TO MAKE A GREAT NATION: The Hebrew Bible and the Idea of the People in Early-Modern Europe by David Polansky A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Political Science University of Toronto © Copyright by David Polansky 2017 To Make a Great Nation: The Hebrew Bible and the Idea of the People in Early-Modern Europe David Polansky Doctor of Philosophy Department of Political Science University of Toronto 2017 Abstract Across today’s world, nearly every functioning state—whether democratic or not—makes some claim to represent a people. But where did this idea of “the people” come from in the first place? By this idea, I mean the people as both a popular entity—comprising a collective body of equal individuals—and a national one—representing a particular social and cultural group distinctive from all others around the world. My answer is that it arose out of the encounter between early- modern European thinkers and the Hebrew Bible. Beginning in the late 15th century, across a remarkable variety of texts—religious sermons, political tracts, dramatic dialogues, philosophical treatises, historiographic inquiries, and so on—we find writers drawing upon the Hebrew Bible as a resource for generating the images of peoplehood that would increasingly define political life into the modern era. At the same time, I think it useful to examine more deeply how certain writers have interpreted the Hebrew Bible. To that end, the back half of this work is devoted to attending to the ways that three particularly important thinkers—Niccolò Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes, and Benedict Spinoza—read the Hebrew Bible with respect to this idea of the people. ii A fuller understanding of the origins and development of the idea of the people—and the related concept of popular sovereignty—may provide a firmer basis for thinking about nationalism today. If we see this principle as constitutive, we may be less inclined to evince surprise at the next resurgence of nationalist energies. This may also help clarify how many contemporary conflicts have less to do with territory and security, and more to do with questions about peoplehood: who is in, who is out, and why. Conversely, the comparative stability of the contemporary world order owes much to our willingness to treat established settlements of that question as definitive. At the same time, as long as the concept of “the people” is up for grabs— especially in democracies—even the most settled questions may be open to revision in ways that impact both domestic and international politics. iii Acknowledgements It would be hyperbolic to treat this doctoral thesis as the summation of all that I experienced throughout my time at the University of Toronto, and yet I am continually surprised by the unexpected ways that offhand conversations, random recommendations, happy hour drinks, and much more besides, made their way into the final product. All of which is to say that it is impossible to adequately thank all those to whom acknowledgement is due. That said, I am undeniably grateful to my advisors Clifford Orwin, Emanuel Adler, and Ronald Beiner. Their guidance and teaching went far beyond the formal requirements of their positions. It truly was a privilege to study with them. Ryan Balot served as an excellent reviewer and useful interlocutor throughout my time at the University. Steven B. Smith was an incisive reader of my work and a spirited examiner at my defense. I have also benefited enormously over the years from discussions with Nancy Bertoldi, Nathaniel Gilmore, Willi Goetschel, Todd Hall, Seth Jaffe, Christopher LaRoche, Daniel Lee, Christopher McClure, Joseph McKay, Nuno Monteiro, David Nirenberg, Derek Penslar, Christian Reus-Smit, Daniel Schillinger, Jonas Schwab-Pflug, Vickie Sullivan, Nathan Tarcov, and Bernard Yack. For as long as I can remember, my parents have been an unfailing if occasionally bemused source of support for my curious vocation. It was not until I had children of my own that I fully appreciated its measure. As for the children, I can almost unreservedly recommend having them to any PhD candidate: their existence draws one out of interior contemplation and provides an excellent spur to completing one’s work. iv Finally, projects like this one are perhaps most frequently dedicated to the writer’s spouse or partner. This seems obvious, of course, but until undertaking the work I did not fully appreciate the reason. The life of a young, underpaid scholar is not without its real, hard-won joys, but those joys tend to be solitary ones. The burdens on the other hand, are collectively borne. My wife Alissa bore them with uncommon strength and grace. It is to her that this work is dedicated. v The Old Testament – that is something else again: all honor to the Old Testament! I find in it great human beings, a heroic landscape, and something of the very rarest quality in the world, the incomparable naïveté of the strong heart; what is more, I find a people. Friedrich Nietzsche, Genealogy of Morality Third Essay, section 22 And God said unto him, I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee… Genesis 35:11 vi Contents Introduction: We the Peoples................................................................................................1 Part I 1 The Cold Monster…………………………………………………………………………27 2 The State of the Nation ….………………………………………………………………..56 3 A Genealogy of Peoplehood…………………………..…………………………………..83 Part II 4 Hobbes's Kingdom of God………………………………………………………………120 5 Of Machiavellian Peoples and Fatherlands……………………………………………...148 6 Spinoza’s Nation-State…………………………………………………………………..177 Conclusion.........................................................................................................................205 Bibliography......................................................................................................................218 vii Introduction: We the Peoples Every American schoolchild knows or will learn the first three words of the U.S. Constitution: “We the people.” Though we Americans think of our Constitution as an exceptional document, few realize just how ubiquitous such references to “the people” are among the constitutions throughout today’s world, from Albania to Vanuatu.1 Whatever the differences among cultures and regimes, the idea that there exists a people in most states that rightly possesses sovereignty is remarkably widespread—even amongst regimes not normally thought of as democratic.2 The historian David Armitage has defined much of his work by the question, how did we—all of us in the world—come to imagine we inhabit a world of states?3 But we might just as well ask, how did we come to imagine that we inhabit a world of peoples?4 As the historical sociologist Andreas Wimmer puts it, a tripartite conception of the people—as sovereign, as democratic citizens, and as a national group—replaced “the Grace of God as the center around which political discourse draws its circles.”5 There is no shortage of accounts describing how this happened. More fundamental, but less discussed, is the question: where did this idea of peoplehood come from in the first place? By this idea, I mean the people as both a popular entity—comprising a collective body of equal individuals—and a national one—representing a particular social and cultural group distinctive from all others around the world. How did we 1 Brown 2008, 45-46 provides a summary overview. 2 For example, Chapter 1, Article 2 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China reads in full: “All power in the People’s Republic of China belongs to the people.” (http://www.npc.gov.cn/englishnpc/Constitution/2007-11/15/content_1372963.htm) 3 Armitage 2013, 13. 4 Burbank and Cooper 2010, 1. 5 Wimmer 2002, 2. 1 imagine that it might be possible to think of ourselves as organized into peoples, such that it came to be seen as the most obvious way to describe our political situation? And what exactly is its relationship with other important political (and geopolitical) phenomena, such as democracy and the modern state? I want to argue that more precisely tracing the development of this concept will help us better understand the place of nationalism in modern political life. The supposed revival of nationalism around the world during the past decade has raised no small amount of worry and surprise in pundits and scholars alike.6 Much of the surprise seems due to the apprehension of nationalism as an historical phenomenon—properly left in the 19th and 20th centuries where it belongs. A fuller understanding of the origins and development of the idea of the people—and the related concept of popular sovereignty—may provide a firmer basis for thinking about nationalism today.7 The Argument My answer is that this idea of the people arose out of the encounter between early-modern European thinkers and the Hebrew Bible. Beginning in the late 15th century, across a remarkable variety of texts—religious sermons, political tracts, dramatic dialogues, philosophical treatises, historiographic inquiries, and so on—we find writers drawing upon the Hebrew Bible as a resource for generating the images of peoplehood that would increasingly define political life into the modern era—predominantly via the concept of popular sovereignty. 6 For a strong argument for the enduring relevance of nationalism in world politics, see Pillar 2013. 7 This is not to suggest that this understanding sets deterministic limits upon future political possibilities—see Adler 2005, esp. 195-197 on this point. See relatedly the introduction to Adler and Barnett 1998. 2 What emerges is not an unbroken line of reasoning, but rather a common arrangement of conceptual resources that increasingly shapes the possibilities for thinking and writing about political life. So much so that by the 18th century, writers and thinkers in this vein (with the major exception of Jean-Jacques Rousseau) largely cease to recur to the Hebrew Bible, even as they accept the legacy of this interpretive tradition in the form of the ubiquitous idea of “the people,” embedding it in the related image of the nation.