Everand Logo

Welcome to Everand!

  • Discover millions of ebooks, audiobooks, and so much more with a free trial

    Only $11.99/month after trial. Cancel anytime.

    The Prince
    The Prince
    The Prince
    Audiobook3 hours

    The Prince

    Written by Niccolò Machiavelli

    Narrated by Fritz Weaver

    4/5

    ()

    Switch to ebook

    About this audiobook

    "This political science classic still has the power to shock, just as it did when first published almost five hundred years ago. Fritz Weaver reads in an appropriately detached manner, for it is this air of objectivity regarding the ruthless pursuit of political power that has made Machiavelli's name synonymous with evil. This quality recording begins and ends with ceremonial music, which sets the right tone for a treatise directed to royalty. A masterpiece of prophecy, psychological insight, and forceful prose, The Prince is a classic of realpolitik, stunningly relevant to our times.
    LanguageEnglish
    PublisherHighbridge Company
    TranslatorGeorge Bull
    Release dateDec 14, 2006
    ISBN9781598874457
    Author

    Niccolò Machiavelli

    Niccolò Machiavelli was born on 3 May 1469 in Florence during the city-state's peak of greatness under the Medici family. In 1494, the year the Medici were exiled, Machiavelli entered Florentine public service. In 1498 he was appointed Chancellor and Secretary to the Second Chancery. Serving as a diplomat for the republic, Machiavelli was an emissary to some of the most distinguished people of the age. When the Medici were returned to Florence in 1512, Machiavelli was forced into retirement. In the years that followed he devoted himself to literature, producing not only his most famous work, The Prince, but also the Discourses on the First Decade of Titus Livius (First Decade here means First Ten Books), his Art of War and The History of Florence. In 1527 the Medici were once again expelled from Florence, but before Machiavelli was able once again to secure political office in the city he died on 22 June 1527.

    More audiobooks from Niccolò Machiavelli

    Related to The Prince

    Related audiobooks

    History & Theory For You

    View More
    View More

    Related podcast episodes

    Related articles

    • Article

      Niccolò Machiavelli

      Feb 28, 2020

      Hailed as the father of modern politics, Niccolò Machiavelli has long been synonymous with everything bad about the political sphere. His name, turned adjective as ‘Machiavellian’, conjures up images of a cunning, sly and manipulative figure, hell-be

      5 min read

    • Article

      Catherine Fletcher

      Dec 31, 2020

      Catherine Fletcher
      4 min read

    • Article

      Machiavelli And The Medici

      Jun 17, 2021

      Machiavelli And The Medici
      1 min read

    • Article

      Betrayal Of The Knights Templar

      Jan 31, 2024

      Betrayal Of The Knights Templar
      11 min read

    • Article

      Charles V

      Feb 28, 2020

      Charles V
      8 min read

    • Article

      ● Rise Of The ● Medicis

      Jun 17, 2021

      ● Rise Of The ● Medicis
      11 min read

    • Article

      The Ethics Of Political Power

      Jul 30, 2018

      The Ethics Of Political Power
      3 min read

    • Article

      Elizabeth At War

      Dec 5, 2019

      Elizabeth At War
      11 min read

    • Article

      A Way With Words

      Nov 11, 2023

      A Way With Words
      3 min read

    • Article

      Cult Of The SUN KING

      Nov 7, 2019

      Cult Of The SUN KING
      12 min read

    • Article

      'The Family Medici' Vividly And Clearly Tells The Story Of One Clan's Merciless Self-aggrandizement

      Mar 28, 2018

      The Medici men and women portrayed by Mary Hollingsworth are generous art patrons, but always with the end goal of burnishing their own reputations and making Florence their sole possession.

      3 min read

    • Article

      A Leader Is Born

      Sep 2, 2021

      A Leader Is Born
      8 min read

    • Article

      'A Bold and Dangerous Family' Ably Chronicles One Italian Family's Battle Against Mussolini

      Oct 5, 2017

      Moorehead, who grew up in Italy and speaks Italian, portrays the trials and intrigues of the Rosselli clan in intimate detail.

      3 min read

    • Article

      Nazi Terror In Rome

      Aug 13, 2020

      Nazi Terror In Rome
      6 min read

    • Article

      The other Napoleon

      Jan 12, 2024

      The other Napoleon
      2 min read

    • Article

      Greatest Popes

      Dec 31, 2020

      Born Francesco della Rovere, the Sistine Chapel was built under his papacy. He also helped found the Vatican Library. But when it came to politics, Sixtus was unlucky. He waged war to gain Ferrara for his nephew, but lost, and he piled money and titl

      3 min read

    • Article

      The Many Faces Of Napoleon

      Nov 23, 2023

      The Many Faces Of Napoleon
      13 min read

    • Article

      The World Of Louis Ix

      May 5, 2023

      Louis IX, who came to the throne twelve years later, was heir to these developments, and he reigned for the better part of half a century, during the most vibrant decades of the thirteenth century. His reign, initially aided by the regency of his for

      11 min read

    • Article

      A Byzantine Emperor In Europe

      Nov 11, 2023

      Perhaps Manuel gazed upon the fading silhouette of Constantinople from the ship's deck, wondering when—if ever—he would return to his capital. Constantinople was besieged by the Ottomans and likely to fall without military assistance. Indeed, this wa

      6 min read

    • Article

      The Rise Of Napoleon

      Nov 2, 2023

      The Rise Of Napoleon
      10 min read

    Related categories

    Reviews for The Prince

    4/5

    76 ratings53 reviews

    What did you think?

    Tap to rate

    Review must be at least 10 words

    • 4/5
      Bombastic at times, though quite entertaining. Still not sure when Tupac is coming back.

      1 person found this helpful

    • 4/5
      Despite the aura that has grown up around this book, I don't think it's as shocking to readers in the 21st century as it evidently was to those in the early 16th; it seems pretty much "politics as usual." In fact, it seems refreshingly honest about politics, never attempting to obscure the acquisition and maintenance of power with claims of high or noble purposes.I also found it interesting that...at least as far as I was concerned...there was a connotation to the term 'Machiavellian' that was a bit more self-interested than the philosophy he actually espouses.This is definitely a book worth recommending.
    • 3/5
      Extremely Machiavellian. But actually tamer than one expects.
    • 4/5
      This is an excellent book. It is straightforward and easy to read. It was a political treatise that offered advice on how a prince could gain and keep power. The book is actually dedicated to one of the Medici family members. Many people belive the reason he did this was to win favor of Lorenzo de’ Medici, then-governor of Florence. Machiavelli was involved with politics but had lost his job so he had hoped to land a position within the Florentine government. Unfortuantely, this plan did not work for him. This is a great book and everyone should read it.
    • 5/5
      I should have read this book (free for Kindle) years ago. Machiavelli's works on ancient history came up frequently in a different book I read recently, and he has been cited in several other books on my lists. Alas, I've now read this work. I find some of the oft-cited passages I hear are somewhat taken out of context.

      The version I read had a brief biographical sketch of Machiavelli, which was helpful. Machiavelli is foremost a historian, so he cites examples of rulers and conflicts both from Florentine and Italian history, the current Ottoman state, Greco-Roman history, and the Bible.

      He starts by looking at the failures of statecraft-- how a monarch can lose a state which he has conquered or inherited. Louis XII was one such object of failure in his aims on Italian provinces. He talks of how one holds a free Republic, you either have to destroy it or make it a tributary while encouraging development of an oligarchy there to maintain defacto control. This seems like it's played out accurately in world history.

      Machiavelli's "it's better to be feared than loved" is in the context of a Prince who takes a territory who was originally not his own. There will likely be unrest, so the advice is to do some large act of cruel suppression up front to quell dissent and then do small acts of benevolence over time to keep the populace pacified. If a ruler drags out the cruelty, he will breed hatred which is the ultimate failure of a monarch. The ruler must appear to be capable of both cruelty and mercy, so that he appeals more broadly, and where possible he should have an underling be the "bad cop" enforcer. It'd be best to be both feared and loved, but you will always have to give one of those up and it's best to give up love. The great projects of history, according to Machiavelli, were done by rulers who were remembered to be mean and not kind.

      It's always a bad idea to rely on foreign mercenaries for your army. Machiavelli marks the decline of Rome with the hiring of Goths to do soldiering at the cost of the Roman army. France was making the same mistake in relying on Swiss mercenaries at the time of his writing. Building fortresses are of no defense when the people hate you.

      A ruler has to be "liberal" in his spending. Games and welfare for the people, benefits for the standing army. This is obviously hard to do unless you're conquering and expropriating-- otherwise you bankrupt your treasury. The Prince gains glory and reputation by accomplishing big tasks-- namely conquering territories and enriching the kingdom.

      The Prince should also seem to be a man of integrity. The great rulers abandon virtue when they have to-- sometimes they have to break their word in order to protect their position or the state. This is acceptable so long as not done in such a away that the people despise him. The prince should be virtuous but also know how and when to get his hands dirty.

      A Prince should have a few advisors that he listens to and that he rewards for speaking honestly and openly; he should ignore all other opinion. The Prince should always make sure his advisors and viceroys know that their positions-- their wealth, authority, and very lives-- are at the whim of the Prince so that they don't go seeking their own gain or become corrupt.

      A Prince is someone who believes he has the power to shape world events, that everything isn't left to "fortune" or random chance forces of history. He yields that authority and has other men follow him.

      I enjoyed this book, it's obviously a 5 star classic.
    • 4/5
      Read this simply because I had heard interesting things and it was indeed an interesting read with some interesting themes and ideas. A must for anyone considering politics.
    • 4/5
      Now understand why it's a classic 
    • 4/5
      To many autodidacts, this book is a bible of political science, a gross misconception that reinforces the cynical view of politics perpetuated in popular culture. This wouldn't bother me if it weren't for the fact that people read the Prince, and then think there's no other bibles to political science. The Prince is to modern political theory what Sun Tzu is to Clausewitz's Von Krieg. It has come before, and is useful for tracing a linear path and building upon what comes before, but if you're a complete neophyte to political science and think this comes packed with all the answers, you're grossly off the mark, and your time would better be spent on John Locke's Second Treatise (which actually is a lighter read), Hobbes' Leviathan, Marx's First and Third Manuscripts, Burke's Reflections, or Rosseau's Social Contract. Highly recommended for political scientists to see the origin of their discipline.
    • 5/5
      This is a book that has been sitting on the shelf of my set of Great Books of the Western World since before I started college. That and the fact that it was written in the 1500's surely qualify it as a TOME. It is a very short book which made great changes in the thinking about political statecraft. His book is a frank discussion of the use of immoral means to achieve the goals of The Prince.For Machiavelli the sole goal of the Prince was to obtain power and hold it. Using historical models he sets out the most effective means to attain this end. The nobles and the people are the two forces that hold political power in the State as he sees it. Machiavelli goes into detail about how to deal with each of these. The nobles have their own bases of power and act in their pursuit of their own interests. For this reason it is important for the Prince that they fear him rather than love him.In his discussion on fortresses he makes the statement that the best fortress is the love of the people. A state that is prosperous and ruled fairly is the best way to achieve the love of the people. The Prince must also cultivate the love of the people through great achievements building a charisma that draws them to him.The art of war is a very important part of Machiavelli's discussion. Mercenaries are the most dangerous troops to use. They fight for their own reasons and are only loyal to the Prince as long as he is able to pay them. Auxiliary troops drawn from the people are more likely to remain loyal as long as their love for the Prince is constant.Machiavelli's ideas inaugurated modern politics and statecraft. His was original and unencumbered by the ideas of the past. He established new rules for the practice of statecraft. He was excoriated for his immorality but his ideas quickly gained precedence. Last year I read The Thirty Years War. Many of the principles set forth by Machiavelli appeared in the actions of the rulers in that war. They used mercenaries to a great extent and were often ruined by them. Morality was absent in their dealings with each other. They practiced the code of attaining power that Machiavelli established.
    • 4/5
      The definitive classic in binary political logic. But then as someone once said, there are 10 kinds of people, those who understand binary and those who don't.
    • 5/5
      It's easy to be a cynic about this book, but there is some very good psychological advice here. Such as, after a victory, make friends with your enemies, and you'll be able to trust them more than your allies, who now that you have won, will be looking to take advantage of you or overthrow you. Your enemies, on the other hand, will be grateful for your mercy.
    • 3/5
      Niccolo Machiavelli may represent the epitome of a politician born in the wrong age. Nowadays anyone as politically astute and accomplished as Machiavelli undoubtedly was would make sure that they had a slick PR team in place, ready to put a positive spin on their every utterance. Even then, things can come adrift. In recent years even as experienced a political operator as Peter, now Lord, Mandleson, New Labour spin doctor extraordinaire, though having a whole team of press consultants and PR men at his behest, found his ceaseless machinations earned him a reputation for duplicity and divisiveness, rendering him a hissing and a byword within his own party, let alone among his Conservative opponents. Yet even Lord Mandelson didn't suffer the vilification and revulsion that have attached themselves to Machiavelli over the last six centuries.

      The very word 'machiavellian' carries with it a heavy semantic weighting, with connotations of intricate and decidedly underhand plotting; shameful manoeuvres best left in the shadows, hidden from view. There is even a solid body of belief that ascribes the origin of the Devil's cognomen 'Old Nick' as a reference to Machiavelli's practice of the dark arts of political persuasion, and to this work in particular.

      Florence in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries may have been at the centre of the Renaissance, but it was also a hub of political and military activity. Machiavelli had held public office during the brief history of the Republic of Florence before the Medici dynasty reasserted itself. As so often befalls senior in times of violent regime change, Machiavelli found himself imprisoned and even tortured in 1512. It was in the years shortly after this that he wrote this work, an observation on the practical application of political rule. He is careful not to become bogged down in moral considerations. He is, instead, principally concerned with the establishment of a strong administration that can defend and maintain its borders and protect its people. The implication is that if military security can be established, the populace will benefit in the long run. His advice is, therefore, essentially dispassionate. He has studied politics in action during disturbed time, and synthesis his experience into a handbook for the ambitious ruler.

      He was clearly a scholar and shows great familiarity with the classics. His chapter on the impact of ruler who achieve their position as a consequence of crime is a distillation of Herodotus's life of Agathocles of Syracuse. Born the son of a potter, Agathocles combined courage and ambition with criminal intent, allying himself with the Carthaginians to establish himself as King of the Syracuse throne. Having stolen the throne, he established himself as a pragmatic and successful leader who protected his realm and people, and this reigned for several years in relative stability.

      His taste for pragmatism does occasionally lead him into blunt and even reckless assertions. Comments of the nature of, 'I say it would be splendid if one had a reputation for generosity; nonetheless, if you do earn a reputation for generosity then you will come to grief' can never constitute a popular manifesto!

      In the end, the question of whether he was evil and manipulative, or merely pragmatic, is really somewhat irrelevant. His book has survived for centuries, and offers a fascinating observation of the political life in a turbulent city state, caught between the Scylla of impending military intervention by the French and the Charybdys of an omnipresent Church that dominated everyday life.

      The translation that I read (which I bought more than thirty years ago while still at school) was that by George Bull, published by the Penguin Classics series in 1961, and it did seem rather dated in parts. The introduction offered lots of fascinating information about Machiavelli's life and the prevailing context against which he wrote, though I have seldom seen a scholarly tract that was so poorly written. Bull obviously poured all his efforts into the translation and just dashed the introduction off against a too tight deadline!
    • 5/5
      This is a classic and available in many translations. The one pictured above isn’t the one that I have, but it is probably close enough. Avoid ones with lots of commentary and dreck added. Read the true Nick and think for yourself. I first read this while in college, but for pleasure (don’t go there). Then I reread it for a history course several years later. I think that I got more out of it the second time around making it one of those fairly rare books with true reread potential. There is probably more here than I got out of it, but it isn’t my main period and there are other fish to fry...Even though Machiavelli was never a military commander, his grasp of the essentials of political strategy and it’s sometimes necessary extension, military force is excellent. This book is not for the whifty, politically correct whiners in the crowd, however. One must place this treatise in the context in which it was written, Machiavelli wrote this after being kicked out of office by Lorenzo de’ Medic in 1512. The Italy of his time was a collection of small city states at nearly constant war.The following quote sums things up quite nicely:"It must be understood, that a prince ... cannot observe all of those virtues for which men are reputed good, because it is often necessary to act against mercy, against faith, against humanity, against frankness, against religion, in order to preserve the state."
    • 3/5
      A classic, but a difficult read. I love the idea that Machiavelli's world is really no different to modern times.
    • 4/5
      A book still relevant today in the 21th century. Even if some of the described techniques are neither adviseable nor morally and legally possible in today's society.
    • 3/5
      I *think* this book is wicked, and I *hope* that all who choose to read it choose to see its wickedness.And I do *not* feel guilty for saying a book is Bad when I believe that its ideas would be harmful if employed against human beings. There is nothing heroic about being immoral, no matter what Shrewd Policies say so, or what Glorious Nation says so. Also, comparing Machiavelli to Baldassare Castiglione, as is often done, seems to me to be quite mad. Would it not be better to compare him with Hitler or Stalin or Mussolini or Nero or *any other Caesar*? Were not all these men Princes with a Capital P? I mean, if I were rating him based on how well he does as a propaganda writer for an imaginary dictatorship, I'd have said that he's done rather well with *all that*. But being a propaganda writer for an imaginary dictatorship is worthless, and being a real propaganda writer for a real dictorship is worse than worthless, is it not?But, oh, wait, I forgot, since it's written in a good style in some foreign original, and since its ideas would have helped the Florentine elite out-flank the Papacy and the French several eternities ago, we must surely make ourselves forget what fair flowers are trampled down into the earth by this kind of thinking. Although I'll say that I personally found it to be basically boring (especially the random-Renaissance history-of-backstabbing stuff that I found difficult to care about) and sometimes stupid (the citizens of a conquered republic will want to get their lost freedom back, but if you go to live in the same city as them, your semi-divine presence will magically make them lose their desire for freedom), stupid even from his own point of view. (If you do this, nothing good will happen for you, but if you only do this, nothing but good things will happen. It's like he's one of those guys trying to sell you a watch--like he's going to open up his coat and it'll be full of watches, and he'll say, 'Wanna buy a watch? A watch like one of these will make you powerful and strong, so that nothing bad will happen to you.' He's like a tinker or a knacker who thinks he's the Grand Doge of Doge-land.) It's also so abstract that it can't be anything other than theory (somehow I think it would have to be different to be social or political science), and yet it is so mucked up in details and precedents and examples that it's hardly good as theory, either. Not to mention the fact that he never even explains what you'd want a prince for, or what good a prince is meant to aim at. If "every art...seems to aim at some good" and all arts have some purpose (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, first sentence) what is the purpose of the prince's art, and what good does he aim at? Machiavelli almost doesn't have an answer, and he doesn't even bother to address the question, except for the nationalist agitprop bit at the end, which I hope no-one mistakes for philosophy. Also, the odd forays into military matters are to me little more than tokens that this man did not really know what sort of book he wanted to write, or what purpose he was trying to accomplish. A dilettante, if I may use the Italian word. Although I suppose that even a dilettante, armed with delusions of gradeur and with guns in his hands, might be dangerous and harmful enough, but I certainly do not see what good might ever have come from this. Furthermore, some people seem to think that Machiavelli was good to be amoral (read that phrase again) because he 'liberated' politics from religion and morality and so on. My only reply is that no-one can compel you to read Aristotle's 'Nicomachean Ethics' before you read his 'Politics', or force you to read Epictetus before trying to get through John Locke--and yet anyone who seriously thinks that politics has no connection at all, whatsoever, with ethics, needs their head examined for holes, or dents. Or, better yet, such people should be encouraged to read a few books about the Nazis or something. 'Be generous with other people's money,' says Machiavelli. 'Well, yeah, that's what the Jews are for,' says Hitler. 'And that's what the unwashed barbarians are for,' says Caesar. (See how I paired a modern and an ancient example, just like old Nicc-y. I guess that makes it all okay, somehow.) And as for his famous dictum that, concerning fear and love, that is it best to be both feared and loved, but, that if one must choose, it is safer to be feared than loved--well, if I point out that both Hitler and Stalin, and every other Caesar and proponent of Caesarism, would agree with this statement--having said that, does it make anyone who did not already so believe understand the necessity of subordinating politics to ethics in philosophy, and, indeed, in real life? I was also amused, and yet somehow, also unsurprised, to see the brave, good, "unarmed prophet" Machiavelli, so describe the "great feats" of Ferdinand of Aragon, in a chapter called "Of What A Prince Should Do To Acquire Prestige", that the reader, unless he or she were previously informed of the matter, would walk away without the slightest impression that there was a certain girl named Isabella in the mighty monarch's life, a woman who, my sources tell me, may have been of some slight importance in the history of Spain, and the killing of Jews and Muslims and other such acts of "pious cruelty" which brought the noble Ferdinand "much honor". He also goes through the next chapter, "Of The Advisers Of Princes" without once correcting his mistake. I can only wonder how many students of ethics would accept the phrase "pious cruelty" as being valid. But perhaps I might venture an informed guess...It is certain, however, and good to mention, that it is a blessing that we live in a free society, where we are free to read this non-sense if we choose to. In any real tyranny, I suppose that this sort of thing would surely be swiftly suppressed. ~eh, but we were just trying to have fun. THEN READ A NOVEL!!(5/10)
    • 5/5
      First time reading it since my 1989 Great Books course at Evergreen. A lot of fun to teach. The Dover edition, so far as I can determine, is perfectly serviceable, and, presuming I'm rating the right book, is improved vastly by including excerpts from The Discourses. Complicates things nicely for the students.
    • 5/5
      I'm weirdly pleased that The Prince lives up to its reputation: it is indeed Machiavellian. Here's his advice on conquering self-governing states (i.e. democracies): "The only way to hold on to such a state is to reduce it to rubble." Well then.

      I'd like to say that any guy whose last name becomes a synonym for evil is a badass, but Machiavelli wasn't; he was a failed minor diplomat who wrote this in a failed attempt to get reemployed. Stupid attempt, too; anyone who hired him would be advertising that he espoused Machiavellian values. This book was published. And as he himself advises, "A leader doesn't have to possess virtuous qualities, but it's imperative that he seem to possess them."

      So I'll go with this: anyone whose last name becomes a synonym for evil has written a good book.

      I hope to match that effect with my first novel. Working title: "Unicorns are Pretty."

      So if Machiavelli was such a loser, how did his book get so famous? It's not because it's great advice; it sortof isn't. I think it's because it's just a ton of fun to read. It's chock full of over-the-top quotes like the ones above. It's really funny.

      Which brings up a recurring topic for debate: did he intend for this to be taken seriously, or is it satire? I think it's the former: mixed in with the zany stuff is a fair amount of common-sense advice. He could certainly have included that to make the zany stuff pop more, or to camouflage it a bit, but I prefer to think he meant the whole thing seriously. And it's not like any of it is advice someone hasn't followed at some point. (See my first quote above: yeah, we've tried that.)

      Translation review: this is the very latest translation. Parks has gone to great trouble to reduce the crazy complexity of Machiavelli's sentences - I know this from reading his excellent Translator's Note - and I appreciate that. He's also tried hard to make it accessible to modern audiences, and sometimes I think he's tipped a tiny bit overboard on that front. "When a ruler occupies a land that has a different language...then things get rough." "Difficult" would have been perfectly clear; "rough" is too colloquial. We want to be able to read our classics, but we don't need to pretend they were written yesterday.

      That's a relatively minor complaint, though; this is a clear and easy translation. Good intro, too. And a glossary of proper names at the back, so you can sort out the various contemporary figures you don't recognize.

      I'll close with my favorite quote: "It's better to be impulsive than cautious; fortune is female and if you want to stay on top of her you have to slap and thrust."

      Machiavelli: kindof a dick.
    • 1/5
      I can see how it had a huge influence in humanistic politics--it lends itself to realpolitik.
    • 3/5
      Could it be that we have Machiavelli wrong? Is he really the devil? Having read his short treatise on what he suggests a newly crowned prince to do to maintain control of his territory, I admit that some of what he suggests is harsh, but I don't think he's evil. Not by a long shot.
    • 5/5
      My job requires me to function in a highly politicized work environment. I work with a large group of department heads, providing counsel on issues pertaining to the fine art of people management. Some of them are philosopher kings and others are callous despots. I have found that rereading THE PRINCE every few years reminds me of the basics. Whether the princes are in the courts of the Italian peninsula during the Renaissance or in the offices of a large corporation at the dawn of the 21st century, people with authority act in similar ways. There is much to be learned from this amazing little book.
    • 5/5
      Although The Prince is Machiavelli's best-known work, his Discourses on the First Ten Books of Titus Livius is a more comprehensive treatment of the same subjects.
    • 5/5
      The most memorable introduction I had to this book was that it was one of those enduring sets of ideas, from which each enthused reader would take something different. And indeed that it what I found. The result is that the read tells you little about the end of Italy's dark ages and more about your own personal struggle with life. Machiavelli's nobility, mercenaries and people become like the mountains, valleys and the earth of Chinese philosophy, mere figures for the politics of one's own life.

      As someone always on the look out for material, I found this an incredibly rich source. Its strong points are its organised approach and the author's astute understanding of power relations. What is intriguing is that it is hard to tell how much of his knowledge was earned from erudition, how much from conversation and how much from imagination. Some ideas are, as his reputation precedes, controversial, but that does not take away from the overall portrait he paints. Nor does it predict his cloudy ambition or somewhat pure motivations.
    • 5/5
      As has been true the past 500 years, any would-be power monger's bedside table unadorned with a copy of this slim treatise is shamefully naked. This is an excellent translation by Peter Constantine, filled with helpful footnotes and capped by a solid bibliography.
    • 3/5
      The Prince written by Niccolo Machiavelli is a philosophical take on governement and control. He is known to be one of the founders of modern political science. Machiavelli lived in the city of Florence where he was a high placed official, however when the city was taken over, he was removed from all his positions. The major theme throughout the entire book is self preservation or self preservation of the person who has power or governmental control. He focuses on the pricipalities type of government. There are two kinds a new principality or a hereditary one. There are also to types of peoples: ones who are accustomed to living free and ones who were under rule. He talks about how hereditary principalities are the best type of take over. The Prince or family knows the people. The people are also accustomed to the laws and the family in charge. Machiavelli states his concern about when one state takes control of another. It can cause problems especially if the person is foriegn. If a foriegner takes control of a state and speaks another language, he will never be accepted as a ruler. There are 5 errors that can be made: destroy minor powers, increase the power of one who is already powerful, brought in a powerful foriegner, one does not live there themselves and do not send colonies there. If one of these errors are made failure will most likely occur. Another issue he addresses is how to rule what was a free state. There are three ways according to Machiavelli. One, is to destroy the people. Two, is to go live there is person. Three, is to allow them to live under their own laws. He also discusses Ecclesiastical rule and how they are usually secure and prosperous. They gain power through ability or fortune and are sustained by the ancient institutions of religion. They usually have no need to defend and usually allow the subjects to govern themselves. He believes that this rule is upheld by a higher cause that humans can not take away. One of the key abilities of a ruler is strength. The ruler must NOT be dependant on armies or anyone else and must learn to depend on themselves with their own strengh. If they dont have their own strength, they will fail. He goes into many more virtues of a ruler. I like this read. He backed up all his ideas with examples from history and the outcomes. However all the rules and virtues one must follow seems so impossible to follow. Some of the rules even seemed to contradict the others. Maybe that is the whole point of his arguement, it is impossible to be a perfect ruler. One will always have imperfections in their rule but one must try not to make fatal mistakes.
    • 4/5
      Other people have reviewed The Prince's content. I gave this book four stars; I would have given it five if the translation were better. This edition (Dover Thrift) is certainly economical, but the sentences are long, convoluted, and reverse subject and object. It took me a while to get through even though it runs only 71 pages. I had to sit there and wrestle with the verbiage as I went.Otherwise, thought-provoking and a handbook of international relations.
    • 2/5
      Well, you probably know about this book. Now, I'm sure that I could have read it much more closely and come up with some very interesting material to think about. But honestly- it's just not that interesting. If you're easily shocked or titillated by the idea that powerful people are powerful because they're immoral, you will be shocked and titillated. If you didn't spend your formative years reading Cicero's 'De Oficiis,' on the other hand, you won't be surprised. And honestly, if you've read a newspaper in the last century, Machiavelli won't teach you anything. He has a bunch of nice stories to illustrate his points, but without knowing the context of the stories he tells it's difficult to know why I should care. The chapter on republics is interesting, granted. But to be honest I think I'd rather read someone who knows a lot about Machiavelli than the man himself. Skinner, here I come.

      I should say, too, that the Cambridge edition is excellent. 'The Prince' is in desperate need of annotation, and the editors do an excellent job of making things clear without making the text unreadable.
    • 2/5
      Just too dry. If you read it slow and took notes it would probably be good.
    • 3/5
      If I were more of a historian I would have been able to dive deeper into this book. Missing some context, I struggled with a few bits and pieces of Machiavelli's statements, but the rest of his ideas and examples are pretty easy to follow. I see how this book, in the hands of the wrong person, could lead to cruelties, however, I also totally see what the book is getting at, and I enjoyed reading it.
    • 1/5
      I'm fascinated with politics, but I can't read this edition. The font and the paragraph structure are distracting from the actual words. My eyes would not let me finish it.