Thomas More's Utopia vs. Machiavelli's the Prince

393 Words2 Pages
By comparing the way both works use and treat point of view and form, governmental systems and ideals the differences in perspective on power becomes clearer. Ideas are brought forth differently in both works through narrative point of view and style. These two different ways reflect the views of power the authors hold. The Prince is told in a matter of fact tone, its purpose being to inform a prince on how to run his kingdom. Inherent in this purpose is a key to Mach’s view of power. Because it was written for the use of one man to dominate over and control his kingdom/state, it was obviously not meant for lesser mortals. It in itself is a tool of power which could be used for only the good of the prince who uses it. Whether or not the people are empowered does not matter, it is irrelevant. It only matters that the prince uses it to maintain his own power. In contrast, Utopia is a fantasy written by More to suggest an alternative way of life for the people. He focuses very little on the doings of the prince in his ideal society; what matters in Utopia is the actions of the people. One might even say that the people are empowered, but the ideals that truly run the society, are empowered. More’s true focus does not even lie in power, but in the seeking of ideals. A second comparison that one could make is that the types of governments also have inherent qualities within them concerning power. In the Prince, the government is either a theoretical monarchy or dictatorship. Mach focuses on the manipulation of the people to main-tain power. The minor details do not matter. The importance lies in the fact that in a monarchy or dictatorship one person has the power in a society and all the rest serve only to obey him. Starkly different is More’s creation. His society is a true communist one and it could also be argued that it is also a democracy. Leaders are
Open Document