Absolutism or theAge of Absolutism (c. 1610 – c. 1789) is ahistoriographical term used to describe a form of monarchical power that is unrestrained by all other institutions, such as churches, legislatures, or socialelites.[1] The term 'absolutism' is typically used in conjunction with some Europeanmonarchs during the transition fromfeudalism tocapitalism, and monarchs described asabsolute can especially be found in the 16th century through the 19th century. Absolutism is characterized by the ending of feudal partitioning, consolidation of power with the monarch, rise of state power, unification of the state laws, and a decrease in the influence of the church and the nobility.
Rady argues absolutism was a term applied post-hoc to monarchs before the French Revolution with the adjective ‘absolute’ goes back to the Middle Ages. Deriving from the Latin absolutus or ‘absolved’, it had a predominantly legal meaning, describing power that took no heed of the law’s constraints.[2]
Absolute monarchs are also associated with the rise of professional standing armies, professional bureaucracies, the codification of state laws, and the rise of ideologies that justify the absolutist monarchy. Absolutist monarchs typically were considered to have thedivine right of kings as a cornerstone of the philosophy that justified their power (as opposed to the previous order when the kings were consideredvassals of the pope and the emperor).
Absolute monarchs spent considerable sums on extravagant houses for themselves and their nobles. In an absolutist state, monarchs often required nobles to live in the royal palace, while state officials ruled the nobles' lands in their absence. This was designed to reduce the effective power of the nobility by causing nobles to become reliant upon the largesse of the monarch for their livelihoods.
There is a considerable variety of opinion by historians on the extent of absolutism among European monarchs. Some, such asPerry Anderson, argue that quite a few monarchs achieved levels of absolutist control over their states, while historians such as Roger Mettam dispute the very concept of absolutism.[3] In general, historians who disagree with the appellation ofabsolutism argue that most monarchs labeled asabsolutist exerted no greater power over their subjects than othernon-absolutist rulers, and these historians tend to emphasize the differences between the absolutistrhetoric of monarchs and the realities of the effective use of power by these absolute monarchs. The Renaissance historianWilliam Bouwsma summed up this contradiction: "Nothing so clearly indicates the limits of royal power as the fact that governments were perennially in financial trouble, unable to tap the wealth of those most able to pay, and likely to stir up a costly revolt whenever they attempted to develop an adequate income."[4]
| Portrait | Name | Nickname | Country | Reign |
|---|---|---|---|---|
_(3x4_cropped).jpg) | Frederick II | the Wonder of the World (Latin:Stupor Mundi) | .svg) Kingdom of Sicily  Holy Roman Empire | 1198–1250 |
.jpg) | Philip IV | the Fair or the Iron King |  Kingdom of France | 1285–1314 |
.jpg) | Louis XI | the Universal Spider or the Cunning |  Kingdom of France | 1461–1483 |
.jpg) | Henry VIII | – |  Kingdom of England | 1509–1547 |
%2c_formerly_attributed_to_Titian_(Alte_Pinakothek%2c_Munich)_(3x4_cropped).jpg) | Charles V | – | Holy Roman Empire  Spanish Empire | 1516–1558 |
 | Philip II | the Prudent | Spanish Empire | 1556–1598 |
.jpg) | Elizabeth I | the Virgin Queen | Kingdom of England | 1558–1603 |
_(3x4_cropped).jpg) | Louis XIII | the Just | Kingdom of France | 1610–1643 |
.jpg) | Louis XIV | the Sun King |  Kingdom of France | 1643–1715 |
_von_D%25C3%25A4nemark_und_Norwegen_im_Kr%25C3%25B6nungsgewand%2c_Brustbil_(3x4_cropped).jpg) | Frederick III | – |  Kingdom of Denmark-Norway | 1648–1670 |
 | Leopold I | – | Holy Roman Empire | 1658–1705 |
 | Charles XI | – |  Swedish Empire | 1660–1697 |
_-_Portrait_de_Pierre_Ier_(mus%25C3%25A9e_de_l%25E2%2580%2599Ermitage).jpg) | Peter I | the Great |  Tsardom of Russia | 1682–1725 |
 | John V | the Magnanimous |  Kingdom of Portugal | 1706–1750 |
_XII_of_Sweden_(3x4_cropped).png) | Charles XII | Carolus Rex | Swedish Empire | 1697–1718 |
 | Frederick II | the Great |  Kingdom of Prussia | 1740–1786 |
.jpg) | Catherine II | the Great | Russian Empire | 1762–1796 |
.png) | Joseph II | – | Holy Roman Empire | 1765–1790 |
The nationalization process, which manifested itself, among other things, in the formation of standing armies, the establishment of a bureaucratic apparatus dependent solely on the ruler, the integration of the church into the state and amercantilist economic system, is a characteristic of "absolutism". In addition, there would have been a change in the self-image of the baroque prince to an intensification of court life, which reached its heyday at the Versailles court ofLouis XIV.
"Absolutism" is still commonly described as a widespread form of rule in Europe, which reached its peak in theBaroque era. This type of typification began with the historianWilhelm Roscher, who first attempted to periodize the "absolutist age" in the 19th century and to assign the enlightened epoch a separate historical position. He put forward the thesis of a series of stages that begins with denominational absolutism, turns into courtly absolutism and finally ends inenlightened absolutism.[5] The prime example of "courtly absolutism" is the rule of the French King Louis XIV. Later, pure "absolutism" developed into so-called "enlightened absolutism", in which general well-being became the primary goal of the otherwise absolute ruling monarch: The King saw himself as the first servant of his state (self-description byFrederick II of Prussia).
While the rulers claimed to have received their power by thegrace of God, the original absolutism was already theoretically founded by the French jurist and professor of lawJean Bodin (1530–1596) as a response to the writings of the monarchists. Bodin first formulated the thesis of sovereignty, according to which the state – represented by the monarch - has the task of directing the common interests of several households in the right direction and thus exercising their sovereign power, that is, the state represents an absolute, indivisible and perpetual. Furthermore, in his workSix Books of the Republic, he stated the sovereign's claim to omnipotence, on the basis of which the later absolutist systems of rule were built. However, Bodin did not grant the absolutist rulers a right to princely arbitrariness, but rather demanded in his works respect for natural rights, the divine commandments and the protection of family and property.[6]
Enlightened absolutism (also called enlighteneddespotism) refers to the conduct and policies of European absolute monarchs during the 18th and early 19th centuries who were influenced by the ideas of theEnlightenment, espousing them to enhance their power.[7] The concept originated during the Enlightenment period in the 18th and into the early 19th centuries.
An enlightened absolutist is a non-democratic orauthoritarian leader who exercises their political power based upon the principles of the Enlightenment.
Enlightened monarchs distinguished themselves from ordinary rulers by claiming to rule for their subjects' well-being.John Stuart Mill stated that despotism is a legitimate mode of government in dealing with barbarians, provided the end be their improvement.[8]
Enlightened absolutists' beliefs about royal power were typically similar to those of regular despots, both believing that they were destined to rule. Enlightened rulers may have played a part in the abolition ofserfdom in Europe.[9]
The enlightened despotism ofEmperor Joseph II of theHoly Roman Empire is summarized as, "Everything for the people, nothing by the people".[10]
Even Joseph's early writings reveal his attitude towards the office of ruler. He thought that a monarch should sacrifice everything for the welfare of his people. In keeping with his maxim 'Everything for the people, nothing by the people', he did not think that subjects should be given a voice in the political process. Joseph saw his role as that of a benevolent despot who was obliged to coerce his unwitting people for their own good.
