The Machiavellian Moment is a classic study of the consequences for modern historical and social consciousness of the ideal of the classical republic revived by Machiavelli and other thinkers of Renaissance Italy. J.G.A. Pocock suggests that Machiavelli's prime emphasis was on the moment in which the republic confronts the problem of its own instability in time, and which he calls the "Machiavellian moment." After examining this problem in the thought of Machiavelli, Guicciardini, and Giannotti, Pocock turns to the revival of (...) republican thought in Puritan England and in Revolutionary and Federalist America. He argues that the American Revolution can be considered the last great act of civic humanism of the Renaissance. He relates the origins of modern historicism to the clash between civic, Christian, and commercial values in the thought of the eighteenth century. (shrink)

This essay is written on the following premises and argues for them. “Enlightenment” is a word or signifier, and not a single or unifiable phenomenon which it consistently signifies. There is no single or unifiable phenomenon describable as “the Enlightenment,” but it is the definite article rather than the noun which is to be avoided. In studying the intellectual history of the late seventeenth century and the eighteenth, we encounter a variety of statements made, and assumptions proposed, to which the (...) term “Enlightenment” may usefully be applied, but the meanings of the term shift as we apply it. The things are connected, but not continuous; they cannot be reduced to a single narrative; and we find ourselves using the word “Enlightenment” in a family of ways and talking about a family of phenomena, resembling and related to one another in a variety of ways that permit of various generalizations about them. We are not, however, committed to a single root meaning of the word “Enlightenment,” and we do not need to reduce the phenomena of which we treat to a single process or entity to be termed “the” Enlightenment. It is a reification that we wish to avoid, but the structure of our language is such that this is difficult, and we will find ourselves talking of “the French” or “the Scottish,” “the Newtonian” or the “the Arminian” Enlightenments, and hoping that by employing qualifying adjectives we may constantly remind ourselves that the keyword “Enlightenment” is ours to use and should not master us. (shrink)

Pocock, J. G. A. (John Greville Agard) 1924- "Quentin Skinner: The History of Politics and the Politics of History" Common Knowledge - Volume 10, Issue 3, Fall 2004, pp. 532-550.

This article seeks to combine two lines of thought that have been little studied: a model history of early modern historiography, and a theory of the impact of historiography on a political society. Under the former heading, it traces the growth of a narrative of European history as a series of sequels to the Roman empire, and a history of historiography as passing from classical narrative to antiquarian study and Enlightened philosophy. Under the latter, it considers the effect on political (...) life of being narrated in a plurality of contexts, and asks whether a modern society can survive if deprived of the capacity for debating its history. (shrink)

Written in memory of the historian J. G. A. Pocock (1924 – 2023), this essay revisits a series of exchanges in 2004 and 2005 between the editor of Common Knowledge and Pocock, a founding member of the journal's editorial board. In the first exchange, Pocock drew a sharp distinction between, on the one hand, professional academic specialists like himself and, on the other hand, intellectuals such as read and write for Common Knowledge and who, “interested in themselves,... questioning themselves,” are (...) ultimately philosophers rather than scholars. He then defined history, for the instruction of that idiosyncratic audience, as a record of what has actually happened. The editor, who is also the author of this memorial essay, responded in the journal by applying Pocock's definition of history with earnest interest to a new symposium he was introducing. Pocock then wrote, clarifying his position, that history is a “multiplex condition” and that among the “historical facts” to which historians must attend are constructed histories whose claims have already been invalidated. The editor's reply was that these were postmodern notions that belied Pocock's previously submitted definition. Looking back after twenty years, he now reflects on why Pocock criticized a journal he had helped to found, only then to write a sort of treatise in support of the journal's own views. He concludes that Pocock made the claim that his approach to scholarship and that of Common Knowledge were becoming incommensurable as a test of the journal that became, in the process, a test of his own liberality and open mind. (shrink)

ABSTRACTThis essay is speculative in character. It is the work of a historian who has completed a study, written on certain principles, of the first three volumes of Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire and does not intend to advance to a similar study of the second three. He does, however, believe that such a study would differ profoundly from that he has constructed of the first trilogy and wishes to offer hypotheses as to why this should be (...) so. All hypotheses invite falsification, and he will make statements about the second trilogy and its hypothetical construction which invite research with results to which they may or may not stand up. To do this will be an exercise in the history of historiography, a sub-discipline still in progress of establishing itself. It will also give the author the opportunity of extending certain generalizations he was led to advance in writing and completing his study of Gibbon’s first trilogy, and of enquiring whether they remain valid in the light of a study of the second – given that this study is still at a hypothetical stage. (shrink)

This essay presents J. G. A. Pocock reflections on Gibbon’s fourth volume and the shift it marks in the Decline and Fall towards a narrative we might consider ‘Byzantine’. It is the work of Gibbon’s chief historian, venturing into territory left unexplored by Barbarism and Religion. Pocock observes that, after 395 CE, Gibbon begins to tell two distinct stories: the fall of the Western empire into barbarism, and the Eastern empire’s descent into what he called ‘premature and perpetual decay’. That (...) phrase, Pocock argues, signals a historiographical rupture: Eastern Rome no longer rest on classical virtue and follows a different narrative logic. Tracing Gibbon’s treatment of Constantinopolitan culture, the Persian and Gothic wars, and the Incarnation controversies, Pocock casts the Justinian–Heraclius era as the final chapter of undisrupted Roman agency in the Decline and Fall. The followers of Muhammad will take the centre stage in the next volume. Gibbon’s narrative weaves together an increasing number of historiographical registers to capture the shifting geographies of power and meaning, framing a late antiquity no longer centred at Rome but increasingly Eurasian in scope. Pocock’s essay is prefaced by an introduction that provides a summa of Gibbon’s first three volumes, and of Pocock’s Gibbonian enterprise. (shrink)

As part of a programme of disintegrating and re-assembling the concept or concepts of ‘Europe’, there is offered a revision of Franco Venturi's exceptionalist account of England's place in Enlightenment, an alternative to Isaiah Berlin's account of the movement through Enlightenment to historicism. The objective is to enhance the British and English role in European intellectual history, while showing that we must rewrite the concept of ‘Europe’ in order to do so. There persists the ‘Eurosceptical enquiry’ whether ‘Europe’ is interested (...) in history at all. (shrink)

The Machiavellian Moment is a classic study of the consequences for modern historical and social consciousness of the ideal of the classical republic revived by Machiavelli and other thinkers of Renaissance Italy. J.G.A. Pocock suggests that Machiavelli's prime emphasis was on the moment in which the republic confronts the problem of its own instability in time, and which he calls the "Machiavellian moment."After examining this problem in the thought of Machiavelli, Guicciardini, and Giannotti, Pocock turns to the revival of republican (...) thought in Puritan England and in Revolutionary and Federalist America. He argues that the American Revolution can be considered the last great act of civic humanism of the Renaissance. He relates the origins of modern historicism to the clash between civic, Christian, and commercial values in the thought of the eighteenth century. (shrink)

In 2021 J.G.A. Pocock read a short essay by Jess Whatmore which criticised Kenneth Pomeranz’s ‘Great Divergence’ thesis, that the alternative historical trajectories of Europe and Asia, signalled by the former’s dominance of the global economy from c. 1800, could be traced to ecological factors. Pomeranz wanted to shift the explanation for divergence away from claims about the natural superiority or greater liberty of Europeans. Whatmore’s essay argued rather that divergence depended upon European military superiority, which in turn could be (...) traced to the cultural roots of European military success that derived from ‘edge-of-empire’ discourses. Pocock’s response, in one of his final letters, engaged with the themes of the edge of empire thesis. (shrink)

Turtle riding was once a popular activity among holidaymakers at the Great Barrier Reef off the northeast coast of Australia. In the first half of the twentieth century. it was a significant way for tourists to engage with living marine life. The turtle breeding season offered tourists an opportunity to see female turtles emerge from the sea and come ashore to nest and lay their eggs. They could also witness emerging hatchlings scuttle from shore to sea. This sea-land-sea transformation facilitated (...) unique forms of human-nonhuman animal interaction and was integral to visitor affection for, and affinity with, sea turtles. (shrink)

This Omnibus edition brings together four classic works on Hinduism by renowned scholars, providing the liturgical, historical, anthropological, and individualist's interpretation of the religion. With an introduction by T.N. Madan, this volume will make an excellent and very comprehensive collector's item on the subject of Hinduism.

ABSTRACTJohn Pocock gave “A method, a model and Machiavelli” as a talk at Princeton University in 1968. What happened to the text afterwards is uncertain, but it remained in the papers of Professor Donald Weinstein until his death in 2015, when it was identified by his widow Beverly Parker as being of importance. The text is especially revealing about Pocock’s attitudes to the history of ideas/intellectual history in the late 1960s and more especially the state of the grand project that (...) became The Machiavellian Moment some years later. (shrink)

IN Od. 10. 81–86 we read: ‘On the seventh day we came to the steep city of Lamos … where herdsman bringing in his charge hails herdsman taking his charge out, and he who takes them out returns the greeting. There might a sleepless man have earned a double wage, as cowman for the one part, as shepherd of white sheep for the other. For close ‹together› are the paths of night and day.’.

Barbarism and Religion - Edward Gibbon's own phrase - is the title of an acclaimed sequence of works by John Pocock designed to situate Gibbon, and his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, in a series of contexts in the history of eighteenth-century Europe. This is a major intervention from one of the world's leading historians of ideas, challenging the idea of 'The Enlightenment' and positing instead a plurality of enlightenments, of which the English was one. Professor Pocock argues (...) that the English Enlightenment of which Gibbon was part was an ecclesiastical as well as a secular phenomenon, one of several Protestant Enlightenments distinct from that of the Parisian philosophes, and part of the reconstitution of Europe after the wars against Louis XIV. The whole sequence is concerned less with the specific historiography of the Roman Empire than with the cultural history of Europe in the eighteenth century. (shrink)

This piece is an essay review of Wang Hui's book China from Empire to Nation-State, which is a translation of the introduction to Wang's four-volume Rise of Modern Chinese Thought. According to the reviewer, Wang studies less the modern history of China than its historicity and does so in the context of China's transition from being an empire, inhabiting a cosmos that is the product of its own self-reflection, to being one among a number of nation-states, inhabiting a number of (...) histories of their own, all of which are now simultaneously present. But the Euro-American terms empire and nation-state, which increasingly pervade Chinese perceived realities, lack precise Chinese equivalents. Meanwhile, the terms that the Chinese use in referring to the same historical transition, tianli and gongli, are obscure to the Euro-American mind. The reviewer asks whether the Chinese, now facing a plurality of histories, wonder if there may be a plurality of li, as well, or at least if there can be a li that is “universal” in the sense that it is common to them all. The problem here, the reviewer argues, in part derives from Wang's binaries being Hegelian, while the breakdown of the nation-state in Europe projects a postpolitical order in which human communities are incapable of state-based action or of determining their own li. The review ends by questioning whether China is capable of following this path and, in any case, whether Wang's vocabulary is able to encompass it. (shrink)