Machiavelli's The Prince, part 6: was Machiavelli an atheist?

[rug]

The book's short chapter on 'church states' is a masterpiece of subtle, savage anti-ecclesiastical irony

Nick Spencer
guardian.co.uk, Monday 30 April 2012 08.41 BST

Historians of the mid-20th century debated whether atheism was possible in the 1500s. On the back of Lucien Febvre's major study of Rabelais, The Problem of Unbelief in the Sixteenth Century, they debated whether it was actually possible not to believe at the time. The Prince helps us answer that question.

The book's short chapter on "church states" is a masterpiece of subtle, savage anti-ecclesiastical irony. Church states, Machiavelli observes, are upheld by ancient religious institutions that "are so strong and well established" they "keep their rulers in power no matter what they do or how they live". "Only church leaders possess states without defending them and subjects without governing them," he continues in a tone that might have been Gibbon's.

His criticism doesn't remain at the level of generalities. Machiavelli manages to skewer a number of contemporary pontiffs. Julius II's "credit" for his conquests "was the greater because he did it for the glory of the church, not out of private interest". Leo X's predecessors may have made the church great "by armed force", but "it is to be hoped that … he can make it even greater and more praiseworthy thanks to his goodness and many, many other virtues".

The Prince's anti-papal rhetoric doesn't simply hide behind wit. Pope Alexander, we are told, "showed what could be done with finance and force" and "never did anything but con people. [Indeed] that was all he ever thought about." Writing of the king of Spain, Machiavelli explains that to ensure the church's support, "he perpetrated an act of cruelty dressed up as piety, stripping Marrano Jews of their wealth and expelling them from his kingdom, a move that could hardly have been more distressing". One might rightfully question how this master-advocate of brutal realpolitik can adopt the moral high ground at this point, but that does not change the pugnacity of his anti-papal criticism.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/apr/30/prince-machiavelli-atheism-history-christianity?newsfeed=true

[Jim__]

1. He had a cynical view of religion.

Wikipedia agrees with the article that you cite:

Machiavelli explains repeatedly that religion is man-made, and that the value of religion lies in its contribution to social order and the rules of morality must be dispensed if security required it. In The Prince, the Discourses, and in the Life of Castruccio Castracani, he describes "prophets," as he calls them, like Moses, Romulus, Cyrus the Great, and Theseus (he treats pagan and Christian patriarchs in the same way) as the greatest of new princes, the glorious and brutal founders of the most novel innovations in politics, and men who Machiavelli assures us have always used a large amount of armed force and murder against their own people. He estimated that these sects last from 1666 to 3000 years each time, which, as pointed out by Leo Strauss, would mean that Christianity became due to start finishing about 150 years after Machiavelli.[22] Machiavelli's concern with Christianity as a sect was that it makes men weak and inactive, delivering politics into the hands of cruel and wicked men without a fight.

While fear of God can be replaced by fear of the prince, if there is a strong enough prince, Machiavelli felt that having a religion is in any case especially essential to keeping a republic in order. For Machiavelli, a truly great prince can never be conventionally religious himself, but he should make his people religious if he can. According to Strauss (1958, pp. 226–227) he was not the first person to ever explain religion in this way, but his description of religion was novel because of the way he integrated this into his general account of princes.

Machiavelli's judgment that democracies need religion for practical political reasons was widespread amongst modern proponents of republics until approximately the time of the French revolution. This therefore represents a point of disagreement between himself and late modernity.[23]

[FarCenter]

2. More likely he was reflecting the tension between princes and bishops

He was writing at or just before the beginning of the Protestant Reformation. The Reformation would not have happened if it had not been in the interests of the princes to oppose the power of the Pope and his bishops.

I think that this is "CHAPTER XI — CONCERNING ECCLESIASTICAL PRINCIPALITIES"

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1232/1232-h/1232-h.htm#2HCH0011