on the impersonality of the modern state a comment on machiavelli's use of stato - mansfield

8/13/2019 On the Impersonality of the Modern State a Comment on Machiavelli's Use of Stato - Mansfield

1/9

On the mpersonalityftheModern tate:A Commentn Machiavelli's se ofStatoHARVEY C. MANSFIELD, JR.Harvard University

Themodern tate,bycontrast o theAristotelian egime,s essentiallympersonal. orMachiavelli,stato s extremelyersonal;yet, t s argued,Machiavelli aid the oundation or themodern tate nhisgeneral nd impartial dvice to acquirestato. Theargument roceedsby an analysisofMachia-velli'suse of stato,after brief onsideration f its medieval ounterparts.

Nowadays when a personor partycomes topower, it is said to take over the state or thegovernment.t does not claimto advanceitsruleexcept hroughhe tate, s ifto make tplainthatthe statedoes not belong,but is onlydeliveredtemporarily,n trust, o the winner f a struggleforpower.The terms sedmayvary: nAmerica,one speaksof theReaganadministration,onsist-ing of Reagan,his ieutenants,nd an assortmentof Republicans, s having akenoverthe federal)government;n France, le gouvernement r leregimeMitterandhas acceded to l'tat. But theimpersonality f the modern state continuesdespite hevariabilityf theterms sedtoexpressit. Even theCommunistsmaintain hedistinction,in theory, etween heirparty nd the statethatthe partyhas establishednd yetexists o serve.The state or the governments not constitutedbythe current olders fpower;rather, t s therebeforethey rrive,waiting o be claimed, and itwill continueaftertheyhave departed, waitingwith quanimitynd impartial egard or henextclaimant. The state maybe thought o have nointerest,ikea neutral, r to have ts own nterest,in orderto serve s an arbiter, ut in either asetheessential oint sthat t does not belong o anyofthe contending arties r groups.The statehasan existence independentof such parties orgroups. ndeed, ts ndependenceeems o be con-stitutednot so much by self-subsistence, hichwouldmake t resemble hoseparties r groups, sby abstractionfrom them. Whenever he stategets"a lifeof its own," wemayfear yranny,rhopeforpeace and reason,but we do not under-stand hat ife o be the ameas the ivesofpartiesor groupsfromwhich the state s abstracted. fthisdiscussion ounds bstract,t spartly ecausethe modern tate s an abstraction.We modernsfind abstractions asier to denounce than to doReceived: anuary, 1983Acceptedor ublication: arch 4,1983

without,nd fwedenouncehe tate s abstract,we mean, s Marxmeantn denouncingegel,thatt does not ucceedn being bstractutre-mains tool oftheruling arty,roup, r class.The idealor standardf abstractionrom er-sonalitys retained,r evenheightened,n suchdenunciation.Thus, when omemodern erson aid l'etat,c'estmol,thiswas already paradox, tatingconjunctionf the mpersonal ithhisperson(Hartung,949;Rosen, 961).He couldnothavesaidc'estmon tat, mplyinghat his tate atherthan ome ther rnonewashis.Ourmoderno-tions f egitimateower eem ound p with heimpersonalityf the modern tate.Even thevauntedationalityf themoderntate eems e-signed o ensurets impersonality.egel'sra-tional tatewastoberuled y universallass fbureaucratsducatedoremovehepartialitiesfordinaryersons,nd Weber's ureaucraticf-fice s an deal-typef hemodernttemptodenythat noffice elongso the fficeholder.Against hisconception,ne mayset "thetraditionaldea of theprincemaintainingisexistingositionndrange fpowers"Skinner,1978, ol.2, p. 354).Such s Skinner'sescriptionofMachiavelli'ssual rtypicalnderstandingftherelationshipetweenrincend state. kin-ner's impressive ork, The Foundations fModern olitical hought,ims oshowhow hemodern tate or its foundations)volved romthis raditionaldeaof Machiavelli'so "thedis-tinctivelyoderndea oftheState s a formfpublic owereparaterom oth he ulerndtheruled,and constitutinghe supreme oliticalauthority ithin certain efined erritory,"whichs to befoundnBodin's houghtt the ndof the ixteenthentury.' shallquestionkin-'Skinner, 978,vol. 2, p. 353; thedefinitionfstate stakenfromMax Weber,vol. 1, p. x. See Tarcov 1982,pp. 63-64).

849


2/9

850 The American oliticalScienceReview Vol. 77ner'sdescriptionfMachiavelli'sseof stato straditional,utfirst mustndorsendelaboratehisunderstandingfthe raditionaldea.Thetraditionaldeaofthe tate omes romhenotion fregimepoliteia)n Plato ndAristotle,who do not makeuse of the term state."2 Theregime,or hem,means onstitutionna fullersense han he onstitutionfa moderntate; treferso the ormr tructuref hewholeocietyand to itswayof ife s embodiednthat truc-ture.Theoffices rrules archag)f theregimerule he ocietyygivinghat ocietyts haracter;they renotseparable rom hesocietynsuchmanners to awaitmpartiallyhewinnerf thepower truggleithinociety. nly democraticsociety,or xample,onsists ith democraticregime.A democraticegime, ewlynstalled,proceedss soon s itcanto the emocratizingfsocietyndappliestsprinciplef rulewith ar-tisandisregardor heneutralityf the"state"andthe utonomyf"society."Thus, saysAristotle,hecity s chieflyheregimePolitics 276blO-12).he cityhasterri-torynd nhabitants,utthese o notdefinet;one cannotmake city yconstructingwallaround hePeloponnesus. lthough citymust,ofcourse, ave territorynda people, heserematerialor ts orm,whichs tsregime,ndthecitysdefinedhieflyy ts orm.t s notdefinedsolely y tsregime,ecause he egimes imitedinwhattcan dobynaturefor xample,limate)andbyhuman aturethe ecessityosatisfyrtosuppressuman eeds). t is also limitedycus-tom, lthoughustom, hich onsistsnywayfpracticesstablishedytheprecedingegimerregimes,an ometimeshangeapidlyndutterlytothe mazementf llwho elyn t.Theregimeof citysnot,moreover,omehiddenssencey-ingbehindtsterritoryndpeople; t s publiclyvisible n its offices nd in the characteristicbehavior f its rulers s itsorderingtaxis).Ademocraticegime, orexample,ooks demo-cratic, orwhat s mostvisibles thatwhich spublic, ndthepublic s what herulers o notneed r desireo conceal, heirule.Farfrom eingmpersonalnd mpartial,ikethemoderntate, heAristotelianegimeeflectsand advances-the haracteristiclaimofthepersonswho rule. Suchpersons o notmerelyclaimto promote heir wn self-interestn agreater hole hats commonosociety,ut heypromotehemselvesn a partisan iew of the

2Plato Republic 473e, 501a, 544b-545d;Statesman302b-303d;Laws 632c, 681d,686c,707d,710d-e,712e,714b,715b,734e,739e,751a-c,770e,817b, 832c,856b.AristotlePolitics 1247b32-9,1275a38-b4, 1276bl-12,1279a26-blO,1280a8-25,1281al2, 1289a8-20,1297a6.

whole thatis typically heirs, nd they dvancethat view against the opposing view of theirtypicalopponents,democratsversusoligarchs,for xample.As mencannothelppreferringhem-selves, o regimes re necessarily artisan. n thisview, l'dtat, c'est moi would apply to everyregime,ncluding democratic ne; inAristotle'sterms, hepoliteia is thepoliteuma,the bodyofrulers.They are the regime, nd the regime stheirs.If a mixed regimecould be made, which isdoubtful,t wouldadvancetheclaimto ruleof allpartiesor the whole. It would be impartialbycombining ll parties ather hanbynotpromot-ing ny party rbyremainingndifferento whichpartywins the struggle orpower. This regimewouldbe partisan o thecommon nterestf all invirtue ather han mpartialn themaintenanceflibertyo facilitatehe elf-promotionfeach per-son and all parties. By means of this mixedregime, necould udgethepartisan laimsofthelesserregimes nd sortthose regimes ntogoodand bad. Such judgments asked for, one couldsay,by theclaimsof the regimes. t requires nelevation bove ordinary artisanshiphatbeginsfromordinarypartisanship nd that does notissue n neutrality.We maysupposethat the mpersonalityf themodern tate, uchas we find t n thefull larityof Hobbes's political science, may have beenintended to correct the partisanshipof theAristotelian egime. or intheAristoteliannder-standings Hobbes saw it,theregimewas left x-posedtothecapture freligious arties,who usedit with tyrannical eal. We may suppose, then,that he mpersonalityf themodern tatewasthechosen instrument of secularization. Thathypothesisannotbe elaboratedor testedhere.3But it does seemnecessary o have beforeus amore completepictureof the alternative o themodernstatethan is usuallysupplied n discus-sionsof theusage of "state," so thatwe do notleave the impression hat such usage evolvedinmere responseto changing ircumstancesr bynaive, gropingdiscovery f the onlytruly on-ceivablepoliticalunit,themodernstate.What-evermayhave beenthecausesthat stablishedhemodern tate, t had to be conceived gainsttheauthorityf classicalpolitical cience;and if t isto be argued that political necessitiesalonebrought bout the modern tate,then t mustbeshownwhy hoseverynecessities erenewly on-ceivedto require neworderingnd a newpoli-tics. In writinghehistory f themodern tate,historians, t may be gentlysuggested,need

3Seemy attemptsn Mansfield 1968, 1971).
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/9

1983 Machiavelli'sUse ofStato 851clarificationrom oliticalcience.4Asfar s I can see n the esearchfothers,heclassical nderstandingf the egimerevailednmedieval sagebeforeMachiavelli.t s often oteasy oseewhetherartisanegimer mpersonalstate s in question, ecauseof theunhistoricalhabit, lmost niversalnmedieval istorians,fusinghe erm state"beforetoccurs r s twasnotused nhistoryChabod,1964,p. 27). Thishabit s a formfsuperiorityhichmplies hattheobserver nowswhat sgoing nbetter hanthe participant,s, for example,when theobserver nows hattheparticipantives n a"medieval" eriodwhereas heparticipantneworconceived o such hing.Manymedieval is-torians re in, ruth cholars f theunnoticedbeginningsfmodernity.ometimeshey peakof "the tate" s takinghape,mplyinghat hestate s essentially odern;ometimeshey on-trast he "medieval tate" withthe "modernstate," mplyinghat he tate s essentiallyni-versal.Although ristotle ounded ispoliticalscienceon the distinctionetween olls andpoliteia, necan find oth ermsintheir atinequivalents,ivitas nd respublica r politia)translateds "state" (Kantorowicz,957, pp.214-216; ost,1964, p. viii, 9; Tierney,982,pp. 23, 39). This s notto saythat state" wasfrom he irstsedmpersonallyI shall rgue hatMachiavelli's se ofstatowasnot mpersonal),much ess thatwords realways sed with ullawarenessf theirmeaning,rthatmeaningsfwords ever hange. ut caution ompels s toquestionwhetherhe "state" is progressiveruniversal,s itmay ppear o us.Theword state"does ndeed ccurnpoliticalcontextsn theMiddleAges,but to nametheregime,ota neutral,mpersonaltate. n thisusage heLatin tatus oes not tand lone,butrequiresome ccompanyingordorphrase ospecifyhosetatus.5he "State ftheChurch"(statuscclesiae) r "stateof therealm" statusregni) as thegeneralmeaningf"state" s con-ition, till n use today, n which ne mustspecifyhe onditionfwhat.Theconditionm-plieds a conditionfstabilityra goodcondi-tion,o that tatus ouldmean hewelfareoftherealm) r thewell-beingof theChurch)whichgetsimitsn the ctions f the ope.6Status id

4One should immediatelydd that clarificationsneededfrompolitical ciencethat s aware of theclas-sicalregime; ee Post (1964,pp. 7, 247).'See Condorelli 1923,90:80); Dowdall (1923, p. 101);Post 1964, pp. 270,371n); seethe xceptionsnTierneyJ1963, . 386) and Meyer 1950, p. 230).6See Post (1964, pp. 298-306); Kantorowicz1957,p.Z71n);Tierney 1982, pp. 17, 64, 70); Powicke (1936,pp.8-11).

notmean the extent f effectiveower,whenpowers abstractedromtsparticularnds nd sgeneralizeds thepower o do anything. henstatus omesto meanabstract, eneral ower,effectiveorany end, we see the connectionbetweentate s a generalruniversalonditionand stateas sovereign,nd we recognizehemoderntate.To illustratehemeaningf status,we mayconsider Thomas Aquinas' commentarynAristotle's olitics c. 1260),an authoritativesourcebecauseof its nfluencend because tsobject s political cience, ot legalargument.Neitherhomas nhiscommentaryorWilliamofMoerbekenhis ranslation akes seof tatusfor hediscussionf the egimenthe hirdookof thePolitics. ut tatus oes enterherevisionofAquinas' ommentaryadebyLudovicus eValentian1492using eonardo runi's ransla-tion fAristotleromhe arly ifteenthentury.7As instancesf a generalejectionfMoerbeke'sGrecisms,ligarchia ecomes tatus aucorum,anddemocratia,tatuspopularis.his s done ncontext here hepolitia regime)s said to benothingther han heordodominantumnthecity Aquinas,1951,111.6, 85, 392-395). he"state fthefew," hen,stheir omination;utit is also their ondition,rder, rwayof life,which s the conditionf the citywhere heydominate.histhoroughlynmoderndentifica-tion f the ower na society ith he onditionofthat ociety, hichmakes tspolitics espon-siblefor tswayof life, eems haracteristicfmedievalsage, nd ofFlorentinesage s well,beforeMachiavelli.8It sgenerallygreed hat hemoderntatewasconstitutedy nabstractionromersonalo m-personal ule, ut t s notgenerallyppreciatedhowradical hat bstractionas. To move romstatuswithtsconcretepecificationostatus rstatewithoutuch pecificationasnot nough,if he tatehusbstractedtill efersosomeone'sorsomegroup's ersonal ule, lthoughtdoesnotmatter hich. hat tate snomore bstractthanAristotle'segime,heterm orwhich anstand lonebutalways ignifiesne or anotherform fpersonal ule.Skinner1978,vol.2, p.356)finds he arliestmpersonalseof"state"

70n this humanist utrageupon Aquinas, see Cranz(1978, pp. 171-173); Dondaine (1964, pp. 590-592);Grabmann (1941, p. 77); Martin (1952, pp. 41-47);Aquinas (1971, pp. 15-21).8SeeRubinstein1971,pp. 313-326).But cannotfol-lowRubinstein henhe saysthatLeonardo Bruni, lari-fyingAquinas, "distinguishes learlybetweengovern-ment nd the groups of individuals ontrollingt" (p.316). He seems to me clearlyto equate the two, inaccordwithAquinas and Aristotle.


4/9


5/9

1983 Machiavelli'sUse ofStato 853nifies omethingmpersonal,nd we do notuse apossessivepronoun. When Machiavelliuses lostatowithout possessivepronoun,however,heseemsalwaysto implyone. Merelybecause theword tato nthe talianofMachiavelli nd ofhiscontemporaries ad acquired theability o standalone by contrast o theLatinstatus, tdoes notfollow that tato meant"impersonalstate" anymore handidpolitia nMoerbeke's ranslation fAristotle's oliteia,which lso stoodby tself. hephrases kinner ites 1978, vol. 2, p. 354) as pos-sible counter-examplesuggesting tincture fimpersonalityn Machiavelli'sstato-la maestrodello stato, l'autoritddello stato, la mutazionedellostato-prove on examination o refer o themajesty, authority, nd change of someone'sstate.The someonemay be collective, s instatodi Firenze, but that does not make Florence'sstate any less personal than Aristotle'sstatuspopularis in Bruni'stranslationnAquinas' com-mentary),which is a regimebelonging to thepeople.Ifthe tatodiFirenze ncludes isa, that sbecausePisa belongsto theFlorentines.WhenMachiavelli aysat theend of the ninthchapter f ThePrincethat hewiseprince houldthink f a way bywhichhiscitizens lways haveneed dello stato e di lui, he distinguisheshatprince from hestatebut hardlydeniesthat thestate is the prince's (cf. DeVries, 1957, p. 61;FlorentineHistoriesVI 35). Whenhe says n thesameplace that o statohas need of thecitizens,he obviouslyrefers o that same prince'sstate.And in theeighteenthhapterof theDiscoursesonLivy,whenhespeaksof thedifficultyfmain-taining o stato libero n a corrupt ity, hedif-ficultys thatof keepingfree hestatebelongingtoa corrupt eople,notthatofkeeping n imper-sonal state free.For, as we learn n thesixteenthchapter, venthe ibero tatohas partisan riendsand enemies.Stato can also appear in an objectivegenitive,as in stato di Lombardia and stato di Asia(FlorentineHistories 37; ThePrince,chap. 4).These "states" did notbelongto Lombardy ndAsia, buttheydidbelongto FilippoVisconti ndAlexander, respectively.Machiavelli refers toquellostato"whichhadruledfrom 381 o 1434"inFlorenceFlorentine istories, II 29),meaning"thatstate" thatwas heldbyand passedthroughmany hands in those years. But neithermanyhands at one timenordifferentandsovertimemake Machiavelli's stato any more impersonalthanAristotle's egime.13Nor does a personifica-"Cf. DeVries 1957, p. 65) and Rubinstein1971, p.319). For Strayer1970, p. 10),permanent,mpersonalinstitutions,ogether ith uthoritynd loyalty,ufficetomake state; o heasserts, certainlyheGreekpoliswas a state." See Aristotle olitics 1301b6-13.

