Abstract
Abstract
This article explores a sizable and largely unknown manuscript treatise from the 1670s, “Pax et Obedientia,” which discusses the Civil Wars, trade, the origins of government, toleration, plantations (especially Jamaica), and the royal supremacy, embedding within it a distinctive engagement with Hobbes and a particular vision of imperial composite monarchy. This first analysis of what “Pax” said, who wrote it, and why he did so in the way that he did nuances the present understanding of Restoration debates over a centralizing empire; it reveals the different forms that policy makers thought that empire might take, while also capturing a moment of transition between different meanings of imperium. The anonymous author's engagement with Hobbes further suggests how questions that later fell into the realm of political economy were discussed at the time, using the language of natural jurisprudence. In demonstrating the methodological necessity of utilizing both linguistic and institutional contexts, the authors argue that the apparent incoherence of “Pax” reflects an essential although ineptly executed strategy on the part of its author. Inchoate though the manuscript is, it offers a significant opportunity to understand the intellectual world of junior members of the government and to reconsider the intersection of political thinking and political action.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Reference10 articles.
1. Hobbes, Heresy, and Lord Arlington;Milton;History of Political Thought,1993
2. Hobbism in the Later 1660s: Daniel Scargill and Samuel Parker;Parkin;Historical Journal,1999
3. Hobbes's Ambiguous Politics;Goldsmith;History of Political Thought,1990
4. The discovery of Boyle's law, and the concept of the elasticity of air in the seventeenth century
5. The Mechanics of Opposition: Restoration Cambridge v. Daniel Scargill