Justi’s Essay on Universal Monarchy (1747): A Misunderstood Satire*

Introduction Johann Heinrich Gottlob von Justi’s (1717–1771)1 work has proved difficult to contextualise and interpret. There is consensus that he was one of the most influential German political and economic writers from the 1750s to 1770s; however, evaluations of the value and originality of his work vary greatly. Traditionally, Justi has been seen as one of the leading German cameralists2 that is to say, as a specialist of the mercantilist policy of the state. Reinterpretations of cameralism and cameral sciences have changed and keep changing the ways the main proponent of cameral sciences has been seen during the past forty years.3 We have come to realise that cameralists wrote extensively on political

Addison and Steele's famous and widely read Spectator (1711-1712). As Frensdorff has pointed out, a very similar allegory had just been published in the Spectator's German translation Zuschauer. The only difference was that Justi's essay grew to 128 pages. 10 Justi made his academic name by winning an essay competition on monads organised by the Berlin Academy in 1747. 11 That same year he was appointed to the service of the Duchess of Saxe-Eisenach, Anna Sophie Charlotte of Brandenburg-Schwedt (1706-1751). Not so well known is that Justi also anonymously published an essay in 1747 called Beweiß, daß die Universalmonarchie vor die Wohlfahrt von Europa und überhaupt des menschlichen Geschlechts die grösste Glückseligkeit würken würde (1747), 12 which turned out to be a success as well. The essay that is being analysed in this article has the appearance of being a defence of the idea of universal monarchy. It is difficult to say whether Justi's essay was written before or after he was appointed to serve the Duchess. However, it is easier to point to a link between the essay and Justi's next destination, Vienna, where he moved in 1750 and was later called upon to become a professor at the Theresianum. Most probably Justi's essay was greeted favourably in Vienna because one of its core messages was to call for a stronger Habsburg imperial government. After all, the essay was written in the aftermath of the death of Charles VII (1697-1745), when Francis I (1708-1765) was already the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire. Justi directly reflected the contemporary situation of the Empire and wrote in the essay several times that he wished to see the Emperor's power on a stronger footing. 13 In the most recent literature touching on Justi's international political thought he has been mistakenly represented as someone who "recommends the establishment of a universal monarchy" 14 and as a champion of universal monarchy. 15 This is the result of taking Justi's essay on universal monarchy at face value. Wolfgang Burgdorf argued in 2006 that Justi's defence of universal monarchy was a camouflaged contribution (ein getarnter Beitrag) to the discussion on the reform of the constitution of the Holy Roman Empire. 16 As one of the foremost experts on the early modern Reich, Burgdorf was well-versed enough to recognise and interpret Justi's comments on the constitution of the Holy Roman Empire. 17 Unfortunately Burgdorf 's interpretation seems to have gone unnoticed, especially by Anglophone scholars. The reason may be that Burgdorf published his chapter in German, and therefore it has had a limited reception outside the German-speaking world. However, leading German scholars still maintain that Justi truly and seriously advocated the establishment of a universal monarchy. 18 In this article, I am building on Burgdorf. Not unlike Burgdorf, I argue that Justi's essay on universal monarchy was in the first instance a commentary on the constitutional reality of the Holy Roman Empire and that its main aim was to support the strengthening of the power of the Emperor. My interpretation differs from Burgdorf 's interpretation in two ways. First, I emphasise that Justi's essay is to be seen as a natural continuation of his activities as a satirist. In order to establish that Justi's essay was a satire, I seek to show that it was an ironic commentary on the genre of peace proposals and on texts on universal monarchies. To accomplish this, it is necessary to contextualise Justi's piece with other similar texts from the time of the War of the Austrian Succession. Second, I will relativize the distance that Justi took from his piece in 1761 when he republished it under his name in his collected political and financial writings. 19  valid. Here, I believe Justi is alluding to his views on wider European discussions on peace plans and political economy. 20 Even in 1761 Justi held a view according to which larger monarchies should be prioritised. He believed that larger monarchies could bring about peace and prosperity. As a corollary, Justi's essay on universal monarchy continued to function as an attack on minor German princes, whom Justi considered petty tyrants. The good order of the state and a well-functioning economy were, according to Justi, a necessity for the survival of the state given the growing commercial rivalry between states. Consequently Justi's ideas on international order were oriented towards commerce and sea trade. His international political thought relating to his defence of universal monarchy can be placed in the context of the War of the Austrian Succession (1740-1748). 21 In order to preserve freedom, the "inner strength" of the state was a necessity. Justi's international political thought is therefore an extension of his views on the forces underlying the existence of the state. His approach to international order was fundamentally commercial, as is also exemplified by his later pamphlets on the balance of power and the balance of trade. 22

The Changing Meanings of the Concept of Universal Monarchy
It is important to keep in mind that Justi's essay on universal monarchy takes its place in a long tradition of treatises on the possibility of peace common in early modern European political thought. The idea of a single ruler governing the whole world was well-known from the Roman Empire, and it had its central place in Christian theology as well. Perhaps the most famous advocate of universal monarchy was Dante Ali ghieri (1265-1321), who argued that universal monarchy would liberate the world from chaos and guarantee peace. Dante was to a great extent building on the Aristotelian premises of the single end or purpose (telos) of humanity. In his concept, humankind formed a unity. 23 The universality of being that Aristotle proclaimed in his Metaphysics was regarded as an argument for universal monarchy as a world order. 24 Another famous defender of universal monarchy was Tommaso Campanella (1568-1639). In his Monarchia di Spagna (written in 1600-1601, published in Latin in 1640 as De Monarchia Hispanica), Campanella argued for the benefits of having a world ruled by Spain. 25 On the Protestant side, it is more difficult to find defenders of universal monarchy. Protestant theorists often either connected universal monarchy with the Catholic Church and its institutions or with the imperial pursuits of Catholic princes, most famously those of Louis XIV. 26 Especially among Protestant writers, the concept of universal monarchy had negative connotations, and it was intimately associated with Catholic pursuits of universal monarchy, such as the Pope's attempt to become more powerful. Several Protestant thinkers considered the concepts of universal monarchy, tyranny, popery and even Antichrist to be entangled. 27 However, the confessional aspects of the negative uses of the concept of universal monarchy should not be overemphasised. Universal monarchy was used as a tool in the propaganda of Catholic states as well. For instance, France's aspirations to establish a universal monarchy were used as an argument on the Austrian side to justify the quadruple alliance between the Dutch Republic, the Holy Roman Empire, Spain and the exiled Duke of Lorraine in 1673 against France and Louis XIV in particular. In this alliance, Catholic  if France were to dominate the future universal monarchy of Europe according to its own principles. In a satirical manner, Becher refers to the happiness of all nations under the French rule. As the title of Becher's pamphlet suggests, Machiavelli's soul was alive in Louis XIV. 28 In short, Justi was not the first cameralist to write a satire on universal monarchy.
Despite these negative connotations, universal monarchy remained a key concept of international political thought in the early modern period. 29 However, another concept gradually replaced it as the main interpretative framework of international relations. Balance of power started to be the most commonly used concept to analyse international order in the course of the eighteenth century. 30 The power struggle and rivalry between the Bourbons and the Habsburgs, and the balance between these two powers, was central to this constellation. Hence universal monarchy remained as a powerful image because the disturber of balance started to be associated with the image of universal monarchy. In other words, balance of power and universal monarchy were counter-concepts. Charles Davenant (1654-1714) provides an example of how both concepts were simultaneously applied. He argued that only the maintenance of a multicentric world of small states sustained by a balance of power could prevent the rise of a universal monarch. A similar view was expressed by David Hume in the second half of the eighteenth century, and there are examples of the use of universal monarchy in this sense as late as 1770. Hume used the notion of universal monarchy to argue the need to abandon any English isolationist foreign policy. The hegemonic pursuits of France could be balanced only by a coalition in which England was one of 28  the members. Only in this way was a French universal monarchy preventable. 31 It is worth noting that the concept of universal monarchy was later revived for polemical use in propaganda against Napoleon. 32

Universal Monarchy in the Context of the War of the Austrian Succession
It is necessary to take a more precise look at the use of the concept of universal monarchy in the context in which Justi was using it. In the context of the War of the Austrian Succession in which Justi's essay was published, universal monarchy was a negative concept most commonly applied to denounce French hegemonic foreign policy. Justi's position in his essay on universal monarchy is rather idiosyncratic, and it appears as an anomaly. As we will see, the concept of universal monarchy was used negatively in this context, with the sole exception of Justi's essay.
Johann Jacob Schmauss (1690-1757), 33 the last in the great politico-legal tradition of Halle and pre-eminent among the natural lawyers and political scientists in Göttingen, shows how the relationship between universal monarchy and the balance of power between nations was understood in the context of the War of the Austrian Succession. Schmauss argued that the power of France was so great that it could be balanced only by the rest of Europe. According to Schmauss, the French would become the masters of all Europe if all other European forces did not unite their forces to balance it. 34 As in the case of Hume, this was an appeal to England. England had to take a central role in counterbalancing France. Using ironic tones, an anonymous pamphleteer of Der Universal-Geist der Krone Frankreich, Als die Mißgeburth der Politic (1745) asserted that France's name could not be mentioned without the issue of universal monarchy arising. Commentators were immediately moved to discuss the French aspiration towards universal   35 This was no wonder since France seemed to be aiming to write laws for the whole of Europe. This was particularly worrisome for the Germans, to whom French universal monarchy appeared as a substantial threat. The pamphleteer moved on to the different uses of the concept of universal monarchy: in politics, universal monarchy was an element of state prudence (Staatsklugheiten); in ethics, it gave reasons to hate France; in peace treaties, it was a point made against expansionist politics; in war, it was the first sentence in the declaration of a conflict; and among those who wrote about the balance of power or wished to support it, it was the chef d'oeuvre, often presented as the cause of the war. Elsewhere, it was simply a fat, moral animal, from whose milk greedy ministers sought their nourishment. 36 The author of Das Entlarvte Franckreich (1745) argued that the French pursuit of general European monarchy constituted a real threat. After all, there were examples of universal monarchs in European history. It was less likely that a single monarch would rule the whole world. 37 This pamphleteer further argued that the French power and its attempts to establish a universal monarchy had to be countered. The pro-Habsburg author pointed out that France had tried to eliminate its true counterweight, Austria. Balancing the power of France was a necessity for the happiness of Germany and the whole of Europe. 38 The negative uses of the concept of universal monarchy became so common and were employed on so many levels -including the local and pan-European level -that almost any illegal expansion became intertwined with universal monarchy. Rulers who tried to strengthen their power within the Reich were accused of having "French intentions" -this is to say, intentions of establishing a universal monarchy. In particular, Frederick II of Prussia was indirectly accused of trying to play master of Germany, if not of the whole world. The various uses of the concept went so far that even a nobleman's aspirations to pursue more power were regarded as aspirations towards a "small universal monarchy". In other words, the nobleman was trying to subordinate his neighbours to his "universal monarchy". 39 As these examples illustrate, in the context of the War of the Austrian Succession, universal monarchy was intimately associated with oppression and the pursuit of power. Almost all political activities opposed in Europe, in the Reich or in one's own village were described as attempts towards the imposition of universal monarchy. The alleged aspirant was seen as an over-ambitious warmonger bent on territorial conquests. 40 At first sight, Justi's essay on universal monarchy posed a radical challenge to these conventional uses.

Justi's "Arguments" in Favour of Universal Monarchy
In his essay on universal monarchy, Justi argued that introducing a single ruler for Europe would secure peace and happiness for the continent. Here he was walking in the footsteps of Dante and other apologists of universal monarchy. Justi even went as far as to suggest that a universal monarch of Europe would promote the general happiness of all mankind. Justi published his daring essay anonymously, and it attracted a lot of attention. He departed radically from the more conventional uses of universal monarchy, and there is no denying that his piece was original.
According to Justi, a universal monarch was to be defined as a single ruler, an Alleinherrscher 41 , who governed all European empires and countries. All other rulers would take their orders from the universal monarch. The establishment of a universal monarchy could happen either by contracts or by conquests. 42 Justi remarked in the beginning of this essay that his aim was not to discuss whether a universal monarchy was possible to establish. He only aimed to show all the advantages he associated with such a rule. In short, Justi admitted that his essay was a mere theoretical experiment. This is a critical point when interpreting Justi's intentions with his essay. What had given Justi the impetus for his considerations was his observation that there were far too many powerless rulers in Europe, not to speak of Germany, who could not secure the peace, security and happiness of their subjects. In fact Justi regarded the majority of European rulers as guilty of this sin. They were only good at three things: causing wars due to their bellicosity, pauperising their subjects through heavy taxation, and spending insane sums of money on luxuries. To Justi, Germany, with its weak economy and incapacity to defend itself, exemplified the consequences of having too many princes. 43 Germany was ruled by petty tyrants who excelled in complicating commerce between different parts of the Empire and impoverishing their subjects. Daringly, Justi mentioned two such petty concrete terms Kahle was claiming that Spanish intervention in England's affairs of trade was about to destroy the balance of Europe. England would no longer be able to save Europe from French universal monarchy. England would not be able totake care of its task of holding the balance of power. Kahle, who presented the balance of power as the rule of war and peace in Europe, emphasised that peace in Europe would prevail as long as the powers of Austria and France were balanced. According to Kahle -and many other contemporary thinkers -European nations were living in a state of nature in which the strong were trying to dominate the weaker. Therefore, all states were enemies of each other. Kahle argued that because a predominant power was a priori dangerous to its neighbours the power of the predominant power should be equalised by coalitions of weaker states. A nation that was gaining so much in strength that it could extinguish its neighbours could legitimately be "balanced". Kahle even justified preventive strikes in order to balance power between nations. He compared the balance of power system to the actions of a wise doctor, efficacious in simply cutting out everything harmful to the body. Additionally, in the name of the common interest, states could draw up contracts to the effect that some of them should relinquish territories; just as the individual "could be forced to sacrifice some of his personal wealth for the good of the community of which he was a member, so a ruler might justifiably be asked to give up territory to which he had every legal right, for the good of the European state system as a whole." Translation after Adam, The Political, p. 74 J. H. G. von Justi, Beweiß, p. 13. "Man wird vielleicht aus dem vorhergehenden schon wahrnehmen, daß ich die Universal-Monarchie hier in dem eigentlichen Verstande nehme, und daß ich diejenige Gestalt von Europa darunter verstehe, nach welcher ein einziges grosses Reich alle übrige Staaten und Länder, es sey nun mit Gewalt der Waffen, oder durch Verträge, unter seine Oberherrschaft gebracht hat." 43 Ibidem, pp. 31-32. "Teutschland giebt von dem allen, was ich gesagt habe, ein überzeugendes Beyspiel ab. Man gebe nur auf diejenigen Gründe Achtung, worauf ich die Schändlichkeit der Regenten gesetzet habe, so wird man die Unglücklichen Spuhren davon fast allenthalben gewahr werden. Wodurch wird wohl Teutschland, dieses mächtige Reich, ausser Stand gesetzt seinen Feinden die Spitze zu biethen, ja wodurch wird es dahingebracht, daß auswärtige Mächte mit demselben Spielen, wie sie wollen?". Not without irony, Justi argued that the establishment of a universal monarchy would put a stop to the wars between European states. No one would dare to take up arms against such a powerful ruler. The universal monarch would not have a bellicose nature because he would not have any need to expand a territory that was already so large. Another benefit would be a lower level of taxation across Europe. It would be impossible for the universal monarch to spend all his tax revenues on luxuries, no matter how wasteful he might be. 45 In sum, the universal monarch would be powerful enough to provide happiness for his subjects. Because the universal monarch would have power over all European rulers, he would be able to put a stop to ancient hatreds among European nations, and, slowly, Europe would become a single nation (ein einziges Volk). Interestingly, Justi noted specifically that this would remove any basis for hatred between Swedes and Danes and between Frenchmen and Englishmen. 46 As the greatest benefits of universal monarchy, Justi purported its economic advantages. This reflected his preference for larger commercial units. He opposed the idea of limiting trade within the borders of a small state. 47 The lack of an external threat would allow the universal monarch to concentrate entirely on improving the domestic economy. Arms races between nations would be forgotten, since the universal monarchy would need only one army. Thus huge expenses and public debt could be avoided, since petty rulers would no longer need to maintain large armies. 48 This would solve the issue of increasing indebtedness that had become so common in Europe. An even greater benefit would be the possibility of exchange across former borders. Justi noted that too many rulers obstructed trade in general since conflicts between these figures harmed trade, and even neutral nations had to suffer from this injustice. He emphasised that the movement of wealth (Vermögen) would not be limited in a universal monarchy, and expressed hopes that ultimately all subjects would align themselves with the religious preferences of the monarch. And since God was gracious, divine providence would ensure that the right preferences would be chosen. 49 Justi's unconventional use of the concept of universal monarchy went far beyond the contemporary uses of this concept. There were some earlier cases in which universal monarchy was used as a positive concept to legitimise European colonial conquests. 50 In a different vein, Justi argued that mankind would benefit from a European universal monarchy because it would free Africans and Americans from the yoke that Europeans had imposed on them. Under a universal monarchy, Americans would no longer be forced to move continuously from one domineering European nation to another. Moreover, he argued, the people living in the East Indies would not be forced to sell their goods to one European nation only. Neither would they be forced to accept the prices set by Western merchants. Instead, they would be free to trade with those European nations that proved most pleasant and appealing to them. 51 In addition, Turkey, Persia and the Tatars would no longer be continuously drawn into European wars that ran counter to their own interests. The universal monarch of Europe (der mächtige Universalmonarche) would be so powerful that he could influence the maintenance of peace between the "Muhammadan" (mahometanischen) and other "barbaric nations" (andern barbarischen Völkern). On the orders of the universal monarch, the latter would simply cease their hostilities, not unlike the European nations among themselves. 52

Revisiting Justi's Essay on Universal Monarchy: An Interpretation
One could talk of satirical use of paradiastole in the case of Justi's essay on universal monarchy. 53 Paradiastole is a rhetorical trope which is used as a medium for changing the normative meaning of a concept. In his usage of the concept of universal monarchy, Justi gave a favourable turn to something not otherwise considered favourably by substituting one thing for another within the range of reference of the same concept. Justi was using paradiastole in an ironic way. He was praising something that in reality did not deserve to be admired. The most eminent commentator on the essay, Johann Michael von Loen (1694-1776), a rich merchant, a political theorist and Goethe's great-uncle, recognised the ironic character of Justi's essay. Loen praised the anonymous author for his beautiful and lively style. He observed that the pamphlet was admired both for its audacious proposal of a special doctrine of Staatsklugheit, and for its brave move in aiming an arrow at the free German princes. 54 Justi's essay on universal monarchy is one example among many European texts on the possibility of perpetual peace in Europe. The most prominent was Charles Irénée Castel de Saint-Pierre's (1658-1743) Projet pour rendre la paix perpetuelle en Europe (1713). 55 In Saint-Pierre's view, monarchy was not a suitable form of government for larger territories due to its instability. In his view, the confederacy of a "European Union" was a preferable solution for Europe. In his proposal for a confederacy, Saint-Pierre mixed sovereignty with a federal system, arguing that this combination could function in Europe as it did in the German territories. 56 Saint-Pierre's proposal had a strong commercial element. His plan for a European Union would make commerce universal, free, equal, certain and perpetual amongst all European nations. This would give incentives for economic growth and global commerce. 57 58 an anonymous pamphleteer argued that a European republic modelled on the union of Germany, Holland and Switzerland would guarantee peace in Europe more reliably than a situation depending on the balance of power between Austria and France. Peace in Europe could be secured by establishing a European Republic. The pamphleteer idealised in particular the constitution of the Holy Roman Empire, and used it as an example of how to organise a federal republic of Europe. 59 Justi commented on the idea of a European republic and the aforementioned pamphlet in his Untersuchung: Ob Europa in eine Staatsverfassung gesetzet werden könne, wobey ein immerwährender Friede zu hoffen ist? (1746), which predates his essay on universal monarchy. In this essay, Justi denies the possibility that establishing a "European constitution" would secure peace in Europe. 60 He held the idea of such a European constitution as a basis for a federal European republic as unrealistic. In the nations that were used as models for unification such as Greece, Switzerland and Holland, there had always been a common interest. The fear of Persia had served to unite the Greeks. The threat of Spain had moved the Netherlands to unite, whereas in Switzerland it was the fear of tyranny practiced by the bailiffs (Landvögte) that promoted unification. Justi considered Germany as a special case, and he rejected the application of it as a model for a European Republic on several grounds. To begin with, the various parts of Germanywere not fully free, and they had only slowly grown together. Justi did not recognise any common interest among European nations that would support the unification of European nations. There was not even a common enemy. In addition, Justi asserted that even if such unification were possible, it would hardly secure peace in Europe. He took the examples of Greece, the Netherlands and Switzerland, where peace had not prevailed among the member states either. According to Justi, this had to do with the fact that unification did not remove the passionate nature of human beings: subjects would remain tempted to pursue greater power, which would cause conflicts. An even more difficult obstacle to establishing a European federal republic was related to decision-making. Justi asserted that decisions could be either unanimous or made by a majority. Since the interests of the European nations varied so greatly, it would be unlikely that unanimous decisions were realistic. If the decisions were made on the basis of a majority, binding the minority to adhere to the decision would be problematic. Those nations that were 58 OPERA HISTORICA • ROČNÍK 20 • 2019 • č. 1 monarchy but as an attempt to reveal other truths, 65 such as views criticising the dismemberment of the Holy Roman Empire.
Further proof of Justi's familiarity with the use of irony in political essays is his interpretation of Machiavelli's The Prince. Justi argues that Machiavelli could not have meant his work seriously; rather, it was a satire that unmasked the real face of monarchical rulers. Justi regarded Machiavelli as a true republican and considered The Prince as a satire written against bad rulers. 66 In my view Justi's essay had the same aim. It unmasked the real face of petty tyrants in Germany. It is worth noting that the editor of Justi's Natur und Wesen der Staaten, Heinrich Gottfried Scheidemantel (1739-1788), regarded Justi as a man who was more learned than cautious and therefore belonging to the same group as Machiavelli. 67

Conclusion
Justi cannot be considered as someone who championed universal monarchy or seriously recommended the establishment of a universal monarchy in Europe. He was not even interested in discussing whether the establishment of universal monarchy was possible. His writing was more of an ironic commentary on the genre of peace proposals and presented his unconventional view in order to gain more readers. Still, there are good reasons why Justi did not include his essay on universal monarchy in his collection of satires, despite its satirical elements; rather, it was published together with his collected political and financial writings. This can be assumed to have been because the piece contained several arguments that recur in his later writings. In it Justi attacked the bellicosity of petty rulers in an unambiguous way. 68 He maintained that wars were a result of the petty interests of luxurious tyrants who were only good at pauperising their subjects by high levels of taxation which destroyed the economy. Furthermore, he mentions the sanctity of private property, a certain level of civil liberty and the prohibition of offensive wars in the pamphlet, which are all themes that recur in his later works. In addition to these arguments, Justi's essay had a more topical point. In it, he appeals for stronger powers for the Emperor. However, the pamphlet was more than this appeal alone, because Justi's early essay on universal monarchy demonstrates that he began reflecting on wider questions of political economy, in the true eighteenth-century sense of the word, and the benefits of larger commercial monarchies before he was appointed as a teacher of cameral sciences at the newly-established Theresianum in Vienna. 69 Justi's preference for larger commercial units, which was characteristic of his later work on political economy, was already present in draft form in this early essay, but it was by no means a defence of universal monarchy. 69 On noble education at Theresianum see Ivo Cerman, Habsburgischer Adel und Aufklärung: Bildungsverhalten des Wiener Hofadels im 18. Jahrhundert, Stuttgart 2010, p. 229.