Hobbes Vs Bossuet Analysis

During the sixteenth century there was a rise with Absolutism throughout the European monarch. Absolutism is the acceptance of or belief in absolute principles in political, philosophical, ethical, or theological matters. Two theorist, Thomas Hobbes and Jacques Benigne Bossuet, wrote books and articles to justify the points and needs of an absolute rule, although Absolutism has it benefits it’s not necessarily the best way of ruling one’s country. An example of an unsuccessful absolute ruler was Ivan the Terrible. Even with justification from two theorist Ivan the Terrible was not a good ruler or king. One theorist who could have possible justified an absolute ruler was Thomas Hobbes. In his book Leviathan, written in 1651, Hobbes justifies an absolute rule being necessary to protect that country from itself by keeping the internal peace. In his article Hobbes states “if there be no Power erected, or not great enough for our security, every man will and may lawfully rely on his own strength and art, for caution against all other men…... The only way to erect … a Common Power” (Hobbes). With one body as the rule over the country there will be more organization, …show more content…
Both believe that an absolute rule is needed to protect one’s country from internal conflict and external conflict. Where the two differ is on their perspective of God’s involvement and place of importance among the absolute rule. Hobbes believes that yes, God is important but one's loyalty is with the king and the king alone. Bossuet, on the other hand, believes that God is the entire reasoning behind an absolute ruler being chosen. Bossuet writes about God anointing the ruler and God being the one giving the king the power that he has. One absolute ruler who went against, in more than one way, both Hobbes and Bossuert’s theories was Ivan the Terrible of