Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Decline of aristocracy
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Decline of aristocracy
The new aristocracy was made up for the most part of bureaucrats, scientists… and professional politicians. These people, whose origins lay in the salaried middle class… had been shaped and brought together by the barren world of monopoly industry and centralized government. (Orwell, 281)
Aristocracy, the rule of a few well suited individuals, is a historically important and controversial form of government. As a sort of middle ground between monarchy and democracy, aristocracy is a very unique way of ruling. As opposed to one person being the undisputed king or ruler, the responsibility is split up in a group of educated individuals. However unlike a republic, citizens don’t get to elect these leaders or decide whether or not to keep them in power. While it’s impractical in the majority of today’s societies, aristocracy was an incredibly important stepping stone towards fair government, helping us achieve democracy and other modern policies.
Aristocracy has a rich and important history as a revolutionary form of government. It was one of the earliest governments to move power away from a single ruler. In its definition, aristocracy was meant to be the rule of well suited individuals. Differing opinions within the group of rulers pushed towards an early way of working together and compromising on laws and policies. This pushed future societies closer to democracy/republicanism. Group decision making opened the door to leaders accepting other people’s opinions and working together. It also taught how to share power and not preserve it all for one person. On the other hand, many people judge this form of government as unfair and biased, and for good reason. Most aristocrats were extremely rich had been rich their entire lives. Many...
... middle of paper ...
... or just a way for the rich and powerful to get more rich and powerful? The answer will vary from person to person but its affect on history will remain evidence to its importance.
Works Cited
Dickens, Charles, Hablot Knight Browne, and Frederick Barnard. A Tale of Two Cities. New York: Dodd, Mead, 1942. Print.
Harris, Raymond, and Edgar Allan Poe. The Masque of the Red Death. Providence, RI: Jamestown, 1982. Print.
Orwell, George, and Erich Fromm. 1984: A Novel. New York, NY: Signet Classic, 1961. Print.
Platt, Len. Aristocracies of Fiction: The Idea of Aristocracy in Late-nineteenth-century and Early-twentieth-century Literary Culture. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 2001. Print.
Starr, Chester G. The Aristocratic Temper of Greek Civilization. New York: Oxford UP, 1992. Print.
Wasson, Ellis. Aristocracy and the Modern World. N.p.: Palgrave Macmillion, 2006. Print.
Within this letter Adam provides his definition of an aristocracy and listed potential problems they can create. Adam defines aristocracy as “men who can command, influence, or procure more than an average of votes; by an aristocrat, every man who can and will influence one man to vote besides himself” (Adams, Letters to John Taylor, 199). When Adams is referring to natural aristocracy, these people most likely do not hold the title of aristocrat, they are simply the most influential members of society, due to their excellence in knowledge, strength, or beauty, etc. Those who hold the title aristocrats are what Adams calls artificial aristocracy, because they are just handed their positions, they do not earn
Sieyes also identifies the reality that if as a society if we were to remove the nobility that The Third Estate could in fact run on its own, if not “something less but something more”. In fact, society as a whole might actually go better without the two others but would cease to exists without The Third Estate. Sieyes actually goes as far to say that the nobility are a “burden for the nation and it cannot be a part of it.” Sieyes speaks to not only the social inequality between the classes but the lack of political representation of more than what is ninety percent of the population. Then nobility itself possess their own representation that was not appointed by the majority, who does not owe any powers to the people due to divinity, and finally it is foreign for the fact that it’s interests lie with private concern rather than public. In chapter two of What is the Third Estate Sieyes proclaims that up until now The Third Estate has been nothing and reform is coming. He says “Freedom does not derive from
In Political Testament, Cardinal Richelieu explains that the nobility is something to be used as a tool, a perpetual game of appeasement and request of services. He understood that the nobility could be a nuisance and a body of dissent against the King, but that they were necessary to the crown to provide military aid and money. Richelieu explains that one must know how to manage and manipulate them: “To take away the lives of these persons, who expose their lives every day for a pure fancy of honor, is much less than taking away their honor and leaving them a life which would be a perpetual anguish for them. All means must be used to maintain the nobility in the true virtue of their fathers, and one must also omit nothing to preserve the advantages they inherited.” ...
The government within the monarchical society was populated by the aristocracy. It was they who were depended upon for directing the course of governmental affairs. The controls of all co...
Poe, Edgar Allan. “The Masque of the Red Death” Literature An Introduction to Reading and Writing. ED. Edgar V Roberts and Robert Zweig. Boston, Longman: 2012. 516-519.
Thomas Paine conveyed his dislike for monarchies in many ways throughout “Common Sense”. One of his numerous dislikes was that most monarchs are a hereditary system. Paine’s thoughts over the hereditary system were that they were not valid and would bring evil with it. People that were born into elite existence are very often to be ignorant and unfit. Some people thought that hereditary succession reduced civil wars however there were also the issues, 12 battles
Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2004. Orwell, George. A. A. 1984. The. New York, NY: Signet Classics, 1977. Print.
There is also a wide variety of oligarchies. In one type there is an arrangement where there are a few property requirements in order to be in office, other arrangements require that the son has to succeed the father, in others the officials rule rather than the law. As stated in the Aristotle’s Politics “it is evident, then, that those regimes which look to the common advantage are correct regimes according to what is unqualifiedly just, while those which look only to the advantage of the rulers are errant, and are all deviations from the correct regimes; for they involve mastery, but the city is a community of free persons.” (Lord, 2013, 1279a-18)
Some couldn't afford it. Most should know the Ruler would have the most power which usually makes the conclusion that s/he has the most currency. Which puts the Ruler on the top of the social structure. After comes the standard rich people who have a good and pretty important career. Under them comes the peasants then the homeless.
Oligarchy is valued above a democracy although they are both ruled by the appetite of the soul. Those within an oligarchy pursue necessary appetites whereas democratic individuals pursue unnecessary appetites. Rulers are present...
Of all the long term causes of the French Revolution, the Ancien Régime was perhaps the most deeply-rooted. The Ancien Régime was the old system of government, the old order of things, before the Revolution, and it divided French society up into three ``estates'': the nobles, the clergy, and the common people (ie. everyone else, which included both peasants and the middle classes). The first and second estates were privileged in that they paid no tax at all, and for this reason, the monarch did not have a problem with their support: they were, in effect, propping up the Ancien Régime. The first and second estates also owned the larger proportion of land: although there were only 300 000 of them out of a total population of 25 million, they owned three fifths of the land in France.
Gross, John. "A Tale of Two Cities." Dickens and the Twentieth Century. Ed. John Gross and Gabriel Pearson. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1962. 187-97.
In an oligarchy only a few are chosen to rule. A small group usually made out of the rich decides everything for the people. Like the laws, leaders, and other important political things. Poor people otherwise known as peasants had no say in the government. This idea of government was introduced during during the time of Ancient Greece. This type of government is great for people with money but if you don’t you don’t have a say in government at all, at least if you're alone. This is
Referencing his idealized evolution of government, he chronologically initiates in the following order: aristocracy, where high class societies hold hereditary offices; timocracy, those who loved to be honored; oligarchy, ruled by a coterie of those who know confidential political intel; democracy ruled by the people; tyranny, the absolute agency of all citizens in the city government. Succeedingly, the moral philosopher stressed aristocratic government as the most preferential due to the preservation of guardianship, critical law, and self-sufficiency. Socrates fear that all of those elements of aristocracy may possibly be devastated by the power of poetry. Furthermore, his entropic association with democracy lines up with the fear of emotional sentiment and individualism that may sprout from poetry and Homeric language. Plato suggests that the authority of poetry in directing one’s thought could disobey the truth of forms, thus shifting its perception of morality and justice.
Dickens, Charles. A Tale of Two Cities. 1859. Reprint. New York, NY: Barnes & Noble