Absolutism in Western Europe

Jeremy Black points out that 17th century Europe was dominated by war, and it was through
war the major political changes occurred. Bourbon France emerged under Louis XIV to
become the leading power in Europe. Sweden rose during the Thirty Year War to become
the dominant power in Northern Europe and then during the Great Northern War lost much
of its empire to the Russia of Peter the Great. All these developments focused on warfare
and were accompanied by the dramatic increase of the military strength. Military
expenditure and army as well navy sized increased greatly. In the late 15 th century , Europe
was divided into over 500 decentralized feudal states. The greater military strength was
related to the development of what were subsequently termed “Absolutist” monarchies,
although the power of monarchs rested as much on the cooperation of their nobility as on
the size of the army.

Absolutism of the 16th century did not have uniform appearance, although the social base
remained more or less the same. It emerged out of the medieval feudal kingship, were
powers limited by the legislative and judicial rights of vassals, churches, semi- independent
provinces and municipal corporations. All these forces were represented in the institutions
called by different names in different state like the Estates General in France, Diet in
German states, Parliament in England and Cortes in Spain. Besides the king depended
largely on the troops and the administrators which were provided by the Feudal lords. The
theory of Divine Right of the King provided moral justification of absolutism which was
supported and legitimized by political theorists like Jean Bodin, Bossuet, Hobbes.

As regarded the origins of Absolutism, initial thrust came from the crisis of the feudalism.
The existence of the weak feudal state and fragmented sovereignty during the period gave a
semblance of stability. Solution to this political dilemma was Absolutism. Gianfranco Poggi
lists a number of reasons for the weakening of Feudalism. These included
commercialization, the influx of bullion leading to devalued money and the growing
expenditure of the feudal ruling class. The weaning feudalism helped the nascent
bourgeoisie and the ruler. With the introduction of new and costly methods of warfare, the
feudal lords lost their military significance. The interstate politics and some major
development in the technology of warfare made it necessary for the states to maintain a
standing army and sometimes even a fleet if they wished to survive. During the feudal
crisis , the kings faced the problem of controlling the outlying regions with limited means at
disposal.in 15th century the growing need of the govt. forced the rulers to adopt centralized
measures for effective governance over distant lands. The long political warfare led to
political breakdown of authority. The rise of absolutist states particularly in western Europe
implied absorption of smaller states by stronger and bigger states. Absolute monarchs
carried out territorial expansion and consolidation , administrative centralization and
political integration that made them extremely powerful.

The form and nature of the Absolutist State has been the subject of diverse opinion.
Historians, Sociologists, economists and political scientists have all contributed to this
debate. Scholars have offered several explanation on the state-building process in medieval
and early modern Europe. In his article Otto Hintze rejects the class conflict explanation of
Marxist writers. Instead he represents a dualistic view of the state building process.
According to him the geographical position of the continental states exposed them to rival
states and thus forced them to develop an infrastructure of absolutism and centralized
bureaucracy. States like England on the other hand continued to grow on old lines, leading
to a parliamentary form of governance. Another explanation comes from Charles Tilly and
Michael Man on variations in the state- building process attempts to bring geographical and
economical factors together. This view suggests that the external size of the bureaucratic
and absolutist structure was determined by the nature of revenue on which the state
depended. Where far flung rural population was the main source of revenue, a strong
centralized bureaucratic structure was visible, while the more economically developed
states like England, with advanced commercial and trading activities, encouraged a
constitutional arrangement, as an elaborate bureaucratic structure was not required. On the
nature of absolutism, the Marxist opinion is equally divided. The controversy seems to have
started with the writings of Karl Marx and Frederich Engels. Marx in his case study on
capitalism mentions about the existence of centralized monarchy, in fact he never employed
the term “Absolutism”. Frederich Engels in a famous dictum on the origins of State briefly
mentioned that the absolute state was a product of class equilibrium between old feudal
nobility and new urban bourgeoisie. This description implied absolutist state as a balancing
force between the two opposite classes. In his famous work “The Eighteenth Brumaire of
Louis Bonaparte” Karl Marx declared that the centralized state power with its ubiquitous
organs of the standing army, police, bureaucracy, clergy and judicature originates from the
days of absolutist monarchy, serving nascent middle class society as a mighty weapon in its
struggle against feudalism. To him it appears progressive because it facilitated the rise of
capitalism.

The traditional view suggested that Absolutism developed with the parameter of feudal
state. Takahashi considers absolutism as nothing but a system of concentrated force for
counteracting the crisis of feudalism arising out of the inevitable developments in the
direction of the liberation and independence of peasants. Similarly, Christopher Hill argues
that absolutist monarch was a form of feudal state. Eric Molnar suggests that all forms of
European absolutism served the interest of the nobles and the landowners who had
established their political domination over other classes of society. Other writers like
Etienne Poulantzas and E. Balibar feels that the absolutist state possessed a Capitalist
Character. Poulantzas asserts that the Absolutist state which was dislocated with the
achievement of the economy promoted the domination of Capitalism. E.K Trimberger also
considers the role of the state as transformative towards Capitalism during the period of
transition and she argues that the state acted as the external dissolving agent. Another view
proposed by Michael Hetcher and William Brustein that the absolute states arose to
protect the economic interests of the feudal nobility but in the due course the interest of
the capitalist class governed them. Immanuel Wallerstein points out that the emergence of
absolutism during the 16th century in the core economies was unmistakably a capitalist
phenomenon. It became chief means by which national groupings of the commercial
capitalists asserted their interest in the world economy. The strong state in the form of
Absolutist monarchy was seen as guardian and protector of their interest by the rising
capitalist class. Theda Skocpol rejected this argument of Wallerstein and pointed out that,
The Netherlands and Germany represented weak state structures and contrary to
Wallerstein’s structure, there much stronger absolutism outside the core region.

