanship, with the hope that Lorenzo would profit this ‘how to’ summary to run an ideal state and to rescue Italy.

Who is this story about?

It is mostly about Italian’s statesmen, both who were prosper and ruined; the present ones as well as historical ones. But Machiavelli also mentioned great men from ancient era: Roman, Greek, and even Moses.

Logic-State Reading

The historian’s major assertions

Machiavelli dreamed of having a prudent prince with grandeur, who would be able to free Italy from its current foreign dominion by applying his exhortation.

Rhetoric-Stage Reading

What is the purpose of history?

I think this book is as philosophical as it is political. Machiavelli had the courage to think outside the box (being under Renaissance influence) regarding qualities of a ruler. To be a good ruler, a prince must maintain his power, and for doing so he must be more feared than loved, and sometimes must be a bit ‘cruel’, when necessary, to create stability. It was contradictory with our moral conscience, but I think we need this guide to not deviate us from the right path to be a good ruler (and in some points, to choose a good ruler).

What relationship does this history has to social problems?

Machiavelli’s ideas are still relevant until now. Although he wrote much on princedom or monarchy, his guidance are very useful for any type of statesmanship, including our modern democracy. Interestingly, Machiavelli also pointed out how citizen or the people usually act towards their rulers. I found it very similar with how we act in this modern era.

~~~~~~~~~

Prince’s Qualities: The Prince Chapter X – XXVI

Judging the States’ Strength

According to Machiavelli, we could judge the strength of a principality from his ability of maintaining the state by himself. A strong state owns its army and provision to maintain itself, but a weak one would need others’ help to do it. But it is not applicable in an ecclesiastical principality, or the Catholic Church. For, being sustained by God, it is more easily maintained.

Military choices

*Own army—the best choice; it’s better to lose with one’s native army than to win by others’.

*Mercenary arms – paid soldiers—disunited, undisciplined, faithless, because money was their only motive; while the captain only concerned for his own greatness.

*Auxiliaries—borrowing armies from neighbors—even more dangerous than mercenaries, for if they won, you would be their prisoner.

*Mixed—contains of own army and mercenaries or auxiliaries; still better than the last two, but much inferior than own army.

  

Qualities of a Prince

To succeed, a prince should spare much of his time to arm himself; by physical exercises, as well as reading histories. A prince should possess both good and bad qualities, so that he could use them accordingly when necessary; although he must not create a scandal.

*Generous vs miserly: As a prince, to be generous won’t be appreciated; and if overly done, it will exhaust your resources. Moreover, it will make your people greedy. However, you can be liberal (or considered to be it) when you are in process to become a prince. You can also be liberal when you don’t own your property, for it won’t harm your reputation. It’s better to be named miser than to be hated as a liberal.

*Merciful vs cruel: A good prince is better feared than loved—if one could not possess both equally—for love could change in difficult times, but not fear. Excessive clemency would raise disorders, while a little cruelty would make people more united and faithful. But the prince must avoid being hated although still feared. “Men love at their free will, but fear at the will of the prince.” seems very true!

*Trustworthy? or not?: A prince must be a lion and a fox at once; or at least to seem to have both qualities. He must know how to use both qualities; he mustn’t deviate from what is good, but be able to do evil when necessary.

*Avoid hatred: Do not deprive your people of their property and women; these will make them hate you. By avoiding hatred you would eliminate the chance of conspiracies, as it’s hard to conspire when people love you. As long as you keep the nobles content and the people satisfied (by establishing a parliament as a third judge, or make the military respect you), there will be little chance for conspiracy.

Prudence of a Prince

*Fortresses—could be useful or not, according to circumstances, but it is more important to not being hated by the people than to build fortresses.

*To gain reputation—a prince should pursue great enterprises and proof of prowess. Greatness in administration was important too. However a prince should choose side rather then being neutral; but never take a stronger force as an ally, for if he wins, you’ll be under his power. He should also reward those with merits and encourage citizens to safely pursue their trades.

*Picking ministers—is important, because you are judged first from choosing the right servant. A good minister should think of more your needs than his own. And the prince should honor and be kind to his minister to get his loyalty.

*To deal with flatterers—encourage them to speak the truth, but if they all speaks, it will deviate the prince. The best way is to have a council, so he’d only take counsel from no one except it; and they could only speak when he wish it. After that he must be determined with his decision, or else he would not be respected.

Chance of a Prince

*Italian Princes lost the states—first, because they had defect arms. Second, because either the people were hostile to them or they could not trust the nobility.

*Fortune: is it influential?—Fortune influences only half of our lives, while the rest depends on us. The problem is men’s nature towards circumstances is fixed; they succeed as long their nature conform the circumstances. A Prince should work harder and take more risks to succeed.

*To free Italian from barbarians—is Machiavelli’s advices to Medici family to conquer Italy using their own armies according to his analyses in this book.

~~~~~~~~~~

Machiavelli’s Monarchy Models: The Prince Chapter I - IX

I have at first worked out the first ten chapters of The Prince not knowing what I was going to get. I found each chapter boring, although not as tough as I have thought. But then I forgot them as soon as I got to a new chapter. So, after ten chapters, I was like, ‘Why should I read all this stuff?’ I was on the edge of giving up this ‘light-but-hard’ book for good, but then….I had a better idea. If I made a sort of diagram, maybe I would get better understanding about Machiavelli’s idea on states and governments. So, I went back to first chapter while jotting down the ideas in a colorful diagram (hey, I always love to work with colors!), and I found that The Prince is actually interesting if we understand what Machiavelli is talking.

I am reading The Prince for WEM, and so I think I will be doing some chapter posts before getting to the level inquiries. For this first nine chapters, I summed it in a diagram; it was about monarchy models according to Machiavelli. I have submitted it to Google Drive, you can click the link below the image to see the complete diagram.

Go here to see the complete Machiavelli's Monarchy Styles diagram

~~~~~~~~~~~

History Reading Challenge 2014 – First Check-In

This is the first check-in of our History Reading Challenge 2014.

It’s been four month since we started our sail to the past. How have your progress been until now? Some of you have even read (and submitted the reviews) early on January. Wow! I really admire your excitement!

For myself, I have read two histories (of six I have planned): Plutarch’ Roman Lives and the biography of Cicero by Anthony Everitt. Well…Rome is always fascinating me, and from 6 I have picked for this challenge, 3 are about Rome. The first one was quite tedious, but the second one turned out to be very entertaining. What about you?

• What have you read, and how did you find it/them?
• How do you feel about History Reading Challenge so far? Are you excited to read certain book? Or do you feel this challenge is too much for you?
• Are you reading a history right now, or do you intend to read one very soon? Share with us….

I am reading Machiavelli's The Prince this month. My copy is onpy 160 pages, and I hope it would be as light as it looks like... But what I'm looking forward now is my another Rome history, The History of the Decline and Fall of Roman Empire. THAT would be an exciting reading! Can't wait till next month!

This is only a check-in, so we all can share our progress, to know how others have been doing, and to encourage one another. You don’t need to post anything, but if you’d like to post your check-in, please feel free to do so, and leave your URL in the comment. You are welcomed to interact via comment box, but if you just want to keep silence in the background and just seeing how others been going, it’s OK too, no pressure… I only hope we are all having good time with our history readings.

See you again in the next check-ins! :)

Zoladdiction 2014 – Wrap Up

April seemed to come and go too quickly…. Now the month ends, and so Zoladdiction 2014—an event of reading and appreciating Émile Zola’s works to celebrate his birth-month. I feel like I should have done more with this event. Last year I could do much more than only reading and reviewing. But this year I have been busy as a Lector at my church, and as this year’s Easter was on April, I must dedicate most of my time for the preparation. Moreover, my boss has been assigning me to tackle more works than last year, and so I was left with a very limited time (and energy) to read books—in which, nevertheless, I have successfully squeezed two Zola’s just in time!

Anyway, here is my wrap up for Zoladdiction 2014:

Books I have read and reviewed (2):

The Kill (La Curée)

Nana

Post about Zola or his books (1):

Bois de Boulogne from The Kill

(More) books to be added to my collection (2):

The Fortune of the Rougons

(yes, I finally came to this, the first of the series)

The Belly of Paris

(still hasn't arrived yet, although I bought it together with The Fortune)

How was it?

As usual, I enjoyed my (almost) full month of Zola. I have been wondering; won’t reading 2 books successively by the same author make me bored? After Zoladdiction 2013, I knew I would, but Zola would always be an exception. I was amazed and entertained by the two books, although both won’t be my next favorites. As last year’s, Zoladdiction 2014 was a satisfying event, and I think my love to Zola is getting stronger now.

What next?

1. I WILL positively host another Zoladdiction next year—yay to that!

