Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T19:11:19.891Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the Impersonality of the Modern State: A Comment on Machiavelli's Use of Stato

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Harvey C. Mansfield Jr.
Harvey C. Mansfield Jr.*
Affiliation:
Harvard University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The modern state, by contrast to the Aristotelian regime, is essentially impersonal. For Machiavelli, stato is extremely personal; yet, it is argued, Machiavelli laid the foundation for the modern state in his general and impartial advice to acquire stato. The argument proceeds by an analysis of Machiavelli's use of stato, after a brief consideration of its medieval counterparts.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 77 , Issue 4 , December 1983 , pp. 849 - 857
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1983

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Botero, G.Della Ragion di Stato. Bologna: Cappelli, 1930.Google Scholar
Calasso, F.I Glossatori e la teoria della sovranità. Milan: Guiffrè, 1957.Google Scholar
Canning, J. P.The corporation in the political thought of the Italian jurists of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. History of Political Theory, 1980, I, 9–32.Google Scholar
Chabod, F.Alcuni questioni di terminologia: stato, nazione, patria nel linguaggio del Cinquecento. In Chabod, F. (Ed.). Scritti sul Rinascimento. Turin: Einaudi, 1967.Google Scholar
Chabod, F.Was there a Renaissance state? In Lubasz, H. (Ed.). The development of the modern state. New York: Macmillan, pp. 27–36, 1964.Google Scholar
Chiappelli, F.Nuovi studi sul linguaggio del Machiavelli. Florence: Le Monnier, 1969.Google Scholar
Chiappelli, F.Studi sul linguaggio del Machiavelli. Florence: Le Monnier, 1952.Google Scholar
Condorelli, O.Per la storia del nome “stato.” Archivio Giuridico, 1923, 89, 223–235; 90, 70-112.Google Scholar
Cranz, F.The publishing history of the Aristotle commentaries of Thomas Aquinas. Traditio, 1978, 34, 157–192.Google Scholar
D'Entrèves, A. P.The notion of the state. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967.Google Scholar
DeVries, H.Essai sur la terminologie constitutionelle chez Machiavel. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam doctoral thesis, 1957.Google Scholar
Dondaine, H. F.Le Super Politicam de Saint Thomas. Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et Théologiques. 1964, 48, 585–602.Google Scholar
Dowdall, H. C.The word “state.” Law Quarterly Review. 1923, 39, 98–127.Google Scholar
Ercole, F.La politica di Machiavelli. Rome: Anonima Romana, 1926.Google Scholar
Friedrich, C. J.Constitutional reason of state. Providence, R.I.: Brown University Press, 1957.Google Scholar
Gilbert, F.Machiavelli and Guicciardini. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1965.Google Scholar
Grabmann, M.Die mittelalterlichen Kommentare zur Politik des Aristoteles. Munich: Sitzungsberichte der Bayerishen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1941.Google Scholar
Hartung, F.L'état c'est moi. Historische Zeitschrift, 1949, 169, 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hexler, J. H.Il principe and lo stato. In Hexter, J. H. (Ed.). The vision of politics on the eve of the Reformation. New York: Basic Books, 1973.Google Scholar
John of Salisbury. Policraticus. (2 vols.). (Webb, C. C. J., Ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1909. (Completed in 1159.)Google Scholar
Kantorowicz, E. H.The king's two bodies' a study in medieval political theology. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1957.Google Scholar
Keen, M. H.The political thought of the fourteenth-century civilians. In Smalley, B. (Ed.). Trends in medieval political thought. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1965.Google Scholar
Machiavelli, N.Lettere: (Gaeta, F., Ed.). Milan: Feltrinelli Editore, 1961.Google Scholar
Machiavelli, N.Opere politiche. (Puppo, M., Ed.). Florence: Le Monnier, 1969.Google Scholar
Mansfield, H. C. Jr.Hobbes and the science of indirect government. American Political Science Review, 1971, 65, 97–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansfield, H. C. Jr.Machiavelli's new modes and orders: a study of the Discourses on Livy. Ithaca, N.J.: Cornell University Press, 1979.Google Scholar
Mansfield, H. C. Jr.Machiavelli's political science. American Political Science Review, 1981, 75, 293–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansfield, H. C. Jr.Modern and medieval representation. Nomos, 1968, 11, 55–82.Google Scholar
Martin, C.The Vulgate text of Aquinas's commentary on Aristotle's Politics. Dominican Studies, 1952, 5, 35–64.Google Scholar
Meyer, A. O.Zur Geschichte des Wortes Staat. Die Welt als Geschichte, 1950, 10, 229–239.Google Scholar
Michaud-Quantin, P.Universitas: Expressions du Mouvement Communautaire dans le Moyen-Age Latin. Paris: Vrin, 1970.Google Scholar
Mochi Onory, S.Fonti canonistiche dell' idea moderna dello stato. Milan: Vita e Pensiero, 1951.Google Scholar
Morrall, J. B.Political thought in medieval times. 3rd ed. London: Hutchinson University Library, 1971.Google Scholar
Orwin, C.Machiavelli's unchristian charity. American Political Science Review, 1978, 72, 1217–1228.Google Scholar
Pocock, J. G. A.The Machiavellian moment. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1975.Google Scholar
Post, G.Studies in medieval legal thought. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powicke, F. M.Reflections on the medieval state. Transactions of the Royal Historical Society. 1936, 19, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowen, H. A.L'état, c'est moi: Louis XIV and the stete. French Historical Studies, 1961, 2, 83–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubinstein, N.Notes on the word stato in Florence before Machiavelli. In Rowe, J. G. & Stockdale, W. H. (Eds.). Florilegium Historiale. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1971.Google Scholar
Shennan, J. H.The origins of the modern European state, 1450-1725. London: Hutchinson University Library, 1974.Google Scholar
Skinner, Q.The foundations of modern political thought. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978.Google Scholar
Starkey, T.A dialogue between Reginald Pole and Thomas Lupset (Burton, K. M., Ed.). London: Chatto & Windus, 1948.Google Scholar
Sternberger, D.Machiavelli's “Principe” und der Begriff des Politischen. Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1974.Google Scholar
Strayer, J. R.On the medieval origins of the modern state. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1970.Google Scholar
Tarcov, N.Political thought in early modern Europe. Journal of Modern History, 1982, 54, 56–65.Google Scholar
Thomas Aquinas, Saint. In Libros Politicorum Aristotelis Expositio. (Spiazzi, R. M., Ed.). Rome: Marietti, 1951.Google Scholar
Thomas Aquinas, Saint. Sententia Libri Politicorum. In Opera Omnia, Leonine, ed. vol. 47. Rome: Ad Sanctae Sabinae, 1971.Google Scholar
Tierney, B.The Prince is not bound by the laws; Accursius and the origins of the modern state. In Tierney, B. (Ed.). Church law and constitutional thought in the Middle Ages. London: Variorum Reprints, 1963, 3, 378–400.Google Scholar
Tierney, B.Religion, law, and the growth of constitutional thought, 1150-1650. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982.Google Scholar
Ullmann, W.Law and politics in the Middle Ages. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1975.Google Scholar
Ullmann, W.Principles of government and politics in the Middle Ages. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1961.Google Scholar
Whitfield, J. H.Machiavelli. Oxford: Blackwell, 1947.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.