The Mandate of Heaven was a concept
in Chinese history used to justify the rule of their current emperor or
dynasty. It stated that the current ruler was approved by the heavens or
ancestor spirits to govern. The Mandate of Heaven could also be lost for a
variety of reasons such as rebellions, invasions, usurpers, famines, and
economic downturns. What is interesting is that China was far from unique in
having divine or semi-divine rulers in fact, claims of divine or semi-divine
rulers were extremely common historically. Perhaps the time periods where claims
of divine or semi-divine rulers were the most common was from the bronze age to
late antiquity, but even after the Christianization of the Roman Empire claims
of rulers being uniquely connected to divinity persisted.
In the Bronze Age and antiquity, the
claims of rulers or monarchs being divine, semi-divine, or uniquely connected
to divinity was prevalent across the whole world. Examples include, Greek royal
families, Persian kings, Mesopotamian kings, India’s caste system, Chinese
dynasties, (perhaps most famously) the Pharaohs of Egypt, later Alexander the
Great, his successors, Julius Caesar, Augustus, the emperors of Rome and
countless others. Claiming to be divine or uniquely connected to divinity was
extremely pervasive across the ancient world. Why did ancient monarchs claim descent
or unique connections to divinity and why did their subjects or citizens tolerate
these claims?
The simple answer to the first
question is that claiming that one has a unique connection to divinity is powerful
propaganda that can help legitimize a ruler and their reign. If the ruler is truly uniquely connected to divinity,
then it becomes completely justifiable as to why they would have special rights
and privileges. If a ruler is connected to divinity, then they are also
uniquely situated to communicate and potentially appease the gods. During war
time it can also serve as effective propaganda, if your ruler is connected to
divinity and your opponents is not, then the war becomes justifiable and it is
almost guaranteed that your side will win. Another benefit for the rulers is
that after conquering new territory, replacing local cults with cults to the
ruler could help with integrating and assimilating the new subjects. The many
benefits a ruler could gain from claiming that they are descended from gods, or
that they have a special connection to divinities makes it an almost obvious
choice to claim so, but the question remains, why would their subjects and
citizens tolerate these claims?
An obvious, but perhaps unsatisfactory
answer is that the common people believed these claims, if they were taught all
their life that their king or pharaoh was descended from a god or gods, then
who would they be to question it? A ruler would certainly seem extremely
powerful and almost god-like in public appearances and the fact that their word
was law. Additionally, it was quite common for rulers to host feasts and
festivals for their subjects, so perhaps those ostentatious displays of wealth
were sufficient to convince and placate the commoners, but what about other nobles
and the priestly class who would probably be more familiar with the monarch and
royal families? What would they gain from allowing a ruler to claim that they
had a unique relationship to divinity? Would it not diminish their own legitimacy
and power?
One potential reason that other nobles and
priests would be willing to accept rulers claiming to be divine was that it was
mutually beneficial. For priests it may shift some of the duties and responsibilities
of maintaining temples and other religious duties on to the royal family, thus
saving them time and resources. Another reason is that when matters go wrong
the monarch or royal family could be used as scapegoats. If the monarch or
royal family does have a special relationship with divinity, then surely it is
the royal families’ fault when there is a famine or when a war is lost. Another
benefit could be that being ruled by royal families which claimed to have connections
to divinity resulted in more stable societies. Although the adoption of Christianity
and Islam would complicate how rulers could claim descent or connection to God,
the idea continued to be prevalent in Medieval Europe and the Middle East even
after the widespread adoption of those religions.
Obviously with the adoption of Christianity
and later Islam a ruler or royal family could not claim descent from divinity
since that would be blasphemy, so there was a shift in how rulers claimed
connection to divinity. In the Christian world, this shift resulted in a
tension between the Pope and Patriarch, the religious leaders in the Christian world
and kings and emperors, the secular leaders in the Christian world. In the
former Western Roman Empire and Central Europe, both kings, emperors and the
Pope claimed to be put in their positions by God himself. These conflicting claims
resulted in much tension between Popes and Holy Roman Emperors, and eventually
fueled tensions leading up to and during the Protestant Reformation. In the
Eastern Roman Empire, or Byzantine Empire, they created a concept called Caesaropapism,
Caesar, or king over Pope. This idea explicitly stated that the emperor had the
right to appoint the Patriarch, thus placing the emperor at the head of the
church. A similar idea would later be utilized by the English crown and the
Anglican Church.
As Enlightenment ideas spread and as
monarchies in Europe and around the world began to be replaced by republics and
democracies, there was a decrease in rulers and statesmen claiming to have
special connections or relations to divinity. But the concept remained a
powerful piece of propaganda that could be utilized. The German Empire and
later the Nazis even had a slogan “Gott mit uns” or “God [is] with us” which continued
to promote the idea that certain people or groups have unique connections to
divinity and had God himself on their side. Even today in the US and around the
world, the idea that certain groups or people in power have special relationships
to God persists. In the Zionist movement, one justification for Jews settling
in Israel/Palestine is that the Jews are supposedly “the chosen people” and
therefore deserve to have complete dominion over Israel/Palestine. Perhaps a
more subtle expression of this idea, that certain people and groups have
special relations to God is in US presidential elections. Oftentimes candidates
from both major parties will have campaign events at churches that will at
least partially consist of priests blessing the candidates. US presidents also usually
attend church services at least on Christmas and Easter and attend religious ceremonies
for other religious groups on their holidays. Another example of this idea
manifesting in current US politics is the close relationship between the Republican
Party/politicians and Evangelical preachers. The idea that people in prominent
positions in society have some sort of more direct or special relationship with
God or divinity has not really gone away, it has just transformed and shifted
to be more implicit than it once was.
