Thomas More’s Utopia offers an analysis of European culture, proposes a model against which that society can be estimated and maybe fixed, yet the book eventually reasons that the best way to perfection is through Christianity. Whereas, Niccolò Machiavelli in The Prince places a wide range of conflicting interpretations upon key sections of his works (particularly chapters VII-VIII and XV-XVIII) and a plethora of notable critics and philosophers have contended that Machiavelli distinguished between the role of church (morality) and statecraft or politics. In my paper, I will show the role of the Church in state matters according to Machiavelli and More by showing the point of convergence and divergence, the linkage between politics and morality, the concept of virtues, and religion for ecclesiastical principles in The Prince and Utopia.
One of the striking points of convergence between More's Utopia and Machiavelli's The Prince is the avowed interest in the necessity for structure in governance where the role of ‘church’ may be marginalized when a ruler takes a ‘secular’ rather than a ‘theocratic’ approach. In Utopia, Hythloday describes the city of Aircastle, which structures its government similarly to every other city in Utopia. Accordingly, thirty families appoint a leader, called a Stywards; ten Stywards are overseen by a Bencheater. All the Stywards choose a Mayor, who rules for life. Interestingly, to prevent the Bencheater from conspiring with the Mayor to subjugate the people, Stywards are given first authority in any matter concerning the populace (Thomas More, Utopia, Book II, p. 54). In The Prince, Machiavelli states that a strong country or acquired principality is always necessarily governed by a monarch. Machiavelli hypothesizes that this method of governance is best for preserving peace and unity in any kingdom. As his treatise is primarily concerned with conquest, the successful rule of new principalities always takes three steps (Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince, Chapter V,). Firstly, the complete ruin of the previous societal and political construct must be secured. Secondly, the new king must consolidate his new domain. Thirdly, the king sets up an oligarchy, specially chosen by him and dependent on his graces and patronage of the church or a moral body. The subjected peoples should also be given the freedom to live under their own laws. So, both More and Machiavelli agreed that structure in government was necessary for the preservation of order and unity. Yet some people would take issue with the argument that why did More and Machiavelli diverged on how the government needs to be structured? While More proclaimed a government based on equality, Machiavelli was inclined toward domination. However much like More, Machiavelli too espoused a ‘code of honor’ among rulers that must never be violated or breached. He cited the grievous example of Agathocles of Syracuse, who ascended to power through heinous means (Machiavelli, Chp. VIII, p. 34). Machiavelli argues that such a ruler could achieve power, but never a lasting glory. Yet, it cannot be called ‘talent’ to subjugate and slaughter fellow-citizens, to deceive friends, to be without faith, without mercy, without religion; such methods may gain empire, but not glory. Thus, the pivotal role of the Church was highlighted to the extent of showering a ‘benevolence’ on the ruler. Machiavelli has commented that every conquest must be occasioned by violent upheaval, but no newly acquired principality could be successfully ruled by “brutality, cruelty and inhumanity, together with the endless crimes” (Machiavelli, Chp. VIII, p. 34). In other words, rulers cannot hope to achieve lasting peace in any new domain if he, like Agathocles, will persist in perpetrating gratuitous violence on his new subjects. A new prince inspires fear, but never hatred, if he wants his new domain to prosper. Nevertheless, a prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he does not win love, he avoids hatred; because he can endure very well being feared whilst he is not hated, which will always be as long as he abstains from the property of his citizens and subjects and their women. The divergent between Utopia and The Prince is that in Utopia “there is no such thing as private property” (More, Book II, p. 53). This is quite prominent as More believed that war and violence were often inspired by the wicked ambitions of hegemonic rulers. In More's egalitarian society, everyone is equal, and all work equally for the greater good of the society they live in. There is no self-interest, but rather, common interest, which is the prevailing philosophical ideal espoused by all Utopians. In More's treatise, Hythloday states that “in Utopia they have a six-hour working day” (More, Book II, p. 56). Both men and women contribute to the common welfare. Hythloday then voices More's stand and opinion on idle priests, noblemen, and gentlemen, who contribute nothing towards the common good. Instead, they are like parasites, who prosper through the labors of others. In More's utopian kingdom, even rulers like the Stywards work. More than anything, these rulers work to set a good example for those they lead.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
