CLASSICAL POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY (ASSIGNMENT)

SUBMITTED BY; TENZIN KUNSANG 18/POL/107

Q. How Machiavelli’s view on Virtu is revolutionary in nature and what are his views on
Fortuna?

Ans. Niccolo Machiavelli was born in 1469 in Florence, Italy. His name lives on as a deceitful
person who had spent most of his time on producing malicious contents which are harmful to
normal people. Though he never considered himself as philosopher, according to Standford,
he was an Italian philosopher for with his qualities he can be completely fit in philosophy
(2005, Stanford) and a politician who had authored one of the most influential books related
to the modern politics: The Prince. This book is all about principles of being a powerful prince.
He basically explored various aspects of being a leader such as virtue. He had used the Italian
word virtue multiple times in this book. But the definition of Virtu in his book is significantly
different from the cognate word virtue in English. Nevertheless, it is somehow related to the
Virtue we all are familiar with. According to Machiavelli’s political context, the word virtue
comes to the scene not only for describing the traditional ethical sense but to signify the
required skills, manners and morals for playing the role of a successful leader. So to figure out
what virtue mean according to Machiavelli, we have to take a deeper look at The Prince to
notice when he used the term virtue to illustrate persona and their actions. As Terrence Ball
mentioned: “There are, in Machiavelli’s view, at least two different concepts of virtue: one for
private citizens, another for princes.” Machiavelli’s opinion of virtue for princes is completely
steady with the merciless instructions determined in the Prince.

Machiavelli’s view on virtue is revolutionary in nature. But first we need to know the meaning
of virtue according to him. He presents to his readers a vision of political rule allegedly
purged of extraneous moralizing influences and fully aware of the foundations of politics in
the effective exercise of power. The term that best captures Machiavelli's vision of the
requirements of power politics is virtù. While the Italian word would normally be translated
into English as “virtue”, and would ordinarily convey the conventional connotation of moral
goodness, Machiavelli obviously means something different when he refers to the virtù of the
prince. In particular, Machiavelli employs the concept of virtù to refer to the range of personal
qualities that the prince will find it necessary to acquire in order to “maintain his state” and
“to achieve great things”, the two standard markers of power for him. This makes it brutally
clear there can be no equivalence between the conventional virtues and Machiavellian virtù.
Machiavelli's sense of what it is to be a person of virtù can thus be summarized by his
recommendation that the prince above all else must possess a “flexible disposition”. On
Machiavelli’s account, that ruler is best suited for office, who is capable of varying her/his
conduct from good to evil and back again “as fortune and circumstances dictate” .

Not coincidentally, Machiavelli also uses the term virtù in his book The Art of War in order to
describe the strategic prowess of the general who adapts to different battlefield conditions as
the situation dictates. Machiavelli sees politics to be a sort of a battlefield on a different scale.
Hence, the prince just like the general needs to be in possession of virtù, that is, to know
which strategies and techniques are appropriate to what particular circumstances (Wood
1967). Thus, virtù winds up being closely connected to Machiavelli's notion of the power. The
ruler of virtù is bound to be competent in the application of power; to possess virtù is indeed
to have mastered all the rules connected with the effective application of power. Virtù is to
power politics what conventional virtue is to those thinkers who suppose that moral goodness
is sufficient to be a legitimate ruler: it is the touchstone of political success.

Machiavelli’s concept of virtu is revolutionary in nature especially during his time where his
views were in contrast to Christian beliefs. His concept for politicians involves wisdom,
strategy, strength, bravery and when necessary ruthlessness. In fact at one point he used the
deliciously paradoxical phrase ‘Criminal Virtue’ to describe the necessary ability of leaders to
be cruel in the name of state and yet still good as leader. Machiavelli provided some criteria
for what constitutes the right occasion for bit of criminal virtue. Any violence must be
necessary for the security of the state; it must be done swiftly, often at night- counsel
Machiavelli, and it shouldn’t be repeated too often lest the reputation for mindless brutality
builds up. Machiavlli gave the example of his contemporary, Cesare Borgia, whom he admired
as someone who knew how to be tough, but not too tough that we might question the criteria
Machiavelli used. The Catholic Church banned Machiavelli’s work for 200 years because of the
force with which he had argued that being a good Christian was incompatible with being a
good leader but even for atheist and those of us who are not politicians, Machiavelli’s insights
are important.

