Was Leviathan a patronage artifact?

History of Political Thought

Volumn 21, Issue 4, 2000, Pages 606-631

  Sarasohn, Lisa T ^a  

^a OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0034359189     PISSN: 0143781X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (141)

1. I borrow the phrase 'patronage artifact' with appreciation from Mario Biagioli, who uses it to describe Andreas Versalius' De Homine Corporis Fabrica in 'Scientific Revolution, Social Bricolage, and Etiquette', in The Scientific Revolution in National Context (Cambridge, 1992), p. 18. The research for this paper was funded by a William Andrews Clark Memorial Library Short-Term Fellowship and an Oregon State University Library Travel Grant. I thank both these institutions. Thanks are also due to Dr Robert Nye and the anonymous readers of this paper for their many helpful suggestions.
2. I borrow the phrase 'patronage artifact' with appreciation from Mario Biagioli, who uses it to describe Andreas Versalius' De Homine Corporis Fabrica in 'Scientific Revolution, Social Bricolage, and Etiquette', in The Scientific Revolution in National Context (Cambridge, 1992), p. 18. The research for this paper was funded by a William Andrews Clark Memorial Library Short-Term Fellowship and an Oregon State University Library Travel Grant. I thank both these institutions. Thanks are also due to Dr Robert Nye and the anonymous readers of this paper for their many helpful suggestions.
3. Thomas Hobbes to Samuel Sorbière [12/] 22 March 1647, in Thomas Hobbes, The Correspondence, ed. Noel Malcolm (2 vols., Oxford, 1994), I, pp. 157-8 (hereafter Correspondence). Sorbière was an intellectual gadfly, to whom Hobbes had entrusted the publishing of an expanded version of De Cive in 1646.
4. Thomas Hobbes to Samuel Sorbière [12/] 22 March 1647, in Thomas Hobbes, The Correspondence, ed. Noel Malcolm (2 vols., Oxford, 1994), I, pp. 157-8 (hereafter Correspondence). Sorbière was an intellectual gadfly, to whom Hobbes had entrusted the publishing of an expanded version of De Cive in 1646.
5. The importance of the belief in order and hierarchy in early modern society has often been explored. See, for example, Lawrence Stone, The Crisis of the Aristocracy 1558-1641 (Oxford, 1965), p. 34; Curtis Brown Watson, Shakespeare and the Renaissance Concept of Honor (Princeton, NJ, 1960), p. 137; and Keith Wrightson, English Society 1580-1680 (New Brunswick, NJ, 1982), p. 17.
6. The importance of the belief in order and hierarchy in early modern society has often been explored. See, for example, Lawrence Stone, The Crisis of the Aristocracy 1558-1641 (Oxford, 1965), p. 34; Curtis Brown Watson, Shakespeare and the Renaissance Concept of Honor (Princeton, NJ, 1960), p. 137; and Keith Wrightson, English Society 1580-1680 (New Brunswick, NJ, 1982), p. 17.
7. The importance of the belief in order and hierarchy in early modern society has often been explored. See, for example, Lawrence Stone, The Crisis of the Aristocracy 1558-1641 (Oxford, 1965), p. 34; Curtis Brown Watson, Shakespeare and the Renaissance Concept of Honor (Princeton, NJ, 1960), p. 137; and Keith Wrightson, English Society 1580-1680 (New Brunswick, NJ, 1982), p. 17.
8. Linda Levy Peck, Court Patronage and Corruption in Early Modern England (Boston, 1990), pp. 3, 57. There is a large literature on patronage. On the seventeenth century, see Mario Biagioli, Galileo Courtier: The Practice of Science in the Culture of Absolutism (Chicago, 1993); and Mario Biagioli, 'Galileo's System of Patronage', History of Science, 28 (1990), pp. 1-62; Robert C. Evans, Ben Jonson and the Poetics of Patronage (London, 1989); Sharon Kettering, Patrons, Brokers and Clients in Seventeenth-Century France (Oxford, 1986); and Lisa T. Sarasohn, 'Nicolas-Claude Fabri de Peiresc and the Patronage of the New Science in the Seventeenth Century', Isis, 84 (1993), pp. 70-90.
9. Linda Levy Peck, Court Patronage and Corruption in Early Modern England (Boston, 1990), pp. 3, 57. There is a large literature on patronage. On the seventeenth century, see Mario Biagioli, Galileo Courtier: The Practice of Science in the Culture of Absolutism (Chicago, 1993); and Mario Biagioli, 'Galileo's System of Patronage', History of Science, 28 (1990), pp. 1-62; Robert C. Evans, Ben Jonson and the Poetics of Patronage (London, 1989); Sharon Kettering, Patrons, Brokers and Clients in Seventeenth-Century France (Oxford, 1986); and Lisa T. Sarasohn, 'Nicolas-Claude Fabri de Peiresc and the Patronage of the New Science in the Seventeenth Century', Isis, 84 (1993), pp. 70-90.
10. Linda Levy Peck, Court Patronage and Corruption in Early Modern England (Boston, 1990), pp. 3, 57. There is a large literature on patronage. On the seventeenth century, see Mario Biagioli, Galileo Courtier: The Practice of Science in the Culture of Absolutism (Chicago, 1993); and Mario Biagioli, 'Galileo's System of Patronage', History of Science, 28 (1990), pp. 1-62; Robert C. Evans, Ben Jonson and the Poetics of Patronage (London, 1989); Sharon Kettering, Patrons, Brokers and Clients in Seventeenth-Century France (Oxford, 1986); and Lisa T. Sarasohn, 'Nicolas-Claude Fabri de Peiresc and the Patronage of the New Science in the Seventeenth Century', Isis, 84 (1993), pp. 70-90.
11. Linda Levy Peck, Court Patronage and Corruption in Early Modern England (Boston, 1990), pp. 3, 57. There is a large literature on patronage. On the seventeenth century, see Mario Biagioli, Galileo Courtier: The Practice of Science in the Culture of Absolutism (Chicago, 1993); and Mario Biagioli, 'Galileo's System of Patronage', History of Science, 28 (1990), pp. 1-62; Robert C. Evans, Ben Jonson and the Poetics of Patronage (London, 1989); Sharon Kettering, Patrons, Brokers and Clients in Seventeenth-Century France (Oxford, 1986); and Lisa T. Sarasohn, 'Nicolas-Claude Fabri de Peiresc and the Patronage of the New Science in the Seventeenth Century', Isis, 84 (1993), pp. 70-90.
