27

In "The French Revolution, A History" Chapter 1.1.II, Thomas Carlyle reports that Louis XIV once proclaimed:

"L'État, c'est moi" - The State? I am the State (Carlyle's rendering into English)

Carlyle cites no source for this seemingly incredible statement. In Wiki we find: Louis is claimed to have said "L'État, c'est moi" ("I am the state"), though no proof exists that he said this, but I tend to be skeptical of Wiki's claim: Carlyle engaged in years of research in preparation for writing his History, and read numerous primary sources. It is unlikely that he committed to "the record" a statement from Louis XIV without a source. (But perhaps he did not consider his source sufficiently reliable to cite it formally - it was some sort of "oral tradition" - and so Wiki would be correct in claiming there is no written proof.)

Regardless, the story was "out there" or Carlyle wouldn't have mentioned it at all. Perhaps there is another source, one that Carlyle didn't know about at the time? (In all probability, Carlye's source was Dulaure’s 1834 History of Paris, and because it appears only so much later in the record than the actual event, he chose not to cite it.)

Is it confirmed from any reliable contemporary sources that Louis XIV actually said such a thing?

More importantly, whether or not we have another source (perhaps we'll consider Carlyle a source), is such a statement sustainable? Could Louis have said such a thing and remained within the bounds of the laws of his time? Did the French King represent an embodiment of the State itself? Is it part of the doctrine of the Divine right of kings, or at least implicit therein? Could Louis perhaps have been speaking metaphorically - i.e., as an absolute monarch, his dictates of necessity represented the position of the State on all matters?

If Louis XIV did indeed say such a thing, what can we make of it? From Carlyle's context it appears that it was not simply haughty bellicosity on the part of Louis XIV. Nor was Louis XIV some sort of eccentric, crazy "one off" sort of monarch: He sat on the French throne for over 72 years, brought France to perhaps its pinnacle of power, and is widely considered one of the great monarchs of History. If he said such a thing, IMO it deserves attention.

  • 2
    Carlyle often sourced his claims. He does not source this claim. I personally don't see why you would claim it is unlikely for Carlyle to commit to record this statement without him first verifying it. I rather think it's much more unlikely that he would verify it and then not give the source in the book, given that he tends to source his claims. – Lennart Regebro Sep 04 '13 at 11:05
  • 1
    I'm not a French expert, but isn't that more literally something like, "The State, that is I"? – T.E.D. Sep 04 '13 at 14:18
  • @LennartRegebro - OK. But all that means is that Carlyle had no reliable source he could cite. But obviously the story was "out there" or he wouldn't have mentioned it. Perhaps there is another source that Carlyle didn't know about at the time. See edit that reflects your concern. –  Sep 04 '13 at 16:17
  • @T.E.D. "but isn't that more literally something like, "The State, that is I" - I believe so. But Carlyle knew French, and I suppose he translated based on his knowledge of idiomatic French vs idiomatic English. Regardless, I'm not sure I see much difference - if there was, I doubt that Carlyle would have distorted his translation. –  Sep 04 '13 at 23:30
  • 2
    @T.E.D. I hope you were not serious about offering a so-called literal (word-for-word) translation as something deserving even a moment's consideration. – Eugene Seidel Sep 05 '13 at 05:36
  • @T.E.D. I am a French expert, and I confirm that Carlyle's translation is accurate. If the quote is not apocryphal, then one imagines a context where someone mentions a state prerogative, or the interest of the state, and the absolute monarch interjects “I am the state”, meaning that all matters of state rest in the king, that there is no separation between the king's interests and the state's interests. – Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' May 13 '14 at 22:19
  • @Gilles - one imagines a context - If I recall correctly that was indeed the sort of context mentioned. But (if true...) I'm not sure that Louis didn't mean something more: Not just that there is no separation, but that the King was the embodiment of the State. Although typically such an idea is more characteristic of some eastern oriented kingdoms (the old czarist regimes in Russia, for example) we do know that Louis XIV was no ordinary king, nor did he view himself as such... –  May 14 '14 at 01:15

5 Answers5

21

I am not well enough read in French history and governance to offer a good answer, so I shall offer a poor answer.

Note: Others have provides more learned explanations of whether he said it; I shall focus on what he could have meant, had he said it.

My understanding of the comment attributed to Louis is that all the governance of France originated in and was legitimized by Louis. What we now call the legislative, executive and judicial functions of the government were vested in Louis' person. Any of these powers that were exercised in his absence (for example a judge ruling in a province) were offered in his name, and he could overrule/overturn them and dismiss them. Furthermore the legitimacy of these functions originated in the person of Louis. The consent of the governed was not required, or expected. Each French monarch had to resolve what modern economics calls the principal-agent problem

My understanding is that the actual limits on the power of the monarch were threefold - first the ability of the monarch to command. Louis was obviously very effective for 72 years. Second the monarch had to play the nobility off one against the other. There was no legal reason that the French Nobles were militarily much more powerful, but in truth the monarch could not field an army of his own. The third counterpoise to the power of the monarch - the truly effective counterweight - was tradition. The fiscal shenanigans that led to the downfall of the ancien regime resulted from the inability of any effective governance that could counterbalance the nearly supreme power of tradition.

If that is correct, then the statement attributed to Louis takes on a fascinating irony. While the monarch of France was the state, Louis after 72 years (or whatever portion of that time had passed when he uttered the statement) was the state in a unique way - he was singularly effective in navigating the triple constraints (Nobility, Tradition, Personal Credibility). He was the state and the next monarch would have to form a new state based on a new set of compromises.

If so, perhaps of all the French Kings, such a remark would be most suited to Louis XIV, and it's quite conceivable that Carlyle's account, although un-sourced, is indeed quite accurate, as it is described in Dulaure’s 1834 History of Paris.

Alas, it has been several years since I read French history, and I never liked it when I did read it, so I can't offer any particularly good sources.

MCW
  • 33,640
  • 12
  • 105
  • 158
  • 1
    Indeed, the question really requires a very good grasp of what the nature of the French Monarchy was, and how their whole system of government was structured. It seems to be a very difficult topic because from what I culled from my reading (principally Carlyle - all 800+ pages of him..) there was no system laid out in a formal constitution until the revolutionary period. Previously it was somewhat "ad hoc", and revolved around the continually changing dynamic between the three estates. –  Sep 04 '13 at 19:34
  • 2
    I accept this answer for the focal point of the question: Louis XIV was perhaps unique in his ability to make such a statement and so we can bring support to Carlyle's claim, and with good reason. "He was the state and the next monarch would have to form a new state based on a new set of compromises." I like this observation very much. It goes a long way towards deepening our understanding of monarchy-it was not a "slam dunk" that you just inherited the crown and took over where you predecessor left off: You could inherit the title of King, but to govern as king required far more. –  Sep 04 '13 at 20:10
  • I'm hesitant to give an upvote because while this a substantially better analysis of the history surrounding Louis XIV than the other answers, it fails to address the title question. I realize, Mark, that it was not your intent to answer in full, but I don't think Vector should have accepted the answer since it doesn't address the titular question. – called2voyage Sep 04 '13 at 20:11
  • @Vector Either Mark's answer or your title needs to change to better reflect how this answer matches the title, imo. That's what is standing in between me up-voting Mark's answer. It may be that others disagree with me, but so far no one else has upvoted Mark's answer. – called2voyage Sep 04 '13 at 21:39
  • 1
    @MarkC.Wallace - I added line to your answer in response to called2voyage. I hope it meets with your approval. –  Sep 04 '13 at 22:09
  • @called2voyage - to some extent this answers the first part of the question as well, because it brings support to Carlyle. And note that I edited the title of the question. I explained why I felt your answer was deficient, although I did upvote it (I up-vote any constructive, intelligent answers, even if they don't quite answer the question well IMO) –  Sep 04 '13 at 22:51
  • Concur; the line improves the answer – MCW Sep 05 '13 at 00:30
  • @MarkC.Wallace - no lie - see further edit of question and answer and my last comment to called2voyage. There is a source. If you're agreeable, I can rewrite the whole business to include your logic and also the source and eliminate Dulaure from the question. Then we will have a good question and a good answer. I used Jennings's reference to Dulaure, but I think his reasoning there is faulty and not well supported. –  Sep 05 '13 at 01:45
  • +1 Excellent analysis of French historical government, backing a clear answer to the original question – called2voyage Sep 05 '13 at 12:43
  • This could be cleared up to differentiate between 'could he have said' and 'would he have been correct in saying'? Megalomaniac, programmatic vision, or joking quip? Since the quote in Q is apparently apocryphal, contrast this: "Je m'en vais, mais l'Etat demeurera toujours." – LаngLаngС Jul 16 '20 at 12:50
  • @LangLangC - Where could I clear it up further? (and I don't speak or read French, so...) – MCW Jul 16 '20 at 13:10
15

If you'll take Ken Jennings as a source (as he does seem to know his literature), he not only agrees that there is no evidence that Louis XIV said this, but goes a step further and says that Louis XIV probably wouldn't have said it. He claims not only that it wasn't true that the French monarch was equivalent to the state, but that Louis XIV probably didn't believe this to be true. From Jennings, a more reliably attested statement of Louis XIV (on his deathbed) is:

“Je m'en vais, mais l'État demeurera toujours”—“I am going away, but the State will always remain.”

Here's what Jennings had to say about the actual authority of the French monarch:

Louis XIV and a small circle of advisors did wield enormous power, including supreme legislative and judicial authority. But that power was also balanced somewhat by the ranks of French nobility, and legally, the difference between the monarch and his nation was well-established.

called2voyage
  • 4,082
  • 27
  • 44
  • 2
    I saw that citation: "“I am going away, but the State will always remain.” but I don't think it's relevant: As King he was "The State". When he dies he's no longer King, and the New King assumes that role. –  Sep 04 '13 at 16:04
  • @Vector Possibly, but remember, this is Jenning's rationale. – called2voyage Sep 04 '13 at 16:05
  • I understand it's his rationale - and I disagree with it, as far as the deathbed statement is concerned - it has no bearing on the question. –  Sep 04 '13 at 16:07
  • Interesting. So if I get this right, Jennings' main complaint about that attitude (which Jennings is arguing he wouldn't have had) was that it did not take into account the rights and priveleges of the rest of the French aristocracy, not that it was a bad description of things from a commoner's point of view? – T.E.D. Sep 04 '13 at 16:12
  • @T.E.D. Also, he says "legally" there was a difference established. I'm not sure what he means by that. – called2voyage Sep 04 '13 at 16:14
  • @T.E.D. from Carlye's context, it appears that Louis was not speaking from a commoner's point of view. I will try to edit and bring the whole piece with context when I have a chance. –  Sep 04 '13 at 16:36
  • @called2voyage : " a difference established" would mean that there was the monarchy itself on one hand, and the populace at large, which represents the essence of the State, on the other. What better proof is there of this than the fact that they subsequently removed the monarch, but the State persisted. (although at the time of the Revolution, there was indeed some confusion about this - initially after they executed Louis XVI, France was "like a chicken with its head cut off"... pun intended....) –  Sep 04 '13 at 18:22
  • @Vector - I'm not talking about Louis' point of view, but that of his putative critics. If the only supposedly aggrieved parties in this exchange happened to be the (sub-king) nobility, it would be suspicously coincidental with what happened shortly thereafter: The Fronde. Statements dismissive of the rest of the nobility would have been awfully useful for someone trying to stir up the nobility against the King. – T.E.D. Sep 04 '13 at 18:45
  • @T.E.D. - seems that The Fronde took place when Louis was still a young boy. Although he was already King at the time, having assumed the throne at age 5, my impression is that the remark in question was much later on, so I doubt there was a connection there. Truth be told, I have to research better the background of the whole situation that supposedly provoked Louis's remark. –  Sep 04 '13 at 22:17
  • I don't know why you chose to omit Jenning's reference to Dulaure’s 1834 History of Paris and opted simply to accept Jenning's rather flimsily based assertion that it was never said, which sounds to me like something for a "Myth Buster" page like his,rather than a credible historical source. In all likelihood that was indeed Carlye's source. See edit of question. –  Sep 05 '13 at 01:35
  • I can't accept this answer even because it contradicts Carlyle's account without sufficient substantiation, IMO. See the accepted answer which explains why Louis XIV may have been unique in his ability to make such a proclamation in spite of the French nobility, etc. And as I explained, I don't consider Louis's deathbed statement to have any bearing at all on the question. Also, Jennings's account of the story seem perhaps not to match Carlyle's (although Carlyle's is admittedly very brief). Carlyle vs Jennings on a flimsy "myth buster" page? Carlyle wins - no contest. –  Sep 05 '13 at 06:00
7

If Louis XIV did indeed say such a thing, what can we make of it?

Actually, I could see where his statement makes a bit of sense. Under modern political theory there are multiple roles in government: Head of State, Head of Government, Commander in Chief, etc.

Under a parlimentarty system, typically these may all be different people. However, for a true Presidential system like the USA enjoys, these roles are all filled by the same person.

The Head of State's role is essentially to embody the state itself. Practically, this means a lot of receptions, parties, funerals, etc. Now in a monarchy (eg: the modern UK) this role is performed by the monarch. In an absolute monarchy, such as Loius XIV enjoyed, the Head of Government role is also held by the monarch (and the Commander in Cheif role was at least a position that reported to him, if not himself).

So given that it was his role and duty to both emobdy the state of France, and to run its government, and given the lassisitudes of translation and his own position of privelege, one can see where the statement "I am the state" was from a political perspective quite accurate and reasonable. If he didn't have this attitude, he wouldn't be doing his job as Head of State properly.

T.E.D.
  • 118,977
  • 15
  • 300
  • 471
  • 3
    First, I believe the question is whether the quotation is supported by evidence; you haven't addressed that. Second, I believe there are multiple roles within the executive function of government. I believe that Louis' point was that he also embodied the legislative and judicial functions; he was the state; all organs of the state were merely extensions of his will. – MCW Sep 04 '13 at 14:43
  • 2
    @MarkC.Wallace "If Louis XIV did indeed say such a thing, what can we make of it?" - That's the only part of the question this answer of mine is addressing. I'll try to make that clearer in the answer. – T.E.D. Sep 04 '13 at 15:41
  • @MarkC.Wallace - Your second point I'm not sure I entirely disagree with, but so what? He presided over an absolute monarchy, that's meerly a description of how such a system operates. In our modern Lochian conception of things, if the people don't like that system, its their job to remove their consent (which they didn't bother to do for another century). – T.E.D. Sep 04 '13 at 15:51
  • @MarkC.Wallace: I edited the question a bit. I'm really more interested in second part. And IMO your assertion "Louis' point was that he also embodied..." is correct. So I don't think the analogy to a President is really appropriate. –  Sep 04 '13 at 16:01
  • @T.E.D. - I think we need to distinguish between a representative of the State, such as POTUS, and an embodiment of the State, which is what Louis's alleged statement implies. –  Sep 04 '13 at 18:15
  • @Vector - An interesting topic .... for another question (preferably on the Politics site). – T.E.D. Sep 04 '13 at 18:29
  • @T.E.D. - I agree this is veering of into a different and interesting direction, but I'd call it "political science" as opposed to "politics". –  Sep 04 '13 at 19:28
3

He did not say it.

The bon mot was well known in France and was originated by Voltaire in Chapter 24 of his book Siecle de Louis XIV which was published in 1751.

According to Voltaire's account Louis XIV said this in a speech before the parliament on April 13, 1865, which would have been 85 years previously to when Voltaire wrote it.

In the actual speech Louis several times referred to "mon etat" (my State) and this was reported by the Journal d'un bourgeois de Paris which Voltaire undoubtedly had read. Apparently Voltaire then took it on himself to change what was in the report to the famous phrase which was of his own invention.

Tyler Durden
  • 37,880
  • 3
  • 98
  • 161
-1

I have an interest in the history of the Huguenots and I remember reading a supposed quote of Louis XIV at the Huguenot museum near Alés in the Cevennes concerning the repression of the protestant Huguenots which read - 'I can't tolerate a state within a state'. The Huguenots had certainly become very powerful in the south of France following the Edict of Nantes by Henry IV, his grandfather, giving religious tolerance. But I couldn't understand why he should seemingly refer to the Huguenots as a state.

What I have recently discovered is that the town of Orange and the surrounding area was a separate principality ruled over by the states of Holland and in particular by William of Orange. With the persecution of Louis XIV, independent Orange had become a centre for the Huguenots and hence a target for the Catholic army, causing the Huguenots to flee, particularly to Holland, and resulting in France capturing the principality of Orange in 1703. He thus got rid of the 'state within a state' and at least his sentiment would be 'I am the state' leading to his battles based on his version of Catholicism with the protestant states of the Prussians, Dutch and British.

Orange was not the only independent principality in France, Avignon was also an independent Papal principality at the time (until 1791) which Louis XIV didn't like either, since it had previously been the home of French Popes in the 14th century.

Steve Bird
  • 19,763
  • 11
  • 93
  • 99
Dr Peter Radley
  • 1
  • 1
    This answer would benefit from explaining the train of thought in slightly more detail. Not the downvoter, but I suspect it has to do with some of the leaps of thought which are evidenced. – gktscrk Jul 16 '20 at 11:26