Perry Anderson in “lineages of the absolutist state” calls the rise of the absolutist state in
Western Europe in the sixteenth century the final outcome of political convulsions that
marred the period. The centralized monarchies that emerged marked a break from the
feudal, pyramidal and parcelised sovereignty. Anderson questions the assumption that the
characteristics of the absolutist state appear ‘pre-eminently capitalist’, as the emergence of
these features coincides with the end of serfdom, a core symbol of the feudal mode of
production. According to Marx and Engels assumptions, the absolutist state seems to be a
bourgeois instrument, reflected mainly from the administrative structures. Anderson
disagrees with this viewpoint and argues that the Absolutist state in the west was
‘redeployed and recharged apparatus of feudal domination’ designed to clamp down the
peasants back to their traditional social position. It was neither an arbiter nor an instrument
of the emerging bureaucracy against the nobility. It was a new political shield for the
threatened nobility. He says that even when the rural surplus began to be extracted in
money rent rather than labour rent, as long as the aristocracy blocked a free market in land
and there was no mobility of labour, production relations remained feudal. Anderson has
analyzed the absolutist state and its characteristics in Europe to reveal that the whole
structure of the absolutist monarchies had a surface modernity which betrayed a
“subterranean archaism”.

Anderson states two reasons that motivated the rise of absolutism. The first is identified as
the class struggle between the nobility and the peasantry. The generalized commutation of
dues into money rent would ultimately lead to ‘free labour’ and ‘wage contract’. This meant
that the cellular unity of the political and economic oppression of the peasants was
threatened; the feudal lords knew that their class power was at stake with end of serfdom.
Classical feudal polity combined both political and economic exploitation but the
appearance of money changed this. As a result, the feudal lords displaced political power to
upwards to a centralized, militarized summit- the absolutist state. At the same time, there
was an economic consolidation of the units of feudal nobility beneath this political apex.
There was a strengthening of the titles of property of the lords, landowning became less
conditional for the lords as the central sovereign correspondingly became more absolute.
The traditional restraints on the estates weakened as the power of the monarch increased,
and although the nobility lost some of its political powers, they registered economic gains in
land ownership.

The second factor that he talks of is the rise of another antagonist, the mercantilist
bourgeoisie. The presence of this class prevented the nobility from adopting a harsh
solution to the problem of peasant rebellions. Towns developed independent of the feudal
structure as the feudal power was focused on the rural estates, which gave them ‘space’ to
grow without domination by a rural ruling class. Urban technological advances of the
fourteenth and fifteenth centuries were developing into pre-industrial manufacturing on a
considerable scale. This period also witnessed a concurrent revival of political authority and
unity in country after country. The reigns of Louis XI of France, Ferdinand and Isabella of
Spain, Henry II in England, and Maximilian in Germany, are some examples. Engels described
these processes as the political order remaining feudal while the society became more
bourgeois. Anderson undertakes an analysis of he institutions of the absolutist state in order
to understand the nature of these processes. He examines the institutions of the absolutist
state like law, army, bureaucracy, taxation, trade and diplomacy to show how the absolutist
state retained the essence of feudalism and did indeed strengthen it.

The first institution he discusses is of law and argues that the period witnessed a revival of
Roman law which was crucial to both determinants of absolutism. He states that the
introduction of classical civil law was favourable to the growth of free capital in town and
country, since the distinguishing feature of Roman law was its conception of absolute and
unconditional private property. Roman law also answered to the interests of the
commercial and manufacturing bourgeoisie as its superiority lay not only in notions of
private property but also traditions of equity, rational canons of evidence and emphasis on
professional judiciary. The political impact of the revival of Roman law is significant since it
was based on the theoretical principles of Imperium or a growth of centralized royal
authority. Thus the enhancement of private property from below was matched by the
increase of public authority from above. The transformation of law reflected the distribution
of power between the propertied classes of the epoch: absolutism as the reorganized state
apparatus of noble domination was the central architect of the reception of Roman law.

It has often been assumed that the Absolutist state pioneered the professional army of the
modern bourgeois state- their increased size along with the introduction of the infantry drill,
the platoon system, cavalry and the unitary vertical command. But the functions and form
remained primarily feudal. The army was not a nationally conscript force but a mixed mass
in which foreign mercenaries played a constant and central role. Anderson says that the
obvious social reason for this would be the refusal of the nobility to arm the peasantry as it
will be difficult to keep them obedient. He also argues that the mercenary troops could be
relied upon to stamp out local peasant rebellions since they were foreigners alien to the
local language and customs.
According to Anderson, mercantilism demanded the removal of barriers in trade within the
state and strove to build a unified domestic market. To increase the states power compared
to other states, it encouraged the export of goods and banned exports of bullion of coins as
there was a belief that there was a fixed amount of commerce and wealth in the world. He
sees mercantilism as an instrument favouring the feudal class as it pre-supposes state
intervention in the economy through guilds and royal manufacture and charter companies.
Another aspect of the absolutist state that reveals feudal tendencies is diplomacy. The
formation of a formalized state system in Western Europe led to the establishment of a new
system of inter-state pressure, embassies abroad, and chancelleries for foreign relations.
In recent years scholars like John E. Martin and Teshale Tibebu have pointed out certain
difficulties in Anderson’s conceptualization of the Absolutist state. Martin points out that
the political definition of feudal mode of production in terms of parcellized sovereignty and
serfdom faces difficulty when it is placed in the context of absolutism representing a
decisive break with the parcellized sovereignty. Anderson insists on the continuation of the
Feudal character of the state but he does not explain in what form the state remains feudal
character even after the Feudal crisis. According to Martin, Anderson introduces “
Instrumentalist” view of the state where the state functions as an instrument of the ruling
class. Third, Anderson does not analyze why absolutism was a form of transitional feudal
state. He largely confines his attention to the state’s relationship with the manufacturing
and mercantile bourgeoisie, rather than analyzing its function in the relation of feudal
domination. His identification of feudalism with parcellized sovereignty makes it impossible
to conceptualize the changes following the feudal crisis. Teshale Tibebu also questions
Andersons view on conflicting stands on centralized feudalism and the parcellized
sovereignty. Tibebu argues that Anderson allows a double standard in identifying feudalism:
one is political which he applies to sovereignty and another is economic which he uses of
centralized sovereignty. Tibebu also pointed out that Anderson offers two fundamentally
different explanations for the same problem in West and East. For Maurice Aymard, the
state of new monarchy possessed a war like character with a heavy fiscal apparatus and
unwieldy bureaucracy. Louis Althusser regards the political regime of the absolutist
monarchy as new political form needed for the maintenance of feudal domination and
exploitation. Criticizing the French Monarchy, V.G. Kiernan considers absolutism as the
highest stage of feudalism.

Monarchy was glorified in variety of forms of artistic and literary representations. The
Flemish painter Anthony Van Dyck painted magnificent images of three generations of
Stuart kings of England. In Spain, Diego Velasquez became court painter of Philip IV. In
France, Peter Paul Reubens created paintings from the life of Queen Marie de Medici. The
famous English philosopher Francis Bacon wrote the history of Henry VII glorifying his rule. It
is also believed that William Shakespeare also created public interest in the history of rulers
who exhibited power and essence of justice. In his four plays he highlighted the usefulness
of four rulers – Tempest, Measure of Measure, Richard II and Henry IV. In France, the most
famous propagator of the state’s sovereignty was Jean Bodin. His work “Republique” is
considered an influential work on political philosophy. He believed that every state must
possess supreme authority. The ruler should enjoy the powers of making, forcing and
judging laws. His concept of sovereignty went side by side with the theory of “Divine right of
Kingship”. For Bodin the king was placed on his throne by the direct command of God. In his
book “The six Books of Commonwealth”
he pointed out the essence of a sovereign’s power is the right to impose laws on the
subjects without their consent. His idea of sovereignty suited the absolutist rulers and it
gave legitimacy to their despotic rule. An important propagator of the theory of divine right
was James VI of Scotland. In his work “The true laws of free Monarchies” , he advised the
leaders of the church and nobility to obey the command of the ruler. In England, Thomas
Hobbes, provided a doctrine of absolutist state in his famous and lasting work Leviathan.
His hatred of Civil War led his develop a political philosophy of absolute state power. His
theory was based on the determinist view of human nature and believed that men needed a
guarantee of good behavior from the fellow beings and this could be only provided by the
sovereign. King is powerful because people entrusted the powers in his hands. Although
Hobbes failed distinguish between state and government, his political philosophy justified
the absolutist rule of the sovereign.
 ABSOLUTISM IN ENGLAND
In the Middle Ages, the feudal monarchy of England was generally far more powerful than
that of France. The Norman and Angevin dynasties created a royal State unrivalled in its
authority and efficacy throughout Western Europe. It was precisely the strength of the
English mediaeval monarchy that permitted its ambitious territorial adventures on the
continent, at the expense of France. The Hundred Years' War, during which successive
English kings and their aristocracy attempted to conquer and hold down huge areas of
France, across a hazardous maritime barrier, represented a unique military under- taking in
the Middle Ages: aggressive sign of the organizational superiority of the insular State. Perry
Anderson points out that the strongest mediaeval monarchy in the West eventually
produced the weakest and shortest Absolutism. While France became the home ground of
the most formidable Absolutist State in Western Europe, England experienced a peculiarly
contracted variant of Absolutist rule, in every sense. The transition from the mediaeval to
the early modern epochs thus corresponded in English history - despite all local legends of
unbroken 'continuity' - to a deep and radical reversal of many of the most characteristic
traits of prior feudal development.

English Crown passed to a vibrant succession of Ruling families. Starting from the Anglo
Saxons, Vikings, Normans (1066-1154), Angevin or Plantagenet (1154-1485) and lastly to the
Tudors or masters of Absolutism (1485- 1603). Magna Charta, introduced in 1215 was a
centralizing attempt of the Angevin Kings which later gave way to the English Parliament.
The Hundred Year War was followed by the War of Roses- a series of civil wars fought in
Medieval England from 1455 to 1485 between the House of Lancaster and House of York.
These wars considerably weakened the powers of the Feudal nobility. Though England was
dominated by Feudal order, yet England was different from other regions of Europe in some
ways. England experienced the disintegration of the Feudal order much earlier than other
European states where Monarchy was not seen as a form of Despotism but as symbol of
English Unity. The civil war ended with Henry Tudor from the House of Lancaster secured
the throne and the Parliament acknowledged him as the “New Sovereign”. He married in
1486 Elizabeth of York, the eldest daughter of Edward IV, there by uniting the “White Rose”
and the “Red”. Henry also succeeded in establishing a strong govt. in England taking
advantage of the economic growth and social -intellectual changes. The landed country
gentlemen and middle classes favoured the political centralization rather than decentralized
feudal political setup which they felt may invite anarchy. The gentry and the emerging social
classes supported the Tudor effort in the hope of securing official posts while merchants
desired stability in commerce.

Two important centralizing agents of the Tudor mechanism are 1) The Privy Council and 2)
The Court of Star Chamber. In the rise of Tudor Absolutism, the Privy Council played an
important role. It functioned primarily in the interest of the Feudal nobility to control and
check the actions of the ruler. Edward IV made a successful attempt to revive the lost
powers by ruling without the council. Henry could not throw out all its members and had to
retain almost half of them against his wish. Barons formed an important group in the council
but their collective power was declining although individual influence continued. The nobles
were outnumbered by the clerics. Most important powerful members who did not belong
to the upper feudal nobility but became Henry’s trusted advisors were men like John
Morton, Richard Fox and Empson. Henry Tudor assigned few functions to the old council
and the Council was asked translate the Royal will into legislative action. The inner circle of
the council included permanent officials and the personal presence of the king in the council
meetings gave it Cohesion and unity. According to Bindoff, its twin characteristics were its
complete dependence on the king and its constant pressure under him in state affairs. The
Privy Council began to play and initiative legislative matters that were translated into law by
the Parliament. Henry began summoning members from the lower ranks of nobility. As
compare to 53 Barons and earls in 1454 , Henry invited only 27 Barons and 6 Earls to
parliament. In 1487, he asked parliament to pass the Act of Livery and Maintenance. It was
an effort to disband the private armies of the Feudal lords, which had become a major
source of disorder. The execution of royal policy was entrusted to the Privy Council, which
was placed above the ordinary machinery of Law.

Another powerful institution was the Court of Star Chamber which was a series of
prerogative courts made independent of the common law of Courts. An notable feature of
the Tudor despotism was that the monarchs had neither an standing army nor a
professional bureaucracy to enforce its will unlike the other absolutist states of Europe. The
justices of Peace were placed under the control of the Privy Council and the prerogative
courts. They formed the pillars of the Tudor absolutism. They looked after every detail of
parish administration and justice, enforced all government edicts, virtually replaced the
Sheriff. The emergence of Absolutist State in England was closely bound with the
Reformation. The English Reformation was a political Act of the state made possible by the
weak church. This period has been termed by G.R. Elton as the Henrican or Tudor
“Administrative Revolution”. The disintegration of the Papal powers in England expanded
prerogative powers of the ruler. A series of acts passed by the Parliament strengthened the
Authority of King over the Church which includes: the Act of Supremacy 1534, Act in
Restraint of Appeals 1533, Act of Annates etc. A series of rebellion occurred during the latter
part of the 1536, collectively known as Pilgrimage of Grace. A major feudal uprising in the
North led to the creation of a new branch of Privy Council at York which was Called Council
of North. However, it was the establishment of the Supremacy of the English Church and the
breach with Rome that vastly expanded jurisdiction in England as the Nationalization of the
English Church brought all Englishmen under a single authority. During the reign the Court
of High Commission was created as a prerogative court to supervise and control
ecclesiastical courts and was given coercive power to enforce Royal decisions. The result of
this decision were far reaching as in the view of Sir Lewis Namier , religion in the 16th
century , became a word of Nationalism.

John E. Martin suggests that the desire for a strong state existed in England for a relatively
short period during the rule of Tudors and early Stuarts. This aspiration had reached its
height in the reign of Henry VIII, particularly when Thomas Cromwell, the Earl of Essex was
in power. He had served the king as Chancellor of Exchequer, Vicar General and Lord Great
Chamberlin between 1533 and 1540. His ideas manifested itself in different forms-
proposals for creating a standing army, creation of the councils of the North and the Wales.
An attempt was made by the crown to usurp the Legislative powers through the Statute of
Proclamations in 1539. According to Lawrence Stone, Thomas Cromwell’s policy aimed at
developing economic and military powers. Royal taxation in England proved beneficial for
the economy but it also created problems for the state. The parliamentary control over
revenue continued, which created a belief that the king should live on his nominal income.
Direct taxation was the only means for the royal income. Income from the crown lands was
an important source of revenue during the Tudor period greatly augmented by the monastic
lands in 1530’s with the dissolution of the monasteries. According to Christopher Hill, the
crown sold the monastic lands for 2 ½ million pounds between 1558- 1640. The Court of
wards developed as an instrument of financial exploitation. Purveyance was the special
right to purchase goods well below the market price, enjoyed the monarch. It was meant
only for the extraordinary situation but the Tudors turned it to be a regular tax. Elizabeth
adopted the practice of granting exclusive monopolies to the elite subjects of the crown.
The office of the Lord Treasurer and the titles of Peerage were sold for hefty amount. King
James I began the practice of selling Knighthood.

One major limitation of the Tudor rule was the lack of substantial military apparatus. The
rise of monetized economy progressive dissociation of the nobility from the basic military
functions much earlier than other parts of Europe. The wars in later middle ages were
mostly fought by indenture companies raised by the big feudal lords for the rulers through
cash contracts. The rise of the centralized monarchy produced a unified assembly
representing the feudal ruling class. In England, from the period of Edward III, knights and
townspeople were represented along with Barons and Bishop in the same house. The
divisions into the House of Commons and the House of Lords developed gradually.
According to John E. Martin, the constraints on absolutism in England had important
consequences, particularly on its relationship with peasantry. The emergence of Capitalist
agriculture introduced changes that subverted the traditional feudal relations and in turn
threatened the sates own survival. It forced the state to adopt anti-capitalist stance. The
English parliament played an important role in placing an outer limit to the powers of the
English monarchs. The frequency of meetings of the Parliament increased from 1529 to
tackle the religious issues. The membership of the parliament underwent major changes ,
the clergy were replaced by laymen not only in the legislature but even within royal
administration. As Thomas Ertman states that by breaking up the old national patronage
networks centered on the Court, the civil war removed a key structural underpinning of the
parasitical state which had flourished before 1642. Under Oliver Cromwell, one of the rebel
leader, the New Model Army was created in 1645. A series of constitutional experiments
under him introduced fundamental changes in the state administration. The pillars of
Absolutism – “the Prerogative powers” of the ruler were abolished. Civil War resulted House
of Commons to influence state politics , as standing committees were formed to oversee the
major departments and subsequently , strict parliamentary control was established over
state finances.

Thus , Perry Anderson points out that the English Absolutism was brought to crisis by
aristocratic particularism and clannic desperation on its periphery: forces that lay historically
behind it. But it was felled at the Centre by commercialized gentry, a capitalist city, a
commoner artisanate and yeomanry: forces pushing beyond it. Before it could reach the age
of maturity, English Absolutism was cut off by a bourgeois revolution.

ABSOLUTISM IN SPAIN-
According to Perry Anderson the rise of Habsburg Spain was not merely one episode within
a set of concurrent and equivalent experiences of State construction in Western Europe: it
was also an auxiliary determinant of the whole set as such. It thus occupies a qualitatively
distinct position in the general process of Absolutization. For the reach and impact of
Spanish Absolutism was in a strict sense 'inordinate', among the other Western monarchies
of the age. Anderson points out that the Spanish monarchy owed its preeminence to a
combination of two complexes of resources. On the one hand, its ruling house benefited
more than any other line in Europe from the compacts of dynastic marriage-policy. On the
other hand, the colonial conquest of the New World supplied it with a superabundance of
precious metals, which gave it a treasury beyond the range of any of its counterparts.

Spanish Absolutism thus drew strength both from the inheritances of feudal
aggrandizement at home and the booty of extractive capital overseas. No other major
Absolutist State in Western Europe was to be so finally noble in character, or so inimical to
bourgeois development. The very fortune of its early control of the mines of America, with
their primitive but lucrative economy of extraction, disinclined it to promote the growth of
manufactures or foster the spread of mercantile enterprise within its European empire.
Located in the Iberian peninsula was a multi ethic fabric of the medieval brake. Anderson
talks about the unique geographical location and its multiplicity of cultures. The Roman
conquered and named “Hispania” which was replaced by the Germanic tribes soon after the
fall of Rome. Visigoths were in control in certain parts. At 711, the Moorish invaders
conquered the eastern Germanic tribes and this started the period of “Al- Andalusia”. There
were diversity in terms of the language spoken as north-east and East spoke Catalan, South,
central and North spoke Castilian, Arabic by moors etc. After a long period of toleration,
mayhem struck with intense hatred against the Moors and Jews. The idea of “Convivencia”
or peaceful coexistence got threatened by the Reconquesta.

Aragon and Castile were two important states of Iberian Peninsula. Aragon was a volatile
and very powerful state. It was a hilly terrain which acted as a buffer kingdom between
French and Spain. Barcelona was the chief center of administrative and judiciary. Aragon,
Valencia and Catalan formed a union and had their own provincial assembly called “Cortes”.
Castile on other hand ,much larger in size and more populous. Nobility here were extremely
powerful. The rise of Royal power started during the second half of 15 th century with the
matrimonial alliance between Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabella of Castile in 1469. The two
monarch showed personal interest in every aspect of administration. They visited different
parts of their kingdom, reorganized municipal Govt., tried to control powerful military
houses. The Spanish union of Hispanic kingdoms later developed into the Habsburg empire
or Monarquia. The four major kingdoms of Spain- Castile, Aragon, Catalonia and Valencia.
The Royal Councils were frequently used create effective control over the nobility. Curia
Regis was the great council that existed in many states of Europe during middle ages. These
medieval institutions were heavily reorganized in Castile in 1480 and Aragon in 1494. They
were converted into two separate Royal Councils with separate territorial jurisdiction.
Ferdinand and Isabella created many other council such as The Council of Inquisition, The
Council of Military Order and The Council of Cruzada. The collaboration between two
housed curbed the power of the landed nobility by conferring Honours to lower level
nobility on their loyalty to State. Spanish nobility who lived in cities had developed their
own assembly and officials called Regidores. A new set of officials were created to share the
powers with Regidores called Corregidores. They were given judicial and administrative
power. Hermandad was the body of nobles, knights and troops loyal to the crown who
were allowed to confiscate lands from nobles, established law and order and suppressed
violence.

The Castile Cortes consisted of three estates- the nobility, clergy and townsman, while the
Aragon Cortes consisted of gentry in addition to the former three. These mechanism had
made monarchs dependent by controlling finances. As a result to curb this , both the
monarchs started acquiring alienated land and property which once belonged to the crown
along with effective tax collection to reduce their dependence on the Cortes. No session of
Cortes was called in Castile between 1482- 1498. The important taxes of the Spanish rulers
included: 1) Servicio –main tax on laymen, 2) Alcabala –sales tax on all commercial
transaction, 3) Millones. Hidalgo were new kind nobles who were dependent on the king for
titles. Asientos were contracts in the form of passes which were issued to the German, the
Flemish and the Italian bankers for loans usually secured against the king’s share in bullion
treasure which arrived from the new world. According to Ralph Davis , the Castilian revenue
of Philip II at its peak in 1519 was ten times that of English crown. The Spanish nobility was
largest amongst the European states but exempted from taxes in return for political gains
from nobility. Silver trade provided additional income to the ruler, the crown in general
received one –fifth of the total silver that reached the Spanish ports of Servile and Cadiz.
Another source of income came from the Mesta sheep farmers who made huge
contribution to the state in return for their monopoly over the wool trade.

The relationship between Church and State greatly determined the progress of Absolutism
in Spain. Ferdinand and Isabella had supported the Pope in his Italian policy and in return
obtained from him the right to nominate ecclesiastical offices. The Spanish rulers could also
prevent the implementation of Papal Bull in Italian States of Sicily, Naples and Milan. The
Church remained an important source of Income for Spanish Crown. Ferica Reales was given
to the crown of Castile and it constituted a third of the tithes collected by the church in its
region. One of the most important powers enjoyed by the Spanish crown was the power of
Inquisitions given by Pope Sixtus IV in 1478. The Spanish monarch believed that pure
Catholic orthodoxy can only be the real basis for strong kingdom. Hence, many moors and
Jews were converted and known as “Moriscos” and “Morrano” respectively. The treaty of
Alhambra 1492 gave option to the Jews either to get converted or to leave the state. The
concept of the “Reys Catholicos”- Catholic Monarchs combined the notion of religion and
politics. Under this wake of Inquisitions Spain got religiously unified. The policy of
Reconquesta was achieved under the military leadership of Ferdinand.

Spanish Absolutism also depended on its military power. The reign of Charles V saw the
imperial expansion of Spain. The Spanish ruler successfully contested the Imperial Crown of
the Holy Roman Empire in 1519. Charles V, son of Joanna and Philip II of Austria who
became the sovereign of the largest empire in Europe which included Netherlands,
Austria, Burgundy, Italian possessions and colonies in central and south America. There
were wide responses of revolts around after his accession to throne. He ignored Spanish
problems and could hardly spend 16 years in Spain from 1516 to 1556. The very first revolt
faced by him was “Communero Revolts” in 1520’s. Cities and towns of Castile protested
against drain of money. Town declared independence and all communes formed a league
called “Sancta Junta”. Anderson calls it a “Proto- Nationalist” revolt. During Charles V reign
the number of Hidalgos rapidly increased as trade profits were invested in the purchase of
noble ranks. This mentality checked the rise of Capitalism. The Royal Council was
supplemented by the Council of War, the Council of Finance and the Council of State. The
enormous overseas empire led to the creation of two important councils- The Council of the
Indies and Casa da Contratacion, to regulate the actives of the colonial officials and to
Supervise trade. Anderson has pointed Spanish Absolutism as “ Devolved Absolutism” as
the State was ruled by councils, nobles with suzerainty of the King over all judgments.
Charles V had an important minister named Mercurio Gatlinara who along with him
dreamed the rule over the whole world- “Dominion Mudi”.

Charles V abdicated in 1556 and divided the empire into two administrative regions, one
under his brother Ferdinand that included the Holy Roman Empire and the other comprising
Spain and Burgundy to his son Philip II. The period of Philip II (1556-1598) saw establishment
of permanent Capital at Madrid. The council System was taken further with the creation of
Camara de Castilla and the Council Of Flanders in 1588 to stem the Dutch revolt. Philip II
was probably the last Catholic Absolutist Monarch and married Mary Tudor becoming the
joint monarch of English Crown. He is often regarded by scholars as a fanatic Catholic and
resulted another wake of inquisition driving out 80,000 Moriscos. Superficially, Spain under
Philip II appeared great and rich because of huge influx of Silver but the fact is that he failed
to exploit the American market. There was stagnation of army and taxation increased by
430 % while wages rose only by 80% points A.J.P. Jones. The defeat of Spanish Armada in
1588 by Elizabeth I of England pointed the fall of Spanish naval power.

