Machiavelli's Virtue When Hearing the

Machiavelli's Virtue When hearing the name "Machiavelli," many people automatically think of negative words such as "corrupt," "evil," and "valueless." Yet, the controversy about the truth of this continues. In fact, many historians better recall Machiavelli for his political philosophy and diplomacy during the Renaissance. One such long noted scholar is Harvey Mansfield, a notable theoretician and translator and expert on Machiavelli's writings.

In the numerous essays contained in the book, Machiavelli's Virtue, Mansfield confirms that he strongly recognizes Machiavelli as ranking along with Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, to achieve his goal of "modernity." In doing so, "Mansfield thus breaks sharply with those who treat Machiavelli as nothing but a political strategist or a perennial advisor focused on gaining a job or giving practical advice to ambitious, unscrupulous rulers" (Masters 757). Machiavelli's Virtue combines several of Mansfield's works written over the past three decades.

By doing such, the book is to provide an understanding of Machievelli, as well as how Mansfield views this complicated Renaissance figure and the way his views evolved over time.

As someone relatively new to Machiavelli as well as Leo Strauss and Mansfield (not to mention philosophers such as Aristotle and theorists as Edmund Burke), the book is multi-layered in its coverage -- after all, it contains all the highlights of Mansfield's writing over several decades, and is a great deal to digest! Mansfield's following of Strauss is well recognized, so it seemed helpful to first start reading the section about Strauss in the book first.

This would provide a foundation on how Mansfield derived his basic direction of thought regarding Machiavelli. It is confusing that the chapters are not in chronological order and this information on Strauss does not come until the middle of the book in chapter nine. In fact, it is easier reading the chapters in a different order and using the index to follow up on certain themes that are used throughout the essays. Mansfield admits his strong following for Strauss throughout his essays in Machiavelli's Virtue.

In one section, he states, for example,... "for when studying Machiavelli, every time that I have been thrown upon an uninhabited island I thought might be explored, I have come across a small sign saying, 'please deposit coin.' After I comply, a large sign flashes...with this message: Leo Strauss was here" (Mansfield 219). Yet, as noted by Fuller (944), Mansfield does not only regurgitate Strauss. He does not "merely repeat things Strauss said," but goes beyond his mentor in his own right.

Although known for his philosophical studies, Strauss saw himself as a scholar, rather than a philosopher -- scholars, like himself, are hesitant to speak out directly and philosophers are much more daring to voice their thoughts. According to Strauss, today's perspective of politics is artificial, rather than straightforward and honest as in classical times.

Yet when one studies ancient philosophers in their own periods and from their historic perspective -- instead of looking back and seeing them through modern eyes -- it is possible to be divorced from present-day restrictions and the corruption of modernity. In fact, of all themes, modernity and its impact on politics philosophy is one of the strongest that runs throughout Mansfield's works. In Machiavelli's Virtue's many descriptions regarding modernity, of most interest is how this concept is recognized as something very innovative that constantly encourages new ideas and institutions.

It is a change that actually brings about additional change and on. Or, in other words: Whatever is modern continues to move and expand into something more modern, over and over again. One of the areas that Strauss and Mansfield do see in relationship to Machiavelli is the impact of the rise of Christianity on modernity. As Parel (404) states: "Strauss had brought together two streams of thoughts on Machiavelli - the anti-Machiavellian and the Machiavellian.

The former bemoaned Machiavelli's destructive criticism of Christianity while the latter cheered from the sidelines." Similarly, Mansfield sees Christianity as causing Aristotle to be in great need of updating if not actually going the route of being totally outdated. "The new religion with its miracles fought the customs of the ancient religion, and men died wretchedly, uncertain to which god they should turn..." (Mansfield 156).

When applied to politics, modernity means the pursuit of power driven by the natural desire to acquire and to expand and be achieved by any means available. Political power, Machiavelli stated, has no boundaries. It leaves no room for the sacred, and it subordinates right and wrong to the goal of achieving success. "There is nothing new about the desire to acquire and to expand. Human beings were always moved by it. What is new is the change in the norms that govern the pursuit of this desire" (Parel 403).

Prior to Machiavelli, the leading scholars had always instructed that norms were needed to transcend the desire. Instead, Machiavelli taught that the norms which should lead this desire are an integral part of the desire itself. Ethical and religious values that surpassed it and that had previously helped human beings cope with it, had either to be eliminated or be made compliant to the new norm.

In the case of Western society, this would mean that the politics of Plato and Aristotle and the religious philosophy of Christianity had to be put aside. "For Machiavelli blamed the one for its supposed neglect of what is in favor of what ought to be, and he blamed the other for making the world weak" (Parel 404). The new politics that he would introduce was supposed to be free from these two flaws. However, it was necessary for Western society to pay a heavy price for it.

In other words, it would need to agree to the view that politics at its utmost point had to be both tyrannical and republican: Political freedom could not be possible without the active thrust of overcoming power and fear. It is this new politics that is seen integral to both Machiavelli's "The Prince" and the "Discourses." Aristotle and Plato clearly recognized that the best government could only be possible through spoken words and merely a model for the real government to copy as nearly as it was viable.

These philosophers also saw that it was imperative for numerous circumstances to be in place in order for the development of a healthy regime, not to mention one of the highest orders as it was hoped. If it is indeed as Strauss and Mansfield state, Machiavelli was the first philosopher to dispel the classical view.

As Machiavelli said in "The Prince": And many have imagined republics and principalities that have never been seen or known to exist in truth: for it is so far from how one lives to how one should live that he who lets go of what is done for what should be done learns his ruin rather than his preservation. For a man who wants to make a profession of good in all regards must come to ruin among so many who are not good.

Where do such thoughts bring those who are living in the modern world of the 21st century? The politically conservative Mansfield supports the present-day democratic government that is in power. In fact, he is criticized for his support of President Bush in the need to use domestic surveillance for terroism.

Mansfield believes that liberal democrats often do not understand the circumstances over the centuries that led to the success of this form of government -- in short, the restrictions that are put on democracy by both voters and the United States Constitution. "At the beginning of the tradition to which Americans are heir," he argues, "stands the scandalous and sacrilegious Machiavelli. It reveals a forgotten lineage, recalling.