F ilo z o fs k i v e s tn ik
V o lu m e /L e tn ik XXIV • N u m b er/Š te v ilk a 2 • 2003 • 189-204
HOBBES’S BEHEMOTH ON AMBITION,
GREED, AND FEAR
G a b r ie l l a S l o m p
C an Behemoth b e in te rp re te d as a n atte m p t by H obbes to apply to an histori­
cal ev en t th e crite ria a n d categories first in tro d u c e d in his theoretical works?
S cholarsh ip is div id ed o n this issue. T he term s o f this long-standing debate
can b e e n c a p su la te d in th e co n tra stin g ways in which two H obbesian in ter­
p re te rs have in tro d u c e d re c e n t editions o f Behemoth, M aurice G oldsm ith in
1968 a n d S te p h e n H o lm es in 1990. O n o n e side o f the arg u m en t, G oldsm ith
in his b rie f b u t p o ig n a n t In tro d u c tio n puts forw ard a dual claim, nam ely th at
(i) H o b b e s ’s in te n tio n in w riting Behemoth was to provide a “scientific” expla­
n a tio n o f th e p h e n o m e n a lead in g to the English Civil War, i.e., Behemoth
sh o u ld b e re g a rd e d as an ap p licatio n o f H o b b e s’s “science o f politics” to his­
to ry 1 a n d th a t in this ap p licatio n lies its greatness a n d im p o rtan ce for the u n ­
d e rsta n d in g o f H o b b e s ’s theory; a n d (ii) th at this ap p ro ach led H obbes to
believe th a t “th e causes o f th e reb ellio n w ere n e ith e r econom ic n o r social;
they w ere id eo lo g ical ” 2 a n d re sid e d ultim ately in “m e n ’s passions”3.
O n th e o th e r side, S tep h en H olm es, in his in-depth In tro d u ctio n to the
1990 re p rin t o f Behemoth, indirectly b u t firmly challenges G oldsm ith’s view that
Behemoth is a m e re ap p licatio n o f scientific principles to historical events.
W hile ag reein g with th e latter p a rt o f G oldsm ith’s claim, nam ely th at for
H obbes “ [t] h e causes o f the upheaval were n o t econom ic a n d legal [... ] b u t
ra th e r psychological a n d ideological”4, an d accepting th at “the psychological
1 M aurice G oldsm ith, “In tro d u c tio n ”, in Thom as Hobbes, Behemoth or the Long Parlia­
ment, ed. F erd inand T önnies (London: Frank Cass, 1969), ix-xi.
2 G oldsm ith, op.cit., xiii; “U nlike H arrington, he [Hobbes] perceived no shift in the
balance o f p roperty [...] for H obbes, history was n o t class war”, xii.
3 G oldsm ith, op.cit., xi.
4 Stephen H olm es, “In tro d u c tio n ”, in Thom as Hobbes, Behemoth or the Long Parliament,
ed. F erd in an d T önnies (Chicago and London: University o f Chicago Press, 1990), viii. All
quotations from Behemoth are from this rep rin t of the 1889 edition.
189
G a b r ie l l a S l o m p
assum ptions inspiring its historical narrative are ultim ately indistinguishable
from those ex p o u n d e d [...] in Leviathan , H olm es nevertheless m aintains th at
in Behemoth H obbes introduces new concepts a n d ideas a n d in p artic u la r a
“fine-grained acco u n t o f h u m an m otivation” th a t gives a “realistic” to n e to the
narrative. For H olm es in his D ialogues on th e Civil W ar H obbes shows “th at
m any h u m a n beings are, first o f all, in cap ab le o f calculative re aso n in g an d ,
second, stupidly in d ifferen t to self-preservation”. H olm es co n ten d s th a t a grea­
ter “concreteness a n d color” are Behemoth’s distinctive features a n d th a t this re ­
alism “m akes an invaluable co n trib u tio n to o u r u n d e rsta n d in g o f H o b b e s ” .5
T h e aim o f this p a p e r is to m ake a c o n trib u tio n to this d e b a te by ex­
p lo rin g in som e d etail w h eth er a n d to w hat e x te n t th e a c c o u n t o f h u m a n m o ­
tivation o ffered by H obbes in Leviathan provides an in sig h t into, a n d a th e o ­
retical key to unlock, the n arrative o f Behemoth. M ore specifically, th e p a p e r
takes as its p o in t o f d e p a rtu re H o b b e s’s well-known view, epigram m atically
expressed in C h ap ter 13 o f Leviathan, th a t “in th e n a tu re o f m an, we fin d
th ree prin cip all causes o f q u arrel [...] First, C o m p etitio n ; Secondly, Diffi­
dence; Thirdly, Glory. T he first, m ak eth m e n invade fo r Gain; th e second, fo r
Safety; a n d th e th ird , fo r R ep u ta tio n ”. T h e p a p e r th e n exam ines th e ro le th a t
these th re e passions (desire o f gain, fe ar fo r safety, a n d am b itio n ) play in the
ac co u n t o f the Civil W ar offered by H o b b es in Behemoth. S ection 1 argues th a t
in Behemoth H o b b es identifies am b itio n as th e passion m otivating th e lead ers
o f th e reb ellio n , b u t adds th e crucial proviso th a t this passion alo n e, w ith o u t
g en eralised ig n o ran ce ab o u t th e m e a n in g a n d value o f civil o b ed ien c e,
w ould have fo u n d “n o h a n d s”. S ection 2 argues th a t (i) gain a n d m o n ey have
a d o u b le fu n ctio n in Behemoth as m otivation a n d o p p o rtu n ity o f actio n a n d
(ii) g reed alo n e w ould have n o t le d p e o p le to re b el, h a d it n o t b e e n fo r w ide­
spread ig n o ran ce ab o u t the fu n c tio n o f th e m ilitary, th e n e e d fo r taxation,
a n d th e essence o f sovereignty. S ection 3 argues th a t re g a rd in g th e th ird
greatest h u m a n m otivation, nam ely fear, we witness a m ajo r ch a n g e in the
transition from Leviathan to Behemoth in so fa r as H obbes a b a n d o n s th e id ea
th a t fe ar is th e passion to b e “re c k o n e d u p o n ”. H e now believes th a t fe ar
alone w ith o u t know ledge o f th e “tru e scien c e” o f political o b lig atio n c a n n o t
p ro tec t from civil disorder. S ection 4 draws som e tentative conclusions.
1. On Ambition
T h e view th a t am bition was seen by H o b b es as a m ajo r cause o f th e E ng­
lish Civil W ar is hardly co n ten tio u s a n d can b e su p p o rte d by a w ealth o f tex­
5 Holmes, op. cit., xlix.
190
H o b b e s ’s B e h e m o t h
o n
A m b it io n , G r e e d , a n d F e a r
tual ev idence in Behemoth w h ere H o b b es often reiterates his b elief th a t am bi­
tion was th e m o tiv atio n o f “th o se th a t [...] w ere set u p o n th e en terp rise o f
c h a n g in g th e g o v e rn m e n t ” 6 a n d th a t “the c h ief leaders [of the rebellion]
w ere am b itio u s m in isters a n d am bitious gen tlem en , the m inisters envying
th e au th o rity o f b ish o p s w hom they th o u g h t less learn ed a n d th e g en tlem en
envying th e privy-council a n d p rin cip al courtiers whom they th o u g h t less
wise th a n th em selves ” . 7
In this sectio n my aim is to exam ine the meaning a n d significance o f am ­
b itio n in Behemoth, to study th e type o f p eople th a t according to H obbes were
p ro n e to b e in g am b itio u s, a n d to ex p lo re the means w hereby am bitious peo­
ple trie d to attain th e ir objective.
A lth o u g h , o f co u rse, in Behemoth H obbes does n o t offer a definition o f
am b itio n , its m e a n in g is easy to re-co n stru ct as it is consistent with the use o f
this w o rd in all his po litical works. As it can b e recalled, in th e Elements of Law,
de Cive, a n d Leviathan, w hen listing th e in tern al causes th at b rin g ab o u t the
d issolu tio n o f g o v e rn m e n t , 8 H o b b e s never fails to include am bition am ong
th e “seditious attitu d e s o f th e m in d ”. A lthough am bition m otivates p eo p le to
surpass each o th e r a n d th u s is lin k ed to the H obbesian co n c ep t o f glory, the
two passions d o n o t co incide. G lory in its various form s (vain glory, false glo­
ry, ju s t esteem , p rid e ) is discussed by H obbes in his account o f h u m an n a tu re
a n d o f th e natural conditions o f m a n k in d a n d is described as th e generic desire
a n d p leasu re o f superiority. A m bition, instead, m akes an a p p e ara n ce mainly
in H o b b e s’s acco u n ts o f th e political state an d is used to signify the desire o f a
specific fo rm o f su p erio rity a n d power: the political pow er o f the ru le r over
th e ru le d — a d efin itio n th a t H o b b es endorses also in cle Homine. In Behemoth,
glory is h ard ly m e n tio n e d as a m otivational force, in contrast to am bition
w hich in stead loom s large over th e whole text. In Behemoth, w hen H obbes
does m e n tio n glory, th e c o n te x t is quite revealing, in so far as H obbes as­
cribes glory-seeking b e h a v io u r e ith e r to states o r nations 9 o r to individuals
6 Behemoth, 115-16.
7 Behemoth, 23.
8 T hom as H obbes, De Cive, ed. H ow ard W arrander (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983),
C hapter 12; T hom as H obbes, Elements of Law, ed. F erdinand T önnies (London: Frank
Cass, 1969), 270; T hom as H obbes, Leviathan, ed. Richard Tuck (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1991), C hapter 29.
9 For exam ple, H obbes explains the politics of the gentry and nobility of Scotland as
motivated by “em ulation o f glory betw een the nations” and desire “to acquire some pow­
er over th e E nglish”, Behemoth, 30; he points out that “that nation [the Scots] [...] always
esteem ed the glory o f E ngland for an abatem ent o f their own”, Behemoth, 32, and that “it
is com m only seen th a t n eig h b o u r nations envy one an o th er’s h o n o u r”, ibid.
191
G a b r ie l l a S l o m p
whose aim is n o t political power, b u t ec o n o m ic superiority, e.g., th e m e r­
ch an ts . 10
A m bition is th e cen tral passion in D ialogues 1 a n d 2 w here th e seed a n d
grow th o f th e reb ellio n are ex am in ed , a n d in D ialogues 3 a n d 4 it shares c e n ­
tre stage with a n o th e r “greatest th in g ”, th e d esire o f gain. In th e n a rra tio n ,
am b itio n is linked by H obbes to a very lo n g list o f passions such as stub­
b o rn n ess an d contum acy , 11 p rid e , 12 in so len ce a n d licen tio u sn ess , 13 im p u ­
d ence, envy, 14 vain glory , 15 p re su m p tio n , 10 hypocrisy a n d re v e n g e , 17 cruelty
a n d finally to all sorts o f “follies”, “vices” a n d “crim es ” . 18
To sum up: in Behemoth am b itio n is a sub-category o f th e d esire o f glory,
m ean in g desire to rule, an d its significance is c e n tral in so fa r as it is th e m a­
j o r drive o f th e leaders o f the reb ellio n .
As to the type o f p eople w ho d ev elo p ed this passion at th e tim e o f th e
English Civil War, H obbes is slightly am biguous. O n th e o n e h a n d , in the
c o n clu d in g D ialogue, teach er A rem ark s to p u p il B: “I believe it is th e desire
o f m ost m en to b e a r ru le ” . 19 T his re m a rk m ig h t suggest th a t Behemoth m arks
n o ch an g e in this re sp ect co m p a re d with Elements o f Law a n d De Cive w here
desire o f superiority, o r glory, is seen by H o bbes as th e greatest m otivation o f
m ost, if n o t all, individuals. O n th e o th e r h a n d , it can b e a rg u e d th a t the
above claim o f a generalised desire to ru le does n o t fu rn ish a fully accu rate
ac co u n t o f th e narrative in Behemoth, in so fa r as H o bbes stresses th e p o in t
i° “['Thg m erchants’] only glory being to grow excessively rich by th e wisdom o f buying
an d selling”, Behemoth, 126; according to H obbes the m erchants su p p o rted the rebellion
only because, as private gain is their main motivation, “they are naturally m ortal enem ies
to taxes”.
11 “[T]his stubbornness and contum acy towards th e king and his laws is n o th in g b u t
pride o f h eart and am bition, or else im posture”, Behemoth, 53. Elsewhere H obbes claims
that stubbornness, motivated by am bition, hinders am bitious people to attain th eir aims
and gives the exam ple o f L ord Strafford: “I have observed often th a t such as seek p refer­
m en t by their stubbornness have missed o f th eir aim ”, Behemoth, 72.
12“ [A] 11, such as had a great opinion o f th e ir sufficiency in politics, w hich they th o u g h t
was n ot sufficiently taken notice of by the King”, Behemoth, 27.
13 Very often Hobbes describes the clergy as am bitious an d insolent, fo r exam ple, Behe­
moth, 18-19.
14 Behemoth, 23.
ls “I m ight add the folly o f those fine m en, which o u t o f th eir read in g o f Tully, Seneca
o r oth er anti-monarchics, think themselves sufficient politics, an d show th eir discontent
when they are n o t called to the m anagem ent o f the state”, Behemoth, 155-56.
10 “ [the two Houses] had always p rete n d ed to greater th an ordinary wisdom and godli­
ness”, Behemoth, 203.
17 “[P]ower to undo all m en that adm ired n o t th eir wisdom”, Behemoth, 159.
18 Behemoth, 155.
19 Behemoth, 193.
192
H o b b e s ’s B e h e m o t h
o n
A m b it io n , G r e e d , a n d F e a r
th a t th e c o m m o n p e o p le w ere th e victims o f am bitious individuals ra th e r
th a n b e in g am b itio u s them selves. “T h e com m on p eo p le” are described as
n o t u n d e rs ta n d in g th e “reasons o f e ith e r p arty ” . 20 A ccording to H obbes,
m e rc h a n ts a n d tra d e sm e n w ere also n o t in terested in political am bition, ab­
so rb e d as they w ere in th e activity o f buying a n d selling . 21
H o b b e s id en tifies five sets o f agents w hom h e describes as p ro n e to am ­
bition: th e clergy, th e P arliam en tarian s, the w ell-educated, th e army, an d the
nobility. I will ex a m in e th ese g ro u p s briefly in tu rn , b ea rin g in m ind th at
th e ir m e m b e rsh ip is n o t m utually exclusive, so that, fo r exam ple, according
to H o b b es, th e m o st active a n d influential m em bers of P arliam en t com e
fro m th e g ro u p o f th e w ell-educated.
As fa r as th e clergy is c o n c e rn e d , H obbes regards it as unreservedly am ­
bitious, irresp ectiv e o f tim e, o f h ierarch ical status 22 an d o f d en o m in atio n al
affiliation (“ [Do] n o t believe th a t the In d e p en d en ts were worse th an the
P resbyterians: b o th th e o n e a n d th e o th e r w ere resolved to destroy w hatso­
ever sh o u ld stan d in th e way to th e ir am b itio n ” ) . 23
In H o b b e s’s acco u n t, am b itio n is all-pervasive also am o n g the parliam en­
tarians. W rites H obbes: “as fo r th e m e n th at did this [attem pted to change the
g ov ern m en t] it is e n o u g h to say th a t [...] m ost o f them were m em bers o f the
H ouse o f C om m ons; som e few also, o f the Lords; b u t all h a d a great opinion
o f th e ir sufficiency in politics w hich they th o u g h t was n o t sufficiently taken n o ­
tice o f by th e K ing ” . 21 To th e P arliam entarians H obbes attributes “u n co n ­
scionable a n d sottish am b itio n ” th a t often obstructs “the way to their en d s ” . 25
T h e ir am b itio n takes th e form o f “im p u d en ce” in dem ocratic assemblies 26
a n d can lead to cruelty a n d perfidy .27 Admittedly, n o t all parliam entarians are
for H o b b es im p u d e n t o r am bitious: in Dialogue 3 he suggests th at m any were
simply deceived by th e ir colleagues’ motives an d th at it took them a long time
to discover “th e hypocrisy a n d private aims o f th eir fellows ” .28
20 Behemoth, 115.
21 Behemoth, 126.
22 H obbes consistently attributes insolence, avarice and hypocrisy to the clergy, n o t on­
ly d u rin g the Civil W ar b u t earlier too, from top ministers and bishops down to ordinary
priests, m onks, and friars (see, for exam ple, Behemoth, 18-19).
23 Behemoth, 165.
24 Behemoth, 27.
2a Behemoth, 145.
20 Behemoth, 68. “Im p u d en ce in dem ocratic assemblies does almost all th a t’s done; ‘tis
the goddess o f rhetoric an d carries p ro o f with it. For what ordinary m an will not, from so
great boldness o f affirm ation, conclude there is great probability in the thing affirmed?”,
Behemoth, 68-69.
27 Behemoth, 138.
28 Behemoth, 139.
193
G a b r ie l l a S l o m p
T h e g ro u p o f the highly e d u c a te d , in H o b b e s ’s view, also yields to th e
tem p tatio n o f political am bition: “o u t o f these m e n w ere ch o se n th e g re atest
p a rt o f th e H o u se o f C om m ons, o r if they w ere n o t th e g re atest p art, yet, by
advantage o f th e ir elo q u en ce, w ere always ab le to sway th e re s t ” . 29 L ate r in
th e D ialogue h e explains: “F or it is a h a rd m a tte r fo r m en , w ho d o all th in k
highly o f th eir own wits, w hen they have also a c q u ired th e le a rn in g o f th e u n i­
versity, to be p e rsu a d e d th a t they w an t any ability req u isite fo r th e govern­
m e n t o f a co m m o n w ealth ” . 30
In th e arm y am bition ap p ears to b e c o rre la te d to ra n k , in so far as
H obbes sees it as the m otivation only o f th e to p leaders a n d generals, w h e re­
as th e re s t are m o re in terested in ec o n o m ic rew ards. H o b b es speaks o f th e
“am b itio n o f th e g reat co m m an d e rs ” 31 a n d resorts o ften to am b itio n to ex­
plain C rom w ell’s b ehaviour 32 as well as th a t o f o th e r generals. Even a m o n g
th e generals, however, n o t all d esire to rule. If a m b itio n is C rom w ell’s m ain
h id d e n m otivation, a n d th e o p e n drive o f G en eral L am b ert, w ho always
“th o u g h t so well o f h im se lf ’, 33 th e sam e c a n n o t b e said o f G en eral M onk w ho
is d escribed as having a d iffe ren t in clin atio n , a d iffe re n t type o f a m b itio n . 34
A m bition a n d p rid e are also th e key co n c ep ts u sed by H o b b es to explain
th e b eh av io u r o f th e Scottish n obility a n d g en try w ho “in th e ir lives [...] w ere
ju s t as o th e r m en are, pursuers o f th e ir ow n in terests a n d p re fe rm e n ts ” . 35 H e
adds th a t they, as “m en o f a n c ie n t w ealth a n d nobility [w ere] n o t a p t to
b rook, th a t p o o r scholars should (as they m ust, w hen they are m ad e bishops)
be th e ir fellows ” . 36
H aving ex a m in e d briefly th e g ro u p s o f individuals w ho a c c o rd in g to
H o b b es w ere m o re te m p te d by am b itio n , th e n e x t step is to see how they
m an ag e d to get a h o ld on th e w hole p o p u la tio n , since, as H o b b e s p o in ts
o ut, “am b itio n can d o little w ith o u t h a n d s ” . 37 In view o f th e o b serv atio n th a t
“from th e b eg in n in g o f th e re b e llio n , th e m e th o d o f am b itio n was c o n ­
stantly this: first to destroy a n d th e n to c o n sid e r w hat they sh o u ld set u p ” , 38
th e q u estio n to address is how d id am b itio u s p e o p le m an ag e to convince th e
29 Behemoth, 3.
30 Behemoth, 23.
31 Behemoth, 186.
32 Behemoth, 138-39, 143, 179.
33 Behemoth, 197, se e also 198, 201.
34 “His am bition had not appeared here in the contentions for the governm ent”, Behe­
moth, 198.
35 Behemoth, 29.
36 Behemoth, 29-30.
37 Behemoth, 70.
38 Behemoth, 192.
194
H o b b e s ’s B e h e m o t h
o n
A m b it io n , G r e e d , a n d F e a r
re st to “d estro y ” th e p o litical o rd e r? T h e answ er provided by H obbes to this
q u e stio n is b est u n d e r s to o d if b ro k e n dow n in th re e separate parts: (i) am ­
b itio n is d ifficu lt to d etec t; (ii) am bitious individuals take advantage o f p eo ­
p le ’s ig n o ra n c e a b o u t th e m e a n in g a n d fu n ctio n o f civil o b ed ien ce; (iii) am ­
b itio u s in d iv id u als sab o tag e th e very signification o f language a n d thus co n ­
fuse p eo p le.
As to (i) in Behemoth H o b b es claim s n o t only th a t “it is a h a rd m atter o r
ra th e r im possible to know w hat o th e r m en m ean especially if they be
crafty ” , 39 b u t also th a t even w hen p eo p le are n o t consciously m isleading, “we
c a n n o t safely ju d g e o f m e n ’s in te n tio n s ” .40 In o th e r words, in Behemoth
H o b b es is less co n v in ced th a n h e was in earlier works that it be possible to
u n d e rs ta n d h u m a n m o tivation even th o u g h h e does no t re n o u n c e alto g eth ­
e r th e n o tio n o f h u m a n n a tu r e . 41
As to (ii), H o b b e s re m in d s th e re a d e r rep eated ly in Behemoth th a t p eo ­
p le ’s ig n o ra n c e h a d b e e n th e cause o f all rebellions and seditions th ro u g h ­
o u t h u m a n histo ry . 42 A lth o u g h h e o ften attrib u tes ig n o ran ce to “th e p eo p le
in g e n e ra l ” 43 a n d to th e “c o m m o n p e o p le ”44, h e co n ten d s th a t ig n o ran ce
a b o u t th e p rin cip les o f political obligation is w idespread also am o n g e d u ­
c a te d p e o p le , a m o n g th e L ords, a n d even am o n g lawyers . 45 F or H obbes, “it
is n o t w ant o f wit, b u t w ant o f th e science o f ju stice, th at b ro u g h t [the Eng­
lish p e o p le ] in to th ese tro u b le s ” . 46 We have seen above th a t “th e com m on
p e o p le ” c o u ld n o t u n d e rs ta n d th e “reasons o f e ith e r p arty ”, a n d yet they
39 Behemoth, 37.
40 Behemoth, 72.
41 “I ca n n o t en te r into o th e r m e n ’s thoughts farther than I am led by the consideration
o f h um an n atu re in g en e ral”, Behemoth, 29.
42 H obbes m entions th e seditions th a t afflicted ancient Greece an d remarks that they
m aterialised “all for w ant o f rules o f justice for the com m on people to take notice of which
if th e people had known in th e beginning of every o f these traditions the am bitious per­
sons could never h ad th e h o p e to disturb their governm ent after it had been once set­
tled ”, Behemoth, 70.
43 “T h e people in general were so ignorant o f their duty as that n o t one perhaps o f ten
thousand knew w hat rig h t any m an had to com m and him, o r what necessity there was of
king o r C om m onw ealth”, Behemoth, 4.
44 “C om m on people know n o th in g o f right or wrong by their own m editation; they
m ust th erefo re be tau g h t th e grounds o f their duty and the reasons why calamities ever
follow disobedience to th eir lawful sovereigns”, Behemoth, 144.
45 Behemoth, 155.
46 Behemoth, 159; “they w anted n o t wit b u t the knowledge o f the causes and grounds up­
on which one person has a right to govern and the rest an obligation to obey which
grounds are necessary to be tau g h t the people who w ithout them can n o t live long in
peace am ongst them selves”, Behemoth, 160.
195
G a b r ie l l a S l o m p
w ere extrem ely im p o rta n t, in so far as “th e ir h a n d s w ere to d e c id e th e c o n ­
troversy ” .47 T his ig n o ran ce, H o b b es tells us, was e x p lo ite d fo r e x a m p le by
th e P arliam en tarian s who aim ed a t in c re a sin g th e “p e o p le ’s d isaffectio n ” to­
wards th e King in o rd e r to e n h a n c e th e ir own ch a n ces o f b e c o m in g m o re
p o w erfu l . 48
As to (iii), nam ely th e qu estio n o f how th e am b itio u s m a n a g e d to take
advantage o f p e o p le ’s ignorance, H o b b e s’s answ er is th a t th e m ain w eapon
used to trick p eo p le in to reb ellio n was lan g u ag e itself. W ords w ere deployed
to deceive and confuse. F or exam ple, we a re told th a t th e R u m p “m e a n t th a t
n e ith e r th e king, n o r any king n o r any single p erso n b u t only they them selves
w ould b e th e p e o p le ’s m asters a n d would have set it down in those plain words i f
the people could have been cozened with words intelligible as easily as with words non
intelligible" . 49
L anguage is used to m an ip u late, a n d in d o c trin a te th e co m m o n p eople.
T h e received m e a n in g o f words, the very signification o f lan g u ag e is p u t in
q u estion. H obbes tells us th a t “d iso b e d ie n t p erso n s [were] e stee m ed th e b est
p atrio ts ” , 50 a n d th a t “by d e lin q u e n t they m e a n t only a m an to w hom they
w ould d o all th e h u rt they co u ld ” . 31 In this situation, civil d iso b ed ien c e is
praised a n d civil o b ed ien ce is lab elled as p rid e: “T h e Papists claim th a t to
disobey th e p o p e is p rid e an d deserves d e a th ” .52
In m any ways this rem in d s us o f T h u cy d id e s’ d esc rip tio n o f th e p ro g res­
sive d isin teg ratio n o f co m m o n values, stan d ard s, a n d beliefs in C orcyra d u r­
ing th e stasis. In th e v ibrant w ords o f H o b b e s’s own tran slatio n o f T hucy­
d id es’ History, “in co nsiderate boldness, was c o u n te d tru e -h e a rte d m anliness:
p ro v id en t delib eration, a h an d so m e fear: m odesty, th e cloak o f cow ardice: to
be wise in everything, to be lazy in ev erything ” . 33
A lth o u g h b o th H obbes a n d T hucydides are re p o rtin g th e crisis o f signi­
fication o f language d u rin g a state o f civil war, H o bbes goes fu rth er. H e is sug­
gesting th a t th o se who m anage to convince th e co m m o n p e o p le th a t disobe­
d ie n t p eo p le are “th e best p atrio ts”, th a t “w isdom ” o r “gallantry” a re in fact
“folly ” ,54 th at “private o p in io n ” can b e tre a te d as “heresy ” ,55 in effect d o ac­
47 Behemoth, 115.
48 Behemoth, 60.
49 Behemoth, 164, em phasis added.
50 Behemoth, 2.
51 Behemoth, 69.
52 Behemoth, 5.
53 T hom as Hobbes, The History of the Grecian War written by Thucydides, vol. 8 o f The Eng­
lish Works o f Thomas Hobbes, ed. William Molesworth (London: Jo h n B ohn, 1843), 348.
54 Behemoth, 38.
55 Behemoth, 9.
196
H o b b e s ’s B e h e m o t h
o n
A m b it io n , G r e e d , a n d F e a r
q u ire p ow er over th em . In H o b b e s’s narrative, the giving o f nam es is n o t o n ­
ly arb itrary ,56 b u t a sign o f power. T h e pow er to decide who is a spy,57 who a
tra ito r o r a m u rd e re r 58 re m a in s u n ch a lle n g ed w here th ere is ignorance. Lin­
guistic skills a n d te c h n iq u e s are u sed to co n tro l p eople so th a t “a m an unac­
q u a in te d w ith su ch a rt co u ld n ever suspect any am bitious p lo t in them to
raise sed itio n ag ain st th e sta te ” .59
N o t only p u b lic sp eakers b u t also writers are p art o f the conspiracy
aim ed at g ettin g “th e h a n d s ” o f th e com m on peo p le w orking for th eir own
am b itio n : “th e sch o o lm en [... ] le a rn t th e trick o f im posing what they list u p ­
o n th e ir re a d e rs a n d d ec lin in g th e force o f tru e reason by verbal forks; I
m e a n d istin ctio n s th a t signify n o th in g , b u t serve only to astonish the m ulti­
tu d e o f ig n o ra n t m e n ” . 60
In closing this sectio n, we can co nclude th a t in Behemoth am bition, o r de­
sire to ru le, grows a m o n g th o se circles o f peo p le who because o f th eir social
status (clergy) o r th e ir e d u c a tio n (i) on the o n e h a n d develop m ore “inso­
le n c e ” th a n th e re st a b o u t th e ir own wisdom an d ability to rule, a n d (ii) on
th e o th e r h a n d can take advantage fo r th eir own ends o f th e ignorance o f the
p e o p le a b o u t th e d an g e rs o f civil disobedience. H o b b e s’s m essage is th at d u r­
in g th e E nglish Civil W ar a m b itio n alone could n o t ru in a whole nation; but
th e am b itio n o f so m e c o m b in e d with the ignorance o f m ost could an d did.
2. O n Greed a n d M oney
In Behemoth we can fin d a p le th o ra o f references to m oney a n d to m oney-related term s, su ch as booty, p lu n d er, pay, tax, subsidies, coffers, etc. A
b e tte r u n d e rs ta n d in g o f th e role played by m oney a n d g re ed can be gained
by d istin g u ish in g th e two m ain form s u n d e r which m oney enters H o b b es’s
narrativ e, nam ely: (i) as objective or motivation of action; a n d (ii) as means or op­
portunity fo r actio n . In this section I am going to consider these two functions
in tu rn .
56 “ [M ]en may give to th eir assembly what nam e they please, what signification soever
such nam e m ight form erly have had; and the Rum p took the nam e of Parliam ent, as most
suitable to th eir purpose, an d such a nam e, as being venerable am ongst the people, had
fo r m any h u n d red s years cou n ten an ced and sweetened subsidies an d oth er levies of m on­
ey, otherw ise very u npleasant to the subject”, Behemoth, 155.
57 Behemoth, 128.
58 Behemoth, 154; th e King is called “tyrant, traitor, m u rderer” by the “wicked Parlia­
m e n t”, Behemoth, 149.
59 Behemoth, 24.
60 Behemoth, 41.
197
G a b r ie l l a S l o m p
We m ay b eg in by ex am in in g in w hat sense in Behemoth m o n ey can b e re ­
gard ed as motivation of action. T his fu n c tio n is particularly clea r in D ialogues
1 an d 2 , w here desire o f m oney, p lu n d e r, m o n etary rew ards, a n d re lie f fro m
taxation are con cep ts used by H obbes to explain why m any ag en ts b eh av ed
in th e way they did.
As am bition is attrib u ted by H obbes to d ifferen t types o f agents, from sin­
gle individuals, to social groups, to en tire nations, so are desire o f gain a n d
g re ed .61 However, th ere is a difference betw een the role o f these two passions
in the dynam ics o f th e rebellion: w hereas am bition (o r desire to ru le) is reck­
o n ed by H obbes to b e the m ain drive in th e leaders o f th e rebellion, g re ed in­
stead is singled o u t as the strongest passion in th eir followers. In the Dialogues,
greed is ascribed to the com m on p eo p le 6“, to the arm y (be it led by the King,
the Parliam entarians, o r Cromwell63), to the “m ost p a rt o f rich subjects ” ,64 to
the m erchants 65 an d tradesm en (who see taxes as “grievances”), to th e “m en o f
an cien t w ealth a n d nobility o f S cotland”66, to th e Scots in g en e ral ,67 to th e cler­
gy, to th e R u m p , 68 to big cities (such as L o n d o n ), a n d to even en tire n a d o n s .69
61 In Dialogue 1 H obbes writes: “there were a very great n u m b e r th at had eith er wast­
ed their fortunes o r th o u g h t them too m ean fo r the good parts which they th o u g h t were
in themselves; and m ore there were, th a t had able bodies, b u t saw no m eans how h o n est­
ly to get th eir bread. These longed for a war and h o p ed to m aintain themselves h ereafter
by the lucky choosing of a party to side with, an d consequently did for th e m ost p a rt serve
u n d er them that had greatest plenty o f m oney”, Behemoth, 4.
62 “[T ]here were few o f the com m on people th a t cared m uch for eith er o f the causes
b u t would have taken any side for pay o r p lu n d e r”, Behemoth, 2.
03 This applies to all armies, irrespective o f th eir allegiance: for exam ple, in th e Kings’s
army “the best and forwardest of his soldiers [...] looked for g reat b enefit by th eir service
o ut of the estates o f the rebels in case they could subdue th em ”, Behemoth, 115; in
Cromwell’s army: “there were in the army a g reat n u m b e r (if n o t the greatest part) th at
aimed only at rapine and sharing the lands and good s o f the enem ies”, Behemoth, 136.
64 “I consider the m ost p a rt o f rich subjects th a t have m ade themselves so by craft an d
trade as m en th a t never look u p o n anything b u t their p rese n t p ro fit an d who [... are]
amazed at the very thought o f p lu n d erin g ”, Behemoth, 142.
65 According to Hobbes for this class o f people taxation is a reason for civil disobedi­
ence: “Grievances are b u t taxes, to which citizens, that is m erchants, whose profession is
th eir private gain are naturally m ortal enem ies; th eir only glory being to grow excessively
rich by the wisdom o f buying and selling”, Behemoth, 126.
06 W hat these people hope for in the war is “som e great sum o f m oney as a rew ard of
th eir assistance beside great booty”, Behemoth, 30.
67 Who are said to be “anim ated [...] with a prom ise o f rew ard an d h o p e o f p lu n d e r”,
Behemoth, 31. N ot so m uch as a m atter o f principle, b u t "’u p o n the paym ent o f 200,000/,
the King was p u t [by the Scots] into the hands o f the com m issioners” o f the English Par­
liament, Behemoth, 134.
68 “they [the Rum p] give one an o th er m oney an d estates, o u t o f the lands an d goods of
the loyal party”, Behemoth, 164.
69 On the “greed of the D utch”, see Behemoth, 174.
198
H o b b e s ’s B e h e m o t h
o n
A m b it io n , G r e e d , a n d F e a r
In so m e ag en ts b o th am b itio n a n d g reed are very stro n g passions. A
p rim e ex a m p le is p ro v id ed by th e Presbyterians, w ho were “aim ing at seeing
politics su b serv ien t to re lig io n ” so th a t “they m ight govern a n d thereby satis­
fy n o t only th e ir covetous h u m o u r w ith riches b u t also th eir m alice with pow­
e r to u n d o all m e n th a t a d m ire d n o t th eir w isdom ” .70
We saw in th e previous section that, acco rd in g to H obbes, am bition as a
m otiv atio n is d ifficult to d etect. T h e sam e applies to greed. N o t surprisingly,
som e individuals e n ric h them selves by taking advantage o f this a n d o f p eo ­
p le ’s ig n o ra n c e , vulnerability, a n d good faith. T h e b ehaviour o f the clergy
provides H o b b e s w ith m any exam ples. In D ialogue 1, the te a c h e r explains:
“[p re a c h in g friars] privately in sin u a te d them selves with w om en a n d m en o f
weak ju d g m e n t, c o n firm in g th e ir ad h e re n c e to the Pope, a n d urging them ,
in th e tim e o f th e ir sickness, to b e beneficial to the C h u rc h ” . 71 In a sim ilar
vein, H o b b e s believes th a t b o th b efo re a n d d u rin g th e reb ellio n the co n ten ts
o f th e serm o n s o f m o st m inisters can be explained in term s o f greed, cov­
etousness, o r h o p e o f fin ancial gain: “they [m inisters] did nev er in th eir ser­
m o n s o r b u t lightly inveigh against the lucrative vices o f m en o f trad e or
h a n d ic ra ft [... ] w hich was a g re a t ease to the generality o f citizens a n d the in­
h ab itan ts o f m arket-tow ns a n d n o little profit to them selves ” .72 It is n o coin­
cid en ce, H o b b es tells us, th a t in th ese serm ons n e ith e r greed n o r frau d w ere
c o n d e m n e d b u t only “carn al lust a n d vain sw earing” and “n o th in g else was
sin ” . 73 By ex p lo itin g p e o p le ’s fears o f “ [t]h e estate o f m a n ’s soul after death,
in h eav en , h ell a n d p u rg a to ry [...] every m an knows, how g reat obedience,
a n d how m u ch m o n ey they [the clergy] gain from the co m m o n p e o p le ” . 74
In H o b b e s’s a c co u n t, th e clergy’s attem p t to convince p eo p le th at to be
ch a ritab le m ean s to b e liberal with the C hurch is n o t m erely m otivated by
g re ed b u t also by th e k n o w ledge th a t in war m oney is necessary to victory —
a s e n tim e n t th a t p e rm e a te s th e w hole discussion in Behemoth. This hints at
the sec o n d fu n c tio n o f m o n ey m e n tio n e d in the o p en in g p a rag ra p h o f this
section: in ad d itio n to m otivating p eo p le to action, m oney o pens u p opportu­
nity fo r action. T his la tte r fu n c tio n appears particularly clear in D ialogues 3
a n d 4 w h ere it is show n how in w ar victory sm iles to the rich est contender.
Even in D ialogue 1, however, we are told th a t “if the King h a d h ad m oney, h e
m ig h t have h a d so ldiers e n o u g h in E n g lan d ” as m ost of th e “com m on p eo ­
ple [...] w ould have tak en any side for pay o r p lu n d e r”. From the very in70 Behemoth, 159.
71 Behemoth, 16.
72 Behemoth, 25.
73 Ibid.
74 Behemoth, 42.
199
G a b r ie l l a S l o m p
cep tio n o f th e reb ellion th e key c o n c e rn o f th e King was how to fin d rev­
enues to raise a n d keep an army. His enem ies, o f course, h a d th e sam e c o n ­
cern, b u t they w ere successful to a ttra c t “p len tifu l c o n trib u tio n ” from L o n ­
d o n a n d o th e r rich cities with th e p ro m ise to ease p e o p le fro m taxes.7л In
H o b b e s’s ac co u n t o f th e civil war, th e m ain re a so n why th e King was u n a b le
to suppress th e reb ellio n w hen it first sta rte d was his lack o f m o n ey a n d c o n ­
versely th e m otivation why a large n u m b e r o f p e o p le jo in e d th e p a rlia m e n ­
tarian cause was th e ir reluctance o r resistance to pay subsidies o r taxes to the
King. B oth circum stances, the sp ea k er tells us, m aterialised because o f p e o ­
p le ’s ign o ran ce. H o bbes argues th a t all agents (from th e co m m o n p e o p le to
th e L ords, from th e m erchants a n d th e tra d e sm e n to th e nobility a n d the
King him self) w ere unaw are o f th e lin k b etw een sovereignty a n d th e com ­
m an d o f the military. Because o f w idespread ig n o ran c e, rep resen tativ es in
P arliam en t w ere selected on the g ro u n d o f th e ir c o m m itm e n t to p ro te c t p e o ­
ple fro m taxation: th e general tre n d was “to ch o o se as n e a r as they can such
as are m ost re p u g n a n t to the giving o f subsidies ” 76 as if tax atio n was a royal
caprice a n d th e u ltim ate co n tro l o f th e m ilitary irre le v an t to th e o rd e r a n d
peace o f th e com m onw ealth. H o bbes attrib u tes short-sightedness to th e m e r­
chants, who “are said to be o f all callings th e m o st beneficial to th e com ­
m o n w ealth ”, " b u t in fact do n o t realise th at w ith o u t co m m onw ealth th e re is
no trad e an d to all tradesm en w ho failed to u n d e rs ta n d “w hat v irtue th e re is
to preserve th eir w ealth in o b ed ien c e to th e ir lawful sovereign ” . ' 8 M ore g e n ­
erally, H obbes decries the ig n o ran c e o f anybody w ho, w hile th in k in g they
w ere p u rsu in g th e ir own self-interest, in fact w ere not, in so far as, by n e ­
glecting the beneficial effects o f living in th e safety o f th e com m onw ealth,
they failed to co n sid er th eir own long-term ad v a n ta g e . 79
To co n clu d e, w hen speaking o f g re e d as a m otivation fo r civil diso b ed i­
ence, H o b b es m akes clear th a t g re e d alo n e co u ld have n o t led p e o p le to ru ­
in. It was because o f w idespread ig n o ra n c e a b o u t th e value o f p ea ce a n d the
fu n ctio n o f subsidies a n d taxation th a t g re ed c o n trib u te d to th e collapse in ­
to civil war.
