Mailing Address

Karin Tilmans I Wyger Velema,

UniversitY of Amsterdam ,

Department of History,

Spuistraat 134, 1012 VB Amsterdam,

The Netherlands

e-mail: Karin.Tilmans@hum.uva.nl

http://www.hum.uvalnll- huizingalnieuws

• •

UIZINGA INSTITUUT Onderzoekschool voor Cultuurgeschiedenis

• Research Institute and Gmduate School of Cultural History

• History of Concepts Newsletter

Nr 4, Summer 2001

• • • •

• • In this Issue: •

• Raymonde Monnier -- The Concept or Democralie representative in Rcvolutionairy France.

• Comments on the Third Annual Meeting of the History of Social and Political Concepts Group -

Martin J. Burke.

• A Geology of Historical Times? Kari Palonen on • • Kose lleck's Zeitschichten.

• Balazs Trenscenyi -- Slate and nation: The Language afNational Identity in Early-Modem Hungary.

• Wyger Velema -- The Concept of Liberty in Dutch

History.

•

Tile context of appearance of tile notion democratie representative in France: from tile quarrel on a word (republic) to tile quarrel of tile Ancients and tile Moderns.' Raymonde Monnier (CNRS, Paris).

I will take a case study in the area of the French Revolution to try to show the link between rhetoric and conceptual change, and the validity of the short-tenn approach in the long-term history of concepts, not in terms of pre-eminence of any of the two, rather to show their complementary character, and what a historian specialist can bring to the subject. Pierre Rosanvallon. in his last book on democracy from 1789 to OUf days (La democratie inachevee. Histoire de la souverainete du peupfe en France, Paris, nrf, 2000) stressed the notion of democratie representative in his chapter on the French Revolution: the " impossible representative democracy" opens the first part of his book on the " borders" of democracy (fes bords de fa democratie). What I want to show, in analysing the context of the democratic theories developed during the first "republican moment" of the French Revolution, is that the quarrel over the word republic and the nature of the regime is revealing of what is at stake in the famous opposition between the liberty of the Ancients and the Modems. Constant's theory of the antinomy belongs to the political field of the French Revolution. All the important it is as an argument, it does not go beyond a factual consensus, largely determined by the empirical conditions that prevailed throughout its elaboration [. A naiVe reader of the book of Rosanvallon wou ld wonder to see .representative democracy thus placed on the borders, as the notion has been widely recognised as an essential one in politics. In fact the general arrangement of the book and the well documented exposition that follows shows that it is less representative democracy than revolutionary government that is thus pushed on the borders of politics. One will note the progress of historiography, as only a short time ago one would rather speak of the " impossible direct democracy" . Through its experience under the Revolution, democracy went from a political category to a theoretical principle of political science, like people's sovereignty, and is engaged in history. Without leaving utopia ("impossible"), the Revolution of human rights throws its lights and its shadows on the horizon of human liberty. I wi ll focus on the theories developed by republicans in the movement that follows the flight of the king (Junc-luly 179 1), and that leads to the temporary defeat of the idea of republic, with the Champ de Mars Massacre on luly 17lh

• To cut short the petition campaign that claimed to refer to the nation about the constitutional question raised by the flight of the king, the Assembly reinstalled Louis XVI (with the veto), setting forth in the review of the constitution that followed the strongest arguments for representative government. The word "republic" becomes a taboo at the time because it concentrates all the radical theories on liberty and on the law, as an expression of the general will, through constitutional democratic procedures. The Rousseau "effect", that stressed on legislative power, results in a great indifference for the executive form that happened to become quite important afterwards.

. Paper presented at the third annual mecting of thc history of social and pol itical concepts group. Copenhagen, October 2000 I Andre Tose!. "l 'antinomie de 1a democratic ", Les paradigmes de /a democratie, s. d. Jacques Bidet, Paris PUF, 1994, pp. 137-148.

The discursive context

I will first examine the context of appcarance of the notion dernocratie repYli:sentalive. I want to say I don 't object with the use of a contemporary concept for the history of the past, I did it abo ut public space and procedural people 's sovere ignty in the French Revolution. But one has to be careful, as it can be ambiguous, It is why it can be usefu l to link history of concepts, rhetoric and case studies. In fact the expression is used by some republicans in 1790, into the bubbling of ideas and opinions aroused by the great liberty of expression of the first years of the Revolution; but it is sti ll extremely rare at the time. [t will become less unusual under the Directory, but one should test if it is conceptualised then by those who try to democratise representation. As for the origin of the expression, it is admitted that it comes from America. The first to use the expression " representative democracy" should be Hamilton (in 1777), one of the future authors of the Federalisr. It is necessary, to test the validity of the use of the notion for the French revo lutionary period, to study the discursive and theoretic context of its emergence. In France in 1790, the expression is found in the texts of two important republican theorists. It is used by Condorcet, who already used it earlier (1788) in his contribution to the theoretic debate on modem constitutionalism, in the light of the American Constitution3

. Another "classic republican" author, Lavicomterie, uses the expression de,nocl'atie representee. He is a jurist and future deputy at the Convention, and is the author of several republican pamphlets from 1790 to 1792, anlong them Du peupfe et des rois, published in September 1790 (the book is published for the forth time in 1848). He writes on the chapter 13, "on republics or democracies' (note the equivalent relation of the two words) : " Rousseau says that a true democracy will never exist, because it is impossible that the people should be always gathered to settle their affairs [ .. . ] But the difficulty is reduced to nonc in the case of a represented democracy4. These expressions are used to refer to the mean to govern a large country. De,nocratie representative is not yet a po litical concept, it has not been theorised, but it can be useful to refer to it to describe the democratic procedures of the time. The associat ion of the two words may seem paradoxical by reference to Rousseau, as for him the social contract principle and the roman juridical model associates republic and democracy: the republic - a State governed by laws - on the grounds of the principle of the contract is essentially democratics. The expression democratie representative gathers two notions that the most common ly held political theory of the J 8th century has not gathered. The association in 1790 means that rcpresentative government is gencrally accepted as the necessary form of constitutional organisation of a large country. Sieyes, whose theories gained recognition in the Assembly, substitutes for the notion of democracy that of representative

1 According to Pocock, its usc by Madison corrcsponds to the end or ~lassieal po~i t ies (Le Mo~nenl machiavelien: Paris, PUF, 1997, p. 538).

Le/lres d III! bourgeoIS de New-Haven a un citoyen de Virginie sur I'inutilite de partager Ie pouvoir Iegis/ati/ entre plEuieurs corps, dans (Euvres de Condarcel, O'Connor et Arago ed., Paris, Fimlin Didol, 1847, IX, p. 84. On tllis debate, I·forst Dippel, " Condorcet et la discussion des constitutions americaines en France avant 1789 " COlldorcet Homme des Lilmieres et de /a Revoliltion, Texles rcunis pa; ~nne-Marie Chouillct ct Pierre Crepel, Fontenay-Saint-Cloud, ENS Editions, 1997, p. 201-206. 4 Du Pellple el des mis par Lavieomteric, Paris, 1790, XX-I32 p. (cd. t848 , p. It I) . , Giovanni lobrano, " Republique et democratic anciennes avant ct pendant la Revolution ", Revolulioll el Republiqlle, Paris, Kime, 1994, p. 37-66. Montesquiell already used the expression "rcpublique demoeratique II in Esprit des Lois.

government (gouvernement representatif): he applies to public affai rs the principle of the division of labour in order to reserve it for well-versed specialists. Representation is a function authorised from b,elow, so that a ll omnipotence of constituent bodies is dismissed6

. In France, the use or the two ancient categories, Greck (democracy) and Roman (republic) will be in turn at the top of political values, on the account of the ambigu ity of their signification. Condorcet uses the expression democraties representatives in August 1790 (in comparison with democraties immediates), regarding the respect due to the laws in a free nation, the contradiction that may occur between the law and the will of the plurality and the way to settle it by legal means: .. A nation is free when she obeys on ly to laws in conformity with the princip les of the natural law she recognised, passed by her representatives accord ing to a form defined by a previous law, and more, when the constitution provides her with a mean to reform on times and through conditions fixed for each sort of law, the ones that the plurality of citizens considers opposite to justice, or dangerous for liberty ,,7. His theory of Jiberty relics on consti tutional principles he defended since 1789 conccrning constituent power. He is among those who think that the abol ition of despotism and the institution of representatives do not preserve citi zens from tyranny: .. One shall understand by this word any violation of the right of men, made by the law in the name of public power .. 3.

Radical circles share the same idea, all the more that the Assembly has passed since 1789 laws that cit izen consider opposite to the declared principles, and prejudicial to the sovcreignty of the nation and to individual liberty, especial ly the veto, martial law against gathering, poll tax and silver mark. Martial law, that passed hardly two months after the Bill of Rights, on October 21 51 1789, which principle began to be discussed on the eve of the installation of the Constituent in the capital after the October days, shows to what extent the guarantee of public order got the better of liberal principles to protect individual libert/. The law is the sign of the Lension between the legit imate democratic expectations fou nded on liberty and equality of rights and the small doses of "tumul ts" the Assembly was ready to grant citizens to protect their liberty. Laws passed by legitimate powers can be unjust, hence the necessity to elaborate procedures to protect citizens from arbitrary laws. The vigilance of patriots is drawn on the problem of the law. as the expression of the general will: it shall be fair and agreed by everyone, positively or tacitly. " Laws passed by our representatives cannot be supposed to be our work, as long as we have not freely and so lemnly consented to them, from well-thought-out examination " (Marat)lo. Free men must be allowed unrestricted expression on the law and have the possibility to claim if it harms their rights and liberty. Robespierre, writes in the Defenseur de la Constitution: " Among free and enlightened people, the right to censure

(, But his proposal for the control of the constitutionality of laws did not pass. Pasquale Pasquino, Sieyes et I'illvenlion de la Constitution en France, Paris, Odilc Jacob, 1998. Des Maltllscr;ts de S/eyes 1773-1779, s. d. Christine Faure, Paris, H. Champion, 1999. 7 Journal de la Societe de 1789 [reprint Paris, EDI·IIS, 19821. nO 10,7 aout 1790, p. 3. Art social. AIIX umis de la liberte, sur les moyens d 'en assurer la duree. In the same article, he uses too the expression " constitutions representatives ". ~ Idees sur Ie despotisme II I 'usage de celL,( qui pr01l0llCellt ce mot sans I'entendre , in CEuvres, op. cit., IX. p. 164. ~ Bernard SCHNAPPER, "Les systcmes rcpressifs francais de 1789 a 1815 " , Revolutions et justice penale ell Europe. Modeles fran~ais el traditions natianales I7BO-/83fJ, Paris , Gem L 'Hannattan. 1999, pp. 17-JS . II! L 'Ami c1u Peuple, n° 499, 24 juin 1791. Jean-Paul Marat, CEmores poliliques 1789·/793, Bruxelles, Pole Nord, 1993, V, p. 3077.

2

legis lative acts is just as much sacred as the necessity to follow them is imperative. It is the exercise of this right that spreads light, corrects political errors, strengthens good institutions, puts right to bad ones, conserves liberty, and prevents disruption of the states "". With the explosion of the press, the creat ion of fraternal societies wh ich grow in number and means to discuss general affairs, public op inion starts to playa crucial role in Paris and to strengthen critic refl ection on the constitution. It takes great extension in May 179 J, when the Assembly decrees the restriction of the right of petition; in June, the opening of the primary electoral assemblies revives claims for reform of the poll tax, "To order citizens to obey laws that they did not make or approve, is to condemn to slavery the very ones who threw down despotism" (Petition of the citizens of the section Theatre-Franyais, together in their primary assembIy).12 Some republicans already stood up for universal masculine suffrage, among them Francois Robert, in December 1790, in · Le Republicanisme adaple a fa France. For him, republic is synonym of democracy: «Republicanism or democracy is the government of all; in order to make it perfect, all citizens must contribute personally and ind ividually to the making of the law". In pushing aside from the people, all that can contribute to instruct them "you follow the fearsome maxim of tyrants, you keep them despite themselvcs in ignorance, and you become gui lty of a crime of lese-humanity " . 13

Condorcet comes to the Cercle Social in order to defend the principle of periodical Conventions. There discussions went on also in May and June on the right to petition, on the decree of the si lver mark, and on the principle of the censure of laws or veto national. For radicals. it was the corollary of general will. The Constitution of 1791 had not been accepted by the nation, it had only been accepted by the king. The question of the constitutional organisation of the acceptation of the Constitution (by referendum) and of the censure of laws wi ll be a main one in the constitutional projects of 1793, and will be resolved through quite complex procedures, especially in Condorcet's plan 14

. The petition campaign of July 1791 develops from the same princip le, when asking the Assembly not to decide the king's case until the will of the departments is known. Citizens ask that the nation should be consulted, because in 179 1, there is no legal procedure of this kind about constitutional questions. There is only a sort of public censure power, through the medium of opinion, in order to match general wi ll with public reason. The spirit of the discussions that go on in the Cercle Social is to develop a system of social perfectibility and fraternity under the aegis of the " republican of letters"; in 1791 their mission is to enlighten opinion and to take part in the public debate on the nature of the res publica ls , The journalist Fran~ois Robert, who creates the central club of patriotic societies, the Cordeliers (SOciete des Amis des Droits de / 'Homme et du Citoyen) with their Journal, the Cerc1c Social with Bonneville's Bouche de Fer, that prints the debates of the Amis de fa Verite, show their ability to federate the opinion, Bonneville defines as a " fourth

II CEuvres de Maximilien Robespierre, Paris, Societe des Etudes robespierristes. 1939, IV, p. 146. 11 La BOllche de Fer, nO 68 et 69, 19111 Junc. Signed Sergenl, president, Momoro. secretary. Danton, Garran de Coulon, Bonneville and Desmoulins, writers of the petition, that every one could sign individually. 1l Le RepubUcanisme adap/e a la France , par Fran~ois Robert, Paris, 1790, 110 p. (Aw: Origines, op. cil., II), p. 87-88, 100-\ 0 I. Rob~rt is a jurist, professor of public law. IJ Pierre Rosallval1on, op. cit., p. 56-64. IS La Bouche de Fer, n" 5 I. Condorcet recalls the principles of freedom and tolerance of the Friends of the Trut.h in order to improve" the science of liberty" (ibid., n" 48, April 28th

).

power,, 16. It is in these stirrings of democratic exc itemcn t that the flight of the ki ng takes place, which in tum, revives discuss ions and gives rise to new publ ications, to a campaign in the papers and a P10vement of petitions, this time in favour of (he republic. The constitut ional question ra ised by the desertion of the monarch brought about, besides an important trend of opinion, a great amount of theoretical texts and pamphlets, which are often mentioned but have sci dam been analysed, apart from those of wcll-known writers like Sieyes, Paine or Condorcct. Less known authors and journalists, most of them being en lightened men of letters or jurists, produced art icles and papers to expound their republican theo ri es. The relevance of these texts is to be concerned with the gencral problem of political and civil society. They are issued by circles that can be described as cosmopol itan, oriented towards Europe, especially Germany, as well as to the At lantic world : Condorcet, Paine, Rutledge, Brissot, Robert, Bonneville, Lavicomterie, Duehatelet (an officer du ring the American war), only to mention a few of them. Radical republ icans knew the "neo-roman" conception of e ivil liberty analysed recently by Quentin Skinncr17

• Theophile Mandar, a member of the Corde1iers' club, who has an acti ve role in the republican movement, had just pub li shed a largely annotated translation of Nedham's book, The Excellency of a Free Slale (1656). The publication sign ificantly had for title De fa souverainete dll peuple et de I 'excellence d'un eta! fibre. The Jourflal des Cordeliers gives a laudatory account of it, praising the way the book deals with the effects which Rousseau developed the causes, and the so lidity of its principles1s. One cannot read democracy and republicanism of the revolutionary period only in reference to Rousseau , through the problem of representation and of active participation of ci tizens; the question of liberty, opened by the Bill of Rights has to be examined from differenl angles, especially from Ihe poinl of view of civil li berty, and of the emancipat ion of citizens in a free state.

A taboo: the word '" republic" (June-July 1791)

The examination of the texts shows that the first question for repub licans is to try to define the word republic, which is not the usual distinction between a classical res publica and a system opposite to monarchy. Aware of the difficulty, the writers try to produce definitions to translate what they mean by the word, without going through all the meanings or agreeing on the idea of republicanism. Moreover, the context of the summer 179 1, with growing popular hostility towards the king and increasing democratic protest, created a situation in which the notion of republic went high ly subversive : the word became a taboo in the Assembly and in the Jacobin society as well. A controversy among repub licans, who tri ed to produce comforting definitions, deepened the issue even morc, mixing the notion of republicanism and the theory of representative government. Camille Desmoulins : "by republic I hear a free state, with a king, a stadholder or a general governor, or an emperor, the

1(. Raymonde Monnier. L 'espace public democratique. essai sllr "opinio1l de la Revo/w io1l all Directoire . Paris, Kimc, 1994. 17 Quentin Skinner. Liberty before liberalism, Cambridge Un iversity Press, UK, 1998. IS Theophile Mandar ( t759-182J), great traveller and man of lellers, translated several works from English. A Vainqueur of the Basti lle, sub­editor of lhe Bulletin des Amis de 10 Verite, he reads atlhe Assembl y the petit ion or the thirty thousand citizens, made in the Cordelicrs' club on June 241h, asking lhe deputees to wait to decide the Ki ng's case unlilthe will of the 83 departments is known. Journal d/l Clllb des CordeJiers , nO 4. p. 32-33.

name doesn't matter " (Revolutions de France et de Brabant, nO 78, 23 May 1791 )". Thomas Paine: « I am glad that one decided to give to the work in question the title of Republica/n. This word perfectly express the idea that we should have of the government in general: Res publica, the public affairs of a nation. As for the word monarchie [ ... J The servi le spi rit that is the character of these kinds of governments is banished from France, and this country, as well as America, only glances at monarchy with disdain. [ ... ] " the monarchical system, far from being suitable for large counlries, should rather be acceptable for a little territory [ ... J On the contrary, the true republican system, by election and representation, is the only well-known mean; and in my opinion, the only possible way to adjust the wisdom and knowledge of government to the area of a country .. (Le Republicain, nO I, III July 1791). Nicolas Bonneville:" The re-public, is nothing else literally than the common thing. the state, the large national community; lhe national government .. (La Bouche de Fer, n° 73, 25th June, De la republique). It is " the state. the common thing, or as the English name it, Common-wealth " (ibid., nO 81 , 3rd July). Brissot de Warvi lle: " Patriots are at cross purposes on th is important question; we have to make it clear [ ... ] To ban, before di scussion, and with a ki nd of horror, the word of republican, and to anathematise those who pronounce it, is an act or superstition, or fanaticism, or slavery [ ... ] The word republic, the different meanings it had by the Ancients and the Modems are the only cause of this misunderstanding. We must define this word, which rascally fe llows abuse to frighten from ignorance. I hear, by republic, a government where all powers are, 10

, By delegation or representation ; 2°. By election in and by the people, or their representatives; 3°. temporary or removable " (Ma profession de foi sur fa monarchie et Ie republicanisme, Le patriote fran~ais, 5th July). Maximilien Robespierre: .. The word republic doesn't mean any particular fonn of government. it belongs to every government of free men who have a homeland " (lEuvres, VII , 552, speech at the Jacobins, 13 July). James Rutledge2o : .. Commonwealth is a term uscd by the English, to design every state in general. They use it morc often when they speak of republican states. By etymology, this term expresses fortune, happiness, wealth, and common prosperity. One of the two words that form it, wealth generates the meaning of all these th ings, the other one common, derives from this one commune, in our language; I don ' t sec why, if thi s appellation should correspond to the purpose of the popular government that they want to establish, the French should not take it over" (Le Creusel, nO 57,18" July 1791). The prcsentation of a series of definitions in chronological discursive order only gives their situation of dialogue and translation in the public space. It is Robert who put the word republicanism forward in his famous pamphlet of December 1790 and, with lhe concept, had theoriscd what he meant by

L? In 1789, Desmoulins in La Fra" ce fibre (chap. 6) declared himself a republican : ,. Yet there are among the most cnslaved people, republican souls. There still remains men among whom the love of liberty triumphs of all political institutions [ ... J Then I declare myself highly for democracy". 20 Le Creuset published a number of documents connected with the republican movement of the summer 1791. Its sub-cditor Jean Jacques (ou James) Rutledge ou Rutlidge (Dunkerque, 1742-Paris, 1794) was a member of the Corddicrs. He was the son of a ship-owner of Irish origin : having no fortune of his own, he was put in jail several times, for debts or for his opinions. A great voyageur and man of letters, free mason, he published political essays and a number of literary works. See the note of Pierrc Peyronnct in Diclioflnaire desjoumalisles /600-1789, S.d. Jean Sagard (Oxford, Voltaire Foundation, 1999,2 vol.) .

3

republic or democracy, This exchange of views in the summer 179 1 attests the linguistic awareness of republican journalists in their analysis of their idea of the word " republic". The vocabulary used by each of them refers already to elaborated theories, which meet and contrast with their differences. Confronted with the necessity and the difficulty to translate thc abstract and complex idea of republicanism, the writers search in analogy and colinguism (especially Latin, French and English) to translate the precise sense they attribute to the word, in order to universalise its meaning and promote in the diversity of political options a more or less radical constitutional choice2l

.

The analysis of the ideas that express the words in the new political language would be one of the first topics of the JournaL d'lnstruction sociale of Condorcet, Sieyes and Duhamel in 1793 : " Before attaching a word to a complex idea, you have to develop and delimit it; it is necessary that thosc who have to understand each other when pronouncing the same word, get the same idea; and only analysis can fulfil this condition .. 21 , In the way the notion of republic rai sed different senses in the democratic public space, the new universal ity of a language common to a ll national citizens crossed the settled universality shared by European men of lellers. I cannot develop here, as I wish to keep to arguments, the republican theories of 1791. I will do it elsewhere to find back in the di scourses of the actors the theories - or the utopia - masked by history. I'll only give an example concerning the vocabulary, the colinguist phenomenon and the research of an universal language by Bonneville, for whom it is not a matter of making French the language of mankind. The unfinished essay of Condorcet on the subject throws onto an uncertain future a convention of understanding that should allow to link the community of men to the advanced character of a language of thc science2l. Like the hieroglyphic language, made incomprehensible to the people by ~~charlatans and priests", the primitive language of signs is for Bonneville to find again in etymology, which goes back to the root of the language, to the influence of signs on the formation of ideas: only a perfect intelligence of language will allow to reach the truth and to improve social arr4. In the cssays of L 'Esprit des religions, which first ed ition is published in July 1791 , he develops his system of analysis of language to search in etymology and analogy the answer to his questions about translation of ideas in a universa l language2s . The" style-image" of the first centuries is .. like a veil drawn between the lost hi slory and the onc that remains, but a transparent vcil " it is up to us to decipher : " To get to the root of words, is to have grasped the rool of things ,,26. These linguistic speculations lead him to find in the Greek's assembly, the ecclesia, the answer fo r his theory of the national government grounded on the symbolic relation between the representative power of the sovereign people and the cult of the law : .< It was at the sound of a bri ll iant trumpet27

, that, the ancient Greeks from whom we borrowed the word eglise,

!l On 'colinguism' under the Revolution, sec Renee Balibar, L '/nstitlltion du fralt~ajs. Essai Sllr Ie coJingllisme des Carolingiens Ii la Repub/ique, Paris, PUr., 1985,42 1 p. H JOllrnal d'/nslruction sociale par les citoyens Condorcet. Sieyes el Duhamel, 1793, reprint Paris, EDHIS, 1981 , Prospec/lis. !J Roselyne Rey, " Sur l'Essai d'uflc 1011gfle Imi\!erse/le de Condorcct ", COlldorcet Homme des /.. lImieres, op. cil. , pp. 137· 146. U On etymology in the 181h century from an aesthetic and linguistic point of view, sec Edward Nyc, Literary and Linguistic Theories ;11 £ighteenth-Cemllry France, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 2000, 250 p. H De I 'Esprit des Religions. par N. de Bonneville. Paris, Imp. du Ccrclc Social, 179 1, 2 parties en 1 '101.,92.254 p. 1(, De I 'Esprit. op. cit. , n, pp. 7-8. n Bllccinu. Bo~chc-dc.fcr (note of the author).

