3.10. 10. Difference of Obedience in Moderate and Despotic Governments.
In despotic states, the nature of government requires the most
passive obedience; and when once the prince's will is made known, it
ought infallibly to produce its effect.
Here they have no limitations or restrictions, no mediums, terms,
equivalents, or remonstrances; no change to propose: man is a creature
that blindly submits to the absolute will of the sovereign.
In a country like this they are no more allowed to represent their
apprehensions of a future danger than to impute their miscarriage to the
capriciousness of fortune. Man's portion here, like that of beasts, is
instinct, compliance, and punishment.
Little does it then avail to plead the sentiments of nature, filial
respect, conjugal or parental tenderness, the laws of honour, or want of
health; the order is given, and, that is sufficient.
In Persia, when the king has condemned a person, it is no longer
lawful to mention his name, or to intercede in his favour. Even if the
prince were intoxicated, or non compos, the decree must be executed;
[19]
otherwise he would contradict himself, and the law admits of no
contradiction. This has been the way of thinking in that country in all
ages; as the order which Ahasuerus gave, to exterminate the Jews, could
not be revoked, they were allowed the liberty of defending themselves.
One thing, however, may be sometimes opposed to the prince's
will,
[20]
namely, religion. They will abandon, nay they will slay a
parent, if the prince so commands; but he cannot oblige them to drink
wine. The laws of religion are of a superior nature, because they bind
the sovereign as well as the subject. But with respect to the law of
nature, it is otherwise; the prince is no longer supposed to be a man.
In monarchical and moderate states, the power is limited by its very
spring, I mean by honour, which, like a monarch, reigns over the prince
and his people. They will not allege to their sovereign the laws of
religion; a courtier would be apprehensive of rendering himself
ridiculous. But the laws of honour will be appealed to on all occasions.
Hence arise the restrictions necessary to obedience; honour is naturally
subject to whims, by which the subject's submission will be ever
directed.
Though the manner of obeying be different in these two kinds of
government, the power is the same. On which side soever the monarch
turns, he inclines the scale, and is obeyed. The whole difference is
that in a monarchy the prince receives instruction, at the same time
that his ministers have greater abilities, and are more versed in public
affairs, than the ministers of a despotic government.
Footnotes
[19]
See Sir John Chardin.
