History Repeats Itself (“Absolutism was a claim of rulers, seldom realised in practice.”)
#Absolutism is the political doctrine and practice of unlimited, centralized authority and absolute sovereignty held by a monarch or #dictator. The essence of this type of system is that the #power of the monarch is unchallenged by any of the following institutions: judicial, legislative, religious, economic or electoral. In this #essay, I will argue whether the definition above applies to the reality of absolutism by examining the reign of the #Louis XIV between 1643 and 1715.
From the distance of time and by examining some facts it seems that absolutism adjusted itself to the circumstances of the period and developed within #society as the first building block in the formation of the #modern state. In order to give a clear answer whether Louis XIV had an absolute or limited power, I will start with some pre-history and move onto the theory and practice, by enhancing on the limitations and lack of effectiveness of royal power. In conclusion, I will stress the need of understanding the term in its historical context rather than accepting the actual meaning of the word “absolute”.
By the time Louis XIV came into power the foundations of the absolute state were already laid by his father with the help of Richelieu’s program of centralizing the state.
The estates, authorities consisted of townsmen, nobles, and clergy, helped the crown impose effective taxation on the provinces. The church with its powerful ability to shape social opinion rooted the belief in the divine rights of the king, which was also the key element in the absolutist ideology. Another reason for people’s consent and acceptance of the strengthening of state power was the fact that they were exhausted of the religious wars and the tyranny of their feudal despots. In the concentration of power aristocracy, clergy and peasants hoped for security. Most of them believed in the idea of the benevolent, wise #monarch who will look after their interests.
To understand an absolute monarchy we need to examine the personality of the ruler. Although the king didn’t possess the ultimate and absolute power as it is physically impossible for him to take part in each and every policy, law and decision making concerning such a vast territory like France, Louis XIV found a really clever way to maintain state control. In 1682 #Versailles became the official residence of the king, a formidable instrument of power the palace accommodated the nobility. Along with the political dominance came a cultural control designed to build the cult of “le Roi Solei” (The Sun King). He created academies, which provided the state need of educated bureaucrats and military specialists. Cultural dominance and censorship resulted in unprecedented political power. State and church united through the absolutist doctrines and gave justification of the monarch’s power to make laws, collect taxes, administer justice, determine culture, finance, and warfare, in other words, have “monopolized power” and “royal autocracy”.
How the state apparatus managed this responsibility and power is completely different matter from the theory of the absolute monarchy. The Sun King created a grand spectacle, a daily routine of ceremonies that occupied his attention leaving not much time for initiating policies on his own. Often his decisions were influenced either by his “unofficial think-tank” or his official ministers. Laws and policies were carefully selected and suggested to the king. Neither was possible for him to be an expert in the broad activities of the state nor was he eager to be one. His personal interests were related mostly to exposing and reaffirming the impression of being the all mighty king.
A major weakness of the absolutist state was the flourishing of the venality of office and royal #patronage. The result was #corruption, inefficiency, continuous opposition and delays when it came to royal legislation. This was a definite restriction on the monarch’s authority and shows that the interaction between state and society plays an important role in the practical aspect of the absolute system.
Louis XIV never initiated a reform that could solve the financial problems and rationalise the administrative system. Instead, #wars were fought, taxation imposed and new offices created increasing the burden of debt. This is how mismanaging state finance made the monarchy dependent on the financiers. All this in addition to the significant growth of state administration not only limited Louis’s grasp on power but also made for the French state difficult to sustain itself.
It seems that by the end of the Sun King’s reign the state has taken over the power of the monarch. The system might be absolute but it no longer submitted to the power of one master. A group of state servants occupying different posts in a wide range of offices, running them as a private business with the sole purpose of fulfilling their own interests in the absence of state regulation.
In the transition from #feudalism to #capitalism France experienced the period of absolutism seen as the system that laid the foundations of the modern state. Although Louis XIV implemented fundamental changes in the state apparatus along with establishing cultural dominance and the cult of his personality he was unable to exercise total control over his subjects. Therefore we can see the kings’ major role in balancing the power between different factions. In this process, the monarch lost his actual #authority although his royal glamour stayed intact. This is why today we question the concept of the absolutist state because if we look beyond the meaning of the actual words we can see the harsh reality of the absolute monarchy where the power of the monarch was, in theory, unchallenged but in practice limited.
Originally published on July 6th, 2009