Louis XIV, Father of atheism

The Ancien Régime and absolute monarchy have been abandoned for a long time. Yet our relationship with authority—manager, boss, supervisor—still sometimes bears a strong imprint of that past. Political upheavals and successive regime changes have profoundly shaped the image we have of this political system.

Contrary to popular belief, even an absolute king was not conceived without a higher authority. This authority came in two forms.

1. Written laws – the Fundamental Laws of the Kingdom – mainly regulated the succession of the French crown and the status of royal lands and properties. They constrained the monarch. Even Louis XIV and his many illegitimate children could not override the rule of male primogeniture. Bastards were educated and ennobled, but none could be legitimized.

2. Unwritten rules – concepts and world‑views – guided the king’s exercise of power. This was the notion of divine order: the king answered only to himself and to God. Does that mean he did whatever he wanted? No; he followed a “road map.” the sovereign was entrusted with the governance of the realm and ensuring its survival and longevity. The expression “Car tel est mon plaisir” (“For such is my pleasure”), which signed royal decrees, illustrates this. In the 19th century it was corrupted into “bon plaisir,” suggesting a royal whim, whereas originally it referred to what pleased the king—that is, what he deemed good for the people.

Of course, each individual has a personal analysis of things. But when someone assumes a managerial position or a higher hierarchical level, they must meet a set of functional imperatives. The same applies to the king, who was trained all his life for that purpose. Power was never intended to be left “running wild” in the hands of a single person.

Where does the rupture occur between Louis XIV’s absolute monarchy and the French Revolution? The break appears in the identification of the king with the Sun.

Since ancient Egypt, sovereigns have been illuminated by the Sun, both as a celestial body and as a life‑giving god. Its light was supposed to guide kings and queens in order to ensure the continuity of society. This deity, often the chief of the pantheon, inspired and directed the monarch’s actions. In some cultures the ruler could be guided by another god, but always as a source of inspiration and authority. Even Akhenaten in Egypt did not identify himself with Aten; he was merely Aten’s earthly representative, charged with preserving the kingdom according to divine precepts.

With Louis XIV, for the first time to my knowledge, the sovereign embodies the unique God. He moves from being an administrator, steward, or representative of God to becoming God’s incarnation. The king is no longer illuminated by divine light; he becomes the divine light. He no longer has to answer to anyone, since he is the earthly embodiment of God.

One could argue that the deification of the ruler was already common in ancient societies. However, in Egypt the pharaoh was deified after death: he was born the son of the god Horus or Ra, but only truly became a god posthumously. In the Roman Empire the practice was similar, sometimes accompanied by a cult of the emperor during his lifetime—a quasi‑deification. Those pharaohs and emperors joined an already existing pantheon. By contrast, Louis XIV enjoys a symbolic quasi‑deification: there is no official cult of the king, yet his imagery and attributes bear its marks.

What is the link to the French Revolution?
Politically, the symbolic confusion between the king and God removes the divine limit on royal power. The Father‑God, the original protector, is eclipsed by the king, who becomes his symbolic incarnation. This creates insecurity: although the king may present himself as the new “Father” of the realm, he remains a mortal man, bounded by time, whereas God is an eternal concept. It is easier to lose confidence in a human being than in an immutable idea.

Moreover, the embodiment of divine illumination—the humanization of divinity—leads us to believe that the human mind can comprehend everything. With God gone, the world reduces to what our senses perceive and what we derive from experience and analysis. These are the Enlightenment “Lights of Reason” that will subsequently illuminate the world. Can we say that this stage lays the groundwork for atheism, marking the disappearance of God? To borrow Nietzsche: “God is dead.” This is a very Taoist movement, where each thing finds birth within its opposite. Louis XIV, the Christian king, simultaneously represents the apotheosis of Christianity and the beginning of its decline.

The comments section will be added soon. Until then, feel free to post your comments here.