6 of 7 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Quite Good, April 30, 2000
This review is from: MACHIAVELLI'S THREE ROMES: RELIGION, HUMAN LIBERTY, AND POLITICS REFORMED (Hardcover)
A very good book, marred (unfortunately) by a touch of ingratitude. Sullivan's work rests entirely on a foundation built by Leo Strauss forty years before. Yet she only mentions Strauss to upbraid him--for an error which he did not commit!
Still, this book leaves no doubt as to Machiavelli's fundamental judgement of Christianity, and explains the point well and in detail. And, unlike Strauss, it is fairly easy to understand.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
3 of 3 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Very focused study of Machiavelli's view on religion or How I learned to turn the weapons of Christianity upon itself., December 26, 2008
This review is from: MACHIAVELLI'S THREE ROMES: RELIGION, HUMAN LIBERTY, AND POLITICS REFORMED (Hardcover)
Prof. Sullivan of Tufts University has given us a tightly focused and very interesting study of Machiavelli's view on religion, especially Christianity. She feels that Machiavelli's views on religion then opens a window on his entire political theory.
Sullivan frames her study with her theory of Machiavelli's three Romes. The first is the Christian Rome of Machiavelli's own time. The second Rome is the pagan Rome of Livy's History. Prof. Sullivan feels that each of these Romes were found wanting by Machiavelli.
The Rome of the Church was his primary target. Machiavelli felt that Christianity was a disease that was sapping the strength not only of his beloved Florence and Italy itself but most of the rest of Europe as well. Christianity with its focus on the afterlife and its disdain of this world fostered an "ambitious leisure". Christians did little to gain glory for their city or state in this world. They focused instead on the great rewards of the afterlife. Prof. Sullivan also explores how Machiavelli was critical of the conduct of the Church hierarchy as well. Her presentation of Machiavelli's critique of Christianity is very powerful and should put to rest the idea that Machiavelli was some sort of closet Christian.
Prof. Sullivan then goes on to show how Machiavelli was critical of pagan Rome as well. In spite of the glorious achievements of the Roman Republic and its long life, its fundamental weaknesses can be shown in the way it allowed for the growth of Christianity and the rise of the tyranny of the Caesars. Again, her point about Machiavelli's thought is centered around the use of religion, in this case by the Roman elite. Machiavelli felt that that elite used the religion developed by Numa to manipulate the masses. This usage prepared the people of Rome to look to religion for comfort and guidance. Then when Christianity appeared with its further beneficence of a glorious and eternal afterlife, the people of Rome were corrupted into that belief. And, yes, Machiavelli did regard that as a corruption.
Prof. Sullivan also shows how Machiavelli criticized other practices of the Romans that created parties or partisans centered around various great men. The problem was that their institutions were eventually unable to handle the sort of tensions and disruptions this created.
The last part of Prof. Sullivan's book is devoted to the third Rome -the Rome that Machiavelli thought he knew how to create. This Rome would have no state religion and especially no state use of religion (Machiavelli knew that he would not be able to eliminate superstition entirely). This would be a state or city much like ancient Rome but totally focused on the rewards and realities of this world. According to Prof. Sullivan, Machiavelli's intention was to create a state where the only necessity would be that created by the state itself. There would be no chasing after the imaginary rewards of the Christians, no attempt to foster the best in humanity (as was the case in many of the ancient philosophers) but a relentless attempt to foster the common good at the cost of its neighbors and to endlessly encourage the great deeds of the young and the glory-seeking. The idea was to foster so many such youths and men that they would control each other and keep any one or some of their number from grabbing for power.
There is much I have left out from my description of Prof. Sullivan's work that is worth studying and thinking about if you are a student of Machiavelli. For one thing, you will learn how Machiavelli saw himself as turning the weapons of Christianity upon itself.
As the reviewer below implies, she is very much of a Straussian, at least, in her interpretation of Machiavelli. Like all the best of the Straussians (Mansfield, the Zuckerts, the Pangles, Rahe, ad infinitum). She differs from Strauss in her interpretation of Machiavelli in that Strauss believed that Machiavelli wanted the elite in his suggested state to use religion to placate the masses and to prevent the sort of internal discords that would occur without that use of religion. Both Sullivan and Mansfield have argued that Machiavelli wanted dissensions for the energies they brought to the state. I believe that Sullivan is correct in correcting Strauss on this issue. I think her interpretation of Machiavelli on this point is a step beyond Strauss in the right direction. Thoughts on Machiavelli is one of the best studies ever written on Machiavelli. But Strauss saw it as just a start toward understanding Machiavelli's intention. Prof. Sullivan's book is an important step forward in understanding Friend Niccolo.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
2 of 4 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Quite good, November 18, 1999
By A Customer
This review is from: MACHIAVELLI'S THREE ROMES: RELIGION, HUMAN LIBERTY, AND POLITICS REFORMED (Hardcover)
A very good book, scarred (unfortunately) by a touch of ingratitude. Sullivan's work rests entirely on a foundation built by Leo Strauss forty years before. Yet she only mentions Strauss to upbraid him--for an error which he did not commit! Still, this book leaves no doubt as to Machiavelli's fundamental judgement of Christianity, and explains the point well and in detail. And, unlike Strauss, it is fairly easy to understand.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No