Editing Robert Filmer

{{short description|English political theorist ((c. 1588–1653)}}
{{other people}}
{{EngvarB|date=August 2014}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=August 2014}}
{{More citations needed|date=December 2007}}
{{Infobox philosopher
|region           = [[Western philosophy]]
|era              = [[17th-century philosophy]]
|image            = Robert Filmer Portrait.jpg
|caption          = Filmer {{circa|1650}}
|name             = Sir Robert Filmer
|birth_date       = {{circa|{{birth date text|1588}}}}
|birth_place      = [[East Sutton, Kent]], England
|death_date       = {{Death date and age|1653|5|26|1588|df=y}}
|death_place      = 
|alma_mater       = [[Trinity College, Cambridge|Trinity College]], [[University of Cambridge|Cambridge]]
|school_tradition = 
|main_interests   = [[Political philosophy]]
|notable_ideas    = [[Divine right of kings]]<br>[[Family as a model for the state]]
}}

'''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 (British political party)|Whig]] attempts at rebuttal, including [[Algernon Sidney]]'s ''[[Discourses Concerning Government]]'', [[James Tyrrell (writer)|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]].

==Life==
{{Toryism |expanded=people}}{{Conservatism UK|Intellectuals}}
The eldest child of Sir Edward Filmer and Elizabeth Filmer (née Argall) of [[East Sutton]] in Kent, he matriculated at [[Trinity College, Cambridge]], in 1604.<ref>{{acad|id=FLMR604R|name=Filmer, Robert}}</ref> He did not take a degree and was admitted to [[Lincoln's Inn]] on 24 January 1605. He was [[called to the bar]] in 1613, but there is no evidence he practised law. He bought the porter's lodge at [[Westminster Abbey]] for use as his town house. On 8 August 1618, he married Anne Heton in [[St Leonard's, Shoreditch|St Leonard's Church]] in London, with their first child baptised in February 1620. On 24 January 1619, King [[James I of England|James I]] knighted Filmer at [[Newmarket, Suffolk|Newmarket]].<ref name="ODNB">Glenn Burgess, '[http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/9424 Filmer, Sir Robert (1588? – 1653)]', ''Oxford Dictionary of National Biography'', Oxford University Press, 2004; online ed., October 2009, accessed 25 September 2013.</ref>

Filmer's father died in November 1629 and Filmer, as the oldest child, took over his father's manor house and estate. He became a Justice of the Peace and an officer of the county militia in the 1630s. Filmer's eldest son Sir Edward was active in opposing the [[Long Parliament]] and Filmer stood surety for £5000 for the release of his friend Sir [[Roger Twysden]], who had been imprisoned for his part in the Kentish petition. The [[Roundhead|Parliamentary]] army looted his manor house in September 1642. By the next year his properties in Westminster and Kent were being heavily taxed to fund the Parliamentary cause. Filmer was investigated by the county committee on suspicion of supporting the King, though no firm evidence was uncovered. Filmer asked the investigators to note "how far he hath binn from medling on either side in deeds or so much as words." One of his tenants claimed that Filmer had hidden arms for the [[Cavalier|Royalists]], although this was apparently a false charge. Perhaps for that reason, Filmer was imprisoned for some years in [[Leeds Castle]] and his estates were sequestered.<ref name="ODNB" />

Filmer died on or about 26 May 1653. His funeral took place in East Sutton on 30 May, where he was buried in the church, surrounded by descendants of his to the tenth generation. He was survived by his wife, three sons and one daughter, one son and one daughter having predeceased him.

His son, also Robert, was created the first of the [[Filmer baronets]] in 1674. His other son, Beversham Filmer, became the owner of [[Luddenham, Kent|Luddenham]] Court, near [[Faversham]],<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Hasted |first=Edward |year=1798 |title=Parishes |url=http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=62968 |journal=The History and Topographical Survey of the County of Kent |publisher=Institute of Historical Research |volume=6 |pages=386–393 |access-date=28 February 2014}}</ref> who then passed it on through his family.

==''Patriarcha'' and other works==
[[File:Patriarcha-Book of-Robert Filmer Originally from 1680.png|thumbnail|200px|right|''Patriarcha'', London, 1680.]]
Filmer was already middle-aged when the controversy between the King and the [[House of Commons of England|House of Commons]] roused him to literary activity. His writings provide examples of the doctrines held by the extreme section of the [[Divine Right of Kings|Divine Right]] party.{{sfn|Chisholm|1911}}

The fullest expression of Filmer's thoughts is found in ''Patriarcha, or the Natural Power of Kings'', published posthumously in 1680, but probably begun in the 1620s and almost certainly completed before the Civil War began in 1642.<ref>''Patriarcha and Other Writings'', ed. by Johann P. Sommerville (1991), viii, xiii, xxxii–xxxiv ("The Date of Filmer's ''Patriarcha''"); John M. Wallace, ''The Date of Sir Robert Filmer's Patriarcha'', The Historical Journal, Vol. 23, No. 1 (March 1980), pp. 155–165.</ref> According to [[Christopher Hill (historian)|Christopher Hill]], "The whole argument of ... ''Patriarcha'', and of his works published earlier in the 1640s and 1650s, is based on Old Testament history from ''Genesis'' onwards".<ref>[[Christopher Hill (historian)|Christopher Hill]], ''The English Bible and the Seventeenth-Century Revolution'' (1993), p. 20.</ref>

His position was enunciated by the works which he published in his lifetime. ''Of the Blasphemie against the Holy Ghost'', from 1646 or 1647, argued against [[Calvinists]], starting from [[John Calvin]]'s doctrine on [[blasphemy]].<ref>Ian Bostridge, ''Witchcraft and Its Transformations, c. 1650 – c. 1750'' (1997), p. 14.</ref> ''The Freeholders Grand Inquest'' (1648) concerned English constitutional history. Filmer's early published works did not receive much attention, while ''[[Patriarcha]]'' circulated only in manuscript.<ref>[[Kim Ian Parker]], ''[[The Biblical Politics of John Locke]]'' (2004), pp. 80–81.</ref> ''Anarchy of a Limited and Mixed Monarchy'' (1648) was an attack on ''A Treatise of Monarchy'' by [[Philip Hunton]], who had maintained that the king's prerogative was not superior to the authority of the Houses of Parliament.{{sfn|Chisholm|1911}}

Filmer's ''Observations concerning the Original of Government upon Mr Hobbes's Leviathan, Mr Milton against Salmasius, and H. Grotius' De jure belli ac pacis'' appeared in 1652. In line with its title, it attacks several political classics, the ''[[De jure belli ac pacis]]'' of [[Grotius]], the ''[[Defensio pro Populo Anglicano]]'' of [[John Milton]], and the ''[[Leviathan (Hobbes book)|Leviathan]]'' of [[Thomas Hobbes]]. The pamphlet entitled ''The Power of Kings, and in particular, of the King of England'' (written 1648) was first published in 1680.{{sfn|Chisholm|1911}}

==Views==
Filmer's theory is founded upon the statement that the [[Family as a model for the state|government of a family by the father]] is the true origin and model of all government. In the beginning God gave authority to [[Adam]], who had complete control over his descendants, even over life and death itself. From Adam this authority was inherited by [[Noah]]. This assumes that from [[Shem]], [[Ham, son of Noah|Ham]] and [[Japheth]] the patriarchs inherited the absolute power which they exercised over their families and servants, and that it is from these patriarchs that all kings and governors (whether a single monarch or a governing assembly) derive their authority, which is therefore absolute, and founded on divine right.{{sfn|Chisholm|1911}}
{{Quote
|text=The father of a family governs by no other law than by his own will, not by the laws and wills of his sons or servants. There is no nation that allows children any action or remedy for being unjustly governed; and yet, for all this, every father is bound by the law of nature to do his best for the preservation of his family. But much more is a king always tied by the same law of nature to keep this general ground, that the safety of the kingdom be his chief law; he must remember that the profit of every man in particular, and of all together in general, is not always one and the same; and that the public is to be preferred before the private; and that the force of laws must not be so great as natural equity itself, which cannot fully be comprised in any laws whatsoever, but is to be left to the religious achievement of those who know how to manage the affairs of state, and wisely to balance the particular profit with the counterpoise of the public, according to the infinite variety of times, places, persons. A proof unanswerable for the superiority of princes above laws is this, that there were kings long before there were any laws.
|source=''Patriarcha'', chapter 3
}}

The difficulty inherent in judging the validity of claims to power by men who claim to be acting upon the "secret" will of God was disregarded by Filmer, who held that it altered in no way the nature of such power, based on the [[natural rights|natural right]] of a supreme father to hold sway. The king is perfectly free from all human control. He cannot be bound by the acts of his predecessors, for which he is not responsible; nor by his own, for it is impossible that a man should give a law to himself – a law must be imposed by another upon the person bound by it.{{sfn|Chisholm|1911}}

As for the [[Constitution of the United Kingdom|English constitution]], he asserted in his ''Freeholders Grand Inquest touching our Sovereign Lord the King and his Parliament'' (1648) that the Lords give counsel only to the king, that the Commons are to perform and consent only to the ordinances of Parliament, and that the king alone is the maker of laws, which derive their power purely from his will. Filmer considered it monstrous that the people should judge or depose their king, for they would then become judges in their own cause.{{sfn|Chisholm|1911}}

Filmer was a severe critic of democracy. In his opinion, democracy of ancient Athens was in fact a "justice-trading system". Athenians, he claimed, never knew real justice, only the will of the mob. Ancient Rome was, according to Filmer, ruled fairly only after the Empire was established.

==Reception==
Filmer's theory obtained wide recognition owing to a timely posthumous publication. Nine years after the publication of ''[[Patriarcha]]'', at the time of the [[Glorious Revolution|Revolution]] which banished the [[House of Stuart|Stuarts]] from the throne, [[John Locke]] singled out Filmer among the advocates of Divine Right and attacked him expressly in the first part of the ''[[Two Treatises of Government]]''. The first ''Treatise'' goes into all his arguments [[seriatim]], and especially points out that even if the first principles of his argument are to be taken for granted, the rights of the eldest born have been so often cast aside that modern kings can claim no such inheritance of authority, as Filmer asserts.{{sfn|Chisholm|1911}}

Filmer's patriarchal monarchism was also the target of [[Algernon Sidney]] in his ''Discourses Concerning Government'' and of [[James Tyrrell (writer)|James Tyrrell]] in his ''Patriarcha non-monarcha''.

[[John Philipps Kenyon|John Kenyon]], in his study of British political debate from 1689 to 1720, claimed that "any unbiased study of the position shows in fact that it was Filmer, not Hobbes, Locke or Sidney, who was the most influential thinker of the age.... Filmer's influence can be measured by the fact that both Locke ... and Sidney ... were not so much [making] independent and positive contributions to political thought as elaborate refutations of his ''Patriarcha'', written soon after its first publication. Indeed, but for him it is doubtful whether either book would have been written."<ref>John Kenyon, ''Revolution Principles. The Politics of Party. 1689–1720'' (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), p. 63.</ref>

During the reign of [[Anne, Queen of Great Britain|Queen Anne]] Filmer's works enjoyed a revival. In 1705 the [[nonjuring schism|non-juror]] [[Charles Leslie (nonjuror)|Charles Leslie]] devoted twelve successive issues of the weekly ''Rehearsal'' to explaining Filmer's doctrines and published them in a volume.<ref>Kenyon, pp. 63–64.</ref>

In an unpublished manuscript, [[Jeremy Bentham]] wrote:
<blockquote>Filmer's origin of government is exemplified everywhere: Locke's scheme of government has not ever, to the knowledge of any body, been exemplified any where. In every family there is government, in every family there is subjection, and subjection of the most absolute kind: the father, sovereign, the mother and the young, subjects. According to Locke's scheme, men knew nothing at all of governments till they met together to make one. Locke has speculated so deeply, and reasoned so ingeniously, as to have forgot that he was not of age when he came into the world.... Under the authority of the father, and his assistant and prime-minister the mother, every human creature is enured to subjection, is trained up into a habit of subjection. But, the habit once formed, nothing is easier than to transfer it from one object to another. Without the previous establishment of domestic government, blood only, and probably a long course of it, could have formed political government.<ref>J. C. D. Clark, ''English Society, 1688–1832. Ideology, social structure and political practice during the ancien regime'' (Cambridge University Press, 1985), pp. 75–76.</ref></blockquote>

Bentham went on to claim that Filmer had failed to prove divine right theory but he had proved "the physical impossibility of the system of absolute equality and independence, by showing that subjection and not independence is the natural state of man".<ref>{{Cite web|last=Gonzalez|first=Pedro|date=October 14, 2019|title=A Better Guide than Reason|url=http://theagonist.org/essays/2019/10/14/essays-gonzalez.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200408014729/http://www.theagonist.org/essays/2019/10/14/essays-gonzalez.html|url-status=usurped|archive-date=8 April 2020|access-date=June 4, 2020|website=The Agonist}}</ref>

==Family==
His first son Sir Edward was [[Gentleman of the Privy Chamber]]. He died in 1668 and the East Sutton estate passed to his brother Robert who was created a baronet in 1674 in honour of their father's loyalty to the Crown. See [[Filmer baronets]]. Filmer's third son, Samuel, married Mary Horsmanden and lived in Virginia Colony<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=f8kWVOafFtQC&dq=Samuel+Filmer+mary&pg=PA199] "Samuel Filmer was the third son of Sir Robert Filmer... the once famous Tory author.... He married (and appears to have survived marriage only a short time) Mary, daughter of Worham Horsmanden."</ref> before dying childless soon after.

==List of works==
*''Of the Blasphemie against the Holy Ghost'' (1647)
*''The Free-holders Grand Inquest'' (1648)
The authorship of ''The Freeholders'' is usually attributed to Robert Filmer by [[Peter Laslett]], but contemporary historian [[Anthony Wood (antiquary)|Anthony Wood]] attributed it to [[Robert Holborne]].<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Weston |first1=Corinne Comstock |title=The Authorship of the Freeholders Grand Inquest |journal=The English Historical Review |date=January 1980 |volume=95 |issue=374 |pages=74–98 |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/569083 |access-date=26 October 2021 |publisher=Oxford University Press|doi=10.1093/ehr/XCV.CCCLXXIV.74 |jstor=569083 |url-access=subscription }}</ref>

*''The Anarchy of a Limited or Mixed Monarchy'' (1648)
*''The Necessity of the Absolute Power of All Kings'' (1648)
*''Observations Concerning the Originall of Government, upon Mr Hobs Leviathan, Mr Milton against Salmasius, H. Grotius De Jure Belli'' (1652)
**''Observations on Mr Hobbes's Leviathan.'' In G. A. J. Rogers, Robert Filmer, George Lawson, John Bramhall & Edward Hyde Clarendon (eds.), Leviathan: Contemporary Responses to the Political Theory of Thomas Hobbes. Thoemmes Press (1995)
*''Observations Upon Aristotles Politiques concerning Forms of Government, Together with Directions for Obedience to Gouvernors in dangerous and doubtfull times'' (1652)
*''An Advertisement to the Jury-Men of England Touching Witches'' (1653)
**[https://archive.org/stream/advertisementtoj00filmuoft#page/n5/mode/2up ''An Advertisement to the Jury-Men of England Touching Witches,''] The ''Rota'' at the University of Exeter, (1975)
*''[[Patriarcha]]'' (1680)
*''Filmer: Patriarcha and Other Writings'', edited by Johann P. Sommerville (Cambridge University Press, 1991)
*''Patriarcha and other political works of Sir Robert Filmer'', edited by Peter Laslett (B. Blackwell, 1949)

==Notes==
{{reflist}}

==References==
*{{EB1911 |wstitle=Filmer, Sir Robert |volume=10 |page=345}}

==Further reading==
{{Refbegin|30em}}
*Teresa Bałuk (1984), "Sir Robert Filmer's Description of the Polish Constitutional System in the Seventeenth Century," ''The Slavonic and East European Review,'' Vol. 62, No. 2, pp.&nbsp;241–249
*[[Mel Bradford|M. E. Bradford]] (1993), "A Neglected Classic: Filmer's Patriarcha." In: ''Saints, Sovereigns, and Scholars''. New York and Geneva: Peter Lamb
*Cesare Cuttica (2012), ''Sir Robert Filmer (1588–1653) and the Patriotic Monarch.'' Manchester University Press
*James Daly (1979), ''Sir Robert Filmer and English Political Thought.'' University of Toronto Press
*James Daly (1983), "Some Problems in the Authorship of Sir Robert Filmer's Works," ''The English Historical Review,'' Vol. 98, No. 389, pp.&nbsp;737–762
*Charles R. Geisst (1973), "The Aristotelian Motif in Filmer's Patriarcha," ''Political Studies'', Vol. 21, No. 4, pp.&nbsp;490–499
*W. H. Greenleaf (1966), "Filmer's Patriarchal History," ''The Historical Journal'', Vol. 9, No. 2, pp.&nbsp;157–171
*Ian Hardie (1973), "The Aristotelian Motif in Filmer's Patriarcha: A Second Look," ''Political Studies'', Vol. 22, No. 4, pp.&nbsp;479–484
*R. W. K. Hinton (1967), "Husbands, Fathers and Conquerors," ''Political Studies'', Vol. 15, pp.&nbsp;291–300
*Myrddin Jones (1958), "Further Thoughts on Religion: Swift's Relationship to Filmer and Locke," ''The Review of English Studies'', New Series, Vol. 9, No. 35, pp.&nbsp;284–286
*Peter Laslett (1948), "Sir Robert Filmer: The Man versus the Whig Myth," ''The William and Mary Quarterly'', Third Series, Vol. 5, No. 4, pp.&nbsp;523–546
*Gordon Schochet (1971), "Sir Robert Filmer: Some New Bibliographical Discoveries," ''The Library,'' Vol. XXVI, pp.&nbsp;135–160
*Constance Smith (1963), "Filmer, and the Knolles Translation of Bodin," ''The Philosophical Quarterly'', Vol. 13, No. 52, pp.&nbsp;248–252
*J. P. Sommerville (1982), "From Suarez to Filmer: A Reappraisal," ''The Historical Journal'', Vol. 25, No. 3, pp.&nbsp;525–540
*[[Richard Tuck]] (1986), "A New Date for Filmer's Patriarcha," ''The Historical Journal,'' Vol. 29, No. 1, pp.&nbsp;183–186
*Wilfred Watson (1947), "The Fifth Commandment; some Allusions to Sir Robert Filmer's Writings in Tristram Shandy," ''Modern Language Notes,'' Vol. 62, No. 4, pp.&nbsp;234–240
{{Refend}}

==External links==
{{wikiquote}}
*[http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=221&Itemid=27 Patriarcha, or the Natural Power of Kings]
* {{cite book |last1=Hutchinson |first1=John |title=Men of Kent and Kentishmen |date=1892 |publisher=Cross & Jackman |location=Canterbury |pages=44–45 |edition=Subscription |chapter=[[s:Men of Kent and Kentishmen/Robert Filmer|Robert Filmer]]}}

{{Political philosophy}}
{{Authority control}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Filmer, Robet}}
[[Category:1580s births]]
[[Category:1653 deaths]]
[[Category:Year of birth uncertain]]
[[Category:English non-fiction writers]]
[[Category:English political philosophers]]
[[Category:17th-century English knights]]
[[Category:Alumni of Trinity College, Cambridge]]
[[Category:People from the Borough of Maidstone]]
[[Category:English male non-fiction writers]]