THΠS I C3hsl I F= I C ArvJCE OF=^ C3l_OFRV'
I NI "THE F=OL_ I T I CAL_ TMEORV'
OE “THOMAS H O B B E S
T h e s i s s u b m i t t e d f o r t h e d e g r e e o f
D o c t o r o f P h i l o s o p h y
b y
6 A B R IE L L A SLOMP
LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS U n i v e r s i t y o f L o n d o n
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
Disscrrlation Publishing
UMI U050221
Published by ProQuest LLC 2014. Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
AND U
A B S T F R A C n r
The d is s e r t a t io n Is d iv id e d In th re e p a rts :
P a rt I: I t Is su g g e s te d t h a t Thucydides* H is to r y p ro v id e s u s e fu l In s ig h ts In to Hobbes's p o l i t i c a l th e o ry In so f a r as th e lin k between g lo ry , fe a r, and c o n f li c t p o s tu la te d by T hucydides a ff o r d s a deeper u n d e rs ta n d in g o f th e r o le o f g lo r y and fe a r In Hobbes's p o l i t i c a l c o n s tru c t. In p a r tic u la r , i t Is s u g g e ste d th a t th e d is t in c t i o n between u ltim a te and p ro x im a te causes o f th e Peloponnesian War u n d e rly in g T h ucyd id e s' argum ent Is used by Hobbes In a l l t h r e e ^ i s p o l i t i c a l / w orks In o rd e r t o e x p la in c o n f li c t In th e s ta te o f n a tu re .
P a rt I I : The meaning o f ‘G lo ry ’ In E lem ents o f Law, De Cive, and L e v ia th a n Is examined In d e t a il and I t is a rg ue d th a t, in s p ite o f some changes In Hobbes's p h ilo s o p h y o f man, th e r o le assigned by Hobbes to g lo r y In b o th p r e - p o ll t l e a l and p o l i t i c a l a s s o c ia tio n s Is Id e n tic a l In a l l th re e w orks. The s ig n ific a n c e o f G lo ry Is emphasised and I t s r o le In Hobbes's th e o ry Is d e fin e d and e x p la in e d In r e la t io n to o th e r key ele m en ts o f h is p o l i t i c a l d is c o u rs e , such as s e l f - p re s e rv a tio n , r a t i o n a l i t y , f e l i c i t y , p r o f i t , power, e tc . I t Is a ls o s tre s s e d t h a t Hobbes's d e f in it io n o f g lo r y makes I t c o m p a tib le w ith a concern f o r s e lf - p r e s e r v a t io n and th u s d i f f e r s fro m th e c u rre n t meaning o f g lo r y ( th a t a llo w s one to speak o f ‘g lo r io u s d e a th ’ ).
c o h s i T E M i r s
PREFACE 6
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS , 10
INTRODUCTION 11
A NOTE ON TEXTS 15
PART I 16
C h a p te r I; THUCYDIDES' HISTORY AS AN INTRODUCTION TO HOBBES'S POLITICAL WORKS
1.1 INTRODUCTION 17
1.2 THE THREE GREATEST THINGS 18
1.3 ON FEAR; 22
1.3.1 Fear and U n c e rta in ty 22 1.3.2 Fear and A n tic ip a tio n 24 1.3.3 Fear and D e lib e ra tio n 25 1.3.4 Fear and S o c ia l O rder 28
1.4 ON HONOUR: 32
1.4.1 Human n a tu re and a m b itio n to r u le 33 1.4.2 A m b itio n t o r u le and p o l i t i c a l a s s o c ia tio n s 38
1.5 ON PROFIT 44
1.6 CONCLUSION 46
C hapter II: MOTION, IDENTITY, AND EQUALITY
11.1 INTRODUCTION 50
11.2 TOWARDS A POLITICAL DEFINITION OF MAN 52 11.2.1 C om parative a n a ly s is 52 11.2.2 T lm e -s e rle s a n a ly s is 54 11.2.3 The I d e n t it y o f Man 56 11.2.4 On v o lu n ta ry m o tio n and p o l i t i c s 58 11.2.5 On th e d is t in c t i v e v o lu n ta r y m o tio n o f man 59
11.3 EQUALITY OF MOTIONS 60
11.3.1 On power 61
11.3.2 E q u a lity o f wisdom, w it, and o th e r form s o f e q u a lit y 63 11. 3. 3 E q u a lit y t o k i l l In De C iv e , E le m e n ts o f Law,
and L e v ia th a n 65
11.3.4 E q u a lity to k i l l as a fu n d am en ta l e q u a lity 67 11.3.5 E q u a lity to k i l l as th e b a s is o f th e s o c ia l c o n tra c t 68
PART II 71
C hapter I I I : GLORY IN ELEMENTS OF LAW
111.1 INTRODUCTION 74
111.2.5 G lo ry and F e l i c it y 81 111.2.6 G lo ry, Honour, Use, and W orth 83 111.2.7 G lo ry and SeIf- P r e s e r v a t ion 85
111.3 VARIATIONS ON GLORY 88
111.3.1 G lo ry, Madness, and M elancholy 89 1 1 1 .3 .2 G lo ry , R ic h e s , P la c e s o f Power, Know ledge
and S e n s u a Ii t i es 90
111.3.3 G lo ry, M agnanim ity, C h a rity , and L a u g h te r 92 111.3.4 Are There Non-G io ry -S e e k e rs ? 94
111.4 GLORY AMD POLITICS 96
111.4.1 G lo ry , Men, and Bees 97 111.4.2 G lo ry and th e S ta te o f N ature 99 111.4.3 G lo ry, Honour, and th e P o l it ic a l S ta te 101 111.4.4 G lo ry, A m b itio n , and C iv i l War 104
111.5 CONCLUSION 105
C hapter IV : GLORY IN DE CIVE
IV. 1 INTRODUCTION 107
IV.2 THE MEANING OF GLORY 108
IV.2.1 G lo ry , Reason, and S e lf- P r e s e rv a tio n 109 IV.2.2 G lo ry, Honour, Power, and O pinion 112
IV.3 GLORY AMD HUMAN NATURE 114
IV.4 GLORY AND POLITICS 116
IV.4.1 G lo ry, Men, and Bees 116 IV.4.2 G lo ry and th e S ta te o f N a ture 119 IV.4.3 G lo ry, Honour, and th e P o l it ic a l S ta te 121 IV.4.4 A m b itio n and C iv i l War 125 C hapter V ;THE MEANING OF GLORY IN LEVIATHAN
V.1 INTRODUCTION 133
V.2 EXPRESSION AND COMPRESSION IN LEVIATHAN 136 V.2.1 D e f in it io n o f Honour 136 V . 2 .2 D e f i n i t i o n o f G lo r y , V a in G lo ry , D e s ire o f Fame,
and D e s ir e o f P r a is e 140 V.2.3 D e f in it io n o f Power 143 V.2.4 S e lf- p r e s e r v a tio n and R a tio n a lity 146
V.3 A CHANGE OF PERSPECTIVE ? 147
V.3.1 Human P assions, U ltim a te M o tiv a tio n , and B eh a vio ur 148 V.3.2 The Role o f G lo ry ; fro m Genus to Species 150 V.3.3 The Role o f Power : A U n ify in g P r in c ip le o f A c tio n ? 151 V.3.4 F e lic it y , and th e E x te rn a l O bserver 153
V.4 A REMARK 155
V.5 GLORY AND POLITICS 156
V.5.1 Men, Bees, and A n ts 156
V.5.2 A Thucydidean in t e r p r é t â t ion o f th e s ta te o f n a tu re 159 V.5.3 G lo ry and th e P o l i t i c a l S ta te 163 V.5.4 A m b itio n and C iv i l War 166
PART I I I 170
C h a p te r V I: GLORY-SEEKING BEHAVIOUR, STATE OF NATURE,
AND POLITICAL STATE 173
V I.2 HOBBES'S “ CONCLUSION OF REASON" 175
V I.3 UNI-CONDITIONAL OBEDIENCE 179
V I.4 HOBBES'S REDUCED MODEL 183
V I.5 HOBBES'S CHALLENGE 184
APPENDIX 188
A. 1 In tro d u c t ion 188
A.2 A Non-Hobbes Ian W orld 188
A.3 The Hobbes Ian W orld 191
T here Is a s t o r y a b o u t a B r it is h econom ist who had been g iv e n a te x t o f m a th e m a tica l economics f o r a re vie w . She opened and clo se d the book In a m a tte r o f seconds, s a y in g th a t she was n o t p re pared to re v ie w y e t a n o th e r tome o f c o n s e rv a tiv e view s. The re v ie w s e d ito r wondered how she c o u ld have reached her (c o rre c t, as I t happens) v e r d ic t on a h ig h ly te c h n ic a l work In such a s h o rt tim e . The re v ie w e r m o d e s tly p o in te d to th e p re fa c e , where th e w r i t e r thanked h is w ife f o r her “ In v a lu a b le s u p p o rt o v e r th e y e a rs " and f o r h e r “ h e lp o f a deeper s o r t" .
W ith th e B r it is h econom ist I agree a t le a s t In one re s p e c t; p re fa ce s t e l l us much a b o u t w r i t e r s and can d is c o u ra g e p o te n tia l re a de rs. Over th e p a s t ye a rs I have read many p re fa c e s to books on Hobbes and none seemed a p p e a lin g . T h is Is one reason why I f e l t th a t I s h o u ld w r ite a p re fa c e m y s e lf, and add a th e s is to I t .
o f Cambridge L ib ra r y .
What does I r r i t a t e me In many p re fa c e s o f books on Hobbes, though, Is t h e ir lack o f p assion . I d is lik e th e p a tr o n is in g a t t it u d e o f many In te r p r e te r s , th e m a je s tic way In w hich th e y concede t h a t Hobbes has s t i l l som ething to t e l l us, th e detachm ent and p ro fe s s io n a lis m In ju s t i f y i n g th e f a c t t h a t th e y have w r it t e n a book a b o u t him. I f one were to judge fro m th e p re fa c e s to t h e ir books, one w ould have to conclude th a t I f Hobbes's In te r p r e te r s had n o t had p la to o n s o f s p u r r in g fr ie n d s , u rg in g p u b lis h e rs , and magnanimous sponsors, a l l a n xio u s to read, comment, d is c u s s , and le a rn fro m them, th e y w ould have never dream t o f d e v o tin g t h e i r p re c io u s tim e t o u n d e rsta n d in g Hobbes.
My case Is d if f e r e n t . The o r ig in o f th e p re s e n t d is s e r t a t io n lie s e n t ir e ly w ith my passion s. Nobody sponsored me. Nobody In s is te d th a t I s h o u ld s tu d y Hobbes. Nobody u rg e d me to w r it e a th e s is about him. Nobody re lie v e d me o f my o th e r com mitments so t h a t I c o u ld th in k and w r it e a t ease. My w hole re s e a rc h proceeded fro m my uneasiness and apprehension to w a rd s people In power, c u lm in a tin g In my d e e p -ro o te d fe a r o f th e S ta te .
P o lic e , M a g is tra te s , and P ris o n O ffic e r s ; In th e S o v ie t Union, d e s p ite p e re s tro ik a , hom osexuals and Jews f e e l v u ln e ra b le ; and th e l i s t co u ld c o n tin u e . I f th e above gro up s a re s in c e re In s a y in g t h a t, In s p ite o f t h e ir p osing no t h r e a t to th e S ta te , th e y do n o t e n jo y th e r ig h t s o f everybody e ls e and In p a r t ic u la r s u f f e r more In tr u s io n In t h e ir p r iv a te l i f e tha n Is u s u a lly e xpe rie n ced and accepted, on what ground can anybody assume t h a t th e same tre a tm e n t w i l l n o t be meted o u t to h e r In th e f u t u r e ?
To some t h i s q u e s tio n m ig h t sound p re p o s te ro u s ; however I f we b e lie v e th a t th e c o m p la in ts v o ic e d by some m in o r it ie s a re grounded, then what Is p re p o s te ro u s Is any debate, n o t uncommon among lib e r a ls , on th e d e te rm in a tio n o f th e e x te n t o f th e p r iv a t e sphere o f In d iv id u a ls , o r, more p re c is e ly , on th e p o in t where th e b a r r ie r between p u b lic a u t h o r it y and p r iv a t e lib e r t y s h o u ld be e re c te d . Could I t n o t be th e case, In f a c t, t h a t th e v e ry Idea o f an In v io la b le p r iv a te sphere o f th e In d iv id u a l a g a in s t th e S ta te be m e re ly a fig m e n t o f lib e r a l Im a g in a tio n ?
T h is problem o r ig in a te d my In te r e s t In Hobbes, who, o f course, th in k s t h a t th e re can be no such th in g as a p ro te c te d domain. He fe e ls s tr o n g ly th a t In p o l i t i c a l a s s o c ia tio n s , whereas we have r ig h t s In r e la t io n to o th e r c itiz e n s , we have no r ig h t s a g a in s t th e S ta te . Even s e lf - p r e s e r v a t Ion, he argues. Is n o t s t r i c t l y speaking a r ig h t , In so |
th in k s t h a t th e S ta te Is u n lik e ly to be s y s te m a tic a lly In iq u ito u s , because he fe e ls t h a t In so d oin g th e s o v e re ig n power would go a g a in s t th e n a tu r a l laws g iv e n by God and a g a in s t h is own In te re s ts th a t depend on th e w e ll- b e in g o f h is c itiz e n s . T h is argum ent, however, g iv e s me h a rd ly any re a ssu ra n ce , f i r s t l y because people In power are lik e ly to d is re g a rd d iv in e In ju n c tio n s , and se co n d ly because to I l l - t r e a t m in o r itie s Is n o t n e c e s s a rily damaging to th e r u lin g cla ss, b u t on th e c o n tra ry can be a means to c a p tu re th e fa v o u r o f th e m a jo rity . Thus I f e l t t h a t I f Hobbes were c o rr e c t In s a y in g th a t In p r in c ip le we cannot have any p ro te c te d sphere a g a in s t th e S ta te , then In p r in c ip le w it h in any S ta te a m in o r ity Is In e v ita b ly v e ry v u ln e ra b le . I f t h i s w ere so, c o n s id e rin g th a t each o f us (being s h o r t s ig h te d , o r t a l l , o r f a t ) Is th e p o te n tia l member o f a m in o rity , my fe a r o f th e S ta te w o u ld be w e ll grounded.
Hobbes Ian concept o f “ g lo r y ” and why I decided t o w r ite a d is s e r t a t io n a b o u t I t . The f i n a l r e s u lt o f my In q u iry Is th a t u n t i l lib e r a ls add re ss th e problem posed by Hobbes In h is own term s and a rg u e t h a t e it h e r th e s t a t e - o f - n a t u r e approach Is In c o rre c t o r Hobbes's a ssum ptio n on g lo r y Is u n te n a b le (o r b o th ) and th a t h is f i n a l c o n c lu s io n Is th e r e fo r e In c o rre c t, then th e re a re good reasons f o r each o f us (as p o t e n t ia l members o f a m in o r ity ) t o be f e a r f u l o f th e S ta te .
ACKNOWLEDGEMEhlTS
I rvJ-T R O D L JC T I orvi
P ro fe s s o r M ich a el O akeshott once s a id th a t he r e a liz e d t h a t he was n o t a p h ilo s o p h e r whenever re a d in g P la to ; In my case, I re a liz e th a t I am n o t a p h ilo s o p h e r whenever re a d in g my own w r itin g s . As I see I t , p h ilo s o p h e rs produce Ideas and th e o rie s th a t have many depths and fa c e ts , th a t have an Independent l i f e o f t h e ir own, t h a t can be read and a p p re c ia te d e it h e r c o n s id e rin g o r a b s tra c tin g fro m th e h is t o r ic a l circu m sta n ce s In w hich th e y w ere w r itt e n , t h a t e xpress what p h ilo s o p h e rs them selves had th o u g h t, and more beside. In my view t h is e x p la in s why th e work o f p h ilo s o p h e rs Is an In e x h a u s tib le source o f new In te r p r e ta tio n s , each o f w hich can c la im to be grounded In th e te x t.
A lth o u g h th e above c r i t e r i o n taken on I t s own is i n s u f f ic i e n t to c h a ra c te riz e a p h ilo s o p h ic a l work, and some may even f in d I t q u e s tio n a b le , I have s ta te d my c o n v ic tio n th a t p h ilo s o p h ic a l w r itin g s a re amenable to d if f e r e n t In te r p r e ta tio n s because I t may be u s e fu l to a p p ra is e th e c la im s made In th e p re s e n t d is s e r ta tio n .
a ssum ptio n s, a l l b u t one o f w hich Hobbes sh ares w ith those lib e r a l th in k e rs (e.g. Locke) who a re p re p a re d to d ep lo y a s t a t e - o f - n a t u r e approach to th e j u s t i f i c a t i o n o f r ig h t s . The s p e c if ic a lly Hobbes Ian a ssum ptio n Is th e Idea t h a t some people may seek “ g lo r y ” , I.e., th e p le a s u re o f d o m in io n o th e rs . I argue th a t Hobbes's b e l ie f th a t a l l men a tta c h an o v e r - r id in g p r i o r i t y to t h e ir s e lf- p r e s e r v a tio n . Is re d undant to h is argum ent f o r u n l- c o n d ltlo n a l obedience. T h is model Is exam ined In P a rt I I I o f th e d is s e r ta tio n , w hich c lo s e s w ith some s u g g e s tio n s f o r th e re s e a rc h agenda o f some lib e r a l th e o r is t s .
