Consider virtue if necessary
Renaissance, tied to the metaphor of rebirth, is a watershed in Europe development, from suppression of thoughts to prevalence of humanism, and from decline in feudalism to incline in democracy. During this period, some people, such as Francesco Petrarch and Leonardo Bruni, put forward their political theories, which are mainly based on virtues, to help a ruler not only maintain his state, but also build up his reputation. Such theories are accepted as representational thoughts by many contemporary rulers and humanists. However, some scholars, such as Niccolo Machiavelli, the author of The Prince, argue that the virtue is not the most efficient way for a prince to govern his state. Such ideas are different from, or, in other words, subvert the mainstream of political thoughts like ideas of Petrarch and Bruni in Renaissance. When arguing virtue is important for a ruler, Petrarch thinks a virtuous prince should be friendly, generous, faithful and pacific, but Machiavelli presents that a ruler only considers virtues if necessary, and proves that Petrarch’s views are wrong. The most obvious difference between these two theories is a ruler’s attitude towards his citizens. One is a prince love his citizens, a thought that Petrarch supports widely accepted at that time, while another is the citizens fear their prince, which Machiavelli presents. Petrarch states, “ you ought to love your citizens as you do your children, or rather ( if I may put it this way) as a member of your own body or as a part of your soul” ( Petrarch, 46). This proves that, in Petrarch’s opinion, a ruler loves not only himself and his family, but also his people. Petrarch argues that a ruler should not let his people fear him, as, in his words, “fear is opposed both to longevity in office and security in life” (42). This suggests that if people fear their ruler, which means a ruler is cruel, or evil, people will rebel against his power, a result that every ruler...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document