nederman_amazinggrace

8/13/2019 nederman_amazinggrace

1/23

Amazing Grace: Fortune, God, and Free Will in Machiavelli's ThoughtAuthor(s): Cary J. NedermanSource: Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 60, No. 4 (Oct., 1999), pp. 617-638Published by: University of Pennsylvania PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3654111Accessed: 01/03/2009 09:11

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 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=upenn.

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 organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the

scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that

promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

University of Pennsylvania Pressis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Journal of the History of Ideas.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3654111?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=upennhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=upennhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3654111?origin=JSTOR-pdf


2/23

Amazing G r a c e Fortune G o d a n dF r e e W i l l n Machiavelli s Thought

CaryJ. Nederman

Machiavelli ndReligionSurelyhere s nopoliticalheorist boutwhomscholarly pinions moredividedhanNiccoloMachiavelli. hesubject f intense ndcontinuousxami-nationalmost rom hetimeof hisdeath,Machiavelli asbecome f anythingmore nigmatic ith hepassage f timeand heproliferationfinterpretations.Although nemightargue hat his fact reflects hehighlyunsystematicndcontext-boundature fhisthought,henowwell-establishedonsistenciesnhislinguistic sageandnarrativetylesuggesthat ertain rinciplesnform iswritings crossgenreandcircumstance.'Oneof themostcontentiousspectsof Machiavelli's ritinghasbeenhisattitudeowards eligion,n particular, hristianity.2o be sure,MachiavelliI wish to thankProfessorsMarciaColish, DeborahMathieu,Phil Chapman,William J.Connell, and Sebastiande Grazia,and Dr. Russell Price, and Ms. JenniferHunter,for theirvaluedcomments on draftsof the paper.See Russell Price, "The Senses of VHrtzun Machiavelli,"EuropeanStudies Review, 3(1973), 315-45;Price,"TheTheme of Gloria inMachiavelli,"RenaissanceQuarterly,30 (1977),

588-631; Price, "Self-love, 'Egoism' and Ambizionein Machiavelli'sThought,"History ofPolitical Thought,9 (1988), 237-61; andPrice'scriticalapparatuso Niccolo Machiavelli,ThePrince, ed. QuentinSkinnerandRussell Price (Cambridge,1988), xxxii-xxxv, 100-113.2 See Delio Cantimori,"Machiavellie la religione,"Belfagor,21 (1966), 629-38; BrunoDi Porto,"IIproblemareligiosoin Machiavelli," n Le religionein Machiavelli,GuiccardiniePascoli (Rome, 1968);MarioTenenti,"Lareligionedi Machiavelli,"Studistorici, 10 (1969),709-48; GiuseppePrezzolini,"The ChristianRoots of Machiavelli'sMoralPessimism," Re-viewof NationalLiteratures,1(1970), 26-37; Prezzolini,Cristoe/o Machiavelli(Milan,1971);CliffordOrwin,"Machiavelli'sUnchristianCharity,"AmericanPolitical Science Review, 72(1978), 1217-28; J. Samuel Preus, "Machiavelli's FunctionalAnalysis of Religion: ContextandObject,"JHI, 40 (1979), 171-90;Sebastiande Grazia,"Machiavelli'sBiblicalAccuracy,"Renaissance andReformation,17 (1981), 141-45;PaulNorton,"Machiavelli'sRoadto Para-dise,"History of Political Thought,4 (1983), 31-42; TimothyJ. Lukes,"To BamboozlewithGoodness:The PoliticalAdvantagesof Christianity n the Thoughtof Machiavelli,"Renais-sance and Reformation,8 (1984), 266-77; Vickie B. Sullivan,"NeitherChristianNor Pagan:617

Copyright999byJournalf theHistoryfIdeas,nc.


3/23

CaryJ. Nedermanwasnofriend f theinstitutionalizedhristian hurchshe knew t. TheDis-coursesmakes lear hat onventional hristianityaps romhuman eings hevigorrequiredoractivecivillife.3And hePrincespeakswithequalpartsdis-dainandadmirationbout hecontemporaryondition f the Church nd tsPope.4Many cholars ave aken uchevidenceo indicatehatMachiavelli ashimselfprofoundlynti-Christian,referringhepagan ivilreligions fancientsocietiessuchas Rome,whichhe regardedo be moresuitableor a cityen-dowedwithvirtui.At bestMachiavelliasbeendescribedsa manof conven-tional, f unenthusiastic,iety,preparedobow to theexternalitiesf worshipbutnotdeeplydevoted neither oulormind othetenetsofChristianaith.6Inrecent imes,theonlydissenting oiceof notehasbeen Sebastian eGrazia, hosePulitzer rize-winningntellectualiography, achiavellinHell,attemptsorescueMachiavelli'seputationrom hosewhoview himasdeeplyhostile oChristianity.7eGraziargueshatnotonlydo central iblicalhemesrun hroughoutMachiavelli'swritingsbutthat heseworksreveala coherentconceptionf adivinely-centeredndorderedosmosnwhichother orces"theheavens," fortune,"nd helike)aresubsumed nder divinewill andplan.MachiavellinHellpoints oevidencerom hroughoutheMachiavellianor-pussupportingn ideaof divineordinationf earthly vents,especiallyn thecase of the accomplishmentsf extraordinaryndividuals.For de Grazia'sMachiavelliuccess nhuman ffairsdepends rimarilypon hefriendshipfGod.

De Grazia'snterpretationf Machiavelli'seligious aithhas,of course,proven ontroversial,ot leastbecauseheintroducesis case nafairlyunsys-tematic nd peculative ay.8ButwhiledeGrazia's resentation aybesome-whathaphazard,hegeneral eading edefendshas mportant eritshatoughtMachiavelli'sTreatment f ReligionintheDiscourses,"Polity,26 (1993), 259-80;andSullivan,Machiavelli ThreeRomes: Religion, HumanLibertyand Politics Reformed(DeKalb, Ill.,1996).3 Niccolo Machiavelli, The Chief Worksand Others, ed. Allan Gilbert(Durham,N.C.,1965), 228-29, 330-31. I have occasionallyalteredGilbert'stranslation,basedon Machiavelli,Tutte e opere, ed. Mario Martelli(Florence, 1971).4 Machiavelli,Chief Works, 9, 44-46, 65, 91-92.5 Leo Strauss,Thoughtson Machiavelli (Glencoe, Ill., 1958), 196-232; MarkHulliung,CitizenMachiavelli (Princeton, 1983), 203-18, 238-54; Anthony Parel, The MachiavellianCosmos(New Haven, 1992), 46-59.

6 Dante Germino,"Second Thoughtson Strauss'sMachiavelli,"Journal of Politics, 28(1966), 372-84;J. G.A. Pocock, "ProphetandInquisitor," olitical Theory,3 (1975), 385-401.7 Sebastian de Grazia,Machiavelli in Hell (Princeton,1989), 30-87, 376-84.8 See Parel,The MachiavellianCosmos,61-62; Nicolai Rubinstein,"New,Radical-andMoral,"TimesLiterarySupplement,No. 4529 (1990), 70; SusanBehuniak-Long,"TheElusiveMachiavelli,"Reviewof Politics, 52 (1990), 318-19;AntonioSantosuosso,"MoralityandPoli-tics in Machiavelli:Two Recent Intepretations,"CanadianJournalof History,25 (1990), 85-88; and MaurizioViroli, untitledreview of Machiavelli in Hell, Political Theory,19 (1991),292-95.

618


4/23

MachiavelliandReligion:A Reappraisalnot o be overlooked.Machiavellioesmake eferenceoa monotheisticivin-ity,aswellasto central lements fChristianityheology, athermoreoften nhiscorpushanmostscholarshipmighteadoneto believe.Moreover,hepas-sages nwhich hesereferencesccurareoftenamong hemost mportantndtroublingectionsof his work.De Graziawouldseem,then, o be correct nassertinghatwe mustgraspMachiavelli'sdeaof Godand hedivinerole nearthlyaffairs f we areto understandhebasicprinciples f Machiavellianpoliticalheory.IfdeGrazia'sasicobservationsindeed ersuasive,hyhaveMachiavelli'sreligiousdeasbeensowidelyoverlookedor ndeed ismissed)yrecentchol-ars?Toexplainhiswe have otakentoaccountMachiavelli'swnexaggeratedstatementsegardingheoriginalityf histeachings,swell ashisalreadymen-tioned ntipathyowardshe nstitutionsndofficials ftheRomanChurch. utperhapsmoremportantasbeen hereluctanceoreadMachiavellinconjunc-tionwithmany entral ulturalnd ntellectualeaturesfhistime,especiallynterms fpersisting atternsnd raditionsfmedievalLatinhought.Oneof themoststriking evelopmentsnthestudy fWesternntellectualistorynrecentyearshasbeen herecognitionfimportantontinuitiesetween he deasofthelatemedieval nd heearlymoder periods.Scholars avecometo realize hatmanyof thesupposednnovationsf theRenaissance,heReformation,ndeven heearlyEnlightenmentadclear ootsorantecedentsntheMiddleAges.9At thesame imeit turnsoutthatnumerouslleged eatures f earlymoderthought-suchassecularizationnd eligiouskepticism-wereess n evidenceduringheheyday f Renaissanceumanismhanwe havebeenencouragedobelieve. nparticular,hristian octrinesontinuedoexerta decisivenfluenceonphilosophicalnd iteraryursuits uringhefifteenth nd ixteenthentury,and hegreatmindsofthat imepersistednaddressinghesamedilemmas ndquestionshathadvexedChristianchoolmen fprior enturies.'1Inspiteof the effortsof a few scholarsobring hisgeneral nsight obearonMachiavelli,"here emains pronouncedendencyo ignore hemedievalbackdropo his ideas.Rather,Machiavelli's octrines re stillordinarily p-proachedrom heperspectivefthedebate etweenheviaantiqua nd hevia

9 See J. H. Burs (ed.), The CambridgeHistory of Political Thought,1450-1700 (Cam-bridge, 1991), 1-3.10CharlesTrinkaus,In Our Image and Likeness:Humanityand Divinity in Italian Hu-manistThought 2 vols.; Chicago, 1970)." Such asAllanGilbert,Machiavelli "Prince"and Its Forerunners Durham,NC, 1938);QuentinSkinner,"Machiavelli'sDiscorsi and the Pre-humanistOriginsof RepublicanIdeas,"in Gisela Bok, QuentinSkinner,and MaurizioViroli (eds.), Machiavelli and Republicanism(Cambridge, 1990);MaurizioViroli,FromPolitics to Reasonof State (Cambridge,1992);andJanetColeman,"Machiavelli's via moderna:Medieval and RenaissanceAttitudes to History,"inMartinCoyle (ed.),Niccol6Machiavellis ThePrince: NewInterdisciplinary ssays(Manches-ter, 1995).

619


5/23

CaryJ. Nedermanmoderna,rasconstitutingradical reakwith he eachingsftheLatinMiddleAges.'2Scholars eemimplicitlyo accept heviewthatGiuseppePrezzolinioncebluntlytated: Machiavellisanti-medieval.erepresentshemostcom-pleterupture ith hemedievalworld,nthemostextensiveway.""3et,withoutanappreciationf how Machiavellimbraced nd extendedmajor enetsofmedievalChristianhought,mportantlements fhisworkwill nevitablyeemconfused r nconsistent.

My generalpointheremaybe illustrated ithspecificreferenceo Ma-chiavelli's eliance ponmedievalChristianheologynorderoanalyze oliti-callife:hisappeal particularlyn thePrince) ograceand reewill.Theres awidely-recognizedontradictionithinMachiavelli'shought etweenfortuna(fortune),heunpredictablendungovernable oddess,who controlshe cir-cumstanceshat egulatehe ivesof individualersons ndofnations, ndvirtti(talent,kill, oresight,lexibility),hesetofqualitieswhichwouldallowmen oovercomehemachinationsf fortune napermanent,atherhanmerelyem-porary, asis.At timesMachiavelli oundsas thoughhe embraces positionNeal Woodhas termed he"humanismf action," ccordingo whichhumanbeingsareable o combat ortune nd oshapeheirdestinyhroughheexerciseofvirtu.'4 etontheotherhandMachiavelli lsoevincesprofoundoubts boutthepsychological lausibilityfanyperson cquiringyhis owndevicesallthequalities ecessaryorthepossessionof complete irttu.When acedwith n-scrutableortune,Machiavellippearso teach hat ven hosemenwhoappeartohave he raits ppropriateorcontrollingvents, ndwhosucceedorawhile,willfail n theend.Scholars avestruggledmightily, ndconsistentlyailed, oofferaninter-pretationapable freconcilingwhathavebeencharacterizeds the"optimis-tic"and he"pessimistic"trains f Machiavelli'shought.5 argue hat histensionn Machiavelli'shoughtsonlyapparent,heresult f afailureo realizethathisapparentuxtapositionffortunaandvirtusreallymediatedyathirdfactor, amely,hegrace grazia)of Godwhichaffords pportunitiesor suc-

12 See IsaiahBerlin,"TheOriginalityof Machiavelli," n HenryHardy(ed.), AgainsttheCurrent(New York, 1980); NathanTarcov,"QuentinSkinner's Method and Machiavelli'sPrince,"Ethics, 92 (1982), 692-709; DonaldMcIntosh,"TheModernityof Machiavelli,"Po-litical Theory,12 (1984), 184-203;W. R. Newell, "HowOriginalIs Machiavelli?A Consider-ationof Skinner'sInterpretationf VirtueandFortune,"Political Theory,15 (1987), 612-34;LarryPeterman,"Gravity ndPiety:Machiavelli'sModer Turn,"ReviewofPolitics, 52 (1990),189-214;AnthonyJ. Parel,"TheQuestionof Machiavelli'sModernity,"ReviewofPolitics, 53(1991), 320-39; Roger D. Masters,Machiavelli,Leonardo,and the Science of Power (NotreDame, 1996), 161-205.13GiuseppePrezzolini,Machiavelli Anticristo(Rome, 1954), 86-87.14Neal Wood,"Machiavelli'sHumanismof Action,"inAnthonyJ. Parel(ed.), ThePoliti-cal Calculus:Essays on Machiavelli'sPhilosophy(Toronto,1972).15J. H. Whitfield,Machiavelli(Oxford, 1947), 16-17.

620


6/23

MachiavelliandReligion:A Reappraisalcessfulactionon earth hatarenot availableo thosewholackdivineappoint-ment.Machiavelli's ritings-mostespeciallyhat upposedlyrreligiousract,thePrince-embrace hemedievalheological octrinehat hehumanwill isableto defeat xternal ircumstancend otriumphveradversitywhen t ac-ceptsand ooperates ithGod's race.Theonlysurepathosuccess,Machiavelliteaches,sdivinely rdained. o onemayearn dmissionosuchapath hroughone'sdeedsalone.Goddecideswho s to doHisbidding ndperpetualoliticalsuccess s a signof thedivinegift.Moses,not CesareBorgiaorPopeJulius I,is thearchetypef thesuccessfulMachiavellianuler; ndMosessucceededprecisely ecausehewaschosenbyGodbutsimultaneouslysedhisownabili-tiestoadvance nd ulfillGod'splan orhimandhispeople.Machiavellirovesto be neither fatalist oravoluntarist,nstead dvocating recognizablyhris-tianharmonizationfdeterminationndwill:God reelygrants sgrace, utwemust ealize ndperfecttbytheaction fourown reewills.WhereMachiavellimaybe said odepartrom hemedieval rameworks inhis view that he"sal-vation"oughtbythe ruler s political swell asotherworldly.

TheMachiavellianredicamentIn a 1506letter o GiovanBattistaSoderini,Machiavelli urportso beperplexed ytheapparentlynpredictableonsequencesfpolitical ction:"Ido notknowwhyit shouldhappenhatdifferentwaysof actingaresometimes

bothsuccessful ndsometimes othunsuccessful,utI wouldcertainlyiketoknow."'16t is precisely hisdilemma hatanimatesmuchof his inquiryn thePrince.He commentsn Chapter 5, "Iwould observe hatone sees a rulerflourishingodayandruinedomorrow, ithouthis havingchanged t all innature r quality.""Howarewe to explain hevariationsn the successorfailure frulers?Inhiswritings,Machiavelliointsothree ontributingactorshatargely,if notentirely, ccount orthe tumultuousventsof human overnmentandpresumablyveryotherhuman nterprise).he irst,andcertainlyestknown,is fortune.'8hroughoutiswork,Machiavellieferso the rresistibleorceoffortune r"theheavens" rother"occult"owersnrelation ohuman ction.AsMachiavelliemarksntheDiscourses,16 Machiavelli,Chief Works,896.17 Ibid., 90.18The literatureon Machiavelli's concept of fortunaincludes Mario Santoro,Fortuna,ragione e prudenzianella civittdliterariade Cinquecento Naples, 1967);ThomasFlanagan,"The Conceptof Fortuna in Machiavelli,"in Parel (ed.), The Political Calculus;Hannah F.

Pitkin,Fortuneis a Woman:Genderand Politics in the Thoughtof Niccolo Machiavelli(Ber-keley, 1984);andOdedBalaban,"TheHumanOriginsofFortuna,"HistoryofPolitical Thought,11 (1990), 21-36.

621


7/23

CaryJ. NedermanIf we observecarefully ow human ffairsgo on,many imeswe seethat hings omeupandevents akeplaceagainstwhich heHeavens onotwishanyprovisiono be made....Menareable o assistFortune,utnot o thwart er.Theycanweaveherdesignsbutcannot estroyhem.19

Thesamefatalism s echoedelsewherenthe Discourses:"Toachieve ome-thinggoodis difficultunlessFortune, idingyou,withherpowerovercomes"theobstacles et for humanbeings.20 hePrince s rife withsimilar emarks.Fromhededicatorypistleonwardsortunes citedasthecauseof"greatness"or "malice"whichpeopleexperience.21achiavellioncludeshe often-citedChapter5with hedeclarationhat"men resuccessfulwhen heyare ncloseharmonywithFortune,ndwhen heyareoutofharmony,heyareunsuccess-ful."22 umanbeingsarevictimsof fortune, nd fortune tself is manifestlycapricious.Anyrulerwhocountson fortuneo support imor whobaseshisdecisions ndpoliciesonthepreviousourse f eventswillinevitablyedisap-pointed ndeventually estroyedunless,asin thecaseofPopeJulius I,deathintervenesefore ircumstancesanchange).Thesecond actorimitingherange f human ctions s thenatureommontoallpeople.WhileMachiavelliertainly oesnotadopta viewof human a-tureasbleakas thatoftenattributedohim, hereareanumberfpropositionsabout hegeneral,nbornnclinationsf thespecies hat everberatehroughiswritings.23 s a grouphumansareclearlyambitiousandself-seekingforMachiavelli.As he remarksn theDiscourses,"Humanwantsareinsatiable,since manhas fromNaturehepowerandwishto desireeverything."24n asimilar einMachiavelliffershis famous dvice hatprinces ught o bewaryof thoseoverwhom heyrule:"Forhiscanbesaidaboutmen ngeneral:heyareungrateful,hangeable,imulators nddissimulators,unawaysndanger,eager orgain."25his sperhapsummarizedythedictumhat"men remoreproneoevilthan ogood."26o heextenthatnatureenderseople elf-seek-ing creatures,rustrationnvariablyollows,inasmuch s "Nature asmademen o desire verythingutunable o attainverything."27encehuman eingsremain n a stateof"perpetual iscontentn [their]mindsandwearinesswithwhats attained."28nan nconstantthats,circumstantialndostensivelyon-

'9Machiavelli,Chief Works, 06, 408.20 Ibid.,512.21 Ibid.,11.22 Ibid.,92.23 Coleman,"Machiavelli's via moderna,"50-53.24Machiavelli,Chief Works,323.25 Ibid.,62.26 Ibid., 218.27 Ibid.,272.28 Ibid.,323.

622


8/23

Machiavelli andReligion:A Reappraisaltingent)universepeoplewillremainied to their undamentalature, nd heconsistency f theactions temmingrom heirhumannclinationsmpliesalackofcontrol ver heir onditions.

Finally,ustaspeople hare generaletofnaturalttributesorMachiavelli,sotheyalsopossess ngrainedndividualharacteristicshat onstitute furtherconstraint n action.29 e positsthathumanbeingsfollow fixedpatterns fpersonal onduct, egardlessf circumstance. s he remarksn the letter oGiovanBattistaSoderini, Everymanacts in accordance ith the bentof hismindandtemperament."30henanindividual's haracterorrespondso hiscircumstances,ewillsucceednhisendeavors.houldonditionshange, ow-ever,he is bound o fall fromhispositionpreciselybecausehis characterolonger uits he times.AsMachiavellibservesn "Tercets nFortune"dedi-cated oGiovanBattista oderini), And inceyoucannot hange ourcharac-ternorgiveupthedispositionhatHeaven ndows ouwith, n themidstofyourjourney he[Fortune]bandonsou."31ndividualsreentirely ubjecto for-tune o theextent hat heypossess nvariantndpermanentraits f character:the basicinflexibility f human haracterenders umanbeings ncapable frespondingffectivelyochangesn fortune.Whenortune,ature nd ndividualharacterreconsideredogether,hereseems o belittlereasonoexpecthat ulerswill be able o assure hesuccessoftheir overnments.

First, t is impossibleogoagainstwhatnaturenclinesusto.Second,having ottenwellbyadoptingcertainineofconduct,tis impossibletopersuadementhat heycangetonwellbyactingotherwise.tthuscomesabouthataman's ortunehanges,orshechanges is circum-stancesbuthe doesnotchangehisways.32Nature ndcharacterombine o render eople ncapablefrespondingonewconditions ndchanges f fortune.Regardlessfcircumstance,ndividualsanbeexpectedo followa consistent ath n theiractions. f theyare ucky, heirnature ndcharacter ill suit hetimes,and heywillsucceed; therwise,heirfailure s assured.On theotherhandMachiavelli t timesappearso intimatehatfortune,alongwiththefixityof humannature nd ndividualharacter, aybe over-comebyrulers.nhis view if a mancoulddispensewitharigidsetofpersonaltraits,f hecoulddevelopa flexiblenature ndcharacter,e wouldbe abletoconquer is fortune nd o live as master f his own fate.Machiavelli sserts

29 Coleman,"Machiavelli'svia moderna,"53-57.30 Machiavelli,Chief Works,896-97.31 Ibid., 747.32 Ibid., 453.

623


9/23

CaryJ. Nedermanthatforpoliticalsuccess tobe assured,anew sortof humanbeingmustemerge,one able "to vary his conduct as the winds of fortuneand changingcircum-stancesconstrainhim."33 hisflexibilityyieldsthecoreof the"practical"dvicewhich Machiavellioffers to the rulerseekingto maintainhis state:excludenocourseof actionout of hand,but be readyalwaysto performwhateveractsarerequiredby political circumstance,regardlessof theirconformitywith moralexpectationsaboutthevirtuesappropriateo the "good"ruler.34YetMachiavelli'sevaluationof thechancesforcreatinganew,psychologi-cally flexibletypeof characters extremelyguarded.He tendsto wordhis advo-cacy of it in conditional orm and in thesubjunctivemood:"If it werepossibleto changeone'snature o suit the timesandcircumstances, newouldalwaysbesuccessful."35 he doubts mpliedby thegrammar chohis moreexplicit pessi-mism n 1506:

Anyonewho was shrewdenoughto understandhe times andcircum-stances,andwas capableof adapting othem,wouldalwaysbe success-ful (orat least wouldbe ableto avoid failure),andit wouldthenprovetruethat a wise man could controlthe starsand the fates. But suchshrewdmen are not to be found:first,becausemen areshort-sighted,andsecondlybecausetheycannotchangetheirown natures.36

Similarsentimentsarefoundin the"Tercetson Fortune":Therefore, f this [theworkingsof fortune]he understoodandfixed inhis mind,a manwho could leapfrom wheel to wheel wouldalwaysbehappyand fortunate,but because to attain this is denied to us by theoccult force thatrulesus, ourconditionchangeswith her course.37

Such observationsdirectlychallengeMachiavelli'sown advicethatprincesac-quiredispositionswhich vary accordingto the circumstantialdictatesof for-tune. His adviceremains, nhis own terms,"practical,"nthe sensethathe laysout in greatdetail whatsortof qualitiesa rulerwould require n order o resistcircumstanceandmasterfortune.Butultimatelythis flexibility seems beyondthecompetenceof anymerelyhumanpsyche,with its constancyof attitudeandconduct, o achievein a worldsubjectto thecontingenciesof fortune.38

33 Ibid., 66.34 Ibid., 57-59.35Ibid., 92; italics mine.36 Ibid., 897.37 Ibid., 747.38 See CaryJ. Nederman,"Machiavelliand Moral Character:Principality,Republic,andthe Psychologyof Virttu,"istory of Political Thought forthcoming2000).

624


10/23

MachiavelliandReligion:A ReappraisalFortune ndProvidence

Machiavellihusevincesgravedoubts bouthepossibilityhathumanirtucaneverultimatelyrove ictoriousn tsstruggle ith ortune. ut fMachiavelliindeedbelievedhis, hequestion aturallyrises:whydidhedevote o muchofhisowneffort o advising thermenabout hequalities ndskills heywouldneed oacquirenorderoachievepoliticaluccess?Thats,ifMachiavelli asso fatalistic s tosupposehatpeoplecannot chieveheflexibilityequisiteorvirti,whywouldhehavebotheredowriteworks uchasthePrinceandDis-courses,whichareclearlymeanto havevalue n the nstructionndreforma-tionofhuman eings?Machiavelli'smessage, utsimply, eems obea less exalted nethan hatwhichhasconsistentlyeenascribedohim. nterpretationsfMachiavelliavegenerallyaken orgrantedhehumanisticssumptionhat ndividualsreca-pable fmakingheir wnchoices ndguidingheir wnconduct. utMachiavelligivesusreasonobelieve hat herealassurancefpolitical uccess,andhencetheconquest f fortune,tems romdivine avor.ThosewhoenjoyGod'sgracearenot restrainedy the limits mposedby fortune, umannature, nd indi-vidual haracter.ndeed,heyhave mmunityrommisfortunend ullcontrolover hemselves.VirtuorMachiavelli-socommonlyiewedas asummaryftheskills, alents, ndabilitieshat hesuccessful uler ains orhimselfandbyhimself-cannotberealizedwithout supernaturalift,which tselfcannotbeearned nd orwhich heres noexplanationther hanGod's nscrutable is-dom. The roleof a politicaladvisor uchas Machiavellis thusat bestonlypreparatory,s hehimselfadmitsn the Prefaceothe secondbookof theDis-courses:"It s thedutyof thegoodman oteachothers nything f value hatthroughhemaliceofthe imesandof Fortuneouhavebeenunableoput ntoeffect, n order hatsincemanywill knowof it, some of themmore ovedbyHeavenmaybereadyoput t intoeffect."39otheextent hat he ndividualsthesourceof his ownsuccess,Machiavelliupposes,his s a function f one'sfree(andhewouldhopeattuned ndeducated)willcooperating ithdivinelyordainedrace.Thus,Machiavelli'solutionothepredicamentithwhichhewasobsessed-theinabilityfhuman eings oconquerortuneermanently-drewdirectly poncentralenetsofChristianheology.Accordingomany cholars,Machiavelli'sonceptionf fortunendotherimpersonalontrollingnfluencestands tagreat istanceromChristianeach-ingon the matter. roma Christianerspectivehe eventsandcircumstancesthatbefall theindividual reunder he controlof a higherorderprovidence.Hence,hefaithful erson ughtoacceptwhateveremporalonditionsresentthemselves, incetheyareultimately rdained y God'swill. Inotherwords

39Machiavelli,ChiefWorks,24.

625


11/23

CaryJ. Nedermanfortune s notreallycapriciousatall butis insteadanemanationof a consciousdivineplan. By contrast, orMachiavelli,Parelremarks,"Fortunegovernssu-preme.Insteadof beinga ministraof God,she is the mistressof humandestiny,andthatdestiny... is subject o chance,notto reason.Briefly,in theMachiavel-liancosmos, there s no roomforGod's Providence."40ikewise,Newell writesthat Machiavelli"neverexaminesfortuneunder ts traditional ubricof a sub-sidiarydimensionof theorder o causes,but rather quates t withall conditionsexternal o thehumanwill.... Theworld does notsupplyman with his rationalityand end."41

But to adoptthis readingis to oversimplifythe complexities of medievalChristian hought.Most importantly,Christian hinkerswereby no means uni-formin theirconceptionsof fortune.As Patchlong ago demonstrated, everalapproaches ofortunamaybe discerned n late classicaland medievalChristianwritings.Someauthors,assuredly,"annihilated"heoperationof fortunecom-pletely:Patch dentifies this view with St.Augustineand St. ThomasAquinas,amongothers.42 ut alternativepositionswere also available.One,whichPatchterms he"compromise" nd ascribes o BoethiusandAlbertusMagnus,retainsFortune"with a supremeGod above her-their relationsare not exactly defi-nite,butobviouslyshe must be inpart ulfillingHis will."43 A thirdview, attrib-uted to Dante,conceives of a fully Christianizedortune,not in the sense of itsstrictequationwithprovidenceandconsequentannihilation,but ratherbearingtheconnotationof aquasi-autonomousorceworking nconcertwith the divineplanyetnotsimplyreducible oGod'swill.44Recentscholarship nMachiavellihasstubbornlygnored he nuancedmedieval treatment f fortune,eventhoughRenaissancehumanistdiscussionsof the Goddess(suchasone findsintheworkof Coluccio Salutati)continued o acknowledgethecomplexandoften inscru-tablerelationshipbetween Fortunaandprovidence.45

Consequently, ignificantstrainsof Christian houghtwere able, as C. N.Cochranesays, to admitan "elementof truth" n the idea of blind fortuneorchance,namely,"that he individualhistoricalevent is ipsofacto uniqueandunpredictable.Forus as observers t is impossibleto recognizeitsrelationshipsuntil after thasoccurredandthenonly imperfectly.This, however,providesnovalid reason for supposingthat it marks the interventionof an arbitrary nd

40 Parel,TheMachiavellianCosmos,65.41 Newell, "HowOriginal s Machiavelli?"628; also see Pitkin,Fortune is a Woman,139-40 andMiguel E. Vatter,"Fortuna n the RepublicanTraditionof Politics,"in MaurizioViroli(ed.), Lessico Repubblicano forthcoming).42 HowardR. Patch, The Traditionof the Goddess Fortuna in Medieval PhilosophyandLiterature,Smith College Studies in Modem Languages,3:4 (Northampton,Mass., 1922),181-82, 184-86.43 Ibid., 203.44 Ibid., 200-202.45Trinkaus, n OurLikeness and Image, 87-102.

626


12/23

Machiavelli and Religion:A Reappraisalerraticcosmic force."46 venSt.Augustine,an extremechampionof providen-tialdesign, recognizedthat he divineplanremainsobscure o thehumanmind:"Whatwe call 'randomoccurrence'[casum]is nothingbutthat of which thereason and cause is hiddenfrom ourview."47n a similarvein thetwelfth-cen-turychurchman ohnof Salisbury,while denyingtheexistenceof Fortunaas aforce worthyof reverence,48till allowed that"theremay be a formof unex-pected(inopinatorum)ccurrences."49ohndeduces hecategoryof chance romthefact thatthecircumstancesn whichhumans indthemselvescannotalwaysbe traced o clearcauses,suchas theirnatures,offices, or moralqualities."For-tune" hereforedenotes thecauseof whathappens o peoplewhen no other ex-planationmaybe adduced:"Fortune lwaysconsists inthatwhichemergesun-foreseen."50Withoutdenyingaprovidentialplanorpositingfortuneas aninde-pendent orce,Johnadmitsthataccidentalorchanceeventsdo indeedoccur,orat least mustbe judged so from the perspectiveof human gnorance.Fortunedesignatestheclass of occurrences hat seem to humanbeingsto be randomorarbitrary.As we have seen, a numberof scholarsinsist thatMachiavellirejectstheChristianstance in favor of a conceptionof fortuneas an autonomous(andlargelymalevolent,or at leastindifferent) orceinhuman ife. Butthe evidenceof Machiavelli's own writingsrenders his claim suspect.Machiavelliconsis-tentlyimpliesthatthere s someplan(however nscrutable) tandingbehindthecourse of humanevents.This is evidentin his remarks hatfortuneor theheav-ens orsomeotheroccultpower activelyselects certain ndividuals ora specialrole in history.Speakingin the Discourses of the reformof a corruptcity, hestates,

Truly heheavens cannotgive a greateropportunityorglory....Thoseto whom the Heavensgive such an occasion shouldobservethe tworoadsputbefore them:one makes their ives secureandafterdeathren-dersthemfamous; he othermakesthemlive incontinualanxietiesandafterdeath eaves themanill repute hatneverends.51From hisit is evident hat ndividualsareselectedby apowerorforce outsideofthemselvesforthe task of rulership although,as I shalldiscuss later, hey stillutilize their free choice in takingadvantageof theiropportunities).The activequalityof supernaturalesignis also emphasizedelsewhere ntheDiscourses:

46 CharlesNorris Cochrane,Christianityand Classical Culture Oxford,1957), 479.47 St. Augustineof Hippo,Retractations Washington,DC, 1968), 1.1-2.48 John of Salisbury,Policraticus,ed. C. C. J. Webb(2 vols.; Oxford,1909), I, 292.49 Ibid., 293.50 bid.51Machiavelli,Chief Works, 23; italics mine.

627


13/23


14/23

MachiavelliandReligion:A Reappraisalparthe hasmade forouruse, part n order hat,aswe observethegloryandthe marvelousworkmanship f these things, uponus may come athirstand a longingto possess those otherthingsthat are hiddenfromus.... See, then, with how much ingratitudeman rises againstsuch agreatbenefactor Andhow muchpunishmenthe deserveswhenheper-verts theuse of thesethingsand turns hem towardevil 56

Machiavelli'sGod is one who has bestowed upon humankind very favor-frommaterialgoods andresources o speechand reason-and who therebyde-mandspenitencefromthose who do not acceptandappreciate he greatgiftstheyhavebeengranted.Nor is penitenceunderstoodn termsof inwardcontri-tion alone;it must be manifest n actions consistentwith gratefulness orwhatGod has given us.57The graciousnatureof the Machiavelliandeity is thusdi-rectlycorrelated o the functionof assigningpersonaldestinythat is allotted ofortuneand theheavenselsewherein his writings.Even if one declinesto takeseriouslyMachiavelli'sconventionalwritingsonreligiousandmoral opics,however,otherevidencestillattests o hisbelief inthe Christiandeity as the providentialsourceof the patternswhich "fortune"weaves. In this regard hePrince, thatinfamouslysacrilegiouswork,providesthekey evidence forMachiavelli'sChristianorientation. nithe repeatedlyde-fends theview thattheonly trulysafe meansof acquiringa state is through heexercise of one'svirtu,ratherhanby means of fortune, ince rulerswhodependuponchancecircumstance o maintain hemselvesareinvariably rustratednachievingtheirgoal. "Hewho depends east on Fortune ustainshimself long-est,"Machiavelliasserts,"Those who ... become princessimplythroughFor-tunemaybecome so withlittleeffort,butwithmucheffortsustain hemselves."58At the same time, he realizes thatfortune s the sourceof all opportunitiesogovern;no one can achieve rulership f he is opposedby fortune.But the ex-amplesof princesheldinhighestesteemby Machiavelliare drawn romamongthose who "had romFortunenothingmorethanopportunity,whichgave themmatter ntowhichtheycouldintroducewhateverformtheychose;andwithoutopportunity,heirstrengthof will would have been wasted, andwithoutsuchstrength heopportunitywouldhave been useless."59This,then,seems to formtheessence of virttu: nowingwhen one is well-situated o actandgrasping heopportunity.Thisobservation aisesnew questions,however.How doesthe individualofvirtu enterinto this situation n the firstplace? And how does he avoid laterthreats romfortunewhich seem unavoidable? n sum,what makesit possible

56 Machiavelli,Chief Works,172.57 Ibid., 173-74.58Ibid., 27.59Ibid., 25.

629


15/23

CaryJ. Nedermanfor the very rarerulerto succeed where so manyothershave failed so miser-ably?To respondwe mustconsider what Machiavelliacknowledgesto be theonecertainguaranteehatfortunemaybe overcome: hegiftof gracegrantedbyGod.InChapterSix of thePrince, he singles out a few men "whothrough heirown ability andnot throughFortunehave been transformedntoprinces[:]...Moses, Cyrus,Romulus,Theseus,andthe like."60nMachiavelli'sview Mosesseems to be the greatestamongthese. The obviousreason forthis, as stated ntheDiscourses, is that"amongall famousmenthosearemostfamouswhohavebeenheadsandorganizers f religion.Nextafter hemare hosewho havefoundedeitherrepublicsor kingdoms."61Moses thus standsatop Machiavelli'slist ofgloriousmen:alone amongthose illustrationswhich he offers,Moses was thefounderof both a religionand a state.62The awe in which Machiavelliholds Moses is evidentin the Prince: "Al-thoughMoses shouldnot be discussed, since he was a simple executor of thethingsorderedof him by God, neverthelesshe oughtto be exalted,if only forthatgrace [grazia] that made him worthy to speak with God."63Moses wasGod's chosen,His anointed.Machiavelli notes later n the chapter-making afamous contrast with Savonarola64-that Moses was the ultimate "armedprophet," reparedo employforceinarighteouscauseagainst hosewho wouldopposeGod'swill.65As Machiavelliobserves n theDiscourses,"HewhoreadstheBible intelligentlysees that f Moses wastoputhis lawsandregulationsntoeffect, he was forced to kill countless men who, moved by nothingelse thanenvy,wereopposedto his plan."66Machiavellifindsin God'sgracean authori-zationto actas necessaryforthesakeof realizingthe divineplan.Havingbeenselected to receiveGod's favordoesnot constrain herangeof optionsavailableto theruler. f anything hegracedprincemayactwithgreater mpunity,know-ingthathis causeis righteousandthathe enjoysanextraterrestrialssuranceofa successful end to his endeavors.67

60 Ibid., 25.61 Ibid., 220.62 See John T. Scott andVickie B. Sullivan,"Patricideand the Plot of the Prince:CesareBorgiaandMachiavelli'sItaly,"AmericanPolitical Science Review,88 (1994), 897.63 Machiavelli,Chief Works, 5.64See DonaldWeinstein,"MachiavelliandSavonarola,"n MyronP. Gilmore(ed.), Stud-ies on Machiavelli(Florence, 1972).65 Machiavelli,Chief Works, 6-27.66 Ibid., 496.67 An implicationdenied by, for instance, Parel,"MachiavelliMinore,"192, andJ. G. A.

Pocock,"Custom& Grace,Form & Matter:AnApproach o Machiavelli'sConceptof Innova-tion,"in MartinFleischer(ed.), Machiavelliand the Natureof Political Thought New York,1972), 171.

630


16/23

MachiavelliandReligion:A ReappraisalBy theGraceof God

Yetmightnot we saythatMoses is unique nthisregard,as theonly princeon Machiavelli's ist who actuallyconverseswithGod(atleast if one discounts"unarmedprophets" uch as Savonarola)?While Machiavelliclearly singlesMoses outforspecialpraise,however,hedoes not meanto suggestthat he caseof theOld Testament igureis entirelyunique.Rather,he remarks,"But ookatCyrusandtheotherswho gainedandfoundedkingdoms.Youwill findthemallamazing;and f you look at theiractionsandtheir ndividualmethods, heyseemno different hanthose of Moses, who hadso greata teacher."68While Mosescertainlybenefitted from direct divine guidance, the other founderswhomMachiavellipraisesalso enjoyedsomespecialfavorfromGod,both in termsofthegift of anopportunityoracting propitiouslyand thedivineencouragementto seize thechancethat heyhadbeengranted.Thepossessionof divineinspira-tion is the most fundamental ource of the similaritiesbetweenMoses, Cyrus,Romulus,andTheseus,all of whom Machiavelliregards o be-at leastfigura-tively-profeti.69The idea that secularrulers no less than theocraticones areagentsof thedivine will andserve atGod's pleasure s not so contrary o conventionalreli-gion as it mayseem at firstglance.Rather,he worthinessof thegreatestpaganrulers n theeyes of God was upheldby medievalthinkers.Witnessthestoryofthe EmperorTrajan,widely recountedduring he MiddleAges: so just was hethat,althoughapagan,hewas saved fromthe tortures f Hell after he interven-tionof Gregory heGreatwith God.70Machiavelli ndeedknewthistale, for inhis "AllocationMade to a Magistrate,"he cites Trajan'sexample of justice,quoting n thisconnectionfromDante'sPurgatorioandconcluding,"From hiswe can seehowmuchGod lovesJusticeandMercy."71na similarvein medievalChristians awGod'shandatwork in thesuccessesof otherpaganrulers.As thelate thirteenth-centurycholasticPtolemyof Lucca declaresin his influentialcontinuationof Aquinas'sDe regno,

Withregard o those [pagans]exercising lordship,God seems to havegranted helegitimacyof lordship....Godmakesa dispositionon behalfof the subjectsto bringabouta betterresult when a ruler,althoughasinner,strives to please God. Isaiahwrites [in 4 Kings 15.1-7] aboutCyrus,Kingof the Persians:"I,theLord,saythesethingsto my Christ,Cyrus,whose righthand I have grasped,so that I might subjectthe

68 Machiavelli,Chief Works, 5.69 Ibid., 26.70 See Parel,"Machiavelli'sNotion of Justice,"539-41.71 Ibid., 526-27.

631


17/23

CaryJ. Nedermannationsto himandturn hebacks of kings. I will openthe doorsbeforehim andthegateswill notbe closed...."Goddisposedthings n thiswaybecauseCyrusshowedhumility owardsHis faithfulJews.... As a resultof these good andvirtuousworks in favor of the divine cult andthepeople of God,he obtained hemonarchyof theentireEast.72

So Machiavelli'sallusionto Cyrusas an "armedprophet" n parwithMoses isneithersingularnor sacrilegiousafterall. Rather, o claim thatthe success ofrulersdependsupona gift directlyfromGod,regardlessof whether heyenjoysome immediaterelationshipwiththedivinebeing,was ahallmark f Christianthought ong before the Prince. At best Machiavelli s simplyadapting histra-dition to explain how the greatestof princeshave managedto overcome thelimitations mposedby fortuneas well as theirown naturesandcharacters:heybenefitted romGod's aid.Inthefinalchapterof thePrince Machiavellireturnsothe themethatrulersare sure to succeed only when the hand of God assists them. His goal is toimploretheMedici familyto look uponthemselves as thenew "redeemers" fItaly.73n this regard,he comparesthe currentpredicamentof Italywith thesituations encounteredby Moses among the Hebrews, Cyrus in Persia, andTheseusin Athens: n all cases thenationwas "without eadership,withoutor-der,beaten,despoiled, acerated,devastated, ubject o everysortof ruination,"in sum,readyfora new founding.74ust as Godhad once granted he opportu-nityto actgloriously o Hisearlier"armed rophets,"o it existsin Machiavelli'sownday.Indeed, hePrinceinthispassageovertly nvokesthe divinedimensionof Italy's need for salvation,identifyingGod's handboth in the existence ofpropitiouscircumstances nd inthe selectionof a leader:

Andthough up to now variousgleamshave appeared n some Italiansfromwhichwe might udgethem ordainedby Godforherredemption,neverthelesswe have seen that,in the highest courseof theiractions,theyhave beendisapproved y Fortune .. [Italy] s nowpraying o Godto send someone to redeemher fromsuchbarbarous rueltyandarro-gance.... There is not, atpresent,anyonein whom she can have morehope thanin your glorious family,which, through ts fortuneand itswisdom andstrength, avoredby God andby the Church of which it isnow head),canmake itself the leaderof this redemption.Thiswill notbeveryhard fyou bringbeforeyoutheactionsand ives of those named

72 Ptolemy of Lucca,De regimineprincipum,in St. ThomasAquinas,OpusculaOmnianecnonOperaMinora,ed. J. Perrier Paris, 1949), I, 3.7.4.73Machiavelli, Chief Works, 6.

74 Ibid., 92-93.

632


18/23

Machiavelli andReligion:A Reappraisalabove [viz., Moses, CyrusandTheseus].Andalthough hese men wereexceptionalandmarvelous,nevertheless heyweremen;andeveryoneof them hada poorerchance thanthepresentone,because theirunder-takingwasnot more ustthan his,noreasier,norwas God morefriendlyto them thanto you.75

Machiavelli hengoes onto listnumerousomens andportentswhich,accordingtohim,constitute"signsthatGod is directingyou."76Thesestatementsperhapsconstitute hemost extreme llustration f Machiavelli'srelianceuponconven-tional Christiantheology. Humanbeings cannot overcome the obstacles torulershipon their own butmust be selectedby divinegrace,andtherebyautho-rizedby supernatural rovidence, n order o assuresuccess.Is the intimationof theMedici's divineappointmentmerehyperboleor evensheerflatteryon Machiavelli'spart?Althoughscholarshavecertainly uspectedasmuch,Machiavelli's heologically-flavoredorecast s entirely onsistentwithhis remarksabout grace elsewhere in his corpus. It is thereforeplausible tosustainGrazia'sconclusion hat"thereferences othedivinein ThePrince com-prise significantmetaphysicalandtheological statements,with politicalbear-ings just as significant";hence, Machiavelli's"remarks renot trivial."77 otonly does Machiavellidevelopan internallyconsistentpositionwithregard othedivinedesignregarding arthlypoliticalaffairs,buthe does so in a mannerthatperpetuatesmedievalChristian octrines.AndhisrelianceuponGod's ordi-nationandgracehas a very serious andimportantpurpose: o actas a counter-weightto the claimthat he forcesof fortune,humannatureand ndividual har-acternecessarily constrainthe ability of people to succeed in the conductofgovernment.

"Goddoesnot wish to do everything"As sketchedthusfar,a readingof Machiavelliattuned o the Christian ea-turesof his thoughtmayseem to denyto rulers hemselvesahand n thecreationandperpetuationf theirregimes, herebydepriving hemof a claimontheglorythatthey seek. Does Machiavellisupposethataspiringmenof politicsare sim-

ply puppetsof God's power?Does the fatalism of a divinely-endowedprovi-dence simply supplantthe fatalism of impersonalfortune?De Grazia,in hisclose interpretationf thephrase"God's riendship" sedinthePrince,appearstoacceptthisimplication.Heargues hat, ncontrast o medievalconceptionsofamicus Dei, which posited an active human role in earning divine amity,

75 Ibid., 93-94.76 Ibid., 94.77 De Grazia,Machiavelli in Hell, 31.

633


19/23

CaryJ. NedermanMachiavelli'sposition is wholly passive.78God chooses His elect andhumanbeings areunable to actefficaciously exceptas His instruments.Suchfatalistic esignations notentirely nkeepingwithMachiavelli's each-ings, however.While certainlyattracted o a deterministicstance in ordertoexplainboththe failureand hesuccess of human nitiativenovercoming vents,he does notutterlysurrender umanefficacy.Thisis suggested,forexample,bythe famousopeningparagraph f thetwenty-fifthchapterof thePrince:

Iamnotunaware hatmanyhavethought,andstillthink, hat he affairsof theworld are so ruledby fortuneandby Godthathumanprudence sincapableof controllingthem, as a resultof which nothingthatgoesastrayhas aremedy;andtherefore t could bejudgedthat t is useless toworry too much about things, but let them be governedby happen-stance....When I thinkaboutthis, I am sometimes inclined,to someextent, to share this opinion.Nevertheless,so as not to eliminateourfree will (libero arbitrio),I judge it to be the case that fortune s thearbiterof half ouractions,but thatit lets us controlroughlythe otherhalf.79

Theway in which Machiavellihasphrasedhis observation s revealing, npar-ticularbecause of his use of thetechnicalLatin ermforfreedomof the will inatheologicalsense.80nChristianhought he intricacies f theoperation fliberumarbitriumhadformedatopicof considerabledebatebeginningwiththeChurchFathersandrunning hroughouthe LatinMiddleAges. The issues surroundingfree will continued oprovokethe humanistsof theRenaissance.Inthecenturybefore Machiavelli'sbirth,Salutati,LorenzoValla,andmanyotherscomposedextensive examinations of human choice; and such luminaries as PietroPomponazziand Erasmusreturned o the issue in theearlysixteenthcentury.81As customarily onceivedbymedieval heologians uchasThomasAquinas,theoperationof thefree will is integrallyrelated o grace.82 orAquinasandhisfellow scholastics he meritof voluntaryhumanactiondependsuponthepreex-istingstate of grace,which nopersonmayearn.Grace s infusedas a divinegiftand as suchcannotbe countedas a humanachievement.The freewill, inchoos-

78 Ibid., 50-52.79 Machiavelli,Chief Works,89-90.80 See J. R. Korolec,"FreeWill and FreeChoice," nNormanKretzmann,AnthonyKenny,and Jan Pinborg (eds.), The CambridgeHistory of LaterMedievalPhilosophy (Cambridge,1982). Also useful is Marcia L. Colish, "The Idea of Liberty n Machiavelli,"JHI, 32 (1971),325-27.81 SeeTrinkaus,n OurLikenessandImage,andMaristellaLorch,"Introduction"o Lorenzo

Valla,OnPleasure, tr. A. Kent Hieatt and MaristellaLorch(New York, 1977).82 See Odon Lottin,Psychologie et moraleaux XIIe et XIIIe siecles (6 vols.; Gembloux,

1942) I.

634


20/23

Machiavelli andReligion:A Reappraisalingmorallycorrectaction,cooperateswiththegracealreadypresent n thesoul.As Aquinasdeclares,

Man,by his will, does worksmeritorious f eternal ife;but ... forthisisitnecessary hat hewill of manshouldbepreparedwithgracebyGod....Thepreparationf thehumanwill forgood ... cannot akeplacewithoutthe habitualgift of grace,whichis theprincipleof meritoriousworks.83

In themedievalscholasticview, then,the attainment f salvation s a three-stepprocess,requiring,irst, heinfusionof grace,followedby thecooperation f thewill with the gracereceived,leadingto the finalrecognitionof merit n eternallife.84No matterhow well one acts, one cannot earn the rewardof salvation,accordingto Aquinas,withoutthe initial gift of grace:"Man,by his naturalpowers[i.e.,unaided reewill], cannotproducemeritoriousworksproportionedto eternal ife;butforthis,ahigherpoweris needed,viz., thepowerof grace."85Humanbeings, in sum,cannotachievetheirendby theoperationof thefreewillalone butonly whenthewill is in accordwith grace.Althoughsome latemedi-eval thinkers, uchas theOckhamists, oughtto challengethispositionby mak-ing greaterroomfor freedomuninformedby grace,86he scholasticunderstand-ingremainedcurrentdown to the sixteenthcentury.87Machiavelli'sreference n Chapter25 of the Prince to liberumarbitriumcontainsunmistakable choes of Christianheologicaldiscourse,albeitwith ref-erenceto secularpolitical aspirationsrather han eternal salvation.We mightsummarizeMachiavelli'spositionas follows. No one oughtto thinkthat he iscapable,purelyby dintof his own abilitiesandtalents,of acquiringandmain-taininga state;extrinsic imitationsof fortune,as well as intrinsicconstraints fhumannatureandcharacter, retoo formidable. nstead, heonlyeffectiveruleris one who, forreasonsunknownandperhapsunknowable,has been chosenbyGod to govern and has been grantedprotectionfrom the circumstances hattroubleothers. Yet graceis not the end of the matter.The ordainedruler,whocannotearndivineapprovalandauthorization y his own will alone,mustnev-erthelessemploy his free choice in orderto cooperatewith andrealize God'splan.

83 St. ThomasAquinas, Introduction o St. ThomasAquinas, ed. Anton C. Pegis (NewYork, 1948), 661, 662.84See Steven Ozment,TheAge of Reform,1250-1550 (New Haven, 1980), 233.85 Aquinas,Introduction o St. ThomasAquinas,660.86 Ozment,TheAge of Reform,233-34.87 AntonioPoppi,"Fate,Fortune,ProvidenceandHumanFreedom,"n CharlesB. Schmittand QuentinSkinner(eds.), The CambridgeHistory of RenaissancePhilosophy(Cambridge,1988), 661-67.

635


21/23

CaryJ. NedermanThatMachiavellihadsomethingverylike thisposition n mind s confirmed

by aremark nChapter 6,justfollowinghis accountof theheavenlyportentsofMedici success: "Everythingpoints to your greatness.The rest you must doyourself.Goddoes not wish to do everything,so as not to take from us liberoarbitrioandpartof theglorythatpertains o us."88Gracemust notbe an excuseforpassivity,as thoughachievementswill fall intoone's lapwithouteffort.Godprovidesthe opportunity ndthe means forsuccess, but the will of the chosenindividualmuststill be exercised,his virtu mustbe displayed.As Machiavelliassertsin TheAss,

TobelievethatwithouteffortonyourpartGodfightsforyou,whileyouare dleandonyourknees,has ruinedmanykingdomsandmanystates....Thereshouldbe no one withso smalla brain hathe will believe, if hishouseis falling,thatGodwill save it withoutanyotherprop,becausehewill die beneath hatruin.89

Machiavelli's essonis clear:God'sgrace s a calltoaction,anawakeningof thefree will with theassurance hatthe course of conductundertakenwill producetheredemptionought.Onlythe"redemption"nquestion s notsimplypersonalsalvation,but the attainmentof a public salvationof the citizens andsubjectsoverwhomthe rulergovernsand therealizationof his own glory.Conclusion

Machiavelli'sprincetruly possesses, in the wordsof Silvia RuffoFiore,a"sacralnature": Asa leaderthenew princeembodiesthe biblicalcharacter ftheprophet-kingwho has receiveda specialdivinecall, a covenant romGodtoguidethedestinyof the nationtowardan appointedgoal."90ButMachiavelli'ssacral ruleris no mere "parody"of religious themes,as Fiore would have it.Machiavelli s, rather,deadlyseriousabout heneedfora rulerwhoactivateshisfree will in order o realizethegood stemmingfromthegrace grantedby God,for no othermeans of success is possible, given the naturaland supernaturallimits thatotherwiseburdenhumanbeings.The charge of an ironic or otherwise unserious stance on the part ofMachiavellitowardGod and supernatural owers is a most troublesomeone.Amongthemorepopularmagesof him is thatof asatirist,apurveyorofparody,

88 Machiavelli,Chief Works, 4.89 Ibid., 764.90 Silvia Ruffo Fiore, "'Upon Eagle's Wings': The SacralNature of Machiavelli'sNewPrince,"Rivista di StudiItaliani, 3 (1985), 2.

636


22/23

MachiavelliandReligion:A Reappraisalnone of whose statementsmaybe taken at face value.91This is the reason,forinstance,that the "Exhortation o Penitence"has been so readily rejectedashypocriticalorworse.Indeed,one of theprimary riticismsof de Grazia'sread-ing of Machiavelli s his credulityof theFlorentine's eferences o God. As onecritic hasasserted, t "wouldmakemoresense if de Grazia ook his interpreta-tionjust one step further o questionwhetherit was all a hoax. PerhapstheassertionsregardingGod and the conclusionthatspecialtreatmentawaitsthenew princeareNiccolo's way of easing the good princeinto committingevilacts."92 notherof de Grazia'sreviewerscomplainsthathe embraces"thesin-ceritypremisethatis conventionalto modem scholarship.For whateverrea-sons,Machiavelli s sincereandnevertriestotrickhis readers....Nothingwouldhave amusedourNiccolo more."93

Thepresentpaperhasattempted o demonstrate, n the basis of thehumanpredicamentposited by Machiavellihimself, why he had to be perfectlyandprofoundlyserious in his references o the ChristianGodand to relatedsuper-natural orces,aswell as to thepowerof freewill. The cardsare stackedagainsttherulerwho supposesthathistalents,abilities,andstrength-apart fromsomedivineordination-are sufficient to earnhim stable dominionover a state:thevicissitudesof fortune,notto mention he limitations mposedby humannatureandpsychology,dictate hathis ventureswill endin failure nthe shortrunoratbest the mediumterm.Hence, the true,assured and everlasting glory of theprince s to be foundsolely in extraterrestrialppointment.

Of course,just as no one can know whetheror not he is trulya bearerofdivinegrace,so Machiavelliadvises inapassageof the Discoursesalreadycitedthat no prospectivepolitical leaderoughtto give up his cause as entirelylost.The Lordmovesinmysteriousways,andanyman,no matterhowdowntrodden,may properlyhope for the improvementof his presentcondition.In this wayMachiavelliencouragesa sense of uncertaintyand anoptimismfor futurebet-termenton thepartof humanbeings:Godmaycallupon anyoneat somepivotalmoment and thusmay conferglory everlasting(temporalas well as spiritual)uponany person.The whole thrustof Machiavelli'spoliticaltheoryis thepro-motion of preparationordivineordination-albeit suchreadiness s betterac-complishedby thestudyof secularhistoriesratherhanof theHolyBook.None-theless, the arbiterof political success and failure is God, not humanity.Toascribesome other view to Machiavelliwould be to endowhim with eitheranexcessively positive or an inordinatelynegativeview of the human conditionthata carefulexaminationof the full rangeof his writingswill not sustain.

91 GarrettMattingly,"PoliticalScience or Political Satire?"TheAmericanScholar, 27(1958), 482-91; see MaryG. Dietz, "Trappinghe Prince:Machiavelli and the Politicsof De-ception,"AmericanPolitical ScienceReview,80 (1986), 779-80.92 Benhuniak-Long,"TheElusiveMachiavelli,"319.93 HarveyC. Mansfield,untitledreview of Machiavelliin Hell, American Political Sci-ence Review,87 (1993), 765.

637


23/23

CaryJ. NedermanItwouldbe absurd, f course, o suggest hatMachiavelli's emonstrablerelianceuponmedievalChristianoctrines ndercutsismanifest ostilityothehistoricalChurch nd tsteachings.Butif, as one recent tudyargues, nimportantlementof Machiavelli'soliticalenterprise as to createa "new

Rome" hatwasnotthoroughly nti-religiousrevenanti-Christian,94henhisreliance nmedievalheologicaldeasmaybe viewedasa centralacetof hisproject.Undoubtedly, achiavelli'secular rientationouldhavebeen ustasshockingoJohnof SalisburyrThomasAquinas sit seemed omanyof hiscontemporariesor ndeed vento somemodem eaders). hisdoesnotdimin-ish,however,hesignificancef thepresence f medievalChristianhoughtnhiswritings.UniversityfArizona.

94Sullivan,Machiavelli ThreeRomes.

638

nederman_amazinggrace

Documents

Transcript of nederman_amazinggrace