only by the king's not governing in person is the safety of the state independent of his personality, nor is it imperilled by every kingly, great, or niggardly small passion, and thereby attains a security of which earlier state-sages had no conception.[1] Since from Xenophon to Fénélon the education of a prince seemed to be a matter of primary importance, even great Aristotle must aim at it in his "Politics," and the greater Plato could propose nothing better than setting philosophers on the throne, or making princes into philosophers.
Therefore, as the king does not himself govern, he cannot be responsible; he is inviolable, and only his Ministers can be accused, condemned, and punished for bad government. Blackstone, the commentator on the English Constitution, erred in including the irresponsibility of the king among his prerogatives. This idea flatters a king
- ↑ The seven lines of the German text following are omitted from the French version. As regards the ensuing sentence, even the most aristocratic of conservatives will not deny that in the education of princes we seem to be falling to the other extreme of neglect, there still being left in Europe a few gentlemen of this class, for whom it would have been much better had they been better educated as regards morals, intellect, and true dignity. For what is a peccadillo in a private man becomes in truth a glaring sin or crime in a prince, by whose example, tastes, and habits thousands are seriously influenced.—Translator.