Thus, these 'combinations of sovereignty and property' were a telling survival of the
principles of territorial lordship into the epoch of Absolutism. The ancient regime preserved
its feudal roots in Spain to its dying day.

ABSOLUTISM IN FRANCE

According to Perry Anderson, France presents an evolution very distinct from the Hispanic
pattern. Absolutism there enjoyed no such early advantages as in Spain, in the form of a
lucrative overseas empire. Nor, on the other hand, was it confronted with the permanent
structural problems of fusing disparate kingdoms at home, with radically contrasted political
and cultural legacies. The Capetian monarchy, as we have seen, had slowly extended its
suzerain rights outwards from its original base in the Ile de France, in a gradual movement
of concentric unification during the Middle Ages, until they reached from Flanders to the
Mediterranean. It never had to contend with another territorial realm within France of
comparable feudal rank: there was only one kingship in the Gallic lands. Apart from the
small and semi-Iberian State of Navarre in the remote folds of the Pyrenees. The outlying
duchies and counties of France had always owed nominal allegiance to the central dynasty,
even if as vassals initially more powerful than their royal overlord - permitting a juridical
hierarchy that facilitated later political integration. The social and linguistic differences that
divided the South from the North, although persistent and pronounced, were never quite as
great as those set the East off from the West in Spain. Langue d’ Oil was spoken in the
northern France and Langue d’ Oc was spoken in Southern region. There were three
important dynasties in France which included:- 1) Capetian (1310-1327), 2)Valois (1327 –
1589), 3) Bourbon (1589 -1789).

J.P. Genet points to the problem of genesis of the modern state in the late medieval and
early medieval periods. He argued that the developments of the 12 th to 14th centuries were
crucial in the formation of state in the Western Europe. It began with the extension of Royal
Justice and was followed by the attempts to raise revenue. The economic and social crisis
caused by the Black Death strengthened the hands of the rulers. Perry Anderson suggests
that the centralization of authority in hands of the French monarch began in the 15 th
century. There were three important breakdowns of the political orders in three separate
centuries which included:- 1) The Hundred Years War in the 14th and 15th centuries, 2) The
Religious War of the 16th century between Catholics and Huguenots and 3) The Fronde
Revolts against the centralized monarchy by the nobles. in the mid17 th century. The ultimate
outcome was the creation of the Royal Authority, which had no parallel throughout the
Europe. According to Le Roy Ladurie , France till around 1460’s was poised for a state
formation between unitary and decentralized model. However, the military conflicts of the
15th century led to a concentration of power in the hands of the ruler who continued to
enjoy the support of the nobility. They transformed the feudal army into a centralized force.

The Founder of the Valois was Philip IV. His period faced Black Death and threat from
England and Burgundy. Next important ruler was King Charles VII (1422-1461) in which
France faced the end of the Hundred Years War. He was the first to introduce centralized
tax- “Taille”. He also passed the edict of “Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges” and the Grand
Council of the French Church was created which weakened the papacy on ecclesiastical
grounds. Francis I and Henry II were considered to be true Absolutist monarchs. Francis I
made alliance with the Ottoman Turks. 1527 protestant nobles were massacred on
Catharine de Medici’s order which came to be known as Bartholomew Day Massacre. Henry
of Navarre who turned Catholic became the first Bourbon king who passed the “Edict of
Nantes” which for the first time granted certain rights to the protestants. Relative time of
peace began and economic development triggered.

Historians hold divergent view on the nature of French Absolutism during the first half of
the 16th century. Questions are raised whether Francis I and Henry II were absolute
monarchs. There are two major views on the subject. According to the first view, as pointed
out by Georges Pages, the rulers were as powerful as the later absolute rulers and that the
beginning of 16th century or the Valois period triumphed the Absolutist regime. The other
view, as brought out by Henri Prentout, suggests that the application of the term “ Absolute
Monarchy” fits to the rule of Louis XIV. He preferred to used the word “Contractual” for the
monarchy between 1285 and 1589. Scholars like Lublinskaya and Roger Mettem reject the
notions of French Absolutism and considered term hopelessly inadequate. Sharon
Ketterings feels that the early modern state bore little resemblance to the model of
bureaucratic rationality and that the French Govt. and French Society coexisted in the state
of constant tension throughout the old regime. On the other hand, Russell J. Major
describes the French monarchy of this period of Valois as “Popular and Consultative”.
Refuting this view, R.J. Knecht argues that Francis I and Henry II never called any meeting of
the Estates General and it indicates no scope for consultation.

The process of judicial reforms had started earlier and a part of the judicial business was
transformed to the Grand Consiel. The new nobility was formed known as noblesse de robe
against the traditional nobility noblesse d’ epee. The judicial system in France was based on
the idea that the King was the first and the foremost judge. The lowest level of Judiciary
magistrates called Prevots or Vicnotes. The smallest unit of the local govt. was the royal
Baillage. Above the Baillage there were Parlements. In 1552 the two tier structure of
judiciary was changed by addition of Presideaux between Baillage and Parlement. The
Royal Revenue in France was built on two kinds: 1) The Ordinary Revenue – which the king
could collect from his own demesne land and 2) The Extraordinary Revenue – was collected
from the taxes. By 16th century it became regular form of tax imposed on permanent basis.
The govt. of France exempted the nobility and clergy from taxes in return for support of
Absolutism. The three extraordinary revenues were: 1) Taille- direct tax levied annually as a
land tax on the commoners, 2) Gabelle – salt tax compulsory for every house hold, 3) Aides
– duties imposed on commodities that were sold in large quantities e.g. wine, livestock etc.
Perry Anderson and J.H.M. Salmon brought out that the rise of French Absolutism was the
product of Feudal crisis that had resulted in the reformation of the state based on the
support of the feudal nobility. In France, the feudal nobility felt threatened by the revolts of
common people and preferred Royal Authority rather than anarchy. This was the basis on
which French Absolutism developed. Robert Brenner suggests that while in England , the
first step towards consolidation of Agrarian capital was taking shape in the 17 th century, the
French development were moving against it.

