« السابقةمتابعة »
HARVARD COLLEGE LIBRARY
DEPOSITED BY THE LIBRARY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
JUN 21 1940
PRINTED BY J. AND C. F. CLAY,
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.
THE PRINCE CONSORT PRIZE.
“There shall be established in the University a prize, called the Prince Consort Prize,' to be awarded for dissertations involving original historical research.”
“The Prize shall be open to members of the University who, at the time when their dissertations are sent in, have been admitted to a degree, and are of not more than four years' standing from admission to their first degree.”
“Those dissertations which the adjudicators declare to be deserving of publication shall be published by the University, singly or in combination, in an uniform series, at the expense of the fund, under such conditions as the Syndics of the University Press shall from time to time determine.”
I HAVE to thank the Adjudicators of the
Prince Consort Prize for their kindness in permitting me very much to expand, and entirely to rewrite, my dissertation of four years ago. To the late Professor Seeley in particular was due the suggestion, that I should investigate French political theories in the sixteenth century and endeavour to discover their bearing on English thought. Even so, I am sensible
Ι of the extreme inadequacy of this sketch. Within any reasonable time it would be impossible to arrive at a complete account of a doctrine, which has relation to every political theory from mediæval to modern times. At some future date, it may be within my power to attempt a fuller account of the developments which political theory has undergone since the later Middle Ages. This little essay is at most a preliminary survey of the ground, and can lay claim to neither finality nor completeness. With the view of fixing attention, so far as possible, on the main subject, I have avoided discussing in any detail the origin and development of the rival theories, such as the original compact and popular sovereignty. On the other hand I have endeavoured in many cases to give the means of verification of statements as to the true nature and purpose of the doctrines discussed, by putting into footnotes a few of the more striking utterances of all parties. Lest however the notes should be unduly heavy, I have collected into an Appendix a small number of passages illustrating the points which Chapters VIII. and IX. are intended to elucidate.