Italy and England During the Renaissance and Machiavelli's Prince and Thomas More's Utopia - Essay Example

Italy and England during the Renaissance and Machiavellis Prince and Thomas Mores Utopia. Compare and contrast the histories of Italy and England from about 1000 up to about 1520 with Machiavelli’s Prince and More’s Utopia. Italy and England were very different countries throughout this period – whereas England was largely unified after the Norman invasion in 1066, and its island status certainly helped ward off other conquests - Italy was divided into a number of independent city states in the North and a series of monarchies in the South. The Holy Roman Empire, with its power centre in Germany, also fought for influence in Northern Italy, together with the pope who exercised considerable political power throughout this time. One of the most prominent city states in Northern Italy was Venice which controlled the trade routes from Europe to Asia, other important northern states included Florence, Genoa, Pisa and Milan, with Genoa and Pisa ruling over the southern islands of Corsica and Sardinia after their joined fleet had defeated the Arab occupation of these two Mediterranean islands. After 1400, the powerful Medici family – a clan of early financiers - arguably transformed Florence into the most politically powerful and influential of the city states. Florence was the home of Machiavelli. Southern Italy had been conquered by the Normans during the 11th century. By the end of the 11th century the Normans had brought the Byzantine rule over Southern Italy to an end and had also defeated the Arab rulers of Sicily. The kingdom of Sicily was first established in the 12th century. Italy as a whole nation was only successfully united in the 19th century. Although Rome now takes its true place as capital, Italy retains elements of its history to this day – Italian provinces retain their own character and cultural differences much more than English provinces do. After the completion of the Norman Conquest which began in 1066, England represented a unified country with London firmly in the position of the most important city with the cultural, trade and political power. The Norman kings were succeeded by the Plantagenets in the 12th century. Apart from localized peasant revolts or uprisings, most major conflicts were fought outside England because for historical reasons English kings claimed territories in France. These conflicts culminated in the Hundred Year War (1337 – 1453) which ended with England giving up all claims over French territories. The War of the Roses (1455-1485) between the houses of Lancaster and York was the most serious conflict carried out on English soil and ended with the defeat of the house of Lancaster. “The Prince” was written by Niccolo Machiavelli who was born and lived in Florence, one of the Northern Italian city states. The political circumstances and the fragmentation of Italy into many small states clearly influenced Machiavelli’s thinking. He had a deep distrust of mercenary soldiers, seeing them as an unreliable source only motivated by financial gain. He sees a prince’s main focus as that of a leader in war who must be vigilant and always prepared not to be usurped by other rulers. In Machiavelli’s Italy there were many different principalities jostling for supremacy and it would have been highly important to choose allies wisely in order to strengthen the dynasty. Machiavelli distinguishes between hereditary, new and mixed principalities and gives advice how each set of circumstances is best managed to strengthen the position of the prince. Machiavelli also distinguishes whether a prince has come to power by civil means (i.e. has been elected or nominated by his peers) or by evil means, through warfare or switching allegiances but he does not ascribe moral superiority or otherwise to either method: his advice is morally value-free and only geared towards maximising the hold of power, by whatever means are most appropriate and effective. Machiavelli also does not distinguish between a territorial prince and an ecclesiastical prince: in Italy the political influence of the Pope has been considerable for many years and the same mechanics of gaining political influence would have been applied by the head of the Catholic faith. With regard to how a prince should rule and act, Machiavelli states that in an ideal world, it is virtuous for a prince to be good. But faced with reality and the changing loyalties of mankind, it is merely preferable if a prince can be virtuous: his uppermost aim must be to strengthen his position and that of his country, by whatever means this may take. He must keep his subjects content but only for the reason that they will give him support and he must be able to check his nobles so that they do not rebel against his rule. Machiavelli’s view of the world is coloured by the circumstances of his home country: too many forces unable to agree with changing allegiances ultimately brought down the whole of Italy. The lack of a strong and charismatic leader who is able to unite the country by force and tactical allegiances had, in Machiavelli’s eyes, greatly contributed to the mediocre circumstances of the country he loves. There is perhaps a little irony in the fact that the prince for whom Machiavelli wrote his book ultimately is known as a supreme sponsor of the arts by establishing the first art school in Florence in 1488, thus more or less laying the foundation for the Renaissance style of art. Sir Thomas More (1478-1535), was a statesman, author and lawyer, a profession non-existent in his fictional land of Utopia (written in 1518). In his book, he let his alter ego, Raphael Hythloday, talk about the ideal nation of Utopia, which had abolished private property and represents a type of early socialist commune where everyone gives according to his capability and takes according to his needs. Instead of the strongly defined class divides in England, where thieves are put to death, and the poor do not receive any education to help them out of their poverty, everyone in Utopia receives the same education and wears the same simple dress, living in the same type of housing. Utopians have an elected prince, but they also have the power to remove him if he becomes a tyrant. As with everything that describes an ideal, Utopia is not workable as the character of people is not idealistic but flawed. More deplores the suppression and false advice that goes on at Court in England but his utopian alternative is not workable as it does not allow for the inconstancies in the human character. We have seen Machiavelli’s reasoning that a prince’s ultimately role is to prepare for war and to have supreme skills in this field. What bigger contrast then than the hatred of Utopian citizens of all things connected to warfare as depicted by More They do not find any glory in it and only use warfare for their own protection and that of their friends, or to get rid of tyrants. And yet all citizens of Utopia (even the women) are trained in warfare. They also employ mercenaries, a practice warned against by Machiavelli for their lack of loyalty. However, Utopians use cunning propaganda, and offer reward money to kill tyrants and enemy leaders, or they try to influence by strategically intriguing against leaders they want to get rid of. The aim justifies the means for them - I think Machiavelli would have approved of such morally and unsound tactics – provided that they lead to the desired result. More’s argument is that if these deceptions lead to less bloodshed then they are morally justifiable. More strongly disapproves of the greed and lack of equality in English society. His alter ego criticizes that thieves who steal to provide food for their families receive the same level of punishment as murderers and does not find any moral justification for this. Both More and Machiavelli have a thorough understanding of the political and social circumstances of their respective countries, although Machiavelli’s concern as to the welfare of the people only goes so far as that a contented people will be supportive of its leader, whereas More lets his alter ego speak out against social injustice. Although Machiavelli and More can both be described as humanists, their respective works have very different angles: Machiavelli is the first writer to describe politics as a struggle for power, irrespective of moral or religious aspects. In the Prince he supports an authoritarian view, he is a pragmatist, concerned with the welfare of the Prince and of his noble house, assuming that if the ruler prospers, so will the people. More is an idealist, although it is doubtful that he would have actually wanted to create a “perfect” Utopian society but rather used the innocent guise of a travel narrative to criticise what he found was wrong in his own country. More has a strong moral and humanist grounding and would not approve of the cold pragmatism of power that represents the height of politics in Machiavelli’s Prince. And yet, both arrive at times at similar tactics, for example in the defence of morally unsound practices employed by the Utopians to prevent the greater evil of bloodshed. It seems at times, although this result is arrived at via different trains of thought which only meet at the end, that “the end justifies the means” at least on occasion for both More and Machiavelli. Read More

He sees a prince’s main focus as that of a leader in war who must be vigilant and always prepared not to be usurped by other rulers. In Machiavelli’s Italy there were many different principalities jostling for supremacy and it would have been highly important to choose allies wisely in order to strengthen the dynasty. Machiavelli distinguishes between hereditary, new and mixed principalities and gives advice how each set of circumstances is best managed to strengthen the position of the prince.

Machiavelli also distinguishes whether a prince has come to power by civil means (i.e. has been elected or nominated by his peers) or by evil means, through warfare or switching allegiances but he does not ascribe moral superiority or otherwise to either method: his advice is morally value-free and only geared towards maximising the hold of power, by whatever means are most appropriate and effective. Machiavelli also does not distinguish between a territorial prince and an ecclesiastical prince: in Italy the political influence of the Pope has been considerable for many years and the same mechanics of gaining political influence would have been applied by the head of the Catholic faith.

With regard to how a prince should rule and act, Machiavelli states that in an ideal world, it is virtuous for a prince to be good. But faced with reality and the changing loyalties of mankind, it is merely preferable if a prince can be virtuous: his uppermost aim must be to strengthen his position and that of his country, by whatever means this may take. He must keep his subjects content but only for the reason that they will give him support and he must be able to check his nobles so that they do not rebel against his rule.

Machiavelli’s view of the world is coloured by the circumstances of his home country: too many forces unable to agree with changing allegiances ultimately brought down the whole of Italy. The lack of a strong and charismatic leader who is able to unite the country by force and tactical allegiances had, in Machiavelli’s eyes, greatly contributed to the mediocre circumstances of the country he loves. There is perhaps a little irony in the fact that the prince for whom Machiavelli wrote his book ultimately is known as a supreme sponsor of the arts by establishing the first art school in Florence in 1488, thus more or less laying the foundation for the Renaissance style of art.

Sir Thomas More (1478-1535), was a statesman, author and lawyer, a profession non-existent in his fictional land of Utopia (written in 1518). In his book, he let his alter ego, Raphael Hythloday, talk about the ideal nation of Utopia, which had abolished private property and represents a type of early socialist commune where everyone gives according to his capability and takes according to his needs. Instead of the strongly defined class divides in England, where thieves are put to death, and the poor do not receive any education to help them out of their poverty, everyone in Utopia receives the same education and wears the same simple dress, living in the same type of housing.

Utopians have an elected prince, but they also have the power to remove him if he becomes a tyrant. As with everything that describes an ideal, Utopia is not workable as the character of people is not idealistic but flawed. More deplores the suppression and false advice that goes on at Court in England but his utopian alternative is not workable as it does not allow for the inconstancies in the human character. We have seen Machiavelli’s reasoning that a prince’s ultimately role is to prepare for war and to have supreme skills in this field.

What bigger contrast then than the hatred of Utopian citizens of all things connected to warfare as depicted by More They do not find any glory in it and only use warfare for their own protection and that of their friends, or to get rid of tyrants. And yet all citizens of Utopia (even the women) are trained in warfare. They also employ mercenaries, a practice warned against by Machiavelli for their lack of loyalty.

Read More