Intellectual history and lexicography are related to each other in multiple ways. Intellectual historians study dictionary entries as documents of the thought – for instance, the political thought – of the past. They may also attend to broader questions of dictionary structure: how did a given lexicographer think about taxonomy? Sometimes lexicographers themselves construct dictionaries as contributions to intellectual history. And the history of dictionaries is part of the history of intellectual institutions (publishing houses, universities and academies, religious bodies, and so on), which have regularly determined the scale, the metalanguage, the degree of encyclopedic content, and the relationship to canons of literature, of the lexicographical work which they sponsored. These points have very wide-ranging implications: dictionaries ultimately belong to a global intellectual history.

Chapter 1 analyzes the shift from the history of ideas to the history of political languages, connected with the so-called linguistic turn. Beginning with Lovejoy’s proposal of a history of ideas, which served to establish it as a scholarly discipline, it aims to unravel its fundamental tenets, as well as the rationale behind the focus on “unit-ideas,” derived from the awareness of the problems to categorize different currents of thought in history. It then observes Namier’s critical perspective of that tradition and Skinner’s proposal to stand intellectual history on a new basis. By incorporating the analysis of the performative dimension of language, it overcomes the impasse generated by the shortcomings in the history of ideas and its ahistorical perspective of ideas, thus highlighting the fundamental consequences and its contribution to the control of conceptual anachronisms. This “linguistic turn” allows Skinner to perceive the fallacies or “mythologies” of the history of ideas and recover the notion of the “text” as a meaningful whole. Finally, it analyzes the subsequent “rhetorical turn” in the search to find in the very texts the discursive tracks of their contexts of utterance, and why it meant the dislocation of the antinomy between “texts”–“contexts” and “ideas”–“reality.”

This chapter outlines a novel method for discerning the structure and history of concepts and their aggregation as ideas. Based on the analysis of co-ocurrence data in large data sets, the method creates a measure of ‘binding’ that allows one to inspect the larger constellations of words and concepts that comprise ideas which can be tracked diachronically. The chapter also describes the method used for ascertaining the ‘binding’ between concepts, and for modelling ‘ideas’. A detailed account of how the ‘shared lexis tool’ was built is also included.

Scholars of international political economy (IPE) often locate the origins of their field in the contested nature of the world economy of the early 1970s, but many of its early proponents drew important inspiration from political economists who had an international focus from the pre-1945 period. This chapter summarizes the book’s analysis of the field’s pre-1945 roots, an analysis that challenges conventional depictions of this history in two ways. First, the book embraces a more global conception of the field’s pre-1945 roots by highlighting many contributions made by thinkers from outside Europe and the United States. Second, it shows that discussions of the international dimensions of political economy before 1945 involved much more than a debate between the three perspectives of economic liberalism, neomercantilism, and Marxism. This introductory chapter also highlights some limitations of the analysis as well as some of the motivations behind the project.

The title of this chapter is an adaptation of the title of an important book about linguistic structures and processes of early Indo-European as they experienced transformed expression in the evolved, and evolving, linguistic structures of ancient Greek.1 Like that work, this study is concerned with the diachronic and synchronic intersection of structures. But while that work chiefly and expansively addresses morpho-phonological matters of dialect development, this one is a much more modest lexical study (a set of fairly fine-grained lexical analyses) of specific elements of Greek divination, one that finds particular inspiration in Benveniste’s (1969) Le vocabulaire des institutions indo-européennes. What follows is a study of linguistic and cultural structures in which I hypothesize (1) that deliberate intellectual or cognitive engagement is the expected response to the production of Greek prophetic signs and (2) that this state of affairs continues, at least in part, idealized practices of ancestral Indo-European cult. Given that the idea that oracles are puzzles in search of a solution is fundamental to the ancient literary presentation of Greek divination, the first half of this hypothesis may appear trivial; however, what I hope to show is that intellectual engagement with an oracle is a cult act of a more “requisite” nature and attitude than perhaps typically imagined – it is the religiously right response – and that this is so (part two of the hypothesis) for reasons having to do with inherited religious structures (the appearance of the forest may not be substantially changed, but some new understanding of the trees may possibly present itself). I begin with Roman Jakobson, a master analyst of linguistic and cultural structures.

This chapter begins by summarising the development of the history of ideas out of which conceptual history emerged. It discusses in detail the founding figure of conceptual history, Reinhart Koselleck, and compares his approach to that of the influential Cambridge school, in particular Quentin Skinner and J. G. A. Pocock, and their ‘contextualism’. The bulk of the chapter is then dedicated to a discussion of a range of examples of how conceptual histories have helped to deconstruct a rainge of collective identities, including class, religious, racial and gender identities. In all of these areas we have seen an intense interest in linking the history of conceps with the study of emotions, social practices and the problematisation of the national container for historical studies. In particular the move to a transnational history of concepts has contributed in a major way to de-essentialising collective national identities but also transnational, i.e. European ones. Furthermore, conceptual history has been emphasising the importance of studying the translation of concepts into different languages and cultural spheres.

The Introduction offers a contextual framework for exploring aspects of eighteenth-century thought. In the first section, ‘Ideas and their history’, the question of how to approach the ways of thinking that animated English-speaking peoples some three centuries ago is briefly considered. This is followed by an outline of how knowledge was structured in the eighteenth century, particularly as this is reflected in the pioneering encyclopedias of the period, such as Ephraim Chambers’s Cyclopédia and the French Encyclopédie. The limitations of attempts to label the prevailing intellectual ethos of the period (Age of Reason, of Revolutions, of Enlightenment, of secularization, of progress) or to define its temporal limits (the ‘long’ eighteenth century) are next considered. The introduction concludes with a discussion of the institutional framework and social habits—elements of the sociology of knowledge—that structured intellectual inquiry in the eighteenth century. A short appendix of terms highlights differences between the meanings of key words in the eighteenth and the twenty-first centuries: how they were understood and used then, in contrast with their meaning for us now.

The book concludes by considering the implications of hidden liberalism for the study of liberal thought-practices in non-Western, postcolonial settings, and more generally of liberalism in general. In recent years, political theorists have begun to examine the complex relationship between liberalism and empire. These studies have ranged from meticulous genealogies of imperialist arguments in the works of Enlightenment-era thinkers, to dissections of liberal justifications and criticisms of empire during the eighteenth century, and still further to conceptualizations and classifications of liberal-imperialist thought-practices in the long nineteenth century. Overlooked in nearly all of these studies are the implications of Western imperialism for the reception and development of indigenous liberal views and practices inside postcolonial societies. I offer a critical assessment of Western political theory’s privileging of a contextually-specific model of liberalism as a universal standard for understanding, appraising, and promoting liberal thought-practices across the globe. I argue that mainstream, critical, and approaches in political thought unwittingly perpetuate this “visibility bias” as regards the study of liberalism in non-Western societies, and suggest ways of making these modes of inquiry more inclusive.

This introductory chapter clarifies the methodological approach that will be applied in the intellectual history that follows. It differentiates between conceptual history and history of ideas and explains why the method adopted lies between them. On the one hand, a conceptual history is impossible, because the word “recognition” is rarely used in the different cultures under investigation, which employ different words to describe the same relation between two subjects, for instance “amour propre” in French and “sympathy” in English. On the other hand, this book is more than a simple history of ideas, because it compares the different cultures in order to reconstruct one and the same concern, namely how to understand the relations between subjects after the decline of the feudal order, in which these relations were taken as stable and unchangeable.

The introduction outlines the scope of the book, its purpose and research questions. The three regions of investigation – the Sulu Sea, the Strait of Malacca and Indochina − are introduced, and the basis for the comparative research design is explained. A critical discussion of the historiography of piracy in Southeast Asia to date serves to situate the study in the international research frontlines in the field. The dichotomy between the absolutist and relativist perspectives on piracy in Southeast Asia is clarified. The biases and problems of the latter perspective, which currently dominates in the field of research, is discussed at some length. It is concluded that a cross-cultural concept of piracy is both possible and fruitful as a point of departure for research. The historiographic and methodological point of departure for the study, particularly New Imperial History, Connected Histories of Empire and the framework of Concurrences, are introduced along with the main historical sources and disposition of the book.

The chapter gives the background to the main investigation, particularly with regard to how the concept of piracy developed, first in classical Rome and then in Europe during mediaeval times. It is argued that, although there is a long conceptual history of piracy in Europe, the modern understanding of the concept developed mainly during the early modern era in the context of the European overseas expansion. Several empirical examples demonstrate the extent to which early modern European navigators were regarded as pirates in Asia because of their ruthless deployment of sea power in order to obtain economic and political advantages. The establishment of the so-called piratical paradigm in Europe is described, focusing on the notion of pirates as the enemies of mankind and on the cultural fascination for pirates in Europe. The partly corresponding ideas of illicit maritime violence in Asian cultures and languages, including in China, Japan and the Malay world, are also discussed at some length. Finally, it is argued that the second half of the eighteenth century in Europe saw the emergence of an association between piracy and the purported lack of civilisation on the part of certain non-European piratical ‘races’.

The introduction presents the book’s main arguments and historiographical interventions and offers an overview of its methodology and archival sources.