Bringing the state to England: Andrew Tooke's translation of Samuel Pufendorf's 'De officio hominis et civis'

Andrew Tooke's 1691 English translation of Samuel Pufendorf's De officio hominis et civis, published as The Whole Duty of Man According to the Law of Nature, brought Pufendorf's manual fo statist natural law into English politics at a moment of temporary equilibrium in the unfinished contest between Crown and Parliament for the rights and powers of sovereignty. Drawing on the authors' re-edition of The Whole Duty of Man, this article describes and analyses a telling instance of how--by translation--the core political terms and concepts of the German natural jurist's 'absolutist' formulary were reshaped for reception in the different political culture of late seventeenth-century England.

Introduction

In 1691, eighteen years after its original publication, Samuel Pufendorf’s De officio hominis et civis appeared in English translation in London, bearing the title The Whole Duty of Man, According to the Law of Nature. This translation, by Andrew Tooke (1673–1732), professor of geometry at Gresham College, passed largely unaltered through two subsequent editions, in 1698 and 1705, before significant revision and augmentation in the fourth edition of 1716. Unchanged, this text was then reissued as the fifth and final edition of 1735, which is here republished for the first time since.1 Five editions, spanning almost half a century, bear testimony to the English appetite for Pufendorf’s ideas.

The natural jurisprudence of Jean Barbeyrac: translation as an art of political adjustment

The article makes the case for redescribing Jean Barbeyrac [1674-1744], the great French translator and influential glossator of seventeenth-century Latin natural-law texts, as something quite other than a neutral mediator of Samuel Pufendorf. To consider the specific religious and political charge of his strategies as translator is to recognize the independence of Barbeyrac's Huguenot stance on natura; jurisprudence. This stance is provoked by the profound challenge that Pufendorf's radical post-Wespthalian secularizing of civil authority posed for a Huguenot: how to grant that the state had legitimate authority to regulate all external conduct, but at the same time preserve an inviolable moral space for the exercise of individual conscience. The argument--pointing to Barbeyrac's construction of a 'Lockeanized' Pufendorf--rests both on his famous presentation of Leibniz's critique of Pufendorf's De officio hominis et civis and on more neglected elements of Barbeyrac's corpus.