Discussion 7

7.06-Jackson2000-ImaginedRepublics-MachiavelliUtopiaandUtopia.pdf

Home >Political Science homework help >Discussion 7

Imagined Republics: Machiavelli, Utopia, and Utopia

MICHAEL JACKSON Department of Government and International Relations, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia

1. Introduction

Most readers know of More’s life and canonization. Most people see Utopia through a soft focus of idealism, all the fuzzier for those who know it only by name and reputation. Machiavelli earned his reputation as the preacher of evil by 1559 when his work was proscribed on the Catholic Church’s Index. By 1595 readers understood the word “Machiavelli” as a synonym for evil in English, as well as French, Italian, and German.1 In 1995, Machiavelli for Beginners portrays the Florentine with the horns of a devil and there is nothing to alter that stereotype in the mere two thousand words spread over all its pages.2 In less than five-hundred years The Prince traveled from blasphemy to cliché. One man is a saint and the other a devil.

Their lives overlapped, with Machiavelli slightly senior to More. Each reacted to the civic humanist tradition of Rome particularly Cicero De Officiis.3

Each contributed to the renewal of that tradition. Each was a theorist and also a politician, defined as someone who holds public office. Each paid a price for political life. Each is best known for a single work, though both wrote much else. Each has a personal reputation beyond his book. The similarities extend to the books. Both The Prince and Utopia are slim volumes of little more than one hundred pages. Each is self-conscious about advice to princes, a well- established genre in their day. These similarities make their differences all the more noteworthy.

Twice Machiavelli criticized normative theory like that of utopia. In The Prince, Machiavelli anticipated More’s Utopia when he wrote: “Many have imagined up republics and principalities which have never in truth been known to exist; the gulf between how one should live and how one does lives is so wide that man who neglects what is done for what should be done learns the way to self-destruction.”4 Several conclusions follow from this. First, Machiavelli knew of utopian political theory or, as he puts it, “imagined republics.”5 Second, he respected the utopian effort to say “how one should live,” but argued it is removed from “how one does live.”6 Third, preoccupation

428 MICHAEL JACKSON

with how we should live leads to self-destruction. Note that he does not disparage normative thinking of how we should live. Like Saint Paul he is aware of that gulf. Nor does he imply that the gulf between how we should live and how we do live is fixed.

Machiavelli offered a further critique of utopia in a letter when he says: “I believe that the true way of understanding the road to Paradise is to know that of hell in order to avoid the former.”7 Again he does not disparage utopian thinking, but instead makes a personal commitment to find “the road to Paradise” by carefully avoiding, through understanding, the road to Hell. He does not say that avoiding the road to Hell is Paradise. The metaphor is a journey along a road. Taken together these passages warrant the label of realist for Machiavelli, at least since 1605 when utopian writer and politician Francis Bacon thanked Machiavelli with these words: “We are beholden to Machiavelli and others who wrote of what men do and not what they ought to do.”8

Though Machiavelli had no knowledge of Thomas More or Utopia, he knew of what he called imagined republics. The tradition of letters to Christian prince that The Prince parodies was full of fanciful recommendations.9 Machiavelli was not the first political philosopher to put realism in writing, but he was remarkably unapologetic about it. While More may not have known a book like The Prince, the text of Utopia makes clear that he knew of advisors to princes who encouraged the practices Machiavelli reviews. The conclusion from their similarities is that Machiavelli and More were, albeit unconsciously, in a common discourse.

Utopia has much in common with The Prince, making all the more odd More’s white reputation and Machiavelli’s black one. Specifically, both Niccolo Machiavelli and Thomas More understand politics to have a logic of its own that takes it beyond conventional morality. As well, Machiavelli offers a critique of utopian thinkers who assume the best of everyone morally and practically. Yet it is also clear that Machiavelli had his own impossible, utopian dreams, namely a free and united Italy, which would emerge only hundreds of years later. Machiavelli’s attitude to utopia is complex.

