317 



either a theocracy, or a nomocracy, the real rulers must necessarily be 

 human beings, and the form of government must, therefore, be either a 

 monarchy, an oligarchy, or a polyarchy ; which, indeed, seems elsewhere 

 to be admitted by Mr. Blunstchli. (d) 



The modern doctrine of Sovereignty, in whatever form it be asserted — 

 whether as the sovereignty of the government, or that of the State or 

 people — is but an ideocracy ; for, in either case, the supposed sovereign is 

 merely a body politic, or a fictitious or imaginary person, or, in other 

 words, an idea. Of the two forms of the doctrine, the latter — i. e., the 

 sovereignty of the State or people — is an example of the normal form of 

 Ideocracy ; and, as we have observed, its use, as a metaphor expressing 

 the notion that there is a higher power than that of government, is to be 

 encouraged ; though it must yield, in the importance and dignity of the 

 truth expressed, to the nobler doctrine of the Sovereignty of Right, or 

 Justice, or, in other words, of King Nomas. The other doctrine — i. e., 

 the sovereignty of the government — presents an equally striking example 

 of the perverted form of Ideocracy, called by Bluntschli, Idolocracy ; of 

 which Austin and the modern English, or so-called, " Analytical " school 

 of jurists may be taken as the peculiar representatives ; their idol being 

 the "Mortal God " created by Hobbes, and called Leviathan. 



§ 59. Of the So-called Mixed State. 



Mr. Bluntschli — whose own doctrine, indeed, is a kind of Ideocracy — 

 has emancipated himself from this idolocracy to a certain extent. He 

 denies emphatically the absolute power of the sovereign. (<?) But he 

 himself regards the State as ''a living, and therefore organized being," 

 with a "soul and body," a "will," and "active organs,"* in short as a 

 "moral organized masculine personality,"! with a "psychological and 

 human nature." % (/) And from this he infers that the supreme power 

 of the State, or sovereignly, is indivisible, and from this again, he deduces 

 many illegitimate conclusions.g 



Of these one of the most important is presented by his views as to the 

 so-called Mixed State, as described by Cicero and others — a subject of 

 much importance to which we will briefly refer, {g) The possibility of 

 such a State is repudiated by him ; and with this conclusion no fault can 

 be found. For, in a constitutional monarchy, as in every constitutional 

 government, the supreme power is vested in more than one, and it is, 

 therefore, according to Aristotle's definitions, not a monarchy, but an 

 oligarchy, or aristocracy. (A) But the reasoning of Mr. Bluntschli — which 

 rests entirely upon the notion that sovereignty is indivisible — and also his 

 conclusion that the limited monarchies of modern Europe are monarchies 

 in the sense of Aristotle — is untenable. 



* Theory of the State, pp. 18, 19. % Id., p. 76. 



tia., p. 23. 



g " Sovereignty implies .... unity, a necessary condition in every organism " {Id., 

 p. 495). 



PKOC. AMER. PHILOS. SOC. XXXIV. 148. 2 O. PRINTED NOV. 6, 1895. 



