Table Of ContentTexts in Context
MARTINUS NIJHOFF PHILOSOPHY LIBRARY
VOLUME 12
For a complete list of volumes in this series see final page of the volume.
Texts in Context
Revisionist Methods jor Studying
the History oj Ideas
by
David Boucher
1985 MARTIN US NIJHOFF PUBLISHERS ....
a member of the KLUWER ACADEMIC PUBLISHERS GROUP ,.
DORDRECHT / BOSTON / LANCASTER 'IIIIIIIl
Distributors
for the United States and Canada: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 190 Old Derby
Street, Hingham, MA 02043, USA
for the UK and Ireland: Kluwer Academic Publishers, MTP Press Limited, Falcon
House, Queen Square, Lancaster LAI lRN, UK
for all other countries: Kluwer Academic Publishers Group, Distribution Center,
P.O. Box 322, 3300 AH Dordrecht, The Netherlands
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Boucher, David.
Texts in context.
(Martinus Nijhoff philosophy library ; 12)
1. History--Philosophy. 2. Methodology. I. Title.
II. Series: Martinus Nijhoff philosophy library
v. 12.
D16.8.B676 1985 901 84-27321
ISBN-13: 978-94-010-8745-2
ISBN-13: 978-94-010-8745-2 e-ISBN-13: 978-94-009-5075-7
DOl: 10_1007/978-94-009-5075-7
Book information
Typeset on a Monotype Lasercomp at Oxford University Computing Services.
Copyright
© 1985 by Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht.
Sof'tcover reprint of the hardcover 15t edition 1985
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a
retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, mechanical, photoco
pying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the
publishers,
Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, P.O. Box 163, 3300 AD Dordrecht,
The Netherlands.
Dedication
To
My Mother and late Father,
and Clare and Emma
VII
Preface
The methodology of the study of the history of political thought is
an area of study which has occupied my interests for nearly a decade. I
was introduced to the subject in University College, Swansea. My
teachers there provided me with an excellent grounding in political
studies. I am particularly indebted to Bruce Haddock, Peter
Nicholson and W. H. Greenleaf. Professor Greenleaf was kind
enough to supply me with a copy of his bibliography and copies of
two of his unpublished papers. I continued to pursue my interest in
methodology at the London School of Economics and Political
Science. I am indebted to Ken Minogue and Robert Orr who taught
me there. My greatest debt is to Dr. Joseph Femia ofthe University of
Liverpool who devoted a great deal of time to considering the
arguments presented here. His criticisms and suggestions for
improvement proved to be invaluable. I would also like to thank Alan
Ryan for his general comments and encouraging advice. It would be
remiss of me if I neglected to express my gratitude to Dewi Beynon
who was my first teacher of politics.
The research for this project was carried out in the following places;
The British Library of Political Science, London; The Sidney Jones
Library, University of Liverpool; The National Library of Scotland,
Edinburgh; The Main Library, University of Edinburgh; The Arts
and Social Science Library, University College, Cardiff; and the
Bodleian Library, Oxford. Without exception, the persons with whom
I came into contact in these institutions were unfailingly generous in
affording me both their time and considerable help in locating the
sources I wished to consult. In addition, I would like to thank Karen
Mughan for typing a good deal of the text onto the computor
terminal; Dr Keith Williams who helped me to master the commands
of lasercomp for typesetting the book; and Vince Millband who
checked the finished draft. The Social Science Research Council
awarded me a studentship and travel grants. Without its generosity I
would not have been able to embark upon such a project. I am also
indebted to University College, Cardiff for awarding me a Tutorial
Fellowship which has enabled me to bring my efforts to fruition.
Finally, I would like to thank my wife Clare for her support and
encouragement throughout the years.
In writing this book I have drawn upon, and modified, some
arguments I have developed elsewhere; 'New Histories of Political
Thought For Old?' Political Studies, XXIX (1983); 'The Creation of
the Past: British Idealism and Michael Oakeshott's Philosophy of
History', History and Theory, XXIII (1984); and 'The Denial of
VIII
Perennial Problems: The Negative Side of Quentin Skinner's Theory',
Interpretation, 12 (1984).
David Boucher.
Table of Contents
Preface VII
Introduction
History, Historicism, and Hermeneutics.
Chapter One
British Idealism and the Philosophy of History: Sources of
Sustenance. 39
Chapter Two
Historians of Political Thought and Their Critics: Sources of
Anxiety. 73
Chapter Three
Philosophical History: W.H. Greenleaf and the Study of the
History of Political Thought. 99
Chapter Four
The Priority of Paradigms: The Pocock Alternative. 151
Chapter Five
The View from the Inside: Skinner and the Priority of Retrieving
Authorial Intentions. 193
Assessment and Conclusion 251
Index 275
Introduction
History, Historicism and Hermeneutics
I
In the Phaedrus Socrates argues that the written word is far inferior
to the spoken word as a means of communicating knowledge. The
written word is incapable of distinguishing between the readers who
are ignorant and unreceptive, and those who are knowledgeable and
receptive to what the author has written. 'And if it is iII-treated or
unfairly abused it always needs its parent to come to its rescue; it is
quite incapable of defending itself.' The central concern of my
undertaking is to examine the claims of those who, in the absence of
the parents, present themselves as the legitimate guardians of the
textual children. Now, all guardians find themselves in a dilemma:
should they care for the child in the manner which the parent
prescribed, or should they make that child their own and present him
to the world as they see fit.
A text, like a child, will have a character which exhibits extremes of
mood, a variety of attitudes, inconsistent opinions and moral
ambivalences. The parent may have found one characteristic more
endearing than others and attempted to develop it as the most
significant aspect of the child's personality. But the child will appear
differently in the eyes of the many people with whom it comes into
contact, and neither the parent nor the guardian is capable of
legislating what is to be perceived by others as the personality of the
child. At home he may appear warm, forthcoming and considerate; at
school he may be characterized as withdrawn, shy and unresponsive,
while in the company of his friends he may appear insolent, reckless
and extrovert.
The text, too, will appear differently in different company, and the
essence of the problem of interpretation for those prescribers of
principles for conducting such an endeavour, is identifying the
appropriate company in terms of which the text should be
comprehended. A text, like a child, they suggest, is nothing in
isolation: it has to be understood in relation to something. The
essential point of contention is what that something ought to be. The
possibilities and permutations of those possibilities are numerous.
The analogies between a text and child, author and parent, and
reader and guardian should not be pressed too far. A text appears
2
fully articulated by an author, or authors, and while the sequence of
words remains the same its capacity for evoking different meanings is
incalculable. A child can express a meaning before it is able to
articulate it in words. When it becomes capable of using language its
sequence of words is never so fixed that the child cannot alter it and
convey the same meaning, or use the same word sequence and alter
the meaning. A text is a relic oflife. It is not capable of putting what it
says differently, only of being put differently by what its interpreters
say. What I will be concerned with throughout this study is the
recommended constraints which certain students of the history of
political thought would impose upon the activity of saying differently
something that is already said, and these constraints, their protago
nists suggest, are appropriate to the historical study of texts.
The history of histories of political thought is extensively populated
with advocates of this or that preferred method of study. Each history
in the genre includes some justificatory remarks concerning the
criteria of selection, the method of exposition, and a conception of the
purpose of such a history. But it is only in the last twenty years or so
that the activity ofrefiecting upon the principles of the historical study
of past political thinkers has itself become established as a productive
and provocative sub-branch of the discipline. Those writers with
whom I will be concerned in the area of study now known as the
methodology of the study of the history of political thought all
expressed a profound dissatisfaction with the literature they believed
to be masquerading as historical enquiries. They all called for greater
attention and faithfulness to the principles of the historical
cons.ideration of the past, but in doing so they offer different
conceptions of the nature of the activity of being an historian, and,
consequently, are often critical of each others' brand of history.
The principal characters in my study, namely, W. H. Greenleaf, J.
G. A. Pocock, and Q. Skinner, I take to occupy theoretical positions
which can be presented in terms of the degree to which they differ
from the orthodox methods prevalent in the study of the history of
political thought during the first half of the twentieth century. These
differences of theoretical content and emphasis, I suggest, are both a
reaction against orthodoxy and a response to the severe criticisms
directed to historians of political thought by those who bemoaned,
and tried to explain, the demise of political philosophy during the
1950s and early 1960s. The current preoccupation with method can be
seen in terms of a reaction, or even an over-reaction, to the extreme
disciplinary insecurity which arose from the doubts expressed by
philosophers and social scientists about the efficacy of the historical
study of past political philosophy.
The three methodologists with whom I will be principally
