Northeastern Political Science Association

Neither Christian nor Pagan: Machiavelli's Treatment of Religion in the "Discourses"Author(s): Vickie B. SullivanSource: Polity, Vol. 26, No. 2 (Winter, 1993), pp. 259-280Published by: Palgrave Macmillan JournalsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3235031 .Accessed: 17/02/2011 16:42

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=pal. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Palgrave Macmillan Journals and Northeastern Political Science Association are collaborating with JSTOR todigitize, preserve and extend access to Polity.

http://www.jstor.org

Neither Christian Nor Pagan: Machiavelli's Treatment of 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, Michael Zuckert, John Scott, and Grace Burton.

1. Sebastian de Grazia, Machiavelli in Hell (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989). The work won the Pulitzer Prize for Biography. See also Susan Behuniak-Long, review of Machiavelli in Hell, by Sebastian de Grazia, in The Review of Politics, 52 (Spring 1990): 317-20. The earlier biography by Ridolfi paints a similar picture of Machiavelli's Christian piety. See Roberto Ridolfi, The Life ofNiccolo Machiavelli, trans. Cecil Grayson (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963).

2. Mark Hulliung, Citizen Machiavelli (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983), pp. 8 and 245.

Polity Volume XXVL Number 2 Winter 1993 Winter 1993 Polity Volume XXVI, Number 2

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. Hulliung calls the Discourses Machiavelli's most "stridently pagan work" (Citizen Machiavelli, p. 246).

4. Hulliung recognizes the problem that Christianity's ultimate victory poses, but he concludes that Machiavelli "did not explain how the slavish Christians triumphed over the masterful pagans" (Citizen Machiavelli, p. 248). I treat Machiavelli's criticism of pagan Rome for Christianity's conquest in the second section of 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. Citizen Machiavelli, pp. 66 and 68. See also Isaiah Berlin on this point: "What [the church] has done is to lead, on the one hand, to corruption and political division-the fault of the papacy-and on the other, to other-worldliness and meek endurance of suffering on earth for the sake of the eternal life beyond the grave" ("The Originality of Machiavelli," in Against the Current [New York: Viking Press, 1980], p. 48). Berlin's piece had already drawn the sharp distinction between Christianity and paganism in Machiavelli's thought, and illustrated Machiavelli's preference for the latter. See particularly, pp. 58, 62-64, 66, 68-69, 71. Berlin's exposition serves as a powerful antidote to Benedetto Croce's depiction of Machiavelli as agonizing over the necessity of separating politics from morality offered in Politics and Morals, trans. Salvatore Castiglione (New York: Philosophical Library, 1945). See Berlin, pp. 52-55. Hulliung criticizes Berlin's analysis for not going far enough- for not revealing the entirety of Machiavelli's shocking rejection of Christian and Stoic ethics (Citizen Machiavelli, p. 238). For Hulliung's discussion of Berlin's analysis, see pp. 249-54.

6. The translation is my own from Niccol6 Machiavelli, Discorsi sopra la Prima Deca di Tito Livio in Tutte le Opere (Florence: Sansoni, 1971), I pr. Subsequent references to this work will appear in the text by book and chapter number.

262 Neither Christian Nor Pagan

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. William M. Green, Loeb Classical Library Edition, Vol. II (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1963), V 16, p. 219.

Vickie B. Sullivan 263

because it considered virtuous those deeds that were likely to bring glory to a man, whereas the Christian religion considers these pagan virtues sinful:

Our religion has glorified humble and contemplative men, more than active ones. It has placed its greatest good in humility, abnega- tion, and in contempt for human things, while the [pagan religion] places it in greatness of spirit, in strength of body, and in all other things fit to make men very strong. And if our religion asks that in you there be strength, it wishes that you be fit to suffer more than to do a strong thing. (II 2)

Thus, Christianity "has rendered the world weak" because it teaches that the state for which one must fight is "paradise" in the next life and that this battle requires virtues very different from those that enable one to glorify the homeland (II 2).8 In this manner, his explicit censure of Christianity in this chapter accords with his treatment of Christianity's "ambizioso ozio" in his preface to the first book. At this point, a return to paganism's exaltation of the homeland appears to be the obvious remedy.9

Nevertheless, he indicates that such a recourse need not be necessary, for he goes on to state that the modern religion need not be an insur- mountable barrier to political virtue. "Although it appears that the world is effeminate and Heaven disarmed, this no doubt comes from the cowardice of the people who have interpreted our religion according to idleness [ozio] and not according to virtu" (II 2). Clearly, the virtue to which Machiavelli appeals here is not Christian virtue, but rather a Machiavellian virtue that wins temporal rewards.10 He continues that this

8. In the Florentine Histories Machiavelli relates that the enemies of Cosimo de' Medici charged him with loving this world more than the next (VII 6). See also Machiavelli's letter to Francesco Vettori, 16 April 1527, in which he claims to love his patria more than his soul.

9. J. W. Allen comments: "What is needed is a religion after the fashion of old Rome: a religion that teaches that he who best serves the State best serves the gods" (A History of Political Thought in the Sixteenth Century [London: Methuen & Co., 1928], p. 459). Similarly, J. G. A. Pocock argues that Machiavelli criticizes Christianity because "it gives men other than civic values." See The Machiavellian Moment: Florentine Political Thought and the Atlantic Republican Tradition (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975), pp. 192 and 213-14.

10. On Machiavelli's definition of virti as the ability to do anything required for "polit- ical success," see Clifford Orwin, "Machiavelli's Unchristian Charity," American Political Science Review, 72 (December 1978): 1219.

264 Neither Christian Nor Pagan

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.

Vickie B. Sullivan 265

guidance.'4 In interpreting this religion in terms of virtHi,15 he excises from its teachings any reference to another world, thus alleviating its tendency to engender ambizioso ozio. Moreover, he strips from this religion's doctrines any reference to a power higher than human. The new revelation will be entirely this-worldly and entirely human. Indeed, he intimates this result when he uses the term "our religion" when speak- ing of Christianity, because it would indeed be entirely ours. Human beings would be the legislators of an entirely human religion.

Thus, recollection of Hulliung's claim that Machiavelli's passionate admiration of pagan Rome serves as a repudiation of the "Christian world-view" seems a necessary corrective for de Grazia's popularized portrayal of Machiavelli as one for whom "Christianity is the true faith."16 Notwithstanding this corrective function, additional evidence from the Discourses will suggest Machiavelli's ultimate dissatisfaction with pagan Rome because it helped to originate the other-worldly form of Christianity that Machiavelli endeavors to supplant. A new form, replete with virtue, will overcome the defects of both Christianity and paganism.

II. Machiavelli's Criticism of Rome

Machiavelli begins his section on religion with extensive praise of Numa, who, Machiavelli claims, introduced religion to Rome. Whereas Romulus, Numa's immediate predecessor, founded Rome and created the Senate as well as other institutions, Numa's "arts of peace" reduced his ferocious people to civil obedience and made them tractable for all succeeding rulers. According to Machiavelli, the Romans "feared more to break an oath than the laws, as they esteemed more the power of God than that of humans" (I 11).17 In this manner, the Roman religion acted

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

266 Neither Christian Nor Pagan

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. 19 When 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

manipulation of religious beliefs closer to the domain of the reader of the Christian era. This presumption conforms with his assurance, discussed above, that what previously has been brought to pass can be accomplished again. See Claude Lefort, Le travail de l'oeuvre machiavel (Paris: Gallimard, 1972), p. 491; Harvey C. Mansfield, Jr., Machiavelli's New Modes and Orders: A Study of the "Discourses on Livy" (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1979), p. 70.

18. In so presenting the Roman religion, Machiavelli differs from Livy's presentation. Whereas Livy maintains that during the early part of the republic the patricians were pious, Machiavelli intimates that the patricians were always so impious that they used the divine to obtain their own results. Compare, for example, Machiavelli's citation of Livy's praise for the piety that reigned during the ancient republic and censure of the piety of his own time in I 13 with Machiavelli's title of I 14: "The Romans interpreted the auspices according to necessity, and prudently displayed observance of religion, when forced not to observe it, and punished any one who rashly disdained it" (cf. Livy, History III 20).

19. Livy, History III 9.5-6.

Vickie B. Sullivan 267

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, Thoughts on Machiavelli (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,

1958), p. 228.

268 Neither Christian Nor Pagan

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.23 Moreover, 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.

Vickie B. Sullivan 269

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, Machiavelli does indicate that religion is not simply necessary to a state when

he says that fear of the prince can replace religion in a state. He continues in this chapter to indicate that this alternative is not effective because when the prince dies the state loses his virtue. This inconvenience could be overcome by a republic that is replete with princes. I argue in the last section of this paper that he envisions precisely that type of republic. Machiavelli often refers to the leading men of the Roman republic as princes. See for exam- ple I 12: "da Cammillo a dagli altri principi della cittd." Cf. Allen, Political Thought, p. 458.

26. Pocock and Quentin Skinner find in Machiavelli's praise of Numa and of the ancient Roman religion support for their claim that Machiavelli endorses a republicanism that demands selfish interests be sacrificed for the sake of the "common good" or "com- munity." Pocock glosses over and Skinner ignores Machiavelli's reappraisal of Numa in these later chapters of the first book. See Pocock, Machiavellian Moment, pp. 192-93, and Quentin Skinner, Machiavelli, Past Masters Series, ed. Keith Thomas (New York: Hill and Wang, 1981), pp. 61-62 and 64.

270 Neither Christian Nor Pagan

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.

Vickie B. Sullivan 271

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 appears that, in his view, the people of a republic, rather than being free, can be in servitude to the nobles, since he states that "those princes who become tyrants in their homeland" can satisfy the first demand entirely and the second in part (I 16). Thus Machiavelli portrays the tyrant as the potential liberator of a people in servitude. Perhaps for this reason Machiavelli appears at times to support princes as vigorously as he supports republics. Even in the Discourses, a work ostensibly devoted to republics, Machiavelli delineates the proper technique for a single man to maintain a state in which he has arisen to preeminence (I 26), as I will explain in the next section. See also his discussion in II 2 of the incidents in Corcyra during the Peloponnesian War.

31. In the Florentine Histories he says that the attempt to ingratiate "oneself with the plebs" "with public gifts" produces "sects" [sette] (VII 1). In the Discourses he makes it evident that he considers Christianity to be a sect: he refers to Christianity as "la setta Cristiana" (II 5).

272 Neither Christian Nor Pagan

In a number of places in the Discourses, Machiavelli seems to broach tacitly the presage of Christianity through his evocative discussions of earlier events in Rome. Machiavelli, for example, discusses how the class strife became so intense that the plebeians desired to leave Rome and, after the sack of Veii, to move to this city, unable as they were to resist the allure of the captured city's fine buildings and fertile land (I 53).32 Although the patricians were able to stem the plebeians' desire to occupy Veii, ultimately they were not able to stem the desire of the people to occupy another city-that of God. This city held out even greater riches than that of Veii, for it promised greater riches and eternal life in another world.33

Machiavelli also appears to wish to draw the reader's attention to Christianity's advent in I 13 when he recognizes in Livy's history another occurrence that could stand as a metaphor for the later events that were to mark a cataclysmic change in the way people were henceforth to view their world (cf. I pr). In contrast to the controversy over the habitation of Veii, here Machiavelli introduces a third party into the persistent class conflict of Rome, the slaves and exiles who occupied the Capitol, the home of the Roman gods. The patricians feared that, despite this crisis and the threat of attack from the Aequi and Volsci that it might precipi- tate, the plebeians would continue to force their demands by refusing military service. Machiavelli's retelling of this incident evokes the presage of Christianity, for like those who hold the Capitol, the triumphant Christians are themselves exiles-exiles from the earth itself-because they repudiate the earthly rewards in pursuing those of the city of God. In Machiavelli's words, in seeking "paradise, [they] think more of sus- taining their wounds than avenging them" (II 2). Although unsuccessful in the incident Machiavelli relates, the slaves and exiles eventually suc- ceeded in capturing the allegiance of the Roman people to a religion that exalts the weak and the poor.

This result accentuates the great difference between the political effect of Christianity and that of paganism. Whereas paganism was conducive to military greatness, Christianity has "rendered the world weak" (II 2). Indeed, Machiavelli emphasizes precisely this contrast in relating his tales of paganism. Nevertheless, Christianity took root and flourished in Roman soil. The process by which Rome gave rise to Christianity seems almost inexorable because Rome encouraged its people to look to the

32. Machiavelli discusses the siege and capture of Veii in his section on religion, chapters I 12 and 13.

33. Again, Augustine's claim that the appeal of the Eternal City is much more alluring than that of any earthly city appears to be relevant to this discussion (City of God V 16).

Vickie B. Sullivan 273

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's advice appears similar to the injunction of the Unjust Speech in Aristophanes' Clouds: do as the gods do, not as they say.

35. Citizen Machiavelli, p. 247.

274 Neither Christian Nor Pagan

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.37 In 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.40 The harsh and,

36. As Berlin points out, Machiavelli's discussions of Savonarola illustrate "that an unarmed prophet will always go to the gallows" ("The Originality of Machiavelli," p. 64). See, for example, Prince VI and Discourses I 11. Although Christ, like Savonarola, was unarmed and hence was executed, ultimately Christianity prevailed.

37. Hulliung also discerns Machiavelli's evocative use of Christian terms, and maintains that Machiavelli uses them in "an attempt to displace and supplant the Christian world- view with an alternative world-view, one reminiscent of ancient paganism" (Citizen Machiavelli, p. 205). Although I certainly do not differ with Hulliung on the issue of Machiavelli's subversive intent with regard to Christianity, I do maintain, in contrast to Hulliung's view, that Machiavelli retains transformed elements of Christianity in his poli- tics in a manner that suggests that he admires Christianity. In this regard, Hulliung does not discern how Machiavelli acknowledges Christianity's power, and how Machiavelli endeavors to replicate its power in a wholly temporal capacity.

38. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica I 103.6-8. 39. The quotation is rendered in Latin in Machiavelli's text. 40. Lk 1:53, RSV. Mary speaks and ascribes these deeds to the Lord. Thoughts on

Machiavelli, p. 49; Mansfield, Machiavelli's New Modes and Orders, p. 99. Lefort likens these actions to Christ's: Travail, p. 504.

Vickie B. Sullivan 275

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,42 as 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 previous section suggests, Machiavelli likens the Christian god to a tyrant. Its rise to power was much like that of any other demagogue. Although appealing to the peo- ple, the practical effect of Christianity has been to elevate certain "gentlemen." See, for example, Machiavelli's evocative discussion in 155 of gentiluomini who live idly [oziosi] on rich estates, have castles and subjects, but do nothing useful in life. Machiavelli lists, among other provinces where they can be found, the Papal States. Thus, as I suggested above in note 30, Machiavelli believes that people can be in servitude not only to a tyrant, but also to nobles. In order to combat these practical effects of Christianity, Machiavelli appeals to certain tyrannical methods of the Christian god.

42. Machiavelli continues in this chapter that so cruel are such methods that a person should prefer rather to live as a private person than to implement them. Gilbert, who main- tains that Machiavelli recognizes that politics demands a morality that diverges from Chris- tian morality, cites this passage as evidence that "men could arrange their lives in such a manner that they could follow Christian morality" (Machiavelli and Guicciardini, p. 196). See III 2 where Machiavelli says that a private life is not a viable option for a person of notable qualities.

43. Mansfield too associates this practice with the Christian doctrine of original sin (Taming the Prince: The Ambivalence of Modern Executive Power [New York: The Free Press, 1989], p. 133). See Augustine, City of God XXI 13 and XIV I and 15 for an exposi- tion of how God's grace saves those tainted by sin from punishment.

276 Neither Christian Nor Pagan

damned, all Christians must fear the possibility of damnation and all are chastened. Machiavelli appears to learn from the methods of the Chris- tians. However, the "sins" (peccati) of which he speaks in this chapter are punished not in the hereafter by God, but on earth by a military or political leader.

Moreover, in Machiavelli's section on ingratitude in the Discourses, I 28-32, he suggests that the example of the Christian god provides a solution to a problem likely to confront any prince or republic.44 Having dispatched a captain, what is the "lord" (signore) to do when the captain performs his task too well? (I 29). By winning territory for his homeland, he also wins for himself glory and the allegiance of a battle-tested army. The ruler or rulers seemingly owe their gratitude to this hero, but he is at once as much a threat as a benefactor to the state. In the case of a prince, Machiavelli appears to advocate the harshest measures possible. The prince in looking to his own security should put this conquering captain to death or should deprive him of his reputation. Machiavelli adds that, if such measures are necessary to 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 further advises that a prince should go to the site of the battle, thus depriving the captain of the power that would accrue from his victory and assuring that the "glory" gained belongs solely to the prince. This method of guaranteeing that such an acquisition be recognized as coming from the prince, rather than from one who serves him, is similar to the advice Machiavelli extends to the new prince in chapter I 26 to see to it that no one in the state should hold anything except that which the subject "recognizes as coming from you" (I 26). The ruler of a particular state must make himself the ultimate cause of the good which his captain brings to the state. Whereas Machia- velli places the prince in the position of God, he places the captain in the position of any Christian whom God sees fit to test; in order to avoid punishment, the captain or the Christian must humbly renounce any attachment to the things he has gained (I 30). Machiavelli seems to have found a wholly secular application for the Biblical pronouncement that a man will not profit if he gains the whole world and forfeits eternal life.45 Of course, in Machiavelli's formulation, the captain fears only for his temporal existence.

Machiavelli also notes here that, unlike a principality, a republic can-

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).

