of theModernState: On theImpersonality Use of Stato on Machiavelli's A Comment

HARVEY C. MANSFIELD, JR.

Harvard University

For Machiavelli, impersonal. is essentially regime, to theAristotelian state,bycontrast The modern for themodernstate in personal;yet, it is argued,Machiavellilaid thefoundation stato is extremely proceeds by an analysisof Machiaadvice to acquire stato. The argument his generaland impartial of its medievalcounterparts. velli's use of stato,aftera briefconsideration

Nowadays when a person or partycomes to power, it is said to take over the state or the It does not claim to advance its rule government. thestate,as ifto makeitplainthat exceptthrough the state does not belong, but is only delivered in trust,to the winnerof a struggle temporarily, used mayvary:in America, forpower.The terms consistone speaks of theReagan administration, and an assortment ing of Reagan, his lieutenants, as havingtakenoverthe(federal) of Republicans, in France, le gouvernement or le government; regimeMitterandhas acceded to l'tat. But the impersonalityof the modern state continues of theterms used to express despitethevariability maintain thedistinction, it. Even theCommunists in theory,betweentheirpartyand the statethat and yetexiststo serve. the partyhas established is not constituted The state or the government it is there holdersof power;rather, by thecurrent beforetheyarrive,waitingto be claimed,and it will continue after they have departed,waiting regardforthenext and impartial withequanimity claimant. The state may be thoughtto have no or to have itsown interest, likea neutral, interest, case but in either in orderto serveas an arbiter, theessential pointis thatit does notbelongto any partiesor groups.The statehas of thecontending an existence independent of such parties or seemsto be congroups.Indeed,itsindependence which stitutednot so much by self-subsistence, or groups,as thoseparties wouldmakeitresemble by abstractionfrom them. Wheneverthe state or gets "a lifeof its own," we may feartyranny, hope forpeace and reason,but we do not understandthatlifeto be thesame as thelivesof parties or groups fromwhichthe state is abstracted.If itis partly because soundsabstract, thisdiscussion the modernstate is an abstraction.We moderns easier to denounce than to do findabstractions Received: January 3, 1983 March14, 1983 forpublication: Accepted

as abstract, thestate andifwedenounce without, Hegel, in denouncing we mean,as Marxmeant butreabstract in being thatit does notsucceed or class. group, party, a toolof theruling mains from perof abstraction The ideal or standard in such or evenheightened, sonality is retained, denunciation. personsaid l'etat, Thus, whensomemodern a stating a paradox, c'est mol,thiswas already withhis person of the impersonal conjunction 1949;Rosen,1961).He couldnothave (Hartung, rather this state that implying saidc'estmonetat, noornonewashis.Ourmodern someother than the seem boundup with power oflegitimate tions of the modernstate. Even the impersonality destate seems ofthemodern rationality vaunted signedto ensureits impersonality. Hegel's raclassof bya universal wasto be ruled state tional of thepartialities to remove educated bureaucrats ofand Weber'sbureaucratic ordinary persons, todeny attempt ofthemodern is an ideal-type fice to theofficeholder. an office belongs that one may set "the Againstthis conception, his idea of the princemaintaining traditional of powers"(Skinner, and range existing position description vol.2, p. 354).Suchis Skinner's 1978, of understanding ofMachiavelli's usualortypical and state.Skinbetween prince therelationship ner's impressive work, The Foundationsof aimsto showhowthe Modern Political Thought, from evolved modern state(or its foundations) to "thedisidea of Machiavelli's thistraditional of idea of theStateas a form modern tinctively andthe theruler from both separate power public the supreme political ruled, and constituting within a certaindefinedterritory," authority attheend inBodin's is tobe found thought which SkinI shallquestion of thesixteenth century.'
of stateis 'Skinner,1978,vol. 2, p. 353; thedefinition takenfromMax Weber,vol. 1, p. x. See Tarcov (1982, pp. 63-64).

