Article
To read the full-text of this research, you can request a copy directly from the authors.

Abstract

Modern democracies are governed by elected elites providing only limited opportunities for a popular role in government. In Lincoln's terms they are governments "of" but not in any sense "by" the people. The central democratic justification of such governments is that they tend to work tolerably well "for" the people, at least compared to feasible alternatives. Theories of elite competition attempt to provide some reassurance that competition for office may induce officials to pay attention to popular wants and, in that way, to show how a government could satisfy Lincoln's third test -- furthering common interests.

No full-text available

Request Full-text Paper PDF

To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.

Thesis
Full-text available
En la presente investigación se analiza la LX Legislatura del Estado de Veracruz (2004-2007), caracterizada por ser un gobierno dividido por primera vez en la historia legislativa del Estado de Veracruz. La investigación se sustenta en trabajo de campo a través de entrevistas semiestructuradas realizadas a los actores sociales relevantes tanto de la LX Legislatura, el órgano electoral y los agentes de la sociedad civil.
Article
Full-text available
This paper develops a game-theoretic approach to the problem of political officials' respect for political and economic rights of citizens. It models the policing of rights as a coordination problem among citizens, but one with asymmetries difficult to resolve in a decentralized manner. The paper shows that democratic stability depends on a self-enforcing equilibrium: It must be in the interests of political officials to respect democracy's limits on their behavior. The concept of self-enforcing limits on the state illuminates a diverse set of problems and thus serves as a potential basis for integrating the literature. The framework is applied to a range of topics, such as democratic stability, plural societies, and elite pacts. The paper also applies its lessons to the case of the Glorious Revolution in seventeenth-century England.
Chapter
The sacred fire of liberty framed the ideology that formed the revolutions of England, France and the United States of America. These triumphs guided many other states, until the strength of liberty became the measure of political legitimacy throughout the world. But the strain of revolution pulled liberty away from its sources in republican government. Liberty for many came to mean little more than a greater ability to do what one wants. This violated the ancient distinction between liberty and license, reflecting deep changes in European attitudes, following the violent excesses and ultimate failure of (ostensibly) republican government in France. The idea of liberty and the republican model of government grew up together in Rome, and were still firmly linked two thousand years later at George Washington’s inauguration, when he endorsed the “sacred” experiment of the American people. After Robespierre, European friends of liberty despaired of republican institutions, seeking their “liberties” instead from emperors and kings. This created the new doctrine of liberalism, which preached liberty without politics, in deference to “enlightened” rulers and their judicial employees.
Book
This extended essay by one of the world's leading historians seeks, in its first part, to excavate and to vindicate, the neo-Roman theory of free citizens and free states as it developed in early modern Britain. This analysis leads on to a powerful defence of the nature, purposes and goals of intellectual history and the history of ideas. As Quentin Skinner says, ‘the intellectual historian can help us to appreciate how far the values embodied in our present way of life, and our present ways of thinking about those values, reflect a series of choices made at different times between different possible worlds’. This essay provides one of the most substantial statements yet made about the importance, relevance and potential excitement of this form of historical enquiry. Liberty before Liberalism is based on Quentin Skinner's Inaugural Lecture as Regius Professor of Modern History in the University of Cambridge, delivered in 1997.
Article
The final books of The Old Arcadia rewrite two episodes from Livy's History: the rape of Lucrece and the execution of Brutus's sons. These episodes, which dominate Livy's account of the birth of the Roman republic, provide early modern republicanism with its foundational narrative, one that associates monarchy with aristocratic sexual license, and republicanism with the impartial rule of law. Sidney's plot hinges on this conflict between "unbridled desire" and "never-changing justice," and yet in flat contrast to both ancient and Renaissance republicanism, the work seems to privilege equity over law, clemency over justice, noble natures over impersonal codes. In what follows, I have tried to recover the unfamiliar politics - not republican and yet scarcely absolutist - structuring The Old Arcadia.
Article
The Machiavellian Momentis a classic study of the consequences for modern historical and social consciousness of the ideal of the classical republic revived by Machiavelli and other thinkers of Renaissance Italy. J.G.A. Pocock suggests that Machiavelli's prime emphasis was on the moment in which the republic confronts the problem of its own instability in time, and which he calls the "Machiavellian moment." After examining this problem in the thought of Machiavelli, Guicciardini, and Giannotti, Pocock turns to the revival of republican thought in Puritan England and in Revolutionary and Federalist America. He argues that the American Revolution can be considered the last great act of civic humanism of the Renaissance. He relates the origins of modern historicism to the clash between civic, Christian, and commercial values in the thought of the eighteenth century.
Article
If any single turn of events condemned the Great Rebellion to its final collapse and made the Restoration ultimately inevitable, it surely took place that April night in 1659 when the regiments about London gathered at St James's in defiance of Richard Cromwell, . The coup d'état which virtually ended the Protectorate left England at the mercy of the military grandees who had headed it and the Republican politicians who meant to profit by it. Both groups found themselves sunk too low in credit to erect a new regime in place of the one they destroyed, and after exposing their political bankruptcy for half a year longer they finally committed political suicide by quarrelling between themselves.
Article
Transactions of the American Philological Association 130 (2000) 411–458 The Origins, Program, and Composition of Appian’s Roman History∗ Gregory S. Bucher Center for Hellenic Studies Wie Gabba…sagt, geht es der wissenschaftlichen Forschung um die genaue Bestimmung des Gewährsmanns oder der Quellenautoren, die Appian vermutlich für sein Werk verarbeitete. I. Introduction The words are Matthias Gelzer’s, and they form a classic expression of the way Appian was viewed until only a few decades ago.1 With some notable exceptions, Appian’s Roman History has been discounted as a poorly written work pieced together by an inept, if enthusiastic, amateur since Johann Schweighäuser gave us the first scholarly edition in 1785.2 The most damning appraisals were those of the positivistic historians of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries who attempted to reconstruct an objective history of the late Republic based in part upon the text of Appian and eagerly sought the Gewährsmänner behind these facts to assure themselves of the paternity of Appian’s data. One tacit assumption of these critics was that Appian tried to ∗For much indispensable help over many years I wish to thank E. Badian, Ted Champlin, Christina Clark, Stewart and Marleen Flory, Charles Fornara, Matthew McGowan, Ili Nagy, Jonathan Price, Kurt Raaflaub, John Richards, and the editor and referees of this journal. I also wish to thank the students in my Appian classes at the ICCS in Rome, 1998–99, whose questions and insightful comments and papers sharpened my own thoughts considerably. 1Gelzer 286. On the history of scholarship on Appian, see Goldmann 2–5, McGing 496–99, Gowing 1992: 2–3 and passim, and Bucher 1997: 128 n. 1, 204–12. Throughout this paper I use “civil wars” to refer to the phenomenon in general, “Civil War” to refer to a specific war such as the Civil War of 49 B.C.E., and Civil Wars for the five-book subsection of Appian’s history (= BC). All translations are my own except a few passages I have taken (as noted) from Carter’s translation in order to avoid imposing my own interpretation. All ancient dates are C.E. unless otherwise noted. 2On Schweighäuser’s positive view in reaction to previous negative views, Goldmann 3. 412 Gregory S. Bucher write political history in the tradition of a Thucydides or a Tacitus. In comparison with these great historians, Appian is deficient in historical analysis, and, where we can check it, Appian’s text contains a perplexing mixture of good data and errors. An Appian who was a bumbling assembler of other authors’ work into a political history seemed to explain the odd mix: good data came from other authors’ pens, errors came from Appian’s bungled attempts to cut and paste those authors’ words together to form his own “history.”3 Such a view eliminated the need to think carefully about any program arising from Appian or the motivations for it. Interest in Appian has customarily been based upon the claim that, like him or not, he offers the best surviving connected narrative of the years covered by the Civil Wars (roughly 133–35 B.C.E.) and the sole connected narrative for the years covered in BC 1 (133–70).4 This is odd, because BC 1, the most important book under these criteria, manifests a very different character. Emilio Gabba, whose name is synonymous with study of the Civil Wars, saw BC 1 as composed of two poorly fused parts: 1) a framework due to Appian and 2) accounts of the various staseis taken without substantial alteration from sources (and thus animated by different interests), “a book that seems to be made up of separated pieces.”5 Appian himself was of minor importance for Gabba, who held to the older view that Appian was a faithful copyist or excerptor and compiler.6 Gabba saw nothing but a few summaries, the occasional references to Appian’s own time, and remarks clarifying Roman customs for a Greek audience as Appian’s own contributions; the rest was raw material suitable to be mined for historical data.7 Cuff’s sharply critical observation of “Appian’s 3The zenith...
Article
Introduction: placing Mably 2. A Royalist debut 3. About face: from the Parti des Modernes to the Parti des Anciens 4. Dialogues: conversations with Stanhope and Phocion 5. Contemporaries: communists, physiocrats, Rousseau 6. History: the politics of the French past 7. Last works: constitutions and the consolation of philosophy 8. Conclusion: classical Republicanism in eighteenth-century France Abbreviations Notes' Bibliography Index.
Article
