No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Social Theory and the Principium Unitatis
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 September 2013
Extract
Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Complex as is the immediate situation of social theory, a general view reveals some significant continuities, both spatial and temporal. The attitude of the pluralists, whether in theory or in practice, to the sovereign nation-state has more common ground than at first appears with that of the states themselves toward the nascent organs of international government; and the dilemma underlying both controversies is in fact nothing less than a restatement, in modern ideology, of an issue fundamental to the history of the entire Christian era.
That issue, stated in the broadest terms, centers about the relation between de facto and de jure sovereignty; or, more broadly still, between political and ethical, secular and spiritual, authority; and its importance may be suggested by the generalization that security in social relations is attainable, and has in fact been attained, only when the de facto, or political, sovereign—whatsoever form it may take—has been substantially integrated with the immediate source of ethical or moral authority. The pre-modern period of history abounds in statements, both factual and doctrinal, of this issue.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Political Science Association 1927
References
1 Cf. Maine's essay Roman Law in Village Communities. “Much of the laborious analysis which Bentham applied to legal conceptions was directed to the establishment of propositions which are among the fundamental assumptions of the jurisconsults.”
2 Foundations of the Modern Commonwealth, pp. 37, 238.
3 Cf. Ogburn, Social Change, Part IV.
4 The following observation from Thomas, and Znaniecki, , The Polish Peasant, IGoogle Scholar, Intro., is suggestive: “The pace of social evolution has become so rapid that special groups are ceasing to be permanent and stable enough to organise and maintain organised complexes of attitudes of their members which correspond to their common pursuits. In other words, society is gradually losing all its old machinery for the determination and stabilisation of individual characters.”
5 For a characteristic verdict see Barnes, , The New History and the Social Studies, pp. 359–362.Google Scholar
6 Cf. Bryce, Studies in History and Jurisprudence, Essay I.
7 Cf. Aristotle, , Nic. Eth., V, ii–v.Google Scholar
8 Maine, Ancient Law, Chap. 3.
9 Bryce, op. cit., Essay II.
10 Bryce, Holy Roman Empire, Chap. 3; Ferrero, , Greatness and Decline of Rome, Vol. VGoogle Scholar, Chap. 14. Cf. Cambridge Med. Hist., Vol. I, Chap. 20, pp. 574–5.
11 Bryce, Holy Roman Empire, Chap. 1.
12 Fowler, Religious Experience of the Roman People, Chaps. 8, 12.
13 Dill, Roman Society from Nero to Marcus Aurelius, Bk. IV, Chap. 3; Bryce, Studies, Essay II, note to p. 27; Sweet, , Roman Emperor Worship, pp. 59, 67–68Google Scholar, and references there given; Cumont, Mysteries of Mithra, Chap. 3.
14 Cf. Bryce, Holy Roman Empire, Chap. 3.
15 Op. cit., Vol. V, Chap. 9.
16 Op. cit., p. 89.
17 Speech at Manchester, Dec. 30, 1918 (Baker, Vol. I, p. 309).
18 “Duo quippe sunt, imperator auguste, quibus principaliter mundus hic regitur: auotoritas sacrata pontificum, et regalis potestas. In quibus tanto gravius est pondus sacerdotum, quanto etiam pro ipsis regibus hominum in divino reddituri sunt examine rationem.” Gelasius I, Ep. xii. See Carlyle, , Mediaeval Political Theories, Vol. IGoogle Scholar, Chap. 15.
19 Ibid., Vol. IV, p. 4.
20 Cf. Gierke, Political Theories of the Middle Age, Sec. V, and Bryce, Holy Roman Empire, Chap. 8.
21 Gierke, op. cit., Sec. III, p. 20.
22 Carlyle, op. cit., Vol. IV, pp. 285, 227–31, 222, 239–42, 245–7, 233–6.
23 Ibid., pp. 106–8.
24 Ibid., pp. 286–94, 266–70, 274–7.
25 Gierke, op. cit., Sec. V, p. 30.
26 De Monarchia, Church's trans.
27 Op. cit., p. 97.
28 Defensor Pacis, quoted in Coker, , Readings in Political Philosophy, p. 162.Google Scholar
29 Figgis, , Divine Right, p. 84.Google Scholar
30 Erdmann, , History of Philosophy, Vol. I, par. 252.Google Scholar
31 Quoted in Ritchie, , Natural Rights, p. 15.Google Scholar
You have
Access
Comments
No Comments have been published for this article.