Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

50 greatest books

Niccolo Machiavelli's The Prince

MICHAEL IGNATIEFF

From Saturday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 12:04 PM EDT 15/03/08

Prince among men ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. D A from Canada writes: It's also a short and relatively easy read. In the original Italian, it was even praised for its beautiful language. It's pretty plain in English, but also a smooth read for a book that will teach the average citizen the skill of thinking like a politician. It's not a pretty art, but it's one that we all need to have to keep our democracy functioning.
  2. Mike Sumners from Toronto, Canada writes: Quote: 'Those who fail in politics sometimes live longer in the memory of posterity than those who succeed.'

    If that's the case, Stephane Dion will be remembered for generations.
  3. J Birch from Hamilton, Canada writes:

    It is a great book and the honourable reviewer a prescient sage who is essentially showing all of the short comings of Harper. For Harper has none of the attributes of the ideal in the Prince and so:

    ''It is better to bind supporters to you through 'greatness and nobility of soul' than through bribery and hope of reward. Machiavelli adds, in a characteristic aside, that if you do not actually possess fine moral qualities, then it is 'necessary to appear to have them.' '

    Sadly for Harper who does not 'actually possess fine moral qualities, then it is 'necessary to appear to have them.'

    But now the appearances have vanished and naked stands a soulless vengeful oaf.

    Who conducts himself with the deportment of an amusement park (sorry that's next week's review ; )

    Harper - Not a Leader, not in the Moral sense anyway.

    .
  4. Brendan B from Vancouver, Canada writes: Thank you G&M Boards - for typically turning excessively political within 1.5 posts. Would these responses benefit more from thoughts on a literary classic, or more pathetic ranting about our Canadian political choices? (Of course, I suppose we can't expect more from posters who have only ranted at Dion or Harper for their last 100 posts...)

    The first post alluded to it: a quick read that nonetheless conveys some priceless insights about power. I found it as relevant in a business venue as in politics. I forget the context (I don't have it with me), but I always liked the advice to show some imperfection - not too significant a weakness though - so that others around you can relate. He states this will increase their loyalty.

    It's not that The Prince is comprehensive about human nature, far from it. But it strays into territory that we've either forgotten or fear to discuss. And that, condensed into relatively few pages, is its value.

    Good choice.

