William R. Everdell everdell at aol dot com is a historian who attended Princeton (A.B.) and NYU (Ph.D). He has worked as a teacher at St. Ann's School in Brooklyn, NY. He is author of The End of Kings - A History of Republics and Republicanism (1983, 2000) and The First Moderns: Profiles in the Origins of Twentieth-Century Thought (1997).
The Meaning of the Word Republic
from Jean Bodin to John Adams
by William R. Everdell
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 Hume and 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 "first 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 U.S. 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, contradictory 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 guaranteed in Article IV of the U.S. Constitution, he had no idea what
it meant. (1)
In the United States, America's first lexicographer, Federalist
propagandist Noah Webster, gave the definition "representative democracy"
essayed in 1787 by James Madison in Federalist 10. All his successors
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 "republic" through "democracy," which has a
surer history and etymology than "republic" but problems of its own. In
1790, John Adams wrote that "there is not in lexicography a more
fraudulent word" than republic (3). 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, Livy and James Harrington, the
"definition of republic is an empire of laws and not of men." (5) . 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
government whose sovereignty is vested in more than one person" (6) .
I think Adams was close in 1776 and (for 1987) exactly right in 1787-89;
but Adams, as he so often managed to do (with the help of American
historiography), avoided getting his due by undercutting his own argument.
I think, too, that Adams' definition was not a metaphysical construct but
a thoroughly empirical and historical one, like Aristotle's definition of
politeia. 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. It was
published in 1787, just in time to be in the hands of the delegates to the
Constitutional Convention. The present paper is, in a sense, a late filial
footnote to this book, Defence of the Constitutions of the United States
of America, on the two hundredth anniversary both of its publication and
of the drafting of the federal constitution itself, to which the Defence
added its mickle, and which astonishes us all by remaining the supreme law
of the United States (7) .
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 nothing more than "a just government of several households
and of what they hold in common, with the power of sovereignty." (8) . Nothing
more, in other words, than what we would call a state, under any "just"
government, however monolithic or 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 an 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 philosophers, the extent to which what
is fondly called political science resolves itself into issues of
semantics and etymology. Investigating 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, Kramnick, Shalhope
and Banning, and a remarkable and oddly obscure article by no less than
Herbert Marcuse. (9) . 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 not using it, a practice that can both confuse
the reader and be untrue to the evidence.
In the United States, America's first lexicographer, Federalist propagandist Noah Webster, gave the definition "representative democracy" essayed in 1787 by James Madison in Federalist 10. All his successors 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 "republic" through "democracy," which has a surer history and etymology than "republic" but problems of its own. In 1790, John Adams wrote that "there is not in lexicography a more fraudulent word" than republic (3). 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, Livy and James Harrington, the "definition of republic is an empire of laws and not of men." (5) . 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 government whose sovereignty is vested in more than one person" (6) .
I think Adams was close in 1776 and (for 1987) exactly right in 1787-89; but Adams, as he so often managed to do (with the help of American historiography), avoided getting his due by undercutting his own argument. I think, too, that Adams' definition was not a metaphysical construct but a thoroughly empirical and historical one, like Aristotle's definition of politeia. 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. It was published in 1787, just in time to be in the hands of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention. The present paper is, in a sense, a late filial footnote to this book, Defence of the Constitutions of the United States of America, on the two hundredth anniversary both of its publication and of the drafting of the federal constitution itself, to which the Defence added its mickle, and which astonishes us all by remaining the supreme law of the United States (7) .
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 nothing more than "a just government of several households and of what they hold in common, with the power of sovereignty." (8) . Nothing more, in other words, than what we would call a state, under any "just" government, however monolithic or 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 an 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 philosophers, the extent to which what is fondly called political science resolves itself into issues of semantics and etymology. Investigating 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, Kramnick, Shalhope and Banning, and a remarkable and oddly obscure article by no less than Herbert Marcuse. (9) . 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 not 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, or 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's definition, 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' goes back to the political language of the Italian city-states which predated Bodin and narrowly survived him. In this paper I shall try to construct a narrative history of res publica and its descendants, based on close analysis of its usage in four distinct periods leading up to the French Revolution. We shall consider the classical-medieval stage first, followed by the humanist. Third we must consider the contribution of religious war and an odd convergence of Calvinist and Jesuit. Fourth and last, we map the slow failure of the Bodin synthesis and the revival of the words republic and republican first in England and subsequently in France between 1649 and 1690.
The method is to try to measure the word in the context in which it is found, determining, if possible, 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 or Adams', 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 clearest and least contentious of the pre-modern definitions is not Bodin's, and may be the one in Thomas Floyd's Picture of A Perfit Commonwealth in 1600. "A Commonwealth," he began, "is a liuing body compact of sundry estates and degrees of me~: this body is composed of two sorts, [soul and members]. The soule is the King or supreame gouernour... This word Common wealth is called of the Latine word, Respublica, quasi res populica, the affaires of the people: which the latines cal the Gouernme-t of a co-mon wealth, or a ciuill societie, and is termed of the Grecians a politicall gouernment, derived of the Greeke word polutia, which signifieth the regime-t and estate of a citie, disposed by order of equitie, and ruled by moderation of reason..." (10)
Several results of this investigation may help to redirect historical attention. One is that Machiavelli's definition of republica is very original and premature, and that his use of the word gives a further clue to the old question of the chronological relation of The Prince to the Discourses. Another is that the modern, (Adams) definition 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 discovery that Montesquieu, though he followed Bodin with admiration and care in so much, abandoned him on his definition of republic, using the term as early 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 of "classical virtue" that recent U.S. 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. If the word republic is not fraudulent, as Adams said, it is certainly slippery, perhaps a classic case of fixing the unfixable or, in the memorable phrase, nailing jelly to a wall. Our problems begin with the original Latin word res publica, which leaves us in considerable doubt what "thing" (res) is meant or in what sense that thing is "public" (publica). There is, for example, no doubt that respublica bears the sense of "just" government that Bodin carried over into the French république. No doubt, either, that this meaning is the essential forerunner of Harrington's "empire of lawes and not of men." It is both respectable and early, found first in that part of Cicero's political writings known to the eighteenth century (De legibus) and in the part undiscovered until 1820 (De re publica) which was nevertheless quoted forcefully by Augustine in his (11) . The only way res publica could refer to an 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, res publica 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 only 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 summarized 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 Cicero, it seems, the Romans took little interest in that kind of talk. Even after him they neglected it.
After Augustine there arose another general but quite different meaning. "res publica" appeared in capitularies in the very early middle ages with the meaning of public (meaning the king's) land or treasury, metaphorically the king's second body - even his bride (13) . 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 universitas. Both meanings are in the forefront of a phrase like respublica Christiana 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. It was still the norm in England when Thomas Smith published De Republica Anglorum 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 (14) . This, too, lasted a long time, and was still attached to the anglo-saxon equivalent term commonweal or commonwealth, when Elyot and Lupset used it 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, or the Church, seems largely the result of Augustine's insistence in City of God that Cicero's res publica was simply a "just government" of a people (populus) 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 it, knowing no Greek. It was first written back into the western tradition by Aegidius Romanus and Albertus Magnus, who was Thomas Aquinas' teacher. When Aquinas took it up, in his De regimine principum in about 1250, Aristotle's difficult text, arriving in sloppy translation, began to cause difficulties. One of Aristotle's workhorse terms in the Politics and Nicomachean Ethics was "politeia", roughly meaning how things work in a polis, the general term for the form of any state (17) . 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 besides democracy and oligarchy two constitutions, one of which - aristocracy - is generally included in the list of four - monarchy, oligarchy, democracy, aristocracy. The other makes a fifth on that list; it is called the name which is common to them all, for we call it politeia, polity." (18) .
The temptation to translate this word into Latin as res publica would become irresistible by 1600, and when that happened the continued tension of the two meanings in Aristotle's book would be built automatically into the old Latin word.
Aquinas did not, as it happens, translate politeia, either as res publica or anything else. What he did do was draw an important and influential distinction between constitutions, based on Aristotle's ambiguous term, "polity." In De regimine principum he called government (regnum, imperium) "regale" if it was plenary and "politica" if it was limited. As a result the adjective, "politic" or "politique" came into several western languages with the meaning of "constitutional." (19) . In about 1300 one Tholommeo of the Italian commune of Lucca wrote a continuation of Aquinas' work in which the distinction of "politic" and "regal" was broadly extended with examples. France, said Tholommeo, was "regale," but England, ancient Israel and Rome are "politicae." Tholommeo also viewed the Roman Republic after 509 BC as an "aristocracy" and ancient Athens and modern Italian city-states as "polities," using Aristotle's term precisely in the sense of limited democracy. (20)
Tholommeo then went on to make a further category, whose importance for our study was still very great three centuries later. (His work was still being published in the Netherlands in 1630.) Because both aristocracy and polity "involve plurality, these two types compose the political as distinguished from the regal or despotic lordship, as the Philosopher explains in the first and third books of the Politics." (21)
Medieval political and legal thought, in other words, continued to use res publica in the general Augustinian sense of "a good state", but there was, at the same time, considerable movement toward ideas which would categorize and explain the actual practice of a divided Empire (imperium romanum) and independent monarchies like France and self-governing cities like Lucca or Florence. Attaching the word res publica (rather than the alternative civitas) to some of these cases was the work of the fourteenth century.
The most influential jurist and political thinker of the fourteenth century is often said to be Bartolus of Saxoferrato, who was given Perugian citizenship and taught in that Italian commune from 1343 to his death in 1357. Through his many works runs an increasing legal recognition of the de facto sovereignty of cities like Perugia (22) . In addition he wrote short treatises on tyranny (Tyrannidis sive de tyrannia), on the regimes of city-states (De regimine civitatis), and on the Guelfs and Ghibellines (De Guelfis et Gebellinis) all in the 1350s. Though all anticipate the civic humanist "republicanism" of the next century, only the last uses the word res publica. However, this is a telling use. Bartolus is discussing the right of resistance to tyrants by a party or faction, and he finds it lawful, in his words, "against those who would destroy the res publica and bring it into servitude to themselves." (23) Bartolus, together with his student Baldus and contemporary Marsilius of Padua, shows how the word res publica was positioned to move in the direction of polyarchy, or complex rule by many.
Gathering the available meanings at the outset of the Renaissance, we can summarize them as follows: the Ciceronian common or public interest, the Augustinian just state, the Aristotelian (number one) form of state, and the Aristotelian (number two) mixed or constitutional state with popular sovereignty. Nearly every actual use, however, is Ciceronian and lies near one of two close poles. In one, respublica means a civil society, Christendom as a whole or any sub-society, and its common life, the form of the "body politic." In the other, respublica means the universitas, the society considered as a single agent in the society of other relatively autonomous collective agents. Neither of these two poles of meaning implies any particular form of government. Indeed, it might be said particularly of the second that it argues the necessity of monarchy - a bit like Americans who are arguing this year that the United States can relate to other nations only through its president. As the fourteenth century drew to a close, the idea that a republic might automatically mean the absence of monarchy was simply not available to Europeans, no matter how often it was said that an (Augustinian) res publica could not exist under tyranny.
Even Coluccio Salutati, the great humanist chancellor of Florence and scourge of Giangaleazzo Visconti, agreed with Aristotle that monarchy was best and found himself unable to use the word res publica anti-monarchically. In De tyranno (1400), he wrote that "the form of state which Caesar represented inclined not to tyranny but to a res publica;" and, going further, asked the indignant question, "Is there no such thing as a res publica under a single rule? Was there no res publica at Rome so long as it was under kings?" (24)
This fact makes quite clear just what the contribution of Renaissance humanism was. More than thirty years ago, Hans Baron pointed out the central importance of Leonardo Bruni and his generation to the self-understanding of Florence and her sister cities. We need only add that Bruni's language is no less symptomatic than his arguments, and that he and other civic humanists 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 Aristotle, Plutarch, Livy 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 Machiavelli should be called its Michaelangelo.
Bruni's Laudatio fiorentinae urbis, which Baron famously dated to 1403-04, uses res publica tellingly some 36 separate times. What he meant by the word is obscured by an otherwise helpful English translation by Benjamin G. Kohl. Kohl uses the English word republic only five times, while substituting "city," "Florence," "it," "here," "state," "government," "nation" and "community" for the other 31 (25) . Bruni used the word res publica more precisely to mean the whole that is governed by the Florentine magistrates; that which practices civic virtues, creates institutions, and has a harmony among its parts. This is Ciceronian. There is no doubt that Bruni uses res publica to mean the state as a unit making foreign commitments, and certainly he can and does use words like urbs, oppidum, civitas, natio, patria, populus, regnum and imperium, for concepts akin in meaning; but the key use of res publica for Bruni was to designate that which was overthrown by Julius Caesar - the old king-free Roman constitution (26) . A year earlier, Bruni put this same res publica into a speech of Niccol Niccoli attacking Dante (and Salutati's De tyranno) for putting the two Bruti, Tarquin's enemy and Caesar's murderer, in Limbo and deep Hell respectively (27) . Bruni's bracketing of the Roman res publica between the fall of Tarquin in 509 and the rise of Caesar in 50 BC may be the earliest modern instance of this historiographical distinction, which is now not only standard but also one of the principal pegs fixing our modern meaning of republic. Moreover, Bruni makes clear in his translation of Aristotle's Politics and in the essay he wrote in Greek on the Florentine system (c. 1430) that he has taken over the classical equivalency between res publica and politeia 28.
We know that Bruni's influence was limited by the fact that he never attained the contemporary fame of Salutati and none of his work was printed or translated until the nineteenth century, but in Florence it provided an exemplary norm. It was confirmed not only by other humanists like Biondo and Bracciolini, but even by newly published classics like the Annals and Histories of Tacitus and the Catiline and Jugurthine War of Sallust (29) .
Humanist language was, of course, not popular language, and we should not overlook another development of the late fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries: the development in the vernacular of the term repubblica to mean a state where there is not only no prince but where the whole people are thought of as the sovereign. Evidence is problematical and slim, but if we may accept the well-known French text called the Memoirs of Boucicault, the Pisans could call on the Genoese in 1410 in these revolutionary terms: "Do better, take the lordship away from your king [Charles VI of France] and kill Boucicault and all his Frenchmen and live in a republic like us." (30) . Again, Florence gives some of the best evidence. Dino Compagni in the 1270s described Florence only as the "commune," Gregorio Dati in the 1390s referred to his sovereign as "popolo e commune," but Luca Landucci, at the time (1494-1512) of what is now often called the Second Florentine Republic, was already using "governo popolar" and "vivere popolare" as a description of the regime (31) . Once the word repubblica became attached, in the manner of Aristotle's second politeia 2, to these early vernacular equivalents for the Greek demokratia, even the rise of the despots in Italy could not bring back the old words.
This brings us to Machiavelli and Guicciardini. It will not surprise anyone to learn that in this small etymological area, as in so many greater ones, they took the largest step forward. It was Machiavelli and Guicciardini who attached republica to governo popolar and to theold Greek concept of demokratia. 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 1512, in the Discorso di Logrogno on what he, like Landucci, called governo popolare, and in his earliest Ricordi, Francesco Guicciardini had already begun attaching the word republica to "rule by the many," the classical third form of state (32) . The Second Florentine Republic fell on September 1 that year, and Guicciardini's friend Machiavelli probably began working on the Discourses on Livy 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.
"I say, like others who have written of republiche, that they are of three kinds, namely, Principato [of or by a prince], Ottimati [by the best], and Popolare [by the people]." (33)
But by the time he had reached discourse 16, he was apologizing for "speaking sometimes of a republica and sometimes of a prince (principato)." (34) 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 or 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 (mantenere uno stato libero) and he shifts from republica to stato libero or "free-state." (35)
If it is 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 lacking not only a prince but also 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, aristocracies, or democracies, but "either monarchies or republics." (36) This new, dichotomous usage, which grows stronger from one end of his book to the other, seems to me to be of pivotal importance to the influence of Machiavelli as a seminal political thinker - particularly his recent historiographical incarnation as a republican thinker; but the massive literature seems not yet to have discussed it (37) .
It 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 be called a republica." That would have been news to 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 occasionally reproached him for finding only in Rome (38) . Similarly, calling 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 (gentiluomini)," he says, "in my opinion a republica cannot be established." (39) Yet throughout Book III, 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 gentiluomini as landed aristocrats who live idly, a class which, he says, is not only compatible with monarchy but indeed makes monarchy (principato) inevitable. To sum up, the Machiavellian republica is a state constitutionally organized to maintain a steady level of justice, 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 its leading citizens.
Viewed alongside such a Roman standard, Florence was a distinct disappointment, and Machiavelli may well have written The Prince in a despairing effort to move his beloved 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 demokratia or popular rule ("governo popolar" or "vivere popolar") as found in Landucci, does not last much beyond the fall of the Second Florentine Republic in 1512; but the more moderate - Aristotelian - association with popular sovereignty is clear in Contarini's famous book on Venice, written 1n 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 Politica, Overo Scienza Civile Secondo la Dottrina D'Aristotile, printed in 1583 (40) .
As for the key concept that a republica cannot be ruled by one, or by a monarch, it is clear in Francesco Patrizi's Della historia dieci dialoghi and De institutione Reipublicae printed in 1560 and 1578, Paolo Paruta's Della Perfezione della vita politica of 1571 and 1579, Giovanni Botero's Relazioni universali of 1593, and a sentence in Campanella's La Citt del 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 republica entered French as république 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 commonwealth 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. This 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 ottimati" and "di molti," the few (and best) and the many. Monarchies were something else. Similarly, Paruta's Italian Discorsi politici 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 (43) .
In English, Contarini's commonwealth 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 of their own constitution (44) .
The English version of Patrizi's De institutione Reipublicae, the 1579 A
Moral Method of civile Policie...of the institution, state, and government
of a common Weale is that "the lyfe of a Civill and well instituted common
weale is to be thought far more safer then of everye Prince." It also
includes an 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 swaye." (45)
The 1599 translation of Patrizi'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 translated into in 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 welth becomes the good form of democracy. Such states don't have princes, lords, kings or tyrants, but "Magistrats." (46) .
Botero's little guide to world politics required an addition to its title between 1601 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 1611, we are not surprised that his definition of republica includes "a free state," going farther, as we shall see, than contemporary English usage (47) .
The steady beat of translations from the Italian, however, was not enough to bring the Machiavellian, much less the modern meaning of republic into French and English. For most northern humanist writers res publica, republic and république remained completely contained within scholarship and legalese. As we have seen, Thomas Elyot and Thomas Starkey in the 1530s were using publike weal and commonwealth in an entirely Ciceronian, even an Augustinian sense. (48) . Thomas Smith was using thesame word in the same way in De Republica Anglorum in 1572, Richard Hooker in 1599, and Thomas Floyd, as we have seen, in 1600. No less than James I used the then pedantic equivalent, Republicke, in the Ciceronian sense in 1598 and 1603 (49) . Though Aristotle's politeia 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 as kingless in essence (50) . On the contrary, in 1560, Guillaume Postel was able to refer to the République of the Turks, a monarchy already proverbially absolute and tyrannical to Europeans (51) . In this process, the growing fashion for Contarini's Venice, with its princely and lifetime (but elective) dogeship, did not help.
The example of Nicolas de Grouchy demonstrates the same point. The historical discipline was being remade in 16th century France. and Grouchy was one of the lawyers who remade it. Nevertheless his analysis of the ancient Roman constitution, published in 1555, used res publica with almost comic ambiguity. In the Roman res publica , he wrote, the people should be thought of as having sovereignty (omne imperium, omnem maiestatem); 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): basileia, aristokratia and demokratia (52) . 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 (53) .
Guillaume de la Perriere in Le miroir politique of 1567 used Aristotle's list of state forms from the Nichomachean Ethics (aristokratia, basileia, timokratia, oligarchia, demokratia, tyrannis - a bit like Plato's) instead of the one from the Politics (54) . Like Grouchy, he also gave them in Greek. The Ethics , we may conclude, led to less confusion than the Politics , but not much. To all six of his constitutions la Perriere applied the same term, republique , Aristotle's politeia 1, which reduced the word to a simple synonym for civitas or state (55) . Louis Le Caron's Dialogues of 1556 illustrates what may be the principal influence of Plato, whose politeia first saw print in 1513. Translated as res publica, Plato's title came to mean to readers either simply "state" or, more interestingly, "ideal state," what More had produced in Utopia , and Louis Le Caron meant by "une perfaite République." (56)
The most passionate "republican" among northern humanists was surely Etienne de la Boetie, but his use of the word republique was entirely Ciceronian (57) . In Discours sur la servitude volontaire, written between 1546 and 1555, long before the Huguenots published it in the religious wars, he asks two revealing questions: whether the other kinds of republique are better than monarchy or whether monarchy belongs in the ranks of republiques at all, since "it is difficult to believe that there is anything public in this government, where everything belongs to one." (58) Answering such a question might one day have led to a Machiavellian usage of the word, but to ask it rhetorically implied a classical-medieval one. Certainly, La Boitie hated kings, but, as Nannerl Keohane has pointed out, he hated their creatures more, and his critique of monarchy was fundamentally aristocratic (59) . 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 republic as a modern 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 république would have had to shed some of its democratic Italian baggage, and that not one but both of the two classical alternatives 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 organization took as much from the circumstances of a Renaissance free city as it did from the Acts of the Apostles. The Calvinist organization, 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 damaging 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 use of the word republique; but it wasn't.
The Huguenot "monarchomachs," 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 republican 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 res publica as far as Machiavelli had in the first sentence of The Prince. Nor did they use the word in any stronger sense than Aristotle's politeia 2. Take, for example Francois Hotman's Francogallia of 1573. This famous Huguenot attack on Catholic kings and unconstitutional monarchy was read right down to the eighteenth century. It did not use res publica in Machiavelli's sense, but instead in the second Aristotelian sense. France is a res publica where the populus is sovereign, he says, but it is always governed by a king (60) . Though uneasy enough, perhaps, to appeal to the Roman writer Sallust in support of this meaning, Hotman uses it throughout Francogallia , even in celebrated passages where he endorsed the right of the French people (that is, the elite) to make kings (ius regem constituendorum) and its right to resist and overthrow them (61) . 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 de Mariana, and he used the word res publica just as Hotman had. In De rege et regis institutione (1599), Mariana defined the word exactly along the lines of Aristotle's politeia 2, a state with ultimate popular sovereignty which was distinguished from democracy in that it used aristocracy and monarchy to institute its magistracies (62) . Mariana devotes an entire chapter (VIII) to the question of whether the king (rex) or his res publica was supreme, eventually deciding that neither or both were, depending on the circumstance. In the following chapter he argued that the law was superior to the king 63. The reader familiar with the literature of political science will recognize all these thinkers as belonging to a canon called "constitutional monarchists;" but, having examined their use of the word res publica, 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 de la Ramée or Petrus Ramus, the French translator of Plato's République. His most remarkable contribution was the method of repeated dichotomy, dividing a field of objects of thought into two mutually exclusive parts until a desired category had been reached and precisely described (64) .
Something like this method is now commonplace in computer programs with their binary logic. The importance of Ramus's method for political thought is that in favoring dualities over trinities it tended to destabilize the classical commonplace (at least as old as Herodotos) that all states were ruled either by one, by the few, or by many. Ramism favored instead the analysis that states were ruled either by one or by more than one, in other words that aristocracy and democracy must belong in one category, monarchy in the other.
I would like to be able to offer conclusive evidence for this insight, and hope in the future to do so; but here I can only report negatively that he did not use his razor on Plato's political trinities in his translation of the politeia. I can, however, do more than point to the striking relationship between Ramist method and Adams' 1787-89 definition of republic. In Johannes Althusius's Politica Methodice Digesta of 1603, the method of dichotomies is inescapable 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 forms: aristocracy and democracy. If he had turned the word res publica to mean polyarchy rather than simply "state," Althusius might have found himself cited by Adams as his earliest authority (65) Praise of Ramus and evidence of Ramist dichotomies in political terminology may also be found in Sir Walter Raleigh's History of the World, that favorite book of the English Calvinists, in 1614 (66) .
The Calvinist federal hierarchy of synods elected from below might have provided an excellent example of republican organization for anyone disposed to see it, but except for an occasional growl by James I, no one was yet applying political concepts to the organization 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 Empire 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 after it came out in 1576. As is well known, Bodin's work was one of the first great triumphs of something we would now call historical scholarship. It was intimidatingly comprehensive in its grasp, not only of the rapidly enlarging field of secular history, but also of the increasingly prestigious one of classical learning. Second, it was powerfully clear and logical, Cartesian as we might say, in its central arguments. The concept of sovereignty in Bodin simply excluded mixed government as a solecism; so that the whole effect of Aristotle's analysis of state forms became obsolete and Polybios's emphasis on the resistance of complex constitutions to decay - anakyklosis - was dispensed with (67) .
Third, it was the most useful single work on politics and law in the hands of religious moderates trying to find a political solution to the civil wars. Its authority was as unique as that of the Esprit des lois would be two centuries later. As France moved toward absolute monarchy under the stress of assassination and religious war, Bodin's definitions of republique and souveraineté simply swept the field, and translations of the work insured that cognates of his republique would enter every European literary language.
Contrary to the almost universal belief of us Enlightenment scholars, it was the Puritan Revolution that finally brought back Machiavelli's use of republic to mean a state without a king. Up until then, it seems, the two connotations of popular sovereignty and of just and complex order were held in enough tension to prevent this from happening. A rather neat example of how Ciceronian language continues in full revolution is Lord Brooke's exhortation to his roundhead soldiers in 1643, in which he referred to "that great commonwealthman of the Romans, Cicero." (68) .
The need for a new word only became acute in February, 1649, after the trial and execution of Charles I. In 1647, commonwealth is rare and republic nonexistent in the Putney debates which all concern "settling the kingdom." "Kingdom," commonwealth, and "nation" are nearly synonymous. But with the abolition of "monarchy" on 7 February, 1649, the words "monarchy" and "kingdom" both became unusable for supporters of the revolution, except to refer to past history. On the 11th, there was even a law which replaced "King" 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-state is, of course, more commonly used than republic and commonwealth's-man seems to force out republican, but three are there by 1650, all four by 1659, in the rhetoric of the English Revolution (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 an enthusiast for (more) liberty (70) . Republic is the last to appear. William Walwyn's pamphlet, A Manifestation... of 14 April, 1649, contains the word in the satisfyingly unambiguous clause "even when the Monarchy is changed into a Republike." (71) . May 19 brought the Act of Parliament declaring England "a Commonwealth or Free-state," upon which the word Free-state is almost immediately turned against the Parliament by a Leveller attack (72) . Mercurius Pragmaticus of 12 June refers to the "new device of the Republic." Moderate Intelligencer in early July reports unhappily that these days "if you say, 'Caesar or nothing,' they say, 'a republick or nothing.'" (73) On 6 November a viscount writes his father, an earl, that the Swiss "ministers... publicly give God thanks for the establishment of the republic." (74) Diplomatically, England is quickly styled "the Republic of England;" such was the title demanded of the Venetian ambassador by Master of Ceremonies Sir Oliver Fleming in 1651 (75) .
In January, 1650, Parliament settled on "The Commonwealth of England" as the subject of oaths of allegiance, "as it is now established, without a king or House of Lords," and this is (probably not intentionally) about as close to Machiavelli's republica, his stato libero of the Discourses I:19ff with neither king nor gentlemen, as anyone had come so far. Marchamont Nedham, Parliament's publicist, knew exactly how close, and wrote in The Case of the Commonwealth of England Stated that "to our present case Machiavel speaks very aptly... a nation which hath cast off the yoke of tyranny or kingship, for in his language they [tyranny and kingship] are both the same thing." (76) Nedham also completed the circle of Aristotelian influence by translating politeia 2 as "free state." (77) The modern meaning of republic had arrived. 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, or (like most contemporaries) to a bit of both ideas? How would his regime have been different if the ideas had been? Bulstrode Whitelocke records two conversations with the dictator in November and December, 1651, in which Cromwell makes it clear that a mixed monarchy was not, in his mind, a republic (78) . Perhaps Cromwell chose a mixed monarchy, and this is why he emerged with the old royal regent's title of Lord Protector. To this there was what must be called a republican opposition, which included, to name a few, Whitelocke, Ludlow, Sidney, and "William Allen" (who seems to have been Edward Sexby) who had a pamphlet printed in 1657 that advocated killing tyrants and aimed at Cromwell (79) .
It will be asked, what was Thomas Hobbes doing? Leviathan was published in 1651 and so was Hobbes's own translation of his De Cive of 1642. Neither uses republic. In fact, Hobbes seems to actually avoid it. Perhaps he thought it was politically loaded, or that it wasn't quite English. Commonwealth, which he does use, appears in both De Cive and Leviathan used very much in the Bodin sense of "ordered state", which Hobbes may have absorbed during his years in Paris. De Cive is of particular interest because it is Hobbes's own translation from his prerevolutionary Latin, where the word for state in general is civitas. Hobbes begins by translating this as "city" ("monarchy is no less a city than democracy"), but in chapter 10 he switches to "commonweal." (80)
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 II's old tutor was still, with one exception, using commonwealth in the old sense to analyze the history of the Puritan Revolution. The nearest he came to the term republican was to describe Cicero and Seneca as "anti-monarchics." Interestingly, Spinoza took the same rearguard action. Though he loved his respublica, the Netherlands, in the posthumous Tractatus Politicus of 1677-78 he used civitas for "state" in general, and respublica (uniquely, as far as I can see) for policy or affairs of state (81).
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 res publica. Milton recorded in his commonplace 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 respub.. Most of the time in the Defensio his word means a (good) state without a 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 à 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 City of God. In 1654, Milton's res publica was unambiguously modern in the Defensio 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)... do not dare to make against the republic (Rempublicam)." (82)
Other uses of commonwealth, commonwealthman, res publica and republic that seem unambiguously modern (or 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 The Commonwealth of Oceana in 1656.
No one could be more of a classical republican - or more classically a republican - than James Harrington, whom John Adams remembered in 1775 defining a republic as "a government of laws and not of men." (83) But Adams' memory was not quite accurate, and the mistake is revealing. What Harrington really wrote was that "Government... is the Empire of Lawes and not of Men," adding later that it was Aristotle's and Livy's "assertion that a common-wealth is an Empire of Lawes and not of Men." (84) Harrington was, of course, a mixed government man, a republican 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, "Whether a Common-wealth be Monarchical or Popular, the freedom is the same;" and he defined commonwealth in several ways in Oceana, all of them Aristotelian rather than Machiavellian. "Common-wealths in generall be Governments of the Senate proposing, the people resolving, and the magistracy executing." was one. Another was "A Common-Wealth is nothing else but the National 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. It was a "Government established upon an equal Agrarian, arising into the superstructures or three orders..." The man said at the time to be the only one in England who "knew what a republic was" still used the word commonwealth in an Aristotelian sense (85) .
Perhaps this helps to explain why Harrington and the bright young Harringtonians found it so much easier to accept the Restoration than the radical "commonwealthsmen." One of the latter, in 1657, defined a Common-wealth as a union of families living under a government that it or God has chosen. Cicero and Augustine are invoked to add justice to the definition, and Sophocles is quoted to prove that "Tyrannie... looses that name, and is actually another thing," and to recommend tyrannicide. It is in thinking like this that commonwealth retains its radical character, even when given an old-fashioned definition; but it is clear that the friends of kingless government were fewer as the Restoration approached (86) .
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 citation in the OED. Prynne's The Re-Publicans and Others Spurious Good Old Cause gives that logorrheic Presbyterian a very important place in the history, not of republican thought, but of republican semantics. In it, he uses the word Republic(k, ck, ke) to refer to England under Richard Cromwell, and to England from 1649 to the Protectorate. It is the contrary of "Monarchy" and of "Elective Kingdom," and the equivalent of free-state, of an "Oligarchy," and of any state without a king (87) . Prynne's Republicans in 1659 and 1660include the leaders of the Rump, the Independents, the Anti-Protectorate party, Marcus Brutus, Jesuits, Hollanders, and the Thirty Tyrants 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 (88) . Samuel 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 republicanism and Calvinist church government into verse:
"Presbyterie does but translate
The Papacy to a Free State
A Common-wealth of Poperie
Where ev'ry Village is a See." (89) .
For twenty years and more after the Restoration, this kind of mutual recrimination is all that keeps the words republic, republican and commonwealthsman alive. This is almost the case with republic and to a lesser extent with commonwealth. 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 république, which we left under the magistracy of Jean Bodin (90) .
French lexicographers find only one use of the Machiavellian republique between Bodin and the Furetière dictionary of 1694, the publication in 1620 of the Memoires of Boucicault, reporting the 1410 exhortation of the Pisans to the Genoese, "vivez en republique comme nous." To this one might add Louis Le Roy's distillation of his lifetime of learning, De la vicissitude ou variete des choses en l'univers of 1575. Le Roy's judgement that republics are more grateful to meritorious citizens than monarchies is that of one of the French kingdom's greatest scholars who seems nevertheless to have gone hungry often. We should also note a fairly clear use by the apostate protestant Rémond in 1605 and a much more ambiguous one by Jean de Brébeuf, 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 Itati of Paraguay. There may be other, less ambiguous uses of our word among their records, but at least one, in 1653, about the "régime républicain" of the Hurons suggests, not Jesuit ideas, but the effect of a failed revolution called the Fronde (91) .
The Fronde brought anti-absolutists briefly out 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 république. One asked, on 11 February, 1649, "Quel droit a le Parlement... de mettre main au gouvernement de l'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 it clear that république and républicain had quite suddenly come into use to mean non- and anti-monarchic. What never happened in the fevered literature of religious war in the 16th century, happened in the political struggles of the 17th (92) .
Did 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 républicain to describe the Frondeurs in 1652 and 1653 in the Condé manuscripts at Chantilly. Hobbes's translator, Samuel Sorbière, 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 Histoire comique), the reasoning may be sound (93) .
In France, even more than in England, the usage was short-lived. The few suggestive uses of république between 1653 and 1675 are ambiguous, either historical, or based on the diplomatic distinction. Jean (or John) Chardin, who wrote up his travels in the absolute monarchy of Persia, and published them in both his native France and his adopted England, used république without exception in talking about the Italian free cities. Louis Morèri's Le grand dictionaire historique of 1674 begins "la nouvelle république" in Rome with Brutus. Nicolas-Abraham Amelot de la Houssaye had been a French ambassador to Venice, and he returned with a diplomatic, not to mention a Venetian, sense of 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 Histoire du gouvernement de Venise in a political glossary at the end; and if one adds up the categories (or dichotomizes them), a république includes aristocracy and democracy, but not monarchy. Amelot, moreover, was a translator of Machiavelli and familiar with the career of Boucicault (94) .
Meanwhile in England both commonwealth and republic were losing 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, Commonwealthsman and republican, lost any strength because they all but disappeared from print between 1660 and 1671. All I have been able to find is the memo of a conversation with Charles II in Ashcraft's new study, reporting that around the time of the signing of the Secret Treaty of Dover in 1670, Charles II called Holland a refuge whose destruction would hurt "the Commonwealth faction in England." (95) Old revolutionaries 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 this was not a bit like the fate of the words "hippie" and "radical" in the U.S. 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, James, 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, Tories; and in a bewildering decade-long series of political actions, legal and treasonous, public and clandestine, the regime of the restored Stuarts was brought to an ignominious end. Almost immediately, the new rulers and their Whig supporters ran into similar opposition from the Tories which lasted until the roles were reversed in 1701.
In chronological order, this series of events is called the Popish Plot, the Exclusion Parliaments of 1679 and 1680, The Third Exclusion Parliament, or Oxford Parliament, of 1681, the trial 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 Commonwealth, Republic, Commonwealthsman, and Republican, including particularly interesting uses by John Locke and Jonathan Swift.
In 1671, we find both our partisan terms in Samuel Parker's A Defence and Continuation of the Ecclesiastical Polity. In 1675, Shaftesbury gives a speech in Parliament warning of a "Democraticall Republique," and leading to the suspicion that he was in favor 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 December 11 of that same year, Nathaniel Lee put a self-described commonwealth's man who did not "naturally love kings," on the London stage. His Lucius Junius Brutus (actually about Marcus Brutus) was closed by the government on December 12 (96) .
In 1679, Filmer's Patriarcha had had its first, long posthumous, publication, and in 1681, James Tyrrel made the 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 commonwealthsman who "wanted to set up a democracy amongst us." 1681 also saw the publication of Brutus (the frustrated playwright, Lee, settled for a quarto instead of a production), and of the extended Harringtonian tract, Plato Redivivus, by Henry Neville x (97) . On 13 April that year, with the Third Exclusion Parliament meeting at royalist Oxford, Charles II's new publicist, Cavalier veteran Roger L'Estrange, debuted his weekly called The Observator which tarred the Whigs as Common-wealths-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 Achitophel, the victory piece of the Tories after Shaftesbury's trial (98) .
In January, 1682, White Kennett described the contract theory of government as a "Republican" notion. John Evelyn described the London Gazette as republicarian. John Northleigh, a prolific Stuart publicist who used the word often, described as "republican designs" efforts to limit the king's power and bring the regime "near... to the nature of a commonwealth." Dryden in The Medall used the word Republique twice, the second time to draw the parallel dear to James I that presbyterian church government 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 (99) .
When a plot against Charles II actually transpired in 1683, one of the victims of the royal revenge was, in fact, a republican straight out of the Tories' fearful imagination. Algernon Sidney's manuscript reply to Filmer, which was instrumental in his conviction and beheading and did not see print until 1698, made it clear that he thought England or any nation could do without any monarch at all. Later memoirs called him republican, but there is no evidence he said it of himself (100) . His ideal government, as it emerges from the Discourses, was nothing more radical than the "mixed government" familiar since the rediscovery of Aristotle and Polybios, which he referred to as a commonwealth. He was, however, aware of 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 (101) . Sidney's mild judgment, "if I 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, I think I might make it good." may have been in Adams' mind when he praised Sidney and like writers in his Thoughts on Government and said that they proved "that there is no good government but what is republican." (102) . 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 The Triumph of Our Monarchy, over the Plots and Principles of Our rebels and 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 limited monarchy, and advocates of revolution, always defending themselves against the charge of being republicans (103) .
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, Locke uses commonwealth in the same way as Sidney. He forces Filmer's argument to the reductio that "all commonwealths are nothing but downright monarchies" instead of only some of them. Then he forks him with the converse: "or else they were a commonwealth and then where was monarchy?" (104) 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 injustice and an Aristotelian one could do the same on the grounds of disorder. All Locke has done with the word is what Sidney did, melding absolutism and tyranny.
In the Second Treatise, however, Locke begins to ironize on the word commonwealth. "I crave leave to use [it]," he writes, "in 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 humor, citing that theoretician of absolutism as authority 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 reipublicae, or "body of the commonwealth." (105)
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 New Dictionary of the Terms Ancient and Modern of the Canting 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." (106) 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 Whig 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." (107)
Republic was now, I think, influenced by republican, almost a "back-formation," (as lexicographers say) in English. I take the decade after 1688, to borrow a phrase, to be the Machiavellian moment in the history of the English word republic, because I can find no uses after that date which do 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 (108) .
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 of 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," but the actual agreement was on seven principles "in order to the conservation of this Commonwealth." (109)
Walter Moyle used both the non-monarchical republic and commonwealth in his Essay 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 the Tories impeached the Whig ministry, Daniel Defoe published his True-Born Englishman with its neat and clearly pregnant pun:
"Titles are shadows! Crowns are empty
The 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 commonwealth and republic are equivalent 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 of Italy in 1703 and in the Spectator of 1711. In 1707, a conservative writer, one Henry Gandy, even used the word Republick in its new sense while discussing Aristotle's preference for monarchy in the Ethics (110) .
By 1721, with the publications of John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon, republic in England had come to rest, meaning something close 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 Bolingbroke, were bound to get 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 politics became domesticated in this period. Only artisan radicals, like Thomas Paine in 1776, remembered the near equivalence of republican and "leveller" or "democrat" that had been part of the word before the 1690s (111) .
In France, something similar began to happen. Dissidents, particularly Huguenots, grew in numbers, were recognized, and labelled with the word républicain, denoting, more and more inescapably, opposition to any monarchy. Thus the marquis de Duras in 1676 wrote exasperatedly of "cet esprit républicain" 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 "l'esprit frondeur." (112) 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 1719), defines a republicain as "Reipublicae studiosus, qui a l'esprit de Republique. Qui n'aime point l'etat monarchique." He defines Republique as "Respublica, Mot general qui veut dire Etat libre qui est gouverne par les principaux du peuple, pour le bien commun de l'Etat." adding a poem by De la Vigne opposing Republique to "grands Rois." (113) .
The revocation of the Edict of Nantes raised the stakes of dissidence 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." ("The king has not driven heretics from his kingdom in order to make a republique of them.") 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 sort 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, 1692 and 1695, Bayle used the word république in a serious, Machiavellian sense, stronger than the rather bantering République des lettres coinage, immortalized in his journal of 1683, would suggest. One sentence found under "Hobbes," appears again under "Pericles," with républicain simply replaced by "democratique." (114)
Antoine Furetiére's Dictionaire universel, published in the Netherlands in 1690, was a good deal more explicit, and more generous to republicans. In the article "Libre," he defines an état libre like Machiavelli's stato libero and Nedham's free-state as "une Republique gouvernée par des Magistrats élus par des suffrages libres" ("governed by Magistrates elected by free suffrage") like those of the Greeks and Romans. Republique he defined as a "état populaire," a democracy (Landucci's "governo popolar"). As for a Republiquain, he was "passioné pour la Republique..." a lover of his country's liberty like the Brutuses and Catos. Peoples with a "génie republiquain," ("republican genius") like the Genoese, find it difficult to accustom themselves to "gouvernement monarchique." (115)
Furetière's second edition came out in 1694. The Académie française dictionary of that year described a républicain as "mutin, séditieux, opposées à 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 république had acquired its antimonarchical meaning for good, and any use of it was bound to be somewhat tendentious, even in the Regency (116) .
This, then, is one of the many subtexts of Montesquieu's famous Lettres persanes, which delighted and twitted the Parisian reader in 1721. Drawing on Chardin's description of Persian despotism, Montesquieu reversed the Bodin term and the Bodin attitude toward monarchy in the mind of his Persian visitor. Monarchy, says Rhedi, writing home, "est un état violent, qui dégénère toujours en despotisme ou en république."(Monarchy is a violent state, invariably degenerating into either despotism or a republic.") In a subsequent letter, Rhedi speculates on the origins of this strange "gouvernement républicain" in Europe, born of the love of liberty and hatred of kings among the Greeks and carried on by the Romans and Franks (117) .
Montesquieu never changed his mind about what a republic was, even after he finally studied Bodin and Machiavelli. He followed it in the 1724 Dialogue de Sylla et d'Eucrate, and in 1734 in his essay on the rise and decline of Rome. It is thus impossible for him to have found it first in England during his famous visit of 1729-31. Much more likely is it that his république was the result of a back-formation from républicain, similar to what happened in England. We may have the earliest example of this in the Jesuit Dictionnaire de Trévoux of 1704, which makes a nice symmetry with one of the last uses of the old word by an antimonarchical Jansenist in 1717 (118) .
In 1748 Montesquieu put the modern république unequivocally into the foundations of his vast masterpiece, De l'esprit des lois. His is thus the first great work of political science to divide the forms of state into monarchical, despotic, and républicain, instead of some variation on the Greek triad. Rule of the few and rule of the many became in Montesquieu nothing more than subcategories of républicain. Though it has not really been recognized, there was nothing like it, except Althusius's idea of "polyarchy." It is a considerable step in political semantics when Montesquieu asserts, in his own quotation marks, "le gouvernement républicain est celui où le peuple en corps, ou seulement une partie du peuple, a la souveraine puissance; le monarchique, celui où un seul gouverne, mais par des lois fixes et établies; au lieu que, dans le despotique, un seul, sans loi et sans règle, entraîne tout par sa volonté et ses caprices." ("Republican government is that in which the people as a body, or only a part of the people have sovereign power; monarchical government is that in which one alone governs, but by fixed and established laws; whereas in despotic government, one alone, without law or rule, makes everything happen by his will and his caprices.") (119)
Montesquieu's counterpart in England was David Hume. He was a greater philosopher 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 III, 1740), and it is inescapably explicit in the first volume of the Essays, 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 Essays of 1742, an additional contribution equates republic with a "free state" ruled by the "few" or the "many," repeatedly contrasting it with "monarchies" of two kinds, "barbarous" and "civilized." It is tempting to conclude that Hume's three categories were conceived in the presence of the three nearly identical categories of the Esprit des lois, yet to be printed (121) .
In 1755, Samuel Johnson began publishing his great Dictionary, the first with etymological documentation. Johnson defines a republic as "a government of more than one." His citation is from Addison, possibly the Remarks on Several Parts of Italy in the Years 1701, 1702, 1703, certainly the Spectator, but it 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 (122) .
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 Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America (123) . 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. So were complex constitutions generally, especially those which balanced the classes or otherwise resembled the mixed government of Polybios; such systems he had always favored. Popular rule, the freeholder franchise, or the supremacy of democratically elected legislatures, which was what Paine in 1776 and 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 that 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, it excluded only tyranny and absolute monarchy where the king was legis absolutus - above the law. It thus included all states that Adams would have recognized 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 nature and wary of people en masse, but a man who nevertheless called himself a republican, its meaning was bound to stabilize. 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 modern meaning, even before the Revolution, that in Kenrick's English Dictionary of 1773 (otherwise largely cribbed from Johnson's) there is an entry which is the exact converse of Bodin's so that "state" is defined as "a republick; a government not monarchical." (124)
At this point Adams may help us approach from a different angle the question that has dogged American historiography for nearly twenty years now. How central to republican ideology is "classical virtue" or public-spiritedness? Does this word republic, especially in the hands of an old curmudgeon like Adams, really imply virtue and class deference? How much?
The fact is that these aspects of Adams' thought about republican government were already old-fashioned, and much grief fell to Adams for not excluding aristocracy from his conception as he had excluded monarchy. To the learned, the old meaning of republic might continue to act as an undertow on the new; but to most people who used the word, it was by 1750 no longer a technical term of philosophy or classical studies, even less a term from Italian Renaissance politics. Republican and commonwealthsman - no less républicain - had meant radicals opposed to kings and to deference since the words had been invented in 1643-49. Republic, commonwealth, and république to these people now meant a (relatively) egalitarian society with "democratic" government. It was with these words that Americans baptized the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in 1776, the Commonwealth of Virginia in 1778, with its motto "Sic semper tyrannis," and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, for which Adams wrote the constitution in 1780 (125) .
For the French revolutionaries, especially Robespierre and Saint-Just, the république demanded virtue, classically defined; but the most important implication of the word was that the kings were gone. The thousand-year monarchy given its philosophical underpinnings by Jean Bodin's backward-looking definition of république, had come to an end, at the will of the people. Res publica was now, especially in French, the people's thing.
As far as virtue went, the Republicans who gave the name to Jefferson's party in the 1790s thought to have demonstrated sufficient public spirit by plunging into politics and turning rascals out. They did not understand their Republic to be the complex representative democracy, lexicologized by Noah Webster out of Madison's Federalist 10, and fearfully designed to checkmate factions of the propertyless. Instead, as Thomas Paine put it in The Rights of Man, "the government of America, which is wholly on the system of representation, is the only real republic in character and practice that now  exists. Its government has no other object than the public business of the nation, and therefore it is properly a republic" because "a republic... with respect to form... was the simple democratical form" which America adapted to a large territory by means of a system of representation (126) This is the last state of the word in America, except for some scholarly types on the right. In other words, as the Straight-out Harrisonian was among the first to say in 1840, "the word Democrat is synonymous with that of Republican." (127)
William R. Everdell
Saint Ann's School
1 Wade H. McCree, "On the Bicentennial of the Constitution," 92nd Street Y, NY, 26 February, 1987. The U. S. Supreme Court has held a republic to be one whose government is "constructed on this principle, that the Supreme Power resides in the body of the people." (James Wilson in Chisholm v. Georgia (1793), 2 Dall. 419, 457), and a government "of the people" (In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449). South Carolina defined it as "the state" (State v. Harris, 2 Bailey (SC) 599). Roman precedent calls it a state whose "administration is open to all citizens" (Toullier, Droit civil français I, 28 and n., 202, note). Oregon holds it to be a government by "representatives chosen by the people" (Kadderly v Portland, 44 Or. 118, 742 p. 710).
2 Noah Webster, Dictionary (1828), NY: Johnson Reprint, 1970, article "Republic."
3 Adams to Samuel Adams, 18 Oct, 1790 in The Works of John Adams, ed., Charles F. Adams, Boston, 1851ff, VI, 415. But he tried to define it anyway, Ibid. pp. 420-21.
4 Adams to Mercy Warren, 23 July, 1807 Massachusetts Historical Society 5th ser. IV, 1878
5 Adams, Novanglus, 6 March, 1775, in The Papers of John Adams, Cambridge MA: Harvard U. Press, 19, II, 314 and Thoughts on Government, January, 1776 in Works of John Adams, VI, 415.
6 Adams to Roger Sherman, 17 July, 1789, Works VI, 437.
7 Adams, Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America in Works, VI, p. 10.
8 Jean Bodin, Six livres de la République (1576) in Bodin, The Six Bookes of a Commonweale, tr., Richard Knolles (1606), ed., Kenneth D. McRae, Cambridge, MA: Harvard U. Press, 1962
9 Wolfgang Mager's magisterial article, "Republik" in Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe: historische Lexikon zur politischen-sozialen Sprache in Deutschland, v5, Stuttgart: E. Klett, 1972ff; is the most comprehensive of all existing treatments of this issue. Others include: Adams, Willi Paul, "Republicanism in Political Rhetoric before 1776" in Political Science Quarterly, 85(1970); Appleby, Joyce, "What is Still Republican in the Political Philosophy of Thomas Jefferson?" in William & Mary Quarterly, 3rd ser., 39(1982); Appleby, "Republicanism in Old and New Contexts," in William & Mary Quarterly, 43(1986); Appleby, ed., "Republicanism" in American Quarterly 37(1985); Ashcraft, Richard, Revolutionary Politics & Locke's Two Treatises of Government Princeton, NJ: Princeton U. Press, 1986; Bailyn, Bernard, Ideological Origins of the American Revolution, Harvard U. Press, 1967, pp34-93; Banning, Lance, "Republican Ideology and the Triumph of the Constitution, 1789 to 1793" in WMQ, 3rd ser., 31 (1979); Banning, "Jeffersonian Ideology Revisited: Liberal and Classical Ideas in the New American Republic" in WMQ, 3rd ser., 43(1986); Barnow, Jeffrey, "Eighteenth Century Republicanism" in Paul J. Korshin, ed., The American Revolution and Eighteenth Century Culture, NY: AMS Press, 1986; Baron, Hans, "Calvinist Republicanism and Its Historical Roots" in Church History VIII(1939), 30; Bloch, Ruth H. et al., "The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787: A Symposium of Views and Reviews" in WMQ, 44:3(1987); Burtt, Shelley, "The Civic Virtue of Selfish Citizens: Cato's Letters and the Republican Tradition" American Society for Eighteenth-Century Studies, Pittsburgh, 14 Apr, 1991; Carrithers, David W., "Montesquieu, Jefferson, and the Fundamentals of Eighteenth-Century Republican Theory" in The French-American Review, 6(1982) 160-88; Collinson, Patrick C., "The Monarchical Republic of Queen Elizabeth I" in Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 69(1987); Crick, Bernard, Basic Forms of Government, London, 1973; Crosara, Fulvio, Respublica e respublicae: Cenni terminologici dall'età romana all'XI secolo (Atti del Congresso internazionali di diritto romano e di storia del diritto, 1948), v4, ed. G. Moschetti, Milan, 1953; Dunthorne, Hugh, "Prince and Republic: The House of Orange in Dutch and Anglo-Dutch Politics during the First Half of the Eighteenth Century" in Studies in History and Politics IV(1985); Durand, Yves, Les Républiques au temps des monarchies, Paris, PUF, 1973; Everdell, William R., The End of Kings: A History of Republics and Republicans, NY: The Free Press, 1983; Fabre, Jean, "Stanislas Leszczynski et l'idée républicaine en France au XVIIIe siècle" in Lumières et Romantisme, Paris, 1963, pp. 131-149; Fallon, Richard H., Jr., "What is Republicanism and Is It Worth Reviving?" Harvard Law Review 102:1695(1989); Fink, Zera S., The Classical Republicans, Evanston, IL: Northwestern U. Press, 1945; Gilbert, Felix, Machiavelli and Guicciardini, Princeton, NJ: Princeton U. Press, 1965; Gleason, Elisabeth G., "Reading Between the Lines of Gasparo Contarini's Treatise on the Venetian Senate" in Historical Reflections 15:1(1988); Gribbin, William, "Rollin's Histories and American Republicanism" in William & Mary Quarterly, 29(1972); Guenée, Bernard, States and Rulers in Later Medieval Europe, tr. J. Vale from L'Occident au 14e et 15e siècles, New York: Basil Blackwell, 1985; Hinsley, F. H., Sovereignty, 2nd ed., Cambridge: Cambridge U. Press, 1986; Hutson, James, "County, Court, and Constitution: Antifederalism and the Historians" in WMQ, 3rd ser., 38:3(1981); Jacob, Margaret, The Radical Enlightenment: Pantheists, Freemasons and Republicans, London: Allen & Unwin, 1981; Kenyon, Cecilia M., "Republicanism and Radicalism in the American Revolution: An Old-Fashioned Interpretation" in WMQ 19(1962); Keohane, Nannerl O., Philosophy and the State in France: The Renaissance to the Enlightenment, Princeton, NJ: Princeton U. Press, 1980; Kerber, Linda, "Republican Revisionism" paper delivered at the AHA Annual Meeting, NY, 1982; Kerber, "The Republican Ideology of the Revolutionary Generation" in American Quarterly 37(1985), 474; Kramnick, Isaac, "Republican Revisionism Revisited" (1982) in Republicanism and Bourgeois Radicalism, Ithaca: Cornell U. Press, 1990; Leymarie, M., "Sur l'emploi du mot 'républicain' au XVIIIe siècle" in Annales historiques de la Révolution française, 32(1960); Lyons, J.C., "Concept of the Republic in French Life of the 16th Century" in Roman review, 1930; Marcuse, Herbert, "Republic" (article) in Encyclopedia Americana; McCracken, David, "Republican Rhetoric: The Politics of Junius" in Enlightenment Essays, 6:2(1975);Morante, Regine Ann Markell, "Democracy" and "Republic" in American Ideology, 1787-1840, Columbia University PhD Diss., 1971; Nicolet, Claude, L'id^e r^publicaine en France, 1789-1924, Paris: Gallimard, 1982; Pangle, Thomas L., The Spirit of Modern Republicanism: The Moral Vision of the American Founders and the Philosophy of Locke, Chicago: U. of Chicago Press, 1988; Peterson, Paul, "The Meaning of Republicanism in The Federalist" in Publius 9(1979); Peterson, Paul, "Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances: The Delicate Balance between Republican Liberty and Power" in G. L. McDowell, ed., Taking the Constitution Seriously, Dubuque, IO, 1981; Pocock, J. G. A., The Machiavellian Moment, Princeton, NJ: Princeton U. Press, 1975; Raab, Felix, The English Face of Machiavelli, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1965; Riemer, Neal, "The Republicanism of James Madison" in Political Science Quarterly 69(1954); Robbins, Caroline, ed., Two English Republican Tracts, Cambridge: Cambridge U. Press, 1969; Rodgers, Daniel T., "Republicanism: The Career of a Concept" Conference on Political Identity in American Thought, Yale, 21 Apr, 1991; Rosenberg, Arthur, "Res publica" (article) in RE 2. R., v1(1914); Ross, Dorothy, "The Liberal Tradition Revisited and the Republican Tradition Addressed" in J. Higham & P. K. Conkin, eds., New Directions in American Intellectual History, Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins U. Press, 1979; Schulte Nordholt, J. W., "The Example of the Dutch Republic for American Federalism" in Bijdragen en Medelingen betreffende de Geschiedenis der Nederlanden 94(1979); Schwoerer, Lois G., "No Standing Armies!" The Antiarmy Ideology in Seventeenth Century England, Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins U. Press, 1974; Schwoerer, The Declaration of Rights, 1689, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins U. Press, 1981; Shalhope, Robert E., "Toward a Republican Synthesis: The Emergence of an Understanding of Republicanism in American Historiography" WMQ, 29(1972); Shalhope, Robert E., "Republicanism and Early American Historiography" WMQ, 39(1982); Shoemaker, Robert W., "'Democracy' and 'Republic' as Understood in Late Eighteenth Century America" in American Speech, 41(1966); Skinner, Quentin, Foundations of Modern Political Thought, 2 vols., Cambridge: Cambridge U. Press, 1978; Smith, Bruce James, Politics and Remembrance: Republican Themes in Machiavelli and De Tocqueville, Princeton, NJ: Princeton U. Press, 1985; Smith, James Morton, "The Transformation of Republican Thought, 1763-1787" in Indiana Historical Society Lectures, 1969-1970, Indianapolis, IN: IHS, 1970; Sperber, Hans & Travis Trittschuh, American Political Terms: An Historical Dictionary, Detroit, MI: Wayne State U. Press, 1962; Stark, Rudolf, "Res publica" (1937) in Römische Wertbegriffe, ed., H. Opperman, Darmstadt, 1967; Stourzh, Gerald, Alexander Hamilton and the Idea of Republican Government, Stanford, CA: Stanford U. Press, 1970; Suerbaum, Werner, Vom antiken zum frühmittelalterlichen Staatsbegriff: über Verwendung und Bedeutung von res publica und status von Cicero bis Jordanis (1961), Münster, 1970; Vetterli, Richard & Gary Bryner, In Search of the Republic: Public Virtue and the Roots of American Government, Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Littlefield, 1987; Vile, M. J. C., Constitutionalism and the Separation of Powers, Oxford, 1967; Walker, James, "Dissent and Republicanism after the Restoration" in Baptist Quarterly 8:5(Jan, 1937); Wartburg, Walther von, Französisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch, Basel: Zbinden, 1962; Wiecek William M., The Guarantee Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Ithaca, NY: Cornell U. Press, 1972; Winterton, George, Monarchy to Republic: Australian Republican Government, Melbourne: Oxford U. Press, 1985; Witt, Roland G., "The Rebirth of the Concept of Republican Liberty in Italy" Studies in Honor of Hans Baron, Florence, 1971; Wood, Gordon S., The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787, Chapel Hill: U. of North Carolina Press, 1969; Wormuth, F. D., The Origins of Modern Constitutionalism, NY, 1949. An earlier version of the present article was read to the International Society of Eighteenth-Century Studies at Budapest in 1987, and published by the Republican Party of Australia in 1988.
10 Floyd, Picture of A Perfit Commonwealth, London, 1600, facs. ed., NY: Da Capo, 1973, pp 1, 3
11 Augustine, City of God, ed., David Knowles, NY: Penguin, 1972, Book 2, ch 9, 2:21, 2:42, 5:18, 19:21, 19:24. Augustine's importance in the transmission and alteration of the Roman meaning of res publica, from the Middle Ages to Samuel Butler (c1660) is profound and so far only Mager (see note 9, above) has examined it. Online version of Augustine, City of God
12 Plutarch, "Politika paroggelmata (Praecepta gerenda reipublicae)," and "Peri monarchias kai demokratias kai oligarchias (De unius in republica dominatione, populari statu, et paucorum imperio)" in Moralia 48, 58, Cambridge, MA: Harvard U. Press (Loeb), 19. Histories of Polybios - Bk. VI, Cycles of Political Constitutions
13 Guenée, Bernard, States and Rulers in Later Medieval Europe, tr., J. Vale, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1985, pp. 4-5. Cf Charles de Grassaille, Regalium Franciae libri duo, Paris, 1545 (MS ca. 1538)
15 Thomas Elyot, The Boke Named the Governour (1531), 2v, ed., S.E. Lehmberg, London, 1962, I:3, 161-162 and II:443; Thomas Starkey, Dialogue between Reginald Pole and Thomas Lupset, ed., K.M. Burton, London: Chatto & Windus, 1948
16 Augustine, City of God, 2:21, 19:24, 20:21-24
17 Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics 1160a31-b16; Politics, 1280b38-1281a3, 1295a40, 1263b36-37, 1276a8-b15, 1273a39-b1, 1278b6-15, 1295a40-b2, 1264a24-1266b38, 1277a12-b32, 1283a3-42, 1288a6-b4, 1289a10-25, 1292b11-21, 1297a14-b34, 1323a14-1342b34.
18 Aristotle, Politics, Book 4, ch. 7, tr. T.A. Sinclair, NY: Penguin, 1962, p. 164. Online Politics by Aristotle.
19 For example, John Ponet (or Poynet), Short Treatise of Politicke Power, Strasbourg, 1556
20 Tholommeo of Lucca, De regimine principum II:8, IV:1 in Ewart Lewis, ed., Medieval Political Ideas, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1954, pp. 292, 297.