2. Machiavelli, The Prince, and a Prince

The Prince circulated in manuscript within the year of its completion, thereafter, Machiavelli did not revise the text; it was published after his death in 1532. Utopia went through four editions. More made changes. The Prince was written in the vulgar Italian, while Utopia was in elite Latin. Machiavelli wrote in exile outside Florence. He had served as chancellor to the republican government of Florence for a number of years. His service included foreign missions, which made him sensitive to Italy’s low standing among the major powers of the day. After power politics restored the de Medici family to rule

429IMAGINED REPUBLICS: MACHIAVELLI, UTOPIA, AND UTOPIA

in Florence Machiavelli was deposed, exiled, and later tortured. Not all servants of the republic met this fate. Some who worked along side Machiavelli were retained and others but dismissed. At the same time, some were killed. Only speculation can answer why Machiavelli suffered as he did.10

Machiavelli affixed to The Prince a dedication to the new Medici prince of Florence.11 We might conclude that he wrote The Prince to win the favor of Prince Medici. While Machiavelli invited that conclusion when he confided in his letters that this was his intent, the truth is more singular. He made little effort in the remaining twelve years of his life to submit the book to Prince Medici. Moreover, at the same time he wrote the larger and more detailed book The Discourses on the First Ten Books of Titus Livius’s History of Rome. The Discourses shows Machiavelli’s roots in the civic humanist tradition of republican government. He broke off writing The Discourses, according to his correspondence, to write The Prince.12 Circumstantial evidence alone braids together The Prince and The Discourses as vine to fence.

Since Jean Jacques Rousseau, at least, theorists have seen the republican stripes on Machiavelli’s shoulders and struggled to reconcile The Prince with that insignia.13 Rousseau’s simple insight was that Machiavelli taught that we are free politically to make our own fate.14 Others offer more complicated interpretations to integrate republicanism with The Prince.15 As compelling as the interpretations are, they turn on contextual evidence and neglect the subtly of the text of The Prince. There is contextual and textual evidence that Machiavelli works on several levels. How else could The Prince survive between the hammer and anvil of the cliché-smiths?

Two other works are pertinent. While a library catalogue lists many works by Machiavelli, he only published one in his lifetime, The Art of War. In addition, Machiavelli wrote plays, including comedies performed for the entertainment of his circle in exile, chief among them is The Mandrake. It, too, casts light on the meaning of his political theory.

The unity of The Prince and The Discourses deepens with an obvious parallel. Both books start with a letter of dedication. In addition to the dedication to Prince Medici that of The Prince also says that this book contains all Machiavelli knows of politics. Likewise The Discourses starts with a dedicatory epistle, one to two leaders of the Republican forces. In this letter he also says that the following, large book contains all that the author knows.16 The Discourses appeared posthumously in 1531. That the books were written at the same time over two years and start with this same avowal gives pause. Is one declaration true and the other not? Does one book contain Machiavelli’s true teaching and the other not? In fact both dec- larations are true in that the two books together contain the complete statement of his political theory as is confirmed by reference with The Art of War and The Mandrake.

430 MICHAEL JACKSON

3. More, Utopia, and Utopia

Three aspects of Thomas More and his Utopia are important. His advising a prince, the political arrangements of Utopia, and More’s relationship to Utopia. In Book One of Utopia, when Utopia has been but mentioned, Peter Gilles, Thomas More, and Raphael Hythlodaeus discuss advice to princes.17 Giles, who knows Hythlodaeus better, says he should serve a king with his knowledge and experience. He argues that Raphael could improve the lives of his fellows. Raphael declines because he has no interest in wealth or power. His denial induces More to second Gilles, urging Raphael to apply his talents and energies to public affairs even if at the cost of some personal inconvenience.

Raphael again refuses for three reasons. One of them is modesty. He does not think he is as highly qualified as they think. He also thinks that most kings are only interested in war to expand their realms, not in the science of improving them. As well, he maintains that advocating change is impossible. A policy seen in practice elsewhere, Raphael says, would be rejected in the name of tradition. That would include even a policy seen in the mind’s eye. In this short passage Raphael doubts that political theory can influence political practice.18 Moreover, it is explicit that the advisor would suggest change.

On the one hand, many political scientists conclude that constitutions must grow in an environment and cannot be transplanted from elsewhere or the mind’s eye. Efforts after World War I to transplant limited government to the Weimar Republic and Eastern Europe, and efforts after World War II to transplant democracy to Japan show how fraught with difficulty the process is. On the other hand, much of the present global embrace of small government by selling public assets is the result of the ideas of political theory.19 The result remains to be seen. In sum, theory does inform practice, though sometimes it does not always work.

