Key Arguments

• Weber defines this pure patrimonial type: '§9. The pure type of patrimonial rule, and especially its hierarchised variant, treats all powers of rule and the corresponding economic rights as if they were privately appropriated economic Chancen.'
• He emphasises that this includes governing powers: 'The appropriation of legal and military powers tends to be treated as a legal basis for the hierarchical privilege of those appropriating them, as compared with the appropriation of purely economic Chancen related to the income from domains, taxes, and other sources.'
• He introduces a distinction within economic Chancen: 'In the latter, a distinction is made in the form of appropriation between those that are principally patrimonial and those that are fiscal (nonpatrimonial).'
• He formulates the terminological criterion: 'For the terminology developed here, what is significant is that governing powers and Chancen of any kind associated with them can be treated as if they were private Chancen.'
• Citing Georg von Below, he notes that judicial authority was a distinct and highly status‑conferring form of appropriation: 'Quite rightly, Georg von Below, in his book Der deutsche Staat des Mittelalters, sharply emphasises that the appropriation of judicial authority was treated separately and was a source of special hierarchical status, and that it was not possible to identify medieval political organisation as purely patrimonial or purely feudal.'
• He concludes that even mixed medieval forms count as 'patrimonial' when political rights are treated as private property: 'So long as judicial authority and other rights with a purely political origin were treated as if they were private entitlements, then it seems terminologically justified for our purposes to talk of “patrimonial” rule.'
• He also notes the ideal‑typical character: 'An absolutely ideal-typical purely patrimonial state has never existed.'

Source Quotes

Appropriated Chancen for rents, fees, and taxes are widespread in the form of benefices and fiefs of all kinds; as an independent and especially developed form, this was especially true in India. Rights to these sources of income were granted in return for the provision of military contingents and the payment of administrative costs. §9. The pure type of patrimonial rule, and especially its hierarchised variant, treats all powers of rule and the corresponding economic rights as if they were privately appropriated economic Chancen. This does not exclude the possibility that qualitative distinctions are made between these Chancen, especially the possibility that some of them are appropriated in a form that is subject to special regulation.

This does not exclude the possibility that qualitative distinctions are made between these Chancen, especially the possibility that some of them are appropriated in a form that is subject to special regulation. The appropriation of legal and military powers tends to be treated as a legal basis for the hierarchical privilege of those appropriating them, as compared with the appropriation of purely economic Chancen related to the income from domains, taxes, and other sources. In the latter, a distinction is made in the form of appropriation between those that are principally patrimonial and those that are fiscal (nonpatrimonial).

The appropriation of legal and military powers tends to be treated as a legal basis for the hierarchical privilege of those appropriating them, as compared with the appropriation of purely economic Chancen related to the income from domains, taxes, and other sources. In the latter, a distinction is made in the form of appropriation between those that are principally patrimonial and those that are fiscal (nonpatrimonial). For the terminology developed here, what is significant is that governing powers and Chancen of any kind associated with them can be treated as if they were private Chancen.

In the latter, a distinction is made in the form of appropriation between those that are principally patrimonial and those that are fiscal (nonpatrimonial). For the terminology developed here, what is significant is that governing powers and Chancen of any kind associated with them can be treated as if they were private Chancen. Quite rightly, Georg von Below, in his book Der deutsche Staat des Mittelalters,17 sharply emphasises that the appropriation of judicial authority was treated separately and was a source of special hierarchical status, and that it was not possible to identify medieval political organisation as purely patrimonial or purely feudal.

Quite rightly, Georg von Below, in his book Der deutsche Staat des Mittelalters,17 sharply emphasises that the appropriation of judicial authority was treated separately and was a source of special hierarchical status, and that it was not possible to identify medieval political organisation as purely patrimonial or purely feudal. So long as judicial authority and other rights with a purely political origin were treated as if they were private entitlements, then it seems terminologically justified for our purposes to talk of “patrimonial” rule. As is well known, the concept was systematically developed in Haller’s Restauration der Staatswissenschaften [1816–1834].

As is well known, the concept was systematically developed in Haller’s Restauration der Staatswissenschaften [1816–1834]. An absolutely ideal-typical purely patrimonial state has never existed. 4.18 Ständische Gewaltenteilung, or the “hierarchical separation of powers,” is the condition in which organisations composed of those privileged by high social rank and who have appropriated governing powers compromise on a case-by-case basis with the ruler in the creation of political and / or administrative statutes, substantive administrative directives, or measures of administrative regulation, and then probably either execute these measures themselves or sometimes leave the execution of such measures to their own administrative staff, which in some circumstances has the authority to do so.

Key Concepts

• §9. The pure type of patrimonial rule, and especially its hierarchised variant, treats all powers of rule and the corresponding economic rights as if they were privately appropriated economic Chancen.
• The appropriation of legal and military powers tends to be treated as a legal basis for the hierarchical privilege of those appropriating them, as compared with the appropriation of purely economic Chancen related to the income from domains, taxes, and other sources.
• In the latter, a distinction is made in the form of appropriation between those that are principally patrimonial and those that are fiscal (nonpatrimonial).
• For the terminology developed here, what is significant is that governing powers and Chancen of any kind associated with them can be treated as if they were private Chancen.
• So long as judicial authority and other rights with a purely political origin were treated as if they were private entitlements, then it seems terminologically justified for our purposes to talk of “patrimonial” rule.
• An absolutely ideal-typical purely patrimonial state has never existed.

Context

Beginning of §9, where Weber summarises his concept of 'pure patrimonial rule', distinguishes patrimonial from fiscal appropriation, and justifies the terminological use of 'patrimonial' in analysing medieval and other mixed forms.