Home  ›  Believed That Art Should Be a Tool of the State and Promote the Wellbeing of the Body Politic

Believed That Art Should Be a Tool of the State and Promote the Wellbeing of the Body Politic

Written By Friday, April 29, 2022 Add Comment Edit

Metaphor comparing a polity to a physical body

The frontispiece of Hobbes's Leviathan shows a body formed of multitudinous citizens, surmounted by a male monarch's head.[one]

The torso politic is a polity—such as a city, realm, or state—considered metaphorically as a physical body. Historically, the sovereign is typically portrayed as the body's head, and the analogy may also be extended to other anatomical parts, every bit in political readings of Aesop'south fable of "The Belly and the Members". The prototype originates in ancient Greek philosophy, beginning in the sixth century BC, and was later extended in Roman philosophy. Following the high and late medieval revival of the Byzantine Corpus Juris Civilis in Latin Europe, the "trunk politic" took on a jurisprudential significance by being identified with the legal theory of the corporation, gaining salience in political thought from the 13th century on. In English police the epitome of the body politic developed into the theory of the king's two bodies and the Crown as corporation sole.

The metaphor was elaborated farther from the Renaissance on, as medical knowledge based on Galen was challenged past thinkers such as William Harvey. Analogies were drawn between supposed causes of affliction and disorder and their equivalents in the political field, viewed as plagues or infections that might be remedied with purges and nostrums.[2] The 17th century writings of Thomas Hobbes adult the image of the body politic into a modern theory of the country as an bogus person. Parallel terms deriving from the Latin corpus politicum exist in other European languages.

Etymology [edit]

The term torso politic derives from Medieval Latin corpus politicum, which itself developed from corpus mysticum, originally designating the Catholic Church as the mystical body of Christ but extended to politics from the 11th century on in the course corpus reipublicae (mysticum), "(mystical) body of the democracy".[3] [iv] Parallel terms exist in other European languages, such as Italian corpo politico, Polish ciało polityczne, and High german Staatskörper ("land body").[3] An equivalent early modernistic French term is corps-état;[five] contemporary French uses corps politique.[3]

History [edit]

A visualization of the body politic metaphor in a 14th-century French manuscript.
The king is caput. Next, the seneschals, bailiffs, and provosts and other judges are compared to eyes and ears. The counsellors and wise men are linked to the heart. As defenders of the commonwealth, the knights are the hands. Because of their constant voyages, the merchants are associated with the legs. Finally, laborers, who work close to the earth and back up the body, are its feet.

Classical philosophy [edit]

The Western concept of the "body politic", originally pregnant a human club considered every bit a collective body, originated in classical Greek and Roman philosophy.[vi] The full general metaphor emerged in the 6th century BC, with the Athenian statesman Solon and the poet Theognis describing cities (poleis) in biological terms as "pregnant" or "wounded".[7] Plato's Republic provided one of its well-nigh influential formulations.[8] The term itself, however—in Ancient Greek, τῆς πόλεως σῶμα , tēs poleōs sōma , "the body of the state"—appears as such for the beginning time in the late 4th century Athenian orators Dinarch and Hypereides at the beginning of the Hellenistic era.[9] In these early formulations, the anatomical detail of the body politic was relatively limited: Greek thinkers typically confined themselves to distinguishing the ruler as head of the body, and comparison political stasis, that is, crises of the state, to biological disease.[10]

The image of the torso politic occupied a fundamental place in the political thought of the Roman Republic, and the Romans were the first to develop the anatomy of the "body" in full detail, endowing it with nerves, "blood, jiff, limbs, and organs".[11] In its origins, the concept was specially connected to a politicised version of Aesop'south fable of "The Belly and the Members", told in relation to the first secessio plebis, the temporary departure of the plebeian lodge from Rome in 495–93 BC.[12] [xiii] On the account of the Roman historian Livy, a senator explained the situation to the plebeians past a metaphor: the various members of the Roman body had become angry that the "tummy", the patricians, consumed their labours while providing zippo in return. However, upon their secession, they became feeble and realised that the stomach's digestion had provided them vital energy. Convinced past this story, the plebeians returned to Rome, and the Roman body was made whole and functional. This legend formed a paradigm for "nearly all surviving republican discourse of the torso politic".[12]

