Political Theory in Early Modern Europe Early modern thinkers, although they differed in opinions about the fundamentals of the design of an ideal government, had a surprising amount of middle ground. Although the best forms of rulers, where the origin of the power of the ruler came from, and the best design for a functioning society were all things these early modern thinkers disagreed on, they could agree the purpose of the government was to serve the people. As Bishop Jaques-Benigne Bossuet said, “[P]rinces should understand that their true glory is not for themselves, and that the public good which they procure is a sufficiently worthy recompense on earth, while awaiting the eternal rewards which God has reserved for them....” (49-50). Even if far-off rewards of God didn’t serve as a motivator for a government to work for the people, the far more direct rewards of a properly functioning society can serve as an added incentive. Thomas Hobbes believed that there was power in being in a government ruled by many, for each man could be both sovereign and servant of his society. With the purpose of …show more content…
“(…) [C]orruption which was in them had begun to spread through its members; (and) as the members had been corrupted it was impossible ever again to reform her (the state), (Machiavelli, 25). Montagu said it was “luxury and corruption” cased the decline of the Roman Republic (Montagu 51). With this corruption and shift of morality for the worse, it becomes nearly impossible for the people of a government to achieve a strong and working system without being under the control of a tyrant. They have given up their liberty as a self-sufficient state in exchange for liberty as individuals. Because none of them are working toward a similar goal, no progress is ever to be made for the progression of their society and individual lives. “[C]orruption was the cause of infinite tumults,” (Machiavelli) and eternal