Whereas P a rt I I I p u ts fo rw a rd an In te r p r e ta tio n o f Hobbes's p o l i t i c a l th e o ry w ith th e aim o f p ro v id in g a h e u r is t ic t o o l to u n d e rsta n d some conte m p orary p ro ble m s o f ju s t ic e . P a rt II Is meant to be a d e ta ile d e x a m in a tio n o f th e meaning o f “ g lo r y ” In E lem ents o f Law, De Cive, and L e v ia th a n , In r e la t io n to o th e r key Hobbes Ian concepts, such as honour, power, f e l i c i t y , s e lf- p r e s e r v a tio n , r a t io n a lit y , scarce re s o u rc e s , e tc . In t h i s p a r t o f th e d is s e r t a t io n I have t r i e d to keep q u ite d i s t i n c t what Hobbes says from my own e x p la n a tio n s o r I n t e r p r é t â t Ions. When, In th e co urse o f my a n a ly s is , I have b ro u g h t to th e lig h t some problem s In h is argum ent, I have sometim es r e fra in e d fro m a tte m p tin g t o p ro v id e my own s o lu tio n o r e x p la n a tio n . A case In p o in t Is my tre a tm e n t o f th e problem o f th e m in o r ity o f n o n -g lo r y - seekers In E le m e n ts o f Law and De Cive. An Insta n ce In P a rt II where
In s te a d I h ig h lig h t an a p p a re n t c o n tra d ic tio n In Hobbes's w orks and t r y to p u t fo rw a rd my own e x p la n a tio n f o r I t Is when I deal w ith Hobbes's argum ent on th e d iffe r e n c e s between a pia n and human a s s o c ia tio n s and compare I t w ith h is account o f th e s t a t e o f n a tu re .
may o f f e r th e key to s o lv e th e In c o n g r u ity In Hobbes's te x t . I t w i l l be n o tic e d t h a t my Thucydidean I n t e r p r e ta tio n o f Hobbes, a lth o u g h n o t a s u p p o rtin g p i l l a r o f my th e s is In so f a r as th e l a t t e r s ta n d s even I f th e v a l id i t y o f th e fo rm e r Is denied, p ro v id e s n e v e rth e le s s a u n ify in g Idea o f th e whole d is s e r ta tio n . In fa c t. I t u n d e rlie s both p a r t I I I , In so f a r as I t p ro v id e s th e re a d e r w ith a to o l to u n d e rs ta n d th e dynam ics o f th e s ta te o f war and P a rt I, where I t r y to show th e s t r ik in g s i m i l a r i t y between T h ucyd id e s' and Hobbes's w orks In s in g lin g o u t fe a r and g lo r y as th e main m o tiv a tio n s o f people and In c o n s id e rin g fe a r as th e p i l l a r o f s o c ia l o rd e r and a m b itio n , o r g lo ry , as th e o r ig in o f I t s c o rro s io n . In P a rt I I t Is a ls o cla im e d t h a t Thucydides poses p o l i t i c a l p h ilo s o p h y tw o dilemmas and th a t Hobbes's work can be seen as th e a tte m p t to s o lv e them.
On th e o th e r hand, a lth o u g h In my vie w th e In te r p r e t a t io n p u t fo rw a rd In t h i s d is s e r t a t io n can be f i r m ly tra c e d back to Hobbes's w r itin g s , no c la im Is made t h a t th e p re s e n t work o f f e r s a re a d in g o f Hobbes's th e o ry t h a t Is somehow more c o rr e c t than t h a t p u t fo rw a rd by o th e r Hobbes's re a de rs. I am aware th a t, as seen fro m d if f e r e n t v ie w p o in ts , Hobbes's th e o ry conveys d if f e r e n t messages fro m th e one h ig h lig h te d here. Indeed, as I p o in te d o u t In th e p re fa c e , th e m o tiv a tio n behind t h i s th e s is Is n o t to c h a lle n g e th e s c h o la rs h ip on Hobbes, b u t to t r y to argue t h a t Hobbes’s th e o ry can h e lp u n d e rs ta n d in g a problem o f ju s t ic e e x is tin g In o u r s o c ie ty .
A NOTE ON T E X T S
In t h i s d is s e r t a t io n th e fo llo w in g n o ta tio n Is used to r e f e r to Hobbes’s te x ts :
Leviathan ; v o l. I l l o f The E nglish Works o f Thomas Hobbes, e d ite d by W illia m M ole sw o rth, London, John Bohn, 1839.
De Cive : v o l. I l l o f th e C larendon E d itio n o f th e P h ilo s o p h ic a l Works o f Thomas Hobbes, De Cive. The English Version e n t it le d in
the f i r s t e d itio n F fiilo so p h icall Rudiments Concerning Government and Society, e d ite d by H. W arrender, O xford, C larendon Press, 1983
Elements o f Law : The Elements o f Law N a tu ra l and P o litic , e d ite d by F. Tbnnles, 2nd ed., London, F. Cass, 1969.
Elements o f Philosophy : v o l. I o f The English Works o f Thomas Hobbes, e d ite d by W illia m M olesw orth, London, John Bohn, 1839.
Behemoth : Behemoth o r the Lang Parliam ent, e d ite d by F. Tttnnies, 2nd ed., London, F. Cass, 1969.
A n ti-W h ite : Thomas White*s De Mundo Examined, tr a n s la te d fro m th e L a tin and e d ite d by H. W hitmore Jones, B ra d fo rd U n iv e r s ity Press, 1976.
H is to ry I
:
The H is to ry o f the Grecian War w ritte n by Thucydides and tra n s la te d by Thomas Hobbes, v o l. V I II o f The English Works o f Thomas Hot>bes, e d ite d by W illia m M olesw orth, London, John Bohn, 1843.H is to ry I I : The H is to ry o f the Grecian War w ritte n by Thucydides and tra n s la te d by Thomas Hobtjes, v o l. XI o f The English Works o f Thomas Hot>tfes, e d ite d by W illia m M olesw orth, London, John Bohn, 1843.
Human Nature : De Homine, In Man and C itizen , e d ite d by B. G ert, New York, Doubleday, 1972.
A ls o r e fe r r e d to In th e t e x t is th e fo llo w in g work:
The tw o c h a p te rs fo rm in g t h i s p a r t o f th e d is s e r ta tio n , a lth o u g h d e a lin g w ith d if f e r e n t s u b je c t-m a tte r s , s e rve th e same purpose, nam ely th a t o f in tro d u c in g th e a n a ly s is on g lo r y c a r r ie d o u t in P a rt
II.
In p a r tic u la r . C hapter I aims a t e x p la in in g th e s ig n ific a n c e o f fe a r and a m b itio n in T h ucyd id e s' H is to r y and s u g g e s ts t h a t in h is p o l i t i c a l w r it in g s Hobbes endorses and deve lo p s Thucydides' in s ig h ts on th e fu n c tio n o f g lo r y and fe a r in p o l i t i c a l a s s o c ia tio n s and on th e r e la tio n s h ip between d e s ire o f power and concern f o r s e l f - p re s e rv a tio n in th e dynam ics o f war.
T HUCY DI DE S '
H I S T O R Y
AN I NTRODUCTI ONTO HOBBES' S P O L I T I C A L WORKS
1.1 INTRODUCTION; 1.2 THE THREE GREATEST THINGS; 1.3 ON FEAR: 1.3.1. Fear and U n c e rta in ty ; 1.3.2 Fear and A n tic ip a tio n ; 1.3.3 Fear and D e lib e ra tio n ; 1.3.4- F ear and S o c ia l O rder; 1.4 ON HONOUR: 1.4.1 Human n a tu re and a m b itio n t o r u le ; 1.4.2 A m b itio n to r u le and p o l i t ic a l a s s o c ia tio n s ; 1.5 ON PROFIT; 1.6 CONCLUSION.
1.1 im-RODUCTION
In re c e n t y e a rs th e r e seems t o have been a r e v iv a l o f I n te r e s t In th e s im i l a r i t i e s between T h u cyd id e s' and Hobbes's th o u g h t. In 1987, f o r example, Brown <1 ) h ig h lig h te d a s ig n if ic a n t convergence o f Ideas between th e tw o a u th o rs on an e x tre m e ly w ide range o f to p ic s ; In 1988 O rw ln (2 ) p o in te d to some s t r i k i n g p a r a lle ls between Thucydides'
s t a s is and Hobbes's s t a t e o f n a tu re and In 1989 Brown (3) u rged
s c h o la rs to re g a rd Hobbes's t r a n s la t io n o f Thucydides as “ an In te g r a l p a r t o f h is o ff e r in g s to th e p u b lic on th e n a tu re o f man and s o c ie ty " .
In t h i s c h a p te r I s h a ll show t h a t Thucydides' w ork p ro v id e s an
(1 ) C l i f f o r d W. Brown, ‘T hucydides, Hobbes, and th e D e riv a tio n o f A narchy’ , H is t o r y o f P o l i t i c a l Thought, v o l. V I I I (1), S p rin g 1987, pp. 3 3 -6 2 .
In v a lu a b le s t a r t in g - p o in t t o exam ine Hobbes's th e o ry and to assess th e fund am en ta l r o le o f f e a r and g lo r y w ith in I t . In p a r tic u la r , I s h a ll s u g g e s t t h a t Hobbes's p o l i t i c a l th e o ry d evelops some o f T h ucyd id e s' In s ig h ts on th e fu n c tio n o f fe a r and th e e f f e c t o f a m b itio n on p o l i t i c a l a s s o c ia tio n s and p ro v id e s an escape fro m th e dilem mas ra is e d by T h ucydides on th e c o n d itio n s under w hich fe a r and a m b itio n can e it h e r prom ote o r s u b v e rt c iv ilis a t io n .
1.2 THE THREE GREATEST THINGS
In th e e a r ly s ta g e s o f th e P eloponnesian war, A thens' ambassadors are re p o rte d In T h ucyd id e s' H is t o r y (4) to have j u s t i f i e d t h e ir expans Ion 1st Ic p o lic y In t h e i r o r a tio n to th e C o rin th ia n s In th e fo llo w in g term s:
». we were fo rc e d to advance o u r dom inion to what I t Is, o u t o f the n a tu re o f th e th in g I t s e l f ; as c h ie f l y f o r fe a r, n e x t f o r honour and
la s t ly f o r p r o f i t . (5)
They Imputed t h e ir b e h a v io u r to th e v e ry essence o f human n a tu re , th u s s u g g e s tin g t h a t th e re was no need f o r e xcusing I t .
We read:
(4) A l l re fe re n c e s a re t o Hobbes's own t r a n s la t io n o f th e H is to ry , th e reason why I s h a ll r e f e r n e ith e r to more a c c u ra te re c e n t tr a n s la tio n s n o r to th e o r ig in a l Greek t e x t Is t h a t my main concern Is to examine Hobbes's u n d e rs ta n d in g o f Thucydides, r a th e r th a n an assessm ent o f th e H is to r y In g e n e ra l. Moreover, I t seems to mee t h a t none o f th e passages examined o r quoted In t h is C hapter Is c o n tr o v e r s ia l (w ith perhaps one e x c e p tio n , note d
So th a t, though overcome by th re e th e g re a te s t th in g s , honour, fe a r and p r o f i t , we have th e r e in done n o th in g to be wondered a t nor b eside s th e manner o f men. Nor have we been th e f i r s t In t h i s kind, b u t I t hath been e v e r a th in g fix e d , f o r th e weaker to be kept under by th e s tro n g e r. (6)
In th e H is to r y th e re fe re n c e to honour, fe a r, and p r o f i t Is n o t In c id e n ta l, n o r a re th e A th e n ia n s th e o n ly ones who c o n s id e r them as th e “ th re e g r e a te s t th in g s ’* t h a t m o tiv a te human b e h a vio u r. Indeed, I t can be arg ue d t h a t T hucyd id e s h im s e lf d ep lo ys th e se th re e fu n d am en ta l concepts t o e x p la in th e mechanics and th e dynam ics o f th e w hole P eloponnesian war.
D ir e c t re fe re n c e s t o fe a r, power, dom inion, and re p u ta tio n occur a t le a s t once In a lm o st e v e ry page o f th e f i r s t tw e n ty th re e paragraphs o f th e F ir s t Book o f th e H is to r y where Thucydides t r i e s to e s ta b lis h th e tr u e causes o f th e war, as opposed to th e p r e te x t t h a t sparked o f f th e c o n f lic t . He concludes t h a t In th e la s t a n a ly s is th e war a rose c h ie f ly because o f th e Lacedœmon Ians' fe a r o f A thens' In c re a s in g power and d e s ire t o r u le and th a t a l l th e o th e r p a rte c lp a n ts form ed a llia n c e s e it h e r f o r fe a r o r f o r hope o f p r o f i t .
The causes why th e y brake th e same [ league], and t h e ir q u a rre ls , I have th e r e fo r e s e t down f i r s t , because no man s h o u ld be to seek fro m w hat ground so g re a t a w ar amongst th e G recians c o u ld a ris e . And th e t r u e s t q u a rr e l, tho u gh le a s t In speech, I conceive to be th e g ro w th o f th e A th e n ia n power; w hich p u ttin g th e Lacedœmon Ians
In to fe a r n e c e s s ita te d th e war. (7)
No s tu d e n t o f Hobbes can f a i l t o n o tic e th e s t r i k i n g s im i l a r it y between th e th re e m o tiv a tio n s th a t a ccordin g to T hucydides b ro u g h t th e a n c ie n t w o rld to i t s g re a te s t and lo n g e s t war and th e th re e causes o f c o n f lic t d e s c rib e d by Hobbes in Chapter 13 o f L e v ia th a n :
So th a t in th e n a tu re o f man, we f in d th re e p r in c ip a l causes o f q u a rr e l The f i r s t , maketh men invade f o r g ain; th e second, f o r s a fe ty ; and th e t h ir d , f o r re p u ta tio n . (8)
Hobbes's concept o f g a in rem inds us o f T hucydides' p r o f i t ; s a fe ty r e c a lls fe a r; honour, re p u ta tio n . A lth o u g h the se p a r a lle ls have n o t been Ign o re d by Hobbes's com m entators <9), to my knowledge th e re is no d e ta ile d a n a ly s is o f th e s i m i l a r i t ie s and d iffe r e n c e s between T h ucyd id e s' and Hobbes's vie w s on fe a r, g lo ry , and p r o f i t .
The purpose o f t h i s c h a p te r Is t o o f f e r such a com parison and to arg ue t h a t an u n d e rs ta n d in g o f T hucydides' view s on human psychology p ro v id e s u s e fu l in s ig h ts in to Hobbes's p o l it i c a l th o u g h t.
The s i m i la r i t i e s examined in w hat fo llo w s can be grouped in to th re e broad c a te g o rie s :
( I ) in many cases th e a f f i n i t y o f view s is so s t r i k i n g th a t i t exte n ds to t e x t u a l concordance;
< ii) in o th e r in s ta n c e s a minimum o f p h ilo s o p h ic a l a n a ly s is re v e a ls th a t T h ucyd id e s' p o s itio n on human p assion s fin d s an u nm ls ta k e a b le echo In Hobbes's works;
( i l l ) f i n a l l y , th e common concerns o f th e tw o a u th o rs on th e to p ic s o f fe a r, g lo ry , and p r o f i t in e v ita b ly g e n e ra te s i m i l a r i t i e s
(8) Leviathan^ p .1 12.
th a t a re n o t s p e c ific t o Hobbes and Thucydides, b u t can a ls o be found In many o th e r w r i t e r s on p o l i t i c a l and h is t o r ic a l m a tte rs .
I t s h o u ld be s tre s s e d t h a t th e aim o f th e p re s e n t c h a p te r Is n o t th a t o f e s ta b lis h in g by means o f h is t o r ic a l com p arative a n a ly s is to what e x te n t and dep th Hobbes's w orks can be s a id to re s o n a te o f th e Thucydidean legacy, n o r Is t h a t o f m e re ly adding a n o th e r v o ic e to th e chorus o f Hobbes's re a d e rs t h a t have been puzzled and Im pressed by th e s i m i l a r i t i e s between th e tw o w r it e r s and cannot h e lp fe e lin g th a t Hobbes, who sp e n t much tim e and la bour to produce h is b r i l l i a n t t r a n s la t io n o f T h ucyd id e s' work, m ust have fou n d In th e way o f th in k in g o f th e “ most p o l i t i c h is to r io g r a p h e r t h a t e v e r w r i t " a p o w e rfu l In s p ir a tio n f o r h is own th o u g h t, a t a tim e — th e 1620s — when h is a tt e n tio n was t u r n in g t o p o l i t i c a l p h ilo so p h y, (10)
The deeper purpose o f t h i s c h a p te r Is to a rgue t h a t by exam ining In some d e t a il T h u cyd id e s's v ie w s on “ th e th re e g re a te s t th in g s " one can la y th e groundw ork f o r an I n t e r p r é t â t Ion o f Hobbes's p o l i t i c a l th e o ry th a t on th e one hand d e ve lo p s some o f Thucydides' In s ig h ts on th e fu n c tio n o f fe a r and th e e f f e c t o f a m b itio n on th e p o l i t i c a l s ta te and on th e o th e r hand p ro v id e s a s o lu tio n to th e problem s ra is e d and l e f t open by T hucydides on th e c o n d itio n s under w hich fe a r and a m b itio n can e it h e r prom ote o r h in d e r c iv il is a t io n .
(10) On th e h i s t o r ic a l c ircu m sta n ce s s u rro u n d in g Hobbes's t r a n s la t io n o f T h ucyd id e s' H is to ry , see A rn o ld A. Rogow, Thomas
Hobbes, R a d ical in th e S e rv ic e o f R eaction, New York: W.W.
1.3 ON FEAR
In t h i s s e c tio n I s h a ll a rgue t h a t Hobbes's and T h ucyd id e s' analyses o f fe a r sh are tw o fu n d am en ta l a spe cts:
( I ) on th e one hand th e y p ro v id e a re m a rka b ly s im ila r c h a ra c te r Iz a t Ion o f fe a r , b o th v ie w in g I t as d e r iv in g from u n c e rta in ty , r e s u lt in g In a n tic ip a tio n , and a f f e c t in g human judgm ent In a e it h e r b e n e fic ia l o r d e trim e n ta l way depending on
I t s tlm e -h o rlz o n ;
( I I ) on th e o th e r hand, th e y b o th a s s ig n t o fe a r th e r o le o f c o rn e rs to n e o f p o l i t i c a l o rd e r.
1.3.1 Fear and U n c e rta in ty
In T h ucyd id e s' H is to r y fe a r Is n o t o n ly one o f th e key concepts th a t e x p la in th e causes and th e dynam ics o f th e Peloponnesian war, b u t a ls o th e p assion t h a t perm eated a l l a n c ie n t Greece b e fo re I t grew “ c i v i l " . The account o f a n c ie n t Greece g iv e n by T hucydides and th e d e s c r ip tio n o f th e n a tu r a l c o n d itio n s o f mankind made by Hobbes In E lem ents o f Law and L e v ia th a n have one fundam ental common fe a tu r e — th e y both d e p ic t a w o rld dom inated by fe a r, a lth o u g h In T hucydides' case what Is d e s c rib e d Is a h i s t o r ic a l p e rio d and In Hobbes's a h y p o th e tic a l s i t u a t i o n . (11)
In h is d e s c r ip tio n o f a n c ie n t Greece Thucydides lin k s fe a r to
u n c e rta in ty . He s u g g e s ts t h a t In th e o ld days people were In a c o n s ta n t s ta te o f a n x ie ty and apprehension because th e y co u ld have no f ir m e x p e c ta tio n s on th e b e h a v io u r o f o th e rs and th u s co u ld make no lo n g -te rm p la n s a bout th e fu t u r e . He w r ite s :
». w h ils t t r a f f i c was n o t, n o r m u tu a l In te rc o u rs e b u t w ith fe a r. n e ith e r by sea n o r land; and e v e ry man so husbanded th e ground as b u t b a re ly to liv e upon I t , w ith o u t any s to c k o f ric h e s , and p la n te d n o th in g ; (because I t was u n c e rta in when a n o th e r s h o u ld Invade them and c a rry a l l away, e s p e c ia lly n o t h aving th e defence o f w a lls ) ; b u t made account to be m asters, In any place, o f such necessary sustenance as m ig h t s e rv e them fro m day to day. (12)
B oth th e main Idea and th e s p e c ific d e t a ils o f th e above q u o ta tio n rem ind one o f a w e ll-k n o w n passage o f Leviathan^ In which Hobbes d e s c rib e s th e s ta te o f n a tu re :
In such c o n d itio n , th e re Is no p la ce f o r In d u s try ; because th e f r u i t th e r e o f Is u n c e r ta in ; and c o n s e q u e n tly no C u ltu re o f th e E a rth ; no n a v ig a tio n , nor use o f th e com m odities t h a t may be Im ported by sea; no commodious b u ild in g ; no In s tru m e n ts o f moving ,and rem oving,such th in g s as r e q u ir e much fo rc e ;n o knowledge o f th e fa c e o f th e e a rth ; no a ccount o f tim e ; no a r ts ; no le t t e r s ; no s o c ie ty ; and w hich Is w o rs t o f a l l c o n tin u a l f e a r . (13)
L ik e Thucydides, Hobbes to o e s ta b lis h e s a c le a r co n n e c tio n between fe a r and u n c e rta in ty ; th e people o f a n c ie n t Greece and th e Hobbes Ian In d iv id u a ls o f th e s ta te o f n a tu re liv e In fe a r because th e y do n o t
know w hat to e xp e ct fro m o th e rs . They do n o t know who th e o th e rs a re and what th e y want and I f th e y want th e same th in g s fro m one day to th e n e x t. T h is com plete Ignorance about th e w o rld In which th e y Live p re v e n ts everyone, as r a t io n a l being, fro m s e tt in g and p u rs u in g h is own o b je c tiv e s . Under c o n d itio n s o f com plete u n c e rta in ty , each in d iv id u a l Is d e p riv e d o f h is I n t r in s i c a ll y human a b i l i t y and need to p la n h is own f u t u r e and Is com pelled In s te a d to liv e In, and f o r , th e p re s e n t. The outcome Is t h a t th e l i f e o f people becomes In d is tin g u is h a b le fro m t h a t o f bea sts. Only when u n c e r ta in ty Is lim ite d and c irc u m s c rib e d . I.e. w it h in th e fram ew ork o f s o c ia l c o n v e n tio n s c re a te d In th e c i v i l s ta te , w i l l th e A th e n ia n s ( f i r s t among a l l G reeks) be a b le t o c o n c e n tra te on th o se th in g s th a t d is t in g u is h human b eing s fro m a nim a ls and w i l l th e Hobbes Ian people be a b le to liv e a w o rth w h ile l i f e .
1.3.2 Fear and A n tic ip a tio n
In T h ucyd id e s' n a r r a tio n th e lin k between fe a r and u n c e r ta in ty Is n o t c o n fin e d to th e d e s c r ip tio n o f th e people who liv e d In th e m urderous a n c ie n t w o rld b u t a p p lie s to , and Indeed e x p la in s , th e r e la tio n s h ip s between c i t ie s a f t e r th e y have grown " c i v i l" .
In d e s c rib in g th e causes o f th e w ar Thucydides s tre s s e s th e p o in t t h a t I t had been fe a r g e n e ra te d by u n c e rta in ty a bo u t th e In te n tio n s o f a s tro n g A thens what had d riv e n weaker c i t i e s to u n ite a g a in s t her and a n tic ip a te her a tta c k .
Thus A le lb lades:
defend them selves a g a in s t him when he s h a ll Invade, b u t to a n tic ip a te him, t h a t he Invade n o t a t a l l (14)
U n c e rta in ty about th e In te n tio n o f o th e rs , and fe a r t h a t th e y may a tta c k a re In T h u cyd id e s' argum ent th e fo u n d a tio n s o f h is concept o f a n t ic ip a t io n and f i r s t s t r ik e . Thus In th e H is to r y w h ile u n c e r ta in ty can be seen as th e main cause o f fe a r, a n t ic ip a t io n Is
I t s most Im p o rta n t outcome.
On t h i s p o in t, too , Hobbes can be seen to fo llo w T h ucyd id e s' ste p s . In c h a p te r 13 o f L e v ia th a n he develops an argum ent In w hich a n tic ip a tio n Is c o n s tru e d as th e r e s u lt o f d iffid e n c e , w hich In tu r n Is d e riv e d fro m fe a r and u n c e rta in ty .
We read:
And fro m t h i s d if fid e n c e o f one a n o th e r, th e re Is no way f o r any man to se cure h im s e lf, so rea son a ble as a n tic ip a tio n . (15)
M. fe a r o f o p p re s s io n d ls p o s e th a man to a n tic ip a te . (16)
A lth o u g h th e In te rm e d ia te s te p — I.e., d iffid e n c e — Is m is s in g In Th ucyd id e s' re a so n in g , th e lo g ic o f the argum ent t h a t s t a r t s fro m fe a r and u n c e r ta in ty and ends w ith a n tic ip a tio n and p re e m p tiv e s t r ik e
Is e s s e n t ia lly th e same as Hobbes's.
1.3.3 Fear and D e lib e ra tio n
In a d d itio n to t h e ir sh a re d view s on th e co n n e ctio n between fe a r, u n c e rta in ty , and a n tic ip a tio n , Thucydides' and Hobbes's argum ents
c o n ta in a n o th e r co nspicuous a f f i n i t y : th e y b oth a s c rib e to fe a r e ith e r a p o s itiv e o r a n e g a tiv e e f f e c t on human d e lib e r a tio n , depending on
I t s tlm e -d lm e n s lo n .
In T h ucyd id e s' H is to ry , th e fe a r f e l t by th e In d iv id u a l to w a rd s f u t u r e e n te rp ris e s Is a p o s itiv e passion, In th e sense t h a t I t engenders b e n e fic ia l e f f e c t s — I t a le r t s th e mind to th e problem s ahead and d riv e s people to d e lib e r a te p ru d e n tly and w is e ly . Thus we f in d th e g e n e ra ls o f d if f e r e n t c it i e s u rg in g t h e ir tro u p s n o t to u nd e rva lu e e it h e r th e enemy o r th e circu m s ta n c e s , b u t t o p re p a re them selves to fa c e g re a t dangers, s in c e t h i s is th e o n ly way t o p re p a re r a t io n a lly f o r v ic to r y .
