Sir Robert Filmer and English Political Thought 9781442653504

Table of contents :
Contents
Abbreviations
Preface
1. The context and contours of Filmer’s work
2. Sovereignty and its implications
3. Adam and his heirs
4. Government by consent
5. Usurpation and conquest
6. Filmer and English royalism
7. Filmer’s place in political thought
Appendix A. Evidence of Filmerian ideas in royalist writers
Appendix B. The authorship of some works attributed to Filmer
Bibliography
Index

Citation preview

JAMES DALY is a member of the Department of History at McMaster University. Sir Robert Filmer (1588-1653) was a defender of 'the Natural Power of Kings against the Unnatural Liberty of the People.' His doctrine of omnicompetent sovereignty had little influence on the thought and political debates of his time, for none of his writings was published until the last few years of his life; but it came under scrutiny later in the century, particularly during the exclusion crisis and in the political writings of John Locke. This book is the first comprehensive analysis of his thought, its context, and its place in English political thought as a whole. Daly examines Filmer's publishing career, his relation to contemporary writers and critics, and the chief sources on which he drew. The book thus provides the background for a study of Filmer's theory of sovereignty, its voluntarist concept of law, its rejection of prescription, fundamental law, and non-monarchical forms of government, and its insistence that monarchy be not only absolute, but arbitrary as well. Analysing Filmer's interpretation of Adam's (and all kings') 'fatherly power,' here described as 'legal patriarchalism,' Daly shows it to be very different from most contemporary thought. In comparing Filmer's thought with that of other royalists and the positions taken by his critics, notably Edward Gee, James Tyrrell, Algernon Sidney, and of course Locke, he shows it to be strikingly original, almost revolutionary, and frequently distorted by those who dealt with it.

This page intentionally left blank

Sir Robert Filmer and English political thought

James Daly

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO PRESS Toronto Buffalo London

© University of Toronto Press 1979 Toronto Buffalo London Printed in Canada

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Daly, James, 1932Sir Robert Filmer and English political thought. Bibliography: p. Includes index. i. Filmer, Robert, Sir, d. 1653 - Political science. 2. Political science - Great Britain History. I. Title. JCI53.F5D34 321.6 [B] 78-25913 ISBN 0-8020-5433-1

In gratitude to my teachers in the University of Toronto's history department, especially J.B. Conacher, D.J. McDougall, M.R. Powicke, and W.W. Piepenburg (now of York University). If the tree amounted to something, it was they who bent the twig.

This page intentionally left blank

Contents

Abbreviations / ix Preface / xi 1 The context and contours of Filmer's work / 3 2 Sovereignty and its implications / 28 3 Adam and his heirs / 57 4 Government by consent / 82 5 Usurpation and conquest / 104 6 Filmer and English royalism / 124 7 Filmer's place in political thought / 151 APPENDIX A

Evidence of Filmerian ideas in royalist writers / 173 APPENDIX B

The authorship of some works attributed to Filmer / 194 Bibliography / 199 Index / 209

This page intentionally left blank

Abbreviations

FILMER'S WORKS Anarchy Aristotle Directions Inquest Necessity Originall

Patriarcha

The Anarchy of a Limited or Mixed Monarchy Observations Upon Aristotles Politiques Touching Forms of Government Directions for Obedience to Governours in dangerous or doubtfull Times The Freeholder's Grand Inquest Touching Our Soveraigne Lord the King and His Parliament The Necessity of The Absolute Power of all Kings: And in particular of the King of England by John Bodin ... Observations Concerning the Originall of Government, Upon Mr. Hobs Leviathan, Mr. Milton against Salmasius, H. Grotius De Jure Belli Patriarchal A Defence of the Natural Power of Kings against the Unnatural Liberty of the People

OTHERS Gee Locke Sidney Tyrrell

Edward Gee The Divine Right and Original of the Civil Magistrate from God... (1658) John Locke Two Treatises of Government: a critical edition with an introduction and apparatus criticus by Peter Laslett (1963) Algernon Sidney Discourses Concerning Government (1772 ed.) James Tyrrell Patriarcha non Monarchal The Patriarch Unmonarch'd (1681). TyrrelTs other work, Bibliotheca Politica (1691 on; 1718 edition used here), is not sufficiently important in this context to prevent the use of the author's name alone for the much more important book. When Bibliotheca Politica is cited, it is as: Tyrrell BP.

x

Abbreviations

NOTE

The pagination of Filmer's work is that of Peter Laslett's edition of Patriarcha and Other Political Works of Sir Robert Filmer (Oxford 1949), rather than that of each book individually. The pagination for Locke is that of the Laslett edition. When reference to material supplied by Laslett is given, his name is cited before the title of the Locke and Filmer work.

Preface

In the history of English political thought. Sir Robert Filmer occupies a peculiar position. His reputation started out under a cloud, for it is safe to say that the commonest reason for discussing him at all is the devastating attack suffered at the hands of the most influential of English political thinkers, John Locke. Thus, to a degree most writers are fortunate enough to avoid, he has been known through the hostile work of a brilliant and prestigious opponent. To make matters worse, his writings lent themselves to scornful treatment verging on the lampoon, so that an aura of the ridiculous surrounds his reputation. Nevertheless, he has not been without his admirers. J.N. Figgis made him out to be an important contributor to the Austinian theory of sovereignty, and J.W. Allen rated him higher than Locke as a political thinker.1 More recently he has received exaggerated praise as 'the most characteristic and influential defender of royal authority in England during the mid-seventeenth century.'2 That opinion has usually been rejected; it is widely conceded that Filmer was unique among royalists, that his opinions were not shared by royalist writers during the Civil War and Interregnum, when royalist political thought received its classical statement, and that he had few or no followers during that time.3 A reading of royalist literature certainly bears this out. But one claim made in Filmer's name is still widely accepted. This holds that after his Patriarcha was published in 1680, he enjoyed a belated eclat as the mainstay of Tory argument against the exclusion of the Duke of York from the succession. Repeated by the most authoritative scholars in the field, and in the most unmeasured terms, this has given Filmer a secure if modest place among 1 J.N. Figgis The Divine Right of Kings 148-60; J.W. Allen 'Sir Robert Filmer,' especially 45-6 2 W.H. Greenleaf Order, Empiricism and Politics: Two Traditions of English Political Thought, 1500-1700 80 3 Perez Zagorin A History of Political Thought in the English Revolution 185, 196; J.W. Allen 'Sir Robert Filmer' 27, 46; John Plamenatz Man And Society: A Critical Examination of Some Important Social and Political Theories From Machiavelli to Marx 1: 169-70

xii

Preface

the men who shaped political ideas in seventeenth-century England.4 Despite occasional misgivings, I accepted this opinion. My doubts grew, however, as I proceeded with research for a study of royalist political thought in the period. As I worked on post-1680 Tory writers, it was noticeable that Filmer's name and influence were usually conspicuous by their absence. I also began to see, as I worked towards an understanding of royalist theory, that Filmer's variant was of an almost independent nature. It came to seem pointless to study the thought of a man within a group when one conclusion would have to be that he did not comfortably belong in it. Filmer's political thought - let us call it Filmerism seemed sufficiently distinct from the body of royalist thought that I decided to deal with it in a separate work and then return to the original task. So I began an article on Filmerism, and that article grew into this book. Its purpose is to elucidate a quite original and forceful set of political concepts which have not often been clearly understood or appreciated, and that purpose dictates what may be a somewhat unusual analytical procedure. Filmer's own system, drawn from his works, of course occupies the centre of the stage, but the context in which he wrote and the way he has been studied necessitate constant reference to other writers, especially his critics. Their arguments are so wideranging and yet so specific, so closely related to an understanding of Filmer's most essential principles, that they will be crossing his tracks throughout this study, and so will the opinions of another group of contemporaries. Just as Filmer's direct critics are needed, so are the opinions of the royalists with whom he is so often connected. To understand Filmerism it must be compared and contrasted with royalist thought, so that the similarities, differences, and all4 Figgis Divine Right of Kings 148; FJ.C. Hearnshaw, ed. Social and Political Ideas of Some English Thinkers of the Augustan Age preface, 7; Maurice Cranston John Locke (London 1957) 207; Zera S. Fink The Classical Republicans 27 nil3. But the weightiest claims come from the editor of Filmer's political works. Peter Laslett finds Filmer's ideas 'the ipsissima verba of the established order' and speaks of 'the cult of Filmer' who was 'the most important single influence' on the Tory side. His works were 'the centre of a major controversy in political thinking,' their author's name 'is consistently recurring in the pamphlets and journals of the period,' Patriarcha being 'the canonical scripture of political obedience,' and Tory writers created 'an orthodoxy out of his writings.' Laslett goes on to lay stress on Filmer's 'champions,' 'supporters,' and 'defenders' to show how much he influenced a whole party's publicity, and he finds this continuing even in the 1690s (Peter Laslett, ed. Patriarcha and Other Political Works of Sir Robert Filmer 34, 36-8, 41). These opinions are repeated in the same author's 1960 edition of Locke's Two Treatises (67). Others echo this judgment in a more muted tone and a more restricted context (J.G.A. Pocock The Ancient Constitution and the Feudal Law 151, 159, 214, 235, and especially 187 n3; John Dunn The Political Thought of John Locke 44, 104). An interesting treatment of Filmer in the context of the 1680s also sees Filmer as the leading Tory spokesman (J-R- Western Monarchy and Revolution: The English State in the 1680s 8-19). The most recent and authoritative study declares that 'Filmer's books became the backbone of the Tory ideology' and that 'the Filmerian position very nearly became the official state ideology' (Gordon J. Schochet Patriarchalism in Political Thought 120, 193).

Preface

xiii

important nuances will bring its outlines into sharper relief against the background of general royalist opinion. While this present work cannot attempt the detailed examination of royalist thought as a whole, I think that the range of works and authors cited will suffice to convey the general sense of the mainstream of English royalism on the subjects Filmer dealt with. Such contextual material will complete the full-length portrait of an interesting and influential political thinker who has heretofore lacked a study on this scale. The organization of this work seeks to take due notice of both Filmer and his milieu. The first chapter deals with the context in which he lived and wrote, his critics and contemporaries, the sources he used, the way he used them, and the dominant characteristics of his thought. The second discusses his chief intellectual achievement, his doctrine of sovereignty and law, and its implications. The third proceeds to examine his most famous notion, the deduction of his concept of sovereignty from the patriarchalism which he found in the book of Genesis, and the problems which both his source and his use of it suggested to his critics. The fourth and fifth chapters explore Filmer's ideas on somewhat less familiar but actually stronger ground, the problems associated with the idea of consent as a validation of government, and the very ticklish matter of the claim to obedience which is attainable by usurpation or conquest. Both these chapters raise some curious questions about Filmer's place among very basic schools in political philosophy. The sixth chapter then comes to grips with the overall relationship of his ideas to those of his fellow royalists, and his status as a royalist thinker. The final chapter considers both his place in the political thought of his time and the impact which his reputation had on subsequent study of that time. The appendices give detailed analyses of the evidence of Filmerian ideas in royalist writings, and a discussion of his possible authorship of works not usually attributed to him. The heavy emphasis on Filmer's context will, I hope, underline his value as an aid to the study of the political thought of others in his time. In writing this book I have accumulated many debts, which it is a pleasure to acknowledge. I should like first to express my gratitude to Conrad Russell of Bedford College, University of London, and Quentin Skinner of Christ's College, Cambridge University, for their assistance in this work. The usual disclaimer, that I alone am responsible for the final text of this book, is especially appropriate in this case, since they saw only an earlier draft, and I did not act on all their suggestions and criticisms. My thanks are especially due to Gordon J. Schochet of Livingston College, Rutgers University, who has contributed so signally to our understanding of patriarchalism as an influence on seventeenth-century political thought. Professor Schochet drew my attention to Tanner MS 233, which is discussed in appendix B below. His kindness was especially marked in providing me with a copy of the proofs of his Patriarchalism in Political Thought so that I could peruse it even before it was published. My own work was in its final stages when I received this, but I have made extensive use of it, which will be evident

xiv

Preface

both where I agree and where I disagree, and indeed the whole work is invaluable as background to my subject. My gratitude is all the more sincere since Professor Schochet was well aware that I would be challenging some of his own conclusions. Surely his assistance is a striking example of going the extra mile in the interests of scholarly co-operation. I am also glad to acknowledge my share of the inestimable debt which all scholars of the period owe to Peter Laslett for his editions of Filmer's and Locke's most important political works. Closer to home, I should like to thank the staff of the McMaster University Library Interlibrary Loan department and Madeline Parker, then its head, for the unfailing and cheerful assistance on which all members of the university have always been able to count. I am also grateful to McMaster University for its generous financial assistance, in both summer stipends and a year of sabbatical leave in 1971-2, which greatly assisted my labours. In the same connection my gratitude goes to the Canada Council, both for a predoctoral fellowship with which I began my work on royalism and for the leave fellowship for my sabbatical year. And here it extends further, since this book has been published with the help of a grant from the Social Science Federation of Canada, using funds provided by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. I should also like to acknowledge grants from the University of Toronto and the Publications Fund of the University of Toronto Press, which helped to make publication of this book possible. My colleagues in McMaster's history department also deserve my thanks, most notably the chairmen under whom I have served, G.S. French and Ezio Cappadocia, for their thoughtfulness and encouragement, and E.M. Beame, whose field is close to mine and whose advice I have often profited by.

SIR ROBERT FILMER AND ENGLISH POLITICAL THOUGHT

This page intentionally left blank

I/The context and contours of Filmer's work

The men who made England's reputation for political theorizing in the seventeenth century were drawn from many walks of life. Among royalists there were, appropriately enough, particularly large numbers of divines, for religion permeated all thinking about politics. Because of the power of legal tradition and the nature of political and constitutional disputes, there were a goodly number of lawyers on all sides of argument. But another large group of authors was made up of educated gentlemen, for political thought became something of an amateur pursuit for the 'political nation' that ruled England and worried about its political fate. Sir Robert Filmer was not the least among this group. Born in 1588, he sprang from an old family whose considerable wealth had recently been augmented by the profits of the lawyer's trade.1 Educated at Cambridge and Lincoln's Inn, he married in 1610 and was knighted in 1618. For many years he led the life of a gentleman of Kent, active in local government, closely associated with mercantile, legal, and court circles in nearby London, and very much a part of one of the most vigorous and prosperous county societies in a country where such societies were the backbone of the national life. The breadth of experience which might come to such a person as Filmer may be indicated by the number of his friends and relations who were to dominate the life of the Virginia plantation in the years to come. Another indication was the cultural life of the county, which gave rise to a cultivated circle that discussed matters of moment and circulated manuscript treatises.2 It included friends like Laud's later biographer Peter Heylyn and the antiquaries Sir Roger Twysden and William Camden, as well as scholars of the rank of Sir Robert Cotton, John Selden, Sir Henry Spelman, and Sir Edward Bering. A wider intellectual life was represented by John Donne, George Herbert, and Isaac Walton, among others. Neither the administration of estates nor the cares of local government could 1 The material on Filmer's life is found in much greater detail in Peter Laslett, ed. Patriarcha and other Political works of Sir Robert Filmer i-io and the same author's 'Sir Robert Filmer: The Man versus the Whig Myth.' 2 Peter Laslett 'The Gentry of Kent in 1640' 155-60; Laslett Patriarcha 4

4

Sir Robert Filmer and English political thought

prevent a man of keen mind from greatly broadening his intellectual horizons in such company. It was for this company that Filmer first tried his hand at writing. In the 16308 he circulated a discourse on usury which was only published in 1653, the year of his death.3 While it tells nothing in particular about his political thinking, it exhibits a cool and judicious mind, an effortless if not distinguished style, and a rather conservative and fastidious attitude to morality. There was nothing here to augur an interest in political thought. But he must have been developing such an interest, for he soon set to work on what was to become his most famous work, Patriarcha: A Defence of the Natural Power of Kings against the Unnatural Liberty of the People. It is impossible to date it exactly, but it seems to have been produced between 1635 an 301, 325. On page 325 he refers to 'one solid author.' The material for the Brady controversy is mostly found in chapters 22-8. 61 Ibid. 11-13, 62, 109-10 62 Ibid. 6, 63-8 63 Ibid. 6

188

Appendix A

Filmer had rejected.64 Johnston certainly did regard primogeniture as the divine and natural mode of succession but referred, inter alia, to Nalson and Sir George Mackenzie as his authorities.65 On consent, Johnston came as close to Filmer as he ever did. He denied that the people's authority could erect a government, repeating that the power of life and death could never come from human sources. If rulers were elected, it was God's power that was given. This was also a common royalist opinion, and Johnston might implicate both royalist and strictly Filmerian thought when he spoke of a common father being appointed to exercise God's authority.66 Where he seems to adopt pure Filmerism is in the criticism of the possibility of consent being organized and of the role of women and servants therein. This was also, of course, Sanderson's opinion in his preface to Usher's Power Communicated, and it was this source which Johnston used.67 It raises once more the problem of Sanderson's source. But its indication of flat denial of consent is severely qualified by the immediately following admission that, in some cases (a free colony, for example), the citizens might choose a new ruler, but in this case the choice would become non-retractable. Here, as often, his source was Dudley Digges, though he used the Lex Regia as an example of a people giving their power to a prince.68 His point seems to be that it did not matter what the precisely original state of man was like; even the consent of naturally free people was not recallable. In any case, England's situation was clear. It was a 'successive hereditary monarchy,' established 'by birthright, by consent, by prescription and law, which are all the ways whereby any right can be legally established.'69 Like Filmer and all royalists, Johnston was sure that the king was fully sovereign, which meant that all liberties had proceeded from the 'gradual relaxation of the absolutism of our princes,' and were their 'grants, benevolences and gracious condescensions.'70 Needless to say, the king was the sole law-maker, his two Houses only petitioning him to give life to the law. There were considerable limitations on the royal power, and he went into them at some length, but their basis was voluntary grant, and he had oceans of statutes to back him up - as well as Mackenzie, Spelman, Usher, Clarendon, Sheringham, Brady, Coke, and Bracton. In this connection he faced the Civil War arguments on the Houses' role in law-making and the associated arguments on mixed monarchy which had 64 Ibid. 67-8,134. On the latter page, he refers to Aristotle's assertion that a king governing by law 'makes no new species of government' but was quite within the monarchical form. For Filmer's attitude to the translation and its meaning, see above, 16. 65 Ibid. 467 66 Ibid. 14, 16 67 Ibid. 20-1 68 Ibid. 22-3 69 Ibid. 24 70 Ibid, preface

Appendix A

189

sprung from the Answer to the Nineteen Propositions. Like many royalists, he was embarrassed on the subject and would obviously have preferred that it not arise. Since it had, he followed the earlier arguments on the element of mixture in the monarchy, restricting the Houses' role to that of concurrence in legislation.71 So close was his interpretation to that of the royalist canon that he specifically referred the reader to Sheringham's King's Supremacy Asserted for a fuller treatment of his own case.72 None of this sometimes waspish clarification led him to deny the three Aristotelian forms of government; he adopted them throughout, while never failing to point out monarchy's superiority to the others.73 Johnston's attitude to arbitrary government matched that on the forms. He declared that monarchy was the least arbitrary of the forms and indignantly denied that England was an arbitrary monarchy.74 The implications of this come out most strikingly in his doctrine on property. He agreed that Adam and Noah had very extensive, though undefined, property rights and that government logically preceded property. With this, Filmer would have concurred. But he went out of his way to assert that the king did not have an arbitrary control of the subject's property, quoting Clarendon against Hobbes on this matter. He further used Seneca's familiar dictum on the subject's property rights as distinct from the prince's political authority. How much more security, he smugly added, did Englishmen possess.75 And he had none of Filmer's indifference to the charge of tyranny. Conceding that monarchies could become tyrannical, he added quickly that this was only true 'where monarchy is absolute, arbitrary and unbounded; which in the English monarchy is much otherwise.' The English king's voluntary grants were so formed into laws (as measures and standards of government) that they are mounds and boundaries, which the monarchy hath no less prudently than indulgently been pleased to give itself, thereby to ease the subject of any just occasion of fears or jealousies (which receive their birth from the formidable redundancy of their absolute power) and by this means the government is secured from the falling into an arbitrary and tyrannical way of rulers, and the minds of the subjects freed from the dreadful apprehension of slavery.76 This conventional royalist position is also reflected in the matter of that fundamental law which Filmer had rejected. Hereditary succession, said Johnston 71 On the monarch as a source of law and liberties, and his relation to the Houses, see especially chapters 17-19, and 303-9. 72 Ibid. 303-4 73 See ibid, preface and, e.g., 35, 245. 74 Ibid. 6, 71 75 Ibid. 31-3. He even approved Fortescue's designation of England as a political rather than a regally absolute state. 76 Ibid. 71

190

Appendix A

with Exclusion in mind, was against that fundamental law which was 'the great basis upon which most of all the positions of the laws are established.' An act setting aside the lawful successor, even though approved by the sovereign, would be null and void.77 Nathaniel Johnston was in some ways the compleat royalist political thinker.78 Not only did his political theory conform to that usual among his party, but, to a degree rare for the time, he integrated his predecessors' work into his own and named his sources. Aristotle ('the philosopher') was by much the most seminal influence in his work; indeed he nailed his Aristotelian colours to the mast at the beginning of the first chapter. The classical writers, led by Cicero Cthe orator'), were lavishly used, as were the code of Justinian and related commentaries. English statutes, legal records, and chroniclers were found in abundance, but the most revealing use of sources comes from his use of those who represented his party in his own century. Digges, Sheringham, Nalson, and Mackenzie are his mainstays, and his use of them makes The Excellency of Monarchical Government an excellent summary of royalist thought in his time. Filmer's constitutional material is there too, fleetingly though quite consistently, but of the rest of Filmerism there is the same noticeable absence as in most of the rest of royalist writing. Johnston barely touched on Filmerian consent criticism and did not develop that in a Filmerian manner. He belonged to a different milieu. Considering the far greater range of subject which he covered, he was even less inclined to either Filmer's legal patriarchalism or any other of the precisely Filmerian interpretations than was Robert Brady. Brady had at least encountered some of Filmer's non-Inquest work through Somers. Johnston appears never to have heard of it nor to have independently entertained similar convictions. After the Revolution, the field of discussion narrowed considerably. Many of the problems which had occupied the stage of debate now receded before the great question of whether Englishmen ought to obey William and Mary or the exiled James. Anyone reading Jacobite argument must be struck by a method and structure which are quite different from previous royalist literature. Restricted in subject-matter, tightly argued, and relentlessly logical, it possesses a lucidity and clarity which were too often missing in the earlier history of royalist thought. This more abstract, more disciplined, and more purely intellectual approach would make the use of Filmer more likely, since it conformed to the characteristics of his own writing. The same might be expected from the narrowing of the range of topic. The Jacobites dealt with precisely the kind of fundamental problem Filmer made it his business to study. Their mutual concern was not the 77 Ibid. 474, 478. The quotation, on page 474, is actually from Mackenzie's That The Lawful Successor ... 20. 78 I have given Johnston more attention in this appendix than any other royalist because of his unrivalled representativeness as a royalist writer, a distinction emphasized by the fact that he published after Rimer's work was widely available.

Appendix A

191

minutiae of constitutional argument but the very basis of obedience itself. Yet Jacobite opinion shows, if anything, an even greater disregard for Filmerism or a greater ignorance of its existence.79 Filmer is mentioned specifically but seldom and in terms which re-emphasize the puzzling problem of his influence on royalists. Consider, for example, the case of Abednigo Seller's massive History of Passive Obedience, a collection of opinions in favour of non-resistance. Seller spread a very wide net, bringing in every writer who could be of use in reinforcing the traditional royalist doctrine, usually with quotations. Many royalists are present, and so is Filmer. After quoting Clarendon against Hobbes, Seller continues: To this great Minister of State I should join Sir Robert Filmer, but that it is needless, the Enemies of the unaccountableness of Kings, having branded him with the mark of a State Heretick for his Orthodox opinions, which among all good men make his memory reverend [sic], and his works Eminent, to which I advise the Reader to make his recourse, particularly his short, but excellent Treatise of the Power of Kings, Etc.80 The Treatise' was Filmer's compilation from Bodin and certainly contains some of his most characteristic and uncompromising opinions. Yet Seller does not quote him, and he shows that his estimation of Filmer is at least partly based on the reputation given him by his critics. Furthermore, the context is that of 'unaccountableness,' that is, non-resistance, which Filmer affirmed indeed, but which constitutes nothing distinctly Filmerian. Once again we are left wondering how much of Filmer Seller knew, though on the face of it his words commit him to a considerable degree of Filmerism, even if he did not consider it germane to his immediate task. Even more intriguing is the case of Jeremy Collier, who also named Filmer in one of his works. In 1689 Collier denied that man was born free. On the contrary, he was born in subjection to his parents, and this somehow implied also the rule of husband over wife and elder over younger brothers. His illustration of these principles in Adam's family sounds very much like Filmer. But he only referred to Grotius as authoritative support for his opinions and then dropped the whole subject, declaring, 'But this Patriarchal Notion, being not much material to the present Dispute, I shall insist no further upon it.'81 And nothing more of a 79 This conclusion is at variance with that found in Schochet Patriarchalism 213-14. In addition to what has already been discussed, two examples are there given to support the Filmerian conclusion. One is of a Whig smugly informing Locke of how he had rallied a Cambridge Non-juror about Filmerism and thus is only an example of a Whig's use of Filmer. The other will be discussed in note 82 below. 80 A Continuation of the History of Passive Obedience ... 146 81 [Collier] Vindiciae Juris Regii 2-3

192

Appendix A

Filmerian nature appears in the work, which deals with material which would certainly invite it. Two years later he referred to Filmer's 'hypothesis' and made a very strange remark. Agreeing with his opponent, the 'providentialist' Dr Sherlock, that no one can give away or usurp paternal authority, he insists that such authority can go by inheritance: This is the substance of Sir Robert Filmer's opinion; and because the Doctor has said nothing to confute it, I shall vindicate it no further.'82 This was not Filmer's opinion at all, and Collier, without realizing it, was recording his unfamiliarity with Filmer and his disagreement as well. He underlined his incompatibility with Filmer later in the same work, where he argued that men are equal and have no natural right to command each other.83 Collier's consistency leaves a lot to be desired, but if he is any index of Jacobite familiarity with Filmer, they knew little more than the name.84 Some of them may not even have known that. Samuel Grascome defended the Non-jurors against the charge of schism by denying the validity of the Williamite regime, and one of his attacks was on the Whig doctrine of government by consent, which was supposed to underlie the legitimacy of the Revolution. How could this be? If the old government was 'dissolved,' how could a new one be based on anything but the express consent of all men? Whoever did not so consent must retain his natural freedom, so that only the regime's conscious supporters were bound by its laws.85 This was an easy enough line to take, for such arguments were common coin by 1691. It may only be an echo of earlier royalists like Sanderson whose contact with Filmerism is itself problematical. In any case, Grascome did not follow it up, did not refer to Filmer, and showed no other evidence of Filmerism. John Kettlewell, another Non-juror, showed an utter remoteness from it. In his riposte to Sherlock, he spent a good deal of time establishing the human right to determine the exact form of government, while insisting that the authority 82 Dr. Sherlock's Case of Allegiance Considered 91. Sherlock has been connected to Filmer by others (Schochet Patriarchalism 214). James Parkinson ridiculed his de facto providentialism, pointing out the same contradictions which Jacobites saw from the opposite side. At one point, he asserted that Sherlock had 'taken leave of Sir Robert Filmer's Patriarchal But Sherlock had never been a Filmerian; his 1684 work The Case of Resistance accepted that sovereign power was always irresistible but appealed to Moses not Adam in Scripture and simply stated a strong but typical Tory argument for non-resistance. In any case, Sherlock's role in post-Revolution debate would hardly connect him to Non-jurors or Jacobites (Parkinson An Examination of Dr. Sherlock's Book ...). A different kind of confusion attends George Cherry's reference to a Jacobite pamphleteer who expressed a preference for 'absolute and arbitrary' monarchy. But the source turns out not to be Jacobite at all, but the work of a Williamite who combined patriarchalism, Hobbes, Harrington, and some unique insights into a suggestion for a sweeping overhaul of some of the most basic parts of the constitution ('The Legal and Philosophical Position of the Jacobites 1688-89' 314; An Answer to a Letter written by a Member of the Convention). 83 Dr. Sherlock's Case 124 84 Cf. Schochet Patriarchalism 214-15 for a very different conclusion. 85 [Samuel Grascome] A Reply to a Vindication ... 28

Appendix A

193

exercised by governments comes from God alone. This was no more than royalists had been saying since the Civil War, and it meant that kings or other governors had only the powers given them according to the laws of the land.86 He went on, however, to show that he was aware of either Filmer or the general objections which might come from a Filmerian milieu: The paternal power, in the long lives of the ancient patriarchs, carried the matter of government, I conceive, in the first governments: But as men grew shorter lived, and the sense of kindred wore out, there would be a necessity of other ways of appointing: which therefore human acts and ways, must settle as they did the point of properties, and the other fundamental things.87 Since this 'ceasing' of patriarchal government, men are left free to found governments in a number of ways, which may involve either consent or submission.88 As to whether election, submission, or enlargement of paternal power was the fundamental principle behind most early governments, 'that is not accounted for either way, but is an historical dispute.'89 If Kettlewell knew of Filmer he was making clear that he was of a very different mind. Even this brush with Filmerism was more than the rest of his colleagues in the anti-Sherlock cause ever showed; George Hickes, Thomas Wagstaffe, and Robert Jenkin are devoid of Filmerian premisses, styles of argument, or conclusions. It is to be hoped that this examination of royalist-Tory-Jacobite writings is sufficient as a reinforcement of the conclusions reached in the body of this work. There are other works which might be mentioned in this connection, but an exhaustive consideration would add intolerably to the length of the examination, and the results would, I think, reveal roughly the same picture of Filmerism's contact with royalist writing.

86 87 88 89

[John Kettlewell] The Duty of Allegiance ... 30-1 Ibid. 21 Ibid. 31 Ibid. 70

APPENDIX B

The authorship of some works attributed to Filmer

In 'Sir Robert Filmer: Some New Bibliographical Discoveries,' Gordon Schochet, whose work has been drawn on so liberally in this present volume, discusses material which he feels is either probably or possibly by Filmer, as well as some, in various places, which is certainly Filmer's. With some of this, he agrees, there is no need to concern ourselves, since, for one reason or another, it does not concern Filmer's political thought.1 The most interesting material is found in the Bodleian Library's Tanner MS 233. One section, on military affairs, is not by Filmer. Two other compositions, on Things Indifferent,' and a 'Defence' of this, may be by him, but there is no positive evidence one way or the other. Since they are consonant with his political thought, but, even if by him, contribute nothing to our understanding of anything important in it, they may be set aside.2 This leaves two important parts, which Schochet feels are Filmer's. They are a manuscript version of a pamphlet usually attributed to Sir John Monson and an unpublished consideration of whether or not it was lawful to take the Engagement drawn up by the Commonwealth in 1649. If Filmer wrote them, they constitute a very important addition to his corpus. I am convinced, however, that he wrote neither one. The most important is A Discourse Concerning Supreme Power and Common Right, published in 1680 though apparently 'Calculated for the year 1641,' which is usually attributed to Monson. (In addition there is a Short Answer to several questions proposed to a gentleman of quality, by a great Minister of State, printed in 1678, but Schochet agrees that its attribution to Filmer is much more dubious than the Discourse's.3 If it could be shown that the latter was not Filmer's the case for his authorship of the former, which contains little of interest anyway, would be destroyed.) The existence of this work in Filmer's handwriting (with comments), supported by considerable argument which is plausible at the very 1 'Sir Robert Filmer: Some New Bibliographical Discoveries' 135-60 2 Ibid. 153-4 3 Ibid. 135

Appendix B

195

least, makes a strong case for Filmer's authorship.4 But it is not, I think, a conclusive one. It is, for example, conceded that the Discourse was printed from another manuscript version; there is a totally different order of topics, with approximate halves reversed.5 A telling point is Filmer's addition of the words (not found in the printed Discourse) 'as I have proved in a treatise on that subject.'6 This must indeed refer to Patriarcha, but might just as well have been interpolated by Filmer into someone else's work as struck out by someone else (or Filmer) from Filmer's work. In fact there is no argument for Filmer's authorship which would not fit someone else's, and this might well be another of the manuscripts which circulated in the Kentish circle which had seen Patriarcha long before it was published, a manuscript copied by Filmer for his own use in an early version, after which he returned the original to its author or passed it on in the circle. The confusing preface in the printed version makes almost any provenance possible.7 Schochet leans heavily on the work's appearance in collections where it is evidently regarded as Filmer's, and this is not to be disregarded.8 On the other hand, he himself concludes that Monson 'must have had something to do with the publication.'9 So the existence of the manuscript and its contemporary circumstances leave open a number of interpretations as to its source. The conclusive evidence, I think, lies in the texts themselves and tells against Filmer as author. It is not that there are no Filmerian elements. There are such.10 There is a derivation of kingly power from Adam; only Monarchy is said to be from God;11 Adam was sovereign virtually, even before he had subjects;12 non-monarchical forms of government are counterfeit.13 There are other tinges as well. Of these, only the denial of the legitimacy of non-monarchical forms sounds specifically Filmerian, though we have seen that found in a man like Robert Weldon, as well as the semi-Filmerian Bohun. Certainly the author of the Discourse was familiar with some Filmerian concepts and quite possibly had read Patriarcha or discussed it with Filmer.

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Ibid. 136-44 Ibid. 139 Ibid. 142 Ibid. 137 Ibid. 142-3 Ibid. 144 Ibid. 141-2 3; f. 78. Where two sets of figures like these are given in the notes following, numbers standing alone at the beginning are the page-references to the 'Monson' pamphlet, while those following the T (folio) are the page numbers in the Tanner manuscript. Where either stands alone in a note, the same identification applies - the number alone for the pamphlet, the number following T for the manuscript. 12 7; f. 80 13 u;f. 83

196

Appendix B

But the weight of the evidence is much more against the Filmerian attribution, and the work is studded with important assertions and devices both foreign to Filmerism and antithetical to it. Both tyranny and arbitrary government are denounced in the most conventional terms.14 The analogies and concepts of cosmic harmony, so ignored by Filmer, are used in the proportions common to royalist writing.15 The nature and exercise of power are clearly distinguished.16 'The people' (not the fathers) are supposed to have chosen the governor, and God's power then was given to him.17 Concepts of limitation on the monarchy are taken for granted.18 Perhaps more conclusive even than these points, the author casually speaks of 'our mixed government.'19 None of these positions can be found in Filmer's system, which is built on repudiations of them. All, on the other hand, are found in conventional royalist writing. Not only are particular statements different from Filmer's; so is the form of writing. It rambles in the discursive way so common to royalist (and other contemporary) political writing, instead of being concentrated around key concepts, as Filmer kept his work. A much wider selection of sources is indicated, including biblical references which range well outside the familiar Filmerian range of Genesis and Sts Peter and Paul. And nearly the last two thirds of the work are devoted to a close and rather casuistic examination of the degree of obedience permissible to loyal subjects unfortunately placed under a usurping regime. Here the tone is worlds away from Filmer. There is a horror of usurpation, a dread of even the suspicion of co-operation with the usurper. Certainly there is no sign of Filmer's effort to counsel co-operation short of absolute acceptance; rather the author only grudgingly admits that, in some desperate cases, some small degree of reluctant submission is permissible.20 These sections are written in question-and-answer form, which Filmer never used in his political writing, and are full of conventional, and apparently inexhaustible, biblical examples of the evil of rebellion, all in a style congenial to royalist preachers. Indeed the tone is distinctly clerical. If Sir Robert Filmer wrote the Discourse, he must have had a split personality without parallel in intellectual history.21 It proceeds from a mind in almost every 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

10, 14, 33; ff. 77, 82, 85,97 4-6, 15, 39, 46-7, 72-3; ff« 78-80,85-6,101, 105, 121 24, 37,43; ff. 91,99,103 26, 30, 54, 57, 61; ff. 92-3, 95, no, 111-12,114 46-9; ff. 105-6 52; f. 108 E.g., 98-116; ff. 41-7,117. The latter apparently odd sequence results from the reversal of the two halves of the manuscript as compared with the published version. 21 His putative authorship has in fact suggested some discrepancies within his ideas to Schochet (Patriarchalism in Political Thought 133-5, 150-8 passim). If he was not the author, of course, such discrepancies disappear.

Appendix B

197

way different from that of the author of Patriarcha and the other works. And yet it was written during the period when most of those works were produced. I think it is safe to conclude that he is not the author of the Discourse. What about the 'Discourse concerning the Taking of the Engagement'?22 Because of its brevity, evidence either pro or con is not so easy to come by. As in the larger work, there are some quite possibly Filmerian notes, at least in the sense of opinions or expressions which Filmer would share. Noah's posterity are said to be divided in such a way that each family group has a separate language, 'as one hath judiciously observed.'23 The reference is probably to Filmer, and it is an approving one. Royalists were sufficiently hazy on the post-diluvian division of the human race for some of them to accept such a statement without drawing any Filmerian inferences therefrom, but this sounds like something close to Filmerism. More dubious is the statement about 'all humane laws being but the condescensions and indulgences of good Princes to regulate the excesses of supreme power.'24 Any royalist could say this, and Filmer would not have liked that word excesses. Even more ambiguous is the attempt to judge the legitimacy of the Commonwealth government which was preferring the Engagement. The author observes that 'popular states' must be set up by 'the unanimous and universal consent of all the members' to the form of government and the laws made by it. He concludes that no such consent stands behind the Commonwealth.25 One would expect Filmer to mention the fathers, but a Filmerian might only be speaking ironically, to show that the Commonwealth did not even fit its own supposed theoretical necessities. On the other hand, most royalists would probably accept such criteria for the establishment of a republic as quite valid. It is much more questionable whether a Filmerian, let alone Filmer himself, could speak of the fundamental laws on which the English kingdom was first raised.26 And it is perfectly impossible that such a person, let alone the master, could have called the monarchy 'a limited and mixed government, in regard to the exercise of power, though still absolute and monarchycall in right of the single person, in whom the supreme power resides in point of right.'27 Why should Filmer speak of 'the best tempered government in the world'? And how could such harmonist ideas as this occur in his writing?: For as in the naturall body an equall mixture of elements makes the best constitution; so in the civile a well proportioned and distributed power (in 22 23 24 25 26 27

ff. 135-7 f. 138 f. 139 f. I 3 8 f. 140 Ibid.

198

Appendix B

regard to exercise) fabricates the best and most happy commonwealth, which under our ancient forme of government made us the envy of all nations.28 Both the ideal of proportion and the distinction between the essence and the exercise of power are quite foreign to Filmerism, as is the bitter lament at the state of the nation under the usurping faction's 'arbitrary rule.'29 To Filmer, everyone lived under arbitrary rule and was none the worse for it. These works cannot now safely be attributed to anyone. They probably come from a fairly conventional royalist with some tinges of the Filmerian in him, especially on the more general applications of Genesis. One might speculate whether Peter Heylyn, Archbishop Usher, possibly Robert Sanderson, or perhaps Sir John Monson himself is the author of one or more of them. The author seems to have been used to writing; a comparison with the works of those mentioned, and of some other contemporaries, might well yield at least a likely name. One hopes that such a task will be undertaken. But it is a task which need not be undertaken here, where the question is not who wrote them, but who did not. Sir Robert Filmer is a foremost contender for this designation,

28 f. 141 29 Ibid.

Bibliography

NOTE: Bibliographical material on Filmer may be found in Peter Laslett's edition of Filmer's political works, 44-8, Gordon J. Schochet's Patriarchalism in Political Thought, 116-20, and the same author's article on 'Some New Bibliographical Discoveries,' all of which are cited in this bibliography. Caution must be expressed on the last source named, as my appendix B indicates. FILMER'S WORKS

Patriarcha and Other Political Works of Sir Robert Filmer. Edited from the original sources and with an Introduction by Peter Laslett (Oxford 1949), which contains, in this order: Patriarcha: A Defence of the Natural Power of Kings against the Unnatural Liberty of the People 1680 The Freeholder's Grand Inquest Touching Our Soveraigne Lord the King and His Parliament 1648 Observations Upon Aristotles Politiques Touching Forms of Government Together with Directions for Obedience to Governours in dangerous or doubtfull Times 1652 Observations Concerning the Originall of Government, Upon Mr. Hobs Leviathan, Mr. Milton against Salmasius, H. Grotius De Jure Belli 1652 The Anarchy of a Limited or Mixed Monarchy 1648 The Necessity of The Absolute Power of all Kings: And in particular of the King of England by John Bodin ... 1648 ORIGINAL SOURCES

An Answer to a Letter Written by a Member of the Convention 1689. ^n ^ Collection of State Tracts, Published on the Occasion of the Late Revolution in 1688. And during the Reign of King William III 1705-7. Vol. I Ascham, Anthony Of The Confusions and Revolutions of Governments 1649

2oo

Bibliography

Aubrey, John Brief Lives and other selected writings Edited by Anthony Powell. London 1949 Bagshaw, Edward The Rights of the Crown of England) As it is established by Law 1660 Bay ley5 Thomas The Royal Charter Granted Unto Kings 1649 Bodin, Jean Six Books of the Commonwealth. Abridged and translated by M.J. Tooley. Oxford 1955, 1967 - The Six Books of a Commonweale Edited with an introduction by K.D. McRae. Facsimile reprint of 1606 edition. Cambridge, Mass. 1962 [Bohun, Edmund] An address to the free-men and free-holders of the Nation 1682. Second and third parts 1682, 1683 - A Defence of Sir Robert Filmer, Against the Mistakes and Misrepresentations of Algernon Sidney, Esq. 1684 Bohun, Edmund. Preface ... and Conclusion or Postscript to Patriarcha, or The Natural Power of Kings. By the Learned Sir Robert Filmer Baronet 1685 — The History of the Desertion ... 1689 The Diary and Autobiography of Edmund Bohun With an introductory memoir, notes, and illustrations by S. Wilton Rix. Beccles 1853 Boucher, Jonathan A View of the Causes and Consequences of the American Revolution; in Thirteen Discourses 1797. Reprint New York 1967 [Brady, Robert] The Great Point of Succession Discussed 1681 - A True and Exact History of the Succession of the Crown of England 1681 — A Complete History of England 1685 Bramhall, John The Serpent-Salve; or, A Remedy For The Biting Of An Asp 1643. The Works of the Most Reverend John Bramhall vol. 3, Oxford 1843-5 - The Catching of Leviathan or The Great Whale 1658. The Works of the Most Reverend John Bramhall vol. 4, Oxford 1843-5 Bristol, John Digby, Earl of An Apologie of John Earl of Bristol Caen 1647, London 1656 Burnet, Gilbert Burnet's History of His Own Times: From the Restoration of King Charles the Second to the Treaty of Peace at Utrecht, in the Reign of Queen Anne London 1883 Carleton, George Jurisdiction Regall, Episcopall, Papall... 1610 Clarendon, Edward Hyde, Earl of A Brief View and Survey of the Dangerous... errors ... in Mr. Hobbes's book entitled Leviathan 1676 - The History Of The Rebellion and Civil Wars in England, begun in the year 1641 Edited by W. Dunn Macray. 6 vols. Oxford 1888 Cobbett, William, ed. The Parliamentary History of England London 1806-20. Vols. 4 and 5 [Collier, Jeremy] Vindiciae Juris Regii 1689 - Dr. Sherlock's Case of Allegiance Considered 1691

Bibliography

201

[Comber, Thomas] Religion and Loyalty Supporting each other 1681 Digges, Dudley An Answer to a Printed Book intituled Observations upon some of His Majesties Late Answers and Expresses 1642 — The Unlawfulnesse of Subjects taking up Armes against their Soveraigne, in what case soever 1644 A Discourse Upon The Questions In debate between the King and Parliament 1642 [Dryden, John] His Majesties Declaration Defended 1681 Eliot, Sir John The Monarchic of Man Edited with an introduction by A.B. Grosart. 2 vols. 1879 Falkner, William Christian Loyalty 1679 Feme, Henry The Resolving of Conscience 1642 - Conscience Satisfied 1643 - A Reply Unto Several Treatises 1643 Gee, Edward The Divine Right and Original of the Civil Magistrate From God... 1658 Goddard, Thomas Plato's Demon 1684 [Grascome, Samuel] A brief Answer to a late Discourse ... 1691 - A Reply to a Vindication ... 1691 Grey, Anchitell Debates of the House of Commons from the year 1667 to the year 1694 London 1763. Vols. 7-9 Grosse, Robert Royalty And Loyalty 1647 Grotius, Hugo The Law of War and Peace Translated by Frances W. Kelsey et al, introduction by J.B. Scott. Minneapolis and New York 1925 Hall, John Of Government and Obedience 1654 — The True Cavalier Examined by his Principles and Found Not Guilty of Schism or Sedition 1656 Hayward, Sir John An Answer to the First Part of a Certaine Conference, Concerning Succession... 1603 Heylyn, Peter The Re bells Catechism 1643 - The Stumbling-Block of Disobedience and Rebellion 1658 - Certamen Epistolarey or, The Letter Combate. in HI Parts 1659 Hickes, George A Discourse of the Soveraigne Power... 1682 - Jovian 1683 - A Letter to the Author Of a Late Paper 1689 - A Vindication of Some among Our Selves Against the False Principles of Dr. Sherlock 1692 Hobbes, Thomas Leviathan Introduction by M. Oakeshott. Oxford 1946 - Behemoth; or, The Long Parliament Edited by Ferdinand Tonnies, new introduction by M.M. Goldsmith. New York and London 1969 Hooker, Richard The Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity Books 1-4 Edited with an introduction by Christopher Morris. Everyman's

