John Acton cytaty

John Acton Fotografia
8   0

John Acton

Data urodzenia: 10. Styczeń 1834
Data zgonu: 19. Czerwiec 1902

Reklama

John Acton, właśc. John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton, 1. baron Acton – brytyjski historyk, filozof polityczny, teoretyk wolności i polityk. Bardziej znany jako Lord Acton. Najbardziej znany jest ze stwierdzenia "Władza korumpuje, a władza absolutna korumpuje absolutnie".

Podobni autorzy

Zygmunt Gloger Fotografia
Zygmunt Gloger1
etnograf polski
Marek Żukow-Karczewski Fotografia
Marek Żukow-Karczewski39
polski historyk, publicysta i działacz społeczny
Tomasz Beksiński Fotografia
Tomasz Beksiński16
polski dziennikarz muzyczny, prezenter radiowy, tłumacz
Adolf Hitler Fotografia
Adolf Hitler83
kanclerz Rzeszy, twórca i dyktator III Rzeszy niemieckiej
George Byron Fotografia
George Byron32
angielski poeta
Will Durant Fotografia
Will Durant1
filozof i historyk amerykański
Georges Clemenceau Fotografia
Georges Clemenceau17
francuski pisarz, lekarz i polityk
Wojciech Bogusławski Fotografia
Wojciech Bogusławski10
polski aktor, śpiewak operowy, reżyser, pisarz, dramatop...
Charles Chaplin Fotografia
Charles Chaplin19
angielski aktor i reżyser kina niemego
Marzena Broda17
polska pisarka, poetka i dramaturg

Cytaty John Acton

Reklama

„Każda władza deprawuje, a władza absolutna deprawuje absolutnie.“

—  John Acton
Źródło: „Letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton”, 1887

Reklama

„Neither an enlightened philosophy, nor all the political wisdom of Rome, nor even the faith and virtue of the Christians availed against the incorrigible tradition of antiquity. Something was wanted, beyond all the gifts of reflection and experience — a faculty of self government and self control, developed like its language in the fibre of a nation, and growing with its growth.“

—  John Dalberg-Acton, 1st Baron Acton
Context: Constantine declared his own will equivalent to a canon of the Church. According to Justinian, the Roman people had formally transferred to the emperors the entire plenitude of its authority, and, therefore, the emperor’s pleasure, expressed by edict or by letter, had force of law. Even in the fervent age of its conversion the empire employed its refined civilization, the accumulated wisdom of ancient sages, the reasonableness and subtlety of Roman law, and the entire inheritance of the Jewish, the pagan, and the Christian world, to make the Church serve as a gilded crutch of absolutism. Neither an enlightened philosophy, nor all the political wisdom of Rome, nor even the faith and virtue of the Christians availed against the incorrigible tradition of antiquity. Something was wanted, beyond all the gifts of reflection and experience — a faculty of self government and self control, developed like its language in the fibre of a nation, and growing with its growth. This vital element, which many centuries of warfare, of anarchy, of oppression, had extinguished in the countries that were still draped in the pomp of ancient civilization, was deposited on the soil of Christendom by the fertilising stream of migration that overthrew the empire of the West.

„ADVICE TO PERSONS ABOUT TO WRITE HISTORY — DON’T“

—  John Dalberg-Acton, 1st Baron Acton
Context: ADVICE TO PERSONS ABOUT TO WRITE HISTORY — DON’T In the Moral Sciences Prejudice is Dishonesty. A Historian has to fight against temptations special to his mode of life, temptations from Country, Class, Church, College, Party, Authority of talents, solicitation of friends. The most respectable of these influences are the most dangerous. The historian who neglects to root them out is exactly like a juror who votes according to his personal likes or dislikes. In judging men and things Ethics go before Dogma, Politics or Nationality. The Ethics of History cannot be denominational. Judge not according to the orthodox standard of a system religious, philosophical, political, but according as things promote, or fail to promote the delicacy, integrity, and authority of Conscience. Put conscience above both system and success. History provides neither compensation for suffering nor penalties for wrong. Postscript of letter to Mandell Creighton (5 April 1887), puplished in Historical Essays and Studies, by John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton (1907), edited by John Neville Figgis and Reginald Vere Laurence, Appendix, p. 505 http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2201&chapter=203934&layout=html&Itemid=27

