The Prince Fortune Quotes

How we cite our quotes: (Chapter.Paragraph)

Quote #1

So let's start by saying that when it comes to entirely new regimes where a new ruler has seized the state, the ease or difficulty of his staying in power will be in proportion to his abilities or failings [virtuoso]. And since you can't go from being an ordinary citizen to a ruler without either talent [virtù] or favourable circumstances, we must suppose that one or the other of these factors will be offsetting, at least in part, a great many difficulties. That said, those who haven't relied too much on lucky circumstances have lasted longer. (6.2)

So you're not supposed to rely too much on luck, but what about Julius II? He's totally lucky and life seems to be awesome for him. Why can't we follow his example?

Quote #2

Analysing their lives and achievements, we notice that the only part luck played was in giving them an initial opportunity: they were granted the raw material and had the chance to mould it into whatever shape they wanted. Without this opportunity their talent would have gone unused, and without their talent [virtù] the opportunity would have gone begging. (6.3)

Virtù and luck are best friends—or maybe business partners. You need both to make stuff happen.

Quote #3

So, if Moses hadn't found the people of Israel in Egypt, enslaved and oppressed and in need of a leader to get them out of the situation, they would never have been willing to follow him. If Romulus hadn't been abandoned at birth and chosen to leave Alba Longa, how could he have become king and founder of Rome? […] These opportunities made these men's fortunes and it was because of their remarkable qualities that they were able to recognize and grasp the opportunities, bringing glory and even greater good fortune to their countries. (6.4)

Machiavelli is using virtù pretty traditionally here. Virtù lets you see when you're lucky and then make yourself even luckier. So do unlucky people have no virtù by default? What about the B-man, Borgia?

Quote #4

If you consider Agathocles' ability to take risks [virtu] and come out on top, and his remarkable spirit when it came to facing and overcoming obstacles, it's hard to see why he isn't rated as highly as the most outstanding military leaders. But his brutality, cruelty and inhumanity, together with the endless crimes he committed, mean he has no place among the men we most admire. In conclusion, we can't attribute Agathocles' achievements to luck or to positive qualities [virtù], since he needed neither. (8.3)

Huh? We thought Machiavelli said that you need either virtù or fortune to succeed. What happened here with Agathocles?

Quote #5

So, to conclude: no state is secure without its own army; if it hasn't got men to defend it determinedly and loyally in a crisis [virtù], it is simply relying on luck. (13.8)

That's why our bulletproof vests are made of 100% USDA organic luck.

Quote #6

I realize that many people have believed and still do believe that the world is run by God and by fortune and that however shrewd men may be they can't do anything about it and have no way of protecting themselves. As a result they may decide that it's hardly worth making an effort and just leave events to chance. (25.1)

Hmmm, God and fortune go together? Why is that? Is Machiavelli just saying we can't control either, or is there something more?

Quote #7

Still, the fact that a river is like this doesn't prevent us from preparing for trouble when levels are low, building banks and dykes, so that when the water rises the next time it can be contained in a single channel and the rush of the river in flood is not so uncontrolled and destructive … Fortune's the same. It shows its power where no one has taken steps to contain it, flooding into places where it finds neither banks nor dykes that can hold it back. (25.2)

Okay, so fortune is the river, but what's the dyke? Luck? Virtù? Borgia awesomeness? Metaphors are great, but only if they clarify things.

Quote #8

This explains why people's fortunes go up and down. If someone is behaving cautiously and patiently and the times and circumstances are such that the approach works, he'll be successful. But if times and circumstances change, everything goes wrong for him, because he hasn't changed his approach to match. You won't find anyone shrewd enough to adapt his character like this, in part because you can't alter your natural bias and in part because, if a person has always been successful with a particular approach, he won't easily be persuaded to drop it. [ …] To conclude then: fortune varies but men go on regardless. When their approach suits the times they're successful, and when it doesn't they're not. (25.7-10)

But we thought virtù lets you control fortune. Is it the other way around? Is virtù only whatever fortune wants it to be? This is all starting to sound a little chaotic.

Quote #9

My opinion on the matter is this: it's better to be impulsive than cautious; fortune is female and if you want to stay on top of her you have to slap and thrust. You'll see she's more likely to yield that way than to men who go about her coldly. And being a woman she likes her men young, because they're not so cagey, they're wilder and more daring when they master her. (25.10)

This is so weird. So weird. We have no words for it, but you should probably think about why Machiavelli says that fortune is female. Does that make virtù male? What does that mean? Think about that while we go sit in a corner.

Quote #10

What I can't see is any family the country could put its faith in right now if not your illustrious house, blessed as it is with fine qualities [virtù ] and fortune, favoured by God and the Church - actually running the Church, in fact - and hence well placed to lead Italy to redemption. (26.3)

Isn't this kind of the ultimate compliment? After all this talk about how virtù or fortune is not enough on its own, Machiavelli says that the Medicis have both virtù and fortune. No wonder he wants them to rule.