Comparing Machiavelli's Agathocles And Borgia

The old adage, “You can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs,” this best qualifies Machiavelli’s perspective and explains what the current members of a society would classify as “good”. All men are asked and forced to face the questions of what success means and the worth that it has. The question then becomes how far is someone willing to go to be “successful”? A prince is someone that must understand the need to be less than morally supported by the actions that he takes. The notion that the/a prince is being criminal is an illogical, counter-intuitive statement says Machiavelli, “the princes who have done great things… have to know how to get around men’s brains with their astuteness” (Machiavelli, Page 69) The major duties that
the/a prince has to accomplish in certain times are not morally reputable, but the key thing the/a prince should know is that the actions he takes must be done in the shadows away from the people. In order for the/a prince to hold his state he must ultimately have the faith of the people on his side, “he should convey all mercy, all faith, all honesty, all humanity, all religion. Nothing is more necessary to appear to have than this last quality. Men in general will judge more by their eyes than by their hands.” (Machiavelli, Page 70) In doing so, Machiavelli would say that you must be perceived by the people as esteemed and honorable. Machiavelli analogy of the animal kingdom in correlation with society states that the/a prince should adopt the nature of the fox to be successful. To get a deeper understanding of the criminality of the principality, we must begin with an examples of how not to do it or as Machiavelli says through the flaws of others.
Machiavelli speaks of the criminality of princes in the sense of a duty that must be done, but it must be done in a way that does not taint reputation. The way Machiavelli writes does not seem to promote less desirable methods of acquiring principalities but instead condones them as if they are done correctly. He finds it not admirable, but sufficient to take a principality through “nefarious” ways because Machiavelli believes that. A prime example that Machiavelli sites is Agathocles, murder and tyrant of Syracuse. Agathocles did not come to his principalities from just fortune, “at a signal he had ordered, he had all the senators, and the richest of the people killed by his soldiers. Once they were dead, he seized and held the principate.” (Machiavelli, Page 35) Even though Machiavelli praises Agathocles because of “the greatness of his spirit,” but he will never be permitted under Machiavelli’s notion of “excellent men” because of Agathocles’s lack of morality in his journey for greatness. Machiavelli explains that Agathocles cannot be of excellent men because of “his savage cruelty and inhumanity together with infinite crimes, it proves that he lacks virtue.” (Machiavelli, Page 35) It is stated that he lacks virtue because “one cannot call it virtue to kill one’s citizens, betray one’s friends, to be without faith, without mercy and without religion.” (Machiavelli, Page 35) Aside from the indicts, Agathocles still receives praises form Machiavelli because of virtue. Agathocles’s virtue to Machiavelli is a paradoxical because “[judging] it…for whoever would find it necessary to imitate them. Agathocles entering and escaping from dangers…and ending and escaping adversaries, one does not see why he has to be judged inferior to any most excellent captain.” (Machiavelli, Page 35) The problem with Agathocles is the cruelties that he indorsed were blunt and public. The issue with cruelty and brutality being displayed publically is the fact that the people are major factors in determining the value of nobility. Agathocles is not the only one who Machiavelli says committed public cruelties.
Another good example of a prince that has done many great cruelties is Cesara Borgia.
Agathocles and Borgia are very similar in the type of cruelties that they engaged in, however Cesara Borgia receives some of the highest praises from Machiavelli because he hails as being “prudent and virtuous.” (Machiavelli, Page 27) Similar to the paradoxical virtue of Agathocles, the view that Machiavelli has about Borgia is one that highlights his propensity to commit and act in cruel ways. The way that Machiavelli praises Borgia should be approached with a little bit of skepticism, because in the context of being a fox Agathocles is a saint compared to Borgia. Agathocles was indicted as cruel and inhumane and thus restricted from being considered excellent however, the people view Borgia as a great leader who was the cause of his own fault. The difference between the two examples provided is the way that they approached their tact. Borgia did many offenses but all the transgressions he did in a cunning manner that shrouds his atrocities from the eyes of the many. Borgia made a choice to select Remirro as his prime mister. Remirro as the prime minster allowed for Borgia to break all the rules. This is because Borgia’s treatment of Remirro is similar to that of a scapegoat. Borgia used Remirro to carry out some of his “hateful” crimes then capitalized on the fact that people thought Remirro was a cruel person. Borgia then, completely, severs ties in both a “stupefying” and
“satisfying” manner. (Machiavelli, Page 30) Definitively Borgia has a cruel nature but the distinction is that he does is cruelties in secret. Machiavelli describes his actions as being above reproach. The way Machiavelli accepts the actions of Borgia clearly makes the act if criminality of the principality an acceptable one if done correctly. Borgia took the necessary step to succeed in both establishing and maintaining a principality.
Machiavelli is correct because it is a requirement for a prince to not only know how to maneuver in order to achieve their goals but maintain the principalities that they hold. Thus, when Machiavelli speaks and references “the beast” he is correct. (Machiavelli, Page 69) It is dire that a prince be able to use the power of manipulation and the power in order to successfully maintain a principality.
One portion of Machiavelli’s argument, found in current society, is that of public opinion.
The way the people view the prince should not be at the top of a princes to do list, but it should defiantly be kept in mind. The public opinion of a prince is an integral component to whether a prince will be seen as successful or not. For a prince, there is an inherent need for a facilitating perspective to be taken by the people on the actions of the prince. Because of the princes need for the people, a prince should want and seek to have a good reputation. To maintain such a well-known reputation in the eyes of the people has great value in other areas like security and fortune. In order for a prince to be considered truly “excellent,” the prince needs to be viewed by the people in a peculiar light. (Machiavelli, Page 35) Machiavelli’s argument is that a prince should and ought to be feared but, also not hated. This created a pretty big conundrum for the prince. For a prince, being loved and feared is paradox that could be viewed as counter-intuitive. In deeper sight we can conclude that this is possible and, in fact, most optimal for a prince to be feared but not blatantly hated. Machiavelli’s case for this stated that “men love at their convenience and fear at the convenience of the prince.” (Machiavelli, Page 68) He goes even further when he clearly states “to be rapacious and a usurper of the property and women of his subjects” will spell the end for a prince” (Machiavelli,
Page 72)
One of the main ways that the prince can set a good reputation is by avoiding reproach. The prince should value the people’s perception because they are the main defense of the principality in times of need. Overall, the prince must do some task that are cruel and dirty. The price that Machiavelli describes is on that will commit to less reputable acts, but in times where hard choices must be made he must do morally reputable things in the shadows. Machiavelli does explain and warn all people that would perpetrate injustices of how it might slander their respective names. The stories of Cesara Borgia and Agathocles that Machiavelli illustrates explains how one can do injustice in both the right and wrong ways. There are definitive difference between a good near-do and a bad near-do. The distinction is one is public and the other is private. Perception is so important, because a prince should want and seek to be seen as “honorable” by his citizens. The prince need be viewed as honorable to promote unity and allow his city to be better protected. In essence, to be a good prince is to be dirty but to all others seem clean.