Machiavelli is known for his belief that the private life should not affect political behaviour.
Related to this, Sydney Angelo mentioned in his book Machiavelli: A Dissection that
“Machiavelli has come to be particularly identified with the divorce political from private
morality, with the doctrine of expediency in political action, and with the mode of justifying
all political means on ground of reason of state, as do less to his uniqueness than to the
dynamic way in which he expressed these ideas.” He believes that a ruler should choose his
priority based on the rights of the state. Depending on the situation a prince might make even
a cruel decision as the necessity has no law. It is an old argumentative subject amongst
politicians and philosophers that the leaders should close their eyes on their own interest
oftentimes because of political survival. Machiavelli argues pessimistically about nature of
being a ruler and needed virtues for saving the realm. Machiavelli describes men as unstable,
egocentric, unfavourable, and weak about appearances. Also, because they only do good under
restriction, it is better to be feared than to be loved. Naturally, he believes that people tend to
be evil rather than being good. According to his belief, in different situations, the prince must
be prepared to do anything in order to save his position such as lying, cheating somebody,
making cruel decisions, murdering a court member or breaking treaties. But what is the
reason that a prince should always be like this? Perhaps Machiavelli considers that being a
leader, king or prince is a massive title. During the history, only a few people have become
leaders. In other words, it’s a great fortune. Consequently, in order to save this title and the
whole state, leaders should maintain it. However, things get clearer when we notice than
offenses that a leader does are not the “natural and ordinary necessity” in the beginning of
chapter three. Machiavelli has written in the mentioned chapter that the second necessity in
political position “requires that one must always offend those over whom he becomes a new
prince”. Machiavelli then explained that the second natural and ordinary necessity should be
something like self-defence. A leader most always is aware of enemies. He must always be one
step forward if he wants to protect his position. It is somehow reasonable to behave similarly
to the Machiavelli’s the Prince as a leader when the history has shown us that in the most of
the court’s political corruption has happened.

There is a conceptual link between virtù and the effective exercise of power for Machiavelli.
This lies with another central Machiavellian concept, Fortuna (usually translated as
“fortune”). Fortuna is the enemy of political order, the ultimate threat to the safety and
security of the state. Machiavelli's use of the concept has been widely debated without a very
satisfactory resolution. Suffice it to say that, as with virtù, Fortuna is employed by him in a
distinctive way. Where conventional representations treated Fortuna as a mostly benign, if
fickle, goddess, who is the source of human goods as well as evils, Machiavelli's fortune is a
malevolent and uncompromising fount of human misery, affliction, and disaster. While
human Fortuna may be responsible for such success as human beings achieve, no man can act
effectively when directly opposed by the goddess.

Machiavelli's most famous discussion of Fortuna occurs in Chapter 25 of The Prince, in which
he proposes two analogies for understanding the human situation in the face of events.
Initially, he asserts that fortune resembles one of our destructive rivers which, when it is
angry, turns the plains into lakes, throws down the trees and buildings, takes earth from one
spot, puts it in another; everyone flees before the flood; everyone yields to its fury and
nowhere can repel it.

Yet the furore of a raging river does not mean that its destructions are beyond human control:
before the rains come, it is possible to take precautions to divert the worst consequences of
the natural elements. “The same things happen about Fortuna”, Machiavelli observes, She
shows her power where virtù and wisdom do not prepare to resist her, and directs her fury
where she knows that no dykes or embankments are ready to hold her. (Prince CW 90)

Fortune may be resisted by human beings, but only in those circumstances where “virtù and
wisdom” have already prepared for her inevitable arrival. Machiavelli reinforces the
association of Fortuna with the blind strength of nature by explaining that political success
depends upon appreciation of the operational principles of Fortuna. His own experience has
taught him that it is better to be impetuous than cautious, because Fortuna is a woman and it
is necessary, in order to keep her under, to beat and maul her.

In other words, Fortuna demands a violent response of those who would control her. “She
more often lets herself be overcome by men using such methods than by those who proceed
coldly”, Machiavelli continues, “therefore always, like a woman, she is the friend of young
men, because they are less cautious, more spirited, and with more boldness master her”
(Prince CW 92). The wanton behaviour of Fortuna demands an aggressive, even violent
response, lest she take advantage of those men who are too retiring or “effeminate” to
dominate her.

Machiavelli's remarks point toward several salient conclusions about Fortuna and her place in
his intellectual universe. Throughout his corpus, Fortuna is depicted as a primal source of
violence (especially as directed against humanity) and as antithetical to reason. Thus,
Machiavelli realizes that only preparation to pose an extreme response to the vicissitudes of
Fortuna will ensure victory against her. This is what virtù provides: the ability to respond to
fortune at any time and in any way that is necessary.

To conclude, I assume that with the passage of time, the true meaning of Machiavelli in the
Prince becomes obvious. As we look deeper, the meaning of virtue is getting clearer. The sum
qualifications that a leader needs in different contexts mean virtue to Nicollo Machiavelli. In
his belief, those features, virtues, sometimes make leaders do action for state necessity,
whether it is a cruel action or kind. However, most of the time Machiavelli says that it is better
to be feared than to be loved when the leader cannot be both. The world has continued to love
and hate Machiavelli in equal measure for insisting on focusing our attention on the
uncomfortable tension between two things we love and always want to have together but
perhaps can’t –effectiveness and kindness.