I know you are asking the professionals and not myself, but do you really think I can resist answering?
The way I read it, fortune is something similar to how we would describe luck. Or perhaps circumstance. The basic concept is that there are things that fall under your control and then there is everything else that does not. The things you don't control are governed by fortune. But that doesn't mean you have no influence on fortune at all - you do so by developing and harnessing your personal virtu.
In this sense, virtu is a set of abilities, skills, mindset, and attitudes that allow one to be spiritually, mentally, and physically fit to both 1: understand what one's own true will is and 2: act on that will to achieve greatness and make things you want to happen, happen.
It is the skill set of mastering oneself. These are historically aligned or associated with masculine traits such as military discipline, adaptability/versatility/resilience, and a strong connection with one's own intuitions/gut feelings.
Virtu is not morality in the conventional sense. It is not the list of things you must do or not to do be a "good" person, though, if he was relying on ancient notions of virtu, it was insisted by Socrates that "The unexamined life is not worth living." So rather than virtu being a set of standards for "good" behavior in society and in the eyes of God(s), it is much more like a set of self-help principles based on cultivating one's own will and ability to act on it.
He compares fortune to a river. You don't control the flow of the river. One year it may flood, the next it may dry up. But what you do control is the preparation for both of those eventualities in the year leading up to the event. And since you don't know when the event comes, as fortune is out of your control, the only way to "combat" fortune is to be vigilant, prepared, and adaptable - to be virtuous.
Though I am speaking of these concepts on a personal/individual level, his application of these principles to nation states and their leaders is, in my opinion, largely directly translatable. It's just that the consequences of exhibiting virtu (or not), are far more widespread.
In summation, here is a quote that comes from his work The Prince on this subject -
“I conclude therefore that, fortune being changeful and mankind steadfast in their ways, so long as the two are in agreement men are successful, but unsuccessful when they fall out. For my part I consider that it is better to be adventurous than cautious, because fortune is a woman, and if you wish to keep her under it is necessary to beat and ill-use her; and it is seen that she allows herself to be mastered by the adventurous rather than by those who go to work more coldly. She is, therefore, always, woman-like, a lover of young men, because they are less cautious, more violent, and with more audacity command her.”
It gets confusing, because Machiavelli has specific uses for “Fortune” and “virtu” that don’t correspond with my own understanding of these words in most contexts. I get a bit flummoxed at times with the reading. Fortune, to them, was a goddess. A goddess could be bribed with offerings, placated with worship, or insulted if ignored, presumably. Of course, Fortune could also be stuff that just seems to happen, due to karma accrued in past lives, or rightfully earned in this one. It was just strange for me to think of Fortune in terms of a deity. And yes, you make a good point about preparation. We all need to be ready for just about anything, but this is particularly important for leaders of nations.
Yeah I didn’t even think of it in terms of a personified god that people believed in, but that’s true. The ancients definitely believed that, and I wonder if Machiavelli just kind of took a more secularized version of it and ran with it.
He explained it much better than I would have. I should have emphasized that Machiavelli's "Virtus" indeed means "manly virtue," but overall Machiavelli very much had a Classical conception of these concepts.
Though he takes a somewhat different view, it is also helpful to think of Tolstoy's extensive exposition on the topic that modern historians don't understand how history works, which he specifically attributes to them not thinking a Deity is controlling (or at least greatly influencing) human affairs.
Which is why I have a problem with some historical epics, which leave the gods out altogether, despite the fact that the original stories were filled with gods, scheming against each other, and giving their favorite mortals a helping hand now and then.
Yes that is the subtext here when he criticizes the Papacy. He does mention one of the Borgias being the son of the Pope but otherwise doesn't go that deep into accusing them of any specifically sexual things.
Brad, you're doing a fantastic job with this series! I truly appreciate all the effort you're putting into it. Keep up that lively energy, and don't hesitate to sprinkle in even more humor—it really makes everything more enjoyable for everyone. Just a gentle reminder: Since this isn’t an academic forum, there’s no need to stress about intense criticism.
To Matt’s point (about halfway through) regarding the greater influence of religious tradition in Machiavelli’s age, which Brad points out was somewhat surprisingly more secular than both earlier and later generations: maybe the thing you’re pointing towards is the far greater authority of tradition and the natural piety of people for whom life expectancy was measured in decades rather than quarter centuries?
Hello Brad, thanks for the comment, and good for Machiavelli, he was relatively fortunate in that regard! My point was that even until the 20th c, the greater proximity of death and life impacting metaphysical attitudes (or as you say, inner life) does deserve mentioning.
Life expectancy for people who lived to adulthood was still quite high, though losing half of your children to childhood illness would certainly have a substantial impact on your inner life. (Though I have just looked this up and while I see some contradictory information it appears 5 out of 6 of Machiavelli's own children survived infancy, which is pretty remarkable for the time.)
Could you guys please elaborate on Machiavelli's use of the terms "Fortune" and "Virtu"?
I know you are asking the professionals and not myself, but do you really think I can resist answering?
The way I read it, fortune is something similar to how we would describe luck. Or perhaps circumstance. The basic concept is that there are things that fall under your control and then there is everything else that does not. The things you don't control are governed by fortune. But that doesn't mean you have no influence on fortune at all - you do so by developing and harnessing your personal virtu.
In this sense, virtu is a set of abilities, skills, mindset, and attitudes that allow one to be spiritually, mentally, and physically fit to both 1: understand what one's own true will is and 2: act on that will to achieve greatness and make things you want to happen, happen.
It is the skill set of mastering oneself. These are historically aligned or associated with masculine traits such as military discipline, adaptability/versatility/resilience, and a strong connection with one's own intuitions/gut feelings.
Virtu is not morality in the conventional sense. It is not the list of things you must do or not to do be a "good" person, though, if he was relying on ancient notions of virtu, it was insisted by Socrates that "The unexamined life is not worth living." So rather than virtu being a set of standards for "good" behavior in society and in the eyes of God(s), it is much more like a set of self-help principles based on cultivating one's own will and ability to act on it.
He compares fortune to a river. You don't control the flow of the river. One year it may flood, the next it may dry up. But what you do control is the preparation for both of those eventualities in the year leading up to the event. And since you don't know when the event comes, as fortune is out of your control, the only way to "combat" fortune is to be vigilant, prepared, and adaptable - to be virtuous.
Though I am speaking of these concepts on a personal/individual level, his application of these principles to nation states and their leaders is, in my opinion, largely directly translatable. It's just that the consequences of exhibiting virtu (or not), are far more widespread.
In summation, here is a quote that comes from his work The Prince on this subject -
“I conclude therefore that, fortune being changeful and mankind steadfast in their ways, so long as the two are in agreement men are successful, but unsuccessful when they fall out. For my part I consider that it is better to be adventurous than cautious, because fortune is a woman, and if you wish to keep her under it is necessary to beat and ill-use her; and it is seen that she allows herself to be mastered by the adventurous rather than by those who go to work more coldly. She is, therefore, always, woman-like, a lover of young men, because they are less cautious, more violent, and with more audacity command her.”
Yes, thank you, Andrew.
It gets confusing, because Machiavelli has specific uses for “Fortune” and “virtu” that don’t correspond with my own understanding of these words in most contexts. I get a bit flummoxed at times with the reading. Fortune, to them, was a goddess. A goddess could be bribed with offerings, placated with worship, or insulted if ignored, presumably. Of course, Fortune could also be stuff that just seems to happen, due to karma accrued in past lives, or rightfully earned in this one. It was just strange for me to think of Fortune in terms of a deity. And yes, you make a good point about preparation. We all need to be ready for just about anything, but this is particularly important for leaders of nations.
Yeah I didn’t even think of it in terms of a personified god that people believed in, but that’s true. The ancients definitely believed that, and I wonder if Machiavelli just kind of took a more secularized version of it and ran with it.
He explained it much better than I would have. I should have emphasized that Machiavelli's "Virtus" indeed means "manly virtue," but overall Machiavelli very much had a Classical conception of these concepts.
Though he takes a somewhat different view, it is also helpful to think of Tolstoy's extensive exposition on the topic that modern historians don't understand how history works, which he specifically attributes to them not thinking a Deity is controlling (or at least greatly influencing) human affairs.
Which is why I have a problem with some historical epics, which leave the gods out altogether, despite the fact that the original stories were filled with gods, scheming against each other, and giving their favorite mortals a helping hand now and then.
These discussions are timeless. Thank you!
Good discussion, guys. I only read "The Prince," so I enjoy learning about something new.
Weren't Popes having orgies, consorting with mistresses, etc, during Machiavelli's time?
LOL.
Yes that is the subtext here when he criticizes the Papacy. He does mention one of the Borgias being the son of the Pope but otherwise doesn't go that deep into accusing them of any specifically sexual things.
Where is the recording?
Brad, you're doing a fantastic job with this series! I truly appreciate all the effort you're putting into it. Keep up that lively energy, and don't hesitate to sprinkle in even more humor—it really makes everything more enjoyable for everyone. Just a gentle reminder: Since this isn’t an academic forum, there’s no need to stress about intense criticism.
To Matt’s point (about halfway through) regarding the greater influence of religious tradition in Machiavelli’s age, which Brad points out was somewhat surprisingly more secular than both earlier and later generations: maybe the thing you’re pointing towards is the far greater authority of tradition and the natural piety of people for whom life expectancy was measured in decades rather than quarter centuries?
Hello Brad, thanks for the comment, and good for Machiavelli, he was relatively fortunate in that regard! My point was that even until the 20th c, the greater proximity of death and life impacting metaphysical attitudes (or as you say, inner life) does deserve mentioning.
Life expectancy for people who lived to adulthood was still quite high, though losing half of your children to childhood illness would certainly have a substantial impact on your inner life. (Though I have just looked this up and while I see some contradictory information it appears 5 out of 6 of Machiavelli's own children survived infancy, which is pretty remarkable for the time.)
Thoroughly enjoyed this.
One question: as a subscriber is there a longer form version of these available somewhere or is this the entire thing?