In The Prince, Niccolo Machiavelli outlines the specific paths that any new or aspiring prince must take in order to be a successful juxtaposition leader. Since he naturally provides numerous historical examples for both successful and unsuccessful approaches, their is perhaps the most effective rhetorical strategy on display in this text. As such, it is only logical that we examine the most successful example of a prince, that being Ferdinand of Aragon, so as to illuminate Machiavelli’s argument in greater detail. The most striking element of Ferdinand’s success seems to be the successful management of time. That is, Ferdinand seems to appreciate the role that management of time plays in general distraction, and in quelling any potential …show more content…
This is because Machiavelli’s logic adopts the same ruthlessness, but careful ruthlessness, that his exemplary princes do; if Machiavelli’s logic was merely evil or cruel, without any mitigating factors (such as reason), we might be compelled to simply ignore his arguments. One of his more lucid observations, particularly as it pertains to himself, is emphatically stated: “This has to be understood: that a prince…needs to…not depart from good, when possible, but know how to enter into evil, when forced by necessity” (Machiavelli 70). Much of his text can read as Machiavelli entering into evil only “by necessity,” since he understands that any alternative to his rational, calculating rhetoric will fail, and to devastating effect. Consider what he says about averting war: “…a disorder should never be allowed to continue so as to avoid a war, because that is not to avoid it but to defer it to your disadvantage” (Machiavelli 15). In short, once you allow that entering into evil is sometimes necessary, then reason is given more space in which to work efficiently. Unburdened by the chains of morality and ethics, Machiavelli is given free reign to ponder the complexity and contradictions of the ideal