Such warmth of characters and such humour - Must read 2008!!, 10 Sep 2008
If you have read and loved Charlotte Mosley's wonderful Mitford Letters this will definitely not disappoint!!

Their writing styles, and indeed life styles are markedly different - Paddy's erudite, descriptive, precise and exuberant letters serve to remind us why he is often considered the greatest travel writer of our time. His wonderful descriptions of his adventures bring to life so many different places - from Devon to the Andes to Eastern Europe and back to Derbyshire. He tells stories about upsetting Somerset Maugham with his stammering jokes; about his feat of swimming across the Hellespont aged 69; about rounding up wild horses in Chagford; and about his time building his home Kardamyli with his wife Joan.

DD writes a shrewd description of life as a Duchess restoring Chatsworth. She never fails to raise a smile with her insightful and honest accounts of a whirlwind of social engagements with such a wide variety of well-known twentieth century figures. From Evelyn Waugh, whom on one occasion sends the famously self-professed illiterate DD a proof of his new book, The Life of Robert Knox with the inscription "You won't find a word in this to offend your Protestant sympathies" - the pages were in fact completely blank. She describes he friendship with "The Loved One" (John F Kennedy) and dinners with the characterful Bohemian Iris Tree. Intimate encounters with the Royal Family - including one such "cotton dress" chance meeting with The Queen Mother - who Debo famously refers to as 'Cake' - at the Tate Gallery. Interspersed with these engagements she writes to Paddy with stories of her family - Andrew and her three children and certainly her Sisters and of course, she details her incredible renovation of the beautiful Chatsworth House. Despite leading such an incredible life, she always remains so down to earth - on one occasion Mario Testino arrives at Chatsworth to do a photo shoot for Vogue's 90th birthday. DD is photographed with her granddaughter Stella Tennant, she describes the shoot:

" [Stella's] Hair skewbald/piebald, all colours & stuck up in bits. THEN they produced "shoes" with 6 inch heels. More stilts - she could hardly put one foot in front of the other, wobbling & toppling.
We looked just like that Grandville drawing of a giraffe dancing with a little monkey. I was the monkey."

The truly charming thing, however, about this excellently edited collection, is the genuine love and friendship that is so abundant in these letters. Mosley describes DD and PLF as sharing "youthful high spirits, warmth and generosity". This comes across in the letters so wonderfully. This book is a lovely account of two such different characters who share a marvellous appetite for life and an even greater friendship.

Such warmth of characters and such humour - Must read 2008!!, 10 Sep 2008
If you have read and loved Charlotte Mosley's wonderful Mitford Letters this will definitely not disappoint!!

Their writing styles, and indeed life styles are markedly different - Paddy's erudite, descriptive, precise and exuberant letters serve to remind us why he is often considered the greatest travel writer of our time. His wonderful descriptions of his adventures bring to life so many different places - from Devon to the Andes to Eastern Europe and back to Derbyshire. He tells stories about upsetting Somerset Maugham with his stammering jokes; about his feat of swimming across the Hellespont aged 69; about rounding up wild horses in Chagford; and about his time building his home Kardamyli with his wife Joan.

DD writes a shrewd description of life as a Duchess restoring Chatsworth. She never fails to raise a smile with her insightful and honest accounts of a whirlwind of social engagements with such a wide variety of well-known twentieth century figures. From Evelyn Waugh, whom on one occasion sends the famously self-professed illiterate DD a proof of his new book, The Life of Robert Knox with the inscription "You won't find a word in this to offend your Protestant sympathies" - the pages were in fact completely blank. She describes he friendship with "The Loved One" (John F Kennedy) and dinners with the characterful Bohemian Iris Tree. Intimate encounters with the Royal Family - including one such "cotton dress" chance meeting with The Queen Mother - who Debo famously refers to as 'Cake' - at the Tate Gallery. Interspersed with these engagements she writes to Paddy with stories of her family - Andrew and her three children and certainly her Sisters and of course, she details her incredible renovation of the beautiful Chatsworth House. Despite leading such an incredible life, she always remains so down to earth - on one occasion Mario Testino arrives at Chatsworth to do a photo shoot for Vogue's 90th birthday. DD is photographed with her granddaughter Stella Tennant, she describes the shoot:

" [Stella's] Hair skewbald/piebald, all colours & stuck up in bits. THEN they produced "shoes" with 6 inch heels. More stilts - she could hardly put one foot in front of the other, wobbling & toppling.
We looked just like that Grandville drawing of a giraffe dancing with a little monkey. I was the monkey."

The truly charming thing, however, about this excellently edited collection, is the genuine love and friendship that is so abundant in these letters. Mosley describes DD and PLF as sharing "youthful high spirits, warmth and generosity". This comes across in the letters so wonderfully. This book is a lovely account of two such different characters who share a marvellous appetite for life and an even greater friendship.


One of THE most important works ever written, 25 Aug 2007
This masterpiece of reasoning and good practical handbook on how to get ahead in real life if you happen to be already a man of some means, was a work of great humanity in an age when humanity was still considered disgusting and subserviant to the Lord above and his chosen servants on Earth. What a shot across the bows to all those religious hypocrites and Bible following automatons this must have been, then. Two elements surrounding this work's brave publication are crucial, I feel: One being that this was Italy, (as it became) and at its advanced stage of the great Renaissance, as we now know it, and the second being that it was written at a time which was just right to be publishing order challenging controversial works. After seeing the liberal benefits to man that the use of the printing press had brought, and the world of possibilities it offered, Machiavelli struck the first blow against the stifling and corrupt order of the age.

His publication of political thought and theory which was refreshingly devoid of religious dogma or even quotations, preceded the publication of that other world changing document by three or four years: Luther's pinning of the ninety five thesis to a Church door a few hundred miles north in an area still ruled by edicts pumped out by prelates living closer to Machiavelli. This was exactly the right time to be reaching the learned men of the world with anything revolutionary in tone, and well presented and researched contradictions of established thought were very lible to strike a chord with many. In other words, many people by this time had clearly had all they could stomach of the seething hypocrisy they witnessed being displayed by the Lord's own servants, in the church and consequently in the monarchy led governments of the age. To be spouting their harsh godfearing edicts out to the uneducated masses when the vast majority of them enjoyed the sins they were loudly proscribing the common populace from having, was all a bit rich for certain educated but strong minded men like Machiavelli and Luther. The time was very ripe for a wind of change, and even the corrupt but mighty church of Rome knew it, and feared it.

Machievelli simply took a different line to Luther, perhaps not least because he was far more used to living with these ruler's inconsistencies than the more morally outraged teutonic man of God was. Where Luther got all spiritual and quoted the many edicts from scripture that the church of Rome was blatantly abusing, Machiavelli simply plotted the practical lines for a prostective leader of state to follow, quoting the works of historians and statesmen who had written about both the world's most successful leaders and its least successful leaders, as a practical handbook on how to be a successful head of state. Both of their actions though were brave, and both of them catastrophic to the cosy order of things and to the power of the once mighty Catholic Church. Humanity owes both of these great men an enormous debt, for their brave and insightful works helped breathe a real wind of change to the way the human race had been living.

The virtues of Machiavelli, 03 Feb 2005
In the course of my political science training, I studied at great length the modern idea of realpolitik. In that study I came to realise that it was somewhat incomplete, without the companionship of The Prince, by Niccolo Machiavelli, a Florentine governmental official in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. The Prince is an oft quoted, oft mis-quoted work, used as the philosophical underpinning for much of what is considered both pragmatic and wrong in politics today. To describe someone as being Machiavellian is to attribute to the person ruthless ambition, craftiness and merciless political tactics. Being believed to be Machiavellian is generally politically incorrect. Being Machiavellian, alas, can often be politically expedient.

Machiavelli based his work in The Prince upon his basic understanding of human nature. He held that people are motivated by fear and envy, by novelty, by desire for wealth, power and security, and by a hatred of restriction. In the Italy in which he was writing, democracy was an un-implemented Greek philosophical idea, not a political structure with a history of success; thus, one person's power usually involved the limitation of another person's power in an autocratic way.

Machiavelli did not see this as a permanent or natural state of being -- in fact, he felt that, during his age, human nature had been corrupted and reduced from a loftier nobility achieved during the golden ages of Greece and Rome. He decided that it was the corrupting influence of Christianity that had reduced human nature, by its exaltation of meekness, humility, and otherworldliness.

Machiavelli has a great admiration for the possible and potential, but finds himself inexorably drawn to the practical, dealing with situations as they are, thus becoming an early champion of realpolitik carried forward into this century by the likes of Kissinger, Thatcher, Nixon, and countless others. One of the innovations of Machiavelli's thought was the recognition that the prince, the leader of the city/state/empire/etc., was nonetheless a human being, and subject to all the human limitations and desires with which all contend.

Because the average prince (like the average person) is likely to be focussed upon his own interests, a prince's private interests are generally in opposition to those of his subjects. Fortunate is the kingdom ruled by a virtuous prince, virtue here not defined by Christian or religious tenets, but rather the civic virtue of being able to pursue his own interests without conflicting those of his subjects.

Virtue is that which increases power; vice is that which decreases power. These follow Machiavelli's assumptions about human nature. Machiavelli rejected the Platonic idea of a division between what a prince does and what a prince ought to do. The two principle instruments of the prince are force and propaganda, and the prince, in order to increase power (virtue) ought to employ force completely and ruthlessly, and propaganda wisely, backed up by force. Of course, for Machiavelli, the chief propaganda vehicle is that of religion.

Whoever reads Roman history attentively will see in how great a degree religion served in the command of the armies, in uniting the people and keeping them well conducted, and in covering the wicked with shame.

Machiavelli has been credited with giving ruthless strategies (the example of a new political ruler killing the deposed ruler and the ruler's family to prevent usurpation and plotting is well known) -- it is hard to enact many in current politics in a literal way, but many of his strategies can still be seen in electioneering at every level, in national and international relations, and even in corporate and family internal 'politics'. In fact, I have found fewer more Machiavellian types than in church politics!

Of course, these people would be considered 'virtuous' in Machiavellian terms -- doing what is necessary to increase power and authority.

The title of this piece -- the virtues of Machiavelli, must be considered in this frame; certainly in no way virtuous by current standards, but then, it shows, not all have the same standards. Be careful of the words you use -- they may have differing definitions.

Perhaps if Machiavelli had lived a bit later, and been informed by the general rise of science as a rational underpinning to the world, he might have been able to accept less of a degree of randomness in the universe. Perhaps he would have modified his views. Perhaps not -- after all, the realpolitikers of this age are aware of the scientific framework of the universe, and still pursue their courses.

This is an important work, intriguing in many respects. Far shorter than the average classical or medieval philosophical tome, and more accessible by current readers because of a greater familiarity with politics than, say, metaphysics or epistemology, this work yields benefits and insights to all who read, mark, inwardly digest, and critically examine the precepts.

Ruthless, 28 Oct 2004
The Prince... well its difficult to describe exactly what it entails. I think to start with all who consider going into politics or any kind of management role should be handed a copy of this book at the same time as they recieve their application forms. It is ruthless but efficient also and so its central premises should always be remembered, particularly by our governing bodies.
Machiavelli writes with a self assurance which is refreshing in an age of hesitation and self correction.
I'm not convinced that this was a life changing book for me to read, it certainly affected my attitudes and values but is not a inspirational self help book (not that its supposed to be).
I recommend this to anyone who has an interest in history or in politics.

A prince among men., 14 Oct 2003
Machiavelli's realisation of the true nature of men as "...fickle,lying,cowards..." leads him in his brilliantly astute work to illuminate the realities of government and life in general.
Disregarding all political theorie's and ideaoligies machiavelli refreshingly deals with how things are and not how they should.
While on first glance machiavellis work would seem almost evil in its implications as it has been labeled countless times, a deeper look would show it to be more humane and considerate of human wellbeing then any half baked political ideology (communism, Republicanism,democracy etc). His assertion that the ends justifies the means is a good demonstration of this as Machiavelli demonstrates through historical analogies the truth of life in general: for people to prosper others have to suffer. In truthfully explaining this and insisting it be done quickly and totaly for it to be over and done with machiavelli shows a level of compasion far greater than any bleeding hearted liberal vegaterian (the most likely to be opposed to his assertions)
His work while being what many would labels as deeply cinical is niether cinical nor idealogical but an honest assesment of life in general as well as politics, which cannot help but uplift those of the same frame of mind with the comfort of nowing that the realisation that the world is a very unhappy place is not theres alone.
But if you truly believe in the hollywood view of the world in which love is blind and happy endings happen for every one than don't read this book (ignorance is bliss).

ONE OF THE TEN BEST BOOKS EVER, 25 Jul 2003
Here are some BASIC, UTMOST IMPORTANT and UNIVERSAL REMARKS for those that start reading Niccolò Machiavelli, be it IL PRINCIPE or his DISCORSI SOPRA LA PRIMA DECA DI TITO LIVIO, better known as "The DISCOURSES", giving a very original political comment on the first ten books of Titus Livius.
** Machiavelli's IDEA'S are NOT a close-fitting nor a rounded down system: who thinks elsehow will get into overlasting problems.
** The "Secretarius Florentinus" is NOT a SYSTEMATIC philosopher in the scholastic sense of the word: he DOESN'T WORRY whether the question or idea he describes is IN CONCORDANCE with notions or opinions written down elsewhere. Therefore lots of statements can but difficultly be brought in accordance to the former AND can even bring CRITICISM INTO TROUBLE. This is of far lesser importance while these incongruities are merely touching the general points of departure of his work, instead of the distinct parts of his arguments. You can notice this through his LOGIC (as strong as iron!!) and an IRREFUTABLE CONSEQUENCE.
** Machiavelli stays A-MORAL in Il Principe, just as nature is: not judging about good and bad, not influenced by a religion or anything else!! I know people have problems with this last "way of writing, thinking", BUT this is the most important factor that makes his work so IMMENSELY UNIVERSAL ...

There are TWO CENTRAL THEMES in this work: POLITICS and THE PROBLEMS THAT ARE CONNECTED WITH THE NOTION, THE CONCEPT "POWER".

The Prince is a flaming and militant political piece of writing in which the author is not only rationally, but also emotionally 'present' with the full power of his personality. Machiavelli's ideas are closely related to the general philosophical concept of the Renaissance. His vision too is antropocentric: the only right to exist man has, is present in man himself AND in the realisation of the self in this world.
The author is the FOUNDER of the political science(s): nobody before him had considered that politics are a single, separate science, free of any moral or religion.
In his system he isolates the technical bias (read: orientation) on what is politically useful from the moral and theological aspect of kindness and justice. He defines sharply THE PURPOSE that one wants to reach, to achieve and THEN, starting from the situation in which a (the) person stands, WEIGHS UP THE PROS AND CONS (on a rational-technical basis) OF THE MEANS THAT LEAD TO THE PURPOSE, WHICH MEANS THOSE "ARE", DOES NOT MATTER ( = AMORAL). A means of reason that is MORALLY BAD, can be GOOD FOR POLITICS and VICE VERSA ... !

Instead of talking about The Prince, it is only correct to use the word RULER: the crucial person in this work. For Macchiavelli it was Cesare BORGIA, for Nietzsche it was NAPOLEON, who REALLY slept with Il Principe (he understood the book very well).
Too many readers are misled by words as 'fortune, virtue': in the Middle-Italian (very difficult, even for specialists) the author uses the words 'FORTUNA' and 'VIRTÙ': these two words (f.e.) have NOTHING OF LITTLE IN COMMON with fortune and virtue or virtus. There are about 23 POSSIBLE TRANSLATIONS FOR THE WORD 'VIRTÙ'...

To be a good ruler is not easy. In 26 short chapters the biggest philosopher of the 16th century, Macchiavelli, describes what the ruler can and/or should do ... to stay 'the ruler', not to lose the power he/she has, in absence of moral and religion: amoral! THAT IS DIFFICULT TO MAINTAIN: JUST LOOK AROUND, LISTEN TO THE NEWS, THINK ABOUT GLOBAL PROBLEMS: EVERYWHERE YOU'LL MEET NICCOLÃ’ MACCHIAVELLI, WAVING WITH HIS HAND TO YOU AND TRYING TO MAKE YOU AND US FREE FROM PREJUDICES, WHISPERING WHAT WE SHOULD DO OR NOT.

I have read several editions of 'THE PRINCE', but have only one that stays with me since decades now: I read and keep on reading about our ruler forever, so my book will stay with me too.
LAST NOTE: The saying "The end justifies the means" is NOT from Macchiavelli; it already existed for a few centuries.

Such warmth of characters and such humour - Must read 2008!!, 10 Sep 2008
If you have read and loved Charlotte Mosley's wonderful Mitford Letters this will definitely not disappoint!!

Their writing styles, and indeed life styles are markedly different - Paddy's erudite, descriptive, precise and exuberant letters serve to remind us why he is often considered the greatest travel writer of our time. His wonderful descriptions of his adventures bring to life so many different places - from Devon to the Andes to Eastern Europe and back to Derbyshire. He tells stories about upsetting Somerset Maugham with his stammering jokes; about his feat of swimming across the Hellespont aged 69; about rounding up wild horses in Chagford; and about his time building his home Kardamyli with his wife Joan.

DD writes a shrewd description of life as a Duchess restoring Chatsworth. She never fails to raise a smile with her insightful and honest accounts of a whirlwind of social engagements with such a wide variety of well-known twentieth century figures. From Evelyn Waugh, whom on one occasion sends the famously self-professed illiterate DD a proof of his new book, The Life of Robert Knox with the inscription "You won't find a word in this to offend your Protestant sympathies" - the pages were in fact completely blank. She describes he friendship with "The Loved One" (John F Kennedy) and dinners with the characterful Bohemian Iris Tree. Intimate encounters with the Royal Family - including one such "cotton dress" chance meeting with The Queen Mother - who Debo famously refers to as 'Cake' - at the Tate Gallery. Interspersed with these engagements she writes to Paddy with stories of her family - Andrew and her three children and certainly her Sisters and of course, she details her incredible renovation of the beautiful Chatsworth House. Despite leading such an incredible life, she always remains so down to earth - on one occasion Mario Testino arrives at Chatsworth to do a photo shoot for Vogue's 90th birthday. DD is photographed with her granddaughter Stella Tennant, she describes the shoot:

" [Stella's] Hair skewbald/piebald, all colours & stuck up in bits. THEN they produced "shoes" with 6 inch heels. More stilts - she could hardly put one foot in front of the other, wobbling & toppling.
We looked just like that Grandville drawing of a giraffe dancing with a little monkey. I was the monkey."

The truly charming thing, however, about this excellently edited collection, is the genuine love and friendship that is so abundant in these letters. Mosley describes DD and PLF as sharing "youthful high spirits, warmth and generosity". This comes across in the letters so wonderfully. This book is a lovely account of two such different characters who share a marvellous appetite for life and an even greater friendship.


One of THE most important works ever written, 25 Aug 2007
This masterpiece of reasoning and good practical handbook on how to get ahead in real life if you happen to be already a man of some means, was a work of great humanity in an age when humanity was still considered disgusting and subserviant to the Lord above and his chosen servants on Earth. What a shot across the bows to all those religious hypocrites and Bible following automatons this must have been, then. Two elements surrounding this work's brave publication are crucial, I feel: One being that this was Italy, (as it became) and at its advanced stage of the great Renaissance, as we now know it, and the second being that it was written at a time which was just right to be publishing order challenging controversial works. After seeing the liberal benefits to man that the use of the printing press had brought, and the world of possibilities it offered, Machiavelli struck the first blow against the stifling and corrupt order of the age.

His publication of political thought and theory which was refreshingly devoid of religious dogma or even quotations, preceded the publication of that other world changing document by three or four years: Luther's pinning of the ninety five thesis to a Church door a few hundred miles north in an area still ruled by edicts pumped out by prelates living closer to Machiavelli. This was exactly the right time to be reaching the learned men of the world with anything revolutionary in tone, and well presented and researched contradictions of established thought were very lible to strike a chord with many. In other words, many people by this time had clearly had all they could stomach of the seething hypocrisy they witnessed being displayed by the Lord's own servants, in the church and consequently in the monarchy led governments of the age. To be spouting their harsh godfearing edicts out to the uneducated masses when the vast majority of them enjoyed the sins they were loudly proscribing the common populace from having, was all a bit rich for certain educated but strong minded men like Machiavelli and Luther. The time was very ripe for a wind of change, and even the corrupt but mighty church of Rome knew it, and feared it.

