Very interesting. I had no idea about this group. I take it Edward Coke was a member? I think it's fair to point out that the "anti-monopoly" grouping were not against inventive patents per se. The fourteen year monopoly was based on 2 x the time it took for the guilds to train an apprentice. What is interesting, however, is that the English Parliament did not set up a positive right to novel patents meaning the question of how broad patent protection should be was left unresolved for centuries in England.
Coke is an interesting case. There’s no hard evidence that he was a member, but it’s possible. And I would certainly include him among the ancient constitutionalists even if he wasn’t ever a member himself.
Yes, they weren’t against all patent monopolies, but certainly concerned about them overstepping their bounds - eg a lot of concern with dispensation of penal statutes and with the effects on existing professions.
As I read this, I wondered if there is any connection between the Society and the drafters of the US Constitution. Your last paragraph points to the importance of "freedom of speech" which is really the core belief of the Constitution and has always been under threat.
I don't think there's a direct connection, simply because of the distance of time. But I would not at all be surprised if the drafters of the US Constitution were heavily influenced by the works of Edward Coke, who was certainly one of the most prominent ancient constitutionalists (even if we don't know if he was actually a member of the Society of Antiquaries)
While I am no expert, this seems somewhat similar to the claims Mary Beard makes about the Romans in SPQR. Namely, that legal innovations to mos maiorum were always disguised as a return to some ancient standard which had lapsed. I believe she (and Mike Duncan) specifically cite that Gracchi land reform as one such example of radical innovation labelled as a return to the true way of the ancestors.
I imagine it is often politically convenient to charge that the defenders of the status quo are in fact revolutionaries, who destroyed a (possibly fantastical) more just past. This though, is far purer speculation.
I think John Stow may have been a member. Some hints in the Survey.
Stow was certainly a member - I think (not looking at my notes right now) that one of the summonses I quoted was for him specifically.
Very interesting. I had no idea about this group. I take it Edward Coke was a member? I think it's fair to point out that the "anti-monopoly" grouping were not against inventive patents per se. The fourteen year monopoly was based on 2 x the time it took for the guilds to train an apprentice. What is interesting, however, is that the English Parliament did not set up a positive right to novel patents meaning the question of how broad patent protection should be was left unresolved for centuries in England.
Coke is an interesting case. There’s no hard evidence that he was a member, but it’s possible. And I would certainly include him among the ancient constitutionalists even if he wasn’t ever a member himself.
Yes, they weren’t against all patent monopolies, but certainly concerned about them overstepping their bounds - eg a lot of concern with dispensation of penal statutes and with the effects on existing professions.
As I read this, I wondered if there is any connection between the Society and the drafters of the US Constitution. Your last paragraph points to the importance of "freedom of speech" which is really the core belief of the Constitution and has always been under threat.
I don't think there's a direct connection, simply because of the distance of time. But I would not at all be surprised if the drafters of the US Constitution were heavily influenced by the works of Edward Coke, who was certainly one of the most prominent ancient constitutionalists (even if we don't know if he was actually a member of the Society of Antiquaries)
While I am no expert, this seems somewhat similar to the claims Mary Beard makes about the Romans in SPQR. Namely, that legal innovations to mos maiorum were always disguised as a return to some ancient standard which had lapsed. I believe she (and Mike Duncan) specifically cite that Gracchi land reform as one such example of radical innovation labelled as a return to the true way of the ancestors.
I imagine it is often politically convenient to charge that the defenders of the status quo are in fact revolutionaries, who destroyed a (possibly fantastical) more just past. This though, is far purer speculation.
Fascinating comment, thank you. I was unaware of the Roman parallels.