    Brendan
  5. Dave T from midwest, Canada writes: If by chance you happened to become infatuated at age 19 with a historical figure whose name was Lucrezia Borgia, and the scandalous Lucrezia just happened to have a brother who was a principle role model for Nicolo Machiavelli in The Prince, it is likely a favourable wind is drifting Machiavelli’s way. And rightly so. For the essential attributes advocated in The Prince were written in the context of a crisis of authority in Europe where reformers, corruptors, patrons, cardinals, popes, nobles and monarchs jostled for position and advantage, where shifting alliances seemed to defy logic with their rapidity, intrigue and contradictions. Small wonder Jacob Burckhardt wrote about the “decadence”of the age, and noted that even among the artistic crowd strutting through the city states that their “cosmopolitanism was the highest stage of individualism.” So the Prince, then, is part blueprint but also part panacea. Machiavelli understood clearly today’s ally is tomorrow’s adversary, and that preparation and skill in “the art of war is all that is expected of a ruler.” Well, not all but a start. In truth, Machiavelli was less than a century away from the deranged assassin Raviallac leaping aboard the pumpkin carriage and knifing to death the allegedly liberal minded King of France under the guise of an emergent idea called tyrannicide. (So much for the notion of a benevolent king by the way). Harsh times call for elements of intrigue, smoke and mirrors, advisors ready to take the fall, the appearance of noble motives. Interestingly, there is scarcely a mention of God in The Prince; we have at last reached the man-centered universe, a purely secular treatise that for once did not draw upon the heavens for its final authority.
  6. Dave T from midwest, Canada writes: And yet, for all that sound advice Machiavelli has for the prince in any one of a broad assortment of scandalous principalities, I can’t help but feel that the Testaments of Cardinal Richelieu is more of the real thing on a grander scale: the pursuit of absolutism. Richelieu’s Testament is interesting stuff as well; for one thing, he practiced what he preached, navigating France through the Thirty Years War, a weak Regency, a rebellious nobility, the troublesome Hugenots, and of course, Marie de Medici. For Richelieu, the illusion of power is power; it is sufficient, but it need be established early and forcefully, the type of imposed authority that instills prolonged fear, and it was no coincidence that longest running monarchy in modern European history came on the coattails of Richelieu’s hard work: Louis XIV. Machiavelli, of course, would add parsimony,, loyal advisors (fall guys), and among other things, expediency: Paris, after all, was as the famous quote goes, “worth a mass.”
  7. scott thomas from Canada writes: Coming from Michael Ignatieff - who wrote the thought piece 'Lesser Evils' in the NYTimes, justifying the use of torture - it is no surprise to read his endorsement of Machiavelli.
  8. dave f from toronto, Canada writes: I'm always interested to hear what people have to say about Machiavelli's the prince. I find some repelled by its general eschewal of moral considerations while others are intrigued by its skillful analysis of age old political problems. We should note (in response Mr. Ignatieff's interpretation), however, that many thinkers see the prince as the beginning of the end of a politics focused on ends or 'the good'. The problem with Machiavelli's book, I would argue, is that it is built on the assumption that people are naturally evil. We must lower the standards by which we act in politics, then, carefully calculating means, irrespective of higher, or principled, moral concerns. Turning away from the publicly minded virtue championed by the greeks, we get a public life in which almost any act can be justified. Ultimately, I think this book raises interesting questions for the place of 'higher' principles in political life. How do we properly consider ends or what is 'good' in collectively organized life, if we are solely focussed on successfully manipulating (amorally) the situation to achieve mere protection from our evil counterparts? And what are we to think about the fact that many infamous political characters throughout history (notably, Hitler) have praised Machiavelli's shrewd political instinct? Perhaps his work was applicable in the unstable political climate of fifteenth century Italy, but I wonder if it should be praised so much in our day!? It surely fits with some of Mr. Ignatieff's more controversial arguments!
  9. Mike Sumners from Toronto, Canada writes: Brendan, if The Prince is still relevant today, it is relevant to Canadian politics. Either this book has important advice to offer modern day politicians and political junkies (such as myself) or it's just an interesting piece of literature. You can't have it both ways.

    Bad post, Brendan.

    Mike
  10. Brendan B from Vancouver, Canada writes: Mike Summers: 'Brendan, if The Prince is still relevant today, it is relevant to Canadian politics. Either this book has important advice to offer modern day politicians and political junkies (such as myself) or it's just an interesting piece of literature. You can't have it both ways.

    Bad post, Brendan.'

    Bad post, Brendan? What, are you parenting me now??!

    I can have it both ways, it is both interesting and important literature and yes, advice to politicians. Absolutely. Great literature often isn't great unless it teaches us something about ourselves (our our elected officials).

    But it's the immediately partisan attacks that tire and bore me here. If you analyzed both Harper's and Dion's approaches to leadership through the lens of the Prince, I think your post would have been worthwhile.

    Dion immediately took his enemies closely into his circle, where he could monitor them. Harper has muted his party members and (I think) eliminated the position of deputy PM, thereby removing easy paths to power that might threaten him. Although (again) I don't have the book with me, I suspect both are examples of power taking and holding techniques found in the Prince.

    But you just picked a basic quote that you figured describes a failed politician, and tacked Dion's name to it.

    That lacked any thoughtful analysis, and yes, was boring.

    Brendan
  11. Brendan B from Vancouver, Canada writes: That said, there have been some very interesting posts here, so thanks everyone.

    Brendan
  12. Mike Sumners from Toronto, Canada writes: Yes Brendan, I am parenting you, someone obviously has to. Your puerile remarks show this.

    Your attack on my first post and your statement in your second post 'I can have it both ways...' show a lack of maturity and an inability to think for yourself.

    The quote I chose from Ignatieff's review fits Dion perfectly. Dion is a failure in politics for a variety of reasons. Did he take his enemies closely into his circle or did hid enemies encircle him? Either way, I stand by my original post.

