Sometimes we can immediately discern the conversation between the theorists, when one will refer to the work of another. This can be used as confirmation of the opinion of the referring theorist:

Secondly, that an agrarian is dangerous unto a commonwealth is affirmed upon no slight authority, seeing Machiavel is positive that it was the dissension which happened about the agrarian that caused the destruction of Rome.

Here we see James Harrington using Machiavelli as the authority for Harrington’s assertions on agrarian law

We can see here how these great minds were limited to strictly theory. A fact that probably saved a lot of trouble, if one considers what could have happened if some theorists were free to conduct practical trials of their theories. However, as theories came under the scrutiny of many people, those things that some theorists stated as facts could sometimes be refuted based on the reader’s own knowledge and experience. It is not that the theorist was actually wrong as such, but rather that the fact that most theorists would not have a broad enough overview of society (i.e. a view based on their own, sometimes very limited, life experience) meant that what they saw as being facts would not hold true for human society everywhere. Thus the common ‘truths’ could only be established from a comparison and debate between a number of different theorists, who came from numerous different places and were scattered across the social spectrum, except for the illiterate masses of peasants and workers. Then these truths could be used as the basis for future theory.

The very fact that, until the later half of the 20th century, this field of work was limited almost completely to theory, as opposed to any real scientific method, increases the scope available for discussion. In other words, because there was no established political science it seemed the only way to establish any ‘truths’ was through debate and conversation. As Rousseau says at the start of Du Contrat social:

If all Men are born free, how is it that all Women are born slaves? as they must be if the being subjected to the inconstant, uncertain, arbitrary Will of Men, be the perfect Condition of Slavery?

It is also within this period that we see the proliferation of another type of converstaion between theorists, the refutation of another’s theories. Mary Astell is an extremely good example of this, with her vehement criticism of the work of John Locke. Interestingly, Astell does not seem to see the need for mentioning Mr Locke by name, merely writing in such a style as to leave no doubt in the mind of the reader to whom she is refering:

Some topics in this essay:
Du Contrat, Bentham Mill, Political Theory, Thomas Aquinas, Lycurgus Solon, Condition Slavery, Commonwealth Oceana, Crito Glaucon, Middle Age, James Harrington, political theory, contrat social, commonwealth oceana, -the commonwealth oceana, basis theories, immediately discern, political science, debate conversation, theory theorists, du contrat social, historical information, conversation political,