Machiavelli’s Revolutionary Prince: A Contextual Analysis of Niccolò Machiavelli’s Il Principe
Niccolò Machiavelli (1469-1527) wrote the revolutionary, political treatise Il Principe, The Prince (1513). Machiavelli was a Florentine political theorist who was educated in humanist ideals and found gratification in the study of antiquity. The document The Prince draws realistic conclusions from the recent histories of Italian city-states, generating a cynical idea on human nature and emphasizes the importance of a powerful, ethically-questionable leader in a ‘how to’ guide in obtaining and retaining power. This contextual analysis will justify that The Prince is revolutionary because the author radically approaches political realism by redefining
…show more content…
Quinton Skinner states Machiavelli used the term virtue consistently and finds it to follow classical and humanist authority:
“Treat[ing] it as that quality which enables a prince to withstand the blows of Fortune, to attract the goddess’s favour, and to rise in consequence to the heights of princely fame, winning honour and glory for himself and security for his government”. (p40)
The term virtue itself follows classical and humanist influence. However, disagreeing with Skinner, the humanist morality is overturned from the beginning of chapter 15, where a distinction is made between virtú and moral virtue. Chapter 15 brings clarity to Machiavelli’s new ethics: “if one considers everything well, one will find something appears to be virtue, which if pursued would be one’s ruin, and something else appears to be vice, which if pursued results in one’s security and well-being”. The author is suggesting “security and well-being” as potentially negative consequences and a distinction between virtue and vice demonstrates moral effects. This presents virtú, as moral virtue cannot compromise one’s material collapse or “well-being”. The author then rejects the humanist moral virtues to obtain one’s greatest potential, advising to attain such greatness one cannot practice all that is “held to be
…show more content…
Machiavelli, along with the fifteenth and sixteenth century humanists of Italy, held new attitudes of freedom and reconstructed the classical image of virtue within human affairs. The author theorizes a utilitarian virtue, his virtú, to better-fit a ‘successful Prince’. Throughout the document, virtú is found to describe a ruler’s actions and skills of good leadership, rather than a leader’s central morals, for the interest of the state and ruler. Reinventing moral virtue, the author advises on the importance of having the ability for actions both wicked and immoral, as to be moral can be in some circumstances irrational, whilst still appearing to uphold central morals. Christians referred to the author’s new ethics as wicked positions and forgetful of the Day of Judgment, they objected to the author’s notions of deceit. Machiavelli did not respond to the churches objections, “his silence is eloquent”, therefore echoing the significance of the author and document. In Chapter 16, Christian assumptions are dismissed with the author proposing half of the actions one makes are genuinely under the individual’s control. The author instigates taking some control away from the Church and returns a sense of control to those reviving classical values. The document is significant and revolutionary, overturning Christian humanism and classical
Niccolò Machiavelli was a man who lived during the fourteen and fifteen hundreds in Florence, Italy, and spent part of his life imprisoned after the Medici princes returned to power. He believed that he should express his feelings on how a prince should be through writing and became the author of “The Qualities of a Prince.” In his essay, he discusses many points on how a prince should act based on military matters, reputation, giving back to the people, punishment, and keeping promises. When writing his essay, he follows his points with examples to back up his beliefs. In summary, Machiavelli’s “The Qualities of a Prince,” provides us with what actions and behaviors that a prince should have in order to maintain power and respect.
In fact, Machiavelli’s morals are as questionable as those of Ferdinand II. Because Machiavelli believed that “it [was] unnecessary for a prince to have all the good qualities [he had] enumerated, but it [was] very necessary to appear to have them” (62), Ferdinand II seemed to be an excellent example of the advice given in the book. However, Machiavelli fails to see that Ferdinand II’s actions opposed one of his primary beliefs. Machiavelli specified that princes did not have to avoid cruelty and dishonesty if and only if their actions benefited the state, and that a prince must consider every action he took based on its effect on his country. As previously stated, Ferdinand II’s actions exclusively benefited himself. Considering the fact that this was a principal theme throughout Machiavelli’s book, why he saw Ferdinand II as such a “great and extraordinary” ruler is baffling. His love of the king is as hypocritical as the King’s character. There is a strong possibility that Machiavelli had a bias towards Ferdinand, considering he was the ruler when he wrote The Prince, and Machiavelli did not see his rule’s final outcome. This presents the question of how Machiavelli’s partiality affects his credibility. Provided he did, in fact, have that bias, what does that say about the rest of his work? Since Machiavelli did not have a neutral stance on politics, he may have steered Prince De’ Medici and all other political leaders who read The Prince in the direction of his own opinions, thus singlehandedly shaping history into his
Virtue is often associated with a pious definition of morality. In The Prince, Niccolo Machiavelli defies this meaning when advising Lorenzo de Medici on how principalities are gained by virtue and fortune. Fortune is the luck of an opportunity for the leader to potentially partake in these virtuous practices. He advises taking advantage of fortune when given because the wheel of fortune is a circuitous path. Virtue, on the other hand, includes the glory, strength, independence, and ruthlessness a leader must possess in order to successfully keep power. There is minimal questioning of ethics with his explanation of virtue. However, Machiavelli ultimately contradicts his definition of virtue by exaggerating Duke Valentino’s virtue but also
Machiavelli’s views were drastically different from other humanists at his time. He strongly promoted a secular society and felt morality was not necessary but stood in the way of a successfully governed state. He stated that people generally tended to work for their own best interests and gave little thought to the well being of the state. He distrusted citizens saying, “In time of adversity, when a state is in need of its citizens, there are few to be found.” In his writings in The Prince, he constantly questioned the citizens’ loyalty and warned for the leaders to be wary in trusting citizens. His radical and distrusting thoughts on human nature were derived out of concern for Italy’s then unstable government. Machiavelli also had a s...
Machiavelli is undisputedly one of the most influential political philosophers of all time. In The Prince, his most well-known work, he relates clearly and precisely how a decisive, intelligent man can gain and maintain power in a region. This work is revolutionary because it flies in the face of the Christian morality which let the Roman Catholic Church hold onto Europe for centuries. Machiavelli's work not only ignores the medieval world's ethics: The Prince suggests actions which oppose the four most basic of Christianity's Ten Commandments.
Written almost 500 years ago, Niccolo Machiavelli’s “The Prince” brings forward a new definition of virtue. Machiavelli’s definition argued against the concept brought forward by the Catholic Church. Machiavelli did not impose any thoughts of his own, rather he wrote from his experience and whatever philosophy that lead to actions which essentially produced effective outcomes in the political scene of Italy and in other countries. While Machiavelli is still criticized for his notions, the truth is that, consciously or subconsciously we are all thinking for our own benefit and going at length to achieve it. On matters of power where there is much to gain and a lot more to lose, the concept of Machiavelli’s virtue of “doing what needs to be done” applies rigorously to our modern politics and thus “The Prince” still serves as a suitable political treatise in the 21st century.
Therefore, a ideal leader would control every aspect of the state. Such a leader would put in effect policies that would benefit his self interests such as, gaining, maintaining, and expanding his political power. Also, it states that a leader should not allow morality and virtues to get in the way of leading. Machiavelli believes that moral and virtue are merely products of the imagination and should be discarded. It even states that a man who desires to act virtuously in every way will come to grief among those who are not virtuous.