202

Bibliography

Hudson, Michael The Divine Right of Government 1647 [Hunt, Thomas] Mr. Hunt's Postscript for Rectifying some Mistakes in some of the Inferiour Clergy 1682 Hunton, Philip A Treatise of Monarchy 1643. Harleian Miscellany 6 - A Vindication of the Treatise of Monarchy 1644 Jenkins, David Lex Terrae 1647 - God and the King; or, The Divine Constitution of the Supreme Magistrate 1649 Qenkin, Robert] The Title of a Thorough Settlement Examined 1691 Johnston, Nathaniel The Excellency of Monarchical Government 1686 Jordan, Thomas Rules to know a Royall King... 1642 A Just Apology For His Sacred Majestie 1642 [Kettlewell, John] The Duty of Allegiance Settled upon its True Ground 1691 [Leslie, Charles] The Case of the Regale 1702 - The New Association Parts I and 2. 1702. A Supplement 1703 - The Rehearsal 1704-8 — Cassandra (But I Hope Not) 1705 - The Best Answer Ever was Made [1709] - Best of All 1709 — The Finishing Stroke 1711 - The Old English Constitution 1714 Some Tracts 13 A Letter from a Gentleman of Quality... 1679 Locke, John Two Treatises on Civil Government by John Locke, preceded by Sir Robert Filmer's 'Patriarcha' Introduction by Henry Morley. London 1884 - Two Treatises of Government A critical edition with an introduction and apparatus criticus by Peter Laslett. Cambridge 1963 Luttrell, Narcissus A Brief Historical Relation of State Affairs from September 1678 to April 1714 Oxford 1857. Reprint 1968 Mackenzie, Sir George Observations Upon the Laws and Customs of Nations as to Precedency 1680 - Jus Regium 1684 - That the Lawful Successor Cannot be Debarred From Succeeding to the Crown 1684 - A Defence of the Antiquity of the Royal Line of Scotland 1685 Maxwell, John Sacro-sancta Regum Majestas 1644 Merbury, Charles A Briefe Discourse of Royall Monarchic 1581 [Meredith, Edward] Some Remarques Upon a late Popular Piece ofNonsence called Julian the Apostate, etc. 1682 [Monson, Sir John] A discourse concerning supreme power and common right 1679 Nalson, John The Common Interest of King and People 1678 — The Kings Prerogative and the Subjects Privileges Asserted According to Law and Reason 1680 - The Complaint of Liberty and Property against Arbitrary Government 1681

Bibliography

203

[Overall, John] The Convocation Book of 1606 commonly called Bishop Overall's Convocation Book concerning the Government of God's Catholic Church and the Kingdoms of the Whole World 1690. Oxford 1844 The Judgment and Decree of the University of Oxford Past in their Convocation July 21, 1683, Against certain Pernicious Books and Damnable Doctrines Destructive to the Sacred Persons of Princes ... 1683 Parker, Henry Observations upon some of his Majesties late Answers and Expresses 1642 [Parkinson, James] An Account of Mr. Parkinson's Expulsion from the University of Oxford in the Late Times 1689 — An Examination of Dr. Sherlock's Book ... 1691 Rawlinson, John Vivat Rex 1619 [Richardson, ?] Providence and Precept 1691 Saltern, George Of the Antient Lawes of great Britaine 1605 Bancroft, William Modern Policies, taken from Machiavel, Borgia, and other choice Authors: By an Eye-Witness 1653 etc.; 1657 edition in George D'Oyly Life of William Sancroft 2: 228-98 Sanderson, Robert The Works of Robert Sanderson 6 vols. Oxford 1844 [Seller, Abednigo] The History of Passive Obedience Since the Reformation Amsterdam 1689 - A Continuation of the History of Passive Obedience Since the Reformation Amsterdam 1690 Sheringham, Robert The Kings Supremacy Asserted 1660 Sherlock, William The Case of Resistance of the Supreme Powers Stated and Resolved 1684 — The Case of the Allegiance due to Soveraign Powers 1691 — A Vindication of the Case of Allegiance ... 1691 Sidney, Algernon Discourses Concerning Government. The Works of Algernon Sidney 1772 ed. [Somers, John, Lord] A Brief History of the Succession of the Crown of England... 1714 Somers Tracts 13 Spelman, Sir John Certaine Considerations upon the Duties both of Prince and People 1643 Somers Tracts 4 — The Case of our Affaires 1644 Symmons, Edward A Loyall Subjects Beliefe 1643 - A Militarie Sermon 1644 Twysden, Sir Roger Certaine Considerations upon the Government of England Edited by J.M. Kemble. Camden Society 1849 [Tyrrell, James] Patriarcha non Monarchal The Patriarch Unmonarch'd 1681 - Bibliotheca Politica; or, An Enquiry into the Ancient Constitution of the English Government... 1718

204

Bibliography

Usher, James The Power Communicated by God to the Prince 1660 Works il A Vindication of The King 1642 [Wagstaffe, Thomas] An Answer to a late Pamphlet, Entituled Obedience and Submission to the Present Government... 1690 - An Answer to Dr. Sherlock's Case of Allegiance 1691 - An Answer to Dr. Sherlock's Vindication 1692 Warwick, Sir Philip A Discourse of Government... Written in the year 1678 1694 Weldon, Robert The Doctrine of the Scripture Concerning the Originall of Dominion 1648 Whitelocke, Bulstrode Memorials of The English Affairs... 2 vols. Oxford 1853 Williams, Griffith The Discovery of Mysteries 1643 — Vindiciae Regum 1643 — Jura Majestatis 1644 [Womock, Laurence] A Short Way to a Lasting Settlement 1683 Wood, Anthony a Athenae Oxoniensis Edited by Philip Bliss. 1820 Wren, Matthew Monarchy Asserted 1669 SECONDARY WORKS

Allen, J.W. 'Sir Robert Filmer' in F.J.C. Hearnshaw, ed. The Social and Political Ideas of Some English Thinkers of the Augustan Age London 1928 - A History of Political Thought in the Sixteenth Century London 1928, 1961 - English Political Thought, 1603-1644 London 1938, New York 1967 Aylmer, G.E., ed. The Interregnum: The Quest for Settlement 1646-1660 London 1972 Bailyn, Bernard The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution Cambridge, Mass. 1971 Bethell, S.L. The Cultural Revolution of the Seventeenth Century London 1951 Bowie, John Hobbes And His Critics London 1951 Bredvold, Louis I. The Intellectual Milieu of John Dryden 1934, Ann Arbor 1956 Burke, Edmund Reflections on the French Revolution Introduction by A.J. Grieve. London 1910 Cherry, George L. 'The Legal and Philosophical Position of the Jacobites, 1688-89' Journal of Modern History 22 (1950): 309-21 Chrimes, S.B. English Constitutional Ideas in the Fifteenth Century Cambridge 1936 Clark, Michael D. 'Jonathan Boucher: The Mirror of Reaction' Huntington Library Quarterly 33 (1969-70): 19-32 Daly, James 'John Bramhall and the Theoretical Problems of Royalist Moderation' Journal of British Studies II (Nov. 1971): 26-44 - 'The Origins and Shaping of English Royalist Thought' Canadian Historical Association Historical Papers (1974) 15-35

Bibliography

205

- 'The Idea of Absolute Monarchy in Seventeenth-Century England' Historical Journal 21 (1978): 227-50 D'Entreves, A.P. The Medieval Contribution to Political Thought 1939, New York 1959 - Natural Law: An Historical Survey 1951, New York 1965 D'Oyly, George The Life of William Sancroft 2 vols. London 1821 Dunn, John 'Consent in the Political Theory of John Locke5 Historical Journal 10 (1967): 153-82 - The Political Thought of John Locke Cambridge 1969 - The Politics of Locke in England and America in the Eighteenth Century' in John W. Yolton, ed. John Locke: Problems and Perspectives Cambridge 1969 Edie, Carolyn A. 'Succession And Monarchy: The Controversy of 1679-1681' American Historical Review 70 (1965): 350-70 Elton, G.R., ed. The Tudor Constitution Cambridge 1960 Feiling, Keith A History of the Tory Party 1640-1714 Oxford 1924 Figgis, J.N. The Divine Right of Kings Cambridge 1922, New York 1965 Fink, Zera S. The Classical Republicans Evanston 1962 Franklin, Julian Jean Bodin And The Rise of Absolutist Theory Cambridge 1974 Fur ley, O.W. The Whig Exclusionists: Pamphlet Literature in the Exclusion Campaign, 1679-81 Cambridge Historical Journal 13 (1957): 19-36 Gardiner, S.R. History of England, from the Accession of James I to the Outbreak of the Civil War, 1603-1642 London 1884. Vols. 9 and 10 - Constitutional Documents of the Puritan Revolution 3rd ed. Oxford 1906, 1962 Gilmore, Myron P. Argument from Roman Law in Political Thought 1200-1600 Cambridge, Mass. 1941 Goldie, Mark 'Edmund Bohun and Jus Gentium in the Revolution Debate' Historical Journal 20 (1977): 569-86 - Tory Political Thought, 1688-1714' PHD Thesis, Cambridge University 1977 Gough, J.W. Fundamental Law in English Constitutional History Oxford 1955 Greenleaf, W.H. Order, Empiricism And Politics: Two Traditions of English Political Thoughty 7500-7700 Oxford, etc. 1964 - 'Filmer's Patriarchal History' Historical Journal 9 (1966): 157-71 Hanson, Daniel W. From Kingdom to Commonwealth: The Development of Civic Consciousness in English Political Thought Cambridge, Mass. 1970 Hawkins, L.M. Allegiance in Church and State London 1928 Hearnshaw, F.J.C., ed. The Social and Political Ideas of Some English Thinkers of the Augustan Age London 1928 Hill, J.F. Christopher God's Englishman: Oliver Cromwell and the English Revolution New York 1970 Hinton, R.W.K. Review article on Tooley edition of Bodin's Six Books. Cambridge Historical Journal 12 (1956): 83-9

206

Bibliography

- 'English Constitutional Theories from Sir John Fortescue to Sir John Eliot' English Historical Review 75 (1960): 410-25 - 'Husbands, Fathers and Conquerors' Political Studies 15 (1967): 291-300 David Hume's Political Essays Edited with introduction by Charles W. Hendel. New York 1953 Jordan, W.K. Men of Substance: A Study of the Thought of Two English Revolutionaries, Henry Parker and Henry Robinson Chicago 1942 Judson, Margaret The Crisis of the Constitution 1949, New York 1964 Kendall, Willmoore The Conservative Affirmation Chicago 1963 Kenyon, J.P., ed. The Stuart Constitution 1603-1688 Cambridge 1966 - Revolution Principles: The Politics of Party 1689-1720 Cambridge 1977 Knights, L.C. Public Voices: Literature and Politics with Special Reference to the Seventeenth Century London 1971 Laslett, Peter The Gentry of Kent in 1640' Cambridge Historical Journal 9 (1948): 148-64 - 'Sir Robert Filmer: The Man versus the Whig Myth' William and Mary Quarterly series 3, no. 4, vol. 5 (Oct. 1948): 523-46 - The "Scientist" in Seventeenth-Century England' Cambridge Historical Journal 13 (1957): 183-6 Macaulay, Thomas Babington A History of England from the Accession of James the Second London 1871 Maravall, Jose-Antonio La Philosophic politique espagnole au XVlf siecle Translated by Louis Cazes and Pierre Mesnard. Paris 1955 Mcllwain, C.H. Constitutionalism and the Changing World Cambridge 1939 Complete Prose Works of John Milton Vol. 2, edited by Ernest Sirluck. New Haven 1959 Complete Prose Works of John Milton Vol. 3, edited by Merritt Y. Hughes. New Haven 1962 Mintz, Samuel I. The Hunting of Leviathan Cambridge 1962 Morris, Christopher Political Thought in England: Tyndale to Hooker Oxford 1953 Nelson, W.H. The American Tory Oxford 1961 Pickthorn, Kenneth Early Tudor Government: Henry VII Cambridge 1934 Pitkin, Hanna 'Obligation and Consent' American Political Science Review 59 (1965): 990-9; 60 (1966): 39-52 Plamenatz, John Man And Society: A Critical Examination of Some Important Social and Political Theories from Machiavelli to Marx Vol. I. London 1963 - Consent, Freedom and Political Obligation 2nd ed. Oxford 1968 Plumb, J.H. The Growth of Political Stability in England, 1675-1725 Harmondsworth 1969 Pocock, J.G.A. The Ancient Constitution and the Feudal Law Cambridge 1957

Bibliography

207

Pollard, A.F. Tudor Gleanings: i The "de facto" Act of Henry VII' Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 7 (1929-30): I-I2 Reese, M.M. The Cease of Majesty London 1961 Reynolds, E.E. The Trial of St Thomas More New York 1964 Rowen, Herbert H. 'Kingship and Republicanism in the Seventeenth Century: Some Reconsiderations' in Charles H. Carter, ed. From the Renaissance to the Counter-Reformation: Essays in Honor of Garrett Mattingly New York 1965 Salmon, J.H.M. The French Religious Wars in English Political Thought Oxford

1959 Schilling, Bernard N. Dryden and the Conservative Myth New Haven and London 1961 Schochet, Gordon J. 'Thomas Hobbes on the Family and the State of Nature' Political Science Quarterly 82 (1967): 427-45 - The Family and the Origins of the State in Lockes's Political Philosophy' in John W. Yolton, ed. John Locke: Problems and Perspectives Cambridge 1969 - 'Patriarchalism, Politics and Mass Attitudes in Stuart England' Historical Journal 12 (1969): 413-41 - 'Sir Robert Filmer: Some New Bibliographical Discoveries' Transactions of the Bibliographical Society June 1971, 135-60 - Patriarchalism in Political Thought Oxford 1974 Schulz, Fritz 'Bracton on Kingship' English Historical Review 60 (1945): 36-76 Seliger, M. The Liberal Politics of John Locke London 1968 Skinner, Quentin 'History and Ideology in the English Revolution' Historical Journal 8 (1965): 151-78 - The Ideological Context of Hobbes's Political Thought' Historical Journal 9 (1966): 286-317 - 'Conquest and Consent' in G.E. Aylmer, ed. The Interregnum London 1972 Smith, Constance I. 'Filmer, and the Knolles Translation of Bodin' Philosophical Quarterly 13 (1963): 248-52 Straka, Gerald M. Anglican Reaction to the Revolution of 1688 Madison 1962 - The Final Phase of Divine Right Theory in England' English Historical Review 77 (1962): 638-58 Thomas, Keith The Levellers and the Franchise' in G.E. Aylmer, ed. The Interregnum Wallace, John M. Destiny His Choice: The Loyalism of Andrew Marvell Cambridge 1968 Walzer, Michael The Revolution of the Saints London 1966 Western, J.R. Monarchy and Revolution: The English State in the i68os London 1972 Westfall, Richard S. Science and Religion in Seventeenth-Century England New Haven and London 1958

2o8

Bibliography

Weston, Corinne Comstock 'The Theory of Mixed Monarchy Under Charles I and After' English Historical Review 75 (1960): 426-43 - English Constitutional Theory and the House of Lords London 1965 - 'Legal Sovereignty in the Brady Controversy' Historical Journal 15 (1972): 409-31 The Life and Times of Anthony a Wood Edited by Andrew Clark. Vol. 3. Oxford 1893 Woodhouse, A.S.P., ed. Puritanism And Liberty Chicago 1951 Wormald, B.H.G. Clarendon: Politics, Historiography, Religion, 1640-1660 Cambridge 1951, 1964 Yolton, John W., ed. John Locke: Problems and Perspectives Cambridge 1969 Zagorin, Perez A History of Political Thought in the English Revolution London 1954

Index

Adam: power of 13, 41, 59-60, 61, 66, 73-4, 101, 125, 131, 134, 178-9; succession from 71-2, 74-80, 125, 12930, 134, 182, 184-6; see also patriarchalism, sovereignty Allen, J.W. ix, 128 ni4, 156 n9, 170-1 Aquinas, Thomas 98, 153, 165 Aristotle 8, 12, 15-17, 88, 91, 154, 168, 178, 187, 188 n64, 190 Ascham, Anthony 12, 113, 114 authority, abstract and concrete 41, 44, 49, 102, 196 Bagshaw, Edward 9 ni8, 178-9 Barclay, William 20, 164 Bayley, Thomas 174 Bellarmine, Robert 12, 20, 21 Bodin, Jean 7, 14, 17, 19, 20, 21-3, 28, 37-8, 53-4, 65, 178, 181 Bohun, Edmund n, 64-6, 74-7, 78 n8o, 80, 123, 128-33, 195 Bolingbroke, Henry St John, Viscount 166 Bossuet, Jacques Benigne 159 Boucher, Jonathan 167-9 Bracton 35 Brady, Robert 76n68, 80, 183-5, 187, 190 Bramhall, John 5 n7, 34 n28, 36 n36, 44, 49> 53> 66, 69, 78, 102, 110, 120, 149* 150, 155

Bristol, John Digby, Earl of 54, 120 Burke, Edmund 31, 89 ni6, 166 Burnet, Gilbert 133 n38, 144, 146-7 Clarendon, Edward Hyde, Earl of 31 ni6, 117-18, 127 Collier, Jeremy u n22, no, 112, 191-2 Comber, Thomas 121 n55 conquest, right of 25, 118-21, 132 consent 125, 135-6, 157-8, 179, 188, 192; of the absent 96; of children 93-4; of fathers 84-6; of the majority 88-9; and natural law 95-7; of the people 87-90, 197; of servants 94; of subsequent generations 89-91; of women 94 contract (compact), original 39, 58, 83, 90—1, 100, 130; see also consent Convocation Book: see Overall custom 30-1 de facto theory 9, 12, 104-5, J I 3> I J 4 5 116, 119, 123, 157, 161, 176-7 Digges, Dudley 5 n7, 79, 101, 147 n88, 188 Dryden,John 182-3 Dury, John 114,115, 116 Engagement controversy 114-15 escheat 84, 86, 93 Exclusion debates 143-5

Index

210

Falkner, William 9 ni8, 180-1 fathers: political function of 73, 84-6, 93-6; right of life and death of 65-6, 181; see also patriarchalism Feme, Henry 5 ny, 7, 40-1, 44, 51, 101-2, 147 n885 177; Filmer and 49-50, 52> !?6 fifth commandment 63-4 Figgis, J.N. ix, 170 Filmer, Sir Robert: life 3-8; mildness in argument 25, 168; originality 20-1, 68-9, 88-9, 91, 98-100, 153-6; publication 6-10,145-8,194-8; reputation ix-x, 159-60, 170-1; singlemindedness 12-15, 2 I > 26~7; style 155-6; use of sources 15-26,153-4; Whig use of 55-6, 160-6, 169 The Freeholder's Grand Inquest 31, 126—8, 147-8, 187

Gee, Edward 8-9, 10; on consent 86, 91, 95-100; on de facto power 161,176-7; on fatherly power 69-70; on majority rule 88, 96 n36; on the people 92-3; on succession from Adam 72; on usurper's right 107,110 genetic theory 57—8, 67, 167 Goddard, Thomas 10 n2i, 50, 79, 185-6 government: change of 44, 101-2, 177; forms of 43-8, 125, 130, 135, 174, 187, 189, 196; see also prescription Grascome, Samuel I I n22, 192 Grosse, Robert 63 Grotius, Hugo 8, 12, 14, 18, 19, 23-5, 26, 30-1, no, 118, 142, 158, 185, 191 Hall (of Richmond), John n6, 157, 177 harmony, cosmic 33-4, 48, 60, 154-5, 196, 197, 198 Harrington, James 177 Heylyn, Peter 3, 55, 162, 177-8 Hickes, George 10 n2i, n n22, 36, 40, 44, 5i> 55> "0, n6, 181-2

Hobbes, Thomas 7, 8, 12, 17, 28, 29, 33, 34, 36, 37, 98, 142, 149-50, 153-4, I55> 167 Hooker, Richard 12, 21, 33, 34, 90 n2i, 91, 98, no, 153, 154, I55> J 65, 168 Hudson, Michael 44 n75, 174 Hume, David 166 Hunt, Thomas 70 n45, 140 Hunton, Philip 5, 7, 15, 25, 40, 49, I4 2 ; see also monarchy Jacobites n, no, in, 112, 116-17, 120-1, 133, 135-8, 190-3 James I 21, 59, no, 164 Jenkin, Robert n n22, no, 116, 120-1 Jenkins, David 147 n88, 174-5 Jenkins, Sir Leoline 144 Johnston, Nathaniel 10 n2i, 150 moo, 187-90 Kettlewell, John 11 n22, 192-3 law 30-1, 34, 37-8, 59 n2; fundamental 13, 22-3, 30, 41-3, 136, 141, I42, 144-5, I75> !84, 186, 189-90, 197; positive/natural 36, 88-91, 98-100; Roman 18-20, 65-6, 99; as will 13, 2 9> 32~4, 45> !53, 154, 168; see also monarchy, obligation, right, sovereignty legitimation (ofgovernments): see prescription Leslie, Charles 11, 43, 99, 133-9, J66, 167 L'Estrange, Sir Roger i$i liberties, source of 39-40, 54-5, 130, 188 liberty, natural 14, 83, 85, 123, 135-6, 148,157 Locke, John 10-11, 47, 55, 140, 143, 156 n9; on Adam's successors 71, 75-7, 78; Boucher on 168-9; on consent 89-90; effect of Filmer on 158-9; Leslie on 134, 136; on patriarchal

Index power 62-4, 65, 72; use of Filmer 157-8, 162-7; on usurper's rights 106-7 Macaulay, Thomas Babington 132, 141, 166 Mackenzie, Sir George 10 n2i, 50, 53, 88, 101, 147 n88, 186, 188 Manwaring, Roger 55, 139, 162 Maxwell, John 174 Milton, John 7, 8, 25, 47, 52, 143 monarchy: mixed 7, 48-50, 188-9, 196-7; limitations on 34-5, 38, 40-1, 49-53, 101, l74-55 J89; see also law, sovereignty Monson, Sir John 194-8 passim Nalson, John 10 n2i, 31, 49, 53, 55, 77-8, 149, 181, 187-8 nonage 93-4, 125, 178, 183 non-resistance 36-9, 106-9, IIQ , I25, 132,137,168 obedience, passive: see non-resistance obligation, natural/conventional 90-1, 97-100, 164-5; see a^so law Overall, John 59-60, 134, 168 Oxford, Filmer and 141-3 Parker, Henry 5, 29-30, 69, 155 Parkinson, James 143, 192 n82 parliaments, antiquity of 31, 126, 183,

i87

Parsons, Robert 20 patriarchalism 59-61, 100, 180, 187, 191-3; analogical 59-61, 69-71, 167-9, 173; legal 67-8, 74-5, 86, 135, 151-3, 163, 173; varieties of 71 n49; see also Adam, fathers people, the 88, 92-5 Petyt, William 126-7 Plato 15, 17 power, use and exercise of: see authority

211

prescription: as basis for legitimation 119-22; as basis for liberties 31, 39-41, 127; see also liberties primogeniture 42, 74-6, 125, 133 n38, 135, 144-5, 174 n6, 183-4, 186, 188; see also fundamental law property, rights of 22, 24, 53-4, 90-1, 148-9, 158-9, 186, 189 providence 113-18, 121-2, 142; see also Sherlock Prynne, William 5, 6-7, 12, 127-8, 187 punishment, capital 124-5, J68, 188 Raleigh, Sir Walter 21 Rawlinson, John 35, 60 right: divine 99, 102, 121, 174; indefeasible hereditary 42-3, 138 n62, 141, 144-5, J66; see also law, usurpers Rous, Francis 114, 115, 116 royalist opinion 17, I09ni7, 131, 138 n62, 139-40, 149; on absolute/ arbitrary monarchy 14, 35, 50-2, 55, 120, 149, I55> 159, 182, 188-9, 196; authors 5, 7, 9, n, 140, 150 moo, 162, 165, 173, 174, 177, 181; on Adam/Noah's power 77-8, 125, 134, 179, 180, 183-6, 197; on capital punishment 125, 168, i88;on conquest 119-21, 132; on consent 88, 91, 101-2, 125, 135, 179, 188, 192, 193, 197; and cosmic harmony 34, 154-5; and Filmer's reputation 159—60, 163, 165, 166, 170-1; on forms of government 43-4, 46, 125, 130, 135, 177, 178, 181-2, 184-9 passim y 195; and The Freeholder's Grand Inquest 126-8, 147-8; on fundamental law 41-2, 136, 141, I44~5> 175, 184-5, 186, 189-90, 197; and Hobbes 149-50, 153; on limitations on government 14, 34-6, 39, 52-5, i35-65 I55 5 174, I755 177, 189, 196; on mixed monarchy 7, 49-50, 188-9, J96, 197-8; on nonage

Index

212

125, 178, 183; on non-resistance 38-9, 125, 132, 137, 141, 191; on patriarchalism 59-61, 63-5, 66, 69, 70, 75, I25, 135, 173, 178, 181, 186, 187, 191-2, 193; on pedigree from Adam/Noah 79-80, 129-30, 134,184, 185; on prescription 31, 39-40, 41, 119- 22, 188; on primogeniture 76, 125, 135, 144, 174 n6, 183-5, 186, 188; on property rights 53-4, 149, 186, 189; on providence 116-18, 142; on source of authority 44, 102, 124, 125, 168, 174, 175, !88, 193, 196; on source of liberties 39, 130, 148, 188; on usurper's right 110-12, 150, 196 Royston, Richard 6, 145 Bancroft, William 140-1, 147 n88 Sanderson, Robert no-n, 179-80, 181, 188 Schochet, Gordon J. 59 n3, 71 n49, 86 n8, 194-8 Selden, John 3, 12, 187 Seller, Abednigo 191 settlement: see prescription Sheringham, Robert 9 ni8, 39, 49, 51, 120, 150 moo, 180,189 Sherlock, William 116-17, 181 n37, 192; see also providence Ship Money 4, 148, 158 Sibthorpe, Robert 55, 139, 162 Sidney, Algernon 10, 47, 55, 72, 73, 77, 89 nil, 94, 129-30, 131, 146, 161-2 slavery 66, 118, 130, 148, 189 Somers, John, Lord 42, 45, 55, 79-80, 126-7, 183-4, 185

sovereignty 19, 22-3, 28-30, 61; absolute and arbitrary 13-14, 23, 29-30, 32, 35-6, 38 n46, 40, 43, 50-3, 101, 135-6, 182-3, 197-8; see also Adam, law, monarchy Suarez, Francisco 12, 20, 21, 67, 158 things indifferent 108-9 Turkish despotism 5 5 Twysden, Sir Roger 3, 48, 175 tyranny 132, 148-9, 189, 196 Tyrrell, James 9, 10, 11, 46, 55, 131, 140, 161; on Adam's power 62-7 passim, 75; on Adam's successors 76-7, 79; on consent 85-6, 89, 90-1, 92-6; on the family 69, 73; on limits on sovereignty 34-5, 39 n50, 42, 101; on natural law 98, 99-100; on usurper's right 108-9, I I J , J I 4 Usher, James 69, 179 usurpers, rights of 105-17, 130, 133, 135, 138,196 utilitarianism (in political thought) III-I2

voluntarism (legal): see law Wagstaffe, Thomas n n22, 116, 193 Warwick, Sir Philip 9 ni8, 36, 51,69,91, 102 Weldon, Robert 44^5, 174-5, 195 Wentworth, Sir Thomas 60 will: see law Williams, Griffith 174 Womock, Lawrence 35, 181 Wren, Matthew i8on3i

This page intentionally left blank

This book was designed by ANTJE LINGNER

and was printed by University of Toronto Press