The study of Machiavelli, long established, focuses mainly on his political and literary works rather than his religious views. Numerous monographs and literary analysis’ of his life and writings exist, and while some do mention his religion, few concern themselves with it, other than as a byproduct of his world-view. Nevertheless, a growing trend in the last fifty or so years, carries a two-fold approach. One side of the trend argues for a completely atheistic, satirical, and ironic Machiavelli in regards to religion. On the other hand, the second viewpoint negates this argument and states that Machiavelli held to his Christian upbringing. Moreover, Machiavelli threw off the mantle of the corrupt and tyrannical Roman Catholic Church; choosing to go back to the tenants of the …show more content…
Samuel Preus’s article “Machiavelli’s Functional Analysis of Religion: Context and Object”, written in 1979, places Machiavelli’s “understanding of religion as typical” in Renaissance Florence. He argues that for Machiavelli, “religion was something that demanded scrupulous attention, but its importance derived from its impact on the causes of men’s actions, not from its truths.” Machiavelli’s “religion” was a broad term embracing all human attitudes and actions occurring with reference to a divine order… “Depending on circumstances, religion could function as social glue or lubricant in others when Machiavelli wished to inaugurate new laws.” Machiavelli argued that religion should not only maintain the status quo, but could also be called upon to authorize major innovations and new institutions. Machiavelli’s attack on the pope in the Discourses places him in close proximity to the Reformers, making Machiavelli almost a pre-Reformer. The religion the Papacy offered, subverted Florentine republicanism and liberty. Preus sums up his article by naming Machiavelli a methodological atheist and his writings on God and religion fall into the ironic trend of Machiavellian
This compare and contrast essay will focus on the views of leadership between Mirandolla and Machiavelli. Mirandolla believes that leadership should not be false and that it should follow the rule of reason. He believes that leaders should strive for the heavens and beyond. On the other hand, Machiavelli believed that leadership comes to those who are crafty and forceful. He believed that leaders do not need to be merciful, humane, faithful or religious; they only need to pretend to have all these qualities. Despite both of them being philosophers, they have drastically different views on leadership, partially because of their views on religion are different. Mirandolla was very religious, and Machiavelli was a pragmatist, which means that he was not interested in religion.
In St. Augustine’s book entitled Political Writings, one could see that Christianity plays a very important role in his view of politics. His opinion on the morality or lack of morality in politics, to me makes it more evident that Christianity persuades his views. Although it seems his writings have become quite well known and admired, not everyone fully shared his beliefs. Niccolo Machiavelli, for instance, seemed to believe in a government that was not driven by morality, but more by practicality. In, The Prince, Machiavelli stresses that the moral fibers of government should not be so soft. Like St. Augustine, his work went on to become one of the most famous books ever written about politics. Throughout the two works there are some similarities and differences regarding politics, however it their view of Christianity and morality that many find most intriguing.
Machiavelli discusses human free will especially in its relation to God, or more specifically, fortune. He chooses to focus on Fortune though, leaving God out of the equation for the most part which he does in most of his writing, as he believes his writing is on politics which is separate from religion. He argues that the general belief is that Fortune and God govern human affairs and that it is easy for humans to...
Machiavelli’s views were drastically different from other humanists at his time. He strongly promoted a secular society and felt morality was not necessary but stood in the way of a successfully governed state. He stated that people generally tended to work for their own best interests and gave little thought to the well being of the state. He distrusted citizens saying, “In time of adversity, when a state is in need of its citizens, there are few to be found.” In his writings in The Prince, he constantly questioned the citizens’ loyalty and warned for the leaders to be wary in trusting citizens. His radical and distrusting thoughts on human nature were derived out of concern for Italy’s then unstable government. Machiavelli also had a s...
Machiavelli wants a prince to place himself above his subjects, act deceptively whenever necessary, but also maintain the front of a religious man. This appearance would allow the prince to manipulate the church in Florence if believed and done well, thereby granting the prince ultimate power. This idea, combined with the other two, make Machiavelli appear exceptionally audacious and distinctive. This courageous move allows Machiavelli the possibility of becoming famous, with little risk of repercussion — especially since he ensures to protect himself with cautious humility intertwined throughout his
Machiavelli's revolutionary philosophy begins with the opposition of the First Commandment: "Thou shalt not have strange gods before me." This Commandment is the basis for the entire Judaeo-Christian worldview, and is in essence the foundation of any monotheistic religion. Machiavelli instructs the prince to attempt to appear religious (135), (since such an appearance is useful to manipulate the populace), but there is no instruction for an actual observance of faith. Furthermore, a prince is instructed to consider one thing over all others: "A prince, therefore, must not have any other object nor any other thought, nor must he take anything as his profession but war, its institutions and its discipline;" (124). These thoughts of war override piety and prayer, and thus undermine and attack the First Commandment.
Niccolò Machiavelli thoroughly discusses the importance of religion in the formation and maintenance of political authority in his famous works, The Prince and The Discourses. In his writing on religion, he states that religion is beneficiary in the formation of political authority and political leaders must support and endorse religion in order to maintain power. However, Machiavelli also critiques corrupt religious institutions that become involved in politics and in turn, cause corruption in the citizenry and divisions among the state. In the following essay, I will examine Machiavelli’s analysis of religion and discuss the relationship between religion and politics in Machiavelli’s thought.
9. Russell Price, “The Theme of Gloria in Machiavelli” in Renaissance Quarterly, Vol. 30, No. 4, Studies in the Renaissance Issue (Winter, 1977), pp. 588-631.
In Julius Caesar, Machiavellian traits are manifested through multiple characters. Those characters who obeyed Machiavelli’s guidance were successful in achieving their goals; those who did not conform to the recommendations failed. Machiavelli teaches tactics to achieve a goal, regardless whether or not these tactics are humane. On the other hand, religious books teach compassion and kindness. In short, one perspective is, to get ahead, people must drop all humane beliefs and focus solely on their aspirations.
The sections that I will be presenting are 73, 74, and 75. I will discuss the political ideas of Niccolo Machiavelli, Francesco Guicciardini, and Thomas Hobbes during the time of Florence Republic. First, Niccolo Machiavelli was born in Florence, Italy in 1469 at a time when the country was in political upheaval. Italy was divided between four dominant city-states, by which each of them was always at the mercy of the continual changing of princes and governments.
Machiavelli: Machiavelli saw religion similar to an incredible and vital device in the hands of rulers. Machiavelli constantly commends the Roman religion. He depicts it as being vital to the achievement of the Roman Republic. His feedback of Christianity then, does not stretch out to religion all in all. Machiavelli portrays the contrasts amongst Christianity and the Roman religion, and by taking a gander at the correlations his confounding perspectives on religion can be uncovered.
Machiavelli uses classical sources to advise a prince on the best way to maintain power. He alludes to Plato’ Republic to illustrate how many men have attempted to advice princes “ A great many men have imagined states and princedoms such as nobody ever saw or knew in the real word, and there’s such a difference between the way we really live and the way we ought to live that the man who neglects the real to study the ideal will learn how to accomplish his ruin, not his salvation.” Machiavelli also makes various references to classical figures to demonstrate examples of princely leadership. Machiavelli’s classical allusions are indicative of the Renaissance as the renewed study of the ancient classics was an important element of the Renaissance. Machiavelli adopted classical ideas in the hopes that these examples could inspire improvements within Italy. Rafael Major supports this idea in “ A New Argument for Morality: Machiavelli and the Ancients.” He argues, “ Even a cursory survey of classical literature reveals that very little of The Prince can properly be called original.” More also reflects the Renaissance through his classical allusions. He uses his classical sources to criticize certain practices within Europe, while also offering solutions to these problems through the example of the classics. For example, he also alludes to
some cases Machiavelli's suggestions seem harsh and immoral one must remember that these views were derived from his
Functionalists believe religion is a conservative force that performs positive functions of promoting social integration and social solidarity through the reinforcement of value consensus. In this essay I will draw on ideas from Durkheim, Malinowski, Parsons and Bellah. I will then evaluate these theorists with Marxist, feminist and postmodernist perspectives in order to assess the extent functionalism helps us to understand religion today.
During the time 1469, a child by the name of Niccolo Di Bernardo Del Machiavelli was born .Some may know him as an Italian philosopher, humanist, or a evil minded fellow associated with the corruptness of totalitarian government. In Machiavelli’s home state Florence, he introduces the modern political theory. Hoping to gain influence with the ruling Medici family Niccolo wrote a pamphlet call The Prince (Prezzolini).