Sullivan1993 Machiavelli's Treatment of Religion in The Discourses

Northeastern Political Science Association
Neither Christian nor Pagan: Machiavelli's Treatment of Religion in the "Discourses"

Author(s): Vickie B. Sullivan
Source: Polity, Vol. 26, No. 2 (Winter, 1993), pp. 259-280
Published by: Palgrave Macmillan Journals
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3235031
Accessed: 20-12-2015 22:54 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Northeastern Political Science Association and Palgrave Macmillan Journals are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Polity.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 192.54.242.155 on Sun, 20 Dec 2015 22:54:56 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Neither ChristianNor Pagan:
Machiavelli'sTreatmentof Religion
in the Discourses*
Vickie B. Sullivan
Skidmore College
Is Machiavelli to be understood as entirely sympathetic to either Chris-

tianity or paganism? This article examines the Discourses, the work in
which Machiavelli praises paganism most lavishly, and argues that
Machiavelli actually criticizes paganism for engendering Christianity.
To overcome the politically deleterious consequences of Christianity,
the author goes on to contend, Machiavelli appeals to certain Chris-
tian doctrines-entirely divorced from their theological context-to
support his vision of an earthly discipline that exercises the strength
that Machiavelli views as essential to sustain political life.
Vickie B. Sullivan is Assistant Professor of Government at Skidmore

College. She has published previously in Political Theory.
Sebastian de Grazia, in his critically acclaimed intellectual biography of

Machiavelli, propounds the view that Machiavelli is a devout Christian;
yet another scholar of Machiavelli, Mark Hulliung, maintains in another
prominent work, admirable for its reasoning and documentation, that
Machiavelli is a "genuine pagan"-that his intention with regard to
religion can be described only as an endeavor to replace the Christian
world-view with the pagan world-view.2 Is Machiavelli a Christian or a
*The author thanks Nathan Tarcov, Joseph Cropsey, Stephen Holmes, Catherine
Zuckert,MichaelZuckert,John Scott, and GraceBurton.
1. Sebastiande Grazia,Machiavelliin Hell (Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,
1989). The work won the PulitzerPrize for Biography.See also SusanBehuniak-Long,
reviewof Machiavelliin Hell, by Sebastiande Grazia,in TheReviewof Politics, 52 (Spring
1990):317-20. The earlierbiographyby Ridolfi paints a similarpictureof Machiavelli's
Christianpiety. SeeRobertoRidolfi, TheLife ofNiccolo Machiavelli,trans.CecilGrayson
(Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress, 1963).
2. MarkHulliung,CitizenMachiavelli(Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress, 1983),
pp. 8 and 245.
1993
Winter1993
Polity
Polity XXVI, Number 22
VolumeXXVL Winter
260 Neither Christian Nor Pagan
pagan? Given the great disparity between the conclusions of these two
scholars, a reconsideration of Machiavelli's stance toward religion and
its relation to politics seems particularly germane. A deeper mystery
emerges from the obvious need for such a reconsideration: having
allowed scholars well over four hundred years to ponder the question,
how can one thinker continue to baffle on an issue so central to his
thought?
I offer here a possible solution to both puzzles. With regard to
Machiavelli's religious view, I argue that he is neither a Christian nor a
pagan. He stakes out a third position with the specific intent of over-
coming the politically deleterious consequences of both pagan and Chris-
tian religion. He rejects Christianity by appealing to paganism and he
rejects paganism by appealing to certain elements of Christianity.
Because his thought contains this debt to Christianity, his intention can-
not be adequately characterized as a return to paganism, but because he
uses Christian weapons to subvert Christianity, neither can he be termed
a Christian. In this manner, the puzzle of how scholars can be induced to
reach such incompatible conclusions becomes less intractable: in discern-
ing that Machiavelli rejects either alternative one is likely to conclude
mistakenly that Machiavelli embraces the other before the whole of
Machiavelli's intention is discerned.
I confine myself to an examination of the Discourses, for, as Hulliung
claims, by extending his most lavish praise to ancient Rome Machiavelli
appears here at his most pagan.3 Nevertheless, this work also reveals his
dissatisfaction with Rome, for this pagan powerhouse also engendered
Christianity.4 This recognition leads to an additional one that must
moderate his explicit censure of Christianity: by conquering Rome,
Christianity establishes its own power as a ruling force and thereby
garners his admiration. Thus, Machiavelli recognizes Christianity as a
tremendously successful ruling force and encourages temporal rulers to
utilize the methods of rule that render human beings so susceptible to its
power. The fact that the Discourses broaches all of these issues reveals
the centrality of religion to his political thought, as well as the necessity
of a careful consideration of the intricacy of these arguments as they
unfold in this work.
3. Hulliungcalls the DiscoursesMachiavelli'smost "stridentlypaganwork" (Citizen

Machiavelli,p. 246).
4. Hulliungrecognizesthe problemthat Christianity'sultimatevictoryposes, but he
concludesthat Machiavelli"did not explainhow the slavishChristianstriumphedoverthe
masterfulpagans"(CitizenMachiavelli,p. 248). I treat Machiavelli'scriticismof pagan
Rome for Christianity'sconquestin the secondsectionof this article.
Vickie B. Sullivan 261
I. Machiavelli's Appeal to Pagan Rome
Much evidence exists in the Discourses to bear out Hulliung's view that
Machiavelli's "anticlericalism ... marks only the first layer of his con-
demnation of Christianity. . . . Christian values per se are attacked as
corrupt and contrasted with the virtuous values enshrined by pagan
religion."5 Indeed, Machiavelli's preface to the first book characterizes
his intent as one of imitation of the pagan world. He states there that
although the methods of antiquity hold authority in certain disciplines,
in matters of the military and political arts the moderns do not recur to
the examples of the ancients. In ascertaining the cause for this neglect of
ancient examples, he says cautiously that he believes
that this arises not so much from the weakness that the present
religion has conducted the world or from that evil done to many
Christian provinces and cities by an ambitious idleness [uno
ambizioso ozio], as from not having a true understanding of his-
tories, reading them, but tasting neither the sense nor the flavor
that they have in them.6
Although he hesitates to state directly that Christianity is responsible for

the failure to appreciate ancient history, Machiavelli forthrightly associ-
ates Christianity with the world's weakness. This weakness seems evident
in the fact that people judge that the imitation of the ancients "is not
only difficult but impossible, as if the heaven, the sun, the elements, and
human beings, had changed their motion, order, and power from what
they were formerly."
5. CitizenMachiavelli,pp. 66 and 68. See also IsaiahBerlinon this point: "What[the

