![]() ![]() ![]() While the animal metaphors are the opposite of those in ASOIAF, it’s clear that Robb Stark did “wish only to be only” a wolf, warlike, aggressive, and courageous, and did not cultivate the cunning and caution of the fox. If men were all good, this precept would not be a good one but as they are bad, and would not observe their faith with you, so you are not bound to keep faith with them.” (Machiavelli, Il Principe, Chapter XVIII) Therefore, a prudent ruler ought not to keep faith when by so doing it would be against his interest, and when the reasons which made him bind himself no longer exist. Those that wish to be only lions do not understand this. One must therefore be a fox to recognize snares, and a lion to frighten wolves. “A prince…must imitate the fox and the lion, for the lion cannot protect himself from snares, and the fox cannot defend himself from wolves. In explaining why virtuous conduct did not lead to virtuous outcomes for rulers, Machiavelli famously advised that: Robb Stark provides better evidence for the lethal honor thesis. One can find a host of examples where Eddard self-sabotages himself, but consider the infamous moment in which Eddard Stark tells Cersei Lannister to her face what he’s uncovered and what he plans to do – if Eddard Stark had already secured the loyalty of the Gold Cloaks, say by replacing the corrupt Janos Slynt with one of his own men, would it actually have harmed him and would the fans consider it proof that his honor did him in? And unlike his foster son, Jon Arryn didn’t die because his sense of honor led him to issue the political equivalent of a declaration of war ahead of a battle rather he was felled by an unforeseeable assassination – just like Tywin Lannister.Īlso in that essay, and throughout my chapter analyses on Race for the Iron Throne, I’ve pointed out that Eddard Stark’s chief failing in AGOT was a failure to make use of institutional power, as opposed to his choice to cling to honor in a dishonorable world. Likewise, in times of peace, Jon Arryn successfully uncovered the conspiracy hatched by Cersei and Jaime to place a Lannister on the Iron Throne and was prepared to unmask and purge them from power, a plan that Cersei entirely failed to protect herself against. For all that ruthlessness is held up as a chief virtue of statecraft in a time of war, it’s notable that the honorable and merciful Jon Arryn accomplished a historic feat in pulling half of the Great Houses of Westeros together into the first successful rebellion against the Iron Throne. While it’s certainly true that Jon Arryn was unable to prevent Robert’s overspending (or Littlefinger’s corruption, depending on how you look at it) and was assassinated in no small part because he trusted too widely, this was not the whole of his career. As I argue in “ Hands of the King: Two Honest Men,” Jon Arryn was more politically effective than he’s given credit for. However, I think the case can be extended a bit too far. And given that all three men died betrayed at the hands of men they had trusted, their cases stand as pretty strong evidence. If there are three figures most associated with the idea that honorable conduct is a one-way ticket to destruction, they would be Jon Arryn, long-serving Hand of the King and Lord Paramount of the Vale, Eddard Stark, the protagonist of A Game of Thrones (AGOT) who took up the deadly task of investigating his death, and Robb Stark, his oldest son who became King in the North in an effort to avenge his death. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |