ST.

AUGUSTINE PREP
History Department

Summer Reading Assignments for Mr. Cappuccio

H Period

Summer Reading Assignments

August 20, 2010

From
Ed Bowman
 2

Ed Bowman

Mr. Cappuccio

AP European History

20 August 2010

Summer Assignments

The Prince

1. How does Machiavelli view human nature?

Through the work, The Prince, Machiavelli demonstrates his views on human nature.

However, many of his thoughts and theories that are expressed through The Prince are

drastically different from the ideas of humanists of his time. For the most part,

Machiavelli mocks human nature and views humans as very selfish creatures. In The

Prince, he promotes a secular society that does not view morality as a priority but more

of an obstacle for governing a state. Machiavelli continues on saying that citizens (the

common people or a generalization of humans) cannot be trusted. He sees them as

cowardly and in the time of need they are of no support to the state. He makes the

generalization that men are ungrateful, indecisive, liars and deceivers. This is why

Machiavelli feels that the trust must be put in the hands of the prince and not in the hands

of the people. Clearly, Machiavelli’s opinion of human nature is selfishness and the

unwillingness to act. Ironically enough, Machiavelli creates such an image of man that is

seen as disgraceful and yet the prince uses lies and deceit for his nation as well. It is not

just the citizens that are deceitful but their leader as well.

2. Is Machiavelli’s book “evil”? What role does virtue play in Machiavelli’s state?
 3

Machiavelli’s work, The Prince, has been seen as quite controversial and has been

labeled occasionally with “evil ideas.” However, evil is a matter of perspective and The

Prince should be seen as a suggested way of government rather than being “a sinful piece

of work.” A misconception can be made from The Prince because of its secular theories

that make it seem anti-religious. However, Machiavelli created the secular characteristics

so that his work could be more realistic than the past political writers who stressed

idealistic religious framework for their theories. The Prince stems away from the

religious idealisms and focuses more on the brutal and cold world of fact. The Prince

seeks to explain politics in a more realistic tone, and how man is more responsible for his

own actions rather than God.

Another common “evil” trait of The Prince is the basic human nature. In The Prince,

Machiavelli stresses that good cannot always win against evil simply because it is good.

The citizens are looked at as shameful people because they lie, cheat and steal but the

prince is allowed to do these things because it is to “benefit the country.” Therefore the

prince is picking the lesser of the two evils to maintain control and stability for the

country. If the prince acts cruelly then virtue appears to be absent or even diminished.

However, Machiavelli explains that virtue is not something to be forgotten but simply

cannot be the top priority for the prince. Machiavelli views the prince as a perfect person

that can balance virtuousness and mercy. The prince should be able to be loved and

feared by his people but if there cannot be a balance then, he should be feared. This

significantly decreases the importance or the idea of what is good and wrong in a

government.

3. Compare and contrast the different ways in which a prince can rise to power.
 4

Machiavelli acknowledges that there are several types and ways to gain and control

power over the state. There are primarily four ways of gaining power in a government

position. The first way is through law or the support of high class noblemen. This is a

more democratic approach than the methods. A second way of gaining power is through

secret societies and assassinations that could be deemed criminal. Another path is by

good luck or good fortune. The final possibility to achieving a high position in the

government is through hard work, determination and ability. Though there are four

possibilities in becoming a prince, the possibilities are not always a stable method for

keeping control over the state.

In comparing good luck and fortune to ability, it is much more difficult to gain the

position of prince through hard work because of the time, stress and energy it requires.

However, it can be argued that a prince born with innate talent and skill can be

considered luckier than others and simply has good fortune to be born that way. A

similarity could also be made between the crime route to power and the skill route to

power. Both paths can involve hard labor and dedication to reach its final objective.

Nevertheless, a criminal prince is differs greatly from a prince that was chosen by others.

If a prince is elected by vote, then clearly he is the more popular candidate. Criminals that

achieve power are likely to be exploited for their actions and have a greater chance of

using cruelty towards their subjects. The skilled and able prince seems to be the best

choice of the four and has a better chance of maintaining his power. Unlike fortune,

criminal acts or popular vote a prince that has achieved the position through his own

skills and abilities will have a better chance of maintaining control over the government.
 5

4. Do you agree with Machiavelli’s thesis that stability and power are the only qualities

that matter in the evaluation of governments? If not, what else matters?

Machiavelli establishes his thesis that stability and power the only qualities that

matter in the evaluation of a government. While these qualities are essential and of great

importance in keeping a successful government, the way to achieve stability is warped by

Machiavelli. Machiavelli claims that it is better to be feared than loved by the citizens of

the principality. This allows the prince to act in any cruel manner that he chooses to

intimidate his people. However, this is also how revolutions and rebellions can arise. If

the citizens of the principality finally become tired and fed up with the prince’s cruel

ways, they can start a rebellion against him. The prince cannot be a leader if he does not

have any citizens that support or want to be ruled by him. By thinking more in the way of

the people and their best interests instead of the prince’s own, he will be able to have a

better control over his principality and he will gain stability over his people. Stability

through cruelty simply provides too much room for uprisings and riots against the prince.

Another very important quality for the evaluation of a government is growth. The

principality should be able to learn and grow beyond what it already has. This growth

does not necessarily mean whether or not the principality conquered enough nations to

become a dominant power. Growth is essential because it expands it’s boundaries in the

physical and intellectual world. If a prince is generous and just to his citizens then they

are likely to grow rather than be afraid and diminish in numbers. The citizens will start

more families under good leadership and government and it will cause them to expand to

new territories. This also helps the government with finding new resources that it can

benefit from in time. This expansion would be done without any blood shed and no
 6

battles to be fought (as long as the prince is wise and does not allow the citizens to

expand into other principalities).

5. Discuss The Prince’s historical context. In what ways do the arguments and examples

of The Prince reflect that context?

During the sixteenth century, when Machiavelli wrote The Prince, Italy had fallen

apart and was not one unified country. Instead, the country had become a collection of

city-states with several leaders and rulers with very different ideas. During the time,

Machiavelli had been in exile while the Medici family attempted to take over Florence

and continue their dominant reign in Italy with the support of the pope. Initially,

Machiavelli was more interested in a republic rather than a ruling prince. However, he

wanted to impress the new prince, Lorenzo Medici, and offer political ideas on how he

could be the best prince that he could be. This makes Machiavelli look like a hypocrite

and simply desperate to become a citizen once more of Florence. As a result he wrote the

book, The Prince. However, Machiavelli never stated in the book that a prince was the

best form of government. Therefore, The Prince was not necessarily considered an

idealistic book. The main purpose of the book was simply to impress the Medici which

resulted in failure.

The Prince also gives a detailed historical point of view of past leaders and

princes. These were used as examples and suggestions for Lorenzo Medici for his reign

and rule. For example, Machiavelli discussed Philip of Macedon and his successful ways

of keeping together his kingdom. Also, because it was a time of city-states and

individualized kingdoms, Machiavelli also discussed the failures of the leaders during

that time period. These examples include the Duke of Milan and the King of Naples. He
 7

explained how both of these leaders managed to lose control over their kingdoms because

they did not know how to govern their nobles and control their military. These examples

of past leaders were used in The Prince to reflect the issues of both leaders of that time

and in the past. However, Machiavelli wanted to focus more on the present than the past

and stressed this to Lorenzo Medici in the final chapters of The Prince. Overall, The

Prince described a kingdom that was ruled by one leader that had complete control over

everything. This reflected the fact that Italy was in utter turmoil and needed a solution to

bring it to a union.

Utopia

1. What is the nature of Utopian society? Is it an ideal society? If so, is it a society made

up of ideal people?

Utopian society has the nature of being a perfect society where nothing is wrong and

everything is supposedly perfect. It is a society where humankind’s happiness is fulfilled

on earth and there is peace but no war. In the Utopian society, there are few religions that

no one is allowed to criticize, women and men work, women can become priests, each

house is the same and has the same materials, everyone wears the same clothing and no

one has any private ownership. The nature of Utopia is that everything is simply perfect.

However, Utopia cannot be truly an ideal place because of its inhabitants and its

toleration for other people. Utopia is supposedly perfect like Heaven is suppose to be so

there is truly no difference between the earthly world and the spiritual world. However,

the people of the island do not see this and they do not associate with the atheists. This

can create conflict as atheists do not believe in a punishment in the afterlife. Therefore

not all of Utopia’s inhabitants have the same ideas on what is perfect. Utopia has laws
 8

that the people must follow but if the people were ideal then there wouldn’t be any laws.

Ideal people would not commit criminal acts and therefore Utopia would not need laws

and schools to teach its citizens a perfect society.

2. There are many aspects of Utopian life and policy that More describes as absurd.

There are some, even, that Hythloday sees as absurd. Discuss the meaning of the

absurd in Utopia. Are absurd practices always absurd in the same way? Are some

absurd practices simply absurd while others betray deeper significance? Is the

sometimes absurdity of Utopia meant to imply that Utopia is ideal or less than ideal?

How do the absurdities of Utopia play into Erasmus's notion of Christian Folly?

Identify the moments of absurdity in Utopia and analyze them separately and in

contrast.

Utopia is considered an absurd society because an ideal society where everything is

just and peaceful does not exist. Perhaps the ideas and the theory of a communist nation

where everything and everyone is treated the same and equally can exist but never in the

actual world. The people, humans, make the society imperfect because of their actions

and thoughts of what their interests are. Not every individual’s ideal society is the same

as another. For example, there are atheists on the island that do not believe that they will

be punished in an afterlife for the crimes that they commit on earth so they do not have

any restraint to act out. It is also absurd that there are slaves in a society where everyone

has freedom. The slaves must wear gold which mocks their dignity and it prevents them

from committing crimes. It is absurd to think that this punishment exists in a perfect

society. Crime should not exist in a perfect society.

 9

The absurdities make Utopia a less than ideal society because it is the people that

create the absurdities. The inhabitants of the continent make up the punishments which

result in making the society not perfect and clearly crime exists. However, Utopia still

allows the reader to acknowledge that while Utopia could never be real and imminent, the

kingdom of Heaven does exist and is imminent. This is shown through Hythloday when

he explains his story about the fool and the friar. Supposedly the fool is a representation

of Erasmus’s Christian Folly which is a man that acts only through the laws of

Christianity. Even though the Christian makes fun of society because it does not carry out

the way he believes it should.

3. Unlike Plato's Republic, Utopia is not presented to the reader as a blueprint for an

ideal state. It is presented as a fiction rather than as a possibility. How does the

fictional frame change the way a reader understands the book? How does the fictional

frame in Utopia function? What are the consequences of making Utopia fictional?

How does it offer protection to Thomas More the author?

The fictional frame that surrounds Utopia establishes the book as an imaginary place

that could not truly exist rather than a blueprint for a new social idea. The reader

interprets the book more of a story than a new and undiscovered theory on how to live.

The book provides a great sense of fiction mostly because of the ideas that were included

in it during that specific time period. Divorce, euthanasia and both female and male

married priests are radical ideas for the time period and especially for More who was a

devout Catholic and did not truly believe in these things. Knowing that More was

catholic gives the reader an idea that he did not write the book seriously. The book may

have been designed to ridicule rather than to inspire. However, this does provide
 10

protection for More since he did not appear to believe in such theories. Catholicism

condemns married priests and does not allow women to become priests for that matter.

Also, More was a wealthy landowner that had no need for a communistic life style that

was presented in the novel. The fictional framework of Utopia creates a mysterious veil

around Thomas More’s beliefs and intentions.