DOCSLIB.ORG

A Study of Thomas Hobbes's Post-Restoration Dialogues

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Study of Thomas Hobbes's Post-Restoration Dialogues Loyola University Chicago Loyola eCommons Dissertations Theses and Dissertations 2010 Doubting Thomas: A Study of Thomas Hobbes's Post-Restoration Dialogues Adam George Yoksas Loyola University Chicago Follow this and additional works at: https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_diss Part of the Political Science Commons Recommended Citation Yoksas, Adam George, "Doubting Thomas: A Study of Thomas Hobbes's Post-Restoration Dialogues" (2010). Dissertations. 221. https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_diss/221 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses and Dissertations at Loyola eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Loyola eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License. Copyright © 2010 Adam George Yoksas LOYOLA UNIVERSITY CHICAGO DOUBTING THOMAS: A STUDY OF THOMAS HOBBES’S POST-RESTORATION DIALOGUES A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY PROGRAM IN POLITICAL SCIENCE BY ADAM GEORGE YOKSAS CHICAGO, ILLINOIS AUGUST 2010 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS A debt is owed to the many people who have inspired and shaped me, and in turn, inspired and shaped this work. I would first like to thank my dissertation committee for their service and insight: three men who deserve to be acknowledged individually as well. This study would not be possible without the piercing logic and high standards of my dissertation director John Danford. His thorough consideration of my many thoughts was instrumental in shaping not only this study, but the mind that produced it. His precise suggestions and care in his critiques helped to bring this study to completion. Equally important to me are the efforts of Claudio Katz, the man who first welcomed me to Loyola University Chicago. Throughout the years of my study, he was and continues to be many things for me, a wise tutor, a compassionate listener, a meticulous critic, and a good friend. Few I have encountered in my life to this point have fulfilled so many roles and, as time passes, I recognize his impact in my development as a complete academician. His presence is hopefully evident throughout this study. I would also like to thank Robert Mayer for his commitment to this project. Perhaps the greatest lesson I have learned from him is this: if political philosophy is to be truly valuable, it must strive to constantly make itself relevant to political practice. His office door was always open to me, never letting the business of academic life interfere with the life of the mind. iii I must also mention those other scholars who have inspired and influenced this work. I would be remiss if I did not thank two scholars from Northwestern University, Keith Topper and Dilip Gaonkar, for inviting me to the Center for Global Communication and Culture Summer Institute on Rhetoric and Political Thought in 2007 and again in 2008. I was introduced to two scholars through this program that deeply influenced my approach to this study, Kirstie McClure and Victoria Silver. I found Kirstie McClure’s overall approach to studying the moderns extremely intriguing and her comments on my initial observations of Hobbes were very useful in helping me to approach Hobbes from a new direction. Victoria Silver’s interest in my study was invaluable to me, and her generosity with her time and wisdom over the few days we spent together in Evanston were crucial to the production of this manuscript. The student participants of the Summer Institute at Northwestern have my deepest gratitude as well. Though there are too many to be listed here, the perspectives and ideas they brought to the study of political thought both challenged and enlightened me over the brief time we shared together. In addition to the directors, lecturers, and participants of the Summer Institute, I would like to thank the participants of two panels, conducted in 2008 and 2009, on Hobbes’s place in the history of political thought. Much of chapter IV was delivered as a conference paper at the Midwest Political Science Association meeting in 2008, and I would like to thank David Lay Williams for giving me valuable comments and the encouragement to pursue Hobbes’s thoughts on political skill. When I returned to the Midwest Political Science Association the following year, I presented a paper on Hobbes’s use of equity. Though the material presented there is not included in this iv manuscript, I would like to thank Gregory Bruce Smith and Laura Ephraim for giving me valuable insight into Hobbes’s political thought. I would also like to thank the other scholars who have conversed with me about various tangential issues relevant to this study. Thomas Engeman, Raymond Tatalovich, and Alan Gitelson are just some of the people who helped refine my thinking, but this list is by no means complete. It also includes my students at Loyola University Chicago. I have and continue to be inspired by them, and I am grateful for the contribution they make to my studies and the joy they bring to my life. Additionally, I would like to thank all the other people who have helped me in various ways over the last several years both inside and outside of the academy. Clay Yoksas, Char and Dick Boyell, Chris Jaffe, Sarah Skowronski, Nelson Wainwright, Tim Yetzina, Megan Sholar, Jason Reifler, John Allen Williams, Peter Sanchez, Mary Frances Lebamoff, Diane Wawrejko, Michael George McGettigan, Steven Hadesman, Teresa Negrini, Piotr Paradowski, and Meridith Bell have all played important roles in my life at the time this manuscript was being produced. I would be remiss not to mention them. Finally, I would like to thank my parents, George and Diana Yoksas, for all of their love, encouragement, and support. v For David S. Lindberg PREFACE The seed of this project was planted in December of 2005. One month earlier, I was presenting a paper on Reinhold Niebuhr’s normative contribution to international relations at the annual meeting of the Illinois Political Science Association. My plan was to follow up on my initial observations and write a work of some length on the subject. Between November and December, I had amassed a considerable bibliography of works by and about Niebuhr, as I hoped to propose a dissertation about him after submitting final grades for the fall term. In my preparations, I came across an intellectual biography of Niebuhr entitled The Constant Dialogue by Richard Halliwell. Niebuhr had often been criticized for being an inconsistent thinker who held various and even contradictory opinions throughout his career. Yet this was not seen by Halliwell as a defect of Niebuhr, but Niebuhr’s strength as a theologian and as a critic. Niebuhr’s willingness to consider perspectives other than his own helped him to respond to changing circumstances. Given that Niebuhr’s career spanned two world wars, a cold war, a civil rights movement, and the general instability that occurred in American life in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, Niebuhr witnessed more change than most philosophers. This made me consider what a good philosopher should do. Should a good philosopher doggedly defend his position, however untenable? Or should a good philosopher pursue the truth in light of new evidence, even when it contradicts his philosophy? vii I happened to reexamine my copy of Hobbes’s Behemoth to prepare my students’ final exam. Although I had read Hobbes’s Epistle Dedicatory letter to Lord Arlington several times, I read it differently this time. I realized that the statements Hobbes made in that Epistle Dedicatory were to be taken seriously, for they contained claims that seemed to propose a different sort of philosophy than the one I had previously attributed to Hobbes. It occurred to me that what I was reading was not the Hobbes I was taught, but a different Hobbes, and one that I would have never considered had I been operating under the assumption that a good philosopher should never write anything that even remotely challenges his previous statements. Hobbes, like Niebuhr, had experienced change throughout his career. Specifically, within Hobbes’s own lifetime, England went from a relatively stable commonwealth under James I, to a tumultuous commonwealth plagued by civil war, to another relatively stable monarchy under Charles II. At that point, I knew that I had to explore this Hobbes from Behemoth’s Epistle Dedicatory. In a sense, the subject chose me more that I chose the subject, simply because it was too important not to consider. This lends credibility to Max Weber’s notion that ideas have a volition all their own, and they pursue their authors more than their authors pursue them. A. Yoksas March 1, 2010 viii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii PREFACE vii ABSTRACT xi CHAPTER I: HOBBES’S DIALOGUES AS A RE-EVALUATION 1 Section 1: Hobbes’s Behemoth and the Problem of Good Administration 2 Section 2: Research Question 19 Section 3: Literature Survey 23 Section 4: Scope and Relevance 34 CHAPTER II: INTERPRETING HOBBES’S DIALOGUES 46 Section 1: Hobbes’s Turn to Dialectic 46 Section 2: Hobbes’s Dialectical Style 69 CHAPTER III: THE PROBLEM OF SCIENCE TEACHING TRUTH TO POWER 83 Section 1: Hobbes’s Scientific Idealism 83 Section 2: Science in Behemoth’s First Dialogue 88 Section 3: Science in Behemoth’s Second Dialogue 97 Section 4: Science in Behemoth’s Third Dialogue 107 Section 5: Science in Behemoth’s Fourth Dialogue 110 CHAPTER IV: THE PROBLEM
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Explanations and Justifications of War in the British Kingdoms in the Seventeenth Century
    Quidditas Volume 41 Article 7 2020 Explanations and Justifications of arW in the British Kingdoms in the Seventeenth Century Roger B. Manning Cleveland State University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/rmmra Part of the Comparative Literature Commons, History Commons, Philosophy Commons, and the Renaissance Studies Commons Recommended Citation Manning, Roger B. (2020) "Explanations and Justifications of arW in the British Kingdoms in the Seventeenth Century," Quidditas: Vol. 41 , Article 7. Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/rmmra/vol41/iss1/7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Quidditas by an authorized editor of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Quidditas 41 (2020) 134 Explanations and Justifications of War in the British Kingdoms in the Seventeenth Century Roger B. Manning Cleveland State University The influence of Machiavelli on English and Scottish political discourse can be detected not just on politicians and military men, but also among clerics and the well educated elite– even when they do not cite him directly. In England and Scotland, as in mainland European countries, Machiavellian discourse placed war at the center of discussion. Some justified their bellicosity in the secularized language of Roman historians and Italian humanists and thought that since war was the main theme of history and could be regarded as an inevitable phenomenon, England might as well profit by it. This necessarily brought England into conflict with the Spanish in the Low Countries, on the high seas and in the Indies.
    [Show full text]
  • Hobbes, Behemoth, Church-State Relations, and Political Obligation
    Filozofski vestnik Volume/Letnik XXIV • Number/Številka 2 • 2003 • 205-222 HOBBES, BEHEMOTH, CHURCH-STATE RELATIONS, AND POLITICAL OBLIGATION J o h a n n R Som m erville This essay is about Hobbes’ ideas on church-state relations and political obli­ gation, especially as they are expressed in Behemoth. It has been said that Be­ hemoth “appears to sit oddly with the rest of the Hobbes canon .” 1 A leading purpose o f this essay is to com pare w hat Hobbes says there with the views he propounded in Leviathan, and, indeed, in his other writings. Many of the is­ sues that Hobbes addresses in Behemoth also feature in other works which he wrote during the last two decades of his life. For example, he discusses the na­ ture of heresy in Behemoth and also at length in the Appendix to the Latin Leviathan, in his Dialogue between a Philosopher and a Student of the Common Laws, in An Historical Narration concerning Heresy, and in the Historia Ecclesiastical The latter book is especially close to Behemoth, though it is in Latin verse, not English prose. In some ways, Behemoth can be seen as a continuation of, or a sequel to the Historia. In the Historia, Hobbes chronicles the cheats of power-hungry priests from the earliest times to the Lutheran Reformation. 1 Fritz Levy, “The background of Hobbes’s Behemoth," in Donald R. Kelley and David Harris Sacks, eds., The historical imagination in early modern Britain. History, rhetoric, and fic­ tion, 1500-1800 (Cambridge: Woodrow Wilson Center Press and Cambridge University Press, 1997), 243-66, at 243.
    [Show full text]
  • Stuart Debauchery in Restoration Satire
    Stuart Debauchery in Restoration Satire Neal Hackler A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the PhD degree in English Supervised by Dr. Nicholas von Maltzahn Department of English Faculty of Arts University of Ottawa © Neal Hackler, Ottawa, Canada, 2015. ii Contents Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................ iii Abstract .............................................................................................................................. iv List of Figures and Illustrations.............................................................................................v List of Abbreviations .......................................................................................................... vi Note on Poems on Affairs of State titles ............................................................................. vii Stuart Debauchery in Restoration Satire Introduction – Making a Merry Monarch...................................................................1 Chapter I – Abundance, Excess, and Eikon Basilike ..................................................8 Chapter II – Debauchery and English Constitutions ................................................. 66 Chapter III – Rochester, “Rochester,” and more Rochester .................................... 116 Chapter IV – Satirists and Secret Historians .......................................................... 185 Conclusion
    [Show full text]
  • Of Mushrooms and Method: History and the Family in Hobbes's Science
    1 This is a pre-proof, uncorrected version. Please refer to, and only cite from, the final corrected version, forthcoming via Sage Journals: http://ept.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/04/21/1474885114531237.abstr act Of Mushrooms and Method: History and the Family in Hobbes’s Science of Politics The standard view of Thomas Hobbes’s political philosophy is that it is a form of contract theory. Commentators who disagree on much else nonetheless typically agree upon this.1 Deborah Baumgold, in particular, has recently argued that Hobbes’s political theory is an attempt to combine the absolutist commitments of Jean Bodin with the contract approach of Hugo Grotius, inaugurating a contractualist tradition in political thought that runs through Locke and Rousseau all the way to Rawls.2 There are, however, compelling reasons for rejecting the standard view of Hobbes as a contract theorist. These are revealed by undertaking a close examination of Hobbes’s account of the family and of the role of history. Doing so invites us to reconsider our assessment of how he believes that sovereignty, and thus political society, really comes into being, and what that means for the underlying status and foundation of Hobbes’s political philosophy as a whole. The following essay performs this task, aiming in particular to reverse the order of priority typically assigned to Hobbes’s views of sovereignty by 2 institution and acquisition. In addition to casting doubt on Hobbes’s status as a contract theorist, two further consequences follow. First, we are discouraged from thinking of Hobbes as in any sense a foundationally democratic thinker.
    [Show full text]
  • From Republic to Restoration
    1 Introduction: from Republic to Restoration Janet Clare ROM Republic to Restoration brings together the work of historians, lit- F erary scholars, cultural and music historians with a shared interest in the crossing of the common period boundary of 1660. While recent, more inclusive studies of the seventeenth century have dislodged 1660 as a rigid historiographical divide, relatively few critics have examined the continuum of Republic to Restoration, investigating the features of the Restoration in the context of the legacies, traumas and achievements of the Republic.1 On one level, such a historiographical treatment of the seventeenth century may be seen as an acceptance of the political discourse which accompanied the return of kingship in 1660, mirroring the Restoration’s repudiation or casting into oblivion the entire social order preceding it. Charles II dated his reign from 1649 and ignored the so- called Interregnum in his regnal years calculation. But, as C. V. Wedgwood argued over half a century ago, ‘the problems and achievements of the Restoration epoch, including Parliament, the Church, social or economic history, literature, the arts and the sciences have their beginnings in the earlier period’. 2 Historians and scholars of theatre, drama and the arts who end or begin their work at the Restoration can obscure continuities between the fi rst and second halves of the seventeenth century. As chapters in this volume illustrate, reconstruc- tion of the old order did not mend the political, religious and cultural divisions that had opened up during the civil wars. Nor did the political experiments and the artistic and scientifi c achievements of the 1650s fail to leave an imprint on the rest of the century.
    [Show full text]
  • Democraticals and Religious Fanatics
    Filozofski vestnik Volume/Letnik XXIV • Number/Številka 2 • 2003 • 139-168 BEHEMOTH: DEMOCRATICALS AND RELIGIOUS FANATICS T o m a ž M a s t n a k The seed of the “memorable civil war in his Majesty’s dominions from 1640 to 1660,” Hobbes wrote in the Epistle Dedicatory to Behemoth, were “certain opinions in divinity and politics,” out of which grew “declarations, remon­ strances, and other writings between the King and Parliament.” Actions tak­ en in that period were what he called “the war itself.” He apportioned the first two, out of four, dialogues of his Behemoth to discussing those “certain opinions” and the pamphlet war, he explained, and represented the second, slightly shorter, half of the book as “a very short epitome of the war itself, draw n o u t o f Mr. H e a th ’s chronicle . ” 1 This brief dedication raises questions. Florus or Machiauel The division between the two main parts of Behemoth is not as neat as Hobbes would make us think. There is no reason to assume that his knowl­ edge of the “war itself’ rested on Heath’s chronicle alone. Hobbes was un­ doubtedly quite well acquainted with the civil war literature, as he himself in­ dicated. In Leviathan, for example, he referred to “divers English Books lately printed” and in Behemoth he mentioned “divers men that have written the his­ tory. ” 2 Why did he, then, represent Heath as his source? One reason may have been practical. Baron Arlington, the Secretary of State and Behemoth’s dedica­ tee, had given Heath permission to print his A Brief Chronicle in 1663 and could thus reasonably be expected to grant - or help obtain - Hobbes license 1 Behemoth, Epistle Dedicatory.
    [Show full text]
  • Hobbes and Bramhall on Liberty and Necessity Edited by Vere Chappell Frontmatter More Information
    Cambridge University Press 0521596688 - Hobbes and Bramhall on Liberty and Necessity Edited by Vere Chappell Frontmatter More information CAMBRIDGE TEXTS IN THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY Hobbes and Bramhall on Liberty and Necessity © Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 0521596688 - Hobbes and Bramhall on Liberty and Necessity Edited by Vere Chappell Frontmatter More information CAMBRIDGE TEXTS IN THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY Series editors K A Professor of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame D M. C Professor of Philosophy at University College Cork The main objective of Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy is to expand the range, variety and quality of texts in the history of philosophy which are available in English. The series includes texts by familiar names (such as Descartes and Kant) and also by less well-known authors. Wherever possible, texts are published in complete and unabridged form, and translations are specially commissioned for the series. Each volume contains a critical introduction together with a guide to further reading and any necessary glossaries and textual apparatus. The volumes are designed for student use at undergraduate and postgraduate level and will be of interest not only to students of philosophy, but also to a wider audience of readers in the history of science, the history of theology and the history of ideas. For a list of titles published in the series, please see end of book. © Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 0521596688
    [Show full text]
  • The English Catholic Issue, 1640-1662: Factionalism, Perceptions and Exploitation Tompkins, Alexandra Kate
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Queen Mary Research Online The English Catholic issue, 1640-1662: factionalism, perceptions and exploitation Tompkins, Alexandra Kate The copyright of this thesis rests with the author and no quotation from it or information derived from it may be published without the prior written consent of the author For additional information about this publication click this link. http://qmro.qmul.ac.uk/jspui/handle/123456789/1291 Information about this research object was correct at the time of download; we occasionally make corrections to records, please therefore check the published record when citing. For more information contact [email protected] The English Catholic Issue, 1640-1662: Factionalism, Perceptions and Exploitation. Alexandra Kate Tompkins PhD University of London, 2010. Abstract This thesis explores the responses of different groups within the English Catholic community to the civil war, interregnum and restoration, with close attention to Catholic political theory. The English Catholic community were not mere observers of the constitutional and religious changes made during this period but manoeuvred within shifting political frameworks, continually adjusting their politics to meet new requirements. After the defeat and the execution of Charles I, members of the community made a series of compromises with political parties to secure toleration. Until the Restoration these were almost all to the exclusion of the Stuarts. Catholic political theorists engaged with the pro-sectarian, tolerationist principles of the parliamentary Independents during the first part of the Interregnum, but after the failure of the Cromwellian Church settlement in 1655 began to interact with anti-sectarian pro- episcopal groups during the decline of the Protectorate.
    [Show full text]
  • Presbyterians in Behemoth
    Filozofski vestnik Volume/Letnik XXIV • Number/Številka 2 • 2003 • 121-138 PRESBYTERIANS IN BEHEMOTH A. R M artinich 1. Presbyterians and Puritans Presbyterians play a large role in Hobbes’s history of the English Civil War, as one might expect. He thought that the corruption of the people was one of the causes of the English Civil War, and that the Presbyterian clergy were one of the corrupting groups. Indeed, they are the first group that he mentioned in this regard. The Presbyterians are followed by Roman Catholics (“Papists”), Independents, university educated gentlemen, the city of London, spendthrifts, and people ignorant of their political obligations (pp. 2-3) . 1 Hobbes’s view contrasts with that of contemporary historians. Although Eliz­ abethan Presbyterians are often mentioned for purposes of providing back­ ground, they are not mentioned as a cause of the civil war by standard books on that topic, for example, The Causes of the English Revolution 1529-1642 by Lawrence Stone (1972), The Causes of the English Civil War by Conrad Russell (1990), and The Causes of the English Civil Warhy Ann H ughes (1991).2 If Hobbes is wrong to blame the Presbyterian clergy, as I shall show he was, why did he make this mistake? Perhaps the source for his history claimed that the Presbyterians were at fault. In a prefatory note to Behemoth, he says that he relied on “Mr. Heath’s chronicle.” This is James Heath’s long treat­ m en t o f the Civil Wars, A Brief Chronicle of the Late Intestine War in the Three King- 1 Thomas Hobbes, Behemoth or The Long Parliament, ed.
    [Show full text]
  • Cromwellian Altar of Faith in What Was for Him the Long Aftermath of Defeat
    The Cromwell Association CROMWELLIANA 2004 President: Professor BARRY COWARD, l1lln, PRH.iscS Editor Jane A. Mills Vice Presidents: Rt Hon MICHAEL FOOT, PC Rt Hon the LORD NASEBY, PC CON1ENTS Rt Hon FRANK DOBSON, MP Professor JOHN MORRILL, Dl>hil, FBA, l~lu:!]stS Editor's Note 2 Professor IV AN ROOTS, MA, FSA, FRI·UstS Professor AUSTIN WOOLRYCH; :MA, Dlitt, F:BA Cromwell Day, 2003. The Improbable Cromwellian: Sir Charles Wolseley. 3 Professor BLAIR WORDEN, FBA By John Sutton . · PAT BARNES TREWIN COPPLESTONE, FRGS "To create a little world out of chaos": The Establishment of the 29 Chairman: Dr PETER GAUNT, PhD, FRHistS Protectorate, 1653-4. Honorary Secretary: MICHAEL BYRD By Dr Peter Gaunt 5 Town Farm Close, Pinchbeck, near Spalding, Lincolnshire, PE 11 3SG Godly Governors: the Rule of Cromwell's Major Generals. 52 By Professor Christopher Durston · Houoi:m:y Treasurer: DAVID SMITH 3 Bowgrave Copse, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 2NL The Experience of English Towns During the Cromwellian Protectorate~ 65 'l'l lB f:llnMWH'l.l. ASSOCIATION was founded in 1935 by the late Rt Hon By Dr Stephen Roberts 1•11111' 1111(11 1111d olhcrn rn commemorate Oliver Cromwell, the great Puritan The End of Cromwell's Protectorate, 1656-58. •l11l11m11111 ltllil 111 111W11u111110 the 8l1ld)' of the history of his times, his achievements 73 1 By Professor Barry Coward 111111 1td1t11:11 n•, :ti l" 1111l1h!111 yollticul. no:i: s~ct11~fa11,. its a~s being essenti~lly l1l•l111H·111 .lh111 l\u1uh1th111 ~!'l!ilM lo 11llv11111:0 llM Ullllll lJl n vanety of ways, which h1w1• lrn·lmlt11l1 ~~rseas Despatches I.
