Hardcover
-
PICK UP IN STORECheck Availability at Nearby Stores
Available within 2 business hours
Related collections and offers
Overview
In this major study William F. Church examines Richelieu's policies, his efforts to justify them, and the extensive debates they occasioned. His conclusion, contrary to that of many earlier historians, is that the underlying ideology of the Cardinal's policies was strongly religious and opened the way to secularized reason of state to a very limited degree.
Originally published in 1973.
The Princeton Legacy Library uses the latest print-on-demand technology to again make available previously out-of-print books from the distinguished backlist of Princeton University Press. These editions preserve the original texts of these important books while presenting them in durable paperback and hardcover editions. The goal of the Princeton Legacy Library is to vastly increase access to the rich scholarly heritage found in the thousands of books published by Princeton University Press since its founding in 1905.
Product Details
| ISBN-13: | 9780691646299 |
|---|---|
| Publisher: | Princeton University Press |
| Publication date: | 04/19/2016 |
| Series: | Princeton Legacy Library , #1344 |
| Pages: | 564 |
| Product dimensions: | 6.30(w) x 9.30(h) x 1.40(d) |
Read an Excerpt
Richelieu and Reason of State
By William F. Church
PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS
Copyright © 1972 Princeton University PressAll rights reserved.
ISBN: 978-0-691-05199-4
CHAPTER 1
PART I
THE BACKGROUND
POWER, POLITICS, AND MORALS IN THE FRENCH STATE SYSTEM
Throughout the course OF European history, the proper definition of governmental policy has been the central and most consequential issue that has forced its attention upon rulers, statesmen, and political thinkers alike. The consolidation of governmental power and the emergence of newly strong states during the early modern period, far from providing ready-made solutions to this perennial problem, added a new dimension, reason of state. For the most part, the political theorists and statesmen of the age attempted to resolve the increasingly difficult questions that confronted them in accordance with their understanding of the general good, but in the process they invariably approached matters of policy through the political realities and intellectual preconceptions of their own time. In a book that attempts to analyze the place of reason of state in French thought and practice during the ministry of Cardinal Richelieu, it is essential to begin by indicating the political and ideological factors that impinged directly upon speculation concerning this concept. Like all statesmen and political thinkers, the Cardinal, his supporters, and critics were men of their time and approached the problem of rightful governmental policy from the standpoint of their generation's experience and needs. The institutional factor in their spectrum may be shown by sketching certain major elements of the French state system, with special attention to the prevailing view of governmental authority, its nature, purposes, and limitations. It is significant that this key element of French political life should crystallize at the opening of the Age of Absolutism. Also, it is necessary to examine the heritage of relevant ideas of just government from preceding generations of French theorists and to examine certain parallel currents of an international character. All these elements, particularly those in the French tradition, are important because they not only determined the framework within which Cardinal Richelieu and his contemporaries viewed the problem of reason of state but also provided the philosophical and practical tools with which they sought its solution. It is the purpose of these initial sections of the book to analyze the basic background factors, political and ideological, that determined in large measure the fundamental categories within which the Cardinal and his generation approached the concept of reason of state.
By the early years of the seventeenth century, the French state system had attained a significant degree of maturity and henceforth provided the most important framework of the life of the nation. To achieve this position had required centuries of effort on the part of the French kings, their jurists, and administrators, but in certain respects their work was now essentially complete. From the earlier medieval organization of society as a hierarchy of estates in which that of the king was but one, persistent expansion of royal power and institutions of government had extended the king's estate to the point where it had achieved predominance over all others and had, in certain respects, become synonymous with the state itself. Unfortunately for those who would trace the growth of the French state, the word état is ambiguous. Not only is the historic confusion between the king's "estate" and the "state" perpetuated by the single term for both; in this period it was also variously used to denote a territorial unit that was ruled by a single sovereign, the royal government with its vast apparatus of offices and powers, and the community or nation at large. The most frequent and important usage was undoubtedly the second, that is, the state as the governing organ that was animated and controlled by the sovereign power of the king. Be that as it may, it should be emphasized that all these meanings had one important element in common, their juridical basis. As it developed in the French tradition, the idea of the state was fundamentally a legal concept, since all major elements of the French state system ultimately rested upon and were perpetuated by accepted law. It is therefore crucially important to note that the categories of law which determined the rights and position of all elements of the state were largely complete during the early years of the seventeenth century. As the Age of Absolutism progressed, certain portions of the governmental system increased in importance and new mechanisms for the exercise of power were added, but these developments took place within an organization whose structure was essentially formed at the outset of the period. From this standpoint, reason of state was a political concept that was added to, and grafted upon, a mature juridical state system.
As a territorial unit, the French state of this period was a distinct, identifiable entity, quite different from the earlier feudal realm. Its frontiers with neighboring states were rapidly hardening, permitting a much clearer differentiation of French and non-French territory. Although border disputes remained to plague later generations, there occurred a noticeable tightening of royal control along the frontiers of the realm. Within the borders, important changes were also taking place. With the accession of Henry IV to the throne and the incorporation of his patrimony into the domain of the crown in 1607, the last great feudal principality disappeared. Henceforth, with minor exceptions, the royal domain was coterminus with the realm. In this sense, the territorial basis of the French state was largely complete, and royal agents were now able to penetrate into all portions of the realm without significant interference. As a result, royal institutions were by far the most important governing organs in the land. The ancient function of dispensing justice was effected by a series of Parlements and lesser royal courts, while administration proper, chiefly financial and military, was carried out by a vast army of officeholders and commissioners scattered throughout the realm. This vast bureaucracy provided the vital instrumentality with which the royal prerogative was made effective throughout the length and breadth of the land. Although certain administrative and judicial bodies survived on ecclesiastical and baronial holdings, by far the most significant institutions of government were royal. They gave graphic meaning to the concept of the state as the organ of sovereignty, the state as the governing power.
The strength and permanence of the French governmental system during the early seventeenth century were such that it was increasingly acquiring the characteristics of a continuing, impersonal, administrative state. Although the French monarchy necessarily retained personalized power in the hands of the king, the governmental system was in effect a vast bureaucratic apparatus that was capable of carrying out many of its functions without specific royal instruction. The major defect of personalized power was, of course, the risk that the normal functions of government would be interrupted by the death of the ruler, particularly if his heir were a minor, but France had traveled far since the Middle Ages when government ceased with the death of the king. Because of the continuity of its all-important legal and institutional foundations, the French state continued intact without the person or policies of the sovereign. According to the fundamental laws of the French monarchy, the crown was not a heredity but a dignity that was conferred by law upon each ruler in turn and thereby enjoyed permanent legal existence apart from the transitory life of the king who merely exercised royal power during his reign. Thus, although the king might die, the sovereign authority was immortal. From this position, it was but a short step to the assertion that "the king never dies." Likewise, any interregnum was ruled out by the immediate transfer of power to the legally designated successor of the defunct ruler. Although the king might be a minor and a regency might be required until he could assume the reins of government, all authority remained in the hands of the young king and the regent merely ruled in his name. Even the coronation ceremony meant nothing regarding the transfer of power from one ruler to the next and was retained merely because of its religious and symbolic significance.
The legal basis of royal authority and the immediate transfer of power from one ruler to his successor enabled many organs of government to continue to function without interruption. La Roche-Flavin, in his important work on the Parlements wrote that the courts' authority and their dispensing of justice continued although the king might be dead, captured, or absent. Similarly, many administrative practices gave continuity to the state system. Although royal ordinances were in theory effective only during the life of the king who issued them, they were generally observed without express confirmation by succeeding rulers and constituted a large and growing body of public law which was evidenced by the appearance of many published compilations. The status of the treaties and the debts that had been contracted by the dead king was less certain, but it became customary to observe treaties unless they were specifically repudiated, while loans were increasingly made in the name of the state rather than the king. And the most important factor making for the continuity of government was the very existence of a vast corps of royal officials, most of whom held their offices as property because of the prevailing practice of venality. Such features of the French governmental system extensively facilitated the growth of a continuing, impersonal, administrative state with special characteristics and a life of its own.
Although major developments in France made for the establishment of an impersonal, bureaucratic state, personalized power remained central to the system and even increased in importance as the Age of Absolutism advanced. In a monarchy, especially one that claimed to be absolute, there was necessarily a profound personalization of power, since it was universally agreed that the king held all public authority and that all acts of government were done either by him in person or by others in his name. Sovereignty was indivisible according to the prevailing Bodinian concept with the result that all officials merely exercised authority as a temporary delegation, all right to rule remaining in the hands of the king. Charles Loyseau, one of the ablest French jurists in the early seventeenth century, stated the accepted view when he wrote that although an official in the royal administration might enjoy a proprietary in his office, the powers that he wielded belonged solely to the king. This concentration of all public authority in the king, however, carried many more connotations than the merely legal and institutional. As born leader, ruler, and defender of the nation, the king was the object of the strongest loyalty in the state and the focal point of growing French patriotism. He was even believed to embody superior virtues and to set the ideal toward which his subjects should strive. Because he subsumed its values and purposes, he symbolized and personified the state and was identified with it in this sense. Statements to this effect are legion during the period and too numerous to list. This view of monarchy increased in strength throughout the century, reaching its historical climax under Louis XIV. These twin developments, the growth of the impersonal, administrative state and increased emphasis upon the pivotal role of the king, were crucial to the development of the French state system during the Age of Absolutism. Together they combined to strengthen the view that the state was a newly significant reality in the life of the French people and possessed a value and ethic of its own.
In its broadest sense, the word "state" in the early seventeenth century signified the nation or human community at large. Not only was it a territorial unit with a well-organized system of government; it was also a human collectivity, a living organism that was possessed of uniquely French features and values. Since the late Middle Ages, there had occurred a strong growth of a cultural nationality and patriotism which endowed the French kingdom with special attributes and set it apart from all other political units in Europe. If a nationality is defined as "a group of people who speak either the same language or closely related dialects, who cherish common historical traditions, and who constitute or think they constitute a distinct cultural society," all requisite elements were present in France during the early seventeenth century in large measure. The French language was rapidly evolving into its modern form, and the tradition of literature in the vernacular was firmly established. Likewise, the historical traditions of the realm were widely known among its inhabitants. The mere fact of living under a common sovereign in a realm with a distinct set of laws, institutions, and traditions contributed strongly to a sense of pride in the French heritage. And the whole was placed on a high intellectual plane by being infused with a sense of religious values and purposes, particularly since the work of Jeanne d'Arc who effectively combined the ancient tradition of crusading monarchy with the concept of national patriotism. In the literary world, perhaps the most specific evidence of the widespread acceptance of this position was the appearance of many histories of France that were implicitly predicated upon the unique significance of the French past. This school of historians acquired a degree of maturity in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, and the popularity of their works is ample evidence of widespread interest in specifically French traditions. Their writings even included the most potent ingredient of modern nationalism, a concept of the French race.
During the upheavals of the late sixteenth century, French cultural patriotism was strengthened by a revival of Roman Stoicism in which many educated men, while continuing to adhere to essential Christian doctrines, found consolation in ancient Stoic morality. Admirably suited to this purpose, this best of pagan philosophies provided a fully developed lay ethic and a noble sentiment of virtuous patriotism which French thinkers easily fused with their thought concerning the state. For our purposes, the best example of this union of precepts is found in the writings of the Christian Stoic patriot, Guillaume Du Vair. A jurist, man of letters and of action, Du Vair supported the position of the politiques during the rebellion of the Catholic League and exhorted his countrymen to remain steadfast in their traditional loyalties. His brief Exhortation à la vie civile argued against withdrawing from the harsh realities of civil strife and maintained that all Christians were obligated to endure the hazards of life in a period of social disruption. The man of ability should actively contribute all his resources to the preservation of society, the most precious thing on earth, and willingly assume the risk of failure. In his more important Traité de la constance, Du Vair lamented the calamities that the League had inflicted upon Paris, his native city, the capital of the most beautiful realm on earth and the common temple of all France. His ideal was embodied in the words that he placed in the mouth of the dying de Thou who exhorted his countrymen to remember that they were French, to go down with their weapons in hand, and to sacrifice all for the defense of the state and the preservation of the patrie. The key word patrie is used with sufficient frequency in the literature of the period to indicate widespread acceptance of the concept of the fatherland as applied to the realm at large.
(Continues...)
Excerpted from Richelieu and Reason of State by William F. Church. Copyright © 1972 Princeton University Press. Excerpted by permission of PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
Table of Contents
- Frontmatter, pg. i
- Preface, pg. v
- Contents, pg. vii
- Introduction, pg. 1
- Part I. The Background, pg. 13
- Part II. The Controversy over the Valtelline Episode, 1624-1627, pg. 103
- Part III. Internal Affairs, State-Building, and Attendant Controversies, 1624-1632, pg. 173
- Part IV. The Climax, 1630-1642, pg. 283
- Part V. Design for Immortality, pg. 461
- Conclusion, pg. 505
- Bibliography, pg. 515
- Index, pg. 549