|
|
This is only a preview of the paper
Click here to register and get the full text.
Existing members click here to login
|
|
|
One man gave the perfect guide to complete dominance and control, and another man handed his kingdom away. The first man taught manipulation, how to divide and conquer, and that the end justifies the means. The second was manipulated, defeated, and could never establish an end worthy of the means. “All for the good of the state!” cried one. “What’s in it for me?” asked the other. Niccolo Machiavelli and Henry Tudor were contemporaries in Renaissance Europe. One of them defined what a virtuous prince or a Renaissance hero was supposed to be. The other failed miserably to attain that stature. The crowning definition of renaissance heroism is found in Niccolo Machiavelli’s work The Prince and the guidelines therein. Machiavelli devotes an entire chapter to the importance of a ruler establishing respect or esteem for himself. The basic idea is that a ruler should give himself the opportunity to be seen for his admirable qualities or deeds (56). Henry VIII’s use of progresses may be the best argument that he was indeed a successful Machiavellian ruler, or hero. A royal progress was essentially a pilgrimage made by a king, often accompanied by his court, to various houses or lodgings throughout his kingdom. The idea of the progress was to allow the king to display his royalty while also developing important connections with his subjects. Historian Neil Samman maintains that Henry’s progresses were apparently quite effective in their purpose. The interactions with the king provided the subjects an opportunity to address issues he might have otherwise been unaware of. Also, the progresses put the king on display in close contact with his subjects so that they might observe his majesty (59,60). Doubtless, Henry effectively used the opportunity for the good of his kingly image. As Samman goes on to note, “in these years the progress was a deliberate vehicle for conspicuous ostentation, which the king combined with other forms of spectacle to gain the maximum effect” (61). Henry’s progresses were undoubtedly effective in displaying his majesty and in strengthening connections with his subjects. However, Henry’s reasons for engaging in progresses are questionable. It seems that the progresses were more of a joyride for Henry. To the king, the progresses were primarily an opportunity to engage in his lifelong obsession with hunting. Samman notes that the factors determining where to stop on a progress were convenience, the ability of the courtier to cater to the king’s massive entourage, and the grandeur of the actual lodging (66). Apparently Henry was more focused on recreation and relaxation than improving the state. Not only were Henry’s motives for progress probably skewed, but the often extensive time spent on progresses could have definitely been damaging to the real progress of government.
Approximate Word count = 1779
Approximate Pages = 7.1
(250 words per page double spaced)
|
|
|
|
|
|