An Uneasy Affair -- Introduction

An Uneasy Affair: William Godwin and English Radicalism, 1793-1797

Introduction

Studies on William Godwin (1756-1836) in the twentieth century have more than adequately explored his philosophical scheme for a "well-conceived" or "simple form of society without government." These studies have concentrated upon an examination of his most celebrated political treatise, the Enquiry Concerning Political Justice (1793).[1] His thoughts on virtue, education, the abolition of the marriage contract, rejection of all natural rights theories, criticism of government and political associations of any kind, faith in human perfectibility, and his rigorous rejection of and hostility towards coercion and authority have been acutely analyzed by the modern historian. But a peculiar problem still exists.

Godwin has, in general, suffered at the hands of the modern historian and has undergone a fate in history not unlike that which befell him during his own stormy career. While some biographers (primarily literary historians), have attempted to honor Godwin as a precursor to the romantic movement, most have concentrated upon anecdotal history. We are unfortunately presented with an incomplete portrait of Godwin by those biographers who insist upon treating him merely as a member of a literary movement of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. On the whole, literary historians have failed to establish the relationship of Godwin's thought to English radicalism in the 1790s.[2]

Historians of political theory, on the other hand, have consistently depicted Godwin as a minor radical. They have, however, shown him to be the father of philosophic anarchism.[3] This claim cannot be refuted. Yet, it is the propensity of historians to neglect Godwin's role in the radicalism of the late eighteenth century.[4] Nonetheless, we are not so much interested in rescuing Godwin from the judgment of historians as we are of determining whether Godwin was a lone voice against political associations and government in the 1790s. It is indeed odd that he would be expounding philosophic anarchism in a period which is characterized by the movement for parliamentary reform.

The problems inherent in most studies on Godwin have occurred because he has not been examined within a much wider and more general cultural framework. On the one hand, his ideas have to be seen as representative of the radical wing of eighteenth century English religious Dissent moving toward rationalism. Thus, Godwin must be considered an important member of that body of writers which includes Richard Price and Joseph Priestley. It was indeed his Dissenting heritage which was the most distinctive feature of the political theory of Political Justice. The dictates of his Dissenting conscience became the rational foundation of a state without government, a condition of absolute freedom that would allow the human spirit to soar to heights of achievement hitherto unattained.

Alternatively, we must also see Godwin as a member of a radical political group concerned with parliamentary reform, the extension of education, the restriction of government intervention in social processes, and the removal of those obstacles which had hitherto restricted free inquiry. As such, Godwin can be said to have taken the tenets of economic and political liberalism to their extreme, or perhaps their logical outcome. Godwin was also concerned with freedom in inquiry and science, an inclination he shared with the most progressive members of the industrial bourgeoisie. It is indeed the uneasy affair between Godwin's Dissenting conscience and his participation in the movement for parliamentary reform which must be re-examined.

[1] The full title is the Enquiry Concerning Political Justice and its Influence on Modern Morals. The edition used throughout this essay is that of F. E. L. Priestley, which is a photographic facsimile of the third edition corrected. 3 vols. (Toronto, 1946), hereafter cited as Political Justice. Volumes 1 and 2 are reproductions of the 1798 edition. Volume 3 contains an excellent introduction by Priestley and variant readings of the first and second editions. The publishing history of Political Justice is as follows: London: 1793, 1796, 1798, 1842; Dublin: 1793, 1796; Philadelphia: 1796; Wurzburg: 1803 (abridged); Henry S. Salt's reprint of Book VIII ("Of Property"): 1890: German translation of Salt: 1904; New York: 1926 (abridged); Salt, 2nd ed.: 1929; Tokyo: 1930; Buenos Aires: 1945; Toronto: 1946; Oxford: 1971 (abridged); New York: 1976 (Isaac Kramnick edition). See Priestley, above, 3:233, for variant titles and Burton R. Pollin, Godwin Criticism: A Synoptic Bibliography (Toronto, 1967). Pollin, a Godwin scholar in his own right has collected and collated all material related to Godwin, with annotations, between 1783 and 1966.

[2] Allene Gregory places Thomas Holcroft before Godwin in reference to his literary expertise and role in English radicalism. The French Revolution and the English Novel (New York, 1966), pp. 86-119. Gerald McNiece has gone to great lengths to discredit or limit the influence of Godwin upon the poetry and political ideas of the young Shelley. In the end, he shows more similarities than differences. Shelley and the Revolutionary Idea (Cambridge, MA 1969). Elton Edward Smith and E. G. Smith have written a rather sloppy biography which makes many errors of fact, many omissions, and many distortions in the handling of important dates. William Godwin (New York, 1965). The historian of anarchism, George Woodcock, presents an unbalanced and narrow-minded opinion of Godwin. He overlooks Godwin's faults, gives an adequate rendering of Political Justice, but fails to relate his thought to the context of the period. William Godwin: A Biographical Study (London, 1946). Ford K. Brown merely argues that Godwin is a mystery and needs interpretation, something which he does not provide. The Life of William Godwin (London, 1926).

[3] See for instance the rather lifeless account by John Clark, The Philosophic Anarchism of William Godwin (Princeton, 1977). Clark is typical of those historians of political theory who completely fail to consider Godwin's relation to the political turmoil in which the philosophy of Political Justice emerged.

[4] The most glaring example is that of Simon Maccoby, who, in two volumes dealing with the period of English radicalism between the years 1762 and 1832, sees fit to mention Godwin only in relation to his rather weak answer to Malthus in Of Population (1820). English Radicalism, 4 vols., vol. 1: The Origins: 1762-1785; vol. 2: From Paine to Cobbett: 1786-1832 (London, 1955). J. H. Plumb, the historian of late seventeenth and early eighteenth century English political stability has only this to say of Godwin: "The intellectual bohemians, Godwin, Shelley, Wollstonecraft and their circle, sinned for the sake of revolt rather than for enjoyment, and then justified themselves by the principles of liberal philosophy." England in the Eighteenth Century (Harmondsworth, 1979), p. 165.Yet still another historian gives up in despair, writing that, "Godwin is one of the philosophical gas-bags who has been so long picked and deflated, that it has become extremely difficult to reconstruct him in the dimensions he assumed in the eyes of his contemporaries." D. C. Somervell, English Thought in the Eighteenth Century (New York, 1964), p. 32. See also Robin Birley, The English Jacobins from 1789 to 1802 (London, 1924); J. Steven Watson, The Reign of George III, 1760-1815 (Oxford, 1981).

| Chapter 1 |

| Table of Contents |

| The History Guide | |