Hobbes Studies

HOBBES STUDIES By

A. G. Wernham Leo Strauss A. E. Taylor Willis B. Glover Stuart M. Brown, Jr. C. B. Macpherson Keith Thomas John Plamenatz Howard Warrender J. W. N. Watkins S. Morris Engel J. R. Pennock Mario A. Cattaneo

Edited by

K. C. Brown

\

\

t

OXFORD

I

BASIL BLACKWELL 1965

CONTENTS FoREWORD

1.

vii

ON THE SPIRIT oF HoBBEs's PoLITICAL PHILOSOPHY,

by Professor Leo Strauss

1

University of Olicago

2.

THE TAYLOR THESIS

(1)

INTRODUCTORY NoTE,

Jr.

by Professor Stuart M. Brown, 31

Cornell University

(2)

THE ETHICAL DocTRINE OF HoBBES,

by Professor 35

A. E. Ttf)llor

3.

THE TAYLOR THESIS: SoME OBJECTioNs,

Stuart M. Brown, Jr.

by Professor 57

4. (1) MR. WARRENDER'S HOBBES, by john Pfamenatz

73

Fellow of Nuffield College, Oxford

(2) A REPLY Warrender

TO MR. PLAMENATZ,

by Professor Howard

89

The Queen's University, Belfast

5. HoBBES's

CoNFUSING

'LIBERTY',

'CLARITY'-THE

CAsE

OF

by Professor]. R. Pennock

101

Swarthmore College

6. LIBERTY AND OBLIGATION IN HOBBES, by Professor A. G. Wernha11t

117

Aberdeen University I

PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY A. T. BROOME AND SON, 18 ST. CLEMENT'S, OXFORD AND BOUND BY THE KEMP HALL BINDERY, OXFORD

'X 7. Goo AND THOMAS HoBBEs, by Professor Willis B.

Glover Mercer University

141

vi

C O N'I'E N'I'S

8. HOBBES's

BouRGEOIS

Macpherson

MAN,

by

Professor C. B.

FOREWORD 169

• • .

University of Toronto

" 9. THE SociAL ORIGINS OF THOUGHT, by &ith Thomas

HoBBEs's

PoLITICAL

185

Fellow of St. John's College, Oxford

10. PHILOSOPHY AND POLITICS IN HOBBES, by j.

Watkins

W. N.

Reader in the History of Philosophy in the University of London

11. HoBBES's 'TABLE OF ABSURDITY', Morris Engel

by Professor

237

S. 263

University of Southern California

12. HoBBEs's THEORY OF PuNISHMENT, by Professor Mario A. Cattaneo ... . .. ... ... .. .

275

University of Milan

APPENDIX

299

All save one of the thirteen papers here collected have been written in the years since the Second World War, a period that has seen a remarkable increase of interest in the writings of Thomas Hobbes. This revolution in Hobbes studies, for that is scarcely too strong a way to describe it, now appears to have moved into a period of consolidation: a not inappropriate time, perhaps, for the publication of a collection of this kind. Even when not directly concerned with consolidation in the simplest sense, Hobbes scholars today tend to exhibit a degree and kind of involvement with the work of their recent predecessors that differs from anything to be found earlier. A lively and fruitful discussion has been in progress for a considerable time; and no one who is seriously interested in Hobbes's work can altogether avoid being affected by it, no matter how original or independent his own approach may be. Yet the present general concern with review is by no means preventing fresh extensions of the debate. Dr. Mintz, for instance, has only recently published his study of seventeenth-century reactions to Hobbes's materialism and moral philosophy; and a new book by one of the contributors to this present volume, exploring further the still somewhat vexed question of the relationship between Hobbes's philosophical ideas and his political doctrines, will probably have appeared by the time these words are printed. Then, in the fairly near future, we may hope at last to see fuller studies published of the dis­ crepancies between the English and Latin texts of some of Hobbes's major works: a task that seems to be leading to in­ teresting results, and on which it was originally hoped to include a paper in this volume. These are only a small part of the work that has recently appeared, or that is afoot. It is natural to speculate on the causes of this curious post­ war surge of interest in Hobbes; though there is not the space here to develop such speculations very fully. However, one might risk the generalisation that three main factors have been involved: (1) the labours of Hobbes scholars in the nineteen­ thirties, the full effect of whose work could not be seen until after the delay of the war years. (2) Certain trends in the general history of philosophy. (3) The political history of our own

viii

ix

F O R E WO R D

F O R E WO R D

times. This i s not t o say, o f course, that these factors have all influenced everyone equally: an undergraduate, for instance, would not necessarily come to an interest in Hobbes by the same route as the scholars whose work he reads. Indeed at least two of the contributors to this volume were led to an interest in Hobbes partly by a prior interest in Spinoza: a kind of motive not covered by the categories just suggested. Yet the generalisation would seem to hold, even so. In 1934, for example, Professor Laird complained (in the Foreword of his book) that he found around him an excessively low level of

