conquest of Canaan is a special case: it was ordained by God as the foundation of His
covenant with Abraham, and therefore with the Jewish people.
Moreover, God seems to
justify the conquest of Canaan on moral grounds: the Canaanites defile the land with their
base practices—practices which God forbids to the Israelites. Because of this, the
Canaanites deserve to lose their land.
For further, unambiguous evidence that the
religious tradition of Machiavelli’s time condemned conquest, one need look no further
than St. Augustine’s City of God Against the Pagans.
Others might point to certain ambiguities and discrepancies among the classical
philosophers to argue that the classics do not, in the last analysis, believe conquest to be
unjust. For instance, in his account of the Peloponnesian War, Thucydides presents the
arguments openly advanced by both Athens and Sparta to justify their actions in that war,
and details each side’s wartime behavior. The Athenian thesis as stated by the Athenians
by Joshua. I.e., they fled based on fear of the Hebrews’ reputation alone; they did not even try to fight or
test their forces. This story does not appear in the Bible but in Procopius’ De Bello Vadalico. Thus
Machiavelli is able (yet again) to have things both ways: he raises the Biblical conquest in the reader’s
mind without having to mention the Bible. He turns the reader’s thoughts away from the Bible toward an
ancient historian, away from Judeo-Christian authority and toward pagan rationalism. Finally, I note that
Machiavelli quotes Procopius’ Greek text in a Latin translation. This allows him to sneak in the Latin word
for Joshua: Iesu, or Jesus, which is almost certainly not a coincidence. I believe that a Latin translation of
Procopius was available in Machiavelli’s time. But on the possibility that Machiavelli himself knew Greek
but deliberately concealed his knowledge, see Mansfield, New Modes, p. 206.
8
Genesis 12:7; 13:14-17; 15:7-21; 17:8; Exodus 23:23-33; 32:34-33:3
9
Leviticus 18, and especially 18:25. In addition, the Book of Jubilees (10:30; 22:21) recounts that the land
which came to be called Canaan was set aside by Noah for his son Shem and Shem’s descendants. But
Noah’s grandson son Canaan later occupied the land against Noah’s wishes, and this injustice forms the
justification for the eventual conquest of Canaan by the Hebrews. The incident which causes Noah to favor
Shem and to curse Canaan is recounted in Genesis 9:22-25. But these events are not cited in the Bible as
justification for the Hebrew conquest, as they are in the Book of Jubilees; and the Book of Jubilees is not
regarded as authoritative by any of the major religious traditions.
10
Books III-V passim, but especially IV 4. Fortin (pp. 188-191) argues that Augustine’s minutely detailed
condemnation of ancient Roman imperialism sullied Rome’s previously glorious reputation—especially
among believing Christians—for many subsequent centuries. Seen in this light, much of Machiavelli’s
Discourses appears to be an attempt to rehabilitate Rome’s reputation in the face of Augustine’s wildly
successful critique. A direct comparison between City of God and the Discourses would be most
instructive on this point, but is beyond the scope of this paper. Beyond this, I wonder if there is not a
connection between the fact that the three books of City of God which condemn in the greatest detail the
Roman modes of conquest are books 3, 4, and 5, and the fact that the section on conquest in The Prince—
which is, to say the least, not a condemnation of the practice—are Chapters 3, 4, and 5. For a minute and
excellent treatment Christian just war theory, which Machiavelli rejects but rarely bothers to confront
directly, see Pangle & Ahrensdorf, Ch. 4.
9
Convention