Alle Origini del Formalismo Giurdico (review)

BOOK REVIEWS 135 of his "public philosophy"? The Lawgiver analogy can hardly explain it. Rousseau's Lawgiver is not a philosopher inventing a doctrine but a statesman and educator establishing the reign of law among his own people. Did Rousseau really see himself in this position? The texts do not, in our judgment, support this view. Broome vacillates between seeing in the Lawgiver analogy a doctrinal necessity and an idiosyncrasy born out of Rousseau's near-madness, a consequence of his ambiguous belief that for Rousseau all philosophical problems are personal ones (p. 12). The author is much indebted to current French and Swiss Rousseau studies whose findings he introduces, often with independent, sometimes with wilful adaptations. Since he gives no footnote references to this literature, the reader to whom the book is addressed has no way of distinguishing established critical opinion from the author's own interpretations which have not yet passed the critical test. (The Fall-and-Redemption theme, e.g., is well established, but nowhere has it been made the foundation of exegesis, for the good reason that it is not central enough.) The book should therefore not be taken as a synthesis of current Rousseau research. It is an independent effort to introduce the English student to the new direction in Rousseau exegesis which tries to grasp the unity of the man's life and thought, and seeks to understand him intus et in cute, as he himself had wanted it. GREGOR SEBBA Emory University Alle Origini del Formalismo Giurdico. By A. Negri. (Padova: 1962) In his book At the Origins of Legal Formalism, realizing the problematic nature of the idea of form in Kantian thought, Negri goes back to the origins and the historical, ethical, and political motivations of this ambiguity. Then he examines the prolonging of this ambivalence in the tortuous involutions of the thought of post-Kantian jurists, and points out the consequences . Negri notices how Kant puts form into the frame of reference of intelligible totality and how this leads to very ambivalent interpretations. In fact, as Goldmann too noted, the idea of transcendental totality, when applied to the historical world, becomes a universe that is humanly and concretely dialectical; but at the same time, the idea of form appears in another aspect as a sign of the development of transcendental totality. This means that Kant has both a critical and a metaphysical ideal, and this duplicity is found in the ambivalence of the idea of form, conceived from one point of view as a condition of critical research and from the other point of view as constitutive of metaphysical reconstruction (p. 65). Corresponding to this double conception of form is the ambiguous conception of freedom which Kant uses in legal philosophy. On one hand following Rousseau's opinion, Kant interprets freedom as autonomy of mind, and to this conception of freedom there corresponds the conception of form as constitutive of objectivity. This is developed in the Critique of Practical Reason. But on the other hand, following Montesquieu's opinion, as G. Gurwitch noted, Kant interprets freedom as independence, and, of course, to this conception of freedom there corresponds the conception of form as a "rational structure, as a registration of relations of wills" (p. 74). In this last case Kant appears to accept concretely "legal formalism as a liberal and ideological foundation, rejecting the formative element of democratic ideology to the limbo of a well-intentioned morality" (p. 74). However, these two conceptions of freedom and form complement each other because "independence conditions autonomy, and then reciprocally the autonomous contents of the right are interpreted as independence" (p. 71). But in this way, as Negri subtly notes, independence overburdens itself with that metaphysical character which is peculiar to autonomy, whereas autonomy then loses much of its metaphysical and constitutive importance, because it is used to define individual independence and is therefore bound to a "doctrinaire individualism" (p. 76). These different meanings in Kantian thought are historically justified because Kant as a 136 HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY man felt two needs :"the theoretical need for guaranteeing a priori the subsistence of an ethical sphere against the Enlightenment's emphasis on happiness, and the...