Introduction 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 …show more content…
Agathocles of Syracuse was considered to be an individual engaged in a life of crime, although not one devoid of mental and physical virtù (Machiavelli, 2000: 45). Nevertheless, his most remarkable success was the assassination of the senators and wealthy people of Syracuse, an action that could be considered to be based on bloodlust rather than responding to rational calculations (Machiavelli, 2000: 48). At the same time, Machiavelli seems to be very clear about the differences that resulted in the case of Cesare Borgia, who arranged the killing of Oliverotto of Fermo, who had disrupted the social order through a series of assassinations. The actions of Cesare Borgia have been premeditated in the same way as those undertaken by Oliverotto and Agathocles (Machiavelli, 2000: 51). However, in this particular case the ulterior motives differ considerably from the other two, as they obeyed to a rational and moral logic that was conducive to pursuit of virtù (Vivanti, 2013: …show more content…
Indeed, prudence and cunning can be considered to be important elements inherent in the accomplishment of virtuous actions. In the case of Agathocles, Machiavelli recognises a practical element of virtù. Agathocles’ prowess ultimately resulted in being able to perform deeds that required a high level of skill (Strauss, 1995: 44). Nevertheless, the moral implications of his actions restricted the possibility that his undertakings might be considered virtuous. On the other hand, the actions carried out by Cesare Borgia are indicative of a marriage between rational and moral pursuits (Fischer, 2000: 66). To begin with, the actions undertaken by Oliverotto did not result in the preservation of peace and unity; elements that indicate the existence of virtù in state matters (Mansfield, 1996: 71). Conversely, the actions carried out by Cesare Borgia showed the existence of a martial attitude in order to preserve the power of the ruler and the state (Bobbitt, 2013: 43). It must be added that in Machiavelli’s schema, there is a predilection for a strong ruler capable of preserving some kind of political unity amongst the Italian states. Although the actions exercised by Cesare Borgia necessitated the exercise of violence, his ulterior motives had attached to it an important moral element, leading us to conclude that
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.
He never would regain the position in politics he had enjoyed earlier in life. “The Prince” though not published until five years after his death, was Machiavelli' best known work. One of the key chapters in “The Prince” is “Of Cruelty and Clemency and Whether
He expresses that Agathocles’ “modes may be used to acquire rule but not glory” (66). The fact that Machiavelli does not celebrate Agathocles, despite his other virtuous characteristics, displays how important glory is to the Machiavellian definition of virtue. Agathocles is excluded from virtue and fortune because he rose through the ranks in each step of his career through wicked deeds (65). However, Valentino, Theseus, and Moses also participated in “wicked deeds” and are still viewed as completely virtuous men. Valentino gives power to Remirro de Orco but beheads him in order to win the approval of the mass majority because of the hatred they had for Orco. Theseus and Moses also participated in the murder of people and mythological creatures in order to establish their principalities. Machiavelli fails to recognize these aspects that make this trio of leaders less virtuous then they may seem based on his original definition. Machiavelli’s exaggeration of Valentino’s virtue and minimal acknowledgement of Agathocles’ virtue prove that other factors such as compassion and faith discreetly determine what it means to be fully
In The Prince, Niccolo Machiavelli considers Cesare Borgia to be perfect example for princes or whomever, to follow if they wish to apprehend how to secure and strengthen their principalities. Cesare Borgia, for Machiavelli, is an ideal lesson of a prince who had great prowess, gained his principality through good fortune by his father Pope Alexander VI, showed continuous actions by his efforts to secure his state quickly, and then lost it to adverse fortune, which led to his fall and death. Machiavelli uses many events of Cesare Borgia’s to show how and why he was successful, and should me imitated as a model of prudence by ambitious princes.
