What do you think?
Rate this book
الأصول الوسيطة للدولة الحديثة
The modern state, however we conceive of it today, is based on a pattern that emerged in Europe in the period from 1100 to 1600. Written from the experience of a lifetime of teaching and research in the field, this short, clear book is the classic work on what is known about the early history of the European state. Charles Tilly's foreword shows how Strayer's book set the agenda for a whole generation of historical analysts, not just in medieval history but also in the comparative study of state formation. William Chester Jordan's foreword addresses the scholarly and pedagogical setting within which Strayer produced his book, and how this both enhanced its accessibility and informed its focus on peculiarly English and French accomplishments in early state-building.
109 pages, Paperback
First published October 21, 1970
36 people are currently reading
1685 people want to read
About the author
Joseph R. Strayer
49 books19 followersJoseph Reese Strayer taught at Princeton University for many decades, starting in the 1930s. He was chair of the history department (1941–1961) and president of the American Historical Association in 1971. Strayer has been credited with training a large percentage of the American medievalists profession; many of his students are still teaching and active. Notable students include Teofilo Ruiz, William Chester Jordan, and Richard W. Kaeuper. Norman F. Cantor often highlighted his status as a student of Strayer's, but several of Strayer's other pupils - who wish to remain anonymous for personal and professional reasons - have expressed their doubt that Strayer ever acknowledged Cantor as his student or that Cantor had any formal affiliation with him at all.
When not teaching medieval history at Princeton, Strayer was involved with the CIA, as a member of the CIA's Office of National Estimates. The extent of his involvement, at a time when the C.I.A was running covert operations to destabilize governments around the world (Iran, Brazil, Congo, Dominican Republic, Guyana and Chile), has never been fully assessed or verified.
Norman Cantor recognized three books as most important to Strayer's legacy: Feudalism (1965), which summarized three decades of his research and thinking on the topic; On the Medieval Origins of the Modern State (1970), in which he shows the relevance of medieval historical institutions to modern governmental institutions; and The Reign of Philip the Fair (1980), representing over 30 years of archival research and the most comprehensive work on the topic in any language - other than Jean Favier's Philippe le Bel (1978). Strayer was editor of the Dictionary of the Middle Ages, the largest and most comprehensive encyclopedia of the Middle Ages in the English language.
When not teaching medieval history at Princeton, Strayer was involved with the CIA, as a member of the CIA's Office of National Estimates. The extent of his involvement, at a time when the C.I.A was running covert operations to destabilize governments around the world (Iran, Brazil, Congo, Dominican Republic, Guyana and Chile), has never been fully assessed or verified.
Norman Cantor recognized three books as most important to Strayer's legacy: Feudalism (1965), which summarized three decades of his research and thinking on the topic; On the Medieval Origins of the Modern State (1970), in which he shows the relevance of medieval historical institutions to modern governmental institutions; and The Reign of Philip the Fair (1980), representing over 30 years of archival research and the most comprehensive work on the topic in any language - other than Jean Favier's Philippe le Bel (1978). Strayer was editor of the Dictionary of the Middle Ages, the largest and most comprehensive encyclopedia of the Middle Ages in the English language.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 46 reviews
January 23, 2014
This book pairs nicely with Ernst Kantorowicz's The King's Two Bodies: A Study in Mediaeval Political Theology even though they're drastically different in style and approach. Strayer's work here is clear, simple, straight-forward. I've really grown to appreciate it when someone can get their point across in just north of 100 pages.
Strayer's work makes the important point that the modern conception of the state did not always exist. Though it has some loose parallels to antique empires and 'city-states,' Strayer makes the case that the modern state sprung out (very slowly) during the medieval period, particularly from about 1100-1300. Strayer's state is one that is fixed in a particular time and space (no states for nomads) and in which broad, impersonal institutions - particularly legal and fiscal - both come into being and become accepted as a necessary and welcome authority in people's lives.
The work starts with the early medieval Germanic kingdoms, which Strayer describes as a sort of anti-state: everything is based on personal ties, personal relationships, and the central loyalties are to lord, family, kin. However, by the 11th century there was a decided shift in perception. Strayer attributes this to four main causes. First was the simple fact that feudal lords increasingly relied on institutions in order to get the most from their lands. It was usually rudimentary, but it set the stages for later administrative developments. Second was the Investiture Conflict, which - by liberating the Church - also pointed out the need for a more defined notion of secular power. Third, there was the growing idea of the king as the distributor of justice. And, finally, the 11th and 12th century brought an influx of educated men who were capable of reading, writing, and carrying out administrative positions.
Strayer then focuses on how these changes led to the development of proto-states in England and France. England was probably the furthest along this path due to its political history (constant invasions wiped out the nobility and made the establishment of central authority an easier process), but France was more representative of the process of turning an amalgamation of localities into something resembling a state (usually by sending royal officers to run local systems). The main instruments were the slow development of a centralized legal system in which the king became the highest court of appeals, and the concurrent growth of a fiscal administration and a chancery, which coordinated all these groups.
In the later Middle Ages, Strayer suggests a bit of stagnation amid plague, famine, and the Hundred Years War, particularly as the gap between policy-makers and administrators grew and rendered bureaucracy less efficient. There were developments though, particularly in the field of representative assemblies. In the last few pages he takes a brief look at the early modern period, especially how a period of relative peace and economic recovery allowed for the expansion of bureaucracy into new offices of war and foreign affairs.
Strayer's work makes the important point that the modern conception of the state did not always exist. Though it has some loose parallels to antique empires and 'city-states,' Strayer makes the case that the modern state sprung out (very slowly) during the medieval period, particularly from about 1100-1300. Strayer's state is one that is fixed in a particular time and space (no states for nomads) and in which broad, impersonal institutions - particularly legal and fiscal - both come into being and become accepted as a necessary and welcome authority in people's lives.
The work starts with the early medieval Germanic kingdoms, which Strayer describes as a sort of anti-state: everything is based on personal ties, personal relationships, and the central loyalties are to lord, family, kin. However, by the 11th century there was a decided shift in perception. Strayer attributes this to four main causes. First was the simple fact that feudal lords increasingly relied on institutions in order to get the most from their lands. It was usually rudimentary, but it set the stages for later administrative developments. Second was the Investiture Conflict, which - by liberating the Church - also pointed out the need for a more defined notion of secular power. Third, there was the growing idea of the king as the distributor of justice. And, finally, the 11th and 12th century brought an influx of educated men who were capable of reading, writing, and carrying out administrative positions.
Strayer then focuses on how these changes led to the development of proto-states in England and France. England was probably the furthest along this path due to its political history (constant invasions wiped out the nobility and made the establishment of central authority an easier process), but France was more representative of the process of turning an amalgamation of localities into something resembling a state (usually by sending royal officers to run local systems). The main instruments were the slow development of a centralized legal system in which the king became the highest court of appeals, and the concurrent growth of a fiscal administration and a chancery, which coordinated all these groups.
In the later Middle Ages, Strayer suggests a bit of stagnation amid plague, famine, and the Hundred Years War, particularly as the gap between policy-makers and administrators grew and rendered bureaucracy less efficient. There were developments though, particularly in the field of representative assemblies. In the last few pages he takes a brief look at the early modern period, especially how a period of relative peace and economic recovery allowed for the expansion of bureaucracy into new offices of war and foreign affairs.
May 5, 2015
هذا كتاب جيد حقًا، يمكن وسمه وإدراجه في فئة تاريخ الأفكار، إننا اليوم نتحدث كثيرا عن الدولة الحديثة قدحًا أو مدحًا، لكن كثيرين منا يجهولون الملابسات التاريخية التي انبثقت منها هذه الدولة، وبناها السياسية.
