The Prince and the Utopia

IRISH © 2009. Journal of the Institute for Research in Social Sciences and Humanities Vol. 5, No. 1, pp.123-133 Review Article The Prince and the Utopia S. Gregory* Politics, in its multiple dimensions, is such a powerfule force that it influences and determines the course of lives of the teaming millions as well as affects the social, economic and cultural contours of national life. At the same time, it is not uncommon to hear that politics is a dirty game played world over. In this context, a critical and comparative understanding of the divergent political philosophies of Machiavelli and More, - who were contemporaries in the 15th and 16th century Europe, - as spelt out in their respective classics The Prince and Utopia, which have moulded the political thought over time, down the centuries till the present, assumes great significance and contemporary relevance. Background Machiavelli who “at one extreme… has been denounced … as the incarnation of cunning and naked force in political affairs, and as the forefather of modern totalitarianism… and at the other end of the spectrum, has been lauded… as a great patriot, and as a thinker who has contributed immensely to the cause of human freedom and the dignity of man by freeing political philosophy from the shackles of the past” (Schmandt, 1960:187), was born on 3 May 1469, in Florence. He spent his childhood in this Italian city-state under Lorenzo de’ Medici, known as the Lorenzo the Magnificent. When the Republic took over Florence, Machiavelli was made Assistant Secretary of State from 1498 to 1512. This provided him the opportunity to become closely acquainted with the functioning of the Government and foreign affairs. He was also active in out-fitting armies in diplomatic missions. When the Republic fell, he went into self- exile to a private farm. He stayed there for the next twelve years, and it was there he wrote his famous The Prince and Discourses. His books, especially The Prince brought him a bad reputation and this is the reason why he probably could not regain his lost job when in 1527, Florence regained her lost liberty. Not long after, death struck and * Associate Professor and Head, Department of Anthropology, Kannur University Thalassery Campus, Palayad, 670661. [email protected] 124 S. Gregory Machiavelli passed away at the age of 59, a sad, dejected, and forgotten man. “No one can say where the bones of Machiavelli rest, but modern Florence has decreed him a stately monument in Santa Croce, by the side of her most famous sons; recognizing that, whatever other nations may have found in his works, Italy found in them the idea of her unity and the germs of her renaissance among the nations of Europe” (Marriott, 2009:12). As for Sir Thomas More, who was known for his seriousness, amiability and humour and who “was not only one of the most cultured men in the sixteenth century Europe, but also the prophet and apostle of a new civilization,” (Desbruslais, 1978:108), he was born in London in 1478, just nine years after the birth of Machiavelli. He was a page in the household of Archbishop Morton, who sent him to Oxford. He was called to the Bar where he was eminently successful. He became a Member of Parliament and Undersheriff of London. While he was envoy to Flanders, began writing Utopia in Latin, finishing in 1516. He was appointed privy councilor of Henry VIII in 1518 and elected speaker of the house of the Commons in 1523. He soon became Lord Chancellor of England, the first layman to hold the office. He came into conflict with the king by refusing to acknowledge the sovereign as sole head of the church, and in 1532, he resigned his office. He was beheaded in 1535. “For himself, as he declared on the gallows, he was, ‘a good servant of the king; but God’s first’” (ibid). His canonization occurred four hundred years later and still later, he was declared the patron saint of politicians and statesmen. Machiavelli’s The Prince In one of his letters to his friend Francesco Vettori, expressing his motives in writing “The Prince”, Machiavelli writes, “I have composed a small book (work) De Principatibus (about principalities), where I dive as deep as I can into ideas about this subject, discussing the nature of princely rule, what forms it takes, how these are acquired, how they are maintained, why they are lost” (Hale, 1972:112). The book begins with Machiavelli’s flattering letter to Lorenzo de’ Medici, the Magnificent, trying to win his favour (vainly, as was proved later) where he gives him advice on how to be a successful ruler. Then he starts talking about different kinds of principalities and their acquirements. According to Machiavelli, hereditary principalities are easier to rule than the newly acquired ones. When he talks of composite principalities which comprise the newly acquired with the old, he asserts that there is bound to be a revolt from the people in such states and so the prince must be prepared even to the extent of killing his own supporters. When talking about the princes of those states, acquired by one’s own arms and power, he says that once they have succeeded The Prince and the Utopia 125 and were begun to be venerated, having destroyed those who were envious of their abilities, they find lasting power, security, respect and prosperity. He also talks of civic Principalities where the prince is elected either by the people or by the aristocracy and observes that the former to be better. He then traces the ecclesiastical principalities. It was Pope Alexander VI, who first established a powerful church-state with money and army. Pope Julius, later increased its power and Pope Leo made it more greater by his goodness and countless virtues. Machiavelli then moves on to discuss in general, the various ways in which these states can organize themselves for attack or defense. A prince should have personal command and captain his troops himself. Experience has shown that only such princes achieve solid success and the mercenaries bring nothing but loss. According to Machiavelli, wise princes would rather lose the battle with their own army than with a battle with the help of auxiliaries. Cesare Borgia was one who learnt a lesson from this mistake he made. Thus, a prince should be independent, well versed in the art of war, well organized, well armed, trained and have a knowledge of military strategy. Machiavelli asserts, “The first way to lose one’s state is to neglect the art of war; the first way to win a state is to be skilled in the art of war” (Machiavelli, 1973: 87). “As for intellectual training, the prince should read history, studying the actions of eminent men to see how they conducted themselves during war and to discover the reasons for their victories or their defeat, so that one can avoid the latter and imitate the former” (ibid: 89). Then, Machiavelli talks about some of the qualities to be acquired by the prince, so that he may be able to remain in power and without being defeated by his enemies. First of all, the prince must learn how not to be virtuous and he must know how to make use of it according to the need. He also should be prudent enough to know how to escape from the evil reputation attached to those vices that could lose him his state. A prince should have a reputation for compassion but in order to keep his people loyal and united, he should be cruel sometimes. A Prince is far better to be feared than to be loved if he cannot be both. “For,” Machiavelli argues, “the bond of love is one which men, wretched creatures that they are, break when it is to their advantage to do so; but fear is strengthened by a dread of punishment which is always effective” (ibid: 97). Not long after, he says, “because men are wretched creatures who would not keep their word to you, you need not keep your word to them” (ibid: 100). A prince should have a true friend or a true enemy. He should reveal his support without any reservation in favour of one side against another. He 126 S. Gregory should also show his esteem for talent, actively encouraging able men and paying honour to eminent craftsmen. His citizens should be encouraged in their business or trade or agriculture. He should entertain the subjects with shows and festivals. Machiavelli ends his book with a prophetic note, in the form of an appeal to liberate Italy from the barbarians. While talking about the secular element in Renaissance culture as a new realism that beckoned toward the modern outlook, Perry and others (2008: 313) rhetorically ask what else Machiavalli’s new politics is but a politics of realism, dealing with the world as he found it, rather than as it ought to be. This best summarises the tone behind the portrayal of The Prince. More’s ‘Utopia’ in comparison with Machiavelli’s “The Prince” More’s Utopia is a kind of philosophical novel describing an ideal state on the island of Utopia. Turner (More,1965: 7), in his translator’s introduction to More’s Utopia, recollects the description given on the title page of the first edition of the book (1516) as “it is a really splendid little book, as entertaining as it is instructive”. Both More’s Utopia as well as Machiavelli’s The Prince are the products of the same age. However, according to Copleston (2003: 320) “More was unaquainted with The Prince, but his book was in part directed against the idea of statecraft represented in Machiavelli’s work”. More, in his Utopia, expresses his ideas through the mouthpiece of one of the characters in his creation, as if it were nothing more than a novel. His book is very satirical and humourous in nature. On the other hand, Machiavelli comes openly with his political thought, making use of his practical experience and historical facts. His presentation is serious, plain and direct. Similarly, More’s Utopia, which is a “nowhere society”where peace and harmony prevails everywhere, covers almost all spheres of life wheras political and military measures are almost the sole objects of Machiavelli’s interest and he divorces these almost wholly from religious, moral and social considerations, except to the extent that the latter affect political expedients. According to Sabine (1951: 301), “he (Machiavelli) writes about nothing and thinks about nothing except about politics, statecraft and the art of war.” Copleston (ibid) finds More’s Utopia as “a curious work, combining a sharp criticism of contemporary social and economic conditions, with an idealization of the simple moral life, which was scarcely in harmony with the more worldly spirit of the time”. But Machiavelli was more concerned with actual political life as he saw it and with what is actually done rather than with what ought to be done from the moral point of view. He was much more interested in the actual nature of the course and in the concrete political life. The Prince and the Utopia 127 In the first book of More’s Utopia, he attacks the destruction of the old agricultural system, the greed for gain and the accompanying centralisation of a few which leads to the rise of a dispossessed indignant class. Then, More condemns the increased severity of the criminal law as useless. He argues that, it is precisely want that drives these people to crime, which according to him, is the only means of livelihood open to them. He questions the authorities what other things they do than make thieves and punish them. He condemns the government which, instead of attacking this social disease, is engaged in legal chicanery to extort taxes and in pernicious schemes of war and conquest. On the other hand, for Machiavelli (ibid: 132), “the manner in which men live is so different from the way in which they ought to live”. So, he proclaims that the only possibility of a government in such a society is none other than the absolute monarchy which is to be indifferent to any morality. He also greatly deals with the means by which, states may be made strong, and with the policies by which they can expand their power. According to him, the art of war is all that is expected of a ruler. In the first book of Utopia, More also strongly condemns power politics and says that it is power politics that aggravates all the economic and the social evils. On the other hand, Machiavelli is often referred to as the ‘father of power politics’. In the second book of his Utopia, More describes his ideal state which appears to be for a perfect society. In contrast with an acquisitive society, he presents an agricultural society in which the family is the unit. Private property is abolished and money is no longer is used as a means of exchange. There is one job they all do, irrespective of sex, and that is farming. It is part of every child’s education. In such a society, people are offered all the material benefits of a welfare state which provides with food, clothing, housing, education, medical treatment etc. Working hours are reasonably short, six hours a day, in order that the citizens may have leisure for cultural pursuits. The harder and more burdensome work is carried out by the slave class, consisting partly of condemned criminals and partly of captives of war. The Utopians have no charm for gold and other ornaments that we consider valuable. They practice the ideal of religious toleration. For them, reason alone teaches them, first to love and reverence Almighty God, to whom they owe their existence and their potentiality for happiness. But atheists are deprived of capacity to hold any public office and accounted as less than man (humans). Euthenasia is considered as an honourable death. Women are treated in certain cases as subordinates to men. As he comes to the end of his narration of Utopia, he expresses his gladness that at least one country has managed to develop a system he would like to see universally adapted. Not long after, he 128 S. Gregory ends his book saying “I cannot agree with everything that he said … But, I freely admit that there are many features of the Utopian Republic which I should like … to see adopted in Europe” (More: 1965: 132). Critical Remarks Both Machiavelli’s The Prince and More’s Utopia have been having definitely a great impact in the evolution of political thought in the successive years. Machiavelli’s The Prince, in some ways, the most effective and interesting of all works of political philosophy, is in form merely one more piece of advice to a ruler. Its analysis is confined to situations between a prince and his people and between princes (or cities) themselves. His doctrine is more or less like “live as the world lives”. It must be noted that the seemingly divergent views in the political writings of Machiavelli can be reconciled only in the light of his theory of man. He frequently remarks that men are in general bad and that the wise ruler will construct his policies on this assumption. “Such a doctrine is clearly an invitation to immortality”, Schmandt (1960: 191) asserts, and continues to say that “its only purpose is to reduce the conduct of good men to the standard of the worst”. The amorality of his doctrines was explained as a result of the hopelessness of the Italian political situation. “It was so desperate that Machiavelli was forced to prescribe poison, to use the words of the German historian Leopold von Ranke” (Gilbert, 1973: 117). From the time of its appearance, The Prince was regarded as a text book for tyrants and an exposition of the principles of power politics. Schmandt (1960: 188) says: “Napoleon Bonaparte declared that Machiavelli’s writings were the only political works worth reading. Mussolini considered the Florentine, his spiritual and intellectual God Father and studied his writings carefully. Hitler is reported to have kept a copy of The Prince by his bed side”. Power is necessary element in government but probably Machiavelli would not have realized that it is only a means for the attainment of given ends – ends that are determined by the nature of man. The force of the state must be rightful force and the goodness or badness must be determined by its conformity to moral norms and not solely by its success or lack of success in achieving political victories as Machiavelli holds. However, one must be conscious of the fact that Machiavelli was more interested in contemporary Italian scene rather than working out any systematic political theory. His writings are not of a detached philosopher but completely coloured by the above interest. The Prince and the Utopia 129 It is because of this interest, he overestimates the part played in the historical development by politics in a narrow sense, failing to discern the importance of other factors, religious and social. He was perfectly frank in asserting that the duty to one’s country overrides all other duties and all scruples. According to Sabine (1951: 302), “The hope of peace and unity of Italy was a real motive of Machiavelli’s thought but it was with him rather a sentiment than a definite plan”. Machiavelli is chiefly known for his amoral advice to the prince, in other words, for his “Machiavellianism”. His views have frequently been interpreted as meaning that wickedness is more effective than goodness. But, does Machiavelli truly favour the immorality of princes? It could be asserted, as there seems to be a general agreement, that he was not at all concerned with good or evil but more concerned with political efficiency. It must also be noted that Machiavelli does not deal with something completely new, of his own, for, in the words of Copleston (ibid: 320), “there can be little doubt that the principles of statecraft, he laid down, have not infrequently, even if regrettably, been those actually operations in the minds of rulers and statesmen”. Debruslais evokes a widespread opinion that “politicians dislike Machiavelli because he gave away their secrets”. According to Machiavelli, it is not necessary for the rulers to have all the good qualities but it is necessary that they should appear to have them. This looks as if he encourages the rulers to be hypocrites. According to him, if the rulers are successful in establishing and maintaining their authority, the means they employ is always deemed honourable and approved by all. This seems to be very much true in today’s India. It is a popular belief in India that most of our political class are least concerned about the welfare of the people even while they are ready to make use of any means to attain their selfish ends. In this way, they become worse than Machiavelli’s princes because for the latter, at least their ends justify their means. Unfortunately, however, it is also very common that our people seem to forget easily the wrongs of our politicians. Machiavelli very much insists on the knowledge of history by the princes. It is a matter of curiosity if one could assess how many of the today’s political class have a solid knowledge of political and cultural history of our nation. Machiavalli also advises the princes to entertain the people with fairs and festivals. It is sad to note that today’s political class is committed to spend a huge amount of money in pompous shows and celebrations whereas thousands of our own people and our brethren elsewhere are dying daily with empty stomachs. In a country which is said to accommodate a third of the world’s 130 S. Gregory poor, with two fifth of its population falling below the international poverty line (Wikipedia, 2010), how else one could justify the demand of our politicla class for lumpsome salaries, perks and benefits not to talk of their pompous life style? Sabine (ibid: 303) gives a picture of Machiavelli in the following lines: He has been represented as an utter cynic, an impassioned patriot, an ardent nationalist, a political Jesuit, a convinced democrat, and an unscrupulous seeker after the favour of despots. In each of these views, incompatible as they are, there is probably an element of truth … He was, perhaps, too practical to be philosophically profound, but in politics, pure and simple he had of all his contemporaries the greatest breadth of view and the clearest insight into the general tendency of European evolution. More deserves a great appreciation for his strong criticism against power politics. He exposes the political hypocrisy, which very much reflects the contemporary reality, when he says that the criminals are made and then punished. It could be a call for identifying the real criminals who go around majestically, commanding full respect and honour, in the guise of political safety net, while the poor and indignant class turns out to be the easy prey under the iron hands of the law. It is a widely accepted dictum today that the cancer of corruption has been eating the vitals of public morality, so much so, that the corrupt are respected and the honest are neglected, as claimed by Zaveri, as early as in 1984 (P.8). Such a situation definitely calls for a greater awareness and demands a higher conscientisation among the people. The satire in Utopia follows a pattern which might serve for any period of economic mal-adjustment. Though More wrote his book in the sixteenth century, it has a remarkable influence on the world of today, for it goes beyond time and culture. It reflects the reality of today. The problems of unemployment, poverty, crime, etc., which are subjected to analysis in Utopia are the same problems that confront India even today. However, it is to be noted that the Utopia does not attempt a final solution to all the problems of human society but it contains an appeal addressed to all, that each one should try to do one’s share to mend one’s own selves and ease the burden of one’s fellowmen to improve mankind. It is true that More in his book, talks of a place Nowhere, but he very much likes his dream-land to become a reality. It clearly expresses More’s dislike of an acquisitive society. To a world which is madly after money and gold, it is a great blow that More presents a society which least bothers about The Prince and the Utopia 131 such things and considers them as disgrace. On the other hand, the people in such a place, are more concerned with one another’s welfare and happiness. Intolerance is on the increase in the world and particularly in India. Parties, groups and individuals are advocating the narrow view, inducing people to project their own religion, caste or language in a manner which disregards the larger interest. In such a situation, More’s religious toleration should open our eyes to a wider horizon. In Utopia, More (1965: 128) says: “Nobody owns anything, but everyone is rich – for what greater wealth can there be than cheerfulness, peace of mind and freedom from anxiety”. It is a well organized welfare state which takes care of all men’s basic needs. However, it is to be noted that it demands a higher price. For instance, everyone is obliged to wear the same colourless clothes. Premarital sex is usually punished with enforced celibacy for life and adultery brings slavery and if repeated, death. Personal liberty is controlled to a great extent. No one can even travel about his own country without a special permit and they have virtually no privacy. George Orwell’s Nineteen Hundred and Eighty Four (2003), with its tele-screens in every room and its slogan “Big brother is watching you” is merely a logical development from the situation in Utopia: “Everyone has his eye on you, so you are practically forced to get on with your job, and make some proper use of your spare time”. On the other hand, the Utopians also practice Euthanesia, and the women are treated as subordinates. They also have married clergy. However, it is debatable how far More is serious when he talks of all these. For, he himself, towards the end of his book, accepts that he cannot agree with everything that is said about Utopia. According to Debruslais (1978: 188): The truth of the matter is most likely that More did not intend to offer us, in Utopia, a blue-print for a perfect society. He was writing, in a realistic vein, of a place which had many improvements to offer to a decadent and religiously intolerant European society, but which could do with some enlightenment, itself. By this, More himself probably indicates the impossibility of a perfect society in this world, but all the same encourages us to strive for a better society. He himself is open for any change in his Utopia, if it is for better. As a citizen of Utopia, he prays: “If I am wrong, and if some other religion or social system would be better and more acceptable to Thee, I pray Thee in Thy goodness to let me know it”. More was not in tolerance with the atheists. But with his background and the culture and the mind of his time, probably he is not aware 132 S. Gregory of the fact that one’s own conscience is the ultimate and Supreme being. In the words of Copleston (Ibid: 320), “the great Christian humanist stood on the threshold of the capitalistic development which was to run its course. Yet, in due time, some, at any rate, of his ideas were to be fulfilled”. Concluding Remarks Today, people’s power is very much recognized. However, people are still not well aware of the factors that very much affect their daily lives. Even some educated people seem to ignore these things easily and some even hardly have any knowledge of what is happening in our country. In such a situation, the conscientisation of people at mass level and enkindling people’s force become necessary. Surely, Machiavelli, by his patriotic spirit, and More by his revolutionary vision stand as sources of inspiration for all to rise against all obstructions that override the welfare of our people and of our country and take it as a duty to bring into light the mean power-politics played by the petty politicians. More’s agricultural society should be a guiding light for everyone in one’s march towards a better India. References Primary Sources: Machiavelli, Nicolo, 1973. The Prince. Trans. George Bull. Bungy: Richard Clay Ltd. More, Thomas. 1965. Utopia. Trans. Paul Turner. Middlesex: Penguin Books Secondary Sources Copleston, Fredrick. 2003. A History of Philosophy. Vol. VIII. London: Continuum International Publishing Group. Desbruslais, Cyril. 1978. A survey of the History of Western Philosophy. (mimeograph). Pune: Jnana Deepa Vidyapeeth. Gilbert, Felix. 1973. Machiavellism, Dictionary of the History of Ideas. Vol. IV: 116-21. Hale, J.R. 1972. Machiavelli and Renaissance. Italy, Great Britain: C Nicholls and Co. Ltd. The Prince and the Utopia 133 Perry, Marvin, Myrna Chase, Margaret C. Jacob, James R. Jacob. 2008. Western Civilization: Ideas, Politics, and Society. Cengage Learning Marriott, W.K. 2009. Introduction. In The Prince. Trans. W.K. Marriott. Randy Dillon Orwell, George. 2003. (1954). Nineteen Eighty Four. First World Publishing. Sabine, George, H. 1951. A History of Political Theory. London: George G. Harrap and Co. Ltd. Schmandt, Henry J. 1960. A History of Political Philosophy. Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Co. Wikipedia. 2010. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_India. 2 June 2010 Zaveri, N.D. 1984. On Corruption, Times of India. 28 January 1984 134 S. Gregory