Machiavelli’s Concepts of Fortuna and Virtú

Niccol Machiavelli wrote The Prince, a book about Machiavellianism's political philosophy, which fundamentally means victory at any cost (Machiavelli & Viroli, 2008). Machiavelli addresses the relative importance of the terms fortuna and virt in The Prince, arguing that virt are acts, choices, and discoveries that arise out of desperation and lead to breakthroughs in a world ruled by fortuna, which is generally translated as fate or fortune beyond human reach (Machiavelli & Viroli, 2008). Given that Machiavelli was a republican, it is ironic that he wrote The Prince on opposing ideologies. This essay first argues that Machiavelli is a republican and then attempts to answer the question of what Machiavelli actually implies by fortuna and virtú, and additionally why Machiavelli developed these concepts regardless of his political ideology. Principally, Machiavelli believes in the dominance of virtú over fortuna for the unification of Italy.

Background of Machiavelli’s Political Ideals

Machiavelli started working as an ambassador and a clerk in Florence, Italy, following the expulsion of the Medici family, the governors of Florence, and recognized Republic. Machiavelli’s public service career has its background in the republican regime. In Discourses on Livy, Machiavelli’s other book about the history of the Romans, the author defines three types of states- polity, aristocracy, and the monarchy (Machiavelli, 2009). Machiavelli opines that none of the aforementioned states can escape corruption and they will ultimately transform into democracy, oligarchy, or tyranny in the near future. However, Machiavelli contends that the combinations of all these three types of governments in Rome guaranteed the safety of the Roman Republic. The author notes that Rome owes its prosperity to the conflict between the Senate and the plebs. He particularly acknowledges the role of the tribunes for the plebs’ security as a stumbling block of the nobles’ tyrannical leadership. Machiavelli states that “the Romans ordered the tribunes for the security of the plebs with so much eminence and reputation that they could ever after be intermediaries between the Senate and the plebs and prevent the insolence of the nobles” (Commisso, 2016). The author emphasizes on the significance of the “tribunes for the security of the plebs” as arbiters between the plebs and the nobles. Machiavelli also applauds the system since it embodied his hope to equip the plebs with the power equivalent with that of the nobles.

Machiavelli’s Conflicting Views

Machiavelli’s ironical ideology is evident in that he believes in republicanism, yet he contradicts himself by praising the Roman establishment of authorization leadership at the same time. The author writes, “Among the other Roman orders, this is one that deserves to be considered and numbered among those that were the cause of the greatness of so great an empire, for, without such an order, cities escape from extraordinary accidents with difficulty. Because the customary orders in republics have a slow motion, their remedies are very dangerous when they have to remedy a thing that time does not wait for” (Geuna, 2015). Machiavelli further adds that “It is very suitable that when the deed accuses him, the effect excuses him; and when the effect is good, as was that of Romulus, it will always excuse the deed” (Geuna, 2015). The texts are clearly indicative of Machiavelli’s contradicting views.

Even though Machiavelli believes in the Republic thought-process, he also realizes that it takes a long time and that a government might ultimately miss its opportunity to catch fortuna. The author needs only one individual to take responsibility and act for the government’s actions speedily. It is inconsistent to his republican political ideal, nevertheless, since an only one-person rule often leads to dictatorship, a counter-part to the republic. Therefore, his Machiavellism seen in The Prince and his republican ideal observed in Discourses on Livy, conflict with one another and produce the emergent concept of fortuna and virtú. This is because the effect excuses a man only when the man’s virtú, results in the world into better directions, like Romulus’ case.

Another illustration of Machiavelli’s ideology is the unification of Italy. While Machiavelli was living, he deplored the Italian situation where citizens could not realize unification because democracies, oligarchies, and monarchies were all jumbled up and competed with each other for hegemony. Machiavelli believed that a man of virtú is a man who can unify Italy with his force, even though the same man can sometimes use cunning means. He states, “Since a prince is compelled of necessity to know well how to use the beast, he should pick the fox and lion.” For example, Machiavelli finds virtú in Casire Borgia, the son of Alexander VI. As such, the author admires Cesare as a new type of leader. However, he notes that Cesate Borgia was abandoned by virtú, following Alexander IV’s death. Machiavelli writes, “Cesare Borgia, called Duke Valentino by the vulgar, acquired his state through the fortune of his father and lost it through the same…” (Scott & Sullivan, 1994). This implies that Alexander VI was an influential person in the society so much that he could give his son (Cesare) the forces that led him to glory. In hindsight, Cesare enjoyed his fortuna when his father was still alive and lost it upon Alexander VI (his father)’s death. According to Machiavelli, Cesare seemingly had the virtú that enabled him unify Italy, yet, ultimately, Cesare’s virtú overpowered his fortuna.

Fortuna and Virtú

Also, Machiavelli uses the term virtú in various contexts, like meaning morality. Political skills, force, will, and courage (Machiavelli & Viroli, 2008). The importance of virtú is the power to manipulate or break through fortuna, which sometimes can stand by a man, and other times, suddenly attack the man. Machiavelli asserts that Romans manipulated fortuna and succeeded in making the successes out of the virtú. He states, “the Romans, seeing inconveniences from afar, always found remedies for them (fortuna) and never allowed them to continue so as to escape a way because they knew that war may not be avoided but is deferred to the advantage of others.” Another example of Machiavelli placing virtú over fortuna is shown on how he evaluates Salvonarola, Romulus, Cyrus, and Moses (Commisso, 2016). The last three become princess by virtú, not by fortuna, expect for Salvonarola. Hence, Machiavelli states that Romulus, Cyrus, and Moses are the most excellent princess, averse to Salvonarola, who basically loses his state due to his lack of virtú. Machiavelli fortifies the argument in another sentence, “I conclude, thus, that without its own arms no principality is secure; indeed, is wholly obliged to fortune (fortuna) since it does not have virtue (virtú) to defend itself” (Machiavelli, 2009). This virtú simply means the power to dominate fortune, but also implies glory resulting from the morality of humans.

Machiavelli writes, “one cannot call it virtue (virtú) to kill one’s citizens, betray one’s friends, to be without faith, without mercy, without religion; these modes can enable one to acquire empire, but not glory” (Machiavelli & Viroli, 2008). In this text, Machiavelli implies that an individual cannot attain glory without morality. It also implies that it is not virtú even if a person overcomes fortuna and achieve an empire. Machiavelli presents Agathocles the Sicilian as an example of a man without morality, and therefore declares he is not “celebrated among the most excellent men.” Therefore, Machiavelli highly values glory in this context, putting aside fortuna and virtú. However, Machiavelli contradicts himself by stating, “especially a new prince cannot observe all those things for which men are held good, since he is often under a necessity to maintain his state, of acting against faith, against charity, against humanity, against religion” (Machiavelli & Viroli, 2008). This illogicality indicates that there are some instances where necessity requires virtú to go against morality, and this is acceptable when the virtú leads to the better world. Even in the case of Sicilian and Agathocles, Machiavelli admits that Agathocles is less glorious but also that he faces certain situations that necessitate his immoral actions (Commisso, 2016). In this context, even though glory fortuna, as well as glory, are both significant based on Machiavelli’s assertions, he believes that virtú should always precede both the former.

In the context of military forces, Machiavelli contends that in as much as virtú does not usually refer to military forces because it fundamentally overpowers fortuna, it often implies them. For instance, Machiavelli believes that what makes Pilopoemen, prince of Acheans, great is “that in times of peace he never thought of anything but modes of war” (Di Scipio, 1983). Obviously, military forces are essential in maintaining the virtú provided that Cesare lost his virtú the moment he lost his military forces. Additionally, Machiavelli emphasizes on the importance of militia. The author endorses “those capable of ruling by themselves who can, by abundance of either men or money, put together an adequate army and fight a battle” (Di Scipio, 1983). Militia was never perceived as an option for Machiavelli. However, Florence usually depended on them, except for when Machiavelli organized their militia. He never sees virtú in the militia. He says, “in mercenary arms laziness is more dangerous; in auxiliary, virtue (virtú) is” (Di Scipio, 1983). Machiavelli could not find virtú in Florence that employed militia to act as the government’s counter insurgency to maintain power. When he realized that the republicanism that he had worked for in Florence did not carry with virtú and therefore could not bring glory to Italy, Machiavelli created his own concept of virtú that enabled Italy to be unified.





Conclusion

Machiavelli’s belief of virtú and fortuna completely varied from what individuals held them to be collectively true in conventional terms, reason being that Virtú is anything but virtue, and Fortuna is not fortune or destiny in a true sense either. In conventional terms, princes out to be in possession of virtue to impact their juniors with morality; Machiavelli designed an exclusively new concept of virtú which manipulates the fortuna that had been perceived as outside of man’s control. Also, when Machiavelli realized that his republican ideals would assist in the Unification of Italy and that the Florence for which he had worked was actually the culprit that inhibited Italy’s unification, Machiavelli did away with his predecessor political ideals and arrived at the consensus that the scenario necessitated a man of virtú who should exert his power over fortuna and lead the country to glory.

References

Commisso, V. J. (2016). Dynamic politics: Necessity, founding, and (re) founding in Machiavelli's Discourses on Livy (Doctoral dissertation, State University of New York at Albany).

Di Scipio, G. C. (1983). De re militari in Machiavelli’s Prince and More’s Utopia. Moreana, 20(1), 11-22.

Geuna, M. (2015). Machiavelli and the Problem of Dictatorship. Ratio Juris, 28(2), 226-241.

Machiavelli, N. (2009). Discourses on livy. University of Chicago Press.

Machiavelli, N., & Viroli, M. (2008). The prince (Vol. 43). Oxford University Press.

Scott, J. T., & Sullivan, V. B. (1994). Patricide and the Plot of the Prince: Cesare Borgia and Machiavelli's Italy. American Political Science Review, 88(4), 887-900.