Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-5wvtr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-21T01:33:32.292Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

III. The Ideological Context of Hobbes's Political Thought

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 December 2010

Quentin Skinner
Quentin Skinner
Affiliation:
Christ's College, Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The modern reputation of Hobbes's Leviathan as a work ‘incredibly overtopping all its successors in political theory’ has concentrated so much attention on Hobbes's own text that it has tended at the same time to divert attention away from any attempt to study the relations between his thought and its age, or to trace his affinities with the other political writers of his time. It has by now become an axiom of the historiography that Hobbes's ‘extraordinary boldness’ set him completely ‘outside the main stream of English political thought’ in his time. The theme of the one study devoted to the reception of Hobbes's political doctrines has been that Hobbes stood out alone ‘against all the powerful and still developing constitutionalist tradition’, but that the tradition (‘fortunately’) proved too strong for him. Hobbes was ‘the first to attack its fundamental assumptions’, but no one followed his lead. Although he ‘tried to sweep away the whole structure of traditional sanctions’, he succeeded only in provoking ‘the widespread re-assertion of accepted principles’, a re-assertion, in fact, of ‘the main English political tradition’. And the more Leviathan has become accepted as ‘the greatest, perhaps the sole masterpiece’ of English political theory, the less has Hobbes seemed to bear any meaningful relation to the ephemeral political quarrels of his contemporaries. The doctrine of Leviathan has come to be regarded as ‘an isolated phenomenon in English thought, without ancestry or posterity’. Hobbes's system, it is assumed, was related to its age only by the ‘intense opposition’ which its ‘boldness and originality’ were to provoke.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 9 , Issue 3 , 1966 , pp. 286 - 317
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1966

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Collingwood, R. G., The New Leviathan (Oxford, 1942), p. ivGoogle Scholar.

2 For studies of Hobbes's reception, see Laird, J., Hobbes (London, 1934), part III, pp. 243–317Google Scholar, esp. 247-57; Trevor-Roper, H. R., ‘Thomas Hobbes’ and ‘The Anti-Hobbists’, in Historical Essays (London, 1957), pp. 233-8, 239–43Google Scholar; Bowie, J., Hobbes and his Critics (London, 1951)Google Scholar; Mintz, S. I., The Hunting of Leviathan (Cambridge, 1962)Google Scholar, and incidental discussions in other works cited below.

3 , Trevor-Roper, ‘Thomas Hobbes’, p. 233Google Scholar.

4 Bowie, op. cit. p. 13.

5 Ibid. p. 42.

6 Ibid. p. 47.

7 Ibid. p. 42.

8 Ibid. p. 43.

9 Ibid. p. 13.

10 Ibid. p. 14.

11 Hobbes, Thomas, Leviathan, ed. Oakeshott, M. (Oxford, 1946)Google Scholar, Introduction, p. x.

12 , Trevor-Roper, ‘Thomas Hobbes’, p. 233Google Scholar.

13 Mintz, op. cit. p. 155.

14 Stephen, Leslie, Hobbes (London, 1904), p. 67Google Scholar.

15 Gooch, G. P., Political Thought in England: Bacon to Halifax (London, 1915), p. 23Google Scholar.

16 Bowie's book simply treats Hobbes's critics as ‘representative’ of a political tradition which Hobbes is alleged ‘singlehandedly’ to have challenged. For a brilliant discussion, however, of the relations between Hobbes's intellectual assumptions and their appropriate social context, see Thomas, Keith, ‘The Social Origins of Hobbes's Political Thought’, in Hobbes Studies, ed. Brown, K. C. (Cambridge, Mass., 1965), pp. 185–236Google Scholar.

17 Strauss, Leo, Natural Right and History (Chicago, 1953), p. 182Google Scholar.

18 For this assumption, see esp. ibid. pp. 202–51; Macpherson, C. B., The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism (Oxford, 1962), pp. 265–70Google Scholar; Cox, R. H., Locke on War and Peace (Oxford, 1960), esp. pp. 136–47Google Scholar on the relations between Commonwealths, where it is claimed that , Locke's doctrine ‘tacitly follows Hobbes’, p. 146Google Scholar.

19 Mintz, op. cit. p. vii.

20 Except for the brief, though valuable, remarks in Laird, op. cit. part III.

21 Mintz, op. cit. p. 62.

22 Ibid. p. 57.

23 Hobbes, Thomas, ‘Considerations’, The English Works, ed. Sir Molesworth, W. (London, 11 vols., 1839-1845), IV, 435Google Scholar.

24 Bayle, Pierre, Dictionnaire Historique et Critique (Rotterdam, 4 vols., 1697), III, 99–103.Google Scholar Note: in this and all following quotations from seventeenth-century sources all translations are mine, all spelling and punctuation are modernized.

25 Leibniz, G. W., Opera Omnia (Geneva, 6 vols., 1768), 1, 5, 256Google Scholar.

26 Ibid, IV, 360.

27 Ibid, VI, 303.

28 On visits, see Birch, Thomas, The History of the Royal Society (London, 4 vols., 1756), 1, 26–7Google Scholar; Sorbière, S., A Voyage to England (London, trans. 1709), pp. 26–7Google Scholar.

29 See, in Elements Philosophiques du Citoyen (Amsterdam, 1649)Google Scholar, Sorbière's translation of De Cive; Le Corps Politique ou les Elements de la Loi Morale et Civile (Amsterdam, 1652)Google Scholar, his translation of De Corpore Politico.

30 See, in Les Elements de la Politique de Monsieur Hobbes (Paris, 1660)Google Scholar, Du Verdus's translation of De Cive.

31 Gassendi to Sorbière: printed in Hobbes, Thomas, Elementa Philosophica De Cive (Amsterdam, 1647), sig. **, 10a-bGoogle Scholar.

32 Mersenne to Sorbière; printed in ibid. sig. **, 11a-b.

33 For a special study of this group and its correspondence with Hobbes, see my article, ‘Thomas Hobbes and his Disciples in France and England’, Comparative Studies in Society and History, VIII (1966), 153–67Google Scholar.

34 See Court, Johan de la, Consideratien van Stoat (n.p., 1661)Google Scholar; Wolf, A., ‘Annotations’, Correspondence of Spinoza (London, 1928), p. 446Google Scholar.

35 Velthuysen, Lambertino, Epistolica Dissertatio (Amsterdam, 1651), p. 2Google Scholar.

36 Ibid. pp. 35 ff., 136 ff., 175 ff.

37 Merlat, E., Traité du Pouvoir Absolu des Souverains (Cologne, 1685)Google Scholar.

38 Ibid. pp. 219–22.

39 Spinoza, Benedict de, The Political Works, trans, and ed. Wernham, A. G. (Oxford, 1958), Introduction, pp. 1, 12Google Scholar.

40 E.g. Baxter, Richard in The Second Part of the Non-Conformists Plea for Peace (London, 1680)Google Scholar; Falkner, William in Christian Loyalty (London, 1679)Google Scholar; and Regnus à Mansvelt, as cited in the Introduction to The Moral and Political Works of Thomas Hobbes (London, 1750), p. xxvi nGoogle Scholar.

41 See Wolf, op. cit. Letter 50, p. 269.

42 E.g. Hampshire, S., Spinoza (London, 1951), pp. 133–6Google Scholar.

43 See Aubrey, John, Brief Lives, ed. Clark, A. (Oxford, 2 vols., 1898), 1, 357Google Scholar.

44 Rachel, Samuel, Dissertation on the Law of Nature and of Nations (1676)Google Scholar, trans, in Scott, J. B. (ed.), The Classics of International Law (Washington, 2 vols., 1916), II, 75Google Scholar.

45 Gundling, N. H., De Jure Oppignorati Territorii (Magdeburg, 1706), p. 16.Google Scholar Also mentioned Hobbes in De Praerogativa (n.d.) and in Dissertatio de Statu Naturali (1709).

46 Textor, J. W., Synopsis of the Law of Nations (1680)Google Scholar, trans, in Bar, L. von (ed.), The Classics of International Law (Washington, 2 vols., 1916), II, 9 and 82Google Scholar.

47 Beckman, J. C., Meditationes Politicae (Frankfort, 1679), p. 7Google Scholar.

48 Beckman, J. C., Politico Parallela (Frankfort, 1679), p. 417Google Scholar.

49 , Laird, Hobbes, p. 276Google Scholar.

50 Pufendorf, Samuel, Of the Law of Nature and Nations (London, trans. 1710).Google Scholar Cited Hobbes as authority on Law of Nature (in Book 11, ch. IV, and in VIII, 1); on consensus (11, III); on contracts (v, II); on sovereignty (VII, VII).

51 Ibid. p. 87.

52 Leibniz, op. cit. v, 468.

53 Pufendorf, op. cit. p. 112.

54 Ibid. Book II, pp. 84-8.

55 Ibid. Book VII, pp. 518-26.

56 Aubrey, op. cit. I, 373.

57 J. Eachard, Some Opinions of Mr Hobbes Considered. Introduction distinguished Hobbes's serious and popular following, anatomizing ‘Hobbists’ into pit, gallery and box ‘friends’. See sig. A, 4a-b.

58 Cooper, A. A., 3rd earl of Shaftesbury, The Life, Unpublished Letters and Philosophical Regimen, ed. Rand, B. (London, 1900)Google Scholar, Letter to Stanhope, p. 414.

59 See Hearne, Thomas, Remarks and Collections (Oxford, 11 vols., 1885-1921), X, 75 and 322Google Scholar.

60 Osborne, Francis, A Miscellany (London, 1659), sig. AGoogle Scholar.

61 Aubrey, op. cit. 1, 369.

62 Ibid. p. 368.

63 Blount, Charles, The Oracles of Reason (London, 1693), p. 104Google Scholar.

64 Aubrey's list of Hobbes's closest friends included four clergymen (see Aubrey, op. cit. 1, 370).

65 Ward, Seth, A Philosophical Essay (Oxford, 1652), sig. A, 3aGoogle Scholar.

66 Hobbes, Thomas, ‘To the Reader’, De Corpore Politico (London, 1650).Google Scholar Cf. Hobbes, Thomas, The Elements of Law, ed. Tönnies, F. (London, 1889)Google Scholar, Introduction, p. vii.

67 Harrington, J., ‘The Prerogative of Popular Government’, Works (London, 1771), p. 241Google Scholar.

68 Webster, J., Academiarum Examen (London, 1654), p. 88Google Scholar.

69 Rosse, Alexander, Leviathan Drawn out with an Hook (London, 1653), sig. A, 12aGoogle Scholar.

70 Scot, Philip, A Treatise of the Schism of England (London, 1650), p. 223Google Scholar.

71 Coke, Roger, A Survey of the Politics (London, 1662), sig. A, 4aGoogle Scholar.

72 Dowel, John, The Leviathan Heretical (Oxford, 1683), sig. A, 2aGoogle Scholar.

73 Lucy, William, Observations, Censures and Confutations of Notorious Errors in Mr Hobbes his Leviathan (London, 1663), p. 117Google Scholar.

74 Lucy, William, Examinations, Censures and Confutations of Divers Errors in the Two First Chapters of Mr Hobbes his Leviathan (London, 1656), sig. A, 5aGoogle Scholar.

75 Hyde, Edward, earl of Clarendon, A Brief View and Survey of…Leviathan (Oxford, 1676), sig. A, 1bGoogle Scholar.

76 Lawson, George, An Examination of the Political Part of Mr Hobbes his Leviathan (London, 1657), sig. A, 2bGoogle Scholar.

77 Rosse, op. cit. sig. A, 4b.

78 Tenison, Thomas, The Creed of Mr Hobbes Examined (London, 1670), p. 2Google Scholar.

79 Clarendon, op. cit. sig. A, 3a.

80 Whitehall, John, The Leviathan Found Out (London, 1679), p. 3Google Scholar.

81 London, W., A Catalogue of the Most Vendible Books in England (London, 1658), sig. T, 3a, to sig. Z, 1bGoogle Scholar.

82 Eachard, John, Mr Hobbes's State of Nature Considered, ed. Ure, P. (Liverpool, 1958), p. 14Google Scholar.

83 For following details, cf. Macdonald, H. and Hargreaves, M., Thomas Hobbes: a Bibliography (London, 1952), pp. 10-14, 16-22, 30-6, 76–7Google Scholar.

84 Pepys, Samuel, The Diary, ed. Wheatley, H. B. (London, 8 vols., 1904-1905), VIII, 91.Google Scholar The ‘three editions’ of Leviathan in 1651 may of course be slightly misleading, as the second two are evidently false imprints—contemporary, but precise dates unknown.

85 See Locke, John, Two Treatises of Government, ed. Laslett, P. (Cambridge, 1960)Google Scholar, Introduction, appendix A, pp. 121-9.

86 Wolseley, Charles, The Reasonableness of Scripture-Belief (London, 1672), sig. A, 4aGoogle Scholar.

87 Seller, Abednego, The History of Passive Obedience since the Reformation (Amsterdam, 1689), sig. A, 4aGoogle Scholar.

88 Wood, Anthony à, ‘Thomas Hobbes’, Athenae Oxoniensis (London, 2 vols., 1691–1692), 11, 278–483Google Scholar.

89 Lymeric, J., life of Bramhall in Works of…John Bramhall (Dublin, 1676), sig. N, 1bGoogle Scholar.

90 Cumberland, Richard, A Treatise of the Laws of Nature (1672) (trans. London, 1727)Google Scholar, Introduction, sect. xxx.

91 Clarendon, op. cit. sig. *, 3a.

92 Baxter, op. cit. p. 8.

93 Anonymous, Inquiry, cited from Mintz, op. cit. p. 136.

94 Atterbury, Francis, Maxims, Reflections and Observations (London, 1723), p. 66Google Scholar.

95 Lucy, Examinations, sig. A, 3b.

96 Eachard, Some Opinions, sig. A, 3b.

97 , R.F., A Sober Enquiry (London, 1673), p. 51Google Scholar.

98 Crowne, John, City Politics (London, 1683), p. 50Google Scholar.

99 Farquhar, T., The Constant Couple (London, 1700), p. 2Google Scholar: Vizard, ‘This Hobbes is an excellent fellow’. On this point generally, see Teeter, L., ‘The Dramatic Use of Hobbes's Political Ideas’, E.L.H. III (1936), 140–69Google Scholar.

100 Anonymous, A Letter to a Friend (London, 1679), p. 6Google Scholar.

101 Anonymous, The Great Law of Nature or Self-Preservation Examined (n.p., n.d.) (B.M. Catalogue gives 1673), p. 6.

102 Locke, John, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (London, 1690), Book 1, ch. 3, para. 6CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

103 Bramhall, John, The Catching of Leviathan (London, 1658)Google Scholar, heading to ch. 11, p. 503.

104 Lamprecht, S. P., ‘Hobbes and Hobbism’, American Political Science Review, XXXIV (1940). 31–53. esp. p. 32CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

105 A point excellently made in Mintz, op. cit. p. vii, but also passim.

106 See checklist in ibid. pp. 157-60.

107 Anonymous, Confusion Confounded (London, 1654), p. 9Google ScholarPubMed.

108 See Locke, op. cit. p. 298 and note to para. 19.

109 Tyrrell, James, ‘Dialogue Three’, Bibliotheca Politico (London, 1694), p. 174.Google Scholar Also cites Hobbes, pp. 153, 155-6, 169, 181.

110 Mead, Samuel, Oratio pro Populo Anglicano (n.p., 1689), sig. B, 3b-4aGoogle Scholar.

111 Cooper, A. A., 3rd earl of Shaftesbury, Characteristics, ed. Robertson, J. M. (London, 2 vols., 1900), 11, 83Google Scholar.

112 Sydney, Algernon, Discourses Concerning Government (London, 3rd ed., 1751), pp. 43, 342Google Scholar.

113 Anonymous, Vindiciae Juris Regii (London, 1689), p. 27Google Scholar.

114 Anonymous, The Parallel (London, 1682), p. 12Google ScholarPubMed.

115 Anonymous, Animadversions on a Discourse (London, 1691), p. 16Google Scholar.

116 E.g. Anonymous, The Duty of Allegiance (London, 1691), p. 53Google Scholar.

117 Sherlock, William, The Case of the Allegiance Due to Sovereign Powers (London, 1691), p. 38Google Scholar.

118 Anonymous, The Censure of the Rota (Oxford, 1673), p. 3Google Scholar.

119 Lownde, J., A Discourse Concerning the Nature of Man (London, 1694), sig. A, 5a and 6bGoogle Scholar.

120 , Harrington, ‘Politicaster’ in Works, p. 559Google Scholar.

121 Sir Petty, William, The Petty Papers, ed. the marquis of Lansdowne (London, 2 vols., 1927), 1, 219Google Scholar.

122 E.g. Anonymous, A Treatise of Human Reason (London, 1674), pp. 44–5Google Scholar; Scot, op. cit. p. 140.

123 Whitehall, op. cit. p. 7.

124 Aubrey, op. cit. I, 334.

125 On De Moulin and Hobbes, see Zagorin, P., A History of Political Thought in the English Revolution (London, 1954), p. 71Google Scholar and note; on Wren and Hobbes, see Locke, op. cit. p. 75 n.; on Filmer and Hobbes, see Haller, W., ‘Introduction’ to Tracts of Liberty in the Puritan Revolution (Columbia, 3 vols., 1934), I, 3Google Scholar.

