LOUIS XIV -- ABSOLUTISM

NB : These notes are the first draft and will be updated. EVERYTHING that will be on these notes -- even after updating -- will have been covered in at least one of the three following ways:

(a) In lessons

(b) On worksheets handed out

(c) In the textbook -- you are expected to have undertaken the reading

LOUIS XIV AND ABSOLUTISM

You will need to know how far Louis extended Royal Absolutism. Read through the notes and then read the essay at the end. this is what the examiner is looking for -- evidence that you know what is meant by absolutism, evidence that you know why louis wanted to extend power, evidence that you know areas where royal authority was extended, evidence that you know that there were limitations, evidence that you know that much of the whole debate centres around Louis' use of propaganda to create image, evidence that you know that Louis never really achieved royal absolutism but did increase power of Crown.

Background

 · Louis epitomised royal authority. Often seen as the creator of successful government from the top down. 

· Absolutism = king derived power from God and could exercise it without restraint. He was not bound to any earthly authority. This was the norm for European kings in Seventeenth Century.

 · Louis could institute new taxes and regulate all aspects of legal privilege and local administration without any constitutional check on his authority. He was not required to consult his subjects. 

· Elite groups increasingly looked to Crown to protect their interests and royal court became social standard setter for aristocracy. 

· Louis' role as King so central and crucial that his strengths and weaknesses mattered. Absolutism in Theory 

· Denotes a regime in which power concentrated in hands of a king who could act without any legal limitations on his sovereignty. 

· Does NOT equate with modern dictatorships. 

· Term not coined until around 1830 - contemporaries never used term, but did talk of "absolute power" of the Crown, which they understood to mean the concentration of sovereign authority in the hands of the king. 

· Absolute power was not totalitarian because early modern kings had neither the inclination nor the resources to direct the lives of their subjects in any comprehensive way. 

· Absolute power was based on the divine right theory that kings were chosen by God to rule and that they should follow divine and natural law in doing so. It did not mean that they were allowed to act arbitrarily or despotically; it meant instead that when they exercised the fullness of their authority, they could not be limited by institutional or social checks.

 · Theory of absolute monarchy contradicted any theory saying king derived authority from people or aristocracy. It also denied any right of resistance on the part of constituted bodies, such as representative assemblies, law courts, or groups of magistrates. 

French Absolutism in Practice

 · In practice, King's power constrained in several important ways. 

(a) First, he had to answer directly to God for his actions - no small responsibility given influence of Catholic faith on France.

 (b) Second, he was considered bound by the so-called fundamental laws of the realm. These were unwritten, customary precepts about the nature of the monarchy. The three generally accepted fundamental laws were : (1) the Salic law, which decreed that the throne passed in the direct male line, excluding women; (2) the rule that the royal domain (property) could not be sold off (alienated); and (3) the idea that the king should uphold the Catholic faith. 

(c) Thirdly - and most importantly - the king was limited by contemporary concepts of natural law, which meant he was expected to respect rights, freedoms, privileges, and property of his subjects. He was above the law in the sense he could suspend rules and change procedures when he acted in general interest. Nevertheless, he was viewed as defender of a mystical body politic that was understood to include the existing hierarchical society in which private individuals and groups enjoyed distinctive rights and privileges. This mandate left room for interpretation. The king could act cautiously, consulting powerful groups frequently and acting as referee in their quarrels. Or he could intervene more dynamically by organising new ways to mobilise state power. In either case, he would meet with resistance if he appeared weak or if his government was divided, and he would find widespread support when he affected the role of princely protector.

 (d) Fourthly, whatever their claims, French kings had only gradually established their authority over the territory of France. Through the centuries, they had laboriously pieced together a patchwork of provinces, sometimes seeing them slip away only to return at a later date. Each province struck a different deal with the crown when it was incorporated into the realm. Privileges and laws were confirmed, existing institutions maintained, powerful groups bought off with favours. Faced with a different situation in each of their provinces and towns, the kings had to work through existing institutions, or create new ones that duplicated the functions of the old ones, if they wanted to establish any sort of uniform control.

 (e) Fifthly, he was limited by a lack of repressive institutions such as a secret police. The case for Absolutism · Absolutism must have appealed to Louis - France was large country and took weeks to get message from one end to another - difficult to impose authority. France had also undergone long period of unrest and royal weakness - Wars of Religion, Frondes. · Louis scarred by Frondes - had been forced to flee palace, seen mother humiliated, Chief Minister forced to flee, attacks on monarchy had escalated and there was open plotting with Spain against the Crown. · Louis - and many contemporaries - keen to end disorder through strong monarch. 

ABSOLUTISM CONFIRMED, 1661

 · Most of apparatus of absolutism existed in 1661.

 · Louis decided best way to control France was to rule it personally - broke with tradition since traditionally country governed by Chief Ministers, like Richelieu and Mazarin. This was check on absolute power of king. 

· Day after Mazarin died (10 March 1661), Louis summoned advisers. One expected to be new Chief Minister. 22 year old king surprised them all by announcing he would not have one. 

· Many assumed king would soon get bored and spend time on mistresses and pleasure - they were wrong; he took position seriously. For next 54 years he was his own Chief Minister. 

· Louis was no innovator - he was a conservative who set out to achieve results by development and adaption of existing institutions. 

· Louis continued to use royal councils. He always respected the expert opinions of his councillors, but the extent of their influence is hard to measure. 

· Like Mazarin, Louis was determined to ensure that the Council consisted of his men. He excluded royal princes and church leaders. 

· Use to be believed that his ministers were middle-class administrators - view generated by hostility of Duc de Saint-Simon. However, Louis was a snob and his advisers were members of at least the lesser nobility.

 · The most important administrators were Chancellor, Controller-General and the four Secretaries of State. All men were answerable to the king. 

· France was not over burdened with administrators - been calculated at most 1000 administrators - must have been industrious.

 · Yet how efficient was the administration? The execution of royal orders depended on co-operation of the officials throughout France.

· Local government at time mixture of corruption, moral blackmail and genuine public service. Most office-holders had bought their posts. The Crown had created posts in order to raise short-term cash, rather than because it needed officials - meant lots of officials - they tried to recover cost of office through bribes and corruption.

 · Louis' main concern was to raise taxes to pay for wars against Dutch. Collection of taxation not easy. In some areas, pays d'etats, local estates negotiated with Crown's representative to establish total revenue to be raised. Crown then raised money anyway it could. In pays d'election, government had more direct control - taxes collected by syndicates of tax collectors, but system not efficient - money often went missing, people to poor to pay etc. 

· To combat problem of raising taxes, Louis made greater use of intendants. Intendants served for limited period in area with which they had no connection. They did not buy their offices and could be dismissed by king. There were 31 intendants when Louis became king in 1661. 

· Used to be believed that Crown used intendants at expense of traditional local power figures, such as provincial governors or aristocracy, but recent research shows this was not the case. Instead they tended to co-operate to support each other. In reality intendants had been introduced to strengthen provincial governors. Nor did Louis have any wish to clash with the nobility. Under Louis, intendants were instructed to adopt low profile, to co-operate with local elites and avoid confrontation if possible. 

· Opposition to the intendants came from the parlements (royal courts where noblesse de robe - lesser nobility - who had made career in law - exercised authority). They saw intendants as threat to power. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SYSTEM BY LOUIS XIV

 · Louis was conservative by nature but determined to be in control - innovated where necessary. 

· Louis determined to centralise bureaucracy - in 1682 all departments accompanied him to Versailles - improvement in previous system where departments scattered across Paris.

 · So what changes were there under Louis' personal rule? Most historians see it as period of continuity rather than revolution. Yet were significant developments - Louis broke with tradition of Chief Minister and increased size and professionalism of royal bureaucracy.

 · There are 3 areas where Louis' absolutism did seem to increase 

(a) THE LAW 

· Problem of law - was Louis' power limited by subjects' legal rights, did he need to consult parlements on laws, how did he tackle entrenched profession?

 · Louis immediately set out to reduce power of legal profession. He set out to do this by replacing them in administration by career administrators.

 · Example of this can be seen in Chancellor - had been dominant member of Council - Louis engineered his replacement as main councillor by Colbert. To make matters worse it was Colbert, rather than the Chancellor, who introduced legal reforms. Backed by King, he introduced civil code (1667), criminal code (1670), maritime code (1672) and commercial code (1673). Purpose of codes to speed up legal process. Louis consulted parlements but it was his council of justice, dominated by Colbert, that took decisions. 

· Louis took various measures to reduce powers of parlements - eg in 1661 stated royal council's decreess had precedence over parlement's, from 1673 parlements of Paris had to register royal edicts at once and could only then remonstrate - parlement had lost control over legislation - example of absolutism in action. 

· Now Louis had control over legal profession, decided to exploit it to full. Investigations began into ancestry of nobles, king's lawyers orchestrated attack on Huguenots and justified legal basis of his foreign policy.

 (b) THE ARMY

 · Strength of monarchy lay in its command of army and king's role of leading army into battle. Louis' predecessors had done this. 

· However under predecessors, there had been military conspiracies against Crown and rank and file often cause for concern. 

· Louis dominated army through sheer professionalism - won respect of all sections of army by demonstrating ability as a soldier. 

· For much of reign Louis adopted role of supreme commander - co-ordinating armies - did this with authority and determination.

 · The fact he often personally led army into battle, as against Dutch, inspired troops and demonstrated strategic ability.

 · Won soldiers' gratitude as organiser and administrator, establishing Invalides hospital in Paris for wounded and retired soldiers. 

· Louis keen on war and camp life - cared about soldiers' welfare, well-informed on military matters and army's morale improved when Louis led in person.

 · Main reason for Louis' success in dominating armies was establishment of his authority over officer corps - due in part to his campaign to control and tame France's aristocracy, but also due to Louis' attention to detail - he appointed all officers as it was a royal army.

 · Louis was helped in his bid to establish absolutism over army by Le Tellier, marquis of Louvois. His father, Michel Le Tellier, had commanded the army under Mazarin and the first years of Louis' personal rule. Louvois was an able administrator - developed magazines as centres for supplying armies with food and equipment. Regularly paid and fed, soldiers became more reliable and better disciplined. Louvois increased centralised direction of France's armies. Under Louvois generals ceased to be independent agents and came under control of king and his war minister - took time. Louvois has been criticised but unpopularity due to success in subordinating army commanders to crown. Louis benefited while Louvois took blame. 

· When Louvois died in 1691, Louis became in effect his own war minister. His control of the army was now all-pervasive. 

(c) CONTROL OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT FROM THE CENTRE 

· Local government posed no major problem for the king. The areas were ruled by aristocrats and office-holders, all of whom were the king's men.

 · Little threat to Louis' absolutism as mutual interest between king and governing classes. Were signs of defiance but usually ruling classes in agreement with king over areas such as public disorder.

 · Despite this lack of threat, Louis intervened, particularly under Colbert. This was mainly due to need for money to finance Louis' wars and building projects. Colbert was required to find the money. This is why he was forced to intervene in local government. This was achieved by increasing authority and responsibilities of intendants. Colbert presided over whole administrative structure from the centre.

 · Examination of Colbert shows how absolutism worked in practice. His first priority was to gather up-to-date accurate information. His special representatives, the intendants, were Colbert's eyes and ears. They had to select the right compromise between excessive attention to detail on the one hand and superficiality on the other.

 · Yet no matter how reliable the data in the pays d'etats, collection of taxes often depended on influence of local governors and bishops rather than intendants. In 1662 the Governor of Burgundy tried to raise 1,500,000 livres, but after long and protracted discussions had to settle on 1,000,000. 

· Raising money from the towns was just as difficult as many were in debt. Colbert had to ensure that the mayors and their deputies were reliable. 

· The most persistent problem was rural poverty. Often peasants found themselves unable to pay taxes. Colbert advised restraint and again and again insisted that peasants' livestock should not be confiscated in lieu of unpaid tax; for what was the sense in totally ruining the taxpayer of the future by depriving him of his manure?

 · Colbert urged the intendants to be sceptical about reasons for non-payment, since excuses were often exaggerated. Similarly tax exemption for fathers of ten or more children must not be granted where children have died. 