Machievelli simply took a different line to Luther, perhaps not least because he was far more used to living with these ruler's inconsistencies than the more morally outraged teutonic man of God was. Where Luther got all spiritual and quoted the many edicts from scripture that the church of Rome was blatantly abusing, Machiavelli simply plotted the practical lines for a prostective leader of state to follow, quoting the works of historians and statesmen who had written about both the world's most successful leaders and its least successful leaders, as a practical handbook on how to be a successful head of state. Both of their actions though were brave, and both of them catastrophic to the cosy order of things and to the power of the once mighty Catholic Church. Humanity owes both of these great men an enormous debt, for their brave and insightful works helped breathe a real wind of change to the way the human race had been living.

The virtues of Machiavelli, 03 Feb 2005
In the course of my political science training, I studied at great length the modern idea of realpolitik. In that study I came to realise that it was somewhat incomplete, without the companionship of The Prince, by Niccolo Machiavelli, a Florentine governmental official in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. The Prince is an oft quoted, oft mis-quoted work, used as the philosophical underpinning for much of what is considered both pragmatic and wrong in politics today. To describe someone as being Machiavellian is to attribute to the person ruthless ambition, craftiness and merciless political tactics. Being believed to be Machiavellian is generally politically incorrect. Being Machiavellian, alas, can often be politically expedient.

Machiavelli based his work in The Prince upon his basic understanding of human nature. He held that people are motivated by fear and envy, by novelty, by desire for wealth, power and security, and by a hatred of restriction. In the Italy in which he was writing, democracy was an un-implemented Greek philosophical idea, not a political structure with a history of success; thus, one person's power usually involved the limitation of another person's power in an autocratic way.

Machiavelli did not see this as a permanent or natural state of being -- in fact, he felt that, during his age, human nature had been corrupted and reduced from a loftier nobility achieved during the golden ages of Greece and Rome. He decided that it was the corrupting influence of Christianity that had reduced human nature, by its exaltation of meekness, humility, and otherworldliness.

Machiavelli has a great admiration for the possible and potential, but finds himself inexorably drawn to the practical, dealing with situations as they are, thus becoming an early champion of realpolitik carried forward into this century by the likes of Kissinger, Thatcher, Nixon, and countless others. One of the innovations of Machiavelli's thought was the recognition that the prince, the leader of the city/state/empire/etc., was nonetheless a human being, and subject to all the human limitations and desires with which all contend.

Because the average prince (like the average person) is likely to be focussed upon his own interests, a prince's private interests are generally in opposition to those of his subjects. Fortunate is the kingdom ruled by a virtuous prince, virtue here not defined by Christian or religious tenets, but rather the civic virtue of being able to pursue his own interests without conflicting those of his subjects.

Virtue is that which increases power; vice is that which decreases power. These follow Machiavelli's assumptions about human nature. Machiavelli rejected the Platonic idea of a division between what a prince does and what a prince ought to do. The two principle instruments of the prince are force and propaganda, and the prince, in order to increase power (virtue) ought to employ force completely and ruthlessly, and propaganda wisely, backed up by force. Of course, for Machiavelli, the chief propaganda vehicle is that of religion.

Whoever reads Roman history attentively will see in how great a degree religion served in the command of the armies, in uniting the people and keeping them well conducted, and in covering the wicked with shame.

Machiavelli has been credited with giving ruthless strategies (the example of a new political ruler killing the deposed ruler and the ruler's family to prevent usurpation and plotting is well known) -- it is hard to enact many in current politics in a literal way, but many of his strategies can still be seen in electioneering at every level, in national and international relations, and even in corporate and family internal 'politics'. In fact, I have found fewer more Machiavellian types than in church politics!

Of course, these people would be considered 'virtuous' in Machiavellian terms -- doing what is necessary to increase power and authority.

The title of this piece -- the virtues of Machiavelli, must be considered in this frame; certainly in no way virtuous by current standards, but then, it shows, not all have the same standards. Be careful of the words you use -- they may have differing definitions.

Perhaps if Machiavelli had lived a bit later, and been informed by the general rise of science as a rational underpinning to the world, he might have been able to accept less of a degree of randomness in the universe. Perhaps he would have modified his views. Perhaps not -- after all, the realpolitikers of this age are aware of the scientific framework of the universe, and still pursue their courses.

This is an important work, intriguing in many respects. Far shorter than the average classical or medieval philosophical tome, and more accessible by current readers because of a greater familiarity with politics than, say, metaphysics or epistemology, this work yields benefits and insights to all who read, mark, inwardly digest, and critically examine the precepts.

Ruthless, 28 Oct 2004
The Prince... well its difficult to describe exactly what it entails. I think to start with all who consider going into politics or any kind of management role should be handed a copy of this book at the same time as they recieve their application forms. It is ruthless but efficient also and so its central premises should always be remembered, particularly by our governing bodies.
Machiavelli writes with a self assurance which is refreshing in an age of hesitation and self correction.
I'm not convinced that this was a life changing book for me to read, it certainly affected my attitudes and values but is not a inspirational self help book (not that its supposed to be).
I recommend this to anyone who has an interest in history or in politics.

A prince among men., 14 Oct 2003
Machiavelli's realisation of the true nature of men as "...fickle,lying,cowards..." leads him in his brilliantly astute work to illuminate the realities of government and life in general.
Disregarding all political theorie's and ideaoligies machiavelli refreshingly deals with how things are and not how they should.
While on first glance machiavellis work would seem almost evil in its implications as it has been labeled countless times, a deeper look would show it to be more humane and considerate of human wellbeing then any half baked political ideology (communism, Republicanism,democracy etc). His assertion that the ends justifies the means is a good demonstration of this as Machiavelli demonstrates through historical analogies the truth of life in general: for people to prosper others have to suffer. In truthfully explaining this and insisting it be done quickly and totaly for it to be over and done with machiavelli shows a level of compasion far greater than any bleeding hearted liberal vegaterian (the most likely to be opposed to his assertions)
His work while being what many would labels as deeply cinical is niether cinical nor idealogical but an honest assesment of life in general as well as politics, which cannot help but uplift those of the same frame of mind with the comfort of nowing that the realisation that the world is a very unhappy place is not theres alone.
But if you truly believe in the hollywood view of the world in which love is blind and happy endings happen for every one than don't read this book (ignorance is bliss).

ONE OF THE TEN BEST BOOKS EVER, 25 Jul 2003
Here are some BASIC, UTMOST IMPORTANT and UNIVERSAL REMARKS for those that start reading Niccolò Machiavelli, be it IL PRINCIPE or his DISCORSI SOPRA LA PRIMA DECA DI TITO LIVIO, better known as "The DISCOURSES", giving a very original political comment on the first ten books of Titus Livius.
** Machiavelli's IDEA'S are NOT a close-fitting nor a rounded down system: who thinks elsehow will get into overlasting problems.
** The "Secretarius Florentinus" is NOT a SYSTEMATIC philosopher in the scholastic sense of the word: he DOESN'T WORRY whether the question or idea he describes is IN CONCORDANCE with notions or opinions written down elsewhere. Therefore lots of statements can but difficultly be brought in accordance to the former AND can even bring CRITICISM INTO TROUBLE. This is of far lesser importance while these incongruities are merely touching the general points of departure of his work, instead of the distinct parts of his arguments. You can notice this through his LOGIC (as strong as iron!!) and an IRREFUTABLE CONSEQUENCE.
** Machiavelli stays A-MORAL in Il Principe, just as nature is: not judging about good and bad, not influenced by a religion or anything else!! I know people have problems with this last "way of writing, thinking", BUT this is the most important factor that makes his work so IMMENSELY UNIVERSAL ...

There are TWO CENTRAL THEMES in this work: POLITICS and THE PROBLEMS THAT ARE CONNECTED WITH THE NOTION, THE CONCEPT "POWER".

The Prince is a flaming and militant political piece of writing in which the author is not only rationally, but also emotionally 'present' with the full power of his personality. Machiavelli's ideas are closely related to the general philosophical concept of the Renaissance. His vision too is antropocentric: the only right to exist man has, is present in man himself AND in the realisation of the self in this world.
The author is the FOUNDER of the political science(s): nobody before him had considered that politics are a single, separate science, free of any moral or religion.
In his system he isolates the technical bias (read: orientation) on what is politically useful from the moral and theological aspect of kindness and justice. He defines sharply THE PURPOSE that one wants to reach, to achieve and THEN, starting from the situation in which a (the) person stands, WEIGHS UP THE PROS AND CONS (on a rational-technical basis) OF THE MEANS THAT LEAD TO THE PURPOSE, WHICH MEANS THOSE "ARE", DOES NOT MATTER ( = AMORAL). A means of reason that is MORALLY BAD, can be GOOD FOR POLITICS and VICE VERSA ... !

Instead of talking about The Prince, it is only correct to use the word RULER: the crucial person in this work. For Macchiavelli it was Cesare BORGIA, for Nietzsche it was NAPOLEON, who REALLY slept with Il Principe (he understood the book very well).
Too many readers are misled by words as 'fortune, virtue': in the Middle-Italian (very difficult, even for specialists) the author uses the words 'FORTUNA' and 'VIRTÙ': these two words (f.e.) have NOTHING OF LITTLE IN COMMON with fortune and virtue or virtus. There are about 23 POSSIBLE TRANSLATIONS FOR THE WORD 'VIRTÙ'...

To be a good ruler is not easy. In 26 short chapters the biggest philosopher of the 16th century, Macchiavelli, describes what the ruler can and/or should do ... to stay 'the ruler', not to lose the power he/she has, in absence of moral and religion: amoral! THAT IS DIFFICULT TO MAINTAIN: JUST LOOK AROUND, LISTEN TO THE NEWS, THINK ABOUT GLOBAL PROBLEMS: EVERYWHERE YOU'LL MEET NICCOLÃ’ MACCHIAVELLI, WAVING WITH HIS HAND TO YOU AND TRYING TO MAKE YOU AND US FREE FROM PREJUDICES, WHISPERING WHAT WE SHOULD DO OR NOT.

I have read several editions of 'THE PRINCE', but have only one that stays with me since decades now: I read and keep on reading about our ruler forever, so my book will stay with me too.
LAST NOTE: The saying "The end justifies the means" is NOT from Macchiavelli; it already existed for a few centuries.

Fascinating and very enjoyable read, 06 Aug 2008
I knew nothing about the Mitfords before borrowing this book from my mum. I found it highly compelling, especially all the references to the many influential and varied people of the 20th century. It is also very sad at times, especially the harsh realities of the passage of time. This collection of letters has been carefully chosen to tell the reader the Mitfords' story but in the words of the girls themselves.

