Introduction
TheorizingStateAgents
0.1Sovereignty,StateAgents,andPracticesofGovernance
OneofthemostinfluentialdefinitionsofthestateisMaxWeber’sformulation fromacenturyago: “astateisthathumancommunitywhich(successfully)lays claimtothemonopolyoflegitimatephysicalviolencewithinacertainterritory.”¹ Weber ’sstatementhasretainedsuchanabidinglegacythatitscomponentfeatures areoftentakenforgranted,somethingthatoccursmoregenerallywhenapproachingaconceptasabstract,capacious,andubiquitousas thestate. ButWeberdoes notpresumetheexistenceofthestateinitsmodernform,andinsteademphasizes thatitisalwaysaneffectofaprocessofconstruction,a “humancommunity ” that gainsrecognitionaspossessingstatehoodonlythroughprogressivelyassuminga monopolyoverthelegitimateexerciseofpower.TheunsettlednessofWeber’ s modelisreflectedinrevisionshemadetothisformulaelsewhereinhiswritings. Laterinthesameessay, “PoliticsasaVocation,” heoffersavariationthatclarifies thecoercivepreconditionsforthestate’sinternalconsolidationofpower:only afterhaving “expropriated” thefunctionsofotherestatesandinstitutionalbodies canthestate “putitself,inthepersonofitshighestembodimentintheirplace.”² Weberchartsthetransitionfrompracticesofgovernancetothetheoretical frameworkofsovereignty,fromtheinstitutionalmechanismsandpersonnel throughwhichthestateoperatestotheoverridingpowerofthesovereignwho authorizesthesefunctions.However,offsettingtheseemingly fixednatureofthe state,theWeberianpremiseofthestate’smonopolyoverpowerrecognizesthat thisauthoritymustbecontinuouslychallengedinorderforittoassertits legitimacy.³AsAnthonyGiddensnotes,thestate’smonopolyis,afterall,only “moreorlesssuccessful” inWeber’sphrasing.⁴
¹MaxWeber, “TheProfessionandVocationofPolitics,” in Weber:PoliticalWritings,ed.Peter LassmanandRonaldSpeirs(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1994),310–11.
²AsWeberclarifies, “themodernstateisaninstitutionalassociationofrulewhichhassuccessfully establishedthemonopolyofphysicalviolenceasameansofrulewithinaterritory” afterhaving “expropriated” thefunctionsofestateswhopreviouslyheldthesepowers(“Profession,” 316).
³Forasimilarpoint,seeJohnHoffman, BeyondtheState:AnIntroductoryCritique (London:Polity, 1995),65.
⁴ AnthonyGiddens, TheNation-StateandViolence:VolumeTwoofAContemporaryCritiqueof HistoricalMaterialism (Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1985),120–1.
AgentsBeyondtheState:TheWritingsofEnglishTravelers,Soldiers,andDiplomatsinEarlyModernEurope.MarkNetzloff, OxfordUniversityPress(2020).©MarkNetzloff. DOI:10.1093/oso/9780198857952.001.0001
Inhismonumentalwork EconomyandSociety,Weberoffersanaltogether differentversionofhisdefinitionofthestate: “Acompulsorypoliticalorganizationwithcontinuousoperationswillbecalleda ‘state’ insofarasitsadministrative staff successfullyupholdstheclaimtothe monopoly ofthe legitimate useof physicalforceintheenforcementofitsorder.”⁵ Thisformulationpresentsa morecoercivemodelofthestate,whichis “compulsory,” totheexclusionofany competingaffiliations,andmaintainsitsmonopolythroughthe “enforcement” of itssovereignty.Themostimportantdistinction,however,isthatthestate’ spower isachievedthroughits “administrative staff. ” Theagentsofthestate,notthe sovereign,providethemeansformaintainingstateauthority,andthestate’ s monopolyoverthelegitimateusesofviolenceisensuredthroughdelegatingto itsagentstheexerciseofformsofcoercion.Weberrecognizedthatacentral tensionintheformationofthestateentailedastruggleforcontrolofthe “meansofadministration” betweenrulersandotherinstitutionsandassociations, notonlyprofessionalgroupssuchaslawyers,clerics,andmerchants,⁶ butalso, morepertinently,thestate’sownagents,manyofwhomweredrawnfromthese classes.Nonetheless,asJensBartelsonpointsout,Weberandhisfollowerswere unabletoseethatthestate “wasknowableonlyintermsoftheactionsthat constituteit,” andthattherewasconsequentlya “dividebetweentheideaofthe stateanditsinstitutions.”⁷ Moreover,thestate’smonopolyoverpowercouldbe maintainedagainstitsownagents.Whendelegatingauthority,conflictsinevitably emergedregardingthedegreeofagencyallocatedtostaterepresentatives,a problemthatwascompoundedinanextraterritorialsetting,wherethestate’ s controloveritsagentswasfurtherattenuated.
Theearlymodernperiodrepresentedacrucialstageinthehistoryofstate formation,andwasinstrumentalinthedevelopmentofmanyfoundational featuresofthemodernstate,includingadministrativebureaucracieswithinstate territoriesaswellasadiplomaticsystemregulatinginterstaterelations.⁸ Yeteven asincreasinglyformalizedpracticesofgovernancecreatedthegroundworkforthe modernstateinitsadministrativeoperations,theconceptualequivalentstothe statewerenotthesameassubsequentmoderndefinitions.Earlymodernpolitical thinkers,suchasFranciscodeVitoria,AlbericoGentili,andHugoGrotius,didnot referto states butinsteadsurveyedabroaderrangeofpoliticalcommunities,a
⁵ MaxWeber, EconomyandSociety:AnOutlineofInterpretiveSociology,ed.GuentherRothand ClausWittich,2vols.(Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1978),1:54.