· Colbert and his successors laboured tirelessly to raise revenue - often did deals or resorted to force. However, generally king and Colbert forced to compromise. Louis achieved co-operation by making concessions, granting privileges and accepting half a loaf when he might have hoped for more. Colbert achieved success as a fixer rather than as bully. This was absolutism by negotiation. 

· This negotiation had great success and testifies to Louis' increasingly effective absolutism. Not only did revenues increase considerably beyond high levels already achieved under Richelieu and Mazarin, but the regularity and relative ease with which these vast sums were collected are highly significant and indicative of the sheer power of royal absolutism. 

THE ESSENTIAL FEATURES OF LOUIS XIV'S KINGSHIP 

· The absolutist state did develop in certain areas, but was this due to Louis or his skilful ministers? · Louis was an extremely industrious monarch. He saw himself as the embodiment of the state, but also its servant. Louis ruled for 54 years. He devoted his life to service for he was convinced of the validity of his task - he had been chosen by God to rule France. 

· Louis was well informed, both as a result of personal interviews with specialists and hours of study. The king followed a strict routine and nothing was allowed to interfere with that. 

· Yet how well informed was Louis? He had to rely on information from others. Sometimes he did not get it all - Louvain for instance shielded Louis from the truth about the persecution of the Huguenots.

 · The king was also clearly influenced by ministers such as Colbert.

 · Yet Louis never a cipher - determined to rule and his opinions were ones that mattered. He may have relied on able ministers, but he was the one who chose and led them. 

· Louis was slow to take decisions and was often indecisive. To hurry him up his advisers tended to give the advice which they thought he wanted to hear; the events leading to the Dutch War illustrate this tendency. As Louis got older he relied on less able men - this may explain some of the disastrous decisions of latter reign. 

· There was certainly a change as Louis got older. As he got older he permitted less discussion at meetings.

HAVING READ THE NOTES, THINK OF

(a) HOW FAR LOUIS EXTENDED ROYAL ABSOLUTISM

(b) WHAT LIMITS THERE WERE ON HIS ATTEMPTS

Essay : How far did Louis extend royal absolutism?

So how to answer this question

(a) Begin by defining absolutism

(b) Then look at why Louis felt need to establish absolutism and evidence for this

(c) Then look at steps he took and assess how far he succeeded

(d) Then look at limitations to extension of absolutism

(e) Then make judgement

So:

When Louis assumed control of France in 1661 he deliberately set out to increase the power and prestige of the monarchy. Historians in the past use to believe that Louis created an absolute state, but today historians like Richard Wilkinson reject this interpretation and maintain that whilst this was Louis' ambition, he never really achieved it and that the image of the Sun King as the absolute monarch par excellence is due more to propaganda than to reality. Absolutism means the power to make decisions without reference to any body or grouping. In theory France was an absolute state, but in reality there were so many limitations on absolutism that Louis ruled more by compromise and negotiation than be absolute rule.

Louis had grown up under the shadow of royal weakness. as a child he had been forced to flee during the Frondes, had seen his mother humiliated and his Chief Minister, Mazarin, forced to flee. France had witnessed the turmoils of the Civil war and the Frondes and had seen leading figures plot treason with Spain. Louis set out to restore the power and prestige of the monarchy.

Between 1661 and the end of his reign. Louis certainly set out to extend royal power. By examining three areas we can see how he tried to do this and how successful he was. The first area is royal administration and the law. If Louis was to exert royal authority he had to ensure that he controlled decision making and that he controlled the execution of the law. This is exactly what Louis set out to do. The first thing he had to do was to ensure that the Royal Council (the conseil d'en haut) became his creature, loyal to his will, rather than a check on his power. To this end Louis took three main steps. Firstly the day after the death of Mazarin he summoned his ministers. Le Tellier expected to be named the new Ffirst Minister, but Louis broke with convention and declared that he would be his own First Minister. There was to be no all-powerful minister like Richelieu or Mazarin dominating Louis. Most assumed that this was a temporary measure and that louis would soon tire of this role, but he never appointed a First minister throughout his 54 year reign. Louis was an industrious and committed monarch, who sincerely believed that he had been placed in power by God and that he had a duty to rule France. Louis took this role seriously. His decision to be his own First Minister certainly saw an extension of royal power.

However Louis needed to ensure that there was a loyal and obedient royal council. It used to be believed that Louis excluded the powerful nobles and clergy and replaced them with middle-class bureaucrats. That view is no longer held. Louis certainly excluded the powerful nobles and clergy, but that policy was nothing new. Louis was determined to ensure that his advisers were men loyal to the Crown, men who owed their position to royal favour and patronage. Yet the men he appointed were generally from the lesser nobility, men of status but not sufficient rank or power to challenge the Crown. 

Louis was determined to ensure that the Council went his way. The most powerful position on the Council had always been that of Chancellor, but Louis wanted his own men to dominate. He therefore weakened the power of the Chancellor and increased the power of Colbert instead. It is no coincidence that the major legal reforms, like the civil code were initiated by Colbert rather than by the Chancellor. 

To increase his control over the government Louis in 1682 ordered all departments to be centralised at Versailles, rather than scattered all over Paris. This made it easier fro him to keep an eye on these departments and meant that the ministers and advisers were always on hand. Louis was meticulous in his attention to detail and read reports and had meetings with ministers to ensure that he was always well informed. his attention to detail helped to ensure that Louis always had an excellent grasp of information and information is always the key to successful exercise of power.

On the surface, therefore, it appears that Louis dominated decision making at the heart of power and was an absolute monarch. However in practice this was not the case. Louis' information was dependent upon the reliability of others. We know of at least one occasion when Louis was not told the whole truth. Louvois kept much of the detail about the effects of the revocation of the Edict of Nantes from the king as he knew that Louis was committed to this measure and would not have welcomed such news. It is impossible to assess how often such things happened. In addition we know that Louis took ages to make decisions and was often regarded as indecisive. this led ministers to tell the King what he wanted to hear in order to speed up decisions, as over the war with Spain in 1672.. This meant that the king may have been in charge, but as events at the end of his reign shows, the decisions were not always the best ones.

Louis did, however, increase absolutism over the legal profession. in addition to weakening the power of the Chancellor, Louis also ensured that those of his advisers who came from the legal profession were gradually replaced by career administrators. Yet there was still a possible source of opposition from the parlements. Louis remembered how they had formed the opposition to Mazarin and set out to weaken them.  Louis took various measures to reduce powers of parlements. For example  in 1661 he stated that royal council's decrees had precedence over parlement's and from 1673 parlements of Paris had to register royal edicts at once and could only then remonstrate. As a result parlement had lost control over legislation. This is a clear example of absolutism in action. Louis used his control over the legal profession to extend royal power. He began investigations into noble status and made nobles pay to retain their status and he was able to get legal justification for his actions against the Huguenots and for his foreign policy. Here is a clear example of where royal absolutism was increased.

the next area to examine is the army. Louis knew that royal power depended on the army. His father and grandfather had commanded armies in battle, but both had seen threats to their position come from the army. Louis set out to reassert royal authority over the army and he was extremely successful. Part of this was due to Louis' character. He was brought up in military training and adored the military life. His personal command of the army against the Dutch, his successful strategy, his establishment of the Invalides hospital all inspired confidence in Louis among his troops. Even the officer corps were loyal and subordinate because they too were impressed by Louis' military competence and professionalism. Also it must be remembered that this was a royal army and Louis decided who would command his armies. There was no army rebellion against Louis and when Louvois died, Louis dispensed with war minister and took role himself. His authority over the army was complete.

The third area to examine is local government. Louis faced no major threat to his power fro local government, but needed to extend his authority in order to increase taxation to pay for his wars. Yet here again we can see the limitations to royal absolutism. Louis and Colbert needed to compromise with local authorities in order to collect the revenue. Often the King had to settle for less than he had wished. In the pays d'etats collection of taxes often depended on influence of local governors and bishops rather than intendants. In 1662 the Governor of Burgundy tried to raise 1,500,000 livres, but after long and protracted discussions had to settle on 1,000,000. This shows the limits of royal absolutism, yet at same time testify to strength of absolutism for Colbert managed to raise huge sums of revenue for Louis. He did this by using the intendants to investigate matters and told them to be sceptical about reasons for non-payment. The fact that Colbert was able to reduce the burden of tax-collecting and increase revenue, shows that Louis had managed to increase royal control over local government, but this had been done largely by compromise and negotiation than by royal pressure.

