Texts 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 Professor Greenleaf was kind enough to supply me with a copy of his bibliography and copies of two of his unpublished papers.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