church]has doneis to lead, on the one hand,to corruptionandpoliticaldivision-the fault
of the papacy-and on the other,to other-worldliness andmeekenduranceof sufferingon
earthfor the sake of the eternallife beyondthe grave"("The Originalityof Machiavelli,"
in Againstthe Current[NewYork:VikingPress, 1980],p. 48). Berlin'spiecehad already
drawnthe sharpdistinctionbetweenChristianityand paganismin Machiavelli'sthought,
and illustratedMachiavelli'spreferencefor the latter. See particularly,pp. 58, 62-64, 66,
68-69, 71. Berlin'sexpositionservesas a powerfulantidoteto BenedettoCroce'sdepiction
of Machiavellias agonizingoverthe necessityof separatingpoliticsfrom moralityoffered
in Politics and Morals, trans. SalvatoreCastiglione(New York: PhilosophicalLibrary,
1945).See Berlin,pp. 52-55.HulliungcriticizesBerlin'sanalysisfor not goingfarenough-
for not revealingthe entiretyof Machiavelli'sshockingrejectionof Christianand Stoic
ethics(CitizenMachiavelli,p. 238). For Hulliung'sdiscussionof Berlin'sanalysis,see pp.
249-54.
6. The translationis my own from Niccol6 Machiavelli,Discorsisopra la PrimaDeca
di TitoLivio in Tuttele Opere(Florence:Sansoni,1971),I pr. Subsequentreferencesto this
work will appearin the text by book and chapternumber.
But surely Christianity is, in fact, responsible for the moderns' view of
ancient deeds that results in such weakness. This view, for example, is
illustrated by Augustine's comment on Roman history: "see how much
love is due to the heavenly city for the sake of eternal life, if the earthly
city was so much loved by its citizens for its gift of human glory."7
Because Christianity has taught human beings to renounce the goods of
the earth and to pursue the goods of heaven, the misplaced efforts of the
ancient Romans instruct Christians only to undergo greater travail for
the Eternal City. Even in this capacity the ability of ancient history to
instruct must be limited, for the deeds that won earthly glory are dif-
ferent from those that garner eternal rewards in heaven. An understand-
ing of this transformation helps explicate Machiavelli's formulation,
ambizioso ozio, for modern men still covet rewards-albeit heavenly
ones-and as a result are still ambitious; but unlike their forebears, they
no longer need undertake glorious earthly enterprises to gain their
rewards, and as a result can be idle. In order to combat this understand-
ing of history, Machiavelli offers a commentary on "all those books of
Titus Livy that from the malignity of time have not been interrupted."
Machiavelli will compare ancient examples to modern ones, then, so that
those who read his work can "draw from it that utility which one must
seek from the knowledge of history" (I pr.).
It appears that, in Machiavelli's view, Roman history can instruct
moderns even in matters of religion, for early in his section on religion,
I 11-15, he asserts that a return to the methods of the Romans is possible.
He proclaims: "Let no one be discouraged about being able to achieve
that which was done by others, because human beings, as was said in our
preface, are born, live, and die always in the same order" (I 11). By
placing this emphatic statement in the context of his discussion of the
pagan religion, he appears to offer his examination of the former religion
with a view toward the possibility of achieving "that which was done by
others."
Machiavelli makes the need for such imitation in matters of religion
prominent in II 2, when he treats the political effects of Christianity. He
ponders why modern states do not demonstrate the same degree of deter-
mination in the pursuit of their liberty as did the ancient Italian republics
that stalwartly defended themselves against the Roman threat. He
answers his question by referring to the difference between the education
of the ancients and that of the moderns, which is itself a product of their
divergent religions. The pagan religion was more conducive to politics
7. City of God, trans. WilliamM. Green, Loeb ClassicalLibraryEdition, Vol. II

(Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniversityPress, 1963),V 16, p. 219.
VickieB. Sullivan 263
becauseit consideredvirtuousthose deedsthat werelikelyto bringglory

to a man, whereasthe Christianreligion considersthese pagan virtues
sinful:
Our religion has glorified humble and contemplativemen, more
than activeones. It has placedits greatestgood in humility,abnega-
tion, and in contemptfor humanthings, whilethe [paganreligion]
placesit in greatnessof spirit,in strengthof body, and in all other
thingsfit to makemen very strong. And if our religionasks that in
you therebe strength,it wishesthat you be fit to suffer more than
to do a strongthing. (II 2)
Thus, Christianity"has renderedthe world weak" because it teaches
that the state for whichone must fight is "paradise"in the next life and
that this battlerequiresvirtuesvery differentfrom those that enableone
to glorify the homeland (II 2).8 In this manner, his explicit censureof
Christianityin this chapteraccordswith his treatmentof Christianity's
"ambiziosoozio" in his prefaceto the first book. At this point, a return
to paganism's exaltation of the homeland appears to be the obvious
remedy.9
Nevertheless,he indicatesthat such a recourseneed not be necessary,
for he goes on to state that the modernreligion need not be an insur-
mountable barrierto political virtue. "Although it appears that the
worldis effeminateand Heavendisarmed,this no doubt comes from the
cowardiceof the people who have interpretedour religionaccordingto
idleness [ozio] and not accordingto virtu" (II 2). Clearly,the virtueto
which Machiavelliappeals here is not Christianvirtue, but rather a
Machiavellianvirtuethat winstemporalrewards.10 He continuesthat this
8. In theFlorentineHistoriesMachiavellirelatesthatthe enemiesof Cosimode' Medici

chargedhimwithlovingthis worldmorethanthe next (VII6). See also Machiavelli'sletter
to FrancescoVettori, 16 April 1527, in whichhe claimsto love his patria more than his
soul.
9. J. W. Allen comments:"Whatis neededis a religionafterthe fashionof old Rome:
a religionthat teachesthat he who best servesthe Statebest servesthe gods" (A Historyof
Political Thoughtin the SixteenthCentury[London:Methuen& Co., 1928], p. 459).
Similarly,J. G. A. Pocock arguesthat MachiavellicriticizesChristianitybecause"it gives
men other than civic values." See The MachiavellianMoment: Florentine Political
Thoughtand the Atlantic RepublicanTradition(Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,
1975),pp. 192 and 213-14.
10. On Machiavelli'sdefinitionof virti as the abilityto do anythingrequiredfor "polit-
ical success,"see CliffordOrwin,"Machiavelli'sUnchristianCharity,"AmericanPolitical
Science Review,72 (December1978):1219.
alternative interpretation could enable men not only to defend their

homeland (patria), but to love and to honor it as well.1
Machiavelli's suggestion at first appears to be innocuous because,
after all, his offer is extended in the interest of his homeland; however, it
is this very concern with the temporal that reveals his suggestion's darker
character. Christ's teachings as conveyed in the New Testament instruct
human beings to renounce such attachments to the mundane.12 Moreover,
Machiavelli has already acknowledged in this very chapter that he under-
stands that Christianity per se is resistant to the type of exaltation of the
homeland that he seeks: "our religion has shown us the truth and the
true way in making us hold in less esteem the honor of the world" (II 2).
Therefore, if, as Machiavelli states, Christianity's "truth and true way"
devalues honor, then he must concede that his proposed "interpreta-
tion" of Christianity, which would overturn the "way of life" that has
"rendered the world weak," simply cannot accord with Christianity's
"truth and true way" (II 2).13
Because he seems willing, for the sake of a temporal benefit, to dis-
allow the New Testament as the medium in which Christ's teachings are
conveyed, this new interpretation would appear to partake of the charac-
ter of a new revelation. But this new revelation would not truly be a
revelation, but would originate in a human-rather than in a divine-act
that has worldly rewards as its goal. In seeking these worldly rewards
through a new human revelation, Machiavelli looks to Christianity for
11. Hulliung calls the sentiments expressed in this passage "disingenuous." "How could
the distinction between paganism and Christianity be maintained if in modem Christianity
virtu were to drive out ozio," he asks (Citizen Machiavelli, pp. 205-06). Felix Gilbert main-
tains that the "central point of his political philosophy was that man must choose: he could
live aside from the stream of politics and follow the dictates of Christian morality; but if
man entered upon the vita activa of politics, he must act according to its laws" (Machiavelli
and Guicciardini: Politics and History in Sixteenth Century Florence [Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1965; repr., New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1984], p. 197). Never-
theless, Gilbert cites the above passage as evidence of an "incidental" facet of his thinking:
"because he realized the usefulness of religion for disciplining the members of society, he
envisaged a religion, perhaps even a true Christianity, which broadened the concept of
morality in such a way that it would encompass not only the virtues of suffering and humil-
ity, but also that of political activism" (pp. 196-97).
12. Machiavelli's new interpretation of Christianity, for example, would conflict with
Christ's "Sermon on the Mount," in which he asks human beings to renounce mundane
concerns and to pursue the reward in heaven to the extent that they endure persecution:
"Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of
heaven" and "But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also"
(Mt 5:10 and 39, RSV [Revised Standard Version]).
13. Cf. de Grazia, Machiavelli in Hell, p. 89.
guidance.'4In interpretingthis religion in terms of virtHi,15

he excises
from its teachingsany referenceto another world, thus alleviatingits
tendency to engender ambizioso ozio. Moreover, he strips from this
religion's doctrinesany referenceto a power higher than human. The
new revelationwill be entirelythis-worldlyand entirelyhuman. Indeed,
he intimatesthis resultwhenhe uses the term"our religion"whenspeak-
ing of Christianity,because it would indeed be entirelyours. Human
beings would be the legislatorsof an entirelyhuman religion.
Thus, recollectionof Hulliung's claim that Machiavelli'spassionate
admirationof pagan Rome serves as a repudiationof the "Christian
world-view" seems a necessarycorrectivefor de Grazia'spopularized
portrayal of Machiavelli as one for whom "Christianityis the true
faith."16Notwithstandingthis correctivefunction, additionalevidence
from the Discourses will suggest Machiavelli'sultimate dissatisfaction
with pagan Rome becauseit helpedto originatethe other-worldlyform
of Christianitythat Machiavelliendeavorsto supplant. A new form,
replete with virtue, will overcomethe defects of both Christianityand
paganism.
II. Machiavelli'sCriticismof Rome

Machiavellibeginshis sectionon religionwith extensivepraiseof Numa,
who, Machiavelli claims, introduced religion to Rome. Whereas
Romulus, Numa's immediatepredecessor,founded Rome and created
the Senateas well as otherinstitutions,Numa's "arts of peace" reduced
his ferociouspeople to civil obedienceand made them tractablefor all
succeedingrulers.Accordingto Machiavelli,the Romans "fearedmore
to breakan oath than the laws, as they esteemedmorethe powerof God
than that of humans"(I 11).17 In this manner,the Romanreligionacted
14. In II 5, he appears to predict the destruction of Christianity, and thereby the birth of
a new religion. He also suggests here the human origin of all religions. The chapter heading
of I 25 declares that "he who wishes to reform an old government in a free city must retain
at least the shadow of ancient modes."
15. Cf. Berlin's comment: ".... Christianity, at least in theory, could have taken a form
not incompatible with the qualities that he celebrates; but, not surprisingly, he does not
pursue this line of thought" ("The Originality of Machiavelli," p. 49).
16. De Grazia, Machiavelli in Hell, p. 89.
17. When speaking of the divine in relation to the Roman religion, Machiavelli uses the
word "Dio." It is common knowledge that the Romans were polytheistic rather than mono-
theistic, and, in fact, Machiavelli shows that he knows this fact when he uses the plural
"Dii" later in this same section of chapters when speaking of the Roman deities. The effect
of using the singular, rather than the plural, seems to be to bring his discussion of the
as a veil behind which political men could operate effectively. Because,

for example, Numa doubted that his own authority would suffice to con-
vince his people to accept his innovation, he feigned that his new orders
originated from a nymph (I 11). Numa's institution of a religion that
"was founded on the responses of oracles" easily lent itself to the belief
that the god who could predict one's future could also bestow it (I 12).
Later, during the republic, Machiavelli illustrates the political utility of
such appeals to the divine. An appeal to the anger of the gods, for
instance, assured that elections produced only patricians to fill the
offices of the republic, and a favorable prognostication produced new
hope in an army disheartened by a long siege (I 13). Thus, in presenting
the successes of the Roman patricians in manipulating a credulous
people, the central contention of his section devoted to a consideration
of the pagan religion is the political utility of contrived appeals to the
divine.18
Whereas this section illustrates the utility of such appeals, Machiavelli
suggests later that these means were ultimately ineffective in gaining the
results that the patricians desired. This reappraisal becomes evident, for
example, in Machiavelli's further consideration of how the patricians
overcame the plebeians' demands for the passage of the Terentillian law.
This law proposed that five citizens be appointed to codify the law per-
taining to the power of the consuls, thus placing limits on the administra-
tion of the office. 19When first broaching the controversy over this law in
I 13, he states that one of the first remedies that the nobility used in
averting its passage was religion, and one such use of religion was the
nobility's reference to the Sibylline books, which predicted that due to
sedition, the city was in danger of losing its liberty. Livy says that the
tribunes charged the patricians with fraud, whereas Machiavelli gives
manipulationof religiousbeliefs closerto the domainof the readerof the Christianera.

This presumptionconformswith his assurance,discussedabove, that whatpreviouslyhas
been broughtto pass can be accomplishedagain. See ClaudeLefort,Le travailde l'oeuvre
machiavel(Paris:Gallimard,1972),p. 491; HarveyC. Mansfield,Jr., Machiavelli'sNew
Modesand Orders:A Studyof the "Discourseson Livy" (Ithaca,NY: CornellUniversity
Press, 1979),p. 70.
18. In so presentingthe Romanreligion,Machiavellidiffers from Livy'spresentation.
WhereasLivymaintainsthatduringthe earlypartof the republicthe patricianswerepious,
Machiavelliintimatesthatthe patricianswerealwaysso impiousthattheyusedthe divineto
obtaintheirown results.Compare,for example,Machiavelli'scitationof Livy'spraisefor
the pietythatreignedduringthe ancientrepublicandcensureof the pietyof his owntimein
I 13 with Machiavelli'stitle of I 14: "The Romansinterpretedthe auspicesaccordingto
necessity,and prudentlydisplayedobservanceof religion,when forcednot to observeit,
and punishedany one who rashlydisdainedit" (cf. Livy, History III 20).
19. Livy, History III 9.5-6.
more credit to the tribunes by asserting that they "discovered" it. This
change in terms carries the additional implication that Machiavelli
believes the patricians had indeed falsified the prognostication for polit-
ical reasons. Machiavelli says that despite this exposure, the plebs, fright-
ened by the warning of the books, did not wish to pursue the promulga-
tion of the law, whereas in Livy's account war intervenes.20
Although Machiavelli's explicit purpose in I 13 is to praise the use the
Romans made of their religion, he undermines his own thesis even here
when he states that the recourse to religion was the first remedy the
nobles pursued. The implication is that they subsequently had to try at
least one other method to avert passage of the law, and hence that their
recourse to religion was not entirely successful. Later, in I 39, Machia-
velli treats the patricians' subsequent methods that did not partake of
religious maneuvering, and hence makes evident the insufficiency of this
method. Machiavelli here relates-without any mention of religion-
how the patricians eventually overcame the inconvenience of this pro-
posal; while their first recourse was to religion, the patricians resolved
the problem through political means.21 They replaced the two consuls
with five tribunes with consular powers, offices for which the plebeians
were eligible. Machiavelli says in I 39 that the patricians changed the
name of the office but managed to keep the same authority in the repub-
lic. Eventually the plebeians realized their mistake and went back to the
original office of the consuls.
While the tribunes with consular power existed, the patricians had
ways of keeping plebeians from holding these offices. In 1 13 Machiavelli
says that the patricians frightened the people into electing only patricians
to be tribunes with consular power through attributing a plague to the
anger of the gods incurred because of the plebs' earlier control of these
high offices. Again, in describing the same episode, Livy differs by say-
ing that the patricians had only their best men stand for the offices and as
a precaution also attributed the city's misfortune to the gods' anger
regarding the plebs' predominance. Whereas in the section on religion
Machiavelli only mentions the method relating to religion, later in the
Discourses he completely discards this particular method. Machiavelli
devotes an entire chapter, I 48, to describing how the patricians managed
to keep the plebeians from holding these offices. He mentions two
methods, neither of which relates to religion: the patricians either had
their best men stand or they used devious means to guarantee that the
20. Ibid., III 10.6-10.

21. Cf. Leo Strauss,Thoughtson Machiavelli(Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress,
1958),p. 228.
worst of the plebeians stand along with the better men of the plebeians.
Machiavelli says that the first method made the plebeians ashamed not to
give the offices to the patricians, while the second made them ashamed to
accept the offices. So the progression of Machiavelli's argument is as
follows: in I 13 Machiavelli gives only one method of keeping the plebs
from office, that of the clever manipulation of religion, whereas Livy
gives two. Later in I 48 Machiavelli gives two methods, neither of which
relates to the manipulation of religious beliefs: one is the method which
Livy mentions, but which Machiavelli ignored in I 13; the other is not to
be found in Livy's account of this incident.22 Thus Machiavelli has
replaced the method in Livy's text that relates to religion with his own,
which relates not to religion but to devious political maneuvering.
In this manner, the religious contrivances of the Romans, which were
the central focus of Machiavelli's section on religion and which appeared
there to be indispensable to the health of the state, now appear to be
ineffective. Nevertheless, although religion might not have been neces-
sary in the mundane contrivances of the patricians, Machiavelli com-
ments in I 11 that it is certainly necessary on extraordinary occasions:
"And truly never was there any orderer of extraordinary laws for a peo-
ple, who did not have recourse to God, because otherwise they would not
have been accepted; although there are many goods, understood by a
prudent man, they do not have, in themselves, reasons evident enough to
be able to persuade others." Even in Machiavelli's account of Rome's
beginnings, however, he allows an exception to his maxim, for he asserts
that Rome's very founder, Romulus, did not have recourse to "God's
authority."
This distinction between Romulus and Numa might be explained by
the fact that whereas Numa's achievement was "extraordinary,"
Romulus's was not; however, this explanation does not seem satisfactory
in light of the fact that Machiavelli ranks Romulus, not Numa, among
the four great founders.23Moreover, Machiavelli changes Livy's account
of Rome's founding in a manner that accentuates Romulus's authority,
as well as his lack of religion, in contrast to Numa's religion and corre-
sponding lack of authority. In drawing this distinction, Machiavelli con-
tradicts Livy who indicates that religion existed in Rome prior to Numa's
kingship. In Livy's account, for example, augury is used to determine the
gods' will as to which brother should name and govern the new city;
22. Cf. Livy, History V 14.

23. Prince VI. Machiavelli makes clear the reasons for this ultimate judgment later in the
Discourses when he compares Numa unfavorably to his successor, Tullus. I treat below
Machiavelli's explicit criticism of Numa.
because of a disagreement over the interpretation of the auspices,

Romulus slew Remus to become sole authority. As king, Romulus
attended to the worship of the gods.24 The unwary reader of Machia-
velli's account of Rome's founding would readily assume that a belief in
the gods was introduced only with Numa's ascension. Thus, in offering
this new account of Rome's founding, Machiavelli appears to believe
that not all innovators require recourse to a higher power to gain the
adherence of their people. Indeed, whereas he comments here that Numa
doubted his own authority, there is no comparable statement regarding
Romulus's authority in the chapter; Romulus apparently had no cause to
doubt it.
In this manner, recourse to the gods appears to be unnecessary either
in extraordinary or in mundane politics,25 but Machiavelli's criticism of
Rome extends much deeper: its methods were not only ineffective, but
politically pernicious. In I 19 Machiavelli compares Numa's peaceful
nature to Romulus's warlike nature, and concludes, "let all princes who
hold a state take this example, he who imitates Numa, will hold or fail to
hold it in accordance with the times or the fortune that befalls them, but
if they imitate Romulus, and always arm themselves with prudence and
arms, they will hold it in each mode. ...." Numa's recourse to religion,
then, made him dependent on fortune, a dangerous position for a leader
and for his state. Machiavelli reiterates this point in I 21, when compar-
ing Numa, again to his detriment, to his successor, Tullus. Upon taking
the throne, Tullus found that the Romans were no longer trained for
war, and resolved to retrain them for military service rather than to rely
on foreign arms. Numa relied on fortune in two ways: he did not arm his
own subjects and he relied on a belief in another world.26
24. Livy, History I 6.4-7.4 and 8.1.

25. In I 11, Machiavellidoes indicatethat religionis not simplynecessaryto a statewhen
he saysthat fearof the princecanreplacereligionin a state. He continuesin this chapterto
indicatethat this alternativeis not effectivebecausewhenthe princedies the stateloses his
virtue. This inconveniencecould be overcomeby a republicthat is repletewith princes.I
argue in the last section of this paperthat he envisionspreciselythat type of republic.
Machiavellioften refersto the leadingmenof the Romanrepublicas princes.See for exam-
ple I 12: "da Cammilloa dagli altriprincipidella cittd." Cf. Allen, Political Thought,
p. 458.
26. Pocock and Quentin Skinner find in Machiavelli'spraise of Numa and of the
ancientRomanreligionsupportfor theirclaimthat Machiavelliendorsesa republicanism
that demandsselfishinterestsbe sacrificedfor the sake of the "commongood" or "com-
munity." Pocock glosses over and SkinnerignoresMachiavelli'sreappraisalof Numa in
theselaterchaptersof the firstbook. See Pocock,MachiavellianMoment,pp. 192-93,and
QuentinSkinner,Machiavelli,Past MastersSeries,ed. KeithThomas(NewYork:Hill and
Wang, 1981),pp. 61-62 and 64.
Although Numa's successors remedied Rome's reliance on foreign

