ABSOLUTISM DOCUMENTS I. Primary Sources: Niccolo Machiavelli’s, The Prince

“Never attempt to win by force what can be won by deception.” ~Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince

Niccolo Machiavelli was an Italian Renaissance historian, politician, diplomat, philosopher, and writer with responsibilities in diplomatic and military affairs in one of the Italian kingdoms before Italy became unified. He also wrote comedies, carnival songs, and poetry. His most famous work, The Prince (published in 1532,

five years after his death), was written in the early 1500s during the European Renaissance, when intellect and the discussion of new ideas was a widespread

theme of the era. The Prince was sort of a handbook for rulers giving advice and historical examples on how rulers should attain and keep power at almost any cost,

and paved the way for how modern political science and leadership was studied. Machiavelli was one of the first people to feel morality had little to do with politics,

and his central thesis on how to acquire and keep political power was vastly different than previous political philosophers. Due to some of the controversial

methods and philosophies Machiavelli justifies in order to keep power and order- including employing dishonesty, fear, and justifying murder of political

adversaries- the word "Machiavellian" is today used by some critics as a negative term often associated with political deceit, deviousness, ruthlessness, and what is known as “Realpolitik” (a system of politics based on a country's realistic, current

situation and its practical needs, rather than on idealistic ideas about what is morally right and wrong). Also note that when Machiavelli speaks of a “Prince,” he

does not literally mean the “son of a king,” but is using the word to refer to any ruler of a state. Below are select excerpts from Machiavelli’s, The Prince.

Chapter 3: Concerning Mixed Principalities …Men ought either to be well treated or crushed, because they can avenge themselves of lighter injuries, of more serious ones they cannot; therefore the injury that is to be done to a man ought to be of such a kind that one does not stand in fear of revenge.

Chapter 8: Concerning Those Who Have Obtained A Principality By Wickedness …Hence it is to be remarked that, in seizing a state, the usurper* ought to examine closely into all those injuries which it is necessary for him to inflict, and to do them all at one stroke so as not to have to repeat them daily; and thus by not unsettling men he will be able to reassure them, and win them to himself by benefits. He who does otherwise, either from timidity or evil advice, is always compelled to keep the knife in his hand; neither can he rely on his subjects, nor can they attach themselves to him, owing to their continued and repeated wrongs. For injuries ought to be done all at one time, so that, being tasted less, they offend less; benefits ought to be given little by little, so that the flavour of them may last longer.

*One who has forcibly seized power without legal right to do so

Chapter 14: That Which Concerns A Prince On The Subject Of The Art Of War The Prince ought to have no other aim or thought, nor select anything else for his study, than war and its rules and discipline; for this is the sole art that belongs to him who rules, and it is of such force that it not only upholds those who are born princes, but it often enables men to rise from a private station to that rank. And, on the contrary, it is seen that when princes have thought more of ease than of arms they have lost their states. And the first cause of your losing it is to neglect this art; and what enables you to acquire a state is to be master of the art. Francesco Sforza, though being martial, from a private person became Duke of Milan; and the sons, through avoiding the hardships and troubles of arms, from dukes became private persons. For among other evils which being unarmed brings you, it causes you to be despised, and this is one of those ignominies against which a prince ought to guard himself, as is shown later on. Because there is nothing proportionate between the armed and the unarmed; and it is not reasonable that he who is armed should yield obedience willingly to him who is unarmed, or that the unarmed man should be secure among armed servants. Because, there being in the one disdain and in the other suspicion, it is not possible for them to work well together. And therefore a prince who does not understand the art of war, over and above the other misfortunes already mentioned, cannot be respected by his soldiers, nor can he rely on them.

…As regards action, he ought above all things to keep his men well organized and drilled, to follow incessantly the chase, by which he accustoms his body to hardships, and learns something of the nature of localities, and gets to find out how the mountains rise, how the valleys open out, how the plains lie, and to understand the nature of rivers and marshes, and in all this to take the greatest care. Which knowledge is useful in two ways. Firstly, he learns to know his country, and is better able to undertake its defense; … And the prince that lacks this skill lacks the essential which it is desirable that a captain should possess, for it teaches him to surprise his enemy, to select quarters, to lead armies, to array the battle, to besiege towns to advantage.

… But to exercise the intellect the prince should read histories, and study there the actions of illustrious men, to see how they have borne themselves in war, to examine the causes of their victories and defeat, so as to avoid the latter and imitate the former;… A wise prince ought to observe some such rules, and never in peaceful times stand idle, but increase his resources with industry in such a way that they may be available to him in adversity, so that if fortune changes it may find him prepared to resist her blows.

Chapter 16: Concerning Liberality {Generosity} and Meanness {Being Miserly}

COMMENCING then with the first of the above-named characteristics, I say that it would be well to be reputed liberal. Nevertheless, liberality exercised in a way that does not bring you the reputation for it, injures you; for if one exercises it honestly and as it should be exercised, it may not become known, and you will not avoid blame of being miserly.. . so that a prince thus inclined [to be generous] will consume in such acts all his property, and will be compelled in the end, if he wish to maintain the name of liberal, to unduly weigh down his people and tax them, and do everything he can to get money [to keep being generous]. This will soon make him odious to his subjects, and becoming poor he will be little valued by any one; thus, with his liberality, having offended many and rewarded few, he is [endangered]… …Therefore, a prince, not being able to exercise this virtue of liberality in such a way that it is recognized, except to his cost, if he is wise he ought not to fear the reputation of being mean, for in time he will come to be more well-thought-of than if liberal, seeing that with his economy his revenues are enough, that he can defend himself against all attacks, and is able to engage in enterprises without burdening his people; thus it comes to pass that he exercises liberality towards all from whom he does not take, who are numberless, and meanness towards those to whom he does not give, who are few. … We have not seen great things done in our time except by those who have been considered mean; the rest have failed. … And there is nothing wastes so rapidly as liberality, for even whilst you exercise it you lose the power to do so, and so become either poor or despised, or else, in avoiding poverty, rapacious and hated. And a prince should guard himself, above all things, against being despised and hated; and liberality leads you to both. Therefore it is wiser to have a reputation for meanness which brings reproach without hatred, than to be compelled through seeking a reputation for liberality to incur a name for rapacity which begets reproach with hatred.

Chapter 17: On Cruelty and Compassion, and Whether it is Better to be Loved Than to be Feared, or the Contrary Descending next to the other qualities mentioned before, I say that each prince ought to desire to be believed compassionate, and not cruel, nonetheless he must be alert not to use this compassion badly. Cesare Borgia [one of the leaders of the Italian kingdoms before Italy was unified] was believed cruel; nonetheless, that cruelty of his restored the Romagna [a region of present-day Italy], unified it, and led it back to peace and to faith . . . A prince, therefore, must not care about the infamy of cruelty in keeping his subjects united and faithful, because if he makes a very few examples, he will be more compassionate that those who, through too much compassion, allow disorders to occur from which arise killings and robberies. For the latter usually harm an entire population, but those executions that come from the prince harm a particular person . . . From the above a debate arises whether it is better to be loved than feared or the contrary. The answer is that one would want to be both the one and the other, but because it is difficult to join them together, it is much safer to be feared than loved, if one has to do without one of the two. For the following may be said generally about men; that they are ungrateful, changeable, pretenders and dissemblers, avoiders of dangers, and desirous of gain, and while you do them good they are wholly yours, offering you their blood, their property, their life, and

their children, as I said above, when the need is far off, but when it comes close to you they revolt. And that prince who has founded himself wholly on their words, because he finds himself naked of other preparations, is ruined. For the friendships that are acquired at a price, and not with greatness and nobility of spirit, are paid for but they are not possessed, and when they come due they cannot be used. Men have less fear of offending one who makes himself loved than one who makes himself feared, since love is held in place by a bond of obligation which, because men are wretched, is broken at every opportunity for utility to oneself, but fear is held in place by a fear of punishment that never abandons you. Nevertheless, the prince must make himself feared in such a way that, although he does not acquire love, he avoids hatred, which will always be as long as he abstains from the property of his citizens and subjects and from their women. But when it is necessary for him to proceed against the life of someone, he must do it on proper justification and for visible cause, but above all things he must keep his hands off the property of others, because men more quickly forget the death of their father than the loss of their property. …But when a prince is with his army, and has under control a multitude of soldiers, then it is quite necessary for him to disregard the reputation of cruelty, for without it he would never hold his army united or disposed to its duties.

Chapter 18: In What way Faith* Should be Kept by Princes How laudable it is in a prince to maintain faith and to live with integrity and not with cleverness, everyone understands. Nonetheless, one sees from experience in our own times that those princes have done great things who have held faith of small account, and who have known how, with their cleverness, to trick men’s brains, and at the end they have surpassed those who founded themselves on sincerity. You should know, therefore, that there are two kinds of combat: one with laws, and the other with force. The first one is proper to man, the second is proper to beasts. But because many times the first is not enough, one must have recourse to the second. For a prince, therefore, it is necessary to know well how to use both the beast and the man. . Thus, since it is necessary for a prince to know well how to use the beast, from among the beasts he should choose the fox and the lion, for the lion does not defend himself from traps, and the fox does not defend himself from wolves. He must, therefore, be a fox to recognize traps, and a lion to scare the wolves. Those who simply stick with the methods of the lion do not understand this. Therefore a prudent lord cannot, nor should he, observe faith when such observance turns against himself, and when the reasons that made him promise it are eliminated. And if men were all good, this precept would not be good; but because they are wicked, and they would not observe faith for you, you too do not have to observe it with them. Nor does a prince ever lack legitimate reasons for painting over his inobservance. Of this one could give infinite modern examples, and show how many peaces, how many promises have been made void and vain by the faithlessness of princes. And the one who has known better how to use the fox has come out better. But it is necessary to know how to color this nature well, and to be a great pretender and dissembler, and men are so very simple, and they so well obey present necessities, that he who deceives will always find someone who will allow himself to be deceived.

. . .It is useful to seem compassionate, faithful, humane, honest, religious- and to be so-but to stay so constructed in your spirit that if it is necessary not be these things, you are able and know how to become the contrary. And one must understand the following: that a prince, and especially a new prince cannot observe all of those things for which men are believed good, since to maintain his state he is often required to act against faith, against charity, against humaneness, and against religion. And for this reason he needs to have a spirit disposed to change as the winds of fortune and the variation of things command him, and, as I said above, not to depart from the good if he is able, but to know how to enter into evil when he needs to.

*Machiavelli did not mean “faith” to mean “religious faith;” it meant “honesty/keeping promises”

***************************************

Chapter 19: That One Should Avoid Being Despised and Hated NOW, concerning the characteristics of which mention is made above, I have spoken of the more important ones, the others I wish to discuss briefly under this generality, that the prince must consider, as has been in part said before, how to avoid those things which will make him hated or contemptible; and as often as he shall have succeeded he will have fulfilled his part, and he need not fear any danger in other reproaches. It makes him hated above all things, as I have said, to be rapacious, and to be a violator of the property and women of his subjects, from both of which he must abstain. And when neither their property nor honour is touched, the majority of men live content, and he has only to contend with the ambition of a few, whom he can curb with ease in many ways. It makes him contemptible to be considered fickle, frivolous, effeminate, mean-spirited, irresolute, from all of which a prince should guard himself as from a rock; and he should endeavour to show in his actions greatness, courage, gravity, and fortitude; and in his private dealings with his subjects let him show that his judgments are irrevocable, and maintain himself in such reputation that no one can hope either to deceive him or to get round him. That prince is highly esteemed who conveys this impression of himself, and he who is highly esteemed is not easily conspired against; for, provided it is well known that he is an excellent man and revered by his people, he can only be attacked with difficulty. …[A] prince can easily secure himself by avoiding being hated and despised, and by keeping the people satisfied with him, which it is most necessary for him to accomplish, as I said above at length. And one of the most efficacious remedies that a prince can have against conspiracies is not to be hated and despised by the people, for he who conspires against a prince always expects to please them by his removal; but when the conspirator can only look forward to offending them, he will not have the courage to take such a course, for the difficulties that confront a

conspirator are infinite. And as experience shows, many have been the conspiracies, but few have been successful…. …For this reason I consider that a prince ought to reckon conspiracies of little account when his people hold him in esteem; but when it is hostile to him, and bears hatred towards him, he ought to fear everything and everybody. And well-ordered states and wise princes have taken every care not to drive the nobles to desperation, and to keep the people satisfied and contented, for this is one of the most important objects a prince can have… From this one can draw another important conclusion, that princes ought to leave affairs of reproach to the management of others, and keep those of grace in their own hands. And further, I consider that a prince ought to cherish the nobles, but not so as to make himself hated by the people.

Chapter 21: How A Prince Should Conduct Himself As To Gain Renown NOTHING makes a prince so much esteemed as great enterprises and setting a fine example…. And a prince ought, above all things, always to endeavor in every action to gain for himself the reputation of being a great and remarkable man. …A prince ought also to show himself a patron of ability, and to honor the proficient in every art. At the same time he should encourage his citizens to practice their callings peaceably, both in commerce and agriculture, and in every other following, so that the one should not be deterred from improving his possessions for fear lest they be taken away from him or another from opening up trade for fear of taxes; but the prince ought to offer rewards to whoever wishes to do these things and designs in any way to honor his city or state. …Further, he ought to entertain the people with festivals and spectacles at convenient seasons of the year; and as every city is divided into guilds or into societies, he ought to hold such bodies in esteem, and associate with them sometimes, and show himself an example of courtesy and liberality; nevertheless, always maintaining the majesty of his rank, for this he must never consent to abate in anything.

CHAPTER 23: How Flatterers Should Be Avoided I DO NOT wish to leave out an important branch of this subject, for it is a danger from which princes are with difficulty preserved, unless they are very careful and discriminating. It is that of flatterers, of whom courts arc full… Because there is no other way of guarding oneself from flatterers except letting men understand that to tell you the truth does not offend you; but when everyone may tell you the truth, respect for you abates. …Therefore a wise prince ought to hold a third course by choosing the wise men in his state, and giving to them only the liberty of speaking the truth to him, and then only of those things of which he inquires, and of none others; but he ought to question them upon everything, and listen to their opinions, and afterwards form his own conclusions. With these councilors, separately and collectively, he ought to carry himself in such a way that each of them should know that, the more freely he shall speak, the more he shall be preferred; outside of these, he should listen to no one, pursue the thing resolved

on, and be steadfast in his resolutions. He who does otherwise is either overthrown by flatterers, or is so often changed by varying opinions that he falls into contempt.… A prince, therefore, ought always to take counsel, but only when he wishes and not when others wish; he ought rather to discourage everyone from offering advice unless he asks it; but, however, he ought to be a constant inquirer, and afterwards a patient listener concerning the things of which he inquired; also, on learning that any one, on any consideration, has not told him the truth, he should let his anger be felt. … [T]his is an axiom which never fails: that a prince who is not wise himself will never take good advice…

*******************************************************

II. Primary Sources on Divine Right Theory of Kings/Queens

Source 1: King James VI and I, Speech to Parliament (1610) James was king of Scotland and then of England (hence 'VI and I'). As well as being a ruler, he was also a writer, who penned books and speeches in defense of kingly

authority.

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 are called gods….In the Scriptures kings are called gods, and so their power after a certain relation compared to the divine power…. Kings are justly called gods, for that they exercise a manner or resemblance of divine power upon earth: for if you will consider the attributes to God, you shall see how they agree in the person of a king. God hath power to create or destroy, make or unmake at his pleasure, to give life or send death, to judge all and to be judged nor accountable to none; to raise low things and to make high things low at his pleasure, and to God are both souls and body due. And the like power have kings: they make and unmake their subjects, they have power of raising and casting down, of life and of death, judges over all their subjects and in all causes and yet accountable to none but God only. . . . I conclude then this point touching the power of kings with this axiom of divinity, That as to dispute what God may do is blasphemy....so is it sedition {treason} in subjects to dispute what a king may do in the height of his power. But just kings will ever be willing to declare what they will do, if they will not incur the curse of God. I will not be content that my power be disputed upon; but I shall ever be willing to make the reason appear of all my doings, and rule my actions according to my laws. . . I would wish you to be careful to avoid three things in the matter of grievances: First, that you do not meddle with the main points of government; that is my craft . . . to meddle with that were to lesson me . . . I must not be taught my office. Secondly, I would not have you meddle with such ancient rights of mine as I have received from my predecessors . . . . All novelties are dangerous as well in a politics as in a natural body. And therefore I would be loath {reluctant} to be

quarreled in my ancient rights and possessions, for that were to judge me unworthy of that which my predecessors had and left me. And lastly, I pray you beware to exhibit for grievance anything that is established by a settled law, and whereunto . . . you know I will never give a plausible answer; for it is an undutiful part in subjects to press their king, wherein they know beforehand he will refuse them.

************************

Source 2 : Bishop Jacques-Benigne Bossuet, Politics Drawn from the Very Words of Holy Scripture (1709)

Bishop Jacques-Benigne Bossuet was a French bishop and theologian, renowned for his sermons and other addresses. He has been considered by many to be one of the most brilliant orators of all time and a masterly French stylist. Court preacher to Louis XIV of France, Bossuet was a strong advocate of political absolutism and the divine right of kings. He argued that government was divine and that kings

received their power from God.

IT IS GOD who establishes kings…

Princes thus act as ministers of God and His lieutenants on earth. It is through them that He rules.... This is why we have seen that the royal throne is not the throne of a man, but the throne of God himself. "Jehovah {God}hath chosen Solomon my son to sit upon the throne of the kingdom of Jehovah over Israel." (I Chronicles 28: 5) And again: "Then Solomon sat on the throne of Jehovah {God}." (Ibid., 29:33) . . . It appears from this that the person of kings is sacred, and to move against them is sacrilege. God causes them to be anointed by the prophets with a sacred oil, as He caused the pontiffs and His altars to be anointed. But even without the external application of this oil, they are sacred in their office, as being the representatives of the divine majesty, sent by His providence for the execution of His designs.... There is something religious in the respect which one renders the prince. Service of God and respect for kings are things united. St. Peter groups these two duties together: "Fear God. Honor the king." (I Peter 2:17)Thus God has placed in princes something divine. "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High." (Psalm LXXXII:6) …Since their power comes from on high, kings should not believe that they are its masters and may use it as they wish; they should exercise it with fear and restraint as a thing which has come to them from God, and for which God will demand an account.... Kings should tremble when using the power that God gives them, and remember how horrible is the sacrilege of using for evil a power that comes from God. We have seen kings seated on the throne of the Lord, having in hand the sword which God himself placed in their hands. What profanation and audacity of unjust kings to sit in the throne of God in order to publish decrees against His laws and to use the sword which He has placed in their hands to do violence and to massacre His children.

