Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T15:29:49.742Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

I. History and Ideology in the English Revolution1

Part of: Retrospect: The Ancient Constitution and the Languages of Political Thought

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Quentin Skinner
Quentin Skinner
Affiliation:
Christ's College, Cambridge
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Ideological arguments are commonly sustained by an appeal to the past, an appeal either to see precedents in history for new claims being advanced, or to see history itself as a development towards the point of view being advocated or denounced. Perhaps the most influential example from English history of this prescriptive use of historical information is provided by the ideological arguments associated with the constitutional revolution of the seventeenth century. It was from a propagandist version of early English history that the ‘whig’ ideology associated with the Parliamentarians—the ideology of customary law, regulated monarchy and immemorial Parliamentary right—drew its main evidence and strength. The process by which this ‘whig’ interpretation of history became bequeathed to the eighteenth century as accepted ideology has of course already been definitively labelled by Professor Butterfield, and described in his book on The Englishman and his History. It still remains, however, to analyse fully the various other ways in which awareness of the past became a politically relevant factor in English society during its constitutional upheavals. The acceptance of the ‘whig’ view of early English history in fact represented only the triumph of one among several conflicting ideologies which had relied on identical historical backing to their claims. And despite the resolution of this conflict by universal acceptance of the ‘whig’ view, the ‘whigs’ themselves were nevertheless to be covertly influenced by the rival ideologies which their triumph might seem to have suppressed. It is the further investigation of the complexity and interdependence of these historical and ideological attitudes which will be attempted here.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 8 , Issue 2 , 1965 , pp. 151 - 178
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1965

References

2 The same ideology may of course draw on other sources, particularly on the society's less conscious reflexions about its own structure. For a remarkable attempt to analyse this type of source—for the same ideology as discussed here—see Macpherson, C. B., The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism, Hobbes to Locke (Oxford, 1962)Google Scholar.

3 Butterfield, H., The Englishman and his History (Cambridge, 1944)Google Scholar. To avoid any repetition I assume familiarity in what follows with the ideological position which (following Professor Butterfield's analysis of it) I call simply ‘whig’.

4 For Sydney's denial of the Norman Conquest, see ‘Discourses Concerning Government’, The Works of Algernon Sydney (London, 1772), pp. 325–6Google Scholar.

5 For Coke's classic formulation of the theory of continuity, see Preface to Eighth Report in Wilson, George, ed., The Reports of Sir Edward Coke (revised ed., 7 vols., London, 1777)Google Scholar.

6 Blackstone's account of the ‘gradual restoration of that antient constitution, whereof our Saxon forefathers had been unjustly deprived’ comes in the final chapter, ‘Ot the Rise, Progress and Gradual Improvement of the Laws of England’, in Commentaries on the Laics of England, ed. with notes by Christian, Edward (4 vols., London, 1803), iv, 407–43Google Scholar.

7 The complexities of this process have been the subject of several notable studies. For the evolution of historical scholarship, see Douglas's, D. C. definitive account in English Scholars (London, 1939)Google Scholar. See also Kliger, S., The Goths in England (Cambridge, Mass., 1952)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For analysis of ideological implications, see Hill, Christopher, ‘The Norman Yoke’, Puritanism and Revolution (London, 1958), pp. 50–122Google Scholar, and Pocock, J. G. A., The Ancient Constitution and the Feudal haw (Cambridge, 1957)Google Scholar. I disagree with both Mr Hill and Dr Pocock on several essential issues, but it will readily be seen how much I owe to both these brilliant and scholarly contributions.

8 The imprisonment by the House of Commons in 1581 of Arthur Hall, who had mocked their claim to be a ‘new person in the Trinity’, has been regarded as ‘perhaps the most significant sign of the new spirit in parliament’. See Elton, G. R., England under the Tudors (London, 1955), p. 320Google Scholar.

9 In 1714, for example, it still seemed polemically worthwhile to republish Fortescue's Treatise of 1471 On the Governance of the Kingdom of England, and for the editor to underline in his preface the lesson of the supremacy of the immemorial law. See Fortescue-Aland, John, ‘Preface’ to The Difference Between an Absolute and a Limited Monarchy (London, 1714)Google Scholar.

10 , Pocock, The Ancient Constitution, p. 42Google Scholar.

11 Ibid. P. 53.

12 Existing studies make an important mistake at this point, in assuming earlier Royalists used Conquest arguments. Kliger wrote of ‘Royalists who urged that the monarch had absolute power by title of conquest’ (p. 134), but discussed only one, who did not in fact do so. Hill (p. 62 n.) noted the error, but his text remains misleading (pp. 61-3) and incorrect on Filmer (p. 87). Pocock pointed out this type of mistake (p. 54), but made another in con-fusing the legitimists’ with the de facto theorists’ use of the argument. See below, fn. 81.

13 On Brady, and political danger of his position after 1688, see Pocock, J. G. A., ‘Robert Brady, 1627-1700’, Cambridge Historical Journal, X (1951) esp. pp. 202–3Google Scholar.

14 , Hill, op. cit. p. 62 nGoogle Scholar.

15 Laslett, P., Locke's Two Treatises of Government (Cambridge, 1960), p. 403 nGoogle Scholar.

16 For Sydney's attack on Filmer's supposed use of Conquest argument, sec Works, p. 79, and p. 188, where he is invidiously compared even to Hobbes. For Filmer's own attack on Conquest theory, see Patriarcha, ed. Laslett, P. (Oxford, 1949), p. 270Google Scholar.

17 , Laslett, Locke, p. 403 nGoogle Scholar.

18 , Pocock, The Ancient Constitution, p. 149Google Scholar.

19 I owe this information originally to Mr Duncan Forbes, who is preparing a study of this whole group of writers. See also his ‘“Scientific” Whiggism: Adam Smith and John Millar’, The Cambridge Journal, VIII (1954), 643–70Google Scholar.

20 Hume, David, The History of England (8 vols., Oxford edn., 1826), I, 251Google Scholar. Volum e originally published 1762.

21 , Hume, op. cit. in, 266Google Scholar, from section ‘Remarks on the progress of science and government’, summarizing his views down to point of coming of Tudors.

22 Ibid.

23 Robertson, William, ‘A View of the Progress of Society in Europe’, The History of the Reign of the Emperor Charles V (3 vols., London, 1769), 1, 197Google Scholar.

24 Millar, John, An Historical View of the English Government (4 vols., London, 1812 edn.), I, 6Google Scholar.

25 Op. cit. II, 376.

26 Ibid.

27 , Hume, op. cit. 1, 204Google Scholar.

28 Ibid. 251.

29 Ibid. 99.

30 Ibid. 251.

31 Millar, 11, 9. Millar gave a historiography (n, 9-11) of the Whig view, and was himself cautious about stating ‘whether the accession of this monarch is to be considered in the light of a real conquest’. But he was certain of the ‘considerable changes’ it brought.

32 Hume, for example, confessed in brief Autobiography preceding vol. 1 of the History that he chiefly had in mind ‘the misrepresentations of faction’ when he embarked on his study.

33 Hobbes, Thomas, ‘Behemoth’, The English Works, ed. Sir Molesworth, William (11 vols., London, 1839-1845), VI 258Google Scholar. Hereafter cited as E.W.

34 E.W. vi, 312.

35 See fn. 113, below.

36 Anonymous, A Brief Chronology of Great Britain (n.p., n.d.) Single-sheet folio, Thomason Tracts. In this and all subsequent quotations from seventeenth-century sources, the original form has been preserved, except for omission of capricious use of italics.

37 Parsons, Robert, A Treatise concerning the Broken Succession of the Crown of England (London, 1655), p. 87Google Scholar. Title-page gives no author. For ascription, see Wing, D., Short Title Catalogue (3 vols., Columbia, 1945–1951), in, 16Google Scholar.

38 Anonymous, The True Portraiture of the Kings of England (n.p., n.d.), p. 13. Wing ascribes to Henry Parker, dates to 1650. Ascription seems incorrect: Parker signed the pre-face, but disowned the book.

39 Ibid. p. 17.

40 Martyn, William, The Historie, and Lives, of Twentie Kings of England (London, 1615), p. 6Google Scholar. Reached third edition by 1638, though James I had greatly disliked it. On Martyn (1562-1617) see Dictionary of] N[ational] B[iography].

41 The True Portraiture, p. 11.

42 Sir Raleigh, Walter, An Introduction to a Breviary of the History of England, p. 21Google Scholar. First published 1693. Ascription regarded as apocryphal even at time: Hearne remarked tersely, ‘I do not look upon this Thing as Sir Walter Raleigh's.’ See The Remarks and Collections of Thomas Hearne (11 vols., Oxford, 1885-1921), x, 198Google Scholar.

43 Hayward, John, The Lives of the III Normans, Kings of England (London, 1613), p. 82Google Scholar. Title-page gives only initials. For ascription, see , Douglas, English Scholars, p. 149Google Scholar.

44 , Martyn, op. cit. p. 3Google Scholar.

45 Sir Baker, Richard, A Chronicle of the Kings of England (London, 1643), p. 23Google Scholar. ‘The standard work’ at time on early English History according to Powicke, F. M., ‘Notes on Hastings Manuscripts’, The Huntington Library Quarterly, III (1938), p. 260Google Scholar. The Histories of both Martyn and Baker were still popular in 1650's. See London, W., A Catalogue of the most Vendible Books in England (London, 1657)Google Scholar.

46 The Breviary, p. 57.

47 Douglas, D. C., The Norman Conquest and British Historians (David Murray Lecture, Glasgow, 1946), p. 6Google Scholar, speaking of Hayward's Lives.

48 , Hayward, op. cit. p. 91Google Scholar.

49 , Martyn, op. cit. p. 3Google Scholar.

50 Wood, Lambert, Florus Anglicanus (London, 1657), p. 10Google Scholar. Not mentioned in Douglas, and Wood unknown to D.N.B.

51 , Parsons, op. cit. p. 87Google Scholar.

52 The Breviary, p. 69.

53 The time was spanned even in works of individual authors. Hobbes's discussions spanned thirty years, Ascham's forty. See below, fns. 126 and 133.

51 Anonymous, A New History of the Succession of the Crovm of England (London, 1690), p. 32 nGoogle Scholar.

55 Howell, William, Medulla Historiae Anglicanae (3rd edn., with continuation to 1684, London, 1687), p. 82Google Scholar. Reached twelfth edn. 1760. Published anonymously. Ascription in D.N.B.

56 Anonymous, Britanniae Speculum (London, 1683)Google Scholar. Cited Filmer with approval, attacked Hobbes in preface.

67 See discussion of Prynne's Plea for the Lords, in which Prynne made use of Filmer's arguments to attack Coke, in Lamont, W. M., Marginal Prynne (London, 1963), pp. 177–80Google Scholar.

58 For this aspect of Spelman's thought, see , Pocock, The Ancient Constitution, ch. v, esp. pp. 108–14Google Scholar.

59 , Martyn, op. cit. p. 23Google Scholar.

60 , Wood, op. cit. p. 24Google Scholar.

61 , Hayward, op. cit. pp. 283–4Google Scholar. This account was to be repeated word-for-word in , Baker'sChronicle, p. 40Google Scholar.

62 E.W. vi, 260-1.

63 E.W. vi, 261.

64 Both Kliger and Pocock claim to discuss ‘historical’ thought. Yet both speak prominently of Hobbes, and Pocock discusses the Levellers as well, although in both of these cases the use of historical information was a part of their interest rather than the matter of their exposition. I believe that the restriction of the discussion produces a confusion, and that it is thus worth emphasizing these distinct strands of thought.

65 This is not only crucial historically—because it has been assumed that the ‘doctrine justifying absolutism by conquest’ was specifically ‘Royalist’ (e.g., , Hill, op. cit. p. 87)Google Scholar; it is also crucial methodologically—because it demonstrates die point that the theoretical positions were not mere post-factum justifications of political arrangements.

66 E.W. vi, 259.

67 Many of these tracts have been re-published. I cite from the collection Tracts on Liberty in the Puritan Revolution, ed. Haller, W. (3 vols., Columbia, 1934)Google Scholar.

68 Little need be said of this here, since there is a brilliant anatomy specifically of historical and rationalist elements in Leveller thought in , Hill, The Norman Yoke, pp. 75–82Google Scholar. For further elucidation of ideological directions of their thought, see Macpherson, Possessive Individualism, ch. in. The best recent scholarly study is Brailsford, H. N., The Levellers and the English Revolution (London, 1961)Google Scholar.

69 Reprinted and ascribed to Overton in , Haller, op. cit. ill, 349–70Google Scholar. For discussion of other attributions, see Zagorin, P., A History of Political Thought in the English Revolution (London, 1954), P. 22 nGoogle Scholar.

70 , Haller, op. cit. III, 354Google Scholar.

