打字猴:1.703380687e+09
1703380687 [240]参见第三章注[26]:当博丹把“单独一人”这个说法归因于塔西佗时,他是赞成它的;当他把它归因于马基雅维里时,他却称它为暴政(VI. 4. 148)。关于主权者的人格这个难题可以在如下事实中看到:博丹同霍布斯相反,他没有谈到主权者的官职:主权者本身高于一切官职。
1703380688
1703380689 [241]Skinner,Foundations of Modern Political Thought,II.290—293;Julian H. Franklin,Jean Bodin and the Rise of Absolutist Theory (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1973),p.108;Janine Chanteur,“L’idée de la loi naturelle dans la République de Jean Bodin,” in Denzer,Jean Bodin,pp.210—212.
1703380690
1703380691 [242]Friedrich Meinecke,Die Idee der Staatsr!?son (Munich:R. Oldenbourg,1957),pp.210—212.
1703380692
1703380693 [243]Bodin,Methodus,VI.
1703380694
1703380695 [244]“教会莫名其妙地不见于让·博丹的著作”,Chanteur,“L’Idée”,p.209。
1703380696
1703380697 [245]参见Skinner,Foundation of Modern Political Thought,II. 291—292。 斯金纳对博丹的十分有益的讨论,是以分析博丹的整部著作为起点。我同意他对其中的论证的两个部分的论述,但是我会把它们的顺序颠倒一下:对合法主权的定位,先于对实际主权者的归纳。
1703380698
1703380699 [246]参见R. W. K. Hinton,“Bodin and the Retreat into Legalism”, in Denzer,Jean Bodin,pp.303—313。
1703380700
1703380701 [247]Church,Richelieu,前言。
1703380702
1703380703 [248]Skinner,Foundation of Modern Political Thought,II. 301.
1703380704
1703380705 [249]Meinecke,StaatsrÇson,p.78. 马基雅维里本人有时也沉醉于马基雅维里主义,把自己给庸俗化了。参见P 22。
1703380706
1703380707 [250]Giovanni Botero,Della Ragion di Stato (Bologna:Cappelli,1930),pp.67—70.参见培根所言:勇敢“对于议事是坏事,对于执行则是好事”,Francis Bacon,Essays,XII,“Of Boldness”。
1703380708
1703380709 [251]Botero,Ragion,p.9.
1703380710
1703380711 [252]Locke,Two Treatises of Government II.159;Montesquieu,Spirit of the Laws XI.5—6.
1703380712
1703380713 [253]见Francis D. Wormuth,The Origins of Modern Constitutionalism (New York:Harper,1959);Gwyn,Meaning of the Separation of Powers,chs. 3,4;Vile,Constitutionalism and the Separation of Powers,chs. 2,3。
1703380714
1703380715 [254]John Milton,Eikonoklastes,in Don M. Wolfe,ed.,The Complete Prose Works of John Milton,8 vols. (New Haven,CT:Yale University Press,1962),III. 413.
1703380716
1703380717 [255]John Sadler,Rights of the Kingdom (London,1649),p.86;Vile,Constitutionalism,pp.31—32.
1703380718
1703380719 [256]Philip Hunton,A Treatise of Monarchie (London,1643),pp.5,9,26,44. Vile,Constitutionalism,pp.40—42.
1703380720
1703380721 [257][Marchamont Nedham,]The Excellencie of a Free State (London,1656),pp.212—213. 参见Vile,Constitutionalism,p.29;Gwyn,Meaning,pp.32—33.
1703380722
1703380723 [258][Nedham,]A True State of the Case of the Commonwealth (London,1654),p.9;Vile,Constitutionalism,pp.49—50.
1703380724
1703380725 [259]转引自Vile,Constitutionalism,p.44;另参见Gwyn,Meaning,pp.37—51。
1703380726
1703380727 [260]Isaac Penington,A Word for the Commonweale (London,1650),pp.8—10;Gwyn,Meaning,pp.52—53,56—63.
1703380728
1703380729 [261]Gwyn,Meaning,p.27.
1703380730
1703380731 [262]转引自Vile,Constitutionalism,p.42。
1703380732
1703380733 [263]George Lawson,An Examination of the Political Part of Mr. Hobbs his Leviathan (London,1657),pp.8,30—34,113—114. 从现代意义上把司法权从执行权中分离开,是始于孟德斯鸠,或者也许是始于博林布鲁克,这时司法机构的独立性已经得到确立。参见Vile,Constitutionalism,pp.55—56。
1703380734
1703380735 [264][Charles dallison,]The Royalists Defence (London,1648),p.99. 这里不妨引用一段朱利安·富兰克林的出色评论:“现代的分权观念,取决于一种相当微妙、看上去十分古怪的思想:执行权可以同时具有独立和服从的双重品格。”
1703380736
[ 上一页 ]  [ :1.703380687e+09 ]  [ 下一页 ]