Sun King Louis Xiv Dbq

Louis XIV, also known as the Sun King, was an absolutist monarch of France who sought to heavily suppress the power of novels while simultaneously promoting the ideals of a “divine right monarchy”. A man notorious for his incredible spending on various personal ventures, such as the extremely costly construction of a new palace at Versailles, Louis XIV was often the subject of criticism and mockery, especially from the nobles who hoped to discredit him and his absolutist regime. Overall, Louis XIV did predominantly act in a manner with his own personal agenda in mind, as seen through his Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, occurring as a result of his desire to have his country fall in line with his own beliefs, his unrelenting expenditures

on various personal ventures, and the great effort he placed on manipulating religious ties in an effort to bolster public opinion of the crown. However, Louis’ actions that benefitted the country, such as his efforts in leaving a roadmap for his son to effectively lead the country and his concern for the French economy as a whole, as long as it did not interfere with his lavish lifestyle. Ultimately, while Louis XIV mainly acted in his own interests, he did maintain a certain degree of responsibility and concern for the French country and the French people during his time in power.
The first example of Louis’ ‘self-interest dominated rule’ can be found in his decision to revoke the Edict of Nantes in 1685, as depicted in Doc 5.

The Edict of Nantes had given Protestants, or Huguenots, in France the ability to practice their religion without fear of violence or persecution. Enacted in the late 1500s in an effort to resemble France after the destruction of the French Wars of Religion, the Edict of Nantes served as a means to unite the French population and end the violence that often accompanied religious persecution. Louis’ decision to revoke such a peace-promoting edict, in an effort to homogenize his country and align his subjects with his own beliefs, clearly illustrates his giving of priority to his own agenda, as opposed to that which would best benefit his country. However, while the claim that the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes was detrimental to French society, seems to be disproven by Doc 6, which essentially asserts that the king’s revocation has resulted in the rapid conversion of “whole towns” and describes the king as “the invincible hero destined to… destroy the terrible monster of heresy”, the author’s inherently biased point of view must be addressed. This description, which could be used as evidence to support the fact that Louis did act in interest of the state, must be taken with a grain of salt as the author himself, a member of the Assembly of the Clergy, does not even have the best interest of the state in mind; rather, he is

guided by his desire to spread Catholicism, no matter what the consequences. Thus Doc 6, as a result of its biased point of view, fails to adequately expose the devastation, mainly through the form of economic downturn and the loss of great artists and writers to the Protestant-dominant Netherlands and England, brought to the French state as a result of Louis’ selfish decision, based on his own religion instead of the future of the country.
Louis XIV can also been seen acting in his own interest through his various costly, self-serving projects.

One of the most notable of which would be his decision to completely reconstruct a new palace at Versailles. Such a great expenditure is blatantly criticized in Doc 7 where the Duc de Saint-Simon states, “the foundations and groves have buried more money than could ever appear”. Such expenditures, undoubtedly funded by taxpayer dollars expose Louis’ extremely self-serving distribution of funds when it came to matters of his own comfort. However, it is important to realize that Doc 7, written by a noble, must also be read with a watchful eye. The Duc de Saint-Simon’s assertions could possibly, though construction of a new palace would likely cost a tremendous amount of capital, be riddled by bias as a result of the absolutist King’s extreme suppression of nobility perks and privileges. The idea that Louis acted in his own interest in terms of capital distribution may be explained away by such bias had it not been for the evidence presented in Doc 4. Though on the surface it seems to show the public’s appreciation for the King, one must acknowledge the fact that an ‘inscription on a ceremonial arch of great architectural importance in Tournai’ was most likely commissioned by the King, and again funded by taxpayer dollars. Such a commission would expose the fact that the words stated in the inscription is not the point of view of the French people, but rather the desired

view of Louis XIV himself. Regardless, this is yet another example of the King’s purposeful misattribution of funds to maintain his luxurious lifestyle and bolster his public image.
Finally, Louis’ time spent taking advantage of his religious ties, in effort to bolster his public image, is another example of his predominantly self-serving leadership. Louis made it his purpose to convince the clergy of the existence of ‘divine-right monarchy’, or the idea that the monarch is chosen by God to rule absolutely and without interference. Such a belief was utilized by Bishop Jacques Bossuet in Doc 3, a strong supporter of Louis XIV, mainly as a result of their shared commitment to Catholicism. However, it is imperative to acknowledge the intended audience of the excerpt, while simultaneously considering the bishop’s support for Louis XIV on the basis of religion. Bossuet’s words, meant to garner support for Louis and crush the idea of an existence of ‘arbitrary government’, were most likely aimed at the literate, upper class, dominated by nobles, the greatest critics of the King. Such an effort by Bossuet to challenge the opinions of Louis’ biggest opponents is a direct result of the King’s great time spent cultivating a relationship with the Catholic bishop, under the promise that France would be returned to its religiously-homogenous Catholic roots, something that brought great harm to the French economy and society. This self-serving relationship is yet another example of Louis’ decision to put his own desires over the needs of the state.
However, while there are overwhelming examples of Louis’ placement of self over state, there were times when he sought to do what he believed was best for France. In Doc 1, Louis XIV writes to his son on the responsibilities and processes he entertains as King of France. While memoir-like works, such as this, tend to be riddled with bias as authors seek to portray themselves favorably instead of realistically, the purpose behind the work shines through. Louis XIV wrote such the Code Louis in an effort to prepare his son, the heir to the throne, to rule over France and do it the manner he believed was best. This purpose behind the work represents one of the few examples in which Louis did seek to act in interest of the future of the state. Louis can also be seen acting in reference to the future of the French state, as seen through Doc 2, where Jean Baptist Colbert pens a memorandum for the King with the purpose of convincing the King to consider invading the Netherlands in order to bolster the French economy. The King’s decision to do so, a few years after during the Dutch War, qualifies as an additional example in which the King acted in interest of the state, instead of arbitrarily in his own interests.