The definition of absolutism or an absolute monarchy is not definite. This definition was from the dictionary: A political theory holding that all power should be vested in one ruler or other authority. I am using this definition as an example of what the entire concept stands for. First off it says “theory” because in reality nothing is absolute especially government. “One” is a very important world that demonstrates the improbable extremities of this “Theory.” I didn’t initially understand how such an extreme idea could be practiced (or attempted.) The idea of having absolutism has appeared to be ideal to many empires in the 16th through 18th century. Starting with many monarch in Muslim empires like the rule of Suliman in the Ottoman empire, through many different reigns in Persia, India and into Europe. They all have a common theme: they didn’t last. Some might make the argument that Louis XIV reign lasted very long, but how can any one say his rule was successful. He left the country in shambles and was eventually over throw by the revolution.
I am taking the popular belief to very one-sided argument. There are some positives to there “Absolute Evil” that was practiced during this era. The positives doing even get close to out weighting the negatives, but they were still relevant to the time. The great architecture and art of the era was magnificent. The masterpieces that were constructed during this era are unmatched by any other artistry of mankind. The extreme wealth of these rules was demonstrated by the constructing of great buildings such as the Taj Mahal. The wealth of the absolutisms was very apparent, but the monarchs who ran the empires didn’t use it for the people they used it for personal entertainment and extraordinary works of art. There were great strides in the art world that were made, but the suffering of the people was a good enough reason to strongly disagree with Absolutism.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'm not sure if I follow your deconstruction of the definition of absolutism. I think that in principle a government can be absolute, but that does not necessarily mean it is effective. Nevertheless, one can still take control over everything, as did Louis XIV who believed "l'état c'est moi." The word theory refers to an idea or explanation that can never truly be proven (as are all things in life), so I feel its place in the definition is necessary because politics can be seen as a form of philosophy.
ReplyDeleteI do agree that absolutism is a corrupt form of government that puts the people through unnecessary turmoil. Although, I do think what came about because of the absolutist movement could have been worth it. After being subjected to rulers and forced to live poorly, the French eventually rose up and overturned the monarchy. Perhaps Louis XIV's war loving tendencies and his neglect to his people was a trigger (along with successive events) to revolutionary ideas. It may have been the first stone in the heavy burden that broke the French's back. In a sense, Louis XIV gave them a reason to protest, which eventually led to their development as a republic.
Additionally, I feel that Louis XIV contribution and patronage to the arts is historically necessary. The arts in France flourished thanks to him, which showed the rest of the world how important they are. He fostered the arts and inspired artists. Without his interest in art maybe it would not be viewed as such an worthy field today. Ballet would not be the same if he had not encouraged its development and created the Academy of Dance in France. I have always believed that it is the arts that awaken the mind as well as make the soul come alive. Viewing a painting, listening to a piece of music, walking through the La Galerie des Glaces, or attending a play are experiences that instill magnificent emotions that are rarely felt elsewhere. I am not saying that the arts would not have developed without Louis XIV, but I believe that they would not have developed to such a great extent if he had never became Le Roi Soleil.
I agree with your statement that despite Louis XIV’s long reign, it was hardly successful. I think that his regrets at the end of his reign demonstrate the negativity of absolutism. He realized that his absolute reign, including his contributions to art and frequent warfare, had impoverished France, and he died with regret. If a great example of an absolute ruler died with bad feelings toward his reign then I don’t think that absolutism can be viewed as worthwhile. I also agree that the positive contributions to art don’t come close to outweighing the negative effects to the country as a whole. It is hard to appreciate the art for all it is worth when one thinks of the poverty and taxation enforced on the middle class and peasants, since the upper class nobility was exempt from taxation. This is one thing that really stood out to me in the reading; how not just in France, but also in India, China, and Japan, the peasants were being heavily taxed and barely getting by, while the upper class enjoyed lavish artistic advances. I disagree with the comment that absolutism was worthwhile because it brought the people toward revolution. I do not think that it was necessary for the people to be pushed to their absolute low just to prove they could rise up. Therefore, I believe that absolutism was an unnecessary evil.
ReplyDeleteWhile it is obvious that the various "absolute" societies throughout the 16th to 18th centuries were too powerful and extravagant for the good of the common people, the benefits of these types of societies needs to be weighted more heavily. Whether it was the Ottoman Empire in Turkey, the Mongols and Qing in China, or the kings of Western European countries, all of these rulers brought fourth major advances in the arts.
ReplyDeleteIt is very true that these artistic advances came hand in hand with war, poverty, and famine. These problems occurred because a large proportion of funds were used to develop artistic techniques and support national artists.
Most will argue that the advance of art is not worth any type of human sacrifices in war or situations of poverty. However, the fact is that these periods of artistic advances did not all occur with "absolute" rulers because of an insane coincidence.
The period of absolutism in the world was the greatest outpouring of the arts because of rulers' heavy focus on them. It is very possible that without absolute rule, the foundation for today's arts would have not been laid.
although i do not agree with the "showoffy" method of "Hey look at me i can use a dictionary" i do believe that this is an outstanding post that truly defines what absolutism is and doesn't miss a beat.
ReplyDeletealso if you want to look at an even better post check out the one that was posted before this one... just saying