The e-mail addresses that you supply to use this service will not be used for any other purpose without your consent. Create a link to share a read only version of this article with your colleagues and friends. Please read and accept the terms and conditions and check the box to generate a sharing link. I am not contending that Machiavelli is a Christian nor that he is continuing a Christian principle. Rather, I am asserting in this article that Machiavelli secularises the distinctly Christian virtue of humility, particularly in its affinity with the virtue of compassion, and that this is particularly true in his Discourses on Livy.
To demonstrate how this is so, I compare Machiavelli's treatment of the Roman hero Brutus in the Discourses on Livy to the retelling of the life of Rome's liberator in Augustine's City of God. Research off-campus without worrying about access issues. Find out about Lean Library here. Skip to main content.
European Journal of Political Theory. Article Menu. Download PDF. Cite Citation Tools. How to cite this article If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Download Citation If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Share Share. Recommend to a friend. Sharing links are not available for this article.
I have read and accept the terms and conditions. Copy to clipboard. Request Permissions View permissions information for this article. Humility and humanity: Machiavelli's rejection and appropriation of a Christian Ideal. See all articles by this author Search Google Scholar for this author. Article information. Article Information Volume: 17 issue: 2, page s : Article first published online: March 30, ; Issue published: April 1, Email: ashleen.
Abstract Full Text Abstract. Sign Out.
Email required Password required Remember me Forgotten your password? Need to activate? Institutional Access does not have access to this content. Leo X's predecessors may have made the church great "by armed force", but "it is to be hoped that … he can make it even greater and more praiseworthy thanks to his goodness and many, many other virtues". The Prince's anti-papal rhetoric doesn't simply hide behind wit.
Pope Alexander, we are told, "showed what could be done with finance and force" and "never did anything but con people.
One might rightfully question how this master-advocate of brutal realpolitik can adopt the moral high ground at this point, but that does not change the pugnacity of his anti-papal criticism. If The Prince were simply anti-clerical, however, it would not have gained the reputation it did. It was, after all, written at a time when even loyal sons of the church recognised the pressing need for reform.
D&R - Kültür Sanat ve Eğlence Dünyası
The Prince's anti-Christian credentials are stronger than its anti-papal digs. First, there is Machiavelli's minimal but careful use of the Bible. It was far from strange for humanist tracts to eschew biblical examples, as The Prince largely does. What is more noteworthy is the way Machiavelli does deal with the Bible, when he does. The New Testament is completely absent, and his few Old Testament examples are lauded for their martial abilities rather than their godliness. They are effectively indistinguishable from the book's non-biblical heroes, Moses rubbing shoulders with Cyrus, Romulus and Theseus, and their special role within salvation history is carefully undermined.
Thus, although Machiavelli says "we can hardly say much about Moses, since he merely carried out God's orders", he goes on to say of the other rulers: "When we look into the specific actions each took and the institutions they established, we'll see they don't differ that much from what Moses did under divine guidance.
- Machiavelli's God.
- Machiavellis God;
- Machiavellis God:.
While it is true that Machiavelli does use bugie only in a negative context in the Discourses D 1. But, again, nuances and context may be important. Machiavelli does indeed implicate two other friars: Ponzo for insanity and Alberto for hypocrisy. To what extent the Bible influenced Machiavelli remains an important question. He laments that histories are no longer properly read or understood D 1.
Furthermore, he explicitly speaks of reading the Bible in this careful manner again sensatamente ; D 3. Recent work has explored what it might have meant for Machiavelli to read the Bible in this way. Additionally, recent work has explored the extent to which Machiavelli engaged with the Jewish, Christian, and Islamic traditions. Machiavelli, however, uses the passage to refer to David.
Elsewhere in the Discourses , Machiavelli attributes virtue to David and says that he was undoubtedly a man very excellent in arms, learning, and judgment D 1. Machiavelli offers a gloss of the story of David and Goliath which differs in numerous and substantive ways from the Biblical account see I Samuel , He is mentioned at least five times in The Prince P 6 [4x] and 26 and at least five times in the Discourses D 1.
Chapter 6 of The Prince is famous for its distinction between armed and unarmed prophets. However, recent work has noted that it does in fact follow exactly the order of Psalms Machiavelli speaks at least twice of the prophet Mohammed FH 1. He discusses various Muslim princes—most importantly Saladin FH 1. The main aim of this article is to help readers find a foothold in the primary literature. A second, related aim is to help readers do so in the secondary literature.
It has followed the practice of many recent Machiavelli scholars—for whom it is not uncommon, especially in English, to say that the views on Machiavelli can be divided into a handful of camps. Many of the differences between these camps appear to reduce to the question of how to fit The Prince and the Discourses together. Five are outlined below, although some scholars would of course put that number either higher or lower. Readers who are interested in understanding the warp and woof of the scholarship in greater detail are encouraged to consult the recent and more fine-grained accounts of Catherine Zuckert , John T.
Scott , and Erica Benner The first camp takes The Prince to be a satirical or ironic work. The 16th century Italian jurist Alberico Gentili was one of the first interpreters to take up the position that The Prince is a satire on ruling. Rousseau and Spinoza in their own respective ways also seemed to hold this interpretation. Members of this camp typically argue that Machiavelli is a republican of various sorts and place special emphasis upon his rhetoric. The most notable recent member of this camp is Erica Benner a, b, , and , who argues that The Prince is thoroughly ironic and that Machiavelli presents a shocking moral teaching in order to subvert it.
However, members of this camp do not typically argue that The Prince is satirical or ironic. They do typically argue that The Prince presents a different teaching than does the Discourses ; and that, as an earlier work, The Prince is not as comprehensive or mature of a writing as the Discourses.
The most notable member of this camp is Quentin Skinner , , and Pocock and , Hans Baron and , and David Wootton could be reasonably placed in this camp. Maurizio Viroli , , , , and could also be reasonably placed here, though he puts additional emphasis on The Prince. In other words, members of this camp typically claim that Machiavelli presents the same teaching or vision in each book but from different starting points. However, members of this camp do not typically argue that The Prince and Discourses begin from different starting points.
The most notable member of this camp is Leo Strauss Harvey C. Mansfield , , , and , Catherine Zuckert and , John T. Scott , , and , Vickie Sullivan , , and , Nathan Tarcov , , a, b, , , , , and , and Clifford Orwin and could be reasonably placed here. The fifth camp is hermeneutically beholden to Hegel, which seems at first glance to be an anachronistic approach.
The most notable member of this camp is Claude Lefort . Miguel Vatter , , and could be reasonably placed here and additionally deserves mention for his familiarity with the secondary literature in Spanish an unusual achievement for Machiavelli scholars who write in English. Below are listed some of the more well-known works in the scholarship, as well as some that the author has found profitable but which are perhaps not as well-known.
They are arranged as much as possible in accordance with the outline of this article. It goes without saying that there are many important books that are not mentioned. Some examples include Benner a , Celenza , Black and , Atkinson , Skinner , Viroli , , and , de Grazia , and Ridolfi Vivanti offers an intellectual biography. Other good places to begin are Nederman , Viroli , Mansfield , , and , Skinner and , Prezzolini , Voegelin , and Foster Johnston, Urbinati, and Vergara and Fuller are recent, excellent collections. Lefort and Strauss are daunting and difficult but also well worth the attempt.
Skinner , Benner , and Mansfield discuss virtue. Spackman and Pitkin discuss fortune, particularly with respect to the image of fortune as a woman. Biasiori and Marcocci is a recent collection concerning Machiavelli and Islam. Nederman examines free will.
Related Machiavellis God
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved