Abstract
In a discussion of methodological problems in the study of the history of ideas in which the focus is primarily on literature dealing with the history of political theory or philosophy, Quentin Skinner has addressed himself to what he contends are a number of conceptual difficulties related to various mythologies, mental sets, paradigms, and other types of preconceptions which have informed interpretations of writings from the past and explanations of the development of ideas.1 He argues that these difficulties, which are the product of the often opposed but equally mistaken beliefs that it is possible to rely exclusively either on an analysis of a text itself or on an investigation of its social context to determine its meaning, suggest a need for establishing adequate procedures of inquiry and criteria for determining the meaning of such works. Skinner's thesis is provocative and has drawn considerable critical comment.2 But despite the importance of the issues he raises about the recovery of historical meaning and knowledge of the past as well as the possible merits of his positive arguments about textual interpretation, he tends to treat the history of ideas as if it were a concrete activity distinguished by a common goal, i.e., a search for meaning and understanding, and to assume that the history of political philosophy may be differentiated principally in terms of the particular subject matter to which it addresses itself, i.e., political ideas. Not only does he assume that it is possible, and valid, to discuss methodological problems in the history of ideas in general in terms of examples elicited from the research of a variety of individuals concerned with the history of political philosophy but that it is feasible, and legitimate, to analyze and categorize the work of historians of political philosophy in terms of methodological commitments to either textual or contextual modes of interpretation. To treat the history of ideas and the history of political philosophy as a discipline and sub-field respectively and to employ such a textual/contextual typology violates one of Skinner’s own principal methodological prescriptions, i.e., the need to attend to the actual intentions of an author and the particular character of his argument in order to understand the meaning of his work.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Quentin Skinner: “Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas,” History and Theory, 1 (1969), pp. 3 – 53.
For critical discussions of Skinner's argument, see Margaret Leslie: “On Defense of Anachronism,” Political Studies, 4 (1970); Charles Tarlton: “Historicity, Meaning and Revisionism in the Study of Political Thought,” History and Theory, 3 (1973); Bhiku Parekh and R. N. Berki: “The History of Political Ideas,” Journal of History of Ideas, 2 (1973).
J.G.A. Pocock: Politics, Language, and Time ( New York: Atheneum 1971 ) pp. 4 – 5.
Ibid., p. 9.
Leo Strauss: The City and Man ( Chicago: Rand McNally 1964 ) p. 1.
Ibid., p. 3; Strauss: “Political Philosophy and the Crisis of Our Time,” in The Post-Behaviorial Era, eds. George J. Graham, Jr. and George W. Carey (New York: David McKay 1972) p. 222.
Leo Strauss: “Relativism,” in Relativism and the Study of Man, eds. Helmut Schoeck and James W. Wiggin ( Princeton: D. Van Nostrand 1961 ) p. 140.
Leo Strauss: What is Political Philosophy? ( Glencoe: Free Press 1959 ) pp. 11 – 12.
Leo Strauss: “Introduction,” in History of Political Philosophy (Chicago: Rand McNally 1972) p. 2; What is Political Philosophy? p. 17.
Leo Strauss: Natural Right and History (Chicago; University of Chicago Press 1953) pp. 2-5; “Social Science and Humanism,” in The State of the Social Sciences, ed. Leonard D. White ( Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1956 ) p. 422.
Strauss: What is Political Philosophy? p. 19.
Leo Strauss: “Epilogue,” in Essays on the Scientific Study of Politics, ed. Herbert J. Storing ( New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston 1962 ) p. 307.
Ibid.,pp. 322-326.
Ibid.,p. 26.
Strauss: Natural Right and History, p. 7.
Strauss: What is Political Philosophy? p. 56-7.
Strauss: The City and Man, p. 9.
Strauss: What is Political Philosophy? p. 66-7.
Ibid.,p. 66.
Ibid.,p. 76; “Political Philosophy and the Crisis of Our Time,” p. 218.
Strauss: The City and Man,p. 10; “Epilogue”, p. 313.
Strauss: The City and Man,p. 9.
Strauss: “Political Philosophy and the Crisis of Our Time,” p. 217; What is Political Philosophy? p. 172.
Ibid.,p. 40.
Leo Strauss: On Tyranny (Ithaca: Cornell University Press 1963) pp. 110 – 11.
Leo Strauss: Thoughts on Machiavelli ( Glencoe: Free Press 1958 ) p. 13.
Strauss: What is Political Philosophy? p. 47–9.
Ibid.,p. 50.
Ibid.,p. 54–5,
Michael Oakeshott: Rationalism in Politics, p. 137–67.
Strauss: On Tyranny, p. 24.
Ibid.,p. 25.
Leo Strauss: “Farabi’s Plato,” in Louis Ginzberg Jubilee Volume (New York: The American Academy for Jewish Research 1945) pp. 376–77. I owe this citation to Professor Eugene F. Miller of the University of Georgia.
Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1975 Springer-Verlag New York Inc.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Gunnell, J.G. (1975). The History of Political Philosophy and the Myth of the Tradition. In: Fraser, J.T., Lawrence, N. (eds) The Study of Time II. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-50121-0_21
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-50121-0_21
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-50123-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-50121-0
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive