BOOK REVIEW#1: LEVIATHAN by Hobbes -- Intro.1

LEVIATHAN (or The Matter, Forme, and Power of a Common Wealth Ecclesiasticall and Civil)

By Thomas Hobbes

1651

As previously noted, I have been listening to Hobbes' Leviathan on audiobook via the Hoopla app, and following the text for reference via gutenberg.org (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3207/3207-h/3207-h.htm#link2HCH0010).  

I selected to listen to the audiobook early on, and soon found that listening to these older texts for the first time is WAY easier than trying to read the text for the first time. Any of my readers who have already attempted to read books from this era will already know, but 17th-century English spelling is not always the same as the 20th-century English spelling, even if the pronunciation might be basically the same. On top of that, sentences in this book can be ridiculously long, with TONS of inserted clauses and commentary meshed into the same thought. So, with the audiobook, since you don't have to spend as much brain power sorting out the mechanics of the language because it visually looks different, you are able to sort the content much faster on the first go around, then refer to the text for further study. Hearing it first seems to make it easier to read later. I had already discovered a similar preference with Shakespeare's plays, which come from around the same era, but I had not yet generalized the notion to other literature from that day because I don't recall ever attempting to read other authors from that time, until now. 

"The Introduction"

In the first paragraph of "The Introduction," Hobbes defines the title of his book:

Nature (the art whereby God hath made and governes the world) is by the art of man, as in many other things, so in this also imitated, that it can make an Artificial Animal. For seeing life is but a motion of Limbs, the begining whereof is in some principall part within; why may we not say, that all Automata (Engines that move themselves by springs and wheeles as doth a watch) have an artificiall life? For what is the Heart, but a Spring; and the Nerves, but so many Strings; and the Joynts, but so many Wheeles, giving motion to the whole Body, such as was intended by the Artificer? Art goes yet further, imitating that Rationall and most excellent worke of Nature, Man. For by Art is created that great LEVIATHAN called a COMMON-WEALTH, or STATE, (in latine CIVITAS) which is but an Artificiall Man; though of greater stature and strength than the Naturall, for whose protection and defence it was intended; and in which, the Soveraignty is an Artificiall Soul, as giving life and motion to the whole body; The Magistrates, and other Officers of Judicature and Execution, artificiall Joynts; Reward and Punishment (by which fastned to the seat of the Soveraignty, every joynt and member is moved to performe his duty) are the Nerves, that do the same in the Body Naturall; The Wealth and Riches of all the particular members, are the Strength; Salus Populi (the Peoples Safety) its Businesse; Counsellors, by whom all things needfull for it to know, are suggested unto it, are the Memory; Equity and Lawes, an artificiall Reason and Will; Concord, Health; Sedition, Sicknesse; and Civill War, Death. Lastly, the Pacts and Covenants, by which the parts of this Body Politique were at first made, set together, and united, resemble that Fiat, or the Let Us Make Man, pronounced by God in the Creation.

"Leviathan" is Hobbes' chosen metaphor for the central government of his society/Common-wealth/State for which he will advocate in his book. At first glance, I thought the choice of symbol to be bad marketing. I always understood a leviathan to be a giant monster of some kind, usually a sea-monster, which is not the mascot I would typically expect to attract people to your ideas of government.

However, merriam-webster.com offers a lesser-used but more broad definition of 'leviathan': 'something that is very large and powerful,' not necessarily a monster. Thinking along those lines, I also remember learning in junior high or high school that Hobbes thought men were inherently evil and government was necessary to keep people from basically killing each other off. If this is true, then maybe a leviathan is a better mascot than originally anticipated, being "of greater stature and strength" than any of its subjects (that is to say any individual that composes it). With this power, Hobbes assigns Leviathan's primary purposes as protection and defense of its subjects, with the confidence that Leviathan is powerful enough to deliver on those purposes. But protection and defense against what? And at what cost? Hobbes has not actually yet identified Fellow Man as the enemy in this analogy, nor has he discussed whether there are any perceived concessions by the subjects in order to grant Leviathan such power. So, at this point, the answers to these questions are ambiguous. We'll have to see if and how he answers it later. 

Let's talk about Leviathan's origins in this analogy. To begin, Hobbes defines "life" as 'but a motion of Limbs,' meaning that being able to make yourself move means you possess life. The Limbs referred to are part of an otherwise inanimate Body, but to which a life-source is added. From this life-force originates the commands resulting in the movement of the previously inanimate Limbs – it is the source of Will and Reason, which the Body then carries out. In Nature, the inanimate Bodies are those of Man and Animals (Hobbes does not mention plants or other living things [such as microscopic organisms] here, so I’m not sure whether he thought that his definition of life extended to plants, and I'm not sure how well microscopic organisms were understood at that time), God being the Great Artificer of the inanimate body and the provider of its life-source, which is the Soul. Life imbued by God is referred to by Hobbes as Natural Life. 

Hobbes then discusses how Man is an Imitator of God's Art of creating an inanimate body then imbuing it with Life. Man's inventions that propel themselves (engines or Automata, as Hobbes calls them -- for example, a mechanical watch) could by Hobbes' definition be considered as having Life. However, since Man is the Artificer, not God directly, then the Life bestowed to the watch is considered Artificial Life, and can therefore be considered an Artificial Animal. Considering machines as alive is a notion that we are somewhat familiar with today: when a battery runs out, the machines ‘dies’; science fiction stories have frequently explored the notion of sentient machines (HAL-9000 of 2001: A Space Odyssey; Skynet of The Terminator; Issac Asimov’s I, Robot; Philip K. Dick’s Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?; etc).

Hobbes proclaims that Man’s gift of logic and invention can also imitate God’s greatest Natural creation, which is Man himself. This is done by Man’s organizing Himself into a society/Common-wealth/State. According to Hobbes, Leviathan is this Artificial Man, making the Commonwealth the pinnacle of Man's imitation of God's Art. 

Interjection regarding religion, politics, and the Founding of the United States

At this point, I wish to discuss a certain point particularly illustrative in this first paragraph of The Introduction, and important to most if not all our future discussions on this blog, or at least the book REVIEWs for the foreseeable future. You see, in these older texts on government and philosophy, it was common to talk about government and religion (especially Judeo-Christian doctrine and values) concurrently, in the context of one another: Drawing parallels or lessons from Scripture was not alien to the political discussion of earlier times. 

In The Introduction, as previously stated, the creation of Leviathan is compared to the creation of Man in the Old Testament. Hobbes also compares the moment of decision to enter into this social contract ("Let us form Leviathan"), with the moment during the Genesis account of Creation where God pronounces the object of the Sixth Day, “Let us make man.” (As a side note, I find it interesting that Hobbes does not use for his Introduction the complete quote from this verse in Genesis: “Let us make man in our image" (KJV, Genesis 1:27, italics added), but that’s a discussion for another day.) 

In addition, this idea of using a single character to symbolize a body of people is common in the Bible. In the Old Testament, the prophet Daniel saw in vision Nebuchadnezzar's dream of a great image/idol with a head of fine gold (symbolizing Nebuchadnezzar's kingdom of Babylon), breast and arms of silver, belly and thighs of brass, legs of iron, and feet of part-iron/part-clay (all symbolizing various kingdoms of the earth that would follow the fall of Babylon) that was smashed to pieces by the stone cut out without hands. The covenant people was compared by John the Baptist to a Bride (with the Christ as the Bridegroom). Jesus Christ used various parables to illustrate different aspects of the kingdom of God, including one involving ten virgins. Paul the Apostle compared the Church to the Body of Christ. 

I wonder then if Hobbes' use of the image of Leviathan, an Artificial Man, as a symbol of a kingdom was actually imitating this scriptural literary device, which likely would have been already familiar to his Christian English audience. An interesting strategy, if true, although whether I agree with the analogy he offers remains to be seen. 

But back to my point: While I may not go so far as to say that our political discussion is not completely bereft of the inclusion of Judeo-Christian principles today, it is however no mystery that such discussion of Western religion (namely Christianity and Judaism) is discouraged in the United States (and I daresay in the Western political arena as a whole) and outlawed many times, both within government and in the public square, the which banning is often under the banner of the oft-quoted-out-of-context words of Jefferson, "a wall of separation between Church and State") (https://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html). 

This censuring of religious incorporation is important because many of the Founding principles teeter on the acceptance of a higher power in the ordering of the universe and the considering of Man as individuals having intrinsic value both by His Nature, and as a member of Nature. One may not agree with the philosophy of natural rights, or with Christianity or Judaism, but it nevertheless the philosophy to which the Founding Fathers looked while adopting the notion that Man possessed certain inalienable rights, namely Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness (including Property), including that it was morally wrong to violate these rights, and that their protection was the sole purpose of government. Attempting to separate the idea of Higher Power and moral authority from the public's political education and discourse diminishes the importance of the natural law paradigm, thereby blurring the importance of individual rights in politics. 

I repeat, my reader may not necessarily believe in, adhere to, or even agree with Judeo-Christian religions/values/philosophy (which is your right, I have nothing against that) but I think that it is important to acknowledge that it was this philosophy of natural law upon which this Nation was founded, and which in fact allows you and me to be free to have differing opinions (and religions) without threat of violence, either from government or from neighbors, in the first place. It therefore appears to me difficult to fully understand the principles behind the Founding without discussions regarding applicable religious (particularly Judeo-Christian) principles are held as well. Again, this seems complete antithesis to the current "wall of separation between Church and State" purported by so many. And yet, I think that we will see that religious or moral understanding, coupled with Man's desire to pursue what he perceives as moral and good, will contribute greatly to our discussions on the importance of freedom, the Constitution, and free market capitalism. I dare theorize again that the American Founding cannot be fully understood without discussing Judeo-Christian theology. Therefore, I think it not remiss to incorporate religious principles into the political discussion both liberally and appropriately.