Belatedly republican orators adult the prototype further, comparing attacks on Roman institutions to mutilations of the republic's body. During the Starting time Triumvirate in 59 BC, Cicero described the Roman state as "dying of a new sort of illness".[14] Lucan's Pharsalia, written in the early on imperial era in the 60s Advertising, abounded in this kind of imagery. Depicting the dictator Sulla as a surgeon out of command who had butchered the Roman trunk politic in the process of cutting out its putrefied limbs, Lucan used brilliant organic language to portray the decline of the Roman Republic as a literal process of decay, its seas and rivers becoming choked with blood and gore.[15]

Medieval usage [edit]

The metaphor of the torso politic remained in use after the fall of the Western Roman Empire.[viii] The Neoplatonist Islamic philosopher al-Farabi, known in the W as Alpharabius, discussed the image in his work The Perfect State (c. 940), stating, "The excellent urban center resembles the perfect and healthy body, all of whose limbs cooperate to make the life of the beast perfect".[sixteen] John of Salisbury gave it a definitive Latin high medieval form in his Policraticus effectually 1159: the male monarch was the body'southward head; the priest was the soul; the councillors were the center; the eyes, ears, and natural language were the magistrates of the law; one hand, the regular army, held a weapon; the other, without a weapon, was the realm's justice. The body's feet were the common people. Each fellow member of the trunk had its vocation, and each was beholden to work in harmony for the benefit of the whole trunk.[17]

In the Late Centre Ages, the concept of the corporation, a legal person fabricated upwardly of a group of real individuals, gave the idea of a torso politic judicial significance.[eighteen] The corporation had emerged in imperial Roman police force under the proper noun universitas, and a formulation of the concept attributed to Ulpian was nerveless in the 6th century Digest of Justinian I during the early Byzantine era.[19] The Digest, forth with the other parts of Justinian's Corpus Juris Civilis, became the bedrock of medieval civil law upon its recovery and note by the glossators get-go in the 11th century.[20] Information technology remained for the glossators' 13th century successors, the commentators—peculiarly Baldus de Ubaldis—to develop the idea of the corporation as a persona ficta, a fictive person, and apply the concept to human societies as a whole.[eighteen]

Where his jurist predecessor Bartolus of Saxoferrato conceived the corporation in essentially legal terms, Baldus expressly connected the corporation theory to the ancient, biological and political concept of the torso politic. For Baldus, not but was human being, in Aristotelian terms, a "political fauna", but the whole populus, the body of the people, formed a blazon of political beast in itself: a populus "has authorities every bit function of [its] beingness, but as every beast is ruled by its own spirit and soul".[21] Baldus equated the body politic with the respublica, the state or realm, stating that it "cannot dice, and for this reason it is said that it has no heir, considering information technology ever lives on in itself".[22] From here, the paradigm of the body politic became prominent in the medieval imagination. In Canto Xviii of his Paradiso, for instance, Dante, writing in the early on 14th century, presents the Roman Empire every bit a corporate body in the form of an imperial eagle, its body made of souls.[23] The French court writer Christine de Pizan discussed the concept at length in her Book of the Body Politic (1407).[24]