    Your posts in which you state that you 'forget the context' or you 'suspect' that there are 'examples of power taking and holding techniques found in the Prince' show me that you do not know this work of literature very well.

    You bore me.

    It's a nice day out, Brendan. I'm going for a walk. Enjoy!

    Mike
  13. bob london from Canada writes: That's right Iggy, don't read the Prince again. Its a baaaad book or atleast that is what you will say to the commoner.
  14. Robert Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: The big difference between Iggy and Niccolo Machaivelli is that Machiavelli never lost to Stephane Dion...

    Just Kiddin'
  15. C G from Canada writes: Machiavellian has unfortunately become perjorative, and synonymous with deceitful manipulative underhanded dealings, instead of a realistic way of looking at and dealing with the political and business world and society.
    To Dave F, I disagree that the book is built on the assumption that people are naturally evil, he actually is saying that people can be good and bad, and that most are a combination of both, so be careful. The old joke that as a salesman, integrity is everything, so once you can fake that, you've got it made, is just a modernised version of version of what Machiavelli was talking about.
    I am currently in the US and have been avidly following the primaries, and it is clear that Machiavelli could have been born in this era and written his book from what he observed as easily as in the 1530s
  16. Jim Cohoon from Canada writes: James Madison, 4th US President and a co-author of The Federalist Papers (which may show up in this series), once observed: 'The truth is that all men having power ought to be distrusted.' Such distrust of power not only played a role in the The Federalist Papers, but in the US Constitution. It is highly probable that Madison had read The Prince, thereby aiding him to learn the 'realistic' logic of political power. The lessons learned from Machiavelli thus probably indirectly helped Madison (and others) to not only frame the American Constitution -- in particular its emphasis on checks and balances against the abuse of political power -- but has now, centuries later, developed a new resonance in the undeclared war between the current ('Machiavellian') US administration and that US Constitution. Machiavelli would have easily understood the actions of the Bush/Cheney White House and their war on the Constitution, but I suspect he would not actually wish them well in that war.
  17. lotusland maritimer from Sault Ste Marie, Canada writes: As far as being a shockingly sinister book the Prince doesnt even come close to the famous Chinese classics on statecraft for at least it posits a moral universe which may have to be broken. In the Chinese texts you murder your enemy if it is necessary without the slightest compunction, but in Macchiavelli you do so knowing full well that what you are doing is wrong but you do it anyway for raison d etat.
    So even in Machiavelli there is some remnant of Athenian arete and Roman virtu which by the way is one of the code words of Old Nick.
    In the quoted line Iggy is obviously not referring to others but to himself.
    If you cant do it you can always write about it or teach it.
    Like Niccolo.
  18. S. Ives from Ottawa, Canada writes: Macchiavelli, no matter what your opinion of the man or his book, is the philisophical father of modern liberalism. Both Dion and Harper exist as politicians thanks to Macchiavelli, and can both be considered liberals. The back and forth in the comments concerning their relative merits aren't terribly meaningful. I suggest the most successful 20th century politican by Macchiavelli standards would be FDR, and that is one politician well worth emulating.
  19. Justin Campbell from Ottawa, Canada writes: Mike Summers: You're a partisan hack who doesn't know when to quit. In Brendan B's two above posts, he offers thoughtful input on 'The Prince'; you, on the other hand, simply take a quote out of context and slap it on a politician you simply don't like, offering no analysis whatsoever. In Brendan's second post, he's mature enough to apply some of Machiavelli's concepts to Canadian politics at large, and doesn't stoop to making cheap partisan swipes at one side.

    That kind of commentary is exceedingly rare on these forums.

    Yours, however, is merely part of the infestation of unreflective, robotic partisan filth that serves only to drown out more meaningful posts.
  20. Al B from Toronto, Canada writes: Machiavelli was writing at a time when Italy was constantly being fought over by foreign powers and local rulers had to know how to change allegiance in the heat of events. Political survival in a ruthless age calls for ruthless measures. Renaissance Italy was a by-word for decadent politics and morals. One only needs to look at the papacy whose depravity at the time did much to split Christendom.

    Although I would not go as far as to state that Machiavelli was a forerunner of modern politicians. The history of the Roman Republic and Athenian democracy is replete with examples of shady political manoeuvres and venal politicians.
  21. dave ferguson from toronto, Canada writes: C G don't you think that your argument about business and modern politics just proves my assertion more clearly! The fact is that in contemporary politics (and business life, as you say--business people love Machiavelli, I should add) we have a real difficulty of considering what course of action we 'should' jointly pursue? There is generally a trouble of considering what sort of ends we should be thinking about (this is, of course, why there continues to be op-eds pieces in newspapers at all!). We might be able to agree on some basic 'rights,' but within this realm we tend to have a problem considering why we should not just fall into some sort of nihilism--hense the problems of irreligion (don't mistake me for religious, I'm an atheist). These issues I'm considering are quite 'deep.' I mean, should it be admissable to torture people? I have a feeling that it is not! And, as far as I'm concerned, Iggy and other people who use Machiavelli to their advantage do. Maybe my vision of politics is not pesimistic enough, but I hope that I have some allies in thinking that torture (and other transgresions on the 'person') are just fundamentally wrong. Machiavelli surely lowers the bar on the ends, thus suggesting that the means, the focus of modern political science, justify the ends. Let us not kid ourselves that the contemporary situation is so detached from this consideration of humans as evil. Iggy seems quite content with pigeon-holing millions of people, we should probably think about this a little more carefully!
  22. Brendan B from Vancouver, Canada writes: Hi Mike. Back from your walk yet?

    'Your attack on my first post and your statement in your second post 'I can have it both ways...' show a lack of maturity and an inability to think for yourself.'

    The quote I chose from Ignatieff's review fits Dion perfectly. Dion is a failure in politics for a variety of reasons. Did he take his enemies closely into his circle or did hid enemies encircle him? Either way, I stand by my original post.

    Your posts in which you state that you 'forget the context' or you 'suspect' that there are 'examples of power taking and holding techniques found in the Prince' show me that you do not know this work of literature very well.'

    Three examples of remembered points form the Prince from me (more than a year after having read it), two cut-and-paste quotes from the article and my earlier posts from you. I think intellectual pissing matches are pathetic, but come on, at least read the bloody book before you comment. It's short - you still have time to read it and offer something of value to this conversation.

    Dion's enemies: were they given power by him, or did they insert themselves? Probably a bit of both. You can't deny that Ignatief sits beside Dion in question period because Dion assigned him a high-profile position in the Liberal party following the leadership race. Did Dion have to offer that, based on internal party dynamics? I don't know.

    Either way, there's interesting analysis to be done (again, on both main parties). Not to mention the fact that it's Ignatief's recommendation. I'm fine with political opinions on these boards, just not lame, reactive partisan bickering, with no added value.

    Have a go at it. That's more impressive than doing a quick thesaurus search for 'childlike' and coming up with 'puerile'.

    Brendan
  23. Named Heather from Canada writes: Notice how close Paul Martin was always seated to the boss during the Chretien days. Machiavelli said to keep your enemies closeby. Imagine how history would have turned out, had Julius Caesar known enough to keep Brutus closer to his side!
  24. Nick Van der Graaf from Toronto, Canada writes: A couple of quick comments: a) Dave T, I must spring to the lady's defence and note for the record that there was nothing 'scandalous' about Lucrezia Borgia - her evil reputation is entirely unjustified. She was the only decent soul in a family of sociopaths who, not surprisingly, gained many enemies willing to denounce them as one. b) "The Prince" should be standard reading for all students growing up in a democracy. Democracies ask a lot of us - even as ordinary citizens we have to have a working grasp of our history, our communities, science, economics and most importantly, the nature of power. Needless to say this is not a priority in the education of our young people, and this lack leaves them ill-prepared to participate in their own democracy. Democracy is not simply something other people (our elected representatives) do - it is the willing acceptance by the popluation at large of responsibility for the welfare of the nation. In essence, what I am describing is a CULTURE of democracy. Any observer would agree this is not the present state of things in Canada. We risk descending into the cycles of anarchy and destruction that our friend Machiavelli saw as the logical outcome of poor statemanship. Many a democracy has risen, many have failed. And when they did the results were never pretty.
  25. Mike M from Toronto, Canada writes: I'm impressed by this thoughtful review from Ignatief (before you start with the hate mail - I am not a Liberal supporter). Sounds to me like Machiavelli pretty much had it right.

