From: Cervantes: Bulletin of the Cervantes Society of America
9.2 (1989): 43-60.
Copyright © 1989, The Cervantes Society of America
Spanish Guides to Princes and the Political Theories in Don
Quijote
UMANISTS
and writers of religious literature in Spain during the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries produced a number of political treatises called guías
(guides), relojes (dials), or advertencias and consejos
(advice) for princes: in Latin, Speculum principis and De regimine
principum. In essence, these were more than mere political tracts, since
they were written to offer advice either to one particular prince (Charles
V) and future king, or to all rulers in general on the proper way to govern,
both in relation to God and to his/her subjects. These political treatises
contain much more than advice or counsel. The Spanish guides include political,
ethical as well as moral precepts, discussions on war and peace, expositions
on the principles of decorum and moderation, the means to counteract corruption,
and more importantly, the practice of the Christian theological and cardinal
virtues. At least one contains a discussion on the Golden
Age.1 The Spanish
1 This
work is Antonio de Guevara's Reloj de príncipes (1529). It
became very popular in England after being translated into English in 1557
by Thomas North. There were twelve editions published in that country in
less than fifty years. Besides, it was a very influential work in that it
had an impact on John Lyly's Euphues, and it also influenced Sir Thomas
Elyot's The Governour.
43
|
| 44 |
ANGELO J. DI
SALVO |
Cervantes |
|
guides are most probably a product of the conflict between Medieval and
Renaissance political, economic and religious conditions, and, in particular,
they were mostly produced as a reaction to Machiavelli's ragion di
stato.2 The writers of these works also
offered their solutions to the abuses as well as the corruption of the modern
European states.3 These works were written
by humanists, royal counselors, former soldiers, writers of religious literature,
and authors of secular literature such as Gracián and
Quevedo.4 First and foremost, they promote
the concept of the prince as the representative and upholder of Roman
Catholicism. Several treatises combine the concept of the ideal Christian
prince with the practical advice garnered through the writer's own experiences
in court and in the battlefield.5 As a rule,
these guides support the ideal of a prince who will embody and reflect the
Christian virtues, and, thus, enable him to be a model for his subjects.
In this capacity, he/she may direct
2 In the
Utopia we read: “There are a great many noblemen who live idly
like drones off the labors of others, their tenants whom they bleed white
by constantly raising their rents” (12). Jacob Burckhardt comments:
“The feudal system which from the days of the Normans had survived in
the form of a territorial supremacy of the barons, gave a distinctive colour
to the political constitution of Naples, while elsewhere in Italy a direct
tenure of land prevailed, and no hereditary powers were permitted by law”
(The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy 43). Competition grew
in the powerful states and in their commercial dealings they shrank from
no measures however extreme which might damage their competitors (Burckhardt
82).
3 The powerful
European states held their weaker neighbors in a condition of helpless
dependence; in short, they all fancied that they could get on by themselves
without assistance of the rest, and thus, paved the way for the future
usurpation. The usurper was forthcoming when long conflicts between different
factions of the nobility had awakened the desire for a strong government,
and when bands of mercenaries, ready and willing to sell their aid to the
highest bidder, had superseded the general levy of the citizens. The tyrants
destroyed the freedom of the cities (Burckhardt 82). These were the political
conditions in Italy in Machiavelli's time.
4 See Francisco
de Quevedo, Política de Dios y gobierno de Cristo Nuestro
Señor, Part I, which is dedicated to Felipe IV. See also Baltasar
Gracián's El político, who is Fernando el
Católico.
5 This was the
case with the Valencian Fadrique Furió Ceriol. Professor Donald Bleznick
in his article “Spanish Reaction to Machiavelli in the Sixteenth and
Seventeenth Centuries” writes: “He based his observations and
recommendations upon the lesson of historical knowledge supplemented by his
own broad personal contacts with important figures of the day” (547).
Furió Ceriol served in the Spanish court for seventeen years and he
had also been a soldier.
|
| 9.2 (1989) |
Spanish Guides to Princes |
45 |
|
the reform of Christian society.6 Lastly,
there is an admonition to assist the poor and the needy.
Outside of the Iberian peninsula there were
three seminal and influential political treatises published during the first
quarter of the sixteenth century: Machiavelli's Principe (1513), Erasmus's
Institutio Principis Christiani (Education of a Christian Prince)
(1516), and Thomas More's Utopia (1516), the last of which is not
a guide as such but it does contain commentaries on the role of princes.
Much like the Spanish guides, the latter two posit a conception of the ideal
prince which is diametrically opposed to the one offered by Machiavelli.
The ideas put forth by Erasmus and More as well as those of the Spanish political
treatises and guides are part of a long tradition in the West that begins
in ancient Greece of which Plato's Republic, Laws and the
Statesman, Aristotle's Politics, and Plutarch's Moralia
are prime examples.7 In the classical exposition
of the prince's role, it is established that, “he should be kind,
independent, frugal, serious, free from interest in worldly pleasures,
self-controlled, an assiduous worker, simple, dignified, uncorrupted, just,
gracious, God-fearing, brave and philosophic” (Education 79).
Moreover, justice is always given supreme importance. In the Politics
Aristotle writes “that without justice and valour, no state can be
supported” (ch. 12; 106).
Already within the Christian and Neoplatonic
tradition, St. Augustine writes in the City of God that the state
cannot be governed without justice (II, ch. 21). We read in Book II: “A
true commonwealth reflects the weal of the people when it is sightly and
justly administered whether by one monarch or by a few
6 As early
as the time of John of Salisbury the prince was to seek the welfare of others,
be father and husband to his subjects; correct the errors of his subjects,
punish wrongs and injuries with even-handed equity, protect the weak and
the innocent, protect widows and orphans, provide for the welfare of the
lower classes, not close his ears to the cries of the poor, and protect the
Church against sacrilege (Born, “Perfect Prince”, 472-73). Juan
de Avila in his “Del buen gobierno del Estado” writes that it is
indeed a fortunate king who not only reforms his own person, but that of
the entire court and country (Tratados de reforma: Memorial primero al
Concilio de Trento 207).
7 In the thirteenth
and fourteenth centuries writers of political tracts and guides considered
the real in terms of the ideal, and were interested in nothing less than
the pattern of the perfect prince (Born 470). Writers of the Middle Ages
followed the precepts established by Plato, Aristotle and Cicero, whose ideas
on governance were also incorporated by St. Augustine and St. Thomas
Aquinas.
|
| 46 |
ANGELO J. DI
SALVO |
Cervantes |
|
men of rank, or by all the people” (ch. 21). Augustine goes on to explain
that if “the prince is unjust, then the commonwealth is not merely lost,
but it is not a commonwealth at all” (ch. 21). Augustine makes the statement
in Book IV which Thomas More paraphrases in the Utopia: “In the
absence of justice, what is sovereignty but organized brigandage (ripoff)?”
Again in Book IV Augustine emphasizes that the prince must reflect the Christian
virtues of prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance” (ch. 20). He
adds: “We call those Christian emperors happy who govern with justice,
who are not puffed up by the tongues of flatterers or the services of sycophants,
but remember that they are men” (IV; ch. 24).
Erasmus's Education of a Christian Prince
and More's Utopia both reflect a blending of Christian principles
with Platonic precepts just as many Spanish guides do, and they can all be
considered to be direct or indirect responses to Machiavelli's ragion
di stato. In Erasmus's guide the Dutch humanist outlines the qualities
of the Christian prince as “wisdom, justice, moderation, foresight,
and zeal for the common welfare” (140). Moreover, he stresses that the
prince should be taught that the teachings of Christ apply to no one more
than to himself (140). Erasmus adds that the model in government is to be
God Himself, as well as Christ. He places emphasis on the virtues and on
the moral qualities that the ideal prince must possess in addition to Christian
goodness, since he visualizes the prince as a potential father to his people
(197-98).
In Utopia, which in format and exposition
is not a guide for princes, More compares the prince to a shepherd who takes
seriously the calling to tend to the care of his sheep before himself (27).
In essence, the development of Utopia's political, ethical, moral, economic,
and religious organization is in many ways a response to the political, military,
and social conditions prevailing in Europe at that
time.8 Raphael Hythlodaeus remarks:
“. . . a people's welfare or misery flows in a stream from
their prince as from a never-failing spring” (10). Hence, a prince cannot
abuse his position either in peace or in war. More's conception of utopian
society also includes the classical topos of the golden
8 Robbin
S. John in his study More's Utopia: Ideal and Illusion (New Haven:
Yale UP, 1969) writes: “More, as the poet of Utopia, faces a different
problem; how to balance social wisdom not only against the foolish and corrupt
practices of men in real life but also against the tantalizing urge to retreat
into the illusory world of theoretical perfection” (22).
|
| 9.2 (1989) |
Spanish Guides to Princes |
47 |
|
age viewed from a Christian perspective; the Garden of Eden and the communion
of saints or the New Jerusalem (Introduction, Utopia, 95-96). To
reiterate, More's Utopia, Erasmus's Education of a Christian
Prince and the Spanish guides are all sharp deviations from Machiavelli's
position on the role of the prince. Friederich Meinicke in his classic study
on Machiavelli's political theories defines ragion di stato as “the
pursuit of political ends, especially power, by all necessary means, even
the most immoral one” (xxxii). Most significantly, ragion di stato
repudiates the importance of Christian
morality.9 In other words, temperance, moderation,
charity, prudence are all irrelevant in bringing about a united Italy which
would be free from internal strife as well as foreign domination. Machiavelli
explains: “The healthy state is not concerned with the good of its single
components, nor does it need to strive for a superior or ulterior good, only
if this good is a condition of survival” (Prince 12).
Political conditions in Spain, however, were
very different from those in Italy. First, the nation had been united by
what Spaniards and Machiavelli himself considered to be model princes, Ferdinand
and Isabell; second, the monarchy and the Church consolidated their power
and influence with the introduction of the Inquisition; third, there was
no internal strife in Spain except for that represented by the Moriscos;
fourth, foreign powers did not vie for control of Spain as was the case in
Italy.10 Another model prince, Charles V,
increased the power of the monarchy and expanded its empire. In addition,
Machiavelli's political theories threatened Spain's hegemony in Italy. As
a result, the Spanish guides form part of the tradition that runs
9 Giuseppe
Prezzolini in his book on Machiavelli writes: “He repudiates the relevance
of Christian morality, the basis upon which the Western World was founded.
