Machiavellis Principe - Virtù und Fortuna (German Edition)

Machiavelli notes that Christian towns have been left to the protection of lesser princes FH 1. Scholars have long focused upon how Machiavelli thought Florence was wretched, especially when compared to ancient Rome. But recent work has begun to examine the ways in which Machiavelli thought that Florence was great, as well; and on the overlap between the Histories and the Discourse on Florentine Affairs which was also commissioned by the Medici around Book 2 also examines the ways in which the nobility disintegrates into battles between families e.

The rise of Castruccio Castracani, alluded to in Book 1 e. Machiavelli also narrates the rise of several prominent statesmen: Yet in fact Machiavelli devotes the majority of Books 5 and 6 not to the Medici but rather to the rise of mercenary armies in Italy compare P 12 and D 2. Among the topics that Machiavelli discusses are the famous battle of Anghiari FH 5.

Books 7 and 8 principally concern the rise of the Medici—in particular Cosimo; his son, Piero the Gouty; and his son in turn, Lorenzo the Magnificent. Cosimo also loved classical learning to such an extent that he brought John Argyropoulos and Marsilio Ficino to Florence. Additionally, Cosimo left a strong foundation for his descendants FH 7. Piero is highlighted mainly for lacking the foresight and prudence of his father; for fomenting popular resentment; and for being unable to resist the ambition of the great.

Lorenzo is noted for his youth F 7. The Histories end with the death of Lorenzo. The Histories has received renewed attention in recent years, and scholars have increasingly seen it as not merely historical but also philosophical—in other words, as complementary to The Prince and the Discourses. Every single work is not listed; instead, emphasis has been placed upon those that seem to have philosophical resonance.

In the early s, he wrote several reports and speeches. They are notable for their topics and for the way in which they contain precursors to important claims in later works, such as The Prince. Among other things, Machiavelli wrote on how Duke Valentino killed Vitellozzo Vitelli compare P 7 ; on how Florence tried to suppress the factions in Pistoia compare P 17 ; and how to deal with the rebels of Valdichiana.

The most obvious changes are found in the final part, where Machiavelli attributes to Castruccio many sayings that are in fact almost exclusively drawn from the Lives of Diogenes Laertius. Also around , Machiavelli wrote the Discourse on Florentine Affairs. Recent work has suggested the proximity in content between this work and the Florentine Histories. Also of interest is On the Natures of Florentine Men , which is an autograph manuscript which Machiavelli may have intended as a ninth book of the Florentine Histories.

Toward the end of his tenure in the Florentine government, Machiavelli wrote two poems in terza rima called I Decennali. The first seems to date from and concerns the history of Italy from to It is the only work that Machiavelli published while in office. The second seems to date from around and concerns the history of Italy from to Among other things, they are precursors to concerns found in the Florentine Histories.

In general, between and , Machiavelli turned more consciously toward art. Mandragola was probably written between and ; was first published in ; and was first performed in While original, it hearkens to the ancient world especially in how its characters are named e. It is by far the most famous of the three and indeed is one of the most famous plays of the Renaissance. It contains many typical Machiavellian themes, the most notable of which are conspiracy and the use of religion as a mask for immoral purposes.

It was probably written in the early s. In recent years, scholars have increasingly treated all three of these plays with seriousness and indeed as philosophical works in their own right. In addition to I Decannali , Machiavelli wrote other poems. I Capitoli contains tercets which are dedicated to friends and which treat the topics of ingratitude, fortune, ambition, and opportunity with virtue being notably absent. The Ideal Ruler is in the form of a pastoral. Between and , Machiavelli wrote several sonnets and at least one serenade.

There are some other miscellaneous writings with philosophical import, most of which survive in autograph copies and which have undetermined dates of composition. Machiavelli wrote a Dialogue on Language in which he discourses with Dante on various linguistic concerns, including style and philology. Articles for a Pleasure Company is a satire on high society and especially religious confraternities.

Belfagor is a short story that portrays, among other things, Satan as a wise and just prince. An Exhortation to Penitence unsurprisingly concerns the topic of penitence; the sincerity of this exhortation, however, remains a scholarly question. The Legations date from the period that Machiavelli worked for the Florentine government The personal letters date from to Particularly notable among the personal letters are the September letter to Giovanbattista Soderini, the so-called Ghiribizzi al Soderini Musings to Soderini ; and the 10 December letter to Francesco Vettori, wherein Machiavelli first mentions The Prince.

Machiavelli insists upon the novelty of his enterprise in several places e. As a result, some interpreters have gone so far as to call him the inaugurator of modern philosophy. But all philosophers are to some degree in conversation with their predecessors, even or perhaps especially those who seek to disagree fundamentally with what has been thought before. Thus, even with a figure as purportedly novel as Machiavelli, it is worth pondering historical and philosophical influences. Although Machiavelli studied ancient humanists, he does not often cite them as authorities.

But Cicero is never named in The Prince although Machiavelli does allude to him via the images of the fox and the lion in P and is named only three times in the Discourses D 1. Other classical thinkers in the humanist tradition receive similar treatment. Juvenal is quoted three times D 2. This trend tends to hold true for later thinkers, as well. One may see this relative paucity of references as suggestive that Machiavelli did not have humanist concerns. But it is possible to understand his thought as having a generally humanist tenor. Though they did treat problems in philosophy, they were primarily concerned with eloquence.

The revival of Greek learning in the Italian Renaissance did not change this concern and in fact even amplified it. New translations were made of ancient works, including Greek poetry and oratory, and rigorous and in some ways newfound philological concerns were infused with a sense of grace and nuance not always to be found in translations conducted upon the model of medieval calques. A notable example is Coluccio Salutati, who otherwise bore a resemblance to medieval rhetoricians such as Petrus de Vineis but who believed, unlike the medievals, that the best way to achieve eloquence was to imitate ancient style as concertedly as possible.

But what exactly is this imprint? What exactly is Machiavellian eloquence? Fellow philosophers have differed in their opinions. Finally, increasing attention has been paid to other rhetorical devices, such as when Machiavelli speaks in his own voice; when he uses paradox, irony, and hyperbole; when he modifies historical examples for his own purposes; when he appears as a character in his narrative; and so forth.

And some scholars have gone so far as to say that The Prince is not a treatise compare D 2. In short, it is increasingly a scholarly trend to claim that one must pay attention not only to what Machiavelli says but how he says it. One reason for this lacuna might be that Plato is never mentioned in The Prince and is mentioned only once in the Discourses D 3. What exactly is meant here, however? There are few, if any, doctrines that all Platonists have held, as Plato himself did not insist upon the dogmatic character of either his writings or his oral teaching.

To which specific variety of Platonism was Machiavelli exposed? Plethon visited Florence in and due to the Council of Florence, the seventeenth ecumenical council of the Catholic Church Plethon himself opposed the unification of the Greek and Latin Churches. Ficino became a priest in , and Lorenzo later made him canon of the Duomo so that he would be free to focus upon his true love: Like Plethon, Ficino believed that Plato was part of an ancient tradition of wisdom and interpreted Plato through Neoplatonic successors, especially Proclus, Dionysius the Areopagite, and St.

Some scholars believe that Machiavelli critiques both Plato and Renaissance Platonism in such passages. Aristotle is never mentioned in The Prince and is mentioned only once in the Discourses in the context of a discussion of tyranny D 3. This has led some scholars to claim that Machiavelli makes a clean and deliberate break with Aristotelian philosophy.

As with the question concerning Plato, the question of whether Aristotle influenced Machiavelli would seem to depend at least in part on the Aristotelianism to which he was exposed. Scholars once viewed the Renaissance as the rise of humanism and the rediscovery of Platonism, on the one hand; and the decline of the prevailing Aristotelianism of the medieval period, on the other. Italian scholastic philosophy was its own animal. Italy was exposed to more Byzantine influences than any other Western country. Furthermore, unlike a country such as France, Italy also had its own tradition of culture and inquiry that reached back to classical Rome.

It is simply not the case that Italian Aristotelianism was displaced by humanism or Platonism. Indeed, perhaps from the late 13th century, and certainly by the late 14th, there was a healthy tradition of Italian Aristotelianism that stretched far into the 17th century. The main difference between the Aristotelian scholastics and their humanist rivals was one of subject matter. Whereas the humanists were rhetoricians who focused primarily on grammar, rhetoric, and poetry, the scholastics were philosophers who focused upon logic and natural philosophy.

And the Eudemian Ethics was translated for the first time. It seems likely that Machiavelli did not agree fully with the Aristotelian position on political philosophy. Recent work has explored this final candidate in particular. Xenophon is mentioned only once in The Prince P However, he is mentioned seven times in the Discourses D 2.

Machiavelli refers the reader explicitly to two works of Xenophon: This kind and gentle vision of Cyrus was not shared universally by Renaissance Italians. At least two of these virtues are mentioned in later chapters of The Prince. Nonetheless, humanity is also one of the five qualities that Machiavelli explicitly highlights as a useful thing to appear to have P 18; see also FH 2. Thus, Machiavelli may have learned from Xenophon that it is important for rulers and especially founders to appear to be something that they are not.

This might hold true whether they are actual rulers e. He says that he will leave out what is imagined and will instead discuss what is true. It is worth noting that Scipio, who imitates Cyrus, is criticized for excessive mercy or piety; P It also raises the question as to whether Machiavelli writes in a manner similar to Xenophon D 3. However, the text was not widely read in the Middle Ages and did not obtain prominence until centuries later, when it was rediscovered in by Poggio Bracciolini.

It seems to have entered broader circulation in the s or s, and it was first printed in These two works, along with other snippets of Epicurean philosophy already known from Seneca and Cicero, inspired many thinkers—such as Ficino and Alberti—to ponder the return of these ideas. Adriani deployed Lucretius in his Florentine lectures on poetry and rhetoric between and Lucretius also seems to have been a direct influence on Machiavelli himself. Although Machiavelli never mentions Lucretius by name, he did hand-copy the entirety of De rerum natura drawing largely from the print edition.

He omits the descriptive capitula—not original to Lucretius but common in many manuscripts—that subdivide the six books of the text into smaller sections. He also adds approximately twenty marginal annotations of his own, almost all of which are concentrated in Book 2. Recent work has noted that it is precisely this section of the text that received the least attention from other Renaissance annotators, many of whom focused instead upon Epicurean views on love, virtue, and vice. Among other possible connections are P 25 and 26; and D 1.

Machiavelli does not seem to have agreed with the classical Epicurean position that one should withdraw from public life e. But what might Machiavelli have learned from Lucretius? One possible answer concerns the soul. Machiavelli never treats the topic of the soul substantively, and he never uses the word at all in either The Prince or the Discourses he apparently even went so far as to delete anima from a draft of the first preface to the Discourses. For Lucretius, the soul is material, perishable, and made up of two parts: But each part, like all things in the cosmos, is composed only of atoms, invisibly small particles of matter that are constantly in motion.

From time to time, these atoms conglomerate into macroscopic masses. Human beings are such entities. But when they perish, there is no longer any power to hold the atoms of the soul together, so those atoms disperse like all others eventually do. A second possible aspect of Lucretian influence concerns the eternity of the cosmos, on the one hand, and the constant motion of the world, on the other. Machiavelli ponders the question of the eternity of the world D 2. He at times claims that the world has always remained the same D 1. He also at times claims that worldly things are in motion P 10 and FH 5.

As recent work has shown, reading Lucretius in the Renaissance was a dangerous game. In , the Fifth Lateran Council condemned those who believed that the soul was mortal; those who believed in the unity of the intellect; and those who believed in the eternity of the world. It also made belief in the afterlife mandatory. There is no comprehensive monograph on Machiavelli and Savonarola. While there has been some interesting recent work, particularly with respect to Florentine institutions, the connection between the two thinkers remains a profitable area of research.

Girolamo Savonarola was a Dominican friar who came to Florence in and who effectively ruled the city from to from the pulpits of San Marco and Santa Reparata. He was renowned for his oratorical ability, his endorsement of austerity, and his concomitant condemnation of excess and luxury. As a result, Florence would hang and then burn Savonarola with two others at the stake, going so far as to toss his ashes in the Arno afterward so that no relics of him could be kept.

In the Discourses , Machiavelli is more expansive and explicit in his treatment of the friar. Machiavelli conspicuously omits any explicit mention of Savonarola in the Florentine Histories. While it is true that Machiavelli does use bugie only in a negative context in the Discourses D 1.

But, again, nuances and context may be important. Machiavelli does indeed implicate two other friars: Ponzo for insanity and Alberto for hypocrisy. To what extent the Bible influenced Machiavelli remains an important question. He laments that histories are no longer properly read or understood D 1. Furthermore, he explicitly speaks of reading the Bible in this careful manner again sensatamente ; D 3. Recent work has explored what it might have meant for Machiavelli to read the Bible in this way.

Additionally, recent work has explored the extent to which Machiavelli engaged with the Jewish, Christian, and Islamic traditions. Machiavelli, however, uses the passage to refer to David.

Machiavelli, Niccolò | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Elsewhere in the Discourses , Machiavelli attributes virtue to David and says that he was undoubtedly a man very excellent in arms, learning, and judgment D 1. Machiavelli offers a gloss of the story of David and Goliath which differs in numerous and substantive ways from the Biblical account see I Samuel He is mentioned at least five times in The Prince P 6 [4x] and 26 and at least five times in the Discourses D 1. Chapter 6 of The Prince is famous for its distinction between armed and unarmed prophets. However, recent work has noted that it does in fact follow exactly the order of Psalms Machiavelli speaks at least twice of the prophet Mohammed FH 1.

He discusses various Muslim princes—most importantly Saladin FH 1. The main aim of this article is to help readers find a foothold in the primary literature. A second, related aim is to help readers do so in the secondary literature. It has followed the practice of many recent Machiavelli scholars—for whom it is not uncommon, especially in English, to say that the views on Machiavelli can be divided into a handful of camps.

Many of the differences between these camps appear to reduce to the question of how to fit The Prince and the Discourses together. Five are outlined below, although some scholars would of course put that number either higher or lower. Readers who are interested in understanding the warp and woof of the scholarship in greater detail are encouraged to consult the recent and more fine-grained accounts of Catherine Zuckert , John T. Scott , and Erica Benner The first camp takes The Prince to be a satirical or ironic work.

The 16th century Italian jurist Alberico Gentili was one of the first interpreters to take up the position that The Prince is a satire on ruling. Rousseau and Spinoza in their own respective ways also seemed to hold this interpretation. Members of this camp typically argue that Machiavelli is a republican of various sorts and place special emphasis upon his rhetoric. The most notable recent member of this camp is Erica Benner a, b, , and , who argues that The Prince is thoroughly ironic and that Machiavelli presents a shocking moral teaching in order to subvert it.

However, members of this camp do not typically argue that The Prince is satirical or ironic. They do typically argue that The Prince presents a different teaching than does the Discourses ; and that, as an earlier work, The Prince is not as comprehensive or mature of a writing as the Discourses. The most notable member of this camp is Quentin Skinner , , and Pocock and , Hans Baron and , and David Wootton could be reasonably placed in this camp. Maurizio Viroli , , , , and could also be reasonably placed here, though he puts additional emphasis on The Prince. In other words, members of this camp typically claim that Machiavelli presents the same teaching or vision in each book but from different starting points.