Vickie B. Sullivan 277

not have the prince accompany the expedition and steal credit for the vic- tory. In lieu of this remedy, he recommends the example of the Roman republic. It made use of everyone in war, noble and commoner alike, so that in every age there were so many virtuous men with so many victories to their credit that "the people did not have cause to doubt any of them" (I 30). This lack of doubt arose not from a belief in their innate goodness but rather from a belief in their innate badness. They were all "watching each other," reports Machiavelli.46 In this way, Machiavelli applies the doctrine of original sin to a republic. Because in this republic no one was above suspicion, each was understood to be corrupt-to be a potential tyrant whose ambition needed to be checked-the only way to glory was to renounce one's gains. A dictator, for example, gained more glory the sooner he renounced the office. Further, because the leading men in the republic were "watching each other," a threat of force quickened such renunciations. Therefore, the harsh measures of the prince do seem applicable to a republic even in this case, particularly if those who are inclined to such severity are vigilant.

One sees the Christian belief in the corruption of all-the belief that no one can claim redemption by right-informing also Machiavelli's praise for the Roman method of punishing in I 24. He entitles this chapter "Well-ordered republics dispense rewards and punishments to their citizens without balancing one against the other," and he asserts here that such a republic "never cancelled the demerits of its citizens with their merits." This must be the case because a citizen who has per- formed some excellent work for the city acquires not only the reputation that his deed has brought him, but also the audacity and confidence to 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 principle to avert such an outcome, Rome executed its savior.47 Because Manlius Capitolinus endeavored to instigate a sedition in Rome, he was thrown from the Capitol which he "with so much glory had saved."

In these discussions, Machiavelli overtly praises Rome and modifies these stories merely by infusing Christian terms into his description of Roman practices. Elsewhere, however, he appears to criticize Rome for lacking the necessary punishments-for not utilizing Christian doctrine in an entirely temporal context. The title of I 31, for example, observes that Rome never punished its captains "extraordinarily" for an error [errore] even when it resulted in harm to the republic. In the body of this chapter, he relates how Rome's captains, Sergius and Virginius, were not

46. See Lefort, Travail, pp. 507-08. 47. Mansfield, New Modes and Orders, p. 97.

278 Neither Christian Nor Pagan

punished severely for an error that was "not committed through ignor- ance." Clearly their error was committed through malice: each captain was in charge of a part of the army that was encamped before Veii; when Sergius's troops were set upon by the Falisci, this captain preferred to be "routed" than to ask for the help of his colleague. For his part, Virginius anticipated Sergius's humiliation and chose not to come to his aid, pre- ferring instead "the dishonor of his country and the ruin of that army" (I 31).

Thus, in contrast to I 30, Machiavelli illustrates a negative conse- quence of competitors "watching each other" in a republic. Because he finds the correct application of this principle so vital to a republic and because he has adduced Rome as the model that both practiced it and punished most severely, one would expect that such a misapplication of this principle in acts of "truly wicked" malfeasance would elicit the harshest penalty from the republic he praises. Machiavelli too appears to expect such a result: "It is true that another republic would have exacted capital punishment, this one punished them with a fine" (I 31). He has already noted in this chapter that the Romans did not "crucify or other- wise kill" their captains. As a result, Sergius and Virginius were not punished in a similarly harsh manner, "not because their sins [i peccati loro] did not merit greater punishment, but because the Romans wished in this case ... to maintain their ancient customs." Thus, this strongest and most resolute ancient republic did not give these captains the punish- ment they merited. To describe what they merited, Machiavelli recurs to Christian terminology. He finds in modernity the strength for which he searches.

The importance of punishing for Machiavelli, as well as his dis- approval of the failure of the historical Rome to do it correctly, becomes more evident in his discussions of Papirius at the end of this same chap- ter. Here Machiavelli mentions Papirius's charges against the young Fabius, his master of horse, as an instance of Rome's not punishing its captains severely. In Papirius's absence and against his orders, Fabius fought a battle against the Samnites and won. Papirius demanded Fabius's death, but Papirius's father interceded, arguing that because the Roman people had not exacted such a penalty when their captains lost, they should not exact it in victory.

Clearly Machiavelli takes the part of Papirius in this matter, for he adduces Papirius's "execution against Fabius" as one of the "excessive and notable" executions that brought Rome "back to the mark" (III 1). Any political or religious institution requires periodic recourse to the terror that was present at the beginning in order to combat "human

Vickie B. Sullivan 279

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.

280 Neither Christian Nor Pagan

quished foes (I 12), Machiavelli utilizes elements of the religion he desires to supplant. Thus, in following this Roman example in new historical cir- cumstances, Machiavelli acknowledges the impossibility of an unmiti- gated return to Rome.