And he even denies the values of life, except for pride, and presents a vast
universal panorama that offers no reward to valor, no justice to innocent
victims, and only partial victory over adverse forces to those who know how
to make use of guile and power” (13). Prezzolini adds: “His prince's
concern is only the good of the state. Machiavelli never fails to say that
only the evil committed to create and maintain a state and to continue its
existence is justified. He never says this of evil committed for personal
gain” (Machiavelli. New York: Farrar, 1967).
10 Bleznick
explains: “Spain of the 16th and 17th centuries cannot be properly
understood without taking into account the intense religious fervor manifest
in all phases of its life” (“Spanish Reaction” 543). Machiavellian
ideas constituted a threat to the welfare of Spain and its dominions according
to Spanish theorists, especially the Jesuits, who hastened to write book
after book to counteract the Italian's injurious doctrines (545).
|
| 48 |
ANGELO J. DI
SALVO |
Cervantes |
|
from Plato through Augustine and St. Thomas and on to the political literature
produced in the rest of Europe in the fifteenth, sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries. Erasmus, More, and the Italian Neoplatonists such as Pico all
reflect this tradition. Spanish writers such as Antonio de Guevara (Reloj
de príncipes 1529), Fadrique Furió Ceriol (El consejo
y consejeros del príncipe 1559), Diego Saavedra Fajardo (Empresas
políticas o Idea de un príncipe cristiano 1640), Baltasar
Gracián (El político 1646), Quevedo (Política
de Dios y gobierno de Cristo 1626), Pedro de Rivadeneyra (El tratado
del príncipe cristiano contra Maquiavelo 1603 in Latin), Cerdán
de Tallada (Verdadero govierno desta monarchia 1581), Felipe de la
Torre (Institución de un rey Christiano 1556), Bartolomé
Felipe (Tratado del consejo 1589), can all be included in the rich
and long Christian-Platonic tradition in the area of political thought. Important
humanists such as Juan de Valdés, Juan Luis Vives and Arias Montano
included the roles of princes in longer, more all-inclusive
works.11 In addition, all of the above presented
points of view that were decisively anti-Machiavellian.
José Antonio Marvall writes: “En
el segundo cuarto, aproximadamente del siglo XVI, hay en España, como
en el resto de Europa, una agudización de la preocupación moral
en la política tal vez debida a la necesidad de no presentar un flanco
de fácil ataque en las querellas religiosas que la Reforma ha
desencadenado” (44). Renaissance political ideas penetrated to a large
extent the political thought of the Catholic Reform and this Antimachiavellism
resulted from the widespread triumph of Machiavelli's ideas in Western
Europe.12 George Uscatescu in his De
Maquiavelo a la Razón de Estado writes: “La preocupación
para establecer las condiciones morales, intelectuales, humanas y sociales
del Príncipe atraviesa todo el pensamiento medieval español
y sigue intacta desde el punto de vista formal en la época renacentista
y contrarreformistá” (171). Fadrique Furió Ceriol, the
Valencian counselor of Phillip II of Spain writes in his
11
Sebastián Fox Morcillo wrote his treatise in Latin: De regni regisque
institutione.
12 George Uscatescu
in his De Maquiavelo a la Razón de Estado (Madrid: Cosano,
1951) writes: “Las ideas políticas renacentistas penetran gran
parte del pensamiento político de la Contrarreforma y su antimaquiavelismo
representa, en la medida en que serpea todo residuo medieval, el triunfo
definitivo de la moderna doctrina de la razón de Estado, que, según
nuestro modo de ver, nace en la pragmática política española,
adquiere formas doctrinales en Italia y vuelve como ideología entre
los pensadores españoles del siglo XVII” (169-70).
|
| 9.2 (1989) |
Spanish Guides to Princes |
49 |
|
guide that the purely materialistic and practical ideas of the prince must
be tempered with Christian charity and love for the needy, widows, and orphans
(El consejo 28). Furió adds: “. . . lo digo
que la mejor pieza de arnés en el Principe, la más señalada,
i aquella en que más ha de poner toda su esperanza, es la bondad”
(97). He also describes the prince as the prototype of the people whose actions
must reflect his (Bleznick, Los conceptos 28). Like the Christian
and Platonic conception of the political entity, the prince is a composite
of soul and body, and, thus, shares the attributes both of God and the people
(El consejo 95). Furió believed, as did the other Spanish
theorists, that the prince must reflect God's ideas and that he is ultimately
responsible to Him (Bleznick, Los conceptos 30). He writes:
“. . . ambos, digo el Príncipe i su Concejo son tenientes
de Dios acá en la tierra; i los dos, digo el Príncipe i su
Concejo, son buenos i reales ministros de Dios” (El consejo 108).
Furió does not only refer to the prince as a representative of God,
but also to his advisors.
Antonio de Guevara wrote another important
guide called Reloj de príncipes. Maravall informs us that Guevara
was read in all of Europe at that time and adds: “. . . hace
la defensa de las virtudes naturales del buen salvaje, dando base a la
visión utópica de la sociedad americana originaria” (44).
Thomas North in the introduction to his English translation of the
Reloj describes the work as “a farrago of dissertations, with
copious anecdotes and quotations concerning the role of princes” (Diall
of Princes xxiv). The work is in effect a loose connection of essays
and all pretext of historical accuracy is missing; there is no central line
of argument. However, even though these are the very defects that Cervantes
criticizes in the prologue to Quijote I, there is according to North
“good sense sometimes obscured under a mountain of citations”
(xxvi).13 In essence, Guevara advocates
benevolent aristocracy, he abhors the evils of wars of conquest, and he outlines
the responsibilities of those in high places (Diall xxvi). As we read
in North's translation Marcus Aurelius speaking to Faustine says: “To
the end the prince be good, he ought not to be covetous of tributes, neither
proud in commandments, nor unthankful
13 In
the prologue to Quijote I Cervantes is in reality referring to Guevara's
Epístolas familiares. As Martín de Riquer states in
his footnote to this particular reference to Guevara as Bishop of
Mondoñedo: “Adviértase la ironía al decir que su
‘anotación’ . . . dará gran
crédito”, pues era cosa sabida y demostrada que los libros de
fray Antonio de Guevara estaban plagados de supercherías y
falsedades” (Prólogo I, 23).
|
| 50 |
ANGELO J. DI
SALVO |
Cervantes |
|
of services . . . he ought not to be deaf to hear griefs, complaints,
and quarrels, nor cruel to orphans, nor yet negligent in affairs” (Book
II; 52). Guevara has Marcus Aurelius stress the importance of being virtuous
because honor is the praise of virtue, and infamy is the pain of vice (II,
59). Guevara takes a strictly pacifistic stance in an age of increasing
imperialism and recurrent warfare. He believes that the role of the prince
is to maintain the people in the state of peace. In his Reloj one
will find a section called “El elogio de la paz”, and another section
entitled “De la Edad Dorada.”
In his praise of the Golden Age he compares
that earliest of times with “la miseria humana que tenemos ahora”
(Reloj 29). In addition, he recalls that age when all persons lived
in peace and harmony, and tended their fields for each one lived free of
prejudices. In Don Quijote's praise of the Golden Age, there is the added
notion of communal property which he shares with Moré s Utopians.
Guevara's evocation of the Golden Age is, as is Don Quijote's, a lament of
the prevailing conditions where treachery, corruption, wars, deceit, violence,
injustice, immorality, and the abuse and abandonment of true Catholic practices
are commonplace: “¡Oh malicia humana! ¡Oh, mundo traidor y
maldito, que jamás dejas las cosas permanecer en un estado!”
(33). He comments in reference to his times: “los arados tornaron en
armas, los bueyes en caballos, las aguijadas en lanzas, las rejas en saetas,
el picote en malla, las hondas en ballestas, la simplicidad en malicia, el
trabajo en ociosidad, el reposo en bullicio, la paz en la guerra, el amor
en odio, la caridad en crueldad, la justicia en tiranía, el provecho
en daño, la limosna en robo, y sobre todo, la fe en idolatría”
(19). It is interesting to note that Guevara's “Elogio de la Paz”
also contains a short discussion of arms and letters; however, Guevara
enthusiastically and eloquently defends “letras”, and he praises
the superiority of the pen over that of the sword: “¡Cuánta
diferencia vaya de mojar la péñola de la tinta a teñir
la lanza en la sangre, y estar rodeados de libros o estar cargados de armas,
de estudiar cómo cada uno ha de vivir o andar a saltear en la guerra
para a su prójimo matar!” (109).
Cervantes evidently was familiar with Guevara's
work, and it is not inconceivable that Don Quijote's own discussion of arms
and letters may be a direct or indirect response on the part of his creator
to the position taken by writers such as Guevara. Don Quijote maintains his
solidarity with the soldier, and he defends
|
| 9.2 (1989) |
Spanish Guides to Princes |
51 |
|
war when it is used to bring about peace. Contrary to Guevara, Cervantes
has Don Quijote highlight the superior function of the soldier's role in
preserving the peace. In sum, we have seen how there are various points on
proper governance which the Spanish guides to princes, Erasmus, Italian
Neoplatonists, and Thomas More share: the prince as reflecting God's attributes,
the moral responsibility of princes to safeguard the welfare of all the people
including the poor, orphans, widows, the working class, and even the indigenous
peoples of the American continents; the prince must reflect the Christian
virtues both in public and in private; he should constantly seek and maintain
his realm in peace, be a father to his people, and direct the reform of the
political, economic, and religious segments of the society. As we shall note,
Cervantes reflects a number of these views in the Quijote.
In the very first page of Part II while Don
Quijote is recuperating from his second sally, we read:
y en el discurso de su plática vinieron a tratar en en esto que llaman
razón de estado y modos de gobierno, enmendando este abuso
y condenando aquel, reformando una costumbre y desterrando otra, haciéndose
cada uno de los tres un nuevo legislador, un nuevo Licurgo moderno, o un
Solón flamante; y de tal manera renovaron la república que
no pareció sino que la habían puesto en una fragua, y sacado
otra de la que pusieron (II, ch. 1; 541-42).
The narrator than adds: “. . . y habló don Quijote
con tanta discreción en todas las materias que se tocaron, que los
dos examinadores creyeron indubitadamente que estaba del todo bueno y en
su entero jucio” (II, ch. 1; 542). Maese Nicolás, realizing moments
later that Don Quijote persists in his insane thought, asks the knight if
he wants to add his own “advertencias” to the list of
“advertimientos” that were proffered to the king by the many
“arbitrios” in the realm.14 Maese
Nicolás is making reference to the sad state of affairs in Spain where
a plethora of totally incompetent and unqualified counselors are constantly
offering useless advice to the monarch. These “arbitrios” are
completely oblivious to the decadence, corruption, and the almost total collapse
14 The
dictionary of the Real Academia Española defines “arbitrista”
as: “Persona que inventa planes para aliviar la hacienda pública
o remediar males politicos” (131). In Cervantes's time these became
a veritable plague in Spain as can be attested to by other writers such as
Quevedo.
|
| 52 |
ANGELO J. DI
SALVO |
Cervantes |
|
of what had been the greatest military power in Europe. The barber here is
implying the need for good and valid counselors from which the realm could
benefit. It seems that Don Quijote's advice on how to proceed to defend the
realm from the Turkish threat would not be as injurious to the realm as the
others being offered by the numerous “arbitrios.” Not only is the
monarchy in need of competent, useful, and much needed good advice, but also
the landed aristocracy.
Further in Part II, while at the Duke's estate,
the knight angrily chastizes an ecclesiastic criticizing the latter's role
as counselor and spiritual advisor to the Duke and Duchess: “¿No
hay más sino a troche moche entrarse por las casas ajenas a gobernar
sus dueños, y habiéndose criado algunos en la estrecheza de
algún pupilaje, sin haber visto más mundo que el que puede
contenerse en veinte o treinta leguas de distrito, meterse de rondón
a dar leyes a la caballería y a juzgar de los caballeros andantes?”
(770). Don Quijote adds that some people are driven solely by “la
ambición soberbia. “He is critical of the ecclesiastic's isolation
from the problems of the real world outside of his lavish surroundings. He
is indeed a person who has not experienced “las asperezas por donde
los Buenos suben al asiento de la inmortalidad.” In addition, he is
not sufficiently prepared to counsel persons of high position (770). A
“letrado” or ecclesiastic who has not undergone the vicissitudes
and harshness of the world outside of his private study can never be a worthy
counselor or spiritual advisor to princes, kings or dukes.
Then, before Sancho sets out for Barataria,
Don Quijote advises him on the proper way to govern. Although on the surface
this is a farcical scene, the knight is outlining for his squire all of the
Christian virtues which will make him a good, just, and equitable ruler.
It is in effect a speculum principis in miniature. It is interesting
to note that on Clavileño Sancho learns a lesson on how insignificant
the earth is compared to the vastness of the universe when he perceives it
to be no larger than a mustard seed: “¿Qué grandeza es mandar
a un grano de mostaza, o qué dignidad o imperio el gobernar a media
docena de hombres tamaños como avellanas que, a mi parecer, no había
más en toda la tierra?” (838). Soon after this episode, there
follows Don Quijote's advice: “Primeramente, oh hijo, has de temer a
Dios, porque en el temerle está la sabiduría, y siendo sabio
no podrás errar en nada” (840). Fear of God engenders wisdom
which is essential to proper governing. Don Quijote continues: “Segundo,
has de poner los ojos en quien eres, procurando conocerte
|
| 9.2 (1989) |
Spanish Guides to Princes |
53 |
|
a ti mismo, que es el más dificil conocimiento que puede imaginarse”
(840). As a result of knowing oneself comes humility and the acknowledgement
of one's own place in the scheme of things. He also advises Sancho to exercise
gentleness or kindness guided by wisdom, charity and humility of lineage.
He goes on: “. . . y préciate más de humilde
virtuoso que pecador soberbio” (840). The knight continues counseling
Sancho not to have scorn of laboring men, for he must not forget his own
origins.
Don Quijote then explains to Sancho the role
of virtue in one who is to govern: “Mira, Sancho, si tomas por medio
la virtud, y to precias de hacer hechos virtuosos, no hay para qué
tener envidia a los que tienen príncipes y señores” (841).
He adds that blood is inherited, but virtue is acquired: “. . .
y la virtud vale por sí sola lo que la sangre no vale” (841).
Don Quijote continues his advice with a discussion on justice and its
relationship with compassion. He counsels Sancho not to fall into the mistake
of being an arbitrary judge: “Nunca te guíes por la ley del
encaje” (841). Don Quijote even discourses on economic justice:
“Procura descubrir la verdad por entre las promesas y dádivas
del rico como por entre los sollozos e importunidades del pobre” (841).
The knight adds that if true equity is to take place, Sancho should not lay
all the vigor of the law against the delinquent, for he believes that the
fame of a rigorous judge is never better than that of the compassionate one:
“Si acaso doblares la vara de la justicia, no sea con el peso de la
dádiva, sino con el de la misericordia” (841-42). He admonishes
Sancho not to be blinded by passion. Then, Don Quijote reminds his squire
that when a guilty man is brought before him, he should consider his human
condition, which is always “sujeta a las condiciones de la depravada
naturaleza nuestra” (842). He proposes to Sancho that he show mercy
and clemency, for humans are all equal before God.
