Showing posts with label absolutism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label absolutism. Show all posts

Sunday, January 22, 2017

Absolutism & Louis XIV

Absolutism & Louis XIV

Absolutism vs. Constitutionalism
Time Orientation: Atlantic Trade & Great Wealth
Colonization & Slave Trade
New Crops: High Volume = Great Wealth
Taxes
Wealth goes to the center of the government
Feudalist Economy vs. Absolutist Economy
Enlightened Despots
Producing Great Works
Hobbes vs. Locke
Louis XIV
Versailles


Tuesday, January 10, 2017

[Primary Source] -Monarchy- James I of England

James I of England (1603-1625) reigned as James VI of Scotland (1567-1625) before assuming the English throne. James was a defender of the rights of monarchs and of the divine origin of kingship.  

I. True Law of Free Monarchies

According to these fundamental laws already alleged, we daily see that in the parliament (which is nothing else but the head court of the king and his vassals) the laws are but craved by his subjects, and only made by him at their [proposal] and with their advice; for albeit the king make daily statutes and ordinances, [imposing] such pains thereto as he thinks [fit], without any advice of parliament or estates, yet it lies in the power of no parliament to make any kind of law or statute, without his sceptre [that is, authority] be to it, for giving it the force of a law . . . And as ye see it manifest that the king is over-lord of the whole land, so is he master over every person that inhabiteth the same, having power over the life and death of every one of them; for although a just prince will not take the life of any of his subjects without a clear law, yet the same laws whereby he taketh them are made by himself or his predecessors, and so the power flows always from himself . . . Where he sees the law doubtsome or rigorous, he may interpret or mitigate the same, lest otherwise summum jus be summa injuria [the greatest right be the greatest wrong], and therefore general laws made publicly in parliament may upon . . . [the kings] authority be mitigated and suspended upon causes only known to him.
As likewise, although I have said a good king will frame all his actions to be according to the law, yet is he not bound thereto but of his good will and for good example--giving to his subjects . . . So as I have already said, a good king, though he be above the law, will subject and frame his actions thereto, for example's sake to his subjects, and of his own free will, but not as subject or bound thereto . . .

II. A speech to parliament (1610)

 . . .The state of monarchy is the supremest thing upon earth, for kings are not only God's lieutenants upon earth and sit upon God's throne, but even by God himself they are called gods. There be three principal [comparisons] that illustrate the state of monarchy: one taken out of the word of God, and the two other out of the grounds of policy and philosophy. In the Scriptures kings are called gods, and so their power after a certain relation compared to the Divine power. Kings are also compared to fathers of families; for a king is truly parens patriae [parent of the country], the politic father of his people. And lastly, kings are compared to the head of this microcosm of the body of man . . .
I conclude then this point touching the power of kings with this axiom of divinity, that as to dispute what God may do is blasphemy . . . so is it sedition in subjects to dispute what a king may do in the height of his power. But just kings will ever be willing to declare what they will do, if they will not incur the curse of God. I will not be content that my power be disputed upon, but I shall ever be willing to make the reason appear of all my doings, and rule my actions according to my laws . . .
Now the second general ground whereof I am to speak concerns the matter of grievances . . . First then, I am not to find fault that you inform yourselves of the particular just grievances of the people; nay I must tell you, ye can neither be just nor faithful to me or to your countries that trust and employ you, if you do it not . . . But I would wish you to be careful to avoid [these] things in the matter of grievances.
First, that you do not meddle with the main points of government; that is my craft . . . to meddle with that, were to lessen me. I am now an old king . . . I must not be taught my office. Secondly, I would not have you meddle with such ancient rights of mine as I have received from my predecessors, possessing them more (as ancestral customs): such things I would be sorry should be accounted for grievances. All novelties are dangerous as well in a politic as in a natural body, and therefore I would be loath to be quarreled in my ancient rights and possessions: for that were to judge me unworthy of that which my predecessors had and left me.

From: Select Statutes and Other Constitutional Documents Illustrative of the Reigns of Elizabeth and James I, 3rd ed., ed., G. W. Prothero (Oxford; Clarendon Press, 1906) pp. 400-401 and 293-294. Reprinted in Marvin Perry, Joseph R. Peden and Theodore H. Von Laue, eds., Sources of the Western Tradition, Vol. II: From the Renaissance to the Present, 3rd ed., ( Boston; Houghton Mifflin Co.,1995) pp. 22-24

[Primary Source] -Monarchy- Sir Walter Ralegh, 1599

from The Dutie of a King in His Royal Office

Sir Walter Ralegh, 1599


       The state of monarchie is the supremest thing upon earth; for kings are not only Gods lieutenants upon earth, and sit upon Gods throne, but even by God himselfe they are called gods. There be three principall similitudes that ilustrate the state of monarchie: one taken out of the word of God; and the two other out of the grounds of policie and philosophie. In the scriptures, kings are called gods; and so their power, after a certaine relation, compared to the divine power. Kings are also compared to fathers of families: for a king is truely parens patriæ, the politique father of his people. And, lastly, kings are compared to the head of this microcosme of the body of man.
       Kings are justly called gods; for that they exercise a manner or resemblance of divine power upon earth. For, if you will consider the attributes of God, you shall see how they agree in the person of a king. God hath the powere to create or destroy, make or unmake, at his pleasure; to give life or send death, to judge all, and not to be judged nor accountable to none; to raise low things, and to make high things low at his pleasure, and to God are both soule and body due. And the like power have kings: they make and unmake their subjects; they have powers of raising and casting down; of life and of death; judges over all their subjects, and in all causes, and yet accountable to none but God only. They have power to exalt low things, and abase high things, and make of their subjects like men at the chesse; a pawne to take a bishop or a knight, and to cry up or down any of their subjects, as they do their money. And to the king is due both the affection of the soule and the service of the body of his subjects. And, therefore, that reverend bishop here amongst you, though I heare, that by divers he was mistaken, or not well understood, yet did he preach both learnedly and truly anent this point concerning the power of a king; for what he spake of a kings power in abstracto, is most true in divinitie: for to emperours, or kings that are monarches, their subjects bodies and goods are due for their defence and maintenance. But if I had been in his place, I would only have added two words, which would have cleared all; for, after I had told as a divine what was due by the subjects to their kings in generall all subjects were bound to relieve their king; so to exhort them, that, as we lived in a setled state of a kingdome, which was governed by his own fundamentall lawes and orders, that, according thereunto, they were now (being assembled for this purpose in parliament) to consider how to help such a king as now they had; and that according to the ancient forme and order established in this kingdome: putting so a difference between the generall power of a king in divinity and the setled and established state of this crown and kingdome. And I am sure that the bishop meant to have done the same, if he had not been straited by time, which, in repect of the greatnesse of the presence, preaching before me, and such an auditory, he durst not presume upon.
       As for the father of a familie, they had of old, under the law of nature, patriam postestatem, which was potestatem vitæ et necis, over the children or familie (I mean such fathers of families as were the lineall heires of those families whereof kings did originally come;) for kings had their first originall from them, who planted and spread themselves in colonies through the world. Now a father may dispose of his inheritance to his childten at his pleasure; yea, even disinherit the eldest upon just occasion, and preferre the youngest, according to his liking; make them beggars or rich at his pleasure; restraine or banish out of his presence, as he finds them give cause of offence, or restore them in favour againe with the penitent sinner: so may the king deale with his subjects.
       And, lastly, as for the head of the naturall body, the head hath the power of directing all the members of the body to that use which judgement in the head thinkes most convenient. It may apply sharp cures, or cut off corrupt members, let blood in what proportion it thinkes fit, and as the body may spare, but yet is all this power ordained by God ad ædificationem, non ad destructionem; for although God have power, as well of destruction as of creation or maintenance, yet will it not agree with the wisdome of God to exercise his power in the destruction of nature, and overturning the whole frame of things, since his creatures were made, that his glory might thereby be the better expressed: so were he a foolish father that would disinherit or destroy his children without cause, or leave off the carefull education of them; and it were an idle head that would, in place of physicke, so poyson or phlebotomize the body.