Historical Artifacts Relating to Catholic Controversy

     Despite Machiavelli’s foundational contributions to European politics and society, he received limited recognition during his time. Following his death in 1527, Machiavelli was buried in an unmarked grave in Florence in the Santa Croce Basilica. His tomb was not built until 1787, during that time he remained anonymous despite his infamy. Machiavelliserved as an honest member of the Florentine state, however, when the country of Italy came into existence, Florence was no longer an independent city state and became subjected to Vatican rule. The marble tomb, built over 250 years after Machiavelli’s death, bears the inscription, “Tanto nomini nullum par eulogium,” translated to, “No elegy is equal to such a name.” In the context of Machiavelli’s nameless and cruel burial, the inscription reads as somewhat insensitive. It is therefore representative of the hesitant resentment which the Vatican continued to hold even into the eighteenth century – the residual effect of the Catholic conflict which troubled Machiavelli in life.

     Lorenzo Bartolini’s Statue of Machiavelli is located on the Eastern Facade of the Uffizi Gallery in Florence, Italy. The Memorial to Machiavelli came after the naming of Machiavelli’s tomb, in 1845. It was during the early nineteenth century that Catholic institutions slowly began to publicly recognize Machiavelli. The silence which surrounded Machiavelli’s name for centuries is another extension of the censorship which the church exerted over Machiavelli’s writings.

     The Death of Niccolò Machiavelli, by Amos Admin in 1860 follows in the emerging trend of public recognition for Machiavelli. The painting depicts the death scene of Niccolò Machiavelli. Interestingly there is a priest present to bless him, and a cross is hung above his bed. The image of Machiavelli’s death, surrounded by Catholic symbolism, provides context to the public perspective on the controversy in the nineteenth century. The image depicts the history: Machiavelli and the Church wrote different moral codes during the same time, and despite the best efforts of the Catholic Church, the two cannot be separated from each other in history.

     The Prince has only gained in popularity with the increase of print publication and digital media. It is in successive contributions from humanists that The Prince has collected meaning, the text is read as an early republican handbook, a first work of modern political philosophy, a contributing factor to the separation of church and state. The original text has survived time, in part this can be credited to its creation during the print age, but it is also due to it’s the quality of its material: its fearless confrontation of religion, and insights on humanity. The text is manipulated to suit each century it survives: in the fifteenth century it had been banned entirely, in copies from the seventeenth century it endures religious censorship, in the eighteenth century it becomes so popular that social pressure forces the Catholic church to correct its mistreatment, and honour Machiavelli with a tomb. And with each successive manipulation of the text, the text is edited by history. Today, Machiavelli’s works continue to influence world readership, and reach a wider audience than ever before. This is the influence of media on the text: through the accessibility of the text as the result of early print culture, the preservation of the text through various institutions over time, and the successive republication of the text globally, we have effectively preserved The Prince despite powerful efforts to censor it.