Central European University

Fortune and Change at Niccolo Machiavelli and Thomas More

Final Paper submitted for the course:

“Sociability and Political Society:
Topics in Early-Modern Intellectual History”

Department of History

By
Veress Zsolt Endre

Budapest, Hungary

Due to 8th of January 2007

1
Structure

The essay will discuss how two of the most representative thinkers of the humanist period

thought about fortune and change. The first part describes the general “state of sprit of

humanism”, the next to parts focusing of how, the two political thinkers, Nicollo

Machiavelli and Thomas More, conceived the problematic of the contextual change

(Fortune).

Context of the “Il Principe” and the “Utopia”

For being able to understand why these concepts became so important in the period that

they wrote, first we have to comprehend the changes that took place in Europe on the

conceptual level in the political thought during the end of the XVth and the beginning of

the XVIth century.

The greatness of Humanism (especially in its early stages) is caused not so much by the

originality of its thinking system(which cannot be denied in its later stages), but the by

the sources that they used, the way they used them, and fitted them to the new perspective

brought by the Renaissance, and its representatives, who by “the range of their inquiries,

by the freshness of their observation, gave impetus to and helped to acquire intellectual

acceptance for, the search for truth on earth instead of in haven”1. Their main sources of

inspiration became the classical texts especially those of Roman origin, which then were

fitted to their own reality, from social life to political thought. Their way of thinking

about political systems was more from the perspective of better or worse than good and

1
J.H. Plumb. The penguin Book of the Renaissance (Penguin Book Uk. 1999) p.29

2
evil2. This “new way of thinking” resulted in history being secularized, humanists

refusing to view events as acts of divine providence, but more as the result of virtues,

aims and resources of human actors, or as results that had their origin in the specific

characteristics, of a certain system.3 Also the language created by them to relate about

the citizenship and state was more attractive and accessible than the one used by their

predecessors (scholasticism) which also led to a better acceptance of this new breed of

thinkers(and thinking)4 in courtly society. All these influences combined managed to

produce a climate of thought which inspired two of the most important humanist thinkers

Niccolo Machiavelli, and Thomas More5 to write their masterpieces, Il Principe and

Utopia

In James Haskins conception there were two classes of political reformers: those who

believe in reforming the individual through the reforms of institutions and those who

believe in reforming the institution through reforming the individuals6. Thomas More

and Machiavelli fit weary well in these categories, More being the representative of the

first one Machiavelli being the representative of the second one. They share a similarity

in what concerns human nature, what differs in their approaches is their perspective and

way in which they want to turn it towards a positive goal. This difference of perspective,

combined with the belief system of both thinkers, is what produced so radically different

solutions which can be given to resolve problems in society.

2
Jill Kraye. Renaissance Humanism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997) p.120
3
Jill Kraye. Renaissance Humanism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997) p.123
4
J.H Burns The Cambridge History of Political Thought (Cambridge: University Press,) p.20
5
Jill Kraye. Renaissance Humanism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997) p.118
6
J.H Burns The Cambridge History of Political Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) p.118

3
Machiavelli and “Fortune”

Machiavelli is the representative of those writers who believe in reforming the

institutions through reforming the individual. He is almost a typical example for a

humanist writer, his work may seem hypocritical from the moral perspective of the XXth

century intellectual7 (in his writings defending opposing concepts, according to the

political context of 16th century Italy). We could say that in his life he tried to put to use

some of his views expressed in his writings, but from the perspective of the intellectual.

If we consider the ultimate goal of the humanist intellectual to be employed, and to be

able to exercise some kind of influence over his employer, than he should be very

perceptive of any change in fortune and write according to it. This was a regular practice

among humanist writers, who usually were part of a court, and dependant on the good

will of the king/prince/pope in charge.

His writings in “Il Principe” are focused on the individual, and on his qualities that are

necessary for acquiring, and more important keeping power. This is why the book itself is

intended to be a practical advisor to those persons whose goal is to obtain and maintain

power, and who are also willing and capable of engaging in this type of endevour 8. As a

result of its practicality Machiavelli does not waist time in upholding virtues that are

socially recognized. In his conception good and evil are social constructs and have no

transcendental reference goodness being a result of a general tendency to promote the

general welfare of the community, man as a singular being wicked unless compelled to

7
Ibid., p.120
8
Timothy J.Lukes “Lionizing Machiavelli” American Pollitical Science Review, No.3 Vol. 95 (September
2001) p.569

4
do goodness9. Because of his conceptions the advices given by him are focused on

practicality and results, by acting accordingly to the surrounding contexts, instead of

some alleged Divine principles, that may or may not be in harmony with the

surroundings, and following them will ultimately lead to the loss of power which goes

against the main goal for which he wrote “Il Principe”

Because of this unusual perspective, the question change has a particularly important

role. First the concept is discussed as a result of individual action in a certain situation

(acquisition of new territory in one way or another), and inducing it should be avoided as

much as possible, because “any change always leaves a tooting- stone for further

building”10. As a result of this line of thinking Machiavelli considers that lesser the

change induced in the way of living of a conquered population; the higher is the

possibility of keeping them under control11, causing regions with great similarities with

that of the conqueror, being relatively easy to maintain. The population who is used to

live under servitude, without any rights, doesn’t feel the difference, if the ruling house is

changed with another, they being accustomed to obey, will serve the new ruler as they

did the old one.

The real challenge comes when discrepancy between the conqueror and the conquered is

to large, one latter in many cases being accustomed to a certain amount of freedom

“which is never forgotten despite the passage of time and any benefits bestowed by the

new ruler”12. In these cases the best way of maintaining control is in fact to exercise
9
J.W Allen A History of Political Thought in the Sixteenth Century. (London: Methuen&Co LTD) p. 453
10
Machiavelli The Prince,(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988) p.6
11
Ibid., p.8
12
Ibid., p18

5
radical change like the Romans did, as Machiavelli exemplifies, by destroying the city of

Chartage13.

The art of governing in the concept of Machiavelli is to correctly determine the situation,

to know exactly how much and in what way change has to be induced. This is why in his

concept as J. V Allan points out the concept of virtue is quite different than that of the

previously existent definitions, referring to abilities like energy, hardihood, boldness,

unflinching will, intelligence and public spirit and intelligence14. In Machiavelli’s concept

in the course of history there are only a few archetypical leaders, who were capable to

make change and keep their power over their dominion, the actions and methods should

be taken as an example, by future generations. What made these characters so unique was

the fact, that they “were at the in the right time in the right place”, and basically this is

what the random element in fortune is or as he defined it: fortune is the arbiter of half of

our actions, but then it lets us control the other half. In Machiavelli’s case changing

fortune is something external on which the individual cannot have any effect, and it if one

is not prepared its consequences are dire. That is why he compares fortune:

“to one of those rivers that when they become enraged, flood the plains, destroy trees and buildings, move

earth from one place and deposit it in another. Everyone flees before it, everyone gives way to it’s trust,

without being able to halt it in any way. But this does not mean that when the river is not in flood, men are

unable to take precautions, by means of dykes and dams, so that when it rises the next time, it will either

not overflow it’s banks, or if it does, it’s force will not be so uncontrolled or damaging”15

13
Ibid.,
14
J. W Allen, A History of Political Thought in the Sixteenth Century (London: Methuen&Co LTD) p. 427
15
Machiavelli The Prince,(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988) p.86

6
As a character on the “scene of life” Fortune is personified by a whimsical, capricious

woman. Her instability is symbolized by the ever changing winds and by the figure of the

wheel, al her whishes should be gratified. Because of this ever changing nature one

enjoying her favors should always be prepared for a radical “mood swing”. Her vanity is

displayed as a desire to show her power before Prudence has a chance to act. She is

considered as favoring the fool who does net even appreciates what he is getting. Because

of her feminine nature she unusually friendly to young men, but sometime because her

capriciousness favors old man for a change. Having no regard for human feelings her

actions seem cruel, not allowing anyone to enjoy himself for too long, even if sometimes

shows some leniency in her unfriendliness16.

Because Machiavelli is discussing fortune and change from an the point of view of the

individual, admitting that for a single person to control the change of context is not only

impossible, but as he tires to demonstrate in “Il Principe” is harmful, his actions acting

almost like kindling to an already almost unpredictable context. The only way to

overcome fortune it is to recognize it in time and act accordingly, like Pope Julius II, who

“always acted impetuously, and found the times and circumstances suited to his ways that

was always successful”17. Because different times need different measures, the same

strategies that were once successful could prove disastrous, if one fails to recognize the

circumstances because “fortune is a woman, and if you want to control her, it is necessary

to treat her roughly”18.

16
Vincenzo Cioffari “The Funcition of Fortune in Dante, Boccaccio and Machiavelli” Italica, No.1, Vol.
24, (March 1947), pp.4-5
17
Machiavelli The Prince,(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988) p.86
18
Ibid., p.87

7
Machiavelli also stresses the possibility in which in spite of an individual like Cesare de

Borgia who “despite having used every means and having done all that a far-seeing and

able man should do, in order to put down his roots in the territories that he acquired” 19

just to loose it later because of “extraordinary bad luck”. Or in other words Fortune has a

mind of her own and in spite of every preparation an individual can make, she will

manage to ruin ones plans, because of the unforeseen turns she can take which are

impossible for an individual to predict, its consequences being impossible to change.

The concept of change in Thomas More’s “Utopia”

Thomas More is a good representative of James Hawkins’s second category. He is one of

the thinkers who believe in reforming the individual through the reforms of institutions.

Like Machiavelli, More discusses change from two points o views, the first one being

change from a personal point, and than from the perspective of society.

For trying to comprehend why More chooses to examine the change from a social

perspective, we first have to try to understand the person. His conceptions are quite

different from those of Machiavelli. First of all he is a convinced Catholic and very

idealistic, so idealistic that in fact he chose to sacrifice himself for his beliefs, being

beheaded, when he didn’t support Henry thee VIII’s divorce from Catherine de Aragon,

and did not take the oath of supremacy asserting that Parliament did not have the right to

usurp papal authority in the favor of the King20. In fact his view of society is so different

19
Ibid., p.23
20
Microsoft ® Encarta ® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

8
than those of the other humanists that it is said that the Utopia is “by far the most radical

critique, of humanism written by a humanist”21.

The main question in Utopia is not how to adapt the concept of virtue to the social reality

that was unfolding in the beginning of the XVIth century but quite the opposite, meaning

how can we rebuild society so it will conform to the original meaning of the ideal

humanist virtues. In the Utopia society is represented as a whole, where the freedom of

individuals is determined and limited, by the complex web of human relationships.

Firs the concept of change is described as necessary element for the improvement of

society, but which is almost impossible to achieve. The question raised is: how can one

individual make a difference, when facing strong opposition from customs. To illustrate

his dilemma he depicts a dialog between himself and the imaginary figure of the traveler

Raphael Hythloday, who through his journeys acquired an extensive knowledge about the

workings of the world. More ask Raphael why he doesn’t join one of the existing courts,

so society can benefit from the extent of his knowledge22. The answer of the traveler

“You are twice mistaken my dear More, […] first in me and then in the situation itself, I don’t have the

capacity you ascribe in me, and if I had it in the highest degree, the public would not be any better off

through the destruction of my peace. In the first place, most princes apply themselves to the arts of war, in

which I have neither ability nor interest, instead of good arts of peace. There are generally more set on

acquiring new kingdoms by hook or by crook than on governing well those that they already have.

Moreover, the counselors of kings are all so wise that they need no other knowledge (or at least that’s the

21
J.H Burns The Cambridge History of Political Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) p.138
apud D. J Geanakopolos, Constantinople and the West (Madison WI, 1989)
22
Sir Thomas More Utopia(A New Translation Background Criticism) (New York: W.W Norton &
Company INC, 1975.) p.9

9
way they see it). At the same time they accept and even flatter the most absurd statements of favorites

through whose influence they seek to stand well with the prince.”23

The first thing that we can deduce from this response is that More denounces the

Machiavellian types of politics taught by “Il Principe” and in several other educational

books, because it goes against the ideal humanist virtues, and because the more urbane

version of the Italian humanism in the end fails to bring any improvement in the social

and political life24. Courtly society appears here as a much more complex social

aggregate, of which the ruling prince, who contrary to the Machiavellian beliefs, is not

the dominant actor but just one part of it, his free will being very much limited by the

political aggregate and customs of the court, where radical change in the viewing optics

is almost impossible goes against customs25.

If book one of the Utopia which is set in the “known World”, dealing with the social and

political realties of XVIth century England (excessive sheep farming and the phenomenon

of the enclosure, the brutality of criminal law), were change is required to make it a better

place, in book two More through the story told by Raphael about the island of utopia,

imagines a society where he tries to eliminate ore at least control contextual change (the

Machiavellian fortune), the ultimate goal being that of stability. If the individual (no

matter the position or rank), being a small part of society cannot change it, only to adapt

to it then why not try to build a completely new society in which, because of its complex

23
Ibid., p.10
24
J.H Burns The Cambridge History of Political Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,)
p.138
25
Ibid.,

10
nature, internal change can be regulated, and external contextual change can be foreseen

and controlled.

One of the building blocks of the Utopia is a more “realistic” approach to the character of

man, which cannot be changed, but there is a possibility by, creating a social structure

around him, to channel his destructive energies, thus creating a stable society26. Because

the perspective of the work is a much wider one, the possibility raised by Machiavelli to

“build dams and Dykes” is much better suited, and also possible- including in the process

every individual in the form of one collective actor-, creating a social structure that is so

stable that can withstand and regulate any ‘foods” provoked by the changing

circumstances (which is fortune itself). Everything is planned out from economy to

education, family structures, war, change itself being almost completely taken out of the

picture. This kind of social planning does have its shortcomings, like the lack of

scientific development which would induce a continuous need for change, problem that is

resolved by More with the accidental shipwrecking, that brings in new knowledge that is

immediately, absorbed by the specialized class, this way the impact could be limited, and

slowly implement them27.

The utopians are also specialized in obtaining information about the changes that can be

induced by non human, but environmental factors, like weather, which they can predict

with great accuracy.

26
J.C Davies, Utopia and the Ideal Society. A Study of English Utopian Writing 1516-1700 (Cambridge,
1981) p.38
27
Sir Thomas More, Utopia(A New Translation Background Criticism) (New York: W.W Norton &
Company INC, 1975.) pp.62-63.

11
“…they have learned to plot expertly the courses of the stars and the movements of the heavenly bodies.
They have devised a number of instruments by which they can compute with greatest exactness the course

of the sun, the moon, and the other stars which are visible in their area of the sky. [...] From the long

experience in observation, they are able to forecast rains winds, and other changes in the weather.”28

Their social activity is structured in a way the possibility of change of non human origin

–this being almost completely controlled by the social design-can bee foreseen, and so

measures can be taken before it reaches to more severe developments, exemplified by the

timely reparation of houses29.

As a conclusion we could say that More through this imaginary exercise tries to “tame”

the capricious goddess of fortune (using the metaphor of Machiavelli) almost in a

Shakespearian way, making her more predictable and less dangerous, effectively

neutralizing her and the change caused by the volatile behavior, instead of trying to

control her by rough treatment. This method even if successful for a short period, in the

end it will result in a total loss of control causing more damage, than the benefits that

came from control.

A short conclusion

Both thinkers start from the concept of human nature, which has a fallen character that

ultimately has to be overcome to be able for society to function their goal being the

28
Ibid., p.54
29
Ibid., pp.37-38

12
improvement of their contemporaneous society. In spite this common ground because of

the different perspective they write from ( Machiavelli from the point of view of the

individual and More from the point of view of society), their start from the opposite

direction, just to end up in the place where the other one started. If Machiavelli starts

from frowning change as something that undermines the stability of a ruler and of

society, but in the same time admitting that it is necessary because of the changing

fortune, which cannot be controlled by the individual, More starts as a defender of the

necessity of change, but in the end imagining a society in which, because of its more

complex and interlocked nature, fortune itself is controlled completely, and so

eliminating the necessity of change.

Bibliography

J.C Davies, Utopia and the Ideal Society. A Study of English Utopian Writing 1516-

1700, Cambridge, 1981

13
J.H Burns, The Cambridge History of Political Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press,

J.H. Plumb, The penguin Book of the Renaissance, Penguin Book Uk. 1999

Jill Kraye, Renaissance Humanism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997

J. W Allen, A History of Political Thought in the Sixteenth Century, London:

Methuen&Co LTD 1960

Machiavelli, The Prince, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988

Sir Thomas More, Utopia(A New Translation Background Criticism), New York: W.W

Norton & Company INC, 1975.

Timothy J.Lukes, “Lionizing Machiavelli” American Pollitical Science Review, No.3

Vol. 95 (September 2001)

Vincenzo Cioffari, “The Funcition of Fortune in Dante, Boccaccio and Machiavelli”

Italica, No.1, Vol. 24, (March 1947)

Electronic Encyclopedias

Microsoft ® Encarta ® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation.

14