arms, they did not remedy its reliance on a belief in another world, as
Machiavelli's extensive discussion of the religious maneuverings perpe-
trated under the republic indicates. In this manner, it could be said that
Rome continued to rely on foreign arms and hence on fortune.27 Ulti-
mately, this fortune would turn against them when a new religion utilized
Roman practices for a very different purpose.
Just as Machiavelli focuses on the conflict between the people and the
nobles when treating the use to which the Romans put their religion, he
focuses on it when broaching-most delicately-the ascendancy of the
Christian religion. He relishes this conflict in republican Rome as a spec-
tacle of collective avarice that signifies that the state is in equilibrium;28
however, this desire for acquisition can also lead to tyranny, if not prop-
erly handled. The state falls out of balance, for example, when the lower
class looks to an ambitious man who promises to satisfy its appetite with
private favors like "aiding with money or defending [it] against the
powerful" (I 46). According to Machiavelli such methods are particular-
ly dangerous because this ambitious man, by assuring the people that he
seeks to be its protector against the arrogant excesses of the nobles,
garners the support of the people and is propelled to tyranny.29
Machiavelli provides the example of Spurius Maelius, who, when Rome
was suffering from a famine, distributed wheat "privately" to the plebs
(III 28). Recognizing the "inconvenience" that might arise from such
"liberality," the Senate sentenced him to death.
Later, the Roman republic failed to take such decisive action against
ambitious men who posed the same threat to the republic. Machiavelli
furnishes the examples of the Caesarean faction, which effected the
Roman republic's collapse, and its immediate predecessor, the Marian
faction, to illustrate how efficacious this method for establishing a
tyranny can be when decisive action is not taken against it (I 37 and 5).
Both of these factions opposed the nobility and sought to slake the pas-
sions of the people. In discussing these particular factions, Machiavelli
cites common criticism leveled both against the Roman republic for the
27. Machiavelli's most overt criticism of ancient Rome in the Discourses occurs in II 2
when he charges that the Romans destroyed the love of liberty when they destroyed all the
other republics. This criticism pays homage to Roman strength. As my previous section
indicates, Machiavelli makes explicit appeal to those who admire the strength of ancient
Rome. For this reason it appears that he poses more subtly his criticisms of Rome that sug-
gest its fundamental weakness. I treat those criticisms in this section.
28. See particularly I 4 and 6.
29. E.g., I 5, 7, 40, 46; III 28.
prominent place the lower class attained and against this class directly for
its part in bringing down the republic:
And they give as an example the same Rome that by having that
authority in the hands of tribunes of the plebs, it was not enough
for them to have a plebeian consul, they wanted to have both. After
this they wanted to have the censorship and the praetorship and all
the other ranks of power in the city. This was not enough for them,
led by the same furor with time they began to worship [adorare]
those men that they saw apt to combat the nobility, from which was
born the power of Marius, and the ruin of Rome. (I 5)
In his own voice Machiavelli is far less critical of the lower class and its
aspirations. It appears that Machiavelli thinks that its demands are
rather meager: "I say that one must first examine what the people desire,
and it will be found always that it desires two things: the first to revenge
itself against those who have been the cause of its servitude and the other
to regain its liberty" (I 16).30
In contrast to those who decry the Roman plebs, Machiavelli does not
seem concerned that the demands of a people become excessive. His con-
cern appears to lie instead with preventing those who seek to command
from endeavoring to satisfy the desires of the people in an extraordinary
manner that harms the state. In supporting the Roman republic against
those who condemn its domestic turmoil, for example, he asserts that the
plebs and patricians of the republic never had recourse to the "extra-
ordinary mode" of calling in "foreign forces" to quell these squabbles
(I 7). The plebeians eventually prevailed in the class conflict precisely by
calling in a "foreign force" in the form of a god that promised the plebs
the ultimate victory and its attendant riches in an unearthly city. Chris-
tianity rose to preeminence through the promise of such private
benefits.31
30. It appearsthat, in his view, the peopleof a republic,ratherthanbeingfree, can be in

servitudeto the nobles, since he states that "those princeswho become tyrantsin their
homeland" can satisfy the first demand entirelyand the second in part (I 16). Thus
Machiavelliportraysthe tyrantas the potentialliberatorof a peoplein servitude.Perhaps
for this reasonMachiavelliappearsat timesto supportprincesas vigorouslyas he supports
republics.Even in the Discourses, a work ostensiblydevoted to republics,Machiavelli
delineatesthe propertechniquefor a singleman to maintaina statein whichhe has arisen
to preeminence(I 26), as I will explainin the next section.See also his discussionin II 2 of
the incidentsin Corcyraduringthe PeloponnesianWar.
31. In the FlorentineHistorieshe says that the attemptto ingratiate"oneselfwith the
plebs" "with publicgifts" produces"sects" [sette](VII 1). In the Discourseshe makesit
evidentthat he considersChristianityto be a sect: he refersto Christianityas "la setta
Cristiana"(II 5).
272 NeitherChristianNor Pagan
In a numberof places in the Discourses,Machiavelliseemsto broach

tacitly the presageof Christianitythrough his evocative discussionsof
earliereventsin Rome. Machiavelli,for example,discusseshow the class
strife became so intense that the plebeiansdesiredto leave Rome and,
after the sack of Veii, to move to this city, unableas they wereto resist
the allure of the captured city's fine buildings and fertile land (I 53).32
Althoughthe patricianswereable to stemthe plebeians'desireto occupy
Veii, ultimatelythey were not able to stem the desire of the people to
occupy anothercity-that of God. This city held out even greaterriches
thanthat of Veii, for it promisedgreaterrichesand eternallife in another
world.33
Machiavellialso appears to wish to draw the reader's attention to
Christianity'sadventin I 13 whenhe recognizesin Livy'shistoryanother
occurrencethat could stand as a metaphorfor the later eventsthat were
to marka cataclysmicchangein the way people werehenceforthto view
their world (cf. I pr). In contrastto the controversyover the habitation
of Veii, hereMachiavelliintroducesa thirdpartyinto the persistentclass
conflict of Rome, the slaves and exiles who occupiedthe Capitol, the
home of the Roman gods. The patriciansfearedthat, despitethis crisis
and the threatof attackfrom the Aequi and Volsci that it mightprecipi-
tate, the plebeianswould continue to force their demandsby refusing
militaryservice.Machiavelli'sretellingof this incidentevokesthe presage
of Christianity,for like those who hold the Capitol, the triumphant
Christiansare themselvesexiles-exiles from the earth itself-because
they repudiatethe earthlyrewardsin pursuingthose of the city of God.
In Machiavelli'swords, in seeking "paradise,[they]think more of sus-
tainingtheirwoundsthan avengingthem" (II 2). Althoughunsuccessful
in the incidentMachiavellirelates, the slaves and exiles eventuallysuc-
ceededin capturingthe allegianceof the Romanpeopleto a religionthat
exalts the weak and the poor.
This resultaccentuatesthe greatdifferencebetweenthe politicaleffect
of Christianityand that of paganism.Whereaspaganismwas conducive
to militarygreatness,Christianityhas "renderedthe worldweak" (II 2).
Indeed,Machiavelliemphasizespreciselythis contrastin relatinghis tales
of paganism. Nevertheless, Christianitytook root and flourished in
Romansoil. The processby which Rome gave rise to Christianityseems
almost inexorablebecause Rome encouragedits people to look to the
32. Machiavellidiscussesthe siegeandcaptureof Veiiin his sectionon religion,chapters

I 12 and 13.
33. Again, Augustine'sclaimthat the appealof the EternalCity is muchmorealluring
than that of any earthlycity appearsto be relevantto this discussion(City of God V 16).
heavens for salvation. In the pursuit of their own class interests, clever
plebeians-perhaps plebeians like the clever tribunes of I 13 who "dis-
covered" the patricians' contrivances-will eventually encourage a belief
in a doctrine that proclaims the victory of the plebs over the nobles, who
seek to use the plebs in the aggrandizement of themselves and their coun-
try. These clever tribunes will declare that in order to attain the rewards
in the Eternal City, one need not fight for the earthly city. In this manner,
the plebeians become exiled from Rome. In other words, a dangerous
potentiality lurks when a state encourages the religious gullibility of its
people: clever plebeians will realize that they can trump the patricians at
their own game.
This danger, however, need not be courted, because the leaders of a
state need not make explicit appeal to the divine. Reliance on such other-
worldliness is a reliance on fortune, just as was Numa's recourse to the
divine. Although Machiavelli eschews the otherworldliness of Christian-
ity, he nevertheless appeals to certain of Christianity's methods of rule
that will maintain the people's focus on its temporal existence.
III. Machiavelli's Transformation of Christian Doctrine
Because modern leaders render the people weak when they maintain their
rule by encouraging the people to live so as to attain "paradise" (II 2),
Machiavelli indicates that these rulers should renounce this practice of
invoking the commands of Christianity and, instead, adopt in an entirely
earthly capacity the Christian god as an exemplar of rule.34 Thus,
although Machiavelli clearly appeals to the strength that characterized
ancient Rome, he finds, remarkably, the beliefs that engender such
strength not in paganism, but rather in the Christian religion. Thus, it is
misleading to claim, as Hulliung does, that Machiavelli desires to turn
from Christianity, which is "humble, small, and feeble," to paganism,
which is "bold, great, and magnificent."35
The following examination of Machiavelli's use of Christian doctrine
is informed by Machiavelli's recognition that the advent of Christianity
transformed the manner in which the "universita of human beings" lives
and regards its world (II 2). Christianity is a governing force in people's
lives. Moreover, the expanse of Christendom is the successor of the
Roman Empire; Christianity is a ruling power. Indeed, although Machia-
34. Machiavelli'sadvice appears similar to the injunctionof the Unjust Speech in

Aristophanes'Clouds:do as the gods do, not as they say.
35. CitizenMachiavelli,p. 247.
velli blames it for rendering the world weak, its ability to engender this
weakness certainly does not indicate its own incapacity.36
Having repudiated the truth of Christianity, Machiavelli must assign
the basis of its rule to the people's mistaken fear of its power. He admires
some of the insights contained in its doctrine that enable it to exercise
such rule over humans, and he acts on this admiration in the Discourses
by illustrating that a perversion of these very beliefs can assuage the peo-
ple's otherworldliness by compelling humans to focus on their temporal
existences.37In forcing such myopia, Machiavelli seeks to empower polit-
ical leaders with the means to effectual politics.
He asserts, for example, that for a new prince to establish and main-
tain himself in a new principality, the prince must make everything anew.
There must "be no rank, no order, no state, no wealth that he who holds
it does not recognize it as coming from you" (I 26). Machiavelli's
demand that the ruler of a state be acknowledged as the cause of all
things recalls a theological argument that God is the ultimate cause of all
things.38 He makes these theological undertones explicit when to support
the necessity of this prince's actions he adduces the only quotation from
the Bible that appears in the Discourses. This prince must make "the rich
poor and the poor rich as David did when he became king: 'who filled the
poor with good things and sent the rich away empty.' "39 Machiavelli's
quotation, however, comes not from the Old Testament, but from the
New, and the Scripture refers not to David, but to God.40The harsh and,
36. As Berlinpoints out, Machiavelli'sdiscussionsof Savonarolaillustrate"that an

unarmedprophetwill alwaysgo to the gallows"("The Originalityof Machiavelli,"p. 64).
See, for example,Prince VI and DiscoursesI 11. AlthoughChrist,like Savonarola,was
unarmedand hence was executed,ultimatelyChristianityprevailed.
37. Hulliungalso discernsMachiavelli'sevocativeuse of Christianterms,andmaintains
that Machiavelliuses them in "an attemptto displaceand supplantthe Christianworld-
view with an alternativeworld-view,one reminiscentof ancient paganism" (Citizen
Machiavelli,p. 205). Although I certainlydo not differ with Hulliungon the issue of
Machiavelli'ssubversiveintent with regardto Christianity,I do maintain,in contrastto
Hulliung'sview, that Machiavelliretainstransformedelementsof Christianityin his poli-
tics in a mannerthatsuggeststhathe admiresChristianity.In this regard,Hulliungdoesnot
discern how Machiavelli acknowledges Christianity'spower, and how Machiavelli
endeavorsto replicateits powerin a whollytemporalcapacity.
38. ThomasAquinas, SummaTheologicaI 103.6-8.
39. The quotationis renderedin Latinin Machiavelli'stext.
40. Lk 1:53, RSV. Mary speaks and ascribesthese deeds to the Lord. Thoughtson
Machiavelli,p. 49; Mansfield,Machiavelli'sNew Modesand Orders,p. 99. Lefortlikens
these actionsto Christ's:Travail,p. 504.
in fact, "most cruel" methods that Machiavelli advocates for the new
prince are those of the Christian god (1.26).41
So cruel are these methods that Machiavelli claims they are "the
enemies of all communities [d'ogni vivere], not only Christian, but
human" (I 26). In this manner, Machiavelli appears to posit that the
methods of the Christian god are themselves "unchristian." Although he
shuns them here for this reason,42as the Discourses proceed, Machiavelli
encourages temporal leaders to use these methods most cruel, which he
describes in terms evocative of Christian doctrine. In this manner, he
suggests that human rulers emulate the Christian god. Furthermore, in
some of these passages he appears to censure Rome for either not making
use of these methods or not making use of them systematically. The
moderns actually have a political advantage over the ancients.
Christian doctrine, in Machiavelli's hands, appears to enhance the
power and fearsomeness of political leaders. Nowhere is this use more
apparent than in his terrifying discussion of the proper manner of
punishing a multitude. In III 49, he praises the manner in which the
Roman republic punished a multitude that had committed an offense.
Machiavelli observes that "when a multitude errs" it is most frightening
to punish one in ten. This method, while only inflicting the penalty on a
fraction of the offenders, serves to chasten all, because not knowing who
will receive the penalty, all must fear it. He appears to equate the Roman
practice with the Christian belief that everyone is tainted with the
original sin, but not all will be punished.43 Not knowing who will be
41. As the previoussectionsuggests,Machiavellilikensthe Christiangod to a tyrant.Its

riseto powerwas muchlike that of any otherdemagogue.Althoughappealingto the peo-
ple, the practicaleffect of Christianityhas been to elevatecertain"gentlemen."See, for
example,Machiavelli'sevocativediscussionin 155 of gentiluominiwho live idly [oziosi]on
rich estates, have castles and subjects, but do nothing useful in life. Machiavellilists,
among other provinceswherethey can be found, the Papal States. Thus, as I suggested
abovein note 30, Machiavellibelievesthat peoplecan be in servitudenot only to a tyrant,
but also to nobles. In orderto combatthese practicaleffects of Christianity,Machiavelli
appealsto certaintyrannicalmethodsof the Christiangod.
42. Machiavellicontinuesin this chapterthat so cruelare such methodsthat a person
shouldpreferratherto live as a privatepersonthanto implementthem.Gilbert,who main-
tainsthat Machiavellirecognizesthatpoliticsdemandsa moralitythatdivergesfromChris-
tian morality,cites this passageas evidencethat "men could arrangetheirlives in such a
mannerthat they could follow Christianmorality"(Machiavelliand Guicciardini,p. 196).
See III 2 whereMachiavellisays that a privatelife is not a viableoption for a personof
notablequalities.
43. Mansfieldtoo associatesthis practicewith the Christiandoctrineof originalsin
(Tamingthe Prince:TheAmbivalenceof ModernExecutivePower [New York:The Free
Press, 1989],p. 133). See Augustine,Cityof God XXI 13 andXIV I and 15 for an exposi-
tion of how God's gracesavesthose taintedby sin from punishment.
damned,all Christiansmust fear the possibilityof damnationand all are

chastened.Machiavelliappearsto learn from the methodsof the Chris-
tians. However,the "sins" (peccati) of which he speaksin this chapter
are punishednot in the hereafterby God, but on earthby a militaryor
politicalleader.
Moreover,in Machiavelli'ssection on ingratitudein the Discourses,
I 28-32, he suggests that the example of the Christiangod provides a
solutionto a problemlikelyto confrontany princeor republic.44Having
dispatcheda captain,whatis the "lord" (signore)to do whenthe captain
performshis task too well? (I 29). By winningterritoryfor his homeland,
he also wins for himselfglory and the allegianceof a battle-testedarmy.
The ruleror rulersseeminglyowe theirgratitudeto this hero, but he is at
once as mucha threatas a benefactorto the state. In the case of a prince,
Machiavelliappears to advocate the harshest measurespossible. The
princein looking to his own securityshould put this conqueringcaptain
to death or should deprivehim of his reputation.Machiavelliadds that,
if such measures are necessaryto the security of a prince, it is not
"miraculous"that "a people" must do the same (I 29).
In the following chapter,I 30, he furtheradvisesthat a princeshould
go to the site of the battle, thus deprivingthe captainof the powerthat
would accrue from his victory and assuring that the "glory" gained
belongs solely to the prince. This method of guaranteeingthat such an
acquisitionbe recognizedas coming from the prince, ratherthan from
one who serveshim, is similarto the advice Machiavelliextendsto the
new princein chapterI 26 to see to it that no one in the state shouldhold
anythingexceptthat whichthe subject"recognizesas comingfromyou"
(I 26). The ruler of a particularstate must make himself the ultimate
causeof the good whichhis captainbringsto the state. WhereasMachia-
velli placesthe princein the position of God, he placesthe captainin the
position of any Christianwhom God sees fit to test; in order to avoid
punishment,the captain or the Christianmust humbly renounce any
attachmentto the thingshe has gained(I 30). Machiavelliseemsto have
found a whollysecularapplicationfor the Biblicalpronouncementthat a
man will not profit if he gains the whole worldand forfeitseternallife.45
Of course, in Machiavelli'sformulation,the captain fears only for his
temporalexistence.
Machiavellialso notes here that, unlikea principality,a republiccan-
44. Nathan Tarcov suggested to me the kinship between some of Machiavelli's com-
ments in the section on ingratitude and certain Christian doctrines.
45. Mt. 16:26, RSV. Machiavelli states that there is an alternative to the captain's renun-
ciation-the captain can use his new-found power to rebel against his "lord" (I 30).
not havethe princeaccompanythe expeditionand stealcreditfor the vic-

tory. In lieu of this remedy,he recommendsthe exampleof the Roman
republic.It made use of everyonein war, noble and commoneralike, so
that in everyage therewereso manyvirtuousmen with so manyvictories
to theircreditthat "the peopledid not havecauseto doubtany of them"
(I 30). Thislack of doubtarosenot from a belief in theirinnategoodness
but ratherfrom a belief in theirinnatebadness.Theywereall "watching
each other," reportsMachiavelli.46In this way, Machiavelliappliesthe
doctrineof originalsin to a republic.Becausein this republicno one was
above suspicion, each was understoodto be corrupt-to be a potential
tyrantwhose ambitionneededto be checked-the only way to glorywas
to renounceone's gains. A dictator,for example,gainedmore glory the
sooner he renouncedthe office. Further,becausethe leadingmen in the
republicwere "watchingeach other," a threatof force quickenedsuch
renunciations.Therefore, the harsh measures of the prince do seem
applicableto a republiceven in this case, particularlyif those who are
inclinedto such severityare vigilant.
One seesthe Christianbeliefin the corruptionof all-the beliefthat no
one can claim redemptionby right-informing also Machiavelli'spraise
for the Roman method of punishingin I 24. He entitles this chapter
"Well-orderedrepublics dispense rewards and punishmentsto their
citizens without balancingone against the other," and he assertshere
that such a republic "never cancelledthe demeritsof its citizens with
their merits." This must be the case because a citizen who has per-
formedsome excellentwork for the city acquiresnot only the reputation
that his deedhas broughthim, but also the audacityand confidenceto be
able to do evil deeds without fear of penalty. As a result of such inso-
lence, he claims, all civil life will dissolve. In acting on this principleto
avert such an outcome, Rome executed its savior.47Because Manlius
Capitolinusendeavoredto instigatea seditionin Rome, he was thrown
from the Capitol which he "with so much glory had saved."
In these discussions,Machiavelliovertly praises Rome and modifies
these stories merely by infusing Christianterms into his descriptionof
Roman practices.Elsewhere,however,he appearsto criticizeRome for
lacking the necessarypunishments-for not utilizingChristiandoctrine
in an entirelytemporalcontext. The title of I 31, for example,observes
that Rome never punishedits captains "extraordinarily"for an error
[errore]even whenit resultedin harmto the republic.In the body of this
chapter,he relateshow Rome'scaptains,Sergiusand Virginius,werenot
46. See Lefort, Travail,pp. 507-08.

