Machiavelli's Critique of Christianity

This is a sel -a chi ed e sion o an o iginal a icle. This e sion may di e om he o iginal in pagina ion and ypog aphic de ails. Au ho (s): Ti le: Yea : Ve sion: Copy igh : Righ s: Righ s u l: Please ci e he o iginal e sion: CC BY 4.0 h ps://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/4.0/ Machia elli's C i ique o Ch is iani y © Au ho Published e sion Ko ela, Paul-E ik Ko ela, P.-E. (2005). Machia elli's C i ique o Ch is iani y. Redesc ip ions : Yea book o Poli ical Though and Concep ual His o y, 9(1), 183-213. h ps://doi.o g/10.7227/R.9.1.10 2005 MACHIAVELLI’S CRITIQUE OF CHRISTIANITY Paul-E ik Ko ela The ques ion o Machia elli’s ela ion o eligion in gene al and o Ch is iani y in pa icula has a oused much discussion. The e a e schola s who claim ha he was a since e Ch is ian in p i a e li e and cons an ly dis essed by he ac ha poli ics appea s o ope a e by ules e y di e en om he ones augh by Ch is . Then he e a e hose who claim ha he was an a heis who aimed a de as a ing he whole o Ch is iani y. In p e ious esea ch, his opposi ion o Ch is- iani y has been o en assumed bu seldom p o ed o cla ified. This a icle aims o explo e Machia elli’s iews on Ch is iani y. Lea ing aside he appa en ly insoluble ques ion o his pe sonal con ic ions,1 i will be a gued ha he ne e heless c i icised Ch is iani y o a ious easons and hough ha poli ics (o public e hics) is undamen ally incompa ible wi h Ch is ian e hics. His message was ha poli ics (o a e dello s a o) - when iewed om wi hin he confines o a Ch is ian Wel anschauung - is by na u e always immo al. Hence, he does no sepa a e poli ics and mo ali y, bu poli ics and Ch is ian mo ali y. As is commonly known, Machia elli ha ked back o ancien Rome and i s p ac ices. The same me hods we e no used in his ime, he hough , because Ch is iani y had al eady ca ed men in o i s way o liking and made hem e emina e and con empla i e a he han i uous and ac i e. Machia elli did no claim ha i would be be e o a socie y o e adica e eligion al oge he . Ins ead, he claimed ha Ch is iani y happens o be a he unsui ed o a well-o de ed s a e. Ch is iani y con ains some e ec i e elemen s ha we e una ailable o paganism, and, when in e p e ed acco ding o i ù, i , oo, could 183 allow i uous ac ion in Machia elli’s sense. Ne e heless, he did no aim a some so o ein e p e a ion o e o m o Ch is iani y, since i is ha dly possible o in e p e Ch is iani y in such a way ha i would exal his li e o e he o he . Machia elli also e aded mos , i no all, doc inal ques ions when discussing he ac ions o he Chu ch. In o he wo ds, he ne e wen in o de ails o e heological issues.2 In he fi s place, i should be no ed ha he Renaissance was a ho oughly Ch is ian e a. The iew, held by ea lie schola s, ha he Renaissance was p ima ily pagan, is o he mos pa a my h. The whole p ojec began as a ebi h o man, no o an iqui y. The my h ha he e was a e i al o paganism, supposedly he ine i able esul o he s udy o an iqui y, is o en deduced om he a acks on scho- las icism. A acking scholas icism is, howe e , no he same as a ack- ing Ch is iani y. Tha he e was an icle icalism du ing he Renais- sance is undeniable, bu his was ue also o he ele en h and wel h cen u ies. The di e ence is no one o deg ee o kind, bu me ely one o o m and exp ession (c . Ullmann 1977, 3). The humanis s we e able o p esen hei iews mo e sub ly han he an i-G ego ians o he Ghibellines o any he e ics, and hei wo ks a e much be e p e- se ed. Wha would ha e been mo e e ec i e would ha e been ei- he silence, a polemical igno ance o Ch is iani y, o a ull-ledged on al assaul (ibid.). This did no happen, a leas no be o e Machi- a elli’s ime. The e we e “p obably ew eal a heis s and ba ely a ew pan heis s du ing he Renaissance”, as K is elle (1979, 67) has no ed. Indeed, he a is ic and li e a y p oduc ions o he pe iod e eal no animosi y agains Ch is iani y. On he con a y, mos o he a is s we e inspi ed by eligious mo i es, and when pagan hemes did en- e he pain ings, he esul was a s ange mix u e o Ch is ian and pagan mo i es. Mo eo e , he in e es in pagan li e a y p oduc ions was pa ly jus ified wi h he a he obscu e no ion o heologia poe a- um, which allowed he ecogni ion o Ch is ian hemes om p e- Ch is ian au ho s. The eal co e o Renaissance paganism, i i mus be called paganism, is “ he s eady and i esis ible g ow h o non e- ligious in ellec ual in e es s which we e no so much opposed o he con en o eligious doc ine as compe ing wi h i o indi idual and public a en ion” (ibid.). This was, o cou se, no hing new, bu du ing he Renaissance non eligious hough a ained a kind o equilib ium wi h eligious hough . Ch is ian con ic ions we e ei he e ained o ans o med, bu ne e eally challenged. Tha is, a leas , be o e Machia elli’s ime. The humanis s who led he mo emen known as he Renaissance we e, o he mos pa , since e Ch is ians and en- PAUL-ERIK KORVELA 184 do sed he wedding o eason and ai h. They a acked ecclesias ics no o hei eligion bu o hei lack o i . When Aquinas “bap ized” A is o elian philosophy, eason was made he handmaiden o ai h. No su p isingly, men like Dan e we e deeply in e es ed in he ques- ion o he p ope ela ion be ween he wo. As he humanis ic mo e- men o he Renaissance de eloped, i became inc easingly e iden ha i was eason ha played he dominan ole (Haydn 1950, xii). Ul ima ely he end mo ed owa d he a ional o na u al heology o he se en een h cen u y. I is clea , howe e , ha o Machia elli eason alone can su fice. His poli ical heo y simply lacks Ch is ian explana ions. I is no ee om supe na u al o me aphysical o ces, bu i is ela i ely ee om Ch is ian image y - excluding, o cou se, he he o ical le el o exho a ions e c. And, o cou se, Machia elli ne