Forgot to put this one up--read this a little while back as part of my survey of late sixteenth-century political thought--or rather, I read the two most important parts of it: the Basilikon Doron and the Trew Lawe of Free Monarchies. I first read the latter back in freshman year, in History class. I remember being impressed even then with the winsomeness of James's argument, and surprised at myself, such an anti-federalist then, for being so attracted to a "royal absolutist." But the appeal was still there this time around, and I couldn't help but find myself cheering along when he scored points against the Presbyterians. I'm still not sure what it is, but I have this vague idea that the sober realism with which someone like James views the limitations of the political sphere, and the need to simply live with those limitations and trust God to judge and failures, actually, "royal absolutist" or not, may support a more limited government than the kind of political perfectionism of rebellious republicans, for all its talk of putting checks upon the power of kings. I felt the same way when I read De Maistre, whose perspective is remarkably similar to James. Anyway, it's still just a vague hunch--if anyone has any light to shed on it, please do.The Basilikon Doron is a remarkably wise and eloquent letter of instruction to his son Charles on the virtues necessary to be a good king--if reading this little gem doesn't turn you into a Jacobite sympathizer, nothing will.