The liberty of the ancients and the moderns
Ancient liberty in the ancient world was not dangerous
- There was no Leviathan of the modern state: the ancient Athenian assembly did not
have the same kind of coercive apparatus behind it.
- The ancients wanted ancient liberty: there was acceptance of ‘the complete
subjection of the individual to the authority of the community’.
- Religious commitments were only collective: ‘The right to choose one’s own
religious affiliation ... was to the ancients a crime and a sacrilege’.
- In Athens alone were there some limits to the claim of the social on the individual.
- Freedom was understood, freedom to be a collective
- High emphasis on virtue
o French revolutionaries tried to impose this ancient liberty in a modern world
Imposing ancient liberty on the moderns in France
1. For Constant, the terrible mistake of the radical revolutionaries was to ignore actual
wants and beliefs.
2. Most French people did not want ancient liberty.
a. Modern world, the people did not want it
3. Neither, living in a large state, could they exercise it.
4. Protestantism had made individual conscience central to much European religious
faith.
a. Constants argument
5. The radical revolutionaries asked that the people made sacrifices, including of their
lives, to ends most didn't value.
6. Outcome: tyranny
- Most people did not want to believe in this, wanted to believe in Christian god
- France not decisively protestant yet but there was effective protestant links/roots in
the country
, The moderns need representative government
• Representation is ‘a discovery of the moderns’.
• ‘The representative system is nothing but an organisation by means of which a
nation charges a few individuals to do what it cannot or does not wish to do herself.’
• The protection of modern liberty, including over religious belief, should be the
purpose of representative government.
• Moderns must though “exercise an active and constant surveillance over their
representatives”: can’t enjoy modern liberty so much that won’t act politically to
defend it.
(‘The liberty of the ancients compared with that of the moderns.’)
- Nuance to constants argument --> representatives entrusted with power could end
up abusing it
- In that sense, there needs to be active and constant surveillance over these
- Cant enjoy modern liberty TOO much in the sense that you ignore the fact the
political liberty it depends on is being abused
Hobbes – keep the peace
Constant – protect modern liberty (2 reasons why we need somone in power/sovereign)
Both agree – need to keep them (sovereign/ruler) in check
The moderns have introduced and are protected by commerce
• Commerce in the ancient world was a ‘lucky accident’ but for moderns it is ‘the
normal state of things’.
• It is commerce that ‘inspires in men a vivid love of individual independence’.
• The arbitrary power of the modern state threatens commerce.
• But commerce also protects modern liberty from the modern state.
• Property under modern commerce circulates and is hard to seize.
• Credit (debt) ‘places authority itself in a position of dependence’.
Ancient liberty in the ancient world was not dangerous
- There was no Leviathan of the modern state: the ancient Athenian assembly did not
have the same kind of coercive apparatus behind it.
- The ancients wanted ancient liberty: there was acceptance of ‘the complete
subjection of the individual to the authority of the community’.
- Religious commitments were only collective: ‘The right to choose one’s own
religious affiliation ... was to the ancients a crime and a sacrilege’.
- In Athens alone were there some limits to the claim of the social on the individual.
- Freedom was understood, freedom to be a collective
- High emphasis on virtue
o French revolutionaries tried to impose this ancient liberty in a modern world
Imposing ancient liberty on the moderns in France
1. For Constant, the terrible mistake of the radical revolutionaries was to ignore actual
wants and beliefs.
2. Most French people did not want ancient liberty.
a. Modern world, the people did not want it
3. Neither, living in a large state, could they exercise it.
4. Protestantism had made individual conscience central to much European religious
faith.
a. Constants argument
5. The radical revolutionaries asked that the people made sacrifices, including of their
lives, to ends most didn't value.
6. Outcome: tyranny
- Most people did not want to believe in this, wanted to believe in Christian god
- France not decisively protestant yet but there was effective protestant links/roots in
the country
, The moderns need representative government
• Representation is ‘a discovery of the moderns’.
• ‘The representative system is nothing but an organisation by means of which a
nation charges a few individuals to do what it cannot or does not wish to do herself.’
• The protection of modern liberty, including over religious belief, should be the
purpose of representative government.
• Moderns must though “exercise an active and constant surveillance over their
representatives”: can’t enjoy modern liberty so much that won’t act politically to
defend it.
(‘The liberty of the ancients compared with that of the moderns.’)
- Nuance to constants argument --> representatives entrusted with power could end
up abusing it
- In that sense, there needs to be active and constant surveillance over these
- Cant enjoy modern liberty TOO much in the sense that you ignore the fact the
political liberty it depends on is being abused
Hobbes – keep the peace
Constant – protect modern liberty (2 reasons why we need somone in power/sovereign)
Both agree – need to keep them (sovereign/ruler) in check
The moderns have introduced and are protected by commerce
• Commerce in the ancient world was a ‘lucky accident’ but for moderns it is ‘the
normal state of things’.
• It is commerce that ‘inspires in men a vivid love of individual independence’.
• The arbitrary power of the modern state threatens commerce.
• But commerce also protects modern liberty from the modern state.
• Property under modern commerce circulates and is hard to seize.
• Credit (debt) ‘places authority itself in a position of dependence’.