In chapter 43 Don Quijote continues his advice
to Sancho by outlining the importance of those virtues which pertain to the
physical aspects of a person. He advises Sancho to take proper care of his
appearance. He then counsels Sancho on the virtues of temperance (moderation),
decorum and prudence: “Anda despacio, habla con reposo, pero no de manera
que parezca que te escuchas a ti mismo, que toda afectación es mala.
Come poco y cena más poco . . . Sé templado
en el beber, considerando que el vino demasiado ni guarda secreto, ni cumple
palabra” (843). Sancho in his own right replies with insights into the
proper way to govern: “. . . y así me sustentaré
Sancho a secas con pan
|
| 54 |
ANGELO J. DI
SALVO |
Cervantes |
|
y cebolla, como gobernador con perdices y capones; y más, que mientras
se duerme, todos son iguales, los grandes y los menores, los pobres y los
ricos . . .” (847). It is well to note Don Quijote's concern
for justice, economic and social equity, concern for the working classes,
and the tempering of justice with compassion.
In Don Quijote's own discussion of the Golden
Age, one may observe some of the same concerns that Guevara expresses in
his “De la Edad Dorada”, one of which is the classical idea of
the return to a bucolic or agricultural society: “Cada uno curaba sus
tierras, plantaba sus olivos, cogía sus frutas, vendimiaba sus
viñas, segaba sus panes y criaba sus hijos” (Reloj 33).
In Don Quijote's discourse we may notice the same thing, but with the added
feature of communal property when he says:
Dichosa edad y siglos dichosos aquellos a quien los antiguos pusieron nombre
de dorados, y no porque en ellos el oro, que en esta nuestra edad de hierro
tanto se estima, se alcanzase en aquella venturosa sin fatiga alguna, sino
porque entonces los que en ella vivían ignoraban estas dos palabras
de tuyo y mío. Eran en aquella santa edad todas las cosas comunes
(I, ch. 11, 104).
Don Quijote's discourse, just as the theories put forth in various political
tracts, is a blend of Judeo-Christian and Greco-Roman perceptions and beliefs
in the Golden Age and the Garden of Eden respectively. Yet, in this discourse
we will note a reference to greed and corruption (desire for gold), modern
warfare (the age of iron), and communal property which was common in the
primitive Christian communities as it was later with More's Utopians.
Don Quijote also stresses that peace, amity
and concord were commonplace in that “santa edad”: “Todo era
paz, todo amistad, todo concordia” (105). The knight, similar to the
Utopians, disparages excessive, ornamental attire, as does the Spanish reformer
Juan de Avila in his Advertencia necesarias para los
reyes.15
Don Quijote also condemns deceit and malice
placing stress on the fact that justice was at that time in its proper place:
“No había la fraude, el engaño ni la malicia mezcládose
con verdad y llaneza. La justicia se estaba en sus propios términos,
sin que la
15 Avila
discusses the “lujo excesivo y males que de él nacen
. . .” (188). He adds: “ . . . exceso de vestidos,
camas, casas, y atavíos de ellos, en joyas y, en fin, gastos
supérfluos” (Tratados de reforma 180).
|
| 9.2 (1989) |
Spanish Guides to Princes |
55 |
|
osasen turbar no ofender los del favor y los del interese, que tanto ahora
la menoscaban, turban y persiguen” (105). He mentions ten or more years
prior to his advice to Sancho “la ley del encaje”, alluding to
the same arbitrary decisions of corrupt judges. Both Don Quijote and Guevara
decry the lamentable conditions in Europe at that time. However, Cervantes'
knight is more critical and specific reminding his listeners (and subsequent
readers) of the rampant corruption, improper respect for a just profit, the
taking of bribes, and the knight's concern for the safety of women. Guevara
has his mouthpiece, the philosopher Bías (who gives the discourses
to the emperor Marcus Aurelius), in the praise of peace make similar points
but in sweeping generalities and with beautiful comparisons such as the plows
turning into weapons, oxen into horses, simplicity into maliciousness, peace
into war, charity into cruelty, justice into tyranny, etc. (33). However,
Don Quijote proposes knighthood as a means to reform a society much like
the one which Marcus Aurelius's counselor describes to him. Both discourses
are a bitter indictment against the political, judicial, social, economic,
and military conditions in sixteenth and seventeenth century Europe, and
in particular, Spain.
Guevara's “De la Edad de Oro” also
includes a discussion of war and peace. In contrast, Don Quijote saves his
comments on war and peace until his discourse on arms and letters. Whereas
Guevara's philosopher promotes exchanging arms for ploughs, Don Quijote defends
the role of a just war. Part of his discourse on human letters has a reform
minded premise: “Hablo de las letras humanas, que es su fin poner en
su punto la justicia distributiva y dar a cada uno lo que es suyo, y entender
y hacer que las buenas leyes se guarden” (I, ch. 37, 389); that is,
economic and legal justice. In short, in the Quijote Cervantes seems
to blend the divine mission of the monarchy, the preservation of the Medieval
characteristics of political and religious institutions, the compatibility
of private virtues with an interest in the public welfare, and the reform
of some of the modern abuses of the political, economic, judicial and
ecclesiastical powers of the time.16 Through
Don Quijote's discourses and conversations
16 In
the introduction to the Utopia Robert Adams writes about the example
of the early Christian communities: “Later, after its triumph when the
church turned to pride and worldliness, legalism and formalism, the example
of the first apostles was invoked in behalf of a return to a community with
more spiritual fervor and greater economic equality” (100). Adams
[p. 56] discusses other problems such as the
predatory and decadent feudal aristocracy, the illicit violence of lordship,
the excesses of the rich, and the problems with fraud, oppression, debauchery,
waste, rapine, and unnecessary death (174-76).
|
| 56 |
ANGELO J. DI
SALVO |
Cervantes |
|
Cervantes expresses a longing for a more simple social, ethical, moral, religious
and political commonwealth with a keen sense of justice, coupled with the
need to reform the abuses and corruption of church and state.