„The most certain test by which we judge whether a country is really free is the amount of security enjoyed by minorities.“

—  John Dalberg-Acton, 1st Baron Acton
Context: The most certain test by which we judge whether a country is really free is the amount of security enjoyed by minorities. Liberty, by this definition, is the essential condition and guardian of religion...<!--p.4

„By liberty I mean the assurance that every man shall be protected in doing what he believes his duty against the influence of authority and majorities, custom and opinion.“

—  John Dalberg-Acton, 1st Baron Acton
Context: By liberty I mean the assurance that every man shall be protected in doing what he believes his duty against the influence of authority and majorities, custom and opinion.<!--p.3

Reklama

„Liberty, next to religion has been the motive of good deeds and the common pretext of crime“

—  John Dalberg-Acton, 1st Baron Acton
Context: Liberty, next to religion has been the motive of good deeds and the common pretext of crime, from the sowing of the seed at Athens, two thousand four hundred and sixty years ago, until the ripened harvest was gathered by men of our race.<!--p. 1 Opening statement.

„That is the notorious danger of modern democracy. That is also its purpose and its strength.“

—  John Dalberg-Acton, 1st Baron Acton
Context: The manifest, the avowed difficulty is that democracy, no less than monarchy or aristocracy, sacrifices everything to maintain itself, and strives, with an energy and a plausibility that kings and nobles cannot attain, to override representation, to annul all the forces of resistance and deviation, and to secure, by Plebiscite, Referendum, or Caucus, free play for the will of the majority. The true democratic principle, that none shall have power over the people, is taken to mean that none shall be able to restrain or to elude its power. The true democratic principle, that the people shall not be made to do what it does not like, is taken to mean that it shall never be required to tolerate what it does not like. The true democratic principle, that every man‘s free will shall be as unfettered as possible, is taken to mean that the free will of the collective people shall be fettered in nothing. Religious toleration, judicial independence, dread of centralisation, jealousy of State interference, become obstacles to freedom instead of safeguards, when the centralised force of the State is wielded by the hands of the people. Democracy claims to be not only supreme, without authority above, but absolute, without independence below; to be its own master, not a trustee. The old sovereigns of the world are exchanged for a new one, who may be flattered and deceived, but whom it is impossible to corrupt or to resist, and to whom must be rendered the things that are Caesar's and also the things that are God’s. The enemy to be overcome is no longer the absolutism of the State, but the liberty of the subject. Nothing is more significant than the relish with which Ferrari, the most powerful democratic writer since Rousseau, enumerates the merits of tyrants, and prefers devils to saints in the interest of the community. For the old notions of civil liberty and of social order did not benefit the masses of the people. Wealth increased, without relieving their wants. The progress of knowledge left them in abject ignorance. Religion flourished, but failed to reach them. Society, whose laws were made by the upper class alone, announced that the best thing for the poor is not to be born, and the next best to die in childhood, and suffered them to live in misery and crime and pain. As surely as the long reign of the rich has been employed in promoting the accumulation of wealth, the advent of the poor to power will be followed by schemes for diffusing it. Seeing how little was done by the wisdom of former times for education and public health, for insurance, association, and savings, for the protection of labour against the law of self-interest, and how much has been accomplished in this generation, there is reason in the fixed belief that a great change was needed, and that democracy has not striven in vain. Liberty, for the mass, is not happiness; and institutions are not an end but a means. The thing they seek is a force sufficient to sweep away scruples and the obstacle of rival interests, and, in some degree, to better their condition. They mean that the strong hand that heretofore has formed great States, protected religions, and defended the independence of nations, shall help them by preserving life, and endowing it for them with some, at least, of the things men live for. That is the notorious danger of modern democracy. That is also its purpose and its strength. And against this threatening power the weapons that struck down other despots do not avail. The greatest happiness principle positively confirms it. The principle of equality, besides being as easily applied to property as to power, opposes the existence of persons or groups of persons exempt from the common law, and independent of the common will; and the principle, that authority is a matter of contract, may hold good against kings, but not against the sovereign people, because a contract implies two parties.

„History provides neither compensation for suffering nor penalties for wrong.“

—  John Dalberg-Acton, 1st Baron Acton
Context: ADVICE TO PERSONS ABOUT TO WRITE HISTORY — DON’T In the Moral Sciences Prejudice is Dishonesty. A Historian has to fight against temptations special to his mode of life, temptations from Country, Class, Church, College, Party, Authority of talents, solicitation of friends. The most respectable of these influences are the most dangerous. The historian who neglects to root them out is exactly like a juror who votes according to his personal likes or dislikes. In judging men and things Ethics go before Dogma, Politics or Nationality. The Ethics of History cannot be denominational. Judge not according to the orthodox standard of a system religious, philosophical, political, but according as things promote, or fail to promote the delicacy, integrity, and authority of Conscience. Put conscience above both system and success. History provides neither compensation for suffering nor penalties for wrong. Postscript of letter to Mandell Creighton (5 April 1887), puplished in Historical Essays and Studies, by John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton (1907), edited by John Neville Figgis and Reginald Vere Laurence, Appendix, p. 505 http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2201&chapter=203934&layout=html&Itemid=27

„The idea that the ends of government justify the means employed, was worked into system by Machiavelli.“

—  John Dalberg-Acton, 1st Baron Acton
Context: The idea that the ends of government justify the means employed, was worked into system by Machiavelli. He was an acute politician, sincerely anxious that the obstacles to the intelligent government of Italy should be swept away. It appeared to him that the most vexatious obstacle to intellect is conscience, and that the vigorous use of statecraft necessary for the success of difficult schemes would never be made if governments allowed themselves to be hampered by the precepts of the copy-book. His audacious doctrine was avowed in the succeeding age, by men whose personal character otherwise stood high. They saw that in critical times good men have seldom strength for their goodness, and yield to those who have grasped the meaning of the maxim that you cannot make an omelette if you are afraid to break the eggs. They saw that public morality differs from private, because no government can turn the other cheek, or can admit that mercy is better than justice. And they could not define the difference, or draw the limits of exception; or tell what other standard for a nation’s acts there is than the judgment which heaven pronounces in this world by success.

Natępna
Dzisiejsze rocznice
Kamil de Lellis Fotografia
Kamil de Lellis5
zakonnik włoski, święty Kościoła katolickiego 1550 - 1614
Enrico Berlinguer Fotografia
Enrico Berlinguer1
1922 - 1984
Wojciech Jaruzelski Fotografia
Wojciech Jaruzelski42
generał, działacz PZPR, prezydent PRL i RP 1923 - 2014
Beda Czcigodny Fotografia
Beda Czcigodny2
672 - 735
Następnych dzisiejszych rocznic
Podobni autorzy
Zygmunt Gloger Fotografia
Zygmunt Gloger1
etnograf polski
Marek Żukow-Karczewski Fotografia
Marek Żukow-Karczewski39
polski historyk, publicysta i działacz społeczny
Tomasz Beksiński Fotografia
Tomasz Beksiński16
polski dziennikarz muzyczny, prezenter radiowy, tłumacz
Adolf Hitler Fotografia
Adolf Hitler83
kanclerz Rzeszy, twórca i dyktator III Rzeszy niemieckiej
George Byron Fotografia
George Byron32
angielski poeta