The power of interests in early-modern English political thought Elliott Karstadt PhD History Queen Mary, University of London 2013 Abstract This thesis studies the relationship between the particular interests of individuals and the common good, as it is conceived by various moral and political philosophers in early- modern England (c.1640-c.1740). Interests are spoken of in English translations of Italian and French texts in the early seventeenth century, and are often used to describe goods or desires that are morally ambiguous. The vocabulary becomes commonly used in political tracts during the English Civil Wars, and this is where the thesis begins. We then move on to an analysis of the place of interests in Hobbes’s changing civil science. Hobbes continues to see interests as being morally ambiguous and dangerous to the common good. The third chapter deals with the republican tradition (epitomized by James Harrington), in which thinkers begin to conceive how interests might be manipulated to serve the common good. Chapter 4 deals with the men of latitude of the Restoration, who first conceive that interests are in fact identical with our moral virtues. We thereby come to see that the important questions regarding interests in the restoration revolved around religion and morality, rather than (as is commonly assumed) around trade. The fifth chapter deals with the commonwealth theorists, who became increasingly concerned that Charles II’s court, and subsequently the court whigs, were beginning to constitute an interest separate from that of the people. We then come to a discussion of Bernard Mandeville, who is generally thought to be a critic of the commonwealthmen, but (in his use of the vocabulary of interests) actually bears quite a close intellectual resemblance to them. The thesis ends with an account of a number of reactions to Mandeville, chief among them, Joseph Butler, who argues that not only are our interests identical with virtue, but they also naturally serve the common good. 2 Contents Title Page 1 Abstract 2 Contents 3 Conventions 4 Acknowledgements 5 Introduction 8 Chapter 1 – Interests and ties of obligation in the English Civil Wars 32 Chapter 2 – The changing role of interests in Hobbes’s civil science 67 Chapter 3 – English Republicanism and the manipulation of interests 101 Chapter 4 – The Restoration and the moralization of interests 137 Chapter 5 – Commonwealth thought, opposition and interests in the Restoration and beyond 183 Chapter 6 – Bernard Mandeville and the de-moralization of interests 227 Chapter 7 – Joseph Butler, private interests, virtue and the common good 262 Conclusion 292 Bibliography 295 3 Conventions Abbreviations The following abbreviations are used in the footnotes: Add. MS Additional Manuscript BL British Library Eg. MS Egerton Manuscript Harl. MS Harley Manuscript Attributions Where works are published anonymously, I have taken the attributions provided by the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography online edition, unless otherwise stated. Authors’ names are given in square brackets. Bibliographies The bibliographies included are simply an aggregation of the primary sources I have quoted and the secondary scholarship on which I have relied. Unattributed works are listed by title. Biographical Details All biographical information has been taken from the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography online edition, unless otherwise indicated. Dates I take the year to start on 1 January. Gender I have tried to remain gender neutral as much as possible in my formulations, though have deferred to the sense of the primary material when appropriate. Transcriptions I have preserved original spelling, capitalisation, and punctuation as far as I could, but have normalised the long ‘s’ and expanded contractions. I have normalised italicisation where it is used uniformly. Translations All translations are my own, unless otherwise indicated. Where I have made my own translations, however, I have provided the reference of a translation which has been of use to me, and many which I have followed very closely. 4 Acknowledgements My greatest intellectual debt is to Quentin Skinner, who provided the initial ideas for this thesis, and oversaw the research and writing at every stage, providing countless insights and improvements along the way. Without his guidance and original suggestions the thesis would never have been conceived. I really could not have asked for a more inspiring and attentive supervisor. The successes of this thesis are testament to Quentin as much as to anyone else. Richard Bourke has acted as my mentor, often providing encouragement and advice. Since I began my postgraduate work, he and Angus Gowland have continued to champion my work in many ways, as well as providing opportunities for undergraduate teaching. Richard also undertook the task of reading though the entirety of the thesis before it was submitted. Michael Moriarty read an early version of chapter 7 as part of my upgrade exercise in February 2011, and provided excellent advice. Finally, Lorenzo Sabbadini read chapters 1-3, saving me from many textual infelicities and making a number of critical points. I pay tribute to the teachers, fellow-students and friends who have commented on parts of my work, or indulged me in discussions about interests or political thought in general in the last four years: Victoria Briggs, Stephen Dean, Signy Guttnick Allen, Neil Janes, Jeremy Jennings, Mads Jensen, Avi Lifshitz, Anique Liiv, Giorgio Lizzul, David Magliocco, Robin Mills, Adam Mowl, Niall O’Flaherty, Joanne Paul, Adam Price, Lisa Renken, Michael Riordon, Paul Sagar, Sophie Smith, Mark Solomon, Reto Speck, Gareth Stedman-Jones, Georgios Varouxakis, and Felix Waldmann. I am also grateful to the other members of the philosophy reading group at the Liberal Jewish Synagogue – primarily Leah Mühlstein and Robin Moss – who have reminded me that there is a philosophy beyond that which I present here. 5 I have relied on the support of a number of institutions in the last three years. First and foremost, the School of History Queen Mary (in particular, I must name head of department, Miri Rubin) has provided constant support and training which have been invaluable in completing this thesis. The Arts and Humanities Research Council has funded my final two years of research, and I am grateful for the opportunity this has given me to maintain such a focus on the task of finishing my work. Lastly, Finchley Progressive Synagogue (under the ministration of Rabbis Neil Janes and Rebecca Qassim Birk) has been a place full of both ideas and distractions, for which I am immensely appreciative. Andrew Smith, Cory Santos and Sam James were kind enough to allow me to present parts of chapters 1-3 at various seminars and conferences in London and Cambridge during 2010. In February 2012 Raf Nicholson and Heather Campbell invited me to present a paper at Queen Mary on the men of latitude discussed in chapter 4. Part VII of chapter 1 was presented to an audience at Sussex University in June 2012. I was honoured to be invited by Mark Philp to speak at the conference to celebrate the centenary of John Plamenatz in September 2012. I am also grateful to Tony Rose for his numerous invitations to speak to non-expert audiences on aspects of the public interest in 2010 and 2011. I hope that I have answered many, if not all, of the questions and objections raised at these various meetings and I am particularly grateful for the comments of Adrian Blau, Robin Douglas and Jon Parkin at the Plamenatz conference. For the opportunity of progressing my work into print, I am indebted to Hugh LaFollette for inviting me to write an entry on James Harrington for the International Encyclopedia of Ethics. Chapter 3 contains some of the material due to be published there. I was also very pleased to be invited to write a review of Dean Mathiowetz’s new publication for the British Journal of the History of Philosophy. I am obliged to Pauline Phemister and Mark Sinclair in this respect. Joanne Paul, in her role as editor-in-chief of 6 the Journal of Intellectual History and Political Thought provided a copy of Noel Malcolm’s edition of Hobbes’ Leviathan, for which I was able to write a review. Most of this thesis was researched and written in the Rare Books and Music Room of the British Library. I would like to express my gratitude to its staff for all their hard work in making my time there so productive. I am indebted to the Duke of Devonshire for allowing me access to a number of important documents relating to chapter 2. I have also benefitted from the collections at Cambridge University Library, the Institute of Historical Research, and Senate House Library. Finally, many of the books, pamphlets and periodicals I have consulted were only accessible thanks to the existence of Eighteenth Century Collections Online (ECCO) and Early English Books Online (EEBO). I cannot end these acknowledgements without registering four more debts. Lisa Renken kindly agreed to proof-read the very final version of each chapter. Tim Holden was generous with cups of tea and encouragement. Dean Staker and the rest of the band provided music where mere words of support simply would not do. And finally, this thesis is dedicated to my parents, Lyn and Philip Karstadt, without whom it would never even have been possible. In April 2013, I would like to thank Justin Champion and Jon Parkin for conducting the viva examination in such a jovial manner, with probing and useful questions, and for the revisions they asked for, all of which have made this thesis better. David and Georgie Palfrey have been very hospitable during these months in Cambridge and I am particularly grateful to David for sharing his knowledge of Jeremy Bentham, and his generosity with books.