71 Ibid. p. 369.

72 Ibid. p. 365.

73 For widespread adoption of same idea, in radical news-sheets, see Schenk, W., The Con-cern for Social Justice in the Puritan Revolution (London, 1948), pp. 67–9Google Scholar.

74 , Haller, op. cit. III, 363Google Scholar.

75 Walwyn, William, Englands Lamentable Slaverie (1645)Google Scholar, cited from , Haller, op. cit. in, 315Google Scholar. But Lilburne did use the Conquest argument, although his views have usually been misleadingly assimilated to those of the Common lawyers. Gibbs, M. A., John Lilburne the Leveller (London, 1947)Google Scholar, assumed Lilburne'closely copied'Coke (p. 131). But for an excellent account see , Brailsford, op. cit. ch. VIIGoogle Scholar.

76 , Haller, op. cit. III, 363Google Scholar. Overton also restated this attack in The Commoners Complaint, discussed in Haller, 1, 112-13 and reprinted in III, 373-95.

77 The only available introduction consists of brief paraphrases in , Zagorin, A History of Political Thought in the English Revolution, pp. 64–77Google Scholar, full of interesting references, but too short and insufficiently analytic to be very illuminating. J. M. Wallace has, however, just produced a meticulous and invaluable bibliography for some of these writers, and for their critics, unfortunately too recently to be used here. See ‘The Engagement Controversy 1649-1652’, Bulletin of the New York Public Library, LXVIII (1964), 384–405Google Scholar. Wallace has also pointed out the relevance of these writers to the discussion of side-changing after 1649 in ‘Marvell's Horatian Ode’, Publications of the Modern Language Association of America, LXXVII (1962), 33–45Google Scholar.

78 Ascham is the one theorist of the group to gain separate treatment. Denounce d in Coltman, I., Private Men and Public Causes (London, 1962), pp. 197–239Google Scholar, defended by Wallace, J. M. in The Journal of the History of Ideas, xxiv (1963), 150–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The inter-pretation attempted here differs from the accounts given by both these writers. See also paraphrase in , Zagorin, op. cit. pp. 64–7Google Scholar. Ascham ‘inextricably confuses right and power ‘according to Zagorin (p. 66), who does not mention the historical dimension of Ascham's thought.

79 Ascham, Anthony, A discourse: wherein is examined, what is particularly lawfull during the confusions and revolutions of goverments [sic] (London, 1648), pp. 11–12Google Scholar. Re-issued 1649 with nine ne w chapters and title abbreviated to Of the confusions and revolutions of goverments [sic].

80 Nedham, Marchamont, The case of the common-wealth of England stated (London, n.d.), p. 6Google Scholar: title of second chapter. Nedha m had a proverbially chequered career as pamphleteer, o n which see , Zagorin, op. cit. pp. 121–7Google Scholar. It misled Kliger into assimilating Nedham’ s views, mistakenly, to those of the anti-Normanists, pp. 142–3.

81 Their attitude is thus distinct from the occasional glances at Conquest theory in writers like Henry Ferne Pocock (pp. 149-50) assumed Ferne used the argument in same way as Hobbes, and that such use was entirely ‘untypical’. Both claims incorrect. Hobbes’ s view was both mirrored and anticipated in the historical vocabulary used by the writers on Sovereignty under discussion. Feme's view, however, in The Resolving of Conscience (Cambridge, 1642)Google Scholar —to which Pocock mus t be presumed to be referring—was that no right of conquest could ever be allowed against a legitimate ruler (sections in and iv). It was precisely this type of claim that the writers o n Sovereignty were concerned to attack. Etcock, E., for example, in Animadversions on a book, called, A plea for non-scribers (London, 1651)Google Scholar, specifi-cally named Feme as a holder of false principles of passive obedience (p. 61).

82 Wither, George, Respublica Anglicana (London, 1650), p. 42Google Scholar. Title-page gives initials only. For ascription, and long notice of Wither (1588–1667), see D.N.B. Hobbes remarked that ‘there is scarce a commonwealth in the world, whose beginnings can in conscience be justified’. E.W. III, 707Google Scholar.

83 Anonymous, The exercitation answered (London, 1650), p. 46 (mispaginated 44)Google Scholar.

84 Dury, John, Considerations concerning the present Engagement (London, 1649Google Scholar, 3rd edn., ‘enlarged’, 1650, quoted here), p. 11. For Dury's biography, and bibliography (including this ascription), see Batten, J. M., John Dury (Chicago, 1944)Google Scholar. Includes (pp. 213-22) complete list of Dury's works.

85 The exercitation answered, p. 30.

88 Coltman for example speaks of Ascham as having a ‘vision of man as a victim’, p. 237, which seems to me to ignore his concern with rational political calculation.

87 , N.W.A discourse concerning the Engagement (London, 1650), p. 11Google Scholar. Hobbes said of Leviathan that it was written ‘without other design than to set before men's eyes the mutual relation between protection and obedience’ (E.W. in, 713). This characteristically Hobbesian conclusion was commonplace with these writers—used by Ascham also in The Bounds and Bonds, p. 26, and in The Northern Subscribers Plea, Vindicated, P. 23

88 Anonymous, Conscience puzse'd (1650), p. 7Google Scholar

89 , Dury, Considerations, p. 13Google Scholar. Commentary has obscured a crucial discrimination between those who saw all power as merely an exercise of God’ s will, and those who assumed it was part of this will that men should create their own political arrangements. Th e first, the sub stance of Jenken, W., Certaine conscientious queries (London, 1651), and ofGoogle ScholarCarre, T., A treatise of subiection (London, 1651)Google Scholar, did not begin to be a political discussion. The second, however, entailed rational discussion, by implying the question when not to submit. Cf. Zagorin, who considers Carre together with all the ‘Other Writers ‘(p. 72).

90 Rocket, John, The Christian subject (London, 1651), p. 74Google Scholar.

91 Dury, John, A disengaged survey (London, 1650), p. 19Google Scholar. For ascription see , Batten, op. citGoogle Scholar.

92 White, Thomas, The Grounds of Obedience and Government (London, 1655), p. 122Google Scholar. A friend of Hobbes's, dedicated his book to another, Kenelm Digby.

93 Grey, Enoch, Vox coeli (London, 1649), p. 40Google Scholar.

94 John Hall, The Grounds and Reasons of Monarchy Considered (‘corrected and Reprinted According to the Edinburgh copy’, 1650), p. 23. Cf. , Hobbes, Behemoth, above, fn. 69Google Scholar. Kliger thus super-subtle in seeing the remark as a peculiarly Hobbesian denigration of historical in favour of geometrical proof (p. 146).

95 White: see general remarks in Grounds of Obedience. Richard Baxter: see equivocal remarks in Holy Commonwealth (London, 1658), esp. pp. 136–7 and 163–4Google Scholar.

96 , Ascham, Discourse, p. 12Google Scholar.

97 Parker, Henry, Scotland Holy War (London, 1651), p. 77Google Scholar. On Parker's political thought see Jordan, W. K., Men of Substance (Chicago, 1942), pp. 140–78Google Scholar, where Parker is credited with origination (p. 173) of the ‘modern’ concept of Sovereignty. His attitude to Conquest theory is not discussed.

98 Eaton, Samuel, The oath of allegiance and the national covenant proved to be non-obliging (London, 1650), p. 47Google Scholar.

99 Anonymous, England's apology, for its late change (London, 1651), p. 33Google Scholar.

100 , Rocket, The Christian subject, ch. x, pp. 108–10Google Scholar.

101 Hawke, Michael, The Right of Dominion, and Property of Liberty (London, 1655)Google Scholar, heading to ch. VII.

102 Ibid. pp. 42-3. Hawke has received no attention. Unknown to D.N.B.; Zagorin (p. 93) was unable to discover anything about him. Yet he was an able, unusually learned writer, who had read, and cited, de Moulin, Ascham, and Hobbes, as well as the classical writers.

103 Rous, Francis, The lawfulness of obeying the present Government (London, 1649), pp. 4–6Google Scholar. On Rous, see Zagorin, who mentions discussion of 1066 (pp. 67-8).

104 English, Peter, The Survey of Policy (Leith, 1653)Google Scholar, in form of five ‘Assertions’, the first (pp. 2-134) treated as by far the most important.

105 Ibid. p. 78.

106 , Nedham, op. cit. p. 13Google Scholar.

107 Ibid. p. 16.

108 Several of these writers went out of their way to denounce the Levellers, and to explain differences in their own position. , Nedham, The case of the common-wealth, ch. ivGoogle Scholar, ‘Concerning the Levellers’, denounced them as licentious (p. 77), and unreasonable (p. 79). , T.B.The Engagement vindicated (London, 1650)Google Scholar thought them ‘the dregges of the people’ (p. 11). Osborne, Francis, A perstvasive to a mutuallcompliance (Oxford, 1652)Google Scholar, thought them dangerously radical (p. 9).

