Despot and Despotism: Vicissitudes of a Political Term R. Koebner Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, Vol. 14, No. 3/4 (1951), 275-302. Stable URL: htp//links jstor.org/sici?sici=0075-4390% 281951929 14%3A3%2F4%3C275%3ADADVOAG3E2.0,CO%3B2-K Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes is currently published by The Warburg Institue. ‘Your use of the ISTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR’s Terms and Conditions of Use, available at hhup:/www.jstororg/about/terms.hml. JSTOR’s Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at hup:/www jstor.org/journals/warburg. hm, Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the sereen or printed page of such transmission, STOR is an independent not-for-profit organization dedicated to creating and preserving a digital archive of scholarly journals, For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact support @jstor.org. bupswww jstor.org/ Sat Ape 30 04:06:52 2005DESPOT AND DESPOTISM: VICISSITUDES OF A POLITICAL TERM By R. Koebner I the semantics of politics offer many instances of a momentous connection between the vicissitudes of vocabulary and the fates of states and societies. The concept of despotic rule is a case in point. Its problem was seen by Voltaire. It has not been investigated since." In his LA, B, C, of 768% Voltaire profeses to be amazed at the current interpretation of the term: “Il a pli A nos auteurs, (je ne sais trop pourquoi) @appeller despotiques les Souverains de P’Asie, & de P Afrique. On entendait autrefois par despote un petit Prince d’Europe vassal du Ture. . . . Ce mot Despote, dans son origine avait signifié chez les Grecs maitre de maison, pére de famille. Nous donnons aujourd-hui libéralement ce titre 4? Empereur de Maroc, au grand Turc, au Pape, & !’Empereur de la Chine.” The Commentaire sur quelques principales maximes de CEsprit des Lois (1777) enlarges upon this observation : “II me semble qu’aucun Grec, qu’aucun Romain ne se servit du mot despote ou d’un dérivé de despote, pour signifier un roi. Despoticus ne fut jamais un mot latin.” Then the Balkan despots are mentioned again. And again attention is drawn to the fact that in his time another significance, at the same time derogatory and characteristic of a political system, is read into the word: ‘Nous attachons a ce titre l'idée d’un fou feroce, qui n’écoute que son caprice; d’un barbare qui fait ranger devant lui ses courtisns prostemés, et gui pour se divertir ordonne & ses satelite aétrangler A droite et d’empaler & gauche.”8 Tn both places Voltaire is cavilling at the fundamental concepts of the Esprit des lois. Voltaire could never approve of the distinction made by Montesquieu between le gowernement despotique supposed to be genuinely ‘Asiatic and le gouvernement monarchique in which royal power was checked by “intermediary bodies” such as claimed a privileged position in European states. This distinction was at variance with his appreciation of Oriental civilization on the one hand and with his interpretation of enlightened government on the other. In both respects his ideas were already well defined when the Esprit des lois was given to ‘The reader will ascertain without diff culty to what extent basic information in this ftudy'is due to the standard dictionaries of Greek, Latin, French, Ttalian and English References to them are, therefore, as a rule, Jef out from the footnotes Special thanks are due to. Mr. HD. Schmidt, in Oxford, who supplied important serene to te autor when ng the enter part of the manuscript in Jerusalem. oe The interest inherent in the history ofthe concepts has, however, been emphaszed by Professor. Metlwain in a footnote. to The Grew of Paitcal Thought inthe West Frm in the world in 1748. His disagreement (he Grecs to the End of the Middle Ages, New York, 1932, p. 301, complemented by Ap: pendix'Ti (eprint from Aristotle, Gccarm 5nd Bodin) S14, BC, dialogues caro radsits de PAng- lais de Monsiar Phat, Ores, Pars, Carnie, XXVIT, pp. 423 ff Concerning the date the Tootnote of the editor, p41 5 Section TIT refering to Bk. TT, ch. 4 of the Esprit des lois; Ocwres, loc. cit., XXX, PP. 409/, About the same time Voliaire gave ent to his dismay at the misuse of the word Jn'a private letter; le it, Ly p. 296.276 R. KOEBNER, developed into abhorrence in later years, when he saw Montesquieu’s distine- tions put to use by obscurantist, obstinate and egotistic magistrates. The sentences quoted above are, it follows, related to fundamental issues, concern- ing which the two master-minds of the Enlightenment did not see eye to eye. But apart from this significance Voltaire’s observations are valuable contribu- tions to the history of the language of politics. ‘They emphasize three facts which are forgotten to-day as easily as they were in Voltaire’s time: (1) “Despotism”—or “despotic government”—did not become a promi- nent watchword of political thought and strife until very late in history. Voltaire was entirely right in regarding it as an innovation. It had been given currency only in his lifetime. (2) The terms in question were not authorized by Latin usage. Voltaire rightly contested the legitimacy of despoticus. He should not even have said in the Commentaire: ‘Les Grecs et ensuite les Romains entendaient par le mot grec despote un pére de famille.” The Romans had not adopted the Greek word either in this form or with this meaning. (3) This word, contre, and its derivatives Scorruxbc and Bconrre'n, applied. in fact particularly to the head of the houschold. But here some qualifica- tions are necessary which escaped Voltaire’s attention. Voltaire toyed with overturning Montesquieu’s terminology by some semasiology of his own: “Le terme monarque emportait originairement V'idée d’une puissance bien supérieure a celle du mot despote; il signifiait seul prince, seul dominant, seul puissant. . .? He overlooked the fact that the pére de famille was called Yeonéerg and thought to govern Seororwdc in a capacity in which he was “sole governor” too—namely, as being the master over slaves. In accordance with this connotation, classical Greek usage allowed for speaking of “despotic” rule in the general meaning of arbitrary rule. And in some short but momentous passages which completely conform to accepted Hellenic opinions, Aristotle made this extended meaning apply specifically to certain governments, in which the legitimate royal power was intrinsically the same as that of a master over slaves. By this assumption Aristotle came very near the theory which Voltaire stated to have become common belief only in his own time. Plato used the adjective seonnwsc in its general sense when making Thrasymachos in the Republic (344 C) hold that forsaking right (adikia) was “stronger and freer and more despotic than righteousness’ (xa layueécspov xat Bedepuirepor val Beonercinepov ABua Boxncainne). He uses the noun in its specific sense “master of slaves” when in the Statesman he starts from the assumption that despotes and cikonomos are identical notions and then argues that one and the same science ought to bring out the qualities implied in the position of a householder and those required for the king and for the statesman (258e, 259b, c). For Aristotle these rash assertions served the purpose of bringing into relief his own methodical approach to the problems of the state. Plato’s tenets are taken to task at the outset of Politics (I 1; 3=1252a, 1253b). Inside the household (the vikonomia) the despoleia ot deazo, being the association of master and slave, is determined by rules of its own. Still less can the despotikon be identical with the politikon which regards the higher entity to which the elementary units of the households are looking up. After- ¥ Commentaire, toe. ct