The Political Philosophy of Hobbes: Its Basis and Its Genesis (Phoenix Books)

The Political Philosophy of Hobbes

The Political Philosophy of Hobbes Its Basis and Its Genesis By

Leo Strauss Translated from the Germrm Ml11lUiCript By Elsa M. Sinclair .

THE

Phoenix Books

UNIVERSITY

OF

CHICAGO &

CHICAGO

LON DON .

PRES\

TO MY

WIFE

PREFACE

HE intention of the present study is to prepare an analysis Tof the principles of Hobbes's political philosophy and of

that of his successors. A new analysis of those principles has become necessary as a consequence of the deepened knowledge, which has been gained during the last decades, of the tradition of political thought. The time is now past when one could safely without any further qualifications characterize the seven­ teenth and eighteenth centuries as the hey-day of natural law "theories. This characterization was tacitly based on a com­ parison of the political theories of the age of rationalism with those of the nineteenth century, and within the limits of such a comparison it still holds true; but it can no longer be main­ tained when the medieval and classical tradition is duly taken into account. The effect of this change of orientation on the �terpretation of Hobbes's political philosophy is obvious. J. Laird in his recent book on Hobbes could try to establish the view that in ethical and �olitical theory Ho.bhcs�_� a.nd hands are both mediae��'J Though this statement is hardly Justdied, It clearly proves that the older opinion, accord­ ing to which Hobbes's originality was beyond question, is some­ what shaken and now needs some qualifications which were not required at an earlier stage of research. Generally speaking, if theories of natural law, far from being a feature peculiar to the age of rationalism, are almost a matter of course in the medieval and classical tradition, we cannot avoid asking why the seven­ teenth and eighteenth centuries gained the reputation of being the period par excellence of natural law theories. And, to exclude from the outset the inadequate answer that for well-known political reasons the practical bearing of natural law theories .,as greater during that period than in any other age, we must faise the more precise question, whether there is not a difference of principle between the modern and the traditionaJ.. view of "natural law. Such a difference docs in fact exist.\,/traditional natural law is primarily and mainly an objective 'rule and measure', a binding order prior to, and independent of, tl1& human will, while modern natural law is, or tends to be, '

I

•

PREFACE

VIlI

primarily and mainly a series 9£. 'rights', of subjective claims, originating in the human will.\ : ave tried to establish this view in the present study b c mparing the political doctrine of Hobbes, as the founder q.f oder.n. P2IiticaLp-hilosoiilti.: witlJ. that of Plato and Aristotle, as the founders of traditional political philosopW Essentially the same result is reached if ·one compares the doctrines of Locke, Montesquieu, and Rous­ seau with those of, e.g., Hooker, Suarez, and Grotius. Even Leibniz's doctrine, which at first sight seems to be the most important exception to the afore-mention