Machiavelli and Religion

A research paper analyzing the role that Christianity played in Machiavelli's life and writings.

Warning: this post lacks the comedic elements of my previous entries...

Nevertheless, enjoy!



Niccolò Machiavelli is often regarded as the most prominent political scientist of all time. His two most famous works, The Prince and The Discourses have been studied since their publication. Surprisingly however, Machiavelli’s ideas on religion are rarely brought up when attempting to understand his political theory. For Machiavelli, political power could be attained through the use of religion, and domination required a mastery of it. This analysis will attempt to understand for what reasons Machiavelli coveted religion, as well as the weaknesses Machiavelli found in modern religions.

Traditionally, Machiavelli is associated with the notion that religion is merely an instrument used by the few to control the many. Although this idea is partially true, it really oversimplifies the importance that religion can play in the Machiavelli’s world of politics. Machiavelli believed that with proper treatment of religion, a strong ruler could wield more power than any secular ruler could on his own.

In his most famous work, The Prince, Machiavelli argues the difference between ecclesiastical and secular principalities. He concludes that the church needs not to defend itself or govern its subjects because it is protected by a higher authority. That is to say that the notion of God protects the Church from invasion or revolt, because the subjects “do not dream of being alienated from the Church.” The reason behind this phenomenon is a fear of God which binds every Christian together under the Church’s influence.

Machiavelli returns to the subject of religion in his Discourses on Livy in an attempt to explain the role that religion played in the formation of ancient Rome. He claims that Numa, Romulus’ successor, was more important to the success of Rome for his contribution of religion. Numa saw before him a “ferocious” group of people, so he introduced religion as, “the instrument necessary above all others for the maintenance of a civilized state.” In order to gather support, Numa claimed to have spoken with a nymph, who had advised him on how to properly govern Rome. Numa’s introduction of this pagan religion had the desired effects on the population, who obeyed the government not for fear of politicians but for fear of God. By making the citizenry swear obedience to every law, Rome became more civil because, “the citizens were more afraid of breaking an oath than of breaking the law, since they held in higher esteem the power of God than the power of man.”

In an article regarding Machiavelli’s treatment of religion, author J. Samuel Preus raises some interesting points about the relationship between religion and good leadership. Using Machiavelli, he argues that the authority of religion is held almost entirely through the fear of God’s wrath, and that almost all of the laws of Ancient Rome were bound to nothing more than oaths sworn to the Pagan Gods. Preus argues that it was this great influence on society that led Machiavelli, “to regard religion as the chief of three essential bases on which the superstructure of any political society was erected, the other two were laws and military discipline.”

It has already been shown that the laws of Roman society were upheld by a fear of God, but it can also be shown that the Roman military was also bound to religious duty. In chapter 15 of the Discourses, Machiavelli recounts the story of the Samnites’ last stand against the Romans. Although the Samnites had been reduced to a feeble number of soldiers in comparison to the Roman force, they refused to stop fighting. Even with the odds entirely against them, the Samnite leaders reinstated their ancient ritual of sacrifices in order to inspire their men to fight until the end. The soldiers were forced to partake in the brutal sacrifices and swear to the Gods that they would never flee the battle lest they would be cursed for eternity. During the battle, the Samnites fought bravely but still suffered a crushing defeat, which as Machiavelli explained, “Bears striking witness to the magnitude of that confidence which religion gives when properly used.” Even though the Samnites were unable to defeat the far superior army, they fought with more valor than they had in the past, being pushed forward by a fear of God. Thus, Preus was correct in his assessment that religion held together the staples of Roman society.

With this understanding of how and why religion was so influential in society, it is possible to analyze what must be done by a ruler in order to harness its power. In The Prince, Machiavelli explains that although a good prince should be perceived as a model citizen, it will often be necessary to abandon these qualities in order to exercise effective rule. A Prince, “should seem compassionate, trustworthy, humane, honest, and religious, and actually be so; but yet he should have his mind so trained that, when it is necessary not to practice these virtues, he can change to the opposite, and do it skillfully.” That is to say that a Prince might be required to break religious doctrines which he vehemently preaches if it is for the good of his people.

The Romans used these tactics, as described in The Discourses, to keep the populace civilized underneath the religion, while at the same time not allowing it to prevent them from expanding. Although the same cannot (or should not) be said about modern religion, Machiavelli says that the main goal of the ancient governments was to support every detail that might assist with the spread of religion, “even though they be convinced that it is quite fallacious.” Since most of Machiavelli’s case studies were based on ancient texts, it is not really surprising that the ancient Roman’s followed the same courses of action, which he described in the Prince. In Chapter 14 of the Discourses, Machiavelli describes how the Romans would disregard their own religion when necessity called for it, “But, so adroit were they in words and actions at giving things a twist that they did not appear to have done anything disparaging to religion.”

Machiavelli’s view towards religion as an object of the state have lead many to question his feelings towards religion on a personal level. John M. Najemy wrote an article analyzing Machiavelli’s fascination with religion, concluding that Machiavelli’s religion had such a tremendous social impact that it cannot be entirely controlled by the state. He claims that Machiavelli regards religion as, “more powerful than [an instrument of the state], and yet still as a human and historical phenomenon.” Also, religion has been entirely dependent upon various interpretations, thus it is impossible to distinguish “the truth,” other than by its impact on society.

To conclude whether or not Machiavelli was himself a believer is a difficult task at best. Although Machiavelli never denied the existence of God, it must be taken into account that Renaissance Florence was not the place to be claiming blasphemy. Samuel J. Preus addresses these points in his article, claiming that for Machiavelli, “The truth of religion has no demonstrable connection with its power.” Thus, regardless of what Machiavelli personally believed, religion was a phenomenon that dictated peoples lives. A religion gives power to the few, hopes to the many, and unifies a people underneath one set of beliefs. So it doesn’t even matter what the religion is, be it the Paganism or Christianity, because it was Machiavelli’s intent to, “unveil the effective reality of the thing, not the imagined reality of the believer.”

According to Marcia L. Colish, Machiavelli admired the ancients’ use of religion, but believed that, “it is not necessary to return to paganism in order to apply this lesson of antiquity.” However, Machiavelli was not pleased at the current state of religion in Europe. He felt that Christianity had weakened society by teaching forgiveness and passiveness, thus abandoning honor and boldness. As a result of all of this, Italy had become weaker and easier to control, “Our religion has glorified humble and contemplative men, rather than men of action… If our religion demands that in you there be strength, what it asks for is strength to suffer rather than strength to do bold things.” Machiavelli goes on to blame this weakness as a result of a laissez-faire interpretation of religion.

The world had lost its ambition, rather than attempting to challenge power, people allowed themselves to be controlled as they waited for their reward in the afterlife. Machiavelli also addresses this point in the Prince, however here he does not explicitly blame the church, “Many have been and still are of the opinion that the affairs of this world are so under the direction of Fortune and of God that man’s prudence cannot control them.” In an article on Machiavelli’s treatment of religion, Benedetto Fontana argues that not only had Christianity weakened society, but the papacy had also failed to provide strong leadership to its subjects. Machiavelli claimed that its control, “is powerful enough to maintain itself in its weakness, but not so powerful as to establish a new order.” According to this, the church’s failure to act as a strong principality further weakened Italian society by making no attempt to unify the country. As said by Machiavelli in the Discourses, “It is the Church that has kept, and keeps, Italy divided.” If only the church had cared about Italy’s well being, and used its strength to unite the country, Machiavelli might have likened Christianity more to the Pagan religion.

In book three of the Discourses, Machiavelli attempts to provide a solution that could improve the church’s standing in Europe. He explains that, “at the start religious institutions, republics and kingdoms have in all cases some good in them, to which their early reputation and progress is due. But since in process of time this goodness is corrupted, such a body must of necessity die unless something happens which brings it up to the mark.” In other words, it is necessary for Christianity to return to its roots in order to save itself from corruption. Machiavelli follows by mentioning St. Francis and St. Dominic, both of whom chose lives of poverty in order to follow the path of Christ. Machiavelli praises their intentions but laments the fact that they were continuing to preach idleness in the face of oppression, “They convinced them it is an evil thing to talk evilly of evil doing, and a good thing to live in obedience to such prelates, and that, if they did wrong, it must be left to God to chastise them.” Although it is good to return to the fundamentals of Christianity, it is necessary to spread the values rather than wait for redemption.

Preus thinks that this attempt at reformation did much more harm than good to Christianity. Preus argues that, by returning to the principles of its foundation, “Christianity renewed itself, but at the cost of teaching the people to tolerate tyranny. The political result, then… is just as disastrous as what resulted from the ‘false interpretations’ against what Machiavelli had protested.” However, the church itself was not pure, and corruption ran all the way to the papal throne. Thus St. Francis’ attempts to purify the Church ironically led to the acceptance of tyranny, which in Machiavelli’s time was the Church itself.

It has been argued that Machiavelli’s contempt for Christianity was sparked by his interactions with various religious leaders during his life. Marcia L. Colish argues that the friar Girolamo Savonarola played a particularly large role in influencing Machiavelli’s views towards religion. Savonarola had grown to political prominence during Machiavelli’s youth, and had plans on reforming Florence’s republican government. Savonarola’s plan for a new republic included the use of, “the Venetian Great Council as a model, the wish to purge Florence of her sins… and the notion of governo largo was a means to these religious ends.” Machiavelli was opposed to any such reforms to his native republic, and his later writings would describe Savonarola as a more or less corrupt religious figure.

For instance in the first book of the Discourses, Machiavelli skeptically writes about Friar Savonarola’s rise to power by his ability to, “converse with God. I do not propose to decide whether it was so or not… but I do say that vast numbers believed it was so.” It seems as though Machiavelli was doubtful of Savonarola’s “gift”, however Machiavelli admired his manipulation of religion. John M. Nejemy writes that, “Machiavelli does not say that the friar believed it himself but only that he succeeded in getting others to believe it,” which is a critical skill to possess. Unfortunately for Savonarola however, as soon as his followers began to doubt him, Machiavelli writes, “he had no means of holding firm those who once had believed nor of making unbelievers believe.”

An interesting detail about Machiavelli’s attitude towards Savonarola’s claim rests several paragraphs higher in the Discourses. Before Machiavelli claims that he cannot challenge the word of Savonarola, he brings up the example of Numa, the founder of the Roman religion. As stated earlier, Numa based his religion upon his conversation with a nymph who foretold the most effective government for Rome. Machiavelli comments that for, “Numa it was so necessary that he pretended to have private conferences with a nymph… This was because he wanted to introduce new institutions to which the city was unaccustomed, and doubted whether his own authority would suffice.” What is interesting here is that Numa and Savonarola faced almost the exact same consequences, yet Machiavelli could reveal Numa’s lie, but had to remain silent over the possibility that Savonarola was a fraud, because of further implications in Christianity.

Machiavelli held contempt for the entire Catholic Church, and was often upset by their use of religion to gain political power. Not that there was anything wrong with trying to rise to political power, but Machiavelli felt it unfair that, “the papacy wanted to play the game of politics while ignoring the rules by which everyone else had to play.” Once again, Machiavelli channeled his feelings for the church into his writings. He was becoming upset at the constant intervention of the Church and its corruption. In the Discourses, Machiavelli describes the serious need for a reform, “look at those people who live in the immediate neighborhood of the Church of Rome, which is the head of our religion, and see how there is less religion amongst them than elsewhere.”

At the head of the Church sat the pope, and for much of Machiavelli’s career, the pope was Julius II, who Machiavelli observed as one of the most ambitious popes. Machiavelli praises Julius in his ability to take over the “principality” after his predecessor Alexander VI, “He had not only followed the steps of Alexander but went beyond… in all these enterprises he succeeded, and with the more glory to him in that it was all to increase the Church and not any private person.” For Machiavelli, it struck a special chord when a leader achieved great things not for himself, but for the good of his state, or in Julius’ case the Church. In a letter to his friend Francesco Vettori, Machiavelli describes that Julius II, “never worried about being hated, as long as he was feared and revered, and with that fear he stood the world on its head and brought the Church to where it is now.” Thus, even though Machiavelli was upset at the Church’s unfair manipulation of religion, he was able to give credit where credit was due.

As Machiavelli moved further and further up the hierarchy of the Christianity, he had greater and greater scorn for each level. In an analysis of the “The ravages of Christianity” during Machiavelli’s time, Vickie Sullivan makes the argument that to Machiavelli the Church must have seemed to be a tyranny. She writes, “Machiavelli defends human beings in general against tyrannical rulers who depreciate their dignity and power. In denouncing this type of subjugation he finds that the Christian God poses the most acute threat to human liberty.” As mentioned before, the Church had made the world a weak place where people did not dream of accomplishing anything other than a peaceful afterlife. It was through this mentality that the Church was able to keep “the wicked” in power and keep the people suppressed. Sullivan notes that, “The debilitating effects of such a tyranny are precisely those Machiavelli finds emanating from the Christian education: both rob human beings of the honor to which they are entitled; neither this virtuous tyrant nor Christianity will permit individuals possession of any good, for in either case all accrues ultimately to the benefit of the ruler.”

Although it is impossible to know for certain whether or not Machiavelli believed in God, it really is insignificant to his outlook on religion. It is true that Machiavelli thought of religion as a tool to be used by the state, but he also respected it as a phenomenon of its own. He believed that if properly used, religion could be used to control an empire. However he was depressed by the sad state of Christianity, which rather than inspiring its subjects to action, oppressed them to humbleness. It is no surprise then that on his deathbed Machiavelli hoped that he would go to hell, because he would be surrounded by every great leader, who in order to achieve their position had to overcome the standards of Christian morality.