Machiavelli and Religion
By: Carlo Vanz
The role that religion plays in Machiavelli's The Prince has been interpreted through the years in several very different ways, ranging from Christian views which see Machiavelli as advocating the readers to religious values, to Atheistic ones who deny it. However, Machiavelli himself seems to try to avoid discussing about religion per se in The Prince, instead concentrating only on its advantages and disadvantages strictly related to maintaining power in a principality. This means that the book does not contain a unified conception of religion that many people tried to find. Instead, the different religious references and insertions in The Prince are only a consequence of Machiavelli's time, when religion and political power could still not be considered unrelated from each other.
History shows how one of the first and main religious interpretation of Machiavelli was a very negative one which saw him as anti-religious. In fact, a few years after the publication of his book the Church banished it, putting it on the list of forbidden books. Many religious exponents such as the English cardinal Pole went so far as calling Machiavelli's book a fruit of the devil. This interpretation lasted throughout the years and today many scholars still believe so. These people are generally those who also do not interpret The Prince as a satire, but instead believe that Machiavelli’s believes are really reflected in his book. In fact, the general amoral tone of the book, the several appeal to the leaders of the time to use deception and cruelty and the recognition of religion only in its political value make many people see Machiavelli as strongly against fundamental religious values such as charity and forgiveness.
However, another major interpretation of Machiavelli's whose support grew a lot recently challenged this traditional interpretation of Machiavelli’s book. Scholars like Erica Benner, show in their books how The Prince should be read as a satire against absolute power where the Italian thinker expresses his strong support for a republican form of government. Nevertheless, among the supporters of this other interpretation some people still saw Machiavelli as an atheist. This interpretation still empathizes how religion was a mere political tool for Machiavelli, but it also shows how chapter eleven, regarding the ecclesiastical princedoms, should be read as a subtle, anti-ecclesiastical irony, in general against any territory held by the Church, and in specific against Julius II, the other predecessors of Leo X and then Pope Alexander. In addition, all the religious examples are shown to be taken only from the Old Testament and their peculiarity are the martial abilities, rather than godliness of the men involved in them revealing an admiration for their skills rather than God.
However, considering Machiavelli an atheist could be seen as a bit of an anachronism, since the term itself, at least as we understand it today, did not “exist” yet in Europe at that time. In addition to this, one can find throughout the entire book several examples that go in contrast to the elements previously discussed and that suggest instead the presence of some believes in Machiavelli that hint to the Christian religion. Upon these evidences, many scholars suggested an opposite view of Machiavelli, where he is seen as the defender of religious values, by criticizing those who seek absolute power in the temporal world instead of the spiritual one.
Although, an impartial and careful reader will see that all these theories are equally valid and wrong: valid in their criticism of opposite theories and wrong for the same reason. Therefore some people suggested a new kind of interpretation of religion in The Prince. One great exponent of this other explanation is Maurizio Viroli. Maurizio depicts in his book, Machiavelli's God, a new picture of Machiavelli, one where he appears as a preacher of Catholicism indeed, but of a different form of Catholicism that draws its bases from both its original form in the ancient Roman Empire, criticizing the values of meekness and acceptance, typical in the traditional form of the religion, in order to substitute them with civic values, patriotism, and the willingness to love and defend your country just like the Romans believed and its new forms of the Reformation period in Florence with Savonarola and in Switzerland with the Calvinists where God became a “God that helps those who helps themselves”. In this new Christianity, God is not anymore glorified by men through selflessness, renunciation of material goods and dedication to an ecclesiastic life, but instead through good citizenship and political and economic activity for the good of society.
While at a first look it might seem that Viroli's interpretation manages to go beyond this contradiction of elements in The Prince where some parts hint the presence of a religious element in Machiavelli’s thoughts whereas others oppose it, Maurizio himself admits that he does not know what Machiavelli really thought of God and the contents of Machiavelli's religion appears very vague.
While many scholar brought several different theories to the problem of the ambiguous role of religion for Machiavelli none of them took a step back and asked why the several insertions and examples of religious elements in The Prince did not form a clear and unified picture, but instead appeared so confusing and contrasting? I believe that actually Machiavelli did not want to discuss about religion in his book and that the presence of these chaotic religious elements of The Prince could have been the result of the contrast between his will of avoiding any discussion over religious matters, and his historical and cultural context, which forced him to incorporate religious elements in his language.
