[Claude Joly, 1607-1700, was both a jurist and a cleric. His Maxime veritables were written during the Fronde, on behalf of the rebels opposed toCardinal Maxarin who had, in Joly's judgement, led the Regent to exceed limitations of law and morality. The following excerpts from the Recueil des maximes veritables et importantes pour l'institution du Roi (Paris, 1663), were translated by William F. Church for The Impact of Absolutism in France: National Experience under Richelieu, Mazarin, & Louis (New York: John Wiley &Sons, 1969), a collection of sources and commentaries edited by Church.]

Someone has written that all good kings might easily be presented by the single portrait on a signet ring, but one of our historians remarks that the bad kings might also be similarly represented. I am not surprised that this glorious exception is made of our kings, since they have the special honor_of being called Most Christian and bear the title, Eldest Son of the Church.

But what greatly surprises me is to find that neither the religion of the most pious nor the kindness of the most merciful has prevented our experiencing the many ills that afflict the state. The excesses of the most recent rulers, which still plague us, have caused us to forget those of earlier rulers, but if we wish to refresh our memories we shall find the latter's excesses were also very great.

From whence come such frequent troubles? And how is it that our kings' good natures have so frequently been fruitless and have not brought the relief that we should have received? It is because at the same time that their inclinations favor the good of their subjects, they are diverted by the malice of their favorites and ministers who have too much influence over their minds and blind them, so to speak, causing them to believe that evil is good. Because of this, they authorize great violence and injustice that benefit the ministers' personal interests and advantages but oppress the people...

Although Cardinal Mazarin is incompetent in all things but the infamous art of deceit, it has not been difficult for him to imitate the earlier corrupters of princes who preceded him, since he found himself after the death of King Louis XIII (of glorious memory) in possession of the mind of the Queen, the Regent, and later that of her son, both because of her influence and the new title of superintendent of his majesty's education, which Mazarin gave himself in order to possess this young royal mind more easily....

Although it seems that the principal reason for seeking the permanent banishment of this alien minister is our deliverance from our present ills, ... nevertheless the greatest and most pressing reason ... is our well-founded fear that this pernicious superintendent of our young monarch's education will in time pervert all his good inclinations toward virtue and the welfare and relief of his subjects...

That is why it is most important to ensure that the corrupt doctrine that this bad preceptor has given the king will not penetrate his heart, the place from which come evil thoughts capable of raising tempests. For this purpose, it is most appropriate to inform his majesty of the truths that are contrary to the falsehoods with which he has been imbued so as to instruct him concerning what he may and should do, and still more what he may not and should not do...

The power of kings is not absolute and without limits. And since it is important to instruct them....it is necessary to begin by establishing this maxim that carries with it many others, for example, that the power of kings is bounded and limited, and they may not dispose of their subjects according to their will and pleasure..

However, the flattery of courtiers has advanced to such a degree of audacity and extravagances that some impertinent men attempt to persuade kings that may rightfully dispose of their subjects' lives and goods at will ... This pretended right is a weak foundation for the absolute and tyrannical power with which ministers and courtiers delude the king in order to solidify their positions and subject the people to a blind obedience that would be greater than that which we give to God, who demands from us only a reasonable obedience, according to the Apostle...

Who is not astonished by the flood of ills that we have suffered for several years and the great number of crimes that are daily committed by undisciplined soldiers, even though the Queen, who controls matters of state and cannot be ignorant of all the remonstrances have been presented to her by courts, cities, communities, and individuals, converses with many pious persons, enters retreats with nuns in their cells, frequents the holy sacraments of the Church, and remains attached to religion?

From whence comes all of this if not from the hypocrisy that is used to convince the Queen that evil is not evil and from the criminal flattery with which her innocence is deceived? Should we not assume that her conscience would cause her to terminate these ills if she were not betrayed by the infamous complacency of those who surround Her? And is there not good reason to believe rumors that wicked deceivers have convinced her that in all she has done to maintain Cardinal Mazarin in power, she has not committed a single venial sin? And that consequently she has not participated in any of the carnage, fire, ravishing, and sacrilege that have been perpetuated for three years by the French, German, and Polish troops that this miserable minister has used in the name and authority of the king? It is as though ... those who govern and hold power are not responsible before the throne of the divine Majesty for all the evils that are committed by their followers insofar as they have knowledge of these matters...

It seems from all of this that we may not judge rulers by external evidences of their devotion but rather by their sincerity and the excellence of the deeds with which they worthily acquit themselves of the commission that God gave them. They must believe that since faith without works is dead, each man is required to exercise his faith according to his calling. The faith of princes is vain and useless if they do not cultivate it by the acts to which they are obligated by their titles, principally the rendering of justice to their subjects and constantly caring for their safety and protection...

Moreover, it is a very great error, against which kings should be warned, that politics and Christian piety are incompatible and that it is impossible to accommodate the laws of the state to those of the Gospel. This most dangerous opinion is sometimes insinuated into their minds and not only does great damage to their consciences but is particularly detrimental to a King of France because it may cause him to do many things that would completely tarnish his beautiful name of Most Christian.

I can hardly endure the words of one of our foremost magistrates who, when attending the king in the parliament at the registration of some edicts, ... was asked his advice and answered ... that there is one conscience for affairs of state and another for personal matters.

These accursed maxims have circulated among the greatest jurists today and have rendered them pliable to all the desires of royal favorites. This is a major cause of the ills that we suffer, since the ministers' injustice and oppression of the people for twenty or thirty years, in the name of the king whose authority they usurp, have occurred with the assistance of these officials....From this have come all the uprisings that have violently agitated this state in recent years and are capable of destroying it if no decision is made to govern the people with greater justice and kindness than in the past.

Now I say that the maxim concerning the incompatibility of religion and politics is entirely false and cannot be true except for those who seek to govern tyrannically...

The pagans never dreamed of the rules and precepts that Jesus Christ taught and prescribed for us, yet one cannot find in any work of their most celebrated authors who wrote on political matters any maxims contrary to the laws of Christianity. In all Cicero, who understood both the practical and speculative art of government and guided Rome's affairs during the most difficult times of the Republic, as he says, we will not find a single maxim that does not easily accord with those of our Gospel....

Certain persons who are badly informed concerning the rights of the sovereign believe that the people were made for kings, whereas on the contrary it is true that kings were made only for the people. There have always been people without kings, but never kings without people.

Because of this, and because the people cannot live without justice, it is entirely correct to say that kings were created to render justice to their people. It was owing to their need of justice that the people resolved to erect a king over themselves....

From this, it should not be difficult to prove that kings are bound by law, for that which does not conform to approved and accepted law may not be regarded as just ... Those who seek to ascribe power to the kings of France comparable to that which the Roman Emperors attributed to themselves sometimes make use of the rule or proverb "Qui veut le Roy si veut la Roy", as though this means that the law is nothing but the will of the sovereign. But it is much more natural to interpret this as "Qui veut le Roy veut aussi la Loy" ... because it seems that the people never intended to submit purely and simply, without reservation, to the king's discretion but only on condition that he govern according to the rule of law. It is a reciprocal contract that is formed of two equal parts, the proposal that one party makes and the free acceptance of it by the other. It follows that the king is not absolute master of the law and may not ruin and destroy it whenever he pleases, since by the contract the people submitted to him only on condition that he preserve and maintain the law...

It is a dangerous falsehood, which avaricious ministers and ambitious persons have sought to insinuate into the minds of kings, that they are absolute masters of the lives and goods of their subjects and that, consequently, all that belongs to us is theirs to take and distribute to others at will whenever they please.

Now, I entirely disapprove of calling the king our master unless we understand this to be a mere figure of speech, implying nothing that is not intended by the word "king." I myself have used the term "master" in this sense in this book, indicating the profound respect and veneration that I owe royal majesty. But when it is a question of proper and exact terms, I say that the word "master" is the diametrical opposite of "king." For persons who are completely different from a master, such as slaves or domestics, are made for the master ... but it is the king who is made for his subjects...

From this it follows that if kings, speaking strictly and not in terms of respect and honor, cannot be called our masters, it is impossible to urge the untenable proposition that they are masters of our lives and goods. On the contrary, we must conclude with all assurance that since they are not masters of our goods, they have no right to take them nor to levy taxes from us without our will and consent...

Not only was it formerly necessary to obtain the consent of the Estates General to levies in France, but we also know that the Estates General had the right to name commissioners for the execution of their decisions...

If it is a crime for a king to levy taxes from the people without their consent, what should we call the measures that are done in his name by his favorites and ministers who ruin whole provinces with endless taxes and reduce so many poor officials, bourgeois, and peasants to mendacity in order to gorge themselves with wealth, raise themselves to titles of dukes and peers, and do many other things that are entirely above their birth and merit? ...

The ideas of Erasmus would be very appropriate to teach a young king, for he would then be shown the blindness in which princes are kept so as to make them believe that they acquire great glory and properly conduct their affairs when they risk losing their states through the hazards of war or at least cause the deaths and ruin of a great many of their subjects, instead of putting them at ease and ruling them in a firm and durable peace. All this, merely to ruin a province of a neighboring prince by means as unchristian as they are cruel and to take three or four wretched cities that cost more than they are worth and whose wealth goes merely to some governors who pillage the people ... Experience shows that, since the King of France is too powerful to be ruined by the King of Spain and vice versa, wars result from the bad counsel that both rulers receive from their ministers, who merely wish to create confusion in order to find excuses to wring taxes from the people, keep the great nobles away from court in order to be absolute masters there, cause many quick deaths so as to have many offices to fill, and rid themselves of those whom they dislike.

Thus it is folly for a prince to make war except in great necessity and after having tried all possible means of preserving peace, even under disadvantageous conditions, for the maxim that we teach -- that even an unjust peace is better than war -- is not a trivial or vulgar saying ...

It is God who punishes bad kings and punishes them most rigorously; very rarely does He neglect to punish them in this world ... Princes should be taught that they have a great obligation to God. He may punish them in this world, using this temporal punishment to lessen the eternal punishment, which is more severe for kings and princes than for others.

I have occasionally reflected on the words of the Son of God where He teaches us that when He comes in his majesty at the day of the last judgement, He will admit to his Father's realm only those who have performed acts of mercy toward the poor, to whom He seems principally to attach the salvation of all men, and will condemn to eternal flames those who have neglected the cause of the poor. And I have thought that by this teaching, He attributes the cause of damnation to a single sin of omission.

This passage of Scripture is truly capable of astonishing everyone, but it should particularly cause kings to tremble in terror as well as all who have the power to do good or evil. For if it is true that God punishes so rigorously those who have failed to make use of their resources to aid the poor, how horrible will be the hell and punishment of princes who, because of bad conduct, nonchalance, uncontrolled passion, concern for small matters of honor, or unfounded authority ... levy taxes and wage cruel, barbarous wars with which they ruin their people, reducing them from richess to poverty and to inconceivable need and misery?