47. Mansfield,New Modesand Orders,p. 97.
punishedseverelyfor an errorthat was "not committedthroughignor-

ance." Clearlytheir errorwas committedthroughmalice: each captain
was in chargeof a partof the armythat was encampedbeforeVeii;when
Sergius'stroops wereset upon by the Falisci,this captainpreferredto be
"routed"than to ask for the help of his colleague.For his part, Virginius
anticipatedSergius'shumiliationand chose not to come to his aid, pre-
ferringinstead "the dishonorof his countryand the ruin of that army"
(I 31).
Thus, in contrast to I 30, Machiavelliillustratesa negative conse-
quenceof competitors"watchingeach other" in a republic.Becausehe
finds the correctapplicationof this principleso vital to a republicand
because he has adducedRome as the model that both practicedit and
punishedmost severely,one would expectthat such a misapplicationof
this principlein acts of "truly wicked" malfeasancewould elicit the
harshestpenaltyfrom the republiche praises.Machiavellitoo appearsto
expectsuch a result:"It is truethat anotherrepublicwouldhave exacted
capital punishment,this one punishedthem with a fine" (I 31). He has
alreadynoted in this chapterthat the Romansdid not "crucifyor other-
wise kill" their captains. As a result, Sergius and Virginiuswere not
punishedin a similarlyharshmanner, "not becausetheir sins [i peccati
loro] did not meritgreaterpunishment,but becausethe Romanswished
in this case ... to maintaintheirancientcustoms." Thus, this strongest
and most resoluteancientrepublicdid not give thesecaptainsthe punish-
ment they merited.To describewhat they merited,Machiavellirecursto
Christianterminology.He finds in modernitythe strengthfor whichhe
searches.
The importance of punishing for Machiavelli, as well as his dis-
approvalof the failureof the historicalRometo do it correctly,becomes
more evidentin his discussionsof Papiriusat the end of this samechap-
ter. Here Machiavellimentions Papirius's charges against the young
Fabius, his masterof horse, as an instanceof Rome's not punishingits
captainsseverely. In Papirius'sabsence and against his orders, Fabius
fought a battle against the Samnites and won. Papirius demanded
Fabius'sdeath, but Papirius'sfatherinterceded,arguingthat becausethe
Roman people had not exactedsuch a penaltywhen their captainslost,
they should not exact it in victory.
ClearlyMachiavellitakes the part of Papiriusin this matter, for he
adducesPapirius's"executionagainstFabius" as one of the "excessive
and notable" executionsthat broughtRome "back to the mark" (III 1).
Any political or religious institution requiresperiodic recourseto the
terror that was present at the beginning in order to combat "human
ambition and insolence."48 Moreover, he does not hesitate to condone

punishment that is meted out in victory, for among other executions that
served the republic well in this capacity is Manlius's deed of killing his
own son, when the son fought and killed a member of the Latin army
without orders.
Although he again cites ancient Roman examples of this beneficial
practice, he also indicates that the Romans did not understand the
Machiavellian principle that informs it. He claims that when such execu-
tions "begin to be more rare, they also begin to give more space to
human beings to become corrupt." To combat corruption, no more than
ten years should elapse between these events. If Rome had observed this
principle more assiduously, it "would never have become corrupt."49 As
a result of the Romans' negligence, the populace was corrupt by the time
of Marius (I 17). Caesar, by making himself the head of the Marian fac-
tion, was permitted to become Rome's first tyrant (I 37). Although
action was eventually taken against Caesar, it was so late and the popu-
lace so corrupt that after his death others ruled "under his name" (I 10).
Because Machiavelli understands the manner in which both Caesar and
the Christian god came to rule, Machiavelli is in a position to understand
better than even the ancient Romans the great political advantage of
punishment promptly and properly executed.
The revivifying effect Machiavelli seeks will be possible only when
human beings themselves assume again the role of punisher. It is to no
avail to teach that evil doers should be "left to God to punish" (III 1).
Machiavelli's transformation of Christian doctrine recognizes only
earthly punishments and earthly rewards, and therefore this transforma-
tion can no longer be termed a religion. Nevertheless, consideration of
this transformation indicates how very seriously he takes the example of
the Christian god. Belief in Him has transformed the manner in which
the "universita of human beings" lives. In so utilizing Christian doctrine
to make political leaders awe-inspiring, he appears to proffer the needed
exegesis of Christianity, which must intepret "our religion according" to
"virti" and not "ozio." Moreover, in proffering this new interpretation
of Christianity, Machiavelli follows, in an important sense, the example
of Rome. Just as Rome assimilated elements of the religion of its van-
48. Machiavelli also lists Maelius's death as an incident that brought Rome back to the
mark. It appears that in this case the Senate, by sentencing him to death, not only thwarted
his threat to overturn the state, but also reacted so that the republic actually benefited from
the incident.
49. Mansfield, Taming the Prince, pp. 131-32. In this manner, Machiavelli's executions,
like Christ's sacrifice, hold out the promise of eternal life. Cf. Discourses III 22 with III 17.
quishedfoes (I 12), Machiavelliutilizeselementsof the religionhe desires

to supplant.Thus, in followingthis Romanexamplein new historicalcir-
cumstances,Machiavelliacknowledgesthe impossibilityof an unmiti-
gated returnto Rome.

Sullivan1993 Machiavelli's Treatment of Religion in The Discourses

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Sullivan1993 Machiavelli's Treatment of Religion in The Discourses

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Northeastern Political Science Association

Neither Christian nor Pagan: Machiavelli's Treatment of Religion in the "Discourses"

Is Machiavelli to be understood as entirely sympathetic to either Chris-

Vickie B. Sullivan is Assistant Professor of Government at Skidmore

Sebastian de Grazia, in his critically acclaimed intellectual biography of

3. Hulliungcalls the DiscoursesMachiavelli'smost "stridentlypaganwork" (Citizen

I. Machiavelli's Appeal to Pagan Rome

Although he hesitates to state directly that Christianity is responsible for

5. CitizenMachiavelli,pp. 66 and 68. See also IsaiahBerlinon this point: "What[the

7. City of God, trans. WilliamM. Green, Loeb ClassicalLibraryEdition, Vol. II

becauseit consideredvirtuousthose deedsthat werelikelyto bringglory

8. In theFlorentineHistoriesMachiavellirelatesthatthe enemiesof Cosimode' Medici

alternative interpretation could enable men not only to defend their

guidance.'4In interpretingthis religion in terms of virtHi,15

II. Machiavelli'sCriticismof Rome

as a veil behind which political men could operate effectively. Because,

manipulationof religiousbeliefs closerto the domainof the readerof the Christianera.

20. Ibid., III 10.6-10.

22. Cf. Livy, History V 14.

because of a disagreement over the interpretation of the auspices,

24. Livy, History I 6.4-7.4 and 8.1.

Although Numa's successors remedied Rome's reliance on foreign

30. It appearsthat, in his view, the peopleof a republic,ratherthanbeingfree, can be in

In a numberof places in the Discourses,Machiavelliseemsto broach

32. Machiavellidiscussesthe siegeandcaptureof Veiiin his sectionon religion,chapters

III. Machiavelli's Transformation of Christian Doctrine

34. Machiavelli'sadvice appears similar to the injunctionof the Unjust Speech in

36. As Berlinpoints out, Machiavelli'sdiscussionsof Savonarolaillustrate"that an

41. As the previoussectionsuggests,Machiavellilikensthe Christiangod to a tyrant.Its

damned,all Christiansmust fear the possibilityof damnationand all are

not havethe princeaccompanythe expeditionand stealcreditfor the vic-

46. See Lefort, Travail,pp. 507-08.

punishedseverelyfor an errorthat was "not committedthroughignor-

ambition and insolence."48 Moreover, he does not hesitate to condone

quishedfoes (I 12), Machiavelliutilizeselementsof the religionhe desires

S-ar putea să vă placă și