4

hastened to the federative Assembly, in order [0 hear the opinions of the wise elderly ,,28. By reconciling tradition and innovation, etymology gives to the relation past! present a dynamic dimension for the inventiveness of a new social art. In the republican theory of Bonneville, who had the intuition of the necessary role of opinion in the state, we find an echo of Harrington 's Oceana, with the basic organisation by "centaines" of the assemblees souveraines d 'un pellple libre29

.

The unpredictable circumstances that lead the Assembly to temporary suspend the king after hi s flight and then to put him back on the throne, produced a very large public debate, generating theories and arguments. The debate involved ambiguous uses of a large number of political concepts republic, law, will, representation (politic et symbolic).. The controversy over the republic went further than the too famous polemic between Sieycs and Paine, acted out in the Moni/eur. The public response of Sieyes to Paine is characteristic of the way political concepts are produced to sustain arguments lhat bear out a factual consensus regardless to the rigor ofa political theory. Paine (8-7-) : " I simply hear [by republicanism] a government by representation; a government based on the principles of the Bill of rights, princip les with which several parts of the French constitution are in contradiction " (Monitellr, 16-7-1791 , Supplement). Sieyes: " By republicanism, it is M. Paine speaking, I simply hear a governmcnt by representation. And I do ask some attention for my reply: I had some difficulty to understand why ones tries thus to mix up two notions as distinct as those of representative system and republicanism" (Reply of Sieyes to the letter of M. Thomas Paine, Monileur, 16-7-1791 , Supplement). In Paine's analyses, only the happy few could hear that his first definition opposed the servi le spiri t of monarchy to the wisdom and knowledge of the republican governmcnt. Sicycs, who gives publicly, in the Moniteur, the Assembly's position (on the day before the Massacre of the Champ de Mars) pretends not to understand to take the advantage on the argument. The theoretical demand for a government according to the human rights and to thc sovereignty of the nation -- the elective principle -- goes in the background behind the practical need -­the representation. He stands up for the monarchical constitution regardless of the rigour of his political thcory, by reasseSSing in the most absolute way the principle of representation : "When I speak of politica l representation, I go further than M. Painc. I support that any social constitution, of which the essence is not representation, is a false constitution. Monarchical or not, every association, whose members are not able to attend all at once to the whole of the common administration, only have to choose between representatives or masters, between despotism and legitimate government [ ... ] One sees that the question is almost entirely in the way to crown thc government [ .. . ] In good theory it is untrue that the hered itary transfer of any public office, should ever agree with the laws of a real representation. Heredity, in that sense is a betrayal of the principle as well as an outrage to society [ ... 1 Nevertheless I am far from thinking that the circumstance should be favourable to change on this point the decreed constitution [ . .. 1 An universal need is be ing felt, to achieve it and establish it at last with uniformity and with a strength likely to insure authority to the law " (Moniteur , 16-7-1791 , Supplement). Two great trends stand out from the republican controversy of 1791 , depending on whether one considers the republic only

~~ De I"Esprit, op. cil., II , p. 191. - ~ De I'Esprit. op. cit., 11, pp. 229-232. Oceano, precede de L 'CEuvre polilique de Harrington, par J.G.A. Pocock, Paris, Belin, p. 306-3 07 .

from the point of view of the mode of government (by election and representation) or as a real commonwealth or res-publica, a society of free men in a state ruled by laws. It seems that Sieyes ' plea fo r monarchy. on the eve of the 17th of July, in keeping to arguments, aims at ra ll ying the supporters of the first opin ion to the conservative position of the Assembly. The king's flight, which has revived the democratic movement with an incredible strength and propositions for constitutional revision in a republican way, widens the distance between the partisans of a democratisation of the Const itution and the Assembly that, by fear of social tumults, rescues the monarchical fa<;:ade to put an end to the revolution. In August, during the debate on constitutional revision, the most absolute definitions of representative govemme~t are put forward. Bamavc, recalling that democracy in ancient cities went hand in hand with slavery, defends the argument that " the function of elector is not a right", and must be reserved to the "mitoyenne" class, that combines lights, greater interest for public affai rs and independence of fortuneJo. The Assembly abo lishes the silver mark on the 2th, in retu rn for a significant increase of the poll tax. By his night, the king offered the government the opportunity to reso lve the contradiction between hereditary monarchy and elective principle, by estab li shing the republ ic legally, at a time when the treacherous Louis XV I was, according to public opinion, a fallen prince. The Assembly comes to a compromise with the principle calling upon circumstances, relying always on the strength of the symbolic representation of monarchy to give authority to the law. The desertion of the monarch suddenly confronts the deputies, who have ach ieved their constitutional work, with the question of the republic. The vitriolic style of Condorcet's article in the Republicain nO 3, such as the letter of a young mechanic offering to built a royal automaton, exposes to what extent the question of the monarchy threw back the problem of executive power - which is in itse lf different from that of the king - and paradoxically at the very same time as the expression "'I.·co nstitutional monarchy" appeared31

: "My king sho uld not be dangerous to liberty. and yet having it repaired with care, it would be eternal, which is even more beautiful than to be hereditary. One should even, without being unj ust, declare it inviolab le and infallible without absurdity". It was no more time for asking the mean ing of political representation. But republicans opened other issues, which remained at the moment unanswered: beyond citizen 's participation to the political sphere, the questions of the role of opinion and of the legitimacy of the law in a free nation. A text of Condorcet gives an idea of the universal dimension of the republ ican movement, in the defence of human rights and the protection of the ri ght of nations, In his speech on the republic, pronounced at the Cercle Social, he recognised that the head of the executive had to be very powerfu l indeed "when mighty associations gave to their members the odious privilege to t ransgress the laws". [3ut since the religious presti ge of the monarchy has vanishcd with the light of reason, it lay bare useless. The strength that a king's ex istence would give it, would only be that of corruption. And then, it is with "nco­roman" wo rds that he asserts the essenti ally pacifist vocation of the republic according to human rights. The sigh t of ancient rcpublics, he says, "always shows a sovereign people and subject peoples"; the domination , the hold of a people on another " is the most obnoxious tyranny, thi s sort of body politic is the most dangerous for the obedient people as well as for the

III Monireur, IX, 376, discours du II aoal. JI In the Assembly with Prugnon's discourse, on 14lh July [79 1. Pao lo COLOMBO, "La question du pouvoir executi f dans revolution institulionm:lic ct Ie debat politiquc rcvolutionnai rc ", Allflaies flisJoriques de la Revolution Frallyaise, 2000, nO [, p. 4.

ruling people. But is it what the true friends of li berty ask for, these who want that reason and ri ght should be the only masters of men ? [ ... J No, without doubt, and it is because we cannot be a king people (peuple roi), that we will remain a free people (pellple libre) ,,32.

Mathiez in his masterly book on the event related the speeding up of the historical process in the few weeks of the republican moment and, in the days preceding the Massacre, the feve ri sh course of thousand of petitioners, from the Champ de Mars to the Assembly, an then to the Palais Royal, where Bonneville had invited all fraternal societi es to the federative assembly of the 15th, from where they walked in lines in the evening to the Jacob in club. The same processions criss-crossed the town thc next day, after the extraordinary sess ion held in the Cordeliers ' meeting room. Their banner - liberty or death - is the sign of their determination to maintain , quite con trary to prudence, the large peaceful demonstration in order to have a republican petition signed by citizens on the altar of li berty. The demonstration got organ ised without passing any vio lent measures; it does not carry the subversive character of the revolutionary Parisian journees. It rather foreshadows the style of the republican manifestation; the watchword was to gather at I I am on the square of the Bastille to walk in procession to the Champ de Mars, each society behind its banner. "One wi ll gather to-mOITOW (Sunday], on the ruins of the Bastille, to walk in procession to the Champ de Mars")). No doubt the movement had already been launched too far to be stopped otherwise but by the red flag and the tricolour terror. The victims of the Massacre (there were about fifty killed) were to become the first anonymous martyrs of li berty. The republic would happen the year after, by the abolition of monarchy and the assertion of the sovereignty of the people, logic consequences of the insurrection of August lOth. The conditions were no more the same and the rulers would have then to face the " impossible" task to found the republic in the war. With the declaration of " I a patrie en danger", and soon that of the levee en masse, the war imposed its dernands. The matters of foreign politics became very early a root of discord and struggle for power, as well as the question of sovereignty. Beyond the "memory of the terror" and its explanations a posteriori by the "logic" or the "circumstances", to analyse socio-political notions could help to understand political dynamics and revolutionary republican ism, characteristi c of the urgency peri od of 1793. ·The political notion Pierre Rosanvallon used concerning the French Revolution may be useful to give an account of democratic procedures, public opinion, suffrage, organisation of powers in the constitution; it cannot include the republican theories of the period. As long as the Convention is concerned, Rosanvallon leans on important research of the Bicentenary, on the Constitutions and history of representations. He ana lyses at length the constitutional plans in 1793. His interpretations integrate the "critic" dimension based on the terrorist and thcnnidorian reflexivcnessl4

. This auto representation of po litics based on the actor 's discourse is a in terplay of distorting mirrors where the paradigm of thermidorian imagination rcplies to that of jacobin imagination, at the risk of making the Revolution hard ly recognisable: two moments which arc for RosanvaJlon

l! De fa Republique, 011 un ro; est-i/ micessaire a la conservatioll de fa liberte, imp. 8 p. rai soul ignc (Aux origines, op. cit. , V). n La Bouche de Fer, n° 95. H Notab ly, Dictionnaire critique de fa Revolutioll jrall9aise , s. d. Francois Furet, Mona Ozouf, Paris, Flammarion, [988, 1122 p. Lucien Jaume, Le discOllrs jacobin et la democratie, Paris, Fayard, 1989. Bronislaw Backo, Comment sorlir de fa Terreur. Thermidor et la Revolution, Paris, nrf, 1989, 355 p. TIle French Revolution and the creati()11 of Modern Political Culture, Oxford, Pergamon, ) vol. 1987-1989.

5

"1WO nascent figures of French political pathology" with the disinstitutionalisation of politics (p. 66). Should not one ponder too, in a critical way, over the nature and the reality of the quasi­unlimited powers that the Revolution imparted to the successive assemblies of the representatives of the nation35? In the discursive context of the appearance of the expression representative democracy, we especially met the notion , theorised by Sieycs, of representative government, which can take us without disruption from the Constituent to the Directory, via the revolutionary government, as a practical notion to keep democracy at a distance. The other notion to consider should be that of democratic republic, which emerges during the Revolution. and is evident in the debates and the numerous projects around the 1793 Constitution, which never came into effect. It is an attempt to put at a distance the theoretical notion of representation, through a continuous process of interaction and reflection between the legislator and the citizens. [( is closely akin to the idea that is central in the republican moment, with the problem of the law, the preservation of liberty in a free state. Laws shall not be enforced under constraint, they have to be just, that is to rcspect the subjects' liberty and equality, and to be agreed by every one, formally or tacitly. Only at this price, man is able to keep his dignity of a free man, endowed with reason and will, in submitting to the law. One cannot give an account of the political notions that emerge during the Revolution, without integrating to the period the notion which gathers the two concepts of republic and democracy, whose conjunction is symbolised by the republican moment of 1791 , the democratic republicJ6

.

Rousseau is the target of liberals, from Sieyes to Constant, and slavery the mainspring of arguments against the Ancients' liberty. The word, should one recall, does not designate in the 18th century only the condition of slaves in colonies, as shows laucourt ' s article in the Encyc!opedi€. A sub-entry of fraite , which deals with different trades, concerns the "nigger's trade", whilst Jaucourt devotes a long headword to the notion of slavery. In this one, he recalls the long European history of slavery (esclavage) or servitude (the two words are synonyms), by convention or by right of arms, from title (to the land) or personal servitude (to the house), which introduced itself even by people "that are regarded as best civilised". It allows to meet the word families, which from the thing and the idea of slavery lead to the loss or denial of natural and civil liberty, to the most cruel laws and to tyrannical government: esc/ave, !lotes, serf, sujel, servage, servitllde, servir, servile, service, serviteur, assujeltir, soumettre, opprimer, elranger, mercenaire, homme de corps, domestique - by the will of the mastcr, of the lord or of the prince - and by opposition to the reverse - fibre, egaux. egalile, equite, affranchir, franchise, Francs, franc, ciloyen, homme fibre - just as instruments of lUXUry are opposed to virtue in cusloms, and slavery to submission by consent in the relation between subjects and power. Therefore the definition given by Jaucourt, which " is almost equally suitable for civil slavery, & pol itical slavery": " Slavery is the establishment of a right based on force, which right makes a man so exclusively proper to another man, Ihat he is the abso lute master of his life, his propert ies & his liberty". Jaucourt, who borrows much from Montesquieu, concludcs that if slavery can be, so to speak, naturalised, it always goes against nature: it is illegitimate for it

IS Pierre Sema, .. L 'cchec de la monarchie represenlative (1789-1792) ", dans La MOl1archie entre Renaissance et Revolution 1515-1 792, s. d. de Joel Cornette, Paris. Seuil, 2000. )(, The express ion is already in Montesquieu : " (] est encore contre la naturc de la chosc qU 'une republique democratique conquiere des villes qui ne sauroi!!nl cnlfer dans la sphere de la democratic " (De 1 'Esprit des Lois, X, 6).

6

hurts natural and civil human liberty37. The entry leads, beyond historical arguments, to the problem of liberties developed by the author of I 'Esprit des Lois, because the same goes for servitude as for liberty - from real liberty to the liberty of opinion and to the liberty of citizens who feel that they are free­which sends back to a series of problems concerning political liberty, among which that of submission to the lawls

.

The word escJavage is omnipresent in the discourse for the defence of civil liberty in 1791. The polysemy of the term supports since 1789 interactions of meaning to back up constitutional arguments. Constant resumes against Rousseau the argument of the Ancients' liberty in the same way the latter had joined the three terms - liberty, slavery, representation - in the Contral Social (III, xv), to disprove the modern idea of representatives: "As for you, modern people, you don ' t have slaves, but you pay their liberty with yours [ ... ] at the very moment a people gives himself representatives, he is no more free; he is no more n. Constant's antinomy does not concern the philosophical problem of liberty, but rather a form of free government that he thinks to be the most suitable for the organisation of modem society. Antiquity is used as a place of argumentation to present the representative system, the Ancients did not know. as the essential corollary of the Modem's liberty who, in order to enjoy private independence, have to be represented39

. Even if Constant introduces a subtle dialectic between political liberty and private independence, the way he puts at a distance the Ancients ' liberty definitely makes any project founded on virtue suspect of archaism. When going from the quarrel to the accusation, with hi s OPPOSition of the two liberties, Constant nevertheless stood up for a kind of power which did not differ much from that of the 1789 tribunes, with the function set to public opinion and constitutional guarantees. Epilogue of the paradoxical failure of the rcvolutiollaty experience, Constant's arguments against the Ancients' liberty - we know he thought the two liberties were needed - supports his action on the political scene, through books, newspapers and tribune, in a phase of political stabilisation which is like the reverse image of the democratic process of the republican moment. If, as Pierre Rosanvallon says, the project of a more active sovereignty still remains a relevant one, it seems that Constant's reserves and those of the 191h century liberals, were turned more on the people's capacity to make a good use of their reason , than on the relevance and out of date nature of a certain amount of civic virtue in politics.

31 He repeats almost word for word this passagc of' 'E.'iprir des Loi.s : " S'iI n'cst pas pcnnis dc sc tucr parce qU'on sc dcrobc a sa patrie, il n'est pas plus penn is dc se vcndre. La liberte de chaque ciroycn cst une partic de la liberte publiquc. Cette qualite, dans ('ctat populaire, est meme une partie de la souverainete" (XV, 2). 18 On the problem of the three liberties and thc ambiguity of political liberty in Montesquieu, sce Bertrand Binoche,lntrodllctiotl a De I'csprit des lois de Monre.squiell , Paris, PUF, 1998, 286-294. J~ Franc;:ois Hartog, .. La Revolution franc;:aise el I'antiquite ", dans La pe1lSee politiqlle. Sitlla/iollsde la democra/ie , Paris, Gallimard, Lc Seuil, 1993 , pp. 30-61.

Comments on the third annual meeting of the history of social and political concepts group, Copenhagen, October 2000 Martin J. Burke

When Jan Ifversen and Uffe Jacobsen c irculated a all for proposals for this conference on "Concepts of Democracy" earlier in the year, I offered to give a commentary on some of the presentations dealing with historical dimensions of that concept, or c luster of concepts. While delivering comments on papers is a standard practice in American universities and professional societies, I've come to recognise that this is not necessarily the case in other academic cultures. Hence for those of you not so familiar with the practice of giving comments, I wi ll very briefly describe what, in the best of circumstances, commentators should be doing. I will then proceed to make some remarks on, and to rai se some questions about, a number of the papers that have been delivered here at the University of Copenhagen. If time permits, 1 would appreciate any replies, or rejoinders, from our speakers and other participants. Commentators on papers and panels have a three-part rhetorical task. Their comments should be laudatory, interrogatory and exhortatory. The first of these tasks, for this conference at least, is the simplest one for me. The papers and short presentations that we've heard from Melvin Richter, Pim den Boer, Raymonde Monnier, Per Mouritsen, Uffe Jacobsen, Tina Buchtrup Pipa and Serge Heiden have been well argued and are wide-ranging in their scope and subject matters. Individually and collectively, they merit our praise. When this group, or network, first met at the Finnish Institute in London in the summer of 1998, the majority of addresses were either on theoretical aspects of Begriffsgeschichle and the so-called ~'Cambridge school" approach to the hi story of political thought, or on the various collaborative national projects then under development or already underway, At our conference in St. Cloud and Paris last autumn, a sizeable number of the papers were more empirical, in that they presented detailed studies on the use and abuse of words in a variety of temporal and geographical contexts. l-Iere in Copenhagen, we again have had the opportunity to hear a seri es of theoret ically informed, empirically based papers on the conceptual hi story, or histories, of democracy. Taken together, they indicate the significant scholarly potential of historical ana lyses of political and social concepts. The answer to Melvin Richter's question about how much can history of concepts approaches add to our understandings of ramiliar theorists and discourses is: "quite a lol." The same appears to be the case for theorists and discourses less well known.

and/or methodological implications. Here my task is considerab ly more difficult. As an intellectual historian who writes on public discourse in the United States and Ireland during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, 1 have no particular competence in such questions as how dcmocracy figures in the political culture of the Netherlands in thc sixteenth century, the political discou rses of Revolutionary France, or political debates in Denmark since the end of the second World War. I do know a good deal more about Democracy in America, since 1 often teach thal text, and work on some of Tocquevi ll e's American informants. interlocutors and translators. However, I make no pretence to being a Tocqucville scholar. It is only in the debates over the drafting and the ratification of the American constitution that I can claim a command of the original sources, and more than a superficial familia rity with the relevant secondary literatu re. Yel, my lack o f expertise does not indicate

a lack of interest. I am quite interested in seeing how other scholars adapt and apply the methodological principles and practices of Reinhart Koselleck, Rolf Reichart, Quentin Skinner et al. in their O\VJl work. and in learn ing more about what the empirica l and interpretative implicat ions of doing conceptual histories of democracy might be for understanding political and social life both in Europe and in the Americas. It is from this perspective that [ will tum to a number of the presentations. In his paper on "Concepts of Democracy in the Works of Guizot and Tocqueville", Melv in Richter applies the mcthods of Begriffsgeschichte to examine how Tocqueville used the concept of I'etat social in De la Democralie en Amerique, and to detennine from where he derived that central concept. He then discusses the degree to which Tocqueville's understanding of the relationships between politics and the structures of soc ieties changed in the period between the publication of the first and second parts of that work in 1835 and 1840, and considers what the consequences of tit is change were for Tocqueville's analyses of democratic revolutions and the prospects of democratic regimes, particularly in France. As do other critical readers of Democratie, Melvin points out just how ambiguous the concept of democracy is in that work; but where many scholars, political scientists in particular, are content to work within the confines of the text, he moves well beyond its bounds. He turns to Tocqueville's travel journa ls, correspondence and, in particular, hi s reading notes on Machiavelli's Histories 0/ Florence and his notes on Guizot's 1829-1830 lectures on the history of civilisation in order to provide a much broader context for explaining conceptual change. Melvin makes a very convincing argument that TocqueviJIe borrowed the concept of I 'elat social from Guizot, and in part one of Democrat/e, followed a long Guizot 's lines in assign ing analytic priority to the social over the political. By 1840, however, Tocqueville would come to employ what Melvin describes in the longer version of the paper as a "weak version" of I'etal SOCial, and to emphasise the importance of political institutions in describing the development, and diagnosing the dangers, of democratic soc ieties. Melvin stresses that this revised notion of /'ital social democratique is important not only for interpreting Democralie, however, but for understanding subsequent changes in Tocqueville's conceptualisations of democracy, especially in I 'A ncien Regime and in his unfinished history of France. By studying changes in one of the clusters of concepts that Tocqueville employs in his analysis of democracy, Melvin provides us with a richer historical appreciation of his best-known text, and with a more nuanced understanding of his larger project of developing a new science of politics. Rather than explaining that new science primarily in tenns of a dialogue with Monlcsquicu, as do lhe11l1!i!MiJi;narc~lPO~HQjbmmen l commentators, Melvin emphas ises the importance of Guizo t as a major sourcc for the 1835 Democralie, and as a po int of departure for the 1840 text and for Tocqueville's subsequent works. And no matter what his fate in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, Melvin reminds us of just how influcntial Guizot's writings were in the nineteenth century. He also demonstrates that there werc other important figures and texts wi th which Tocqueville was engaged, in particu lar John Stuart Mill and Machiavelli. While John Pocock's argument that the American Revo lution was the last act of the Italian Renaissance no longer enjoys much support among historians of the eightcenth century -- as Pcr Mouritsen has noted -- Melvin 's paper suggests that Tocqucvi lle 's changing concep tualisations of democracy were, in part at least, the result of another Machiavellian moment . Through this application of conceptual history, Melvin contributes to the important task of recovering

7

Tocqueville and his texts from the abstracted realms of political theory or political philosophy, and resituating them in the complex intellectual contexts of the nineteenth century. Since many of you already had the opportunity to ask questions to Melvin, permit me to pose just one based upon the text and notes to hi s longer paper. There he mentions that Tocqueville borrowed the tenn "decomposer" from Guizot, and he briefly deals how Tocqueville used that method. Since many of our discussions return regularly to methodological issues, I wonder if Melvin would expand on what Guizot meant by this term, and how he employed it in analysing social and political fonnations, how Tocqueville deployed this method, and what some of the results were. In Pim den Boer's paper on "The Concept of Democracy in the Sixteenth-Century Netherlands", he compares how democracy was construed in the works of two authors: one, Jean Bodin, well-established in the canon of Western political thought; the other, Simon Stevin, less-well known outside of the circle of Dutch specialists. While in later writings Bodin was critical of democracy, Pim maintains that this was not always the case. In such pieces as Bodin's analysis of the Swiss Confederation, for example, Pim finds a positive assessment of their constitution, their egalitarian principles, and such social practices as taking meals in common. In Stevin's Vila PoJiticalHet Burgerlick Leven of 1590 -- a text, Pim suggests, that merits considerably more attention from scholars of early modem Europe --democracy is discussed in tenns of SUbjection to the will of the community, broad participation in government and frequent changes of magistrates. Yet, the explication and comparison of these treatises on politics are only part of Pim's concerns. He is interested in democracy "as a practice", as he put it, as well as a philosophical discourse; in order to examine this practice he turns to the Dutch Revolt, and to what the Dutch were doing and saying regarding politics. He notes the presence of the tenn 'democracy ' in Dutch and in other European vernaculars in the s ixteenth century, and he interprets this as evidence that democracy was of concern not only to political theorists, but also to those actively engaged in political life. In contra 'it to the Geschichlliche Grundbegriffe, Pim maintains that discussions in which the tenn 'democracy' appeared were not limited to neo­Latin scho larly treatises. His Dutch pamphleteers also employed democracy in writings that resonated with political lessons and lexicons from antiquity. What 'democracy' meant in these texts and contexts becomes the question, then. Pim maintains that while the word remained the same, the conceptual content and the practical dimensions of democracy were quite different in the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries than in the eighteenth. He insists that we take these earlier conceptualisations of democracy seriously, and not merely as imperfect anticipations of a later, fully developed concept. Here he challenges a standard narrative of the history of democracy -­one that you can find in the opening statement of this conference's program, for example -- that dates the re­introduction of democracy in European political language to the eighteenth century, and that emphasises generally negative uses of the term. In Pim's rev isionist argument, democracy emerges both as a political concept and a set of political practices far earlier. While Pim's paper is already quite ambitious in its discussions of democracy from antiquity to the early modem period to the present, I wonder ifhe would be willing to go a bit further. Ifhis hypothesis that the presence of the word 'democracy' in sixteenth-century dictionaries is indicative not only of changes in political theory but in political practice, where else besides the Netherlands might we look for such practices? How might \Ve recognise thcm? In addition to pamphlets and treatises, whm

8

else should we be examining or reassessing in order to understand these particular seventeenth-century conceptualisations of democracy? As is Pim's presentation, Raymond Moniker's paper "Les concepts de Democratie dans Ie Revolution franyaisc -­"evolution de la notion dans Ie discours republicain" is set in a period of rapid, and quite fluid, political and conceptual change. She poses the seemingly simp le question of when the expression "democratie representative" emerged in the political discourse of revolutionary France, in what contexts it emerged, and to what ends it was used. But her answers are far more complex. She focuses on a short period of time in June and July 1791, from the flight of Louis XVI to Varennes to the Champ de Mars Massacre and the imposition of martial law against the petitioners for the republic. During this "republican moment", as she terms it, "democratie representative" was construed in a variety of manners, and was employed in a variety of rhetorical and textual settings. Raymonde not only examines the writings of such prominent figures as Condorcet, Brissot, Paine and Sieyes; she reconstructs broader "public opinion" by turning to pamphlets, discussions and debates in fraternal societies, the periodical press and especially petitions. She argues that "democratie representative" figured most importantly in the context of the constitutional question raised by the desertion of the monarch. She follows the tenninological and theoretical development of the word "repub/ique ", and she situates these developments in two intersecting discourses: one on the practical, procedural matters of politics; and the other on the relations between ancient and modern understandings of liberty. These were discourses from which the term "democralie representative" disappeared, however, when at the close of the republican moment in the summer of 1791, "republique" became, temporarily at least, a subversive word, "un mol tabou. " Raymonde's is a particularly rich and stimulating paper in which she makes a very effective case for applying the methods of conceptual hi story on a short span of time, rather than in the longer chronological frameworks often employed by scholars. She makes a very persuasive case as well for integrating investigations of rhetorical and conceptual change in particular case studies, and for carefully distinguishing the appearance of a term, and the presence of a theoretically developed concept. Raymonde notes the reappearance of "repub/ique" in the contexts of the Constitution of 1793 and subsequently. It would be useful to know: to what degree had the term, the semantic field and the concept changed? And what befell "dimocralie representative " in the later course of the Revolution? My final charge as commentator is to offer a few exhortatory remarks. Here I wish to do a bit more than to urge the respective speakers to continue to do good work. It is quite clear that they will do so. I would like to recommend that our panellists and the rest of the members of the group consider moving beyond the limits of historical studies of social and pOlitical concepts which are organised along national lines - like the Dutch and Finnish projects -- or in terms of a community of language users -- like the Geschichtliche GrundbegrifJe --and towards more comparative studies. The inter-European theme of our organising meeting in London, and the comparative emphasis of a number of the sessions schedu led for the upcoming conference in Tampere, are indicative of such interests. Yet, [rom the trans­Atlantic perspective of this scholar, it is clear that we need to know far more about the history of political and social concepts not only in early modem and modem Europe, but also in the contexts of Europe 's overseas commercial and co lon ial expansions. Pim den Boer has noted the appearance of 'democracy' in Dutch and other European vernaculars in the sixteenth ,md

seventeenth centuries, and has suggested that its presence was both linguistically and politically significant. Presuming this to be the case, it would be useful to understand what 'democracy' meant, and to what degree it was conceptualised and utilised, in the Dutch, French, Spanish, Portuguese and British empires, I am aware, for example, that John Winthrop, the first governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, used the tenn 'democracy' in that colony's General Court in the 1640s and 1650s; if Pim is correct, I might not yet fu ll y appreciate what 'democracy' signified for Winthrop and his fellow Puritan magistrates , Both Pim and Raymonde Monnier have argued that pace of conceptual and lexical innovation increased markedly during such periods of crisis as the Dutch Revolt and the French Revolution, If this is so, we should expect to find rapid rhetorical and conceptual changes in the anti-colonial revolutions in the Americas in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. While there is a good deal of historical scholarship -- and scholarly disagreement -- on how "democratic" the American Revolution was or was nolo there is still little in the way of sustained, rigorous analysis along the lines suggested by Melvin Richter in his volume on The History of Political and Social Concepts on 'democracy'. Nor is enough known on the way that such tenns and concepts as ' representative democracy' or ' republic ' were conceived of -­and perhaps reconceptualized -- in such places as Columbia. Argentina and Peru. The Creole elites who led those revolts were well versed in the political lexicons of the Enlightenment and antiquity, It would be interest ing, and importanl, to be able to discuss 'democracy' in the Americas, and to compare conceptual and rhetorical changes on both sides of the Atlantic. I would hope that those of you who direct research institutes at your respective universities, or who are supervising post­graduate students, will consider such studies in the future, and will participate in the project of developing a comparative history of 'democracy' .

A GEOLOGY OF HISTORICAL 11MES? REFLECTIONS ON REINHART KOSELLECK'S ZEITSCHICHTEN Kari Palonen University of Jyvaskyla

In respect of history of concepts there lies some irony in the fact that it was due to the lack of time that Reinhart Koselleck never managed to write his article Zeit/-alter for the last vo lume of the Geschichtliche Grundbegriffi, as he himself acknowledges in the Vorwort of that volume (1992). Those having followed Koselleck's writings after the publication of Vergongene Zuklm/t (1979) know already that the work for the lexicon article was by no means futile, even the article was never completed. Especially, in the 1980s, he published a number of time-rclatcd articles, written for specific occasions and purpos~s. not limited by the lexical genre. Now Siegfried Unseld from the Suhrkamp Verlag has made an excellent job in persuading Koselleck to collect and to slightly rework his articles on time. Here, his new series of articles arc first collected into a single volume opcn to a wider audience. The volume consists of articles from 1972 to 1999, partly unpublishcd or only partially published. Koselleck wrote most of the texts in the 1980s, but they have not lost their actuality. Neither the lapse of time nor the changes in academic fashions have outdated Koselleck 's contribut ions. On the contrary. he presents flair o'f wonderful, old-fashioned universal learning, In the present-day acadcmic world, controlled by extcrnal time limits and by count ing of points, a learning of KoseJleck's style is hardly possible any longcr.

Constructing the layers of time

The small article Zeilschichten was published originally in 1995. It contains some of the key ideas of the entire volume. As Koselleck writes in the Ein/eilUng, speaking of "layers of time" utilises a geological metaphor, insisting on the simultaneous presence of several layers in the speaking about times. Compared with the commonplace distinction bet\lIeen cyclical and linear times, Koselleck constructs an alternative perspective to temporality. Despite its mainly triadic distinction of times, it also offers an alternative to Fernand Braudel 's well·known distinction of three levels of duration, which Koselleck views as too ontological. Furthennore, speaking of "structures of repetition" (Wiederhohmg), Koselleck explici tly rejects the idea of the eternal return and insists on the repetition that takes place in each case (p. 13).

The formulations in Koselleck's criteria used for differentiating between the layers of historical time are ambivalent. By sl ightly simplitying the matters, however, we can discern in the 1995 article (and elsewhere in the vo lume) thrce different temporal dichotomies, each of which refer to a specific ground for distinguishing temporal layers. The first refers to the conventional distinction between events and structures, which Koselleck already made in the early seventies, by the cri terion that for the events we can make an exp licit distinction between vorher und nochher (before and after), while for structures such a distinction cannot be made, although they are by no mcans timeless. The second divide is constructed by the "generation" (in the doublc sense of Koselleck's historical anthropology), distinguishing between the time-span of an individual's life and that what transcends it, Le. the "inter-generational" temporality. The third divide is constituted by the distinction between historical and meta-historical times, between the anthropological Vorgoben (pre-given conditions) of human beings and between that what is historical, i.e. subject to change. This distinction is again based on a historical anthropology in the sense of such German authors as Max Scheler, Helmuth Plessner or Arnold Gehlen. The premises of Koselleck's historical anthropology arc most explicitly presented in the Gadamer-essay Hermeneutik lind His/orik, originally published in 1987. While taking an explicit distance from their notorious ideological commitments Koselleck uses an unorthodox anthropological reading of Heidegger's Sein und Zeit and of Carl Schmitt's writings, thus sketching a number of oppositional pairs that charaeterisc fa condition humaine. These pairs are: the necessity of death vs. the poss ibility of killing, the friend-enemy, inside vs. outside, above vs. below, and the "generativity", referring simultaneously to the oppositional pairs between "genders" and "generations".

The role that these oppositional pairs play for historical understanding remains, however, ambivalent. At times, Kosellcck seems to search for "positive" and quasi-ontological "givens" in human li fe that transcend history. On the other hand, the categories play rather the role of heuristic instruments referring to limit-situations that can be turned from meta­historical to historical. i.e. politicised in their significance. For my nominalistic perspective, only the lalter intcrpretation is acceptable. And it is in this light we could also ask which oppositional pairs were to serve as candidates for such limit­situations. In particular, "generativity" - in Koselleckian meaning referring to both gender and generations - has been politicised. Claiming a meta-historical status to these distinctions signifies a commitment against the chances opcned

9

by their politicisation, such as the dcnaturalising po li tics of naming the "gender" variations.

Aspect's of temporalisat ion

The article I?aum und Geschichte (presented in 1976, previously unpublished), is quite characteristic to Koselleck's ambivalem relationship to the quasi-natural Vorgaben . In a sense, it is complementary to the oldest article of the volume, Die Theoriebedurfligkeit der Gesehiehte from 1972. In this article Kosellcck prcsents a radical version of his temporalisation of concepts thesis, explicating tcmporalisation as despatialisat ion through metaphorisation, which, by implication, also signifies a mctaphorisat ion of all spatial concepts. In Raum and Gesehiellte he, at least seemingly, turns the tables and accentuates the spatiality of all history. However, this remains clearly heuristic. Kosclleck also explici tly opposes a naturalisation of the spatial boundaries, as made famous by the school of geopolitics, turn ing the spatial conditions of human life to ontological invariance that dom inate the entire history. Instead he insists on the changing historical significance of the geographical and spatial phenomena as well as on the need of a conceptual history of the concept of the space (p . 79) - and thus indirectly affirms the lcmporalisation thesis. One striking fonnula in this respect is that nothing happens on the ground that it should happen ("Ein Ereignis is niemals deshalb mehr eingetreten, weil es eintreten musste", p. 379). Koselleck's opposition bctween two figures of historical change, progress ( Fortscllritt) and acce leration (Beschlelmigung), is also c lose ly related to the metaphor of temporal layers. A variant of his temporalisation thesis refers to these two success ive stages of denaturalisation of the temporal experience. As a train frcak I was especially pleased with the decisive ro le he attributes to the railways in the formation of the acceleration experience in the denaru ralisation of time, for example, by quoting Adalbert Chamisso'S" fine "railway poem" from 1830 (p. 150-15 1). Considered politically, the opposition between these two speeds of temporalisation illustrates, however, certain one­dimensional ity in Kose lleck' s conceptuali sation of time, corresponding rough ly to the nineteenth century opposition between "progress ives" and "revolutionaries". In this constell ation "timelt appears almost as an autonomous force, to which political action has to adapt itself. This being the case, only the strategic question of progressive vs. revolutionary adaptation remains opcn to the agents . The question how to operate with the chances (in the Weberian sense) involved in the different possible att itudes towards time involved in the acceleration, is incompatible with the constellation, although it is often indicated in Kose ll eck ' s other writings. Thus, the geologica l metaphoric of layers of time is not thc only perspective present in the leitselliellten volume. The impress ion of one-dimensionality as a tacit consequence of talking on layers is countered by more disruptive perspectives. They are implied by the temporalisation thesis in its three dimensions of despatiali sation, denaturalisation and detrad itionalisation (as autonomisalion of the horizon of expectation from the space of experience). In other words, I prefer to accentuate those aspects in hi s work - and in the present volume - that offer us instruments for conceptual ising the contingent, disorderly and, as such. more openly poli tical aspects of human activities that have been neglected or negated by the search for order which has dominated the academic conceptualisations for a long time. In this respect, Erfahrllngswandel Imd Methodenweehsel. published originally in 1988, is an important article. It is here that Koselleek, in part icu lar, distinguishes between the three aspects of hi storical writing, Aufscllreiben. Fortschreiben. Umschreiben (roughly: recording, writi ng fo rward and

10

rewriting) . According to him, historiography begins on ly with the rewriting of the recorded and the ' forward written '. So, historiography, taking the inevitable distance between the events and the stories on them as its point of departure, is always a "revis ionist" activ ity. It subverts the history of the winners that is, mostly, a "forward writing" activity, if not a self-legitimation of that what happened. In this sense KoseJleck ins ists that, in significant respects, the great hi storians, from Thukydides to Weber, have always been "losers" in the history. It is just this position that has enabled them to take a distance to the received view at all levels - new evidence (leugnisse), new questions to the sources and a new interpretative perspective (p. 60-62). I think this article offers a lso an improved understand ing to that what is going on in the hi story of concepts, independently of it being written in the Kosell eckian "dialect" or otherwise. The studies and research projects in different countries, cnabling to arrange regular conferences of the His/ory of Political and Social Concepts Group. aim at a revision of the self­understanding of the only recorded or also forward-written histories of specific concepts. In addition, they aim at revising the conceptual horizons of the languages-cum-political cu ltures in question, as well as of the mainstream historiography that has neglected the perspective of conceptuali sations. It is in this respect we can detect a highly interesting parallel between the views of Koselleck and Quentin Skinner. The latter is also engaged in the history of losers, tI to uncover the often neglectcd riches of our inte llectual heritage" , as he puts it in Liberty before Liberalism. The key concept of Skinner's later work is that of rhetorical redescription. , a concept corresponding to Umscltreiben in German. The difference between Skinner and Koselleck lies in the emphasis of the resources of rhetoric and temporality as the primary source of conceptual changes (cf. my interpretat ion in Finnish Yearbook of Political Thought, vol. 3, 1999, 45-59).

Movements between times

In another article from 1988, Kose ll eck lhematises temporal ity independently of temporal layers. This article is now renamed Stetigkeit lind Wandel aller Zeitgeschichten. Using ideas already sketched by Luhmann and others, Koselleck doubles the dimensions of temporal experience and thus gives the past, present and future their own past, present and future. Although the nine pure types of temporal experience are not explicated in a detai led manner, the point of thi s sketch lies in presenting an illustrative but convincing conceptualisation of changes in purely temporal terms. In the seventies, like in the article on Theoriebedl'ilftigkeit, Koselleck insisted that because time is not anschaulich, we arc obliged to recourse to spatial metaphoric in order to formu late temporal expressions. He illustrates with important examples (including Fortsehritl), how the metaphoric tcmporali sation has transformed the meaning and use of originally spatial expressions. Without properly reflecting and explicating its consequences, Kose lleck now sketches [he possibility to speak of ' distances' in time by dispensing wi th spatial characteristics altogether as an alternative or as a complement to the fonner procedure. This is achieved just by doub ling the temporal expressions and thereby rendering the understanding of distances possible in purely intra-temporal tenns. We can, for example, move from past present to past future, or from future present to present future etc. - in princip le, to all directions within th is simple "time machine" . The point is that movement does not take from space to space through time, but between the types of time, bracketing the role of spaces. I think this idea has all kind of unexpected possib ilities, which could bc speculated further,_of which I just take up two

examples. I th ink Koselleck's doubling of the time-dimensions and using thcm as instruments of conceptualising temporal di stances gives a highly interesting conceptual specificat ion to Walter Benjamin',s figure of a "temporal index" of phenomena. Such an index can be already explicated by analys ing the specific temporal horizons of a single text - and by assessing the political point of this text on the bas is of this analysis. Moreover, the very idea of "movement between times" allows conceptual ising the types of political action and the modes between different forms of politics (for some speculations cf. my Editorial in Finnish Yearbook 0/ Political Thought vol. 2, 1998). A "movement between times" also alludes to new possibilities of understanding conceptual changes. When we take seriously the Wittgensteinian idea that the meaning of concepts lies in their usc it becomes important to analyse the changing uses of the concepts concerning their implicit temporal indexes, for example, in connection with the tempi and modi of the verbs typ ically connected to the concepts. Then, temporal isation of concepts could be related, c.g. to ' verbal isation' of the concept When concern ing po litics, for example, the rep lacement of the polity perspective by that of politic is at ion and the comparison of the temporal indexes of related or competing concepts can be analysed in this way. Of course, J am already moving quite far from Koselleek's own problems and intentions, but one of the advantages of conceptualising the "unconceptualable" phenomenon of time consists in opening up new problems. Even speak ing of temporal layers, Kose ll eek slill depends on the understanding of time by spatial analogies. However, in other respects, he radicalises his temporalisation thesis by indicating to possibilities through which he dispenses with even a metaphorica l dependence of spatial thinking by accentuating the rich resources of our temporal vocabularies, not previously used in a sufficiently nuanced manner in historical and political analys is.

Political time

At some occasions I have tried, rather unsuccessfully. to get Re inhart Koselleck to thematise the difference between historical and politica l times (cf. a forthcoming interview of Koselleck by Wolf-Dieter Narr and Kari Palonen, in Leviathan· Sonderhefi, 200 1). One possible reason for this is in the first idea of Koselleck's theori sation of temporal layers, the connection of politics to events, as characterised by the strict be/ore/after di vide. Without neglecting the importance of this divide, I think Koselleck misses here the possibility of understanding short­term political and conceptual changes - probably not considering them as proper ones for a historian. Let us consider some examples. A well-known statement, attributed to J.M. Keynes, is : "in the long run we all are dead" . For the historian the death of the agents may be a heurist ic advantage, po litical agents cannot sacri ty living generations to the future one (as Koselleck himself says that th is has not been possible in the war-memorials after World War J) . When speaking of politics the temporal layers shorter than a "generation" thus gain an undisputed priority. And the relevant time-span may be even much shorter. [n hi s recent The Cunning o/Unreason John Dunn quotes Harold Wilson; "a week is long time in politics". At the age of the "real time", already a day may be a long time: all kinds of changes, both in the content of the policy and in the constellation of political conflicts, may take place within it. Of course, we can present interesting analyses of them in terms of both actualisation of older layers of hi story and in sudden co llapse of some just previously dominant layers etc. Sti ll. I

think, someth ing of the specificily of the political time goes missed in such an analysis. I think the temporal point of political action is something besides the opposition between the facticity of the events and structures of repetitions. As Max Weber insisted, both of them are intelligible - also to the retrospective historian - only when related to "objective possibilities" of the political agent, which are for her/him a lived reality in the situation, while the ' reality ' of both events and structures refers in the politician ' s situation only to imaginary limit-s ituations that depend on actions in contingent constellations. The weak point of the Realpolitik is that the "reality" it claims the agents to adapt themselves is something that can be known before politics and independent of it. Weber' s concept of Chance signifies a Veralltagliclmng of the classical concepts of kairos or occasione into opportunities omnipresent in the poli tical action (although not necessari ly very different from each other) . Here again, the temporal index of conceptualisations of pOlitics-as-activity as we ll as of the minutious differences between them can serve as a medium for catching the political point of "playing with occasions". For such problems the purely intra-temporal perspective to changes, as presented in the Stetigkeit und Wandel aLler Zeitgeschichten article, seems to me to offer a most promising approach in Kosclleck 's book.

Afterthoughts

As compared with hi s late Bielefeld collcague Niklas Luhmann, Reinhart Koselleck is no system builder, and this is his strength. In order to make something so fluid and diffuse as time intelligible at all, a multi-faceted approach is needed as wcll illustrated in Zeitsehiehten. In relation to his former teachers and inspirators, Martin Heidegger and Hans-Georg Gadamcr, Koselleck also illustrates a certain superiority of the historian over the philosopher in dealing with time, somehow in a manner analogous to the ancient Sophists' critique of philosophy. This also makes his work readable, not least through the spontaneous use of "real" examples with names, dates and events, while the lack of such references tends to make the philosophers' and sociologists' writings more boring, trivial and unh istorical. The significance of the theory of historica l times for Koselleck' s conceptual history along with his studies of war memorials have been increasingly recognised recently, at least in Germany (cf. Christoph Dipper's interview with Kose lleck in Nelle Politisehe Literalllr 1998 and Dippers retrospective essay on the Gesehiehtliehe Gnmdbegriffe in Historiselle Zeitsehri[t 2000). For a proper understanding of Kosellcck's variant of conceptual history, a discussion of hi s contributions to the "theory of historical times" remains indispensable and leitschiehlen 'obligatory' reading.

11

Conceptualising Statehood and Nationhood: The Hungarian Reception of Reason of State, and the Political language of National Identity in the Early Modern Period'!· Balazs Trencsenyi (Central European University, Budapest)

Due to the complex territorial, political and constitutional status of the territories once fonning part of St Stephen 's Crown. the various formu lations of reason of stale had an extremely ambivalent impact on the political discourse in Hungary. The gradual solidification of Habsburg state-identity posed a chal lenge to the Hungarian political elite and, from the second half of the seventeenth century, the constant pressure aiming at a considerable cu ltural-political "homogenisalion" of the territories of the Habsburg Empire generated a certain counter-identity on the side of lhe Hungarian Estates. Especial ly after the collapse of the fiction of elected kingship and the intensification of the formation of a centralised state-administration (under Emperor Leopold I, king of Hungary between 1654 and 1705), this tension served to create an opposition rhetoric, emphasising "language" and particular "national" customs as markers of a community that Jailed the criteria of statehood, but sti ll claimed legitimately to possess a certain degree of symbol ic and institutional autonomy (since the older "ancient constitutionalist" discourse fai led to counter the challenge of a more absolutist rhetoric on the part of the Court. legitimating its disregard of constitutional bridles by a twofold appeal to necessity and common good,). Besides this mirror·effect, there is also a direct use of reason oj state-precepts from the tum of the seventeenth century onwards, on the part of Hungarian political actors (connected to the reception and growing fashion of Lips ian ism in Hungary). This can be traced in the program of the "modernist" political elite around Mik.l6s Estcrhcizy in "Royal Hungary" (i.e. the territories under the Habsburg ruler in his capacily of being King .f Hungary), as well as in the declarations of Gabor Bethlen, Prince of Transylvania (who often appealed to common good and necessity in legitimating his rather uncustomary political moves). The most important effect of the reception of this discourse was the growing secularisation of political discourse -- the gradual emergence of a representative political idiom of interests;" acceptable from various denominational perspectives. This idiom raci litated the "dialogue" between political groups of "Royal Hungary" and the Transylvanian court; reinforced the concern with "national" inst itutions in the symbolic dialogue with the partisans

~u The prescnt text is an extract from my longer, and, in its entirety yet unpublished, manuscript, entitled " Patriotism, Elect Na/ioll, and Reason of Slate: Patlerns of Community alld lhe 'Political Languages of Iluf/garian Nationhood ' in the Early Modern Period ". A more extensive version of the argument is forthcoming in the rev iew £asl-CenlraJ Europe (Budapest). For an interpretation of the structure of early modem political discourse in Hungary, see my "The Political Languages of Hungarian Nationhood in the Early Modem Period," in: Manus Turda ed. ­n'e Garden and the Workshop: Disseminating CuI/ural History in East­Cemral Europe. In Memoriam Peter Hanak, (Budapest: Central European Un iversity/Europalnstitut, 1998) pp. 25-48.

I I The classical statement of the interest-theory is the treatise by Henri de Rohan - Imerels des Princes et des Etals de 10 CJmitienlc (cd. Christian Lazzeri ; Paris: P.U.F., 1995). On the broader intellectual context of this discourse, see Etienne ThURU - Raison d ·etat et pe11see politiqlle a /'epoque de Richefieu, (Paris:Armand Colin, 1966); Nannerl O. Keohane - Philosophy and Ihe Slale in France. The Renaissa11ce 10 Enlightenmenl (Princeton: Princeton .Univ. Press, 1980); Michel Scnellart - Machiavelisme e/ Raison d'Etat, Xlle -XVllle siecle (Paris: P.U.F., 1989); Chri stian Lazzcri and Dominique Reynie eds.- La Raison d 'Elat: polilique et ratiol/a/ite (Paris : PUF. 1992); Richard Tuck -Phllosophy alld Govemmelll, /572-1651 , (Cambridge: CUP, 1993); Yves-Jacques ~arka - Raison et Deraisoll d 'Etat (Paris : PUF, 1994).

12

of Imperial state-building, and crcated the possibility of an intricate co-operation between the two focal points of the Hungarian "political nation" in certain crisis situations. The Hungarian chapter in the reception of post-Machiavcllian discourses of political prudence began with the reception of Lipsianism at the tum of the seventeenth century. As we read in the poet Janos Rimay's Ictter to the adored phi losopher, there were several young Hungarian noblemen who were eagerly reading his books and scholarly editions of classics. It is interesting La see, however, how selective the ears of these " Hungarian friends" of Lipsius were.42 They happily appropriated the neostoical ethos, emphasising discipline, endurance, mastery of passions, etc. Bul, characteristically enough, they were unwilling to listen to Lipsius when he relegated patriotism to the category of passions (as an irrational, and. at the same time, selfish insistence on something which is devoid of any normative value, d isturbing the emot ional balance of the stoic sage.) The first decades of the seventeenth century saw a striking pro liferation of this neostoical rhetoric in Hungary (we can even say that the language of neostoicism was the first vernacular political terminology to emerge in Hungary), but it is always used in line with a patriotic discourse. A characteristic example is the political treatise, wrinen in letter-form, by Istvan Vetessi,4 l where the termino logy of constantia is transformed to legitimise the prescriptive continuity of ancient laws (the "dangerous novelties" are perceived as fruits of passion, of inconstantia). Likewise, Lipsius's Hungarian translator, Janos Laskai, writes about patriotism as the highest virtue in his ded icatory letter to his translation of the Six Books. "Sir, You fu lly love your country; and these n .... o things, our religion and our country, are inseparably connected. Our country is sacred, as well as our religion, and virtuous men die for both of them indiscriminately.,,44 This means that the specific characteristics of a Hungarian discourse of "reason of stale" are to be sought in view of the interaction of the "post-Machiavellian" terminology and the local traditions of "politi cal community".45 This picture is further

~l The best general analysis of the political impact of neostoicism is Gerhard Oestreich - Neostoicism and Ihe Ear/y Modem State (Cambridge U.P., 1982). For the reception of Lipsianism i~ Hungary, see Anna Vargha - JIIStliS Lipsills es a magyar neUemi lifet (ErtekezCsck a magyarorszagi latinsag korebol 7., Budapest: 1942); tbr a usefu l overview of the reception of Lipsianism in Central-Europe, see Nicolelle Mout - "Die politische Theorie in der Bi ldung der El iten: Die Lipsius­Rczeption in BOhmen und in Ungam," in: Joachim Bahlcke, Hans­JOrgen BOmelburg, Norbert Kersken cds. - Stiindefreiheit und Staatsgestallllllg in Ostmille/europa (Leipzig: UniversiUl.tsverlag, 1996) pp . 243-264. ror documents Oflhc interaction, see Janos Rimay - ()sszes muvei (Budapest: Akaricmiai, 1955).

4} "Level az uralkodAs m(iveszeter61 I. Rak6czi GyOrgy fejedclemhez., M

in: Marton Tarn6c. cd. - Magyar gQndolkodok. t 7. sztizad. (Budapest: Szcpirodalmi , 1979) .J.I Laskai. "Epistle Dcdicatory" to "A polgari tarsasagnak tudomAnyar61," ;n: Tam6c (1979), p. 140. For the enti re trans lations, sec Janos Laskai .Vti/ogatoll lJ1/ivel . Mllgyar lustus Upsius (Budapest: Akademai. 1970) ~j For the various aspects of the adaptation of this post-Machiavell ian discursive framework to different political cultures, sec Roman Schnur, ed . . Staa/srOSOll. SllIdietl zur Geschichte eine$ poJitischell Begriffes, (Berlin: Duncker und Humblot, t 975); John G.A. Pocock - TIle Maclriavellian Moment. Florentine Political Thol/ght and (he Allal/tic Republican Tradition (Princeton U.P., 1975); Herfried MOnklcr - tm Nomen des Slaates (Frankfurt a. M.: S. Fischer, 1987); Peter S. Donaldson.- Machiavelli and mystery of slate (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1988) Robert Bireley - The COl/iller-Reformation Prince. Anli-Machiavellism or Catholic Sla/ecra/t in Early Modan Europe (Chapel Hill/London: Univ . of North Carolina Press, 1990): Michael Stolleis - Staat !/Ild Staalsra:soll ill der In/hen Neuzeil. Sllldiell zur Geschicht(! des 61felltliclu!II Reclus (Frankrurt II. M.: Suhrkamp, 1990);

complicated by the extremely polysemic conceptual framework of co llective identity, mirroring. of course, the complexities of political allegiance in the Tripartite rcalm.46

We can also observe the subtle interplay of this post-Humanist terminology of normative collectivity with the local framework in the famous Testament by Istvan Bocskai, Prince of Transylvania ( 1605-1606). This text was written with the manifest intent of a Political Apology, and was conceptually built on the duality of Bocskai's loyalties and backgrounds, (i.e. his Hungarianness and Transylvanianness). He uses the word nemzet (nation) to express his Hungarian embeddedness when he refers to "my nation", "our nalion". At the same time he mentions the "noble nation" of his designated poHtical inheritor, Homonnai, meaning obv ious ly "noble family", "noble provenience". while he speaks of Transylvania as tides hazank ("our sweet countty", "dulcissima palria"), referring to the Principality as the Noble Republic within Transylvania (reflecting the fact lhat the res publica was still considered to be a concrete entity, a corrununity of concrete individuals), as weB as a state ("allapot,,).47 This terminological duality indicates a conceptual separation of "state" and "nalion", yet the actual conceptual framework is more complicated. These two patterns of community are fused by the post-Humanist discourse of Concordia, i.e. the requirement that the political community be upheld by "a nice harmony among themselves". Bocskai's Testament thus calls on all Hungarians "not to be separated from each other, to be happy with the other's victory, to be sad because of the other's misfortune.,,48 This requirement of emotional unity is rooted in the humanist analysis of discord: "with contention even the vast empires arc destroyed, but with unity even the smal l ones grow great.,49. When he refers to the ultimate nonnative embeddedness of his actions (i.e. that he always sought the "common good"), the subject of the "common good" is not the Transylvanian state, but the entire Hungarian nation. The separation of the normative and the institulional framework means that in Bocskai's discourse there is no place for an exclusively Transylvanian raison d'etat. This reflects the peculiar career of this politician who vacillated between pro·, and anti­Habsburg orientations, and fiLS well into the conception of his famous legitimation of the Principality as a temporal and conditional formation: as he claimed, "as long as the Hungarian Crown will be up there in Vienna, it is useful and necessary to maintain" a Hungarian prince in Transylvania .. This docs not mean that the potentials of the rhetoric of "cornmon good" as const ituting a scJf· sufficient body politic were left uncxploited in Transylvania 10 the I 620-30s, we can see the grad ual fonnation of a specific tradition of political prudence, emerging within the framework of Transylvanian statehood. One of the main preoccupations of this tradition was the theoretical

11> On the issues of early modem national consciousness in Hungary, the most original research was done by Jello Szucs. The collection or his essays is also avai lable in German translation (Nation und Geschichte. Studien von Jeno Sziics; KOl n: BOh1au, 198 1). For different - and sometimes divergent - approaches, sec also Kalman Benda - A magyar flemzeti hivafasfudaf fortenefe (A XV-XVII. szazadban) , (Budapest: 1937); Tibor Klaniczay - Pallas magyar i,,'adikai (Budapest: Szepirodalmi. 1985); Lajos Hopp and Jan Slaski - A magyar-Iengyel Imilfszemlilet el6:mcflyei (Budapcst: Tankonyvkiad6, 1992); Tibor Klaniczay, cd. - Anlike Re=eption lind Nationale Idelllif~t ill der Renaissance in besondere in Deutschland lind in VI/gam (Budapest: Balassi, 1993); Katalin Peter· "A haza. es a nemzet az orszag harom rcszrc szakadt allapota idejcn". (in: Papok is nemesek, Budapest: Raday Gyfijtcmcny. 1995, pp. 21 t-233 .). H Bocskai , "Testamentomi rendclcs," in: Tamoc (1979). pp. 9-22. 1M ibid, p. 13 . l'Jibid.

localisation of the Prince. finding a compromise between the republican and monarchical elements of the governmental praxis in Transylvania. Gyorgy Szepsi Korotz. an influential Protestant preacher and translator of Bazileikon Doron,s° following the logic of James VI's divine right-argumentalion, stressed the importance of hierarchy in general, claiming that the "prince and the magistrates" are the "living souls" of the common people. He evoked the figure of Matthias Corvinus to illustrate his speculation about the ideal prince, praising him for "acting for the sake of the conservation of his sweet nation" , This image alludes to Matthias' disguised mingling with the common son, in order to ascertain the well-being of the people. This means that "sweet nation" refers here to the corrunoners as well as the nobility. but Szepsi's tenninoiogy is far from being monosemic: some pages later he refers to the Devil as "the enemy of human nation" . The figure of Gabor Bethlen represents another modality in this Transylvanian discourse. His ascendance to the princely position was far from assured, and he could not base his legitimacy on the canon of moderate rulership. Bethlen (prince of Transylvania between 1613- (629) was probably the closest approximation of a Machiavellian prince in Transylvania throughout the period; simultaneously he also exploited the symbolism of a Godly Ruler. No matter how unprecedented his rule might have been, he got q uite close to becoming the focal point of an "institutional ised" d iscourse of "elect nationhood" . When, for example, Alben Szenci Molnar turned to him in the dedicatory letter to his translation of Calvin's Instiluliones, he placed Bethlen's reign within the framework of a providential interpretation of history - claiming that he was personally selected by God to perform his deeds as a Christian prince, acting on behalf of his nation. Thus the extension of the providential modality to the national community comes through the figure of Bethlen - identifying the imagery of the "Christian Prince" with the message inherent in the label, "Prince, elected from his own nation". When we read Bethlen's Political Testamel1l, we can observe the same conceptual duality as we see in Bocskai, but with an even stronger emphasis on the normativity of patriotism. He reiterates the motifs of the crucial sixteenth·century controversy about the responsibility for the division of the "once flourishing" kingdom. In the previous phase of this debate, the Catholics stressed the normative past of the medieval and unitary realm, while the partisans of Protestantism stressed the moral aspect, claiming that the Turkish threat was a punishment for the "sins of our fathers". When Bethlen turns to this question, he fomlUlates his argumentation from a "national" perspective, which allows him to fuse cenain elements from both discourses. Hc cites the Medieval kingdom as a glorious example, at the same time retaining the moral tone of the Protestant discourse, blaming the "sins" of the predecessors for these misfortunes. The cause of the collapse, according to Bethlen, is the "election of alien princes". Thus he manages to fuse the vision of a nonnative past and the moral theology of the Protestants into a construction which identifies "the nation" as the normative community. Consequently, the Transylvanian state is legitimated according to this broader, national missioll. It is not less than the "bulwark of our poor country", the ultimate legitimating framework being a

so There is a strong vernacular thrust on the fie ld or political speculation .in the first decades of the seventeenth century. An important example of the "mirror or princes" translation·literature is Janos Draskovich -Hor%g;; Pr;IIcipum, azaz az fejedelmek orajallak masodik kOllyve (G raz, 1619), a partial translation of Guevara's book. There is also a signi ficant uanslation-literature rendering classical sources, popular as guidebooks of political prudence, into Hungarian. See the early example of Janos Baranyai Dccsi - liz Caills CrisplIs Sallllstlusnak kef hi.floriaja (Szeben, 1596); as well as Pal IHportoni Forr6 - Quintus Curtillsllak az Nagy Sdndomak, Macedo"ok Kirdlyaflak viselteteu dolgairu/ ;rallalOIl hisloridja (Debrceen, 1619)

13

national eschatology. Even Bethlen's co-operation with the Turks is integrated into this discourse: no longer God's Scourge, the "Turkish nation is ordained by God to be the shield"sl of Hungary. The national focus of allegiance overrules denominational identity as well: the required concordia implies that "Hungarians should not quarrel over religion", since "nobody should be saved by the use of force" . BeLhlen thus manages to fuse the precepts of "reason of state" with the rhetoric of political eschatology: the crucial categories are necessilas ("we act by necessity" ~ as he refers to the alliance with the Turkss2

) and the common good (he acts "not for private aims, but for the preservation of the country"). As the concept of nation fuses the nonnativity of reason of state and a providential community, the separate statehood of Transylvania is perceived in the nonnative framework of Hungarian nationhood as well. FoiJowing the discourses of statehood and nationhood in the early seventeenth century, we can observe a crystallisation of a "national discourse", producing a considerable level of compactness, continuity, and rules of application. It is imponant to stress, however, that, in the early modem period, this language never reached such a solid and supra-personal continuity as in the nineteenth century: contrary to the post-Romantic situation (when the "speaker" had quite good reasons to expect his audience to possess more or less uni fonn intellectual and emotional codes) the early-modem usagc can be characterised by a constant interplay (and, in the most interesting cases, the conscious manipulation) of different understandings, rooted in the different intellectual traditions sketched above, Sl

SI Bethlen, "Vegrendelete." in: Tam6c (1979), p. 108. For a brief inlroduction to the court culture in the Go ldcn Age of the Transylvanian PrincipaJ ity, see Marton Tam6c - Erdely miivelodese BetMen Gabor es 0

ket Rak6czi Gyorgy koraban (Budapest: Gondolat, 1978). See also l..aszl6 Makkai, ed. - Bethlen Gabor emlikezele (Budapest: Eur6pa, 1980). See also the relevant chapters in Bela Kopeczi. cd. - Erdcly tortcnete (Budapest: Akadem iai Kiad6, 1986). SlSethlen, "Vcgrendelete," in : Tarn6c (1979), p. 11 2. Sl There is an extensive secondary literature on the early modem conceptions of nationhood. Let me just point out some of the most important ones: Federico Chabod - L'idea di /lozione (Bari: LaterLa, 1962) : Jean Lestocquoy - Histoire dl~ pOlriOlisme en France des origines d lIDS jOllrs. (Paris: A. Michel , J 968); Miriam Yardeni - La conscience nalionale en France pendalll les Gllerres de Religion (Louvain. Paris: Nauwelaerts, 1971); Orest Ranum. ed. - Natiollal Consciousness, llislory Qlld Political Culture ill Early Modem Europe (Baltimore, London: Johns Hopki ns Univ . Press. 1975); Konstantin Symmons­SYlnono1cwicz . National COllsciousness in Poland: Origin and Developmem (Meadvi lle, Pa.: Maplewood Press, 1983): Andrzej Walicki - 771e Enlightenment alld the Birth of Modern Nationhood. Poli~'h Political nlol/gllt from Noble Republicanism to Tadeusz KOScills=ko(Notre Dame: Notre Dame University Press, 1989); I. 'idee de I/aaon ell Europe all XVlle siec1e (XV lie sieclc, n. 176. Juillel-Sepl. 1992); Philippe Des!!.n - Penser rllistoire a 10 Renaissance (Caen: Paradigme. 1993) Ch. I. ; Helmut I3crding, ed. - Nationales 8eIYusstsein lIud kollektive Idenritiit (Frank furt : S uhrkamp. 1994) Claus BjOrn , Alexander Grant, Keith J. Stringer, eds. - Nations. Nationalism and Patriotism in the European Past (Copenhagen: Academic Press, 1994) Maur;z;o V;roli - For Love of COlf fllry. An Essay 0 11 Patriotism alld Natiollalism (Oxford: Clarendon: 1995) ; Herfried MOnkler. Hans GrUnberger. Kathrin Mayer - Nafionenbildullg. Die Natiollalisienmg Ellropa.f im Diskllrs Imlllul/istischer IlIfellektlleller. ltalien lind Deutsch/alld (Berlin: Akadcmic Verlag, 1998).

14

Nevertheless, there is a constantly growing "semantic and syntactic solidification": while in the sixteenth century we meet with a considerable number of mono-referential usages (the parallel use of the purely humanist understanding of palria, the purely denominational understanding of "elect nation", and the purely Siandisch understanding of "political nation"), by the mid-seventeenth century, the constant interaction or spheres made these "pure" cases more of an exception than the ru le, and this process resulted .in an even more complex configuration of connotations. One of the clearest examples of the interpersonal continuity of the "national discourse" is the role that "national symbols" came to play in the religious conflicts of the century. The "language of nationhood" emerged as a battleground for the denominational debates. For example, the greatest figure of the Hungarian Counler­Refonnation, Peter Pazmany, rrequently relied on the "national discourse" to legitimise his position. The power and the popularity of this rhetoric can be clearly seen from the faci that both Peter Alvinczi, his major Protestant adversary, and Pazrmmy himself relt it necessary to repudiate the charges of being somehow "anti­national", and also to seek to devise a discourse by which they could identify themselves with the "true national cause". Pazmany never failed to emphasise his loyalty to "his nation". When corresponding with the magistrates of Royal Hungary or with the Transylvanian Princes, he usually inserted sentences, such as "1 love, and 1 pray for, the honour and peace or my country, my nation"S4. When he corresponded with Bethlen, he appealed to their "common nation" to convince him not to invade the territories of Royal Hungary, (he seeks peace - "having seen the horrible destruction of our poor country and nation"). Yet he refers to "Royal Hungary" in such a way that the focus of the nation is located there side rather than on the Principality's side. It is the "poor remnant from our country": this is obviously an implicit assertion that Transylvania is a Turkish territory. Thus he repudiates Bethlen's claim that this state would be the last bastion of Hungarian liberty, and the only natural focus of allegiance for the entire Hungarian nation. _ ln his preaching, Pl'tzIminy turned frcqucntly to the question of the "corruption" of Hungary, developing his own moral-theology, sometimes strikingly parallel with the Protestant discourse in form, but drawing diametrically opposite political-ccclesiastical conclusions. When the two moral-theologies meet, the framework of the debate naturally becomes a "national discoursc". Pazrminy's early work, an answer to Istvan Magyari, illustrates this perfectly. Magyari, who wrote a famous pamphlet on the "Causes of the

The most elaborate discussion of early modl.m nationhood focuses on the British context. To name but a few important contributions: Hans Kahn - "The Genesis and Character of English Nationalism," in : Journal of lhe HisfOry of Ideas, 111. (January, 1940) pp. 69-94.: Arthur H. Will iamson - Scottish National Consciousness in (he Age of James VI. (Edinburgh. 1979); Linda Coney - Britons: Forging a Natiof! (1707-IS37). (New 1·laven: Yale Univ. Press, 1992); Liah Greenfcld -Natiollalism. Five Roads to Modemi/y, (Cambridge, Mass.,: Harvard U.P., 1992) chapter I. ; Richard Helgerson - Forms of Nationhood. The Elizabethan Writing of England (Chicago: The Univ. of Ch icago Press, 1992); Claire McEachern - The Poerics of English Nationhood, J 590-1612 (Camb ridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996); Adrian Hastings - nle COl/stmction of Nationhood: etlmicity. religion and nationalism. (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni vcrsity Press, 1997); Brendan Bradshaw and Peter Roberts, eds. - British Consciousness and Identity: the making of Britain, 1533-1707 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1998); Colin Kidd - British Identities Before Nationalism: ethnicity and nationhood 111 the Allanfic World, 1600-ISOO, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999)

S~ Peter Pazmany _ Vcilogatas miiveib61 /-111. (Budapest: Szcnt ISlvan Tarsulat. 1983). vol. I. p. 377.

Many Conuptions in Hungary", tried to combine the Protestant eschatological discourse with a normative interpretation of Hungarian historyss. Pazrminy's answer began with the acceptance of Magyari's discourse of "elect nationhood" in terms of its self­critical modality ("'it is obvious, for those who have eyes, it can be understood, that our nation is under the vengeful and angry whip of GOd"S6), but he tried to tum this diagnosis against the Protestant camp. The focus of his argumentation was an interpretation of the normative past, contrasted with the deplorable present: "the rich, full, abundant, glorious, and famous country became like a shadow, almost completely lost"s7. The cause of this destruction is obviously moral: "spiritual erroneousness" is the root of conuption, "they opened the eyes of the people to all sorts of wickedness". To prove his charge that this cris is is closely connected to the appearance of Protestantism, he gives a partisan interpretation of Medieval glory: "Our nation was such a perfect, simple, pious nation before, that it was impossible to find a comparable one anY' .... here around". Claiming that it was exactly Protestantism that sowed the seeds of discord and particularism, PWTHlnY attempted to fuse the humanist criticism of the anti-social stress on the liberties of the particular with an anack on Protestant claims for tolerance: "under the cloak and shadow of Christian liberty. your religion gave immensely great liberty to, and opened the gates for, the wicked and licentious life of all kinds". The Protestant appeal for liberty is just a wish for "freedom in carnal voluptuousness" - thus tolerance supports licentiousness. Their claim is repudiated in view of the common good of the nation, and this judgement is reinforced by the compelling argument based on history: "we had a country until our religion was flourish ing as well" .S8

The Protestant preacher of Kassa (Ko~ice), Peter Alvinczi composed his famous "Querela Hungariae", a political apology for Gabor Bethlen, along these lines as well. His use of the word liatioli is markedly po[ysemic: he speaks of the "human nation", as well as the "alien nation" (referring to the Turks), but this terminological hesitation covers a rather determined pO(itical discourse. His starting-point resembles that of the sixteenth-century antecedents of political eschatologyS9: he seeks to present the ordeals of the Protestant community in terms of "national" grievances. He relies on the same imagery of the "world turned upside down" ("the wicked fare here well, the good badly") -­transmitting the message that the disregard of religious law harms the entire civil community. Religious persecution refers to "lack of justice", which undermines the civil order in genera l, regardless of religious denomination. This discursive strategy, which was obviously in line with the broader political platform of Protestant nobility in the country (and all over Europe), was an attempt to redescribe the hanns of the religious community in terms of violations of constitutional li berties, attracting the sympathy of the non-Protestant conununity

~~ Istvan Magyari - A:: ar.migakball va/a sok romltisoknak akairol (Budapest: Magyar He likon, 1979) .

.16 Pazmany Peter rmiveibO/ (Budapest: Kisfaludy tarsasag, n.d.) p. 5.

H ibid.

~M ibid, p. 7. 59 The most typical aut.hor of this genre is the Bible-translator and preacher Gaspar Karolyi .. On the use of the ropol of providential national suffering in the ecclesiastical literature of the sixteenth century, see Sandor Ole - "BIineierr biin/eri Iste" a magyar nepet". £gy bihliai parhuzam vi=sgalara a XV!. szazadi nyomratOf( egyhazi irodalom a/apjan (Budapest: Magyar Ncmzeti Muzcum, 1991). 58 ibid , p. 182.

as well. Alvinczi fo llows this logic, but ultimately tends to identify the common good with the Protestant camp. In general, when he turns against the Catholic priests he uses the same secular rhetoric (he blames the Catholic priests for being responsible for "our internal civil discord") and refers to the "citizens of this country" as the normative focus of his discourse (incorporating the Transylvanian Principality into his conceptual framework of nation and country). He speaks "in the name of Hungary", retaining even the symbol of "the Bulwark of Christianity" as a source of pride, but, in a sense, he transgresses the framework of the Protestant noblemen's customary appeal for "Hungarian" civil liberties.

The purport of his argument is more general. The Catholic priests' activity (especially the persecution) not only violates constitutional liberties, it also endangers the social framework of the realm as a whole, since oaths are broken; the law is disregarded, and the "will of the country" is constantly hurt. This means that, in Alvinczi's rhetoric, Catholicism as a whole is anti-national: they seek to destroy the realm "in order to destroy Christ's Ecciesia eventually,,60. They think that "it is better to have a deserted Hungary inhabited by wild animals and beasts, than to have the true service of God allowed". Thus he fuses the image of the Catholics with that of the "aliens" (Le. representatives of the "Habsbur~ interest"): "they aim at making a province of Hungary" I. In face of til_is "foreign" threat from within, it is exactly the Transylvanian state (considered to be "outside" by many of the politicians of "Royal Hungary") that is truly Hungarian: "they are our relatives by blood". Bethlen's attempts to conquer the territory of Royal Hungary and establish a unitary kingdom notwithstanding, for most of the upper nobility (especially at the Western confines), the "national Counter­Reformation" seemed convincing enough. The wave of re­Catholicisation in the 1620-30s mirrored the conviction of many of the most important noble families Uml the Hungarian Standisc" interests can be better defended from Viennese pretensions by using a Catholic position, than in a framework of a double conflict offaith and politics. [n the northeast, however, the nobility held firmly to its Protestant religion, occasionally eo-operating with the Transylvanians. The actual political divergences did not mean the disappearance of a unitary symbOlic discourse of nationhood; on the contrary, by the sixties we can observe the formation of a "political language of nationhood" used by Protestants and Catholics alike (naturally putting the emphases differently, but relegating the denominational cleavages to the background). 'me curious destiny of the pamphlet "Crying Supplicatory Letter,,62 proves not only the existence of a substantive Catholic wing of the anti-Habsburg opposition - the sheer fact of the compilation means that the symbolic strueturcs of these two trad itions were highly permeable. The fact that the Protestant movement could tum to a Catholic pamphlet (by erasing most of the apparently Catholic side-remarks and tenns) means that

60 AIvineli , "Magyarorszag panasza," in : Tam6c {I 979), p. 179. See also Peter Alvinczi - Magyarorszag paflaszainak megoltalmaztisa es wi/agaras predikaci6s /eve/elba/ (B udapest: Eur6pa, 1989). On the literary genre of "querela Hungariae," see Mihaly Imre - "Magyarorszag panasza ": a Querela HUllgariae roposz a XV1·XVlI. szazad irodalmaban (Debreeen: Kossuth Egyetemi Kiad6, 1995). 61 ibid, p. 182. (,1 The structure and the history of thi s pamphlet was analysed brilli antly by Kalalin Peler in her A magyar nye/vli polilikai pllblicisztika kezdetei. A Sira/mas Panasz keletkezestOrtel1ete (Budapest: Akademai , 1973). She proved that it is a compi lation of a series of different pamphlets, composed in a range of a few decades, based on a text issued from Catholic circles and originall y renecting the ideology of a certain Catholic Sttilldisch movcment, later reworked in view of a Protestant discourse of anti-Habsburg opposition.

15

they were speaking a strikingly simi lar political language - that of "Hungarian nationhood" . The chief tenets of this political language exploited. the key terms of post-Humanist p,olitical prudence I have analysed so far. The Letter proudly begins by championing the nomlativity of the patria: "If we but defend ourselves and our property, who can judge reasonably that it entails wickedness and falseness towards the others?,,63. This normativity of self-preservation is contrasted to the imminent danger of extinction: the enemies of Hungary aim at the "extermination of our nation". The programme of self-defence is thus closely connected to the conceptualisation of resistance. Likewise, the "Letter" utilised another element of the humanist discourse: subverting the rhetoric of "elogium", the author claims that the land of the realm is still - at least. potentially - abundantly rich, and it is purposefully kept poor by its enemies ("promising a very useful and fat prey for the alien German nation by making it their perpetual province,,64). The analysis of corruption naturally arises from the criticism of particularism. It is fonnulated in a seemingly self-critical tone, blaming the barons for being concerned only with their comfort and pleasure ("where is their true Hungarian heart?"), but this analysis is phrased in an "ethno-national" terminology. The "original sin" is purely indigenous, the internal discord made it possible for the external enemies to destroy the country, but the "aliens" made ample use of this weakness, and now they are the chief authors of the cleavages of the Hungarian nation (the "Letter" puts an unprecedented conceptual emphasis on this cleavage by referring to "Danubian" and "Tisza"- i.e. "Western" and "Eastern"­Hungarians). The Germans "never defended Hungary with full heart" , even Buda fe ll to the Turks because of their cowardice. All in all, they are pushing the Hungarians into an insupportable trap. since they only seek to maintain the status quo: they neither allow the Hungarians an open fight with the Turks, nor the opportunity to become Turkish protectorate. The outcome is a condition of in­betweenness; "neither war nor peace" - the perpetuation of internal division and fragmentation. The construction of a normative past is transformed to reinforce this "national" message as well: "the lesson of Hungarian chronicles" is "that the origin, root and instrument of all the corruption and danger of this country was the foreign nation,,65. The only escape from this deplorab le situation is open resistance. The "Letter" does not tum against the person of the king, rather it blames the "wicked magistrates" for the misfortunes. But this means that the "national" terminology needs to be readjusted. Since some of the magistrates are Hungarians, the "conceptual solution" is the introduction of the terminology of degeneration. The main targets of criticism are thus the "alienated" magistrates -Hungarians and Germans alike; according to the authors, "the king might not even know" what is happening in his realm .. The occasio of resistance is the institutionalisation of national unity: the "Letter" formulates the demand of annual Parliaments, and this program is phrased in terms of Pmdentia (adjustment to the " changes of time"). Thus the "politics of nationhood" devised by the "Letter" becomes a "politics of time". The example of past un ity, the "glory of ancicnt Hungarians", compels thc prcscnt-day compatriots to overcome division. The humanist vision of autarchic community, reinforced by the example of national pasl, supports the argument that it is possible to achieve independence. Based on a vision of normative past and a language of nationhood, the "Lctter" formulated a program of institutional autarchy, a kind of "Hungarian rcason of statc". This entailed the estabtishment

Ii] "Siralmas kOnyOrgolevel, " in: Tamoc (1979), p. 186.

M ibid, p. 188. r,} ibid, p. 193.

16

of the focus of "institutionalised virtue" (the formation of a "national" army. based on commoners), the need for a "new Matthias" (exemplary ruler, whom the "nation can fo llow"), the necessity of dissimulation as a political weapon. and the need to champion the doctrine of aristocratic Republicanism based on the myth of Venice. The national program - thc nonnative past projected into the futurc - is thus channelled into the discourse of "statehood"; the national discourse is the collective memory of past statehood, mediated by the symbolism of "national fame". Of course, the construction of a normative past still contains a gap betwecn the Protestant and the Catholic traditions - thus the end of the pamphlet features a combination of symbols that originated in an unmistakably Catholic background (identifying nationhood with nobi lity, liberty, the Apostolic mission of the Hungarian king, and the Corona Sacra). yet, interestingly. these symbols were left intact by the subsequent Protestant editors. The various above-mentioned structures of collective identity (humanist palria, eschatological nationhood, institutional entity, and territorial statehood) represent the culturaVpolitica1!social connotations encoded in the use of the "political language of nationhood". Thus the "political language of nationhood" is to be understood in view of its respective roots in these intellectual traditions and especially in their constant interaction (and therefore in the constant semantic polyvalence of the kcy terms in its vocabulary). In the "Hungarian reason of state" of Miklos Zrinyi we can grasp the moment of an implicit crystallisation of these spheres. In his intellectual development, the lack of a natural (and actual) focus of the imported. idiom of ragion di slato crystallised into a vision where the attributes of statehood were identified with the nonnative tradition of nationhood, The projected collective past cmcrged as a focus of loyalty and an exemplum of virtue. In Zrinyi's program the reconstruction of the polity (fonnulated in terms of necessitas - thus legitimating the irregularity of measures) transgresses the boundaries of the "community of noblemen" (i.c. the "political nation"). He proposes thc establishment of an army recruited from the peasantry (thus going against the core of the traditional self-image of the nobility in which military scrvice is the status-legitimation - duty and privilege - of the estate of noblemen).66 It took decades and a series of different intellcctual entcrprises to reach the point where his construction of "nationhood" transgressed the framework of a purely legal-political community (of the nobility). In the case of his first mature tract on political and military theory, the Gallant General, he started from the then­fashionab le perspective of neostoical analysis of statecraft. This probabilistic vision of politics was organised along the lines of the chief problems of exemplarity and analogies; the questions of the relevance of past examples, the source and adaptabil ity of patterns, the relationship between experientia and "reading". According to the ambivalence of history, political reflection becomcs the "science of opportunitics". We can judge from this, as well as from such "betraying" topoi, like the "compe\1ing" of Fortuna, that the questions of the "Gallant General" ultimately fit into the Machiavellian framework of questions, where the key problem is that of seizing opportunities, and the nonnativc contcxt of this gesture. Likewise, the connection of the Lipsian-neostoic connotation 01' constantia with the notion of negotium can bc interpreted as an clement of the programme of controlling circumstances, of

M The following analysis is based on the text of my conference-paper "Reason Without a State: Modalities of political community and the adaptation of ragion di stato in the works of Mikl6s Zr{nyi ," printed, unfortunately in a slightly unedited shape, in: GianfTanco Borrelli, ed. -Pnldenza Civile. Bene Comllne, Guerra Gillsta. Percorsi della Ragion di Sraro rra Seicenro e Serrecellro. (Nuples: Archivio della Ragion di Stato -Adarte, 1999),pp. 49.-86.

"conquering secular time". "The General never fo rgets anything, never calms down. he is always busy and finally plucks out from the earth what was strongly fastened". The argument continues with the assertioQ. that the "condition of diligence is to be freed from all sorts of passions,,61 . This, however, interacts with the individualistic perspective, since in the key-work of nco stoic ethos, the De Constantia of Lipsius, precisely the primary allegiance to a community, i.e. patriotism, turns out to be one of the passions which must be purged. Zrinyi puts surprisingly strong emphasis on this: "A general should not take care of his wife, his country, or any other things, what he has to care about, even to dream about, is the danger of his enemy and his own preservation,,68. As decisions are primarily individual, the political community appears as the circumstance 01 individual action, the plurality and reciprocity of fellow-actors. Short-distance success, based on amorality, is ultimately self-destructive; lama - created by the cumulativity of virtuous actions - is more important than one isolated act of overwhelming success, thus the key element turns out to be integrity, covering a broader temporal sequence: "finis coronal opus". This is reflected in such metaphors as that of the chain69 (which can be used only if many rings are concatenated faultlessly) , or the Milky Way'· (which gains its brightness from an infinite number of stars twinkling Simultaneously). Therefore, no matter how individualistic Zrinyi' s perspective was, it is not fonnulated in terms of an a-historical and pre-moral oecosio. The measure of actions is the longue dllree of personal and collective histories. This is the way historical past becomes nonnative, ("if the Hungarians, who came out from Scythia with so much bloodshed, heard that we, degenerated, accomplished their ~ntentions so badly ... ,,11), tJle seizure of occasio becomes necessitos: "as time passes by, occasio flies away". That is why the "moment" of the Gallanl General is "fatal occasion": its excessive success and fortune defines the Turkish Empire as the instrument of the God of History - an immanent, but ultimately morally organised dynamism. "He gives strength and patience to our accomplishment, he maddens the enemy ... ,,12 Such a formulation of the Will of God in view of the Christian cause against ·the Turks simultaneously bears the signs of the Protestant conception of the elect nation chastised by the Scourge of God, and the vision of the Counter-Reformation reason of state-tracts about the war against the Turks, 3!j the occasio of Christian unityl1. Along the lines of his politi cal search for options, Zrinyi's theoretical considerations changed significantly. The argumentative framework of his last tract, the "Antidote Against the Turkish Opium" was taken from an anti-Turkish pamphlet written by the Flemish humanist and traveller Gislenius Busbecquius. The rhetorical fonn of an international mobilisatory programme aims at a very specific medium in Zrinyi ' s fonnulation. The modification of perspective can be felt from the exhortative bursts: "Poor Hungarian nation, is your case so doomed, that nobody cries out at your final peril? ( ... ) Should I be your only

67 Mikl6s Zrinyi • Prozai mill/wi (cd. Arpad Mark6: Budapest Magyar Szcmlc Tftrsasag, 1939), p. 107. The best analysis to date or Zrinyi's political idcas is Tibor Klaniczay • "Korszeru polilikai gondolkodas es nemzetkOzi lat6kOr Zrinyi muveiben," in: Bela Varjas, cd. ·Irodalom e.f ide:ol6gia a 16·17. s=azadban, (Budapest: Akademiai, 1987), pp. 337-400. For Ihe broader aspects or Zriny i's li fe and oeuvre, see, however, his earlier monograph, as well : Tibor Klaniczay - binyi Miklos (Budapest: Akademiai , 1964). ~ ibid. 6' ibid, p. II L. lOibid, p. 121. '1 ibid, p. Ill. H ibid, p. 120. 7J e.g. Giovanni Botero - The Reason of Siale (lr. by Jl.J . and D.P. Waley, london: Routledge and Kegan Pau l, 1956), p. 222.

protector, guardian, to report the menace?,,14 The acting ind ividual did not disappear, nor the reflection aiming at the controlling of time, but everything is slightly different: "I shout out everyth ing I know, not to be held responsible for the blood of my nation, having fallen asleep".15 The traditional conceptual framework of the vita activa becomes saturated with non·traditional motives of collective action. Zrinyi begins the treatise with the commonplaces of this activist political ethos: "Innocence, patience, simplicity are of no use any more, the Turk destroys what he can destroy easily, if he suffers no loss of his own",16 The keyword of reason of state-literature, the notion of interest, is the hidden thread of this analysis. The national community and solidarity make up the only focus for the categories of self-defense and common good, since the extcrnal interests of other communities are per definitionem contradictory· "since I see not one neighbour who would hazard its peaceful stale for our sake".l1 When Zrinyi, in view of this adaptation of the reason of statc­literature, has to pose the question of Hungarian statehood. (exactly because of the specific perspective of the conception of interests in this tradition), his first answer (in line with the international constellation) is a theoretica1 construclion of an alternative state­centre (the model of "national monarchy" was built on the pretence of the Transylvanian prince - this speculation is most probably reflected in Zrinyi's curious contribution to the mirror of princes­literature, his "Reflections on the life of King Matthias" , written in 1656-7). When this project collapses, Zrinyi has to find a new focus, one that would create the appropriate context for fonnulating a discourse in tenns of interests. This framework is based on the "politicaVStiindisch" pole in the meaning of the word "nalion", to be used in the reconstruction of a programme of action ("our noble freedom is nowhere else under the Sun, than in Pannonia,,18). The tenn "nation" becomes the normative temporal dimension of political existence: "We, present-day Hungarians, have fallen so far from our ancestors, that, if our virtuous forefathers returned from the other world, we wou ld not recognise them, as they would not recognise US.' ,79

But exactly this motif, the central role of the nonnativity of the past (where the connotation of the term "nation", denoting the "tradition of statehood," is ultimately rooted), induces that mode of speech to transgress the semantic field of the "political" pole. The altitude of self-criticism inherent in the prophetic conception of an "elect nation" contrasts the comJpted present with a past rooted in an extra-historical moment of election, but manifested as a historical process (though the historical process is understood rather in its negativity, in tenns of the constant breaking of the norm) - "I cannot flatter you, my dear nation, praising you falsely, for, as the prophet says: Papule meus, qui te beatum praedicant, ipsi te decipiunt".so The theoretical consequence of this conception oflhe collectivity is the unusually wide audience envisioned by the rhetoric of the "Antidote" : "for whom to sow, for whom to reap, for whom to bring up our sweet progenies, if we do not take care of our securitas now; the heathen will take everything we presently have"s1 . To sow and to reap - these are not only humanist metaphors ofthis-wordly activity, they are likely to fit in a broader field of connotations, signif-yi ng a fonn of deliberate transgression

" Zrinyi, ( t 939), p. 273. " ibid. 16 ibid, p. 275. 17 ibid, p. 276. n ibid , p. 280. 19 ibid, p. 282. au ibid. I I ibid, p. 28 1.

17

of the borders of the privileged political community in terms of the concept of political nat ionhood. The circle is complete: lacking solid foundations of statehood, the centra] element of reason of state-literature is replaced by a "national" discourse (by the nation, as the bearer of the partly fictitious continuity of statehood). The ambivalence and plural ism of this "national" discourse activates clements that undermine the automatic equivocation between this rhetoric and the identily­discourse of the politica l community (i.e. nobility). Thus, the national discourse can much more conveniently fill the gap yawning in the place of an actual state (a state being by itself an integrative relation, a regulative structure of socially pluralistic elements). The practical project of the "Antidote" is the establishment of a Hungarian army, recruited from the commoners, to serve as a catalyst of the liberation of the country from the Turks (as well as serv ing as a power-centre, independent of the Habsburg government). The financial maintenance of such an army transgresses the capacities of particular communities and groups: !he promising feature of the task is preciscly its greatness: "no baron or general can accomplish such a task alone. Who then? The whole country! and the unanimous consensus of the whole of our nation is needed for thiS."B2 The contribution (0 the maintenance of thi s army equals serv ing the common good: "It is true that the Hungarian nation is not as rich as other nations, but if we seek, we shall find, all of us, for the sake of our God, our country, our wives and children. Let us seek money in our lockers, let us depute a sufficient part of our income, and let us forget about pomp and feasting for a while ( ... )"Bl . This is where the reinterpretation of the legal-political context of the concept of nation returns -- the essence of the function of nobility turns out to be its exemplarity - "let us reform ourselves first, who are the magistrates of this country".84 If the Hungarian community were able to raise such an anny, this would mean that it could play its role as an essential and equal member of an international anti-Turkish coalition: "Now, if anything but qui vers on the Turkish side, we run to and fro, over the waters, over the mountains, some here, others there, all our remedy is in begging rel ief from others. ( .. . ) it is now or never; if we are idle in this, let us flee from th is country. As I heard, there is enough uninhabi ted land in Brazil, let us ask the Spanish king for a province there, let us establish a colony, let us become cit i7..cns there. BUI if somebody believes in his God, loves his country, has a drop of Hungarian blood in him, let him cry out to God in heaven, and sing the song of Deborah with me"ss. Aller the untimely death of Zrinyi in 1664, and the fai lure of the subsequent Wesselenyi-conspiracy, which plotted to mobilise the nobil ity againsl the Court and, with French help, to establish an independent or semi-independent Hungarian state-unit, the focus of anti -Habsburg opposition irretrievably shi fted to the Protestant northeast. One could say thaI the political language of this camp was built on the anti-German rhetoric characterising the "Letter of Cry ing Supplication", radicalised in the direction of a possible co­operation with - and even vo luntary .subjection to - the Turks, in exchange fo r pOlitical-institutional and ecclesiastical autonomies. Simultaneously, after the fateful Polish campaign of GyOrgy RaJ.::6czi. and the subsequent calamities shaking Transylvania in 1659-60. the Principality began to devise a discourse of the raison d'etat of its own (abandoning the previous aptness to meddle with the affairs of Royal Hungary) . Under Prince Apafi , the sense of a nonnative Transylvanian statehood was strengthened (although the actual state became weaker and weaker). We find a striking

M2 ib id. Kl ibid. ~~ ibid, p. 296. MS ibid, pp. 299-300.

18

illustration of this emotional shift in the Pasquilllls, wrilten by Ferenc Szentpai i, a Transylvanian nobleman of Unitarian rel igious leanings. The context of his diatribes against the "Hungarian in-comers" is the speci fic nature of the fight of the Hungarian anti-Habsbu rg movement at the northeastern confines. Here, lacking substantive military power, the Hungarian "discontents" resorted to guerrill a-warfare, and, when the regular forces approached and the situation became untenable, they simply crossed the border of the Principality, seeking asylum and support by invoking a "national so lidarity" on the part of the Transylvan ians. The most striking feature of SzentpaJi's pamphlet (entitled, tellingly enough, Ad Hllngaros advenas) is the strict conceptual distinction between "us" and "them". This distinction comes close to fonnu lating a "Transylvanian national discourse". He expresses his criticism in terms of the counter-posit ion of his audience, the inhabitants of "our country" (hazank), I.e. "the Transylvanians", with the alien, called "Pannonus". SzentpaJ i cautions his compatriots: "Believe me, the Pannonlls has no face ( ... ). They are all blind in acting good, beware, Transylvania, 'cause they brought the whip on you. ,,86

This means that the appearance of an emphatic ideology of statehood in the second half of the seventeenth century raised crucial questions concerning the compatibility of the national pattern of community with the organised supra-personal institutional structure, called slate. Contrary to the situation or Royal Hungary, where the emergence of the discourse of raison d'etat accentuated the need for a separate institutional focus, and could thus be fused with the political language of Hungarian nationhood, the adoption of this reason of state-discourse in Transylvania had diametrically opposite effects. It is not by cl13nce that the Transylvanian politician and memoir-writer, Miklos Bethlen, refers to the separation and balance of Hungary and Transylvania as a "secret and utmost ratio status"". Already at the time of the incipient Rak6czi uprising, i.e. almost two decades aftcr the inclusion of Transylvania into the Habsburg Empire, Bethlen writes a treatise on behalf of the restoration of the Principality under a German prince, imported from the Holy Roman Empire. The normativity of statehood overrules the "national" symbols: "the Hungarian nation could never live well with her liberties under indigenous kings"BB. From the perspective of reason of state, thc national conflict is divisive and dangerous: in Bethlen's project, a German prince in Transylvania should heal the "national hatred bel\IJeen Hungarians and Germans". The early modem "politica l language of nationhood" played its most resplendent role during the Rakoezi-uprising (1703-1 1). The uprising was the peak of a series of upheavals, occasioned by the double-sided aggression of the Habsburg abso lutist establishment on the different layers of the population of "reconquered Hungary". This was partly due to the shift in the actual balance of forces after the collapse of Transylvanian power, and partly to the shift in the policy of the court towards greater administrative contro l and less reliance on the traditional and constitutional channels of power. As for the Estates, the evaporation of the Transylvanian counter­balance destroyed thc hitherto qu ite powerful fiction of the discursive duality of Hungarian Estates vs. Habsburg Monarch. 1ney lost the possibi lity of appealing to an alternative and competitive power centre, where - time to lime - thcy could seemingly gravitate, thus extracti ng a reasonable price for their otherwise relatively faithful co-operation with th t: court. The

M Istvan L6kOs , cd. - Kiilomb-kiiJ(Jmb jeJe}6 cs ros.sz szagzi viragokkal leJJyes kerl. Pasquillllsok a XVII-XVI/J szazadb61, (Budapest: Magvct6, 1989). p. 47. IJ "Olajagat vise l6 Noe galambja," in: Tam6c (1979), p. 284. 38 ibid, p. 285.

population at large, and especially the Protestants, claimed that the Habsburg administration perceived the territory of the country as a "colony" conquered by arms, using mercenary forces to consolidate its power, relying on forced measures of Counter­Reformation, etc. When Rak6czi accepted the leadership and attempted to integrate the various groups of discontents, he had to elaborate an extremely sophisticated "double speech", reflecting the essentially dual character of the movement. He had to devise a sufficiently integrated conceptual framework. He could not afford to speak two separate "political languages" at the same time, while retaining the semantic polyvalence of the key terms of his vocabulary (securing the loyalty of the nobility, and that of the considerable non-privileged elements of his armies, at the same time). It is obvious that it was exactly the "political language of nationhood" that could provide such a conceptual framework . It incorporated references to the construction of "political nationhood" and the ethno-culrural (and partly the religious) layers, resulting in the considerable success and coherence of his propaganda.. and, consequently, the impressive mobilisatory effect of the uprising. "Hungarianness" became a normative basis, incorporating and overwhelming the S(andisch discourse. As the " Declaration of Srezna", the opening document of the uprising stated, "we call to patriotism all true Hungarians of whatsoever ranks" . R3k6czi addressed all Hungarians, "noble and commoner alike", and the Declaration refers to "the glorious ancient liberty of our counuy"S9 (a somewhat uncommon conceptualisation, for it was rather the "nation" which was considered to be the locus of liberties, but "nation" might have seemed too loaded with Stiindisch connotations). The word "nation" appears, however. in the identification of the significant other ("the German nation"), here reinforcing, rather than dividing, the symbolic unity of the Hungarian community (the German is "a nation impossibly torturing al l the ranks"). The keywords of nObleman-identity also appear in the text ("our law and noble liberties"), but they are conceptually subordinated to the norrnativity of a "common good". The uprising is for "the liberty of our country and nation, without any wish of private gain".90 The essence of this conceptual construction was tl13t the rhetoric of "political nationhood" (that of privileges) incorporated to a certain extent the connotations rooted in the second semantic field ; hence the "incorporative" terminology of the emerging discourse, the emphasis on the extension of rights, the elevation to liberty of those peasants who fought on behalf of the uprising, etc. In a sense, th is terminology created the possibility of maintaining the emotional connotation of privi leges, while "de facto" changing the legal­political establishment. Such a rhetoric fitted these measures conceptual ly into the symbolic construction of the genealogy of nobility, elaborated by the chronicler Simon Kezai in the thirteenth century, and invoked throughout the early modem period (a di scourse where privileges and military service reciprocally conditioned each other). Several different modalities of the legitimation of the uprising existed alongside the "Declaration" (which was meant for the most immediate audience). For example, Pal Raday's Apology for Rak6czi (the famous Recmdescunl vlI/nera) was meant for an internal and external audience alike, aiming at the political legilimalion of the movement, rather than at direct mobilisation. Consequently, its argumentation was legaVpolitical - invoking "the laws of our country" and depicting the sorrowful state of the nation before the uprisi ng - being "exiled in our own country,,91. Thus

I!~ "Brcznai kiflltvany." in : Tarn6c (1979), p. 296.

~u Ibid . p. 297. '.I I "11.Rak6czi Ferenc kiatvanya," in: Tarn6c (1979), p. 30 I.

the text is much closer to the "language of nationhood," championed by the Sltindisch opposition-movement, and repeats all the crucial themes of this tradition. The key of this discourse is the contrast of the common good with the disunity caused by particularism and conuption: "justice is ex iled", and thi s threatens the entire social fabric with destruction; "with the pretext of religion they are sowing the seeds of discord,,,n etc. But the most emphatic complaint is obviously the constitutional one: the Habsburg absolutist rule constantly "violated the li berties of noblemen." Rak6czi himself used the rather ambivalent modalities inherent in the discourse of nationhood when he turned to the ethnic Hungarian General of the Imperial forces, Janos parify. Rak6czi quite consciously alluded to the nonnative force of "nationality", eminently capable of bridging politically divergent positions. He evoked the duality of Transylvania and Hungary, and formulated his conception using the language of "elect nationhood": the constant duality of the Hungarian political tradition is the work of umiraculous divine providence", "that if God called to arms one part of the Estates for the support of law and justice, He preserved another part in the German all iance, to secure that, when by surrender, or by force, often with falseness and fake treaties, the fighters were calmed down, the foreign nation could not charge our whole nation with treason, and, consequently, they could not expropriate the country as if it was conquered by sheer arms,,9J . It is God's miracle, then, that the "command of the arms of our enemy" is in Hungarian (i.e. Paltry's) hands. The "Providential Hungariarmess" of PallIY seemed to be (and, if we take the actual outcome of the uprising, probably was) a necessary and sufficient condition of a political deal in favour of the "l iberties of the nation" . To locate the discursive role of the language of nationhood during the uprising, let us consider the political propaganda prepared exclusively for export. In the treatise by RJ\k6czi's chief diplomat, Domokos Brenner ("The letter of a Polish Royal Counsellor"), the national d iscourse vanishes completely and another question takes the floor, i.e. the problem of legality. This provides a good insight into the early modem perception of "nationhood". Contrary to the sensus communis of the modem age, when national claims are per se legitimate and arc presumed to be comprehensible to an external observer as well (therefore an independence-movement usually argues from a position of "national difference" as the nonnative basis of its programme of separation), the "national" discourse of the early modem period was meant mainly for internal consumption. Consequently, Brenner's "Letter" appeals to a different kind of sensus communis: that of the Republican intellectual tradition -weakened, but still strongly present in the cultural milieu of the early-eighteenth century. He applies the notion of Sovereignly when he tries to distinguish the person of the king from the real source of authority within the realm (contrasting "real sovereignty" with "personal sovereignty"), staling that the "real" subject of the "commonwealth" is the "community of noblemen". The noblemen are representing the country as a who le: "the Estates of the realm consist only of the nobility, they represent the people, they decide about peace and warfare,,94

• The rhetoric of aristocratic Republ icanism, evoked by Brenner, thus argues from a position of popular sovereignty against the ruler. but identifies the "people" with the commwzilas of noblemen.

91 ibid, p.306.

91 "Egy igaz magyarnak hazaja dolgai fclol val6 clmclkcdese," in : TamOc (t979), p. 378. ?~ "Egy lengycl kirAlyi tan,'icsosnak levcJc," in: Tarn6c (1979), p. 314. On Brenner's activilY, sec Bela KOpcczi - Brenner Domokos. a Rak6czi­szabadstigharc es a bllidostis dip/omataia es pllblicistaja (Budapest Akadcmiai , 1996).

19

To sum up, we can say that the tenninology of reason of state interacted with the Hungarian political culture in two ways. First, given the plurality of state-allegiances, it cataJysed the emergence of the discourse of political nationhood as an integrative discursive structure. Second. in terms of the emergence of an anti-absolutist usage, it led to the formation of the discourse of national particularity. conceived as the legitimation for institutional/constitutional autonomy. In the typical usage, the concept of nation referred to different contexts and different conceptions of normative community: eschatological nationhood, pol itical nationhood, cultural-linguistic nationhood could all be referred to separately, when a speaker turned to "national" imagery. In certain crisis-situations, however, these separate fields of meaning could be intentionally - or accidentaHy - fused. Nevertheless, in the case of Rak6czi . part of the benefit of using the "national"· fuunework of references laid exactly in its inherent ambigUity: the possibility of making certain claims plausible to markedly different audiences at the same time. But this constant polysemie also meant that these conceptual fusions had a very precarious existence - the different connotations could crystallise into a more or less compact concept, and subsequently disintegrate again. The most interesting specific trait in the Hungarian case study is obviously the chronic divergence of the concepts of statehood and nationhood. This made the agenda of attempting to merge these two concepts much more vocal and reflexive than in cullural contexts characterised by a relative ly stable framework of an emerging un itary statehood, buttressed by a national ideology. The possible fusion of the spheres of statehood and nationhood was (following the usual early modem pattern) nonnally based on a backward-looking conceptualisation (nation as the normative past of statehood), in contrast to the typical nineteenth-century discursive framework., where the convergence of statehood with nationhood was projected into the programmatic future (like in the ideologies of "national awakening" - "the nation taking the state into her possession"). In the Hungarian case, the program of fusing these two spheres could accidentally become jiallre-oriented, turning the national discourse into a program of reintegrated statehood, making this seventeenth-century discourse sound, occasionally. su rprisingly modem.

DUTCH CONCEPTUAL HISTORY IN THEORY AND PRACTICE: THE EXAMPLE OF LIBERTY Wyger R.E. Velema, University of Amsterdam9s

Although I have given my presentati on the rather grandiose title 'Dutch Conceptual History in Theory and Practice', its aim is essentia ll y modest. In the forty-five minutes I propose to speak, I shall do no more than attempt to outl ine some of the most salient characteri st ics of the Dutch project in conceptual history. In the first part of my paper I will, as a background to my discussion of the Dutch project, very briefly remind you of some important features of the two existing great projects in conceptual history that have served as sources of inspiration to the Dutch project. I wi ll then, in the second part of my paper, point out some of the ways in which the Dutch project is

')5Thi s lecture was originall y presented to the conference 'The History of Concepts: the Finnish Project in European Context', organized by the research project 'The Conceptual History of Finnish Political Culture' and held at the Univcrsity of Tamperc, Finland, Septembcr 15-19, 1999. Given the infomlal nature of the History of Concepts Newsletter, I have not included footnotes and havc hardly changed the text from thc spokcn version. I have liberally drawn on E.O.G. Haitsma Mulier and W.R.E. Velema, cd. Vrijheid. Eell geschiedenis va" de vijftiende fof de twinligste eeuw (Amsterdam, 1999).

20

different from these pioneering German projects. Finally, in the third and longest part of my paper, I wi ll try to demonstrate the way Dutch conceptual history is practised by telling you something about the research that has been done on the history of the Dutch concept of liberty, with a special emphasis on my own area of speciali sation, the eighteenth century.

I. Conceptual history, or BegrifJsgeschichte, has for decades been a flouri shing discipline in Germany. The two most impressive results of the research that has been done in this field are the massive Geschichtliche GrundbegrijJe. Historisches Lexikon zur politisch-sozialen Sprache in Deutschland, recently completed under the supervision of Reinhart Koselleck, and the Handbuch politisch-sozialer GrundbegrifJe in Frankreich 1680-1820, edited by Rolf Reichardt and Hans-JOrgen Ltisebrink and still far removed from completion. Although these two great German projects are different in a number of significant ways, it is their similarities I would briefly like to point out here as a background to my discussion of the Dutch project. Both the Grundbegriffe and the Handbuch legi timate conceptual history by distinguishing it from two alternative approaches: lexicography on the one hand, and traditional forms of intellectual history such as Friedrich Meinecke'S Ideeensgeschichte or Arthur O. Lovejoy's History oj Ideas on the other hand. The difference wi th lexicography resides primari ly in the fact that conceptual history does not exhaustively trace the history of the meaning of all words, but wants to chart the history of the meaning of a limited number of comprehensive and multiMlayered key concepts that arc selected on the basis of a clear working hypothesis . The difference between conceptual history and the traditional forms of intellectual history is first of all constituted by the object of study: key concepts instead of doctrines, intellectual systems or relatively unchanging 'unit ideas'. Secondly, conceptual hi story utilises a much broader range of sources than the traditional forms of intellectual hi story did. As a result, it claims to be able to speak not only about the occurrence of conceptual change at the highest intellectual level, but also to be able to pronounce on the representativeness and the social specificity of such changes. Both the Grundbegiffe and the Handbllch are similar, moreover, in their main chronological focus: they heavi ly concentrate on the period around 1800, which both regard as the crucial period of modernisation in which concepts took on meanings that are still recognisable to us. The most influential way in which this hypothesis has been formulated is Koselleck's doctrine of the Sanelze it. supposedly running from the middle of the eighteenth century to the mid"':le of the nineteenth century. It was this period that saw the demise of the divis ion of society into estates and a fundamental transformation of economic, political and social structures. Parallel to the process by which society and the state definitively became modem through the democratic and industrial revo lutions in the century between 1750 and 1850. so Koselleck claims, the most important social and political concepts acq uired their modem function and meaning. Although the Handbuch is more reluctant than the GrundbegrijJe in pointing out connections between social, economic and political history on the one hand and conceptual developments on the othcr, it too sees the period around 1800 as the end of the old world and the emergence of the modem one. Indeed, so convinced are its editors of the truth of this hypothesis that the Handbuch stops in the year 1820. Besides similarities in their theoretical legitimation and in their choice of chronological focus, the GrundbegrifJe and the Handbllch also have a number of other features in common. First of all, these are both undertakings on a grand scale, as is perhaps fitting to what is one of Europe's largest countries.

Secondly, both projects are mainly if not exclusive ly interested in social and political concepts. The decision to give these types of concepts preferential treatment and -to pay relatively little attention to cultur;al concepts is never explained and was perhaps not in need of explanation at the time the German projects were conceived, but it certainly would be now. Finally, the concepts selected for discussion in both the Grundbegrifle and the Handbuch are researched by individual scholars and occasionally by two or three researchers, a choice resulting in a fa irly comprehensive coverage of key concepts, but sometimes also in a certain lack of depth.

II. It was in the early nineties that the existence of these impressive and fruitful large German projects in the field of conceptual history inspired a number of Dutch scholars, institutionally united in the Huizinga Institute, to start thinking about a project in Dutch conceptual history. The Dutch were, I must haste to emphasise at this point, by no means the only ones outside Germany to discover the attractiveness of conceptual history as a field of research : similar initiatives were developed in for instance the United States (one should mention the pioneering writings and organisational efforts of Melvin Richter here) and, as we have so impressively heard over the past few days, here in Finland. Starting with a conference at the Finnish Institute in London in April 1998, moreover, Co<iperation between these various projects is taking shape. Back to the Dutch project, however. In a number of ways, it is quite similar to the existing German examples. Just like their German co lleagues, Dutch conceptual historians wish to be neither lexicographers nor traditional historians of ideas. The option of undertaking a lexicographical project in the Dutch context was never even considered, given the fact that a huge historical dictionary of the Dutch language, said to be the largest dictionary in the world, was recently completed after more than a century of work: the Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taa/ . But quite apart from that, Dutch conceptual historians do not wish to study the history of words, but the history of concepts or even key concepts. The definition of what exactly key concepts arc will, of course, always remain problematic and will probably never be entirely resolved. Although discussions are still being conducted, the following criteria have so far been adopted as rules of thumb for the inclus ion of concepts in the Dutch project: I. The concept should have played a prominent role in Dutch public discourse over a long period of time; 2. The concept should be of such central historical importance that a reconstruction of its history should contribute to a broad discuss ion aboul the existence (or non-existence) of a specifically Dutch panem of conceptual history; 3. The concept should lend itself to international comparison. From traditional history of ideas the Dutch project distinguishes itself, just as its German examples, by its objcct of study and by its desire to utilise a range of source materials that is as wide and varied as possible. This means that thc history of each concept is not only researched in dictionaries and the classic texts of 'high culture', but also in more popular sources such as pamphlets, newspapers, cheap prin ts, etc. - we wi ll see some examples of that later on. From the above it should be clear that the Dutch project in many ways resembles the existing German ones. Yet there are also important differences, both in theory and in practice, to which I shall now tum. The first difference between the GrundbegrijJe and the Handbuclr on the one hand and thc Dutch project on the other is in the organisation of research. Whereas both German projects have opted to work with individual researchers for each concept, the Dutch project is carried out by groups of researchers. The disadvantage of this approach is obvious: the numbcr of concepts that can be researched is - certainly given

the smallness of the Dutch academic community - restricted. Yet the advantage of such a manner of proceeding is perhaps even greater: the limited number of concepts selected can be studied in much greater depth and from a greater variety of angles. In order to accomplish this goal, the Dutch project works with between ten and twenty scholars on each individual concept. The composition of these research groups is different for each concept, but historians, art historians and historians of literature arc always represented. This multi-disciplinary approach leads to a number of features that are particular to the Dutch project. In the first place, it creates the possibility of utilising an even more comprehensive range of sources than has been attempted in the Grundbegriffe and the Handbuch. For although these projects arc much broader in their use of sources than the traditional history of ideas has been, they still to a large extent concentrate on political sources in the strict sense of the word. The inclusion of hi storians of literature and of art hi storians in the Dutch project opens up Lhe whole rich field of literary and visual sources that has remained relatively neglected in the Gennan projects. This broadening of the range of sources also means that the Dutch project docs not limit itself to social and pol itical concepts. Certainl y such concepts play an important ro le, yet they are supplemented with - indeed they can often not be separated from - concepts that may properly be described as cultural. The most important difference between the German projects and the Dutch project. however, is neither the multidisciplinarity of Dutch conceptual research nor its inclusion of cultural concepts, but the choice of chronological boundaries. As we have secn, the chronological emphasis of the GrundbegrifJe is on the Salle/zeit , roughly between J 750 and 1850. In order to understand the meaning of concepts during the heyday of classicism and aristocratic court culture, the Handbuch has chosen the late seventeenth century as its starting point. It stops in 1820. The Dutch project has chosen a fundamentally di fferent approach. It can certainly not be doubted that the second half of the eighteenth century was a crucial period in the development of Dutch concepts. These were decades in which a public debate on a scale previously unknown was conducted on all social , economic, political and cultural concepts and in which complaints about the 'abuse of words' - an infallible indicator of rapid conceptual change - could be heard everywhere. It is clear, in other words, that the Sattelzeit must play an important part in the Dutch project. Yet that is only part of the story to be told. For although the Dutch project recognises the importance of the Salle/zeit that plays such a dominant role in German research, it also wishes to investigate the possibility of the existence of a pattern of conceptual development that differs from the pattern established for Germany and France. The Dutch constellation after all was entirely different from the German or the French. Indeed, the position of the Dutch Republic was unique in early modcrn Europe. It was a state without a monarchy (let alone an absolute one), in its social life the aristocracy was of relative insignificance, its economic li fe was dominated by commerce instead of agriculLure and its cultural li fe was remarkably open and pluralist. One of the main questions the Dutch project hopes to answer is whether this extraordinary political, social , economic and cultural situation was paralleled by or reflected in an equally unique pattern of conceptual development. In order to be able to do so with any chance of success, it was deemed necessary to include the wholc of the seventeenth century in the project, indeed to go back even further and start in the middle of the sixteenth century at the time of the formation of the indepcndent Dutch state (and for some concepts even earlier). As to the outer time limit, the guidelines of the Dutch project are quitc flexible. Givcn the importance of lhe changes around

21

1800, however, most research groups go deep into the nineteenth century and even into the twentieth. For to omit to do so, as particularly the Handbuch has done and is doing, makes it impossible to pronpunce with any certainty on the durability of the changes in the Salle/zeit. The Dutch project, to sum up, despite the modesty of its size shows a clear family resemblance to its German parents. It also, however, has its own particular characteristics: a systematic attempt at multidisciplinarity (and, it is hoped, even interdisciplinarity) is being made, socio-political concepts are supplemented with cultural concepts, and most importantly different chronological boundaries reflecting the peculiar nature of Dutch history have been adopted. After a theoretical volume was published in 1998, the first two substantive volumes in the project appeared this past June: Fatherland and Liberty. The publication of Culture/Civilisation, edited by Pim den Boer, is scheduled for the autumn of 200 I, to be followed by Citizen (200 I) and Republic (2002). New groups on the concepts of Honour, Cultural Heritage and Simplicity are in the process of formation. Where the project will end, only time can tell. Rather than speculate on that, therefore, I shall now turn to a concrete example of the research that has so far been done and in the remaining part of this paper tell you something about the findings of the group that has been working on the history of the Dutch concept of liberty.

III. If there was one state in early modern Europe that was generally seen as - and conceived of itself as - the very embodiment of liberty, it was certainly the Dutch Republic. The choice of the concept of liberty as one of the first Dutch concepts to be studied in dcpth was therefore almost sci f-evidcnt. The research group that was formed to reconstruct the development of the concept of liberty in the Netherlands consisted of fifteen scholars: eight historians, three historians of literature, an art historian, a theologian, a political scientist, and a philosopher. Since the concept of liberty is so complex and is uscd' in a great many different contexts, it was decided at an early stage in our research that the main focus of our inquiries would be thc history of the political concept of liberty, albeit approached from a multidisciplinary perspective. What this meant in practice was that all members of the group, regardlcss of the type of sources thcy were working with, would primarily be looking for the political uses and meanings of the concept of liberty. Thus, to give an example, the historian of literature Henk Duits, who took seventeenth-century plays as his main source, did not investigate the matter of the freedom of the playwright versus the classical rules of the theatre, but focused on the ways in which the plays he studied handled the theme of Dutch political liberty. Equally Frans Grijzenhout, who studicd the representation of liberty in various genres of art, concentrated on the genesis and development of the iconography of political liberty. Chronologically, the research starts in the late Middle Ages, with a contribution by Wim Blockmans on the concept of freedom in the Burgundian Netherlands, and runs into the twentieth century. ending with an article by I-Iuub Spoormans on the concept of liberty between 1848 and the years 1917-1919, in which general suffrage was introduced in The Netherlands. The main chronological focus. however, is on the period of the Dutch Republic, that is to say the period starting with the sixteenth-century Dutch Revolt and ending with the late eightcenth-ccntury Batavian Republic. Although the concept of liberty was ceaselessly analysed, discussed and pictorially represented in thc Dutch Republic during the cntire early modern period, three episodes stand out as particularly important to its development: the Dutch Revolt of

22

the sixteenth century, the First Stadholderless Era during the third quarter of the seventeenth century and the revolutionary final two decades of the eighteenth century. In what follows, I shall briefly touch upon the first two of these episodes and discuss the third one at somewhat greater length. On the eve of the Dutch Revolt, that combination of war and civil war that would end in the recognition of the independent Dutch state in 1648, liberty was generally still used in the plural. The concept of 'liberties' referred to the customs that had grown in the various towns and provinces of the Burgundian and Habsburg Netherlands and to the special rights and privileges that had been granted by various monarchs to these towns and provinces. Already since the t\-velfth century the promise to maintain these particularistic liberties formed part of the oath new kings took. During the early years of the Revolt against Philip II, it was this conception of liberties that was used as thc primary justification of resistance against the monarch: he was deemed to have violated his oath by systematically assaulting the various liberties of Dutch towns and provinces and had therefore turned himself into a tyrant to whom the subjects no longer owed allegiance. During the course of the Revolt, however, the use of liberties in the plural was gradually supplemented by the use of Iibcrty in the singular to typify (or should one say invent?) thc political tradition of the Dutch. Liberty in the singular was often used in conjunction with the adverb 'old' and this 'old liberty' referred to the ideal of a political community characterised by self­government, the presence of free assemblies in the towns and provinces. This ideal was projected furthcr and further back into the Dutch past until at the end of the sixteenth century it definitively became associated with the Batavian ancestors of the Dutch in the so-called 'Batavian myth' . At the same time, the concept of 'slavery' was increasingly used to indicate the opposite of liberty. By the end of the Revolt the opposition between liberty in the singular and Slavery, which Quentin Skinner has recently idcntified as being at the heart of the so­called neo-Roman theory of liberty, had become a central analytical distinction in Dutch political discourse. Even before the official recognition of their state, therefore, the Dutch had come to think of themselves as a free political community. It was not until the third quarter of thc seventeenth century that this general notion of freedom was further refined in political debate. In the course of the Revolt the Dutch had, more by coincidence than as a result of mature political reflection or deliberate choice, become a republic. Within the republican system that had taken shape, the Stadholders of thc House of Orange held an important position. Such a construction was, of course, in perfect conformity with the classical and early modem doctrine of the respub/ica mixta, in which there was room for a monarchical element in the state. Yet since classical antiquity, and again since the Renaissance, there had also survived a theory that held that no state possessed of a monarchical element could be said to be free. This latter view of liberty had hardly received attention in the Dutch Republic until the middle of the seventcenth century. When Stadholder William II suddenly died in the middle of a bitter conflict with the powerful province of Holland - particularly with the city of Amsterdam - and it was subsequently decidcd not to appoint a new Stadholder for the moment, however, this radical view of liberty came into its own. In the years between 1650 and 1672 - the so-called First Stadholderless Era - a group of radical Dutch republican theorists (the brothers De la Court and Spinoza prominently among them) systematically rejected tht! Orangist theory of the respublica mixta and used an impressive arsenal of both classical and modem arguments to demonstrate the incompatibility of liberty with the presence of a monarchical element in the state. It is from these years that the

opposition between the Orangists (Prinsgezinden) on the one hand and the defenders of so-called 'true liberty', the States party (Staatsgezinden, Loevesteiners), on the other hand stems. It would playa cru,cial role in Dutch political debate until the end of the eighteenth century. By the beginning of the eighteenth century, the Dutch had fo r more than a century been describing themselves as free, but were, since the emergence of radically anti-monarchical theories of freedom in the third quarter of the seventeenth century, internally divided as to the precise content of that abstract freedom . Despite their important differences, however, both proponents and opponents of the presence of a Stadholder in the Dutch Republic were mainly arguing either from the present factual political situation or from the rea l or mythical Dutch past. Freedom, in other words, was either seen as something embodied in the existing state, or as something that had once existed and needed to be restored. In Dutch historiography it has frequently been assumed that th is conception of liberty did not fundamentally change until after the outbreak of the French Revolution. That, however, is a misconception that has definiti vely been dispelled by the findings of the liberty research group. For it was in the course of the eighteenth century and under the impact of the Enlightenment that these trad itional modes of arguing about freedom were gradually undermined. [t is at this point that I would like to draw your attention to the value of the inclusion of literary sources in conceptual research. For in the Dutch Republic, it was in the increasingly popular e ighteenth~century literary genre of utopian travel stories that the concept of freedom was first projected into the future. It was in this genre that freedom. in a process that has been caJled Verzeit lichung by Reinhart Koselleck, was depicted as something still to be realised. The concept thereby acquired a hitherto lacking dynamic quality. The political consequences of this new and future-oriented connotation the Enlightenment added to the concept of liberty became apparent in the revo lutionary final two decades of the Dutch eighteenth century. The Patriot reform movement that surfaced in the 1780s admittedly started out with a strong desire to return to an idealised past and with a rhetoric that was hardly distinguishable from that of the adherents of 'true liberty' since the middle of the seventeenth century. When their movement started around 1780, the Patriots still assumed, as the adherents of the States party had always done in the past, that the lack of liberty they saw in the Dutch Republic was mainly caused by what they regarded as the despotic power of Stadholder William v . Soon, however, they realised that an attack on William's position in itself was insufficient to restore liberty. They therefore began to reflect upon the various means ava ilable with in the established order to guard the liberty of the cit izen. Essential to the maintenance of liberty. they now argued, were the freedom of expression and of the press. the right to submit petitions to the authori ti es, and the right to bear arms. The dynamics of the revolutionary process and the growing resistance of many regents against increased popular participation with in the existing order, however, rapid ly forced many Patriots into a momentous conceptual move. They arrived at the rad ical conclusion that so-called ancient li berty was largely a figment of the imagination, that the Seven United Provinces had - even without Stadholders . never been a free state, and that it was an illusion to th ink that liberty could ever be realised within the existing poli tical order. Ever since the Dutch Revolt, the most radical Patriots argued by the mid 1780s, the Dutch had been content with a semblance of frecdom , bu t had in fact been political slaves, just like the inhabitants of the monarchies surrounding them. They could come to this conclusion because their defmit ion of lhc concept of li berty had

fundamentally changed. To the Patriots, strongly influenced by British radicalism and the example of the American Revolmion, politicaJ liberty meant the active and permanent sovereignty of the people. Since such a situation had obviously not existed at any point in the Dutch past, freedom became something to be realised in the future . With that conclusion, the death warrant of the Dutch old regime had been signed. It is worth stressing once again that this radical development in the Dutch use of the concept of liberty took place we ll before the outbreak. of the French revolution. The Patriots, of course, were defeated in 1787 when the Pruss ian army came to the aid of the Orangist party, invaded the country, and restored Stadholder William V to his position. Their redennition of liberty. however, was taken up again by their successors, the Batavian revo lutionaries of 1795. The Batavian revolutionaries ultimately did not succeed in satisfactorily embodying the new conception of liberty as permanent popular sovereignty in a durable poli tical order and after 1800, when the Dutch experiments with modem republicanism abrupUy ended, it was discredited for quite a while. But it continued to haunt Dutch political discourse during the nineteenth century and is still, however much changed, with us today. Having briefly reviewed the three most crucial early modern stages in the development of the Dutch concept of li berty, I would now like to expand on this a bit and introduce you to one particular type of source that has been quite prominent in the research of the liberty group: visual materials. The question we have asked ourselves was: in which ways was the concept of liberty visually represented in the Dutch Republic and did this representation change over time? Once again, I shall mainly focus on the late eighteenth century in the examples I shall be discuss ing to demonstrate that the work of conceptual historians and historians of discourse can be enriched by the inclusion of non-textual materials. 96

In the Dutch Republic, born in the Revolt against Philip II, liberty was a central symbol since the very beginning of the stale. The late eighteenth century could thus look back on a long Dutch tradition of depicting Uberty. The symbols used in that trad ition were, it should be pointed out, not entirely Dutch, but partly international , derived from emblem books such as Ripa's Iconologia (1593) where artists were instructed always to dep ict liberty as a woman wearing a hat. The Dutch figure of liberty also frequently carried a lance or spear, to indicate that Dutch liberty had been won by armed struggle. Liberty was onen shown in a walled garden. as a symbol of the country, or in the presence of the Dutch Li on. This whole iconography of Dutch Iibcrty took shape in the second half of the sixteenth century and remained relati vely stable for more than two centuries, despite the fact that the prints and paintings in which liberty appeared also frequently contained references to the political situat ion of the day. Let us look at three examples. On my fi rst slide [figure 11. depicting a co in minted in 1575, we see the liberty hat on the one side, surroundc..:d by a Latin text stating that true or golden liberty is led by reason (,Libertas aurea, cuius modcratur habenas ratio'). On the other side of the coin we find the Dutch lion wielding a sword and standing in the walled garden that symbolizes the independence and liberty of the country. My second example (figure 2] is a painting by Jacob Backer from the middle of the seventeenth century. Here we see that liberty has grown into a dignified and calm figure. She is wearing a hal and carry ing a spear. On her shield the Dutch Lion is depicted wielding a sword and carrying the seven rods that symbolise (he Seven United Provinces. The interesting thing is that both Orangists and adherents of the states party to a large exten t used

w. For the fo llowing remarks I am particularly indebted lo Frans GrijzenhoulS 's contribution (0 the Uberty volume.

23

the same representation of liberty. as my third example will show you. Backer's painting of liberty was commissioned by Stadholder Frederick Henry. The liberty figure you see here [print not available: for reproduction] comes from an enti rely different political background: this is the title page of Lieven de Beaufort's extremely anti-Orangist Treatise 0/ Liberty in Civil Society, published in 1737. Yet the similarities in the depiction of liberty are striking: she is the same calm and dignified figure, seated above the seven rods and canying the liberty hat on a pole. By the late eighteenth century, the period to which we now tum, the Dutch could thus look back on a long tradition of depicting liberty. The question we have to ask is: did the revolutionary two decades betwecn 1780 and 1800, as we have previously seen of great conceptual importance, bring fundamental changes in the depiction of liberty? The vehement political struggle in these years was certainly not only carried out with words, but also with a great variety of images: prints, banners, hastily constructed temples with a political message, even symbolic meals. Let us look at some examples of this symbolic political struggle. The Patriot political movement started, as we have seen, with a sharp critique of the Stadholder, William V. and of the presence of a semi-monarchical court in the Dutch Republic. !-Iere arc a few examples of the way in which the Stadholderate was depicted in Patriot prints. In the first print [figure 31. dating from 1782, the Orange court is represented as a breeding place of corruption and licentiousness. William V, surrounded by court fl atterers waiting for money, is depicted as a drunk and vomiting Bacchus, seated on a cask of Burgundy wine, for which he reputedly had a strong preference. In his hand he is holding a wineglass, but also a sack of guineas, a clear reference to the link between the house of Orange and England. The woman at his side, holding up her skirt with the words 'This is for you, Your Highness', is not his wife Wilhelmina. but his all eged mistress Constance van Lynden. The next print [figure 4) again shows the Stadholder. It dates from 1786, when the conflict between Patriots and Orangists had escalated and an armed struggle had broken out. William V is here shown as a pig and is again indulging in large quantities of Burgundy. Meanwhile, he is urinating on 'the rights of towns and citizens' and on 'the Union', that is the 1579 Union of Utrecht, generally regarded as the basis and constitution of the Seven United Provinces. The same anti-Orangist message could also be presented in a morc subtle way, as the next print from 1786 shows [figure 5]. Here we see the political structure of the Dutch state represented as a trec. Thc all-important roots are the provinces. The Stadholderate is at the very top in a dependcnt and subservient position - a branch ready to be cut off, one could a lmost say. Note the liberty hat at the bottom of the print. The Orangists, of course. saw matters in an entirely different light, as is clear from the ncxt slide, the title print of the 1786 pamphl et Catechism of the Stadholderate [figure 6]. The print shows divine light Shining on a temple symboli sing the Dutch RepUblic. with seven pi llars (the seven provinces) connected by a broad facade (the union , note the Dutch lion in the middle). In the temple two figures may be observed: religion (with a cross) and liberty (with the liberty hat on a pole) . Outside the shady figures of hatred , deceit, violence and ambi tion are threaten ing the temple. Fortunately, however, Stadholder Wi lliam V, pOinting at hi s sword, is there to protect Dutch religion and liberty. Patriotism, of course, was much more than a critique of the Stadholderate. As we have seen, the Patriots, before in the end arriving at the uncompromising conclusion that the only acceptab le definition of liberty was the permanent and active sovereignty of the people, came up with a number of ways to safeguard or increase the liberty of the citizen. A crucially

24

important part of li berty, they argued among other things, was the right to bear arms. Without arms, as the presence of the lance or spear in many trad itional depictions of liberty indicated, liberty was defenceless. As soon as the Patriots realised the implications of this, they began to fonn militias throughout the country. The function of these militias - that of safeguarding the liberty of the citizens - was depicted both in prints and on banners. This print [figure 7) shows how the new militias save the statue of liberty, which had almost fallen from its base. The militia men, accompanied by the Dutch Lion and with a monument showing the arms of the seven provinces at their side, are busily chasing away a group of figures representing egoism, ambition, lust for power, deceit, and hypocrisy. The black clouds, in the meantime, are replaced by 'the golden sun of liberty'. The next slide [figure 8] shows an example of a militia banner. This one, made out of silk, belongcd to the militia 'For Freedom and Unity' founded in 1784 in Kampen, a town in the eastern part of the country. The figure depicted is obviously liberty again. as one can see from the hat and lance. In her one hand she is holding an image of the town of Kampen, in her other hand a declaration of the rights of man. As the conflict wore on, the political thought of the Patriots gradually radicalised. Increasingly, it was not only the Stadholder they held responsible for undennining liberty. but also the entire ruling elite, to which they now referred as the aristocracy. This print [figure 9], anonymously produced in 1785, shows the Patriot image of an oppressive Dutch aristocrat. As a sign of his pride and arrogance, this monstrous creature wears peacock's feathers on his head. These also close his cars, the accompanying text suggests, to the voice of the people. In his left hand the aristocrat holds a sceptre. the sign of personal rule, incompatible with true republican government. The chains and yokes on his back show, to quote rrom the text again, 'his plans with free citizens' . Apart from various disguises, the aristocrat is canying a s ign saying 'be submissive to your government' to mislead the people and, around his neck., the works of Machiavelli - clearly the Machiavelli of The Prince, not oflhe Discourses. From his mouth he spews lightning bolts intended to silence anyone daring to dispute his ambitions. Among the objects hit by these bolts are the Patriot newspapers De Post van den Neder-Rhijn and De Politjek.e Kruyer. These newspapers, as the next slides show, did their utmost to popularise images of liberty and it is on their title pages that we can actually see that the depiction of liberty changes with the growing radicalisation of Patriot political thought. From a calm and dignified figure, liberty is transformed into an active, angry and co.mbative woman. She is also directly associated with tbe new and radical doctrine of inalienable popular sovereignty. In the first title page [figure 10], from the Pose van den Neder­Rhyn in 1781 - early in the Patriot movement -liberty (depicted as the protectress of the arts and sciences) is sti ll a calm figure, although she is al ready giving active advice to the figure of Politics by pointing to Truth and Prudence. The next title page from the Politiek.e Kruyer in 1783 [figure I I] suddenly shows liberty in a much more active role. She is vigorously repe lling an attacker in a suit of amour who is trying to push her off her pedestal. The attacker is carrying a flag showing the Orange app le and therefore represents the Stadholder. The final title page [figure 12}, from the year 1784, presents Patriot political thought at its most advanced, for it exp licitly associates liberty with the permanent sovereignty of the people. This title page of the Politieke Kruyer shows Liberty under attack once again by the Stadholder (note the Orange apple on hi s tom flag). Liberty, however, is successllilly defended by a man carrying a banner with the words 'sovereignty of the people'. The accompanying text goes: 'Look, 0 free Batavians, how the ambitious head is kept from power by the sovereignty of the people. Praised be

that sovereignty ! Through her li berty triumphs and tyrants are prevented from ruling The Netherlands'. This reference to the Batavians, the ancient forefathers of the early modem Dutch who were revereQ for their supposedly sober, virtuous, and free sty le of li fe, brings us to our final slides. In 1787, the Patriots lost their conflict with the established order and were defeated by an invading Pruss ian army. In 1795, however, they returned in the wake of the triumphant French army. The so-called Batavian Republic was proclaimed. The first thing that happened in many towns was the erection of huge liberty trees. This print [figure 13] shows this event in Amsterdam. The old liberty of the Dutch Republic, symbolised by the seventeenth­century Amsterdam town hall on the right side, is superseded by the new republican liberty, symbolised by the tree with the hat, of the Batavian republicans (seen in close up here [figure 141). With that, the radical transformation of the concept of liberty had finally gained official approval - but the symbol of the new liberty was once aga in the age-old hat.

IV. From the foregoing discussion of some of the morc important stages in the development of the meaning of the early modem Dutch concept of liberty it has become clear, I hope, that the inclusion of literary and, as we have seen in somewhat greater detail, visual sources can enrich our analysis of the history of a political concept. The rapid changes that the meaning of the concept of liberty underwent in the political texts of the early modem period were only to a very limited extent reflected in a changing iconography of liberty. Even when at the end of the eighteenth century, parallel to a fundamental transformation of the meaning of the concept of liberty, the figure of liberty came to be depicted in a more active role, her symbols remained the same. For the representation of liberty, in other words, the sixteenth century was the true Salle/zeit. Perhaps even more important, however, is the conclusion that the whole notion of a unique late eighteenth·century Salle/zeit as employed by the two big German projects in conceptual history may not be indiscriminately app licable to all countries. For although I have paid particular attention in this talk to the indisputably important late eighteenth century, for the developme-nt of the Dutch concept of liberty the sixteenth century was, as we have briefly seen, equally crucial. For the Dutch concept of liberty there seem to have been at least two Salle/zeilen and one could make a case for even more. Since, however, the concept of the Satte/zeit derives much of its power from its temporal specificity, it is in my view preferable to drop it altogether. Many of you may find this suggestion on the bold side: a good moment therefore, it would seem, to move on to the discussion.

25

Conferences:

Rhetoric and Conceptual Change, 27-30 June 200 1,

Tampere, Finland.

27 June:

Nordic Doctoral Course on Political Thought and Conceptual

History

28 June:

Lecture: Terence Ball

Panel I: Rhetoric, Political Thought and Conceptual Change

Panelll : 20th Century Political Concepts

Panel III : Geographical Names as Political Concepts

29 June:

Panel I: Conceptual History and Civi li sati onal Analysis

Panel II : The Concept of Woman

Thesaurus Panel: Russian Studies of Political Concepts

30 June:

Panel I Class ics of Political Thought

Plenary session: The History of the Future. The emergence and

fal l ofa temporal concept in European History

Contact: Matti Hyvarinen (program chair)

Research Institute for the Social Sciences

FIN-33014 University ofTampere

Tel. + 358 3 215 6999

Fax + 358 3 215 6502

Emai l ymathy@uta.fi

Susanna Noki (conference secretary)

Research Institute for the Social Sciences

FrN-33014 University ofTampere

Tel + 358 3 215 694 1

Fax + 358 3 215 6502

Email hisuno@ uta.fi

Sinikka Hakala

Research Institute for the Social Sciences

FIN-330 14 University ofTampcre

Tel + 358 3 215 6992

Fax + 358 3 215 6981

Email ytsiha@uta.fi

for more informalion, please cOlltact

III (p: 11I'\IIw. lita filcon Jere nee/r he I or i cis i te04. III m f

26

History of Concepts. 19-21 June 2002,

Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

19 June: Concepts and Interdisciplinarity

20 June: Concepts and Power

21 June: National Projects, Work on Progress

Contact: Pim den Boer (pdenboer@hum.uva.nl)

Call for Copy

The next issue of the Newsletter will be published by

the Renvaliinstitute, Helsinki.

Please send any information relevant to the Newsletter to

Hendrik Stenius (hendrik.stenius@helsinki.fi) or

Kari Saastamoinen (kari .saastamoinen@helsinki.fi)

Book announcements

Forthcoming: Besehaving. Een gesehiedenis vall de viJftiende lol

de twintigste eeuw, Pim den Boer, ed. , Reeks Nederlandse

begripsgeschiedenis, volume IV (Amsterdam: Amsterdam

University Press, 2001)

Colophon

Karin Tilmans. Wyger Velema, Freya Sierhuis

Lay-out: Bas Broekhuizen

Adresses

Martin J. Burke Dr M. Fennema Eeva Aarnio Leonard Besselink Dept. of History Department of Political Department of Social Sciences Parklaan 14 a Lehman College Science and Philosophy 20 11l KV Haarlem City University of New York Oudezijds Achtcrburgwal 237 University of Jyvaskyla The Netherlands 250 Bedford Park Boulevard 1012 DL Amsterdam P.O. Box 35 WestBronx, New York 10468 The Netherlands FIN-4305 1 Jyvaskyla Prof . dr. J. W. de Beus, USA Finland Department of Political E- Pierre Fiala e-mail: ceaa@tukkij.jyu.fi Science mail :martinj@a1pha.lehman. ENS. Fontanay Saint Cloud-

Achterburgwal237 cuny.edu laboratoire de Icxi co logic Prof . Hans Aarsleff 1012 OL Amsterdam Le Pare. 92211 Dept. of English The Netherlands Prof. L. Gerald Bursey Saint Cloud Ccdex McCosh 22 Tel. : 31 205252093 Political Science Dept. France Princeton NJ 08544-1016 E-mail : debeus@pscw.uva.nl Northeastern University E-mail :Fiala@ens-fcJ-fr USA Boston MA 02115

Mark Bevir USA Michael Freeden DrR. A. M. Aerts Dept. of Politics Mansfield College Lage dcr A 16a University of Newcastle Mw. M. Carasso-Kok Oxford OXI 3TF 9718 BK Gron ingen Newcastle upon Tyne Dr. Koomansstraat 21 United Kingdom The Netherlands NE I 7RU United Kingdom 1391 XA Abcoude E-mail: michael.freeden@

The Netherlands socstud.ox.ac.uk Risto Alapuro Prof. dr P.B.M. Blaas Department of Sociology Mozartlaan 4 Daria Castiglione Jan-Hein Fumee University of Helsinki 1901 XS Castricum Dept. of Politics Vakgrocp Geschiedenis P.O. Box 18 The Netherlands University of Exeter Dude Kijk in 'I Ja(Straat 26 FfN-000 14 Exeter 700 AS Groningen e-mail: Prof . dr W.P. Blockmans United Kingdom The Netherlands AIAPURO@valt.helsinki .fi Vakgroep Geschiedenis RUL E-mai l:

Post bus 95 15 D.Castiglione@exeter.ac.uk Prof. dr. M_ van Prof. David Armitage 2300 RA Leiden Gelderen Dept. of History The Netherlands Sandra Chignola University of Sussex Columbia University Dept. of Phi losophy SRC in the Humanities New York NY 10027 Hans 810m University of Padua Falmer, Brighton USA Dept. of Philosophy Via Muro Padri 17 9QN

Erasmus Univcrsileit 37129 Verona Uni ted Kingdom Peter Baehr Ronerdam Italy Dept. of Sociology P.O Box 1738 Fax: +45-913880 Daniel Gordon Memorial University of NL-300 DR Roucrdam E-mail chisa@sis.it Dept. of History Newfoundland The Netherlands University of Massachussets St. John's New Foundland Fax: +3 1-10-212 0448 Janet Coleman Amherst MA 01003-3930 Canada A IC IS7 E-mail : Dept. of Government USA E-mail: H.W.Blom@fwb.eur.nl London School of Economics E-mail: pbaehr@morgan.uC5.mun.ca and Political Science dgordon@history.umass.cdu

Hans Erich Bodeker Houghton Street Gyorgv Bence Max-Planck-Inst. fur London WC2A 2AE Dr F. Grijzenhout Dept. of Philosophy Geschichte United Kingdom De Wittenkade 86 ELTE Hennann-Foge-Weg II Fax: +44- 171 -83 1 1707 105 1 AK Amsterdam Piarista kOz 1 0-3400 GOttingen The Netherlands I'f. 107 Gennany Dr E. Dekker 1364 Budapest Emmastraat 27 Prof . dr S. Groeneveld Hungary Pim den Boer 2802 LA Gouda Vakgroep Geschiedenis Tel.+361-2663769 Dept. of Cultural Studies The Netherlands Postbus 9515 Fax.+ 36 1-2664612 University of Amsterdam 2300 RA Leiden e-mail:bcnce@ludens.elte.hu SpuiSlraat 210 Arjan Van Dixhoom The Netherlands

1012 VT Amsterdam Koningslaan 22 Prof. dr W. van den Berg The Netherlands 3583 GE Utreeht Prof . dr E.K. Grootes Leerstoeigroep Modeme Tel. +3 1-20525 3503 (office)1 The Netherlands Kcrklaan 55 Lctterkunde +31-30-251 5426 (home) 2101 HL Hecmstcde Spuislraat 134 Fax +3 1-20-525 3052 Dr H. Duits The Netherlands 1012 VB Amsterdam E-mail pdenboer@hum.uva.nl Elzenlaan J9 The Nt:therlands 1214 KK Hilvcrsum Jacques Guilhaumou

Marc Boone The Netherlands 29 Bd Rodocanachi K. Berglund Fac. der Lett. en Wijsbegeerte F-1 3008, Marseillc Department of Political Blandijnbcrg 2 B- 9000 Mr W.T. Eijsbouts France Science Gent LSG. Europcse Geschiedcnis E-mai l: P.O. Box II Belgium Spuistraat \34 guilhaum@ncwsup.univ-FIN-OOOI4 University of 1012 VB Amsterdam mrs.fr Helsinki Dr G. de Bru in The Netherlands Finland Anna Paulownalaan 4 Dr I. de Haan e-mail : 1412 AI< Naarden Dr M. Everard Leersloelgroep Nederlandse kris la. berglun d@helsinki .fi The Netherlands Plantage 6 Geschiedcnis

231 1 JC Leidcn The Netherlands

27

Spuistr3at 134 lucian Holscher United Kingdom Dr P. Knevel 1012 VB Amsterdam Lehrstuhl fur Neucre Klokkengicterstraat 3S The Netherlands Geschichte III Uffe lacobsen 1825 AJ Alkmaar

Fakulull fllr Institute for Political Science The Nelherlands Sisko Haikala Geschi chtswissenschaft University ofCopenhagcn Univers ity of Jyvtlskyl:t ROhr-universil3t Bochum Roscnborggade 15 Anna Kontula Dept. of History Univers itlitsstr. 150 DK-1130 Copenhagen Department of History PL 35 0-44780 Bochum Denmark Universi ty of Tam perc FIN -4035 I Jyvl!skyla Germany Tel : +45-35-323 404 1'.0 . Box 607 Finland E-mail : Lucian.Hoelscher@ Fax: +45-35-3 23 399 FIN-3310 1 Tampere E-mail : rz.ruhr-uni-bochum.de E-mai l: UJ@IFS.KU.DK Finland haikala@campus.jyu.fi .k63728@ut • . fi

Prof . dr. I . Hont Dr C.l. H.lansen Hennie Haitjema King's College Leerstoelgroep Modeme Nikolai Kopossov Serials Department Cambridge CB2 15T Letterkunde Col legium Budapest Central Library United Kingdom Spuistraat 134 Szenlharomsag u1.2 Flinders University of 1012 VB Amsterdam 1014 Budapest South Australia Marku Hvrkkanen The Netherlands Hungary GPO Box 2100 Department of History E-mail : Nikolai .Kopossov@ Adelaide SA 500 I University ofTampere Torkel Jansson zeus.colbud.hu Australia P.O. Box 607 Historiska Institutionen Tei. (08) 8201 2736 FIN- 33101 Tampere Officc Location: 40 I 0 Reinhart Koselleck Fax (08) 8201 3362 Finland St Larsgatan 2 Luisenstr.36

e-mai l: himahy@uta.fi SE-753 10 Uppsala D-33602 Bielefe ld Prof. dr E.O.G. Haitsma Sweden Gennany Mulier Matti Hyvarinen e-mail : Fax: +44-52 1-1062966 Leerstoelgrocp Nieuwe RISS torkel.jansson@hist.uu.se Geschiedenis University ofTampere Jussi Kurunmaki Spuistraal 134 pi 607 Gert-Jan Johannes Department of Political 10 12 VB Amsterdam Fin-3310 I Dc Laircssestraat 70 Science The Netherlands Finland 107 1 PG Amsterdam University of Stockholm

E-mail: ymathy@uta.fi The Netherlands SE-I 06 91 Stockholm Sinikka Hakala Sweden Research Institute fot Social Historische Uitgeverij Stuart Jones e-mai l: uss i.kurunmaki@ Sciences t.a v. Ann Boer Dept. of History statsvet.su.se University ofTampere Westersingel37 Manchester University P.O. Box 607 9718 CC Groningen Manchester M13 9PL Tina Lahogue FIN-33101 The Netherlands United Kingdom Institute of Political Studies Tampere E-mail : University of Copenhagen Finland lan Ifversen stuart.jones@man.ac.uk Rosenborggade 15 e-mail : ytsiha@uta.fi Center for KulLurforskning OK- I 130 Copenhagen K

Finlandsgade 26 Dr E. Jonker Denmark lain Hampsher-Monk DK -8200 Arhus Pri ns Hendriklaan 98 E-mai l: TI@ifs.ku.dk Amory Biuilding Denmark 3584 ES Utrecht Rennes Drive E-mail :kultji@cfk.hum.aau.dk The Netherlands Tapani Laine Exeter Research Institute for Social EX4 4 RJ Pasi Ihalainen Pauli Kettunen Sc iences United Kingdom Dept. of History Renvall Institute Univers ity ofTampere E-mail : i.w.hampshcr- University of Jyvaskyltt P.O.Box 59 P.O. Box 607 monk@exeter.ac.uk P.O. Box 35-H FIN-00014 University of FIN-HIOI Tampere

Fin-4035 I Jyvl!s""i> Helsinki Fi nland Dr Al.A.M. Hanou Finland Finland e-mail : fitala@uta .fi Zocterwoudsesingel 69 E-mail : ptkettunen@clo.hclsinki.fi 23 13 EL Leiden ptihalai .his.SEMMARI@cam Prof. dr. P.H.D. Leupen The Netherlands pus.jyu.fi Dana Khapayeva Lsg. Middeleeuwse Geseh.

Collegium Budapest Spuistraat 134 Heikki Heikkila Mikhail I lyin Szentharomsag ut,2 1012 VB Amsterdam Journalism Research and Journal "Polis" 10 14 Budapest The Netherlands development Centre Kolpachyi per 9a Hungary Department of Journalism and Moscow I Leo Tolstoy Str 7, I lkka Li ikanen Mass Communication 149 Moscow 11902 1 (home) Drs G.O. van de Karelian Insti tute P.O. Box 607 Russia Klasho rst University of Joensuu FIN-331 01 E-mail:ilyin@glasnet.ru Wil lemsplantsoen S P.O. Box III Tampcre 35 11 RA Utrecht FIN-80101 Jocnsuu Finland Kaj -Henrik Impala The Netherlands Fin land ti hel1t:@ula.n Faculty of Law e-mail :

Calcon ia Stephan Klein ilk ka.1 i ikanen@joensu.fi Birger Hermansson FIN-200 14 University o r Loo ierstraat6 Dept. of political Science Turku 3582 AR Utrecht Merja Lind University of Stockholm Finland The Netherlands Department of CUltural S- 1069 1 Stockholm e-mai l:kaj imp@ulu.fi History Sweden Prof. dr J . J. Kloek FIN-200 14 University of E -mai I : b irgcr. hcmlan sson@ Prof . dr. l. Israel Nieuwe Loosdrechtsedijk 28 1 Turku statsvel.su.se University College London 123 1 KWNieuw Loosdrecht Fin land

Department of History The Netherlands e-mai l:melind@uta .li Gower Street London WC I E 6BT

28

Kia Lindroos The Netherlands Maarten Prak 41 Milford Gardens Mw. drs C.l . Misse t Tel. 070·3156432 Fac. der Letterell Edgware Historisch Seminarium E-mail: ida.nijenhuis@ Kramme N ieuwegrachl46 Middlesex HAS 6EY Spuistraat 134 inghist. nl 3512 HJ Utrecht United Kingdom The Netherlands The Netherlands E·mai l: kialind@ Dr Ton Nijhuis giobainel.co.uk Raymonde Monnier Duitsland Instituut Amsterdam Tuija Pulkkinen

49 Chemin de la Vallee aux Herengracht 487 Christina Institutr Dr Chris Lorenz Loups 1017 BT Amsterdam University of Helsinki Instituut voor Geseh iedenis 92290 Chatenay Malabry The Netherlands P.O. Box 59 Doelensteeg 16 France Fin-0014 23 11 VL Leiden E-mail: Monnier@ens-fel.fr Dr Mark O lsen Fin land The Netherlands ARTFL E-mail:

Oliif Miirke Dept. of Romance Languages tupulkki@cc.helsinki.fi Vincent van der lubbe Christian-AI brechts-Un i v . Zu University of Chicago Van Vredenburchwcg 37 Kie l Chieago IL 60637 I nstitut fur Philosophie, SE Rijswijk Historisches Seminar USA Ernst-Moritz-Arndt-

070-3988648 Olshausenstrasse 40 Universitat Thc Netherlands D-24098 Kic1 Karl Palonen Kapauncnstr. 5-7

Gennany Department of Political 0-17487 Greifswald Raija- Leena Luoma Science and Philosophy Gennany Department of Social Sciences Jan Werner Muller University of Jyv1l..skylA E-mail : pulkkine@rL.uni-and Phi losophy All Souls College P.O. Box 35 (Asemakatu 4. 2. greifswald.de University of Jyvaskyll1 Oxford OXI 4AS floor) P.O. Box 35FIN-40351 United Kingdom Fin-4035 I Jyvi!skyl' Jurgen Pieters Jyvi!skyl' E-mail : santOO68@ Finland, or: Vakgroep Nederlandse Finland sable.ox.ae.uk Residence J.Ch. Prost Literatuur en e-mail : rmluoma@tukki.jyu.fi 13, rue Dareau Literatuurwetenschappen

Eis Naaij ke ns F-75014 Paris Blandijnberg 2 Aladan Madarasz Vakgroep Italiaans E-mail: kpalonen@cc.jyu.fi 8-9000 Gent Institute of Economics Bungehuis Belgium Hungarian Academy of Spuistraat 112 Pieter Pekelharing Sciences 1012 VB Amsterdam Johan Keplerstraat 19 Pr of . dr. l . G. A. Pocock BudaOrsiut 45 The Netherlands 1098 HH Amsterdam Dept. of History Budapest The Netherlands The John Hopkins University Hungary Wolf-Dieter Narr Gilman Hall 312 E-mail: madarasZ@ Fachbereich Politische Van Peng 3400 N. Charles Street econ.core.hu Wissenschaften Dept. of Political Science Baltimore MD 21218

Otto-Suhr-Institut University of Stockholm USA Peter Mair IhneSlr.22 S-10691 Stockholm Department of Political 0- 14195 berlin Sweden lisa Rasanen Science Leidcn Uni versity Gennany E-mail: yan .peng@ University of Jyvaskyla P.O. Box 9555, E-mai l: narrwd@zedat. fu- statsvet.su.se Political Science 2300 RB Leiden, berlin.de PI35 The Netherlands. lars Petterson Fin-4035 I Jyvi!skyl' Tc1:+ 31715273908 Prof. drVictor Neuman University of Dalarna Finland Fax: + 31 7152728 15 Str Stadian 6/9 School of Arts and Education E-mail : iipara@ce.jyu.fi B-rnai l: 1900- Timissoara SE-79 1 88 Falun Mair@fsw.leidenuniv .nl Roumania Sweden Prof. dr. R. Reichhardt

Tel! fax ++40-56-196298 E-mail: lpe@du.se Dept. of Modem History Dr M. Meijer Drees University of Giessen Paulus Potterstraat 6 Gerard Noiriel P rof . d r . J. Pika lo Behaghel-Str. 10 C I 3583 SN Utrecht ENS Faculty of Social Sciences 35394 Giessen The Netherlands 48 Boulevard Jourdan Kardeljeva pi 5 Germany or: 75014 Paris 1000 Ljubljana G. van Walenborchstraat 14 France Slovenia Melvin Richter 3515 BT Utrecht E-mail: noiriel@e lia<;.ens.fr Tel : ++ 386 I 5805364 Dept of Political Scicnce The Netherlands Fax: ++ 386 I 5808 101 Hunter Collegl!

Susanna Noki E-mai l: jemej.pikalo@uni-Ij.s i Cuny Dr W .F.B. Me lch ing Department of History New York 10021 Leerstoelgroep Nieuwe University ofTampere Prof. dr H. Pleij USA Geschiedenis P.O.Box 607 Lsg. Historische Lcttcrkunde E-mail : mrichter@ Spuistraat 134 FIN-33! 01 Tampere Spuistraat 134 s h i va.hunter.cu ny. ed u 1012 VB Amsterdam Fin land 1012 VB Amsterdam The Netherlands E-mail: hisuno@uta.fi The Netherlands Dr P. T. van Roode"

Boerhaavelaan 23 Peter Alexander Meyers Dr J. Noordegraaf Ismo Pohjanb mmi 2334 EL Leiden 5 Rue d' Alsace Juweelstraet 81 Department of Political The Netherlands 750 10 Paris 2403 BK Alphen aid Rijn Science France The Netherlands P.O.Box 54 Jose M. Rosales E-mail : pameyers@ FIN- 000 14 University of University of Malaga compuserve.com I da Nijenhuis Helsinki Dept. of Philosophy

[nstituut voor Nederlandse Fin land Campus dl! Tcatinos Prof. d r W .W . Mijnha rdt Geschiedenis E-mail: E-2907 1 Malaga Siotslraal 12 r Postbus 90755 pohjanta@valt.helsinki.fi Spain 4101 BH Cu1cmborg 2509 LT Den Haag E-mail : jmrosales@uma.es The Netherlands

29

Dr. Mark Rutgers ytklso@uta.fi TapaniTurkka Finland Departement Bestuurskundc Department ofpolilical E-mail: kv I8507@uta.fi Faculteit Sociale Mw. prof. dr M. Spies Science and Intemationai Wetenschappen Hercnstraat II a relations Dr. F. P. I. M. van Vree Pieter de la Cou rtgebhuw 10 15 BX Amsterdam University of Tampere Leerstoelgracp Postbus 9555 The Netherlands P.O. Box 607 Cultuurgcschicdeni s van 2300 RB Leiden FIN-33IOI Tampere Europa The Netherlands Dr H. C. G. Spoormans Finland Spuistraat 21 0

Faculteit der E-mail : pttatur@uta.fi 1012 VT Amsterdam Kari Saastamoinen Rechtsgeleerdheid The Netherlands Renvalilnstitute Postbus 616 Prof. dr E. van Uitert University of Helsi nki 6200 MD Maastricht LSG Kunstgcschicdenis laana Vuon P.O. Box 59 The Netherlands Herengracht 286 Department of Women's FIN-00014 10 16 BX Amsterdam Studi es Finland Patricia Spring borg The Netherlands University ofTampere e-mai l: Dept of Government P.O. Box 607 kari saastamo inen@helsinki .fi Univcrsity of Sydney Timo Uusitupa FIN-33101 Tampere

Sydney. NSW 2006 Research Institute for Social Finland Prof. dr N. C. F. van Sas Australia Scicnces E-mail: jaana.vuori@uta.fi Leerstoelgroep Nieuwsle e-mail : patricia@ University ofTampere Gesch. bullwinklc.econ.su.oz.au P.O. Box 607 Hans Waalwijk Spuistraat 134 FIN-33 1OI Tamperc Baarsjesweg 292 101 2 VB Amsterdam PD. dr. W. Steinmetz Finland 1058 AG Amsterdam The Netherlands 1m Bauhof I E-mail : yttiuu@uta.fi The Netherlands

58300 Wetter Prof. Michael Gennany Jussi Vahamaki Prof. dr. Peter Wagner Schoenhals Research Insti tute for Social European Universily Instilult: P.O. Box 792 Henrik Stenius Sciences Badia Fiesolana SE 22007 Lund Renvallinstitute University ofTampere Via dei Roccettini 9 Sweden P.O. Box 59 P.O. Box 607 San Domenico di Fiesolc (FI)

FIN-00014 University of FIN-33 101 Tampere 1-500 16 Prof. dr louise Schom- Helsinki Finland Italy Schuette Finland ytjuva@uta.fi Historisches Seminar E-ail :henrik.stenius@ Jan Waszink JWG Univers itllt helsinki .fi ludith Vega Hooglandsegracht 36 a PF 111 932 Molukkenstraat 72 Leiden 60054 Frankfurt am Main Chris Stolwijk 9715 NW Groningen Thc Netherlands Gennany Hekcndorpse Buurt 81 The Netherlands E-mail : jwaszink@stad.dsl.nl

3467 Hekendo'1' Freya Sierhuis The Netherlands Dr H.Te Velde Matthias Weiss Leidsegracht 104 M.L. Kingstraat 11 5 Historisches Seminar 1016 CT Amsterdam Prof. dr. Bo StrAth 9728 WN Groningen JWG Universit:l.l The Netherl ands European Univers ity Instilute The Netherlands PF 111 932 c-mail : Badia Fiesolana 60054 Frankfurt am Main f _ sierhui s@yahoo.co.uk Robert Schumann Cenlre Wyger Velema Germany

Via dei Rocettini 9 Dept. of History Prof. dr. Q. R. D. Skinner San Domenico di Fiesole (FI) University of Amsterdam Arpad Welker Cambridge University 1-500 16 Spuistraat 134 c/o Danhauser Christ's College Italy 10 12 VB Amsterdam fadrusz u. 27 Cambridge CB2 3BU The Netherlands H-111 4 Budapest United Kingdom Karin Tilmans Fax: +3 1-20-525 4433 Hungary Fax: +44-1 223-339 557 Dept. of History wre.velema@wxs.nl nphweaO I@phd.ceu.hu

University of Amsterdam Mevr. dr M. Smits-Veldt Spuistraat 134 ludith Verberne Dr E.M. Wiskerke Leerstoelgroep Historische 1012 VB Amsterdam clo E.M. Nusca Rolklaver 79 Letterkunde The Netherlands Via Libera Leonardi 120 d, 29 7422 RE Dcventer Spuistraat 134 Fax: +3 1-20-525 4433 or 00 173 Romc The Netherlands 1012 VB Amsterdam +3 1-23.5258420 Italy The Netherlands E-mai l: Karin.Tilmans@ Bjorn Wittrock

hum.uva.nl Fernando Vidal SCASS Sari Soininen Max~Planck Institut fLlr G6tav.ll.gen 4 Department of Social Sciences Balasz Trencsimyi Wissensehaftsgcschichte S-75236 Uppsala and Philosop hy 1032 Zapor u.63 VIII . 46 Wilhelmstrasse 44 Sweden Un ivers ity of Jyva<>kyla Budapest 10117 Berlin Fax: +46-18-521109 P.O. Box 35 (Asemakatu 4, 2. Hungary Germany E-mail: Bjorn. Wittrock@ floo r) E-maiL NPHTRE 14@ Tel. +49-30-22 667 232 scass.uu.sc FIN-40351 Jyvllsky," phd .ceu.hu (office) Fin land Fax +49-39-22667299 E-mail : sumaso@cc.jyu .fi Keith Tribe E-mail: vidal@mpiwg-

Dept. of Economics berlin .mpg.de Klaus Sondermann Keele University Research Institutl! for Social Keele Kirsi Virtanen Sciences Staffordsh ire STS SBG Tampere Peace Research Un iversity of Tampere United Kingdom Institute P.O. Box 607 University ofTampere FIN- 33101 Tampere P.O. Box 607 Finland FIN-33 10 1 Tampere

30

Figure 2

Figure I

.",,,,,,/\r.,h.,,.J."l' r.;(JtltJ.C"1I de m;.ss·r (t~ VU~.!'1TL~ hUlillc l'1101Ztc-D ,

S~"Tfun" "'IUlI~ lUI G,,~~I;! C"l(.".u L..,.24,:iftr~1I . __ " . . __

31

Figure 3

32

Figure 4

:-; T .\ .\ 'J -. ;.: U r, (; J-: 1-: II J !\ e '- I-: 1' :\ 1>1 C}::\ H 0 0 .:\1"

~ ,.j, ,' 11.0' ''.1 " .; ,. :, 1."10\"""" '"' ' S '~;I' • " 11 ".'.I",o. , ·\ ".~., I'r " l ,I, ·,· \ ·I . , ·",. "j.t('; ~ :-: ,.,1,·,·1:, ",I,·".

Figzlre 5

33

--.'-. ~'..."

' ,' !.

Figure 6

34

Figure 9

35

" I.

I' 0 L J TIl: K ) ',

Li '[ E .n-.h .

.. , ' I

... :': ~"'''~:;''' ." ." . - .. ,

Figure 11

n £

o , ' ,,:.,; l)J : ~

or}: UTHt:l:1I 1' II~

la:inl: U 'C TDHJS ...... '" 1· ,UIIH: SlJt)Rt;.

Figure 10

36

l' () J. I T I J( K J.:

K R II Y :E R .

, " ,r ~ · ...... "}.t .. ~!I .1, , ~ .. t . .. .. .... . , ... Figure 12

I. " " ,.f' . \ " , ~ .,.,

Figure 13

Figure 14

37