77
The belief in some sort of divine bequest is the basis on which James argues, likely as other rulers had, that monarchy is the form of government which, "approacheth nearest to perfection, as all the learned and wise men from the beginning have agreed upon; Unitie being the perfection of all things."
A strong monarchy is able to quash the destruction and chaos of rebellions before they are started. It is of course, over-lorded by a divine right monarch and this form of government uses its latticework of religious principles and political machinations to dictate, and control, a people. This is not to say that it is entirely unjust, as it was proven to be a powerful system. However, might does not make right, as it has been said.
Although James, of course, has an interest in arguing for a powerful monarchy, how would such a government be advantageous to a king's subjects?
James' powerful monarchy would sound like an idyllic place for his subjects. Through his discourse, he speaks at great length about the duty a king has towards his subjects - stating in earnest that the monarch is essentially akin to that of a father-figure for all his people. A king, according to James, was responsible for the nourishing, education, and the leading of a virtuous government for his lieges. By all evidence, it would seem James' intent was that a king should lead 'from the front' as it were.
He was clearly of the belief that the Scottish commonwealth was in dire need of the treatise, likely due to their penchant for rebellion, and the ideals (guidelines rather) it could offer them in its insight, "And among others, no Common-wealth, that ever hath bene since the beginning, hath had greater need of the trew knowledge of this ground, then this our so long disordered, and distracted Common-wealth hath"
The overriding theme of James' monarchy appears to be one of sacrifice, and service to the betterment of his people.
78
Duplessis-Mornay was a Protestant living under the rule of a Roman Catholic. How might his status affect his political theory?
Clearly the religious intolerance of the time would have created a man with a mission, perhaps a jaded man. Religious prosecution is a thing we've all heard of; humanity was defined by it for generations. Perhaps today it is not even all that lessened, depressingly so. In Duplessis-Mornay's time, however, (not all that long after Martin Luther) the oppression would have been stifling.
How are the powers of a king limited?
A king is limited by his humanity, according to Duplessis-Mornay. Only the religious deity is believed to have achieved perfection in purpose, teaching, and action. All others, even kings, are subject to the flaws of humanity. He goes on to juxtapose the relationship of a god and king to that of the superior lord and vassal-relationship.
His query is vital: if a king acts against the rules of a god, should he be followed? Were the mere vassal to disobey his lord would he be followed?
Kings are created by men. Even in nations where heredity was the order of the day, the people still decided who was to be ruler. Duplessis-Mornay insists that his reader recognize the fact that kings are not given supernatural powers over their fellow men, rather, they have been chosen to serve their people as the people carry them on their shoulders.
Under what circumstance is resistance to a lawful ruler allowable? Who may offer resistance?
When the leadership (the king or magistrates) are corrupt, Duplessis-Mornay asserts that all just people can offer resistance. It is not only the province of the community leaders to wield the sword, as was the belief of the time. Rather, he makes connections with religious parables of private individuals, commoners, rebelling against corrupt authority.
Duplessis-Mornay describes a great danger inherent to the divine-right monarch, "If someone arrogates authority by means of divine inspiration, he must find out whether or not he is rather swelled up with arrogance, does not confuse God with himself."
The preservation of life and liberty is paramount to Duplessis-Mornay. The violation of civil law was, to him, the most egregious offence. Namely, were a ruler to attempt to circumvent the established practices of a county, or society's, most fundamental workings; it would be the duty of all to oppose him.
In most simple terms: a king becomes a tyrant and must be considered an enemy if he neglects his duty to governance, justice, and piety.
79
Hobbes argues that 'Nature hath made menequall'. What sort of equality is he talking about? How are people equal?
People can be equally dangerous in that our limitations are not so dissimilar. Hobbes is saying that a strong man can be killed by a weak man if the latter is devious or clever. Likewise, an intelligent man can be best by one less so through machinations on part of the less-well equipped. All people, perhaps, come equipped with a basic pack of supplies: human ingenuity and potential. It's unique to us alone.
He continues, expressing his belief, that in the faculties of the mind, perhaps men are even more equal than in those of physical pursuits. Rather tongue-in-cheek, it would appear he remonstrates the self-proclaimed wise men with the simple truth that age brings experience pretty well equally to all people as time passes. "For they see their own wit at hand, and other men's at a distance."
People are equal in many things, not only the positive aspects of humanity we speak of today. They are also equal in deviousness, envy, and wicked intent.
What is Hobbes' view of human nature? Is it a pessimistic or an optimistic view? Why?
Perhaps to our eye - the common perception - he was rather curmudgeonly, but I see him as having looked through a lens perhaps a bit charred through the era in which he lived, though nonetheless correct. It was Hobbes who described men as having short, brutish lives. This is true. He also strongly advocated the idea that men were inherently savage without law and governmentperhaps this is true also.
At one point he makes mention of a man's habit for riding about armed, locking his doors and his chests. This observation says much about what we think of our fellow people, as he is quick to point out. Is it pessimistic to state these truths of our existence - that we have war, strife, distrust, and other negative parts of our humanity? I don't believe it is, and if it is indeed pessimism then perhaps we suffer a dearth of it today.
Works Cited
Doyle, William. The Ancien Regime. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave, 2014.