    Heather - Caesar kept Brutus very close to him. It didn't help, as it turns out.
  26. lotusland maritimer from Sault Ste Marie, Canada writes: An evil thought for evil times on books of evil. As iggy correctly paraphrased Niccolo if you attack an enemy make sure you finish him off lest he take revenge later as he will. Needless to say neither Johnson nor Nixon nor the Bushes ever heard of Il Principe much less read it. In the case of the latterest it's certain. BTW we had once a literate female cabinet minister in an Ontario Cabinet who actually read books. Now we cant have that she is no cabinet material so they dropped her never to make the same mistake again. Back to ole Nick and the Presidents' men. If they had read The Prince they would have never attacked Vietnam Iraq Iran etc. Or they should have fought without gloves on as they did against Germany and Japan. They didnt hesitate to incinerate hundreds of thousands of refugees and look what happened. Much more advanced civilizations and infinitely greater military powers meekly stood in line defeated and took their spanking and joined the democratic way without as much as a squeek. But the Vietnamese just got more annoyed and the Muslim Arab world finally woke up but for the wrong struggle. And of course the whole third world became rabidly antiamerican. It is only Niccolo Macchiavelli who tells me the otherwise incomprehensible conundrum why these two great advanced societies Japan and Germany not only feared respected but imitated and copied their vanquisher not despite but precisely because of their uncompomising stance unconditional surrender and acceptance of the American way no ifs buts at all. This they failed to do in all their wars since 1945 becoming the laughing stock of the world and the patsy of this silly war on terror. Why didnt the Germans or the Japanese do a little 9/11 after 1945? Because they knew that if they did the Yanks would level Tokyo Berlin and ten other cities besides. Thats why and they would have too in 1945. These terrorists are rational people they did it because they knew they could get away c it.
  27. RB Sanitation from small town Canada, Canada writes: Enjoyable review, thanks MI.

    Not so keen on the banter however it does seem to have sorted itself out.

    Note: While Italy was being fought over by foreigners it was intensely internally warred by provincial powers for territory and power the fueds regularly included the church. ie Sienna vs Florence or Sienna vs RC etc
  28. A Skeptic from Canada writes: I'm not convinced this is one of the 50 greatest books. It's short, but it feels long. It's the Strunk and White grammar for dictators, richly illustrated with gory examples from Greek, Roman, and Italian history -- enough to give a feeling of progress in some places at least. But there are still enough wars, genocides, gangs, mafias, warlords, etc that operate just like the man says. His book was advice to a "prince" on how to obtain and maintain power, it is not a book on how to provide the best life for the prince's subjects. There are no rules to this game, just winning. No ethics. Some businesses play like this too. That was just the way it was back then. Shakespeare did a few case studies in this vein too. Is there anything in here that really wouldn't be obvious or intuitive to a potential dictator?

    Evidently Machiavelli actually preferred to live in a republic (it just wasn't an option at the time). He wrote a book about that too.
  29. Clive Gingell from Canada writes: lotusland maritimer: Jack London, in The Sea Wolf illustrated the same train of thought; Wolf Larsen at one point explains that, if he ever had occasion to fight one of his crew he'd beat the man long after the fight was won, so that his opponent would never think back and tell himself that "I might've beaten Larsen, if only....", and ponder a rematch.
  30. Jeri Ann from The Suburb, Canada writes: I recommend Machiavelli's other book called "Discourses on Livy" as a complement to "The Prince".

    Instead of hitting the library, you can Google it and read it online.

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Movie Reviews

Or view recent movie reviews

Top Arts Stories

Arts Columnists

Top Stories by Section

Back to top