Indeed the general climate of our age has surely been extremely well suited to a growth of interest in Hobbes's work. His splendid and terrible dictum' ... in the ftrst place, I put for a general inclination

interest in Hobbes; and a reading of the academic journals of that time seems to justify his complaint. If within a few years the level was already rising, plainly much of the rise was due to the efforts of such scholars as Professor Laird himself, Professor A. E. Taylor-whose article 'The Ethical Doctrine of Hobbes' is reprinted here-and Professor Leo Strauss. (The latter's book, The Political Philosopf?y of Hobbes, Oxford, 1936, translated for publication from a German manuscript, is a reminder, too, that there is a debt owed by Hobbes studies to German scholarship that is at least as old as the work of Tonnies, in the eighties of the last century.) But other, less direct, influences also seem to have been at work. For one thing, it is a commonplace that Hobbes anticipates, if rather crudely, some of the insights and techniques of contem­ porary linguistic philosophy; and naturally this again has helped to increase the attention paid to his thought. (Similarly, of course, his mechanistic approach to the problems of human thought, motivation and decision has its affinities with modern psychology.) Meanwhile, Marxist-influenced historians and philosophers, who have their own reasons for being interested in Hobbes, have also had their own view of him to present. And when one reads, for instance, that 'the most immediate(y strikingftature' of a certain philosophic doctrine 'was its iconoclasm, its short and apparentfy lethal wqy with the ponrlerous enigmas of metapf?ysicians' . . . and that

'To maf!Y its tight restrictive aridities seemed miraculous(y to clear the air, while to others it appeared as a blind attack on maf!Y valuable and whol(y respectable intellectual achievements . . .' one might well wonder momentarily whether the reference was to Hobbism or to Logical Positivism. Hobbes's scorn for metaphysics rings pleasantly in many modern ears.

of all mankind, a restless and continual rlesire of power after power, that ceaseth on(y in death; takes on a certain extra plausibility in an age

that has seen-to pick only two of a multitude of illustrations -the rise and fall of the Third Reich and the evolution of the hydrogen warhead. His concern at the division of men's political loyalties, between obedience to their country's government and obedience to what they took to be the political implications of their religion, finds a parallel in our own concern at the fresh conflict in many men's minds between the claims of patriotism and those of some international ideology. And, in a time which finds highly civilized communities prepared to commit atrocities whose obscenity would have surprised the Dark Ages, it becomes less easy than it once was, perhaps, for the reader new to Hobbes's work to jump to the conclusion that it is discredited from the outset by a too cynical and pessimistic view of human nature. The present time also is one in which the world appears to be dramatising in inter-national terms the story which Hobbes himself told in inter-personal terms : every line of the past twenty years' debate on the difficulties of turning the United Nations into an effective instrument of World government could stand as a gloss upon Hobbes's text. Nor is it very surprising that one should nowadays find Leviathan invoked (as a symbol for the power of the modern State) even in the editorial columns of popular newspapers, relatively few of whose readers are ever likely to have heard of Hobbes himself; for it is an image brought vividly to life by ever-mounting encroachments by the State on the sphere of action of the private individual. It is true that the Leviathan of the editorial columns does not always seem to be quite the creature that Hobbes himself had in mind, but its antecedents remain clear enough, nonetheless. To speak of 'bringing images to life', however, is perhaps to move from history and political philosophy into literary criticism; and when discussing Hobbes the move is certainly legitimate. His achievement, at least in Leviathan, is unmistakably a literary as well as a philosophical one: it is perhaps not re­ membered often enough, in fact, that he was a contemporary of the Metaphysical poets and the great seventeenth-century sermon-

