No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
Sir John Davies's Agrarian Law for Ireland
Abstract
:
The following article examines Sir John Davies’s treatise A Discovery of the True Causes Why Ireland Was Never Entirely Subdued [and] Brought Under Obedience of the Crown of England Until the Beginning of His Majesty's Happy Reign (Dublin, 1612) with regard to the idea of an Agrarian Law for Ireland. While one prominent scholar has recently suggested a generalized hostility to any redistribution of landed property in early modern political discourse, in the context of the Jacobean colonization of Ireland the idea of an “equal agrarian” in all future plantation efforts received significant support from writers such as Davies.
The management of Indonesian agrarian law has created discrepancy of resources ownership or injustice. This article offer a new perspective namely progressive agrarian law. This is a normative juridical research with conceptual approach by using primary, secondary and tertiary data. Those data are collected through literature research and analyzed with content analysis. Based on analysis, it can be concluded that there are several characteristic of progressive agrarian law, namely : (1) dynamic and contextual and respect the diversity because this consider social-political-cultural and economical condition of the society; (2) agrarian justice oriented to solve inequality of agrarian resources by doing affirmative action; (3) emphasize the importance of conscience in law making and law enforcement (involve intellectual, emotional and spiritual quotient); (4) give the chance for law enforcement to do rule breaking toward injustice regulation (substantive justice orientation); (5) pay attention disadvantage person (poor people) who lives under poverty and experience injustice.
This article addresses the role of Protestant military humanism in early Stuart Ireland. The central argument is that Protestant military humanism as embodied in the works of such authors as Geoffrey Gates (fl. 1566–80) and Barnabe Rich (1541–1617) played a vital role in the Jacobean plantation of Ulster. These authors combined a strong commitment to the Protestant religion with the conviction that martial virtue was essential for the preservation of the commonwealth against the threats of domestic rebellion and foreign domination. The example of the soldier-planter Sir Thomas Phillips of Limavady (c. 1560–1636) and his criticisms of the City of London's plantation in Derry during the 1620s demonstrates that military humanist values not only offered a persuasive rationale for colonization, but also significantly shaped the course of plantation on the ground. Phillips's lengthy conflict with the City of London demonstrated a fundamental disjuncture between his own Protestant military humanist outlook, and the City's own understanding of its civilizing mission in Ireland; however, rather than a conflict between aristocratic and civic values, close study reveals instead a struggle grounded in competing hierarchies of civic values.
Historians have recently turned their attention to the place of masculinity in the politics of early-modern England. This essay widens that exploration to include the imperial settings of Ireland and North America. Drawing upon a range of English- and Irish-language sources – including political treatises, maps, state papers and court poetry – it contends that manhood, as a relational value between men, helped structure the form and character of politics in the metropole, the kingdom of Ireland and the American colonies. In all of those settings, the definition of acceptable male behaviour was different, the effect being that political action and theory in each place took on unique features. Consequently, the essay cautions against studying England and its colonies as distinct units of historical analysis and calls for further exploration of the particularities of colonial settings and their influence on the imperial centre. Moreover, the essay aims to demonstrate that masculinity, particularly contest over its proper expression, is an agent in historical change, in this case helping to shape political theory and practice as England developed into a multiple monarchy and budding imperial power in the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries.
The study of political thought is too important to be left to political science and history alone. Of course, it would be odd if analysis did not start within these disciplines. However, the inability to establish more widespread, genuinely interdisciplinary modes of study has meant that ways of reading texts established by historians and social scientists have been accepted as the norm and then imported back into disciplines such as literary studies. Given that our understanding of the early-modern period has been transformed by the realization that people did not divide up the world and the books that represent it as we do, this is a seriously disabling problem for those concerned to reconstruct the past. If we are attempting to recover a world in which people read religious tracts, literary texts, scientific treatises, legal documents and other forms of writing alongside each other, we should recognize that our attempts to distinguish rigidly between subjects will not always yield fruitful results. A case in point is the question of early-modern republicanism, a subject that has had little impact on the analysis of literature before the eighteenth century. This means that historical and theoretical debate about the existence and substance of republicanism has concentrated on the question of whether it was a language or a programme, a means of articulating an alternative to monarchical government, or a plan of action designed to replace hereditary monarchy.
This chapter analyses Sir Isaiah Berlin's theory of liberty, In particular, it focuses on Berlin's most celebrated contribution to the debate, his essay entitled ‘Two Concepts of Liberty’. Berlin identifies two concepts of liberty, one positive and the other negative. He assumes that, whenever we speak about negative liberty, we must be speaking about absence of interference. The chapter isolates a third concept of liberty. It attempts to show that we have inherited two rival and incommensurable theories of negative liberty, although in recent times we have generally contrived to ignore one of them.
Richard Beacon's "Solon His Follie" (Oxford, 1594) has stood at the center of efforts to construct a significant republican past for the British Isles prior to the actual experience of republican government during the Interregnum (1649-60). In this interpretation the preeminence of monarchy in late Tudor and early Stuart England did not preclude the development of quasi-republican modes of civic consciousness emphasizing the active life of the citizen, civic virtue, and true nobility. This article offers a critical reappraisal of Beacon's significance to the development of republican consciousness in both England and Ireland during the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. The central contention is that, although Beacon emphasized the role of classical eloquence in his program for Ireland, this did not signal the emergence of republican consciousness. Beacon's objective was not the promotion and preservation of republican liberty in England, but rather the consolidation of royal sovereignty in Ireland.
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.
This article locates Sir Thomas More’s Utopia within the broader context of the sixteenth-century Greek revival in England. More and the other humanists whom Erasmus befriended during his time in England became the first Englishmen to learn Greek and to make a polemical point of preferring Greece to Rome. During the period of Utopia’s preparation and publication, this circle’s Hellenism took on a new intensity, as several of its members were called upon to defend Erasmus’s controversial project of using the Greek New Testament to correct the Vulgate. Responding to opponents of the new Greek learning, the Erasmians launched a particularly energetic attack on Roman philosophy. It is argued that Utopia intervenes in this quarrel by dramatizing a confrontation between the values of the Roman republican tradition and those of a rival commonwealth theory based on Greek ethics. Utopia suggests that, when seen from a Roman perspective, Greek advice looks like ‘nonsense’. But, for More, that ‘nonsense’ yields the ‘best state of a commonwealth’.