C o n verse ly, fe a r as a p assio n t h a t dom inates th e In d iv id u a l In th e p re s e n t p la y s a n e g a tiv e and d e s tr u c tiv e r o le In T hucydides' n a r ra tio n . Indeed, as soon as th e h o s t i l i t i e s have commenced, s o ld ie r s a re u rg e d to a tta c k w ith o u t fe a r, s in c e th e key to v ic t o r y lie s In t h e ir courage. Fear In th e p re s e n t b rin g s people to d e fe a t, I t makes them o v e re s tim a te th e d i f f i c u l t i e s and o v e rv a lu e th e enemy, I t
leads to rushed and I r r a t io n a l dec Is lon-mak Ing. H erm ocrates speaks th u s t o th e S yracuslans:
and e v e ry man to remember, t h a t though to show contem pt o f th e enemy be b e s t In th e heat o f f i g h t , y e t those p re p a ra tio n s are th e s u re s t, t h a t a re made w ith fe a r and o p in io n o f danger (17)
And Arch Idamus says to th e Lacedœmon Ians:
». though th e s o ld ie r s oug h t a lw a ys to have b o ld h e a rts , y e t f o r a c tio n th e y o u g h t to make t h e ir p re p a ra tio n s as I f th e y were
a fr a id . (18)
In a passage o f h is "O f th e L if e and H is to ry o f T h ucyd id e s" th a t precedes h is t r a n s la t io n o f th e H is to ry , Hobbes echoes th e view th a t fe a r has e it h e r a p o s itiv e o r n e g a tiv e e f f e c t depending on I t s te m p o ra l dim ension;
w. fe a r (which f o r th e m ost p a r t a d v ls e th w e ll, though I t execute n o t so). (19)
In h is la t e r p o l i t i c a l w orks Hobbes e la b o ra te s a f u l l y developed co n c e p tio n o f fe a r th a t encompasses th e Thucydldean vie w on th e ambiguous e f f e c t s o f t h a t p assion on human b e h a vio u r, depending on w h e th e r I t In s p ire s d e lib e r a tio n s re g a rd in g th e f u t u r e o r th e p re s e n t.
L eaving a d e ta ile d a n a ly s is o f t h i s to p ic to la t e r c h a p te rs , here I t s u ff ic e s to a n tic ip a te t h a t under th e e ff e c t s o f Immediate fe a r HobbesIan people In th e s t a t e o f n a tu re r e s o r t t o k i l l i n g , w ith o u t r e a lis in g th a t In th e long ru n In a b a t t le between e qu a ls, nobody Is g oing to be s a fe .
In o th e r words, dec Is lon-m ak Ing u nder c o n d itio n s o f Immediate fe a r leads to an outcome — t o t r y to k i l l a l l o th e rs — t h a t Is a g a in s t reason ( f o r "e q u a l powers opposed d e s tro y one a n o th e r" (20)).
C onversely, fe a r o f f u t u r e dangers Is th e f i r s t p assion m entioned by Hobbes as re s p o n s ib le f o r making people u n d e rstan d th e n e c e s s ity to escape fro m th e s t a t e o f n a tu re and th u s decide to c re a te a p o l i t i c a l s ta te . In h is words:
(18) H is to ry , I, p. 165. (19) Ib id ., p. XVI.
The p a ssion s t h a t In c lin e men to peace a re fe a r o f death; d e s ire o f such th in g s as a re n e ce ssa ry to commodious liv in g ; and a hope by t h e ir In d u s try to o b ta in them. (21)
1.3.4- Fear and s o c ia l o rd e r
F in a lly th e re Is a deeper a f f i n i t y between Hobbes's and Thucydides' vie w s on fe a r w hich does n o t r e s t on mere t e x t u a l s im i l a r i t y b u t re s id e s In th e v e ry r o le p la y e d by fe a r in th e tw o a u th o rs ' works. The r o le p la yed by fe a r In T h ucyd id e s' H is to r y can be a p p re c ia te d In a l l I t s Im p lic a tio n s by e xam ining In some d e t a il h is a ccount o f th e pla gu e t h a t had g rip p e d A thens s in c e th e second y e a r o f th e war.
In a n a r r a tio n t h a t has become d e s e rv e d ly a c la s s ic , Thucydides h ig h lig h t s th e t e r r i f y i n g e f f e c t s b ro u g h t about by a com plete lack o f fe a r.
People who know t h a t a re g oing to d ie do n o t show fe a r, b u t re a c t in s te a d w ith u t t e r d e je c tio n and d e s p e ra tio n . People who liv e w ith th e o n ly c e r t a in t y th a t, be th e y honest o r n o t, p io u s o r n o t, imminent death a w a its them cannot be r e s tra in e d by e it h e r human o r d iv in e punishm ent fro m behaving In w h ich eve r way th e y w ish.
T hucydides s tre s s e s re p e a te d ly th a t th e c e r t a in t y o f Impending death fre e s t o t a l l y In d iv id u a ls fro m any fe a r o f e it h e r gods o r men and p r e c ip ita te s a s o c ia l o rg a n iz a tio n In to a s ta te o f com plete s o c ia l chaos. When th e n a tu r a l r e s t r a in t p ro v id e d by fe a r Is removed, th e fun d am en ta l b in d in g ele m en t o f s o c ia l o rd e r Is lo s t and w ith I t a l l
laws, co n v e n tio n s , custom s, and r u le s s im p ly crum ble away. (22) In T h ucyd id e s' words, as b r i l l i a n t l y rendered by Hobbes:
And th e g re a t lic e n tio u s n e s s , w hich a ls o In o th e r k in d s was used In th e c it y , began a t f i r s t fro m t h i s disease. For t h a t w hich a man b e fo re w ould disse m ble, and n o t acknowledge to be done f o r v o lu p tu o u s n e s s , he d u r s t now do f r e e ly ; seeing b e fo re h is eyes such q u ic k r e v o lu tio n , o f th e r ic h d yin g , and men w o rth n o th in g In h e r itin g t h e i r e s ta te s . Insomuch as th e y j u s t i f i e d a speedy f r u i t i o n o f t h e i r goods, even f o r t h e ir p le a s u re ; as men th a t th o u g h t th e y h e ld t h e i r liv e s b u t by th e day. As f o r pains, no man was fo rw a rd In any a c tio n o f honour to ta ke any; because th e y th o u g h t I t u n c e rta in w h e th e r th e y s h o u ld d ie o r n o t b e fo re th e y a chieve d I t . B ut w hat any man knew to be d e lig h t f u l, and to be p r o f it a b le to p le a s u re , t h a t was made both p r o f it a b le and honourable. N e ith e r th e fe a r o f th e gods, n o r laws o f men, awed anv man; n o t th e fo rm e r, because th e y concluded i t was a lik e to w o rsh ip o r n o t w o rsh ip , fro m se eing t h a t a lik e th e y a l l p e ris h e d : n o r th e la t t e r , because no man expected t h a t liv e s w ould la s t t i l l he re c e iv e d punishm ent o f h is crim e s by judgm ent. B ut th e y th o u g h t, th e re was now o v e r t h e ir heads some f a r g re a te r judgm ent decreed a g a in s t them; b e fo re w hich f e l l , th e y th o u g h t to e n jo y some l i t t l e p a r t o f t h e i r liv e s . <23)
(22) For an a n a ly s is o f th e p la gu e and s ta s is , see C l i f f o r d Orwln, ‘S ta s is and Plague: T hucydides on th e D is s o lu tio n o f S o c ie ty ', c it .
From T h ucyd id e s' a ccount o f th e p la gu e In Athens I t emerges c le a r ly t h a t th e fu n c tio n o f fe a r w it h in a p o l i t ic a l o rg a n iz a tio n Is to p ro v id e a p o w e rfu l r e s t r a in t t o th e b e h a vio u r o f th e In d iv id u a l.
By keeping In mind th e Thucydldean e q u a tio n between lack o f fe a r and s o c ia l chaos, we can u n d e rs ta n d more f u l l y why In h is p o l it i c a l w r it in g s Hobbes s tre s s e s th e param ount Im portance o f fe a r. From h is t r a n s la t io n o f T h ucyd id e s' d e s c r ip tio n o f th e plague, u n d e rtake n a t a tim e — th e 1620s — when he was b eg in n in g to tu r n h is a tte n tio n to p o l i t i c a l m a tte rs , Hobbes m ust have learned t h a t In a w o rld w ith o u t f e a r th e re can be no L e v ia th a n , no law and o rd e r, no peace. And th u s In De Cive he p o in ts to fe a r n o t o n ly as th e o r ig in o f s o c ie tie s b u t a ls o as th e b a s is o f “ la s tin g S o c ie tie s ” (24), th e unrenounceable c o n d itio n o f s o c ia l s t a b i l i t y .
In a l l h is p o l i t i c a l w orks Hobbes s tre s s e s re p e a te d ly th e Idea th a t “ th e re Is In e v e ry man a c e r ta in high degree o f f e a r ” (25): h is In s is te n c e t h a t fe a r Is a c o n s titu e n t p a r t o f o u r p sycho lo g y Is n o t to be taken as a m e re ly In c id e n ta l re fe re n c e , b u t r a th e r as u n d e rly in g th e f a c t t h a t th e assum ptio n o f fe a r Is a fundam ental p ro v is o o f h is whole p o l i t i c a l c o n s tru c t.
Indeed I t c o u ld be a rgued t h a t n o t o n ly Hobbes, b u t most p o l i t i c a l p h ilo s o p h e rs In th e W estern t r a d i t i o n would have no a d v ic e to o f f e r t h a t w ould be re le v a n t to a w o rld w ith o u t fe a r, such as th e l l m l t - case o f th e plague o f Athens. However, I t may be su rm ise d th a t th e reason why Hobbes Is so e x t r a o r d in a r ily aware b o th o f th e c r u c ia l fu n c tio n o f fe a r In p o l i t i c a l a s s o c ia tio n s and o f th e v a l i d i t y o f h is
w hole p o l i t i c a l th e o ry being dependent on th e assum ption o f f e a r -In s p lre d b eh a v io u r, may be due to h is c a r e fu l t r a n s la t io n o f th e H is to ry , t h a t a le r te d him to th e s tro n g co nn e ction between lack o f fe a r and s o c ia l chaos.
However, th e fu n c tio n o f fe a r In p o l i t i c a l a s s o c ia tio n s Is n o t the o n ly In s ig h t t h a t Hobbes le a rne d fro m Thucydides. T hucydides' tw in d e s c r ip tio n s o f a n c ie n t Greece and o f th e plague In Athens I m p lic it ly s e t p o l i t i c a l p h ilo s o p h y th e ta s k o f s o lv in g th e fo llo w in g dilemma: g iv e n t h a t a w o rld where fe a r Is th e overw helm ing passion (as In a n c ie n t Greece) Is as unb e arab le and as ung o verna b le as a w o rld w ith o u t fe a r a lto g e th e r (such as Athens d u rin g th e p lague), how Is fe a r to be c h a n n e lle d so as to r e s u lt In a s ta b le s o c ia l o rd e r ?
In h is p o l i t i c a l w orks Hobbes p ro v id e s an answer to th e above q u e s tio n . He s in g le s o u t In a s tro n g p o l i t i c a l s ta te th e In s tru m e n t whereby u n c e r ta in ty can be c o n tro lle d , th u s rem oving a m ajor source o f fe a r. In fa c t , w it h in a s tro n g p o l i t i c a l s ta te , people can form f ir m e x p e c ta tio n s on th e b e h a v io u r o f o th e rs , f o r fe a r o f punishm ent channels p eo p le 's a c tio n s In to d e f in it e and s ta b le p a tte rn s , th u s re n d e rin g In d iv id u a ls ' b e h a v io u r p re d ic ta b le . As a r e s u lt , both a n t ic ip a t io n and rushed d e lib e r a tio n a re no lo n ge r In e v ita b le .
T hrough th e a r t i f i c e o f th e p o l i t i c a l s ta te people a re a b le to c irc u m s c rib e fe a r by means o f fe a r I t s e l f (In th e fo rm o f fe a r o f punishm ent).
w ith th e s o c ia l chaos d e r iv in g fro m m ajor n a tu r a l o r a r t i f i c i a l d is a s te r s ( lik e th e p la gu e o f A the n s) when th e fe a r o f punishm ent v a n ish e s In everyone.
To summarize: In t h i s s e c tio n I t has been a rgued t h a t Hobbes's and T h ucyd id e s' argum ents on f e a r share fo u r fund am en ta l p o in ts : both ( I) connect fe a r to u n c e r ta ln tv . ( I I ) p o in t to a n t ic ip a t io n and f i r s t s t r i k e as th e n a tu r a l outcom e o f fe a r, ( I I I ) e s ta b lis h a r e la tio n s h ip between fe a r and d e lib e r a tio n , and most Im p o rta n tly , ( Iv ) s in g le o u t fe a r as th e nece ssa ry c o n d itio n f o r a s ta b le s o c ia l o rd e r.
1.4 ON HONOUR
In t h i s s e c tio n I s h a ll a rg u e t h a t Thucydides and Hobbes, a p a rt fro m s h a rin g th e vie w t h a t In n a tu r a l c o n d itio n s (such as e x is t between In d iv id u a ls b e fo re th e e s ta b lis h m e n t o f th e p o l i t i c a l s ta te o r between s ta te s a t a l l tim e s ) most In d iv id u a ls have a r e s tle s s d e s ire o f power and t h a t m oderate people a re com pelled to jo in th e power s tr u g g le f o r th e sake o f t h e ir s u r v iv a l, agree in a n o th e r c r u c ia l re s p e c t, namely In p o in tin g t o a m b itio n as th e co re o f any s e d itio n , th e dorm ant cancer o f p o l i t i c a l s o c ie tie s .
A f t e r some p r e lim in a r y te r m in o lo g ic a l rem arks, I s h a ll c o n s id e r t h e ir p a r a lle l argum ents on a m b itio n and human n a tu re and the n move on to th e s u b s ta n tiv e Issue o f th e e f f e c t o f a m b itio n on p o l i t i c a l a s s o c ia tio n s .
Is b u t th e p u b lic re c o g n itio n o f one's s u p e r io r ity ; “ g lo r y ” Is both th e d e s ire and th e p le a s u re o f a c h ie v in g one's s u p e r io r ity ; “ power” Is th e b a s ic In g re d ie n t o f s u p e r io r i t y and g lo ry .
U n lik e Hobbes, Thucydides o f co u rs e does n o t p ro v id e th e re a d e r w ith a d e f in it io n o f th e w ords t h a t he uses. However, g Iven t h e ir key ro le and fre q u e n c y In th e H is to ry ^ I t Is easy to work o u t th a t, as In Hobbes, g lo r y and honour a re re s p e c tiv e ly th e response o f th e In d iv id u a l to w a rd s h is own achievem ents and th e r e a c tio n by o th e rs to th e achievem ents o f th e In d iv id u a l. Again as In Hobbes, Thucydides sees g lo r y and honour as d e r iv in g m a in ly fro m th e a b i l i t y o f th e In d iv id u a l (o r c i t y ) to e x e rc is e h is own power and Impose h is r u le on o th e rs and a re c o n s id e re d th e main d riv e behind th e a c tio n s
( p o lic ie s ) o f m ost In d iv id u a ls ( c it ie s ) .
1.4.1 Human n a tu re and a m b itio n to r u le
In th e c o n te x t o f t h e ir c h a ra c te r Iz a t Ion o f human n a tu re , th e correspondence between Hobbes's and Thucydides' vie w s on power, g lo ry and honour ranges fro m sh a re d fun d am en ta l b e lie f s to m a tte rs o f d e t a il. E s p e c ia lly re le v a n t to o u r argum ent a re t h e i r rem arks on th e re s tle s s n e s s and Inn e r I n s a t i a b i l i t y o f In d iv id u a ls .
Through th e words o f C o rin th 's ambassadors, T hucydides o f f e r s to th e re a d e r th e fo llo w in g p o r t r a i t o f h is own fe llo w c it iz e n s ;
say th e y a re men born n e ith e r to r e s t them selves, n o r s u ff e r o th e rs , Is to say th e t r u t h . (26)
The com pulsion to a c t and re s tle s s n e s s o f th e A th e n ia n people are sh ared by th e Hobbes Ian In d iv id u a l f o r whom " t o have no d e s ire Is to be dead" (27) and f o r whom f e l i c i t y never lie s In r e s tin g b u t In c o n tin u a lly proceeding. (28)
I t s h o u ld be n o te d here t h a t th e tr u e o b je c t o f th e A th e n ia n s ' d e s ire Is n o t th e a c q u is itio n o f ric h e s f o r t h e ir own sake b u t the a tta in m e n t o f power: th e y th in k them selves w o rth y to have the command o f o th e r s ” (29) and f e e l "how h onourable a th in g I t w ould be f o r them «. to be I n f e r io r to none". (30) They a re re a dy t o acknowledge t h e i r own d e s ire to r u le and a s c rib e I t to a n a tu r a l In c lin a tio n o f mankind. R e fe rrin g to the m se lve s th e y say:
Those men a re w o rth y o f commendation, who fo llo w in g th e n a tu ra l I n c lin a tio n o f man In d e s ir in g r u le o ver o th e rs , a re J u s te r than f o r t h e i r own power th e y need. (31)
The c o m p e titiv e s p i r i t o f th e A the n ian s Is n o t c o n fin e d to t h e ir r e la tio n s h ip w ith th e o u ts id e w o rld , b u t exte n ds t o t h e ir own s o c ia l In te rc o u rs e where "th e y cla im e d e v e ry one, n o t to be equal, b u t to be by f a r th e c h ie f" . (32)
In h is p o l i t i c a l w orks Hobbes, too , acknowledges th e human d e s ire o f a c q u irin g power o v e r o th e rs and c a lls I t " g lo ry " :
(26) H is to ry , I, pp. 7 5 -6 . (27) L e viath an , p. 62.
