2026-10-09

왕권신수설 - 위키백과,

왕권신수설 - 위키백과, 우리 모두의 백과사전

왕권신수설

위키백과, 우리 모두의 백과사전.

왕권신수설(王權神授說, 영어: divine right of kings)은 절대주의(絶對主義)시대(age of absolutism)에 왕권의 절대성을 주장한 이론이다.

이에 따르면 국왕의 권력은 신(神)으로부터 받은 것이며, 지상의 여하한 것으로부터도 주어진 것이 아니라고 하여, 국왕권력의 정당성의 근거를 직접 신에게서 구하였다.

이에 따라 대외적으로는 로마 교황 및 신성 로마 제국 황제의 국왕 권력에 대한 간섭을 배제하고, 대내적으로는 봉건제후(封建諸侯)의 국왕권력에 대한 간섭을 배제하고자 하였다.

왕권신수설을 주장한 유명한 사람으로는 장 보댕(Jean Bodin), 프랑스의 루이 14세, 제임스 1세 등이 있다. 보댕의 설은 프랑스 절대왕정 확립을 위해 유효 적절한 역할을 했을 뿐 아니라 기타 유럽 제국(諸國), 특히 튜더 절대 왕정의 옹호론으로서도 큰 역할을 하였다.

제임스 1세는 절대주의 국가에서 왕이 지나친 권력을 휘둘러 국민들의 저항이 높아지자 왕권을 뒷받침 하기 위한 설은 당시 영국에 있어서 절대주의의 기반이 흔들려 국왕의 권력 자체가 문제시되어 이를 보강할 목적에서 주장된 것이다.

“군주제는 신이 명령하는 것이며 왕은 신에게만 책임이 있다. 따라서 왕이 사악(邪惡)할지라도 국민이 이것을 비판할 권리는 갖지 못한다. 즉 왕의 법에 따라서 심판을 받게 되어 있는 국민은 왕의 심판관이 될 수 없다.”
 
— 잉글랜드의 제임스 1세, 『제왕도(帝王道)』

이러한 그의 정치철학은 당연히 절대주의의 정치이념을 전형적으로 보여주는 것이었다. 그는 의회에 의한 왕정 비판이 왕의 대권(大權)을 침해하는 것으로 간주하면서 의회의 권한을 무시하고 독단 전행(專行)의 정치를 강행한 것이다.

같이 보기

참고 자료

==

王権神授説

出典: フリー百科事典『ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』

王権神授説（おうけんしんじゅせつ、英: divine right of kings, 英: divine right）は、16世紀から17世紀にかけてのヨーロッパの絶対王政期において、絶対君主の王権の根拠を神に求める政治思想。神授王権（しんじゅおうけん、英: God's mandate）とも。王権は神によって与えられたものであるため、国王（君主）は神に対してのみ責任を負い、それ以外の権威（特に議会や教皇）による拘束を受けないとして、国王の絶対的な支配権（統治権）を肯定するものである。フランスのボダンやボシュエ、イングランドのフィルマーらによって理論化され、同時期のフランスやイギリスにおいて君主権力の説明に広く用いられた。

王権（統治権）の根拠を神に求めることは古来より広く見られたことであり、中世ヨーロッパの王国（キリスト教国）においては君主の統治権（王権）は、ローマ教皇によって承認されるものであった。16世紀の宗教改革を経てローマ・カトリックの権威を否定する風潮が起こると、国王もまたカトリックの権威から独立しようとする動きが始まり、国王は国家の唯一の最高統治者（至上）であるとする政治理論が求められた。この動きはプロテスタントであるイングランドで顕著であったが、カトリック国であったフランスでも強まった。

一方で同時期には自然法の再発見・再評価も始まり、13世紀のトマス・アクィナスらの理論を支柱にジョン・ロックらが体系化したり、イギリスではコモン・ローに基づく法の支配など、君主権力に対抗する理論も発展していった。これらは特に17世紀後半からの啓蒙時代に結実し、人権思想や社会契約論といった啓蒙思想によって王権神授説は否定され、フランス革命を招くなどした。その後、絶対王政の理論はドイツを中心とした啓蒙専制主義に移っていく。

ヨーロッパにおける王権神授説

ローマ帝国と「神寵帝理念」

皇帝は神によって選ばれ、その恩寵を受ける存在であるとする神寵帝理念が、4世紀の教父エウセビオスによって定式化され、専制君主政（ドミナトゥス）期におけるローマ帝国の皇帝権を支える思想的根拠となった。

中世における王権の超自然的権威の獲得過程

ヨーロッパでは、中世を通じて王権はキリスト教的な至上権から普遍的な支配権を主張する皇帝権・教権に対抗しうる神聖性や霊性を民衆の心性のうちに獲得しようとし、また、実際に王権はある種の霊威、あるいは超自然的権威をみずから位置づけることに成功した。このような霊威は当初、偉大な王の個性に基づいて「一代限り」のものであると考えられていたが、徐々に世襲されるようになり、儀礼も備えて王権とそれを世襲する王家に一種のカリスマを付与することになった[注釈 1]。こうした霊威は、王権が教権に対して一定の自立性を示す根拠となった[1]。

宗教的儀式によって、王は半聖職者的性格や奇跡的治癒能力を付与されると解釈され、王は聖職者に対しては優位性を主張しえた[2]。霊威は、王権が教権に対して一定の自立性を示す根拠となった[3]。

イングランド、エドワード懺悔王の霊威

イングランドにおける国王の霊威をあらわす初期の例は、ノルマン朝のヘンリー1世によるもので、王はおそらく瘰癧（るいれき。結核の一症状で、リンパ節が腫れる）患者にその手で触れることにより治療をおこなっている。この王権による瘰癧治癒能力は、おそらく後述するカペー朝がすでにおこなっていた瘰癧治療に対抗するためにエドワード懺悔王の説話を用いて設定されたもので、カペー朝の王権に対抗するためのものであったと考えられている。つづくプランタジネット朝の時代にはヘンリー2世がすでに瘰癧治療を「御手によって」おこなっているのはほぼ確かで、エドワード1世時代には治療を受けた者に王が施しをするのが明らかになっているので、会計記録からその集計を知ることができる。この瘰癧治癒の霊威の根源は国王が塗油され聖別されたことに由来するとされた。

エドワード2世のころから別種の奇跡、指輪の奇跡がイングランド王権の儀式にあらわれる。これは毎年復活祭直前の金曜日に、王がまず一定の金銀を寄進した上で、それを買い戻し、買い戻した元の寄進の金銀で指輪を作るという儀式で、こうして作られた指輪は痙攣やてんかんの病人の指にはめられると、病をいやすと考えられていた。この儀式では当初、寄進された金銀が聖性を帯びると考えられ、王権は直接に霊威の由来とはされなかったのであるが、テューダー朝のヘンリー8世のころには塗油された王権に由来するものと考えられるようになり、この時期にはすでに儀式において「買い戻し」の行為が省かれていた。指輪の奇跡は宗教改革の時代に批判に晒されるようになり、エリザベス1世によって廃止された。

一方で瘰癧さわりのほうはしばらく存続した。ステュアート朝初期には熱心に瘰癧さわりがおこなわれたが、オランダ人であったウィリアム3世はこの儀式に否定的で患者に触ろうとはしなかった。つづくアン女王は瘰癧さわりをおこなったが、ハノーヴァー朝以降全くおこなわれなくなった。

フランス、聖マルクールの霊威

フランス王家の紋章フルール・ド・リス。14世紀半ば頃に百合紋を巡って一つの説話が作られた。
ある日、クローヴィスがコンフラとの決闘の準備をしている時に従者に甲冑を取りに行かせると、甲冑に普段の三日月紋にかわって、青地に百合が3輪描かれている。4度別の甲冑に取り替えさせるが、いずれも同様の百合紋がついている。そこでしかたなくこれを着て決闘するとクローヴィスは勝利を収めることができた。じつはこれはキリスト教徒であった妃クロティルドの計らいで、妃は百合紋を用いて決闘に向かえば勝利するであろうとの啓示を受けていたのだった。
フランク王クローヴィスのロイヤル・タッチ（英語版）
「太陽王」ことルイ14世のロイヤル・タッチ（英語版）

フランスではカペー朝の初期、フィリップ1世がおそらく瘰癧さわりをおこなったと考えられている。フィリップ4世の時代にはフランス全土ばかりか、全西ヨーロッパ規模でこの「瘰癧さわり」は評判となっており、教皇領であるウルビーノやペルージャからも治癒を求める民衆がやって来ていることが確認されている。また中世を通じて医学書に瘰癧の治療法としてこの「瘰癧さわり」が記述されていた[4]。一方でルイ6世の時代には王旗や王冠がカール大帝の伝承にむすびつけられ、カロリング朝とフランス王権の間に観念的な連続性を生じさせた。

フィリップ4世のころには、この瘰癧さわりが「クローヴィスの洗礼に由来する。クローヴィスはキリスト教に改宗したメロヴィング朝君主であるが、中世フランスでは塗油されて聖別された」と誤って信じられていた。塗油された王の霊威によるものという観念があらわれている。そしてこの伝説はランス大聖堂にクローヴィス以来の聖香油が聖瓶（サント・アンブール）に保管されており、王の即位式で王は聖香油を塗油され聖別されるという観念につながった。

中世末期になると、この瘰癧さわりに別個の聖マルクールの瘰癧治療信仰が混入し、区別がつかなくなった。マルク・ブロックによれば、中世末の王権論者は、すでに王権の聖性において「塗油」さえ問題にしなくなっていたという。マルク・ブロックは著者不明の説話集『果樹園の夢想』から次のような事例を引く、「王が塗油されて聖別されるのは見せかけだけに過ぎず、実際はフランス王権固有の聖性が王権の治癒能力の源泉である。なぜなら、ほかの塗油された国王たちは瘰癧を治癒することができないのだから。ここには明らかにフランス王権の優越性を主張する国民的な感情が見て取れる」。

ヴァロワ朝のフランソワ1世の時代には、王の瘰癧治癒能力がこの聖者に由来するという観念が一般化していた。フランス王はコルブニーにある聖マルクールの遺骨の前でミサをおこなう際に瘰癧さわりも施すようになり、それを目的として参集する病人が年々増大した。

フランスの「瘰癧さわり」はブルボン朝のルイ16世の時代まで熱心に続けられていたが、フランス革命が起こると王は神授権説とともにこの慣習も捨てることとなった。これ以降はシャルル10世の時代に「瘰癧さわり」の復活が試みられているが、王自身も否定的であったので1825年に一回おこなわれたのみでこれが最後の事例となった。

教権の宗教的権威への挑戦

このような王権の超自然的権威はローマ教皇の宗教的権威、具体的には教皇勅書「唯一の、聖なる（ウナム・サンクタム、"Unam sanctam"）」への挑戦であった。この教皇勅書はボニファティウス8世により出されたもので、教皇は世俗的領域と宗教的領域の両方で、至上権を有していることを述べていた。以後歴代教皇はこの勅書を基本的に踏襲し、教皇首位権を擁護する聖職者・神学者たちはこれをしばしば引用したばかりか、ややもすれば拡大解釈して教皇の特権を強調した。

王権の「瘰癧さわり」に関してはしばしば異端の疑いを受け、また宗教的権威において、教権に対しての王権の優位性を根拠づけることに成功したとは言い難いものの、中世の後期には民衆の間でこの慣習が広く受け入れられていた。

王の二つの身体（霊的王権から政治的王権へ）

中世前期、皇帝派の著述家たちはしばしば王が霊的な権能を有していることを主張した。カロリング朝時代、カスウルフはカール大帝について次のように述べている。

「我が王よ、汝は汝の王たる神の代理人であることをつねに頭にとめておかれますよう。…（中略）…司教は二次的な地位にいるに過ぎません。」[5]。

また、同時代のアルクィンはカール大帝を教皇やビザンツ皇帝よりも上位に考えている。

それに対し、教皇派の著述家たちは王権の聖職者としての性格を拒否した。王は純粋に世俗的で肉体的な自然的身体を持つ一方で、王として塗油された瞬間から他の世俗的権力者を超越する霊的身体を持つと考えられ、皇帝派によって大いに喧伝された。12・13世紀の皇帝派はむしろ塗油をすでに重視しなくなっていた。彼らによれば、皇帝は教皇が存在する以前から存在し、この世のあらゆる権力は神に由来するのであるから、古代の皇帝は塗油で聖別されずとも完全な権力を有していたことになる。したがって、彼らにとって塗油とは皇帝を教皇が承認する行為に過ぎず、皇帝権は教皇権に由来するものではないとされた。中世後期には、法学理論によって武装した皇帝権は帝国勅令「リケット・ユーリス」によって、その神聖性を確立する。この勅令によって、皇帝の権力は神のみに由来し、皇帝は選挙によって選出された瞬間から教皇の承認や追認なくして権力を行使することができるとされた[6]。教皇派は「王に対する塗油が、司教に対するものと違って、魂に何の影響も与えない」つまり何の秘蹟的影響も王にもたらさないため、王の聖性の根拠にはならないという意味。これはヨハネス22世がエドワード2世に述べた言葉。しかし、ローマで行われる皇帝の戴冠式以外に教皇は影響力を及ぼすことが結局出来ず、イングランドやフランスでは伝統に従って塗油がおこなわれ、むしろ中世後期には儀式における典礼的・神秘的な洗練は強められた[7]として、前者の考えを否定した。

中世後期にいたると、王の霊的権能のほとんどは名目的な称号や役職へと退化していたが、それでも著述家たちは王が単に世俗的な支配者であるに留まるわけではないことを強調した。これには中世に発達した法学の影響がある。王権は叙任権闘争の過程で失った聖職者的性格を、新たにローマ法哲学によって回復するに至った。このことはルッジェーロ2世が1140年に出した法令の序文に如実に表現されている。「神へのこの奉献により王の職務は、自らに司祭としての特権を要求する。このことにより、或る賢者や法学者は、法を解釈する人々を『法の司祭』と呼ぶのである。」[8]中世の多くの法学者が、法を扱う裁判官や法学者自身を、司祭になぞらえており、それらの職業を神聖視するに至った。そして世俗国家に新たな聖性を付与することに成功した[9]。

王はあらゆる法的義務から超越し、正義の源泉であると考えられた。その過程において、王権は王個人と区別して観念されるようになった。法学者たちは、王には自然的身体と政治的身体の二つの身体があり、自然的身体は可死的な王の生まれながらの身体であるが、政治的身体は不可死かつ不可視で、政治組織や政治機構からなり、公共の福利をはかるために存在していると考えた。

イングランドでは1534年の宗教改革によって英国国教会が組織され、国王に帰属されたために、王は政治的身体のほかに霊的身体も獲得した。テューダー朝からステュアート朝にいたる絶対王政のなかでイングランド王権の象徴権能は強化されていったが、やがて清教徒革命によって共和政が樹立されると、政治理論における正統性を徐々に失っていった。名誉革命によって立憲君主制を目指す方向性が定まると、王の身体は王権の象徴としての意味を失い、王権はイギリスの法によって規定され直された。ヴィクトリア女王の時代には王権は「国民の統合の象徴」として観念せられ、家庭的イメージや母性的イメージを付加されていくことになる[10]。

王権神授説の提唱

神から王冠を授けられるチャールズ1世

ヨーロッパの中世末、封建領主のもとに隷属する農奴を主たる労働力としてきた荘園経済はゆきづまりを見せてきた。危機に陥った貴族や聖職者などの封建領主層はさまざまなかたちで巻き返しを図ったが、他方ではアメリカ大陸から銀が大量に流入することなどによって貨幣経済が進行し、新興の市民階級が台頭してきた。しかし、その市民階級も単独で政治や社会を動かす力はなかった。こうしたなかで、王権は市民階級の力を一部取り込み、封建領主を臣僚化し、国外的には常備軍を設けて教権や皇帝権に対抗しながら国内的には封建勢力の抵抗を抑えようとした。このようにして展開された絶対王政であったが、実際には微妙な均衡の上に立っており、みずからの支配権は神によって授けられたものであるという王権神授説によって、自己の権力の正当化をはかった。

王権神授説を信奉した君主としては、イングランドのジェームズ1世（スコットランド王としてはジェームズ6世）とその息子チャールズ1世や、フランスのルイ14世が有名である。なかでもジェームズ1世はみずから『自由なる君主国の真の法』（1598年）という論文を書いており、ここでいう「自由なる君主国」とは、王は議会からの何の助言や承認も必要なく、自由に法律や勅令を制定することができるという意味である。ジェームズ1世は、1609年のイングランド議会でも「王が神とよばれるのは正しい。そのわけは、王が地上において神の権力にも似た権力をふるっているからである。……王はすべての臣民のあらゆる場合の裁き手であり、しかも神以外のなにものにも責任を負わない」と演説した[11]。

ボシュエ司教像

王権神授説をはじめて唱えたのは、16世紀フランスの法学者・経済学者として知られるジャン・ボダン（1530 - 1596）であった。フランス国内を二分した宗教戦争であるユグノー戦争（1562-98年）のさなかにボダンが著した『国家論』（1576年）では王権神授説をふくむ近代的な主権論が説かれている。

イングランドにおいてもロバート・フィルマーが『父権論（Patriarcha）』（1680年）において「国王の絶対的支配権は人類の祖アダムの子どもに対する父権に由来する」との論を展開している。

ジャック＝ベニーニュ・ボシュエ（1627-1704）は、フランス教会の独立を擁護し、『哲学入門』・『世界史叙説』・『棺前説教集』等の著書で知られる思想家であり、宮廷説教師として知られる。その概要は、ルイ14世の王太子に講義した一節に端的にあらわれるとされており、『世界史叙説』（1685年）においても、「神は国王を使者としており、国王を通じて人びとを支配している。……国王の人格は神聖であり、彼にさからうことは神を冒涜することである」との記述が見られる。この王権神授説の理論的根拠としては、新約聖書の『ローマ人への手紙』13章が考えられている。

社会契約説の登場と王権神授説の影響

17世紀のイギリスでは清教徒革命や名誉革命などの市民革命の結果、議会王政が確立した。また、こうした情勢のなかで、君主の支配権は国民との契約によって認められたものであるとする社会契約説がトマス・ホッブズやジョン・ロックによって唱えられて、王権神授説はしだいに否定されていった[注釈 2]。社会契約説はフランスにも伝わり、ジャン＝ジャック・ルソーは人民主権の概念を打ちたてるにいたった。ロックやルソーの思想はフランス革命やアメリカ独立戦争にも大きな影響をあたえた。

ただし、今日においても、王権神授説はイギリス王室の戴冠式において、新国王に聖油をつける儀式などにその名残りが見受けられるとする指摘がある[注釈 3]。王権神授説はまた、主権者無答責の原則の原初的な現れとして把握することができ、行政権が法の支配を受けるようになった近・現代史においても国家無答責の原則そのものは長く採用されてきた経緯がある[注釈 4]。　

メソポタミアの王権神授

ハンムラビ法典（頂部）

古い文明の一つメソポタミア文明では、王は「神の代理人」とされ、これは同じ古代オリエント文明でも現人神であるエジプトのファラオとは対照的であった。よく知られた『ハンムラビ法典』では王ハンムラビが神シャマシュより王権の象徴の輪と聖杖を授ける図が描かれている。その下に彫られているのが「目には目を、歯には歯を」で有名な条文である。このように法治を託された（あるいは為政者が仮託した）という面もあるが、代理人たる王を通した神への民衆の信仰心が大きかったことがうかがえる。

脚注

注釈

  1. マルク・ブロックは、王家の正統なる男系君主が事例に則している。すなわち「王家」というよりは「王権」の、それも「男系の王権」に備わる霊威であるとする。ただし家門に付随する血統霊威という観点を導入すれば、王家に霊性の根拠を求める見方も採りうる。マルク・ブロックの見解にあっても、示される霊威について血統の観念は否定されていない。
  2. ロックの『統治二論』（1690年）のうちの第一論は、フィルマーの唱えた王権神授説に対する反論であった。
  3. 「油を塗られた者」というのが「メシア」という語の意味であるように、《聖油を塗る》という行為は一般に神と関連づけられた宗教的行為あるいは象徴的行為である。
  4. 国家賠償の観点からは、19世紀後半にフランスでコンセユ・デタ（行政裁判所）の判例によって公役務過失ないし危険責任の理論により、国家の賠償責任を肯定するようになった。

出典

  1. この節は全体的にマルク・ブロック『王の奇跡』に依拠している。
  2. J・B・モラル 2002, p. 35.
  3. マルク・ブロック『王の奇跡』.
  4. マルク・ブロックに従って実例を示せば、ジルベール・ラングレの『医療概論』（13世紀前半）、ロジェ・ド・パルムおよびロラン・ド・パルムの『外科学概論』に付された注釈（13世紀末〜14世紀初頭）、ベルナール・ド・グルトンの『医学の白百合』（16世紀以前）、ジョン・オヴ・ガジュデンの『実用医学』（16世紀以前）など。
  5. 『王の二つの身体』, p. 102、R・W・サザーン『西欧中世の社会と教会』八坂書房、p.25
  6. 『王の二つの身体』, p. 320-323.
  7. 『王の二つの身体』, p. 31.
  8. 『王の二つの身体』, p. 138.
  9. 『王の二つの身体』, p. 141.
  10. 岡本明, 井内太郎, 渡辺有二, 秋田茂, 久木尚志, 東田雅博, 柳原邦光, 槇原茂, 田中優, 長田浩彰「井内太郎「第1章 国王の身体・儀礼・象徴 テューダー絶対王政期における国王権力の象徴過程」p.14-35」『支配の文化史 : 近代ヨーロッパの解読』ミネルヴァ書房〈Minerva西洋史ライブラリー ; 21〉、1997年。国立国会図書館書誌ID:000002593887。
  11. 大野真弓 1975.

参考文献

関連文献

関連項目

==

왕권신 수설

출처 : 무료 백과 사전 "Wikipedia (Wikipedia)"

왕권신 수설 (오우켄신쥬세츠, 영국 : divine right of kings , 영국 : divine right )은 16세기부터 17세기에 걸쳐 유럽의 절대 왕정기 에 절대 군주 의 왕권 의 근거를 하나님 께 요구하는 정치사상 . 신수 왕권 (신주오켄, 영 : God's mandate )도. 왕권은 하나님께서 주신 것이므로 국왕 ( 군주 )은 하나님에 대해서만 책임을 지고, 그 이외의 권위(특히 의회 나 교황 )에 의한 구속을 받지 않는다고 하여 국왕의 절대적인 지배권(통치권)을 긍정하는 것이다. 프랑스 의 보단 이나 보슈에 , 잉글랜드 의 필머 등에 의해 이론화되어 동시기의 프랑스나 영국에서 군주권력의 설명에 널리 사용되었다.

왕권(통치권)의 근거를 하나님께 구하는 것은 옛날보다 널리 보였으며, 중세 유럽의 왕국(기독교국)에서는 군주의 통치권(왕권)이 로마 교황에 의해 승인된 것이었다. 16세기 종교개혁을 거쳐 로마 가톨릭 의 권위를 부정하는 풍조가 일어나자 국왕도 가톨릭의 권위와 독립하려는 움직임이 시작되어 국왕은 국가의 유일한 최고 통치자(지상)라고 하는 정치 이론이 요구되었다. 이 움직임은 개신교 인 잉글랜드에서 두드러졌지만 가톨릭 국가였던 프랑스에서도 강해졌습니다.

한편 동시기에는 자연법 의 재발견·재평가도 시작되어 13세기 토마스 아퀴나스 등의 이론을 지주로 존 록 등이 체계화하거나 영국에서는 공통 로우 에 기초한 법의 지배 등 군주권력에 대항하는 이론도 발전해 갔다. 이들은 특히 17세기 후반부터 계몽시대 에 결실했고, 인권사상 이나 사회계약론 등 계몽사상 에 의해 왕권신수설은 부정되어 프랑스혁명 을 불러일으켰다. 그 후 절대왕정의 이론은 독일을 중심으로 한 계몽전제주의 로 옮겨간다.

유럽의 왕권 신 수설

로마제국과 '신총제이념'

황제는 하나님에 의해 선택되어 그 은총을 받는 존재라고 하는 신寵帝理念이 4세기 교부 에우세비오스 에 의해 정식화되어 전제군주정(도미나투스) 기에서 로마제국 의 황제권을 지지하는 사상적 근거가 되었다.

중세 왕권의 초자연적 권위 획득 과정

유럽에서는 중세를 통하여 왕권은 기독교 적 지상권으로부터 보편적인 지배권을 주장하는 황제권·교권에 대항할 수 있는 신성성과 영성 을 민중의 심성 가운데 획득하려 했으며, 실제로 왕권은 어떤 종류의 영위, 혹은 초자연적 권위를 없애놓는 데 성공했다. 이런 영위는 당초 위대한 왕의 개성에 근거하여 '1대 한계'의 것으로 간주되었지만, 서서히 세습 되게 되었고, 의례 도 갖추어 왕권과 그것을 세습하는 왕가에게 일종의 카리스마 를 부여하게 되었다 [ 주석 1 ] . 이러한 영위는 왕권이 교권에 대해 일정한 자립성을 나타내는 근거가 되었다 [ 1 ] .

종교적 의식에 의해, 왕은 반성직자적 성격이나 기적적 치유 능력이 부여된다고 해석되었고, 왕은 성직자에 대해서는 우위성을 주장할 수 있었다 [ 2 ] . 영위는 왕권이 교권에 대해 일정한 자립성을 나타내는 근거가 되었다 [ 3 ] .

잉글랜드, 에드워드 참회왕의 영위

잉글랜드 에서의 국왕의 영위를 나타내는 초기 예는 노르만 아침 의 헨리 1세 에 의한 것이며, 왕은 아마瘰癧(루이레키. 결핵 의 한 증상으로, 림프절이 붓는) 환자를 그 손으로 만져서 치료를 하고 있다. 이 왕권에 의한 瘰癧치유 능력은 아마 후술하는 카페 아침이 이미 행하고 있던 瘰癧 치료에 대항하기 위해 에드워드 참회왕 의 설화를 사용하여 설정된 것으로, 카페 아침의 왕권에 대항하기 위한 것이었다고 생각되고 있다. 계속되는 프란타지넷 아침 시대에는 헨리 2세가 이미 흉부 치료를 '손으로' 행하고 있는 것은 거의 확실하고, 에드워드 1세 시대에는 치료를 받은 자에게 왕이 베풀어 주는 것이 밝혀지기 때문에, 회계 기록으로부터 그 집계를 알 수 있다. 이 瘰虧치유의 영위의 근원은 국왕이 도유되어 성별된 것에 유래한다고 여겨졌다.

에드워드 2세 무렵부터 별종의 기적, 반지의 기적이 영국 왕권의 의식에 나타난다. 이것은 매년 부활제 직전의 금요일에, 왕이 우선 일정한 금은을 기진한 뒤, 그것을 되찾아, 다시 되찾은 원래의 기진의 금은으로 반지를 만드는 의식으로, 이렇게 만들어진 반지는 경련이나 간질의 병인의 손가락에 끼워지면, 병을 치료하는 것으로 생각되고 있었다. 이 의식에서는 당초 기진된 금은이 성성을 띠는 것으로 생각되어 왕권은 직접 영위의 유래로는 되지 않았지만, 튜더 아침 헨리 8세 무렵에는 도유된 왕권에서 유래하는 것으로 생각되게 되었고, 이 시기에는 이미 의식에서 '구매' 행위가 없어졌다. 반지의 기적은 종교 개혁 시대에 비판에 노출되어 엘리자베스 1세 에 의해 폐지되었다.

한편으로 瘰虧사와리 쪽은 잠시 존속했다. 스튜어트 아침 초반에는 열심히 함정이 생겼지만, 네덜란드인 윌리엄 3세는 이 의식에 부정적이고 환자를 만지려고 하지 않았다. 계속 앤 여왕 은 瘰虧을 만났지만, 하노버 아침 이후 전혀 행해지지 않았다.

프랑스, 세인트 마르쿠르의 영위

프랑스 왕가의 문장 플룰 드 다람쥐 . 14세기 중반 무렵에 백합문을 둘러싸고 하나의 설화가 만들어졌다.
어느 날, 클로비스가 콘프라와의 결투 준비를 하고 있을 때 종자에게 갑옷을 잡으러 가게 하면, 갑옷에 평소의 초승달 문을 대신해, 청지에 백합이 3륜 그려져 있다. 4도 다른 갑옷으로 바꾸지만, 모두 비슷한 백합문이 붙어있다. 거기서 어쩔 수 없이 이것을 입고 결투하면 크로비스는 승리를 거둘 수 있었다. 실은 이것은 기독교인이었던 비 클로틸드의 척도였고, 비는 백합문을 이용해 결투를 향하면 승리할 것이라는 계시를 받고 있었다.
프랭크 왕 클로비스 의 로얄 터치 ( 영어판 )
「태양왕」일 루이 14세 의 로얄 터치 ( 영어판 )

프랑스 에서는 카페 아침 의 초기, 필립 1세가 아마 瘰虧의 주위를 행했다고 생각되고 있다. 필립 4세 시대에는 프랑스 전역뿐 아니라 전서유럽 규모에서 이 '창포감'은 평판이 되고 있으며, 교황령인 우르비노 나 페루자 로부터도 치유를 요구하는 민중이 찾아오고 있는 것이 확인되고 있다. 또 중세를 통하여 의학서에 瘰癧의 치료법으로서 이 '瘰癧さわり'이 기술되어 있었다 [ 4 ] . 한편 루이 6세 시대에는 왕기와 왕관이 칼 대제 의 전승에 휩쓸려 칼로링 아침 과 프랑스 왕권 사이에 관념적인 연속성을 일으켰다.

필립 4세 무렵에는 이 瘰虧사와리가 “ 클로비스 의 세례에서 유래한다. 크로비스는 기독교로 개종한 멜로빙 조 군주이지만 중세 프랑스에서는 도유되어 성별되었다”고 잘못 믿어졌다. 도유된 왕의 영위에 의한 것이라고 하는 관념이 나타난다. 그리고 이 전설은 랜스 대성당 에 클로비스 이래의 성향유가 성병(산트 암불)에 보관되어 있어 왕의 즉위식에서 왕은 성향유를 도유되어 성별된다는 관념으로 이어졌다.

중세 말기가 되면 이 흉터의 주위에 별개의 성 마르쿠르의 함정 치료 신앙이 혼입되어 구별이 되지 않게 되었다. 마르크 블록에 따르면 중세 말의 왕권론자는 이미 왕권의 성성에서 '도유'조차 문제로 삼지 않았다고 한다. 마르크 블록은 저자 불명의 설화집 '과수원의 몽상'에서 다음과 같은 사례를 뽑는다. 치유능력의 원천이다. 왜냐하면 다른 도유된 국왕들은 瘰癧을 치유할 수 없으니까.

발로아 아침 프랑수아 1세 시대에는 왕의 瘰癧치유 능력이 이 성자에게 유래한다는 관념이 일반화되어 있었다. 프랑스 왕은 코르브니 에 있는 세인트 마르쿠르 의 유골 앞에서 미사를 할 때 瘰虧의 만남도 베풀게 ​​되었고, 그것을 목적으로 참가하는 병인이 해마다 증가했다.

프랑스의 '가나미 사와리'는 부르봉 아침 루이 16세 시대까지 열심히 이어졌지만 프랑스 혁명이 일어나자 왕은 신수권설과 함께 이 관습도 버리게 되었다. 이 이후는 샤를 10세 의 시대에 '창포 사와리'의 부활이 시도되고 있지만, 왕 자신도 부정적이었기 때문에 1825년 에 한 번 행해진 것만으로 이것이 마지막 사례가 되었다.

교권의 종교적 권위에 대한 도전

이러한 왕권 의 초자연적 권위는 로마 교황 의 종교적 권위, 구체적으로는 교황 칙서 "유일의, 거룩한 ( 우남 상탐 , " Unam sanctam ")"에 대한 도전이었다. 이 교황 칙서는 보니 파티우스 8세 에 의해 발행된 것으로 교황은 세속적 영역과 종교적 영역 모두에서 지상권을 가지고 있다고 말했다. 이후 역대 교황은 이 칙서를 기본적으로 답습했고, 교황 선두권을 옹호하는 성직자·신학자들은 이를 자주 인용한지 얼마 지나면 확대 해석해 교황의 특권을 강조했다.

왕권의 '옻나무 만남'에 관해서는 종종 이단 의 혐의를 받고, 또 종교적 권위에 있어서, 교권에 대한 왕권의 우위성을 근거로 하는 데 성공했다고는 말하기 어렵지만, 중세 후기에는 민중들 사이에서 이 관습이 널리 받아들여지고 있었다.

왕의 두 신체 (영적 왕권에서 정치적 왕권으로)

중세 전기, 황제파의 저술가들은 종종 왕이 영적인 권능을 가지고 있다고 주장했다. 칼로링 아침 시대, 카스울프 는 칼 대제 에 대해 다음과 같이 말했다.

“ 우리 왕이여, 여의는 여의의 왕인 하나님의 대리인임을 항상 머리 에 머물러 있을 것 같다 .

또, 동시대의 알퀸 은 칼 대제를 교황이나 비잔츠 황제보다 상위로 생각하고 있다.

그에 반해 교황파의 저술가들은 왕권의 성직자로서의 성격을 거부했다. 왕은 순수하게 세속적이고 육체적인 자연적 신체를 가지는 한편, 왕으로서 도유된 순간부터 다른 세속적 권력자를 초월하는 영적 신체를 가진 것으로 여겨졌고, 황제파에 의해 크게 싸워졌다. 12·13세기의 황제파는 오히려 도유를 이미 중시하지 않게 되었다. 이들에 의하면, 황제는 교황이 존재하기 이전부터 존재하고, 이 세상의 모든 권력은 하나님에게서 유래하기 때문에, 고대의 황제는 도유로 성별되지 않아도 완전한 권력을 가지고 있었다. 따라서 그들에게 있어서 도유란 황제를 교황이 승인하는 행위에 지나지 않고, 황제권은 교황권에서 유래하는 것이 아니라고 여겨졌다. 중세 후기에는 법학 이론에 의해 무장한 황제권은 제국 칙령 '리켓 유리스'에 의해 그 신성성을 확립한다. 이 칙령에 의해 황제의 권력은 하나님에게서 유래하였고, 황제는 선거에 의해 선출된 순간부터 교황의 승인이나 추인 없이 권력을 행사할 수 있다고 여겨졌다 [ 6 ] . 교황파는 “왕에 대한 도유가 주교에 대한 것과 달리 영혼에 아무런 영향도 주지 않는다” 즉 아무런 비밀적 영향도 왕에게 가져오지 않기 때문에 왕의 성성의 근거가 되지 않는다는 의미. 이것은 요하네스 22세가 에드워드 2 세에 말한 말. 그러나 로마에서 행해지는 황제의 대관식 이외에 교황은 영향력을 미치는 것이 결국 할 수 없었고, 잉글랜드나 프랑스에서는 전통에 따라 도유가 행해졌고, 오히려 중세 후기에는 의식에서의 전례적·신비적인 세련은 강화되었다 [ 7 ] 로서 전자의 생각을 부정했다.

중세 후기에 왕의 영적 권능의 대부분은 명목적 칭호와 직책으로 퇴화하고 있었지만, 그래도 저술가들은 왕이 단순히 세속적인 지배자인 것에 머무는 것은 아님을 강조했다. 여기에는 중세에 발달한 법학의 영향이 있다. 왕권은 서임권 투쟁 과정에서 잃은 성직자적 성격을 새롭게 로마 법철학에 의해 회복하기에 이르렀다. 이는 루제로 2세가 1140 년 에 낸 법령의 서문에 여실히 표현되고 있다. “하나님에 대한 이 봉헌으로 왕의 직무는 스스로 사제로서의 특권을 요구한다. 이로 인해 어떤 현자나 법학자는 법을 해석하는 사람들을 ‘법의 사제’ 라고 부르는 것이다 . 그리고 세속 국가에 새로운 성성을 부여하는 데 성공했다 [ 9 ] .

왕은 모든 법적 의무에서 초월하고 정의의 원천으로 여겨졌다. 그 과정에서 왕권은 왕 개인과 구별하여 관념하게 되었다. 법학자들은 왕에게는 자연적 신체와 정치적 신체의 두 신체가 있으며, 자연적 신체는 가사적인 왕의 태어나는 신체이지만, 정치적 신체는 불가사하고 불가시로, 정치조직이나 정치기구로 이루어져 공공의 복리를 걸기 위해 존재하고 있다고 생각했다.

잉글랜드에서는 1534년 종교개혁에 의해 영국교회가 조직되어 국왕에 귀속되었기 때문에 왕은 정치적 신체 외에 영적 신체도 획득했다. 튜더 아침부터 스튜어트 아침에 이르는 절대 왕정 속에서 영국 왕권의 상징권능은 강화되어 갔지만, 곧 청교도 혁명에 의해 공화정이 수립되자 정치 이론의 정통성을 서서히 잃어갔다. 명예혁명 에 의해 입헌군주제를 목표로 하는 방향성이 정해지자, 왕의 신체는 왕권의 상징으로서의 의미를 잃고, 왕권은 영국의 법에 의해 다시 규정되었다. 빅토리아 여왕의 시대에는 왕권은 「국민의 통합의 상징」으로서 관념되어 가정적 이미지나 모성적 이미지를 부가되어 가게 된다 [ 10 ] .

왕권신수설의 제창

하나님으로부터 왕관을 받는 찰스 1세

유럽 ​​중세 말 봉건영주 아래에 예속된 농노를 주된 노동력 으로 온 장원 경제 는 유키 막힘을 보였다. 위기에 빠진 귀족과 성직자 등의 봉건 영주층은 다양한 형태로 되감기를 꾀했지만, 다른 한편으로는 미국 대륙 에서 은이 대량으로 유입되는 등에 의해 화폐경제 가 진행되어 신흥 시민계급이 대두해 왔다. 그러나 그 시민계급도 단독으로 정치나 사회를 움직이는 힘은 없었다. 이런 가운데 왕권 은 시민계급의 힘을 일부 끌어들여 봉건영주를 신료화하고 국외적으로는 상비군을 마련해 교권이나 황제권에 대항하면서 국내적으로는 봉건 세력의 저항을 억제하려고 했다. 이처럼 전개된 절대 왕정 이었지만 실제로는 미묘한 균형 위에 서 있고, 모두의 지배권은 하나님이 주신 것이라고 하는 왕권신 수설에 의해 자기 권력의 정당화를 도모했다.

왕권신 수설을 신봉한 군주로서는, 영국 의 제임스 1세 ( 스코틀랜드 왕으로서는 제임스 6세)와 그 아들 찰스 1세 와, 프랑스의 루이 14세가 유명하다. 그 중에서도 제임스 1세는 언제나 '자유하는 군주국의 진정한 법'( 1598년 )이라는 논문을 쓰고 있으며, 여기서 말하는 '자유하는 군주국'이란 왕은 의회 로부터 아무런 조언이나 승인도 필요없고, 자유롭게 법률이나 칙령을 제정할 수 있다는 의미이다. 제임스 1세는 1609년 잉글랜드 의회 에서도 “왕이 하나님이라 부르는 것은 옳다. 그 이유는 왕이 지상에서 하나님 의 권력과 비슷한 권력 을 느끼고 있기 때문 이다 .

보슈에 주교상

왕권신수설을 처음으로 주창한 것은 16세기 프랑스의 법학자 · 경제학자 로 알려진 장보단 (1530 - 1596)이었다. 프랑스 국내를 이분한 종교전쟁 인 유그노 전쟁 (1562-98년) 가운데 보단이 저술한 '국가론'( 1576년 )에서는 왕권신 수설을 포함하는 현대적인 주권론 이 설득되어 있다.

잉글랜드에서도 로버트 필머가 '부권론(Patriarcha)'( 1680년 )에서 "국왕의 절대적 지배권은 인류의 조 아담 의 자녀에 대한 부권에서 유래한다"는 논란을 전개하고 있다.

잭-베니뉴 보슈에 (1627-1704)는 프랑스 교회의 독립을 옹호하고, '철학 입문'·'세계사 서설'·'관 전설 교집' 등의 저서로 알려진 사상가이며, 궁정설 교사로 알려져 있다. 그 개요는, 루이 14세의 왕태자에 강의한 일절에 단적으로 나타난다고 여겨지고 있어, 「세계사 서설」( 1685년 )에 있어서도, 「하나님은 국왕을 사자로 하고 있어, 국왕을 통해 사람들을 지배하고 있다.… 이 왕권신수설의 이론적 근거로는 신약성경 의 『로마인에게 보내는 편지』 13장이 생각된다.

사회계약설의 등장과 왕권신수설의 영향

17세기 영국에서는 청교도혁명 과 명예혁명 등 시민혁명 의 결과 의회왕정이 확립되었다. 또 이러한 정세 속에서 군주의 지배권은 국민과의 계약 에 의해 인정된 것이라고 하는 사회계약설 이 토마스 홉스 나 존 록 에 의해 주창되어 왕권신 수설은 드디어 부정되어 갔다 [ 주석 2 ] . 사회계약설은 프랑스에도 전해졌고, 장-잭 루소 는 인민주권 의 개념을 세웠다. 록과 루소의 사상은 프랑스 혁명 과 미국 독립 전쟁 에도 큰 영향을 미쳤다.

다만, 오늘날에도 왕권신수설은 영국 왕실 의 대관식 에서 신국왕에 성유를 붙이는 의식 등에 그 남은 남은 것을 볼 수 있다는 지적이 있다 [ 주석 3 ] . 왕권신수설은 또한 주권자 무답책의 원칙의 원초적인 나타남으로 파악할 수 있으며, 행정권이 법의 지배를 받게 된 근·현대사에서도 국가무답책의 원칙 자체는 오랫동안 채용되어 온 경위가 있다 [ 주석 4 ] .　

메소포타미아의 왕권 신수

한무라비 법전(정부)

오래된 문명 중 하나인 메소포타미아 문명 에서 왕은 '하느님의 대리인'이었고, 이는 같은 고대 동양 문명에서도 현인 신인 이집트 의 파라오 와는 대조적이었다. 잘 알려진 ' 함무라비 법전 '에서는 왕 한무라비 가 신 샤마슈 보다 왕권의 상징의 고리와 성지팡이를 주는 그림이 그려져 있다. 그 아래에 새겨져 있는 것이 「눈에는 눈을, 치아에는 치아를」로 유명한 조문이다. 이와 같이 법치를 맡긴 (혹은 위정자가 가탁했다)라는 면도 있지만, 대리인 왕을 통한 하나님에 대한 민중의 신앙심이 컸다는 것을 알 수 있다.

각주

주석

  1. 마르크 블록 은 왕가의 정통한 남계 군주가 사례에 준거하고 있다. 즉 '왕가'라기보다는 '왕권'의 그것도 '남계의 왕권'에 비치는 영위라고 한다. 다만 가문에 부수하는 혈통영위라는 관점을 도입하면 왕가에게 영성의 근거를 요구하는 견해도 채택할 수 있다. 마르크 블록의 견해에 있어도, 나타나는 영위에 대해서 혈통의 관념은 부정되어 있지 않다.
  2. 록의 ' 통치 이론 '( 1690년 ) 중 첫 번째 이론은 필머가 주창한 왕권신 수설에 대한 반론이었다.
  3. '기름을 바른 자'라는 것이 ' 메시아 '라는 말의 의미인 것처럼, 《성유를 바른다》라는 행위는 일반적으로 하나님 과 연관된 종교적 행위 혹은 상징적 행위이다.
  4. 국가배상 의 관점에서는 19세기 후반 프랑스에서 콘세유데타 (행정법원)의 판례 에 따라 공역무 과실 내지 위험책임의 이론에 의해 국가의 배상책임을 긍정하게 되었다.

출처

  1. 이 절은 전체적으로 마르크 블록 '왕의 기적' 에 의존한다.
  2. J. B. Moral 2002 , p.  35.
  3. 마르크 블록 "왕의 기적" .
  4. 마르크 블록에 따라 예를 보면 지르베르 랑그레 의 '의료 개론'(13 세기 초반), 로제 드 팜 및 로랑 드 팔름 의 '외과학 개론' 주석(13세기 말~14세기 초), 베르나르 드 글루톤 의 '의학의 백합'(16세기 이전), 존 오브 가쥬덴 의 '실용 의학'(16세기 이전) 등.
  5. "왕의 두 신체" , 102쪽 , R.W. 서던 
  6. "왕의 두 몸" , 320-323면  .
  7. "왕의 두 몸" ,  31면.
  8. "왕의 두 몸" ,  138쪽.
  9. "왕의 두 몸" ,  141쪽.
  10. 오카모토 아키라, 이우치 타로, 와타나베 아리지, 아키타 시게루, 쿠기 나오시, 히가시다 마사히로, 야나기하라 쿠니코, 마키하라 시게루, 타나카 유우, 나가타 코우히로 「이나이 타로」제 1 장 국왕의 신체 · 의례 · 상징『『지배의 문화사  : 근대 유럽의 해독』 미네르바 서방 <Minerva 서양사 라이브러리  ; 21>, 1997년. 국립 국회 도서관 서지 ID : 000002593887 .
  11. 오노 마유미 1975 .

참고문헌

관련 문헌

관련 항목

==

==

Divine right of kings

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Henry VIII of England and Louis XIV of France were both adherents to the concept of the divine right of kings, and each of their reigns saw a rise in absolutism in their respective kingdoms.

The divine right of kings is a political and religious doctrine of political legitimacy of a monarchy in post-Reformation Western Christianity, culminating in the Age of Absolutism (c. 1610 – c. 1789). It is also known as the divine-right theory of kingship.

The doctrine asserts that a monarch is not accountable to any earthly authority (such as a parliament or the Pope) because their right to rule is derived from divine authority. Thus, the monarch is not subject to the will of the people, of the aristocracy, or of any other estate of the realm. It follows that only divine authority can judge a monarch, and that any attempt to depose, dethrone, resist or restrict their powers runs contrary to God's will and may constitute a sacrilegious act. It does not imply that their power is absolute.[1]: 858 

In its full-fledged form, the Divine Right of Kings is associated with Henry VIII of England (and the Acts of Supremacy), James VI and I of Scotland and England, Louis XIV of France, and their successors.

Prior medieval political concepts

The medieval political system, often summarised by the concept of the Res publica Christiana, was decentralised and had no concept of absolute monarchical power, as later held by rulers of the 17th and 18th centuries.

In that older system, the legitimacy of a regime was ultimately derivative of Eternal Law (Lex Aeterna), i.e. the divine blueprint for the order of the world, in which humans, by virtue of being rational creatures, participate, giving them knowledge of Natural Law (Lex Naturalis). The Natural Law is universal, but is determined locally by custom, which generates Human Law (Lex Humana). This hierarchical order from eternal to natural to human law is most famously articulated by Thomas Aquinas, and meant that a medieval regime, such as a monarchy, was legitimate so long as it ruled in accordance with that order, obligating the ruler to govern in accordance with Natural Law and to protect local customs.

The Church leadership held ultimate authority in interpreting whether a king complied with Natural Law and thus maintained his Divine Mandation, which was the signature feature of the pan-European political order of the Res publica Christiana. This is why Excommunication was dreaded by medieval kings, as it formally invalidated the legitimacy of their rule and gave the Church leadership Papal deposing power.

The power of a king was, consequently, far from absolute, and was furthermore shared with other political institutions of medieval society, such as parliaments (e.g. the Cortes Generales in Iberia) and a powerful nobility. This division was encouraged by the Church leadership and political theory of the time, with Thomas Aquinas promoting constitutional monarchy checked by a strong parliament as the preferred form of government.

All this was dramatically changed first by the Reformation, then by the Thirty Years' War, which demoted the Church leadership from ultimate political authority and developed the idea of kings as rulers under the authority of God alone, whence the Divine Right of Kings and the onset of Absolutism.

Concept

Divine right has been a key element of the self-legitimization of many absolute monarchies, connected with their authority and right to rule. Related but distinct notions include Caesaropapism (the complete subordination of bishops etc. to the secular power), Supremacy (the legal sovereignty of the civil laws over the laws of the Church), Absolutism (a form of monarchical or despotic power that is unrestrained by all other institutions, such as churches, legislatures, or social elites) or Tyranny (an absolute ruler who is unrestrained even by moral law).

Historically, many notions of rights have been authoritarian and hierarchical, with different people granted different rights and some having more rights than others. For instance, the right of a father to receive respect from his son did not indicate a right for the son to receive a return from that respect. Analogously, the divine right of kings, which permitted absolute power over subjects, provided few rights for the subjects themselves.[2]

It is sometimes signified by the phrase "by the Grace of God" or its Latin equivalent, Dei Gratia, which has historically been attached to the titles of certain reigning monarchs. Note, however, that such accountability only to God does not per se make the monarch a sacred king.

Religious traditions

Hinduism

The Hindu text Mahabharata contains several concepts of kingship, especially underscoring its divine origins. The king is considered an embodiment of Indra, and fealty to him is considered as submitting to divine authority. In the Rajadharmanusasana Parva, Bhishma talks of the period before men had kings, and there was chaos all around –

It has been heard by us that men, in days of old, in consequence of anarchy, met with destruction, devouring one another like stronger fishes devouring the weaker ones in the water. It has been heard by us that a few amongst them then, assembling together, made certain compacts, saying, 'He who becomes harsh in speech, or violent in temper, he who seduces or abducts other people’s wives or robs the wealth that belongs to others, should be cast off by us.' For inspiring confidence among all classes of the people, they made such a compact and lived for some time. Assembling after some time they proceeded in affliction to the Grandsire, saying, 'Without a king, O divine lord, we are going to destruction. Appoint some one as our king. All of us shall worship him and he shall protect us.'.[3]

The Mahabharata also mentions that in a land without king or royal authority, Vedic rituals are ineffectual and Agni does not convey sacrificial libations to the gods.

Another text, the Markandeya Purana, divinises the position of kingship

A king should assume the five forms of Indra, the Sun, Yama and the Moon, and also of the Wind in the work of government. Just as Indra nourishes the people on the earth with showers of water for four months, so should a king nourish them with largesses. Just as the Sun draws up the water with his rays for eight months, so should a king collect the tolls and other dues by truly subtle means. Just as Yama restrains friend and foe when the time arrives, so a king should he impartial towards friend and foe, towards the vicious and the virtuous. Just as by gazing on the full Moon, a man grows affectionate, so, where the people are all peaceful, that is the practice he should adopt from the moon. Just as the Wind moves mysterious among all creatures, so should a king move among the citizens, ministers and others, and among his relatives by the agency of spies.

— Markandeya Purana, Chapter 27 [4]

Yet at the same time, the narrative of Vena also shows a strong aversion towards the concept of an imperial cult.

When he (Veṇa) was inaugurated by the Ṛṣis monarch of the earth, he caused. it to be every where proclaimed, that no worship should be performed, no oblations offered, no gifts bestowed upon the Brahmans. "I, the king," said he, "am the lord of sacrifice; for who but I am entitled to the oblations." The Ṛṣis, respectfully approaching the sovereign, addressed him in melodious accents, and said, "Gracious prince, we salute you; hear what we have to represent. For the preservation of your kingdom and your life, and for the benefit of all your subjects, permit us to worship Hari, the lord of all sacrifice, the god of gods, with solemn and protracted rites; a portion of the fruit of which will revert to you. Viṣṇu, the god of oblations, being propitiated with sacrifice by us, will grant you, oh king, all your desires. Those princes have all their wishes gratified, in whose realms Hari, the lord of sacrifice, is adored with sacrificial rites." "Who," exclaimed Veṇa, "is superior to me? who besides me is entitled to worship? who is this Hari, whom you style the lord of sacrifice? Brahmā, Janārddana. Śambhu, Indra, Vāyu, Ravi, Hutabhuk, Varuṇa, Dhātā, Pūṣā, Bhūmi, the lord of night; all these, and whatever other gods there be who listen to our vows; all these are present in the person of a king: the essence of a sovereign is all that is divine. Conscious of this, I have issued my commands, and look that you obey them. You are not to sacrifice, not to offer oblations, not to give alms. As the first duty of women is obedience to their lords, so observance of my orders is incumbent, holy men, on you." "Give command, great king," replied the Ṛṣis, "that piety may suffer no decrease. All this world is but a transmutation of oblations; and if devotion be suppressed, the world is at an end." But Veṇa was entreated in vain; and although this request was repeated by the sages, he refused to give the order they suggested. Then those pious Munis were filled with wrath, and cried out to each other, "Let this wicked wretch be slain. The impious man who has reviled the god of sacrifice who is without beginning or end, is not fit to reign over the earth." And they fell upon the king, and beat him with blades of holy grass, consecrated by prayer, and slew him, who had first been destroyed by his impiety towards god.

— Vishnu Purana, Book I, Chapter 13 [5]


The development of the divine right of kingship according to Hindu principles was visible, not in the Indian subcontinent, but in Hinduised polities of Southeast Asia like Majapahit and Srivijaya (see Devaraja).

Zoroastrianism (Iranian world)

Ahura Mazda gives divine kingship to Ardashir.

Khvarenah (also spelled khwarenah or xwarra(h): Avestan: 𐬓𐬀𐬭𐬆𐬥𐬀𐬵 xᵛarənah; Persian: فرّ, romanized: far) is an Iranian and Zoroastrian concept, which literally means glory, about divine right of the kings. This may stem from early Mesopotamian culture, where kings were often regarded as deities after their death. Shulgi of Ur was among the first Mesopotamian rulers to declare himself to be divine. In the Iranian view, kings would never rule, unless Khvarenah is with them, and they will never fall unless Khvarenah leaves them. For example, according to the Kar-namag of Ardashir, when Ardashir I of Persia and Artabanus V of Parthia fought for the throne of Iran, on the road Artabanus and his contingent are overtaken by an enormous ram, which is also following Ardashir. Artabanus's religious advisors explain to him that the ram is the manifestation of the khwarrah of the ancient Iranian kings, which is leaving Artabanus to join Ardashir.[6]

Judaism

While the earliest references to kingship among Israel in the Hebrew Bible proclaim that

14.When you come to the land that the Lord your God is giving you, and you possess it and dwell in it and then say, 'I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are around me'. 15. You may indeed set a king over you whom the Lord your God will choose. One from among your brothers you shall set as king over you. You may not put a foreigner over you, who is not your brother.(Deut 17:14–15).

Significant debate on the legitimacy of kingship has persisted in Rabbinical Judaism until Maimonides, though many mainstream currents continue to reject the notion.

The controversy is highlighted by the instructions to the Israelites in the above-quoted passage, as well as the passages in 1 Samuel 8 and 12, concerning the dispute over kingship; and Perashat Shoftim.[7] It is from 1 Samuel 8 that the people of Israel receive mishpat ha-melech, the ius regium, or the law of kingship, and from this passage that Maimonides finally concludes that Judaism supports the institution of monarchy, stating that the Israelites had been given three commandments upon entering the Promised Land – to designate a king for themselves, to wipe out the memory of Amalek, and to build the Temple.[8]

The debate has primarily centered around the problem of being told to "designate" a king, which some rabbinical sources have argued is an invocation against a divine right of kings, and a call to elect a leader, in opposition to a notion of a divine right. Other rabbinical arguments have put forward an idea that it is through the collective decision of the people that God's will is made manifest, and that the king does therefore have a divine right – once appointed by the nation, he is God's emissary.

Jewish law requires one to recite a special blessing upon seeing a monarch: "Blessed are You, L‑rd our G‑d, King of the universe, Who has given from His glory to flesh and blood".[9]

Christianity

The Christian notion of a divine right of kings is traced to a story found in 1 Samuel, where the prophet Samuel anoints Saul and then David[10] as Messiah ("anointed one") – king over Israel. In Jewish traditions, the lack of a divine leadership represented by an anointed king, beginning shortly after the death of Joshua, left the people of Israel vulnerable, and the promise of the "promised land" was not fully fulfilled until a king was anointed by a prophet on behalf of God.

The effect of anointing was seen to be that the monarch became inviolable, so that even when Saul sought to kill David, David would not raise his hand against him because "he was the Lord's anointed". Raising a hand to a king was therefore considered to be as sacrilegious as raising a hand against God and stood on equal footing as blasphemy. In essence, the king stood in place of God and was never to be challenged "without the challenger being accused of blasphemy" – except by a prophet, which under Christianity was replaced by the church.

Pre-Modern history

With the rise of firearms, the consolidation of centralized nation-states, and the upheavals of the Protestant Reformation in the late 16th and early 17th centuries, the theory of divine right emerged as a powerful justification for monarchical authority. It asserted that the king’s power was granted directly by God, giving him absolute control over political governance and, in many cases, spiritual affairs, and placing him above accountability to parliaments, nobles, or other earthly institutions. This doctrine helped monarchs legitimize centralized rule during a period of religious conflict, technological change, and challenges to traditional feudal structures.

Henry VIII of England declared himself the Supreme Head of the Church of England and exerted the power of the throne more than any of his predecessors.

As a political theory, it was further developed by James VI of Scotland (1567–1625) and came to the fore in England under his reign as James I of England (1603–1625). Louis XIV of France (1643–1715) strongly promoted the theory as well.

Historian J. P. Sommerville stresses the theory was polemic: "Absolutists magnified royal power. They did this to protect the state against anarchy and to refute the ideas of resistance theorists", those being in Britain Catholic and Presbyterian theorists.[1]

The concept of divine right incorporates, but exaggerates, the ancient Christian concept of "royal God-given rights", which teaches that "the right to rule is anointed by God",[11] although this idea is found in many other cultures, including Aryan and Egyptian traditions.

Medieval Era

Roger II of Sicily invested with kingship by Christ (mosaic of the Church of Santa Maria dell'Ammiraglio, Palermo)

Outside of Christianity, kings were often seen as ruling with the backing of heavenly powers.

Early Middle Ages

Although the later Roman Empire had developed the European concept of a divine regent in Late Antiquity, Adomnan of Iona provides one of the earliest written examples of a Western medieval concept of kings ruling with divine right. He wrote of the Irish King Diarmait mac Cerbaill's assassination and claimed that divine punishment fell on his assassin for the act of violating the monarch.

Adomnan also recorded a story about Saint Columba supposedly being visited by an angel carrying a glass book, who told him to ordain Aedan mac Gabrain as King of Dal Riata. Columba initially refused, and the angel answered by whipping him and demanding that he perform the ordination because God had commanded it. The same angel visited Columba on three successive nights. Columba finally agreed, and Aedan came to receive ordination. At the ordination, Columba told Aedan that so long as he obeyed God's laws, then none of his enemies would prevail against him, but the moment he broke them, this protection would end, and the same whip with which Columba had been struck would be turned against the king.

Adomnan's writings most likely influenced other Irish writers, who in turn influenced continental ideas as well. Pepin the Short's coronation may have also come from the same influence.[12] The Byzantine Empire can be seen as the progenitor of this concept (which began with Constantine I). This in turn inspired the Carolingian dynasty and the Holy Roman Emperors, whose lasting impact on Western and Central Europe further inspired all subsequent Western ideas of kingship.

High Middle Ages

Contemporary image of Basil II receiving the Imperial Crown and Holy Lance from angels and receiving a crown from Christ (signifying his divine right to kingship), with men resembling the people he ruled over, bowing down before him.

In the Middle Ages, the idea that God had granted certain earthly powers to the monarch, just as he had given spiritual authority and power to the church, especially to the Pope, was already a well-known concept long before later writers coined the term "divine right of kings" and employed it as a theory in political science.

However, the dividing line for the authority and power was a subject of frequent contention: notably in England with the murder of Archbishop Thomas Beckett (1170). For example, Richard I of England declared at his trial during the diet at Speyer in 1193: "I am born in a rank which recognizes no superior but God, to whom alone I am responsible for my actions", and it was Richard who first used the motto "Dieu et mon droit" ("God and my right") which is still the motto of the Monarch of the United Kingdom.[13]

Thomas Aquinas condoned extra-legal tyrannicide in the worst of circumstances:

When there is no recourse to a superior by whom judgment can be made about an invader, then he who slays a tyrant to liberate his fatherland is [to be] praised and receives a reward.

— Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Magister Sententiarum (Sentences II, Distinction 44, question 2, article 2)[14]

On the other hand, Aquinas forbade the overthrow of any morally, Christianly and spiritually legitimate king by his subjects. The only human power capable of deposing the king was the pope. The reasoning was that if a subject may overthrow his superior for some bad law, who was to be the judge of whether the law was bad? If the subject could so judge his own superior, then all lawful superior authority could lawfully be overthrown by the arbitrary judgement of an inferior, and thus all law was under constant threat.

According to John of Paris, kings had their jurisdictions and bishops (and the pope) had theirs, but kings derived their supreme, non-absolute temporal jurisdiction from popular consent.[15]

Late Middle Ages and Renaissance

The Church was the final guarantor that Christian kings would follow the laws and constitutional traditions of their ancestors and the laws of God and of justice.[16]

Radical English theologian John Wycliffe's theory of Dominium meant that injuries inflicted on someone personally by a king should be born by them submissively, a conventional idea, but that injuries by a king against God should be patiently resisted even to death; gravely sinful kings and popes forfeited their (divine) right to obedience and ownership, though the political order should be maintained.[17] More aggressive versions of this were taken up by Lollards and Hussites.

For Erasmus of Rotterdam it was the consent of the people which gives and takes away "the purple",[18]: 95  not an unchangeable divine mandate.

Catholic limits

Catholic jurisprudence holds that the monarch is always subject to natural and divine law, which are regarded as superior to the monarch.[19]

The possibility of monarchy declining morally, overturning natural law, and degenerating into a tyranny oppressive of the general welfare was answered theologically with the Catholic concept of the spiritual superiority of the Pope (there is no "Catholic concept of extra-legal tyrannicide", as some[who?] falsely[citation needed] suppose, the same being expressly condemned by St Thomas Aquinas[dubious – discuss] in chapter 7 of his De Regno).

Catholic thought justified limited submission to the monarchy by reference to the following:

  1. The Old Testament, in which God chose kings to rule over Israel, beginning with Saul who was then rejected by God in favour of David, whose dynasty continued (at least in the southern kingdom) until the Babylonian captivity.
  2. The New Testament, in which the first pope, Peter, commands that all Christians shall honour the Roman Emperor,[20] even though, at that time, he was still a pagan emperor. Paul agreed with Peter that subjects should be obedient to the powers that be because they are appointed by God, as he wrote in his Epistle to the Romans.[21] Likewise, Jesus Christ proclaims in the Gospel of Matthew that one should "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's"; that is at first, literally, the payment of taxes as binding those who use the imperial currency.[22] Jesus told Pontius Pilate that his authority as Roman governor of Judaea came from heaven according to John 19:10–11.[23]
  3. The endorsement by the popes and the church of the line of emperors beginning with the Emperors Constantine and Theodosius, later the Eastern Roman emperors, and finally the Western Roman emperor, Charlemagne and his successors, the Catholic Holy Roman Emperors.

Conceptions in the early modern period

Reformation Era

The divine right of kings, or divine-right theory of kingship, is a political and religious doctrine of royal and political legitimacy. It asserts that a monarch is subject to no earthly authority, deriving his right to rule directly from the will of God. The king is thus not subject to the will of his people, the aristocracy, or any other estate of the realm, including (in the view of some, especially in Protestant countries) the church.

A weaker or more moderate form of this political theory does hold, however, that the king is subject to the church and the pope, although completely irreproachable in other ways; but according to this doctrine in its strong form, only God can judge an unjust king.

The doctrine implies that any attempt to depose the king or to restrict his powers runs contrary to the will of God and may constitute a sacrilegious act.

Before the Reformation the anointed king was, within his realm, the accredited vicar of God for secular purposes (see the Investiture Controversy); after the Reformation he (or she if queen regnant) became this in Protestant states for religious purposes also.[24]

Kingdom of Scotland

The Scots textbooks of the divine right of kings were written in 1597–1598 by James VI of Scotland. His Basilikon Doron, a manual on the powers of a king, was written to edify his four-year-old son Henry Frederick that a king "acknowledgeth himself ordained for his people, having received from God a burden of government, whereof he must be countable".

The conception of ordination brought with it largely unspoken parallels with the Anglican and Catholic priesthood, but the overriding metaphor in Basilikon Doron was that of a father's relation to his children. "Just as no misconduct on the part of a father can free his children from obedience to the fifth commandment."[25]

Kingdom of England

In England, the first modern proponent of the divine right of kings, and Caesaropapism, was Protestant William Tyndale's Obedience of the Christian Man.[26] Historian Gerard Wegemer comments "In 1528 Anne Boleyn exacerbated Henry’s lust for imperial power by giving him a book that justified everything he would ever want to do."[27]

James, after becoming James I of England, also had printed his Defense of the Right of Kings in the face of English theories of inalienable popular and clerical rights.

He based his theories in part on his understanding of the Bible, as noted by the following quote from a speech to parliament delivered in 1610 as James I of England:

The state of monarchy is the supremest thing upon earth, for kings are not only God's lieutenants upon earth and sit upon God's throne, but even by God himself, they are called gods. There be three principal [comparisons] that illustrate the state of monarchy: one taken out of the word of God, and the two other out of the grounds of policy and philosophy. In the Scriptures, kings are called gods, and so their power after a certain relation compared to the Divine power. Kings are also compared to fathers of families; for a king is true parens patriae [parent of the country], the politic father of his people. And lastly, kings are compared to the head of this microcosm of the body of man.[28]

James's reference to "God's lieutenants" is apparently a reference to the text in Romans 13 where Paul refers to "God's ministers".

(1) Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. (2) Whosoever, therefore, resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. (3) For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: (4) For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. (5) Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath but also for conscience sake. (6) For this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. (7) Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.[29]

Ceremonial conflation

Some of the symbolism within the coronation ceremony for British monarchs, in which they are anointed with holy oils by the Archbishop of Canterbury, thereby ordaining them to monarchy, perpetuates the ancient Christian monarchical ideas and ceremonial. However, in the UK, the symbolism ends there, as the real governing authority of the monarch was all but extinguished by the Glorious Revolution of 1688–89. The monarch of the United Kingdom is currently the only European sovereign still crowned in a formal, religious coronation ceremony. In most other monarchies, accession is marked by an oath, inauguration, blessing, or simple proclamation rather than by a full Christian coronation.[30]

In England, it is not without significance[according to whom?] that the sacerdotal vestments, generally discarded by the clergy – dalmatic, alb and stole – continued to be among the insignia of the sovereign (see Coronation of the British monarch). Moreover, this sacrosanct character he acquired not by virtue of his "sacring", but by hereditary right; the coronation, anointing and vesting were but the outward and visible symbol of a divine grace adherent in the sovereign by virtue of his title. Even Roman Catholic monarchs, like Louis XIV, would never have admitted that their coronation by the archbishop constituted any part of their title to reign; it was no more than the consecration of their title.[31]

Kingdom of France

Louis XIV depicted as the Sun King

The French prelate Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet made a classic statement of the doctrine of divine right in a sermon preached before King Louis XIV:[32]

Les rois règnent par moi, dit la Sagesse éternelle: 'Per me reges regnant'; et de là nous devons conclure non seulement que les droits de la royauté sont établis par ses lois, mais que le choix des personnes est un effet de sa providence.

Kings reign by Me, says Eternal Wisdom: "Per me reges regnant" [in Latin]; and from that we must conclude not only that the rights of royalty are established by its laws, but also that the choice of persons [to occupy the throne] is an effect of its providence.

The French Huguenot nobles and clergy, having rejected the pope and the Catholic Church, were left only with the supreme power of the king who, they taught, could not be gainsaid or judged by anyone. Since there was no longer the countervailing power of the papacy and since the Church of England was a creature of the state and had become subservient to it, this meant that there was nothing to regulate the powers of the king, and he became an absolute power. In theory, divine, natural, customary, and constitutional law still held sway over the king, but, absent a superior spiritual power, it was difficult to see how they could be enforced since the king could not be tried by any of his own courts.

Holy Roman Empire

One passage in scripture supporting the idea of the divine right of kings[which?] was used by Martin Luther, when urging the secular authorities to crush the Peasant Rebellion of 1525 in Germany in his Against the Murderous, Thieving Hordes of Peasants, basing his argument on Paul's Epistle to the Romans.[21]

It is related to the ancient Catholic philosophies regarding monarchy, in which the monarch is God's vicegerent upon the earth and therefore subject to no inferior power.[citation needed]

Antichristus,[33] a woodcut by Lucas Cranach the Elder, of the pope using the temporal power to grant authority to a ruler contributing generously to the Catholic Church

Religious Opposition

In the sixteenth century, both Catholic and Protestant political thinkers alike challenged the idea of a monarch's "divine right".

Catholic

The Spanish Catholic historian Juan de Mariana put forward the argument in his book De rege et regis institutione (1598) that since society was formed by a "pact" among all its members, "there can be no doubt that they are able to call a king to account".[34][35] Mariana thus challenged divine right theories by stating in certain circumstances, tyrannicide could be justified.

Cardinal Robert Bellarmine also "did not believe that the institute of monarchy had any divine sanction" and shared Mariana's belief that there were times where Catholics could lawfully remove a monarch.[35]

Protestant

Among groups of English Protestant exiles fleeing from Queen Mary I, some of the earliest anti-monarchist publications emerged. "Weaned off uncritical royalism by the actions of Queen Mary ... The political thinking of men like Ponet, Knox, Goodman and Hales."[36]

In 1553, Mary I, a Roman Catholic, succeeded her Protestant half-brother, Edward VI, to the English throne. Mary set about trying to restore Roman Catholicism by making sure that: Edward's religious laws were abolished in the Statute of Repeal Act (1553); the Protestant religious laws passed in the time of Henry VIII were repealed; and the Revival of the Heresy Acts were passed in late 1554.

When Thomas Wyatt the Younger instigated what became known as Wyatt's rebellion in early 1554, John Ponet, the highest-ranking ecclesiastic among the exiles,[37] allegedly participated in the uprising.[38] He escaped to Strasbourg after the Rebellion's defeat and, the following year, he published A Shorte Treatise of Politike Power, in which he put forward a theory of justified opposition to secular rulers.

Ponet's treatise comes first in a new wave of anti-monarchical writings ... It has never been assessed at its true importance, for it antedates by several years those more brilliantly expressed but less radical Huguenot writings which have usually been taken to represent the Tyrannicide-theories of the Reformation.

— A.G. Dickens[37]

Ponet's pamphlet was republished on the eve of King Charles I's execution.[39]

Peak and decline

Charles I of England, with a divine hand moving his crown

Pre-Enlightenment

In England the doctrine of the divine right of kings was developed to its most extreme logical conclusions during the political controversies of the 17th century; its most famous exponent was Sir Robert Filmer. It was the main issue to be decided by the English Civil War, the Royalists holding that "all Christian kings, princes and governors" derive their authority direct from God, the Parliamentarians that this authority is the outcome of a contract, actual or implied, between sovereign and people.[31]

In one case the king's power would be unlimited, according to the famous saying misattributed to Louis XIV: "L' état, c'est moi",[31] or limited only by his own free act; in the other his actions would be governed by the advice and consent of the people, to whom he would be ultimately responsible. The victory of this latter principle was proclaimed to all the world by the execution of Charles I.

The doctrine of divine right, indeed, for a while drew nourishment from the blood of the royal "martyr";[31] it was the guiding principle of the Anglican Church of the Restoration; but it suffered a rude blow when James II of England made it impossible for the clergy to obey both their conscience and their king.

The Glorious Revolution of 1688 made an end of it as a great political force. This has led to the constitutional development of the Crown in Britain, as held by descent modified and modifiable by parliamentary action.[31]

Enlightenment era

Counter-reaction to the Divine Rights of Kings played an important role in the development of concepts of legal rights, such as Liberty, dignity, freedom and equality . Its focus on the individual of the monarch stands in contrast to the conception of non-hierarchical, universal human rights, which started being developed in the Middle Ages by scholars such as St. Thomas Aquinas (see Natural Law) and were systematised by the thinkers of the Age of Enlightenment, e.g. John Locke.

U.S. Founding Father John Adams considered John Ponet's work to have contained "all the essential principles of liberty, which were afterward dilated on by Sidney and Locke", including the idea of a three-branched government.[40]

Over time, opposition to the divine right of kings came from a number of sources, including poet John Milton in his pamphlet The Tenure of Kings and Magistrates, and Thomas Paine in his pamphlet Common Sense. By 1700 an Anglican Archbishop was prepared to assert that Kings hold their Crowns by law alone, and the law may forfeit them.

Probably the two most famous declarations of a right to revolution against tyranny in the English language are John Locke's Essay concerning The True Original, Extent, and End of Civil-Government and Thomas Jefferson's formulation in the United States Declaration of Independence that "all men are created equal".

See also

References

  1. Burgess, Glenn (1992). "The Divine Right of Kings Reconsidered". The English Historical Review. 107 (425): 837–861. doi:10.1093/ehr/CVII.CCCCXXV.837. ISSN 0013-8266. JSTOR 574219.
  2. "Divine Right of Kings". BBC. October 11, 2007. Retrieved December 21, 2009. [...] the idea that a king was sacred, appointed by God and above the judgment of earthly powers [...] was called the Divine Right of Kings and it entered so powerfully into British culture during the 17th century that it shaped the pomp and circumstance of the Stuart monarchs, imbued the writing of Shakespeare and provoked the political thinking of Milton and Locke.
  3. "Section LXVII [Mahabharata, English]". 17 August 2021.
  4. "Markandeya Purana translated by F. E. Pargiter". Wisdomlib.
  5. "Vishnu Purana by H. H. Wilson". Wisdomlib.
  6. Kar namag i Ardashir 4.11.16 and 4.11.22–23.
  7. Polish, David (1991). "Rabbinic Views on Kingship – A Study in Jewish Sovereignty". Jewish Political Studies Review. 3 (1/2): 67–90. ISSN 0792-335X. JSTOR 25834198.
  8. Polish, David (Spring 1991). "Rabbinic Views on Kingship – A Study in Jewish Sovereignty". Jewish Political Studies Review. 3 (1/2). Jerusalem: Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs: 67–90. ISSN 0792-335X. JSTOR 25834198.
  9. Shurpin, Yehuda. "Rabbi, Is There a Blessing for the Czar? How about the president?". Chabad.
  10. "1 Samuel 16". Biblegateway. Retrieved 18 September 2022.
  11. Divine Right of Kings. (n.d.). Encyclopaedia Britannica. Retrieved September 16, 2025.
  12. Adomnan of Iona. Life of St Columba. Penguin Books, 1995
  13. Duncan, Jonathan (1994). The dukes of Normandy, from the time of Rollo to the expulsion of King John. Chadwyck-Healey. OCLC 1313683172.
  14. Aquinas, T. (n.d.). Commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard (Sentences II, Distinction 44, Question 2, Article 2). Retrieved September 16, 2025.
  15. Werbos, Chris; Latham, Andrew (6 April 2020). "The Medieval Foundations of the Theory of Sovereignty". E-International Relations. Retrieved 20 August 2023.
  16. Similarly, the Chinese concept of Mandate of Heaven required that the emperor properly carry out the proper rituals and consult his ministers; however, this concept made it extremely difficult to undo any acts carried out by an ancestor.
  17. Rao, H. Krishna (1942). "John Wycliffe". The Indian Journal of Political Science. 3 (4): 372–379. ISSN 0019-5510. JSTOR 42754272.
  18. Kloss, Waldemar (1907). "Erasmus's Place in the History of Philosophy". The Monist. 17 (1): 84–101. doi:10.5840/monist190717138. ISSN 0026-9662. JSTOR 27900019.
  19. Until the unification of Italy, the Holy See did, from the time Christianity became the Roman state religion, assert on that ground its primacy over secular princes; however this exercise of power never, even at its zenith, amounted to theocracy, even in jurisdictions where the Bishop of Rome was the temporal authority.
  20. 1 Peter 2:13–20
  21. Romans 13:1–7
  22. See Matthew 22:15–22
  23. The Holy Bible, New International Version. (2011). Zondervan. (Original work published 1973)
  24. Wikisource One or more of the preceding sentences incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Phillip, Walter Alison (1911). "King § Divine Right of Kings". In Chisholm, Hugh (ed.). Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 15 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 806.
  25. that is, the commandment: "Honor your father ..." etc.,... but to be according to the law, yet is he not bound thereto but of his goodwill ..."
  26. Scarisbrick, J.J. (1968). Henry VIII. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
  27. Wegemer, Gerard (1998). Thomas More: Portrait of Courage. Scepter.
  28. A speech to parliament (1610).
  29. Romans 13:1–7
  30. The Constitution Unit. (2022, October). "The coronation of Charles III". University College London. Retrieved September 16, 2025.
  31. Phillip 1911, p. 806.
  32. Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet (1845). Sermons choisis de Bossuet. Sur le devoir des rois. Firmin-Didot. p. 219. bossuet sermons royalty.
  33. Passional Christi und Antichristi Full view on Google Books
  34. Baer, Robert V. Power & Freedom: Political Thought and Constitutional Politics in the United States and Argentina ProQuest, 2008 ISBN 0549745106 (pp. 70–71)
  35. Blumenau, Ralph. Philosophy and Living Imprint Academic, 2002 ISBN 0907845339 (pp. 198–199)
  36. Dickens, A. G. (1978). The English Reformation. London & Glasgow: Fontana/Collins. p. 399.
  37. Dickens, A. G. (1978). The English Reformation. London & Glasgow: Fontana/Collins. p. 391.
  38. Dickens, A. G. (1978). The English Reformation. London & Glasgow: Fontana/Collins. p. 358.
  39. Ponet, T. (1556). "A shorte treatise of politike power and of the true obedience which subjects owe to kings and other civil governors, with an exhortation to all true natural English men". Strasbourg: Printed by the heirs of W. Köpfel.
  40. Adams, C. F. (1850–56). The Works of John Adams, with Life. Vol. 6. p. 4.

Further reading

==
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)