leviathan - sparknotes - addr.comdavemolinari.addr.com/leviathan - sparknotes.doc  · web...

51
Leviathan SparkNotes Table of Contents Context Summary Important Terms Summary and Analysis Book I, Chapters 1-3 Book I, Chapters 4-5 Book I, Chapters 6-9 Book I, Chapters 10-13 Book I, Chapters 14-16 Book II, Chapters 17-19 Book II, Chapters 20-24 Book II, Chapters 25-31 Book III Book IV Context Thomas Hobbes of Malmsbury was a man who lived with fear. In his autobiography, Hobbes recounted that on the day of his birth in 1588, his mother learned that the Spanish Armada had set sail to attack England. This news so terrified Hobbes's mother that she went into labor prematurely, and thus, writes Hobbes, "fear and I were born twins together." Fear is a significant theme in Hobbes's writing, structuring both his written accounts of his life and the Hobbesian philosophical system. Leviathan, Hobbes's most important work and one of the most influential philosophical texts produced during the seventeenth century, was written partly as a response to the fear Hobbes experienced during the political turmoil of the English Civil Wars. In the 1640s, it was clear to Hobbes that Parliament was going to turn against King Charles I, so he fled to France for eleven years, terrified that, as a

Upload: hoangnhan

Post on 19-Nov-2018

230 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

LeviathanSparkNotes

Table of Contents

Context Summary Important Terms Summary and Analysis Book I, Chapters 1-3 Book I, Chapters 4-5 Book I, Chapters 6-9 Book I, Chapters 10-13 Book I, Chapters 14-16 Book II, Chapters 17-19 Book II, Chapters 20-24 Book II, Chapters 25-31 Book III Book IV

Context

Thomas Hobbes of Malmsbury was a man who lived with fear. In his autobiography, Hobbes recounted that on the day of his birth in 1588, his mother learned that the Spanish Armada had set sail to attack England. This news so terrified Hobbes's mother that she went into labor prematurely, and thus, writes Hobbes, "fear and I were born twins together." Fear is a significant theme in Hobbes's writing, structuring both his written accounts of his life and the Hobbesian philosophical system.

Leviathan, Hobbes's most important work and one of the most influential philosophical texts produced during the seventeenth century, was written partly as a response to the fear Hobbes experienced during the political turmoil of the English Civil Wars. In the 1640s, it was clear to Hobbes that Parliament was going to turn against King Charles I, so he fled to France for eleven years, terrified that, as a Royalist, he would be persecuted for his support of the king. Hobbes composed Leviathan while in France, brilliantly articulating the philosophy of political and natural science that he had been developing since the 1630s. Hobbes's masterwork was finally published in 1651, two years after Parliament ordered the beheading of Charles I and took over administration of the English nation in the name of the Commonwealth.

Leviathan's argument for the necessity of absolute sovereignty emerged in the politically unstable years after the Civil Wars, and its publication coincided with that of many Republican treatises seeking to justify the regicide (killing of the king) to the rest of Europe (John Milton's Tenure of Kings and Magistrates is a famous example of these

regicide tracts). Not only was the political argument of Leviathan controversial at the time of its publication, but the philosophical method employed by Hobbes to make his claims also scandalized many of his contemporaries--even those writers, such as Robert Filmer (the author of the Royalist tract Patriarcha), who otherwise supported Hobbes's claims for absolute sovereignty.

Hobbes's materialist philosophy was based upon a mechanistic view of the universe, holding that all phenomena were explainable purely in terms of matter and motion, and rejecting concepts such as incorporeal spirits or disembodied souls. Consequently, many critics labeled Hobbes an atheist (although he was not, in the strict sense). Associated with both atheism and the many deliberately terrifying images of Leviathan, Hobbes became known as the "Monster of Malmsbury" and the "Bug-bear of the Nation." In 1666, Hobbes's books were burned at Oxford (where Hobbes had graduated from Magdalen College in 1608), and the resulting conflagration was even blamed in Parliament for having started the Great Fire of London. The chaotic atmosphere of England in the aftermath of the Civil Wars ensured that Hobbes's daring propositions met with a lively reaction.

Hobbes knew that Leviathan would be controversial, for not only did the text advocate restoration of monarchy when the English republic was at its strongest (Oliver Cromwell was not instituted as Lord High Protector until 1653, and the Restoration of Charles II did not occur until 1660), but Hobbes's book also challenged the very basis of philosophical and political knowledge. Hobbes claimed that traditional philosophy had never arrived at irrefutable conclusions, that it had instead offered only useless sophistries and insubstantial rhetoric; he thus called for a reform of philosophy that would enable secure truth--claims with which everyone could agree. Consequently, Hobbesian philosophy would prevent disagreements about the fundamental aspects of human nature, society, and proper government. Furthermore, because Hobbes believed that civil war resulted from disagreements in the philosophical foundations of political knowledge, his plan for a reformed philosophy to end divisiveness would also end the conditions of war. For Hobbes, civil war was the ultimate terror, the definition of fear itself. He thus wanted to reform philosophy in order to reform the nation and thereby vanquish fear.

Earlier in the seventeenth century, Francis Bacon--for whom Hobbes had served as secretary in his youth--had also proposed a reform of philosophy, a reform he called the "Great Instauration." Bacon's program was an inductive philosophy based upon the observation of natural facts ("inductive" reasoning derives general principles from particular instances or facts); the experimental manipulation of nature of Bacon's scheme was very influential for the development of the historical period commonly called the Scientific Revolution, and also formed the backbone of the English Royal Society. Like Hobbes's, Bacon's system rejected traditional philosophical knowledge as untrustworthy, instead embracing nature as the only sure basis for all claims for truth. But Hobbes argued that the experimentalist program was also unsuccessful in providing secure, indisputable knowledge. Hobbes therefore rejected the Baconian system and

argued vehemently against it. Hobbes's own deductive scientific philosophy was not experimental--in "deductive" reasoning, a conclusion follows necessarily from the stated premises, rather than being inferred from instances of these premises--but Hobbes maintained that it provided better understanding of the universe and society than both traditional philosophy and experimental science.

Leviathan attempted to create controversy in politics and in science, radically challenging both contemporary government and philosophy itself; yet, despite its very invocation of controversy, Leviathan sought ultimately to annihilate controversy for good. Hobbes's philosophical method claimed to provide indisputable conclusions, and its depiction of the Leviathan of society suggested that the Hobbesian method could put an end to controversy, war, and fear. Hobbes's philosophy was highly influential in certain sectors (Hobbesism was a fashionable intellectual position well into the eighteenth century). However, Hobbes, who died in 1679, never lived to see his work achieve the widespread and totalizing effects for which he had hoped. Excluded from the Royal Society for his anti-experimentalist stance and derided by many contemporaries as an immoral monster, Hobbes neither transformed the nation nor reformed philosophy as he had envisioned. Nonetheless, Hobbes has had a lasting influence in the history of Western philosophy, as he is credited with inaugurating political science; his crowning achievement, Leviathan is still recognized as one of the greatest masterpieces of the history of ideas. Written during a moment in English history when the political structure, social structure, and methods of science were all in flux and open to manipulation, Leviathan played an essential role in the development of the modern world.

Summary

Leviathan rigorously argues that civil peace and social unity are best achieved by the establishment of a commonwealth through social contract. Hobbes's ideal commonwealth is ruled by a sovereign power responsible for protecting the security of the commonwealth and granted absolute authority to ensure the common defense. In his introduction, Hobbes describes this commonwealth as an "artificial person" and as a body politic that mimics the human body. The frontispiece to the first edition ofLeviathan, which Hobbes helped design, portrays the commonwealth as a gigantic human form built out of the bodies of its citizens, the sovereign as its head. Hobbes calls this figure the "Leviathan," a word derived from the Hebrew for "sea monster" and the name of a monstrous sea creature appearing in the Bible; the image constitutes the definitive metaphor for Hobbes's perfect government. His text attempts to prove the necessity of the Leviathan for preserving peace and preventing civil war.

Leviathan is divided into four books: "Of Man," "Of Common-wealth," "Of a Christian Common-wealth," and "Of the Kingdome of Darknesse." Book I contains the philosophical framework for the entire text, while the remaining books simply extend and elaborate the arguments presented in the initial chapters. Consequently, Book I is

given the most attention in the detailed summaries that follow. Hobbes begins his text by considering the elementary motions of matter, arguing that every aspect of human nature can be deduced from materialist principles. Hobbes depicts the natural condition of mankind--known as the state of nature--as inherently violent and awash with fear. The state of nature is the "war of every man against every man," in which people constantly seek to destroy one another. This state is so horrible that human beings naturally seek peace, and the best way to achieve peace is to construct the Leviathan through social contract.

Book II details the process of erecting the Leviathan, outlines the rights of sovereigns and subjects, and imagines the legislative and civil mechanics of the commonwealth. Book III concerns the compatibility of Christian doctrine with Hobbesian philosophy and the religious system of the Leviathan. Book IV engages in debunking false religious beliefs and arguing that the political implementation of the Leviathanic state is necessary to achieve a secure Christian commonwealth.

Hobbes's philosophical method in Leviathan is modeled after a geometric proof, founded upon first principles and established definitions, and in which each step of argument makes conclusions based upon the previous step. Hobbes decided to create a philosophical method similar to the geometric proof after meeting Galileo on his extended travels in Europe during the 1630s. Observing that the conclusions derived by geometry are indisputable because each of constituent steps is indisputable in itself, Hobbes attempted to work out a similarly irrefutable philosophy in his writing of Leviathan.

Important Terms

Commonwealth - A multitude of people who together consent to a sovereign authority, established by contract to have absolute power over them all, for the purpose of providing peace and common defense.

Contract - Also called "covenant" or "social contract," contract is the act of giving up certain natural rights and transferring them to someone else, on the condition that everyone else involved in making the contract also simultaneously gives up their rights. People agreeing to the contract retain only those rights over others that they are content for everyone else to retain over them.

First Principles - The fundamental and irreducible facts of nature that are established by philosophical definition and upon which philosophical arguments may be built. According to Hobbes, first principles are not discovered by observation or experiment but are decided by philosophical debate and social consent.

Law of Nature - A general rule discovered by reason that forbids a person from doing anything destructive to her own life and gives her the right of self-preservation. The

laws of nature state that human beings must strive for peace, which is best achieved by contract.

Leviathan - A metaphor for the state, the Leviathan is described as an artificial person whose body is made up of all the bodies of its citizens, who are the literal members of the Leviathan's body. The head of the Leviathan is the sovereign. The Leviathan is constructed through contract by people in the state of nature in order to escape the horrors of this natural condition. The power of the Leviathan protects them from the abuses of one another.

Materialism - The philosophy of materialism states that physical matter and its motion explain all phenomena in the universe and construct the only reality that human beings can experience.

Natural History - The collection of natural objects, organisms, phenomena, and facts gathered by observation.

Natural Man - An inhabitant of the state of nature. Natural men are the main characters of the narrative within Hobbes's text, who escape from their natural condition by making a contract with each other to engineer the Leviathan. Although they are "men," the term also includes women (though the gender significance of this term should not be entirely ignored).

Natural Philosophy - Natural philosophy is the study of nature and the physical universe, and was the intellectual endeavor that eventually led to the historical development of modern science. Natural philosophers such as Francis Bacon and Robert Boyle believed that natural philosophy should derive inductively the workings of nature from natural history. Hobbes believed that natural philosophy should derive deductively the workings of nature from established first principles.

Plenum - Hobbes used the term "plenum" to refer to his conception of the universe; according to this conception, the universe is wholly material in nature, making possible the condition of a vacuum in space. The assumption that the universe is a plenum is an important aspect of Hobbes's materialism.

Sovereign - The person, or group of persons, endowed with sovereignty by the social contract. The sovereign is the head of the Leviathan, the maker of laws, the judge of first principles, the foundation of all knowledge, and the defender of civil peace.

Sovereignty - Supreme authority over a commonwealth. Sovereignty is owed complete obedience by its subjects. Hobbes describes sovereignty as the soul of the Leviathan.

State of Nature - The "natural condition of mankind" is what would exist if there were no government, no civilization, no laws, and no common power to restrain human

nature. The state of nature is a "war of all against all," in which human beings constantly seek to destroy each other in an incessant pursuit for power. Life in the state of nature is "nasty, brutish and short."

Book I, Chapters 1-3

Book I: Of ManChapter 1: Of SenseChapter 2: Of ImaginationChapter 3: Of the Consequence or Trayne of Imaginations

Summary

The first three chapters of Leviathan concern the mechanics of the human mind, covering the topics of sense, imagination, and the train of thought. Hobbes argues that our knowledge of the world originates from "external bodies" pressing against our sensory apparatus. Envisioning the universe as a plenum constituted solely of matter, Hobbes depicts objects continually bumping against each other and describes the passage of motion from one material body to the next. This elementary motion of the universe eventually transfers to the surface of the human body, where nerves and membranes of the eyes, nose, ears, tongue, and skin are physically moved, in turn relaying their acquired motions on to the brain. "Sense," then, is the action of external bodies colliding with our sensitive organs.

Matter cannot move itself, Hobbes declares (in challenge to the philosophy of vitalism, which maintained that matter was self-motivated). Consequently, "when a thing is in motion, it will eternally be in motion" unless acted upon by another body. Hobbes deduces that this continuance of motion is responsible for the transformation of sense into thoughts or "imagination," for when an external body presses against the human sense apparatus and sets off a series of new motions, these motions will perpetuate until they meet a hindrance. The duration of sensory motion after the fact is called "decaying sense," which becomes Hobbes's definition of imagination. To illustrate, Hobbes suggests that the persistence of a vision after the eyes have been closed indicates that the ocular sensory apparatus is still in motion; this motion is no longer immediate sensation, but imagination. Such imagination, over time, is the same as "memory." Memory of things sensed from the outside world is defined as "experience," while sensation of internal movements of the human body is called a "dream" when one is asleep, or a "vision" or "apparition" when one is awake.

"Understanding" is a particular form of imagination, defined as the idea produced by the physical sensation of words or visible signs. A complex variety of understanding is the "train of thoughts" or "mental discourse," in which the succession of one imagination upon another, one internal sensation provoking the next one, initiates the process of thinking. There are two possible trains of thoughts: the "unguided" train, in which mental discourse wanders in no particular direction, as in dreams; and the "regulated"

train, in which the thinker directs mental discourse in a specific direction. By tracing the transfer of motion from external matter to the human body, Hobbes has deduced a mechanism of the human mind--namely, the passage from sense to thought to train of thoughts--in which sensory experience of the world is funneled into regulated and directed thinking. Building upon this foundation, Hobbes next considers the logical developments of directed thought: language, reason, and science.

Commentary

In the manner of a geometrical proof, Hobbes's philosophical method proceeds from one conclusion to the next in logical succession. As Leviathan consists of an interconnected series of propositions and ideas, the text appropriately begins with chapters examining the nature and origin of ideas themselves.

The rest of Hobbes's argument depends upon the conclusions established in these opening chapters. The propositions about human thought form the first principles for the geometrical proof that Hobbes is attempting to construct. Hobbes makes his arguments in a series of steps; the validity of the claim of each step is based upon the claim made in the previous step. However, the very first principle on which Hobbes bases his claims regarding the nature of thinking--namely, that the universe is a plenum filled completely with material bodies--is never articulated in the text.

Hobbes's assertion of a plenum is his response to a years-long philosophical debate against vacuism, or the theory that the universe is largely devoid of matter. Still, though Hobbes claims (as we will see in the next section) that philosophical truth must be deduced from shared definitions, he does not here indicate that his own fundamental first principle of the plenum is generally accepted or agreed upon; Hobbes acts as his own arbitrator and judge of first principles. His philosophical project manages to remain logically consistent only by recursively validating these first principles in later chapters. To dispute the truth value of Hobbes's unspoken claim that nature is a plenum is not necessarily to dispute the entire edifice that isLeviathan, for Hobbes argues from common experience at several points. However, so tightly structured is the text, with one step leading to the next step, with one layer founding the succeeding layer, that--as with a house of cards--tearing out the bottom tier would threaten to topple the upper stories.

Of course, as we will see in the next section, Hobbes is proposing an epistemological system whose foundations need not be universally true as long as they are conventionally agreed upon for the sake of attaining civil peace. This factor alone prevented Hobbes's vacuist contemporaries from dismissing his project on the basis of its controversial first principles.

Book I, Chapters 4-5

Book IChapter 4: Of SpeechChapter 5: Of Reason, and Science

Summary

Speech was invented, according to Hobbes, for the purpose of putting mental discourse into verbal discourse. There are two benefits gained by this transformation of the mental into the verbal: First, words register a train of thoughts by giving name to the thoughts' conclusions, which can then be remembered without having to reconstruct the train of thoughts continually; second, mental discourse can thus be communicated to other people.

Hobbes identifies four uses of speech: 1) To record knowledge gained of things, which is the acquisition of Arts; 2) To communicate this knowledge to others, which is Counseling or Teaching; 3) To communicate intentions and desires to others and elicit their help; and 4) To entertain ourselves by playing with words.

Hobbes also identifies four abuses of speech: 1) Inconstant signification, in which we carelessly let the meanings of words shift; 2) Metaphorical language, in which we use certain words to mean other words in order to deceive; 3) Lies; and 4) Language employed to injure other people.

Speech is defined in Hobbes's terms as "consisting of Names or Appellations, and their Connexion." Truth and falsehood, which cannot exist outside of speech, are consequent upon the nature of the connection made between names. Truth "consisteth in the right ordering of names in our affirmations," and thus to speak truly--in other words, to speak philosophically--one must use the precise and proper meanings of names. But Hobbes recognizes that we must have some foundational reference for determining whether a meaning is proper and suggests that, following the geometric method, true speech begin by gaining general acceptance of the definitions of its terms. He writes, "In Geometry (which is the onely Science that it hath pleased God hitherto to bestow upon mankind), men begin at settling the significations of their words; which settling of significations, they call Definitions; and place them at the beginning of their reckoning."

Hobbes believes that geometry is a venerable model for a philosophical language because geometry finds its stability in defined terms that everyone has agreed to recognize; therefore, geometric arguments are indisputable. It follows, then, that once philosophical definitions, or first principles, are established, true conclusions can be made by building logically upon prior claims. It is society that determines these first principles of philosophical discourse and true speech, but Hobbes is still faced with the problem of how to achieve social consent for the meanings of words.

Because our experience of the world is mediated by our sensation of it, reality, or objective nature, does not necessarily provide universally satisfying definitions by itself. Hobbes writes, "For though the nature of that we conceive, be the same; yet the diversity of our reception of it, in respect of different constitutions of body, and

prejudices of opinion, gives everything a tincture of our different passions. And therefore in reasoning, a man must take heed of words; which besides the signification of what we imagine their nature, have a signification also of the nature, disposition, and interest of the speaker."

Hobbes suggests that the observation of nature and the sensation of the material world is always affected by the individual character of the observer, and therefore experience of natural phenomena and the perception of reality do not constitute an adequate basis upon which to ground philosophically true conclusions to a train of thought.

As long as there persist differences in experience, which in turn correspond to differences in meaning, true certainty cannot be achieved. We cannot simply turn to nature as a basis of truth, for objective nature--nature in itself--is inaccessible to us, always filtered through a screen of subjectivity. Thus, Hobbes decides, there must be some governing body, unanimously recognized, appointed to settle the definitions of words and first principles: "But no one mans Reason, nor the Reason of any one number of men, makes the certaintie; no more than an account is therefore well cast up, because a great many men have unanimously approved it. And therefore, as when there is a controversy in an account, the parties must by their own accord, set up for right Reason, the Reason of some Arbitrator, or Judge, to whose sentence they will both stand, or their controversy must either come to blows, or be undecided, for want of a right Reason constituted by Nature; and so it is also in all debates of what kind soever."

Hobbes points out that there is no "right Reason constituted by Nature," again noting the ineffectiveness of employing nature as the foundation of knowledge. He also points out that the judge who will settle definitions--the definitions upon which everyone agrees to agree--is appointed by the participants "by their own accord." It is this judge (eventually revealed as "the sovereign" in Chapter 18) who then becomes the needed foundation of all knowledge.

Thus, definitions are agreed upon because they are determined by a judge whose decisions everyone has agreed to uphold. With this method for securing the foundation of truth, Hobbes then elaborates his complete program for a reform of philosophy and the institution of a science that will provide secure knowledge and put an end to disagreement and social discord.

The process of science, Hobbes says, is reason, and "Reason . . . is nothing but Reckoning (that is, Adding and Subtracting) of the Consequences of generall names agreed upon." Each step of the reasoning process must itself be secure in its claims, like a carefully wrought object of perfect integrity: "The Use and End of Reason, is not the finding of the summe, and truth of one, or a few consequences, remote from the first definitions, and settled signification of names; but to begin at these; and proceed from one consequence to another. For there can be no certainty of the last Conclusion, without a certainty of all those Affirmation and Negations, on which it was grounded, and inferred." From this mathematical process of philosophical reasoning, with its language of arithmetic and its geometric accretion of consequences and conclusions,

one arrives at proper science: "Reason is . . . attayned by Industry; first in apt imposing of Names; and secondly by getting a good and orderly Method in proceeding from the Elements, which are Names, to Assertions made by Connexion of one of them to another; and so to Syllogismes, which are the Connexions of one Assertion to another, till we come to a knowledge of all the Consequences of names appertaining to the subject in hand; and that is it, men call SCIENCE."

This program for a reformed science--"Science, that is, Knowledge of Consequences; which is also called PHILOSOPHY"--produces a geometric, deductive philosophy that is demonstrable to everyone. Accordingly, Hobbes's vision of science maintains that there will be no divisiveness within knowledge because such geometric logic is indisputable; consequently there will be no factions, and ultimately, no civil wars. Hobbes thereby suggests that his approach to science is necessary for the preservation of peace.

Commentary

By denying the legitimacy of using nature as the foundation of philosophical knowledge, Hobbes issues a direct challenge to natural philosophy as conceived of by Francis Bacon. According to Bacon, natural philosophy should be based on an experimental natural science grounded in natural history. However, Hobbes suggests that nature does not provide secure first principles, and therefore a science grounded in language, rather than nature, is more adequate for making incontrovertible claims. Hobbes's philosophy makes the radical claim that truth is a social construction and argues that its own conclusions are correct precisely because they, too, are socially constructed. When everyone has agreed upon the foundation of knowledge, there is no room for dispute; in contrast, there can be no truth based on an objective nature, for each individual experiences the world differently, and thus the configuration of "reality" is subject to inevitable disagreement and debate.

For Hobbes, eliminating disagreement is essential to eliminating the conditions for civil war; peace is the ultimate purpose of this philosophical program entirely grounded in social consent. At the same time, Hobbes's notion of reality as a social construction contains a certain element of fascism; his notion of an all-powerful judge of definitions, making decisions that cannot be disputed, resembles the fascists' totalitarian philosophy. It advocates the control of reality through power negotiations, but accepts completely the powerlessness of the individual to change that constructed reality.

Book I, Chapters 6-9

Book IChapter 6: Of the Interior Beginnings of Voluntary Motions, commonly called the Passions. And the Speeches by which they are expressed.Chapter 7: Of the Ends, or Resolutions of DiscourseChapter 8: Of the Vertues commonly called Intellectual; and their contrary DefectsChapter 9: Of the Severall Subjects of Knowledge

After his scenario for the transfer of motion from object to object and ultimately into living organisms, Hobbes elaborates the nature of motion as it is manifested in animals. Hobbes acknowledges two types of motion peculiar to animals: "Vital" and "Voluntary." Vital motions are innate and automatic to all animals, and continue throughout life; they include the flow of blood, breathing, digestion, excretion, and the like. Voluntary motions are active and directed, such as walking, speaking, and the moving of the limbs.

Hobbes considers the causal factors that precipitate voluntary motions, the motions that eventually progress into directed actions. These causal motions are thoughts and imaginations. Of them Hobbes writes, "[These] small beginnings of Motion, within the body of Man, before they appear in walking, speaking, striking, and other visible actions, are commonly called ENDEAVOUR." Hobbes subsequently defines endeavor: "This Endeavour, when it is toward something which causes it, is APPETITE, or DESIRE . . . And when the Endeavour is fromward something, it is generally called AVERSION." Appetites and aversions, like everything in Hobbes's mechanistic universe, are discovered to be the product of transferred motion, and the interplay of appetites and aversions constitutes Hobbes's depiction of human nature. To recapitulate: Hobbes's derivation of human appetites and aversions from the elementary kinetics of the universe and the impact of material bodies on the human form means that human nature itself is the direct mechanic product of physical processes.

Hobbes details a large roster of the appetites and aversions that exist in human beings, some "born with men" (caused by internal motions), some "proceed[ing] from Experience" (caused by external motions). From these two categories of appetite and aversion arise all the "Passions" known in human natures; every passion from delight and ambition to anger and curiosity derives from some configuration of appetite and aversion. Even the metaphysical categories of good and evil issue originally from appetite and aversion, for Hobbes writes that "the object of any mans Appetite or Desire; that is it, which he for his part calleth Good: And the object of his Hate, and Aversion, Evill."

When a person initiates a train of thoughts in order to judge something "Good" or "Evil"--that is, in order to ascertain whether he or she has an "appetite" or "aversion" to that thing--the person is said to "Deliberate." The end of deliberation, the conclusion drawn from the consideration of good or evil consequences, the decision to act or not to act, is called the "Will." When deliberation is put into speech, the building of consequences and conclusions is similar to the process of constructing philosophically true speech (Hobbes described this process in the previous section). However, Hobbes points out that deliberation is purely subjective to the person deliberating, and therefore cannot be considered a science.

Science is, Hobbes repeats, the "knowledge of the consequence of words" for which definitions have been rigidly established. Hobbesian science yields knowledge that is true for all speakers of the shared language and is therefore objective. If the foundation of discourse is not a shared set of definitions, then the conclusions derived from such discourse are called "Opinion." And if the foundation of discourse is even narrower--if it

is constituted of the words of some particular person or text--then the resolution of discourse is called "Belief" or "Faith." By giving the examples of opinion and faith, Hobbes shows that all knowledge, including scientific knowledge, is conditional and that "no Discourse whatsoever, can End in absolute knowledge of Fact, past, or to come." But Hobbesian scientific discourse, based on definitions, nevertheless provides knowledge that is secure and trustworthy, because it is based not on opinion or faith, but on a universal sociological determination of first principles.

On the basis of his discussion of the passions, Hobbes turns to the intellectual "virtues" and "defects." Hobbes recognizes two types of virtue: natural wit and acquired wit. Natural wit is manifested in the simple act of imagining along a train of thoughts which everyday experience provides (the lack of natural wit is the intellectual defect called "Dullness" or "Stupidity"). Acquired wit is reason that we develop through the proper use of speech, and it leads toward science. Differences in natural wit among people are accounted for by differences in the passions, particularly "more or lesse Desire of Power, of Riches, of Knowledge, and of Honor." Hobbes then collapses all these desires into the desire for Power, as manifestations of the same impulse.

To have none of these passions is to be dead; to have weak passions is "Dullness"; to have indifferent passions is "Giddiness" or "Distraction"; to have disproportionate passion for anything is "Madness." Hobbes employs his deduction of madness (again, ultimately depending on his early mechanistic arguments) to argue against the existence of devils. He reinterprets conventional Biblical exegesis, arguing that episodes commonly understood as proving the existence of devils--such as the famous story of Jesus casting the devils out of possessed men--are merely describing the condition of madness, an overabundance of passion, the basis of which is appetite and aversion (the basis of which is the kinetics of matter). This moment of radical scriptural reading prefaces the more sustained analyses of Books 3 and 4. Hobbes employs his literary critical skills, in addition to his method of philosophical science, to make his case, in the process attempting to redefine the foundations not only of philosophy and science, but also theology. Theology becomes just another branch of Hobbes's totalizing and monolithic intellectual project.

To illustrate the extent to which his proposal for a proper philosophical method encompasses all aspects of human knowledge, Hobbes briefly considers the "several subjects of knowledge" in order to show that his science can explain and account for all of them. There are two main branches of knowledge, writes Hobbes: knowledge of fact and knowledge of consequences. Knowledge of fact is called history, as in natural history or civil history. Knowledge of consequences, again, is philosophy, also known as science. The two branches of knowledge are linked in that science deduces conclusions from a foundation in history. With this schema, Hobbes echoes Bacon and other early natural philosophers; however, whereas Bacon believed that the facts of natural history could be known from observation and experiment, Hobbes posits that such facts can only be firmly established through shared definitions. Moreover, Hobbes's philosophy is unprecedented in its comprehensiveness, enveloping all other forms of philosophy, and

he presents an exhaustive flow chart to show that every branch of human knowledge and technology stems from the philosophical science being outlined in Leviathan.

Book I, Chapters 10-13

Book IChapter 10: Of Power, Worth, Dignity, Honour, and WorthinesseChapter 11: Of the difference of MannersChapter 12: Of ReligionChapter 13: Of the Naturall Condition of Mankind, as concerning their Felicity, and Misery

Summary

In the previous section, Hobbes introduced the concept of "Power" and the restless human appetite to achieve it. He divides power into two kinds: Natural and Instrumental. Natural power derives from the faculties of the body or mind, such as strength, wit, and arts. Instrumental power derives from acquired faculties, such as riches, friends, and reputation. The measure of power in an individual is called "Worth," or how much would be given for the use of that individual's power. To believe someone to be of high worth is to "Honor" that person; to ascribe low worth to a person is to "Dishonor" him or her. The publicly recognized worth of an individual is "Dignity." "Worthiness," on the other hand, is not the generalized worth of an individual. but rather the measure of that person's faculties relative to a specific function. In the end, all these qualities that affect social relations--worth, worthiness, honor, and dignity--are permutations of power, and the appetite to achieve power is a central aspect of Hobbes's picture of human nature.

