8/12/2019 Resea de 2 Libros de Nederman Sobre La Tolerancia en La E. Media

1/3

8/12/2019 Resea de 2 Libros de Nederman Sobre La Tolerancia en La E. Media

2/3

AmericanPoliticalScienceReview Vol. 92,No. 3

The three chapterson Locke actuallydisagree. PeterMyers rgues hatLocke was a rationalist hosaw the imitsofhumanreason, nd thus, eason's ncapacityo refute heclaimsof revelation.His Locke seems more Tocquevillianthan characteristicallymodern in orientation. Dale S.Kuehne, the book's heretic,presents n anti-Calvinistutultimately ro-Christianocke. David Foster,with he pre-ponderanceof evidence on his side, counters hat Locke'sviewofhumanfreedom s actually adically ntibiblical. isLocke is themostsecular and materialisticf the three, utFoster can onlymuster few impwords to questionthismodern xtremismThe last two hapters re byeditorDouglas Kries.The firstexposesMontesquieu'sveiled attackon Christian istoriog-raphy. he veil s notout of respect orChristian aith utforreligion'spolitical power.Kries also contributes fine ac-count fRousseau's attempto replacerevealedreligionwithcivilreligion.He notes that the philosophicdiscreditingfthe formerhas not led to the reemergence f the latter.Perhaps that is because the psychological riticism y theChristians fcivil heology emains rue,whether r not theCreator-God fthe Bible actually xists.The authors enerallyimit hemselves odoing ittlemorethan showingthe hostility f the earlymodernpoliticalphilosophers o the claims fortruth nd politicalpowerofrevealedreligion.The authors re to be praisedfordoingwhat hey etout todo. Butbecauseithad already een doneto my satisfaction y Strauss and other Strauss-inspiredwriters, wish theyhad turned more to criticism f theemptiness f modern ationalism.he authors' endencystolet the modern hilosophersff he hook too easilyby ayingtoooften hat heywereprimarilyefendingiberated ation-alismas such frompiety.The Christianswere surely ight,afterall, to call the pursuitof autonomy in or pridefulself-deception,r notreally ational t all.Harvy Mansfield,n the book's judicious Foreword, aysthat he modernpoliticalphilosophersawreligion s a signof humanweakness.To the extent hattheir ffortseplaceweakness rdependencewith elf-sufficienttrength,eligioncan wither way.But at the end of the greatsuccess anddeeperfailure f the modernworld,we are morelikely oadmit that the fundamental uman experience s one oflimitation,nd that moderneffortso denyor destroy hatindestructibleact are themselves orms f weakness. f weare notnihilists,henwe add thathuman ife s it s actuallyexperienceds nonetheless ood.Religion has not, in fact,withered way. The modernpoliticalphilosophersaid too little r almostnothingboutaffirmingur limitationss the indispensable onditions fhumangoodnessand humanhappiness.Theyhave too littleto say, as Allan Bloom, for one, complained,about thetwinshipf ove and death.Beyond the Persecuting Society: Religious Toleration beforethe Enlightenment. Edited byJohn Christian Laursen andCary J. Nederman. Philadelphia: Universityof Pennsylva-nia Press, 1998. 288p. $39.95 cloth, $19.95 paper.Differenceand Dissent: Theories of Tolerance in Medievaland Early Modern Europe. Edited by Cary J. Nedermanand John Christian Laursen. Lanham, MD: Rowman &Allanheld, 1996. 240p. $62.50 cloth, $23.95 paper.

Maryanne Cline Horowitz,Occidental College & Universityf California,Los AngelesThe idea of toleration (of difference n religious lifestyles swell as in ethnic culture, general definition,or sexual orien-

tation)has becomea major heme fpolitical heory esearchin the 1980s and 1990s. These twocollections f newschol-arship xpandknowledge f themultiple ersions f religioustoleration rom he twelfthhroughhe seventeenthentury.Differencend Dissent considers the theorists f John ofSalisbury,Marsiglio of Padua, John Wyclif,ChristinedePiszan,Hans Denck, SebastianFrank,Franciscode Vitoria,Bartolom6de Las Casas, Jean Bodin, Thomas Hobbes,Samuel Pufendorf, enedictde Spinoza, and John Locke.Beyond hePersecutingociety ot only onsiders ractices ftolerationn easternSwitzerland, 525-1615,and in seven-teenth-centuryassachusetts, utalso analyzes hethoughtof PeterAbelard,John f Salisbury,Menahemben SolomonHa-Ne'ira, thecircle of CardinalPole, JeanBodin, Samuelvon Pufendorf, ierreBayle, Aphra Behn,and seventeenth-century eligious keptics nd millenarian ogmatists. heeditorsare to be commendedfor inviting olitical theorycolleagues in history, iterature, hilosophy, nd religiousstudies o oinwith hose more numerousnpolitical cienceto broaden the ssuesuponwhich olerations studied.Eachvolume has an index, notes following ach article, nd astatement bout contributors.In Differencend Dissent,Nederman nd Laursenrespondto contemporaryritics of tolerationby disengaging heidentificationf tolerationwith he ine of thoughtxtendingfromLocke through he Enlightenmento Mill. A commu-nitarian unctionalistheory f toleration ppears in Neder-man'sdiscussion f therights heorynJohn fSalisburyndMarsiglio f Padua and n Kate Forhan's nalysis f Christinede Pisan's philosophy f the active nterdependencef thedifferentocial classes and the toleranceof one partof thebodypolitic o another art,ncluding omen nd foreigners.Laursen's rticle n Spinoza shows hathis moreuniversalist,modern heory redated nd possibly nfluenced ocke; theinclusion f articles n Spinoza and Bodin,who bothexhibittoleration fJews,Muslims, eists, keptics,nd otherfree-thinkers,howsby contrastLocke's limitedfocus on thetoleration f Protestant issidents ytheestablished hurchof England. The book concludes with William Walker'sanalysis f Locke's contention hat persuasion s a kindofforce;Locke's ideal commonwealth mergesas a placewhere all, including he ruler,have freedom and dutytopersuadeothers oncerningalvation.Augustinianheology,ccording o StephenLahey, s thesource of JohnWyclif belief n fairgovernmentuleoverthosedestined orHell. A morepositive ttitude s found nthe Radical Protestant iews of Hans Denck and SebastianFranck,who, ccording o E. J.Furcha, aluethedivine parkinJews,Muslims, nd heathen; would attribute hat onfi-dence to theStoic thread n Erasmianhumanism ndto suchmedieval heorists fdiscourse mong Christians, ews, ndMuslims as RaymondLull. Such a view of the necessarypremillenial orbearance f religiousdifferencehe editorsappropriatelyabel concordance. n that category lso isthe toleration f Amerindian ulturaldifferencen Vitoriaand Las Casas,whose writingsre viewedbyPaul J.Cornish,as evidence hat Thomist rameworkllowsprotest gainstextremenjusticewithin eneral oleration f cultural iffer-ence.GaryRemer nterpretsean Bodin as a theorist fplural-ismwho defends reedom o find ne's own truthn a worldwheretruth s knowable;the Colloquiumhe appropriatelyinterpretsot as a faileddebate or a colloquy or onversionbut as a successfulmodel of how diversereligionistsnddoubters odaymight penly istenpeaceablyto one anoth-er's viewpoints.Glenn Burgess appreciatesHobbes's desireto distinguish eligionfromphilosophytruth laims) and

687

This content downloaded from 168.96.255.82 on Wed, 7 May 2014 00:57:57 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

8/12/2019 Resea de 2 Libros de Nederman Sobre La Tolerancia en La E. Media

3/3

Book Reviews:POLITICAL THEORY September 998

ecclesiastical olity rom olity, nd he viewsHobbes not asa theorist f iberty fconscience ut as a natural aw theoristwho contends hatpersecutingmembers f society orper-sonal beliefs hurtspolitical stability. imone ZurbucheninterpretsamuelPufendorf rejection f the Revocation fthe Edict ofNantesas an inconsistent lending f a repub-lican argument orpeace-producing alance n domestic ndinternationalolitics nd a natural aw argument hat eligionis based on a natural reedom ot delegated othe overeign.Beyond he ersecutingociety ncourages ontingent,ocalstudies f toleration olicies.The editors' ntroductionocal-izes and limitsLocke and disputes he myths f relentlesspersecutionnmedieval nd earlymodern imes, f secular-ization encouraging oleration, f unilateralChristian ntol-erance ofnon-Christians.f thisdeconstructions necessary,then bviously herehas been a culturalagbetween heworkof numerous historians nd the mainstream eaching npolitical heory.The medieval ection tresses penminded hinkers. on-stant J. Mews's studyof Peter Abelard's Dialogue of aPhilosopher ith Jew nda Christian mphasizesAbelard'sfocuson rational thics nd hisfindingf a compatibilityfsuch ethicswithJewish aw and withChristianity. ewsshowsAbelard'sfurtherevelopmentfdialogue n etters oHeloise and in hispoemtohisson.Nederman nalyzesJohnofSalisbury'smoderateAcademic kepticismnd hisconvic-tion thatwise individualsmight isagree.The Jewish uestion appears from ome important ewangles. Gary Remer exploresthe very mportantssue ofJewish oleration fnon-Jews, ointing ut thatJewish awdoes notdeny alvation onon-Jews,oes notaimto convertall, and respects ighteous entiles;yet,theProvengalTal-mudistHa-Me'iri expanded Jewish oleration y clarifyingthatChristiansre not dolatrous nd thatTalmudicregula-tions oncerning radewith he dolatrous re notapplicableto Jewish elationswithChristians.Marion LeathersKuntzemphasizes the Renaissance Catholic Venetian setting(wheretherewere districts orJews,Muslims, nd Protes-tants)of Bodin'sColloquiumHeptaplomeresnd emphasizesthat the open sharing freligious iewpointwithout im ofconversions musicalharmonyn that achvoice sneeded tocompletethe whole. RichardPopkin suggests hat seven-teenth-centuryillenarians hoproposed temporaryolera-tionuntil henear conversion f all topure Christianitysuchas Isaac La Peyrere r Anna Maria van Schurman) ncour-aged toleration s much as did theverydifferenteists ndnonreligioussuchas SpinozaorBayle).Randolph Head's concise historical ntroduction o thesixteenth entury ocuses on the loci of limited oleration,and his article n eastern wissvillages fCatholicmajorityandProtestantminorityraces he hift rom oexistencewithProtestants orshippingn a neighboring illageto sharingthe same church or services f the twodifferenteligions.The account s a case study n conflictmanagement nd ofvariationsn religious oexistence,wherechange s justifiedbycustomrather hanby principles f toleration. ikewise,Thomas F. Mayer'sclose study fReginaldPole's possibleinfluences n Thomas Starkey, ndrasDudic, and Gianbat-tista Binarid ndicatesthe practicaldecisionsmade by thelenient, oncordant ole during heMarianReformation.Laursen's ntroductiono the seventeenthenturyocuseson the diversemotives or oleration mid thecontingenciesof civil discordin the variety f European states. DetlefDuringtreatsSamuel Pufendorfs a Lutherannatural awtheorist ho is not as liberal s Leibniz, xcept nthenotionthat the sciences should be free of influences of theology.Laursen highlightshe turning oints n Bayle'sdevelopment

