Repacifying the polity: the responses of Hobbes and Harrington to the ‘crisis of the common law’

Burgess, Glenn

doi:10.1017/cbo9780511522550.011

Cited by 28 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The historian Glenn Burgess finds Walwyn persuading Lilburne, in 1645, to 'give up his reliance upon the ancient constitution' and 'appeal instead to 'Reason, Sense and the Common Law of Equitie and Justice'. 210 Common equity here seems to chime with (or above) 'common law' but also to aim at a common sensibility beyond the entrenched religious division that saturated the politics of the period. 211 The qualifier 'common' remains largely specific to the Levellers at this time, one exception being the puritan preacher John Goodwin, a participant in the Putney debates and friend of Lilburne's, who, tellingly, defended the execution of the king thus: '[t]he laws of nature and of common equity are the foundation of all laws (truly and properly so called)'.…”

Section: London 1649mentioning

confidence: 99%

Equity before ‘Equity’

Humphreys

2022

Modern Law Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The notion of 'equity' is undergoing conceptual repositioning in international law today, embracing individuals as well as states and gaining an association with human rights and the politics of protest. In the context of these developments, the present paper enquires into the premodern roots of this ancient and rich term through three historical vignettes: first, the emergence of aequitas in Roman law -as a source of law anchored in analogy and empathy -and in particular its relevance to the ambiguous status of slaves; second, the importance of 'natural equity' to the consolidation of 'natural rights' during the Franciscan poverty debate in 14th century Europe, and finally, 'common equity' in the rights-based constitutional order proposed by the Levellers in 1640s England. In its root sense, I conclude, what we might call 'radical equity' has historically lent itself to trenchant critique of the law, centred on the individual as subject of right.Something interesting is happening to equity. Traditionally, in international law, 'equity' has referred to relations between countries, notably regarding land and sea boundaries and resource access. But recently the term has come to refer also to the treatment of individuals. This trend is visible in international climate law -where a 'principle' of equity initially referred, in 1992, not only to inter-state relations but also to 'present and future generations of humankind', and the 2015 Paris Agreement later extolling 'intergenerational equity' as well as 'equitable access' to 'sustainable development and eradication of poverty'. 1 But a similar trend has long been apparent at the World Health Organisation, where equity has been a key term of art since at least the 1980s, concerned with 'systematic differences in health status between different socioeconomic groups', 2 and also in more recent international proclamations such as the 2015 Sustainable Development Goals, which speak of 'equitable access' to education, drinking water, sanitation and hygiene for 'all people'. Beyond this again, 'equity' has come to inform global-level protests targeting inequity: ex- * Associate Professor, School of Law, London School of Economics and Political Science. My thanks to Martin Loughlin, Susan Marks, and the anonymous reviewers for helpful, and in some cases indispensable, comments. Any mistakes are my own.

show abstract

Section: London 1649mentioning

confidence: 99%

Equity before ‘Equity’

Humphreys

2022

Modern Law Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Każdoczesny władca był następcą Zdobywcy, a lordowie byli dla Lilburne'a następcami jego rycerzy panującymi nad ludem Anglii za pomocą miecza. Parlamenty zaś to wspólnicy królów w zniewoleniu wolnych Anglików 28 . Ich spojrzenie na historię było zatem dalekie od tego, jakie prezentowali bardziej konserwatywni adwersarze, widzące ciągłość pomiędzy przeszłością a teraźniejszością, która w ten sposób znajdowała usprawiedliwienie 29 .…”

Section: IIIunclassified

John Lilburne – człowiek, który za bardzo uwierzył w wolność

Tulejski

2018

SPE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Lewellerzy byli ruchem politycznym działającym podczas angielskiej wojny domowej, który opowiadał się za radykalnymi reformami politycznymi, ponieważ ich Agreement of the People zawierały prawdopodobnie pierwsze nowożytne idee demokratyczne formalnie opracowane i zaadoptowane przez ruch polityczny. Jednym z liderów lewellerów i wpływowym agitatorem politycznym był John Lilburne, oficer Armii Nowego Wzoru, znany również jako Freeborn John. W niniejszym artykule autor próbuje z jego mów, listów i manifestów politycznych zrekonstruować spójną doktrynę Lilburne'a. Dowodzi, że myśl Freeborn Johna jest zakorzeniona w baptystycznej teologii, ponieważ jego argument społeczny i polityczny jest sekularyzacją baptystycznej koncepcji genezy kościoła. Z faktu, że władza kongregacji wywodziła się z równości i odpowiedzialności wiernych pod władzą Chrystusa, że w Jezusie Chrystusie wszyscy ludzie są równi i każdy jest wolny w relacji z Bogiem, i wyznaje swą wiarę dobrowolnie, Lilburne wywodzi uniwersale i naturalne uprawnienia, konwencjonalne pochodzenie społeczeństwa, rozszerzenie praw wyborczych, powszechną równość wobec prawa i tolerancję religijną. Słowa kluczowe: Lilburne; lewellerzy; angielska wojna domowa wstęp Gdy spadła głowa Karola I i wkrótce formalnie zniesiono monarchię, przed królobójcami stanęło zadanie stworzenia nowego ładu instytucjonalnego, który zastąpić miał znienawidzoną tyranię. Lecz jak pokazują rewolucje, ponieważ o wiele łatwiej jest niszczyć niż budować, w obozie zwycięzców dały o sobie znać fundamentalne różnice zdań. To, nad czym trzeba było przejść do porządku dziennego, gdy żył tyran, teraz wybuchło ze zdwojoną siłą, sprawiając,

show abstract

“…Fukuda (1997) more or less describes Harrington's solution, but incorrectly presents it as the answer to a different problem – namely, the feasibility of mixed government. Burgess (1998) correctly articulates the main problem as being the conceptual possibility of an empire of laws, but without discovering Harrington's solution. Hampton (1994) discusses both the conceptual problem and its solution very nicely, but apparently without being aware of Harrington's contribution to either.…”

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…14For further discussion, see Hampton (1994); Burgess (1998). On the struggles of the parliamentary tract writers to extricate themselves from this conundrum, see Franklin (1978, esp.…”

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Harrington's Empire of Law

Lovett

2011

Political Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nearly every reader of James Harrington has taken his theory that property is the foundation of government to be his central and most enduring contribution to political thought. Operating within this standard reading, most of the extensive literature on Harrington has focused on derivative issues, such as the accuracy and depth of his economic reading of English history, or the extent to which his mechanistic account of political institutions displaced more traditional republican accounts of civic virtue. But the standard reading is incomplete. For example, it is puzzling on this reading why Harrington should single out Thomas Hobbes as his chief opponent. To demonstrate the incompleteness of the standard reading, this article will examine a relatively neglected aspect of Oceana: namely, the sharp contrast drawn throughout the work between those communities organized as an 'empire of laws' and those organized as an 'empire of men'. As it turns out, Harrington strikes upon a deep problem, not noticed by previous authors in the classical republican tradition, but nevertheless lying at the very conceptual core of republican theory. Examining this problem in detail is both interesting in its own right, in so far as it sheds light on some central issues in republican theory, and in the renewed historical appreciation it brings to our reading of Harrington as well.

show abstract

Repacifying the polity: the responses of Hobbes and Harrington to the ‘crisis of the common law’

Cited by 28 publications

References 0 publications

Equity before ‘Equity’

Equity before ‘Equity’

John Lilburne – człowiek, który za bardzo uwierzył w wolność

Harrington's Empire of Law

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About