The Nature of Absolutism

 Absolutism is that form of rule in which sovereignty is embodied in one person, who rules “absolutely,” although the term may be too strong. Absolute rulers claimed to rule by divine right; that is, God had made them King. The subjects of the realm were bound to obey the sovereign both as a matter of law and in obedience to the will of God. The idea of divine right was first promulgated by Jacques Bossuet, a French Priest who stated that kings ruled by virtue of the will of God, and their authority stemmed from God alone. The principle is perhaps best embedded in the motto of the Stuart Family (later Kings of England): Dieu et mon Droit (“God and my right.”) Absolute Monarchs of seventeenth and eighteenth century Europe were obligated to respect the fundamental laws of the land, even though they claimed to rule by divine right. For that reason, to claim that they ruled “absolutely” is perhaps a misnomer. However, they were considerably more powerful than medieval monarchs who had to rely on the loyalty of feudal nobility, the restraints of the church, and often lack of finances. In contrast, absolute monarchs were largely free of these restraints.

 Absolute rulers asserted their supreme right to proclaim laws and levy taxes, appointing more officials to carry out the details of government, and often multiplying the monetary demands they made upon their subjects. Subjects were directly affected by the rule of the sovereign. Often, the ruler was portrayed as a benevolent but stern father figure. An example is the comment of a Prussian that in school, no child would question “that the king could cut off the noses and ears of all his subjects if he wished to do so, and that we owed it to his goodness and his gentle disposition that he had left us in possession of these necessary organs.”

 Unlike Medieval monarchs, absolute rulers maintained standing armies. Medieval armies had been raised by feudal lords when the need arose, after which troops were disbanded. The monarchs of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries maintained paid armies in wartime and peace, both inside and outside the country. They often concerned themselves with the private lives of potential trouble makers, and were known to use secret police to keep their rivals in check. Their ability to maintain these armies resulted from the efficient governmental structure they maintained, and refined the process of collecting taxes.  For the first time, uniforms became standard equipment for every soldier. The French army, which stood at about 180,000 men in peacetime rose to 350,000 solders during the War of the Spanish Succession (1701-1714).

 As monarchs increased their power, the very reason for waging war changed. Wars of the previous century had been waged over rivalry between Catholics and Protestants. Religion still was a factor at times, such as the struggle between the Muslim Ottoman Empire and the Hapsburg Holy Roman Empire, “reasons of state” became the normal casus belli

 Whether fought for religious or purely political reasons, wars and standing armies were still expensive. During peacetime, military expenditures often represented one half of the government’s budget. During time of war, the number might rise as high as 80 per cent. Monarchs often borrowed heavily to finance their armies.  It was actually necessary for a monarch to maintain “good credit” which was earned by his repayment of indebtedness. The Dutch government, for instance, maintained a stellar credit rating, and was able to fight extended wars based on loans from the great banking houses of Amsterdam. France, to the contrary, was not trusted by bankers and investors. Even the sale of privileges and titles of nobility (the “nobility of the robe”) did not bring in sufficient funds, and French monarchs were forced to pay exorbitant rates of interest. This indebtedness continually grew and became a major factor in the French Revolution.

 It is important to realize that Absolutism was not Totalitarianism, a twentieth century phenomena. Under totalitarian rule, there is total regulation in which every element of the state’s culture is directed by a single person. Absolute monarchs of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries had no such power. They were limited by the lack of financial and military resources to impose total will on a country. Absolute monarchs saw themselves as embodying the state within themselves. Illustrative of this conviction was the remark allegedly made by Louis XIV, L’etat c’est moi (“I am the state.”) At the same time, they were aware that they were responsible for looking after the needs of the people whom they ruled. Bosuet wrote:

  “It is one thing for a government to be absolute, and quite another for it to be arbitrary. It is absolute in that it is not liable to constraint, there being no other power capable of coercing the sovereign, who is in this sense independent of all human nature…[but] it does not follow from this that the government is arbitrary, for besides the fact that all is subject to the judgment of God…there are also laws in states so that whatever is done contrary to them is null in a legal sense, moreover there is always an opportunity for redress, either at other times or in other conditions.”

Although many monarchs of the time were limited by representative bodies (Diets, Parlements, Estates-General), absolute monarchs managed to create an unprecedented concentration of governing power within themselves. For example, between 1614 and 1788 (a period of almost 175 years) the Estates General of France did not meet. During the entire seventeenth century, the Portuguese assembly of nobles did not meet at all.

Absolute rulers depended somewhat upon compliance from the noble class. The relationship between the two determined the extent to which the ruler’s power was absolute. This point is illustrated by the oath of loyalty sworn to by nobles of Aragon to the King of Spain: “We who are as good as you swear to you who are no better than we to accept you as our lord and king and sovereign lord, provided you observe all our liberties and laws, but if not, not.”

To insure support from the nobles, rulers often “confirmed” the noble’s title to lands and property. This lent itself to the notion that the title conferred upon them originated with the king himself, although titles of nobility were inherited. Noblemen were often happy to accept the ruler of the monarch as the latter often used his standing army to put down peasant revolts. They also reduced vagrancy and petty crime, and brutally put down any form of insurrection by the peasantry. Gradually peasants became more and more impoverished and lost their freedom, as they lost the ability to resist. The process was most extreme in Russia, where Peasants were reduced to serfdom. They were tied to the land, and had no right to marry or move away without the lord’s express consent.

In the Ottoman Empire, all lands were considered to be the private property of the sultan. He granted estates to those who served him, but because he recognized no rights of property, no hereditary nobility could develop.

Theories of Absolutism: The idea of absolute rule originated with French lawmakers of the late sixteenth century. It arose in part as a result of the chaos and confusion caused by the wars of religion. It embraced the concept that larger territorial states could be ruled by monarchs with considerable power, a direct contrast to the German states at the time of the Peace of Augsburg.  The people of Europe longed for peace and order after the devastation of religious warfare. Among these was the French jurist, Jean Bodin (1530-1596) who wrote in Six Books of the Republic (1576): “Seeing that nothing upon earth is greater or higher next unto God than the majesty of Kings and sovereign princes, the principle point of sovereign majesty and absolute power [is] to consist principally in giving laws unto the subjects in general, without their consent.  Almost one hundred years later, Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) of England (on of the few nations were absolutism never existed) wrote in Leviathan argued that absolutism alone could prevent society from regressing to a “state of nature” in which there was a constant “war of all against all,” that made life “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” He argued that people would only obey when they were afraid of the consequences of not doing so. Seeking individual security, individuals would inter into a type of social contract with their ruler, by which they surrendered their rights in exchange for protection.

Absolutism and Religion:  Absolute monarchs both aided in establishing a state religion but at the same time often intruded in religious matters. The establishment of a state religion dovetailed nicely with the monarch’s need for uniform acceptance of his authority. This was particularly true in the Catholic states where the church insisted on uniformity of belief and practice. Yet, even though they supported the established church, monarchs often reduced its autonomy. It was the Spanish monarch, not the church, which ended the Spanish Inquisition. In France and Spain, church property, primarily monasteries, were closed. In France and Austria, some religious orders were expelled. The state, rather than the church, assumed responsibility for education and the institution of marriage. By the Concordat of Bologna of 1516, the pope gave the kings of France virtual control over the appointment of bishops and other church officials in that country. In Russia, Peter the Great (my hero) forced the bishops of the Orthodox church to take an oath that they would not interfere in state affairs. By the end of the century, the Russian clergy had lost the right to be tried in their own courts.

In the Ottoman Empire, a virtual theocracy existed. The sultan was considered divine.  Government officials were often Muslim clergymen. The empire was expanded in the name of “Holy War” against infidels—that is anyone who was not Muslim. Prisoners of war were enslaved (it was commonly believed that the proper role of the non-believer was that of a slave) and imposed “slave levies” on Christian communities which they conquered.

For many years, European historians insisted that the Muslim Turks had forced nonbelievers to convert at the sword point, and that the Koran instructed them to “kill the infidel.” They also insisted that when Constantinople was captured, the Turks shut off Europe from the spice trade. This is untrue. Christians were considered “people of the book,” who deserved some degree of protection; and the Turks would have gladly taken European’s money in the spice trade. They did, however, consider non-believers as enslaveable. It was the Muslims who first began the wholesale trading of black slaves.

Religious diversity was tolerated, as long as non-Muslims did not resist Turkish authority. Many Christian children within the Ottoman Empire were trained as officials and soldiers and converted to Islam. Also, many Christians were employed as government servants, including Greek sailors who manned Turkish warships, and the “Janissary infantry,” a military corps with police power and fearsome fighting force. Many Christians captured in war converted to Islam rather than becoming galley slaves. Ironically, Christians made galley slaves of captured Muslims, but they remained slaves even if they converted to Christianity.

Absolutism and its Effects on Architecture and Art:  Absolute monarchs frequently designed their capitals to reflect their authority. Cities such as Versailles, St. Petersburg, Madrid, and Berlin were planned, shaped and displayed the symbols of absolute rule. They were laid out according to geometric principles; unlike the narrow winding streets that segmented other cities that had grown up unplanned. Wide boulevards were often constructed. Artists and architects were paid to combine baroque elements with classic style. An example is the Louvre palace (now a museum) in Paris, which was constructed in the style of a Roman Temple. The purpose was to relate the then King, Louis XIV, to the glory of Julius Caesar and other famous generals. During the early part of Louis reign, he was often portrayed as a Roman Commander. Louis represented the ultimate triumph of absolutism in Western Europe.

Louis was known for ostentation and show. He followed the advice of his minister, Jean-Batiste Colbert, who told him, “nothing marks the greatness of princes better than the buildings that compel the people to look on them with awe, and all posterity judges them by the superb palaces they have build during their lifetime.” Louis thus ordered his capital, Versailles, and everything around it constructed on a grand scale. The royal palace, still standing, had hundreds of rooms splendidly decorated. The royal dining room was so far from the kitchen that Louis’ food often arrived cold. During one particularly cold winter, his wine froze before he could taste it. The hallways were so long that many of the nobles who were required to attend him often urinated on the walls rather than make the long trip to the water closet.

Although a number of monarchs ruled Europe absolutely, the concept of Absolutism never took root in England. Although Henry VIII had wielded immense power, including accusations of treason against those who opposed him or were unable to meet his demands, even he had to rely on Parliament to pass the Act of Supremacy. In a speech to Parliament, Henry often used flattering words when addressing Parliament in order to secure the cooperation of the peers. He once described the government of England as one body with "the King the Head, and you, the Parliament its several members." It was from this statement that the phrase "Member of Parliament" arose. His daughter, Elizabeth, was very skilled at dealing with Parliament, and never attempted to rule without it. The most serious threat to Constitutional government in England was from Charles I, the second Stuart King, who attempted to rule without Parliament, and even waged war against it. He paid for this indiscretion with his head.