12. Linda Levy Peck, Court Patronage and Corruption in Early Modern England (Boston, 1990), pp. 3, 57. There is a large literature on patronage. On the seventeenth century, see Mario Biagioli, Galileo Courtier: The Practice of Science in the Culture of Absolutism (Chicago, 1993); and Mario Biagioli, 'Galileo's System of Patronage', History of Science, 28 (1990), pp. 1-62; Robert C. Evans, Ben Jonson and the Poetics of Patronage (London, 1989); Sharon Kettering, Patrons, Brokers and Clients in Seventeenth-Century France (Oxford, 1986); and Lisa T. Sarasohn, 'Nicolas-Claude Fabri de Peiresc and the Patronage of the New Science in the Seventeenth Century', Isis, 84 (1993), pp. 70-90.
13. Linda Levy Peck, Court Patronage and Corruption in Early Modern England (Boston, 1990), pp. 3, 57. There is a large literature on patronage. On the seventeenth century, see Mario Biagioli, Galileo Courtier: The Practice of Science in the Culture of Absolutism (Chicago, 1993); and Mario Biagioli, 'Galileo's System of Patronage', History of Science, 28 (1990), pp. 1-62; Robert C. Evans, Ben Jonson and the Poetics of Patronage (London, 1989); Sharon Kettering, Patrons, Brokers and Clients in Seventeenth-Century France (Oxford, 1986); and Lisa T. Sarasohn, 'Nicolas-Claude Fabri de Peiresc and the Patronage of the New Science in the Seventeenth Century', Isis, 84 (1993), pp. 70-90.
14. Frank Whigham, Ambition and Privilege: The Social Tropes of Elizabethan Courtesy Literature (Berkeley, 1984), pp. 49-57.
15. See Biagioli, Galileo Courtier, pp. 16-17; Whigham, Ambition and Privilege, pp. 130-1; and Watson, Shakespeare and the Renaissance Concept of Honor, p. 63.
16. See Biagioli, Galileo Courtier, pp. 16-17; Whigham, Ambition and Privilege, pp. 130-1; and Watson, Shakespeare and the Renaissance Concept of Honor, p. 63.
17. See Biagioli, Galileo Courtier, pp. 16-17; Whigham, Ambition and Privilege, pp. 130-1; and Watson, Shakespeare and the Renaissance Concept of Honor, p. 63.
18. Some historians and anthropologists argue that patronage exists only between partners of different classes, and they prefer to characterize relationships between equals with different nomenclature. See, for example, Wrightson, English Society, p. 57, and Whigham, Ambition and Privilege, p. 12.
19. Some historians and anthropologists argue that patronage exists only between partners of different classes, and they prefer to characterize relationships between equals with different nomenclature. See, for example, Wrightson, English Society, p. 57, and Whigham, Ambition and Privilege, p. 12.
20. Steven Shapin, A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-Century England (Chicago, 1994), p. 45.
21. The changing nature of patronage is the theme of Peck, Court Patronage and Corruption. See also, Robert Harding, 'Corruption and the Moral Boundaries of Patronage in the Renaissance', in Patronage in the Renaissance, ed. G.F. Lytle and S. Orgel (Princeton, 1981).
22. The changing nature of patronage is the theme of Peck, Court Patronage and Corruption. See also, Robert Harding, 'Corruption and the Moral Boundaries of Patronage in the Renaissance', in Patronage in the Renaissance, ed. G.F. Lytle and S. Orgel (Princeton, 1981).
23. Stone, Crisis of the Aristocracy, p. 36.
24. Noel Malcolm, 'A Summary Biography of Hobbes', in The Cambridge Companion to Hobbes, ed. Tom Sorrell (Cambridge, 1996), p. 14. Other intellectuals in the seventeenth century and later, such as John Locke and Edmund Burke, continued to serve noble patrons, so Malcolm perhaps is overstating the retrograde nature of Hobbes's career choice.
25. Richard Tuck, Hobbes (Oxford, 1989), pp. 3-4.
26. The best account of the life of Newcastle is the famous biography penned by his wife, Margaret Cavendish, The Life of the Thrice Noble, High and Puissant Prince William Cavendish (London, 1667). See also A.S. Turberville, A History of Welbeck Abbey and Its Owners, Vol. One (London, 1938); and Geoffrey Trease, Portrait of a Cavalier: William Cavendish, First Duke of Newcastle (New York, 1979). On Devonshire, see Arnold A. Rogow, Thomas Hobbes: Radical in the Service of Reaction (New York, 1986). Both Cavendishes are also listed in the Dictionary of National Biography.
27. The best account of the life of Newcastle is the famous biography penned by his wife, Margaret Cavendish, The Life of the Thrice Noble, High and Puissant Prince William Cavendish (London, 1667). See also A.S. Turberville, A History of Welbeck Abbey and Its Owners, Vol. One (London, 1938); and Geoffrey Trease, Portrait of a Cavalier: William Cavendish, First Duke of Newcastle (New York, 1979). On Devonshire, see Arnold A. Rogow, Thomas Hobbes: Radical in the Service of Reaction (New York, 1986). Both Cavendishes are also listed in the Dictionary of National Biography.
28. The best account of the life of Newcastle is the famous biography penned by his wife, Margaret Cavendish, The Life of the Thrice Noble, High and Puissant Prince William Cavendish (London, 1667). See also A.S. Turberville, A History of Welbeck Abbey and Its Owners, Vol. One (London, 1938); and Geoffrey Trease, Portrait of a Cavalier: William Cavendish, First Duke of Newcastle (New York, 1979). On Devonshire, see Arnold A. Rogow, Thomas Hobbes: Radical in the Service of Reaction (New York, 1986). Both Cavendishes are also listed in the Dictionary of National Biography.
29. The best account of the life of Newcastle is the famous biography penned by his wife, Margaret Cavendish, The Life of the Thrice Noble, High and Puissant Prince William Cavendish (London, 1667). See also A.S. Turberville, A History of Welbeck Abbey and Its Owners, Vol. One (London, 1938); and Geoffrey Trease, Portrait of a Cavalier: William Cavendish, First Duke of Newcastle (New York, 1979). On Devonshire, see Arnold A. Rogow, Thomas Hobbes: Radical in the Service of Reaction (New York, 1986). Both Cavendishes are also listed in the Dictionary of National Biography.
30. Quentin Skinner, Reason and Rhetoric in the Philosophy of Hobbes (Cambridge, 1996), p. 217. See also Charles H. Hinnant, Thomas Hobbes (Boston, 1977), p. 17; and Tuck, Hobbes, pp. 1-3.
31. Quentin Skinner, Reason and Rhetoric in the Philosophy of Hobbes (Cambridge, 1996), p. 217. See also Charles H. Hinnant, Thomas Hobbes (Boston, 1977), p. 17; and Tuck, Hobbes, pp. 1-3.
32. Quentin Skinner, Reason and Rhetoric in the Philosophy of Hobbes (Cambridge, 1996), p. 217. See also Charles H. Hinnant, Thomas Hobbes (Boston, 1977), p. 17; and Tuck, Hobbes, pp. 1-3.
33. Quoted in Skinner, Reason and Rhetoric, p. 219.
34. Thomas Hobbes, 'The Life of Thomas Hobbes, the Philosopher of Malmesbury', in The Moral and Political Works of Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury (London, 1750), pp. xi-xii.
35. Thomas Hobbes, The History of the Grecian Wars written by Thucydides, in The English Works of Thomas Hobbes, ed. William Moles worth (1840; reprint, Aalen, 1962), VIII, p. iii.
36. Thomas Hobbes, The History of the Grecian Wars written by Thucydides, in The English Works of Thomas Hobbes, ed. William Moles worth (1840; reprint, Aalen, 1962), VIII, p. iii.
37. The terms of Hobbes's employment are given in the Chatsworth Papers, MS D6. See also, James Jay Hamilton, 'Hobbes's Study and the Hardwick Library', Journal of the History of Philosophy, 16 (1978), pp. 445-53.
38. Hobbes to William Cavendish, 16 [/26] October 1636, in Correspondence, I, pp. 37-8.
39. On the 'Welbeck Academy', as it is sometimes called, see Robert H. Kargon, Atomism in England from Hariot to Newton (Oxford, 1966), pp. 40-60; and Tuck, Hobbes, pp. 11-21. Mersenne knew everyone in Europe involved in the new mechanical philosophy, and through his vast correspondence encouraged productivity, communication and controversy within that community. For Mersenne's life and works, see Robert Lenoble, Mersenne ou la Naissance du Mécanisme (Paris, 1943).
40. On the 'Welbeck Academy', as it is sometimes called, see Robert H. Kargon, Atomism in England from Hariot to Newton (Oxford, 1966), pp. 40-60; and Tuck, Hobbes, pp. 11-21. Mersenne knew everyone in Europe involved in the new mechanical philosophy, and through his vast correspondence encouraged productivity, communication and controversy within that community. For Mersenne's life and works, see Robert Lenoble, Mersenne ou la Naissance du Mécanisme (Paris, 1943).
41. On the 'Welbeck Academy', as it is sometimes called, see Robert H. Kargon, Atomism in England from Hariot to Newton (Oxford, 1966), pp. 40-60; and Tuck, Hobbes, pp. 11-21. Mersenne knew everyone in Europe involved in the new mechanical philosophy, and through his vast correspondence encouraged productivity, communication and controversy within that community. For Mersenne's life and works, see Robert Lenoble, Mersenne ou la Naissance du Mécanisme (Paris, 1943).
42. Anthony Wood, Athenae Oxonienses. An Exact History of all the Writers and Bishops, Who have had their Education in the most Antient and Famous University of Oxford from the fifteenth Year of King Henry the Seventh, A.D. 1500, to the Author's Death in November 1695 (2 vols., London, 1721), I, pp. xiii-xiv. Charles Cavendish took a very active role as an intermediary between natural philosophers. He wrote to a friend, 'the greatest wits and the most learned doe much benefit one an other by publishing and communicating their choice thoughts to one an other' (Charles Cavendish to John Pell, 21/31 March 1646, BL, MS Add. 4278, fol. 246). BL is used for the British Library. On Sir Charles's role in the science of his time, see Jean Jacquot, 'Sir Charles Cavendish and his Learned Friends, Annals of Science, 8 (1952), pp. 13-27 and Correspondence, II, pp. 801-4.
43. Anthony Wood, Athenae Oxonienses. An Exact History of all the Writers and Bishops, Who have had their Education in the most Antient and Famous University of Oxford from the fifteenth Year of King Henry the Seventh, A.D. 1500, to the Author's Death in November 1695 (2 vols., London, 1721), I, pp. xiii-xiv. Charles Cavendish took a very active role as an intermediary between natural philosophers. He wrote to a friend, 'the greatest wits and the most learned doe much benefit one an other by publishing and communicating their choice thoughts to one an other' (Charles Cavendish to John Pell, 21/31 March 1646, BL, MS Add. 4278, fol. 246). BL is used for the British Library. On Sir Charles's role in the science of his time, see Jean Jacquot, 'Sir Charles Cavendish and his Learned Friends, Annals of Science, 8 (1952), pp. 13-27 and Correspondence, II, pp. 801-4.
44. Anthony Wood, Athenae Oxonienses. An Exact History of all the Writers and Bishops, Who have had their Education in the most Antient and Famous University of Oxford from the fifteenth Year of King Henry the Seventh, A.D. 1500, to the Author's Death in November 1695 (2 vols., London, 1721), I, pp. xiii-xiv. Charles Cavendish took a very active role as an intermediary between natural philosophers. He wrote to a friend, 'the greatest wits and the most learned doe much benefit one an other by publishing and communicating their choice thoughts to one an other' (Charles Cavendish to John Pell, 21/31 March 1646, BL, MS Add. 4278, fol. 246). BL is used for the British Library. On Sir Charles's role in the science of his time, see Jean Jacquot, 'Sir Charles Cavendish and his Learned Friends, Annals of Science, 8 (1952), pp. 13-27 and Correspondence, II, pp. 801-4.
45. Skinner, Reason and Rhetoric, p. 251.
46. Hobbes, 'A Minute or First Draught of the Optiques', in English Works, VII, p. 467. The optical treatise was written in English at Newcastle's request (Cavendish to Pell, BL, MS Add. 4278, fol. 223). The letters between Hobbes and Newcastle can be found in Correspondence, pp. 28-38. For more on Hobbes's interest in natural philosophy, and his relationship with Newcastle, see Lisa T. Sarasohn, 'Thomas Hobbes and the Duke of Newcastle: A Study in the Mutuality of Patronage', Isis, 90 (1999), pp. 715-37.
47. Hobbes, 'A Minute or First Draught of the Optiques', in English Works, VII, p. 467. The optical treatise was written in English at Newcastle's request (Cavendish to Pell, BL, MS Add. 4278, fol. 223). The letters between Hobbes and Newcastle can be found in Correspondence, pp. 28-38. For more on Hobbes's interest in natural philosophy, and his relationship with Newcastle, see Lisa T. Sarasohn, 'Thomas Hobbes and the Duke of Newcastle: A Study in the Mutuality of Patronage', Isis, 90 (1999), pp. 715-37.
48. Hobbes, 'A Minute or First Draught of the Optiques', in English Works, VII, p. 467. The optical treatise was written in English at Newcastle's request (Cavendish to Pell, BL, MS Add. 4278, fol. 223). The letters between Hobbes and Newcastle can be found in Correspondence, pp. 28-38. For more on Hobbes's interest in natural philosophy, and his relationship with Newcastle, see Lisa T. Sarasohn, 'Thomas Hobbes and the Duke of Newcastle: A Study in the Mutuality of Patronage', Isis, 90 (1999), pp. 715-37.
49. Hobbes to Newcastle, 26 January [/5 February] 1634, Hobbes, Correspondence, I, p. 19.
50. Hobbes to Newcastle, 15/25 August 1635, Correspondence, I, pp. 28-9. I have dropped Hobbes's abbreviations in this letter.
51. In the real world of the seventeenth century, money increasingly played a role in patronage relationships, but nevertheless the desire for money was considered 'a sign of a cheap and mercenary spirit', an attitude not supposed to characterize a gentleman (Watson, Shakespeare and the Renaissance Concept of Honor, p. 147). See also, Peck, Court Patronage and Corruption, pp. 1-11.
52. In the real world of the seventeenth century, money increasingly played a role in patronage relationships, but nevertheless the desire for money was considered 'a sign of a cheap and mercenary spirit', an attitude not supposed to characterize a gentleman (Watson, Shakespeare and the Renaissance Concept of Honor, p. 147). See also, Peck, Court Patronage and Corruption, pp. 1-11.
53. Whigham, Ambition and Privilege, pp. 102-12, discusses the difficulties of understanding the seventeenth-century concept of servant and service.
54. Keith Thomas, 'The Levellers and the Franchise', in The Interregnum: The Quest for Settlement 1646-1660, ed. G.E. Aylmer (London, 1972), pp. 71-2. The nature of one's service relationship with another separated gentlemen from baser individuals. According to Annibale's discussion of 'gentlemen Courtiers which serve Princes', quoted by Whigham, Ambition and Privilege, p. 104: 'It were good here wee came to the distinction of servauntes: for that which you say of servantes which flie their masters presence [whom they serve only for money], is not generall, and is to be understood or the nature of vile and base servantes, not of the goode and suche as are gentlemen: who for the moste parte, are never well, but when they are in their Maysters presence, and serve him lovinglye and willinglye.' Here, once again, money marks relationships other than that of patronage, which is characterized as affective and free. The terms 'servant', 'master', 'service' and 'friend' always have to be contextualized in analysing early modern social structures.
55. Keith Thomas, 'The Levellers and the Franchise', in The Interregnum: The Quest for Settlement 1646-1660, ed. G.E. Aylmer (London, 1972), pp. 71-2. The nature of one's service relationship with another separated gentlemen from baser individuals. According to Annibale's discussion of 'gentlemen Courtiers which serve Princes', quoted by Whigham, Ambition and Privilege, p. 104: 'It were good here wee came to the distinction of servauntes: for that which you say of servantes which flie their masters presence [whom they serve only for money], is not generall, and is to be understood or the nature of vile and base servantes, not of the goode and suche as are gentlemen: who for the moste parte, are never well, but when they are in their Maysters presence, and serve him lovinglye and willinglye.' Here, once again, money marks relationships other than that of patronage, which is characterized as affective and free. The terms 'servant', 'master', 'service' and 'friend' always have to be contextualized in analysing early modern social structures.
56. Rogow, Thomas Hobbes, pp. 112-13.
57. Skinner, Reason and Rhetoric, pp. 253-6, also believes that Hobbes stayed with Devonshire because he was given more leisure and no longer had to perform menial duties.
58. Wood, Athenae Oxenienses, pp. 641-2.
59. Kenelm Digby to Hobbes, 17 [/27] January 1637, Correspondence, I, p. 42.
60. Johann Sommerville, 'Lofty Science and Local Politics', in The Cambridge Companion to Hobbes, p. 248.
61. Hobbes, The Elements of Law Natural and Political, ed. Ferdinand Tonnies (Cambridge, 1928), pp. xv-xvi.
62. Skinner, Reason and Rhetoric, p. 229, suggests that it was Hobbes's relationship with the Cavendishes that may have got him into trouble.
63. This famous statement occurs in Considerations upon the Reputation, Loyalty, Manners, and Religion Of Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury, Written by Himself, by way of Letter to a Learned Person (John Wallis, D.D.) (London, 1680), in English Works, IV, p. 414. On Hobbes's decision to leave, see Perez Zagorin, 'Hobbes's Departure from England in 1640: An Unpublished Letter', The Historical Journal, 21 (1978), pp. 157-60.
64. This famous statement occurs in Considerations upon the Reputation, Loyalty, Manners, and Religion Of Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury, Written by Himself, by way of Letter to a Learned Person (John Wallis, D.D.) (London, 1680), in English Works, IV, p. 414. On Hobbes's decision to leave, see Perez Zagorin, 'Hobbes's Departure from England in 1640: An Unpublished Letter', The Historical Journal, 21 (1978), pp. 157-60.
65. On Hobbes's position in France, see Lisa T. Sarasohn, 'Motion and Morality: Pierre Gassendi, Thomas Hobbes, and the Mechanical World-View', Journal of the History of Ideas, 46 (1985), pp. 363-80; and Quentin Skinner, 'Thomas Hobbes and His Disciples in France and England', Comparative Studies in Society and History, 8 (1965-6), pp. 153-65.
66. On Hobbes's position in France, see Lisa T. Sarasohn, 'Motion and Morality: Pierre Gassendi, Thomas Hobbes, and the Mechanical World-View', Journal of the History of Ideas, 46 (1985), pp. 363-80; and Quentin Skinner, 'Thomas Hobbes and His Disciples in France and England', Comparative Studies in Society and History, 8 (1965-6), pp. 153-65.
67. Thomas Hobbes, De Cive: The English Version entitled in the first edition Philosophical Rudiments concerning Government and Society, ed. Howard Warrender (Oxford, 1983), p. 117 (VIII:i). Deborah Baumgold, Hobbes's Political Theory (Cambridge, 1988), pp. 1-10, traces the historiography of the traditional view of Hobbes's social structure. In contradistinction to these interpretations, she suggests it is most fruitful to look at Hobbes's picture of society from a structural point of view: 'We will see that Hobbes situates discussions of individuals' motives and ethics in the context of the roles and institutions they inhabit' (ibid., p. 10). I think Baumgold's interpretation is quite astute, but most of her analysis of structure is confined to formally institutionalized roles, and does not explore the more fluid categories of patronage.
68. Thomas Hobbes, De Cive: The English Version entitled in the first edition Philosophical Rudiments concerning Government and Society, ed. Howard Warrender (Oxford, 1983), p. 117 (VIII:i). Deborah Baumgold, Hobbes's Political Theory (Cambridge, 1988), pp. 1-10, traces the historiography of the traditional view of Hobbes's social structure. In contradistinction to these interpretations, she suggests it is most fruitful to look at Hobbes's picture of society from a structural point of view: 'We will see that Hobbes situates discussions of individuals' motives and ethics in the context of the roles and institutions they inhabit' (ibid., p. 10). I think Baumgold's interpretation is quite astute, but most of her analysis of structure is confined to formally institutionalized roles, and does not explore the more fluid categories of patronage.
69. Thomas Hobbes, De Cive: The English Version entitled in the first edition Philosophical Rudiments concerning Government and Society, ed. Howard Warrender (Oxford, 1983), p. 117 (VIII:i). Deborah Baumgold, Hobbes's Political Theory (Cambridge, 1988), pp. 1-10, traces the historiography of the traditional view of Hobbes's social structure. In contradistinction to these interpretations, she suggests it is most fruitful to look at Hobbes's picture of society from a structural point of view: 'We will see that Hobbes situates discussions of individuals' motives and ethics in the context of the roles and institutions they inhabit' (ibid., p. 10). I think Baumgold's interpretation is quite astute, but most of her analysis of structure is confined to formally institutionalized roles, and does not explore the more fluid categories of patronage.
70. Stone, Crisis of the Aristocracy, p. 401, comments that the description Hobbes gives of men constantly searching for more and more power reflects the lifestyle of seventeenth-century aristocrats.
71. Keith Thomas, 'Social Origins of Hobbes's Political Thought', pp. 190-4, argues that 'the obsessive passions of Hobbes's men seems not to be acquisitiveness, but pride'. For Hobbes, 'honour and dignity' are the most usual cause of conflict. Thomas views Hobbes as representing the attitudes of the civilized nobility of the seventeenth century, who retained a sense of honour and pride going back to feudalism, but demanded a more cultivated social milieu.
72. Hobbes, Elements of Law, pp. 33-4 (1:8.3-4).
73. Ibid., p. 34 (1:8.6).
74. François Tricaud, 'Hobbes's Conception of the State of Nature from 1640-1651: Evolution and Ambiguities', in Perspectives on Thomas Hobbes, ed. G.A.J. Rogers and Alan Ryan (Oxford, 1988), pp. 118-20, remarks that it is difficult to see how Hobbes was able to reconcile human pride and shame when honour was not achieved with the mechanist psychology underlying Hobbes's theory of the passions.
75. Hobbes, Elements of Law, p. 36 (1:8.6)
76. Hobbes, De Cive: The English Version, p. 42 (I:ii).
77. Social anthropological and sociological definitions of patronage and friendship can be found in Friends, Followers and Factions: A Reader in Political Clientelism, ed. S.W. Schmidt, L. Guasti, C. Landé and J. Scott (Berkeley, 1977), pp. xiii-xviv; and S.N. Eisenstadt and L. Roniger, Patrons, Clients and Friends: Interpersonal Relations and the Structure of Trust in Society (Cambridge, 1984), p. 49.
78. Social anthropological and sociological definitions of patronage and friendship can be found in Friends, Followers and Factions: A Reader in Political Clientelism, ed. S.W. Schmidt, L. Guasti, C. Landé and J. Scott (Berkeley, 1977), pp. xiii-xviv; and S.N. Eisenstadt and L. Roniger, Patrons, Clients and Friends: Interpersonal Relations and the Structure of Trust in Society (Cambridge, 1984), p. 49.
79. Hobbes, De Cive: The English Version, pp. 43-4 (I:ii).
80. Peck, Court Patronage and Corruption, pp. 1-11.
81. Leo Strauss, in The Political Philosophy of Hobbes: Its Basis and its Genesis, trans. Elsa M. Sinclair (Oxford, 1936), p. 121, has argued that Hobbes attacked the aristocratic sense of honour and pride because of his bourgeois mentality. I do not think Hobbes reflects a new bourgeois sensibility, but rather is someone sensitive to the dangers corrupting his social milieu.
