Patriarcha and Other Writings

by Robert Filmer, Johann P. Sommerville (Editor)

This volume contains the political writings of Sir Robert Filmer (1588-1653), an acute defender of absolute monarchy and perhaps the most important patriarchal political theorist of the seventeenth century. The recent explosion of interest in women's history and the history of the family has greatly enhanced the audience for Filmer's work, and in this new edition Johann Sommerville provides accurate and accessible texts of his principal writings, accompanied by all the standard series features, including a concise introduction, chronology, guide to further reading and notes on Filmer's own text.

Genres: Philosophy, Politics, Political Science, Nonfiction

380 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1680

About the author

Sir Robert Filmer (c. 1588 – 26 May 1653) was an English political theorist who defended the divine right of kings. His best known work, Patriarcha, published posthumously in 1680, was the target of numerous Whig attempts at rebuttal, including Algernon Sidney's Discourses Concerning Government, James Tyrrell's Patriarcha Non Monarcha and John Locke's Two Treatises of Government. Filmer also wrote critiques of Thomas Hobbes, John Milton, Hugo Grotius and Aristotle.

Reviews

[Phillip · Rating 5 out of 5]

Sir Robert Filmer argues for the Divine right of kings, maintaining that the first kings were the fathers of families, with Adam as the first king. He, therefore, argues that kings possess natural power and rights over their nations and that it is unnatural for the people to choose who will govern them. The central figure of his philosophic defence is Aristotle. Between the first and second chapters, Filmer establishes a self-reinforcing argument where the Bible and Aristotle’s philosophy mutually support one another. Students studying political philosophy will find this book invaluable!

[Shulamith Farhi · Rating 2 out of 5]

Patriarcha is an odd work. Chapters 1 and 2 are full of extremely flawed and strikingly original theological arguments for absolutism. Chapter 3 is a largely unconvincing apology for these positions, relying heavily on the actions and words of a few English monarchs. For the rest of the review I will focus on evaluating the arguments of the first 2 chapters.

Filmer's theology is opportunistic. His insistence on Adam as the first king is a polemical response to what he sees as a mistaken position espoused by Jesuits and Calvinists, that the multitude have power to punish an unlawful king. Filmer points out the uncomfortable fact that from a strictly Biblical perspective man is not created free. He frequently overstates his case but he is right that religious tradition does not support liberalism in the way most democratic theorists have imagined. His conclusion that economic and familial authority overlap remains challenging even for contemporary theorists that reject the religious scaffolding.

One interesting feature of Filmer's position that emerges in chapter 2 is its broadly realistic thrust. He is not wrong that liberal theories overestimate natural right. Universal rights are only binding when they are enforced. This line of reasoning leads Filmer to suggest a novel argument for monarchy from the fact of the unequal distribution of wit and strength: (1) nature wants us to be equal; (2) we are manifestly unequal; ∴ (3) those who possess more natural perfection must have better breeding and education. The 2 premises seem plausible but the conclusion is both distasteful and gratuitous. It is a useful exercise to figure out why this argument fails for oneself, since a similar logic survives in Nozick's defense of bonuses for elite athletes.

For better or worse, Filmer's text is more than just a footnote to Locke. Filmer was one of the first to anticipate the problem the family would pose for liberalism. We should take Filmer seriously as a thinker that saw the failures of liberalism, especially if we find his alternative disturbing.

[Dionysius the Areopagite · Rating 5 out of 5]

While it took them long enough, the vile, disgusting commoners seem to have at last ceased asking me what I think about this or that predetermined political matter. But on the occasion one should be so contemptuous to request my opinion in this or that sickening temporal spectacle, I would ask them to meet me at Benjamin Franklin's tomb in one week, and at that time, whereupon they would find a copy of Filmer taped to Ben's weary head, with a cryptic note from me attached, and thence probably never see me a-again.

[Rick · Rating 3 out of 5]

A must read if you have read, or plan to read, Locke's "Two Treatises" or Aristotle's "Politics".

[Josh Craddock]

Much maligned by his enlightenment critics, Filmer defended the divine right of kings against both popery (Bellarmine) and popular government (Sidney, Hobbes, and Locke).

[Dan]

Filmer is famous for being "Locke's Straw Man," and with a certain amount of justification. His reasoning is a bit sloppy and his concept of the state and of the foundation of political obligation is not completely accurate. And yet, until one sees Locke's radicalization of the notion of the state, Filmer's description of late-renaissance/early modern political authority does seem to have a certain "common-sense" appeal. His reasoning probably does correspond to the political common-wisdom of the period prior to 1640, and his criticism of democracy probably does accurately reflect the view that most casual observers would have held in an age before the most powerful states in the world had adopted representative democracy.

We're used to thinking the democracy is the one true system of government -- and so, ultimately, careful study and reasoning reveals it to be. But starting from that premise exposes us to the risk of forgetting that people of honor courage and patriotism can and have served states that have not yet achieved democracy. Filmer's work -- like Aristedes's "To Rome", and perhaps even like the "Agricola" -- helps us to overcome that prejudice, to see how great leaders could have understood their work in the service of an imperfect state.

[Garrett Cash · Rating 1 out of 5]

Filmer's positions are poorly though out, dismally cited, and horribly wrong. His writing is clear and concise, but he is also dull. His claim to fame is being the subject of John Locke's brilliant refutation, which is the reason I read this. It's not an atrocious work, it's simply laughable. More so frightening is that people believed this then and that they believe equally absurd things now. Sometimes ideas even more ridiculous.

[Simon · Rating 2 out of 5]

Starts well, and ends poorly. The argument is pretty flimsy for most of the book, although I would give him some credit for the early sections. Very easy to read. (Only read 'Patriarcha')