The Transformation of Political Loyalty

In the mid-18th century, Abbé de Véri (1724–1799) observed a profound shift in political discourse: Parisian society no longer spoke of serving the king but of serving the state. This linguistic change reflected a broader ideological transformation—authority and allegiance were no longer tied to a monarch’s person but to an abstract, impersonal entity. Even monarchs like Louis XIV, though never uttering “L’État, c’est moi” (“I am the state”), emphasized the primacy of state interests in his writings. By the 18th century, rulers such as Frederick the Great of Prussia and Joseph II of Austria openly declared themselves “the first servants of the state.”

This conceptual revolution had deep roots. Quentin Skinner’s The Foundations of Modern Political Thought traces how the modern state emerged between the 13th and 16th centuries. Initially, rulers sought to “maintain their state” (i.e., their personal power), but gradually, the state became an independent legal and constitutional order. Sovereignty theorists like Jean Bodin and Thomas Hobbes further refined the idea: the state was the supreme, absolute, and perpetual authority over its citizens, demanding loyalty from both rulers and ruled.

The Ideological and Material Foundations of the State

The shift from personal rule to state sovereignty was not merely intellectual. Material changes—urbanization, capitalism, and military expansion—accelerated the process. As Eugen Weber noted, peasants only became “Frenchmen” by the late 19th century, but the dissolution of feudal ties began much earlier. Wars, in particular, acted as a “giant flywheel” (Otto Hintze) for state-building.

Armies grew exponentially:
– 1494: Charles VIII of France invaded Italy with 20,000 men.
– 1635: France fielded 125,000 troops in the Thirty Years’ War.
– Louis XIV’s forces peaked at nearly 400,000 during the War of the Spanish Succession.

Naval expansion followed suit. The British Royal Navy, for instance, grew from 48,514 sailors in the Nine Years’ War (1688–1697) to 147,087 during the Napoleonic Wars. Such military demands necessitated administrative centralization, taxation, and bureaucratic growth—key features of the modern state.

Enlightenment Absolutism and Reform

Frederick the Great epitomized “enlightened absolutism,” blending authoritarian rule with reformist zeal. He abolished torture, relaxed censorship, and promoted religious tolerance, declaring:

> “The sovereign is the first servant of the state… His duty is to act with integrity, wisdom, and impartiality, as if he must at any moment render an account to his fellow citizens.”

Similar reforms swept Europe—Portugal under the Marquis of Pombal, Austria under Joseph II, and even Russia under Catherine the Great (though her Nakaz avoided the term “state”). Yet debates persist: were these reforms genuinely enlightened or merely cosmetic? Critics argue that “enlightened absolutism” was an oxymoron—absolute power could never align with Enlightenment ideals.

The Cultural and Social Impact

The state’s rise reshaped cultural and social life. Nationalism emerged as a potent force, fueled by print culture and public opinion. Shakespeare became a symbol of English cultural superiority, while French philosophes like Voltaire dismissed him as “barbaric.” Such rivalries reflected a broader “nationalist dialectic,” where each nation defined itself against others.

Public spaces—coffeehouses, salons, and Masonic lodges—became arenas for political debate. By the 1780s, “public opinion” was recognized as a new source of legitimacy, as Jacques Necker noted:

> “A tribunal independent of all powers has formed… where public opinion distributes crowns and reputations.”

The Legacy: Revolution and the Modern State

The French Revolution (1789–1799) marked the culmination of these trends. The Declaration of the Rights of Man (1789) enshrined popular sovereignty, while Napoleon’s Code Civil (1804) standardized law across Europe. The revolution’s paradox—liberating ideals paired with violent repression—left a dual legacy:

1. Liberal Democracy: The principle that legitimacy derives from the people.
2. State Terror: The dangers of centralized power unchecked by law.

By 1815, the old order had crumbled, but the modern state—bureaucratic, centralized, and nationalist—endured. The 19th century would see this model dominate Europe and beyond.

### Conclusion

The 18th century witnessed a seismic shift from personal monarchy to impersonal statehood. Driven by war, ideology, and social change, this transformation laid the groundwork for modern governance. Yet, as the revolution showed, the state’s power could be both emancipatory and oppressive—a tension that persists to this day.