Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T02:54:11.149Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hobbes's Behemoth and the Argument for Absolutism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 December 1982

Robert P. Kraynak
Robert P. Kraynak*
Affiliation:
Colgate University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Hobbes's history of the English Civil War, The Behemoth, has been neglected by contemporary scholars, yet it provides the clearest statement of the problem that Hobbes's political science is designed to solve. In Behemoth, Hobbes shows that societies such as seventeenth century England inevitably degenerate into civil war because they are founded on authoritative opinion. The claim that there is a single, authoritative definition of Tightness or truth which is not an arbitrary human choice is an illusion of “intellectual vainglory,” a feeling of pride in the superiority of one's opinions which causes persecution and civil strife. By presenting Hobbes's historical and psychological analysis of this problem, I illuminate his argument for absolutism and show that Hobbes is not a precursor of totalitarianism but a founder of liberalism.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 76 , Issue 4 , December 1982 , pp. 837 - 847
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ashcraft, R. 1978. Ideology and class in Hobbes' political theory. Political Theory 6:27–62.10.1177/009059177800600103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collingwood, R. G. 1942. The new leviathan. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Eisenach, E. 1981. Two worlds of liberalism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, M. M. 1969. Introduction to Thomas Hobbes. In Behemoth or the long parliament. 2nd ed. Ed. Tonnies, Ferdinand. London: Frank Cass.Google Scholar
Gooch, G. P. 1942. Hobbes and the absolute state. In Studies in diplomacy and statecraft. London: Longmans Green.Google Scholar
Hobbes, Thomas. 1839–1845. Behemoth. In The English works of Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury, ed. SirMolesworth, William. 11 vols. London: John Bohn. Cited as EW VI.Google Scholar
Hobbes, Thomas. 1839–1845. De cive. EW II.Google Scholar
Hobbes, Thomas. 1839–1845. De corpore. EW I.Google Scholar
Hobbes, Thomas. 1839–1845. The elements of law. EW IV.Google Scholar
Hobbes, Thomas. 1839–1845. An historical narration concerning heresy and the punishment thereof. EW IV.Google Scholar
Hobbes, Thomas. 1839–1845. Introduction to Thucydides. EW VIII.Google Scholar
Hobbes, Thomas. 1839–1845. Leviathan. EW III.Google Scholar
Macpherson, C. B. 1962. The political theory of possessive individualism. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
McNeilly, F. S. 1968. The anatomy of Leviathan. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Orwin, C. 1975. On sovereign authorization. Political Theory 3:26–44.10.1177/009059177500300103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, R. 1956. Hobbes. Baltimore: Penguin.Google Scholar
Pitkin, H. 1967. The concept of representation. Berkeley: University of California Press.10.1525/9780520340503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roesch, E. 1963. The totalitarian threat: the fruition of modern individualism, as seen in Hobbes and Rousseau. New York: Philosophical Library.Google Scholar
Schochet, G. 1967. Hobbes on the family and the state of nature. Political Science Quarterly 82:427–45.10.2307/2146773CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strauss, L. 1936. The political philosophy of Hobbes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Strauss, L. 1959. On the basis of Hobbes's political philosophy. In What is political philosophy? New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Watkins, J. W. N. 1965a. Philosophy and politics in Hobbes. In Hobbes studies, ed. Brown, K. C.. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Watkins, J. W. N. 1965b. Hobbes's system of ideas. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Whelan, F. 1981. Language and its abuses in Hobbes' political philosophy. American Political Science Review 75:59–75.10.2307/1962159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolin, S. 1960. Politics and vision. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar