International Scholars Forum – serie

In this age of specialism philosophers, like other specialists, tend to take in each other's washing. Here, perhaps imprudently, I attempt to break out of this pattern. Though I am by profes­ sion a philosopher, I am addressing primarily, not other philo­ sophers, but cultural anthropologists, sociologists, historians of ideas, and literary and art critics. Thus, while there are chapters in this book on metaphysics and political theory, I do not ask, "Is the doctrine in question true?" - which is the kind of ques­ tion a philosopher might be expected to raise. Instead I ask, "What can we learn from this doctrine about the personality structure of the individual who framed it and about the charac­ teristic drives of the society in which he lived?" My reasons for asking and for trying to answer this kind of question, instead of the usual philosophical question, are as follows: Though the material products of culture' and the overt behavior patterns of societies have long been objects of scientific study, the most characteristic products of high cultures - artistic productions like poems and paintings and' theoretical structures like metaphysical and scientific theory - have not as readily yielded to exact description and analysis. Not, of course, that there is not a very extensive discussion of these matters. But most of it is carried on in terms that are regrettably vague.

Books begin as ideas. The suggestion for this one came from my mentor and friend, Hajo Holborn of Yale University. To him I am indebted for a series of challenging and rewarding experiences in the study of history. This work started as a routine dissertation on a limited subject, developed into a rejection of several generally accepted notions about German history, and finally opened out upon some broader perspectives of the modem Western world. In pursuing my topic I have tried to remain consistent and true to a fundamental conviction: that ideas cannot be dissociated from the men and situations that give birth to them, or from the changing characteristics of later men and later situations that use or affect the earlier ideological heritage. Politics by slogan is an aspect of man's activity that has its obvious, serious defects. These imperfections become more menacing when they are enshrined as history by slogan in the service of whatever cause. To counteract this tendency I have tried to tie the ideas of mid­ European integration clearly to specific persons or situations at every stage of development. Without such anchorage ideas will billow into slogans or evaporate into loose generalizations.

My original research on the present subject was done a number of years ago as I was preparing a doctoral dissertation at Colum­ bia University. I wish to thank Prosessor Joseph Dorfman for the help he so unstintingly offered at that time. Only my reluctance to implicate him in the shortcomings of this book prevents me from acknowledging the full measure of my obligation to Professor Leo Strauss of the University of Chicago. His influence upon this study is not to be reckoned in terms of his concurrence with its substance, as to which I cannot testify, or in terms of the credit that this study does to his influence, as to which I can but entertain modest hopes. I must finally express my gratitude to my parents, to whom this volume is dedicated, for the patient sacrifice which made my training possible. J. C. New York March,1956 INTRODUCTION One axiomatic premise of this study is that capitalism is an embodiment of Smithian principles. Hence the interpretation of Smith's teaching must also be an interpretation of capitalistic society. A second such premise is that it is at least as likely that Smith had a single view of existence that pervaded both his books as that he had two views of existence which contended in each of his books. Hence the possibility is not excluded that the tension of outlooks reflected in Smith's writings betokens not an inconsistency but an intention.

In this age of specialism philosophers, like other specialists, tend to take in each other's washing. Here, perhaps imprudently, I attempt to break out of this pattern. Though I am by profes­ sion a philosopher, I am addressing primarily, not other philo­ sophers, but cultural anthropologists, sociologists, historians of ideas, and literary and art critics. Thus, while there are chapters in this book on metaphysics and political theory, I do not ask, "Is the doctrine in question true?" - which is the kind of ques­ tion a philosopher might be expected to raise. Instead I ask, "What can we learn from this doctrine about the personality structure of the individual who framed it and about the charac­ teristic drives of the society in which he lived?" My reasons for asking and for trying to answer this kind of question, instead of the usual philosophical question, are as follows: Though the material products of culture and the overt behavior patterns of societies have long been objects of scientific study, the most characteristic products of high cultures - artistic productions like poems and paintings and theoretical structures like metaphysical and scientific theory - have not as readily yielded to exact description and analysis. Not, of course, that there is not a very extensive discussion of these matters. But most of it is carried on in terms that are regrettably vague.

In this age of specialism philosophers, like other specialists, tend to take in each other's washing. Here, perhaps imprudently, I attempt to break out of this pattern. Though I am by profes­ sion a philosopher, I am addressing primarily, not other philo­ sophers, but cultural anthropologists, sociologists, historians of ideas, and literary and art critics. Thus, while there are chapters in this book on metaphysics and political theory, I do not ask, "Is the doctrine in question true?" - which is the kind of ques­ tion a philosopher might be expected to raise. Instead I ask, "What can we learn from this doctrine about the personality structure of the individual who framed it and about the charac­ teristic drives of the society in which he lived?" My reasons for asking and for trying to answer this kind of question, instead of the usual philosophical question, are as follows: Though the material products of culture' and the overt behavior patterns of societies have long been objects of scientific study, the most characteristic products of high cultures - artistic productions like poems and paintings and' theoretical structures like metaphysical and scientific theory - have not as readily yielded to exact description and analysis, Not, of course, that there is not a very extensive discussion of these matters. But most of it is carried on in terms that are regrettably vague.

Books begin as ideas. The suggestion for this one came from my mentor and friend, Hajo Holborn of Yale University. To him I am indebted for a series of challenging and rewarding experiences in the study of history. This work started as a routine dissertation on a limited subject, developed into a rejection of several generally accepted notions about German history, and finally opened out upon some broader perspectives of the modern Western world. In pursuing my topic I have tried to remain consistent and true to a fundamental conviction: that ideas cannot be dissociated from the men and situations that give birth to them, or from the changing characteristics of later men and later situations that use or affect the earlier ideological heritage. Politics by slogan is an aspect of man's activity that has its obvious, serious defects. These imperfections become more menacing when they are enshrined as history by slogan in the service of whatever cause. To counteract this tendency I have tried to tie the ideas of mid­ European integration clearly to specific persons or situations at every stage of development. Without such anchorage ideas will billow into slogans or evaporate into loose generalizations.

The Classical economist of the 19th century, with his faith in the ultimate efficiency and equity of free, impersonal markets, would certainly be amazed and dismayed by the developments in foreign exchange markets during the last thirty-five years. With the exception of the United States no important trading nation in the world of today maintains a freely convertible currency. On the contrary, each nation maintains a more or less comprehensive system of controls over the receipts and payments which can be effected in international markets. Recent efforts to reduce the extent and rigor of exchange regu­ lation, notably in Western Europe, have yielded modest results; it seems unlikely, however, that foreign exchange transactions will ever again be completely free of controL Foreign exchange control, with a greater or lesser degree of bilateralism, is a product born largely of necessity. Two world wars and a major world-wide depression so distorted the pattern of world trade and investment that free markets were simply unable to achieve their "normal" automatic adjustment. Ex­ change control, on the other hand, has demonstrated its efficiency as a means of maintaining a semblance of order in disorganized international markets. Unfortunately, however, exchange con­ trol also has great possibilities for further distortion of the pat­ tern of world trade, for discrimination, and for economic ex­ ploitation - for economic effects generally considered undesirable.

The royalists of the puritan revolution. although amply noticed in martyrologies and other forms of contemporary writing. have since been largely neglected. and no comprehensive modem account has previously been published. The late Sir Charles Firth's paper. "The Royalists under the Protectorate. " 1 was originally intended as a lecture. was necessarily rather brief. and covers only part of the period examined in this study. However. I am under heavy obligations to it as will appear. Dr. Keith Feiling's study of the Tory party. while touching upon the civil­ war years. is naturally primarily concerned with the period after 1660. 2 A need exists. therefore. for a fresh examination of the history of the royalists. based not only on their own accounts of their hardships. but on other material as well. Such an inquiry should elucidate the development of the royalists as a party and the history of the various revolutionary governments of the times. It should furnish as well an essential introduction to the history of the restoration settlement and to the later history of parties. To supply such an investigation is the purpose of this study. Emphasis throughout has been on the economic and social conditions of the royalists. as the story of their military contributions to the king and of their plots against the revolution­ ary governments has been adequately treated in the standard historical accounts. No attempt has been made to discuss the royalists' place in the intellectual history of the age.

When I first thought about this topic I encountered many ex­ pressions of surprise among my better-read friends, and a number of them asked me: "Is there really much love in Thomas Mann's works, and is it really important?" The posing of this question is the direct result of three decades of criticism which has represented Mann mainly as a serious and sober novelist, and frequently also as a prosy and prolix author who "clutters up" his works with superfluous bits of erudition. HisMagicMountain bids fair to join the list of immortal works of world literature which people bring back from their summer vacations - unread. Mann is, of course, serious and sober and very North German in most of his works, and the charge of occasional verbosity and divagation can well be substantiated. Nevertheless, Mann has, in my opinion, tried to be fundamentally a humorist throughout his life and career, not in the conventional sense of the word in which Fritz Reuter, P. G. Wodehouse or Ring Lardner qualify, but as a man who at an astonishingly early age saw through his fellow humans, analyzed and defined their basic confiicts and decided to be a mediator, a prophet of the realm of the middle. The humor in Mann's works derives from his manner of looking at the human comedy, and our amusement is in direct proportion to our ability to discern a comic element in life, even in tragedy.

The scope of this study is narrow-the activities of a single ambas­ sador for little more than two years. The problem it treats is wide and universal-the origins of a great war. There can be no adequate history of the relations between states whieh does not take into account the knowledge, judgment and deci­ sions of individual statesmen. Diplomatie history, though only a part, is a necessary part of the history of international relations. Within a more or less c10sely circumscribed range of possibilities, men in power choose between alternative policies, with results they may or may not have anticipated. The historian therefore can and should describe the past, present and future, as it were, of the historical persons whom he studies: the past whieh provides them with oppor­ tunities and limitations, both objective and subjective; the present in whieh they act; the future in whieh the consequences of their actions appear, for the most part beyond their control. This is a study of the part played by a great diplomat-the perfect ambassador, his own age called hirn-in the formation of policy. My task has been a dual one. First, I have observed Arnauld de Pomponne at work. Second, I have attempted to evaluate the French plans for war against the Dutch republic, with particular attention to Pom­ ponne's contribution to them.