Niccolo Machiavelli was an Italian diplomat at the turn of the 16th century. What Machiavelli is best known for today is his essay, “The Prince.” In “The Prince,” Machiavelli outlines clearly and realistically the best means by which one can seize and retain political power. Often viewed as a book about basic human nature, Machiavelli’s pragmatic view of mankind has been controversial since it was first written. Many have called “The Prince” by another name, “The Book of Power.” Machiavelli’s ideas about the animal nature of mankind and how best to control one’s subjects have become the basis of modern political theory. In this article, we will examine the way in which Machiavelli believes faith should influence a ruler, and how his views contrasted with the popular views of the times.
In the eighteenth chapter of “The Prince” Machiavelli discusses the context in which faith should influence a prince. Machiavelli argues that a prince should “appear all mercy, all faith, all honesty, all humanity, all religion,” and that “the vulgar are taken in by the appearance and the outcome of a thing, and in the world there is no one but the vulgar”. Machiavelli means that a ruler should always appear to be religious, because his subjects will expect it of him. However, since none of his subjects will ever get to know the prince on a personal level, his policies and decisions should be based solely on shrewd calculation. To Machiavelli, religion is not a guiding force to shape a nations leadership, but a disguise for leaders to wear as they do whatever will give them the most control over their people . This pragmatic viewpoint is in sharp contrast to the leadership that the society of the time would have considered ideal. Although leaders throughout history have been known to use religion as a mask for political ambition, such behavior was veiled. Machiavelli is the first political analyst to commend this method as an acceptable one.
In the highly religious society of early Europe, the “vulgar” people of the lower class would likely have had a very different view concerning ideal leadership. This ideal model of a leader may have been based on the most glorified of Biblical kingdoms, the kingdom of David as told in the book of Second Samuel. David’s rule is based on the understanding that he had ascended to power only through the providence of God, and that in order for his country to be blessed, he must be devout in his following of God’s will for Israel. David’s rule is not without its share of trials, but the unfailing theme is this: When David obeys God, Israel succeeds; when David disobeys God, God smites Israel. This model of principality would have been taught in Catholic Mass and been a familiar concept to nearly every European. The idea that Machiavelli essentially says “It doesn’t matter if you have faith as long as you appear religious to your subjects” is a direct contradiction to the ideals of his time.
Another famous king of Israel, David’s son Solomon, is said to have been the wisest and richest of all the kings in the world. The source of his success was his devotion to God and his people. When asked what it was that he desired above all things, Solomon asked for a “discerning heart to govern your people and to distinguish between right and wrong” (1 Kings 3:9). While Machiavelli would say that a principality must be governed by craftiness and cold rationality, the moral compass of the time, the Bible, offers the opinion that a great ruler must rule in a just and fair manor, believing that if he does so his nation will be blessed by God.
Both Machiavelli and the kings of the Old Testament had a working conscience. The difference between their applications is what makes Machiavelli such a controversial figure. David and Solomon took a “positive feedback” approach to leadership. They believed that if they followed a strict moral and ethical code, their nation would succeed. More simply put, these kings of old believed in leading by example. Machiavelli, on the other hand, believed that if a prince dealt pragmatically with his application of cruelty, the good of the people would be secured by a “negative feedback.” That is, by making clear examples of what would not be tolerated, a prince could ensure that his subjects remained within the realm of acceptable behavior, thus ensuring a peaceful and secure state of affairs.
Machiavelli’s political stratagems were not innovative in their goals, but merely in their methods. While his views on the role of religion and cruelty in a principality were controversial for his time, he was merely proposing a new method of pursuing the same goal that every leader has always sought: a strong and secure domain.
