Machiavelli: A Biography

Like many people fascinated by political science, human movements and what drives them, etc., I had always been interested in Machiavelli, and I chose this book as my "primary source" -- before getting around to reading "The Prince" -- the so-called bible of machiavellian intrigue and political manipulation.I wasn't too far into the book when I found myself laughing out loud, not at Machiavelli or his actions, but at the world he lived in in 16th century Italy, specifically Florence, which was the "bank" of Italy the way New York is the bank of the United States today and all that implies. The backdrop of Italian history alone is a character in itself, including flavor-of-the-month wars and skirmishes between Italy, France and Spain, and (internally) Venice and the Vatican. The author constructs the history in such a way that the reader can follow who-does-what-to-who all through the story. The only difficulty I perceived was keeping the Medicis, Borgias, and Popes straight, but, so did the people who lived through those times.As far as Machiavelli himself; no, he does not cut a particular "dashing" figure in any particular social or political sense -- nor does he aspire to such pretensions. The author makes clear, respectfully yet honestly, that Machiavelli was, after all, only a bureaucrat who happened to be associated with rather prestigious society in the course of his work, yet did not himself have either social position or political power to be of particular influence, though he was trusted to give honest and carefully critical advice to his employers.After having read Mr. Unger's book, and then reading "The Prince" in full, my diagnosis regarding the mystique behind the "Father of Political Science" is that what Machiavelli did -as far as historical impact- was to write what was essentially a resume (he really was out of a job) and to curry favor with the flavor-of-the-week regime to prove he had no prejudices (including moral); an excellent memory, and the benefit of having been beside numerous regime leaders. In short, he basically offered a thesis of genuine experience, perception, and rational deduction to offer to future leaders. Undoubtedly there were moments while Machiavelli was writing "The Prince" that he laughed up his sleeve at the irony and duplicity of future rulers; and he probably ridiculed himself for hoping that that his efforts in transcribing and analyzing his political and military experiences would actually be taken seriously or lead to any concrete result (such as employment).Ultimately, my feeling after reading Mr. Unger's work is that Machiavelli was a likable fellow with the same weaknesses as any other "middle-class" person during that period in history. It seems to me that his "gift" for the ages was to write the first dissertation (since Roman times) regarding social, political and military structure in useful, literate, and accessible terms. It seems some people have historically considered Machiavelli an engineer of machiavellian concepts, but in fact it seems his works have been misused to excuse the abuses of others who pretend to be students of political science.I've read many biographies, and I have found the best ones tend to be when it is clear that the author clearly either likes or respects his subject. The humor, warmth, intelligence and practical insight within this book make it clear the author really did like and respect Machiavelli. If you're interested enough to know who Machiavelli really was, this book will serve you well.

I liked Unger's biography of Lorenzo de' Medici, so I tried his Machiavelli, and I was not disappointed. I've tried other biographies of Machiavelli, and have always gotten bogged down in the details of the diplomacy in which he engaged on behalf of Florence until the Medicis regained power and fired (and tortured) him, causing him to become a writer. Unger made the diplomacy as interesting as one could expect it to be, and his chapter on The Prince is excellent. He discusses Machiavelli's other writings more cursorily.Although Unger criticizes Machiavelli when appropriate, he admires him. He writes that Machiavelli established the premise, accepted by political theorists as diverse as Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, James Madison, and Karl Marx, that politics involves the study of human character, and is open to scientific inquiry. In other words, Machiavelli "free[d] the analysis of power from the metaphysical shackles that had constrained such investigations in the past." (p. 348) Machiavelli "was neither an ideological democrat nor an apostle of tyranny, but rather a pragmatist who was willing to pursue whatever path seemed to offer the best chance of success at a given moment." (p. 339) Success at what? Maintaining order, but not for the sake of the prince but for the sake of the people. Although reading only The Prince might lead one to conclude that Machiavelli favored totalitarianism, The Discourses makes clear that he did so only when necessary in a crisis. The Prince offers practical advice for dictators; The Discourses for republics. The Prince is the more popular book, and, as a result, Machiavelli gained a reputation as a totalitarian.Unger writes well, in a popular style, and has just a few clunkers. For example, Unger writes, "the Cardinal was preparing to install two Medici bastards - Ippolito, illegitimate son of Guiliano, and Alessandro, love child of Lorenzo - at the head of the government [of Florence]." (p. 307) "Love child" is a cliché fit only for a Hollywood gossip rag. I presume that Unger used it to avoid repeating "illegitimate son," although there would be nothing wrong with repeating the phrase, and his using a synonym might cause one to wonder whether he intended to suggest a difference between an illegitimate son and a love child. But Unger didn't need to use either word, because he'd already used "bastards." He could have written, "the Cardinal was preparing to install two Medici bastards - Ippolito, Giuliano's son, and Alessandro, Lorenzo's - at the head of the government."A few pages later, Unger mentions King Charles of Spain three times in one paragraph, but only the third time does he call him "Charles V," leaving us to wonder whether Charles V is the same person as the other two. (p. 312)I'll close with a compliment and a complaint. The compliment is that, in addition to having references in endnotes, the book has substantive (and worthwhile) footnotes. Most publishers apparently find footnotes too expensive to bother with. But the footnotes are indicated by asterisks that are so tiny that I did not notice them as I read. Therefore, when I reached the bottom of a page and saw a footnote, I had to go back to search for the asterisk to see what the footnote was commenting on. This is a trivial matter, but it was irritating.

In addition TO JUNEBUG'S review above, Unger has written MACHIAVELLI in a style that is neither myopic nor sketchy in nature. That is, some biographers get so bogged down into so much detail the s/he loses his/her readers' interest because of the excess and unnecessary details of the intended person's life. Similarly, some biographies are written in a watered-down style that, after one finished with the book, one wonders if this subject has been adequately covered within the confines of one book, and the reader gets an empty feeling in the stomach, saying, "Is this all there is?".Not so with Unger. His style is flowing, with complex yet understandable ideas expressed in his sentences. This was an extremely complicated time in Florence's political life, and that of entire Italy, but yet the author presents all of the action in a clear and understandable manner. The reader really feels like s/he is a part of what is going on at that time.I bought this book in a Kindle format, which was a mistake, and I am going to buy a hardback copy of the same book since it is very much worthy of many re-readings if one sincerely want to under this sincere, patriotic but complicated and contradictory person who lived during those turbulent times in Renaissance Italy.This is the first review of this type that I have written (and it probably reads like it too), but, being a fan of various periods of history over the years, this was one book that placed pretty much everything at that time in its true historical place.Absolutely worth the read!

When I picked up a copy of this biography I was seriously excited. Unger’s biography of Lorenzo de’ Medici was excellent and has to be one of my favourite biographies of all time. So I had high hopes for this book. And unfortunately the book didn’t really meet my expectations.Now then, that’s not to say the book is bad. Oh no. I would say that the first three quarters of it are outstanding – Unger has used his extensive knowledge of the Italian Renaissance alongside Machiavelli’s own works and other primary sources to tell the exciting story of Machiavelli’s early life. We learn how Machiavelli rose through the ranks of the Florentine government to become Second Chancellor, and how he found himself rubbing shoulders with some of the most famous and influential men (and women!) of the time. I was particularly interested in the time that Machiavelli spent in the court of Cesare Borgia – who Unger seems to mainly call ‘Valentino’, based on Borgia’s nickname – and the respect that Machiavelli had for the man.In fact I will say that had this biography finished with Machiavelli’s fall from grace and his arrest, that it would be one of the greatest biographies of Machiavelli out there. However I feel as though the last part of the book really let it down.Whilst I understand that it’s important to analyse Machiavelli’s works – The Prince and the Discourses being the main ones – Unger seemed to go on about these works, delving into them in such great detail, for far too long. It read like something I would have to study back at A-Level or something, picking apart and analysing every little bit of these admittedly fantastic works. And sadly I found myself growing rather bored by it all. Though I will admit that I was interested in how Machiavelli used his down time away from the city to work on these pieces and how he thought his diatribe in The Prince would win him back favour. Sadly for Machiavelli, it was the book that would have him being vilified for hundreds of years.This book then, is a book of two parts. Would I recommend it? Yes, I would. But I would warn readers to be wary of the time Unger spends discussing Machiavelli’s works towards the end of his life. This book is perfect for anyone interested in both the history of this wonderful man and the sort of work that he did – I will certainly be using it in my own current project. Up until the end of the book I would have given it four stars – however the slight let down at the end has me dropping to three, which is a great shame.

I've always been fascinated by Machiavelli and when I found this book I decided to give it a read. I was expecting to find the deeds of a corrupt and immoral individual catalogued on the pages but to my surprise I found an articulate, well researched and informative account of a man who was the complete opposite of all I had thought Machiavelli stood for.Miles Unger makes a good job of putting together his work on Machiavelli. The work is well put together and flows in an intelligent narrative. The author cleverly weaves in information about the political and historical background to set the scene and to set the actions Machiavelli took into the proper context.Miles Unger's greatest achievement is that he allows the reader to see Machiavelli as he was, and not as history and his critics remember him. The author does not paint over the flaws of his subject but shows the reader that Machiavelli was a man with his finger on the pulse. He understood more about the human condition and power than anyone else I can think of and he uses this to give his advice and to write many seminal works that stand the test of time even today.If there is one point of this book that I was not expecting was two rather long chapters in the book dedicated to a rather lengthy description of Machiavelli's "The Prince" and "The Discourses", and I found this rather odd for a biography. However, on reflection this was quite a good thing to do as it does help the reader understand more about the man, and I am hoping that it will help me when I finally get round to reading "The Prince".Overall, I would happily recommend this book. I must confess I do not usually find that my opinions of someone are so fully reversed from what I held as the truth, but this book has done this and done it in a very well presented way. I would highly recommend this book to all.

This is well worth the read. As you may imagine, the book spends alot of time on the politics of Florentine and Machiavelli's books and philosophy. It does however give you some insight into the man himself and how his way of thinking is useful to this day.The keys: -study history - although things change, people do not-Focus on how things are and not how you think they should be

Comprehensive

as described, a really good and very interesting read, was also a very good price and arrived promptly