2. I think I will read another Zola this year, apart from this event. I’m still thirst of another (more) gripping Zola. Hopefully The Debacle would be a good choice.

3. If I have more time this year, I would love to dedicate it to enrich the content of my Zola blog. Well, right now the contents are mostly copy-paste from my classic blog (shame on me!), but I really want to write more dedicated posts about Zola and his works.

Now…., how were YOU doing? Share with us in your wrap-up posts, and submit the link here. I’m really curious!

NOTE:

The Master Post’s linky would be open only until May 3^rd (because of the limitation from the provider). For you who haven’t submitted your reviews or other posts until the deadline, you could still submit it here (in the Wrap-Up post). This one will be open until May 10^th.

Nana

Now 15 years old, Nana Coupeau, Gervaise and Coupeau’s daughter, first appeared in L’Assommoir as a child. Brought up on the street, Nana started her career as a tart, or courtesan, or whatever you might call for prostitutes. However that day, three years before Franco-Prussian War, Nana would began her new step as an actress in the Théâtre des Variétés. Her debut has created a big fuss all over Paris, although—as the manager stated—she had neither good voice nor good acting. The opera was very successful, and Nana suddenly became a famous tart in Paris. Many gentlemen fell for her; there was a count who came from very conservative family; another was a girlish young man; while the others ranged from Jewish banker to rich hedonist young men of all Paris. They were all bent under Nana’s sexual charm; risking everything—money, family, honor—to be with her. In three years Nana has been ruining these men’s lives, but the one who suffered most was Count Muffat.

In Nana, Zola criticized the moral corruption which infected France in the Second Empire. Actually, reading Nana right after The Kill was quite intriguing, because I felt a close similarity in both novels—the moral lose in the shape of excessive sexual and pleasure appetites. In Nana herself, we saw that her alcoholic parents and the slump environment affected her sexual behavior and gave her insatiable passion for pleasure.

We also learned from Nana how difficult for people who lived in the gutter of Paris to avoid their return to the same gutter, no matter what they do. In fact, Nana was once one of the richest tarts in Paris, while rich and influential men provided any luxury she asked for. However, no matter how much she possessed, she would spend much more. And although she longed to be regarded as a lady, she still could not resist of taking men from street to sleep with her, from time to time.

It is also interesting to see how women in the second half of 19^th century struggled to have more influence in the midst of patriarchal world. At that era, women didn't have access to both education and career, but they learned that they had another power which only women had: sexual charm, and it was so powerful that they could overpower the men and rule the country or society. Here the moral loose was not only in the lower level of society (the workers), but also in the aristocracy, both courtesans and respectable ladies gripped their claws in the men’s lives and ruin them. 

There were a lot of other examples in Nana, that it is so difficult to break the habitual chain we inherited from our families and environment. Zola often made his characters to be helpless victims, as if they had neither any will power nor hope to change themselves. As if, we, human being, are merely product of nature, and our future always depends on evolution process. I have read seven books from Zola, and in most of them, I always thought, why they (the central characters) didn’t fight? Why did they surrender to their weaknesses? It is all because Zola is a naturalist, and in this Les Rougon-Macquart series he emphasized how hereditary weakness and corrupted society were powerful enough to drag a person, helplessly, down to the gutter. He did not intend to preach us on morality or religion; he just wanted to present how the corruption happened.

Out of his method and principle, Zola is no doubt great in story-telling, and he never fails to amaze me. Nana won’t perhaps be one of my favorites, but the story is entertaining and flows nicely with (as usual) a theatrical ending. Four stars for Nana!

~~~~~~~

I read the Oxford World Classics paperback edition

This book is counted as:

 2^nd book for Zoladdiction 2014

3^rd book for Baca Bareng BBI April theme (WomanLit)

2^nd book for Back To The Classics 2014 (A 19th Century Classic)

67^th book for 1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die

69^th book for The Classics Club Project