However, what is the reason that could have motivated Machiavelli to stay away from religious discussion? I believe that the reason resides in the very design and purpose of his book. In fact, whether The Prince is a satire or not, its structure is the one of a manual, a manual where Machiavelli explains how to rule and keep power in a Princedom. As such, the main problem for the Italian thinker was likely to be to summarize the huge amount of information and detail about politics. Therefore, in order to be concise, Machiavelli had to keep both the language and the arguments as simple and brief as possible. In the dedication of the book Machiavelli says to Lorenzo De Medici how “This work I have not adorned or amplified with rounded periods, swelling and high-flown language, or any other of those extrinsic attractions and allurements” (Machiavelli, Dedication). After seeing Machiavelli's approach to the language in his book, it makes sense to think that, in order to present the specific and concrete guidelines and examples on how to rule, Machiavelli would be likely to avoid any non-empirical argument, like religion, that would require a great amount of argumentation to support and not strictly related or useful to teach something about political conduct. In addition to this, another possible reason for the lack of religious arguments is that Machiavelli did not incorporate a specific religion like Catholicism or Protestantism as part of the support for his political inferences because otherwise any Prince who followed another religion would have found the book as useless and thus its audience would have been significantly smaller.
Although, someone who disagrees with this thesis could easily point out that why then there are so many religious references and examples in The Prince? In order to answer this we need to consider again the time in which Machiavelli wrote his book. Today, in fact, political power and religion have grown apart in the majority of the western countries, the majority of the countries identities now come from their laws and constitutions rather than religion power and the influence of the Church has significantly declined now compared to the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. It is not hard then for us to discuss of politics without the minimal reference to God or religion. In Machiavelli's time, however, religion and power were inseparable, as God and the divine right represented most of the times the base of king's and nobles' power. Therefore, it would have not been possible for Machiavelli to discuss about how to rule in a Princedom of the time without referencing and inserting the concepts of God or religion. Also, while I mentioned that Machiavelli might have not talked about his religious opinions in order not to offend any Prince, by not talking of religion at all, he might have also produced the same effect, and he would have gone against his own teaching of the importance of at least appearing religious.
History shows how one of the first and main religious interpretation of Machiavelli was a very negative one which saw him as anti-religious. In fact, a few years after the publication of his book the Church banished it, putting it on the list of forbidden books. Many religious exponents such as the English cardinal Pole went so far as calling Machiavelli's book a fruit of the devil. This interpretation lasted throughout the years and today many scholars still believe so. These people are generally those who also do not interpret The Prince as a satire, but instead believe that Machiavelli’s believes are really reflected in his book. In fact, the general amoral tone of the book, the several appeal to the leaders of the time to use deception and cruelty and the recognition of religion only in its political value make many people see Machiavelli as strongly against fundamental religious values such as charity and forgiveness.
However, another major interpretation of Machiavelli's whose support grew a lot recently challenged this traditional interpretation of Machiavelli’s book. Scholars like Erica Benner, show in their books how The Prince should be read as a satire against absolute power where the Italian thinker expresses his strong support for a republican form of government. Nevertheless, among the supporters of this other interpretation some people still saw Machiavelli as an atheist. This interpretation still empathizes how religion was a mere political tool for Machiavelli, but it also shows how chapter eleven, regarding the ecclesiastical princedoms, should be read as a subtle, anti-ecclesiastical irony, in general against any territory held by the Church, and in specific against Julius II, the other predecessors of Leo X and then Pope Alexander. In addition, all the religious examples are shown to be taken only from the Old Testament and their peculiarity are the martial abilities, rather than godliness of the men involved in them revealing an admiration for their skills rather than God.
However, considering Machiavelli an atheist could be seen as a bit of an anachronism, since the term itself, at least as we understand it today, did not “exist” yet in Europe at that time. In addition to this, one can find throughout the entire book several examples that go in contrast to the elements previously discussed and that suggest instead the presence of some believes in Machiavelli that hint to the Christian religion. Upon these evidences, many scholars suggested an opposite view of Machiavelli, where he is seen as the defender of religious values, by criticizing those who seek absolute power in the temporal world instead of the spiritual one.
Although, an impartial and careful reader will see that all these theories are equally valid and wrong: valid in their criticism of opposite theories and wrong for the same reason. Therefore some people suggested a new kind of interpretation of religion in The Prince. One great exponent of this other explanation is Maurizio Viroli. Maurizio depicts in his book, Machiavelli's God, a new picture of Machiavelli, one where he appears as a preacher of Catholicism indeed, but of a different form of Catholicism that draws its bases from both its original form in the ancient Roman Empire, criticizing the values of meekness and acceptance, typical in the traditional form of the religion, in order to substitute them with civic values, patriotism, and the willingness to love and defend your country just like the Romans believed and its new forms of the Reformation period in Florence with Savonarola and in Switzerland with the Calvinists where God became a “God that helps those who helps themselves”. In this new Christianity, God is not anymore glorified by men through selflessness, renunciation of material goods and dedication to an ecclesiastic life, but instead through good citizenship and political and economic activity for the good of society.
While at a first look it might seem that Viroli's interpretation manages to go beyond this contradiction of elements in The Prince where some parts hint the presence of a religious element in Machiavelli’s thoughts whereas others oppose it, Maurizio himself admits that he does not know what Machiavelli really thought of God and the contents of Machiavelli's religion appears very vague.
While many scholar brought several different theories to the problem of the ambiguous role of religion for Machiavelli none of them took a step back and asked why the several insertions and examples of religious elements in The Prince did not form a clear and unified picture, but instead appeared so confusing and contrasting? I believe that actually Machiavelli did not want to discuss about religion in his book and that the presence of these chaotic religious elements of The Prince could have been the result of the contrast between his will of avoiding any discussion over religious matters, and his historical and cultural context, which forced him to incorporate religious elements in his language.
However, what is the reason that could have motivated Machiavelli to stay away from religious discussion? I believe that the reason resides in the very design and purpose of his book. In fact, whether The Prince is a satire or not, its structure is the one of a manual, a manual where Machiavelli explains how to rule and keep power in a Princedom. As such, the main problem for the Italian thinker was likely to be to summarize the huge amount of information and detail about politics. Therefore, in order to be concise, Machiavelli had to keep both the language and the arguments as simple and brief as possible. In the dedication of the book Machiavelli says to Lorenzo De Medici how “This work I have not adorned or amplified with rounded periods, swelling and high-flown language, or any other of those extrinsic attractions and allurements” (Machiavelli, Dedication). After seeing Machiavelli's approach to the language in his book, it makes sense to think that, in order to present the specific and concrete guidelines and examples on how to rule, Machiavelli would be likely to avoid any non-empirical argument, like religion, that would require a great amount of argumentation to support and not strictly related or useful to teach something about political conduct. In addition to this, another possible reason for the lack of religious arguments is that Machiavelli did not incorporate a specific religion like Catholicism or Protestantism as part of the support for his political inferences because otherwise any Prince who followed another religion would have found the book as useless and thus its audience would have been significantly smaller.
Although, someone who disagrees with this thesis could easily point out that why then there are so many religious references and examples in The Prince? In order to answer this we need to consider again the time in which Machiavelli wrote his book. Today, in fact, political power and religion have grown apart in the majority of the western countries, the majority of the countries identities now come from their laws and constitutions rather than religion power and the influence of the Church has significantly declined now compared to the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. It is not hard then for us to discuss of politics without the minimal reference to God or religion. In Machiavelli's time, however, religion and power were inseparable, as God and the divine right represented most of the times the base of king's and nobles' power. Therefore, it would have not been possible for Machiavelli to discuss about how to rule in a Princedom of the time without referencing and inserting the concepts of God or religion. Also, while I mentioned that Machiavelli might have not talked about his religious opinions in order not to offend any Prince, by not talking of religion at all, he might have also produced the same effect, and he would have gone against his own teaching of the importance of at least appearing religious.
Works Cited:
Machiavelli, Niccolò. The Prince. New York: Dover Publications, 1992. Print
Viroli, Maurizio. Machiavelli's God. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010. Print
Benner, Erica. Machiavelli’s Prince: a new reading. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Print
Spencer, Nick. Machiavelli's The Prince, part 6: was Machiavelli an atheist?. The Guardian, April, 30 2012. Web. May, 4 2015.
Johnson M, Marie. Review of: Machiavelli's God. University of Notre Dame, Philosophical Reviews. Web. May, 4 2015.
Viroli, Maurizio. Machiavelli's God. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010. Print
Benner, Erica. Machiavelli’s Prince: a new reading. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Print
Spencer, Nick. Machiavelli's The Prince, part 6: was Machiavelli an atheist?. The Guardian, April, 30 2012. Web. May, 4 2015.
Johnson M, Marie. Review of: Machiavelli's God. University of Notre Dame, Philosophical Reviews. Web. May, 4 2015.