Republicanismo inglês e a concepção neorromana de liberdade: a problemática interpretação de Quentin Skinner
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.2318-8863.discurso.2022.206607Keywords:
Quentin Skinner, english republicanism, freedom, MachiavelliAbstract
The aim of the article is to discuss Quentin Skinner’s interpretation of the conception of freedom found in English authors who defended the republican regime established in England between 1649 and 1660. In his historical narrative, this conception of freedom, characterized by the absence of arbitrary interference, would be inspired by the Roman theory of free States, expressed mainly in the republican thought of Machiavelli, which would characterize English republicanism as a Machiavellian moment. The intention is to show that this narrative is problematic: first, because it is not possible to extract from Machiavelli’s analyzed texts this conception of freedom; later, if these English authors used Machiavelli’s arguments in favor of the republican regime, they did not accept its main foundations.Downloads
References
Barros, A. R. G. (2015a). Republicanismo Inglês: uma teoria da liberdade. São Paulo: Discurso Editorial/FAPESP.
Barros, A. R. G. (2015b). “Quentin Skinner e a liberdade republicana em Maquiavel”. Discurso, 45, p. 187-206.
Barros, A. R. G. (2018). “Skinner, lector de Hobbes”. In: Adverse, H.; Bignotto, N. (org.). Quentin Skinner: el arte de leer. Buenos Aires: Katz Editores.
Barros, A. R. G_. (2019a). “John Pocock e a Liberdade Republicana em Maquiavel”. In: Adverse, H. (org.). As Faces de Maquiavel: história, república, corrupção. Belo Horizonte: Editora D’Plácido, p. 217-230.
Barros, A. R. G. (2019b). “Machiavelli and English Republicanism: The Machiavellian Moment Revisited”. A Journal of Anglo-American Studies, vol. 8, p. 31-46.
Burgess, G. (1992). The politics of the Ancient Constitution 1603-1642. London: Macmillan Press.
Cromartie, A. (1998). “Harringtonian virtue: Harrington, Machiavelli, and the method of the moment”. The Historical Journal, vol. 41 (4), p. 987-1009.
Harrington, J. (1992). The Commonwealth of Oceana and A System of Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hexter, J. H. (org.) (1992). Parliament and Liberty: from the reign of Elizabeth to the English Civil War. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Hobbes, T. (1985). Leviathan. London: Penguin Classics.
Jaime I (1986). “A speech to the Lords and Commons of the Parliament at White-Hall” (1610). In: Wootton, D. (org.). Divine Right and Democracy. London: Penguin Books, p. 107-110.
Jaime I. (1990). “The Trew Law of Free Monarchies (1598). In: Sommerville, J. (org.). King James VI and I: Political Writings. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-sity Press, p. 62-84.
Maquiavel, N. (2007). Discursos sobre a primeira década de Tito Lívio. São Paulo: Martins Fontes.
Nedham, M. (1650). The Case of the Commonwealth of England State. Disponível em: www.eebo.chadwyck.com.
Nedham, M. (1656). The excellencie of a free State. Disponível em: www.constituion.org/cmt/nedham/nedham.htm.
Oakley, F. (1968). “Jacobean Political Theology: The Absolute and Ordinary Powers of the King”. Journal of the History of Ideas, 29, p. 323-346.
Pennock, J. R. (1960). “Hobbes’s Confusing Clarity: the case of liberty”. American Political Science Review, 54, p. 428-436.
Pocock, J. G. A. (1965). “Machiavelli, Harrington and English Political Ideolo-gies in the Eighteenth Century”. The William and Mary Quarterly, 22(4), p. 549-583.
Pocock, J. G. A. (1975). The Machiavellian Moment: Florentine Political Thought and the Atlantic Republican Tradition. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Reeve, L. J. (1989). Charles I and the Road to Personal Rule. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sharpe, K. (1992). The Personal Rule of Charles I. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Skinner, Q. (1964). “Hobbes’s Leviathan”. The Historical Journal, 7, p. 321-333.
Skinner, Q. (1965a). “Hobbes on Sovereignty: An Unknown Discussion”. Political Studies, 13, p. 213-218.
Skinner, Q. (1965b). “History and Ideology in the English Revolution”. The Histori-cal Journal, 8, p. 151-178.
Skinner, Q. (1966). “The Ideological Context of Hobbes´s Political Thought”. The Historical Journal, 9, p. 286-317.
Skinner, Q. (1969). “Meaning and understanding in the history of ideas”. History and Theory, 8(3), p. 3-53.
Skinner, Q. (1983). “Machiavelli on the Maintenance of Liberty”. Politics, 18(2), p. 3-15.
Skinner, Q. (1984). “The idea of negative liberty: philosophical and historical per-spectives”. In: Rorty, R.; Schneewind, J.; Skinner Q. (org.). Philosophy in His-tory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 193-221.
Rorty, R.; Schneewind, J.; Skinner Q. (1990). “Thomas Hobbes and the Proper Signification of Liberty”. Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 40, p.121-151.
Rorty, R.; Schneewind, J.; Skinner Q. (1998). Liberty before Liberalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rorty, R.; Schneewind, J.; Skinner Q. (2002). “Interview by Petri Koikkalainen and Sami Syrämäki”. Finnish Yearbook of Political Thought, 6, p. 39-63.
Rorty, R.; Schneewind, J.; Skinner Q. (2005). “Classical Liberty and the coming of the English Civil War”. In: Gelderen, M.; Skinner, Q. (org.). Republicanism: a shared European heritage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 9-28.
Rorty, R.; Schneewind, J.; Skinner Q. (2006). “Rethinking Political Liberty”. History Workshop Journal, 61, p. 156-170.
Rorty, R.; Schneewind, J.; Skinner Q. (2008). Hobbes and Republican Liberty. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-sity Press.
Smith, D. L. (1999). The Stuart Parliaments, 1603-1689. London: Hodder Arnold.
Sommerville, J. (1986). Royalists and Patriots: Politics and Ideology in England, 1603-1640. London: Longman.
Sommerville, J. (1991). “James I and the Divine Right of Kings, English Politics and Continental Theory”. In: Peck, L. L. (org.). The Mental of the Jacobean Court. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 55-70.
Wernha, A. G. (1965) Liberty and Obligation in Hobbes, In Brown, Keith C. (Ed.) Hobbes Studies, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 117-139.
Wilcher, R. (2001). The Writings of Royalism, 1628-1660. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wootton, D. (1986). The Petition of Right (1628). In: Divine Right and Democracy: an anthology of political writing Stuart England. London, Penguin Classics, p. 168-170.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Alberto Ribeiro Gonçalves de Barros
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
O trabalho da Discurso foi licenciado com uma Licença Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International.
Os autores aqui publicados mantém os direitos sobre seus artigos
De acordo com os termos seguintes:
-
Atribuição [BY] — Deve-se dar o crédito apropriado, prover um link para a licença e indicar se mudanças foram feitas.
-
NãoComercial [NC] — É proibido o uso deste material para fins comerciais.
-
CompartilhaIgual [SA] — Caso haja remixagem, transformação ou criação a partir do material, é necessário distribuir as suas contribuições sob a mesma licença que o original.
