Jendrysik, “Land or Sea Beast”
MPSA 2004
15
This brilliant historical essay is distorted by a defect fundamental to most of
Hobbes’s political philosophy – his failure or refusal to comprehend minds which
were radically different from his own, that is to say, most minds. He attributes to
the Presbyterians and Parliamentarians improbably long-planned and wicked
ambitions; he hardly understands the orthodox Royalists (he was himself a highly
unorthodox Royalist) any better; and he makes only limited concessions of
sincerity to the religious feelings of the various parties.
93
For Hobbes “wars (civil and foreign) over religion are not wars over the non-existent, but wars
over the unknowable.”
94
Hobbes’s belief in the impossibility of true religious knowledge and the
delusional nature on those who claim personal faith (i.e.: faith from personal religious experience
as opposed to simply hearing authorities and believing) makes it impossible for him to treat
religion seriously as a motivational force in human affairs. Those who act from religious motives
for Hobbes are either credulous fools or hypocrites.
95
MacGillivray is incorrect to describe Hobbes as radically misunderstanding the “minds
and actions of men” in Leviathan and applying that misunderstanding in Behemoth.
96
Hobbes
has what seems to be a clear, at least in his own terms, understanding of human motivation in
Leviathan. The problem with Behemoth is not that Hobbes fails to understand what makes people
act politically, instead Hobbes simply doesn’t care. His ideological goals in Behemoth condition
his analysis to such an extent that he is trapped. In order to match the political history that is
Leviathan and to remain consistent to his theory, Hobbes must view the events of the Civil War
through a distorted lens.
97
The product of that distortion is Behemoth.
In Behemoth Hobbes is attempting to teach his readers not simply the narrative of events
and causes of the Civil War. Indeed the actual events of the day have little importance. They
only matter (and are reported) only insofar as they support Hobbes’s theory. As Sharon Lloyd
notes “A good history is a history that teaches the reader moral and civic virtue.”
98
In this case,
that moral and civic virtue includes an acceptance of Hobbes’s theory of civil, political and
religious disorder.
Both works are histories of ideas more than they are of events. They are histories
informed by the belief that ideas drive history, that people act based upon clearly understood
ideologies (at least clearly understood by Hobbes). Leviathan and Behemoth represent the
strongly held conceit among intellectuals that ideas are what really matters in history. As Lloyd
notes “the causes of social collapse articulated as general principles in Leviathan appear in
93
MacGillivray, “Thomas Hobbes’s History,” 198. For an example of Hobbes’s attitude that reflects this
conclusion see Behemoth, 63. For Hobbes disagreements about religion are never about salvation, they are always
about power.
94
Kateb, “Hobbes and the Irrationality of Politics,” 356.
95
This applies beyond religious questions. As Holmes notes, for Hobbes “broadly speaking, there are two types
of human beings: the cynic and the dupe.” See “Political Psychology,” 130. Holmes discusses this theme in great
detail, see 122-25 in particular.
96
MacGillivray, “Thomas Hobbes’s History,” 198.
97
Sterling Lamprecht’s old description of Hobbes’s ideology as defined in Leviathan, which Lamprecht called
“Hobbism,” is still serviceable. 1: Man “inclines universally to malice and fraud.” 2: “There is no real distinction
between moral right and moral wrong.”3: “A de facto ruler is always justified in all his ways.”4: “Appeal to law as a
protection of popular rights is essentially invalid.” See his “Hobbes and Hobbism.” American Political Science
Review 34 (February, 1940): 31-53. One might argue that Hobbes is writing “Hobbist history” in Behemoth.
98
Lloyd, Ideals as Interests, 191. Lloyd assumes that “Hobbes wished to write a good history” (192). This may
be true, but only in the sense noted above of teaching good moral lessons. This is less true when it comes to
providing an actual recounting of events.
Convention