Machiavelli and Saint Augustine writings are compared

in this posting. "City of God" by Saint Augustine and "The Prince" by Machiavelli and affectionately called "The Prince and The Saint" in this book review by Charlie Cleaver. He's an esteemed writer with a history degree from Lipscomb University. I hope you enjoy.


The Prince and The Saint

Throughout history, there have been several books that brought forth new perspectives on issues that related to a specific time. Both City of God by Saint Augustine and The Prince by Machiavelli are excellent examples of this. While City of God may concentrate more on the religious side, each book has its own unique opinions in terms of morals that broaden the minds of readers. With that being stated, it is also important to note that each author is trying to bring about a specific element of change that may be motivated by each individual’s personal views. Although these books bring out many different views and ideas that could potentially suggest that each individual’s view is supreme, it is neither practical nor realistic to expect either of these states to be an overall success given the challenges they would face in a modern world.
In every book, the author is trying to stress certain points that they believe make the work worth writing. In City of God, Augustine is no exception. The point of this book would appear to be an attempt to gain the attention of the citizens of the Roman Empire so they might turn from their evil ways and accept Jehovah as their one true God. Augustine uses an example of two cities to make this point. One city is filled with evil and is “damned”, and then another is a city of God and full of righteousness and virtue. The book explains that the city of God will receive heavenly blessings and will be rewarded for their efforts by doing the will of God; however, not all men striving to do good in the world are viewed as those striving to do the Lord’s will. On page 112 he states: “When our Lord said: Amen I say to you they have received their reward, He had in mind those who do what seems to be good in order to be glorified by men.” With this in mind, it is interesting to ponder the overall motive behind Augustine making that statement. One possible reason could have been to make a statement about the way Rome had been conducting itself. He might have believed that Rome could one day be a “city of God”, but would first have to retract all of the evil qualities that it had.
Although The Prince is not focused on how to make people godlier, it does deal with morals. Machiavelli proposes a semi-disregard for morals and attempts to explain that a ruler must innately do what is best for himself. The main point of this book would be to explain how to be an effective ruler by using any means necessary. This book uses descriptive language to best ascertain the ways in which to be an effective ruler. No method appears to be out of line as long as the ruler is gaining some sort of edge over others. One idea is to gain control of all surrounding lands. Once this is achieved, Machiavelli then goes into detail about how to properly govern the lands. It also explains how one man’s good nature might also be his demise: “…because a man who might want to make a show of goodness in all things necessarily comes to ruin among so many who are not good. Because of this it is necessary for a prince, wanting to maintain himself, to learn how to be able to be not good and to use this and not use it according to necessity” (pg 48). With the main ideas surrounding these books recognized, it is now possible to go into further detail about the accreditation for both Machiavelli and Augustine.
In City of God, it is not plausible to expect an entire nation to find unity in a national religion. While his intentions may be quite sound, his methods are not. The only major beneficial aspect of this book’s criteria is to help everyone grow closer to the “one true God.” One particular bias would be Augustine’s personal view of how Christianity is perceived and how to implement a “city of God.” It simply does not appear to be a reasonable idea to suggest that any one society can be perfect if they simply use his ideas. While historically Augustine wrote this book to make a statement that would somehow transform Rome and outlying areas into this idea of a perfect city, it simply would not happen. In later times, other men and women would attempt to create a city for God and try to isolate themselves from sin and do whatever is necessary to prevent becoming an earthly one. This notion also failed. Time will always prove to discredit this idea because sin will always find its way into whatever men believe is impenetrable.
Machiavelli’s book will not be vastly different from Augustine’s as far as surviving the tests of time. In order to have a successful state or county, it is simply unethical to behave the way Machiavelli suggests. Having a country run entirely by the selfish motives of a tyrant does exist in today’s world, but is looked down upon much more than it might have been in the 15th century. As far as any biases that the author might have, it is plausible to suggest that this is how Machiavelli himself ran things. He wanted others to know why he behaved the way he did and what his overall motives were. Therefore it is reasonable to suggest that The Prince might be a bit more realistic than Augustine’s work. It is easy to see countries in today’s world that hold true to some of the principles of this book. It is impossible to say whether or not this influences those who might rule in such a way like Machiavelli, but it is not out of the realm of possibility.
In an attempt to connect these two ideas of states with the 21st century, it becomes apparent that in order to make certain parallels to bridge the gap, one must apply these ideas to today’s world and question whether these could work. The notion suggested by Augustine in City of God would be almost impossible to accomplish with such an opinionated and idealistic world. If attempted, before long this state would be corrupted with conflicts and politics. While the idea may be innocent enough, the city would almost certainly fall into behaving more like an earthly city rather than a Godly one.
Machiavelli’s The Prince might stand a better chance of surviving the centuries than Augustine’s work. This is because of the self-centered attitude that it possesses. The author’s ideas about conquering can still be seen today by the selfish notions of rulers. It is not hard to imagine anyone behaving in this manner today. Machiavelli’s methods are certainly more realistic than Augustine’s work. This is because of the selfish nature of the book. The ideas presented are all about how to be an effective and powerful ruler. There is nothing about how to be a good Christian in the text. However unfortunate, this book reflects human nature.
Inasmuch as humans create ideas surrounding a perfect or ideal state, it simply cannot exist under the circumstances surrounding today’s world. It is possible, however, to find similarities in some of today’s states. The ideals from The Prince can be seen in almost any culture in the world today. Especially now it is not hard to find a ruler who wants more power. It does not seem likely that anyone would want to live in a state run like either one of these ideas. However, the one with the most promise is Augustine’s. His idea has good intentions and would appear to be a very beneficial place to live so long as the people of the city worked on making it a success. Following a Godly model for a city sounds like a wonderful idea at first glance. If people would not be so fixated on protocol, this might be a possibility.