Can one affirm that the absolute monarchy knows limits?
- The beginning of Nationalists drift
- The progressive integration of Jews
- The legacy of traditional Judaism
- Persistent prejudices
- The rise of antisemitism in the 1880s
- The Jew, 'scapegoat of modernity '
- Strengthening the construction of identity in race
- Discomfort spread by the press and the literature
- The violent antisemitism led to a division of corporations
- Of termination to the exclusion
- The instrumentalization of anti-Semitism by political forces
- Zionism, a response to the barbaric antisemitism
"The state is me." This phrase of Louis XIV was a symbol of absolutism and shows the extent of the sovereign powers of the absolute monarchy. The confusion of powers could easily discern to think that absolute monarchy was despotism as Diderot had mentioned in his pamphlet against the absolute monarchy in the Encyclopedia. On the contrary, it is not. Indeed, the king had absolute powers and was certainly substantial with regal powers of the legislative, executive, judicial power and police. The religious power of the monarch who was the head of the Church, between God and his subjects is measured his power by divine right of a theocratic monarchy and the customary legitimacy conferred by the basic laws. Contrary to the claims of enlightenment and wisdom, absolute monarchy was still a "rule of law" in the modern sense. Indeed, this was omnipotent to accommodate institutional boundaries that were customary and legal in the administration of the kingdom. It is therefore appropriate to ask whether the absolute monarchy was despotism as claimed by the philosophers of the Enlightenment or the rule of law.