Artificial Kings (Leviathan, Part 1)

In Part 1 of our discussion on Thomas Hobbes's Leviathan, we welcome editor David Johnston to discuss Hobbes's life and the historical context of Leviathan, the book's central thesis and argument, and its controversial reception through time.

David Johnston teaches political philosophy at Columbia University, where he has served as Nell and Herbert M. Singer Professor of Contemporary Civilization and Joseph Straus Professor of Political Philosophy. He is the author of A Brief History of Justice, The Idea of a Liberal Theory, and The Rhetoric of Leviathan: Thomas Hobbes and the Politics of Cultural Transformation, and is the editor of a collection of readings entitled Equality and coeditor of Machiavelli on Liberty and Conflict.

To learn more or purchase a copy of the Norton Library edition of Leviathan, go to https://seagull.wwnorton.com/LeviathanNL.

Learn more about the Norton Library series at https://wwnorton.com/norton-library.

Have questions or suggestions for the podcast? Email us at nortonlibrary@wwnorton.com or find us on Twitter @TNL_WWN.

Transcript

[Music]

[Mark:] You are listening to the Norton Library Podcast, where we explore classic works of literature and philosophy with the leading scholars of the Norton Library, a new series from W. W. Norton that introduces influential texts to a new generation of readers. I'm your host, Mark Cirino, with Michael Von Cannon producing. Today, we present the first of our two episodes devoted to Thomas Hobbes’s great work, Leviathan, as we interview its editor, David Johnston. In Part One, we discuss Hobbes and his journey to write his masterpiece, the argument of Leviathan, and how it functions as a statement of politics, religion, and philosophy. David Johnston teaches Political Philosophy at Columbia University. He is the author of A Brief History of Justice; The Idea of a Liberal Theory; and the Rhetoric of Leviathan: Thomas Hobbes and the Politics of Cultural Transformation. David Johnston welcome to the Norton Library Podcast.

[David:] Thank you.

[Mark:] It's such a pleasure to have you on to talk about your edition of Thomas Hobbes's Leviathan. And David, maybe you can start by telling us a little bit about the writer. Who was Thomas Hobbes?

[David:] So, Hobbes was an Englishman. He lived a very long life, died in 1679, so he's over 90 years old, um, unusual for his time. Um, he was, uh, as a – as a child, he grew up in a – uh, we know a little bit about his childhood. His father was a very, very minor minister in the Church of England: poor, had a little congregation, he was really at the bottom of the ladder in the clergy, and he was thrown out because he got into a fight with another clergyman. Hobbes did get good schooling as a young guy, and he apparently had an uncle who paid for his schooling and – and got him to the University of Oxford. Uh, so, he got a good education. He went there at the age of 14, and left at the age of 20, which was pretty normal for those days, uh, went into service in his adult life as soon as he came out of, uh, University, went into service to one of the wealthiest families—maybe the wealthiest family— in England, um, and stayed in the service of that family for virtually the rest of his life, with, uh, one short break of about 18 months.

[Mark:] So, where did his ideas, ideology spring from, and were they unusual for the time?

[David:] Well, some of his ideas were certainly unusual for the time. Uh, some of his ideas were very controversial, and I expect we'll get to some of those a little bit later in the podcast, but there were certainly sources. He was very inspired by Galileo, this, you know, very famous scientist, um, who really is most famous for sort of, um, making it evident to everybody that the sun was at the center, you know getting Copernicus, having verification of Copernicus’ theory of the solar system, uh, he – but he is actually, Galileo was most important scientifically for formulating a theory of mechanics, of matter and motion, you might say, which was the foundation for Newtonian mechanics, which everybody believed had solved, you know for – for many, many years, for well over a century, people believed it solved all the problems of – of physics. So, um, he was very influenced by that science, but he was also very influenced by his Classical education. At school, he learned Greek and Latin. He studied the Greek and Latin Classics, and these were all very important to his intellectual background.

[Mark:] David, tell me about Thomas Hobbes's writing career, how that developed, and what were the – how did he start, what were the first texts that he had as projects?

[David:] Well you know, see, he was in service to this very wealthy family, the Cavendish family. Uh, they later became, uh, the Earls of Devonshire in 1618, and then later in the 7th century, were upgraded to Dukes of Devonshire, and there is still a Duke of Devonshire, the family line is still there and still owns the family – the major family country homes. Uh, he was hired initially as a tutor to the eldest son of – in this family, um, and then later on in life became secretary to – to that eldest son when he inherited the title, uh, and remained a secretary to the head of the family for most of his life. He had a lot of writing duties as a member as – as a – as a servant of the family. Um, the – the son, to whom he was tutor, uh, did a book. Uh, it's credited to him—it was actually published without – without an author's name—credited him. Hobbes probably almost certainly participated in that, no one knows exactly how fully. There's no full record. Um, he – his first major writing project was—he undertook when he was in his late 30s—it was a translation, not a – it was – the writing was not the major part, it was a translation into English of Thucydides' history of the war between the Athenians and the Peloponnesians, often these days called, you know, the – the foundational work of – of historical writing; the first major work of history. There had never been a complete English translation before, that was his first major writing project. Uh, but then he became very interested, a few years after that, in philosophy and in science, and he developed a number of writing projects. He – he ended up writing a whole treatise on the whole of philosophy in three volumes: uh, De corpore; De Homine; and De Cive. Basically, about the material world, about human nature, and about human social life—the three parts. Um, he ended, uh, he – he – he did many other things, but he ended his life, in the very closing years, he did another set of translations: this time of Homer's Iliad and Odyssey into English. And there were many things in between.

[Mark: So where does Leviathan fit in, in that scope?

[David:] Well, Leviathan, of course, these days is certainly considered, is mostly – is mostly – his mostly widely read work, and it's certainly considered his most important work. Um, much of the scientific work is now dated, uh, and superseded, and even at the time, was not always, you know, was not necessarily state-of-the-art, uh, although it was interesting. Leviathan is mid-career or a little late career; he began the work when he was about 60 years old. Um, he was approaching, he was about 60 when he began it, finished it in his early 60s, and he embraced a – a – a very wide range of ideas and styles in the book. So, it's, uh, it's – it's – it's – it's the major work.

[Mark:] David, you're suggesting that a lot of Thomas Hobbes's work is either historical in nature, it's sort of talking about history and philosophy, Homer. Was Leviathan specific to its time? Was it responding to a particular historical context, or was it a timeless, uh, meditation?

[David:] Well, that's a very good question because it's, uh, it's something of both. Uh, first, in relation to its time, there is an immediate context and it's very important in reading the book, understanding the book, uh, and why it even existed. It would not have existed but for that immediate context. Uh, the context was the English Civil War. Gotta back out for a moment: Leviathan is really the third version of Hobbes' political – third and final version of his political philosophy. He wrote a book called The Elements of Law, Natural and Politic, uh, which he circulated as a manuscript in 1640, in April of that year. Then in November of that year, um, King Charles I convened what came to be known later as the Long Parliament. The Long Parliament turned against the King and that led ultimately to the English Civil War; hostilities really broke out in 1642. Um, Hobbes, immediately after the Long Pa – parliament con – convened and was perceived as hostile to the King, Hobbes left the country. He stayed out of the country for over 10 years, lived in Paris almost all that time. And immediately after leaving, he began working on a second version, which was called De Cive, um, Of – of the Citizen, uh, and it was an expanded version of the first text. Then, uh, in the late 1640s, the war turned against the King. Um, of course there was a regicide, the King was executed: Charles I, in January 1649. And about that time, got – Hobbes got to work really seriously on Leviathan, the third and final and most expansive version of the book. So, there is a lot – the book would not have been written had it not been for those events. At the same time, let me just say, um, Hobbes sends plenty of signals in the book that he intends this book to be a work for all time. He claims to have written the first work of – the first true civil philosophy or moral philosophy, the first true science of moral philosophy. He, in the middle of Leviathan, evokes Plato and says: oh I'm on the point of thinking this work of mine might be as useless as Plato's Republic, but now I recover some hope that actually people will take it seriously [Laughter] and will put it into – put it into practice. Uh, and he – he meant it to be for all time.

[Mark:] What do you mean when you say civil philosophy?

[David:] So, civil philosophy, of course, I'm using a term that's now a little bit archaic. It's – it's the term that would you – be used at the time: um, roughly the philosophy of how human beings live together.

[Mark:] Social contract.

[David:] Well social contract is one version of that, and Hobbes is a – is an adherent. I mean, he's – he – he is categorized as a social contract theorist, but it's not only social contract theory. Aristotle, for example, which is Hobbes's biggest bête noir—the person, the philosopher he beats on – beats up on the most—has a civil philosophy, but it's not contrarian at all. Aristotle argued that human social existence and political existence is fully natural. Hobbes argued that no, it's quite artificial. Uh, so, the – the contractarians think of – think of political life as an artificial construct that humans have to create, whereas Aristotle thinks they just naturally slip into it.

[Mark:] Does Leviathan have a central thesis, or is it addressing several things so that question doesn't really a – apply?

[David:] It definitely has a central thesis, which is that the one and only way to ensure lasting peace within a political association, what we would usually call a nation state—that's a for – that's a particular kind, but it is more or less the accepted kind today—uh, the only way to ensure lasting peace within a political association is to have one single sovereign power. Sovereign can be an individual person; it can be a body of persons, you know, like a small body, a senate or – or a parliament or – or an aristocracy or something like that, or it can be a democratic person collectivity that makes decisions by majority rule. But it must have one designated person, or body of persons, that is the final judge and arbiter about all matters having to do with that political community.

[Mark:] Why did he think that was the best solution?

[David:] He makes arguments in the book both deductive, and he makes arguments that are historical. Um, he argues that whenever power is divided, those who are – have that power will compete with each other, they will tend to quarrel with each other, they will try to get ascendancy over one another, um, and that will inevitably, in his view, lead to conflict—serious, violent conflict—and likely to Civil War.

[Mark:] When he publishes this book, is Leviathan greeted as a reasonable intervention into the hostilities, or is it rabble rousing, revolutionary, treasonous?

[David:] Leviathan was greeted in a very mixed way. It was extremely controversial from the date of publication, or indeed before the date of publication, as some people got word of what Hobbes was up to. Uh, Hobbes was associated with an extremely wealthy family, as I mentioned above, and they were supporters of the King. Uh, so he was really within the monarchical circle. He was indeed friendly with the Prince of Wales during the 1640s, who also left England to go to Paris. He tutored the Prince of Wales, who later became Charles II; he tutored him in, uh, in mathematics, I believe. Um, and so Hobbes was associated with the royalists, with the monarchy, uh, but many of the – many monarchists were violently – violently very – very strongly critical of Leviathan because they thought the argument actually undermined the monarchy. Uh, the argument of the book, the argument of the book rejects the argument of James I, the first Stuart monarch in the beginning of the 17th century, time of Shakespeare. James I—of course best known today as the person who authorized the King James Bible, um, that's where – that's you know one of the great works of English literature—uh, James I had argued for the monarchy. He'd argued for the doctrine, people have sometimes heard of, the divine right of kings. Um, Hobbes's argument rejected that view: the divine right of kings. He argued that monarchs are created by the people, by consent, um, and are artificial not natural, whereas James's argument was a little bit like Aristotle’s, that kings are naturally entitled to rule. So, many monarchists were very upset about the book. Um, people on the other side who were winning at the time, and it – it eventually did win shortly, finally, shortly after the publication of Leviathan, were also suspicious of Hobbes but that – because of his monarchical connections. Uh, so it was – it was also very controversial, I should say, for its religious views. It was viewed by many people as heterodox, uh, as contrary to teachings of the – of the Church of England, which it was, uh, and so it was very controversial on that score too.

[Mark:] Does Hobbes address the right of people to remove the sovereign?

[David:] He does. The – the gist of the argument is that this is something that should only be done under the most extreme circumstances. But he does say, uh, he's very clear about this, uh, underappreciated fact about him I think in recent years, in modern literature, in the 20th century, um, he makes it very clear that the purpose of creating a commonwealth—he call – what we call a nation state is in his terminology a commonwealth—the – the purpose of creating a – a – a state with a sovereign, it had that – that has one and only one purpose, and that is to protect the lives and liberty of the subjects. If a subject's life is not being protected by the sovereign, is threatened by the sovereign, or if the subject's liberty is threatened by the sovereign, that subject is no longer obliged to – to obey the – the ruler. So, if – if – if the lives and liberty of subjects, of – of people, are not protected sufficiently, they have a right to rebel.

[Mark:] David, could you say a little bit more about the interplay between theology and government as Hobbes sees it, because so much of Leviathan is acknowledging religion and its place in human nature and human thought? So, how exactly does a so – this particular sovereign come about, and how is it ordained by some higher power?