There are also the political arrangements of Utopia described in Book II.20

Following the customary division into foreign and domestic policy, the chief feature of Utopia is uniformity. There are fifty-four identical towns and the people are homogeneous. Each person works in the fields for two-year turns. The residences are shared, not private. There is no private property. Nor is there ornamentation. Clothes last a lifetime. Most children follow the employment of their parents. Idleness is forbidden. In each town a few of the brightest are educated, about five hundred from twenty-four thousand. Only officials and intellectuals get special medical treatment. Supper is accompanied by music. The only other entertainments admitted are improving lectures. Travel needs a special permit. Euthanasia occurs. Overall, there is a high level of mutual surveillance to make each person conform. Breaking the adultery or travel laws leads to enslavement. These arrangements are enforced by an elaborate hierarchy of offices: Styward, one for every thirty households, Bencheater, one for every ten Stywards, and Mayor, elected for life by the

431IMAGINED REPUBLICS: MACHIAVELLI, UTOPIA, AND UTOPIA

Stywards from four popular nominees. There is much detail about who speaks with whom about what. These are the details unknown to those who recognize Utopia only by name. If they were known, its reputation might darken. There is more to Utopia in Utopia than these features, but concentrating on them assists the comparison of both the reputations and the theories of Machiavelli and More.

In foreign policy, Utopians pass from the dreary to the distasteful. Utopia takes the land it wants. Should the owners resist, the Utopians declare war. As blunt as it seems, the passage is nonetheless ambiguous. Within it More starts by expelling the natives and later implies that the land is not being used. Perhaps the natives differ from the legal owners, as they often did in the minds of Europeans.21 With the passage, More defends the seizure by limiting it to land not in use, though the natives might disagree. Terra nullius is a disputed doctrine today, but not then. Neither the natives nor the legal owners are respected by the Utopians.

Slaves are butchers, kitchen hands, and hunters, jobs beneath the dignity of Utopians. They are prisoners of war, “slaves by birth,” or foreign slaves.22

Among them are Utopian convicts. The Utopians also traffic in slaves by buying condemned criminals from other countries to serve them. The life of the slave in Utopia is so good that foreigners come to Utopia and volunteer for slavery. Does More, like Robert Nozick accept this surrender of autonomy as just?23 Machiavelli was never naïve enough to think that slavery was a good life, or that anyone was a slave by birth.

In war, the Utopians rely on secret agents, assassination of opposing leaders, bribery, treason, and mercenaries. Utopians never fight on their own soil. It is better to devastate someone else’s land than our own. That is a prescription many political leaders follow, as when Winston Churchill tried to fight the Germans in Norway and France as buffers to England. At the outset of the discussion of foreign policy, More justifies these Utopian practices on the grounds that this is the way so-called Christian princes conduct themselves. Utopians meet like with like. “Diplomacy is downright dishonest.”24 He goes on to say

If the very same people who pride themselves on suggesting such tricks to their rulers found the same sort of things going on in connection with a private contract, they’d be the first to denounce it . . . as criminal.25

Here Thomas More and Niccolo Machiavelli take common ground. That diplomacy has its own rules well apart from those of private life is

the central truth of Machiavelli’s political theory. For More it is suitable only to those who have not seen the light of Utopia: “that’s how kings behave out there” beyond Utopia.26 It is clear from The Prince that the foundation and security of a political community rests on savage and violent acts. The full

432 MICHAEL JACKSON

story of the founding of Utopia itself might bear witness to this. Even in The Prince, Machiavelli recognizes that such acts are beyond the pale of morality. At the same time, in The Discourses, Machiavelli emphasizes the importance of morality in private life once the polity is secure. Politics in some few circumstances of foundation and security is amoral so that citizens may be moral. More makes the disclaimer at the end of Raphael’s exposition that “I cannot agree with everything that he said, for all his undoubted learning and experience.”27 At the least, we must not identify More with every word of Raphael’s. That may also remind us to extend the same courtesy to Machiavelli by not attributing to him every theme explored in The Prince.28

4. Diplomacy and Politics

Thomas More and Niccolo Machiavelli agree that diplomacy has a logic of its own beyond conventional morality. What More means by “diplomacy” is what Machiavelli means by “politics.” It is the foundation and security of a political community in a chaotic and violent world. We might say that Machiavelli offers a close study of More’s view of diplomacy.

Where that first reference to “imagined republics” occurs in The Prince Machiavelli says that “a man who wants to act virtuously in every way necessarily comes to grief among so many who are not virtuous.”29 In the passage, Machiavelli refers to “a man” but the context is of a man who is a prince, since the chapter concerns “how a prince should govern.”30 Machiavelli does not say that all people are vicious. He says that a prince acts among “so many who are not virtuous” inside the fatal circle of life.31 Even this overstates his argument. Machiavelli need only argue that a prince moves in circles where some people may be vicious, and where the virtue of others is unsure. To survive in the world of diplomacy a prince must “learn how not to be virtuous.”32 The prince must learn how not to be moral. It does not come naturally or easily to a prince, or to anyone else. It must be learned.

In discussing the need for a prince to avoid incurring the hatred of his subjects, Machiavelli says that because of the fickleness of the many, a prince can be hated for doing good as readily as for doing evil. Experienced politicians nod sadly at the truth of this observation. In such a world “a prince is . . . often forced not to be good.”33 Not only is the evil associated with Machiavelli’s name unnatural, and so has to be learned, once learned a prince may still be reluctant to use it unless forced by circumstance.

Somewhat earlier in The Prince, Machiavelli presents Agathocles of Syracuse, a contemporary of Hannibal, as an example of a decisive ruler who employed violence to shed enemies. As a man of action, Agathocles is praised at length, and then Machiavelli adds: “Yet it cannot be called prowess to kill fellow citizens, to betray friends, to be treacherous, pitiless, irreligious.”34 Why

433IMAGINED REPUBLICS: MACHIAVELLI, UTOPIA, AND UTOPIA

not? “These ways can win a prince power but not glory.”35 He goes on to condemn Agathocles for his “brutal cruelty, inhumanity, his countless crimes, which altogether forbid his being honoured among eminent men.”36 His criticism of Agathocles shows the complexity of his judgement. Agathocles illustrates the courage and ruthlessness that Machiavelli commends, but he also exceeded the necessity that marks the moral upper limit of the logic of diplomacy. Not everything is permitted by raison d’état. What is permitted is what is necessary and in proportion.

Machiavelli distils his teaching when he says that violence may be used well where it is used once and for all.37 This is the economy of violence.38

Use it to end, not to widen or to open, new conflicts. Machiavelli advocates violence only to prevent and deter more violence in the interest of political security. Thomas More never comes to terms with violence, only assuming, for example, that individuals defeated by the Utopians will accept the result. They are more likely to nurture hatred, if necessary in amber, for generations to take revenge. The news from the Balkans, the Middle East, or Northern Ireland puts paid to that assumption. Machiavelli may claim to be wiser and more realistic.

5. Machiavelli’s Political Theory

Reading The Prince and The Discourses together, the whole of Machiavelli’s political theory appears. A prince founds and secures a polis. To do so requires rising above conventional morality. Once founded, citizens in a well-ordered polity will depose a prince and install a republican government of equals. As the supreme political actor engaged in the supreme political act of creating a stable regime, a prince may exceed actions approved by the conventional morality of private contracts. To create order out of disorder a prince may have to kill, lie, and steal. A prince is a means to an end. A prince is unlikely to welcome such a transitory role, and likely to resist deposition, if foreseen. It is best then to omit it from the book directed to a prince. If The Prince is a book about deception, it also deceives its readers, particularly a prince.

The Prince has deceived many readers over the ages. Coming to it with prejudices derived from Machiavelli’s reputation, they note only the crudest of his arguments. They read the book quickly and superficially, much as a prince might, a man of action with no time for academic split hairs. Machiavelli’s argument is heavily qualified. He holds that it would be better if a sensible person took on the task of princely foundation. This is the reason for Machiavelli’s discussion of learning how not to be good, and being forced to use violence. But it is unlikely that such a person will be equal to the immorality needed. A prince is more likely to be Caligula than Cincinnatus. In the architectonic labor of creating a political order a prince mixes with many

434 MICHAEL JACKSON

other ambitious individuals. Everyone will not be virtuous, or vicious. Because of the difficulty of knowing who is virtuous and who is vicious, Machiavelli tells a prince to act as if most people are vicious. This is but prudence, and the reason he speaks of “the many who are not virtuous.”39 Machiavelli is not utopian in the sense of assuming the best of everyone.

Both More and Machiavelli discuss mercenaries. More recommends their use. Utopia only fights abroad and no Utopian fights abroad. Mercenaries do all Utopian fighting. Mercenaries were common in the Sixteenth Century. They were the professional soldiers of the day in the absence of a profession of arms.40 In contrast, Machiavelli says mercenaries “are useless and dangerous”41

He also offers a political critique of mercenaries in his book The Art of War.42

The city-states of Italy used mercenaries and included Englishmen in their ranks, and Machiavelli was not alone in thinking that they formed a cartel. Profit and glory animate mercenaries, things they can only enjoy if they survive. These incentives reduce their ardor. They accepted public contracts to defend or attack. They made a great show with of noise, color, smoke, and dust while agreeing among themselves who was to win on the day and how to share the money. Mercenaries could not to be trusted. They would not die in battle for the patrimony. As Thomas More says, ever-higher bidders bought off the mercenaries.43 But they were not willing to die even for the highest bidder from Utopia.

There are two defects with mercenaries. One is that they are untrustworthy. Machiavelli and More both recognize this but react to it in different ways. According to Machiavelli, mercenaries undermine the civic virtue of a republic. Even if they were as useful as More assumes, Machiavelli wants a citizen army to cement the bond of citizens to the city and to each other. Machiavelli longs for heroic citizens on a Roman ideal who would give their lives for their patrimony against the barbarians from the next hilltop. Here Machiavelli shows a romantic streak, but his thesis is that a healthy civic culture is one in which citizens accept the obligation to defend. The Art of War is a detailed program about raising, training, motivating, and deploying a citizen army cast against Greek and Roman examples. Pericles’s Funeral Oration invokes the meaning Machiavelli had in mind: the noble death in battle, the raised monuments, the dignified survivors, and the memorial.44 The Romanticism recurs in the last chapter of The Prince, when he calls for Italian unity to drive out the various invaders and occupier, invoking the image of Italia.45 An image of this Italia personified adorned the walls of his office. That call was answered only three hundred years later. In the common use of the word, Machiavelli was utopian in his hopes for Italian unification.

The final piece in the puzzle of Machiavelli’s political theory is the vantage point afforded by his comic play The Mandrake.46 A wily schemer arranges a marriage that secures a fortune to the good of the city. If the schemer is Machiavelli and the city is Florence, then the prince is duped. The only two

435IMAGINED REPUBLICS: MACHIAVELLI, UTOPIA, AND UTOPIA

characters in the play who understand the civic importance of the union are the schemer and the woman who accepts the subterfuge for her own purposes. His own libido and vanity blind the princely figure. The schemer sees the interest of the whole, while the lady sees her place in that context. The wealthy husband is stupid enough to participate in his own downfall.

The Mandrake shows Machiavelli’s recognition that the good of the whole is possible. It has to be created, not assumed. To create it takes deceit and bribes. Such immoralities are justified as means to a good end, as long as they are in portion to the end. Each person has a place in the whole, but most people will have to be led into it by guile and deception. Some people may be led into it by education. Machiavelli’s concentration on the foundation and perpetuation of a polity distinguishes him from many utopian theorists, like Thomas More, who assume but do not analyze foundational matters. Machiavelli realizes that one function of a theory is to guide action. He does so in The Prince in a way that reflects the message of deceit, unifying signs and significance. Machiavelli is often accused of fathering modernism in politics.47 It also seems that he is of our own times in presenting his message of deceit in a deceit.

6. Conclusion

Machiavelli and More have much in common, as can be seen in their lives and their major works. Most importantly, they share an understanding that diplomacy exceeds normal morality. Machiavelli offers an unflinching study of that excess, while More makes light of it.

While Machiavelli would dismiss Raphael Hythlodaeus’s advice about imagined republics, Thomas More acknowledges the importance of Machiavelli’s advice in his observations on diplomacy. Machiavelli and More agree that the immorality of diplomacy is justified if it creates a peaceful political order. Studies of Thomas More’s remind us of his irony, wit, and love of rhetorical devices.48 These features make it all the more difficult to read his intentions into Utopia. It has been suggested that like the Hans Holbein portrait of Thomas More en famille, it is an elaborate code.49 Close attention to Machiavelli’s words reveals a measured analysis of a prince who creates the fence that defines a polity. The Discourses supplies the vine of republican government that grows over the fence, replacing it.50

Notes

1. See Peter Bondanella and Mark Musa, The Portable Machiavelli (Harmondsworth, England: Penguin, 1979), p. 69.

2. Patrick Curry and Oscar Zarate, Machiavelli for Beginners (Cambridge, England: Icon, 1995).

436 MICHAEL JACKSON

3. Quentin Skinner, The Foundations of Modern Political Thought, Volume I, The Renaissance (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1978), p. 255ff.

4. Machiavelli, The Prince (Harmondsworth, England: Penguin, 1961), p. 91. 5. Ibid. 6. Ibid. 7. Bondanella and Musa, op cit., p. 74. 8. Francis Bacon, The Advancement of Learning (London: Oxford University Press, 1951),

xxi. 9. 9. Skinner, op cit., p. 117ff.

10. See Ridolfi, The Life of Niccolo Machiavelli (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1963) and also see Sebastian de Grazia, Machiavelli in Hell (London: Harvester, 1989).

11. Machiavelli, The Prince, p. 29. 12. Bondanella and Musa, op cit., p. 69. The Prince itself contains an allusion to The

Discourses on its opening page, p. 33. 13. See Jack Hexter, “The Loom on Language and the Fabric of Imperatives: The Case of Il

Principe and Utopia,” American Historical Review 69 (1964), p. 949. 14. Jean Jacques Rousseau, On the Social Contract, ed. Roger Masters (New York: St Martin

Press, 1978), book III, chapter VI. 15. Garrett Mattingly, “Machiavelli’s Prince,” American Scholar 27 (1958), p. 483; Sheldon

Wolin, Politics and Vision (Boston: Little Brown, 1960), p. 231; and Mary Dietz, “Trapping the Prince,” American Political Science Review 80 (1986), pp. 780.

16. Machiavelli, The Discourses (Harmondsworth, England: Penguin, 1970), p. 93. 17. More, Utopia (Harmondsworth, England: Penguin, 1965), pp. 41–42. 18. Ibid., p. 42. 19. See Daniel Yergin and Joseph Stanislaw, The Commanding Heights: The Battle between

Government and Marketplace (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1998). 20. More, op cit., pp. 70ff. 21. Ibid., p. 80. 22. Ibid., p. 101. 23. See Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State and Utopia (New York: Basic, 1974), pp. 290–292. 24. More, op cit., p. 108. 25. Ibid. 26. Ibid. 27. Ibid., p. 132. 28. See Hexter, op cit., p. 949. 29. Machiavelli, The Prince, p. 91. 30. Ibid. 31. Ibid. 32. Ibid. 33. Ibid., p. 108. 34. Ibid., p. 62. 35. Ibid. 36. Ibid. 37. Ibid., p. 66. 38. See Wolin, op cit., p. 220. 39. Machiavelli, The Prince, p. 91. 40. See Michael Mallett, Mercenaries and Their Masters: Warfare in Renaissance Italy

(London: Bodley Head, 1974), p. 10. 41. Machiavelli, The Prince, p. 77. 42. Machiavelli, The Art of War (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1965). 43. More, op cit., p. 85.

437IMAGINED REPUBLICS: MACHIAVELLI, UTOPIA, AND UTOPIA

44. See Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War (Harmondsworth, England: Penguin, 1967), pp. 116–123.

45. Machiavelli, The Prince, pp. 133–138. 46. See Mark Hulliung, “Machiavelli’s Mandragola,” Review of Politics 40 (1978), pp.

43–57 and Timothy Lukes, “Play therapy in Political Theory: Machiavelli’s Mandragola,” Teaching Political Science 9 (1981), pp. 35–38.

47. See Leo Strauss, Thoughts on Machiavelli (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1958).

48. See Damian Grace, “Utopia: A dialectical Interpretation,” Moreana 26 (1989), pp. 274– 302.

49. See Geraldine Norman, “How Hans Holbein hid a royal secret,” Times (18 June 1983). 50. I am grateful to Damian Grace for advice and encouragement, and to the editor of The

Journal of Value Inquiry for many improvements to the study.

438 MICHAEL JACKSON