Machiavelli and Political Realism
Niccolò Machiavelli’s (1469–1527) concept of virtu as displayed in his work The Prince depicts a necessary human state; whose absolutism incurs detriment leading to destruction. To avoid this, Machiavelli suggested that Princes should acknowledge an acting outside force fortuna (fortune) existing foundation as fortuna; contending the concept to be itself an absolute ideology. Machiavelli believed it necessary that a Prince develop a natural inclination to oscillate between the absolute polarities of virtu and fortuna; describing significant losses as “the extraordinary and extreme malignity of fortune,” (Machiavelli, N.; Horowitz, M., p. 71). Machiavelli makes it apparent that while Fortuna is a force of malevolence waiting for the dominion of man to control her; man should not underestimate the intensity of her essence and power. Machiavelli believed that a Prince needed to “increase his resources with industry in such a way that they may be available to him in adversity, so that if fortuna chances it may find him prepared to resist her blows;” thus invoking virtu, (Machiavelli, N.; Horowitz, M., p. 116). Political theorist Leo Strauss (1899-1973) wrote of Machiavelli’s ambiguity, that; “[e]ven in accordance with this intermediate meaning, inhuman cruelty could be a virtue and ambition a vice. In many cases it is impossible to say which kind of virtue is meant;” Strauss adds that “[t]his obscurity is essential to Machiavelli’s presentation of his teaching. It is required by the fact that the reader is meant to ascend from the common understanding of virtue to the diametrically opposite understanding.” (Strauss, L., p. 52).
Virtu and Fortuna
Machiavelli warned that “a man who wishes to act entirely up to his professions of virtue soon meets with what destroys him among so much that is evil;” adding that “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,” (Machiavelli, N.; Horowitz, M. p 179). Machiavelli stated “[i]t is seen how she entreats God to send someone who shall deliver her from these wrongs and barbarous insolencies. It is seen also that she is ready and willing to follow a banner if only someone will raise it,” (Machiavelli, N.; Horowitz, M., p. 182). Machiavellian theory positions Fortune as attracted to avid men, whereby ascending the bold and immortalizing the brave. Machiavelli’s The Prince provided the instructions needed to ensure the attainment and retention of power; he did this by implementing “ought to” demands throughout his work. Leo Strauss explains that; “Machiavelli’s new ‘ought’ demands then the judicious and vigorous use of both virtue and vice according to the requirements of the circumstances. The judicious alternation of virtue and vice is virtue (virtú) in his meaning of the word. He amuses himself and, I believe, some of his readers by using the word “virtue” in both the traditional sense and his sense,” (Strauss, L., p. 435). Leo Strauss believed that Machiavelli’s work bore the opinion that the Romans acquired their empire through fortune rather than through virtue, (Strauss, L., p. 447). Machiavelli acknowledged that virtu was unsustainable in absolution, he expounded a solution utilized by rulers since its writing; “[h]ence it is necessary for a prince wishing to hold his own to know how to do wrong, and to make use of it or not according to necessity.” Machiavelli presented realism without ambiguity, writing, “therefore, putting on one side imaginary things concerning a prince, and discussing those which are real.” (Machiavelli, N.; Horowitz, M., 117, 118).
Strauss surmised that “[e]qually ambiguous is [the use of the term] ‘prince.’ ‘Prince’ may mean a non-tyrannical monarch, or any monarch, or any man or body of men in a ruling position including the leading men in a republic, to say nothing of another meaning, (Strauss, L., p. 53). Machiavelli contended that no matter the “qualities that are considered good” in a Prince, “they can neither be entirely possessed nor observed,” submitting that “human conditions do not permit it,” (Machiavelli, N.; Horowitz, M., p. 118). Thus, Machiavelli declared that “it is necessary for [the Prince] to be sufficiently prudent that he may know how to avoid the reproach of those vices which would lose him his state;” yet inversely asserted that a Prince must “keep himself, if it be possible, from those which would not lose him it; but this not being possible, he may with less hesitation abandon himself to them,” (Machiavelli, N.; Horowitz, M., p. 118).
Human Nature and Politics
Machiavelli believed human nature to be depraved; writing If men were entirely good this precept would not hold, but because they are bad, and will not keep faith with you, you too are not bound to observe it with them, (Machiavelli, N.; Horowitz, M, p. 132). Machiavelli proposed there existed three levels of intelligence in human society; two forms of the state laying the foundation for his political theory, and one effective method of governance.