Hobbes writes, "I put for a generall inclination of all mankind, a perpetual and restlesse desire for Power after power, that ceaseth onely in Death." But against this continual appetite for power, Hobbes juxtaposes fear. The ultimate aversion, this "Fear of Death, and Wounds," causes people to seek peace. Fear of each other's power is the only antidote to the power struggles inherent to human appetite. The negotiations between power and fear with the ultimate goal of achieving peace are called "Manners."

Differences in manners arise from our lack of precise philosophical knowledge about the best and most expedient way to negotiate between power and fear. Hobbes declares that his philosophy will demonstrate the surest way of achieving peace. However, until the time of Hobbes's writing, ignorance of this proper philosophy and lack of science had produced a variety of manners, none of which could claim the security of his propositions. Knowing neither the causes of power nor of fear, men relied on custom, the authority of others, and religion to achieve peace, but, without science, peace is always tenuous. Unable to know the outcome of actions or foresee the future, people are in constant fear of possible dangers, evil turns of event, or sudden death. Hobbes

argues that fear stems from ignorance of causes and that religions have been invented to posit causal forces in an effort to dispel fear; however, only philosophy can achieve this successfully.

Reason dictates, Hobbes writes, that the universe was first set in motion by a Prime Mover. Although the Prime Mover itself is unknowable by reason, the causes of all things are discernible by philosophy. However, improper reasoning has already caused much confusion, by producing multiple false religions (the only true religion being Christianity) and many fanciful notions (such as incorporeal spirits, pagan gods, ghosts, angels, or demons) to account for observed phenomena. Although all religious ideas and superstitions function to control fear and strive toward peace, only "true Religion" corresponds to the conclusions drawn by proper philosophy, and only proper philosophy can teach how to attain stable peace.

Hobbes's theory for peace grows out of his vision of human nature, and as we have seen, Hobbes's conception of human nature is simply the sum total of mechanic appetites and aversions, mediated by power struggles. Because human appetite is mechanical and resources are limited, when two people have an appetite for the same resource the natural result is war: "[I]f any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies; and in the way to their End, (which is principally their own conservation, and sometimes their delectation only), endeavour to destroy, or subdue one an other." Even though people may differ in the strengths of their various natural powers, all people are naturally equal, because even the weakest is capable of killing the strongest by some means; thus battle is inevitable.

From this proposition, Hobbes can describe the natural condition of mankind before society, government, and the invention of law. This natural condition, free of all artificial interferences, is one of continuous war and violence, of death and fear. This condition is known as the "state of nature," and Hobbes's depiction of this state is the most famous passage in Leviathan: "[D]uring the time men live without a common Power to keep them all in awe, they are in a condition which is called Warre; and such a warre, as is of every man, against every man. . . . In such condition, there is no place for industry . . . no Culture of the Earth; no Navigation . . . no commodious Building; no instruments of moving . . . no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continuall feare, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short."

The Hobbesian state of nature is an instructive fiction, a reasoned deduction of what human nature might have been like in a hypothetical existence prior to any civilization. Yet while Hobbes concedes that it never existed in actual history, he asserts that, to a degree, the state of nature is a reality; we see approximations of it in the lives of the "savage people of America," he says, and Europeans approach it in times of civil war. Further evidence of our natural condition can be seen in our mistrust of others, criminal behavior, and in domination of weak countries by strong countries.

In the state of nature, where it is a war of every natural man against the others, no security is possible and life is full of horror. But two natural passions enable people to escape the state of nature: fear and reason. Fear makes natural man want to escape the state of nature; reason shows him how to escape. Reason provides the natural laws that Hobbes develops in the next section, which constitute the foundation for peace.

Commentary

With the invention of the state of nature, Hobbes transforms his philosophical text into a strange hybrid mix of genres, for the description of the natural condition of mankind and its avowedly fictional aspects is the product of literary imagination. A narrative begins to emerge within the confines of Leviathan, a drama whose main characters are the natural men struggling for existence against the brutalities of the natural world and the abuses of one another.

Hobbes's description of the state of nature parallels his description of the motion of matter. Hobbesian material bodies constantly and violently collide with each other in the way that human bodies struggle and clash in the state of nature. Thus, not only does each layer of Hobbes's arguments build upon the logic of the last, each layer reflects and reconfigures the previous layer's imagery and themes as well.

The state of nature witnesses a dialectic struggle between fear and power, in which power is the instigator of human misery, fear the savior of human life. Hobbes wildly abstracts the concept of fear in the language of his text, rendering it a sort of autonomous character in the text's underlying narrative; fear interacts with the character of natural man, convincing him to attempt escape from the state of nature. Thus, not only does Hobbes grant fear the agency of a character, but he also ascribes to it the crucial achievement: In Leviathan's cast, fear could be considered the hero.

Significantly, the state of nature, the "state of meer nature," is called a state. The natural condition of mankind is thus not only a temporal condition, something that happened in the past, nor is it merely a potential deterioration of culture, something that happens in civil war. It is also a circumstance of geographical place. A striking parallel will soon become evident, providing novelistic structure to Hobbes's writing; the state of nature and the state of the Leviathan are two sides of the same coin, and the characters of the natural men, as well as the character of fear, traffic back and forth between the different states. This literariness will be more apparent after Hobbes discusses the engineering of the Leviathan.

By finding traces of the state of nature in civil war, Hobbes endows his book with a relevance wider than first acknowledged. Not only is it an objective pursuit of philosophical knowledge, but it is also a political commentary on the English Civil Wars. Hobbes makes his political sympathies quite clear when he describes the time of Charles I's regicide as having been plagued with the horrors characteristic of a state of nature. By crafting such a brutal image of civil war, Hobbes's rhetoric strives to terrify his reader; in contemplating civil war, the reader is supposed to experience the same fear felt by natural man in a state of nature. Rather than sticking to an intellectual persuasion,

Hobbes gladly employs more emotional techniques to convince his audience and thereby further displays his literary sensibility.

Book I, Chapters 14-16

Book IChapter 14: Of the first and second Naturall Lawes, and of ContractsChapter 15: Of other Lawes of NatureChapter 16: Of Persons, Authors, and things Personated

Summary

A "Law of Nature" is a general rule that is discovered through reason. Such a law affirms human self-preservation and condemns acts destructive to human life. Unlike a civil law, which must be written down and publicized in order to be known, a law of nature is natural and inherently known by all because it can be deduced by innate mental faculties (reason, philosophy). Having described the horrors of the state of nature, in which fear reigns supreme, Hobbes concludes that natural man, in order to preserve life, must seek peace. Thus the first law of nature is: "That every man, ought to endeavour Peace, as farre as he can hope of obtaining it; and when he cannot obtain it, that he may seek, and use, all helps and advantages of Warre. The first branch of which Rule, containeth the first, and Fundamental Law of Nature; which is, to seek Peace, and follow it. The Second, the summe of the Right of Nature of Nature; which is, By all means we can, to defend our selves." Natural law demands that we seek peace because to seek peace is to fulfill our natural right to defend ourselves.

The second law of nature follows upon the mandate to seek peace: We must mutually divest ourselves of certain rights (such as the right to take another person's life) in order to escape the state of natural war. This second law requires: "That a man be willing, when others are so too (as farre-forth, as for Peace, and defense of himself he shall think it necessary, to lay down this right to all things; and be contented with so much liberty against other men, as he would allow other men against himself." This mutual transferring of rights is called a contract and it is the basis of the notion of moral obligation. For example, I give up my right to kill you if you give up your right to kill me. For the sake of self-preservation, people will give up their rights only when others are willing to do the same. (However, the right of self-preservation is the one right that can never be given up, because it is the right upon which the contract is founded in the first place.)

From these first two laws of nature, Hobbes proceeds to deduce a series of other laws, each one building upon the last in the geometric fashion of which he is so fond. The third law of nature states that it is not enough simply to make contracts, but that we are required to keep the contracts we make. This law of nature is the foundation for the concept of "Justice." But because of the human desire for power, there is always incentive to break the contract, despite the logic of the third law and the natural

mandate to preserve our own lives. Other natural laws--and eventually the concept of sovereignty--must come into play in order to preserve the functionality of this third law. But it should be recognized that the first three laws of nature, as an autonomous triad, have already provided a plan for escaping the state of nature.

The fourth law of nature is to show gratitude toward those who maintain the contract so that no one will regret having complied with the contract. The fifth law states that we must be accommodating to others for the purpose of protecting the contract and not quarrel over minor issues lest the contract collapse. The remaining laws are summarized as follows: 6) We must pardon those who have committed offenses in the past; 7) Punishment should be used only to correct the offender and to protect the contract, not for gratuitous retribution (e.g. "an eye for an eye"); 8) People must avoid making signs of hatred or contempt toward others; 9) Pride should be avoided; 10) One should retain only those rights that one would recognize in others; 11) Equality and impartiality in judgment should be maintained at all times; 12) Resources that cannot be divided, such as rivers, must be shared; 13) Resources that cannot be divided nor shared in common should be assigned by lottery; 14) Lots are of two sorts: natural (either through primogeniture or through first seizure of the resource) or arbitrary (random determination of possession); 16) Individuals who work to preserve the peace should be left in peace; 17) Disputes must be settled by an arbitrator (as Hobbes had already concluded in his discussion of the determination of first principles); 18) No one with self-interest may be an arbitrator; and 19) Witnesses and facts must be brought to bear in arbitration, lest decisions be made by force, contrary to the law of nature.

A law of nature is valid if it conforms to this general rule: "Do not that to another, which thou wouldst not have done to thy selfe." The nineteen laws of nature are the sum of morality, and the science that determines them is known as "moral philosophy."

Hobbes points out that the name of "law" is deceptive, for the "laws of nature" are simply conclusions drawn from natural reason rather than mandates of governmental authority. But in the sense that these laws are required by natural reason and that nature is ruled by God, "who commandeth all things," Hobbes supposes that "law" is a proper term after all.

The contract, or covenant, required and upheld by natural law represents the persons of all involved in the construction of the contract. There are two types of persons, natural and artificial. A "natural person" is one whose words are his or her own. An "artificial person" is one whose words are those of someone else. Thus, a natural person is analogous to an "author," who is the originator of words. All the natural men in the state of nature are natural persons; their words are their own when they make a contract to escape the state of nature, and so they are authors of the contract. The contract becomes a representative of the natural people, encompassing and joining their identities; the multitude of natural persons, all authors, condense their wills into the single representation and, in so doing, the multitude becomes unified. Because the contract is a representative, or an actor, personating the words of natural persons, it fits the definition of an artificial person. The contract, symbolizing social unity, is an artificial

person, and with this equation Hobbes launches the powerful iconography of the Leviathan.

Commentary

Hobbes's philosophy has moved from its earlier consideration of kinetics and human nature into a controlled science of civilization. His proposals, building from elementary motion all the way into the creation of the social contract, lead to the construction of a real social science, the first sustained attempt in the history of ideas to submit human society to rigorous scientific examination. Accordingly, Hobbes is credited with the inauguration of social science in Western culture. Nevertheless, there is no real gap between Hobbes's natural science and his social science; the connection is completely seamless--or rather, the natural and the social merely represent two different points on a single spectrum.

Hobbes's philosophical program appears at a moment in history just before the Enlightenment, when a rigid distinction between the natural and the social did not yet exist. Bruno Latour has suggested that the chasm between nature and culture, which appeared during the eighteenth century, can be partly traced back to Hobbes and his debates with contemporary natural philosophers. When experimental philosophers such as Robert Boyle rejected Hobbes's radical program to reform the sciences and banned him from the English Royal Society, Hobbes was relegated to the category of social philosopher rather than natural philosopher (he was, in fact, both). The squabbles of intellectuals thus drew a line between natural and social sciences that had not existed in Hobbes's writings. Consequently, the science of nature and the science of society were perceived as having separate objects of study, and the difference between nature and society was born (see Bruno Latour, We Have Never Been Modern).

But earlier in the seventeenth century, the difference between the natural and the social was not as defined as it is for the modern world, and Hobbes's work dramatically demonstrates that nature and society can be the subjects of a single scientific endeavor. Accordingly, Hobbes's ideas are similar to two radically different modern intellectual positions, both of which collapse the distinction between nature and society but for opposite reasons. Constructivism maintains that social practices and behavior construct our knowledge of nature. Sociobiology and psychobiology, on the other hand, argue that nature and natural factors determine our social practices. Hobbes is sympathetic to both positions and expresses each at various points in Leviathan. As we have seen, Hobbes advocates the formulation of first principles by social agreement; yet, as we have also seen, he argues that human knowledge, morality, and society are all products of the fundamental kinetic motions of matter. Thus Hobbes might be simultaneously considered a sociobiologist and a social constructivist.

Book II, Chapters 17-19

Book II: Of Common-WealthChapter 17: Of the Causes, Generation, and Definition of a Common-wealthChapter 18: Of the Rights of Soveraignes by InstitutionChapter 19: Of the severall Kinds of Common-wealth by Institution, and of Succession to the Soveraigne Power

Summary

Although the laws of nature require that human beings seek peace, and maintain that the establishment of contracts is the best means of doing so, the natural human hunger for power always threatens the safety of the contract. Hobbes concludes that there must be some common power, some sovereign authority, to force people to uphold the contract. This sovereign would be established by the people as part of the contract, endowed with the individual powers and wills of all, and authorized to punish anyone who breaks the covenant. The sovereign operates through fear; the threat of punishment reinforces the mandates of the laws of nature, thus ensuring the continued operation of the social contract.

The sovereign is the ruling force behind the contract; in the analogy between the abstracted contract and an artificial person, the concept of sovereignty is the soul of the artificial person and the sovereign itself, the head. This artificial person is a metaphor for the state in total, and Hobbes names this artificial person "Leviathan." Hobbes's description of the construction of the Leviathan draws upon the conclusions made in Book I about the state of nature and repeats its images: "The only way to erect such a Common Power, as may be able to defend them from . . . the injuries of one another . . . is, to conferre all their power and strength upon one Man, or upon an Assembly of men, that may reduce all their wills, by plurality of voices unto one Will . . . This is more than Consent, or Concord; it is a real Unitie of them all, in one and the same Person, made by Covenant of every man with every man, in such a manner, as if every man should say to every man, I Authorize and give up my Right of Governing my selfe, to this Man . . . on this condition, that thou give up thy Right to him . . . This done, the Multitude so united in one Person, is called a COMMON-WEALTH . . . This is the Generation of the great LEVIATHAN."

The purpose of establishing a commonwealth is to escape the state of nature and to provide peace and the common defense of the people; the sovereign is responsible for ensuring this defense. The sovereign may be an individual or a group of people, but Hobbes always speaks of the sovereign as "he." The power given to the sovereign permits him to do whatever he deems necessary in order to protect the commonwealth. All rights of the individual have been transferred to the sovereign in order for this protection to work, and the only right retained is the right of self-preservation, which was the original reason for establishing the Leviathan.

There are two ways of establishing a commonwealth: through acquisition (force) or through institution (agreement). The latter accords with Hobbes's description of how natural man raises himself out of the state of nature (through the establishment of the

Leviathan). The former, establishing a commonwealth through force, means that a sovereign power takes control of a group of people, who--if they do not resist the acquisition and depose the sovereign--must consent to his control. Thus, a sovereign instituted by force is as much a part of the social contract as a sovereign instituted by agreement. Both have the same function--to protect society and secure peace--and both have the same rights relative to their subjects.

The rights of a sovereign are as follows: 1) Subjects owe him sole loyalty; 2) Subjects cannot be freed from their obligation to him; 3) Dissenters must yield to the majority in declaring a sovereign; 4) The sovereign cannot be unjust or injure any innocent subject; 5) The sovereign cannot be put to death; 6) The sovereign may determine what ideas are acceptable (he is the ultimate judge of philosophical/scientific first principles) and may censor doctrines that are repugnant to peace (ideas that may cause discord within the population); 7) The sovereign prescribes legislative rules; 8) The sovereign has judicial power in all controversies, civil and intellectual; 9) The sovereign may make war and peace with other commonwealths; 10) The sovereign may choose his counselors; 11) The sovereign has the powers of reward and punishment; and 12) The sovereign may make all civil appointments, including that of the militia. All rights of the sovereign correspond with the laws of nature deduced in Book I and the philosophical methods Hobbes has employed throughout his argument. The sovereign is both the foundation of all true knowledge and the embodied power enforcing civil peace.

There are three kinds of sovereign authority instituted by agreement: monarchy (where power resides in one individual), aristocracy (where power resides in a group of people), and democracy (where power resides in all people willing to assemble for the sake of government). All other variations of government can be reduced to these three categories (for example, an elected monarchy is really a democracy, because sovereignty resides in the people who elected the monarch). Of the three possible versions of the Leviathan, Hobbes argues that monarchy is best, for several reasons. A monarch's interests are the same as the people's, because his political body is the same as his public body (the king's "body" is both his own natural body and the body of the state--the Leviathan). Contrastingly, in sovereign groups, the rulers do not share a body with the public. Secondly, a monarch will receive better counsel than aristocratic or democratic governors, because he can select experts and obtain their advice in private. Third, a monarch's policies will be more consistent because he is of one mind. Fourth, civil war is less likely in a monarchy because the monarch cannot disagree with himself. Finally, succession of sovereign power is more stable in a monarchy because the sovereign can choose his heir and the method of succession.

Commentary

Hobbes's political state, the Leviathan, is a monster. The name "Leviathan" itself refers to the Biblical sea beast: "None is so fierce that dare stir him up . . . his teeth are terrible round about. His scales are his pride, shut up together as with a close seal. . . . His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth. . . . When he raiseth up himself, the mighty are afraid . . . Upon earth there is not his like, who is made without

fear" (Job 41:10-33). Yet Hobbes takes this creature as the inspiration for his political state, because the Book of Job describes Leviathan as "King of all the children of pride." Hobbes's political state has to be a Leviathan, the most terrifying of all monsters because it must subdue the pride inherent in its human constituents, and it must use fear to prevent a recurrence of the state of nature.

The horrors of the state of nature are always lurking behind the state of the Leviathan. Civil war within the Leviathan causes the artificial body to collapse and all the subjects to fall into the state of nature. Fear of the state of nature is one reason for avoiding civil war. Fear of the sovereign Leviathan is another. The Leviathan is constructed to combat the fear of the state of nature, but it is capable of doing so only by wielding fear as its own weapon. Thus, in Hobbes's view of things, fear never disappears from human existence. However, there is a security accompanying fear of the Leviathan, an assurance of peace and the preservation of life. In contrast, fear of the state of nature has no such assurance. Thus the fear experienced by people living within the Leviathan is infinitely preferable to the fear experienced by people living within the state of nature.

Hobbes's political Royalism is clear when he abandons consideration of the other possible forms of the Leviathan, aristocratic and democratic, in favor of monarchy. Although Hobbes offers certain reasons for valuing monarchy above all, his philosophical argument does not necessitate monarchy's preeminence. The rest of Leviathan develops one kind of Leviathanic sovereignty at the expense of the other two, but Hobbes's framework leaves room for equally strong arguments in favor of aristocracy or democracy. Hobbes was a monarchist and his writings reflect this, but there is no reason why Hobbesian philosophy could not be used in a less totalitarian context. Hobbes has a historical reputation for validating absolute monarchy, and his work is often dismissed as dictatorial. But it must be remembered that, for Hobbes, sovereignty does not only reside in a king but also in sovereign congresses and sovereign democracies.

Book II, Chapters 20-24

Book IIChapter 20: Of Dominion Paternall, and DespoticallChapter 21: Of the Liberty of SubjectsChapter 22: Of Systems Subject, Politicall, and PrivateChapter 23: Of the Public Ministers of Soveraign PowerChapter 24: Of the Nutrition, and Procreation of a Common-wealth

Summary

Hobbes has written primarily of sovereignty established by agreement, but he now says that sovereignty established through force incorporates all the same rights and requirements of contract. The only difference lies in the way the sovereign is installed

and retained; a sovereign who comes to power by institution, or universal consent, gains the support of the people because the people fear each other. In contrast, a sovereign who comes to power by acquisition, or force, gains the people's support because the people fear the sovereign himself. Yet both kinds of sovereignty are consented to by social contract, and both kinds of contracts are always established by fear.

Contractual sovereignty is similar to the power of a parent over a child. In the state of nature, a child is owned by both parents, but because a subject cannot obey two masters, only one parent can have absolute dominion over the child. With no matrimonial laws in the state of nature, the mother alone knows who the father of her children is, and consequently, the father has no claim to paternal authority. Familial power in the state of nature is naturally maternal. However, Hobbes suggests that just as natural man escapes the state of nature by contracting with a sovereign, sacrificing personal rights in exchange for security and peace, so too do two parents in the state of nature contract with each other to give the father power of the family, also for the sake of security and peace. This contract subjugates mother and child to the father, and because the father has sovereign power by contract, instituted sovereign power is therefore called "Paternal." But Hobbes argues that sovereign power does not naturally reside in the father (rather, it resides in the mother). Only contract determines sovereignty, and Hobbes contradicts patriarchal discourse by suggesting that paternal authority is an accident of history (and contingent upon men in positions of power favoring men), rather than a dictate of nature or religion.

Acquired sovereign power is often called "Despotical" (as opposed to paternal) because it seems to be a relation between master and servant. But Hobbes says that this relationship is also by contract (unlike the relation between captor and slave, where the slave has no obligation to obey and may rightfully rebel); thus the despot and the paternal sovereign are one and the same.

Hobbes considers the nature of liberty under sovereign power and says that liberty means the ability to act according to one's will without being physically hindered from performing that act. Only chains or imprisonment can prevent one from acting, so all subjects have absolute liberty under sovereignty. Although the contract and the civil laws mandated by the sovereign are "artificial chains" preventing certain actions, absolute freedom and liberty still exist because the subjects themselves created the chains. Subjects write the social contract and are the authors of the sovereign's power. Thus, argues Hobbes, the subject is responsible for all hindrances to his actions and therefore cannot complain.

In the state of nature, liberty did not exist, because actions were hindered by fear of death and fear of the power of others. In the Leviathan, fear and power are still present, but because the subject has consented to give them to the sovereign to use as tools, the subject has attained absolute liberty. That is, the subject is an author of the sovereign's power and is accordingly responsible for the sovereign's actions. So even if the sovereign imprisons or kills the subject, the subject has been personally responsible for

his own fate. Hobbes concludes that freedom can only truly exist under a sovereign power authorized by its subjects.

But considering the more common understanding of liberty--namely, that the subject may rightfully resist or disobey a sovereign's commands if he or she so chooses--Hobbes determines that such liberty goes back to the laws of nature. A subject has the right of self-preservation and is never bound to injure himself, put himself in danger of death, kill himself or injure another (the sovereign may rightfully punish or kill the subject for disobedience, but the subject then has a right to defend himself). However, for nothing else may the subject rightfully resist the sovereign, because such resistance detracts from the sovereign's ability to protect the commonwealth.

If the sovereign is no longer able to fulfill the function of protection, then the soul has left the body of the Leviathan, the commonwealth has collapsed, and subjects are no longer bound by contract to the sovereign. However, at this point, they have returned to the state of nature and must create a new contract or be imprisoned by fear and horror.

Hobbes has reinforced the metaphor of the Leviathan as an artificial person, and he now begins a lengthy examination of the systems of this artificial body. The "systems" of the Leviathanic body are defined as groups of individuals joined by some interest. Towns, provinces, trade organizations, and households are examples of systems. A "regular system" has a representative, while "irregular systems" do not. The representative is analogous to the sovereign in that the members of the system are contractual subjects of the representative, but the representative's power is not absolute because it is subordinate to the sovereign power. "Political systems" are established by the sovereign. "Private systems" are established by the people's own volition. "Lawful systems" are permitted by the sovereign, while "unlawful systems" are not.

"Public ministers" are appointed by the sovereign to administer certain sets of affairs. Public ministers are sovereign representatives of those involved in their affairs and are considered to be the joints of the Leviathan's body, coordinating the members.

Commodities and goods produced within the commonwealth or by other commonwealths are the "nutrition" for the Leviathan's body. Money is the blood that circulates throughout the body, keeping it animated. Finally, the Leviathan reproduces itself by bearing children: "Plantations" or "Colonies."

Commentary

We saw earlier how each layer of Hobbes's argument mimics previous layers; the structure of the Leviathan is figured in a similar way. The Leviathan's body is like a set of nesting dolls, in which each doll is a bigger version of another doll inside of it. The Leviathan as a whole is a representative of all the people, but its body is made up of a succession of subordinated systems each with its own representative. The conditions of contractual sovereignty are identical for each representative in relation to its subjects, although only the Leviathanic sovereign has absolute sovereignty, because he is at the

top of the structure. The smallest unit of representation is the family, in which the father represents the mother and their children by contract. The atomic element of the Leviathan is the individual human body, and, like the smallest motions of matter that ultimately determine human actions in Hobbes's philosophy, the individual constituents are the ultimate authors of the actions of the Leviathan as a whole. Each constituent part of the Leviathan's body strengthens and acts upon the others. This intricate engineering of the Leviathan renders it virtually indestructible, securing a supremely durable peace.

The laminar endurance of the Leviathan has its troubling aspects, despite its ability to provide safety and freedom. When Hobbes makes the subject responsible for authoring the actions of the representative, a total acceptance of the status quo is cemented. Of course, this is for what Hobbes aims, and the logic of his own terms is extremely robust. But there is no possibility for civil change when the actions of the representative must always be accepted as having been, in fact, committed by the constituents. Hobbes tries to strengthen his claim with an analogy: He says that a state's subjects determine the actions of their sovereign in the same way that the kinetics of external material bodies, by the transfer of motion hierarchically from one body to the next, result in human bodily sensations, perceptions, and thought. But even if this argument is accepted, the analogy made with the relation between the human body and the sovereign representative does not hold up to scrutiny, because the individual constituent does not directly cause the actions of the sovereign in the same manner as the action of matter causes human perceptions. Hobbes's analogy seems to suggest that the actions of the sovereign are caused by material motions--just as human perceptions in general are caused by material motions--andnot by his human subjects--although these subjects may have a certain amount of influence.

Despite Hobbes's confidence that the sovereign's power will remain paternal in nature, he provides no logical guarantee that it will not devolve into a tyrannical or despotic mode of rule. Hobbes writes that when the sovereign no longer protects the security of the commonwealth, the subjects are no longer obliged to obey him. But the tightly interconnected body of the Leviathan, in which the smallest members are responsible for actions of the entire figure, resists governmental change even in cases when the abuses within the Leviathan are worse than within the state of nature.

Book II, Chapters 25-31

Chapter 25: Of CounsellChapter 26: Of Civill LawesChapter 27: Of Crimes, Excuses, and ExtenuationsChapter 28: Of Punishments, and RewardsChapter 29: Of those things that Weaken, or tend to the Dissolution of a Common-wealth

Chapter 30: Of the Office of the Sovereign RepresentativeChapter 31: Of the Kingdom of God by Nature

Summary

Hobbes continues to detail the functionality of the Leviathan, addressing specific offices and legal issues of the commonwealth. Counselors to the sovereign must by worthy of their position; their knowledge, abilities, and experience must be adequate to the advice they give. Furthermore, the motivations and goals of a counselor must be the same as those of the sovereign or discord will ensue. The best kinds of governments are those administered by sovereigns privy to the advice of many counselors; the second-best kind of government is one administered according to the judgments of the sovereign alone. The worst governments are those administered with the help of counselors who must arrive, with difficulty, at a plurality of consenting opinions before offering their advice to the sovereign (Hobbes is tacitly describing a parliament). Consensus is only possible, according to Hobbes, when one man, having heard a variety of opinions, is responsible for making resolution.

For this reason, the sovereign alone is the final judge of laws. "Civil laws" are those rules commanded by the sovereign through word, writing, or other sign of his will. Laws must be made known in order to be laws, and if they cannot be known (for example, in the case where the sovereign does not communicate the laws or, in the case where the subject is a child or an idiot, incapable of knowing the laws), then they cannot be justly enforced. However, the just enforcement of the laws of nature, which are contained by and form the basis of civil law, are not contingent upon the laws' communication, for the laws of nature are knowable through reason alone.

All laws require judgment and interpretation, and while the sovereign is the final judge, he may appoint subordinate judges to administer his laws. A judge must be impartial, decide equitably, and reach his conclusions through proper exercise of reason.

A judge may sometimes excuse a law's transgression if the transgressor demonstrates reasonable ignorance of the law. However, breaking the law is never excusable when the law is known or should be known. Breaking the laws of nature, which are apparent to everyone's reason, can never be excused (except for children, madmen, and other creatures without reason).

"Punishment" is "an evil inflicted by public authority, on him that hath done... a Transgression of the Law." The sovereign has the right to punish criminals in order to defend the security of the commonwealth. The sovereign also has the right to require certain subjects to punish other subjects for transgressing the law. But the sovereign can never require a criminal to punish him- or herself, because this violates the fundamental right of nature--the right of self-preservation--for which the sovereign was created. Moreover, the actions of the sovereign can never be declared illegal, because he is the origin of the law, not governed by it. Consequently, the sovereign can never be punished.

