1 [James Alexander, ‘An Essay on Historical, Philosophical and Theological Attitudes to Modern Political Thought’, History of Political Thought 25 (Spring 2004), pp. 116-148. This was my first article. Maurice Cowling had suggested I write something ‘brilliant’. Istvan Hont declared it was an attempt to clear my throat before writing something else. A Microphenomenology, perhaps: something we all have to write. It completely exhausted me: I was writing at the outer limit of my ability at the time, sitting in King’s College Library while I was meant to be writing something else. I had never written anything like it before. I owe my career to it, since its publication made me look respectable enough for Cambridge University to appoint me to a fixed term lecturehip in 2004. The article, as published, is available at http://www.ingentaconnect.com/contentone/imp/hpt/2004/000000 25/00000001/art00006. Copyright Imprint Academic.] An Essay on Historical, Philosophical and Theological Attitudes to Modern Political Thought 1 JAMES ALEXANDER Abstract: This essay subjects to criticism the historical and philosophical attitudes to political thought found in the writings of John Dunn and Michael Oakeshott. The essay does not limit itself to criticism but attempts to elaborate what is indicated by criticism for the sake of the modern understanding of political thought. The argument is that history and philosophy as they have recently been practised suffer from limitations which can only be addressed by a recognition of something 1 This essay, written in the outer calm afforded by King’s College in the summer of 2002, is indebted to Edward Castleton, Maurice Cowling, Matthew Neale and Christopher Ryan for conversation, comment and criticism, to Efraim Podoksik for a suggestion about On Human Conduct, and to Janet Coleman for an unexpected intervention at a late stage.