AWA: Academic Writing at Auckland

During the 16^th and 17^th centuries, the political philosophy of Niccolò Machiavelli and the scientific theory of heliocentrism conflicted with religious beliefs in Europe, particularly that of the Catholic Church. Machiavelli suggested that men are innately wicked and should not be trusted, and that religion will not prevent evil or corrupt men influencing government. He also implies that Christianity was inherently unfit for ruling states, and suggested that religion in general should be more used as a tool for civil order and public spirit. Nicholas Copernicus and his theory of heliocentrism, as later championed by Galileo, changed the whole world view of Medieval Europe by challenging traditional religious assumptions about the order and workings of the universe, and the humans' place in it.

Niccolò Machiavelli, born in 1469, was a Florentine diplomat in an age where power politics and skilful diplomacy were key to Italian city-states’ survival[1]. He went on diplomatic missions all over and outside Italy, organised Florence’s army and was particularly interested in the nature of power and how best to wield it for the benefit of the state.[2] When France developed a rift with the Catholic Church, but Florence remained allied with them, Swiss mercenaries attacked Florence on behalf of the Church, and the powerful Medici family were restored to power.[3] Machiavelli, a republican, was arrested and tortured, but released to exile, where he spent the next fourteen years until his death appealing to be reinstated to his position in the court.[4] It was during this time that he wrote two political philosophies that changed the way Europeans viewed politics: The Prince and Discourses on Livy.

The Prince in particular is a very practical text, something of a manual for how to keep power for the benefit of the state.[5] Of interest are Machiavelli’s views on the usefulness of faith and morality in ruling states effectively. Instead of advocating that a Prince should be moral and good, in accordance with the teachings of Christianity, Machiavelli states that a Prince should learn “how not to be good, and to use that ability or not as is required.”[6] Machievelli believed that excessive moralism is useless in politics, since there will always be devious, cunning men who will not take morality into account if they see a weakness they can exploit. Machiavelli showed himself as a realist in his analysis of human nature; he believed that men are fickle and greedy, and that only in a perfect world would a moral ruler never be threatened by malicious rivals.[7] Machiavelli’s experiences had shown him that the world of politics revolves only around power, and that even religious officials would not hesitate to keep it through corrupt means.[8] Lerner states that Machiavelli is: “the man who above all others taught the world to think in terms of cold political power.”[9] Maddox even suggests that the tendencies of modern westernised states to have inflexible constitutions as their basis for all law stems from Machiavelli’s views on the nature of man; they made people suspicious of their governments and the extent to which they could wield their power outside the rule of law.[10]

Machiavelli believed that Christian values have little to do with maintaining the safety or greatness of a state. Machiavelli points out that “the experiences of our times show that the princes who have done great things are the ones who have taken little account of their promises...In the end they have conquered those who have put their reliance on good faith.”[11] When the safety and wellbeing of a state is threatened, an effective ruler’s decisions should not be hindered by questions of what is just or moral, or what will save his own soul; he will use his ability to put aside these notions and do what is strictly necessary to save the life of his citizens, putting the public good first.[12] A good prince is not habitually bad, only when necessary for his state.[13] Christian values such as turning the other cheek and praying for one’s enemies are useless if a ruler wishes to defend his state.[14] Christian values are not conducive to liberty; the harsh politics required to staunchly defend a state and achieve glory on its behalf are rejected, in favour of inward personal focus on faith (rather than public spirit), and a preoccupation with paradise (rather than the here and now).[15]This is not to say that Machiavelli rejected all religion as hindersome in politics; he greatly admired ancient Rome for its prudent use of religion as a civic tool to maintain political and military order. Obtaining glory on behalf of the state was encouraged as part of their religion, as was staunchly defending freedom.[16] It was also an excellent tool of discipline: oaths were a common part of Roman civic religion; soldiers would take oaths upon joining the military, making desertion and cowardice a terrifying prospect.[17] Machiavelli’s views on religion, argues Maddox, were a major influence on the Secular Reformation: he was a contemporary of Martin Luther, the Protestant reformant, and they shared many of the same views on the abilities of the Church in holding political authority (though for different reasons). Martin Luther believed that the true sources of authority were found in the Bible and not open to interpretation by the clergy in terms of state affairs, while Machiavelli argued more that state affairs are hindered by attempting to factor morality and praiseworthy deeds into the dangerous game that is politics.[18] In essence, Maddox argues that Machiavelli affected religious beliefs in Europe because he “define[d] the political problem” as being how to obtain security while still providing maximum liberty for subjects.[19] Before Machiavelli, doing this would involve systematic ethical considerations within the Church’s authority. But Machiavelli realised that politics is not systematic or bound by rules of ethics; consequently the Roman Church was not the right authority on matters of state.[20]

In 1543, just before his death, Nicholas Copernicus’ De Revolutionibus Orbium Celestium (On the Revolutions of Celestial Spheres) was published, advocating a theory of ‘heliocentrism’ to challenge the accepted ‘geocentrism’ supported by the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church supported the notion that the Earth was at the centre of God’s universe, and that the sun and other planets revolve around it.[21] This theory fit with Scripture and also the view that humans were naturally at the top of a hierarchal order within the universe. It was based on the ancient Aristotleian view of the universe, coupled with Ptolemy’s astronomical observations.[22] Copernicus’ heliocentric universe supplanted Earth as the centre and instead asserted that Earth and the other planets were constantly in motion around the sun, which was fixed. The theory did not gain much official controversy until the 17^th century, before then criticism came mostly from individual clergymen and scientists.[23] It is important to note that there was not actually much empirical data to support Copernicus’ theory before Galileo’s observations,[24] so many were comfortable with dismissing the theory as “unproven and unprovable.”[25]

However, when, in the early 17^th century the Italian scientist Galileo Galilei built a telescope and observed the heavens, what he found did not support the Church’s views. He saw craters on the moon, and sunspots on the sun; proof that celestial spheres are not pure, as in the Aristotleian view.[26] Galileo saw with his telescope moons orbiting Jupiter, proof that celestial bodies could orbit something other than Earth, and he performed experiments on motion using pure observation as a scientific technique, rather than forming preconceived assumptions on how objects would behave according to their role in God’s universe.[27] In 1616, the controversy grew to such that Copernicus’ De Revolutionibus was placed on the Catholic Church’s index of banned books. Galileo was warned to cease his support of the theory, but in 1633 he published his Dialogues Concerning the Two Chief World Systems- Ptolemaic and Copernican, in which he strongly supported Copernican theory.[28] The Church, already panicked by the Protestant Reformation movement, perceived Copernicanism as a threat to the literal interpretation of Scripture, and therefore the whole authority of the Church.[29] Galileo was put on trial by the Catholic Church in the same year, and sentenced to life imprisonment, mostly under house arrest, and his book was banned.[30] The trial was emotionally heated and hotly debated, with judges and Catholic allies warning that the Church would suffer a massive blow in authority and credibility if they condemned a theory that would later be proven right (as it was).[31]

The effects of the Copernican theory and the Church’s reaction towards it changed the whole world view of modern Europeans. Heliocentrism implied that we as humans were no longer the centre of a hierarchically ordered universe, the preferred and favourite creations of God.[32] Kuhn states that Copernicanism and the theories that stemmed from it “created many gigantic problems for the believing Christian;” for instance, if we were not the centre of the universe, then where were we in the position between heaven and hell? If the universe was infinite, then where was God and heaven?[33] Gone was the security of the medieval world-view, this shift in thought was a transformation in modern European self-awareness and uncertainty of purpose.[34] The vindication of Copernicanism was also very harmful to the Church, and the belief that they held authority over matters of nature and science.[35] Copernicus’ theories were not actually that broad, but as more discoveries came about that did not fit with the Ptolemaic system, ‘Copernicanism’ turned into the mass of evidence (both Copernicus’ own and otherwise) that proved geocentrism as false: “the significance of [Copernicus’ work] lies less in what it says itself than in what it caused others to say.”[36] The actions of the Church regarding Copernicanism have given rise to the modern view that religious beliefs are often not compatible with empirical, scientific free thinking, in other words the modern ‘science versus religion’ conflict that is still so prevalent today.[37] Overall, Copernicanism impacted religious belief in that it represented a whole new way of thinking: of finding the answers to universal questions through observation, data and mathematics, rather than through Scripture and the Church.[38] Religious beliefs became an inward personal quest for answers to the human questions, rather than an infallible authority on all universal matters.

