History of Political Thought

Volume XXII Issue 1 (Spring 2001)

HPT home page
Imprint Academic home page
  • F. Peonidis, The Relation between the Nicomachean Ethics and the Politics Revisited   abstract
  • L. Hill, The First Wave of Feminism: Were the Stoics Feminists?   abstract
  • C. Fasolt, Voluntarism and Conciliarism in the Work of Francis Oakley   abstract
  • D. Parnham, Politics Spun out of Theology and Prophecy: Sir Henry Vane on the Spiritual Environment of Public Power   abstract
  • L.A. Swaine, The Secret Chain: Justice and Self-Interest in Montesquieu’s Persian Letters   abstract
  • A.J. Draper, William Eden and Leniency in Punishment   abstract
  • S. Hazareesingh, An Intellectual Founder of the Third Republic: The Neo-Kantian Republicanism of Jules Barni (1818–78)   abstract
  • A. Gibson, Searching for the Soul of the American Amalgam: A Reply to Paul Carrese   abstract
  • Book Reviews


  • Selected Abstracts

    WILLIAM EDEN AND LENIENCY IN PUNISHMENT

    Anthony J. Draper, Bentham Project, University College London, Gower Street, London, WC1E 6BT. Email: a.draper@ucl.ac.uk

    The distinctive role played by William Eden in the penal reform debate of the late eighteenth century is examined and his emphasis on leniency in the exercise of punishment is identified. Eden is found to have introduced the notion of ‘public virtue’ into a rights theory paradigm and the implications of this development are explored. Eden’s contribution to English penal theory is illustrated by a comparison of his position with those of other leading theorists of the period, and the extent to which Eden’s ideas affected English practices of punishment is assessed.

    VOLUNTARISM AND CONCILIARISM IN THE WORK OF FRANCIS OAKLEY

    Constantin Fasolt , Dept. of History, The University of Chicago, 1126 East 59th Street, Chicago IL 60637, USA.
    Email: icon@midway.uchicago.edu

    Francis Oakley has devoted much of his scholarly effort to elaborating three claims about the conciliar theory made early in the last century by John Neville Figgis: that it was rooted in secular precedents (false, as shown by Brian Tierney); that it exercised a lasting influence on early modern European political thought (true); and that conciliar thinkers transformed principles of medieval constitutionalism into political theory properly speaking (also true). Thanks in large measure to Oakley’s work, and in spite of whatever unanswered questions may remain, the ‘road from Constance to 1688’ is now securely mapped across the landscape of early modern political thought.


    Voluntarism occupies a less prominent but more fundamental place in Oakley’s writings, because it posed a challenge to the arguments with which conciliar theorists aimed to establish a constitution for the church. They met the challenge with the distinction between God’s absolute and ordinary, or ordained, power. This distinction is fundamental to Oakley’s work in a double sense: it clarifies a central issue in the history of European thought; but it also helps to understand the point of his investigations into that history. The point is not to trump papal absolutism with the ace of conciliar supremacy, but to trump all forms of dogmatism by asserting ‘the necessity of admitting, and with full candor, the historicity, the relativity, the reformability of all doctrinal pronouncements’.

    SEARCHING FOR THE SOUL OF THE AMERICAN AMALGAM: A REPLY TO PAUL CARRESE

    Alan Gibson, St Ambrose University, 518 West Locust Street, Davenport, IA 52803, USA.  Email: agibson@saunix.sau.edu

    Professor Carrese’s constructive and insightful critique of my article ‘Ancients, Moderns and Americans: The Republicanism-Liberalism Revisited’ raises four points of disagreement between us. These include, first, Carrese’s contention that I have improperly ignored the influence of Montesquieu’s political thought, Protestant Christianity, and classic common-law thinking on the political thought of the American Founders; second, the question of how far the Founders sought to develop the moral character of the citizenry directly through constitutions and laws, especially acts designed to promote religious belief; and third, Carrese’s argument that scholars should not follow Rogers Smith in tracing out the role of illiberal ideologies in the American Founding. Finally, in addition to disagreeing about these substantive issues, Carrese and I also disagree about the methodological question of how the study of the political thought of the American Founders should be conducted. Let us consider each of these points in turn.

    AN INTELLECTUAL FOUNDER OF THE THIRD REPUBLIC: THE NEO-KANTIAN REPUBLICANISM OF JULES BARNI (1818–78)

    Sudhir Hazareesingh, Balliol College, Oxford, OX1 3BJ. Email: sudhir.hazareesingh@balliol.ox.ac.uk

    The Neo-Kantian political thought of Jules Barni illustrates the continuing strength of idealist philosophical traditions in France during the second half of the nineteenth century. Barni’s years as an exile in Geneva, when he was an active militant in the cause of international peace, also highlight the importance of exogenous influences on French republicanism in the era of the Second Empire and early Third Republic. Finally, Barni’s political writings underline that republican citizenship was not formulated simply by celebrating the national myths of the Jacobin state, but also drew heavily on the republican commitment to local (especially municipal) politics.

    THE FIRST WAVE OF FEMINISM: WERE THE STOICS FEMINISTS?

    Lisa Hill, Political Science Program, The Research School of Social Sciences, Australian National University, Canberra ACT 0200, Australia. Email: lhill@coombs.anu.edu.au

    The Hellenistic Schools of Epicureanism, Cynicism and Stoicism are considered to constitute the first, albeit modest, wave of feminism. But the question: ‘Were the Stoics Feminists?’ has attracted little attention due to a paucity of available evidence. What this paper attempts is a comprehensive treatment of the subject. In particular it addresses two distinct claims that have been made about the Stoic attitude to women. The first claim (advanced by Sarah Pomeroy) challenges the view that the Stoics were thoroughgoing feminists. The second (advanced by C.E. Manning) is that, given the Stoic fixation on social duty, women’s relegation to the domestic sphere is a consistent Stoic position. It is argued that Stoicism was fundamentally committed to the emancipation of women even though many of its proponents were inconsistent feminists. This inconsistency put them at odds with Stoicism’s avowed mission to provide a critique of social convention and to promote the ideals of the cosmopolis.


    POLITICS SPUN OUT OF THEOLOGY AND PROPHECY: SIR HENRY VANE ON THE SPIRITUAL ENVIRONMENT OF PUBLIC POWER

    David Parnham, 39 Cawkwell Street, Malvern, VIC 3144, Australia.  Email: d.parnham@law.unimelb.edu. au

    Sir Henry Vane the younger was highly critical of Oliver Cromwell’s ecclesiastical policy. The article explores the idioms in which Vane conducted his attack on Cromwell, and shows how Vane spun a conception of both the politics of the present and the politics of the future out of various fibres of religious discourse. Vane cultivated a theologically based doctrine of liberty of conscience, and thus insisted that there were significant reasons of a religious nature for limiting magisterial power. Thomas Hobbes and Richard Baxter, among others, thought otherwise, and the article presents Vane as a contributor to a robust mid-seventeenth-century debate.

    THE RELATION BETWEEN THE NICOMACHEAN ETHICS AND THE POLITICS REVISITED

    Filimon Peonidis, Department of Philosophy, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, GR 54006, Greece. Email: peonidis@edlit.auth.gr

    It is argued that from a parallel reading of the Nicomachean Ethics and the Politics we can reconstruct a sketch of a systematic moral inquiry consisting of the following basic tenets: (a) each citizen should be concerned with the achievement of his own eudaimonia to the extent possible by cultivating the necessary character traits, following the counsels of practical wisdom and being engaged in the proper activities; (b) the pursuit of individual eudaimonia promotes at the same time collective eudaimonia, that is the good of the city; (c) the above relation can be conceived only by the supremely virtuous politicians of (at least) the ideal city who undertake the obligation to coordinate, uphold, enhance and secure — through various policies — the parallel and consistent achievement of both individual and collective good. This moral picture differs significantly from the one we extract if we confine ourselves to the Nicomachean Ethics and appears to be in line with our conception of a moral theory.

    THE SECRET CHAIN: JUSTICE AND SELF-INTEREST IN MONTESQUIEU’S PERSIAN LETTERS

    Lucas A. Swaine, Gifford Research Fellow in Natural Theology, St Mary’s College, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, Fife, KY16 9JU. Email: las12@st-andrews.ac.uk

    Montesquieu’s Persian Letters has long been thought to conceal a secret chain uniting the various letters which comprise the work. An examination of the historical context of the Persian Letters, the characters’ remarks on justice and self- interest, and the important literary techniques that Montesquieu employs, helps to bring the secret chain to light. The work’s letters are written and sequenced to show how self-interest can overawe justice, emphasizing the need for fair and reasonable third party involvement in order to achieve justice in human affairs. Montesquieu calls upon readers to serve as the final link in this chain, prompting the reader ultimately to consolidate the Persian Letters’ treatment of politics, philosophy and morality.



    HPT home page
    Imprint Academic home page