De la Monarchie

SUMMARY

In this article Michel Peronnct discusses the problem of finding a clear, unambiguous terminology, based on contemporary texts, for the comparative discussion of political societies by historians. It takes as its example the classifications of Monarchy. The use of a priori categories, invented by the historians themselves, such as ‘absolutism’ or ‘enlightened despotism’ is argued to be unsatisfactory as such invented terminology cannot yield the necessary clarity. The paper concentrates on the comparison between the French and the English monarchies both of which originated as ‘consultative monarchies’ based on divine right, where the prince is sovereign but by custom takes advice from groups of his subjects, while retaining for himself the ultimate decision making power. This basic monarchical type can continue over long periods of time, as it did in France down to 1789 or it can develop in two directions. Rulers may, over time reduce or even discontinue the consultative processes, leading to autocratic monarchy, of which Joseph II of Austria would be an example. Or as in England the consultative institutions may develop an increasingly representative character and build on this to enforce limitations on the final decision making powers of the prince, producing the third type, representative monarchy. It is shown how this typology can be derived from contemporary texts and argued that it can offer a reliable system of classification for the purpose of comparative analysis.