82. Hobbes, De Cive: English Version, p. 46 (l:iv).
83. According to Watson, Shakespeare and the Renaissance Concept of Honor, p. 92, it was a commonplace of Renaissance society, adopted from Aristotle, that the many will respond to fear, while the better sort are motivated by the desire for honour.
84. Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, ed. Richard Tuck (Cambridge, 1991), pp. 62-4 (I:x).
85. Ibid., pp. 63-5 (I:x).
86. Ibid., p. 88 (I:xiii).
87. Ibid., p. 65 (I:x).
88. Ibid., p. 238 (I:xxx).
89. Ibid., p. 71 (I:ii).
90. Parallel discussions of gift and gratitude exist in all three of Hobbes's political treatises. In Elements of Law, see p. 77 (1:15.7-8) and pp. 84-5 (I:xvi); in De Cive, see p. 66 (III:viii).
91. Parallel discussions of gift and gratitude exist in all three of Hobbes's political treatises. In Elements of Law, see p. 77 (1:15.7-8) and pp. 84-5 (I:xvi); in De Cive, see p. 66 (III:viii).
92. Hobbes, Leviathan, p. 94 (I:xiv). Hobbes's emphasis.
93. Ibid., p. 105 (I:xv).
94. Ibid., p. 71 (I:ii).
95. Ibid., p. 110.
96. On the obligatory force of the laws of nature, and gratitude in particular, see R.E. Ewin, Virtues and Rights: The Moral Philosophy of Thomas Hobbes (Boulder, CO, 1991), pp. 137-57.
97. Many scholars would not agree with this analysis. Tricaud, 'Hobbes's Conception of the State of Nature', p. 110, for example, argues that all affective ties must be eliminated from Hobbes's picture of the state of nature because 'wherever those play an important role, the typically Hobbesian reasoning is at a stop: no more wars, no need of pacts, and so on'.
98. Hobbes, Leviathan, pp. 141-2 (II:xx).
99. Ibid., pp. 142 (II:xx), 163 (II:xxii), 198-9 (II:xxvi).
100. This comparison is explicitly stated in Hobbes, Elements of Law, p. 128 (2:3.2): after conquest, 'by which there is presently constituted a little body politic, which consisteth of two persons, the one sovereign, which is called the master, or lord; the other subject, which is called the servant'.
101. Hobbes, Leviathan, p. 62 (I:x).
102. Ibid., p. 164 (II:xxii).
103. Ibid., pp. 219-20 (II:xxviii).
104. In De Cive, p. 125 (II:ix), Hobbes wrote that a servant has forfeited his liberty 'by warre, or misfortune, or through his own idlenesse'.
105. Hobbes, Leviathan, p. 97 (I:xiv).
106. Thomas, 'Social Origins', p. 191, disputes Macpherson's view (C.B. Macpherson, The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism: Hobbes to Locke (Oxford, 1962)) that Hobbesian men are possessive individualists, operating as independent economic agents in a capitalistic world. 'Nevertheless', he concludes, 'the growth of capitalism is reflected in the emancipation of individuals from many of the old customary bonds and in the obvious presence of acquisitive appetites. In fact, in Hobbes's world elements of old and new in social organization are to be encountered side by side.'
107. Thomas, 'Social Origins', p. 191, disputes Macpherson's view (C.B. Macpherson, The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism: Hobbes to Locke (Oxford, 1962)) that Hobbesian men are possessive individualists, operating as independent economic agents in a capitalistic world. 'Nevertheless', he concludes, 'the growth of capitalism is reflected in the emancipation of individuals from many of the old customary bonds and in the obvious presence of acquisitive appetites. In fact, in Hobbes's world elements of old and new in social organization are to be encountered side by side.'
108. Charles Cavendish denied that Newcastle arranged the appointment, but indicated it was arranged by Lord Jermyn, who had served under Newcastle during the Civil War. Hence it may be that Newcastle played a role (Cavendish to Pell, BL, MS Add. 4278, fol. 265).
109. Hobbes to Sorbière, [24 September] 4 October 1646, in Correspondence, pp. 140-1. Hyde informed Secretary Nicholas that Hobbes was reading mathematics to the prince, whose nature 'was not easy to be corrupted' (Hyde to Nicholas, 1 January 1646/7, Bodleian Library, Clarendon MS 29, fol. 40).
110. Considerations in English Works, IV, p. 415. Sir Charles, in reporting Hobbes's position to Pell, mentions that even while teaching the Prince, Hobbes still had time for his own studies (Cavendish to Pell, 12 October 1646, BL, MS Add. 4278, fol. 263).
111. He wrote, 'non sum enim Praeceptor Principia Walliae, nec omnino Domesticus' (Hobbes, Correspondence, I, p. 156).
112. Rogow, Thomas Hobbes, pp. 134-6, also makes this point.
113. Hobbes to Gassendi, [12/] 22 September 1649, in Correspondence, I, pp. 178-9.
114. Modern interpretations of Hobbes's motives in writing Leviathan vary. Burgess and Reik believe he was pro-royalist (Glenn Burgess, 'Contexts for the Writing and Publication of Hobbes's Leviathan', History of Political Thought, XXI (1990), pp. 675-702; and Miriam M. Reik, The Golden Lands of Thomas Hobbes (Detroit, 1977), pp. 82-4). M.M. Goldsmith argues that Leviathan was not royalist enough to please the Stuarts, or pro-Republican enough to placate the supporters of the Commonwealth ('Hobbes's Ambiguous Politics', History of Political Thought. XXI (1990), p. 673). Quentin Skinner has argued that Leviathan was a document in the 'Engagement Controversy', which supported the 'de facto' theory of submission to a ruling authority as long as it provides protection (Quentin Skinner, 'Conquest and Consent', Ch. 3; and Quentin Skinner, 'The Context of Hobbes's Theory of Political Obligation', in Hobbes and Rousseau: A Collection of Critical Essays, ed. Maurice Cranston and Richard S. Peters (New York, 1972), pp. 109-42). Skinner repudiates his claim that Hobbes was a de factoist theorist in 'Thomas Hobbes on ... Liberty', p. 145, instead suggesting that Hobbes's theory of liberty allowed him to support consenting to a conquering power without thereby vindicating such conquest.
115. Modern interpretations of Hobbes's motives in writing Leviathan vary. Burgess and Reik believe he was pro-royalist (Glenn Burgess, 'Contexts for the Writing and Publication of Hobbes's Leviathan', History of Political Thought, XXI (1990), pp. 675-702; and Miriam M. Reik, The Golden Lands of Thomas Hobbes (Detroit, 1977), pp. 82-4). M.M. Goldsmith argues that Leviathan was not royalist enough to please the Stuarts, or pro-Republican enough to placate the supporters of the Commonwealth ('Hobbes's Ambiguous Politics', History of Political Thought. XXI (1990), p. 673). Quentin Skinner has argued that Leviathan was a document in the 'Engagement Controversy', which supported the 'de facto' theory of submission to a ruling authority as long as it provides protection (Quentin Skinner, 'Conquest and Consent', Ch. 3; and Quentin Skinner, 'The Context of Hobbes's Theory of Political Obligation', in Hobbes and Rousseau: A Collection of Critical Essays, ed. Maurice Cranston and Richard S. Peters (New York, 1972), pp. 109-42). Skinner repudiates his claim that Hobbes was a de factoist theorist in 'Thomas Hobbes on ... Liberty', p. 145, instead suggesting that Hobbes's theory of liberty allowed him to support consenting to a conquering power without thereby vindicating such conquest.
116. Modern interpretations of Hobbes's motives in writing Leviathan vary. Burgess and Reik believe he was pro-royalist (Glenn Burgess, 'Contexts for the Writing and Publication of Hobbes's Leviathan', History of Political Thought, XXI (1990), pp. 675-702; and Miriam M. Reik, The Golden Lands of Thomas Hobbes (Detroit, 1977), pp. 82-4). M.M. Goldsmith argues that Leviathan was not royalist enough to please the Stuarts, or pro-Republican enough to placate the supporters of the Commonwealth ('Hobbes's Ambiguous Politics', History of Political Thought. XXI (1990), p. 673). Quentin Skinner has argued that Leviathan was a document in the 'Engagement Controversy', which supported the 'de facto' theory of submission to a ruling authority as long as it provides protection (Quentin Skinner, 'Conquest and Consent', Ch. 3; and Quentin Skinner, 'The Context of Hobbes's Theory of Political Obligation', in Hobbes and Rousseau: A Collection of Critical Essays, ed. Maurice Cranston and Richard S. Peters (New York, 1972), pp. 109-42). Skinner repudiates his claim that Hobbes was a de factoist theorist in 'Thomas Hobbes on ... Liberty', p. 145, instead suggesting that Hobbes's theory of liberty allowed him to support consenting to a conquering power without thereby vindicating such conquest.
117. Modern interpretations of Hobbes's motives in writing Leviathan vary. Burgess and Reik believe he was pro-royalist (Glenn Burgess, 'Contexts for the Writing and Publication of Hobbes's Leviathan', History of Political Thought, XXI (1990), pp. 675-702; and Miriam M. Reik, The Golden Lands of Thomas Hobbes (Detroit, 1977), pp. 82-4). M.M. Goldsmith argues that Leviathan was not royalist enough to please the Stuarts, or pro-Republican enough to placate the supporters of the Commonwealth ('Hobbes's Ambiguous Politics', History of Political Thought. XXI (1990), p. 673). Quentin Skinner has argued that Leviathan was a document in the 'Engagement Controversy', which supported the 'de facto' theory of submission to a ruling authority as long as it provides protection (Quentin Skinner, 'Conquest and Consent', Ch. 3; and Quentin Skinner, 'The Context of Hobbes's Theory of Political Obligation', in Hobbes and Rousseau: A Collection of Critical Essays, ed. Maurice Cranston and Richard S. Peters (New York, 1972), pp. 109-42). Skinner repudiates his claim that Hobbes was a de factoist theorist in 'Thomas Hobbes on ... Liberty', p. 145, instead suggesting that Hobbes's theory of liberty allowed him to support consenting to a conquering power without thereby vindicating such conquest.
118. Modern interpretations of Hobbes's motives in writing Leviathan vary. Burgess and Reik believe he was pro-royalist (Glenn Burgess, 'Contexts for the Writing and Publication of Hobbes's Leviathan', History of Political Thought, XXI (1990), pp. 675-702; and Miriam M. Reik, The Golden Lands of Thomas Hobbes (Detroit, 1977), pp. 82-4). M.M. Goldsmith argues that Leviathan was not royalist enough to please the Stuarts, or pro-Republican enough to placate the supporters of the Commonwealth ('Hobbes's Ambiguous Politics', History of Political Thought. XXI (1990), p. 673). Quentin Skinner has argued that Leviathan was a document in the 'Engagement Controversy', which supported the 'de facto' theory of submission to a ruling authority as long as it provides protection (Quentin Skinner, 'Conquest and Consent', Ch. 3; and Quentin Skinner, 'The Context of Hobbes's Theory of Political Obligation', in Hobbes and Rousseau: A Collection of Critical Essays, ed. Maurice Cranston and Richard S. Peters (New York, 1972), pp. 109-42). Skinner repudiates his claim that Hobbes was a de factoist theorist in 'Thomas Hobbes on ... Liberty', p. 145, instead suggesting that Hobbes's theory of liberty allowed him to support consenting to a conquering power without thereby vindicating such conquest.
