Nicholas Henshall: Myth of Absolutism. Change and Continuity in Early Modern European Monarchy (original) (raw)
Related papers
A Thing or Two about Absolutism and its Historiography
History of European Ideas, 39:2 (2013), pp. 287-300, 2013
This essay closely examines the highly contested but widely employed historiographical category ‘absolutism’. Why are scholars so divided on whether it is even legitimate to use the term and, if they agree to do so, why are they still much at odds in explaining what it is? What are the main historiographical currents in the study of absolutism? Is it the same thing to speak of absolutism in regard to the practices of early modern European monarchies and with reference to the political ideas of so-called absolutist theorists? By addressing these questions through the methodology of intellectual history, this essay provides a comprehensive account of debates on absolutism and, at the same time, suggests that further work needs to be carried out on its theoretical aspects. In this respect, the author will propose a series of key ideas and principles which are meant to encapsulate the core of an early modern doctrine of absolutist monarchical sovereignty. It will also be argued that, when studying political thought, the term ‘absolutism’ might be abandoned in favour of the plural ‘absolutisms’ as a better way of understanding the past, its languages, opinions, people. In so doing, a thorough analysis of what political absolutism(s) is will be set forth, and a series of more general considerations on history-writing will also be advanced.
Richelieu and Pombal: the Absolutism by the Ministers of the King
Introduction 1 - Brief profile of the protagonists 1.1- Louis XIII, the Just. 1.2 - Cardinal de Richelieu 1.3 - D. José I, the Reformer 1.4 - Marquis de Pombal 2 - The Absolutism in France: the management of Richelieu 3 - The Absolutism in Portugal: the management of Pombal 4 - Comparative elements Conclusion References Annex I – Pictures The political system known as Absolutism has always been like that an irresistible attraction for leaders of all times. In fact, it will be tempting for the rulers the opportunity to exercise power without being held accountable for their actions, not having to negotiate the measures that their 'superior' judgment deems necessary to take. To the present day, only the Popes of the Church of Rome stood these prerogatives continuously, as God's representatives on earth. The Kings and Emperors had only a small fraction of them, for short (by historical standards) time periods. There have been cases, however, where this absolute power has shifted to the King's Ministers, who, for their strong personality, imposed a unique style of governance on behalf of the sovereign. They were absolutist, because detained a virtually unlimited power that used to implement deep structural reforms in their countries, without the need to accommodate any other guidelines than those based on their own judgment of what would be the best for the future. Two paradigms of this absolute form of government were Cardinal de Richelieu in the seventeenth century France and the Marquis de Pombal in the eighteenth century Portugal. Both where favorites of the King and both staged a concept of state, one and indivisible in the monarch's person, to which everyone should submit whatever their social status. Their struggles were almost always against a nobility for whom the idea of the state amounted only to all their personal fiefdoms, in which every noble Lord and King was just a primus inter pare, a first among equals who was delegated authority, but it would be obeyed to the best of conveniences of those nobles. This work aims to characterize not only the personalities and the management of these two symbols of Absolutism, but also the conditions under which they could ascend to power, necessarily including the possible characterization of the sovereign who turn out to be somewhat overshadowed in History by the actions of his Minister.
Absolutism and representative government in France and Austria
Academia Letters, 2021
This paper is a comparison of French and Austrian absolutism, particularly as it pertains to the relationship between the crown and representative and judicial institutions. It analyzes the relationship between the French monarchy and the Estates General, the provincial estates, and the parlements, especially the Parlement of Paris, and the relationship between the Habsburg monarchy and the Austrian estates, especially the estates of Lower Austria. It analyzes the role of these institutions in French and Austrian governance, particularly the granting of taxation and the lending of money by them to the respective governments. In 1439, the Estates General granted Charles VII a taille of 100,000 livres; henceforth, the government would continue to seek consent to taxation from the provincial and local estates. 1 In 1484, the Estates General voted taxes for the last time; after this meeting, the government continued to collect the taille without the Estates' consent. The crown would thereafter obtain consent to taxation at the provincial level. 2 The Estates did not meet between 1484 and 1560; they became a body which met only in times of crisis or royal weakness. According to Bernard Barbiche, the Estates General did not become an "ordinary institution, essential for the normal, smooth functioning of the state." 3 By the eighteenth century, there were four grand pays d'états: Brittany, Burgundy, Provence and Languedoc. The primary function of the provincial estates was to vote taxes for the royal government, and they also played an important role in the administration of their provinces. Unlike the Estates General, the provincial estates met at regular intervals: annually in Langue
This article focuses on the highly contested but widely employed historiographical category ‘absolutism.’ It illustrates the origins of the term and provides an account of its main scholarly interpretations. Together with showing how divided academic opinions are with regard to the meaning(s) of ‘absolutism,’ the following pages ask whether it is the same thing to speak of absolutism with regard to the practices of early modern European monarchies or with reference to the political ideas of so-called absolutist theorists. In so doing, this article provides a comprehensive account of debates on absolutism and, at the same time, suggests that further work needs to be carried out on its theoretical aspects. In this respect, particular attention is directed to a series of key principles, which are meant to encapsulate the core of an early modern doctrine of absolutist monarchical sovereignty. This will help to delineate the history of absolutism (term, practice, and concept) in its multifarious political aspects and its rich theoretical dynamics.