Today all French political power is in Paris. According to Dr. Elizabeth Paddock, French political culture is one of immense power in the executive. Today this is embodied in the power the French people give their president, which is considerably greater than the power given to presidents and prime ministers from other Western liberal democracies. There aren't autonomous regions in France today in the way that American states have a limited degree of autonomy. This, according to Dr. Paddock, is the result of very strong absolute monarchs in the renaissance and a continuation of a strong executive after the French Revolution.
According to Dr. Wolbrink, In the early Middle Ages Charlemagne established the county system. The king ruled from the capitol and there were vassal-liege relationships between counts, dukes, and the king. Counts and dukes manage parts of the kingdom, but must be loyal to the king. Obviously this means that there is the potential for a power struggle between the king and the lesser nobility (ex. the Magna Carta in England was the result of a power struggle between the king and the lesser nobility). Now this is the opposite of a centralized state with massive power in the capitol vested in one single executive.
Louis XIV impact on the centralization of power in France is simple: he placated the aristocracy. Louis XIV renovated his father's old hunting lodge into the Palace of Versailles and made this palace his home, and the home of the entire French aristocracy, in 1682. From here he was able to keep close eye on anyone who might be plotting against him. Also, the government had developed enough that the king was able to govern all of France from his palace without needing to rely on vassals who had their own power but merely swore oaths of allegiance.
By forcing the aristocracy to live with him under the same roof they were not able to plot against him as easily as they might otherwise as powerful vassals. Surely Louis XIV had spies that watched the lesser nobility to prevent this even if they weren't directly in the same room as the king.
Sources:
http://en.chateauversailles.fr/?option=com_cdvfiche&idf=D49E0D38-2622-D151-2217-6E71CAB84BE0
http://www.history.com/topics/louis-xiv
http://www.jstor.org/stable/990191
Comparative Politics at Drury University taught by Dr. Paddock
History of Medieval Europe at Drury University taught by Dr. Wolbrink
Michael,
ReplyDeleteThis is really cool stuff. Louis XIV using the palace as a means to keep an eye on those most likely to plot against him is an ingenious move on his part. Foucault talks about something very similar in 'Discipline and Punishment', in fact, the original title of this work was 'Punishment and Surveillance'! Near the end of this work, he talks about the concept of "panopticism" , or "all seeingness". He makes the point that people behave differently in environments designed to make them feel as if they are always watched.
It sounds to me that Louis XIV was able to create a docile aristocracy by controlling their environment and instilling fear in them. I use the word 'create' here because it seems that Louis XIV not only controlled aristocrats, but created a new status for the aristocracy as a whole. What an intelligent leader! Or perhaps tyrant would be a better title.
This, to me, raises a particular question: Did Louis XIV enact similar changes in the public sphere outside of the aristocracy? If not, how did he exert his power there?
As always, cool stuff! I hope that this comment is helpful!
You've hit the nail right on the head. If I know you'll kill me if I say the wrong word I am not likely to say anything. Especially when all the employees and security are on your payroll!
DeleteI do not know if Louis enacted similar changes. I don't see how it would be possible to monitor everyone. It seems more likely that he would be mostly concerned with the rich and powerful. He probably did not foresee the a French revolution being entirely populist in nature.
Hey Michael,
ReplyDeleteI've never had an encounter with Louis XIV, aside from the four paragraph section of my high-school history text. His means of exercising control are brilliant. Keeping any potential threats within arms-reach, perhaps also creating friendships along the way.
I'd be curious to know how this change influenced the common people. How did a centralized authority influence the outskirts of the French territory? Did the lower class feel more distanced as a result of this? Perhaps this could have created negative tension within the public realm. If so, how did Louis combat those issues?
Maybe you've encountered some of the answers to these questions within your readings. If you can shed any light on these questions, I'd appreciate it!
Good luck with the paper man!
As far as influencing people in his day I cannot say. According to Dr. Paddock this change in French politics started a tradition that continues to this day.
DeleteThat tradition is that almost all power is vested in one person located in Paris. Whether it was Napoleon, the Bourbon restoration monarchs, or presidents in the republics that followed, France has always had a very strong executive and the government has been centralized since Louis XIV.
Re the lower levels and control--this might come from taxes, the work taxes, the price of break, the control of the book publishing trade, etc. Since a good portion of the state income subsidized Versailles, it obviously had tremendous influence, though such polices can backfire in other generations. A fun fact is that we have a huge amount of information on Louis' personal life, even physician's records.
ReplyDelete