Search results

Anti-democracy in England 1570-1642 is a detailed study of anti-democratic ideas in early modern England. By examining the rich variety of debates about democracy that took place between 1570 and 1642, it shows the key importance anti-democratic language held in the late Tudor and early Stuart periods.

'Anti-democracy in England 1570-1642' is a detailed study of anti-democratic ideas in early modern England. By examining the rich variety of debates about democracy that took place between 1570 and 1642, it shows the key importance anti-democratic language held in the late Tudor and early Stuart periods.

Looks at one of the most unpopular and criticised thinkers in the history of political thought, to provide an illuminating and innovative picture of Sir Robert Filmer (1588-1653) and patriarchalism. This thoroughly researched work will appeal to all those interested in early modern politics and ideas

Abstract
Well-known for his work on absolutism, divine right theory, and his contextual reading of Hobbes' ideas, Sommerville also published successful critical editions of Sir Robert Filmer and King James vi and I's political writing. Sommerville's engagement in key historiographical debates on early- modern British history, involving "opposing camps" of revisionists and post-revisionists, is less explored. Here, I focus on the question whether pre-Civil War England was immune to ideological conflict or, instead, featured a confrontation between King and Parliament based on ideas of power, liberty and obedience. I also highlight the continued relevance of Sommerville's innovative account of English political thought as deeply shaped by European theories. His work reminds us of the role of the history of political thought in rectifying false claims and unchecked opinions, so commonly expounded in our divided world. In conclusion, I advance my own critical interpretation of Sommerville's views on absolutism and patriarchalism.

This article examines the work of the intellectual historian and critic Stefan Collini (1947–). It illustrates his methodological approach to the study of history; traces the unexpected similarities between his intellectual practice and that of cultural critics as diverse as Matthew Arnold and William Empson; points to the differences in content and vision informing his manifold scholarly pursuits and those of other intellectual historians (e.g. Skinner) as well as critics (e.g. Mulhern and Eagleton); and levels some criticism at his writings. Specific attention is given to the centrality of cadence, congeniality, irony and sympathy, as well as to the function of the intellectual portrait in his narrative. The article's main claim is that Collini's history writing is better understood as the embodiment of the activity of the intellectual historian as critic. Situated within a broad range of different historical and critical practices, Collini's own practice is thoroughly analyzed both for its intrinsic value and for providing an original picture of the activity generally referred to as "intellectual history."

This essay closely examines the highly contested but widely employed historiographical category 'absolutism'. Why are scholars so divided on whether it is even legitimate to use the term and, if they agree to do so, why are they still much at odds in explaining what it is? What are the main historiographical currents in the study of absolutism? Is it the same thing to speak of absolutism in regard to the practices of early modern European monarchies and with reference to the political ideas of so-called absolutist theorists? By addressing these questions through the methodology of intellectual history, this essay provides a comprehensive account of debates on absolutism and, at the same time, suggests that further work needs to be carried out on its theoretical aspects. In this respect, the author will propose a series of key ideas and principles which are meant to encapsulate the core of an early modern doctrine of absolutist monarchical sovereignty. It will also be argued that, when studying political thought, the term 'absolutism' might be abandoned in favour of the plural 'absolutisms' as a better way of understanding the past, its languages, opinions, people. In so doing, a thorough analysis of what political absolutism(s) is will be set forth, and a series of more general considerations on history-writing will also be advanced. [Copyright Elsevier Ltd.]