In Robert Filmer’s “From Patriarcha, or The Natural Power of the Kings Defended Against the Unnatural Liberty of the People”, there was one main point that stuck out to me after reading the article closely. New rulers, sons, which were given the throne and role of control over the country, had one main goal: “Honor thy Father”. These new rulers, had a lot of responsibility. Were they ready to be fathers’ of a whole country and still be able to do the same as their own fathers’ did for this country?
Filmer pointed out many similarities between the role of the king and the role of a father. For example, he wrote, “…as the father over one family, so the king, as father over many families, extends his care to preserve, feed, clothe, instruct, and defend the whole commonwealth.” This simply means, that just like a father cares and works hard to provide and protect his own family, the king has the same responsibilities, but just a larger family. Now, when a King dies, his eldest son becomes the new ruler, was this young man really qualified and mature enough to handle such a big responsibility?
Think about why there were so many problems in England. There were young men inheriting the throne who were not ready or capable of this responsibility. All they did was mock their own father’s actions because they did not want to disobey them and they had to keep up with the tradition. Filmer says, “ His war, his peace, his courts of justice, and all his acts of sovereignty…”. A new king had to preserve all of this, so that he kept his father’s reputation. For successful kings and their fathers this was a good idea; but what about a king who destroyed England? Should his son, follow in his footsteps? Obviously not, that is not the best idea for the good of all the people living in that country, but a new king felt as if he HAD to continue his father’s reign, and not necessarily be his own person.
*Side Note*: When I think about this idea of inheriting a position, I find it to be similar in a slight way today. We have all heard the expression, “It is not what you know, it is who you know.” When applying for jobs, I see this to be true most of the time. Two people can walk into an interview, for the same position, they could both have the same experiences, intelligence, and abilities, but when it comes down to who gets hired, it often is the one that has a father, sister, relative, or friend working there already. Just like, in the 1600s, things have not changed. Back then, sons were immediately inherited a position, and today, some sons or daughters “inherit” a position too. Again, just like the role of a king, is this son or daughter hired for this job, because they are qualified and right for the position, or because “it is a family tradition”?
3 comments:
The readings this week really opened my eyes to the challenged made by men I thought to be completely old-fashioned. I viewed them as being set in their ways, never really willing to go against the accepted norms. To question the idea of inherited authority was a truly radical notion, one I believe to be completely founded. The arguments for who was rightfully king, grounded in birthright, never really determined the capability of an individual to rule an entire nation.
I completely agree. Ruling a land and being a father-figure are two separate jobs that should not be combined!
I think ruling a country/land and getting a job in a business company are different, however I see your point. Sadly, ability and talent will only get you so far. The connections you have will get you to the end. Interestingly, countries today still have similar methods, which are strange to us Americans.
Post a Comment