FROM "STATE" TO "FREE STATE" The meaning of the word 'Republic' in Western Europe

and America from JEAN BODIN to JOHN ADAMS

by William R. Everdell @ 1987

What does the word 'Republic" mean? That sovereign term in eighteenth century political thought, the common property of Montesquieu and Marat, of John Adams and Daniel Shays. of Swift and Rousseau. of Humeand the Jesuits in the Americas, has been used since with an ambiguity so poetic and an abandon so blithe that not even constitutional lawyers seem to know what it means. France established a "lirst republic" (of five) in 1792. the United States in 1776, Hungary in 1848 and again in 1945, China In 1912; yet today the word, though not uncommon. is problematical in every western language and in not a few non- western ones. It is obviously not one of those metaphors that science defines so well, nor is it a term in which poets have taken great interest. Lawyers and courts often fix the meanings of less universal terms, but only two United States courts seem yet to have tested "Republic", despite its prominence in constitutions old and new. The precise fixing of this word has been left since its invention to historians and to what we now call political scientists. Perhaps it is no wonder that it has become so protean, contra- dictory and lately nearly empty of meaning. A former Solicitor- General of the United States was recently heard to complain that although "a Republican form of Government" was & a n t e e d in Article IV of the United States Constitution, he had no idea what it meant.'

In the United States. America's first lexicographer. Federalist propagandist Noah Webster. gave the definition 'representative democracyw essayed in 1787 by James Madison in Federalis! 10. All his s"ccessc& there have followed suit. though Webster himself admitted. somewhat plaintively, that his definition seemed to leave out Athens and Rome.2 Nor is it very helpful to define "republicw through "democracv: which has a surer history and etymology than "repubhcW but problems of its own. In 1790. John Adams wrote that 'there is not in lexicography a more fraudulent word" than republic.J Years later in retirement. Adams. who had done so much to found the American Republic and had tried all his life to define the creature. threw up his hands and wrote that he had never known what republic meant and never expected to.4 Actually. Adams had once known with all the assurance of a Harvard graduate. In 1775 and 1776 he had written that according to Aristotle. L iw and James Harrington, the 'definition of republic is an empire of laws and not of men".' In 1787 he found the definition that he proposed in 1789 to Roger Sherman. "In the first place, what is your definition of republic'? Mine is this: A governmmr whose sowreign~y is vesred in more ~ h a n one person ' !h

I think Adams was close in 1776 and (for 1987) exactly right in 1787-89: but Adams. as he so often managed to d o (with the help of American historiography), avoided getting his due by under- cutting his own argument. I think, too, that Adams's definition was not a metaphysical construct but a thoroughly empirical and historical one. like Aristotle's definition of polireia. Adams knew his history much better than American provincials were then given credit for. While ambassador to England he had. in fact. written a massive history of the western republics of the past published in 1787. just in time to be in the hands of thedelegates to the Constitutional Convention. The present paper is. in a sense. a late filial footnote to this book. f i jence ojrhe Comrirurions o j ~ h r Cnired Slates qf America, on the two hundredth anniversary both of its publication and of the drafting of the federal const~tution itself. to which the &fence added its mickle. and which remains. astonishingly. the supreme law of the United S~ates. '

For Adams to be wrong in his definition, the one who must be right is Jean Bodin, that polymathic genius of the sixteenth century, who believed that a republic was notining more than 'a just government of several households and of what they hold in common with the power of sovereigntyW.s Nothing more. in other words. than what we would call a state, under any hjust"govern- ment, however monolithic o r monocratic. Bodin published his definition in 1576, the year that both Calvinists and Catholics in his native France were calling for a withdrawal of obedience from their apparently lawful king, and the "Republic" was convulsed with civil war. Bodin's definition of republic, together with his definition of sovereignty as indivisible, was found useful by the succeeding generations of Frenchmen who put civil war behind them by setting up absolute monarchy. Until Bodin's countrymen, two centuries later. put a n end to the thousand-year Capetian Reich, Bodin's views were challenged in France only by stray publications and restless political minorities.

If such an ambiguous term has such historic uses, then it will pay richly to get the connotations of the word "Republic"clear. With them we instantly acquire both a sensitive indicator of seventeenth and eighteenth century political thought. and one of its more effective political instruments. It will also show. in that head- spinning way that pleases deconstructionists and analytical philo- sophers. the extent to which what is fondly called political science resolves itself into issues of semantics and etymology. Investigat- ing the term with the methods of the history of ideas has been and will no doubt continue to be rewarding. Work in the area so far includes energetic lexicography, some very considerable books by Zera Fink. Caroline Robbins, Felix Gilbert, Lois Schwoerer. Nannerl Keohane. Yves Durand, Claude Nicolet. and of course J.G.A. Pocock, not to mention my own book. chapters in Quentin Skinner's standard history, articles by Adams, Appleby. Kenyon, Kerber, Kramninck. Shalhope and Banning, and a remarkable and oddly obscure article by no less than Herbert M a r c u ~ e . ~ It will not escape students that much of this ground was most thoroughly covered by Pocock, who was after larger game than mere etymology. I can only plead that Pocock, too. uses the word republic when the texts he studies are nor using it. a practice that can both confuse the reader and be untrue to the evidence.

However. the subject is very far from being exhausted. The Adamsite, o r revolutionary meaning of the word republic was set in the late 17th and early 18th century, well before John Adams. Adams borrowed it from Johnson's dictionary. Johnson was recording the usage of Addison. Montesquieu and Hume. That usage, in turn. emerged out of a long convoluted, and somewhat arcane prehistory, which began long before Bodin and which involves events and writings from Italy and Germany as well as from France and England. Bodin'sdefinition, which held sway for nearly a century. was a precise formulation of the usage seen in Cicero. Augustine, and the Middle Ages, and one which had been fathered on Aristotle by translation. Adams's goes back to the political language of the Italian city-states which predated Bodin and narrowly survived him. In this paper I shall try toconstruct a narrative history of respublicaand itsdescendants. based on close analysis of its usage in four distinct periods leading up to the French Revolution. We shall consider theclassical-medieval stage first, followed by the humanist. Third we must consider the contribution of religious war and an odd convergenceof Calvinist and Jesuit. Fourth and last, we map the slow failure of the Bodin synthesis and the revival of the words republicand republican first in England and subsequently in France between 1649 and 1690.

The method is to try to measure the word in thecontext in which it

is tound. determinmg. 11 poss~ble. the extent to which it excludes monarchy. or any other form of one-man rule. For example, the mere apposition, "princes and republics". is not sufficient to imply mutual exclusion of monarchy and republic, and is usually meant in a diplomatic sense, as a way of including all sovereign nations (as we would say now) in a phrase. Very rarely. we may find an extended, dictionary sort of definition, like Bodin's o r Adams's, of the sort we might now take for granted in a work on political theory. Aristotle's own definition. as we shall see, is frustratingly ambiguous. The best of the pre-modern definitions, besides that of Bodin. may be the one on Thomas Floyd's Picture of A Perfi:lir Commonwealth in 1600. "A Commonwealth". he began. "is a living body compact of sundry estates and degrees of men: this body is composed of two sorts, (soul and members). The soule is the King or supreame governour. This word Common wealth is called of Latine word. Respublica, quasirespopulica, the affaires of the people: which the latines call the Government of a common- wealth, IH a civil1 societie, and is termed of the Grecians a politicall government. derived of the Greeke word polutia, which signifieth the regiment and estate of a citie, disposed by order ofequitie. and ruled by moderation of reason "10

Several results of this investigation may help to redlrea historical attention. One IS that Machiavelli's definition of republics is very orignal and premature. and that the word gives a further clue to the old question of the chronolo@cal relation of Theprinceto the Discourses. Another is that the modern, or Adamsitedelinition of republic IS clearly in use in both France and England by 1650. forty years before the standard historical dictionaries have placed it. Another is that Locke's famous Second Treatise contains ironies both intended and unappreciated. Still another is the ~mplication of the fact that Montesquieu, though he followed Bodin with admiration and care in so much. abandoned him on his definition of republic, using the termasearly as 1721 exactly as Adams later defined it, to refer to any state regime that was not a monarchy. Finally, among its more disconcerting results is that the republicans of around 1700, in Europe if not in America, may not quite fit the image of projectors ofMclassicaI virtue" that recent United States historiography has been insisting on. The great revolutionary word of 1776- 1799 implies pluralism and popular sovereignty as much as it does virtue.

We must be careful here. I f the word republicis not fraudulent. as 4dams said, it is certainly slippery, perhaps a classiccase of fixing the unfixable or. in the memorable phrase. nailingjelly to a wall. Our problems begin with the original Ia t in word which leaves us in considerable doubt what "thing" (res) is meant or in what sense that thing is "public" (puhlica). There is, for example. no doubt that respublica bears the sense of 'ljust" government that Bodin carried over into the French repuhlique. No doubt, either, that this meaning is theessential forerunner of Harrmgton'sUempire of lawes and not of men" It is both respectableand early, found first in that part of Cicero's political writings known to theeighteenth century (De legibus) and in the pan unknown until I820 (Lk re publica) which was nevertheless quoted forcefully by Augustine in his City of God." The only way res publica could refer to a n unjust government lay in the fact that Rome had consistently referred to itself as a res publica; and since Rome had been the only state in the West for so long. respublica could mean. simply, whatever government there was. An even more general meaning. if not the most general of all meanings of res publica, occurs not onl? in Cicero but earlier in attempts to render in Latin the politeia and politeuma of Herodotos. Plato. Aristotle. Polybios and their fellow Greeks. That is, as Plutarch summarised it later. not only the political system of a society or social body, but its whole way of life. or constitution.12 This was, In fact. the sole and tentative means by which the Latin word became attached to the much older and incomparably more precise Greek debate on basic political terminology. which continued after Cicero with Plutarch and Dio Cassius. Until C~cero. i t seems. the Romans took little interest in that kind of talk. Eken after him they neglected it.

.After Augustine there arose another general but quite different meaning. "Res publica" appeared in capitularies in the very early

mlddle ages w ~ t h the meaning of public (mean~ng the king's) land or treasury, metaphorically the king's second body even his bride.'? That meaning remained penumbrally to confuse the later middle ages, for whom republic acquired the interesting sense of an immortal legal body, a corporation or univcrsitas. Both meanings are in the forefront of a phrase like respublica Christians used for Christendom or the church. Still later. needing a word for state before the word 'state" had evolved to mean anything more than status or statutory authority. medieval writers adapted 'res publica" to mean any polity considered entire. regardless of its form. close but not identical to the old sense of politeia. This sense lasted a long time. as we shall see. I t was still the norm in England when Thomas Smith published Lk Republics Anglomm in 1572. and it was powerfully revived by Jean Bodin in 1576.

At the very end of the medieval period the enlarged solidarities of the fifteenth century assigned a new resonance to the words natio and patria. whereupon respublica was reassigned to cover the concept of a nation's form or a fatherland's common law.I4 This. too, lasted a long time. and was still attached to the anglo-saxon equivalent term commonwealor commonwealth, when Elyot and Lupset used i t extensively in works published just before and just after the English Act of Supremacy.15

Nevertheless, the Middle Ages, especially in Italy was fertile in city-states, We are now accustomed to using the word republic to describe 13th century Florence, Milan, and Genoa. even Bruges and Basel. That the word res publica was not applied to them exclusively then, and was used just as often for the kingdom of France. the duchy of Burgundy, o r the Church, seems largely the result of Augustine's insistence in City of God that Cicero's res publica was simply aLljust government"ofa people @opulus)with a common love or interest.16 The domestication of Aristotle in the thirteenth century, however, did provide another possibility and that possibility requires careful examination.

The book. of course. is Aristotle's Politics. Augustine had not read 11. knowing no Greek. It was first written back into the western tradition by Aeg~dius Romanus and Albertus Magnus. u h o was Thomas Aquinas' teacher. When Aquinas took it up, in his De regimine principum in about 1250. this difficult text. arriving in sloppy translat~on. began to cause difficulties. One of Aristotle's workhorse terms in the Politics and Nichomachean Ethics was politeia, roughly meaning how things work in apolis. the general term for the form of any state.'' Aristotle had. however. insisted on using politeia in a second. more precise and technical sense to mean the third of the three famous classical forms of the state: monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. As we know. Aristotle thought demokratia to be a bad thing. a sort of mob-rule. So he added this second politeia to his list and suggested that this was the proper word for a state in which the people, though sovereign. obeyed the law and tolerated elements of the two other kinds of rule. In Sinclair's translation. the key passage from Politics. Book 3 . runs as follows: 'There are besldes democracy and oligarchy two constitutions, one of which aristocracy IS generally included in the list of four - monarchy. oligarchy. democracy. aristocracy. The other makesa fifth on that list; it is called the name which is common to themall, for wecall i t politeia, polityv.1Y The temptation to translate this word into Latin as respublica would become irresistible by 1600. and when that happened the continued tension of the two meanlngs in Aristotle's book would be built automatically Into the old Latin word.

Aquinas did not, as i t happens. translate politeia, either as res publica or anything else. What he did d o was draw an important and influential distinction between constitutions. based on Aristotle's ambiguous term. 'polity". In Lk regimine principum he called government (regnum, imperium) ^regale" if it was plenary and 'politica" if it was limited. As a result the adjective. "politic" o r 'politique" came into several western languages with the meaning of 'constitutional".'9 In about 1300 one Tholommeo of the Italian commune of Lucca wrote a continuat~on of Aquinas' work In which the distinct~on of "politic" and 'regal"

u d \ hroddl\ extended u ~ t h examples France \ d ~ d l h o l o m m e o u d \ -regale3' but England. anclent Israel and Rome are - p o l ~ t ~ c a e " Tholommeo also v~ewed the Roman Republrc after 509 BC a s a n uar~stocrac)" and anclent 4thens and modern Itallan clty-states a s 'pol~tres", uslng Anstotle's term prec~seh In the sense of llmrted democracy

Tholommeo then went on to make a further category. whose Importance for o u r study was still very great three centuries later. (Tholommeo of Lucca's work was still being published in the Letherlands in 1630). Because both a n s t o c r a c and polity '~n\olve plurality. these two types compose the polit~cal as drst~nguished from the regal o r despotic lordship, as the Ph~losopher explains in the first and t h ~ r d books of the Poliritx ':'l

U e d ~ e v a l pohtlcal and legal thought In other words ,cont~nued to use res publrca In the general 4ugust1n1an sense of a good state. hut there was dt the same trrne. consrderable movement toward ~ d e a s w h ~ c h would categorise and e x p l a n the actual practlce of a d ~ \ ~ d e d E m p ~ r e Irmperrum romanurn) and mdependent monarchies hke France and self-governmg cltles hke l ucca or Morence 4ttach1ng the word res publrca (rather than the al terndt~ve cnrras) to some of these cases war the work of the fourteenth centur!