The thought of the torso politic, rendered in legal terms through corporation theory, likewise drew natural comparison to the theological concept of the church as a corpus mysticum, the mystical body of Christ. The concept of the people as a corpus mysticum also featured in Baldus,[25] and the idea that the realm of French republic was a corpus mysticum formed an important part of late medieval French jurisprudence. Jean de Terrevermeille [fr], around 1418–19, described the French laws of succession every bit established past the "whole civic or mystical body of the realm", and the Parlement of Paris in 1489 proclaimed itself a "mystical body" composed of both ecclesiastics and laymen, representing the "body of the king".[26] From at least the 14th century, the doctrine developed that the French kings were mystically married to the body politic; at the coronation of Henry II in 1547, he was said to have "solemnly married his realm".[27] The English jurist John Fortescue likewise invoked the "mystical body" in his De Laudibus Legum Angliae (c. 1470): just every bit a physical body is "held together by the nerves", the mystical trunk of the realm is held together by the law, and

Just equally the physical body grows out of the embryo, regulated past ane head, and then does in that location issue from the people the kingdom, which exists as a corpus mysticum governed by one man as head.[28]

The male monarch's body politic [edit]

In England [edit]

In Tudor and Stuart England, the concept of the body politic was given a peculiar additional significance through the idea of the king's two bodies, the doctrine discussed past the German-American medievalist Ernst Kantorowicz in his eponymous piece of work. This legal doctrine held that the monarch had two bodies: the physical "king body natural" and the immortal "Male monarch body politic". Upon the "demise" of an individual king, his torso natural fell away, but the torso politic lived on.[29] This was an indigenous development of English language law without a precise equivalent in the residue of Europe.[xxx] Extending the identification of the trunk politic as a corporation, English jurists argued that the Crown was a "corporation sole": a corporation fabricated up of one trunk politic that was at the same time the torso of the realm and its parliamentary estates, and likewise the body of the regal dignity itself—two concepts of the trunk politic that were conflated and fused.[31]

Elizabethan jurists held that the immaturity of Edward Six's body natural was expunged by his body politic.

The development of the doctrine of the male monarch'due south two bodies can be traced in the Reports of Edmund Plowden. In the 1561 Instance of the Duchy of Lancaster, which concerned whether an earlier gift of land made by Edward VI could be voided on account of his "nonage", that is, his immaturity, the judges held that it could not: the king's "Trunk politic, which is annexed to his Body natural, takes away the Imbecility of his Torso natural".[32] The king'south body politic, then, "that cannot be seen or handled", annexes the trunk natural and "wipes away" all its defects.[33] What was more, the torso politic rendered the king immortal as an individual: as the judges in the instance Hill v. Grange argued in 1556, in one case the male monarch had made an act, "he as King never dies, but the King, in which Name it has Relation to him, does ever go on"—thus, they held, Henry VIII was all the same "live", a decade later on his physical death.[29]

The doctrine of the ii bodies could serve to limit the powers of the real king. When Edward Coke, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas at the time, reported the way in which judges had differentiated the bodies in 1608, he noted that it was the "natural body" of the king that was created by God—the "politic body", by contrast, was "framed past the policy of homo".[34] In the Case of Prohibitions of the aforementioned year, Coke denied the male monarch "in his own person" whatsoever right to administer justice or gild arrests.[35] Finally, in its declaration of 27 May 1642 soon before the starting time of the English language Civil War, Parliament drew on the theory to invoke the powers of the trunk politic of Charles I confronting his body natural,[36] stating:

What they [Parliament] do herein, hath the Stamp of Royal Say-so, although His Majesty seduced by evil Counsel, practice in His ain Person, oppose, or interrupt the same. For the King'due south Supreme Power, and Purple Pleasance, is exercised and declared in this High Court of Law, and Council, subsequently a more eminent and obligatory manner, than it can be by any personal Deed or Resolution of His Own.[37]

The 18th century jurist William Blackstone, in Volume I of his Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765), summarised the doctrine of the male monarch's body politic equally it subsequently developed after the Restoration: the king "in his political chapters" manifests "accented perfection"; he can "do no wrong", nor even is he capable of "thinking wrong"; he can accept no defect, and is never in police "a small-scale or under historic period". Indeed, Blackstone says, if an heir to the throne should acquiesce while "attainted of treason or felony", his assumption of the crown "would purge the attainder ipso facto". The king manifests "absolute immortality": "Henry, Edward, or George may die; but the king survives them all".[38] Shortly after the advent of the Commentaries, still, Jeremy Bentham mounted an extensive attack on Blackstone which the historian Quentin Skinner describes as "almost lethal" to the theory: legal fictions like the body politic, Bentham argued, were conducive to purple authoritarianism and should exist entirely avoided in police force. Bentham's position dominated afterwards British legal thinking, and though aspects of the theory of the body politic would survive in subsequent jurisprudence, the idea of the Crown as a corporation sole was widely critiqued.[39]

In the late 19th century, Frederic William Maitland revived the legal discourse of the king's two bodies, arguing that the concept of the Crown equally corporation sole had originated from the amalgamation of medieval civil constabulary with the police of church property.[40] He proposed, in dissimilarity, to view the Crown every bit an ordinary corporation amass, that is, a corporation of many people, with a view to describing the legal personhood of the land.[41]

In France [edit]

A related but contrasting concept in France was the doctrine termed by Sarah Hanley the king'south ane torso, summarised past Jean Bodin in his ain 1576 pronouncement that "the rex never dies".[42] Rather than distinguishing the immortal body politic from the mortal body natural of the male monarch, equally in the English theory, the French doctrine conflated the two, arguing that the Salic law had established a single king body politic and natural that constantly regenerated through the biological reproduction of the regal line.[43] The trunk politic, on this account, was biological and necessarily male person, and 15th century French jurists such as Jean Juvénal des Ursins argued on this basis for the exclusion of female heirs to the crown—since, they argued, the rex of France was a "virile office".[44] In the ancien régime, the male monarch'due south heir was held to digest the body politic of the erstwhile king in a concrete "transfer of corporeality" upon his accession.[45]

In the United states of america [edit]

James I in the second charter for Virginia, also as both the Plymouth and Massachusetts Charter, grant trunk politic.[46] [47] [48]

Hobbesian land theory [edit]

Thomas Hobbes, c. 1669–70

Aside from the doctrine of the male monarch's two bodies, the conventional paradigm of the whole of the realm as a body politic had also remained in use in Stuart England: James I compared the office of the rex to "the office of the head towards the torso".[49] Upon the outbreak of the English Ceremonious War in 1642, however, parliamentarians such as William Bridge put forward the statement that the "ruling power" belonged originally to "the whole people or body politicke", who could revoke it from the monarch.[l] The execution of Charles I in 1649 made necessary a radical revision of the whole concept.[51] In 1651, Thomas Hobbes's Leviathan fabricated a decisive contribution to this effect, reviving the concept while endowing information technology with new features. Against the parliamentarians, Hobbes maintained that sovereignty was absolute and the head could certainly not be "of lesse power" than the torso of the people; against the majestic absolutists, however, he adult the idea of a social contract, emphasising that the trunk politic—Leviathan, the "mortal god"—was fictional and artificial rather than natural, derived from an original determination past the people to constitute a sovereign.[52] [53]

Hobbes'southward theory of the torso politic exercised an important influence on subsequent political thinkers, who both repeated and modified it. Republican partisans of the Commonwealth presented culling figurations of the metaphor in defence of the parliamentarian model. James Harrington, in his 1656 Democracy of Oceana, argued that "the delivery of a Model Regime ... is no less than political Anatomy"; it must "imbrace all those Muscles, Fretfulness, Arterys and Basic, which are necessary to any Function of a well order'd Commonwealth". Invoking William Harvey's contempo discovery of the circulatory arrangement, Harrington presented the trunk politic as a dynamic arrangement of political apportionment, comparing his platonic bicameral legislature, for example, to the ventricles of the human eye. In contrast to Hobbes, the "head" was once more than dependent on the people: the execution of the law must follow the police force itself, so that "Leviathan may see, that the hand or sword that executeth the Law is in it, and non above it".[54] In Germany, Samuel von Pufendorf recapitulated Hobbes's explanation of the origin of the state equally a social contract, but extended his notion of personhood to contend that the land must exist a specifically moral person with a rational nature, and non simply coercive ability.[55]

In the 18th century, Hobbes's theory of the country as an artificial body politic gained broad acceptance both in Britain and continental Europe.[56] Thomas Pownall, after the British governor of Massachusetts and a proponent of American freedom, drew on Hobbes's theory in his 1752 Principles of Polity to argue that "the whole Body politic" should be conceived as "one Person"; states were "distinct Persons and independent".[57] At around the same time, the Swiss jurist Emer de Vattel pronounced that "states are bodies politic", "moral persons" with their own "understanding and ... will", a statement that would get accepted international constabulary.[58]

The tension betwixt organic understandings of the trunk politic and theories emphasizing its artificial character formed a theme in English language political debates in this menses. Writing in 1780, during the American Revolutionary War, the British reformist John Cartwright emphasised the bogus and immortal character of the body politic in order to refute the use of biological analogies in conservative rhetoric. Arguing that information technology was better conceived as a machine operating by the "due activeness and re-action of the ... springs of the constitution" than a human trunk, he termed "the body politic" a "careless figurative expression": "It is not corporeal ... non formed from the dust of the earth. It is purely intellectual; and its life-spring is truth."[59]

Modern law [edit]

The English term "trunk politic" is sometimes used in modern legal contexts to describe a type of legal person, typically the state itself or an entity continued to it. A trunk politic is a blazon of taxable legal person in British law, for example,[lx] and besides a class of legal person in Indian law.[61] In the United States, a municipal corporation is considered a body politic, equally opposed to a private body corporate.[62] The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the theory of the state equally an artificial body politic in the 1851 case Cotton v. The states, declaring that "every sovereign Country is of necessity a trunk politic, or bogus person, and equally such capable of making contracts and holding property, both existent and personal", and differentiated the Usa' powers as a sovereign from its rights equally a body politic.[63]

Run into likewise [edit]

  • Social organism, the concept in sociology
  • Volkskörper, the German "national body"
  • Lex animata, the king as the "living law"
  • Kokutai, a related Japanese concept
  • Regal we

References [edit]

