A few days ago, I noted (recall) that in Condorcet’s (1794) Outlines of an historical view of the progress of the human mind Locke is not a social contract theorist, but a republican, majoritarian democrat, who anticipates Condorcet’s own views and who Condorcet groups together with Sidney and Rousseau.
Once again, I really do think that you should consider Catharine Macaulay's significance for this debate. In relation to Harris's paper, it is noteworthy that she joins a refutation of Hobbes to a sketch of a constitution for a democratic republican government. She certainly believes that she is following in the tradition of Milton, Sidney, and Locke. Actually I find the distinction that Condorcet draws between a weak contract theory which sees the contract as between the sovereign and the people and majoritarianism a bit strained. Once one offers a Lockean justification for removing a tyrant prince, as Macaulay does in her history, with regard to Charles I, and one adds the kind of criticism of monarchs that she develops in her response to Hobbes, some kind of elective republic seems to fall out naturally, though perhaps not the Rousseau style majoritarianism found in Condorcet.
Hi Karen, you are right that I should think about Macaulay. Have you written on this? If so, can you send me your paper or the reference (nescio2@yahoo.com)? If not, where in Macaulay should I start. (I have read what Mary Astell does with Locke.)
Once again, I really do think that you should consider Catharine Macaulay's significance for this debate. In relation to Harris's paper, it is noteworthy that she joins a refutation of Hobbes to a sketch of a constitution for a democratic republican government. She certainly believes that she is following in the tradition of Milton, Sidney, and Locke. Actually I find the distinction that Condorcet draws between a weak contract theory which sees the contract as between the sovereign and the people and majoritarianism a bit strained. Once one offers a Lockean justification for removing a tyrant prince, as Macaulay does in her history, with regard to Charles I, and one adds the kind of criticism of monarchs that she develops in her response to Hobbes, some kind of elective republic seems to fall out naturally, though perhaps not the Rousseau style majoritarianism found in Condorcet.
Hi Karen, you are right that I should think about Macaulay. Have you written on this? If so, can you send me your paper or the reference (nescio2@yahoo.com)? If not, where in Macaulay should I start. (I have read what Mary Astell does with Locke.)