AS a result of their decidedly spiritual character, Machiavelli understands that those territories which fall under the control of the Church are fairly unique and their

laws are so powerful, and of such character that the principalities may be held no matter how their princes behave and live. These princes alone have states and do not defend them. They have subjects and do not rule them. The states, although unguarded, are not taken from them. The subjects although not ruled, do not care, and they have neither the desire nor the ability to rebel.

However, Machiavelli is rather less concerned with examining the actual theological ramifications of such principalities than with explaining how they obtained their power in a more temporal regard. Prior to Catholicism’s widespread acquisition of Italian territory, he claims, the balance of power utilised by those states which did not come under the control of the Pope was extremely effective:

Before Charles, King of France, came into Italy, this country was under the control of the Pope, the Venetians, the King of Naples, the Duke of Milan, and the Florentines. These leaders had two principal anxieties: the first, that no foreign army should enter Italy, and the second, that none of themselves should seize others’ lands. Those about whom there was the most anxiety were the Pope and the Venetians. To restrain the Venetians the union of all the others was necessary as it was for the defence of Ferrara. To keep down the Pope they made use of the barons of Rome. They consisted of two groups, the Orsini and Colonnesi, who always had a reason for disorder, and, standing with weapons in their hands under the eyes of the Pope, kept the Pope weak and powerless.

The reason the temporal powers had successfully managed to stave off the territorial designs of the Church for so long, was due to the fact that the popes were never able to weaken both the Orsini and Colonnesi factions at the same time. One or another of these disparate and antagonistic groups always possessed the necessary wherewithal to resist such encroachment.

Of course, with the arrival Pope Alexander VI things began to change and the Church was able to rely on the financial backing of his son, Cesare Borgia. The latter cared little for religion, as we have seen, but he was eventually outmanoeuvred by Pope Julius II (pictured). Indeed, as the power of the Borgias began to wane, the Church seized full control of their territory. The fact that Pope Alexander VI had weakened both the Orsini and Colonnesi for the first time, meant that Julius II was able to build upon the shift of power. Machiavelli, at least from a purely political and secular perspective, even admires him for behaving like a prince:

He also found the way open to accumulate money in a manner such as had never been practised before Alexander’s time. Such things Julius not only followed, but improved upon. He also intended to gain Bologna, to ruin the Venetians, and to drive the French out of Italy. He achieved all of these goals, and, even more to his credit , he did everything to strengthen the Church and not any private individual.

Pope Julius was also aware that ambitious cardinals have a tendency to make trouble within principalities, setting one faction against another, and therefore refused to elevate them to positions of power.

Frederick, aware that many popes have failed to set a good example by falling into corruption and degeneracy, is not surprised to see Machiavelli champion some of the Church’s more ambitious and questionable figureheads:

He gives, as the principal example of it, the skilful control of Alexander VI, of this pontiff who pushed cruelty and ambition to enormous excess, and whose knowledge of justice dovetailed quite peaceably with his own interest. If it is true that he is one of the more soulless men which ever wore the tiara, that is to say the one who strengthened the temporal power of the Papacy the most, then what does one have to think of the heroes of Machiavel?

Whilst this section contains little that Frederick disagrees with, it finally comes down to a question of taste. Those pontiffs whom Machiavelli admires are clearly those whom Frederick insists brought shame and scandal upon their religion.

TO BE CONTINUED…