Hobbism in the later 1660s: Daniel Scargill and Samuel Parker

Historical Journal

Volumn 42, Issue 1, 1999, Pages 85-108

  Parkin, Jon ^a  

^a Selwyn College   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 41849142140     PISSN: 0018246X     EISSN: 14695103     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0018246X98008127     Document Type: Article

References (119)

1. For Hobbes's claims about his continental following see Quentin Skinner, 'Thomas Hobbes and his disciples in France and England', Comparative Studies in Society and History, 8 (1996), pp. 153-67. The classic account of the reception of Hobbes's works is Samuel Mintz's The hunting of Leviathan: seventeenth-century reactions to the materialism and moral philosophy of Thomas Hobbes (Cambridge, 1969), but see also John Bowie, Hobbes and his critics: a study in seventeenth-century constitutionalism (London, 1951).
2. For the most recent account, see Mark Goldie, 'The reception of Hobbes', in J. H. Bums and Mark Goldie, eds., The Cambridge history of political thought, 1450-1700 (Cambridge, 1991), pp. 589-615.
3. On Hobbes's use of provocative rhetoric, see particular Quentin Skinner, Reason and rhetoric in the philosophy of Thomas Hobbes (Cambridge, 1996).
4. See particularly John Marshall 'The ecclesiology of the latitude-men, 1660-1689: Stillingfleet, Tillotson and "Hobbism"', Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 26 (1985), pp. 407-27.
5. S. P. Lamprecht, 'Hobbes and Hobbism', American Political Science Review, 34 (1940), pp. 31-53.
6. The Scargill affair has been discussed in detail by C. L. S. Linnel, 'Daniel Scargill, a penitent Hobbist', Church Quarterly Review, 156 (1953), pp. 256-65.
7. A much more substantial consideration of the manuscript sources is given in J. Axtell, 'The mechanics of opposition: Restoration Cambridge v. Daniel Scargill', Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, 38 (1965), pp. 102-11.
8. For briefer discussions see Mintz, Hunting of Leviathan, pp. 50-2;
9. John Twigg, The university of Cambridge and the English Revolution (Woodbridge, 1990), pp. 259-60.
10. R. Masters, The history of' the college of Corpus Christi and the Blessed Virgin Mary (Cambridge, 1753), p. 151.
11. Throughout this paper I shall use the term 'latitudinarian' to denote individuals with these particular qualities in mind. Although John Spurr has quite rightly attacked the idea of latitudinarianism as an organized movement in the Church of England, the term can, I believe, be used more loosely to describe those conforming Anglicans who did have an interest in stoic and scholastic naturalism.
12. For a further discussion of this tradition see J. Parkin, Science, religion and politics in Restoration England: Richard Cumberland's De legibus naturae (Woodbridgc, forthcoming), chs. 2, 5.
13. For John Spurr's attack on the concept of latitudinarianism see '"Latitudinarianism" and the Restoration church', Historical Journal, 31 (1988), pp. 61-82.
14. Spencer's work was specifically responding to Mirabilis annus or the year of prodigies and wonders, being a faithfull and impartial collection of several signs that hath been seen in the heavens, in the earth, and in the waters (London, 1660).
15. John Spencer, A discourse concerning prodigies (London, 1663), p. 76.
16. Ibid., p. 57.
17. Scargill matriculated as a 'sizar', a class of student who received 'sizes', or buttery expenses, in return for domestic services rendered to the wealthier students. This system allowed poorer students to work their way through their degrees. J. Venn, Alumni Cantabrigienses (4 vols., Cambridge, 1927), iv, p. 28.
18. Tenison would go on to correspond with the Royal Society. For Tenison's medical training see W. Hutton's entry for Tenison in the Dictionary of national biography (London, 1898), lvi, p. 57.
19. For Tenison's contacts with the Royal Society, see The correspondence of Henry Oldenburg, ed. A. Rupert Hall and Marie Boas Hall (11 vols., Madison, 1965-77), vii, pp. 494-5;
20. viii, pp. 348, 430.
21. Corpus Christi College Chapter Book, 1660s.
22. Henry Gostling, another Corpus fellow, and his opponent in this instance, testified that Scargill had openly asserted that Origo mundi potest explicari mechanice. Lambeth Palace MS 941, fo. 108.
23. For Charleton, sec M. J. Osier, 'Descartes and Walter Charleton on nature and God', Journal of the History of Ideas, 40 (1979), pp. 445-56;
24. For Boyle's opinion of Gassendi see R. Kargon, 'Robert Boyle and the acceptance of Epicurean atomism in England', Isis, 45 (1964), pp. 184-92;
25. J. J. MacIntosh, 'Robert Boyle on Epicurean atheism and atomism', in M. Osier, eds., Atoms, pneuma and tranquility (Cambridge, 1991), pp. 197-220;
26. idem, 'The intellectual sources of Robert Boyle's philosophy of nature: Gassendi's voluntarism, and Boyle's physico-theological project', in R. Kroll, R. Ashcraft, and P. Zagorin, eds., Philosophy, science and religion in England, 1640-1700 (Cambridge, 1992), pp. 178-98.
27. For Epicureanism in England more generally see T. F. Mayo, Epicurus in England, 1650-1725 (Dallas, 1934);
28. R. F. Kroll, The material word: literate culture in the Restoration and early eighteenth century (Baltimore, 1991).
29. For this critical response to Cartesianism, see Parkin, Science, religion and politics in Restoration England, ch. 5.
30. On this aspect of the disputation see M. Feingold, The mathematicians' apprenticeship: science, universities and society in England, 1560-1640 (Cambridge, 1984), pp. 103-4;
31. A. C. Kors, Atheism in France, 1650-1729 (Princeton, 1990), pp. 84-5, 90-1, 285-7, 293.
32. Walter Charleton, The darkness of atheism dispelled by the light of nature (London 1652), p. 125.
33. It is also worth noting that such a position is not all that far removed from Spencer's desire to prevent people speculating about God's intentions on the basis of natural phenomena. Cf. Spencer, A discourse concerning vulgar prophecies (London, 1665), p. 131.
34. In November 1668, Edmund Boldero, vice-chancellor of the university, passed a decree forbidding undergraduates and bachelors of arts from basing their disputations on Cartesian work. For the reception of the new philosophy in Cambridge during this period, see John Gascoigne, Cambridge in the age of the Enlightenment: science, religion and politics from the Restoration to the French Revolution (Cambridge, 1989), p. 56.
35. For Boldero's decree see Bodleian Library, Oxford, Rawlinson MS C.146, fo. 35.
36. Axtell takes this as evidence that some of the arguments used by Scargill could have come from Tenison in the course of regular teaching. Although this is possible, in this instance Tenison's testimony is from a visit which he made to Corpus from his living near Huntingdon, in 1668. It is possible that such a visit might have been undertaken at Spencer's request, in order to try and wean Scargill off Epicureanism. Axtell, 'The mechanics of opposition', p. 109 n. 2;
37. cf. Lambeth MS 941, fo. 108, section 3.
38. Although similar ideas could be found in Lucretius' De rerum natura. Materialist ideas had also been used during the 1640s by radical writers such as Richard Overton, particularly in his Man's morialitie; or, a treatise wherein 'tis proved both theologically and phylosophically, that whole man, as a rationall creature, is a compound wholly mortall, contrary to that common distinction of soule and body (London, 1644).
39. This supports Michael Hunter's suggestion that we should reconsider the degree to which public and published sentiments reflect the full extent of heterodox discussion, particularly as the Scargill affair reveals the existence of such discussion in private conversation. M. Hunter, 'The witchcraft controversy and the nature of free thought in Restoration England: John Wagstaffe's The question of witchcraft debated (1669) 'and idem, "'Aikenhead the Atheist": the context and consequences of articulate irreligion in the late seventeenth century', in M. Hunter, Science and the shape of orthodoxy: intellectual change in late seventeenth-century Britain (Woodbridge, 1995), pp. 286-307, 308-32.
40. Lambeth MS 941, fo. 108, section 5.
41. Ibid., section 6. This evidence is usually taken to indicate that Scargill was taking his Hobbes from books like Ward's. There is, however, no reason to suppose that Hobbes's work was unavailable to Scargill. Thomas Tenison, his tutor, carefully quoted a whole range of Hobbesian works in constructing The creed of Mr Hobbes examin'd (London, 1670). Scargill's comment shows that he was familiar enough with the material to have formed a judgement about Ward's book. It is surely better to say that he was consulting the work in order to prepare for a disputation in which he would inevitably have to face Ward's well-known critique.
42. If Charleton could refer to Hobbes as that 'Noble Enquirer into Truth' who had published that 'inestimable manual of humane nature' in 1650, it was an opinion which he kept into the 1670s, when, as a fellow of the Royal Society, he could refer to 'our Incomparable Mr Hobs.' Charleton, Delirameta catarrhi (London, 1650), sig. Aiv; Concerning the different wits of men (London, 1669), Preface. For Charleton's many references to Hobbes see C. D. Thorpe, The aesthetic theory of Thomas Hobbes (Michigan, 1940), pp. 176-88.
43. The court consisted of the following heads of houses: Edmund Boldero (Jesus), James Fleetwood (King's), Richard Minshull (Sidney Sussex), Peter Gunning (St John's), Theophilus Dillingham (Clare Hall), John Spencer (Corpus), Robert King (Trinity Hall), Robert Brady (Gonville and Caius), John Pearson (Trinity). The ideological composition of the court in many ways represented the strength of high-churchmen restored to university office by royal mandate after the Restoration. In some cases this had been at the calculated expense of latitudinarian incumbents, as in Fleetwood's replacement of Benjamin Whichcote, and Gunning's ejection of John Tillotson from his Clare Hall fellowship. For information on heads of house during the Restoration, see Twigg, The university of Cambridge and the English Revolution, p. 239.
44. It is worth noting that this penalty was in line with the abortive bill against atheism which had been introduced in 1666. It was sent up into the Lords in October 1667 with the provision that first offenders should be fined and required to make public recantations before the court and in their parish church. Although the bill was never passed, it was probably with such deliberations in mind that the consistory court delivered their (perhaps surprisingly lenient) sentence.
45. For details of the bill and its relationship to anti-Hobbesian feeling in the later 1660s, see P. Milton, 'Hobbes, heresy and Lord Arlington', History of Political Thought, 14 (1993), pp. 516-21. Scargill was lucky to escape so lightly; in the same year in Scotland, another enthusiast of the new science, Robert Hamilton, fell foul of the university authorities in Aberdeen for references to Hobbes in his Schediasmata libero-philosophica (Edinburgh, 1668).
46. For Hamilton see C. Shepherd, 'Philosophy and science in the arts curriculum of the Scottish universities in the seventeenth century' (Ph. D. thesis, Edinburgh, 1975), pp. 148, 200, 262-3, 307;
47. The diary of Mr John Lamont of Newton, 1649-71, ed. J. R. Murdoch (Edinburgh, 1830), pp. 207-8.
48. This was a theme which Spencer would expand in his De legibus Hebraeorum (London, 1685), which systematically developed the highly controversial thesis that the Hebrew priesthood had encouraged superstition and idolatry on the model of the Egyptians. Another writer to be discussing the urim and thummim (a form of priestly divination mentioned cryptically in Exodus 28.30) from an erastian and anti-clerical perspective was, of course, Thomas Hobbes, in chapter 42 of Leviathan, where it was discussed in the context of illusory supports for papal power, and also (at the same time as Spencer) in the unpublished Behemoth. For discussion of Spencer's thesis see J. A. I. Champion, The pillars of priestcraft shaken: the Church of England and its enemies, 1660-1730 (Cambridge, 1992), pp. 155-7.
49. For Hobbes's references to urim and thummim, see The English works of Thomas Hobbes, ed. W. Molesworth (11 vols., London, 1839-45), 111, p. 557; vi, p. 279.
50. Several names recur frequently in the testimony supplied as evidence against Scargill: William Briggs (1642-1704), Henry Gostling (1648-75), Richard Sheldrake (1638-1720), and Erasmus Lane (1640-1715). Briggs was another of Tenison's students whose election to the fellowship had been opposed by Scargill. Gostling was Scargill's opponent in the November disputation. Sheldrake and Lane were more senior fellows. Lane clearly had a talent for this kind of work; in the autumn of 1669 he organized similar material in another petition, this time designed to exclude the memorably named Wormley Martin, of Jesus College, from a Corpus fellowship on the grounds of 'dissolute and improper conduct'. Corpus Christi College Book; Lambeth MS 941, fo. 108;
51. petition of Corpus Christi College, London, Public Record Office, State Papers Domestic, Charles II, 29/266/143, fo. 1.
52. Lambeth MS 941, fo. 108. Scargill was in a difficult situation because the college statutes required new fellows to swear an oath on admission acknowledging that 'in case of an ejection for any notorious Scandall, it shall not be lawfull for the person soe ejected to endeavour his restitution by a Suit commenc't against the Master', ibid. Scargill tried to get around this by persuading his father to act as the intermediary, but the college protested that he had perjured his oath. Lambeth MS 941, fo. 107.
53. Scargill's contacts in this instance are not known. The letters must have originated from the office of Arlington, and more specifically from that of his secretary, Joseph Williamson, which was a clearing house for this sort of patronage. Twigg suggests that in this instance we can see the readiness with which individual petitioners could enlist the crown into their disputes without much official scrutiny of their claims. Although this was undoubtedly true in some instances, it was also commonly the case that such favours were granted in return for services either rendered or promised. It is hard to see what Scargill had to offer in dragging the crown into a protracted struggle with its own placemen in the consistory court. It should also be born in mind that another client of Arlington at this time was Thomas Hobbes himself.
54. For discussion of the Scargill case in the context of crown disputes with the universities, see Axtell, 'Mechanics of opposition', and Twigg, The University of Cambridge and the English Revolution, pp. 259-60.
55. Sheldon to Spencer, 28 June 1669, Lambeth MS 674, fo. 9.
56. The court on the hearings of 7, 14, and 21 July consisted of Edmund Boldero (Jesus), John Pearson (Trinity), Peter Gunning (St John's), James Fleetwood (King's), Joseph Beaumont (Peterhouse), Theophilus Dillingham (Clare Hall), Robert Brady (Gonville and Caius) and John Spencer (Corpus). Records for Great St Mary's Church, 1587-1669, Cambridge University Archives CUR 18/6 (d-e).
57. According to the university records of the hearing, the Recantation was checked by Gunning after the meeting of 14 July, and again by Dillingham and Pearson after the meeting on 21 July. Ibid.
58. Lambeth MS 941, fo. 107.
59. The text can be read either in the original Recantation of Daniel Scargill (Cambridge, 1669), or more accessibly in Linnel, 'Daniel Scargill', pp. 257-60.
60. The Recantation certainly made a substantial impact in Cambridge, and the pamphlet was clearly much-sought-after; John Gibson of St John's wrote to a friend the day after the recantation that' the news that fills all mouths here is the recantation of Sir Scargill, which I have sent you in print...to read it at large'. 'The letters of John Gibson', Cambridge Antiquarian Proceedings and Communications, 8 (1891-2), p. 73.
61. The level of publicity surrounding the case was such that among the reasons marshalled by Corpus as to why they could not take Scargill back was that he had 'now become so infamous throughout the University if not the whole nation for his pernicious principles and debaucheries'. Lambeth MS 941, fo. 107.
62. Hobbes, Leviathan, ed. R. Tuck (Cambridge, 1991), pp. 343-5.
63. Scargill, Recantation, pp. 5-6.
64. The Corpus fellows clearly recognized the disastrous effect of the interpolation, and quoted Scargill's own discussion of the problem as a reason why they could not take the Recantation seriously. Lambeth MS 941, fo. 107.
65. Scargill, Recantation, pp. 1, 4. Intriguingly, the first list contains illustrations which bring out the darker implications of Scargill's theses.
66. For example, the proposition about all right being founded in power is' clarified' with the proposition that if the devil were omnipotent, then he ought to be obeyed. There is no evidence outside the Recantation that Scargill ever subscribed to these lurid statements. Whether this was an attempt to spell out the implications of Hobbism to a less learned audience, or a rather more straightforward attempt to move Scargill further beyond the pale, or even both, is not entirely clear.
67. For Hobbes's original comments, see, respectively, De cive, i.xiv, xv. v; Leviathan, chs. 26, 33, 36. The first thesis follows the argument in De cive. However, it should be noted that the rhetoric throughout Recantation is designed to stress the positivism in Hobbes's arguments. Theses 2 to 4 imply that Hobbes simply founds moral and divine laws upon the sovereign's will, their content being essentially arbitrary. However, the context for Hobbes's discussion is not that' conventional' moral laws have no validity; it is that formal obligation to such moral 'theoremes' is problematic - they thus need to be authorized by the sovereign power to provide a clear legal obligation.
68. Parker is more usually seen as an eccentric high churchman. For this view see J. G. A. Pocock, 'Thomas Hobbes, atheist or enthusiast? His place in Restoration debate', History of Political Thought, 11 (1990), pp. 737-49.
69. For more sympathetic treatments see Richard Ashcraft, Revolutionary politics and Locke's 'Two treatises of government' (Princeton, 1986), pp. 41-54;
70. Gordon Schochet, 'Between Lambeth and Leviathan: Samuel Parker on the church of England and political order', in N. Phillipson and Q. Skinner, eds., Political discourse in early-modem Britain (Cambridge, 1993), pp. 189-208.
71. Samuel Parker, Of the nature and extent of God's dominion (Oxford, 1667), p. 126 (p. 2 in the 1666 edition). Parker maintains that no definition of dominion is 'more accurate and comprehensive than Mr Hobs's'.
72. Richard Baxter, Reasons of the Christian religion (London, 1667), p. 520.
73. The title pages for the first edition of the work bear the date 1670, but this must be an error, as several replies to the work appeared in 1669.
74. If Patrick was the S. P. who wrote the Brief account, then this view can be tracked back to that pamphlet where it is noted as a distinguishing feature of latitudinarians: 'They espouse settled liturgy and saw government as the best way to prevent anarchy in days when every preacher was a bishop and every rustick and mechanick took upon them to be a preacher.' S. P., Brief account, p. 8.
75. For use of the natural law argument by Patrick in the later 1660s, see Friendly debate (London, 1668), pp. 104-7, 421-2.
76. Richard Ashcraft has also noted some of the more intolerant aspects of latitudinarian thought in his article, 'Latitudinarianism and toleration: historical myth versus political history', in Kroll, Ashcraft, and Zagorin, eds., Philosophy, science and religion in England, pp. 151-77.
77. For the intellectual background to Restoration persecution, see also Mark Goldie, 'The theory of religious intolerance in Restoration England', in O. P. Grell, J. I. Israel, and N. Tyacke, eds., From persecution to toleration: the Glorious Revolution and religion in England (Oxford, 1991), ch. 13.
78. Parker, Discourse of ecclesiastical polity (London, 1670), p. 28.
79. Ibid., p. 31.
80. Ibid., pp. 82, 104.
81. Ibid., p. 93.
82. Cf. Stillingfleet, Irenicum (London, 1662), p. 72;
83. Patrick, Friendly debate, p. 113;
84. Parker Defence and continuation (London, 1671), pp. 104-7.
85. Parker, Defence and continuation, pp. 98-9.
86. Cf. Hobbes, Leviathan, ch. 42, p. 343.
87. Parker's account of natural sociability was indebted to Grotius's De jure belli ac pacis (1625), and possibly also to Pufendorf's early work, Elementorum jurisprudentiae universalis (1660). The reassertion of Grotian natural sociability became a key feature of the latitudinarian response to Hobbes.
88. For identification of Parker as a Hobbist see Richard Baxter, Reliquiae Baxterianae (London, 1696), part 11, p. 123;
89. John Humfrey, A case of conscience (London, 1669), pp. 11, 12;
90. Henry Stubbe, Rosemary and bayes (London, 1672), p. 18. Anon., Insolence and impudence triumphant (London, 1669), sig. A3r.
91. John Owen, Truth and innocence (London, 1669), p. 103.
92. Parker, Defence and continuation, p. 279.
93. Herbert Thorndike, Discourse (London, 1670), pp. 113-14.
94. The difference between the printed version and the manuscript is discussed in Herbert Thorndike, Works (Oxford, 1854), v, p. 449, note u. I would like to thank Mark Goldie for bringing this reference to my attention.
95. It is worth pointing out that this problem of political and religious identity affected several groups and institutions in the later 1660s. Groups and institutions whose nominal identity was predicated upon the problematic Restoration settlement (e.g. conformist Anglicans, as opposed to Dissenters, both labels concealing a vast diversity of outlook) came under pressure to identify themselves in the increasingly murky and turbulent politics of the period after 1667. Failure to do so allowed opponents to put unfavourable constructions upon ill-defined groups. 'Latitude-men' are one example, the Royal Society, predicated as it was on a hopelessly eirenic Baconianism, was another institution likened to anything from a Jesuit beachhead to a puritan conventicle. Anxiety about who represented what (including the monarch) was a distinctive feature of a polity which was far from accepting the real fissures at its core.
96. Fowler states that the Hobbesian position is that' all moral righteousness is founded in the law of the Civill Magistrate, that the scriptures are obliging by vertue only of a Civill sanction: that whatsoever the magistrates command, their subjects are bound to submit to, notwithstanding Divine Moral Laws'. These are theses 2 to 4 in the Recantation. This usage of Scargill's work demonstrated the extent to which the Recantation came to dominate the public image of Hobbes (whose own works were, of course, in notoriously short supply) in the later 1660s. Fowler, Principles and practices, p. 12.
97. For use of the Recantation's theses as representations of Hobbes's own thought, see the commonplace book entry on 'The principles of Mr Hobbes', in British Library, Sloane MS 904.
98. John Shafte, The great law of nature (London, 1673), p. 120.
99. For discussion of Cumberland's place in this debate see Parkin, Science, religion and politics in Restoration England, ch. 1.
100. Richard Cumberland, De legibus naturae (London, 1672), ch. v, sect, xxxvii.
101. These comments are in Locke, Political essays, ed. Mark Goldie (Cambridge, 1997), pp. 212-14.
102. See particularly Locke's unpublished Essay on toleration (1667), in Locke, Political essays, pp. 134-59.
103. R. S. Woolhouse, Locke (Brighton, 1983), p. 7;
104. Richard Ashcraft has argued very strongly that Locke's Essay should be seen in the context of the Parker controversy; Ashcraft, Revolutionary politics and Locke's 'Two treatises of government', pp. 110-11.
105. For Hobbes's burst of productivity in the later 1660s, see Tuck, Philosophy and government, pp. 340-5.
106. For discussion of the missing letter see Hobbes, The correspondence of Thomas Hobbes, ed. Noel Malcolm (2 vols., Oxford, 1994), 1, p. lvi.
107. See also John Aubrey's discussion of the affair: Brief lives, ed. A. Clark (2 vols., Oxford, 1898), 1, p. 360.
108. Since the completion of this article, an interesting new piece of evidence about Hobbes's reply has come to light. A letter from Scargill to Tenison, written in December 1680, shows that Scargill received a copy of Hobbes's manuscript. In response to a query about its contents, Scargill reported that:' I wish I could retrieve a copy of Mr Hobbes his papers writ agt ye University of Cambridges proceedings in my Business. He writt about 3 or 4 sheets of paper, but I remember little of ym but yt he pleaded ye University had forfeited her Charter by exceeding her Commission or delegated Authority and he made a mighty quoting of his Leviathan in defence of himself yt I remember Sir John Birkenhead fell a Swearing This man's starved yt takes his own flesh.' Scargill tried to publish the piece himself but could not obtain a licence to do so. When he discovered Scargill's intention, Birkenhead confiscated the manuscript. Scargill's account suggests that Hobbes was using the incident to discuss several issues close to his heart in the later 1660s. Scargill had been punished for holding Hobbesian beliefs by what was in effect an ecclesiastical court. Hobbes, doubtless with an eye to his own fate, probably argued that the University had exceeded its authority in punishing Scargill. The letter thus developed themes familiar from Hobbes's other writings on heresy from the period. The incident also gave him an opportunity to attack the autonomy of the clericallydominated universities, whose reform Hobbes saw as essential in his ongoing struggle against priestcraft.
109. For Scargill's letter see British Museum Add MSS 38693 fo. 30. For Hobbes's writings on heresy, see Tuck, Philosophy and government, pp. 340-5;
110. P. Milton, 'Hobbes, heresy and Lord Arlington', pp. 501-46.
111. The Recantation prompted another petition from Corpus, and further hearings in front of the vice-chancellor (for which we unfortunately do not have the records). Scargill eventually left Cambridge to be ordained in Norwich in June 1672. He subsequently served as rector of Mulbarton, an impoverished living near Norwich, later holding the neighbouring parish of Swardeston in plurality until his death in 1721, aged seventy-four. For details of Scargill's subsequent career, see Linnel, 'Daniel Scargill', pp. 260-3.
112. Thomas Tenison, The creed of Mr Hobbes examin'd (1670), sig. Asv.
113. Thomas de Quincey, On murder considered as one of the fine arts (London, 1980), pp. 16-19.
114. Tenison, The creed of Mr Hobbes examin'd, pp. 9-10.
115. Ibid., pp. 28-9.
116. Ibid., p. 165.
117. Ibid..
118. As it did to Samuel Butler, satirizing the plagiarist: 'All Plagiary's do but steal, and poch /And upon other careless wits encroach /Convent with wits and Rallyers, to way law /And intercept, all that they chancd to say. /Made Topiques, Indexes and Concordances /Of smart Reflexions, Repartees and Fancies /When that which may be tru enough, turns False /When 'tis but weyd in false uneven scales /As he that both condemned and stole from Hobs /like a French thief that murthers when he Robs.' Butler, Satires and miscellanies, ed. R. Lamar (Cambridge, 1928), p. 241.
119. I am planning to develop this thesis in a study of the reception of Hobbes entitled Taming the Leviathan.