The Pope’s Right to Elect his Successor: The Criterion of Sovereignty?

1991 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. 233-244
Author(s):  
Diana Wood
Keyword(s):  
Seventeenth Century ◽  
Thomas Hobbes ◽  
Perfect Form ◽  
Form Of Government ◽  
The Right

One of the ‘Problems of Sovereignty’ addressed by Michael Wilks in his magisterial study is whether the pope can appoint his own successor.’ It was, of course, a particularly pressing problem for any prince who had no natural heir, either because of his own deliberate celibacy, or, if he had children, because there was no established rule of hereditary succession. In the seventeenth century Thomas Hobbes saw the right to appoint a successor, and thus to perpetuate what he calls the ‘artificial eternity’ of the commonwealth, as an essential attribute of sovereignty: There is no perfect form of government, where the disposing of the succession is not in the present sovereign. For if it be in any other particular man or private assembly, it is in a person subject, and may be assumed by the sovereign at his pleasure; and consequently the right is in himself.’ He also pinpointed the problems which would arise without this attribute: ‘If it be known who have the power to give the sovereignty after his [the ruler’s] death it is known also that the sovereignty was in them before; for none have right to give that which they have not right to possess, and keep to themselves, if they think good.’ Moreover, if the sovereign cannot appoint his successor ‘then is the commonwealth dissolved; and the right is in him that can get it.’

Sovereignty

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Philpott
Keyword(s):  
Seventeenth Century ◽  
Sixteenth Century ◽  
Thomas Hobbes ◽  
Jean Bodin ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Right

Sovereignty has borne too many conflicting meanings over the centuries. Nevertheless, there arguably exists a definition of sovereignty that is flexible enough to accommodate much of the concept's historical diversity yet concrete enough to be meaningful: supreme authority within a territory. Authority—“the right to command and correlatively, the right to be obeyed,” in Robert Paul Wolff's definition—implies that sovereignty is a matter of right or legitimacy, not one of mere power. But authority alone does not specify sovereignty; plenty of holders of authority exist who do not have sovereignty. Another ingredient is crucial: supremacy. The holder of sovereignty's authority is highest and may not be questioned or opposed. Supremacy was stressed by sovereignty's first modern articulators, sixteenth-century French philosopher Jean Bodin and seventeenth-century English philosopher Thomas Hobbes, and has been reflected widely by users of the concept ever since. A final ingredient is territoriality. This is the principle that defines the set of people who live under the holder of sovereignty, or the supreme authority.

Contract

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Felicia Roșu
Keyword(s):  
Seventeenth Century ◽  
Military Aid ◽  
The Right

Chapter 4 focuses on the contracts imposed on rulers in elective monarchies, which made their position on the throne conditional. The Polish-Lithuanian conditions, known as the Henrician articles (or the pacta conventa) were significantly more complex than those used in Transylvania in the 1570s and 1580s; only in the seventeenth century did the latter become similarly elaborate. Moreover, the Transylvanian conditions were mostly negative promises (i.e. to abstain from abusing power or infringing the liberties of citizens), whereas the Polish-Lithuanian ones included positive ones as well (to bring financial, strategic, or military aid, and to resolve certain domestic issues). The chapter analyses the extent to which Stephen Báthory observed his electoral contract during his Transylvanian and Polish-Lithuanian reigns, particularly the interdiction of hereditary succession, religious peace, and the right of disobedience.

Seventeenth-Century Calvinism and Early Enlightenment Thought

2021 ◽  
pp. 375-392
Author(s):  
Aza Goudriaan
Keyword(s):  
Seventeenth Century ◽  
Thomas Hobbes ◽  
John Calvin ◽  
Sensus Divinitatis ◽  
Pierre Bayle ◽  
Philosophical Debates ◽  
Van Til

Analysing a number of interactions between Calvinists and Early Enlightenment philosophers—and the receptions of John Calvin in these—this chapter shows a complex and persistent presence of Calvin and Calvinists in philosophical debates during the early Enlightenment period. Among Calvinists, Descartes found both opponents and followers. Reformed Cartesians have occasionally appealed to Calvin (e.g. on accommodation and the sensus divinitatis), praised the Reformer (Heidanus, Burman), or neglected him (van Til). The philosopher Arnold Geulincx has been protected (Heidanus.) and published (van Til) by Calvinists, before they began to associate him with Spinoza (Tuinman, Andala, Driessen). Thomas Hobbes quoted Calvin incidentally, but Calvinists usually opposed his philosophy. Thus, the jurist Ulrik Huber used Calvin’s teachings on the testimonium Spiritus sancti against Hobbes—an appeal to Calvin that Huber repeated against another philosopher’s claim that reason alone was able to demonstrate the divinity of scripture. In order to refute Spinozists, Reformed minister Carolus Tuinman translated Calvin’s treatise against the libertines (1545). Responding to Huguenot Pierre Bayle, the Lutheran philosopher G. W. Leibniz wrote favourably about Calvin’s teachings on predestination and providence, as he had done also about Calvin’s views on the Eucharist.

Allies in the Cause of Italian Music: Schütz, Prince Johann Georg II and Musical Politics in Dresden

2000 ◽  
Vol 125 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-40
Author(s):  
Mary E. Frandsen
Keyword(s):  
Seventeenth Century ◽  
Collaborative Effort ◽  
Hiring Decisions ◽  
Italian Music ◽  
The Right

In the seventeenth century the process of appointing court musicians was often complicated by struggles between conflicting agendas. Recently discovered letters of Saxon Prince Johann Georg II (1613–80) document the nature of the process in Dresden during the tenure of court Kapellmeister Heinrich Schütz, and the attempts of Schütz and the prince to steer Elector Johann Georg I's hiring decisions in a direction that would further their cause: the cultivation of an awareness of the modern Italian style of singing in the Dresden court musicians. The letters reveal the previously unknown collaborative effort of Schütz and the prince to fill the position of vice-Kapellmeister with the ‘right’ musician (i.e. an Italian or Italian-trained one), and to keep the ‘wrong’ man out of the job. In the course of this enterprise, the prince participated in the negotiations for several appointments, including that of Christoph Bernhard, whom he then sent to a northern court to study with an Italian singer. Although the collaborators' mission ended in failure, the story of their efforts casts light on the musical politicking at a seventeenth-century court and on the implications such campaigns had for the lives of individual musicians.

scholarly journals THE LAST WOLF. THOMAS HOBBES’ PHILOSOPHY OF CRIME AND PUNISHMENT

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 75-127
Author(s):  
Silvia Alves
Keyword(s):  
Political Science ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Legal Theory ◽  
Thomas Hobbes ◽  
Modern Theory ◽  
Judicial Discretion ◽  
Crime And Punishment ◽  
Ex Post ◽  
Ex Post Facto ◽  
The Right

This article draws a reconstruction of Thomas Hobbes’ philosophy of crime and punishment. In Leviathan or Philosophical rudiments (De Cive) political science, legal theory and philosophy of crime and punishment compose a coherent unity. This scenario where power and law emerge allows to erect an extraordinarily modern theory that shelters preference for statutory law and suspicion of judicial discretion; consistency and predictability of the legal system; preventism and utilitarianism on punishments; prohibition of ex post facto laws and, in general, defense of strict legality. Boldness and the disconcerting frankness of Hobbes’ thinking coexist with some defiant antinomies. The duty to obey never eclipses the inalienable right to self-preservation. And the theorist of absolute sovereignty can present himself as an unexpected liberal. But perhaps the most disturbing is the permanent reminder that punishment remains brutal violence. The right to punish and the right to resist are the brutal remains of the state of nature.

scholarly journals Libertinism in English Restoration drama: a cognitive-pragmatic perspective

2019 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Seventeenth Century ◽  
General Public ◽  
Role Models ◽  
Thomas Hobbes ◽  
Focus Of Attention ◽  
Restoration Drama ◽  
English Restoration ◽  
New Type ◽  
English Identity ◽  
Charles Ii

This paper aims to explore LIBERTINISM as a discourse-generative concept of the English Restoration and its manifestations in the 17th century drama. In the focus of attention are: the dramatic discourse of the seventeenth century and social and historical conditions that predetermined the origin and development of libertinism in the Restoration drama. In this article, I argue that during the Restoration LIBERTINISM thrived along with such concepts as EMPIRE, HONOUR, LOVE, MODE, SCIENCE, TRADE, and WIT. It is stated that after years of bans and prohibitions libertinism began to develop as a reaction against an overly religious dominant worldview that was imposed on the English people during the Interregnum. It is confirmed that libertinism was widely disseminated in the play-houses which were reopened by Charles II after almost a twenty-year break. In this article, I argue that libertinism takes its ideas from the teachings of René Descartes and Thomas Hobbes; it viewed as extreme hedonism and rejection of all moral and religious dogmas. Charles II himself set an example which was emulated by his courtiers and therefore libertine modes of behaviour were demonstrated to the general public as role models by the aristocracy which regained power with the Restoration. I also claim that as during the English Restoration many play wrights either were libertines or wrote about libertine behaviour and adventures in their plays, the dramatic discourse of the seventeenth century gave rise to a new type of English identity–the English Restoration libertine-aristocrat. Accordingly, the dramatic discourse and dramatic performances of the seventeenth century were the means of establishment, reiteration, and dissemination of the libertine ethos.

scholarly journals Making the States’ Translation (1637): Orthodox Calvinist Biblical Criticism in the Dutch Republic

2017 ◽  
Vol 110 (3) ◽  
pp. 440-463
Author(s):  
Dirk van Miert
Keyword(s):  
Seventeenth Century ◽  
Thomas Hobbes ◽  
Dutch Republic ◽  
Biblical Text ◽  
Biblical Criticism ◽  
New Science ◽  
The Past ◽  
Biblical Scholarship ◽  
The Enlightenment ◽  
History Of

In the study of the history of biblical scholarship, there has been a tendency among historians to emphasize biblical philology as a force which, together with the new philosophy and the new science of the seventeenth century, caused the erosion of universal scriptural authority from the mid-seventeenth century onwards. A case in point is Jonathan Israel's impressive account of how biblical criticism in the hands of Spinoza paved the way for the Enlightenment. Others who have argued for a post-Spinozist rise of biblical criticism include Frank Manuel, Adam Sutcliffe, and Travis Frampton. These scholars have built upon longer standing interpretations such as those of Hugh Trevor-Roper and Paul Hazard. However, scholars in the past two decades such as Anthony Grafton, Scott Mandelbrote and Jean-Louis Quantin have altered the picture of an exegetical revolution inaugurated by Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679), Spinoza (1632–1677), and Richard Simon (1638–1712). These heterodox philosophers in fact relied on philological research that had been largely developed in the first half of the seventeenth century. Moreover, such research was carried out by scholars who had no subversive agenda. This is to say that the importance attached to a historical and philological approach to the biblical text had a cross-confessional appeal, not just a radical-political one.

Rights, Liberties, Freedoms: A Reappraisal

1963 ◽  
Vol 57 (4) ◽  
pp. 841-854 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carl J. Friedrich
Keyword(s):  
Thomas Hobbes ◽  
Natural Rights ◽  
The Self ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
Bodily Harm ◽  
Pursuit Of Happiness ◽  
Right To Life ◽  
Governmental Power ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Right

When President Roosevelt proclaimed the “Four Freedoms” in 1941, he accepted a new conception of human rights far removed from the natural rights of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The conception of rights which inspired the British Bill of Rights (1689), the Declaration of Independence (1776) and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen (1789) is grounded in simple natural law notions. Man was believed to have a fixed and unalterable nature, to be endowed with reason, which gave him certain rights without which he ceased to be a human being. These natural rights, summed up in the Lockean formula of “life, liberty and property” (later broadened to include the pursuit of happiness), were largely concerned with protecting the individual person against governmental power. Each man was seen as entitled to a personal sphere of autonomy, more especially of religious conviction and property; the inner and the outer man in his basic self-realization and self-fulfillment. These rights depended in turn upon the still more crucial right to life-that is to say, to the self itself in terms of physical survival and protection against bodily harm. This right to life was recognized even by absolutists, like Thomas Hobbes. It was believed immutable, inalienable, inviolable. Locke exclaimed at one point that these rights no one had the power to part with, and hence no government could ever acquire the right to violate them.

The Ryukyu Kingdom under the Bakuhan System

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mamoru Akamine
Keyword(s):  
Seventeenth Century ◽  
Qing Dynasty ◽  
The Qing Dynasty ◽  
Tax Assessment ◽  
System P ◽  
The Right

Toyotomi Hideyoshi moved to unify Japan and gave the Shimazu clan in Satsuma the right (not acknowledged by Ryukyu) to control Ryukyu. Satsuma successfully invaded Ryukyu in 1609, forcing King Shō Nei to accompany them to Edo to honor the Tokugawa Shogun, who agreed to allow the Ryukyu royal government to continue functioning as is, asking them to mediate in Japan-China relations. China balked and reduced Ryukyu trade missions drastically. In early 1600s, Tokugawa fear of Christianity led to isolationist sakoku policy; Ryukyu included. From 1630s, Ryukyu was subject to Japan’s rice tax assessment, as part of Satsuma. From 1630s, Ryukyu begins to send periodic envoys to Edo (Edo-nobori, or Edo-dachi). Satsuma tightened control over Ryukyu’s trade activities. This chapter examines the complicated trade strategies that developed between Japan, Satsuma, Ryukyu, and China. With the Qing Dynasty in the mid-seventeenth century, Ryukyu tribute envoys also become intelligence “agents” for Satsuma.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document