Search Results

This chapter discusses two ‘prison’ texts which are remarkably similar: both present the heretical investigation of a suspected Lollard, which appears to fall short of a formal trial, occurring at the beginning of the 15th century, yet before the publication of Arundel's Constitutions in 1409, and described by the ‘ suspect’ himself shortly after the examination, when he was returned to prison. Indeed, Wyche's Trial and Thorpe's Testimony are the only two surviving documents in which a Lollard describes his own heretical examination. Both texts present a persuasive autobiographical identity so constructed to impact upon the political situation for which the author finds himself imprisoned. Both texts construct textual identities whose exemplary behaviour in the face of imprisonment and persecution is designed to encourage other Lollards in the firmness of their beliefs, and convince of the corruption of the Church. Both authors construct a favourable literary identity through intertextual reference.

The proprietary founder of South Carolina and author of its Fundamental Constitutions envisioned his colony as a trading outpost. From the earliest decades, the colony needed law to regulate trade with inland Native Americans and Atlantic partners, as well as for the adjudication of internal disputes. South Carolina quickly turned to the common law for adjudication of internal disputes and regulation of trade with other parts of England's empire, with the result that common lawyers were well ensconced in the colony by the early 1700s. But new forms of administrative law were needed to regulate trade with Native Americans, and they did not fully develop until an Indian war, along with a major conflict with pirates, led to the overthrow of the proprietary regime and the establishment of royal government in the 1720s.

This chapter examines the Grand Model for the Province of Carolina. The term “Grand Model” was sometimes used to refer to the Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina. At other times the term was used to refer specifically to the settlement plan for the colony, including detailed urban design specifications. In this chapter, the Grand Model is used to mean the Fundamental Constitutions taken together with the detailed implementing “instructions” written mostly by Locke. Special attention is given to the social hierarchy prescribed for the colony and the spatial planning associated with that idealized Gothic social model. The overall design was an attempt to create a just and stable society within a traditional social framework, and it may have led Locke to make the later, paradigm-shifting leap to new perspectives that would soon characterize the Enlightenment.

This chapter examines the political foundation of the Province of Carolina. The Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina was the central guiding document for the colony. It not only set forth the system of government for the colony, but also prescribed its social structure, key elements of its economic system, and principles for the design of cities and their hinterlands. Subsequent “instructions” provided further detail on urban design. Planning for the colony was led by Anthony Ashley Cooper, later the 1^st Earl of Shaftesbury, who was assisted by John Locke. Ashley Cooper’s vision for the colony was influenced by an idealized interpretation of feudalistic Gothic society, reflections on the failure of the English Commonwealth, and the political philosopher James Harrington. Locke’s role in planning the colony has long been the subject of speculation, and this chapter adds a new perspective to that discussion.

This chapter focuses on the role that constitutions play in national identity, particularly in states that are recently independent and constrained by a colonial legacy. It uses Fiji as a case study, exploring how British colonialism influenced conceptions of Fijian national identity in the constitutional texts of 1970, 1990 and 1997. The chapter explores the indigenous ethno-nationalist ideals that underpinned these constitutions, which led to the privileging of indigenous Fijian identity within the wider national identity. However, in 2013, Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama introduced a new constitution which shifted away from previous ethno-nationalist underpinnings towards a more inclusive national identity through the promotion of a civic nationalist agenda. In doing so, Bainimarama’s goal of reducing ethnic conflict has seen a constitutional re-imagining of Fijian identity, which includes the introduction of new national symbols, and a new electoral system, alongside equal citizenry clauses within the Constitution. This study offers a unique insight into power and identity within post-colonial island states.

Hincmar is notable for citing Roman legal texts more extensively than his contemporaries. However, the range of sources available to him was limited, mostly deriving from the tradition of the Breviary of Alaric, especially in a form augmented by religious material from Theodosian Code Book 16. Much of this material was mediated through two of his “working” manuscripts (Berlin SB Phillipps 1741 and its derivative BN Par. Lat. 12445), whose contents reflect two active periods of collecting and use, the later 850s and 868-871. The other significant source in the latter period was Julian’s Epitome of the Novels, the principal way Justinianic law was known in the early mediaeval west. For Hincmar, the Roman legal materials were always less important than Biblical or canonical texts, often gaining status only as being laws the church had approved; he was generally less interested in the substantive law of Rome than its procedural rules, which were key tools in his legal disputes, especially in that with Hincmar of Laon. Hincmar was canny at selective quotation to suit his purposes, even to the extent of minor textual emendation.

The sources of Wesley’s understanding of primitive Christianity were rooted in the revival of patristic scholarship in the Church of England in the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. Knowledge of the early church was conveyed to Wesley by his parents in the Epworth rectory and through his academic life at Oxford. However, his interest in the primitive church took a new, more intense direction beginning with his friendship with John Clayton in 1732. Clayton and his mentor, Thomas Deacon, propelled Wesley to investigate the doctrine, discipline, and practice of the early church. Wesley began a rigorous course of studying primarily the Apostolic Fathers (including the Apostolic Constitutions and Canons), secondarily the ante-Nicene Fathers, and thirdly select holy men of the fourth century. He utilized editions of the Fathers by recent Anglican patristic scholars supplemented by works on the primitive church by William Cave, Claude Fleury, and Anthony Horneck, amongst others.

‘Voice After Arundel’ moves into the question of how we listen for voice, especially when hard historical evidence of context is lacking, and in a climate of greater censorship than that in which Chaucer and Langland wrote. In the politically fraught culture of the early and mid-fifteenth century, after Arundel's Constitutions, it is in voice that we hear complicity, or resistance, or anxiety. After identifying the subject of the 1413 conversation between Julian of Norwich and Margery Kempe as good and bad voice, the same as a treatise in Trinity College Cambridge MS B 14.19, the chapter goes on to examine three major repertoires for voice in the fifteenth century, the Boethian, the Psalmodic (read prosopologically), and the Pauline. Literary examples are drawn from Hoccleve, Skelton, Eleanor Hull, and religious prose, including the Paues ‘biblical version’.

It is suggested that, contrary to the claims of the ‘new constitutionalist’ school, the UK economic constitution does not impose major substantive constraints on government. This is welcome as it does not restrict economic policy choices, nor lead to last-minute bargaining of the sort encouraged by balanced budget rules or the US debt ceiling. It is not substantive constraints but a lack of constitutional and institutional coherence which causes problems for governments implementing economic policy. There are also limits to deliberation and accountability in such policy, although there has been a welcome move towards a more plural view of the constitution using a variety of different interacting institutions rather than concentrating on the role of ministers accountable to Parliament; examples include the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England and the Office for Budget Responsibility.