How Did Machiavelli Regard The Relationship Between Fortuna And Virtu?

While Machiavelli does not exhibit a consistent philosophy throughout his writings "certain concepts recur constantly, binding together his theories into some sort of coherence." Two of these concepts are 'fortuna' and 'virtu,' and both are depicted with varying degrees of ambivalence. Part of this ambivalence is derived from a problem of definition. Fortuna is easier to define as the goddess of luck, described by Machiavelli in its classical mould of a female personality delivering gifts as opposed to the Christian depiction of a malign impersonal force acting as a medium of God's providence. Virtu is much more complex in its definition evident in the disparity between translations. W.K. Marriot translates it simply as 'ability,' Allan Gilbert as 'strength and wisdom' and other translations use it synonymously with 'valour.' One area of agreement is that it is rarely a reference to virtue, especially not in the Christian sense. This is expressed in Machiavelli's distinct form of a utilitarian ethic, a contrasting worldview to that of Cicero typified in their dispute over Romulus' murder of Remus. Cicero condemns fratricide in his 'Moral Obligations' as 'there are some acts either so repulsive or so wicked that a wise man would not commit them even to save his country.' This is a sharp contrast to the Machiavellian interpretation which encourages men must act 'setting aside every scruple, to follow to the utmost any plan that will save her life and help her liberty.'

The subject here, referenced to as 'her' is an individual's city or state and it is here that we stumble upon the true Machiavellian interpretation of virtu as service to the public good. It implies a distinctive civic spirit and as long as one acts with this at the forefront of his intentions, regardless of personal cost or gain, then he is acting with true virtu. Hence Machiavelli's conclusion on Romulus that while 'the deed accuses him the result excuses him.' It is with these definitions that the relationship between these two concepts must be assessed, in its nature and structure as they are not depicted consistently as equally opposing forces, often they are aligned together and one sometimes dominates the other. Individuals are a crucially important aspect of this narrative acknowledged by Machiavelli in his discussion of Rome where he asserts that 'the deeds of individuals increased Rome's greatness.' But the collective community of the city-state and its institutions are another indispensible aspect of the story as part of the explanation of the glory of Rome resides in 'how she was organized.'

Virtu is expressed in the material world, in either a collective or an individual sense. In contrast fortuna resides in the spiritual world and the boundary is one that can seemingly be crossed at her discretion but only in this top-down manner. The initial question that must be faced is the extent to which any relationship between the two is possible at all. Boethius in his 'Consolation of Philosophy' denies that fortuna can be influenced in any way and depicts it as "a blind power." An interesting observation is his use of the term fortune as opposed to fortuna to mark his departure from the personality of antiquity in favour of a deeply impersonal and unshakeable force. This is also reflected in the change in symbols from the overflowing gifts of the cornucopia to the wheel: endlessly turning in a cycle of unchangeable fate. Boethius uses this shit in understanding to distance human existence from its pre-occupation with the material world. These 'gifts' of fortuna are inaccessible and should be turned away from. In contrast to this is a Renaissance return to the presentation of fortuna as woman, influenced by characteristics of virtu, those she deems most attractive. Hence Livy's famous phrase that 'fortune favours the bold.' For ancient writers such as Livy and Cicero the teleological purpose of life was to receive the gifts of fortuna as a confirmation of one's own inner virtu. However, Machiavelli's interpretation is complex, though much of his imagery is expressed in likeness to that of antiquity he does not employ one at the exclusive expense of the other. He initially states that men are 'controlled by fortune and by God' expressing Boethian sentiments of pre-determined causality as 'men have no recourse against the worlds variations.' Juxtaposed against this is his assertion that 'God does not do everything, so as not to take from us free will and part of the glory that pertains to us.' It is evident that the forces of men, and among these 'virtu,' are important movers of the Machiavellian cosmos but the alternative force of fortune is also present. The two do not exist in a dichotomy of opposition. As fortuna is an impressionable figure, the establishment of a relationship remains a possibility.

There is a certain sexual element to the relationship between an individual and fortuna. Due to her feminine form she is attracted by the true 'vir,' and an expression of manly qualities: bravery, strength and courage. The erotic element of this relationship denotes a certain form of domination of the man over the goddess as she 'more often lets herself be overcome by men using such methods than those who proceed coldly.' Many have argued that this suggests a passive victim figure that is raped by the superior power of the virtu of the individual. However, crucially it is fortuna who 'lets herself be overcome' which suggests that the process is one of erotic playfulness rather than genuine submission. This narrative of flirtation is mirrored also in contextual culture and in particular in Sylvius Piccolomini's 'Dream of Fortune' where fortuna states that she is 'most aroused by those who put me to flight.' This romantic element suggests that the relationship is one forged with individuals rather than the collective. Machiavelli does hint at this interpretation by asserting that 'to set up a republic it is necessary to be alone' and have fortune smile upon you as those cities that can look back to 'virtue and methods of a great founding father' are those who 'chanced upon the most excellent fortune.' However, alongside the role of the individual in the achievement of greatness is the role of a cities 'ordine:' its institutions. And fortune is required to ensure that these are powerful enough to maintain a city on its path.

For Machiavelli, the natural state of human existence is one of decline towards corruption and evil. Men act 'according to the wickedness of their spirits whenever they have free scope.' Thus, while fortune may initially smile on a city or a certain people due to its affiliation with one man, this affection wanes with the death of the subject of infatuation. This sexual element to the relationship ensures that fortunes favour is deeply inconsistent as it is bound to the fate of a single individual. This initially suggests that it is the virtu of individuals that are the dominant forces within the Machiavellian universe. Though they are in direct control of their cities they exist for but a fleeting moment. However they are able to leave a legacy of institutions that compels the collective to an exhibition of virtu that they would otherwise not display.

The two key pillars of this legacy are religious institutions and legal institutions. Machiavelli's functional view on religion is evident in his ever-present pagan ethic. He lauds the ancient religion and its importance in maintaining the 'greatness of the republic.' The story of religious influence is one of compulsion rather than coercion evident in Scipio's appearance to citizens favouring abandonment, meeting them 'with his sword in his hand.' The consistent power of the roman religion to demand action is contrasted against his disillusionment with Christianity, which 'has made the world weak and turned it over as prey to wicked men.' It is not fortune that maintained Roman virtu, but the original greatness of the founding father, in whose character prudence was abundant to establish such practise that his own glory would be embodied in the religious institutions of his state, enabling a perpetuation of virtu without the physical manifestation of its embodiment.

Legal institutions exhibit a similar pattern, as it is 'the laws that make them good,' and Machiavelli directly alludes to the possibility that the virtu of individual can be embodied institutionally to generate a more lasting presence in its society 'by the virtu of the law.' This is the reason behind his consistent praise of Lycurgus, King of Sparta who instilled such virtu in the law that his people lived for 'more than eight hundred years without debasing them.' Therefore, in terms of the balance of the two forces it would seem that it is the virtu in the individual and its subsequent impact on the collective that impacts most closely on the temporal affairs of state than the varying and inconsistent forays of fortuna. However, they should not be interpreted competitively in a dichotomy of opposing forces. We should not interpret Machiavelli's assertion that the strongest states are held by individuals and 'through their own virtu and not through fortuna' as an establishment of a competitive narrative. Instead, he is encouraging current statesmen to draw lessons from the ancient past and build cities on strong foundations of virtu in its institutions rather than to depend on the unreliable favour of fortune. This classical interpretation of fortuna as whimsical is evident in Livy's descri ption of Scipio by Hannibal as one who had 'not yet been abandoned by fortune.' And mirrored by Machiavelli himself in the Prince where he compares fortune to a river which, when in flood cannot be resisted, but against which men can take precautions when the weather is fair.

This is not to encourage a resistance of fortune as the two are far more likely to be exhibited together than in contrast. Their relationship is conducive to harmonization as where there is virtu fortune is likely to follow. Furthermore it is more plausible to interpret the initial presence of virtu in the founding father as an ultimate expression of fortuna itself, a gift from the cornucopia. Thus, it is essential that we understand the relationship as one that is complimentary rather than contradictory. While Machiavelli's philosophical reflection on these two forces is often for narrative purposes there is a sufficient level of consistency to paint a coherent picture. Fortune and virtu do have a relationship as the former is influenced by an infatuation with the latter. There is an almost magnetic relationship between the two of them as the presence of virtu attracts the following presence of fortuna. This interpretation contains the complexity of origins. The extent to which virtu in an individual arrived as a gift from fortuna or if fortuna followed the initial display. Machiavelli is ultimately unclear in his conclusions but when the two are exhibited harmoniously they are conducive to the initial achievement of greatness and its maintenance through strong and correct ordine. Virtue can indeed be used to combat fortune to a certain extent but it is more likely that the two will be exhibited collectively or not at all.