Niccolò Machiavelli and Martin Luther: Shaping Modern Political Theory
By: Andrew Plotnikov
Hist 151-001
I pledge that I received no unauthorized assistance in the completion of this work

_____________________________________

Martin Luther and Niccolò Macchiavelli were two European figures in the early sixteenth century who recognized crises of leadership and authority in Europe. Machiavelli and Martin Luther were arguably two of the greatest reformist minds of early 1500s, and their reactions to the crises of leadership present in their countries through their writings led to tremendous political and religious advancements; through their analyses of legitimate rule in The Prince (Machiavelli), and On Christian Freedom and Address to the Christian Nobility of the German Nation (Luther), Machiavelli essentially shaped modern political thought, and Luther sparked the Protestant Reformation that shocked Europe in the early 1500s. Though their responses were based on different groundwork, they each detected and sought to resolve their respective crises, and in doing so aligned their political theories. In analyzing the greatness of the two monumental European figures and their abilities to catalyze change in so many people, comparisons between the writings of both begin to emerge. In particular, Luther and Machiavelli shared innovative perspectives in their analyses on legitimate rule, and in doing so they revealed the pillars on which they built their cases: through their positions on human nature, independent free will, and the relationship between religion and government. It would be prudent to first provide the background upon which the two constructed their arguments. Machiavelli saw the crisis of leadership in his land of Italy upon witnessing the erosion of the once great Italian city-states as centers of European power. Machiavelli, once a Florentine politician, witnessed the invasion of Italy by Charles VIII of France. This cemented the feeling that the provinces of Italy simply could not compete with the stronger, centralized Northern powers that had emerged since Italy’s dominance during the Renaissance period. Machiavelli found the solution to this problem in a dominant, unified principality, and he devoted his book The Prince to prescribing the rules of successful governance to any autocrats in such a government. Machiavelli expounded his political reality as a world in which morality was neither useful nor expedient for the founding or maintenance of government. The Renaissance period leading up to Machiavelli’s time was marked by the revival and application of classical – and especially Aristotelian – philosophy, which primarily attributed qualities shared in harmony among a society’s people as binding them in unity and stability. Machiavelli instead commended princes displaying values of ruthlessness, calculation, and cunning. In The Prince, Machiavelli created a set of ultra-cynical, pragmatic guidelines for an autocrat to hold legitimate power and to conduct his state efficiently. He first broke down and attacked traditional Aristotelian ideology, deeming that the real world cannot operate on ideals, stating that “the gulf between how one should live and how one does … is so wide that a man who neglects what is actually done moves towards self-destruction,” (Machiavelli, 50) further arguing that “because of conditions in the world, princes cannot have [all qualities deemed good]” and that “some things that appear to be vices will bring him security and prosperity” (Machiavelli, 51). Machiavelli then gave significant insight into his image of human nature. “One can make this generalization about men: they are ungrateful, fickle, liars, deceivers,” he wrote, “while you treat them well, they are yours … but when you are in danger they turn away” (Machiavelli, 54). In these sweeping statements Machiavelli clearly departed from conventional thought and opted instead for a new line of practical rules for autocrats seeking success in governance. His princes would rule absolutely through shrewd diplomacy. For instance, he wrote “if you do … earn a reputation for generosity you will come to grief” because generosity leads to “impos[ition of] extortionate taxes” (Machiavelli, 51) on his subjects to fund useless generosity, drawing their hatred in the process. Compassion leads to disorder because too much breeds crime, and “by making an example or two [princes] will prove more compassionate by maintaining order and unity” (Machiavelli, 53). Most audacious was Machiavelli’s claim that princes should choose fear over love from his subjects because “men break their gratitude to princes when it is advantageous to do so, but fear is strengthened by dread of punishment which is always effective” in keeping loyalty (Machiavelli, 54). Filtering Machiavelli’s shockingly realist, amoral approach to rule, he consistently showed the power individuals hold: in each scenario, he explained a quality a ruler should exhibit followed by his reasoning for it, and what he can control by doing so. Where Machiavelli was addressing a critical lack of leadership in Italian city-states, Martin Luther viewed the crisis of the sixteenth century first and foremost as a crisis of faith, and his reform of temporal authority was a central part of his greater evangelical mission. Luther took on a different approach in projecting his message – instead of creating a manual of rule, Luther posited his argument on heavy criticism of the pope and his close contemporaries, who in Luther’s mind embodied the core of corruption in European religious infrastructure. The greatest offenses committed by the Church were motivated by the acquisition and preservation of temporal power over competing secular institutions. Martin Luther began his logical, rhetorical case against the pope by quoting scripture directly, reasoning through it, and by establishing equality among Christians in On Christian Freedom. In an iconic phrase, Luther declared “a Christian man is the most free lord of all, and subject to none; a Christian man is the most dutiful servant of all, and subject to everyone” (Reader, 63). He went on explain this phrase by defining mankind as existing “of a twofold nature, a spiritual and bodily” (Reader, 63). The inward man is devised of a soul that “can do without everything except the word of God, without which none at all of its wants are provided for” (Reader, 64). Luther paraphrased the Apostle Paul explaining the personal relationship each Christian has with God, writing “faith alone, and the efficacious use of the word of God, bring salvation,” and “the word of God cannot be received and honored by any works but by faith alone,” (Reader, 64) essentially bypassing the necessity of a pope for individual worship. These established facts, combined with his definition of the outward man, invalidate the traditions set by the pope along with the necessity of the pope himself as God’s mouthpiece to the public. “And so it will profit nothing that the body should be adorned with sacred vestments, or dwell in holy places … or do whatever works can be done through the body,” that “only hypocrites are produced by devotion to these things” (Reader, 64) because “by no outward work or labor can the inward man be at all justified, made free, and saved” (Reader, 65). Thus Luther has proven from scripture and analysis that the salvation of Christians is dependent on faith in the word of God found in the Bible, which Luther had translated from Latin into native tongue, and not on the superficial Catholic traditions which can only ever affect the “outward man”. So the definitions of Martin Luther and Machiavelli on human nature and individual ability have been defined. While the two constructed their assertions based on immensely different frames, they overlapped on a significant commonality: the empowerment of individuals. Machiavelli’s prince can execute decisions using cool rational without influence from any otherworldly interruption, and Machiavelli makes it abundantly clear that the success of the prince is dependent almost entirely on his adherence to his established principles. Luther gave people direct control over their salvation, proving the pope to be an illegitimate mouthpiece for God’s word to the public. The enablement of people led the authors to the same conclusion about the importance of a temporal government independent of religious interference. Machiavelli’s The Prince actually barely mentions religions, which was significant for a manual on policy in a time period where the terms “pope” and “politics” were closely intertwined. In fact the only reference he made to religion was in a single chapter where he stated that “such principalities are won by prowess or by fortune but are kept without the help of either” (Machiavelli, 37), then explaining with ironic admiration how the pope used secular tact and cunning, more like Machiavelli’s prince than an eminence who graces people with salvation, to attain such monumental power (Machiavelli, 38, 39). It then follows with the rest of the book that autocrats should rule exclusively using secular tact, without regard for religious principles. After proving faith to be an individual concept in On the Freedom of Christians, Martin Luther shattered the pope’s primary claims to secular power in Address to the Christian Nobility of the German Nation. He found that the Church surrounded itself with three walls “so that no one could reform them” (Reader, 71), and he broke each down piece-by-piece. “First,” he wrote,” if pressed by temporal power, they have affirmed … that the temporal power has no jurisdiction over them, but … that the spiritual power is above the temporal” (Reader, 71), and the second two deal with the pope exclusively interpreting scripts and being able to call council to interpret scriptures. The concern with temporal independence comes from Luther’s response to the first wall, which using impressive rhetoric he dismantles. He ridicules the notion of a non-universal spiritual estate by proving again that all Christians are of the spiritual estate (Reader, 72), and that “temporal power is as baptized as we,” including the pope and his bishops, “are” (Reader, 72). Furthermore, he declared that temporal power should be allowed to rule freely of the pope by stating “forasmuch as the temporal power has been ordained by God for the punishment of the bad and the protection of the good, we must let it do its duty throughout the Christian body, without respect of persons” (Reader, 73). Machiavelli and Luther’s responses to the crises of leadership in the early 1500s sought more secular governments devoid of religious influence. The effects of their writings helped advance what were traditional medieval governments to more recognizable, modern styles of rule through drastic change. Though Machiavelli and Luther presented seemingly distinct and at times disparate arguments, the overlap in their critical points led them to the same conclusions and achievements: the necessary of political reform.

Word count: 1683
*Note: due to uncertainty on how to cite Luther the course reader, all Luther in-text citations give the page number referenced in the reader