Paste your essay in here…Niccoló Machiavelli within The Prince presents a grand political theory that paints the political realm as a battlefield where only truly exceptional individuals may survive if they play their cards right. For otherwise, his exceptional princes will perish alongside their states. For it established that power alone is not sufficient to keep them afloat in a world that guarantees them nothing. Hence, Machiavelli presents his conception of what a prince needs to maintain and enhance the success of his state – virtue. Unlike other conceptions of virtue, virtue is conceptualized as a quality that enables a prince to withstand the blows of Fortuna; allowing the prince to achieve honor and glory for his namesake and security for his state.
Fortuna was a goddess of fortune and the personification of luck in Roman religion, and Machiavelli presents her to be of high importance within in his imaginings within The Prince. However, other scholars did not share the same regard for her treatment in society. Namely St. Augustine in his grand work The City of God Against the Pagans did not agree with the esteem Machiavelli placed upon her. This essay will begin with the Machiavellian conception of fortune and how Machiavelli’s realism supports the reverence he places upon her. This will draw a baseline for comparison between Machiavelli and St. Augustine’s conception of fortune who deems fortune to be pessimist and diabolic.
Machiavellian Context
For Machiavelli, fortune is of great importance to princes who wish to be successful for “fortune is arbiter of half our actions… that leaves the other half… for us to govern” (The Prince, XXV). Meaning that fortune dos not play an insignificant role in the life of a prince; for what will make a prince virtuous is the manner in which he approaches and handles the fortune he is given. However, fortune is said to be unpredictable and destructive like a violent river thus, how is a prince to act accordingly? To this Machiavelli responds, “although [fortune is] like this, it is not as if men, when times are quiet, could not provide for themselves dikes and dams so that when they rise later, either they go by canal or their impetus is neither so wanton nor so damaging” implying that a prince must have the foresight to plan accordingly so that when fortune arrives, he finds himself safe and without his guard down (The Prince, XXV).
For fortune is a resource that can be harnessed by princes to serve to their advantage. As Machiavelli describes, “fortune is a woman; and it is necessary, if one wants to hold her down, to beat her and strike her down” (The Prince, XXV). Meaning that a prince of great virtue would have the prudence to exploit fortune by beating her into submission. For like the violent river, fortune will “demonstrate her power where virtue has not been put in order to resist her” thus demonstrating that fortune cannot be ignored and must be engaged with to garner success (The Prince, XXV).
This conception of fortune is very much Machiavellian for Machiavelli like various scholars believe that the war is at a constant state of war where we must do whatever is possible to maintain our wellbeing. Thus, we must rely on our virtue for survival. This is why fortune is portrayed in a manner where she can be harvested to reap rewards. For if a prince can capitalize on his ill fortune then he can capitalize on the ill fortune of others. As Machiavelli proclaims, “he is happy who adapts his mode of proceeding to the qualities of the time” demonstrating that a prince with virtue can, regardless of the fortune that is bestowed upon him, capitalize and reap the rewards of fortune (The Prince, XXV).
Augustinian Perspective
St. Augustine considers Christian scriptures to be the benchmark against which political philosophy must be measured against. Thus, his world view is contingent on the doctrines taught by Christianity. Although one by reading Machiavelli and St. Augustine would not except both to have similarities, they do share the same viewpoint on the nature of man. For man, damned through the Fall of Adam, inherited the effects of Adam’s original sin. Man became vessels of greed, self-interest and pride “divided against itself in lawsuits, wars and strife (City of God, 15.4). Hence, alike Machiavelli, man is a self-interested, irrational actor living in a domain where nations “seek to be victories over other nations” (City of God, 15.4).
St. Augustine refers to this struggling aspect of nature to be known only in the City of Man. For St. Augustine divides the human race into two different orders which he refers to as two cities: The City of Man and The City of God. The City of Man is where man lives according to himself: progeny of Adam and Eve and damned alongside them. Whereas the City of God is where man live according to God: “predestined by grace and chosen by grace” (City of God, 15.1). According to St. Augustine, those who reign in the City of Man will “undergo eternal punishment for the devil” for inside said city, they have alienated God to serve their self-interest.
Thus, armed with this knowledge we can tackle Fortuna, the goddess of fortune. Unlike Machiavelli, St. Augustine does not deem fortune to be something we can wield to our advantage for such actions would place us within the earthly city. Thus, he proclaims Fortuna to be a useless goddess for Rome for she is not like felicity because Fortuna does not always bestow good fortune upon those touched by her: “Fortune can indeed be bad as well as good, whereas if felicity is bad it is not felicity” (City of God, 4.20). St. Augustine does not consider how man can defend itself against ill fortune because he conceptualizes that man cannot worship something that is pure chance if he is to trust and rely on Gods will; as he explains, “there is nothing to be gained from worshipping her if she is mere chance” (City of God, 4.20). Thus, the self-interest and greed that runs rampant within the City of Man is not something that is to be followed as Machiavelli suggests within The Prince instead, humanity needs to stray from wills of self-interested wills like glory and honor because “they were according to itself, and not according to God” (City of God, 14.11).
Conclusion
In conclusion, although Machiavelli and St. Augustine share the same basic proponents of realism as demonstrated through their beliefs of humankind being self-interested and constantly at war, they do not share the same beliefs on the role that fortune plays within society. As mentioned above, Machiavelli beliefs that fortune can be played to suit the advantage of princes who display exceptional virtue. However, St. Augustine deems lady luck to be a useless figure to rely in for she pushes man further into the City of Man where he eternally damned by God.
Although both authors present attention-grabbing discussions on the role of fortune, Machiavelli’s point of view is one that can be deemed more ‘realistic’ within our modern society. For his view can be easily seen within our contemporary world where politicians who act according to their fortunes achieve the greatest amount of success alike to Machiavelli’s princes who went on to be great founders of new modes and orders. St. Augustine’s conceptualization based on religious predestination is somber and contrary to the wills of man, we relish in the attainment of goods on the earthly realm as Machiavelli suggests, and few are the man able to control themselves against the evil will instilled in us by the Fall of Adam to serve their self-interest.