849

850

PoliticalScienceReview The American

Vol. 77

in a fuller regime, meansconstitution forthem, regime, one; in Aristotle's a democratic including of a modern sensethantheconstitution state;it terms,thepoliteia is thepoliteuma, the body of society rulers. They are the regime,and the regimeis whole ofthe orstructure totheform refers in thatstruc- theirs. and to itswayof lifeas embodied of theregime If a mixed regimecould be made, which is or rules(archag) ture.The offices itscharacter; doubtful, that society bygiving thesociety rule it would advance theclaimto ruleof all in such parties or the whole. It would be impartialby from thesociety are not separable they of the combining thewinner as to awaitimpartially manner than by not promotall partiesrather within Onlya democratic inganypartyor byremaining society. to which indifferent struggle power a democratic partywins the strugglefor power. This regime with consists forexample, society, installed, would be partisanto thecommoninterest newly regime, of all in A democratic regime. of virtue of in themaintenance as soonas itcanto thedemocratizing proceeds thanimpartial rather par- liberty of rulewith of each peritsprinciple and applies theself-promotion society to facilitate of the"state" son and all parties. By means of this mixed fortheneutrality tisandisregard claimsof the one could judge thepartisan regime, of "society." and theautonomy the lesser regimesand sort those regimesinto good the cityis chiefly Thus, says Aristotle, The cityhas terri- and bad. Such judgmentis asked for,one could (Politics1276blO-12). regime it; say, by the claims of the regimes.It requiresan do notdefine butthese and inhabitants, tory a wall elevationabove ordinary thatbegins partisanship one cannotmakea cityby constructing a city must, from ordinarypartisanshipand that does not thePeloponnesus. Although around are issue in neutrality. these anda people, havea territory ofcourse, of the andthe which is itsregime, forits material form, We may suppose thatthe impersonality Itis notdefined modernstate,such as we findit in the fullclarity byitsform. chiefly is defined city is limited of Hobbes's political science, may have been theregime because byitsregime, solely climate) intended to correct the partisanship of the example, (for itcando bynature inwhat underFor in theAristotelian orto Aristotelian tosatisfy regime. nature necessity (the andbyhuman was leftexas Hobbes saw it, theregime bycus- standing human needs).It is also limited suppress who used of posed to thecaptureof religious parties, which consists anyway custom, tom,although or it with tyrannical regime zeal. We may suppose, then, by thepreceding established practices of themodernstatewas the andutterly thattheimpersonality rapidly change cansometimes regimes, onit.Theregime chosen instrument of secularization. That ofallwhorely to theamazement hidden ly- hypothesis cannot be elaboratedor testedhere.3 some essence is not, moreover, ofa city and people;it is publicly But it does seem necessaryto have before us a itsterritory ingbehind to the and in the characteristic more completepictureof the alternative visiblein its offices as its ordering (taxis).A modernstate than is usually supplied in discusof its rulers behavior for example,looks demo- sions of the usage of "state," so thatwe do not democratic regime, that such usage evolved in is leave the impression is thatwhich forwhatis mostvisible cratic, or by do not mere responseto changingcircumstances and thepublicis whattherulers public, rule. their to conceal, naive, gropingdiscoveryof the only trulyconneedor desire like ceivable political unit, the modernstate. Whatand impartial, Far from impersonal being the reflects evermayhavebeen thecauses thatestablished theAristotelian regime themodern state, claimof the modernstate,it had to be conceivedagainstthe and advances-thecharacteristic do not merely authority of classical politicalscience;and if it is who rule.Such persons persons in a to be argued that political necessities alone theirown self-interest claim to promote butthey broughtabout the modernstate,thenit mustbe to society, is common whole that greater view of the shownwhythoseverynecessities werenewlyconin a partisan themselves promote
2Plato Republic 473e, 501a, 544b-545d; Statesman 302b-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.

who do not make use of the term"state."2 The

use of statoas whole that is typically of Machiavelli's theirs,and theyadvance ner'sdescription andelaborate that view against the opposing view of their I must endorse butfirst traditional, idea. of thetraditional hisunderstanding typical opponents, democrats versus oligarchs, the forexample.As mencannothelppreferring from comes themideaofthestate Thetraditional inPlatoandAristotle, selves,so regimes (politeia) ofregime notion partisan.In this are necessarily
view, l'dtat, c'est moi would apply to every

and a new policeivedto requirea new ordering of the modernstate, the history tics. In writing historians,it may be gently suggested, need

