What Did Niccolo Machiavelli Mean by Virtu?

DISCLAIMER: This article was taken from an essay I wrote for a university module hence the academic style.

Niccolò Machiavelli’s concept of virtu arguably deviates from the common usage of this word which is seen often to align with principles of morality. Whilst Machiavelli may often align with such principles, he also advocates for immoral actions in certain circumstances and often views them as more stable. Therefore, Machiavelli’s concept of virtu is largely political rather than moral, defining it as a force of courage and skill in a leader or population which historically drives state success. Moreover, this was used to facilitate his re-entry into the politics of Florence. However, equally, this philosophy is not entirely amoral with moral implications for state welfare and Machiavelli’s preference for morality and honour where possible. This essay will explore this debate, particularly using The Prince and Discourses on Livy and a range of academic opinions.

On the one hand, arguably Machiavelli aligns with traditional qualities of virtu.  Even when advocating cruelty, he concedes the immorality of the said action which could suggest an innate preference for moral good as seen in Chapter 8 where acquiring a principality through wickedness or conceit he acknowledges is not morally commendable[1]. Here he describes that whilst virtu is crucial in securing power, virtu should not lead to ‘massacre one's fellow citizens, to betray one's friends, to break one's word, to be without mercy and without religion’.[2] However, on the other hand despite this he still ultimately delineates virtu from morality, arguing state survival supersedes personal interests in Chapter 21[3] declaring the importance of ‘accepting the lesser evil as a good’ despite discussions over the social benefits of traditional morals such as generosity and clemency in creating a more supportive society. Despite this, the pragmatism of virtu often overlaps with perceived ideas of traditional morality. Notably, in Chapter 19 of The Prince, Machiavelli discusses the benefits of avoiding excessive taxation, property confiscation, infringing upon personal liberties and disregarding traditional customs[4]. This arguably reflects the Christian values of diligence, kindness and charity. Resultingly, a more stable society will emerge. However, rather than displaying a moral concern for individuals this yet again portrays the idea that state survival is of priority which is arguably amoral. Although dishonesty is advised in some instances in Chapter 18[5], Machiavelli also attributes great merit to the values of honesty and loyalty such as the idea that sycophantic secretaries are damaging in Chapter 23[6]. Moreover, his preference for native rather than auxiliary or mercenary troops in combat in Chapter 12[7] suggests that loyalty is crucial to cohesive strong states in Machiavelli’s view of virtu. This yet again demonstrates overlap between traditional morality and virtu.

Machiavelli also advocates the traditional virtue of humility. Notably, there is an implication of an individual subsuming their own ego to the church in ecclesiastical principalities in order to manage the tolerance of a religious population[8]. This idea of humility and devolving power, contrasting with ideas of tyranny, is also seen in Chapter 4 in which Machiavelli cites the success of Alexander the Great’s policy of assimilation in conquering the Persian kingdom of Darius[9] as Alexander’s successors maintained relative stability following his death. However, Machiavelli implies this success is due to Alexander’s decision-making which reflects the role of political skill in virtu. The prevention of tyranny is advocated in Chapter 26 with the context of the foreign powers of Spain, Germany and French rulers now ruling over a fragmented Italy which Machiavelli argues can be redeemed by a leader of a charismatic, ‘bold’ and strong ‘new ruler’ and calling for the liberation of Italy from barbarians[10] who have violated the traditional virtue of humility. However, although arguably beneficial to the state, these align with his own political goals and therefore may reflect instead his self-interest. These ideas of virtue are all framed in a context of political rule with The Prince addressed to Lorenzo de' Medici[11] to promote restoring unity to Italy whilst Discourses on Livy was also written during exile.  However, although undermining the morality of the concept of virtu, these personal motives were unconcealed, therefore the presentation of virtu reflects Machiavelli’s intentions.

Moreover, Machiavelli demonstrates virtu’s overlap with traditional morality in his advocacy for a reputation for kindness and generosity in some circumstances. However, Machiavelli famously argued a leader ‘ought to be both feared and loved’[12] which reflects the balance of both this virtue of traditional morality alongside cruelty. The traditional moral virtue of generosity is also advocated for but only when it serves a ruler’s stability or interests as excessive generosity can compromise the state’s resources. Therefore, despite the overlap between ideas of traditional morality in some instances in Machiavelli’s approach to virtu, this is largely due to pragmatism. However, although ultimately Machiavelli’s goal is for state survival, he still discriminates over the morality of each method to some extent. This is seen in Chapter 6 in which Machiavelli argues new principalities acquired by the ruler’s skill rather than treachery are most respectable[13]. However, this is likely due to the implications of competent political leadership which benefit the state rather than the personal moral benefits. This also stems from a pragmatic idea that it will generate more support from the population as the rise to power of the new ruler has derived from legitimate means.

However, although these ideas of virtu can overlap with morality, they innately differ from traditional ideas. Notably, the Christian doctrine of the seven virtues of chastity, diligence, kindness, patience, charity, humility and temperance clash in part with Machiavelli’s view. Whilst there is overlap in diligence, charity, humility and kindness in some situations with Machiavelli’s discussion of clemency, generosity, respecting newly acquired principalities and loyalty, the conception of virtu (although not amoral) adopts a different meaning more relevant to political leadership.  Notably, Machiavelli puts a greater emphasis upon courageous acts as Harvey Mansfield argued convincingly[14] argued. In Discourses on Livy for example in modelling an ideal leader, Machiavelli endorses the idea that virtu reflects ability to overcome adversity with strong leadership and the use of rhetoric for example with the praise for Cicero’s speeches in maintaining the Roman state by warning of the Catilinarian conspiracies[15]. Moreover, this idea that leaders should be resolute and not swayed by public opinion is exemplified by the plight of the Gracchi brothers who attempted to placate the Roman poor with land reforms which arguably stirred class conflict[16]. This yet again demonstrates a pragmatic approach to generosity befitting of a strong leader. In Discourses on Livy Machiavelli presents virtu as overlapping with ideas of honesty in traditional morality with the advice that corruption be removed to ensure military efficiency for example[17]. However, this yet again suggests the importance of strong leadership rather than absolute morality. Despite Machiavelli’s moral preference as mentioned, ultimately pragmatism can neglect morality although the results of this have a somewhat moral benefit.

Moreover, as John Pocock argues, Machiavelli perceives virtu as a cyclical force in history.[18] This can progress as Machiavelli argues in Discourses on Livy with the development from the Assyrian empire, then to the Median empire and then finally the Roman empire who followed the collapse of the Achaemenid Empire[19]. This can also diminish as witnessed in the collapse of the Roman empire with the process restarted by uncorrupted survivors as Machiavelli argues. Drawing attention to The Art of War, Pocock reveals how Machiavelli argues where there are states there are ‘valiant men’[20] and therefore with Rome’s expansionist nature when these states were dismantled Rome was left as the only source of virtu. In Machiavelli’s perspective, this also made virtu vulnerable to decline with Rome falling to the decay of virtu with weak military strength, a lack of institutional flexibility and class conflict arguably stirred by the excessive generosity of the aforementioned Gracchi brothers. This teleological view of virtue also has an inherent contradiction that Machiavelli implies as Nikola Regent argues[21]: the ideal virtuous state dependent on control eventually leads to its own downfall. However, although this may be inevitable Machiavelli’s idea of virtu is ultimately to maintain political control through pragmatism that arguably the decay of virtu in Rome prevented.

Moreover, although Machiavelli demonstrates the overlap between traditional morals and codes of honour with virtu and the preference for morality, Chapter 15 arguably exposes the idea that such morals are merely performative and only followed in order to generate praise and reduce support[22]. This is evidenced by Machiavelli’s advice that one ‘avoid being thought of’ as cruel and unreliable and that they display wisdom, prudence and loyalty[23]. Moreover, even where moral and virtuous actions such as liberality and clemency are advocated in Chapters 16 and 17 respectively, Machiavelli suggests that it is important to mediate generosity and mercy as excess will compromise both the image of strength and decisiveness of a ruler and thus lead to greater transgressions[24]. However, arguably this yet again reflects a wider social good of preventing rebellions by deterring transgressors. Despite this, it is morally questionable that preventing rebellions would lead to a better society as these rebellions may be justified. However, Machiavelli’s desire for the stability and security of the state through virtu still indicates there is a moral dynamic to his ideas.

Conversely, Machiavelli contradicts ideas of traditional morality by advocating evil characteristics such as cruelty where necessary. Arguably, Machiavelli’s conflict with traditional morality was not entirely new with Aristotle questioning ‘whether we ought to regard the virtue of a good man and that of a sound citizen as the same virtue’[25] indicating that the overlap between moral and civic virtue is strong but not necessarily synonymous. Despite this, ultimately the extent to which Machiavelli separated ethics from virtu was largely revolutionary with Aristotle advocating personal virtuous living to achieve eudemonia which overlapped strongly with the values of a good citizen. There are only certain strategic situations in which a citizen would betray virtu for social good such as withholding information at the expense of honesty and prioritising their safety above courage. By stark contrast, Machiavelli not only separates ethics from political virtu but argues tactics that create fear are often preferable as they provide greater stability. Notably, in Chapter 17 of The Prince, Machiavelli argues that it is useful to be both feared and loved however acknowledges finding this balance is often difficult and, in such instances, ‘it is much safer to be feared’[26]. In Chapter 8, he cites the circumstances of a principality newly acquired by wickedness or deceit often requiring fear ‘by violence’[27] to encourage social obedience rather than the level of assimilation advocated in principalities acquired through other means. However, even in such circumstances, he argues fear should still be tempered to prevent resentment which could stir rebellion. This suggests an overarchingly pragmatic approach however there is still a partial moral preference for what is morally commendable in an ideal situation but often a preference for the stability intimidation tactics allow as ‘we do not live in an ideal world[28]. Moreover, in Chapter 16 Machiavelli frequently contrasts traditional morals of charity with advocating frugality in most situations[29]. However, arguably this is to ensure financial stability which could benefit the overall function of society and thus has moral merits.

