A week away gave me the chance to read another very impressive book by Francis Oakley, this time on conciliarism. I will be posting about the implications of Oakley’s argument not only for claims of papal supremacy but also for considering the relations between the Middle Ages and the Reformation. But for now, here’s an earlier argument from Quentin Skinner on the import of medieval conciliarism for resistance theory and revolution:
The study of radical politics in early modern Europe has for some time been dominated by the concept of “Calvinist theory of revolution.” I have now sought to suggest that strictly speaking no such entity exists. The revolutions of sixteenth-century Europe were, of course, largely conducted by professed Calvinists, but the theories in terms of which they sought to explain and justify their actions were not, at least in their main outlines, specifically Calvinist at all. When the Calvinist George Buchanan stated for the first time on behalf of the Reformed Churches a fully secularized and populist theory of political resistance, he was largely restating a position already attained by the Catholic John Mair in his teaching at the Sorbonne over a half a century before. Mair and his pupils had bequeathed to the era of the Reformation all the leading elements of the classic and most radical version of the early modern theory of revolution, the version most familiar to us from the closing chapters of John Locke’s Two Treatises of Government. It only remained for Mair’s pupil Buchanan to take over the concepts and arguments he had learnt from his scholastic teachers and press them into service on behalf of the Calvinist cause. (“The Origins of the Calvinist Theory of Revolution,” in After the Reformation, 324-25)
Striking to observe is Skinner’s account of when the scholastic conciliar ideas regained traction in Europe:
Early in the sixteenth century these legal and conciliarist ideas were revived and extended by a group of avowed followers of Ockham and Gerson at the University of Paris. The occasion for this development was provided by the fact that the French king, Louis XII, became involved in a quarrel with Pope Julius II in 1510, after the collapse of the League of Cambrai. Alarmed by Louis’ decisive victory over the Venetians in the previous year, Julius sought to repudiate the alliance he had formed with the French in 1508. Louis responded by appealing over the pope’s head to a General Council of the Church, calling at the same time on the University of Paris to confirm his claim that the Church as a body possessed a higher authority than the pope. The professors at the Sorbonne produced in reply a number of systematic works of political theory, defending the idea of popular sovereignty not only as a claim about the government of the Church, but also as a thesis about the location of political authority in the State.
Skinner notes that one of these professors was John Mair (1467-1550), under whom Buchanan and Calvin studied.
For Almain as well as Mair the point of departure in the analysis of political society is the idea of the original freedom of the people. . . . The origin of political society is thus traced to two complementary developments: the fact that God gave men the capacity to form such communities in order to remedy their sins; and the fact that men duly made use of these rational powers in order to “introduce kings” by “an act of consent on the part of the people” as a means of improving their own welfare and security. (321-22)
Rather than the papacy being a solution to the disorder of the modern world, the popes’ assertion of power in the heady days of the 13th and 14th centuries may have produced reactions that allowed republicanism and constitutionalism to eventually prevail in the West.
“The study of radical politics in early modern Europe has for some time been dominated by the concept of “Calvinist theory of revolution.” I have now sought to suggest that strictly speaking no such entity exists.”
How can it be that CTR doesn’t exist? There’s a Wikipedia page on it and lots of quotes by Calvinists endorsing ideas described by CTR. Clearly Skinner is a quack who hasn’t spent enough time on the interwebs.
LikeLike
Calvinist Roman Catholic Resistance Theory.
LikeLike
Heh. More like Calvinist resistance to “Calvinist Resistance Theory.” Yes, it has Roman Catholic origins. Like, duh. It was their ox that got gored first. It was the Jesuits who first and best fought James I [yes, King James of the King James Version of the Bible] on the Divine Right of Kings. James I had Fr. Francisco Suarez’s De Fide burned in public.
Good to see you finally hitting the books, though, D. A lot of fresh new research since your postgrad days. It’s a very exciting time for historians.
LikeLike
Tom, weren’t you the one who said Locke learned his theories from Calvinists? Now, you tell me you already know all this? That’s odd. I search at American Creation for Mair, Almain, and Gerson in vain (except for the contemporary Michael Gerson). You’re a bluffer.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted August 6, 2013 at 6:25 am | Permalink
Tom, weren’t you the one who said Locke learned his theories from Calvinists?
Now, you tell me you already know all this? That’s odd. I search at American Creation for Mair, Almain, and Gerson in vain (except for the contemporary Michael Gerson). You’re a bluffer.
___________________
Cut the crap, son. I haven’t gone into Gerson because most simpletons are too entrenched in their opposition to a “Calvinist resistance theory” and can barely handle the most obvious stuff*. Most are strict secularists, Darryl, but a few of these intellectual miscreants are Calvinists who fight the idea tooth and nail. Can you believe such a thing?
And it’s good to see you reading the American Creation blog, even if it’s skimming and even if it’s just to hunt for weapons. Whatever it takes!
Thanks for the tip on John Mair. I’ll see go deeper into it, as my original interest was aquinas and natural law. Might be a missing link between the Thomists and the Calvinists. Quentin Skinner is one of the few who’s really on top of the Calvinist-Founding connection. Mark David Hall speaks very well of him. You must have missed this in your skimming/searching of the American Creation blog:
http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2010/06/mark-david-hall-influence-of-reformed_29.html
Bold face mine. That’s become my position as well over the years as I discovered the Calvinist connection. The Thomists laid the theoretical/theological ground, but the Calvinists put it all into action. Do you remember ever reading me write that? I’ve that written on many occasions, Darryl.
_____________________
*For instance, John Adams wrote of the work of Calvinist bishop John Ponet [Ponyet] that he set forth “all the essential principles of liberty, which were afterward dilated on by Sidney and Locke.”
LikeLike
“Bold face mine”
Truth is sometimes inadvertent.
LikeLike
TVD, it’s not a question of ideas and their trajectory. It is one of law and limits. Constitutionalism emerges in the middle ages and constitutions put limits on power (well, they used to).
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted August 6, 2013 at 10:10 am | Permalink
TVD, it’s not a question of ideas and their trajectory. It is one of law and limits. Constitutionalism emerges in the middle ages and constitutions put limits on power (well, they used to).
_____________
Ah yes, I see. Thank you.
http://www.davekopel.com/religion/calvinism.htm
It’s clear that the “contract” angle was appealing to Calvinists. Samuel Rutherford’s famous “Lex Rex” [The Law is King] takes on an added poignancy. Again, thx.
LikeLike
In 1574, Theodore Beza, one of the most influential Calvinists, published “On the Right of Magistrates over Their Subjects and the Duty of Subjects Towards their Rulers,” to advance Calvin’s doctrine on the rights of intermediate magistrates. His book begins by examining the nature of government. Jesus said, “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.” (Mark 2:27.) Beza echoed this language: “peoples were not created for the sake of rulers, but on the contrary the rulers for the sake of the people, even as the guardian is appointed for the ward, not the ward for the guardian, and the shepherd on account of the flock, not the flock on account of the shepherd.”
BTW, in another discussion someone points out that Madison echoes Beza’s argument in Federalist 45
We have heard of the impious doctrine in the Old World, that the people were made for kings, not kings for the people. Is the same doctrine to be revived in the New, in another shape that the solid happiness of the people is to be sacrificed to the views of political institutions of a different form?
LikeLike
In a recent article of my own, I pointed out that Robert Filmer mentioned this in his Patriarcha:
Since the time that School-Divinity began to flourish, there hath been a common Opinion maintained, as well by Divines, as by divers other learned Men, which affirms,
Mankind is naturally endowed and born with Freedom from all Subjection, and at liberty to chose what Form of Government it please: And that the Power which any one Man hath over others, was at first bestowed according to the discretion of the Multitude.
This Tenent was first hatched in the Schools, and hath been fostered by all succeeding Papists for good Divinity. The Divines also of the Reformed Churches have entertained it, and the Common People every where tenderly embrace it, as being most plausible to Flesh and blood, for that it prodigally destributes a Portion of Liberty to the meanest of the Multitude, who magnifie Liberty, as if the height of Humane Felicity were only to be found in it, never remembring That the desire of Liberty was the first Cause of the Fall of Adam … Yet upon the ground of this Doctrine both Jesuites, and some other zealous favourers of the Geneva Discipline, have built a perillous Conclusion, which is, That the People or Multitude have Power to punish, or deprive the Prince, if he transgress the Laws of the Kingdom.
But the scholastics were not the originators of these concepts. I have traced them back through Aquinas to Augustine to the church fathers and even to the Law of Moses itself. Nor am I alone in this recognition. I pointed out in a comment on American Creation that James Harrington also traced these principles back to the government of ancient Israel, and I could list several others as well. The principles of what we know of as constitutionalism are at least as ancient as the Pentateuch.
LikeLike