Therefore let them respect their power, since it is not theirs but the power of God, and must be used holily and religiously. . . . That is, they should govern as God governs, in a manner at once noble, disinterested, benevolent, in a word, divine.... God, who created all men from the same earth and equally placed His image and likeness in their souls, did not establish distinctions among them so that some might be proud and others slaves and wretches. He made some great only for the protection of the small; He gave His power to kings only to ensure the public welfare and to be the support of the people.... Thus princes should understand that their true glory is not for themselves, and that the public good which they procure is a sufficiently worthy recompense on earth, while awaiting the eternal rewards which God has reserved for them.... Princes are gods and participate somehow in divine independence.... There is only God who may judge over their judgments and their persons.... The prince may correct himself when he knows that he has done evil, but against his authority there is no remedy other than his own authority.... Thus kings like all others are subject to the equity of the laws because they should be just and because they owe to the people the example of preserving justice, but they are not subject to the penalties of the laws. Or, as in theology, they are subject to the laws not as regards their coactive power but only their directive power.... What is there that a wise prince cannot effect? Under him wars are successful, peace is established, justice reigns, the laws govern, religion flourishes, commerce and navigation enrich the land, and the earth itself seems to bring forth fruit more willingly. Such are the effects of wisdom.... …God is infinite; God is all. The prince as prince is not regarded as an individual; he is a public personage. All the state is in him; the will of the entire people is contained in his. As all perfection and virtue are united in God, all the power of individuals is united in the person of the prince. What greatness that a single man contains so much! The power of God makes itself felt in an instant from one end of the world to the other; royal power acts similarly through all the realm. It keeps the whole realm in order, as God keeps the world. Let God withdraw His hand, and the world will fall into nothing; let authority cease in the realm, and all will be in confusion. Consider the king in his council- chamber. From there are sent the orders which unite the efforts of magistrates and captains, citizens and soldiers, provinces and armies on land and sea. It is the image of God, who, seated on His throne in the highest heavens, causes nature to function. . . . We see a small part, but the essence is impenetrable. Thus it is with the secrets of the prince. The designs of the prince become known only through their execution. Similarly are manifest the counsels of God: to them no man may penetrate except those whom God admits. As the power of God extends everywhere, magnificence accompanies it. There is no part of the universe in which the unmistakable evidences of His goodness do not appear. Behold the order, the justice and the tranquility in all the realm: it is the natural effect of the authority of the prince.... In a word, gather together the great and glorious things which we have said concerning the royal authority. Behold an immense people united in a single

person; behold this sacred, paternal and absolute power; behold the secret intelligence which governs all bodies in the state, contained within a single head: you behold the image of God in kings, and you understand the idea of royal majesty.... Something indescribably divine is attached to the prince and inspires fear in the people. However, let not this cause the king to forget his own nature.... You are gods, that is, you have in your authority and you carry on your forehead a divine quality. You are the children of the Most High; it is He who established your power for the good of humanity. But, O gods of flesh and blood, O gods of mud and dust, you will die like men; you will fall like all the great. Greatness divides men but briefly; a common fate finally renders them all equal. Therefore O kings! Exercise your power boldly, for it is divine and beneficial to humanity, but exercise it with humility. It is given to you from without. Ultimately it leaves you frail; it leaves you mortal; it leaves you sinners and demands from you a greater final reckoning before God. . . .There is among men a type of government that is called arbitrary, but it is not found among us, nor in properly constituted states. Four characteristics are associated with this type of government. First, its subjects are born slaves, that is, in true bondage, and among them there are no free persons. Second, nothing is possessed as property since all belongs to the prince, and there is no right of inheritance, even from father to son. Third, the prince has the right to dispose freely not only of his subjects' goods but even of their lives, as would be done with slaves. Finally, there is no law other than his will. This is what is called arbitrary power. I do not wish to inquire whether it is lawful or unlawful. There are peoples and great empires that are satisfied with it, and it is not for us to disturb them concerning their form of government. It is sufficient for us to say that this type of government is barbarous and odious. These four characteristics are very far removed from our customs, and for this reason arbitrary government does not exist among us. There is a great difference between a government that is absolute and one that is arbitrary. It is absolute by reason of constraint, there being no power capable of coercing the sovereign who in this sense is independent of all human authority. But it does not follow from this that the government is arbitrary. Because, although anything is permitted to the judgment of God and to a government called arbitrary, it is certain that states have laws against which anything that is done is of no right. And there is always available a means of redress on other occasions and in other times, so that each remains legitimate possessor of his property, no one being able to believe that he may ever possess anything in security contrary to the laws, whose vigilance and action against injustices and violences is immortal.... And it is in this that a government called legitimate is opposed by its nature to arbitrary government.... Government is established in order to free all men from every oppression and violence, as has often been stated. And it is this that creates the state of perfect liberty, there being in essence nothing less free than anarchy, which destroys all legitimate rights among men, and knows no law but that of force.

**********************

III. PRIMARY SOURCES on the ROYAL COURT of FRANCE’S LOUIS XIV

Source 1: Louis XIV, Description of KingshipIn 1666 Louis wrote a memorandum to his son describing the functions and

conduct of a king. This selection is an excerpt from that memorandum.

Without any doubt, two things were absolutely necessary for ruling: very hard work on my part, and a wise choice of persons who were capable of carrying out my work. I set a rule for myself to work regularly twice each day for two or three hours at a time. Each time I worked with different persons. This regular work did not include the hours which I spent privately working on matters of state {the nation}, or the time I was able to give on particular occasions when special problems arose and I permitted people to talk to me about urgent problems at any time. I cannot tell you how important my resolution to work was. I felt myself, as it were, uplifted in thought and courage. I found that I was a new man, and joyfully scolded myself for not having been aware of work’s importance earlier. My timidity, especially on occasions when I had to speak in public, disappeared in no time. I felt that I was king and born to be one. I experienced a delicious feeling which you will not know until you are king. A king must be guided by his own good sense, which is natural and effortless. A king, however skillful and enlightened his ministers are, is the principal cause of good work being done. He cannot act without seeing his effect on the state. Success, even in small matters, gratifies us as well as success in great affairs. There is no satisfaction equal to that of noting every day some progress you have made in glorious and lofty enterprises and in the happiness of your people which comes from the work you have done yourself. My son, the work of a king is agreeable. One must have his eyes open to the whole earth. He must endeavor to learn each hour the news concerning every province and every nation, the secrets of every court, the moods and weaknesses of every prince and every foreign minister. He must be well informed on all matters from commerce and science to art and philosophy. He must find out the secrets of his subjects, and discover the selfish interests of those who approach him with their real motives disguised. I know of no other pleasure I would take in place of the work of a king.

*****************

Source 2: Saint-Simon: A Noble’s Appraisal of Louis XIVThe Duc de Saint-Simon was a member of one of the most prominent noble families of France. His memoirs record the manners and customs of Louis’ court and life at

Versailles in vivid detail.

Louis XIV made for a brilliant court. His figure, his grace, his beauty, his grand bearing, even the tone of his voice and his majestic and natural charm set him apart from other men as the king. Even if he had been born a simple private

gentleman, he still would have excelled in all social festivities. However, intrigues against the king during his childhood made Louis suspicious of intelligent, educated, noble, and highly principled men, and as he advanced in years, he began to hate them. He wished to reign by himself, and his jealousy on this point soon became a weakness. The superior ability of his early ministers and generals soon wearied him. He liked no one to be in any way superior to him. He chose his ministers, therefore, not for their knowledge, but for their ignorance; not for their capacity, but for their want of it. He liked to teach them even the most trivial things. He unceasingly concerned himself with the smallest details of his troops, his minor household officials, and the way his mansions were built and maintained. He would even instruct his cooks, though he taught them things they had known for years. His vanity, his unreasonable desire to be admired, ruined him. His ministers, his generals, his mistresses, his courtiers soon understood this fatal weakness. They praised him and spoiled him, for it was the one way they could approach him. This is why his ministers, drawn from the non-noble class, had so much authority. They had better opportunity to flatter him and tell him that all good works came from his actions. At eight o’clock the chief valet de chambre, who alone had slept in the royal chamber awoke the king. The chief physician, the chief surgeon, and the nurse entered at the same time. The nurse kissed the king; the others rubbed [him] and often changed his shirt. At the quarter, the grand chamberlain drew back the curtains, which had been closed, and presented the holy water from the vase at the head of the bed. The same officer gave him his dressing gown; immediately after, other privileged courtiers entered in time to find the king putting on his shoes and stockings… …Typically after the noon meal, the king immediately entered his cabinet. That was the time for distinguished people to speak to him. He stopped at the door a moment to listen and then entered; very rarely did anyone follow him, never without asking for permission; and for this few had the courage. Upon returning from the afternoon walk or drive anybody might speak to the king from the moment he left his coach until he reached the foot of the staircase. He then changed his dress and rested in his private chamber until the major social event of the evening. At ten o’clock his supper was served. This supper was always on a grand scale, the royal household at table, and a large number of courtiers and ladies present, sitting or standing. After supper the king stood some moments encircled by all his court; then, with bows to the ladies, passed into his cabinet, where on arriving, he gave his orders. He passed a little less than an hour there, seated in an armchair. The king, wishing to retire, went and fed his dogs; then said good night, passed into his bed chamber where he said his prayers, as in the morning, then undressed. Then commenced what was called the petit coucher {“small couch”}, at which only the specially privileged remained. They did not leave until he got into bed.

**************************

Source 3: Princess Palatine: A Visitor’s ViewpointPrincess Palatine, a frequent visitor at the court, wrote the following letter home

describing conditions at Versailles.

The apartments [two large rooms at Versailles where the King played billiards and served refreshments] is an absolutely intolerable experience. We all troop into the billiard room and lie on our stomachs or squat, no one uttering a word, until the King has finished his game. Then we all get up and go to the music room where someone is singing an aria from some old opera which we have heard a hundred times already. After that, we go to the ball, which lasts from eight to ten o’clock. Those who, like me, do not dance have to sit there for hours without budging for an instant, and can neither see nor hear anything except an endless minuet. At a quarter to ten, we all follow one another in a quadrille [a dance popular at the time], like children reciting a lesson, and then the ball is finally over.

********************

Source 4: Archbishop Fenelon: Letter to Louis XIVThe following selection is adapted from a letter written by Fénelon, a French

archbishop, to Louis XIV. Archbishop Fénelon served as tutor to one of the king’s children. This letter was sent anonymously for obvious reasons.

For nearly thirty years, your principal Ministers have destroyed and reversed all the ancient customs of the state in order to raise your authority to its highest level. They no longer speak of France and its constitution; they only speak of the King and of his royal pleasure. They have pushed your revenues and your expenses to unprecedented heights. They have raised you up to the sky in order, they say, to outshine the grandeur of all your predecessors. They have impoverished the whole of France with the introduction of monstrous luxuries of court. Your ministers have been harsh, haughty, unjust, and violent. They have recognized no other rule but to threaten, to crush, and to destroy all who resist them. They have rendered your name odious, and the whole French nation intolerable to all our neighbors. They have caused almost twenty years of bloody wars. Meanwhile, your people die of hunger as the cultivation of the soil is not producing enough food. All business enterprise is stagnant, and no longer offers employment to working men. Instead of taking money from these poor people, one should give them alms and feed them. The people themselves, it should be said, who hitherto have loved you, are beginning to lose confidence and even respect. Your victories and conquests no longer cause them to rejoice; they are full of bitterness and despair. They believe that you love only your authority and your glory. There, Sire, is the state of things. You live as one whose eyes are fatally blinded.

**************************

IV. PRIMARY SOURCES on PETER the GREAT of RUSSIA

Source 1: Bishop Burnet , Peter the Great 1698 A short writing by an English Bishop with whom Peter stayed in the winter of

1698. A very good insight into Peter as a person, habits, mannerisms, etc., rather than his accomplishments as a czar.

I mentioned in the relation of the former year [1698] the Tsar’s coming out of his own country; on which I will now enlarge. He came this winter over to England and stayed some months among us. I waited often on him, and was ordered by both the king and the archbishops and bishops to attend upon him and to offer him such information of our religion and constitution as he was willing to receive. I had good interpreters, so I had much free discourse with him. He is a man of very hot temper, soon inflamed and very brutal in his passion. He raises his natural heat by drinking much brandy, which he rectifies himself with great application. He is subject to convulsive motions all over his body, and his head seems to be affected with these. He wants not capacity, and has a larger measure of knowledge than might be expected from his education, which was very indifferent. A want of judgment, with an instability of temper, appear in him too often and too evidently. He is mechanically turned, and seems designed by nature rather to be a ship carpenter than a great prince. This was his chief study and exercise while he stayed here. He wrought much with his own hands and made all about him work at the models of his ships. He told me he designed a great fleet at Azov and with it to attack the Turkish (Ottoman) Empire. But he did not seem capable of conducting so great a design, though his conduct in his wars since this has discovered a greater genius in him than appeared at this time. He was desirous to understand our doctrine, but he did not seem disposed to mend matters in Muscovy. He was, indeed, resolved to encourage learning and to polish his people by sending some of them to travel in other countries and to draw strangers to come and live among them. He seemed apprehensive still of his sister’s intrigues. There was a mixture both of passion and severity in his temper. He is resolute, but understands little of war, and seemed not at all inquisitive that way. …He went from hence to the court of Vienna, where he purposed to have stayed some time, but he was called home sooner than he had intended upon a discovery, or a suspicion, of intrigues managed by his sister. The strangers, to whom he trusted most, were so true to him that those designs were crushed before he came back. But on this occasion he let loose his fury on all whom he suspected. Some hundreds of them were hanged all around Moscow, and it was said that he cut off many heads with his own hand; and so far was he from relenting or showing any sort of tenderness that he seemed delighted with it. How long he is to be the scourge of that nation God only knows.

***************

Source 2: Diary of Austrian Diplomat Johann Korb: An Account of Peter the Great’s Crushing of the Streltsi Revolt (1698)

Mr. Korb is providing an account of Peter’s discovery and reaction to a revolt to unseat him by the Streltsi (i.e. the royal guards sworn to protect the Tsar and a

significant portion of the Russian army) in Russia’s capital, Moscow. It was discovered some of the Streltsi were given orders by Peter’s half-sister, Sophia,

who wanted to rule Russia again; she was removed from power by Peter and forcibly placed on house arrest in a convent. Some of the Streltsi were very

traditional and conservative, opposed Peter’s ‘westernization” efforts which could lessen their influence, and preferred to have Sophia back in power where they

once had a much higher social and political standing in the kingdom. Peter was on a tour of Western European nations at the time to learn their modern, western

ways; he was in Vienna, Austria when he first learned of the Streltsi Rebellion back in Moscow.

How sharp was the pain, how great the indignation, to which the Tsar's Majesty was mightily moved, when he knew of the rebellion of the Streltsi betraying openly a mind panting for vengeance! He was still tarrying at Vienna, quite full of the desire of setting out for Italy; but, fervid as was his curiosity of rambling abroad, it was, nevertheless, speedily extinguished on the announcement of the troubles that had broken out in the bowels of his realm. [He then asked an Austrian Ambassador] “Tell me, Francis, son of James, how I can reach Moscow by the shortest way, in a brief space, so that I may wreak vengeance on this great [betrayal] of my people, with punishments worthy of their abominable crime. Not one of them shall escape with impunity. Around my royal city, which, with their impious efforts, they planned to destroy, I will have… gallows set upon the walls and ramparts, and each and every one of them will I put to a direful death." Nor did he long delay the plan for his justly excited wrath; he took the quick post, as his ambassador suggested, and in four weeks’ time he had got over about three hundred miles without accident, and arrived the 4th of September, 1698---a monarch for the [kindly], but an avenger for the wicked. His first anxiety after his arrival was about the rebellion---in what it consisted, what the insurgents meant, who dared to instigate such a crime. And as nobody could answer accurately upon all points, and some pleaded their own ignorance, others the obstinacy of the Streltsi, he began to have suspicions of everybody's loyalty. . . No day…were the investigators idle; every day was deemed fit and lawful for torturing. There were as many scourges as there were accused, and every investigator was a butcher. . The whole month of October was spent in lacerating the backs of culprits with the knout {a leather whip} and with flames; no day were those that were left alive exempt from scourging or scorching; or else they were broken upon the wheel, or driven to the scaffold, or slain with the axe. . . To prove to all people how holy and inviolable are those walls of the city which the Streltsi rashly meditated scaling in a sudden assault, beams were run out from all the embrasures in the walls near the gates, in each of which two rebels were hanged. This day beheld about two hundred and fifty die that death. There are few cities fortified with as many palisades as Moscow has given scaffolds to her guardian Streltsi. (In front of the nunnery where Sophia [Peter's sister] was confined) there were thirty gallows erected in a quadrangle shape, from which there hung two hundred and thirty Streltsi; the three principal ringleaders, who tendered a petition to Sophia touching the administration of the kingdom, were hanged close to the windows of that princess, presenting, as it were, the petitions that were placed in their hands, so near that Sophia might with ease touch them.

********************

Source 3: Jean Rousset de Missy, Life of Peter the Great , c. 1730 A French historical writer of the first half of the eighteenth century, Jean Rousset de Missy, wrote a life of Peter the Great. Although the author never visited Russia, his volumes have some value, since he appears to have taken pains to get reliable

information. He thus describes the reform in dress enforced by Peter.

The Tsar labored at the reform of fashions, or, more properly speaking, of dress. Until that time the Russians had always worn long beards, which they cherished and preserved with much care, allowing them to hang down on their bosoms, without even cutting the moustache. With these long beards they wore the hair very short, except the ecclesiastics, who, to distinguish themselves, wore it very long. The tsar, in order to reform that custom, ordered that gentlemen, merchants, and other subjects, except priests and peasants, should each pay a tax of one hundred rubles a year if they wished to keep their beards; the commoners had to pay one kopek each. Officials were stationed at the gates of the towns to collect that tax, which the Russians regarded as an enormous sin on the part of the tsar and as a thing which tended to the abolition of their religion. These insinuations, which came from the priests, occasioned the publication of many pamphlets in Moscow, where for that reason alone the tsar was regarded as a tyrant and a pagan; and there were many old Russians who, after having their beards shaved off, saved them preciously, in order to have them placed in their coffins, fearing that they would not be allowed to enter heaven without their beards. As for the young men, they followed the new custom with the more readiness as it made them appear more agreeable to the fair sex. From the reform in beards we may pass to that of clothes. Their garments, like those of the Orientals, were very long, reaching to the heel. The tsar issued an ordinance abolishing that costume, commanding all the boyars [i.e., the nobles] and all those who had positions at court to dress after the French fashion, and likewise to adorn their clothes with gold or silver according to their means. As for the rest of the people, the following method was employed. A suit of clothes cut according to the new fashion was hung at the gate of the city, with a decree enjoining upon all except peasants to have their clothes made on this model, upon penalty of being forced to kneel and have all that part of their garments which fell below the knee cut off, or pay two grives every time they entered the town with clothes in the old style. Since the guards at the gates executed their duty in curtailing the garments in a sportive spirit, the people were amused and readily abandoned their old dress, especially in Moscow and its environs, and in the towns which the tsar often visited. The dress of the women was changed, too. English hairdressing was substituted for the caps and bonnets hitherto worn; bodices, stays, and skirts, for the former undergarments. . . The same ordinance also provided that in the future women, as well as men, should be invited to entertainments, such as weddings, banquets, and the like, where both sexes should mingle in the same hall, as in Holland and England. It was likewise added that these entertainments should conclude with concerts and dances, but that only those should be admitted who were dressed in English costumes. His Majesty set the example in all these changes. . .

********************

Source 4: Peter the Great Imposes Western Styles on the Russians

A. Peter’s Decree on Wearing German Clothes, 1701 All ranks of the service nobility, leading merchants, military personnel, and inhabitants of Moscow and the other towns, except the clergy, are to wear German clothes and hats and footwear and to ride in German saddles; and their wives and children without exception are also so to dress. Henceforth nobody is to wear [traditional] Russian or Cossack clothes or to ride in Russian [i.e., Tatar-style] saddles; nor are craftsmen to make such things or to trade in them. And if contrary to this the Great Sovereign’s decree some people wear such Russian or Cossack clothes and ride in Russian saddles, the town gatekeepers are to exact a fine from them, [so much] for those on foot and [much more] from those on horseback. Also, craftsmen who make such things and trade in them will be, for their disobedience, severely punished.

B. Peter’s Decree on Shaving, 1705 All courtiers and officials in Moscow and all the other towns, as well as leading merchants and other townsmen, except priests and deacons, must henceforth by this the Great Sovereign’s decree shave their beards and mustaches. And whosoever does not wish to do so, but to go about with [traditional Russian] beard and mustache, is to pay a [hefty] fine, according to his rank. … And the Department of Land Affairs [in Moscow] is to give [such persons] a badge in receipt, as will the government offices in the other towns, which badges they must wear. And from the peasants a [small] toll is to be exacted every day at the town gates, without which they cannot enter or leave the town. …

C: A Russian Beard Tax Token Peter developed anti-beard sentiments after his 1697 grand tour of Western Europe. The tour famously convinced the monarch that Russia was desperately behind-the-times — economically, scientifically, and sartorially — and inspired him to undertake substantial efforts towards modernizing his country. After Peter’s triumphant return to Russia at the end of his European voyage in 1698, a joyous reception was thrown in his honor. In attendance were his commander of the army, his frequent second-in-command Fyodor Romodanovsky, and a host of assorted aides and diplomats. Suddenly, the crowd’s mood went from elation to horror as Peter unexpectedly pulled out a massive barber’s razor and began shaving off their beards. Only the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church was spared. Traditionally, long, flowing beards were considered a symbol of manhood, integrity, and piety according to Orthodox ideals, with Ivan the Terrible writing, “Shaving the beard is a sin the blood of all martyrs will not wash away. It would mean blemishing the image of man as God created him.” At first, only wealthy boyars (Russian noblemen) were required to shave their beards. But Peter enacted a new law that enforced the peasants to shave, too, but

allowed all Russians who did not want to part with their beards to acquire the right to keep them for a tax. It was a progressive tax: the humble peasant paid two kopeks, a rich merchant up to 100 rubles. Officials were sent out to supervise Peter’s implementation and to personally shave anybody refusing to obey on the spot. To verify that a bearded man had paid his tax and did not need to be forcibly shaved (and yes, noncompliant men were forcibly shaved) “beard tokens” were minted and given as proof that the tax had been paid. The token bore an image of the Russian eagle on one side and a bearded face on the other, and were inscribed with the phrases “The tax has been taken” and “The beard is a superfluous burden”. However, Peter’s beard tax was abolished in 1772.

***************************

V. Primary Sources on the English Bill of Rights and its Influences in America

Source 1: English Bill of Rights, 1689 - An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown

Whereas the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons assembled at Westminster, lawfully, fully and freely representing all the estates of the people of this realm, did upon the thirteenth day of February in the year of our Lord one thousand six hundred eighty-eight [old style date] present unto their Majesties, then called and known by the names and style of William and Mary, prince and princess of Orange, being present in their proper persons, a certain declaration in writing made by the said Lords and Commons in the words following, viz.:

Whereas the late King James the Second, by the assistance of divers evil counsellors, judges and ministers employed by him, did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion and the laws and liberties of this kingdom;

By assuming and exercising a power of dispensing with and suspending of laws and the execution of laws without consent of Parliament;

By committing and prosecuting divers worthy prelates for humbly petitioning to be excused from concurring to the said assumed power;

By issuing and causing to be executed a commission under the great seal for erecting a court called the Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes;

By levying money for and to the use of the Crown by pretence of prerogative for other time and in other manner than the same was granted by Parliament;

By raising and keeping a standing army within this kingdom in time of peace without consent of Parliament, and quartering soldiers contrary to law;

By causing several good subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when papists were both armed and employed contrary to law;

By violating the freedom of election of members to serve in Parliament;

By prosecutions in the Court of King's Bench for matters and causes cognizable only in Parliament, and by divers other arbitrary and illegal courses;

And whereas of late years partial corrupt and unqualified persons have been returned and served on juries in trials, and particularly divers jurors in trials for high treason which were not freeholders;

And excessive bail hath been required of persons committed in criminal cases to elude the benefit of the laws made for the liberty of the subjects;

And excessive fines have been imposed;

And illegal and cruel punishments inflicted;

And several grants and promises made of fines and forfeitures before any conviction or judgment against the persons upon whom the same were to be levied;

All which are utterly and directly contrary to the known laws and statutes and freedom of this realm;

And whereas the said late King James the Second having abdicated the government and the throne being thereby vacant, his Highness the prince of Orange (whom it hath pleased Almighty God to make the glorious instrument of delivering this kingdom from popery and arbitrary power) did (by the advice of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and divers principal persons of the Commons) cause letters to be written to the Lords Spiritual and Temporal being Protestants, and other letters to the several counties, cities, universities, boroughs and cinque ports, for the choosing of such persons to represent them as were of right to be sent to Parliament, to meet and sit at Westminster upon the two and twentieth day of January in this year one thousand six hundred eighty and eight [old style date], in order to such an establishment as that their religion, laws and liberties might not again be in danger of being subverted, upon which letters elections having been accordingly made;

And thereupon the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, pursuant to their respective letters and elections, being now assembled in a full and free representative of this nation, taking into their most serious consideration the best means for attaining the ends aforesaid, do in the first place (as their ancestors in like case have usually done) for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties declare

That the pretended power of suspending the laws or the execution of laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal;

That the pretended power of dispensing with laws or the execution of laws by regal authority, as it hath been assumed and exercised of late, is illegal;

That the commission for erecting the late Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes, and all other commissions and courts of like nature, are illegal and pernicious;

That levying money for or to the use of the Crown by pretence of prerogative, without grant of Parliament, for longer time, or in other manner than the same is or shall be granted, is illegal;

That it is the right of the subjects to petition the king, and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal;

That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law;

That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;

That election of members of Parliament ought to be free;

That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament;

That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted;

That jurors ought to be duly impanelled and returned, and jurors which pass upon men in trials for high treason ought to be freeholders;

That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void;

And that for redress of all grievances, and for the amending, strengthening and preserving of the laws, Parliaments ought to be held frequently.

And they do claim, demand and insist upon all and singular the premises as their undoubted rights and liberties, and that no declarations, judgments, doings or proceedings to the prejudice of the people in any of the said premises ought in any wise to be drawn hereafter into consequence or example; to which demand of their rights they are particularly encouraged by the declaration of his Highness the prince of Orange as being the only means for obtaining a full redress and remedy therein. Having therefore an entire confidence that his said Highness the prince of Orange will perfect the deliverance so far advanced by him, and will still preserve them from the violation of their rights which they have here asserted, and from all

other attempts upon their religion, rights and liberties, the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons assembled at Westminster do resolve that William and Mary, prince and princess of Orange, be and be declared king and queen of England, France and Ireland and the dominions thereunto belonging, to hold the crown and royal dignity of the said kingdoms and dominions to them, the said prince and princess, during their lives and the life of the survivor to them, and that the sole and full exercise of the regal power be only in and executed by the said prince of Orange in the names of the said prince and princess during their joint lives, and after their deceases the said crown and royal dignity of the same kingdoms and dominions to be to the heirs of the body of the said princess, and for default of such issue to the Princess Anne of Denmark and the heirs of her body, and for default of such issue to the heirs of the body of the said prince of Orange. And the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do pray the said prince and princess to accept the same accordingly.

**********************

Source 2: The Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution ; created in 1789 and ratified in 1791

Amendment ICongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment IIA well regulated militia*, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

*During this time period, “militia” meant “men of military age, around ages 15-45,” not an actual standing army

Amendment IIINo soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IVThe right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VIIn all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VIIIn suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIIIExcessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IXThe enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment XThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

***********************************************

VI: Primary Source on Mercantilism

Source 1: “Nine Principle Rules of National Economy” ~Philip Wilhelm von Hornick, 1684

Mercantilism, a loose set of economic ideas and corresponding government policies, was a common component of political absolutism during the 17th century. Typical mercantilist goals were the acquisition of gold and silver bullion, a favorable balance of trade (exports > imports), and economic self-sufficiency. An unusually clear and influential statement of mercantilist policies was published in

1684 by German attorney (and later government official) Philipp Wilhelm von Hornick, who laid out nine principal rules for a proper and dominant economic/foreign policy that are excerpted below.

Nine Principal Rules of National EconomyIf the might and eminence of a country consist in its surplus of gold, silver, and all other things necessary or convenient for its subsistence, derived, so far as possible, from its own resources, without dependence on other countries, and in the proper fostering use, and application of these, then it follows that a general national economy…should consider how such a surplus, fostering, and enjoyment can be brought about, without dependence upon others, or where this is not feasible in every respect, with as little dependence as possible upon foreign countries, and sparing use of the country’s own cash. For this purpose the following nine rules are especially serviceable

First, to inspect the country's soil with the greatest care, and not to leave the agricultural possibilities or a single corner or clod of earth unconsidered. Every useful form ofplant under the sun should be experimented with, to see whether it is adapted to the country, for the distance or nearness of the sun is not all that counts. Above all, no trouble or expense should be spared to discover gold and silver.

Second, all commodities found in a country, which cannot be used in their natural state, should be worked up withinthe country; since the payment for manufacturing generally exceeds the value of the raw material by two, three, ten, twenty, and even a hundred fold, and the neglect of this is an abomination to prudent managers.

Third, for carrying out the above two rules, there will be need of people, both for producing and cultivating the raw materials and for working them up. Therefore, attention should be given to the population, that it may be as large asthe country can support, this being a well-ordered state'smost important concern, but, unfortunately, one that isoften neglected. And the people should be turned by all possible means from idleness to remunerative professions; instructed and encouraged in all kinds of inventions, arts, and trades; and, if necessary, instructors should be brought in from foreign countries for this.

Fourth, gold and silver once in the country, whether fromits own mines or obtained by industry from foreign countries, are under no circumstances to be taken out for any purpose, so far as possible, or allowed to be buried in chests or coffers, but must always remain in circulation; nor should much be permitted in uses where they are at once destroyed and cannot be utilized again. For under these conditions, it will be impossible for a country that has once acquired a considerable supply of cash, especially one that possesses gold and silver mines, ever to sink into poverty; indeed, it is impossible that it should not continually increase in wealth and property. Therefore,

Fifth, the inhabitants of the country should make every effort to get along with their domestic products, to confine their luxury to these alone, and to do without foreign products as far as possible (except where great need leaves no alternative, or if not need, wide-spread, unavoidable abuse,of which Indian spices are an example). And so on.

Sixth, in case the said purchases were indispensable becauseof necessity or irremediable abuse, they should be obtainedfrom these foreigners at first hand, so far as possible,and not for gold or silver, but in exchange for other domestic wares.

Seventh, such foreign commodities should in this case beimported in unfinished form, and worked up within thecountry, thus earning the wages of manufacture there.

Eighth, opportunities should be sought night and day forselling the country's superfluous goods to these foreigners in manufactured form, so far as this is necessary, and for gold and silver; and to this end, consumption, so to speak, must be sought in the farthest ends of the earth, and developed in every possible way.

Ninth, except for important considerations, no importation should be allowed under any circumstances of commodities of which there is a sufficient supply of suitable qualityat home; and in this matter neither sympathy nor compassion should be shown foreigners, be they friends, kinsfolk, allies, or enemies. For all friendship ceases, when it involves my own weakness and ruin. And this holds good, even if the domestic commodities are of poorer quality, or even higher priced. For it would be better to pay for an article two dollars which remain in the country than only one which goes out, however strange this may seem to the ill-informed.