Rehabilitating Hobbes: Obligation, anti-Fascism and the myth of a 'Taylor thesis'

History of Political Thought

Volumn 19, Issue 3, 1998, Pages 406-438

  Tarlton, Charles D ^a  

^a STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0042279724     PISSN: 0143781X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (197)

1. G.P. Gooch, Hobbes (London, 1939, 1970), p. 3.
2. A.E. Taylor, 'The Ethical Doctrine of Hobbes', Philosophy, XIII, 52 (October 1938), pp. 406-24. The other 1938 essay, 'An Apology for Mr. Hobbes', appeared in Seventeenth Century Studies, ed. J. Dover Wilson (Oxford, 1938), pp. 129-47. Although this second essay appeared rather prominently, no one took any notice.
3. A.E. Taylor, 'The Ethical Doctrine of Hobbes', Philosophy, XIII, 52 (October 1938), pp. 406-24. The other 1938 essay, 'An Apology for Mr. Hobbes', appeared in Seventeenth Century Studies, ed. J. Dover Wilson (Oxford, 1938), pp. 129-47. Although this second essay appeared rather prominently, no one took any notice.
4. H. Warrender, The Political Philosophy of Hobbes: His Theory of Obligation (Oxford, 1957). I am currently working on a study of the various phases in the reception of Warrender's interpretation, from the earliest reviews by Oakeshott, Macpherson and others to the last bitter arguments stirred up by Skinner's demand that the interpretive purchase shift from text to intentional-conventional circumstances. At a certain point discussion of Warrender's assertions just peters out.
5. Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, ed. Richard Tuck (Cambridge, 1991), p. 144.
6. Taylor, 'Ethical Doctrine of Hobbes', p. 414, n. 1.
7. It is perhaps worth noting that rhetorical analysis has all but entirely replaced these older ethical concerns. See, to name only a few, Raia Prokhovnik, Rhetoric and Philosophy in Hobbes's Leviathan (London, 1991); Victoria Kahn, 'Hobbes: A Rhetoric of Logic', in Rhetoric, Prudence, and Skepticism in the Renaissance (Ithaca, NY, 1985); and, of course, Quentin Skinner, Reason and Rhetoric in the Philosophy of Hobbes (Cambridge, 1996).
8. It is perhaps worth noting that rhetorical analysis has all but entirely replaced these older ethical concerns. See, to name only a few, Raia Prokhovnik, Rhetoric and Philosophy in Hobbes's Leviathan (London, 1991); Victoria Kahn, 'Hobbes: A Rhetoric of Logic', in Rhetoric, Prudence, and Skepticism in the Renaissance (Ithaca, NY, 1985); and, of course, Quentin Skinner, Reason and Rhetoric in the Philosophy of Hobbes (Cambridge, 1996).
9. It is perhaps worth noting that rhetorical analysis has all but entirely replaced these older ethical concerns. See, to name only a few, Raia Prokhovnik, Rhetoric and Philosophy in Hobbes's Leviathan (London, 1991); Victoria Kahn, 'Hobbes: A Rhetoric of Logic', in Rhetoric, Prudence, and Skepticism in the Renaissance (Ithaca, NY, 1985); and, of course, Quentin Skinner, Reason and Rhetoric in the Philosophy of Hobbes (Cambridge, 1996).
10. This, of course, was not true of Warrender's somewhat more sustained discussion. See the 'Appendix' to Warrender, The Political Philosophy of Hobbes.
11. Just how this work was connected to Taylor before the publication of Warrender's The Political Philosophy of Hobbes, can be glimpsed in assessments made of Taylor's career at the time of his death in 1945. W.D. Ross, writing the major memorial in Proceeding of the British Academy (Oxford, 1945), does not mention Taylor's work on Hobbes at all. The lesser 1938 essay, 'An Apology for Mr. Hobbes' is even left out of the appended bibliography of Taylor's work. It is also interesting to note that the discussion of Taylor in the Dictionary of National Biography (London, 1941-50), which was written by D.M. MacKinnon, also leaves out mention of Taylor on Hobbes. MacKinnon was later mentioned by Warrender in his preface to The Political Philosophy of Hobbes as among those 'tutors and friends' who had helped shape his views of Hobbes.
12. Just how this work was connected to Taylor before the publication of Warrender's The Political Philosophy of Hobbes, can be glimpsed in assessments made of Taylor's career at the time of his death in 1945. W.D. Ross, writing the major memorial in Proceeding of the British Academy (Oxford, 1945), does not mention Taylor's work on Hobbes at all. The lesser 1938 essay, 'An Apology for Mr. Hobbes' is even left out of the appended bibliography of Taylor's work. It is also interesting to note that the discussion of Taylor in the Dictionary of National Biography (London, 1941-50), which was written by D.M. MacKinnon, also leaves out mention of Taylor on Hobbes. MacKinnon was later mentioned by Warrender in his preface to The Political Philosophy of Hobbes as among those 'tutors and friends' who had helped shape his views of Hobbes.
13. Just how this work was connected to Taylor before the publication of Warrender's The Political Philosophy of Hobbes, can be glimpsed in assessments made of Taylor's career at the time of his death in 1945. W.D. Ross, writing the major memorial in Proceeding of the British Academy (Oxford, 1945), does not mention Taylor's work on Hobbes at all. The lesser 1938 essay, 'An Apology for Mr. Hobbes' is even left out of the appended bibliography of Taylor's work. It is also interesting to note that the discussion of Taylor in the Dictionary of National Biography (London, 1941-50), which was written by D.M. MacKinnon, also leaves out mention of Taylor on Hobbes. MacKinnon was later mentioned by Warrender in his preface to The Political Philosophy of Hobbes as among those 'tutors and friends' who had helped shape his views of Hobbes.
14. Just how this work was connected to Taylor before the publication of Warrender's The Political Philosophy of Hobbes, can be glimpsed in assessments made of Taylor's career at the time of his death in 1945. W.D. Ross, writing the major memorial in Proceeding of the British Academy (Oxford, 1945), does not mention Taylor's work on Hobbes at all. The lesser 1938 essay, 'An Apology for Mr. Hobbes' is even left out of the appended bibliography of Taylor's work. It is also interesting to note that the discussion of Taylor in the Dictionary of National Biography (London, 1941-50), which was written by D.M. MacKinnon, also leaves out mention of Taylor on Hobbes. MacKinnon was later mentioned by Warrender in his preface to The Political Philosophy of Hobbes as among those 'tutors and friends' who had helped shape his views of Hobbes.
15. William Sacksteder, Hobbes Studies (1879-1979): A Bibliography (Bowling Green, Ohio, 1982), p. 5.
16. Ibid.
17. Ibid., p. 6.
18. Ibid.
19. Ibid.
20. Ibid.
21. Ibid.
22. His bibliography and its accompanying essay were published by the Philosophical Documentation Center and formed part of the Hobbes Tercentenary Congress which had been held in 1979. Just more than a decade later Sacksteder returned to the topic of the Taylor thesis. In a general and very appreciative article he again repeated many of his exaggerated claims about Taylor's significance and influence, again directing special attention to Taylor's innovations in method and style. 'Thus exposition of Hobbes', he concluded in regard to Taylor, 'is part only of the project in which he engages himself. The modality of his piece is exploration of fruitful analogies, mostly between Hobbes and Kant . . . The result combines valuable reopenings for reflections on Hobbes with a sketch of a doctrine of duty.' Excessive estimations of the 'Ethical Doctrine of Hobbes' are still there. 'I think this among the preeminent contributions to Hobbes scholarship', he wrote, 'though it remains controversial . . . For my own part, and limiting myself to Hobbesian interpretation only, I find Taylor's explorations plausible, if not definitive.' William Sacksteder, 'Some Other Taylor Thesis', International Hobbes Association Newsletter, New Series, No. 11 (June 1990).
23. Uncannily, Howard Warrender's devastating critical review of Sacksteder's contentions about Taylor and Hobbes Studies appears on a page in Political Studies facing his own obituary.
24. Howard Warrender, 'Hobbes Studies: Documentation versus History', Political Studies, XXXIII (1985), pp. 304-7, p. 304.
25. Ibid., p. 305.
26. Ibid.
27. Ibid.
28. Ibid., p. 306.
29. Hobbes Studies, ed. K.C. Brown (Cambridge, MA, 1965).
30. The first part of Stuart Brown's essay was published separately because 'it offers the newcomer a useful introduction to the whole debate on the so-called 'Taylor-Warrender Thesis'. K.C. Brown had, in fact, printed this 'introduction' ahead of Taylor's own article. A self-fulfilling interpretation?
31. Warrender, 'Hobbes Studies', p. 307.
32. Stuart Brown, 'Hobbes: The Taylor Thesis', Philosophical Review, 68 (1959), p. 303. The frankest judgment, however, would be that Taylor had 'adduced' virtually no evidence whatsoever.
33. Ibid., p. 304. As if, somehow, Oakeshott had used but failed to cite Taylor. What can one possibly say in the face of arguments conducted in such a manner?
34. Ibid., p. 305.
35. J.M. Brown, 'A Note on Professor Oakeshott's Introduction to the Leviathan', Political Studies. 1 (1953), pp. 53-64; Dorothea Krook, 'Mr. Brown's Note Annotated', Political Studies, 1 (1953), pp. 216-27; and J.M. Brown, 'Hobbes: A Rejoinder', Political Studies, 2 (1954), pp. 168-72.
36. J.M. Brown, 'A Note on Professor Oakeshott's Introduction to the Leviathan', Political Studies. 1 (1953), pp. 53-64; Dorothea Krook, 'Mr. Brown's Note Annotated', Political Studies, 1 (1953), pp. 216-27; and J.M. Brown, 'Hobbes: A Rejoinder', Political Studies, 2 (1954), pp. 168-72.
37. J.M. Brown, 'A Note on Professor Oakeshott's Introduction to the Leviathan', Political Studies. 1 (1953), pp. 53-64; Dorothea Krook, 'Mr. Brown's Note Annotated', Political Studies, 1 (1953), pp. 216-27; and J.M. Brown, 'Hobbes: A Rejoinder', Political Studies, 2 (1954), pp. 168-72.
38. The myth has been persistent. Even W.H. Greenleaf paid unquestioning lip service to it in 1969 (see W.H. Greenleaf, 'Hobbes: The Problem of Interpretation', in Hobbes-Forschungen, ed. R. Koselleck and R. Schnur (Berlin, 1969), pp. 9-32, especially pp. 13, 15-16. The myth was still apparently alive and well in 1994 for David Booin-Vail. 'Taylor's article', he wrote, 'provoked an enormous amount of discussion, but it still found few supporters'. D. Booin-Vail, Thomas Hobbes and the Science of Moral Virtue (Cambridge, 1994), pp. 92-3.
39. The myth has been persistent. Even W.H. Greenleaf paid unquestioning lip service to it in 1969 (see W.H. Greenleaf, 'Hobbes: The Problem of Interpretation', in Hobbes-Forschungen, ed. R. Koselleck and R. Schnur (Berlin, 1969), pp. 9-32, especially pp. 13, 15-16. The myth was still apparently alive and well in 1994 for David Booin-Vail. 'Taylor's article', he wrote, 'provoked an enormous amount of discussion, but it still found few supporters'. D. Booin-Vail, Thomas Hobbes and the Science of Moral Virtue (Cambridge, 1994), pp. 92-3.
40. C.B. Macpherson, 'Hobbes Today', Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, 11 (1945), pp. 524-34; J.W.N. Watkins, 'Philosophy and Politics in Hobbes', Philosophical Quarterly, 5 (1955), pp. 125-46; and J.W.N. Watkins, 'The Posthumous Career of Thomas Hobbes', Review of Politics, 19(3) (1957), pp. 351-60.
41. C.B. Macpherson, 'Hobbes Today', Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, 11 (1945), pp. 524-34; J.W.N. Watkins, 'Philosophy and Politics in Hobbes', Philosophical Quarterly, 5 (1955), pp. 125-46; and J.W.N. Watkins, 'The Posthumous Career of Thomas Hobbes', Review of Politics, 19(3) (1957), pp. 351-60.
42. C.B. Macpherson, 'Hobbes Today', Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, 11 (1945), pp. 524-34; J.W.N. Watkins, 'Philosophy and Politics in Hobbes', Philosophical Quarterly, 5 (1955), pp. 125-46; and J.W.N. Watkins, 'The Posthumous Career of Thomas Hobbes', Review of Politics, 19(3) (1957), pp. 351-60.
43. Thomas Nagel, 'Hobbes's Concept of Obligation', Philosophical Review, 68 (1959), pp. 68-83.
44. D.D. Raphael, 'Obligations and Rights in Hobbes', Philosophy, 37 (1962), pp. 345-52.
45. J.W.N. Watkins, Hobbes's System of Ideas (London, 1965). Moreover, in a review of Wartender's book, Watkins never mentions Taylor at all (Philosophy, XXVIX, 137 (1957-8), pp. 238-41).
46. J.W.N. Watkins, Hobbes's System of Ideas (London, 1965). Moreover, in a review of Wartender's book, Watkins never mentions Taylor at all (Philosophy, XXVIX, 137 (1957-8), pp. 238-41).
47. Brian Barry, 'Warrender and His Critics', Philosophy, 43 (1968), pp. 117-37.
48. Greenleaf, 'Hobbes: The Problem of Interpretation', pp. 9-31.
49. Taylor, 'Ethical Doctrine of Hobbes', p. 410.
50. See the essays in K.C. Brown, Hobbes Studies, especially the one by John Plamenatz. Throughout the time I have spent working on this essay, and during an even longer time spent researching the interesting and complicated story of Warrender's treatment by Hobbes scholars, I have not been able completely to dispel the suspicion that much of the significance granted to Taylor was part of the widespread attack on Warrender. But this is, as I said, merely suspicion.
51. Warrender, 'Hobbes Studies', p. 305.
52. Taylor, 'Ethical Doctrine of Hobbes', p. 411.
53. Ibid., p. 406. It should be pointed out that Taylor was not as alone in his sentiments as he was in his strategy. R.G. Collingwood felt at the same time that Hobbes represented just the civilized political attitudes which might prove effective antidotes to Fascism and Nazism. See R.G. Collingwood, Essays in Political Philosophy (Oxford, 1989), especially 'Fascism and Nazism', reprinted from Philosophy in 1940, and the draft preface to The New Leviathan. See also the interesting and opposite anxiety, that perhaps Hobbes might reasonably be considered as contributing to world tyranny, later expressed by Isaiah Berlin ('Hobbes, Locke and Professor Macpherson', Political Quarterly, XXXV (1964), p. 444) and Bertrand de Jouvenal (Sovereignty (Cambridge, 1957), p. 239), who thought he had detected the same anxiety expressed between the lines in Leo Strauss, 'On the Spirit of Hobbes' Political Philosophy', Revue Internationale de Philosophie, 4 (1950), pp. 405-31 and in Oakeshott's 'Introduction' to Leviathan (1946). More faintly still, worry about whether Hobbes was somehow accountable for modern totalitarianism was there to be read in E.E. Woodward's article on Hobbes in The Social and Political Ideas of Some Great Thinkers of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, ed. F.J.C. Hearnshaw (London, 1925, 1936, 1949), pp. 169-72. See also the relief expressed by Michael Oakeshott in 1935 that Hobbes's political theory had been exonerated of the charge, levelled by Figgis and Vaughan, of being 'one of adulterated despotism or nothing'. Michael Oakeshott, 'Thomas Hobbes', Scrutiny, IV, 3 (December 1935), p. 272.
54. Ibid., p. 406. It should be pointed out that Taylor was not as alone in his sentiments as he was in his strategy. R.G. Collingwood felt at the same time that Hobbes represented just the civilized political attitudes which might prove effective antidotes to Fascism and Nazism. See R.G. Collingwood, Essays in Political Philosophy (Oxford, 1989), especially 'Fascism and Nazism', reprinted from Philosophy in 1940, and the draft preface to The New Leviathan. See also the interesting and opposite anxiety, that perhaps Hobbes might reasonably be considered as contributing to world tyranny, later expressed by Isaiah Berlin ('Hobbes, Locke and Professor Macpherson', Political Quarterly, XXXV (1964), p. 444) and Bertrand de Jouvenal (Sovereignty (Cambridge, 1957), p. 239), who thought he had detected the same anxiety expressed between the lines in Leo Strauss, 'On the Spirit of Hobbes' Political Philosophy', Revue Internationale de Philosophie, 4 (1950), pp. 405-31 and in Oakeshott's 'Introduction' to Leviathan (1946). More faintly still, worry about whether Hobbes was somehow accountable for modern totalitarianism was there to be read in E.E. Woodward's article on Hobbes in The Social and Political Ideas of Some Great Thinkers of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, ed. F.J.C. Hearnshaw (London, 1925, 1936, 1949), pp. 169-72. See also the relief expressed by Michael Oakeshott in 1935 that Hobbes's political theory had been exonerated of the charge, levelled by Figgis and Vaughan, of being 'one of adulterated despotism or nothing'. Michael Oakeshott, 'Thomas Hobbes', Scrutiny, IV, 3 (December 1935), p. 272.
55. Ibid., p. 406. It should be pointed out that Taylor was not as alone in his sentiments as he was in his strategy. R.G. Collingwood felt at the same time that Hobbes represented just the civilized political attitudes which might prove effective antidotes to Fascism and Nazism. See R.G. Collingwood, Essays in Political Philosophy (Oxford, 1989), especially 'Fascism and Nazism', reprinted from Philosophy in 1940, and the draft preface to The New Leviathan. See also the interesting and opposite anxiety, that perhaps Hobbes might reasonably be considered as contributing to world tyranny, later expressed by Isaiah Berlin ('Hobbes, Locke and Professor Macpherson', Political Quarterly, XXXV (1964), p. 444) and Bertrand de Jouvenal (Sovereignty (Cambridge, 1957), p. 239), who thought he had detected the same anxiety expressed between the lines in Leo Strauss, 'On the Spirit of Hobbes' Political Philosophy', Revue Internationale de Philosophie, 4 (1950), pp. 405-31 and in Oakeshott's 'Introduction' to Leviathan (1946). More faintly still, worry about whether Hobbes was somehow accountable for modern totalitarianism was there to be read in E.E. Woodward's article on Hobbes in The Social and Political Ideas of Some Great Thinkers of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, ed. F.J.C. Hearnshaw (London, 1925, 1936, 1949), pp. 169-72. See also the relief expressed by Michael Oakeshott in 1935 that Hobbes's political theory had been exonerated of the charge, levelled by Figgis and Vaughan, of being 'one of adulterated despotism or nothing'. Michael Oakeshott, 'Thomas Hobbes', Scrutiny, IV, 3 (December 1935), p. 272.
56. Ibid., p. 406. It should be pointed out that Taylor was not as alone in his sentiments as he was in his strategy. R.G. Collingwood felt at the same time that Hobbes represented just the civilized political attitudes which might prove effective antidotes to Fascism and Nazism. See R.G. Collingwood, Essays in Political Philosophy (Oxford, 1989), especially 'Fascism and Nazism', reprinted from Philosophy in 1940, and the draft preface to The New Leviathan. See also the interesting and opposite anxiety, that perhaps Hobbes might reasonably be considered as contributing to world tyranny, later expressed by Isaiah Berlin ('Hobbes, Locke and Professor Macpherson', Political Quarterly, XXXV (1964), p. 444) and Bertrand de Jouvenal (Sovereignty (Cambridge, 1957), p. 239), who thought he had detected the same anxiety expressed between the lines in Leo Strauss, 'On the Spirit of Hobbes' Political Philosophy', Revue Internationale de Philosophie, 4 (1950), pp. 405-31 and in Oakeshott's 'Introduction' to Leviathan (1946). More faintly still, worry about whether Hobbes was somehow accountable for modern totalitarianism was there to be read in E.E. Woodward's article on Hobbes in The Social and Political Ideas of Some Great Thinkers of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, ed. F.J.C. Hearnshaw (London, 1925, 1936, 1949), pp. 169-72. See also the relief expressed by Michael Oakeshott in 1935 that Hobbes's political theory had been exonerated of the charge, levelled by Figgis and Vaughan, of being 'one of adulterated despotism or nothing'. Michael Oakeshott, 'Thomas Hobbes', Scrutiny, IV, 3 (December 1935), p. 272.
57. Ibid., p. 406. It should be pointed out that Taylor was not as alone in his sentiments as he was in his strategy. R.G. Collingwood felt at the same time that Hobbes represented just the civilized political attitudes which might prove effective antidotes to Fascism and Nazism. See R.G. Collingwood, Essays in Political Philosophy (Oxford, 1989), especially 'Fascism and Nazism', reprinted from Philosophy in 1940, and the draft preface to The New Leviathan. See also the interesting and opposite anxiety, that perhaps Hobbes might reasonably be considered as contributing to world tyranny, later expressed by Isaiah Berlin ('Hobbes, Locke and Professor Macpherson', Political Quarterly, XXXV (1964), p. 444) and Bertrand de Jouvenal (Sovereignty (Cambridge, 1957), p. 239), who thought he had detected the same anxiety expressed between the lines in Leo Strauss, 'On the Spirit of Hobbes' Political Philosophy', Revue Internationale de Philosophie, 4 (1950), pp. 405-31 and in Oakeshott's 'Introduction' to Leviathan (1946). More faintly still, worry about whether Hobbes was somehow accountable for modern totalitarianism was there to be read in E.E. Woodward's article on Hobbes in The Social and Political Ideas of Some Great Thinkers of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, ed. F.J.C. Hearnshaw (London, 1925, 1936, 1949), pp. 169-72. See also the relief expressed by Michael Oakeshott in 1935 that Hobbes's political theory had been exonerated of the charge, levelled by Figgis and Vaughan, of being 'one of adulterated despotism or nothing'. Michael Oakeshott, 'Thomas Hobbes', Scrutiny, IV, 3 (December 1935), p. 272.
58. Ibid., p. 406. It should be pointed out that Taylor was not as alone in his sentiments as he was in his strategy. R.G. Collingwood felt at the same time that Hobbes represented just the civilized political attitudes which might prove effective antidotes to Fascism and Nazism. See R.G. Collingwood, Essays in Political Philosophy (Oxford, 1989), especially 'Fascism and Nazism', reprinted from Philosophy in 1940, and the draft preface to The New Leviathan. See also the interesting and opposite anxiety, that perhaps Hobbes might reasonably be considered as contributing to world tyranny, later expressed by Isaiah Berlin ('Hobbes, Locke and Professor Macpherson', Political Quarterly, XXXV (1964), p. 444) and Bertrand de Jouvenal (Sovereignty (Cambridge, 1957), p. 239), who thought he had detected the same anxiety expressed between the lines in Leo Strauss, 'On the Spirit of Hobbes' Political Philosophy', Revue Internationale de Philosophie, 4 (1950), pp. 405-31 and in Oakeshott's 'Introduction' to Leviathan (1946). More faintly still, worry about whether Hobbes was somehow accountable for modern totalitarianism was there to be read in E.E. Woodward's article on Hobbes in The Social and Political Ideas of Some Great Thinkers of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, ed. F.J.C. Hearnshaw (London, 1925, 1936, 1949), pp. 169-72. See also the relief expressed by Michael Oakeshott in 1935 that Hobbes's political theory had been exonerated of the charge, levelled by Figgis and Vaughan, of being 'one of adulterated despotism or nothing'. Michael Oakeshott, 'Thomas Hobbes', Scrutiny, IV, 3 (December 1935), p. 272.
59. Ibid., p. 406. It should be pointed out that Taylor was not as alone in his sentiments as he was in his strategy. R.G. Collingwood felt at the same time that Hobbes represented just the civilized political attitudes which might prove effective antidotes to Fascism and Nazism. See R.G. Collingwood, Essays in Political Philosophy (Oxford, 1989), especially 'Fascism and Nazism', reprinted from Philosophy in 1940, and the draft preface to The New Leviathan. See also the interesting and opposite anxiety, that perhaps Hobbes might reasonably be considered as contributing to world tyranny, later expressed by Isaiah Berlin ('Hobbes, Locke and Professor Macpherson', Political Quarterly, XXXV (1964), p. 444) and Bertrand de Jouvenal (Sovereignty (Cambridge, 1957), p. 239), who thought he had detected the same anxiety expressed between the lines in Leo Strauss, 'On the Spirit of Hobbes' Political Philosophy', Revue Internationale de Philosophie, 4 (1950), pp. 405-31 and in Oakeshott's 'Introduction' to Leviathan (1946). More faintly still, worry about whether Hobbes was somehow accountable for modern totalitarianism was there to be read in E.E. Woodward's article on Hobbes in The Social and Political Ideas of Some Great Thinkers of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, ed. F.J.C. Hearnshaw (London, 1925, 1936, 1949), pp. 169-72. See also the relief expressed by Michael Oakeshott in 1935 that Hobbes's political theory had been exonerated of the charge, levelled by Figgis and Vaughan, of being 'one of adulterated despotism or nothing'. Michael Oakeshott, 'Thomas Hobbes', Scrutiny, IV, 3 (December 1935), p. 272.
60. Ibid., p. 406. It should be pointed out that Taylor was not as alone in his sentiments as he was in his strategy. R.G. Collingwood felt at the same time that Hobbes represented just the civilized political attitudes which might prove effective antidotes to Fascism and Nazism. See R.G. Collingwood, Essays in Political Philosophy (Oxford, 1989), especially 'Fascism and Nazism', reprinted from Philosophy in 1940, and the draft preface to The New Leviathan. See also the interesting and opposite anxiety, that perhaps Hobbes might reasonably be considered as contributing to world tyranny, later expressed by Isaiah Berlin ('Hobbes, Locke and Professor Macpherson', Political Quarterly, XXXV (1964), p. 444) and Bertrand de Jouvenal (Sovereignty (Cambridge, 1957), p. 239), who thought he had detected the same anxiety expressed between the lines in Leo Strauss, 'On the Spirit of Hobbes' Political Philosophy', Revue Internationale de Philosophie, 4 (1950), pp. 405-31 and in Oakeshott's 'Introduction' to Leviathan (1946). More faintly still, worry about whether Hobbes was somehow accountable for modern totalitarianism was there to be read in E.E. Woodward's article on Hobbes in The Social and Political Ideas of Some Great Thinkers of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, ed. F.J.C. Hearnshaw (London, 1925, 1936, 1949), pp. 169-72. See also the relief expressed by Michael Oakeshott in 1935 that Hobbes's political theory had been exonerated of the charge, levelled by Figgis and Vaughan, of being 'one of adulterated despotism or nothing'. Michael Oakeshott, 'Thomas Hobbes', Scrutiny, IV, 3 (December 1935), p. 272.
61. Ibid., p. 406. It should be pointed out that Taylor was not as alone in his sentiments as he was in his strategy. R.G. Collingwood felt at the same time that Hobbes represented just the civilized political attitudes which might prove effective antidotes to Fascism and Nazism. See R.G. Collingwood, Essays in Political Philosophy (Oxford, 1989), especially 'Fascism and Nazism', reprinted from Philosophy in 1940, and the draft preface to The New Leviathan. See also the interesting and opposite anxiety, that perhaps Hobbes might reasonably be considered as contributing to world tyranny, later expressed by Isaiah Berlin ('Hobbes, Locke and Professor Macpherson', Political Quarterly, XXXV (1964), p. 444) and Bertrand de Jouvenal (Sovereignty (Cambridge, 1957), p. 239), who thought he had detected the same anxiety expressed between the lines in Leo Strauss, 'On the Spirit of Hobbes' Political Philosophy', Revue Internationale de Philosophie, 4 (1950), pp. 405-31 and in Oakeshott's 'Introduction' to Leviathan (1946). More faintly still, worry about whether Hobbes was somehow accountable for modern totalitarianism was there to be read in E.E. Woodward's article on Hobbes in The Social and Political Ideas of Some Great Thinkers of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, ed. F.J.C. Hearnshaw (London, 1925, 1936, 1949), pp. 169-72. See also the relief expressed by Michael Oakeshott in 1935 that Hobbes's political theory had been exonerated of the charge, levelled by Figgis and Vaughan, of being 'one of adulterated despotism or nothing'. Michael Oakeshott, 'Thomas Hobbes', Scrutiny, IV, 3 (December 1935), p. 272.
62. Ibid., p. 406. It should be pointed out that Taylor was not as alone in his sentiments as he was in his strategy. R.G. Collingwood felt at the same time that Hobbes represented just the civilized political attitudes which might prove effective antidotes to Fascism and Nazism. See R.G. Collingwood, Essays in Political Philosophy (Oxford, 1989), especially 'Fascism and Nazism', reprinted from Philosophy in 1940, and the draft preface to The New Leviathan. See also the interesting and opposite anxiety, that perhaps Hobbes might reasonably be considered as contributing to world tyranny, later expressed by Isaiah Berlin ('Hobbes, Locke and Professor Macpherson', Political Quarterly, XXXV (1964), p. 444) and Bertrand de Jouvenal (Sovereignty (Cambridge, 1957), p. 239), who thought he had detected the same anxiety expressed between the lines in Leo Strauss, 'On the Spirit of Hobbes' Political Philosophy', Revue Internationale de Philosophie, 4 (1950), pp. 405-31 and in Oakeshott's 'Introduction' to Leviathan (1946). More faintly still, worry about whether Hobbes was somehow accountable for modern totalitarianism was there to be read in E.E. Woodward's article on Hobbes in The Social and Political Ideas of Some Great Thinkers of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, ed. F.J.C. Hearnshaw (London, 1925, 1936, 1949), pp. 169-72. See also the relief expressed by Michael Oakeshott in 1935 that Hobbes's political theory had been exonerated of the charge, levelled by Figgis and Vaughan, of being 'one of adulterated despotism or nothing'. Michael Oakeshott, 'Thomas Hobbes', Scrutiny, IV, 3 (December 1935), p. 272.
63. Walter Wulfstich, 'Thomas Hobbes, ein authoritärer Engländer', Zeitschrift für neusprachlichen Unterricht, 40 (1941), pp. 219-25. See also Helmut Schelsky, 'Die Totalität des Staates bei Hobbes', Archiv für Rechts- und Sozial-philosophie, 31 (1938), pp. 176-93;
64. Walter Wulfstich, 'Thomas Hobbes, ein authoritärer Engländer', Zeitschrift für neusprachlichen Unterricht, 40 (1941), pp. 219-25. See also Helmut Schelsky, 'Die Totalität des Staates bei Hobbes', Archiv für Rechts- und Sozial-philosophie, 31 (1938), pp. 176-93;
65. J. Vialatoux, La Cité De Hobbes, Théorie De L'état Totalitaire (Paris, Lyon, 1935), especially pp. 194-210; René Capitant, 'Hobbes et l'État totalitaire', Archives de Philosophie du Droit et de Sociologie Juridique, 6(1&2) (1936), pp. 46-75; René Capitant, 'Thomas Hobbes et le troisième reich', Allemagne Contemporaine, 20 (1936), pp. 55-7; Maurice de Gandillac, 'Du Leviathan à l'état Totalitaire', La Semaine Planétaire: La Vie Intellectuelle, 44 (1936), pp. 73-97; and Otto Koellreutter, 'Leviathan und totaler Staat', Reichsvenvaltungsblatt, 59(38) (1938), pp. 803-7. Norberte Bobbio, writing in 1974, reflected: 'Hobbes has been vituperated for centuries as a counselor to tyrants, and, in the 1930s, as the harbinger of the totalitarian state.' Norberto Bobbio, Thomas Hobbes and the Natural Law Tradition (Chicago and London, 1993), p. 221.
66. J. Vialatoux, La Cité De Hobbes, Théorie De L'état Totalitaire (Paris, Lyon, 1935), especially pp. 194-210; René Capitant, 'Hobbes et l'État totalitaire', Archives de Philosophie du Droit et de Sociologie Juridique, 6(1&2) (1936), pp. 46-75; René Capitant, 'Thomas Hobbes et le troisième reich', Allemagne Contemporaine, 20 (1936), pp. 55-7; Maurice de Gandillac, 'Du Leviathan à l'état Totalitaire', La Semaine Planétaire: La Vie Intellectuelle, 44 (1936), pp. 73-97; and Otto Koellreutter, 'Leviathan und totaler Staat', Reichsvenvaltungsblatt, 59(38) (1938), pp. 803-7. Norberte Bobbio, writing in 1974, reflected: 'Hobbes has been vituperated for centuries as a counselor to tyrants, and, in the 1930s, as the harbinger of the totalitarian state.' Norberto Bobbio, Thomas Hobbes and the Natural Law Tradition (Chicago and London, 1993), p. 221.
67. J. Vialatoux, La Cité De Hobbes, Théorie De L'état Totalitaire (Paris, Lyon, 1935), especially pp. 194-210; René Capitant, 'Hobbes et l'État totalitaire', Archives de Philosophie du Droit et de Sociologie Juridique, 6(1&2) (1936), pp. 46-75; René Capitant, 'Thomas Hobbes et le troisième reich', Allemagne Contemporaine, 20 (1936), pp. 55-7; Maurice de Gandillac, 'Du Leviathan à l'état Totalitaire', La Semaine Planétaire: La Vie Intellectuelle, 44 (1936), pp. 73-97; and Otto Koellreutter, 'Leviathan und totaler Staat', Reichsvenvaltungsblatt, 59(38) (1938), pp. 803-7. Norberte Bobbio, writing in 1974, reflected: 'Hobbes has been vituperated for centuries as a counselor to tyrants, and, in the 1930s, as the harbinger of the totalitarian state.' Norberto Bobbio, Thomas Hobbes and the Natural Law Tradition (Chicago and London, 1993), p. 221.
68. J. Vialatoux, La Cité De Hobbes, Théorie De L'état Totalitaire (Paris, Lyon, 1935), especially pp. 194-210; René Capitant, 'Hobbes et l'État totalitaire', Archives de Philosophie du Droit et de Sociologie Juridique, 6(1&2) (1936), pp. 46-75; René Capitant, 'Thomas Hobbes et le troisième reich', Allemagne Contemporaine, 20 (1936), pp. 55-7; Maurice de Gandillac, 'Du Leviathan à l'état Totalitaire', La Semaine Planétaire: La Vie Intellectuelle, 44 (1936), pp. 73-97; and Otto Koellreutter, 'Leviathan und totaler Staat', Reichsvenvaltungsblatt, 59(38) (1938), pp. 803-7. Norberte Bobbio, writing in 1974, reflected: 'Hobbes has been vituperated for centuries as a counselor to tyrants, and, in the 1930s, as the harbinger of the totalitarian state.' Norberto Bobbio, Thomas Hobbes and the Natural Law Tradition (Chicago and London, 1993), p. 221.
69. J. Vialatoux, La Cité De Hobbes, Théorie De L'état Totalitaire (Paris, Lyon, 1935), especially pp. 194-210; René Capitant, 'Hobbes et l'État totalitaire', Archives de Philosophie du Droit et de Sociologie Juridique, 6(1&2) (1936), pp. 46-75; René Capitant, 'Thomas Hobbes et le troisième reich', Allemagne Contemporaine, 20 (1936), pp. 55-7; Maurice de Gandillac, 'Du Leviathan à l'état Totalitaire', La Semaine Planétaire: La Vie Intellectuelle, 44 (1936), pp. 73-97; and Otto Koellreutter, 'Leviathan und totaler Staat', Reichsvenvaltungsblatt, 59(38) (1938), pp. 803-7. Norberte Bobbio, writing in 1974, reflected: 'Hobbes has been vituperated for centuries as a counselor to tyrants, and, in the 1930s, as the harbinger of the totalitarian state.' Norberto Bobbio, Thomas Hobbes and the Natural Law Tradition (Chicago and London, 1993), p. 221.
70. J. Vialatoux, La Cité De Hobbes, Théorie De L'état Totalitaire (Paris, Lyon, 1935), especially pp. 194-210; René Capitant, 'Hobbes et l'État totalitaire', Archives de Philosophie du Droit et de Sociologie Juridique, 6(1&2) (1936), pp. 46-75; René Capitant, 'Thomas Hobbes et le troisième reich', Allemagne Contemporaine, 20 (1936), pp. 55-7; Maurice de Gandillac, 'Du Leviathan à l'état Totalitaire', La Semaine Planétaire: La Vie Intellectuelle, 44 (1936), pp. 73-97; and Otto Koellreutter, 'Leviathan und totaler Staat', Reichsvenvaltungsblatt, 59(38) (1938), pp. 803-7. Norberte Bobbio, writing in 1974, reflected: 'Hobbes has been vituperated for centuries as a counselor to tyrants, and, in the 1930s, as the harbinger of the totalitarian state.' Norberto Bobbio, Thomas Hobbes and the Natural Law Tradition (Chicago and London, 1993), p. 221.
71. Z. Lubienski, 'Hobbes' Philosophy and its Historical Background', Journal of Philosophical Studies, V, 18 (1930), pp. 175-90.
72. Ibid., p. 186.
73. Ibid., p. 187.
74. Ibid., p. 188.
75. John Laird, Hobbes (London, 1934), p. 205.
76. Ibid., p. 312, n. i.
77. Leo Strauss, The Political Philosophy of Hobbes (Oxford, 1936).
78. Ibid., p. 129.
79. Ibid., and see pp. 155-75, passim. The roots of Strauss's argument in earlier discussions relevant to the modern state and Weimar are discussed with care, balance and acuity by John McCormick in his 'Fear, Technology, and the State: Carl Schmitt, Leo Strauss, and the Revival of Hobbes in Weimar and National Socialist Germany', Political Theory, 22(4) (1994), pp. 612-52. In general, however, the large literature on Hobbes in German goes more or less without notice in Anglo-American Hobbes Studies. Schmitt's writings, of course, constitute an exception. Schmitt had been busy in 1938 in crediting Hobbes with the role of 'father of the totalitarian state'. See the very interesting essay by Gershon Weiler, 'Carl Schmitt on Hobbes', International Hobbes Association Newsletter, New Series, no. 12 (November 1990), pp. 3-8. See also Gershon Weiler, From Absolutism to Totalitarianism: Carl Schmitt on Thomas Hobbes (Durango, 1994), arguing that Schmitt, in so doing, had perhaps got Hobbes wrong. Horst Mewes, reviewing the book, is not so sure (International Hobbes Association Newsletter, New Series, no. 18 (June, 1994), pp. 8-12). Mewes points out that later on in 1965, returning to the study of Hobbes, Schmitt had come to the opinion that Hobbes was best understood by Howard Warrender and Francis Hood - no mention of Taylor, however.
80. Ibid., and see pp. 155-75, passim. The roots of Strauss's argument in earlier discussions relevant to the modern state and Weimar are discussed with care, balance and acuity by John McCormick in his 'Fear, Technology, and the State: Carl Schmitt, Leo Strauss, and the Revival of Hobbes in Weimar and National Socialist Germany', Political Theory, 22(4) (1994), pp. 612-52. In general, however, the large literature on Hobbes in German goes more or less without notice in Anglo-American Hobbes Studies. Schmitt's writings, of course, constitute an exception. Schmitt had been busy in 1938 in crediting Hobbes with the role of 'father of the totalitarian state'. See the very interesting essay by Gershon Weiler, 'Carl Schmitt on Hobbes', International Hobbes Association Newsletter, New Series, no. 12 (November 1990), pp. 3-8. See also Gershon Weiler, From Absolutism to Totalitarianism: Carl Schmitt on Thomas Hobbes (Durango, 1994), arguing that Schmitt, in so doing, had perhaps got Hobbes wrong. Horst Mewes, reviewing the book, is not so sure (International Hobbes Association Newsletter, New Series, no. 18 (June, 1994), pp. 8-12). Mewes points out that later on in 1965, returning to the study of Hobbes, Schmitt had come to the opinion that Hobbes was best understood by Howard Warrender and Francis Hood - no mention of Taylor, however.
81. Ibid., and see pp. 155-75, passim. The roots of Strauss's argument in earlier discussions relevant to the modern state and Weimar are discussed with care, balance and acuity by John McCormick in his 'Fear, Technology, and the State: Carl Schmitt, Leo Strauss, and the Revival of Hobbes in Weimar and National Socialist Germany', Political Theory, 22(4) (1994), pp. 612-52. In general, however, the large literature on Hobbes in German goes more or less without notice in Anglo-American Hobbes Studies. Schmitt's writings, of course, constitute an exception. Schmitt had been busy in 1938 in crediting Hobbes with the role of 'father of the totalitarian state'. See the very interesting essay by Gershon Weiler, 'Carl Schmitt on Hobbes', International Hobbes Association Newsletter, New Series, no. 12 (November 1990), pp. 3-8. See also Gershon Weiler, From Absolutism to Totalitarianism: Carl Schmitt on Thomas Hobbes (Durango, 1994), arguing that Schmitt, in so doing, had perhaps got Hobbes wrong. Horst Mewes, reviewing the book, is not so sure (International Hobbes Association Newsletter, New Series, no. 18 (June, 1994), pp. 8-12). Mewes points out that later on in 1965, returning to the study of Hobbes, Schmitt had come to the opinion that Hobbes was best understood by Howard Warrender and Francis Hood - no mention of Taylor, however.
82. Ibid., and see pp. 155-75, passim. The roots of Strauss's argument in earlier discussions relevant to the modern state and Weimar are discussed with care, balance and acuity by John McCormick in his 'Fear, Technology, and the State: Carl Schmitt, Leo Strauss, and the Revival of Hobbes in Weimar and National Socialist Germany', Political Theory, 22(4) (1994), pp. 612-52. In general, however, the large literature on Hobbes in German goes more or less without notice in Anglo-American Hobbes Studies. Schmitt's writings, of course, constitute an exception. Schmitt had been busy in 1938 in crediting Hobbes with the role of 'father of the totalitarian state'. See the very interesting essay by Gershon Weiler, 'Carl Schmitt on Hobbes', International Hobbes Association Newsletter, New Series, no. 12 (November 1990), pp. 3-8. See also Gershon Weiler, From Absolutism to Totalitarianism: Carl Schmitt on Thomas Hobbes (Durango, 1994), arguing that Schmitt, in so doing, had perhaps got Hobbes wrong. Horst Mewes, reviewing the book, is not so sure (International Hobbes Association Newsletter, New Series, no. 18 (June, 1994), pp. 8-12). Mewes points out that later on in 1965, returning to the study of Hobbes, Schmitt had come to the opinion that Hobbes was best understood by Howard Warrender and Francis Hood - no mention of Taylor, however.
83. Ibid., and see pp. 155-75, passim. The roots of Strauss's argument in earlier discussions relevant to the modern state and Weimar are discussed with care, balance and acuity by John McCormick in his 'Fear, Technology, and the State: Carl Schmitt, Leo Strauss, and the Revival of Hobbes in Weimar and National Socialist Germany', Political Theory, 22(4) (1994), pp. 612-52. In general, however, the large literature on Hobbes in German goes more or less without notice in Anglo-American Hobbes Studies. Schmitt's writings, of course, constitute an exception. Schmitt had been busy in 1938 in crediting Hobbes with the role of 'father of the totalitarian state'. See the very interesting essay by Gershon Weiler, 'Carl Schmitt on Hobbes', International Hobbes Association Newsletter, New Series, no. 12 (November 1990), pp. 3-8. See also Gershon Weiler, From Absolutism to Totalitarianism: Carl Schmitt on Thomas Hobbes (Durango, 1994), arguing that Schmitt, in so doing, had perhaps got Hobbes wrong. Horst Mewes, reviewing the book, is not so sure (International Hobbes Association Newsletter, New Series, no. 18 (June, 1994), pp. 8-12). Mewes points out that later on in 1965, returning to the study of Hobbes, Schmitt had come to the opinion that Hobbes was best understood by Howard Warrender and Francis Hood - no mention of Taylor, however.
84. R.H.S. Crossman, Plato Today (New York, 1939).
85. R.C.K. Ensor, 'Plato as Fascist', London Mercury, XXXVI, 212 (June 1937), p. 203 [review of Crossman]; C.G. Field, 'Plato's Political Thought and Its Value Today', Philosophy, XVI, 63 (1941), H.B. Acton, 'The Alleged Fascism of Plato', Philosophy, XIII, 51 (1938); R.F. Alfred Hoernlè, 'Would Plato Have Approved of the National-Socialist State?', Philosophy, XIII, 50 (1938).
86. R.C.K. Ensor, 'Plato as Fascist', London Mercury, XXXVI, 212 (June 1937), p. 203 [review of Crossman]; C.G. Field, 'Plato's Political Thought and Its Value Today', Philosophy, XVI, 63 (1941), H.B. Acton, 'The Alleged Fascism of Plato', Philosophy, XIII, 51 (1938); R.F. Alfred Hoernlè, 'Would Plato Have Approved of the National-Socialist State?', Philosophy, XIII, 50 (1938).
87. R.C.K. Ensor, 'Plato as Fascist', London Mercury, XXXVI, 212 (June 1937), p. 203 [review of Crossman]; C.G. Field, 'Plato's Political Thought and Its Value Today', Philosophy, XVI, 63 (1941), H.B. Acton, 'The Alleged Fascism of Plato', Philosophy, XIII, 51 (1938); R.F. Alfred Hoernlè, 'Would Plato Have Approved of the National-Socialist State?', Philosophy, XIII, 50 (1938).
88. R.C.K. Ensor, 'Plato as Fascist', London Mercury, XXXVI, 212 (June 1937), p. 203 [review of Crossman]; C.G. Field, 'Plato's Political Thought and Its Value Today', Philosophy, XVI, 63 (1941), H.B. Acton, 'The Alleged Fascism of Plato', Philosophy, XIII, 51 (1938); R.F. Alfred Hoernlè, 'Would Plato Have Approved of the National-Socialist State?', Philosophy, XIII, 50 (1938).
89. Karl Popper, The Open Society and its Enemies (New York, 1952), p. vii; 'The Autobiography of Karl Popper', in The Philosophy of Karl Popper, ed. Paul A. Schilpp (La Salle, 1974), p. 91.
90. Karl Popper, The Open Society and its Enemies (New York, 1952), p. vii; 'The Autobiography of Karl Popper', in The Philosophy of Karl Popper, ed. Paul A. Schilpp (La Salle, 1974), p. 91.
91. Carl S. Friedrich, Journal of Social Philosophy, III, 3 (1938), p. 251. Stalin, it has recently been said, read Leviathan 'assiduously'. See Barry Cooper, The End of History (Toronto, 1984), p. 354, n. 30.
92. Carl S. Friedrich, Journal of Social Philosophy, III, 3 (1938), p. 251. Stalin, it has recently been said, read Leviathan 'assiduously'. See Barry Cooper, The End of History (Toronto, 1984), p. 354, n. 30.
93. Ibid., p. 256.
94. Ibid.
95. Carl S. Friedrich, 'The Deification of the State', The Review of Politics, I, 1 (1939), p. 29.
96. George Catlin, The Story of the Political Philosophers (New York, 1939), p. 238.
97. Robert M. MacIver, Leviathan and the People (Baton Rouge, LA, 1939), p. 95.
98. R.H.S. Crossman, Government and the Governed (London, 1940), p. 69.
99. Ibid., p. 68.
100. J. A. Passmore, 'The Moral Philosophy of Hobbes', Australian Journal of Psychology and Philosophy, 19 (1941), p. 43; and see Alfred Cobban who includes Hobbes as a major precursor to the modern theory of dictatorship (Alfred Cobban, Dictatorship: Its History and Theory (New York, 1941), pp. 42-50). Cobban also devotes a chapter to Carl Schmitt's 'theory of dictatorship' (ibid., pp. 335-44).
101. J. A. Passmore, 'The Moral Philosophy of Hobbes', Australian Journal of Psychology and Philosophy, 19 (1941), p. 43; and see Alfred Cobban who includes Hobbes as a major precursor to the modern theory of dictatorship (Alfred Cobban, Dictatorship: Its History and Theory (New York, 1941), pp. 42-50). Cobban also devotes a chapter to Carl Schmitt's 'theory of dictatorship' (ibid., pp. 335-44).
102. J. A. Passmore, 'The Moral Philosophy of Hobbes', Australian Journal of Psychology and Philosophy, 19 (1941), p. 43; and see Alfred Cobban who includes Hobbes as a major precursor to the modern theory of dictatorship (Alfred Cobban, Dictatorship: Its History and Theory (New York, 1941), pp. 42-50). Cobban also devotes a chapter to Carl Schmitt's 'theory of dictatorship' (ibid., pp. 335-44).
103. William Montgomery McGovern, From Luther to Hitler (New York, 1941), p. 80.
104. Joseph H. Fichter, 'Thomas Hobbes on Absolutism', The Modern Schoolman, XVI, 3 (1939), p. 64.
105. C.E.M. Joad, Guide to the Philosophy of Morals and Politics (London, 1938), pp. 480-1).
106. Gooch, Hobbes, p. 41. The Mussolini article is reprinted in full in The Social and Political Doctrines of Contemporary Europe, ed. Michael Oakeshott (Cambridge, 1939), pp. 164-79.
107. Gooch, Hobbes, p. 41. The Mussolini article is reprinted in full in The Social and Political Doctrines of Contemporary Europe, ed. Michael Oakeshott (Cambridge, 1939), pp. 164-79.
108. Ibid., p. 4.
109. Ibid., p. 23.
110. Ibid., p. 64.
111. Hobbes, Leviathan, p. 91. A Hobbes Society had been founded by Baron Cay von Brockdorff, and there was an international conference on Hobbes at Kiel in 1938. Perhaps both the Germans and Taylor had been drawn to notice Hobbes on his three hundred and fiftieth birthday. Taylor says nothing about it.
112. A.E. Taylor, Hobbes (London, 1908), p. 81.
113. Taylor, 'An Apology for Mr. Hobbes', p. 137.
114. Taylor, 'Ethical Doctrine of Hobbes', p. 422, but see Taylor, 'An Apology for Mr. Hobbes', pp. 130-1.
115. Taylor, 'Ethical Doctrine of Hobbes', p. 422, but see Taylor, 'An Apology for Mr. Hobbes', pp. 130-1.
116. Taylor, 'An Apology for Mr. Hobbes', p. 411.
117. Taylor, Hobbes, p. 73.
118. Ibid., pp. 89-90.
119. Ibid., p. 91.
120. Ibid.
121. Ibid., pp. 102-3.
122. The choice of De Cive over Leviathan is central to the strategy adopted by Taylor in his second and strongest essay. He decided to move away from the latter to the former as 'a corrective to misunderstandings based on exclusive attention to the Leviathan'. Taylor, 'Ethical Doctrine of Hobbes', p. 407. Sterling Lamprecht had also limited himself to De Cive because Leviathan was 'intellectually and philosophically . . . not as fine as the De Cive . . . it lacks reasoned integrity and scholarly poise . . . The De Cive, if less eloquent in its rhetoric, is very much more methodological and clear in its philosophical import' (Sterling Lamprecht, 'Hobbes and Hobbism', American Political Science Review, 34 (1940), p. 33). Warrender, too, while insisting that his thesis could be supported solely by Leviathan, went on to use De Cive extensively, because it did in fact more often support that thesis than did Leviathan. See Warrender's brief remarks in Warrender, The Political Philosophy of Hobbes, pp. vii-viii. Later on, in a note on the publication of a new collected works of Hobbes, Warrender took a slightly different position. 'Superficially', he wrote, 'the various accounts of Hobbes's political philosophy look very similar. The guide to parallel passages shows that this similarity conceals a great deal of divergence.' Howard Warrender, 'Thomas Hobbes: The Collected Works, and a Note on a New Critical Edition', Revista Critica di Storia della Filosophia, 33 (1978), p. 244. Richard Tuck, more recently, argued that Leviathan and De Cive differ significantly on the question of the sovereign's interpretation of scripture. See Richard Tuck, 'Warrender's De Cive', Political Studies, XXXIII (1985), p. 312. The differences between De Cive and Leviathan have been most recently argued in Skinner, Reason and Rhetoric in the Philosophy of Hobbes. Skinner virtually begins with this severe distinction, to wit: 'Hobbes's De Cive is arguably the most important work of political theory in the early 1640s, but it is as violently anti-rhetorical a text as Hobbes was capable of making it.' (Ibid., p. 6.) All in all, Taylor's choice of De Cive as base for his defence of Hobbes was actually to defend a Hobbes so unfamiliar as not to be the one who, even from Taylor's point of view, needed defending or rehabilitation.
123. The choice of De Cive over Leviathan is central to the strategy adopted by Taylor in his second and strongest essay. He decided to move away from the latter to the former as 'a corrective to misunderstandings based on exclusive attention to the Leviathan'. Taylor, 'Ethical Doctrine of Hobbes', p. 407. Sterling Lamprecht had also limited himself to De Cive because Leviathan was 'intellectually and philosophically . . . not as fine as the De Cive . . . it lacks reasoned integrity and scholarly poise . . . The De Cive, if less eloquent in its rhetoric, is very much more methodological and clear in its philosophical import' (Sterling Lamprecht, 'Hobbes and Hobbism', American Political Science Review, 34 (1940), p. 33). Warrender, too, while insisting that his thesis could be supported solely by Leviathan, went on to use De Cive extensively, because it did in fact more often support that thesis than did Leviathan. See Warrender's brief remarks in Warrender, The Political Philosophy of Hobbes, pp. vii-viii. Later on, in a note on the publication of a new collected works of Hobbes, Warrender took a slightly different position. 'Superficially', he wrote, 'the various accounts of Hobbes's political philosophy look very similar. The guide to parallel passages shows that this similarity conceals a great deal of divergence.' Howard Warrender, 'Thomas Hobbes: The Collected Works, and a Note on a New Critical Edition', Revista Critica di Storia della Filosophia, 33 (1978), p. 244. Richard Tuck, more recently, argued that Leviathan and De Cive differ significantly on the question of the sovereign's interpretation of scripture. See Richard Tuck, 'Warrender's De Cive', Political Studies, XXXIII (1985), p. 312. The differences between De Cive and Leviathan have been most recently argued in Skinner, Reason and Rhetoric in the Philosophy of Hobbes. Skinner virtually begins with this severe distinction, to wit: 'Hobbes's De Cive is arguably the most important work of political theory in the early 1640s, but it is as violently anti-rhetorical a text as Hobbes was capable of making it.' (Ibid., p. 6.) All in all, Taylor's choice of De Cive as base for his defence of Hobbes was actually to defend a Hobbes so unfamiliar as not to be the one who, even from Taylor's point of view, needed defending or rehabilitation.
124. The choice of De Cive over Leviathan is central to the strategy adopted by Taylor in his second and strongest essay. He decided to move away from the latter to the former as 'a corrective to misunderstandings based on exclusive attention to the Leviathan'. Taylor, 'Ethical Doctrine of Hobbes', p. 407. Sterling Lamprecht had also limited himself to De Cive because Leviathan was 'intellectually and philosophically . . . not as fine as the De Cive . . . it lacks reasoned integrity and scholarly poise . . . The De Cive, if less eloquent in its rhetoric, is very much more methodological and clear in its philosophical import' (Sterling Lamprecht, 'Hobbes and Hobbism', American Political Science Review, 34 (1940), p. 33). Warrender, too, while insisting that his thesis could be supported solely by Leviathan, went on to use De Cive extensively, because it did in fact more often support that thesis than did Leviathan. See Warrender's brief remarks in Warrender, The Political Philosophy of Hobbes, pp. vii-viii. Later on, in a note on the publication of a new collected works of Hobbes, Warrender took a slightly different position. 'Superficially', he wrote, 'the various accounts of Hobbes's political philosophy look very similar. The guide to parallel passages shows that this similarity conceals a great deal of divergence.' Howard Warrender, 'Thomas Hobbes: The Collected Works, and a Note on a New Critical Edition', Revista Critica di Storia della Filosophia, 33 (1978), p. 244. Richard Tuck, more recently, argued that Leviathan and De Cive differ significantly on the question of the sovereign's interpretation of scripture. See Richard Tuck, 'Warrender's De Cive', Political Studies, XXXIII (1985), p. 312. The differences between De Cive and Leviathan have been most recently argued in Skinner, Reason and Rhetoric in the Philosophy of Hobbes. Skinner virtually begins with this severe distinction, to wit: 'Hobbes's De Cive is arguably the most important work of political theory in the early 1640s, but it is as violently anti-rhetorical a text as Hobbes was capable of making it.' (Ibid., p. 6.) All in all, Taylor's choice of De Cive as base for his defence of Hobbes was actually to defend a Hobbes so unfamiliar as not to be the one who, even from Taylor's point of view, needed defending or rehabilitation.
125. The choice of De Cive over Leviathan is central to the strategy adopted by Taylor in his second and strongest essay. He decided to move away from the latter to the former as 'a corrective to misunderstandings based on exclusive attention to the Leviathan'. Taylor, 'Ethical Doctrine of Hobbes', p. 407. Sterling Lamprecht had also limited himself to De Cive because Leviathan was 'intellectually and philosophically . . . not as fine as the De Cive . . . it lacks reasoned integrity and scholarly poise . . . The De Cive, if less eloquent in its rhetoric, is very much more methodological and clear in its philosophical import' (Sterling Lamprecht, 'Hobbes and Hobbism', American Political Science Review, 34 (1940), p. 33). Warrender, too, while insisting that his thesis could be supported solely by Leviathan, went on to use De Cive extensively, because it did in fact more often support that thesis than did Leviathan. See Warrender's
126. The choice of De Cive over Leviathan is central to the strategy adopted by Taylor in his second and strongest essay. He decided to move away from the latter to the former as 'a corrective to misunderstandings based on exclusive attention to the Leviathan'. Taylor, 'Ethical Doctrine of Hobbes', p. 407. Sterling Lamprecht had also limited himself to De Cive because Leviathan was 'intellectually and philosophically . . . not as fine as the De Cive . . . it lacks reasoned integrity and scholarly poise . . . The De Cive, if less eloquent in its rhetoric, is very much more methodological and clear in its philosophical import' (Sterling Lamprecht, 'Hobbes and Hobbism', American Political Science Review, 34 (1940), p. 33). Warrender, too, while insisting that his thesis could be supported solely by Leviathan, went on to use De Cive extensively, because it did in fact more often support that thesis than did Leviathan. See Warrender's brief remarks in Warrender, The Political Philosophy of Hobbes, pp. vii-viii. Later on, in a note on the publication of a new collected works of Hobbes, Warrender took a slightly different position. 'Superficially', he wrote, 'the various accounts of Hobbes's political philosophy look very similar. The guide to parallel passages shows that this similarity conceals a great deal of divergence.' Howard Warrender, 'Thomas Hobbes: The Collected Works, and a Note on a New Critical Edition', Revista Critica di Storia della Filosophia, 33 (1978), p. 244. Richard Tuck, more recently, argued that Leviathan and De Cive differ significantly on the question of the sovereign's interpretation of scripture. See Richard Tuck, 'Warrender's De Cive', Political Studies, XXXIII (1985), p. 312. The differences between De Cive and Leviathan have been most recently argued in Skinner, Reason and Rhetoric in the Philosophy of Hobbes. Skinner virtually begins with this severe distinction, to wit: 'Hobbes's De Cive is arguably the most important work of political theory in the early 1640s, but it is as violently anti-rhetorical a text as Hobbes was capable of making it.' (Ibid., p. 6.) All in all, Taylor's choice of De Cive as base for his defence of Hobbes was actually to defend a Hobbes so unfamiliar as not to be the one who, even from Taylor's point of view, needed defending or rehabilitation.
127. The choice of De Cive over Leviathan is central to the strategy adopted by Taylor in his second and strongest essay. He decided to move away from the latter to the former as 'a corrective to misunderstandings based on exclusive attention to the Leviathan'. Taylor, 'Ethical Doctrine of Hobbes', p. 407. Sterling Lamprecht had also limited himself to De Cive because Leviathan was 'intellectually and philosophically . . . not as fine as the De Cive . . . it lacks reasoned integrity and scholarly poise . . . The De Cive, if less eloquent in its rhetoric, is very much more methodological and clear in its philosophical import' (Sterling Lamprecht, 'Hobbes and Hobbism', American Political Science Review, 34 (1940), p. 33). Warrender, too, while insisting that his thesis could be supported solely by Leviathan, went on to use De Cive extensively, because it did in fact more often support that thesis than did Leviathan. See Warrender's brief remarks in Warrender, The Political Philosophy of Hobbes, pp. vii-viii. Later on, in a note on the publication of a new collected works of Hobbes, Warrender took a slightly different position. 'Superficially', he wrote, 'the various accounts of Hobbes's political philosophy look very similar. The guide to parallel passages shows that this similarity conceals a great deal of divergence.' Howard Warrender, 'Thomas Hobbes: The Collected Works, and a Note on a New Critical Edition', Revista Critica di Storia della Filosophia, 33 (1978), p. 244. Richard Tuck, more recently, argued that Leviathan and De Cive differ significantly on the question of the sovereign's interpretation of scripture. See Richard Tuck, 'Warrender's De Cive', Political Studies, XXXIII (1985), p. 312. The differences between De Cive and Leviathan have been most recently argued in Skinner, Reason and Rhetoric in the Philosophy of Hobbes. Skinner virtually begins with this severe distinction, to wit: 'Hobbes's De Cive is arguably the most important work of political theory in the early 1640s, but it is as violently anti-rhetorical a text as Hobbes was capable of making it.' (Ibid., p. 6.) All in all, Taylor's choice of De Cive as base for his defence of Hobbes was actually to defend a Hobbes so unfamiliar as not to be the one who, even from Taylor's point of view, needed defending or rehabilitation.
128. The choice of De Cive over Leviathan is central to the strategy adopted by Taylor in his second and strongest essay. He decided to move away from the latter to the former as 'a corrective to misunderstandings based on exclusive attention to the Leviathan'. Taylor, 'Ethical Doctrine of Hobbes', p. 407. Sterling Lamprecht had also limited himself to De Cive because Leviathan was 'intellectually and philosophically . . . not as fine as the De Cive . . . it lacks reasoned integrity and scholarly poise . . . The De Cive, if less eloquent in its rhetoric, is very much more methodological and clear in its philosophical import' (Sterling Lamprecht, 'Hobbes and Hobbism', American Political Science Review, 34 (1940), p. 33). Warrender, too, while insisting that his thesis could be supported solely by Leviathan, went on to use De Cive extensively, because it did in fact more often support that thesis than did Leviathan. See Warrender's brief remarks in Warrender, The Political Philosophy of Hobbes, pp. vii-viii. Later on, in a note on the publication of a new collected works of Hobbes, Warrender took a slightly different position. 'Superficially', he wrote, 'the various accounts of Hobbes's political philosophy look very similar. The guide to parallel passages shows that this similarity conceals a great deal of divergence.' Howard Warrender, 'Thomas Hobbes: The Collected Works, and a Note on a New Critical Edition', Revista Critica di Storia della Filosophia, 33 (1978), p. 244. Richard Tuck, more recently, argued that Leviathan and De Cive differ significantly on the question of the sovereign's interpretation of scripture. See Richard Tuck, 'Warrender's De Cive', Political Studies, XXXIII (1985), p. 312. The differences between De Cive and Leviathan have been most recently argued in Skinner, Reason and Rhetoric in the Philosophy of Hobbes. Skinner virtually begins with this severe distinction, to wit: 'Hobbes's De Cive is arguably the most important work of political theory in the early 1640s, but it is as violently anti-rhetorical a text as Hobbes was capable of making it.' (Ibid., p. 6.) All in all, Taylor's choice of De Cive as base for his defence of Hobbes was actually to defend a Hobbes so unfamiliar as not to be the one who, even from Taylor's point of view, needed defending or rehabilitation.
129. See note 2, above.
130. Oddly, neither paper cites or refers to the other or to Taylor's own book in any way.
131. Taylor, 'An Apology for Mr. Hobbes', p. 129.
132. Taylor cites Laird twice (once in each essay) without referencing a source. The quotes are prejudicial and used as authority for points simply not otherwise capable of being made about Hobbes. In the first, in characterizing Hobbes's moral theory at large, Taylor writes that it 'is, as Professor Laird has said, "wicked", in a way which Hobbes is not' (Taylor, 'An Apology for Mr. Hobbes', p. 137 n.). In the second is this: 'that Hobbes was a fundamentally honest man, and a man, as Professor Laird has said, with an almost overwhelming sense of duty' (Taylor, 'Ethical Doctrine of Hobbes', p. 422).
133. Taylor cites Laird twice (once in each essay) without referencing a source. The quotes are prejudicial and used as authority for points simply not otherwise capable of being made about Hobbes. In the first, in characterizing Hobbes's moral theory at large, Taylor writes that it 'is, as Professor Laird has said, "wicked", in a way which Hobbes is not' (Taylor, 'An Apology for Mr. Hobbes', p. 137 n.). In the second is this: 'that Hobbes was a fundamentally honest man, and a man, as Professor Laird has said, with an almost overwhelming sense of duty' (Taylor, 'Ethical Doctrine of Hobbes', p. 422).
134. Taylor, 'An Apology for Mr. Hobbes', p. 147. In 1925, however, in one of J.H. Muirhead's two volumes of 'personal statements' by contemporary philosophers, Taylor had written of Hobbes that when he 'actually defined "the will" as the "last appetite in deliberation", he virtually denied that there is any such act as choice. Hence, against him, it had to be shown, first that choice is a genuine specific experience, and next that there is a real moral difference between choosing to do a thing because you judge the doing of it to be good and doing it because you are terrified by the menaces of a human or superhuman despot.' A.E. Taylor, 'The Freedom of Man', in J.H. Muirhead, Contemporary British Philosophy (London, 1925), p. 276 (emphasis added).
135. Taylor, 'An Apology for Mr. Hobbes', p. 147. In 1925, however, in one of J.H. Muirhead's two volumes of 'personal statements' by contemporary philosophers, Taylor had written of Hobbes that when he 'actually defined "the will" as the "last appetite in deliberation", he virtually denied that there is any such act as choice. Hence, against him, it had to be shown, first that choice is a genuine specific experience, and next that there is a real moral difference between choosing to do a thing because you judge the doing of it to be good and doing it because you are terrified by the menaces of a human or superhuman despot.' A.E. Taylor, 'The Freedom of Man', in J.H. Muirhead, Contemporary British Philosophy (London, 1925), p. 276 (emphasis added).
136. Taylor, 'An Apology for Mr Hobbes', p. 129.
137. Ibid. 89 Ibid., p. 139.
138. Ibid., p. 142. In his Gifford Lectures, delivered in 1926-8 and published in 1931, Taylor still held a more caustic opinion of Hobbes's views on God. Acknowledging that on Hobbes's view there might well be as many religions as there were individuals, 'this does not very much matter' to Hobbes, because 'he really cares nothing about religion and wholly disbelieves in its worth as a knowledge and worship of God. Knowledge of God, according to his philosophy, is impossible, because God is 'ingenerable'. Obedience to established worship is no more than an obedience to law compounded with an unwillingness 'to disturb the King's peace for any metaphysical puillets of our own' (A.E. Taylor, Faith of a Moralist (London, 1931), Vol. II, pp. 203-4.
139. Ibid., p. 142. In his Gifford Lectures, delivered in 1926-8 and published in 1931, Taylor still held a more caustic opinion of Hobbes's views on God. Acknowledging that on Hobbes's view there might well be as many religions as there were individuals, 'this does not very much matter' to Hobbes, because 'he really cares nothing about religion and wholly disbelieves in its worth as a knowledge and worship of God. Knowledge of God, according to his philosophy, is impossible, because God is 'ingenerable'. Obedience to established worship is no more than an obedience to law compounded with an unwillingness 'to disturb the King's peace for any metaphysical puillets of our own' (A.E. Taylor, Faith of a Moralist (London, 1931), Vol. II, pp. 203-4.
140. Taylor, 'An Apology for Mr Hobbes', pp. 145-7.
141. Taylor, 'Ethical Doctrine of Hobbes', pp. 406-7.
142. Ibid., p. 407.
143. Ibid., p. 406.
144. Ibid., p. 408.
145. Ibid.
146. In a 1939 essay, 'The Right and the Good', in which he discussed the 'new deontology' of Ross and Prichard, Taylor distinguished his own views with respect to the obligations created by law and its sanctions. They were only further inducements to an obligation already rooted in promises and other social acts. 'I, do not, of course', Taylor wrote, 'mean by saying this to agree with the utilitarian thesis that "a penal sanction" is part of the very meaning of obligation. My view is rather that of Hobbes that the law and its penalties "tie a man being bound".' A.E. Taylor, 'The Right and the Good', Mind, XLVIII (1939), p. 273.
147. In a 1939 essay, 'The Right and the Good', in which he discussed the 'new deontology' of Ross and Prichard, Taylor distinguished his own views with respect to the obligations created by law and its sanctions. They were only further inducements to an obligation already rooted in promises and other social acts. 'I, do not, of course', Taylor wrote, 'mean by saying this to agree with the utilitarian thesis that "a penal sanction" is part of the very meaning of obligation. My view is rather that of Hobbes that the law and its penalties "tie a man being bound".' A.E. Taylor, 'The Right and the Good', Mind, XLVIII (1939), p. 273.
148. Taylor, 'Ethical Doctrine of Hobbes', p. 415.
149. Ibid.
150. Ibid.
151. Ibid., p. 418.
152. Hobbes, Leviathan, p. 42.
153. Taylor, 'Ethical Doctrine of Hobbes', p. 422.
154. Ibid.
155. Ibid., p. 420.
156. Ibid., p. 410.
157. Ibid., pp. 406-7.
158. Ibid.
159. Ibid., p. 410.
160. Ibid.
161. Ibid., p. 408.
162. Ibid., p. 411.
163. Ibid.
164. Ibid.
165. Ibid., p. 412.
166. Ibid., p. 414.
167. Ibid.,p. 415.
168. Ibid.
169. Ibid.
170. Ibid.
171. Ibid., p. 417.
172. Ibid., p. 418.
173. Ibid.
174. Ibid.
175. Ibid., p. 419.
176. Ibid., p. 420.
177. Ibid., p. 422.
178. This is not meant, by the way, to be anything like a complete or systematic criticism of Taylor's article. The misreadings and sleights of hand are too extensive to be pursued here and, as illustrated by Stuart Brown's earlier critique, the temptation is often just to substitute the contours of one's own reading for Taylor's and that is not my purpose. Moreover, I cannot conceive of a systematic criticism of Taylor that did not find itself drawn irresistibly into discussion of Warrender's longer, sharper, more honest and more carefully argued presentation. That, too, is beyond the scope of the present writing.
179. Hobbes, Leviathan, pp. 110-11.
180. Taylor, 'Ethical Doctrine of Hobbes', p. 412.
181. Ibid., p. 411.
182. Ibid.
183. Ibid., p. 412, citing Hobbes, De Cive, III, 29.
184. Ibid., p. 412, citing Hobbes, De Cive, III, 29.
185. Ibid., p. 414.
186. Ibid., p. 415.
187. Taylor, 'An Apology for Mr. Hobbes', p. 129.
188. Taylor, 'Ethical Doctrine of Hobbes', p. 413.
189. Ibid.
190. Ibid., p. 414.
191. Ibid., p. 416.
192. Ibid., p. 417.
193. Ibid.
194. Ibid., p. 418.
195. Hobbes, De Cive, I, 10.
196. Du contrat social, I, ii.
197. It is, after all, a very different thing to say, as von Leyden has said (and as Taylor also believed), that 'neither can there be any doubt that [Hobbes] himself was not an atheist', and saying, as we have repeatedly seen Taylor do, that God plays a significant theoretical role in Hobbes's political thought. See, W. von Leyden, Hobbes and Locke (London, 1982), p. 70.