The concept of virtue is central to Machiavellian political theory in The Prince. The problematic nature of this term makes it difficult to formulate a concise definition. Different definitions often lead to different interpretations of Machiavelli. To understand the implications of Machiavelli's writings it is important to explore this concept and how it shapes his political theory. This essay will be divided into two parts. The first will concern the definition of virtue and the examination of all the ideas that fall under this term. Examples of historical and contemporary counterparts will be investigated and compared with the Machiavellian model. The implications of this idea for Machiavelli's political theory will then be discussed in detail. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Before we begin the examination of the term virtue it is necessary to explain the context of this essay regarding The Prince. Many scholars have suggested that The Prince was written with less than obvious intent. At first glance it appears to be nothing more than a manual for governing, written in the hope that Machiavelli would find employment with the Medici family. A different interpretation sees the text as an offering of bad, or at least ambiguous, advice, written with the intention of bringing down the Medici family who had left Machiavelli banished from the city he loved and destitute. Both interpretations are accepted as possibilities, however for our purposes we will take The Prince at face value and assume that his advice is given in earnest. If it were true that he wrote with less than truthful intentions, this would radically change the context of his virtue. The unscrupulous, deceitful and vicious activities required by proper statecraft, according to Machiavelli, can be considered as a plan for the downfall of a ruler. The prince addresses various political issues as they concern the new ruler, or whoever takes control of a new territory. From this context emerges the idea of ​​virtue. Virtue is a set of characteristics that make a ruler great. The tides of fortune (fortune) can easily sweep away any ruler. The ruler who possesses Machiavelli's virtue, while not completely free from the possible negative effects of fortune, is in a much better position to deal with whatever may arise. Virtue should not be confused with the modern concept of virtue. Machiavellian virtue differs markedly from the current moral model commonly associated with virtuosity. Likewise, most historical interpretations of virtue do not agree with Machiavelli. Christian virtue, once described by Nietche as "slave morality," has very little in common with Machiavellian virtue. The Christian version includes characteristics such as meekness, humility, charity, piety and forgiveness. None of these ideas are present in Machiavelli's princely virtue (virtu). Although not an avowed atheist, Machiavelli was far from being a religious man and had a certain contempt for the Catholic Church. He never expresses these views and respects the power of religion in his writings, as it would be the equivalent of political suicide to do otherwise, but a secular air surrounds his writings. The Platonic model of virtue is similarly out of sync with Machiavelli's Virtue. The emphasis on truth and justice that characterizes Platonic virtue is nowhere to be found in Machiavelli's conception. Likewise, Roman virtue, which places the highest importance on honesty and honor, is a poor equivalent of virtue. From this one could argue that Machiavelli is amoral, vizdevoid of a moral code. This is not the case. A moral code is defined as a set of norms by which conduct can be praised or criticized. Machiavelli is very outspoken in praising and condemning various courses of action. We have examined what virtue is not, now we will move on to clarify what this term means. If Christian, Platonic, and Roman conceptions of virtue are not equivalent to Machiavelli's princely virtue, what then can we use to clarify this disturbing concept? The answer lies in the heroic ideas of virtue found in Homer's writings. The Homeric version of virtue found in the Iliad and the Odyssey is much more in tune with virtue. The emphasis is not on truth, justice and similar concepts. Instead the hero must be an ingenious survivor, sacrificing everything with self-preservation as his only goal. Where other models of virtue fail to measure up to Machiavelli's, Homeric characteristics of virtue are more closely related. The linguistic foundation of the term virtue is not without relevance. Virtu is derived from, but not exactly related to, the Italian word virtus. Formed from the root vir, meaning man, or more precisely free male citizens, virtus refers to the characteristics exhibited in the class of free male citizens in the fulfillment of roles and obligations. In this sense only the vir aspect is truly applicable. Machiavelli's contemporaries also used the term virtue. D'Vinci used this term with a strictly scientific definition. He used it to designate, in a physical sense, the driving force. Another, and more widely used, connotation of the term is found within the medical community of the Italian Renaissance. This form of the word describes the vitalizing force on which the life and strength of all organisms are based. Some authors have suggested an echo of this medicinal foundation in Machiavelli's use of the term. A letter written some years later refers to a king who had recently recovered from an illness as if "his virtue had returned strong". Despite all the evidence and similarities very little importance has been attached to this theory. The use of this term in The Prince is widespread and includes numerous connotations. No word can adequately express the idea, and the long list of variations makes the term difficult to apply. The result is a series of different possible interpretations in each case of its use. Some ideas within the term virtue are desirable in the modern sense. Intellect is a key aspect of the concept. A ruler should be well informed and use this knowledge in the affairs of his state. A keen intellect will aid a ruler seeking greatness while ignorance will allow for bad luck and poor decisions. History should be studied rigorously and the actions of great men should be imitated. An intelligent ruler has advantages in all aspects of political life. Confidence also plays a role in the formulation of virtue: "But I think it is better to be stubborn than cautious, because fortune is a lady. It is necessary, if you want to dominate her, to beat her and hit her." . And it is seen that he submits more often to those who act courageously than to those who proceed in a calculating manner. “A good ruler will be confident and will command the respect of those under him. Machiavelli gives the example of Maximilian who often rescinds his decrees after encountering criticism. The result is that no one knows what his intentions are and his decisions are unreliable. Talent, intelligence, and confidence are all requirements of Machiavelli for a ruler to possess virtue. Machiavelli