Theological Origins of Modernity

318 notes to pages 90–95
71. Ibid., 216, 381, 382.
72. Ibid., 385. According to De Grazia, those saved in Machiavelli’s view included
Trajan, and David by direct confi rmation; Moses, Cyrus, and Th eseus as God’s
friends; Scipio Africanus, a divine man, and those most gratifying to God, including
reformers, etc. He also added Solon, Lycurgus, Aristotle and Plato, and
Lorenzo the Magnifi cent. By his criteria, it might also include Xenophon, Cicero,
Marcus Aurelius, Plutarch, Th ucydides, Tacitus, Dante, Petrarch, Boccaccio, Ficino,
Pico, Numa, Augustine, Francis, Dominic, and Jerome. Ibid., 52.
73. Ibid., 356.
74. While this is Machiavelli’s articulated theological position, and one that he either
believed, wanted to believe, wanted others to believe, or at least to believe that
he believed, it is not clear how deep his religious convictions were. It is obvious
that his account of the rewards that God gives to the eff ective prince mirrors his
account of the support such a prince gains from his people and the immortal
fame he wins from future generations. All of these are clearly incentives for the
prince to act for the common good and not merely in his narrow self-interest. Th at
Machiavelli’s doctrines of salvation and glorifi cation were instrumental to the
production of a well-governed state has led many scholars to believe that he was
disingenuous about both Christianity and morality. While this may have been
the case, there is no evidence that it was the case. Moreover, it is perfectly clear
that beliefs such as these were widespread among many of Machiavelli’s humanist
contemporaries who certainly were Christians. Our diffi culty in believing that
Machiavelli was Christian has more to do with the fact that we have generally
accepted the Reformation view that Christianity is principally a matter of faith
and not practice. By this measure we judge Machiavelli to be an atheist.
75. See “Tercets on Ambition,” in Machiavelli: Th e Chief Works and Others, trans.
Allan Gilbert, 3 vols. (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1965), 2:735–36.
76. De Gazia, Machiavelli in Hell, 79.
77. Levi, Renaissance and Reformation, 368.
78. It is important not to confuse the devotio moderna with the via moderna, although
there were some thinkers such as Biel who tried to combine them.
79. As Albert Rabil has pointed out, “to a man humanists believed that Reuchlin’s
enemies were out to undo the cause of good learning altogether.” “Desiderius
Erasmus,” in Renaissance Humanism: Foundations, Forms, and Legacy, ed. Albert
Rabil, 3 vols. (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1988), 2:247.
80. Ibid., 220.
81. Ibid., 225.
82. Levi, Renaissance and Reformation, 186.
83. Rabil, “Desiderius Erasmus,” 231.
84. Gordon Rupp, trans. and ed., Luther and Erasmus: Free Will and Salvation (Philadelphia:
Westminster Press, 1969), 6.
85. Rabil, “Desiderius Erasmus,” 216.
86. Levi, Renaissance and Reformation, 180.