Uncategorized

On the Medieval Origins of the Modern State (Princeton Classic Editions)

Saturday, November 10, 2018Saturday, November 10, 2018 admin

Agent Of Change?
Comments (0).
Frequently bought together.

This is a clear and well argued text concerning the political origin of the 'modern' state-form. The book is mostly historical in nature, which I think sometimes results in conceptual confusion. Without considering what it is to be a state, Strayer claims, for instance, that states are composed mostly in the imaginary of their members. While this may be the case for some sorts of group membership or group association, states are necessarily composed of territories, people, and institutions of go This is a clear and well argued text concerning the political origin of the 'modern' state-form.

While this may be the case for some sorts of group membership or group association, states are necessarily composed of territories, people, and institutions of government--while at the same time requiring recognition from other states in order to secure their existence. So perhaps, a better assessment would be that states exist in the imaginary of other states. Either way, an interesting depiction of statecraft and state building prior to the Peace of Westphalia in Sep 02, Jonathan rated it it was amazing Shelves: Written in the late s and still on the syllabi of many university courses, this classic work by Professor Joseph Strayer of Princeton succinctly portrays the rise of the modern nation state in late Medieval Europe, by which he means France and England.

Strayer, as an expert on state formation, was a consultant for the State Department and other dark forces, his area of expertise being in demand during the era of decolonization. His elegant and precise narrative makes the history of instituti Written in the late s and still on the syllabi of many university courses, this classic work by Professor Joseph Strayer of Princeton succinctly portrays the rise of the modern nation state in late Medieval Europe, by which he means France and England.

His elegant and precise narrative makes the history of institutions a much more fascinating read than it might have been. One of the seminal works on medieval Europe; not to be missed either by medievalists or by political scientists. I really loved it, but I'm wierd that way. Nov 17, Dietrich rated it it was amazing. I read this book because it was on Norman Cantor's recommended reading list at the back of The Civilization of the Middle Ages.

Cantor provides some useful background for approaching Strayer's work. Strayer shared with Haskins and Woodrow Wilson a core belief that the well-being of America depended upon an educated and professional elite wielding centralized po I read this book because it was on Norman Cantor's recommended reading list at the back of The Civilization of the Middle Ages. Strayer shared with Haskins and Woodrow Wilson a core belief that the well-being of America depended upon an educated and professional elite wielding centralized power. Cantor clarifies that "Haskins and Strayer were not just Wilsonians who happened to be medievalists.

Their interest in the Middle Ages and their construction of medieval government and administration were a projection of Wilsonian ideals onto the medieval European past as well as a reliving and justification of the Wilsonian program from the lessons of the medieval origins of the modern state.

On the Medieval Origins of the Modern State

At least it was in the early 90's when Cantor published Inventing the Middle Ages. I doubt things have changed that much since then. So, to read Strayer is to read a very prominent exponent of a viable approach to medieval history and a corresponding world-view that for a long time constituted the scholarly mainstream. This book makes good on the promise of its title. The origins of the modern state are to be found in medieval Europe.

Various European Kingdoms created lasting and influential states that managed to combine the virtues and avoid the defects of ancient city-states and empires. These European states were more internally integrated than ancient empires, and so made better use of resources and commanded greater loyalty. They were also much larger and hence less vulnerable than the cohesive city-states, which tended not to last as long as the empires. This was an impressive accomplishment. So much for the dark ages!

Strayer does not define what a state is, but rather proceeds by pointing to four signs that indicate a state is coming into being: Strayer thinks that the centuries between and AD marked the emergence of states in England and France that persist to this day and which served as models for later state building efforts. Strayer points to many factors that helped facilitate the emergence of states in this time period.

These included the institutional sophistication of the church and the Christianization of the German societies, a general stabilization of European life after a period of great turbulence, the investiture controversy, which by stripping away sacred kingship ended up carving out a special, secular sphere that turned medieval kingdoms to an especially sharp focus on law, and a great increase in the number of educated Europeans.

All over Europe, a need for revenue and justice led to the development of relevant internal institutions and procedures. For kings and great lords, justice was originally important as a source of revenue, but was quickly exploited as a way to build central authority. Also, a coordinating agency, the chancery, emerged, and so did groups of professional administrators, whose labors were supplemented by part-timers.

These developments were advanced furthest in England and France. England developed its state more rapidly than France did because of more favorable initial conditions. It is interesting to follow Strayer's account of how these 2 kingdoms necessarily followed different paths towards the same goal.

England was more unified than France and relied heavily on local figures to run the business of government.

Account Options;
Ästhetische Erziehung bei geistig behinderten Menschen (German Edition).
Egypt and U.S. Health Assistance.
Nature with Human Nature.
.

France's heterogeneity resulted in more of a mosaic state, composed of various parts, whose unity was created and held together by a bureaucracy. Because France's situation was more typical than England's, its particular model of state building proved more of an explicit model. Strayer also thinks that in both countries by the recognition of state sovereignty and a loyalty shift on the part of subjects to the state had occurred.

From to , not much happened in terms of state development. This was a time of economic depression, famine, plague, and major wars over political boundaries. In short, the environment was not very conducive to progress. The wars conceivably could have, but in fact did not, lead to the development of new institutions. Also, economic contraction put the squeeze on the possessing classes, and they became more unruly. The possessing classes also learned to use the system to frustrate royal designs, both in courts of law and in representative institutions, whose emergence was intimately linked with courts.

In this time frame there was also an increasing disconnect between the bureaucracy and the policymakers. Bureaucratic insularity and inertia became an issue, and policy makers were often inept and selfish. France tended to meet challenges during this time period by creating even more bureaucracy. England tended to put even more obligations on local figures. There was a real shift again after The political and economic situation improved. There was a positive change in attitude toward central government on the part of the possessing classes.

The so-called "New Monarchies" took advantage of existing institutions in an intelligent way. Perhaps their biggest innovation was to reform the policymakers by professionalizing the inner council, a move which lead to the creation of secretaries of state with their own new bureaucracy. The professionalization of the inner council resulted in a new focus on intelligence gathering at home and abroad, and eventually lead to the creation of modern departments of government.

I think Cantor is right when he says that one can acknowledge Strayer's accomplishment in identifying the medieval origins of the modern state while still criticizing certain aspects of the book. For instance, Strayer says that the most important sign that a state is coming into being is "a shift in loyalty from family, local community, or religious organization to the state and the acquisition by the state of a moral authority to back up its institutional structure and its theoretical legal supremacy. The medieval state did acquire a moral authority The two facets of political experience, the statist and the familial and communal ones, existed side by side, often in tension, sometimes in open conflict.

Indeed, a plausible argument may be made that the rise of the medieval state increased loyalty to family, local community, and religious organization in the 13th and 14th centuries. For instance, on the very next page after Strayer talks about the all important loyalty shift, he distinguishes this loyalty from nationalism and says that "loyalty to the state came first and was a much cooler kind of emotion.

It had about the same temperature as humanitarianism, and it was, in some ways, a kind of humanitarianism. The state gave greater peace and security, more opportunity for the good life, than loose associations of communities; therefore it should be supported.

Follow the Author

Wouldn't whatever one considered as constituting the "good life" rank higher than loyalty to the state? Moreover, Strayer's alleged proofs that this loyalty shift occurred do not seem very impressive, and are at times in fact self-contradictory. And the qualifications that Strayer makes to his proofs are often enormous. On page 45 he states that "during the 13th century it became clear that the basic loyalty of the English people or at least the people who were politically active had shifted from family, community, and Church to the state.

In some ways it seems odd that Strayer would insist on a loyalty shift on the part of subjects in addition to the state's undeniable acquisition of a moral authority. It seems like all his wonderful insights about the development of political institutions are not dependent upon this supposed loyalty shift at all. The insistence on this point seems inseparable from Strayer's Wilsonian progressivism. Strayer wanted to use the past to put the contemporary political elite on a pedestal. Also, perhaps the cold war conflict with the Soviets provided extra incentive for Strayer to talk about a loyalty shift, which seems like a clever way to distinguish between free countries that love their states and totalitarian countries that extract obedience through fear and intimidation.

A limitation of Strayer's brilliant study, then, is that it does not acknowledge various alternative cultures and forms of resistance to the political modernizing trend in the Middle Ages. And the political assumptions behind his historical approach are not as common as they once were, as evidenced both by the new left and conservative critics of the modern state. I would conclude by saying that reading Cantor gave me great respect for Strayer's accomplishments at Princeton.

