Comparing James Stuart's Form Of Government And Voluntary

James tries to establish a boundary between his form of government and tyranny in two ways. First of all, he argues that no king can “be imagined to be so vnruly and tyrannous, but the common-wealth will be kept in better order […] by him, then it can be by his way-taking” (p. 79). Furthermore, not even a tyrannous or wicked king, who, according to James VI. was sent to the people as a punishment by God, shall be revolted against, as it is preferable to “live in a Common-wealth, where nothing is lawfull, then where all things are lawfull to all men” (ibid.). Secondly, he tries to convince the people of his good intentions and is determined to serve according to their well-being. Therefore, he employs an immensely powerful metaphor, which I
But unlike his adversaries Buchanan and Parsons, James’ deduction from the natural law doesn’t refer to moral principles - instead, he establishes similitudes between the natural and the political order (Lake 2004: 256). As a consequence, these similitudes lend credence to his patriarchal perception “on political society and monarchical authority” (ibid.). Arguably, James VI.’s attempt to naturalise his ideas can be interpreted as a claim for interpretational sovereignty. Basically, he transfers the contemporary family image, a dominant father with responsibility for his children, to his ideal model of government. It is important to realize that three relevant consequences result from this transfer. First of all, by presenting himself as a father figure to “his” people, James claims all the privileges that typically belong to the
In short, James VI. paints a picture of the state as a giant family with him at the top – as king with paternal supremacy. Secondly, and equally important, he also acknowledges that a father has certain duties towards his family – which explains the treatise’s subtitle The Reciprock and Mvtall Dvetie betwixt a Free King and His Naturall Subiects. As a father to his people, James feels responsible for their “nourishing, education, and vertuous gouernment” and willingly takes on the duty of care. Furthermore, the king also shows the will to take take the “toile and paine” upon him so that his people can flourish, and pledges to protect his children just like a father would – a powerful portrayal of affection. By the same token, James Stuart claims the fatherly love for himself and declares that his greatest joy lies in “procuring his childrens welfare, reioycing at their weale, sorrowing and pitying at their euill, to hazard for their safetie, trauell for their rest, wake for their sleepe”. Arguably, this exaggerated display of affection and ostentatious exhibition of self-sacrifice for the wellbeing of the people serves as a means to repudiate any accusations of tyranny against him – a recurring theme throughout the entire treatise. In addition, the determination of what is considered as “common weal” was still subject to the king’s ideas. Thirdly, this patriarchal metaphor