Machiavellian!

[elfs]

I'm about halfway through my latest book and it's a true classic: Niccolo Machiavelli's The Prince. I don't get what big deal is. On the one hand, I can understand that he seems to be particularly vicious because he talks, repeatedly, of the need of a usurper or conquerer to "exterminate" the families of opposing princes and any nobles who would challenge a prince unloved by the people, but let's face it: in the 15th century, that's what princes did.

He does lay out in more or less precise terms that it is better to be feared than loved-- but by the nobles. By the people, it is better to be loved than feared, for a prince beloved of the people can easily keep the nobles in line.

I like Machiavelli because he names names: he discusses the Borgias, the Medicis, and Savonarola, all of whom were either his contemporaries or were recent enough in memory that he could interview men who know any of the above. I think Machiavelli is known mostly because he wrote at a time that became famous in history, the Medici period, of which much else has been written, and what he said was blazing in both its truth and its necessity. The Prince is a good book for anyone interested in politics. Now that I've read it, I will say that every time a villain quotes from it, I'll just have to laugh: its use is effective only to those who've never read it.

Comments

[voidrandom.livejournal.com]

It's not as dramatic, but you may want to look at his "Discourses on Livy" which is to republics/democracies what "The Prince" is to principalities. It's arguably more serious than "The Prince", particularly if one is in the camp that believes "The Prince" is satire. (http://www.mala.bc.ca/~Johnstoi/introser/machiavelli.htm)