Northeastern Political Science Association

Neither Christian nor Pagan: Machiavelli's Treatment of Religion in the "Discourses" Author(s): Vickie B. Sullivan Source: Polity, Vol. 26, No. 2 (Winter, 1993), pp. 259-280 Published by: Palgrave Macmillan Journals Stable 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 unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may 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 printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

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

http://www.jstor.org

Neither ChristianNor Pagan: Machiavelli'sTreatmentof Religion in the Discourses* Vickie B. Sullivan

Skidmore College

Is Machiavelli to be understood as entirely sympathetic to either Christianity 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 Christian 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,MichaelZuckert,John Scott, and GraceBurton. 1. Sebastiande Grazia,Machiavelliin Hell (Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress, 1989). The work won the PulitzerPrize for Biography.See also SusanBehuniak-Long, in de reviewof Machiavelli Hell, by Sebastian Grazia,in TheReviewof Politics, 52 (Spring 1990):317-20. The earlierbiographyby Ridolfi paints a similarpictureof Machiavelli's trans.CecilGrayson Christian piety. SeeRobertoRidolfi, TheLife ofNiccolo Machiavelli, of (Chicago:University ChicagoPress, 1963). PrincetonUniversity 2. MarkHulliung,CitizenMachiavelli Press, 1983), (Princeton: pp. 8 and 245. 2 XXVL VolumeXXVI, Number 2 Winter 1993 Winter1993

Polity Polity

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 overcoming the politically deleterious consequences of both pagan and Christian 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 cannot 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 discerning 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. Hulliungcalls the DiscoursesMachiavelli's most "stridently paganwork" (Citizen Machiavelli, 246). p. 4. Hulliungrecognizesthe problemthat Christianity's ultimatevictoryposes, but he "did not explainhow the slavishChristians that Machiavelli concludes overthe triumphed masterfulpagans"(CitizenMachiavelli,p. 248). I treat Machiavelli's criticismof pagan Rome for Christianity's conquestin the secondsectionof 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 condemnation 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 histories, 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 associates 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. CitizenMachiavelli, 66 and 68. See also IsaiahBerlinon this point: "What[the pp. and church]has doneis to lead, on the one hand,to corruption politicaldivision-the fault of the papacy-and on the other,to other-worldliness meekendurance sufferingon and of earthfor the sake of the eternallife beyondthe grave"("The Originality Machiavelli," of in Againstthe Current[NewYork:VikingPress, 1980],p. 48). Berlin'spiecehad already drawnthe sharpdistinctionbetweenChristianity paganismin Machiavelli's and thought, and illustrated Machiavelli's for preference the latter. See particularly, 58, 62-64, 66, pp. 68-69, 71. Berlin'sexpositionservesas a powerfulantidoteto BenedettoCroce'sdepiction of Machiavelli agonizingoverthe necessityof separating as politicsfrom moralityoffered in Politics and Morals, trans. SalvatoreCastiglione(New York: PhilosophicalLibrary, criticizes Berlin's 1945).See Berlin,pp. 52-55.Hulliung analysisfor not goingfarenoughfor not revealingthe entiretyof Machiavelli's shockingrejectionof Christianand Stoic ethics(CitizenMachiavelli, 238). For Hulliung'sdiscussionof Berlin'sanalysis,see pp. p. 249-54. 6. The translation my own from Niccol6 Machiavelli, is Discorsisopra la PrimaDeca di TitoLivio in Tuttele Opere to references this Sansoni,1971),I pr. Subsequent (Florence: work will appearin the text by book and chapternumber.

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 different from those that garner eternal rewards in heaven. An understanding 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 understanding 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 determination 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. WilliamM. Green, Loeb ClassicalLibraryEdition, Vol. II MA: HarvardUniversityPress, 1963),V 16, p. 219. (Cambridge,

VickieB. Sullivan 263 becauseit consideredvirtuousthose deedsthat werelikelyto bringglory to a man, whereasthe Christianreligion considersthese pagan virtues sinful: Our religion has glorified humble and contemplativemen, more than activeones. It has placedits greatestgood in humility,abnegation, and in contemptfor humanthings, whilethe [paganreligion] placesit in greatnessof spirit,in strengthof body, and in all other thingsfit to makemen very strong. And if our religionasks that in you therebe strength,it wishesthat you be fit to suffer more than to do a strongthing. (II 2) Thus, Christianity"has renderedthe world weak" because it teaches that the state for whichone must fight is "paradise"in the next life and that this battlerequiresvirtuesvery differentfrom those that enableone to glorify the homeland (II 2).8 In this manner, his explicit censureof in Christianity this chapteraccordswith his treatmentof Christianity's "ambiziosoozio" in his prefaceto the first book. At this point, a return to paganism's exaltation of the homeland appears to be the obvious remedy.9 Nevertheless,he indicatesthat such a recourseneed not be necessary, for he goes on to state that the modernreligion need not be an insurmountable barrierto political virtue. "Although it appears that the worldis effeminateand Heavendisarmed,this no doubt comes from the cowardiceof the people who have interpreted religionaccordingto our idleness [ozio] and not accordingto virtu" (II 2). Clearly,the virtueto which Machiavelliappeals here is not Christianvirtue, but rather a Machiavellian virtuethat winstemporalrewards.10 continuesthat this He

8. In theFlorentine HistoriesMachiavelli relatesthatthe enemiesof Cosimode' Medici letter chargedhimwithlovingthis worldmorethanthe next (VII6). See also Machiavelli's to FrancescoVettori, 16 April 1527, in whichhe claimsto love his patria more than his soul. 9. J. W. Allen comments:"Whatis neededis a religionafterthe fashionof old Rome: a religionthat teachesthat he who best servesthe Statebest servesthe gods" (A Historyof Political Thoughtin the SixteenthCentury[London:Methuen& Co., 1928], p. 459). criticizes because"it gives Similarly,J. G. A. Pocock arguesthat Machiavelli Christianity men other than civic values." See The MachiavellianMoment: Florentine Political Thoughtand the Atlantic RepublicanTradition (Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress, 1975),pp. 192 and 213-14. 10. On Machiavelli's definitionof virti as the abilityto do anything for required "political success,"see CliffordOrwin,"Machiavelli's Unchristian American Political Charity," Science Review,72 (December1978):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 understands 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 "interpretation" 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 disallow the New Testament as the medium in which Christ's teachings are conveyed, this new interpretation would appear to partake of the character 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 maintains 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). Nevertheless, 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 humility, 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.

VickieB. Sullivan 265 he guidance.'4In interpretingthis religion in terms of virtHi,15 excises from its teachingsany referenceto another world, thus alleviatingits tendency to engender ambizioso ozio. Moreover, he strips from this religion's doctrinesany referenceto a power higher than human. The new revelationwill be entirelythis-worldlyand entirelyhuman. Indeed, he intimatesthis resultwhenhe uses the term"our religion"whenspeaking of Christianity,because it would indeed be entirelyours. Human beings would be the legislatorsof an entirelyhuman religion. Thus, recollectionof Hulliung's claim that Machiavelli'spassionate admirationof pagan Rome serves as a repudiationof the "Christian world-view" seems a necessarycorrectivefor de Grazia'spopularized portrayal of Machiavelli as one for whom "Christianityis the true faith."16Notwithstanding this correctivefunction, additionalevidence from the Discourses will suggest Machiavelli'sultimate dissatisfaction with pagan Rome becauseit helpedto originatethe other-worldly form of Christianitythat Machiavelliendeavorsto supplant. A new form, replete with virtue, will overcomethe defects of both Christianityand
paganism.

