this is the one book that you really need to read to make you dream reality.

I can think of only a few books that have been as much written and talked about as Niccolo Machiavelli's The Prince. The work is so well known that it is usually referred to by just the name Machiavelli, as if the book itself had that name. What's surprising is how little resemblance there is between the talk and reputation of Machiavelli and the actual content of this book (he did write other ones too). Certainly, this is a guide, addressed in the second person to the prince or would-be prince of sixteenth century Italy (including many references to current events, endnoted for the modern reader's benefit), and it contains much hard-headed advice about keeping, and to a lesser extent gaining, political power. But only a small fraction is truly objectionable for today's world. A fair amount is of little value only because it is so dated.

One needs to read through about half the book (a few hours, maybe) to find something other than reasonable advice and observations. Some observations and advice from the Machiavellian master: keeping power in a principality is different than in a republic (about which he discusses almost nothing in this work), and hereditary princes face different difficulties than new ones. A kingdom comprising a central authority and clear laws is hard to conquer, because of good organization and lack of internal dissent upon which to rely. It is then easy to rule simply by keeping in place much of the structure. A kingdom with many hereditary nobles is easily conquered by finding help on the inside, but once established hard to hold, because those same nobles will always rise up. A prince that lives among his people will have fewer difficulties than one that rules from afar. A state that looks after its defense will last longer than one that does not. Mercenary armies are the worst; native soldiers defending their homes are the best. A generous prince that weakens the state will be neither loved nor feared.

Get the idea? It's probably on the subject of fear that Machiavelli gets most of his criticism. Between love and fear from his people, a prince should choose fear and act accordingly. There are certainly problems that come with this sort of thinking. He makes frequent mention of Cesare Borgia as a nearly ideal leader, despite the man's known cruelties. Here, though, one should probably remember the time and place of this book's writing. And, I must point out, even on the subject of cruelty there is a certain logic. A new ruler that eliminates his enemies quickly and then moves on is far, far less likely to earn the hatred of his people than one who just dishes it out slowly, year after year, without any discernment.

In this practical advice book, Machiavelli then points out that the prince should never be hated by the people. In fact, he shows a great deal of respect for people, and his advice generally has the flavor of treating them well, but only whenever possible. This, again, is where he gets into trouble. As his reputation states, he does indeed recommend that a prince break his word whenever he needs to, that he should act good when it doesn't hurt him, and so forth. But the flip side is that he does recommend acting for the good whenever possible. He advises that the prince should praise and honor citizens of good ability and talent, and that he should do whatever possible to allow them to make the city prosperous and strong, that he should not fear the advice of a good minister. It is clear that Machiavelli does not think at all highly of those megalomaniacs that regularly abuse their positions to the detriment of the community.

I think that if Machiavelli were writing today, besides updated his examples, he would use the word respect more. Of course, the book is in translation between two languages and five centuries. But I think the main point he was trying to make was that a prince should do whatever possible to gain respect by the people and by other princes. This would seem to combine the ideas of earning love if possible, fear if necessary, and avoiding hatred.

In closing, now that I've read The Prince, I don't accept either popular idea about how Machiavelli himself thought. As I've stated above, he certainly does not come across as the conniving, evil minded little man striving to stab his mother in the back. But I also don't believe this was intended as a satire, nor as a bitter condemnation of the tactics he espouses. Firstly, he apparently sent the first copy of it to Lorenzo de Medici, not something he would likely do if it were meant as a mocking critique. Perhaps he wanted his old job back. Or perhaps it was just customary to pay tribute to the man, the way Galileo did when naming Jupiter's moons after him (Medici). But considering that after reading the work it is neither so evil as often portrayed, nor as critical as also portrayed, I think The Prince should probably be taken simply at face value. There's nothing hidden here. This is nothing more or less than a clear-headed contemporary (for that time) account of effective government.

Somewhere in France, Michel Montaigne was working on his immortal "Essays." Gibbon described him as the only man of liberality in the 16th century, aside from Henry IV. His honesty, his good will, and his probing nature have recieved the acclaim of posterity.

Somewhere in Italy, the same time, a more representative portrait was being painted -- the Autobiography of Cellini. While it has the same honesty, it lacks the grace (written in a colloquial style), the liberality, and the meditation of Montaigne. It is probably more represantative of the Renaissance man, and of modern man altogether. Reading Cellini, one comes to understand what Camus meant by the "culture of death" at work in Western history.

Written as a novel (seen, in fact, as a progenitor of the Romantic novel), the Life of Cellini is a remarkable glimpse into the Italy and France in the times of Michelangelo and the Medici. Characters like Francis I of France, Duke Cosimo, Pope Clement VII, and artists like Michelangelo and Titian come to life in brilliant colors. But one shouldn't mistake the intent of Cellini's book as painting a portrait of his times -- no man on earth was ever so in love with himself, and HE is the subject of this book (I had to cringe every time Cellini, about to describe something fantastic, stops and declares "... that is the work of historians. I am only concerned with my affairs..." and leaves off).

I can't say for sure, but the veracity of this book must be almost incontestable, for the most part. Cellini was simply too shameless to be too much of a liar. A few times he tests our credulity: "mistakenly" leaving France with the King's silver, an arbesque "accidentally" firing and killing a man, etc. For the most part, however, we get the whole truth, and in fact more than we wanted to know.

Despite the fame and prestige Cellini comes to, he is little more than a common street rogue and villian. In the course of the book, he murders three people in cold blood, each murder worse than the last (the third time he shoots a man in the throat over a saddle dispute... on Good Friday). He delights in describing his violence ("...I meant to get him the face, but he turned and I stabbed him under the ear."), and he revels in warfare, brawling, and the misfortune of his enemies. Aside from the three murders, there are innumerable foiled and aborted murder attempts. Cellini's sadism reaches new heights when he forces one of his laborers to marry a whore, then pays the woman for sex to humiliate the man. In his descriptions of his crimes, his many run-ins with the law, and his violent disposition, Cellini seems completely unaware of himself and without shame. In fact, the intent of the book is to show him as the virtu -- a hero of divine virtue in a world of lies and deceit.

The portrayal of King Francis alone makes this book worthwhile. He is everything historical events point him out to be. Generous, jovial, and shrewd. The descriptions of the years Cellini spent as Paul III's personal prisoner are another high point, unfortunately capped by the lengthy and horribly tedious poem, "Capitolo," where Cellini clumsily elaborates on his suffering.

As a history and an autobiography, there are few greater works. But aside from its historical and literary value, the Autobiography of Cellini was just fun to read. The audacity and conceit of this horrible man is almost comical, and the loose and efficient prose makes it a smooth read.

Cellini's story reads better than a novel. He is the quintessential Renaissance man. In his service to popes, kings and a slew of dukes he was a goldsmith, painter, sculptor, soldier and he may have had more near death experiences than any other that I have ever read about. Of course, his tale leaves himself always and forever blameless in each conflict, betrayal or other unfortunate episode that he finds himself in, which is tremendously entertaining. At first, the reader is seduced into believing that this man has been wronged countless times by a world full of the most slippery types of people. By the middle of the book, however, it dawns on the reader that Cellini must have played some part in creating the misfortune and danger that he is constantly in. Cellini's writing evokes vivid images of the places and people that he meets. One of the most engrossing stories in the book is Cellini's imprisonment and later escape from the Castel Sant'Angelo in Rome, where he was confined by order of the Pope (who, according to Cellini, was bent on having him killed in order to prevent his own embarrasement). His escape from the place is a mix of (apparently) classic methods (he climbs down the side of the building using knotted bed sheets!) and terrible misfortune (he breaks his leg, is nearly killed, and is also attacked by mastiffs while crawling away for his life!). Very soon after having escaped the prison, though, he was again imprisoned by the Pope in a wretched and dank little cave in the Pope's own garden (where Cellini claims to have had mystical visions). Cellini has many other adventures in Italy and France (and on his journeys back and forth). Each tale is centered on how he creates his artworks in the service of some nobleman, how the nobleman is always astonished at the work, how Cellini is then betrayed by someone he was kind to (which, through no fault of his own, often puts him in the bad books of the patron). Cellini frequently ends up in a fight where he either wounds or kills the person, and then goes on his happy way. There is a great deal that one could say about this book and its author. It will suffice to state here that the book is a wonderful read, it offers excellent insights into life in the 16th century, and (as is true on my part) it makes the reader crave just half the adventure that this fellow has had.

This book covers the eventful life of a passionate craftsman who lived through major events of the Renaissance. In Florence, Rome, and Paris, Cellini managed to gravitate to the most powerful political and artistic personalities, but his relationships with them were always bumpy. Cellini had an artist's temperament and more - his passionate temper and sense of righteousness, combined with the unscrupulous nature of many he encountered, caused constant friction and turmoil which make the book a nonstop and occasionally violent thriller. The book's one disappointment for those interested in history is the lack of extensive description of the places where he worked and travelled. It's centered on Cellini, his relationships and activities, and his craft. He does however have a great description of the defense of Rome in 1527, in which he was firing artillery from the top of Castel St.-Angelo. George Bull rates five stars for a great translation which captures the spirit of the original, its passion, wit, sarcasm, bitterness and insight. Given the work was written with Florentine colloquialisms, this is an achievement. Highly recommended.

"The Prince" is one of the view books from college that I've actually kept. It is splendid reading on several levels. First, one appreciates Machiavelli as a problem solver. Italy is divided; what is the most practical and efficient means for a wise prince to consolidate his power and unify it? But one also appreciates Machiavelli as a person. A florentine intellectual banished to the countryside--it wouldn't be a bad life for some of us, but to him it must have been torture.

I was once asked whether Machiavelli was a cynic, a realist, or a patriot, and I believe the correct answer is all three. Much of Machiavelli's advice contains an under current of cynicism and ruthlessness, and this has undoubtedly come to be the dominant portion of his reputation. One of the terms for devil, "Old Nick" is derived from Machiavelli. When one speaks of destroying an enemy or performing a ruthless, sneaky act, that person is likely to be called "machiavellian". But Machiavelli's advice was as realistic as one could get in those times. This was an era when despots and mercenaries ruled by force and assasination. It was a time when popes fathered children and carved out little principalities for themselves. One was not going to remain in power, much less get ahead of one's enemies by being virtuous. It isn't that Machiavelli despised virtue so much as he realized how useless it was in the political context of the times. But in the end Machiavelli was also an idealist. He dreamed of a united Italy under a strong (and practical) prince. When he dedicated his treatise to Rodorigo Borgia, he did so in the hopes that he might be the man to perform such a task.

This book provides timeless practical advice for anyone who wishes to succeed in a hostile, divisive environment. It also illuminates the peculiar political circumstances of Renaissance Italy.

Based upon Michiavelli's first hand experience as an emissary of the Florentine Republic to the courts of Europe The Prince analyzes the often violent means by which political power is seized and retained, and the circumstance in which it is lost. Because The Prince is a political commentary, and not a work of fiction, Michiavelli does not use "characters" in the sense of a novel or a short story. Instead he draws his examples from the current political and social events, as well as from history. His characters are the political leaders of his time. The book is a declaration in plain language the conduct of great men and the principles of princely governments. The book can be divided into four sections.

1. The types of principalities. Michiavelli lists four types of principalities.

* Hereditary principalities, which are inherited by the ruler.

* Mixed principalities, territories that are annexed to the rulers existing territories.

* New principalities which may be acquired by several methods: by own power, by the power of others by criminal acts or extreme cruelty, or by the will of the people

* Ecclesiastical principalities, namely the papal states belonging to the catholic churches.

2. The character and behavior of the prince. Michiavelli recommends the following character and behavior for princes:

* It is better to be miserly than generous.

* It is better to be cruel than merciful.

* It is better to break promises if keeping than would be against ones interest.

* Princes must avoid making them hated and despised; the goodwill of the people is a better defense than any fortress.

* Princes should undertake great projects to enhance their reputation.

* Princes should choose wise advisors to confide and consult with

3. The types of armies A prince must always pay close attention to military affairs if he wants to remain in power. A prince must lay good foundation and those foundations include good laws and good armies. There cannot be good laws without good armies, and where there are good laws there must be good armies. The study of war should be a prince's main goal, for war is a rulers only art.If princes become too refined to study this art they loose their state. The types of armies are:

* Mercenaries or Auxiliaries (loaned to you by another ruler) are both dangerous and unreliable, as they will maintain their interests preceding yours.

* Native troops composed of ones own citizens or subjects are by far the most desirable kind.

4. Italy's political situation Michiavelli outlines and recommends the following

* The rulers of Italy have lost their states by ignoring the political and military principles.

* Fortune controls half of human affairs, but free will controls the rest, leaving the prince free to act. However, the few princes can adopt their actions to times

The Prince by Machiavelli is not about a "prince" but about principles that a ruler, a king, a president, a prince should follow or manipulate to maintain and keep his kingdom or country. Machiavelli's famous treatise is one of the central texts in the history of political thought and a basic foundation to all principles dealing with "How to rule an acquired or inherited kingdom/country," how to be an effective ruler, and government politics. This book is a response to the florentine politics of Machiavelli's time and to the genre of advice-books for princes. Underneath the generalities of his principles, Machiavelli leaves a sense of admonishment to the ruler and the reader alike.
This treatise was written based on his experience as second Chancery and secretary to the main foreign relations committee of the republic, the so-called Ten of War. His writing style lacks verbosity and florid eloquence; Instead, there is a lucid string of concise words in a coherent and cogent order. The brevity and understatements of his general statements makes it very easy for the reader to follow. In every chapter, he states his thesis for a certain principle and gives examples to prove his point. The principles address important issues such as how to win over people, nobles, and soldiers; accomplish political ambitions and necessities by force or fraud, how to be loved and feared by the people, eliminate those with and without power who can possibly harm the ruler, how to make the government agree with the ruler, when to be austere or munificient, how to establish and maintain loyalty, when to build fortresses and how to build alliances and friendships with other kings and kingdoms. This book will not only instruct the ruler how to be a prince and a good one, but also how to maintain oneself as a ruler over people whose hearts can quickly shift contrary to the ruler.

This is a very good biography of Michelangelo that ranks along with Irving Stone's "The Agony and the Ecstasy" (fictional bio). Bull includes numerous letters to and from Michelangelo that involve friends and family. One is left with a good overall picture of Michelangelo and his times. I would have given it 5 stars if Bull was a little more inquisitve about painting and how painters of the time went about their work (including Michelangelo).