Liberty, Prudence, Imperfection, and Law

Discourses on Livy: I.12-15

Machiavelli see the Roman Church as a sort of in-between strength that hurts everyone


Proceeding with his discussion of religion in the life of a republic, Machiavelli argues that it is perhaps the key feature to the long-term maintenance of an uncorrupted society. (We should here remember that what he means by “uncorrupted” may be very different from our definition of the word.) This is because religions carry within themselves the principle of order. The problem is that as time goes on some citizens—especially the rich and powerful—lose their faith in religion and start to twist its precepts to their own ends. And once the voice of religion becomes the voice of the powerful, the commoners start to disdain it as well. When finally no one in society respects religion, the principle of order it carries is lost and society’s collapse is hastened.

That said, Machiavelli argues that it makes no difference whether we actually believe in the religion of the society or not; we have a civic responsibility to keep it as pure and close to its original forms as possible so that the civic good is maintained. Nor do the doctrines of the religion seem to matter all that much to Machiavelli. Ancient Rome’s paganism was just as good as (perhaps even better than) his contemporary Christianity. So long as it carries the principle of order, the doctrines and standards are irrelevant. And so long as the citizen body respects the established order of its religion, how genuine their faith is likewise is irrelevant.

The Swiss, Machiavelli argues, understand this and “are today the only peoples who live according to the ancients as regards both religion and military orders” (I.12.2). Likewise the Romans not only understood the importance of religion, but were quite willing to use it to shape public policy as needed. This is perhaps never more clear than when they ignored the precepts of their religion in order to accomplish their civic ends (I.15). Even the example of the Samnites, who made an unsuccessful last-ditch appeal to religion for the military salvation of their state, is for Machiavelli only further confirmation of how central and critical religion is to the well-run state. Where I would be tempted to see a counterexample to Machiavelli’s use of religion—the Samnites lost after all—Machiavelli sees a society that, because of its religion, maintained good order until the end.

Machiavelli’s Italy, on the other hand, demonstrates what happens when religion goes wrong. To be sure the Latin Church has dominated Italy for a long time—in that sense religion in Italy is somewhat stable. However, this stability has done more harm than good because it is neither strong nor weak, but a sort of in-between strength that hurts everyone. By this Machiavelli means that the Roman Church is strong enough that no one has been able to unify Italy (as compared with France or Spain), while simultaneously being too weak to unify Italy itself. As a result Italy remains divided with no one possessing enough power to impose order on the region, and so all the states therein are slowly slipping into decay. No one benefits from the order that a better religion would have the potential to provide.

I’m not sure this is the best place to raise this question (it will almost certainly come up again later), but as this was a shorter/simpler reading this might be a good time to raise the issue of the proper role of religion in society. I think that in this case Machiavelli is both right and wrong. On the one hand, I happen to think that religion is an essential part of civic life. It is one of the institutions/customs/traditions/etc. that helps a society maintain order in this generation and pass that order on to the next generation. On the other hand, this sort of usefulness will never fully apply to my own religion: Christianity. That is because Christianity is always to some extent going to be a cancer within civic life (at the very least from the perspective of the civic body, if not also in reality). Christians are always going to give their final and ultimate allegiance to a Sovereign who is above the temporary and fleeting state. Which means that so long as there are Christians in the state, there will be a class of people who say “I don’t care what society demands, I must obey Christ instead.” This is exactly what the early Christians were persecuted for—and if you haven’t read them, Wilcken’s The Christians as the Romans Saw Them and Chadwick’s Early Christian Thought and the Classical Tradition are both simply superb. While this resistance does not automatically mean that Christians will be bad citizens, it does mean that the kind of unity and order that Machiavelli (and, if we’re being honest, every political philosopher) desires will have cracks in it as long as there is a faithful church somewhere within the state. Christian citizens can never have the kind of full unity with other citizens that the state demands—whether the organic unity of Aristotle or the glorious unity of Machiavelli or the mechanical unity of Hobbes.

At the risk of getting the discussion too far beyond Machiavelli, I think this also shows why so many attempts to establish “Christian states” have failed so miserably, either as states or as “Christian.” Whether we look at Rome and Byzantium under the later emperors, the Holy Roman Empire, the Puritan republics (whether colonial American, English, or continental), and so on, we always see states that simply cannot survive the tension between competing goals built into their structures from the start.

So the short version is, I think Machiavelli is right that Christianity is somewhat bad for social unity/order/glory/etc., but for very, very different reasons than the ones he gives.

Please feel free to speak up if you disagree!

Coyle Neal is Assistant Professor of Political Science at Southwest Baptist University in Bolivar, Missouri.

10 Responses to “Discourses on Livy: I.12-15”

  1. gabe

    So what would (did) NM think of Mohammedanism?
    Here we have a “religion” that imposes / compels order, seeks glory and conquest and whose armies were the prime reason for the decline of the West from the 7th century onward. (See “Mohammed and Charlemagne Revisited: The History of a Controversy” by Emmet Scott). It appears, at least facially, to meet NM’s requirements for sound order and strength, and not only is it a part of *civic life,* IT IS CIVIC LIFE. Having a stated goal of creating the umma (world wide dominion of the religio-political ideology) it certainly can also be said to have an internal dialectic for *glory.*

    Yet, it was defeated (although not in their own minds) by Christianity and allied Princes. Putting that military defeat aside, should one not question whether a *religion* so dedicated to the singular pursuit of civic order and glory can actually compete with its *weak sister* (Christianity) in terms of advancing civilization and its arts and sciences. Clearly, it can and has not. (See “The Genesis of Science: How the Christian Middle Ages Launched the Scientific Revolution” by James Hannam).

    And yet, there is certainly an element of truth in NM’s assertion (as in Nietschze) of the *weakness* of Christianity. All one need do is to glance at current headlines where it is apparent that the marauders of Mohammed are again advancing, (No, I am not blaming everyone but it would be imprudent to not recognize this rather singular strain / expression of some of its more exercisable devotees). The West, to the extent that it is still influenced by Christian precepts does appear to be weak and plaqued with doubt.

    Let us hope that NM is indeed wrong and that the weak sister may once again find resolve and clearheadedness to defend that which it has built.

    • Coyle Neal

      Excellent questions/points–from what I remember, Machiavelli doesn’t really deal much with Islam or Muhammad in either The Prince or The Discourses . The few Muslim leaders who are mentioned are treated basically like any other head of state, with no distinction made between, say, the Sultan and a Feudal King. That said, someone definitely needs to write a book about this. Machiavelli in Mecca or Muhammad meets the Prince or some such.

      As for your other point, I’ll go one step farther and say that from the perspective of a nation, state, or civic body, Christianity is weak. Our two primary strengths are 1) the declaration of the Gospel; and 2) our willingness to suffer and die for it. States, on the other hand, value military might and economic power. By contrast Christians will always appear to be weak and worthy of disdain, especially when at the end of the day we say with Augustine that it doesn’t matter which nation we live in–we can be faithful believers anywhere.

      So in any kind of ultimate sense, Islam may very well conquer the whole world, in the end they’re still going to lose. Presumably, my Christian friends living in Muslim countries can turn that around and say that the West may very well conquer the whole world, but in the end the West is still going to lose.

      And I see now that I might be going too far down a rabbit trail, it’s just one of my hobby-horses. Apologies for riding it so long!

  2. Frank

    What an incredibly cynical and instrumental view of religion NM has! And yet, I suspect history would verify that he’s not the only one to think this way, and that many leaders have used religion in just as NM suggests.

    I agree with your assessment of Christianity and the State, Professor Neal.

  3. Mahesh Sreekandath

    Machiavelli’s interpretation of religion as a critical tool for establishing a lasting order exhibits his comprehension of the importance of having shared rules of conduct within a society. A functioning order needs to coordinate actions of various individuals via shared cultural/legal/religious rules.

    Nature of rules define the scope of individual actions, which in turn formulate the overall qualitative attributes of an emergent social order. Diverging expectations with regards to conduct will foster conflicting actions while shared rules lead to harmony of mutually beneficial transactions.

    Machiavelli understood the importance of having shared rules of just conduct for establishing a stable order, but that may not necessarily result in prosperity. Wealth generation within a society directly correlates with the rules which govern the actions of individuals, more productive actions simply results in greater material wealth.

    To quote F.A.Hayek — “The order of actions is a factual state of affairs distinct from the rules which contribute to its formation”. In other words, the western civilization surpassed everything the Arabs, Indians or the Chinese had accomplished not by following any particular recipe but simply because of the actions fostered by a tolerant liberal order, reformation of Christianity had much to do with this genius of the west.

    • Coyle Neal

      Excellent comment, and in the next few chapters Machiavelli addresses this exact issue. (He takes a slightly different approach from the Hayek you’ve cited, but not necessarily an incompatible one.) Short version: Machiavelli connects rules and order, but in a circular rather than a linear relationship.

      • Mahesh Sreekandath

        When you said a circular relationship, if you meant that the rules and order reinforce and evolve together with various feed-back loops then it’s perfectly compatible with Hayek’s concept of emergent order.

        My respect for the scholar in Machiavelli grows with every exposure to his works. Thanks!

Please Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Basic HTML is allowed. Your email address will not be published.

Subscribe to this comment feed via RSS

%d bloggers like this: