No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

This thesis seeks to develop our understanding of ideas about political liberty in the English Revolution by way of focusing on the issue of property, a topic unduly neglected in the secondary literature. Most writers of the period conceived of liberty as absence of dependence, but what has been little examined is the extent to which it was believed that the attainment of this condition required not only a particular kind of constitution but a particular distribution of property as well. Here the central ideal became that of self-ownership, and the thesis is largely devoted to tracing the rise, eclipse and re-emergence of this way of thinking about the connections between property and liberty. Chapter 1 considers the emergence, in the ‘paper war’ of the early 1640s, of the radical Parliamentarian view that all property ultimately resided in Parliament. It was to oppose this stance, Chapter 2 argues, that the Levellers began to speak of ‘selfe propriety’, transforming the Parliamentarian notion of popular sovereignty into an individualist doctrine designed to protect subjects and their property from not only the king but also Parliament. Elements of both the Parliamentarian and Leveller discussions of property were taken up by John Milton and Marchamont Nedham (Chapter 3), while James Harrington offered an alternative theory that eschewed the notion of self-ownership (Chapter 4). After a chapter considering the relationship between property and freedom in Henry Neville and Algernon Sidney, the final chapter focuses on John Locke’s revival of self-ownership in his attempt to ground property rights in the individual’s ownership of his ‘person’. Although Locke is shown to offer a theory of private property, the Locke that emerges is not a proto-liberal defender of individual rights but a theorist of neo-Roman freedom whose aim was to explain the connection between property and non-dependence.

Thesis. 1976. M.Arch.--Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dept. of Architecture. / Microfiche copy available in Archives and Rotch. / Bibliography: leaves 195-200. / M.Arch.

No description available.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1972. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 217-240).

No description available.

Recent criticism has cast the suburban playhouses of Early Modern London as marginalised institutions, in at least a topographic if not a symbolic sense. This thesis will contend that marginality is a relative term, and that for the inhabitants of the suburb, of Clerkenwell, the salient social function of the Red Bull theatre was not to serve the City as a site for licence, but to provide a neighbourhood space in which bonds of community could be formed. Arguing that theatres were built in particular locations not just to escape City prohibitions, but to draw on proximate audiences, I provide a brief history of Clerkenwell and place the Red Bull in its local context. By figuring the Red Bull, both in terms of its standard repertoire and its audience, as a prototypical "community theatre," I develop a sociology of dramatic production which understands this Early Modern theatre as a crucial nexus of local solidarity.