1966.skinnerideologicalcontextofh'spoliticalthought

8/2/2019 1966.SkinnerIdeologicalcontextofH'sPoliticalThought

1/33

The Ideological Context of Hobbes's Political ThoughtAuthor(s): Quentin SkinnerReviewed work(s):Source: The Historical Journal, Vol. 9, No. 3 (1966), pp. 286-317Published by: Cambridge University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2637983 .Accessed: 18/04/2012 10:06

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The

Historical Journal.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cuphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2637983?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2637983?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup


2/33

The Historical J7ournal,Ix, 3 (I966), pp. 286-3I7Printed in Great Britain

III. THE IDEOLOGICAL CONTEXT OFHOBBES'S POLITICAL THOUGHTBy QUENTIN SKINNERChrist's College, Cambridge

THE modern reputation of Hobbes's Leviathan as a work 'incredibly overtop-ping all its successors in political theory'1 has concentrated so much attentionon Hobbes's own text that it has tended at the same time to divert attentionaway from any attempt to study the relations between his thought and its age,or to trace his affinities with the other political writers of his time. It has bynow become an axiom of the historiography2 that Hobbes's 'extraordinaryboldness'3 set him completely 'outside the main stream of English politicalthought' in his time.4 The theme of the one study devoted to the reception ofHobbes's political doctrines has been that Hobbes stood out alone 'against allthe powerful and still developing constitutionalist tradition',5 but that thetradition ('fortunately ')6 proved too strong for him. Hobbes was 'the first toattack its fundamental assumptions ',7 but no one followed his lead. Althoughhe 'tried to sweep away the whole structure of traditional sanctions ',8 hesucceeded only in provoking 'the widespread re-assertion of accepted prin-ciples ',9a re-assertion, in fact, of 'the main English political tradition '.10Andthe more Leviathan has become accepted as 'the greatest, perhaps the solemasterpiece '" of English political theory, the less has Hobbes seemed to bearany meaningful relation to the ephemeral political quarrels of his contem-poraries. The doctrine of Leviathan has come to be regarded as 'an isolatedphenomenon in English thought, without ancestry or posterity .12 Hobbes'ssystem, it is assumed, was related to its age only by the 'intense opposition'which its 'boldness and originality' were to provoke.'3

The view, however, that Hobbes 'impressed English thought almost en-tirely by rousing opposition ',4 and that consequently 'no man of his time

1 R. G. Collingwood, The New Leviathan (Oxford, 1942), p. iV.2 For studies of Hobbes's reception, see J. Laird, Hobbes (London, I934), part III, pp.

243-3I7, esp. 247-57; H. R. Trevor-Roper, Thomas Hobbes' and 'The Anti-Hobbists', inHistorical Essays (London, I957), pp. 233-8, 239-43; J. Bowle, Hobbesand his Critics (London,I951); S. I. Mintz, The Hunting of Leviathan (Cambridge, I962), and incidental discussionsin other works cited below.

3 Trevor-Roper, 'Thomas Hobbes', p. 233.4 Bowle, op. cit. p. I3. 6 Ibid. p. 42.6 Ibid. p. 47. 7 Ibid. p. 42.8 Ibid. p. 43. 9 Ibid. p. I3.10 Ibid. p. I4.1 Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, ed. M. Oakeshott (Oxford, I946), Introduction, p. x.12 Trevor-Roper, 'Thomas Hobbes', p. 233. 13 Mintz, op. cit. p. I 5.14 Leslie Stephen, Hobbes London, I904), p. 67.


3/33

IDEOLOGICAL CONTEXT OF HOBBES S POLITICAL THOUGHT 287occupied such a lonely position in the world of thought '15seems to be much inneed of re-examination. For it can be shown that complex and ambiguousrelationships between Hobbes and the other political writers of his age have inthis way become misleadingly oversimplified. It has not been recognized thatto set against the hostility of his numerous critics there was also a popularfollowing for Hobbes's doctrines, particularlyon the continent. It has not beenrealized that Hobbes's theory of obligation was also critically studied at thesame time, and treated as authoritative, by a whole group of defacto theorists inthe English Revolution. The fact that these aspects of Hobbes's contemporaryreputation have been overlooked, moreover, can be shown to have given riseto a misleading view about the intentions even of his critics.

These affinities between Hobbes's doctrine and its intellectual milieu havenever been investigated.16 The attempt to see Hobbes against this ideologicalbackground, however, will not only produce an historically more completepicture. It can also be shown to be relevant in itself to questions about thenature of Hobbes's own contribution to political theory. For Hobbes's viewshave tended to get evaluated in a misleadingly unhistorical way. He has beentreated as a figure in complete isolation, the inventor of 'an entirely new typeof political doctrine'."7 He has thus come to seem an inevitable influence, anecessary point of departure, for other political writers of the time, includingHarrington and even Locke.'8 All such judgments, however, becomearbitraryor unhistorical when it is shown that Hobbes was in fact drawing onand contributing to existing traditions in political ideology, as well as helpingto refine and modify them. The prevailing view, moreover, about the meaningof Hobbes's own political doctrine depends in effect on discounting all suchevidence about his contemporary intellectual relations. It can be shown,similarly, that this in itself must reduce considerably the plausibility of suchinterpretations. It is the aim, in short, of the following study to show from aninvestigation of Hobbes's contemporary reputation that it is not possible todisconnect questions about the proper interpretation of Hobbes's views fromquestions about the ideological context in which they were developed.

The accepted view of Hobbes as a complete outcast from the intellectualsociety of his time, 'the bete noire of his age, '19has arisen at least in part from

15 G. P. Gooch, Political Thought in England: Bacon to Halifax (London, 19I5), p. 23.16 Bowle's book simply treats Hobbes's critics as 'representative' of a political tradition

which Hobbes is alleged 'singlehandedly' to have challenged. For a brilliant discussion, how-ever, of the relations between Hobbes's intellectual assumptions and their appropriate socialcontext, see Keith Thomas, 'The Social Origins of Hobbes's Political Thought', in HobbesStudies, ed. K. C. Brown (Cambridge, Mass., I965), pp. I85-236.17 Leo Strauss, Natural Right and History (Chicago, I953), p. i82.18 For this assumption, see esp. ibid. pp. 202-51; C. B. Macpherson, The Political Theoryof Possessive Individualism (Oxford, I962), pp. 265-70; R. H. Cox, Locke on War and Peace(Oxford, I960), esp. pp. 136-47 on the relations between Commonwealths, where it is claimedthat Locke's doctrine 'tacitly follows Hobbes', p. 146.19 Mintz, op. cit. p. vii.

I9 HJ ix


4/33

Z88 QUENTIN SKINNERa misleading restriction of the investigation. Although there have been valu-able studies of the numerous attacks made on Hobbes by his clerical enemiesin England, there has never been any study20of Hobbes's reception in his owntime on the continent. It has in general been assumed that Hobbes's views'proved equally noxious and combustible'21 abroad, and that he 'received thesame hard usage' as in England.22 It is clear, however, that there is in fact animportant distinction to be drawn between the many critics whom Hobbesprovoked at home and the many admirers he was to gain on the continent,especially in France.

Hobbes himself remarked with some bitterness in his later years on thecontrast between his reputation abroad, which 'fades not yet ,23 and the oppo-sition he continued to arouse in the English universities and in the RoyalSociety. The Royal Society always contrived to ignore him. But the foreignsavants were to show no such hostility. When Pierre Bayle came to summarizeso much of their achievement at the end of the century, in his Dictionary,he was to single Hobbes out as 'one of the greatest minds of the seven-teenth century ' 24And perhaps the greatest of the foreign savants, Leibnizhimself, cited 'the famous Hobbes' with his 'extreme subtlety' on manypoints.25 Leibniz completely disagreed with Hobbes's ethical and politicaltheory, 'which, if we were to adopt it, would bring nothing but anarchy .26Yet he still placed Hobbes among the highest, for (as he remarked in one of theMeditations) 'what could be more acute than Descartes in physics, or Hobbesin ethics? '27

Hobbes had first gained this high reputation among the continental savantsa generation earlier, during his eleven years' exile from the civil wars in Eng-land. He was then a frequent visitor at Mersenne's cell, which served duringthe I64os as perhaps the most important salon for the learned. Many of thescientists and philosophers Hobbes is known to have met there were to becomeavowed followers and popularizers of his political theories. Several of themcorresponded with Hobbes and even visited him after his return to Englandin i65I.28 Hobbes met there the physician Sorbiere, who was to publish thefirst French translation of Hobbes's De Cive, as well as a translation of DeCorpore Politico, both with fulsome prefaces in praise of Hobbes's political

20 Except for the brief, though valuable, remarks in Laird, op. cit. part III.21 Mintz, op. cit. p. 62.22 Ibid. p. 57.23 Thomas Hobbes, 'Considerations', The English Works, ed. Sir WV.Molesworth (London,

II vols., I839-45), IV, 435.24 Pierre Bayle, Dictionnaire Historique et Critique (Rotterdam, 4 vols., i697), III, 99-I03.Note: in this and all following quotations from seventeenth-century sources all translations aremine, all spelling and punctuation are modernized.25 G. W. Leibniz, Opera Omnia (Geneva, 6 vols., I768), I, 5, 256.26 Ibid. IV, 360.27 Ibid. VI, 303.28 On visits, see Thomas Birch, The History of the Royal Society (London, 4 vols., I756),

I, 26-7; S. Sorbiere, A Voyage to England (London, trans. I709), pp. 26-7.


5/33

IDEOLOGICAL CONTEXT OF HOBBES S POLITICAL THOUGHT 289system.29He also met the mathematician Du Verdus, who was later to producea further translation of De Cive, with a preface recommending it to LouisXIV as suitable for use in all French schools.30 He met Gassendi, whose re-marks about the freedom and clarity of Hobbes's political thought were to beinserted in the second edition of De Cive.3' Mersenne himself wrote similarlyof 'the incomparable Hobbes', whose De Cive had shown that politics couldbe made a study as scientific as geometry.32A large number of letters sent toHobbes at this time by other French admirers reveal the extent of his popu-larity and ideological relevance in France, as well as the efforts which thesedisciples made to ensure that the works of 'this great politician' became widelyknown.33

This continental acceptance of the relevance of Hobbes's doctrine was to bereflected in the political propaganda of the De Witt party in Holland34 aswell as among the apologists for absolutism in France. In Holland Velthuysenwelcomed the publication of De Cive with a dissertation in the form of a letterto its 'most celebrated' author, pointing out 'how much you will see my ownviews bear the closest affinity to the views of the great Hobbes '.35 'Thefamous Hobbes' is cited throughout this Dissertatio as the authority on thenature of man, on the relations between natural and human laws, and on thepower of the civil magistrate.36In France Merlat similarly used the viewpointof 'that famous Englishman, Hobbes' as a basis for the argument of hisTraite du Pouvoir Absolu.37Although he claimed to disagree strongly withHobbes on the question of man's natural unsociability, his own view of theorigins and the necessary form of political society both cited and closelyfollowed Hobbes's characteristic account. Hobbes was 'undoubtedly correct'to see that 'the malice of most men would ruin a Society', and so was correctto deduce not only that this 'established in general the need for politicalpower', but also that it required that such power should be absolute. And forfurther elucidation Merlat simply referred 'the curious' to Hobbes's ownworks.38

29 See, in Elements Philosophiques du Citoyen (Amsterdam, I649), Sorbi6re's translation ofDe Cive; Le Corps Politique ou les Elements de la Loi Morale et Civile (Amsterdam, I652), histranslation of De Corpore Politico.30 See, in Les Elements de la Politique de Monsieur Hobbes (Paris, i66o), Du Verdus's trans-lation of De Cive.31 Gassendi to Sorbiere: printed in Thomas Hobbes, Elementa Philosophica De Cive(Amsterdam, Ii647), sig. **, ioa-b.32 Mersenne to Sorbibre; printed in ibid. sig. ii a-b.33 For a special study of this group and its correspondence with Hobbes, see my article,'Thomas Hobbes and his Disciples in France and England', Comparative Studies in Societyand History, viii (I966), 153-67.34 See Johan de la Court, Consideratien van Staat (n.p., i66i); A. Wolf, 'Annotations',Correspondence of Spinoza (London, 1928), p. 446.32 Lambertino Velthuysen, Epistolica Dissertatio (Amsterdam, i65I), p. 2.36 Ibid. pp. 35 ff., I36 ff., I75 ff.37 E. Merlat, Traite du Pouvoir Absolu des Souverains (Cologne, i685).38 Ibid. pp. 2I9-22.

I9-2


6/33

290 QUENTIN SKINNERHobbes's political theory was to be critically studied as well as merely

popularized among his contemporaries on the continent. His sympatheticreaders, moreover, included some of the greatest names. It is a commonplacethat Spinoza's Tractatus Politicus shows the effects of 'a critical reflection onHobbes's theory' in 'its content and terminology as well as its method .The affinity was recognized at the time, particularly by critics, who oftenbracketed Spinoza together with Hobbes in a general denunciation.40 It isknown from his correspondence that Spinoza himself recognized his affinitieswith Hobbes.41 It is known from Aubrey's biography that Hobbes himself(anticipating much modern commentary)42recognized in Spinoza's politicaltheory an equally pessimistic but even more rigorous development of hisown assumptions.43 It was among the continental jurists, however, thatHobbes's political doctrines were to set off the strongest echoes. Even thehostile traditionalists were to acknowledge his immediate impact. SamuelRachel, professor of Law at Holstein in the i66os, remarked-very instruc-tively-on the dangerous fact that while 'many learned and good men inEngland have been roused' against 'this novel philosophy of Hobbes', yet it'has been greedily swallowed by some in France and the Netherlands, andeven in Germany . The jurists were sometimes hostile to Hobbes's views,but in their works he none the less joins the ranks of the great-a name tocite with the Ancients, and to stand with Grotius and Pufendorf amongmodern authorities. Gundling was to use Hobbes as a source throughout hisworks, and in his De J7ureOppignoratiTerritorii cited Hobbes as his authorityboth in discussing the problems of establishing political society and on theneed for a monopoly of power within it.45 Textor in his Synopsis J7urisGentium gave Hobbes, along with Pufendorf, as the authority to be cited indiscussing both the distinction between 'the Natural Law of Man and ofStates' and 'the origins of Kingdoms and the ways in which they are acquiredunder the Law of Nations '.46 Beckman in his MeditationesPoliticae gave a listof authorities on political theory in which he singled out, as 'the two incom-parable men to be consulted in these matters', Hugo Grotius and ThomasHobbes.47Grotius was conventionally the greatest name to cite in discussions

39 Benedict de Spinoza, The Political Works, trans. and ed. A. G. Wernham (Oxford, I958),Introduction, pp. I, I 2.40 E.g. Richard Baxter in The Second Part of the Non-Conformists Plea for Peace (London,i68o); William Falkner in Christian Loyalty (London, I679); and Regnus 'a Mansvelt, ascited in the Introduction to The Moral and Political Works of ThlomasHobbes (London, I750),p. xxvi n. 41 See Wolf, op. cit. Letter 50, p. 269.42 E.g. S. Hampshire, Spinoza (London, I95I), pp. I33-6.43 See John Aubrey, Brief Lives, ed. A. Clark (Oxford, 2 vols., I898), I, 357.44 Samuel Rachel, Dissertation on the Law of Nature and of Nations (I676), trans. in J. B.Scott (ed.), The Classics of International Law (Washington, 2 vols., I9I6), II, 75.45 N. H. Gundling, De Jure Oppignorati Territorii (Magdeburg, I706), p. i6. Also men-tioned Hobbes in De Praerogativa (n.d.) and in Dissertatio de Statu Naturali (I709).46 J. W. Textor, Synopsis of the Law of Nations (i68o), trans. in L. von Bar (ed.), TheClassics of International Law (Washington, 2 vols., I9I6), ii, 9 and 82.47 J. C. Beckman, Meditationes Politicae (Frankfort, I679), p. 7.


7/33

IDEOLOGICAL CONTEXT OF HOBBES S POLITICAL THOUGHT 29Iabout iusgentium, but Beckman was later to decide that it was Hobbes's namewhich 'deserved to be praised before all others'*48

The most careful student of Hobbes among the seventeenth-century juristswas to be Pufendorf himself, in his effort to construct a systematic juris-prudence out of a 'reconciliation between the principles of Grotius andHobbes '.49 His great treatise of I672, De YureNaturae et Gentium, treatedHobbes throughout as an authority on many of the points at which (inPufendorf's favourite phrase) 'scholars are not yet agreed ',50as well as provid-ing perhaps the most intelligent analysis by a contemporary of Hobbes's politi-cal theory. Pufendorf was frequently critical of Hobbes, whose basic politicalaxiom, he felt, was 'unworthy of human nature '.51He was prepared, neverthe-less, to defend even this part of Hobbes's system, since he felt (as did Leibniz)52that Hobbes had been unfortunate in being 'interpreted with very great rigour,and with very little reason, by some learned men . Pufendorf remainedclose and sympathetic to Hobbes's views, moreover, at two important points,corresponding to Book II of his Treatise, on man and society, and Book VII,on the establishment of States. In Book ii, although Pufendorf remainedsceptical about 'that War of all men against all which Hobbes would intro-duce', he conceded that Hobbes 'has been lucky enough in painting the in-securities of such a state', and concluded that if the theory is treated 'only byway of hypothesis' it may well have a distinct relevance and cautionaryvalue.54In Book VII Pufendorf is even closer to Hobbes-closer, perhaps, even thanhis acknowledgments suggest. He begins by agreeing that 'what Mr Hobbesobserves concerning the genius of Mankind is not impertinent to our presentargument: that all have a restless desire after power'. And, though he remainedhostile to the theory of obligation which Hobbes deduced, he concluded (withextensive quotation from Leviathan) that 'Mr Hobbes hath given us a veryingenious draft of a civil State, conceived as an artificial man'.55It becomes clear that the immediate reception of Hobbes's political theoryon the continent was much less hostile than in England. There was a clearersense of the relevance as well as the importance of his doctrine. The distinc-tion has been largely ignored in modern commentary. It was recognized at thetime, however, not only by Hobbes himself, but by the first of his biographers,his friend John Aubrey. When Aubrey came to draw up his list of Hobbes's'learned familiar friends' for his biography, he treated it as a sad but un-doubted fact that 'as a prophet is not esteemed in his own country, so he wasmore esteemed by foreigners than by his countrymen .56

48 J. C. Beckman, Politica Parallela (Frankfort, I679), p. 4I7.49 Laird,Hobbes,p. 276.50 Samuel Pufendorf, Of the Law of Nature and Nations (London, trans. I7IO). CitedHobbes as authority on Law of Nature (in Book ii, ch. iv, and in viii, I); on consensus (ii,

iii); on contracts (v, ii); on sovereignty (vii, vii). 51 Ibid. p. 87.52 Leibniz, op. cit. v, 468. 53 Pufendorf, op. cit. p. II2.54 Ibid. Book ii, pp. 84-8. 55 Ibid. Book vii, pp. 5i8-26. 56 Aubrey, op. cit. I, 373.


8/33

292 QUENTIN SKINNERThe relations of Hobbes's political thought to the ideologies of the EnglishRevolution have been obscured as well as illuminated by the tendency ofscholars to concentrate exclusively on the fulminations of Hobbes's numerous

clerical opponents. It is true, of course, that among his contemporariesHobbes was particularlymarked out for his originality, particularlydenouncedfor his heterodoxy. It is evident, none the less, that his impact has been viewedin a misleading perspective. It can be shown (quite apart from the central issueof Hobbes's following) that the treatment of Hobbes's critics as 'representa-tive' of political theory at the time has been misleading in two important re-spects. It is a view based, in the first place, on a misleading oversimplificationof the nuances and complexities of different political ideologies of the time.For despite the many attacks Hobbes also gained a serious reputation as anauthority on political matters among many of the learned-even among thelearnedorthodox who remained uncommitted to any of his views. The acceptedview of Hobbes's reputation has been based, in the second place, on a mis-taken impression of the assumptions, and even the intentions, of Hobbes'scritics. It has not been recognized how much they feared not merely Hobbes'sdangerous doctrines, but their serious ideological purchase, not to mentiontheir popular following.