A big adventure from start to finish!!, 03 Aug 2008
This book is a truly wonderful read and I would totally recommend it. I didn't know much about the Mitfords before I read the book, but afterwards I was desperate to find out everything I could!

It takes a while to get to grips with who is who - but before long you are sucked into the world of the 'Hons and Rebels' and you don't want to leave!!

Its a rollercoaster of emotions from start to finish, and the fact that it is real life is the icing on the cake.


A truly mixed bag, 02 Aug 2008
This is a difficult book to review. The editing is very well done. The layout it clear and the letters' contents are usually well annotated (though I wish this had been more continuous - should the reader be expected to remember that "Edwina" on page x is the same as that on page y, who is annotated on page z?)

The contents, though, are another matter. Despite some snippets of very interesting material, for example Unity's accounts of her meetings with Adolf Hitler, rather too many of the letters rarely rise above the mundane, superficial and vacuous. How interesting can it be, just reading that long-dead famous person dined with other long-dead famous person, page after page? Nancy's letters are a case in point. She clearly wrote far better prose than her sisters, but the level rarely rose above an obsession with her wardrobe and the weather.

This is, of course a function of the fact that these women were a product of their class and their age, and I have little interest in, or time for, any of them personally except Jessica, who actually made the effort to cut herself of from the shallowness and to work to actually make a difference. Too much of the time of the others was taken up by bemoaning their lot (only two servants, three houses etc.) or by listing their famous friends.

Only as late middle age drew upon the women did their letters (and punctuation!) improve. This is clearly an important source of material and needed to be put into the public domain, but for long stretches it is also truly disappointing.

The Unconventional Mitford Sisters, 26 May 2008
Life would be incredibly boring without unconventional people. The Mitford's were such an interesting family. The sisters, frequently referred to as "notorious," were pre and post war celebrities, collectively carving a niche in English history. Nancy Mitford's witty writing is as readable now as in the past. Of her novels, I'm particularly fond of "The Pusuit of Love," and "Love in a Cold Climate." Nancy adroitly lampooned the aristocracy.

It's the support of fascism by Unity Mitford, who was infatuated with Hitler; and Diana Mitford's marriage to Sir Oswald Mosley, leader of the British Fascists, which even now hasn't been forgiven. In the war years, Diana had the title "the most loathed woman in England". Although Mosley was an arrogant man and a womaniser, she loyally remained faithful. Jessica Mitford, also a writer, eloped with her communist lover to the USA. Mostly, Nancy is the one I had previously known more of through her writing.

Of the six, Nancy, Jessica, Deborah and Diana, are the more interesting sisters. Pamela the most obscure. The only sister living is gentle Deborah, the Dowager Duchess of Devonshire. She also writes, and transformed Chatsworth with her husband.

The editor, Charlotte Mosley, provides essential background information to the letters. That makes those more interesting reading. The Mitford girls, gossipy, intimate family letters span the 20th century. Much has been written about the Mitford's over the years. Unlike others, Charlotte Mosley had access to 12,000 family letters. Five percent are included in the book.

What makes the Mitford's so fascinating? They were not the wealthiest aristocratic family. They were, however, well connected to other titled and famous people. The sisters lived through the worst and the best of times, becoming embedded in the fabric of British social history. In terms of women's history, they have a rightful place. Like others in their time, they cut through the conventions of how upper class women should be. As to any family eccentricity, that more appropriately applies to their father, and fanatical tragic sister Unity. Charlotte Mosley's book is an erudite addition to the Mitford family saga.



Ladies of letters, 22 May 2008
The Mitford sisters were notorious for beauty & scandal. Diana married Oswald Mosley, leader of the British Union of Fascists & one of the most hated men of the 20th century. Unity had a passion for Hitler, lived in Germany during the 1930s & was so distraught at the outbreak of WWII that she attempted suicide. Jessica was a Communist, running away with a young man to the Spanish Civil War & spent much of her life in America. Nancy was a novelist with a waspish sense of humour who lived in France & was unhappily in love with a man who would never marry her. Pamela loved the country life but became increasingly eccentric in later life. Deborah married the Duke of Devonshire, and turned Chatsworth into one of the most popular stately homes in Britain. The letters between the sisters span almost the whole 20th century & are a fascinating look at life for the upper classes. The relationships between the sisters go through good & bad times. Jessica refused to speak to Diana for decades because of her disgust at her politics. Nancy informed against Diana during WWII which led to her being interned & separated from her children. After the death of their mother in 1963, Deborah became the centre of the correspondence, and she is the most likeable & stable of the sisters. Happy in her marriage & with the great work of transforming Chatsworth, she is the link between the sisters as they grow older.

Such warmth of characters and such humour - Must read 2008!!, 10 Sep 2008
If you have read and loved Charlotte Mosley's wonderful Mitford Letters this will definitely not disappoint!!

Their writing styles, and indeed life styles are markedly different - Paddy's erudite, descriptive, precise and exuberant letters serve to remind us why he is often considered the greatest travel writer of our time. His wonderful descriptions of his adventures bring to life so many different places - from Devon to the Andes to Eastern Europe and back to Derbyshire. He tells stories about upsetting Somerset Maugham with his stammering jokes; about his feat of swimming across the Hellespont aged 69; about rounding up wild horses in Chagford; and about his time building his home Kardamyli with his wife Joan.

DD writes a shrewd description of life as a Duchess restoring Chatsworth. She never fails to raise a smile with her insightful and honest accounts of a whirlwind of social engagements with such a wide variety of well-known twentieth century figures. From Evelyn Waugh, whom on one occasion sends the famously self-professed illiterate DD a proof of his new book, The Life of Robert Knox with the inscription "You won't find a word in this to offend your Protestant sympathies" - the pages were in fact completely blank. She describes he friendship with "The Loved One" (John F Kennedy) and dinners with the characterful Bohemian Iris Tree. Intimate encounters with the Royal Family - including one such "cotton dress" chance meeting with The Queen Mother - who Debo famously refers to as 'Cake' - at the Tate Gallery. Interspersed with these engagements she writes to Paddy with stories of her family - Andrew and her three children and certainly her Sisters and of course, she details her incredible renovation of the beautiful Chatsworth House. Despite leading such an incredible life, she always remains so down to earth - on one occasion Mario Testino arrives at Chatsworth to do a photo shoot for Vogue's 90th birthday. DD is photographed with her granddaughter Stella Tennant, she describes the shoot:

" [Stella's] Hair skewbald/piebald, all colours & stuck up in bits. THEN they produced "shoes" with 6 inch heels. More stilts - she could hardly put one foot in front of the other, wobbling & toppling.
We looked just like that Grandville drawing of a giraffe dancing with a little monkey. I was the monkey."

The truly charming thing, however, about this excellently edited collection, is the genuine love and friendship that is so abundant in these letters. Mosley describes DD and PLF as sharing "youthful high spirits, warmth and generosity". This comes across in the letters so wonderfully. This book is a lovely account of two such different characters who share a marvellous appetite for life and an even greater friendship.


One of THE most important works ever written, 25 Aug 2007
This masterpiece of reasoning and good practical handbook on how to get ahead in real life if you happen to be already a man of some means, was a work of great humanity in an age when humanity was still considered disgusting and subserviant to the Lord above and his chosen servants on Earth. What a shot across the bows to all those religious hypocrites and Bible following automatons this must have been, then. Two elements surrounding this work's brave publication are crucial, I feel: One being that this was Italy, (as it became) and at its advanced stage of the great Renaissance, as we now know it, and the second being that it was written at a time which was just right to be publishing order challenging controversial works. After seeing the liberal benefits to man that the use of the printing press had brought, and the world of possibilities it offered, Machiavelli struck the first blow against the stifling and corrupt order of the age.

His publication of political thought and theory which was refreshingly devoid of religious dogma or even quotations, preceded the publication of that other world changing document by three or four years: Luther's pinning of the ninety five thesis to a Church door a few hundred miles north in an area still ruled by edicts pumped out by prelates living closer to Machiavelli. This was exactly the right time to be reaching the learned men of the world with anything revolutionary in tone, and well presented and researched contradictions of established thought were very lible to strike a chord with many. In other words, many people by this time had clearly had all they could stomach of the seething hypocrisy they witnessed being displayed by the Lord's own servants, in the church and consequently in the monarchy led governments of the age. To be spouting their harsh godfearing edicts out to the uneducated masses when the vast majority of them enjoyed the sins they were loudly proscribing the common populace from having, was all a bit rich for certain educated but strong minded men like Machiavelli and Luther. The time was very ripe for a wind of change, and even the corrupt but mighty church of Rome knew it, and feared it.

Machievelli simply took a different line to Luther, perhaps not least because he was far more used to living with these ruler's inconsistencies than the more morally outraged teutonic man of God was. Where Luther got all spiritual and quoted the many edicts from scripture that the church of Rome was blatantly abusing, Machiavelli simply plotted the practical lines for a prostective leader of state to follow, quoting the works of historians and statesmen who had written about both the world's most successful leaders and its least successful leaders, as a practical handbook on how to be a successful head of state. Both of their actions though were brave, and both of them catastrophic to the cosy order of things and to the power of the once mighty Catholic Church. Humanity owes both of these great men an enormous debt, for their brave and insightful works helped breathe a real wind of change to the way the human race had been living.

The virtues of Machiavelli, 03 Feb 2005
In the course of my political science training, I studied at great length the modern idea of realpolitik. In that study I came to realise that it was somewhat incomplete, without the companionship of The Prince, by Niccolo Machiavelli, a Florentine governmental official in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. The Prince is an oft quoted, oft mis-quoted work, used as the philosophical underpinning for much of what is considered both pragmatic and wrong in politics today. To describe someone as being Machiavellian is to attribute to the person ruthless ambition, craftiness and merciless political tactics. Being believed to be Machiavellian is generally politically incorrect. Being Machiavellian, alas, can often be politically expedient.

Machiavelli based his work in The Prince upon his basic understanding of human nature. He held that people are motivated by fear and envy, by novelty, by desire for wealth, power and security, and by a hatred of restriction. In the Italy in which he was writing, democracy was an un-implemented Greek philosophical idea, not a political structure with a history of success; thus, one person's power usually involved the limitation of another person's power in an autocratic way.

Machiavelli did not see this as a permanent or natural state of being -- in fact, he felt that, during his age, human nature had been corrupted and reduced from a loftier nobility achieved during the golden ages of Greece and Rome. He decided that it was the corrupting influence of Christianity that had reduced human nature, by its exaltation of meekness, humility, and otherworldliness.

Machiavelli has a great admiration for the possible and potential, but finds himself inexorably drawn to the practical, dealing with situations as they are, thus becoming an early champion of realpolitik carried forward into this century by the likes of Kissinger, Thatcher, Nixon, and countless others. One of the innovations of Machiavelli's thought was the recognition that the prince, the leader of the city/state/empire/etc., was nonetheless a human being, and subject to all the human limitations and desires with which all contend.

Because the average prince (like the average person) is likely to be focussed upon his own interests, a prince's private interests are generally in opposition to those of his subjects. Fortunate is the kingdom ruled by a virtuous prince, virtue here not defined by Christian or religious tenets, but rather the civic virtue of being able to pursue his own interests without conflicting those of his subjects.

Virtue is that which increases power; vice is that which decreases power. These follow Machiavelli's assumptions about human nature. Machiavelli rejected the Platonic idea of a division between what a prince does and what a prince ought to do. The two principle instruments of the prince are force and propaganda, and the prince, in order to increase power (virtue) ought to employ force completely and ruthlessly, and propaganda wisely, backed up by force. Of course, for Machiavelli, the chief propaganda vehicle is that of religion.

Whoever reads Roman history attentively will see in how great a degree religion served in the command of the armies, in uniting the people and keeping them well conducted, and in covering the wicked with shame.

Machiavelli has been credited with giving ruthless strategies (the example of a new political ruler killing the deposed ruler and the ruler's family to prevent usurpation and plotting is well known) -- it is hard to enact many in current politics in a literal way, but many of his strategies can still be seen in electioneering at every level, in national and international relations, and even in corporate and family internal 'politics'. In fact, I have found fewer more Machiavellian types than in church politics!

Of course, these people would be considered 'virtuous' in Machiavellian terms -- doing what is necessary to increase power and authority.

The title of this piece -- the virtues of Machiavelli, must be considered in this frame; certainly in no way virtuous by current standards, but then, it shows, not all have the same standards. Be careful of the words you use -- they may have differing definitions.

Perhaps if Machiavelli had lived a bit later, and been informed by the general rise of science as a rational underpinning to the world, he might have been able to accept less of a degree of randomness in the universe. Perhaps he would have modified his views. Perhaps not -- after all, the realpolitikers of this age are aware of the scientific framework of the universe, and still pursue their courses.

This is an important work, intriguing in many respects. Far shorter than the average classical or medieval philosophical tome, and more accessible by current readers because of a greater familiarity with politics than, say, metaphysics or epistemology, this work yields benefits and insights to all who read, mark, inwardly digest, and critically examine the precepts.

Ruthless, 28 Oct 2004
The Prince... well its difficult to describe exactly what it entails. I think to start with all who consider going into politics or any kind of management role should be handed a copy of this book at the same time as they recieve their application forms. It is ruthless but efficient also and so its central premises should always be remembered, particularly by our governing bodies.
Machiavelli writes with a self assurance which is refreshing in an age of hesitation and self correction.
I'm not convinced that this was a life changing book for me to read, it certainly affected my attitudes and values but is not a inspirational self help book (not that its supposed to be).
I recommend this to anyone who has an interest in history or in politics.

A prince among men., 14 Oct 2003
Machiavelli's realisation of the true nature of men as "...fickle,lying,cowards..." leads him in his brilliantly astute work to illuminate the realities of government and life in general.
Disregarding all political theorie's and ideaoligies machiavelli refreshingly deals with how things are and not how they should.
While on first glance machiavellis work would seem almost evil in its implications as it has been labeled countless times, a deeper look would show it to be more humane and considerate of human wellbeing then any half baked political ideology (communism, Republicanism,democracy etc). His assertion that the ends justifies the means is a good demonstration of this as Machiavelli demonstrates through historical analogies the truth of life in general: for people to prosper others have to suffer. In truthfully explaining this and insisting it be done quickly and totaly for it to be over and done with machiavelli shows a level of compasion far greater than any bleeding hearted liberal vegaterian (the most likely to be opposed to his assertions)
His work while being what many would labels as deeply cinical is niether cinical nor idealogical but an honest assesment of life in general as well as politics, which cannot help but uplift those of the same frame of mind with the comfort of nowing that the realisation that the world is a very unhappy place is not theres alone.
But if you truly believe in the hollywood view of the world in which love is blind and happy endings happen for every one than don't read this book (ignorance is bliss).

ONE OF THE TEN BEST BOOKS EVER, 25 Jul 2003
Here are some BASIC, UTMOST IMPORTANT and UNIVERSAL REMARKS for those that start reading Niccolò Machiavelli, be it IL PRINCIPE or his DISCORSI SOPRA LA PRIMA DECA DI TITO LIVIO, better known as "The DISCOURSES", giving a very original political comment on the first ten books of Titus Livius.
** Machiavelli's IDEA'S are NOT a close-fitting nor a rounded down system: who thinks elsehow will get into overlasting problems.
** The "Secretarius Florentinus" is NOT a SYSTEMATIC philosopher in the scholastic sense of the word: he DOESN'T WORRY whether the question or idea he describes is IN CONCORDANCE with notions or opinions written down elsewhere. Therefore lots of statements can but difficultly be brought in accordance to the former AND can even bring CRITICISM INTO TROUBLE. This is of far lesser importance while these incongruities are merely touching the general points of departure of his work, instead of the distinct parts of his arguments. You can notice this through his LOGIC (as strong as iron!!) and an IRREFUTABLE CONSEQUENCE.
** Machiavelli stays A-MORAL in Il Principe, just as nature is: not judging about good and bad, not influenced by a religion or anything else!! I know people have problems with this last "way of writing, thinking", BUT this is the most important factor that makes his work so IMMENSELY UNIVERSAL ...

There are TWO CENTRAL THEMES in this work: POLITICS and THE PROBLEMS THAT ARE CONNECTED WITH THE NOTION, THE CONCEPT "POWER".

The Prince is a flaming and militant political piece of writing in which the author is not only rationally, but also emotionally 'present' with the full power of his personality. Machiavelli's ideas are closely related to the general philosophical concept of the Renaissance. His vision too is antropocentric: the only right to exist man has, is present in man himself AND in the realisation of the self in this world.
The author is the FOUNDER of the political science(s): nobody before him had considered that politics are a single, separate science, free of any moral or religion.
In his system he isolates the technical bias (read: orientation) on what is politically useful from the moral and theological aspect of kindness and justice. He defines sharply THE PURPOSE that one wants to reach, to achieve and THEN, starting from the situation in which a (the) person stands, WEIGHS UP THE PROS AND CONS (on a rational-technical basis) OF THE MEANS THAT LEAD TO THE PURPOSE, WHICH MEANS THOSE "ARE", DOES NOT MATTER ( = AMORAL). A means of reason that is MORALLY BAD, can be GOOD FOR POLITICS and VICE VERSA ... !

Instead of talking about The Prince, it is only correct to use the word RULER: the crucial person in this work. For Macchiavelli it was Cesare BORGIA, for Nietzsche it was NAPOLEON, who REALLY slept with Il Principe (he understood the book very well).
Too many readers are misled by words as 'fortune, virtue': in the Middle-Italian (very difficult, even for specialists) the author uses the words 'FORTUNA' and 'VIRTÙ': these two words (f.e.) have NOTHING OF LITTLE IN COMMON with fortune and virtue or virtus. There are about 23 POSSIBLE TRANSLATIONS FOR THE WORD 'VIRTÙ'...

To be a good ruler is not easy. In 26 short chapters the biggest philosopher of the 16th century, Macchiavelli, describes what the ruler can and/or should do ... to stay 'the ruler', not to lose the power he/she has, in absence of moral and religion: amoral! THAT IS DIFFICULT TO MAINTAIN: JUST LOOK AROUND, LISTEN TO THE NEWS, THINK ABOUT GLOBAL PROBLEMS: EVERYWHERE YOU'LL MEET NICCOLÃ’ MACCHIAVELLI, WAVING WITH HIS HAND TO YOU AND TRYING TO MAKE YOU AND US FREE FROM PREJUDICES, WHISPERING WHAT WE SHOULD DO OR NOT.

I have read several editions of 'THE PRINCE', but have only one that stays with me since decades now: I read and keep on reading about our ruler forever, so my book will stay with me too.
LAST NOTE: The saying "The end justifies the means" is NOT from Macchiavelli; it already existed for a few centuries.

Fascinating and very enjoyable read, 06 Aug 2008
I knew nothing about the Mitfords before borrowing this book from my mum. I found it highly compelling, especially all the references to the many influential and varied people of the 20th century. It is also very sad at times, especially the harsh realities of the passage of time. This collection of letters has been carefully chosen to tell the reader the Mitfords' story but in the words of the girls themselves.

A big adventure from start to finish!!, 03 Aug 2008
This book is a truly wonderful read and I would totally recommend it. I didn't know much about the Mitfords before I read the book, but afterwards I was desperate to find out everything I could!

It takes a while to get to grips with who is who - but before long you are sucked into the world of the 'Hons and Rebels' and you don't want to leave!!

Its a rollercoaster of emotions from start to finish, and the fact that it is real life is the icing on the cake.


A truly mixed bag, 02 Aug 2008
This is a difficult book to review. The editing is very well done. The layout it clear and the letters' contents are usually well annotated (though I wish this had been more continuous - should the reader be expected to remember that "Edwina" on page x is the same as that on page y, who is annotated on page z?)

The contents, though, are another matter. Despite some snippets of very interesting material, for example Unity's accounts of her meetings with Adolf Hitler, rather too many of the letters rarely rise above the mundane, superficial and vacuous. How interesting can it be, just reading that long-dead famous person dined with other long-dead famous person, page after page? Nancy's letters are a case in point. She clearly wrote far better prose than her sisters, but the level rarely rose above an obsession with her wardrobe and the weather.

This is, of course a function of the fact that these women were a product of their class and their age, and I have little interest in, or time for, any of them personally except Jessica, who actually made the effort to cut herself of from the shallowness and to work to actually make a difference. Too much of the time of the others was taken up by bemoaning their lot (only two servants, three houses etc.) or by listing their famous friends.

Only as late middle age drew upon the women did their letters (and punctuation!) improve. This is clearly an important source of material and needed to be put into the public domain, but for long stretches it is also truly disappointing.

The Unconventional Mitford Sisters, 26 May 2008
Life would be incredibly boring without unconventional people. The Mitford's were such an interesting family. The sisters, frequently referred to as "notorious," were pre and post war celebrities, collectively carving a niche in English history. Nancy Mitford's witty writing is as readable now as in the past. Of her novels, I'm particularly fond of "The Pusuit of Love," and "Love in a Cold Climate." Nancy adroitly lampooned the aristocracy.

It's the support of fascism by Unity Mitford, who was infatuated with Hitler; and Diana Mitford's marriage to Sir Oswald Mosley, leader of the British Fascists, which even now hasn't been forgiven. In the war years, Diana had the title "the most loathed woman in England". Although Mosley was an arrogant man and a womaniser, she loyally remained faithful. Jessica Mitford, also a writer, eloped with her communist lover to the USA. Mostly, Nancy is the one I had previously known more of through her writing.

Of the six, Nancy, Jessica, Deborah and Diana, are the more interesting sisters. Pamela the most obscure. The only sister living is gentle Deborah, the Dowager Duchess of Devonshire. She also writes, and transformed Chatsworth with her husband.

The editor, Charlotte Mosley, provides essential background information to the letters. That makes those more interesting reading. The Mitford girls, gossipy, intimate family letters span the 20th century. Much has been written about the Mitford's over the years. Unlike others, Charlotte Mosley had access to 12,000 family letters. Five percent are included in the book.

What makes the Mitford's so fascinating? They were not the wealthiest aristocratic family. They were, however, well connected to other titled and famous people. The sisters lived through the worst and the best of times, becoming embedded in the fabric of British social history. In terms of women's history, they have a rightful place. Like others in their time, they cut through the conventions of how upper class women should be. As to any family eccentricity, that more appropriately applies to their father, and fanatical tragic sister Unity. Charlotte Mosley's book is an erudite addition to the Mitford family saga.



Ladies of letters, 22 May 2008
The Mitford sisters were notorious for beauty & scandal. Diana married Oswald Mosley, leader of the British Union of Fascists & one of the most hated men of the 20th century. Unity had a passion for Hitler, lived in Germany during the 1930s & was so distraught at the outbreak of WWII that she attempted suicide. Jessica was a Communist, running away with a young man to the Spanish Civil War & spent much of her life in America. Nancy was a novelist with a waspish sense of humour who lived in France & was unhappily in love with a man who would never marry her. Pamela loved the country life but became increasingly eccentric in later life. Deborah married the Duke of Devonshire, and turned Chatsworth into one of the most popular stately homes in Britain. The letters between the sisters span almost the whole 20th century & are a fascinating look at life for the upper classes. The relationships between the sisters go through good & bad times. Jessica refused to speak to Diana for decades because of her disgust at her politics. Nancy informed against Diana during WWII which led to her being interned & separated from her children. After the death of their mother in 1963, Deborah became the centre of the correspondence, and she is the most likeable & stable of the sisters. Happy in her marriage & with the great work of transforming Chatsworth, she is the link between the sisters as they grow older.

A book of two halves, 09 Oct 2008
For the most part, this book is entertaining and witty. Maconie's enthusiam for his subject is contagious and the stuff you are learning is genuinely interesting. Then he stops writing about Lancashire and starts on Yorkshire.

I can't help but think that this book would have been better if Maconie had stuck to what he knows, ie: the west side of the Pennines. Quite how, for example, he can make various claims about 'professional Yorkshiremen' (a dying breed anyway) and deny the existence of the Lancastrian equivalent is an unforgivable oversight that kind of gives away where Maconie's loyalties lie. They are not called 'professional Lancastrians' as such, but how many 'professional Scousers' and 'professional Mancs' could we name? Is Stuart Maconie's beloved Peter Kay not a great example of a professional Lancastrian? There's nothing wrong with that, and while such matters don't ruin the book, there is a real difference in Pies and Prejudice between the writing about Cheshire and Lancashire and the writing about the rest of 'the North'.

That, and a few errors that half-decent any sub would have picked up, aside, the book largely does what it sets out to do: entertain. Southerners that aren't as touchy as this reviewer will probably enjoy it all the more too.

Entertaining and perceptive, 28 Aug 2008
This is a superb book; although it has the appearance of belonging to the recently emerged sub genre of humorous and slightly outrageous travel writing, it quickly become apparent that there's far more to it than that. Maconie takes us on a selective tour of the North of England, visiting both his old haunts and other key areas, such as Liverpool, Harrogate and other parts of Yorkshire. Along the way, there are recollections of various amusing personal incidents and a stock of good one-liners, but alongside these, there's a depth of historical, cultural, political and social information and analysis, which is both well researched and convincingly argued. Well worth reading.

Whose pies are they?, 21 Aug 2008
I was on a cruise and the comedian was Bobby Bennett. In a question and answer session someone mentioned that he had been mentioned in Stuart Maconie's Pies and Prejudice as he was the compare of Junior Showtime in the 1970s with people like Bonnie Langford and Pauline Quirke.

That led me to read this book. The jokes about the north south divided is a bit of a cliche for comedians but the cliches are all we can go on without any facts. This book goes someway towards giving us some facts.

He story about the Wigan liking of pies is quite good.

A Bolton man who breathlessly tells his workman from Wigan about a new lunchtime offer at local pub

" A pie , a pint and a woman for 80p" The Wiganer seems unimpressed 80p repeats his workmate excitedly
H'm declares the Wiganer warily " Whose pies are they?"

He went to Blackpool when he was young and said when on the train he took out a book and began to read. the whole carriage looked at him as if he had taken out a cuckoo clock or a lacrosse stick.

I learnt that Roger Whittaker had got it all wrong in the song Durham Town (the leavin') he said he sat on the banks of the river Tyne whereas it should have been the Wear.

I have visited quite a few of the places he mentions but only briefly. It makes me want to visit them all again. A perceptive look at the north by someone who knows what he is talking about.

He should now do a similar book about the south

He says the BBC has A northern correspondent and that it would be laughable if anyone thought they should have southern correspondent. the South views the North as some sort of foreign country that has to be explained to from London and the home counties.

A good read and I have ordered his Cider with Roadies. Well recommended.





Well written, enjoyable and informative, 12 Aug 2008
Overall I enjoyed reading this book and as others have said it certainly has inspired me to visit some of the places described. I liked the author's writing style and most of all I found most of the historical detail interesting and educational. However after reading through relatively huge sections on Liverpool, Manchester and Wigan I was disappointed to see places like Sheffield glossed over very briefly - surely Sheffield has more to offer than the time he spent discussing the National Museum of Pop Music?

YES THERE IS A NORTH - SOUTH DIVIDE: WE CAN LAUGH AT OURSELVES AND SOUTHERNERS CAN'T!, 01 Aug 2008
BRILLIANT READ. OK - if you know the places Stuart writes about (I know the exact chippy he talks about down the road from Crewe station!) it helps but even if you don't and have never ventured north of Chalfont St Witless, it's still a great read. The two one star reviewers from "Darn Sarth" are obviously miffed at the fact that no-one can be bothered to write about "southerners" because, as Maconie points out early on in the book, there is not the strong identification of "being a southerner" as there is for those of us north of..well, according to Stuart it's north of Stoke.

It pokes fun of the north and does ask some tough questions at times but more than anything else, it is a great travelogue. Strike a light, Guv, you can't ask fairer than that....

Such warmth of characters and such humour - Must read 2008!!, 10 Sep 2008
If you have read and loved Charlotte Mosley's wonderful Mitford Letters this will definitely not disappoint!!

Their writing styles, and indeed life styles are markedly different - Paddy's erudite, descriptive, precise and exuberant letters serve to remind us why he is often considered the greatest travel writer of our time. His wonderful descriptions of his adventures bring to life so many different places - from Devon to the Andes to Eastern Europe and back to Derbyshire. He tells stories about upsetting Somerset Maugham with his stammering jokes; about his feat of swimming across the Hellespont aged 69; about rounding up wild horses in Chagford; and about his time building his home Kardamyli with his wife Joan.

DD writes a shrewd description of life as a Duchess restoring Chatsworth. She never fails to raise a smile with her insightful and honest accounts of a whirlwind of social engagements with such a wide variety of well-known twentieth century figures. From Evelyn Waugh, whom on one occasion sends the famously self-professed illiterate DD a proof of his new book, The Life of Robert Knox with the inscription "You won't find a word in this to offend your Protestant sympathies" - the pages were in fact completely blank. She describes he friendship with "The Loved One" (John F Kennedy) and dinners with the characterful Bohemian Iris Tree. Intimate encounters with the Royal Family - including one such "cotton dress" chance meeting with The Queen Mother - who Debo famously refers to as 'Cake' - at the Tate Gallery. Interspersed with these engagements she writes to Paddy with stories of her family - Andrew and her three children and certainly her Sisters and of course, she details her incredible renovation of the beautiful Chatsworth House. Despite leading such an incredible life, she always remains so down to earth - on one occasion Mario Testino arrives at Chatsworth to do a photo shoot for Vogue's 90th birthday. DD is photographed with her granddaughter Stella Tennant, she describes the shoot:

" [Stella's] Hair skewbald/piebald, all colours & stuck up in bits. THEN they produced "shoes" with 6 inch heels. More stilts - she could hardly put one foot in front of the other, wobbling & toppling.
We looked just like that Grandville drawing of a giraffe dancing with a little monkey. I was the monkey."

The truly charming thing, however, about this excellently edited collection, is the genuine love and friendship that is so abundant in these letters. Mosley describes DD and PLF as sharing "youthful high spirits, warmth and generosity". This comes across in the letters so wonderfully. This book is a lovely account of two such different characters who share a marvellous appetite for life and an even greater friendship.


One of THE most important works ever written, 25 Aug 2007
This masterpiece of reasoning and good practical handbook on how to get ahead in real life if you happen to be already a man of some means, was a work of great humanity in an age when humanity was still considered disgusting and subserviant to the Lord above and his chosen servants on Earth. What a shot across the bows to all those religious hypocrites and Bible following automatons this must have been, then. Two elements surrounding this work's brave publication are crucial, I feel: One being that this was Italy, (as it became) and at its advanced stage of the great Renaissance, as we now know it, and the second being that it was written at a time which was just right to be publishing order challenging controversial works. After seeing the liberal benefits to man that the use of the printing press had brought, and the world of possibilities it offered, Machiavelli struck the first blow against the stifling and corrupt order of the age.

