If you go with the Conceptual History of Reinhart Koselleck, the "normal", that is, contemporary, use of "Staat" is formed in the treshold period (Sattelzeit) in the late 18th and early 19th century. Actually, Koselleck himself published on this concept and its development.

Thank you for your post. Could you mention other sources besides Koselleck? And what work of his should you look at?

I was refering to "Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe: Historisches Lexikon zur politisch-sozialen Sprache in Deutschland" (I guess, there is a partial translation in English, but I don't know where) the most important collective work on conceptual history. In Volume 6 of the original edition (published in 1990), there is an entry on "Staat und Souveränität" written by Conze, Koselleck and other people.

Dear Clifford,

I also thought about Koselleck's and his colleagues lexikon.

I guess that you can find refeences to his ideas of the birth of the concept of state in his ENglish language volume: Futures past.  See: http://cup.columbia.edu/book/futures-past/9780231127714

Keith Tribe and Raymond Geuss is also worth studying in this respect.

Kind regards,

Ferenc

Mainz, Germany

Dear Bates,

I have available here the Kluge Etymological Dictionary of the German language (Berlin, 1989), and it lists the following entry  (translated to English):

Staat, masc.  In the 15th century borrowed from 1. status 'Stand' (cf. stäre 'stehen'). The prominent plural follows the Dutch precedent. The meaning is at first 'Stand, Rang' ...The contemporary meaning is taken from French. etat, and Dutch staat.

In political terms, I am reminded of the early office among the Dutch of "Staathalter," (approximately "governor")  and the Dutch fight to free themselves from the Spanish. Surely, the whole of Europe was much impresses with the ability of the Dutch to fight off first the Spanish and then the French in the 17th century. That may explain the influence of the Dutch word.

H.G. Callaway 

Dear Professor Callaway, Thanks... 

Check out www.etymonline.com. Here is what that website says about "staat" which they say is the equivalent of "state": The Latin word was adopted into other modern Germanic languages (German, Dutch staat) but chiefly in the political senses only. Meaning "physical condition as regards form or structure" is attested from late 13c. Meaning "mental or emotional condition" is attested from 1530s (phrase state of mind first attested 1749); colloquial sense of "agitated or perturbed state" is from 1837. 

I myself would be careful with the etymological dictionaries, as they do not care so much about the political uses made of the concepts, simply relying on first appearances and literary uses. ALthough a comparative investigation of the lexicons and other handbooks of the age (in different languages) might be relevant.

Best,

Ferenc

The Dutch "stadhouder" is a "statthalter"or "lieu-tenant" or "deputy" , governing a region on behalf of the king (house of Habsburg). After the Dutch independence there was a dualism between the States-General (political) and the Stadhouder (military). There were two periods of monism (so without a stadhouder) both ending with the killing of the political leader.

For the origin of the modern concept of state I would turn to Foucault who emphasizes in his ‘The Political Technology of Individuals’ ( in: Technologies of the Self, a seminar with Michel Foucault, eds. Luther H. Martin, Huck Gutman, Patrick H. Hutton, Tavistock Publications, London,1988, 145-163) the abstract character of it and the difference with the concept used by Macchiavelli. It is the birth of what he calls the police-state.

Can I call your attention to Quentin Skinner's elaboration of our problem in:

QUENTIN SKINNER: A Genealogy of the Modern State

available at: http://time.xutu.net/chinese/attachments/article/302/8Quentin_Skinner_A_Genealogy_of_the_Modern_State_.pdf

To be sure, he is not concentrating on the German case, referring to the concept of the Rechtsstaat, and mentioning Hegel and Gierke, on p. 355.

See his lecture on the same topic at: https://vimeo.com/14979551

See the comparative volume: States and Citizens: History, Theory, Prospects

Quentin Skinner and Bo Strath (eds.)

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003

Best,

Ferenc

Ferenc,

I know rather well Skinner's position and have certain issues with it.  His refusal to take Machiavelli coining of la stato and tying to this term his concept of the new modes and orders that will help rulers rule more effectively gets him to focus more on Hobbes and his contemporaries and not see that Hobbes is merely taking what is there and recasting it.  Skinner's hostility to Strauss's take on Machiavelli and Machiavelli's role in creating what we understand as modern politics, muddies up his take here.

I can see the way Machiavelli's ideas hit in France, Spain, England and through Grotius the Dutch via the Latin.  The Germans will be a very interesting picture..  Hobbes will very much be the influence for Pufendorf and others.. but I am looking more for the influence of Machivelli per se.. and per Hobbesian usage of der staat.

The Dutch example is interesting because of the clear Spanish and French influence in ideas is evident in the work of Grotius and other Dutch writers... now to see how the local language either crafted new terms or grafted the new ideas on to older terms.

Dear Clifford, I did presume that you are aware of Skinner's position. And you are right that the German development is rather different. Are you aware of István Hont's work as well? He is of Hungarian background, but was well versed in the German tradition. Also I remember a workshop in Cambridge on Reason of State, where Germans like Stolleis took place - it was a clearcut case of differing academic tradfitions, not able to communicate with each other.

Also for a historical awareness of political realism, Geuss seems to me quite relevant. He is again well versed in the German tradition. But again i suppose you know him.

Best,

Ferenc

Dear Ferenc,  I know of Geuss but his focus is more on the later Modern period....  and much more on contemporary political thinking.  He really doesn't focus on this period.   I know Viroli's work on this... change of language from the language of politics to the reason of state....  which although came out of the Skinner approach which really starts to make the case Strauss and others claimed about Machiavelli being the break from the classical and Christian tradition of politics to modern politics.

I am not familiar with Istvan Hont's work.. I will have to try to check him out.  

Dear Clifford, Geuss is historically much better informed than most of the liberal thinkers today, including Rawls. I would refer in connection with this question to his book on Public goods, private goods, for example: http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0691117209/ref=as_sl_pd_tf_lc?tag=virtualphilos-21&camp=1406&creative=6394&linkCode=as1&creativeASIN=0691117209&adid=0BQ5A8F61N1JRDEWCF45&&ref-refURL=http%3A%2F%2Fphilosophybites.com%2F2008%2F10%2Fraymond-geuss-o.html

As for Strauss, he certainly had a very strong historical background, but it seems to me that it was highly dependent on his a priori theoretical presuppositions. 

As for hont Jealousy of trade is the big collection of his essays, but in Wealth and Virtue, edited by him and M. Ignatieff, he also published two substantial essays on the eighteenth century debate of virtue and private interest.

Of course, I talk so much about these guys, because they are all important for me, and perhaps they do not fit so well your questions. :)

Ferenc

You ask two distinct questions: (1) when did the concept of the state appear in normal usage, and (2) when did it first appear and was used in German. Helpful is the first entry, "Staat und Souveränität" in Volume 6 of Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe, which I happen to have on my shelf, co-edited by Reinhart Kosellek, who contributed 40 pages to the 155 page entry ("The state in the age of revolutionary movement"). It appears that at least the modern German concept of the state was imported from France in the aftermath of the French Revolution and the invasion of Napoleon, putting an end to the "Holy Roman Empire" ("neither holy, nor Roman nor an empire"), and inspiring demands for the creation of a unified German state, which became louder after Napolean's defeat in 1815 and louder still preceding, during and after the revolutions of 1848. By 1846, Johann Gottlieb Fichte, quoted by Kosellak in Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe, wrote: "On no subject, especially in the era in which we now live, has more been written, read, and spoken than on the state." (my rough translation). I am aware of only secondary sources.

I was intrigued by your questions because I did a somewhat similar linguistic political study, found at the top of my RG featured publications (although never published except here; in the somewhat tedious form of a law review article), entitled "The United States are but one country, a short history of grammar and liberty" The goal was to determine when the term "United States" evolved from its true grammatical plural to its present ungrammatical, but historically understandable, singular usage in the English language, the only language in the world that treats the term as a singular noun. All my sources are primary with citations, from Supreme Court decisions to diplomatic correspondence to newspaper editorials. I would expect that an approach to your questions with such primary sources would be a more difficult task.

I find that the English concept of the Crown seem to be the closest concept that matches what Machiavelli defined as his term of Stato--which became our State.