Niccolo Machiavelli and Religion - Book Report/Review Example

 Why is Religion Relevant with Hobbes and Machiavelli who were Usually Portrayed as either Atheist or Pagan and What Points Tie Them Together? The Italian philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527) is regarded as the father of political science and realism. Many scholars prefer to see Machiavelli as either pagan or atheist in nature because drawing from the Italian Renaissance, he fought against the influence of the Church on Italian states and asserted that the Church was the main reason behind the failing civic order in those states. In addition, one can see praise for the Roman religion in his works, The Prince and Discourses on Livy. Similarly, Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) was a British empiricist philosopher who proposed the Theory of State and the Social Contract Theory. The special position of Hobbes is that like Machiavelli, he is viewed as atheist or anti-religious in nature. This work seeks to identify how and why religion matters with these two scholars and what similarities tie them together. Niccolo Machiavelli and Religion In order to understand why religion is an important element in the political views of Machiavelli, it is necessary to begin with the time-period he lived and the special and extraordinary events of the time. It is evident from Skinner that throughout their fight against the German Emperors, Italian cities enjoyed the help of the Papacy1. However, later on, the Papacy started showing interest in controlling and ruling the states directly, and the first effect was seen in Lombardy and Tuscany. Soon, the Papal right to collect taxes reached Florence, Siena and Volterra, along with the efforts to interfere in the internal politics of Florence. Thus, history saw the notorious Bull, Unam Sanctam which claimed that there are two “swords” (realms) in Christian society; the spiritual and the temporal swords2. In addition, it claimed that the temporal sword is below the spiritual sword. Another claim was that the spiritual power possessed the authority to institute earthly power. This again caused intensified efforts by Italian cities to be free from Papal supremacy. This was followed by denunciations of Church courts and clerical immunities in Florence. However, struggling away from the Church did not solve the problems for good. According to Meinecke, by the end of the thirteenth century, the Italian states were marred by internal conflicts, which forced them to change and think about a despotic form of government in order to attain greater civic peace3. Meinecke points out that as a secretary and diplomat of the Florentine Republic until 1512, Machiavelli was well aware about statecraft and the various issues involved. In 1512, his party was overthrown from power and Machiavelli was persecuted by the Medicis monarchy that again came to power4. Thus, he was forced to accommodate both his own thoughts of liberty and the benefits of monarchy to satisfy the new rulers. Meinecke shows that Machiavelli was startled by the disorder of the time and the failure of his own cherished view of liberty5. Seeing the role of the Church in ruining the internal affairs of Italian cities in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, he lamented that the present religion had led to the present weakness. A look into his Discourses proves that Machiavelli developed a very low opinion about the existing affairs in the Italian city-states, and high opinion about the ancient Roman Empire and its religion. He says, “in ordering republics, maintaining states, governing kingdoms, ordering the military and administering war, judging subjects, and increasing empire, neither prince nor republic may be found that has recourse to the examples of the ancients”6. Thus, it is possible to speculate that two important factors related to religion influenced Machiavelli; a hatred for Christianity and a respect for Roman paganism. In other words, he reached the belief that the latter had a role in the unity of ancient Rome and the former had a role in the instability in the Italy of his own time. In fact, Machiavelli was not atheist because he considered religion as an indispensable tool in state governance. However, he was against Papacy and its teachings. It is this abhorrence that made him say, “if religion had been maintained by the princes of the Christian republic as was ordered by its giver, the Christian states and republics would be more united, much happier than they are”7. Contradicting the Bull, Unam Sanctam, which claimed the superiority of the spiritual sword over temporal sword, Machiavelli insisted that the problems in Italian states are the result of giving more importance to religion than to the power of the ruler and the people. Thus, one can say that one reason why Machiavelli hated Christianity, or, at least, Papacy, was that it exhibited the desire to interfere in worldly affairs and claimed the superiority of religion. It seems that Machiavelli considered some Christian teachings responsible for making man and rulers weak. To illustrate, he says that Christianity thinks “more of enduring their beatings than of avenging them”8. In his own words, it “rendered the world weak and gave it in prey to criminal men”9. In sharp contrast, the Roman paganism gave more attention to the “strength of body, and all other things capable of making men very strong”10. Yet another point that makes religion, especially Christianity, relevant in the theories of Machiavelli is value pluralism. While Christianity teaches the same moral grounds for all people, it became necessary for Machiavelli to use his concept of value pluralism to contradict this. According to value pluralism, the morality of the prince is considerably different from the morality of the people. The prince’s morality while taking a decision should focus only on what outcome will be most beneficial for the state. In other words, Machiavelli wanted to make his ruler amoral according to Christian concepts but not according to Roman paganism. In addition, religion has further significance when considering Machiavelli. According to him, religion has an important role to play when used as a tool by the ruler. For example, Machiavelli says, “it arises that kingdoms that depend solely on the virtue of one man are hardly durable, because that virtue fails with the life of that one; and it rarely happens that it is restored by succession”11. An analysis of this claim reveals that in the opinion of Machiavelli, emperors who rely solely on their own strength will not be able to survive for long. In other words, Machiavelli realized that the orders from rulers are not long-lasting because their orders are not strong enough to instill a fear of consequences every time. Therefore, he suggests that “the citizens feared to break an oath much more than the laws, like those who esteemed the power of God more than man”12. These points reveal that Machiavelli was neither an atheist nor a blind supporter of paganism. Instead, he was simply standing against certain principles of Christianity as the events in his own time made him believe that those elements were the reasons behind the weakness of Italian cities. Machiavelli claims in his Discourses, “Those princes or those republics that wish to maintain themselves uncorrupt have above everything else to maintain the ceremonies of their religion uncorrupt and hold them always in veneration”13. It is unlikely that Machiavelli had turned highly religious in the interval between The Prince and the Discourses. Instead, through this claim, Machiavelli is only teaching how rulers can implement their extraordinary laws in society using religion. When people uphold an oath under religion, it becomes necessary to ensure that the religion is respected and kept alive because the death or ruin of the religion means the death of both that oath and the law. A look into Machiavelli’s Discourses shows a number of examples where the rulers were able to control people using the name of religion. The first example comes when the Roman soldiers caught the city of Vientes. The soldiers entered the temple of Juno and then claimed that the statue of Juno wanted to go to Rome. Hearing this, the people of the city were ready to obey. In the opinion of Machiavelli, this became possible because the rulers had created such an environment in the society where religion and religious ceremonies were kept uncorrupt providing a suitable environment to manipulate the thinking of people and make them act in whatever way the rulers wished14. One can see more examples of this kind of manipulation from Machiavelli. For example, when the nobles wanted to withdraw the consular and tribunal power from the Plebeians, the nobles told the Plebeians that they had angered Gods by misusing power and that the misuse of power was the reason behind the famine in Rome15. In addition to all these, Machiavelli gives a number of examples where religion is used for military success. For example, he says, “unless they had persuaded the soldiers that the gods promised them victory”16, the army did not go into an expedition. In order to achieve this purpose, they had certain religious practices like feeding chickens. If the chickens ate, they went to war. If the chickens did not eat, the commanders alleged that “they had done it with disdain for religion”17. With these findings, one reaches the realization that religion had an important role in the concepts of Machiavelli. His entire ideologies on state-governance are influenced by religion in one way or another. First, he was infuriated by the way the Church exerted power on Italian states claiming Papal supremacy, and secondly, he found the concepts of good and evil in Christianity a hindrance to effective ruling of a state. In addition, he was of the opinion that Christianity makes people and rulers weak instead of making them ferocious. In sharp contrast, he had great respect for the Roman Empire and paganism because according to him, they made people brave and active. In the opinion of Machiavelli, the claim of the Church that the spiritual sword is superior to temporal sword is erroneous, at least, in governance. He pointed out through examples that the religion can assist in bringing peace and stability in a state and can help manipulate and influence people when used by the ruler in an effective way. In other words, he claimed that the spiritual sword is subordinate to the temporal one. Admittedly, one can see that a praise for the Roman paganism and dislike for Christianity was necessary for Machiavelli to develop his own concepts of virtu, fortuna, and necessita18. Effectively contradicting the Christian virtues, he introduced his own virtu that was necessary for raison d’Etat. This new virtu includes pride, bravery, strength, and a degree of ferociousness replacing the moral good in the Christian ideology. Thus, one reaches the conclusion that Machiavelli was neither pagan nor atheist but a person who wanted to find a better way of governance where the rulers are better able to impose power on people and where people obey law. Machiavelli does not support any religion but advocates its use as a tool for effective administration of a state. Thomas Hobbes and Religion Thomas Hobbes was a British empiricist philosopher who witnessed a number of important events like the English Civil War, the Glorious Revolution, and the execution of King Charles I. These all events had considerable influence on the works of Hobbes. Clearly, the State of Nature as coined by Hobbes stands to indicate England during the Civil War. Reinterpreting Genesis, Hobbes introduced the State of Nature where humans are supposed to struggle for peace, as the present state is full of chaos19. Thus, the name of religion springs up when the political theories of Hobbes are considered. In order to understand how Hobbes came to rely on Genesis to introduce his concept, one should understand the social situation prevailing at that time. As Michael Williams points out, the Reformation meant the end of the power of the church and its monopoly over truth20. Along with this, the universal languages of science and religion were replaced by vernacular languages and religion. In addition, Williams points out that by this time, the world became despiritualized. That is, man realized his ability to manipulate nature and consequently, God was removed from the role of the controller of the day-to-day operations to that of the original creator21. This period also witnessed ‘self-fashioning’, that is, two new selves were introduced. The first self was the individual self of man and the other was the collective self of the state. By this time, both men and state were seen as independent and self-governing. However, as Williams points out, what these two independent, self-governing subjects should do and should not do was “far from clear”22. At that time, as Williams identifies, international law only provided the states with the arguments required to defend their own viewpoints23. Being a philosopher, Hobbes was well aware about the influence of the Church on politics, and being a product of Renaissance, he wanted to develop a world order where people form governments without the help of Christianity. It must be with this desire that he started giving a new meaning to the Genesis. In other words, Hobbes wanted to select a medium that had the capability to appeal to the greatest number of people. In fact, he was aware of the fact that the influence of the Church was the reason for the double vision because both God and civil sovereign were to be followed at the same time. Thus, Hobbes came up with an effective strategy to keep the Church away from the present-day world politics, by giving a new meaning to the Genesis. He interpreted that in Eden, Adam and Eve were under the direct supervision of God, or lived in God’s kingdom where law and order prevailed. However, as they disobeyed God’s laws, they fell from Eden, and presently, they live in the state of nature where there is no government. This state of nature is highly volatile as people are selfish and are in battle with each other. At this stage, God and religion have no role to play, and it is for humans to act together to bring peace. Here, one can see that the effort from Hobbes is to remove the ecclesiastical authority from the civil society by reinterpreting the scripture, showing that God is not present until the world ends. Instead of the Church, Hobbes says only the civil sovereign king can control a society in the present world. It is at this point that Hobbes claims that in order to live peacefully, people should escape from this state of nature, and this requires the people to consign themselves to a social contract and to obey the Leviathan, the mortal God. It is pointed out by Hobbes that this new contract will require people to surrender their freedom, and subject themselves to the complete control of the Leviathan. In return, the Leviathan will offer them protection by creating and enforcing law24. In fact, natural law and divine law were the two important elements in deciding whether written laws and customs of the society were just or unjust. Hobbes identified the way these two elements played havoc in society by making people unable to fully obey the rule of the sovereign. When he reinterpreted the Genesis and wrote his Leviathan, showing how important it is to forget natural law and religion for the sake of civil peace and security, people started accepting positive law as the only law pertaining to civil society. According to the classical natural law, humans are rational and social animals with the natural inclination to happiness through virtues. Breaking this view, Hobbes claimed that humans are selfish by nature and are in constant struggle for more power25. As God has no role in the present ‘fallen’ world, it is for humans to surrender to the sovereign power of a ruler and sacrifice their freedom for the common good. Thus, it becomes evident from the analysis that Hobbes was not against religion and was not an atheist. However, he was against the role of divine law and natural law on the affairs of the state and the civil society. He found that both of these laws influence the people a lot while deciding their conduct within the civil society, making it difficult for the rulers to impose law and maintain civil order. Modifying the interpretation of Genesis, he managed to claim that religion has no role in managing the affairs of the present-day world. Evidently, instead of saying anything against religion, he managed to show that religion and civil society are two different entities and that their separation is necessary to avoid double-vision for people. The Similarities and Dissimilarities Both the scholars are noted for their belief that to ensure civil order, it is necessary to keep religion away. Machiavelli was a diplomat of the Florentine society and he was more an observer than a theorist. Instead of developing a totally new form of government, he focused more on identifying the reasons behind the existing problems. Noticing that the ancient Roman Empire had a more stable and peaceful civil society, he found the reason behind the