Theories+on+the+absolutist+state+and+the+power+of+absolute+kings

read the sources and answer the questions

Source: Jean Domat (1625-1696): On Social Order and Absolute Monarchy. //Jean Domat (1625-1696) was a renowned French jurist in the reign of Louis XIV, the king who perfected the practice of royal absolutism. Domat made it his life's task to explain the theory behind this absolutism by setting French law and social structure into the wider context of the law of nature and the law of God.// “Everyone knows that human society forms a body of which each person is a member; and this truth, which Scripture teaches us and which the light of reason makes clear, is the foundation of all the duties that relate to the conduct of each person toward others and toward the body as a whole. For these sorts of duties are nothing else but the functions appropriate to the place each person holds according to his rank in society. (…)  For it is through the place God has given to each person in the body of society, that He prescribes all his functions and duties. And just as He commands everyone to obey loyally the precepts of His law that make up the duties of all people in general, so He stipulates for each one in particular the duties appropriate to his condition and status, according to his rank in the body of which he is a member. Because all men are equal by nature, that is to say, by their basic humanity, nature does not make anyone subject to others .... But within this natural equality, people are differentiated by factors that make their status unequal….The first distinction that subjects (subordinates) people to others is the one created by birth between parents and children. And this distinction leads to a first kind of government in families, where children owe obedience to their parents, who head the family. The second distinction among persons arises from the diversity of employments required by society, and which unite them all into a body of which each is a member. For just as God has made each person depend on the help of others for various needs (…) This also **makes it necessary to have a head to unite and rule the body of the society** created by these various employments, and **to maintain the order of the relationships** that give the public the benefit of the different functions corresponding to each person's station in life. It is a further consequence of these principles that, since all people do not do their duty and some, on the contrary, commit injustices, for the sake of keeping order in society, injustices and all activities against this order must be repressed: which was possible only through **authority given to some over others**, and which **made government necessary**. This necessity of government over people equal by their nature, distinguished from each other only by the **differences that God established** among them according to their stations and professions, makes it clear that **government arises from His will**; and because only **He is the natural sovereign of men, it is from Him that all those who govern derive their power and all their authority**, and it is God Himself Whom they represent in their functions. Since government is necessary for the public good, and God Himself has established it, it is consequently also necessary for those who are subject to government**, to be submissive and obedient**. For otherwise they would resist God Himself. The first duty of obedience to government is the duty to obey those who hold the first place in it, monarchs or others who are the heads of the body that makes up society, and to obey them as the parts of the human body obey the head to which they are united. This obedience to him who governs should be considered as obedience to the power of God Himself, Who has instituted the prince as His lieutenant. //(…)//  According to these principles, which are the natural foundations of the authority of those who govern, their power must have two essential attributes: one, to make that justice rule from which their power is entirely derived, and the other, to be **as absolute as the rule** **of God**. (…)  Among the rights that the laws give the sovereign should be included [the right] to display all the signs of splendor and majesty necessary to make clear the authority and dignity of such wide-ranging and superior power, and to impress veneration for it upon the minds of all subjects. For although they should see in it the power of God Who has established it and should admire it apart from any visible signs of greatness, nevertheless since God accompanies His own power with visible splendor on earth and in the heavens as in a throne and a palace.”

1) Who was Jean Domat? What is the aim of this writing? [5] 2) What metaphor provides the basis for Domat's theories? [5] 3) How does Domat prove that government is necessary? Use evidence from the source. [6] 4) How the subjects should conduct themselves according to Domat’s theory? Use evidence. [6] 5) How did Domat justify absolutism and the king’s luxurious life? Use evidence. [6]

**Source: **Bishop Bossuet: //Politique tiree des propres paroles de l' Ecriture sainte (1709) //.In France, the torch of Absolutism was carried by Bishop Bossuet (1627-1704). In 1709, Bossuet published a powerful theological defense of Absolutism entitled Politics Drawn from Holy Scripture. He was a theologian at the court of the French "Sun King" Louis XIV; Bossuet was one of history's most fervent defenders of absolute monarchy. For him, only God stands above the person of the king, and the king's authority cannot be challenged by any other human being. He used parts of the Bible to justify Absolutism. “We have already seen that all power is of God. The ruler, adds St. Paul, "is the minister of God to him for good. But if you do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenge to execute fury upon him that doeth evil." Rulers then act as the ministers of God and as his lieutenants on earth. it is through them that God exercises his empire. Think "to endure the kingdom of the Lord in the hand of the sons of David"? Consequently, as we have seen, the royal throne is not the throne of a man, but the throne of God himself. The Lord "hath chosen Solomon my son to sit upon the throne of the kingdom of the Lord over Israel." And again, "Solomon sat on the throne of the Lord." (…)  <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">It appears from all this that the person of the king is sacred, and that to attack him in any way is sacrilege. God has the kings anointed by his prophets with the holy unction in like manner as he has bishops and altars anointed. But even without the external application in thus being anointed, they are by their very office the representatives of the divine majesty deputed by Providence for the execution of his purposes. . .  <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">There is something religious in the respect accorded to a prince. The service of God and the respect for kings are bound together. St. Peter unites these two duties when he says, "Fear God. Honour the king.". . .  <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">But kings, although their power comes from on high, as has been said, should not regard themselves as masters of that power to use it at their pleasure ;. . . they must employ it with fear and self-restraint, as a thing coming from God and of which God will demand an account. (…)  <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">Kings should tremble then as they use the power God has granted them; and let them think how horrible is the sacrilege if they use for evil a power which comes from God. We behold kings seated upon the throne of the Lord, bearing in their hand the sword which God himself has given them. What profanation, what arrogance, for the unjust king to sit on God's throne to render decrees contrary to his laws and to use the sword which God has put in his hand for deeds of violence and to slay his children! . .  <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">The royal power is absolute. With the aim of making this truth hateful and insufferable, many writers have tried to confound absolute government with arbitrary government. But no two things could be more unlike, as we shall show when we come to speak of justice. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">The prince need render account of his acts to no one. This conforms with the teaching of St. Paul: "Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good." <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">I do not call majesty that pomp which surrounds kings or that exterior magnificence which dazzles the vulgar. That is but the reflection of majesty and not majesty itself. Majesty is the image of the grandeur of God in the prince. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">God is infinite, God is all. The prince, as prince, is not regarded as a private person: he is a public personage, all the state is in him; the will of all the people is included in his. As all perfection and all strength are united in God, so all the power of individuals is united in the person of the prince. What grandeur that a single man should embody so much!”

1) What position does the author of this piece hold? [5]

2) What principles lie behind Bishop Bossuet's theory of government? [5]

3) What alternative justifications for absolute monarchy are given in the other assigned readings (Domat)? Find similarities and differences [7]


 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">Source: **<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">Niccolò Machiavelli, //The Prince// (1513)

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;"> "From this the question arises whether it is better to be loved more than feared, or feared more than loved. The reply is, that one ought to be both feared and loved, but as it is difficult for the two to go together, it is much safer to be feared than loved … for it may be said of men in general that they are ungrateful, … anxious to avoid danger, and greedy. … Men find it easier to attack one who makes himself loved than one who makes himself feared. …  <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;"> A prince … must imitate the fox and the lion, for the lion cannot protect himself from traps, and the fox cannot defend himself from wolves. One must therefore be a fox to recognize traps, and a lion to frighten wolves. … Therefore, a wise ruler ought not keep his word when by so doing it would be against his interest. … If men were all good, this [rule] would not be a good one; but as they are bad, and would not be honest with you, so you are not bound to keep your word with them. …"


 * 1) 9. Why does Machiavelli believe that men must be controlled? Use evidence from the source. [7]