This book shows how political argument in terms of rights and natural rights began in medieval Europe, and how the theory of natural rights was developed in the seventeenth century after a period of neglect in the Renaissance. Dr Tuck provides a new understanding of the importance of Jean Gerson in the formation of the theories, and of Hugo Grotius in their development; he also restores the Englishman John Selden's ideas to the prominence they once enjoyed, and shows how Thomas (...) Hobbes's political theory can best be understood against this background. In general, the book enables us to understand more fully the characteristics of the natural rights theories available to the men of the Enlightenment, and thereby to appreciate the complexity and equivocal nature of modern right theories. (shrink)

The Rights of War and Peace is the first fully historical account of the formative period of modern theories of international law. Professor Tuck examines the arguments over the moral basis for war and international aggression, and links the debates to the writings of the great political theorists such as Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, and Kant. The book illuminates the presuppositions behind much current political theory, and puts into a new perspective the connection between liberalism and imperialism.

Richard Tuck traces the history of the distinction between sovereignty and government and its relevance to the development of democratic thought. Tuck shows that this was a central issue in the political debates of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and provides a new interpretation of the political thought of Bodin, Hobbes and Rousseau. Integrating legal theory and the history of political thought, he also provides one of the first modern histories of the constitutional referendum, and shows the importance of the (...) United States in the history of the referendum. The book derives from the John Robert Seeley Lectures delivered by Richard Tuck at the University of Cambridge in 2012, and will appeal to students and scholars of the history of ideas, political theory and political philosophy. (shrink)

This major new contribution to our understanding of European political theory will challenge the perspectives in which political thought is understood. Framed as a general account of the period between 1572 and 1651 it charts the formation of a distinctively modern political vocabulary, based on arguments of political necessity and raison d'etat in the work of the major theorists. While Dr. Tuck pays detailed attention to Montaigne, Grotius, Hobbes and the theorists of the English Revolution, he also reconsiders the origins (...) of their conceptual vocabulary in humanist thought--particularly skepticism and stoicism--and its development and appropriation during the revolutions in Holland and France. This book will be welcomed by all historians of political thought and those interested in the development of the idea of the state. (shrink)

ABSTRACTThe modern view of economic conspiracies stands in stark contrast to the view in the eighteenth century. Such classical economists as Adam Smith took conspiracy to be the natural result of our tendency to associate with one another. It manifested itself in collusion among both laborers and manufacturers to raise their income. By the mid-twentieth century, however, economists had come around to an entirely different view, according to which voluntary collaboration, especially in large groups, was unnatural and irrational, such that (...) the only way to sustain cartels and trade unions was via compulsory, tyrannical measures. The notion of rationality that underlies such a view—as seen in the parallel notion that it is irrational to vote—threatens the understanding of agency that is essential to democracy. (shrink)

This chapter argues that Hobbes believed that we have to assent inwardly as well as outwardly to the determinations of the sovereign, unless—surprisingly—we adhere to the Jewish or Christian religions. In those cases, we have made a civil covenant with God which in some respects trumps the covenant we have made to erect our normal commonwealth. The significance of this, the author claims, is that it brings out clearly the fact that our civil sovereign is internally authoritative because otherwise there (...) would have been no need for Hobbes to argue that God’s internal authority over the Jew or Christian itself rests on a civil covenant. (shrink)

The relationship between the history of political thought and modern political philosophy since the late 1960s has been marked by an apparent paradox. On the one hand, a number of leading historians of political theory, such as Quentin Skinner, John Pocock and John Dunn, have at various times expressly asserted that their subject should have very little relevance for modern theory; on the other hand, many of the same historians have also been distinguished contributors to discussions among political philosophers about (...) issues such as republicanism, democracy or justice. Moreover, these assertions have failed to discourage the philosophers, many of whom have continued the ancient practice of pillaging the classics in search of ideas and styles to be revived for their own time. (Obvious examples would be Nozick's use of Locke, Kavka's use of Hobbes and maybe even Rawls' use of Kant.) Some philosophers – notably Macintyre and Taylor – have gone so far as to argue that we cannot disentangle ourselves from the complex histories of our own culture, and that unhistorical political theory is both conceptually barren and morally hazardous. It would not have been surprising if the practitioners of positivist political science, of the kind which was widely accepted earlier in this century, had disclaimed any interest in the history of political thought; but what is disconcerting is that the positivist generation seems to have been more enthusiastic in principle about the modern relevance of studying the history of theories than the anti‐positivist generation of the period since 1960. So I will begin this paper by trying to explain the character of the methodological debate on the history of political thought which began in the 1960s, and how far the historians were really opposed to any modern exploitation of the classic texts of political theory. (shrink)

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) was the first great English political philosopher, and his book Leviathan was one of the first truly modern works of philosophy. Richard Tuck shows that while Hobbes may indeed have been an atheist, he was far from pessimistic about human nature, nor did he advocate totalitarianism. By locating him against the context of his age, we learn that Hobbes developed a theory of knowledge which rivaled that of Descartes in its importance for the formation of modern philosophy.

Thomas Hobbes was the first great English political philosopher, and his book, Leviathan, was one of the first truly modern works of philosophy. This book looks at Hobbes in the context of his era, and examines the importance of his work.