During the weak rule of Charles IX his minister Michel de L’Hopital carried forward the work
of centralization. According to J.H.M. Salmon, the general tone of the entire legislation
appeared to be paternalistic. His regime had been known for plethora of legislation. During
17th century a number of individual ministers contributed to development of Royal power
such as Cardinal Richelieu, Mazarin, Colbert. Cardinal Richelieu minister of Louis XII
strongly believed and practiced the theory of Absolutism and considered the king to be the
living image of God. He developed tighter control over the conciliar system through the king
and his few selected ministers. The king’s control over the provinces were maintained
through the Conseil de Depeches. The Intendants who played a major role re-establishing
the power of the crown in the far flung provinces was Richelieu’s invention. They were
responsible for raising troops for supervising administration of justice and implementing
Royal Decrees. By 1637 these officials were posted over most of the part of the France and
controlled provincial subdivisions called as Generalities. One of the important sources of
resistance to the growth of Royal Absolutism was the Paris Parliament. Louis XIII in
response with consultation with Richelieu created Chambre d’ Arsenal for the trail of
political offenders and thus bypassing Parlement’s judicial authority. Richelieu adopted a
policy that allowed the nobility to retain its privileges and social status but weakened their
political influence by deliberately strengthening the royal bureaucracy and standing army.
He believed that French Protestant were state within a state and if not broken power can’t
be centralized. He had a very aggressive foreign policy and added Alsace and Loraine to the
French territory. Before he died , he chose Mazarin and Jean Colbert.

The zenith of French Absolutism was reached during the rule of Louis XIV ( 1661-1715)or the
Sun King, when he stated “ le ‘ etat Cest’moi” meaning I am The State. His authority was
completely enshrined in the concept of the divine right of kingship. The political dislocation
caused by the Fronde revolt resulted in the greater concentration of authority in the hands
of the French ruler. Colbert’s reforms further contributed to the process of Royal
Absolutism. Louis XIV benefited from the earlier measures of centralization and
administrative reforms of 16th- 17th centuries. The strict economic regulation by the state
apparatus, commonly known as “Mercantilism” also became the instrument of absolutism
also known as Colberism after the reforms of Jean Colbert. His reign had 4,00,000 troops
through which he waged war in all directions. Peace and order was restored, legal status of
the subjects were redefined. The restoration of the authority of the Intendants with the vast
powers, who were the main rivals of the traditional governors marked the beginning of the
absolutism under Louis XIV. March Bloch considers this as a key event.

The countries administration was divided into 32 Generalities headed by Intendants who
supervised justice, security, lower officials of the administration, priests and tried to check
prevailing feudal laws. Virtually this destroyed the institution of local self -governments.
Many of the traditional offices, including the financial posts were offered for sale. Attempts
were made by Colbert to establish a uniform legal system by framing new law codes, which
included Civil Ordinances (1667), the Criminal Ordinances(1670), the Ordinances of
Commerce(1673)and the Code Noir (1685) for the slaves. In 1685 he absolved the Pragmatic
Sanction and protestant were either force leave or convert. A series of wars were fought
during his period. In 1667, the War of Devolution between France and Spanish Netherlands,
1672 Dutch War and 1701-1714 the Spanish war of succession were fought. Euan Cameron
pointed out that Louis IV royal govt. was considerably strengthened and an important
measure of domestic stability created. Despite all these absolutism could not create uniform
legal system until the French Revolution. According to John Lough, the new form of strongly
centralized monarchy that grew up in 1660’s did not fundamentally change the social
organization of France. It was super imposed on the existing social structure and the
political institution and it did not destroy them. The highest representative institution of the
Estates General was simply forgotten but not abolished. The sector of French domination of
the European scene according to Bellof was largely political as well as cultural. The Grande
Court at Versailles became the most artistic and luxurious court among the royal courts of
Europe. The French Language became the vehicle of French cultural domination and symbol
of polite society. The science journals helped in establishing the achievements of the French
Scientists. Similarly, the creation of new French writings on political philosophy and visual
art as well architecture helped in the spread of French tastes in Europe. Thus, the cultural
leadership of France also gave the monarch greater fame and respect among the people.

Monarchy proved incapable for protecting bourgeoisie interest. The aristocratic reaction
against Absolutism therewith passed into the bourgeois revolution which over threw it.
Fittingly, the historical collapse of the French Absolutist State was tied directly to the
inflexibility of its Feudal formations. Thus, Perry Anderson rightly pointed out that the very
rigidity of the nexus between State and Nobility ultimately participated their common
downfall

ABSOLUTISM IN EASTERN EUROPE ( RUSSIA )

The Absolutist State in the East, by contrast, was the repressive machine of a feudal class
that had just erased the traditional communal freedoms of the poor. It was a device for the
consolidation of serfdom, in a landscape scoured of autonomous urban life or resistance.
The manorial reaction in the East meant that a new world had to be implanted from above,
by main force. The dose of violence pumped into social relations was correspondingly far
greater. The Absolutist State in the East never lost the signs of this original experience
highlights Perry Anderson. He points that the mode of production in Eastern Europe was
founded upon extra economic coercion. Conquest was the primary form of expansion and
the state depended on territorial expansion and not on commerce. The last, and most
durable Absolutism in Europe was Russia. Tsarism in Russia outlived all its precursors and
contemporaries, to become the only Absolutist State in the continent to survive intact into
the 20th century points Anderson. The phases and pauses in the genesis of this State set it
apart early on. It began with the small principality of Moscow with the state growing around
Muscovite nucleus and transformed into a powerful state. This process had begun in the
mid15th century and continued till the 18th century.
The Mongol invasion in the 13th century in the present Russian region led to the rule of
Khans of the Golden Hordes in lower Volga. The dukes of the small states required
confirmation of authority to collect taxes from the tribes which they paid tribute to the
Tatars. This system continued throughout the 14th century. The people were divided into
three main categories: 1) the Great Russians, 2)the Ukrainians and 3) the white Russians.
The rule of Tatars was based on not on conquest and control but on frequent raids in
Lithuania and in other smaller in order to capture booty and slave. Gradually their influence
began to decline and Tatar power broke into three separate Khanates which enabled Russia
to push for independence. With the disintegration of the Golden Horde and waning
Lithuanian influence, the Muscovy princes adopted a vertical pattern of succession, the
throne passing to the eldest son. However, the real foundation of the Russian State was laid
by Ivan III.