21 Ibid., VI:1 in Ewart Lewis, ed., Medieval Political Ideas, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1954, pp. 297-98.
22 Leo Mucha Mladen, "Bartolus the Man" in Machaut's World, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 314(1978)
23 Bartolus, De Guelfis et Gebellinis in E. Emerton, ed., Humanism and Tyranny, Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith, 1964, p. 278
24 Salutati, De Tyranno in E. Emerton, ed., Humanism and Tyranny, Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith, 1964, p. 108
25 Bruni, Laudatio Florentinae Urbis in Hans Baron, From Petrarch to Leonardo Bruni, Chicago: U. of Chicago Press, 1968. English translation by Benjamin J. Kohl in R. G. Witt & Kohl, eds., The Earthly Republic, Philadelphia: U. of Pennsylvania Press, 1978.
26 Bruni, Laudatio, p. 245, 247, 262
27 Bruni, Dialogues to Pier Paolo Vergerio (ad Petrum Paulum Istrum I & II) in Prosatori latini del Quattrocento ed., E. Garin, Milan, 1952, tr., in D. Thompson & F. Nagel, eds., The Three Crowns of Florence, NY: Harper, 1972.
28 Bruni, Peri tes ton Phlorentinon politeias, ed., C.E. Neumann, with German tr., Frankfurt-am-Main, 1822
29 Baron, From Petrarch to Leonardo Bruni, pp. 66-69. Poggio Bracciolini, Defensiuncula contra Guarinum Veronensem (c1435), Giannozzo Manetti, Laudatio Ianuensium (c1436), Flavio Biondo, Decades de inclinatione Romani imperii (1440-53).
30 "faictes mieux, ostez la seigneurie à vostre Roy, et tuez Boucicault et tous ses François, et vivez en republique comme nous, et soyons tous unis comme freres vous et nous, et vous ne ferez que saiges..." Le livre des faicts du bon messire Jean le Maingre, dit Boucicault, Paris, 1620 in C. Petitot, ed., Collection complète des mèmoires relatifs à l'histoire de France, Paris: Foucault, 1819, v. 7, p. 129. This writer of uncertain identity uses cité for Genoa and Milan, and seigneurie for Genoa and others, both fiefs and independent states. He mentions Lycurgus and the empire (seigneurie) of Sparta.
31 Luca Landucci, Diario fiorentino, Florence: Studia Biblos, 1969
32 Guicciardini, Ricordi Q1 & Q2 numbers 2,4,5,11,14,22,25, edizione critica, R. Spongano, Florence: 1951, tr., Mario Domandi, Maxims and Reflections, Philadelphia: U. of Pennsylvania Press, 1965; Guicciardini, Dialogo e Discorsi del Reggimento di Firenze, Bari, 1932
33 Machiavelli, Discorsi sopra la prima deca di Tito Livio, Milan: Rizzoli (BUR), 1984, Book I, Discourse 1, p. 64.
34 Machiavelli, Discorsi, I:16, pp. 103-104.
35 Machiavelli, Discorsi, I:17, p. 108, I:18, pp. 108, 111.
36 Machiavelli, Il Principe I in The Prince and Discourses, tr., Luigi Ricci, NY: The Modern Library, 1950, p. 4.
37 I have not found it in Pocock, Gilbert and Raab (For fuller references, see note 9, above), or in Federico Chabod, Machiavelli and the Renaissance, Cambridge, MA: Harvard U. Press, 1958, and Ridolfi, Vita di Niccolo Machiavelli, Rome, 1954. I am still looking.
38 The reference to Machiavelli in implied in Guicciardini, Ricordi C, number 110, ed., Emilio Pasquini, Milan: Garzanti, 1984, p. 136.
39 Machiavelli, Discorsi I:55, p. 176.
40 Francesco Guicciardini's Ricordi were first printed as consigli e avvertimenti in materia di re publica e di privata, Paris: Morello, 1576. The second edition was Concetti politici, Venice: Bertano, 1578. Both contained the "popular state" concept of republic, as did Luca Landucci, Diario fiorentino, Florence: Studia Biblos, 1969. Sources for the others are: Gasparo Contarini, De magistratibus et republica Venetorum Libri V (MS 1523-24, Paris, 1543), in Thesaurus antiquae Italiae, Leyden, 1722, vol V, Pt I (cf. fols. 3E, 5C-6E), and its French translation, Des Magistrats, & Republique de Venise, Paris, 1544 (Bouwsma, Venice and the Defense of Republican Liberty, pp 145ff); Donato Giannotti (b.1492), (Bouwsma, 154ff); Giannotti, Discorso sopra il fermare il governo di Firenze (MS 1527), 1st ed., Florence, 1770, in Opere politiche, ed., Furio Diaz, Milan: Marzorati, 1974. "E perché una specie di repubblica semplice e sola, si' come la popularità, o lo stato degli ottimati, o il principato di un solo, non può contentare se non un desiderio solo; perciò é necessario comporre insieme tutte e tre le dette specie di repubblica"(I,157); Libro della Repubblica de' Viniziani or de la repubblica de' Vinitiani, (MS, 1529; Rome, 1540,42,42,64, Lyon, 1569, & Venice, 1564,1572 (Bruto's edition),1591, 1630,50,78) in Opere politiche, ed., Furio Diaz, Milan: Marzorati, 1974; Giannotti, Trattato della Repubblica Fiorentina libri quattro, Venice, 1531 in Opere politiche, vol I, Milan: Marzorati, 1974 ("quando i molti sono capi de reggimento e sequitano la pubblica utilità, chiamasi la loro amministrazione propriamente repubblica"(p. 194) "tre altri sorti di repubbliche: perché il regno, se si corrompe, diventa tirannide; lo stato degli ottimati, potenza di pochi; la repubblica, popularità."(p. 195), cf. also p. 198); Gianmichele Bruto, Florentinae historiae libri VIII, Lyon, 1562, ed. S. Gatteschi, Florence, 1838 (cf II:150-176). In the service of Stephen Bathory, Bruto wrote sketches of Polish history in 1576 that first saw print in 1827, and a humanist Historia of Hungary in 1572-76 that was not published until 1863-76! Felice Figliucci, De la Politica, Overo Scienza Civile Secondo la Dottrina D'Aristotile, Libri otto, Venice, 1583.
41 Francesco Patrizi, De Institutione Reipublicae (The Founding of a Republic), Bordeaux, 1578; Patrizi, De Institutione Reipublicae, Paris, 1585; Patrizi, Della historia dieci dialoghi ne'quali si ragiona di tutte le cose appartenenti all'historia, & all'osservaria, Padua, Venice, 1560; Patrizi, Relazioni, ; Paolo Paruta (1540-98), Della Perfezione della vita politica...libri tre, Venice, 1571, 1579 in Opere politiche, 2v, Florence: Le Monnier, 1852 (cf below note 43.); Giovanni Botero, On the Causes of the Greatness of Cities, 1st ed. in Italian, Rome, 1588; Botero, Della Ragion di Stato libri dieci, Venice: Gioliti, 1589, tr., George A. Moore, Chevy Chase, MD: Country Dollar Press, 1949. Botero's first sentence is Bodinian: "The stato is a firm dominion over people." See also pp. 38-41, 43; Tomasso Campanella, La Città del Sol, Berkeley: U. of California Press, 1981, pp. 36, 70.
42 Francesco Patrizi, Livre tres fructueux... de la chose publicque..., Paris, 1520; Patrizi, The True Order and Methode of wryting and reading Histories (Della historia dieci dialoghi), tr. T. Blundevill, London, 1574; Giovanni Botero, The Traveller's Breviat, or an historicall description of the most famous kingdomes in the World, tr. I. R., London, 1601 (pp. 19, 40, 126, 150); Botero, The Traveller's Breviat, or an historicall description of the most famous kingdomes and Common-weales in the World, London, 1603 (pp. 88, 99, 1-5-106); "Patrizi," Relations of the most famous kingdoms and common-weales thorough the World (actually Botero's Relazioni universali..., 1593), tr. R. Johnson, London, 1608. See also Gianotti, De Republica Venetorum, 1st Latin ed., Leyden, 1581.
43 Paulo Paruta (1540-98), Della perfezione della vita politica..., Opere politiche, Florence: Le Monnier, 1852, vol I, pp, 390, 393, 395. Paruta's view that there are two kinds of republiche, "degli ottimati" and "degli molti" is on p. 391. Yves Durand, Les républiques au temps des monarchies, Paris: Presses universitaires, 1973, p. 49; Paruta, Discorsi politici... Di principi e di Republiche Antiche e Moderne..., Venice, 1599 in Opere politiche, vol II, pp. 1, 7. See also Paruta, Discorsi nos. 8, 9, 13, 14, 15.
44 Gasparo Contarini, The Commonwealth and Government of Venice, tr. Lewes Lewkenor (from Italian with help from the Latin "original"), London, 1599, pp. I:A2-A3, I:D2, I:C2-C3.
45 Francesco Patrizi, A Moral Method of civile Policie contayninge a learned and fruictful discourse of the institution, state, and government of a common Weale [De Institutione reipublicae]. Abridged..., tr., R. Robinson, London, 1579, pp. 1, 2, 6.
46 Patrizi, The true order and Methode of wryting and reading Hystories, "according to Aristotle"(p. Cii) "Magistrats of common weales"(p. Ciii).
47 For Botero, see above, note 42. John Florio, New World of Words, London, 1598 and Queen Anna's New World of Words (1611), facsimile ed., Menston, Yorks: The Scolar Press, 1968, article "Republica, reppubrica... a common-wealth, a free state, the weale publike."
48 Elyot, Boke of the Gouvernour (cf. above, note 15), I:3, I:161-62, II:443. Starkey, Dialogue (cf. above, note 15), pp. 23, 24, 39, 56, 61, 169-70.
49 Thomas Smith, De Republica Anglorum, 1572, ed., L. Alston (from the 1583 ed.), Cambridge, 1906, p. 46; Richard Hooker (Locke's "judicious Hooker"), Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, Book V (1599ff), ed., A. S. McGrade & B. Vickers, NY: St. Martin's, 1975. Thomas Floyd, cf. above, note. Charles C. McIlwain, ed., The Political Works of James I, Cambridge, MA: Harvard U. Press, 1916, p. 19 (Basilikon Doron, 1598), pp. 66-67 (The Trewe Lawe of Free Monarchies, 1598, 1603).
50 Louis Le Roy, La Politique d'Aristote, 1568, tr. as Aristotle's Politiques or Discourses of Government, London, 1598. Werner Gundersheimer, Le Roy's biographer, found the following note in a 1579 letter from Gabriel Harvey to a friend: "you shall litely finde open either Bodin de Republica or Le Royes Exposition uppon Aristotles Politiques." (Gundersheimer, The Life and Works of Louis Le Roy quoted in Keohane, p. 87)
51 Postel, De la Republique des Turcs, Poitiers: E. de Marnef, 1560.
52 Nicolas Gruchius, De Comitiis Romanorum libri III, Paris: Vascosan, 1555, p. 3, quoted in McFarlane, Buchanan, London: Duckworth, 1981, p. 404.
53 Bodin, Method for the Easy Comprehension of History, ed. & tr., B. Reynolds, NY: Norton, 1969. Cf especially, chap. 6 and pp. 158, 159, 166, 168f, 172f, 179. Here Bodin sketched the definitions of sovereignty and of respublica which would dominate his Six livres de la République ten years later. 54 Guillaume de la Perrière, Le miroir politique, Paris, 1567
55 de la Perrière, The Mirrour of Policie, London, 1598, p. 3.
56 Louis Le Caron, Dialogues, Paris, 1556, p. Le Caron also uses the rather rare French equivalent of the English commonwealth, la chose-publique (pp. 69, 146, 147, 156, 167).
57 La Boétie, Discours sur la servitude volontaire in Oeuvres politiques, ed., F. Hincker, Paris: Editions sociales, 1971, p. 42. The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude (On-line English translation)
59 Keohane, Philosophy and the State in France, Princeton, NJ: Princeton U. Press, 1980, pp. 96-97.
60 Hotman Francogallia, ed., R. E. Giesey, tr., J.H.M. Salmon, Cambridge: Cambridge U. Press, 1972, p. 146.
61 Ibid., pp. 204, 242.
62 Juan Mariana (1536-1623), De Rege et regis institutione libri III, Toledo, 1599, tr., G.A. Moore, Chevy Chase, MD: Country Dollar Press, 1948. Chapter five gives six kinds of government.
"what is spoken of as a res publica in the proper sense exists when the whole people participate in the government, with the limitation that the more important honors and offices are entrusted to the better men, the lesser, to the others, as befits the worth and merit of each.
Then, that which is called democracy exists when in a government of the people office is given promiscuously, and without selection, to the greater, the lesser and the middle group," p. 135.
63 Ibid.., chap VIII.
64 Walter J. Ong, Ramus: Method and the Decay of Dialogue (Cambridge, MA; Harvard U. Press, 1958) documents this enormous influence. Ramus's dichotomies began to be published in 1543 and 1546. In 1568-70, he lectured in the Rhineland.
65 Althusius, Politica methodice digesta (1603), ed. & tr., F.S. Carney as The Politics of Johannes Althusius, Boston: Beacon Press, 1964, chap. 39, p. 195 and p. 200. Althusius's rejection of the dichotomy of "regnum" and "respublica" is based on Augustine and is found in chapter 9, pp. 61-62.
66 Raleigh, History of the World, chap. 6:2, in Selected Writings, ed., G. Hammond, NY: Penguin, 1984, p. 258.
67 Jean Bodin, Six livres de la Republique in Kenneth D. McRae, ed., Bodin, Six Books of a Commonweale (1606), tr. Richard Knolles, Cambridge, MA: Harvard U. Press, 1962. "République est un droit gouvernement de plusieurs mesnages, & de ce qui leur est commun, avec puissance souveraine."(p. 1B8-10) "souveraineté... la puissance absolue & perpetuelle d'une Republique."(p. 84H6-7) "citoyen: qui n'est autre chose en propres termes, que le franc subject tenant de la souveraineté d'autrui."(p. 47A5). See Histories of Polybios, supra.
68 Robert E.L. Striver, II, Robert Greville, Lord Brooke, Cambridge, MA: Harvard U. Press, 1958, p. 68, quoted by Pocock, The Machiavellian Moment, p. 371.
69 J.P. Kenyon, ed., Stuart Constitution, Cambridge U. Press, 1966, p. 328 and no. 90, p. 324, no. 92, p. 339.
70 Gold Tried in the Fire (14 June, 1647), in The Writings of William Walwyn, ed., Jack R. McMichael & Barbara Taft, Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, 1989, p. 279.Leveller pamphlets on-line
71 William Walwyn et al., A Manifestation from... (14 April) in Ibid., p. 336.
72 Kenyon, Stuart Constitution, p. 328; The Levellers (Falsly so called) Vindicated... (1649) in Morton, Freedom in Arms, p. 316. "Martiall Monarchie more cruell... then England ever yet tasted of, and that under the Notion of a Free State, when as the People had no share at all in the constitution thereof..." (p. 314), "conquest-Government" (p. 315), "[they] stile this the First Yeer of Englands Freedom, intitle their Government a Free State, and yet none more violent, bloudy and perverse enemies thereto; for not under pains of death, and confiscation of lands and goods, may any man challenge and promote those rights of the nation..." (p. 316).
73 Mercurius Pragmaticus 12 June, in Bulstrode Whitelocke Memoirs, III, p.135 quoted by Antonia Fraser, Cromwell, NY: Dell, 1975, p. 352. Moderate Intelligencer 5 or 12 July, Ibid., p. 377.
74 Philip, viscount Lisle to Robert, earl of Leicester, 6 November, 1649, in Sidney State Papers, (Sidney, Discourses, NY, 1805, I, 79).
75 Fraser, Cromwell, NY: Dell, 1975, p. 471
76 Kenyon, ed., Stuart Constitution, no. 93. Marchamont Nedham, The Case of the Commonwealth of England Stated (1650), ed., Philip Knachel, Charlottesville, VA: U. of Virginia Press, 1969, p. 62 (Machiavelli, Discorsi, I:16).
77 Nedham, Case of the Commonwealth, p. 123.
78 In 1650 Andrew Marvell wrote in An Horatian Ode upon Cromwel's Return from Ireland "Nor yet grown stiffer with Command / But still in the Republick's hand"(lines 81-82). The Cromwell - Ludlow conversation in Ludlow, Memoirs I, 244 is quoted in Fraser, Cromwell, p. 461. The Whitlocke-Cromwell conversations in Whitelocke, Memoirs, III, 372, 462f is quoted in Fraser, pp. 460, 477.
79 "William Allen," Killing noe Murder in Olivier Lutaud, Des Révolutions d'Angleterre à la Révolution Française, The Hague: M. Nijhoff, 1973.
80 Hobbes, Philosophical Rudiments (tr. of De Cive, ed. S. P. Lamprecht, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1949, p. 67, 68, 149, 161. "Commonweal" replaces "city" with "commonwealths" as the plural on pp. 122, 126, 123, 129, 132, 136, 142, 144, 146. De Cive - on-line version. Leviathan - one-line version.
81 Hobbes, Behemoth, ed., F. Tönnies (1889), London: Frank Cass, 1969, pp. 156, 158. Spinoza, Tractatus Politicus in Opera, Heidelberg: Carl Winters, 1928, vol III, p. 278. Spinoza must be the only one who ever translated Machiavelli's republica in the Discorsi (III:1) as imperii, but he did this in Caput X of the Tractatus Politicus. Margaret Jacob has, I think, followed her radicals in finding too much in Spinoza's use of the word respublica in his preface to Tractatus Theologo-Politicus of 1670. Cf Jacob, The Radical Enlightenment, London: George Allen & Unwin, 1981, p. 51-52.
82 John Milton Commonplace Book quoted in Felix Raab, The English Face of Machiavelli, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1964, p. 220; Milton, Pro Populo Anglicano Defensio in Works, New Haven, CT: Yale U. Press, v4, pt 1, "What was but lately the strongest of realms (potentissimi regni) and is now being a commonwealth so much the stronger (nunc reipub. eo potentioris)" (p. 311), "'Bees have a king (regem)'... the others, as you affirm, have republics (respub.)."(428) "ab uno an à pluribus respub. administraretur)" in Works, NY: Columbia U. Press, vol VII, pp. 76-77.
83 Cf above, note 5.
84 Harrington, The Commonwealth of Oceana, ed., S. B. Liljegren, Heidelberg: Carl Winters, 1924, pp. 2, 11.On-line version.
85 Ibid., pp. 23, 27, 22. William Sprigge, A Modest Plea for an Equal Commonwealth, London, 1659.
86 [Edward Sexby], Killing noe Murder in Lutaud, Des R^volutions d'Angleterre, p. 376-77, 383-84.
87 William Prynne, The Re-Publicans and Others Spurious Good Old Cause, London, 1659. The pamphlet is rare, and details may be appreciated. "Republicans" is unhyphenated in the half-title. It begins by accusing "Apostate Republican, and Sectarian Members of the late long Parliament, Army, and their confederates to blow up, subvert, destroy..."(p. 1) "new Athenian Republican Tyrants (worse than the worst of all our Kings)[the Rump, 1653] ...[Cromwell a] Casar or Emperour"(p. 3) "their new Republick again... old and new Republican Members... over-voted in the House... reviving their former Common-wealth purposedly to set aside their young Protector, or to reduce him and the Republick too under their own pristine Wardship... dissolved the long Parliament"(p. 3) "metamorphose our Old Kingdom into a new infant Republick, Oligarchy under themselves alone... faithfull to them and their new-minted Republick, without a King or House of Lords"(p. 4) "erection of their new Free-state... but this is only Good Old Cause they now extoll..."(pp. 4-5) "their Good old cause and Republike"(p. 5) [quoting from Campanella, De Monarchica Hispanica, c. 25, p. 204] "Ut Angliam in formam Reipublicae reducant, in imitationem Hollandorum; to reduce England into the form of A Common Wealth, in imitation of the Hollanders... to destroy our King, Monarchy, and turn it into a Republike, or else into an Elective Kingdom"(p. 5).
88 Prynne, Op. cit., pp. 1, 3, 5, and Prynne, Conscientious, Serious Theological and Legal Quaeres..., London, 1660, pp. 9, 18, 19, 20
89 [Samuel Butler], Two Speeches Made in the Rump Parliament, London, 1659. (Works, III, Cambridge: Cambridge U. Press, 1928, p. 306); [Butler], A Speech Made at the Rota, London, 1660 (Works, III, pp. 324, 327); Butler, "Government"(c1661) in Satires & Miscellanies, ed., René Lamar, Cambridge: Cambridge U. Press, 1928, p. 251; Butler, Hudibras I, London, 1662, lines 1201-1204. Online version of Hudibras. Butler also published a satire under Prynne's name, "William Prynne" Mole Asinaria, London, MDCLVIX, which quotes "Austin" (Augustine) on "Commonwealth or Kingdom" being a larcenocracy without "law"(Works, III, p. 300)
90 According to Archdeacon Echard & Bishop Kennet, the former minister, Henry Vane had "so much of republican rancour, that it was impossible for him to live in quiet under any semblance of a monarchy."(Sidney, Discourses, NY, 1805, I,61). Tory poet Abraham Cowley wrote in A Discourse By Way of a Vision in 1661, "But I see you are a Pedant, and Platonical Statesman, a Theoretical Common-wealths-man, an Utopian Dreamer" (Essays, Plays and Sundry Verses, ed., A. R. Wallen, Cambridge: Cambridge U. Press, 1906, pp 368,373). Andrew Marvell observed in 1669, "Commonwealthmen flock about the town" (Works, 2:290-292)
91 Louis Le Roy, De la vicissitude ou varieté des choses en l'univers, Paris, 1575, tr. ; Brébeuf, Relation de ce qui s'est passé dans la Nouvelle France en l'année 1636, Part II, ed., Theodore Bestermann, Geneva: Droz, 1957, p. 138; P. Bressani, Relation..., 1653, "le régime républicain des Hurons" quoted by Yves Durand, Les républiques au temps des monarchies, Paris, p. 10.
92 "Le roi veut que le parlement sort de Paris..." (11 February) in Moreau, ed., Choix de Mazarinades (2762) I, p. 192; "Les souhaits de la France à Monseigneur le duc d'Angoulesme" (11 January) in Moreau, ed., Choix de Mazarinades (3700) I, p. 86; "Les intérets et motifs" Paris, 1649, p. 7-8. Philip A. Knachel, England and the Fronde: The Impact of the English Civil War and Revolution on France, Washington, DC: Folger Library, 19?, quotes additionally Moreau's numbers 1719 (p. 100) and number 2970 (p. 94). The Le Tellier - Mazarin conversation is in Ibid., p. 43.
93 On the Fronde see Loyd Moote, The Revolt of the Judges, Princeton, NJ: Princeton U. Press, 1971, p. 280, C. Moreau, ed., Choix de Mazarinades & Sal Alexander Westrich, The Ormée of Bordeaux, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins U. Press, 1972. The Condé manuscripts are quoted in Knachel, op. cit., p. 200. Sorbière to Courcelles in Sidney, Discourses on Government, NY, 1805, vol 1, p. 46; Cyrano de Bergerac, Histoire comique des états et empires de la lune, (1657), ed. W. de Spens, Paris: 1018, 1963, pp. 85, 151-52.
94 Chardin, le couronnement de Souleimaan, Paris, 1671, Voyages en Perse, Paris, 1671, The Travels of Sir John Chardin into Persia and the East Indies, London: Moses Pitt, 1686, pp. 4, 7, 12; Louis Moréri, Le grand dictionaire historique, vol 1, Lyon, 1674, articles "Athènes," "Brutus;" Abraham-Nicolas Amelot de la Houssaye, Histoire du gouvernement de Venise, Paris: Léonard, 1675 (2nd ed. 1685), pp. 1, 2, 21, 606, 621, 624; Amelot, tr., Machiavelli, Le Prince, Paris, 1683; Amelot, Examen de la liberté originaire de Venise, tr. de l'italien, Ratisbon: Aubri, 1684 (pub. with Histoire du gouvernement de Venise, 1685), pp. 1, 106. Jeffrey Merrick notes a pejorative use of républicain before 1681 in "Conscience and Citizenship in Eighteenth-Century France," Eighteenth Century Studies XXI:1(1987), 49n. See also M. Leymarie, "Sur l'emploi du mot 'républicain' au XVIIIe siècle," above, note 9.