in Mansfield(1968, 1971). 3See myattempts

1983

Machiavelli'sUse of Stato

851

clarification from political science.4 of effective not mean the extent power,when As far as I canseeintheresearch ofothers, the power itsparticular is abstracted from endsandis classical of theregime understanding prevailed in generalized as thepowerto do anything. When medieval usagebefore Machiavelli. It is often not statuscomesto meanabstract, general power, easyto seewhether orimpersonal effective partisan regime for any end, we see the connection stateis in question, becauseof theunhistoricalbetween state as a general or universal condition habit, in medieval almost universal of and stateas sovereign, historians, and we recognize the theterm itoccurs "state"before using oras itwas modern state. notused in history (Chabod,1964,p. 27). This To illustrate the meaning of status,we may habitis a form of superiority which implies that consider Thomas Aquinas' commentary on theobserver knows whatis going on better than Aristotle's Politics(c. 1260), an authoritative the participant, as, for example,when the sourcebecauseof its influence and becauseits observer knowsthatthe participant livesin a object is political not legal argument. science, "medieval" period whereas theparticipant knew Neither Thomasin hiscommentary norWilliam or conceived no suchthing. Manymedieval his- ofMoerbeke inhistranslation makes useofstatus torians are in,truth of the unnoticed forthediscussion scholars inthethird oftheregime book of modernity. beginnings Sometimes they speak of thePolitics. Butstatus doesenter therevision of "thestate"as taking shape, implying that the of Aquinas'commentary madebyLudovicus de stateis essentially in 1492using modern; sometimes con- Valentia they Leonardo Bruni's translatrastthe "medievalstate" withthe "modern tionofAristotle from theearly fifteenth century.7 state,"implying thatthestateis essentially uni- As instances ofa general rejection ofMoerbeke's versal.Although Aristotle founded his political Grecisms, oligarchia becomes status paucorum, scienceon the distinction between polls and anddemocratia, statuspopularis. Thisis doneina one can find bothterms politeia, Latin context (in their where thepolitia(regime) is said to be civitasand respublica equivalents, or politia) nothing other thantheordodominantum in the translated as "state" (Kantorowicz, 1957,pp. city(Aquinas,1951, 111.6,385, 392-395).The 214-216; Post, 1964,pp. viii,39; Tierney, 1982, "stateofthefew,"then, is their domination; but pp. 23, 39). Thisis notto saythat"state" was it is also their condition, order, or wayof life, from thefirst usedimpersonally (I shall argue that whichis the condition of the citywherethey Machiavelli's use of statowas not impersonal), dominate. Thisthoroughly unmodern identificamuchless thatwordsare always used withfull tionof thepowerin a society with thecondition awareness of their or thatmeanings of of thatsociety, meaning, which makesitspolitics responwords never change. But caution compels us to sibleforits wayof life,seemscharacteristic of or medieval question whether the "state" is progressive usage,and of Florentine usageas well, as it mayappearto us. universal, before Machiavelli.8 Theword "state"doesindeed inpolitical It is generally occur agreed that themodern state was in the MiddleAges, but to namethe constituted contexts byan abstraction from personal toimnot a neutral, regime, impersonal state.In this personal rule,butit is notgenerally appreciated usagetheLatinstatus does notstand alone,but howradical thatabstraction was. To movefrom requires someaccompanying wordor phrase to status with itsconcrete specification to status or whose status.5 specify The "StateoftheChurch" state without suchspecification was notenough, (status or "stateof therealm"(status ifthestate ecclesiae) thus abstracted still refers tosomeone's hasthegeneral regni) meaning of "state"as con- or somegroup'spersonal rule,although it does !ition,stillin use today,in whichone must notmatter which. Thatstate is no more abstract thecondition of what.The condition specify im- thanAristotle's regime, theterm forwhich can plied is a condition of stability or a good condi- standalone but alwayssignifies one or another so that status couldmeanthewelfare tion, (ofthe form of personal rule.Skinner (1978,vol. 2, p. or thewell-being realm) (of theChurch) which 356) finds theearliest impersonal use of "state" on theactions limits of thepope.6 Status gets did
70n thishumanistoutrageupon Aquinas, see Cranz (1978, pp. 171-173); Dondaine (1964, pp. 590-592); neededfrompoliticalsciencethatis aware of the clas- Grabmann (1941, p. 77); Martin (1952, pp. 41-47); sical regime;see Post (1964, pp. 7, 247). Aquinas (1971, pp. 15-21). 'See Condorelli(1923, 90:80); Dowdall (1923, p. 101); 8See Rubinstein (1971, pp. 313-326).But I cannotfolPost(1964, pp. 270, 371n); see theexceptions in Tierney low Rubinstein whenhe saysthatLeonardo Bruni,clariJ1963, p. 386) and Meyer(1950, p. 230). fying Aquinas, "distinguishes clearlybetweengovern6See Post (1964, pp. 298-306); Kantorowicz(1957, p. mentand the groups of individualscontrolling it" (p. Z71n);Tierney(1982, pp. 17, 64, 70); Powicke (1936, 316). He seems to me clearly to equate the two, in pp. 8-11). accord withAquinas and Aristotle.
4One should immediately add that clarificationis

852

PoliticalScienceReview The American

Vol. 77

to be, perhaps in Thomas Starkey'sA Dialogue ReginaldPole and ThomasLupset (Starbetween key, 1948), completedin 1535. There one finds state" (pp. "the wholestate" (p. 57), "the perfect 69, 111), and "a mixed state" (p. 165). But in theseinstancesand in all othersI could find(see esp. pp. 57, 64, 89, 99, 155, 164, 165, 167), "state" is used in the traditionalAristotelian sense of regime.For Starkey,the statewas both the conditionof being ruled and the rulers,with betweenstateand society. no hintof a distinction but Starkeyused the term"state" impersonally, he had by no means achievedthe radical abstracstate. tion of an impersonal Thus, to look fortheriseof themodernstatein may be misleading, of sovereignty the fashioning if it is done withoutattentionto the peculiar in the modern state. character of sovereignty Modern sovereigntyis impersonal, and the whathe must(which prescribes modernsovereign may be much) only or mainlyto keep the peace and his own power intact(see Calasso, 1957, p. in 164). But if one is contentto seek sovereignty uncontestedpower, one will mistake the rediscovery of the regimein Aristotle'sEthics and century, in thethirteenth Politics,whichoccurred for the modern state.9The Aristotelianregime towardthe modernstate, was not a way-station however,but ratherthe greatestobstacle to its conception. regimedid of the Aristotelian The rediscovery of medievalpolitithe legal character undermine cal thought. For according to Aristotle, the is the source of regime,or the human legislator, law, ratherthan law the source of the regime (Politics 1282b8-14,1289al3-15). The reassertion the fundacould not fail to subvert of thistruth both of Roman law, thepretense mentalpremises as thechoice of a by whichan empireis presented and of canon law, theclaimthatlaw has republic, a divinesource. Those who findthe originof the modernstatein the legal conceptions impersonal, the also underestimate of medieval corporatism radical natureof the modernstate.To realizethe of the modern state, it is not impersonality betweenpersonand to distinguish enoughmerely office, since that separation is already accomregime. plishedin the officesof the Aristotelian The modernstate requiresmuch more: that offices not be used for personal rule accordingto theopinionsof therulers.If thisis to happen,the abstracted mustbe radically stateas a corporation fromthe actual personswho governthroughit. The medieval corporation,often called univergroup, sitas, was the legal personof a preexisting
'See Morrall (1971, p. 80), Ullmann (1961, p. 293; 1975, p. 272).