In addressing this conflict between good and evil, Machiavelli’s vision of a leader deserving of praise is outlined in Chapter 15[30]. This leader should be wise, just, strong in character, faithful to promises and prudent in decision-making which entails Machiavelli’s pragmatism. Whilst these are arguably pragmatic as they are intended to allow stability, they demonstrate that the effects of virtu often align with morality and there is still a moral dimension to his writing. As Hubert Schleichert argues[31], although rulers pragmatically betray traditional morality, ‘everyday morality’ still applies to them as seen in Machiavelli’s use of terminology in describing the abject nature of resorting to cruelty in certain situations. Moreover, desire for political stability is not amoral, as the pragmatic benefits of this could benefit society.

Machiavelli’s emphasis upon ‘fortuna’ arguably further implies the immorality of virtu and the pragmatism of the approach with morality not necessarily rewarded due to the role of fortune. As Machiavelli writes in Chapter 25, this pragmatic approach to fortune instead requires strong leadership through decision-making and contingency plans for example[32]. Therefore, this emphasises the political rather than moral dynamic of virtu to Machiavelli. As Martyn de Bruyn argued[33], Machiavelli’s conception of virtu transcended views of good and evil by demanding a new pragmatist approach to bring stability to the fragmented Medici era. Machiavelli argued a good leader is ‘to learn how (and when) not to be good’[34]. This is reflected in the way Machiavelli advises leaders to temper cruelty and generosity, mercy and strength and charity and frugality. However, Machiavelli’s philosophy is not entirely devoid of any ethical dimension of good as ultimately this desire for state stability often benefits the wider society through economic, political and social stability. Although this is largely to consolidate control with strong leadership and militaristic strength keeping the population in check, stability is arguably beneficial for the community. Therefore, although Machiavelli’s intentions are pragmatic, the consequences are partially moral in nature with the idea of state benefits.

On the other hand, despite the pragmatism of virtu and often promoting the greater stability of fear, the idea of state survival from a utilitarian perspective suggests Machiavelli attributed morality to virtu by seeing it as a tool to benefit the overall good of society. Moreover, although arguably much of the ideas of pragmatism discussed in The Prince such as selectively understanding when to use cruelty or clemency for example are related to political stability and control, Machiavelli still argued for citizen involvement and prevention of government tyranny. Notably, in Discourses on Livy, Machiavelli encourages citizen-wide participation and a balance of power politically to prevent tyranny[35] reflecting a desire for overall benefit. Similarly, the economic consensus of frugality to keep debt low reflected a belief that it would allow greater economic stability which Machiavelli also argues in his approach of restricting generous spending in Chapter 16 of The Prince[36]. This suggests that whilst not aligning with the ideas of absolute contextless morality, as seen previously with Chinese philosophy as Schleichert argues,[37] his pragmatism pursues a moral outcome in the betterment of society. This idea that his pragmatic views of statecraft are immoral is echoed by Daniel Scott Mayfield in demonstrating the historical moral opposition to Machiavelli with his name even becoming a nickname for the Devil[38]. However, whilst Machiavelli neglects traditional morality in some circumstances, the idea of a stable prosperous nation with active civic engagement ultimately suggests Machiavelli pursued a

moral outcome which often entailed a morally questionable and pragmatic process.

However, although there is morality in the outcome of Machiavelli’s idea of the pragmatism of virtu, this is highly theoretical. The outcome is uncertain during the process therefore morality can only be judged retrospectively, therefore devaluing the meaning of intentions. Notably, whilst in Chapter 17 Machiavelli advocates cruelty in situations to provide stability[39], it is hard to foresee whether this will breed greater resentment and therefore instability whilst also making the cruelty unjustified by failing to work in the state’s interests. As a result, Machiavelli’s desire for outcomes that serve the state led his idea of virtu to be vague in implications despite the empirical historical examples and tailored scenarios mentioned in The Prince. Therefore, whilst, in theory, Machiavelli advocates a state which functions with stability, in reality, this often deviates. The negative reputation of Machiavellianism reflects this with his ideas inspiring fierce political manipulation and even populist ideas. As John McCormick argues[40] even the republican reception of scholars such as Pocock, Strauss and Jean-Jacques Rousseau distorted Machiavelli’s ideas by understating their democratic nature. This suggests the vague implications of political pragmatism. However, the undesirable nature of these results could also result from ideological flaws. Machiavelli’s ideas of restricting generosity in Chapter 16 of The Prince leading to the state of perpetual class conflict that resulted in liberty was exceptional in the Roman empire,[41] as Rousseau convincingly argued. Moreover, although state stability is an admirable objective, this is often arguably to the benefit of the ruler rather than the people (exemplified in Chapter 26 of Discourses on Livy by advocating the Philip of Macedon model in which removing whole populations and infrastructure benefits only the political stability of the ruler[42]). Machiavelli’s implications may have inspired even more compromised morality through the erosion of democracy and the promotion of elitist political dishonesty. However, he intended virtu to follow courageous leadership and state stability. Although in reality, Machiavellianism deviates from its intentions, the concept of virtu involves a leader capable of decision-making as seen in Chapter 25 of The Prince[43], therefore Machiavelli intended for virtu to lead to the greater good for society.

In conclusion, despite some overlap, Machiavelli’s concept of virtu differs from the traditional ideas of virtue, seeing it as a cyclical force of courageous political pragmatism which was vastly influential in the rise of pragmatic political philosophy. On the one hand, the morality of virtu is undermined by Machiavelli’s belief that fear is more stable, the uncertain implications of pragmatism which have spawned an often-misunderstood idea of Machiavellianism as amoral and Machiavelli’s self-interest to regain power. However, although largely political rather than moral, the intentions of virtu have a moral dynamic to some extent with Machiavelli’s preference for morality where possible and pragmatism ultimately concerned with state survival and therefore overall welfare.

[1] Niccolò Machiavelli, Selected Political Writings of Machiavelli, ed. D Wootton (1994), 85.

[2] Ibid, 86.

[3] Ibid, 129.

[4] Ibid, 115.

[5] Ibid, 112.

[6] Ibid, 132.

[7] Ibid, 100.

[8] Ibid, 95.

[9] Ibid, 72.

[10] Ibid, 137.

[11]Wootton, Machiavelli, 62.

[12] Ibid, 110.

[13] Ibid, 75.

[14] Harvey Mansfield, Machiavelli's Virtue (Chicago 1998), 12.

[15] Niccolò Machiavelli, Discourses on Livy, ed. Harvey Mansfield and Nathan Tarcov (Chicago, 1996), 72.

[16] Ibid, 16.

[17] Ibid, 245.

[18] John Pocock, The Machiavellian Moment (Princeton, 1975), 216-18.

[19] Wootton, Machiavelli, 236.

[20] Niccolò Machiavelli, Art of War, ed. Christopher Lynch (Chicago, 2003), 58.

[21] Nikola Regent, Machiavelli: Empire, ‘Virtù’ and the Final Downfall, (History of Political Thought, 2011), 772.

[22] Wootton, Machiavelli, 106.

[23] Ibid, 107.

[24] Ibid, 109.

[25] B. Jowett, Aristotle's Politics, ed. Jonathan Barnes (Princeton, 2016), 65.

[26] Ibid, 110.

[27] Ibid, 85.

[28] Ibid, 107.

[29]Ibid, 108.

[30] Ibid, 107.

[31] Hubert Schleichert, Niccolò Machiavelli: History, Power, and Virtue ed. Leonidas Donskis, (BRILL, 2011), 15.

[32] Wootton, Machiavelli,137.

[33] Martyn de Bruyn, Machiavelli and The Politics of Virtù (Purdue, 2003), 178.

[34] Wootton, Machiavelli, 107.

[35] Machiavelli, Discourses, 68.

[36] Wootten, Machiavelli, 108.

[37] Schleichert, Machiavelli 18.

[38] Daniel Scott Mayfield, Artful Immorality - Variants of Cynicism: Machiavelli, Gracián, Diderot, Nietzsche (Berlin, 2015), 81.

[39] Wootten, Machiavelli, 110.

[40] John McCormick, Scandalous Books, Suspect Engagements, and the Virtue of Populist Politics (Princeton, 2018), 4.

[41] Lionel McKenzie, Rousseau's Debate with Machiavelli in the Social Contract (Pennsylvania, 1982), 220.

[42] Machiavelli, Discourses, 61.

[43] Wootton, Machiavelli,137.