Leviathan: With Selected Variants from the Latin Edition of 1668 (original 1651; edition 1994)

My reactions to reading this book in 1994.

It took almost two months to plow through this book, but I’m not sorry I did.

Like most “great books”, the things I heard about it were rather simplistic and one-faceted. The actual book was more complex than I expected. I expected a detailed argument in favor of absolute rule, justified by divine right, by a king. Like some of the writings of Cicero, Hobbes, writing at the time of the political upheaval of the English Civil War (Cicero also wrote in a time of civil war), displays a strong desire for strong government to bring about tranquility. But Hobbes is up to much more than just an essay on why the Stuarts should have absolute power.

As Oakeshott says in his introduction, Hobbes was fascinated by geometry and it shows in the first part – “Of Man” – in which he develops a rather medieaval (in the sense of human consciousness being described as a series of internal “motions” caused by external objects) theory of psychology. Hobbes, in a style reminescent of a geometrical proof, starts out by defining certain human traits and emotions then constructs, using these definitions, theorems of human psychology. Hobbes view of man is realistic. He sees him as neither purely a creature of emotion (though he dedicates much time to exploring this aspect of humanity) or reason. He sees wisdom and rationality arising from human attempts to predict the future based on experience.

The book ends with some surly, sarcastic – but convincing – attacks on key elements of Catholic theology – the immortal soul, eternal torment in hell, purgatory. There is a lot of emphasis on the importance of ghosts – which Hobbes briefly deals with along with demon possession – as pertaining to purgatory, and the arguments about both that were going on at this time, and the trinity. He also takes a shot at the idea of the temporal rule of the Catholic Church over sovereigns. (Some of this is covered under the last section called “Of the Kingdom of Darkness”.)

Still, much of the book is Hobbes’ argument not only for an absolute sovereign (whether a king – which he prefers – or committee or assembly) but an absolute theocracy with religion and politics absolutely melded. Hobbes, according to the introduction, gets accussed of immorality. I don’t think Hobbes was amoral or immoral but his philosophy is extremely pragmatic. Hobbes, as the starting point of his philosophy (and this is extended, by contract, to the Leviathan of the state), sees a man as having the right to whatever he desires. The problem – of course – is that a man does not exist, mankind does and each man competes with the other for “honor, riches, and authority”. Hobbes says that man’s life, in a state of nature without government, is, to use his most famous phrase “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”. That in nature every man is at war with every other man, that no society, no art, no science, no letters exist, only continual fear. As Hobbes rightly notes, this state of anarchy is so intolerable that even the most primitive tribe has some form of government.

However, I think there are a couple of minor flaws to his vision of man’s competition. First, each person has different notions of “honor, riches, and authority”, each niche, each subtle variation in the term “riches”, “honor”, and “authority” can be occuppied by a different person. Second, Hobbes seems to postulate a zero-sum society where one person’s gain is another’s loss. This flies in the face of economic history. Still, Hobbes’ point, that commerce, trade, and economic security can’t exist in such conditions, is true. Hobbes’ ultimate statement – that all religious and political authority must be invested in the Leviathan (the artificial body of the state with the government as its head) to prevent this natural state of war and foster civilization – is understandable given the civil and religious conflicts of English society at the time.

However, Hobbes bluntly reaches several conclusions that would make a libertarian wince. Subjects have no right to attempt changing their government. The sovereign cannot forfeit his power. The laws of the commonwealth do not apply to the sovereign. Dissent is not allowed. The sovereign’s power is not limited. Hobbes hates separation of powers too. Hobbes acknowledges that this is a recipe for tyranny. Hobbes even denies the right of dissent based on religious conscience. He demands the outward form of obedience to whatever the sovereign mandates religiously. You can believe, according to him, whatever you want, and God will judge you accordingly, but even God expects absolute obedience. Hobbes says that government wanting power is always much worse than too much power. He blithely adds that the government is always concerned with its subjects' welfare because it is a component of their welfare. He is also quaintly naïve when he says that the sovereign will grant his subjects much freedom because there are many areas he will not seek to regulate. Obviously, he didn’t forsee the regulatory zeal of the modern Leviathan.

Still, Hobbes (at least in my very uneducated opinion) seems to straddle not only an authoritarian tradition but a libertarian one. He says that “force and fraud” are the cardinal virtues of war. Presumably that includes the war of man with every other man that occurs in nature. Government is instituted to eliminate this warfare. Interestingly, libertarians view government’s sole legitimate function as preventing “force and fraud”. In other words, like Hobbes, they wish to quell warfare in the state of nature. Libertarians base much of their philosophy on the use of contracts, and Hobbes bases his philosophy on that too. The subject, to avoid the unpleasant state of man in nature, voluntarily gives up his rights and will to a sovereign that promises security from violence. Much of the book is a detailed explication of this idea in its various political and religious implications. However, though Hobbes is about as an extreme advocate of governmental power as there is, he says a subject can – with justice (which, in Hobbes’ terms, means without violating the contract the subject forms with his sovereign) – resist a sovereign’s attempt to kill him. The whole point of the contract, Hobbes argues, is for the subject to avoid death. A subject can also justly refuse to kill himself, testify against themselves, or defend their life (even if they are criminals who have committed an unjust act the state seeks to punish) against the sovereign. While Hobbes views every action of the sovereign authorized by the subject via contract to get security, he points out that logically the contract is void when the subject’s life is at stake. ( )

I first read this as an undergraduate in political science, then we read it again in a second social philosophy course (where a chapter had been assigned for my first social philosophy course). ( )

Leviathan is considered one of the great works of political philosophy, though, as we shall see, only a fraction of it is strictly political in nature. It is firmly grounded in the civil and religious values of the English Reformation, but presages the Enlightenment. And it is both timeless and a product of its time, having been written by Hobbes while in exile during the English Civil War.

The work may be divided into three parts: the first philosophical, the second political, the third religious (though these are not the terms Hobbes would have preferred).

In the first part, "Of Man," Hobbes begins with the basic question: How do we know what is real and true? He discusses the senses, the intellect, rational thought, dreams, and illusions. He goes on to derive a series of "Natural Laws" based upon the logical actions a man must take, and the associations he must form, to secure peace and well-being. But as all men seek their own advantage in competition with others, peace is impossible unless men voluntarily submit themselves to the direction of a higher authority: the Common-wealth.

The second part of Leviathan, "The Common-wealth," is the one most read and studied. Hobbes classifies Common-wealths into three basic types: government by one, by a few, and by all. The attributes of common-wealths and the principles of effective government are the same, he maintains, for all three types. He clearly, however, endorses monarchy as the best form of government, it being the most efficient, the one most reflecting the natural organization of the family, and the one most consistent with Christian scripture.

Hobbes adamantly maintains that all power flows from the Sovereign (be it one person, several or many) and that it is foolish to pretend to contain the Sovereign's authority by constitutions or other forms. If a power exists that can curtail the Sovereign with a constitution, then that power is the true Sovereign, and since whomever makes a constitution can just as easily unmake it, the constitution's authority is just a fiction.

Much of the middle part of Leviathan is a systematic description of the nuts and bolts of government. Hobbes defines and distinguishes between administrators, ambassadors, and councilors. He lays out in some detail the principles of jurisprudence that are still in use today. For example, he discusses rules of evidence and testimony, how to relate the severity of punishment to that of the crime, and when ignorance of the law may or may not be an acceptable excuse.

Though many would argue that it is at odds with his preference for autocratic government, Hobbes' writing reflects his belief in the essential dignity and equality of all men and the principle of seeking the greatest good for the greatest number. He makes no distinction between social classes, and he repeatedly states that a man's thoughts and beliefs are his own business--a radical notion at the time.

The final two sections of Leviathan, comprising the largest segment of the work, are concerned with religious matters. At first Hobbes discusses strictly theological questions, such as how to interpret scripture and how to verify alleged miracles. This seems at first completely unrelated to the preceding discourse on Common-wealth, but it is all building a case in support of the primacy of civil authority over clerical: "...in every Christian Common-wealth, the Civill Soveraign is the supreme Pastor.... It is by his authority that all other Pastors are made, and have the power to teach...."

All of the issues of the English Reformation are revisited in a relentless attack on Catholicism and Papal authority. Yet Hobbes angered the Anglicans as well when he asserted that faith was the only requirement for salvation--that a man, even when compelled to follow the forms of another faith, is free to believe as he chooses, and his belief is all that matters. To us Leviathan reads like a devout religious tract with a bit about government in the middle, but the idea of freedom of conscience led to Hobbes' being labeled an atheist and forbidden to publish in England.

Hobbes has been described as the Shakespeare of English prose. I wouldn't go quite that far, but Leviathan is clear, lucid, and not at all difficult to read notwithstanding the archaic and inconsistent spellings. The first two sections are definitely recommended, while the last parts are chiefly of historical interest. Some familiarity with Plato and Aristotle would be recommended, if for no other reason than to enjoy Hobbes' impassioned attacks on their ideas. ( )

The editor of my edition of Leviathan begins by stating that this work is more often quoted than thoroughly read. I'm not surprised by that since the political philosophy which made this book a classic actually amounts to just 150 out of a total of 500 pages. Hobbes dedicates the beginning of the book to making exact definitions for a "scientific" language of society. These are interesting only for their naivety. The second half of the book has even less appeal, as he spends hundreds of pages on interpreting the meaning of obscure biblical passages. It certainly makes this book feel more antiquated than Plato or Aristotle ever did. But sandwiched between these two parts is Hobbes' fascinating political argument, which should of course be read by anyone who wonders why states are necessary.

I had a bit of trouble reading this book because of the archaic language. I did glean quite a bit of good info from it regarding Hobbes theories on religion, morality, and politics. It's a must read, but take your time. ( )