The article identifies a central problem in the methodological proposal of Quentin Skinner for studying the history of political thought: the equivalence assumed by the author between oral and written communications. This leads him to adopt the theory of speech acts as the backbone for his methodological project. Use of the treatment given by Paul Ricoeur to the phenomenology of writing imposes differences between these two types of communications and thereby highlights the improprieties generated by Skinner's assumed equivalence. The article discusses why the critical approach towards this English author's methodology is more productive and systematic than many of the critiques aimed at him, including those inspired by the thinking of Hans-Georg Gadamer.
Quentin Skinner; history of political thought; methodology; Paul Ricoeur; interpretation