Machiavelli and the Politics of Grace

7/28/2019 Machiavelli and the Politics of Grace

1/24

Machiavelli and the Politics of Grace

Boyle, Marjorie O'Rourke, 1943-

MLN, Volume 119, Number 1, January 2004 (Italian Issue), pp. S224-S246

(Article)

Published by The Johns Hopkins University Press

DOI: 10.1353/mln.2004.0140

For additional information about this article

Access Provided by UNIFAL-Uniersidade Federal de Alfenas at 10/31/12 7:45PM GMT

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/mln/summary/v119/119.1aboyle.html
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/mln/summary/v119/119.1aboyle.htmlhttp://muse.jhu.edu/journals/mln/summary/v119/119.1aboyle.html


2/24


3/24

S225M L N

designates it the most important. His meaning is inferable from hisexposition of other pairs.3

The gaping discrepancy between moral prescription and activepractice promises political ruin, rather than survival. Therefore if aprince wants to maintain his rule he must learn how not to be

virtuous, and to make use of this or not according to need.Machiavelli acknowledges the common praise for the princely posses-sion of all of the qualities on his list that are esteemed good. Yet, in his

judgment the depravity of human nature forbids the prince fromtheir total possession, or at least their indiscreet exhibition. Machiavelliinvents a prudence whose norm becomes the preservation of thestate. So a prince should be so prudent that he knows how to escapethe evil reputation attached to those vices which could lose him hisstate, and how to avoid those vices which are not so dangerous, if hepossibly can. He must endure blame for possessing those vices

which are necessary for safeguarding the state. The reason is that thepractice of some apparent virtues will ruin it, while the practice ofsome apparent vices will secure and prosper it. The classical discrimi-nation between appearance and reality, from metaphysics to morality,

becomes contextual. The universal necessity is to control the politicalsituation by avoiding public hatred. This goal requires the ability todissemble in word and deed. Necessity demands the integration andactivation of the native human and beastly natures, which are halfand half,4 a hybrid deviant from the tripartite Christian paradigm ofPlatonist inspiration.5 In Machiavellis scheme there is no aspirationto virtue for its own sake or even for reward. The vacuum results fromhis rejection of metaphysical reality to descend wholly into materialappearances. There is no intellectual order; contemplation is not a

princely pursuit. Action toward effectual truth suffices.6

Developing his basely practical catalogue, Machiavelli prescribesthat a prince, therefore, need not necessarily have all the goodqualities I mentioned above, but he should certainly appear to havethem. While the complete possession of the virtues and their

3 Machiavelli, Principe, 28083.4 Ibid. 284, 28083; The Prince, trans. George Bull (Harmondworth: Penguin, 1961),

9092, 95, 99.5 See A. C. Lloyd, The Anatomy of Neoplatonism (Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, 1990), 12330; Gerard Verbeke Man as a Frontier according to Aquinas, inAquinas and Problems of his Time, ed. idem and D. Verhelst (Louvain: University Press,1976), 195223; Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, Oratio de dignitate hominis.

6 Machiavelli, Principe, 280.


4/24

S226 MARJORIE OROURKE BOYLE

consistent application ensures ruin, if he only appears to have themthey will render him service. Thus the prince should maintain the

appearance of being compassionate, faithful to his word, guileless,and devout. Machiavelli repeats, indeed he should be so. However,the prince should be versatile so thatif he needs to be the opposite,he knows how. The maintenance of the state will frequently force theprince to act in defiance of good faith, of charity, of kindness, ofreligion. Circumstance and fortune alone dictate his decision.

Again, the prince should not deviate from what is good, if that ispossible, but he should know how to do evil, if that is necessary. Inthese concatenations devout and religion are rhetorically em-phatic. The prince is always to convey the appearance of inspirationbyfive qualities. He should appear to be a man of compassion, a manof good faith, a man of integrity, a kind and a religious man.Definitelythere is nothing so important as to seem to have this lastquality of religion.7

To urge Lorenzo as a new prince to war against the foreign invadersof Italy, Machiavelli provides a prototype. Moses is introduced andpromotedfirst among the outstanding characters who became princes

by their own ability and not by good fortune.8

Machiavelli himselfthus affects the appearance of religion with a semblance of biblicalknowledge and piety to authorize his advice. This exemplarity is

verisimilitude, for Moses was never a prince. Quarreling Hebrewsonly accused him of vaunting himself as a prince (Ex. 2:1314 Vulg.;cf. Num. 16:13).9 Although Machiavelli qualifies his example, forone should not reason about Moses, since he merely executed whatGod commanded, he insists controversiallyyet he must be praisedfor the grace which made him worthy of speaking with God.10

Machiavellis simultaneous association of Moses with the legendaryfigures Theseus and Romulus further undermines his example byinsinuating the pagan dismissal of Moses and the exodus as mytho-logical.11 Although scholarship has examined Machiavellis resort to

7 Ibid. 28384; trans., 100, 101.8 Ibid. 264; trans., 50.9 Cf. Girolamo Savonarola, Prediche sopra lEsodo, ed. Pier Giorgio Ricci, 2 vols. (Rome:

Angelo Belardetti, 1955), 1:190, 229.10 Machiavelli, Principe, 264; trans., 50.11 See John Gager, Moses in Greco-Roman Paganism(Nashville: Abingdon, 1972), 98.

For Porphyrys defense of pagan gods, see Savonarola, Prediche, 248. For Eusebiussconfutation of Porphyry, see Michael J. Hollerich, Myth and History in EusebiussDevita Constantini: Vit. Const. 1.12 in Its Historical Setting,Harvard Theological Review82


5/24


6/24


unbelief. Three divine signs do not convince Moses of his mission. Heprotests his ineloquence to supplicate Pharaoh and rebuffs Yhwhs

inspiration. Send, I pray, some other person (vv. 35).Moses repetitive negotiations with Pharaoh are ineffectual. Pha-

raoh not only denies his requests but also harshly increases the laborand punishment of the Hebrews, who complain that Moses hasrendered them offensive and vulnerable, even to death. So Mosesaccuses Yhwh, Why hast thou done evil to this people? Why didstthou ever send me? For since I came to Pharaoh to speak in thy name,he has done evil to this people, and thou hast not delivered thypeople at all (5:22). Moses blasphemes that God is the author of eviland a failure in design. When Yhwh reiterates his promise, the peoplerefuse to listen, and Moses predicts that neither will Pharaoh (6:1011, 2830). Moses approaches Pharaoh three times more with tricksthat fail (7:18:15). The plagues ensue. Intervening between thesescourges, from bloodied Nile to blackened sky, are Moses plaintiveentreaties and Pharaohs hardened refusals. Finally the death of thefirstborn Egyptians allows the release of the peopleonly to havethem berate Moses about their very exodus. Is it because there are

no graves in Egypt that you have taken us away to die in thewilderness? What have you done to us, in bringing us out of Egypt? Isnot this what we said to you in Egypt,Let us alone and let us servethe Egyptians. For it would have been better for us to serve theEgyptians than to die in the wilderness (14:1112).

Despite divine deliverance through the Red Sea, the resentmentresumes (Ex. 16:3; 17:3; Num. 14:23). Moses hold on public loyaltyis short-tempered. When he disappears up the mountain for conver-sation with Yhwh, the privilege Machiavelli so admires, the people

defect by fashioning the golden calf (Ex. 32). Yhwhs anger burnstheir camp to the ground (Num. 11:13). Moses reproaches Yhwh forburdening him with this rabble and begs him to kill him immediately(vv. 1115). Yhwhs solution of a shared leadership only causestrouble (vv. 1424).20 Moses envious sister is struck with leprosy (v.12), the revolting people with plagues (14:1012). Yhwhs judgmentthat none who has seen his signs and despicably tested him will seethe promised land is realized when corpses litter the wilderness (vv.2023, 2636). Their mourners who enter Canaan against divine

orders are slain by the enemy (vv. 3945), while Korah and the

20 For conflicts in sources, see Benjamin D. Sommer, Reflecting on Moses: TheRedaction of Numbers 11,Journal of Biblical Literature118 (1999):60124.


7/24

S229M L N

Levites, who revolt against Moses superiority, are swallowed into thebowels of the earth. When the remnant accuses Moses of mass

slaughter, Yhwh sends a plague that eliminates thousands more(Num. 16).

From this devastation Machiavelli selects biblical signs to dazzle theprince toward the liberation of Italy. Unheard of wonders are to beseen, performed by God: the sea is divided, a cloud has shown you the

way, water has gushed from the rock, it has rained manna; all thingshave conspired to your greatness.21 The contemporary allusions havebeen referred to the election of Pope Leo X in March 1513 or theFrench invasion of Italy in August 1515.22 Yet the biblical signs areambiguous or dangerous. The sea was divided in the traditionalnarrative but not in the original poem (Ex. 1415). While thepartition allowed the Hebrews to journey safely on the seabed, itscollapse engulfed the Egyptians, drowning them. A cloud did guidethe Hebrews to that site (13:2122) but also allowed the pursuingenemy to track them precisely. Manna showered from heaven butbecame infested with maggots when the people hoarded it (16; cf.Deut. 8:3). When quails alighted to alleviate the boring diet, the

cravers died of plague with the fowl between their teeth (Num. 11:45, 3134). The people also complained of bitter or no water and weregiven some from a rock (Ex. 15:2224; 17:6). But this deed undidMoses. Although Yhwh told him to command water from the rock,Moses struck it twice with his rod (17:6). Not only did he disobeyorders but also he employed the symbol of his authority as onlydelegated.23

For this disobedience Yhwh forbade Moses to lead the people intothe promised land (Deut. 32:4852; 34:4).24 Yet Moses explanation

for his exclusion differed from Yhwhs: he blamed the sin of thepeople, not himself. Moreover, the entire narrative of the wanderingsin his voice exaggerated the peoples guilt and his virtue.25 Theepisode of the waters reversed Machiavellis rule that the prince

21 Machiavelli, Principe, 297; trans., 135.22 Hugo Jaeckel, What Is Machiavelli Exhorting in His Exhortatio? The Extra-

ordinaries, in NiccolMachiavelli: Politico, Storico, Letterato, ed. Jean-Jacques Marchand(Rome: Salerno, 1996), 5884.

23 See Johnson Lim Teng Kok, The Sin of Moses and the Staff of God: A Narrative

Approach(Assen: Van Gorcum, 1997), 15566.24 That Moses does not enter the promised land is also noted by Leo Strauss, Thoughts

on Machiavelli(Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1958), 72.25 Paul Kissling, Reliable Characters in the Primary History: Profiles of Moses, Joshua, Elijah,

and Elisha(Sheffield: JSOT, 1996), 4551, 68, 5259.


8/24


should lead by instilling fear into the people.26 Moses acted contrarily,impelled by fear of the people. He was forced to his show of power

rod against rockfor fear of being stoned to death by them (Ex.17:4). The incident was notorious, portrayed in the Sistine Chapel asa poignant reminder to Pope Sixtus IV of his own stoning during ariot on coronation day.27 Of the signs Machiavelli cited, water fromthe rock was the most clueless, for it missed the biblical message ofpublic dissent and failed leadership.

Machiavelli regards ancient events as precedents of current situa-tions, with signs as portents of great deeds in politics and religion. Yethe confesses himself unlearned in either the natural or supernaturalsubjects required to discuss or explain them.28 Although Machiavellissignals to the prince copy Psalm 78:1316 (77 Vulg.), he wrenchesthem out of context. The emphasis of that didactic psalm is not onleadership but on the ingratitude and defiance of the people. It is aparable of primal themes abouta stubborn and rebellious genera-tion . . . whose heart was not steadfast, whose spirit was not faithful toGod (v. 2, Vulg.; v. 8). The people sinned serially against law andcovenant, forgetting the very wonders Machiavelli cites, testing Gods

providence with their unbelief. Its verses relentlessly recite thepeoples sin and Gods wrath. Since Machiavelli typifies humannature as ungrateful,29 he should have understood its theme. How-ever, there is in this pitiful parable a political reference he may haveappropriated. This is the divine sanction of the military defeat ofEphraim, the Northern Kingdom (vv. 911, 5664), contrasted withthe divine election of Judah, the Southern Kingdom (vv. 6769).Perhaps Machiavelli intends his signals as forecasting another south-ern (Italian) defeat of northern nations.

