I

Vol. i . No. L .D cember, 1935 263

S CRUTINY THOMAS HOBBES

A Quarterly Review

Edited byD. W. HARDING L.C. KNIGHTS

F. R. LEAVIS DENYS THON_PSON

CONTBHTS

ENGLISll POETRY IN TIIE SBVENTKENTII CENTLrRY, Page

by F. R. Leau/s 236

TH3 LADDERMAIIK T THEATILE, by T. R. Barnes 256

THO S HOBBES, by Mi¢hael Oake,ho. 263

TIIE ClIITICAL WRITINGS OF EOlIGE ANTAYANA,

by Q. D. Leavi, 278

Com Ts m D l wsws 296

EDITORIAL (p, 296). Tl e Soul o] Man in t&e Age o] Leis re,

reviewed by D.T. (p. 298). A Ptmue FOR POETRY, Janus andPoems by Louis Maeneice, reviewed by 1 rank Chapman (,p. 299).

W ,LU E PSON'S VERSS, review by H. A. Nason (p. 302).

HUCH M.ACDL RMID, review by F. I .. Leavis (p. 3o5). The Poe 's

Tongue, reviewed by Denys Thompson p. 306). Shakespeare's

Imagery anà What 1 Te[ls Us, reviewed by R. G. Cox (p. 3o9).

The Achievemen , o] T. S. Eliot, reviewed by ti. A. Mason (p. 3xI).

GROPIUS, The Ne v Architect«re and the BauhauS, reviewed by

Herbert Re.ad, (p. 3z3). DauGm'Y AND HOPmNS, review by F. R.

Leavis (p. 3z6). rie Powys Bro hers,. reviowed by F.Ii.L.

(p. 318). Tm Om GE I GSt,rD, review by F.R.L. (p. 3z9).

TI LAST EPIeUREAN, The Last Pttritan, reviewed by Q. D.

Leavis (p. 32o). Clear ttorizon (p. 328), King Coffin (2. 33o),Beany-Eye (p. 332)i reviewed by Q. D. Leavis. Chinese Tes ment

and The House o[ Exile, reviewed (p. 334). The South A¢Hca, s,rev[ewed (p. 338). The GoZden Grindst.one, reviewed (p. 34x).

}IE story of the forthnes of Hobbes and bis writings is notremarkable. He was attaeked by his contemporaries witha ferodty whieh reflects not only their sense of outrage but

also the'r sense of danger ; Ns writings were rejected, not because.they were bari philosophy, but becanse they were thought to havedangerous tendencies; bis doetrines, or many of them, were thènappropriated by other writers, their anthomhip first unacknowledgedand then forgotten ; his name began to appear in the works whichpassed for histhries of philosophy, but only his name ; towards theend of the nineteenth century there was a revival of interest inthe man aud his philosophy, a scholar's rev val and part of ageneral revival of interest in the past of English philosophy,bringing with it, noi ordy some of Ne best studies of Hobbes'swritings (e.g., those of TSnnies and Robertson), dissoveries of:mpublished MSS., and a collected edifion of his works, but alsohe beginning of what is caned ' Hobbes research' ; and then,

quite reeently, there was the diseovery ttmt Hobbes had a messagefer to-day, and with this discovery carne a flood of fresh liferatureand the foundation, in z929 aRer an international eongress inO:dord, of a Hobbes. Society. It is a eommon, il slightly sordid,5istory ; and perhaps it is difficult to determine which part of itì; the more sordid, the death or the exhumadon. Side by sideMth this story, however, must be pur another, not so long, but!ess inglorious : the story of his actual influence upon philosophicalspeeulafion, for it would be saie to say that he was never.withoutreaders. Leibnitz admired bis profundify; in spite of thetlominating figure of Locke, Diderot, at least among the

ncydopédistes, recognized his master, and Rousseau his creditor :Hegsl, in a few brilliant pagez in his Geschich e àer Philosopttie,sppreeiated his genius ; he was the aeknowledged father, in moderames, of English and German materialism ; and his plaee in the

kdnts' Calendar of Rationalism wa never disputed, though theres liffie or no ev dence to support the view that Hobbes was a»{oneer of Nntural Religian and Rafional Theology. As is so often

264 SCRUTINY

the case, Hobbes was more profoundly appreciated by those whowere content to read his wrifings than by those whose attenfionwas directed to ra sing a pubIie memorial to him.

The purpose of this arficle, however, is not to review thefortunes of Hobbes's philosophy, but to eonsider this contomporaryinterest in Hobbes and to consider the quality and effect of someof the more recent studies of bis work. And in what I have tosay I shall confine myself to the publications of the last ten yeaPs.JThe questions I want to ask are, What bave we Iearnt? and, Whathave we stili to learn?

There are certain dements in the contemporary interest inHobbes's writings which, since Hobbes is a philosopher, I shouldregard as unhealthy. In the fiat place, we are met with thesuggesfion that Hobbes is a writer whose work is peculiarlyapposite to the post-war world. ' tIobbes's philosophy,' we amtold, ' possessed precisely that ebaracter of balance and commonsense that made him foresee the Great War, and, furthermore, thesubsequent striving for peace re ulting from a comprehension ofthe disastrous consequences of hate and murder. A number ofscholars emphasized the face that the present pacifist movementfulfils the dreams of this great enemy of war.' Now this atfitudetowards the wrifings of such a man as Hobbes is, to say the least,both dangerous arad unprofitable, because it direets our attentioo

1I have selected the fo]lowing books, pamphlets and articles:F. Tónnies, Thomas Hobbes, Leben and Lehre. 3rd edifion (I925ì:F. Brandt, Thomas Hobbes" lkrechanieal Conception of Nat,.r(1928); A. Levi, La Filosofia di Tommaso Hobbes (i92q)"Z. Lubienski, Die Grunàlagen des ethisch-poIitischen Systems vo.Hobbes (z932); H. Schreihager, Thomas Hobbes" Sozialtheo,ie(x933); J. Laird, Hobbes (1934); Karl Schmitt, PolitischeTheologie (1934) ; Gierke, Natural Lato and the Theory o[ Socie*y,tr. Barker (r934); B. Willey, The Seventeenth Century Background(1934) ; E. F. Carritt, Morals and Polities (1935) ; P. Doyle, TheContemporary Baekground o] Hobbes" Siate of Nature, :.ra

Economica, Dec., 1927 ; Z. Lubienski, ttobbes" Philosophy andits Historical Background, in Journal of Philosophical Stud e

Aprii, I93o; L. Strauss, Quelques Remarques sur la Sde :,

Politique de Hobbes, in Recherches Philosophique, 1932.

THOMAS HOBBEs 265

towards all that is most superficiaI and least significant in thosewrifings. Every man, I suppose, has bis politica/ opinions, andsomefimes they are opinions whieh wil] interest and inspire agesother than his own. But a politica/ philosopher has somethingmore, and more signifieant, than political opinions: he ha

ananalysis of polifical activity, a comprehensive view of the natureof polifieal life, and it is this, and not bis political opinions, whichit is profitable for a later and different age to study. And il it iscontended that these polifical opinions belong themselves to thatanalysis, it must, neverthe]ess, remain a mistake to liff

t few ofthem out of the system of his thought and #ve them an independentexastence just because when regarded in this way they seem tomeet preserat needs. And were we content to go beck to Hobbea's

ritings and enquire what be means by ' war ' (for example), weeould searce]y avoid the conclusion that from this (in any case superficial) standpoint b.is views are no more signifieant at the presentt/me than at any other moment in the history of mankind. Imean,briefly, that, in general, the only healthy attitude towards the.waSfings of a philosopher is a philosophical attitude. Of coume its possible to take snippets from the wrifings of any man and use

them as texts for a sermon ; bue do not let us confuse this with astudy of his works or even with a gemfine attempt to discover thepresent signifieance of those works.

• Bue this atfitude towards philosephical writing is to be foundm a More radical form in some of the recent treatments of Hobbes'sphilosephy. There is noe merely the suggesfion that the significantmeaning of his work lies in a few of bis less impressive remarks, bue'.be suggestion that, in the ordinary scuse, his writing has no meaningat all: ' Metaphysical utteranees which appear to be statementsf "faet '" are disguised imperafives, or at least disguised optafives ;

our sthdies of the philosophem wouM be more remunerafive il we*rene to them, noe for 'truth,' bue in order to discem whatpartieular fiat or utinam their teaching implies," writes Mr. Basil% tley. And he fol]ows it up with the remark that ' very nearly,!,'ery statement of Itobbes can be reduced either to hatred and:

ntempt or schoo]men and elerics, or to fear of civil war andve of ordered ]iving in a stable commonwealth.' Now, that

mrds bave an emotive as well as a referenfial use has, of coume,b--en knovm long enough ; it was recognized by Hobbes himself,

266 SCRUTINYTHOMAS HOBBES 267

for example (Leviathan, p. 525). But it appears to have beenreserved for more modera times te resolve all language into emotivesymbols ; and this resolution, thvolving a seIf-contxadiction and

carrvin with ii a philosophy of misology (il the phrase may pass),

mal es, I think, an unsatisfactory foundation open which to baseour study of a philosophie writer. And when we pass from thegeneral view to the particular illustration, the unprofitableness ofthis view no longer remains in any doubt : it is difficult to understand how anyone who had considered Hobbes's writings cou]deonsent to (mueh less suggest) this absurd ' reduetion ' ; ii is noteveo plansible. All the complexity of Hobbes's thought is sweptaside as irre]evant ; what cannot be reduced to hate or fear is noi

Hobbes. I suppose ii is imposs le to prevent a misologicaI critieIrato exercising his wits upon the wfitings of Hobbes, and somethininteresting may come of it in the end ;but what comes of ii willnever be a satisfactory interpretation of Hobbes'« meaning. Andfram anyone who undertakes a tour de [orco of this kind we mayperhaps ask for something more brilliant. Certainly ' ii is salutaryto remthd ourselves that in the Leviathan Hobbes has a "' suasive "purpose,' but to Sud nothing but this in the Leviathan, and toconclude from our reading that '. almost in Chinese fashion, he ibringing doetrines to a pragmafie tesi. Do they or do they notmake for the maintenance of lawful anthority? he is asking,'suggests that a closer attenfion might be given to the text. Thstphilosophem often entertain ambitions extraneous to philosophyis known well enough, and that some of them appear to be unab]eto prevent these ambitions from contamthating their writings ia sad fact; bui to select one of these extraneous purposes---tbat

of the preacher--as the sign ficant characterisfic of a piece ofphilosophic writing appears to me to indicate a misconceivedappraach to the study of ph asophy, and the result is likely io

be anything bui remunerative.New, if the philosophical study of a philosophy exelude

thi kind of attithde, it does noi exclude what may be called agenuinely historical attitude. The detailed considerafion of thactual meaning of a phiIosophical text, regardless of its presentsignificance or of any view we may hold about the trath or error

it eonta ns, is certainly valuable ; and, as we shall see, some c,!the best recent work en Hobbes is of this character. Hobbes, i,

v

' (:=,

the past, bas suffered from a deficiency rather than an excessof this kind of sthdy. There are new plenty of exceUent biog|aphies,noi a few good exposifions of the genera] outline of his systemand some interesting studies of bis colmexion with earlier andlater thought; what we need is more of those detailed, and atleast parfly b.istoñcal, studies and interpretafions of bis work. Butthe philosophical study of philosophy does, I think, exclude whatmay be called a merely bistorical study. There is, probably, lesspiace for a merely antiquafian interest in phi]osophy than elsewhere ; for what elsewhere is merely haxmless and at worst arteceentricity, in philosophy becomes dangetoas and positivelyn sieading. There will aiways be new pbilosophy, and what isnew may be valuable even if it is iníeñor to what we have a.lready.].t is the business of philosophy continuously to renew itselí. Andsuch new philosophy may arise fiore the study of what belongsto an earlier rime ; and the study of what belongs to an ear]ierrime is profitable, in the end, only when ii is relatori to a genuinerenaissauce. But the study, il ii is to result in anything valuable,must be elose : it is only by this detailed study of a philosophicalext that it can become, not merely an inher/tance, bui an

knspiration for ffesh tbought. Whether Hobbes's wrifings, whensludied in this way, can ever yield the philosophical inspirahonwhich has come from (for example) either Piste or Spinoza, is aquesfion which admits of considerable doubt ; bui, in any case,ii caanot be answered in advance, and the attempt (il it attractsus) is worth making.1

Setting en one side, then, these wilder and more wilíul treatrnents of the philosophy of Hobbes, let us consider what we havegot from our less speculative investments. Perhaps the most remarkabie of oar acquisitions----remarkable because it new appears odd

qn at lessi one respect Professor LaJ.rd appears to incline to theopinion that Hobbes can never be a source of philosophicalinspiration of this kind. He writes, ' we should probably be wiser;í we regarded him, noi as a living influence, but as voice from:he past whose clafity and incisiveness in a host of particularquestions is a perpetu ! refreshment and a persistent incitemento the unthinking of many prejudices and to the rethinking of

::notai theory.' (op. cit. p. 289.)

268 SCRUTINY

that we should have had to walt so long for it--is a surer graspof the connexion between Hobbes and the philosophy, particular]ythe politici philosophy, of the Middle Ages. And perhaps thismay be regarded as just one more detail in the mass of evidence thathas new been accumulated to support the view that the revolufionin politics, religion and philosophy which was believed to hax'etaken piace dufing the seventeenth eentury has (at 'any rate asregards its speed and comprehensiveness) been gros y exaggerated.It is surpfising new to turn back to those older studies of Hobbesand firtd hirn coupled with Bacon ; and to bave got fid of flfismisundemtanding puts us en the high road to a truer interpretatiorlof his system as a whole. Perhaps we were misled by Hobbes'spolemica against the schoolmen and by his personal connexionwith Bacon into this belief that he was a writer who owed litt]eor nothing to the Middle Ages and that he might be placed amongthe forerunners of modero science. But, whatever the cause of theerror, it may new be said to have pefished fmany. And ProfessorLaird's recent book does more than record the death of thismiseonception ; it has the great mefit of providing an interpretationof Hobbes's work whieh reeognizes the implicafions of this changeof view. la an age when philosophy was giving way at evez-,point to science, Hobhes stood firm: he had probably lesa patienceor sympathy for expefimental sciente than for anything else in thewofld--not excluding the Pepe. In detail he rejected the wholeof the echolasfie view, and he was among the first to subject thaìview to a thorough-going criticism. And of all his contemporariGalileo seems to have had greatest influence upon him. Bar hi_conception of the nature of philosophy and of philosophicalargument was much more nearly related to that of Scholasticismthan to the view of Bacon and his successore, Indeed. Hobbewas much tee shrewd a thinker to reject as completely as hopretended to reject, without diecriminafion or consideration, thewhole legacy of the scholastic philosophy. He was acutel?aware of its weakness, but he knew it to be, in part at least, agenuine philosophy ; and the expressions of hostility towards

which be allows himse]f afise, maJnly, from an extraneous, nonphilosophical interest and, if anytlfing is to be neglected, must ! .

neglected by a true interpretation of bis work. Wfifing of Hobbes'immediate predecessore, Professor Laird remarks that ' every or..e

=.;IS

qG,

«2 THOMAS HOBBES o9

:5

:,'!'ii¸¸"

of these authors would have admitted that Hobbes had played bishand without revoking. And the game that they all played had alsobeen played by Hildebrand, Aqumas, Gelson, 0ccam and Calvin-old-fashioned players, no doubt, but players who always knewhow many trumps were out.' And he concludes that howeverstartling Hobbian novelfies may be, they are nevertheless 'themoves of a master pisyer who knew and kept to the medimvaltalea.' And how great a revolution this view consfitutes in anmterpretadon of Hobbes's philosophy is known to those who have

een brought up en earlier exposifions.S0mething of the same kind of revolution has taken piace.

aiso, in our idias about the relafion of Hobhes and Atistotle. LikeBacon, Hobbes regarded Aristofle as a dead hand in philosophy,paralysing thought and inhibifing further advance ; and nobodywas more fierce than Hobbes in his belief that, wherever elseauthofity had piace, mere authofity had no place at all inphilosophy. But here, again, we may easily be misled by Hobbes'sn'uculence ; the 'Vain Philosophy of Aristotle ' taught him more• .han he ever admitted. The doctlines of the Metaphysics, theEthics and the Politics, it is true, influenced him litfle ; but I thinka closer study would show that he took more than he ever caredto acknowledge fiore the Rhetori¢. Of all the wrifings of Aristofle,

e Rhetori¢ was the one which Hobbes had studied mostprofoandly, and many of its doctfines entered deeply into hisphilosophy.

The recent studies of Hobbes's writings, then, retura a morediscffrninafing answer than hitherto to the quesfion, What is newio Hobbes? Our knowledge is greater, and out prejudice is lesathan that which earlier writers enjoyed and suffered from. Were no longer pledged to fmd in these writings nothing but the

gospel of modern materialism; and we know that even Lf that issull to be found, the philosophy of Hobbes is in the nature of apalimpsest. And, il there is danger ahead, it lies in the exaggerafionof the, at least, semi-medimval portrait with which this reeentwork presents us. For there can be no doubt that Hobbes's wrifingsde represent a profound revolution in European thought, therecan be no doubt that he was one of the most original ofphilosophers ; and our task new is to determine the relevance ofthe new setfing into which bis writings have been pur.

270 SCR U TINY

When we turn to consider, not merely what we bave learntduring the last tun years from these general treatments of Hobbes'sphilosophy, bnt whether these years have produced any siglfificantaddition to our detailed knowledge of bis writings, we have torecord Professor Brandt's Thomas Hobbes" Mechanical Conception

o] Na ure, perhaps the moet important study of these writingswhich has yet appeared. Originally published in Danish in 1921,and translated into Enghsh in 1928, this volume is one of thosedetailed examinations of philosophieal texts which are morevaluable than all the handbooks and genera] expositions oi Hobbes'sphilosophy that have ever been written. The programme of thework is set in its preface : ' This book proposes to show how themechanica] view of nature shaped itselí to Thomas Hobbes.Strange as it may appear, this problem has never been treated indetail. As soon as we leave the province of more general considerations and seek detailed informafion, we are as a mie ieft in thelureh by the Hobbes hterature which, as it is, is not very abundant.It is not only that a really critical account of Hobbes's naturaphilosophical main work De Corpore is still lacking, though somefew points bave been elucidated, but Hobbes's natura]philosophical process of development is as yet nebulous. Enquirersbave chiefly studied the main work wkich Hobbes published inbis sixty-seventh year, but have almost enfirely ignored the longprecess of development that mast have preceded it.' We have here,then, an elaborate and detailed study of the development of aman's ideas. The questions asked are, ' What did Hobbes aetuallymean when he said that eve thing must be explained mechanically ?Why did he think so? And, How did he arrive at this mechanicaipoint of view?' And in answering them many subsidiary pointshave to be decided. The chronology of Hobbes's early writinpresents difficulties; and in a writer apparently so independentas Hobbes, bis relation to, and obligation to, Descartes, Mersenneand Galileo is not easy to determine. Having sottled these andother prehminary questiona, Professor Brandt goes on to distinguisbtwo periods in the development of Hobbes's natural philosoph3: :the earlier, 163o to 154I, in which doctrines (many of themrecognizably Aristotehan) were propounded whieh were ]ater te,be rejected; and the Iater, 1641 to 1555, in whieh the viex , ci

the De Corpore (published in x655) was matured. And the work

f

i"

T

t •

THOMAS HOBBES 271

concludes with an elaborate examination of the De Corpore itself.It will be thought, pethaps, that an enquiry of this sort into the

minutim of a dead philosophy is a profitless undertaking, or thatit mast compare unfavoarably with more imaginative and lesameticulous experiments in philosophical interpretafion. Indeed,this may be expected to be the view of those intent upoa the.construction of a philosophy for themselves. But even they, ifsueh were their view, would be wrong. Ii we are to read philosophyat all, we must read it with care and take the pains necessary forits understanding ; and the exceptional value of Professor Brandt'swork ]ies in the thoroughnsss with whish it covers his subject. Itmay be remarked also that his forínulation of the questions to beansweced, and his whole conception of the business in hand, givea very fair guarantee of the usefuiness of his conclusions. Forwhat we must know about a philosopher, ii we are to understandbis philosophy, is no*, merely what he thought, but also why hethought it. Indeed, in philosophy, this what and this why areinseparable; taken apart each losss its meaning. In politica, mreligion, in practical life it is not always necessary to enquire intoa man's reasons for thinking as he does ; but in philosophy thesereasons are what give meaning to his conclusione ; and it is,perhaps, on account of this that mankind in general must be solittle interested in philosophy, and so litfle understand it, as alwaysto wish to assimilate it to what can more easily be appreciated byneglecting this characterisfic. Agleement between two men, .insome fields, may be siginficant even il it be merely agreementabout what is to be done, agreement about a conclusion ;but inphilosophy such agreement has no significance whatever ; no twophilosophers can be said to agree unless their conclasions and theirreasons for those conclusions alike coincide. And it is parficularlynecessary in the case of Hobbes to enquire into the reasons hegives for bis views, because he has, in the past, suffered greatlyat the hands of expositors who are content to press the aimilarityof some of bis views wffh those (for example) of Bodin, or evenMachiaveUi, and neglect altogether the dissimilarity of reasonwhich lies behind it. And even the much adverfised similaritybetween Hobbes and Spinoza almost disappears when theirdoctrines are closely exam ned. Hobbes's orig/nality consists almostwholly in the reasons he gives for bis conclusions, and a trae

