Edward Ju

Paper 2 DRAFT

In Machiavelli’s The Prince and Petrarch’s How a Ruler Ought to Govern His State, both authors

present their contrasting views on the blueprint to being a good ruler. While Petrarch believes

that a ruler should have the qualities of being loving and just, Machiavelli believes in the

opposite qualities of cruelty and injustice. A ruler will not have true peace and harmony if he is

cruel and unjust, however, for while the state may appear to be so, there will always be

resentment and discord within it. Petrarch’s argument is more practical and stronger than

Machiavelli’s, for a good ruler wants for his state peace, harmony and stability – which come

from a foundation of love, justice and virtue.

BP1

Both Machiavelli and Petrarch recognize that a successful ruler must have the support of his

populace, for this support is the ruler’s best protection. While Machiavelli states that it is better

to be feared than to be loved, Petrarch argues that it is better for a ruler to be loved than

feared. Machiavelli’s philosophy, however, prevents such support from being attainable. In his

beliefs, “men decide for themselves whom they love, and rulers decide whom they fear, [thus]

a wise ruler should rely on the emotion he can control, not the one he cannot” (53). While it is

true that men decide whom they love, Petrarch points out that a ruler who rules through fear

will inevitably fall to his demise. He who is feared by most of his citizenry has many to fear in

turn, for “whom they fear, they hate. And whoever one hates, one hopes to see dead” (43).
Petrarch uses the example of the barbaric emperor Maximinus to illustrate this, an emperor

whose cruel methods ultimately lead to his death. Maximinus Thrax was a successful military

leader, however his methods of supporting his military expeditions were cruel and resulted in

him becoming deeply unpopular with his subjects. Both his people and troops ended up

resenting him, and when Maximinus attempted to besiege Aquileia, his soldiers turned on him

and executed him. A king who rules through fear will “reign over slaves [and] can expect no

great actions from his subjects”, for his people will seek to end his rule (Anti-Machiavelli 110).

Machiavelli believes that “generosity leads to being despised” (50), however, he is incorrect as

a ruler must gain the gratitude of his populace through generosity, for this leads to the affection

of his citizenry and ultimately their support. Through giving wealth to his people, the ruler gains

their strength and gratitude, for “the wealth of the citizens is also the wealth of the prince”

(59). Machiavelli may argue that a ruler who pursues generosity will end up wasting all his

resources and impose unwanted taxes, and that this will lead to the populace resenting the

ruler. While this may be true of mindless generosity, Petrarch counters this by stating that “the

good and prudent prince does not pay heed so much to what is pleasureful as to what is

beneficial” (57), and uses the example of Caesar Augustus to support this. For when grain was

in short supply in Rome, Augustus distributed grain to his people virtually for free, but at the

same time rejected requests for more wine. He made it clear that seek to satisfy the appetite

for luxury of his people, but “to provide for the well-being and health of his subjects” (57).

Furthermore, Machiavelli’s argument that imposing new taxes onto the people leads to hatred

is also incorrect and can be avoidable, for if a ruler has to impose a tax, he must put some of his

own money into it and make it know to his people that he is struggling and is doing such against
his will. By doing so, he will show that he, the head of the people, is “but one among them” (58)

and will have both demonstrated great moderation and maintained his good reputation.

BP2

Machiavelli advises the Prince that to be a good ruler, he must be willing to be unjust and cruel.

As proven by Petrarch, this advice is false, for justice is the very foundation of good rule. In the

eyes of Machiavelli, a “wise ruler cannot…keep his word when doing so is to his disadvantage”,

and must be willing “to be uncharitable, inhumane, and irreligious” (54,55). Thus he must only

appear to be just, but be ready to become its opposite and do what is wrong. This presence of

injustice, however, leads to the downfall of the ruler through the lack of security. For armies

will not defend evil and unjust rulers, and such is seen through history in the example of Nero,

whose “soldiers had deserted their posts and his guards had fled” in times of danger (47). A

ruler must act like the father of the state just as God is father to mankind, and in order to

“merit this kind of esteem [he] must always render justice and treat [his] citizens with goodwill”

(45). Petrarch explains that a good and just ruler must incline to mercy when he can rather than

be merely cruel like Machiavelli suggests, for “justice is nothing more than mercy, and mercy is

the same as justice” (49). Petrarch cautions the prince, however, that citizens who desire the

preservation of the state are to be considered good citizens, but those who do not “should be

viewed as evil” and may be punished (46). While Machiavelli argues that “a prince “who wants

always to act honorably” soon will discover that if he is “surrounded by man scrupulous men his

downfall is inevitable”, this does not imply that a prince should not be virtuous or aspire to
honor” (Dahlberg 60). A ruler is a leader and role model for his people, he must lead by an

example of justice rather than merely reflect the nature of whom he is surrounded by.