Theory of the divine rights of kings

A political ideology that the king's right to rule is sacred and inviolable because it was bestowed by God, and that subjects must absolutely obey the king's orders. It is also called the divine right of kings or the divine right of kings. In ancient and medieval times, the idea of ​​the divine right of kings was common as a principle of rule. However, the divine right of kings became particularly important in history when a group of countries called absolutist states appeared in the Western world from the 15th to the 18th centuries. This is because the kings of each country aimed for powerful national unification and used the divine right of kings to eliminate external influences from both the Catholic power centered on the Pope of Rome and, after the Reformation, the Protestant power centered on Geneva, on the one hand, and to suppress rebellions from the emerging citizen class on the other hand. Both the old and new denominations claimed control over both the sacred and secular spheres in their countries, and there was constant conflict with the kings. Moreover, because subjects belonged to either the old or new denominations, if the king and the majority of his subjects had different religions, religious conflicts would occur frequently between the king and his subjects, and between subjects of different religions. Religious issues were also intertwined with political and economic interests, and domestic politics were always unstable. The divine right of kings was a political theory of the royal party that attempted to solve these international and domestic problems in one fell swoop. This theory claimed that the king was the head of both the sacred and secular worlds in his country, and therefore his will and decisions were supreme and absolute both at home and abroad, and that the legitimacy of rule based on such a theory of royal sovereignty was guaranteed by God. This idea gained concrete foundations in England when Henry VIII broke with the Church of Rome (1534), and in France when Henry IV founded the Bourbon dynasty (1589) by suppressing the rebellion of the Huguenots (Protestants) around the same time as Elizabeth's reign.

Now that the superiority of politics over religion was established in England and France, the absolute monarchy was challenged by the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie combined the medieval idea of ​​abolishing tyranny, which held that bad government could be changed, with the new theory of the social contract, which held that political power was based on the consent and contract of the people, and began to advocate the opening up of politics to the people through the establishment of popular sovereignty and parliamentary government. At this time, King James I of England and Filmer, among others, denied rebellion by subjects, based on the theory of the divine right of kings. In France, Bossuet, the teacher of the Crown Prince Louis XIV, like Filmer, advocated a patriarchal theory of the divine right of kings, which held that the king received his power from God, and that just as the head of the family exercises absolute power over his family, the power of the king, as the head of the state, is also absolute. Locke criticized Filmer, and Rousseau criticized Bossuet, and with the success of the civil revolution, the theory of the divine right of kings lost its influence. Even after the modern nation-state was established in Japan through the Meiji Restoration, Filmer's view of the family state continued to hold an important position as a principle of governance, hindering the progress of Japan's modernization and democratization until its defeat in the war.

[Hiroshi Tanaka]

Source: Shogakukan Encyclopedia Nipponica About Encyclopedia Nipponica Information | Legend

国王の支配権は神から授かったものであるから神聖不可侵であり、臣民は国王の命令には絶対に服従しなければならない、という政治思想。神授権説、帝王神権説ともいう。古代・中世の時代には、支配の原理としては王権神授説的な考え方が一般的であった。しかし、王権神授説が歴史上とくに重要性を帯びて登場してきたのは、15世紀から18世紀にかけての西欧世界において絶対主義国家とよばれる国家群が出現した時点である。なぜなら、各国の王は強大な国家的統一を目ざし、一方ではローマ教皇を中心とする旧教勢力、また宗教改革後にはジュネーブを中心とする新教勢力の双方からの外的影響力を排除するために、他方では新興勢力である市民階級の反抗を抑えるために、この王権神授説を用いたからである。新・旧両宗派はいずれも各国における聖・俗両分野の支配権を主張し、国王との対立が絶えなかった。また臣民は新・旧両宗派のいずれかに属していたから、国王と臣民多数との宗教が異なれば国王と臣民との間で、また異なる宗教をもつ臣民同士の間で宗教紛争が多発し、宗教問題は政治的・経済的利害とも絡んで、国内政治はつねに不安定な様相を呈した。王権神授説はこうした国際・国内問題を一挙に解決しようという王党側の政治理論であった。なぜなら、この説では、国王は自国における聖・俗両界の首長であるから、国王の意志・決定は内外を通じて最高・絶対であり、またそのような国王主権論に基づく支配の正統性は神によって保証されている、と主張できたからである。こうした思想は、イギリスではヘンリー8世がローマ教会と絶縁（1534）したことにより、フランスでは、エリザベス治世と同じころ、ユグノー（新教徒）の反抗を抑えてアンリ4世がブルボン王朝を創設（1589）したことによって具体的基盤を得た。

　いまやイギリス、フランスでは政治の宗教に対する優位が確立されたが、今度は絶対王政は市民階級からの挑戦を受ける。市民階級は、悪政は変更できるという中世からあった暴君放伐論の思想に、政治権力の基礎は人民の同意や契約に基づくという新しい社会契約説を接合して、国民主権主義や議会政治の確立による政治の国民への開放を主張し始めた。この際、イギリス国王ジェームズ1世やフィルマーなどは、王権神授説に基づき、臣民による反抗を否定した。フランスではルイ14世の皇太子の師ボシュエが、フィルマーと同じく、王は神からその権力を授かり、家長が家族に対して絶対権力を行使するように、国家の長である王の権力も絶対である、という家父長制論的王権神授説を唱えた。フィルマーに対してはロックが、ボシュエに対してはルソーが批判を加え、市民革命の成功とともに王権神授説は影響力を失った。日本では明治維新によって近代国家が成立したのちにも、フィルマー流の家族国家観が支配の原理として重要な地位を占め、敗戦まで日本の近代化・民主化の進展を妨げた。

［田中　浩］

出典　小学館　日本大百科全書(ニッポニカ)日本大百科全書(ニッポニカ)について　情報 | 凡例