Textual context in the history of political thought and intellectual history

ABSTRACT

We can easily misread historical texts if we take ideas and passages out of their textual contexts. The resulting errors are widespread, possibly even more so than errors through reading ideas and passages out of their historical contexts. Yet the methodological literature stresses the latter and says little about the former. This paper thus theorises the idea of textual context, distinguishes three types of textual context, and asks how we uncover the right textual contexts. I distinguish four kinds of textual-context error, and offer practical tips for avoiding these errors. However, the beating heart of this paper is the history–philosophy debate: in contrast to the prevailing assumption that historical and philosophical analysis are fundamentally different, I show that a commitment to textual context, which should be entirely uncontroversial, also commits one to think philosophically.     

Practicing post‐revisionist history of political thought

The Varieties of British Political Thought, 1500–1800, ed. J. G. A. Pocock with the assistance of Gordon J. Schochet and Lois G. Schwoerer (Cambridge University Press, 1993), x. + 373 pp., £40.00/$59.95 H.B.     

The use and abuse of paradigms in the history of political thought

A paradigm is a methodological device which historians of political thought borrow from the history of science. The initial part of this article examines the views of three distinguished historians of political thought—Sheldon Wolin, Alan Ryan and John Pocock—who have borrowed paradigms. Wolin and Ryan are shown to have confused paradigms with weltanschauungen in such a way as to make the former less useful as methodological devices. Pocock, on the other hand, has been successful in his use of paradigms, though he does not sufficiently recognise their methodological limits. He also raises a conceptual problem. The latter part of this article examines the recent history of science in an attempt to clarify the use of paradigms and their limits.     

萧公权与中国政治思想史研究——基于萧著《中国政治思想史》的分析

本文本"详人之所略,略人之所详"之旨,基于萧公权撰著<中国政治思想史>的背景与史实,结合文本分析,对萧公权与中国政治思想史研究这一主题再作探讨,在三个问题上展开论述:一、萧著的背景与动机;二、萧著的方法及其渊源;三、萧著在学界之反响.     

The Bullion Controversy and the history of political thought: experience,innovation and theory

ABSTRACT

In 1797 the British government relieved the Bank of England of the obligation to pay specie for its notes upon demand; then, after bitter debate and sustained inflation, it restored this burden in 1821. The episode is studied as the “Bullion Controversy”, and it is commonly assigned high significance in the development of monetary theory. Yet the Bank stood as an old target for so-called “country” thought, which suspected commerce of corroding virtue and undermining the proper functions of Parliament. Both the Bank and the Whig regime that created it in 1694 had withstood such attacks, but in the nineteenth century these critical voices were joined by political economists who reworked the existing lines of attack, above all by presenting themselves not as defenders of an ancient virtue but as the champions of a modern, commercial society that was being endangered by the government's and the Bank's ignorance and self-interest. This paper thus examines the Bullion Controversy in relation to the history of political thought, and reveals how the return to convertibility represented an early victory for political economy's self-styled “theorists” in reforming the state's institutions in the nineteenth century.     

丁文江政治思想述论

丁文江对政治有着强烈的兴趣。他一生议政、参政可以分为三个阶段：第一阶段是留学时期,这一时期他喜欢阅读《新民丛报》,与康有为、吴稚晖等人有过来往。第二阶段是在五四时期到1926年底,这时期他与梁启超、胡适等人关系密切,在《努力周报》发表了大量文字,出任淞沪商埠督办公署总办,表现了积极参政的倾向。第三阶段是在1930年代,丁文江在《独立评论》上发表了大量时评政论和旅行游记,充分表达了自己的政治思想。丁文江虽有政治热情,且具行政才干,但却缺乏意识形态和政党的背景,这实际限制了他在政治上的作为。     

Reconstructing and deconstructing Hume's political thought

David Miller, Philosophy and Ideology in Hume's Political Thought, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1985, pp. 218. $15.50 (paper)

Frederick G. Whelan, Order and Artifice in Hume's Political Philosophy, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1985, pp. 393. $US35.00 (cloth)     

The foundations of modern political thought

This paper aims at setting Montesquieu's 1729 sojourn in the Dutch Republic within its specific Dutch context whilst reconsidering the impact this short period may have exerted on his work. Based on a wide variety of Dutch, English and French sources, the article offers a study of Montesquieu's Dutch networks and contacts, a comparative Franco-Dutch approach to taxation and fiscal policy and an insight into the history of the stadholderate under William IV. The main argument made in the paper is two-fold: first, that the Dutch Republic was a mirror Montesquieu held up to the French monarchy, allowing him to put a number of ideas of government to the test; secondly that, owing to the fluctuating nature of Dutch political events between 1729 and 1748, the Dutch model remained somewhat elusive in Montesquieu's broader understanding of the paradigm of republican regimes.