Patriarcha - Classic Text | Alexandria
Patriarcha, or The Natural Power of Kings, by Sir Robert Filmer, is a political treatise cloaked in the seemingly straightforward argument of divine right, yet it sparks enduring questions about authority, legitimacy, and the very nature of governance. Completed around 1638 but not published until 1680, Patriarcha dares to claim that political power originates solely from the patriarchal dominion God granted Adam, a provocative assertion that continues to stir intellectual debate.
Earliest manuscript indications surface amidst the turbulent decades leading to the English Civil War. While precise dating proves elusive, scattered references in Filmer's personal correspondence and within circles of Royalist intellectuals suggest its conceptual genesis in the 1630s. This was a period rife with escalating tensions between Crown and Parliament, the seeds of revolution already sown in the fertile ground of discontent, prompting many to question the foundations of the King's authority.
Over time, Patriarcha evolved from a relatively obscure manuscript into a lightning rod in the pamphlet wars of the late 17th century. John Locke’s Two Treatises of Government (1689), written in direct opposition to Filmer's thesis, propelled Patriarcha into greater prominence, solidifying its status as the quintessential defense of absolute monarchy. Interestingly, while Filmer explicitly argued for the king's absolute authority, his work inadvertently laid the groundwork for later theories of social contract, as thinkers grappled with, and ultimately rejected, his uncompromising patriarchal model. Did Filmer, in attempting to cement royal power, unknowingly contribute to its undoing?
Patriarcha's legacy extends far beyond its initial political context. Its arguments continue to resonate in discussions surrounding family structures, gender roles, and the legitimacy of various forms of hierarchy. Contemporary scholars explore Patriarcha for insights into the historical construction of power and its impact on modern social and political thought. A haunting question remains: how much of Filmer’s patriarchal worldview, seemingly relegated to the annals of history, subtly persists in our understanding of authority today?