The fortuna-virtù dichotomy has become one of the most fundamental aspects of Machiavelli’s view of the political. The first concept refers to the way in which would-be rulers deal with the contingent occurrences that take place in realm of the political. The second principle is related to the ability to interpret and control the social environment in order to advance the interest of the state and the personal standing of the ruler (Bobbitt, 2013: 43). Most importantly, the existence of virtù entails the possession of a set of skills that are geared towards preserving the viability of the state, even if the means to attain it require the pursuit of amoral actions (Fischer, 2000: 54). This essay begins by outlining the description
Machiavelli disagrees with the classical definition of virtue. He makes a distinction between what he calls ‘virtu’ and ordinary goodness; a separation between private and public morality. Virtue literarily means manliness, and he equates it to skillful self-advancement. Virtue implies physical and mental capacity-intelligence, skill, courage, vigor; everything that is necessary for attainment of one’s own ends. Additionally, virtue is the ability to be flexible and adjust in any given situation. Pizan, on the other hand, attributes loyalty, prudence, intellect, imagination, moral strength and insight to virtue. Although their definitions of virtue are not necessarily the same, the historical, mythical, and biblical examples Pizan and Machiavelli utilize are aimed at proving the same point, that glory is the goal of acting virtuously.
For instance, he states that “it is necessary for a prince, who wishes to maintain himself to learn how not to be good, and to use his knowledge and not use it, according to the necessity of the case” and that “he must not mind incurring the scandal of those vices without which it would be difficult to save the state” because “it will be found that some things which seems virtues would lead to one’s ruin” and some that seem to be vices result in greater security and wellbeing (Machiavelli, pg. 15). Machiavelli doesn't define virtue as other humanist might he believes that virtues are qualities that others praise, like generosity and honesty. He argues that a prince should
After five hundred years, Niccolo Machiavelli the man has ceased to exist. In his place is merely an entity, one that is human, but also something that is far above one. The debate over his political ideologies and theories has elevated him to a mythical status summed up in one word: Machiavelli. His family name has evolved into an adjective in the English language in its various forms. Writers and pundit’s bandy about this new adjective in such ways as, “He is a Machiavelli,” “They are Machiavelli’s,” “This is suitable for a Machiavelli.” These phrases are almost always the words of a person that understands more about Niccolo’s reputation than the man himself. Forgotten is that Machiavelli is not an adequate example of the ruler he is credited with describing; a more accurate statement would be to call someone a “Borgia” or a “Valentino.” Most of the time they are grossly mistaken in their references. All these words accomplish is to add to the legend, and the misinterpretation, of the true nature of Niccolo Machiavelli.
Machiavelli believed that, ethics and morality were considered in other categories than those generally known. He does not deny the existence of, but did not see how they can be useful in its traditional sense as in politics and in the government of the people. According to Machiavelli, a man is by nature a political angry and fearful. Machiavelli had no high opinion of the people. It is assumed that a person is forced to be good and can get into the number of positive features, such as prudence and courage. The prince can only proceed gently and with love, because that would undermine the naivety of his rule, and hence and the well-being of the state. He thought that, the Lord must act morally as far as possible, immorally to the extent to
Machiavelli uses classical sources to advise a prince on the best way to maintain power. He alludes to Plato’ Republic to illustrate how many men have attempted to advice princes “ A great many men have imagined states and princedoms such as nobody ever saw or knew in the real word, and there’s such a difference between the way we really live and the way we ought to live that the man who neglects the real to study the ideal will learn how to accomplish his ruin, not his salvation.” Machiavelli also makes various references to classical figures to demonstrate examples of princely leadership. Machiavelli’s classical allusions are indicative of the Renaissance as the renewed study of the ancient classics was an important element of the Renaissance. Machiavelli adopted classical ideas in the hopes that these examples could inspire improvements within Italy. Rafael Major supports this idea in “ A New Argument for Morality: Machiavelli and the Ancients.” He argues, “ Even a cursory survey of classical literature reveals that very little of The Prince can properly be called original.” More also reflects the Renaissance through his classical allusions. He uses his classical sources to criticize certain practices within Europe, while also offering solutions to these problems through the example of the classics. For example, he also alludes to
Machiavelli has long been required reading for everyone intrested in politics and power. In The Prince Niccolo M
The book The Prince was a book of advice to politicians regarding how gain power and keep that power. The title The Prince is not about someone who has inherited land and a decedent to a king. In Machiavelli’s perspective a prince was a man of the citizens....