Explain how Machiavelli’s use of tone and various literary techniques make him one of history’s most controversial political writers, subject to an array of interpretations. Your answer should be at least 250 words.

here is your answer

Explanation:

The study explores Niccolò Machiavelli’s (1469-1527) views on Christianity. The

question of Machiavelli’s relation to religion in general and to Christianity in

particular has aroused much discussion. Most commonly he is seen as some sort of

neo-Pagan aiming to paganise rather than secularise or reform Christianity. In

previous research, his opposition to Christianity often has been assumed but

seldom clarified. The view that Machiavelli was simply an advocate of paganism

against Christianity is inaccurate.

Machiavelli criticised Christianity, but this does not mean that he was an anti-

Christian or an anti-religious thinker. He thought that religion should be used like

the ancients used it, but he does not demand that the religion in question should be

the same as the ancients had. Thus, he was not attempting any kind of resurrection

of paganism.

As is commonly known, Machiavelli harked back to ancient Rome and its

practices. The same methods were not used in his time, he thought, because

Christianity had already carved men into its liking and made them effeminate and

contemplative rather than virtuous and active. But Machiavelli did not claim that it

would be better for a society to get rid of religion altogether. Christianity contains

some effective elements that were unavailable to paganism, and, when interpreted

according to virtù, it, too, could allow virtuous action in Machiavelli’s sense.

Nevertheless, the idea that he aimed at some sort of reinterpretation or reform of

Christianity is complicated, since it is hardly possible to interpret Christianity in

such a way that it would exalt this life over the other. If he is considered as a

reformer, then he was a very radical one, moving the aim of Christian life to

temporal world and adjusting its virtues to serve the needs of the earthly

community. But, nevertheless, this seems to be the case. Machiavelli was utterly

critical towards the optimistic Christianity of his day, but like Luther and other

reformers, he did not need a pagan alternative. A more pessimistic view of humans

and society was already enshrined in the traditions of Christianity itself, especially

in the Augustinian strand. But from these too Machiavelli departed by moving the

aim of Christianity to proximate concerns. Machiavelli had very little enthusiasm to

engage in theological debates – instead, he focused on the political consequences of

Christianity. Machiavelli’s alleged paganism is more like a rhetorical construction

which shows how Christianity too could be politically more salutary

is this a question or a comment