Conflation and Distinction

  • Conal Condren
Part of the Studies in Modern History book series (SMH)


The political domain of seventeenth-century England was hardly static, and in particular, I would suggest there were strong pressures towards the elision or conflation of its terms. The result was to produce a vocabulary which in many respects was compressed and so suffered in discriminatory power. In Part II, I shall refine this hypothesis with respect to the relationships between the words citizen, subject, resistance and rebellion, and so it is now appropriate to outline the general processes I take to be involved in the expansion and contraction of the vocabulary of politics as a whole.


Seventeenth Century Sixteenth Century Tacit Consent Political Discourse Predicate Variable 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    W. V. O. Quine, ‘On Synonymity’, in From a Logical Point of View, (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1961 edn), for the argument that synonymity is always dependent on the selection of the terms of comparison.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    W. V. Quine, The Ways of Paradox (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1976); cf. Cave Beck, whose work went to Russellian representative extremes.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    C. Condren, ‘Rhetoric, Historiography and Political Theory: Aspects of the Poverty Controversy Reconsidered’, Journal of Religious History, 13 (1984)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    C. C. Weston and J. R. Greenberg, Subjects and Sovereigns: The Grand Controversy over Legal Sovereignty in Stuart England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 6.
    See, at length, T. Mayer, Thomas Starkey and the Commonweal, Humanist Politics and Religion in the Reign of Henry VIII (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 7.
    J. G. A. Pocock, The Ancient Constitution and the Feudal Law: A Study of English Historical Thought in the Seventeenth Century, A Re-Issue with a Retrospect (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), pp. 308–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 8.
    See e.g. Andrew Marvell, An Account of the Growth of Popery and Arbitrary Government (1677), where one of the specific fears is that the people are being denied their share in government.Google Scholar
  8. 10.
    See the discussions of Philip Hunton, A Treatise of Monarchy (1643) and less equivocally, George Lawson, Politica sacra et civilis, 1660, C. Condren (ed.) (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), Ch. 8.9.Google Scholar
  9. 11.
    For a discussion of this point, see C. Condren, ‘Andrew Marvell as Polemicist: His Account of the Growth of Popery, and Arbitrary Government’, in C. Condren and A. D. Cousins (eds), The Political Identity of Andrew Marvell (Aldershot: The Scholar Press, 1990), pp. 171–3.Google Scholar
  10. 14.
    Brian Tierney, Religion, Law and the Growth of Constitutional Thought, 1150–1650 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), Chs 2 and 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 19.
    John Locke, Two Treatises of Government, ed. P. Laslett (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963 edn), II para. 119.Google Scholar
  12. 21.
    Thus John Dunn, The Political Theory of John Locke (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969), p. 155 refers to tacit consent as only a convenient analytic device interfering with consent and legitimate rule. Paul Russell, ‘Locke on Express and Tacit Consent, Misinterpretation and Inconsistencies’, Political Theory, 14 (1986), pp. 294–5, 296–7, correctly stresses that express consent was a verbal act, tacit was paradigmatic of property-holding. My reading is largely in keeping with Russell’s in these respects, with the rider that the full implications can only be seen in the light of the imagery of corporation.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 22.
    David Hume, ‘Of the Original Contract’, in W. C. Hendel (ed.), Political Essays (New York: Liberal Arts Press, 1953), p. 51. Shirley Letwin has pointed to Hume’s apparent terminological insouciance in ‘Hume, Inventor of a New Task for Philosophy’, Political Theory, 3 (1975). The looseness, if that is what it is (for the mss. of the essays are heavily worked) is explicable in terms of the nature of the essay genre. On the central importance of the logical criterion of economy for Hume see D. Forbes, Hume’s Philosophical Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975), pp. 83–7.Google Scholar
  14. 23.
    M. Wilks, The Problem of Sovereignty in the Later Middle Ages (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1962), pp. 354f.Google Scholar
  15. 24.
    Marsilius of Padua, Defensor Pacis, 1324, H. Kutsch (ed.) (Berlin: Rutten and Leoning, 1958), I. 12.Google Scholar
  16. 25.