Machiavelli has not legitimatized political means by reference to any political ends, and he never completely separated politics from morality as so many scholars have claimed. Machiavelli’s sheds a spotlight on the nitty grittiest of politics and Church (i.e., organized religion). This is evident from a conspicuous but rarely cited comment Machiavelli makes in reference to Agathocles, the tyrant of Syracuse, in The Prince: “On the other hand, we can hardly describe killing fellow citizens, betraying friends and living without loyalty, mercy or creed as signs of talent” (Machiavelli, Chp. VIII, p. 34). Machiavelli clarifies by juxtapositioning successful rulers and unsuccessful ones. Each group may comprise of laudable men of virtue depending upon the kind of the goals towards which they endeavor. A man such as Agathocles, whose personality seems to conform perfectly to the list of scandalous moral attributes Machiavelli discusses in chapters XV-XVIII of The Prince, is, paradoxically, condemned by Machiavelli. Power does not, therefore, automatically confer glory or virtue, nor is might synonymous with right for Machiavelli. In essence, a successful prince may frequently act outside the boundaries of traditional ethical or religious codes. It is here the more’s Utopia sees an ‘eye to eye’ with what Machiavelli offers as an advisory to the rulers. Machiavelli recognizes this fact and approves it. But he distinctly places the merely powerful rulers from the eminent men of virtue by reference to the ends or goals toward which these rulers strive. A careful analysis of The Prince brings out that Machiavelli does not argue that all means are justified in the pursuit of any ends. He does not completely separate moral standards from political actions.
Machiavelli has a careful perusal of virtue, human quality of which there is no hope of success. This individualistic perspective marks his thought as reflective of the preconceptions of the age. Unlike More’s views presented in Utopia, Machiavelli accepts the optimistic premises of such Italian humanists and argues for at least limited free will-man controls roughly half of his actions while fortuna rules the other half, Human virtue must contend with fortuna, the personification of all the contingent forces in the world. The fortuitous conjunction of a man of virtue and a favorable fortuna-who, like a woman, is always more likely to smile upon an energetic and courageous young man-may allow a new prince, like the two Medici, to take advantage of any historical opportunity or occasion. Success in this sublunary world, however, is never completely guaranteed, as the case of Cesare Borgia demonstrates.
Regarding the ecclesiastical principalities, Machiavelli says that they are sustained by the ancient institutions of religion, which are so powerful and of such a kind that they keep their princes in power in whatever manner they act and live their lives. These princes alone have states and do not defend them. They have subjects but they do not rule them. The states remain undefended and are never taken away from them, and the subjects, who are ungoverned show no concern, and they do not think about, nor are they able to sever, their ties with them, they do not break their ties with them. These principalities, then, are the only secure and happy ones. But Machiavelli says that since they are protected by the institution of religion and are always exalted and maintained by God, it would be the act of a presumptuous and foolhardy man to discuss them. Here again, More’s Utopia underscores what can be safely considered as an ‘agnostic’ presentation of religion or church-no theocratic supremacy is ever endorsed in Utopia. If somebody accepts there is not great beyond, as indicated by the Utopians, at that point that individual will act childishly looking for quick physical and mental joy and not act temperately in anticipation of future reward. Utopia has no place for the hegemony of church or religion and only a consensual ideation-at the utmost level.
To conclude, Machiavelli’s The Prince has a commentary that cannot presume to discuss a state ordained by God fairly drips with sarcasm. Machiavelli was well aware of the thoroughly worldly ambitions of the Renaissance popes and bitterly resented their effect on Italian politics. Whereas More’s Utopia goes on to envision a world governed by equality with no allowance to church to thrust its power, pelf or privilege on ‘equal men and women’ in the kingdom. In this paper, I have shown the role of Church in state matters according to Machiavelli and More by showing the point of convergence and divergence, the linkage between politics and morality, the concept of virtues, and religion for ecclesiastical principles in The Prince and Utopia.
Stuck on your essay?
