Machiavelli's Concept of Virtù Reconsidered
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1467-9248.1967.tb01842.x |
| Published date | 01 June 1967 |
| Date | 01 June 1967 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
RECONSIDERED
NEAL
WOOD
York
University,
Toronto
ALTHOUGH
much has been written on the question of Machiavelli’s use
of
virtic,’
some of
it
illuminating, little effort has been made generally to evalu-
ate the concept
in
a rigorous fashion, for example, by
a
careful study of the
context of usage. Where analysis of this kind might be expected, analysis is
not forthcoming. Moreover, few scholars seem to have pondered the exact
nature of the relationship of
viriii
to the other elements of Machiavelli’s
thought, to have probed its role in
his
total intellectual perspective.
One of the more notable exceptions to the general lack of analysis
in
discussions of
virtic
is
J.
H.
Whitfield’s admirable essay, ‘The Anatomy of
Virtue.’Z Professor Whitdield’s conclusions rest upon careful linguistic
evaluation. His argument goes thus. The most commonly held view, which
originated with Francesco DeSanctis, is that
virtii
is force and energy of
mind used for good or bad purposes.
By
holding this position, DeSanctis
and his emulators proclaim that Machiavelli abandons moral
virtue.
In
reply, Whitfield denies
(1)
that this is a correct representation of Machia-
velli’s stand; (2) that his use of language is precise and systematic;
(3)
that a
1
Listed below are the discussions of
virtli
of twenty commentators
on
Machiavelli, all either
written in English or translated into English. They include students of literature, historians,
philosophers, political scientists. Some are specialists
on
Machiavelli and the Renaissance;
others are generalists.
J.
W.
Allen,
A
History of Political Thought in the Sixteenth Century
(London,
1928),
pp.
457,
472,477;
L. Arthur Burd, ‘Florence
(II)
:
Machiavelli’,
The Cambridge Modern History
(Cam-
bridge,
1902),
Vol.
I,
p.
210;
HerbertButterfield,
The
S?a?ecrafrofMachiavelli(New
York,
1962),
p.
39;
Ernst
Wirer,
The Myth of the State
(Garden City, N.Y.,
1955),
pp.
198-203;
Federim
Chabod,
Machiavelli
and
the
Renaissance,
tr. David Moore (London,
1958),
pp.
4.0-41,95-96;
Francesco DeSanctis,
History of Italian Literature,
tr. Joan Redfern (New York,
1931),
Vol.
11,
pp.
549-50,553,559,5634,583-5;
Allan
H. Gilbert,
Machiavelli’s Prince and
Its
Forerunners
(Durham, N.C.,
1938),
pp.
68,110,147,207-8;
Felix Gilbert,
‘On
Machiavelli’s Idea of Virth’,
Renaissance News,
IV
(1951),
pp.
53-54;
Machiavelli and Guicciardini: Politics
and
History
in
Sixteenth-Century Florence
(Princeton,
1965),
pp.
179-200;
Hiram Haydn,
The Counter-
Renaissance
(New York,
1960),
pp.
426-7, 441-2;
Friedrich Meinecke,
Machiavellism,
tr.
Douglas Scott (New Haven, Corm.,
1957),
pp.
31-44;
Leonard0 Olschki,
Machiavelli the
Scientist
(Berkeley,
1945),
pp.
27, 35-36, 40-41
;
John Plamenatz,
Man and Society
(London,
1963),
Vol.
I,
p.
29;
Gerhard fitter,
The Corrupting Influence of Power,
tr.
F.
W.
Pick (Cowley,
Oxford,
1952),
pp.
20,3043,189;
George H. Sabme,
A
History ofPolitica1 Theory
(New York,
3rd ed.,
1961),
pp.
344-6;
Charles
S.
Singleton, ‘The Perspective of Art’,
ne Kenyon Review,
XV
(1953),
pp.
172-3, 178;
Leo
Strauss,
Thoughts
on
Machiavelli
(Glencoe,
Ill.,
1958),
pp.
47,
162, 216-7, 227,242-57,263-9;
Pasquale Villari,
me
Lift
and Times of Machiavelli,
tr. Linda
Villari (London,
1904),
Vol.
I,
pp.
92,106,146,221,301-2,514-6;
Leslie
J.
Walker,
The
Discourses
oflviccold
Machiavelli(NewHaven,
COM.,
1950),Vol.
I,
pp.
99-102,116-7,133;
J.
H.
Whitfield,
Machiavelli
(Oxford,
1947),
pp.
92-105;
Sheldon
S.
Wolin,
Politics and Vision
(Boston and
Toronto,
1960),pp.200,215,229-31,236-8.
2
Whitfield,
loc.
cit.
Political
Stodiei,
Vol.
XV,
No.
2 (1967, 159-172)
11
To continue reading
Request your trial