What do you think?
Rate this book
Behemoth: the history of the causes of the civil wars of England, and of the counsels and artifices by which they were carried on from the year 1640 to the year 1660
Behemoth: the history of the causes of the civil wars of England, and of the counsels and artifices by which they were carried on from the year 1640 to the year 1660 is essential to any reader interested in the historical context of the thought of Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679). In De Cive (1642) and Leviathan (1651), the great political philosopher had developed an analytical framework for discussing sedition, rebellion, and the breakdown of authority.
Behemoth, completed around 1668 and not published until after Hobbes's death, represents the systematic application of this framework to the English Civil War. In his insightful and substantial Introduction, Stephen Holmes examines the major themes and implications of Behemoth in Hobbes's system of thought. Holmes notes that a fresh consideration of Behemoth dispels persistent misreadings of Hobbes, including the idea that man is motivated solely by a desire for self-preservation.
Behemoth, which is cast as a series of dialogues between a teacher and his pupil, locates the principal cause of the Civil War less in economic interests than in the stubborn irrationality of key actors. It also shows more vividly than any of Hobbes's other works the importance of religion in his theories of human nature and behavior.
"The placing of Hobbes's political thought in its historical context--and specifically, viewing it as a direct response to and interpretation of the English Civil War--necessarily has the consequence of increasing the value of Behemoth, Hobbes's own analysis of that event. Students (and scholars) who wish to know not only how the Civil War shaped Hobbes's political thinking but also why it retained its central place in his thought nearly twenty years after he wrote Leviathan will have to turn to Behemoth for the answers." -- Richard Ashcraft
Behemoth, completed around 1668 and not published until after Hobbes's death, represents the systematic application of this framework to the English Civil War. In his insightful and substantial Introduction, Stephen Holmes examines the major themes and implications of Behemoth in Hobbes's system of thought. Holmes notes that a fresh consideration of Behemoth dispels persistent misreadings of Hobbes, including the idea that man is motivated solely by a desire for self-preservation.
Behemoth, which is cast as a series of dialogues between a teacher and his pupil, locates the principal cause of the Civil War less in economic interests than in the stubborn irrationality of key actors. It also shows more vividly than any of Hobbes's other works the importance of religion in his theories of human nature and behavior.
"The placing of Hobbes's political thought in its historical context--and specifically, viewing it as a direct response to and interpretation of the English Civil War--necessarily has the consequence of increasing the value of Behemoth, Hobbes's own analysis of that event. Students (and scholars) who wish to know not only how the Civil War shaped Hobbes's political thinking but also why it retained its central place in his thought nearly twenty years after he wrote Leviathan will have to turn to Behemoth for the answers." -- Richard Ashcraft
212 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1682
15 people are currently reading
665 people want to read
About the author
Thomas Hobbes
669 books1,020 followersThomas Hobbes was a British philosopher and a seminal thinker of modern political philosophy. His ideas were marked by a mechanistic materialist foundation, a characterization of human nature based on greed and fear of death, and support for an absolute monarchical form of government. His 1651 book Leviathan established the foundation for most of Western political philosophy from the perspective of social contract theory.
He was also a scholar of classical Greek history and literature, and produced English translation of Illiad, Odyssey and History of Peloponnesian War.
He was also a scholar of classical Greek history and literature, and produced English translation of Illiad, Odyssey and History of Peloponnesian War.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews
November 8, 2011
Behemoth provides an excellent companion to Hobbes' masterwork Leviathan, not only because it sets out in a narrative form the processes of breakdown of one particular commonwealth, illustrating main principles of Hobbes' political theory and ethics, it thereby communicates bit by bit the sensibility informing and running through Hobbes' more philosophical and systematic works.
There is Thomas Hobbes, erstwhile scientist of human nature and of civil society, who aims to sweep away scholastic philosophy, invocation of previous authors, expounding of religious claims (at least of Catholics and non-Anglican Protestants) and supply a new "science of justice and equity," modeled as much as possible upon geometry and physics, "taught, from true principles and evident demonstration." But then, there is the yet more interesting Thomas Hobbes, who keenly depicts and analyses human motives, the play of political power, competition and claims, and chronicles these engagingly.
Hobbes has arranged his history of the English Civil Wars -- which runs from the reign of King Charles I, through the breakdown of political order spurred by the House of Commons, ending with the reinstatement of Charles II -- into the form of four dialogues. Although they contain many sections of question, followed by "so glad you asked that. . . " answers, there's also some genuine interplay between the two interlocutors -- asides, quips, raising and resolving challenges. Both speakers are marked by Hobbes' typically terse, cut-to-the-chase, well-readable style.
It is not surprising that Hobbes, a proponent of absolute monarchy, should place main blame for the political and thereby societal breakdown upon the House of Commons, dominated by Presbyterians wanting to curb or even eliminate the monarchy, to wrest England away religiously from the Anglican establishment, and to take full power for themselves. Still, he fairly dispassionately examines the unfolding of motives, actions, declarations of all sides, revealing fissures, temporary alliances, and openings for opportunists like Cromwell in the English body politic, noting a common feature to nearly all of those involved: "the method of ambition was constantly this: first to destroy, and then to consider what they should set up."
There is Thomas Hobbes, erstwhile scientist of human nature and of civil society, who aims to sweep away scholastic philosophy, invocation of previous authors, expounding of religious claims (at least of Catholics and non-Anglican Protestants) and supply a new "science of justice and equity," modeled as much as possible upon geometry and physics, "taught, from true principles and evident demonstration." But then, there is the yet more interesting Thomas Hobbes, who keenly depicts and analyses human motives, the play of political power, competition and claims, and chronicles these engagingly.
Hobbes has arranged his history of the English Civil Wars -- which runs from the reign of King Charles I, through the breakdown of political order spurred by the House of Commons, ending with the reinstatement of Charles II -- into the form of four dialogues. Although they contain many sections of question, followed by "so glad you asked that. . . " answers, there's also some genuine interplay between the two interlocutors -- asides, quips, raising and resolving challenges. Both speakers are marked by Hobbes' typically terse, cut-to-the-chase, well-readable style.
It is not surprising that Hobbes, a proponent of absolute monarchy, should place main blame for the political and thereby societal breakdown upon the House of Commons, dominated by Presbyterians wanting to curb or even eliminate the monarchy, to wrest England away religiously from the Anglican establishment, and to take full power for themselves. Still, he fairly dispassionately examines the unfolding of motives, actions, declarations of all sides, revealing fissures, temporary alliances, and openings for opportunists like Cromwell in the English body politic, noting a common feature to nearly all of those involved: "the method of ambition was constantly this: first to destroy, and then to consider what they should set up."
May 14, 2020
For supporters of Charles I and his son, the middle of the 17th Century was a hard time and in the aftermath of the Restoration was a time to show they were right. Behemoth is Thomas Hobbes’ history of the lead up to the English Civil War and the resulting Interregnum.
Covering roughly two decades of political, military, cultural, and religious upheaval within the frame of a dialogue, Thomas Hobbes uses the political framework written in Leviathan to analyze the breakdown of political order and how it was restored. The first and second section of the book concerns how Charles I strong political position was undermined by seven factions acting independently of one another and how the King’s attempts to combat one faction were used by other factions to represent tyranny against their own party eventually leading to a rupture and war between King and Parliament. The third section covered the civil war itself with neither side getting an advantage until the rise of Oliver Cromwell turned the tide for Parliament that eventually lead to the capture of the King and after political machinations from both sides, Charles is put on trial then executed. The last section highlights how Parliament had no idea how to replace the King and went from one solution to another all the while Cromwell continued to accumulate power until taking over the place of Charles in all but the title of King. However, after Cromwell’s death and weakness of his son’s leadership, General Monck uses his army to takeover the political situation and invite Charles II to take the throne.
While Hobbes uses the ideas in Leviathan to frame this history, it is essentially a Royalist view of the history of the 1640s and 1650s. Throughout the book the prime factor that Hobbes saw as being the instigator of Parliament’s position against the King wasn’t taxes, but religion more specifically Presbyterian minister preaching from the pulpit against the King so they could achieve leadership of the nation like John Calvin had done in Geneva. Though Hobbes did mention several other factors, his obsession on the religious aspect overawed everything else in this history which at times became too much.
Behemoth is ultimately a royalist history of events in the mid-17th Century. Thomas Hobbes shows the breakdown of political order when the sovereign’s position is challenged and usurped by those that have no right to it and the chaos that follows, but through his partisan lens.
Covering roughly two decades of political, military, cultural, and religious upheaval within the frame of a dialogue, Thomas Hobbes uses the political framework written in Leviathan to analyze the breakdown of political order and how it was restored. The first and second section of the book concerns how Charles I strong political position was undermined by seven factions acting independently of one another and how the King’s attempts to combat one faction were used by other factions to represent tyranny against their own party eventually leading to a rupture and war between King and Parliament. The third section covered the civil war itself with neither side getting an advantage until the rise of Oliver Cromwell turned the tide for Parliament that eventually lead to the capture of the King and after political machinations from both sides, Charles is put on trial then executed. The last section highlights how Parliament had no idea how to replace the King and went from one solution to another all the while Cromwell continued to accumulate power until taking over the place of Charles in all but the title of King. However, after Cromwell’s death and weakness of his son’s leadership, General Monck uses his army to takeover the political situation and invite Charles II to take the throne.
While Hobbes uses the ideas in Leviathan to frame this history, it is essentially a Royalist view of the history of the 1640s and 1650s. Throughout the book the prime factor that Hobbes saw as being the instigator of Parliament’s position against the King wasn’t taxes, but religion more specifically Presbyterian minister preaching from the pulpit against the King so they could achieve leadership of the nation like John Calvin had done in Geneva. Though Hobbes did mention several other factors, his obsession on the religious aspect overawed everything else in this history which at times became too much.
Behemoth is ultimately a royalist history of events in the mid-17th Century. Thomas Hobbes shows the breakdown of political order when the sovereign’s position is challenged and usurped by those that have no right to it and the chaos that follows, but through his partisan lens.
October 28, 2013
In a nutshell:
A: "And so Parliament overthrew the King."
B: "How vile!"
A: "Exactly."
A: "And so Parliament overthrew the King."
B: "How vile!"
A: "Exactly."
March 13, 2019
Unpublished in his lifetime due to its virulent anti-clericalism, Hobbes' Behemoth was produced shortly before the author's 80th birthday. Within it, Hobbes uses the analytical framework that he developed in the Leviathan to apply it to the English Civil War.
Simply put, Hobbes wrote a history of the civil war through a profoundly pro-autocrat spin.
The Behemoth is a biblical creature from the Old Testament that only God alone can control. Whereas the Leviathan was a symbol that represented state control, the Behemoth represented rebellion and civil war. Hobbes associated it heavily with the religious, especially church clergy (whether the Papacy of the Holy See or the ministers of Presbyterianism). This book has a controversial premise; Hobbes believes that the roots of civic strife rested less in economic and legal causes, but rather in ideological and emotive.
Hobbes arrives at a subtle argument for how men gain knowledge - he believed that all knowledge and attitudes are shaped by irrational thinking by men who will act according to illogical and fleeting passions that do not even ascribe to the need for self-preservation. These attitudes are formed in childhood, in church, and through education, and then allowed to be put into practice by members of parliament and church clergy, all of whom then simply recreate the same experience for the generations they then influence.
Hobbes ultimately believed human ambition to not be clear-eyed or rationally self-serving, but rather foolish and self-defeating. One of many irrational impulses found within the human mind is the sheeplike need to attach oneself to someone greater. ‘Inferior neighbours’ who have a natural need to be instructed, follow ‘men of age and quality’ [54]. Soldiers are ‘addicted to their great officers’ [189]; subjects in general require their ‘immediate captains’ [39]. Schoolmasters will impart their irrational beliefs and ideologies upon their students, who do not have the critical thinking ability with which to doubt their ‘betters’. Even without explicit instruction as such, people will naturally acquire their opinions via osmosis rather than critical reflection. Hobbes creates a lovely phrase in which he says that men are carried away in ‘the stream’ of public opinion [112]. Men act without thinking about it, carried away by their peers, by their mindlessness, by slovenliness, by poor moral character, by an inborn desire to go with the flow of said stream. One might think that this suggests an exploitation within a class-based system, wherein the lower classes bow subserviently and irrationally without thinking, exploited by the upper classes, but Hobbes argues that this was found within the Lords at the time too, who didn’t realise that by destabilising the king they were destabilising their own position. Hobbes hereby writes that thinking irrationally (‘with want of judgement’) has terrible consequences – and then gives one exception: he writes that the parliamentarian army was so stupid and so irrational that they could not understand the woeful danger they were in when outnumbered on the battlefield, and so they plowed forward without fear and won. Thus here too irrationality created a self-fulfilling prophecy, but this (sole) time with fortunate consequences for the actors [114].
Passions intrinsic to men are exploited, and mankind is divided into two: the cynical and the duped. Again, Hobbes emphasises the fact that men are wholly irrational, willing to even be killed for the most ridiculous ‘reasons’ that are, ironically, free of reason. Hobbes had worked previously as a secretary to Bacon, who remarked that ‘man is not a rational actor because his intellect is not a ‘dry light’. On the contrary, ‘affections colour and infect the understanding’. Hobbes was clearly persuaded by his colleague’s belief that emotions frequently override self-preservation. Consider boredom, which Hobbes believed leaded to anarchy – many people will join in a rebellion simply because they loathe the monotony of what they know, happily tearing down a government with no thought as to what will replace it [155]. Hobbes writes that envy is a particularly irrational motivating factor for many and gives us an explicit example within IR. Among neighbouring nations, even when their interests coincide, ‘the less potent bears the greater malice’ [32]. Even states act irrationally and enviously.
Christianity really was loathed by Hobbes. Firstly, he believed it to be fundamentally irrational. Secondly, it took power away from the state and puts it instead into the hands of protestant ministers or the papacy. He cites Ambrose’s letter to the Emperor Theodosius - “I prefer God to my sovereign” – as setting a dangerous precedent. Hobbes explicitly linked it to the execution of Charles I, which he considered a protestant adaptation of the Jesuit doctrine of regicide. According to Hobbes, since the time of Christ, the anarchic strain within Christianity has resulted in a millennium and a half of a conflict between imperium and those who answer to a higher power. Furthermore, the belief that damnation is worse than death erodes the deterrent power of secular punishments – Hobbes cites Ethiopian rulers who committed suicide because their priests told them to, and considers this to be the pinnacle of the potency of irrational beliefs. But as we’ve discussed before, he who controls a population already indoctrinated with a certain belief system may bend it to his will. Thus, a prudent sovereign will attempt to monopolise a pretence of spiritual power alongside the ‘reality’ of political and physical force. He describes his peacekeeping and stabilised state as a ‘mortal God’.
The Behemoth represents Hobbes’ attempts to understand what transpired during this period of total political breakdown and how it came to be via the actions of the populace. Bacon wrote that ‘it often falls out, that Somewhat is produced of Nothing: For Lies are sufficient to breed Opinion, and Opinion brings on Substance’. Hobbes built upon this: to him, powerful emotions created reality for men and brought about self-fulfilling prophecies – reality was created by the irrational. He emphasises that most beliefs are irrational at best, or absurd at worst. Religion is, to him, all-important. We see in Behemoth why it is both an irrepressible danger and also a supremely useful tool for the monarch. Why is this? Because, to Hobbes, the human character will never be free from its own follies and passions.
Simply put, Hobbes wrote a history of the civil war through a profoundly pro-autocrat spin.
The Behemoth is a biblical creature from the Old Testament that only God alone can control. Whereas the Leviathan was a symbol that represented state control, the Behemoth represented rebellion and civil war. Hobbes associated it heavily with the religious, especially church clergy (whether the Papacy of the Holy See or the ministers of Presbyterianism). This book has a controversial premise; Hobbes believes that the roots of civic strife rested less in economic and legal causes, but rather in ideological and emotive.
Hobbes arrives at a subtle argument for how men gain knowledge - he believed that all knowledge and attitudes are shaped by irrational thinking by men who will act according to illogical and fleeting passions that do not even ascribe to the need for self-preservation. These attitudes are formed in childhood, in church, and through education, and then allowed to be put into practice by members of parliament and church clergy, all of whom then simply recreate the same experience for the generations they then influence.
Hobbes ultimately believed human ambition to not be clear-eyed or rationally self-serving, but rather foolish and self-defeating. One of many irrational impulses found within the human mind is the sheeplike need to attach oneself to someone greater. ‘Inferior neighbours’ who have a natural need to be instructed, follow ‘men of age and quality’ [54]. Soldiers are ‘addicted to their great officers’ [189]; subjects in general require their ‘immediate captains’ [39]. Schoolmasters will impart their irrational beliefs and ideologies upon their students, who do not have the critical thinking ability with which to doubt their ‘betters’. Even without explicit instruction as such, people will naturally acquire their opinions via osmosis rather than critical reflection. Hobbes creates a lovely phrase in which he says that men are carried away in ‘the stream’ of public opinion [112]. Men act without thinking about it, carried away by their peers, by their mindlessness, by slovenliness, by poor moral character, by an inborn desire to go with the flow of said stream. One might think that this suggests an exploitation within a class-based system, wherein the lower classes bow subserviently and irrationally without thinking, exploited by the upper classes, but Hobbes argues that this was found within the Lords at the time too, who didn’t realise that by destabilising the king they were destabilising their own position. Hobbes hereby writes that thinking irrationally (‘with want of judgement’) has terrible consequences – and then gives one exception: he writes that the parliamentarian army was so stupid and so irrational that they could not understand the woeful danger they were in when outnumbered on the battlefield, and so they plowed forward without fear and won. Thus here too irrationality created a self-fulfilling prophecy, but this (sole) time with fortunate consequences for the actors [114].
Passions intrinsic to men are exploited, and mankind is divided into two: the cynical and the duped. Again, Hobbes emphasises the fact that men are wholly irrational, willing to even be killed for the most ridiculous ‘reasons’ that are, ironically, free of reason. Hobbes had worked previously as a secretary to Bacon, who remarked that ‘man is not a rational actor because his intellect is not a ‘dry light’. On the contrary, ‘affections colour and infect the understanding’. Hobbes was clearly persuaded by his colleague’s belief that emotions frequently override self-preservation. Consider boredom, which Hobbes believed leaded to anarchy – many people will join in a rebellion simply because they loathe the monotony of what they know, happily tearing down a government with no thought as to what will replace it [155]. Hobbes writes that envy is a particularly irrational motivating factor for many and gives us an explicit example within IR. Among neighbouring nations, even when their interests coincide, ‘the less potent bears the greater malice’ [32]. Even states act irrationally and enviously.
Christianity really was loathed by Hobbes. Firstly, he believed it to be fundamentally irrational. Secondly, it took power away from the state and puts it instead into the hands of protestant ministers or the papacy. He cites Ambrose’s letter to the Emperor Theodosius - “I prefer God to my sovereign” – as setting a dangerous precedent. Hobbes explicitly linked it to the execution of Charles I, which he considered a protestant adaptation of the Jesuit doctrine of regicide. According to Hobbes, since the time of Christ, the anarchic strain within Christianity has resulted in a millennium and a half of a conflict between imperium and those who answer to a higher power. Furthermore, the belief that damnation is worse than death erodes the deterrent power of secular punishments – Hobbes cites Ethiopian rulers who committed suicide because their priests told them to, and considers this to be the pinnacle of the potency of irrational beliefs. But as we’ve discussed before, he who controls a population already indoctrinated with a certain belief system may bend it to his will. Thus, a prudent sovereign will attempt to monopolise a pretence of spiritual power alongside the ‘reality’ of political and physical force. He describes his peacekeeping and stabilised state as a ‘mortal God’.
The Behemoth represents Hobbes’ attempts to understand what transpired during this period of total political breakdown and how it came to be via the actions of the populace. Bacon wrote that ‘it often falls out, that Somewhat is produced of Nothing: For Lies are sufficient to breed Opinion, and Opinion brings on Substance’. Hobbes built upon this: to him, powerful emotions created reality for men and brought about self-fulfilling prophecies – reality was created by the irrational. He emphasises that most beliefs are irrational at best, or absurd at worst. Religion is, to him, all-important. We see in Behemoth why it is both an irrepressible danger and also a supremely useful tool for the monarch. Why is this? Because, to Hobbes, the human character will never be free from its own follies and passions.
June 25, 2025
اینگونه مینویسم که کتاب Behemoth, or The Long Parliament، که پس از مرگ هابز منتشر شد، روایت فلسفی تاریخی او از بحران سیاسی قرن هفدهم و جنگ داخلی انگلستان است.
هابز در این اثر، با شیوهای دیالوگی و تمثیلی، سقوط نظم سلطنتی و پیدایش هرجومرج سیاسی را بازخوانی میکند.
در این بستر، پارلمان بهعنوان بازیگری کلیدی ظاهر میشود؛ نهادی که به زعم هابز، با عبور از حدود مشروعیت خود، زمینهساز فروپاشی نظم اجتماعی و ظهور آشوب شد.
هابز، برخلاف بسیاری از لیبرالهای پس از خود، نگاه انتقادی و عمیقی به پارلمان دارد. در بهیموت، او پارلمان را نه تجسم اراده عمومی، بلکه نهادی میبیند که در بزنگاههای تاریخی، میتواند دچار افراط، عوامزدگی و تسلیم در برابر امواج تودهای شود. در روایت او، پارلمان طولانی (Long Parliament) با به چالش کشیدن اقتدار سلطنت، رشته نظم را گسست و به جای ساختن، به ویرانگری دست یازید.
از نظر هابز، پارلمان زمانی مشروع است که در چارچوب قراردادی که مردم برای ایجاد اقتدار مرکزی بستهاند عمل کند. اما هنگامی که این نهاد خود را منبع قدرت بداند و به مقابله با سلطه مشروع برخیزد، دیگر کارویژهاش را از دست میدهد. این نگاه، تجلی اندیشهی بنیادین هابز در لویاتان است: هر نهادی، از جمله پارلمان، تنها در پرتو اقتدار مرکزی معنا دارد؛ وگرنه به بهیموتی تبدیل میشود که جامعه را میدرد.
هابز در Behemoth، بار دیگر تأکید میکند که قانون، تنها زمانی مشروع و نافذ است که از ارادهی حاکم واحد ناشی شود. در این نگرش، پارلمان نمیتواند منشأ قدرتی مستقل باشد، بلکه باید ابزاری در خدمت حاکم مقتدر باشد. هرگونه چندپارگی در منبع قانونگذاری، از نظر هابز، به هرجومرج، تفرقه و نهایتاً به جنگ داخلی میانجامد.
او مینویسد که قانون مانند خطکش باید دقیق، روشن و دارای مرجع یگانه باشد. اگر پارلمان بخواهد خارج از فرمان حاکم تصمیمگیری کند، در واقع در حال بازتولید وضع طبیعی است که در آن هیچ توافق نهاییای در کار نیست. بنابراین، «اقتدار واحد» نزد هابز، نه صرفاً ترجیحی عملی، بلکه ضرورتی هستیشناختی برای بقاء نظم مدنی است.
در نگاه هابز، قانونگذاری کاری تخصصی و فنی است که نباید در معرض احساسات عمومی و غوغای تودهای قرار گیرد. به همین دلیل، او پارلمان را بهمثابه خطری بالقوه برای ثبات سیاسی معرفی میکند، اگر که مهار نشده و از اقتدار مرکزی پیروی نکند. او آشفتگی سیاسی ناشی از عملکرد خودسرانه پارلمان طولانی را شاهدی تاریخی بر این ادعا میگیرد.
هابز در Behemoth، گرایشهای دموکراتیک و مشارکتی را آماج نقد قرار میدهد. او باور دارد که مردم، بهطور طبیعی، نه تنها درک دقیقی از سیاست ندارند، بلکه بهراحتی توسط رهبران کاریزماتیک یا عوامفریب، تحریک میشوند. از اینرو، نهادهایی چون پارلمان، اگر به شکل کنترلنشده عمل کنند، میتوانند آلت دست نیروهای مخرب شوند و نظام اجتماعی را از درون متلاشی سازند.
او با لحنی هشداردهنده مینویسد که هنگامی که طلاب، معلمان، واعظان و نظریهپردازان پارلمان را در برابر پادشاه مینشانند، در واقع بذر شورش و فتنه را میکارند. در اینجا، نقش پارلمان نه بهمثابه مجرایی برای اراده عمومی، بلکه بستری برای اغتشاش فکری و تشویش سیاسی ترسیم میشود. برای هابز، مشارکت تودهای بدون عقلانیت ساختاری، فاجعهبار است.
این نگاه، در تضاد آشکار با فلسفه سیاسی لیبرال ـ دموکراتیک است که بعدها بر پایهی اندیشههایی چون نمایندگی، تفکیک قوا و گفتوگوی عمومی بنا نهاده شد. با این حال، هابز به شکلی پیشگویانه نشان داد که چگونه، در نبود سازوکارهای عقلانی و اقتدار مرکزی، دموکراسی میتواند به پوپولیسم و حتی فروپاشی منجر شود.
بازخوانی Behemoth در قرن بیستویکم، ما را با پرسشهای اساسی روبهرو میسازد: حدود مشروعیت پارلمان چیست؟ چگونه میتوان از فروغلتیدن آن به ورطهی عوامزدگی جلوگیری کرد؟ و نسبت آن با اقتدار مرکزی چگونه باید تنظیم شود؟ در جهان امروز که بحرانهای سیاسی و رسانهای مشروعیت نهادهای قانونگذاری را به چالش کشیدهاند، هابز بار دیگر به گفتوگوی ما بازمیگردد.
توماس هابز، هشدار میدهد که قانون، اگر در تعدد مراکز قدرت گم شود، به سلاحی برای تفرقه تبدیل میشود. این دیدگاه، امروزه در تحلیلهایی چون "دولت فرومانده" (failed state) یا "دولت در دولت" (deep state) بازتاب یافته است. هابز به ما میآموزد که قانون باید در قالب اقتداری شفاف، یگانه و قابلپاسخگویی اعمال شود؛ وگرنه مشروعیت خود را از دست میدهد.
در عین حال، امروزه نظریهپردازانی چون نوربرتو بوبیو، یورگن هابرماس و حتی کارل اشمیت، در تلاشاند تا نسبت پیچیدهی قانون، اقتدار و مشارکت را از نو بازتعریف کنند. هابز، در این میان، همچون صدای مخالفی است که نظم را بر آزادی مقدم میداند و هشدار میدهد که فقدان اقتدار یگانه، جامعه را به کام بهیموت – هیولای هرجومرج – خواهد کشاند.
هابز در بهیموت، با تحلیل تاریخی و فلسفی خود، به این نتیجه میرسد که تنها یک اقتدار مرکزی و مطلق میتواند از فروپاشی جامعه جلوگیری کند. او پارلمان را نهادی میداند که اگر از حدود وظایف خود فراتر رود، میتواند به عامل بیثباتی و جنگ داخلی تبدیل شود. دیدگاههای هابز، اگرچه در زمان خود بحثبرانگیز بودند، اما همچنان در تحلیلهای معاصر از بحرانهای سیاسی و نقش نهادهای قانونگذاری مورد توجه قرار میگیرند.
هابز در این اثر، با شیوهای دیالوگی و تمثیلی، سقوط نظم سلطنتی و پیدایش هرجومرج سیاسی را بازخوانی میکند.
در این بستر، پارلمان بهعنوان بازیگری کلیدی ظاهر میشود؛ نهادی که به زعم هابز، با عبور از حدود مشروعیت خود، زمینهساز فروپاشی نظم اجتماعی و ظهور آشوب شد.
هابز، برخلاف بسیاری از لیبرالهای پس از خود، نگاه انتقادی و عمیقی به پارلمان دارد. در بهیموت، او پارلمان را نه تجسم اراده عمومی، بلکه نهادی میبیند که در بزنگاههای تاریخی، میتواند دچار افراط، عوامزدگی و تسلیم در برابر امواج تودهای شود. در روایت او، پارلمان طولانی (Long Parliament) با به چالش کشیدن اقتدار سلطنت، رشته نظم را گسست و به جای ساختن، به ویرانگری دست یازید.
از نظر هابز، پارلمان زمانی مشروع است که در چارچوب قراردادی که مردم برای ایجاد اقتدار مرکزی بستهاند عمل کند. اما هنگامی که این نهاد خود را منبع قدرت بداند و به مقابله با سلطه مشروع برخیزد، دیگر کارویژهاش را از دست میدهد. این نگاه، تجلی اندیشهی بنیادین هابز در لویاتان است: هر نهادی، از جمله پارلمان، تنها در پرتو اقتدار مرکزی معنا دارد؛ وگرنه به بهیموتی تبدیل میشود که جامعه را میدرد.
هابز در Behemoth، بار دیگر تأکید میکند که قانون، تنها زمانی مشروع و نافذ است که از ارادهی حاکم واحد ناشی شود. در این نگرش، پارلمان نمیتواند منشأ قدرتی مستقل باشد، بلکه باید ابزاری در خدمت حاکم مقتدر باشد. هرگونه چندپارگی در منبع قانونگذاری، از نظر هابز، به هرجومرج، تفرقه و نهایتاً به جنگ داخلی میانجامد.
او مینویسد که قانون مانند خطکش باید دقیق، روشن و دارای مرجع یگانه باشد. اگر پارلمان بخواهد خارج از فرمان حاکم تصمیمگیری کند، در واقع در حال بازتولید وضع طبیعی است که در آن هیچ توافق نهاییای در کار نیست. بنابراین، «اقتدار واحد» نزد هابز، نه صرفاً ترجیحی عملی، بلکه ضرورتی هستیشناختی برای بقاء نظم مدنی است.
در نگاه هابز، قانونگذاری کاری تخصصی و فنی است که نباید در معرض احساسات عمومی و غوغای تودهای قرار گیرد. به همین دلیل، او پارلمان را بهمثابه خطری بالقوه برای ثبات سیاسی معرفی میکند، اگر که مهار نشده و از اقتدار مرکزی پیروی نکند. او آشفتگی سیاسی ناشی از عملکرد خودسرانه پارلمان طولانی را شاهدی تاریخی بر این ادعا میگیرد.
هابز در Behemoth، گرایشهای دموکراتیک و مشارکتی را آماج نقد قرار میدهد. او باور دارد که مردم، بهطور طبیعی، نه تنها درک دقیقی از سیاست ندارند، بلکه بهراحتی توسط رهبران کاریزماتیک یا عوامفریب، تحریک میشوند. از اینرو، نهادهایی چون پارلمان، اگر به شکل کنترلنشده عمل کنند، میتوانند آلت دست نیروهای مخرب شوند و نظام اجتماعی را از درون متلاشی سازند.
او با لحنی هشداردهنده مینویسد که هنگامی که طلاب، معلمان، واعظان و نظریهپردازان پارلمان را در برابر پادشاه مینشانند، در واقع بذر شورش و فتنه را میکارند. در اینجا، نقش پارلمان نه بهمثابه مجرایی برای اراده عمومی، بلکه بستری برای اغتشاش فکری و تشویش سیاسی ترسیم میشود. برای هابز، مشارکت تودهای بدون عقلانیت ساختاری، فاجعهبار است.
این نگاه، در تضاد آشکار با فلسفه سیاسی لیبرال ـ دموکراتیک است که بعدها بر پایهی اندیشههایی چون نمایندگی، تفکیک قوا و گفتوگوی عمومی بنا نهاده شد. با این حال، هابز به شکلی پیشگویانه نشان داد که چگونه، در نبود سازوکارهای عقلانی و اقتدار مرکزی، دموکراسی میتواند به پوپولیسم و حتی فروپاشی منجر شود.
بازخوانی Behemoth در قرن بیستویکم، ما را با پرسشهای اساسی روبهرو میسازد: حدود مشروعیت پارلمان چیست؟ چگونه میتوان از فروغلتیدن آن به ورطهی عوامزدگی جلوگیری کرد؟ و نسبت آن با اقتدار مرکزی چگونه باید تنظیم شود؟ در جهان امروز که بحرانهای سیاسی و رسانهای مشروعیت نهادهای قانونگذاری را به چالش کشیدهاند، هابز بار دیگر به گفتوگوی ما بازمیگردد.
توماس هابز، هشدار میدهد که قانون، اگر در تعدد مراکز قدرت گم شود، به سلاحی برای تفرقه تبدیل میشود. این دیدگاه، امروزه در تحلیلهایی چون "دولت فرومانده" (failed state) یا "دولت در دولت" (deep state) بازتاب یافته است. هابز به ما میآموزد که قانون باید در قالب اقتداری شفاف، یگانه و قابلپاسخگویی اعمال شود؛ وگرنه مشروعیت خود را از دست میدهد.
در عین حال، امروزه نظریهپردازانی چون نوربرتو بوبیو، یورگن هابرماس و حتی کارل اشمیت، در تلاشاند تا نسبت پیچیدهی قانون، اقتدار و مشارکت را از نو بازتعریف کنند. هابز، در این میان، همچون صدای مخالفی است که نظم را بر آزادی مقدم میداند و هشدار میدهد که فقدان اقتدار یگانه، جامعه را به کام بهیموت – هیولای هرجومرج – خواهد کشاند.
هابز در بهیموت، با تحلیل تاریخی و فلسفی خود، به این نتیجه میرسد که تنها یک اقتدار مرکزی و مطلق میتواند از فروپاشی جامعه جلوگیری کند. او پارلمان را نهادی میداند که اگر از حدود وظایف خود فراتر رود، میتواند به عامل بیثباتی و جنگ داخلی تبدیل شود. دیدگاههای هابز، اگرچه در زمان خود بحثبرانگیز بودند، اما همچنان در تحلیلهای معاصر از بحرانهای سیاسی و نقش نهادهای قانونگذاری مورد توجه قرار میگیرند.
July 25, 2012
Hobbs is really relevant today.
March 5, 2025
Thomas Hobbes’ history of the English civil war in the form of four dialogues between an eyewitness to a student is worth reading for understanding Hobbes’ own political views. As the introduction to my edition by Stephen Holmes states, it is a common misconception that Hobbes reduced human motivation to self-interest and fear. Rather Behemoth shows Hobbes had profound insights into human psychology which religion has the strongest hold of, the fundamental thesis is that no ruler can be secure when intellectuals and the masses are under the influence of seditious ideas. However it is not in a ruler’s power nor any to control religion which explains Hobbes’ paradoxical conclusions which at once acknowledges the importance of private conscience and public opinion but justifies some degree of censorship and indoctrination. Behemoth also shows why Hobbes had such a negative attitude toward ancient and scholastic philosophy which in his mind promoted seditious ideas. Hobbes’ critical comments on the bourgeoisie reveal a more complex view of class relations. Further Behemoth clarifies some of Hobbes’ political philosophy such as how he imagined kingdoms formed and the meaning of the rule of law. These conclusions are largely political realism but also reveal some liberal implications in Hobbes’ thought. Altogether Behemoth is Hobbes’ most mature work of political philosophy as a profoundly reactionary but also radical mind.
In the first dialogues Hobbes goes through the history of christianity and places the roots of royal insecurity in the catholic church, particularly through the universities and the teaching of ancient philosophers by their obscurantism and positive portrays of republics, discussion of ideal mixed states, while describing kings as tyrants. The universities are described by Hobbes as the main source of seditious ideas as outposts of the pope in England even after the reformation where presbyterians could learn Hebrew and Greek alongside ancient philosophy and claim greater understanding of the bible and theology than the masses who are allowed to read scripture in the common tongue. We get a criticism of Aristotle’s ethics of the golden mean which for Hobbes means mediocrity, for the sovereign it is necessary to exemplify the cardinal virtues but in the highest degree to take honor for themselves (a Machiavellian point) while for subjects the whole duty of man is obedience to civil authority and faith to their religion. For Hobbes the biblical example of the Jewish nation which puritans were inspired by was a theocracy ruled directly by god and christian communities were voluntary assemblies under authority of the Roman empire until conversion of the emperors, while the future kingdom of Christ is not of this earth at a time unknown to us. The church’s reach extended beyond Rome after fall of the empire by their control of the clergy and marriage of kings among other things, while forbidding marriage among the clergy to concentrate wealth and power among themselves. Henry Tudor removed England from Roman authority by personal force and political necessity but also because the church had lost moral authority among the public due to a reputation of hypocrisy and by spread of Luther’s ideas.
Hobbes attributed the exact ideological origin of the civil war to the presbyterians who are known today as puritans who sought to turn england into an oligarchy and make the church of England democratic in structure, elected by ministers rather than bishops appointed by the king. The puritans took advantage of parliament, originally a body of counsel within the kingdom, to object and attempt to limit the prerogatives of royal power. The puritans manipulated the masses from the pulpit and written word playing to strong anti-catholic animus and fear of catholic conspiracy like the gunpowder plot. Puritans also had the example in exile abroad of the Netherlands and Calvinist Geneva for presbyterian government. Also the puritans were assisted by the Scots who resented attempts to impose Anglicanism such as the book of common prayer. Hobbes also mentions how ancient Scottish families were excluded from full legal recognition as opposed to the Roman practice of extending citizenship over conquered realms.
The catalyst for the civil war domestically lay in the Stuart’s lack of money and need to tax and borrow money by forced loans to finance war as well as command of militia, as money and arms are usually enough to command obedience. Hobbes ridicules opposition to the ship tax and points to the bourgeoisie and outsized importance of London and great cities in general as economic interests most opposed to taxation. Hobbes used almost Marxian language to criticize the bourgeoisie as growing excessively rich from making the poor sell their labor to them at their own prices. The puritans appealed to the bourgeoisie by overlooking or justifying the lucrative vices of trading while obsessing over the third and seven commandments (bad words, sexual desire) which induces guilt over one’s own thoughts. It sounds like Hobbes was describing aspects of American society derived from the puritans as it was. The bourgeoisie are the first to rebel but also the first to repent, hopeful of short term gain but fearful of loss. Hobbes’ focus on self-preservation and fear was probably addressed to the lowest common denominator which gives the impression he himself approved of these values. This moralistic language is not meant to condemn the third estate but remind them of the conditions which make their riches possible, subject to salutary limits.
Hobbes describes the foundation of the monarchy as derived initially from the conquest of William six centuries prior and the earliest kings as those recognized by germanic lords among themselves to lead in battle. Parliament evolved from a consultative body within the kingdom of those who owed allegiance to the king, not a sovereign legislative body. Membership is initially lords but expanded to reduce their influence as more are granted titles like knight without titles to land or subjects but having duties and privileges. The rule of law such as Magna Carta is derived from the king even if under duress or inheritance, as it means to be judged by the sovereign’s judgement alone as legitimate source which is the law of the land not by arbitrary dictates of magistrates. The king however is also an artificial person whose words become law when announced in a public manner towards subjects. The sovereign is subject to higher natural laws of equity in fairly applying law and a duty of protection for obedience, all for the end of peace, and has discretion for the responsibility toward that end. These points were found among royalists and absolutists of the time but Hobbes caused controversy in using secular egalitarian premises to defend these opinions. A secure state need not be so authoritarian but in Hobbes’ time states were relatively weak and Hobbes often justified the king’s actions by necessity rather than prerogative. These considerations show Hobbes was not a mere legal positivist or despot but that he did not believe in ‘mixarchy’, that sovereignty could be limited from below or within. But a more moderate or constitutional monarchy could be derived from the distinction of king and kingdom, the natural vs artificial person including other institutions inherited with the crown.
Throughout the civil war the government of England changed from a monarchy to a democracy or oligarchy to tyranny until back to monarchy again, exemplifying at least two of Hobbes’ three kinds of government (monarchy/tyranny, aristocracy/oligarchy, democracy/anarchy). The commonwealth of the rump parliament was the house of commons minus lords but a de facto oligarchy ruled by a council which nonetheless depended on Oliver Cromwell and the army before he seized power. The commonwealth was unable to establish a presbytery due to the influence of independent protestants in the army and with Cromwell. Cromwell’s choosing his successor as protector fits into Hobbes strong definition of sovereign as who names their successor. Cromwell never took the title of king and was a military despot in origin but could have evolved into a heredity monarchy if his son Richard not had to resign for lack of support, which would demonstrate Hobbes contention that consent only given at the institution of government. Similarly the restoration of the Stuarts by convention of parliament ending the long parliament demonstrates how parties could by consent end a state of war and recognize a sovereign who thereafter reigns for life and succeeded by heredity until the glorious revolution after Hobbes’ death again found parliament recognizing yet another king but without attempting another commonwealth.
A major conclusion in Behemoth is that hope leads to rebellion and is more dangerous than fear (another Machiavellian insight). If people think they can do better with another form of government no ruler is secure even if they do not have a more realistic solution. Such designs are fruitless if without arms money or transmission of public opinion however which the Stuarts lacked. States were far weaker in those days without regular armies or taxation while monarchies have since survived by delegating such responsibilities to retain their popular support. Hobbes’ comments on the bourgeoisie indicate that cities should not be allowed to grow excessively powerful which implies some level of territorial representation and that wealth not grow excessively large or independent as to be unable to control it. The political conclusions are censorship of seditious ideas and a sort of public indoctrination and propaganda to support obedience to the regime which in a modern secular democratic state would be more limited, censorship of abject sedition and indoctrination by the education system and media rather than churches. Hobbes did use Erastian and Anglican arguments to defend royal prerogative over religion but had positive comments about how independency prevented the domination of the puritans and used popular reading of scripture to defend himself from charges of heresy, as who can define heresy when each can decide for himself besides the sovereign over coercive acts? After the war toleration of dissenters since they no longer hoped to dominate the church of England as well as catholics became a means of asserting royal prerogative such as James II declaration of indulgence but ultimately didn’t work in his favor as he alienated the Anglican clergy.
In the first dialogues Hobbes goes through the history of christianity and places the roots of royal insecurity in the catholic church, particularly through the universities and the teaching of ancient philosophers by their obscurantism and positive portrays of republics, discussion of ideal mixed states, while describing kings as tyrants. The universities are described by Hobbes as the main source of seditious ideas as outposts of the pope in England even after the reformation where presbyterians could learn Hebrew and Greek alongside ancient philosophy and claim greater understanding of the bible and theology than the masses who are allowed to read scripture in the common tongue. We get a criticism of Aristotle’s ethics of the golden mean which for Hobbes means mediocrity, for the sovereign it is necessary to exemplify the cardinal virtues but in the highest degree to take honor for themselves (a Machiavellian point) while for subjects the whole duty of man is obedience to civil authority and faith to their religion. For Hobbes the biblical example of the Jewish nation which puritans were inspired by was a theocracy ruled directly by god and christian communities were voluntary assemblies under authority of the Roman empire until conversion of the emperors, while the future kingdom of Christ is not of this earth at a time unknown to us. The church’s reach extended beyond Rome after fall of the empire by their control of the clergy and marriage of kings among other things, while forbidding marriage among the clergy to concentrate wealth and power among themselves. Henry Tudor removed England from Roman authority by personal force and political necessity but also because the church had lost moral authority among the public due to a reputation of hypocrisy and by spread of Luther’s ideas.
Hobbes attributed the exact ideological origin of the civil war to the presbyterians who are known today as puritans who sought to turn england into an oligarchy and make the church of England democratic in structure, elected by ministers rather than bishops appointed by the king. The puritans took advantage of parliament, originally a body of counsel within the kingdom, to object and attempt to limit the prerogatives of royal power. The puritans manipulated the masses from the pulpit and written word playing to strong anti-catholic animus and fear of catholic conspiracy like the gunpowder plot. Puritans also had the example in exile abroad of the Netherlands and Calvinist Geneva for presbyterian government. Also the puritans were assisted by the Scots who resented attempts to impose Anglicanism such as the book of common prayer. Hobbes also mentions how ancient Scottish families were excluded from full legal recognition as opposed to the Roman practice of extending citizenship over conquered realms.
The catalyst for the civil war domestically lay in the Stuart’s lack of money and need to tax and borrow money by forced loans to finance war as well as command of militia, as money and arms are usually enough to command obedience. Hobbes ridicules opposition to the ship tax and points to the bourgeoisie and outsized importance of London and great cities in general as economic interests most opposed to taxation. Hobbes used almost Marxian language to criticize the bourgeoisie as growing excessively rich from making the poor sell their labor to them at their own prices. The puritans appealed to the bourgeoisie by overlooking or justifying the lucrative vices of trading while obsessing over the third and seven commandments (bad words, sexual desire) which induces guilt over one’s own thoughts. It sounds like Hobbes was describing aspects of American society derived from the puritans as it was. The bourgeoisie are the first to rebel but also the first to repent, hopeful of short term gain but fearful of loss. Hobbes’ focus on self-preservation and fear was probably addressed to the lowest common denominator which gives the impression he himself approved of these values. This moralistic language is not meant to condemn the third estate but remind them of the conditions which make their riches possible, subject to salutary limits.
Hobbes describes the foundation of the monarchy as derived initially from the conquest of William six centuries prior and the earliest kings as those recognized by germanic lords among themselves to lead in battle. Parliament evolved from a consultative body within the kingdom of those who owed allegiance to the king, not a sovereign legislative body. Membership is initially lords but expanded to reduce their influence as more are granted titles like knight without titles to land or subjects but having duties and privileges. The rule of law such as Magna Carta is derived from the king even if under duress or inheritance, as it means to be judged by the sovereign’s judgement alone as legitimate source which is the law of the land not by arbitrary dictates of magistrates. The king however is also an artificial person whose words become law when announced in a public manner towards subjects. The sovereign is subject to higher natural laws of equity in fairly applying law and a duty of protection for obedience, all for the end of peace, and has discretion for the responsibility toward that end. These points were found among royalists and absolutists of the time but Hobbes caused controversy in using secular egalitarian premises to defend these opinions. A secure state need not be so authoritarian but in Hobbes’ time states were relatively weak and Hobbes often justified the king’s actions by necessity rather than prerogative. These considerations show Hobbes was not a mere legal positivist or despot but that he did not believe in ‘mixarchy’, that sovereignty could be limited from below or within. But a more moderate or constitutional monarchy could be derived from the distinction of king and kingdom, the natural vs artificial person including other institutions inherited with the crown.
Throughout the civil war the government of England changed from a monarchy to a democracy or oligarchy to tyranny until back to monarchy again, exemplifying at least two of Hobbes’ three kinds of government (monarchy/tyranny, aristocracy/oligarchy, democracy/anarchy). The commonwealth of the rump parliament was the house of commons minus lords but a de facto oligarchy ruled by a council which nonetheless depended on Oliver Cromwell and the army before he seized power. The commonwealth was unable to establish a presbytery due to the influence of independent protestants in the army and with Cromwell. Cromwell’s choosing his successor as protector fits into Hobbes strong definition of sovereign as who names their successor. Cromwell never took the title of king and was a military despot in origin but could have evolved into a heredity monarchy if his son Richard not had to resign for lack of support, which would demonstrate Hobbes contention that consent only given at the institution of government. Similarly the restoration of the Stuarts by convention of parliament ending the long parliament demonstrates how parties could by consent end a state of war and recognize a sovereign who thereafter reigns for life and succeeded by heredity until the glorious revolution after Hobbes’ death again found parliament recognizing yet another king but without attempting another commonwealth.
A major conclusion in Behemoth is that hope leads to rebellion and is more dangerous than fear (another Machiavellian insight). If people think they can do better with another form of government no ruler is secure even if they do not have a more realistic solution. Such designs are fruitless if without arms money or transmission of public opinion however which the Stuarts lacked. States were far weaker in those days without regular armies or taxation while monarchies have since survived by delegating such responsibilities to retain their popular support. Hobbes’ comments on the bourgeoisie indicate that cities should not be allowed to grow excessively powerful which implies some level of territorial representation and that wealth not grow excessively large or independent as to be unable to control it. The political conclusions are censorship of seditious ideas and a sort of public indoctrination and propaganda to support obedience to the regime which in a modern secular democratic state would be more limited, censorship of abject sedition and indoctrination by the education system and media rather than churches. Hobbes did use Erastian and Anglican arguments to defend royal prerogative over religion but had positive comments about how independency prevented the domination of the puritans and used popular reading of scripture to defend himself from charges of heresy, as who can define heresy when each can decide for himself besides the sovereign over coercive acts? After the war toleration of dissenters since they no longer hoped to dominate the church of England as well as catholics became a means of asserting royal prerogative such as James II declaration of indulgence but ultimately didn’t work in his favor as he alienated the Anglican clergy.
January 4, 2022
While I find the tone fun to read and think its actually more quotable than Leviathan, it is also far more myopic, even though it be history. There are no hints of the subtlety to sovereign authority and its potential varieties here like there are in the more famous work. But even this aside, I wish the proportions had been more skewed towards the nightmare theocracy of Cromwell's state rather than the war and events that led up to it.
I do have to say though, there was an unexpected little diversion about the perfidy of the urban wealthy that I thoroughly appreciated and shows there is some element of class consciousness in Hobbes after all.
I do have to say though, there was an unexpected little diversion about the perfidy of the urban wealthy that I thoroughly appreciated and shows there is some element of class consciousness in Hobbes after all.
October 30, 2021
200 page book about the English Civil War in the form of a dialogue between 'A' and 'B'. More structured than Leviathan. The version edited by Ferdiand Tonnies is very readable.
September 29, 2024
While useful, perhaps, as a primary source regarding the Civil Wars, it's not exactly a fun read. The didactic presentation of the dialogue is interesting, but presents the information as though it is correct without qualification. Hobbes's analysis leaves a lot to be desired, being very simplistic, despite the complexity of the issues. The world of three hundred years ago is so radically different to the world of today that the thoughts expressed by Hobbes have almost no relevance.
Read
August 12, 2011Stunningly amoral. I mean, really shockingly amoral. Hobbes is a real git.
April 13, 2015
Not as well-renowned as Leviathan, but an essential piece of the Hobbesian canon.
August 6, 2021
This is a sort of philosophical history of English politics, 1640 - 1660, by Thomas Hobbes. It is written as a dialogue between a lightly characterized A and B; A is older. Both have some good lines. The book is written with Hobbes' characteristic wit and wordplay. It is almost compulsively readable.
There's quite a lot of good stuff here. At the time, Hobbes was well-informed and well-connected; he moved in aristocratic circles, he was close enough to the royalists to get a position tutoring Charles II, and he was an increasingly prominent writer. He would have met some of the people involved.
Do not rely on this book for names dates and places. At the time Hobbes was quite old and I don't believe was being extremely careful about them. His discussion of the death of the Earl of Strafford doesn't clearly distinguish between the impeachment and the attainder. The names of the parliamentary leadership barely enter into it.
Really, Hobbes' purpose here is to diagnose the motives and faults of the anti-royal faction and to explain how they nonetheless overthrew the king. His biggest target is "the Presbyterians" and particularly their desire for advancement and authority which they couldn't get within the Church of England.
He also is skeptical of the king's party.
I believe the target here is people like Edward Hyde, eminent lawyer and later Chancellor.
This illustrates something else interesting about the book. Hobbes is pushing a doctrine that the king. and his party did not, the notion that the king has an absolute power and that there are no restraints from law and parliament. This points to one of the deeper flaws in Hobbes'. vision -- it requires every monarch to be the Czar or the Grand Turk and this isn't a thing that was ever very appealing or that seems to produce stability.
There's quite a lot of good stuff here. At the time, Hobbes was well-informed and well-connected; he moved in aristocratic circles, he was close enough to the royalists to get a position tutoring Charles II, and he was an increasingly prominent writer. He would have met some of the people involved.
Do not rely on this book for names dates and places. At the time Hobbes was quite old and I don't believe was being extremely careful about them. His discussion of the death of the Earl of Strafford doesn't clearly distinguish between the impeachment and the attainder. The names of the parliamentary leadership barely enter into it.
Really, Hobbes' purpose here is to diagnose the motives and faults of the anti-royal faction and to explain how they nonetheless overthrew the king. His biggest target is "the Presbyterians" and particularly their desire for advancement and authority which they couldn't get within the Church of England.
they desired the whole and absolute sovereignty, and to change the monarchical government into an oligarchy; that is to say, to make the Parliament, consisting of a few Lords and about four hundred Commoners, absolute in the sovereignty, for the present, and shortly after to lay the House of Lords aside. For this was the design of the Presbyterian ministers, who taking themselves to be, by divine right, the only lawful governors of the Church, endeavoured to bring the same form of Government into the civil state. And as the spiritual laws were to be made by their synods, so the civil laws should be made by the House of Commons; who, as they thought, would no less be ruled by them afterwards, than they formerly had been: wherein they were deceived, and found themselves outgone by their own disciples, though not in malice, yet in wit.
He also is skeptical of the king's party.
B...what kind of men they were, that hindered the King from taking this resolution?
A. You may know by the declarations themselves, which are very long and full of quotations of records and of cases formerly reported, that the penners of them were either lawyers (by profession), or such gentlemen as had the ambition to be thought so. Besides, I told you before, that those which were then likeliest to have their counsel asked in this business, were averse to absolute monarchy, as also to absolute democracy or aristocracy, all which governments they esteemed tyranny; and were in love with mixarchy which they used to praise by the name of mixed monarchy, though it were indeed nothing else but pure anarchy. And those men, whose pens the King most used in these controversies of law and politics, were such (if I have not been misinformed) as having been members of this Parliament, had declaimed against ship-money and other extra-parliamentary taxes, as much as any; but when they saw the Parliament grow higher in their demands than they thought they would have done, went over to the King’s party.
I believe the target here is people like Edward Hyde, eminent lawyer and later Chancellor.
This illustrates something else interesting about the book. Hobbes is pushing a doctrine that the king. and his party did not, the notion that the king has an absolute power and that there are no restraints from law and parliament. This points to one of the deeper flaws in Hobbes'. vision -- it requires every monarch to be the Czar or the Grand Turk and this isn't a thing that was ever very appealing or that seems to produce stability.
March 22, 2020
Hobbes' discussion of the English Civil War and its transfers of power with a decidedly royalist bent. He's harsh on Presbyterians and views Cromwell and the Parliament as power-hungry opportunists, while endlessly longing for the peace of good old Monarchy.
I read this book as a part of my project to read one book from every aisle in Olin Library. You can read more about the project, find reactions to other books, and (eventually) a fuller reaction to this one here: https://jacobklehman.com/library-read
I read this book as a part of my project to read one book from every aisle in Olin Library. You can read more about the project, find reactions to other books, and (eventually) a fuller reaction to this one here: https://jacobklehman.com/library-read
August 21, 2022
Kraldan çok Kralcı Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan'dan sonra ikinci bir canavar kitabı daha yazmış. Bohemoth, İngiltere İç Savaşı'nın kısa bir tarihini anlatıyor. Hobbes, kralcı bakış açısıyla Parlamento yanlılarına nefret kusuyor. Tarihi olayları döneminin tanıklarından birinden okumak önemli olabilir ama felsefi ve siyasi olarak bence değeri düşük.
February 16, 2012
Hobbes's Behemoth is to Leviathan as Plato's Laws is to The Republic. It is Hobbes's mature teaching on politics, but it is also his most convoluted work. Be warned: this work can be a challenge for even seasoned readers of political philosophy, but the rewards this work can yield are great.
This particular edition was produced from the St. John's College manuscript, widely considered to be the authoritative text. As such, it also contains the original epistle dedicatory to Lord Arlington, as well as the first edition preface from Ferdinand Tönnies. The introduction by Stephen Holmes is a good overview, far more detailed than the second edition introduction by M.M. Goldsmith, and will help the reader understand some of the major themes Hobbes covers in the work that may not be readily apparent. All the front matter provides useful information on Hobbes and Hobbes's intent in writing Behemoth, and adds value to the package as a whole.
Making sense of this work requires the reader to navigate between two characters, for Hobbes wrote this work--like most of his later works--as a dialogue. Keep in mind that what the characters say at one point must be compared with what they say at other points. Not only that, but you will have to be cognizant of the sequence of events that the characters reference, since the characters meander often, with little indication when they are doing so. You might have to have an English Civil War reference handy when you sort through this work.
The main theme of the book is an account of the events between the Petition of Right under Charles I (1628) and the Restoration of Charles II (1660), but the book is much more than that. The characters discuss events that precede these events and, in many cases, precede England itself. They also break into interesting digressions from the main narrative on subjects ranging from civic education to corporal punishment.
This is what makes Behemoth a kind of puzzle: what is Hobbes up to here? It uses history, but it is not a history. The characters are dramatic in places, but it is not a drama. It makes crucial philosophical distinctions, but it is not a work of philosophy in the same sense as Leviathan. Peace was achieved, but how it was achieved and why it was achieved are matters of fertile debate, and it is a debate worth having.
I assume that most of those who will read this book will have already read or be familiar with one of Hobbes's other political works, like De Cive or Leviathan. Unfortunately, the temptation will be to read Behemoth as a kind of appendix or reiteration of Hobbes's earlier works. While there is nothing wrong with reading Behemoth this way, I believe the best way to read this work is without any preconceptions of what it should contain. Reading this work with a fresh perspective will not only explain how Hobbes reaffirms the conclusions from his earlier works but, also, how he moves beyond them.
This particular edition was produced from the St. John's College manuscript, widely considered to be the authoritative text. As such, it also contains the original epistle dedicatory to Lord Arlington, as well as the first edition preface from Ferdinand Tönnies. The introduction by Stephen Holmes is a good overview, far more detailed than the second edition introduction by M.M. Goldsmith, and will help the reader understand some of the major themes Hobbes covers in the work that may not be readily apparent. All the front matter provides useful information on Hobbes and Hobbes's intent in writing Behemoth, and adds value to the package as a whole.
Making sense of this work requires the reader to navigate between two characters, for Hobbes wrote this work--like most of his later works--as a dialogue. Keep in mind that what the characters say at one point must be compared with what they say at other points. Not only that, but you will have to be cognizant of the sequence of events that the characters reference, since the characters meander often, with little indication when they are doing so. You might have to have an English Civil War reference handy when you sort through this work.
The main theme of the book is an account of the events between the Petition of Right under Charles I (1628) and the Restoration of Charles II (1660), but the book is much more than that. The characters discuss events that precede these events and, in many cases, precede England itself. They also break into interesting digressions from the main narrative on subjects ranging from civic education to corporal punishment.
This is what makes Behemoth a kind of puzzle: what is Hobbes up to here? It uses history, but it is not a history. The characters are dramatic in places, but it is not a drama. It makes crucial philosophical distinctions, but it is not a work of philosophy in the same sense as Leviathan. Peace was achieved, but how it was achieved and why it was achieved are matters of fertile debate, and it is a debate worth having.
I assume that most of those who will read this book will have already read or be familiar with one of Hobbes's other political works, like De Cive or Leviathan. Unfortunately, the temptation will be to read Behemoth as a kind of appendix or reiteration of Hobbes's earlier works. While there is nothing wrong with reading Behemoth this way, I believe the best way to read this work is without any preconceptions of what it should contain. Reading this work with a fresh perspective will not only explain how Hobbes reaffirms the conclusions from his earlier works but, also, how he moves beyond them.
July 8, 2008
The less-read companion to Leviathan, think of Behemoth as the demonstrative application of the theory in Hobbes' magnum opus. Composed as a dialogue between an older man and a younger one (called simply A and B, respectively), it's the history of the British Civil Wars as seen through the lens of Hobbes' political theory.
At turns both fascinating and dull, this book should not be thought of as redundant, a mere rehearsal of things you've already read in Leviathan; as ever, the problem of applying theory to real-world situations allows for surprises, nuanced elaborations, and--if you look closely--even some contradictions to rise to the surface. Might I even go so far as to say: You haven't really understood Leviathan until you've read Behemoth.
At turns both fascinating and dull, this book should not be thought of as redundant, a mere rehearsal of things you've already read in Leviathan; as ever, the problem of applying theory to real-world situations allows for surprises, nuanced elaborations, and--if you look closely--even some contradictions to rise to the surface. Might I even go so far as to say: You haven't really understood Leviathan until you've read Behemoth.
September 12, 2014
Not a bad read, but Hobbes is very much a philosopher and can't really history, particularly when he constructs his history in a philosophical dialogue format.
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews