"MYTH OF ABSOLUTISM, THE" (NICHOLAS HENSHALL).   Term Paper ID:21221 Click to get this paper

Essay Subject: Critical analysis of author's methods in work questioning validity of absolutism as label for 18th Cent. European monarchies.... More...

8 Pages / 1800 Words 1 sources, 10 Citations, APA Format $32.00 Return to List of Papers

Paper Abstract: Critical analysis of author's methods in work questioning validity of absolutism as label for 18th Cent. European monarchies. Paper Introduction: 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 Text of the Paper: The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper. Terminology has a power of its own and its associations can generate heat, though not necessarily light. . . These otherhistorians have come to take for granted the claim that monarchs weredespotic tyrants who managed through coercion and might. . To the question of the significance of such an endeavor,Henshall answers with the evidence of reason and logic with respect to theimportance of names and labels in any scientific pursuit: One can argue endlessly about how many features are necessary to produce 'absolutism.' It is more profitable to enquire how many 'non- absolutist' features can be accommodated before the label is discarded . 2-3). He analyzes contemporary and modernevidence not to first prove that the monarchy was not absolutist, butrather to indirectly prove such a claim by showing that the forces behindthe French Revolution first accepted the monarchy as a legitimate form ofgovernment, which they would not have done had they seen that government ashopelessly absolutist. He openly admitsthat his work is not necessarily ground-breaking in its intent, but it isclear that his book is rather unique in the comprehensive scope of itsportrait of true monarchy in the period under study. Again, it is not the argument of author Henshall that thesemonarchies were democratic, nor that they were not even despotic in certainareas and at certain moments. . . Kindly leave the stage (pp. The Sun King [Louis XIV] did neither. The fault does not lie in the history, but in the historianswho have adopted tunnel-vision in analyzing that history. These arguments are important because the definition of absolutismincludes the elements of, first, autocracy, and, second, bureaucracy. wrong labels . 2). 144). 4). Theyfail to analyze the evidence without bias, choosing instead to acceptblindly the simplifications inherent in the term "absolutism." To the contrary, Henshall convincingly demonstrates that there wereno "absolute" monarchies during the eighteenth or even the seventeenthcenturies. A final important sub-argument of Henshall's is that even the term"constitutional" is not helpful in understanding what absolutism was or wasnot. In examining the latter years of the reign of the leading Louis ofthe eighteenth century --- Louis XVI --- Henshall's evidence makes clearthat the monarchy of that king did become increasingly despotic ---although never truly absolutist. To retain the title of 'absolutism' while removing most of the content is a hopelessly confusing half-measure . Someinaccurate theories have mistakenly subscribed to a contrast between French 'absolute' monarchs who monopolized power and English 'limited' monarchs who shared it. However, the French people rose up inrevolution not in order to do away with the monarchy, as they certainlywould have wanted to do if they had perceived the monarchy as theequivalent of absolutism: The grievances recorded by all the orders of society . What they requested was not the abolition of the monarchy but a return to its true principles (p. The plot is too sensational, the colors too strident and the setting too lurid. . . The label conjures such a comprehensively black-or-whiteportrait of the monarchies under study that the mind inevitably sees themas all-or-nothing. He is simply returningto all available sources in order to see what is actually there in order tobreak the habits of myopic historians. Quite a lot if it distorts realities (p. [However,] most monarchs were both. . He critiques articlesand books which take the myopic and inaccurate view of monarchies asabsolutist, and credits works which he has utilized to assemble hisconclusion that absolutism is an obsolete term. Henshall argues thatabsolutism is no longer a valid and significant concept, for it is toooften equated with outright despotism, instead of being seen as adescription of broader and more varied forms of monarchic rule. This does notmean that Henshall is arguing that monarchies were democracies, for theyclearly were not. 199-2 ). Henshall's book makes a valid, clear and relevant contribution to anytrue understanding of especially the seventeenth and eighteenth centuriesand the nature of the governments which dominated that era. Again, however, heopenly admits that he is essentially bringing together the sources whichhave been available to all historians, but adds that he is re-analyzing itcomprehensively and in detail in order to recast the portrait of the eraand its monarchies: What follows is scarcely an insurrection against orthodoxy. 212). Ifthe primary elements of the definition of a term are lacking in the objectbeing defined, then clearly the object is being mis-defined. As a system of government it is supposed to marginalize them (i.e., those independent sources of power]: they are (supposed to be] kicked into subservience or bypassed and left to rot [if Louis XIV were indeed absolutist. eventually deceive us about the contents. References Henshall, Nicholas. In opposition, to traditional theories, Henshall argues thatmonarchies were varied, indeed, and, in fact, far from despotic. 211-212). by the last ministers of France's ancien regime (p. That is, hesets out to do away with the term absolutism by showing how the governmentsdescribed as absolute were in fact composed primarily of elements which arenon-absolutist. What is in a name? Just asimportantly, it seriously short-changes the considerable ruling skills ofactual monarchs, reducing them to tyrants who ruled with iron fists when infact they were accomplished managers of social and political groups andforces. . He wants to do awaywith the term "absolutism" in order to find a more accurate and meaningfuldefinition of the monarchies of the era under study. And he treated them as agencies of administration --- showing that he was not bureaucratic (p. The relevant research and articles have to be pursued in many corners of the discipline and yet no one has yet assembled the materials for demolition (p. The edifice of 'absolutism' is cracking and the old cliche is repeated without conviction . An important element of the book is a re-examination of thecomparison between the monarchies of England and the Continent,particularly France. [For example,] the splendors of England's parliamentary heritage detract from the similarity between the powers of the two monarchs function of their courts. More seriously . The myth of England's well-advertised religious freedom was exploded . (1992). If there canbe found no such object to which the term applies, then the term itself ismeaningless, as Henshall convincingly argues with respect to absolutism. Again, although his work is meticulously and voluminously documented,the materials consulted are not newly discovered. For example,after analyzing the government of Louis XIV and discovering that that pre-18th century monarchy was itself far from being an absolutist rule,Henshall writes that Louis XIV's handling of institutions with independent sources of power establishes the status of 'absolutism' as a problematic concept. The evidence gathered and analyzed by Henshall clearlyindicates that these monarchies were far more variegated that theabsolutist label suggests. The myth of absolutism. This is a vision which producesan unjust and inaccurate portrait of actual monarchies. Again, he is not claiming new evidence, but onlyfresh analysis of the 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. In presenting this and other related arguments, Henshall simplyexamines the historical records available to all historians. Recent scholarship has exposed all these propositions as misleading descriptions of what early modern European monarchs actually did --- or tried to do. Nicholas Henshall, in his book The Myth of Absolutism., Change andContinuity in Early Modern European Monarchy, argues that the concept ofabsolutism as generally used by historians to describe kingly rule in earlymodern Europe is badly misleading and inaccurate. . Therefore,the author examines the misuse of the term and endeavors to redefine thegovernments it was meant to describe in a way that will be useful to theunderstanding of the era and the governments in question. 2). 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. He offers nota unique examination of the evidence, but rather a re-examination of thatevidence in order to right the habitual wrongs that other historians havefallen into. They were absolute when they wielded their sweeping prerogatives and limited when they negotiated over their subjects' rights (pp. 117). . His ultimate argument with respect to "absolutism" is that it is beyond repair: no amount of cutting or rewriting can save it. London:Longman.----------------------- 1 The author writes that "'Absolutist' and 'constitutional' arenineteenth-century terms which create nothing but confusion when related toearly modern political ideas." He adds that "If we talk of absolute, andlimited authority, they are seen as located side by side in the sameconstitution" (p. To make such an argument, Henshall once against approaches the topicfrom a negativist perspective. reflected the universal conviction that the French monarchy had degenerated into despotism. With the loss of its autocrats and its bureaucrats, its theory and its practice, 'absolutism' should heed the old advice. . We cannot understand the era if wecontinue to be burdened by a concept which is both inaccurate andmisleading. 74). Henshall returns to the seventeenth century to lay the framework forhis argument about the monarchies of the eighteenth century. He treated them as agencies of consultation and consent--showing that his regime was not autocratic. On the other hand, they were not the despotic tyranniesdescribed by modern historians who too often see through glasses colored bythe freedoms which prevail in democracy. The argumentis clear and carefully documented and presented, and it demonstrates thatthose governments were far more complex than many historians would like tobelieve. In making such an argument, Henshall examines contemporary and moderndocuments, including the actual constitutions of the countries in question,works from the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, andanalyses from the 192 s through the 198 s (p. If the governments listed under the categoryare not absolute, then the term itself should be done away with asmeaningless. . Monarchies werenot "absolute" in terms of force and despotism and the crushing ofliberties. Henshall accomplishes his task in a negativist fashion. To the contrary,Henshall argues effectively and convincingly that "strong monarchy wascreated by consensus and co-operation rather than the need for andprovision of military might" and that "its basis is to be found in skillfulmanagement of ruling elites rather than armed force" (p. . The time has now come to lower the curtain on the obsessions of the last century. The concept of absolutism is a theory, says Henshall, that hasno application in the actual world of monarchies in the era in question.If we accept the fundamentals of Henshall's argument --- which this readerdoes entirely---then "absolutism" should be discarded as a theory and as ameans of understanding the era. 58). One important sub-argument of the book is that monarchs were muchmore adept at managing than most historians have indicated. . . Those historians, says Henshall, focus too narrowly on specialcategories which prevent them from seeing the forest for the trees. For much of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries their rights of worship and citizenship were far more substantial than those enjoyed by Catholics in England . However, he does argue effectively that eventhose governments portrayed by many historians as the most absolutist were,in fact, far from being absolutist. He also argues with much evidentiarysupport from contemporary and modern records that the more "absolutist"French monarchies were even less "absolutist" than the supposedly moreliberal governments of England: Much the same was true of France, where the degree of toleration afforded to Protestant Huguenots varied according to time and place. This is particularly true when the label is as "absolute" as"absolutism". If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again: Search for: or Click here to request an essay written just for you.

Many of our Papers can be Downloaded From This Site!

PLEASE READ THIS, IT IS IMPORTANT!

Office hours are Monday through Friday, from 9 am to 5 pm (PST). You may place orders for custom research over the phone during office hours. E-mail requests can be made to our graduate and undergraduate department any time, and will be reviewed during office hours. You may also contact customer service any time through e-mail, and we will review your message during business hours. A great many papers can be downloaded right from this site, but not all of them. If you would like to know if a particular paper is downloadable, just look in the description for: "Available for Internet Download: Y" or "Available for Internet Download: N" If you wish to purchase a paper which is NOT available for immediate download, you will need to make other shipping arrangements. Also, please be aware that these orders are processed Monday through Friday from 9 am to 5 pm (PST). If you place your order after 4:45pm on Friday, it will not be processed until the following Monday morning. We charge $8 per page for all of our pre-written reports, plus shipping (and tax for California residents). However, the highest cost of any ONE report is $136, or 17 pages. Please, take a moment. Make sure you have chosen the report you want or need BEFORE you complete your order. If you are not sure, allow us to help you. We do not offer refunds or exchanges, so it is important for you to let us answer your questions during office hours. Reports which are e-mailed or downloaded are in Microsoft Word format. We are making more reports available for e-mail delivery faster than we can update our listings. Please call to check on the status of particular reports. There are many other shipping options which are listed on the Checkout page.