Mansfield University Books

Mansfield has written the perfect reference book for upcoming term papers on Machiavelli. His analysis of Machiavelli's writings is insightful and innovative. However, the book is written is a very formal style that makes it difficult to appreciate the interpretation that Mansfield puts forth. This is definitely not a book that one takes to the beach for some casual reading. That is a shame, because Mansfield's conclusions have practical implications for the modern politician or executive. Unfortunately, the dense style makes this book attractive only to academics

Nowhere easy to read, occasionally repetitive, but a masterpiece nonetheless. The second best book ever written about Machiavelli. Mansfield makes a claim so bold as to seem reckless. But the more time one spends checking it out, the truer it appears.

Some ideas and themes that Mansfield elucidates seem to have never been discovered by other scholars, much less elucidated. And no one does a better job of explaining the details of Machiavelli's politics and the actual institutions he recommends.

These nine stories feature various gentle, usually innocent main characters who are faced with dilemmas or knowledge that even they do not often understand. The stories are well-written. They are touchingly understated. Their gentleness amplifies the almost-hidden pain of the characteres. Somehow, the veneer of innocence in the stories makes the hints of ugliness even more shocking. These stories are enigmatic glimpses into the real world.

A true BBC drama, filled with love, mystery and wonder. A delight to watch all the characters interact and find their way. Not a disappointment.

I loved the book, just liked this movie. True to the book, but the movie was long and poorly made. For fans of the book only. If you have not read the book you will not like this movie. The film making is not the best in the world but is does the job of telling the story. I think that Sylvestra did a good job of portraying Fanny. A little different, when she cries she goes a little overboard, but I think that was how Fanny was intended to be.

I bought the set of Jane Austen movies produced by the BBC. So far, I have watched "Mansfield Park", "Sense and Sensibility" and "Emma". Of those, both "Mansfield Park" and "Sense and Sensibility" are excellent though the former is much truer to the book. In the later, the youngest sister is left out of the story.

In any case, I really enjoyed the production. Mrs. Norris was a true witch; Edmund was a moral and kind person; Fanny was demure, subservient, and kind through and through.

I loved the houses, the costumes and the acting. A little outdated, but that is to be expected. I saw the Miramax version just to compare the two productions, and was extremely disappointed--it was very trashy.

So far this is the best Mansfield Park video available - I watched the Masterpiece Theatre version(2*) and Miramax/BBC film version(<1*). This BBC version follows the story line very satisfactorily and the characters are well cast. A couple of changes I would suggest is an improvement in the make-up of Fanny Prices especially around the eyes. The Crawfords both look like they wore wigs and some how it doesn't agree with their eyes - that may be a lighting issue. There needs to be a better change in Mr. Crawford in the later portion of the video. When I finished the novel, I felt sorry for Mr. Crawford in his lacking a "better inner guide" yet the video did not leave me with that feeling. I would also suggest adding one additional scene. That of William's story telling giving emphasis on how Sir Thomas much approves of William, how Mr Crawford is a bit jealous of William and all of his heroic experiences.

This is the best adaptation of Mansfield Park. If you were disappointed with the recent PBS offering, get this DVD. It is excellent, sticks closely to the novel and is witty and moral, just like Jane.

Professor Mansfield's thesis -- that manliness is a crucial and sorely neglected virtue -- is a great one. Don't expect a ringing defense in this book, however. His prose, regrettably, is so mincingly nuanced as to be practically unreadable, and is often laced with postmodern academese. I made it through one chapter before putting my copy up for sale and renewing my search for a full-throated treatment of the topic.

Only the very insecure would wish to read this book as those secure in themselves don't need to real who to be a 'real man' and with this, why men are 'superior' to women. Isn't this topic so tired, so worn out, only the pathetic would bother? The author has nothing new to add and worse, nothing of insight. The writing swings from topic to topic with nothing to form an accurate connection. The book is unreadable in many places, or, so irksome, so tiresome, there is little point in what amounts to nothing more than one man's tirade which, alas, does nothing for real men.

This book puts to words the thoughts I have always felt about the proper roles for husbands and wives, fathers and sons, men and women. Mansfield explains that ours is a man's world because men take risks in the face of danger. This risk-taking makes us natural leaders but it also makes us value the leadership of other men which is important when it comes time to be led. When you take risks, you stand alone against the world. This is a place women cannot go because they want to be liked and would rather go about forming consensuses than standing for righteousness.

I wrote a war-thriller, Foreign and Domestic: Campaign II--Battle for the Middle States. In it, my main character is a fighter pilot who not only has to battle in the air a superpower UN who has invaded America but he also has to battle a feminist wife and a rebellious son when he gets back on the ground. When developing these conflicts, I referred to Mansfield's book often as he alone seems to be the only one out there who can accurately enumerate the character of manly men and their roles in family and society.

That is not to say Mansfield's tome did not have its difficult parts. There are quite a few chapters where the professor gets quite erudite. But rather than whimper like a simpering sissy boy (i.e. a man who is not manly), I hiked up my drawers and waded right in. Manly men grow when they are challenged by things greater than them and they look down at those who don't share their values. For those who want nothing more than to be comfortable and secure and who also feel the need to champion women rather than their own sex, you will be mocked.

Harvey C. Mansfield does a great job at presenting the current ideology of the gender-neutral society proponent in both a contemporary and historical study. His insightfulness is particularly valuable by virtue of his no fluff, straight to the point presentation of the problems the gender-neutral society creates and his solutions (straight-forwardness should not be confused with being abrasive).

Manliness should be sought after and given a thorough read, especially given the fact that there are virtually no good novels in this genre. Manliness stands out and in many ways sets the precedent for contemporary, secular books on this subject.

This book is incredibly valuable and useful for anyone who is both open-minded and sincere. I highly recommend it to people of all stripes, whether it be the contemplative pastor, the father, the wife, the feminist, or the developing and maturing young man.

A book myself and my 30-something well-educated female friends can understand and relate to. Reason is, we are still single, living in Boston and wondering "Where are the men?" We grew up about 50 miles outside of Boston. Our fathers were blue-collar men who worked hard, valued the American dream, Clint Eastwood and John Wayne. A construction worker, lineman and mechanic. Big, brawny men who mowed the lawn, fixed the roof, fixed our bicycles, smoked a cigar, drank alcohol, chopped wood for the woodstove during the energy crisis, and valued a good pair of work boots that sat out on our porches because they were usually too dirty to come in the house. Us girls moved to Boston to broaden our horizons, yet realizing there are no cowboys here. I agree, men are confused. But we'd love to see a "Return of the Man." Thank you Mr. Mansfield. From a Simmons College grad...

Seller shipped and item was received before the estimate delivery date. Item in condition just as described.

Almost no notes or comments on compiled materials in the book. It is difficult to find keys to understand materials from this book without assistance from teachers or study guides. The materials themselves are instructive and interesting. The book becomes voluminous due to the appended rules and their notes. If one has a separate rule book, he/she has to spend more for the unnecessary appendix attached to this book.

Please note that there is both a tenth edition and an UPDATED tenth edition. They're virtually identical, but the updated edition has materials related to the Crawford case addressing the confrontation clause.

The problem with Mansfield, other than his Straussian proclivity (a troubling method of political-philosophical interpretation of texts), is that when he writes, he is intentionally wordy and difficult. He acknowledged as much in his translation of Tocqueville's Democracy In America. Indeed, he believes in the Straussian notion of esoteric textual knowledge, and writes to this end: you are supposed to find the true meaning of his work below the surface of his extremely verbose, unnecessarily difficult prose.

He is naturally hailed by only a small cadre of supporters (usually neoconservative) who are on the fringes of academia for a reason. I studied at Hillsdale College under a professor who was a graduate student under Mansfield, and not one moment was spent trying to justify his methods, because, really, they can't be justified.

Although there are indeed insightful observations to be found when Mansfield writes about Machiavelli especially, the chapter on Aristotle is simply inscrutable. This book is not worth your time, and if it is required reading for a political science course, you have my sympathies.

The Straussian political theorist Harvey C. Mansfield's Taming the Prince: The Ambivalence of Modern Executive Power describes the development of executive power as a kind of banalization of the "energies" of the dictator or sovereign. This is a fun but sometimes glib treatment of the connection between "executive" and "emergency" powers. In Federalist 70, Alexander Hamilton refers to the "energy in the executive" that was embodied in the Roman dictator. (Note: "energy" not "violence.") For Locke, "prerogative" was not synonymous with "privileges" that monarchs customarily enjoyed. It was extraordinary, unconstitutional but legitimacy through necessity and "public good." Hamilton moved to constitutionalize Executive energy. The anti-federalists, by contrast, took up the liberal tradition of excoriating the institution by invoking Sulla and Caesar, who broke from the classical model of dictatorship in favor of unilateral rule without limits.

The ideas of "taming" and "unleashing" in this context hold an intuitive appeal, Mansfield explains the development of executive power as a kind of banalization of the "energies" of the dictator or sovereign. Others, such as Rossiter and Schmitt, have explained emergency powers as an unleashing of these same energies. Parallels can be drawn between my account of the classical traditions of emergency powers and Mansfield's discussion of the emergence of executive power out of the same traditions. Executive power is in some sense a banalization or taming of the energies of the dictatorship; emergency powers are in some sense an unleashing of these same energies. The illiberal analogy to this same process is not "taming" but rather "concealing" the energies. This is present to an extent in Mansfield's account, perhaps through Strauss, and certainly in Schmitt.

Mansfield deals with a wide array of conceptions of executive power in this very complex yet brilliantly comprehensive examination. If you want to know why the American executive faces its current problems of ambivalence and demagoguery, read "Taming the Prince" to find the difficult theoretical answers

The Trespasser is the tragic tale of Siemund, a music teacher with an unhappy family life, and his student, who becomes his lover. It isn't a worthless book, but your time would definately be better spent reading one of the famous Lawrence books - this is clearly the creation of a young, impressionable mind. For instance, Lawrence makes constant reference to Wagner's 'Ring' in the book, rubbing the reader's nose profusely in heavyhanded hints that Siemund is borrowed from the German composer's work.