The Prince

Niccolò Machiavelli

Jul 2020 · Google Play Public Domain · AI-narrated by Mary (from Google)

About this audiobook

In The Prince,  the theme is that the aims of princes – such as glory and survival – can justify immoral actions to achieve those ends. The treatise brought Machiavellian into the lexicon as a pejorative, describing cunning and unscrupulous behavior in politics.

Ratings and reviews

When your name becomes an adjective, you know you have truly had an impact on the world. The name of Niccolo Machiavelli has been attached to an “end justifies the means” politics that most deride and this is the book that made his name into an adjective. To be labeled Machiavellian is, at least to most people, an extreme insult, so I decided to read the book myself. What I found was more “yes and no” than absolute. It probably helps to know a bit about him. He was born in Florence on May 3, 1469, and died there on June 22, 1527. He worked in politics from around age 30, but we should remember that politics was not what we think of today. There were some city-states that were republics, but not in the sense of a liberal democracy that we enjoy today. Instead, it just meant that there was no hereditary nobility and the ruler was chosen by a group of powerful elites. Florence was a republic, but a politician in Florence wasn’t running for office. The “political” power would have been jocking for would have come through serving and satisfying the current ruler. Unfortunately, rulers sometimes fall and the position of any politician can become shaky very quickly. Machiavelli entered politics at a time when the Medici family, which had held power for a significant part of the last century, had just lost power. When they returned to power in 1512, Machiavelli was arrested and imprisoned. His imprisonment was for a short time but his political future was shaky at best and he wrote this book in hopes of returning to a position of power. Even the title of the book seems to be chosen for political reasons. Republics do not have nobles. It is as if he is assuming that the Medici rule would become so stable that it would result in a kingdom that can be handed down to their descendants. The book is not inordinately long but shows a very keen understanding of what really is behind the rise and fall of states. From that he draws out measures that a ruler can take to preserve their rule and extend their hold over the people they rule. The advice is very practical and specific as is seen in passages such as, “A man who is made prince by the favour of the people must work to retain their friendship; and this is easy for him because the people ask only not to be oppressed. But a man who has become prince against the will of the people and by the favour of the nobles should, before anything else, try to win the people over; this too is easy if he takes them under his protection… it is necessary for a prince to have the friendship of the people; otherwise he has no remedy in times of adversity.” There are a great many passages of what seems to be wise and practical advice. The problem, for those of us concerned with rights and morality, is that his advice is often too practical. His focus is often more on what works for the ruler than on what is best for the people. Much of his advice involves steps that, to put it mildly, involve getting rid of the problem by getting rid of any people who might be a part of the problem, even if that means a massacre, and starting with a cleaner slate. And as I read the book, I was struck by how ancient it was. With his advice, he often cited a historical event and the actions of some other ruler as rationale for his conclusion. He would have been a cheerleader for the view that a knowledge of history was essential for progress. But it was also very modern. Today’s politics seems to be leaving behind the concept of the absolute rule of law, of checks and balances, and moving to a model of a strong leader who gets things done whether it’s legal or not and if some are hurt in the process, so be it. Or maybe that’s the wrong way of looking at it. Maybe it’s not that Machiavelli is surprisingly modern but that the modern world is leaving behind the ideals of our forefathers and reverting to those of Machiavelli. And that’s why this book is still worth reading. Is that the world we really want?

The text is truly great and Machiavelli is one of the most brilliant minds to have lived. I've read The Prince before and listening to this is just off putting. Mary's an automated generated voice, almost sounding human, almost! Had to take off 2 stars for that reason alone.

It was very boring, I listened to the audio book. The title should be "what a price should do in every possible diplomatic situation." A strategic military guide (If you are not a prince, this book will be of no use or interest to you!)

About the author

Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli (3 May 1469 – 21 June 1527) was an Italian Renaissance diplomat, philosopher and writer, He is best known for The Prince (Il Principe), written in 1513 and has often been called the father of modern political philosophy or political science.