In his discussion of arms Don Quijote once
again deviates from Guevara's and Erasmus's views. Following his discussion
on the goals of human learning, the knight adds: “Fin, por cierto, generoso
y alto y digno de grande alabanza; pero no de tanta como merece aquel a que
las armas atienden, las cuales tienen por objeto y fin la paz, que es el
mayor bien que los hombres pueden desear en esta vida” (389). He continues:
“Esta paz es el verdadero fin de la guerra; que to mesmo es decir armas
que guerra” (390). Don Quijote defends the need to go to war in order
to preserve the peace as he exalts the role of the footsoldier. For Guevara's
mouthpiece learning is more important to the welfare of the commonwealth
than going to war. Thus, the man of letters is more important to him than
the soldier: “. . . mas yo loo y nunca acabaré de loar,
no a los que hallaron armas para emprender guerra, sino a los que buscaron
letras para defender sciencia” (109). Guevara's philosopher-counselor
goes on to explain to the emperor how it is so much better to be surrounded
by books than to go out into the world killing one's fellow human beings
(109). Don Quijote seems to be responding to this type of statement when
he says: “Quítense de delante los que dijeren que las letras
hacen ventaja a las armas; que les diré, y sean quien se fueren, que
no saben lo que dicen. Porque la razón que los tales suelen decir
y a lo que ellos más se atienen, es que los trabajos del espíritu
exceden a los del cuerpo . . .” (I, ch. 37; 389). In short,
the role of the soldier is more important for the preservation of peace than
that of the lettered man.
Nevertheless, Don Quijote also disparages the
way that war is waged in contemporary Europe where by 1605, and even more
in 1615, much of the continent had been ravaged and many Spanish soldiers
had been killed. He says: “Bien hayan aquellos benditos siglos que
carecieron de la espantable furia de aquellos endemoniados instrumentos de
la artillería, a cuyo inventor tengo para mí que en el infierno
se le está dando el premio de su diabólica invención
. . .” (393). He finishes this discussion by
|
| 9.2 (1989) |
Spanish Guides to Princes |
57 |
|
bemoaning the fact that he has taken up arms in this “edad tan detestable
como es esta que ahora vivimos” (394). Yet, it is in the seemingly farcical
scene where the knight positions himself between the bands of men representing
two communities who are at the point of armed conflict in order to settle
the question of which community's citizens can best imitate a donkey's braying
that we are given some insight into Cervantes's real views on warfare. Sitting
astride Rocinante, Don Quijote shares with them his reasons for going to
war:
Los varones prudentes y las repúblicas bien concertadas, por cuatro
cosas han de tomar las armas y desenvainar las espadas, y poner a riesgo
sus personas, vidas y haciendas; la primera, por defender la fe católica;
la segunda, por defender su vida, que es de ley natural y divina; la tercera,
en defensa de su honra, de su familia y hacienda; la cuarta, en servicio
de su rey, en la guerra justa; y si le quisiésemos añadir la
quinta, que se puede contar por segunda, es en defensa de la patria (742).
Fadrique Furió Ceriol and Sebastián Fox Morcillo, another writer
of political tracts, sanctioned war to insure peace, and to enlarge the
republic.17 With the possible exception of
enlargening the republic, Don Quijote subscribes to the moral, ethical,
religious, and, yet, practical ideas offered by Spanish political theorists
such as the two mentioned above.
In conclusion, Baltasar Gracián in El
politico, who in effect is Ferdinand of Aragón, writes: “Opongo
un rey a todos los pasados; propongo un rey a todos los venideros, don Fernando
el Católico, aquel gran maestro del arte de reinar, el oráculo
mayor de la razón de Estado” (Político 37). Ferdinand
in fact inspired to some extent Machiavelli's Prince. However, according
to Gracián, “Críese un príncipe mirando siempre
al lucimiento, a los brillantes rayos de la virtud” (41). In other words,
ragion di stato as perceived by Gracián and the other Spanish
political theorists rests on the virtues. Cervantes, we affirm, believed
in the principles on the proper training of princes and on the proper way
to govern outlined by the Spanish guides to princes and those put forth by
Erasmus, More and the Italian Neoplatonists. These guides stipulated what
the education of princes should include,
17 Bleznick
explains that Sebastián Fox Morcillo sanctioned war to insure peace,
to enlarge the republic, rid the country of enemies and avenge wrongdoings.
This was in effect much akin to the medieval attempts to justify war (548).
|
| 58 |
ANGELO J. DI
SALVO |
Cervantes |
|
and what role the prince should play in war and peace, in addition to what
virtues they should possess. One of the most popular of these guides was
Antonio de Guevara's Reloj de príncipes. This guide contains
an “Elogio de la Paz” which contrasts with Don Quijote's own point
of view concerning war and peace. The section in the same guide called “De
la Edad Dorada” is also worth comparing to Cervantes's knight's perception
of the Golden Age. Cervantes knew Guevara's work and he criticized the Franciscan
who became bishop of Mondoñedo for his literary style and for his
careless and indiscriminate use of citations and references. It is possible
that Cervantes was also critical of the strictly pacifistic views held by
writers such as Guevara who de fended, in his Reloj at least, the
men of letters above the soldier. We could conclude that Cervantes, based
on what Don Quijote advises Sancho, also believed that the prince should
reflect the Christian virtues as well as demonstrating humility, so that
he might know his own place in the cosmos. Furthermore, it is the prince
who should above all uphold justice, but at the same time show compassion.
Juan de Avila in one of his memoriales or briefs to the Council of
Trent writes that the king should personally direct the reform of both the
civil and religious institutions in this way stamping out corruption, deceit,
fraud, economic abuses, and injustices.l8
By reflecting the Christian virtues and at the same time being humble, the
king will show that he is indeed the link between God and his subjects. Lastly,
Cervantes believed that the king should not send young men to all points
of the globe to die in vain; warfare should be waged in a just and lawful
war. Again, Juan de Avila in a section of one of his Tratados de reforma
advises the king of Spain on the equitable distribution of wealth, the avoidance
of excessive waste and unnecessary luxuries, and on the importance of maintaining
justice, all of which were also important to Cervantes.
18 Avila
writes: “este respecto a la voluntad de Dios, este cuidado de qué
quiere Dios, y, por consiguiente, el celo de quitar sus ofensas ha de poseer
al príncipe cristiano y regirlo en todas sus obras, pidiendo a Dios
lumbre del cielo para acertar con to que a él contenta
. . .” He goes on to write: 'Bieventurado será en la
tierra y en el cielo el rey que con esta lumbre anduviere y reformare su
persona, casa, corte, y reino conforme a la sabiduría del cielo, que
enseña lo que Dios quiere, y da fuerza para cumplirlo” (Memorial
primero al Concilio de Trento 207).
Aristotle. The Politics and Economics of Aristotle. Trans. Edward
Walford. London: Bell, 1908.
Augustine. The City of God. Trans. Marcus Dos. New York: Random House,
1950.
Avila, Juan de. Tratados de reforma. Obras completas VI. Biblioteca
de Autores Cristianos. Ed. Luis Sala Balust. Madrid: Ed. Católica,
1952-53.
Bleznick, Donald W. “Los consejos políticos de Furió
Ceriol.” Revista de Estudios Politicos 49 (1966), 25-46.
——. “Spanish Reaction to Machiavelli in the Sixteenth and
Seventeenth Centuries.” Journal of History of Ideas 19 (1958),
5425-50.
Born, Lester K. “The Perfect Prince: A Study in Thirteenth and Fourteenth
Century Ideals.” Speculum III (1928), 470-504.
Burckhardt, Jacob. The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy. Volume
1. New York: Harper and Row, 1958.
Cervantes Saavedra, Miguel de. Don Quijote de la Mancha. Ed. Martín
de Riquer. 2 Volumes. Barcelona: Juventud, 1971.
Erasmus. Education of a Christian Prince. Trans. Lester K. Born. New
York: Farrar, 1973.
Furió Ceriol, Fadrique. El concejo y consejeros del
Príncipe. Ed. Diego Sevilla Andrés. Valencia: Institución
Alfonso el Magnánimo, 1952.
Gracián, Baltasar. El político Don Fernando el Católico.
Obras completas. Ed. Arturo del Hoyo. Madrid: Aguilar, 1960.
Guevara, Antonio de. Reloj de Príncipes. Madrid: Signo, 1936.
Machiavelli, Nicolò. The Prince. London: Dent, 1908.
——. Il Principe. Ed. Ugo Dotti. Milano: Feltrinelli, 1984.
59
|
| 60 |
ANGELO J. DI
SALVO |
Cervantes |
|
Maravall, José Antonio. Maquiavelo y Maquiavelismo en España.
Estudios de Historia del pensamiento. Serie Tercera XVII. Madrid: Ed.
Cultural Hispánica, 1975.
Meinicke, Friedrich. Machiavellism: The Doctrine of Raison d'etat and
Its Place in Modern History. Trans. Douglas Scott. New Haven: Yale UP,
1957.
More, Thomas. Utopia. Ed. Robert M. Adams. New York: Norton, 1975.
Prezzolini, Giuseppe. Machiavelli. New York: Farrar, 1967.
Quevedo, Francisco de. Política de Dios y gobierno de Nuestro
Señor. Ed. Aureliano Fernández-Guerra. Vol. 1. Biblioteca
de Autores Españoles 23. Madrid: Atlas, 1946.
Robbin, John S. More's Utopia: Ideal and Illusion. New Haven: Yale
UP, 1969.
Uscatescu, George. De Maquiavelo a la Razón de Estado. Madrid:
Cosano, 1951.
|
Digitized with
the help of Kendall Sydnor |
|