(28) See, f o r example, E lem ents o f Law, p. 48. (29) H is to ry , I, p. 166.
G lo ry , o r In te r n a l g lo r ia t lo n o r triu m p h o f th e mind, Is th a t p assion w hich p roceedeth fro m th e Im a g in a tio n o r c o n ce p tio n o f o ur own power, above th e power o f him th a t co nte nd e th w ith us. (33) As w i l l be e x p la in e d a t le n g th In la te r c h a p te rs , th e o b je c tiv e o f m ost Hobbes Ian people is to s u rp a ss o th e rs In power: t h e ir l i f e can be compared to a “ ra c e ” th a t “ has no o th e r goal, b u t be fo re m o s t” (34). As Hobbes p u ts I t In Leviatham
-. I p u t f o r a genera 11 In c lin a tio n o f a l l mankind, a p e rp e tu a l and r e s tle s s d e s ire o f power a f t e r power, t h a t cease th o n e ly In death. (35)
A p a rt fro m a g re e in g w ith Thucydides on th e o b s e rv a tio n t h a t people have a r e s tle s s a m b itio n to r u le th e l i f e o f o th e rs , and a v is c e r a l a bh orrence a t being r u le d by them, Hobbes fo llo w s T h u cyd id e s' s te p s In a n o th e r re s p e c t, nam ely in n o tic in g th a t even th o se th a t do n o t have by n a tu re th e d r iv e to dom inate o th e rs , m ust jo in In th e race a f t e r power f o r th e sake o f t h e ir own s u r v iv a l.
In th e H is to ry , th e people who a re n o t p re pared to go to war f o r th e mere d e s ire o f Imposing t h e ir r u le a re th e Lacedemonians. T hucydides d e s c rib e s them as q u ie t by n a tu re , m inding t h e ir own b usine ss, w ith no w ish to I n t e r f e r e In o th e r people's. And y e t th e y cannot be o b liv io u s to th e power s tr u g g le between th e o th e r c it i e s and are u n a b le to c a rry on w ith t h e ir liv e s as n o th in g happened. On th e c o n tra ry , as th e C o rin th ia n s make them re a liz e , as long as th e y a re su rro u n d e d by g lo ry -s e e k in g n eigh b ou rs — e s p e c ia lly as v o ra c io u s as th e A th e n ia n s — th e y cannot concern them selves m e re ly w ith t h e ir
(33) E lem ents o f Law, pp. 3 6 -7 . (34) Ibid ., p. 47.
In te r n a l a f f a i r s b u t m ust In s te a d ta k e s id e s In th e war, f o r th e sake o f t h e i r own s e lf- p r e s e r v a tio n :
... n e ith e r do any harm t o o th e rs , n o r re c e iv e I t Is a th in g you h a rd ly c o u ld a tt a in , th o u g h th e s ta te s about you were o f th e same c o n d itio n s . But , as we have b e fo re d e cla re d , y o u r custom s a re In re s p e c t o f t h e ir s [th e A th e n ia n s '] a n tiq u a te d ; and o f n e c e s s ity « th e new ones w i l l p r e v a il. (36)
In a l l h is th re e main p o l i t i c a l w orks Hobbes, too , obse rve s t h a t th e re e x is t s a m in o r ity o f people who, a lth o u g h “ te m p e ra te ” and “ m oderate” by n a tu re , a re una b le t o f o llo w t h e ir In c lin a tio n and m ust Inste a d jo in th e race o f th e a m b itio u s I f th e y want to rem ain a liv e .
And th e cause o f t h i s [d e s ir e o f power a f t e r pow er] Is n o t alw ays t h a t a man hopes f o r a more In te n s iv e d e lig h t, th a n he has a lre a d y a tta in e d to ; o r t h a t he cannot be c o n te n t w ith m oderate power : b u t because he cannot a s s u re th e power and means to liv e w e ll, which he h a th p re s e n t, w ith o u t th e a c q u is itio n o f more. (37)
W hile Thucydides and Hobbes agree In c o n s id e rin g th e d e s ire o f power as c o n ta g io u s . In th e sense th a t e v e n tu a lly I t a f f e c t s a l l, m oderates and a m b itio u s a lik e , th e y r e f e r to tw o d if f e r e n t c o n te x ts In which th e power s tr u g g le ta k e s place: Thucydides d e s c rib e s th e r e la tio n s between c i t i e s whereas Hobbes exam ines p r im a r ily th e r e la tio n s h ip s between In d iv id u a ls In th e s ta te o f n a tu re .
F in a lly , as to u n d e rlin e th e a f f i n i t y o f th o u g h t between Hobbes and T hucydides on th e s u b je c t o f honour. I t may be In te r e s tin g to note t h a t th e y make a number o f s u r p r is in g ly s im ila r and s p e c ific
o b s e rv a tio n s on honour and human n a tu re .
One d e t a il t h a t can be fo u n d In th e works o f b oth a u th o rs Is th e n o ta tio n th a t people te n d t o honour and p ra is e th e dead f o r these, h aving passed away, a re n o t deemed to be a t h r e a t to th e g lo ry o f th e liv in g ; as P e ric le s p u ts I t In th e s fu n e ra l o ra tio n :
F or e v e ry man u s e th t o p ra is e th e dead For men envy t h e ir c o m p e tito rs In g lo r y , w h ile th e y liv e ; b u t to s ta n d o u t o f t h e ir way. Is a th in g honoured w ith an a ff e c t io n fr e e fro m o p p o s itio n . (38)
And Hobbes echoes In L e v ia th a n
For men contend w ith th e liv in g , n o t w ith th e dead; to the se a s c rib in g more th a n due, t h a t th e y may obscure th e g lo r y o f th e o th e r. (39)
A r e la te d p o in t on w hich b o th Hobbes and T hucydides agree Is th e o b s e rv a tio n th a t people a re as u n w illin g to adm ire th e achievem ents o f o th e rs as th e y a re ready to d is c o u n t them as fa ls e . Thus P e ric le s :
For to hear a n o th e r man p ra is e d fin d s p a tie n c e so long o n ly as each man s h a ll th in k he co u ld h im s e lf have done somewhat o f th a t he hears. And I f one exceed In t h e ir p ra is e s , th e h e a re r p re s e n tly th ro u g h envy th in k s I t fa ls e . (40)
And Hobbes n o tic e s In E le m e nts o f Law:
everyman th in k in g w e ll o f h im s e lf and h a tin g to see th e same In o th e rs . (41 )
As a f i n a l example o f th e e x te n t to w hich T h ucyd id e s' view s on honour permeate Hobbes's own th o u g h ts on th e to p ic , one can p o in t to t h e i r I n t e r p r é t â t Ion o f fr ie n d s h ip and e n m ity m e re ly as s ig n s o f power.
In th e H is to r y th e A th e n ia n s q u ite o p e n ly a d m it to th e Me Hans th a t th e y a re n o t g oing to t r e a t them m e r c if u lly s in c e to a c t f r ie n d ly to w a rd s them w ould be c o n s tru e d by t h e ir o th e r s u b je c ts as a s ig n o f weakness:
y o u r fr ie n d s h ip w i l l be an argum ent o f o u r weakness, and your h a tre d o f o u r power, amongst th o se we have r u le over. (4-2)
In a v e ry s im ila r v e in , Hobbes In c h a p te r 10 o f L e v ia th a n l i s t s f r ie n d s h ip and e n m ity among th e “ s ig n s o f pow er", whereby an In d iv id u a l makes o th e rs aware o f h is power.
1.4.2 A m b itio n to r u le and p o l i t i c a l a s s o c ia tio n s
In th e e p is tle In w hich he d e d ic a te s h is t r a n s la t io n o f Thucydides' H is to r y to S ir W illia m Cavendish, Hobbes n o tic e s t h a t "In h is to r y , a c tio n s o f honour and d is h o n o u r do appear p la in ly and d is t in c t l y , w hich a re w hich". (43)
Indeed, T hucydides' a ccount o f th e Peloponnesian war e s ta b lis h e s u nam biguously w hich a c tio n s a re g lo r y - y le ld ln g — v ic t o r y Is h onourable and d e fe a t sh am efu l. However, th e meaning o f honour becomes ambiguous In a s p e c if ic case, namely d u rin g a c i v i l war.
D u rin g th e s e d itio n o f C o rcyra, a l l words (honour In c lu d e d ) lose t h e ir