Power is usually divided into two relating forces, consensual and coercive. These two defining dividends of power define the different types of leadership of which to truly define a leader as well as to manage and to maintain the subjugated as a factor of a primal exemplar of being the locus power. This study of power over another exemplifies the existence of The Prince. Machiavelli showcased the means of having power through the comparison of various leaders, which he called the "Prince", individually, of course. These princes are the exemplars of power where one holds and other to take. More so, The Prince shows the cycle of power being lost and gained through the actions of every prince. With that, princes are the main actors to attain power or to lose power. In this paper, Machiavelli's The Prince will be examined to study the actors, or princes,
The most astounding aspect of The Prince is Machiavelli’s view that princes may indeed, be cruel and dishonest if their ultimate aim is for the good of the state. It is not only acceptable but necessary to lie, to use torture, and to walk over other states and cities. Machiavellianism is defined as “A political doctrine of Machiavelli, which denies the relevance of morality in political affairs and holds that craft and deceit are justified in pursuing and maintaining political power (Def.)” This implies that in the conquest for power, the ends justify the means. This is the basis of Machiavellianism. The priority for the power holder is to keep the security of the state regardless of the morality of the means. He accepts that these things are in and of themselves morally wrong, but he points out that the consequences of failure, the ruin of states and the destruction of cities, can be far worse. Machiavelli strongly emphasizes that princes should not hesitate to use immoral methods to achieve power, if power is necessary for security and survival.
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 discusses assertive and bold ideas in “The Prince,” revealing his radical and courageous nature. His treatise is deceptively self-soliciting, because he disguises his extreme notions behind a veil of feigned expertise. His frank approach makes him appear confident and deserving of the utmost respect; however, he cautiously humbles himself by pouring immense flattery for the ruling prince into his work and, in doing so, assures protection for himself and his notorious ideas.
The Prince, written by Machiavelli is concerned with the issues politics, ruling a state and how a ruler or a leader should be. The key properties of a ruler are represented by Machiavelli in details and the inner and outer effects of the success in ruling are mentioned. One of the most important topics in The Prince is about the relationship of skillfulness (virtù) of the ruler and his good or bad chance (fortune) and their effects on gaining and keeping the power. Virtù, which has the present meaning of manliness, is used by Machiavelli as having skills, strength, intelligence and prudence of a ruler. It is the inner ability to gain the power and not to lose it easily. Fortuna, with the present use, fortune is explained as the word of God and the luck and opportunity that is given to the ruler. A ruler by fortune is dependent
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.
Machiavelli in his famous book “The Prince” describes the necessary characteristics for a strong and successful leader. He believes that one of the most important characteristics is to rule in favor of his government and to hold power in his hands. Power is an essential aspect of Machiavelli’s theory, and a leader should do whatever it takes to keep it for the safety of his country because “the ends justifies the means.” To attain and preserve the power, a leader should rather be feared than loved by his people, but it is vital not to be hated. As he states, “anyone compelled to choose will find far greater security in being feared than in being loved.” If a leader is feared, the people are less likely to revolt, and in the end, only a threat of punishment can guarantee obedienc...
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 redefined the term virtue from the classical understanding. He did this by incorporating vice into virtue. Machiavelli new understanding of virtue is required and by rulers and soldiers in order to maintain power. The Prince determined that men were not all good. He believed that the classical understanding of virtue could only be applied or used by men in what Machiavelli called imagined republics or kingdoms. Because men were not all virtuous and did not keep their promises, Machiavelli believed the ruler should not be all virtuous or always keep his promises. The necessity to maintain power drives a ruler to step...
To understand the writings of Niccolò Machiavelli, it is necessary to understand the world of Niccolò Machiavelli, Renaissance Italy. The region was not one nation as it is today, rather a collection of several city-states, which contained internal fighting between powerful families, fighting with each other. This era differed from the preceding middle ages in many respects, the pope's power was weakened, money controlled power instead of noble birth, and there was a revival of ancient Greek and Roman literature, architecture and art by a new breed of people, the humanists. These changes created the environment in which Machiavelli lived. He saw how the quarrelling was weakeni...
Notwithstanding the two philosophers’ different views on abstract concepts, Machiavelli’s virtù to fortuna is comparable to Plato’s Justice to Good. Each philosopher grants his ruler with a specific trait that deviates from the leader’s acquired knowledge of abstract concepts. Under their beliefs, the best ruler is the one who conforms to this virtuous trait--for Plato, Justice (Plato 519b-c), and for Machiavelli, virtù (Machiavelli, Prince 29). These traits then extend to a multitude of characteristics that define the careful instruction both philosophers laid out and that will allow the leader to directly change society into a worthy political