What do you think?
Rate this book
Machiavelli's Prince: A New Reading
Why did Machiavelli write the Prince - and why did religious and political authorities find it so threatening? Five hundred years on, this book tries to answer these questions.
In the first detailed, chapter-by-chapter reading of the Prince in any language, Erica Benner shows that the book is a masterpiece of ironic writing. Machiavelli's style is deliberately he often seems to say one thing, but gives readers clues that point toward a very different message. Beyond its 'Machiavellian' surface, the Prince has a surprisingly moral purpose. It teaches readers how to recognize hidden dangers in political conduct that merely appears great or praiseworthy - and to mistrust promises of easy solutions to political problems.
This highly engaging new interpretation helps readers to see beyond the Prince's deceptive first appearances. Benner sets out Machiavelli's main ironic techniques at the outset, especially his coded use of words to signal praise or blame. Once readers become familiar with these codes, they will find it easier to grasp the Prince's surreptitiously pro-republican message - and its powerful critique of charismatic one-man rule and imperial politics.
In the first detailed, chapter-by-chapter reading of the Prince in any language, Erica Benner shows that the book is a masterpiece of ironic writing. Machiavelli's style is deliberately he often seems to say one thing, but gives readers clues that point toward a very different message. Beyond its 'Machiavellian' surface, the Prince has a surprisingly moral purpose. It teaches readers how to recognize hidden dangers in political conduct that merely appears great or praiseworthy - and to mistrust promises of easy solutions to political problems.
This highly engaging new interpretation helps readers to see beyond the Prince's deceptive first appearances. Benner sets out Machiavelli's main ironic techniques at the outset, especially his coded use of words to signal praise or blame. Once readers become familiar with these codes, they will find it easier to grasp the Prince's surreptitiously pro-republican message - and its powerful critique of charismatic one-man rule and imperial politics.
400 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2013
3 people are currently reading
151 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
December 14, 2017
The author recently published a biography of Machiavelli which I very much enjoyed. That prompted me to look at some of her earlier work. This book is a 2013 volume providing her view of “The Prince” and how to read it to appreciate what Machiavelli was trying to do. This is an outstanding book — about how to read another really outstanding book.
Many people have heard of “The Prince” and more than a few have even read it. It is arguably one of the most influential books ever outside of religious texts. It is also the case that many people have either not read “The Prince” or have not understood it well. “Machiavellian” is a term that has been applied in more contexts that I could possibly count. Machiavelli even made it as a caricature into prime time TV dramas in the 1960s and interpretations of “The Prince” have made it into the dialogues of recent translations of Chinese language “office lit”.
There are legitimate questions of what Machiavelli meant in the book. People are quick to quote pithy aphorisms such as “the end justifies the means” - which I am not sure was even in the book or else discussions of lions and foxes or whether it is better to be loved or feared as a Prince. More generally, there are persistent questions about whether “The Prince” a manual for strongmen and would be dictators or does it reflect a love of republican values and solid ethical principles. The issues are real even though the book is fairly short and easy to read in translation. Yet if “The Prince” is just a manual for amoral pragmatism or power politics, why has the book been in print and actively discussed and argued about for 500 years? It is not just an academic issue.
The punchline of Benner’s book can be easily stated. In “The Prince”, Machiavelli was an ironist and actively played with word choice, phrasing, examples, and message to convey a strongly pro-Republican message to an audience that might not be positively disposed to that message. The book is intended to provoke a fight with the reader who is presented with conflicting signals at nearly every turn. It is the reader’s job to work through the arguments on offer and come to their own conclusions. Those that go for low-hanging fruit and skimming will get what they wanted. Those that work through the book and think about the conflicts and tensions will get much much more.
If Benner is correct - and I am inclined to think so - then the key spoiler for “The Prince” is that there are no spoilers. There is much to be gained from “The Prince” and Machiavelli is an intellectual titan, but the gains much be earned. I have read a lot of history, but since I lack a knowledge of Renaissance Tuscan or the detailed intellectual landscape of Florence at the time, I am happy to let Ms. Benner be a guide in sorting things out. I will not even attempt to sort out the details of all the meanings of virtu versus fortuna or the other dichotomies that occupy the book. There is a lot there, but it is worth working through.
An additional benefit that I did not anticipate is that after this new reading of “The Prince”, I was immediately drawn to using my new insights to deconstruct contemporary US politics, especially at the national level. It is much closer to Renaissance Florence than I would have imagined.
Many people have heard of “The Prince” and more than a few have even read it. It is arguably one of the most influential books ever outside of religious texts. It is also the case that many people have either not read “The Prince” or have not understood it well. “Machiavellian” is a term that has been applied in more contexts that I could possibly count. Machiavelli even made it as a caricature into prime time TV dramas in the 1960s and interpretations of “The Prince” have made it into the dialogues of recent translations of Chinese language “office lit”.
There are legitimate questions of what Machiavelli meant in the book. People are quick to quote pithy aphorisms such as “the end justifies the means” - which I am not sure was even in the book or else discussions of lions and foxes or whether it is better to be loved or feared as a Prince. More generally, there are persistent questions about whether “The Prince” a manual for strongmen and would be dictators or does it reflect a love of republican values and solid ethical principles. The issues are real even though the book is fairly short and easy to read in translation. Yet if “The Prince” is just a manual for amoral pragmatism or power politics, why has the book been in print and actively discussed and argued about for 500 years? It is not just an academic issue.
The punchline of Benner’s book can be easily stated. In “The Prince”, Machiavelli was an ironist and actively played with word choice, phrasing, examples, and message to convey a strongly pro-Republican message to an audience that might not be positively disposed to that message. The book is intended to provoke a fight with the reader who is presented with conflicting signals at nearly every turn. It is the reader’s job to work through the arguments on offer and come to their own conclusions. Those that go for low-hanging fruit and skimming will get what they wanted. Those that work through the book and think about the conflicts and tensions will get much much more.
If Benner is correct - and I am inclined to think so - then the key spoiler for “The Prince” is that there are no spoilers. There is much to be gained from “The Prince” and Machiavelli is an intellectual titan, but the gains much be earned. I have read a lot of history, but since I lack a knowledge of Renaissance Tuscan or the detailed intellectual landscape of Florence at the time, I am happy to let Ms. Benner be a guide in sorting things out. I will not even attempt to sort out the details of all the meanings of virtu versus fortuna or the other dichotomies that occupy the book. There is a lot there, but it is worth working through.
An additional benefit that I did not anticipate is that after this new reading of “The Prince”, I was immediately drawn to using my new insights to deconstruct contemporary US politics, especially at the national level. It is much closer to Renaissance Florence than I would have imagined.
Displaying 1 of 1 review