The Myth of Absolutism
This is an excerpt from the paper...
Nicholas Henshall, in his book The Myth of Absolutism., Change and Continuity in Early Modern European Monarchy, argues that the concept of absolutism as generally used by historians to describe kingly rule in early modern Europe is badly misleading and inaccurate. Henshall argues that absolutism is no longer a valid and significant concept, for it is too often equated with outright despotism, instead of being seen as a description of broader and more varied forms of monarchic rule. Therefore, the author examines the misuse of the term and endeavors to redefine the governments it was meant to describe in a way that will be useful to the understanding of the era and the governments in question. Monarchies were not "absolute" in terms of force and despotism and the crushing of liberties. In opposition, to traditional theories, Henshall argues that monarchies were varied, indeed, and, in fact, far from despotic. Some inaccurate theories have mistakenly subscribed to a contrast between French 'absolute' monarchs who monopolized power and English 'limited' monarchs who shared it. [However,] most monarchs were both. They were absolute when they wielded their sweeping prerogatives and limited when they negotiated over their subjects' rights (pp. 2-3). In presenting this and other related arguments, Henshall simply examines the historical records available to all historians. He offers not a unique examination of the evidence, but rather a re-examination of that evidence i
. . .
e basic sources:
It is not suggested here that England and France had identical systems of government: this issue is whether the similarities were greater than the contrasts. [For example,] the splendors of England's parliamentary heritage detract from the similarity between the powers of the two monarchs function of their courts. Though 'absolutism' cannot sensibly be related to England, in some respects it displayed more of the features commonly associated with it than France itself (pp. 199-200).
In making such an argument, Henshall examines contemporary and modern documents, including the actual constitutions of the countries in question, works from the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and analyses from the 1920s through the 1980s (p. 212). He critiques articles and books which take the myopic and inaccurate view of monarchies as absolutist, and credits works which he has utilized to assemble his conclusion that absolutism is an obsolete term.
Henshall accomplishes his task in a negativist fashion. That is, he sets out to do away with the term absolutism by showing how the governments described as absolute were in fact composed primarily of elements which are non-absolutist. To the question of the si
. . .
Some common words found in the essay are:
European Monarchy, England France, Catholics England, Louis XIV, Louis XVI, French Revolution, Louis XIV's, Protestant Huguenots, England Continent, Henshall Nicholas, term absolutism, louis xiv, contemporary modern, henshall argues, independent sources power, absolutist french, understanding era, monarchy absolutist, meaningless henshall, monarchies absolutist, contrary henshall, term meaningless henshall,
Approximate Word count = 2006
Approximate Pages = 8 (250 words per page)
More Essays on The Myth of Absolutism
|
Customer Service
to Over
32,000 Professionally Written Papers!!!
