More and Machiavelli's differing backgrounds gave rise to two distinctive works about politics and governance.
Sir Thomas More was a devout Catholic who served under King Henry VIII in his native England. During the last years of his life, he found himself at odds with his king and benefactor, the inimitable King Henry, who wanted to style himself the head of the new Anglican church. At the time, King Henry's decided purpose was to marry his mistress, Anne Boleyn. More, being a devout Catholic, was incensed that the king would callously put away his devout Catholic queen, Catherine of Aragon. At last, unable to reconcile his political and religious views with that of the king's, Sir Thomas More was beheaded for treason on July 6, 1535. During his years of service to the king, More was ever opposed to the greed and corruption that infected Henry's court. His personal convictions can be seen in his famous work, Utopia, which highlights an imaginary country defined by the common interest and simultaneously governed by secular, humanist values.
In contrast, Niccolo Machiavelli was born during a time when Italy was divided into four rival city-states; then, Italy's political and national viability was threatened by stronger governments in Europe. During his fourteen years as a diplomat after the temporary fall of the ruling Medici family, Machiavelli took the time to hone his political acumen to perfection. His treatise on governance, The Prince, focused on strong leadership amid the vagaries of political turmoil. Machiavelli died in Florence on June 21, 1527. Today, he is known as the father of modern political theory.
Now, we have a context in which to discuss the differences and similarities between Utopia and The Prince.
One of the greatest similarities between More's Utopia and Machiavelli's The Prince is the avowed interest in the necessity for structure in governance. In Utopia, Hythloday describes the city of Amaurot, which structures its government similarly to every other city in Utopia. Accordingly, thirty families appoint a leader, called a Syphogrant; ten Syphogrants are overseen by a Tranibore. All the Syphogrants choose a Prince, who rules for life. Interestingly, in order to prevent the Tranibors from conspiring with the Prince to subjugate the people, Syphogrants are given first authority in any matter concerning the populace.
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 (this can be found in Chapter 5 of The Prince):
1)The complete ruin of the previous societal and political construct must be secured.
2)The new king must occupy his new domain.
3)The king sets up an oligarchy, specially chosen by him and dependent on his graces and patronage. The subjected peoples should also be allowed 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. They just differed on how the government should be structured. While More proclaimed a government based on equality, Machiavelli was more focused on domination. However like More, Machiavelli also espoused a code of honor among rulers that must never be broken. He cited the grievous example of Agathocles of Syracuse, who rose to power through heinous means. Machiavelli stated that such a ruler could achieve power, but never lasting glory.
Yet it cannot be called talent to slay fellow-citizens, to deceive friends, to be without faith, without mercy, without religion; such methods may gain empire, but not glory.
True, Machiavelli stated that every conquest must be occasioned by violent upheaval, but no newly acquired principality could be successfully ruled by 'barbarous cruelty and inhumanity with infinite wickedness.' 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. You can read all about this in Chapter 8 of The Prince. 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 from their women.
One noted difference between Utopia and The Prince is that citizens in Utopia do not own private property. This is significant because More believed that war and violence was often inspired by the wicked ambitions of hegemonic rulers. In More's ideal 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 every Utopian works six hours a day. Both men and women contribute to the common welfare. Hythloday then voices More's position 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 Syphogrants work. More than anything, these rulers work to set a good example for those they lead.
No comments:
Post a Comment