By Machiavellis standard of effective leadership biblical Moses wasincompetent. Literally he remained conversant with Yhwh as a manspeaks to a friend (Ex. 33:11). This is the reference of Machiavellisassurance that the prince is no less a friend of God.30 But the contextof the biblical epithet described a moribund Moses, at his unmarkedgravesite in the wilderness, divinely condemned to death for failure.

26 Machiavelli, Principe, 28283.27 Rona Goffen, Friar Sixtus IV and the Sistine Chapel, Renaissance Quarterly 39

(1986):255.28 Machiavelli,Discorsi, 122, 250, 139.29 Ibid. 282.30 Machiavelli, Principe, 297.


9/24

S231M L N

In classical texts that Machiavelli knew but suppressed Moses was alsodeficient or culpable. Quintilian, whose rhetoric empowered Renais-

sance politics with a moral eloquence,31 scorned Moses as thefounder of the Jewish superstition. The extensive notice of Moses byRoman authors climaxed in the scathing judgment of the apostateemperor Julian. Under the guidance of Moses the Jews were free fora short time only and then forever . . . enslaved and aliens. AlthoughMoses purported to rescue them from bondage, their fortunes variedlike the chameleon, subject to their own judges and kings, thendominated by foreign nations, with Jesus himself paying tribute toCaesar.32 Even modern admirers of Moses leadership acknowledgehim a flaw-filled hero, a man full of human faults who learnsmostly from failure.33

Moreover, the political situation of the Hebrews in Egypt wasirrelevant to the Florentines in Italy. The Hebrews were enslaved in aforeign country; the Florentines inhabited their own lands underalien invaders. The exodus released the Hebrews from labor onforeign soil toward freedom in a promised land. Machiavellis diver-gent design is the Italian eviction of foreigners from Italian soil.

Whence would a Mosaic Medici lead the populace, except metaphori-cally from foreign oppression to native governance? Surely there wasto be no exodus from Italy as there had been from Egypt. A strategymight have been a march on Rome to usurp the papal primacy as anew Moses. But crucially the exodus was a legal release, not a military

victory.34 Machiavellis duty for the prince as chiefly war35 negatedMoses example. He was not a warrior, except in certain Judaic loreabout an expedition against the Ethiopians as general of the Egyptianarmy.36

This biblical evidence complements the errors in Machiavellistreatment of secular leaders. In summary of his secular knowledge,Machiavellis work is rich in manifest blunders of various kinds:misquotations, misstatements regarding names or events, hasty gener-alizations, indefensible omissions and so on. In the conviction that

31 Quintilian, Institutio oratoriae2.15.34.32 Ibid. 3.7.21; Julian, Contra Galileos, 209D, 209E213A. Cited by Gager, Moses, 81,

103; for a survey, see 80112.33 Coats, Moses Tradition, 42; Wildavsky, Nursing Father, 1, 6.34 See David Daube, The Exodus Pattern in the Bible(London: Faber and Faber, 1962),

2238.35 Machiavelli, Principe, 27879.36 Gager, Moses, 2021.


10/24


these errors are intentional, their rationale has been probed.37 Ilprincipeis said to dissemble in feigning realism, while contriving irony.

Its historical examples are grossly inappropriate, its behavioral de-scriptions at odds with its strategic propositions, from Cesare Borgiato the centaur Chiron. This serious discrepancy has been interpretedas a deliberate promotion of republicanism. A prince who literallyheeded Machiavellis advice would perish, for the discriminatingpopulace would be incited to overthrow his regime. Ilprincipeis thuscrammed with lies intended to deliver the Medici over to the peoplefor republican reform.38 This interpretation of the work as subversivesquares with the oddity of Moses as an exemplar. Religion might thusbe used to hasten the end of princely rule. Since Machiavelli employs

vestigial imitation,39 the prince would trace Moses footsteps fatallyinto the wilderness.

However, Machiavellis biblical source for the signals of a princelyliberation of Italy is not the Torah but the Psalter. The psalm from

which he extracts these divine wonders concludes not with Mosesdeath but with Davids election as Israels king. David rules withupright heart and skilful hand (Ps. 78: 7072; 77 Vulg.) idiomatic

for moral law and just power. It is that king whom Machiavelliconscripts as the true type for acting on ones own powers. In hisargument against the employment of mercenaries he cites Sauls giftto David of his royal weapons to inspire courage in combat. Aftertrying them on, David refuses them as second-hand, preferring hisown sling and knife. Machiavelli draws the lesson: Arms belonging tosomeone else either fall from your back or weigh you down orimpede your movements.40 Moreover, the psalm severely indictspublic ability, which can neither obey authority nor govern itself. Its

37 Strauss, Machiavelli, 36; see also 45.38James A. Arieti, The Machiavellian Chiron: Appearance and Reality in The Prince,

Clio 24 (1995):38197; Mary G. Dietz, Trapping the Prince: Machiavelli and thePolitics of Deception, American Political Science Review 80 (1986):77799. See alsoStephen M. Fallon, Hunting the Fox: Equivocation and Authorial Duplicity in ThePrince, PMLA 107 (1992):118195; Garrett Mattingly, Machiavellis Prince: PoliticalScience or Political Satire? American Scholar 27 (1958):48291; Thomas M. Greene,The End of Discourse in Machiavellis Prince, Yale French Studies 67 (1984):6466;Timothy Hampton, Writing from History: The Rhetoric of Exemplarity in Renaissance

Literature(Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1990), 6279; John D. Lyons,Exemplum: TheRhetoric of Example in Early Modern France and Italy (Princeton: Princeton UniversityPress, 1989), 3571.

39 Principe, 264; cf. 278.40 Ibid. 278; trans., 85.


11/24

S233M L N

verses triumph in monarchy. Machiavellis mistakes about Moses donot support a republican conspiracy.

Machiavelli was not innovative in politically manipulating Mosesreligious stature. Philo had allegorized Moses the lawgiver into aphilosopher-king although he was neither.41 The introduction to hisVita Moysis, translated for and dedicated to Sixtus IV, paralleled Mosesand the pope in those triple roles.42 Moses had further been sum-moned in Greek patristic literature to authorize and impose amonastic ideal upon the Christian bishopric. The stages of Moseslife, in solitude and leadership, were applied toward a reformedmodel of the episcopate as a harmony of contemplative retreat andactive service.43 This was all absurd historiography, since contempla-tion (theo\ria), as philosophical method and monastic vocation, wasnot a biblical word or concept. Yet, for the purpose of goodgovernance, scripture was forced to make it so on the imaginedpattern of Moses. On the Italian foreground appeared the grandestartistic cycle of this politics. Exceptional prominence was newlyaccorded Moses, who had been neglected or excluded from narrativeart. Renaissance figures of Moses were displayed in murals in the

Sistine Chapel to advocate and celebrate papal primacy. Artists werecommissioned to parallel scenes from the lives of Moses and Christ,the old and new lawgivers, as predecessors of papal rule.44

The grand resort to Moses as leader was his comparison with theemperor Constantine in Eusebiuss Historia ecclesiastica and VitaConstantini. Both texts correlated Constantines defeat of Maxentiussforces in battle at the Mulvian Bridge with Moses victory overPharaohs army through their drowning in the Red Sea. This applica-tion of biblical typology to secular history was unprecedented.45 The

comparison with Moses was not strictly secular, for Constantineappropriated and Eusebius published the title bishop as a meta-phor for his universal imperial authority.46 Nevertheless, Eusebiuspoliticized Gregory of Nyssas philosophical allegory of the oppressive

41 Philo,De vita Moysis2.1.2. For reason, see 1.8.48; for contemplation, 2.69.42 L. D. Ettlinger, The Sistine Chapel Before Michelangelo: Religious Imagery and Papal

Primacy(Oxford: Clarendon, 1965), 11617.43 See Andrea Sterk, On Basil, Moses, and the Model Bishop: The Cappadocian

Legacy of Leadership,Church History67 (1998):22753.44 Ettlinger, Sistine Chapel, 7, 4445, 10419.45 Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica9.9.59; Vita Constantini1.37.240.2. See also Hollerich,

Religion and Politics in the Writings of Eusebius: Reassessing the First CourtTheologian,Church History59 (1990):30925.


12/24


Egyptian army as the tyrannical passions that enslave the soul. Theinimical army became the historical troops of Maxentius in military

combat for the hegemony of the western Roman Empire.47

Machiavellis enticement of the prince toward the title savior of Italyechoes Eusebiuss praise of Constantine as its savior on his trium-phal march into Rome.48 Eusebiuss engagement of religion forpolitical ends, which converted Christianity into a philosophy ofsuccess,49 was precedent to Machiavellis sanctimonious scheme.

Machiavellis encouragement of the prince to war against thebarbarians also repeats Marsilio Ficinos exhortation to King Matthiasof Hungary to war againstthe barbarians. Ficino compared Chris-tian servitude to the Turks with Israelite bondage under the Egyptiansand urged Matthias to become a second Moses. He prophesied thatGod would again split the Red Sea and miraculously open a passageto free his chosen sons from their slavery. Toward this feat Pietyclamored that the people would by Matthiass power alone bereleased from the barbarian clutch.50 Further, George of Trebizondspreface to his translation of Gregory of Nyssas allegory paralleledMoses as liberator of the Jewish nation with Greek and Roman

redeemers, from Militiades to Scipio Africanus. Their achievement,he argued, was not because God was unable to deliver people fromoppression by his own will but because it pleased his supreme majestyand clemencyto conduct human affairs by human counsels.Throughits dedication to the cardinal chamberlain the pope was pressed tobecome as if another Moses.51

Moses is not an obvious model for a prince or even a pope,however. He does not appear in the prominent instruction on

46 See Sylvia Rapp, Imperial Ideology in the Making: Eusebius of Caesarea onConstantine as Bishop,Journal of Theological Studies49 (1998):68595.

47 Gregory of Nyssa,De vita Moysis, ed. Herbert Musurillo, in Opera, ed. Werner Jaegerand Herman Langerback (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1964), 71:71.

48 Machiavelli, Principe, 298; Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica 9.9.9. Cf. Savonarola,Prediche, 187, 246 and for Moses as a savior, 246.

49 Charles N. Cochrane, Christianity and Classical Culture: A Study of Thought and Actionfrom Augustus to Augustine(Oxford: Clarendon, 1940), 184.

50 Machiavelli, Principe, 296; Marsilio Ficino, Opera omnia, 2 vols. (Turin: BottegadErasmo, 1959), 1:72122.

51 George of Trebizond, preface to Gregory of Nyssas De vita Moysi, in Collectanea

Trapezuntiana: Texts, Documents, and Bibliographies of George of Trebizond, ed. JohnMonfasani (Binghamton, N.Y.: Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies with theRenaissance Society of America, 1984), 27881. For Pope Eugene IV as another Moses,see Monfasani, George of Trebizond: A Biography and a Study of His Rhetoric and Logic(Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1976), 35, 50.


13/24

S235M L N

princely formation by the eminent biblical scholar, Erasmuss Institutioprincipis christiani. Despite Machiavellis claim, Moses was not among

the founders of kingdoms or republics like Lycurgus and Solon.52

On the contrary, the biblical histories oppose the lawgiver Moses tothe Israelite kings, who never proclaimed law. Moreover, scriptureblames kingship as symptomatic, if not causal, of Israels sin ofabandoning the worship of Yhwh. Andto Machiavellis issueitblames the foundation of kingdoms, with treaties, intrigues, and wars,for the political fall of Israel and Judah.53 Nor did biblical Mosesachieve Machiavellis imputed status with those same founders ofkingdoms and republics who formulated laws for the commongood.54 Although in the Torah there are two speakers of the law, it ispromulgated by Yhwh to Moses as merely a delegate.55 Machiavellicopies Tacituss Historiae, which erroneously projects Moses enactinglaws in Jerusalem to secure public loyalty.56

Machiavellis association of Moses with the monarch Cyrus, who isfavored in Isaiahs oracles (Is. 45:16; 48:1216), has a slight justifica-tion. Biblical scholarship has related Moses nativity (Ex. 1:152:10)and final teaching (Deut. 32) to the same events of Cyruss life in

Herodotuss Historiaeand Xenophons Cyropaedia.57

Although Machia-velli fluctuates between their conflicting versions of Cyrus,58 he mayhave noticed similarities of framing with the biblical narratives.However, Cyrus died in his native land at the apex of power,instructing his sons toward the continuity of his kingdom.59 Mosesdied alone in a foreign wilderness, divinely obstructed from enteringthe promised land. He did not achieve any nation. At his death wasonly a remnant of the troublesome tribes for his successor, Joshua, to

52 Machiavelli,Discorsi, 91, trans., 133.Cf. Principe, 264.53 See James W. Watts, The Legal Characterization of Moses in the Rhetoric of the

Pentateuch,Journal of Biblical Literature117 (1998):417; Peter D. Miscall, Moses andDavid: Myth and Monarchy, in The New Literary Criticism and the Hebrew Bible, ed.J. Cheryl Exum and David J. A. Clines (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), 18486, 192, 194.