75 Behemoth, 2.
76 Behemoth, 121.
77 Behemoth, 126.
78 Behemoth, 142.
79 Behemoth, 54; “ [every m an] reads th a t covetousness is th e ro o t o f all evil; b u t he thinks,
and sometimes finds, it is the root o f his estate”, ibid.
200
H o b b e s ’s B e h e m o t h
o n
A m b it io n , G r e e d , a n d F e a r
3. O n fe a r
H aving ex a m in e d th e ro le played by am bition a n d greed in H o b b es’s ac­
c o u n t o f th e English Civil War, th e n e x t step is to exam ine how im p o rtan t is in
Behemoth th e re m a in in g greatest m otivation o f h u m an behaviour listed in
Leviathan, nam ely fear. My aim in this section is to show th a t the transition
from Leviathan to Behemoth witnesses a m ajor change ab o u t th e significance o f
fear in H o b b e s’s political theory. We m ay begin by considering the different ob­
ject o f fe a r in Leviathan a n d Behemoth. In C hapter 13 o f Leviathan H obbes puts
across th e view th a t in n a tu ra l conditions the greatest object o f fear is violent
d ea th by th e h a n d o f o th ers; in C h ap ter 14 h e adds two fu rth e r objects o f fear
— o n e n a tu ra l th e o th e r artificial — facing individuals who live within politi­
cal associations, nam ely, fear o f “Spirits Invisible”, an d fear o f punishm ent, and
h e suggests th a t th e latter is usually stronger th an the former. In his words:
“[Fear has] two very general Objects : one, The Power o f Spirits Invisi­
ble; th e other, T he Power o f those m en they shall therein Offend. O f
these two, though the form er be the greater Power, yet the fear of the
later is com m only the greater Feare. The Feare of the form er is in every
m an, his own Religion: which hath place in the nature of m an before
Civili Society. T h e later hath n o t so. (Emphasis added.)
In Behemoth we a re to ld a d iffe re n t story. O n th e o n e h an d , fear o f violent
d e a th a n d fe ar o f p u n is h m e n t are hardly m e n tio n e d in th e fo u r Dialogues;
o n th e o th e r h a n d a n d in c o n tra st with the view expressed in Leviathan, fear
o f relig io n tu rn s o u t to b e “th e g re a te r fe ar” at th e tim e o f th e Civil War. As
o n e o f th e speak ers exp lains “as m u ch as etern al to rtu re is m o re terrible than
d e a th , so m u ch th ey w ould fear th e clergy m o re th an the kin g ” . 80 A qualifi­
cation , th o u g h , is in o rd er. W hereas in Leviathan H obbes suggests th at in the
state o f n a tu re fe ar was universal, in Behemoth h e eschews any claim o f u n i­
versality. O n th e contrary, h e p o in ts o u t th at “com m on p e o p le ” did n o t care
m u ch a b o u t th e d isp u te a n d w ere willing to take e ith e r side fo r h o p e o f p lu n ­
d er . 81 T his w ould sug g est e ith e r th a t fear o f dam n atio n was less com m on
th a n c o m m o n p e o p le o r th a t it was n o t equally strong in everyone.
As th e o b ject o f fe a r is d iffe re n t in Leviathan a n d Behemoth, so is its role.
As a first step, we can c o n c e n tra te o n the explanatory function o f fear. B oth in
Behemoth a n d in Leviathan H o b b es resorts to the n o tio n of fear to explain the
causes o f conflict. However, w hereas in Leviathan fear explains n o t only (i)
811 Behemoth, 14-15.
81 Behemoth, 2.
201
G a b r ie l l a S l o m p
th e dynam ic o f th e state o f n a tu re a n d th e escalation fro m diffid en ce to a n ­
ticipation and first strike, b u t also (ii) why subjects re frain fro m b re a k in g the
laws w ith in th e political state, in Behemoth H o b b e s pays a tte n tio n to fe a r only
to show how this passion led to civil d iso b ed ien c e a n d disorder.
N ext, we can consider the descriptive function o f fear. It can b e a rg u e d th a t
in Leviathan “co n tin u all fe a r” is th e passion th a t ac co rd in g to H o bbes d e ­
scribes m ost accurately the re la tio n sh ip betw een individuals in th e state o f
war “w h ere every m an is enem y to every m a n ”. N o t so in H o b b e s ’s a c c o u n t o f
th e English Civil War. A lthough in Behemoth, too, we are to ld th a t “n o m an
was so b lin d as n o t to see they w ere in an estate o f w ar o n e against a n o th e r ” , 82
H obbes does n o t p in p o in t fear as th e d o m in a n t passion d u rin g the reb ellio n .
Instead, we are to ld th a t the en em y a ro u se d sp ite ,83 o r sc o rn ,84 o r even h a ­
tred, b u t n o t fear. In D ialogue 3, o n e o f th e speakers rem ark s th a t th e P ar­
lia m e n t’s army “h a d th a t in them , w hich in tim e o f b attle is m o re co n d u c in g
to victory th an valour a n d e x p e rien ce b o th to g eth er; a n d th a t was sp ite ” . 85
Even w h en d escrib ing the war betw een th e R u m p a n d th e D utch, H o b b es
does n o t m en tio n fear as playing any ro le in th e co n flict . 86
A fu rth e r fu n ctio n played by fe a r in Leviathan can b e re fe rre d to as
heuristic, in th e sense th a t it en ab les individuals to u n d e rsta n d th e b en efits o f
peace a n d eventually to create th e social co n tract. As H o b b es p u ts it in C h ap ­
te r 13: “F eare o f D eath ” is o n e o f th e passions th a t “e n c lin e m e n to P eace”.
A lth o u g h in Behemoth H obbes o n occasions does m e n tio n th a t it was fe ar o f
safety th a t eventually led som e (e.g., th e trad e sm e n ) to see sense, o n the
w hole h e does n o t suggests th a t p e o p le w ere e n lig h te n e d by fe a r as to th e
benefits o f living in a peaceful com m onw ealth. H e suggests th a t n o th in g , n e i­
th e r painful ex p e rie n c e ,87 n o r re fle c tio n , 88 “n e ith e r wit n o r p ru d e n c e n o r
d ilig en ce ” , 89 n o r “n atu ra l re a so n ” 90 can m ake individuals u n d e rs ta n d th e ir
duties as subjects. O nly know ledge o f “th e tru e science o f equity a n d ju s ­
tice ” 91 can: “T hey w anted n o t wit, b u t th e know ledge o f th e causes a n d
82 Behemoth, 117.
83 Behemoth, 169, 110.
84 Behemoth, 180, 174.
85 Behemoth, 110.
86 “T he true quarrel, on the English part, was th a t the proffered friendship was scorned,
and their ambassadors affronted; on the D utch part, was th e greediness to engross all traf­
fic, and a false estimate o f ou r and th eir own stren g th ”, Behemoth, 174.
87 Behemoth, 39.
88 Behemoth, 41.
89 Behemoth, 70, 158-59.
90 Behemoth, 144.
91 Behemoth, 70.
202
H o b b e s ’s B e h e m o t h
o n
A m b it io n , G r e e d , a n d F e a r
g ro u n d s u p o n w hich o n e p erso n has a rig h t to govern, an d the rest an obli­
gation to obey; w hich g ro u n d s are necessary to be tau g h t th e people, who
w ith o u t th e m c a n n o t live lo n g in peace am ongst them selves ” .92
It is d ifficult to over-em phasise th e significance o f fear in Leviathan in so
fa r as this passion is th e c o rn e rs to n e o f H o b b e s’s political construct. As
H o b b es h im se lf u n am b ig u o u sly states in C h ap ter 14, “the Passion to be reck­
o n e d u p o n , is F e a r”, as it leads H o b b esian individuals to be afraid o f p u n ish ­
m e n t a n d to obey th e laws. In contrast, th e significance of fe a r in Behemoth is
m u ch m o re m o d est. It is, o f course, tru e th at H obbes m akes a n u m b e r o f re­
m arks th a t are co n sisten t w ith his earlier views. F or exam ple, h e claims th at
“ all th e k in g d o m s o f th e w orld [...] p ro c eed from th e co n sen t o f peo p le, ei­
th e r fo r fear o r h o p e ” . 93 H e explains th a t “it h ap p en s m any tim es th at m en
live ho n estly fo r fear w ho if they h a d pow er w ould live according to th eir own
o p in io n s ” ,94 an d , n o t u n lik e M achiavelli, h e points to “coffers a n d early sever­
ity ” 95 as th e m o st reliab le cu res fo r com m onw ealths. However, alth o u g h th ere
is ro o m fo r d eb a te , th e b alan ce o f evidence suggests th at in Behemoth fear is
n o lo n g e r th e passion th a t H o b b es “reckons u p o n ”. O n the contrary, H obbes
is a t p ain s at m ak in g his re a d e rs realise th at p eo p le are easily deceived, n o t
sim ply by e x p e rie n c e d speakers b u t also by vulgar “fo rtune-tellers,” “as­
tro lo g e rs” a n d “p ro p h e ts ” 96 a n d in d u ced to fear the ‘w rong th in g s’ o r fear
th e rig h ts th in g s in th e ‘w ro n g o r d e r ’.
S om etim es b ecau se o f m alice a n d b ad faith, som etim es because o f m ere
ig n o ran c e, p eo p le are led to fear th e ‘w rong th in g s’ as w hen m em bers o f the
two H o uses fe ar “ab so lu te o b e d ie n c e ” 97 because they are u n c le a r a b o u t the
m e a n in g a n d fu n c tio n o f political obligation, o r w hen the m erch an ts an d
tra d e sm e n a b h o r ta x atio n 98 b ecause they are ig n o ra n t ab o u t th e long-term
utility o f living in a p eacefu l com m onw ealth; o r w hen m en a n d w om en “o f
w eak ju d g e m e n t” are afraid o f obeying the King because they are m isguided
a b o u t th e ir d u ties as C h ristian s . 99
So w h ereas in Leviathan H o b b es relies on fear to deliver individuals from
d e stru c tio n a n d civil war, in Behemoth h e stresses the view th a t unless igno­
ra n c e is re p la ced w ith know ledge a b o u t th e principles o f political obligation,
02 Behemoth,
93 Behemoth,
94 Behemoth,
95 Behemoth,
96 Behemoth,
97 Behemoth,
98 Behemoth,
99 Behemoth,
160.
12 (em phasis added).
47.
57.
187-88.
125.
126.
46, 50-51.
203
G a b r ie l l a S l o m p
fear a lo n e can offer n o salvation. F or th e S tate to rely o n fe a r is n o t only in ­
effective, b u t also d an g ero u s in so far as fo r exam p le “ [sju p p re ssio n o f d o c­
trin e does b u t u n ite a n d exasperate, th a t is, in crease b o th th e m alice a n d
pow er o f them th a t have already believed th e m ” . 100
To conclude, in Behemoth fear is n o lo n g e r the b u ild in g block o f th e p o ­
litical o rd e r in so far as H obbes m akes clear th a t fe ar alone w ith o u t know ledge
o f th e “true science” o f political obligation c a n n o t p ro te c t fro m civil d iso rd er
an d th erefo re ca n n o t be relied u p o n fo r th e m ain ten an c e o f fu tu re peace.
4. A Conclusion
In th e Elements o f Law a n d de Cive H o b b es singles o u t u n c o n tro lle d am ­
bition a n d g re ed as the passions th a t can lead p eo p le to sed itio n a n d civil w ar
a n d sees fear as th e passion th a t can lead individuals o u t o f th e state o f n a ­
tu re a n d in duce th em to follow th e law w ithin political associations. In these
earlier works H obbes puts across th e im age o f a political state w here th e sov­
ereig n is n o t u n lik e a p u p p e te e r w ho co n tro ls th e m ovem ents o f his p u p p e ts
by m ean s o f rewards a n d p u n ish m en ts, taking advantage o f th e ir n a tu ra l pas­
sions a n d d irectin g th em in a way th a t is conducive to peace a n d o rd er. This
view o f the State is still p re se n t in Leviathan, even th o u g h it is now co m p le­
m e n te d by n u m ero u s rem arks th a t stress th e im p o rta n c e o f th e divulgation
o f th e p rinciples o f tru e political science.
In this p a p e r I have tried to show th a t in Behemoth th e im age o f the state
as p u p p e te e r vanishes. T he m ain reaso n seem s to b e th a t H o b b es n o lo n g er
believes th at the passions alone can e ith e r d am n o r save p eo p le from civil war.
In section 1 I have tried to show th a t according to H obbes, am bitious p eo ­
ple w ould have b een unable to “fin d h a n d s” a n d w ould have failed to challenge
th e political order, h ad it n o t b e e n fo r w idespread ig norance ab o u t th e fo u n ­
dations o f political obligation. In section 2 I have a rg u ed th a t g reed alone, too,
could n o t have led people to civil disobedience. It was because o f generalised
ig n o ran ce ab o u t the role o f the military, o f the im p o rtan ce o f the link betw een
sovereignty an d ultim ate control o f th e military, a n d o f the long-term utility o f
subsidies and taxation th at greed c o n trib u ted to th e collapse into civil war. In
section 3 I have argued th at in Behemoth H o b b e s’s m essage is th at fear alone
w ithout a sound knowledge o f th e principles o f political obligation c a n n o t a n d
does n o t deliver us from the evil o f civil war. I have suggested th at this view th at
fear is n o longer th e passion to b e “re ck o n ed u p o n ” m arks a particularly im ­
p o rta n t change in the transition from Leviathan to Behemoth.
100 B e h e m o th , 6 2 .