His publication of political thought and theory which was refreshingly devoid of religious dogma or even quotations, preceded the publication of that other world changing document by three or four years: Luther's pinning of the ninety five thesis to a Church door a few hundred miles north in an area still ruled by edicts pumped out by prelates living closer to Machiavelli. This was exactly the right time to be reaching the learned men of the world with anything revolutionary in tone, and well presented and researched contradictions of established thought were very lible to strike a chord with many. In other words, many people by this time had clearly had all they could stomach of the seething hypocrisy they witnessed being displayed by the Lord's own servants, in the church and consequently in the monarchy led governments of the age. To be spouting their harsh godfearing edicts out to the uneducated masses when the vast majority of them enjoyed the sins they were loudly proscribing the common populace from having, was all a bit rich for certain educated but strong minded men like Machiavelli and Luther. The time was very ripe for a wind of change, and even the corrupt but mighty church of Rome knew it, and feared it.

Machievelli simply took a different line to Luther, perhaps not least because he was far more used to living with these ruler's inconsistencies than the more morally outraged teutonic man of God was. Where Luther got all spiritual and quoted the many edicts from scripture that the church of Rome was blatantly abusing, Machiavelli simply plotted the practical lines for a prostective leader of state to follow, quoting the works of historians and statesmen who had written about both the world's most successful leaders and its least successful leaders, as a practical handbook on how to be a successful head of state. Both of their actions though were brave, and both of them catastrophic to the cosy order of things and to the power of the once mighty Catholic Church. Humanity owes both of these great men an enormous debt, for their brave and insightful works helped breathe a real wind of change to the way the human race had been living.

The virtues of Machiavelli, 03 Feb 2005
In the course of my political science training, I studied at great length the modern idea of realpolitik. In that study I came to realise that it was somewhat incomplete, without the companionship of The Prince, by Niccolo Machiavelli, a Florentine governmental official in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. The Prince is an oft quoted, oft mis-quoted work, used as the philosophical underpinning for much of what is considered both pragmatic and wrong in politics today. To describe someone as being Machiavellian is to attribute to the person ruthless ambition, craftiness and merciless political tactics. Being believed to be Machiavellian is generally politically incorrect. Being Machiavellian, alas, can often be politically expedient.

Machiavelli based his work in The Prince upon his basic understanding of human nature. He held that people are motivated by fear and envy, by novelty, by desire for wealth, power and security, and by a hatred of restriction. In the Italy in which he was writing, democracy was an un-implemented Greek philosophical idea, not a political structure with a history of success; thus, one person's power usually involved the limitation of another person's power in an autocratic way.

Machiavelli did not see this as a permanent or natural state of being -- in fact, he felt that, during his age, human nature had been corrupted and reduced from a loftier nobility achieved during the golden ages of Greece and Rome. He decided that it was the corrupting influence of Christianity that had reduced human nature, by its exaltation of meekness, humility, and otherworldliness.

Machiavelli has a great admiration for the possible and potential, but finds himself inexorably drawn to the practical, dealing with situations as they are, thus becoming an early champion of realpolitik carried forward into this century by the likes of Kissinger, Thatcher, Nixon, and countless others. One of the innovations of Machiavelli's thought was the recognition that the prince, the leader of the city/state/empire/etc., was nonetheless a human being, and subject to all the human limitations and desires with which all contend.

Because the average prince (like the average person) is likely to be focussed upon his own interests, a prince's private interests are generally in opposition to those of his subjects. Fortunate is the kingdom ruled by a virtuous prince, virtue here not defined by Christian or religious tenets, but rather the civic virtue of being able to pursue his own interests without conflicting those of his subjects.

Virtue is that which increases power; vice is that which decreases power. These follow Machiavelli's assumptions about human nature. Machiavelli rejected the Platonic idea of a division between what a prince does and what a prince ought to do. The two principle instruments of the prince are force and propaganda, and the prince, in order to increase power (virtue) ought to employ force completely and ruthlessly, and propaganda wisely, backed up by force. Of course, for Machiavelli, the chief propaganda vehicle is that of religion.

Whoever reads Roman history attentively will see in how great a degree religion served in the command of the armies, in uniting the people and keeping them well conducted, and in covering the wicked with shame.

Machiavelli has been credited with giving ruthless strategies (the example of a new political ruler killing the deposed ruler and the ruler's family to prevent usurpation and plotting is well known) -- it is hard to enact many in current politics in a literal way, but many of his strategies can still be seen in electioneering at every level, in national and international relations, and even in corporate and family internal 'politics'. In fact, I have found fewer more Machiavellian types than in church politics!

Of course, these people would be considered 'virtuous' in Machiavellian terms -- doing what is necessary to increase power and authority.

The title of this piece -- the virtues of Machiavelli, must be considered in this frame; certainly in no way virtuous by current standards, but then, it shows, not all have the same standards. Be careful of the words you use -- they may have differing definitions.

Perhaps if Machiavelli had lived a bit later, and been informed by the general rise of science as a rational underpinning to the world, he might have been able to accept less of a degree of randomness in the universe. Perhaps he would have modified his views. Perhaps not -- after all, the realpolitikers of this age are aware of the scientific framework of the universe, and still pursue their courses.

This is an important work, intriguing in many respects. Far shorter than the average classical or medieval philosophical tome, and more accessible by current readers because of a greater familiarity with politics than, say, metaphysics or epistemology, this work yields benefits and insights to all who read, mark, inwardly digest, and critically examine the precepts.

Ruthless, 28 Oct 2004
The Prince... well its difficult to describe exactly what it entails. I think to start with all who consider going into politics or any kind of management role should be handed a copy of this book at the same time as they recieve their application forms. It is ruthless but efficient also and so its central premises should always be remembered, particularly by our governing bodies.
Machiavelli writes with a self assurance which is refreshing in an age of hesitation and self correction.
I'm not convinced that this was a life changing book for me to read, it certainly affected my attitudes and values but is not a inspirational self help book (not that its supposed to be).
I recommend this to anyone who has an interest in history or in politics.

A prince among men., 14 Oct 2003
Machiavelli's realisation of the true nature of men as "...fickle,lying,cowards..." leads him in his brilliantly astute work to illuminate the realities of government and life in general.
Disregarding all political theorie's and ideaoligies machiavelli refreshingly deals with how things are and not how they should.
While on first glance machiavellis work would seem almost evil in its implications as it has been labeled countless times, a deeper look would show it to be more humane and considerate of human wellbeing then any half baked political ideology (communism, Republicanism,democracy etc). His assertion that the ends justifies the means is a good demonstration of this as Machiavelli demonstrates through historical analogies the truth of life in general: for people to prosper others have to suffer. In truthfully explaining this and insisting it be done quickly and totaly for it to be over and done with machiavelli shows a level of compasion far greater than any bleeding hearted liberal vegaterian (the most likely to be opposed to his assertions)
His work while being what many would labels as deeply cinical is niether cinical nor idealogical but an honest assesment of life in general as well as politics, which cannot help but uplift those of the same frame of mind with the comfort of nowing that the realisation that the world is a very unhappy place is not theres alone.
But if you truly believe in the hollywood view of the world in which love is blind and happy endings happen for every one than don't read this book (ignorance is bliss).

ONE OF THE TEN BEST BOOKS EVER, 25 Jul 2003
Here are some BASIC, UTMOST IMPORTANT and UNIVERSAL REMARKS for those that start reading Niccolò Machiavelli, be it IL PRINCIPE or his DISCORSI SOPRA LA PRIMA DECA DI TITO LIVIO, better known as "The DISCOURSES", giving a very original political comment on the first ten books of Titus Livius.
** Machiavelli's IDEA'S are NOT a close-fitting nor a rounded down system: who thinks elsehow will get into overlasting problems.
** The "Secretarius Florentinus" is NOT a SYSTEMATIC philosopher in the scholastic sense of the word: he DOESN'T WORRY whether the question or idea he describes is IN CONCORDANCE with notions or opinions written down elsewhere. Therefore lots of statements can but difficultly be brought in accordance to the former AND can even bring CRITICISM INTO TROUBLE. This is of far lesser importance while these incongruities are merely touching the general points of departure of his work, instead of the distinct parts of his arguments. You can notice this through his LOGIC (as strong as iron!!) and an IRREFUTABLE CONSEQUENCE.
** Machiavelli stays A-MORAL in Il Principe, just as nature is: not judging about good and bad, not influenced by a religion or anything else!! I know people have problems with this last "way of writing, thinking", BUT this is the most important factor that makes his work so IMMENSELY UNIVERSAL ...

There are TWO CENTRAL THEMES in this work: POLITICS and THE PROBLEMS THAT ARE CONNECTED WITH THE NOTION, THE CONCEPT "POWER".

The Prince is a flaming and militant political piece of writing in which the author is not only rationally, but also emotionally 'present' with the full power of his personality. Machiavelli's ideas are closely related to the general philosophical concept of the Renaissance. His vision too is antropocentric: the only right to exist man has, is present in man himself AND in the realisation of the self in this world.
The author is the FOUNDER of the political science(s): nobody before him had considered that politics are a single, separate science, free of any moral or religion.
In his system he isolates the technical bias (read: orientation) on what is politically useful from the moral and theological aspect of kindness and justice. He defines sharply THE PURPOSE that one wants to reach, to achieve and THEN, starting from the situation in which a (the) person stands, WEIGHS UP THE PROS AND CONS (on a rational-technical basis) OF THE MEANS THAT LEAD TO THE PURPOSE, WHICH MEANS THOSE "ARE", DOES NOT MATTER ( = AMORAL). A means of reason that is MORALLY BAD, can be GOOD FOR POLITICS and VICE VERSA ... !

Instead of talking about The Prince, it is only correct to use the word RULER: the crucial person in this work. For Macchiavelli it was Cesare BORGIA, for Nietzsche it was NAPOLEON, who REALLY slept with Il Principe (he understood the book very well).
Too many readers are misled by words as 'fortune, virtue': in the Middle-Italian (very difficult, even for specialists) the author uses the words 'FORTUNA' and 'VIRTÙ': these two words (f.e.) have NOTHING OF LITTLE IN COMMON with fortune and virtue or virtus. There are about 23 POSSIBLE TRANSLATIONS FOR THE WORD 'VIRTÙ'...

To be a good ruler is not easy. In 26 short chapters the biggest philosopher of the 16th century, Macchiavelli, describes what the ruler can and/or should do ... to stay 'the ruler', not to lose the power he/she has, in absence of moral and religion: amoral! THAT IS DIFFICULT TO MAINTAIN: JUST LOOK AROUND, LISTEN TO THE NEWS, THINK ABOUT GLOBAL PROBLEMS: EVERYWHERE YOU'LL MEET NICCOLÃ’ MACCHIAVELLI, WAVING WITH HIS HAND TO YOU AND TRYING TO MAKE YOU AND US FREE FROM PREJUDICES, WHISPERING WHAT WE SHOULD DO OR NOT.

