Moderator: I am Bob Cooper, and as your host I want to welcome you to another exciting Meeting of the Minds. Today we are fortunate to have four very special guests from the historical period known as the Renaissance. Please meet, first of all, a woman who is generally considered to be one of the greatest, if not the greatest, monarch in English history. A woman who has given her name to perhaps the most glorious period in English history, Queen Elizabeth Tudor!
Elizabeth: Thank you Bob. I am quite pleased to be here.
Moderator: From Florence, Italy we have the foremost political analyst of his time. Please welcome Niccolo Machiavelli, author of The Prince.
Machiavelli: Thank you Bob. I am especially thrilled to be able to meet one of the most successful practitioners of my political ideas, Elizabeth Tudor.
Elizabeth: You are very kind.
Moderator: Our next guest is the notorious French writer Francois Rabellais, author of Gargantua and Pantagruel.
Rabelais: Thank you Bob. I have been impatiently awaiting this opportunity to meet with so highly educated a group of people.
Moderator: Finally, please welcome Sir Thomas More, author of Utopia. It is not often that we get to meet an intellectual, a statesman and a saint, all rolled up into one man.
More: You are most kind Bob, but I am not sure that I even belong in such impressive company. Their names have all become part of the English language. "Elizabethan," "Machiavellian," "Rabelaisian." I am afraid that my great claim to fame comes from getting my head chopped off.
Elizabeth: May I apologize for that rather excessive action by my father. I consider your beheading to be both unnecessary and impolitic. My father was, however, a man of passion. My dear mother's beheading is a case in point.
More: Quite frankly, you surprise me. You certainly have the blood of true Christians on your hands. How would you explain the executions of so many Jesuits, not to mention your own cousin Mary Stuart? Your red hair is not your only resemblance to your father.
Elizabeth: Yes, I am willing to take a life when such an act is required. I simply believe that your execution was not a political necessity. After all, what was your crime?
More: I refused to sign the oath accepting your father as Supreme Head of the Church of England.
Elizabeth: But did you denounce him as a heretic?
More: No, I did not.
Elizabeth: Did you denounce those who signed the oath?
More: No, I did not.
Elizabeth: Did you take any action against my father?
More: I did resign my post as Chancellor. My responsibilities to my God are far more important than my responsibilities to my king.
Elizabeth: But did you make any attempt to organize opposition to my father's assumption of the powers of the Pope?
More: I did not. I certainly did not want to see England plunged into civil war.
Elizabeth: And that is why I do not believe your execution to be well advised. It is my opinion that it is neither realistic nor politic to practice thought control. I have never wished to open windows into men's souls. It is only when belief turns into rebellion, threatening political authority as well as the prosperity and general well being of the people that a monarch should resort to intimidation and repression. The Jesuits and my cousin Mary plotted against my life and threatened England with civil war. I had a responsibility to myself and to my people to prevent such an unhappy event. I would have been found sadly wanting as a Queen if I did not respond with appropriate vigor, which, in this case, meant executions.
Machiavelli: Exactly right! A prince's first responsibility is to his people, and there can be no doubt that political stability is the bedrock for economic prosperity as well as intellectual and artistic progress. A prince is justified in doing whatever is necessary to insure political stability, even if such actions defy Christian morality. The ends justify the means.
More: I cannot accept this. We are first and foremost Christians. What can be more important than our quest for eternal salvation?
Machiavelli: You make a good point. But are people more likely to live good Christian lives in a prosperous society or while living in squalor? Is not effective government conducive to salvation?
More: But what of the soul of the prince? Should a prince sacrifice his hope of salvation for the good of the masses?
Machiavelli: I would hope that God would distinguish between passionate excess and fulfillment of responsibility. But this is only speculation. All we can know with certainty is this world, and it is on the basis of my own observation that I form my judgements.
Rabelais: Yes, God has given us this world and I have seen much of it as a cleric, writer and physician. It strikes me that the essence of life is food, wine, copulation and knowledge. God would not have provided us with these pleasures unless he wanted us to enjoy them, and enjoy them I have! We must drink greedily of what God has provided.
More: God has provided for us in this world. We have all that we need to provide for our wants. But our passions must be kept under control. For example, copulation is not necessarily a sin. We are expected to procreate our species. But this must be done within the sacrament of marriage. There is a difference between love and lust.
Rabelais: But our physical needs come from God. They are of divine origin and are thus nothing of which to be ashamed.
More: God has created man as a moral creature. Morality means choice. Thus God brought evil into the world so that we could choose virtue. Fornication is evil and marriage is virtuous.
Rabelais: You are certainly a cold fish.
Machiavelli: And you are certainly a buffoon. Life is a serious business. We do make moral choices. But the choice made by a prince is not governed by the same morality as an ordinary person. Princes must look to the good of their subjects. They cannot be limited by conventional morality. In fact, unlike Sir Thomas, I am not appalled by Queen Elizabeth's execution of her cousin. Not only did this woman plot against Elizabeth, but she served as the focus of opposition to the Queen. Even if she had not plotted, her very existence served as a threat to the state. If Elizabeth had died before Mary, civil war would have been inevitable. I marvel that Mary's execution did not take place twenty years earlier.
Elizabeth: You are an astute observer. Many of my advisors agreed with your analysis and urged me to kill Mary, but I had my reasons for keeping her alive. I thought regicide a dangerous precedent for somebody in my position, but, frankly, this was not my major concern. A living Mary Stuart was my insurance policy against a Spanish invasion. Philip of Spain, my brother-in-law, had proposed marriage to me after my sister Mary's death. I believe that he was attracted to me, but, most of all, he wanted to restore Catholicism as the state religion of England. After I refused him, he contemplated military action against me. His problem, however, was that my defeat would put Mary Stuart on the throne and she was closely associated with France. She was the widow of King Francis II. Philip would not risk an invasion to put on the English throne a potential ally of his most dangerous enemy. Unfortunately, as Mary's plots became more dangerous and as I grew older and saw the end of my life in sight, I concluded that the execution of Mary was more compelling than the risks. I did what I had to do. I fear not the wrath of God. My fear of invasion proved justified, but, most fortunately, Philip's invasion fleet was destroyed in 1588.
Machiavelli: You are truly a shrewd and cunning monarch. It is a wonder that so much intelligence and strength of will could belong to a woman.
More: Yes, your majesty. You certainly are a marvel. It is a supreme irony that your father put himself at the head of the English church in order to secure a male heir. The War of the Roses was still a recent memory and the fear of another disastrous conflict was very much feared. The only precedent England had for a woman ruler was Mathilda, the daughter of Henry I, and her reign was characterized by political turmoil and civil war. Most of us were convinced that women did not possess the qualities required of a successful ruler.
Rabelais: How could a woman rule a state? Women cannot effectively govern themselves. They are silly creatures who think of nothing but trifles. Their vanity has no limit. Their only purpose is to supply the soil in which man plants his seed.
More: I would not go that far. Women, by their nature, certainly do not have quite the rational capacity of man, but they can profit from a good classical education. I educated my daughter Meg in such a way and believe her better for it. But undoubtedly women were created to serve men. A sensible man looks for a mate who can effectively manage his household. Some might desire looks and learning in a mate, but these qualities are overrated. Loyalty, prudence and common sense are of greatest importance for a happy household.
Rabelais: I certainly believe loyalty to be of great importance. The unhappiest of men is the cuckold. On the other hand, a lusty wench is a joy indeed.
More: Francois, the sexual act is a marital duty. Outside of marriage it is a sin. In my Utopia, pre-marital intercourse is punished by compulsory celibacy for life; adultery by slavery; and repeated adultery by death.
Rabelais: I would not care to live in so joyless a world. What is life without wine, women and song?
More: A life in conformity with the injunctions of God. I do believe, however, that we can agree on the subservience of women to their husbands. In Utopia I have instructed all wives to kneel before their husbands every month to confess their sins of omission and commission, and ask for forgiveness.
Rabelais: I heartily concur.
Machiavelli: So do I. As I noted in The Prince: "Fortune is a woman and if she is to be submissive it is necessary to beat and coerce her."
Elizabeth: This is why I never married. Your male chauvinism is typical of most men. I would not deny that most women are silly and shallow, but are they any different than men? My father, Henry, was vain and foolish, which explains his rather notorious series of marriages. Moreover, men are so laughingly easy to manipulate. Offer a man the possibility of a title, appeal to his vanity, give him a flirtatious smile, and he becomes your slave.
Machiavelli: So why have so few women succeeded as political leaders?
Elizabeth: Because they have yoked themselves to men who believe it their right to dominate. My sister Mary is an excellent example. She was an intelligent, well -educated and spirited woman, who allowed herself to be manipulated by her husband Philip. The result was an unsuccessful five years as Queen. When I became Queen, I was determined to make no such mistake. I would serve no man. They would serve me!
Machiavelli: I am astonished by your perspicacity. I had not thought that women could be successful rulers, but my rule is to be guided by experience. Your career demands a reexamination of my opinion on this subject, and your explanation for the lack of success of women rulers provides much food for thought.
Moderator: I believe that all of our panelists have provided food for thought. I want to thank our guests, Queen Elizabeth Tudor, Niccolo Machiavelli, Francois Rabelais and Sir Thomas More for a thought-provoking discussion. Please tune in next week when our guests, Queen Catherine de Medici, Erasmus of Rotterdam, Leonardo da Vinci and Galileo Galilei will provide another Meeting of the Minds.