Comparing Machiavelli And Augustine's Discourses

Essay 2 On Machiavelli and Augustine

The Church dominated political thought through thinkers such as Augustine and Aquinas. In The Prince and The Discourses, Machiavelli breaks from the early Christian tradition of thinkers such as Augustine in his work City of God. Augustine lays out the characteristics of a good Christian leader while Machiavelli issues a scathing criticism of such characteristics and the Christian faith in general. Augustine takes a moral approach while Machiavelli remains rather pragmatic in his approach.

Augustine characterizes the happy Christian ruler in Book V Chapter 24 of City of God. In order for rulers to be truly happy, they must first be Christian and put everything to serving God (V.24, p.220). Christianity

is not the only qualifier though. Rulers must also rule with justice, care more about Heaven than their earthly kingdom, be slow to punish, but quick to pardon, be merciful, and be generous (V.24, p.220). However, Machiavelli blames Christianity for many of the problems in Italy at the time. Machiavelli criticizes the values Augustine values arguing that they are responsible for making men weak and allowing them to be conquered because of the pilgrim standpoint Augustine advocates for (2.2, p. 168). Machiavelli takes an even more drastic turn, however, by arguing in favor of the classical pagan religion of the Romans instead of criticizing like Augustine and other Christian thinkers. The classical pagan religion of the Romans benefitted them because it glorified and deified individuals who achieved great earthly accomplishments (2.2, p. 168). Classic Roman paganism provided individuals motivation to be courageous and accomplish great, heroic feats in the real, present world. These individuals learned cruelty and ferocity that was criticized by Augustine. Machiavelli found these values to be the reason why classic Roman pagans were stronger and more in love with liberty than Christians of his time (2.2, p. 168). Machiavelli values the classic Roman paganism over the Christianity he observed.

Essay 3 On Hobbes and Aristotle
Aristotle, in On Politics, justifies slavery and the fundamental inequality of humans. Aristotle describes several relationships in his treatise. One of those relationships is the master-slave relationship. Aristotle contends that some men are meant to rule and others to be ruled (CN 2/4). Already there is the inequality. Aristotle argues that humans meant to be slaves are humans that lack reason and work with their body (CN 2/4). While this does not lead to a very large amount of slaves, slaves are justified nonetheless. Hobbes, however, sees humans as equal in nature. In Chapter 13 of Leviathan, Hobbes begins his discussion of the natural condition of man by stating that nature has made all men equal in that each person has the ability to kill each other; the weakest can kill the strongest, and the strongest can kill the weakest (13, p. 86-87). Because anyone can kill anyone, no one person can claim any benefit that some other person cannot. Hobbes later claims the eleventh law of nature to be equity, for if judges were to not deal equally between men, they would revert back to the state of war (15, p.108). For Hobbes, it does not matter whether someone works with their body or utilizes reason, everyone in nature is equally and should receive equitable treatment.
The second area of disagreement arises in the origin of government. Aristotle contends that government occurs naturally. Man is a political animal and so he forms communities starting with the community of a man and a woman all the way to cities in order to achieve some ultimate good, namely happiness (CN 2/2). However, Hobbes’ contends that government is not in fact natural. The state of nature is war according to Hobbes. Hobbes only virtue is survival and in order to achieve that, man seeks peace out of the state of war through the creation of a common power (13, p. 90). Hobbes views the creation of a state as an act of self-preservation rather than an innate desire of man. 
Essay 4 On Hobbes and Aquinas
In Leviathan, Hobbes describes a state of nature which, despite agreeing that humans act in self-preservation, deviates from Aquinas’ notion of a natural law that it comes from an eternal law and directs all humans to be good. First, Hobbes’ state of nature is a state of war. In Hobbes’ state of nature, the only virtue is self-preservation (13, p. 90). On this very basic level, there is some agreement between Aquinas and Hobbes. Aquinas agrees that humans, as with every substance in nature, seeks to preserve itself (94.2, p. 43). However, Aquinas and Hobbes disagree on the natural inclination of man. Hobbes’ argues that, because every human has the ability to kill another regardless of physical strength, no single human can claim something that another human cannot so they exist in a constant state of war with each other over different goods (13, p. 86-87). Under this premise, it would follow that man is not inclined for good, but rather inclined to act with selfish intentions for their own interests, the ultimate interest being survival. Aquinas, however, argues that nature inclines humans for good because they share nature with other beings (94.2, p. 43). Aquinas holds that humans are good because they share nature with others, but Hobbes holds that because humans do share nature with others, they are at war with one another.
The aspect of religion serves as another area of disagreement between Aquinas’ natural law and Hobbes’ state of nature.

Aquinas argues that humans’ rational nature incline them for good because they are inclined to know about God and live in society with one another under natural law (94.2, p. 43-44). Aquinas also connects natural law with an eternal law. Aquinas argues that natural law is humans sharing in eternal law which is innate in humans (91.2, p. 18). Hobbes does not leave any place for God in his state of nature. Hobbes argues that in the state of nature there is no right or wrong, just or unjust, or sin, only man’s passions exist (13, p. 90). Every man wages war against every other man. Man is not inclined to live in a society like Aquinas states, but rather, out of the fear of death, man comes together to form a common power (13, p. 90). Hobbes bases this common power on contracts between people. Hobbes argues that a contract with God is impossible unless someone has some supernatural revelation because one cannot know if the contract has been accepted or declined (14, p. 97). It follows that, if man cannot make a contract with God, in the state of nature right and wrong fail to exist, and government arises out of necessity, then in the same state of nature, humans are not inclined for good, share in some sort of eternal law, or live in society with one

another.

Essay 5 On Machiavelli and Aquinas
In response to Machiavelli’s criticism of the values of Christianity and the Church, Augustine would respond that Machiavelli lacks a proper understanding of the faith, he is acting reactionary to the Church of his time, and that he has a flawed perspective due to his lack of faith. To Machiavelli, Christianity values humility, self-abasement, and contempt for worldly goods leaving men weak and incapable of defending themselves, thus allowing them to be conquered (2.2, p. 168). Machiavelli concerns himself only with the present world so he despises such values. However, other than humility, Augustine does not provide these values in City of God. Rather, Augustine argues that there are two main precepts for individuals to follow, love God and love your neighbor, which create a harmonious society (XIX.14, p.873). What Machiavelli sees as people being weak and incapable of defending themselves, is actually individuals taking steps to form a more peaceful and harmonious society. If society is peaceful and individuals are content with one another, it follows that a ruler would have no reason to fear a rebellion from his/her subjects which would allow him to remain in power like Machiavelli would want. Furthermore, Augustine does not forbid rulers to engage in war. Rather, Augustine argues that a wise man recognizes the necessity of waging just war against the injustice of the opposing side (XIX.7, p. 861-862). Augustine also justifies war for the sake of peace which he argues is the natural aim of man (XIX.22, p.866). Augustine’s view on war actually places an affirmative duty on rulers to engage in such wars even preemptively. The Christian values do not prevent Christians from defending themselves, but rather lead the ruler and his/her subjects to create a more peaceful, earthly kingdom on their way to their heavenly kingdom.
Augustine would respond that Machiavelli’s lack of understanding relates to his limited and reactionary view on the Church. In The Prince, Machiavelli uses Popes from his time, such as Pope Alexander VI and Pope Leo X, as his examples for the faults in the Church. However, Augustine provides examples of both Christian rulers and Popes who displayed the Christian values and achieved vast earthly blessings. Augustine argues that true Christian rulers and figures such as Constantine and Pope Theodosius receive great rewards, such as a great empire, on earth for their faith whereas fake Christians, ones merely using Christianity for their benefit like Jovian, are quickly removed (V.25-26, p. 220-221). If the papal court acted as wicked as Machiavelli claimed, Augustine would not support that example of Christianity, but rather claim that their fake Christianity will bring about their end.
Finally, Augustine would claim that Machiavelli lacks faith and therefore has a flawed perspective on the faith. Augustine argues that true virtues are impossible without true religion (XIX.25, p. 891). The values that Machiavelli would support that Christianity apparently lacks, would only be truly possible with Christianity. The virtues of the classic paganism that Machiavelli desires would not be true virtues because Christianity is the only true religion.