54 Machiavelli,Discorsi, 91; The Discourses, trans. Leslie J. Walker, rev. Brian Richardson(Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1970), 133.

55Watts, Legal Characterization, 418.56 Tacitus, Historiae5.4.57 Herodotus, Historiae 1.11.10813, cited by Miscall, Moses and David, 186.

Xenophon, Cyropaedia8.7.128, cited by Steven Weitzman, Lessons from the Dying:

The Role of Deuteronomy 32 in Its Narrative Setting,Harvard Theological Review87(1994):379.

58 See Christopher Nadon, Xenophons Prince: Republic and Empire in theCyropaedia(Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001), 1325.

59 Xenophon, Cyropaedia8.7.7


14/24


muster into Canaan. Yet Machiavelli pretends that Moses did enterthe promised land, stating Moses gave the name Judea to that part of

Syria which he occupied.60 Moses neither occupied Syria nor namedit Judea. It was King David who defeated Syria as the city-state ofDamascus (Aram) and garrisoned his troops there (2 Sam. 8:56). Noborders for Judah are cited until after Moses ( Jos. 15).61 Machiavelli

violates his own military rule that it is necessary to know in practiceddetail the lay of the land.62 His recommendation of the acquisition oflands in the opening chapter ofIlprincipe63 further disqualifies Mosesas an exemplar, for he acquired no land.

Machiavellis biblical errors cannot be cruelly committed to steerthe prince into political disaster by fomenting republicanism. Sincehe pronounces religion the instrument necessary above all othersfor the maintenance of a civilized state his ignorance disgraces himas a mentor. Yet, the function of Machiavellis religion is formal: tobind the populace with awe and fear in ceremonial cohesion byobservance of sacrificial rites and by respect for oaths, auguries, andsigns. Religion facilitates military instruction and special laws.Machiavelli condemns the corruption of the clergy, especially the

papacy and curia, not for moral evil but political damage. Bad priestlyexample causes irreligiosity, even perversion, among the populace,which requires the restraints of religion for civil order. Rulers areadvised to practice and promote religion for political security, eventhough they be convinced that it is quite fallacious.64 This externalityand expediency are remote from the reformatory faith as soulfulassent that distinguished the contemporary literature. As Erasmusadmonished princes, Christ does not reside in ceremonies andinstitutions. The true believer has embraced Christ in the depths

of his heart and . . . expresses this by acting in a Christian spirit.65

Machiavelli advocates the preservation of religion through a re-newal of its origins. There is nothing more necessary to a commu-

60 Machiavelli, Discorsi, 157; trans., 296. For Moses mistakenly in Jerusalem, seeTacitus, Historiae5.4.

61Wayne T. Pitard, Aram; C. H. J. de Geus, Judah (place), in Anchor BibleDictionary, 1:338; 3:1035.

62 Machiavelli,Discorsi, 24748.63 Machiavelli, Principe, 258.64 Machiavelli, Discorsi, 9398; trans., 143. For a current sampler on religion, see

Journal of the History of Ideas, 60 (1999):597681.65 Erasmus, Institutio principis christiani, ed. Otto Herding, in Opera omnia(Amsterdam:

North-Holland, 1974), 41:146; trans. Neil M. Cheshire and Michael J. Heath, in TheCollected Works of Erasmus(Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1969), 27:216.


15/24

S237M L N

nity, whether it be a religious establishment, a kingdom or a republic,than to restore to it the prestige it had at the outset.66 However, this

restoration is not of truth or morality; prestige guarantees socialcontrol. Machiavelli mispraises a Christianity restored to its begin-ning by Sts. Francis and Dominic, who rescued it from extinction bytheir poverty and preaching in imitation of Christ. In his sarcasm thepiety of their brethren convinces the laity to maintain religion bytolerating the wickedness of other prelates and obeying their rules.67

The pairing of Francis and Dominic was a hagiographical common-place in the social change from a monastic to a mendicant ideal ofpersonal conscience and public charity.68 The corruption of theirbrethren elicited broad and bitter anti-fraternal satire,69 in whichMachiavellis drama Mandragolaindulges, with fra Timotheo eager tobetray his name godfearing.

The Franciscan hallmark of humility is, moreover, precisely thevirtue for which Machiavelli despises Christianity. Our religion hasglorified humble and contemplative men, rather than men of action.It has assigned as mans highest good humility, abnegation, andcontempt for mundane things. . . . And, if our religion demands that

in you there be strength, what it asks for is strength to suffer ratherthan strength to do bold things.70 Humility is not a biblical virtue,however. The biblical word denotes social status,71 as in Machiavellisintroduction of himself to Lorenzo de Medici as a man of low andhumble status.72 His appointment of Moses as an aggressive model isastonishing, since scripture designates him the meekest man onearth (Num. 12:3). The Torah describes the politics of an enclave,for whose leadership meekness is essential. Thus, Moses is a greatfollower, the meekest man on earth, the ultimate humble backroom

person. He is not invested with power by the people, only by God, towhom he reports crises and is instructed about their resolution.73

66 Machiavelli,Discorsi, 197; trans. 390.67 Ibid. 196.68 Donald Weinstein and Rudolf M. Bell, Saints and Society: The Two Worlds of Western

Christendom, 10001700(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982), 11213, 247, 57,1023. E.g., Savonarola, Prediche, 169.

69 Penn R. Szittya, The Antifraternal Tradition in Medieval Literature (Princeton:Princeton University Press, 1986).

70 Machiavelli,Discorsi, 149; trans., 278.71 See Klaus Wengst, Humility: Solidarity with the Humiliated: The Transformation of an

Attitude and Its Social Relevance in Graeco-Roman, Old-Testament Jewish, and Early ChristianTradition, trans. John Bowden (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988).

72 Machiavelli, Principe, 257; trans. 30.


16/24


Tradition acknowledged Moses as Judaisms great exemplar inmeekness,74 from Philos allegory to the subtext for the frescoes in

the Sistine Chapel.75 Yet, as Machiavelli astutely observedfrom hisown practice of obscurantism, the whole truth about olden times isnot grasped, since what redounds to their discredit is often passedover in silence, whereas what is likely to make them appear glorious ispompously recounted in all its details.76 So counter-tradition boostedmeek Moses into a powerful model for dignitaries of Church andstate.77 Girolamo Savonarolas preaching, for example, cited Num.12:3 on Moses meekness but circumvented it by ascribing to anangelic message Moses vocation as liberator. Importantly he madehumility the virtue that perfected Moses. Behold his humility, heextolled, for he was unworthy (indegno) of such grace and of Godspresence. This was the virtue that made him the perfect man andgave him the heavenly illumination.78 It is this unworthiness thatMachiavelli reverses with a Moses of worthiness. Moses deservespraise, he counters, because of the grace in him that made him

worthy (degno) of speaking with God.In Machiavellis contrived exemplarity of Moses leadership for a

Renaissance prince lurks a politics of grace. Because the compositionof Il principe in 1513 coincides with Martin Luthers first writing, itevidences valuable lay opinion on the momentous issue of will towardgrace. Although scholarly consensus understands Machiavellis religi-osity as superficial, navet about the rhetoric of religion has aggran-dized his lip service to the deity into important theological andmetaphysical statements.79 This misjudgment has been elaboratedinto a Machiavelli perfectly and profoundly serious in his referencesto the Christian God and . . . to the power of free will.80 Yet,

73 See Mary Douglas, In the Wilderness: The Doctrine of Defilement in the Book of Numbers(Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), 5859.

74 Dale C. Allison Jr., The New Moses: A Matthean Typology (Minneapolis: Fortress,1993), 222.

75 Philo,De vita Moysis2.279; Goffen, Sistine Chapel, 21862.76 Machiavelli,Discorsi, 144; trans. 265.77 Gerhard von Rad, Moses(New York: Association, 1960), 10.78 Savonarola, Prediche, 18990, 257. See also Alison Brown, Savonarola, Machiavelli,

and Moses: A Changing Model, in Florence and Italy: Renaissance Studies in Honour ofNicolai Rubenstein, ed. Peter Denley and Caroline Elam (London: Westfield College,

University of London, 1988), 60, 6264.79 See Sebastian de Grazia, Machiavelli in Hell(Princeton: Princeton University Press,

1989), 31, 5870.80 See Cary J. Neederman, Amazing Grace: Fortune, God, and Free Will in

Machiavellis Thought,Journal of the History of Ideas60 (1999):637.


17/24

S239M L N

theological opinions aboundedto such confusion that Luther wouldbe compelled toward absolute certitude for establishing con-

sciences.81 Orthodox theologians did teach the divine initiative ofgrace, as in Thomas Aquinass doctrine that there is no preparationfor grace without grace.82 The general discussion, however, wasskewed by agendas, hampered by the loss of conciliar documents(Orange II), and doomed by bad diction. It was especially bad dictionthat mattered, since terms were compromised to mean what they didnot. The seminal defects were Augustines retention of the term free

will to designate a freedom that was not native to the will but onlyacquired by gracefreedwilland the term merit where there

was none. Aquinas corrected the latter misnomer, stating beforegrace there are no deserts except punishments. But who woulddiscover it tucked inDe veritateq. 29, a. 6c?

Beyond the obscurity and fragmentation of orthodox grace, it waschallenged by Franciscan theologians, influentially William of Ockhamand Gabriel Biel, who maintained a congruous merit. This was meritimputed by divine generosity, in distinction to merit owed by divine

justice.83 It was like the belief in the clemency of divine deliverance by

human conduct urged upon Pope Moses.84

Even as Machiavellipraised Moses innate grace, Luther corroborated thatthe teacherscorrectly say that to a man who does what is in him [facerequodinseest] God gives grace without fail, and though he could not preparehimself for grace on the basis of worth (de condigno), because thegrace is beyond compare, yet he may well prepare himself on thebasis of fitness (de congruo) because of this promise of God [theIncarnation] and the covenant of his mercy.85 Only after doubt thendisgust crept into his marginal notes on Biels texts did Luther

repudiate this doctrine as Pelagian heresy. From this indeed, heprotested, almost the entire church has been subverted.86 It was

81 Martin Luther,De servo arbitrio, ed. Otto Clemen, in Luthers Werke in Auswahl, 6 vols.(Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1950), 4:195.

82 Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae12, q. 109, a. 6, sed contra.83 See Heiko A. Oberman, The Harvest of Medieval Theology: Gabriel Biel and Late

Medieval Nominalism, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: W. B. Eerdmans, 1967), 12084.84 See above n. 51.85 Luther,Dictata super Psalterium, in Werke, 58 vols. (Weimar: H. Bhlaus; rpt. Graz:

Akademische, 1964), 4:262; Luthers Works, trans. Herbert J. A. Bouman (St. Louis:Concordia, 195586), 11:396.

86 Luther, Handbemerkungen zu Gabriel BielsCollectiorum in quattuor libros sententiarumund zu dessen Sacri canonis missae expositio, ed. Hermann Degering (Weimar: H.Bhlaus, 1933);Divi Pauli apostoli ad Romanos epistola, in Werke, 56:5023.


18/24


human merit, not divine initiative, that prevailed theologically asMachiavelli wrote Ilprincipe. The Council of Trent would neglect to

exclude congruous merit,87 tacitly tolerating the disposition to graceby natural powers, from raw works to ascetical postures like humility.

Luther clarified the ambiguity by defining free will a figment,or impossible. He transferred it from the metaphysical category ofreality to potentiality, subsuming it into debates about the status ofpossibles and impossibles. From that advantage, in a consensus from

Aquinas to Lorenzo Valla, he argued its unreality by denying onto-logical and logical status to possibles. At fundamental issue was the

validity of substantive versus accidental signification: whether or notthe will, which was not free by nature but only acquired its freedom bygrace, could legitimately be predicated free. Luthers analogy for itsdenial was univocally cogent. He ridiculed as sophistic the notion thata pauper could be called rich because some monarch might donatehis wealth to him.88

Yet, although theology engaged in abstract intellectual arguments,it also derived from ordinary lived experiences. Grace (gratia)originated in Greek favor (charis) as a mutual divine pleasure89 yet it

developed secular meanings. Renaissance culture extended gracebeyond moral goodness to suitable order and harmonious arrange-ment, even charm.90 The root of congruity, to agree together,connotes this sense. Will (arbitrium) was not only the psychologicalfaculty Augustine invented. Under the Medicis it was also the legalterm for executive discretion under their arbitration and for theirarbitrary levy of taxation.91 Machiavellis situation of grace in apolitical treatise ruthless for reality exhibits its secular arena. Theconcept of grace as not really grace was as ancient in Italian

experience as the Roman ethic of reciprocity. Generosity in favors wasoddly a duty. Benefits of patronage freely given could nevertheless be

87 See Oberman, The Tridentine Decree on Justification in the Light of LateMedieval Theology,Journal for Theology and the Church3 (1967):2854.

88 Boyle, The Chimera and the Spirit: Luthers Grammar of the Will, in The MartinLuther Quincentennial, ed. Gerhard Dnnhaupt (Detroit: Wayne State University Pressfor Michigan Germanic Studies, 1985), 1731.

89 See Bonnie MacLachlan, The Age of Grace:Charisin Early Greek Poetry(Princeton:

Princeton University Press, 1993), 45.90 E.g., Giovanni Della Casa, Il Galateo, overo de costumi, ed. Emmanuela Scarpa(Ferrara: Franco Cosimo Panini, 1990), 28889.

91 See Brown, Platonism in Fifteenth-century Florence and Its Contribution to EarlyModern Political Thought,Journal of Modern History58 (1986):38687.


19/24

S241M L N

merited and they incurred the obligation of repayment; even friend-ship was not pure but profitable. In a modern rational-legal bureau-

cracy such provision of goods and services would be labeled briberyand graft. The Marxist critique of patronal ideology would reinforcethe clarity of Luthers logic by exposing the pretense masking andsustaining the inequality of the classes.92 Social custom was legalizedby the unique contract of mandate. This provided for a benefactorsgratuitous fulfillment of a petitioners request, usually agreed to infriendship perceived as duty.93 In such anomalous reasonings, indefiance of Luthers logic, by equivocal predication a pauper couldbe imagined rich because a patron would bestow him wealth. Acommonplace of this mentality of exchange is the courteous formulaGrazie. Prego, which functions to eliminate the inequality betweentwo agents by locating them at parity.94 The English version is Thank

you. Youre welcome. The recipient acknowledges and appreciatesan unmerited favor, or grace. Yet, the donor responds as if thebestowal of the grace were not only pleasurable but even deserved:Youre welcome to the grace.

This reciprocity provides a socio-economic model for the theologi-

cal concept of congruous merit. The logical contradiction of grace asmerited was customary socialization. The very opening sentence ofthe dedication of Il principe discloses Machiavellis business as theacquisition of grace (desiderando acquisitare grazia). As he will instructthe prince, The wish to acquire more is admittedly a very natural andcommon thing; and when men succeed in this they are always praisedrather than condemned.95 Thus he defers to Lorenzo as his superiorbut assuredly so. Although I consider this work unworthy (indegno)to be put before you, yet I am fully confident that you will be kind

enough (umanit) to accept it.96

Grace as merited may not havemade strict ontological and logical sense but it made generous socialand economic sense. In Italian Renaissance philosophy a metaphysi-cal ground was the verysuitability of God. He bestowed beauty on

92 See Richard P. Saller, Personal Patronage in the Early Empire(Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1982), 739.

93

See Allan Watson, Contract of Mandate in Roman Law(Oxford: Clarendon, 1961).94 See T. Slama-Cazacu and G. Mininni, eds., GraziePrego: Le formule di cortesia inalcune regioni dItalia(Bari: Adriatica, 1989), 225.

95 Machiavelli, Principe261; trans., 14.96 Ibid. 257; trans., 29.


20/24


21/24

S243M L N

on these verses, in which the friar melodramatised the stabbing of atyrant,102 despite the lack of biblical evidence. Machiavelli admires

Moses also for his slaying of those Hebrews opposed to his laws andinstitutions (32:2529).103 He types him an armed prophet,104 al-though he was not a prophet and the only arms he bore were hispropped up limbs during Joshuas battle with Amalek (17:814).

Machiavellis characterization resembles the midrashim in its justi-fication of Moses call by some impressive personal quality thatattracted Yhwhs attention. He terms this grace. If Machiavellimeant grace in any theological sense, it coincided with Bielsmisidentification of natural capacities with actual grace.105 If heintended a biblical reference, it was to the observation of Mosesmother that her newborn son was goodly (Ex. 2:2), the pretext forhis preservation from slaughter. The Septuagint version translates theHebrew byasteios, the Vulgate byelegans. However, Gregory of Nyssas

De vita Moysisnotably has charis, which was translated into Latin asgratia.106 This was the relevant work for its focus on Moses in theboldest declaration in the Catholic canon for freedom of choicebetween good and evil as sheerly rational. As it emphasized, It lies

within each persons power to make this choice by the use of hisreason.107 Yet, even without this text, the conviction circulated. AsLuther before his conversion affirmed, My soul is in my power and infreedom of choice I can either perish or save myself.108

Whether Machiavelli means theological or aesthetic grace, hisMoses is naturally worthy (degno) in justice of divine revelation. Thementality will secure its frank politics in Baldassare Castigliones Il

102 Machiavelli, Lettere, 101012; Savonarola, Prediche,2012. Cf. Machiavelli,Discorsi,237.

103 Machiavelli,Discorsi, 237.104 Machiavelli, Principe, 265; trans. 52. Cf. Savonarola, Prediche, 187, 201.105 For Biel, see Oberman, Harvest, 138, 140.106 Gregory of Nyssa, De vita Moysis, 70; trans., George of Trebizond, rev. Fronto

Ducaeus, Patrologia graeca44:361. Cf. belleza, in La vita di Mos, ed. and trans. ManlioSimonetti (Milan: Fondazione Lorenzo Valla, Arnoldo Mondadori, 1984), 17.

107 Gregory of Nyssa, Vita Moysis, 5, 3334, 4546, 55, 56; trans. Abraham J. Malherbeand Everett Ferguson, The Life of Moses(New York: Paulist Press, 1978), 7172. See alsoAlbrecht Dihle, The Theory of Will in Classical Antiquity (Berkeley and Los Angeles:

University of California Press, 1982), 119. The publication of its editio princepsin 1517deserves research. For MSS. of its translation, see Collectanea Trapezuntiana, 72729.Note the discrepancies on worthiness, will, and works between text and translation inPG44:323, 350, 362.

108 Luther,Dictata super Psalterium, 295.


22/24


libro del cortegianowhere he who has grace obtains grace. The maximplays on triple senses of grazia to mean that the courtier naturally

gifted with nobility, talent, and beauty who comports himself with apleasing elegance will acquire favor.109 Machiavelli exalts Moses abovedepravity and exempts him from fortune by designating him a leaderby his own powers. This unbiblical mark owes to Tacituss anecdoteabout Moses exhorting the Jews not to expect any divine or humanassistance, for they have been abandoned, but to rely upon them-selves.110 By reciting signs of the exodus Machiavelli exhorts theprince to liberate Italy. He changes theologies to honor divineinitiative while endorsing human cooperation with it for the achieve-ment of personal glory. The rest is up to you. God does not want todo everything Himself, and take away from us our free choice and ourshare of the glory which belongs to us.111 No statement more betraysMachiavellis unspiritual ambition. God does so want to take away freechoice and do everything by himself. This liberation defines grace. AsLuther asserted, Free will since the Fall is a reality in title only and

when it does what is in it [facere quod in se est] it sins mortally.112

Transcending this argument is the doctrine of union, in which God so

intimately identifies with believers that his divine life animates them.The Christian mystery is neither acquisition nor cooperation butdivinization as the creative source of human power. This is notpresence by signs but possession by love, the essential act, of whichMachiavellis politics is devoid.

Machiavellis well is not theological wisdom but folksy sayings, as113

he inveighs in LAsinoagainst prayerful idleness that relies on God.114

The notion was proverbial: Set your hand to the work before youappeal to Fortune. As Erasmus explained, The lesson of the adage is

that, while we ought to trust in divine help, we should strive none theless, as far as in us lies, by our own efforts [facere quod in se est];otherwise heaven will not listen to the prayers of indolent and lazymen. He cited Aeschylus on a balance of dependence and duty.

109 Baldassare Castiglione, Il libro del cortegiano, ed. Bruno Maier (Turin: Unionetypografico-editrice torinese, 1955), 121, 79, 1036, 198, 215, 451.

110 Tacitus, Historiae5.3.111

Machiavelli, Principe, 297; trans., 135. Cf. libero arbitrioin Savonarola, Prediche, 155;cf. 223.112 Luther,Disputatio Heidelbergae habita, in Werke, 1:353.113 Machiavelli, Principe, 278; trans., 85.114 Machiavelli, LAsino, 967.


23/24

S245M L N

When a man makes an effort himself, then god too takes a hand, forGod loves to help the man who helps himself. A similar adage was

Invoke Minerva, but use your own strength too. Itwarns us not torelax our efforts in reliance on divine assistance. These adagesoriginated in the story of the carter whose ass was stuck in the mud.

When he appealed for divine assistance, God replied that heavenwould help him only when he put his own hand first to relieving thebeasts distress.115

The sophisticated hermeneutics for Machiavellis dissemblancehonors his counsel on the despicable but necessary practice of deceitsince great deeds are achieved by fraud and force.116 About religion,however, Machiavelli is not merely dissembling but ignorant. Hisfoundation ofIl principeon his continuous study of the ancient world. . . diligently analyzed and long pondered117 is fatuous for theexodus. A parade of authors had conscripted Moses name forideological and political ends with flattering but false comparisons toPlatos philosopher-king, the bishop Basil of Caesarea, the emperorConstantine, the king Matthias, and a procession of popes. Machiavellithe opportunist inserts his artifice into this convenience. Yet, however

preposterous their extrapolations from scripture, the allegorists didnot boast of historical purpose or erudition, as he did, but specifiedtheir contemplative intentions. Machiavellis abuse of scripture isfabulation. His religiosity is not profound but popular, in medievalregression from the philology and historiography of Renaissancehumanism. He shames Il principe by his own standard: The factscannot be divined. . . . If one does not wish to scribble doodles anddreams, he needs to check the facts.118 He deprecates others for hisown fault, a lack of appreciation of history, owing to people failing to

realize the significance of what they read.119

Machiavelli counts oncredulous readers, like the ignorant and rude crowds who be-lieved Numas familiarity with the nymph or Savonarolas conversa-tion with God.120 He induces their assent with claims of novelty and

115 Erasmus, Adagia, in Opera omnia, ed. Johannes Clericus (Leiden, 17036), 2:47677, 228; trans. Roger A. Mynors, Collected Works, 33:11819; 32:15.

116

Machiavelli,Discorsi, 90, 16364, 24849.117 Machiavelli, Principe, 257; trans., 29; cf.Discorsi, 76.118 Machiavelli, Legazione, 443.119 Machiavelli,Discorsi, 76.; trans., 98.120 Ibid. 94.


24/24


realism121 in dashing use of the rhetorical conventions ofexordiumandenergeia: the announcement of extraordinary news122 and its lurid

report.123 In reality Machiavellis donation of Moses to a Mediciprince is so uproariously false that it must be propaganda.

University of Toronto

121 Machiavelli, Principe, 280.122 See Ernst R. Curtius,European Literature and the Latin Middle Ages, trans. Willard R.

Trask (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1953),8586.123 See G. Zanker, Enargeiain the Ancient Criticism of Poetry,Rheinisches Museum fr

Philologie124 (1981):297311; Heinrich Lausberg, Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik:Eine Grundlegung der Literaturwissenschaft, 2 vols. (Munich: Max Hueber, 1960), 1:para-graphs 81019; Mary E. Hazard, The Anatomy of Liveliness as a Concept inRenaissance Aesthetics,Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism33 (1975):40718.

Date post:	03-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	rone-santos
View:	219 times
Download:	0 times