The serious reputation of Hobbes among 'the solemn, the judicious' wasconceded at the time even by his enemies.57By the end of the century Ilobbeshad come to be accepted as an authority even among philosophers of avowedlyopposed temperament. 'Tom Hobbes', as Shaftesbury was to admit, 'I mustconfess a genius, and even an original among these latter leaders in philo-sophy.'58 By this time Hobbes had attained the recognition he had alwayshoped for, in having his works placed (though amidst much controversy) in thelibraries of his own university.59 Within his own lifetime he was not withouta similar recognition. Selden and Osborne, who both revealed in their writingsa markedly 'Hobbesian' strain, were also (according to Aubrey) amongst theearliest serious students of Hobbes's political works. Osborne wrote of Hobbesas one of the men who had 'embellished the age ',60 while Selden is known tohave sought Hobbes's acquaintance oIn the strength of reading Leviathan.In a similar spirit Hobbes's friend Abraham Cowley 'bestowed on him animmortal Pindaric Ode ',62 the fulsome sentiments of which were to be echoedby Blount's remarks on Hobbes as 'the great instructor of the most sensiblepart of Mankind'.63

57 J. Eachard, SomneOpinions of Mr Hobbes Considered. Introduction distinguished Hobbes'sserious and popular following, anatomizing 'Hobbists' into pit, gallery and box 'friends'.See sig. A, 4a-b.68 A. A. Cooper, 3rd earl of Shaftesbury, The Life, Unpublished Letters and PhilosophicalRegimen, ed. B. Rand (London, I900), Letter to Stanhope, p. 414.59 See Thomas Hearne, Remarks and Collections (Oxford, ii vols., I885-1921), X, 75 and

322. 60 Francis Osborne, A Miscellany (London, I659), sig. A.61 Aubrey, op. cit. I, 369.62 Ibid. p. 368. 63 Charles Blount, The Oracles of Reasonz London, I693), p. 104.


9/33

IDEOLOGICAL CONTEXT OF HOBBES S POLITICAL THOUGHT 293Although such tributes to Hobbes mainly came from his less conventional

friends, his recognition was not confined to them. Hobbes had a number ofclerical admirers,64among whom must be counted that very type of a Restora-tion bishop, Seth Ward. Ward was suspicious of Leviathan, disliking itsattack on the universities. Yet he acknowledged 'a very great respect and avery high esteem' for its author,65 and possibly wrote the Epistle prefacingDe CorporePolitico, in which Hobbes's 'excellent notions' on 'the grounds andprinciples of Policy' are 'commended as the best that ever were writ .66James Harrington wrote of Hobbes in a very similar way. Although suspiciousand critical of Leviathan he nevertheless agreed 'that Mr Hobbes is and will infuture ages be accounted the best writer at this day in the world '.67 And, whileHarrington looked to future ages, a reference by Webster to Hobbes and theAncients completes the eulogy. There was no need, Webster claimed, torevere too much the views of the Ancients on statecraft. Although they hadproduced works 'of singular use and commodity', yet 'even our own country-man Master Hobbes hath pieces of more exquisiteness and profundity in thatsubject than ever the Grecian wit was able to reach unto'.68

These anticipations of Hobbes's modern reputation were echoed at thetime even among his critics. These acknowledgments of Hobbes's staturehave been suppressed in modern commentary. Even the critics agreed, how-ever, in seeing Hobbes not only as 'a man of excellent parts ,69 a man 'singu-larly deserving in moral and socratical philosophy ',70 but even as a writer'of as eminent learning and parts as any this last age hath produced .71Leviathan, as even its bitterest critics allowed, was the work of 'a universalscholar '.72 The recognition of its author's 'mighty acumen ingenii ',7 moreover,caused the critics to move with some circumspection in their attacks. Hobbeswas 'a man with so great a name for learning', as one critic admitted, that thebest he could hope to do was to 'fling my stone at this giant, and I hope hithim .7 Clarendon, too, prefaced his statesmanlike attack by conceding howdifficult it was to contest the 'great credit and authority' which Leviathan hadgained 'from the known name of the author, a man of excellent parts'. Asmuch as any follower, he joined the other critics in acknowledging Leviathan-

64 Aubrey's list of Hobbes's closest friends included four clergymen (see Aubrey, op. cit.I, 370).

65 Seth Ward, A Philosophical Essay (Oxford, I652), sig. A, 3 a.66 Thomas Hobbes, 'To the Reader', De Corpore Politico (London, 1650). Cf. ThomasHlobbes, The Elements of Law, ed. F. Tonnies (London, I889), Introduction, p. vii.67 J. Harrington, 'The Prerogative of Popular Government', Works(London, I771), p. 241.68 J. Webster, Academiarum Exainen (London, I654), p. 88.69 Alexander Rosse, Leviathan Drawn out with an Hook (London, I653), sig. A, I2a.70 Philip Scot, A Treatise of the Schism of England (London, i650), p. 223.71 Roger Coke, A Survey of the Politics (London, i662), sig. A, 4a.72 Johln Dowel, The Leviathan Heretical (Oxford, I683), sig. A, 2a.73 Villiam Lucy, Observations, Censures and Confutations of Notorious Errors in Mr Hobbeshis Leviathan (London, I663), p. I I7.74 William Lucy, Examinations, Cenisuiresnd Confutations of Divers Errors in the Two FirstChapters of Mr Hobbes his Leviathan (London, I656), sig. A, 5a.


10/33

294 QUENTIN SKINNERwith whatever alarm-to be a work 'which contains in it good learning of allkinds, politely extracted, and very wittily and cunningly digested, in a verycommendable method, and in a vigorous and pleasant style '.75

It is clear, moreover, that what disturbed the critics was not merely theserious reputation or even the alarming content of Hobbes's doctrines, buttheir ideological purchase, and their even more alarming popularity. Thispoint has been submerged under the weight given to the contemporaryattacks on Hobbes-though the number of attacks might in itself be thoughtto offer some paradoxicalguide to Hobbes's continuing popularity. The popu-lar acceptance of Hobbes's views, however, was a point which weighed withhis critics from the start. As early as i657 Lawson was to note how muchLeviathan was 'judged to be a rational piece' both by 'many gentlemen' andby 'young students in the Universities '.76 Within two years of its publicationRosse had expected to be attacked himself for denouncing so fashionable awork.77By I670 Tenison felt obliged to admit that 'there is certainly no manwho hath any share of the curiosity of this present age' who could still remain'unacquainted with his name and doctrine'.78 Clarendon noted at the sametime how much Hobbes's popularity continued to weather every attack, howmuch his works 'continue still to be esteemed as well abroad as at home '.7 Bythe time of his death Hobbes had grown 'so great in reputation', as Whitehallangrily remarked, that even apparently 'wise and prudent' men had come toaccept his political views, which 'are daily undertaken to be defended .80

Hobbes's enemies doubtless wished to emphasize the menace, but there isindependent evidence about the extent of Hobbes's contemporary popularity.A catalogue of 'the most vendible books in England' which happens to sur-vive for the year i658 included all of Hobbes's works on political theory,and showed him one of the most popular of all the writers listed under'humane learning', surpassed in the number of his entries only by Bacon andRaleigh.81 Twenty years later Eachard was to make the figure of Hobbes inhis Dialogue reply to his detractors by pointing out that despite their strictureson his works they 'have sold very well, and have been generally read andadmired .82 The printing history for all of Hobbes's political works certainlybears this out.83 De CorporePolitico, originally published in i65o, reached a

7 Edward Hyde, earl of Clarendon, A Brief View and Survey of... Leviathan (Oxford,I676), sig. A, i b.

76 George Lawson, An Examination of the Political Part of Mr Hobbes his Leviathan(London, I657), sig. A, 2b. 77 Rosse, op. cit. sig. A, 4b.

78 Thomas Tenison, The Creed of Mr Hobbes Examined (London, I670), p. 2.79 Clarendon, op. cit. sig. A, 3 a.80 John Whitehall, The Leviathan Found Out (London, I679), p. 3."' W. London, A Catalogue of the Most Vendible Books in England (London, I658), sig. T,3 a, to sig. Z, i b.82 John Eachard, Mr Hobbes's State of Nature Considered, ed. P. Ure (Liverpool, 1958), p.

I4.83 For following details, cf. H. Macdonald and M. Hargreaves, Thomas Hobbes: a Biblio-graphy (London, I952), pp. I0-I4, i6-22, 30-6, 76-7.


11/33

IDEOLOGICAL CONTEXT OF HOBBES S POLITICAL THOUGHT 295third edition by I652, was immediately translated, and in its French versionwent through two further editions within the year. De Cive was first publishedin a very small edition in i642, but on being re-issued five years later it wentthrough three editions in one year. It was published again in I657, again inI669, as well as appearing in the two-volume collection of Hobbes's OperaPhilosophica which went through two editions in i 668. Translated into Frenchin I649, it had attained a third edition by I65I and a new translation by i 66o.Leviathan went through three editions in its first year of publication, and byi668 the book (as Pepys noted) was so 'mightily called for' that he had to paythree times the original price to get a copy,84 even though there had in factbeen two further editions of the work in the same year. It is a record of pub-lication not even rivalled by Locke (to take the most famous case from the nextgeneration), within whose lifetime the Two Treatises reached only three Eng-lish and two French editions.85

The failure to acknowledge this element of popularity has tended to givea misleading impression of the intentions of Hobbes's contemporary critics.They have been treated as attacking a single source of heterodox opinion. Itcan be shown, however, that they concentrated on Hobbes not because hewas seen as the 'singlehanded' opponent of tradition, but rather because hewas seen to give the ablest and most influential presentation to a point of viewwhich was itself gaining increasingly in fashionable acceptance and in ideo-logical importance. To the more hysterical critics it even seemed possible tobelieve that 'most of the bad principles of this Age are of no earlier a date thanone very ill Book, are indeed but the spawn of the Leviathan .86 By the time ofthe i688 Revolution, when the question of allegiance to defacto power wasagain (as when Leviathan was first published) the central issue of politicaldebate, it seemed to the last exponents of passive obedience that the 'authorityand the reasons' of Hobbes's political theory 'are of a sudden so generallyreceived, as if the doctrine were Apostolical .87 By this time (according toAnthony 'a Wood, Hobbes's old Oxford enemy) Leviathan had already'corrupted half the gentry of the Nation '.88 The suspicion of Hobbes's leadingcontribution to 'the debauching of this generation'89was the moving spiriteven with some of Hobbes's most statesmanlike critics. Richard Cumberlandexcused his long philosophical attack on Hobbes with the hope that he might

84 Samuel Pepys, The Diary, ed. H. B. Wheatley (London, 8 vols., I904-5), VIII, 9I.The 'three editions' of Leviathan in i65 I may of course be slightly misleading, as the secondtwo are evidently false imprints-contemporary, but precise dates unknown.85 See John Locke, Two Treatises of Government, ed. P. Laslett (Cambridge, 1960),Introduction, appendix A, pp. I2I-9.86 Charles Wolseley, The Reasonableness of Scripture-Belief (London, i672), sig. A, 4a.87 Abednego Seller, The History of Passive Obedience since the Refornation (Amsterdam,

i689), sig. A, 4a.88 Anthony 'a Wood, 'Thomas Hobbes', Athenae Oxoniensis (London, 2 vols., i69I-2),

II, 278-483.89 J. Lymeric, life of Bramhall in Works of. .'.John Bramhall (Dublin, i676), sig. N, i b.


12/33

296 QUENTIN SKINNERlimit the increasing acceptance of Hobbes's political views.90 Even Clarendon,from the bitterness of his second exile, claimed to trace 'many odious opin-ions' back to Leviathan, 'the seed whereof was first sowed in that book'.91

A more realistic-and more revealing-assumption was that the reason forHobbes's doctrines being so 'greedily sought and cried up'92 was rather 'theprevalence of a scoffing humour' in 'this unhappy time .9 When FrancisAtterbury came to reflect a generation later on the ease with which the 'falseand foolish opinions' of that age had 'gotten footing and thriven', he had nodoubt that there had been 'something in them which flattered either ourvanity our lust or our pride, and fell in with a daring inclination'. And heparticularly mentioned Hobbes as a man who had 'owed all his reputationand his followers' to this 'skill he had in fitting his principles to men'sconstitutions and tempers'.94Earlier critics had nearly all made the same point.According to Lucy the popularity of Leviathan merely indicated 'the geniusthat governs this age, in which all learning, with religion, hath suffered achange, and men are apt to entertain new opinions in any science, althoughfor the worse, of which sort are Mr Hobbes his writings '.95And according toEachard-Hobbes's rudest, shrewdest critic-the age itself had thrown up somany 'who were sturdy, resolved practicants in Hobbianism' that they'would most certainly have been so, had there never been any such man asMr Hobbes in the world '.96

To some Hobbes was the leading symptom, to others the sole cause, of theincreasingly rationalist temper of political debate. But the point on which allcritics agreed was that Hobbes's popularity reflected a more widespread en-dorsement of his outlook. It was not Hobbes himself whom they were evenmainly concerned to denounce, but rather Hobbes as the best example of thealarming and increasing phenomenon of 'Hobbism'. Within Hobbes's ownlifetime the word 'Hobbism' was already in popular currency to denote 'awild, atheistically disposed' attitude to the powers that be,97 while the'Hobbists' were recognized as wanting to 'subvert our laws and liberties andset up arbitrary power '.98 The 'Hobbist' villain became a familiar parody onthe Restoration stage: in Farquhar's Constant Couplehe reads what appearsto be The Practice of Piety, but is in fact Leviathan under plain cover.99The'Hobbist' was also recognized, more seriously, as the political rationalist

90 Richard Cumberland, A Treatise of the Laws of Nature (i672) (trans. London, I727),Introduction, sect. xxx.91 Clarendon, op. cit. sig. *, 3a. 92 Baxter, op. cit. p. 8.93 Anonymous, Inquiry, cited from Mintz, op. cit. p. I36."" Francis Atterbury, Maxims, Reflections and Observations (London, I723), p. 66.95 Lucy, Examinations, sig. A, 3b. 96 Eachard, Some Opinions, sig. A, 3b.97 R.F., A Sober Enquiry (London, i673), p. 5I-98 John Crowne, City Politics (London, i683), p. 50.99 T. Farquhar, The Constant Couple (London, I700), p. 2: Vizard, 'This Hobbes is anexcellent fellow'. On this point generally, see L. Teeter, 'The Dramatic Use of Hobbes'sPolitical Ideas', E.L.H. III (936), I40-69.


13/33

IDEOLOGICAL CONTEXT OF HOBBES' S POLITICAL THOUGHT 297who assumed that God had left it 'arbitrary to men (as the Hobbeans vainlyfancy) 100 o establish their own political societies 'according to the principlesof equality and self-preservation agreed to by the Hobbists'.101 Locke in hisEssay contrasted the 'Hobbist' with the Christian, as a man who would justifyhis keeping of 'compacts' not by saying 'because God, who has the power ofeternal life and death, requires it of us', but 'because the public requires it,and the Leviathan will punish you if you do not'*102 Bramhall similarlyaddressed his Catching of Leviathan not merely to Hobbes, but to the man'who is thoroughly an Hobbist', with the aim of showing him that 'the Hob-bian principles do destroy all relations between man and man, and the wholeframe of the Commonwealth '.103

The 'Hobbists' and the followers of Hobbes, so alarming to contemporaries,have been almost totally discounted by modern commentators. The positiveideological affinities between the political views of Hobbes and his contem-poraries have in consequence received no attention. The one analysis of therelations between 'Hobbes and Hobbism' has claimed, in fact, that in Hobbes'sown time there was to be only one 'favourable' as against fifty-one 'hostile'published reactions to Hobbes's political views.104It is evident, however, thata great deal of information has been missed here. It has not always beenrecognized, in the first place, that most of Hobbes's critics (apart from themathematicians) were concerned not so much with his political doctrines aswith the allegedly atheistic implications of his determinism.105Only half of thetwelve tracts entirely aimed at Hobbes during his own lifetime were evenmainly concerned with his political thought.'06 This did not mean thatHobbes's specifically political doctrines were to receive less notice in his owntime. It can be shown that Hobbes had important affinities and connexionswith other strands of contemporary political debate, and that these wereboth recognized and sympathetically discussed. It can also be shown thatHobbes came to be cited and accepted within his own lifetime-independentlyof any close critical study-simply as an authority on matters of politicaltheory, even among writers who might never have read his works, or had readonly to confute them.It was his famous attempt to explain political association in terms of man'sneed to mediate his nasty and brutish nature which was to give Hobbes his

100 Anonymous, A Letter to a Friend (London, I679), p. 6.101Anonymous, The Great Law of Nature or Self-Preservation Examined (n.p., n.d.)(B.M. Catalogue gives I673), p. 6.102 John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (London, I690), Book i,ch. 3, para. 6.103 John Bramhall, The Catching of Leviathan (London, I658), heading to ch. It, p. 503.104 S. P. Lamprecht, 'Hobbes and Hobbism', American Political Science Review, xxxiv

(I940), 3 1-53, esp. p. 32.105 A point excellently made in Mintz, op. cit. p. vii, but also passim.106 See checklistin ibid. pp. 157-60.


14/33

298 QUENTIN SKINNERimmediate place in the accepted canon of writers on political theory. He be-came labelled as the writer who had thought of deducing the necessary formof the state from the imagined chaos of a 'state of Nature'. Just as Aristotleretained a reputation in the seventeenth century-even among his fashionabledenigrators-as the first writer who had emphasized man's natural sociability,so Hobbes gained a reputation as the first writer to reverse this traditionalemphasis. The point was often made even by writers who wished to repudiateit, or who wished to leave it an open question (as one writer put it) whether'as it was said of old' man was 'naturally sociable', or whether 'as a learnedmodern has said' he is 'compelled into Society merely for the advantages andnecessities of life .107

The clearest evidence of the tendency to link Hobbes's authority with thisparticular view is provided by the 'whig' writers on allegiance. The greatestof them happened also to be the most cautious in citation, but it was un-doubtedly on this point that John Locke came nearest to citing Hobbes in theTwo Treatises. The 'some men', it has already been pointed out, whom heattacked in chapter III of the Second Treatise for 'confounding' the state ofNature with a state of war 'can only be the Hobbesists'*108 Other populistwriterswere more forthcoming. Locke's friend Tyrrell frequently cited Hobbesas the man who believed that if subjects were released from their obligationthey would inevitably return to 'a state of Nature, that is (as he supposes) ofwar'*109 Samuel Mead's defence of the change of allegiance at i688 made thesame point."10Shaftesbury even hinted slyly at the valuable lesson which theHobbesian doctrine might contain. He wanted to 'agree heartily', he claimed,with those writers who had represented human nature, apart from govern-ment, 'under monstrous visages of dragons, Leviathans, and I know not whatdevouring creatures'. If there was a state of Nature, 'let it be a state of war,rapine and injustice', for 'to speak well of it is to render it inviting and temptmen to turn hermits'."1' And Algernon Sydney, the hero among the populistwriters, not only cited Hobbes in his Discourses in the same way, but withunequivocal approval. Twice he pointed out that, if the contract betweenmagistrate and people is ever 'extinguished', the inevitable result is a returnto 'the condition Hobbes rightly calls bellumomnium contra omnes, whereinno man can promise to himself any other wife, children or goods than he canprocure by his own sword .112

Hobbes's theory about political 'pacts ',113 the views of this 'eminent107 Anonymous, Confusion Confounded (London, i654), p. 9.108 See Locke, op. cit. p. 298 and note to para. I9.109James Tyrrell, 'Dialogue Three', Bibliotheca Politica (London, I694), p. I74. Also citesHobbes, pp. 153, 155-6, I69, i8i.'I0 Samuel Mead, Oratio pro Populo Anglicano (n.p., I689), sig. B, 3b-4a."I A. A. Cooper, 3rd earl of Shaftesbury, Characteristics, ed. J. M. Robertson (London,

2 vols., I9OO), ii, 83.112 Algernon Sydney, Discourses Concerning Government (London, 3rd ed., 175i), pp. 43,

342. 113 Anonymous, Vindiciae Juris Regii (London, I689), p. 27.


15/33

IDEOLOGICAL CONTEXT OF HOBBES S POLITICAL THOUGHT 299philosopher' about man's natural 'state of war',114 his attempt to base 'ascheme of human nature115 on this supposition, were attitudes which becameknown to the whole range of contemporary political writers, even thoughmany who cited this view showed no further concern with the deductionsHobbes was concerned to make from these axioms. The dread of anarchywhich the view implied was to raise further sympathetic echoes at the time ofthe Revolution in i688. The dangers pointed out in 'Mr Hobbes's notion ofpower' were readily reinforced by the enemies of defacto theory. He had al-ready shown the dangers of accepting power as a title to succession 'in makinghis state of war-for when all is left to strength and power, there is a state ofwar'*116 The defacto theorists, however, were able to make use of the samewarning themselves. Several of them justified the change of allegiance whena prince 'can no longer govern' on the grounds that society would otherwise'dissolve into a mob, or Mr Hobbes's state of Nature'*117 It is clear that'Hobbes's state of Nature' was by then a phrase in recognized usage. In I673,for example, Dryden had been attacked on the grounds that he had representedmen in one of his plays 'in a Hobbian state of war .18 By i 694 Lowndeassumed that to write of man's natural sociability might be thought absurd,as it differed so much from the views of 'learned persons', among whom heparticularly mentioned Hobbes.119It was undoubtedly this uncritical tendency to associate Hobbes with aparticular view about the 'state of Nature' which gave him his widest con-temporary reputation. It can also be shown, however, that his political theorywas the subject of more genuine critical appraisal. Hobbes can occasionally befound cited as an authority by contemporaries even on details of his politicaltheory-on the nature of political reasoning ;120 on the extent of sovereignpower ;121 and especially on the rights of the civil power in ecclesiasticalaffairs.'22It was chiefly his view of political obligation, however, which causedHobbes to be treated among contemporary writers as an authority. He wasdiscussed (guardedly, but with some admiration) by some of the most tradi-tionalist theorists of absolutism, with whose views on allegiance Hobbesretained close affinities. He was also discussed (with the closest and most sym-pathetic attention) by the most radicaltheorists of defacto rule, amongst whomhis treatment of political obligation became an important model.

114 Anonymous,TheParallel(London, i682), p. I2.115 Anonymous, Animadversions on a Discourse (London, I69I), p. i6.116 E.g. Anonymous, The Duty of Allegiance (London, I69I), p. 53."' William Sherlock, The Case of the Allegiance Due to Sovereign Powzers London, I69I),p. 38.118 Anonymous,The Censure f the Rota (Oxford, I673), p. 3.119 J. Lownde, A Discourse Concerning the Nature of Man (London, I694), sig. A, 5a and6b. 120 Harrington, 'Politicaster' in Works, p. 559.121 Sir William Petty, The Petty Papers, ed. the marquis of Lansdowne (London, 2 vols.,

1927), I, 219.122 E.g. Anonymous, A Treatise of Human Reason (London, I674), pp. 44-5; Scot, op. cit.

p. 140.


16/33

300 QUENTIN SKINNERThis contemporary acceptance of Hobbes's authority on defacto power has

passed almost completely unnoticed. The first of these affinities, however-with the traditional absolutists-was widely commented on at the time. Onecritic even compared Hobbes to Sibthorpe and Manwaring, the two royalchaplains arraigned in the i6zos for preaching that the will of the king wasabove the law.123Aubrey too mentioned Manwaring (and Wood added Sib-thorpe) as a preacher of Hobbism before Hobbes.124 The 'whig' critics ofabsolutism similarly exploited this affinity between Hobbes and monarchistslike De Moulin, Wren, and especially Filmer-a point which has been takenup by several scholars.125 Tyrrell's attack on Filmer included the charge(echoed in Sydney's Discourses)'26 that he had borrowed directly fromHobbes.127 One of Locke's earliest notes about political theory copied outFilmer's words of warm approbation for Hobbes's views on sovereignty. Andit was Locke (in one of his notebooks) who was to ask rhetorically, of SamuelParker's erastianism: 'how far is this short of Mr Hobbes's doctrine?128 Thedifferences are great, but these critics were arguably correct to see a commontradition between Hobbes and the Patriarchalists. Although the Patriarchaldiscussion of man's nature was characteristically in scriptural terms, therewas a curious parallel even here between their invocation of fallen man andHobbes's assumption of innate wickedness as a political premiss. Theselinks have even prompted speculation about the influence of Calvinist indi-vidualism on Hobbes129as well as the influence of Hobbes on other theoristsof absolutism.130There is a further parallel in the Patriarchal deduction ofabsolutism from the needs of political society. It has been remarked, indeed,by a great authority, that in a writer like Dudley Digges, with his discussionof men's 'unavoidable occasions of quarrel' in a state of Nature, and their'prime dictate of nature, the preservation of themselves '131 we 'might bereading a popular abridgment of the Leviathan'.132

The parallels seemed sufficiently close to be uncomfortable to several of thePatriarchalists themselves. Among their works published at the time of theExclusion Crisis there were several attempts-notably by Mackenzie andFalkner-explicitly to dissociate their views on monarchy from the views of

123 Whitehall, op. cit. p. 7. 124 Aubrey, op. cit. I, 334.125 On De Moulin and Hobbes, see P. Zagorin, A History of Political Thzoughtn the EnglishRevolution (London, I954), p. 7i and note; on Wren and Hobbes, see Locke, op. cit. p. 75 n.;on Filmer and Hobbes, see W. Haller, 'Introduction' to Tracts of Liberty in the Puritan Re-volution (Columbia, 3 vols., I934), I, 3.126 Sydney, Works, p. i88.127 J. Tyrrell, Patriarcha Non Monarcha (i68i), cited in Locke, op. cit. p. 7i n.128 For Locke on Filmer, see ibid. p. 33. For Locke on Parker, see Maurice Cranston,John Locke, a biography (London, I957), p. I33.129 Phyllis Doyle, 'The Contemporary Background of Hobbes's 'State of Nature', Eco-nomica, vii (I927), 336-55.130 E.g. G. Lanson, Bossuet (Paris, I89I), pp. I84-28I.131 Dudley Digges, The Unlazfulness of Subjects TakinzgUp Arms (n.p., i643), p. 3.132 J. N. Figgis, The Divine Right of Kings (London, 2nd ed., I9I4), p. 239.


17/33

IDEOLOGICAL CONTEXT OF HOBBES 'S POLITICAL THOUGHT 30IHobbes.133Ten years before this, Tenison had taken care in his Examinationof Hobbes's doctrines to explain away the fact that he had been the subject of'reproach myself, as a favourer of such opinions .134 Hobbes's unyieldingsupport for the absolute power of kings, particularly in ecclesiastical matters,was nevertheless a doctrine attractive to many of the most traditional mon-archists, a few of whom even acknowledged Hobbes's authority. BishopParker wrote of his own account of magistrates' powers that it 'savours not alittle of the Leviathan. But how can I avoid it? Are not these my own words?Though that I might deny, yet I am content to confess that I have said some-thing not much unlike them.'135Even Clarendon wrote of Hobbes's discussionabout churches in a Christian Commonwealth that it was a 'faultless Chapter',and provided a particularly 'proper' theme 'for his excellent way of reason-ing'*136 And the most fulsome tribute to Hobbes's theory of Sovereignty wasto come from the most prominent of the Patriarchalists, Sir Robert Filmerhimself. He wrote a shrewd critique of Hobbes's account, but prefaced it withthe admission that 'with no small content I read Mr Hobbes's book De Cive,and his Leviathan, about the rights of sovereignty; which no man, that Iknow, hath so amply and judiciously handled '.137

It was amongst the theorists of defacto rule, however, that Hobbes in hisown time was to receive the closest and most sympathetic consideration. Itwas essentially their rationalist and contractarian account of the rights bothof subject and sovereign which was on trial at both of the great crises overpolitical obligation in the English Revolution. It was on trial in I649, with theestablishment of the Commonwealth's defacto rule after the execution of theking; it was on trial again in I689, with the replacement of James II's de iurepower by the rule of the 'Great Deliverers' William and Mary. It can be shownthat in both crises many theorists of defacto rule were to make specific use ofHobbes's authority in coming to terms with their new governors. It is thediscussion of Hobbes's viewpoint by these writers which provides the mostunequivocal though least recognized evidence about both the contemporarypopularity and the serious ideological relevance of 'Hobbism' in the politicalthought of the English Revolution.

By the time of the 'Glorious Revolution' most writers on political obliga-tion had grown far too wary or sophisticated to think of trying to support anyde facto case by invoking the dangerous reputation of the Commonwealththeorists. They preferred to argue that the new authority was based not on theneed to submit but on the citizens' free consent. It was one of their hopes,

133 George Mackenzie, lus Regium (Edinburgh, i684), sig. H, i a; Falkner, op. cit. esp.PP. 407-I I .134 Tenison, op. cit. sig. A, 2b.

135 Samuel Parker, A Defence and Continuation of the Ecclesiastical Polity (London, i67I),p. 279.136 Clarendon, op. cit., cited in B. H. G. Wormald, Clarendon (Cambridge, I951), p. 304.137 Sir Robert Filmer, 'Observations Concerning the Original of Government', Patriarchaand Other Political Works, ed. P. Laslett (Oxfoid, I949), p. 239.


18/33

302 QUENTIN SKINNERindeed, that they could demonstrate the need for submission 'without assert-ing the principles of Mr Hobbes'*138 Their typical assertion was 'that ourGovernment is now thoroughly settled, and that we who submit to it cannotbe charged with Hobbism, since we do not say that any Prince who has quietpossession of the throne can claim our obedience, but only such as are con-firmed and settled in it by the determination of our representatives'. 139

One group of writers continued, however, to argue in terms of de factopower. And it is clear that this side of the debate was never far from repeatingHobbes's most characteristic views. The centre of this controversy, at thetime of the i688 Revolution, was the 'defacto Tory' dean of St Paul's, WilliamSherlock, whose Case of Allegiance was written in I69I to justify his decisionto take the new oaths of allegiance 'after so long a refusal .14 Sherlock feltclose enough to Hobbes's argument to want to distinguish their points of viewwith some care. Critics have pointed out, he admitted, 'that it is Hobbism' toargue the rights of defacto powers. 'But those who say this do not understandMr Hobbes or me. For he makes power and nothing else -to give right todominion, and therefore asserts that God himself is the natural lord andgovernor of the World, not because He made it, but because He is omni-potent. But I say that Government is founded in right, and that God is thenatural lord of the World because He made it. '141 Other writers on Sherlock'sside in the debate felt less scruple about invoking the similarity, and theauthority, of Hobbes's treatment of this point. 'It is agreed', as one of thempointed out, 'by the best writers on the subject' that obligations are onlyconditional where there has been some prior agreement. 'Mr Hobbes indeedsaith that those who submit upon compact are capable of no injury after-wards, because they have given up their wills already, and there can be noinjury to a willing mind '.142 Another tract of the same year emphasized that'Hobbes rightly observes' in a case of defacto rule that 'where an externalright and dominion is admitted' there is 'no cause why an external obligationwhich does not touch the conscience may not also be admitted'.143

Every critic of this group of defacto theorists claimed to see in their remarksa sinister attempt to revive 'Hobbist' principles of political obligation. Theyattacked not merely the reliance on Hobbes's authority, but also pointed outthe links with other de facto theorists from the dark days of the Common-wealth. They might claim, it was said, to be endorsing the principles of theChurch of England, but they were in fact taking their arguments 'from therebels in the year '4z and from the advocates of Cromwell's usurpation .144They might claim to be corroborating the Convocation Book's doctrine of

138 Anonymous, Their Present Majesties' Government Proved to be Thoroughly Settled, andthat we may Submit to it, without Asserting the Principles of Mr Hobbes (London, I69I).139 Ibid. p. I5. 140 Sherlock, op. cit. sig. A, i a.141 Ibid. p. I5. 142 Anonymous, A Discourse (London, I689), p. 7.143 Anonymous, A Full Anszwer London, I689), p. 36.144 Anonymous, An Answer to a Late Pamphlet (London, I69I), p. i.


19/33

IDEOLOGICAL CONTEXT OF HOBBES' S POLITICAL THOUGHT 303allegiance, but that work in fact 'did but little service' to them, while 'therewere other writings that would have done the trick to an hair, such as Hobbes,Baxter, Owen, Jenkins etc.' 45 Hobbes was still seen as the major influence.Several of the attacks on Sherlock ('The Doctor' to his opponents) tried toestablish by close textual comparisons that long before the Doctor's time 'MrHobbes had taught the same '.146 'The question', as it was put by one of thesewriters, 'is whether Mr Hobbes and the Doctor teach not the same doctrineabout the legal right and possession of sovereignty, and the transferring ofallegiance to usurpers?' And the answer-given after lengthy textual com-parisons-was that on the questions of political obligation Hobbes and Sher-lock were 'fratres fratrerrimi, and it is not within the power of metaphysicsto distinguish them '.47 A similarly detailed textual comparison was providedby another critic who claimed to show that 'Mr Hobbes makes power andnothing else give right to dominion. And pray does not the doctor do the same?I am much mistaken if this be not the design of his whole book . Anotherless patient critic finally concluded that Hobbes's principles had been sur-passed. For, while 'Mr Hobbes taught the absolute power of all Princes onlyas a philosopher, upon principles of mere reason', these latter-day Hobbists'by adding the authority of scripture' also make themselves 'sure of a profit-able office in the state'.149

The point of major importance is that Hobbes's critics were undoubtedlyright in claiming a link between the de facto theorists of the I69os and anearlier group of 'Hobbesian' theorists in the i65os. This earlier group hasbeen almost completely ignored, but it is of the greatest importance for esta-blishing the contemporary reputation and the real ideological purchase ofHobbes's political thought. It can be shown that Hobbes was both cited anddiscussed in the works of these theorists as their authority on questions aboutboth the grounds and the proper extent of a citizen's obligation to the State.It can also be shown that a reading of Hobbes's political theory among thesewriters both crystallized and endorsed several of their own political views.

It is true that a list of Hobbes's authentic contemporary following would beshort and would contain no writer of the front rank. The evidence forestablishing such a list, however, can only be unequivocally provided fromspecific citations and sympathetic discussions of Hobbes's political works.And it must be recognized that such tests-although they provide the onlydefinite means of gauging the acceptance of one particular writer-are notonly especially rigorous when applied to the conventions of seventeenth-

145 Anonymous, Providence and Precept (London, i69i), pp. 4-5.146 Anonymous, An Examination [of Sherlock's Case of Allegiance] (London, 169I), p. 14.147 Ibid. p. I5.148 Anonymous, Dr Sherlock's Case of Allegiance Considered(London, I691), p. 73. Parallelswith Leviathan cited pp. 80-2.149 Anonymous, Dr Sherlock's Two Kings of Brainford (London, I69I), p. I 3.

20 HJ IX


20/33

304 QUENTIN SKINNERcentury political discussion, but will also tend of themselves substantially tounderestimate the evidence.

The evidence will tend to be underestimated partly by the fact that Hobbes'spolitical theory did contribute to the attitudes of a larger group. There wasthus no reason why such writers themselves should have focused exclusivelyon the authority of Hobbes. Several of the writers who discussed Hobbes'sviews were themselves to be treated as authorities on points which were infact common to them all. It is not uncommon to find writers like AnthonyAscham, Marchamont Nedham, or Lewis de Aloulin cited as authorities onpoints where an acknowledgment of Hobbes might have served equally well.150The evidence will tend further to be underestimated by the fact that all theconventions of political debate at the time were against the citation of authori-ties. The whole trend was towards informality, even anonymity: the failureto recognize the force of this convention has undoubtedly contributed some-thing to the impression of Hobbes's lonely notoriety. Hobbes was not muchcited in his own time, but nor was any other political writer: every acknow-ledgment had come to sound like a lack of originality, a slavish reversion tothe typically medieval quest for the endorsement of every view.151 WithHobbes himself it was a famous boast that he had read few works by othermen and had cited even fewer.152His friend Francis Osborne similarly pointedout his own emancipation from the use of authorities, and even suggested ahabit of reading sparingly, lest a man become diffident about his own views.153And to John Selden, another of Hobbes's friends, it was a maxim that 'inquoting of books' one should cite only 'such authors as are usually read.Others you may read for your own satisfaction, but not name them.'154

It seems very likely, moreover, that even among writers who might havebeen expected to cite Hobbes's authority, the number may have beendiminished further by considerations about Hobbes's dangerous reputation.A man who had been named in Parliament as the author of blasphemous andprofane works155was not a writer to cite idly or without very necessaryreason as an authority on anything. This type of suppression is difficult toprove. But it was regarded at the time as beyond dispute that among thosewho would 'scarce simper in favour or allowance' for Hobbes there were manywho were none the less 'Hobbists' for that.156It is certainly clear that in

150 E.g. of Ascham cited: Anonymous, A Combat BetzweenTwo Seconds (London, I649),p. 5; of Nedham: K. Goodwin, Peace Protected (London, I654), p. 75; of de Moulin:M. Hawke, The Right of Dominion (London, I655), p. 136.

151 Cf. R. F. Jones, Ancients and Moderns (St Louis, 2nd ed., 1961), stressing their assump-tion that 'if servility to the authority of the ancients precluded examination of traditionalbeliefs, no hope could be held out for increased knowledge', p. i I9.152 Aubrey, op. cit. I, 349.153 Francis Osborne, 'Conjectural Paradoxes', Works (London, gth ed., I689), pp. 538 and548.154 John Selden, Table Talk, ed. Sir Frederick Pollock (London, 1927), p. 24.155 The Yournals of the House of Commons (n.p., n.d.), vol. viii, I660-I667, p. 636.156 Eachard, SomzeOpinions, sig. A, 4b.


21/33

IDEOLOGICAL CONTEXT OF HOBBES S POLITICAL THOUGHT 305seventeenth-century England there were political opinions which men mightbelieve, even discuss, but much prefer not to see printed. Hobbes himself wasthought to have acted too boldly in publishing views which 'though he be-lieved them to be true' were none the less 'too dangerous to be spokenaloud . And there are certainly signs that a man who sympathized withHobbes's views was better able to say so in private than in any published form.'Hobbism' is anatomized without any sort of comment only in private com-monplace books.158And Sir William Petty provides at least one further ex-ample of a contemporary writer on politics who commended Hobbes, in hisprivate memoranda, as the leading authority on political theory, yet neveronce cited Hobbes in his own published works.159

When such considerations about the conditions as well as the conventionsof discussion are given some weight, it becomes by no means necessarilytendentious to add that there may have been more silent reliance on Hobbesthan there was citation of his works among contemporaries. The typically'Hobbesian' premiss, for example, that political society must be based onman's mediation of a basically anti-social psychology, can also be found ex-pressed in very similar language in many of the 'Engagement' tracts of i 650,160in several discussions of the need for absolute power published under theCommonwealth,16' as well as in 'Hobbist' writers like Francis Osborne,'62Thomas White,'63 and Matthew Wren.164 The typically 'Hobbesian' deduc-tion, similarly, that this establishes a reciprocal relation between obligationsto protest and to obey, can be found expressed in identical language in dozensof the tracts on allegiance written in the i650s.165 The fact that only a smallgroup of writers acknowledged and avowedly followed the authority of Hobbesdoes not exclude the possibility of a wider influence. The crucial point,however, is that within these 'Hobbesian' groups there were several writerswho did not stop short of an acknowledgment of Hobbes, both in theirapproach and in their theories of political obligation.

157 Thomas Pierce, 'ATTOKATAKPIXIE(London, i658), sig. *, 3b-4a.158 E.g. commonplace book entries 'Mr Hobbes's Creed' and 'The Principles of MrHobbes' in British Museum, Sloane MSS 904 and 1458.1'9 See Petty Papers, II, 5. Cf. Sir William Petty, The Economic Writings, ed. C. H. Hull(Cambridge, 2 vols., 1899).160 E.g. in T.B., The Engagement Vindicated (London, I650), pp. 5-6; in John Dury,Considerations Concerning the Present Engagement (London, 4th ed., 'enlarged', I650), pp.

13-14; and in Anonymous, A Disengaged Survey of the Engagement (London, I650), p. 20.161 E.g. in Anonymous, Confusion Confounded, p. 9; in John Hall, Of Governmentand Obe-

dience (London, I654), pp. 13-14 and 98. (N.B. that this John Hall differs from the John Hallof Durham (i627-56) cited in note 177, below.)162 Francis Osborne, A Persuasive to a Mutual Compliance (London, I652), p. II.163 Thomas White, The Grounds of Obedience and Government (London, i655), pp. 44-5.164 Matthew Wren, Monarchy Asserted (London, I659), pp. 49-50.165 E.g., Samuel Eaton, The Oath of Allegiance (London, i650), p. 8; Anonymous, Con-science Puzzled (London, I650), p. 7; J. Drew, The Northern Subscribers' Plea Vindicated(London, I653), p. 23; E. Elcock, Animadversions (London, i65I), p. 47; Anonymous, TheBounds and Bonds of Public Obedience (London, I649), p. 26; N.W., A Discourse Concerningthe Engagement (London, i650), p. II.

20-2


22/33

306 QUENTIN SKINNERThe best general statement of Hobbes's method and principles, against

which the views of these 'Hobbists' may be compared, is contained in thepreface 'To the Reader' of De Cive. Hobbes's essential concern, as he set itout there, was to 'demonstrate' the necessary form of the state, and the citi-zen's obligation to it, as a deduction from the known nature of human nature.The revolutionary 'principle' of Hobbes's political theory was thus-indirect opposition to the traditional picture of man as a political animal-thefamous doctrine 'that the dispositions are naturally such, that except they berestrained through fear of some coercive power, every man will distrust anddread each other, and as by natural right he may, so by necessity he will beforced to make use of the strength he hath, toward the preservation of him-self'.166Hobbes's first 'demonstration' was thus 'that the state of men withoutcivil society (which state we may properly call the state of nature) is nothingelse but a mere war of all against all; and in that war all men have equal rightunto all things'*167 This was the view of man treated as axiomatic by Hobbesand his followers, as much as it was denounced by their clerical enemies. Itwas equally an axiom, for example, of the work published in I655 on TheRight of Dominion that 'Dominion was first procured by arms .168 'Everyonein a state of nature', the argument ran, 'hath a right to dominion, and con-quest only puts him in possession.' And from this point, as the author added,'I conceive Mr Hobbes might collect that the right of nature is a condition ofwar of every one against every one, and right of every man to every thing,even to another's body'. For, as he more picturesquely went on, every manin the state of Nature gained just as much 'as by force and strength throughwounds and slaughters they could obtain or retain'.169 It was again an axiomin Killing is Murder, published two years later, that 'the natural state of man,before they were settled in a Society, as Master Hobbes truly saith, was amerewarX170The second 'demonstration' which Hobbes set out was that, as the basiclaw of man's nature made self-preservation his paramount aim, so 'all men assoon as they arrive to understanding of this hateful condition of universalwar then desire (even nature itself compelling them) to be freed from thismisery'."7'The laws of men's nature are thus said to make it possible for manto mediate his own natural condition. Each of these claims was to be similarlytaken up and developed by other de facto theorists. As 'Mr Hobbes, Philos.Rudiments' has pointed out, 'it is the law of nature that men live peaceably,that they may tend the preservation of their lives, which whilst they are in warthey cannot '.172 For this reason, as 'Mr Hobbes, Phil. Rud.' also pointed out,

166 Thomas Hobbes, De Cive, ed. S. P. Lamprecht (New York, I949), p. II.167 Ibid. p. I3. 168 Hawke, The Right of Dominion, ch. VII, p. 4I.169 Ibid. ch. IV, p. 32; ch. VII, p. 43.170 Michael Hawke, Killing is Murder and No Murder (London, I657), p. 7. On Hawke, seealso F. Raab, The English Face of Machiavelli (London, I694), p. 141.171 Hobbes, De Cive, p. 13. 172 Hawke, Right of Dominion, P. 27.


23/33

IDEOLOGICAL CONTEXT OF HOBBES S POLITICAL THOUGHT 307it is possible to regard 'human nature itself' as 'the mother of the naturallaw .173 The way that 'Mr Hobbes doth thus describe the laws of nature' wassimilarly treated as authoritative in The Idea of the Law, in which Hobbes'sown account was extensively quoted.174 And The Right of Dominion similarlyused Hobbes's account again to make the point that 'every one hath sufficientpower to rein and moderate his outward demeanour, that he commit no out-ward or civil act repugnant to the law of nature. And in this sense is MrHobbes's saying true, that the law of nature is easily kept. 175

Hobbes's central 'demonstration' was that, although men's absolute self-seeking could be mediated 'by compact', it could only be adequately mediatedby a compact which set up an absolute, preferably monarchical, power. For'except they do so' there will 'evidently appear to be no civil government, butthe rights which all men have to all things, that is the rights of war, willremain *176 The only possible shortcoming of this account which Hobbesconceded was the difficulty of 'demonstrating' that the form of this govern-ment had to be monarchical. The point was to be taken up by John Hall, thevery 'Hobbesian' author of The Groundsand Reasonsof Monarchy Considered.Like Hobbes, he claimed that he would 'rather be sceptical in my opinion,than maintain it upon grounds taken up and not demonstrated '.177 And, likeHobbes, he admitted that any attempt to demonstrate the 'intrinsic value andexpediency' of monarchy 'is a business so ticklish, that even Mr Hobbes in hisDe Cive, though he assured himself that the rest of his book (which is prin-cipally erected to the assertion of Monarchy) is demonstrated, yet he doubtswhether the arguments which he brings to this business be so firm or no .78This whole discussion, moreover, was to be reprinted by John Toland as theopening tract in his edition of Harrington's Works.179

Hobbes remained certain, however, that his basic contention about therelation between self-preservation and political obligation was completelydemonstrated. The same confidence was again echoed by other theorists ofdefacto rule. It was recognized, in the first place, to mean that the possessionof power itself established a title to be obeyed: as the aim of subscribing togovernment was self-preservation, so this presupposed an obligation to obeyany power with the capacity to protect. It is a corollary, 'as Master Hobbessaith', that 'a sure and irresistable power confers the right of dominion andruling over those who cannot resist '.180 It was thus demonstrated that 'by thelaw of war, whatsoever the victor obtaineth is his right: ius est in armis,and-as Mr Hobbes-a sure and irresistable power conferreth the right of domin-

173 Ibid. p. 29.1'74 John Heydon, The Idea of the Law (London, i66o), pp. 124-5.175 Hawke, Right of Dominion, p. 25. 176 Hobbes, De Cive, p. I3.177 John Hall, The Grounds and Reasons of Monarchy Considered (Edinburgh, znd ed.,

I650), sig. A, 4a-b.178 Ibid. p. 50.179 James Harrington, Works, ed. J. Toland (London, I77I), p. 13.180 Hawke, Killing is Murder, p. 12.


24/33

308 QUENTIN SKINNERion' 181 Such power, moreover, had to be obeyed in all things, spiritual as wellas temporal. The view, as it was agreed, 'that Holy Scriptures are to be under-stood according to each man's small use of reason' is one which 'Mr Hobbesvery well confutes'*182 It was recognized by these 'Hobbists', in the secondplace, that the notion of a mutual relation between protection and obediencecircumscribed as well as defined the limits of a citizen's obligations. If obliga-tion is due to power, such obligation must cease where the power itself fails.Hobbes, it was said, rightly pointed out not only that 'power of coercion, ofthe sword, and consequently of life, is transferred from the people to themagistrate'; he also recognized-as do all 'rational men '-the sense in whichthis means that 'the power of life is derived to the magistrate from the consentand vote of the people'. And here the reader is referred to 'Hobbes, de Corp.Polit.'183 It would be a mistake to suppose that political obligation is createdby natural laws of themselves, which cannot 'actually and formally oblige acreature, till it be made known'. It might seem that obligations in society arebased on a 'natural law', in cases 'as Mr Hobbes describes' when people'bind themselves by general compact to the observation of such laws as theyjudge to be for the good of them all .184 But this would be to mistake the roleof law. For 'before all this can rise to the height and perfection of a law, theremust come a command from superior powers, whence from will spring amoral obligation also, and make up the formality of a law .185There was some contemporary endorsement of Hobbes's political doctrineat each of its most characteristic points. There is also another and even morerevealing way, however, in which the contemporary ideological relevance ofHobbes's political views can be proved. Hobbes was not only discussed byother writers as a means of crystallizing their own political stance. He was alsocited as an authority by a group of contemporary writers whose political viewswere extremely similar to Hobbes's most characteristic doctrines, but whocan be shown to have arrived at these conclusions independently of studyingHobbes's own works. Hobbes was cited not as the source of their opinions,but rather to corroborate views they already held. They provide the clearestevidence that Hobbes's political theory was not a completely isolated pheno-menon, but to some extent a contribution to a particular climate ofopinion.

The most important of these writers was undoubtedly Anthony Ascham,who deserves to be much better known. In I648 he published A Discourse,concerned (in the words of its own sub-title) with What is particularly lawfulduring the confusionsand revolutions of governments. Ascham's point of de-parture, in his preface, was with the strong and Hobbesian fear that anarchywas the sole alternative as well as the ever-present threat to any given political

181 Hawke, Right of Dominion, p. 50. 182 Scot, Op. cit. p. I40.183 'Euitactus Philodemius', An Anszwer o the Vindication (London, I650), pp. 15-I6.184 Heydon, op. cit. pp. I09, I50-I. 185 Ibid. p. I37.


25/33

IDEOLOGICAL CONTEXT OF HOBBES S POLITICAL THOUGHT 309order. His equally Hobbesian conclusion was thus that the will of a power'absolute without redress or appeal', and the virtues of passive obedience,provided the sole means of escape from the mutability of all things.186Part iof the book argued for this conclusion from very Hobbesian claims about the'natural' laws of men's conduct in their basic and original social situation.The sole but essential right of men in such a condition was taken to be theright of self-preservation. This led first to a history, in chapter III, of 'firstpossessors', who could 'without scruple of doing other wrong, place theirbodies where they would'.187 This discussion was then modified, in chapterIV,by positing a situation of extreme need, in which men would have to revertto a more communal system. The two points together suggested the whole ofAscham's thesis. On the one hand, there are no natural political rights, for'possession therefore is the greatest title .188 Appropriation has, ever sinceprimitive times, served as a sufficient basis for political society. On the otherhand, even rights of possession cannot be absolute. Any legal right auto-matically loses priority, in time of emergency, to the basic Hobbesian rightto life. The presumption of the whole account was that necessity itself pro-vided the only viable guide to political right. For, as in Leviathan, "tis neces-sity itself which makes laws, and by consequence ought to be the interpreterof them after they are made .189This strongly Hobbesian sense of the necessities laid on men by their ownnature and condition lies at the centre of Ascham's whole outlook. The argu-ment recurs, most revealingly and in a totally different context, in the onlyother work which it seems certain that Ascham wrote, the tract of I647 OfMarriage. Marriage was treated by Ascham as an example of a contract whichthere could never be a sufficient reason for voiding. A man in engaging mar-riage is said to will a situation which seems strongly parallel to the acceptanceof an absolute political obligation. 'He is no longer himself, and makes use ofhis liberty but once, to lose it for ever after all his life.'190Ascham was thusdrawn again into characterizing the nature of rational behaviour in suchunalterable circumstances. The characteristic of wisdom is to recognize thatthe situation itself dictates the appropriatebehaviour: 'the wise man is calledthe artificer of his own happiness, because he adjusts his desires to the

186 Anthony Ascham, A Discourse (London, I648), p. 37. To maintain uniformity of cita-tion all pagination refers to the enlarged second edition (London, I649). See note 194, below.For further references to Ascham and to discussions of his work, see my article 'History andIdeology in the English Revolution', The Historical yournal, viii (I965), I55-78, esp. p. 163and note. 187 Ascham, op. cit. p. 6.188 Ibid. p. 6. 189 Ibid. p. Io.190 Anthony Ascham, MS Tract on Marriage (56 fos., I647), ch. I, fo. i. Never published,and apparently unknown to Ascham's commentators. See Cambridge University LibraryMSS., MS. Gg, I, 4, Tracts MS. fo. xxvi ff. separately paginated as fos. I-56, bound up withMS. of P. Tomkinson, A Description of the City of Rome. Title-page gives five chapter-headings, beginning 'Of marriage in general', date, and ascription 'By Mr Askham, that wasafterwards killed in Spain being agent for the parliament of England there'.


26/33

310 QUENTIN SKINNERnecessity of events, and moves cheerfully through that way through which hewould otherwise be sullenly dragged'.191Part I of Ascham's Discourse thus treated in a political context the same issuethat he had already discussed in a familial context in the tract Of Marriage.Part II of the Discoursewent on to develop from this point a totally Hobbesianpolitical conclusion about the 'mutual relations between protection andobedience' as the grounds of obligation. The specific issue which Ascham wenton to engage was the extent to which a man might properly take oaths and payallegiance to a usurped power. Ascham showed complete and deliberate dis-regard here for any questions about either the rightful origins or the bestforms of government. The only question, as with Hobbes, was whether thepossessors of governmental power can sustain the lives of their subjects in asuccessful political order. If they fail in this, then the citizen's loyalties are atan end, while he endeavours instead to protect himself. As 'nature commendsme to myself for my own protection and preservation', so 'he who hath swornallegiance and fidelity to his Prince, is absolved and set at liberty, if hisPrince abandon his kingdom'*192 But, if the government does manage to sus-tain order, then the citizen's duty can only be to obey, regardless of anyjudgments that could be made about the legality of the government's powers.Throughout the argument the sole touchstone is necessity: as the last chapterconcluded, citizens are bound to obey governments 'so long as it pleases Godto give them the Power to command us'.193

The language as well as the assumptions throughout Ascham's work are ofa strongly Hobbesian character. Hobbes is never mentioned, however, hisauthority is never invoked, and there is no evidence that Ascham had at thistime read De Cive, Hobbes's only published political work. In I649, however,Ascham re-issued his book in a second edition, its length augmented by ninechapters, its title changed to Of the Confusionsand Revolutions of Govern-ments.194Ascham now reverted (at the end of part II) to his earlier discussionabout the 'natural' state and characterof men. Here he not only expanded andcorroborated his earlier account; he now justified it further by invoking theauthority of Hobbes. Ascham first added a justification of his views aboutpolitical obligation by considering the origins of magistracy and civil govern-ment in the state of Nature. He now deduced the obligation of the citizen toobey any power capable of offering him protection from the typically Hobbes-ian assumption that without such protection no society at all would bepossible. Liberty from all government would be 'a great prejudice to us; for

191 Ascham, On Marriage, ch. IV, fo. 36.192 Ascham, Discourse, pp. 2i and 39.193 Ascham, Discourse, p. 45. The affinities with Hobbes seemed unquestionable to con-temporaries. Filmer, for example, discussed Hobbes's doctrines not in isolation but as theviews of 'Mr Hobbes, Mr Ascham; and others of that party'. See Filmer, op. cit. p. 231, andcf. p. i88.194 Anthony Ascham, Of the Confusions and Revolutions of Goverments (sic, in original,London, I649), part II, additions at pp. 85-95, 104-8.


27/33

IDEOLOGICAL CONTEXT OF HOBBES S POLITICAL THOUGHT 3I1hereby we were clearly left in a state of war, to make good this natural freestate of the world, which referred all to the trial of force and not of law, againstwhich no one could offend'. Complete subjection to power was the only solu-tion, for (as Ascham now conceded) 'Mr Hobbes his supposition (if there betwo omnipotents, neither could be obliged to obey the other) is very pertinentand conclusive to this subject '.195 Ascham finally added a further justificationof his views about the relative obligations of protection and obedience. Herepeated his view that change of allegiance is automatically permitted byfailureof government. But he now called in two greater authorities to corroboratethe point. The change is justified whenever '(as Grotius and Mr Hobbessay) there be a dereliction of command in the person of whom we speak, orif the country be so subdued that the conquerors can no longer be resisted '.196A similar use of Hobbes's authority to corroborate an already completedpolitical argument can be found in the writings of Marchamont Nedham. Soclose indeed was Hobbes's theory of obligation to the account which Nedhamand the other defacto theorists used to justify the rule of the Commonwealththat in the pages of MercuriusPoliticus, the official newspaper which Nedhamedited,197Hobbes's doctrines were to attain the rather invidious status ofofficial propaganda for the Republic of England. Twice during I65I theserious editorials which always prefaced Nedham's news-sheet consistedsimply of unsigned extracts from Hobbes's De CorporePolitico. The first wasa long quotation from Hobbes's characteristic discussion of the citizen'sobligation to obey any power with the capacity to protect him.198 The secondset out Hobbes's insistence on the congruence of the civil authority's com-mands with God's purposes.199And twice apart from this Hobbes was to beadvertised in Nedham's paper as an authority on political science.200

Nedham was to show in his own writing as well as in his journalism howmuch his opinions could be sustained by the authority of Hobbes. This canbest be seen in The Case of the CommonwealthStated, which Nedham pub-lished in I650. Its aim was to prove in general (in part i) the 'necessity andequity' of submission to powers that be; and to vindicate in particular (inpart II) the authority of the new Commonwealth government. The centralcontention in Nedham's as in Ascham's work was the Hobbesian claim thatthe basis of all government must lie in men's absolute need to protect them-selves and their interests by a submission of will. Some kind of governmentis at all times an absolute necessity as the only alternative to anarchy. In partII of his book Nedham used this claim to denounce all changes proposed by

195 Ibid. ch. ix, p. io8. 196 Ibid. p. "i9.197 On Nedham, particularly as editor, see J. Frank, The Beginnings of the English Newspaper(Cambridge, Mass., I96I), p. 2o6.198 Editorial to Mercurius Politicus, no. 31 (2-9 January i651).199 Ibid. no. 34 (23-30 January I65I).200 Mercurius Politicus, no. 29 (I9-26 December i650), p. 486, and no. 352 (5-I2 March1657), p. 7641. See also Frank, op. cit. p. 257.


28/33

312 QUENTIN SKINNERRoyalists, by Levellers, and by all other enemies of the English Republic. Inthe central chapter of part I it is simply stated as axiomatic that, 'there being anecessity of some government at all times, for the maintenance of civil con-versation, and to avoid confusion, therefore such as will not submit, becausethey cannot have such a government as themselves like, are in some sensemere anarchists .201Nedham is thus led, like Ascham, to the bleak and typically Hobbesianconclusion that, as government is an absolute necessity, so obedience must beabsolutely given to whatever government is in fact capable of sustaining suc-cessful political order. Nedham has no doubts about the principle of allegiancemoving with events. The wheel of fortune, as the opening chapter is devotedto showing, turns in an unpredictable but irrevocable manner. Once it hasturned against a

1966.skinnerideologicalcontextofh'spoliticalthought

Documents