Sophie Turnbull: 308158083

Did Atheism Exist in the Early Modern Period?

In this essay I will discuss the idea of atheism and address the question of
whether or not it actually existed in the early modern period. The Cambridge
Companion to Atheism states that as a term of self-definition, as a profession of
one’s own beliefs, it did not truly exist until the mid-eighteenth century where it
could be found being discussed by the Parisian intelligentsia. Denis Diderot
(1713-1784) is considered to be the first explicitly atheist philosopher.
[ CITATION Gav07 \p 30 \l 3081 ] But the word atheist first appeared two
centuries prior (1549 in French, 1561 in English.)[ CITATION Dav88 \p 704 \l
3081 ] So what was it then? By looking at the works of Lucien Febvre, Stephen
Greenblatt and Eric Mallin and examining key writers of the period, such as
Thomas Harriott, William Shakespeare and Christopher Marlowe, I will attempt
to illuminate what atheism really meant in such a world; A world in which
broadcasting such dangerous ideas, could result in an untimely death.

In 1942, French historian Lucien Febvre published his seminal work The
Problem of Unbelief in the Sixteenth Century: The Religion of Rabelais. The basic
premise of this work was that atheism in the Renaissance era was nigh on
impossible. He explained this absence of atheistic thought as a sort of blocage
mental. Christianity dominated every aspect of society, from the day one was
born to the day that one died. It was simply inescapable; religion shaped the
world. (Bremmer, 2007, p.11) He argued that the men of the sixteenth century
simply did not have the right language, key concepts, and tools available in order
to properly attack religion, in the way that their counterparts of the eighteenth
century did. (Wootton, 1988, .729)

So was the atheism of the sixteenth century the same atheism that is espoused
today? Almost certainly not. We can define atheism as “the belief that God does
not exist”, but we have to be careful here as the term is relational, that is, it is
defined in terms of what it is not. It is a denial, a rejection of theism. Therefore
just as there are many forms of theism, there can be many forms of atheism.

1
 Sophie Turnbull: 308158083

(Hyman, 2007, p.28-29) Atheism can only be defined in its context temporally.
Atheism as it is known now can only be understood as a denial of theism as it is
known now. Similarly the atheism of the early modern period can only be
understood as a response to a sixteenth century religious context. (Hyman, 2007,
p.29) In a world where religion was everything , atheism was most commonly
used as an insult, it is in this way that Catholics levelled the charge at Protestant
matyrs and they in return at the Pope. Greenblatt believed that it was the
operation of religious authority (Greenblatt, 1988, p.22), that it arose within the
conceptual borders of religion itself. As the man himself said “doesn’t every
gesture of unbelief articulate itself within the frame of a sectarian structure that
determined it?” [ CITATION Eri07 \p 2-3 \l 3081 ]

In his essay Invisible Bullets,[ CITATION Ste88 \p 11-65 \l 3081 ] Stephen

Greenblatt attempts to explain this problem of unbelief. Accusations of atheism
abounded, thrown around as a way to discredit an opponent, used as smear
campaigns. For example, Sir Walter Ralegh teased a country parson at a dinner
party and soon found himself the subject of an investigation of alleged atheism.
(Greenblatt, 1988, p.21) Atheism was punished harshly, tantamount to treason. If
one did not believe in God, then as the monarch was the head of the church then,
ipso facto, one did not believe in the monarch. So expression of such ideas was,
as Eric Mallin puts it, suicidal. (Mallin, 2007, p.3) Unfortunately for historians the
evidence is unreliable, people are wont to lie about their most personal thoughts
in such an atmosphere of “unembarrassed repression.” Greenblatt does not
argue as Febvre does, that unbelief was impossible but he explains that it was
“almost always thinkable only as the thought of another.”(Greenblatt, 1988, p.22)

Thomas Harriott, a great astronomer and mathematician of the late sixteenth

and early seventeenth centuries was dogged by accusations of atheism his entire
life. Despite never having professed to believe such ideas, in fact quite the
opposite, the conviction persisted. But where did the idea come from then?
Greenblatt suggests that within Harriott’s Brief and True Report of the New Found
Land of Virginia (1588) one can see a reason beyond malicious slander for such
heavy accusations. A police report on Christopher Marlowe in 1593 records him

2
 Sophie Turnbull: 308158083

as saying that “Moses was but a juggler and that one Heriots being Sir W Raleghs
man can do more than he.” This comment seems to refer to a common
Machiavellian argument about religion, which had been discussed since the
earliest of pagan polemics against Christianity. It puts forward that the Judeo-
Christian tradition originated with a series of clever tricks and illusions
performed by Moses upon the “rude and gross” Hebrews. [ CITATION Ste88 \p
21-26 \l 3081 ]

Ralegh sent Harriott to the Virginia colony, to keep a record of the place and note
down his observations. It was here that he came into contact with the
Alongquian Indians. He thought of them that they were like a simplified version
of his own society, and also its past. Thus Harriott was testing the hypothesis
that was at the core of Machiavellian anthropology. The Indians were so in awe
of the technology that the Europeans produced that they believed them to be
divine or at least blessed, as such their religion must be superior. Harriott
undermined the Indian’s beliefs about the universe. Here demonstrated was “the
coercive power of religious belief and the source of the power is the impression
made by advanced technology upon a ‘backward’ people.” Greenblatt’s describes
it as a cycle of subversion and containment. Thus we find the source of
Marlowe’s claim that “Moses was but a juggler” and that Harriott could do more
than he.[ CITATION Ste88 \p 27-31 \l 3081 ] He was knowingly putting to the
proof a "most radically subversive hypothesis... about the origin and function of
religion”, an attempt that could have resulted in a charge of heresy and possibly
torture.[ CITATION Tom92 \p 415 \l 3081 ]

Thus far, it seems that atheism could not have existed because, as Febvre and
Greenblatt say, any unbelief is within a framework of doctrinal containment. But
this argument of ‘unthinkability ‘ or the futility of believing otherwise in this era,
excludes an important idea. These arguments have been formulated under the
notion that atheism is formed in relation and in opposition to religion.
Shakespearean scholar Eric Mallin posits that it is religion that constructs it self
in contrast to atheism, not the other way round. Religion is forever fending off
“the threat of other systems, including the absence of systems.” He turns to

3
 Sophie Turnbull: 308158083

Shakespeare to prove his point. Symbolic and thematic elements of Christianity

are certainly present in his works, to assert otherwise would be absurd, but
Mallin argues that they are often used in “irreligious or ironic ways.”[ CITATION
Eri07 \p 3 \l 3081 ]

George Santayana considers of Shakespeare that he wrote about the richness of

human endeavour but he lacked a ‘setting’. Mallin argues that this was not
exclusive to Shakespeare but could be attributed any number of writers in the
period, such as Machiavelli, Rabelais and Montaigne, Ralegh, Vanini and
Marlowe. Mallin admits that it is difficult to discern the ‘actual perceived
godlessness’ amidst the “potent suspicions, base slanders, and tart sarcasms”
that pervaded accusations of atheism in the era. But he still thinks that “unbelief
was clearly possible in the Renaissance, and, as staged by Shakespeare, it
furnishes a rich contrast and a goad to religious certainty. [ CITATION Eri07 \p
6-7 \l 3081 ] He sees this especially in typically pivotal moments, in terms of
drama and theology: for example the encounter with death. One example he uses
is of Juliet’s ‘wedding-night reverie’ about death and sex; it is completely lacking
in religious imagery. Her words, Mallin says, as well as her eventual suicide show
“little account of divinity.”[ CITATION Eri07 \p 7-8 \l 3081 ] One obstacle we
come across is the Bard’s belief in the occult world, the idea of the soul. This does
not sit well with the premise of a Godless Shakespeare. Mallin tries to overcome
this troubling contradiction by a personal belief that “spirituality survives in, and
as, unbelief (only the sacrilegious truly understand the sacred.)”[ CITATION
Eri07 \p 10 \l 3081 ]

The question that must be asked now is, was this idea of godlessness to be found
elsewhere in literature of the time? Either in an overt manner (unlikely) or in a
more subtle expression (like Shakespeare). The poet Christopher Marlowe, like
Harriott his friend and contemporary, suffered repeated accusations of atheism
until his unrelated, but early demise. In his work can be seen the influence of
ideas coming from his friends such as Herriott and his plays present many of the
arguments characteristic of the anti-Christian tradition. Indeed it was Marlowe
that made the comment about Moses the juggler. [ CITATION Par05 \p 236-

4
 Sophie Turnbull: 308158083

237 \l 3081 ] Modern critic Paul Kocher describes Christopher Marlowe as ‘a

man of violently anti-Christian beliefs’[ CITATION Nic96 \p 129 \l 3081 ] He was
accused of possessing tracts that denied Christ’s divinity and many witnesses
were brought to bear against him by the likes of Thomas Kyd, Robert Greene and
Richard Baines, but he was murdered before he could be fully prosecuted. It is
true that much of the evidence against him, as was the case in nearly all similar
cases, were trial documents, that is, accusations and witnesses, but no actual
confessions. This may make them inherently unreliable and inaccurate, but we
cannot discount them all together. Once more we have this problem of atheism
only existing as it is thought of by others, not oneself. But as Nicholas Davidson
says “It is hard to believe that so many people thought it worth their while to
attack so often and so thoroughly something that did not exist, or could not have
existed.” He goes on to say, “The very fact that such charges were made so often
surely indicates that they were a familiar feature of contemporary patterns of
thought. If atheism were not an intellectual possibility in the sixteenth and early
seventeenth centuries, not even the most malevolent of informers could have
invented it.”[ CITATION Nic96 \p 135-137 \l 3081 ] The evidence will never
allow us to absolutely and confidently conclude that Marlowe was an ‘atheist’ but
it is certainly ‘plausible’.[ CITATION Nic96 \p 142 \l 3081 ]

This essay started with Febvre’s idea that atheism was simply not possible in the
sixteenth century, further explored by Greenblatt. But that is simply not the case.
In the end the issue comes down to how ‘atheism’ is defined, in the context of the
sixteenth century. Was it an explicit denial of the existence of God? Or was it
merely any opposition to religious dogma? Did atheism arise within the
conceptual borders of religion? Or was it religion that was constructed ‘against
the backdrop of atheism’?[ CITATION Eri07 \p 3 \l 3081 ] They are difficult
questions to answer. I think that one should acknowledge that atheism from the
mid-eighteenth century onwards is more explicit and very different than in the
earlier period. But they are not wholly unrelated. The seeds for modern atheism
were all there in the early modern period. The religious and political atmosphere
of the time was such that it made it very difficult to express these views safely
and harder for the average man to articulate private thoughts on the matter.

5
 Sophie Turnbull: 308158083

Nevertheless there is a well-documented tradition of anti-Christian thought

within the period; therefore I conclude that it is erroneous to suggest that
atheism could not possibly have existed in the sixteenth and early seventeenth
centuries. It was well and truly alive.

6
 Sophie Turnbull: 308158083

Bibliography

 Bremmer, J. N. (2007). Atheism in Antiquity. In M. Martin (Ed.), The

Cambridge Companion to Atheism (pp. 11-26). NY: Cambridge University
Press.
 Davidson, N. (1996). Christopher Marlowe and Atheism. In D. G. Roberts
(Ed.), Christopher Marlowe and English Renaissance Culture (pp. 129-147).
Aldershot, England: Scolar Press.
 Gallagher, C., & Greenblatt, S. (2000). Practicing New Historicism. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
 Greenblatt, S. (1988). Shakespearean Negotiations: The Circulation of
Social Energy in Renaissance England. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
 Honan, P. (2005). Christopher Marlowe: Poet & Spy. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
 Hyman, G. (2007). Atheism in Modern History. In M. Martin (Ed.), The
Cambridge Companion to Atheism (pp. 27-46). NY: Cambridge University
Press.
 Mallin, E. S. (2007). Godless Shakespeare. London: Continuum.
 McAlindon, T. (1992). Testing the New Historicism: "Invisible Bullets"
Reconsidered. Studies in Philology , 92 (4), 411-438.
 Wootton, D. (1988). Lucien Febvre and the Problem of Unbelief in the
Early Modern Period. The Journal of Modern History , 60 (4), 695-730.