    I am quoting from Vindiciae contra tyrannos, 1579, in J. Franklin (trans. and ed.), Constitutionalism and Resistance in the Sixteenth Century (New York: Pegasus, 1969), p. 149. Franklin’s translation abbreviates but captures the flavour of the traditional medieval notion of incorporation. And the people as ‘an epitome’ is literally the same in English and in the first French translation. See also A. Jouanna, J. Perrin, M. Soulie, Vindiciae contra tyrannos, facsimile of the 1581 French translation (Geneva: Droz, 1979), Introduction, pp. xxvii-xxix for pertinent comments on the vocabulary of the tract. They stress that the active people, or the representative are not a multitude and that those who act for the larger whole are its ‘incarnation’ (p. xxix).Google Scholar
  17. 34.
    Daniel Defoe, The Original Power of the Collective Body of the People of England, 1701, in William Hazlett (ed.), The Works of Daniel De Foe, Vol. 2 (London: Clements, 1840), p. 6 (pagination not consecutive).Google Scholar
  18. 36.
    Compare Edmund Burke’s Speech to the Electors of Bristol with Nigel Nicholson, People and Parliament (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1958), pp. 56–9.Google Scholar
  19. 37.
    Sir George Cornwallis Lewis, On the Use and Abuse of Some Political Terms, 1832 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1898), pp. 105–14.Google Scholar
  20. 39.
    James Tully has made a heavy investment in the claim about Locke’s unique ‘individualism’, most recently and loudly in ‘Locke’, in J. H. Burns (ed.), with the assistance of M. Goldie, The Cambridge History of Political Thought, 1450–1700 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), p. 622. The contrast with Lawson holds only for the Politica; the Levellers have to be ignored. Perhaps as significantly, Locke’s references to ‘the Body of the Peopleacting (Two Treatises, II para. 242) have to be read as if there is no penumbra of corporate imagery — which is hardly plausible given Locke’s explicit imagery of the dissolution of the body politic. It might be replied that ‘people’ usually carries a plural pronoun intimating a plurality of individuals; but that is characteristic of seventeenth-century usage.Google Scholar
  21. 43.
    J. H. Hexter, The Vision of Politics on the Eve of the Reformation (London: Allen Lane, 1973), Pt 3 at length. See Francis Bacon, ‘The True Greatnesse of Kingdoms and Estates’, in Essays, 1625 (London: Oxford University Press, 1962), p. 119, where state and estate are but variant spellings of the same word.Google Scholar
  22. 44.
    J. Maxwell, Sacro-sancta regnum majestas (1644)Google Scholar
  23. John Hall, Of Governance and Obediance (1654).Google Scholar
  24. 46.
    Denys Hay, The Italian Renaissance (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1962), p. 2.Google Scholar
  25. 47.
    S. Ullmann, Semantics: An Introduction to the Science of Meaning (Oxford: Blackwell, 1972 edn) for a lucid discussion of the distinction made by Sperber and classically developed by Caroline Spurgeon, Shakespeare’s Imagery (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1929).Google Scholar
  26. 48.
    The phenomenon is a widespread one. See, for example, R. Vernon, ‘Politics as Metaphor: Cardinal Newman and Thomas Kuhn’, Review of Politics, 41 (1979), pp. 513fCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. G. R. T. Lloyd, Analogy and Polarity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966) for a discussion of the metaphorical movement between polis and cosmos in Greek philosophy. An analogous movement can be found in modern politics and metaphysics. William James used political metaphors to develop his metaphysics, and Harold Laski drew on Jamesian metaphysics as a pattern of analogy to develop his early political theories. I am grateful to Dr Joanne Pemberton for drawing my attention to this.Google Scholar
  28. 51.
    William Perkins, A Golden Chaine, in Works (Cambridge, 1600), p. 489.Google Scholar
  29. 52.
    George Lawson, Magna charta ecclesiae universalis (1665), p. 114.Google Scholar
  30. 53.
    M. van Beek, An Enquiry into Puritan Vocabulary (Groningen: Noordhoff, 1969), pp. 63–4.Google Scholar
  31. 55.
    E. Grassi, ‘Can Rhetoric Provide a New Basis for Philosophy? The Humanist Tradition’, Philosophy and Rhetoric, 11 (1978).Google Scholar
  32. 56.
    N. Keeble, The Literary Culture of Nonconformity in Later Seventeenth-Century England (Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1987)Google Scholar
  33. N. Smith, Perfection Proclaimed: Language and Literature in English Radical Religion, 1640–1660 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989).Google Scholar
  34. 58.
    Cited in T. Hawkes, Metaphor (London: Methuen, 1972), p. 31.Google Scholar
  35. 59.
    John Bunyan, ‘Author’s Apology’ to The Pilgrim’s Progress, 1678 (London: The Folio Society, 1962 edn), lines 105–11, p. 9. Of tangential interest here is L. Mustazza, ‘Language as Weapon in Milton’s Paradise Lost’, Milton Studies, 18 (1983), pp. 195f.Google Scholar
  36. 60.
    E. Eisenstein, The Printing Press as an Agent of Change, 2 vols (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979).Google Scholar
  37. 61.
    B. Shapiro, Probability and Certainty in Seventeenth-Century England (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983).Google Scholar
  38. 62.
    John Owen, Of Schism, 1657, in W. Russell (ed.), The Works of Dr John Owen, Vol. 19 (London: 1826), p. 135; Truth and Innocence Vindicated, in ibid., Vol. 21, p. 171; The Doctrine of Justification by Faith, 1671, ibid., pp. 7, 8.Google Scholar
  39. 63.
    The main curve of expansion, however, is possibly earlier than statistics from dictionaries might indicate. See R. McConchie, ‘Wise and Learned Conctation: Medical Terminology, 1547–1612 and the O.E.D.’, Dictionaries, 5 (1983), pp. 22f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 64.
    D. Cressy, Literacy and the Social Order (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980); M. Spufford, ‘First Steps in Literacy: The Reading and Writing Experiences of the Humblest Seventeenth Century Autobiographies’, Social History (1979), pp. 407fCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. P. Burke, Popular Culture in Early Modern Europe (London: Temple Smith, 1979), p. 250f.Google Scholar
  42. 65.
    D. Hirst, Representatives of the People? (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975), p. 58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 67.
    D. Johnson, The Rhetoric of Leviathan (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986), pp. 72f. The problem of audience-heterogeneity complicates interpretation even at the begining of the century, however. Rudolf Almasy, ‘The Purpose of Richard Hooker’s Polemic’, Journal of the History of Ideas, 39 (1978), pp. 251f, argues that Hooker’s intended audience was his opponents; Cargill Thompson, The Philosopher of the Politic Society’, in W. Speed Hill (ed.), Studies in Richard Hooker (Cleveland/London, 1972) emphasises more an appeal to the converted. Both authors seem to presuppose an homogeneous audience; something less clear-cut may indicate that each is partially right.Google Scholar
  44. 68.
    W. Ong, Ramus: Method and the Decay of Dialogue (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1958), especially pp. 270f.Google Scholar
  45. 69.
    Plato, Phaedrus; E. J. Ashworth, Language and Logic in the Post-Medieval Period (Amsterdam: Reidel, 1974), p. 44 for the continuity of this sort of view; cf. the rather different variations on this theme worked by J. Derrida, Writing and Difference (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 70.
    D. Panofsky and E. Panofsky, Pandora’s Box: The Changing Aspects of a Mythical Symbol (New York: Pantheon, 1962 edn), pp. 34–6. The mark was adapted from an original by Fiorentino Rosso. The symbol could be one of hope, but the veritable explosion of indistinct contents from the box depicted in the Rosso/Gourbin design makes it at least an ambiguous one.Google Scholar
  47. 71.
    For an exploration of this major theme in the Essais, see T. Cave, ‘Problems of reading in the Essais’, in I. D. McFarlane and I. Maclean (eds), Montaigne: Essays in Memory of Richard Sayce (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982), pp. 153f.Google Scholar
  48. 72.
    Aristotle, Rhetoric 1407a-1407b; W. B. Stanford, Ambiguity in Greek Literature (Oxford: Blackwell, 1939 and New York: Johnson, 1972) at length.Google Scholar
  49. 73.