It confor example the monks of a monastery. on theirgroup, thus a a legal immortality ferred but it did not requirethe certainimpersonality, as monks monksto abstractfromtheircharacter the universitas. whenconstituting whenuniversitas occurred abstraction A greater thatwas the was used to describethe community under existing sourceof law beyondcommunities But again, althougha legal person,the the law.10 a parwas a particularcommunity, universitas beforeits legal ticularpeople havingan existence by incorporation conferred existence;the legality was a baptism,not a creation(Michaud-Quantin, explainsthe 1970,p. 55). Hence, as BrianTierney principle of medieval corporatism,the people but obey as individuals command as universitas (Tierney,1982, pp. 57-58,80). This is the precise opposite of the principleby which the modern state is incorporated;accordingto Hobbes and we are free as inour present understanding, stateis The modern dividualsand obeyas citizens. created by incorporationfrom the "state of like it. The modernstateis nature" or something regime;it is a legalized,incorporated not merely that fromanyregime in orderto abstract artificial mightbe lurkingbehind the medieval corporation. With Machiavelli, however, we encountera fundamentalchallenge to the classical regime sight in his use ofstato. At first whichis expressed Machiavelli's use of stato appears quite tradithat is, or Aristotelian, tional (as Skinnersays"1) quite foreignto us, for we are struck by the phrasessuo stato and lorostato,whichfrequently modernstateis not inform us thattheimpersonal enin question.12 At the same timewe frequently counterlo stato standingby itself,which might of the make us think that the impersonality modernstate is underway. But such an impression would be misleading.With us the state sig'0See Tierney(1982, pp. 22-26, 36, 42, 73); Mochi Onory (1951, p. 259); Kantorowicz (1957, p. 272); (1970, pp. 7, 40-41, 55, 57); Canning Michaud-Quantin (1980, pp. 12-13,31); Keen (1965, p. 110). See also John of Salisbury(Policratus IV 2) for the expressionuniof the regime reipoliticae; thisis a universitas versitas whichas such precedesthe law but oughtto live by the did not have of theclassical regime law. Understanding Politicsa century of Aristotle's to await therediscovery later. "Skinner (1978, vol. 2, p. 354); Post (1964, pp. 365-366); Ercole (1926, p. 66); DeVries (1957, pp. 70, 80-81); D'Entreves(1967, p. 30); Hexter(1973, pp. 173175). (1957, pp. 58-59); Chiappelli(1969, p. 36n; "2DeVries cf. 1952, pp. 59-73). See also stato loro proprio, "their HistoriesVI 8, and "those to own state," in Florentine HistoriesVII 2. whom the statebelonged," Florentine

1983

Machiavelli'sUse of Stato

853

nifiessomething impersonal, and we do not use a tionofstato,which occurs rarely in Machiavelli, possessive pronoun. When Machiavelli uses lo signify the presence of the modern impersonal stato withouta possessivepronoun,however,he state, becausethestatethatis personified is still seems always to implyone. Merelybecause the someone's, liketheAristotelian regime. NE creda wordstato in the Italian of Machiavelliand of his mai alcuno stato ("nor shouldany stateever contemporaries had acquired the abilityto stand believe,"ThePrince, chap. 21) states clearly in alone by contrast to the Latin status,it does not the context what "the prince" should never follow thatstato meant "impersonalstate" any believe,although "prince" here refers to the morethandidpolitia in Moerbeke'stranslation of Venetians andtheFlorentines. Andilsospetto che Aristotle's politeia,whichalso stood byitself. The lo stato aveva("thesuspicion that thestate had," phrasesSkinner cites(1978, vol. 2, p. 354) as pos- Florentine Histories III 23) refers to the"princes sible counter-examples a tinctureof of thestate"soon after. suggesting Questi statitengono il in Machiavelli's stato-la maestro core disarmato impersonality e le mani e lipiedi armati ("these dello stato, l'autoritddello stato, la mutazione states keeptheir hearts unarmed and their hands dello stato-prove on examination to refer to the andfeet armed," Discourses onLivy, II 30)refers majesty, authority,and change of someone's to a mistake of bothprinces and republics in state. The someone may be collective, as in stato regard to their states. Statois notmadeimperdi Firenze, but that does not make Florence's sonalwith itsownverbanymorethanwith the state any less personal than Aristotle's status impersonal article so longas someone's or some popularis(in Bruni'stranslation state personal is meant in Aquinas' com- party's (cf.DeVries, 1957, mentary),which is a regime belongingto the p. 79; Ercole, 1926, p. 77). Oneperson's stato can people. If thestatodi FirenzeincludesPisa, thatis be exchanged foranother's (Florentine Histories VI 30); so statois notas personal because Pisa belongsto the Florentines. as an old shoe. When Machiavellisays at the end of the ninth As we shallsee,statois personal notbecauseit chapterof The Princethatthe wise princeshould suits youbutbecauseyou haveacquired it. The thinkof a way by whichhis citizensalways have artedellostatothat Machiavelli saidhe hadbeen need dello stato e di lui, he distinguishes for15 years (in theletter of December that studying prince fromthe state but hardlydenies that the 10, 1513in which he casually announces he has state is the prince's (cf. DeVries, 1957, p. 61; completed ThePrince; cf.letter ofApril 9, 1513) Florentine HistoriesVI 35). When he says in the is theuniversal or impersonal artof maintaining same place thatlo stato has need of the citizens, personaldomination (cf. Chiappelli, 1969, p. he obviouslyrefersto that same prince's state. 36n). Without thisdiscussion, prolonging I canAnd in the eighteenth I havefound in anyof Machiavelli's chapterof the Discourses notsaythat an instance on Livy,whenhe speaksof thedifficulty of the impersonal modern of main- writings hisusesofstato. among taininglo stato libero in a corruptcity,the dif- state ficulty is thatof keepingfreethe statebelonging thatMachiaThis does not mean,however, to a corrupt people, not thatof keeping an imper- velli's inthetraditional orclassistatois a regime sonal state free.For, as we learnin the sixteenth cal sense. has shown in hiswellAs J. H. Hexter chapter,even the liberostato has partisanfriends known is usedalmost statoin ThePrince study, and enemies. in an exploitative sense:someoneis invariably Stato can also appear in an objectivegenitive, almost someone elsebymeans always exploiting as in stato di Lombardia and stato di Asia oflo stato. statois to saythat 14 It might be better (Florentine HistoriesI 37; The Prince, chap. 4). suchexploitation," to avoid wish and one might These "states" did not belong to Lombardyand the anachronism and speak of "exploitation" Asia, but theydid belongto Filippo Viscontiand Alexander, respectively.Machiavelli refers to quello stato "whichhad ruledfrom1381to 1434" 14Hexter (1973); Ercole (1926, p. 107); Sternberger in Florence(Florentine Histories,III 29), meaning (1974, pp. 42-43). ConsiderMachiavelli's famousjoke: "that state" thatwas held by and passed through "For when the Cardinal of Rouen said to me thatthe war, I repliedto himthatthe many hands in those years. But neithermany Italiansdo notunderstand about the state" (non si inhands at one timenor different hands over time Frenchdo not understand make Machiavelli's stato any more impersonal tendovanodello stato; The Prince, chap. 3). Note the rareinstancesof reggimento in Florentine HistoriesII, thanAristotle's regime.13Nor does a personifica- 11, 32.
"Cf. DeVries (1957, p. 65) and Rubinstein (1971, p. 319). For Strayer (1970, p. 10), permanent, impersonal institutions, together withauthority and loyalty, suffice to makea state;so he asserts,"certainly theGreekpolis was a state." See Aristotle Politics 1301b6-13. "5Hexter (1973, p. 171) speaks almost in successive sentences of Machiavelli'sstato as an instrument and as theobject of exploitation. As instrument of exploitation stato impliestheexistence of something like "the state" withwhichto exploitothers.Hexterseems hereto slip into the errorof presupposingthe modern state, for

854

PoliticalScienceReview The American

Vol. 77

courses on Livy I 6 (end); see also Politics 1257b381258al, 1323a34-1323b21, 1365a6-8; Nicomachean Ethics 1129bl-3.

of the state,the claims it in the ordering regime, it recommends. advances, and the neutrality is "some theregime First,whereasforAristotle of the city" that reof the inhabitants ordering mains visible in its formas long as the regime lasts,forMachiavellithe "order" or "orders" of Given the the state mustbe subject to change."8 to acquire and theconsequentloosening necessity neitherprincesnor republics of moral restraint, or maintainincan affordto retainsubordinates Princesmust thatbecomeinconvenient. stitutions be capable of usingothersas Cesare Borgia,himof his fatherAlexander VI, self the instrument de Orco (The Prince,chap. 7); and used Remirro with in republics,"orders" mustbe manipulated new "modes" and thenchangedinto new orders when the "matter" of a city is becoming corarises,forexample ruptedor whenan emergency the challengeto the Senate posed by ambitious leaders of the plebians. In both cases the true orderingof the state is not what appears to the public, but what goes on behindthe scenes; and and expanded by the this contrastis confirmed obvious importance of conspiracy in Machiavelli's political thoughtin comparison to Aristotle's (Mansfield, 1979, on Discourses III 6). What is visible in Machiavelli's state is not the extent. itseffectual of power,but rather character we are on the way toward With this difference and people (cf. the state by its territory defining Shennan, 1974, p. 25). the to acquire determines Second, the necessity claims of states. Since states must characteristic acquire, theymustyieldto, nay incite,the desire naturewho for gloryin those men of a princely mostevincethatdesire.At thesame time,thepeoand theirdesireforsecurple mustbe conciliated the whenpossible,if onlyto maintain itysatisfied leadersin republics. gloryof princesand princely If a commongood is soughtbetweenprincesand peoples, it must accommodatetheirdiversebut desires for glory and security, complementary maybe. Although the claimsof regimes whatever Roman distincMachiavellikeeps the traditional he does and republics, tion betweenprincipalities opposingclaimsof thecharacteristically not stress those regimes;he throwscold waterboth on the typical republican hatred for "the name of disdainforthe fickleness prince" and on princely whichhe indicatedChiappelli (pp. 173-175). For more of popular government (Discourseson Livy, I 58, on Machiavelli'sstato, see Chabod (1967, pp. 631-637); II 2). He erodes the traditionaldistinction with (1947, pp. Gilbert(1965, pp. 326-330); and Whitfield such phrases as "princes in the republic" and 93-95). "civil principality"and with similar advice to "6See Dowdall (1923, p. 110); Condorelli (1923, p. contrastbothon how to misbehave.Despitetheir is said in Machiavelli's sentence ing claims to virtue,states are to be judged by 87). Note thatnothing about the future. their "effectual truth" in acquiring glory and 7Aristotle Politics 1267a30-32and Machiavelli DisOne hardlyneed add that, security. maintaining domination dominoi) or mastery(signoria) or empire(imperio)as Machiavellidoes. Machiavelli of comes as close as he everdoes to a definition stato in the firstsentenceof The Prince: "All states,all dominions[dominiilthathave had and have empireimperiall over men have been and '16 Here are either republics or principalities.' are in "states," eitherrepublicsor principalities, apposition to "dominions" that have "empire" over men. A quick surveyof some featuresof will show how far Machiavelli'spoliticalthought this empire over men is from the Aristotelian 1974, pp. 38-39,56-66). regime(cf. Sternberger, Machiavelli'sstatois someone'sto acquireor to neveracquires or mainmaintain.The stateitself theadvantainson itsown accountseparatefrom tage of some person or group: thisis the critical testthat tellsus Machiavelli's stateis not impersonal (Ercole, 1926, pp. 150-151).But if stato is always the advantage of someone over someone the state cannot else, acquiringand maintaining be equally important.In the second chapterof The Prince, Machiavelli lets us think that the prince,who has not acquired his prinhereditary is "the naturalprince" because he maincipality, we are chapter tainsitmoreeasily.But in thethird rudely informedof "the natural and ordinary desire to acquire," and in the sixthchapterwe learn that those princeswho acquire theirstates and by virtue,in total contrastto withdifficulty princes,keep them withease. Meanhereditary while, in the fifthchapter of the Discourses, Machiavellisays thatthosewho wantto maintain possessionshave thesame wishas thosewho their want to acquire, namely, the wish to acquire, since men do not think they possess anything new. unlesstheyare acquiringsomething securely whatone has, we One cannotsit stillto maintain learn in the next chapter, because "all human thingsare in motion." Thus in both The Prince and the Discourses, for both princesand republics, acquisitioncomes first. polito Aristotle's This conclusion,so contrary Machiacannotbutaffect ticsas wellas hisethics, velli's notion o04stato.'7 I shall mention three changesit producesby comparisonto Aristotle's
1247b38;Discourses on Livy 1 18. 18Politics

1983

Machiavelli'sUse of Stato

855

of for Machiavelli, glory and securityare in this licanismshows no more of the impersonality of the the modernstatethan does his advice to princes. the appropriation world. It was to prevent and itsclaimsof justicebythecity A republic statoof a certain groupas a prinis-the classicalregime of God and the "Christian republic" that he cipality is thestato of theprince,in both cases an and prin- effectual of both republics acquisitionis the attention directed acquisition. An effectual gain. cipalitiestowardworldly one properly maintained, that is, continually sentenceof The refreshed to the first with new acquisitions.Rather than in Thus, on returning such as it was, Machiavelli's Prince,we can see thatMachiavelli'suse of stato his republicanism, of themodernstate enables him to be neutralbetweenrepublicsand steptowardtheimpersonality Whereas for Aristotlethe better can be seen in his impartialadvice to all parties principalities. in a truer sensethantheworse and personsto acquire when theycan. The very are regimes regimes are as much universality of his advice to be partialto oneself ones,'9 forMachiavelliprincipalities but not requiresthathe be neutralbetweenthe partieshe states as are republics.His well-known for republicsis advises, for examplebetweenprincesand repubpreference always well-examined carefullyqualified: the common good "is not lics (see Mansfield, 1981, pp. 293-305). Repubin the licanism,therefore, is not a continuoustradition observedifnotin republics,"but it consists of thefewbythemany,and to be con- from ancient to modern times, for somewhere oppression the quered by a republic is the hardest slavery.20 betweenancient and modern republicanism modernstatewas introa princein a "civil principality" conceptof theimpersonal Nothing prevents the people duced. Aristotlelacks it, and Rousseau (Social (The Prince, chap. 9) frombenefiting as muchas theymay be in a freerepublic,and in ContractI 6) has it. This conceptcame not from but from an attitudeof any case Machiavellisees quite clearlythatstato withinrepublicanism, in theold senseof partowardrepublics won by collective selfishness has no moral neutrality of a transformation whichrequired superiorityover that acquired by individual tisanregimes, one The reason is thattheyhardlydiffer. the republicanspirit.To this consideration, selfishness. and obvious factthat Just as every prince needs a people, so every should add the impressive con- everywhere in the West the modernstatewas, or people needs a head-an ambitioustribune, or senate-to directit as a people in was the work of, a monarchy. sul, dictator, Nonetheless,to say that the change fromthe its acquisitions. is evidentin his use of personal state to the impersonalstate was "the Machiavelli'sneutrality in decisiveshift,"as Skinnerdoes (1978, vol. 1, p. university, the medievaltermforcorporation, chapter 19 of The Prince. Although in earlier ix), is somewhatmisleading.Rather,the decisive was fromthepersonalstatein theAristoteltheneed fortheprinceto shift he had stressed chapters have the favor,or at least to avoid the hatred,of ian sense to the acquisitive personal state of the people in orderto maintainhis state,he now Machiavelli.For thischangeprovidedthe imparto the modernstate. suddenlychanges his tune. Since the princecan- tialitythat is fundamental in Machiavelli'sgeneraladvice to acquire not help beinghatedbysomeone,Machiavellidis- Implicit compelled was an impartialregard for all who mightbe time,he is at first closes for the first it. Afterthisit was but a step (thatis, thepeo- capable of applying not to be hatedby the university ple or everyone);but whenhe cannotdo this,he (althougha step Machiavelli did not take) to a the must contriveto avoid the hatred of the most statethatmightacquire for all and facilitate (Orwin, 1978, 72, (in the plural), that is, the acquisitionsof all impartially powerfuluniversity soldiers. Thus Machiavelli's preferencefor a 1226-1227). Thus the impersonalmodern state of democraticover an undemocraticpolicy is not was conceived,not in, but out of, the thought absolute and is determinedby necessity,not the most personal political philosopherthat we of it he uses themedieval know, in the sense of recommendingselfchoice. In thisstatement medievalanThat is whyfinding in both senses of corporation aggrandizement. term university to exof impersonality does notsuffice thatis the source ticipations the law and community within of law, but with brusque disregardfor law and plain the modernstate, for the modernstateexin legality. pressesMachiavelli's impartialacquisitiveness I concludethatthepathto themodernstatewas its formulations of impersonal legality. as not by way of Machiavelli's republicanism, The stateof ragionedi stato appeared in 1589, has argued. His repub- soon after Pocock (1975, pp. vii-viii) Machiavelli,in a book of thatname by of Machiavelli.That GiovanniBotero,a follower "Politics 1275bl-3; see Plato, Laws 712e; Statesman state,as opposed to Machiavelli's,was said to be of its 303c. because thereasoning acquisitive impartially on Livy II 2; cf. DiscoursesIII 9, and see ragionewas not the ruler'sbut the state's. Hence 20Discourses thestate,unlikeMachiavelli's,was not oppressive Mansfield(1979) on Discourses 1, 55, 58-59; II 2, 19.

856

PoliticalScienceReview The American

Vol. 77

to the ruled.2' But the full conception of the Dondaine, H. F. Le Super Politicamde Saint Thomas. Revue des SciencesPhilosophiqueset Thedologiques. modernstatehad to await the politicalscienceof 1964, 48, 585-602. Hobbes. What Skinner calls the "main elements"of the Dowdall, H. C. The word "state." Law Quarterly Review. 1923,39, 98-127. modernstategradually acquiredbetween Machiavelli and Hobbes were merematerialsassembled Ercole, F. La politica di Machiavelli. Rome: Anonima Romana, 1926. for Hobbes's construction on a foundationpre- Friedrich,C. J. Constitutional reason of state. Provipared by Machiavelli. It was Hobbes who disdence, R.I.: BrownUniversity Press, 1957. state fromsociety,thus allowingthe Gilbert, F. Machiavelli and Guicciardini.Princeton, tinguished stateto represent societyimpartially; he who, to N.J.: PrincetonUniversity Press, 1965. make thisdistinction, invented theconceptof the Grabmann, M. Die mittelalterlichen Kommentarezur PolitikdesAristoteles. Munich:Sitzungsberichte der state of nature yielding natural rightsbefore Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1941. natural duties and the rightof self-preservation Bayerishen and legalizing generalizing Machiavelli'sadviceto Hartung, F. L'6tat c'est moi. HistorischeZeitschrift, 1949, 169, 1-30. and it acquire; he was who conceivedthe impersonal stateas an artificial personwhosewordsand Hexler, J. H. Ii principeand lo stato. In J. H. Hexter (Ed.). The visionof politicson theeve of theRefordeeds were"owned" by his subjects,not by himmation. New York: Basic Books, 1973. self. Only witha view to Hobbes could we know John of Salisbury. Policraticus. (2 vols.). (C. C. J. whatthevariousanticipations of themodernstate Webb, Ed.). Oxford:ClarendonPress, 1909. (Comwere anticipating, but the decision in the "decipletedin 1159.) siveshift"to modernity was takenbyMachiavelli. Kantorowicz,E. H. The king's two bodies' a studyin

References
Botero, G. Della Ragion di Stato. Bologna: Cappelli, 1930. Calasso, F. I Glossatori e la teoria delta sovranitd. Milan: Guiffre, 1957. in thepoliticalthought Canning,J. P. The corporation of theItalianjuristsof thethirteenth and fourteenth centuries. HistoryofPolitical Theory,1980,1, 9-32. Chabod, F. Alcuni questioni di terminologia:stato, nazione,patrianellinguaggio del Cinquecento.In F. Chabod (Ed.). Scritti sul Rinascimento. Turin: Einaudi, 1967. Chabod, F. Was there a Renaissance state? In H. Lubasz (Ed.). The development of themodern state. New York: Macmillan,pp. 27-36, 1964. Chiappelli, F. Nuovi studi sul linguaggiodel Machiavelli. Florence: Le Monnier,1969. Chiappelli, F. Studi sul linguaggio del Machiavelli. Florence:Le Monnier,1952. Condorelli, 0. Per la storia del nome "stato." ArchivioGiuridico,1923, 89, 223-235; 90, 70-112. of the Aristotle Cranz, F. The publishing history commentaries of Thomas Aquinas. Traditio,1978, 34, 157-192. D'Entreves, A. P. The notion of the state. Oxford: ClarendonPress, 1967. DeVries, H. Essai sur la terminologie constitutionelle chez Machiavel. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam doctoralthesis,1957. 2"Botero (1930, pp. 9, 26-33); see Friedrich (1957, p. 4). Ragione di stato in Botero substitutes for fraudin Machiavelli,for when the stato becomes entitled to its own special reason, it no longerneeds fraud. Cf. per cagione dello stato in Machiavelli'sFlorentine Histories VII 5, to describea partisan consideration. The connection betweenreason of state and acquisitionseparates the former frommedievalinstancesof ratiostatus discussed by Post (1964, pp. 250-301).

medieval politicaltheology. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1957. Keen, M. H. The political thoughtof the fourteenthcenturycivilians. In B. Smalley (Ed.). Trends in medievalpolitical thought.New York: Barnes and Noble, 1965. Machiavelli, N. Lettere. (F. Gaeta, Ed.). Milan: Feltrinelli Editore, 1961. Machiavelli, N. Opere politiche. (M. Puppo, Ed.). Florence: Le Monnier,1969. Mansfield,H. C. Jr.Hobbes and thescienceof indirect government.American Political Science Review, 1971, 65, 97-110. Mansfield, H. C. Jr. Machiavelli's new modes and orders: a study of the Discourses on Livy. Ithaca, N.J.: CornellUniversity Press, 1979. Mansfield, H. C. Jr. Machiavelli's political science. American Political Science Review, 1981, 75, 293-305. Mansfield,H. C. Jr.Modern and medievalrepresentation. Nomos, 1968, 11, 55-82. Martin,C. The Vulgatetextof Aquinas's commentary on Aristotle's Politics. Dominican Studies, 1952,5, 35-64. Meyer, A. 0. Zur Geschichtedes Wortes Staat. Die Weltals Geschichte, 1950, 10, 229-239. Michaud-Quantin, P. Universitas: Expressions du Mouvement Communautairedans le Moyen-Age Latin. Paris: Vrin, 1970. Mochi Onory,S. Fonti canonistiche dell' idea moderna dello stato. Milan: Vita e Pensiero, 1951. in medievaltimes.3rd Morrall,J. B. Political thought ed. London: HutchinsonUniversity Library,1971. Orwin,C. Machiavelli's unchristian American charity. Political Science Review, 1978, 72, 1217-1228. Pocock, J. G. A. The Machiavellianmoment.Princeton, N.J.: PrincetonUniversity Press, 1975. Post, G. Studies in medievallegal thought.Princeton, N.J.: PrincetonUniversity Press, 1964. Powicke, F. M. Reflectionson the medieval state. Transactions of theRoyal HistoricalSociety. 1936, 19, 1-18.

1983

Machiavelli'sUse of Stato

857

Rowen, H. A. L'6tat, c'est moi: Louis XIV and the state.FrenchHistoricalStudies, 1961,2, 83-93. Rubinstein,N. Notes on the word stato in Florence beforeMachiavelli. In J. G. Rowe & W. H. Stockdale (Eds.). FlorilegiumHistoriale. Toronto: Uniof Toronto Press, 1971. versity Shennan, J. H. The originsof the modernEuropean state, 1450-1725. London: HutchinsonUniversity Library,1974. Skinner, Q. The foundations of modern political thought.2 vols. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press, 1978. Starkey,T. A dialogue between Reginald Pole and Thomas Lupset (K. M. Burton, Ed.). London: Chatto & Windus, 1948. Sternberger,D. Machiavelli's "Principe" und der des Politischen.Wiesbaden: Steiner,1974. Begriff J. R. On the medievaloriginsof the modern Strayer, Press, state. Princeton,N.J.: PrincetonUniversity 1970. Tarcov, N. Political thoughtin early modernEurope.

Journalof Modern History,1982, 54, 56-65. Thomas Aquinas, Saint. In Libros PoliticorumAristotelis Expositio. (R. M. Spiazzi, Ed.). Rome: Marietti,1951. LibriPoliticorum.In Thomas Aquinas, Saint. Sententia Opera Omnia, Leonine ed. vol. 47. Rome: Ad Sanctae Sabinae, 1971. Tierney, B. The Prince is not bound by the laws; of themodernstate. In B. Accursiusand theorigins Tierney (Ed.). Church law and constitutional thoughtin the Middle Ages. London: Variorum Reprints,1963,3, 378-400. Tierney,B. Religion,law, and thegrowthof constitutional thought,1150-1650.Cambridge: Cambridge Press, 1982. University Ullmann, W. Law and politics in the Middle Ages. Press, 1975. Ithaca, N.Y.: CornellUniversity and politics in Ullmann, W. Principlesof government the Middle Ages. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1961. J. H. Machiavelli.Oxford:Blackwell,1947. Whitfield,

New

From Princeton
I

Examining presidential elections te r ore tin a from 1952to 1980,Kelleyproposes M a new method of interpreting electionoutcomes, derivedfrom an explicit theory ofvoting, and applicable toanyelectionfor which Jr. StanleyKelley, theright kinds ofsurvey data exist. Focusing on theJohnson and Nixonlandslidevictories, theauthor also discussesthe continuing importance of New Deal issues,theDemocratic bias that persists inthis country, and critiques pressinterpretations ofelections to helpexplainthe 1980 Reagan victory. C: $27.50. P: $8.95

41William Street, Princeton, NJ 08540 U ni versi

Prineeton ty Pres s