Dovaston 1
HIST 214 Final – Part A
Short Answer 1
Philippe Du Plessis-Mornay‟s, “A Vindication against Tyranny,” was written in 1579,
during the time period of the French Wars of Religion. On page 6, Mornay addresses the third
question of his argument, “May a prince who oppresses or devastates a commonwealth may be
resisted; and to what extent by whom, and by what principle of law?” in the subsection, “Lawful
resistance to a tyrant by conduct.” During this time period, there was a large debate on whether a
subject had the right to resist royal authority. The binding contract between the prince and his
people, allow the citizens to disobey the prince if he acts tyrannically, but it does not allow for
their forceful resistance against him. The „officers of the kingdom‟ if in agreement with them,
may execute force against him. This contract is important in controlling the behaviour of the
prince to ensure lawful ruling.
Short Answer 2
In November 1523, Martin Luther wrote the subsection in his theological treatise, “On
the appointment of ministers: A priest is not the same as a presbyter or minister: the former is
born, the latter is made,” which was later published in “Culture and Belief in Europe 1450 –
1600: An Anthology of Sources.” This work deeply criticizes the moral and doctrinal abuses in
the Christian churches of Europe that are leading causes in the Protestant Reformation. On page
158, it specifically addresses the appointment of who may priests. In accordance to Luther,
priests are not created but born. With the Spirit of God inside them, they are considered priests.
As it is in the Christian bible, all people are filled with the Holy Spirit, therefore all Christians
are priests. The Protestant Reformation rejects the papacy, therefore the notion that all Christians
are priests, satisfies their beliefs.
Dovaston 2
Short Answer 6
In 1576, during France‟s involvement in the wars of religion, Jean Bodin published the
work, “On Sovereignty.” On page 115, in Book II, Chapter 5, “Whether it is lawful to make an
attempt upon the tyrant‟s life and to nullify and repeal his ordinances after he is dead,” Bodin
discusses if subjects have the right to resist the tyrannical ruler. If the ruler is purely sovereign,
meaning they have absolute power without the presence external influences (such as democratic
ruler would), the subject does not have the right to overthrow the monarch. Regardless of
tyrannical behaviour and violations of law and justice, a monarchy has the right to conduct
themselves and their country how they wish without the resistance of their subjects, as their
subjects are completely subordinated under their law. In a monarchy, obedience and submission
to the crown is necessary regardless of the circumstances.
Short Answer 7
In 1542, Bartolome de las Casas published, “A Short Account of the Destruction of the
Indies.” It was written to describe the atrocities the Spaniards committed during their conquest of
the Americas, that las Casas was present to witness. On page 32 in the chapter, “Mainland,” las
Casas describes the ultimatum the local people had been given by the Spaniards, upon their
arrival. The objective of this invasion was to conquer and extend the Spanish empire, as well as
infiltrate their Christian views. If the local peoples did not agree to convert to the Christian
religion they would either be taken prisoner, where they would be beaten and treated as slaves, or
be killed. While las Casas writes with a European Christian view, he wishes for the people of
Europe to take notice of the un-Christian way the Spaniards conducted their conquest.
Dovaston 3
The Prince and the Modern State
During the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, medieval Europe was transforming into what is now
considered early modern Europe. Major transformations in political outlooks took place, including the
self-governing republics of Northern Italy, the importance of virtues, and the political writing genres that
provided advice on how to govern a state. Particular interest was also given to the relationship between
the governing prince and the “modern state.” It is believed that princes are created by God, but
established by the people. It is necessary for the prince to obtain the virtues of justice, mercy and
generosity, in order to maintain a stable relationship with the modern state. It is to the discretion of the
prince to decide whether it is more beneficial to be loved or feared to maintain power and stability in the
modern state. The stability of the relationship between the prince and the modern state is dependent on the
just ruling of the prince to maintain the obedience of the people.
In the modern state, kings are created by God and established by the people1. According
to Plessis-Mornay, it is necessary to place the will of God before that of a king‟s, as the king acts
only as “God‟s vassal.”2 God creates kings, establishes kingdoms and selects the rulers of a state,
but the people of the state also play a large role in the development of the state and governance.
The subjects of the state establish rulers and give them kingdoms through voting, as it was God‟s
will that the power a king holds, be established by the people so that the king‟s primary interest
is that of his people. Without the support of the people, the King is powerless. It is important for
the king to govern justly if he wishes to maintain the obedience of his subjects. “For the honor,
glory, and power of princes lie only in the obedience, homage and service of their subjects.”3
Princes have an obligation to their subjects, if they wish for a lengthy and safe governing period.
1
Plessis-Mornay, Phillipe. Vindiciae contra tyrannos. New York: Pegasus. 1969. Pp 7
Plessis-Mornay, Phillipe. Vindiciae contra tyrannos. New York: Pegasus. 1969. Pp 2
3
Bodin, Jean. On Sovereignty. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1992. Pp 101
2
Dovaston 4
An example of the necessary obedience a prince has to its subject is that of Henry IV
during the French wars of religion. During the 16th century, the stability of the French monarchy
was greatly tested during the French wars of religion. Monarchical authority was in dire need of
reestablishment, as the modern state of France had been deeply divided according to religious
beliefs. After the death of King Henry III, Henry of Navarre became King Henry IV. The only
way in which it would be possible to re-establish stability, would be to abandon his Protestant
faith for the interest of the French state.
In 1593, Henry IV publically embraced Catholicism ...In 1598, he made peace with
Spain and issued the Edict of Nantes, in which he granted the Huguenots a large measure
of religious tolerance...Few believed in the religious toleration, but Henry IV followed
the advice those neutral Catholics and Calvinists called politiques who urged him to give
priority to the development of a durable state.4
Henry IV realised the importance of his obligation to his subjects in order to establish a strong
government that would once again hold the obedience and faith of its subjects.
During the 1300s, a genre of writing that provided advice on how a ruler should govern a
state, emerged. This advice provided virtues that a good ruler should possess in order to maintain
a stable relationship with the modern state. By adopting these virtues, the prince would be
fulfilling his obligation to his subjects to govern justly, with their interests being his primary
concern. Political theorists, Francesco Petrarch and Niccolo Machiavelli, both produced
important works that pertain to this genre. Petrarch‟s “How a Ruler Ought to Govern his State”
and Machiavelli‟s “The Prince,” share common virtues of what are believed to be important and
necessary when governing a state, but their works differ in their analysis in how one should
4
Hunt, Lynn. The Making of the West: Peoples and Cultures. Volume 1: to 1740. (Boston:
Bedford/St. Martin‟s: 2007). Pp 490-491
Dovaston 5
execute these virtues. Justice, generosity and mercy, are the three main and shared virtues that
Petrarch and Machiavelli develop in their works. Petrarch describes justice as, “the very
important and noble function that is to give each person his due so that no one is punished
without good reason.” 5 A just ruler will gain the trust and favour of their subjects. This is based
upon the promise of the prince‟s just governance, for the obedience of his subjects. If this
promise is broken, the people are no longer obliged to obey, and the prince is left without a state
to govern.
The virtue that Petrarch believes is “inseparably linked”6 with justice is mercy. A ruler
must take mercy upon those that he governs, for sin is inevitable. No person or prince is free
from temptation and sin and therefore, everyone requires a measure of generosity in order for
governing to be considered just and fair rather than cruel and tyrannical. “Indeed, it is as St.
Ambrose says so perceptively in his book On the Death of the Emperor Theodosius: „Justice is
nothing other than mercy, and mercy is the same as justice.‟”7 Although mercy is a necessary
virtue, Machiavelli explains that a ruler must be careful not to misuse this virtue. He gives the
example of the cruel leader, Cesare Borgia. It was his cruelty that “put the Romagna in order,
uniting it and reducing it to peace and loyalty.”8 It is important for a ruler to be merciful, but it is
also important for him to recognize the appropriate time to apply mercy.
5
Petrarch, Francesco. How a ruler ought to Govern his State. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press. 1998.Pp 48
6
Petrarch, Francesco. How a ruler ought to Govern his State. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press. 1998. Pp 49
7
Petrarch, Francesco. How a ruler ought to Govern his State. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press. 1998. Pp 49
8
Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince. London: J.M. Dent. 1995. Pp 93
Dovaston 6
Another virtue that will maintain a stable relationship between the prince and his subjects
is that of generosity. Both Petrarch and Machiavelli agree that it is important for a prince to be
thought of as generous, but that their generosity cannot exceed what the treasury allows for.
Lavish expenditures used as a way to gain the favour of the people will result in their hatred, as
the prince will be forced to increase the taxes imposed on the citizens in order to make up for the
loss of the treasury. Petrarch‟s response to this is “a lord should spend nothing and do nothing
whatsoever that does not further the beauty and good order of the city over which he rules.”9
Machiavelli‟s response vastly differs: “A prince, therefore, should give little thought to being
considered miserly if it means not robbing his subjects, being able to defend himself, not
becoming impoverished and contemptible, and not being forced to become rapacious.”10
Machiavelli offers a more realistic approach to the relationship between the government and the
modern state. While generosity is favourable to the subjects, a functioning and wealthy state
holds more importance to them.
In accordance with developing the virtues necessary to gain favour with the subjects, a
prince must also choose how they wish to be received by them. Modern political theorist,
Machiavelli, believes that it is more favourable for a subject to be in fear of their prince rather
than to love them. This is because Machiavelli views men as being: “ungrateful, inconsistent,
feigners and dissimulators, avoiders of dangers, eager for gain, and whilst it profits them they are
all yours...But when your needs are pressing, they turn away.”11 The fear a citizen has for their
ruler will guarantee the maintenance of power and security of life, so long as their fear does not
9
Petrarch, Francesco. How a ruler ought to Govern his State. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press. 1998. Pp 55
10
Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince. London: J.M. Dent. 1995. Pp 91
11
Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince. London: J.M. Dent. 1995. Pp 93-94
Dovaston 7
evolve into hatred. Petrarch rejects this theory, believing that it is more important for the citizens
to love their prince. In practice, both of these theories have their flaws and inconsistencies, but
long as the prince does not do anything to make the people hate him, their relationship will
remain functional.
It is necessary for the prince to be a just ruler, in order to maintain an obedient
relationship with his subjects. The people of the modern state are who establish the prince,
providing him with power and a kingdom. Therefore, the prince has an obligation to make the
interests of the people as his primary concern. The prince must apply the virtues of justice, mercy
and generosity to his governing to maintain the trust and favour of the people, therefore
guaranteeing the maintenance of power and the security of life. It is not as important to be loved
or feared, as it is not to be hated, so that it does not lead to the disobedience of the people.
Overall, the obligation between the prince and the people is reciprocal and mutual so long as the
prince maintains his duty to govern justly.
Dovaston 8
Bibliography
Bodin, Jean. On Sovereignty. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1992.
Hunt, Lynn. The Making of the West: Peoples and Cultures. Volume 1: to 1740. (Boston:
Bedford/St. Martin‟s: 2007).
Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince. London: J.M. Dent. 1995.
Petrarch, Francesco. How a ruler ought to Govern his State. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press. 1998.
Plessis-Mornay, Phillipe. Vindiciae contra tyrannos. New York: Pegasus. 1969.