ABSTRACT This paper examines the different interpretations of the distinction between closed and open societies put forward by Henri Bergson, Leo Strauss, Karl Popper, and Gilles Deleuze. These vary both in the features attributed to the two kinds of society, especially to openness, and in the authors’ evaluations of what they describe. The similarities and differences between their views are documented in detail, and their significance considered.

ABSTRACT Botero’s Della Ragion di Stato has a monarchical character that has been overlooked or taken for granted. This is due to the successful reception of the reason of state formula, which justifies any kind of political regime, including principalities, republics, and monarchies, regardless of the author’s preferences. However, there is a clear distinction between monarchy and reason of state that requires further discussion. Botero not only uses Machiavellian language when referring to a political community (as res publica) or the prince (as a metaphor for centralized monarchies), but also reappropriates it. In addition, he goes beyond this to explain a non-legal path to absolute sovereignty, which differs from Jean Bodin’s (1530–96) idea of the king as being above the law and Thomas Hobbes’ (1588–1679) theory of authorization and the social contract. This paper argues that Botero’s concept of reason of state can be understood as a complex process of reduction to unity, similar to God’s creation and the functioning of the natural world. Despite its contradictions and limitations, it grants the prince an unusual supremacy and control over society.

ABSTRACT In her response, Alfaro fleshes out two main questions that come out from her book The Belief in Intuition. First, what is the relation between Henri Bergson and Max Scheler's personalist anthropology, on the one hand, and politics, on the other? What kinds of political order and civic education would sustain dense moral psychology, such as the one she claims follows from their writings? Second, and more specifically, what theory of authority corresponds to the philosophical anthropology that we learn from these authors? How can the “small-scale exemplarity” that Alfaro argues is articulated in their writings be an alternative to how we think today about charisma and emulation in the public sphere? In articulating these responses, Alfaro reflects on phenomena like uncertainty, education, and social media in the contemporary public sphere.

ABSTRACT Building on recent literature on the history of political economy and Spanish imperial history, the article reconstructs the ideas that supported the colonial development of the meat industry in the Río de la Plata. Archival and printed sources are employed to illustrate the different arguments revolving around colonial economic development and imperial rule, in the words and practices of merchants, explorers, administrators and ministers. This way, it is possible to disclose the multiple imperial visions circulating in the Spanish Atlantic. The analysis suggests that economic reformism was not only a European intellectual and political movement but was shared and appropriated by Spanish Americans. They employed arguments in political economy to foster their agenda, namely the economic improvement of their territory in the broader context of the Spanish commercial empire. If a shared consensus around imperial political economy between Spanish and Spanish American vassals provided arguments supporting this colonial industry, the diverging economic interests, imperial rivalries, and the different geographical spaces of enunciation determined a variable dialectic between projects for the expansion of salted meat production and their realisation.

ABSTRACT School of Historical and Philosophical Studies, Faculty of Arts, Australia This article analyses the role of early radical and socialist texts in forming the understanding of the Paris Commune in Britain and the United States. The Commune, while a French event, came to be associated with socialists, radicals, and as a symbol of internationalism. Marx’s The Civil War in France established the interpretation of the Commune that would see it become a radical shibboleth. This article analyses articles by Edward Beesly, Lissagaray’s History of the Commune of 1871, E.B Bax’s Short History of the Commune, and Lenin’s State and Revolution to trace the influences of Marx’s interpretation. This analysis includes examination of the radical publishers in both Britain and the United States to explore how these texts were edited and changed, and how they were circulated to reach the intended working-class audience. The article’s core questions are where did this interpretation come from, how was it constructed, and how did it come to dominate the interpretation of the Commune. This is significant due to the Commune’s pre-eminence within socialist history and how it became an example of the ‘Dictatorship of the Proletariat’ for many future revolutionaries.

ABSTRACT Despite an efflorescence of historical scholarship on the theme of monarchy in nineteenth-century Britain, the views of the great Victorian man of letters Thomas Carlyle (1795–1881) in this regard have been explored only in fragmentary and incomplete fashion. The present article aims to offer a comprehensive survey of Carlyle's thought regarding monarchy, arguing that on the whole, Carlyle was strongly and consistently opposed to monarchy on the hereditary principle, claiming that this had become an absurd anachronism in the modern (democratic) world. Instead, Carlyle strongly and consistently promoted a merit-based aristocracy of talent, in which the ‘best’ man would rule, regardless of heredity or social origin. Indeed, in his historical writings, he was quite prepared to endorse regicide as a means to replacing inept hereditary monarchs with low-born men of destiny such as Oliver Cromwell. Although Carlyle refrained from publicly demanding the abolition of the monarchy in contemporary Britain, his private correspondence and conversation were replete with sneers and snide asides regarding Queen Victoria and her predecessors.