Due To Hobbes: King Louis XIV Of France

Throughout the seventeenth century, political strife dominated each European country’s respective leadership. From the monarch’s perspective, he or she was entitled due to divine right, the worthiness to rule directly from the will of God. Instances of this could be seen through James I’s rejection of the Petition of Right, a major English constitutional document that sets out specific liberties of the subject that the king is prohibited from infringing, in 1628 before the English Civil War, or when King Louis XIV of France dominated his political domain through the weakening of nobles after replacing them with intendants, high-ranking officials who did not have the power to challenge the monarch. Concurrently, King James I stripped the

gentry of their lands through the abolition of enclosures, while King Louis XIV turned his advisors into puppets, both of which demonstrating the need for a balance of powers. As occurrences such as these took place throughout the continent, European philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes and John Locke started to ponder what existence may look like in the state of nature, a condition of human beings before or without political association. Likewise, they started to wonder about what limits--if any--should be placed on their present leaders. Although Hobbes and Locke developed drastically different approaches as to how and why the authority ought to exist, both came to their own pragmatic conclusions based life experiences and the perspectives each gained from life.

Due to Hobbes’ vantage on European politics, he believed that mankind needed an absolute monarchy.

Capturing Hobbes’ outlook on the importance of a single ruler, the frontispiece to his book Leviathan depicts one king controlling his empire below. In one hand the king holds a sword, indicating his militaristic power, and in the other a scepter, highlighting his God given right to rule over all the land. Above the king’s head is a Latin phrase. When translated to English, it says, “there is no power on the earth that can be compared” (Document 3). Alluding to Hobbes’ beliefs, both the phrase and the emphasis on the monarch’s strength demonstrate how he saw an absolute government is imperative. Moreover, after looking into the book, Hobbes further clarifies this stance. He explains, the only way to end the state of nature’s incessant chaos is if individuals, “...confer all their power and strength upon one man... there can happen no breach of covenant on the part of the sovereign” (Document 4). When considering the current state of Europe at the time, it becomes more clear as to why Hobbes thought people needed to submit to a greater power, and why an absolute monarchy was necessary. Just as Hobbes published Leviathan in 1651, Great Britain was in the midst of the English Civil War--a conflict in which the Charles I’s head had been cut off in 1649. Consequently, because of the englishman's unwarranted amount of violence and brutish behavior, Hobbes saw no other

alternative than an absolute monarchy to mitigate such actions.
Affirming the ideas of Hobbes and contributing to his philosophy, religious leaders justified the sole authority of the crown through their loyalty to the power of God.

In Cardinal Richelieu’s The Political Testament, such a stance is substantiated. Trying to explain the necessity to remain loyal to the crown, he states, “Those nobles who fail to serve the crown constantly and courageously with both their swords and their lives... deserve the loss of the privileges of their birth and should be reduced to sharing the burdens of the common people“ (Document 2). When Richelieu says this, he is suggesting that all nobles must submit to divine authority and do anything to please said King or Queen. Those who do not are therefore not deserving of their social advantage and must join the abject, unworthy common people. Furthermore, the reason why the people needed to stay loyal is because God bestowed the power of leadership to only the crown. Making this point more clear, Jacqeus-Benigne Bossuet, Bishop of Condom, explained, “The prince as prince is not regarded as an individual; he is a public personage” (Document 5). Therefore, royalty was on a higher level than any of the common people. Thus, through this perspective, religious leaders extrapolated on Hobbes’ idea of an absolute monarchy being proper form of

government.