II. Machiavelli'sCriticismof Rome Machiavelli beginshis sectionon religionwith extensivepraiseof Numa, who, Machiavelli claims, introduced religion to Rome. Whereas Romulus, Numa's immediatepredecessor,founded Rome and created the Senateas well as otherinstitutions,Numa's "arts of peace" reduced his ferociouspeople to civil obedienceand made them tractablefor all succeedingrulers.Accordingto Machiavelli,the Romans "fearedmore to breakan oath than the laws, as they esteemedmorethe powerof God than that of humans"(I 11).17 In this manner,the Romanreligionacted
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 monotheistic, 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 convince 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 pertaining to the power of the consuls, thus placing limits on the administration of the office. 19When 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
of era. manipulation religiousbeliefs closerto the domainof the readerof the Christian This presumption conformswith his assurance, discussedabove, that whatpreviously has been broughtto pass can be accomplished again. See ClaudeLefort,Le travailde l'oeuvre machiavel(Paris:Gallimard,1972),p. 491; HarveyC. Mansfield,Jr., Machiavelli's New A Modesand Orders: Studyof the "Discourses Livy" (Ithaca,NY: CornellUniversity on Press, 1979),p. 70. 18. In so presenting Romanreligion,Machiavelli the differs from Livy'spresentation. that Whereas the werepious, Livymaintains duringthe earlypartof the republic patricians thatthe patricians intimates Machiavelli werealwaysso impiousthattheyusedthe divineto obtaintheirown results.Compare,for example,Machiavelli's citationof Livy'spraisefor the pietythatreignedduringthe ancientrepublic censure the pietyof his owntimein and of title of I 14: "The Romansinterpreted auspicesaccordingto I 13 with Machiavelli's the of necessity,and prudently displayedobservance religion,when forcednot to observeit, and punishedany one who rashlydisdainedit" (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 political reasons. Machiavelli says that despite this exposure, the plebs, frightened by the warning of the books, did not wish to pursue the promulgation 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, Machiavelli 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 religionhow the patricians eventually overcame the inconvenience of this proposal; 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 republic. 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 saying 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,Thoughtson Machiavelli of (Chicago:University ChicagoPress, 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 necessary in the mundane contrivances of the patricians, Machiavelli comments in I 11 that it is certainly necessary on extraordinary occasions: "And truly never was there any orderer of extraordinary laws for a people, 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.23Moreover, 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 corresponding lack of authority. In drawing this distinction, Machiavelli contradicts 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 Machiavelli'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 comparing 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 indicatethat religionis not simplynecessary a statewhen to he saysthat fearof the princecanreplacereligionin a state. He continues this chapter in to indicatethat this alternative not effectivebecausewhenthe princedies the stateloses his is virtue. This inconvenience could be overcomeby a republicthat is repletewith princes.I argue in the last section of this paperthat he envisionspreciselythat type of republic. Machiavelli often refersto the leadingmenof the Romanrepublic princes.See for examas ple I 12: "da Cammilloa dagli altriprincipidella cittd." Cf. Allen, Political Thought, p. 458. 26. Pocock and Quentin Skinner find in Machiavelli'spraise of Numa and of the ancientRomanreligionsupportfor theirclaimthat Machiavelli endorsesa republicanism that demandsselfishinterestsbe sacrificedfor the sake of the "commongood" or "comof munity." Pocock glosses over and SkinnerignoresMachiavelli's reappraisal Numa in of theselaterchapters the firstbook. See Pocock,Machiavellian Moment,pp. 192-93,and Past MastersSeries,ed. KeithThomas(NewYork:Hill and Machiavelli, QuentinSkinner, 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 perpetrated under the republic indicates. In this manner, it could be said that Rome continued to rely on foreign arms and hence on fortune.27 Ultimately, 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 spectacle of collective avarice that signifies that the state is in equilibrium;28 however, this desire for acquisition can also lead to tyranny, if not properly 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 particularly 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 passions 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 suggest 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 concern 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 "extraordinary 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. Christianity rose to preeminence through the promise of such private benefits.31
30. It appears ratherthanbeingfree, can be in that, in his view, the peopleof a republic, servitudeto the nobles, since he states that "those princeswho become tyrantsin their homeland" can satisfy the first demand entirelyand the second in part (I 16). Thus Machiavelli of portraysthe tyrantas the potentialliberator a peoplein servitude. Perhaps for this reasonMachiavelli at as appears timesto supportprincesas vigorously he supports republics.Even in the Discourses, a work ostensiblydevoted to republics,Machiavelli the delineates propertechniquefor a singleman to maintaina statein whichhe has arisen to preeminence 26), as I will explainin the next section.See also his discussion II 2 of in (I the incidentsin Corcyraduringthe Peloponnesian War. 31. In the FlorentineHistorieshe says that the attemptto ingratiate"oneselfwith the plebs" "with publicgifts" produces"sects" [sette](VII 1). In the Discourseshe makesit evidentthat he considersChristianity be a sect: he refersto Christianity "la setta to as Cristiana"(II 5).

Nor Pagan 272 NeitherChristian In a numberof places in the Discourses,Machiavelliseemsto broach tacitly the presageof Christianity through his evocative discussionsof earliereventsin Rome. Machiavelli,for example,discusseshow the class strife became so intense that the plebeiansdesiredto leave Rome and, after the sack of Veii, to move to this city, unableas they wereto resist
the allure of the captured city's fine buildings and fertile land (I 53).32

wereable to stemthe plebeians'desireto occupy Althoughthe patricians Veii, ultimatelythey were not able to stem the desire of the people to occupy anothercity-that of God. This city held out even greaterriches thanthat of Veii, for it promisedgreaterrichesand eternallife in another
world.33

Machiavellialso appears to wish to draw the reader's attention to adventin I 13 whenhe recognizesin Livy'shistoryanother Christianity's occurrence that could stand as a metaphorfor the later eventsthat were to marka cataclysmicchangein the way people werehenceforthto view their world (cf. I pr). In contrastto the controversyover the habitation class of Veii, hereMachiavelli introducesa thirdpartyinto the persistent conflict of Rome, the slaves and exiles who occupiedthe Capitol, the home of the Roman gods. The patriciansfearedthat, despitethis crisis and the threatof attackfrom the Aequi and Volsci that it mightprecipitate, the plebeianswould continue to force their demandsby refusing retellingof this incidentevokesthe presage militaryservice.Machiavelli's of Christianity,for like those who hold the Capitol, the triumphant Christiansare themselvesexiles-exiles from the earth itself-because they repudiatethe earthlyrewardsin pursuingthose of the city of God. In Machiavelli'swords, in seeking "paradise,[they]think more of sustainingtheirwoundsthan avengingthem" (II 2). Althoughunsuccessful in the incidentMachiavellirelates, the slaves and exiles eventuallysucthe ceededin capturing allegianceof the Romanpeopleto a religionthat exalts the weak and the poor. the This resultaccentuates greatdifferencebetweenthe politicaleffect and of Christianity that of paganism.Whereaspaganismwas conducive the has to militarygreatness,Christianity "rendered worldweak" (II 2). this contrastin relatinghis tales Machiavelli Indeed, precisely emphasizes of paganism. Nevertheless, Christianitytook root and flourished in seems Romansoil. The processby which Rome gave rise to Christianity almost inexorablebecause Rome encouragedits people to look to the
the of discusses siegeandcapture Veiiin his sectionon religion,chapters 32. Machiavelli I 12 and 13. 33. Again, Augustine'sclaimthat the appealof the EternalCity is muchmorealluring than that of any earthlycity appearsto be relevantto 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 "discovered" 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 country. 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 otherworldliness is a reliance on fortune, just as was Numa's recourse to the divine. Although Machiavelli eschews the otherworldliness of Christianity, 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'sadvice appears similar to the injunctionof the Unjust Speech in Aristophanes'Clouds:do as the gods do, not as they say. 35. CitizenMachiavelli, 247. p.

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 people's otherworldliness by compelling humans to focus on their temporal existences.37In forcing such myopia, Machiavelli seeks to empower political leaders with the means to effectual politics. He asserts, for example, that for a new prince to establish and maintain 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.40The harsh and,

discussionsof Savonarolaillustrate"that an 36. As Berlinpoints out, Machiavelli's of unarmed p. prophetwill alwaysgo to the gallows"("The Originality Machiavelli," 64). See, for example,Prince VI and DiscoursesI 11. AlthoughChrist,like Savonarola,was unarmedand hence was executed,ultimatelyChristianity prevailed. evocativeuse of Christian Machiavelli's 37. Hulliungalso discerns terms,andmaintains worlduses them in "an attemptto displaceand supplantthe Christian that Machiavelli view with an alternativeworld-view,one reminiscentof ancient paganism" (Citizen Machiavelli,p. 205). Although I certainlydo not differ with Hulliungon the issue of I intent with regardto Christianity, do maintain,in contrastto subversive Machiavelli's in elementsof Christianity his poliretainstransformed Hulliung'sview, that Machiavelli In tics in a manner thatsuggeststhathe admires Christianity. this regard,Hulliungdoesnot discern how Machiavelli acknowledges Christianity'spower, and how Machiavelli endeavorsto replicateits powerin a whollytemporalcapacity. 38. ThomasAquinas, SummaTheologicaI 103.6-8. text. in 39. The quotationis rendered Latinin Machiavelli's 40. Lk 1:53, RSV. Mary speaks and ascribesthese deeds to the Lord. Thoughtson New Modesand Orders,p. 99. Lefortlikens Machiavelli, 49; Mansfield,Machiavelli's p. these actionsto 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,42as 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 previoussectionsuggests,Machiavelli likensthe Christian to a tyrant.Its god riseto powerwas muchlike that of any otherdemagogue. to Althoughappealing the peohas ple, the practicaleffect of Christianity been to elevatecertain"gentlemen."See, for in evocativediscussion 155 of gentiluomini live idly [oziosi]on who example,Machiavelli's rich estates, have castles and subjects, but do nothing useful in life. Machiavellilists, among other provinceswherethey can be found, the Papal States. Thus, as I suggested not believesthat peoplecan be in servitude only to a tyrant, abovein note 30, Machiavelli Machiavelli effects of Christianity, but also to nobles. In orderto combatthese practical methodsof the Christian god. appealsto certaintyrannical 42. Machiavelli continuesin this chapterthat so cruelare such methodsthat a person shouldpreferratherto live as a privatepersonthanto implement them.Gilbert,who maina tainsthat Machiavelli that fromChrisrecognizes politicsdemands moralitythatdiverges tian morality,cites this passageas evidencethat "men could arrange theirlives in such a and mannerthat they could follow Christian morality"(Machiavelli Guicciardini, 196). p. See III 2 whereMachiavelli says that a privatelife is not a viableoption for a personof notablequalities. 43. Mansfieldtoo associatesthis practicewith the Christiandoctrineof originalsin (Tamingthe Prince:TheAmbivalence ModernExecutivePower [New York:The Free of Press, 1989],p. 133). See Augustine,Cityof God XXI 13 andXIV I and 15 for an exposition of how God's gracesavesthose taintedby sin from punishment.

276 NeitherChristian Nor Pagan must fear the possibilityof damnationand all are damned,all Christians chastened.Machiavelliappearsto learn from the methodsof the Christians. However,the "sins" (peccati) of which he speaksin this chapter are punishednot in the hereafterby God, but on earthby a militaryor politicalleader. Moreover,in Machiavelli'ssection on ingratitudein the Discourses, I 28-32, he suggests that the example of the Christiangod provides a solutionto a problemlikelyto confrontany princeor republic.44 Having a dispatched captain,whatis the "lord" (signore)to do whenthe captain performshis task too well? (I 29). By winningterritoryfor his homeland, he also wins for himselfglory and the allegianceof a battle-tested army. The ruleror rulersseeminglyowe theirgratitudeto this hero, but he is at once as mucha threatas a benefactorto the state. In the case of a prince, Machiavelliappears to advocate the harshest measurespossible. The princein looking to his own securityshould put this conquering captain to death or should deprivehim of his reputation.Machiavelliadds that, if such measures are necessaryto 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 furtheradvisesthat a princeshould go to the site of the battle, thus deprivingthe captainof the powerthat would accrue from his victory and assuring that the "glory" gained that such an belongs solely to the prince. This method of guaranteeing be recognizedas coming from the prince, ratherthan from acquisition one who serveshim, is similarto the advice Machiavelliextendsto the new princein chapterI 26 to see to it that no one in the state shouldhold anythingexceptthat whichthe subject"recognizesas comingfromyou" (I 26). The ruler of a particularstate must make himself the ultimate causeof the good whichhis captainbringsto the state. WhereasMachiavelli placesthe princein the position of God, he placesthe captainin the position of any Christianwhom God sees fit to test; in order to avoid punishment,the captain or the Christianmust humbly renounce any attachmentto the thingshe has gained(I 30). Machiavelliseemsto have that found a whollysecularapplicationfor the Biblicalpronouncement a man will not profit if he gains the whole worldand forfeitseternallife.45 Of course, in Machiavelli'sformulation,the captain fears only for his temporalexistence. Machiavellialso notes here that, unlikea principality,a republiccan44. Nathan Tarcov suggested to me the kinship between some of Machiavelli's comments 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 renunciation-the captain can use his new-found power to rebel against his "lord" (I 30).

VickieB. Sullivan 277 not havethe princeaccompanythe expeditionand stealcreditfor the victhe tory. In lieu of this remedy,he recommends exampleof the Roman republic.It made use of everyonein war, noble and commoneralike, so that in everyage therewereso manyvirtuousmen with so manyvictories to theircreditthat "the peopledid not havecauseto doubtany of them" (I 30). Thislack of doubtarosenot from a belief in theirinnategoodness but ratherfrom a belief in theirinnatebadness.Theywereall "watching In each other," reportsMachiavelli.46 this way, Machiavelliappliesthe doctrineof originalsin to a republic.Becausein this republicno one was above suspicion, each was understoodto be corrupt-to be a potential tyrantwhose ambitionneededto be checked-the only way to glorywas to renounceone's gains. A dictator,for example,gainedmore glory the sooner he renouncedthe office. Further,becausethe leadingmen in the republicwere "watchingeach other," a threatof force quickenedsuch renunciations.Therefore, the harsh measures of the prince do seem if applicableto a republiceven in this case, particularly those who are inclinedto such severityare vigilant. One seesthe Christian of beliefin the corruption all-the beliefthat no can claim redemptionby right-informing also Machiavelli's one praise for the Roman method of punishingin I 24. He entitles this chapter "Well-orderedrepublics dispense rewards and punishmentsto their citizens without balancingone against the other," and he assertshere that such a republic "never cancelledthe demeritsof its citizens with their merits." This must be the case because a citizen who has performedsome excellentwork for the city acquiresnot only the reputation that his deedhas broughthim, but also the audacityand confidenceto be able to do evil deeds without fear of penalty. As a result of such insolence, he claims, all civil life will dissolve. In acting on this principleto avert such an outcome, Rome executed its savior.47Because Manlius Capitolinusendeavoredto instigatea seditionin Rome, he was thrown from the Capitol which he "with so much glory had saved." In these discussions,Machiavelliovertly praises Rome and modifies these stories merely by infusing Christianterms into his descriptionof Roman practices.Elsewhere,however,he appearsto criticizeRome for lacking the necessarypunishments-for not utilizingChristiandoctrine in an entirelytemporalcontext. The title of I 31, for example,observes that Rome never punishedits captains "extraordinarily" an error for even whenit resultedin harmto the republic.In the body of this [errore] chapter,he relateshow Rome'scaptains,Sergiusand Virginius,werenot
46. See Lefort, Travail,pp. 507-08. 47. Mansfield,New Modesand Orders,p. 97.

Nor Pagan 278 NeitherChristian punishedseverelyfor an errorthat was "not committedthroughignorance." Clearlytheir errorwas committedthroughmalice: each captain was in chargeof a partof the armythat was encampedbeforeVeii;when to Sergius'stroops wereset upon by the Falisci,this captainpreferred be than to ask for the help of his colleague.For his part, Virginius "routed" anticipatedSergius'shumiliationand chose not to come to his aid, preferringinstead "the dishonorof his countryand the ruin of that army" (I 31). Thus, in contrast to I 30, Machiavelliillustratesa negative consequenceof competitors"watchingeach other" in a republic.Becausehe finds the correctapplicationof this principleso vital to a republicand because he has adducedRome as the model that both practicedit and of punishedmost severely,one would expectthat such a misapplication this principlein acts of "truly wicked" malfeasancewould elicit the too harshestpenaltyfrom the republiche praises.Machiavelli appearsto expectsuch a result:"It is truethat anotherrepublicwouldhave exacted capital punishment,this one punishedthem with a fine" (I 31). He has alreadynoted in this chapterthat the Romansdid not "crucifyor otherwise kill" their captains. As a result, Sergius and Virginiuswere not punishedin a similarlyharshmanner, "not becausetheir sins [i peccati loro] did not meritgreaterpunishment,but becausethe Romanswished in this case ... to maintaintheirancientcustoms." Thus, this strongest and most resoluteancientrepublicdid not give thesecaptainsthe punishment they merited.To describewhat they merited,Machiavellirecursto Christianterminology.He finds in modernitythe strengthfor whichhe searches. The importance of punishing for Machiavelli, as well as his disapprovalof the failureof the historicalRometo do it correctly,becomes more evidentin his discussionsof Papiriusat the end of this samechapter. Here Machiavellimentions Papirius's charges against the young Fabius, his masterof horse, as an instanceof Rome's not punishingits captainsseverely. In Papirius'sabsence and against his orders, Fabius fought a battle against the Samnites and won. Papirius demanded Fabius'sdeath, but Papirius'sfatherinterceded, arguingthat becausethe Roman people had not exactedsuch a penaltywhen their captainslost, they should not exact it in victory. ClearlyMachiavellitakes the part of Papiriusin this matter, for he adducesPapirius's"executionagainstFabius" as one of the "excessive and notable" executionsthat broughtRome "back to the mark" (III 1). Any political or religious institution requiresperiodic recourseto 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 executions "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 faction, was permitted to become Rome's first tyrant (I 37). Although action was eventually taken against Caesar, it was so late and the populace 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 transformation 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.

Nor Pagan 280 NeitherChristian utilizeselementsof the religionhe desires quishedfoes (I 12), Machiavelli to supplant.Thus, in followingthis Romanexamplein new historicalcircumstances,Machiavelliacknowledgesthe impossibilityof an unmitigated returnto Rome.