The reign of Louis XIV as king of France has often been called one of the greatest in history. Love him or hate him, Louis has demanded a certain curiosity and fascination both to his contemporaries and present day theorists as well. His goal as monarch to centralize authority and strengthen the kingship resulted in near revolutionary changes in culture and politics to seventeenth century France. Much of his success can be attributed to political cleverness, but thereÆs more to Louis than being a mere master politician. The role of king itself undoubtedly assured at least a certain amount of obedience but what followed Louis through almost seventy-three years of power was something enigmatic, a personal allure that seemed to shine around him like the glow of the sun. This magnetism can better be explained and discussed in terms of Max WeberÆs theory of authority. WeberÆs Types of Pure Authority
Weber, a German sociologist, theorized that there are three pure types of legitimate authority, their validity depending on how they claim their legitimacy. The first type of authority is based on rational grounds. This authority depends on a peoplesÆ belief in rules that give leaders power. If these rules are accepted by their followers, a leader has a legitimate claim to authority, and the power those legalities give him. A leader with rational authority possesses authority not because of who he is, but because the rules allow him to. In this case, the election is accepted as legal process by which to grant a President authority. (234)
The second type of authority claims its legitimacy on traditional grounds. Instead of rules being accepted by a leaderÆs followers, the sanctity of tradition is the key to WeberÆs second category. An example of this would be a monarch who inherits a throne and is granted authority based on the tradition of monarchy accepted by the kingÆs subjects. Legitimacy doesnÆt come from rules in this case. Instead, in derives from the traditional position the leader is filling. (238)
Differing altogether from these two types of authority is WeberÆs third and most popular category, that of authority resting on charismatic grounds. In this sort, legitimacy depends on exceptional qualities of the leader. By charisma, Weber doesnÆt just mean special magnetic charm or appeal, as todayÆs dictionary defines the term. Charisma, in the Weberian sense of the word, goes much beyond its modern meaning to identify a special force that sets a leader apart from other people. It is ôheroism or exemplary characterö in a person (232). What makes charismatic authority so different from the other two is its emphasis on the personal. A leader isnÆt accepted and followed because of the position heÆs in, or even because of the rules which granted him power. A leader is followed because of something that exists personally within himself. His authority isnÆt dependent on external forces such as elections or heredity. It exists because of internal qualities of character. (240)
Most important to the validity of charismatic authority is recognition. For charisma to be properly recognized by the subjects of a leader, something miraculous must happen, and when it does the leader is granted utter devotion, bordering on an almost hero worship of the one in power. (240) The ideal charismatic leader was Jesus Christ, who held no rational or traditional power, but still was able to exercise an enormous amount of authority over those who followed. Theorist Ruth Ann Willner also spent many words discussing and expanding WeberÆs idea of charismatic leadership. She concluded that for authority to be charismatic, four properties must be true. One, followers perceive their leader to be somehow superhuman, to use her term. Two, a leaderÆs statements are ôblindlyö believed. Three, when a leader calls for action, his followers obey unconditionally. And four, there exists between followers and leaders an emotional commitment, especially from the former and to the latter. (248) These components of charismatic leadership will help to better understand Louis as a king with charisma. The Life of Louis
Olivier BenierÆs Louis XIV: A Royal Life chronicles LouisÆs life from his miraculous birth to his death nearly seventy-seven years later. He emphasizes the kingÆs relationships with several ministers as well as several mistresses, all the while accentuating LouisÆs sense of his glorie and symbol as the Sun King. BernierÆs portrayal of Louis corresponds to all three of WeberÆs categories for sources of legitimate authority. He has legitimate claims in both of WeberÆs rational and traditional types of authority. Illustrating this, for example, are his personal feelings of duty he felt toward his State. He saw himself not as the possessor of France, but as a servant to her. This corresponds to WeberÆs sense of rational leadership. Louis was seen by his followers as a public servant, acting in the interest of his subjects. He also received much of his support for no other reason than because he was king. Some of such rational and traditional qualities will be alluded to during the following overview of his life. Less apparent in the overview is how Louis illustrates WeberÆs idea of charismatic authority, and that aspect of his reign will be more thoroughly discussed in the third section of this essay. From Boy King to Absolute Monarch
Louis XIV was born September 5, 1638 to Louis XIII and Anne of Austria. His parents loved each other very little and his mother had many miscarriages, so the birth of Louis was considered a monumental and miraculous event. (3) He was thought to be a gift from God. Louis inherited the throne from his father at the young age of five. Anne of Austria was appointed Regent, ruling in her sonÆs name until he was of age to rule on his own. Much to the dismay of the French Parlement, Anne chose as her Prime Minister Cardinal Jules Mazarin. Mazarin had been an aide to Cardinal Richelei, prime minister under Louis XIII who was infamous to the Parlement for weakening their power and strengthening the monarchy. (10) Anne held the traditional belief that her son was of semi-divine status, so she thought it her duty to insure his reign. (13) To do this, a capable minister was needed to keep the monarchy strong. As Louis grew up, Mazarin ran France, and before the minister died, he gave Louis very sound advice for ruling France as an absolute monarch. (73)
Royal though he was, LouisÆs education was sadly inadequate. At seven he was illiterate. (19) But it cannot be said that Louis lacked intelligence. Indeed, he made up for his lack of education by informing himself thoroughly on all the aspects of his government when he took power as king. Even in the beginning of his reign when he relied heavily on able ministers to make his decisions, he made a point to always be informed on the goings on in his name. (78)
Not many in France could foresee the force he was to become as king. It was not certain, of course, that heÆd even survive his childhood to see his destiny. And even if he did, he was thought to be too disinterested in politics for the job. He was also plagued with many illnesses throughout his life that seemed anxious to pluck away from him the royal opportunity to rule. The first of these illnesses was smallpox, which he suffered and almost died from at the age of nine. (26) LouisÆs ability to conquer illness all though his life only strengthened his image as a strong King able to withstand what other Kings could not. He was seen as having an extraordinary constitution (309) And he was more admired at court for keeping to his diligent schedule even when ill. (238)
Just as illnesses were doing his best to weaken him at a young age, so too was Parlement. At this time France was experiencing a series of noble revolts called the Fronde. In 1651, mobs of Parisians broke into what was then the center of government, the Louvre. LouisÆs mother let the angry horde in, to gather round his bed as nervously pretended to be asleep. (41) This was humiliating for the young King and the experience influenced his decision to move the heart of the government to where no Fronde could reach, into the barren but promising town of Versailles.
At the age of twenty, Louis fell in love with Marie Mancini. If his marriage to the Infanta of Spain hadnÆt already been arranged by his mother and Mazarin, he might have married the Italian Mancini, but the young King knew his arranged marriage was his duty as part of a treaty with Spain. His sense of duty prevailed over his preference to another woman. (60-65) His marriage to the Spanish Princess Maria Therese wasnÆt nearly as steamy as relationships he had with women all through his life. But it lasted until 1683 when Marie Therese died. LouisÆs first wife was loyal and devoted to him, more so than he was to her. His love for her was genuine enough, yet his involvements with many mistresses always troubled her. (168)
When Mazarin died in 1660, Louis was only twenty-two. He immediately met with his ministers and announced that he intended to rule France alone. Despite his lofty ambitions to govern, LouisÆs dedication was doubted, as many believed it was only a matter of time before heÆd tire of the job and pass along his power to one of his ministers. (76) They were right. It was only a matter of time, but no one could foresee how long a time it would actually be. He ruled alone for the next fifty-five years. He never tired of the job enough to abandon it, and in fact, as time went on, Louis became more and more dedicated to doing the work of the State.
Politically, Louis paved a new way of relating to his followers. With the construction of the palace at Versailles, Louis was able to suppress opposition to the crown while wedding France to cultural glory. Versailles, converted from a hunting lodge into a palace of grandeur both protected and demonstrated LouisÆs power as King in ways that will be more thoroughly discussed at a later time.
Although to posterity Louis XIV is known for his absolutism, he had much help from a collection of very able ministers for a significant portion of his reign. There was Le Tellier, a veteran statesman who ran his foreign policy, and his able and helpful son Louvois. LouisÆs most loyal and competent ministers was his Controleur Generale, Jean-Baptiste Colbert, who controlled generally everything. Finances, police, navy, public works, commerce, the colonies, the arts, not to mention the KingÆs very active personal life were all the responsibility of Colbert. (91) LouisÆs relationship with Colbert was critical to the governing of France. It consisted of a genuine affection between the two men. Louis himself referred to their relationship as a friendship. Considering that friendships were hard to come by for a man like Louis, this isnÆt an insignificant point. Relations between himself and his advisors, if civil most times, were usually anything but chummy. Bernier emphasizes that ColbertÆs strong ties to the king were unusual because Louis had a habit of keeping people at a distance. About the other advisors, he writes, ôthey knew they pleased only because they were useful. With Colbert, however, ... he sometimes sounds more like a concerned friend than an imperious masterö (174)
Colbert died in 1683. With the Controleur Generale gone, the voice of Louvois echoed louder in the ear of the King. Bernier describes Louvois as a man who ôbelieved in force as a matter of policyö (230). His exaggeration of the numbers of Catholic conversions in 1685 led Louis to revoke the Edict of Nantes, which had began in 1598 to guarantee ProtestantÆs the right to worship as they pleased. Bernier was highly critical of LouisÆs policy to convert Protestants, but he blamed the persecution not on LouisÆs religious intolerance, but on the idea that the king saw Protestantism as a political threat to his Catholic monarchy. Because of the revocation France lost more than 300, 000 artisans, craftsmen, merchants, and other specialized professionals. And it took the country decades to recover from this unusual mistake by its monarch. (231-2)
Despite his bungling policy concerning the Protestants, Louis was seen as a self controlled man who personified the ideas of fairness, generosity, and moderation (95). His sense of common sense triumphed over all else, which he saw as his primary function. (95) In this regard, Louis seems a monarch who is granted authority traditionally, who understands the public support for a just monarchy.
On the warfront, Louis led France to many territorial gains. The first half of his reign is marked by an unprecedented amount of military victories, mainly because Louis picked his battles carefully. France nibbled away at much land in little wars that Louis knew he couldnÆt lose. (215) Although France fought many wars in LouisÆs reign, Bernier makes the point that compared to his ancestors, Louis could hardly be coined a war hawk. At least by 1666, ôhe intended to refrain from fighting until all the chances were so overwhelmingly on his side, and the campaign so thoroughly prepared, that victory would be all but certainö (138). Such military success and territorial conquest resulted in LouisÆs monarchy gaining quite the reputation throughout Europe. France grew a reputation as being ôenemy of mankindö which would later haunt Louis. But for as much as the rest of Europe hated Louis, he was revered at home for making France the most powerful nation. In the latter half of his reign, Louis wasnÆt privy to such luck on the battlefield. The opportunity to duck out of a potential large and long war became less and less likely as France grew more and more powerful. Louis found himself suffering many defeats in the War of the League of Ausburg and the War of Spanish Succession. Unlike the wars Louis usually involved France in, they lasted several years and ended with treaties of compromise in which no nation really could claim victory. But Bernier expressed approval of the KingÆs sense of moderation in these compromising treaties. Not only did his military defeats seem to leave him unscathed, but the lasting effect on Europe was that France was no longer considered the enemy of mankind.(278) Louis was 61 at this time, older than his contemporaries yet still he sported that majestic vigor that we still associate with him.
In this latter half of his reign, LouisÆs leadership style was much changed from his days as a youthful monarch. As France approached the 18th century, Louis realized the need for future peace, calculating this importance in his compromising strategies late in his reign. He also became more religious with age, especially after his secret marriage to Madame de Maintenon. (205) He saw himself as pope in his own kingdom, which partially explains his treatment of French Protestants. (214) His strength as monarch only intensified with the passing of time so that eventually his work included much of the work of his ministers. HeÆd began his reign requiring the help of able and devoted ministers. To reward this devotion, heÆd usually promote a ministerÆs son take succeed him, but rarely was the son as competent as his father. As if Louis was not already a workaholic, this left him with even more responsibility to govern the State. Bernier puts it simply, ôafter 1691 he became the government.ö (255)
After a period of time when being the heir to the throne was a fatal condition, during which LouisÆs great-grandson emerged as LouisÆs five year old heir, the Sun King died in 1715, only four days before his seventy-seventh birthday. With his dying advice, he urged Louis XV not to make as many unnecessary wars as he did. (346) Louis XV succeeded the throne, but did not rule absolutely as his great-grandfather had. Louis as Charismatic Leader
As a premise to the argument that Louis was a charismatic leader it must be said that neither Weber nor Willner ever referred to him as such. WeberÆs leader who claims legitimacy on the grounds of charisma alone is very rare, indeed, and even those throughout history who have claimed legitimacy in all three ways could likely be counted on one hand. Louis is by no means a pure charismatic leader. Much of his authority rested on his role as king, considered traditional grounds, and on his sense of duty, justice, and common sense in ruling, considered rational grounds for exercising authority. Yet the fact remains that if rational and traditional grounds were all he needed to rule in overwhelming support, French monarchs wouldÆve had the capacity to continue ruling absolutely. But absolute rule saw both its beginning and end in LouisÆs France. So if LouisÆs authority is taken apart, first by removing those things we can consider rational grounds to legitimacy, and then those areas in which his authority was grounded in tradition, what will remain are LouisÆs charismatic capacities. ItÆs my objective to point out the few qualities that gave Louis charismatic power, as they relate to WillnerÆs ideas of charismatic authority.
Louis was perceived by his followers as being larger than life in three specific ways that vary in degrees of importance. The first is LouisÆs ability to not only withstand the threat of his potential enemies, but also the threat of disease and illness. An entire chapter of BernierÆs book entitled Palaces and Poisons deals with the increase in poisonings at court. Why or how Louis managed to live nearly seventy-seven years without someone slipping something into his food or drink is miraculous enough, but equally astonishing was the kingÆs ability to conquer medical conditions such as an anal fistula, dental abscesses, scarlet fever, smallpox, gangrene, just to name a few. Louis didnÆt even let the vomiting of dead worms affect his routine at court. (309) This highly unusual ability to fend off illness allowed Louis to seem almost immortal in the eyes of his followers. It wasnÆt clear what was more dangerous to him, the illnesses or the doctors who did more harm than good, but Louis fought off both to live an unprecedented lengthy life. Before dying, Louis asked a weeping valet, ôDid you think me immortal?ö (348) Given his history, it wouldnÆt be surprising if some did.
LouisÆs objective in centralizing the government was not only to insure his own power, but also to insure the power of France throughout the world. He believed that elevating FranceÆs glory would in turn better his own. At one point he is quoted as saying glory is his ôaspiration in all thingsö (Nathan 634) And by glory, Louis meant high repute, honor, and an untarnished name (95). If LouisÆs charismatic authority can be reduced to a single word, it would be glory, or glorie as itÆs referred to in the pages of BernierÆs. It was this aspiration thatÆs illustrated in LouisÆs symbol as the Sun King. Customary at this time was the tradition of giving the king an epithet that symbolized his greatness. Although the symbolism in this move originated in tradition, Louis extended the analogy to an excessive and charismatic degree. Louis was like the sun; both represented light, warmth, and knowledge, shining on those who stayed around him, and casting shadows over those who tried to rise around them. To borrow a phrase from Bruce Mazlish, Louis tapped into FranceÆs psychic repository to capture a sense of FranceÆs glory and made it his own. To renounce the Sun King was to commit political suicide and banish yourself from all that is alive in the world.
LouisÆs biggest accomplishment as Sun King was the construction of the palace at Versailles, built in the early 1680s. It was a palace fit for the sun, both a protector and demonstrator of LouisÆs absolute power. Attending court at Versailles was made a political necessity for nobles if they were to profit at all from the king.. And as it was so very expensive to live there and partake in various entertainments, many nobles spent themselves broke and were put on the kingÆs payroll. This made them both loyal to and dependant on the king. The stringent use of etiquette ruled the court and was also used to pit nobles against one another instead of having them rise up against the King. (164) Bernier called Versailles ôa golden trap in which to catch the princes and the great aristocrats.ô (163) Using Versailles as a manipulative weapon to compel the nobility into dependence is not just a crafty political scheme by which to tame those pesky nobles. At Versailles, Louis was forcing their obedience by letting them get a glimpse into his royal and glorious life. Even if aware of the kingÆs intentions, they complied willingly to a monarch who shone like the sun in the hopes of becoming one of the stars in the galaxy created at Versailles.
Versailles was also an exercise in impression management, an extension of the glory of Louis himself. His life at court was lived on public display, and he loved the attention. (220) He symbolized the emerging classicism in France, an age when the bourgeoisie were gaining the political power the nobles were losing. Only years before nobles were revolting against Louis as a boy king, and at Versailles they were following him around like puppies, starved for his attention. Inside the palace, ceilings and wall murals recounted scenes of LouisÆs triumphs in military, politics, and culture. The monarchy became a major patron of the arts, and the use of publicity became of extreme importance during LouisÆs reign. (159) The king was portrayed in an heroic light not just for flattery anymore, as had been the case in the past. Now writers and poets were hired to encourage the kingÆs glorious image as a part of public policy. So not only were the attendants of court allowed into LouisÆs magical world, but the middle class and rising bourgeoisie were as well. As Louis became better at acting the part of Sun King, his followers gave him legitimate claims to authority because of the image of glory heÆd become. There came the same sort of emotional commitment from his followers that Willner identified as the last component of charismatic authority. LouisÆs powers might not have actually been superhuman, but his qualities were exceptional enough to qualify his reign as what Weber might call limited charismatic authority in an absolute monarchy.