Absolutism+in+England

Read the sources and answer the questions as follows

 **Source A: ** **An English Justification of Absolutism. From Leviathan, by Thomas Hobbes (Extract from Chapter 20). **

The only way to erect such a common power as may be able to defend them from the invasion of foreigners and the injuries of one another, and thereby to secure them in such sort as that by their own industry and by the fruits of the earth they may nourish themselves and live contentedly, is to confer all their power and strength upon one man, or upon one assembly of men, that may reduce all their wills by plurality of voices unto one will […] and therein to submit their wills, every one to his will, and their judgments to his judgment. This is more than consent or concord: it is a real unity of them all, in one and the same person, made by covenant of every man with every man. in such manner as if every man should say to every man, 'I authorize and give up my right of governing myself to this man, or to this assembly of men, on this condition, that thou give up thy right to him and authorize all his actions in like manner.' This done, the multitude so united in one person is called a 'commonwealth,' in Latin civitas. This is the generation of that great 'leviathan,' or, rather, to speak more reverently, of that 'mortal god,' to which we owe under the 'immortal God,' our peace and defence. For by this authority, given him by every particular man in the commonwealth, he [has] the use of so much power and strength conferred on him that by terror thereof he is enabled to perform the wills of them all, to peace at home and mutual aid against their enemies abroad. […] And he […] is called 'sovereign' and said to have 'sovereign power'; and every one be- sides his 'subject.' The attaining to this sovereign power is by two ways. One by natural force, as when a man [makes] his children to submit themselves and their children to his government, as being able to destroy them if they refuse […]. The other is when men agree amongst themselves to submit to some man, or assembly of men, voluntarily, on confidence to be protected by him against all others. This latter may be called a political commonwealth, or commonwealth by 'institution'; and the former a commonwealth by 'acquisition.'

 **Source B: On the Divine Right of Kings. King James I, Works (1609) **

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 are called gods. […] 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, the politique father of his people. And lastly, kings are compared to the head of this microcosm of the body of man. <span style="background: #e6e6e6; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; padding-bottom: 0cm; padding-left: 0cm; padding-right: 0cm; padding-top: 0cm;"><span style="font-family: 'Tahoma','sans-serif'; font-size: 11pt;">Kings are justly called gods, for that they exercise a manner or resemblance of divine power upon earth […] God [has] power to create or destroy, make or unmake at his pleasure, to give life or send death, to judge all and to be judged nor accountable to none; to raise low things and to make high things low at his pleasure […] And the like power have kings: they make and unmake their subjects, they have power 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… I conclude then […] 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. […] I will not be content that my power be disputed upon […] I would wish you to be careful to avoid three 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 lesson me […] 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 […] 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. […]

<span style="font-family: 'Tahoma','sans-serif'; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt 36pt; tabstops: list 36.0pt; tabstops: list 36.0pt; text-indent: -18pt;">1) Read **Source A.** What can you tell from this source about the roots of absolutist power? Support your answer with reference to the source. [6] <span style="font-family: 'Tahoma','sans-serif'; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt 36pt; tabstops: list 36.0pt; tabstops: list 36.0pt; text-indent: -18pt;">2) Read **Source B.** How far does this source show the fundaments on which King James absolutist power relied on? Explain your answer. [7] <span style="font-family: 'Tahoma','sans-serif'; font-size: 11pt; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt 36pt; tabstops: list 36.0pt; tabstops: list 36.0pt; text-indent: -18pt;">3) Read **both sources.** Is one of these sources more useful than the other as evidence about the characteristics of absolutism in Europe in general and in England in particular during the XVIIth century? Explain your answer. [7]

<span style="font-family: Impact,Charcoal,sans-serif; font-size: 150%;">Return to previous page