The Prince

In this paper I will show how Machiavelli has not given explicit reasons to distinguish the actions of his exemplary princes, Cesare Borgia on the one hand, and Agathocles and Oliverotto of Fermo on the other, and in doing so, has inappropriately praised the former and not the two latter figures. To do this, I will first discuss both the Machiavellian attributes of a successful prince and the methods by which a prince acquires and maintains a state. I will, then, state the actions of those princes mentioned above, citing the events Machiavelli chose in his work to exemplify. Finally, I will explain how it does not follow that Machiavelli should have praised the actions of Cesare Borgia but not those of Agathocles and Oliverotto of Fermo by way of his explicit guidelines.

The term ‘Machiavellian’ may be used today, as it has for centuries prior, as an adjective connoting evil, immoral, or monstrous. Whether Machiavelli obtained such attributes is a different question than how these connotations popularized, a question that can be answered by noting Machiavelli’s utilitarian and pragmatic explanation of politics through his brutally, straightforward honest approach. In this manner Machiavelli did not write for Lorenzo de’ Medici to read what he wanted to hear, but rather what Machiavelli, who claimed being most knowledgeable in political matters of the state, believed the prince needed to hear. Machiavelli supports his claim of having the most knowledge of political matters “from a long experience in modern affairs and a continuous study of antiquity,” which we shall test through examination of his arguments that result from his experience and study.

“The Machiavellian formula for [the] success [of a prince] requires a convergence of three qualities,” namely virtue, Fortune, and occasion. Occasion is simply just the opportunity to benefit oneself, eg. a prince coming to power or a prince acquiring new lands. Although in a select few passages Machiavelli uses virtue as it relates to morality, he is in this case and predominantly throughout The Prince ascribing intelligence and ability to virtue’s connotation. By this understanding, virtue is needed to both recognize the opportunity (occasion) and to enact the most efficacious result. It was not a typo (mistake) that Fortune has been capitalized. I did so intentionally to follow the example of the translators of The Prince who recognized two distinct meanings of the term and distinguished them by capitalizing the one and not the other. As Fortune is to fortune, analogously blessed is to lucky. To clarify further, someone is lucky (or granted fortune) if by happenstance they’re benefited by a random non recurring event. If, on the other hand, someone is continuously benefited by events otherwise out of their control then we recognize them as being blessed (or favored by Fortune). Further, it is appropriate to capitalize Fortune as Machiavelli uses the term like a name in referring to “the fickle classical goddess personified in Chapter XXV of The Prince as a women, and not merely temporary good luck.” The convergence of all three qualities is shown by how one needs Fortune (at the very least) to be granted an occasion by which they will recognize and act on the opportunity by their virtue.

Of acquiring new dominions that are similar in customs, Machiavelli states there are two rules the prudent and spirited prince must enact. First, the prince must wipe out the entirety of the family line of those that governed the dominion before being conquered (the brutality of this may explain the negative implications following ‘Machiavelli’). And, secondly, the laws and taxes of that land must not be altered so to show the common people that their lives will not be any worse than they could have been under the previous prince and, with this being the case, will neither miss their old prince nor feel any hostility towards the new prince. Although the first rule, to wipe out the old government, must still be followed when acquiring dominions whose customs are unlike that of the new prince, the second rule is now changed. Of his several proposals, Machiavelli claims the best and most efficacious method in forcing the conquered dominion to submit to the prince’s customs and laws is to establish colonies in these areas. This is so because it is cost efficient for the prince and those whose property he has taken away to clear land for the colonies will be left poor and scattered (ie. unable to retaliate).

It is the job of the prince that after acquiring the lands he acts to maintain them. In accordance with maintaining the state the prince should adhere to these four rules: that, first, the state be well ordered and obedient through colonization or other means, that, second, the prince should make himself arbiter and leader of lesser nearby powers without increasing their strength, that, third, the prince should “put down the powerful,” and, forth, that the prince should “not allow powerful foreigners to gain prestige there”. To maintain a well ordered state “the prince must have the friendship of the common people”. This is achieved through the methods listed above and must be the case. For if the prince should encounter adverse times without the unyielding support of the commoners he wouldn’t be able to control them and they may turn on him. The other three rules may be explained through the actions of the princes Machiavelli chose to exemplify in his work.

Machiavelli distinctly categorizes the rise to power between his sets of exemplary princes. On the one hand Cesare Borgia (aka. Duke Valentino) rose to power through Fortune and the arms of others, whereas the historical example Agathocles and Machiavelli’s other contemporary Oliverotto of Fermo both acquired power through virtue labelled as wickedness. Initially we can extract citations from The Prince that undermine Machiavelli’s praise of Borgia; for “he who relies less upon Fortune has maintained his position best.” Corollary, “such men [who rely more upon Fortune] depend solely upon two very uncertain and unstable things: the will and the Fortune of him who granted them the state…but they do not know how, and are unable to maintain their position…since if…[they’re] not of great intelligence and virtue, it is unreasonable they should know how to command.” It follows then, prima facie, that contrary to Machiavelli’s allotted praise we should rather praise the methods carried out by Agathocles and Oliverotto in acquiring power over the Duke’s rise to power.

However, to understand Machiavelli’s decision to praise Borgia and dismiss the other two figures (and to determine if he did so correctly) we must press further into the text. For the above paragraph is an argument that targets the acquisition of power, whereas most of Machiavelli’s praise for Borgia is derived from the actions the Duke did in order to maintain the state. For Machiavelli claims that he “would not know how to reproach [Cesare Borgia], but on the contrary I believe I am correct in proposing that he be imitated by all those who have risen to power through Fortune.” It must also be noted that during his conclusion of the description of the actions of Agathocles by which he arose to power, Machiavelli uses virtue in the sense that it refers to morality. For “it cannot be called virtue to kill one’s fellow citizens, to betray allies,…by these means one can acquire power, but not glory.” WIth respect to this crucial claim that immoral actions can give rise to power but not glory we will continue discussion of the actions committed by Borgia and those by Agathocles and Oliverotto to determine what (if anything) makes Borgia’s actions both efficacious and worthy of glory; and by that very token, worthy of Machiavelli’s praise.

It has been said that Borgia rose to power through Fortune, namely the Fortune of his father Pope Alexander who made way for his son to be in power of an Italian state. Not being able to grant Borgia power of an already church controlled state due to retaliations by the Orsini and Colonna families, Alexander accomplished this by allowing the French to invade Italy causing chaos throughout the region. After the French successfully secured Milan, Pope Alexander secured troops under the Orsini family for the Romagna campaign which Borgia would lead to victory and the capture of Romagna. Upon capturing Romagna Borgia found the previous rulers had poorly governed the city and had “given [the subjects] reason for disunity rather than unity.” In order to gain the favor of the citizens and create harmony throughout the city Borgia appointed a “cruel and unscrupulous man, Messer Remirro de Orco, the fullest authority there.” In due time the city, subject to tireless almost tyrannical rule, succumbed to order. Now, however, arose a new problem for Borgia. Sensing that the citizens may have acquired some hatred to the strict rule and to remove himself as far from the hatred of the citizens as possible (if this emotion be in place), Borgia had Messer Remirro de Orco arrested on charges that contemporary historians are debating whether or not existed. Borgia followed the arrest with a public display of the execution of Messer Remirro, having his body cut into two halfs and leaving the bloody sword and remains for all to see. The display produced the desired result for Borgia, displacing the hatred of the now ordered and unified citizens that may have otherwise been directed toward him.

It was because of the turmoil caused in Italy by the French and his establishment in Romagna that Borgia was able to tackle the first of his problems in expanding his empire, namely that “his troops seemed disloyal to him… and might let him down [by] not only keeping him from acquiring more territory but even take away what he had already conquered.” To overcome this difficulty Borgia decided he would no longer lead an army that was not his. As the army belonged to the Orsini family Borgia sought to destroy their attachments to the troops and thereby make himself in control. He accomplished this by gaining the favor of the Orsini noblemen, granting them gifts and huge subsidies and thereby winning them over to his cause. Next, Borgia hunted and killed all of the Orsini leaders he could capture which was a great number of them so that he had successfully made their army his own.

The second difficulty for Borgia in expanding his empire would be the will of France. For it was their presence that led rise to his power in the first place, but now the French were a heavy threat to the expansion of his empire. Being the deceiver that he was and unwilling to test his forces against the French if he need not, Borgia cleverly reconciled with one of the remaining Orsini leaders, Lord Paulo, that reconfirmed their previous military agreement. Now acting as his ally, Lord Paulo with assistance from Vitellozzo Vitelli fought and captured Senigallia for Borgia only to both be arrested upon Borgia’s arrival at Senigallia. Two months after signing into the alliance (for the second time!) with Borgia and after having captured Senigallia for him, Lord Paulo and others were strangled under Borgia’s orders.

It’s the case that Borgia “acquired the state through the Fortune of his father, and when this was lost, he lost it.” Yet, as Machiavelli notes and praises it was through these actions that Borgia laid sturdy foundations and rose to great power. For “if [Borgia] did not profit from his methods it was not his fault, but this arose from an extraordinary and extreme instance of contrary Fortune… as he did everything and used every method that a prudent and virtuous man ought to employ in order to root himself securely in those states that the arms and Fortune of others had granted him.” It was because of the extreme contrary Fortune, that was his father dying and himself being gravely ill at the time, that cost Borgia his empire. Borgia receives his praise from Machiavelli because of the actions he committed, and yet if we compare his actions mentioned above to those committed by Agathocles and Oliverotto we will discover stark similarities.

Agathocles was born of low class, being a potter’s son and rose, by his virtue, through the military ranks of the Sicilians to become praetor of Syracuse. This position allowed him to call to order a meeting where gathered the people and senate of Syracuse for which they would discuss political matters. At his signal, however, Agathocles had all the wealthiest citizens and all of the senate murdered by his troops. With no citizen left surviving that would be a formidable opponent Agathocles became King of Syracuse. In like manner, Oliverotto of Fermo rose to power, although in his case he had more Fortune than Agathocles. For though Oliverotto grew up fatherless he was brought up by his uncle Giovanni Fogliani, the ruler of the city of Fermo. When Oliverotto was still young he was sent to serve as a soldier in Vitellozzo’s army so as to become practiced in this discipline. When he became of age Oliverotto returned to Fermo and was warmly greeted by his uncle who’d gathered all the citizens of Fermo for his nephew’s return. After preparing for several days, Oliverotto called all the highest ranking citizens, including his uncle, to council. During the meeting Oliverotto’s soldiers appeared from their hiding places and murdered all in attendance. With all the highest citizens exterminated the officials that still held office were forced to serve Oliverotto for fear that he would also kill them.

Knowing the actions of both sets of princes, Borgia on the one hand and Agathocles and Oliverotto on the other, we can now compare the two in a critical analyses. Borgia is praised for maintaining the state through his actions where he betrayed allies and killed fellow citizens. We see both cases in the examples concerning Lord Paulo and the execution of Messer Remirro. These actions can also be found in those committed by both Agathocles and Oliverotto, with the key difference being the reason for enacting them. For as I said, Borgia committed betrayal and murder in order to maintain his state, whereas Agathocles and Oliverotto committed the same actions, but in order to acquire power of the state. But this difference should not give Machiavelli reason to praise Borgia and disapprove of the other two princes. In fact, Machiavelli claims that “those cruelties are well used (if it is permitted to speak well of evil) that are carried out in a single stroke, done out of necessity to protect oneself, and then are not continued.” By this account, Borgia’s continuous deception of the Orsini leaders (Borgia’s fellow Italians) are not cruelties that can be deemed as being well used, for they are repeated. Furthermore, Machiavelli also claims that the prince “should not depart from the good if it is possible to do so, but he should know how to enter into evil when forced by necessity.” We can relate this claim again to Borgia’s deception of Lord Paulo. For Borgia had troops at his ready to take the city of Senigallia with his own arms, but instead chose to reaffirm a false alliance with Lord Paulo. This claim also relates to Borgia’s treatment of Messer Remirro as Borgia only had suspicion of Romagna’s populace’s hatred towards him, and furthermore, it was not necessary to execute Messer Remirro in the manner he chose. It is apparent now that Borgia’s actions do not deserve glory any more or less than the actions of Agathocles and Oliverotto (and as it is the case that latter two figures don’t deserve glory then neither should Borgia). Machiavelli has not explicitly justified his praise of Borgia and because of this has opened the door to scholars’ interpretations of the matter.