However, members of this camp do not typically argue that The Prince and Discourses begin from different starting points. The most notable member of this camp is Leo Strauss Mansfield , , , and , Catherine Zuckert and , John T. Scott , , and , Vickie Sullivan , , and , Nathan Tarcov , , a, b, , , , , and , and Clifford Orwin and could be reasonably placed here.

The fifth camp is hermeneutically beholden to Hegel, which seems at first glance to be an anachronistic approach. The most notable member of this camp is Claude Lefort []. Miguel Vatter , , and could be reasonably placed here and additionally deserves mention for his familiarity with the secondary literature in Spanish an unusual achievement for Machiavelli scholars who write in English.

Below are listed some of the more well-known works in the scholarship, as well as some that the author has found profitable but which are perhaps not as well-known. They are arranged as much as possible in accordance with the outline of this article. It goes without saying that there are many important books that are not mentioned. Some examples include Benner a , Celenza , Black and , Atkinson , Skinner , Viroli , , and , de Grazia , and Ridolfi Vivanti offers an intellectual biography. Other good places to begin are Nederman , Viroli , Mansfield , , and , Skinner and , Prezzolini , Voegelin , and Foster Johnston, Urbinati, and Vergara and Fuller are recent, excellent collections.

Lefort and Strauss are daunting and difficult but also well worth the attempt. Skinner , Benner , and Mansfield discuss virtue. Spackman and Pitkin discuss fortune, particularly with respect to the image of fortune as a woman. Biasiori and Marcocci is a recent collection concerning Machiavelli and Islam. Nederman examines free will. Blanchard discusses sight and touch.

Regarding various other political themes, including republicanism, see McCormick , Slade , Barthas , Rahe , , and , Patapan , Sullivan and , Forde and , Bock , Hulliung , Skinner , and Pocock Palmer , and de Alvarez On deception, see Dietz and Langton and Dietz Mansfield and Walker are the two notable commentaries. Anyone who wants to learn more about the intellectual context of the Italian Renaissance should begin with the many writings of Kristeller e. See also Hankins , Cassirer [] , and Burke Regarding humanist educational treatises, see Kallendorf Regarding Ficino, see the I Tatti series edited by James Hankins especially , , , and Regarding Xenophon, see Nadon and Newell Regarding Lucretius, see A.

Palmer , Brown a and b , and Rahe The most comprehensive recent treatment of Savonarola can be found in Jurdjevic Those interested in the Italian scholarship should begin with the seminal work of Sasso , , and Lastly, Ruffo-Fiore has compiled an annotated bibliography of Machiavelli scholarship from to The Youth Machiavelli was born on May 3, , to a somewhat distinguished family.

The Official Not long after Savonarola was put to death, Machiavelli was appointed to serve under Adriani as head of the Second Chancery. The Philosopher In late , Machiavelli was accused of participating in an anti-Medici conspiracy. Machiavelli died on June 21, His body is buried in the Florentine basilica of Santa Croce. Philosophical Themes If to be a philosopher means to inquire without any fear of boundaries, Machiavelli is the epitome of a philosopher.

An encyclopedia of philosophy articles written by professional philosophers.

The Humors Machiavelli is most famous as a political philosopher. Republicanism Some scholars claim that Machiavelli is the last ancient political philosopher because he understands the merciless exposure of political life. Discourses on Livy There is reason to suspect that Machiavelli had begun writing the Discourses as early as ; for instance, there seems to be a reference in The Prince to another, lengthier work on republics P 2. Art of War The Art of War is the only significant prose work published by Machiavelli during his lifetime and his only attempt at writing a dialogue in the humanist tradition.

Possible Philosophical Influences on Machiavelli Machiavelli insists upon the novelty of his enterprise in several places e. Renaissance Humanism Although Machiavelli studied ancient humanists, he does not often cite them as authorities. Renaissance Aristotelianism Aristotle is never mentioned in The Prince and is mentioned only once in the Discourses in the context of a discussion of tyranny D 3. Xenophon Xenophon is mentioned only once in The Prince P Savonarola There is no comprehensive monograph on Machiavelli and Savonarola. Contemporary Interpretations The main aim of this article is to help readers find a foothold in the primary literature.

References and Further Reading Below are listed some of the more well-known works in the scholarship, as well as some that the author has found profitable but which are perhaps not as well-known. The Art of War , ed. University of Chicago Press, The Chief Works and Others. Duke University Press, []. The Comedies of Machiavelli , ed. David Sices and James B. Discourses on Livy , trans. Mansfield and Nathan Tarcov. University of Chicago Press, []. Discorsi sopra la prima deca di Tito Livio , ed. Florentine Histories , trans. Banfield and Harvey C.

Niccolò Machiavelli (1469—1527)

Princeton University Press, Their Personal Correspondence , ed. Atkinson and David Sices. Northern Illinois University Press, The Prince with Related Documents , trans. The Prince , second edition, trans. Il Principe , ed. Secondary Sources Abensour, Miguel. Democracy Against the State: Marx and the Machiavellian Moment. Polity Press, []. Yale University Press, []. The Human Condition , second edition. Cambridge University Press, Ascoli, Albert Russell, and Victoria Kahn, eds. Machiavelli and the Discourse of Literature. Cornell University Press, In Search of Florentine Civic Humanism.