وهذا الكتاب يأخذنا في جولة سريعة عبر ثلاث مراحل لكشف معالم هذه الدولة معتمدا على نموذجي فرنسا وانجلترا باعتبارهما النموذجين الأساسيين والتاريخيين للدولة الحديثة.
الأولى مرحلة ما بين عامي 1100 إلى 1300م والثانية ما بين 1300 إلى 1450م، والثالثة بعد العام 1450 حتى القرن التاسع عشر. وفي كل مرحلة من هذه المراحل ترى كيف انتقلت هذه الدول من طور الضعف والنظام القديم الإقطاعي القائم على الولاءات الشخصية إلى تطور مفهوم السيادة ومن الولاء، وفي نهاية الأمر بروز فكرة القومية التي هي عامل أو نتيجة طبيعية لتمخض هذا الولاء.
الكتاب مهم وكاشف للفارق الجوهري بين المفاهيم السياسية التي قامت عليها الدولة الحديثة، فضلا عن الملابسات التاريخية، عن نموذج الدولة الإسلامية "التاريخي" وهويتها المختلفة، وولاؤها المتباين، واتكاؤها منذ اليوم الأول على شريعة واضحة ثابة الأصول والمعالم، بخلاف القانون الغربي المتطور.
يعيب الكتاب الترجمة الرديئة في بعض مواضعه، خاصة الصفحات العشرة الأخيرة منه، كما يعيبه عدم ضرب كثير من الأمثلة في بعض مواضعه.
وهذا الكتاب يأخذنا في جولة سريعة عبر ثلاث مراحل لكشف معالم هذه الدولة معتمدا على نموذجي فرنسا وانجلترا باعتبارهما النموذجين الأساسيين والتاريخيين للدولة الحديثة.
الأولى مرحلة ما بين عامي 1100 إلى 1300م والثانية ما بين 1300 إلى 1450م، والثالثة بعد العام 1450 حتى القرن التاسع عشر. وفي كل مرحلة من هذه المراحل ترى كيف انتقلت هذه الدول من طور الضعف والنظام القديم الإقطاعي القائم على الولاءات الشخصية إلى تطور مفهوم السيادة ومن الولاء، وفي نهاية الأمر بروز فكرة القومية التي هي عامل أو نتيجة طبيعية لتمخض هذا الولاء.
الكتاب مهم وكاشف للفارق الجوهري بين المفاهيم السياسية التي قامت عليها الدولة الحديثة، فضلا عن الملابسات التاريخية، عن نموذج الدولة الإسلامية "التاريخي" وهويتها المختلفة، وولاؤها المتباين، واتكاؤها منذ اليوم الأول على شريعة واضحة ثابة الأصول والمعالم، بخلاف القانون الغربي المتطور.
يعيب الكتاب الترجمة الرديئة في بعض مواضعه، خاصة الصفحات العشرة الأخيرة منه، كما يعيبه عدم ضرب كثير من الأمثلة في بعض مواضعه.
May 7, 2023
In the early Middle Ages the dominant form of political organization in Western Europe was the Germanic kingdom, and the German kingdom was in some ways the complete antithesis of the modern state.
― Joseph Reese Strayer, On the Medieval Origins of the Modern State
---
The modern state, however we conceive of it today, is based on a pattern that emerged in Europe in the period from 1100 to 1600. Inspired by a lifetime of teaching and research, On the Medieval Origins of the Modern State is a classic work on what is known about the early history of the European state.
This short, clear book book explores the European state in its infancy, especially in institutional developments in the administration of justice and finance. Forewords from Charles Tilly and William Chester Jordan demonstrate the perennial importance of Joseph Strayer’s book, and situate it within a contemporary context.
Tilly demonstrates how Strayer’s work has set the agenda for a whole generation of historical analysts, not only in medieval history but also in the comparative study of state formation.
William Chester Jordan’s foreword examines the scholarly and pedagogical setting within which Strayer produced his book, and how this both enhanced its accessibility and informed its focus on peculiarly English and French accomplishments in early state formation.
Princeton University Press
---
Administration of Normandy Under Saint Louis (1932)
The Middle Ages, 395–1500 (1942) – an extended textbook survey. [Originally co-authored by Dana C. Munro in 1942, by the 1959 4th edition it was mostly all Strayer. Cantor says it is important for "its brilliant summary of European political history from about 1050 to 1350.]
Western Europe in the Middle Ages: a Short History (1955) – a brief version of the above, reprinted in later editions.
The Interpretation of History (1950)
The Course of Civilization (1961)
Feudalism (1965)
On the Medieval Origins of the Modern State (1970)
Medieval statecraft and the perspectives of history (1971)
The Albigensian Crusade (1972)
The Royal Domain in the Bailliage of Rouen (1976)
The Reign of Philip the Fair (1980)
Dictionary of the Middle Ages, editor (1982 to 1989)
― Joseph Reese Strayer, On the Medieval Origins of the Modern State
---
The modern state, however we conceive of it today, is based on a pattern that emerged in Europe in the period from 1100 to 1600. Inspired by a lifetime of teaching and research, On the Medieval Origins of the Modern State is a classic work on what is known about the early history of the European state.
This short, clear book book explores the European state in its infancy, especially in institutional developments in the administration of justice and finance. Forewords from Charles Tilly and William Chester Jordan demonstrate the perennial importance of Joseph Strayer’s book, and situate it within a contemporary context.
Tilly demonstrates how Strayer’s work has set the agenda for a whole generation of historical analysts, not only in medieval history but also in the comparative study of state formation.
William Chester Jordan’s foreword examines the scholarly and pedagogical setting within which Strayer produced his book, and how this both enhanced its accessibility and informed its focus on peculiarly English and French accomplishments in early state formation.
Princeton University Press
---
Administration of Normandy Under Saint Louis (1932)
The Middle Ages, 395–1500 (1942) – an extended textbook survey. [Originally co-authored by Dana C. Munro in 1942, by the 1959 4th edition it was mostly all Strayer. Cantor says it is important for "its brilliant summary of European political history from about 1050 to 1350.]
Western Europe in the Middle Ages: a Short History (1955) – a brief version of the above, reprinted in later editions.
The Interpretation of History (1950)
The Course of Civilization (1961)
Feudalism (1965)
On the Medieval Origins of the Modern State (1970)
Medieval statecraft and the perspectives of history (1971)
The Albigensian Crusade (1972)
The Royal Domain in the Bailliage of Rouen (1976)
The Reign of Philip the Fair (1980)
Dictionary of the Middle Ages, editor (1982 to 1989)
October 23, 2020
جوزيف شتراير هو باحث ومحاضر فرنسي يحاول في هذا الكتاب توضيح نشأة الدولة القومية الحديثة، والتي فصلها أنها قامت في ثلاث مراحل متتالية متطورة من البساطة إلى التعقيد، ومن القيادة المنبسطة إلى الهيرراكية الهرمية السلطوية البحتة بشكلها الحالي.
يمكن تلخيص الثلاث مراحل كالتالي:~
المرحلة الأولى من 1100م إلى 1200م وهي المرحلة التي بدأت فيها في التشكل والتحول إلى النظام الإقطاعي وتطور أساليب وأدوات الإنتاج إلى الشكل الذي يصب في مصلحة الواحد النبيل.
المرحلة الثانية 1200م إلى 1450م هي مرحلة تجمع الدوقيات والتحول إلى مايشبه الكيان الواحد، والدولة في تلك المرحلة ممزقة بين الإمبراطورية واسعة الأطراف والتي تفتقد إلى سلطة الحاكم والدولة الصغيرة التي تفتقد إلى الحماية الكاملة لذاتها وأفرادها.
المرحلة الثالثة 1450 إلى 1750 وهي مرحلة تشكل الدولة القومية بشكل النهائي الحالي وتعزيز الإحساس القومي لدى الفرد الأوروبي.
العظيم في هذا الكتاب أنه يضع التكوين الكامل للدولة بشكلها الحالي في صورة منفردة، بمنتهى البساطة أن كل دولة على هذه الأرض في تلك اللحظة هي منبثقة من التكوين الأوروبي، إما تحاول تقليده أو نجحت في تقليده، والغريب أن كل دول العالم تحاول الوصول لهذا النموذج الأوربي في صورته النهائية دون المرور بمراحل تطوره التي هي مراحل تطورية خاصة بالزمان والمكان الأوروبي والتي لن تتكرر ثانية بالمناسبة!
على عكس نموذج الدولة الإسلامية الذي نشأ من اللحظة الأولى متكامل الأركان وهي المعضلة التي لا يمكن الفرار منها أن الدولة الحالية لا يمكن تحويلها إلى الصورة الإسلامية بأي صورة ممكنة، ربما هي فرضية أقرب إلى فرضية الدولة المستحيلة للدكتور وائل حلاق!
مايعيب على هذا الكتاب للأسف انحسار تكوينها وسرديته التاريخية على النموذج الفرنسي والإنجليزي وحسب بالإضافة إلى الترجمة الركيكة للغاية للنسخة التي وقعت تحت يدي!
يمكن تلخيص الثلاث مراحل كالتالي:~
المرحلة الأولى من 1100م إلى 1200م وهي المرحلة التي بدأت فيها في التشكل والتحول إلى النظام الإقطاعي وتطور أساليب وأدوات الإنتاج إلى الشكل الذي يصب في مصلحة الواحد النبيل.
المرحلة الثانية 1200م إلى 1450م هي مرحلة تجمع الدوقيات والتحول إلى مايشبه الكيان الواحد، والدولة في تلك المرحلة ممزقة بين الإمبراطورية واسعة الأطراف والتي تفتقد إلى سلطة الحاكم والدولة الصغيرة التي تفتقد إلى الحماية الكاملة لذاتها وأفرادها.
المرحلة الثالثة 1450 إلى 1750 وهي مرحلة تشكل الدولة القومية بشكل النهائي الحالي وتعزيز الإحساس القومي لدى الفرد الأوروبي.
العظيم في هذا الكتاب أنه يضع التكوين الكامل للدولة بشكلها الحالي في صورة منفردة، بمنتهى البساطة أن كل دولة على هذه الأرض في تلك اللحظة هي منبثقة من التكوين الأوروبي، إما تحاول تقليده أو نجحت في تقليده، والغريب أن كل دول العالم تحاول الوصول لهذا النموذج الأوربي في صورته النهائية دون المرور بمراحل تطوره التي هي مراحل تطورية خاصة بالزمان والمكان الأوروبي والتي لن تتكرر ثانية بالمناسبة!
على عكس نموذج الدولة الإسلامية الذي نشأ من اللحظة الأولى متكامل الأركان وهي المعضلة التي لا يمكن الفرار منها أن الدولة الحالية لا يمكن تحويلها إلى الصورة الإسلامية بأي صورة ممكنة، ربما هي فرضية أقرب إلى فرضية الدولة المستحيلة للدكتور وائل حلاق!
مايعيب على هذا الكتاب للأسف انحسار تكوينها وسرديته التاريخية على النموذج الفرنسي والإنجليزي وحسب بالإضافة إلى الترجمة الركيكة للغاية للنسخة التي وقعت تحت يدي!
July 23, 2019
إذا تساءلت يوماً عن مفهوم "الدولة" ومنشأها السياسي في أوروبا، وكيف كان شكل المجتمعات قبل ظهور مفهوم الدولة ومفهوم القومية، حيث كان يوجد عهود لم تكن الدولة موجودة، دون ان يعترض احد علي هذا الغياب.
كتاب "الأصول الوسيطة للدولة الحديثة" للباحث في تاريخ القرون الوسطي Joseph strayer يفسر من خلال السرد التاريخي كيف نمت وتطورت المؤسسات-المالية والقضائية بشكل خاص- الي ان أصبحت أدوات قوية لتنظيم وقيادة الناس كما هي في الوقت الحاضر.
يبدا الكاتب بوضع ثلاثة معايير لقيام الدولةوهي وجود وحدات سياسية دائمة، ومستقرة جغرافياً، وتطور تلك المؤسسات بشكل غير شخصي، وأخيراً وجود موافقة اجتماعية علي ضرورة وجود سلطة عليا.
السرد التاريخي يبدا من عام 1100- الي القرن التاسع عشر تقريباً، ويركز علي إنجلترا وفرنسا باعتبارهم اكبر الدول الأوروبية وان باقي الدول تأثرت بنموذج هاتين الدولتين.
لم يذكر الكتاب الإستعمار الأوروبي الذي بدا عام 1500 الذي كان له بالتأكيد أثر علي شكل المؤسسات بخاصة العسكرية والسياسة الخارجية في ذلك الوقت.
وأخيراً ومن أجل فهم أكثر للكتاب، يحتاج القارئ إلي معرفة مسبقة لبعض المعلومات عن العصور الوسطي مم الناحية الجغرافية ومن ناحية الأسماء كذلك.
كتاب "الأصول الوسيطة للدولة الحديثة" للباحث في تاريخ القرون الوسطي Joseph strayer يفسر من خلال السرد التاريخي كيف نمت وتطورت المؤسسات-المالية والقضائية بشكل خاص- الي ان أصبحت أدوات قوية لتنظيم وقيادة الناس كما هي في الوقت الحاضر.
يبدا الكاتب بوضع ثلاثة معايير لقيام الدولةوهي وجود وحدات سياسية دائمة، ومستقرة جغرافياً، وتطور تلك المؤسسات بشكل غير شخصي، وأخيراً وجود موافقة اجتماعية علي ضرورة وجود سلطة عليا.
السرد التاريخي يبدا من عام 1100- الي القرن التاسع عشر تقريباً، ويركز علي إنجلترا وفرنسا باعتبارهم اكبر الدول الأوروبية وان باقي الدول تأثرت بنموذج هاتين الدولتين.
لم يذكر الكتاب الإستعمار الأوروبي الذي بدا عام 1500 الذي كان له بالتأكيد أثر علي شكل المؤسسات بخاصة العسكرية والسياسة الخارجية في ذلك الوقت.
وأخيراً ومن أجل فهم أكثر للكتاب، يحتاج القارئ إلي معرفة مسبقة لبعض المعلومات عن العصور الوسطي مم الناحية الجغرافية ومن ناحية الأسماء كذلك.
August 15, 2007
If you've always yearned to find out how the medieval chancery developed into the modern department of state, then here's your book.
The author, incidentally, worked as an agent for the CIA when he wasn't busy teaching medieval history at Princeton.
The author, incidentally, worked as an agent for the CIA when he wasn't busy teaching medieval history at Princeton.
October 27, 2022
Short and to the point -- a lecture-length overview of state formation in Britain and France, 1200-1700.
I don't think, on its own, this is a terribly useful book. Strayer writes abstractly about countries, but he really means just two of them, and sometimes just Britain, but isn't always specific. The narrative is pretty spare, with examples alluded to more than explained. If you know enough to follow the narrative and get the references, you probably mostly know what Strayer has to say and want to know more.
I don't think, on its own, this is a terribly useful book. Strayer writes abstractly about countries, but he really means just two of them, and sometimes just Britain, but isn't always specific. The narrative is pretty spare, with examples alluded to more than explained. If you know enough to follow the narrative and get the references, you probably mostly know what Strayer has to say and want to know more.
April 3, 2013
Written in the late 1960s 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 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.
October 9, 2021
Wish the author had gone into much greater detail about the *how* and *why* of loyalties being transferred to the monarch and then the State concept and away from religious, regional, ethnic, and personal loyalties (the famous subsidiarity or matrixed loyalties of the middle ages) in the 16th and 17th centuries. Apparently Hobbes wrote before this process was complete to propagandize for it.
If anyone knows books or articles that address the how and why of States gaining primary loyalty or the shift of loyalties away from the religious and/or personal, please recommend them!
If anyone knows books or articles that address the how and why of States gaining primary loyalty or the shift of loyalties away from the religious and/or personal, please recommend them!
January 16, 2024
More like the bureaucratic history of Europe. Boring but helpful to someone who doesn't have a single clue about the European Middle Ages. Kind of Middle Ages for Dummies
*for thesis
*for thesis
April 22, 2018
Strayer har noen merkelige tendenser, men boka er dugelig, om enn litt kjedelig og lite bemerkelsesverdig. Jeg leste den ferdig i dag og har allerede glemt den.
April 25, 2023
في مئة ورقة، يقوم شتراير بتبيين أصول الدولة الأوروبية الحديثة التي استلهمتها من العصور الوسيطة.
ولمَّا يُقال: الدولة الأوربية الحديثة، فهذا يعني كلَّ دولةٍ حديثة؛ فعلى الحقيقة أنَّ النموذج الأوروبي هو النموذج الرائج والمهمين للدولة، "ولم يجرِ في أي مكانٍ في أوروبا تقليد نموذجٍ غير أوروبي"؛ صينياً كان أو رومانياً، بل إنَّ "«الدول» غير الأوروبية اضطرت إمََا لاستنساخ النموذج الأوروبي في سبيل البقاء أو تحمُّل التجربة الكولونيالية التي أدخلت لتلك البلدان الكثير من عناصر النظام الأوروبي."
إذاً، عند النظر في أصول الدولة الحديثة فنحن ننظر حصراً في أصول الدولة الأوروبية، فكل ما سواها هو نسخةٌ عنها؛ إمَّا طوعاً أو كَرهاً.
وهذا يدلُّ على أهمية النظر في أصولها، وشتراير أحسنَ في عرض تاريخها وأصولها بشموليَّةٍ مكثَّفةٍ.
بدأ شتراير في التنبيه على أمرٍ مهم، وهو أنَّ المفهوم الحديث للدولة لم يكن موجوداً قبل القرن الحادي عشر، وإن كانت هناك دول كالامبراطورية الصينية أو الرومانية أو الحاضرة-الدولة -كما يسمّيها- في اليونان وإيطاليا بعد ذلك.
لكن كان لهذه النماذج ما قبل الدولة الحديثة معاييرَ مختلفةً كليّةً عن معايير الدولة الحديثة، بل إنَّ الدولةَ الحديثةَ التي ظهرت بعد عام ١١٠٠م تضمَّنَت نقاط قوة تلك الدولة القديمة.
الدولة عند شتراير لها خمس شروط:
- الاستمرارية في الزمان والمكان، فيجب أن يوجد حيِّزٌ جغرافي تستطيع الجماعة داخله بناء نظامها السياسي ولذا فالبدو (الرُّحَّل) لا يُنشؤون دولاً.
- إقامة مؤسسات سياسية غير شخصية ودائمة، ويعني بـ"غير شخصية" أنها لا تتأثَّر بتغيُّر الرؤساء، ولا تعتمد على الوجاهة في حل النزاعات؛ فهي مُلزِمَةٌ بذاتها.
- الموافقة الإجماعية على ضرورة سلطة عليا؛ السيادة كما عرفت لاحقاً.
- الولاء للدولة؛ فـ"مشاعر الولاء التي كانت في الماضي تُصرَفُ للأسرة والجماعة المحليَّة أو الدينية انتقلت للدولة. ويجب أن تكتسب هذه سلطةً معنويةً تستطيع أن تُسند بها بُنيتها المؤسساتية وتفوقها النظريَّ الشرعيَّ. وفي نهاية هذا التحوُّل يُعطي المواطنون الصدارة لمصالح الدولة، ويعتبرون صيانتها هو الخير الاجتماعي الأعلى/المطلق."
فقبل الدولة الحديثة، لا نكاد نجد مؤسسة منتظمة ولا تعبير واقعي عن السيادة ولا ملكاً أو قائداً يقوم على نظامٍ قانوني/شرعي أو إداري وإنما وظيفته تسوية الأزمات.
أي أنَّ ما يُجري على ألسنة كثيرين من «عُبَّاد الدولة» من قَبيل: "البلد هذي أطعَمَتك وسَقَتك" أو كما كان يقول لنا المحقق: "هذي الدولة أكَّلَتك عِيش ورزقَتك" هو حقيقةٌ مقتنعين بها وإن لم يتصوَّروا معنى الدولة حقيقةً. فهؤلاء يعتقدون بـ«الدولة الإله» وإن لم يُسَمُّوها.
ثم يتتبَّع ظهور هذه الشروط/العلامات ما بين ١١٠٠-١٦٠٠م، وفي هذا الوقت قد بدأت النصرانية في الانتشار في أوروبا، وكان يوازي هذا الانتشار ظهور الكنيسة الكاثوليكية، وهي التي كانت تُشكِّلُ نظرتهم للعالَم والفلسفة السياسية، بمعنى أنَّ البابا كان هو المرجعَ المُطلَقَ للناس؛ فما يقرره يصبح ديناً.
وهذه المركزيَّة للكنيسة مع نظامها الجِبائي وسياستها الإدارية ما ألهمَ الدولةَ الحديثةَ (أو الحداثية).
إذاً الإمارات الأوروبيّة -ما بعد الوثنيّة- عرفَت «التوحُّد الديني» قبل «التوحُّد السياسي».
ومن العوامل المهمة آنذاك: الاستقرار النسبي، وهذا أدَّى لشرطٍ مهم في بناء الدولة: الديمومة في المكان والزمان.
يُبيِّن شتراير علاقة الكنيسة بالسلطة الزمنيّة/الدهريَّة/الدنيوية، خاصةً ما سُمِّيَ بـ«المفهوم الغريغوري» للكنيسة الذي وضعه غريغور السابع الذي انتصرَت فيه الكنيسة في «نزاع التنصيبات»، الذي وإن اعتبرَت الأميرَ «العَلمانيَّ» ضامناً ومُقيماً للعدل، فإنَّ العدل مرجعه للكنيسة في تعريفه ووضع حدوده.
وبهذا بدأت القوانين والنظام القضائي يتطوران تدريجياً، ثمّ انتشار المتعلِّمين الذين أقاموا وقاموا على المناصب الإدارية.
وقد عرضَ شتراير النظامَ الجِبائي بإسهابٍ لأهميته في إنشاء أجهزة الدولة وإسهام المَدخولات في تقويتها. وكذا النظامَ القضائي وأساليبه، وهما الأهم في نشوء الدولة الحديثة.
يركِّزُ شتراير على نموذجي انكلترا وفرنسا، ويقارن بينهما، ورغم أنَّ الأولى «أعرق» سياسياً بسبب غَزَوَاتها ونموذج النبلاء البدائي في الإدارة، وكانت أسرع في تشييد دولتها، إلا أنَّ هذا كان خاصاً بأصول انكلترا السياسية.
أمَّا فرنسا فأنشأت دولتها من مقاطعاتٍ مستقلَّةٍ عملياً، وهذا الاستقلال كان موجوداً في أوروبا، لذلك "تقريباً جميع الدولة الأوروبية في نهاية العصر الوسيط وبداية العصر الحديث اتّبعت النموذج الفرنسي؛ فمُقلٌ ومُستكثرٌ"
في القسم الأخير يذكر شتراير ما حصلَ من أوروبا من حروب وأوبئة أدت لركود، ثمّ بعد السلام والاستقرار كيف انتعشَ الاقتصاد وعادت للأجهزة البيروقراطية كفاءتها.
نهايةً:
يحسُنُ بالقارئ أن يكون مُطَّلِعاً على اليسير من تاريخ أوروبا، أو الخطّ الزمني فقط لتحوّلها من إقطاعيات وقبائل وثنيّة ثمّ دخول الكنيسة وظهور الإدارة الدهريَّة/الدنيوية حتى نشوء الدول الحديثة، لاستحضار هذه التقاطعات أثناء القراءة، فهو يُعين على فهم بعض الصور التي يقرر بناءً عليها بعض التقريرات في نشوء الدولة وتمايز السلطتين الدينية والزمنية الدنيوية.
وأزعم أنّ الكتاب يُغني عن غيره في تبيين أصول الدولة الحديثة.
ولمَّا يُقال: الدولة الأوربية الحديثة، فهذا يعني كلَّ دولةٍ حديثة؛ فعلى الحقيقة أنَّ النموذج الأوروبي هو النموذج الرائج والمهمين للدولة، "ولم يجرِ في أي مكانٍ في أوروبا تقليد نموذجٍ غير أوروبي"؛ صينياً كان أو رومانياً، بل إنَّ "«الدول» غير الأوروبية اضطرت إمََا لاستنساخ النموذج الأوروبي في سبيل البقاء أو تحمُّل التجربة الكولونيالية التي أدخلت لتلك البلدان الكثير من عناصر النظام الأوروبي."
إذاً، عند النظر في أصول الدولة الحديثة فنحن ننظر حصراً في أصول الدولة الأوروبية، فكل ما سواها هو نسخةٌ عنها؛ إمَّا طوعاً أو كَرهاً.
وهذا يدلُّ على أهمية النظر في أصولها، وشتراير أحسنَ في عرض تاريخها وأصولها بشموليَّةٍ مكثَّفةٍ.
بدأ شتراير في التنبيه على أمرٍ مهم، وهو أنَّ المفهوم الحديث للدولة لم يكن موجوداً قبل القرن الحادي عشر، وإن كانت هناك دول كالامبراطورية الصينية أو الرومانية أو الحاضرة-الدولة -كما يسمّيها- في اليونان وإيطاليا بعد ذلك.
لكن كان لهذه النماذج ما قبل الدولة الحديثة معاييرَ مختلفةً كليّةً عن معايير الدولة الحديثة، بل إنَّ الدولةَ الحديثةَ التي ظهرت بعد عام ١١٠٠م تضمَّنَت نقاط قوة تلك الدولة القديمة.
الدولة عند شتراير لها خمس شروط:
- الاستمرارية في الزمان والمكان، فيجب أن يوجد حيِّزٌ جغرافي تستطيع الجماعة داخله بناء نظامها السياسي ولذا فالبدو (الرُّحَّل) لا يُنشؤون دولاً.
- إقامة مؤسسات سياسية غير شخصية ودائمة، ويعني بـ"غير شخصية" أنها لا تتأثَّر بتغيُّر الرؤساء، ولا تعتمد على الوجاهة في حل النزاعات؛ فهي مُلزِمَةٌ بذاتها.
- الموافقة الإجماعية على ضرورة سلطة عليا؛ السيادة كما عرفت لاحقاً.
- الولاء للدولة؛ فـ"مشاعر الولاء التي كانت في الماضي تُصرَفُ للأسرة والجماعة المحليَّة أو الدينية انتقلت للدولة. ويجب أن تكتسب هذه سلطةً معنويةً تستطيع أن تُسند بها بُنيتها المؤسساتية وتفوقها النظريَّ الشرعيَّ. وفي نهاية هذا التحوُّل يُعطي المواطنون الصدارة لمصالح الدولة، ويعتبرون صيانتها هو الخير الاجتماعي الأعلى/المطلق."
فقبل الدولة الحديثة، لا نكاد نجد مؤسسة منتظمة ولا تعبير واقعي عن السيادة ولا ملكاً أو قائداً يقوم على نظامٍ قانوني/شرعي أو إداري وإنما وظيفته تسوية الأزمات.
أي أنَّ ما يُجري على ألسنة كثيرين من «عُبَّاد الدولة» من قَبيل: "البلد هذي أطعَمَتك وسَقَتك" أو كما كان يقول لنا المحقق: "هذي الدولة أكَّلَتك عِيش ورزقَتك" هو حقيقةٌ مقتنعين بها وإن لم يتصوَّروا معنى الدولة حقيقةً. فهؤلاء يعتقدون بـ«الدولة الإله» وإن لم يُسَمُّوها.
ثم يتتبَّع ظهور هذه الشروط/العلامات ما بين ١١٠٠-١٦٠٠م، وفي هذا الوقت قد بدأت النصرانية في الانتشار في أوروبا، وكان يوازي هذا الانتشار ظهور الكنيسة الكاثوليكية، وهي التي كانت تُشكِّلُ نظرتهم للعالَم والفلسفة السياسية، بمعنى أنَّ البابا كان هو المرجعَ المُطلَقَ للناس؛ فما يقرره يصبح ديناً.
وهذه المركزيَّة للكنيسة مع نظامها الجِبائي وسياستها الإدارية ما ألهمَ الدولةَ الحديثةَ (أو الحداثية).
إذاً الإمارات الأوروبيّة -ما بعد الوثنيّة- عرفَت «التوحُّد الديني» قبل «التوحُّد السياسي».
ومن العوامل المهمة آنذاك: الاستقرار النسبي، وهذا أدَّى لشرطٍ مهم في بناء الدولة: الديمومة في المكان والزمان.
يُبيِّن شتراير علاقة الكنيسة بالسلطة الزمنيّة/الدهريَّة/الدنيوية، خاصةً ما سُمِّيَ بـ«المفهوم الغريغوري» للكنيسة الذي وضعه غريغور السابع الذي انتصرَت فيه الكنيسة في «نزاع التنصيبات»، الذي وإن اعتبرَت الأميرَ «العَلمانيَّ» ضامناً ومُقيماً للعدل، فإنَّ العدل مرجعه للكنيسة في تعريفه ووضع حدوده.
وبهذا بدأت القوانين والنظام القضائي يتطوران تدريجياً، ثمّ انتشار المتعلِّمين الذين أقاموا وقاموا على المناصب الإدارية.
وقد عرضَ شتراير النظامَ الجِبائي بإسهابٍ لأهميته في إنشاء أجهزة الدولة وإسهام المَدخولات في تقويتها. وكذا النظامَ القضائي وأساليبه، وهما الأهم في نشوء الدولة الحديثة.
يركِّزُ شتراير على نموذجي انكلترا وفرنسا، ويقارن بينهما، ورغم أنَّ الأولى «أعرق» سياسياً بسبب غَزَوَاتها ونموذج النبلاء البدائي في الإدارة، وكانت أسرع في تشييد دولتها، إلا أنَّ هذا كان خاصاً بأصول انكلترا السياسية.
أمَّا فرنسا فأنشأت دولتها من مقاطعاتٍ مستقلَّةٍ عملياً، وهذا الاستقلال كان موجوداً في أوروبا، لذلك "تقريباً جميع الدولة الأوروبية في نهاية العصر الوسيط وبداية العصر الحديث اتّبعت النموذج الفرنسي؛ فمُقلٌ ومُستكثرٌ"
في القسم الأخير يذكر شتراير ما حصلَ من أوروبا من حروب وأوبئة أدت لركود، ثمّ بعد السلام والاستقرار كيف انتعشَ الاقتصاد وعادت للأجهزة البيروقراطية كفاءتها.
نهايةً:
يحسُنُ بالقارئ أن يكون مُطَّلِعاً على اليسير من تاريخ أوروبا، أو الخطّ الزمني فقط لتحوّلها من إقطاعيات وقبائل وثنيّة ثمّ دخول الكنيسة وظهور الإدارة الدهريَّة/الدنيوية حتى نشوء الدول الحديثة، لاستحضار هذه التقاطعات أثناء القراءة، فهو يُعين على فهم بعض الصور التي يقرر بناءً عليها بعض التقريرات في نشوء الدولة وتمايز السلطتين الدينية والزمنية الدنيوية.
وأزعم أنّ الكتاب يُغني عن غيره في تبيين أصول الدولة الحديثة.
August 10, 2024
“Early in the twelfth century the English Exchequer appeared.”
Need I say more?
Need I say more?
May 12, 2012
The modern nation-state, with its claim to total jurisdiction is a return to the concepts of the Roman Empire. Thus currency debasement, high taxes, and a belief that that the empire-nation can be unified by political means are evident. But it was not always like this.
There was, for a while, an alternative stuck in the middle between the Empire and the nation-state. It brought low taxes, local government, and an individual liberty rare in the history of mankind. This period shaped the modern world for good and bad. Magna Charta, for example is a product of the period, representing the local government's attempt to control the power of the monarch. But it also indicates the challenges that transformed local government into the nation-state. See How Magna Charta Was Used To Destroy Property Rights
Joseph Strayer, Professor of History at Princeton University, and a part time CIA employee, has described the three steps necessary for the modern nation-state. These were:
1. Control of money — taxation and eventually a monopoly on the creation of currency
2. Control of the courts — that way, the people could not use the courts to have legislation declared "illegal",
3. And finally the population needed to accept that the nation-state was a higher priority than either church or family.
These were pretty much in place by the seventeenth century, and once the parliaments and the congresses of this world controlled the monarchy and the Church, the anti-God, democratic nation-state was the outcome with its relentless march toward totalitarian control.
There was, for a while, an alternative stuck in the middle between the Empire and the nation-state. It brought low taxes, local government, and an individual liberty rare in the history of mankind. This period shaped the modern world for good and bad. Magna Charta, for example is a product of the period, representing the local government's attempt to control the power of the monarch. But it also indicates the challenges that transformed local government into the nation-state. See How Magna Charta Was Used To Destroy Property Rights
Joseph Strayer, Professor of History at Princeton University, and a part time CIA employee, has described the three steps necessary for the modern nation-state. These were:
1. Control of money — taxation and eventually a monopoly on the creation of currency
2. Control of the courts — that way, the people could not use the courts to have legislation declared "illegal",
3. And finally the population needed to accept that the nation-state was a higher priority than either church or family.
These were pretty much in place by the seventeenth century, and once the parliaments and the congresses of this world controlled the monarchy and the Church, the anti-God, democratic nation-state was the outcome with its relentless march toward totalitarian control.
August 22, 2007
This is a classic, both for it's clarity and for its brevity(110 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. The law courts because the king's original power was as court of last resort, the finance ministry because... well, every prince needs money.
As the title says, this is a book about the state, not the nation. There is no mention of culture in here, so don't look for it.
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. The law courts because the king's original power was as court of last resort, the finance ministry because... well, every prince needs money.
As the title says, this is a book about the state, not the nation. There is no mention of culture in here, so don't look for it.
May 17, 2025
Strayer argues the major framework of modern European states emerged from gradual ideological and institutional changes that arose in the medieval period between 1100 and 1600. These changes included: people going from identifying with local rulers, family, and religion to the state as the ultimate legal authority, the rise of an educated class in the 12th century to serve as clerks and bureaucrats in new departments geared towards finances, law courts, and keeping written records, and a growing belief by the entire population in the authority of the king as the ultimate arbiter in disputes to prevent violence and anarchy.
As Strayer points out the very idea of a state that we moderns take for granted wasn’t part of early medieval conceptions. The Germanic kingdoms that replaced the Roman Empire in the early medieval period were not true states as they were based on loyalty to a certain person or the hereditary rights of their family.
The Church may have played a role in centralization by serving as a model of centralization during the Gregorian Reform movement of the 11th and 12th century and by preaching the important role of secular rulers in delivering justice and keeping the peace. The Investiture Controversy may have began as a conflict between secular rulers and the church, but it also led to a stronger definition of the roles of the secular and religious authorities. Likewise, the educated bureaucrats of the 12th century who became the agents of the new bureaucracies dedicated to the state’s finances and keeping records at first served as agents of the king to keep track and manage the royal lands. By the 13th century, most European countries had established key state institutions like high courts, finance departments, and chancery systems as the central bureaucracies of their government.
Medieval England and France served as the leaders in state-building, with England introducing circuit judges and France under Philip Augustus after adding formerly English territories in France to royal domains by deploying royal agents across territories that worked to maintain control by finding a balance between central control and local traditions. While these were early and semi-successful attempts at centralization, barons and aristocrats resisted infringements on their traditional privileges which slowed the process and the bureaucracies that formed were inefficient, rigid, and rudimentary compared to modern governments. At the same time, local authorities and aristocrats adopted a begrudging acceptance of central authority and used slow tax collection and cumbersome judicial processes to protect their own interests. Despite these weaknesses, states continued to centralize, wading out the major social disruptions of the 14th century such as famine, the Black Death, population uprisings, and civil wars.
Even as the bureaucracies developed in internal affairs, rulers guarded their prerogative over war and foreign diplomacy. There was a large gap between the policy-makers in the form of the king and his council and the bureaucracy, which led to difficulty in enacting the actual policies. By the 15th century, as part of consolidating their power and more complicated foreign politics with other foreign countries, monarchs began appointing professional advisors and counselors as opposed to amateurs selected from favorites. Kings maintained their control by splitting specialists in foreign matters to cover different regions instead of having one single foreign secretary. It was at the end of the 16th century that the first secretaries of states with a full foreign department under their control appeared in France followed by England in 1782. By the 19th century, most states in Europe had similar administrative structures, although there were wide-differences in the development of the state and government institutions between places like France and Russia.
As rulers consolidated their own power, the theory of the divine right of kings developed.
“If only one man, clearly designated by God, had the right to rule a particular country at a given moment, then all right-thinking people ought to obey him without question. In earlier periods men could accept the idea that monarchy was the best form of government without believing that all commands of a particular monarch had to be obeyed, or that any one monarch was irreplaceable. Acceptance of the theory of divine right monarchy made resistance illegitimate and so strengthened the state. For those who were sceptical about the divine right of monarchs there was the theory that the state was absolutely necessary for human welfare, and that that concentration of power which we call sovereignty was essential for the existence of the state (108).”
Strayer also makes some bold claims about political representation in the Middle Ages.
“The idea of political representation is one of the great discoveries of medieval governments; the Greeks and the Romans may have made a few tentative moves in this direction, but they had never explored the technique thoroughly. In medieval Europe, on the other hand, representative assemblies appeared everywhere: in Italy, Spain, and southern France early in the thirteenth century; in England, northern France, and Germany anywhere from fifty to one hundred years later. There has been considerable argument about the origins of these assemblies, but most scholars would agree that they were closely associated with the growth of medieval courts and medieval jurisprudence. The principles that important decisions should be made publicly, that customs should not be changed without general agreement, that consent was necessary when the superior needed extraordinary additions to his income, that "what touches all should be approved by all," could be found in treatises on feudal law, customary law, and the revived Roman law. Even more important, these ideas formed part of the general climate of opinion; they were held by men who had never read a book or heard a lecture on law (65).”
I found this claim interesting because it contrasts with a different book I read this year Democracy: a Life by Paul Cartledge who seemingly argues the opposite in which he downplays the role of assemblies and democracy in medieval thought and practice. Not to mention a huge part of his book is dedicated to Athens as the uber democracy, which Strayer is downplaying here. It shows how to historians with different specialties can have drastically opposing perspectives.
March 11, 2016
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 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 1648.
Either way, an interesting depiction of statecraft and state building prior to the Peace of Westphalia in 1648.
July 29, 2025
A quick read on how the institutions and beliefs surrounding the modern state were gradually formed in England and France between 1100 to 1600. Strayer glancingly mentions other states, mainly to compare them to the big two or talk about where they fell short of state-formation at the time.
Biggest drawback is some of the material is dated, while other parts really make you wish the book was longer and could admit digressions!
Biggest drawback is some of the material is dated, while other parts really make you wish the book was longer and could admit digressions!
August 11, 2024
كتاب خفيف ومهم لو كان في عدد صفحات اكثر لكان افضل أو حتى ذكر أمثلة عديدة توضح كيف نشأت الدول الحديثة لكان افضل بدلا من الاقتصار على فرنسا وانجلترا .
يعيب الكتاب أن ترجمته ليست جيدة خصوصا في آخر صفحات الكتاب .
والكتاب جيد وافادني في معرفة كيف نشأت الدول الأوروبية الحديثة والقومية الحديثة ..لكنه ليس الافضل في هذا المجال
يعيب الكتاب أن ترجمته ليست جيدة خصوصا في آخر صفحات الكتاب .
والكتاب جيد وافادني في معرفة كيف نشأت الدول الأوروبية الحديثة والقومية الحديثة ..لكنه ليس الافضل في هذا المجال
March 17, 2023
أضعف دولة في القرن التاسع عشر ، كانت افضل تنظيما واكثر استفادة من مواردها من الدول القوية في القرن السابق .
كتاب لطيف خفيف
كتاب لطيف خفيف
November 17, 2016
I read this book because it was on Norman Cantor's recommended reading list at the back of The Civilization of the Middle Ages. I supplemented the text by reading the chapter on Strayer and his teacher, Charles Homer Haskins, in Cantor's Inventing 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 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." (Inventing, 250) Furthermore, this emphasis on political rationalism and royal administration dominated medieval studies in America until the late 60's, and is still alive and kicking. (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: 1) continuity of people in space and time, 2) Relatively permanent, impersonal institutions, 3) agreement on the need for an authority which can give final judgments, and most importantly, 4) acceptance that this authority should receive the basic loyalty of its subjects. Strayer thinks that the centuries between 1000 and 1300 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. 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 1300 the recognition of state sovereignty and a loyalty shift on the part of subjects to the state had occurred.
From 1300 to 1450, 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. "Bastard feudalism" reared its head. 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 1450. 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." (p.9) Cantor points out that "the two sides of this statement do not jibe. The medieval state did acquire a moral authority...this moral authority did not succeed in making much of a shift from family, local community, or religious commitment. 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." (Inventing, 281) My own reading of Strayer's text tends to confirm this criticism concerning a loyalty shift. 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." (p.10) If the state is meant to support the "good life," then how is it more than an instrumental good? 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." Does everyone else not really matter? 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.
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: 1) continuity of people in space and time, 2) Relatively permanent, impersonal institutions, 3) agreement on the need for an authority which can give final judgments, and most importantly, 4) acceptance that this authority should receive the basic loyalty of its subjects. Strayer thinks that the centuries between 1000 and 1300 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. 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 1300 the recognition of state sovereignty and a loyalty shift on the part of subjects to the state had occurred.
From 1300 to 1450, 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. "Bastard feudalism" reared its head. 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 1450. 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." (p.9) Cantor points out that "the two sides of this statement do not jibe. The medieval state did acquire a moral authority...this moral authority did not succeed in making much of a shift from family, local community, or religious commitment. 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." (Inventing, 281) My own reading of Strayer's text tends to confirm this criticism concerning a loyalty shift. 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." (p.10) If the state is meant to support the "good life," then how is it more than an instrumental good? 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." Does everyone else not really matter? 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.
March 4, 2025
Joseph Strayer (1904 – 1987) was a historian and medievalist who worked at Princeton University and in his downtime toppled foreign governments for the CIA during the height of the Cold War - allegedly. In the late 1960s, he delivered a series of lectures which were later collated and published as “On the Medieval Origins of the Modern State” in 1970. It was printed in the Princeton Classics line from Princeton University Press with forewords by William Chester Jordan and Charles Tilly, each of whom also did important work regarding European state-building and statecraft.
If there’s one problem with Strayer’s book, it’s the length. It’s short – a mere 111 pages. Unfortunately, they read like exactly what they are: brief lectures meant to paint with a broad brush over large areas and periods of time. To cover the major patterns that ends with the coalescence of European states from roughly 1100 to 1600 is an impossibly tall order in so small a space. If you use it as an outline that guides conversation rather than delivering definitive answers, then it’s much better-suited for its purpose. Whether it deserves its place in the Princeton Classics line alongside other works like Popper’s “The Open Society and Its Enemies” and Pocock’s “Machiavellian Moment,” I’m far from qualified to say. It seems to lack quite a lot that the latter two books deliver in spades. But perhaps it belongs there based on Strayer’s reputation and the influence this book has had on two generations of students.
The first part takes up the high Middle Ages (c. 1000 – 1300), the influence of the Catholic Church and Gregorian reforms, and increasing political stability over time. As political institutions began slowly to cement, the roles of other legal, administrative, and financial institutions had the chance to develop. Strayer also mentions how important shifting loyalties were to the emerging conception of the state. Early on, leaders drew their power of leadership from military charisma or tribal customs, but as Christianity increasingly becomes the de facto religion, the Church and the early state prop each other up, the Church by promoting rule by divine right. This sets the scene perfectly for future problems, e.g. the investiture crisis. The hard times of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries (plague, religious wars, famine) helped further consolidate what would eventually become the tools of the sovereign state: the right to taxation, flourishing bureaucracy, and the birth of medieval representative bodies.
Aside from the overly short length, the book has other flaws. While Strayer clearly wants to look at Europe broadly speaking, he focuses almost exclusively on France and England, which would bias any useful conclusions he reaches. It’s worth keeping in mind that state formation during this period wasn’t historically or geographically uniform but occurred by fits and starts all over the continent. Overall, it’s an interesting book full of merits and weaknesses, both of which need to be given their due consideration.
What I wouldn’t give to read a fully fleshed out version of this book that was five times this length!
If there’s one problem with Strayer’s book, it’s the length. It’s short – a mere 111 pages. Unfortunately, they read like exactly what they are: brief lectures meant to paint with a broad brush over large areas and periods of time. To cover the major patterns that ends with the coalescence of European states from roughly 1100 to 1600 is an impossibly tall order in so small a space. If you use it as an outline that guides conversation rather than delivering definitive answers, then it’s much better-suited for its purpose. Whether it deserves its place in the Princeton Classics line alongside other works like Popper’s “The Open Society and Its Enemies” and Pocock’s “Machiavellian Moment,” I’m far from qualified to say. It seems to lack quite a lot that the latter two books deliver in spades. But perhaps it belongs there based on Strayer’s reputation and the influence this book has had on two generations of students.
The first part takes up the high Middle Ages (c. 1000 – 1300), the influence of the Catholic Church and Gregorian reforms, and increasing political stability over time. As political institutions began slowly to cement, the roles of other legal, administrative, and financial institutions had the chance to develop. Strayer also mentions how important shifting loyalties were to the emerging conception of the state. Early on, leaders drew their power of leadership from military charisma or tribal customs, but as Christianity increasingly becomes the de facto religion, the Church and the early state prop each other up, the Church by promoting rule by divine right. This sets the scene perfectly for future problems, e.g. the investiture crisis. The hard times of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries (plague, religious wars, famine) helped further consolidate what would eventually become the tools of the sovereign state: the right to taxation, flourishing bureaucracy, and the birth of medieval representative bodies.
Aside from the overly short length, the book has other flaws. While Strayer clearly wants to look at Europe broadly speaking, he focuses almost exclusively on France and England, which would bias any useful conclusions he reaches. It’s worth keeping in mind that state formation during this period wasn’t historically or geographically uniform but occurred by fits and starts all over the continent. Overall, it’s an interesting book full of merits and weaknesses, both of which need to be given their due consideration.
What I wouldn’t give to read a fully fleshed out version of this book that was five times this length!
January 24, 2023
Book 11 of a short reading course recommended by Norman F Cantor.
A short examination of the medieval development of the political entity that became the modern state. Starting off with a useful discussion and comparison of states, and outlining the difficulties and developments of the English and French 'state' which really put to the sword my expressions of dismay at how Europe could couldn't essentially get its shit together in reacting to particular crises throughout Medieval times. Short answer, apart from short-sightedness (not exclusive to the middle Ages, let's face it), an essential lack of effective organisation. But in this short tome we are treated to the bare bones of how the essence of our modern state evolved, and in response to which societal pressures.
The third part (of three, again, not a long book) has more focus on the elements of medieval statehood beyond the medieval period.
Strayer does make the point that, while the later Middle Ages may seem at best a setback for the further formation and development of the model that became the template for the Modern State, with its rolling crises and incessant warfare, in another way it was a series of tests that strengthened the state as it was at the time. And it is glorious to read such a birds eye view of history with a focus in a brief volume.
Another point well taken is made earlier in the book that this volume is not necessarily to be read as an apology or support for statehood in its present form (paraphrasing, potentially erroneously at this stage, as I can't find the exact quote), but a dispassionate examination of factors that came together.
A useful work that could well have been hideously bloated or explored to dull extremities. If anything I could well use some further reading on the subject, and this book does provide references to over a hundred works in the footnotes, so a great introduction to the subject as well.
A short examination of the medieval development of the political entity that became the modern state. Starting off with a useful discussion and comparison of states, and outlining the difficulties and developments of the English and French 'state' which really put to the sword my expressions of dismay at how Europe could couldn't essentially get its shit together in reacting to particular crises throughout Medieval times. Short answer, apart from short-sightedness (not exclusive to the middle Ages, let's face it), an essential lack of effective organisation. But in this short tome we are treated to the bare bones of how the essence of our modern state evolved, and in response to which societal pressures.
The third part (of three, again, not a long book) has more focus on the elements of medieval statehood beyond the medieval period.
Strayer does make the point that, while the later Middle Ages may seem at best a setback for the further formation and development of the model that became the template for the Modern State, with its rolling crises and incessant warfare, in another way it was a series of tests that strengthened the state as it was at the time. And it is glorious to read such a birds eye view of history with a focus in a brief volume.
Another point well taken is made earlier in the book that this volume is not necessarily to be read as an apology or support for statehood in its present form (paraphrasing, potentially erroneously at this stage, as I can't find the exact quote), but a dispassionate examination of factors that came together.
A useful work that could well have been hideously bloated or explored to dull extremities. If anything I could well use some further reading on the subject, and this book does provide references to over a hundred works in the footnotes, so a great introduction to the subject as well.
June 27, 2020
This book (though really more of an essay) is worth a read and certainly gives a good overview of the political and intellectual currents that led to the development of the "state" in medieval England and France. It suffers, however, from a dearth of citations and a teleological attitude towards the concept of the state, seeming to valorize contemporary liberal democracy as the desired and natural conclusion of these developments. In this regard, I felt it could be more critical and complicate the portrait through more case studies elsewhere in the medieval world and the incorporation of theory. On the other hand, these flaws may inhere to the entire project: an essay on origins tacitly acknowledges the endpoint and pays homage to the developments that lead there. I also wondered whether reckoning with the changing nature of our sources might change the picture of relentless professionalization and bureau creation that Strayer unfolds. The writing is clear and concise, but not exactly compelling--I like some poetry in my medieval history (how I pine for Brentano). Still, I'm very happy to have this book to think with and especially for its insights into institutional politics.
July 12, 2023
Basically, a summary of other people's work assembled to support his theses.
There are certain unexamined assumptions. For example, a principle thesis is that the state came first and then nationalism, and patriotism. He tends to see nationalism and patriotism as a question of primary loyalty. He sees nationalism as loyalty to the state, so of course the state has to come first! Also the European nations arose when previous tribal identities (the nations the people knew) were broken up by migration and constant destructive warfare. A new national identity could only exist when people lived in a region long enough that longer distance relations could settle into a new identity that became a nation.
But in the ancient world nations existed, though many got destroyed by conquest and empires, so it was not a new reality. It was a reality that took time to develop from a chaotic starting point in Europe.
There are certain unexamined assumptions. For example, a principle thesis is that the state came first and then nationalism, and patriotism. He tends to see nationalism and patriotism as a question of primary loyalty. He sees nationalism as loyalty to the state, so of course the state has to come first! Also the European nations arose when previous tribal identities (the nations the people knew) were broken up by migration and constant destructive warfare. A new national identity could only exist when people lived in a region long enough that longer distance relations could settle into a new identity that became a nation.
But in the ancient world nations existed, though many got destroyed by conquest and empires, so it was not a new reality. It was a reality that took time to develop from a chaotic starting point in Europe.
Read
July 24, 2022Concise but strong description of the development of the modern state in Europe, focusing on England and France. Not an area of history I know much of anything about, which was its chief attraction to me--the book presupposes neither familiarity nor fascination, it gets to the point and makes its subject as interesting as it can be. This is the story of governmental institutions slowly forming within Europe, from jury trials to standing armies, over centuries. As Strayer notes in his first chapter, we can hardly imagine what it would be to live without the state, but it's a relatively young invention.
October 13, 2025
Good introductory work on the history of Western European states (mostly France & England) and their state capacity, but its worst flaw is that it is an introductory essay to a range of concepts that deserve an entire book significantly longer than this to serve as an in-depth dive into the discussions this books seeks to make claims about. Most examples and references lack exposition and are likely for those with knowledge of those events and writings already, but are still somewhat quickly passed over for the sake of speediness primarily.
February 21, 2021
A clear and concise explanation of the Western European creation of nation-states. Explained concepts in a chronological order and with adequate detail. My only qualm with it is that if often leaves untranslated Latin, or terms which need to be defined, causing the reader to have to do a little more leg work, but that wasn't impossible.
August 24, 2019
A pleasant and smooth read connecting the dots from the medieval Europe to what we understand as state today. Strayer doesn't necessarily goes into detail and also focuses on England and France only, but he presents a good understanding and argument from his extensive knowledge of history.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 46 reviews