The debates of the Army Council held at Putney church during October and November 1647 have not suffered neglect at the hands of historians and political theorists. Such an explicit examination of the fundamental tenets of government as occurred in the discussion of the franchise is a pivotal event in the history of political thought and it has been treated as such ever since Sir Charles Firth uncovered William Clarke's notes of the meetings. Emphasis upon the content of the dispute over the franchise has served to elevate the Putney debates into a symbolic event, a milestone in the struggle between privilege and liberty which dominated English history for two and a half centuries and English historiography ever since. Rainsborough's dictum that “the poorest he that is in England hath a life to live, as the greatest he” encapsulates this theme and has passed into the common stock of historical quotations. Indisputably, succeeding generations of scholars and students will grapple with the meaning of the debate on the franchise and of its place in English political thought. The universal importance that the conflict over the franchise has assumed for political theorists and historians of the longue durée has created some difficulties for students of événement who need to understand the precise historical situation in which the meetings occurred. When abstracted the debates may have sharp contours and poetic proportions; but when viewed more narrowly they take on different, and occasionally changing, shapes.
Article
It is a truism that the most distinctive features of the peculiarly English genius in politics are moderation and compromise. The sources of this spirit must be sought throughout the whole fabric of English history, but it should be easier to examine some of the stages by which it emerged onto the conscious level of political thought. How long have Englishmen spoken of political moderation as a good in itself? Herbert Butterfield awards to the Whigs the honor of contributing to modern British history their instinct for compromise. Locke has often been thought of as doing the same. But Toryism has come in for its share of the credit, and a student of John Dryden's thought has suggested that the Tory Dryden well illustrates the tradition of avoiding political extremes and reconciling liberty and authority. This is a fruitful suggestion, and it may be carried further by seeking evidence of this tradition in the predecessors of the Tories, the royalists of the Civil War period. These latter, far from being diehards or extremists, were the advocates of a political mean, and tried to defend at once the king's authority and the subject's liberty. In some degree, this is now widely conceded, but the significance of this moderation is not as clear as it ought to be, because its nature is not understood. When it is understood, it will be possible to say that the most important characteristic of seventeenth-century English royalism was not its defense of the king, but its defense of political moderation and limited government.
Article
The main aim of the article is to question the widely held view that Francis Bacon's different writings form a single great project. His numerous writings on the greatness of states were not part of his scientific programme. Since Bacon's scientific writings do not provide us with the context in which we should place his texts on the greatness of states, the attempt is made to place them in their contemporary political context. These texts, it is argued, addressed the issue of the union of England and Scotland as well as the question concerning England's possible intervention in the European war in early 1620s. Several scholars have also claimed that, in accordance with Bacon's scientific project, his idea of the greatness of states was an essentially modern programme. Nevertheless, the article attempts to show that as far as his writings on civic greatness are concerned Bacon's moral and economic ideas could be classified as classical republican. James Harrington's analysis of Bacon offers a historical point of departure for reading of his writings on the true greatness of states.
Article
The essay attempts to recover a language of liberty, a set of assumptions common participants in the mid-seventeenth-century discourse on religion and liberty. The current historiography of seventeenth-century liberty and contemporary consensus on the complementarity civil liberty and law are used as contexts. In the religious sense, liberty was commonly taken to imply submission to the will of a God of millennial purpose and providential power. In the struggle for appropriate submission to such divine authority issues of freedom arose in the Pauline paradoxes service as perfect freedom and in the process of liberation from inappropriate authorities. The polarization of liberty and authority in traditional accounts of the puritan revolution, the reduction of religious liberty to an element within a greater struggle over constitutional forms, and the identification of religious liberty with individual and corporate rights are called in question.
Article
While the restoration of monarchy in 1660 has attracted considerable scholarly interest, historians have usually focused upon the events that led to the abrupt change in the fortunes of Charles II rather than the less dramatic tactics by which the restored king consolidated his power. Yet the challenges Charles faced at his return were formidable, his initial personal popularity surprisingly short-lived. Somehow the regime had to quiet political and religious dissension, satisfy sharply conflicting expectations, and retrieve the power of the sword from a republican army and a volatile and well-armed public. Existing studies of the restoration years fail to explain precisely how the royal government successfully negotiated these difficulties. This essay describes the methods by which order was maintained and control reasserted; how the peaceful disbandment of the republican army and the subsequent control of its veterans were achieved; a police establishment of unprecedented size and effectiveness organized; the foundation for a permanent army laid; and the capacity of English subjects to rebel effectively diminished. In sum, it exposes the policies used to reconstruct royal authority so swiftly and securely that a host of enemies and public disenchantment failed to dislodge it.