    Stanford, Ambiguity makes clear how few exceptions there were to this attitude in antiquity and it was well-entrenched in the seventeenth century. See, for example, Francis Bacon, The Advancement of Learning, 1861 edn, W. S. Kitchen (ed.), reprinted (London: Dent, n.d.), pp. 131–2Google Scholar
  50. John Locke, Essay on Human Understanding (1690), III. x. 6.Google Scholar
  51. 75.
    The Rev. J. B. Ebsworth (ed.), The Roxburghe Ballads, 8 vols (New York: AMS Press, 1966)Google Scholar
  52. H. E. Rollins (ed.), The Pepys Ballads, 8 vols (Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1929). The measurement of literacy has been troublesome, however. R. S. Scholfield, ‘The Measurement of Literacy in Pre-Modern England’, in J. Goody (ed.), Literacy in Traditional Societies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968), argues that the capacity of literacy is underestimated by attention only to the capacity to write. Rosemary O’Day, Education and Society, 1500–1800 (London: Longman, 1982) supports this and estimates that literacy, highest in urban centres, was perhaps possessed by 78 per cent of the adult male population of London. With readily available print, a capacity to listen is sufficient for some participation in public affairs.Google Scholar
  53. 76.
    Richard Cust, ‘News and Politics in Early Seventeenth-Century England’, Past and Present, 112 (1986), pp. 601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 77.
    S. Zwicker, Politics and Language in Dryden’s Poetry: The Arts of Disguise (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984), pp. 10fGoogle Scholar
  55. Murrey Edelman, ‘Symposium on Political Language and Reality’, PS 18 (1985), pp. 12–13 on ‘good reasons’ in political argument. Cust’s argument, ‘News and Politics’, suggests that a rhetoric of amelioration was longstanding, but had been supplemented by one of discord. Whereas one created a surface ethos of harmony, the other reduced all issues to simple dichotomies. Both then were conflationary. Eric Porter, ‘Imperious Dictatours’, has made a similar point about a conflationary rhetoric of amelioration with respect to the Interregnum, p. 84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 78.
    Zwicker, Politics and Language, pp. 10–11, 19. See also P. Zagorin, Ways of Lying: Dissimulation, Persecution and Conformity in Early Modern Europe (Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1990), who provides an impressively broad context and concludes that the expression ‘age of dissimulation’ may not be inappropriate for the whole early modern period. If these writers are only half-correct, John Arbuthnot’s Art of Political Lying (1714) is the seminal summation of the whole language of politics. Neither of them deals with it.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 80.
    John Milton, Areopagitica, 1644, in J. Max Patrick (ed.), The Prose of John Milton (New York: Doubleday, 1967).Google Scholar
  58. 82.
    Quentin Skinner, ‘Thomas Hobbes: Rhetoric and the Construction of Morality’, Proceedings of the British Academy, 76 (1991) for a seminal discussion on which I am freely drawing.Google Scholar
  59. 84.
    Sir William Cornwallis, Essays or Encomiums, 1616, unpaginated. A. N. Kincaid and J. A. Ramsden (eds), The Encomium to Richard III (London: Turner and Devereaux, 1977), p. 10.Google Scholar
  60. 87.
    D. Bolinger, Language — The Loaded Weapon: The Use and Abuse of Language To-Day (London: Longman, 1983), p. 74 for the ‘domino effect’, which he exemplifies with reference to euphemisms for low intelligence coined to little protective effect by well-intentioned educationalists. Or consider the vocabulary of economic poverty, ‘underdeveloped’, ‘developing nations’, ‘third world’.Google Scholar
  61. 89.
    Aristotle, Posteria Analytics ii. 7.10 92a 26–7; Cicero, Topica de Inventione. For a general discussion see R. Robinson, Definition (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1954).Google Scholar
  62. 90.
    Peter Ramus, Logike, 1556, trans. R. McIlmaine, 1574, ed. Catherine Dunn (California: Northridge, 1969), 1.29: 11.2: 1.30Google Scholar
  63. D. P. Henry, Medieval Logic and Metaphysics (London: Hutchinson, 1972), for a more technical discussion of medieval typologies of definition, pp. 35–8. Ashworth, Language and Logic, associates nominal definitions particularly with Ockham, real with Albertus Magnus, making clear that it was the difficult relationships between words, things and concepts that gave rise to the alternatives.Google Scholar
  64. 93.