    [Show full text]
  • Cromwelliana
    Cromwelliana The Journal of Series II 2007 No4 The Cromwell Association President: Professor BARRY COWARD, PhD, FRHistS Vice Presidents: Rt Hon MICHAEL FOOT, PC CROMWELLIANA 2007 Rt Hon the LORD NASEBY, PC Editor Jane A. Mills Rt Hon FRANK DOBSON, MP Professor JOHN MORRILL, DPhil, FBA, FRHistS Professor IVAN ROOTS, MA, FSA, FRHistS CONTENTS Professor BLAIR WORDEN, FBA PAT BARNES Editor's note. 2 TREWIN COPPLESTONE, FRGS 'I Chairman: Professor PETER GAUNT, PhD, FRHistS I Cromwell Day Address 2006. Oliver Cromwell and the 3 Honorary Secretary: Dr JUDITH D. HUTCHINSON Re-Admission of the Jews to England. 52 East View, Barnet, Herts, ENS STN By Edgar Samuel . Honorary Treasurer: DAVID SMITH 3 Bowgrave Copse, i\bingdon, Oxon, OX14 2NL EL PROJECTOR OUVERIO CROMVEL- The Inv:o~ation 12 THE CROMWELL ASSOCIATION was founded in 1937 by the late Rt Hon of his Image and memory in Spanish American Independ~ce Isaac Foot and others to commemorate Oliver Cromwell, the great Puritan Era Rhetoric (1808-1826). statesman, and to encourage the study of the history of his times, his achievements By Dr Karen Racine and influence. It is neither political nor sectarian, its aims being essentially historical. The Association seeks to advance its aims in a variety of ways, which Factotums and Fli.ers: Bibliography and the Political Culture 25 have included: of the Englisp Civil Wars. By Dr Jason Peacey . a. the erection of commemorative tablets (e.g. at Naseby, Dunbar, Worcester, Preston, etc); Cromwell Prize Competition 2006 40 b. helping to establish the Cromwell Museum in the Old Grammar School at A Most Learned, Conscientious, and Devout Exercise: Huntingdon; Anti-Cromwellian Satire in 1649.
    [Show full text]
  • The English Works, Vol. VI (Dialogue, Behemoth, Rhetoric) [1839]
    The Online Library of Liberty A Project Of Liberty Fund, Inc. Thomas Hobbes, The English Works, vol. VI (Dialogue, Behemoth, Rhetoric) [1839] The Online Library Of Liberty This E-Book (PDF format) is published by Liberty Fund, Inc., a private, non-profit, educational foundation established in 1960 to encourage study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals. 2010 was the 50th anniversary year of the founding of Liberty Fund. It is part of the Online Library of Liberty web site http://oll.libertyfund.org, which was established in 2004 in order to further the educational goals of Liberty Fund, Inc. To find out more about the author or title, to use the site's powerful search engine, to see other titles in other formats (HTML, facsimile PDF), or to make use of the hundreds of essays, educational aids, and study guides, please visit the OLL web site. This title is also part of the Portable Library of Liberty DVD which contains over 1,000 books and quotes about liberty and power, and is available free of charge upon request. The cuneiform inscription that appears in the logo and serves as a design element in all Liberty Fund books and web sites is the earliest-known written appearance of the word “freedom” (amagi), or “liberty.” It is taken from a clay document written about 2300 B.C. in the Sumerian city-state of Lagash, in present day Iraq. To find out more about Liberty Fund, Inc., or the Online Library of Liberty Project, please contact the Director at [email protected].
    [Show full text]