109 Ascham, Anthony, The bounds and bonds of publique obedience (London, 1649), p. 32Google Scholar. Invariably attributed to Rous. But see , Wallace, The Engagement Controversy, pp. 391–2Google Scholar for ascription (with cogent reasons) to Ascham.

110 Drew, J., The Northern subscribers plea, vindicated (London, 1651), p. 30Google Scholar.

111 Moulin, Lewis de, The power of the Christian magistrate in sacred things…with…a digression concerning allegiance (London, 1650), pp. 27–8Google Scholar. de Moulin (1606-80) was born in France, but a graduate of both Oxford and Cambridge, and (as title-page says) ‘History-reader of the University of Oxford’.

112 Hobbes, Thomas, A Dialogue Between a Philosopher and a Student of the Common Laws, E.W. vi,. 1-160, pp. 21–4Google Scholar.

113 Pocock, for example, remarks, ‘Conquest struck few roots in royalist thought, though from the writings of its opponents one would think it the most dreaded and ever-present of dialectical menaces’, and that ‘for a systematic exposition of its meaning we must turn to so untypical and unpopular a thinker as Thomas Hobbes’ (p. 149). Hill too remarks on Hobbes as ‘always sui generis’, in mentioning his historical views, p. 91.

114 Osbome, Francis, Perswasive, p. 4Google Scholar.

115 Osborne, Francis, Advice to a Son, ed. Parry, E. A. (London, 1896), p. xGoogle Scholar. According to Zagorin (p. 127) ‘the tendencies visible in Nedham's political ideas were carried to a higher pitch in the thought of Francis Osborne’. But it does not seem to me that either believed what Zagorin claims, that political man was (p. 131) ‘victim of a destiny beyond human power to foresee or prevent’. On Hobbes's view of the lessons embodied in the History of the civil wars, see E.W. in, 703.

116 , English, Survey of Policy, p. 77Google Scholar. English is unknown to D.N.B., and has received no attention. But perhaps the most historically learned of all these writers.

117 Heylyn, Peter, The Stumbling-Block of Disobedience and Rebellion (London, 1658), p. 267Google Scholar. On Heylyn (1600-62), a notable controversialist, and for ascription here, see D.N.B.

118 This point must be emphasized, since the concept of Sovereignty in these writers has often been treated as a reflexion of the dispute between Royalists and Parliamentarians about the location in practice of supreme political power. See, for example, Mosse, G. L., The Struggle for Sovereignty in England (Michigan, 1950)Google Scholar, who regards the articulation of these political concepts as one of the ‘results’ (p. 2) of the conflict between executive and legislature —so that the status of a political theorist is evidently judged as that of a more or less unsuccessful political reformer.

119 Pocock, while denying that such a theory was ever articulated, recognized that ‘the two doctrines’ which it would involve would be that the Sovereign ‘ruled above the law as a conqueror’ or that ‘the laws flowed from his will’ (p. 54).

120 Fortescue-Aland, ‘Preface’ to Absolute and Limited Monarchy, cited from , Douglas, English Scholars, p. 149 nGoogle Scholar.

121 This suggestion is Hill's revised position (p. 62 n.). iK The writers on ius gentium may have provided an important source. They discussed Conquest theory in general terms (as has been noted—see , Pocock, op. cit. p. 150)Google Scholar, and it was Grotius whom Filmer was discussing when he criticized conquest theory. See Patriarcha, ed. Laslett, , pp. 261–74Google Scholar.

123 Mintz, S. I., The Hunting of Leviathan (Cambridge, 1962), p. viiGoogle Scholar. Excellent on reactions to Hobbes, though still assumes Hobbes was totally isolated, and his influence totally negative (cf. p. 147).

124 Hobbes demonstrably endorsed as much as ‘influenced’ attitudes of the writers on Sovereignty. Nedham, for example, appealed to Hobbes's authority in a special appendix to the 2nd edn. (1650) of The case of the common-wealth. Hobbes was also cited and discussed by Hall and by Hawke. Tonnies first spotted Nedham published abstracts from De Corpore Politico in Mercurius Politicus, the journal he edited, in 1651. See Tonnies, F. (ed.), The Elements of Law (London, 1889), Introduction, p. xiGoogle Scholar. On Nedham as editor, see Frank, J., The Beginnings of the English Newspaper 1620–1660 (Cambridge, Mass., 1961), esp. chs. XI–XIICrossRefGoogle Scholar.

125 See ‘Leviathan’ in E.W. in, esp. pp. 703-7.

126 See introduction to Behemoth, ed. Tonnies, F. (London, 1889), pp. viii–ixGoogle Scholar.

127 Printing history in Macdonald, H. and Hargreaves, M., Thomas Hobbes: a Bibliography (London, 1952)Google Scholar.

128 I have attempted to sketch what seems to me the relevant methodology here in ‘Hobbes's Leviathan’, The Historical Journal, VIII (1964), 321–33Google Scholar. I hope shortly to try to justify further my interpretation of these writers and of Hobbes by attempting a complete study of their politics in its relation to Hobbes's intellectual milieu.

129 In a forthcoming study of Petty I hope to show the extent to which his ow n ‘Political Arithmetic’ was built out of studying Hobbes. Petty was a great admirer of Hobbes, and transcribed many of his ow n political remarks from Leviathan. He also wrote extensive notes about the Conquest, one of which has been printed i n The Marquis of Lansdowne (ed.), The Petty Papers (2 vols., London, 1926), 1, 16–21Google Scholar. (Other information from The Bowood MSS. (Petty Papers), by kind permission of the Most Hon. the Marquis of Lansdowne.)

130 The ‘whig ‘author of The British Liberty Asserted (London, 1714)Google Scholar, for example, denounced the non-juror George Harbin for his reliance o n Brady, a historian ‘refuted b y Tyrrell and others in every thing material’ (p. 61).

131 In its final form this section has greatly benefited from the criticisms of M r John Dunn, of King's College, Cambridge. But he does not endorse all that is said, and further elucidation must await his forthcoming work o n the influence of Locke's political ideas. It must be emphasized too that in what follows I am far from wishing to adopt the suggestions of Strauss, Leo, Natural Right and History (Chicago, 1953)Google Scholar, or Cox, R. H., Locke on War and Peace (Oxford, 1960)Google Scholar, that Locke's political theory somehow covertly re-stated Hobbes's positions. M y whole contention is that to insist on Hobbes as the inevitable point of departure is an unhistorical view.

132 There is however a note of some of the writers involved in the debate in , Douglas, op. cit. pp. 165–7Google Scholar. See also Straka, G. M., ‘The Final Phase of Divine Right Theory in England’, English Historical Review, CCCV (1962), 638–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Shows Conquest theory eventually became part of Church and ‘de facto Tory’ Royalism after 1688. But stops short of seeing ‘whigs’ covert adoption of same vocabulary, and does not see the parallels with 1650's.

133 Possibly even t o 1689, whe n Ascham's Confusions was anonymously re-issued under the very significant title, A Seasonable Discourse.

134 On Hoadly, see Robbins, C., The Eighteenth Century Commonwealthman (Cambridge, Mass., 1959)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, chs. in and IV. Robbins does not, however, mention Higden.

135 Higden, William, A View of the English Constitution (London, 1709), p. 60Google Scholar. Hearne, Collections, noted publication (n, 284) and author's Defence (III, 93). Hearne was unsympathetic to Higden, because (as he said) he ‘resolves all into possession’ (11, 297).

136 , Higden, View, p. 1Google Scholar.

187 Leslie replied anonymously to Hoadly in The Best Answer (London, 1709)Google Scholar and Best of All (London, 1709)Google Scholar, to Higden in The Constitution, Laws and Government of England Vindicated (London, 1709)Google Scholar, and to both in The Finishing Stroke (London, 1711)Google Scholar. Authorship immediately guessed. See Hearne, II, 297.

138 , Leslie, The Constitution, p. 30Google Scholar.

139 , Leslie, The Finishing Stroke, p. 132Google Scholar.

140 Harbin, George, The Hereditary Right of the Crown of England Asserted (London, 1713)Google Scholar, opening paragraph. For ascription see , Douglas, op. cit. p. 166Google Scholar. Harbin's anonymity was to be the cause of a tragic muddle, see ibid. p. 167.

141 Harbin, George, The English Constitution Fully Stated (London, 1710)Google Scholar, printed extract from Teniso non its title-page.

142 Tenison, Thomas, The Creed of Mr Hobbes Examined (London, 1670)Google Scholar. See , Mintz, op. cit. pp. 72–9Google Scholar. The passage quoted was from Epistle Dedicatory.

143 Harbin, quoting Tenison, title-page.

144 , Leslie, The Constitution, p. 103Google Scholar.

145 , Leslie, The Best Answer, p. 22Google Scholar.

146 Broughton, John, The Great Apostacy from Christianity, with its Evil Influence on the Civil State (London, 1718)Google Scholar.

147 John Broughton (fn. 146), pp. 142-3.

148 Smith, George, A Vindication of Lawful Authority (London, 1718), p. 4Google Scholar. For Smith (1693-1756), a non-juring bishop, and for ascription, see D.N.B.

149 Venn, Richard, King George's Title Asserted (London, 2nd edn., ‘corrected’, 1715), p. 18Google Scholar.

150 Anonymous, The British Liberty Asserted (London, 1714), p. 5Google Scholar.

151 Anonymous, Parliamentary Right Maintain'd (n.p., 1714), p. 98. William III's title of course seen as of same kind—the immediate and essential parallel drawn. See also , Venn, op. cit. p. 48Google Scholar.

152 Anonymous, Treason Unmask'd (London, 1713), p. 236Google Scholar.

153 , Venn, op. cit. p. 33Google Scholar.

154 Shute, John, The Revolution and Anti-Revolution Principles Stated and Compared (n.p., 2nd edn., 1714), p. 16Google Scholar. For Shute (1678-1734), see , Robbins, op. cit. pp. 234–6Google Scholar. Shute's authorship established by acknowledgement in the work as being ‘By the Author of the Two disswasives against Jacobitism”. For Shute's authorship of these, see D.N.B., sub Barrington.

155 Ibid. pp. 11-12.

156 , Venn., op cit. p. 49 and p. 53Google Scholar.

157 , Shute, op. cit. p. 21Google Scholar.

158 Sir Willes, John, The Present Constitution, and the Protestant Succession Vindicated (London, 1714), p. 45Google Scholar. For Willes (1685–1761), see D.N.B. For ascription, see Pargellis, S. and Medley, D. J., Bibliography of British History, the Eighteenth Century (Oxford, 1951), p. 76Google Scholar.

159 , Higden, View, p. 2Google Scholar.

160 , Willes, op. cit. p. 20Google Scholar.

161 British Liberty Asserted, p. 14. Similar denial made by , Shute, op. cit. p. 59Google Scholar.

161 Asgill, J., The Protestant Succession Vindicated (London, 1714), pp. 62–4Google Scholar. Asgill (1659-1738) wrote several such pieces, none of much value.

163 Treason Unmask'd, p. 235. These remarks were in fact lifted without any acknowledgement from the New History of the Succession (1690), p. 32. Cf. above, fn. 51.

164 The charge of treason was put by Asgill, by Shute, by the author of Treason Unmask'd, and in the preface to British Liberty Asserted.

165 For its initial reception, see , Hume, Autobiography. For Macaulay on Hume see Trevelyan, Lady (ed.), The Works of Lord Macaulay (8 vols., London, 1866), v, 152Google Scholar.

166 For Macaulay on Hallam, see ibid, v, esp. 162-6.

167 Hallam, Henr y, A View of the State of Europe during the Middle Ages (3 vols., London, 1818), II, 375Google Scholar, 421 and 447-51.

168 Freeman, Edward A., The History of the Norman Conquest of England (5 vols., Oxford, 1867-1876), 1, 72Google Scholar.

169 Ibid, v, 334.

170 It has gained a most eloquent modern embodiment, as systematically as the doctrine itself will allow, in the works of Professor Oakeshott. See esp. ‘Political Education’, in Rationalism in Politics (London, 1962)Google Scholar.

171 For Hale's reply to Hobbes, ‘Sir Matthew Hale's Criticisms on Hobbes's Dialogue of the Common Laws’, see Sir Holdsworth, William, A History of English Law (London, 14 vols., 1903-1952), v, Appendix in, pp. 499–513Google Scholar. On Burke's affinities to Hale, see Pocock, J. G. A., ‘Burke and the Ancient Constitution—A Problem in the History of Ideas’, The Historical Journal, III (1960), 125–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

172 This claim is indeed the theme of , Macpherson, Possessive Individualism, see esp. ch. viGoogle Scholar.