Analysis of Domat and Machiavelli on Prince's Political Legitimacy

This essay explores the contrasting views of Jean Domat and Niccolo Machiavelli on the sources of a prince's political legitimacy. Domat, influenced by the Divine Kingship Theory, argued that a ruler's authority stems from God, emphasizing the king's role as a divinely appointed guardian. In contrast, Machiavelli justified a monarch's right to rule based on skill, strength, and talent, devoid of divine elements. He prioritized the prince's ability to maintain power and stability, even if it meant eschewing morality. The essay highlights that Domat's conceptualization centered on divine power, while Machiavelli's focused on practical leadership qualities, reflecting the different political climates they navigated. Desklib offers a wide range of study tools and solved assignments for students.

DOMAT AND MACHIAVELLI
Short assignment
Domat and Machiavelli
Thurriya Al-Mulla
Carnegie Mellon University in Qatar
Question: To what extent do Domat and Machiavelli disagree about the sources of a
prince’s political legitimacy (in other words, his right to rule)?

1DOMAT AND MACHIAVELLI
Jean Domat of France, and Nicolo Machiavelli of Italy, had through their doctrinal
approach tried to reinstate the predominance of Louis the Fourteenth, and the Medici Family,
respectively, as the Absolute Monarchs. Domat’s conception had a strong influence of the Divine
Kingship Theory, while Machiavelli’s justification lacked that element of divinity, in totality.
This particular short essay seeks to address the difference between the two champions of
Absolute Monarchy in their approach towards the theory of Divine Kingship in justifying
Absolute Monarchy. (Corrected version) This essay argues that the conceptualization of
Machiavelli was devoid of the element of divine power whereas Domat laid stress on the aspect
of centrality of divine power.
The justification which was provided by Jean Domat to consolidate Absolute Monarchy
of King Louis the Fourteenth had a divine undertone to it. The motive behind it was to create a
hegemony and win over the masses ideologically through the usage of propaganda as the most
important tool. Domat had sought to thus target one of the most sensitive value perceptions of
the masses, and that was religion, and the belief of the masses in God. Divine Kingship plays an
important role in Domat’s arguments concerning the rule of kings. Domat states that soverign
power pertaining to government helps in making up a state and the person who is at the head
should hold place of that of God. Domat had harped upon the aspect of the inequality of human
nature primarily to build up his argument. All human beings are in equal by virtue of the fact that
they are not endowed with the capacity to be intellectually profound. That in his doctrine is a
privilege of the selected few. Hence for the sake of directing human beings to the right path, God
has appointed the King to rule on his behalf (Sordid). The King shall thus be the guardian of his
subjects and shall also be duty-bound to dispense service for the sake of mankind with
benevolence and with the adequate amount of fairness. The King, in the views is the chosen one

2DOMAT AND MACHIAVELLI
of the God Almighty who is gifted with all the necessary qualities to be the ruler of his subjects,
while the others are deprived of that divine blessing, hence they must obey the dictats of the
King, like they are supposed to follow the commandments of the Lord (Keohane). Domat has
stated that, “The power of sovereigns includes the authority to exercise the functions of
government and to use the force that is necessary to their ministry. For authority without force
would be despised and almost useless, while force without legitimate authority would be mere
tyranny. . . . “. This helps in stating that authority should use force that can help in the proper
functioning of a state. This particular quotation from the words of Domat, “it is from God that
they hold all their power”, substantiates the point that the theory of Divine Kingship was
extremely important to his views and justification of the Absolute Monarchy.
Machiavelli, on the other hand had justified the right of the monarch to rule over his
subjects absolutely as a matter of birthright. Machiavelli has stated that a ruler becomes powerful
not by taking recourse to dynastic inheritance but with the help of skill, strength and the talent of
the people. Machiavelli has stated that personal characteristics of the monarch can help him in
directing power that can help him in establishing claim on that of rulership. Machiavelli had said
that leader should have certain characteristics that can help him in order to strengthen his rule,
and being the absolute monarch was the only option that Machiavelli had found suitable in order
to maintain the status quo of the king as the times were quite turbulent, when the provinces had
to be bound together strongly (Cicek, Atil, and Gokboru).
“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

3DOMAT AND MACHIAVELLI
from a private station to that rank.” This particular quotation from ‘The Prince’, epitomizes the
point.
The fear of disintegration and rebellion against the Medici Family was the prime concern at that
point of time when Machiavelli had penned down the Prince. The factor of divinity was however
missing from Machiavelli’s doctrine. He had eschewed all form of morality from his doctrines
and considered religion to be the agent which if allowed to interfere into the matters of
governance, would cause the system to weaken due to the morality that religion propagates
(Machiavelli and Ninian). It was said that “The Prince was composed in great haste by an author
who was, among other things, seeking to regain his status in the Florentine government”.
Thus in the concluding section it can be said that Machiavelli’s conceptualization was
devoid of the divine factor and in that of Domat, the divine factor had a position of centrality,
and that was due to the situations that prevailed during that period. Domat had to create a
hegemony as the rule of King Jean the Fourteenth was already established, while the Medici
Family had to overcome the turbulence, for which Machiavelli had mentioned of the qualities a
Prince is supposed to possess.

4DOMAT AND MACHIAVELLI
References
Cicek, Atil Cem, and Gokboru Onalp. "Understanding Machiavelli over Absolute Monrachy and
Republic." The Journal of Social Sciences Research 2.9 (2016): 167-172.
Keohane, Nannerl O. Philosophy and the State in France: the Renaissance to the Enlightenment.
Vol. 4959. Princeton University Press, 2017.
Machiavelli, Niccolò, and Ninian Hill Thomson. Machiavelli: The Prince (Cambridge Texts in
the History of Political Thought). CDED, 2018.
Sordi, Bernardo. "Development of administrative law." Comparative Administrative Law (2017):
23.