Centuries after its conception in 1505, scholars have yet to agree on Machiavelli’s intended message in this brief but compelling political work. A mainstay of Political Science classes everywhere, The Prince is a controversial “how to” guide on achieving, retaining and expanding political power.

Considered by many to be the father of modern Politics, Nicolo Machiavelli was a man of his time, presenting such infamous arguments as committing relatively minor acts of cruelty to avert larger ones is a necessary act of leadership.

Does this make Machiavelli a protofascistic teacher of evil, as some believe the following excerpt would imply?

“Upon this, one has to remark that men ought either to be well treated or crushed, because they can avenge themselves of lighter injuries, of more serious ones they cannot; therefore the injury that is to be done to a man ought to be of such a kind that one does not stand in fear of revenge.”

Or was The Prince written as a somewhat veiled exposé of unethical tactics employed by all tyrants, as this text could indicate?

“Yet it cannot be called talent to slay fellow-citizens, to deceive friends, to be without faith, without mercy, without religion; such methods may gain empire, but not glory.”

Perhaps Machiavelli was simply an amoral realist writing about the imperfect nature of statecraft?

“…a prince wishing to keep his state is very often forced to do evil; for when that body is corrupt whom you think you have need of to maintain yourself—it may be either the people or the soldiers or the nobles—you have to submit to its humours and to gratify them, and then good works will do you harm. “

Opinions abound, but one thing is certain, The Prince continues to inspire discussions that are as relevant today as when they were originally conceived, making this classic work a political must-listen