¥26,349¥26,349 税込
ポイント: 527pt
(2%)
無料配送 6月11日-15日にお届け
発送元: BENRI HOME 販売者: BENRI HOME
¥26,349¥26,349 税込
ポイント: 527pt
(2%)
無料配送 6月11日-15日にお届け
発送元: BENRI HOME
販売者: BENRI HOME
¥9,478¥9,478 税込
ポイント: 95pt
(1%)
配送料 ¥495 6月15日-26日にお届け
発送元: ハウス オブ トレジャー 販売者: ハウス オブ トレジャー
¥9,478¥9,478 税込
ポイント: 95pt
(1%)
配送料 ¥495 6月15日-26日にお届け
発送元: ハウス オブ トレジャー
販売者: ハウス オブ トレジャー
無料のKindleアプリをダウンロードして、スマートフォン、タブレット、またはコンピューターで今すぐKindle本を読むことができます。Kindleデバイスは必要ありません。
ウェブ版Kindleなら、お使いのブラウザですぐにお読みいただけます。
携帯電話のカメラを使用する - 以下のコードをスキャンし、Kindleアプリをダウンロードしてください。
The Politics of Liberty in England and Revolutionary America ハードカバー – 2004/7/26
英語版
Lee Ward
(著)
{"desktop_buybox_group_1":[{"displayPrice":"¥26,349","priceAmount":26349.00,"currencySymbol":"¥","integerValue":"26,349","decimalSeparator":null,"fractionalValue":null,"symbolPosition":"left","hasSpace":false,"showFractionalPartIfEmpty":true,"offerListingId":"fFjyiIrCWrbTEWpjy7KyAugpOuEA%2BjlL3F%2FYNowX0e0uEGcb9MW%2FiO7oKlzrYH%2B5VGCGH896fzlDb3d5Un6PXUObb%2B9%2BmODy5Vsh7JAJhUgOuq%2FM3vzc9VAQwnGCHH4bAHqy4ScXq9JhJj1CpJk0HUH798HVghq2kUoGB5eZGntnRnydmvoy2btem5UUmZ93","locale":"ja-JP","buyingOptionType":"NEW","aapiBuyingOptionIndex":0}, {"displayPrice":"¥9,478","priceAmount":9478.00,"currencySymbol":"¥","integerValue":"9,478","decimalSeparator":null,"fractionalValue":null,"symbolPosition":"left","hasSpace":false,"showFractionalPartIfEmpty":true,"offerListingId":"fFjyiIrCWrbTEWpjy7KyAugpOuEA%2BjlLWMGj6aqE2PSjN7%2BS2i9b%2BcnQ8YKfR3ak5VrqsHxPsnrYy7AALX3NXo%2BrZNXD3lVTDm4dpzf2q0bR2YgwjGYXxl9r9X9tmW2AMnRfHzP%2BA6DALmAGV8Bw%2BAgzJbAVnI1hvLAPxl3BzE2u6EuG6TYl%2FQ%3D%3D","locale":"ja-JP","buyingOptionType":"USED","aapiBuyingOptionIndex":1}]}
購入オプションとあわせ買い
This study locates the philosophical origins of the Anglo-American political and constitutional tradition in the philosophical, theological, and political controversies in seventeenth-century England. By examining the quarrel it identifies the source of modern liberal, republican and conservative ideas about natural rights and government in the seminal works of the Exclusion Whigs Locke, Sidney, and Tyrrell and their philosophical forebears Hobbes, Grotius, Spinoza, and Pufendorf. This study illuminates how these first Whigs and their diverse eighteenth-century intellectual heirs such as Bolingbroke, Montesquieu, Hume, Blackstone, Otis, Jefferson, Burke, and Paine contributed to the formation of Anglo-American political and constitutional theory in the crucial period from the Glorious Revolution through to the American Revolution and the creation of a distinctly American understanding of rights and government in the first state constitutions.
- 本の長さ470ページ
- 言語英語
- 出版社Cambridge University Press
- 発売日2004/7/26
- 寸法15.88 x 3.81 x 22.86 cm
- ISBN-100521827450
- ISBN-13978-0521827454
商品の説明
レビュー
"This impressive volume breaks down the English Whig tradition into three major strands that have profoundly influenced the Anglo-American political tradition. Highly recommended." E.R. Gill, Bradley University, CHOICE
"This book has many virtues. It is arguably the fullest account of the genesis of Whig political theory...a major contribution to the intellectual histoyr of the American Revolution...deserves a wide audience." - William and Mary Quarterly, Craig Yirush, UCLA
"This is a well-written and welcome work..." American Historical Review Jerome Huyler, Seton Hall University
"...Mr. Ward's simple but profound contribution to the debate shows that the liberal and republican interpretations present a false dichotomy....Mr. Ward does an excellent job of recreating the intellectual milieu of the Exclusion Crisis by revivifying the major alternative political philosophies, many of which are virtually unknown today, that formed the horizon of the early modern debate over sovereignty..."
--Matthew Simpson, The Scriblerian
"This book has many virtues. It is arguably the fullest account of the genesis of Whig political theory...a major contribution to the intellectual histoyr of the American Revolution...deserves a wide audience." - William and Mary Quarterly, Craig Yirush, UCLA
"This is a well-written and welcome work..." American Historical Review Jerome Huyler, Seton Hall University
"...Mr. Ward's simple but profound contribution to the debate shows that the liberal and republican interpretations present a false dichotomy....Mr. Ward does an excellent job of recreating the intellectual milieu of the Exclusion Crisis by revivifying the major alternative political philosophies, many of which are virtually unknown today, that formed the horizon of the early modern debate over sovereignty..."
--Matthew Simpson, The Scriblerian
著者について
Dr Lee Ward is Alpha Sigma Nu Distinguished Associate Professor of Political Studies at Campion College at the University of Regina. In addition to authoring The Politics of Liberty in England and Revolutionary America, he co-edited The Ashgate Research Companion to Federalism (2009) with Ann Ward. He has also written articles on John Locke, Aristotle, Plato, Montesquieu, and Algernon Sidney that have appeared in the American Political Science Review, the Canadian Journal of Political Science, Publius: A Journal of Federalism, the Journal of Moral Philosophy, the American Journal of Political Science, the International Philosophical Quarterly, and Interpretation: A Journal of Political Philosophy.
登録情報
- 出版社 : Cambridge University Press (2004/7/26)
- 発売日 : 2004/7/26
- 言語 : 英語
- ハードカバー : 470ページ
- ISBN-10 : 0521827450
- ISBN-13 : 978-0521827454
- 寸法 : 15.88 x 3.81 x 22.86 cm
- カスタマーレビュー:
著者について
著者をフォローして、新作のアップデートや改善されたおすすめを入手してください。
著者の本をもっと発見したり、よく似た著者を見つけたり、著者のブログを読んだりしましょう
カスタマーレビュー
星5つ中4.6つ
5つのうち4.6つ
6グローバルレーティング
評価はどのように計算されますか?
全体的な星の評価と星ごとの割合の内訳を計算するために、単純な平均は使用されません。その代わり、レビューの日時がどれだけ新しいかや、レビューアーがAmazonで商品を購入したかどうかなどが考慮されます。また、レビューを分析して信頼性が検証されます。
他の国からのトップレビュー
Dr. Mervin B. Whealy
5つ星のうち5.0
Five Stars
2018年6月23日にアメリカ合衆国でレビュー済みAmazonで購入
Very useful for my research.
brutus2011
5つ星のうち5.0
Great book, great condition, great service
2007年3月8日にアメリカ合衆国でレビュー済みAmazonで購入
Book arrived on time in described condition-couldn't be more pleased!
J. Aronson
5つ星のうち3.0
Whigs Triumphant!
2013年5月25日にアメリカ合衆国でレビュー済みAmazonで購入
This is a survey of the dominant political theories in England and the US between 1689 and 1776 from the point of view of the winners, who are the Whigs. But political theory is to history as economic theory is to business; the events happen and the winners invent theories to justify holding on to their gains. Later crises test their theories.
The book is most useful at sorting out the various kinds of Whigs in England and the US in the 18th Century. In England by 1714 there were Tories (who seem to have become conservative Whigs), Whigs, moderate Whigs, liberal Whigs, radical Whigs and radical Whig republicans. But the last category is ridiculous. Ward seems unwilling to simply state that it is a question of who or what is sovereign. Most of us simply say that republicans believe the people being governed are sovereign and so they can dissolve one government and form another whenever it suits them. Whigs believe that institutions of government (the king in parliament) are sovereign and can be changed only under very unusual conditions. Monarchists (Jacobins) believe that the king is sovereign, come what may.
I had the impression that Ward's sense of history, law, economics and religion are weak. I say this because conflicts over property, religion and law have driven history in England in the US since 1600. Over time, the importance of religion has diminished while the importance of property has increased but the importance of law and who, or what, gets to enforce what they think the law is has remained central.
On the point of law, and hence constitutionalism, I cannot fathom why Ward obsesses with Blackstone but makes no more than a passing reference to Lord Edward Coke (1552-1634). The merit of Blackstone is his "Commentaries", based chiefly on Coke's "Institutes of the Lawes of England." Blackstone's selective restatement of Coke, published in the 1760s, was far too late to be seminal in American political thought. But Coke's "Institutes" date from the 1620s and his use of the common law against the royal and ecclesiastical prerogative courts of 1600-30 provided seminal ideas for the Parliamentary faction in the civil wars of the 1640s. These ideas were used by both the proto-Whig "Grandees" and by the overtly republican "Levellers". They were imported to America by Roger Williams, who was Coke's secretary in the 1620s and who must certainly be numbered among the Leveller republicans of the 1640s.
I could not understand why Ward omitted the theories advanced by the various factions in Long and Rump Parliaments during the English Civil Wars and the governing theories of the Commonwealth and Protectorate. I cannot understand how Ward can accurately summarize Algernon Sidney, which he does, but fail to mention Lord Coke, John Pym, William Walwyn, John Lilburne, Richard Overton and the debate at Putney over the "Agreement of the People" and the "Heads of Proposals" in 1647. Rather, Ward scampers over to Amsterdam and Spinoza for justification. But while Ward mentions Spinoza and the Dutch Republic but he omits Johannes Althaus. This is summarizing a bit too much. My impression is that Ward has made the assumption that Wiggism is categorically good when compared to either republicanism and monarchism.
Ward would also have us believe that James Otis, Jr. (1725-83) was seminal in the American Revolution. But he should have noted that James Otis was thought to be only intermittently sane by his contemporaries after 1760 and that while he influenced the Wiggish-Federalits faction represented by John Adams, Jay, Hamilton and Dickenson, he had little impact on the more republican leaning faction represented by his sister, Mercy Otis Warren, Samuel Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry and George Mason. This is important because the "republicans" became the "anti-Federalists" in the debates over ratification of the US Constitution in 1788-89. Of course the Whig-Federalists won that debate; just as the proto-Whig "Grandees" won the Putney Debates of 1647 and ultimately emerged triumphant in the "Glorious Revolution" of 1688.
The same problem crops up with Thomas Paine. Ward repeats the conventional wisdom that "Common Sense", published in January 1776, instantly turned the people into rabid republicans. This is nonsense on stilts. Beginning in April 1775, the New England and Vermont militias had already turned out in force and were being maintained in the field by local popular support. Lexington and Concord, Bunker Hill and the capture of Ft. Ticonderoga had happened. The Continental Army was created in June 1775, militias were mobilized in support of the revolution in all of the other Colonies and the siege of Boston had been going on for 6 months. In March 1776, the British evacuated Boston and the rest of the 13 Colonies and had retreated all the way to Halifax, Nova Scotia. The people already were already rabid republicans and "Common Sense" was a huge hit simply because Thomas Paine was preaching the populist and republican gospel of the "Good Old Cause" to people who already knew it chapter and verse.
One can easily trace a republican strain in Anglo-American history that runs from the Puritans of early 17th C. England, through the Levellers and Putney Debates in 1647. This was transplanted to New England were it thrived in the republic of gathered churches that was Massachusetts and Connecticut between 1630 and 1780. In England, it was crushed by Cromwell about 1649 and extirpated by royalists and Whigs alike after 1660.
In England, the other name for republicanism is "the Good Old Cause" and Algernon Sidney was its last martyr. Technically, i do not question Ward's classification of Sidney as a Whig, he did compromise with the Commonwealth and Protectorate and was willing to compromise with the Stuart restoration, but I think liberal "Grandee" would be more appropriate. In fact, "Grandee" would be a historically accurate synonym for "Whig" in both English and American politics. To my mind "Whig" is shorthand for the idea that the institutions of government, not the people being governed, are sovereign. I also think "Whig" in the UK and "Federalist" in the US are synonymous. Just as "Anglican" in the UK is synonymous with "Episcopal" in the US.
Nevertheless, here and there Ward makes many observations that are both valuable and reveal a very astute mind and a keen eye for what is both novel and important.
The book is most useful at sorting out the various kinds of Whigs in England and the US in the 18th Century. In England by 1714 there were Tories (who seem to have become conservative Whigs), Whigs, moderate Whigs, liberal Whigs, radical Whigs and radical Whig republicans. But the last category is ridiculous. Ward seems unwilling to simply state that it is a question of who or what is sovereign. Most of us simply say that republicans believe the people being governed are sovereign and so they can dissolve one government and form another whenever it suits them. Whigs believe that institutions of government (the king in parliament) are sovereign and can be changed only under very unusual conditions. Monarchists (Jacobins) believe that the king is sovereign, come what may.
I had the impression that Ward's sense of history, law, economics and religion are weak. I say this because conflicts over property, religion and law have driven history in England in the US since 1600. Over time, the importance of religion has diminished while the importance of property has increased but the importance of law and who, or what, gets to enforce what they think the law is has remained central.
On the point of law, and hence constitutionalism, I cannot fathom why Ward obsesses with Blackstone but makes no more than a passing reference to Lord Edward Coke (1552-1634). The merit of Blackstone is his "Commentaries", based chiefly on Coke's "Institutes of the Lawes of England." Blackstone's selective restatement of Coke, published in the 1760s, was far too late to be seminal in American political thought. But Coke's "Institutes" date from the 1620s and his use of the common law against the royal and ecclesiastical prerogative courts of 1600-30 provided seminal ideas for the Parliamentary faction in the civil wars of the 1640s. These ideas were used by both the proto-Whig "Grandees" and by the overtly republican "Levellers". They were imported to America by Roger Williams, who was Coke's secretary in the 1620s and who must certainly be numbered among the Leveller republicans of the 1640s.
I could not understand why Ward omitted the theories advanced by the various factions in Long and Rump Parliaments during the English Civil Wars and the governing theories of the Commonwealth and Protectorate. I cannot understand how Ward can accurately summarize Algernon Sidney, which he does, but fail to mention Lord Coke, John Pym, William Walwyn, John Lilburne, Richard Overton and the debate at Putney over the "Agreement of the People" and the "Heads of Proposals" in 1647. Rather, Ward scampers over to Amsterdam and Spinoza for justification. But while Ward mentions Spinoza and the Dutch Republic but he omits Johannes Althaus. This is summarizing a bit too much. My impression is that Ward has made the assumption that Wiggism is categorically good when compared to either republicanism and monarchism.
Ward would also have us believe that James Otis, Jr. (1725-83) was seminal in the American Revolution. But he should have noted that James Otis was thought to be only intermittently sane by his contemporaries after 1760 and that while he influenced the Wiggish-Federalits faction represented by John Adams, Jay, Hamilton and Dickenson, he had little impact on the more republican leaning faction represented by his sister, Mercy Otis Warren, Samuel Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry and George Mason. This is important because the "republicans" became the "anti-Federalists" in the debates over ratification of the US Constitution in 1788-89. Of course the Whig-Federalists won that debate; just as the proto-Whig "Grandees" won the Putney Debates of 1647 and ultimately emerged triumphant in the "Glorious Revolution" of 1688.
The same problem crops up with Thomas Paine. Ward repeats the conventional wisdom that "Common Sense", published in January 1776, instantly turned the people into rabid republicans. This is nonsense on stilts. Beginning in April 1775, the New England and Vermont militias had already turned out in force and were being maintained in the field by local popular support. Lexington and Concord, Bunker Hill and the capture of Ft. Ticonderoga had happened. The Continental Army was created in June 1775, militias were mobilized in support of the revolution in all of the other Colonies and the siege of Boston had been going on for 6 months. In March 1776, the British evacuated Boston and the rest of the 13 Colonies and had retreated all the way to Halifax, Nova Scotia. The people already were already rabid republicans and "Common Sense" was a huge hit simply because Thomas Paine was preaching the populist and republican gospel of the "Good Old Cause" to people who already knew it chapter and verse.
One can easily trace a republican strain in Anglo-American history that runs from the Puritans of early 17th C. England, through the Levellers and Putney Debates in 1647. This was transplanted to New England were it thrived in the republic of gathered churches that was Massachusetts and Connecticut between 1630 and 1780. In England, it was crushed by Cromwell about 1649 and extirpated by royalists and Whigs alike after 1660.
In England, the other name for republicanism is "the Good Old Cause" and Algernon Sidney was its last martyr. Technically, i do not question Ward's classification of Sidney as a Whig, he did compromise with the Commonwealth and Protectorate and was willing to compromise with the Stuart restoration, but I think liberal "Grandee" would be more appropriate. In fact, "Grandee" would be a historically accurate synonym for "Whig" in both English and American politics. To my mind "Whig" is shorthand for the idea that the institutions of government, not the people being governed, are sovereign. I also think "Whig" in the UK and "Federalist" in the US are synonymous. Just as "Anglican" in the UK is synonymous with "Episcopal" in the US.
Nevertheless, here and there Ward makes many observations that are both valuable and reveal a very astute mind and a keen eye for what is both novel and important.