[-he most influential j u r ~ s t and political thinker of the fourteenth century I S often said to be Bartolus of Saxoferrato. who was glben Perugian clti7enship and taught In that Italian commune from 1343 to his death in 1357. Through his many works runs a n Increasing legal recognition of the d e facro sovereignty of cities like Perugia." In addit ion he wrote short treatises o n tyranny 17\.rannidis sive d e g.rannia), on the regimes of city-states (De rrgimine civiraris), and o n the Guelfs and Ghihellines (De Gueljis rr Grbellinis) all In the 1350s. Though all anticipate the civic humanrst 'republicanism" of the next century, only the last uses the word res publica. H o w e ~ e r . this 1s a telling use. Bartolus is d~scussing the right of resistance to tyrants by a party o r faction. and he finds 11 lawful. in his words. "against those who a o u l d destroy the res puhlica and bring it into servitude to themselves'' '' (Emerton. 278) Bartolus. together w ~ t h his student Baldus and cuntemporar? Marsillus of Padua. shows how the word res puh1rc.a u a s positioned to move In the direction of polyarchy. o r complex rule by many.

b a t h e r ~ n g the a ~ a l l a b l e meanlngsat theoutset o f the Renaissance. u e can summarise them a s follows: the Ciceronian common or p u b l ~ c Interest. the Augustmian just state. the Aristotelian (number one) i'orm of state. and the .Aristotelian (number two) mrxed o r c o n s t ~ t u t ~ o n a l state with popular sovereignty. Nearly ever! actual use. h o w e ~ e r . is Ciceronian and lics near one of two close poles. In one. rrspublica means a civrl soclety. Chr~s tendom as a whole or any sub-soc~ety. and i tscommon I~fe. the f o r m o f t h e 'hod! p o l ~ t ~ c " In the other, respub1it.a means the uni\vrsiras, the \oc~et! considered a s a smgle agent in the society of other relatrvely au tonomous collectiLe agents. Ne~ther of these two polcs of meaning Implies an! particular form of gwernment . Indeed. r t m ~ g h t be s a d part~cularlg oi the second that it argues the necessity of monarch! a brt like Americans whoareargumg t h ~ \ year that the United States can relate to other nations onl! through 11s president. As the fourteenth century drew t o a close. the Idea that a republic might automatically mean the absence 01 monarch! was srmpl) not available to Europeans. no matter how olten ~t u a s s a ~ d that a n (Augustinian) respuhlica couldnor r.vi.v ~ ~ t i ~ i e r 1 r rann \

F\cn COIUCCIO Salutatr. thegreat humanist chancellor of Florence . ~ n d kcourge of C ~ ~ a n p l e a r r o l rsconti. agreed w t h Aristotle that rncrnarch! uab hest and found himself unable to use the word re., / ~ ~ i b h c . a anti-monarchicall\. In L l r r1,ranno (1.100). he wrote that 'thc form o i state which Caesar represented rnclined not to [\r;lnn! but to a W.\ puhll ta ' : and. going further, asked the ~ n t t ~ g n a n t question. "Is there no \uch th ingasa respuhlicaundera b~nplc rule'' U'ab there no rrc puhlica a t Rome so long as ~t u a s i1ndi.r k~nga"' (Emerton. 108)

I h ~ k fact makes qulre clear lust what the conrr~hutron ol Rena~ssance humanrsm was. More than t h ~ r t y years ago. Hans h r o n polnted out the central importance of Leonardo B r u n ~ a n d his generation to the self-understanding of Rorenceand her sister cities We need only add that Bruni's language IS no less symptomatic than his arguments, and that he and other civic human~s ts used the words respublica and repubblica for the first time in modern history in the sense of a state without a king. They drew. of course from Ar~stotle. Plutarch. Livv and the other classics. but at least one of them. Machiavelli. went even further than the classical authors in excluding monarchy from the conceptual shadow of the word repubblica. If it is not fatuous to call Bruni the Masaccio of civic humanism. then M a c h ~ a v e l l ~ should he called its Michaelangelo

Bruni's Loudariojiorenrinae urbls, which Baron famousl) dated to 1403-04. uses respuhlicatellingly some 36separate times. What he meant by the word is obscured by a n otherwise helptul English translation by Benjamin .l. Kohl. Kohl uses the English word reprrhliconly five times. while substituting*c~ty". "Florence". "it" 'here". "state". "government". *nation"and 'community" for the other 3 1 .'S Bruni used the word respublica more precisely to mean the whole that IS g o ~ e r n e d by the Rorentme magistrates: that which pract~ce\ c k i c vlrtues. creates institutions. and has a harmony among its parts. This is Ciceronian. There 1s no doubt that B r u n ~ uses res publica to mean the state a s a unlt making foreign commitments. and certainly he can and does use words like urbs, oppidurn, civiras, nario, parria, populus, regnum and irnperiurn, for concepts akin in meaning; but the key use of re5 puhlica for Bruni was to designate that which was overthrown b! .lulius Caesar the old king-free Roman constitution.?b A year earlier. Bruni put this same res publica into a speech of Niccolo' Niccoli attacking Dante and Salutati's De r.vranno)for putt lngthe two Bruti. Tarquin's enemy and Caesar's murderer. in Limboand deep Hell respe~tively.!~ Bruni's bracketing of the Roman re.\ puhlica between the fall of Tarqum in 509 and the rise of Caesar In 50 BC ma) be the earliest modern instance of this historiographl- cal distinction. which 1s now not only standard but also one o f t h e principal pegs liujng our modern meaning of republic. Moreover. Bruni makes clear in his translation of Aristotle's Polirics and in the essay he wrote in Greek on the Morentine system ( ~ 1 4 3 0 ) that he has taken over the classical e q u i ~ a l e n c y between re.\ puh1it.a and p o l ~ r e i a . ~ ~

We knou that Rruni's rntluence was limited b the tact that he never attained the conlemporary fame of Salutati and none of hr\ work was pr~nted or translated until the n~neteenth centur?. but rn Florence it p r o ~ ~ d e d a n exemplary norm. It was confirmed not only b> other h u m a n ~ s t s like Biondo and Bracciohni. but e w n b! neul! publ~shed classics Irke the Annals and Hi.rrories ol' l a c t ~ t u s and the Cariline and Jugurrhine War of S a l I ~ s t . ~ ~

Hurnan~st language was. of course. not popular language. and we should not o\erlook another development of the late fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries: the development In thevernacularol the term repubblit~a to mean a state where there 1s not onl! no prince but where the whole peopleare thought of a s thewverergn. E\idence 1s problematical and slim, but if we may accept thewell- known French text called the .Memoirs qf &uc~it~aulr, the Pisans could call o n the Cienoese In 1410 In these revolutionar! terms. 'Do better. take the lordship away from your king (Charles V1 of France) and k ~ l l Roucicault and all his Frenchmen and live In a republic like us3'.'0 A g a ~ n . Florence glves some of the best e\ idence. Dino C o m p a g n ~ in the 1270s descr~bed Florence onl? as the "commune". Ciregorio D a t ~ in the 1390s referred to h ~ \ sovereign as 'popolo e commune", but Luca Landuca . at the t m e (1494-1512) of what is now often called the Second F l o r e n t m Republic. was already using *governo popolar" and "\ l \err popolare" a s a d e s c r ~ p t ~ o n of the regime." Oncc the word rrpuhhlica became attached. in the manner of r ~ s t o t l e ' s second polireia 2. to t h a e earl! Lernacular e q u ~ \ a l e n t s tor the Greek tirrnokrarla, even the rise ot ' the despots In Ital! could not bring back the old words.

This bring us to Machiavelli and Guicciardinl. I t will not surprise anyone to learn that in this small etymological area, as inso many greater ones. they took the largest step forward. I t was Machiavelli and Guicciardini who attached republica to govemo popolar and to the old Greek concept of demokraria. It was also these two, especially Machiavelli, who pushed the Italian word republica further into anti-monarchical territory than anyone before the French Revolution.

In 15 1 2, in the Discorso di Logrogno on what he. like Landucci. called govemo popolare, and in his earliest Ricordi, Francesco Guicciardini had already begun attaching the word republica to 'rule by the many". theclassical third form of state.j2 The Second Florentine Republic fell on September I that year. and Guicclardini's friend Machiavelli probably began working on the Discourses o n Dvy not long after. In the Discourses we can actually observe the shift at close quarters. Early in his first book, Machiavelli used republica as a general term for all states. "1 say, like others who have written of republiche, that they are of three kinds. namely. Principaro (of or by a prince). Olrimari (by the best). and Popohre (by the people)".33 But by the time he had reached discourse 16. he was apologising for 'speaking sometimes of a republico and sometimes of a prince (princ~paro)".'~ In number 17. he was talking of the relation of a leader to a people. and clearly finding a difficulty Salutati had never experienced in describing an executive as maintaining o r controlling a republic (tenere forma di republica). In 18 he is considering whether a person or persons can hold a corrupted people in self-government (manrenore uno sraro 1ibero)and he shifts from republica to stato libero or 'free-state"."

If ~t 1s indeed the case. as Chabod argued, that Machiavelli broke off writing the Discourses in order to write The Prince. it may be precisely here that he did so, for all subsequent sections of the Discourses use republica to mean a state without either a prince or hereditary landowning aristocrats. Meanwhile (if it is indeed 'meanwhile") Machiavelli wrote in the very first sentence of The Prince that all past states had been, not monarchies. artistocracies. o r democracies. but 'either monarchies or republics".M This new, dichotomous usage. which grows stronger from one end of his book to theother. seems to me to be of pivotal Importance to the influence of Machiavelli as a seminal political thinker partlcuarly his recent historiographical incarnation as a republican thinker: but the masslve literature seems not yet to have discussed it.'-

I t IS true. of course, that Machiavelli did not entirely follow through with his dichotomy. Great tension remains in his use of his new republica. In one celebrated passage. he writes that for the last two hundred years his beloved Florence had 'not had a state that could truly becalled a republica" That would have been news ro Bruni. but Machiavelli seems only to have meant to bring to the republican concept the -justice" and 'good order" which Cicero and Augustine had insisted on and which Guicciardini occasion- ally reproached him for finding only in Rome. '~ imilar ly . calline all states either 'monarchies or republics". would suggest placing the classical 'aristocracy" among "republics". Machiavelli seems almost to preclude that option in Book I , discourse 55. "Where there are gentlemen (gen~iluomini)': he says, "in my opinion a republica cannot be establi~hed".'~ Yet throughout Book Ill. he Insists that a proliferation of excellent leaders is the hallmark of a republica. To avoid a contradiction and confront the Venetian example, he defines genriluomini as landed aristrocrats who live idly, a class which. he says, is not only compatible with monarchy but indeed makes monarchv f~r incimro) inevitable. To sum uo. the Mach~avellian republica 1s a state constitutionally organised to maintain a steady level ofjustice, energy,and virtue over time. and which. without a king or hereditary aristocracy. lies under the sovereignty of its entire citizenry. and is governed in rotation by groups of many of i ts leading citizens.

Viewed alongside such a Roman standard. Florence was a distinct disappomtment. and Machiavelli may well have written The Prince in a despairing effort to m o w his belowd city quickly forward through the despotic stage of the old classical cycle so that a new and more satisfactory republica might emerge at last from the wreckage. Whatever his motives. Machiavelli's works

were all launched into the sea of print by 1532. with immediate and uninterrupted appeal. and they have carried the most extreme humanist definition of republic with them ever since.

Princes and despots took over almost every city but Venice during the 15th and 16th centuries, but Machiavelli's republica did not disappear. The association of republica with demokraria or popular rule ('govemo oooolar" or %ivtre oonolarS as found in Landuca, am5 not last mucn beyond the tall ot the becond Florentine Republic in 1512: but the more moderate Aristotelian association with popular sovereignty is clear in Contarini's famous book on Venice, written in 1523-24. in Donato Gianotti's on Florence, printed in 1531. in Gianotti's work on the Venetian constitution, printed under the Venetian Gianmichele Bruto's editorship in 1571, in Bruto's own Latin treatise on Florence printed in 1562, and in Felice Figliucci's De la Polirica. Overo Scienza Civik Secondo la Dorrrina D'Arisrorile. printed in 1583.40

As for the key concept that republicacannot be ruled by one. o r by a monarch. it is clear in Francesco Patrizi's Della hisroria diecr dialoghi and De insrirurione Reipublicae printed in 1560 and 1578, Paolo Paruta's Della Perfezione del& vira politico of 157 1 and 1579. Giovanni Botero's Relazioni universali of 1593. and a sentence In Campanella's lo Cirra de Sol. written in 1602.41

And most of these. beginning with Machiavelli himself. were translated. Each translation has its importance. but especially those of Machiavelli, Contarini, Patrizi and Botero. Machiavelli's key concept of republicaentered French as republique in 1544 and 1553, Spanish as republica in 1555. Latin as res publica in 1570 and 1581. Dutch as republijck in 1615. and English as common- wealth in 1636 and 1640.

Contarini's slightly less anti-monarchical concept was not even first printed in his native Venice but instead in Paris in 1543. Thi5 Latin edition was followed within the year by an elegant French translation, while the English translation had to wait until 1599. Guicciardini's Ricordi saw their first printing in France in 1576. Patrizi was put into English in 1574. Botero in 1601. 1603 and 1608.42 Paruta was not translated. but his view was that there were two kinds of republiche. "degli ottimati9'and 'di molti". the feu (and best) and the many. Monarchies were something else Similarly. Paruta's Italian Discorsi polirici in 1599 describes Rome "sotto nome di repubblica" as a state ordered by laws allowing true rule in which many magistrates had freer power than a single prince."

In English. Contarini's commonwealrh is a mixture of rule by the one, the few. and the many; and as such, is acknowledged to have had a considerable effect on English thinkers'developing view ot their own c o n s t i t u t ~ o n . ~ The English version of Patrizi's De insrirurione Reipublicae, the 1579 A Moral Merhod of Civile Policie . . of the institution, stare, andgovemmenr q fa common Weale is that 'the lqfe of a Civill and well inst~tuted common weale is to be thought far more safer than of everye Prince". It also includes a n early version of Harrington's-empire of laws": "That is counted the beste Common weale wherein not every man that listeth or the more parte doe beare auctoritye. at ye Becke and Checke of wyll. but that common weale wherein the Lawe onelye shall beare a ~ w a y e " . ~ ?

The 1599 translation of Patriri's Dieci dialoghi takes off from Aristotle's six forms of governments in pairs of good and bad (probably from the Nichomachean Ethics). Since these are trans- lated into English as 'a Kingdome, a Tyrannye, the rule of many good men. the rule of few, mightye in power: a common welth. and the rule of the base sorte of people", a common welrh becomes the good form of democracy. Such states don't have princes. lords. kings or tyrants. but "Magistrats".""

Botero's little guide to world politics required an addition to its title between I601 and 1603. The second edition includes the word Common-weales in addition to 'kingdomes". All this helps to explain why, when John Florio publishes his Italian-English Dictionary in 1598 and 161 1. we are not surprised that his definition of republica includes a "free state". going farther. as we shall see. than contemporary English usage.*7

The steady beat of translations from the Italian, however. was not enough to bring the Machiavellian, much less the modem meaning of republic into French and English. For most northern humanist wri t en res publica, republic and republique remained completely contained within scholarship and legalese. As we have seen, Thomas Elyot and Thomas Starkey in the 15% m r e using publike weal and cornrnonwealrh in an entirely Ciceronian, even a n Augustunan scnse.a Thomas Smith was using the same word in the same way in De Republica Anglarurn in 1572, Richard Hooker in 1599. and Thomas Royd. as we have seen, in 1600. No less than James 1 used the then pedantlc equivalent, Republicke, in the Ciceronian sense in 1598 and 1603.4Y Though Aristotle's polireiu number 2, with its idea of sovereignty of the people, made steady gains, marked by the celebrated French translation of the Politics by Louis Le Roy in 1568, and though anti-monarchical trends never ended in this age of royal power, no sixteenth century writing in either monarchy suggests that a res publica could be thought of essentially as kingless.50 On the contrary. in 1560, Guillaume Postel was able to refer to the Republique of the Turks, a monarchy already proverbially absolute and tyrannical to Europeans.jl In this process, the growing fashion for Contarini's Venice, with its princely and life- time (but elective) dogeship. did not help.

The historical discipline was remade in 16th century France. One of the lawyers who remade it was Nicolas de Grouchy; but his analysis of the ancient Roman constitution, published in 1555. used respublica with almost comic ambiguity. In the Roman Res public4 he wrote, the people should be thought of as having sovereignty (ornne imperlm, ornnern maiesrarem); yet he described this same Res publica in the same paragraph as a combination of three kinds of Reipiublicae. which he gives in the Greek (of Aristotle, certainly, and probably Polybius): busileiu, arisrokraria and dem0kraria.5~ Such work may well have been on the mind of Grouchy's fellow lawyer, Jean Bodin. when he began writing his diatribes against the jargon of 'mixed government" in his Methodus of 1566."

GuiUaume de la Perriere in LP rniroir polirique of 1567 used Aristotle's list of state forms from the Nichornachean Erhics (arisrokrariu, basileiu, rimokraria, oligarchia, dernokraria, rvrannis -- a bit like Plato's) instead of the one from the Polirics.54 Llke brouchy, he also gave them in Greek. The Bhics, we may conclude. led to less confusion than the Polirics, but not much. To all six of his constitutions la Perriere applied the same term. republique. Aristotle's ~olireiu 1, which reduced the word to a simple synonym for civrrasor ~ t a t e . 5 ~ Louis Le Caron's Dialogues of 1556 illustrates what may be the principal influence of Plato. whose Polivia first saw print in 15 13. Translated as Res Publica, its title came to mean to readers either simply "statew or. more interestingly, "ideal state", what More had produced in Utopia. and Louis Le Caron meant by "une perfaite Republique".j6

The most passionate 'republican" among northern humanists was surely Etienne de la Boetie, but his use of the word republique was entirely Ciceronian.j7 In Discours sur la servitude

was entirely Ciceronian.j7 In Discourssur la servirude volonraire. written between 1546 and 1555, long before the Huguenots published it in the religious wars, he asks two revealingquestions: whether the other kinds of republique are better than monarchy or whether monarchy belongs in the ranks of republques a t all. since "it is difficult to believe that there is anything public in this government, where everything belongs to one".Ja Answering such a question might one day have led to a Machiavellian usageof the word. but to ask it rhetorically implied a classical-medieval one. Certainly. La Boetie hated kings. but, as Nannerl Keohane has polnted out, he hated their creatures more. and his critique of monarchy was fundamentally aristocratic.5Y As we shall see with Sidney more than a century later. one can be what we would now call a republican without ever using the word republicas a modem republican would.

Indeed, in France the fate of the word republique was for two

centuries bound up with the nobles in their Long seesaw struggle with the crown. This meant that to flourish in France republique would have had to shed some ot ~ t s democratic Itallan baggage. and that not one but both of the two classical alternatiws to monarchy would have somehow had to come under the definition of republic. This never quite happened, even to rebel Calvinist nobles in the 16th century; though in England. as we shall see. something like it occurred in the next century.

Calvinism. of course, began in the independent republic of Geneva and its unique church organisation took as much from the circumstances of a Renaissance free city as it did from the Acrs of the Aposrles. The Calvinist organisation, moreover. quickly became an anti-monarchical revolutionary cadre in the belly of Leviathan. In the late sixteenth century, though we lately prefer to speak of gentry and peasants, historians must point to Calvinists as instrumental in damagmg royal authority in France, replacing it in Scotland; and overthrowing it completely in the Netherlands. One might expect to see this radicalism reflected in their useof the word republique; but it wasnl.

The Huguenot 'monarchomachsw. enemies of kings, were at no time in the sixteenth century described as republican. Nor did they. or anyone else describe their great opponents, the Catholic monarchomachs, as republican. In fact this word did not yet exist in any language, even Italian. Both parties flirted with and occasionally praised tyrannicide. both approved of the (ultimate) sovereignty of the people; but neither pushed the word respublica as far as Machavelli had in the first sntence of 7he Prince. Nor did they use the word in any stronger sense than Aristotle's polireia 2. Take, for example Francois Hotman's Francogalliu of 1573. This famous Huguenot attack on Catholic kings and unconstitutional monarchy was read right down to theeighteenth century. It did not use res publira in Machiavelli's sense. but instead in the second Aristotelian sense. France is a Respublico where the populus is sovereign. he says, but it is always governed by a king." Though uneasy enough, perhaps, to appeal to the Roman writer Sallust in support of this meaning, Hotman uses it throughout Francogalliu, even in celebrated passages where he endorsed the French people's (meaning the elite's) right to make kings (ius regern consrituendorurn)and its right to resist and over- throw them?' In his view, apparently. they could not overthrow a tyrant without choosing a king to replace him. A monarchomach was not a republican.

The best known of the Catholic monarchomachs was Juan d e Mariana. and he used the word respublicajust as Hotman had. In De rege er regis inrtirurione (1599), Mariana defined the word exactly along the lines of Aristotle's polireiu 2, a state with ultimate popular sovereignty which was distinguished from democracy in that it used aristocracyand monarchy to institute its magistracies?2 Mariana devotes an entire chapter (VIII) to the question of whether the king (rex)or his respublica wassupreme. eventually deciding that neither or both were, depending on the circumstances. In the following chapter he argued that the law was superior to the kingh' The reader familiar with the literature of political science will recognise all these thinkers a s belonging to a canon called 'constitutional monarchists"; but. having examined their use of the word respublica, he or she may be more willing to set them in other lines of development as well.

Calvinists challenged monarchy by advocating that it be limited. and that theoretically the people were sovereign. but Calvinists who stayed out of politics may have had an ultimately larger effect on the meaning of res publica. They did this by joining the intellectual opposition to Aristotle and to the scholastic method with which Aquinas and others had associated him in the Middle Ages. An important leader of this movement, and an important Calvinist, exerted, in France and especially in England. a powerful influence on philosophical methodology. This was. of course Pierre d e la Ramee or Petrus Ramus, the French translator of Plato's Republique. His most remarkable contribution was the method of repeated dichotomy, dividing a field of objects of thought into two mutually exclusive parts until adesired category had been reached and precisely described."

Something like this method is now commonplace in computer

programmes u ~ t h tl~err b~ndrq loglc. The Importance ol Ramus's method tor poht~ca l thought IS that In favouring dualmes oLer trlnltles ~t tended to des tab~hse theclass~cal commonplace (a t least as old a s Herodotos) that all states were ruled e ~ t h e r by one, b! the few. or by many. R a m ~ s m favoured mstead the analysls that states were rules e ~ t h e r by one or by more than one. In other words that arlstocracy and democrat) must belong In one category, monarchy In the other

1 would like to be able to offer conclusive ev~dence for this insight, and hope in the future to d o so; but here 1 can only report negatively that he did not use his razor o n Plato's political trinities in his translation of the Politeia. I can, however, d o more than point to the striking relationship between Ramist method and Adams's 1787-89 definition of republic. In Johannes Althusius's Polirica Merhodice Digesta of 1603, the method of dichotomies is ~nescapable and its results exactly what might be expected. According to Althusius, a state must have one of two forms: monarchy or polyarchy. Polyarchy, in turn. has two lorms: arlstocracy and democracy. If he had turned the word respublica to mean polyarchy rather than simply "state". Althusius might have found himself cited by Adams a s his earliest a ~ t h o r i t y . ~ J Praise of Ramus and evidence of Ramist dichotomies in political termmology may also be found in Sir Walter Raleigh's Hisroryof [he World, that favourite book of the English Calvinists. in 1614.hh

The Calvinist federal hierarchy of synods elected from below might have provided an excellent example of republican organisation for anyone disposed to see it. but except for a n occasional prowl by James I , n o one was yet applying political concepts to the organisation of churches within a state. What was happening was the emergence of a new political science to better describe functioning federative political systems like Poland. the Empire. Switzerland and the war-torn Netherlands. A principal figure here was the same Johannes Althusius who pioneered the Ramist approach to political definitions. Althusius. like Polybios and unlike Plato, admired mixed governments of all kinds, including confederations like the E m p ~ r e in which he lived.

It is not that none of these trends survived. It was that Bodin's great work, Six livres de la Republique overrode everything. As is well known, Bodin's work was one of the first great triumphs of something we would now call historical scholarship. It was intim- ~datingly comprehensive in its grasp. not only of the rapidly enlarging field of secular histor). but also of the increasingly prestigious one of classical learnmg. Second, it was powerfully clear and logical, Cartesian as we m g h t say, in its central argu- ments. The concept of sovereignty in Bodin simply excluded mlxed government a s a solecism: so that the whole effect of Aristotle's ana lys~s of state forms became obsolete and Polybios's emphasis o n the resistance of complex constitutions to decay - anak~.klosis -- was dispensed with.h7

Third. it was the most useful single work on politicsand law in the hands of religious moderates trying to find a political solution to the c i ~ l l wars. I tsauthori ty was a s unique as that of the Esprit des 1 0 1 5 would be two centuries later. As France moved towards absolute monarchy under the stress of assassination and rehgious war. Bodin's definitions of republique and souwrainere simply w e p t the field. and translations of the work ensured that cognates of republique would enter every European literary language.

Contrary to the almost universal belief of us dix-huitiemisres, it was the Puritan Revolution that finally brought back Mach~avelli's use OS republic to mean a state without a king. [!p until then. lt seems. the two connotations of popular sovereignty and of .just and complex order were enough in tension to prevent t h ~ s lrom happening. A rather neat example of how Ciceronian language continues in full revolution is Lord Brooke's cuhortatlon to his roundhead soldiers in 1643, in which he relerrcd to "that great commonwealthman of the Romans. C'~ccro-.~ ' .

Thc need for a new word only became acute in February. 1649.

after the t r ~ a l and cxecutlon 01 Charles I . In 1647. commonrc.ealrh 1s rare and republlr nonexistent in the Putney debates which all concern 'settling the kingdom". "Kingdom", commonn~ealth. and 'nation" a re nearly synonymous. But with the abolition 01 'monarchy" on 7 February, 1649, the words "monarchy" and 'kingdom" 'both became unusable for supporters of the revolution. except to refer to h~s tor ) . O n the I 1 th. there was even a law which replaced 'K~ng"in legal documents with 'keepers of the Liberties of England", and there are numerous less formal instances of the replacement of *kingdom". Commonwealth or ,free-srate is, of course. more commonly used than republic and commonwealrh 's-man seems to force ou t republican, but three are there by 1650, all four by 1659, in the rhetoric of the English Re~olution.69

Perhaps the earliest is Commonwealthsman, spelled in this way in one of the earliest Leveller pamphlets of 14 June, 1647. and used to mean a n enthusiast for (more) l i b e r t ~ . ~ O Republic is the last to appear. Willlam Walwyn's pamphlet, A Man~fesratron . . . of 14 April, 1649. contains the word in the satisfyingly unambiguous clause "even when the Monarchy is changed into a R e p ~ b l i k e " . ~ ~ May 19 brought the Act of Parliament declaring England 'a Commonwealth o r Free-state", upon which the word Free-state is almost immediately turned against the Parliament by a Leveller attack.7! Merruriur Pragmaticus of 12 J u n e refers to the "new device of the Republic". Moderate Intelligencer in early July reports unhappily that these days "if you say, 'Caesar or noth~ng' . they say, 'a republick o r nothing'. T' O n 6 November a vlscount hrltes his father, a n earl. that the Swiss "ministers . . . publicly give God thanks for the establishment of the r e p ~ b l i c " . ' ~ Diploma- tically, England is quickly styled ?he Republic of England": such was the title demanded of the Venetian ambassador by Master of Ceremonies Sir Oliver Fleming in 1651.''

In January. 1650. Parliament settled o n "The Commonwealth o f England" a s the subject of oaths of allegiance. "as it is now established, without a king or House of Lords". and thls is (probably not intentionally) about as close to Machiavelli's republira, his srato libero of the Discourses I: 19ff with neither king nor gentlemen. a s anyone had come so far. Marchamont Nedham. Parliament's publicist. knew exactly how close. and wrote in The Case of [he Commonwealth of England Srated that -to our present case Machiavelli speaks very aptly . . . a natlon which hath cast off the yoke of tyranny o r kingship. for in h ~ s language they (tyranny and kingship) a r e both the same thing".7h S e d h a m also completed the circle of Aristotelian influence by translating polireia 2 as "free state"." The modern meaning of republic had a r m e d . Once King Charles was dead. the only question was whether the older meanings would return if monarchy were to be restored

This IS the question that makes the Cromwell episode interesting to the republic-hunter. Did Cromwell the monocrat subscribe to the old idea of republic. the new idea. o r (like most contem- poraries) a bit of both? How would his regime have beendifferent i f the ideas had been'?

Bulstrode Whitelocke records two conversations with thedictator ~n S o \ e m b e r and December. 1651. in which Cromwell makes it clear that a mixed monarchy was not, ~n his mind. a r e p ~ b l i c . ' ~ Perhaps Cromwell chose a mlxed monarchy. and this is why he emerged with the old royal regent's title of Lord Protector. T o this there was what must be called a republican opposition. which included, to name a Sew. Whitelocke, Ludlow. Sidney. and "William Allen" (who seems to have been Sexby) who had a pamphlet printed in 1657 that advocated killing tyrantsand aimed at C r ~ m w e l l . ~ ~

It will be asked. what was Thomas Hobbes doing'? LPviarhan was published in 1651 and so was Hobbes's own translation of h15 De Cive of 1642. Neither uses republic. In fact. Hobbes seem5 to actually avoid it. Perhaps he thought it was politically loaded. o r that it wasn't quire English. Cornrnonw~ealth, which he does use. appears in both De Cive and LPviarhan used very much in the Bodin sense, whlch Hobbes may have absorbed during his years In Paris. of ordered state. De Ciw is of particular interest because ~t is Hobbes's own translation from his prerevolutionary Latin.

' uhere the word tor state In general I S clvrras. Hobbe3 begrns b! translatmg t h ~ s as "aty" ("monarchy IS no less a c i t ~ than democracy'?), but In chapter 10 he swltches to ' ~mmonwea l " .~u

It may be one of the foundations of Hobbes's extraordinary originality that he started with a Bodin sense of the word republic and stubbornly struggled to hold on to it during the Civil War. Even afterwards, in Behemoth (written in 1668). Charles 11's old tutor was still. with one exception, using commonwealrh in the old sense to analyse the history of the Puritan Revolution. The nearest he came to the term republican was to describe Ciceroand Seneca as 'anti-monarchies". Interestingly, Spinoza took the same rearguard action. Though he loved his respuhlica, the Netherlands. in the posthumous Tracrarus Poliricus of 1677-78 he used civiras for state in general. and respublica (uniquely. as far as 1 can see) for policy or affairs of state.nt

.Also in 1651. John Milton published his first Defense. It was in Latin and represents a sort of compromise between the new and the old meanings of respublica. Milton recorded in his common- place book, in a mix of Italian and Latin. the impact of reading Machiavelli in the original around this time: and in at least three of these references he opposed monarchy to respuh. Most of the time In the Defensio his word meansa (good) state withouta king. but not always. According to Milton, when the Jews chose King Saul. God allowed their republic to be changed from being administered by many to by one ("ab uno a pluribus respub. administraretur'?. It should, of course. be noted that for Milton whatever government the Jews might have must be approved by God. and a government approved by God was what Augustine had implied in his discussion of res publica in C i r ~ of God. In 1654. Milton's res publica was unambiguously modern in the Dqfensio secunda. where Milton writes that the "attack which I , in a republic (Respublica), am seen to make against kings (Reges). you. in a kingdom (Regno) . . . d o not dare to make against the republic (Rempublicam)".~~

Other uses of commonn~ealrh, commonwealrhman, res publica and republic that seem unambiguously modern ( o r Machiavellian) can be found in 1652 (Winstanley, John Selden In Nedham's translation), and in 1653 (R . H.). In fact. all the uses I have been able to find are modern until the publication of 7he Commonwealrh qf Oceana in 1656.

S o one could be more of a classical republican - or more classically a republican - than James Harrington, whom John d a m s remembered in 1775 defining a republic as "a government ol laws and not of men".x' But Adams's memory was not quite accurate, and the mistake is revealing. What Harrington really \*rote was that 'Government . . . is the Empire qf Lnn,esand not of .Men': adding later that it was Aristotle's and Li\y's "assertion that a common-wealth is an Empire of Lawes and not of Men".x4 Harrington was, of course, a mixed government man. a republi- can unafraid of a properly limited king or executive. and sanguine about the uses of aristocracy, views close to those that Adams came to represent. In Harrington's view. which he italicized for emphasis. "Wherher a Common-w,ealrh be .Monarchical or Popular, rhe- freedom is rhe same; "and he defined common wealrh in several ways in Oceana, all of them Aristotelian rather than Machiavellian. "Common-wealths in general be Governments of the Senate proposing. the people resolving. and the magistracy rxecutlng", was one. Another was "A Common-wealth is nothing else but the Nat~onal Conscience". The variety he called an "equal Common-wealth" (that recommended by Sprigge and Milton in 1659) was. he thought. the best and most durable. I t was a 'Government established upon an equal Agrarian. arising into the superstructures or three orders . . ."The man said at the time to be thc only one in England who'knew what a republic was"sti1l used thc word commonwealrh in an Aristotelian sense.x5

f'erhaps t h ~ s helps to expld~n why Harrmgton and the bnght Ioung Harr~ngtonlans found i t so much easier to accept the Restoration than the rad~cal 'commonwealthsmen" One of the larter in 1657 defined a Common-nealrh as a unlon of fam1lie5 111 ing under a goLernment that 11 or God has chosen Clcero and Augustme are mvoked to add justice to the definit~on. dnd 5ophocles 1s quoted to probe that 'Tl rann~e loses that name.

and is actually another thing", and to recommend tyrannrc~de. I t is in thinking like this that cornmonwealrh retains 11s radical character, even when given an old-fashioned delinition; but it is clear that the friends of kingless government were fewer as the Restoration approachedK6

As for the enemies of the commonwealthsmen, they seem to have been the ones who invented the word republican, from Prynne and Butler in 1659-60 to L'Estrange in the 1680s. It began as their term of abuse. fully 32 years before the first citat~on in the OED. Prynne's 7'he Re-Publicans a n d Others Spurious Good Old Cause gives that logorrheic Presbyterians very important place in the history, not of republican thought. but of republican semantics. In it. he uses the word Republicfi,ck,ke) to refer to England under Richard Cromwell, and to England from 1649 to the Protectorate. It is the contrary of 'Monarch" and of 'Electrve Kingdom". and the equivalent of .free-srare, of an 'Oligarchy". and of any state without a kings7 Prynne's Republicanr in 1659 and 1660 include the leaders of the Rump. the Independents. the Anti-Protectorate party. Marcus Brutus, Jesuits. Hollanders.and the Thirty Tvrants of Athens. all of which means that he is not only the first to use the word republican, he is also the first to use republic to include aristocratic tyranny - or any kind of tyranny.~"amuel Butler's uses are similar, less extensive. and funnier. as befits the author of Hudibras. Butler may also have been, in 1662. the first to put the relationship between republican- ism and Calvinist church movement into verse: "Presbvreriedoes but translate. The Papacy to a Free Srare: A Common-n,ealrh of Poperie Where ev'ry Villane is a Seew.Nq

For twenty years and more after the Restoration. this kind of mutual recrimination is all that keeps the words republic, republican and commonn~ealrhrman alive. This is almost the case with republicand to a lesser extent with commonwealrh. The only other continuous use of these words seems to have been in diplomacy and geography, to distinguish the small surviving non- monarchical states of Europe from the large monarchies that were so much more usual. We can see this best in the development of the French word repuhlique, which we left u nder the magistraq of Jean Bodir~.~"

V l l l

French lex~cographers find only one use of the Machiavelhan republique between Bodin and the Furetiere dictionary of 1694. the publication In 1620 of the Memoiresof Boucicault. reporting the 1410 exhortation of the Pisans to the Genoese. 'kivez en republique comme nous". T o this one might add Louis Le Roy's distillation of his lifetime of learning. De la vrcissirude ou varrere des choses en l'univers of 1575. LE Roy's judgment that republics are more grateful to meritorious citizens than monarchis is that of one of the French kingdom's greatest scholars who e e m s nevertheless to have gone hungry often. We should also note a fairly clear use by the apostate protestant Remond in 1605 and a much more ambiguous one by Jean de Brebeuf. a Jesuit missionary in Canada in 1636. Classical scholars whose Society had produced apologists for tyrannicide. Jesuits saw republics among the Hurons and created them among the ltati of Paraguay. There may be other. less ambiguous uses of our word among their records, but at least one. in 1653, about the 'regime republicain" of the Hurons suggests, not Jesuit ideas. but the effect of a failed revolution called the F r ~ n d e . ~ '

The Fronde brought anti-absolutists briefly our of hiding, and republique out of its Bodinian shrine. The Mazarinades record what Le Tellier and Mazarin, in a conversation of 21 August. 1650. recalled as a demand of the people for a republique. One asked, on l l February. 1649. "Quel droit a le Parlement . . . de mettre main au gouvernement de I'Estat? Sommes-nous en quelque Republique'? - are we In some kind of Republic'! And there are other references, all more than thirty years before the citations in Robert and Walther von Wartburg. making i t clear that republique and repuhlicain had quite suddenly come into use to mean non- and ant~monarchic . What never happened in the

lekered literature of relig~ous war In the 16th century. happened in the volitical strueeles of the 17th.Y2

D d this require the direct influence of the Commonwealth of England? Perhaps. The timing is precise, and Philip Knachel has detailed the genuine English connection with the uprising in Bordeaux. Knachel also found at least two instances of the use of republicain to describe the Frondeurs in 1652 and 1653 in the Conde manuscripts at Chantilly. Hobbes's translator, Samuel Sorbiere, seems to have used the word in a letter to Courcelles on 1 July. 1652. Since the usage we are measuring seems to disappear from French from the establishment of Cromwell's dictatorship to 1676 (though there is an ambiguous use in the manuscript of Cyrano's Hisroire comique). the reasoning may be sound.Y?

In France. even more than in England. the usage was short-lived. The few suggestive uses of republique between 1653 and 1675 are ambiguous. either historical. o r based on the diplomatic d~stinction. Jean (or John) Chardin, who wrote up his travels in the absolute monarchy of Persia, and published them in both his natlve France and his adopted England, used republique without exception in talking about the Italian free cities. Louis Moreri's Le rand dicrionaire hisrorique of 1674 begins "la nouvelle republique" in Rome with Brutus. Nicolas-Abraham de la Houssaye Amelot had been a French ambassador to Venice, and he returned with a diplomatic, not to mention a Venetian. senseof our word that stands out considerably in the Age of Louis XIV. Clearly. the great power of which the French were subjects had relations with many states that were not only less powerful but also stubbornly and survivably different. The great enemy. the United Provinces of the Netherlands. for example, the Republic of Venice, the Swiss Confederation, and the Republic of Geneva were all named in Amelot's 1675 Hisfoire du gouvememenr de Vrnise in a political glossary at the end; and if one adds up the categories (or dichotomizes them). a republiqw includes aristo- cracy and democracy. but not monarchy. Amelot. moreover, was a translator of Machiavelli and familiar w ~ t h the career of Boucicault.94

Meanwhile in England both commonwealrh and republic were los~ng some of their revolutionary connotation in the years following the Restoration: but they continued to be used occasionally in more neutral contexts. We hardly know whether the partisan nouns. Commonweal~hsman and republican, lost any strength because they all but disappeared from print between IW and 1671. All I have been able to find is the memo of a conversation with Charles 11 in Ashcraft's new study, reportmg that around the time of the signing of the Secret Treaty of Dover in 1670, Charles I 1 called Holland a refuge whose destruction uould hurt "the Commonwealth faction in England".''> Old rebolutionaries and regicides survived their defeat. many in New England. the Netherlands and Switzerland; but they seem not to have described themselves in either the enemy's terms or their own.

I cannot help wondering if thih was not a bit like the fate of the words "hippie" and "radical" in the United States in the 1970s. In any case. something the ex-revolutionaries still called the "good old cause" took a new lease on life in 1678, that well-known period in British political history called the "emergence of parties". Those who are not political historians may welcome a review. The initial issue was the attempt by some political leaders to "exclude" the Catholic heir to the throne. .lames, Duke of York. from the succession: and their excuse was the by now traditional left-wing anti-Catholicism of the British populace, fanned into fury by the apparently false report of a Catholic plot. Partisans of the Exclusion Bill, led by Anthony Ashley Cooper. Earl of Shaftesbury. came to be called Whigs, and their opponents. Tor~es: and in a bewildering decade-long series of political actlons. legal and treasonous. public and clandestine, the regime of the restored Stuarts was brought to a n ignominious end. .Almost immediatel?. the neh rulers and their Whig supporters ran Into s~milar oppos~tion from the Tories which lasted until the roles were reversed in 1701

In chronolog~cal order. this series of events is called the Popish Plot. the Exclusion Parliaments of 1679 and 1680. The Third

Exclusion Parl~ament, or Oxford Parliament. of 1681. the tnal and exile of Shaftesbury in 1681, the Rye House Plot of 1683, the Monmouth Rebellion, or Western Rising, of 1685. and the Glorious Revolution of 1688. After the Revolution came the Standing Army Controversy (also called the Paper War) in 1697- 99 and the impeachment of the Whig ministers in 1701. Each of these gave rise to a voluminous literature in an England of many. relatively free, presses. The literature, in turn, shows a steady increase in the use of the terms Commonwealfh, Republic, Commonwealrhsman, and Republican, includ~ng particularly interesting uses by John Locke and Jonathan Swift.

In 1671. we find both our partisan terms in Samuel Parker's A Defence and Conrinuarion of the Ecclesiasrical Polity. In 1675, Shaftesbury gives a speech in Parliament warning of a 'Democraticall Republique". and leading to the suspicion that he was in favour of one. In 1677. we find a very Machiavellian republic in the English translation of Amelot de la Houssaye's book on Venice. As soon as the Exclusion Crisis begins. however, unless my search has been skewed. the tempo rises. In 1679, the Republicks of Italy were mentioned in a pamphlet on foreign policy. In 1680 John Maxwell made the assumption. which neither Hotman nor Bodin would have made. that sovereignty of the people by contract is 'antimonarchical". On I I December of that same year. Nathaniel Lee put a self-dscribed common- wealrh's man who did not "naturally love kings", on the London stage. His Lucius Junius Brurus (actually about Marcus Brutus) was closed by the government on 12 December.96

In 1679, Filmer's Parriarcha had had ~ t s first. long posthumous. publication, and in 1681, JamesTyrrel madethe first printed reply to it. while Locke and Sidney began to think out their own. more famous ones. Tyrrel was careful in his preface to overstate the accusations against him. that he was a commonwealrhsman who 'wanted to set up a democracy amongst us". 1681 also saw the publication of Bmfus (Lee. the frustrated playwright settled for a quarto instead of a production). and of the extended Harrington- ian tract, Plaro Redivivus, by Henry Neville. On 13 April that year, with the Third Exclusion Parliament meeting at royalist Oxford. Charles 11's new publicist. Cavalier veteran Roger L'Estrange, debuted his weekly called 7he Observaror which tarred the Whigs as Common-wealrhs-men and "antimonarchical sectaries" from the first issue to the last. In November came Dryden's great satire on Shaftesbury, Exclusion, and "the General Cry Religion. Common-wealth. and Liberty" in Absalom and Achirophel, the victory piece of the Tories after Shaftesbury's trial?:

In January, 1682. White Kennett described the contract theory of government as a 'Republican" notion. John Evelyn described the [andon Gazerre as republicarian. John Northleigh. a prolific Stuart publicist who used the word often. described as 'republican des~gns" efforts to limit the king's power and bring the regime "near . . . to the nature of a commonwealth". Dryden in 7he Medallused the word Republique twice. the second time to draw the parallel dear to James I that presbyterian church govern- ment was "Republique Prelacy". A pamphlet that I have not been able to date exactly, but is probably from 1682, talks of those who would have "the Monarchy made dissolvable into a Republick upon his Majesty's Death". Clearly the words were being bandied as if there were indeed republicans about who wished there to be no king in England. If there were any such republicans. they were few and circumspect: but the fact remains that the accusation of wanting no king was applied to the Whigs by Tories precisely through the words we have been studying.y*

When a plot against Charles I 1 actually transpired in 1683. one of the victims of the royal revenge was, in fact. a republican stra~ght out of the Tories' fearful imagination. Algernon Sidney '~ manu- script reply to Filmer. which was instrumental in his conwctlon and beheading and did not see print until 1698, made i t clear that he thought England or any nation could d o without any monarch at all. Later memoirs called him republican, but there is no evidence he said it of h i m ~ e l f . ~ His ideal government. as i t

emerges from the Discourses, was nothing more radical than the 'mixed government" familiar since the rediscovery of Arisrotle and Polvbios. which he referred to as a commonwealrh. He was.

however. aware OS the new resonance of that word since 1649 and by saying 'that all the regular kingdoms of this world are commonwealths", he was in reality arguing that the best "kings" were mere magistrates, and, conversely. that a king who tried to be more was a tyrant to be resisted by force.lM Sidney's mild judgment, 'if l should undertake to say. there never was a good government in the world that did not consist of the three simple species of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, 1 think 1 might made it good", may have been in Adams's mind when he praised Sidney and like writers in his 7houghts on Government and said that they proved ?hat there is no good government but what is republican"."Jl Though the words republic and republican are absent from Sidney's work. history does not need to go much further before the implication is irresistible.

A full-blown rebellion occurred two years later in June and July of 1685. John Northleigh wrote of its defeat as 7he Triumph of Our Monarch,,, over the Plors a n d Principles of Our rebels a n d Republicans. The indefatigable L'Estrange crowed that there would be ^no more . . . confederates for a Republique", though two years later he was warning again of 'republican conspiracy". He did well to correct himself. Among writers on the rebel side who survived the Monmouth Rebellion were Andrew Fletcher, Robert Ferguson, John Wildman, and, if we may follow Ashcraft. John Locke. They remained confederates for limitcd monarchy. and advocates of revolution, always defending themselves against the charge of being republicans.102

As we know. their day came in 1688, and soon after, Locke published his Two Treatises of Government, both probably written earlier. The circumspection that seems now to have obscured Locke's radicalism is evident in the Treatises in many ways. His use of the word commonwealth now adds another, and incidentally adds a bit of evidence to confirm the judgment that the Treatises were composed long before 1688. In the first Treatise Lmke uses commonwealth in the same way as Sidney. He forces Filmer's argument to the reductio that 'all commonwealths are nothing but downright m0narchies"instead of only someof them. Then he forks him with the converse: "or else they were a commonwealth and then where was monarchy'?103 The object is to exclude from the category commonwealth any absolute monarchy. or even any strong one. This is not new.for,as we have seen. an Augustinian definition of res publica could exclude tyranny on the grounds of injusticeand an Aristotelian one could d o the same on the grounds of disorder. All Locke has done with the word is what Sidney did. melding absolutismand tyranny.l["

In the Second Treatise, however, Locke begins to ironize on the word commonwealth. "I crave leave to use (it)". he writes.% that sense I find it used by King James the First: and I take it to be its genuine signification: which if anybody dislike. I consent with him to change it for a better". One appreciates Locke's neat way of avoiding the charge that the commonwealth he meant was the commonwealth of 1649. Later. he mines James I for even more humour, citing that theoretician of absolutism asauthority for the proposition that kings must obey the law. and quoting a Catholic Scot whom James refuted to "prove" that the king is the head of the corpus re@ublicae, or 'body of the commonweal th" .~~J~

Without causing Locke much trouble, a pamphlet of 1705 called his a "republican scheme". When it saw print in 1690 Locke's language was already old, his circumspection no longer needed. That was the year that one "B.E.. Gent". published A Ne:e~. D i c r i o ~ n . of the Terms Ancienr and Modem of the Canring Crew, the first political dictionary. He defined Republican as 'a Common-wealths-man", Whiggs as "The Republicans or Common-wealths-men. under the name of Patriots, and Lovers of Property: originally the Field Conventiclers in the West of Scotland".l" The year before. 1689. we find John Evelyn describing 'Republicarians who would make the Prince of Orange like a state-holder". The OED's citation is from 1691. Radical local W h ~ g politicians were being called "stiffe Republicarians . . . sedulous to promote atheisme" and talking 'violently for it" in 'coffy houses" in 1693. In 1701. parties changed. and John Toland remarked that 'Tories" had become 'downright Republicans". a switch noted in reverse by Addison in 1716 10'

Republic was now. I think. influenced by republican, almost a 'back-formation". (as lexicographers say) in English. 1 take the decade after 1688, to borrow a phrase, to be the Machiavellian moment in the history of the English word republic, because 1 can find no uses after that date which d o not denote a state that has either no single chief executive, or else a highly limited and elected one. Even Swift was using it in this way in his first great satiric pamphlet of 1701.'08

Moreover commonwealth may be observed to have recovered its 1649 meaning in the essays of the ministerial 'Trimmer". Halifax. in 1688 and 1694. In 1697 the conservative poet, Matthew Prior. commented that radical Whig opponents o f a standing army (like Fletcher and Trenchard) offered two 'Extreams A Common- wealth. or else King James". In John Toland's 1698 edition of the ,Memoirs of the old commonwealthman Ludlow. the officers' agreement of 1659 is altered from the original so that the word commonwealth is even more exclusive of monarchy than it had been in 1659. Toland's Ludlow had agreed that the government not be "altered from a Commonwealth. by setting up a King. single person. or House of Peers". The actual agreement was on seven principles "in order to the conservation of this Common- wealth".Mw

Walter Moyle used both the non-monarchical republic and commonwealrh in his EFsa.v on the Constitution and Government of the Roman State, written in 1699. The title itself illustrates the growing modernity of political language; republic had finally ceased to mean "state". even in the most familiar of its historical contexts. 1701, the year theTories impeached the Whig ministry. Daniel Defoe published his True-Born Englishman with its neat and clearly pregnant pun: "Titles are shadows! Crowns are empty things!iThe Good of Subjects is the End of Kings". In 1701 Jonathan Swift published his early masterpiece, a satire on the party struggle disguised as an essay on Greek and Roman history. Here again. the words commonwealthand republicareequivalent and unlike the same words in the writings of Swift's master. Temple. they both exclude monarchies. By implication. England. too. is no monarchy since impeachment is republican. Joseph Addison. who unlike Swift remained a Whig. has the same usage in the Remarks on Several Parts yf Ita11~ in 1703 and in the Spectator of 17 1 1 . In 1707. a conservative writer, one H e n n Gandy, even used the word Repuhlick in its new sense while discussing Aristotle's preference for monarchv in the ethic.^ I N 1

By 1721. with the publications of John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon. republic in England had come to rest. meaning some- thing c lox to monarchy by default. or monarchy severely limited. An "arrant Republican . . . that is. one who is against all Monarchy" was rare. Those who opposed the king's government. even Tories like Bohngbroke. were bound to pet called republicans by their enemies, implying that they were against kings and suspicious of government generally. This domesticated the word, in the same way that British politin became domesti- caled in this period. Only artisan radicals. like Thomas Pame in 1776. remembered the near equwalence of republican and leveller or democrat that had been part of the word before the 1 6 9 0 ~ . ' ~ ~

In France. something similar began to happen. Dissidents. particularly Huguenots. grew in numbers. were recognised. and labelled with the word republicain, denoting. more and more inescapably, opposition to any monarchy. Thus the marquis de Duras in 1676 wrote exasperatedly of 'cet espnt republicain" to Louis XIV's war minister. Adjectival uses in English are equally more partisan and less intellectual. Duras must mean insurgency. dissent, or what the French might now call "I'esprit r o ~ s p e t e u r " . ~ ' ~

Such usage goes back. in French, to the pro-monarchists in the Fronde. and it goes on in the same vein. Richelet's Huguenot Dictionaire. published in Geneva in 1679 (and printed in Rouen in 17191. defines a republicain as "Reipublicae studiosus. qui a I'esprit de Republique. Qui n'aime point l'etat monarchique". He defines Re~ubl ique as 'Respublia. Mot general qui veut dire Etar

1thr.e q u ~ est gouverne par les principaux du peuple. pour le blen commun de I'Etat", adding a poem by De la Vigne opposing Republique to 'grands R O ~ S " . ~ ~ ~

The revocation of the Edict of Nantes raised the stakes of dissidenoe in France. Ponchartrain in Louisiana implemented the government's ban on Huguenot colonists by saying. "le roi n'a pas chasse de son royaume les heretiques pour en faire une republique". Richard Simon wrote that Huguenot writings tended to 'etablir des Republiques". Indeed. Huguenot exile Pierre Jurieu's Lettres pastorales of 1689 proposed a political theory much like Locke's, to justify the Glorious Revolution. popular sovereignty and a son of passive resistance to Catholic kings. His rival, Pierre Bayle. also used the word republicain, meaning a political egalitarian dissident in a letter of 1691. In his emerging Dictionaire critique in 1691. 1692and 1695. Bayle used the word republique in a serious, Machiavellian sense, stronger than the rather bantering Republique des Ietrres coinage. ~mmortalised in his journal of 1683. would suggest. One sentence found under 'Hobbes", appears again under 'Pericles". with republicain simply replaced by "democratique".~~4

Antorne Furetiere's Dictionaire universe/, published in the Netherlands in 1690. was a good deal more explicit. and more generous to republicans. In the article "Libre". he defines an etat libre like Machiavelli's stato libero and Nedham's free-state as 'une Republique gouvernee par des Magistrats elas par des suffrages libres" like those of the Greeks and Romans. Republique he defined as an "etat populaire", a democracy (Landucci's "govern0 popolar") As for a Republiquain, he was 'passione pour la Republique . . ."a lover of his country's liberty like the Brutuses and Catos. Peoples with a 'genie republiquain", like the Genoese, find it difficult to accustom themselves to *gouvernement monarchique"."'

Furetiere's second edition came out m 1694. The Academie francaise dictionary of that year described a republicain as 'mutin. seditieux. opposees a la monarchie". That drew the lines very nicely between the ins and the outs in France. The words did not disappear this time. and the lines did not move. When Montesquieu began his literary career republique had acquired ~ t s antimonarchical meaning for good. and any use of it was bound to be somewhat tendentious. even in the Regency.lIh

Th~s . then. is one of the many subtexts of Montesquieu's famous Lrttres persanes, which delighted and twitted the Parisian reader rn 172 1 . Drawing on Chardin's description of Persian despotism. Montesquieu re~ersed the Bodin term and the Bodin attitude toward monarchy in the mind of his Persian visitor. Monarchy. \ay5 Rhedi. writing home. "est un etat violent. qui degenere toujours en despotlsme ou en republique". In a subsequent letter. Rhedi speculates on the origins of this strange 'gouvernement republicain" in Europe. born of the love of liberty and hatred of kings among the Greeks and carried on by the Romans and Franks.I1'

Montesquieu never changed his mind about what a republic was, even after he finally studied Bodinand Machiavelli. He followed i t In the 1724 Dialogue de Sylla er d'Eucrate, and in 1734 in his essay on the rise and decline of Rome. It is impossible for him to have found i t first in England during his famous visit of 1729-31. Much more likely is i t that his republique was the result of a back- formation from republicain, similar to what happened in England.We may have the earliest example of this in the Jesuit Dictionnuire de Trevoux of 1704. which makes a nice symmetry with one of the last uses of the old word by an antimonarchical Jansenist in 17 17.llh

In 1748 Montesquieu put the modern republique unequivocally rnto the foundations of his vast masterpiece. De I'esprit des lois. H I I thus the first great work of political science to divide the lorms of state into monarchical. despotic. and republicain. ~nstead of some vanation on the Greek triad. Rule of the few and rule of the many becrame in Montesquleu nothing more than sub- categories of republicain. Though it has not really been recogn~sed. there was nothing like it. except Althusius's idea of -polyarch!,". I t is a considerable step in political semantics when

Montesqureu asserts. in h ~ s own quotation marks. "le gouvernement republicain est celui ou le peuple en corps. ou seulement une partie du peuple, a la souveraine puissance: le monarchique, celui ou un seul gouverne, mais par des lois fixes et etablies; au lieu que. dans le despotique, un seul loi et sans regle. entraine tout par sa volonte et ses caprices".Ir9

Montesquieu's counterpart in England was David Hume. He was - a greater philospher and. as we know. not so prominently placed

in the development of eighteenth century political thought as others. His great originality was in his theory of political obligation based on habit and association of ideas. and many think of him, correctly, as a Tory historian with unpleasant things to say about revolution and radicalism. Nevertheless, Hume. who had gone to France as a young man in 1734. written his masterpiece there in three years. and met Montesquieu, was bold and clear in his adoption of the new definition of republic. It is implied in the brief political sections of the Treatise on Human Nature (Book 111, 1740). and it is inescapably explicit in the first volume of the &says, Moral and Political in 1741. The English "mixed form of government . . . is neither wholly monarchical nor wholly republican", wrote Hume in 'Of the Liberty of the Press", devoting a second. and separate essay to deciding what the proportions were.120 In his Ersays of 1742. an additional contribution equates republicwith a Tree state-ruled by the 'Yew" or the 'many", repeatedly contrasting it with "monarchies"of two kinds. *barbarous"and 'civilised". It is tempting to conclude that Hume's three categories were conceived in the presence of the three nearly identical categories of the Erprit des lois, yet to be printed.'?'

In 1755. Samuel Johnson began publishing his great Dicronary. the first with e tymologid documentation. Johnson defines a republicas "a government of more than one". His citation is from Addison. possibly the Remarks on Several Parts of Iral~ in the Years 1701, 1702, 1703, certainly the Spectator, but i t is only an instance; the utterly succinct formulation of nearly a century of development belongs entirely to Johnson. with perhaps a small assist from Lockean epistemology.l22

Adams, who had read Machiavelli early, and would continue to wrestle with this word republic for a lifetime. found Johnson's definition while working on the reply to Paine. Franklin. Price and Turgot that became the Lkfmce o/ the Consritution.r uf Government of the United Slates of A r n e r i ~ a . ~ ? ~ It suited him perfectly. Aristocracy, which he had always thought inevitable. and which he had provided for in the 1780 constitution of Massachusetts. was included by this definition. S o were complex constitutions generally. especially those which balanced the classes or otherwise resembled the mixed government of Polybios: such systems he had always favoured. Popular rule. the freeholder franchise. or the supremacy of democratically elected legislatures, which was what Paine in 1776and Price in 1778 had meant by "republican government", were included too. of course: and thus Adams found it possible to disapprove of the Pennsylvania constitution of 1776 on grounds other than it was unrepublican. Neatly too, though Adams was careful not to say it baldly. Johnson's 'government of more than one" could include limited monarchies like the British.

It did more. Strictly applied, i t excluded only tyranny and absolute monarchy where the king was legis ah.rolutus -- above the law. I t thus included all states that Adams would have recognised as just in the Ciceronian-Augustinian sense: and neatly affirmed the old Harringtonian insight that had charmed him in 1775. an "empire of laws". Adopted by a man of fundamentally conservative temperament, mistrustful of human natureand wary of people en masse. but a man who nevertheless called himseff a republican, its meaning was bound to stabilise. The word still means. primarily in every European language. the absence of kings and tyrants. dictators and despots. and one-man rule of every description, even the unlimited power of a democratically elected executive. So powerful was the modem meaning. even before the Revolution. that in Kenrick's English Dicrionar, of 1773 (otherwise largely cribbed from Johnson's) there is an en tn which is the exact converse of Bodin's so that 'state" is defined as 'a republick: a government not monarchi~aI".l?~

At thi.; pc.int d a m \ may help us approach l r o m a d~ l te ren t angle thc questton that has dogged American htstoriography l u r nearl! twenty yeat> n o w . H o w central t o republican ideolog) is"cla,s~cal \ i r tuc " o r public-spiritedness'! 1)oes this word republic,, espec~all) in the hands o f a n o ld currnudgeon l ike Adams, real ly i m p l y k i r tue a n d class deference'.' H o w much'!

The fact is that these aspects o f Adams's thought abou t repub l~can gobernment were already old-fashioned. a n d much grief fell to Adams f o r no t eucluding aristocracy f r o m his conception as he had e.xcluded monarchy. l o the learned. the o ld meaning o f rcpuhl ic m igh t cont inue t o act as a n undertow o n the new: b u t to most people w h o used the word, i t was b y 1750 n o longer a technical term o i p h i l o w p h y o r classical studies. even less a term f r o m I t a l i a n Rena issance p o l i t i c s . R e p u b l i c a n a n d commonwealrhstnan -- n o less repuh1ic.ain - had meant radicals opposcd t o kings and to deference since the words had been invented i n lM3-39 . Republic, commonwealrh, and r r p u h l i q u e t o t h a e people n o u meant a ( r e l d t t ~ r l ~ ) e g a l ~ t a r ~ a n soclet) wt th 'democratic" government. I t was w i t h these words that .Americans baptised the Commonwea l th o f Pennsylvanta i n 1776. thc Cornmonwca l th o f Vi rg in ia i n 1778. w i th 11s m o t t o "Sic e m p e r tyrannis". and the Commonwea l th o f Massachusetts, f o r w h ~ c h Adams u r o t e the const i tu t ion tn 1780.

I-or the French revolutionarieb. especiall! Robespierreand Saint- Just. the repuhhque demandcd virtue. c las~ ica l l y defined: bu t the most trnportant impl icat ion o f the word was that the k ings were gone. T h e thousand-year monarchy given i ts phi losophical undcrp innmgs b y Jean Bodin's backward- looking def in i t ion o f repuhlique. had come t o a n end. at the w i l l o f the people. Res puhlic,a was n o u . especially i n French. the p c o p l e i thing.

4 5 far as virtue went. the R r p u h l i c a n . ~ w h o gave the name t o .lelicrson'h par ty i n the 1790s thoupht t o have demonstrated iut'l~ictent publ ic spir i t b y p lunging i n t o pol i t icsand tu rn ing rascals ,)ut. They did n o t understand their Republic. t o be the complcx representative democracy. lexicolopised b y N o a h Webster ou t o f Liadison's Fecleralist 10. and fearful ly des~gned t o checkmate lact ions o f the propsrtylesh. Instead. as Thomas Paine put i t i n 7he Righrs of.L-lan. "the government o f America. wh ich is who l l y o n the s ls tem ol' representation. 1s the on ly real republic i n character and practice that n o w ( I i Y l ) exists. I tsgovernment has n o other object than the publ ic business o f the nation. and thcretore It i j proper11 a republic" because "a republic . . . u i t h rc\pect to fi)rr,r . u a s rhe stmplc democratical fo rm" which -1mer1ca adapted :o a large terr i tory b y means o f a system o l r ~ p r c s e n t a t i o n . ' ~ Th is is the last state o f the word i n Amenca. c\cept i o r some scholarly types o n the r ight . I n other words. as the .Struryh~-out k/arri,onian was a m o n g the t i n t t o sax i n 1840. "the \ \ < ~ r d L k m o c r a t 1, y n o n h r n o u s w i th that of' Kepublican".I2-

M ade H . MC(-rtc. -On the Bicenwnmal of the ('on\r~tution". YInd 5trcc.t. 1 . \ 1 . I h Ftbruar). 19x7. rhe ( ' .S. Suprcme Court ha5 held a rrpuhlic to hc 'the \tate"(S~atr L Harri5. L Ha~lry ISC') 599). ahtate U ho\c "adminlstratwn i open to all c1t17rn\" ( 7 oullwr. Droir (,r\*rl /rant.ars I. LX and n . 202, not?). and a go\ernment "ol'ihe pcoplc"( I n rc 1)uncan. I79 ['.S. 449. 75) Oregon hold\ I t hea government b\ "repreaentatr\t.s chmen h! the pcople"iKadderly \ Portland. 44 Or. I in. 732 p 7101.

\oah Wrb\ttr. 1hc.tiorror1 t lX?Xt. UY Johnson Reprint. 1970. ,in~cle "Republic".

.It.;in Hodln. 511. Iwres dr la Repuhlrqur (1576) In Bodin. I h r Sr.\ Ho(~kr.t 01' a Cornmonuralr, tr.. Rrchard Rnolle\ (IH)h). ?d.. Kcnncth D . McRae. Cambr~dge. M A : Haward L. P r e s 1962.

The following is a short list o f contr~butions to the Issue. Adamb. Will1 Paul. -Republ~canism in Political Rhetoric before 1776" in Polrr~c~al Science Quarrerfv. 85 ( 1970) 397: Appleby. Jovce. -Wl~ar 15

Still Republican in the Political Philosophy of Thomas Jel ' fer~on'~' In William & Mary Quarrerly. 39 (1982). 287-309: Applehq. "Kepuhlicanism in Old and New Contexts". i n N'illiotn & ,\lari. Quarrerh. 3rd ser.. 43, Februar). 1986. 20-34 Appleb!. cd.. "Repuo~can~srn- in Amerimn Quarrerlv 77 ( 1985): Ashcraft. Richard. Revolurionar~ Polirics & Locke i Two Trrarises U/

Gox~ernmenr Princeton. NJ: Princeton C. Press. 19x6: Bailyn. Bernard. Ideologic~al Orig~ns qfrhe A m e r i a n Revolurion. Harvard U. I'ress. 1967; Banning Lance. 'Republican Ideology and the Triumph o f the Constittt~on, 1789 to 1793" in WMQ, 3rd scr.. 31 (1979): Carrithers. David W.. -Montesquieu. Jefferson. and the Fundamentals o f EighteenthCentury Republican Theory" in 77w French-American Review, 6 (1982) 160.88: Durand. Yves. Le.\ Repuhliques ou rernps des monarchies, Paris. PLIF. 1073: Everdell. M'illlam R.. The End of Kings: A Hisrori, of Republics and Repuh1ican.r. N Y - l he Free Press. 1983. Fabrr. Jean. -Stan~slah Learc/ynski et I'idee republicatne en France au X V l l l e secle- in 1.~11trirrrc r r Romanrome. Panb. 1963. pp. 121-149 Fink. Z e n S.. The Clac.ri1-a1 Repuhlic.ans, Ekanston. I L : Northwestern L'. Press. 19-15: Gilbert, Fehx. .Mochiar~elli and Guicriardini. Pr~nceton. S J Princeton U Press. 1965: Gribbin. William. "Rollin's Hivor~es and American Republ~can~sm- in William di .Man Quarrerl~.. 3rd aer.. 29 (1972). 61 1-622: Guenee. Bernard. state^ and Rulers in Later .Wrdrrvul Europe. tr. J. Vale from /.'O[.cidenr au 14e er l.(@ siecles, Sew York: H a d Blackwell. 1983: Hinsley. F.H.. S o v e r n g n ~ . 2nd ed.. Cambr~dge: Cambridge U. Prrss. 1986. Jacob. Margaret. The R n d i ~ ~ a l Enli~hrenmenr: Panrheisrs. Freemason> and Repuhlicmc. 1-ondon: Al len & Unwin, 1981: Kenyon. Cecilia M.. 'Republicanism and Radicalism in the American Revolution: An Old-Fash~oned In~erpre~arion" in WMQ X l X ( 1962). 168: Keohanc. Xannerl 0.. Philo.rol)hv and rhe Srare in France: The Rerrai.~.tanc~e ro (he Enlighrhrmmmr. Pr~nceton. h J : Prlnceton I . Pres. 19x0: Kerber. Linda. -Republican Revislon~sm" paper delhered 31 the .4HA Annual Meeting. SY. 1982; Kramninck. lsaac. "Republ~can Re~rs ion~sm Rev~sited" in AHR; Lyons. -1.C.. "Concept of the Rcpuhl~c in French I.ile o l the 16th Centun" In Roman rr\,ieu. 1930: Mager. 'Repuhlik" (artlclr) i n Gesc.hrch/lithe Grundhegrt//c... I ~ . r r k o n drr hisroric~~htvr .Sl)radle in Deur.\(.h/md: Marcu\r. Herhert. "Republ~c" (article) i n E n ~ ~ c . l o p r r l i a .4merrc,ana: McC'racken. I h \ i d . "Republican Rhetoric: The Poli t~c\ ol .Iurnu\" rn En11,qhrmnienr Evsaj..~. 6, no. 2 (1975). 40-51: Morante. Rrginc Ann Markell. "Denruc ra~~"and "Kepuhlic" in Arnericun /dcwloy~. 17x7-lh40. Colurnb~a L'nikersit!. P h D Ihss.. 1971: Vicolet. C'laudc. 1.Fdrc r q ~ u h l ~ c u ~ ~ r r m Franw. 1780-1024, par^\- (iallimard. IYX? Pcterwn. I'aul. " Ihe Mean~ng of Republicam\m In The F?c.tli,ralrrr " m f ih / iu .> 9 1 1070): Pocock. J .G. A.. 771r t.lo~~hrai~rl/run .Wontent. I'nnccton. U.I. Prrnceton l:. Press. 197 : Raah. t e l ~ x . Ihe En,qli~li Fucr U/' . L f u d ~ i o ~ ~ r l l ~ . L.ondon Rout ledge 8. Krgan Paul. l 965: K icmer. \?al. "The Republicanism of James Mad~son" In Polrrr~ul .S( I C ~ I ~ P QuurrerIc~~ h9 ( 1954): Robbin\. ('arol~ne. ed.. TNYI h,qlt,\h Kcy~rrh/rc.a~~ Tro~.r.\. Cambridge: Cambridge I ' . 1'rc5\. 1969. Schuocrer. I.& C;.. "I, Sranclinp ..lrnli(~v.'" The, I n t r a r ~ t ~ i I t l e o b ~ ~ i ~ rrr .\01~11eet7th Cmturr. Enplancl, Baltimore. MI). John\ Hopkin5 l I'rcss. 107-1: Schuoerer. Thr Ikc~larurron o/ Righr.,. I6XY. Haltlrnore- .lohns Hopkins I'. I'rcas. 1981: Shalhope. Kobcrt E.. " louard a Rspuhl~can Sgnthr\i\: The Emergence of an I ndcr- \rantling 01' Rrpuhl~canimi in Amertcan Hisroriograph!" M'MQ3rd >cr.. 19 (1979). 49-80: Shalhope. Robert F.. "Repuhlicani\m and F ~ r l Amerrcan Hiatorrography" W.MQ3rd ser.. 79 ( IOU?). 334356: Shwmaker. Robert H . " '[lemocrac!'and 'Kepubl~c' a\ I n d r r - \toc~d In I ~ t e Elghteenth C r n t u r America"in .Anieric,mr Sprech. 4 1 ( 1066). 87-95: Skinner. Quentin. Foundarron.r (I/ blodrrn Polir~c.ul 7hou~ht . 2 \OIL C'amhridgt. Cambridge I' P m \ . 197X: Sm~th. I3ruce .lame\. Polirri \ and Kemen~hrorr(~e: Ropuhlic.arr 77ir111c~\ h t la~~hro\~el l i on(/ Dc 7i1c~q1ri~\~rlIc~. Prlnceton. UJ. Pr~nceton l . t'reaa. 19x5: Smlth. .lame\ 2.lorron. "The I.ranslorrnat~on O S Repuhl~can I hought. 17h.FI 787" In lndiuna Hitroric.al .%~c.rc,i~. I ~ ~ r u r e . \ . IYriY- 1070. Ind~anapoli\. IN . IHS. 1970: Spcrber. Han\ & Iraki\ I r l t t \~huh . 4tnerrt.un t'oIi~~(.uI Ti.rm: An I~~ ,~ ro r rc -u l /)rc.rrorror~. I k t r o ~ t . M I - U'a)nc Statc ! . Pres\. 1962: Stourrh. (;mild. Ilf,.rundrr Hu~nilrorr urrd the Idea O/ Ke~~uh l i~ .an G o i ~ c ~ n r n ~ w r . 5tanturd. ('.1: Stanfurd I ' h e \ \ . 1970: Vetterli. Kichard 8: (jar! Hr!nt,r. I n S~arc.h U / ' /he Republic: Puhlic I'rrrur and rhe Roar, 01 .-l)nerri.an (lo\,rrnnrrnr, lo towa. \.I: Rouman & I.ittlrl~cld. lYX1: H'alker. .lame\. "[)issent and Republ~can~\m altcr the Re\toratron" In Euprlsr @rar t r r l~ . S. no 5 (Jan. 1977). p. 2'7: Wartburg. M allher \on. Fran:osr.\hri Er~~mo/ogr.vc.he.\ Ui)rrerhuc.h. h e l . Lhlnden. 1962: Wiec(::b Willlam M.. The Guurunrrc' ('/orre (25 (on.\/rrurion, 1972: W ~ t t . Roland G.. -1 he Rcb~rth oirhc Concept 0 1 Ktpuhlican L lhcrl! In Italk" Studit-\ 1n H(J~ IJ~ (I/ /fun.! Baron. Florence. 197 1. M'ood. (;ordon S.. The ('r~urron o l r h e .Arlrc~ri~ an Rrpuhli(.. I"6-17,Y:. Chapel HIII: I ol \orrh C'irolina h e \ \ . 1969.

Flo!d. h ( ~ t u r e o / .4 Perfit (onrrnon~r~eolrh. I ondnrr. I f W . lac\. ed \ Da C';~po. 1977. pp 1. 7.

4ugll\tinc. CUI o i God ed.. I h \ r d Knoulc\. \) f'cngurn. 1972. Hook 2. ch 9. L? I . 1-42. 5. 18. IY:!I. I 0 2 4 .4ugtlrtrnc'.. Imporunc~. ,n the tr;in\mi\\lon and alterallon ol thc Korrian mcanmg ol r1.b

p1h1ic.o. Irom the Lllddle Age5 Samuel 13ull(::r ic1hN)j i\pri,lound dnd tar une\iimlncd

Plutarch 'Pohtlka parql~elmata ( Praecepta gerenda re~puhllcael" and per^ monarcnlah nal aemoKratlas kal ollgarch~as (k unlu\ In republlca domlnat~one. popular^ statu. et paucorum ~ m p e r ~ o ) " In Moralia 48. 58. C a m b r d ~ g . MA Harbard I Press (Loch). 19

1 1 Guenee. Bemard. Slates and Rulers in Lorer .Medieval Europe, tr.. J Vale. Oxford. Basil Blackwell. 1985. pp. 4-5. Cf Charles de Grassa~lle. Regalium Francro~ libri duo. Pans. 1545 ( M S ca 1538).

l \ Ihomas Elyot. The Boke ,Vamed the Governour ( 153 1). 2v. ed.. S.E lrhmberg. London. 1962, 1:3. 161-162 and 11:443: Thomas Starkey. Dralogw between Re~inald Pole and Thomas Lupser, ed.. K. M Burton. London. Chatto & Windus. 1948.

I X 4nstotle. Po1rrrc.s. Book 4. ch 7. tr . . 1 A S~nclair. YY Penguin. 1962

I V t o r example. John Ponet (o r Poynet). Short Trearrse of Poliricke Pon,er. Strasbourg. 1556.

3) lholommeo 01 Lucca. De re~rmine princrpum 11:8. IV: I In Ewart Lewis. ed.. Medieval Polirical Ideas. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. 1954. pp 292. 297

.'I Ibrd.. VI. I In Ewart Lew~s. ed.. Medieval Polirrcal Ideas. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. 1954. pp. 297-98

12 1x0 Mucha Mladen. "Bartolus the Man" In .Machour's World. 4nnals of the Vew York Academy of Sciences 214 (1978).

17 Bartolus. De Gueyir er Gebellinis In E. Emerton. ed.. Humanlsm and Tvrann~. Gloucester. MA: Peter S m ~ t h . 1964, p. 278.

14 Saluta t~ . De T~,ranno in E. Emerton. ed.. Humanrsm and Tvrannv. Gloucester. MA. Peter Smith. 1964. p 108.

2.' Brunl. Lmrdarro Florenrinae L'rhis In Hans Baron. From Perrarch ro Leomrdo Brunr. Chicago: U . of Ch~cago Press. 1968. English translation by Benjamin J . Koh In R.G. Witt & Kohl. eds.. 7he Eorrhiv Repuhlrc. Ph~ladelphia: I' of Pennsylvania Press. 1978.

: Brun~. Dialogues ro Aer Paolo Yergerio (ad Perrum Paulum Isrmm I & 11) In Prosarori larini del Quorrrownro ed.. E. Garin. Milan. 1952. tr In D. Thompson & F Vagel. eds. The Three Cronns o/ Fivrenre VY Harper. 1972.

? h Brunt Per, re\ ton Phlorenrrnon polrrerm ed ( E l eumdnn w ~ t h German tr Frankfurt.am-Ma~n 1822

29 Baron. From Perrorch ro Leonardo Brunr, pp 6 6 6 9 Pogglo Bracc~olml. De/ensrunc.ula conrra Guarrnum Veronensem ( c 1435). G ~ a n n o z l o Manet t~ . Loudarro Ianuensrum (~1436) . F l av~o H~ondo. I)ecudes de mclmarrone Romanr rmperrr ( 144C-53)

30 'Ya~ctes mleux. ostez la seigneune a vostre Ro!. et tuez Bouclcault et ~ o u s ses t r a n c o ~ s . et vivez en republique comme nous. et soyons tous unls comme freres vous et nous. et vous ne ferez que salges " 11, liwe des,/arc.rs du hon messrre Jean L Maingre, dir Boucicaulr, Paris. l620 In C Petltot. ed.. Collecrion complere des me moire.^ rrlar~/s a I'hrsrorre de France, Paris- Foucault. I8 19. L . 7. p 129 This ~ r i t e r of uncertain ~ d e n t ~ t y uses cite for Genoa and Milan. and seipeurre for Genoa and others. both fiefs and independent states. He mentlonh I.ycurgu\ and the emplre (seigneurie) of Sparta.

1 I I.uca Landucc~. Diario fiorenrino. Florence S t u d ~ a Biblos. 1969

1 2 Gu~cclardlnl. Ricordi Q 1 & Q' numbers 2. 4. 5. 11. 14. ?L. 25. edizlone crit~ca. R. Spongano. Florence: 1951. tr . Mario Domand~ . Maxims and Reflec~rrons, Philadelphia: I: of Pennsy l~an~a Press. 1965: Gulcc~ardini. Dra1op.o e Discorsr del Reggimenro di Firenze. Ban. 1932

3 7 Machlavell~. Ducursr sopro l4 prrma deca dr 730 Dvru. Mllan R~zzoli (BIIR) . 1984. Book l. Discourse I. p 64

14 Mach~avell~. Drscor.sr. I . 16. pp. 103-104

1h blach~avel l~ . I1 Princ@e 1 In The Prince and Ducourses, tr.. Lulg~ RICCI. YY. The Modern Library. 1950. p. 4.

1' I have not lound 11 In Pocock. Gilbert and Raab (For fuller references. see note 9. above). o r In Federico Chabod. MuchraveNr ond the Renarssance. CBmbridge. MA: Harbard U. Press. 1958. and Rldolti. l i ra di Vrc.cok) .Machia\~elli. Rome. 1954. 1 a m s t~l l looklng.

J X The rclerence to Mach~avelll 1s Implied In Guicc~ardlm. Ricorcfr C. number 110. ed . Em~iio Pasqu~ni. M~lan : Garziint~. 1984. p. 136.

10 Francesco Gulcclard ~nl's Ricordi were first p m ted as Piu c~onsi~li e u\~wrrrmenrr rti mareria dr re puhlic,a e di pri~,ara, Pans: Morello. 1576 The wcond e d ~ t ~ o n was Conc.erri polirrci, Venice: Hertano. 1578 Both conta~ned the 'popular stateWconcept of republrc. a \ d ~ d ILua Landucc~. Drarro fiorenrmo, Florence: Studia Biblos. 1969. Source\ lor the others are: Gasparo Contarmi. De ma@rarrhus er repuhlita C enelorum fjhrr I ' ( M S 1523-24. Paris. 1543). In

Ihrtauru.\ an~~yuae I~alrar. Leyden. 1 7 2 . 101 \ PI I (cl IoI\ \ l 5C4E) . and I ~ S French trdnslat~on. Des .Magr.srrors. & Repuhlryut, de VenOe. Parls. 1544 (Bouwsma. Venice and the De/ense o/ Repuhlit~an tiherr,. pp 14511); Donato G ~ a n n o t t ~ (b . 1492). (Bouwsma. 15411): G~annottl . Discorso sopra ilfermare rlgoverno dr Firenze ( M S 1527), 1st ed.. Florence. 1770. In @ere poliriche, ed.. Fur10 Diaz. Milan: Marzotati, 1974. 'E perche una specie dl repubbllca semplice e sola. si' come la popular~ta, o lo stato degli ottimat~. o il principato d~ un solo, non puo contentare se non un des~derio solo; percio e necessarlo comporre lnsieme tutte e tre le dette specle di repubblica" ( I . 157); Libro dello Repubblica de' Vinizrnni or de la repuhblica de' Yiniriani, (MS. 1529: Rome. 1540. 42. 64, Lyon, 1569. & Ven~ce, 1564. 1572 (Bruto's edition). 1591. 1630. 50. 78) in Opere poliriche, d.. Funo Dlaz. M ~ l a n : Marzorau. 1974: Giannotti. Trarraro deNa Repubblica Fiorenrina librr quorrru. Venice. 1531 In @ere poliriche, vol I. Milan. Marzorati. 1974 ('quando I mo l t~ sono capi de regimento e sequltano la pubblica utilita, chiamasi la loro amministtazione propriamente repubblica" ( p 194) 'tre altri sorti di repubbliche: perche il regno, ses~corrompe. d~venta t~rannide: lo stato degli ottimati. potenza d~ pochi: la repubblica. popularita". (p. 195). cf. also p. 198): Gianmichele Bruto. Florenrinoe hisroriue lihrr YIII, Lyon, 1562. ed. S. Gattnchi. Florence. 1838 (cf 11:150-176). In the servlce of Stephen Bathor! Bruto wrote sketches of Polish history ln 1576 that first saw pnnt In 1827, and a humanist Hisrorio of Hungary In 1572-76 that wah not published until 1863-76! Felice Figliucci. De la Polirica. Overo Scienza Civile Secondo la Durrrim D'Arisrorih. tihrr orro. Venlce 1583

4 1 Francesco Patrnl. De Insrirurione Republicue (The t b u n d i n ~ o/ u Republic.). Bordeaux. 1578: P a t r ~ z ~ . De Insrirurione Reipuhlicae. Paris. 1585: Patrizi. Dello hrsroria dieci d ia lo~h i ne qualr ,si ra~rona di rurre le cose apparrenenri all?~isroria, & allbsserwrra. Padua. Venice. 1560. Patriri. Relazioni. Paolo Parura (154Q-YR), Della Perfezione della vira politico . . . libri rre, Venice. 157 1. 1579 In Opere poliriche. 2v. Florence: Le Monnier. 1852 (cf belou note 42 ). Giovanni Botero. On rhe Causes ofrhe Greatness of Crrles. 1st ed. ~n Italian. Rome, 1588: Botero. Della Ragion di Sraro lihri diecr. Venice: G~oliti . 1589. tr.. George A. Moore. Chevy Chase. M D Country Dollar Press, 1949. Bolero's first sentence IS Bodmlan- "The sraro is a firm dominion over people". See also pp. 38-41. 4.1. Tomasso Campanella, Lo Cirra del Sol. Berkeley. I' 01 C a l ~ f o r n ~ a Press. 198 I. pp. 36. 70.

42 Francesco P a t r ~ z ~ . t ivre rresfmcrueux de la c~hosepuhl~cque Paris. 1520; Parrizi, The True Ckder and Merhode of n8g,rrnK and reading Hisrories (Della hisroria dieci dialo~hr), tr T Blundeb 111. London. 1574; G i o ~ n n i Botero. 7he Traveller's Breviar. 0 1 an hisroricall description ofrhe mosrfamous kingdomes rn the Ccbrld. tr I.R.. London. ItrOl (pp. 19.40. 126, 150); Botero. The Tra\,eNer i Bre\iar, or on hisroricall descriprion ?/the mosrfamolcs km~dome.\ and Common-neales in the World, London. 1603 (pp. 88. 99. 1-5- 106): "Patnri". Relarions of rhe most /atnous kingdom\ and common-npeahs thorough the World (actually Botero's Relazionr univeroli . , 1593). tr. R. Johnson. London. 1608. See also Gianotti. De Repuhhco Venerorum. 1st l a t i n ed.. Leyden. 158 1

47 Paulo Paruta ( 1540-98). Della per/ezione deNa vrra po1rrrc.o Opere polirrrhe. Florence: Le Monnler. 1852. vol I. pp. 390. 793. 795 Pdruta's view that there are two kmds ol'repuhliche. "degli ottlmatl" and 'degli mo l t~" 1s on p 391. Ybes Durand. 12s repuhliyue.\ au temps des nionarchie.~. Pans: Presses univertitarles. 1973. p 49: Paruta. Discorsr pohrici . Di principr e dr Repubhche 4nrrche r z Wodeme . Ven~ce. 1599 In Opere poliric.he. vol 11. pp 1 Set.

al\o Paruta. Di.scorsr nos. X. 9. 13. 14. 15

44 Gasparo Contarln~. 7he Commonn,ealrh and Governmenr o/ Venrce, tr. (.ewes Lewkenor (from Italian w ~ t h help from the Latm "orlpnal'). I.ondon. 1599. pp. I:A2-A3. I.D2. I.C2-C3

45 trancesco Patrill. A .Moral .Merhod q/ c.r\de Pohc,ie ( .onra~.nm~r u leorned ond /mr~.r/ul drscourre vfrhe insrirurron. srare. and KO wm- rnenr ($0 cnmmon Weak (De Insrrrurrone rerpuhlicae). Ahr id~ed tr R. Roblnson. London. 1579. pp. I . 2. 6

46. Patrln. The true order and Merhode o/ wrv r i n~ ond readrn,? Htxorvs. "according to Aristotle"(p. C I I ) "Magstrats of common wales" (p. Ciii)

47 t o r Botero. see above. note 42. John Flono. .Ven U.orldq/ Word.\, London. 1598 and Queen Anno's .Yew World o/ Wordy 1 161 1 ) . l a c s~m~le ed.. Menston. Yorks: The Scolar Press. 1968. ar t~cle "Republica, reppubrica a common-wealth. a free state. the weale publike"

48. Elyot. Boke q/ the Gouvernour (cf. above. note 15). 1-3. 1. 161-h?. 11:443. Starkev. L)ralogw (cf. above. note 15). pp 23. 24. 19. 56. 61 169-70.

49 Thomas Smlth. De Repuhlrco .4n~lorunt. 1572 ed.. L.. Alston (from the 1583 ed.). Cambridge. 1906. p. 46: R~chard Hooker (I.ocke'\ "judicious Hooker'). 0/ the lon,s o/ Li.ch~.rasric~al Pohg,, Book \ (1599fO. ed.. A.S McGrade & B. Vlckers. N Y : St. Mart~n's. 1975 Thomas Floyd, cf. abobe. note. Charles C Mcllwain. ed.. The Politi6,al Works U/ ' James I, Cambridge. MA: Harvard I ' Pres\. 1916. p. 19 (Bosilikon Doron. 1598). pp. 66-67 (The Trew Lowe of Free .Monarchies. 1 598. 1 trO.3)

50, l ou i s Le Roy. Lo Polirique d'ilrrsrore. 1568. tr as Ari.vrorle'\ Poliriques or Di~course.~ o j ' Governmenr, London. 1598 Werner Gundershe~mer. 1.e Ro!.'s biographer. found the lollow~ng note In a

1379 letter lrom (iabr~cl Harbe) to a Inend: -Sou shall Iitel) I ~ n d r open either Bod~n de Republics or Le Roves Exporition uppon 4ristotles Politiques". (Gundersheimer. The Ljfe and Works of lauis LP Rov quoted in Keohane. p. 87).

5 I Pastel. fk lo Republique des Turcs, Poitiers: E. de Marnef. 1560.

$ 2 Nicolas Gruchius. DP Comiriir Romonomm lihri 111. Paris: Vascosin. 1555, p. 3. quoted in McFarlane. Buchonan. London: Duckwork. 1981. p, 404.

5 1 Bodin. .Merhod for rhe Eosy Comprehension of Hisrory, ed. & tr. B. Revnolds. NY: Norton. 1969. C f especiall\. chap. 6ana pp. 1%. 159. l&. 16Xf. 172. 179. Here Bodin sketched the definitions of wvereipty and of respuhlica which would dominate his Sixlivresde 10 Repuhlrque ten years later

54 C~urllaume de la Perr~ere If nirrorr polrrrque Pars. 1567

55 de la Pernerc The Llrrrour of Polrcre. L ondon 1598, p 3

56 1.ou1s Le C'aron. Diolo,ques. Paris. 1556, p. Le Caron also uses the rather rare French equivalent of the Engl~sh commonwealrh, la ,.hose-puhlique.

. - l a Boetie. Di.rc.ours sur lo servirude volonroire in Ckuvrespoliriqu~s, ed. F Hmcker. Paris- Editions sociales. 1971. p. 42.

$9 Keohane. Phik~sophi. and rhe Stare in Frantu. Princeton. N J : Pr~nceton l ' Pre\s. 1980. pp. 9h97

h0 Hotman. Frunc.o,qalliu, ed. R.E. Giese! . tr J H . M . Salmon. ('ambridge: Cambrrdge I Press. 1972. p. 146.

h l lhid.. pp. 204. 242.

h.' 1599 Juan Mariana ( 15% 1623). De Rege er reqis rnrrirurione libri 111. Toledo. 1599, tr. G..4. Moore. Chevy Chase. M D : Countr! Dollar Preha. 1948. Chapter five gives six kinds of government. "What 1s zpoken of as a res puhlica In the proper sense exists when the whole people panicipate rn the government. with the limitation that the more imponant honours and offices are entrusted to the better men, the lesser. to the others, as befits the wonh and merit of each. Then. that which is called democrat?; exists when m agorernment of the people office is given promiscuously, and without selection. to the greater. the lesser and the middle group". p. 135.

h3 Ibid.. chap. V I I I

'4 Walter J Ong. Ramus: .Method and the &car of Dialo~ue (Cambr~dge. M 4: Harmrd l.. Press. 1958) documents this enormous ~nlluence. Ramus's d~chotomies began to be published in 1543 and 1 546. I n 1 568-70. he lectured i n the Rhineland

h -\lthus~us. Poliri~~omerhodic~e digesra ( 1603). ed. & tr F.S. Carneyas 7he Po1irit:r I ! / Johonnes Alrhusius. Boston: Beacon Pres. 1964. chap 39. p 195 and p. 200. Althus~us's rejection o f the dichotomyol k g n u m " r n ~ i "respublica" IS baed on Augustine and is found in chapter 9. pp h 1-62,

hh Rale~gh. I Ir~rorr ofthe M'orld, chap. 6:2. rn Sekcred Wrirings. ed. 0 Hammond V L Penguin. 19x4. p. 258.

1, lean Btdin. Sir lirmre., de la Repuhlique In Kenneth D. McRae. ed. Hodin. 5i.r &~oh.r ( ! / a Commonn,ea/e (1606). tr. K~chard Knollcs. ('ambridge. M: H a r ~ a r d C'. Press. 1962. "Republique est un droit gouvernement de p luwurs mesnages. & de ce qui leurest commun. avec puiswnce *ouveraine". (p. l B8-10) "souvera~nete la pul\\ance absolue & perpetuelle d'une Repubhque". (p. X4Hh-7) 'c l toyen q u ~ n'est autre chose en propres termes. que le franc subject tenant de la \ou\erarnete d'autmi". (p. 37A5).

h h Rohcrt E . l Strn er. I I. Hoherr Grerdle, l ~ ~ r d Brooke. Cambr~dgc. L 1 4 Harvard I Press. 1958. p 68. quoted b! Pocnck. ~luc~hrave/liun Ifo~nenr. p. 37 I

h4 1 . P Ken!on. ?d.. Srwrr Cun.srrrurion. Camhridge I . Press. 1966. p. 178 and no 90. p 124. no. 92. p 339.

bold Tried rn the Fire (14 June. 1647). in A.L. Morton. ed.. f'reedonr in :trrn.s. 4 .%k(,rron of' l r w l l e ~ Ur i rm~s , \ \ International Publisherz. 1975. p. 118

' I b i l l i a m Ua lubn ct al. 4 .Man~/esrarion from 114 April) In lhid. p 250

Kcnyon. Sruurr Cun.srirurion, p. ,328: The LPvellers IFalr11 so called) l inc/iurt3d i 1649) in Monon. Freedomin Arms, p. 316. "Martial1 Uonarch~e more cruel1 . . then England ever yet tasted of. and that under the l o t ~ o n of a Free State. when as the People had no shareat all In the constitution thereof " ( p 3 14). -conquest-Government" i p ! 15). .'(the \tde this the b~rs t Yeer of Englands Freedom. Intitle thcir Govtrnment a Free State. and yet none more ~ io len t . bloud! m d pcr\er\c enemicc thereto. Tor not under pains O S death. and ioniiscation ,>I lands and goods. may an) man challenge and promote tho\c r~ghts ol the nation " (p 316).

: Ilerr.ctrrrt\ Pruemuricu.\ I 2 .June. In Bulst rde Whitelocke .M(.moirc. I l l . p. 135 uuoteti b! 4ntonia F r a w . C'romn~ell. U Y : Dell. 1975. p. :V iloderarc, 1rrrellymc.er 5 or I ? July. lhid.. p 37:

'l f'h~lip. ~1\~.oui11 I ~ d e to Kobert. earl o l I.eicc\ter. h Xovembcr 1649. In 5rrlne1 Srurr Puperc. t Sidne). Disc,ourse,. S\'. I805 1. 79).

'h Kcnyon. ed. Srwrr C'onsrrrurron. no. 93. march am on^ \edham The Case of rhe Comrnonn,eolrh gffiglondSrored( 1650).ed. Phi l~p Knachel. Charlottesville. VA: U, of Virginra Press. 1969. p h2 (Machiavelli. Discorsi, 1: 16).

77 Nedham. Case of !he Commonwealrh. p 123.

78. In 1650 Andrew Marvell wrote in An Hororian Odeupon C'romwel'\ Rerurn from Irelond'Nor yet grown stiffer with Command But strll in the Republick i hand" (lines 8 1-82), The Cromwel l -Ludlo~ conversation In Ludlow. .Memoirs 1. 244 i s quoted In Fraser. Cromwell. NY: Dell. 1975, p. 461. The Whitelwke-Cromweli conversations in Whitelocke. .Wemoirs. Ill. 372. 462f is quoted In Fraser. pp. 460. 477.

79 'William Allen". Killing noe Murder In Olirier Luraud. De., Revolurrons dilngkrerre a la Revolurion Froncaise. The Hague. M Nij hoff. 1973.

80 Hobbes. Philosophical Rudimenrs ( I r , o l De Cive, ed . S. f' Lamprecht. SY: Appleton-Century-Crofts. 1949. p. 67.68. 149. I h l "Commonweal" replaces 'city" with "commonwealths"a~ the plural on pp. 122. 126. 128. 129. 132 136. 142. 144. 146.

X I Hobbes. fkhemorh, ed. F. Tonnies ( 1889). London: Frank C'azs. 1969. pp. 156. 158. Sp~noza. Tractorus Poliritus In Operu. Heidelberg: Carl Winters. 1928. vol Ill. p. 278. Spinoza must be the only one who ever translated Machiavelli's repuhlica in the Discvrs~ ( I l l . I ) as imperii, but he did this in Caput X of the 7iacraru.\ Pohrkus. Margiiret Jacob has. I think. l'olloued her rad~cals In linding too much in his use o f the word respuhlrca in the prel'acr to Spinoza's Trac>arur Theologo-Poliritus of 1670. C'f Jacob. The Radical fi11,qhrenmenr. 1,ondon: George Allcn & I lnwin. 19X I . p 5 1-52.

82 John Mi l ton Comntonplaw Book quoted In behx Raab. The English Face uf Machicrvelli. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. 1964. p. 220. Milton. Pro Populo Anglicano Wensio in Mark.\. Sew Haven. CT: Yale U. Press. v4, p! I. "What was but latel) the strongest of realms (porenrissimi r e ~ n i ) and is now being a common- w a l t h so much the stronger lnunc rerpuh. eo potenriom)" ( p 3 1 I ). " 'Bees have a king (regemJ' . . the others. as you affirm. havc republics (respuh.)." (428). "ah uno an a p1urihu.r re.rpuh adminisrrorerur)" in Works. NY: Columbia i:. Press. v01 V l l . pp 7& 77

83 CC OS above. note 5

84. Harrington. The Commonkpol~h of Oceana, ed.. \ . B I ~llegren. He~delberp: Carl Winters. 1924. pp 2. I I

85. lhid., pp. 23. 27 William Sprigee. A .L/odesr Plea for on Eqwl C'ommonwealrh. London. 1659.

Xh ( Edward Sexby). Killing noe Wurder In Lutaud. Lk\ Rewlurron.~ d'Anglererre, p. 37h77. 383-84.

X7 M'illiam Prynne. The Re-hhlicans and Orher> Spuriou.\ Good Old Cause, London. 1659. The pamphlet is rare. and details ma! bc appreciated. "Republicans" i s unh~phenated in the hall-tde. 11 beginc by accu5ing *Apostate Republican. and Sectarran Members o i the late long Parliament. Arm!. and their coniederates 10 hL)~t up, suhverr, rleirro~. "(p. I ) "neu Arhenion Repuhlican Tr.runr\ (worse than the uorst of all our Kings) (the Rump. 1653) (Cromwell a) Cbsur or Enrperour "(p. 3) "their neu Repuhlid ugain

uld and ne)+ Repuhlican Memhrrs over-wred in rhe House 11658) rewvmq rheir firmer C'omnton-n'eulrh purposedl to \et as~dc their voung Protector. or to reduce him and the Republick too undcr their own prisrine Wardship . . . dissolved the long Parliament " (p. 31 "metamorphose our Old Kin,qdom into a new inlant Repuhlid Oligarchy under themselves alone. . . faithfull tothem and theirnen- mrnred Repuhlrck, without a Kinp or Hou.sr of Lrmir- (p. 4) "erection ol their ne\r Free-state . . . but this is only Good Old (au.\t the! now extoll " (pp. 4-5)"their Goodold~~m.ceand Hepublike" (p. 5) (quoting lrom C'ampanella. DP .Monurchrca Hispanicu. c. 25. p. 204) "Lt Angl~am in lormam Re~publicae reducant. In imitationem Hollandorum: to reduce England into the form ol 4 ('ommon U'ealrh, in rmitation of the Hollander\ . to de\tro! our King. Monarchy. and turn it into a Kepubltke. or e l x Into an Ele<,ril,e Kinxdom " (p. 5).

X X I'rynne. C@. (.II.. pp. 1. 3. 5. and Prynne. C~n.\~~rrnrrouc. .%rrou., Thec~logrc~al and Legal Quaere.7 . 1.ondon. 1660. pp. 9. I X. 19. 20

X9 (Samuel Butler). TWO Spee1.he.r .Made in the Rump Parlian~mr. I.ondon. ( 1659). (Works. Ill. Cambridge: C'ambr~dge l . Press. 1928. p. 306); (Butler). A Speech .Made ar rhe Rota. I.ondon. IhhO (U'orks. 111. pp. 324. 327): Butler. "Government" (c lhh l ) in Sarire.\ & .Mis~~ellonre.\. cd. Rene lamar. Cambridge C a m b r ~ t l p I Pres\. 1928. p. 25 1. Butler. Hudihras I. London. 1662. lines 1 XI 1- 1204 Butler also published a catire under Prynnc'\ name. "W~l l lam Pynne" Wole 4 rrnario. I .ondon. M I ICLVIX . which quote\ "Auhtin" (August~ne) on 'Commonuealth or Kjngdom" hem@ a larcenocrac> without -tau- (U'orhs. Ill. p, 3l)OI

YO. According to Archdeacon Fchard & Bhhop Kennet. the former minihter. Henr! l 'ane had "so much o i republican rancour. that II

wab impt)s\ible Tor him to live in qulet undcr an! semblance 01 monarchy-. (Sidne). l)iwoursei. V\'. I XO5. 1.61 l Tor! poet .Abraham C'ou,le! wrote in 4 Disc~~~urvr BI . Wal of u 1~1.sion in l M l "Hut I \ee !.ou are a Pedant. and Platon~cal Statesman. a 7-heoretrcal C'ornmon-uealths-man. an I topian Dreamer" IE\ra~..s, P1av.r und Su,rtlr~ Ci.r.ses. ed 4.K. Wallen. Cambridpe. C'ambrrdgc I Pre\\.

I . ou~s Lr Ro\ & la \,rcirsrrude ou vartere des choses en lunrvers. Pans. 1575. .tr Brebeuf. Relarron de ce qui s'rst passe duns /a Vouwlle Frant.e en Ibnnee 1636, Part 11. ed.. Theodore Bestermann. (>ene\.a: Dro7. 1957. p. 138: P. Bressan~. Relarion ., 165.1. "le reglme republ~caln des Hurons" quoted by Yves Durand. Les republique.\ au remps des monarchres, Pans. p 10.

'Le rol \cut que le parlement sort de Pans " ( I I February) In Moreau. ed.. Chorr de .Ma:armades (2762) 1. p. 192; "Les souhaits de la France a Monwgneur le duc d'Angoulesme" ( I I January) In bloreau. cd . 0wi.r de .Ma:arinades (3700) 1. p. 86; "Les interets er m o t ~ f \ - Pans Ih49. p 7-8. Philip A. Knachel. England and rhe Fronde The lmpacr <I/ the English Civil War and Revolurion on Franur. H avhrnqron, DC: Folger Library, 192, quores addrrionall~~ Moreau 't numhers I719 (p. 101)) and number 2970 (p. 94). The LP Tellrer .Ma:arrn con~rrsarion is m Ibid.. p 43.

On the l-ronde see Loyd Monte. 7he Revolr oj rhe Judges. Pr~nceton. \'J. Prlhceton IJ . Press. 1971. p. 280. C . Moreau. ed.. ('h01 \ dc Ma:arrnades & Sal Alexander Westr~ch. The Ormee of Bordraur. Balt~more: Johns Hopkins I: Press. 1972. The Conde manuscripts are quoted in Knachel, op. err.. p. 200. So rb~e re to

ourcelles in Sidney. Disc,ourses on Governmenr. N Y. 1805. vol I . p. M: Cvrdno de Bergerac. Hisroire comrque &S erars er empires de /a lune. 116571. ed. W . de Spens. Paris: 10 18. 1963. pp. 85. 151-52

( hardln. 12 t ouronnement de Souleimaan, Pars . l 67 1. I.b~ages en Prrse. Pan \ . 167 1 . The Travels o j Sir John Chardin rnro Per.cra and ~ h r h s r lndre~. London. Moses Pitt. 1686. pp. 4. 7. 12: LOUIS Morer~. 12 ~ r a n t l dicrronarre historique, vol I. Lyon. 1674. artlcles '.4thenes" "Brurus": Abraham-Nicolas Amelot de la Houssaye. Hictorre du gouwrnemmt de Venise. Par~s : Leonard. 1675 (2nd ed. 1685). pp. l. 2. Ll. 606. 621. 624; Amelot. tr.. Machiavelli. LP Prince, Parlh. 1683. Amelot. E-ramen de lo liberre originaire de Venise, tr, de I'ltal~en. Ratisbon A u b r ~ . 1684 (pub . with Histoire due youwrnenienr de Venrse. 1685). pp. I. 106.

I anner M S 44. l'ol. 202. In R~chard Ashcraft. Revolutrona~ Politics and Locke'r Two Treatises o/ Gowrnment. Princeron. NJ. Pnnceron I Press 1986. pp. 2&-29

Samuel Parker. 4 Delmce and Continuatron 91 the Eccle.~iavtical Polit I . 1 67 1. In Azhcrafr. Re\~olutionarj Polrtics, p. 46; Shafresbur) 10 the House 01' Lords In State Tra(,t. Charle.5 11. p. 59 (Pocock. Machim~ellian .Moment, p. 415): Amelor (re) de la Houssaye. The f f k ro r~ ofrhe (iowrnment o j Veniw. London: John Srarkey. 1677. pp 1 '. 300. 3 l?: John Maxwell. Sacro-Sancta Repm Majestas: or rhe Sacred and Ro\.al Prerogarrvr o j Christian Kings (1614) repr~nred 1.ondon. I 6x0. pp. 75. 137 (Ashcralr. Revolutiona~ Po1rric.c. p 198). Varhaniel I.ee. Lcrus Junius Brutus f 1680). ed. lohn I o l r ~ \ . I ~ncoln . Kebr: I of Vebrdska Press. 1967. Il : i~. p 27

I \ 2' 66. pp 62-3. IV:24?

lame\ I rrell. Putriarcha non .Monarc,ha. 168 I. He den~es he IS a commonueal th \man ' o r someone who wishes ro 'ser up a

,lemocrac\ a m o n p r us- " (Ashcrafr. Rerdutionar~ Polrtrc.~. p. 25 1 ) 4b\olurr. prnprlery In thmgs a r w s from compact In a common-

wealth" ( p 44. Ashcraft. Rer,olutionar~. Po1irrc.s. p 255): Henr! \e\illc. Plart~ Redivir-UJ. London. 1681 ( 1698. 1742. 1758. 1763) In / 'WO English Republican Tracts, ed.. Caroline Robbins. Cambr~dge:

( a m b r ~ d g e I Press. 1969. Ue\ille uses the word "state" to mean .'Ezrate" and the classic rno. "monarch!. arlsrocracy. democrat!" HI\ word ~ommonw~ealth. rhough nor applied hisror~call! ro Fngland I \ apphed to Ven~ce and to old Rome before Caesar \nother r rpubl~can u ~ t h o u t the word. 511 Roger I 'E3trdng (16161704) The Ohserwtor no 1 13. f.Selrt~tron.\ Irom the Obserwtor) 168 1-87) 1.0s Angeleh. CA Willlam 4ndrews Clark Memor~a l Library. 1970. pp. 10. 12. 15, 16: f i e Ohservator. 30 July. 2 I October. 7 December'.'. 168 1 "Accordmg ro our an r~monarch~ca l seaarlez all b! narlve right areequally born w ~ r h a 11L.e freedom'' (Ashcratr. Revolurionarj Politrc,.~, p. 298) I 'Fsrranpe w o r e rhar I T was "of the very essence of a commonwealrh 1 0 reduce all degree\ to a pant! For a, rlrles and honours are ~ n c ~ d e n r to k~ngship. \o also are equalit! ot place and birth ro democran. - I 'Esrranpe. 1nt~re.v o l n r e e Kingdoms. 168 I". p. 7. cl' also pp 5-6. 9. I2 ( Ashcrafr. Re~,olutinar~. Politrc& p. 24G24 I). Ikvden 4bcalorn & .Achitophel l. hne\ 289-92 Cf also h e \ 614-15

W h ~ r t Kennetr ro C'odrmgron. I I Januarh. 1682. Lansdowne M S 9W. lol\ 45-44 (Ashcrah. Rerwlutronarj~ Polrtics, p. 225): John Yonhle~gh. 7'he ParalLI: or, the Ven Specious Association o j an Old Rehellrou.\ Cor~mant. 1682. p 21: Dryden. The Medall. I ondon. 1682. I~ne\ 247. 30 1: Some Rej7ec.tions on a Discourse. ,alled Good 4A1c.e 1 0 rhe C'hun,h of England & 1 . In State Trac,ts. 1692". tacs. t d W ~ l m ~ n ~ o n . DE. Scholarl) Resources. 1973. p. 371 2 1 ~ In I 6x2 John E\el!.n called the I m d o n Ga:ette"republ~carian" iF \ c l \ n f ha r~ I \ ' hl4nl

( ~ ~ l b e r t Hurncr \a!\ S ~ d n c y was "sr~ffroall republican pr~nciples.and ,uch dn cn tm\ ro e \er ) thing that looked like monarch!. rhat he set hmc,ell in ,I h12h npposltion agdln\r Cromuell when he was made f h t e c r o ~ '' /Hr;ror~ 01 .$(I Chm 7imes, Oxford. 1833. v2. p. 351. l o l ~ o ed. 1-34'. p 535). John lo l and . In h ~ s lnrroduction ro rhe I)r.\u,urret, a1\0 cdlled h ~ m a "republican" (Algernon S~dney . /)L\( ourtrt r ~ n bo \ , r r n~ r~mt , ed . I niand. SY. L.ee. 1805. \ o l I . p. 16). I renchard d p t d In 171 1 ( w e k l o u . note I I I) and so d ~ d Adam\ in 1-76]

101 Ibrd . 11. p 138 Adam$. Thoughrs on Gowrnmenr (Jan 1776) In Works 01 John Adams, VI. p 4 15

102 Charles Chenevix Trench. The Western Rising, London Longmans. 1969. chaps 3 ,4 : John Northleigh. The Triumph o f h r .Monarchy, over the Plors and Principles of Chrr rebels and Republrcans. London, 1685: L'Estrange. The Ohserwror no. 80(?X September. 1685) in ~Iec t ions f rom rhe Obserwror. p. 32

103. John Locke. Two Trearues o j Civil Governmenr ( 1690). ed Thomas Cook. NY. Hafner. 1947. pp. 96. 106.

I04 I .ocke. Tn.o Trearises.

105 Lncke. Tnmo Treatises, pp. 187. 232-23. 39-40

106. Republican schemes; B.E. Gent.. .4 .hen. Dicrronar!, ol the Term.\ Ancienr and Modern o j rhe Canrrng Crew. London. 16%. article\ 'Republican" 'Whigg"

107 John Evelvn. Diarr. 15 January. 1689. Oxford. Clarendon P m \ . 1955. 1V. p. 614. See also W, Atwood. The Fundamenrol Constirurion o j the English Governmenr ( 1690). f an . . W ~ l m ~ n g t o n . DE: Scholarly Resources. 1973. pp. i. xxi. Robert Fergwon. A Brrrl Jucr//icarion o j the Prince o j Orange? Descenr inro England. I689 and A Plain and Familiar Discourse concerning Governmenr. Wherein ir ;.S debared. Wherher Monarchy or a Commonwealrh he besr for rhe People, 1689 (in Lois Schwoerer. The Lk(~1ararion ol Rt~hts. 1689, Baltimore. MD: The Johns H o p k ~ n s C'. Press. 1981 pp. 157. 162); O.\-ford English Dictionarj, a r t~c l e "Republican'. (1691): Humphrey Prideaux to John Ellis. Nonv~ch. 27 Vovember 1693. in Letters o j Humphrey Prideaux to John Ellis. Sometrmt, tinder-Secretar!. o/State. 16741 722, ed. E.M. Thompson. London Camden Society Pubs. XV. p. 162: ( John Toland). The Art I,/

Governing b1, Parries. London. 1701 (Feb). p. 28. In Swift. A Hisror~ 9f the Contests and Dissensions Berween the Vobles and the Commons in Arhens and Rome. London. 1701. ed. Frank H. Ell15. Oxford: Oxford L!. Press. 1967. p. 5: Joseph Addison. The Freeholder, d.. James Leheny. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1979. 30 March. 17 16. p 158.

I08 Sw~fr . A Hisror~. o/ rhe Contests and Dissensrons Betw*een rho Vobles and the Commons in Arhens and Rome. London. 1701. ed. Frank E Ellis. Oxford: Oxjbrd (1. Press. 1967. pp. 83. 8 7 W). 97 99. 111

I09 Hal~fax. 'The Character o j a Trrmmer"(l688) and " Rough Draft 01 a .Yen, Model a1 SPa"(1694) in Complere Works. ed. J P Ken!on VY. Penguin. 1969, pp. 54, 55. 15657, 159: M a r r h e ~ Prmr. "4 \ cu Answer to an Argumenr Againsr a Standing Arm! ". London. 1697 John lo l and , ed.. 7he MemoirsojEdmund Ld low. ( 1698). ed. H Firth. Oxford. Oxford U . Press. 1894. 11, p. 172. For a clear use 0 1 [he modern c~omnionwealth in Roman histor!. see James Drake 7he Hirrory o j the Lost Parliament ( 1702). In E l k ed Swlft. op

< l / pp. 209-21 I

I I0 M'alter Moyle. An Essa11 on the C'onstitution 01 the Roman Starv ( M S 1699. London. 1726) in Carolme Robbins. ed . . Three Englrsh Rrpubli(,an Text.\. Cambridge: Cambridge I' Press. 1969: Danicl Dcfoe. True-Born hdishman In G.A Airken. ed.. loter. Stuarr Trac.rs. V Y Cooper Square. 1964. p. 141: Jonathan Suifr. 4 Ducourse o j the Contests and D~ssension.\ ed. Frank H . E h \ . Oxford: Oxford I,. Press. 1967. pp. 82. 87. 90. m. 112: Will~am lemple. Works. London. 1770. 1. pp. 3 1. 42. 46: Joseph Add~son Remarks on Several Parts v / Ira11, in the Yearc 1701. 1702. 1703 In Kbrks. VY Harper. 1859. 111. pp 317. 327. 367. 175-76. Thc Spectator. 10 March. 3 Ma!. X May. 19 Ma!. 30 Ju l ) . 9 Augusr. l ' Augusr. 171 l: (Henry Gandy). Jure Dl\ww: or. -In ,4nrw,er 1 0 All that Hath or Shall be Hirtten Repuh1rcan.c 4gainst the Old Fnglish Constitution. London. 1707. pp. 2.

I I I John I renchard. Chto :S l ~ t t e r s nos. 26. 27 122-29 Apr~l . 1721) Thomas Gordon. rr Tacitus. Historres. LLondon. 1728: 1-homa. Pdine. Common Sense (1776). NY Doubleday Anchor 1971 pp 16. ?h. 38. 39.

I I L Duras. 1 676. quoted In Yves Dura nd. LP.7 Republrqws uu temps de.t monarchies. Paris. Presses universiraires. 1973. p. I I . For rhe =me use. see E.-F -J Barbier. Chroniqw de la Regeme et due regne de 1l)ui.c . X L 1866. VI. p 416 (July. 1752)

1 1 3 P ~ e r r e C'esar Rlcheler. Dictronarre. Rouen. 1719. ar t~cle . -Republique". "republicain". Anorher example 1s rhe ritle ol rheanrl- Huyuenor pamphlet. .4vis sincere de M. Jurieu par lequel illart ~ v i r que les plus oranrs et les plus eclorres Docteurs de (,etre &lr.\e ont touiours eu IDsprir Republicain et des sentiments opposeet a 10 puusance abtolue des Sourerains et Monarques. 168T

114 Poncharrram quoted In Durand. Iys repuhliques, p 70. R~cha rd S ~ m o n ro Fremont d'Ablancourr. In LPttres chor~ies de .M. Simon. I .W (Guy Howard Dodge. The Politic,al Theor). <$the Huguenots 01 the Drspersion, S Y . Columbla U Pre\s. 1947. p I Hn): P~e r r e Su r~eu . l ~ t r e r pastorales. 15 Apnl 15 Ma!. l U 9 . Ihrd, p 58: P~errc Bayle to Consranr. 29 Januar!. 1691. lhrd.. p. Y4n: Ba!le. Prolet er fragments dun Dictronarre crrtrqur 11692). GeneLa. Sla th~ne Reprinrs. 1970. pp. 205. 2 15: Bayle. Dictionairr crrrrque ( l 695-971. arricles 'Conon". 'Henr~ IV" The r w n \entenccr a r t lound In thc arr~cles "Hobbes" and *Per~cles". and rhe Engli\h rran\larlon (London. 17 10) carries Ba! le', rerm~nolog? into Enghsh 'rcpuhl~c" "republican". and "democrar~c"

l 1 5 4nto1ne i-uret~ere. Dlcrronarre. Pans. 1694. a n ~ c l e \ "l ibrc" "Republ~que" *Rt.publlca~n"

I lh Drcrlonnaire de I'Academie f'rancaise. Parls. 1694. article *Republicain". Abel Boyer. the French translator of Addison's Coro ( a pro-republican plav where the word republic does not appear at all) put this Into his ~rench-Engl ish Rqval Dicr lonar~ of 1699 and 1700.

I I ' Charles-Louis de Secondat. baron d e la Brede et Montesquieu. l ~ r r r e s per.sanes ( 1721). nos. 102 131 in Ckuvres compkres. P a r ~ s : Seu~ l . 19b4. pp. 115. 132. See also no. 116. p. 124.

I I N . Montesquieu. Dlo lope de Srl la er d'Eucrare (1724) in Oeuvrrs mmp1ere.s. p. 157: Considerorions sur Ies causes de la grandeur de.~ r lJmalm er d r leur decadence (1734) Ibid., p. 436. 450. 452. 458. M o n t e q u ~ e u read Machiavelli and found him to be. like Samuel. a d ~ a p p r o v e r of kmgs and a 'grand republicain" in 1730. Ibid.. p. 409.

l l 9 Montesquieu. f l r Iksprir ries lois ( 1748) I:~I. 1-2 in Ibid., p. 532.

l20 Hume. Trearrse (J/ Human .Varure (1740). ed. , €.C. Mossner. NY: Pengurn. 1985. 1II:x. pp. 607. 609. Hume. "Of the Ihberty of the Press" and "Whether the British Government inclines more to Absolute Monarchy. o r t o a Republic" in b.vois, Moral Polirical and f jrerag., ed.. € . F Miller. Indianapolis. IN: L ~ b e r r i Clarsics. 1985. pp. 9-10. 12. 47-53.

12 1 Hume. "CM the Rise and Progress of the Arts and Sciences" Ihrd., p. 117-1 19. 1 3 - 2 7

122 Samucl Johnson. Drcvionari. London: N'. Strahan. 1765. articles 'Republ~c". "Republican". See also Elizabaeth Hedrick. "1.ocLe's T~heor) of l anguage and Johnson's Dicrionar~," in f i~hreenrh ( 'enrur~. Srridirs X 4 ( 1987).

127 d a m s . Defence. Ill ( 1 787) In Works qfJohn Adorns. 185 1 . V1. p. 10.

I 2 4 Kenr~ck, .%eh Dicrronar~. of the En,qlith Language. London: Ribington et al.. 1773. a r t~cles 'Republic". "Republican". "State: (3) 1.he C 'ommun~ t \ : the publicl: the commonwealth - - (4) a republick: a government not monarchical"

1 25 See m! The End of Kmgs: A Hisror!, qf Republrr~ and Republicans. V Y . The Free Press. 1983. chap. 8.

I26 Paine. 7he Righr~ qf .Man. S Y : Penguin. 1984. pp. 178-79.

12- Srrai~hi-our Harrisonian 16 August. 1 U40 in Hans Sperber & Travis Tr~t tschuh. 4nrerican Polirrcal Terms; An Hislorical Dicrionar~-, l k t r o i t . MI: H a \ n e State I:. Pres\. 1962.