Abstract
The later seventeenth century may be regarded as the period when absolute monarchy reached its classic form. It was in effect the ‘normal’ type of government in Europe for the next century or more. Yet there are relatively few formal statements of constitutional law dating from the period. In 1683, however, the Danish crown promulgated a substantial law code, Danske Lov, whose very first article made clear that the monarch:
alone has supreme authority to draw up laws and ordinances according to his will and pleasure, and to elaborate, change, extend, delimit and even entirely annul laws previously promulgated by himself or his ancestors. He can likewise exempt from the letter of the law whatsoever or whomsoever he wishes. He alone has supreme power and authority to appoint or dismiss at will all officials regardless of their rank, name or title; thus offices and functions of all kinds must derive their authority from the absolute power of the King. He has sole supreme authority over the entire clergy, from the highest to the lowest, in order to regulate church functions and divine service. He orders or prohibits as he sees fit all meetings and assemblies on religious affairs, in accordance with the word of God and the Augsburg Confession. He alone has the right to arm his subjects, to conduct war, and to conclude or abrogate alliances with whomever he wishes at any time.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Danske Lov (1683), in my translation; cf. E. Ekman, ‘The Danish Royal Law of 1665’, JMH, 29 (1957), 102–7. The Royal Law remained technically in force until 1848.
This manoeuvre also helped to conceal the greater embarrassment of Mazarin’s own colossal fortune, which it was not in the crown’s interests to reveal. See R. Bonney, ‘The secret expenses of Richelieu and Mazarin, 1624–1661’ EngHR, 91 (1976), 825–36.
For the earlier context, see J. Bergin, Cardinal Richelieu: Power and the Pursuit of Wealth (Yale, New Haven, 1985).
W. Beik, Absolutism and Society in Seventeenth-century France (Cambridge, 1985), esp. chs 12–13
France in Crisis 1620–1675, ed. P. Coveney (London, 1977), pp. 48–54
P. Goubert, Louis XIV et 20 millions de français (Paris, 1966; transi. 1970), p. 72, stresses the smallness of the bureaucracy and the wide range of supervisory duties of the intendants over town administration, law courts, finance, army and navy affairs, forestry, grain supplies and trade — particularly burdensome given the inadequacies of the rudimentary police force of only 2000 men for the whole kingdom.
Quoted in O. Ranum and P. Ranum, The Century of Louis XIV (London, 1972), pp. 111–36, esp. 124.
T.J. Schaeper, The French Council of Commerce 1700–1715 (Columbus, Ohio, 1983), pp. 59–66, 178–80
J.K.J. Thomson, Clermont-de Lodève 1638–1789 (Cambridge, 1982) discusses an example of an initially highly successful state enterprise
for a survey of the anticipatory ideas of early seventeenth-century French writers, see D. Parker, The Making of French Absolutism (London, 1983), pp. 73–81.
D.C. Coleman, ‘Mercantilism revisited’, HJ, 23 (1980), 773–91, esp. 790.
C. Wilson, ‘The other face of mercantilism’, in Revisions in Mercantilism, ed. D.C. Coleman (London, 1969), pp. 118–39; for a survey of abortive attempts to introduce further regulation in England,
see C. G. A. Clay, Economic Expansion and Social Change: England 1500–1700 (Cambridge, 1984), vol. 2, pp. 203–50.
J. Bérenger, Finances et absolutisme autrichienne (Paris, 1975), pp. 275–96, 353–403.
D. Dessert, Argent, pouvoir et société au Grand Siècle (Paris, 1984).
See also J. Dent, Crisis in Finance: Crown, Financiers and Society in Seventeenth-century France (Newton Abbot, 1973), esp. pp. 232–43.
For the attempt to calculate annual incomes and expenditures under Louis XIV, see A. Guéry. Dessert, Argent, pouvoir et société au Grand Siècle (Paris, 1984).
See also J. Dent, Crisis in Finance: Crown, Financiers and Society in Seventeenth-century France (Newton Abbot, 1973), esp. pp. 232–43.
For the attempt to calculate annual incomes and expenditures under Louis XIV, see A. Guéry, ‘Les finances de la monarchie française sous lancien régime’, A, 33 (1978), 216–39.
C. A. Macartney, The Habsburg and Hohenzollern Dynasties (London, 1970), p. 316.
M. Roberts, Sweden as a Great Power 1611–97 (London, 1968), pp. 60f.
For a full discussion, see A. F. Upton, ‘The Riksdag of 1680 and the establishment of royal absolutism in Sweden’, EngHR, 102 (1987), 281–308.
But as A. F. Upton, ‘Absolutism and the rule of law: the case of Karl XI of Sweden’, Parliaments, Estates and Representation, 8 (1988), 31–46, has demonstrated, no Swedish subject ultimately had any recourse in law against the king himself.
Their criticisms have been followed up by J. Miller, ‘The potential for “absolutism” in later Stuart England’, H, 69 (1984), 187–207. However, the comparison does not bear closer scrutiny: the late Stuarts lacked any effective control of local administration comparable to that achieved through, for instance, the French intendants, and clearly lacked the fiscal and military autonomy of continental monarchs in dealing with domestic resistance.
Copyright information
© 1990 Thomas Munck
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Munck, T. (1990). Absolutism and the return of order after 1660. In: Seventeenth Century Europe. History of Europe. Palgrave, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-20626-1_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-20626-1_11
Publisher Name: Palgrave, London
Print ISBN: 978-0-333-28641-8
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-20626-1
eBook Packages: Palgrave History CollectionHistory (R0)