The reign of Ivan III (1462-1505) saw a threefold expansion of Russian Territories. The
transformation of Muscovite state to Russian began. He was the first Russian Duke who did
not seek any sanction from the Tatar Khan for the confirmation to throne. He started
acquiring territories, the duchy of Riazan was brought through marriage treaty in 1464 , Tver
and Vyatka were acquired by force in 1485 and the most important territorial gain was of
Novgorod. Ivan III reject the title of “ King” by Holy Roman Emperor Maximilian and instead
assumed the title of “Tsar” meaning a ruler obeying no one and the success against
Novgorod finally made him Ivan the Great. He countered the Tatar attacks in 1481 and 1487.
The ruler Ivan IV made significant territorial expansions. Kazan and Astrakhan were taken
over by 1552 and 156 respectively. The third important territorial expansion was carried out
by Peter the Great. The Northern War between Sweden and Russia ended up with Russia
gaining important territories in the Gulf of Finland, Livonia, and Estonia. The Swedish
invasion in the words of Perry Anderson proved to be the “Hammer of the East”. The rule of
Ivan III and Ivan IV was significant not only for territorial expansion but also for the
development of the powerful State Structure. The policy of expansion was governed by the
social dictates and demographic concerns. Ivan III married Sophia, the niece of the last
Byzantine ruler in 1472 which gave him a claim over the kingdom of Kiev. Sophia brought
Italian Renaissance architects, builders and artists who built Cathedrals, citadels and stone
buildings. The city of Moscow was rebuilt and fortified and Kremlin became the official
court. Janet Martin highlights a comprehensive narrative of the process and emergence of
Russian Absolutism along with its weakness till the reign of Ivan IV.

Writers like S.M. Dubvrovskii severely criticized Ivan IV for creating a tyrannical system that
undermined the productive capacity of the country and pushed Russia towards a crisis by
the end of 16th century. On the other hand, Bakhrushin describes Ivan IV as “Peoples Tsar”
whose reforms received their full support as these assured order within the country and
defense against external opponents. The writings of the Stalin era depict the Ivan IV as a
progressive ruler, a great statesman and national champion. Anderson points that Ivan IV
works has often been endowed with undue retrospective coherence. Euan Cameron has
marked that Ivan IV , “ the Terrible” rule had displayed a powerful capacity on her western
neighbor.

In order to make his position powerful, Ivan III claimed supremacy over the Orthodox
Christian Inhabitants of the Eastern Europe and considered himself their protector. He tried
to give a sacramental character to his position. The Patriarch provide legitimacy and
ideological basis to the Muscovite ruler , after a prolong debate the “ Third Rome Theory”
was articulated by Pskov Filofei, a monk. The only social group in Russia that could counter
the position of Tsars were the Boyars. They were the itinerant Russian warriors who
transformed themselves into landed aristocracy. They played important role in political,
institutional, and legal sphere in the provincial territories and controlled provincial
assemblies called Dumas. The political strength depended on the Serfdom. Ivan III made
attempts to reduce the power of the Boyars and curtail their powers. Significant changes in
the land relationship enforced restrictions and checked the powers of the peasants. A new
type of estate called Pomeste emerged. The land holders were called “Promeshchik” who
were given right to collect income from the income in return for military service to the
Grand prince. Ivan also introduced the principal that boyars could hold land only in return
for loyalty and military service.

The administrative structures of Russia grew slowly from the time of Ivan III. In his
reorganization of army, administration and land tenure, Ivan contributed greatly to the
centralization of authority and established the real base of the real Russian Autocracy of the
16th century. During his reign an attempt was made to revive the Byzantine law and culture
in Russia, which resulted in the framing of a new code of Law in 1497 called the Sudebnik.
Under Ivan IV, fresh laws were introduced to handle cases of crime and to impose
punishment through Sudebnik. The Boyars revolt pressed Ivan to introduce the institution of
Oprichnina which was private court of the ruler and included only dedicated royal followers.
In return these nobles receive land grants confiscated from Boyars and other rebellious
landowners. A.A. Zimin argues that its central organization was responsible for
consolidation of feudal elements in the govt. Some recent scholars rejected the tradition
view and suggested that Oprichnina weakened the institution of representative
government, Dumas. It was Peter the Great who replaced Dumas by the Senate. The
militarization of the state apparatus was linked to the structure of Absolutism. The
formation of an armed force contributed to the powers of the Russian king. The chief
component of the Russian army consisted of Militia, Cossacks and the private Guard of the
ruler called Streltsy. Although, Ivan IV initiated the process of building a permanent army by
passing an order in 1556 enforcing the landlords to render compulsory military service in
relation to land but , it was effectively implemented only under the rule of Peter the Great.
Peter developed the first armed force in Russia based on national interest. The expansion of
the army encouraged industrialization. Iron and munitions industries were promoted to
equip the army. The strength of the standing army reached an impressive figure of 2,10,000.
The development of Russian Navy also began in the period of Peter and by 1725 Russia
possessed 50 battleships. The military and the naval expenses formed almost 75% of the
state budget. The relationship between the Russian state and peasants also contributed to
the development of absolutism. The state legislation gave official recognition of the
institution of serfdom. The Tsars eliminated various categories of nobility and peasantry and
laid the foundation of two class society: 1) The peasants and 2) the Serf. The economic and
social changes during the period of Russian absolutism were not very significant or
noticeable. The state structure dominated by the feudal order blocked the bourgeois
elements from gaining upper hand in the political sphere. The industrial development in
Russia was imposed from above. According to E.I. Kolycheva, the Muscovite empire was
badly affected by a series of crisis beginning in the 1570’s which continued till about the
1590’s followed by political instability caused by succession struggles.

Thus, according to Perry Anderson , the political lessons and implications of the fall of
Tsarism, for a comparative study of contemporary social formations, remain to this day
largely unexplored. The historical obituary of the Absolutism that expired in 19I7 has in that
sense yet to be completed.