Three Discourses.
Clark, Paul
HOBBES, Thomas. Three Discourses. Edited by Noel Reynolds and
Arlene Saxonhouse. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997. ix + 181
pp. Paper, $12.95--The three discourses collected in this volume are
from a collection of twelve essays published anonymously in 1620, which
were associated with the Cavendish family--the family that served as
patron and employer of Hobbes for many years. It was not until Leo
Strauss discovered a manuscript version of these essays in Hobbes's
own hand that it began to be suspected that the essays might have been
the work of a young Hobbes. Computer analysis of the text, comparing the
various word patterns of a work of questionable authorship with that of
known authors, has established that three of the twelve essays match the
later work of Hobbes and hence can be attributed to him.
As Hobbes is famous for having taken up writing late in life, it is
hoped that the discovery of these texts will shed some light on the
intellectual development of Hobbes. Unfortunately, given that we know
almost nothing about how these essays came to be written, it is
impossible to conclude anything with certainty. Was Hobbes
"ghostwriting" or writing these essays under the direction of
his patron? Are the ideas in these three essays Hobbes's own
thought, or do some of them belong to his coauthor? While these early
discourses show little of the originality of thought found in
Hobbes's mature writings, it is certainly a fascinating exercise
for Hobbes scholars to look back on these early treatises and attempt to
pick out the seeds of his later thought.
The longest of the three discourses is "A Discourse Upon the
Beginning of Tacitus." It is an obvious attempt to emulate
Machiavelli, and of the three discourses it is the most
"Hobbesian" both in style and content. The Discourse on
Tacitus is largely concerned with the subject of civil war--what causes
it and how to prevent it. Hobbes says that "civil war is the worst
thing that can happen to a state" (p. 37) and the thing which
brought an end to civil war in Rome was the rise of a powerful emperor.
Augustus tamed the warring multitudes according to Hobbes's
analysis in that "first, he did beat and weary them; next . showed
them hope of ease" (p. 45). Already we see the basic passions of
hope and fear as that which is used to control the multitude. This
discussion clearly shows that Hobbes's concern with civil war,
which is so central to all of his writings, predated the English Civil
War itself.
Other parts of the Discourse on Tacitus are very un-Hobbesian. For
example, in discussing when wars should be fought he writes: "Wars
are necessary only where they are just, and just only in the case of
defense. First, of our lives, secondly of our right, and lastly of our
honor." In his later works it is clear Hobbes has no "just
war" theory, and fighting over honor he condemns as a cause of
unnecessary conflict.
The second discourse is "On Rome" and while it bears
marks of Hobbes's style, in content it is thoroughly traditional
and it is almost totally contrary to his later writings. While mostly a
description of the city of Rome, it does contain discussions of a number
of philosophical issues. Hobbes in this discourse praises all of the
traditional virtues which the Romans possessed--courage, discipline, and
honor--which he would later call into question as causes of conflict. He
even praises "Cicero, Seneca, ... Cato, and many more, whose
virtue, more than their greatness made them famous" (p. 81). Yet
when we turn to the opening of Hobbes's De Cive, we find he shows
only contempt for these men and their seditious opinions.
Other statements at odds with Hobbes's later writings include
his criticism of pagan philosophers for not having a proper
understanding of the immortality of the soul (p. 83), and his criticism
of those who would pretend to hold views contrary to their religion in
order to avoid punishment (p. 101).
The third discourse is a short one entitled "Of Laws."
Again this discourse is for the most part extremely traditional and
seems to borrow significantly from Fortesque's "In Praise of
the Laws of England." In contrast to Fortesque, however, the
overall tone is very pessimistic. While Fortesque believed that society
is a harmonious association which does not need a powerful government,
Hobbes says that "Laws be the only sinews of contracting people
together" (p. 107). While Fortesque thought there were tyrannies
worse than any lack of government, Hobbes, as in his later works,
considers that anarchy is the greatest evil and that the worst tyranny
is still better than anarchy.
Most of the things that might be considered untraditional in this
treatise are more a matter of tone than of outright contradiction. For
example, Hobbes acknowledges the existence of Natural Law, in the
traditional sense, and says that human law is derived from it, but then
he says that "we derive more benefit from [human] Laws, in this
kind, than from Nature" because Natural Law lacks an enforcement
mechanism (p. 110). Also, while he acknowledges the teaching of
Fortesque and other medieval philosophers that customs of the people
have the force of law, he says that "the force and power of [the
sovereign's] Law does easily dissolve an ill custom, though it have
been of long continuance" (p. 111). Even these positions could be
defended from a medieval viewpoint, however.
While the uncertainties around the composition of the three
Discourses make them unlikely to settle any of the many serious disputes
in the interpretation of Hobbes's overall work, this volume has
certainly added grist to the mill of Hobbes scholarship, and in that
sense it is a welcome addition.
--Paul Clark, Washington, D.C.
