Savonarola and Machiavelli in Florence.
Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried. ~ Gilbert Chesterton
Chesterton must have failed to consider Girolamo Savonarola when he penned that line. First of all, there is no merit in a religion that is not worth trying. Second, every path is difficult, from the yoga path of Patanjali, to the eightfold path of Buddha, even the Old Religion. In all of them, there is devotion, duty, action, and wisdom. Only an egalitarian thinks that everyone must succeed the same way. Isn’t that why we honor our Saints, Heroes, and Sages because some excel and point the way?
I won’t repeat the history of Savanorola’s rise to be Capo of Florence; those unfamiliar with that piece of history can easily look it up. In brief, Savanorola passed up the “easy life” in his father’s business. The bourgeois life of family and property had no appeal to him; but tradition did, so he chose the path of a Dominican monk. Driven by an intransigent piety, he was unaffected by the lures of money, sex, and power, much like Dostoyevsky’s idiot Prince. He was blessed [plagued?] with apocalyptic visions [hallucinations?] which came from God. These were the source of his power and his torment.
Initially, he did not stand out, but over time he became known for his devoutness and he attracted a devoted following to his fiery and inspiring sermons. A series of events including the death of Lorenzo de Medici, the invasion from France and the rebellion of Pisa led to a power vacuum which he was called upon to fill. Although Florence was at the peak of its economic power and the center of the intellectual Renaissance, this return to a Medieval cast of mind still appealed to a large portion of the public. As a sort of priest-king, he outlawed usury, made sodomy a capital crime (causing many in the upper crust to flee), and engaged roving street gangs to enforce moral codes. He is most known for the Bonfire of the Vanities, where citizens were encouraged to rid themselves of secular, sinful and vain items.
Was this truly the difficult Christian life Chesterton described? If so, was it truly that much different from life in the Ancient City? Evola regarded Savonarola as the last attempt of the ancient Aryan-Roman spirit to reassert itself amidst the decadence of the humanism of the Renaissance.
Eventually, Savonarola got in trouble with the Pope for pointing out the latter’s immoralities and was driven from power; he, along with two younger monks, were burned. A young man in Florence, Niccolo Machiavelli was an acute observer of the rise and fall of Savonarola. As long as the people believed in him, Savonarola could rule; but when their faith faltered, he fell. Unburdened by a belief in the supernatural, Machiavelli wrote his impressions in the Prince.
if we desire to discuss this matter thoroughly, to inquire whether these innovators can rely on themselves or have to depend on others: that is to say, whether, to consummate their enterprise, have they to use prayers or can they use force? In the first instance they always succeed badly, and never compass anything; but when they can rely on themselves and use force, then they are rarely endangered. Hence it is that all armed prophets have conquered, and the unarmed ones have been destroyed. Besides the reasons mentioned, the nature of the people is variable, and whilst it is easy to persuade them, it is difficult to fix them in that persuasion. And thus it is necessary to take such measures that, when they believe no longer, it may be possible to make them believe by force.
If Moses, Cyrus, Theseus, and Romulus had been unarmed they could not have enforced their constitutions for long — as happened in our time to Fra Girolamo Savonarola, who was ruined with his new order of things immediately the multitude believed in him no longer, and he had no means of keeping steadfast those who believed or of making the unbelievers to believe.
In The Man of the Renaissance, Ralph Roeder offers up his own opinions. He writes regarding the failure of this experiment in Florence:
Christianity and life were incompatible. What had goodness to do with life or compassion with nature? The only true solution was the renunciation of the world and the real core of his creed was death.
Roeder has identified the issue in spite of himself. Although Evola would hardly use the words “goodness” and “compassion”, isn’t he in some way close to Savonarola? However, to oppose nature, one must be hard, not compassionate. They agree that the true solution lies in renunciation, but that should lead to a higher, heroic life, not to death.
Yet Roeder follows Machiavelli in believing they are returning to paganism, although it is closer to the type of neopaganism that Evola opposes. Roeder makes this claim:
In the cramped past, in the poverty and ignorance of the Middle Ages, it had been possible perhaps for so unworldly a faith to flourish; but with the affluence and culture the world had outgrown the ascetic faith of its forefathers and rediscovered, in the Classic Revival, that of its ancestors, for whom the first and last law was the satisfaction of life. Life — imperfect, ruthless, lusty, lawless — was richly enough, and the only mastery of nature lay in its imitation.
Yet, there is an inconsistency in Roeder when he writes of Machiavelli’s view of the Ancient Romans:
The secret of their success was their virtue, that virile virtu — courage, energy, skill, resourcefulness, strength — which was the power of a man to function efficiently and fulfill his purpose. And since patriotism was his purpose, whatever impeded it — humanity or personal scruples — must be sacrificed with a robust conscience to the general welfare.
One cannot possess the virtues, while remaining obsessed with lusts and the “satisfaction of life”. And where there is lawlessness, someone must lay down the law.
Leave a Reply