The counterpart of "Punishment" in the Leviathan is "Reward." "Reward" is granted to a subject by public authority and may take the form of either a "Gift" (if it is given by the grace of the public authority), or a "Salary" (if it is given in return for a service). The interplay between punishment and reward makes the Leviathan function properly, and, in the language of the body metaphor, they are "the Nerves and Tendons, that move the limbes and joynts of a Commonwealth."

Hobbes concludes his discussion of a properly functioning commonwealth and now considers a commonwealth in disarray--an unhealthy Leviathan. Hobbes likens a defectively conceived commonwealth to a "Defectuous Procreation": a birth defect. An unhealthy or unstable Leviathan can arise: 1) if the sovereign lacks absolute power; 2) if actions are determined as good or evil by every private individual, rather than by civil law; 3) if the subjects hold the mistaken belief that one's individual conscience should always take precedence over civil duty; 4) if the subjects maintain faith in supernatural phenomena, rather than in the learned doctrine instituted by the sovereign, thus challenging the sovereign's authority over knowledge; 5) if the sovereign is subject to the laws he creates; 6) if the subjects maintain a sense of individual propriety over personal goods, thus resisting the sovereign's rightful claim to all properties of the commonwealth; 7) if individuals divide up the sovereign power among themselves; 8) if the commonwealth imitates the governments of other nations; 9) if the commonwealth imitates the Greeks and Romans; 10) if the Leviathan divides civil and spiritual or religious authority; 11) if the government is a mixed government of varying modes of administration; and in a few other situations. All these conditions, whether "birth defects" born with the Leviathan or "diseases" that have appeared over time, will eventually lead to divisiveness within the Leviathan, which will in turn lead to civil war.

The office of the sovereign is designed to "procure the safety of the people." When this office is no longer fulfilled, the soul has disappeared from the Leviathan, and it is merely a corpse. Sovereignty dissolves during civil war and also during an international war if the enemy is victorious. At the moment the Leviathan collapses, the subjects are thrust back into the state of nature, once again left to protect themselves with whatever powers they may against the powers of others.

To avoid this horrible outcome, Hobbes writes, it is necessary merely to follow the philosophy of his text and thereby obey the sovereign in all things that will facilitate the sovereign's ability to protect the commonwealth. Hobbes anticipates a possible objection, in that the commands of the sovereign may be contrary or repugnant to the laws of God. A subject must avoid civil punishment, but, in so doing, must also avoid divine punishment. So it is necessary to know the laws of God and to what extent they correspond to the laws of the sovereign. The natural laws of God are dictated by natural reason (which derives ultimately from God as the Prime Mover), and Hobbes has already demonstrated that natural laws are the foundation of the Leviathan. But God also ordains prophetical law, and the project of Book III of Leviathan is to apply Hobbes's philosophic method to the discernment of this prophetical law.

Commentary

Hobbes's argument in Book II straddles the line between philosophical description (i.e. deduction) of a contractual commonwealth and political prescription (i.e. utopia) for the institution of the ideal society. This section of Hobbes's text is concerned with the details of sovereign administration and the structure of the Leviathanic legal system. When coupled with the previous section, it provides a blueprint for engineering a new political structure. Had Hobbes's text had its intended political effect--to inspire the reconstruction of the English nation--the plans for the architecture and the systems of the Leviathan have been thoroughly outlined.

While Hobbes repeatedly insists that he is deducing his conclusions through his geometric method, by fancifully imagining the hypothetical perfect government, he undermines his scientific (i.e. analytic) pretensions. It bears repeating that Hobbes's text is a mixed bag of genres and written forms. In these last chapters of Book II, Leviathan resembles the writings of governmental reform and political propaganda, reminiscent of the political pamphlets circulating in this period between the Civil Wars and the Restoration; yet these chapters also suggest the conventions of utopian romance.

However, in the next book, the genre of political utopia vanishes as Hobbes makes a violent shift to theology and Biblical exegesis. In its intermixing of genres, Leviathan is dialogic in the Bakhtinian sense, eclectically gathering and employing the conventions of various genres to build its own rhetorical structure. Consequently, Leviathan cannot be placed unambiguously within any single genre, for it is neither philosophy nor natural history nor political propaganda nor utopia nor tragedy nor epic nor theology, but rather all these at once, inventing its own generic space. Leviathan is outside of genre, while skillfully using genre for its own purposes.

Book III

Book III: Of a Christian Common-wealth

Summary

In the previous two books, Hobbes has examined the "natural word of God," or the facts of nature that can be known by natural reason and has extended this natural order into a form of government based upon the laws of nature. Now, Hobbes considers the "prophetical word of God," or the elements of Christian faith that cannot be known by reason alone and yet must be obeyed. In Hobbes's discussion of the Leviathan, he insisted that all knowledge, belief, and power must stem from the sovereign in order to ensure peace. But in the case in which the sovereign's laws are contradictory to God's prophetical laws (they cannot be contradictory to God's natural laws, because they derive from them), a subject must know which laws to follow. Contradictory laws cannot both be followed, and having two masters, Hobbes writes, "makes men see double" (Chapter 39). Hobbes seeks to secure the sovereign's laws, which he has argued must

always be obeyed, against possible conflicts with Christian religion. Hobbes's method in the final two books of Leviathan focuses less on his previous geometrical derivations than on that of radical exegesis--skillful readings and interpretations of Biblical scripture intended to show that Christian belief accords perfectly with his philosophical program. In the process, Hobbes undermines virtually all of seventeenth-century Christian dogma.

The belief that the world is the "kingdom of God" has, according to Hobbes, been responsible for the "...double [vision]" of Christian subjects, because to believe that both God and the civil sovereign are kings of the world causes divided loyalties. Hobbes demonstrates though his reading of scripture that the kingdom of God is not present until the world ends, and thus only the civil sovereign is king in this world.

Ecclesiastical authority established under the belief of God's constant presence in the world has deepened the problem of seeing double. The institution of Churches, popes, priests, pastors, and theologians--who possess power and knowledge that is supposedly founded upon authority outside of the sovereign's domain (i.e. the authority of God and revealed religion)--creates a chasm in the power structure of the Leviathan. A subject's knowledge and obedience is split between two heads of the commonwealth, and this will lead, as Hobbes has repeatedly argued, to civil war. As such a situation is against the laws of nature--in that it puts safety in danger--it is against the word of God for religious authority and civil authority to be split into two bodies. Thus the sovereign must also be the head of all religion.

Certain religious tenets, which seem to contradict the conclusions of Hobbes's philosophy, are also responsible for seeing double. Belief in angels, spirits, and miracles reinforces a belief in the immediate presence of the kingdom of God, which undermines the sovereign kingdom here on earth; thus Hobbes must show that such beliefs do not depend upon dogmatic faith. Ecclesiastical authorities have perpetuated these beliefs in people in order to keep their own power distinct from the sovereign. But all these beliefs are explainable by Hobbesian philosophy.

Because the universe is a plenum, incorporeal spirits and angels are impossible. When everything is made up of bodies, the concept of bodilessness is illogical. The experience of these phenomena is caused by the effects of the motion of matter upon the human brain, which make a person believe that he or she is seeing something that is really not there. Thus spirits, angels, and visions of saints are "idols of the brain," and to worship such idols is contrary to Christianity, diminishing one's faith in God, who is not present in idols. When such an idol of the brain is sent by God to deliver a message (i.e., by initiating a certain sequence of motions that reach the brain), then this idol is properly called an angel, but must be recognized for what it is, rather than worshipped or feared as an incorporeal entity.

The same is true for miracles or the word of God delivered prophetically. Hobbes writes that most supposed miracles can be explained by natural causes, which, once known, diminish the wonder of the miracle. But people are easily deceived by false miracles and easily swayed by the interpretations of others. The only real miracles are those

coordinated by God to make evident the mission of some minister of His will, but the miracle is caused by God and not by the abilities or faculties of the minister. Accordingly, saints, priests, and prophets who claim special access to divine power must not be worshipped because they are only conduits of God's will.

The concepts of Hell, damnation, and devils have also been used to sway the beliefs of the ignorant and make them turn from their lawful sovereign. These beliefs relating to eternal punishments or tortures for sins committed in this world have been employed as tools by ecclesiastical authorities to affect the actions of individuals. But Hobbes reads scripture and argues from the philosophy of materialism that these concepts are impossible and can be used only metaphorically. A corporeal human body cannot be tortured in an incorporeal place, and incorporeal devils cannot exist, so the threat of eternal tortures and damnation is neither logical nor supported by scripture. In contrast, salvation is the resurrection of the body after the arrival of the kingdom of God on earth; thus it is not inconsistent with a material understanding of the current world.

Hobbes argues that Christian scripture and natural law support his determination that the sovereign be head of religion. If ecclesiastical authority is not subordinate to the sovereign, people will be taught contrary doctrines, and civil war will result. In the case of two contrary doctrines, both cannot be true; rather, one or both must be false. Peace is protected by the sovereign's power to determine which, if either, is true. But what if the sovereign chooses the doctrine that is false in the eyes of God? Hobbes argues that the only necessary doctrine is that Christians must have faith that Jesus is the Savior. Also, the laws of nature must be obeyed, because they are evident as the natural word of God. All other doctrines are interpretations written by humans and so cannot be declared the true word of God; accordingly, the sovereign, if a Christian, cannot command a doctrine that forces a subject to believe something contrary to the word of God.

But what if the sovereign is not a Christian? Hobbes argues that faith can never be commanded and that a subject whose sovereign commands him not to believe in Jesus as the Savior can never be forced to obey that sovereign. The subject may be required to speak this un-Christian belief publicly, but real, inner faith is impossible to command. If the subject is punished by death, then his or her martyrdom is only further proof to God of their faith. So even in the case where the sovereign makes a command that is obviously contrary to the word of God, a Christian subject is never in danger of disobeying God.

To ensure peace, a subject must obey his sovereign in all things, and Hobbes shows that obedience to the Single Master of the sovereign always provides security in this life and the next. There should never be two heads of a Leviathan, and the sovereign should always be the foundation of religious doctrine; churches, popes, and pastors should always be subordinate to the sovereign. Having determined--by natural reason and scriptural exegesis--which elements of religion are true and which are superstitious or false, Hobbes demonstrates that his program for the creation of the perfect commonwealth accords entirely with the necessary articles of Christianity.

Commentary

Hobbes has argued that, because of the material plenum of the universe, there can be no spiritual presence of God in this world. While evidence of God may be found through reason and the miracles or prophetical words He sends, God is not within this world, but can only be outside of it. The kingdom of God can therefore only exist at the end of the world, but must be thought of as if located in the world in order for human bodies to be subjects of this kingdom. Hobbes cites the words attributed in scripture to Jesus to show that Christ will not rule as king until the world ends. Thus the belief in two masters in this world--one civil and one divine--is not only contrary to peace but is also contrary to logical and religious truth.

However, even though Hobbes maintains that his arguments are completely consonant with Christianity, his notion that God is not present in this world was a drastically sacrilegious stance to take in the seventeenth century. Hobbes frequently condemns "atheists" in Book III, seemingly as an effort to distance himself from that category. Hobbes certainly believed in God; his philosophy leads him back again and again to the conclusion that there must be a Prime Mover who does intervene in the world, albeit only through the mediation of matter. However, by deducing that God is never personally present in this world--even in the incarnation of Christ--Hobbes placed himself in a shaky position relative to contemporary religious belief.

Hobbes's technique in Book III is primarily that of literary criticism. His reconstruction of Biblical exegesis to conform to his materialist arguments of Books I and II was a daring move in the cultural climate of the seventeenth century. While scientific endeavor throughout the century was concerned with reconciling the facts of nature with religious beliefs, the tendency was either to subsume natural knowledge under theological knowledge (as in the trial and execution of Galileo) or to separate natural knowledge from theological knowledge entirely (this was the strategy of Robert Boyle and members of the Royal Society, who maintained that the study of natural facts did not have implications for religion). Contrary to these prevailing tendencies, Hobbes takes theological knowledge and reinterprets it to conform to his determination of natural facts and philosophical conclusions. Hobbes shows that the Bible confirms his scientific claims, thus subordinating theology to natural philosophy, rather than the other way around.

But such a strategy was unlikely to be widely accepted in seventeenth-century England. A natural philosophy that had fewer consequences for religious belief and was less constraining of theological knowledge was more politically acceptable to contemporaries than Hobbes's monolithic philosophy. This may be why Hobbes's version of science did not become influential, despite its capacity to generate secure knowledge, while the more separatist version of science represented in the Royal Society came to be the basis of modern experimental science.

Book IV

Book IV: Of the Kingdome of Darknesse

Summary

The Bible describes the Kingdom of Darkness as the confederacy of Satan and his demons. However, Hobbes, having already disproved the existence of devils, concludes that the Kingdom of Darkness is merely an allegory for a "Confederacy of Deceivers, that to obtain dominion over men in this present world, endeavour by dark, and erroneous Doctrines, to extinguish in them the Light, both of Nature, and of the Gospell; and so to dis-prepare them for the Kingdome of God to come" (Chapter 44). In Book III, Hobbes began the project of dismantling false religious doctrines, and he continues to do so in Book IV under the claim that these false doctrines are poisoning Christian belief, preventing social preparation for the eventual coming of the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom of Darkness exists here and now, Hobbes writes, for religion is rife with false doctrines perpetrated by people interested in preserving their own power. Accordingly, people must change their behavior--namely, they must adopt Hobbes's philosophy--in order to fulfill true Christian obedience.

There are four causes of the Kingdom of Darkness: 1) errors resulting from the misinterpretation of scripture concerning the Kingdom of God (which Hobbes suggested in Book III); 2) the belief that the Kingdom of God is the present Church; 3) the belief that the Pope is the Vicar general of Christ; and 4) the belief that clergy are specially appointed over the Christian laity with privileged knowledge of divine will. From these causes have grown the false belief that priestly incantation brings about an alteration in spiritual state, as in consecration or baptism. In fact, such incantations have no bearing upon the spiritual state, for they are mere words and have neither magical ability nor the power to force God to take action. Thus consecrations, baptisms, and other verbally enacted procedures, such as marriage, are symbolic of Christian faith but do not bring God into presence. Not only is God never present, but a human being could not have such power over God.

Those who cite scripture in an attempt to prove the existence of spirits, devils, angels, or spiritual possessions, are misinterpreting the Bible. The power of priests to conduct exorcisms is thereby erroneous, as is the invocation of saints. Purgatory and Hell are inventions, Heaven will be founded on Earth with the coming of the Kingdom of God, and the natural immortality of the soul is not demonstrable in scripture. Scripture does not teach that spirits are incorporeal, Hobbes claims, and thus such beliefs are not the product of revealed religion but rather the retention of elements from "heathen religions." Demonology, disembodied spirits, exorcism, the worship of images, and the canonizing of saints are all "relics of the religion of the Gentiles" that have infected and remained within the Church and Christian doctrine.

Such "relics" have remained entrenched because those who profess understanding of, or control over, these relics, derive much personal benefit from them. Hobbes attacks ecclesiastical authority, maintaining that they have retained false doctrines because these doctrines give them power over the ignorant. Not content to blame the accidents

of history, Hobbes accuses those who preach false doctrines and erroneous facts to be directly responsible for them, for "He that receiveth Benefit by a Fact, is presumed to be the Author" (Chapter 47). Ecclesiastical authorities are thus the cause for the present Kingdom of Darkness, and Hobbes compares them to the fictional society, or Kingdom, of Fairies, which, although only an "old wives' tale" (Chapter 47), has generated many superstitious beliefs in people's minds. Hobbes proceeds to argue that, once false doctrine is dropped, a Christian commonwealth must institute the Leviathan in its place.

"No false doctrine is part of philosophy," writes Hobbes. Hobbes challenges contemporary theologians, Aristotelian philosophers, university scholastics, and the Church for being anti-philosophic and actively working to destroy truth. Hobbes criticizes the execution of Galileo, writing, "But what reason is there for it? Is it because such opinions are contrary to true Religion? That cannot be, if they be true" (Chapter 46). Philosophical truths must be religious truths, not the other way around, and only Hobbesian philosophy is successful in providing truths that are secure and capable of attaining that civil peace demanded by God's laws of nature.

In the conclusion to Leviathan, Hobbes summarizes his previous argument and reiterates the innate legitimacy of a philosophy that, if enacted, would ensure peace. He closes his masterpiece by writing that, while he does not know whether his book will have any effect on the current political climate, he is certain that no one can denounce his arguments: "For such Truth, as opposeth no mans profit, nor pleasure, is to all men welcome."

Commentary

When Hobbes suggests that the Kingdom of Darkness is preventing preparation for the coming of the Kingdom of God, he echoes the contemporary discourses of millenarianism. In England during the seventeenth century, there were many groups of people, including such groups as the Levelers and the Diggers, who believed that, with the millennium rapidly approaching, the Second Coming of Christ was imminent and that the world had to be physically prepared to welcome this arrival, which might occur by the turn of the century. Hobbes plays into this rhetoric when he suggests that the Kingdom of Darkness must be destroyed to smooth the way for the Second Coming. Hobbes also implies that instituting his Leviathan is the best way to prepare for the millennium. Hobbes was not a millenarian, so his usage of this rhetoric and the genre of millenarian writing is probably intended as a means of convincing his readers, many of whom were millenarians, of the urgency with which his program should be adopted.

However, by maintaining that the Kingdom of God has not yet arrived, Hobbes elaborates on his earlier statements arguing that in the material world and daily affairs, God is absent. God can only be perceived by natural reason and can be recognized as the fundamental cause of natural and miraculous events, but cannot be experienced as a presence. It follows, Hobbes suggests, that all worship or belief in God's immediate presence is idolatry. Thus it is idolatrous to have faith in the transubstantiation of the Eucharist, to worship saints, to believe that God is manifested in miracles (when really

He is only the cause of them), and to believe in the existence of angels, spirits, or devils. Hobbes's rhetoric and examples are clearly anti-Catholic. Certainly, in Protestant England, such anti-Catholic sentiment would have been accepted. But perhaps Hobbes emphasizes anti-Catholicism in order to sneak in the more controversial aspects of his argument (which he recognizes in the text as being controversial), including the implication that God has never been present in the world, even in Christ, His son. Hobbes's claims challenged contemporary Protestant dogma as much as Catholic.

Thus, fully aware of the controversial nature of his propositions, Hobbes undoubtedly meant the last line of his book, in which he asserts that no one could find his philosophy problematic, to be ironic. Indeed, Hobbes was deliberately courting controversy: He believed that the only way to change society, to end the political and philosophical abuses he observed to be destroying his country, was to engage in a controversy.

Hobbes names his commonwealth Leviathan and argues at length about how the Leviathan is compatible with Christianity and Christian good. However, for years, cultural tradition associated Leviathan with the horrible sea monster of the Book of Job, as well as with Satan (John Milton, in Paradise Lost, would later describe Satan as Leviathan--a sly criticism of Hobbes's already notorious text). Presenting what were already unconventional ideas in themselves, Hobbes guaranteed that his work would be condemned when he employed the powerful symbolism of the Leviathan to express these ideas. However, considering the turbulence of the times in the period between the Civil Wars and the Restoration, perhaps confrontation was necessary if Hobbes's text was to be successful in its agenda to restructure the entirety of the English commonwealth. Such ambition could never avoid offending, and it is just this grandiosity of scope, as well as Leviathan's unique method, literary prose, and carefully argued philosophy that have secured its reputation for greatness.