also requires that his ruler of virtue be pragmaticevery circumstance and able to apply his knowledge to any undertaking he undertakes. He must be attentive to those around him and weigh their opinions wisely, taking into account all that can be gained and lost for each party involved. You should always pay attention to activities abroad as they could influence the state or convey useful information. The ruler must be vigilant and perceptive as people may plot in the race for power. Decision also plays a role. Uncertainty is unacceptable for a ruler and demonstrates weakness. This pragmatism will serve the ruler well in times of crisis and will help ensure that his reign is long. This brings us to the negative moral aspects of Machiavelli's virtue. These beliefs led to his fall from popularity as they portrayed him as a tyrant with little regard for so-called moral imperatives. Although Machiavelli believes that the right path should be taken whenever possible, there are situations that may require a leader to set aside traditional morality in favor of cunning and deception. The example of Agathocles, who made bold and deceptive moves to gain exclusive possession of power, such as the massacre of the senators and richest citizens of Syracuse, receives praise from Machiavelli: "He was the son of a potter, and lived from the beginning ultimately a wicked life; yet his wicked conduct testified to such strength (virtu) of mind and body... there seems no reason why he should be judged less admirable than any of the best generals." Although Agathocles receives praise from Machiavelli, the wickedness of his character earns deserved attention: "...his inhuman cruelty and brutality, and his innumerable evil deeds, mean that it would be wrong to praise him as one of the best of men." The distinction between being a good general and being a good man is clear. Positions of power sometimes require actions from men that under other circumstances would not earn you praise. Circumstances appear to be the main determining factor in deciding whether evil actions should be undertaken or not. A ruler must be able to act against his good nature if asked: "Whoever wishes to behave as a good man in all circumstances will bring his own ruin, for those with whom he deals will not do so." be all good. Therefore it is necessary that a ruler, if he wants to maintain power, learns not to be good, and knows when it is necessary and when it is not necessary to use this knowledge." Machiavelli is also aware that sometimes wickedness will benefit a ruler very much. more than the actions that are apparently virtuous: "Above all, don't get angry if you are required to have those vices that a ruler needs to remain firmly in power, because, if you think about it, you will realize that there are some ways of behaving that are supposed to be virtuous, but would lead to your downfall, and others who are supposed to be evil, but will lead to your well-being and peace of mind." Integrity and truth have always been praised as characteristics of great men. However, careful observation taught Machiavelli that in affairs of power and politics the honest man is not necessarily the one to imitate: "Everyone recognizes how praiseworthy it is for a ruler to keep his word and live a life of integrity, without relying on cunning" . However we see that in practice, in these days, those rulers did not consider it important to keep their word, they achieved great things, and they knew how to use cunning to confuse and disorient other men surpass those who placed great importance on integrity ." Virtue has little to do with justice and more to do withopportunism. Virtuous traits for the commoner do not apply to princely virtue. A ruler, due to his position in a society, is subject to different standards. It is because of Machiavelli's contempt for the masses that he recognizes that the ruler must be above common morality: "They are ungrateful, fickle, deceitful and deceitful, avoiding danger, eager to gain. They promise you their blood, their assets, their lives and their children, as I said before, as long as you don't seem to need it. As soon as you need help, they turn on you."If people weren't so evil and undesirable things would be different. However, the nature of man, as Machiavelli sees, does not allow for traditional virtue: "You see therefore that a wise ruler cannot, and must not, keep his word when doing so is to his disadvantage, and when the reasons that led him to promise to do so is no longer applicable. Of course, if all men were good, this advice would be bad: but since men are evil it will not keep you faithful, you need not keep faith with them." Now it is clear how the concept of princely virtue differs from traditional notions of virtue. How then does this conception of virtue influence Machiavelli's political theory? The answer is that virtue shapes almost all aspects of Machiavelli's formulations and dominates the text of The Prince. From the prominence of military power and strategy in a ruler's life to theories about what kind of ruler is best suited to overcome the force of fortune, virtue is at the forefront. in almost all discussions of Machiavelli. Perhaps the most important aspect of virtue and its relationship to political power, according to The Prince, is military superiority. Indeed, Machiavelli suggests that this is the only area of ​​concern for a ruler: "A ruler, therefore, should have no other concern, no other thought, should pay attention to nothing except war, military institutions and 'training of his soldiers... It is of such importance that military prowess not only keeps those who were born rulers in power, but often also enables men who were born private citizens to rise to power.' While this may be a slight exaggeration, this section is written to impress upon the reader the importance of military force. Machiavelli addresses non-military issues in his text, but none are given the high regard that issues of war receive. Another issue discussed in The Prince is the nature of government and the role that virtue plays in bringing someone to power. Rulers can come to power in different ways, some, like ecclesiastical rulers, are chosen from a group of like-minded men. These rulers face little challenges as their supposed relationship with God prevents evil from coming to them. Likewise. Rulers who are in power by birthright do not face many challenges, as they are often seen as figureheads and expectations of them are generally low. The sovereign Citizen, however, who gains power through luck or virtue, faces the most challenges. In these circumstances the ruler must rely on his virtue to remain in power. Those who have been thrown into the role of ruler by the good graces of fortune, without continued good fortune, will quickly fall from power. It is the ruler who has struggled to achieve power, overcoming obstacles and gaining experience, who possesses virtue. He is the most able ruler but faces the fiercest opposition. He must rely on his wits and strength to both woo and control the masses, crushing any opposition: 1995