119. Modern interpretations of Hobbes's motives in writing Leviathan vary. Burgess and Reik believe he was pro-royalist (Glenn Burgess, 'Contexts for the Writing and Publication of Hobbes's Leviathan', History of Political Thought, XXI (1990), pp. 675-702; and Miriam M. Reik, The Golden Lands of Thomas Hobbes (Detroit, 1977), pp. 82-4). M.M. Goldsmith argues that Leviathan was not royalist enough to please the Stuarts, or pro-Republican enough to placate the supporters of the Commonwealth ('Hobbes's Ambiguous Politics', History of Political Thought. XXI (1990), p. 673). Quentin Skinner has argued that Leviathan was a document in the 'Engagement Controversy', which supported the 'de facto' theory of submission to a ruling authority as long as it provides protection (Quentin Skinner, 'Conquest and Consent', Ch. 3; and Quentin Skinner, 'The Context of Hobbes's Theory of Political Obligation', in Hobbes and Rousseau: A Collection of Critical Essays, ed. Maurice Cranston and Richard S. Peters (New York, 1972), pp. 109-42). Skinner repudiates his claim that Hobbes was a de factoist theorist in 'Thomas Hobbes on ... Liberty', p. 145, instead suggesting that Hobbes's theory of liberty allowed him to support consenting to a conquering power without thereby vindicating such conquest.
120. Edward Hyde, Earl of Clarendon, A Brief View and Survey of the Dangerous and Pernicious Errors to Church and State, in Mr. Hobbes's Book, entitled Leviathan (London, 1676), pp. 15-16, 61.
121. Ibid., pp. 7-8.
122. 'Review and Conclusion', Hobbes, Leviathan, pp. 484-5.
123. Thomas Hobbes, Six Lessons to the Professors of Mathematics, one of Geometry, the Other of Astronomy, In the Chairs set up by the Noble & Learned Sir Henry Saville, in the University of Oxford, in English Works, VII, p. 336. On 10 June 1650, Charles Cavendish wrote to his friend, the mathematician John Pell: 'I give you allso manie thankes for Mr. Hobbes booke which my brother now hath, and reades, and seems to like it as well, as formerlie he desired it much; though at Breda he seemed not so earnest on it' (Charles Cavendish to John Pell, 10 June 1650, BL, Add. MS 4278, fol. 303). Newcastle may have been the first noble reader of Leviathan, and his response to the text, which he probably read before the Review and Conclusion was added, but including the argument for obedience contained in Chapter 21, indicates that at least one royalist found Hobbes' s arguments compelling. Newcastle himself was excluded from the possibility of compounding for his estates by the Parliamentary government, but he did send his wife to London to try to get some portions of his estates in 1651, probably after the publication of Leviathan.
124. Hyde, Brief View, p. 91.
125. The Nicholas Papers: Correspondence of Sir Edward Nicholas, Secretary of State, ed. George F. Warner, Vol. I: 1641-1652 (1886; reprinted New York, 1965), p. 285; and Malcolm, 'A Summary Biography of Hobbes', p. 32.
126. The Nicholas Papers: Correspondence of Sir Edward Nicholas, Secretary of State, ed. George F. Warner, Vol. I: 1641-1652 (1886; reprinted New York, 1965), p. 285; and Malcolm, 'A Summary Biography of Hobbes', p. 32.
127. Skinner, 'Conquest and Consent', pp. 97-8. Skinner ultimately disavowed this interpretation. See footnote 81 above.
128. Charles Stuart's status in 1651 is ambiguous since he was not crowned until after his Restoration in 1660. Nevertheless, one may assume that his followers viewed him as their sovereign from the time of Charles I's execution. Hobbes himself later attested that Charles 'had the title, right, and reverence of a King' at the time of Leviathan's publication (Hobbes, Considerations, IV, p. 415).
129. Hobbes, 'Review and Conclusion', Leviathan, p. 485.
130. This manuscript is preserved in the British Library (BL MS Egerton 1910). It has a slightly different frontispiece from the printed version, and lacks a dedication and the Review and Conclusion. On the manuscript version, see Tuck's introduction to Leviathan, pp. xxvii-xxxvii.
131. Hobbes, De Cive: A Latin Version, p. 6.
132. Thomas Hobbes, Seven Philosophical Problems and Two Propositions of Geometry with an Apology for Himself & His Writings, Dedicated to the King in the Year 1662, in English Works, VII, p. 4.
133. Francis Godolphin was the brother of Hobbes's slain friend, Sidney, who had left him a bequest of two hundred pounds. Hyde suggests that this dedication was purely mercenary; it was an effort to get the two hundred pounds delivered (Hyde, Brief View, pp. 319-20). Hyde originally told Hobbes about this legacy in January 1647 and advised him to proceed carefully in collecting it because Francis Godolphin was untrustworthy and might prefer to have Parliament seize the money (Hyde to Dr Earle, 1 January 1446/7, Bodleian Library, MS Clarendon 2396, fol. 45, and 16 February 1646/7, Bodleian Library, MS Clarendon 2442, fol. 101). Perhaps Hobbes took this advice in devising a patronage strategy. If this is the case, the dedication could either be a thank you or a sardonic attempt to embarrass Godolphin by associating him with Hobbes.
134. Hobbes, Leviathan, pp. 3-4. Hobbes's emphasis.
135. I wish to thank for this suggestion the anonymous referee of this article, who also contests Tuck's analysis that Hobbes may have always intended to dedicate the book to Charles II but switched to Godolphin after Charles suffered military defeat in Scotland in 1650. Tuck asserts that when Charles succeeded in escaping from England, Hobbes presented the manuscript copy to the king 'to recover lost ground' with the king, 'which may account in part for his stony reception' (Hobbes, Leviathan, p. xxxv). As Tuck notes, there is really no way to know Hobbes's intentions in this matter, but I think the dedication to Godolphin shows that Hobbes was aware of the dangers of his gift, and probably never intended to dedicate it to Charles II.
136. Warner, Nicholas Papers, p. 284.
137. Hobbes, Considerations, p. 415.
138. Hobbes, Life of Thomas Hobbes, in English Works, I, p. xiv; Leslie Stephen, Hobbes (New York, 1904), pp. 57-8; Rogow, Thomas Hobbes, pp. 206-9.
139. Hobbes, Life of Thomas Hobbes, in English Works, I, p. xiv; Leslie Stephen, Hobbes (New York, 1904), pp. 57-8; Rogow, Thomas Hobbes, pp. 206-9.
140. Hobbes, Life of Thomas Hobbes, in English Works, I, p. xiv; Leslie Stephen, Hobbes (New York, 1904), pp. 57-8; Rogow, Thomas Hobbes, pp. 206-9.
141. Hobbes, Seven Philosophical Problems, VII, p. 4.