During the 16^th and 17^th centuries, the political philosophy of Niccolò Machiavelli and the scientific theory of heliocentrism conflicted with religious beliefs in Europe, particularly that of the Catholic Church. Machiavelli’s views on human nature contributed to the modern day distrust of governments, and his views on Christian values and their hindering effect on effective government represented a different kind of secularization of the Church and State, one that was purely political. Copernicanism challenged the world view of medieval Europe, and the authority of the Church on what have, as a consequence, come to be viewed as ‘non-religious matters’- science and the workings of the universe.

Bibliography

Brooke, J. Science and Religion: Lessons from History. Science, New Series vol.282, no.5396, 1998 pp.1986-1986

Feldhay, R. Galileo and the Church: Political Inquisition or Critical Dialogue? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1995

Kuhn, T. The Copernican Revolution: Planetary Astronomy in the Development of Western Thought. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, (1957) 

Machiavelli, N. The Prince and the Discourses. Introduction by M. Lerner. New York: The Modern Library, 1940

Machiavelli, N. The Prince and Other Works. Translation and Notes by A. H. Gilbert. Chicago: Packard and Company, 1946

Maddox, G. The Secular Reformation and the Influence of Machiavelli. Journal of Religion vol 82, no. 4, (2002) pp.539-562

Marvin,P. An Intellectual History of Europe. Boston, Toronto: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1992.

Sullivan, V.B. Neither Christian Nor Pagan: Machiavelli’s Treatment of Religion in the Discourses. Polity, vol. 26, no.2 (1993)  pp. 259-280

[1] Machiavelli, N.The Prince and the Discourses. Introduction by M. Lerner. New York: The Modern Library 1940. p.14

[2] Ibid, p.16

[3] Ibid, p.17

[4] Ibid p.18

[5] Machiavelli, N. The Prince and Other Works. Translation and Notes by A. H. Gilbert. Chicago: Packard and Company, 1946.  p.14

[6] Machiavelli, trans.Gilbert p.141

[7] Gilbert p.21, Machiavelli p.148

[8] Maddox, G. The Secular Reformation and the Influence of Machiavelli. Journal of Religion vol 82, no. 4, 2002.  p.549

[9] Lerner, 1940  p.15

[10] Maddox,  2002  p.542

[11] Machiavelli, trans.Gilbert p.148

[12] Gilbert, 1946  p.19

[13] Gilbert, 1946 p.20

[14] Maddox 2002,  p.551

[15] Sullivan, V.B. Neither Christian Nor Pagan: Machiavelli’s Treatment of Religion in the Discourses. Polity, vol. 26, no.2, 1993.  p.262-3

[16] Ibid, p.262

[17] Ibid, p.265

[18] Maddox, 2002  p.540

[19] Ibid p.541

[20] Ibid p.548

[21] Kuhn, T. The Copernican Revolution: Planetary Astronomy in the Development of Western Thought. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1957. p.137

[22] Marvin,P. An Intellectual History of Europe. Boston, Toronto: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1992.  p.69-9

[23] Ibid, p.68

[24] Kuhn, p.187

[25] Feldhay, R. Galileo and the Church: Political Inquisition or Critical Dialogue? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1995 p.202

[26] Marvin,  p.72

[27] Ibid p.73-4

[28] Ibid 76

[29] Feldhay, p.17

[30] Marvin, p.76

[31] Brooke, J. Science and Religion: Lessons from History. Science, New Series vol.282, no.5396,  1998.  p1985

[32] Marvin, p.69-71

[33] Kuhn p.193

[34] Ibid p.193

[35] Marvin p.77

[36] Kuhn p.135

[37] Marvin, p.77

[38] Ibid p76