X

FOREWORD

writers. Yet his style proclaims it. The now classic comment on a Metaphysical poet, that 'a thought to him was an experience, it modified his sensibilf!y', applies as well to Hobbes as to any of the poets he outlived. His thought forms readily into images that are not merely adequate emblems of elements in his argument, but possess a striking extra vitality of their own. The mind seen as a spaniel ranging a field, the crowned ghost enthroned upon its grave, men 'tired of irregular jostling and hewing one another', the Kingdom of Fairies, the man 'entangled in words, like a bird in lime-twigs', the uncomfortably vivid description of the state of nature, the great extended metaphor of Leviathan itself: such images are apt to arouse in the mind of the reader responses in excess of the strict require­ ments of Hobbes's argument; but responses which have perhaps contributed something, at least, to the growth of interest in his work as a whole. This is not to suggest that there has lately been some kindly move afoot to have a closer look at Hobbes's ideas just because he does, after all, write rather attractively: the contents of this volume could not really be mistaken for the fruits of a 'casual aestheticism. Nevertheless, it would seem fair to say that the sensibility of many early and mid-seven­ teenth-century writers does appear to be unexpectedly well attuned to that of our own day; and among the names of these writers must be included that of Thomas Hobbes. Lastly, something should perhaps be said about the selection and arrangement of material in this volume. In no case has permission to print already-published material been refused: a piece of good fortune for which the editor is grateful. This does not mean, however, that he has been able to reprint everything he would have wished; for a collection of this kind can only be a compromise, necessarily involving sacrifices. The main aim has been to give some idea of the shape and 'feel' of the post­ war debate on Hobbes, and to illustrate some of the different kindr of attention that his work has attracted. Hobbes is unusual among the older British philosophers in that there is still persistent and drastic disagreement, not simply about the validity and signi­ ficance of his theories, but also about what he actually meant his theory to be in the first place; and while this basic problem of interpretation persists in Hobbes studies, it is surely even more

FOREWORD

xi

than usually important to prevent the partitiOns between. the various academic disciplines becoming too opaque. No apology

is offered, therefore, for presenting side by side in this volume papers often originally intended for very dissimilar audiences. On the other hand, limitations of space have made it impossible to represent the full spectrum of Hobbes studies: there is, for instance, no theologian here to enlarge upon the view, quoted by Professor Glover, that Hobbes 'practised theology at its scholarly ' best'; there is nothing from any of the literary journals (though the interested reader can find references which will direct him to them); and there is no discussion of Hobbes's theory from the point of view of the modern psychologist (although this is a perhaps more justifiable omission, since Professor Peters' study of Hobbes in the Pelican Philosophy Series is so widely available). Further omissions have been enforced by the need to give the book some sort of balance and coherence, for it would have been misleading to linger too long on any one issue; and the same requirements have also prevented the arrangement of the papers in strict chronological order�something which it is realised that some readers may regret. No doubt regret will be felt, too, at the absence of certain names from the list of contributors : perhaps especially that of Professor Oakeshott. But one could not, for example, have included his long Introduction to Leviathan in a volume of this kind, and in any case no one reading this book is likely to be left unaware that Professor Oakeshott has been an influence on Hobbes studies since the war. A similar defence can be offered in the case of other omissions. But defence is surely unnecessary: all that is claimed is that each of the papers here collected is worthwhile reading for its own sake, that they are drawn from a wider range of publications than is available in many libraries (while two of them have in fact never before been published), and that collectively they offer a reasonably fair guide to the now populous field of Hobbes studies.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank the authors of the papers printed or reprinted here both for consenting to the publication of their work in this volume and for the very helpful interest which they have shown in the whole project. An exception occurs, however, in Chapter 2, Section ii: where, sadly, my obligation must instead be to the author's Literary Executor, Mr. F. E. A. Taylor. I would also like to thank the editors and publishers who have given permission to republish material first issued by them. Chapter 1 is taken from Prof. Strauss's book Natural Right and History, published in 1953 by the Chicago University Press. Chapter 2, Section ii, first appeared in Philosophy, 1938. Chapter 3 appeared in The Philosophical Review for 1959 (and Chapter 11 in the same Review, in 1961). Both parts of Chapter 4 appeared in

Political Studies, in

1957 and 1960, respectively. Chapter 5 was originally published in The American Political Science Review for 1960; while in the same year Church History published Chapter 7. Chapter 8 first appeared in The Canadian Journal of Economics and

Political Science for

1945, under the title 'Hobbes Today'. Chapter 10 is a slightly revised version of an article published in The PhilosophicalQuarter!J in 1955; and Chapter 12 is a translation of an article which appeared in the Italian journal jus in 1960. The further permission of the reproduction of the articles I hope the many others preparation of this volume

Clarendon Press was required for from Political Studies. who have helped or encouraged the will forgive me if I thank especially

Professor Stuart Hampshire, Professor John Chapman, and Professor Norberto Bobbio. K.C.B.

NOTE The abbreviations E. W. and L. W. used in most chapters of this book refer, respectively, to The English Works of Thomas

Hobbes, edited by Sir William Molesworth, London, 1839-45 (1 1 vols.), and to Thomae Hobbes, Malmesburiensis, Opera Philosophica, again edited by Sir William Molesworth, London, 1 839-45 (5 vols.) In the case of LEVIATHAN

(E. W.

III), however, some contri-

butors refer instead to Prof. Oakeshott's edition of the 'Black­ well's Political Texts' series.

'Leviathan'

or

This edition will be cited as

'Lev'.

At the back of this book will be found an index to the Parts

and chapters of LEVIATHAN giving page references to the Moles­ worth and Oakeshott editions side by side. The abbreviation 'Elements', which also is used by many contributors, refers to

The Elements of Law, Natural and Politic, 1928.

edited by F. Tennies, Cambridge,

I ON THE

SPIRIT OF HOBBES'S

POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

Leo Strauss

T political philosophy or political science. He knew, of course,

HOMAS HOBBES regarded himself as the founder of

that the great honour which he claimed for himself was awarded, by almost universal consent, to Socrates. Nor was he allowed to forget the notorious fact that the tradition which Socrates had originated was still powerful in his own age. But he was certain that traditional political philosophy 'was rather a dream than science'.1 Present-day scholars are not impressed by Hobbes's claim.' They note that he was deeply indebted to the tradition which he scorned. Some of them come close to suggesting that he was one of the last Schoolmen. Lest we overlook the wood for the trees, we shall reduce for a while the significant results of present­ day polymathy into the compass of one sentence. Hobbes was indebted to tradition for a single, but momentous, idea: he accepted on trust the view that political philosophy or political science is possible or necessary. To understand Hobbes's astonishing claitn means to pay proportionate attention to his emphatic rejection of the tradition, on the one hand, and to his almost silent agreement with it, on the other. For this purpose one must first identify the tradition. More precisely, one must first see the tradition as Hobbes saw it and forget for a moment how it presents itself to the present-day historian. Hobbes mentions the following representatives of the tradition by name: Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Seneca, Tacitus, and Plutarch.2 He then tacitly identife i s the tradition of political philosophy with a particular tradition. He identifies it with that tradition whose basic premises may be stated as follows: the noble and the just are fundamentally distinguished from the

1 Elements of Ltnv, Ep. ded.; I, 1, sec. 1; 13, sec. 3, and 17, sec. 1. De Corpore, Ep. ded.; De Cive, Ep. ded. and praef.; L.W. I, p. xc. Leviathan, XXXI (p. 241)

and XLVI (p. 438). 2 De Cive, praef., and XII, 3; L.W. V, pp. 358-59. B

/··

2

L E O STR A U SS

pleasant and are by nature preferable to it; or, there is a natural right that is wholly independent of any human compact or convention; ?r, the�e is a best polit�cal order which is best because it is accor g to nature. He identifies traditional political . hiloso hy wtth. the quest for the best regime or for the simply p � JUSt soctal order, and therefore with a pursuit that is political not merely because it deals with political matters but, above all because it is animated by a political spirit. He identifies traditiona p�li�ical philosophy with that particular tradition that was public sr:11'1ted or to ��ploy a term w ch is loose indeed but at present . � still easily mtelligtble-that was '1dealistic'. When speaking of earlier political philosophers, Hobbes does

dll;

·

' T H E S PIRIT O F H O B BE S S P O LITIC A L P H I L O S O P H Y

3

Hobbes rejects the idealistic tradition on the basis of a funda­ mental agreement with it. He means to do adequately what the Socratic tradition did in a wholly inadequate manner. He means to succeed where the Socratic tradition had failed. He traces the failure of the idealistic tradition to one fundamental mistake: traditional political philosophy assumed that man is by nature a political or social animal. By rejecting this assumption, Hobbes

�

joins the Epicurean tradition. He accepts its view that man is by nature or originally an a-political and even an a-social animal, as well as its premise that the good is fundamentally identical with the pleasant.4 But he uses that a-political view for a political purpose. He gives that a�political view a pC.llitical meaning. He tries to

n