chaos in Italian city states in the increasing role of the Church. Therefore, he claimed that the Church makes rulers and people weak by teaching them to be submissive. In addition, contrasting the Papal claim of superiority of religion over political administration, he said that religion should not control politics but it should only act as a tool for rulers to influence people. This desire to keep religion away is more intense in Hobbes. With a more systematic approach in the concept of political power, Hobbes pointed out how important it is for individuals to be ruled by a sovereign ruler. Like Machiavelli, Hobbes found religion a hindrance in political administration. Therefore, he alleged that religion causes “double-vision” in people. In order to make people believe what he claimed, he reinterpreted Genesis, and claimed that the present society is “fallen” and is controlled by neither god nor religion. Thus, the first similarity between both the scholars is their claim that religion has no role in the political realm. However, the difference is that while Machiavelli claimed that religion could be used as a tool by the rulers, Hobbes found religion totally unnecessary in politics. Yet another point of similarity is their deviation from the Christian concept of virtue and morality. According to Machiavelli, the virtue as defined by Christianity had no connection with politics. Instead, he introduced his own concept of virtu that stood to mean chivalry and ferociousness. In other words, he found no role of virtue according to Christian sense and found it a hindrance in governing. To make this point clear, he introduced value pluralism and necessita where everything is right if done for the common good of the society. From his works, it is clear that he found the use of deception, coercion and manipulation a necessary part of governance. Further sharpening this viewpoint, Hobbes claimed that all humans are basically selfish in nature where he found the virtues of religion useless. In other words, Hobbes found nothing other than a sovereign government capable enough to secure peaceful life and security for people. According to him, in the absence of this, there is total anarchy in the world. He only found the religious virtues causing “double-vision” and confusion in the minds of people. That is, the virtues of religion are a hindrance to politics and state governance. Like Machiavelli, he claimed that the notions of justice and injustice have no place in the state of nature. Where there is no common power, there is no law. Therefore, “force and fraud” are the two cardinal virtues in the present-day world. However, there are some differences in the way the scholars deal with religion. Machiavelli utilizes religion as a way of manipulation but he did not attack the Scriptures. In other words, he acknowledged the use of religion as way to make people live peacefully and obey law. A look into The Prince shows that Machiavelli did not contradict the Christian concept of the separate entity of mind and spirit. In addition, he admitted that the ecclesiastical principalities are secure and happy for they are “sustained by higher powers” and that human mind cannot comprehend them. Clearly, though Machiavelli opposed the upper hand of religion in political affairs, he was willing to admit the inability of human mind to comprehend spiritual affairs. In contrast, Hobbes was a strong materialist who claimed that there is no spirit and that only body exists. For example, one can see Hobbes denying the existence of demons. In Leviathan, he says, “And where many of those devils are said to confess Christ, it is not necessary to interpret those places otherwise than that those madmen confessed Him…So that I see nothing at all in the Scripture that requires a belief that demoniacs were any other thing but madmen”26. Here, Hobbes has made it clear that he is a strong materialist who contradicted all religions and their claim that body ad spirit are two different entities. In simple terms, Machiavelli accepted religion and spirituality as something beyond human comprehension while Hobbes considered religion a totally baseless entity as spirit itself does not exist. However, both the scholars found the concept of Christian morality a hindrance to the sovereignty of a state and wanted to keep it away. Conclusion In total, one can say that Machiavelli was not an atheist but had a strong belief in the importance of religion in retaining order in a republic or any other type of governing power. Through examples, he managed to show how religion can be an effective tool for rulers to manipulate the minds of people and to ensure success of a republic. In order to keep the rulers in a more powerful position, he countered the claim of Christianity that the spiritual realm is more important than the temporal one. Contradicting this, he said the spiritual sword should be subordinate to the temporal sword. However, he admitted that no laws are good enough to control people if they act themselves. Only religion and religious oaths can help them stay secure for extended periods of time. Following almost the same line, Hobbes reinterpreted Genesis in a way to show that religion is not relevant in the present-day world and that the divine law and natural law will not help people in maintaining civic order. Thus, he claimed that it is necessary for people to voluntarily agree to be ruled by Leviathan and obey all the rules imposed on them by the state and forget the laws of morality imposed on them by the religion. In total, it is clear that religion becomes relevant with both Machiavelli and Hobbes because both intentionally tried to remove the influence of religion, especially Christianity, from the political sphere. Read More