126 , Sydney, Works, p. 188Google Scholar.

127 Tyrrell, J., Patriarcha Non Monarcha (1681)Google Scholar, cited in Locke, op. cit. p. 71 n.

128 For Locke on Filmer, see ibid. p. 33. For Locke on Parker, see Cranston, Maurice, John Locke, a biography (London, 1957), p. 133Google Scholar.

129 Doyle, Phyllis, ‘The Contemporary Background of Hobbes's ‘State of Nature’, Economica, VII (1927), 336–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

130 E.g. Lanson, G., Bossuet (Paris, 1891), pp. 184–281Google Scholar.

131 Digges, Dudley, The Unlazvfulness of Subjects Taking Up Arms (n.p., 1643), p. 3Google Scholar.

132 Figgis, J. N., The Divine Right of Kings (London, 2nd ed., 1914), p. 239Google Scholar.

133 Mackenzie, George, Ius Regium (Edinburgh, 1684), sig. H, 1aGoogle Scholar; Falkner, op. cit. esp. pp. 407-11.

134 Tenison, op. cit. sig. A, 2b.

135 Parker, Samuel, A Defence and Continuation of the Ecclesiastical Polity (London, 1671), p. 279Google Scholar.

136 Clarendon, op. cit., cited in Wormald, B. H. G., Clarendon (Cambridge, 1951), p. 304Google Scholar.

137 Sir Filmer, Robert, ‘Observations Concerning the Original of Government’, Patriarcha and Other Political Works, ed. Laslett, P. (Oxford, 1949), p. 239Google Scholar.

138 Anonymous, Their Present Majesties' Government Proved to be Thoroughly Settled, and that we may Submit to it, without Asserting the Principles of Mr Hobbes (London, 1691)Google Scholar.

139 Ibid. p. 15.

140 Sherlock, op. cit. sig. A, 1a.

141 Ibid. p. 15.

142 Anonymous, A Discourse (London, 1689), p. 7Google ScholarPubMed.

143 Anonymous, A Full Answer (London, 1689), p. 36Google ScholarPubMed.

144 Anonymous, An Answer to a Late Pamphlet (London, 1691), p. 1Google Scholar.

145 Anonymous, Providence and Precept (London, 1691), pp. 4–5Google Scholar.

146 Anonymous, An Examination [of Sherlock's Case of Allegiance] (London, 1691), p. 14Google Scholar.

147 Ibid. p. 15.

148 Anonymous, Dr Sherlock's Case of Allegiance Considered (London, 1691), p. 73.Google Scholar Parallels with Leviathan cited pp. 80-2.

149 Anonymous, Dr Sherlock's Two Kings of Brainford (London, 1691), p. 13Google Scholar.

150 E.g. of Ascham cited: Anonymous, A Combat Between Two Seconds (London, 1649), p. 5Google Scholar; of Nedham: Goodwin, K., Peace Protected (London, 1654), p. 75Google Scholar; of de Moulin: Hawke, M., The Right of Dominion (London, 1655), p. 136Google Scholar.

151 Cf. Jones, R. F., Ancients and Modems (St Louis, 2nd ed., 1961)Google Scholar, stressing their assumption that ‘if servility to the authority of the ancients precluded examination of traditional beliefs, no hope could be held out for increased knowledge’, p. 119.

152 Aubrey, op. cit. 1, 349.

153 Osborne, Francis, ‘Conjectural Paradoxes’, Works (London, 9th ed., 1689), pp. 538 and 548Google Scholar.

154 Selden, John, Table Talk, ed. Sir Pollock, Frederick (London, 1927), p. 24Google Scholar.

155 The Journals of the House of Commons (n.p., n.d.), vol. VIII, 1660—1667, p. 636.

156 Eachard, Some Opinions, sig. A, 4b.

157 Pierce, Thomas, ‘ATTOKATAKPI∑I∑ (London, 1658), sig. *, 3b-4aGoogle Scholar.

158 E.g. commonplace book entries ‘Mr Hobbes's Creed’ and ‘The Principles of Mr Hobbes’ in British Museum, Sloane MSS 904 and 1458.

159 See Petty Papers, 11, 5. Cf. Sir Petty, William, The Economic Writings, ed. Hull, C. H. (Cambridge, 2 vols., 1899)Google Scholar.

160 E.g. in , T.B., The Engagement Vindicated (London, 1650), pp. 5–6Google Scholar; in Dury, John, Considerations Concerning the Present Engagement (London, 4th ed., ‘enlarged’, 1650), pp. 13–14Google Scholar; and in Anonymous, A Disengaged Survey of the Engagement (London, 1650), p. 20Google ScholarPubMed.

161 E.g. in Anonymous, Confusion Confounded, p. 9Google Scholar; in Hall, John, Of Government and Obedience (London, 1654), pp. 13-14 and 98.Google Scholar(N.B. that this John Hall differs from the John Hall of Durham (1627-56) cited in note 177, below.)

162 Osborne, Francis, A Persuasive to a Mutual Compliance (London, 1652), p. 11Google Scholar.

163 White, Thomas, The Grounds of Obedience and Government (London, 1655), pp. 44–5Google Scholar.

164 Wren, Matthew, Monarchy Asserted (London, 1659), pp. 49–50Google Scholar.

165 E.g., Eaton, Samuel, The Oath of Allegiance (London, 1650), p. 8Google Scholar; Anonymous, Conscience Puzzled (London, 1650), p. 7Google Scholar; Drew, J., The Northern Subscribers’ Plea Vindicated (London, 1653), p. 23Google Scholar; Elcock, E., Animadversions (London, 1651), p. 47Google Scholar; Anonymous, The Bounds and Bonds of Public Obedience (London, 1649), p. 26Google Scholar; , N.W., A Discourse Concerning the Engagement (London, 1650), p. 11Google ScholarPubMed.

166 Hobbes, Thomas, De Cive, ed. Lamprecht, S. P. (New York, 1949), p. 11Google Scholar.

167 Ibid. p. 13.

168 Hawke, The Right of Dominion, ch. VII, p. 41.

169 Ibid. ch. IV, p. 32; ch. VII, p. 43.

170 Hawke, Michael, Killing is Murder and No Murder (London, 1657), p. 7.Google Scholar On Hawke, see also Raab, F., The English Face of Machiavelli (London, 1694), p. 141Google Scholar.

171 , Hobbes, De Cive, p. 13Google Scholar.

172 , Hawke, Right of Dominion, p. 27Google Scholar.

173 Ibid. p. 29.

174 Heydon, John, The Idea of the Law (London, 1660), pp. 124–5Google Scholar.

175 , Hawke, Right of Dominion, p. 25Google Scholar.

176 , Hobbes, De Cive, p. 13Google Scholar.

177 Hall, John, The Grounds and Reasons of Monarchy Considered (Edinburgh, 2nd ed., 1650), sig. A, 4a-bGoogle Scholar.

178 Ibid. p. 50.

179 Harrington, James, Works, ed. Toland, J. (London, 1771), p. 13Google Scholar.

180 , Hawke, Killing is Murder, p. 12Google Scholar.

181 , Hawke, Right of Dominion, p. 50Google Scholar.

182 Scot, op. cit. p. 140.

183 ‘Eutactus Philodemius’, An Answer to the Vindication (London, 1650), pp. 15–16Google ScholarPubMed.

184 Heydon, op. cit. pp. 109, 150-1.

185 Ibid. p. 137.

186 Ascham, Anthony, A Discourse (London, 1648), p. 37.Google Scholar To maintain uniformity of citation all pagination refers to the enlarged second edition (London, 1649). See note 194, below. For further references to Ascham and to discussions of his work, see my article ‘History and Ideology in the English Revolution’, The Historical Journal, VIII (1965), 151–78, esp. p. 163 and noteGoogle Scholar.

187 Ascham, op. cit. p. 6.

188 Ibid. p. 6.

189 Ibid. p. 10.

190 Ascham, Anthony, MS Tract on Marriage (56 fos., 1647), ch. 1, fo. 1.Google Scholar Never published, and apparently unknown to Ascham's commentators. See Cambridge University Library MSS., MS. Gg, 1, 4, Tracts MS. fo. xxvi ff. separately paginated as fos. 1-56, bound up with MS. of P. Tomkinson, A Description of the City of Rome. Title-page gives five chapter-headings, beginning ‘Of marriage in general’, date, and ascription ‘By Mr Askham, that was afterwards killed in Spain being agent for the parliament of England there’.

191 Ascham, On Marriage, ch. IV, fo. 36.

192 Ascham, Discourse, pp. 21 and 39.

193 Ascham, Discourse, p. 45. The affinities with Hobbes seemed unquestionable to contemporaries. Filmer, for example, discussed Hobbes's doctrines not in isolation but as the views of Mr Hobbes, Mr Ascham; and others of that party'. See Filmer, op. cit. p. 231, and cf. p. 188.

191 Ascham, Anthony, Of the Confusions and Revolutions of Goverments (sic, in original, London, 1649)Google Scholar, part II, additions at pp. 85–95, 104–8.

195 Ibid. ch. IX, p. 108.

196 Ibid. p. 119.

197 On Nedham, particularly as editor, see Frank, J., The Beginnings of the English Newspaper (Cambridge, Mass., 1961), p. 206Google Scholar.

198 Editorial to Mercurius Politicus, no. 31 (2-9 January 1651).

199 Ibid. no. 34 (23-30 January 1651).

200 Mercurius Politicus, no. 29 (19-26 December 1650), p. 486, and no. 352 (5-12 March 1657), p. 7641. See also Frank, op. cit. p. 257.

201 Nedham, Marchamont, The Case of the Commonwealth Stated (London, 1650), p. 17.Google Scholar As with Ascham, to maintain uniformity of citation, all pagination refers to the enlarged second edition (London, 1650). See note 204 below.

202 Nedham, op. cit. p. 5.

203 Ibid. p. 9.

204 Ibid. 2nd ed., with appendix (London, 1650), p. 103.

205 Ibid. p. 109.

206 Ibid. pp. 108-9.

207 Warrender, H., The Political Philosophy of Hobbes (Oxford, 1957), p. ixGoogle Scholar.

208 Ibid. p. 322.

209 Hood, F. C., The Divine Politics of Thomas Hobbes (Oxford, 1964), p. 97Google Scholar.

10 Taylor, A. E., ‘The Ethical Doctrine of Hobbes’, Philosophy, XIII (1938), p. 418Google Scholar.

211 The following section attempts to document a suggestion originally made at the end of my article ‘Hobbes's Leviathan’, The Historical Journal, VII (1964), 321–33Google Scholar.

212 British Museum, Shane MSS., no. 1458, fo. 35.

213 Ibid. no. 904, fo. 14.

214 See Axtell, James L., ‘The Mechanics of Opposition: Restoration Cambridge v. Daniel Scargill’, Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, XXXVIII (1965), 102–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar and refs. there.

215 Clarendon, op. cit. sig. A, 1b.

216 Bramhall, op. cit. p. 542.

217 Clarendon, op. cit. sig. A, 3b.

218 ‘Judgment…of the University’, given in Wilkins, D., Conciliae Magnae Britannicae et Hiberniae (4 vols., London, 1737), IV, 610–12Google Scholar.

219 Filmer, op. cit. p. 242.

220 Warwick, Philip, A Discourse of Government (London, 1694), p. 55Google Scholar.

221 Anonymous, Great Law of Nature, p. 8.

222 Lawson, op. cit. p. 17.

223 Ibid. p. 23.

224 Clarendon, op. cit. p. 115.

225 ‘Eutactus Philodemius’, The Original and End of Civil Power (London, 1649), p. 15Google Scholar.

226 Clarendon, op. cit. p. 90.

227 Tenison, op. cit. p. 147.

228 Anonymous, An Examination, p. 15.

229 Bramhall, op. cit. p. 519.

230 Brown, K. C., ‘Hobbes's Grounds for Belief in a Deity’, Philosophy, XXXVII (1962), 337 nGoogle Scholar.

231 Bramhall, op. cit. p. 519.

232 On this see Aubrey, op. cit. 1, 339.

233 I have published this reply and discussed it in my article ‘Hobbes on Sovereignty: An Unknown Discussion’, Political Studies, XIII (1965), 213–18Google Scholar.

234 Hood, op. cit. p. 13.

235 This essay is thus intended to supply a particular case-history for a more general theory about methods of trying to understand the history of ideas. I have tried to set out the theory itself in more abstract terms in my article ‘The Limits of Historical Explanations’, Philosophy, XLI (1966), 199–215Google Scholar.

236 This essay owes a great deal to correspondence with Professor J. G. A. Pocock and Professor J. M. Wallace, and to discussions with Mr Peter Laslett and Mr John Dunn, to whom I am indebted not only for reading various drafts but also for correcting mistakes and helping with several references.