Seventeenth-Century French Political Thought - Nannerl O. Keohane: Philosophy and the State in France: The Renaissance to the Enlightenment. (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1980. Pp. 501 + xii. $30.00.)

1982 ◽  
Vol 44 (3) ◽  
pp. 461-464
Author(s):  
David Lewis Schaefer
Author(s):  
Alexander B. Haskell

The epilogue glances forward to the imperial crisis of the 1760s when colonial politicians like the Virginian burgess Richard Bland sought to reconstruct the circumstances by which the Renaissance empire gave rise to colonies like Virginia that took for granted their substantive civil integrity in relation to the state. Bland was sufficiently a product of the Enlightenment era and its own embrace of the Hobbesian theory of state sovereignty that he struggled to understand fully how such colonial commonwealths came into being. Yet, he grasped much about the Christian humanist logic on which Virginians had defined their polity, and he had no doubt that the British American empire's current constitutional arrangements were incomprehensible except in relation to English colonization's sixteenth- and seventeenth-century beginnings.


2021 ◽  
pp. 56-91
Author(s):  
Ian Ward

This is the first of three chapters which focus, in their different ways, on the writing of history in contemporary theatre. This chapter concentrates on two ‘history’ plays written by Caryl Churchill during the 1970s; Light Shining in Buckinghamshire and Vinegar Tom. Churchill emerged as one of the most influential voices in radical British theatre during the closing decades of the last century. Both plays were set in the mid-seventeenth-century, but were written to resonate with themes familiar in modern legal and political thought. The title of the first play is taken from a Leveller tract published in the second part of the 1640s. Churchill uses it to explore the state of radical politics in later twentieth-century Britain. The second play, Vinegar Tom, is a contribution to a distinctive sub-genre of ‘witchcraft’ plays, which use the ‘crime’ of witchcraft as a vehicle for revisiting the relation of law and gender in modern society.


2013 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 83-117 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marinos Sariyannis

It can be argued that the late seventeenth century marks the transition of the Ottoman entity into an early modern state, with one of its main features identified as the distinction between the ruler and the state apparatus. The paper aims to explore whether, when and how such a process reflected in contemporary political thought. It analyzes the ways Ottoman elite authors represented society vis-à-vis the sultan; also, the development of the notion of “state” in the same authors and how it came to be considered different from that of the “ruler”.


Author(s):  
Paul Sagar

What is the modern state? Conspicuously undertheorized in recent political theory, this question persistently animated the best minds of the Enlightenment. Recovering David Hume and Adam Smith's underappreciated contributions to the history of political thought, this book considers how, following Thomas Hobbes's epochal intervention in the mid-seventeenth century, subsequent thinkers grappled with explaining how the state came into being, what it fundamentally might be, and how it could claim rightful authority over those subject to its power. Hobbes has cast a long shadow over Western political thought, particularly regarding the theory of the state. This book shows how Hume and Smith, the two leading lights of the Scottish Enlightenment, forged an alternative way of thinking about the organization of modern politics. They did this in part by going back to the foundations: rejecting Hobbes's vision of human nature and his arguments about our capacity to form stable societies over time. In turn, this was harnessed to a deep reconceptualization of how to think philosophically about politics in a secular world. The result was an emphasis on the “opinion of mankind,” the necessary psychological basis of all political organization. Demonstrating how Hume and Smith broke away from Hobbesian state theory, the book suggests ways in which these thinkers might shape how we think about politics today, and in turn how we might construct better political theory.


2017 ◽  
Vol 71 (1) ◽  
pp. 115-126 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick Peel

That the “state” and the “people” are antonyms of American political thought is a widely held assumption. This essay argues that it is a mistake—Americans early in their thinking about politics distinguished the state from government and defined the state as the people themselves. Building on a deep reservoir of political thought pioneered by seventeenth-century theorists, Americans believed that to raise questions about the state was to inquire about the legitimacy of governmental action. The essay has three parts. It begins by explicating Quentin Skinner’s recent research on the concept of the state, supplemented by the work of other scholars, to apply that research to the American context. The essay then turns to a discussion of the concept of “the people” in the American context to orient the final section of the paper. Finally, the paper explicates James Wilson and St. George Tucker’s influential and rival populist theories of the American state. The overall aim of the essay is to stretch our political imagination and thus help us begin to reimagine the concept of the democratic state in more fruitful ways.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document