z7 SCRUT1NY THOMAS HOBBES • 273

interpretafion of his work is impossible unle these are considered

with the greatest care.Now, il these are the rnost outstanding results of the study

to which, during the last ten years, the writinga of Hobbes havebeen subjected, there are also some important aequisitions of amore detailed character. Ten years ago it was possible forVanghan1 to write as ii Hobbes was something other than themost profoundly philosophical individualist in the history ofpohtical theory, to write as if he were to be classed among thosewhose views must be rejected by the Iiberal tradition, as if hisphilosophy were a reaetion agalnst the individualim-n of hls tirne,to assert even that Hobbes is ' the deadhest enemyof individualism.' .And this false interpretafion is nolonger possible: Hobbes, we can now see, had moreof the ground of libemlism in him than even Loeke. I thinkthat the true nature of Hobbes's individuallsrn has yet to fmd itsexpositor, we have still to wait for the interpreter who wiU showus that this iadividualism is based, nul upon any foundation inrnoral opinion at all, but upon a theory of knowledge, upon athorough-going nominalism and an almost as exh'erne sohpsism.But the pmgress which has heen made in this diredfion is alreadyenough to indicate the extent of the error involved in theso eaxlierviews. And again, it was ]ong customary to expound Hobbes'spohtieal philosophy as a philosophy of Fear; this for exa.mpleis what it is represented to be by Vanghan. But a doser study ofthe w6_tings has shown that Pride, and not Fear, is the mastereonceptiort of this polifical philosophy. But here, also, we bavestili to a ertain the full implieation of this revised view. And lastly,although it is (anfortunately) stili possihle for writers to simulatethe grotesque moral indignation to which both Vaughan andFiggis are apt to abandon themselves, we may fairly be said,duriag the past ten yeam, to have outgrown this kind of absurdity.I:[obbes, it has been said, ' put truth under the heel of poficy 'and ' dragged religion under the Juggemaut car of reason of state ' •and his theory has been described as 'one of unadulterateddespotisrn or nothing.' But these misconceptions, arlsthg froma failure fo make elementary disfinctions and from a fatal

• ii!

ignorance with regard to the foundations upon wkich Hobbes'sviews are based, are fast becommg errors of the past. And wemay now fmd even an otherwlse not pmfoundly instructedwnter wiUing to distinguish between absolutism and sovereignty,and thus rernove from the exposition, of Hobbes's ohtica]philosophy a longstanding misrepresentation paralleled only in itsfoollshness by the confusion of absolutis'm and the Absolute whicbused to disfigure the interpretations of Hegel.

The nñsundemtandings of the philosophy of Hobbes whichthe work of the last ten years has removed are, in the main,misunderstandings due to ignooance. And il we tura to inquire,What remains to be done? the answer must be that we bave yetto remore many misunderstandings due to lack of insight.'Research' will never take the place of thought ; and whatHobbes's philosophy stands in need of is a more profoundeonsideration.

The student of Hobbes's philosophy is ased with an initialdifficulty which requires to be met, not merely with patience, butwith faith--I mean the difhculty of beheving that Hobbes reallymeans what he appears to say. Iror what he says is so unhkewhat is commonly said, and appears at first sight to be soextravagant, that the reader is inclined to exclama, what Hobbeshimself is said to have exclalnisd Oh being presented with the proofof the forty-seventh theorem in Euclid's Elemen s..-' By God, thisis impossible.' And some readersI so impressed with theimpossibihty of what Hobbes says, conclude that he rneant something other than what he appears to mean, and ma.ke of hisphilosophy something more cornmonplace than it in fact is.Hobbes, we have to remember, is, of Enghsh philosophers, theone possessed of the greafest measare of philosoplùcal imaginat2on ;

and so comparatively rare is this in Enghsh philosophical writing,that we may almost be forgiven for faihng to appreciate it inHobbes. English philosophical writers are not, generally speaking,given to the eonstruction of systems ; and this abstinence is boththe strength and the weakness of English philosophy. But Hobbesdid construet a system, a complete and eomprehensive view ofthe universe ; and be conceived thls system with such imaginativepower that, in spite of its relatively simple chameter, it standseomparison with even the grand and imposing creation of Hegel.qn Studies in the History ot Political Philosophy (I925), Voi. ]:.

:L

g74 SCRUTINY

And further, he had the capacity, the patience and the oppoi unityto elaborate the details of this system so thomughly that, whateverits imperíectdons, it cannot be said to have been imperiectlyimagined or imperíecfly elaboratori. But if the power ofphilosophical imaginafion, a power possasaed by only the greatastphilosophers, is one Hobbes's most remarkablo qua]ities, it is alsothe sourse of some of the more obvious defects of his philosophica]writing. For his imaginative propensitios are not confmed to theconception of a comprehensive theory, they penetrate also theform of his exposition and his diction. To think in metaphorsand not to restrain one's fancy must always be defects in aphilosopher ; and Hobbes, while complaining of these fanlts inothers, suffered from them himselI. In Hobbes's writing iscxemplified both the virtue .and the danger of philosophicalimagination ; he is an imaginative thinker, but aiso an imaginativewriter. And it is not only the imaginative grasp of Hobbes'sphilosophical thinldng which make it remarkable in the historyof Enghsh philosophy : it has another equa]]y unexpeeted quality.Radicalism, extravagance, the intrepid toiiowing out of a theoryconceived in the stand manner and the absence of any sign ofalarm, dismay or compromise, are not qualities often to be found inEnglish thinkem ; but they flourish in Hobbes a]most unchecked.As a nation we are more easily alarmed at the creations of ourintellectual than at those of our praefica] acfivity ; and we donot require to be persuaded that truth and moderation lire inthe same street, we believe it en instinct. But Hobbes appearsnever to have been even tempted to make bis conclusions meromoderate than ho found them ; and compromise and foar had noplace in his intellectuai character. And en account of this, also,Hobbes's writings are sometimes as difficult to credit as they areto believe. But it is as Ioolish to doubt that a writer meanawhat he writes as it is insulting to doubt that a companion meaaswhat he says. And if we are te interpret Hobbes correctly, we mu !

avoid this mistake. There are, of course, writers who do no:know wh t they mean, but Hobbes certainly is not among thes£.

New, il our insight into the meaning of Hobbas's philosopb:.is hindered by this initial difficulty of crediting its doctrines, it

apt to be restricted by a failure to appreciate the fact that thLsystem is a phiiosophy'. We are content to take its doctrim-.

THOMAS HOBBES % 75

!%

!!,

,i

separately and are reluctant te follow I-Iobbes baek to thefoundation of his thought : we fmd imbedded in its superstructnreideas with which we think ourselves familiar and, ignorant ofwhat lies .underneath, we do not question that familiarity. Andbringing with us a somewhat different notion of what philosophy isfrom that which Hobbes himse]f en rtained, we fail to adjnst ourexpectations to what is offered es and consequently enti by misinterpreting it. Let us consider briefly three examples of therestricted insight into Hobbes's phi]osophy which arises from thisfa lure to appreei te i'¢s philosophiea] character.

It is often said that in Hobbes's view human nature isessentially selfish ; and this doctrine of the selfishness of man isrepresented as the foundation upon whieh be builds his social andpolitica] philosophy, as the premise of his reasoning. And it issuggested also that it is in his premises, and not in his reasoning,that his error lies. But wheu we turn to what Hobbes actua]lywrote, and treat it as a systematic whole, we find that the essentialselfishness of man is not, in Hobbes, a premise, but(il the doctrine is to be found anywhere) is a conclasion,the result of a long and complicated argument. His premiseis a doctrine of soIipgism, a behef in the essential isoladon of menfromone another, and expounded as a theory of know]edge. Thisisolation, it is trae, is modified by ' the most noble and profitableinvention of ali other,' speech ;but it remains a merely artificialmodification. And when thig genuino premise of Hobbes'sargument is appreciated, the attribution to him of the doctrine ofthe essentia] selfishness of man is seen at once to be mistaken.0thers have held an egoisgc view of human nature, and bavebased that view upon their observation of human behavinur ; butno such argument is to be foand in Hobbes. His doctrine is that eaehman is unavoìdab]y shut up within the world of his own sensafions ;and there is no more meaning in spealdng of him as 'selfish'than there is in speaking of anything else that is monadicallyconceived as selfish--the universe as a whole, or an eleetron. Herealso the reason for bellef conditinns the charaeter of what isbdieved.

Again, Hobbes's doctrine of authority has suffered from itsbeing iso]ated from the system of bis thought. Bnt here a]soHobbes's argument begins not from a view of the moral character

276 SCR UTINY THOMAS HOBBES % 77 I

of man as so many theories of authority begin, or from insightinto contemporary political needs, but from a view of the natureof man merely as an experiencing being. Hobbes's theory of lawand government has, indeed, no ethical foundation, in the ordinarysen e ;but it is conceived throughout in purely naturalistic terms,and begins in the the.oD" of language. The creafion of Ianguageand the establishment of the state are, for Hobbes, inventions ofthe rame character and serve the some end. The necessity of anabsolute sovereign in the community arises no?: from any anchsubsidiary observation as the misery of mankind without it, buiis a necessf y exact]y pamIleled by the necess]ty of fixing therneanings of names il language is te serve any useful purpose atai1. Hobbes's belieí in the necessity of a single decisive anthoritydoes not arise from his political fears, and he does not think ofthis authority as a pmefical expedient; it is eonceived andpresented by Hobbes as a logical necessity. Pascal raid,' Lomqu'on ne sait pas la vérité d'úne chose, il est ben qu'il y aitune erreur commune qui fixe l'esprit des hommes' ; Hobbesassorta that there is never anything but a common error, that truthitself is a common error, and that aiace what is important isthat it should be genuinely common, it must be fixed by authority.A laaguage which is understood by on]y a sing]e person and away of behaviour which is pumued by one man independenfly ofall other mea are, for Hobbes, examples of the same kind ofanarchy. And as anthority alone can put an end to anarchy inthe one case, anthority alone can pur an end to it in the other. Forwhat is remarkable in Hobbes's doctrine of authority, and whaten any other interpretaídon appears as a more contradiction, isthat it finds no place whatever for authority exeept in the controlof men's actions. Both the intellect and the conscience are excludedfrom its control, and they are excluded becanse when a man isby himself, whcn he is speaking to himself, it is not necessarythat the language he uses should be tmdemtood by others. Nobodywas a more determined opponeut that ttobbes of anything likeanthority in philosophy, in belief, in opinion ; and his standagainst the authority of Aristofle in phtlosophy is not merely notinconsistent with his view of the necessity of an abeolute authorityin rnatters of social conduct, but, when we consider upon whatthat view is based, is seen to be involved in it.

And thirdly, Hobbes's so-caned Erasfianism is different fromthe Erastianism of Erastus and different from the Erastianism ofany other writer whatever, because it is based upon differentreasons. His view of the piace of religion and a Church in aeommunity is a philosophical view ; that of Erastus and of thosewho follow him is noi more than an op/r on about what is mesieonvenient. Hobbes's view is based upon, not moral principles,bui the prineiples of his theory of know]edge, upon Ids doctfinesof nominalism and solipsism ; theirs is based upon expediency andan observation of the wor]d. And consequenfly they have, atbottom, Iittle or nothing in common. Hobbes, it has been said,'was an Emstian without limitafions,' and it is this absence oflimitations which makes it mis]eading to speak of him as anEmstian at all.

It appears, then, that Hobbes has come agaln ; surprisingly,there seems even to be a prejudice in his favour at the presentrime. But out business must be to see that in this appraranceho is neither applanded nor abused for views ho never held. Inpoint of knowledge we are in a better position with regard toHobbes than our pred cessors ; our business is to improve outinsight And I think our insight will become deeper when we aremore prepared to credit what ho says, when we are more firmlypersuaded of the error of taking his doctrines separately, and whenwe have grasped more surely that what we are offered by Hobbesis a phiIosophical system and nota mero collection of opinions. Andsomeday, perhaps, Hobbes's writings will suffer the fate which hasalready overtaken the works of some of the more notablephilosopher -they w/l! be understood by othem better than by theman who composed them.

MICHAEL OAKESHOTT.

A