Thomas
Sutcliffe, “The paths are open, the way is plain”:
Political and Constitutional Theory in Jacobean England, 1603-1625
Excerpts
[see
Tom's commentary here]
Jacobeans initially approached
constitutional debate with an open mind, one unrestricted by
a priori assumptions. After a debate had actually commenced,
knowledge derived not from preconceived ideology, but rather
from the arguments which were carefully constructed and assumed
very little prior knowledge. Knowledge was derived from the
argumentation process rather than from crystallized constitutional
beliefs. Indeed, most of these men came of age during the Elizabethan
era, and as such were educated within an intellectual environment
which placed a high premium on the process of argumentation.
In universities such as Cambridge and Oxford, students were
instructed to follow a very rigid format whereby they carefully
define the question at stake and then proceeded to list a series
of propositions, followed by a refutation of possible objections.
As a result, in Jacobean and Elizabethan political culture,
ideology counted for very little. Knowledge was something which
was proven and constructed through the argumentation process;
in other words it was the end result of debate. The political
elite may have been concerned by the possible consequences of
recent constitutional developments, but that concern nonetheless
coexisted with an intellectual environment that demanded well
constructed logical reasoning.
[.]
Ultimately, the process of
argumentation counted for more than the actual ideas which were
generated from this process.
[.]
As politicians both for and
against the king's prerogative frequently stressed, any conclusion
was acceptable so long as its author had constructed a tight,
logical argument. As Salisbury noted in 1610, "if in point of
greatness you fear we have the odds, you know that doth nothing
in a cause where reason is the judge and the best argument must
decide the question."
[.]
Jacobean political culture
ultimately emphasized the quality of argumentation over the
actual ideas which emanated. The political elites primary concern
was to ensure that they were approaching these conflicts in
the most cautious and deliberative manner possible.
[.]
This emphasis on the quality
of argumentation [can be seen in the way in which politicians
constructed their arguments]. Jacobean political culture stressed
that each new ideas had to be thoroughly proven as it was being
introduced for the first time. Jacobean lawyers, judges and
members of Parliament were very careful to ensure that no statements
were made which did not have a carefully constructed justification.
In other words, a politician could not simply expound a constitutional
philosophy simply because it was "right;" the intellectual environment
of these debates was far too cautious and deliberative to allow
for such a strategy. As a result, each proposition and each
premise had to be vigorously proven and defended. Doing so normally
meant taking a few propositions which were absolutely unassailable
and then building from there. For instance, in 1607, the Commons
and the Lords met for a joint session to discuss the whether
Scottish citizens born after king James's ascension to the English
throne (the postnati) were English citizens. And at this conference,
members of parliament tried to argue against the proposition
by constructing carefully reasoned arguments based upon two
premises which they believed were indisputable: the first being
that "in the king's person there is an union of sovereignty
over both nations" and "the fundamental laws of either nation
do remain distinct." After doing so they "urged nine reasons
or arguments," which could all be derived from these propositions
and used to refute the claim that the Postnati were English
citizens. They proceeded to list each argument consecutively,
providing a justification for each subsequent proposition. If
nothing else, the sheer formality and thoroughness of this exercised
is quite telling. In Jacobean England nothing could be assumed
and every single statement had to be accounted for and supported
using clear, unassailable logic. If an idea could not be connected
to an absolute axiom, and rather was merely based on personal
belief or conviction, ultimately it floundered. Every idea had
to be constructed anew and every theory had to be rigorously
tested.