tion fstato,which ccurs arelynMachiavelli,signifyhepresence f themodernmpersonalstate, ecause he tate hat s personifieds stillsomeone's,ike heAristotelianegime. Ecredamai alcunostato "nor should nystateeverbelieve,"ThePrince, hap.21) states learlynthe contextwhat "the prince"shouldneverbelieve, lthough prince"hererefers o theVenetiansnd he lorentines.nd l ospettohelostato veva "the uspicionhat he tate ad,"FlorentineistoriesII 23)referso the princesof the tate" oonafter. uesti tati engonolcore disarmatole mani lipiedi rmati"thesestates eep heir earts narmedndtheir andsandfeetrmed," iscourses nLivy, I 30)refersto a mistake f bothprincesnd republicsnregard o their tates. tato s notmade mper-sonal with tsownverb nymore hanwith heimpersonalrticleo long s someone's rsomeparty's ersonaltatesmeantcf.DeVries, 957,p. 79;Ercole, 926, . 77).Oneperson'stato anbe exchanged or nother'sFlorentineistoriesVI 30); sostato snot s personals anoldshoe.As weshall ee, tato s personal otbecause tsuitsyoubutbecauseyou have cquiredt.Thearte ello tato hatMachiavelliaidhehad beenstudyingor15years inthe etterfDecember10,1513 nwhich ecasually nnounces ehascompletedhePrince; f. etterfApril , 1513)is theuniversalr mpersonalrtofmaintainingpersonaldominationcf. Chiappelli, 969,p.36n).Withoutrolonginghisdiscussion,can-not ay hat havefoundnany fMachiavelli'swritingsn instancef the mpersonal odernstate mong isusesof tato.This does notmean,however,hatMachia-velli's tato s a regimenthe raditionalrclassi-calsense.AsJ.H. Hexter as shownn hiswell-knowntudy,tato nThePrince s used lmostinvariablyn an exploitativeense: someone salmost lways xploitingomeone lsebymeansof ostato.4 tmighte betterosay hattato ssuch xploitation,"ndonemight ish oavoidthe anachronismexploitation"nd speakof

14Hexter (1973); Ercole (1926, p. 107); Sternberger(1974, pp. 42-43).ConsiderMachiavelli'sfamous oke:"For when theCardinal of Rouen said to me thattheItaliansdo notunderstand ar, replied o him hat heFrenchdo notunderstand bout thestate" (non si in-tendovanodello stato; ThePrince,chap. 3). Note therare nstances f reggimentonFlorentineHistories I,11, 32."5Hexter1973, p. 171) speaks almost in successivesentences fMachiavelli's tatoas an instrumentnd astheobjectofexploitation. s instrumentfexploitationstato mplies he xistence fsomethingike"the state"withwhich o exploitothers.Hexter eems here to slipinto the errorof presupposing he modernstate, for


6/9

854 The American oliticalScienceReview Vol. 77dominationdominoi) or mastery signoria)orempireimperio) s Machiavellidoes. Machiavellicomes as close as he everdoes to a definitionfstato in the first entenceof The Prince: "Allstates, ll dominionsdominiil hathavehad andhave empire mperiallovermenhave been andare either republics or principalities.'16 Here"states," either epublics r principalities,re inappositionto "dominions" thathave "empire"overmen. A quick survey f some features fMachiavelli'spolitical houghtwillshowhowfarthis empireover men is fromthe Aristotelianregimecf. Sternberger,974,pp. 38-39,56-66).Machiavelli's tato ssomeone'stoacquireortomaintain.The state tself ever cquiresormain-tainson itsownaccount eparatefrom he dvan-tageof some personor group:this s thecriticaltestthattellsus Machiavelli'sstate s not imper-sonal (Ercole, 1926,pp. 150-151).But ifstato isalwaysthe advantageof someone over someoneelse, acquiring nd maintaininghe statecannotbe equally important.n the second chapterofThe Prince, Machiavelli lets us thinkthat thehereditaryrince,whohas not acquiredhisprin-cipality,s "the naturalprince"becausehemain-tains tmore asily.But n the hird hapterwe arerudely nformed f "the naturaland ordinarydesireto acquire," and in the sixthchapterwelearnthat thoseprinceswho acquire their tateswithdifficultynd byvirtue,n totalcontrast ohereditary rinces,keep themwith ease. Mean-while, in the fifth hapterof the Discourses,Machiavelli aysthat hosewho wanttomaintaintheir ossessionshavethe amewish s thosewhowant to acquire, namely,the wish to acquire,since men do not think they possess anythingsecurely nless hey re acquiring omething ew.One cannotsit still o maintainwhatone has,welearn in the next chapter,because "all humanthings re in motion." Thus in both The Princeand theDiscourses,for bothprinces nd repub-lics,acquisition omesfirst.Thisconclusion, o contraryo Aristotle's oli-tics s well s hisethics, annotbutaffectMachia-velli's notion o04 tato.'7 I shall mentionthreechanges tproducesbycomparison o Aristotle's

whichhe indicatedChiappelli pp. 173-175).For moreon Machiavelli's tato, see Chabod (1967,pp. 631-637);Gilbert 1965, pp. 326-330); and Whitfield1947, pp.93-95)."6SeeDowdall (1923, p. 110); Condorelli (1923, p.87). Note thatnothings said in Machiavelli'ssentenceabout the future.

7AristotlePolitics 1267a30-32and MachiavelliDis-courses on Livy I 6 (end); see also Politics 1257b38-1258al, 1323a34-1323b21, 1365a6-8; NicomacheanEthics 1129bl-3.

regime,n theordering f the state,the claims tadvances,and the neutralitytrecommends.First,whereas orAristotleheregimes "someordering f the inhabitants f thecity" thatre-mains visible n its formas long as the regimelasts,forMachiavelli he"order" or "orders" ofthestatemustbe subjectto change."8Giventhenecessityo acquireand the consequent ooseningof moral restraint, either rincesnor republicscan afford o retain ubordinates rmaintain n-stitutionshatbecome nconvenient.rincesmustbe capable ofusingothers s CesareBorgia,him-selfthe instrumentf his fatherAlexanderVI,usedRemirro e Orco (The Prince,chap. 7); andin republics, orders" mustbe manipulatedwithnew"modes" and thenchanged nto neworderswhen the "matter" of a city s becomingcor-rupted rwhen n emergencyrises,forexamplethe challengeto the Senate posed by ambitiousleaders of the plebians. In both cases the trueordering f the state s notwhat appears to thepublic,butwhat goes on behindthe scenes;andthiscontrast s confirmed nd expandedby theobvious importanceof conspiracy n Machia-velli's politicalthought n comparisonto Aris-totle's (Mansfield, 1979, on Discourses III 6).What is visible n Machiavelli's state s not thecharacter fpower,but rathertseffectualxtent.Withthis difference e are on the way towarddefining he stateby its territorynd people (cf.Shennan,1974, p. 25).Second, thenecessityo acquiredetermineshecharacteristiclaimsof states.Since statesmustacquire,theymustyield o, nay ncite, hedesireforglory n thosemen of a princely aturewhomost vince hatdesire.Atthe ametime, hepeo-plemustbe conciliated nd their esirefor ecur-ity atisfiedwhenpossible, f only omaintain heglory fprinces nd princelyeaders nrepublics.If a commongood is soughtbetween rinces ndpeoples, it mustaccommodatetheirdiversebutcomplementary esires for glory and security,whateverheclaimsofregimesmaybe. AlthoughMachiavellikeepsthetraditionalRoman distinc-tion between rincipalitiesnd republics, e doesnot stress hecharacteristicallypposing laimsofthose regimes;he throws old waterbothon thetypical republican hatred for "the name ofprince"and on princely isdainfor heficklenessofpopulargovernmentDiscourseson Livy, 58,II 2). He erodesthe traditional istinctionwithsuch phrases as "princes in the republic" and"civil principality" nd withsimilaradvice tobothonhow tomisbehave.Despitetheir ontrast-ing claimsto virtue, tatesare to be judged bytheir"effectualtruth" in acquiringgloryandmaintainingecurity. ne hardlyneed add that,

18Politics247b38;Discourseson Livy 1 18.


7/9

1983 Machiavelli'sUse of Stato 855for Machiavelli, gloryand security re in thisworld. t was to prevent he appropriationftheclassicalregimend itsclaimsof usticebythe ityof God and the "Christian republic" that hedirected he attention f bothrepublics nd prin-cipalities owardworldly ain.Thus, on returningo thefirstentence f ThePrince,we can see thatMachiavelli'suse of statoenableshimto be neutralbetweenrepublics ndprincipalities.Whereas for Aristotlethe betterregimes reregimesn a truer ense hantheworseones,'9for Machiavelliprincipalitiesre as muchstates as are republics.His well-known ut notalwayswell-examined reference or republics scarefully ualified: the common good "is notobservedfnot nrepublics,"but tconsistsntheoppression f the fewbythemany, ndto be con-quered by a republic is the hardest slavery.20Nothing revents princena "civil principality"(The Prince,chap. 9) frombenefitinghepeopleas muchas theymaybe in a free epublic, nd inanycase Machiavelli ees quite clearly hat tatowon by collective selfishnesshas no moralsuperiority ver that acquired by individualselfishness. he reason s thattheyhardly iffer.Justas every princeneeds a people, so everypeople needsa head-an ambitious ribune, on-sul,dictator, rsenate-to directtas a people nits acquisitions.Machiavelli'sneutralitys evident n his use ofthe medieval ermfor corporation, niversity,nchapter 19 of The Prince. Although n earlierchapters e had stressed heneedfor heprince ohavethe favor, r at leastto avoid thehatred, fthepeople in order o maintainhisstate,he nowsuddenly hangeshis tune.Since theprince an-not helpbeinghatedby someone,Machiavelli is-closes forthefirst ime,he is at first ompellednot to be hatedbytheuniversitythat s,thepeo-ple or everyone); utwhen he cannot do this,hemust contrive o avoid the hatred of the mostpowerfuluniversityin the plural), that is, thesoldiers. Thus Machiavelli's preferencefor ademocraticover an undemocratic olicy is notabsolute and is determinedby necessity,notchoice. n this tatementf the usesthemedievalterm universityn both senses of corporationwithin he aw and communityhat s the sourceof law, but withbrusquedisregard or aw andlegality.I conclude hat hepathto themodern tatewasnot by way of Machiavelli's republicanism,sPocock (1975,pp. vii-viii) as argued.His repub-

"Politics 1275bl-3;see Plato, Laws 712e; Statesman303c.20Discoursesn Livy I 2; cf. Discourses II 9, andseeMansfield1979) on Discourses 1, 55, 58-59; II 2, 19.

licanism howsno more of the impersonalityfthe modern tate than does hisadviceto princes.A republics-thetato ofa certain roup s a prin-cipalitys the tatoof theprince,nboth casesaneffectual cquisition.An effectual cquisition sone properlymaintained,that is, continuallyrefreshedwith new acquisitions.Ratherthan inhis republicanism,uch as it was, Machiavelli'ssteptoward he mpersonalityfthemodern tatecan be seen in his impartial dvice to all partiesand personsto acquirewhen they an. The veryuniversalityf his adviceto be partialto oneselfrequires hathebe neutral etween he partiesheadvises,for example betweenprinces nd repub-lics (see Mansfield,1981, pp. 293-305). Repub-licanism, herefore,s not a continuous raditionfromancientto moderntimes,for somewherebetweenancient and modernrepublicanismheconcept f the mpersonalmodern tatewas ntro-duced. Aristotle acks it, and Rousseau (SocialContract 6) has it. This conceptcame not fromwithin republicanism, ut froman attitudeofneutralityoward epublicsn theold senseofpar-tisanregimes,which equired transformationftherepublican pirit.To thisconsideration, neshould add the impressivend obvious factthateverywheren the Westthe modern tatewas, orwas theworkof, a monarchy.Nonetheless, o say that the changefrom hepersonalstateto the impersonal tatewas "thedecisive hift,"as Skinnerdoes (1978, vol. 1, p.ix), is somewhatmisleading.Rather, he decisiveshiftwas from hepersonal tate n the Aristotel-ian sense to the acquisitivepersonal state ofMachiavelli.For thischangeprovided he mpar-tiality hat is fundamental o the modernstate.Implicitn Machiavelli'sgeneral dviceto acquirewas an impartialregardfor all who mightbecapable ofapplyingt. After his t was buta step(althougha stepMachiavelli did not take) to astatethatmight cquirefor all and facilitate heacquisitionsof all impartiallyOrwin, 1978, 72,1226-1227).Thus the impersonalmodern statewas conceived,not n,but out of,thethought fthe most personalpoliticalphilosopher hat weknow, in the sense of recommending elf-aggrandizement.hat swhyfindingmedieval n-ticipationsf mpersonalityoesnot sufficeo ex-plain the modern tate,for the modern tate ex-pressesMachiavelli's mpartial cquisitivenessnits formulationsf impersonalegality.The stateofragionedi statoappeared n 1589,soon afterMachiavelli,n a book of thatnamebyGiovanniBotero,a follower f Machiavelli.Thatstate, s opposedto Machiavelli's,was said to beimpartiallycquisitive ecausethereasoning f tsragionewas not the ruler'sbutthe state's. Hencethe tate,unlikeMachiavelli's,was notoppressive


8/9

856 TheAmerican oliticalScienceReview Vol. 77to the ruled.2'But the full conceptionof themodern tatehad to await thepolitical cienceofHobbes.What Skinner alls the "main elements"ofthemodern tategradually cquiredbetweenMachia-velli and Hobbes were mere materials ssembledforHobbes's construction n a foundation re-pared by Machiavelli. It was Hobbes who dis-tinguishedtate from ociety, husallowing thestate to representocietympartially; e who, tomake thisdistinction,nventedheconceptof thestate of nature yielding natural rights beforenatural duties and the right f self-preservationgeneralizingnd legalizingMachiavelli's dvice toacquire; and he itwas who conceived he mper-sonal state s an artificialersonwhosewords nddeeds were"owned" byhissubjects,notbyhim-self.Onlywith view to Hobbes could we knowwhat hevarious nticipations f themodern tatewereanticipating,ut thedecision n the "deci-sive hift" omodernity astakenbyMachiavelli.

ReferencesBotero,G. Della Ragion di Stato. Bologna: Cappelli,1930.Calasso, F. I Glossatorie la teoria delta sovranitd.Milan: Guiffre, 957.Canning,J.P. The corporationnthepolitical houghtofthe talian urists f thethirteenthndfourteenthcenturies. istory fPoliticalTheory, 980,1,9-32.Chabod, F. Alcuni questionidi terminologia: tato,nazione,patrianel inguaggio elCinquecento. n F.Chabod (Ed.). Scrittisul Rinascimento.Turin:Einaudi, 1967.Chabod, F. Was there a Renaissance state? In H.Lubasz (Ed.). Thedevelopmentfthemoderntate.NewYork: Macmillan,pp. 27-36,1964.Chiappelli,F. Nuovi studi sul linguaggiodel Machia-velli. Florence:Le Monnier,1969.Chiappelli, F. Studi sul linguaggiodel Machiavelli.Florence:Le Monnier,1952.Condorelli, 0. Per la storia del nome "stato."

ArchivioGiuridico,1923, 89, 223-235; 90, 70-112.Cranz, F. The publishing istory f theAristotle om-mentaries f Thomas Aquinas. Traditio,1978, 34,157-192.D'Entreves,A. P. The notion of thestate. Oxford:ClarendonPress, 1967.DeVries, H. Essai sur la terminologieonstitutionellechezMachiavel.Amsterdam:University f Amster-dam doctoralthesis,1957.2"Botero1930, pp. 9, 26-33); see Friedrich1957, p.4). Ragione di stato in Boterosubstitutes or fraud nMachiavelli,for whenthestatobecomes entitled o itsown special reason,it no longer needs fraud.Cf. per

cagionedello stato nMachiavelli'sFlorentine istoriesVII 5, todescribe partisan onsideration. he connec-tionbetweenreason of state and acquisition eparatestheformer rommedieval nstances f ratio tatus dis-cussedbyPost (1964, pp. 250-301).

Dondaine,H. F. Le SuperPoliticam de Saint Thomas.Revue des SciencesPhilosophiques t Thedologiques.1964, 48, 585-602.Dowdall, H. C. The word "state." Law QuarterlyReview. 1923, 39, 98-127.Ercole,F. La politicadi Machiavelli. Rome: AnonimaRomana, 1926.Friedrich,C. J. Constitutional easonof state. Provi-dence,R.I.: BrownUniversityress, 1957.Gilbert,F. Machiavelli and Guicciardini.Princeton,N.J.: PrincetonUniversityress, 1965.Grabmann,M. Die mittelalterlichenommentare urPolitikdesAristoteles.Munich:SitzungsberichteerBayerishen kademie derWissenschaften,941.Hartung,F. L'6tat c'est moi. HistorischeZeitschrift,1949,169, 1-30.Hexler,J. H. Ii principe nd lo stato. In J. H. Hexter(Ed.). Thevision f politicson the veoftheRefor-

mation. NewYork: Basic Books, 1973.Johnof Salisbury.Policraticus. (2 vols.). (C. C. J.Webb,Ed.). Oxford:ClarendonPress, 1909. Com-pleted n 1159.)Kantorowicz, . H. The king'stwobodies' a study nmedieval oliticaltheology. rinceton,N.J.: Prince-tonUniversityress, 1957.Keen, M. H. The politicalthought f the fourteenth-century ivilians.In B. Smalley(Ed.). Trends nmedievalpolitical thought.New York: Barnes andNoble, 1965.Machiavelli, N. Lettere. (F. Gaeta, Ed.). Milan:Feltrinelli ditore,1961.Machiavelli,N. Opere politiche. (M. Puppo, Ed.).Florence: Le Monnier, 1969.Mansfield,H. C. Jr.Hobbes and the cience f ndirectgovernment.American Political Science Review,1971, 65, 97-110.Mansfield,H. C. Jr. Machiavelli's new modes andorders:a study of the Discourses on Livy. Ithaca,N.J.: CornellUniversityress, 1979.Mansfield,H. C. Jr. Machiavelli's political science.American Political Science Review, 1981, 75,293-305.Mansfield,H. C. Jr.Modern and medieval epresenta-tion.Nomos, 1968,11, 55-82.Martin,C. The Vulgatetext fAquinas's commentaryon Aristotle's olitics. DominicanStudies,1952,5,35-64.Meyer,A. 0. Zur Geschichtedes WortesStaat. DieWelt ls Geschichte, 950,10, 229-239.Michaud-Quantin, P. Universitas:Expressions duMouvementCommunautairedans le Moyen-AgeLatin. Paris: Vrin, 1970.Mochi Onory,S. Fonticanonistiche ell' idea modernadello stato. Milan: Vita e Pensiero,1951.Morrall,J. B. Politicalthoughtnmedieval imes.3rded. London: HutchinsonUniversityibrary, 971.Orwin,C. Machiavelli's unchristianharity. mericanPolitical ScienceReview,1978, 72, 1217-1228.Pocock, J. G. A. TheMachiavellianmoment.Prince-ton,N.J.: PrincetonUniversity ress, 1975.Post, G. Studies nmedieval egal thought. rinceton,N.J.: PrincetonUniversityress, 1964.Powicke, F. M. Reflectionson the medieval state.Transactions f theRoyalHistoricalSociety.1936,19, 1-18.


9/9

on the impersonality of the modern state a comment on machiavelli's use of stato - mansfield

Documents