Sovereign Powers

¹ The order maintained by any state is called civil.

The body of the state in its entirety is called a commonwealth.

The public business of the state, under the sovereign, is called affairs of state.

We call men citizens insofar as they enjoy all the advantages of the commonwealth by civil right.

We call them subjects’ insofar as they are bound to obey the ordinances or laws of the commonwealth.

There are 3 kinds of civil order:

1. Democracy
2. Aristocracy
3. Monarchy

What are the features of a civil order?

The foremost is the supreme right of the commonwealth or of the sovereign.

² The right of the state or of the sovereign is nothing more than the right of Nature itself.

It is determined by the power not of each individual but of a people which is guided as if by one mind.2

Each individual in the natural state has as much right as the power that he has. The same is true of the body and mind of the entire state.

So, the individual citizen or subject has that much less right as the commonwealth exceeds him in power (see Section 16 of the previous Chapter).

Consequently, the individual citizen does nothing and possesses nothing by right beyond what he can defend by common decree of the commonwealth.

³ If a commonwealth grants to anyone the right, and consequently the power’ (for otherwise, by Section 12 of the previous Chapter, such a grant is of no practical effect), to live just as he pleases, thereby the commonwealth surrenders its own right and transfers it to him to whom it gives such power. 4

If it gives this power5 to two or more men, allowing each of them to live just as he pleases, then it divides the sovereignty.

If, finally, it gives this power6 to every one of the citizens, it has thereby destroyed itself, ceasing to be a commonwealth.

Everything reverts to the natural state.

Thus it is inconceivable that each citizen would be permitted by ordinance of the commonwealth to live just as he pleases.

Consequently, the natural right of every man to be his own judge ceases in a civil order.

I say expressly, “by ordinance of the commonwealth;’ for every man’s natural right (if we consider the matter correctly) does not cease in a civil order.

For in a state of Nature and in a civil order alike man acts from the laws of his own nature and has regard for his own advantage.

In both these conditions, I repeat man is led by fear or hope to do or refra in from doing this or that.

The main difference between the two conditions is this, that in the civil order all men fear the same things, and all have the same ground of security, the same way of life.

But this does not deprive the individual of his faculty of judgment, for he who I [order = status, CiVil = civilis, commonwealtb = civitas, state = respublica citizens = dYes, subjects = subditi.]

has resolved to obey all the commands of the commonwealth, whether through fear of its power or love of tranquillity, is surely providing for his own security and his own advantage in his own way.

⁴ Furthermore, it is also inconceivable that every citizen should be permitted to put his own interpretation on the decrees or laws of the commonwealth.

For if this were permitted to every citizen, he would thereby be his own judge, since it would be quite simple for him to excuse or to put a favourable gloss on his own doings with an appearance oflegality.

Consequently, he would adopt a way ofliving to suit only himself, and this (by the previous Section) is absurd.

⁵ We see, then, that the individual citizen is not in control of his own right, but is subject to the right of the commonwealth, whose every command he is bound to carry ou� and he does not have any right to decide what is fair or unfair, what is righteous or unrighteous.

On the contrary, since the body of the state must be guided as ifby a single mind7 (and consequently the will ofthe commonwealth must be regarded as the will of all), what the commonwealth decides to be just and good must be held to be so decided by every citizen.

Thus, although a subject may consider the decrees of the commonwealth to be unfair, he is nevertheless bound to carry them out.

⁶ But, it may be objected, is it not contrary to the dictates of reason to subject oneself entirely to the judgment of another?

And, consequently, is not the civil order contrary to reason?

And from this it would follow that the civil order is irrational and could be instituted only by men destitute of reason, not by men who are guided by reason.

However, since reason teaches nothing contrary to Nature, as long as men are subject to passions (Section 5, Chapter I ),s sound reason cannot require that each man should remain in control of his own right; that is to say (Section 1 5, previous Chapter) reason declares this to be an impossibility.

Again, the teaching of reason is wholly directed to seeking peace, but peace cannot be achieved unless the common laws of the commonwealth are kept inviolate.

So the more a man is guided by reason-that is (Section 2 of the previous Chapter), the more he is free-the more steadfast he will be in preserving the laws of the state and in carrying out the commands of the sovereign whose subject he is.

Furthermore, a civil order is established in a natural way in order to remove general fear and alleviate general distress, and therefore its chief aim is identical with that pursued by everyone in the natural state who is guided by reason, but pursued in va in (Section 15, previous Chapter).

Therefore, if a man who is guided by reason has sometimes to do, by order of the commonwealth, what he knows to be contrary to reason, this penalty is far outweighed by the good he derives from the civil order itself;9 for it is also a law of reason that of two evils the lesser should 7 [See TaCitus, Annals J, Xii, 4: “Unum esse rei publicae corpus atque unius animo regendum.” SPIlloza adds “tanquam” (as If) to the characterization of the state guided by one mInd.] 8 [As found In Gebhardt ( 1925, 286, hne 19). “(Section 5, Chapter I )” should change places with “’(Section 11. prevIous Chapter).” -S.S.] be chosen.

Therefore, we may conclude that nobody acts in a way contrary to what his own reason prescribes insofar as he does that which the law of the commonwealth requires to be done.

This everyone will more readily grant us when we have expla ined how fur the commonwealth’s power, and consequently its right, extends.