e abandons Ch is ian mo ali y o ally, since he ecalls adi ional mo al and social no ms by s essing he need o iola e hem. Machia elli and Ch is iani y in P e ious Resea ch An hony Pa el (1992) is among he mos no able de ende s o Machi- a elli’s paganism. He says, ha “ aking all a ailable da a in o consid- e a ion, hen, one is obliged o conclude ha Machia elli is a neopa- gan whose aim is o paganize a he han o secula ise Ch is iani y”, (ibid., 62). Gi en Machia elli’s as ological assump ions, he canno elimina e he hea ens and Fo une om his analysis o eligion. Pa el c i icises mos o all Leo S auss’ and Sebas ian de G azia’s ways o eading Machia elli. Acco ding o him, S auss a ibu es o Machia- elli wha appea s o be he p inciples o biblical c i icism o a much la e da e, i.e. ha he Bible is a collec ion o his o ical w i ings wi h- ou any di ine inspi a ion, and ha any accu acy i may con ain can be e ified only in e e ence o o he non-biblical sou ces3 (ibid., 60). Pa el a gues ha “wha Machia elli eally wan s o do is o a ack Ch is iani y on he basis o he p inciples o six een h-cen u y as o- logical his o iog aphy, no on he basis o hose assumed by nine- een h-cen u y highe c i icism” (ibid., 61). In Pa el’s iew, Sebas ian de G azia (1989) confla es Machia elli’s paganism and Ch is ian he- ology when he ies o accommoda e he whole o Machia elli’s way o hough wi hin he Ch is ian old. Ch is iani y is no su ficien in explaining Machia elli’s iews, because a Ch is ian concep ion o God canno suppo he iew ha Machia ellian new p inces a e God’s a ou i es, bu a pagan iew o God defini ely can. Simila ly, MACHIAVELLI’S CRITIQUE OF CHIRSTIANITY 185 a pagan iew o eligion can hold ha i ù in Machia elli’s sense is he highes ulfilmen o eligion, whe eas he Ch is ian iew o eligion canno (ibid., 61). The God o Ch is iani y does no depend on he hea ens, Fo une and o he as al o ces, bu since Machia elli clea ly belie es in such o ces, he e is no eal place o God in his cosmology. Ano he empha ic a gumen on behal o Machia elli’s paganism is Ma k Hulliung’s (1983) Ci izen Machia elli. Acco ding o him, Machia elli, by s essing he need o conque , di o ced himsel no only om he humanis ic hype o he mi o - o -p inces li e a- u e, bu also om he epublican adi ion. Hulliung’s Machia elli pic u ed a igo ous (pagan) mo ali y o public li e joined o a slack mo ali y o p i a e li e. Acco ding o Hulliung, Machia elli saw p i- a e li e as a con inua ion o poli ics, no as an al e na i e o i (ibid., 104). He belie ed in he ubiqui y o poli ics and ha he same ules mo e o less apply in bo h p i a e and public sphe es. His comedies con ain a didac ic unc ion o poli icians, since e.g. seduc ion and conspi acy, womanizing and poli icking, can be seen as ela ed phe- nomena ha ope a e on he same maxims. I hink i is ela i ely unques ionable ha Machia elli was no a emp ing o eplace Ch is iani y wi h pagan mo ali y. Like Rous- seau, he was o ally confiden ha once Ch is iani y and he p esen way o li ing had al eady ans o med men, i was no possible o go back o he s a e an e Ch is iani y. Bu jus because he ac ha his sen imen on a gi en subjec ag ees wi h he sen imen o a classical au ho , does no ollow ha Machia elli was guided in ha poin by he classics. The ag eemen may be a coincidence (c . S auss 1970, 7), o i can ollow necessa ily om ce ain axioma ic assump ions. By he same oken, i is also ela i ely unques ionable ha he did admi e pagan mo ali y in con as o Ch is iani y. Admi ing and yea ning o esu ec a e, howe e , wo di e en hings.4 Machia elli clea ly also discussed he possibili ies o using Ch is iani y o poli ical ad- an age. Timo hy Lukes (1984) is among hose who ha e unde s ood he impo ance o his. “Clea ly”, w i es Lukes, “ o Machia elli, he alue o eligion as a poli ical ool is in i s abili y o a ouse ex a-po- li ical sanc ions o wholly poli ical ope a ions” (ibid., 268). In his sense, Ch is iani y is e en be e han i s pagan coun e pa s, since i lays somewha mo e emphasis on he pos -mo em punishmen s. I is clea ha he eligion he is longing o is no pu ely pagan. He hough ha eligion should be used like he ancien s used i , bu he does no demand ha he eligion in ques ion should be he same as he ancien s had. Resu ec ing pagan p ac ices is doomed o ail since PAUL-ERIK KORVELA 186 Ch is iani y has al eady ca ed men in o i s way o liking. A e all, Machia elli himsel w i es ha anyone who “wishes o build a s a e will find i easie among moun ainee s, whe e he e is no cul u e, han among hose who a e used o li ing in ci ies, whe e cul u e is co up ” (Disco si, I/11). Numa succeeded wi h he Roman populace, because men we e un augh and he could easily “s amp on hem any new o m wha e e ”. In a simila ashion “a sculp o will mo e easily ge a beau i ul s a ue ou o a ough piece o ma ble han om one badly blocked ou by someone else”. Ne e heless, Machia elli says in he same chap e ha “ hough ude men a e mo e easily won o e o a new o de o opinion”, i is s ill no impossible “ o win o e o i also cul u ed men and hose who assume hey a e no ude”, since Sa ona ola pe suaded he populace o Flo ence o ollow him e en hough many had no seen any hing ex ao dina y o make hem be- lie e him. Commen ing on his passage, Lukes (1984, 270) a gues ha Machia elli disco e s in Ch is iani y a acili y o eshape de o med ma ble, a acili y ha is una ailable o paganism. The Flo en ines we e nei he un augh no ude, bu s ill i was possible o pe suade hem o belie e ha Sa ona ola spoke wi h God. Ye , i is also clea ha he eligion Machia elli is longing o is no o ally Ch is ian ei- he . Ch is iani y may con ain some e ec i e elemen s, bu i s basic ene s a e unsui ed o a well-o de ed epublic. Many schola s ha e a gued ha Machia elli’s poli ical hough is based on mo ali y and s essed ha his mo ali y di e s essen ially om he Ch is ian one (e.g. Be lin 1980). In he wo ds o Quen in Skinne , “ he di e ence be ween Machia elli and his con empo a ies canno adequa ely be cha ac e ised as a di e ence be ween a mo al iew o poli ics and a iew o poli ics di o ced om mo ali y. The essen ial con as is a he be ween wo di e en mo ali ies – wo i- al and incompa ible accoun s o wha ough ul ima ely o be done” (Skinne 1978 I, 135). Indeed, some imes coun ing he co pses p o- duced by al e na i e modes o ac ion and eso ing o p e-emp i e s ikes is e y much a mo al decision, i no a e y Ch is ian one. De achmen om Ch is ian mo ali y is no he same as ha ing no mo ali y a all. Skinne (2000) has also emphasised Machia elli’s di o ce om classical and con empo a y humanism. Skinne ’s Ma- chia elli a gues ha , i a ule wishes o each his highes goals, he will no always find i a ional o be mo al. He will find ha any con- sis en a emp o cul i a e he p incely i ues, especially hones um, will p o e o be a uinously i a ional policy. Fo Skinne , he c ucial di e ence be ween Machia elli and his mo e con en ional con em- MACHIAVELLI’S CRITIQUE OF CHIRSTIANITY 187 po a ies lies no in he goals which p inces ough o pu sue bu in he na u e o he me hods hey ook o be app op ia e o he a ainmen o hese ends (Skinne 1978 I, 134). Machia elli ag eed wi h ea lie w i e s ha he p ope goals o a p ince a e o achie e g ea hings, o seek glo y, ame and honou , and o main ain his s a e. Whe eas o h- e s assumed ha he p ince mus ensu e ha he ollows he dic a es o Ch is ian mo ali y and cul i a e all he Ch is ian ca dinal i ues, Machia elli claimed ha his would ine i ably lead o he p ince’s de as a ion among so many who a e no i uous. The only way ou o his dilemma, i he p ince is in e es ed in main aining his s a e, is o accep unflinchingly ha “he will ha e o shake o he demands o Ch is ian i ue, wholehea edly emb acing he e y di e en mo al- i y which his si ua ion dic a es” (ibid., 134-135). The p ince mus be able o coun e ei he Ch is ian i ues, o p e end o posses hem, wi hou ac ually eso ing o hem. Thus, o Machia elli, i ú de- no es p ecisely he equisi e quali y o mo al flexibili y in a p ince. The mos lucid a gumen on behal o Machia elli’s dis inc i ely un-Ch is ian hough is o be ound in Giuseppe P ezzolini’s Machia- elli an ic is o, ansla ed in o English as Machia elli (P ezzolini 1967). I con ains e y sho agmen s on a ious opics and, in gene al, i assumes a he han p o es Machia elli’s opposi ion o Ch is iani y. E en hough i con ains a sec ion dedica ed o Machia elli’s wo ks, i ails o e en men ion Eso azione alla peni enza, a c ucial ex in his espec . Pe haps P ezzolini le i ou in en ionally, since he ex is a he discom o ing o hose who hink ha Machia elli was always e y clea ly opposed o Ch is iani y. His blindness o ce ain ex s leads P ezzolini o conclude ha in Machia elli’s w i ings “ he e is no ace o a sense o sin, o o cha i y, o o lo e o neighbo . His mo i a ions a e always p ac ical, ealis ic, ea hy” (ibid., 26). Machia- elli does, howe e , say some hing abou hese hemes, especially in Eso azione. Besides, Machia elli’s ea men o hese hemes is no opposed o his “ ealis ic” o “ea hy” mo i a ions – cha i y and lo e o neighbou a e e y impo an also om a mo e mundane pe spec- i e. Lea ing aside i s mino deficiencies, P ezzolini’s book includes a sec ion called “The Doc ine”, which, in my opinion, is among he bes in oduc ions on he co e o Machia elli’s hough . Fo P ezzo- lini, Machia elli is a p o oundly pessimis ic hinke who epudia es he ele ance o Ch is ian mo ali y. Machia elli’s comple e hones y in his ma e is one o he easons why he is no popula : “People a e gene ally a aid o he u h, whe he e ealed by Ch is o Ma- PAUL-ERIK KORVELA 188 chia elli” (ibid., 5). P ezzolini’s Machia elli is he “ ounde o poli i- cal science” who upse he a emp s o define an ideal s a e in o de o disco e he eal na u e o s a es and how hey unc ioned, and in his espec he can be compa ed o Galileo: hey bo h augh ha he uni e se, sola sys em o Galileo and his o y o Machia elli, is indi e en o he desi es and des inies o he indi idual (ibid., 6-7). In Machia elli’s poli ical heo y, he o ce opposing he maligni y o supe na u al powe s is i ù, which exal s he Renaissance idea o man who is capable o ca ing his own des iny, as opposed o he G eek concep o des iny ha c ushes mankind, and he medie al idea o he will o God. Machia elli’s i ù does no co espond o he i ues o Pla o and o he S oics which became he ca dinal i ues o Ch is iani y. Ins ead, he uses he wo d mo e in he sense o dynamis ( i ue o powe ) han in he sense o a e é (e hical i ue). Machia- elli’s i ue, acco ding o P ezzolini, is opposed o dolce i a - ha is, lasci iousness, slo h e c. – and nei he an e emina e o con em- pla i e a i ude owa ds li e no simple ba ba ic u o a e e e called i uous by Machia elli (ibid., 23). Machia elli’s “s udies a e based on he inapplicabili y o Ch is ian mo ali y o poli ical li e” (ibid., 26) because he belie es ha ecou se o e il in poli ics is necessa y. Elsewhe e P ezzolini (1970, 27) p opounds: “Machia elli’s message is simply his: A s able social o de among men canno be main ained wi hou eso o conduc which is condemned by Ch is ian mo al- i y”. In my opinion, his is p ecisely wha Machia elli wan ed o say, e en hough he ailed o exp ess i as lucidly. Machia elli’s C i ique o Ch is iani y Machia elli c i icised Ch is iani y as a whole, no any pa icula sec , no any specific indi iduals. He was no c i icising only he cle gy o he Roman Ca holic Chu ch, bu he whole philosophy o Ch is i- ani y. His a ack is di ec ed owa ds “nos a eligione”, “educazione debole” o “ques o modo di i e e” (Disco si, II/2) – ha is o say, owa ds Ch is ian educa ion o he Ch is ian way o li ing in gene al. He does no speci y his a ack any mo e p ecisely han ha . Fo some eason, i has been assumed ha Machia elli c i icised Ch is iani y p ima ily because he Chu ch was keeping I aly poli ically disuni ed. Tha was one and e y impo an eason, bu absolu ely no he only one. He discusses he ma e in his Disco si: MACHIAVELLI’S CRITIQUE OF CHIRSTIANITY 189 Abbiamo, adunque, con la Chiesa e con i p e i noi I aliani ques o p imo obligo, di esse e di en a i sanza eligione e ca i i: ma ne abbiamo anco a uno maggio e, il quale è la seconda cagione della o ina nos a. Ques o è che la Chiesa ha enu o e iene ques a p o incia di isa. E e amen e, alcuna p o incia non u mai uni a o elice, se la non iene u a alla ub- bidienza d’una epublica o d’ uno p incipe, come è a enu o alla F ancia ed alla Spagna. E la cagione che la I alia non sia in quel medesimo e - mine, nè abbia anch’ella o una epublica o uno p incipe che la go e ni, e solamen e la Chiesa: pe chè, a endo i quella abi a o e enu o impe io empo ale, non è s a a sì po en e né di an a i ù l’abbia po u o occupa e la i annide d’I alia e a sene p incipe; e non è s a a, dall’al a pa e, sì debole, che, pe pau a di non pe de e il dominio delle sue cose empo- ali, la non abbia po u o con oca e uno po en e che la di enda con o a quello che in I alia usse di en a o oppo po en e (Disco si, I/12). Clea ly, hen, acco ding o Machia elli, I aly does no enjoy he same happiness o being uni ed like F ance and Spain because o he Chu ch. She has been oo weak o g asp he sole au ho i y in I aly, bu also powe ul enough o keep anyone else om gaining ha po- si ion. Machia elli is ac ually, i onically, p oposing ha anyone who wishes o es he uinous e ec s he Chu ch has, would ha e o be so powe ul ha he could send he Roman cou o Swi ze land.5 A e a “sho ime he e il habi s o ha cou would do mo e o b eak down law and o de in ha egion han any o he e en which a any ime could occu he e” (ibid.). In his Is o ie fio en ine (I/5), Ma- chia elli con inues his a ack on he same g ounds. A e he di ision o he Roman Empi e, I aly was in he hands o he ba ba ians. The p o inces su e ed because hey had o change e e y hing, om hei names o hei eligion: Ma, in a an e a iazioni, non u di mino e momen o il a ia e della eligione, pe chè, comba endo la consue udine della an ica ede con i mi acoli della nuo a, si gene a ono umul i e disco die g a issime in a gli uomini; e se pu e la c is iana eligione usse s a a uni a, ne sa ebbe sequi i mino i diso idini; ma, comba endo la chiesa g eca, la omana e la a enna e insieme, e di più le se e e e iche con le ca oliche, in mol i modi con is a ano il mondo (Is o ie fio en ine, I/5). Acco ding o Machia elli, mos damaging has been he change in eligion, because Ch is iani y has c ea ed umul s in he wo ld by comba ing old eligion wi h new mi acles. These umul s migh ha e been a e i Ch is iani y i sel would no ha e been disuni ed and di ided in o he G eek, Ca holic and Ra enna Chu ches and nume - PAUL-ERIK KORVELA 190 does no ollow ha eligion alone could su fice: “ he e should be no one wi h so small a b ain ha he will belie e, i his house is alling, ha God will sa e i wi hou any o he p op, because he will die be- nea h ha uin” (L’ Asino d’O o, ch. 5, lines 124-127). Fo Machia elli eligion demanded sc upulous a en ion, bu i s impo ance was due o he e ec i has on men, no o i s me aphysical o ex a-poli ical “ u hs”. This is he igh use o eligion in Machia elli’s iew, bu he ul- e s, o he Holy See, we e no using eligion as wisely. In con as o ancien eligion, Ch is iani y a ou s con empla ion, wi hd awal, humili y, and o he such apoli ical i ues. Ch is ian doc ine exho s people o li e his li e as i i we e only a p epa a ion o he nex one, meaning e e nal li e a e dea h (John 12:25). In his Disco si Machia- elli w i es: Pensando dunque donde possa nasce e, che, in quegli empi an ichi, i popoli osse o più ama o i della libe à che in ques i; c edo nasca da quella medesima cagione che a o a gli uomini manco o i: la quale c edo sia la di e si à della educazione nos a dall’an ica, onda a nella di e si à della eligione nos a dall’an ica. Pe ché, a endoci la nos a eligione mos o la e i à e la e a ia, ci a s ima e meno l’ono e del mondo: onde i Gen ili, s imandolo assai, ed a endo pos o in quello il sommo bene, e ano nelle azioni lo o più e oci. (Disco si, II/2) Machia elli blames Ch is iani y, o i s alse in e p e a ions, o glo i- fica ion o con empla i e li e ins ead o he ac i e one. This glo ifica- ion o clois e ed me aphysicians ins ead o i uous poli ical leade s has some se e e implica ions conce ning he epublican ideal: Ques o modo di i e e, adunque, pa e che abbi endu o il mondo debo- le, e da olo in p eda agli uomini scele a i; i quali sicu amen e lo possono maneggia e, eggendo come l’uni e si à degli uomini, pe anda ne in Pa adiso, pensa più a soppo a e le sue ba i u e che a endica le. E ben- ché paia che si sia e emina o il mondo, e disa ma o il Cielo, nasce più sanza dubbio dalla il à degli uomini, che hanno in e p e a o la nos a eligione secondo l’ozio, e non secondo la i ù. (Disco si, II/2) Because men a e mo e in e es ed in going o Pa adise han a enging hei inju ies, he wo ld has g own e emina e and “Hea en has laid aside he a ms”. This, in u n, is he aul o hose who ha e in e - p e ed Ch is iani y acco ding o slo h and no acco ding o i ù. Wha , hen, would be Ch is iani y in e p e ed co ec ly, secondo la i ù? As Coun e -Re o ma ion and an i-Machia ellism ga he ed im- MACHIAVELLI’S CRITIQUE OF CHIRSTIANITY 197 pe us, a ious ad e sa ies o Machia elli ook some e o in p o ing ha Ch is iani y can indeed be in e p e ed also igo ously and ha i is no incompa ible wi h mili a y alou . Some o hem poin ed o Cha lemagne and his empi e, o o Empe o Cons an ine. I we hink abou he poli ical his o y o Ch is endom, we su ely can find a leas one example when he whole Respublica c is iana has been uni ed in doing some hing igo ous – namely he C usades. Is Machia elli’s ideal Ch is iani y o be ound in he eligious e ou o he C usad- e s? I we look a his commen s on he C usades, his seems o be he case. One o his ca ni al songs (Degli spi i i bea i) discusses he issue di ec ly and exho s Ch is ians o o ge hei in e nal con es s and o ga he o ces agains “Il signo di Tu chia”. In Is o ie fio en ine (I/17), he gi es a gene al accoun o he C usades, concluding ha “many kings and many s a es joined in con ibu ing money o i , and many indi iduals wi hou pay se ed as soldie s – so powe ul hen in he minds o men was eligion, when hey we e mo ed by he examples o he leade s”. Boni ace VIII’s p oclama ion o a C usade agains he Colonna amily, acco ding o Machia elli, inju ed he Chu ch be- cause ha weapon, a e i was u ned h ough he Pope’s pe sonal ambi ion agains Ch is ians, began o s op cu ing (Is o ie fio en ine, I/25).11 Religion used e ec i ely is one ha mo es men, one ha makes hem ac and wage wa on infidels. Religion well-used and he ea o di ine punishmen s made “e e y so o unde aking easy o he ancien gene als, and always will make hem so, whe e eligion is ea ed and obse ed” (A e della Gue a, IV). I is easy o make men belie e in ic o y i leade s p e end ha God has p omised hem one. “In he ime o ou a he s”, w i es Machia elli, “Cha les VII, King o F ance, in he wa ha he made agains he English, said ha he ook counsel wi h a gi l sen by God, who was called e e ywhe e he Maid o F ance; and his was he cause o his ic o y” (ibid.). This is Ch is- iani y secondo la i ù. In Joan o A c and he C usades, Machia elli finds an a med p ophe and Ch is iani y used e ec i ely. Wha e e he u h- alue o Joan’s isions, she ne e heless inspi ed o he s o ac acco ding o i ù. Dan e and Machia elli, wo g ea Flo en ines, bo h eel s ange app o al owa ds A e ois doc ines. In he Commedia, Dan e places A e oes in Limbo (In ., can o IV) and Siege o B aban in Pa adise (Pa ., can o X) e en hough bo h we e clea ly condemned by he Chu ch. Besides, since Dan e pu s his eulogy o Siege in he mou h o his main enemy (i.e. Aquinas) one can in e ha Dan e was in en- ionally being polemic wi h he Chu ch and i onic in ega d o he PAUL-ERIK KORVELA 198 Dominican in ellec ual adi ion (Fo e 2000, 17).12 Machia elli, on he o he hand, made a cu ious leap in o philosophy in he middle o Disco si, when he suddenly seems o de end he e e ni y o he wo ld and he pe iodical al e a ion o eligions: A queqli filosofi che hanno olu o che il mondo sia s a o e e no, c edo che si po esse eplica e che, se an a an ichi à usse e a, e’ sa ebbe agio- ne ole che ci ussi memo ia di più che cinquemila anni; quando e’ non si edesse come ques e memo ie de’ empi pe di e se cagioni si spengano: delle quali, pa e engono dagli uomini, pa e al cielo. (Disco si, II/5) The passage begins wi h an a ack on hose philosophe s who ha e held ha he wo ld is e e nal. This means he A e ois s, and behind hem, A is o le. To hem Machia elli poses an objec ion, bu as Mans- field (1979, 203) no es, “as soon as i has le his mou h he calls i back wi h a coun e objec ion, which ac ually cons i u es a eply o hose who deny he wo ld is e e nal”. He says ha i he wo ld would be e e nal, he e would be eco ds da ing back mo e han fi e housand yea s, bu immedia ely a e wa ds he epudia es his by saying ha hese eco ds disappea a egula in e als pa ly because o men and pa ly because o hea en. The ma e discussed he e is o no li le impo ance. Machia elli’s posi ion unde mines he c ea ionis doc- ine, as well as he p e ended speciali y o Ch is iani y in con as o o he sec s. Should he wo ld be e e nal, he e would be no e ficien cause o he wo ld. In ac , he A e ois s claimed ha God is no he e ficien bu he final cause o he wo ld. Does Machia elli sloppily e- pudia e he whole eaching o Ch is iani y in one sen ence, o is he e some hing else o his passage? Fo e hinks ha he was also (o e en p ima ily) exposing his assump ions ha he a gumen s agains he doc ine o he e e ni y o he wo ld we e no con incing. He migh ha e been hinking o he objec ions o he e e ni y o he wo ld pu o h in Luc e ius’ De e um na u am, S . Augus ine’s De ci i a e Dei, Pe a ch’s De sui ipsius e mul o um igno an ia, o e en Sa ona ola’s T iumphus c ucis (Fo e 2000, 17). Ye , he migh ha e jus el sympa- hy o he A e ois s. The undamen al ene s o A e oism we e as well known o in elligen men o Machia elli’s age as he undamen- al ene s o Ma xism a e in he p esen age, as S auss (1958, 202-203) has no ed. Fo Machia elli, all eligions a e o human, no hea enly, o igin. He o en uses he e m ‘sec ’ o eligion, in which usage he eads he pa hs o he A e ois s, who as philosophe s e used o make any concessions o e ealed eligion (S auss 1986, 226). Ma- MACHIAVELLI’S CRITIQUE OF CHIRSTIANITY 199 chia elli’s passage con inues wi h ano he e y uno hodox heo y ega ding he al e a ion o eligious sec s: Quelle che engono dagli uomini sono le a iazioni delle sè e e delle lingue. Pe ché, quando e’ su ge una se a nuo a, cioè una eligione nu- o a, il p imo s udio suo è, pe da si ipu azione, es ingue e la ecchia … È da c ede e, pe an o, che quello che ha olu o a e la se a C is iana con o alla se a Gen ile, la Gen ile abbia a o con o a quella che e a in- nanzi a lei. E pe ché ques e sè e in cinque o in seimila anni a iano due o e ol e, si pe de la memo ia delle cose a e innanzi a quel empo. (Disco si, II/5) Acco ding o him, new eligions y o ex inguish he memo y o he old, as Ch is iani y has done o Paganism and Paganism p obably did o he ones p eceding i . We ha e los eco ds o hose olde al- e a ions because hese sec s ha e changed wo o h ee imes in 5000 o 6000 yea s. E e y sec , hen, has he li e-span o be ween 1666 and 3000 yea s. Thus, Machia elli belie ed ha Ch is iani y could come o an end abou 150 yea s a e he w o e hese sen ences, as S auss (1986, 226) has no ed.13 We know ha he was no alone in an icipa ing he all o Ch is iani y. Machia elli’s a gumen is based on as ologi- cal assump ions sha ed by many con empo a ies. The ai o Flo ence o his ime was hea y wi h apocalyp ic isions, and he coming o he coun e -Ch is ian eligion was an icipa ed, as well as he com- ing scou ge and e o m o Ch is iani y i sel . The all o Ch is iani y was p edic ed o happen a leas in 1444 (Haab az) and 1460 (Abu Ma’sha ), and e en Gemis os Ple hon14 was epo ed o ha e said ha Ch is iani y would soon be eplaced by a new as al eligion no e y di e en om paganism (Pa el 1992, 50). The g owing influ- ence o he Tu ks who conque ed Cons an inopole in 1453 was also undoub edly ac ing as a ca alysing ac o in his espec . Fea o he Tu ks’ in asion in o I aly is a ecu en heme in Machia elli’s w i - ings, and we can be su e ha he was no igno an o he sayings o he as ologe s, o he speaks o he an icipa ed de as a ion in his ca - ni al songs (Can i ca nascialeschi, De’ omi i). In Disco si (I/12) he is e en mo e explici on he ma e , concluding ha : “he who conside s i s [i.e. Ch is iani y’s] ounda ions and sees how di e en i s p esen habi is om hem, will conclude ha nea a hand, beyond doub , is i s all o i s punishmen ”. The age-old me hod o e o ming he chu ch has been o ound new o de s o econs uc he old ones. Machia elli speaks o hese PAUL-ERIK KORVELA 200 e o ms in Disco si and concludes ha i is necessa y o b ing eli- gions and epublics occasionally back owa ds hei beginnings: Ma quan o alle sè e, si ede anco a ques e inno azioni esse e neces- sa ie, pe lo esemplo della nos a eligione; la quale, se non ossi s a a i i a a e so il suo p incipio da San o F ancesco e da San o Domenico, sa ebbe al u o spen a. Pe ché ques i, con la po e à e con lo esemplo della i a di C is o, la idussono nella men e degli uomini, che già i e a spen a (Disco si, III/1). Machia elli admi es Sain s F ancis and Dominic because hey li ed in po e y h ough he example o Ch is . The immanen c i ique is di ec ed owa ds hose p ela es ha ha e o go en he eachings o Ch is and wallow in he weal h hey ha e ea ned h ough hypo- c i ical beha iou . Wi hou he example o hese men, he imp obi y o he p ela es and he heads o he Ch is ian eligion would ha e uined i (ibid.). Machia elli’s sympa hy o hese mendican o de s may pe haps be unde s ood as a pa o his c usade agains he uin- ous e ec s o weal h and luxu y. He may also ha e been hinking o he eulogy o Sain F ancis and Sain Dominic and hei po e y in Dan e’s Commedia (Pu ., can os XI-XII). In his Eso azione alla Pen- i enza, Machia elli again e e s o he simplici y o Sain F ancis and Sain Je ome. Peni ence, Wa and Soul Machia elli’s Eso azione alla peni enza is a di ficul ex o hose who hink ha he was a pagan o an a heis . The ex has con inced many schola s o hink ha he was a de ou Ca holic in p i a e li e. Fo Robe o Ridolfi (1963, 253), “ he sad and pious ph ases” o he ex o m he “climax” o Machia elli’s Ch is ian hough . Acco ding o Rebho n, along wi h Machia elli’s pious ph ases in p i a e le e s, i indica es a “gene al o hodoxy, i no a e en ai h” (Rebho n 1988, 128). O he s ha e in e p e ed Machia elli’s se mon as sa i ical. Pasquale Villa i saw “ eiled i ony” in he ex , while Benede o C oce concluded ha he whole se mon was “una sche zosa cicala a” (c . Cu inelli-Rèndina 1998, 280). I we, howe e , hink ha Machia elli’s se mon is w i en wi hou i ony, we ha e o explain why he w o e all he o he wo ks ha a e less Ch is ian. I he, in his olde days, s a ed o ake Ch is ian eaching se iously, why didn’ he y o des oy his MACHIAVELLI’S CRITIQUE OF CHIRSTIANITY 201 p e ious an i-Ch is ian w i ings? The e is no e idence ha he e e a emp ed any such ac ion. The ex , which is w i en in he o m o a se mon, was p ob- ably w i en upon eques and deli e ed in a mee ing o a con a e - ni y composed o lay membe s.15 This con ex alone could be an ex- plana ion o he Ch is ian one o he ex . Machia elli’s exho a ion singles ou wo g a e sins: ing a i ude o God and being un iendly o one’s neighbou s. “Because in o hese wo ices we o en all”, w i es Machia elli, “God, he g acious c ea o has showed us he way o aising ou sel es up, which is peni ence”. Since God o ga e Da id his adul e y and mu de and Pe e his o ence o ha ing denied him h ee imes, “wha sin will God no o gi e you, my b o he s, i you since ely eso o peni ence”, Machia elli asks his audience. This is he cen al message o he ex : he e a e no sins ha God will no o gi e i you eso o epen ance, since i is no sin bu pe sis ence in sin ha makes God un o gi ing. I is no possible o go in o de ails he e, bu he ex defini ely does no esol e he case o Machia elli’s pie y.16 While Eso azione is seemingly Ch is ian, i s message may e y well be ha one can easily sin since God o gi es hose sins i one epen s. A e all, one has o sin be o e one is able o epen . Fo Machia elli, eligion is a sine qua non o a well-o de ed com- muni y. No jus any eligion, bu a eligion ha is likewise well- o de ed and has no disclaime o ea hly pu sui s like Ch is iani y. Commen ing on Machia elli’s analysis o Roman eligion, J. Pa ick Coby (1999, 66) ells us ha o Machia elli 1) eligion is he glue o socie y and is impo an o na ional success, 2) eligion is un ue bu poli ically use ul o he ex en ha he ule s eign belie and ma- nipula e he i es, 3) he p ima y use o eligion is he con ol o he plebeian popula ion, and ha 4) eligion used mili a ily is help ul bu o less ce ain alue. Rome did benefi om eligion no because i ci ilised men h ough he a s o peace, bu because eligion made Romans obedien o au ho i y (ibid., 68). Al hough Machia elli claims ha eligion has o en ac ed as a cloak o bad men who can in secu i y con ol o he s wi h i , i is ha d o belie e Sulli an’s (1996, 7) asse ion ha “Machia elli opens up he possibili y ha he be e al e na i e o a ci y would be o dis- pense wi h eligious appeals al oge he , he eby elimina ing a pow- e ul weapon o po en ial y an s”. Acco ding o Sulli an, in “Machi- a elli’s uni e se he poli ical iumphs o e he eligious” and he “ eligious is no only pe nicious, i is wholly supe fluous” (ibid.). Bu om he ac ha in his uni e se poli ics iumphs o e eligion i PAUL-ERIK KORVELA 202 does no ollow ha eligion would be useless. I is p ecisely he e y ac ha poli ics iumphs o e eligion ha makes eligion use ul. In Machia elli’s iew, Ch is iani y, apa om being poli ically de as a ing, has also changed he way men beha e in wa . In he A e della Gue a, Machia elli a gues ha his comes abou because he Ch is ian way o li ing does no impose he same necessi y o de ending onesel as an iqui y did: …pe ché, allo a, gli uomini in i in gue a o s’ammazza ano o ima- ne ano in pe pe uo schia i, do e mena ano la lo o i a mise amen e; le e e in e o si desola ano o ne e ano caccia i gli abi a o i, ol i lo o i beni, manda i dispe si pe il mondo; an o che i supe a i in gue a pa- i ano ogni ul ima mise ia. Da ques o imo e spa en a i, gli uomini e- ne ano gli ese cizi mili a i i i e ono a ano chi e a eccellen e in quegli. Ma oggi ques a pau a in maggio pa e è pe du a; de’ in i, pochi se ne ammazza; niuno se ne iene lungamen o p igione, pe ché con acili à si libe ano. Le ci à, anco a ch’elle si sieno mille ol e ibella e, non si dis- anno; lasciansi gli uomini ne’ beni lo o, in modo che il maggio male che si ema è una aglia; almen e che gli uomini non ogliono so ome e si agli o dini mili a i e s en a e u a ia so o quegli, pe uggi e quegli pe icoli de’ quali emono poco. (A e della gue a, II). The cha i able mechanisms o Ch is iani y ha celeb a e clois e ed me aphysicians mo e han ac i e men a e pa o he same e hos ha Machia elli is c i icising he e. E en hough, Machia elli ma els, “ci il laws a e no hing else han opinions gi en by he ancien ju is s, which, b ough in o o de , each ou p esen ju is s o judge” and “medicine oo is no hing o he han he expe imen s made by he an- cien physicians, on which p esen physicians base hei judgmen s”, no a single p ince o epublic eso s o he example o he ancien s in “se ing up s a es, in main aining go e nmen s, in uling kingdoms, in o ganising a mies and managing wa , in execu ing laws among subjec s, in expanding an empi e” This, says Machia elli, esul s om no hing else han he p esen eligion and educa ion, o “ om he ha m done o many Ch is ian p o inces and ci ies by a concei ed laziness, as much as om no ha ing a ue unde s anding o books on his o y, so ha as we ead we do no d aw om hem ha sense o as e ha fla ou which hey eally ha e”. (Disco si, p e ace). “Abo e all”, w i es Machia elli, “one should a oid any hal - way measu e” ( u o la ia del mezzo) in ea ing conque ed ci ies o p isone s o wa (Disco si, II/23). As conce ns ebelling ci ies, “i is necessa y ei he o wipe hem ou o o ea hem wi h kindness”. MACHIAVELLI’S CRITIQUE OF CHIRSTIANITY 203 P isone s should be allowed o go away wi h honou o hey should be killed. Adop ing any o he cou se is dange ous, because he con- que ed immedia ely hink o e enge. Machia elli’s ad ice o con- solida ing a di ided ci y is he killing o he leade s o he diso de s (Disco si, III/27). Such “decisi e ac ions ha e in hem some hing g ea and noble”, bu “men’s eebleness in ou day, caused by hei eeble educa ion (debole educazione) and hei sligh knowledge o a ai s, makes hem judge ancien punishmen s pa ly inhumane, pa ly im- possible”. Feeble educa ion in Machia elli’s ocabula y is a synonym o Ch is ian educa ion. The o iginal “debole educazione” e e s spe- cifically o “weak educa ion” which he iden ifies wi h Ch is iani y (e.g. in Disco si, II/2). Machia elli’s commen s on wa a e aim o es ablish ha Ch is- ian e hics p ohibi s he use o e ec i e means in wa and hus b ings uin a he han ic o y. In his poem Dell’Ambizione (lines 166-168) he w i es ha San Ma co, “ o his cos , and pe haps in ain, disco e s la e ha he needs o hold he swo d and no he book in his hand”. S . Ma k is he pa on sain o Venice and he lion, his symbol, is no mally depic ed holding a book in i s hand. In imes o wa , how- e e , he lion is depic ed as holding a swo d ins ead o he Bible. This change in image y could cha ac e ise he need o abandon Ch is ian e hics in imes o wa . In a le e om Ve ona (7.12.1509) he e e s o he same change concluding ha he Vene ians ha e ound ou o hei cos ha , o holding s a es, s udies and books a e no enough. Acco ding o Machia elli, Cosimo de Medici was accus omed o say- ing ha “gli s a i non si ene ono co’ pa e nos i in mano”, i.e. ha s a es canno be un wi h pa e nos e s (Is o ie fio en ine, VII/6). This and o he sayings ga e ammuni ion o Cosimo’s enemies o enable hem o say ha he lo ed “più ques o mondo che quell’al o” (ibid.). The ac ha Ch is iani y is no based on he bes possible public e h- ics was undoub edly known among ule s as well. In his amous le e o F ancesco Ve o i (16.4.1527) Machia elli w i es: “I lo e my na i e ci y mo e han my soul”. Ano he simila idea can be ound in his A e della Gue a. P aising Cosimo Rucel- lai, he opening wo ds say: “I do no know wha possession was so much his (no excep ing, o go no u he , his soul) ha o his iends he would no willingly ha e spen i ; I do no know o any unde - aking ha would ha e igh ened him, i in i he had pe cei ed he good o his na i e land” (A e della Gue a, I). The hi d passage wi h a simila fla ou is in his Is o ie fio en ine, whe e Machia elli p aises he he oes o he so-called Wa o he Eigh Sain s (1376-1378). He PAUL-ERIK KORVELA 204 w i es: “So much highe did hose ci izens hen alue hei ci y han hei souls!” (Is o ie fio en ine, III/7). The e is a con adic ion be ween he demands o Ch is iani y and o poli ics, and consequen ly i is no possible o ac poli ically and o be sa ed. I is o he highes im- po ance o no e ha Machia elli’s adage o he incompa ibili y o Ch is ian con ic ion and poli ical ac ion has i s p edecesso in he bishop o Hippo. His cen al message is almos iden ical o he one S . Augus ine was pu po ing a housand yea s ea lie . Acco ding o Augus ine, he ounda ion o poli ics is no jus ice bu domina ion by o ce o he h ea o i s use. And he e, in espec o he ounda ion o poli ics, Machia elli ag ees wi h Augus ine,17 bu his solu ion is no esigna ion bu i ù. Fo Augus ine, Ch is ians a e o use (u i), no o lo e ( ui, li e ally ‘ o enjoy’), he s a e on hei pilg image owa ds sal a ion. The Ch is ian does obey he s a e and i s laws, no leas because he would no se himsel up agains he insc u able ways o God’s wo king in his o y. Lo ing he empo al s a e, howe e , is an- o he hing. This is whe e Machia elli adop s ano he cou se. Some ha e claimed ha Machia elli aimed a some so o ein e p e a ion o Ch is iani y, bu i is e y ha d o in e p e Ch is iani y so ha i would exal empo al s a es o e he hea enly kingdom. Concluding Pos sc ip Ma kus Fische (2000, 204-205) has sugges ed ha he chasm Machia- elli belie ed he had disco e ed be ween he necessi ies o poli ics and adi ional mo ali y is mo e appa en han eal. In ac , i could be claimed ha poli ical li e has always diges ed all he elemen s o u h con ained in Machia elli, since many “Machia ellian” p ac ices a e in ac e hically g ounded. To u ing e o is s who a e known o ha e in en ionally isked innocen li es by placing a bomb whose whe eabou s hey e use o e eal can be e hical, since i aims o sa e a la ge numbe o innocen li es. Simila ly i may be “ igh ” o b ibe al eady co up public o ficials i by doing so one can make jus ice p e ail. Howe e , acco ding o Fische , Machia elli o e es ima ed he e ec i eness o unjus means, and since “a aining poli ical goals wi hou doing ha m is o en mo e di ficul han eso ing o s aigh - o wa d iolence and decep ion, he uly p uden man needs o be a good deal sma e han a Machia ellian p ince”. Fische may be igh abou he pe manen Machia ellism o poli - ical li e, bu Machia elli ne e claimed ha all o his was his in en- MACHIAVELLI’S CRITIQUE OF CHIRSTIANITY 205 ion. Poli ical ac o s ha e always unde s ood he ha sh necessi ies o ex eme si ua ions, bu Ch is iani y has no . This is wha Machia elli was ying o say. No did Machia elli e e claim ha i would no be sma e o a ain goals wi hou eso ing o “immo al” means. Wha he did claim was ha one canno always a oid he employmen o such me hods, and ha such means a e o en mo e e ficien and ex- pedien . Machia elli’s ideal ule aims no so much o maximise his powe as o minimise his dependence. The e should be no p inciple o cha ac e ai ha cons ains his abili y o espond o his ci cum- s ances (c . G an 1997, 55). Religion, and especially Ch is iani y, is ce ainly a hind ance in p ince’s ques o au onomy. In a sense, Machia elli occupies a posi ion in he his o y o p ac- ical eason oughly analogous o ha o Desca es in he ealm o heo e ical eason (c . Ga e 1987, 3). Desca es ini ia ed a s o y o p og ess om igno ance o knowledge whose success and cos s ha e only ecen ly been ques ioned. Machia elli ini ia ed a simila p ocess, bu whe eas Desca es libe a ed heo e ical eason om he adi ional es ain s o cus om and belie , Machia elli’s inno a i e ea men o p udence seemed o emo e he es ain s ha adi ion had placed on immo al, selfish and co up beha iou . Unlike he p udence o A is o le, Machia elli’s p ac ical eason does no en ail in insic di ec edness owa ds i uous ends. While he au onomy o heo e ical eason a leas ini ially seemed o be an ad ance om da kness o ligh , om doub o ce ain y, he au onomy o p ac ical eason has always been el o be a mixed blessing. The Machia ellian p ac ical eason is no guided by mo ali y, o by he ec a a io, and as such i is mo e o an ins umen al na u e and capable o calcula - ing on he b inks o app op ia e beha iou . Machia elli’s p udence is also si ua ional; wha is easonable and necessa y in one si ua ion is no so in ano he . Thus, o him, p udence oxymo onically consis s in knowing when i is necessa y o b eak e en p uden ial ules. A he same ime, he seems o educe human eedom o he shee an icipa- ion o necessi y. I is no ha d o see why his has disquie ed many mo alis s e e since. Machia elli’s “new” p ac ical eason changed also he ole o he o ic in poli ical li e. As Vic o ia Kahn (1994, 9) has a gued, Ma- chia elli’s he o ical poli ics d ama ised a ension be ween a echni- cal and p uden ial concep ion o he o ic ha is a he hea o Re- naissance humanis cul u e. Rhe o ic in his pe iod was concei ed o ei he being an e hically and ideologically neu al echnique o a gumen a ion o as he embodimen o a acul y o p ac ical ea- PAUL-ERIK KORVELA 206 Sulli an, Vickie B. (1996): Machia elli´s Th ee Romes. Religion, Human Libe y and Poli ics Re o med. DeKalb, No he n Illinois Uni e si y P ess. Ullmann, Wal e (1977): Medie al Founda ions o Renaissance Humanism. Lon- don, Paul Elek. Webe , Max (1992/1919): Poli ik als Be u . In Gesammel e poli ische Sch i en. Tübingen, Moh , pp. 242-248. MACHIAVELLI’S CRITIQUE OF CHIRSTIANITY 213