Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T16:09:51.678Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

OFFICE, POLITICAL THEORY, AND THE POLITICAL THEORIST

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 July 2019

DAVID KEARNS  and
RYAN WALTER
DAVID KEARNS*
Affiliation:
University of Sydney
RYAN WALTER*
Affiliation:
University of Queensland
*
Department of History, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2006[email protected]
School of Political Science and International Studies, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, 4072[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

‘Theory’ is taken for granted as an object of historical study, especially in relation to the history of political thought, and most historiography proceeds as if little were lost by construing authors such as Aristotle, Machiavelli, and Smith as ‘theorists’. This article argues that the costs are likely to be high, and that in consequence ‘theory’ ought not to be considered a generic category capable of neutrally describing a given piece of thinking from the past. On the one hand, ascribing theoretical argument can obscure the nature of rival idioms for making claims regarding political life, such as biblical criticism, the common law, and ‘office talk’. On the other hand, the evidence suggests that the ‘political theorist’, as an avowed identity, only emerged in Britain late in the eighteenth century, tentatively and under the force of peculiar pressures. It follows that it will rarely be appropriate to use the term before c. 1800, and considerable caution will still be necessary when using the label in the post-1800 period. Abiding by this discipline is likely to lead to new discoveries in what has been a flat terrain of ‘political theory’.

Type
Article
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 63 , Issue 2 , March 2020 , pp. 317 - 337
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

We are grateful to the anonymous referees for valuable comments and suggestions, and to Richard Devetak and Ian Hunter for encouragement and numerous discussions regarding office.

References

1 Skinner, Quentin, Visions of politics (3 vols., Cambridge, 2001), ii, pp. 162, 210, 211Google Scholar.

2 See this treatment in Skinner, Quentin, The foundations of modern political thought (2 vols., Cambridge, 1978), i, ch. 5Google Scholar.

3 Skinner, Quentin, From humanism to Hobbes: studies in rhetoric and politics (Cambridge, 2018), p. 51CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Deslauriers, Margeurite and Destrée, Pierre, eds., The Cambridge companion to Aristotle's Politics (Cambridge, 2013), passimCrossRefGoogle Scholar; Polansky, Ronald, ed., The Cambridge companion to Aristotle's Nicomachean ethics (Cambridge, 2014), passimCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 Brydon, Michael, The evolving reputation of Richard Hooker: an examination of responses, 1660–1714 (Oxford, 2006), p. 169CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Voak, Nigel, Richard Hooker and reformed theology: a study of reason, will, and grace (Oxford, 2003), passimCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 Hont, Istvan, ‘Adam Smith's history of law and government as political theory’, in Bourke, Richard and Geuss, Raymond, eds., Political judgement: essays for John Dunn (Cambridge, 2009), pp. 131–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 See Pocock's account of the language of civic humanism: Pocock, J. G. A., The Machiavellian moment: Florentine political thought and the Atlantic republican tradition (Princeton, NJ, 1975)Google Scholar.

7 See Skinner's account of the likely authorial intentions of Thomas More in writing Utopia, which proceeds by locating the text in relation to the conventions governing the genre: Skinner, ‘Thomas More's Utopia and the virtue of true nobility’, in Visions of politics, ii, pp. 213–44.

8 See Ian Hunter's recovery of the self-purifying techniques at the heart of Kantian metaphysics: Hunter, Ian, Rival enlightenments: civil and metaphysical philosophy in early modern Germany (Cambridge, 2001), pp. 274–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 Rawls, John, A theory of justice (Cambridge, MA, 1971; rev. edn 1999)Google Scholar.

10 The most detailed account of office talk in early modern England is Condren, Conal, Argument and authority in early modern England: the presupposition of oaths and offices (Cambridge, 2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 Hale, Matthew, ‘Reflections by the Lrd. Cheife Justice Hale on Mr. Hobbes his dialogue of the lawe’, in Holdsworth, W. S., ‘Sir Matthew Hale on Hobbes: an unpublished MS’, Law Quarterly Review, 37 (1921), pp. 274–303Google Scholar, at p. 289.

12 But for some invaluable starting points, see Isaac, Joel, Working knowledge: making the human sciences from Parsons to Kuhn (Cambridge, MA, 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Condren, Conal, Gaukroger, Stephen, and Hunter, Ian, eds., The philosopher in early modern Europe: the nature of a contested identity (Cambridge, 2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hunter, Ian, ‘The history of theory’, Critical Inquiry, 33 (2006), pp. 78–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Collini, Stefan, Winch, Donald, and Burrow, John, That noble science of politics: a study in nineteenth-century intellectual history (Cambridge, 1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 Burke, Edmund, ‘Reflections on the revolution in France’, in Langford, P., Mitchell, L. G., and Todd, William B., eds., The writings and speeches of Edmund Burke (10 vols., Oxford, 1989), viii, pp. 53–293Google Scholar, at pp. 82–3. See Pocock, J. G. A. and Schochet, Gordon J., ‘Interregnum and Restoration’, in Pocock, J. G. A., Schochet, Gordon J., and Schwoerer, Lois G., eds., The varieties of British political thought, 1500–1800 (Cambridge, 1993), pp. 146–79Google Scholar, at p. 177.

14 Lock, F. P., Burke's reflections on the revolution in France (London, 1985), pp. 132–65Google Scholar.

15 Hobbes, Thomas, On the citizen, trans. Tuck, Richard and Silverthorne, Michael (Cambridge, 1998; orig. edn 1642), p. 5Google Scholar; Hobbes, Thomas, ‘Leviathan’, in Malcolm, Noel, ed., The Clarendon edition of the works of Thomas Hobbes, iv: Leviathan: the English and Latin texts (i) (Oxford, 2012; orig. edn 1651), p. 242Google Scholar.

16 Hobbes, ‘Leviathan’, p. 56.

17 Ibid., pp. 71, 62. On Hobbes's treatment of rhetoric and its relationship to his scientific approach, see Skinner, Quentin, Reason and rhetoric in the philosophy of Hobbes (Cambridge, 1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, particularly chs. 7 and 8; Quentin Skinner, ‘Hobbes on rhetoric and the construction of morality’, in Visions of politics, iii, pp. 87–141.

18 According to Noel Malcolm, this ambition was ultimately unrealized. Malcolm, Noel, Aspects of Hobbes (Oxford, 2002), ch. 5CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19 Ibid., pp. 332–3; see Hobbes, ‘Leviathan’, ch. 1.

20 Brett, Annabel, ‘“The matter, forme, and power of a common-wealth”: Thomas Hobbes and late Renaissance commentary on Aristotle's Politics’, Hobbes Studies, 23 (2010), pp. 72–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21 Conal Condren, ‘The persona of the philosopher and the rhetorics of office in early modern England’, in Condren, Gaukroger, and Hunter, eds., The philosopher in early modern Europe, pp. 66–89, at p. 71; Levitin, Dmitri, Ancient wisdom in the age of the new science: histories of philosophy in England, c. 1640–1700 (Cambridge, 2015), pp. 13–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Haakonssen, Knud, ‘The history of eighteenth-century philosophy: history or philosophy?’, in Haakonssen, Knud, ed., The Cambridge history of eighteenth-century philosophy (2 vols., Cambridge, 2006), i, pp. 3–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at pp. 13–15.

22 Hunter, Rival enlightenments, pp. 170–1. Miller, Ted H. has recently claimed that the opposition between mathematics and humanism has typically been overstated: Mortal gods: science, politics, and the humanist ambitions of Thomas Hobbes (University Park, PA, 2011), pp. 9–33Google Scholar. The key point at issue here, however, is that Pufendorf sought to establish his argument through a virtuoso display of erudition, a mode of argument wholly different to Hobbes's in De cive and Leviathan.

23 Condren, Argument and authority in early modern England, p. 2. On office in early modern England, see Withington, Phil, The politics of commonwealth: citizens and freemen in early modern England (Cambridge, 2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Goldie, Mark, ‘The unacknowledged republic: officeholding in early modern England’, in Harris, Tim, ed., The politics of the excluded, c. 1500–1850 (Basingstoke, 2001), pp. 153–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and the essays, particularly those by Gaukroger and Condren, collected in Condren, Gaukroger, and Hunter, eds., The philosopher in early modern Europe.

24 Quentin Skinner, ‘History and ideology in the English Revolution’, in Visions of politics, iii, pp. 238–63, at p. 263.

25 St German argued there were six sources of law that judges could draw on. The king was only one, so held a marginal position as a law-maker: St German, Christopher, The dialogue in English, betweene a doctor of divinitie, and a student in the lawes of England (London, 1607), pp. 9, 11, 12, 16, 21, 22Google Scholar. Coke similarly emphasized judicial reliance on precedents, not king-made law: Coke, Edward, A booke of entries (London, 1614)Google Scholar, Preface.

26 Hobbes, Thomas, ‘A dialogue between a philosopher and a student, of the common laws of England’, in Cromartie, Alan and Skinner, Quentin, eds., The Clarendon edition of the works of Thomas Hobbes, xi: A dialogue between a philosopher and student, of the common laws of England; questions relating to hereditary right (Oxford, 2005; orig. edn 1681), pp. 1–146Google Scholar, at pp. 18–19.

27 Ibid., pp. 10, 11.

28 Ibid., p. 13. For the relevant passage in Aristotle, see Aristotle, Nichomachean ethics, trans. Crisp, Roger (Cambridge, 2000), pp. 83–5Google Scholar.

29 Hobbes, ‘Dialogue’, p. 10. Cf. Hobbes, ‘Leviathan’, p. 416; Hobbes, On the citizen, p. 79.

30 Hobbes, ‘Dialogue’, p. 10; James VI and I, The true law of free monarchies (Edinburgh, 1598), p. 17. This edition of James's pamphlet is unnumbered beyond page 4, but is referenced here as if the pagination continued.

31 Hobbes, ‘Dialogue’, p. 19. Bacon described the monarch as the ‘anima legis’ (Bacon, Francis, The elements of the common lawes of England (London, 1636)Google Scholar, unpaginated Dedication).

32 Hobbes, ‘Dialogue’, p. 100.

33 Ibid., p. 11.

34 Ibid., p. 38.

35 Ibid., p. 61. Cf. Bacon's claim that the judiciary were to ‘not checke or oppose any Points of Soveraigntie’ (Bacon, Francis, ‘Of judicature’, in The essayes or counsels, civill and moral, of Francis Lo. Verulam (London, 1625), p. 324Google Scholar).

36 Hobbes, ‘Dialogue’, p. 15.

37 ‘Charles I, 1627: The peticion exhibited to his majestie by the Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Co[m]mons in this p[re]sent parliament assembled conc[er]ning divers rights and liberties of the subjects: with the kings majesties royall aunswere thereunto in full parliament’, in John Raithby, ed., The statutes of the realm (11 vols., London, 1819), xi, pp. 23–4.

38 Hobbes, ‘Dialogue’, p. 18.

39 Ibid., p. 22.

40 See, for example, Pocock, J. G. A., The ancient constitution and the feudal law: English historical thought in the seventeenth century (Cambridge, 1957), p. 149Google Scholar; Skinner, ‘History and ideology in the English Revolution’, p. 254.

41 Hobbes, ‘Dialogue’, p. 25.

42 Ibid., p. 36. Cf. Hobbes, Thomas, ‘Behemoth, or the Long Parliament’, in Seaward, Paul, ed., The Clarendon edition of the works of Thomas Hobbes, x: Behemoth, or the Long Parliament (Oxford, 2009), p. 149Google Scholar.

43 Hale was King's Bench chief justice from 1671 to 1675, and refers to himself by this title in the Dialogue. The Reflections were published in 1921 by William Holdsworth, using Harleian MS 711. At least one other manuscript copy existed, Lambeth Palace Library MS 3479, which contains some minor differences in the argument.

44 Hale, ‘Reflections’, p. 287.

45 Ibid.

46 Ibid.

47 Ibid., pp. 287–8. In MS 3479, Hale claimed that ‘reason modifyed’ to its ‘spetiall object’ underwrote each office, ‘not indeterminate reason or reason at large’ (Matthew Hale, MS 3479, Lambeth Palace Library, p. 5).

48 Hale, ‘Reflections’, p. 288.

49 Consider, for example, Philip Pettit's republicanism, a remarkable feature of which is Pettit's willingness to prescribe changes in an array of domains – the legal constitution, the economy, and national security – all on the basis of the same concept of freedom as non-domination: Pettit, Philip, Republicanism: a theory of freedom and government (Oxford, 1997), ch. 5Google Scholar. Equally illustrative is John Rawls's construal of diverse departments of life as a single object of thought, the so-called ‘basic structure’: Rawls, John, ‘The basic structure as subject’, American Philosophical Quarterly, 14 (1977), pp. 159–65Google Scholar.

50 Hale, ‘Reflections’, p. 288.

51 Ibid., p. 289.

52 Ibid. Though, as we have seen, Hobbes had also approached the issue in terms of office, yet his attempt to define justice had left him vulnerable to the accusation of engaging in ‘Speculacons Theoryes and distinctions’.

53 What he referred to elsewhere as the lex scripta and the lex non scripta: Hale, Matthew, The history of the common law in England (Chicago, IL, 1971; orig. edn 1739), pp. 3, 44–5Google Scholar.

54 Hale, ‘Reflections’, p. 296.

55 Malcolm, Noel, ‘General introduction’, in Malcolm, Noel, ed., The Clarendon edition of the works of Thomas Hobbes, iii: Leviathan: editorial introduction (Oxford, 2012), pp. 1–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at p. 26.

56 Pocock, J. G. A., Politics, language, and time: essays on political thought and history (Chicago, IL, 1971), ch. 6Google Scholar.

57 See Price, Richard, ‘A discourse on the love of our country’, in Thomas, D. A., ed., Price: political writings (Cambridge, 1991), pp. 176–96Google Scholar.

58 Burke, ‘Reflections on the revolution in France’, pp. 72, 128.

59 See Hampsher-Monk, Iain, ‘Reflections on the revolution in France’, in Dwan, David and Insole, Christopher, eds., The Cambridge companion to Edmund Burke (Cambridge, 2012), pp. 195–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

60 Burke, ‘Reflections on the revolution in France’, pp. 110–11.

61 Ibid., p. 111.

62 Pocock, J. G. A., ‘Edmund Burke and the redefinition of enthusiasm: the context as counter-revolution’, in Furet, François and Ozouf, Mona, eds., The French Revolution and the creation of modern political culture (3 vols., Oxford, 1989), iii, pp. 19–43Google Scholar; Walter, Ryan, ‘The enthusiasm of David Ricardo’, Modern Intellectual History, 15 (2018), pp. 381–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

63 Burke, ‘Reflections on the revolution in France’, pp. 83, 108.

64 Ibid., p. 114.

65 Ibid.

66 Ibid., p. 176.

67 Ibid., p. 115.

68 Ibid., p. 111.

69 Ibid., p. 91.

70 See Plassart, Anna's recent study of Mackintosh, The Scottish Enlightenment and the French Revolution (Cambridge, 2015), ch. 4CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

71 Mackintosh, James, ‘Defence of the French Revolution and its English admirers against the accusations of the Right Honourable Edmund Burke; including some strictures on the late production of Mons. De Calonne’, in Winch, Donald, ed., Vindiciae Gallicae and other writings on the French Revolution (Indianapolis, IN, 2006; orig. edn 1791), pp. 11–165Google Scholar, at p. 50.

72 A perspective taken from Skinner, Visions of politics, ii, chs. 8 and 9.

73 Mackintosh, ‘Defence of the French Revolution and its English admirers against the accusations of the Right Honourable Edmund Burke’, p. 50.

74 Ibid.

75 Ibid., pp. 50–1.

76 Ibid., p. 5.

77 Ibid., p. 52.

78 Donald Winch, ‘Introduction’, in Vindiciae Gallicae, pp. x, xv–xvi.

79 James Mackintosh, ‘A discourse on the law of nature and nations’, in Winch, ed., Vindiciae Gallicae, pp. 203–58, at p. 236.

80 Ibid., pp. 238–9.

81 Ibid., p. 240.

82 See Sher, Richard B., Church and university in the Scottish Enlightenment: the moderate literati of Edinburgh (Edinburgh, 1985)Google Scholar; Phillipson, Nicholas, ‘The pursuit of virtue in Scottish university education: Dugald Stewart and Scottish moral philosophy in the Enlightenment’, in Phillipson, Nicholas, ed., Universities, society, and the future: a conference held on the 400th anniversary of the University of Edinburgh (Edinburgh, 1983), pp. 82–101Google Scholar.

83 Stewart, Dugald, Elements of the philosophy of the human mind (London, 1792), pp. 234–5, 352–66Google Scholar.

84 Ibid., p. 216.

85 That the task was possible Stewart took to have been demonstrated by his major influence, Thomas Reid, in his studies of perception: Reid, Thomas, Essays on the intellectual powers of man, ed. Brookes, Derek and Haakonssen, Knud (Edinburgh, 2002; orig. edn 1785)Google Scholar.

86 Stewart, Elements of the philosophy of the human mind, p. 190.

87 Ibid., p. 175.

88 Ibid., p. 176. See Olson, Richard S., Scottish philosophy and British physics, 1740–1870 (Princeton, NJ, 1975), pp. 71–83, 88–91Google Scholar.

89 Stewart, Elements of the philosophy of the human mind, p. 177.

90 Ibid., pp. 178–80, 212, 220.

91 Ibid., pp. 239–40.

92 Ibid., p. 226.

93 Ibid., pp. 234, 236.

94 Ibid., pp. 230–2.

95 Ibid., p. 251. Compare Smith on this theme: Smith, Adam, ‘The theory of moral sentiments’, in Raphael, D. D. and Macfie, A. L., eds., The Glasgow edition of the works and correspondence of Adam Smith (6 vols., Oxford, 1976–87)Google Scholar, i, vi.ii.2.15 (cited by part, section, chapter, and paragraph).

96 Burke, ‘Reflections on the revolution in France’, p. 108.

97 Edmund Burke, ‘Appeal from the new to the old Whigs’, in Langford, Mitchell, and Todd, eds., The writings and speeches of Edmund Burke, iv, pp. 365–477, at p. 460.

98 Stewart, Elements of the philosophy of the human mind, p. 233.

99 Phillipson, Nicholas, ‘The Scottish Enlightenment’, in Porter, Roy S. and Teich, Mikuláš, eds., The Enlightenment in national context (Cambridge, 1981), pp. 19–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at pp. 39–40.

100 Bentham, Jeremy, The book of fallacies (London, 1824), pp. 295–6Google Scholar.

101 Negative uses are also rare: ‘the reasonings of a political theorist, and the good sense of a practical merchant’ (Bruce, John, Annals of the honorable East-India Company, from their establishment by the charter of Queen Elizabeth, 1600, to the union of the London and English East-India Companies, 1707–8 (2 vols., London, 1810), i, p. 254Google Scholar. Disraeli's contrast was similar: ‘The practical statesman, from the political theorist’ (Disraeli, Benjamin, Lawyers and legislators, or, notes on the American mining companies (London, 1825)Google Scholar, unpaginated Dedication). Note also the ‘self-created importance of the political theorist’ (Nolan, George, Practical observations upon the projected alterations of the law for regulating the import of corn into the United Kingdom or Great Britain and Ireland (London, 1828), p. 5Google Scholar). A neutral deployment is found in An essay on the political economy of nations: ‘A political theorist, with the map of the world before him, might reasonably make out very different apportionments of countries from those actually existing’ (Anonymous, An essay on the political economy of nations: or, a view of the intercourse of countries, as influencing their wealth (London, 1821), p. 87Google Scholar).

102 See Malthus, Thomas, ‘The principles of political economy’, in Wrigley, E. A. and Souden, David, eds., The works of Thomas Robert Malthus (8 vols., London, 1986), v, pp. 5–18Google Scholar; Malthus, ‘High price of bullion, Edinburgh Review 1811’, in Wrigley and Souden, eds., The works of Thomas Robert Malthus, vii, pp. 59–86. For an overview of the contest, see Walter, Ryan, ‘The Bullion Controversy and the history of political thought: experience, innovation and theory’, Intellectual History Review (2018), pp. 1–22Google Scholar, https://doi.org/10.1080/17496977.2018.1526452.

103 Green, S. J. D., ‘Warden Anson, All Souls College, and the curious creation of the Gladstone Chair of Political Theory and Institutions at Oxford, c. 1908–1912’, in Hood, Christopher, King, Desmond, and Peele, Gillian, eds., Forging a discipline: a critical assessment of Oxford's development of the study of politics and international relations in comparative perspective (Oxford, 2014), pp. 46–63Google Scholar.

104 Condren, Argument and authority in early modern England, ch. 8; Hunter, Ian, ‘Kant and Vattel in context: cosmopolitan philosophy and diplomatic casuistry’, History of European Ideas, 39 (2013), pp. 477–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cello, Lorenzo, ‘The legitimacy of international interventions in Vattel's The law of nations’, Global Intellectual History, 2 (2017), pp. 105–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Walter, Ryan, ‘Adam Smith's free trade casuistry’, Global Intellectual History, 1 (2016), pp. 61–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

105 Jonsen, Albert R. and Toulmin, Stephen, The abuse of casuistry: a history of moral reasoning (Berkeley, CA, 1988), pp. 250, 279Google Scholar.

106 A practice that has limitations, and tends to obscure the rise of ‘isms’ as an historical phenomenon. See Höpfl, H. M., ‘Isms’, British Journal of Political Science, 13 (1983), pp. 1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Condren, Conal, Political vocabularies: word change and the nature of politics (Suffolk, 2017), pp. 82–3Google Scholar; Condren, Conal, ‘Afterword: radicalism revisited’, in Burgess, Glenn and Festenstein, Matthew, eds., English radicalism, 1550–1850 (Cambridge, 2007), pp. 311–37Google Scholar.

107 Pocock, J. G. A., Political thought and history: essays on theory and method (Cambridge, 2009), ch. 1Google Scholar.

108 Rawls, John, Political liberalism: expanded edition (New York, NY, 2005), p. 46Google Scholar.

109 See Horton, John, ‘Rawls, public reason and the limits of liberal justification’, Contemporary Political Theory, 2 (2003), pp. 5–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

110 For a survey, see Rossi, Enzo and Sleat, Matt, ‘Realism in normative political theory’, Philosophy Compass, 9 (2014), pp. 689–701CrossRefGoogle Scholar.