The primary purpose of this paper is to show the change in the notion of authority as reflected in Leviathan with respect to De Cive on account of the inclusion, in the former, of the concept of authorization. This notion, which had not appeared in either De Cive or Elements of Law, introduces a new way of conceiving of sovereignty, of power and even of the view on the Kingdom of God. In this paper I will also undertake (...) an analysis, both textual and contextual, of these new approaches, which are closely linked to the notion of authority. (shrink)

De Cive ("On the citizen") is one of Thomas Hobbes's major works. "The book was published originally in Latin from Paris in 1642, followed by two further Latin editions in 1647 from Amsterdam. The English translation of the work made its first appearance four years later (London 1651) under the title 'Philosophicall rudiments concerning government and society'."The work anticipates themes of the better-known Leviathan. The famous phrase bellum omnium contra omnes ("war of all against all") appeared first in De (...) Cive. (shrink)

A scholarly edition of the English version of works by Thomas Hobbes. The edition presents an authoritative text, together with an introduction, commentary notes, and scholarly apparatus.

This commentary on Bernard Gert’s Hobbes: Prince of Peace offers criticism of Gert’s assumption that the conceptual basis of the moral and political theory that Hobbes expounds in De Cive is the same as the conceptual basis of his moral and political theory in Leviathan.

A scholarly edition of the English version of works by Thomas Hobbes. The edition presents an authoritative text, together with an introduction, commentary notes, and scholarly apparatus.

Thomas Hobbes’ Lebensaufgabe besteht in einer wissenschaftlichen Staatsphilosophie. Dabei stellt er sich den drei Herausforderungen seiner Epoche: methodisch dem Beweisideal der Mathematik, politisch der blutigen Wirklichkeit der Kriege und Bürgerkriege und moralisch dem Schwinden gemeinsamer Überzeugungen. Weil er sich allen drei Herausforderungen stellt, zugleich sie miteinander verbindet, schafft er das die Tradition stürzende Argumentationsmuster der politischen Moderne, die Vertragstheorie. Mit ihr bringt er eine der größten Staatsphilosophien der abendländischen Geistesgeschichte hervor. In De cive / Vom Bürger (1642), das noch (...) vor dem Leviathan (1651) entstand, finden sich bereits zahlreiche von Hobbes’ zentralen Gedanken zur politischen Philosophie. Diese Schrift wird hier durchgängig von international renommierten Autoren kommentiert. Mit Beiträgen von Jeremy Adler, Ronald Asch, Dirk Brantl, Franz Hespe, Moritz Hildt, Otfried Höffe, Heiner Klemme, Elif Özmen, Dietrich Schotte, Peter Schröder, Patricia Springborg, Tom Sorell und Lothar Waas. (shrink)

El presente trabajo intenta analizar las portadas de las tres primeras ediciones del De Cive de Thomas Hobbes: la primera versión latina impresa en París en 1642, la segunda edición latina de 1647 publicada en Ámsterdam y la traducción inglesa aparecida en Londres en 1651 bajo el título Philosophical Rudiments Concerning Government and Society. Con ello queremos determinar si Hobbes cooperó en el diseño de dichas ilustraciones tal y como sí hizo con la que contenía su obra más importante: (...) el Leviatán. (shrink)

While not ignored, the question of the role of mothers in the schema of political rule in Hobbes is not often taken up. Distinct from his contemporaries, Hobbes acknowledges only minimal differences between men and women, and argues that, because maternal protection and nourishment are necessary for its survival, the mother dominates the infant in the state of nature. How to explain that the mother loses this power of domination in the social or political order? Hobbes does not explicitly say. (...) However, some possibilities can be extracted from his texts. -/- Here, I will attempt to explain the loss of maternal power by examining Hobbes's discourse on the different modes of dominion and political rule in "De Cive" and "Leviathan." I will concentrate on their differences, drawing from Yves Charles Zarka's reading of them. Then I will approach the question of the mother and her position in the hierarchy of servitude in each of these texts, appealing to Carole Pateman's analyses as well as Zarka's. Finally, I will present what role the mother's dominion over her children plays in Hobbes's schema. (shrink)

A reprint of the 1972 Doubleday edition. Contains the most helpful version of Hobbes's political and moral philosophy available in English. Includes the only English translation of De Homine, chapters X-XV. Features the English translation of De Cive attributed to Hobbes.

An exciting English-language edition which for the first time presents Thomas Hobbes's masterpiece Leviathan alongside two earlier works, The Elements of Law and De Cive. By arranging the three texts side by side, Baumgold offers readers an enhanced understanding of Hobbes's political theory and addresses an important need within Hobbes scholarship. The parallel presentation highlights substantive connections between the texts and makes it easy to trace the development of Hobbes's thinking. Readers can follow developments both at the 'micro' level (...) of specific arguments and at the 'macro' level of the overall scope and organization of the theory. The volume also includes parallel presentations of Hobbes's chapter outlines, which serve as a key to the texts and are collected in a précis appendix. (shrink)

Discusses the translation of Hobbes's De cive, which was published in England in 1651 under the title Philosophicall Rudiments. A few surviving copies include a dedicatory epistle by the translator, signed ‘C. C.’ In this essay, evidence is presented for identifying this translator with the young poet Charles Cotton. His indirect connections with both Hobbes and Lady Fane are explored, and attention is paid to the way in which Hobbes's text was assimilated to a moral and political position that (...) combined quasi‐Stoic moralism with fervent Royalism. (shrink)

It is well known that Thomas Hobbes wrote his political theory multiple times. 'This little MS. treatise [The Elements of Law: Natural & Politic] grew to be his Booke De Cive, and at last grew there to be the so formidable LEVIATHAN.' The first work circulated in manuscript in 1640; the second, Latin version was published in 1642 and in a second edition in 1647; Leviathan came out four years later, with a Latin edition following in 1668. In composing (...) De Cive and Leviathan, Hobbes drew on the earlier text(s), re-using, expanding, re-organizing, and adding to material that had appeared previously. (shrink)

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) toplum sözleşmesi teorisinin kurucusu olarak kabul edilen önemli bir siyaset kuramcısıdır. Hobbes’un doğal durumu tanımlaması, toplumun oluşmasındaki nedenleri belirtmesi, yetkiye ve siyasi yükümlülüklere dair fikirleri siyasi düşünce tarihinde dikkat çeker. Düşünür, özellikle yaşadığı yüzyılda monarşiyi güçlendirmek adına siyasal itaati meşrulaştırmanın gerekliliği üzerinde durmuş, dönemin koşullarından dolayı Tanrı fikrini tamamıyle dışlayamamıştır. Bu yüzden toplum sözleşmesi fikrini temellendirdikten sonra ahlaki yasalar ve yükümlülükler aracılığı ile Tanrı kavramını teorisine dahil etmeyi seçmiştir. Bununla birlikte, kendisinden önceki düşünürlerin aksine Tanrı’ya siyasal ve (...) toplumsal düzeni sağlama hususunda ancak ikincil bir görev vermiştir. Tanrı kavramını ve yazılı olmayan kuralların yükümlülüğünü dışlaması, söz konusu dönemde Hobbes’un ateist olduğuna dair tartışmalara yol açsa da, kendisi bunu kabul etmemiştir. Bizim kanaatimiz, Hobbes’un aslında bir ateist olduğu ve Tanrı fikrini sadece toplumun düzenini sağlamak için siyasi bir araç olarak kullandığı yönündedir. Bir başka deyişle, argümanımız; Hobbes’un dini ve Tanrı korkusunu, bireyleri yazılı yasalara uymaları yönünde zorlamak için kullandığı şeklindedir. Bu argümanın haklılığını gösterebilmek için makalemizde Hobbes’un De Cive ve Leviathan kitaplarındaki argümanları analiz edilmiş ve geliştirmiş olduğu kuramda dinin ve Tanrı’nın yeri incelenmiştir.Özet: Thomas Hobbes, İngiltere’de sosyal ve siyasi düzenin tehlike altında olduğu ve egemen gücün meşrulaştırılması gerektiği bir dönem olan onyedinci yüzyılda yaşamıştır. Doğal bilimlerdeki ilerlemeler ve felsefik düşünce yapısındaki değişimler, rasyonaliteyi önemli kılarak, söz konusu dönemde egemenin gücünün ve bireylerin özgür istencinin sorgulanmasına olanak vermiştir. Bu yüzden, Tanrı, din ve siyasi yükümlülükler ile ilgili sorunlar da yeni bir boyut kazanmıştır. Hobbes’un esas felsefesi Aristoteles teleolojisini çürütmek ve sonrasında da onu mekanik yaklaşım ile değiştirmekti. Hobbes’un modern doğal bilimlere olan yaklaşımı, siyaset felsefesini de mekanik bir yaklaşımla temellendirmeye itmiştir. Bu sebeple, Tanrı’nın birincil rolünü siyaset felsefesinden çıkarmış, ama bunu yaparken de Tanrı’nın varlığını inkar etmemiştir. Hobbes’un bu makalede tartışılan kitapları; De Cive ve Leviathan’da, bireylerin toplumun önemli parçaları olduğundan ama doğal olarak siyasi birer varlık olmadıklarından bahsedilir. Hobbes’a göre bireyler hayatta kalmak için siyasi bir kurumun altına girmek durumundadırlar. Bir başka deyişle, insanın zayıflığı, siyasi toplumun kurulmasını gerekli kılmıştır. İnsan doğal olarak siyasi bir varlık olmasa dahi, siyasi bir kurum altında yaşamak insan doğasına aykırı bir durum değildir. Hobbes’un üzerinde durduğu temel nokta, sivil toplumun yapay bir ürün olsa dahi bireylerin refahı için gerekli olduğudur. Yazılı yasaların ve bir otoritenin, kısacası zorlayıcı bir gücün olmaması halinde, insanlar tehlike altında olacaktır. Bu koşullar altında, bir kişinin kendisini koruması için ne gerekiyorsa yapacağı şaşırtıcı bir durum değildir. Böylesi bir savaş durumunu engellemek için, kişiler doğal durumdaki sınırsız özgürlüklerini bırakarak, egemen bir gücün altında yaşamayı tercih edeceklerdir. Aslında Hobbes’a göre, insanın güvenliğini sağlayan siyasi toplumun varlığı değil, zorlayıcı bir gücün varlığıdır. Bu güç, insanların barış içerisinde yaşaması için gereken koşuldur. Bir başka deyişle, bireyler önce toplumu oluşturmak için sonra da o toplumun devamlılığını sağlamak için bir güçten korkmalıdırlar. Korku kavramı olmadan Hobbes’un bahsettiği siyasi güce bir temel bulmak zor olacaktır çünkü korku faktörü bireylerin kişisel çıkarları ile toplumsal iyinin karşı karşıya geldiği durumlarda, bireyi korkutarak siyasi güce uymayı zorlayacak ve böylece toplumsal refahı sağlayacaktır. Bu noktada, Hobbes’un kuramına Tanrı kavramı dahil olur. Bu makalede, Hobbes’un kuramında dinin rolü olmadan siyasi yükümlülük kavramının eksik kalacağı tartışılmıştır. Bireyler birbirlerinden korktukları için ve güvenliğe ihtiyaçları oldukları için bir toplumun altında yaşamayı tercih ederler. Hobbes’a göre bu ihtiyaç Tanrı korkusuyla desteklenmelidir. Fakat, Hobbes ne Tanrı korkusunu ne de ahlaki yasaların varlığını doğal durumda kullanmıştır. Bunun yerine, sonrasında siyasi düzen için gerekli olan yükümlülüklere bir temel bulmak için, Tanrı kavramını kullanmayı seçmiştir. Hobbes, burada analiz edilen kitaplarında doğal yasalar, ahlaki yasalar ve ilahi yasalar kavramlarını açıklar. Ona göre, doğal yasalar ahlaki yasalardır ve aynı zamanda ilahi yasalar olarak da adlandırılabilirler. Bu yüzden üçü de aynı görünür ve hepsi de Tanrı tarafından verilir. Tanrı her bireye akıl verdiğinden, herkes bu yasalara akılları aracılığı ile ulaşabilir. Hobbes’un kuramında bu noktaya kadar, sadece sivil toplumda değil, doğal durumda da ahlaki yükümlülüklerin olmasına imkan veriliyordu. Fakat, Hobbes insanların doğal durumda ahlaki bilinçlerinin olmadığını ve ahlaki yasalara uymak zorunda olmadıklarını söyler. Ona göre doğal yasalar, ahlaki yasalar ya da Tanrı’nın yasaları, adına her ne dersek diyelim, yükümlülük yaratan yasalar olmaları için bir sivil otoritenin yaptırımında olması gerekir. Her ne kadar da doğal durumda ahlaki yasaların varlığından söz etse de, söz konusu yasaların insanların toplum altında yaşamaya geçmeden önce yükümlülüğe yol açmadığını da ekler.Doğal yasalar sadece insanları toplum altında birleştirmeye zorlayacak bir güç olması halinde, Tanrı’nın buyrukları olarak zorunluluğa dönüşürler. Bu demektir ki; ahlaki ilkeler siyasi bir güç olmadığı sürece anlamsızdırlar. Hobbes’un felsefesinde aklın buyrukları ve Tanrı’nın yasaları iki farklı kavram olarak ortaya çıkar; bu durum da bizi Hobbes’un aslında Tanrı’ya inanmadığını savunmaya kadar götürebilir. Halbuki, Hobbes’un yükümlülükleri meşrulaştırmak için dinin gücüne ihtiyacı vardır. Bu sebeple, Tanrı’yı bir araç olarak kullanmayı seçmiştir. Böylece, egemenin mutlak gücünü de sınırlamış ve yükümlülükler için de bir temel bulabilmiştir. Bir başka deyişle, Tanrı’nın varlığının dini açıdan meşrulaştırmasını yapmak yerine, egemen gücün eline dini ve Tanrı’yı siyasi ve sosyal düzene ulaşmak için bir araç olarak vermiştir. Hobbes’un göstermeye çalıştığı, Leviathan diye adlandırdığı toplumun bireylerden oluştuğu ve bu bireylerin egemen güce biat etme sebeplerinin, kendilerinin vermiş olduğu rıza ve yetki olduğudur. Kısacası, Hobbes siyaset felsefesinin temeline Tanrı’yı değil, öznelerin özgür iradelerini koyar. Bireyler doğal durumdaki sınırsız özgürlüklerinden feragat ederek bir egemen altında yaşamaya rıza göstermişlerdir, çünkü karşılığında güvenliklerini sağlayacaklardır. Bu anlaşma gereği egemene itaat etmeyi kabul ederler. Böylece siyasal olarak bireyin bağlı bulunduğu yükümlülükler Tanrı kavramı ile sınırlandırılmış olan egemenin gücü ile meşrulaştırılmış olur. Bu makalede, Hobbes’un egemenin mutlak gücünü ilahi irade olan Tanrı ile sınırlandırmış olduğu gösterilir. Aslında Hobbes’un yapmaya çalıştığı, egemenin gücüne mutlakiyet sağlayarak, onu ne dünyevi ne de ilahi bir güce karşı sorumluluk altına sokmaktır. Bunu nasıl başardığı ise bu makalede, Hobbes’un De Cive ve Leviathan kitaplarının analiz edilmesi ile detaylı olarak gösterilmiştir. (shrink)

A reprint of the 1972 Doubleday edition. Contains the most helpful version of Hobbes's political and moral philosophy available in English. Includes the only English translation of De Homine, chapters X-XV. Features the English translation of De Cive attributed to Hobbes.

This paper takes as its starting point the particular place of woman in the legal norms since Antiquity, including in sacred texts, especially in the legislation on marriage and adultery. We then present, from De Cive, the Hobbes’ theistic jusnaturalism as an original attempt to found in God and in reason the laws to which women are subjected. But at the moment of his exegesis of verses 5,31-32 of the Gospel of Matthew on repudiation, it seems that his conceptual (...) arsenal wavers : between temporal reign and divine authority, the figure of Jesus threatens the Hobbesian edifice with collapse. We conclude with the idea that it is still positive legislation around women that crystallizes the crucial problems of the anthropology of law and, more generally, of the relationship between the human and the divine. (shrink)

Hat Thomas Hobbes gegen Ende seines Pariser Exils mit "Elements", "Rudiments" und "Leviathan" nur verschiedene englische Versionen seiner Politischen Philosophie für unterschiedliche Adressaten veröffentlicht? Eine derartige Erklärung von Hobbes' publizistischer 'broadside on England' scheitert jedoch bereits an der Tatsache, daß die Wiederveröffentlichung der beiden älteren Schriften ohne Hobbes' Wissen oder gar Zutun geschah: Es waren royalistische Raubdrucke. Hobbes' endgültige Darstellung der politischen Philosophie - so zeigt allein schon das biographische Material - ist der "Leviathan" von 1651. Diese Neufassung der 'politics (...) in English' wurde nicht im Jahre 1650 allein deshalb notwendig, weil Hobbes unter dem Einfluß seiner Pariser Freunde zu Beginn der 40er Jahre eine Präzisierung seiner allgemeinen Philosophiekonzeption vorgenommen hatte. Nach 1646 hat Hobbes auch die Grundlagen seiner Rechtstheorie korrigiert: Während noch "De Cive" seine Zugehörigkeit zur Tradition des stoisch-christlichen Naturrechts nicht verleugnen kann, liegt mit dem "Leviathan" hingegen eine epikureisch geprägte Rechtstheorie vor, die zwar gleichermaßen an den begrifflichen Vorgaben des überlieferten Naturrechts weitgehend festhält, die theistische Grundlegung jedoch erstmalig konsequent durch eine sprachphilosophische ersetzt. Hobbes' "Leviathan" ist weder ein Traktat über den modernen homo politicus in der Tradition Machiavellis, noch ist er ein früher Beitrag zur Gesellschaftstheorie des homo oeconomicus. Er ist vielmehr ein rechtsphilosophisches Werk im klassischen Sinne, das von jenen Prinzipien handelt, die sich die Menschen zu eigen machen müssen, bevor sie sich mit ihresgleichen über das Gerechte und Ungerechte verständigen können. (shrink)

Die Theorie des Thomas Hobbes hat in der Vergangenheit stark abweichende Deutungen erfahren und Anlass zu zahlreichen lang anhaltenden Debatten geliefert. Die Diskussion hat jedoch allgemein darunter gelitten, dass Hobbes' Schriften von der berwiegenden Anzahl der Interpreten wie ein in sich zusammenh ngender Textkorpus behandelt und die Unterschiede zwischen den verschiedenen Werken nicht hinreichend gew rdigt worden sind. In besonderem Ma e trifft das auf die Naturzustandstheorie zu, die im Zentrum der Hobbes'schen Argumentation steht und in gro em Ma f (...) r die Entstehung und das Fortdauern der genannten Debatten verantwortlich zu machen ist. Ziel der vorliegenden Arbeit ist es, die verschiedenen Fassungen der Naturzustandstheorie endlich einer umfassenden vergleichenden Analyse zu unterziehen, und zwar unter konsequenter Einbeziehung des gerade in der deutschen Hobbes-Forschung kaum beachteten Textes des lateinischen Leviathan. Wie sich eindrucksvoll zeigt, vermag der eingehende Vergleich der Schriften nicht nur einen wichtigen Beitrag zum Verst ndnis von Hobbes' philosophischer Entwicklung und zur Bestimmung des Stellenwertes des lateinischen Leviathan zu leisten. Er liefert auch einen wichtigen Beitrag zur kritischen Bewertung der vorliegenden Hobbes-Interpretationen und zur Aufl sung einiger zentraler Debatten. (shrink)

Name der Zeitschrift: Jahrgang: 13 Heft: 2 Seiten: 170-189.

The Letter on the Principles of Justness and Decency (1651) by Lambert van Velthuysen deduces the nature of virtue and vice and the right to punish crimes from the Hobbesian principle of self-preservation.

SummaryIn this article, I examine friendship as a subject of political theory rather than as a social practice relevant to political life. As suggested by Francesco d'Altobianco Alberti in the poem recited at the first certame coronario, two ideas of political friendship existed side by side in Medicean Florence. They appeared in full in Palmieri's Vita civile and in Platina's De optimo cive. As I will show, the Ciceronian language of friendship is used in these works to resolve two (...) key problems of Renaissance political thought: the need for political unity and the just way of appointing the governing elite. Palmieri placed friendship in the political sphere of concord: he was a republican imperialist who believed that civic friendship protected the political unity of the city, without which Florence would not have been able to expand. Platina, on the other hand, situated friendship in the political sphere of counsel: his concern was to support the selection of the most virtuous and knowledgeable citizens, worthy of access to public office. While Palmieri looked back to the city's medieval past, Platina cast light on the politics of friendship that allowed the Medici to stay in power. (shrink)

Hobbes's unusual religious views in his classical work, Leviathan, are often seen as a product of his attempt to reconcile Christianity with his philosophical materialism. Yet given Hobbes's materialistic view in his earlier works too, this explanatory framework alone is not sufficient for grasping distinctive features of Leviathan. This article remedies this lacuna by paying close attention to an understudied aspect of the development of Hobbes's religious theory from The Elements of Law to Leviathan: his treatment of the supernatural and, (...) particularly, of matters of faith known by supernatural revelation as opposed to natural reason. I argue that over time Hobbes developed an epistemological analysis of supernatural revelation and refined his argument about the sense in which matters of faith are supernatural and about the extent to which they are found in the Bible. It was not materialism per se but the more sophisticated analysis of the supernatural in Leviathan that enabled Hobbes to admit the sphere of the supernatural to a much smaller extent than in De Cive and to discuss in detail what he sees as a matter of faith and beyond the scope of philosophy in De Cive. (shrink)

Cet article entend montrer que la distinction reçue entre deux formes de néocontractualisme contemporain, l’une d’origine hobbesienne, l’autre d’origine kantienne, doit être nuancée. S’il est exact de dire que Rawls prend ses distances avec la notion d’un état de nature fondé sur les passions de la puissance et la comparaison interpersonnelle, le contractualisme hobbesien n’est pas réductible pour autant à l’anthropologie politique pessimiste et égoïste à laquelle il est trop souvent identifié. L’interprétation du Léviathan donnée par McNeilly dans la période (...) d’élaboration de la Théorie de la justice permet de rendre justice de la richesse formelle et de l’ouverture morale de Hobbes en matière de théorie du contrat. Elle permet notamment de montrer que la mise entre parenthèses par Rawls des passions de l’envie et leur réintroduction en un second temps est compatible avec la méthode du Léviathan, distincte de ce fait des approches mises en œuvres dans les Elements of Law et le De Cive.It is argued in this article that the sharp distinction between two types of contemporary neocontractarianism is maybe a bit too sharp. It is certainly true to say that Rawls is keeping at bay a notion of the state of nature based on passions of power and interpersonal relations, but the Hobbesian contractualism doesn’t follow that egoistic lead, or at least it doesn’t follow it all the way. The interpretation of Leviathan given by McNeilly in The Anatomy of « Leviathan » while A Theory of Justice was being written does justice to the formal complexity and moral scope of Hobbes’s contractarian theory. It shows in particular that the treatment of envy in the latter work is in keeping with the method of Leviathan, although not with the Elements of Law and De Cive. (shrink)

Science et sagesse, ou la forme logique de la démonstration Selon la Lettre Dédicatoire du De Cive à William Cavendish, troisième comte de Devonshire, datée par Hobbes du 1er novembre 1641 à Paris, autant y a-t-il de genres de choses où la raison humaine trouve à s’exercer, autant y a-t-il de parties de la philosophie, la philosophie devant recevoir autant de noms différents qu’elle comporte de ramifications conformes à la diversité des matières soumises au raisonnement. Quand le raisonnemen...

Karlfriedrich Herb shows that the new theory of representation in Leviathan implies a rejection of direct democracy, which was still referred to, and active as a political model, in The Elements of Law and De cive. Since the social contract gives full authority to the sovereign, there is no longer any reason to consider democracy as the original form of all governments. Democracy thus plays no part in the definition of the citizen’s liberty, and consequently the liberty of the (...) subject is not at all a matter of participation in political life. To the contrary, this civil liberty is directly proportional to the independence left to the citizen by the legislator. The famous maxim defining liberty as the silence of the law is therefore to be considered anew in the perspective of the theory of representative sovereignty. The authority of the sovereign has nothing to do, in Hobbes’s thought, with the authoritas of the ancient Romans, since actual peace is its only source of legitimacy. It is not possible, therefore, to include Leviathan in a history of Republicanism. (shrink)

O direito público contemporâneo é pensado a partir do tratamento impessoal dos cidadãos por autoridades e funcionários que agem dentro da moldura jurídica que delimita sua competência e orienta a sua ação ao interesse público. Se a soberania for compreendida a partir do instituto da propriedade (dominium), a relação entre o Estado e o cidadão acaba por espelhar a forma da relação entre senhor e escravo, em que os súditos se encontram submetidos à vontade privada do soberano. Uma tal modalidade (...) patrimonial de Estado mostra-se incompatível com a caracterização do direito público moderno. Neste artigo, identificamos na obra de Jean Bodin o contraste entre, de um lado, o caráter público do exercício da soberania nos regimes legítimos e, de outro, a natureza patrimonial dos regimes despótico e tirânico. No pensamento de Thomas Hobbes, observamos a evolução de uma concepção meramente patrimonial da soberania presente em Elements of law e De cive para uma distinção formal entre a vontade privada e a vontade pública do soberano no Leviathan. Nossa conclusão é que ambos os autores acabam por fornecer, cada um à sua maneira, um aparato conceitual apto para lidar com as características do Estado moderno acima apontadas, cuja repercussão pode ser notada na Filosofia Política dos séculos subsequentes. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Journal of the History of Philosophy 39.4 (2001) 589-590 [Access article in PDF] Luc Foisneau. Hobbes et la toute-puissance de Dieu. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 2000. Pp. 424. Paper, FF 174. As a recent conference in London confirmed, Hobbes scholarship remains sharply divided, even precarious, with several plausible and diametrically opposed interpretations en jeu. This is especially true as to the question of Hobbes's religion in relation to (...) his political thinking. The famous "Strauss thesis" appeals to many, and, not long ago (Journal of the History of Philosophy 34, no. 2, 1996), this journal printed an exchange between Edwin Curley and A. P. Martinich that canvassed the old arguments and introduced many new ones. The issue seems to be whether Hobbes was sincere in making his theological arguments, prompting us to include them in his thought, or ironic, allowing us to pass them by.French philosopher Luc Foisneau has produced a carefully written, brilliantly crafted account of Hobbes's theory of political obligation that includes the theological elements and makes them central, but without resort to the difficult concept of authorial sincerity. Foisneau, who teaches at the Institut d'Études Politiques, Paris, finds his interpretive key in Hobbes's description of divine omnipotence. The concept, he claims, figures centrally in Hobbes's theory of knowledge. It grounds the theory of political obligation and provides a principal justification for sovereignty itself. Moreover, Foisneau draws a starkly moving picture of human mortality vis-à-vis God's "irresistible power," asserting that the secular or lay temper of modern moral and political theory stems less from a rejection of theology (certainly not in Hobbes's case) than from a sharpened awareness of human limitations. Foisneau gives an impressive and convincing answer to the abiding question: "Hobbes's theology: What does it matter?" Namely, Hobbes's theology is the core of Hobbes's politics.Before briefly considering one strand in the tissue of Foisneau's argument, let us consider two features of his work and the context of its production.The first is that the author's focus is securely on the text itself, recalling the French explication du texte tradition. According to its strictures, working in detail, the analyst of the text carefully unfolds its meaning, precisely contained in and coextensive with the text's form. Hobbes the man and his contemporaries recede as limiting cases or frames of reference, though they and the other Hobbesian texts do figure as material illustrative [End Page 589] of points made through textual interpretation. Indeed, the history of ideas serves to illuminate the text; see the potentia absoluta/ordinata distinction, below. This steady, ample focus on the text's possible coherence and the concern not to leave the four corners of the document bear comparison with the contextualism of Lucien Lefebvre and Quentin Skinner.The second feature is linked to the first, and it is Foisneau's association with the Centre Thomas Hobbes (CTH), at the Centre National des Recherches Scientifiques, Paris, headed by Prof. Yves Charles Zarka. The foremost academic institution devoted solely to the study of Thomas Hobbes, the CTH annually holds extended, international seminars, explicating two or three chapters of Leviathan. Several books and articles have appeared under CTH sponsorship, dealing with specific aspects of Hobbes's work, for example, detailed analyses of his philosophic vocabulary. The CTH's highly focused, on-going program of study gives promise that the rough places in Hobbes scholarship may one day be a bit plainer. Foisneau's book is a major contribution toward that end.Let us consider one particular, viz., Hobbes's modeling of the sovereign's power upon God's absolute power. Hobbes's long-time interlocutor, John Bramhall, is quick to detect and criticize this in De Cive, moving him to reprove both the theological and political deficiencies of Hobbes's conceptual translatio. Bramhall denies one can consider God's absolute power independently of His ordained power, expressed in the eternal laws He has ordained. Nor may one place the power of the sovereign beyond the reach of the law. Impressed... (shrink)

De Cive (On the Citizen) is the first full exposition of the political thought of Thomas Hobbes, the greatest English political philosopher of all time. Professors Tuck and Silverthorne have undertaken the first complete translation since 1651, a rendition long thought (in error) to be at least sanctioned by Hobbes himself. On the Citizen is written in a clear, straightforward, expository style, and in many ways offers students a more digestible account of Hobbes's political thought than the Leviathan itself. (...) This new translation is both accurate and accessible, and is itself a significant scholarly event: it is accompanied by a full glossary of Latin terms, a chronology, bibliography, and an expository introduction. Throughout the editors have emphasised consistency in the translation and usage of Hobbes's basic conceptual vocabulary, respecting Hobbes's own concern for accurate definition of terms. (shrink)

Hobbes’s political anthropology is grounded on a concept of liberty whose elaboration was influenced by the development of his project for a materialist philosophical system. Hobbes’s attempt to provide a definitive foundation for civil science led him to re-elaborate the concept of liberty after De cive, and eventually conflate its descriptive and normative components in Leviathan. Some of Leviathan ’s conceptual innovations can thus be related to Hobbes’s attempt to absorb the natural liberties of individuals in the body politic’s (...) artificial functioning. (shrink)

In this review, I discuss the justifications for focussing on Hobbes's On the Citizen (De Cive), the middle recension of his political philosophy, separately from his better known Leviathan. I provide an overview of the collection's chapter contents, and I close by calling for further research regarding the impact of this text on later European political philosophy (such as Spinoza, Rousseau, Kant).

Hobbes's revolutionary and lasting contribution to the history of political thought, especially in De Cive, is his legal doctrine of the natural condition of mankind. His starting point is the liberty of man. In the state of nature, taken as a state of mankind not regulated by public law, it is precisely man's power to do what he would according to his own judgment which results in universal war. The only possibility mankind has to overcome this fatal situation is (...) to create a civil state under common laws and public coercive power. The article gives, step by step, a painstaking account of, and commentary on the manifold juridical considerations Hobbes regarded as necesary before he finally came to deal with the constitution of a civil commonwealth. These considerations are particularly concerned with the "matter" the State as the "artificial man" is made of. Although the details of this part of Hobbes's teachings are usually more or less neglected in the literature, they nevertheless form, what one could indeed call, the foundation of the rational State of freedom. (shrink)

En el presente trabajo se aborda el proyecto político hobbesiano a la luz de las críticas realizadas por Kant en Teoría y praxis. Específicamente, se considera en detalle la objeción contra el Gobierno despótico, según la cual, el soberano sitúa la felicidad del pueblo como la principal finalidad del Estado y, por ello, acaba fomentando involuntariamente la rebelión. Al respecto, se sostendrá que el planteamiento de Hobbes en el Leviatán evade el foco de los reproches kantianos, justamente porque su particular (...) noción de felicidad impide que esta pueda ser constituida como el objetivo de la sociedad política. A su vez, se arguye que existe una sugestiva modificación terminológica con relación al De Cive, que lleva a considerar la posibilidad de que Hobbes haya prefigurado las críticas reseñadas. (shrink)

Pre-eminent among European political philosophers, Norberto Bobbio has throughout his career turned to the political theory of Thomas Hobbes. Gathered here for the first time are the most important of his essays which together provide both a valuable introduction to Hobbes's thought and a fresh understanding of Hobbes's place in the theory of modern politics. Tracing Hobbes's work through De Cive and Leviathan , Bobbio identifies the philosopher's relation to the tradition of natural law. That Hobbes must now be (...) understood in both this tradition as well as in the seemingly contradictory positivist tradition becomes clear for the first time in Bobbio's account. Bobbio also demonstrates that Hobbes cannot be easily labelled "liberal" or "totalitarian" in Bobbio's provocative analysis of Hobbes's justification of the state, Hobbes emerges as a true conservative. Though his primary concern is to reconstruct the inner logic of Hobbes's thought, Bobbio is also attentive to the philosopher's biography and weaves into his analysis details of Hobbes's life and world--his exile in France, his relation with the Mersenne circle, his disputes with Anglican bishops, and accusations of heresy leveled against him. The result is a revealing, thoroughly new portrait of the first theorist of the modern state. (shrink)

This article aims to present Thomas Hobbes’s views on freedom. I discuss how the philosopher understands freedom and the realm of human actions within which, according to him, it can manifest. In this context, I reconstruct both the state of nature, in which humans lived in less socialized times, and the state of polity, within which they have functioned since creating that artificial body known as the state. Hobbes’s reference to the Latin terms jus and lege, meaning right and law (...) and their consistent application in the philosopher’s subsequent writings facilitates a more precise definition of the scope of human freedom and explains the differences in this matter between the subject and the sovereign. Ultimately, it is this relationship, subject–sovereign, that proves central to a clear and complete understanding of the issue of freedom. Therefore, I devote relatively the most space in the article to its discussion. (shrink)

ABSTRACT This article aspires to make two original contributions to the vast literature on Hobbes’s account of the nature and person of the commonwealth: (1) I provide the first systematic analysis of his changing conception of ‘person’; and (2) use it to show that those who claim that the Hobbesian commonwealth is created by personation by fiction misconstrue his theory of the state. Whereas Elements/de Cive advance a metaphysics-based distinction between individuals (‘natural persons’) and corporations (‘civil persons’), from Leviathan (...) onwards Hobbes contrasts individuals acting in their own name (‘natural persons’) with representatives (‘artificial persons’). These changes notwithstanding, Hobbes retains the same corporate conception of the state throughout. On the prevailing ‘fictionalist’ interpretation, the sovereign brings the commonwealth into existence by representing it. I argue, rather, that as an incorporation of natural persons, the commonwealth becomes one person through the authorized (i.e. non-fictitious) representation of each constituent member singly by one common representative (‘the sovereign’). (shrink)

Contains the English version of the author's political and moral philosophy. This title also includes the English translation of "De Homine," chapters X-XV. It also features the English translation of "De Cive.".