THE RIG-HT OF REBELLION.
Ma. LASKI made his name as one of the modern school of political theorists, who can see little good in sovereignty. They search in the writings of Maitland and Gierke for a group theory of the State that may limit what they consider its monstrous claims—though claims buttressed in English law—to decide questions of morality and allegiance. From Figgis they take the defence of a church free to control its own members, to settle its creed, and they apply this mulatto mutandis to other forms of association. In the American Constitution they find a political arrangement where sover- eignty, save in times of crisis, can almost be argued to be non- existent. The attack they make on the State's claim to omnipotence forces them back to study the controversies of • the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, when through the rise of organized nationalities the issue first became defined in its modern guise. It is thus not accident that has led Mr. Laski to edit a translation of the Vindiciae contra Tyrannos, a book written, probably by Duplessis-Mornay, to justify the Huguenot nobility in taking arms against a persecuting and papalist king. The original Latin work has been several times issued in translation for English consumption ; sugges- tively enough the last of these editions was in 1689, and earlier ones were dated 1648 and 1660. It is the edition of 1689 that is here reprinted. Locke felt the influence of the book,
though he owed less to it than to Hooker ; through Locke its doctrines coloured the American revolution, and thence with the democracy of Rousseau added, they had some influence in 1789. Duplessis-Mornay would almost certainly have approved of the English revolution which suited his aristocratic views ; he might have borne though not whole- heartedly with the American rising—New England would have pleased him less than Virginia, the French revolution would have cut at most of his principles and at all his prejudices.
The author of the Vindiciae naturally argues in the manner of his age from scriptural texts too much for our taste, but
the book is none the less a vivid piece of writing. Mr. Laski has been wise in reprinting an old version rather than making one of his own. They managed these things better than we can, and this is in the great tradition of English translations. No one now would dare to render a passage thus, the whole phrase thought into racy English and not each word turned singly :—
" But let us suppose that in this our Ship of State the pilot is drunk, the most of his associates are asleep, or after large and unreasonable tippling together, they regard their eminent danger in approaching a rock with idle and negligent jollity . . . What should then a master's mate, or some other under-officer do, who is vigilant and careful to perform his duty ? Shall it be thought suffi- cient for him to pinch or punch them who are asleep ? "
The main thesis of the book is that a ruler who infringes the law of God or oppresses his subjects can lawfully be resisted. This old question is still with us—a final view on the limits of obedience can never be found—but to-day we regard the problem less as one of abstract ethics than of political fact.
We know that an unpopular policy raises either open or veiled resistance, and at least in England we have left theo- logical argument on the right of rebellion for frank consider- ations of Benthamite expediency. T. H. Green sets the moral purpose of the State as high as anyone and maintains with the best the subject's duty of passing ethical judgment on his country's action, but he enjoins on the individual who disagrees with the law the duty of taking the consequences of his action into account before he resists what he may hold to be immoral. A section of Irish opinion may damn the consequences in as sweeping fashion as the sixteenth century, but few east of St. George's Channel are so cocksure. Duplessis- Mornay advocates resistance when the laws of God are broken. He goes farther ; other princes, he argues, should intervene between rulers and ruled when there is tyranny or religious persecution in a neighbouring State. We are less confident ; we have 1794 and France, 1919 and Russia, to think of ; we feel more sceptical in our judgments, more timid in our acts.
Mr. Laski's introduction is necessary and useful. It would be more so if it were more sparing with a rather irritating allusiveness. That is a trick indispensable to the good history examinee, but of doubtful value, save when kept strictly in check, on the printed page. But he has made accessible a fine translation of a book that influenced events, and the teacher of political philosophy will be grateful.
E. M. WRONG.
Previous page
