Ancien Régime, Absolutism and Natural Law
Part I
di Riccardo Piroddi
Abstract: L’Ancien Régime (Antico Regime) si affermò in Europa, in particolare in Francia, tra la metà del XV secolo e la fine del XVIII, come sistema politico-sociale fondato sull’assolutismo monarchico, la centralizzazione amministrativa e il predominio dell’aristocrazia. Nato dalla dissoluzione del feudalesimo, garantì ordine e modernizzazione, a costo, però, della soppressione delle autonomie locali e dei diritti tradizionali. Il potere del sovrano era giustificato dall’origine divina, come teorizzato da Jacques Bossuet, ma fu criticato da pensatori più razionalisti come Pierre Bayle. L’assolutismo francese raggiunse l’apice con Luigi XIV, mentre le crescenti tensioni tra monarchia, Parlamento e borghesia portarono alla crisi del sistema. Il fallimento delle riforme e la resistenza dell’aristocrazia contribuirono al crollo dell’Ancien Régime con la Rivoluzione francese. Anche dopo la restaurazione monarchica, il potere sovrano fu profondamente ridimensionato e subordinato a istituzioni parlamentari.
Ancien Régime and Absolutism
The inception of the so-called Ancien Régime is generally placed around the mid-15th century. Particularly in France, a political system emerged that structured society into rigid classes, dominated by the aristocracy’s patronage networks, which created dependencies among the lower classes. This hierarchy was accompanied by the consolidation of territorial control under a centralized authority, the development of a unified public administration, and the affirmation of monarchical absolutism. This political reorganization followed the unification of the state and the dissolution of the fragmented political entities left over from feudalism.
The term “Ancien Régime” was first coined during the French Constituent Assemblies (1789–1791) to describe the pre-revolutionary structures of monarchical absolutism. It was a political system founded on the notion of absolute, divinely ordained power vested in the sovereign, as seen in the reigns of figures like Louis XIV of France and Frederick II of Prussia, rather than on contractual agreements or social compacts.
This form of governance succeeded and endured in Europe largely because absolute monarchies were the only institutions capable of managing the transition from the Middle Ages to the modern era. These monarchies possessed the strength to suppress local privileges and customs, which primarily benefitted the aristocracy. As a result, in many European states, monarchical absolutism significantly expanded the central government’s power, often abolishing the traditional rights of cities and corporations that had previously enjoyed some autonomy from the crown.
In England, the absolutism of the Tudor dynasty was widely accepted, as the Tudors were credited with restoring order to the island following the chaos of the War of the Roses, despite the harsh and often brutal methods they employed to govern. A comparable example can be found in France, where Louis XIV’s absolutism emerged after decades of devastating religious conflict.
It was not until the late 18th and early 19th centuries, with the advent of constitutional monarchy in England—followed by similar shifts in other European countries—that there emerged a true alignment between national interests and the monarch’s ambitions. The traditional concept of monarchy began to dissolve; kings no longer embodied divine authority but became the “first servants of the state.” Their realms were increasingly regarded as state property rather than personal fiefdoms. Far from being divinely anointed rulers, these sovereigns now positioned themselves as leaders who sought to promote the general welfare and acted as “fathers of the nation,” deeply attuned to their subjects’ needs.
Medieval power structures and institutions were drastically diminished during this period, and many reforms aimed at modernizing governance provoked fierce resistance, especially in the more conservative European states. These reforms directly challenged the entrenched privileges of the aristocracy and dismantled long-established institutions. The intensification of these processes ultimately led to the French Revolution, signaling the definitive end of the Ancien Régime.
Even when monarchies were restored after the revolutionary upheavals, they had been so fundamentally transformed that European sovereigns were compelled to recognize the authority of newly constituted parliaments and accept significant limitations on their powers.
2. Absolutism in France: Main Feature and Thinkers
The political trajectory of the Ancien Régime underwent a significant shift in 1624, during the reign of Louis XIII, when Cardinal Richelieu, serving as the King’s Prime Minister, initiated a legislative agenda focused on the political and bureaucratic centralization of the kingdom. Key features of this centralization included the inalienability of crown lands, the succession of the throne through male heirs (under the so-called Burgundian law), and the establishment of the king’s independence from papal authority.
Under the reign of Louis XIV, these centralizing efforts were further intensified. A permanent bureaucracy, army, and diplomatic corps were established, while a heavy tax burden was imposed on the bourgeoisie. The judicial system was restructured through the creation of royal courts, which were directly dependent on the king’s authority. Louis XIV also exercised strict control over the Church, adhering to the principles of Gallicanism, which allowed the king to appoint bishops and limited the pope’s influence in French affairs. Economically, the regime adopted a mercantilist policy aimed at accumulating precious metals, expanding domestic manufacturing, and protecting national industries through protectionism.
The eventual crisis of the French Ancien Régime, which emerged after the reign of Louis XIV, was largely driven by the monarchy’s failure to address the political demands of the bourgeoisie, particularly their calls for greater political rights and freedoms, as well as a more equitable tax system that reduced the entrenched privileges of the nobility. The parliaments, which held both consultative and deliberative powers delegated by the king and also wielded judicial authority in an indirect capacity (known as justice déléguée), played a crucial role in this decline. However, their power was not fully autonomous, as the King’s Council retained the ability to revoke parliamentary decisions, further contributing to tensions within the political system.
Parliaments exercised significant influence within both the administrative and judicial realms of the Ancien Régime. In the judicial sphere, they held the power of resistance, or the right to veto royal judicial decisions, and controlled the registration law, which required that all royal edicts be ratified by Parliament before coming into effect. This positioned Parliament as a counterbalance to monarchical authority, fostering a form of institutional antagonism that contributed to the eventual crisis of representation—one of the key factors in the Ancien Régime’s downfall. Both monarchists and supporters of Parliament claimed to represent the French nation, yet this competing claim to legitimacy only deepened the crisis.
The overlapping political, administrative, and judicial roles of the Parliament also contributed to its inherent weaknesses. Its representation primarily reflected the interests of the wealthier classes—particularly the nobility and clergy—rather than the general will of the populace, especially the growing bourgeoisie. This disconnect further eroded its ability to serve as a representative institution for all French citizens.
Jacques Bénigne Bossuet (1627–1704) was the foremost theorist of monarchical absolutism, developing the doctrine of the divine right of kings. His philosophy was grounded in the belief that divine providence governed the destinies of both individuals and political institutions. Consequently, Bossuet rejected any notion of resistance to sovereign authority, which he viewed as sacred, paternal, rational, and absolute.
In contrast, Pierre Bayle (1647–1706) represented a more rationalist and conciliatory approach. Rather than seeking absolute truth, Bayle advocated for peaceful solutions to the conflicts that arose within society, positioning reason and dialogue in opposition to the authoritarian concept of power that Bossuet endorsed. This intellectual tension between divine authority and reason reflected broader ideological divides that contributed to the weakening of absolutism.
Bayle’s political reflections centered on the principle of tolerance, with a primary aim of excluding religious disputes from matters of the State. Aligned with the libertine tradition, Bayle championed freedom of conscience and explored the complex relationship between individual conscience and obedience to the State. His political vision advocated for a secular, monarchical state, one that ensured social order but was not grounded in any particular religious belief.
Parallel to this, a line of thought emerged in opposition to royal absolutism, which upheld the role of parliaments as a counterbalance to monarchical authority. The central issue of this period was how to prevent tyranny. The liberal argument was complemented by a more aristocratic perspective, which viewed Parliament not as the result of a social contract, but as a historically legitimate institution.
Key proponents of this opposition included Fénelon (François de Salignac de La Mothe-Fénelon), who warned against the dangers of absolutist policies and protectionist economic measures that stifled national industry. Henry de Saint-Simon called for decentralization, advocating for a reduction in the king’s absolute power in favour of councils with administrative and political authority. Henri de Boulainvilliers defended the political role and privileges of the nobility, arguing that the aristocracy served as a vital counterweight to the king’s authoritarian rule.
This blend of liberal and noble critiques sought to redefine the balance of power, questioning the concentration of authority in the monarchy and proposing a more participatory governance model, rooted in historical legitimacy and decentralization.