[David:] About half the book is – is based on a scriptural interpretation, uh, and very – very much oriented toward religious subject matter. Now the reason for this—and this was relatively new in Leviathan, that is, there's virtually none of this in the first version from 1640, the Elements of Law, only a little in the second version from 1642, much, much more in Leviathan—uh, and that's fundamentally because Hobbes had increasingly appreciated, probably because of the context of the Civil War which was – used to be viewed, it's not by – historians don't view it this much way as much as they used to, but used to be called and characterized as a Puritan Rebellion, uh, su – such that religious issues were at the heart of the Civil War. Most historians don't think that's really quite true, but it's the way it was seen at the time, and it's the way it's often been seen since then. Hobbes, I think, saw during the 1640s that people were making religious claims and fighting over religious issues, uh, to an immense degree, and he traced a good deal of the discord, uh, and conflict to that difference. So, he came to the conclusion that it's, uh, that religions are very powerful, that religious belief is very powerful, um, and that it motivates people, uh, and including, motiv – it can motivate people to be disobedient to a sovereign. Uh, therefore, he concluded that it's absolutely, fundamentally important for – for a ruler, sovereign, whoever that is, again it may be a monarch, maybe a king or queen, it may be a – an aristocratic body, whatever that sovereign is, must also have full control over all religious matters: over the church, over practices, over teaching.

[Mark:] I'm thinking of the controversy that you referred to about when this book was published, and now in the almost 400 years since its publication, has this book been appropriated or misappropriated by governments or leaders or would be leaders in ways that show how sort of the thought about this book has evolved through the years? 

[David:] Uh, it's definitely been appropriated quite a lot over the years. Uh, to – to telescope things a bit, um, Hobbes was widely seen from early days, um, whether from the very beginning, but from early days, fairly early reception of Leviathan, Hobbes was seen pretty commonly as a defender of autocracy. Um, he does say the sovereign has to be an absolute and arbitrary ruler, so he – he uses those terms, absolute and arbitrary sovereign power. People have latched onto that, and of course, that is what he says. Uh, people have commonly neglected the – the, uh, his defense of sovereignty on the grounds of its defending life and liberty of subjects. People have often, that's taken – taken a backseat in people's view of Hobbes frequently over the last several centuries. So, particularly in the 20th century, Hobbes was associated with autocratic rule, even with what came to be called totalitarianism. Um, certainly by the middle of the 20th century, after the 1930s and World War II 1940s, he was very much looked at that way. And he has been appropriated, I will say, also by autocratic rulers who think of him as a, you know – a – you know, a very, very important, uh, European philosopher who defends, you know, autocracy.

[Mark:] You're saying that's either a misreading or a selective reading?

[David:] I'm saying it's a selective reading; it's a reading that overlooks his rationale for that kind of strong power.

[Mark:] Did the writing in Leviathan have any resonance as America was being formed?

[David:] It did. Um, it was not exactly a founding document. It had resonance in the sense that it was definitely within the purview of those thinkers who created the revolution, or at least ideologically created the revolution, and who wrote the Constitution of the United States, uh, in this – in the 1780s. Uh, Hobbes was very much on their minds. He was not their guide, uh, but he was – he was a reference point of great importance to them. Madison, in you know, is a, you know, major author of The Federalist Papers, one of the three authors, one of the two major authors, um, had Hobbes very much in mind, and – in – paraphrases Hobbes at some points, uh, briefly. You can recognize, you can see the footprints of Hobbes in Madison's argument. The argument of these Founders in the American Revolution and the American Constitution pushed back against Hobbes. They argued for a division of powers. As we all know, there's a doctrine of separation of powers, and the separation was essentially between, uh, the presidency and the legislature, which was itself divided into two bodies, the Senate and the House of Representatives, and – and the Judiciary. So, they argued that, uh, that – that contrary to Hobbes's view, you could create a system in which these powers would be balanced and counterbalance each other. They agreed with Hobbes, however, that each branch would be likely to – to push for extra power, that the incumbents of that branch would try to gain more power for themselves, but they argued with a three-part system, that whenever one branch tried to do that, the other two could push back, and they argued that that would be a stable political arrangement.

[Mark:] In addition to Hobbes's theology and politics, I'm also interested in Hobbes as a philosopher. And you'd have to say a great deal of this book is also committed to his philosophical thoughts, and I'm wondering if there's a part of this book that you would highlight as representative of his thought and of the way he was – the way he was presenting it at the time?

[David:] The single chapter in the book that is most helpful for that, of course philosophy runs through the book, but the single chapter that's most helpful is Chapter Five, which is entitled, Of Reason and Science. In the 17th century, in Hobbes's day, the word science and the word philosophy were essentially interchangeable terms. Philosophy was a Greek word; science was a Latin word. Greek and Latin were the – the languages of the intelligencia. As I mentioned early in the podcast, Hobbes was educated with those in essentially primary school. I mean he learned Greek and Latin before he was 14 years old, as did other people who are educated in the better schools. So, um, they were interchangeable terms, so when he says Of Reason and Science, he means the same thing as of reason and philosophy. That's the chapter to look to for the best guidance.

[Mark:] Is he tying in reason and science with the other concerns of the book like politics and religion, or is this a – an day-to-day life application of it?

[David:] He feels that reason and science, he felt that reason and science were absolutely pivotal to what he was doing, uh, and to his message. Firstly, he claims that he has – he is the author of the very first true work of moral philosophy ever written, meaning, I think, the first one that really got it right. Um, and he believed that his moral philosophy was a work of science, that he deductively came up with what he called the laws of nature. Now many writers had talked about the laws of nature or natural law for centuries and centuries before Hobbes, even going back to the Romans, um, but Hobbes thought that he had got it right and he thought that he had got it right, or at least he claimed he had got it right, because he was scientific and deductive about it. Um, that's one role that science, co – one way in which it connects to his theory.

[Mark:] Is Hobbes looked at by pure philosophers as somebody that is part of the conversation, and he's incorporated into present debates or subsequent debates to Leviathan?

[David:] He is not a central figure, uh, in modern philosopher – from the modern philosophical point of view. Uh, if you look at the 17th century, uh, Descartes is commonly considered, Descartes—Hobbes’s contemporary. And Hobbes is very interested in Descartes. In fact, one of Descartes’s most famous work is his Meditations on First Philosophy, his metaphysics. Uh, that was eventually published with four objections and responses from Descartes; uh, one of those objections was written by Hobbes, uh, so he was very involved. Descartes is often considered the founder of modern philosophy. Uh, Spinoza and Leibniz are more important as philosophers in general in the view of philosophers today. Hobbes is a minor figure known to philosophers but not – not central.

[Mark:]  I see. What about Chapter Nine in Leviathan, which features something, David, that you're really going to have to explain to me, which is – which seems to be a dizzying graphic, uh, a chart that probably made a lot of sense to Hobbes, and David, I'm assuming makes a lot of sense to you.

[David:] So, just a little bit of pointer to that – that chart and how to interpret that chart I think you're asking for. He – so the chart is a chart of the several subjects of knowledge, several kinds of knowledge. He divides these into two that are not going to be too surprising, natural philosophy and politics or civil philosophy: so, philosophy of – philosophy of nature and the philosophy of human relations essentially. Um he, let me step back and sort of explain what's behind the chart a little bit. He's very clear that, uh—and this is a distinctive view; it's a very important view, uh, not everybody takes this view—uh, that science or philosophy is a linguistic construct. He's adamant in emphasizing that it is a linguistic construct, like mathematics, and we can draw conclusions from words in the same way we can draw conclusions or develop proofs from mathematical, you know, mathematical symbols. Uh, so all of philosophy consists of words. Uh, it's – all of philosophy is a linguistic construct, it's something human beings make. Uh, it is not itself the real world; it is our conceptualization and our linguistic expression of how we think about the world. So, the chart is basically – the most important thing to understand this chart is that that's what he's talking about. He's talking about how we map out the world in our language and we divide it into various parts. That's what all that complicated stuff is doing.

[Mark:] David Johnston, thank you so much for joining us on the Norton Library Podcast to discuss Thomas Hobbes's Leviathan.

[David:] Thank you.

[Mark:] The Norton Library Edition of Thomas Hobbes's Leviathan, edited by David Johnston, is available now in paperback and e-book. Check out the links in the description to this episode for ordering options and more information about the Norton Library, including the full catalog of titles.

[Music]