Machiavelli and More are each often described as "humanists." Does it seem reasonable to you to group them together as part of the same "movement" or intellectual trend? Explain why or why not.
.
A most complete definition of humanism describes it as, "an intellectual movement that stressed enjoyment of all aspects of life, and especially of the ideas and values of pre-Christian civilizations, such as those of Greece and Rome; the interest in individualism, including stress on man as an end in himself, rather than as merely one cog in the vast machine of the Church." Thus far in this course we have studied two Renaissance figures that are typically described as humanists: Niccolo Machiavelli via The Prince, and Sir Thomas More in Utopia. In The Prince, Machiavelli uses the major corpus of the work to convey his observations concerning principalities. In addition to analyzing the types of difficulties that a prince might encounter, he describes how a prince comes to power and retains his position. In More's Utopia, we find a treatise on ethics and human nature along with, above all else, a condemnation of pride, disguised in the painting of the portrait of a perfect world. Most important to the ideals of humanism, we see through both works that Renaissance man has evolved greatly from how his Medieval counterpart was viewed as a miniscule, analogous piece of the all powerful church. It is the individualism of this new character on the world's stage, the Renaissance man, which creates the perfect setting for a return to Roman-Athenian ideals such as self-interest, worldly possessions, and a much greater concern for life than the afterlife. By staunchly defending these ideals, Niccolo Machiavelli emerges as a true humanist, while in abhorring them Sir Thomas More appears only a social critic.
In Book I of Utopia, More struggles with the question of how he, a good man by the moral standards of the day, can serve a wicked king.