I have read several editions of 'THE PRINCE', but have only one that stays with me since decades now: I read and keep on reading about our ruler forever, so my book will stay with me too.
LAST NOTE: The saying "The end justifies the means" is NOT from Macchiavelli; it already existed for a few centuries.

Fascinating and very enjoyable read, 06 Aug 2008
I knew nothing about the Mitfords before borrowing this book from my mum. I found it highly compelling, especially all the references to the many influential and varied people of the 20th century. It is also very sad at times, especially the harsh realities of the passage of time. This collection of letters has been carefully chosen to tell the reader the Mitfords' story but in the words of the girls themselves.

A big adventure from start to finish!!, 03 Aug 2008
This book is a truly wonderful read and I would totally recommend it. I didn't know much about the Mitfords before I read the book, but afterwards I was desperate to find out everything I could!

It takes a while to get to grips with who is who - but before long you are sucked into the world of the 'Hons and Rebels' and you don't want to leave!!

Its a rollercoaster of emotions from start to finish, and the fact that it is real life is the icing on the cake.


A truly mixed bag, 02 Aug 2008
This is a difficult book to review. The editing is very well done. The layout it clear and the letters' contents are usually well annotated (though I wish this had been more continuous - should the reader be expected to remember that "Edwina" on page x is the same as that on page y, who is annotated on page z?)

The contents, though, are another matter. Despite some snippets of very interesting material, for example Unity's accounts of her meetings with Adolf Hitler, rather too many of the letters rarely rise above the mundane, superficial and vacuous. How interesting can it be, just reading that long-dead famous person dined with other long-dead famous person, page after page? Nancy's letters are a case in point. She clearly wrote far better prose than her sisters, but the level rarely rose above an obsession with her wardrobe and the weather.

This is, of course a function of the fact that these women were a product of their class and their age, and I have little interest in, or time for, any of them personally except Jessica, who actually made the effort to cut herself of from the shallowness and to work to actually make a difference. Too much of the time of the others was taken up by bemoaning their lot (only two servants, three houses etc.) or by listing their famous friends.

Only as late middle age drew upon the women did their letters (and punctuation!) improve. This is clearly an important source of material and needed to be put into the public domain, but for long stretches it is also truly disappointing.

The Unconventional Mitford Sisters, 26 May 2008
Life would be incredibly boring without unconventional people. The Mitford's were such an interesting family. The sisters, frequently referred to as "notorious," were pre and post war celebrities, collectively carving a niche in English history. Nancy Mitford's witty writing is as readable now as in the past. Of her novels, I'm particularly fond of "The Pusuit of Love," and "Love in a Cold Climate." Nancy adroitly lampooned the aristocracy.

It's the support of fascism by Unity Mitford, who was infatuated with Hitler; and Diana Mitford's marriage to Sir Oswald Mosley, leader of the British Fascists, which even now hasn't been forgiven. In the war years, Diana had the title "the most loathed woman in England". Although Mosley was an arrogant man and a womaniser, she loyally remained faithful. Jessica Mitford, also a writer, eloped with her communist lover to the USA. Mostly, Nancy is the one I had previously known more of through her writing.

Of the six, Nancy, Jessica, Deborah and Diana, are the more interesting sisters. Pamela the most obscure. The only sister living is gentle Deborah, the Dowager Duchess of Devonshire. She also writes, and transformed Chatsworth with her husband.

The editor, Charlotte Mosley, provides essential background information to the letters. That makes those more interesting reading. The Mitford girls, gossipy, intimate family letters span the 20th century. Much has been written about the Mitford's over the years. Unlike others, Charlotte Mosley had access to 12,000 family letters. Five percent are included in the book.

What makes the Mitford's so fascinating? They were not the wealthiest aristocratic family. They were, however, well connected to other titled and famous people. The sisters lived through the worst and the best of times, becoming embedded in the fabric of British social history. In terms of women's history, they have a rightful place. Like others in their time, they cut through the conventions of how upper class women should be. As to any family eccentricity, that more appropriately applies to their father, and fanatical tragic sister Unity. Charlotte Mosley's book is an erudite addition to the Mitford family saga.



Ladies of letters, 22 May 2008
The Mitford sisters were notorious for beauty & scandal. Diana married Oswald Mosley, leader of the British Union of Fascists & one of the most hated men of the 20th century. Unity had a passion for Hitler, lived in Germany during the 1930s & was so distraught at the outbreak of WWII that she attempted suicide. Jessica was a Communist, running away with a young man to the Spanish Civil War & spent much of her life in America. Nancy was a novelist with a waspish sense of humour who lived in France & was unhappily in love with a man who would never marry her. Pamela loved the country life but became increasingly eccentric in later life. Deborah married the Duke of Devonshire, and turned Chatsworth into one of the most popular stately homes in Britain. The letters between the sisters span almost the whole 20th century & are a fascinating look at life for the upper classes. The relationships between the sisters go through good & bad times. Jessica refused to speak to Diana for decades because of her disgust at her politics. Nancy informed against Diana during WWII which led to her being interned & separated from her children. After the death of their mother in 1963, Deborah became the centre of the correspondence, and she is the most likeable & stable of the sisters. Happy in her marriage & with the great work of transforming Chatsworth, she is the link between the sisters as they grow older.

A book of two halves, 09 Oct 2008
For the most part, this book is entertaining and witty. Maconie's enthusiam for his subject is contagious and the stuff you are learning is genuinely interesting. Then he stops writing about Lancashire and starts on Yorkshire.

I can't help but think that this book would have been better if Maconie had stuck to what he knows, ie: the west side of the Pennines. Quite how, for example, he can make various claims about 'professional Yorkshiremen' (a dying breed anyway) and deny the existence of the Lancastrian equivalent is an unforgivable oversight that kind of gives away where Maconie's loyalties lie. They are not called 'professional Lancastrians' as such, but how many 'professional Scousers' and 'professional Mancs' could we name? Is Stuart Maconie's beloved Peter Kay not a great example of a professional Lancastrian? There's nothing wrong with that, and while such matters don't ruin the book, there is a real difference in Pies and Prejudice between the writing about Cheshire and Lancashire and the writing about the rest of 'the North'.

That, and a few errors that half-decent any sub would have picked up, aside, the book largely does what it sets out to do: entertain. Southerners that aren't as touchy as this reviewer will probably enjoy it all the more too.

Entertaining and perceptive, 28 Aug 2008
This is a superb book; although it has the appearance of belonging to the recently emerged sub genre of humorous and slightly outrageous travel writing, it quickly become apparent that there's far more to it than that. Maconie takes us on a selective tour of the North of England, visiting both his old haunts and other key areas, such as Liverpool, Harrogate and other parts of Yorkshire. Along the way, there are recollections of various amusing personal incidents and a stock of good one-liners, but alongside these, there's a depth of historical, cultural, political and social information and analysis, which is both well researched and convincingly argued. Well worth reading.

Whose pies are they?, 21 Aug 2008
I was on a cruise and the comedian was Bobby Bennett. In a question and answer session someone mentioned that he had been mentioned in Stuart Maconie's Pies and Prejudice as he was the compare of Junior Showtime in the 1970s with people like Bonnie Langford and Pauline Quirke.

That led me to read this book. The jokes about the north south divided is a bit of a cliche for comedians but the cliches are all we can go on without any facts. This book goes someway towards giving us some facts.

He story about the Wigan liking of pies is quite good.

A Bolton man who breathlessly tells his workman from Wigan about a new lunchtime offer at local pub

" A pie , a pint and a woman for 80p" The Wiganer seems unimpressed 80p repeats his workmate excitedly
H'm declares the Wiganer warily " Whose pies are they?"

He went to Blackpool when he was young and said when on the train he took out a book and began to read. the whole carriage looked at him as if he had taken out a cuckoo clock or a lacrosse stick.

I learnt that Roger Whittaker had got it all wrong in the song Durham Town (the leavin') he said he sat on the banks of the river Tyne whereas it should have been the Wear.

I have visited quite a few of the places he mentions but only briefly. It makes me want to visit them all again. A perceptive look at the north by someone who knows what he is talking about.

He should now do a similar book about the south

He says the BBC has A northern correspondent and that it would be laughable if anyone thought they should have southern correspondent. the South views the North as some sort of foreign country that has to be explained to from London and the home counties.

A good read and I have ordered his Cider with Roadies. Well recommended.





Well written, enjoyable and informative, 12 Aug 2008
Overall I enjoyed reading this book and as others have said it certainly has inspired me to visit some of the places described. I liked the author's writing style and most of all I found most of the historical detail interesting and educational. However after reading through relatively huge sections on Liverpool, Manchester and Wigan I was disappointed to see places like Sheffield glossed over very briefly - surely Sheffield has more to offer than the time he spent discussing the National Museum of Pop Music?

YES THERE IS A NORTH - SOUTH DIVIDE: WE CAN LAUGH AT OURSELVES AND SOUTHERNERS CAN'T!, 01 Aug 2008
BRILLIANT READ. OK - if you know the places Stuart writes about (I know the exact chippy he talks about down the road from Crewe station!) it helps but even if you don't and have never ventured north of Chalfont St Witless, it's still a great read. The two one star reviewers from "Darn Sarth" are obviously miffed at the fact that no-one can be bothered to write about "southerners" because, as Maconie points out early on in the book, there is not the strong identification of "being a southerner" as there is for those of us north of..well, according to Stuart it's north of Stoke.

It pokes fun of the north and does ask some tough questions at times but more than anything else, it is a great travelogue. Strike a light, Guv, you can't ask fairer than that....

A clear book in French, 09 Jan 2008
I would like to say that I read this book in French, and that it is very legible. I haven't read the English version, but I would like to do so, following the allegations that Barthes wrote pretentiously. In French, his verbs, nouns and adjectives are incisive and often very funny. Each sentence carries one or numerous clear, often witty ideas. Overall, it's very clearly written, though some may find it pretentious.

Sentences in French tend to be longer, through the use of commas, semicolons, and transitions which one may have a hard time translating. I agree that the second part, Myth Today, is more difficult to understand, perhaps because it is an abstraction, a theorization of the first part.

A Vacation From Reality...If You Fall For Barthes' Argument..., 08 Jan 2008
To begin I think it neccesary to comment on the book itself, or, to