The Crisis of the Early Italian Renaissance. Be Like the Fox: Machiavelli's Lifelong Quest for Freedom. University of Chicago Press, b. Oxford University Press, Essays in the History of Ideas , Oxford University Press, []. Biasiori, Lucio, and Giuseppe Marcocci, eds. Machiavelli, Islam and the East: Reorienting the Foundations of Modern Political Thought.

Machiavelli's Modification of Platonic Epistemology. Edited by John M. Cambridge University Press, a. The Return of Lucretius to Renaissance Florence. Harvard University Press, b. The Individual and the Cosmos in Renaissance Philosophy. By the first method , they succeed in avoiding ambiguity, but fail to elucidate the author's use of a single term for the two or more senses. They change the text, but do not explain it. The second method reducing the different senses to one and the same sense avoids ambiguity by imposing a new meaning on the text, by forcing it so say what it in fact does not say.

I propose to attempt a third way - to remain faithful to the text and use the same term for the different senses. I shall assume that the different, even contradictory, senses of fortuna derive from the reader's own inadequate thought patterns rather than from a lapse on the part of the author.

Accordingl y, I shall try to justify Machiavelli's use of one and the same term for apparently different meanings. Howev er, the apparently contradictory senses in which fortuna is used have given rise to a controversy among modern scholars as to Machiavelli's intended meaning. Some scholars maintain that fortuna is ungovernable. Machiavelli conceives of fortuna as a force that is external to human will and consciousness, upon which it operates. As such it is vatiously treated by Machiavelli as destiny, providence, chance or accident. Although these concepts are in some respects contradictory, they all refer to the whole domain of circumstances that are external to men 's will.

So regarded, neither good nor bad fortuna can be voluntatily set aside or altered, and are at best manageable only within highly circumscribed limits. From this point of view ,fortuna is insmmountable. Other scholars maintain that fortuna is governable. Although not a product of human activity fortuna can nevertheless be changed by means of virtu, which may be taken to be both the consciousness offortuna and misfortune, and the means of overcoming it. Thusfortuna is fully controllable by human action when it is informed by experience. Ultimately good and illfortuna exists because it is unknown, and may thus be reduced to ignorance.

But once the effects offortuna at'e understood, men can act in a way to smmount it and take their destiny into their own hands. I shall now proceed to describe the various interpretations of Machiavelli's use of f ortuna in terms of its reference to human will, that is to say, in terms of being or not being governable by will. Fortune uses men as an instrument English edition, p. Accordingly, iffortuna is taken to be altogether ungovernable, then it is a matter of providence, destiny or chance.

On the other hand, if it is considered to be governable, even if only to some extent, then it can be revoked at will once complete awareness of its existence has been achieved , and the appropriate measures have been taken to counteract it. In either event,fortuna is not a product of human activity. Leo Strauss considers that Machiavelli conceived of fo rtuna as being in some ways amenable to human control. According to Strauss,fortuna acts where men are ignorant, and it can be overcome once knowledge is attained. Fortuna is therefore demystified; and since it originates in ignorance of practical affairs, it is governable by virtue.

The cause of goodforruna is 'human virtue and good institutions, i. Therefore 'genuine " good fortune" can arise only from a man 's having knowledge of " the world", i. Thus in Strauss's view, Machiavelli intended thatfo rtuna should supplant the idea of divine providence, and in thi s process of being secularized and demystified God is reduced to the idea of chance, 'u nderstood as the cause of simply unforeseeable accidents '. Fortuna is therefore a natmal force , and like all natural forces it is governable to a certain extent and within limits.

The interpretation advanced by Strauss is naturalistic, according to which fortuna has the char'acter of a manageable extrinsic accident; that is to say it is treated as a universal ontological category rather than a product of human activity. Although by their activity men can control fo rtuna up to a point, they cannot create it. Rather they discover fortuna empirically. In other words, Strauss regards as self-evident what actually needs to be explained - namely, the origin ofj'ortuna.

According to Ernest Cassirer 's interpretation,fortuna assumes a mythic character in Machiavelli's political philosophy. The lesson learnt by Machiavelli from political experience, accord ing to Cassirer, was the opposite of modern scientific determin- ism: Things will go their own way; they will thwart aU our wishes and purposes. BALA BAN cunning schemes are liable to failure; they may, suddenly and unexpectedly, be crossed by the course of events. This uncertainty in the affairs of men seems to make all political science impossibl e.

Here we are living in an inconstant, inegular, capricious world that defies all our efforts of calculation and predic- tion. Robert On proposes that Machiavelli maintained two different concepts of fortu na, one in his pl ays and stories, and the other in his political writings. Thus in his literary works,fortuna implies merely chance - that which is fortuitous and therefore inexplicable - not only as that whk h men cannot predict, but that which they cannot retrodict, an event that they can neither foresee nor account for even after it has happened.

And the relationship is understood as implying anythi ng but passivity on the part of men. Neal Wood regards virtu and fortuna to represent two principles that are in continuous contest; thus vil"tue 'represents the principle of freedom, of conscious, self-directed energy and movement' , whereasfortuna 'symbolizes the unforeseeable and the uncontrollable'. In Wood's will-dependent interpretation, fortuna is not an extrinsic force acting upon human beings.

Rather, fortu na comes into play where virtue is absent, and declines in influence in the presence of virtue. In other words,fortuna and virtue are inversely relative tenns. See also Federico Chabod, Machiavelli and lhe Renaissance, crans. David Moore New York, , pp. Anthony Parel Toronto and Buffalo, , p. Martin Fleisher London , , p. Fortune ' is neither a goddess nor a personification, neither an allegory nor a metaphor.. It is an abstract and secular concept..

Fortuna for Machiavelli is sometimes a goddess, sometimes a liver or storm , often in conflict with virtl2, problematic in her relationship to human action. But for him, fortune is no longer, as in the medieval Christian view, the agent of divine providence in an ordered, hierarchal universe, nor is she a goddess in the Roman sense.

Thereby he not only anthropomorphizes and sexualizes the givens and the outcomes of human action in history but invests them with those specific desires, fears, and attitudes hi s male readers already bear toward woman - as umeliable nurturer, as sexual object, as 'other'. The consequence is both empowering and con- straining; it promotes the slli ving for autonomy yet renders that goal inacces- sible.

Fortune, she observes, is part of a vision of human reality th at underlies th e entire body of [Machiavelli's] thought, a vision of embattled men struggling to preserve condi tion of political success in conquest or internal admini stration. Viml is its active counterpart. They are substitutes of the concepts of acti ve and passive'. Leonardo O lschki , Machiavelli rhe Sciemisr Berkeley, , pp. It should be remarked that, quite apart from the reader 's attitudes on 'machismo', Machiavelli 's choice of the analogy of fortune as a woman is principally motivated by his desire to make a point abollt fortune.

Pilkin has confu sed the analogisr with the analogy. Let us suppose that male readers of Machiavelli did not regard women to be sexual objects. Thi s wou ld in no way change Machiavelli's concept of poLi tics , but would on ly mean th at a different an alogy was required. Fortune is in point of fac t neither a river no r a women. These are mere literary images suitable to the mentality of Machiavelli 's contemporaries. Were Machiavelli speaking to feminists, he m ight have described fortune as, say, an impetuous man who, when turbulent, destroys, plunders and creates disorders ; every one flees before him, and everything yields to his fu ry without bein g able to oppose it; and yet though he is of such a kind, still when he is quiet, women can make provisions against him, so that when hi s fury is roused again , he will not be so wild and dangerou s cf.

Pitkin is therefore criticizin g not Machi avelli 's poli tical theory, but o nl y hi s analogy. Flanagan is right in observing that Machiavelli 's comparison of fortune to a woman is an ' obvio us literary device' Flanagan , 'The Concept of Fortuna ', p. BALABAN themselves, their masculinity, their autonomy, and the achievements of civili- zation, against almost overwhelming odds. For him, according to Pitkin,fortuna ' does not represent any transcendent order.

Rather, she acts on the basis of famili ar human motives, impulses, and desires'. She can give or deny a man good " judgmen t" and "sense". According to Pitkin, what defines events as fortuna for Machiavelli ' is not their inexplicability or mysteriousness of the apparent need for supernatural explanation of them, but simply that they could not have been foreseen by the actors involved in the particular situation Machiavelli has been describing'. If certain consequences of actions and events are absolutely impossible to foresee, thenjortuna would be independent of will and Machiavelli 's view of it would therefore be naturalistic.

If, on the contrary, such consequ ences were merely unforeseen but might nevertheless have been anticipated, then in Machiavelli's view fortuna would have a will-dependent nature. What is lacking in Pitkin 's approach, in my opinion, is a critical explanation of the concept. That is to say, she fails to address herself to the question of why the unexpected should supervene. I, on the other hand, shall argue thatjortuna does not merely consist in unexpected turns of events; but in those events which are the by-product of action, and that as an unintended result of action it assumes a nature-like guise.

Flanagan critically examines the approaches of each opposing interpretation of Machiavelli 's use of fortuna. According to Flanagan, fortuna is immanent in human activity, in the sense that man 'can transcend Fortune through refusing to play her game '.

Indeed, he takes issue with the extreme will-dependent interpretation of Charles Tarlton, who asserts that fortuna can be 'completely overcome'. We live in an unpredictable world, and so our actions often do not turn out as we planned. What is common to all of the interpretati ons offortuna in Machiavelli is that they treat as self-evident what in fact needs to be explained; that is, they fail to distinguish between fortuna and what men do intentionally.

The situation is accurately summed up - although unaccounted for- by Robelt Orr, who observes thatfortuna 'appears to humans always as the producer of what they have not foreseen ' Y Orr is not speaking here aboutfortuna, but about the manner in which it is grasped by human consciousness. III Textual evidence may be found in Machi avelli 's work to support both the interpre- tation thatfortuna is governable, and the opposite view. There is no decisive evidence favouring either of the interpretations, and there is some evidence for rejecting both. Consequently there is room for considering a third interpretation in which these contradictions might be mitigated to the point of insignificance or altogether elimi- nated.

Nowhere does this come out more clearly than in his treatment of the relationship between law and force. Machiavelli acknowledges that good laws and good arms constitute the dual foundations of a well-ordered political system. But he immediately adds that since coercion creates legality, he will concentrate his attention on force. In other words, the legitimacy of law rests entirely upon the threat of coercive force; authority is impossible for Machiavelli as a right apart from the power to enforce it. Consequently, Machiavelli is led to conclude that fear is always preferable to affection in subjects, just as violence and deception are superior to legality in effectively controlling them.

As a result, Machiavelli cannot really be said to have a theory of obligation separate from the imposition of power; people obey only because they fear the consequences of not doing so, whether the loss of life or of privileges. And of course, power alone cannot obligate one, inasmuch as obligation assumes that one cannot meaningfully do otherwise. Concomitantly, a Machiavellian perspective directly attacks the notion of any grounding for authority independent of the sheer possession of power. For Machiavelli, people are compelled to obey purely in deference to the superior power of the state.

If I think that I should not obey a particular law, what eventually leads me to submit to that law will be either a fear of the power of the state or the actual exercise of that power. It is power which in the final instance is necessary for the enforcement of conflicting views of what I ought to do; I can only choose not to obey if I possess the power to resist the demands of the state or if I am willing to accept the consequences of the state's superiority of coercive force. Machiavelli's argument in The Prince is designed to demonstrate that politics can only coherently be defined in terms of the supremacy of coercive power; authority as a right to command has no independent status.

He substantiates this assertion by reference to the observable realities of political affairs and public life as well as by arguments revealing the self-interested nature of all human conduct. For Machiavelli it is meaningless and futile to speak of any claim to authority and the right to command which is detached from the possession of superior political power.

The ruler who lives by his rights alone will surely wither and die by those same rights, because in the rough-and-tumble of political conflict those who prefer power to authority are more likely to succeed. Without exception the authority of states and their laws will never be acknowledged when they are not supported by a show of power which renders obedience inescapable.

The methods for achieving obedience are varied, and depend heavily upon the foresight that the prince exercises. Hence, the successful ruler needs special training. Machiavelli presents to his readers a vision of political rule purged of extraneous moralizing influences and fully aware of the foundations of politics in the effective exercise of power. For the circumstances of political rule are such that moral viciousness can never be excluded from the realm of possible actions in which the prince may have to engage.

Machiavelli sees politics to be a sort of a battlefield on a different scale. Fortuna is the enemy of political order, the ultimate threat to the safety and security of the state. Machiavelli's use of the concept has been widely debated without a very satisfactory resolution. Where conventional representations treated Fortuna as a mostly benign, if fickle, goddess, who is the source of human goods as well as evils, Machiavelli's fortune is a malevolent and uncompromising fount of human misery, affliction, and disaster.

While human Fortuna may be responsible for such success as human beings achieve, no man can act effectively when directly opposed by the goddess Machiavelli , — Machiavelli's most famous discussion of Fortuna occurs in Chapter 25 of The Prince , in which he proposes two analogies for understanding the human situation in the face of events.

Machiavelli reinforces the association of Fortuna with the blind strength of nature by explaining that political success depends upon appreciation of the operational principles of Fortuna. Machiavelli's remarks point toward several salient conclusions about Fortuna and her place in his intellectual universe. Throughout his corpus, Fortuna is depicted as a primal source of violence especially as directed against humanity and as antithetical to reason. Thus, Machiavelli realizes that only preparation to pose an extreme response to the vicissitudes of Fortuna will ensure victory against her.

The main source of dispute concerned Machiavelli's attitude toward conventional moral and religious standards of human conduct, mainly in connection with The Prince. For many, his teaching adopts the stance of immoralism or, at least, amoralism. Moral values have no place in the sorts of decisions that political leaders must make, and it is a category error of the gravest sort to think otherwise. Concentrating on the claim in The Prince that a head of state ought to do good if he can, but must be prepared to commit evil if he must Machiavelli , 58 , Skinner argues that Machiavelli prefers conformity to moral virtue ceteris paribus.

In direct contrast, some of Machiavelli's readers have found no taint of immoralism in his thought whatsoever. Jean-Jacques Rousseau long ago held that the real lesson of The Prince is to teach the people the truth about how princes behave and thus to expose, rather than celebrate, the immorality at the core of one-man rule.

Various versions of this thesis have been disseminated more recently. Some scholars, such as Garrett Mattingly , have pronounced Machiavelli the supreme satirist, pointing out the foibles of princes and their advisors. The fact that Machiavelli later wrote biting popular stage comedies is cited as evidence in support of his strong satirical bent. Thus, we should take nothing Machiavelli says about moral conduct at face value, but instead should understood his remarks as sharply humorous commentary on public affairs.

A similar range of opinions exists in connection with Machiavelli's attitude toward religion in general, and Christianity in particular. Machiavelli was no friend of the institutionalized Christian Church as he knew it. The Discourses makes clear that conventional Christianity saps from human beings the vigor required for active civil life Machiavelli , —, — And The Prince speaks with equal parts disdain and admiration about the contemporary condition of the Church and its Pope Machiavelli , 29, 44—46, 65, 91— Anthony Parel argues that Machiavelli's cosmos, governed by the movements of the stars and the balance of the humors, takes on an essentially pagan and pre-Christian cast.

For others, Machiavelli may best be described as a man of conventional, if unenthusiastic, piety, prepared to bow to the externalities of worship but not deeply devoted in either soul or mind to the tenets of Christian faith. A few dissenting voices, most notably Sebastian de Grazia and Maurizio Viroli , have attempted to rescue Machiavelli's reputation from those who view him as hostile or indifferent to Christianity.

Cary Nederman extends and systematizes Grazia's insights by showing how such central Christian theological doctrines as grace and free will form important elements of Machiavelli's conceptual structure. Viroli considers, by contrast, the historical attitudes toward the Christian religion as manifested in the Florentine republic of Machiavelli's day. Certainly, the term lo stato appears widely in Machiavelli's writings, especially in The Prince , in connection with the acquisition and application of power in a coercive sense, which renders its meaning distinct from the Latin term status condition or station from which it is derived.

Machiavelli's name and doctrines were widely invoked to justify the priority of the interests of the state in the age of absolutism.

Yet, as Harvey Mansfield has shown, a careful reading of Machiavelli's use of lo stato in The Prince and elsewhere does not support this interpretation. Machiavelli is at best a transitional figure in the process by which the language of the state emerged in early modern Europe, as Mansfield concludes. Thus, the Machiavellian prince can count on no pre-existing structures of legitimation, as discussed above.

• Thelma & Louise Live!: The Cultural Afterlife of an American Film.
• Jean-Guy Moreau 50 ans, 1000 visages (Hors-collection) (French Edition).
• LOS MISTERIOS AMOROSOS DEL ROSARIO (Spanish Edition).
• The Observers;
• The Human Origins of Fortuna in Machiavelli's Thought | Oded Balaban - www.newyorkethnicfood.com?

This is a precarious position, since Machiavelli insists that the throes of fortune and the conspiracies of other men render the prince constantly vulnerable to the loss of his state. The idea of a stable constitutional regime that reflects the tenor of modern political thought and practice is nowhere to be seen in Machiavelli's conception of princely government.

Yet Machiavelli himself apparently harbored severe doubts about whether human beings were psychologically capable of generating such flexible dispositions within themselves. Machiavelli's evaluation of the chances for creating a new, psychologically flexible type of character is extremely guarded, and tends to be worded in conditional form and in the subjective mood: While The Prince is doubtless the most widely read of his works, the Discourses on the Ten Books of Titus Livy perhaps most honestly expresses Machiavelli's personal political beliefs and commitments, in particular, his republican sympathies.

The Discourses certainly draw upon the same reservoir of language and concepts that fed The Prince , but the former treatise leads us to draw conclusions quite different from—many scholars have said contradictory to—the latter. A minimal constitutional order is one in which subjects live securely vivere sicuro , ruled by a strong government which holds in check the aspirations of both nobility and people, but is in turn balanced by other legal and institutional mechanisms.

In a fully constitutional regime, however, the goal of the political order is the freedom of the community vivere libero , created by the active participation of, and contention between, the nobility and the people. As Quentin Skinner , — has argued, liberty forms a value that anchors Machiavelli's political theory and guides his evaluations of the worthiness of different types of regimes.

Only in a republic, for which Machiavelli expresses a distinct preference, may this goal be attained. Machiavelli adopted this position on both pragmatic and principled grounds. Although Machiavelli makes relatively little comment about the French monarchy in The Prince , he devotes a great deal of attention to France in the Discourses. Why would Machiavelli effusively praise let alone even analyze a hereditary monarchy in a work supposedly designed to promote the superiority of republics? The answer stems from Machiavelli's aim to contrast the best case scenario of a monarchic regime with the institutions and organization of a republic.

Even the most excellent monarchy, in Machiavelli's view, lacks certain salient qualities that are endemic to properly constituted republican government and that make the latter constitution more desirable than the former. Machiavelli asserts that the greatest virtue of the French kingdom and its king is the dedication to law. The explanation for this situation Machiavelli refers to the function of the Parlement. These laws and orders are maintained by Parlements, notably that of Paris: These passages of the Discourses seem to suggest that Machiavelli has great admiration for the institutional arrangements that obtain in France.

Specifically, the French king and the nobles, whose power is such that they would be able to oppress the populace, are checked by the laws of the realm which are enforced by the independent authority of the Parlement. Yet such a regime, no matter how well ordered and law-abiding, remains incompatible with vivere libero. He concludes that a few individuals want freedom simply in order to command others; these, he believes, are of sufficiently small number that they can either be eradicated or bought off with honors.

By contrast, the vast majority of people confuse liberty with security, imagining that the former is identical to the latter: Although the king cannot give such liberty to the masses, he can provide the security that they crave:. The law-abiding character of the French regime ensures security, but that security, while desirable, ought never to be confused with liberty.

This is the limit of monarchic rule: Machiavelli holds that one of the consequences of such vivere sicuro is the disarmament of the people.