So how far did Louis extend royal absolutism? Clearly there were areas where he managed to do this. Royal administration became more centralised, the council became his puppet and the legal profession and the army fell under his control. Louis set out to demonstrate to the world that he was in charge. he built Versailles, he had statues and paintings done to create the impression of royal power. His name the Sun King, his use of imagery such as Neptune at Versailles were all carefully used to create such an impression. Yet at the same time there were too many limits on Louis' power to prevent him from becoming an absolute monarch in reality.

Louis was considered bound by the so-called fundamental laws of the realm. These were unwritten, customary precepts about the nature of the monarchy. The three generally accepted fundamental laws were : (1) the Salic law, which decreed that the throne passed in the direct male line, excluding women; (2) the rule that the royal domain (property) could not be sold off (alienated); and (3) the idea that the king should uphold the Catholic faith. Even Louis was unable to change any of these ideas -- no matter how powerful he became he was bound by these laws.

Also Louis' authority was often difficult to enforce due to the sheer size of France and the nature of the country. Whatever their claims, French kings had only gradually established their authority over the territory of France. Through the centuries, they had laboriously pieced together a patchwork of provinces, sometimes seeing them slip away only to return at a later date. Each province struck a different deal with the crown when it was incorporated into the realm. Privileges and laws were confirmed, existing institutions maintained, powerful groups bought off with favours. Faced with a different situation in each of their provinces and towns, the kings had to work through existing institutions, or create new ones that duplicated the functions of the old ones, if they wanted to establish any sort of uniform control. This is clearly shown in Louis', and Colbert's, handling of local government and tax collection. Also even by the end of his reign no single law applied through the whole of France; for instance the revocation of the Edict of Nantes did not affect Alsace. The fact that Colbert had to repeat instructions over and over again tells its own story.

Louis was never in a position to enforce royal authority by force. he had to rely upon the consent and co-operation of others. He was limited by a lack of repressive institutions such as a secret police. His government was faced with the complexities and inbuilt privileges of French society plus the widespread determination to obstruct and ignore royal edicts. In 1665 Colbert attempted to abolish the paulette. This caused a storm of protest from office holders who profited from this tax, and so the king told Colbert to abandon the idea. In the real world in which they lived, Louis XIV and his ministers had to manoeuvre, make concessions and temper absolutism with opportunism.

The old picture of Louis as all-powerful absolute monarchy no longer stands up to examination. In practice he preferred to compromise rather than provoke confrontation by seeking to exercise or establish royal power. He realised that he was more likely to achieve absolutism by reducing grievances than by causing them. This can be seen in his dealings with the nobility. Instead of trying to overawe nobles, he bribed them with privileges and profits, cynically playing them off against each other and at the same time inviting them to co-operate with him in the areas of activity where they had traditionally excelled : the army, the Church, diplomacy and local government. The intendants were instructed to avoid rather than provoke trouble. Even the legal reforms and the emasculation of the parlements' legal powers were carried out with their co-operation. Surprising though it may seem, Louis XIV, supposedly the personification of absolutism, generally ruled by consent.

Even when people rebelled against his authority, Louis was sometimes forced to compromise. In 1675 there was a rebellion in Brittany, but the rebels were dealt with mercifully; only 24 leaders were executed, the royal governor met the Estates to hear their grievances, and royal troops were ordered not to victimise the population. This is a far cry from the absolutism of the text-books.

In conclusion, royal power certainly increased under Louis. He ruthlessly achieved an ordered, disciplined and obedient people. He recruited the armed forces, the Church, the law and the media in his campaign to establish royal authority and to eradicate dissidents; hence his persecution of Jansenists and Huguenots. He operated a successful machine for extracting the maximum amount of money from the tax-payers. He developed a vast bureaucracy ultimately dependent on his favour. Louis' combination of control over the army asnd domination of the aristocracy delivered the Crown from the nightmare of armed rebellion by overmighty subjects. However the limitations and restraints upon the King meant that he could not establish an absolutist state.

CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO THE MAIN LOUIS XIV MENU