Philosophical Works on Monarchy

  • Thread starter Thread starter CutlerB
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CutlerB

Guest
Among my interests are Monarchy and philosophy. Having had another realisation of this, I am currently on the search for books, essays, etc. that discuss Monarchy from a philosophical/theological point of view, particularly in relation to the events in France between 1789 and 1815.

One that has been recommended to me was Saint Thomas Aquinas’ De Regno, which I have read. It does a good job of “laying out the basics” so to speak, but it is a rather brief treatment and doesn’t quite relate to the timeframe given above.

Another work that was recommended to me is Count Joseph de Maistre’s Du Pape. I haven’t read it yet, since it seems difficult to obtain. I did, however, read an overview of it, and from what that sounded like, it’s quite an extreme viewpoint… That may be due to mischaracterisation, though. He was called “an extreme far-right” person and “enemy of human freedom”. I’m not sure whether I’d want to read something like that, if it is true.

So, I pose two questions:
  1. Has anyone read the latter work and can they comment on it?
  2. Are there other treatises of the topic that you can recommend?
Thanks. 🙂
 
CutlerB said:
So, I pose two questions:
  1. Has anyone read the latter work and can they comment on it?
  2. Are there other treatises of the topic that you can recommend?
Thanks. 🙂
Click to expand...
Although he’s not French, and earlier than the period you’re interested in, John Locke had a profound effect on the the French thinking at the time of the Revolution (along with Rousseau of course) and was widely translated and disseminated during your time frame. Not sure if you’re just looking for French sources, or simply Revolutionary ones, but I would be happy to discuss Locke and the Revolution if this interests you.
 
hicetnunc said:
Although he’s not French, and earlier than the period you’re interested in, John Locke had a profound effect on the the French thinking at the time of the Revolution (along with Rousseau of course) and was widely translated and disseminated during your time frame. Not sure if you’re just looking for French sources, or simply Revolutionary ones, but I would be happy to discuss Locke and the Revolution if this interests you.
Click to expand...
No, they don’t have to be exclusively French. I chose that as a point of reference, since it’s the event that set the course for Europe’s political future in our time. Feel free to post. 🙂
 
CutlerB said:
No, they don’t have to be exclusively French. I chose that as a point of reference, since it’s the event that set the course for Europe’s political future in our time. Feel free to post. 🙂
Click to expand...
I had the great fortune over Christmas to spend some time with one of the Brothers of the Sacred Heart (SC) who has been translating the letters and sermons of Fr Andre Coindre, who founded the SC immediately prior to the French revolution in 1787 in Lyons. Unfortunately, these are not yet published in English, but they offer a remarkable insight on Catholic thinking in France at this time. It is very interesting to see the shift in the treatment of the monarchy as a form of government to the monarchy as the anagogue of the Kingdom of God. Coindre’s writings are full of imagery in which the divine right of kings is replaced by the divine right of God over the hearts of individuals.

This seems to square with the emphasis on individualism of John Locke, who emphasizes the role of the individual in his Two Treatises on the Rights on Civil Government. But unlike Locke, Coindre speaks of the individual as being oriented by nature to obedience, while Locke emphasizes human freedom as being linked to a liberation from obedience. To me, so much of the philosophy at this time hinges on the virtue of obedience: there seems to be, in a sense, a battle over the virtue of obedience. The attack on the monarchy was not simply an effort to liberate the individual from oppressive government, but to liberate the individual from all forms of obedience as much as possible.

I’d be very interested to hear your thoughts!
 
hicetnunc said:
I had the great fortune over Christmas to spend some time with one of the Brothers of the Sacred Heart (SC) who has been translating the letters and sermons of Fr Andre Coindre, who founded the SC immediately prior to the French revolution in 1787 in Lyons. Unfortunately, these are not yet published in English, but they offer a remarkable insight on Catholic thinking in France at this time. It is very interesting to see the shift in the treatment of the monarchy as a form of government to the monarchy as the anagogue of the Kingdom of God. Coindre’s writings are full of imagery in which the divine right of kings is replaced by the divine right of God over the hearts of individuals.

This seems to square with the emphasis on individualism of John Locke, who emphasizes the role of the individual in his Two Treatises on the Rights on Civil Government. But unlike Locke, Coindre speaks of the individual as being oriented by nature to obedience, while Locke emphasizes human freedom as being linked to a liberation from obedience. To me, so much of the philosophy at this time hinges on the virtue of obedience: there seems to be, in a sense, a battle over the virtue of obedience. The attack on the monarchy was not simply an effort to liberate the individual from oppressive government, but to liberate the individual from all forms of obedience as much as possible.

I’d be very interested to hear your thoughts!
Click to expand...
I’m not quite sure I understand the part about “It is very interesting to see the shift in the treatment of the monarchy as a form of government to the monarchy as the anagogue of the Kingdom of God.”

So you’re saying Locke and Coindre are opposed, correct?

And if you weren’t obedient to the Revolution, you would find your head chopped off. 😉
 
Francisco Suárez (social contract before it was cool) and Robert Bellarmine (right to regicide) might be good to research
 
CutlerB said:
Among my interests are Monarchy and philosophy. Having had another realisation of this, I am currently on the search for books, essays, etc. that discuss Monarchy from a philosophical/theological point of view, particularly in relation to the events in France between 1789 and 1815.

One that has been recommended to me was Saint Thomas Aquinas’ De Regno, which I have read. It does a good job of “laying out the basics” so to speak, but it is a rather brief treatment and doesn’t quite relate to the timeframe given above.

Another work that was recommended to me is Count Joseph de Maistre’s Du Pape. I haven’t read it yet, since it seems difficult to obtain. I did, however, read an overview of it, and from what that sounded like, it’s quite an extreme viewpoint… That may be due to mischaracterisation, though. He was called “an extreme far-right” person and “enemy of human freedom”. I’m not sure whether I’d want to read something like that, if it is true.

So, I pose two questions:
  1. Has anyone read the latter work and can they comment on it?
  2. Are there other treatises of the topic that you can recommend?
Thanks. 🙂
Click to expand...
^ agree with previous post ^ ( also both of what they learn is one of the fundamental foundation of the united states and her constitution in the sem-democratic republic the founding fathers establish )

known monarchies present
St. Thomas Aquinas. In his letter to the King of Cypress, he identified monarchy as both the best and worst form of government; best when the king acted for the common good, and worst when he did not. But of course, kings and queens are but men and women in regal robes, and greed rages in their hearts no less than in the hearts of the commons, and a king no less than a commoner is likely to be ruled by unruly passions. So just as a democracy needs a monarchial limit, the monarchy needs aristocratic and democratic limits. As to how this is to be accomplished, St. Thomas says:

Accordingly, the best form of government is in a state or kingdom, wherein one is given the power to preside over all; while under him are others having governing powers: and yet a government of this kind is shared by all, both because all are eligible to govern, and because the rules are chosen by all. For this is the best form of polity, being partly kingdom, since there is one at the head of all; partly aristocracy, in so far as a number of persons are set to authority; partly democracy, i.e., government by the people, in so far as the rulers can be chosen from the people and the people have the right to choose their leaders. (ST I-11, 105.1)

We can ask, “If the people have the right to choose their leaders, what is the purpose of the monarchy?” St Thomas defines this as giving a unity to the people in order to direct all to the common good, which is a “unity of peace” and a concern for justice. “Peace” in this context means much more than just the absence of war. Rather, it is an internal harmony in the kingdom that directs all levels to justice, for “Everything is uncertain when there is a departure from justice” (De Regno, 26). Politics tends to be divisive by its very nature; even when people attempt to act for the common good, they also tend to interpret that good according to their own needs and desires. Some principle in government needs to have the possibility of interpreting the common good from the standpoint of the whole society, a good which encompasses all, from the lowest to the highest.

However, the term “common good,” standing by itself, tends to be rather vague and needs some development before it can be useful. The Catholic Church has developed two further principles in guiding rulers to the common good. These principles are not mere abstractions, not the result of isolated philosophers and theologians dictating what they think is good for society. Rather, they are the result of the Church’s reflection on its 2,000 years of experience with governments of all sorts. These principles are subsidiarity and solidarity.

Subsidiarity is a principle which stands the political hierarchy on its head; it states that the higher levels of government exist only to serve the lowest. A higher level of authority can be justified only by the aid (subsidium) it gives to the lower level, and especially to the lowest unit of society, the family. The royal family, the first family of the kingdom, is in a sense the last family, and the king, who is the greatest of all, must become the servant of all, in the same way that the pope is the servus servorum dei, “the servant of the servants of God.”

cont …
 
CutlerB said:
realisationMonarchy France between 1789 and 1815.
recommended to me was Saint Thomas Aquinas’ De Regno, which I have read. It does a good job of “laying out the basics” so to speak, but it is a rather brief treatment and doesn’t quite relate to the timeframe given above.

Another work that was recommended to me is Count Joseph de Maistre’s Du Pape. I haven’t read it yet, since it seems difficult to obtain. I did, however, read an overview of it, and from what that sounded like, it’s quite an extreme viewpoint… That may be due to mischaracterisation, though. He was called “an extreme far-right” person and “enemy of human freedom”. I’m not sure whether I’d want to read something like that, if it is true.

So, I pose two questions:
  1. Has anyone read the latter work and can they comment on it?
  2. Are there other treatises of the topic that you can recommend?
Thanks. 🙂
Click to expand...
Solidarity is the principle which requires that every action of government must be evaluated on the basis of how it affects the poorest citizens, and if it harms this group, it is likely not a just action to begin with. Its signature is a “preferential option for the poor,” and it forms a kind of acid test for the common good.

Note that Thomas does not give specific duties or authorities for each element of government. And that is proper, because the actual distribution of authority is not something derived from the natural law. Rather, it is a prudential judgment that changes from culture to culture, and with time and circumstance. For the character of peoples and nations vary, and the needs of the times change with the times; therefore their particular institutions must evolve from their own experiences and needs. Nevertheless, there are some general principles that we might advance, though they might be modified to fit any particular political tradition.

Concerning the king, he needs to have real authority, in Truth. “There is no fear in love, but perfect love drives out fear because fear has to do with punishment, and so one who fears is not yet perfect in love.” (1 John 4: 18)
  1. do not believe have read yet
  2. gettin to em …
here is an 1831 philosophy Speech of February 20, 1831

The Revolution destroyed the ancien régime but was unable to do more. The Empire arose to re-establish order, order of an exterior, material sort which was the basis of the civil society as the Revolution had founded it. The Empire spread this idea throughout all of Europe; this was its mission and it succeeded at it. It was incapable, however, of establishing a lasting political government; the necessary conditions were lacking. The Empire fell in its turn, to be succeeded by the Restoration. What did the Restoration promise? It promised to resolve the problem, to reconcile order with liberty. It was under this banner that the charter was granted. It had accepted principles of liberty in the charter; it had promised to establish them, but it made this promise under the cloak of the ancien régime, on which there had been written for so many centuries: Divine Right. It was unable to solve the problem. It died in the process, overwhelmed by the burden. It is on us, on the Revolution of July, that this job has been imposed; it is our duty and responsibility to establish definitively, not order alone, not liberty alone, but order and liberty at the same time. The general thought, the hope of France, has been order and liberty reuniting under the constitutional monarchy. There is the true promise of the Revolution
While the philosophes appreciated the value of religion in promoting moral and social order, the Church itself was condemned for its power and influence. The scandal surrounding the divisive theological movement of Jansenism, exacerbated by the heavy-handed treatment of its followers earlier in the century, furnished one reason for attacking the Church’s authority and its close links with the monarchy. France’s lack of toleration for religious minorities provided another. Although the philosophe Voltaire managed some praise for the young nuns who devoted their lives to caring for the sick and poor, the clergy were seen as less useful. The writer Louis-Sebastien Mercie

cont …
 
r complained in 1782 that Paris was ‘full of priests and tonsured clerics who serve neither the church nor the state’ and who were occupied with nothing but ‘useless and trifling’ matters. Criticism was specifically directed at monasteries where monks and nuns spent their days in prayer, much to the ire of philosophes who thought they should instead be reproducing for the good of the nation. The solemn vows taken by these men and women, binding them to the religious state for life, also led to concerns about individual liberty. Denis Diderot railed against the lifelong nature of these vows, warning about decisions taken too young in life and, in his novel La Religieuse (The Nun), raising the spectre of a young woman forced to be a nun against her will. Although most philosophes promoted reform rather than destruction, their comments gave encouragement to a growing anticlericalism whose spite was sharpened by resentment of the Church’s “wealth” ( which according to many saints and those who love is the poor and what shows God’s love and glory).
also

-[

God bless](“http://www.fordham.edu/Halsall/mod/newman/apologia1.html”
)
 
CutlerB said:
I’m not quite sure I understand the part about “It is very interesting to see the shift in the treatment of the monarchy as a form of government to the monarchy as the anagogue of the Kingdom of God.”
Click to expand...
St Thomas, in his De Regno (esp. c.14) describes an analogical relationship between God and human governments, and sees a single monarch as being more suitably proportioned to the governance of God, from whom all legitimate authority is derived. He also draws a distinction between legitimate authority, and the exercise of power wielded by despots, and says that these tyrants do not properly participate in this participation in the governance of God.

I think Coindre would accept this Thomistic understanding of the monarchy, but there seems to me to be a more subtle shift from this analogical description of human government participating in divine government, to human government simply being a symbol, or anagogue, of divine government. I think (but I’m not sure, I will have to run this thesis by the Ciondre expert when he returns from Rome!) that this shift is due to the emergence of individualism and autonomy in French theology at this time, or the shift from the notion of the subject (subjugated to the King) to the citizen (a respected participant in the state). Coindre differs from Locke however in that the autonomy of the individual is not absolute; there is no authentic autonomy apart from the virtue of obedience.
CutlerB said:
And if you weren’t obedient to the Revolution, you would find your head chopped off. 😉
Click to expand...
So this kind of ‘obedience’ where you might be guillotined is not really obedience, but fear. Obedience, theologically, is a virtue and not simply a state of subjugation to power. The virtue of obedience, as understood by St Thomas and Coindre for example is rooted in friendship with God as the exemplar of all legitimate authority.
 
hicetnunc said:
St Thomas, in his De Regno (esp. c.14) describes an analogical relationship between God and human governments, and sees a single monarch as being more suitably proportioned to the governance of God, from whom all legitimate authority is derived. He also draws a distinction between legitimate authority, and the exercise of power wielded by despots, and says that these tyrants do not properly participate in this participation in the governance of God.
Click to expand...
I recall that, now that you remind me of it.
hicetnunc said:
I think Coindre would accept this Thomistic understanding of the monarchy, but there seems to me to be a more subtle shift from this analogical description of human government participating in divine government, to human government simply being a symbol, or anagogue, of divine government.
Click to expand...
Well, I’m not making Coronation a sacrament here, but this thought popped into my head: The Sacraments are signs that point to God, but they also effect that which they signify. Isn’t that the way the Church expresses it? Similarly, why couldn’t Monarchy be both of the things: Participating in the Divine Government and pointing to it at the same time?
hicetnunc said:
So this kind of ‘obedience’ where you might be guillotined is not really obedience, but fear. Obedience, theologically, is a virtue and not simply a state of subjugation to power. The virtue of obedience, as understood by St Thomas and Coindre for example is rooted in friendship with God as the exemplar of all legitimate authority.
Click to expand...
I agree.
 
I would read any works by Joseph de Maistre if you get the chance,he was in no way an enemy of human freedom but one of the greatest voices of the Counter-Enlightenment. One must remember the time of the French Revolution was a time of great upheaval and bloodshed especially for devout Catholics and his defense of both the Church, Monarchy and the Ancien Régime was not going to hold back any punches against those who were working to destroy them. Although his seemingly uncaring attitude towards war and the like may seem problematic for some he was simply being realistic to the times he was dealing in. But if you want one work in general to begin with I would say his *Study on Sovereignty *would be best.

Another good one from France would be Bishop Jacques Bossuet and his work Politics Drawn from the Very Words of Holy Scripture its basically a work on political absolutism and divine right of kings.

Someone from a later time but who wrote his greatest work because of his revulsion to the 1848 Revolution in France in his work Essays on Catholicism, Liberalism and Socialism by Essays on Catholicism, Liberalism and Socialism

Finally another great counter-revolutionary writer from the time of the revolutions would be Louis-Gabriel Ambroise de Bonald
 
The idea of monarchy versus the reality of monarchy is what’s really relevant here. Monarchy in the West has stereotypically evolved from Henry VIII to Elizabeth II. What a difference from the monarch as absolute dictator terrifying everybody around him to the monarch as England’s favorite poser for postage stamps!

Bottom line, monarchy fails just as tyranny fails everywhere sooner or later.

The concentration of too much power in too few hands.

Why democracy fails?

The concentration of too much power in too many hands.
 
Charlemagne_III said:
The idea of monarchy versus the reality of monarchy is what’s really relevant here. Monarchy in the West has stereotypically evolved from Henry VIII to Elizabeth II. What a difference from the monarch as absolute dictator terrifying everybody around him to the monarch as England’s favorite poser for postage stamps!

Bottom line, monarchy fails just as tyranny fails everywhere sooner or later.

The concentration of too much power in too few hands.

Why democracy fails?

The concentration of too much power in too many hands.
Click to expand...
Even absolute monarchs didn’t have absolute power.
 
Charlemagne_III said:
That was a mere formality, in the sense that Hitler had the consent of parliament.

Henry VIII was a tyrant. If you don’t know that, read some history.
Click to expand...
Having studied Tudor England quite a bit, I think tyrant is probably the KINDEST word you can use for him. If you were an English courtier, and hoping for a long life, the best choice was to leave.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top