⁶ ThomasErtman, BirthoftheLeviathan:BuildingStatesandRegimesinMedievalandEarly ModernEurope (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1997),8.Fortherelevantsectionin Weber,see EconomyandSociety,2:1010–64and2:1085–90.
⁷ JensBartelson, TheCritiqueoftheState (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2001),31.
⁸ Theclassictextontheorganizationofthesixteenth-centuryEnglishstateisGeoffreyElton, The TudorRevolutioninGovernment:AdministrativeChangesintheReignofHenryVIII (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress,1953).OntheconcurrentdevelopmentoftheEnglishdiplomaticsystem, seeespeciallyKeithHamiltonandRichardLanghorne, ThePracticeofDiplomacy:ItsEvolution,Theory andAdministration (LondonandNewYork:Routledge,1995).
distinctionstemmingfromanaturallawtraditionthat,asHedleyBullnotes, “treatedindividualmen,ratherthanthegroupingsofthemasstates,asthe ultimatebearersofrightsandduties.”⁹ Lookingattheetymologicaldevelopment ofthe state intheearlymodernperiod,one findsthatthetermwasnotanabstract conceptbutrathergroundedinpersonalizedrelationsofgovernance,andwasnot tiedsolelytoanincreasinglyabsolutistmonarchybutinsteadencompasseda rangeoflegislativebodiespossessingauthority.¹⁰ Theriseofarecognizably modernformofthestatewasnottheinevitableresultofpoliticalchangeinthe periodbutwasinsteadachievedattheexpenseofcompetingmodelsofpolitical association.AsQuentinSkinnerargues, “Bythebeginningoftheseventeenth century,theconceptofthestate itsnature,itspowers,itsrighttocommand obedience hadcometoberegardedasthemostimportantobjectofanalysisin Europeanpoliticalthought.”¹¹
Skinner’scommentspeakstohowtheearlymodernperiodcontinuestoframe ourcriticalapproachestothestate.Theselegaciesarereflectedinthewaysthat laterdiscussionsoftenreproducethemodelsofsovereigntyinheritedfromthis period.InthisopeningsectionoftheIntroduction,Iwillreturntosomecanonical textsofearlymodernpoliticaltheory,particularlytheworkofJeanBodin,and explorehowtheirtheorizationofsovereigntywasinterconnectedwithareflection ontheagentsandpracticesofgovernance.Thefollowingsectionwillconsider stateformationinrelationtotheemergenceofthepublicsphere,andanalyzethe waysthatstateagentscontributedtoearlymodernpublicsthroughtheirwritings. ThelatterpartoftheIntroductionwillexaminetheextraterritorialhistoriesofthe state:thestateandthelawofnationsweremutuallyconstitutedinthisperiod,and weresimilarlypredicatedbytheexclusionofnonstateagentsandstatelesssubjects.Thissectionwilllookattheconceptualimpassethatresultedfromeffortsto theorizetheplaceofreligio-politicalexilesinmanyinfluentialstatementsonthe lawofnations,withparticularattentiontothewritingsoftheCatholicexile
⁹ HedleyBull, AnAnarchicalSociety:AStudyofOrderinWorldPolitics (NewYork:Columbia UniversityPress,1977),29.Foranextendedanalysisofthepoliticsofnaturallawdiscourses,seeBrian Lockey, LawandEmpireinEnglishRenaissanceLiterature (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress, 2006).
¹
⁰ Earlymoderndefinitionsofthe state include “alegislativeassemblyinwhichthevariousestatesof thebodypoliticarerepresented,” aswiththeDutchStatesGeneral(21.a); “apersonofhighrank,status, orimportance” (22.a); “arulingbodyofnobles” (22.b); “thegoverningbodyofatown” (23.b); “ a commonwealthorpolity” (III),including “theconditionofprosperity,order,andsettledgovernment belongingtosuchacommunity” (24).Thedominantmodernsenseentailingsovereignty, “ supreme civilruleandgovernment” (26.a),isfoundasearlyasthesixteenthcenturybutisnottheprevailing definitionusedinthisperiod.See OxfordEnglishDictionary (“state”),3rdedition(2012).Forarelated point,seeJensBartelson, AGenealogyofSovereignty (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1995), 93,112.
¹¹QuentinSkinner, TheFoundationsofModernPoliticalThought,2vols.(Cambridge:Cambridge UniversityPress,1978),2:349.MaurizioVirolielaboratesonthistransitionin FromPoliticstoReason ofState:TheAcquisitionandTransformationoftheLanguageofPolitics1250–1600 (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress,1992).
WilliamCardinalAllen.TheIntroductionisdistinctincontentandmethodfrom thesubsequentchapters,outlinedinthe finalsection,whichoffermorehistoricallygroundedandliterarycasestudiesrelatingtothegroupsofextraterritorial agentsanalyzedinthisstudy:travelers,soldiers,anddiplomats.
Inapproachingearlymodernstateformationthroughtheframeworkofthe writingsofEnglishstateagentsservingoverseas,AgentsBeyondtheState focuses onthe practices ofthestateratherthanitstheoreticalunderpinnings.Indeed,the emergenceofadiscourseofsovereigntyandcorollaryalignmentofthispolitical ideologywiththenation-stateisaproductoftheearlymodernperiod.Theoriesof sovereignty,inotherwords,derivedfrompracticesofstatecraftandgaineda currencybyabstractingtheimputedcharacteristicsofthestatefromthecomplex formsofpoliticalagencythroughwhichearlymodernstatesnecessarilyoperated.
AsPhilipAbramshasargued,althoughtheearlymodernstate “ comesinto being...withinpoliticalpractice, ” throughthetheorizationofsovereigntyit “ acquiresanovertsymbolicidentityprogressivelydivorcedfrompractice.”¹²
TimothyMitchellextendsthisargument,notingthatthestateisneitherastructure norapregivensetofinstitutionsbutrather “apowerful,metaphysicaleffectof practicesthatmakesuchstructuresappeartoexist.”¹³Theconstructionofsovereigntyiseffectedthroughanelisionofthepracticesofgovernance,particularlyin termsofthecentralroleofthestate’sagentsandrepresentatives.But,asMitchell adds,inthedynamicinterplayofthestateanditsagents, “Politicalsubjectsandtheir modesofresistanceareformedasmuchwithintheorganizationalterrainwecallthe state,ratherthaninsomewhollyexteriorsocialspace.”¹⁴
Oneofthedefiningfeaturesoftheearlymodernstate’sorganizationalterrain wasitsneedforinformationfromitsagentsstationedabroad,andthepracticesof earlymoderngovernancetookshapethrougha “paperstate” anditsconstituent proceduresofwriting.¹⁵ Myownapproachfromthevantagepointofliteraryand culturalstudiesconcentratesonthe writing oftheearlymodernstate,analyzing theformsofwriting,modesofagency,andliteraryandprofessionallivesofthe state’sextraterritorialrepresentatives.Chapter1analyzesthecompositional protocolselaboratedforthecirculationofintelligencereportsandtraceshow theydevelopedintomorerecognizableformsoftravelwriting.Chapter2discusses thetextualcirculationofnewsfromEngland’sinformal,mercenaryparticipation intheDutchRevolt,exploringhowthemilitaryrevolutionthatprofessionalized waralsoledtotheprofessionalizationofliterarywriting,asseenwithGeorge
¹²PhilipAbrams, “NotesontheDifficultyofStudyingtheState,” JournalofHistoricalSociology 1(1989):82.
¹³TimothyMitchell, “TheLimitsoftheState:BeyondStateTheoriesandtheirCritics,” American PoliticalScienceReview 85(1991):94.
¹
⁴ Mitchell, “TheLimitsoftheState,” 93.
¹⁵ Thisoft-citedphrasingderivesfromPeterBurke, ASocialHistoryofKnowledge:FromGutenberg toDiderot (2000;Cambridge:PolityPress,2013),119.
Gascoigneandothermilitarywriters.Chapter3’sanalysisofthecareerof SirHenryWottonfocusesontheimportanceofthediplomaticletterasamodel forthesociableandaffectivedimensionsofstatewriting.The figuresdiscussedin thisstudywereamongtheearliestprofessionalwritersinearlymodernEngland, andpossesseddualcareersasstateagentsandliterarywriters.AsFynesMoryson, Gascoigne,Wotton,andothersenteredtherealmofprintandaddressedareading public,theytransformedmodelsofthestateintheprocess,renderingitsadministrationandtheoreticalpreconditionsassubjectmatterforpublicdebateand analysis.AswillbediscussedlaterintheIntroduction,theliterarywritingsofearly modernstateagentsareanintegralcomponenttotheemergenceofthepublic sphereanditsdefiningcharacteristicofatransnationaltrafficinnewsand letters.¹⁶
Anumberofimportantcriticalstudieshavereorienteddiscussionsoftheearly modernstatetoconcentrateonpracticesofadministrationaswellasthepersonnelresponsibleforgovernance.AsBradinCormackhasargued,theadministrative practicesofthestaterevealhowsovereigntywasaneffectofa “moremundane processofadministrativedistributionandmanagement.”¹⁷ Themostsustained analysisofstateformationinearlymodernEnglandhasbeenprovidedby historianssuchasSteveHindleandMichaelBraddick.AsHindlepointsout,the earlymodernstate “isnottobeviewedexclusivelyasasetofinstitutions ” but ratheras “anetworkofpowerrelations.”¹⁸ Heproductivelyreframesdiscussion fromastaticsenseof “government asaninstitutionorasanevent” toamore nuancedandcontextualizedapproachto “ governance asaprocess. ”¹⁹ Notingthat earlymodernEnglandwasnotabureaucraticstate,Braddickemphasizesinhis workthatanyinstitutionalhistoryisalsoa “historyofindividuals.”²⁰ Inthe micropoliticsoflocalgovernance,Braddickadds, “therewasmuchmoretothe agencyofthestatethanthemonarchicalwill.”²¹MarkGoldiethereforetermsas an “unacknowledgedrepublic” thenumberofindividualsholdingofficesand participatingingovernanceatthelocallevelinearlymodernEngland.²²Inhis
¹⁶ SeeJürgenHabermas, TheStructuralTransformationofthePublicSphere,trans.ThomasBurger (1962;Cambridge,MA:MITPress,1989),15.
¹⁷ BradinCormack, APowertoDoJustice:Jurisdiction,EnglishLiterature,andtheRiseofCommon Law,1509–1625 (Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,2007),9.
¹⁸ SteveHindle, TheStateandSocialChangeinEarlyModernEngland,1550–1640 (2000;NewYork: PalgraveMacmillan,2002),19.PhilipCorriganandDerekSayerofferabroadersurveyofEnglishstate formationandcapitalistdevelopmentin TheGreatArch:EnglishStateFormationasCultural Revolution (Oxford:BasilBlackwell,1985).
¹⁹ Hindle, TheStateandSocialChange,23.
²⁰ MichaelBraddick, StateFormationinEarlyModernEngland,c.1550–1700 (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress,2000),27.Onearlymoderndefinitionsofofficeandoffice-holding,see ConalCondren, ArgumentandAuthorityinEarlyModernEngland:ThePresuppositionofOathsand Offices (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2006).
²¹Braddick, StateFormation,24.
²²MarkGoldie, “TheUnacknowledgedRepublic:OfficeholdinginEarlyModernEngland,” in The PoliticsoftheExcluded,c.1500–1850,ed.TimHarris(Basingstoke:Palgrave,2001),153–94.
influentialessayonthe “monarchicalrepublic” oftheElizabethanperiod,Patrick Collinsonsimilarlyhighlightsthe “measureofself-direction” and “independent detachment” ofthestate’scounselorsandagents.²³AsweseewithCollinson’ s analysisandthesubsequentresponsesitgenerated,thecomplexpracticesof governance,particularlyintermsofitsdistributedanddelegatedoperations, defyanyeasytranslationtoreadilyavailablecategoriessuchasmonarchical sovereigntyorrepublicanism.²⁴ Thisstudyexpandsonthisinfluentialcritical tradition,andfocusesontheextraterritorialcontextsthatareoftenbracketedoff fromdiscussionsofearlymodernstateformation.²⁵ AsElizabethManckehas shown,thedemandsofadministeringcommercialanddiplomaticrelationsin regionsthroughoutEuropeandaroundtheglobeprovidedanimpetusforthe organizationandcentralizationoftheinstitutionsofgovernment;takeninthese terms,foreignaffairsservedakeyroleinaprocessofstateformation.²⁶
IncontrasttoWeber’semphasisontheterritorialhistoryofthestate, Agents BeyondtheState examinesthepracticesofgovernanceandservicethroughwhich theearlymodernstateextendeditsjurisdictionalauthorityabroad.Thestate’ s administrativepurviewtraversedinterconnectednationalandglobalcontexts,and politicalagencywasnotconfinedtosovereigns,particularlyinextraterritorial settingsinwhichthestatewasconstitutedbytheagentswhorepresentedits authoritybeyondthenation’sterritorialboundaries.²⁷ Aswillbediscussedfurther inalatersectionoftheIntroduction,myanalysisseparatesthehistoryofthestate fromnationalcultureinordertoemphasizethetransnationalcontextsthat contributedtotheformationoftheearlymodernstate.Initsextensionbeyond theboundariesoftherealm,statepowerwascharacterizednotbyitsmonopolizationorcentralizedformsofauthoritybutratheritsmorediffusecirculation amongavarietyofagents,includingthosebearingamoretenuousconnectionto legitimatestateinstitutions.AsJaniceE.Thomsonhasshowninheranalysisof theextraterritorialhistoriesofearlymodernstateformation,theemergenceofthe statessystemdependedon “the ‘disarming’ ofnonstatetransnationalactivities” suchasprivateeringandmercenarism.²⁸ DrawingonThomson’sargument,this
²³PatrickCollinson, “TheMonarchicalRepublicofQueenElizabethI” (1987),in ElizabethanEssays (London:TheHambledonPress,1994),36,42.
²
⁴ SeeJohnF.McDiarmid,ed., TheMonarchicalRepublicofEarlyModernEngland:Essaysin ResponsetoPatrickCollinson (AldershotandBurlington,VT:Ashgate,2007).
²⁵ AlthoughCollinsonneverexplicitlyaddressestheissue,itissignificantthathisexamplesofagents operatingwithoutthemonarch’sexplicitdirectivesoccurinextraterritorialcontexts,including Leicesterinhisroleasdeputyandquasi-sovereignEnglishauthorityintheLowCountries (“MonarchicalRepublic,” 41).
²⁶ ElizabethMancke, “EmpireandState,” in TheBritishAtlanticWorld,1500–1800,ed.David ArmitageandMichaelJ.Braddick(NewYork:PalgraveMacmillan,2009),195.
²⁷ Foranextendedanalysisofthehistoryofterritoriality,seeespeciallyStuartElden, TheBirthof Territory (Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,2013)and ShakespeareanTerritories (Chicago: UniversityofChicagoPress,2018).
²⁸ JaniceE.Thomson, Mercenaries,Pirates,andSovereigns:State-BuildingandExtraterritorial ViolenceinEarlyModernEurope (Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1994),4.Forarecent
studydetailsmorefullyhowsuch nonstate activitieswereinfactintegraltothe extensionofEnglishjurisdictionabroad.IncontextssuchasEngland’sparticipationintheDutchRevolt,theformsofdelegatedauthorityandcommercialleasing ofmilitarylaborshowapoliticallandscapethatdefiesanystrictdemarcationof state-sponsoredversusnonstateactivities.
Thewritingsofstateagentschallengesomeofthegenericframeworksand criticalmodelsthathavetraditionallybeenusedtoanalyzeearlymodernsovereignty.Asintelligencers,mercenaries,diplomats,andother figuresrepresented stateauthorityabroad,sovereigntywasfarfromindivisibleinitscharacteror decisionistinitsintent.AsChristopherWarrenhasargued,intheearlymodern period genre wasnotmerelyaliterarycategorybutalsotheconceptualframework forimaginingpoliticalmodelsofassociationfor gentes (peoples,nations).²⁹ Earlier criticalstudieshaveoftenseentragedyasthegenerictemplatethroughwhichthe absolutistmonarchy’smodelofsovereigntywasdeconsecratedandchallengedby emergentpublics.ForFrancoMoretti,thetragic flawofsovereigntyderivesfrom thecontradictionsinherentinitsimageasaself-originatingandself-determining authoritythatdelimitspoliticalactiontothedecisionofthesovereign.³⁰ Theidea ofsovereigntyasfoundedonastateofexception,asuspensionofconstitutional restraintsintimesofemergency,hasbecomeadominantcriticalmodelfor analyzingsovereigntyinrecentyears.Asinitiallyformulatedbytheearly twentieth-centuryjuristCarlSchmitt,thedefiningattributeofsovereigntyis seenasthispowertoexemptitselffromthelawsthatseeminglyconstituteit: “theauthoritytosuspendvalidlaw ...is...the actualmarkofsovereignty. ”³¹Later inthissectionIwillreturntotheconceptofthestateofexception,andshowhow BodinandMachiavelliformulatecomplexandsurprisinglycriticalassessmentsof emergencypowersandextra-legalauthority.AsGlennBurgesshasemphasized, theterm “absolutism” isgenerallyappliedtoofreelyincharacterizingearly moderndefensesofmonarchicalauthority,andsituatingBodinalongside discussionofnonstateagentsinearlymodernculture,seeLaurieEllinghausen, Pirates,Traitors,and Apostates:RenegadeIdentitiesinEarlyModernEnglishWriting (Toronto:UniversityofTorontoPress, 2018).
²⁹ ChristopherWarren, LiteratureandtheLawofNations,1580–1680 (Oxford:OxfordUniversity Press,2015),3.
³⁰ FrancoMoretti, “TheGreatEclipse:TragicFormandtheDeconsecrationofSovereignty,” in Signs TakenforWonders:OntheSociologyofLiteraryForms (London:Verso,2005),42–3.Amongrecent discussionsofsovereigntyandtragedy,seePhilipLorenz, TheTearsofSovereignty:Perspectivesof PowerinRenaissanceDrama (NewYork:FordhamUniversityPress,2013)andChenxiTang, ImaginingWorldOrder:LiteratureandInternationalLawinEarlyModernEurope,1500–1800 (Ithaca:CornellUniversityPress,2018),107–13.
³¹CarlSchmitt, PoliticalTheology:FourChaptersontheConceptofSovereignty,trans.George Schwab(1922;Cambridge:MITPress,1985),9.GiorgioAgambenanalyzesthisparadigmin Stateof Exception,trans.KevinAttell(2003;Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,2005).
contemporaryHuguenotresistancetheoristswillillustratehowtherewerefew proponentsofsuchstrictinterpretationsofsovereignty.³²
Asanalternativetoanalyzingearlymodernsovereigntyintermsoftragedyor stateofemergency,oneinsteadseesthatitnecessarilyoperatedthroughthe delegatedagencyofitsrepresentatives.Suchprocessesare,infact,integralto preservingsovereignauthority.AsPauldeManobserved, “Thedeclarationofthe ‘ permanence ’ oftheStatewouldthusgreatlyhastenitsdissolution.”³³Sovereignty ultimatelyresistsitsintendedclosure,anditspromisesmustalwaysremain unfulfilled.Sovereignty,asJacquesDerridasoaptlyputit,is stupid:inpresenting itselfasthebasisofallauthority,itwillnecessarily ifnottragically break down.³ ⁴ AsÉtiennedelaBoétiecommentedin Discoursdelaservitudevolontaire ouleContr’ un (1576),publishedthesameyearasJeanBodin’sdefenceof sovereignty, “Stupidityinatyrantalwaysrendershimincapableofbenevolent action”;theantithesisoftyrannicalsovereignty,forlaBoétie,isembodiedin friendship,andapoliticsofsociabilitythatwillcharacterizemanyexamplesof thepracticesofgovernanceinthisstudy.³⁵“Sovereignty,” HaroldLaskiadds, “has necessarilytobedistributedinorderthatthepurposesofmenmaybeachieved. ”³⁶ Sovereigntyisthereforealwaysboundtoitsembodimentintheformofthestate. AsGeoffreyBenningtonnotes,althoughsovereignsmayjustifytheirauthority throughtheoreticalmodelsemphasizingtheunitary,self-originating,andindissolublequalitiesofsovereignty,³⁷ thesemustnecessarilybegivenalocalhabitation andanameintheformofthestate’srepresentativeagents.
Ambassadorsare,inthewordsoftheearlymodernpoliticaltheoristHugo Grotius, “byaSortofFiction,takenfortheveryPersonswhomtheyrepresent. ”³⁸ ThejuristAlbericoGentilireachesasimilarconclusionregardingtheeffectsof diplomaticrepresentationonsovereignauthority: “Forifhewhorepresentsa princeisasubjectofthesovereigntowhomheisaccredited,theprincehimselfisa
³²GlennBurgess, AbsoluteMonarchyandtheStuartConstitution (NewHavenandLondon:Yale UniversityPress,1996),18.Foranoverview,seeJ.P.Sommerville, “AbsolutismandRoyalism,” in The CambridgeHistoryofPoliticalThought1450–1700,ed.JamesHendersonBurnsandMarkGoldie (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1991),347–73.
³³PauldeMan, AllegoriesofReading:FiguralLanguageinRousseau,Nietzsche,Rilke,andProust (NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress,1979),266.
³
⁴ JacquesDerrida, TheBeast&theSovereign,VolumeI,trans.GeoffreyBennington(Chicago: UniversityofChicagoPress,2009).
³
⁵ ÉtiennedelaBoétie, DiscoursdelaservitudevolontaireouleContr’ un (1576),publishedas The PoliticsofObedience:TheDiscourseofVoluntaryServitude,trans.HarryKurz(London:BlackRose Books,1997),83.
³
³
⁶ HaroldLaski, AuthorityintheModernState (NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress,1919),177.
⁷ GeoffreyBennington, “SovereignStupidityandAutoimmunity,” inPhengCheahandSuzanne Guerlac,eds., DerridaandtheTimeofthePolitical (Durham:DukeUniversityPress,2009),99.
³
⁸ HugoGrotius, Dejurebelliacpacislibritres (1625),trans.as TheRightsofWarandPeace,3vols., ed.RichardTuck(Indianapolis:LibertyFund,2005),BkII,ChapXVIII,IV,912.Forarelated discussionofdelegationanddiplomacy,seeTimothyHampton, FictionsofEmbassy:Literatureand DiplomacyinEarlyModernEurope (Ithaca:CornellUniversityPress,2009),163–8.
subjectinthepersonofhisrepresentative. ”³⁹ Sovereigntyismademanifest throughits figurativeforms,andisthereforeaneffectofitsrepresentation:the ambassadornotonlyservesasanotherpersonofthesovereign,repeatinghisor herauthority,butalsoperformssovereigntyitself,onlyasaresultofwhichan absentmonarchicalbodycanbeconjecturedastheoriginatingcauseofsovereignty.AsBartelsondeftlyputsit, “sovereigntyisnotanattributeofsomething whoseexistenceispriortoorindependentofsovereignty;rather,itistheconcept ofsovereigntyitselfwhichsuppliesthisindivisibilityandunity.”⁴⁰
Inanextraterritorialsetting,suchasthatofdiplomaticencounters,theconstitutionofsovereigntyisaccomplishedthroughtheagentialpowerofthestate’ s representatives.AsinGrotius’scomment,weseethatambassadorsmayassume theirdistinctiveroleinrepresentingsovereigntyonlyoncetheyaresituated beyond thejurisdictionalboundariesoftherealm.JohnDonnerepresentedthis processofdelegationinhisverseletter “ToSirHenryWotton,athisgoing AmbassadortoVenice” :
Afterthosereverendpapers,whosesoulis OurgoodandgreatKing’slovedhandandfearedname, Bywhichtoyouhederivesmuchofhis, And(howhemay)makesyoualmostthesame,
Ataperofhistorch,acopywrit Fromhisoriginal,andafairbeam Ofthesamewarmanddazzlingsun,thoughit Mustinanotherspherehisvirtuestream⁴¹
InDonne ’spoemthedelegationofsovereignauthorityinherentindiplomatic accreditationisatextualprocess,onemediatedthroughthelettersofcredential andtextualcorrespondencethatenablessovereigntytobeextended “inanother sphere” beyondtheterritorialnation.Butsovereigntyisinfactconstitutedasan effectofthisdelegation,andderivedthroughtheagencyofthestate’ srepresentatives,aprocessofreproductionthatmakesthesovereignandhisagents “almost thesame.” Inthisdynamicrelationshipofagencyandrepresentation,thesovereignisabelated,constructed figure,onewhointervenes,asGiorgioAgamben argues, “inordertoconferlegalvalidityontheactofasubjectwhocannot
³⁹ AlbericoGentili, DeLegationibusLibriTres [1585],trans.GordonJ.Laing(NewYork:Oceana Publications,1964),I.xx.51.AsGentilinotesinthissection,anadditionalcomplicationtotheprocess ofdiplomaticrepresentationariseswhenforeignnationalsserveasambassadors.
⁴⁰ Bartelson, GenealogyofSovereignty,28.
⁴¹JohnDonne, “ToSirHenryWotton,athisgoingambassadortoVenice,” in TheCompleteEnglish Poems,ed.A.J.Smith(London:Penguin,1971),ll.1–8,216.
independentlybringavalidactintobeing.”⁴²Thus,eventhoughDonne ’ spoem showstherepresentativeagentasthesubjectofstatepowerandrecognizesthe underlying fictionalityofsovereignty,itnonethelessreflectsaninabilitytoconceptualizepoliticalagencywithoutreferencetoanauthorizingsovereign.
Akeycomponenttoearlymodernformulationsofthestatewasadeveloping senseofthecentralplaceofthe agent inpracticesofgovernance.Significantly,the OED locatesinsixteenth-centuryEnglandtheearliestexamplesde fininganagent as “apersonwhoactsasasubstituteforanother;onewhoundertakesnegotiations ortransactionsonbehalfofasuperior,employer,orprincipal;adeputy,steward, representative;(inearlyuse)anambassador,emissary.”⁴³Asweseewiththese meanings,theroleoftheagentisdistinctfromamodernsenseofagency:the agentisdefinednotbyautonomyorfreedomofactionbutinsteadbyarelational identity,servingonbehalfoforasasubstituteforasovereign,authorizing authority.However,likeinDonne ’spoemonWotton,theearlymoderndefinition ofagentcarrieswithitthepotentialformsofagencythatastate’ soverseas representativesmayassume:asGiddensnotes,insimilarlyturningbacktothe genealogyoftheterm,anagentimpliespower,capability,andabilitytoproduce effects. ⁴⁴ ArelevantcriticalmodelinthisregardisBrunoLatour’sframeworkof Actor-Network-Theory,whichemphasizesthatmediators includingthetravelinginformants,militaryagents,anddiplomatsanalyzedinthisstudy donot merelyserveaninstrumentalorsubordinaterolebutinstead “transform,translate, distort,andmodifythemeaningortheelementstheyaresupposedtocarry.”⁴⁵ As aresult,the figurationofstateauthorityexperiencesan “agentialdrift,” todrawon JulianYates’sinsightfulphrasing,inwhichpoliticalagencyis “adispersedor distributiveprocess” ratherthanaproperty likesovereignty thatisintrinsically possessed.⁴⁶
Thisstudyexpandsonimportantinterdisciplinarycriticismthathasanalyzed thecomplexworkingsofagencyamongastate’srepresentativesintheconstitutionofstatepower.OneoftheearliestworkstoaddresstheseissueswasRalph Miliband’ s TheStateinCapitalistSociety (1969).ForMiliband,statepowerresides inthepersonnelofthestate,andtheinterpersonalnetworksofa “stateelite” rising topowerthroughgovernmentalservice.⁴⁷ Miliband’smodelwascritiquedby NicosPoulantzasforitsfocusonindividualsubjectsratherthantheunderlying
⁴²Agamben, StateofException,76.
⁴³ “Agent,” OxfordEnglishDictionary,3rdedition(2012).
⁴⁴ AnthonyGiddens, TheConstitutionofSociety:OutlineoftheTheoryofStructuration (Oxford: Polity,1984),9.
⁴⁵ BrunoLatour, ReassemblingtheSocial:AnIntroductiontoActor-Network-Theory (Oxford: OxfordUniversityPress,2005),39.
⁴⁶ JulianYates, “TowardsaTheoryofAgentiveDrift;Or,AParticularFondnessforOrangescirca 1597,” parallax 8(2002):48.
⁴⁷ RalphMiliband, TheStateinCapitalistSociety:AnAnalysisoftheWesternSystemofPower (NewYork:BasicBooks,1969),49.
socialforcesatworkintheemergenceofthenation-stateinaneconomyof capitalistmodernity. ⁴⁸ Nonetheless,BobJessophaslinkedPoulantzas’sstructural approachwiththeconcernsofagencycentraltoMiliband’sproject,emphasizing thatthestate’ spowers “areactivatedthroughtheagencyofdefinitepoliticalforces inspecificconjunctures,” andthatevenunderstructuralconstraints,stateactors areableto “transformsocialstructures.”⁴⁹ AsColinWightadds, “Ifthestatehas agencyitcanonlybeaccessedthroughtheagencyofindividuals.”⁵⁰ Giddens similarlyacknowledgesthatstatepowerisformedthroughadispersalofauthority amongmultipleactorsratherthanonahierarchicalconcentrationandunityof power.⁵¹EvenSchmitt,oneofthemostinfluentialtheoristsofsovereignty,stresses thatabstractionssuchassovereigntyandabsolutism “areincomprehensibleifone doesnotknow concretely ...whoistobeaffected,combated,refuted,ornegated bysuchterms.”⁵²Wewillseethroughoutthisstudythattheworkingsofsovereign authorityarenecessarilymorediffusewhenrefractedthroughtheagentialpower andinterestsofthestate’srepresentatives.Indiscussingtheintersubjectivenetworksthroughwhichstatepoweroperated,thisstudygroundsitsanalysisof extraterritorialserviceinmaterialhistoriesofwritingpractices,labor,domesticity, andemergingcapitalisteconomies.FollowingtherecommendationofPierre Bourdieu,thismaterialhistoryofstatepracticesconsidersthe “systemofagents whoproducethemaswell[as] ...thespaceofpositionstheyoccupy.”⁵³
Thecentralplaceoftheearlymodernperiodinbroaderhistoriesofsovereignty andstateformationisacommonthreadrunningthroughtheworkofmanyofthe mostinfluentialpoliticaltheoristsofthepastcentury,fromMaxWeber,Carl Schmitt,HannahArendt,andErnstKantorowicztoJürgenHabermas,Michel Foucault,JacquesDerrida,AntonioNegri,ÉtienneBalibar,andGiorgioAgamben, amongothers.⁵⁴ Therecurringemphasisonthe formation ofthemodernstatein theperiodreflectstheextenttowhichhistoriesofthestateoftenrelyonnarrative frameworksoforigin,emergence,andtransition.Buttoooftenignoredarethe
⁴⁸ NicosPoulantzas, PoliticalPowerandSocialClasses (London:Verso,1978).
⁴⁹ BobJessop, StatePower:AStrategic-RelationalApproach (Cambridge:Polity,2007),37,42.
⁵⁰ ColinWight, Agents,StructuresandInternationalRelations:PoliticsasOntology (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress,2006),189.
⁵¹Giddens, Nation-StateandViolence,esp.8–13.
⁵²CarlSchmitt, TheConceptofthePolitical,ed.GeorgeSchwab(1932;Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress,1996),31.
⁵³PierreBourdieu, “RethinkingtheState:GenesisandStructureoftheBureaucraticField,” in GeorgeSteinmetz,ed., State/Culture:State-FormationAftertheCulturalTurn (Ithaca:Cornell UniversityPress,1999),71.Recentsourcesthatconsiderpracticesofstatecraftandtheagencyof extraterritorialrepresentativesincludeE.NatalieRothman, BrokeringEmpire:Trans-ImperialSubjects BetweenVeniceandIstanbul (Ithaca:CornellUniversityPress,2012);DanielRiches, Protestant CosmopolitanismandDiplomaticCulture:Brandenburg-SwedishRelationsintheSeventeenthCentury (Leiden:Brill,2013);andDiegoPirillo, TheRefugee-Diplomat:Venice,England,andtheReformation (Ithaca:CornellUniversityPress,2018).
⁵⁴ Foranexpandeddiscussionoftwentieth-centuryreadingsofearlymodernpoliticaltheory,see VictoriaKahn, TheFutureofIllusion:PoliticalTheologyandEarlyModernTexts (Chicago:University ofChicagoPress,2014).
multiple,divergenttheoreticalframesthroughwhichthemodernstatecanbe conceptualized.AsKathleenDavispointsoutin PeriodizationandSovereignty,in anargumentthatbuildsontheworkofDipeshChakrabartyandotherpostcolonialscholars,theresurgentcriticalinterestinthehistoryofsovereigntyrisks reinscribingnarrativesofcolonialmodernity,withcolonialismandslaveryserving astheimplicittemplatesandinsidiouspreconditionsfortheadventofthe modern.⁵⁵ AgentsBeyondtheState similarlytracestheindebtednessofEuropean stateformationtothelegaciesofcolonialism,particularlyinthe finalsectionof Chapter3,whichdiscussestheconceptofthelinesofamityseparatingthe Europeanstatessystemfromcolonialspheres “beyondtheline.” Especiallypertinenttothisstudyisarelatedcriticaloversight:theextenttowhichhistoriesof sovereigntyandstateformationaregenerallyanalyzedsolelyinreferencetothe territorialstate.Asaresult,weassumethatthehistoryofthestateisconfinedto thenation,therebyelidingthehistoricalimpactofextraterritorialcontexts, fromthecomplexpositionofdiplomacy,andtheelusivestatusofinternational law,tothevariedformsofagency,travel,andservicethatpervadetheearly modernperiodandintersectedwithemergingformsofglobalcommerce.
AsDaviscogentlyargues,newandinnovativetheorizationsofsovereignty becamedominantintheearlymodernperiodthroughamarginalizationofrival narrativesofpoliticalhistory:absolutistpoliticaltheorieswereabletoconsign customarylegalpracticesorcompetingpoliticalaffiliationstothepast,asresidues ofafeudalagesupersededbytheadministrativemodernityoftheabsolutist state.⁵⁶ Aslaterthinkerslookedbacktotheearlymodernperiod,thisprocess wasreproducedthroughanexclusivefocusontheabsolutiststate,anapproach thatnaturalizedthispoliticalmodelasthenormandconsignedconstitutionalist alternativestoamedievalpast.⁵⁷ Theseinterpretationslostsightofthehistorical, cultural,andpoliticalconditionsthatledtothisparticularformulationofsovereignty,andtherebysituatedapartial,contestedobjectatthecenteroftheir analyses.AsthepluralistandMarxisttheoristHaroldLaskiobservedacentury ago, “[w]emustceaselesslyrememberthatthemonistictheoryofthestatewas borninanageofcrisisandthateachperiodofitsrevivi ficationhassynchronized withsomemomentouseventwhichhassignaledachangeinthedistributionof politicalpower.”⁵⁸ Thismonisticformofsovereignty,aproductofhistoricalcrisis,
⁵⁵ Fortheclassicstatementofthisargument,seeDipeshChakrabarty, ProvincializingEurope: PostcolonialThoughtandHistoricalDifference (Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,2000).
⁵⁶ KathleenDavis, PeriodizationandSovereignty:HowIdeasofFeudalismandSecularization GovernthePoliticsofTime (Philadelphia:UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress,2008).
⁵⁷ MartinvanGelderen, “TheStateanditsRivalsinEarly-ModernEurope,” inQuentinSkinnerand BoStrath,eds., StatesandCitizens:History,Theory,Prospects (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress, 2003),92.StephenDengemphasizesthecontinuedlegaciesofmedievalconstitutionalismintheearly modernperiodin CoinageandStateFormationinEarlyModernEngland (NewYork:Palgrave Macmillan,2011),esp.33–9.
⁵⁸ HaroldLaski, “ThePluralisticState,” TheFoundationsofSovereigntyandOtherEssays (NewYork:Harcourt,1921),233.HenryS.TurnerdrawsonLaskiandotherpluralistthinkersinhis
gainsitspowerpreciselythroughitscapacitiesforabstraction,itsabilityto circulatewithoutreferencetothepreconditionsthatenableditsconstruction.
Itisthereforeproductivetohistoricizetheconceptofsovereigntyitselfand returntothespecificcontextsinwhichitwasformulatedandinitiallygained currency.AparticularlyimportanttextinthisprocessisJeanBodin’ smonumentalwork LessixlivresdelaRépublique [SixBooksoftheCommonwealth](1576).⁵⁹ Bodin’sinnovativenessstemmedfromhowhetransformedtheideaofsovereignty throughhisemphasisonitsintrinsicmarksofunity,indivisibility,andindestructibility.PriortoBodin’sformulation,theconceptofsovereigntywasapplied farmorebroadly:itwasatermprimarilyusedfordescribinghigherranking authoritiesratherthanamoreabstractprincipledenotingabsoluteorexclusive power.⁶⁰ Sovereigntywasthereforearelationalterm,notadesignationofessence. Moreover,itwasacharacteristicassociatedwithofficeandfunction,onethat appliednotonlytoindividualsbutalsomoregenerallytoassociationsororganizationalbodies.Sovereigntywasthereforeacontestedspace:acontingent,provisionaldesignationconferredasameansfornegotiatingoverlapping,potentially competingobligationstoavarietyofpoliticalbodiesandrelations,fromthoseof kinship,alliance,andservice,tocorporate,civic,andprofessionalaffiliations,as wellasthetransnationalloyaltiesandenmitiesofconfessionalidentities.
Thecriticalafterlifeoftheconceptofthestateofexceptionisaprimeexample ofhowsubsequentdiscussionsofthehistoryofsovereigntyhaveoverlookedthe contextsinwhichitwasinitiallyconstructed.WhenCarlSchmittformulatedthis conceptinthepoliticalclimateofWeimarGermany,hesignificantlycitedBodin ashissource.⁶¹However,asÉtienneBalibarpointedout,forBodinthestateof exceptionwas itself anexception,notanabidingmechanismofsovereignpower.⁶² DespitethefactthatthisparadigmisoftenattributedtoBodin,whenherefersto theemergencypowersofthesovereignin SixBooks heoffersonlyaprovisional andconditionalendorsementofsuchmeasures:whileheconcedesthat “Itistrue fascinatingdiscussionofthegenealogyofthecorporationinearlymodernEngland:see TheCorporate Commonwealth:PluralismandPoliticalFictionsinEngland,1516–1651 (Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress,2016).
⁵⁹ JeanBodin, SixBooksoftheCommonwealth,ed.M.J.Tooley(Oxford:Blackwell,1955).Unless notedotherwise,referencestoBodinarefromthisedition.Duetothecomplextextualhistoryofthis work,othereditionshavebeenusedforparticularpassages.BodininitiallypublishedhistextinFrench in1576,thenissuedarevisedLatinversionin1586;RichardKnolles’s1606Englishtranslationcollated thesetwotexts.Thetwomoderneditions,byTooleyandJulianFranklin,offerabbreviatedversionsof thetext.Fordiscussion,seeElden, TheBirthofTerritory,261–2.
⁶⁰ AndreasOsiander, BeforetheState:SystemicPoliticalChangeintheWestfromtheGreekstothe FrenchRevolution (Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2007),431.AsGiddensadds,beforeBodin transformedtheideaofsovereignty,thetermwasusednotonlytorefertohigh-rankingindividuals butalsotothe “characteristicsoforganizationsthemselves” (Giddens, Nation-StateandViolence,94).
⁶¹Schmitt, PoliticalTheology,8.
⁶²ÉtienneBalibar, We,ThePeopleofEurope?ReflectionsonTransnationalCitizenship (Princeton: PrincetonUniversityPress,2004),142.
