Robert Filmer
 | This article needs additional citations for verification. (December 2007) |
Sir Robert Filmer (1588 – 26 May 1653) was an English political theorist. His best known work, Patriarcha, published in 1680, was a defense of the divine right of kings to rule. Its publication was an impetus for John Locke to write the first of his famous Two Treatises of Government and he often argues against him in his second.
Life
The son of Sir Edward Filmer of East Sutton in Kent, he studied at Trinity College, Cambridge, where he matriculated in 1604.[1] Knighted by Charles I at the beginning of his reign, he was an ardent supporter of the king's cause, and his house is said to have been plundered by the parliamentarians ten times. He was imprisoned in Leeds Castle in 1643.[2]
He and his father died in the same city, and he is buried in the church there, surrounded by his descendants to the tenth generation, who were made baronets in his honour.
Patriarcha and other works
Filmer was already a middle-aged man when the controversy between the king and the Commons roused him into literary activity. His writings afford examples of the doctrines held by the extreme section of the Divine Right party.
The most complete expression of Filmer's thought is given in Patriarcha, or the Natural Power of Kings, which was published posthumously in 1680. Scholars have proposed dates in the 1630s and 1640s for the composition of Patriarcha.[3] According to Christopher Hill, "The whole argument of ... Patriarcha, and of his works published earlier in the 1640s and 1650s, is based on Old Testament history from Genesis onwards".[4]
His position was enunciated by the works which he published during his lifetime. Of the Blasphemie against the Holy Ghost from 1646 or 1647 was against Calvinists, starting from John Calvin's doctrine on blasphemy.[5] The Freeholders Grand Inquest (1648) concerned English constitutional history; Filmer's early published works did not receive much attention, while Patriarcha circulated only in manuscript.[6] Anarchy of a Limited and Mixed Monarchy (1648) was an attack on a treatise about monarchy by Philip Hunton. Hunton had maintained that the king's prerogative is not superior to the authority of the houses of parliament.
His Observations concerning the Original of Government upon Mr Hobbes's Leviathan, Mr Milton against Salmasius, and H. Grotius' De jure belli ac pacis appeared in 1652. As its title suggests, it attacks several political classics, the De jure belli ac pacis of Grotius, the Leviathan of Thomas Hobbes, and the Defensio pro Populo Anglicano of John Milton. The pamphlet entitled The Power of Kings, and in particular, of the King of England (written 1648) was first published in 1680.
Views
Filmer's theory is founded upon the statement that the government of a family by the father is the true origin and model of all government. In the beginning God gave authority to Adam, who had complete control over his descendants, even over life and death itself. From Adam this authority was inherited by Noah; here, Filmer most likely quotes the legend of Noah, who sailed up the Mediterranean and allocated the three continents of the Old World to the rule of his three sons. From Shem, Ham and Japheth the patriarchs inherited the absolute power which they exercised over their families and servants; and it is from these patriarchs that all kings and governors (whether a single monarch or a governing assembly) derive their authority, which is therefore absolute, and founded upon divine right.
The difficulty inherent in judging the validity of claims to power by men who claim to be acting upon the 'secret' will of God was disregarded by Filmer, who held it in no way altered the nature of such power, based on the natural right of a supreme father to hold sway. The king is perfectly free from all human control. He cannot be bound by the acts of his predecessors, for which he is not responsible; nor by his own, for it is impossible that a man should give a law to himself - a law must be imposed by another upon the person bound by it.
With regard to the English constitution, he asserted, in his Freeholders Grand Inquest touching our Sovereign Lord the King and his Parliament (1648), that the Lords give counsel only to the king, that the Commons are to perform and consent only to the ordinances of parliament, and that the king alone is the maker of laws which derive their power purely from his will. Filmer considered it monstrous that the people should judge or depose their king, for they would then become judges in their own cause.
Filmer was a severe critic of democracy. In his opinion, democracy of ancient Athens was in fact a "justice-trading system". Athenians never knew real justice, only the will of the mob. Ancient Rome was, according to Filmer, ruled fairly only after the Empire was established.
Reception
Filmer's theory, owing to a timely posthumous publication, obtained a wide recognition. Nine years after the publication of Patriarcha, at the time of the Revolution which banished the Stuarts from the throne, John Locke singled out Filmer among the advocates of Divine Right. and attacked him expressly in the first part of the Two Treatises of Government. The first Treatise goes into all his arguments seriatim, and especially pointing out that even if the first principles of his argument are to be taken for granted, the rights of the eldest born have been so often cast aside that modern kings can claim no such inheritance of authority, as Filmer asserts.
References
- This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Sir Robert Filmer". [[Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition|Encyclopædia Britannica]] (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press.
{{cite encyclopedia}}: URL–wikilink conflict (help)
Notes
- ^ "(FLMR604R)". A Cambridge Alumni Database. University of Cambridge. missing
name. - ^ http://www.mdx.ac.uk/WWW/STUDY/ssh2.htm#33
- ^ John M. Wallace, The Date of Sir Robert Filmer's Patriarcha, The Historical Journal, Vol. 23, No. 1 (Mar., 1980), pp. 155-165.
- ^ Christopher Hill, The English Bible and the Seventeenth-Century Revolution (1993), p. 20.
- ^ Ian Bostridge, Witchcraft and Its Transformations, C.1650-c.1750 (1997), p. 14.
- ^ Kim Ian Parker, The Biblical Politics of John Locke (2004), pp. 80-1.