Machiavelli's Gospel: The Critique of Christianity in "The Prince"

by William B. Parsons

Recent scholarship on The Prince interprets the classic work in the context of Machiavelli's sixteenth-century Italy, but this scholarship neglects the source on which the moral and political world of the sixteenth century was based, the Christian Bible. In this study of The Prince, William Parsons plumbs Machiavelli's allusions to the Bible, along with his statements on the church, and shows that Machiavelli was a careful reader of the Bible and an astute observer of the church. Machiavelli's teaching in The Prince, Parsons contends, might be instructively compared with that of the church's teacher, Jesus Christ. Parsons undertakes what recent interpreters of The Prince have not done: contrast Machiavelli's advice with the teachings of Christ. The result is a new reading of The Prince, revealing in Machiavelli's political thought a systematic critique of the teachings of the New Testament and its model for human life, Christ. In this study of the one of greatest works on politics ever written, Parsons not only challenges the most recent interpretations of The Prince but also gives new understanding to the reading that made Machiavelli famous. William Parsons is associate professor of political science at Carroll College.

286 pages, Hardcover

Published May 30, 2016

Reviews

[Tomislav · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting and detailed study of Machiavelli which argues that his ideas should be interpreted as a radical critique of Christianity. Scholarship on Machiavelli is usually divided between Cambridge School, which analyses him in context as approximately representative of humanist thinking, and Straussians who tend to see him as an original thinker whose works should be read on their own or as part of a broader dialogue with the ancients. Regarding Christianity, Straussians differ in interpretations of whether he was indifferent towards the religion, opposed to it, or desiring a reformed, improved version. Parsons goes further than most Straussians, arguing that Machiavelli was an unusually radical critic of Christianity and an early, resolute proponent of modernity. He blamed Jesus and his teachings – rather than just Church and conventional religion – for most of the misfortunes of his time. By overcoming Christianity, Italy and Europe could enter a new era of liberty, security and prosperity.

Large parts of the book offer detailed interpretations of The Prince, juxtaposing it with New Testament stories and Christian values. Machiavelli showed little interest in debating medieval theology, opting instead to critique the biblical roots of Christianity. He intentionally distorted and reinterpreted some of the biblical stories so that they better fit his purpose. Carefully selecting historical examples, he employed them for veiled attacks on Jesus. Parsons sees his critique of Savonarola as an indirect assault on Jesus. His portrayals of Philopoemen, Scipio, and Cesare Borgia almost parody Christ. Moreover, Parsons argues that Machiavelli attempted to attribute Cesare's weaknesses and downfall to Christianity. Despite his vicious behavior, in moments of crisis he would still revert to his latent Christian beliefs, and his family exemplifies that Church is hopelessly incompetent even under clever leadership.

Machiavelli's works express opposition to nearly every point made by Jesus – on friendship, love, mercy, acquisition, ambition, violence. Jesus’ teachings are damaging because they encourage weakness, misery, servility, effeminacy, and otherworldly orientation. Such unhealthy ideas managed to spread by parasitizing on institutions of the Roman Empire. They emasculate educated, civic-minded individuals, leaving them naively unprepared for life, while empowering vicious criminals to exploit the resulting dysfunctional society. Jesus encouraged people to live like bums, hoping for divine intervention in times of need, while also warning them of punishment for sinful ambitions. Medieval Italy was especially debilitated by Christian education and a large, influential priestly caste, becoming dependent of foreign powers and mercenaries. In opposition to Christian corruption, Machiavelli advocates for the revival of healthy ancient virtues. He places his hopes on clever, warlike, unchristian princes, seeing religious reformation and governance as an impossibility without dramatic revision of the whole New Testament.

In many ways, Machiavelli’s radical critique – which encompasses politics, culture, and ethics – foreshadows Nietzsche’s, a connection that Parsons does not actually explore. Of course, even in his immoralism, Machiavelli was much more moderate than the aristocratic-minded Nietzsche, essentially desiring a liberal, prosperous, commercial society. He believed that a bloody conquest of Italy by a rapacious prince could serve the common good, establishing a basis for a more stable, ideally republican society, respectful of ancient virtues, and conducive to general human flourishing. Parsons does not give much attention to Machiavelli’s appropriations of Christianity, which were emphasized by more moderate commentators, focusing instead on his negative arguments. The book presents these ideas in a convincing and readable manner. It does not really require much prior knowledge, except of course, familiarity with The Prince and the Bible. Overall, a good book, highly recommended if you are interested in the subject.

[Bob Vance · Rating 5 out of 5]

People don’t get Machiavelli like this man gets Machiavelli.........maybe Tupac