    Francis Bacon, Novum organon (London: Routledge, 1893 edn), Llix–x.Google Scholar
  65. 95.
    John Locke, ‘Thus I think’, in Peter King (ed.), The Life of John Locke with Extracts from his Correspondence, Journals and Commonplace Books, Vol. 2 (London, 1830), p. 127.Google Scholar
  66. 97.
    John Owen, Of Schism, in Russell (ed.), Works p. 141; cf. John Humfrey, A Vindication of the Lords Supper (1653) at length; for a succinct discussion of the issues, see W. Lamont, Richard Baxter and the Millennium (London: Croom Helm, 1979)Google Scholar
  67. E. Brooks Holifield, The Covenant Sealed (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974). The discussions in England had been focused at the begining of the century by Hooker’s Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity. Google Scholar
  68. 98.
    In other respects, he may not have been so isolated from the Society, see N. Malcolm, ‘Hobbes and the Royal Society’, in G. A. T. Rogers and A. Ryan (eds), Perspectives on Thomas Hobbes (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988), pp. 43f.Google Scholar
  69. 99.
    Leviathan, Ch. 1, where the cause of sense is the external body, but imagination and intellect develop as a decay of the senses and from the senses themselves, Ch 2; for comment, see M. Oakeshott, ‘Introduction’, Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (Oxford: Blackwell, c.1948), p. xxv.Google Scholar
  70. 103.
    Edward Stephens, Four Questions Debated, in State Tracts 1, 1705, pp. 340f, where nominal definition is used simply to evaporate the issue of obligation — a king without subjects can be no king, therefore no obedience is owed. It is, in a sense the most ironic reduction of the tautologous propensities of Hobbes’s argument. It was precisely such destabilising consequences that some had feared from the beginnings of the Engagement Controversy.Google Scholar
  71. 105.
    Ibid., p. 15; such assertions are also found, for example, in Hunton, A Treatise; Hobbes, Leviathan; and in Locke’s tract against Edward Bagshawe, in P. Abrams (ed.), John Locke, Two Tracts on Government (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967).Google Scholar
  72. 106.
    Cited in M. Sampson, ‘Property in Seventeenth-Century English Political Thought’, in G. Schochet (ed.), Religion, Resistance and Civil War (Washington, DC: The Folger Institute, 1990), p. 259.Google Scholar
  73. 107.
    M. Sampson, ‘“A Story too Tedious to relate at large”?: Response to the Levellers, 1647–53’, Parergon n.s., 5 (1987), pp. 135f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 108.
    J. Tully, A Discourse on Property: John Locke and his Adversaries (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982 edn), pp. 70f.Google Scholar
  75. 113.
    For some elaboration of this in a different context of argument, see Conal Condren, The Status and Appraisal of Classic Texts: An Essay in Political Theory, its Inheritance and the History of Ideas (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985), pp. 243f.Google Scholar
  76. 114.
    Richard Ashcraft, Revolutionary Politics and Locke’s Two Treatises of Government (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986), in which Shaftesbury is depicted as the creator of the first modern political party and effectively the centre of the ‘Exclusion Crisis’, a familiar thesis now badly damaged by Jonathan Scott, Algernon Sidney and the Restoration Crisis, 1677–1683 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), especially Pt 1.Google Scholar
  77. 117.
    C. S. Lewis, Studies in Words (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967 edn), p. 13; Sampson, ‘Property’, pp. 259–62.Google Scholar
  78. 118.
    Sampson, ibid., for a balanced and incisive argument; N. Wood, John Locke and Agrarian Capitalism (California: University of California Press, 1984) for a spirited attempt to rescue the residue of Macpherson’s thesis; and Mark Goldie, John Locke’s Circle and James II’, The Historical Journal, 35 (1992), pp. 557f for some indirect support against Locke the liberal democrat.Google Scholar
  79. 119.
    Lawence Stern, The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman, Vol. 2 (1760), Ch. 11.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Conal Condren 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Conal Condren
    • 1
  1. 1.University of New South WalesSydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations