The Lost History of Liberalism: From Ancient Rome to the Twenty-First Century

by Helena Rosenblatt

Overview

The changing face of the liberal creed from the ancient world to today

The Lost History of Liberalism challenges our most basic assumptions about a political creed that has become a rallying cry—and a term of derision—in today's increasingly divided public square. Taking readers from ancient Rome to today, Helena Rosenblatt traces the evolution of the words "liberal" and "liberalism," revealing the heated debates that have taken place over their meaning. She debunks the popular myth of liberalism as a uniquely Anglo-American tradition, and shows how it was only during the Cold War that it was refashioned into an American ideology focused on individual freedoms. This timely and provocative book sets the record straight on a core tenet of today's political conversation, laying the foundations for a more constructive discussion about the future of liberal democracy.

Product Details

ISBN-13:	9780691203966
Publisher:	Princeton University Press
Publication date:	02/04/2020
Edition description:	Reprint
Pages:	368
Sales rank:	347,419
Product dimensions:	5.50(w) x 8.50(h) x (d)

About the Author

Helena Rosenblatt is professor of history at the Graduate Center, City University of New York. Her many books include Liberal Values: Benjamin Constant and the Politics of Religion and Thinking with Rousseau: From Machiavelli to Schmitt.

Read an Excerpt

CHAPTER 1

What It Meant to Be Liberal from Cicero to Lafayette

Liberal: 1. Not mean, not low in birth, 2. Becoming a gentleman, 3. Munificent, generous, bountiful.

— A DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, 1768

ASK ANYONE TODAY what liberalism means and you'll get a variety of responses. It's a tradition of thought, a form of government, a value system, an attitude, or a frame of mind. Invariably, however, people will agree that liberalism is centrally concerned with the protection of individual rights and interests and that governments are there to protect these. Individuals should have the maximum amount of freedom to make their own life choices and do as they wish.

The truth is, however, that this focus on the individual and his or her interests is very recent. The word "liberalism" did not even exist until the early nineteenth century, and for hundreds of years prior to its birth, being liberal meant something very different. For almost two thousand years, it meant demonstrating the virtues of a citizen, showing devotion to the common good, and respecting the importance of mutual connectedness.

Republican Beginnings: A Moral and Civic Ideal

We could begin with the Roman statesman and author Marcus Tullius Cicero (106–43 BC). One of the most widely read and cited authors in the history of Western thought, Cicero wrote eloquently about the importance of being liberal. The word stems from the Latin terms liber, meaning both "free" and "generous," and liberalis, "befitting a free-born person." The noun form corresponding to these two words was liberalitas, or "liberality."

First and foremost, being free in ancient Rome meant being a citizen and not a slave. It meant being free of the arbitrary will of a master or the domination of any man. The Romans thought that such a state of freedom was possible only under the rule of law and a republican constitution. Legal and political arrangements were necessary to ensure that the government focused on the common good, the res publica. Only under such conditions could an individual hope to be free.

But to the ancient Romans, being free required more than a republican constitution; it also required citizens who practiced liberalitas, which referred to a noble and generous way of thinking and acting toward one's fellow citizens. Its opposite was selfishness, or what the Romans called "slavishness" — a way of thinking or acting that regarded only oneself, one's profits, and one's pleasures. In its broadest sense, liberalitas signified the moral and magnanimous attitude that the ancients believed was essential to the cohesion and smooth functioning of a free society. The English translation of the word is "liberality."

In On Duties (44 BC), Cicero described liberalitas in a way that would resonate over the centuries. Liberalitas, Cicero wrote, was the very "bond of human society." Selfishness was not only morally repugnant, but socially destructive. "Mutual helpfulness" was the key to civilization. It was the moral duty of free men to behave in a liberal way toward each other. And being liberal meant "giving and receiving" in a way that contributed to the common good.

Men are not born for themselves alone, Cicero asserted; they are brought into being for the sake of others:

Since we are not born for ourselves alone; since ... men were brought into being for the sake of men, that they might do good to one another, we ought to contribute our part to the common good, and by the interchange of kind offices, both in giving and receiving, alike by skill, by labor and by the resources at our command, strengthen the social union of men among men.

A century after Cicero, another famous and influential Roman philosopher, Lucius Annaeus Seneca (ca. 4 BC–AD 65), elaborated on the principle of liberalitas in his book-length treatise On Benefits (AD 63). Seneca took pains to explain how to give, receive, and return gifts, favors, and services in a way that was moral and thus constitutive of the social bond. Like Cicero, he believed that for a system based on exchange to work properly, a liberal attitude was needed in both givers and receivers, in other words, a selfless, generous, and grateful disposition. Borrowing from the Greek stoic Chryssippus (ca. 280–207 BC), Seneca offered an allegory for the virtue of liberality: the circular dance of the Three Graces, giving, receiving, and returning benefits. To ancient thinkers like Cicero and Seneca, liberality quite literally made the world go around — and held it together.

Being liberal was not easy. Cicero and Seneca expounded at length upon the principles that should inform giving and receiving. Like freedom itself, liberality required correct reasoning and moral fortitude, self-discipline and command. It was clearly also an aristocratic ethos. It was designed by and for the free, wealthy, and well-connected men who were in a position to give and receive benefits in ancient Rome. It was regarded as a particularly praiseworthy quality in the patrician class and among rulers, as is shown by many ancient inscriptions, official dedications, and texts.

If liberalitas was a virtue appropriate to aristocrats and rulers, so was the liberal arts education that trained them for it and required considerable wealth and leisure time with which to study. Its primary purpose was not to teach students how to acquire wealth or to prepare them for a vocation but to ready them for active and virtuous membership in society. It was meant to teach society's future leaders how to think properly and speak clearly in public, thus enabling them to participate effectively in civic life. Citizens were made, not born. Cicero often asserted that the liberal arts should teach humanitas, a humane attitude toward fellow citizens. The Greek historian and Roman citizen Plutarch (AD 46–120) wrote that a liberal education gave sustenance to a noble mind and led to moral improvement, disinterestedness, and public spirit in rulers. It was essential, in other words, to the inculcation of liberality.

Medieval Rearticulations: Liberality Christianized

As antiquity gave way to the Middle Ages, this ancient view of liberality was not entirely lost but Christianized and further disseminated by early Church fathers like Saint Ambrose. Saint Ambrose, who wrote a treatise modeled expressly on Cicero's On Duties, rearticulated Cicero's main ideas and principles. Any true community rested upon justice and goodwill, wrote Ambrose, and liberality and kindness were what held society together.

Liberality during the Middle Ages was thus overlaid with Christian values such as love, compassion, and especially charity, values regarded as necessary not only in republics, but in monarchies as well. God, Christians were told, was liberal in his mercy, just as Jesus was with his love. Christians should imitate God by loving and giving in return. Dictionaries from the Middle Ages on, whether French, German, or English, defined "liberal" as the quality of someone "who likes to give," and "liberality" as "the quality of giving or spending freely." Great medieval theologians such as Thomas Aquinas spread such notions in their writings.

The medieval Church continued to regard the liberal arts as the ideal educational program for society's leaders. Frequently contrasted with the "servile" or "mechanical arts" that ministered to the baser needs of humankind, such as, for example, tailoring, weaving, and blacksmithing, the liberal arts were seen to develop intellectual and moral excellence. They prepared young men for active roles in the public sector and for service to the state. As in the ancient world, a liberal arts education was also a marker of status, setting the elite apart from the rest. Every Christian, rich or poor, was urged to be liberal, but liberality continued to be regarded as especially important in persons "of a superior social station."

Renaissance Liberal Arts

Liberality during the Renaissance continued to be an aristocratic, or "princely," virtue. As one of many Renaissance texts explained, avarice was the "sure sign of an ignoble and villainous spirit," while liberality was the proper virtue of the aristocrat. The scope of a liberal arts education was now broadened and its prestige grew. The Italian humanist Pietro Paolo Vergerio (1370–1445), an admirer of Cicero, rearticulated many classical ideas about education in his treatise "On the Noble Character and Liberal Studies of Youth." First published in 1402, it passed through forty editions before 1600, becoming the most frequently copied and reprinted Renaissance pedagogical treatise. A liberal arts education, Vergerio explained, elevated those who received it above the "unthinking crowd." It prepared them for positions of leadership and legitimized their claim to such positions. In the company of books, there was no greed; young boys learned virtue and wisdom, the duties of citizenship.

The focus on men in Vergerio's essay was certainly not accidental, since from its inception a liberal education was conceived with young men and not women in mind. Its association with independence, public speaking, and leadership made it very hard to imagine its relevance and value to women. According to Spanish humanist Juan Luis Vives (1493–1540), who wrote the major Renaissance work on female education, The Education of a Christian Woman (1524), a book that was translated into English, Dutch, French, German, Spanish, and Italian, the learning of women should focus on their domestic functions and, most importantly, on keeping them chaste. While it was reasonable for a man to "be equipped with the knowledge of many and varied subjects which will be of profit to himself and to the state," a woman was sufficiently instructed when she had been taught "chastity, silence and obedience." For this purpose, religious texts were deemed especially effective.

This, however, does not mean that no Renaissance women received a liberal arts education. Evidence shows that some aristocratic women became highly educated. Several even wrote treatises defending the liberal arts. But the prejudice against liberal women helps to explain why, in those rare instances when it was granted, a woman's education was normally said to reflect her father's liberality rather than her own. It conferred honor and prestige on a Renaissance paterfamilias because it showed that he could afford such a luxury and need not worry about marrying off an overeducated daughter. The educated woman herself, however, was often ridiculed and vilified. That an advanced education rendered a woman masculine was a common refrain. That it made her a sexual predator was another. Even the word "liberal" was problematic when used to describe a woman because it often took on a sexual connotation. A liberal woman became sexually promiscuous. Reflecting long-held prejudices about women's supposed deviousness, sinfulness, and lasciviousness, a ballad from around 1500 warns that women are often "liberall ... in secret."

Regarding Renaissance boys, however, and especially those destined for positions of power and influence, both liberality and the liberal arts education that prepared them for it were held to be essential. The Dutch humanist, priest, and theologian Erasmus of Rotterdam (1466–1536) referred to such well-educated boys as the "seed-beds from which will appear senators, magistrates, doctors, abbots, bishops, popes, and emperors." His two treatises on education, The Education of a Christian Prince (1516) and The Education of Children (1529), recommended the liberal arts as second in importance only to Christian piety in the formation of (wealthy and male) individuals. "Liberality," he made sure to clarify, meant more than just "handing out gifts"; it meant "using [your] power for good." Among Renaissance artists, liberality continued to be symbolized by the ancient allegory of the Three Graces. The humanist polymath Leon Battista Alberti (1404–72) referenced Seneca when he explained that "one of the sisters gives, another receives, and the third returns the favor, all of which degrees should be present in every act of perfect liberality." For Alberti, as for so many other Renaissance thinkers, the virtue of liberality was essential to any free and generous society.

The Politics of Giving

Renaissance texts frequently exhorted elites to give careful thought to how they acquired and dispensed their wealth. Conduct books explained that liberality was a moral virtue that moderated men's "desire and greed for money." Liberality was also about spending money "usefully and not excessively." A liberal man used his wealth to support his household, friends, and relatives; he also helped those who had, due to no fault of their own, fallen into poverty. He did not spend money to show off. Indeed, knowing how to spend was proof of a person's value.

Such a regard for appropriate spending was considered as an especially important quality in rulers. Baldassare Castiglione's Book of the Courtier (1528), the period's principal handbook of aristocratic values, stated that "the good and wise prince ... ought to be full of liberality," and that God would reward him for this. But rulers were also advised not to be prodigal. Erasmus advised princes to practice moderation and discernment in their spending and, especially, never to take from the deserving to give to the unworthy. With that particular blend of realism and idealism for which he became famous, Niccolò Machiavelli (1469–1527) warned that a liberal prince should not spend beyond his means because that would only drain his resources and force him to raise taxes, which would oppress his people and provoke their hatred. Similarly, the French writer Michel Montaigne (1533–92), often regarded as the founder of modern skepticism, cautioned rulers that they should use justice and deliberation in their liberality lest they "pour the seed out of the bag."

Well into the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, elites and rulers were exhorted to be liberal but not indiscriminate in their giving. The French statesman and author Nicolas Faret (1596–1646) made sure to differentiate liberality from promiscuous giving. A prince's generosity should always be guided by reason, prudence, and moderation. It should be extended in an orderly way to "decent people" and with due consideration to rank, birth, age, means, and reputation. Most importantly, a prince should never be "perniciously liberal"; that is, he should never give in a way that might exhaust his own funds. Other manuals show a similar concern to differentiate the lavish spending of the newly rich from the long-recognized virtue of liberality. The first edition of the Dictionary of the Académie française (1694) defined "liberal" as "he who likes to give ... to people of merit"; by its fourth edition it had added "there is a big difference between a prodigal man and a liberal man."

Protestant Developments

The Protestant Reformation altered the Catholic meaning of liberality, but subtly, at least initially. Protestant Bibles helped spread the notion that liberality was not just a princely or aristocratic value, but a universal Christian imperative. Where earlier translations of the Bible rendered the word "generous" as "noble" or "worthy to a prince," the new English and Puritan versions dropped the association with high status and substituted the word "liberal." In the King James version (1604–11), the word appears several times, each time referring to generous giving, especially to the poor. Moreover, Proverbs 11:25 suggests that God rewards liberal behavior: "The liberal soul shall be made fat; and he that watereth shall be watered also himself."

A sermon delivered before the English King Charles I at Whitehall on April 15, 1628, suggests a subtle change of emphasis. John Donne (1572–1631), a poet, lawyer, and cleric, began by reiterating the well-known principle that liberality was essential to kings, princes, and "great persons." But then he added that even the population at large, that is, the people, should be liberal. Reminding his congregation that "Christ is a liberal God," Donne declared that it was important for all Christians to give freely. And being liberal, Donne added, was not only about sharing one's wealth. It was important to continuously find "new ways to be liberal." Following Isaiah 32, "But the liberal deviseth liberal things, and by liberal things he shall stand," they should "believe liberal purposes," "accept liberal propositions," and "apply them liberally." Donne exhorted his congregation to show their liberality by divesting themselves of all ill feelings toward others. Being liberal was about sharing not simply one's gold, but also one's knowledge and wisdom. These, Donne urged, should be communicated to others, even to the general public. And yet Donne offered an important caveat: it was important to be liberal only to Christians or one would be guilty of "spiritual prodigality," a transgression.

(Continues…)

---

Excerpted from "The Lost History of Liberalism"
by .
Copyright © 2018 Princeton University Press.
Excerpted by permission of PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.

---

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments xi

Introduction 1

Chapter 1 What It Meant to Be Liberal from Cicero to Lafayette 8

Republican Beginnings: A Moral and Civic Ideal 9

Medieval Rearticulations: Liberality Christianized 11

Renaissance Liberal Arts 12

The Politics of Giving 15

Protestant Developments 16

American Exceptionalism and the Liberal Tradition 18

Thomas Hobbes and John Locke on Liberality 19

Enlightenment Liberality 23

Enlightenment Transformations 26

Liberal Theology and Liberal Christianity 30

Liberality Politicized 31

From Liberal Charters to Liberal Constitutions 33

America, the Most Liberal Country in the World 36

Chapter 2 The French Revolution and the Origins of Liberalism, 1789-1830 41

The Liberal Principles of Benjamin Constant and Madame de Staël 49

Enter Napoleon 55

Liberal Parties and the Birth of Liberalism 61

Liberalism Theorized 65

Liberalism Confronts Reaction 67

Liberal Insurrectionism 72

Liberal Economic Principles 80

Liberal Exclusions 83

Chapter 3 Liberalism, Democracy, and the Emergence of the Social Question, 1830-48 88

The Liberal Government Turns Conservative 89

Liberals on Democracy 92

Liberals and Insurrection, Again 96

Liberals Face the "Social Question" 100

Laissez-Faire and Liberalism 105

The Many Necessary Functions of Government 108

Liberals on Colonies 115

The Liberal Battle with Religion 118

The Socialist Critique of Liberal Religion 126

Chapter 4 The Question of Character 129

The Debacle of 1848 130

Liberals Battle Socialism 132

Retreat and Reaction 136

Pius IX 139

The Problem of Selfishness 141

The Rise of the British Liberal Party 143

Laissez-Faire versus Bildung 145

The Role of the Family 148

The Religion of Humanity 151

Chapter 5 Caesarism and Liberal Democracy: Napoleon III, Lincoln, Gladstone, and Bismarck 156

Napoleon III and Caesarism 157

Abraham Lincoln and His Liberal Friends throughout the World 168

The Liberal Republican Party 175

Gladstone, Liberal Icon 177

Bismarck, Liberalism's Gravedigger 182

Chapter 6 The Battle to Secularize Education 194

What's Wrong with the French? 195

A Liberal Public School System 199

The National Liberal League, Free Thought, and Free Love 207

The Pope Strikes Back 213

Chapter 7 Two Liberalisms: Old and New 220

The Role of the State Reimagined 221

Liberal Socialism 230

A Moral Way of Life 233

Liberal Eugenics 235

Feminism and Liberalism at the End of the Nineteenth Century 238

Chapter 8 Liberalism Becomes the American Creed 245

A Liberal Empire 247

Racialization of the Anglo-Saxon Myth 253

From an Anglo-Saxon to an Anglo-American Liberal Empire 255

The Question of Government Intervention 260

Epilogue 265

Liberalism and the Totalitarian Threat 268

The Turn to Rights 271

The (Supposed) Illiberalism of France and Germany 274

Notes 279

Selected Bibliography 311

Index 333

What People are Saying About This

From the Publisher

“The Lost History of Liberalism is the most acute and careful account on the theme ever composed. Helena Rosenblatt’s accomplishment is thrilling, with self-evident implications for our own time of ideological strife.”—Samuel Moyn, Yale University

“Systematic and daring, this provocative history of ideas reveals how the ethical qualities of liberalism, understood as a protean force, should be placed front and center. Inventively tracing the liberal tradition’s tense connections to religion and its engagement with other bodies of thought, this ‘lost history’ forces a reappraisal of various established versions of liberalism’s origins, meaning, and development.”—Ira Katznelson, coauthor of Liberal Beginnings: Making a Republic for the Moderns

“This clear and sure-footed intellectual history traces the evolution of the liberal tradition through a centuries-long international dialogue about character and the common good in which France and Germany played key roles. Against this backdrop, contemporary rights-focused Anglo-American liberalism can be interpreted as a response to the challenge of twentieth-century totalitarianism.”—William A. Galston, Brookings Institution

“How did liberalism become the dreaded L-word? While opponents portray liberalism as a set of ideas untethered to moral foundations, Rosenblatt traces out its centuries-long history, showing that proponents not only gave it a moral core but also called for leaders and citizens alike to dedicate themselves to the public good. In these times, we could use a bit of both.”—Heather Boushey, author of Finding Time: The Economics of Work-Life Conflict

“Rosenblatt’s remarkable book challenges us to rethink the whole history of liberalism. It restores many missing elements to the story, and shows how our understanding of liberalism has been distorted by its identification with individualism by a series of writers after World War II.”—Jerrold Seigel, author of The Idea of the Self: Thought and Experience in Western Europe since the Seventeenth Century

“Rosenblatt opens up new perspectives on what is, by any measure, an important and topical subject.”—Darrin M. McMahon, author of Divine Fury: A History of Genius

“Rosenblatt’s The Lost History of Liberalism offers a timely account of how the words ‘liberal’ and ‘liberalism’ entered our political lexicon. A surprising saga, it’s also an invitation to rethink a basic—and embattled—modern value.”—James Miller, author of Examined Lives: From Socrates to Nietzsche

Editorial Reviews

…enlightening…Rosenblatt calls her book "a word history." But she goes well beyond etymology, exploring the contradictory impulses that have always coexisted uneasily at the core of liberalism: individualism and a concern for the common good, a belief in democracy and fear of mob rule, laissez-faire capitalism and a desire to tame markets, self-determination and imperialism, claims of human equality alongside racism and sexism.

The New York Times Book Review - Justin Vogt

"Enlightening."

New York Times Book Review

One of Foreign Affairs' Picks for Best of Books 2018

One of Isthmus' Most Important Books of 2018 (Dave Cieslewicz)

From the Publisher

2018-08-13

A dispassionate overview of the term and concepts of liberalism—how it emerged, evolved, diversified, and alienated.

Rosenblatt (History/Graduate Center, CUNY) has published previous works about liberalism (Liberal Values: Benjamin Constant and the Politics of Religion, 2008, etc.), and she brings considerable scholarly substance to this work, though most of it forms the infrastructure for the accessible text. A few key ideas flow throughout. The term "liberalism" did not emerge until the early 19th century (although the sentiments clearly did); the term still means different things to different people, including liberals themselves; and the ideas were almost always polarizing. The narrative is chronological, beginning with Cicero and ending with the present—although the last figures Rosenblatt discusses in much detail are John Dewey and Franklin Roosevelt. Readers may be surprised to discover that Donald Trump makes no direct appearance, though it is not difficult to imagine him in some of the more general comments the author makes about political leaders in the past. The text is tightly organized: brief chapters, each with a summary at the end and each with several subheadings that keep the analysis focused. Rosenblatt confines her analysis to the Western world, specifically to France, which she credits heavily for the emergence of liberal philosophy; the United States; England; and, perhaps surprisingly, Germany, whose contributions, she writes, have been slighted (or even ignored) because of that country's disastrous behavior in the 20th century. There are some true surprises here, too, perhaps most notably the initial liberal opposition to women's rights and a fondness for eugenics in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The author also notes, surprisingly, that factions within various liberal movements were opposed to government help for the poor—a disincentive, they claimed.

Fair, balanced, and chockablock with information and surprise.

Kirkus Reviews