On intelligence, Machiavelli proposed three levels; “[t]here are three scales of intelligence, one which understands by itself, a second which understands what it is shown by others, and a third, which understands neither by itself nor by the showing of others, the first of which is most excellent, the second good, but the third worthless,” concluding that “only the competent should rule, and their reign should be honorable.” (Machiavelli, N.; Horowitz, M., p. 43).
On states, Machiavelli asserted there are two forms of states; republics and principalities; his work The Prince limited itself to discuss only principalities. Principalities bear two forms; hereditary or new, (Machiavelli, N.; Horowitz, M., p. 35).
On governance, Machiavelli believed that the Prince must follow a single doctrine of duality; blending between demonstrative power and harmonious virtue; represented by a fox and a lion. Machiavelli wrote that, “it is necessary for a prince to understand how to avail himself of the beast and the man;” Machiavelli added that since; “[a] prince [must] adopt the beast, [he] ought to choose the fox and the lion; because the lion cannot defend himself against snares and the fox cannot defend himself against wolves. Therefore, it is necessary to be a fox to discover the snares and a lion to terrify the wolves. Those who rely simply on the lion do not understand what they are about,” (Machiavelli, N.; Horowitz, N., p. 132).
Machiavelli on Christianity
Machiavelli presupposed the existence of God, accepting the Christian doctrine as the foundation for his political theory. Machiavelli implicitly discloses his belief in God in Chapter VI whereby writing “one may not discuss Moses, he having been a mere executor of the will of God, yet he ought to be admired, if only for that favor which made him worthy to speak with God, (Machiavelli, N.; Horowitz, M., p. 64). Contrary to popular belief, Alan Ryan contends that “Machiavelli never suggested that he held distinctively un-Christian views; on the other hand, he never said anything to suggest deep piety,” (Ryan, A., 79). Machiavelli utilized the story of David and Goliath in 1 Samuel 17:32-50 as an objective reference to assert his theory; writing “the arms of others either fall from your back, or they weigh you down, or they bind you fast,” (Machiavelli, N.; Horowitz, M.,p. 109). Machiavelli further references the dividing of the Red Sea, a cloud over the Tabernacle, Moses’s tapped rock that poured forth water, and the raining of manna. Moreover, Machiavelli believed that a ruler must possess five qualities: mercifulness, faithfulness, humanity, uprightness, and to be religious. Machiavelli contended that “[t]here is nothing more necessary to appear to have than this last quality, inasmuch as men judge generally more by the eye than by the hand, because it belongs to everybody to see you, to few to come in touch with you,” (Machiavelli, N.; Horowitz, M., pp. 134, 135). His demand that rulers acknowledge God, even for the sake of appearances; can be considered Machiavelli’s implicit direction to recognizing the Lord, and sustaining reverence for God throughout polity.
Translator Peter Bondanella (1943–2017) contended that “[Machiavelli] never writes, in The Prince or elsewhere, that a new prince should feel entitled to act against God…to act ‘against religion’ means to act against the Christian religion falsely interpreted, ‘according to an ideal of freedom from earthly toil’ (ozio), and not ‘according to one of exceptional ability’ (virtù), that the Catholic Church has unfortunately spread about Italy (Discourses on Livy, 2. 2).” Bondanella asserts that Machiavelli believed that “[i]f correctly interpreted, Christian religion would teach men ‘to exalt and defend our native land’ (Discourses on Livy, 2. 2), (Machiavelli, N.; Bondanella, P., p. 37). Despite his reference to Christianity, Machiavelli recognized the coercive worldly authority of power, writing ;“[i]f Moses, Cyrus, Theseus, and Romulus had been unarmed they could not have enforced their constitutions for long,” (Machiavelli, N., Horowitz, M., p. 66).
Another remarkable feature of Machiavellian theory is his implementation of psychological strategy; writing, “[e]veryone sees what you appear to be, few really know what you are, and those few dare not oppose themselves to the opinion of the many, who have the majesty of the state to defend them; and in the actions of all men, and especially of princes, which it is not prudent to challenge, one judges by the result,” (Machiavelli, N.; Horowitz, M., pp. 134, 135). Machiavelli declared that by possessing an image of power, those who observed the Prince would fall in line with the majority out of convenience, thereby utilizing the inertia of their authority to maintain order.
Machiavellian Attitude
Of the prophets, Machiavelli spoke messages of empowerment to his readers, “although they were great and wonderful men, yet they were men, and each one of them had no more opportunity than the present offers, for their enterprises were neither more just nor easier than this, nor was God more their friend than He is yours,” (Machiavelli, N., Horowitz, M., p. 182). Machiavelli’s The Prince delivers an immediate call-to-action; thereby proclaiming “how extraordinarily the ways of God have been manifested beyond example: the sea is divided, a cloud has led the way, the rock has poured forth water, it has rained manna, everything has contributed to your greatness; you ought to do the rest. God is not willing to do everything, and thus take away our free will and that share of glory which belongs to us,” (Machiavelli, N.; Horowitz, M., p. 183). While Machiavelli’s message was intended for the Prince, it remains universally applicable. Leo Strauss writes, “[c]onsidering the difference of rank between Machiavelli and people like ourselves, the rule of reading which derives from that belief may be impracticable since we cannot possibly comply with it in all cases,” (Strauss, L., p. 52).
Under a presupposition of Christian doctrine, Machiavelli advocated for raison d’état, placing national security under the authority of the state. As defined in the Oxford Dictionary of Politics, raison d’état means that “there may be reasons for acting (normally in foreign policy, less usually in domestic policy) which simply override all other considerations of a legal or moral kind, (McLean, I., p. 420). Machiavelli implemented Scriptural morality—by the many converted disciples depicted throughout Scripture that, “Princes, especially new ones, have found more fidelity and assistance in those men who in the beginning of their rule were distrusted than among those who in the beginning were trusted,” Machiavelli, N.; Horowitz, M., p. 154). In Matthew, Jesus states, “You have heard the law that says, ‘Love your neighbor’ and hate your enemy. But I say, love your enemies! Pray for those who persecute you! In that way, you will be acting as true children of your Father in heaven. For he gives his sunlight to both the evil and the good, and he sends rain on the just and the unjust alike. If you love only those who love you, what reward is there for that? Even corrupt tax collectors do that much. If you are kind only to your friends, how are you different from anyone else? Even pagans do that. But you are to be perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect," (Matthew 5:43-48).
Conclusion
Machiavelli’s doctrine remains merited in modern polity; his theory of Fortuna can be attributed to His Holy Spirit, tactfully disguised using Roman mythology. As it is written, “[y]ou shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you,” (Acts 1:8, NKJV). Leo Strauss adds; “[a] case can be made for the view that Machiavelli’s theology can be expressed by the formula Deus sive fortuna (as distinguished from Spinoza’s Deus sive natura)—that is, that God is fortuna as supposed to be subject to human influence (imprecation),” (Strauss, L., p. 450). No matter what contemporary man believes about the origin, meaning, and power of Machiavelli’s Fortuna; as “Jesus answered them, ‘You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God,” Matthew 22:29 (ESV). Machiavellian theory aligns with Scripture whereby the lord decrees how a Prince should handle his weaknesses; ‘My grace is all you need. My power works best in weakness.’ So now I am glad to boast about my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ can work through me. That’s why I take pleasure in my weaknesses, and in the insults, hardships, persecutions, and troubles that I suffer for Christ. For when I am weak, then I am strong, (2 Corinthians 12:9-10; NLT). Should any Prince rely on Fortuna, and withhold external evidence of his weaknesses and self-doubts; he will likely find himself following Christ—as Machiavellian theory ultimately aligns with the creation of the Kingdom of God.
Bibliography
Brown, Garrett W; McLean, Iain; McMillan, Alistair. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics and International Relations (Oxford Quick Reference) . OUP Oxford. Kindle Edition.
Machiavelli, Niccolò; Peter Bondanella; Maurizio Viroli. The Prince (Oxford World's Classics). OUP Oxford. Kindle Edition.
Machiavelli, Niccolò; Horowitz, Mitch. The Prince (Original Classic Edition). G&D Media. Kindle Edition.
Ryan, Alan. On Machiavelli: The Search for Glory: 0 (Liveright Classics) (p. 79). Liveright. Kindle Edition.
Strauss, Leo. Thoughts on Machiavelli (p. 52). The University of Chicago Press. Kindle Edition.