I especially admire how under his leadership the Princeton history department balanced research with effective teaching. Cantor, a Princeton product and a wonderful popularizer, seems to have been greatly influenced by this setting. By producing this short and highly accessible study, Strayer himself models some very effective teaching. This is a wonderful little book. Aug 21, Pinko Palest rated it liked it. Not very convincing perhaps, but an interesting and stimulating read, from a rather centre-rightist point of view.

Feb 19, Sara rated it it was ok Shelves: Intelligent but dated, this book still offers a lucidly written, reasonable overview of political developments in medieval Europe. His treatment of the early modern period is more problematic. Strayer writes with a teleology that implies the rise of statehood was a desirable, purposeful and relatively predetermined process with a specific end.

He completely ignores the impact of colonialism on the development of political institutions, bureaucracies, foreign offices, etc. He instead treats these developments as though they naturally grew in Europe with no reference to the wider world or to the ways Europe was exerting her power over other places and people who lived under different types, displays and accumulations of authority. It is a very quick read, deriving from Strayer's lecture notes. I think only someone who's very interested in the way political historiography has evolved over time would be very interested in this work.

Apr 17, Lanny Newton rated it liked it Shelves: The concept of the book is good and well described, however, some of his definitions and ideas of important characteristics of a modern state are inane.

La construction de lEurope (Histoire) (French Edition).
That Strange Intimacy!
Der Junker von Ballantrae (German Edition).
Customers who bought this item also bought?

The idea that justice, security, and taxes being the basis of a state is well founded, and through the evidence given proves the state did exist in a primitive and shaky form as early as the 10th to 12th century in places, especially England and France. His idea that the modern state exists as the highest loyalty of its citizen more so than fami The concept of the book is good and well described, however, some of his definitions and ideas of important characteristics of a modern state are inane. His idea that the modern state exists as the highest loyalty of its citizen more so than family, religious beliefs, or any other part of a person's life is proven wrong in many circumstances today though.

The author covers the development especially well through the middle ages as the title suggests briefly covering the 16th and 17th century as a conclusion, and leaves the rest for other places.

About De Gruyter

Overall it provides good insights and valuable material even if certain ideas can distract from making a logical argument at times. Apr 08, AC rated it it was amazing Shelves: An important book on the relatively late development of the idea of the State. The fact is, the idea of inc An important book on the relatively late development of the idea of the State.

This book makes good on the promise of its title. The origins of the modern state are to be found in medieval Europe. Various European Kingdoms created lasting and influential states that managed to combine the virtues and avoid the defects of ancient city-states and empires. These European states were more internally integrated than ancient empires, and so made better use of resources and commanded greater loyalty. They were also much larger and hence less vulnerable than the cohesive city-states, which tended not to last as long as the empires. This was an impressive accomplishment.

So much for the dark ages! Strayer does not define what a state is, but rather proceeds by pointing to four signs that indicate a state is coming into being: Strayer thinks that the centuries between and AD marked the emergence of states in England and France that persist to this day and which served as models for later state building efforts. Strayer points to many factors that helped facilitate the emergence of states in this time period.

England was more unified than France and relied heavily on local figures to run the business of government. France's heterogeneity resulted in more of a mosaic state, composed of various parts, whose unity was created and held together by a bureaucracy. Because France's situation was more typical than England's, its particular model of state building proved more of an explicit model. Strayer also thinks that in both countries by the recognition of state sovereignty and a loyalty shift on the part of subjects to the state had occurred.

Also, economic contraction put the squeeze on the possessing classes, and they became more unruly.

See a Problem?

The possessing classes also learned to use the system to frustrate royal designs, both in courts of law and in representative institutions, whose emergence was intimately linked with courts. In this time frame there was also an increasing disconnect between the bureaucracy and the policymakers. Bureaucratic insularity and inertia became an issue, and policy makers were often inept and selfish. France tended to meet challenges during this time period by creating even more bureaucracy. England tended to put even more obligations on local figures. There was a real shift again after The political and economic situation improved.

There was a positive change in attitude toward central government on the part of the possessing classes. The so-called "New Monarchies" took advantage of existing institutions in an intelligent way. Perhaps their biggest innovation was to reform the policymakers by professionalizing the inner council, a move which lead to the creation of secretaries of state with their own new bureaucracy.

On the Medieval Origins of the Modern State

The professionalization of the inner council resulted in a new focus on intelligence gathering at home and abroad, and eventually lead to the creation of modern departments of government. I think Cantor is right when he says that one can acknowledge Strayer's accomplishment in identifying the medieval origins of the modern state while still criticizing certain aspects of the book.

For instance, Strayer says that the most important sign that a state is coming into being is "a shift in loyalty from family, local community, or religious organization to the state and the acquisition by the state of a moral authority to back up its institutional structure and its theoretical legal supremacy. The medieval state did acquire a moral authority The two facets of political experience, the statist and the familial and communal ones, existed side by side, often in tension, sometimes in open conflict.

The state gave greater peace and security, more opportunity for the good life, than loose associations of communities; therefore it should be supported. Wouldn't whatever one considered as constituting the "good life" rank higher than loyalty to the state? Moreover, Strayer's alleged proofs that this loyalty shift occurred do not seem very impressive, and are at times in fact self-contradictory.

And the qualifications that Strayer makes to his proofs are often enormous. On page 45 he states that "during the 13th century it became clear that the basic loyalty of the English people or at least the people who were politically active had shifted from family, community, and Church to the state.

In some ways it seems odd that Strayer would insist on a loyalty shift on the part of subjects in addition to the state's undeniable acquisition of a moral authority.

It seems like all his wonderful insights about the development of political institutions are not dependent upon this supposed loyalty shift at all. The insistence on this point seems inseparable from Strayer's Wilsonian progressivism. Strayer wanted to use the past to put the contemporary political elite on a pedestal. Also, perhaps the cold war conflict with the Soviets provided extra incentive for Strayer to talk about a loyalty shift, which seems like a clever way to distinguish between free countries that love their states and totalitarian countries that extract obedience through fear and intimidation.

I would conclude by saying that reading Cantor gave me great respect for Strayer's accomplishments at Princeton. I especially admire how under his leadership the Princeton history department balanced research with effective teaching. Cantor, a Princeton product and a wonderful popularizer, seems to have been greatly influenced by this setting.

By producing this short and highly accessible study, Strayer himself models some very effective teaching. This is a wonderful little book. An essential read for any student of medieval history, Strayer's book has influenced essentially all work on the subject since - just as Strayer has his list of students is a "who's who" of Medieval historians highlighted by such luminaries as Teo Ruiz and Bill Jordan. Other views certainly compete with Strayer's and are arguably more compelling but if one is unfamiliar with this work, there's a gigantic hole within their understanding of the medieval and early modern period.

One person found this helpful. Very good book, used in my Medieval Government and Society class. Written at a higher level, primarily for academia, yet a very possible read for someone who is not taking a class on this particular subject. The material encompassed by this book is extremely interesting, and it describes in accurate detail how we as a society got to the place we are today.

One thing to note, is that while there is approximately pages, the font size is quite large and there is pretty large margins. This can be a pro however, as the large margins allow one to write down notes or thoughts in them, and the large font size makes it not only easier to read, but also adds on to the convenience of note taking since there isn't as much material on each page. This is a classic, both for it's clarity and for its brevity pages! Strayer was a professor at Princeton and worked for the CIA on the side.

In his book, "the invention of the middle ages", Norman Cantor describes his life as a graduate student at Princeton under Strayer. Apparently he was always running off to advise the government on one thing or another. It's an amusing thought. Strayer's analysis is heavy on the bureaucratic development of france and england, light on everything else.

Basically, he contrasts the centralist state of England with the "mosaic" state of France, and demonstrates how the heavy bureaucracy of france and other contiental states of europe can be attributed to the need of a weak central government to integrate provinces with their own "national" identities. This goal was accomplished by layering different sorts of councils and administrators on top of one another, with the King at the top. This is contrasted with England, which functioned, in Strayer's mind as a "large french province", with the King at the top of an abbreviated hierarchy.

His institutional focus is on the development of law courts and the finance ministry- these were the first departments to come of age in the west.