The Transformation of Political Allegiance

In the mid-18th century, Abbé de Véri (1724–1799) observed a striking shift in Parisian society: declaring “I serve the king” had become socially awkward, even déclassé, while proclaiming “I serve the state” emerged as the preferred phrase among elites. This linguistic evolution signaled a profound ideological transformation—political authority and loyalty were no longer personal bonds but abstract commitments to an impersonal entity.

Though often misattributed to Louis XIV, the phrase “L’état, c’est moi” (I am the state) captures the Sun King’s absolutist ethos. Yet in his 1679 treatise On the Profession of the King, Louis XIV articulated a more nuanced view: “The interest of the state must come first,” while acknowledging that a ruler’s personal glory derived from national prosperity. Subsequent monarchs like Frederick the Great of Prussia and Joseph II of Austria went further, explicitly styling themselves as “the first servant of the state”—a rhetorical shift with revolutionary implications.

The Intellectual Foundations of the Modern State

The conceptual groundwork for this transition had been laid centuries earlier. As Quentin Skinner demonstrated in The Foundations of Modern Political Thought, between the 13th and 16th centuries, European political theory underwent a decisive evolution:

1. Sovereignty: Thinkers like Jean Bodin (1530–1596) and Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) developed theories of indivisible state sovereignty following the chaos of religious wars. Bodin defined sovereignty as “the absolute and perpetual power of the state” over citizens.
2. Secularization: Politics became disentangled from theology, with the state emerging as an autonomous sphere.
3. Centralization: The Reformation’s sectarian violence demonstrated the necessity of a single, centralized authority within each political entity.

This “conceptual revolution” (Skinner’s term) meant that while subjects still obeyed individual rulers, their ultimate allegiance belonged to the impersonal state—a radical departure from feudal personal bonds.

The Prussian Model: Enlightenment Absolutism in Action

Nowhere was this new ideology more clearly articulated than in Prussia. Frederick William I’s 1722 political testament exhorted his successor to pious, austere rule, banning operas and ballets as “devilish spectacles.” His son Frederick the Great utterly rejected this worldview, dismissing Christianity as “an ancient metaphysical fiction” in favor of a secular social contract theory.

In his 1777 essay On the Forms of Government and the Duties of Sovereigns, Frederick articulated his vision:

> “The sovereign is the first servant of the state… He must act with integrity, wisdom, and complete disinterest, as if at every moment he might be required to render an account to his fellow citizens.”

This philosophy translated into policy: religious tolerance, legal reforms, and relaxed censorship earned Prussia Kant’s praise as “Frederick’s century”—an era where Enlightenment principles merged with authoritarian rule. Similar “enlightened absolutism” emerged across Europe, from Portugal to Russia, though historians debate whether these reforms reflected genuine ideological commitment or mere political expediency.

The Limits of Reform: Resistance and Reaction

Not all monarchs successfully navigated this transition. Louis XV’s 1766 “Flagellation Speech” to the Paris Parlement revealed an anachronistic view of kingship as personal property:

> “Sovereignty resides in my person alone… My courts derive their existence and authority from me alone… Legislative power belongs to me alone, undivided.”

His repetitive use of possessive pronouns (“my kingdom,” “my subjects”) starkly contrasted with Frederick’s servant-state rhetoric. This failure to adapt contributed to the Bourbon monarchy’s declining legitimacy in the century’s final decades.

The Military Engine of State-Building

Otto Hintze’s dictum that “war was the great flywheel of all political activity” finds vivid confirmation in 18th-century state development. Army sizes ballooned:

– France: 125,000 (1635) → 400,000 (War of Spanish Succession)
– Prussia: 30,000 (1713) → 195,000 (1786)
– Austria: 100,000 (1701) → 300,000 (1787)

Naval expansion proved even more transformative, with Britain’s Royal Navy growing from 48,514 sailors (1690s) to 147,087 (Napoleonic Wars). These military machines necessitated bureaucratic expansion, tax reforms, and centralized administration—key pillars of the modern state.

The Cultural Impact: From Subjects to Citizens

This political evolution reshaped European culture:

1. Language: Terms like “state service” replaced personal loyalty rhetoric
2. Education: State-sponsored schools promoted patriotic values
3. Public Sphere: Coffeehouses and newspapers disseminated nationalist ideas
4. Religion: State control over churches increased (e.g., Joseph II’s dissolution of “useless” monasteries)

Enlightened reformers like Portugal’s Marquis of Pombal (1699–1782) exemplified the new breed of bureaucrat—cosmopolitan intellectuals implementing secularizing reforms.

Legacy: The Birth of Modern Politics

By century’s end, the state had triumphed as the primary political unit, but its relationship with emerging concepts of nation and popular sovereignty remained unresolved. As the French Revolution would demonstrate, the modern state’s great strength—its impersonal, abstract nature—also contained the seeds of democratic upheaval. The 18th century’s true legacy was this explosive triad: the bureaucratic state, the imagined nation, and the sovereign people—three forces whose dynamic tension would shape modern history.

This transition from personal to impersonal authority marked one of humanity’s great conceptual leaps, creating the framework for both modern governance and its discontents. As de Véri’s diary entry suggests, what began as a fashionable Parisian phrase would echo through revolutions, constitutions, and political transformations across the globe.