688

of his views on rights f conscience and toleration,whichincluded preventativemeasures against those who wouldpersecuteothers.Aphra Behn's novel Oroonoko exhibitsrespect or heAfrican ero'svirtue nd fordeism hatmakesthisfemaleroyalist oet and playwrightn early dvocate oftoleration f diverse thnic ifestyles. he concluding rticleon Massachusetts y H. Frank Way shows the colony shiftfrom exiling Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson, o agentler olicy uring heEnglishRestoration,ndby 1708 toa grudgingoleration fQuakers.The overall contribution f Differencend Dissent s torecognize communitariannd natural law foundations ftoleration heory nd to encourageus to ask precisely homa theorist s tolerating,whether s/he intends temporaryconcordance or permanent oleration, nd to whom thetheorist s not extending oleration. eyond he PersecutingSociety ives vidence fpockets freligious oexistencendofdevelopmentsntolerationheorynChristian, almudic,literary,nd philosophical uthorsof medieval and earlymodern Europe. Either book would be appropriate or anundergraduatergraduate ourse on political heory.Politics and Truth: Political Theory and the PostmodernChallenge. By Theresa Man Ling Lee. Albany: StateUniversityof New York Press, 1997. 243p. $17.95.

Louis Herman, Universityf Hawaii at WestOahuEver since the polis killed Socrates, those who follow thetruthquest have kept a sharp eye on those who wield power.Theresa Lee's exploration of politics and truth begins bynotingthat twentiethcentury politics is distinctiveby way ofhow political ideas dominate the conduct of politics. TheCold War of political ideas has given way to the postmodernpoliticizationofknowledge in the liberal democracies and theequally important depoliticization of knowledge in the Le-ninist socialist camp. This has given political theorists aunique opportunity, tates Lee, to reconsider the fundamen-tal principles of liberal democracy without any palpablethreat.Ironically, Truth and Power, a highly intelligent work ofprofessional scholarship, exemplifies the sort of conventionaltheoreticalwriting hat is quite irrelevant to those who wieldthe sword or those who are engineering the final stages ofcorporate globalization (or, forthatmatter, the lay citizen).The book is complex and makes much of small distinctions,which, elegant though they may be, are laboriously elabo-rated. Consequently, the book falls far short of taking usbeyond the technical deconstructions of postmodernism; itfails to provide what it suggests is needed-a Socratic philo-sophical discourse which engages what Eric Voegelin calledthe full amplitude of human experience and still has somemoral force.Yet, the book does provide some clearlydefinedpoints of departure and a few hints for a bolder, morecreative revisioningthat the discipline so badly needs.Lee aims to evaluate postmodernism as an alternative tothe dualityof liberal democracy and Leninist socialism. ShebeginswithPlato, the obvious paradigmatic thinkeron powerand truth, proceeds to Hobbes, then Weber, Foucault, andfinallyArendt. Lee illustratessome of the book's main pointsby briefly onsideringthe epistemological debate in post-MaoChina, and the identitypolitics of liberal democracies, asso-ciated with postmodern attempts to reconstruct universitycurricula.Lee's reading of Plato follows a popular, well-establishedreductionist interpretationvia Nietzsche, Popper, Foucault,and Arendt (and many others). She presents Plato's notion of

This content downloaded from 168.96.255.82 on Wed, 7 May 2014 00:57:57 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp