Edited By Mascha Hansen and Jürgen Klein
THE CRITIQUE OF UTOPIANISM: GIBBON VS. GODWIN, Michael Szczekalla
THE CRITIQUE OF UTOPIANISM: GIBBON VS. GODWIN Michael Szczekalla, EMA Universität Greifswald/Aachen 1. Radicalism and the Rejection of History ‘If the unrestrained discussion of abstract enquiry be of the highest importance to mankind, the unrestrained investigation of character is scarcely less to be cultivat- ed. If truth were universally told of men’s dispositions and actions, gibbets and wheels might be dismissed from the face of the earth. The knave unmasked would be obliged to turn honest in his own defence.’1 This is Leslie Stephen, the great Victorian critic, biographer, and pioneer of in- tellectual history, quoting William Godwin, whose Enquiry concerning Political Justice (1793) no doubt exemplifies best what its author meant by “abstract en- quiry.” The bulky and expensive volume famously elicited William Pitt’s quip that he saw no need for censorship because the book cost three guineas.2 Had he condescended to take his antagonist seriously, Pitt might have urged in Godwin’s defence that the latter did not preach revolution. His anar- chist utopia rested on the assumption that change had to be effected by trans- forming public opinion, not by the art of the demagogue, of course, but by the ‘power of reason’ – an insight Godwin had arrived at with the help of Hume, who would have been no less amused by this pretended discovery than Adam Smith, by whom Godwin claimed to have been taught that in a well-ordered economy nobody had to work for more than one hour per day.3 Yet, to be fair, justice,...
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.
This site requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals.
Do you have any questions? Contact us.Or login to access all content.