95 Tanner MS 44, fol. 202, in Richard Ashcraft, Revolutionary Politics and Locke's Two Treatises of Government, Princeton, NJ: Princeton U. Press, 1986, pp. 28-29.
96 Samuel Parker, A Defence and Continuation of the Ecclesiastical Polity, 1671, in Ashcraft, Revolutionary Politics, p. 46; Shaftesbury to the House of Lords in State Tracts... Charles II, p. 59 (Pocock,Machiavellian Moment, p. 415); Amelot(te) de la Houssaye, The History of the Government of Venice, London: John Starkey, 1677, pp 17, 300, 312; John Maxwell, Sacro-Sancta Regum Majestas: or the Sacred and Royal Prerogative of Christian Kings (1644) reprinted, London, 1680, pp. 75, 137 (Ashcraft, Revolutionary Politics, p. 298); Nathaniel Lee, Lucius Junius Brutus (1680), ed. John Loftis, Lincoln, Nebr: U. of Nebraska Press, 1967, II:ii, p. 27, IV:27, 66, pp. 62-3, IV:242
97 James Tyrrell, Patriarcha non Monarcha, 1681. He denies he is a "'commonwealthsman' or someone who wishes to 'set up a democracy amongst us'"(Ashcraft, Revolutionary Politics, p. 251) "Absolute propriety in things... arises from compact in a commonwealth"(p. 49, Ashcraft, Revolutionary Politics, p. 255); Henry Neville, Plato Redivivus, London, 1681 (1698, 1742, 1758, 1763) in Two English Republican Tracts, ed., Caroline Robbins, Cambridge: Cambridge U. Press, 1969. Neville uses the word "state" to mean "Estate" and the classic trio, "monarchy, aristocracy, democracy." His word commonwealth, though not applied historically to England, is applied to Venice and to old Rome before Caesar. Another republican without the word.
98 Sir Roger L'Estrange (1616-1704) The Observator no. 1, 13, (Selections from the Observator (1681-87) Los Angeles, CA: William Andrews Clark Memorial Library, 1970, pp. 10, 12, 15, 16; The Observator 30Jul, 21Oct, 7Dec?, 1681 "According to our antimonarchical sectaries all by native right are equally born with a like freedom" (Ashcraft, Revolutionary Politics, p. 298). L'Estrange wrote that it was "of the very essence of a commonwealth to reduce all degrees to a parity. For as titles and honors are incident to kingship, so also are equality of place and birth to democracy" L'Estrange, Interest of Three Kingdoms, 1681?, p. 7, cf also pp. 5-6, 9, 12 (Ashcraft, Revolutionary Politics, p. 240-241); Dryden, Absalom & Achitophel I, lines 289-92. Cf also lines 614-15.
99 White Kennett to Codrington, 11 Jan, 1682, Lansdowne MS 960, fols. 45-48 (Ashcraft, Revolutionary Politics, p. 225); John Northleigh, The Parallel: or, the New Specious Association an Old Rebellious Covenant, 1682, p. 21; Dryden, The Medall, London, 1682, lines 247, 301; Some Reflections on a Discourse, called Good Advice to the Church of England & c. in State Tracts, 1692?, facs ed., Wilmington, DE: Scholarly Resources, 1973, p. 371. Also in 1682 John Evelyn called the London Gazette "republicarian" (Evelyn, Diary, IV:614n)Online, Evelyn's Diary
100 Gilbert Burnet says Sidney was "stiff to all republican principles, and such an enemy to every thing that looked like monarchy, that he set himself in a high opposition against Cromwell when he was made Protector"(History of My Own Times, Oxford, 1833, v2, p. 351, folio ed., 1734?, p. 535). John Toland, in his introduction to the Discourses, also called him a "republican" (Algernon Sidney, Discourses on Government, ed., Toland, NY: Lee, 1805, vol I, p. 16). Trenchard agreed in 1721 (see below, note 111) and so did Adams in 1776.
101 Sidney, Discourses on Government, ed., Toland, NY: Lee, 1805, I, p. 351; II, p. 138.; I, p. 351; II, p. 138. Online
102 Ibid., II, p. 138. Adams, Thoughts on Government (Jan, 1776) in Works of John Adams, VI, p. 415.
103 Charles Chenevix Trench, The Western Rising, London: Longmans, 1969, chaps 3,4; John Northleigh, The Triumph of Our Monarchy, over the Plots and Principles of Our rebels and Republicans, London, 1685; L'Estrange, The Observator no. 80 (28 Sep, 1685) in Selections from the Observator, p. 32.
104 John Locke, Two Treatises of Civil Government (1690), ed., Thomas Cook, NY: Hafner, 1947, pp. 96, 106.
105 Locke, Two Treatises, pp. 187, 232-33, 239-40.
106 Republican schemes; B.E., Gent., A New Dictionary of the Terms Ancient and Modern of the Canting Crew, London, 1690, articles "Republican," "Whigg."
107 John Evelyn, Diary, 15 Jan, 1689, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1955, IV, p. 614. Online, Evelyn's Diary See also W. Atwood, The Fundamental Constitution of the English Government (1690), facs., Wilmington, DE: Scholarly Resources, 1973, pp. i, xxi, Robert Ferguson, A Brief Justification of the Prince of Orange's Descent into England, 1689 and A Plain and Familiar Discourse concerning Government, Wherein it is debated, Whether Monarchy or a Commonwealth be best for the People, 1689 (in Lois Schwoerer, The Declaration of Rights, 1689, Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins U. Press, 1981, pp. 157, 162); Oxford English Dictionary, article "Republican" (1691); Humphrey Prideaux to John Ellis, Norwich, 27 Nov, 1693, in Letters of Humphrey Prideaux... to John Ellis, Sometime Under-Secretary of State, 1674-1722, ed., E.M. Thompson, London: Camden Society Pubs. XV, p. 162; [John Toland], The Art of Governing by Parties, London, 1701 (Feb), p. 28, in Swift, A History of the Contests and Dissensions Between the Nobles and the Commons in Athens and Rome, London, 1701, ed., Frank H. Ellis, Oxford: Oxford U. Press, 1967, p. 5; Joseph Addison, The Freeholder, ed., James Leheny, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979, 30 March, 1716, p. 158.
108 Swift, A History of the Contests and Dissensions Between the Nobles and the Commons in Athens and Rome, London, 1701, ed., Frank H. Ellis, Oxford: Oxford U. Press, 1967, pp. 83, 87, 90, 97, 99, 112.
109 Halifax, "The Character of a Trimmer" (1688) and "Rough Draft of a New Model at Sea" (1694) in Complete Works, ed., J.P. Kenyon, NY: Penguin, 1969, pp. 54, 55, 156-57, 159; Matthew Prior, "A New Answer to an Argument Against a Standing Army," London, 1697; John Toland, ed., The Memoirs of Edmund Ludlow (1698), ed., C.H. Firth, Oxford: Oxford U. Press, 1894, II, p. 172. For a clear use of the modern commonwealth in Roman history, see James Drake, The History of the Last Parliament (1702), in Ellis, ed., Swift, op. cit., pp. 209-211.
110 Walter Moyle, An Essay on the Constitution of the Roman State (MS 1699; London, 1726) in Caroline Robbins, ed., Three English Republican Texts, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969; Daniel Defoe, "The True Born Englishman" in G.A. Aitken, ed., Later Stuart Tracts, NY: Cooper Square, 1964, p. 141; Jonathan Swift, A Discourse of the Contests and Dissensions..., ed., Frank H. Ellis, Oxford: Oxford U. Press, 1967, pp. 83, 87, 90, 96-99, 112; William Temple, Works, London, 1770, I, pp. 31, 42, 46; Joseph Addison, Remarks on Several Parts of Italy in the Years 1701, 1702, 1703 in Works, NY: Harper, 1859, III, pp. 317, 327, 367, 375-76, The Spectator, 10Mar, 3 May, 8 May, 19 May, 30 Jul, 9 Aug, 17 Aug, 1711; [Henry Gandy], Jure Divino: or, An Answer to All that Hath or Shall Be Written by Republicans against the Old English Constitution, London, 1707, pp. 2, 5.
111 John Trenchard, Cato's Letters nos. 26, 27 (22-29 April, 1721); Thomas Gordon, tr., Tacitus, Histories, London, 1728; Thomas Paine, Common Sense (1776), NY: Doubleday Anchor, 1973, pp. 16, 26, 38, 39;
112 Duras, 1676, quoted in Yves Durand, Les Républiques au temps des monarchies, Paris: Presses universitaires, 1973, p. 11. For the same use, see E.-F.-J. Barbier, Chronique de la Régence et du régne de Louis XV, 1866, VI, p. 416 (July, 1752).
113 Pierre César Richelet, Dictionaire, Rouen, 1719, articles "Republique," "republicain." Another example is the title of the anti-Huguenot pamphlet, Avis sincère de M. Jurieu... par lequel il fait voir que les plus savants et les plus éclairés Docteurs de cette Eglise ont toujours eu l'esprit Republicain et des sentiments opposées à la puissance absolue des Souverains et Monarques, 1689?
114 Ponchartrain quoted in Durand, Les républiques, p. 70; Richard Simon to Frémont d'Ablancourt, in Lettres choisies de M. Simon I, 30 (Guy Howard Dodge, The Political Theory of the Huguenots of the Dispersion, NY: Columbia U. Press, 1947, p. 18n); Pierre Jurieu, Lettres pastorales, 15 April - 15 May, 1689, Ibid., p. 58; Pierre Bayle to Constant, 29 Jan, 1691, Ibid., p. 94n; Bayle, Projet et fragments d'un Dictionaire critique (1692), Geneva: Slatkine Reprints, 1970, pp. 205, 215; Bayle, Dictionaire critique (1695-97), articles "Conon," "Henri IV." The twin sentences are found in the articles "Hobbes" and "Pericles," and the English translation (London, 1710) carries Bayle's terminology into English "republic," "republican," and "democratic."
115 Antoine Furetière, Dictionaire, Paris, 1694, articles "Libre," "Republique," "Republicain."
116 Dictionnaire de l'Académie française, Paris, 1694, article "Republicain." Abel Boyer, the French translator of Addison's Cato (a pro-republican play where the word republic does not appear at all) put this into his French-English Royal Dictionary of 1699 and 1700.
117 Charles-Louis de Secondat, baron de la Brède et Montesquieu, Lettres persanes (1721), nos. 102, 131 in Oeuvres complétes, Paris: Seuil, 1964, pp. 115, 132. See also no. 116, p. 124.
118 Montesquieu, Dialogue de Sylla et d'Eucrate (1724) in Oeuvres complètes, p. 157; Considérations sur les causes de la grandeur des romains et de leur décadence (1734) Ibid., p. 436, 450, 452, 458. Montesquieu read Machiavelli and found him to be, like Samuel, a disapprover of kings and a "grand républicain" in 1730, Ibid., p. 409.
119 Montesquieu, De l'esprit des lois (1748) I:ii, 1-2 in Ibid., p. 532.
120 Hume, Treatise of Human Nature (1740), ed., E.C. Mossner, NY: Penguin, 1985, III:x, pp. 607, 609; Hume, "Of the Liberty of the Press" and "Whether the British Government inclines more to Absolute Monarchy, or to a Republic" in Essays, Moral Political and Literary, ed., E.F. Miller, Indianapolis, IN: LibertyClassics, 1985, pp. 9-10, 12, 47-53.
121 Hume, "Of the Rise and Progress of the Arts and Sciences" Ibid., p. 117-119, 126-27.
122 Samuel Johnson, Dictionary, London: W. Strahan, 1765, articles "Republic," "Republican." See also Elizabaeth Hedrick, "Locke's Theory of Language and Johnson's Dictionary" in Eighteenth Century Studies 20:4(1987)
123 Adams, Defence, III (1787) in Works of John Adams, 1851, VI, p. 10.
124 Kenrick, New Dictionary of the English Language, London: Rivington et al., 1773, articles "Republic," "Republican," "State:  The community; the publick; the commonwealth -  a republick; a government not monarchical."
125 See my The End of Kings: A History of Republics and Republicans, NY: The Free Press, 1983, chap. 8.
126 Paine, The Rights of Man, NY: Penguin, 1984, pp. 178-79.
127 Straight-out Harrisonian 16 Aug, 1840 in Hans Sperber & Travis Trittschuh, American Political Terms: An Historical Dictionary, Detroit, MI: Wayne State U. Press, 1962