  1. ^ Kenneth Olwig (2002), Landscape, nature, and the body politic, Academy of Wisconsin Press, p. 87, ISBN978-0-299-17424-viii, The frontispiece to Thomas Hobbes'south Leviathan ... is a particularly famous example of the depiction of the torso politic ...
  2. ^ Jonathan Harris (1998), Foreign bodies and the body politic: discourses of social pathology in early modern England, Cambridge University Press, ISBN978-0-521-59405-ix
  3. ^ a b c Musolff, Andreas (2017). "Metaphor and Cultural Cognition". In Sharifian, Farzad (ed.). Advances in Cultural Linguistics. Singapore: Springer Nature. pp. 328–29. ISBN978-nine-811-04055-9.
  4. ^ Kantorowicz, Ernst H. (2016). The King's Ii Bodies: A Report in Mediaeval Political Theology (Princeton Classics ed.). Princeton: Princeton University Press. pp. 207–208. ISBN978-0-691-16923-i.
  5. ^ de Baecque, Antoine (1997). The Trunk Politic: Corporeal Metaphor in Revolutionary France, 1770-1800. Trans. Charlotte Mandell. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. p. xv. ISBN978-0-8047-2817-ane.
  6. ^ Dobski, Bernard J.; Gish, Dustin (2013). Dobski, Bernard J.; Gish, Dustin (eds.). Shakespeare and the Body Politic. Plymouth: Lexington Books. p. 6. ISBN978-0-739-17095-three.
  7. ^ Brock, Roger (2013). Greek Political Imagery from Homer to Aristotle. London & New York: Bloomsbury Academic. p. 69. ISBN978-1-472-50218-6.
  8. ^ a b MacKinnon, Patricia L. (1988). The illustration of the body politic in St. Augustine, Dante, Petrarch, and Ariosto (PhD). University of California, Santa Cruz. p. four.
  9. ^ Brock 2013, p. 70.
  10. ^ Brock 2013, pp. 70–71.
  11. ^ Walters, Brian (2020). The Deaths of the Democracy: Imagery of the Body Politic in Ciceronian Rome. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. i. ISBN978-0-198-83957-half dozen.
  12. ^ a b Walters 2020, pp. vii–9.
  13. ^ Rollo-Koster, Joëlle (2010). "Body Politic". In Bevir, Marking (ed.). Encyclopedia of Political Theory. Vol. 1. Thousand Oaks: SAGE. p. 134. ISBN978-ane-412-95865-3.
  14. ^ Walters 2020, pp. 75–77.
  15. ^ Walters, Brian (2019). "Sulla's Phthiriasis and the Republican Trunk Politic". Mnemosyne. 72 (six): 964. doi:10.1163/1568525X-12342610. S2CID 211665064.
  16. ^ Rosenwein, Barbara H., ed. (2018). Reading the Heart Ages: Sources from Europe, Byzantium, and the Islamic World (3rd ed.). Toronto: University of Toronto Printing. p. 206. ISBN978-1-442-63674-3.
  17. ^ Dumolyn, Jan (2006). "Justice, Equity and the Mutual Good: The State Ideology of the Councillors of the Burgundian Dukes". In Boulton, D'Arcy Jonathan Dacre; Veenstra, Jan R. (eds.). The Ideology of Burgundy: The Promotion of National Consciousness, 1364–1565. Leiden: Brill. pp. 12–thirteen. ISBN978-9-004-15359-2.
  18. ^ a b Canning, Joseph (1996). A History of Medieval Political Thought: 300–1450. Abingdon: Routledge. p. 172. ISBN978-0-415-39415-4.
  19. ^ Duff, Patrick West. (1938). Personality in Roman Individual Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 37.
  20. ^ Canning, Joseph (2011). "Civil (Roman) Law". In Lagerlund, Henrik (ed.). Encyclopedia of Medieval Philosophy: Philosophy Between 500 and 1500. Dordrecht: Springer. p. 221.
  21. ^ Canning, Joseph (2011). Ideas of Power in the Late Middle Ages, 1296–1417. Cambridge: Cambridge University Printing. pp. 145–46. ISBN978-1-107-01141-0.
  22. ^ Genet, Jean-Philippe (1998). "Politics: theory and exercise". In Allmand, Christopher (ed.). The New Cambridge Medieval History. Volume 7: c. 1415–c. 1500. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 18–xix. ISBN978-0-521-38296-0.
  23. ^ Monateri, Pier Giuseppe (2018). Dominus Mundi: Political Sublime and the Globe Guild. Oxford: Hart. p. 52. ISBN978-1-509-91176-ix.
  24. ^ de Pizan, Christine (1994). Langdon Forhan, Kate (ed.). The Book of the Torso Politic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. xviii–twenty. ISBN978-0-521-42259-viii.
  25. ^ Kantorowicz 2016, p. 210.
  26. ^ Kantorowicz 2016, pp. 219–20.
  27. ^ Kantorowicz 2016, pp. 221–22.
  28. ^ Kantorowicz 2016, p. 224.
  29. ^ a b Kantorowicz 2016, p. xiii.
  30. ^ Kantorowicz 2016, pp. 20, 446.
  31. ^ Kantorowicz 2016, pp. 448–49.
  32. ^ Kantorowicz 2016, pp. ix–ten.
  33. ^ Kantorowicz 2016, pp. 4 n5, xi.
  34. ^ Kantorowicz 2016, pp. 14, 423 n362.
  35. ^ Hasanbegović, Jasminka (2021). "On the (Un)Changing Judge Icons and Their Creators: On Deborah, Coke and Montesquieu, Posner and Barak, and Some Others". In Chiassoni, Pier; Spaić, Bojan (eds.). Judges and Adjudication in Constitutional Democracies: A View from Legal Realism. Cham: Springer. p. 76. ISBN978-3-030-58185-5.
  36. ^ Kantorowicz 2016, p. 21.
  37. ^ Parliament of England (1642). A Declaration of the Lords and Eatables in Parliament, concerning his Maiesties Declaration the 27. of May 1642. London: William Gaye. p. four – via Early on English language Books Online. Spelling modernised.
  38. ^ Blackstone, William (1765). Commentaries on the Laws of England. Oxford: Clarendon Press. pp. 238–42.
  39. ^ McLean, Janet (2012). Searching for the Country in British Legal Thought: Competing Conceptions of the Public Sphere. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. iv. ISBN978-ane-107-02248-five.
  40. ^ George, Garnett (1996). "The Origins of the Crown". Proceedings of the British University. 89: 171–214.
  41. ^ McLean 2012, pp. iv–v.
  42. ^ Hanley, Sarah (1997). "Mapping Rulership in the French Body Politic: Political Identity, Public Law and the 'King'southward One Torso'". Historical Reflections. 23 (2): 134. JSTOR 41299087.
  43. ^ Hanley 1997, p. 136.
  44. ^ Hanley 1997, p. 140.
  45. ^ de Baecque 1997, pp. 100–102.
  46. ^ "The 2nd Lease of Virginia; May 23, 1609". 18 Dec 1998.
  47. ^ "Charter of the Colony of New Plymouth Granted to William Bradford and His Associates : 1629". 18 December 1998.
  48. ^ "The Charter of Massachusetts Bay : 1629". 18 December 1998.
  49. ^ Attie, Katherine Bootle (2008). "Re-Membering the Body Politic: Hobbes and the Structure of Civic Immortality". ELH. 75 (3): 497–530. doi:10.1353/elh.0.0011. JSTOR 27654624. S2CID 162034742.
  50. ^ Skinner, Quentin (2009). "A Genealogy of the Modern State" (PDF). Proceedings of the British Academy. 162: 340.
  51. ^ Attie 2008, p. 498.
  52. ^ Skinner 2009, pp. 342–43.
  53. ^ Attie 2008, pp. 500, 502.
  54. ^ Attie 2008, pp. 507–508.
  55. ^ Skinner, Quentin (2018). From Humanism to Hobbes: Studies in Rhetoric and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 365–66. ISBN978-1-107-12885-9.
  56. ^ Skinner 2018, p. 371.
  57. ^ Skinner 2018, p. 370.
  58. ^ Skinner 2009, p. 352.
  59. ^ Ihalainen, Pasi (2009). "Towards an Immortal Political Body: The State Machine in Eighteenth-Century English Political Discourse". Contributions to the History of Concepts. v: 34–35. doi:10.1163/187465609X430845.
  60. ^ Harris, Peter (2013). Corporate Tax Constabulary: Construction, Policy and Practise. Cambridge: Cambridge University Printing. p. 21. ISBN978-1-107-03353-five.
  61. ^ Bhattacharya, Ananya (7 June 2019). "Birds to holy rivers: A list of everything India considers "legal persons"". Quartz . Retrieved 24 May 2021.
  62. ^ Fippinger, Robert A. (1993). The Securities Law of Public Finance (second ed.). Practising Law Institute. p. ii n6. ISBN978-0-872-24054-4.
  63. ^ Cotton v. United States, 52 U.Due south. 229 (1851).

josephunintork.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_politic

0 Response to "Believed That Art Should Be a Tool of the State and Promote the Wellbeing of the Body Politic"

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel