Reviews for Absolutism and society in seventeenth-century France

The average rating for Absolutism and society in seventeenth-century France based on 2 reviews is 3.5 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2014-05-15 00:00:00 Michael Quinn This is a very good bit of research but can be a little bit of a slog to read. William Beik argues against the idea that French absolutism under Louis XIV was a top-down imposition, a victory of the monarchy in Paris over localized, provincial power. Beik says that this was not really the case at all. Instead, Louis gained and maintained power because he (along with his advisors) offered a system that was the most beneficial to everyone involved. It was more like the pinnacle of feudalism than its abolition. Beik does this mostly by looking at Languedoc and emphasizing that there really was no local solidarity that opposed royal authority with any kind of uniformity. If anything, Languedoc seems to have been more enmeshed in a squabble of competing interests. 17th century Languedoc was dominated by four institutions: city consulates, the Parlement of Toulouse, the Cour des Comptes in Montpellier, and the provincial Estates. Because of their different situations, they had very different ideas towards royal authority. The Parlement could not have cared less about the extension of royal taxation, since their funding was fixed. The Cour and Estates, though, relied exclusively on revenue from royal taxes. Because of this, it’s difficult to say what ‘regional institutions’ felt about royal taxation, because of their widely differing positions. It's even more difficult to say that regional institutions opposed an increase in royal authority - they were far more concerned about rival institutions of power down the street. By his conclusion, Beik argues that Louis was successful simply because he was able to meet more interests of more people. Every institution in Languedoc received direct benefits from Louis’s rule. Louis’s change of taxation fiscally benefited the ruling class in Languedoc and most taxation remained within the province. Louis also increasingly used provincial nobles as money-lenders to the state, replacing the heavily disliked foreign financiers and winning noble support for large-scale government projects like the Canal des Deus Mers. He also argues that provincial institutions gained actual power under Louis XIV – they were not allowed to go against royal policy, but they were given more authority to enact it. Louis didn’t conquer the nobility, he made an arrangement with them that aimed for mutual benefit. Beik sums it up nicely himself: "The absolute monarch did defend a traditional social order dominated by a class of privileged landowners, but in the early modern period, new conditions made it increasingly necessary for power and authority to be more centralized... faced with popular disorders, noble rebellions, and competition from powerful foreign rivals, the regimes of Louis XIII, Richilieu, and Mazarin took steps which undermined the interests of the provincial aristocrats and caused political and social dislocation. This effort failed because it threatened the ruling class too profoundly. Louis XIV’s ‘great contagion of obedience’ was the result, not of repression, but of a more successful defense of ruling class interests, through collaboration and improved direction. The story of seventeenth-century absolutism was consequently the story of a restructured feudal society." The book is often very, very dense due to the fact that Beik unearths all of this by meticulously going through tax records and provincial government records. But he's a brave soul for undertaking that kind of work, and it resulted in really interesting ideas.

Review # 2 was written on 2014-02-26 00:00:00 Matthew Facherty I'm not saying this is a bad history book, it is very good, actually...Beik has a compelling argument to make about how absolutism actually went down during the reign of Louis XIV, and he absolutely slays you with sources. I mean really. This guy appears to have collected data for twenty years or so, from trip after trip to France, and by the time he was done I just threw my hands up. You win, Beik. I can't argue with you. He essentially reconstructed the entire tax structure from late 17th century Languedoc, detailing exactly who got what, and then as if that wasn't enough, he traced the family trees and personal connections of all of those people, to show where loyalties lay and where factions might have been forming. It's a tour de force. And not all that fun to read. That's what I was hinting at in the beginning. I wouldn't keep this on my shelf and dip back in every now and again. This is the kind of book where you read it, get the argument, write it on a file card, and back to the library with you, sir. Essentially, the argument: Louis did not actually “modernize” provincial society. Instead, he put in place a system that was “the final, highest phase” of feudalism. He did not force new bureaucratic models on local notables, but rather strengthened and stabilized the earlier class hierarchy; Louis aided “the provincial ruling class, enhancing its domination and making its life more pleasant at the expense of the rest of society.” He instituted tax changes that brought them more money, he regulated local conflicts of authority, and he made it clear that he would not tolerate very much resistance. Absolutism became collaboration, rather than an imposition.