In John 10 in the New Testament, Jesus proclaims “I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me--just as the Father knows me and I know the Father--and I lay down my life for the sheep.” Through this statement, Jesus asserts that the relationship between a shepherd and his flock symbolizes the paternal relationship between God and his children. In Telemachus, his biting allegorical criticism of Louis XIV, Fenelon adopts this theological idea of the “good shepherd” to elucidate the morally proper role of kings. Bad kings, he describes, are “‘cruel wolves, and not shepherds’” and “a king is only a king in order to take care of his people, as a shepherd tends his flocks, or a father superintends his family.’” Jesus’ proclamation
…show more content…
In fact in Book ???, Telemachus discovers the locale of Betique which Mentor introduces to him as a perfect utopia. In Betique, “every family is governed by its head, who is in reality the king” and their king is “their father and ruler.” By presenting a paternalistic ruling style as the form of government within this paradise, Fenelon establishes his belief that paternalism is the proper path for kings to follow. Furthermore, throughout their travels to a variety of different places, Mentor continually teaches Telemachus that good kings acts as the father to their people. At the beginning of the story, Mentor advises Telemachus that when he becomes king, he should “love [his] subjects as [his] own children [...] and behave in such a manner that they should never be sensible without remembering that it is their good king to whom they owe these rich presents.” Later, Mentor introduces Telemachus to “the good King Sesostris [who] lived in security amidst his numerous subjects, as a tender parent in his own house” and another king to which “the care of the people, the most important of all trusts, is committed to him by the laws, on condition that he be the father of his subjects.” By depicting paternalism as the ruling style of “good” kings regardless of where Telemachus travels to, Fenelon’s asserts his belief in the supremacy of this form of …show more content…
On the other hand, in a letter he wrote to Louis XIV in 1694, Fenelon directly addresses all the specific ways in which Louis is failing as a “father” to the people of France. Fenelon writes to Louis in the second person so that he can push Louis to assume responsibility for his actions. Fenelon tells him “your people whom you should love as your children and who have been up to now so fervent for you, are dying from hunger. [...] Instead of taking money from these poor folks, you should have given alms and fed them.” Furthermore, he tells Louis that the people of France believe “if the king had a father’s heart for his people, wouldn’t he find his glory in providing bread for them.” These statements create two opposing ideas, one of how Louis is actually behaving and the other of how he should be behaving. In reality, Louis acts like “cruel wolf” taking from his people despite their love for him when he should be acting in a christlike manner, giving his children “alms” and “providing bread for them.” Building upon the concept of “the good shepherd” that Fenelon uses in Telemachus to define the proper role of kings, if good kings should be like the good shepherd, and Jesus is the good shepherd, then good kings should act a Jesus did. Certainly, Fenelon believes that Louis does not act as Jesus did. In fact,
In fact in Book ???, Telemachus discovers the locale of Betique which Mentor introduces to him as a perfect utopia. In Betique, “every family is governed by its head, who is in reality the king” and their king is “their father and ruler.” By presenting a paternalistic ruling style as the form of government within this paradise, Fenelon establishes his belief that paternalism is the proper path for kings to follow. Furthermore, throughout their travels to a variety of different places, Mentor continually teaches Telemachus that good kings acts as the father to their people. At the beginning of the story, Mentor advises Telemachus that when he becomes king, he should “love [his] subjects as [his] own children [...] and behave in such a manner that they should never be sensible without remembering that it is their good king to whom they owe these rich presents.” Later, Mentor introduces Telemachus to “the good King Sesostris [who] lived in security amidst his numerous subjects, as a tender parent in his own house” and another king to which “the care of the people, the most important of all trusts, is committed to him by the laws, on condition that he be the father of his subjects.” By depicting paternalism as the ruling style of “good” kings regardless of where Telemachus travels to, Fenelon’s asserts his belief in the supremacy of this form of …show more content…
On the other hand, in a letter he wrote to Louis XIV in 1694, Fenelon directly addresses all the specific ways in which Louis is failing as a “father” to the people of France. Fenelon writes to Louis in the second person so that he can push Louis to assume responsibility for his actions. Fenelon tells him “your people whom you should love as your children and who have been up to now so fervent for you, are dying from hunger. [...] Instead of taking money from these poor folks, you should have given alms and fed them.” Furthermore, he tells Louis that the people of France believe “if the king had a father’s heart for his people, wouldn’t he find his glory in providing bread for them.” These statements create two opposing ideas, one of how Louis is actually behaving and the other of how he should be behaving. In reality, Louis acts like “cruel wolf” taking from his people despite their love for him when he should be acting in a christlike manner, giving his children “alms” and “providing bread for them.” Building upon the concept of “the good shepherd” that Fenelon uses in Telemachus to define the proper role of kings, if good kings should be like the good shepherd, and Jesus is the good shepherd, then good kings should act a Jesus did. Certainly, Fenelon believes that Louis does not act as Jesus did. In fact,