This is part five from a forthcoming book called Collected Essays: Volume Two.
*****************************
Nascent Liberalism in Antiquity and the Medieval Ages
Liberalism emerged in the 18th
century during the Enlightenment. Its first exponent was John Locke whose ideas
gained traction in Great Britain after the Glorious Revolution. Although these
ideas have been highly influential since then, earlier societies placed a lot
more emphasis on community than the individual. Earlier societies espoused
these views, but one of the main principles of liberalism was
anti-authoritarianism and that tyrannical majorities should not enforce their
dogmas on others. The purpose of this essay is to look at ancient Greece and
Rome and the medieval ages. It will establish the what these societies believed
in and, following this, will introduce thinkers from these eras. Although these
thinkers might not be outright liberals, they do evince traces of ‘nascent
liberalism.’ It will look at Cicero, Pericles, Diogenes and Marcus Aurelius for
the section on antiquity and it will look at St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas
for the section on the medieval ages.
Like all ideologies,
‘liberalism’ is a diffuse term. Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises called
themselves liberals, but so did William Beveridge and John Maynard Keynes. Some
liberals support a welfare state whilst others call themselves
‘anarcho-capitalists’ and want no state involvement in the economy whatsoever.
However, there are principles which all liberals espouse and this essay will
start by identifying these principles. According to John Gray, liberalism is
individualistic, egalitarian, melioristic and universal (1998). It is
individualistic because it sees the individual as the prime unit of society and
not as part of a collective. It is egalitarian because it believes in the equal
worth of each individual, everyone should be treated equally and not be
discriminated against. It is melioristic because it believes in progress and
that things develop and change. It is universal because it believes that these
principles are universal to everyone, regardless of their nationality or tribe.
Additionally, liberals are neutral about the good life as long as no-one is
harmed and do not prescribe a worldview to others. A liberal would go out of
his way to defend a lifestyle that he disapproves of. Liberalism defends
tolerance, human rights, civil liberties, democracy, a market economy, property
rights, equality before the law, a free press and personal freedom. All in all,
Hayek, Mises, Beveridge and Keynes, whilst they might be opposites in other
ways, would all agree with these principles. However, classical liberals want
to restrict the role of the state as much as possible. Meanwhile, ‘modern’ or
‘social’ liberalism grants a role for a role for the welfare state and believes
that protecting individual liberty means promoting social justice. The poor,
the disabled, the mentally ill and other disenfranchised groups do not have the
opportunities to enjoy freedom. The market does not assist them adequately, so
the state should step in to assist them.
As
the introduction recognised, earlier societies placed more emphasis on the
community than the individual. However, Rene Descartes signalled a change with
his book Meditations on First Philosophy, which was published in 1641. It
includes the famous phrase ‘I think therefore I am’: ‘The proposition that “I
am, I exist” is necessarily true whenever it is, stated by me or my own mind’
(1998, p. 24). Descartes continuously uses the first person singular ‘I’
throughout his treatise. He tries to be sceptical about everything about him
and even doubts the existence of the world around him. He is only certain that
his own mind exists and that God exists. This is because humans acquire
everything through the senses, which are highly unreliable (p. 19). This kind
of pure metaphysical speculation is radically sceptical of the material world
and Descartes doubts if it exists. It is almost solipsistic, let alone
idealistic, as it seems to be sceptical of the existence of other minds that
are not his own. This kind of introspection is radically different from the
rigid communitarianism of earlier centuries.
However,
Descartes’ Meditations was hardly an attempt to construct a liberal
philosophy. Liberalism emerged in the late 17th century with John
Locke. Prior to the advent of liberalism, Europe had been engulfed in religious
wars. The Thirty Years war was a conflict between Protestants and Catholics and
it included Bohemia, Sweden, Denmark, Protestant German princes and Catholic
France against the Habsurg Empire. (France joined the Protestants because they
were worried about a Habsurg hegemony in Europe.) (Bonney 2011, p. 7). The war
ravaged the economies of Europe and left a large death toll. Liberalism emerged
at the end of this century and it celebrated tolerance of different religious
creeds and beliefs. It emerged during the Glorious Revolution, when English
peers were opposed to the Catholic policies of King James II. They wrote to
Prince William of Orange to intervene (Vallance 2006, p. 2). Once he settled,
he created a document called ‘Declaration of Rights,’ which established
parliamentary government (p. 3) and affirmed the illegality of the independent
exercise of royal power (p. 176). The High Commission could not levy money
without parliamentary consent and could not order the army without the consent
of parliament (p. 176). It asserted the right of petitioning, the need for the
free election of MPs, privileged freedom of speech and debate in parliament and
the need for frequent parliaments (p. 176-77). Additionally, the government
created the Toleration Act in the 1690s, which tolerated a plurality of
religious beliefs and moved closer to the radical ideas of John Locke (p. 316).
John
Locke laid the foundations for liberalism. Indeed, the European Enlightenment
effectively starts with John Locke (Dunne 1984, p. 21). Locke wrote that
religious freedom meant being religious in one’s own way – not, as the atheist
James Toland would have it, to be completely indifferent to religion (Dunne, p.
17). The individual was free to worship God as he individually saw fit (p. 20).
For Locke, each individual is responsible for his own actions and should not
submit to an authoritarian sovereign. He thought that rulers should be
restrained as much as possible (p. 20). Another early exponent of early Enlightenment
values was Benedict de Spinoza who stated the following: ‘Each individual has
the sovereign right to do all that he can’ (1951, p. 200). Spinoza emphasised
the use of reason rather than emotion. He prescribed equality before the rule
of law, but he also wanted to protect minorities and to stop the state from
becoming tyrannical (p. 207). Crucially, he prioritised the needs of the
individual over the needs of the community and this once more signals a shift
away from the communitarian past: ‘Wrong is conceivable only in an organised
community, nor can it ever accrue to subjects from any act of the sovereign who
has the right to do what he likes’ (p. 208). For centuries, communities had
oppressed the individual and forced him to submit to customs and traditions.
Spinoza is saying here that the individual does not have to submit to the
customs of the majority. He is entitled to lead his life as he individually
sees fit and can use his reason to pursue his life projects. This is one of the
reasons why the Enlightenment was so revolutionary, as it rejected the values
which had been prevalent for centuries.
Having
examined the origins of liberalism, this essay will examine ‘nascent’
liberalism in ancient antiquity and the medieval ages. It will start by
outlining what societies were like in these times and, following this, will
introduce thinkers who exhibit signs of ‘nascent liberalism.’ It will start by
outlining the structure of society in Ancient Greece. Society in Ancient Greece
was governed by strict norms. Society was not conceived as an association of
individuals, it was conceived as an association of families (Siedentop 2014, p.
7). The father was a God in preparation, the wife was subordinated to the
husband and the authority of the father meant that he could kill his wife or
children if he wanted to (Siedentop, p. 15). He exercised his authority ‘on the
basis of beliefs shared by the family’ (Siedentop, p. 15). All the members of
the family were descended from a common ancestor and bound together by blood
(Bury 1920, p. 53). The family owned a plot of land where their ancestors were
buried and the family worshiped their ancestors on a continual basis. This was
done so as to prevent the ancestors from ‘being cast into oblivion’ (Siedentop,
p. 15). Each family buried the dead in their own domain and one of the highest
duties was to protect the tombs of the fathers (Bury, p. 54). Property belonged
to the family, not to any particular individual (Siedentop, p. 16). The Greeks
and the Romans, unlike us, made no distinction between private and public
spheres, they made a distinction between public and domestic spheres. The
domestic sphere was the sphere of the family, not of individuals endowed with
rights. It was also very unequal in terms of roles, as women and slaves had no
rights (Siedentop, p. 18). Several families would group themselves together
into a society called ‘phatra,’ a brotherhood. Indeed, Homer said that he who
has no brothers has no hearth (Bury, p. 54). Prior to the advent of the city,
and a more sophisticated political and legal structure, the families were led
by a king. He was the chief priest and war-lord of the tribe (Bury, p. 54). The
king pronounced judgements, dealt with justice and led the hosts to war (p.
55). He was a protecting deity and he was revered as a God (p. 58). This
confederation of families gradually became a city, however ancient citizenship
left no space for individual choice (Siedentop, p. 21). Strict rules permeated
dress, deportment, marriage, sport, education and conversation. If an
individual deviated from them, he would be deported (Siedentop, p. 22). The
welfare of the city was considered more important than the rights of the
individual. Patriotism was the highest virtue for the Greeks and someone who retreated
from patriotism and the ideal of the city was an ‘idiot’ (Siedentop, p. 25).
Indeed, Aristotle went as far as saying that the life of the citizen was the
only life worth living (Siedentop, p. 25). Each city had its own God, but
Greeks from different cities did not mingle with each other. There was no
notion of individual rights and there was no liberty of thought or action.
Participation in the assembly and the magistrate was obligatory and enforced
for citizens (Siedentop, p. 28). People were born into casts and this
inequality was considered natural (Siedentop, p. 51). The citizens were a small
minority, but women, slaves and plebs were barred from participating in the
political process. Indeed, these strict social roles were stifling and any slight
deviation from them was punished. One of the most famous examples of this was
Socrates, who was chastised for ‘corrupting the youth of Athens.’
Having
established what society was like in Ancient Greece, this essay will look at
four figures from Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome and will attempt to detect
traces of ‘nascent liberalism.’ It will start by looking at Cicero whose ideas
on property closely resemble classical liberalism. In Ancient Greece and Rome,
property belonged to the family so that they could worship their ancestors
(Siedentop, p. 16). Plato says the following in Laws: ‘Thou who art only
a pilgrim here below does it belong to thee to decide such affairs? Thou art
the master neither of thy property nor of thyself, thou and thy estate, all
these things belong to thy family; that is to say, to thy ancestors and to thy
posterity (Siedentop, p. 17). Interfering with property meant interfering with
the family and domestic religion (p. 17). However, Cicero argued in favour of
property rights and argued that property should belong to individuals. Justice
for Cicero meant respecting property and taking property away from someone is
the gravest violation. He also opposed state-mandated redistribution, since he
argued that if you had the right to something, you should not take it away from
them (Nussbaum 2019, p. 55). The taking of private property, for Cicero, was a
grave injustice, as it violated ‘the law of fellowship’ (Nussbaum, p. 25).
Alternatively, the Stoics at the time argued that property should be commonly
owned (p. 56). In other words, they were prototypical socialists. Cicero argued
that taking property rights away from someone means using someone as a tool for
someone’s convenience (p. 27). This is very similar to Immanuel Kant’s views on
ethics, as he argued that individuals are ends in themselves and should be able
to determine their own actions. Individuals are ends in themselves and should
not be used as means by others to satisfy a pattern. Indeed, Cicero was a big
influence on Kant (Nussbaum, p. 28). The first liberal thinker, John Locke,
stressed the importance of property rights and it was one of the most important
liberal tenets. Classical liberalism opposes the redistribution of wealth, but
later ‘modern’ liberals do support a modest redistribution of wealth. Cicero’s
arguments also mirror the ideas of 20th century libertarian Robert
Nozick. Nozick opposed the redistribution of wealth, as he argued that it uses
individuals as means to specific ends. Nozick even sees personal taxation as an
infringement on liberty. Despite this similarity to later liberal thinkers,
Cicero held communitarian views. He championed the public life and he argued
that true potential can only be realised in the community: ‘The primary reason
for its coming together is not so much weakness as a sort of innate desire on
the part of human beings to form communities. For our species is not made up of
solitary individuals or lonely wanderers’ (year, p. 19). The emphasis is very
much on the public sphere and on community, something that the Enlightenment
and thinkers like Spinoza later questioned.
This
essay will now look at Pericles, Greece’s democratic leader. Initially,
liberalism was sceptical of democracy, as thinkers like John Stuart Mill
thought that it might lead to the ‘tyranny of the majority’ and to ‘mob rule.’
Pericles also spoke about ‘the people,’ which might also seem illiberal as it
speaks about an abstract entity that does not exist. Indeed, the founders of
the United States were sceptical of Pericles as they thought that democracy
meant ‘mob rule.’ However, liberalism and democracy have since been fused
together and they are seen as complementary. Still, the alternative to
democracy at the time was aristocracy, oligarchy, Plato’s ‘philosopher kings’
and despotism, which were more illiberal and concentrated power into small
groups. Most Athenians lacked Pericles’ education, as they had a poor standard
of living. Many members of the small elite that Pericles belonged to opposed
democracy, as it meant sharing power with a mass of citizens who were less
affluent. It also meant that they had to contribute financial resources so as
to provide benefits for the masses (Martin 2016, p. 7). Pericles wanted to
strengthen political and financial measures so as to support the majority of
his citizens (p. 7). Pericles’ opponents blamed him for the decisions that male
citizens made in the democratic assembly and for spending money on expensive
public buildings (p. 7). After the Peloponnesian War, when Pericles himself was
killed, there was a short period of dictatorship, which Socrates supported. Following
the restoration of democracy, Socrates was trialled and killed. Indeed, Pericles
and his democratic ideals were anathema to Socrates and Plato who were in
favour of ‘philosopher kings.’ Their view of society, however, was more
authoritarian. Plato wanted to destroy the family and subject all Athenians to
a strict education system. Meanwhile, Pericles wanted to distribute power more
widely, which makes him less authoritarian and, hence, more liberal. Pericles
was completely committed to freedom (p. 143), the primary liberal value. He was
also committed to equality, as he increased democracy. He tried to reduce the
political and judicial powers of the Areopagus Council. The members were chosen
randomly and juries were made up of hundreds of thousands of people who were
chosen by lottery (p. 143). The Areopagus was made up of mandatory annual
examinations of financial accounts of officials who held government posts.
Former officials would not be determining the guilt or innocence of their
colleagues in public office. This reform diminished corruption and made
Athenian more egalitarian (p. 143). Of course, transparency and public
accountability are liberal ideals, as liberals do not want public officials to
abuse power. Laws were made by juries and they were chosen at random.
Accountability was in control of the majority, not the social elite. It is
disputable whether this was truly liberal, as fifth century Athens was ruled by
the will of the majority and liberalism aims to protect minorities against the
majority. Indeed, J.B. Bury argues that Pericles ‘ruled as a tyrant’ and that
‘subjects must obey his nod’ (p. 382). However, Pericles was primarily
interested in extending freedom to everyone and he was committed to the liberal
values of freedom, equality and universalism.
This
essay will now look at Diogenes, whose strange behaviour disconcerted the
Greeks. The Polis in Ancient Greece has strict social rules, but Diogenes
deviated from that. He did not write tracts, instead he was a
philosopher-as-performance-artist. Unlike Socrates, who engaged in dialogue but
did not write, Diogenes enacted eccentric theatrics which drew attention to
himself. A lot of his act was about authenticity in an age when deviation from
norms would brand you an ‘idiot.’ For Diogenes, to become a true individual and
a proper human being, one had to reject conventional society and its values.
Otherwise, one would simply be a member of a crowd (Hard 2002, p. ix). Whilst
this is something that a moody teenager might espouse these days, it was a radical
statement in Ancient Greece. In an age of strict social rules, he masturbated
in public, wandered around the streets with a lantern in broad daylight asking
‘for an honest man,’ slept in a wooden jar, he was always surrounded by dogs
and he went up to one of Plato’s lectures and threw a plucked chicken at him. This
was all part of his philosophy, which aimed to disrupt the stultifying
staidness of Athenian culture. He did everything in public in a society with
strict public norms. He often walked against the flow of the crowd, as he said
that people should be ashamed for their wrong direction in life (p. ix). The
mass of people, for Diogenes, are anonymous. Members of a crowd are slave and
scum (p. ix). He rejected conventionality because he wanted individuals to discover
their true nature (p. ix). In a highly permissive age, this might seem like a
cliché, but in a society in which only the public realm existed, when there was
no private realm, with strict rules on dress, behaviour and comportment, this
was radical behaviour.
Finally,
this essay will briefly consider Marcus Aurelius, a Roman emperor. Like Cicero,
Aurelius was a Roman stateman and he was deeply involved in its politics. For
the most part, like Cicero, Aurelius mainly speaks about community and the
common good. He says the following in Meditations: ‘We are born for
community’ (2016, p. 41). Indeed, he also says:
Just as you yourself are a
complementary part of a social system, so too your every action should
complement a life of social principle. If an action of yours, then, does not
have direct or indirect relation to the social end, it pulls your life apart
and destroys its unity. It is a kind of sedition, like an individual in a
democracy unilaterally resigning from common harmony (p. 88).
It is considered ‘sedition’ to do
things that have no social end and every action should ‘complement a social
principle.’ What would have he have made of Diogenes’ behaviour? However,
Aurelius expresses a more liberal philosophy with the following statement: ‘The
idea of a polity administered with regard to equal rights, and equal freedom of
speech, and the idea of a kingly government which respects most of all the
freedom of the governed’ (p. 5). Indeed, this leans closer to the kind of
philosophy espoused by Spinoza and Locke who thought that the primary aim of
governments is to protect the freedom of its citizens. He also wants to protect
freedom of speech and he says that all citizens are endowed with equal rights.
It is a lot less communitarian and authoritarian than his other statements and
it evinces a prototypical liberalism.
This
essay will now look at the medieval period. In the early medieval period, all
members of society were part of a clan. They were monogamous and adultery was
rare (Thompson and Johnson 1937, p. 69). All members of the clan were liable
for an offence committed by just one of its members, including murder (p. 73). Woods,
pasture and the waste land were owned by the community, but farm land was owned
by individuals (p. 74). Agriculture was a co-operative enterprise (p. 74).
Kings were chosen on account of their ancestry and their valour (p. 74).
Society in the medieval ages was made up of rigid social classes and each had
its own function (p. 74). The first estate was the clergy, the second estate
was the nobility and the third was labour. Feudalism was the system which
regulated relationships among members of the third estate (p. 309). Freedom of
the individual was confined only to aristocracy and there was little
individualism in feudal times (p. 311). Like ancient times, community rather
the individual was the primary value. Property was commonly owned, but society
was strictly stratified and several sections of society lacked rights.
Indeed,
this system was known as ‘feudalism’ and the section in society with fewest
rights were called ‘serfs.’ Serfdom was revoked in the 15th century,
which was a big change (Wickham 2006, p. 15), but prior to this serfs could
scarcely be differentiated from slaves (p. 329). A serf could not own property
(p. 329) and was often sold like a slave, often for less than the price of a
horse (p. 329). A serf could appear in court against another serf, but not
against a freeman or a lord (p. 329). Serfs always stayed on the same land,
even if it was sold, but they were at least protected from unemployment (p.
330). Societies in the medieval ages were more tribal, there was little freedom
of the individual and society was stratified. There were no universal human
rights, a common value of the liberal Enlightenment, and large sections of
society did not have the same rights as others. In ancient times, only citizens
had rights and could participate in public affairs, but even there was still no
much lee-way for independent thought. They still had to respect customs and
gods. At least some of the aristocracy had more freedom in medieval times.
However,
several of the ‘fathers’ in the medieval ages spoke a lot more about free will
and autonomy than the ancients did. Indeed, Larry Siedentop argues in Inventing
the Individual: The Origins of Modern Liberalism (2014) that Christianity
was an individualistic religion. St. Paul conceived of a religion in which the
individual finds salvation through Christ. St. Augustine (354-430) developed
St. Paul’s philosophy further. He spoke about ‘the will’ and pride of the
intellect meant that the human being can determine his own choices (Siedentop
2014, p. 102). St. Augustine, unlike the ancients, did not believe that some
people in society were inherently better than others. He believed that all
souls were equal (p. 102), which conforms to the egalitarian principle of
liberalism, as liberalism argues that all individuals are of equal worth.
Souls, according to Augustine, are not inherently superior to one another (p.
102), which rejects the natural inequality of Ancient Greece and Rome. Ancient
philosophy emphasised reason – the logos – but Augustine emphasised grace,
intellect and feeling, which involves choice (p. 102). Reason has to make sense
of a world outside our control and this is made through choice (p. 104).
Inwardness of the individual is not a sphere of silence, it is a sphere of
dialogue, of conversation with God (p. 105). Augustine puts a lot more emphasis
on the inner life of the individual and his individual agency. Whilst there are
brief flashes of this in antiquity, the arguments of The Fathers are much
closer to the Enlightenment.
This
essay will now look at Thomas Aquinas, who lived during 1225-74, almost a
century after Augustine. Once more, Augustine emphasises autonomy: ‘Willing is
an internal choice’ (2016, p. 172). However, Aquinas emphasises that, although
we have free will, that it is guided by God: ‘God moves us to choose by sort of
internal stimulus, infallibly but without comprising our freedom’ (p. 172). The
individual is free to choose and this freedom is granted by God. Later liberals
such as John Stuart Mill were atheists, although John Locke was not. For Mill,
the individual is an autonomous agent. Aquinas also sees the individual as a
rational agent, but this freedom is only possible because it is granted by God.
For Aquinas, the will is motivated by a goal and the individual usually acts
because he is driven towards something: ‘The mover compels what it moves to move’
(p. 174). The individual wills everything himself, he is not driven by
something external: ‘I think because I want to, I use all my other abilities
and dispositions because I want to’ (p. 177). The will is moved by
deliberation, as the individual deliberates about what is best for him and
takes facts into consideration (p. 178). This is similar to liberal
rationality, as liberals urge others to make informed choices about subjects
using facts and logic. Aquinas still clings to God, as he thinks that willing
and free choice are stimulated by God. Later Enlightenment thinkers like
Spinoza rejected this, as he tried to see the natural world as something fee from
divine intervention. However, like the humanists from the Enlightenment,
Aquinas sees humans as uniquely different from other animals, as they are
equipped with reason (p. 359). Whilst there are some differences between
Aquinas and thinkers of the Enlightenment, he places special stress on
autonomy, rational choice and the individual much more than the thinkers from
Antiquity, who view humans as a social animal.
Liberalism
places greater emphasis on the individual than the social collective. It is
also egalitarian and believes in progress, tolerance and universalism. Rene Descartes
showed nascent signs of this when he stated ‘I think therefore I am.’ In the
seventeenth century, there had been religious wars between protestants and
Catholics. In the end of this century, John Locke argued that governments
should promote tolerance of different religious beliefs. However, ancient
Greece and the medieval era did not have a liberal ethos. There were strict
social norms in ancient Greece, as families lived together and worshipped their
ancestors. The patriarch of the family wielded authority and could kill his
wife or his children if he wanted to. Following the advent of the city, there
were strict roles for citizens and anyone who was not a patriot would be
ostracised. These societies also actively promoted inequality, as the aristocracy
would rule, but slaves, plebs and women were not citizens. However, Cicero
expressed classical liberal ideas on property, as he argued that it should
belong to individuals and that states should not take it away from him. In
antiquity, property usually belonged to the family. Pericles was a statesman
who expanded democracy, freedom and equality. He also tried to make government
more transparent, more accountable and less corrupt. Diogenes was an extremely
eccentric figure who tried to challenge the strict social norms which were
prevalent in Athens. He thought that the masses blindly followed arbitrary
norms and he tried to disrupt this with his strange behaviour. Finally, Marcus
Aurelius, like Cicero, was a communitarian, but he expressed a liberal opinion
when he argued that a society should primarily protect equal rights, freedom of
speech and the freedom of its citizens. This also essay also looked at the
medieval era, when people lived in oppressive tribes. Medieval societies were
also feudal, as serfs lived on a plot of land and were not entitled the same
rights as other citizens. However, St. Augustine, early on in the medieval
period, argued that all souls are equal. This egalitarian ethos influenced
Gregory VI legal reforms, which attempted to make all individuals equal before
the law and paved the road to the end of serfdom. Augustine also emphasised
individual inwardness and choice. Finally, Thomas Aquinas emphasised that the
individual is free to make rational choices, but that this freedom is enabled
by God. This is different from Enlightenment thinkers, as they tried to see the
natural world as something free from divine intervention. Earlier societies
were not liberal, but the thinkers and statemen that this essay look at do show
nascent signs of liberalism.
Aurelius, Marcus. (2006)
Translated by Martin Hammond. Meditations. London: Penguin.
Aquinas, Thomas. (2008)
Translated by Timothy McDermott. Selected Philosophical Writings. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Bonney, Richard. (2002)
The Thirty Years’ War: 1618-1648. Oxford: Osprey Publishing.
Bury, J. B. (1920) A
History of Greece to the Date of Alexander the Great. London: Bloomsbury
Publishing.
Cicero. (2008)
Translated by Niall Rudd. The Republic and the Laws. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Descartes, Rene. (1998)
Translated by Desmond M. Clarke. Originally published in 1641. Meditations
and Other Metaphysical Writings. London: Penguin.
Diogenes the Cynic.
(2012) Introduction by Robin Hard. Sayings and Anecdotes with Other Popular
Moralists. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dunn, John (1984) Locke:
A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford Publishing Press.
Gray, John. (1986) Liberalism.
Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Martin, Thomas R.
(2016) Pericles: A Biography in Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Nussbaum. (2021) The
Cosmopolitan Tradition: A Noble but Flawed Ideal. Harvard: Harvard
University Press.
Spinoza, Benedict.
(2007) Originally published in 1670. Translated by Jonathan Israel. Theological-Political-Treatise.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Siedentop, Larry.
(2004). Inventing the Individual: The Origins of Western Liberalism.
London: Penguin Books.
Thompson, James
Westfall. Johnson, Edgar Nathaniel. (1937) An Introduction to Medieval
Europe: 300-1,500. New York Norton & Co.
Wickham, Chris. (2016) Medieval
Europe. Yale: Yale University Press.
Vallance, Edward. (2006)
The Glorious Revolution: 1688 – Britain’s Fight for Liberty. London:
Abacus.
