Aloysius P.1992. Two Gods of Leviathan: Thomas Hobbes on Religion and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
29 Martinich, Aloysius P.1999. Hobbes: A Biography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
30 Martinich, Aloysius P.2005. Hobbes. New York: Routledge.
31 Mintz, Samuel I.1962. The Hunting of the Leviathan: Seventeenth-Century Reactions to the Materialism and Moral Philosophy of Thomas Hobbes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
32 Parkin, Jon.2007. Taming the Leviathan: The Reception of the Political and Religious Ideas of Thomas Hobbes in England 1640–1700. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
33 Peters, Richard S.1956. Hobbes. Baltimore, MD: Penguin Books.
34 Raylor, Timothy. 2018. Philosophy, Rhetoric, and Thomas Hobbes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
35 Rogers, Graham A.J.and Tom Sorell. 2000. Hobbes and History. New York: Routledge.
36 Shapin, Stevenand Simon Schaffer. 1985. The Leviathan and the Air-Pump. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
37 Skinner, Quentin. 1996. Reason and Rhetoric in the Philosophy of Hobbes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
38 Skinner, Quentin. 2018. From Humanism to Hobbes: Studies in Rhetoric and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
39 Tarlton, Charles D.1998. “Rehabilitating Hobbes: Obligation, Anti-Fascism, and the Myth of a ‘Taylor Thesis’.” History of Political Thought 19 (3): 407–38.
40 Taylor, Alfred E.1938. “The Ethical Doctrine of Hobbes.” Philosophy 13 (52): 406–24.
41 Warrender, Howard1957. The Political Philosophy of Hobbes: His Theory of Obligation. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
42 Watkins, John W.N.1965. Hobbes’s System of Ideas. London: Hutchinson University Libraries.
Abbreviations for Citations to Hobbes’s Works
Citations to Leviathan
Chapters in this volume cite Hobbes’s Leviathan, published in English (1651) and Latin (1668), with reference to pagination in the 2012 Clarendon Edition and the 1651 edition. This convention enables readers to locate citations using either the Clarendon edition or one of many modern editions that provide the 1651 pagination.
Each citation to the Leviathan occurs within a set of parentheses, such as in the following example: “To know the cause of naturall Sense, is not very necessary to the business now in hand; and I have written else-where of the same at large. Nevertheless, to fill each part of my present method, I will deliver the same in this place” (Hobbes 2012, 22; 1651, 3).
Citations to Hobbes’s English Works and Latin Works
Chapters in this volume cite the nineteenth-century editions edited by Molesworth of Hobbes’s works using the following conventions:
Citations to Hobbes’s English Works note the volume and page number as follows: EW I.20
Citations to Hobbes’s Latin Works note the volume and page number as follows: OL I.31
Each citation to these works occurs within a set of parentheses, such as in the following example: “Later in De Corpore I.8, Hobbes demarcates the “subject of philosophy, or the matter upon which it reflects, [as] every body of which any generation can be conceived” (EW I.10; OL I.9).
Notes
1 1 This introductory chapter will not consider Hobbes’s life. For an excellent biography of Hobbes, see Martinich (1999). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has three articles devoted to Hobbes’s philosophy: Adams (2019a), Duncan (2017), and Lloyd and Sreedhar (2018).
2 2 See Jesseph (2018) for discussion of this interrelation, and see Jesseph (Chapter 3, this volume) for discussion of the criticisms of Hobbes’s mathematics.
3 3 See Gorham (Chapter 2, this volume) on Bramhall’s accusation that Hobbes is indebted to Stoic thought; McIntyre (Chapter 5, this volume) on Bramhall and Hobbes concerning the possibility of non-human animal deliberation; Curran (Chapter 13, this volume) for discussion of Bramhall’s criticisms of Hobbes’s notion of subjects’ liberties; Foisneau (Chapter 16, this volume) regarding the dispute between Hobbes and Bramhall on Scholastic distinctions.
4 4 For example, essays in Courtland (2018) consider Hobbes’s ideas as they relate to contemporary issues in applied ethics and political philosophy.
5 5 For a similar claim, see Blau (2019).
6 6 Although the present chapter will primarily consider Hobbes as a philosopher, humanism exerted influence upon his thinking and this has been the focus of much scholarly work. For discussion of humanist rhetoric’s place in Hobbes’s development, see, e.g., Skinner (1996, 2018). Also, see Raylor (2018). The rise and fall of Hobbes’s renown in mathematics is documented in Jesseph (1999).
7 7 Indeed, Hobbes’s relationship to history is complex. Concerning Hobbes’s history of the genesis of Scholastic philosophy, see Foisneau (Chapter 16, this volume); for discussion of Hobbes’s ecclesiastical history, in particular the history of the papal monarchy, see Springborg (Chapter 21, this volume). For discussion of the nature of history according to Hobbes as well as Hobbes’s own historical works, the reader is encouraged to consult the volume edited by Rogers and Sorell (2000) and papers in a special issue of Filozofski vestnik volume 24, issue 2 (2003).
8 8 Chatsworth A.10 and Harleian ms. 6083. Also relevant is Ms. 5297 (National Library of Wales).
9 9 For discussion of the history of the composition of Elements of Law, see Baumgold (2017, xi–xv).
10 10 Hobbes changes the material of chapter 9 between the English and Latin editions. Discussing the differences between these two chapters would go beyond the present confines of this introductory chapter, but the account that he provides in the latter coheres with his discussion in De corpore VI.
11 11 Edwin Curley suggests that the placement of the science of the just and unjust under natural philosophy reflects the order of presentation of Leviathan where chapters 14–15 on the laws of nature precede the generation of the commonwealth in chapter 17 (see Hobbes 1994a, 49 fn. 4). Such