Leviathan: Body politic as visual strategy in the work of Thomas Hobbes 9783110681413, 9783110681369

Citation preview

Horst Bredekamp Leviathan Body politic as visual strategy in the work of Thomas Hobbes

Horst Bredekamp

Leviathan Body politic as visual strategy in the work of

Thomas Hobbes Translated, edited, and adapted by Elizabeth Clegg

The author acknowledges the support of the Cluster of Excellence “Matters of Activity. Image Space Material” funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) under Germany’s Excellence Strategy – EXC 2025 – 390648296.

Chapter 1 to 6 are translated from Thomas Hobbes – Der Leviathan. Das Urbild des modernen Staates und seine Gegenbilder. 1651–2001, 3rd edn., Berlin 2006. The revised catalogue is based on the first edition Thomas Hobbes Visuelle Strategien. Der Leviathan: Urbild des modernen Staates. Werkillustrationen und Portraits, Berlin 1999.

ISBN 978-3-11-068136-9 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-068141-3

Library of Congress Control Number: 2020942054 Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Cover illustration: frontispiece to Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, London 1651 (Detail) Layout and typesetting: P. Florath, Stralsund Printing and binding: Beltz Grafische Betriebe GmbH, Bad Langensalza www.degruyter.com

Table of Contents

Preface VII

1. Hobbes, his Leviathan, its frontispiece

a. Envisaging the “body politic” b. Why “Leviathan”? Hobbes on the terror-wielding state c. The 1651 frontispiece: adaptations and approximations d. Leviathan in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries

2. The authorship of the Leviathan frontispiece

a. The case for Wenceslaus Hollar b. The frontispiece in its drawn version c. The case for Abraham Bosse d. The tactical portrait

3. The “Artificiall Man”

a. Art(ifice) imitates Nature b. The automaton c. A “Mortall God” d. Of memory and imagination

1 2 8 11 18 23 24 28 32 41 45 45 49 52 56

4. Qualities and appearances

61



61 66 74 80

a. Colossal b. Composite c. Magnification, distortion, resolution d. Extending the metaphor

5. “Mastering” time

83

a. Temporal aberration: its denial and its reversal b. Surviving death: the “cadaver tomb” and the funeral effigy c. “A breathing Statue”: from precarious instant to perilous continuum d. Time in the Leviathan frontispiece

83 87 93 97

6. Endurance: the “Common-Wealth” as bulwark, constraint, aspiration

101



102 104 106 108

a. Ex nihilo b. “Certain Rules” c. Speech and rhetoric d. A “visible Power to keep them in awe”

Appendix I: Excerpts from Leviathan

113

Appendix II: Images and Portraits

121

Images in other works by Thomas Hobbes Catalogue of Images Portraits of Thomas Hobbes Catalogue of Portraits

123 155 193 215

Appendix III

239

Bibliography Index Picture credits



241 267 281

Preface to the English edition The present volume forms part of an attempt to emphasise the central role of visual­isation – in the widest sense of that term – in both philosophical discourse and technologically oriented debate in the Europe of the seventeenth century: an era that in many respects anticipated the Enlightenment without fully committing to its prioritisation of language. My focus in this endeavour has been on aspects of the life and thought of three individuals who were diversely representative of their age, yet nonetheless extraordinary in their achievements. In order of their dates of birth, these were: Galileo Galilei (1564–1642),1 Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679),2 and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716).3 It is not only from the chronological point of view that Hobbes here occupies a central position. For every aspect of the visual – from the latest scientific discoveries regarding the capacities and limitations of the human eye to the almost uncanny power exerted on the human mind by certain images – was no less fundamental to his evolving view of humanity and human society than to the terms in which he came, in time, to comment upon these. Yet those aspects of his work that may, with every justification, be termed his “visual strategies” have long been underrated. This is even true of his investment in the image that is at the heart of the present study: the remarkable frontispiece to the first, 1651 edition of his enigmatically titled discourse on “the Matter, Forme, and Power of a Common-Wealth”: Leviathan. When my account of Hobbes appeared in its first, German edition, in 1999, its concern with his “visual strategies” aroused interest among anglophone scholars chiefly on account of my posited identification of the artist responsible for the 1 

Galileo der Künstler. Der Mond, die Sonne, die Hand, Berlin 2007. English trans. (from rev. edn., Galileis denkende Hand. Form und Forschung um 1600, Berlin 2015) by Mitch Cohen: Galileo’s Thinking Hand. Mannerism, Anti-Mannerism and the Virtue of Drawing in the Foundation of Early Modern Science, Berlin and Boston, Mass., 2019. 2  Thomas Hobbes Visuelle Strategien. Der Leviathan: Urbild des modernen Staates. Werk­ illustrationen und Portraits, Berlin 1999 (rev. edns. 2003, 2006, 2012 and 2020). 3  Die Fenster der Monade. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz’ Theater der Natur und Kunst, Berlin 2004 (rev. edns. 2008 and 2020).

VIII

Preface to the English edition

Leviathan frontispiece – a proposal that has since won increasing acceptance. The dissemination of my arguments through translation – in one case (French, 2003) of the book in its entirety,4 in another (English, 2007) of a comprehensive summary,5 in yet another (Spanish, 2018) of a single chapter6 – has, however, served to encourage recognition of their value as a contribution to the intellectual history, as well as to the art history, of Early Modern Europe. With steadily growing evidence that it was above all through the aforementioned English summary that my work on Hobbes was reaching an ever wider audience,7 and preparations for the appearance (in 2020) of the original, Ger­­man text in a fifth edition,8 there arose a sense that the time might be ripe for a more ambitious attempt to gain the attention of an anglophone readership, in the hope that it would, indeed, now be sympathetically disposed towards more of what I had to say. Upon reflection, it was resolved that an English version should be based on the principal six chapters of the book in its third German edition (of 2006), and that it should also include the bi-partite Catalogue that had formed part of the first German edition (of 1999) but had thereafter been omitted. Through its own focus on two distinct sorts of image – the illustrated frontispiece (a significant feature of several of Hobbes’s other works) and the portrait of the artist (both as an autonomous work and as incorporated within many a title-page) – this Catalogue provides a further, and often enlightening, context for the discussion, in the body of the book, of that image through which Hobbes has now become “familiar” across the globe, even among those who know all but nothing of him. During a close re-reading of my German text in its first and later editions, I was repeatedly reminded of the help and encouragement I had received, during my research campaigns of the mid-1990s, both, in Europe and in America, from the staff of many archives and libraries. Of all those, my most warmly cherished recollection is of the time I spent at the British Library, in those days still housed within the British Museum. And, while it is no longer possible to affirm my gratitude 4  Stratégies visuelles de Thomas Hobbes. Le Léviathan, archétype de l’État moderne. Illustrations des oeuvres et portraits, trans. Denise Modigliani, Paris 2003. 5  “Thomas Hobbes’s Visual Strategies”, in: The Cambridge Companion to Hobbes’s Leviathan, Patricia Springborg, ed., Cambridge 2007, pp. 29–60 6  “El fundamento teorético-artistico”, trans. (from Chap. 3 of 2012 edn. of volume cited in note 2, above) by Cecilia Abdo Ferez, in: Hobbes, el hereje: teología, política y materialismo, Cecilia Abdo Ferez, Diego Fernández Peychaux and Gabriela Rodríguez Rial., eds., Buenos Aires 2018, pp. 81–105. 7  Another recently appearing excerpt was in fact an edited translation of that English summary: “Visual’nie strategii Tomasa Hobbsa”, trans. Kristina Sarycheva, Intelros. Intellektual’naya Rossiya, CXLVI / 4 (2017), pp. 22–38. 8  Thomas Hobbes Der Leviathan. Das Urbild des modernen Staates und seine Gegenbilder 1651–2001, 5th edn., Berlin 2020.

Preface to the English edition

through naming each individual I encountered there, I most warmly salute them all, as a spirited and supportive team, to whose often crucial assistance is owed so much of what I was able to achieve. Over the years since that still early phase in my more serious engagement with Thomas Hobbes, I have come to prize, above all, the scholarly companionship of Quentin Skinner, whom I first came to know during our time as Fellows at the Wissenschaftskolleg zu Berlin. While his work has for some time been widely read and much admired in Germany, it has given me particular pleasure, over the last decade, to see a number of his striking studies of Hobbes appear in German translation.9 I am deeply grateful to Petra Florath for the energy, the intelligence and the visual flair she has brought to devising the overall layout of this volume. The book has also been enhanced through Kolja Thurner’s tireless work as a copyeditor and his most attentive revision of its bi-partite Catalogue. My special gratitude also goes to Katja Richter and Arielle Thürmel of De Gruyter for their fruitful collaboration and, above all, for their patience. For ensuring that my own thoughts on Hobbes have at last become far more fully accessible to those who speak and write in his language, I owe to Elizabeth Clegg a great deal more than most authors owe to their translators. Thanks to her, my text in its new, English guise has been enhanced not only through a deft integration of the fruits of apposite research and a rigorous assessment of requisite improvements to structure and narrative, but also through the application of a peerless knowledge of what it is that anglophone readers require, expect and value. HB. Berlin, August 2020

Editorial observations Hobbes on the page For an anglophone reader in the twenty-first century the writings of Thomas Hobbes can prove hard to follow. Particularly disconcerting is the presence of commas where, to a modern eye, these appear unnecessary, and their absence at points where they are sorely needed for our guidance. In rendering the text of passages quoted from the first, 1651 edition of Hobbes’s Leviathan, an attempt has here been made to ensure that the intended meaning is conveyed at first glance through the

9 

One substantial essay, “A Genealogy of the Modern State”, in: Proceedings of the British Academy, CLXII (2009), pp. 325–70, was translated, by Karin Wördemann, as Die drei Körper des Staates, Göttingen 2012. Another, “Hobbes on persons, authors and representatives”, in: The Cambridge Companion to Hobbes, Patricia Springborg, ed., Cambridge 2007, pp. 157–80, was translated, by Christian Neumeier, as Thomas Hobbes und die Person des Staates, Berlin 2017.

IX

X

Preface to the English edition

interposition, where necessary, of square brackets to “suppress” or to “insert” a comma. While this device does not in itself distinguish between the two instances, in practice it enables readers, as they proceed, to “disregard” or to “acknowledge” a comma in response to the momentum of the passage in question. A second difficulty lies in the shift, over time, in the meaning of ostensibly familiar English terms and phrases, and the now easily misconstrued import of certain grammatical constructions. Wherever this seemed likely to prove a barrier to understanding, a brief, square-bracketed explanation has been added so as to ensure that the intended meaning is clear. As such editorial interventions can themselves become an irritation, they have been employed as sparingly as seemed feasible. A third problem arises with typographical aspects of the text: a fair degree of inconsistency in spelling (as would, indeed, be expected of an English publication of the mid-seventeenth century), and a far from systematic use of italics and of CAPITALS (often, in both cases, where there seems to be no need for these). However, as such features are a mild distraction, rather than a hindrance to understanding, no attempt has been made to “rationalise” them in the text as it is printed here. In this respect it appears in its original form. As a full sense of the rhythm of Hobbes on the page is difficult to obtain through the example of a series of relatively short quotations, four longer excerpts – from the Introduction, from Chapter XIII, from Chapter XVII, and from Chapter XVIII – are supplied (pp. 115–19). Reference to these excerpts is frequently made in the body of the book; but readers may in any case find it rewarding to consult them. So as to avoid the deterrent effect of the inclusion here of passages that will be of less than obvious relevance to the matter in hand or of exceptional syntactic complexity, omissions – signalled by […] – have occasionally been effected. The presence of a single (sometimes double) forward slash indicates a break (or breaks) within those pages of the first, 1651 edition indicated at the start of each excerpt. Hobbes and his readers A reputable version of Hobbes’s Leviathan has been widely available to anglophone readers for over half a century. A Penguin Modern Classics edition first appeared in 1968; its successor in that series arrived in 2016. Those with a scholarly interest in this text have, meanwhile, been able to avail themselves of the superb editions of Richard Tuck (1991) and, most notably, of Noel Malcolm (2012). It has, nonetheless, often proved to be the case that a reader who has not been required to study much, or all, of Hobbes’s text can find it difficult to advance beyond the initial seven or eight Chapters: the approximate mid-point of the first, and most accessible, of its four Parts. A further purpose of the provision here of four longer excerpts, three of them occurring somewhat later in the sequence, is to spark, in the “general reader”, suffi-

Preface to the English edition

cient interest and enthusiasm to support a more sustained direct engagement with Hobbes’s text. For a further source of inspiration, that reader is urged to consult the list of essay compilations (three of them devoted entirely to Leviathan) that is appended to the Bibliography of works by Hobbes (pp. 263–66, here 266). Adaptation / updating As explained in an introductory note, the main Bibliography in this English edition of Horst Bredekamp’s book on Hobbes is an extended version of that found in its third, revised German edition (of 2006) that, however, also features publications appearing between 2007 and 2019. While the main text is derived through translation, editing and adaptation, the Bibliography is updated. Because this main text is intended to reflect the content and arguments of the 2006 German edition on which it is based, the aim has been to serve the interests of the anglophone reader concerned to access the author’s views as stated there. In principle no attempt has been made to include the findings of publications appearing after 2006. Exceptions to this rule have been made only for the conclusions reached in the post-2006 scholarly literature on Abraham Bosse in relation to Hobbes (because these largely corroborate Horst Bredekamp’s earlier insights and analyses), and for the dating, to respectively c. 1678 and c. 1702, of the so-called “Bear” edition and “Ornament” edition of Hobbes’s Leviathan, proposed by Noel Malcolm in 2012 (on the basis of his own incomparably subtle and thorough research). The calendar The events and the longer-term developments recounted in this book largely occurred in the period between 15th October 1582 (when most of Catholic Europe, including France, converted from the Julian to the Gregorian Calendar, thereby adopting so-called New Style, NS, dating) and 14th September 1752 (when Great Britain and its colonies followed suit, having in the interim continued to use Old Style, OS, dating). It has, therefore, been thought advisable, wherever ambiguity might arise, to specify whether OS or NS dating is being employed, and sometimes (as in the case of correspondence sent between France and England) to supply the dating in both OS and NS. In each case it is assumed, for the sake of convenience, that the year begins on 1st January, and not (as in traditional reckoning) on 25th March. EC. London, August 2020

XI

1. Hobbes, his Leviathan, its frontispiece In 1676, three years before his death (at the venerable age of 91), Thomas Hobbes sat to a now unidentified portraitist (Fig. 1)1. Writing materials and spectacles to hand, he is shown as if just interrupted in mid-composition. It is probable that this painting was commissioned by Hobbes himself, or by someone close to him. For,

1_ ­ Anonymous, Portrait of Thomas Hobbes, 1676. Oil on canvas, 838 × 1118 mm. Hardwick Hall, Derbyshire: The Devonshire Collection. (National Trust: NT 1129173)

1  See p. 224: Catalogue of Portraits P XXI. The painting is currently characterised as a work in the “manner of John Michael Wright”. It is in fact inscribed (at lower right) to record Hobbes’s age, at the point of sitting, as 89: “THOMAS / HOBBES AEtatis Suae LXXXIX / 1676”.

2

1. Hobbes, his Leviathan, its frontispiece

in its lower left corner are to be found a number of large, inscribed and loosely folded sheets (of paper or vellum) and two bound volumes, one of these clearly bearing the legend “LEVIATHAN”: title of the work, first published in London in April 1651, with which Hobbes, to this day, is most closely associated. Above, and implicitly beyond, this accessory – here defiantly in evidence, notwithstanding the opprobrium its authorship had incurred within Hobbes’s lifetime – is a landscape viewed as if through a window opening. Wintry and bare under a sky obscured by turbulent cloud, this perhaps alludes to the grim situation of humanity in its “naturall condition”, as evoked by Hobbes in that section of his text (Chap­­ter XIII) which includes the phrase that was in time to become even more widely known, throughout the anglophone world, than was the name of its author.2 Hobbes’s Leviathan has continued to engage, intrigue, bewilder and provoke, not only through its linguistic qualities and the argument within which these feature. Its text is now long recognised as among the most fundamental of the modern era on the theory of the state; but its frontispiece (Fig. 2)3 is one of the incunabula of political iconography. While perforce attending to aspects of Hobbes’s text (in relation to apposite passages in some of his other writings, and in those of other authors), the present account will chiefly consider the character, sources and contexts of the striking, and ineradicably memorable, image that serves as its title-page, above all the gigantic, composite figure with which the reader, as a viewer, is confronted before any attempt can be made to engage with what follows.4

a. Envisaging the “body politic” In its upper section (Fig. 3) the frontispiece presents what is effectively a bird’s eye view across a gently undulating landscape, with a stretch of water, perhaps the sea, at the upper right and a fortified city laid out across a plateau in the immediate foreground. Even at first glance, it is apparent that this is not so much the record of a particular locality as the evocation of a representative segment of the world

2  “[…] the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short”. See pp. 116–17, here 116: Excerpts from Leviathan (Chapter XIII). 3  Hobbes Leviathan 1651a, frontispiece, 241 × 157 mm. Editions consulted: British Library, London, 522.k.6. and C.175.n.3; Niedersächsiche Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek, Göttingen, J.Nat.4840; Warburg-Stiftung, Hamburg; William Andrews Clark Memorial Library, University of California, Los Angeles, *fB 1222 1651; Herzog August Bibliothek, Wolfenbüttel, Sf 4o5. See p. 165: Catalogue of Images W XI, 1. 4  Rather few scholars have focused to any degree on Hobbes’s visual strategies. Of particular note at the point when work on the original, German version of the present text was being completed were: Brown 1978; Corbett & Lightbown 1979; Brandt 1982; Bertozzi 1983; Brandt 1987; and Brandt 1996, who offer pioneering analyses from the art-historical, political and philosophical points of view.

A. ENVISAGING THE „BODY POLTILIC“

2 ­_ Frontispiece to Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, London 1651 (“Head” edition, 1651a). Etching on paper, 241 × 157 mm. London, British Library (522.k.6.)

3

4

1. Hobbes, his Leviathan, its frontispiece

3_ ­ Detail of Fig. 2: upper section of frontispiece

familiar to most of Hobbes’s first readers. Far more remarkable, however, is the apparition that looms above this scene, comprising the upper half of the body of a gigantic male figure with outstretched arms. The giant wears a crown; in his right hand (to the left of the image) he holds, by its hilt, an upward pointing sword, and in his left he clasps the shaft of an episcopal crosier. The extremities of both symbolic implements extend to the upper edge of the plate, as if to ensure attention to the line of Latin text inscribed there: a quotation from the biblical Book of Job, in which the exalted might of the sea monster Leviathan is invoked: “Non est potestas Super terram quae Comparetur ei” (rendered, rather mildly, in the King James Version of 1611: Upon Earth there is not his like).5 As gradually becomes apparent, the giant’s arms are extended not only outwards, but also forwards. Thanks to illumination entering emphatically from the right (the alignment of the city’s church reveals this to be the east), the swordbearing arm, as it hovers above the hills of the middle distance, casts its shadow 5  Book of Job: 41, 24 (in the Latin text of the Vulgate); cited here also in English from the King James Version, where the corresponding text occurs at 41, 33. Cf. Bertozzi 1983, pp. 14–16. The quotation in its fuller form (itself by no means irrelevant to Hobbes’s interest in it) continues: “qui factus est ut nullem timeret” (he who is made to fear no-one).

a. Envisaging the “body politic”

4 ­_ Detail of Fig. 2: lower section of frontispiece

only upon those slopes to the extreme left, which are thus set off against the clearly far more distant, flatter and sunlit terrain beyond. The crosier-bearing arm, slightly bent at the elbow, itself casts an irregular stripe of shadow running from the giant’s upper torso to those fields lying immediately below the city, while much of the lower end of the staff is itself cropped by the right edge of the plate. Through the implicit occupation of so vast a space (from the remoteness of the heavens to the quotidian proximity of river traffic, trees in leaf and town houses) and through the very firmness of his grip upon two such imposing symbols of office, Hobbes’s giant, albeit not sharing the monstrous appearance of the biblical Leviathan, is surely imbued with power (potestas) akin to that associated with the fantastical sea beast. The juxtaposition of sword and crosier is recapitulated in the arrangement of the images stacked into columns to either side of the lower section of the frontispiece (Fig. 4). Here, the five segments on the left embody temporal (or worldly) power and those on the right spiritual power. While the left and right columns differ slightly, but still significantly, in terms of breadth, these segments are positioned in strict horizontal alignment. Reading from the top down, one finds the castle placed opposite the church (a simplified version of that seen within the city); the crown in direct relation to the mitre; the cannon facing the “thunderbolt” of excommunication; the weapons of war set against those of logic; and the resort to battle confronting

5

6

1. Hobbes, his Leviathan, its frontispiece

engagement in scholarly disputation. By this means the frontispiece reaffirms that Hobbes’s crowned giant, in keeping with his firm grip on both sword and crosier, holds sway, as a true sovereign, over secular and sacred realms alike. The two columns of images flank a central panel, which is illusorily “masked” by a curtain affixed at its upper corners. This arrangement is reminiscent of a winged altarpiece, the visible images recalling the outer, or “weekday”, sides of a triptych. But the curtain itself here signifies more than a baroque playfulness in the treatment of a façade.6 Following the model of the veils of the tabernacle described in the Old Testament, it alludes, through its alternating hints at revelation and concealment, to the notion that the text of Hobbes’s own “LEVIATHAN” is itself a fount of arcane knowledge.7 The book’s sub-title, as here announced – “THE MATTER, FORME, / and POWER of A COMMON- / WEALTH ECCLESIASTICALL / and CIVIL” – reiterates the juxtaposition of the temporal (or “civil”) and the spiritual (or “ecclesiasticall”) already conveyed through the flanking columns of images.8 Here, however, it is made clear that both are to be considered as aspects of human society: the term “Common-Wealth” (employed by Hobbes in the sense of a voluntary pooling of resources on a social scale) embracing any relatively large and orderly form of state under an acknowledged representative and sovereign authority, be that a single monarch or a governing assembly.9 6  The ‚dangerous‘, but insightful state theorist Carl Schmitt found this motif particularly intriguing, as revealed by a note of 21 November 1947 (Schmitt 1991, p. 39): “Das Leben ist die Fassade vor dem Tod (Barock). Der Leviathan selbst ist eine Fassade; die Herrschaftsfassade vor der Macht; jener geheimnisvolle Vorhang auf dem Titelblatt des Leviathan; aber nicht ‘bloße’ Fassade, nicht bloßer Schein oder Erscheinung, Prestige, Gloire, Ehre, Repräsentation, Allmacht, aber eben doch nur wieder äußerliche Allmacht” [Life is the façade of death (Baroque), Leviathan itself is a façade; dominion that is the façade of power; the mysterious curtain on the title-page of Leviathan; but not “merely” a façade, not merely a lustrous appearance, status, glory, honour, fitting style, omnipotence, but, once again, only outer omnipotence.] 7  Exodus: 26, 31 and 33. Cf. Eberlein 1982, pp. 83–85. See also Prufer 1993, pp. 25–26, who seeks to demonstrate that the text, with its quasi-metaphysical significance, stands even above the sovereign. 8  Martinich 1992, pp. 365–57, argues that there is a structural relationship between each of these vertically stacked images and the arrangement of the words in the sub-title of Hobbes’s volume as laid out in the frontispiece, seeing the word “MATTER” as related especially to the image of the crown (to its left), and the word “FORME” as related especially to the image of the mitre (to its right). Such an argument would, however, become problematic with the occurrence, in the following line, of the words “and POWER of A COMMON-”, as these are not only suspended between the second and third rows of images, but also include an incomplete term. And this difficulty would persist were the argument taken further. On the arrangement of the images in two columns, cf. Münkler 1993, pp. 149–51. 9  See p. 119: Excerpts from Leviathan (Chapter XVII). While the by no means unimportant “ecclesiasticall” dimension of Hobbes’s text largely occupies its third and fourth Parts (respectively, Chapters XXXII to XLIII, “Of a Christian Common-Wealth”, and Chapters XLIV to

a. Envisaging the “body politic”

While the lower section of the frontispiece is encased within a frame, and further framing separates each of the two lateral columns and, in turn, each of the vertically stacked images from that above or below it, in the upper section (Fig. 3) the image of the giant is gloriously free of such restraint. In contrast with each of the framed images, it asserts its claim to recognition as an extraordinary, but nonetheless authentic, being. This entire sequence of alignments and distinctions in itself reveals what finesse has here been employed in the interests of challenging, and thereby stimulating, the reader’s capacity for visual thinking. The application of such a skill is likely to be further rewarded when closer inspection draws the eye to the intricate rendering of the tiny figures (over three hundred in total) that make up all that can be seen of the body of the giant. Although his right hand has an actual diameter, in the book’s first edition, of only 12 millimetres, even the ball of the thumb accommodates two sketchily rendered individuals. Their minute, densely packed associates (fellow citizens and, by extension, compatriots) fill out both left and right arms, in addition to the entirety of the upper torso, ceasing to be visible only in the darkened area below the chin. The gaze that each and every one of these figures directs towards the face of the giant returns, through the latter’s own gaze, to the reader-as-viewer, who thus enjoys the privilege of eye-to-eye contact with the literal and metaphorical “head” of this compelling visualisation of the “body politic”. The contradictory character of the state as envisaged by Hobbes and expounded in the text of his Leviathan – called into being by individuals contractually opting for the benefits and responsibilities of a life in common under an acknowledged authority, yet always susceptible to the weakness occasioned by a loss of communal cohesion – is already vouchsafed, to anyone opening the volume, in the vast discrepancies of purpose and of power at play within this ocular interchange.

XLVII, “Of the Kingdome of Darknesse”), most of his book’s chapters, albeit an only slightly shorter segment of its overall length, account for its first and second Parts (respectively, Chapters I to XVI, “Of Man”, and Chapters XVII to XXXI, “Of Common-Wealth”).

7

8

1. Hobbes, his Leviathan, its frontispiece

b. Why “Leviathan”? Hobbes on the terror-wielding state A superficial familiarity with the gigantic figure of the “body politic” (which has now long enjoyed a life independent of its role in the frontispiece to Hobbes’s text) and a vague notion that this figure is in some way associated with the aforementioned biblical monster – a connection stated by Hobbes only three times in his entire exposition, in each case briefly and, as a whole, not entirely consistently –10 has tended to blind generations of readers to the improbable nature of this pairing, and so to deter them from enquiring into precisely which qualities its two components could possibly be seen to share. Even among serious scholarly commentators, the invocation of the fantastical sea creature has continued to provoke surprise, even exasperation. As observed relatively recently, an adequate explanation was still required as to “why such a champion of methodological thought and clear concepts [as Hobbes] had, in his title, resorted to an obscure mythological figure that must needs remain semantically untransparent”.11 On the other hand, attempts to relocate Hobbes’s insights into the biblical name “Leviathan” by reference to abstruse etymological theories of which he may have become aware seem to pay too little regard to the perversity of opting for a title with an intended meaning surely inaccessible to almost all of the book’s first, and indeed later, readers.. While the sea monster of the Old Testament is summoned to appear, in a storm, to the wavering Job so as to instil in him a far deeper sense of God’s own omnipotence, the biblical Leviathan is itself able to alarm all those it encounters not only through its preposterous size, but also through its utter intrepidity (vividly conveyed earlier in the biblical chapter from which the frontispiece quotes),12 these qualities combining to arouse in any mere mortal an irresistible sense of fear. And it is fear – by which Hobbes, or so he claimed, had been consumed since infancy – that may be identified as both the origin and the object of the bleak truth on which he repeatedly and variously insists: that humanity is not inherently virtuous, and so must be awed, intimidated, even terrified into overcoming its innate vices.

10  See (cited in each case from the first edition: Hobbes Leviathan 1651a): Introduction, p. 1: “For by Art is created that great LEVIATHAN called a COMMON-WEALTH, or STATE, (in latine CIVITAS) […]”. Chapter XVII, p. 87: “[…] the Multitude so united in one Person, is called a COMMON-WEALTH, in latine CIVITAS. This is the Generation of that great LEVIATHAN”. Chapter XXVIII, p. 166: “Hitherto, I have set forth the nature of Man […] together with the great power of his Governour, whom I compared to Leviathan, taking that comparison out of the two last verses of the one and fortieth [Book] of Job […]”. 11  Kersting 1992, pp. 37–38. 12  See end of note 5, above, and in particular: Book of Job: 41, 18–19: “reputabit enim quasi paleas ferrum et quasi lignum putridum aes / non fugabit eum vir sagittarius in stipulam versi sunt ei lapides fundae” (in the King James Version 41, 27–28: He esteemeth iron as straw, and brass as rotten wood: / The arrow cannot make him flee: slingstones are turned with him into stubble).

b. Why “Leviathan”? Hobbes on the terror-wielding state

According to the Hobbesian view of human nature, each individual’s striving for security, advancement and fame leads inevitably to a perpetual struggle with rivals and opponents. In the “naturall condition” of humanity, one is therefore never very far from the “danger of violent death”. In such circumstances, the life of man will, in Hobbes’s immortal phrase, be “solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short”.13 As the mischief attendant upon this “naturall condition” is such that those committing it cannot, of their own volition, desist, their actions must be constrained through a resort to artifice: the greatly superior power exerted by the state. This is both characterised (in the “Introduction” to Leviathan) and envisaged (in the volume’s frontispiece) as an “Artificiall Man”,14 himself no less “monstrous”, at least in scale and intrepidity, than sovereign. In order to fulfil its intended function, the state must, where necessary, resort to violence. But, above all, it must induce an anticipatory fear that it will do so.15 The problematic nature of such a construct is evident. And, from the start, it has continued to spark objections.16 The German polymath Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, who corresponded intermittently with Hobbes in the 1670s and who had a high regard for many aspects of the latter’s text, felt that the state, envisaged as an omnipotent giant, would not stop at calling on its own capacity for violence to suppress the disorder and aggression inherent to human society, but would go on to monopolise this resource.17 In his view, the very power exerted by such a creature would ultimately bring about its own downfall, even if, before that point were reached, it might have proved capable of establishing a degree of peace within a state or of ensuring its momentary protection against the designs of external enemies. As others have observed, in the tendency to conceive of stability as an end in itself, there lurked the danger of provoking a counter-reaction: perhaps mild at first, but by degrees intensifying. It was precisely the very strictness of this means of maintaining order that would in the long term fail, on account of upholding 13 

Hobbes Leviathan 1651a (Chapter XIII), p. 62. See p. 115: Excerpts from Leviathan (Introduction). 15  Of particular interest among the numerous analyses of Hobbes’s concept of fear is that of Canetti 1976, p. 246, who encapsulates, in a few apposite words, to what an extent Hobbes is distinguished from all those who have seen in fear simply a means of achieving superiority. Cf. Jacobson 1998, whose immensely problematic but powerfully oppressive psychoanalytic interpretation of Hobbes recognises in him the desire to be engulfed; and, in diametric opposition to this interpretation, that of Fisher 1998, who values the concept of the fear-creating community as the key to an evaluation of every action with implications beyond its own immediate context. 16  Cf. Oakeshott 1975, pp. 1–74, here 54–56; and Mintz 1962, passim. 17  Letter of 13 / 23 July 1670 from Gottfried Wilhem Leibniz (writing from Mainz) to Thomas Hobbes, in: Hobbes Correspondence 1994, vol. II, no. 189, pp. 713–22; and, in particular, letter of unknown date in, perhaps, 1674, from Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (writing probably from Paris) to Thomas Hobbes, in: Hobbes Correspondence 1994, vol. II, no. 195, pp. 731–35, in particular 734–35. 14 

9

10

1. Hobbes, his Leviathan, its frontispiece

unrealistically high standards for human conduct.18 Viewed in the light of sociopolitical developments in the early and mid-twentieth century, Hobbes was, for a while, regarded as the father of totalitarianism. Today, he is almost in danger of becoming too firmly situated among the founding representatives of liberalism.19 It remains, however, beyond dispute that his own vision of the state has proved no less influential than it was original. An enduring interest of the Hobbesian state for a historian (of society or of politics, of images or of ideas) lies in the enduring scope for identifying the thought processes that issued in the invention of the gigantic figure seen in the frontispiece to Leviathan. But any attempt at a historical reconstruction of those factors that may have prompted or encouraged the negative radicalism of Hobbes’s stance must take care to keep in mind that, even while purporting to establish principles that would remain valid in perpetuity, he was not thinking and writing in purely theoretical terms. On the contrary, he was responding to some of the most pressing political realities of the mid-seventeenth century. Disorder and aggression prevailed across much of what, to Hobbes, was the known world: from the devastation visited upon Central Europe during the later phases of the Thirty Years War, to the almost perpetual skirmishes that plagued life in the North American colonies, where foreign settlers fought now with indigenous communities, now amongst themselves. Far more distressing, however, were the circumstances in which Hobbes, as an Englishman, found himself as his own country descended, from 1642, into Civil War, thereby brutally confirming the failure of every pre-existing provision for the maintenance of security and every traditional means of ensuring acknowledged legitimacy of rule. Nor was France – where Hobbes sought refuge from late 1640 to early 1652, and where he conceived and composed Leviathan and a number of other works – an entirely untroubled realm during those years. It was above all this experience that led Hobbes towards his conclusion that a successful state should not – indeed, ultimately, could not – be established in harmony with human nature, but must be imposed in opposition to it. Were this to be achieved, such a state would require an artificial framework, capable of supplying, then continuously supporting, its own contractual basis. This stabilising mechanism, intended to assure all human transactions of an enduring validity, should, in turn, have at its disposal both a monopoly on violence (as Leibniz had indeed

18 

On this point, see Sofsky 1996, pp. 7–8. Accusations of totalitarianism: Vialatoux 1935. In disagreement with this view: GoyardFabre 1975, passim. Mediating between the two: Rossini 1988, pp. 267–69. Also of note is Tönnies 1999, one of the more recent attempts to defend Hobbes in the light of the totalitarian tendencies detected by Arendt 1951. 19 

c. The 1651 frontispiece: adaptations and approximations

objected) and a store of the most compelling images. Chief among these was the gigantic figure that dominates the frontispiece to Leviathan.

c. The 1651 frontispiece: adaptations and approximations The frontispiece to the original, 1651 edition of Hobbes’s Leviathan was later to serve as the title-page to other editions of this work – and indeed, on occasion, to quite other works. In some cases it was printed from the increasingly worn original plates; in others it was copied, with varying degrees of fidelity; in yet others it was expressly adapted to suit the purpose in hand. However, because historical retrospect has always made so much of the text of Hobbes’s volume, correspondingly little attention has been paid to the title-page in its own gradual evolution. No-one posed the simple question as to which state or variant was employed or produced in which historical context. And only rarely could one learn from which particular edition was derived the reproduction featured in any one of the modern studies of Hobbes, or even in those focusing specifically on his Leviathan. Before embarking upon a closer analysis of the frontispiece in its original printed version (Fig. 2), it will thus be enlightening to set this in relation to those that followed. This task addresses one of the most complex problems in the by no means uncomplicated bibliography of Thomas Hobbes. In 1652, a year after the initial publication of Hobbes’s Leviathan, there appeared a French translation of the second part of his earlier text, the Elements of Law (itself completed in 1640, but published only a decade later). Entitled Le Corps Politique, this featured a frontispiece in which the unknown artist had addressed the difficult task of compressing the horizontally rectangular upper section of the original Leviathan frontispiece (Fig. 3) into the vertically rectangular page of a small, narrow-format volume (Fig. 5).20 A solution was found by way of using merely a segment of the original landscape, that lying below the giant’s left arm (on the right), and compressing its individual features, so as to retain the meandering river valley, the overall structure of the hilly terrain, and some of the buildings scattered across it. The bastion lying to the right of the church in the 1651 frontispiece has moved, in 1652, further to the right, becoming a more prominent feature and, thereby, better balancing the church now occupying the opposite corner. This church itself retains only one of the original two spires, an arrangement better corresponding with the now vertically positioned sword, while the more emphatically diagonal positioning of the bastion formally complements the tipped scales of justice. 20  Hobbes Le Corps Politique (= trans. of Elements of Law) 1652, frontispiece, 107 × 64 mm. Editions consulted: Bibliothèque Universitaire de Lyon, 86579 (facsimile, Saint-Étienne 1977); Bodleian Library, University of Oxford, Vet. E3 f. 73; British Library, London, 8005.de.2 (without frontispiece); and 8005.a.20 (without frontispiece). See p. 171: Catalogue of Images W XVI.

11

12

1. Hobbes, his Leviathan, its frontispiece

5 ­_ Frontispiece to Thomas Hobbes, Le Corps Politique (French trans. of Elements of Law), Paris 1652. Engraving on paper, 107 × 64 mm. Oxford University, Bodleian Library (Ver. E3f.73)

Of particular iconographic significance is the use of these scales to replace the original episcopal crosier. Sword and scales bestow the traditional attributes of the allegorical figure of Justice, which may be understood as in keeping with the main title of the original work, now featuring as the French sub-title: Les Elements de la Loy Morale et Civile. The marked animation within the French giant’s composite limbs and torso reveals, however, that he still nonetheless represents the “body politic” in its entirety. Within his right arm (to the left) are assembled soldiers; his left arm is home to judges and a bishop; and his torso comprises citizens (both male and female) engaged in the daily commerce of life in society. The suppression of the crosier featured in the original, English frontispiece may, then, have been a tactical move. It is possible that the printer (whose identity is also unknown) found

c. The 1651 frontispiece: adaptations and approximations

6 _­ Frontispiece to Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (Dutch translation), Amsterdam 1667. Engraving on paper, 165 × 112 mm. London, British Library (8006.aaa.8.)

it inopportune, in a French context, to depict the relationship between the temporal and the spiritual realms as this had initially been shown. The earlier symbolic evidence of the embodied state holding sway over both is now removed. A second variant of the original, 1651 frontispiece to Hobbes’s Leviathan (in this case in its entirety) is to be found prefacing the Dutch translation of this text, an octavo volume printed in Amsterdam: initially in 1667 (Fig. 6)21 and, in unaltered

21  Hobbes Leviathan 1667, frontispiece, 165 × 112 mm. Editions consulted: British Library, London, 8006.aaa.8.; William Andrews Clark Memorial Library, University of California, Los Angeles, *B1222 A3D 1667. See p. 172: Catalogue of Images W XVIII, 1. Hobbes 1672, frontispiece,

13

14

1. Hobbes, his Leviathan, its frontispiece

form, again in 1672. The unidentified copyist22 had evidently also addressed the task of concealing the implicit subordination of both temporal and spiritual power to the authority of the state. He made the images in the left-hand column in the lower section of the frontispiece a little more obviously broader than those in the right-hand column, as if more firmly to emphasise the worldly foundations of the giant’s power. The most striking alteration occurs, however, in the upper section, where that figure appears to loom up out of far more rugged terrain. In the original, 1651 version (Fig. 2) the giant’s exact spatial relation to the landscape is such that it remains uncertain as to whether (as is suggested by the inscribed allusion to the biblical monster) he too has sprung from the sea or, rather (in the iconographic tradition of depictions of Terra or Tellus), he stands up to his waist in the earth.23 In the two Dutch editions, although rather more is made of the stretch of water at the upper right, the giant is indubitably a land creature, albeit one with the sea at his back. This relatively minor difference between the English and the Dutch editions would seem to reflect the fierce rivalry of these years – global in its ramifications – between Holland and England: nominally friendly states that were, nonetheless, engaged in lively competition on the high seas. As the Dutch giant is depicted with land also behind him, this presentation might well have served to distinguish pride in the Netherlands (a significant naval power, but not an island), by contrast with the corresponding English patriotic emotion. And the latter could perhaps be said to inform Hobbes’s own understanding of the power wielded by the state in the years when he was at work on the text of Leviathan: hampered domestically through both overt and covert factionalism, but still formidable as an affirmation of readiness to defy every external challenge.24 It is possible that the Dutch edition of 1667 stimulated new interest in the original, English publication; for, around 1678, there was a second, Amsterdam printing of this English edition, retaining the original format but, confusingly, also itself dated “1651” (Fig. 7):25 This is to be distinguished from the genuine first p. Ir, 137 × 87 mm: identical with 1667, albeit with a distinct date. See p. 174: Catalogue of Images W XXI, 1. Cf. Brandt 1982, p. 220, note 6. 22  The same copyist was responsible for this volume’s portrait of Hobbes, a left-right reversal of the portrait engraving initially produced for the 1647 Amsterdam edition of the author’s De Cive. See, respectively, p. 216–17: Catalogue of Portraits P IV (also P III) and p. 221: Catalogue of Portraits P XVI. We are grateful to the staff of the Rijksprentenkabinet, Amsterdam, for supplementing our own (as yet unsuccessful) efforts to ascertain the identity of this copyist. 23  See the fundamental work on the Mediaeval iconography of the Leviathan in Bertozzi 1983, pp 6–12. 24  Steadman 1967, pp. 575–76; Windisch 1994, pp. 77–78. 25  Hobbes Leviathan 1651b, frontispiece, 240 × 155 mm. The date is forged. Editions consulted; British Library, London, 1476.d.23; William Andrews Clark Memorial Library, University of California, Los Angeles, f*1222 1651a. See p. 178: Catalogue of Images W XXV, 1.

c. The 1651 frontispiece: adaptations and approximations

7 ­_ Frontispiece to Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, Amsterdam c. 1678 (“Bear” edition, 1651b). Etching on paper, 240 × 155 mm. London, British Library (1476.d.23.)

English edition of that year through the original printer’s mark with a head (Fig. 8) being replaced by one with a bear (Fig. 9) – hence conventional references to the “Head” edition and the “Bear” edition.26 The Amsterdam printing of the English edition was advantaged through the fact that reprinting in England had been banned following attacks on Hobbes by the Church in 1666. This had had the 26  Hobbes Leviathan 1651b, printer’s mark, 41 × 84 mm. See p. 179: Catalogue of Images W XXV, 2. Between 1617 and 1670 the image of a bear was frequently used as a printer’s mark in Amsterdam, and the vignette of Saint Christopher positioned above the “Introduction” (Hobbes Leviathan 1651b, 118 × 320 mm; see p. 179: Catalogue of Images W XXV, 3) might indicate the involvement of the Amsterdam printer Christoffel Cunradus (Macdonald & Hargreaves 1952, p. 28).

15

16

1. Hobbes, his Leviathan, its frontispiece

8 ­_ Printer’s mark from the first, “Head” edition of Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, London 1651 (1651a). Engraving on paper. Dresden, Sächsische Landesbibliothek: Kupferstichkabinett (Deutsche Fotothek R. Richter)

9 ­_ Printer’s mark from the “Bear” edition of Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, Amsterdam c. 1678 (1651b). London, British Library (1476.d.23.)

10 ­_ Printer’s mark from the “Ornament” edition of Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, Amsterdam c. 1702 (1651c). Dresden, Sächsische Landes­bibliothek: Kupferstich­ kabinett (Deutsche Fotothek R. Richter: 276 7739)

unintended consequence that the first edition of Leviathan immediately became a sought-after collector’s item, both in England and abroad.27 It was to this market for copies of the 1651 English edition that the “Bear” edition printed in Amsterdam eventually sought to appeal. The anonymous Amsterdam printer must have closely collaborated, to this end, with the London publishing house of Andrew Crooke; for it is evident that the already badly worn plates first used in 1651 were made available for the reprint.28 The puff of smoke issuing from the cannon on the battlements in the uppermost segment of the left-hand image column has now disappeared, the battle shown below has a white patch at its centre, while in the counterposed scene of the ecclesiastical convocation the figure of the judge can barely be made out. In the 27 

Carl H. Pforzheimer Library, vol. II, pp. 493–94. The state of the plates as employed in Amsterdam is only once documented in relation to their original use for the first, English edition: regarding the copy of Leviathan found in the estate of Carl Schmitt (Nachlass Carl Schmitt 1993, p. 433). 28 

c. The 1651 frontispiece: adaptations and approximations

11 ­_ Frontispiece to Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan c. 1702 (“Ornament” edition, 1651c). Etching on paper, 241 × 155 mm. Göttingen, Niedersächsische Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek

upper section of the frontispiece the city has remained almost intact, but the landscape appears to lie under a thick autumnal mist. The outlines of the minute figures that make up the giant’s body are so indistinct that in some cases they have had to be filled in by hand: an intervention that leaves the giant’s lower arms looking as though they had been steeped in ink. In the neck and head it is above all the shading that has been thus reworked. A third printing of the English text of Hobbes’s Leviathan (Fig. 11),29 almost identical in size to the second, and also bearing a (false) date of “1651”, but adorned 29  Hobbes Leviathan 1651c, frontispiece, 241 × 155 mm. The date is forged. Editions consulted: Niedersächsische Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek, Göttingen, Kuessner Bibl. 293; British

17

18

1. Hobbes, his Leviathan, its frontispiece

with a printer’s mark made up of twenty-five so-called “fleurons” (“Ornament edition”, Fig. 10),30 is likely to have been produced, in around 1702, for the same reasons as had the “Bear” edition (Fig. 7). For the third printing, too, the original plates were re-used; but they were now so very worn that extensive areas of the landscape in the upper section appear as if covered in deep snow, while the sky has become a cloudless white expanse. Apparently, the printer had no example of the original impression to which to refer as a guide in restoring what had been lost. For, where the plates, in their worn state, no longer supplied sufficient clues, he made no attempt at a faithful reconstruction. The minute bodies comprising the giant’s torso and arms thus resemble mere cut-out paper shapes on account of their new, simplified contours; and the bastion lying to the right of the city church offers only a few hints as to its own architectural character, leaving it barely recognisable in its function as part of a defensive complex. In the lower section of the frontispiece, much of the scene of battle in the left-hand column is lost. Those responsible for the “Bear” edition and the “Ornament” edition were, of course, less intent on absolute precision in their own rendering of the Leviathan frontispiece than with creating an illusion that the image they had produced, decades after the original, in fact belonged to the genuine first, 1651 edition. Because their own title-pages, notwithstanding the much reduced quality of the print, had in fact been obtained from the original plates, they felt justified in appending a false date. By this means they were enabled to circumvent the English ban on new publications of Hobbes’s Leviathan. At the cost of the image quality of its frontispiece, now extensively obscured, his text could once again be sold.

d. Leviathan in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries The now entirely exhausted original plates could not be used again; and an engraved copy of the original Leviathan frontispiece was therefore made for the relevant segment of the 1750 publication of Thomas Hobbes’s Moral and Political Works (Fig. 12).31 By comparison with its 1651 model (Fig. 2), this image exhibits a somewhat brittle rigidity. And it is difficult to believe that this new title-page, in the first collected edition of Hobbes’s writings in English, would have met the expectations of bibliophiles. Although a careful imitation of the 1651 model has in most respects been achieved, occasional details have been altered. The two figures stand-

Library, London, G. 2455; William Andrews Clark Memorial Library, University of California, Los Angeles, f*1222 1651b. See p. 185: Catalogue of Images W XXXVI, 1. 30  Hobbes Leviathan 1651c, printer’s mark, 47 × 44 mm. See p. 186: Catalogue of Images W XXXVI, 2. 31  Hobbes Leviathan 1750, frontispiece, 251 × 159 mm. See p. 189: Catalogue of Images W XXXIX, 2.

d. Leviathan in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries

12 ­_ Frontispiece to Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, as part of The Moral and Philosophical Works, London 1750. Engraving on paper, 251 × 159 mm. London, British Library (31.k.14)

ing in front of the church, now deprived of the beaked masks that had identified them as plague doctors, have effectively been demoted to mere laymen. A far more significant difference, however, is to be found in the treatment of the frame and the inscription. The framing that had originally been a feature only of the lower section of the frontispiece is now extended to embrace also its upper section, thereby diminishing the original sense of the authenticity of the gigantic figure. Such a “rationalisation” of the image is reflected in the new treatment of the biblical inscription. Appearing in the original version (Fig. 2) almost cursorily inserted around and between the tip of the sword and the finial of the crosier, its direct relation to the figure of the giant was nonetheless clear. But, in its new positioning, its implicit spatial relation to that figure is ill-defined, and it thus ceases

19

20

1. Hobbes, his Leviathan, its frontispiece

13 ­_ Frontispiece to Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, as volume III of The English Works of Thomas Hobbes, London 1839. Engraving on paper, 165 × 105 mm. Los Angeles, University of California, William Andrews Clark Memorial Library

to have an immediately evident connection with it. Those new to Hobbes’s work would be liable to associate the words in the biblical quotation not with the embodied “Common-Wealth”, but with an invisible, higher power. They would, accordingly, be far less predisposed to accept the paradoxically interrelated notions crucial to Hobbes’s understanding of the state: that it is a creation of man in the real world; that its power is, nonetheless, super-human; and yet that it is only through the imposition of human will that this power can be maintained. Because it is this version of the frontispiece to Leviathan that has repeatedly been employed to illustrate Hobbes’s most fundamental ideas,32 it cannot be sufficiently emphasised that the very clarity of the 1750 engraving compromises that strain of contradiction, 32  For example in Carl Schmitt’s 1938 volume on Leviathan. At that time Schmitt in fact owned a genuine 1651 edition (see note 28, above); and bound into that copy was a frontispiece

d. Leviathan in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries

even of obscurity, that pervades Hobbes’s text, just as it haunts the frontispiece to the original, 1651 edition. When, finally, between 1839 and 1845, there appeared what was, for well over a hundred years, to be regarded as the “standard” edition of Hobbes’s complete works, the text of his Leviathan (its volume III) was preceded by a new, and somewhat smaller, engraved frontispiece (Fig. 13),33 which further aggravated the inadequacy of that of 1750 (Fig. 12). In keeping with the 1651 version (Fig. 2), the frame inserted in 1750 around the upper section of the image was now removed; and the biblical inscription was shifted a little closer to the figure of the giant. In now occupying its own distinct strip within the image, however, this inscription still appears to be a commentary not on the might of the embodied “Common-Wealth”, but on that of a superior being. And so that version of the Leviathan frontispiece that was to have so profound an influence on the further reception of the thought of Hobbes is itself possessed of a character that undermines the argument of his volume. Every instance of the frontispiece to Hobbes’s Leviathan considered here confirms, albeit sometimes through tiny and seemingly insignificant alterations, that one cannot speak of the sequential forms assumed by this image as merely varying “illustrations” of one and the same text. In each case, those responsible reacted to the task in hand in accordance with particular, historically conditioned aims and took the necessary precautionary measures, even their slightest interventions incurring a significant shift in implicit meaning. Considered, moreover, across a period of almost two centuries, the series in its entirety reveals a persistent tendency to defuse or neutralise Hobbes’s (admittedly troubling) conviction – so central to his concept of the state as a real-world counterpart to the biblical Leviathan – that terror, appositely and authoritatively wielded, was the only tool for restoring, and then maintaining, peace.

from the “Bear” edition of c. 1680. In his 1938 publication Schmitt chose, however, to illustrate the 1750 frontispiece on account of what he saw as its “greater legibility” (Schmitt 1938, pp. 26–27). 33  Hobbes Leviathan, in: Hobbes 1839–45 HEW, vol. III, frontispiece, 165 × 105 mm. See p. 190: Catalogue of Images W XLII.

21

2. The authorship of the Leviathan frontispiece The authorship of the frontispiece to the original, 1651 publication of Hobbes’s Leviathan (Fig. 2) – which is an etching and not, as commonly assumed, an engraving – has long been uncertain, and much discussed; and it is still not established beyond every shred of doubt.1 Although the present writer, as revealed in this chapter, firmly favours one of the two most frequently proposed candidates, a good deal is to be learnt through considering the circumstances, allegiances, technical capacities and distinctive style of both of these. On the very reasonable assumption that Hobbes will have taken a great interest in this aspect of the publication of his volume – he was, after all, as convinced of the potency of the visual as he was intrigued by the phenomenon of vision – one may imagine him readily engaging in preliminary discussions on both structural and thematic aspects of the title-page. Certain more practical assumptions should, of course, also guide consideration as to who may have collaborated with Hobbes on this occasion. Based from late 1640 to early 1652 in Paris, he had already chosen to employ a local talent – the engraver Jean Matheus – for the provision of an illustrated title-page for his earlier, Latin volume De Cive. In addition to the frontispiece of its first published version, of 1642, a preparatory pen-and-ink drawing survives.2 But Hobbes’s long Parisian sojourn was also marked by a continuing professional connection with the publishing world of London (where, in 1648, his English translation of Thucydides on the Peloponnesian War, first published there in 1629, was for the second time reissued) and, in particular, with that of Amsterdam (where, between 1647 and 1649, De Cive reappeared on several occasions, in two cases in a French translation, with a new, 1 

A second, albeit essentially distinct, question regards the identity of the printer of the first edition of Hobbes’s book, who was doubtless commissioned by the London publisher Andrew Crooke. Apparently in order to save time, Crooke collaborated with two different printing concerns, which would account for the slight differences between the script and the decoration of the initial letters in the two halves of the volume. Roger Norton printed the first and second Parts, and Richard Cotes printed the third and fourth Parts (Carl H. Pforzheimer Library, vol. II, p. 492; cf. Tuck 1991, p. xxix). 2  See p. 159: Catalogue of Images W IV, III (De Cive, Paris).

24

2. The authorship of the Leviathan frontispiece

anonymous frontispiece).3 As regards the matter of a frontispiece for the text of his Leviathan, Hobbes may, by 1650, have been no less inclined to seek the services of an artist who might be summoned to Paris, or was already visiting that city, than to resort to one more continuously based there.

a. The case for Wenceslaus Hollar Since the late nineteenth century, the draughtsman and etcher Wenceslaus (Wenzel) Hollar, a native of Prague but later chiefly resident in London, where he died, has been identified by many commentators as the artist responsible for the original, 1651 Leviathan frontispiece.4 Having trained in 1627–29, in Frankfurt, under the engraver Matthäus Merian, he subsequently lived and worked, as a draughtsman and etcher, in Strasbourg, Mainz, Koblenz and then Cologne, where in 1636 his work – above all his etched views of cities on the Rhine – came to the attention of Thomas Howard, 21st Earl of Arundel, who was then traversing Europe on an ambassadorial mission. Taking Hollar into his own service, Arundel returned with him in 1637 to England, where he sought to secure for his protégé an appointment to the London Court of Charles I. Here, it is possible that Hollar served for a time as Tutor in Drawing to the young Charles, Prince of Wales, Heir Apparent to the English throne.5 In 1642, with the advent of the Civil War and Arundel’s departure, initially for Antwerp, Hollar at first remained in England, contriving to find a market for his work, above all through London publishers and book- and printsellers. However, the increasingly precarious nature of his situation (not least as he may have served for a while with Royalist forces) 6 in due course persuaded him to leave; and by 1644 he was himself settled in Antwerp. Hollar’s former royal pupil (if such he was) himself left England in the summer of 1646, and moved to Paris, where a Stuart Court in Exile had gradually become established. Moving on in 1648 to The Hague, he returned to France (by way of a tumultuous period back in England) only in the autumn of 1651.

3  See p. pp. 155–58, 162– 63: Catalogue of Images W I, W II, W III (Thucydides, London); and pp. 160–61, 164–65: Catalogue of Images W V, W VI, W VII, W IX, W X (De Cive, Amsterdam). 4  Borovsky 1898, p. 72, no. 2668a. This attribution was, however, contested in Johnson’s 1934 catalogue of English title-pages, which cites the argument of Major Howard (Johnson 1934, p. 68, no. 78). As Brown relates (Brown 1978, p. 29), Howard had not found, in the inscription on the title page of Leviathan, letters of the type and form favoured by Hollar, a point that Brown himself disputes. Brown’s own view – that the artist had indeed been Hollar – has been accepted in some more recent publications. 5  Van Eerde 1970, p. 20. The uncertainty regarding Hollar’s association with the Prince is, however, stressed in Pennington 1982, p. xxxx. 6  This episode in Hollar’s life was first mentioned in Vertue 1759, p. 141–42.

a. The case for Wenceslaus Hollar

14 ­_ Wenceslaus Hollar, The Monastery at Einsiedeln, 1628. Pen and black ink with blue and brownish wash on paper, 99 × 159 mm. Hamburg, Kunsthalle: Kupferstichkabinett (23408)

It would seem that Hollar was based continuously in Antwerp until his return to England, where he was re-established by 1652. However, given the paucity of secure information regarding this eight-year period,7 it is impossible to rule out brief visits to other cities, among them Paris. There, Hobbes had by the early autumn of 1646 been appointed Tutor in Mathematics to Prince Charles, thus arguably following Hollar in entering into an association with the Stuart Court.8 One can only speculate as to whether this in itself might have served as the basis for a collaboration between the author and the artist. There is, however, rather more secure evidence in the form of the diverse aspects of Hollar’s style, as draughtsman and as etcher, which seem to point to a strong likelihood of his being Hobbes’s collaborator in the remarkable work here in question. These relate, moreover, to almost every aspect of the upper, and more pictorial, section of the Leviathan frontispiece (Fig. 3): its passages of both land- and townscape, its positive tour de force of two very distinct types of figure drawing, even its element of portraiture. The topographical draughtsmanship seen to such advantage here in the detailed rendering of the invented city shows off the talent for which Hollar was most readily 7 

Pennington 1982, pp. xxx–xxxiv. See letter of 1646 (probably late September) from Samuel Sorbière (in The Hague) to Thomas Hobbes, in: Hobbes Correspondence 1994, vol. I, no. 44, pp. 136–39, here 138–39. Following a reference to this new post, “[…] now that you have been promoted to the service of the Prince […]”, Sorbière goes on to flatter Hobbes: “[…] how fortunate your country will be when it receives a King full of wisdom and imbued with your teachings”. See also Malcolm 1996, p. 31. 8 

25

26

2. The authorship of the Leviathan frontispiece

15 _ ­ Wenceslaus Hollar, The Execution of the Earl of Strafford, 1641. Etching on paper, 187 × 264 mm. London, British Museum: Prints & Drawings (1850.0223.236)

acclaimed in his day. But the site in question also, intriguingly, contains an unusual architectural feature – the church with a nave flanked at its mid-point by twin spires – that one might well view as anticipated in a much earlier work: Hollar’s drawn record of the Benedictine monastery at Einsiedeln, in Switzerland, as this appeared in 1628 (Fig. 14). This was to serve as the basis, if clearly not the precise model, for a later etching, captioned “Closter Einsideln”,9 where the implicit point of observation is imaginatively elevated so as to render an expansive bird’s eye view of the town and the surrounding hilly landscape. Hollar’s skill in depicting large assembles of diminutive human figures, which would have been all but indispensable in rendering the components of the Hobbesian giant’s body, had been repeatedly attested during the 1640s: from a record of the public execution, in London in 1641, of the Earl of Strafford (Fig. 15) to that of the conclusion, in Antwerp in 1648, of the Peace Settlement between Spain and the United (Dutch) Provinces.10 As for the giant’s facial features: these may be found to have a striking resemblance to those of Prince Charles as he is depicted in the   9 

Pennington 1982, p. 137, no. 842. Cf. Brown 1978, p. 31. Respectively, Pennington 1982, p. 87, no. 552; and Pennington 1982, pp. 89–90, no. 561 (recording the events of 5 June 1648; probably not published until 1652). 10 

a. The case for Wenceslaus Hollar

16 _ ­ Wenceslaus Hollar, Portrait of Prince Charles, 1650. Etching and engraving on paper, 446 × 333 mm. London, Royal Collection (RCIN 8054377)

panegyric portrait etched by Hollar in 1650, after a coloured drawing by Abraham van Diepenbeeck (Fig. 16).11 This is particularly true as regards the styling of the hair, the widely spaced eyebrows, the prominent though shapely chin, and the somewhat puffy lower eyelids.12 Not long after the execution of his father, on 30 January 1649 (OS), the Prince had been proclaimed, by the Court in Exile, as his successor. And, by the time of Hollar’s print, he had come to believe that, with the assistance of troops from Scotland (where a similar declaration had followed), he might be able to realise his goal

11 

Pennington 1982, p. 250, no. 1444. The drawing by Abraham van Diepenbeeck is now in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford; cf. Hirsch 1928, pp. 9–10, who attributes the rendering of the face to Cornelius van Caukercken. The relevant information supplied in Steadman’s monograph on Diepenbeeck (Steadman 1982, p. 177, note 23) throws little light on this matter. 12  Brown 1978, pp. 33–34.

27

28

2. The authorship of the Leviathan frontispiece

of reclaiming the English throne for the Stuarts. This is not, however, to imply that the giant of Hobbes’s frontispiece might have been intended as a covert portrait of the Prince. This would not indeed have been a feasible option as of 1651, the political situation in England remaining far too confused and the fate of the royal exile far too uncertain. Nor have other posited “matches” for the face of the embodied “Common-Wealth” – Charles I, Oliver Cromwell, even Hobbes himself – been found sufficiently convincing.13 Any such identification with a single specific individual, however exalted, would also have been out of step with the author’s conviction that the principles affirmed in his book were universal in their validity.14

b. The frontispiece in its drawn version For all the support that an attribution to Wenceslaus Hollar has long enjoyed, the frontispiece to the first, 1651 edition of Hobbes’s Leviathan had in fact been attributed, within twenty years of its appearance, to another highly regarded draughtsman and etcher, in this case a Frenchman (albeit of German descent): Abraham Bosse. In 1666 the Abbé Michel de Marolles (among the most important collectors and connoisseurs of his day in France) listed the work in question among those by Bosse that he then owned.15 The following year these were acquired, on behalf of Louis XIV, by the latter’s culturally astute surintendant des finances, Jean-Baptiste Colbert. And around a century later Pierre-Jean Mariette included the 1651 version of the Leviathan frontispiece in his catalogue raisonné of the work of Bosse.16 In subsequent catalogues raisonnés, and in other relevant scholarly literature, the attribution to Bosse has, however, been variously appraised; and it long remained far from universally accepted.17 Attributions to Bosse and to Hollar have in fact tended to persist in parallel. 13  The identification of the giant of the frontispiece in the first, “Head” edition of Hobbes’s volume with Cromwell, and that of the second, “Ornament” edition with Charles I derives from Whewell (Whewell 1852, p. 21), and was also maintained by others up to the time of Hale (Hale 1971, p. 128). The Cromwell thesis has been widely rejected; see, for example, Brown 1978, p. 34, and Goldsmith 1990, p. 654. Equally unacceptable is the identification with Hobbes himself, as proposed by Corbett and Lightbown (Corbett & Lightbown 1979, pp. 229–30), on the basis, among other comparisons, of a perceived similarity with certain other portraits of Hobbes. 14  Brandt 1982, p. 207. 15  According to his catalogue, he possessed 790 sheets by Bosse (Marolles 1666, p. 77). With regard to works by Hollar, he gives the figure as 764 (Marolles 1666, p. 61). 16  Pierre-Jean Mariette, “Table manuscrite des oeuvres d’Abraham Bosse”, in: Pierre-Jean Mariette, “Notes manuscrites sur les peintres et les graveurs, réunies de la Bibliothèque du roi” (before 1774), cited here from an anonymous article in Magasin pittoresque, 1852 (Anonymous 1852), p. 154. 17  Earlier attributions to Bosse: Duplessis 1859, pp. 60–61, no. 297; Blum 1924, p. 33, no. 604, p. 33; Weigert 1939, p. 493, no. 297; Corbett & Lightbown 1979, pp. 221–22; Goldsmith 1990, p. 671, note 77. More recent attributions to Bosse: Abraham Bosse 2004, p. 259, no. 268;

b. The frontispiece in its drawn version

In addition to the rather strong argument to be advanced in favour of Abraham Bosse on the basis of a likely intellectual sympathy with Hobbes and a number of characteristic aspects of his work as both draughtsman and etcher (on which see the next segment of this chapter), there is also the evidence, albeit in itself not entirely unambiguous, of the frontispiece in its drawn version. This was bound into the vellum manuscript of Leviathan presented by Hobbes, while still in Paris, to his pupil, Prince Charles, which is now in the collection of the British Library (Fig. 17).18 The drawing in part follows and in part startlingly departs from details of the frontispiece in its etched version (Fig. 2). In formal terms, most of the ways in which it differs can be classified either as alterations undertaken in the interests of greater compositional balance, or instances of a notably lighter touch in the treatment of decorative entities (apparent, for example, in the elaborate curling finial of the episcopal crosier). And it is of course the case that a drawing will invariably permit a richer internal detailing of forms than does a medium intended for multiple reproduction. Two other, far weightier issues are the omission of the biblical quotation, and the rather closer resemblance between the giant’s face and that of Prince Charles as recorded in Hollar’s panegyric portrait (Fig. 16). More will be said below on both points. By far the most obtrusive difference between the etched and the drawn versions of the Leviathan frontispiece is the fact that the giant’s composite body is made up, in the latter, not of diminutive half-figures turned inwards to focus intently on the huge face above them, but exclusively of heads facing outwards and gazing in diverse directions. Both physiognomies and expressions vary a good deal; but a state of some agitation is common to almost all the faces, conveyed through their open mouths and unusually wide eyes. As the style in which they are drawn, with its fine pen-and-ink outlines and delicate application of wash, has been associated with Hollar as well as with Bosse,19 an earlier work that is securely attributed

Lothe 2008, pp. 406–07, no. 1307. These last both cite Bosse’s own related manuscript notes (vol. 1, fol. 289), which, except for the date he gives, seem to confirm his authorship: “Une figure chimérique d’un homme […] le corps de cette figure est composé d’un grand amas de peuple […] Pièce énigmatique sur la puissance temporelle et spirituelle, inventée et gravée en 1654 [sic.], pour un frontispice de livre. Leviathan. 4o London. 9 p. h 6 p. tr.” The approximate (pre-Revolutionary) measurement in “p.” (= pouces: the modern equivalent of just over 27 mm) would equate to an etched plate of roughly 243 × 162 mm, almost the exact size of the original, 1651 frontispiece. 18  Hobbes Leviathan 1651 (vellum manuscript), frontispiece, 241 × 159 mm. See p. 166: Catalogue of Images W XII. Information regarding this manuscript began circulating in the early nineteenth century (Pratt 1813). It was acquired by the British Museum in 1861. 19  Brown 1978, p. 28, favours Wenceslaus Hollar. Corbett and Lightbown (Corbett & Lightbown 1979, p. 222) argue, however, that this “pen drawing is dated 1651, and is in French style. It can be attributed with some confidence to Bosse”.

29

30

2. The authorship of the Leviathan frontispiece

17 _ Abraham Bosse (attrib.), Frontispiece to vellum manuscript copy of Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, 1651. Pen and ink with wash on vellum, 241 × 159 mm. London, British Library (Ms. Egerton, 1910)

b. The frontispiece in its drawn version

18 ­_ Abraham Bosse, Melancholy, c. 1634. Etching on paper, 245 × 201 mm, excluding text. London, British Museum: Prints & Drawings (1868.0808.3280)

to the latter is of particular interest here (Fig. 18).20 This sheet features the dejected figure of a man seated at a table, his right arm resting on a cushion, his right hand supporting his head, and his pet monkey adopting a reciprocal pose. Especially remarkable here is the lining of the man’s cloak, which features an assembly of female heads. Far less compressed than are their male counterparts in the drawn Leviathan frontispiece, they nonetheless similarly look outwards, more often than not seeming to direct their expressions (some inquisitive, some scornful) at the 20  Abraham Bosse 2004, p. 138, no. 94 (c. 1634); Lothe 2008, p. 268, no. 275 (1629/30). Both title this work “L’Homme fourré de malice” and observe that the dating of “c. 1650” (tentatively proposed in Blum 1924, no. 1085) is far too late.

31

32

2. The authorship of the Leviathan frontispiece

viewer. In keeping with the ironically misogynistic tone of the lines that appear beneath the image,21 it would seem that Bosse’s female heads, rather than supportively comprising the torso and arms of the seated protagonist, merely cling to him as a sort of “infestation” of his sumptuous garb. And this cloak has evidently become so heavy that it drags its wearer down, casting him into a state of black gall.22 The intriguing motivic similarity with the frontispiece drawing seems in itself to serve as a measure of the high seriousness of this last.

c. The case for Abraham Bosse Had Hobbes, in around 1650, wished once again to collaborate on a frontispiece with a French artist based in Paris, as he had in 1642, he could have found few more suited to the task in hand than was Abraham Bosse. Born in Tours and initially relocating to the French capital in 1621, as an apprentice to the Flemish engraver Melchior Tavernier, he subsequently came under the influence of Jacques Callot, whose own dazzlingly innovative approach to etching he briefly emulated, though later preferring to sacrifice the freedom of the etched line in favour of giving his own etchings the greater clarity and precision associated with engravings. This shift may have been in part encouraged through the enthusiasm for the technical aspects of depiction – in particular, a mathematical and geometrical approach to perspective – that he absorbed through his friendship, from around 1641, with Girard Desargues, one of the most prominent mathematicians and engineers of his day. Over the following decades Bosse expounded such notions in a great many theoretical publications.23 They also played a part in the manual on etching that he published in 1645, the first volume of its kind, and in his wider-ranging treatise of 1649 (Fig. 26).24 Invited in 1648 to become a founder member of the French 21  “Je ne vois point que le Graveur / Ait pour raison que son caprice, / Quand il appelle ca Resueur / Un homme fourré de malice. / Car s’il est tout chargé de maux, / D’où procedent ils que de[s] testes / De ces dangereux Animaux, / Qui trompent les plus fines bestes? / Tout ce qu’il a de vicieux / Ne vient donc pas de sa nature, / Ou bien s[’]il est malicieux, / Il s’en faut prendre a sa fourrure.” / [To my mind, the engraver / Is merely indulging a whim / When he tells us this daydreamer / Is a man riddled with evil. / For, if it is indeed so, / Whence does this evil come? Surely from / The heads of these dangerous creatures, / Who’d trick even the shrewdest beasts. All that’s vicious about him / Comes not from his own nature. / And, in any case, to be rid of vice, / All he’d need do is remove his fur.] 22  In a smaller copy of this etching, made in around 1640 by Wenceslaus Hollar, with the title “Lechery” and a variant accompanying text that opens with the words: “Foole that I was […]” (Pennington 1982, p. 73, no. 487), the protagonist bewails the debauched life (of which the female heads now serve as ghostly memories) that has forced him into penury. 23  Notably, Bosse 1648. A mathematical analysis is to be found in Field & Gray 1984. Cf. also Field 1997, pp. 220–22. 24  See, respectively, Bosse 1645 and Bosse 1649. When his introduction to the art of etching was translated, in 1652, into German, Georg Andreas Böckler spoke, in his Preface, of the

c. The case for Abraham Bosse

Académie royale de peinture et de sculpture, he was there appointed to teach Perspective. But his still markedly scientific approach to the subject proved anathema in this context, where most were devoted to the pursuit of an art free of the “taint” of mathematics. After more than a decade of increasingly acrimonious disagreement on this matter, Bosse definitively took his leave of the Académie in 1661, and shortly thereafter opened a school of his own.25 The “mathematical passion” that made Bosse so unacceptable, at this time, at the Académie was, however, precisely the characteristic that would most recommend him to the similarly inclined Hobbes. Over and above the consequent likelihood of a strong intellectual sympathy between the two, there are motivic, stylistic and technical aspects of Bosse’s work during the 1630s and 1640s that give grounds for believing that he was indeed the artist responsible for not only executing but also (in collaboration with Hobbes) devising the etched frontispiece to the first, 1651 edition of Leviathan. Together, these throw a richly revealing light on what Bosse may have contributed to the essential task of that title-page: a compelling visualisation of abstract ideas. It is of particular significance that similarities between the frontispiece published in 1651 (Fig. 2) and earlier work securely attributed to Bosse are detectable even in what might well appear to be relatively minor details. Three military subjects testify to this phenomenon. The close proximity, even abutment, of gabled houses and fortified walls in the city featured in the upper section of the title-page (Fig. 3) is present in an external view of much the same arrangement in the left background of one of a series of military “fashion plates” – in this case illustrating the elegant uniform of a Standard Bearer (Fig. 19).26 The motif is, moreover, to be found elsewhere in Bosse’s work.27 In the uppermost image of the left-hand column in the lower section of the title-page (Fig. 4), the puff of smoke issuing from the cannon on the battlements is another device that Bosse used on many occasions “weltberuembte(n) und in der Kunst hocherfahrne(n) Abraham Bosse, Kupfferstecher zu Pariss” [widely renowned Abraham Bosse, an artist of great experience, an engraver in Paris] (Bosse 1652, p. Aiv). Even in 1765, when a new edition appeared, readers were informed, in the Introduction, that this volume now needed no justification because Bosse’s reputation as the authority on the subject had endured (Bosse 1765, p. a3). 25  Heinich 1983; Kemp 1984, pp. 123–25; Da Costa Kaufmann 1993, pp. 76–78; Field 1997, pp. 209–11; Germer 1997, pp. 121–23; Duro 1997, pp. 168–70; also p. 177, where there is a poem characterising Bosse as the “Antichristen der Kunst” [Anti-Christ of Art]; McTighe 1998, pp. 6–7, 22. For a summary outline of Bosse’s career, see most recently Abraham Bosse 2004, pp. 320–26, in addition to the commentaries on the etchings assembled in that volume. 26  Le Porte-Drapeau, no. 4 of the series Figures au naturel tant des vestements que des postures des Gardes Francoises du Roy Tres Chrestien. Lothe 2008, p. 255, no. 212 (1632). 27  It can, for example, be viewed through the window positioned behind a raised glass in one of the six plates of L’Enfant Prodigue [The Prodigal Son] of 1636/37: “L’enfant prodigue dans une maison de débauche”. Abraham Bosse 2004, p. 164, no. 133; Lothe 2008, p. 157, no. 7 (1636/37).

33

34

2. The authorship of the Leviathan frontispiece

19 ­_ Abraham Bosse, The Standard Bearer, 1632 (detail). Etching on paper, 182 × 112 mm, excluding text. London, British Museum: Prints & Drawings (1866.0512.3005) 20 ­_ Abraham Bosse, The Armies of France: Louis XIII (“ le Juste”) and Gaston d’Orléans, c. 1635 (detail). Etching on paper, 171 × 402 mm. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France (Estampes: Ed 30 rés. t.9)

­ Abraham Bosse, Louis XIII as Hercules Gallicus, 1635 (detail of a broadsheet). Etching on 21 _ paper, 259 × 325 mm. London, British Museum: Prints & Drawings (1927.1008.135)

(almost as if it were his personal “trademark”), for example in the upper right of his depiction of the French armies drawn up in battle formation (Fig. 20),28 where the pale smoke is picked out against a dark sky, and, albeit in reverse, in the aforementioned left background of the Standard Bearer. And the scene of battle at the base 28 

Abraham Bosse 2004, pp. 104–05, no. 60 (1635); Lothe 2008, p. 223, no. 136 (c. 1630).

c. The case for Abraham Bosse

of the same Leviathan frontispiece image column resembles in several respects a similar motif in the right background of Bosse’s explicitly bellicose print of 1635, Louis XIII as Hercules Gallicus (Fig. 21),29 be it the evocation of cavalry in furious forward motion or the motif of the toppled horse and rider. With regard to Bosse’s approach to more pervasive aspects and more prominent features, his treatment of meteorological phenomena repays close attention. The sky as depicted in the 1651 frontispiece (Fig. 3) is relatively devoid of detail in its lower regions, but above these features calm banks of cloud rendered in largely continuous, tightly packed parallel lines, which occasionally cede to improbably diagonal cumulus formations. Many prints by Bosse employ such a pattern in the rendering of cloud: among these is the final sheet in his series of around 1635 devoted

22 ­_ Abraham Bosse, Burial of the Dead, c. 1635 (detail of a plate in the series Oeuvres de Miséricorde). Etching with some engraving on paper, 235 × 298 mm. London, British Museum: Prints & Drawings (1868.0612.75)

to the Seven Acts of Mercy, the Oeuvres de Miséricorde (Fig. 22).30 Numerous similarities are also to be found in the treatment of land- and townscape. Another of Bosse’s military subjects, his etching of The Siege of La Motte (Fig. 23), recording the final days of resistance to the several months of assault on this hilltop fortress

29  30 

Abraham Bosse 2004, p. 145, no. 107 (1635); Lothe 2008, p. 223, no. 135 (1635). Abraham Bosse 2004, p. 214, no. 188 (c. 1635); Lothe 2008, p. 164, no. 28 (c. 1635).

35

36

2. The authorship of the Leviathan frontispiece

in Lorraine during the spring and summer of 1634,31 is especially rich in evidence in this respect. Notwithstanding its necessary quotient of topographical exactitude, it may be seen to share the appealingly representative character of the view in the upper section of the frontispiece (Fig. 3) on account of its steep and isolated hills, the meandering course of its several rivers, and the even distribution of its

23 ­_ Abraham Bosse, The Siege of La Motte (detail), 1634. Etching on paper, 191 × 421 mm. Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale de la France (Estampes: Ed 30 rés. t. 9)

isolated homesteads. A focus on the chief feature of this print, the fortress itself (Fig. 24), draws attention to numerous qualities shared with the corresponding motif in the Leviathan frontispiece: the curiously dark shading of the rear portion of the fortifications, which allows these to stand out more distinctly against the brightly lit hilly terrain beyond; the jagged outlines of the encircling bastion; and the markedly orthogonal layout of streets and squares within it. Even with regard to more precise aspects of topographical and architectural detail – here, above all, the church with twin spires already discussed in connection with Wenceslaus Hollar – it is possible that Bosse, even though already well established as a master of the merging of cartographic and descriptive methods, had sought out new and more precisely apposite models for the city observed from above (a view, by implication, uniquely accessible, both physically and metaphorically, to the Hobbesian giant) and, in doing so, had perused the plates in one of the many superb publications of the Dutch cartographer Jan (Johannes) Janssonius. The visually intriguing record of Laon, for example, included in his 1650 compendium of cities in France and Switzerland (Fig. 25),32 may be found to supply all the 31  Lothe 2008, pp. 222–23, no. 133 (1634). Also known as La Mothe, this fortress was finally taken in late July 1634: a crucial episode in the struggle between Louis XIII and the intransigent Duchy of Lorraine. 32  Janssonius 1650, fol. 6.

c. The case for Abraham Bosse

24 ­_ Detail of Fig. 23

25 ­_ Laon. Detail of plate 6 in Joannes Janssonius, Illustrorum Galliae Civitatum Tabulae, Amsterdam 1650. London, British Library: Maps (13.e.12)

distinctive characteristics of the city over which the Hobbesian giant presides (Fig. 3): an elevated (albeit here perhaps, somewhat over-dramatised) location, imposing fortifications, a distinct military quarter to the left, a civilian district to the centre and the right, even a church (St. Martin) offering an approximation of the unusual structure of that found in the Leviathan title-page. Also of relevance to Bosse’s work as Hobbes’s possible collaborator on the 1651 Leviathan frontispiece are the interrelated issues of his etching technique (and here

37

38

2. The authorship of the Leviathan frontispiece

26 ­_ Frontispiece to Abraham Bosse, Sentimens sur la Distinction des diverses Manieres de Peinture, Dessin et Graveures, et des Originaux d’avec leurs Coppies, Paris 1649. Etching on paper, 177 × 67 mm. London, British Library (1043.a.6)

direct comparison with the work of Hollar proves enlightening) and his particular concern with the persuasive rendering of three-dimensionality. His figures were defined, above all, in terms of their overall stereometric aspect; and he was far less concerned with verisimilitude in the depiction of anatomical detail. The frontispiece to Bosse’s aforementioned volume of 1649 features allegorical figures of Painting (to the rear) and Drawing (Fig. 26).33 The former is shown apparently coaxing a winged putto with a laurel crown to present the latter (in her capacity as Mother of the Arts) with a large drawn image of Pallas Athene, as an embodiment of the crucial role of Reason in the Fine Arts. Here, Bosse’s fondness for modelling markedly diverse forms with almost identical, uni-directional parallel lines is evident in his treatment of the seated figure, where virtually the same method is employed in shading the firm flesh of the bared shoulder, the extended left foot in its sandal, and some of the drapery folds below the knee. An equivalent to this in the 1651 Leviathan frontispiece is to be found in the method used to visually reinforce certain segments of the giant’s composite body, in particular the shoulders and the lower neck (Fig. 27), where an outer “skin” made up, respectively, of curved and of circling 33  Bosse 1649, frontispiece. Abraham Bosse 2004, p. 256, no. 263; Lothe 2008, p. 368, no. 734.

c. The case for Abraham Bosse

parallel lines is drawn on top of (and as if indifferent to) the physical diversity of the diminutive figures located beneath. Bosse’s treatment of faces supplies especially informative opportunities for comparison. The simplified and idealised model head in his 1649 treatise (Fig. 28),34 while ostensibly quite different from the head of the Hobbesian giant (Fig. 27), nonetheless serves to draw attention to the unsurprising fact that the latter evinces barely a trace of the irregularities and imperfections to be found in nature. The giant’s face is in fact less evocative of flesh than of a mask. Comparison with the work of Wenceslaus Hollar permits closer attention to how divergences in etching technique may themselves impact upon the results attainable – or, indeed, the range of effects sought. Both Bosse and Hollar, albeit having mastered a variety of print-making techniques, were committed etchers. However, in contrast to Hollar, who readily made use of all the technical possibilities offered by the art of etching, Bosse was concerned, as observed earlier, that his own etchings should have the clarity and economy of engravings – and to the extent that it is often difficult to tell that his etchings are in fact not engravings. In this respect, too, one might even impute to Bosse a “cartesian” approach35 that would also have made him a good intellectual match for Hobbes. Much closer attention to the technical aspect of two superficially similar portrait etchings, one by Bosse and the other by Hollar, reveals how much closer to the approach employed in the 1651 Leviathan frontispiece is the former. The head of Bosse’s valet (Fig. 29)36 is a smooth, ovoid entity, its cheeks rendered (on the lit side) by delicately drawn, slightly curving parallel lines and (on the shaded side) by cross-hatching that, under magnification, is found to establish a regular pattern of small rhomboids, each with an added central dot. Somewhat remarkably, this pattern is then barely at all adapted for its use in shading the subject’s upper eye-lids. A simplified version of the same approach is seen in the treatment of the right cheek and upper eyelid (to the left) of the giant in the Leviathan frontispiece (Fig. 27). In Hollar’s portrait of his friend the Flemish etcher and publisher Frans van den Wyngaerde (Fig. 30),37 the hatched shading on the face – which on occasion

34  Bosse 1649, between pp. 104 and 105: “Methode pour dessiner à vue d’oeil”. Lothe 2008, p. 368, no. 735. 35  As argued, for example, by McTighe 1998, p. 13. 36  Abraham Bosse 2004, p. 133, no. 89; Lothe 2008, pp. 253–54, no. 207 (c. 1633). One of a series of individual portraits (Lothe cites a further two) made with reference to the reactions of wealthy men and women, and their servants, to the several sumptuary edicts issued by Louis XIII between 1620 and 1633. In this case the valet (who speaks in the appended verses) expresses the sly hope that he will himself inherit the over-elaborate clothing his master has now resolved to eschew in favour of more sober attire. 37  Pennington 1982, p. 267, no. 1527. The view through the window opening is of Antwerp.

39

40

2. The authorship of the Leviathan frontispiece

27 ­_ detail of Fig. 2

28 ­_ Model head, illustration in Abraham Bosse, Sentimens sur la Distinction des diverses Manieres […], Paris 1649. Etching on paper, 116 × 65 mm. London,. British Library (1043.a.6 )

29 _ ­ Abraham Bosse, The Valet, c. 1633 (detail). Etching on paper, 287 × 200. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France (Estampes: Ed 30 rés. t. 10)

30 _ ­ Wenceslaus Hollar, Portrait of Frans van den Wyngaerde, 1651 (detail). Etching on paper, 201 × 175 mm. London, National Portrait Gallery (NPG D9994)

d. The tactical portrait

“disintegrates” into a disorderly scattering of dots – is applied far less schematically, but in far greater responsiveness to the particularities of the subject’s physiognomy. In view of the varied instances considered here, there would seem to be little doubt that Abraham Bosse worked closely with Hobbes in devising the frontispiece for the edition of Leviathan published in London in April 1651. One may fairly assume that the etched copper plate, along with a number of proofs printed from it that had met the approval of both artist and author, would have been despatched from Paris in the keeping of a trusted intermediary. When the presentation of the vellum manuscript of Hobbes’s text to Prince Charles necessitated the provision of a drawn version of the frontispiece, Bosse would surely have supplied this too (Fig. 17). And, in order to match the giant’s facial features to those of the intended dedicatee, he is more than likely to have referred to the panegyric portrait that Hollar had etched and published in 1650 (Fig. 16). It is for this reason that the face in the drawn frontispiece and that in the portrait etching resemble each other to such a degree: not because both works derive from the same hand, but because Bosse, of necessity, used Hollar’s recent portrait of the prince as his guide.

d. The tactical portrait From the start, Hobbes had had the idea of presenting, to a person of high degree, a splendid unique copy of the text of his Leviathan, just as he had done in making a present of the manuscript of his De Cive to his earlier pupil, William Cavendish.38 But it would seem that the identity of the new dedicatee was established only rather late in the day, even though analysis of the text suggests that work on the vellum manuscript of Leviathan was itself in progress by September 1650.39 At that stage the final, neat copy of the (paper) manuscript destined for the London publisher Andrew Crooke had not yet been despatched from Paris. That occurred only towards the end of the year. The decision to supplement the vellum manuscript copy of the text with a drawn version of its frontispiece can only have been made when Hobbes was sure that his text could – or, rather, must – be presented to Charles. For, after reading a printed copy of Leviathan, Edward Hyde (later Earl of Clarendon), one of the Prince’s most trusted advisors, had voiced his own deep disapproval for this work. In Hyde’s opinion, Hobbes’s new volume, not least in its exposition of the relationship between the citizen and the state, reflected the most radical views of the English followers of Cromwell. What especially appalled him about Hobbes’s book was the assertion – at its clearest in its Review and Conclusion – that, within any perilously bellicose situation, there arrived a point when it became the wiser move to acknowledge and 38  39 

Howard Warrender, Editor’s Introduction, in: Hobbes De Cive 1983 (Latin), p. 5. Tuck 1991, pp. xxxiv–xxxv.

41

42

2. The authorship of the Leviathan frontispiece

submit to the administrative authority of a “Conquerour”, in order to avoid the spilling of yet more blood.40 Such a proposition was likely to divide exiled Royalists themselves into two opposed camps. In one were those who were prepared to engage in at least a show of allegiance to the new dispensation so that they might then be able to return to England. In the other were those who regarded it as morally and politically imperative to avoid taking such a course. According to Hyde’s much later account, he had disguised his negative critique of Hobbes within a more general argument, which made his own stance appear less partisan. But he had nonetheless made sure that Hobbes knew that he, Hyde, would be surprised to find any general acceptance for such a book, “for which, by the constitution of any Government now established in Europe, whether Monarchical or Democratical, the Author must be punish’d in the highest degree and with the most severe penalties”.41 For Hobbes, whatever the situation, much was now at stake. It became a matter of some urgency to neutralise Hyde’s critique, which was little short of recommending the author’s execution, and of implicitly characterising Charles himself as a champion of the offending text.42 The necessity of this plan appeared all the greater when, following the definitive defeat of the Royalists at Worcester in September 1651, it became apparent how astute Hyde had been to have warned Charles not to enter into an alliance with Scotland against the English Parliamentarians. For the Stuart Court in Exile, as also for Hobbes, it was evident that Hyde would now ascend, unopposed, to the position of Charles’s chief counsellor. Hobbes must have had the vellum manuscript copy of his Leviathan, complete with the drawn version of its frontispiece, ready for presentation to Charles at some point after the Prince, following his escape from England, had returned to Paris in October 1651. Evidence of this is to be found not only in a series of annotations in Hobbes’s hand, which reveal his attempts to ensure that the text of the manuscript version should reproduce that of the printed version, which had appeared around

40  See, in particular, Hobbes Leviathan 1651a (Review and Conclusion), p. 390: “[…] the point of time, wherein a man becomes subject to a Conquerour, is that point, wherein [,] having liberty to submit to him, he consenteth, either by expresse words, or by other sufficient sign, to be his Subject”. On this matter and on Hyde’s critique, cf. Skinner 1972, pp. 94–96 and Metzger 1991, pp. 126–30. On Hyde’s disapproval of Hobbes’s “levelling” philosophy, see Metzger 1991, p. 120. Hobbes himself regarded it as extremely precarious that such passages in his text had been seen, by some, as evidence of his own defection to Cromwell’s cause; see Burgess 1990, pp. 677–79. In general on the history of the quarrel between Hobbes and Hyde: Zagorin 1985, in addition to the standard account in Metzger 1991, pp. 89–157. 41  Hyde 1995, p. 184. Hyde’s retrospective account – its title in full being A Brief View and Survey of the Dangers and Pernicious Errors to Church and State in Mr Hobbes’s Book., Entitled Leviathan – was published in 1676 (three years after his death). 42  Cf. Goldsmith 1990, p. 672.

d. The tactical portrait

six months earlier,43 but also, by implication, that the same should be true (mutatis mutandis) of the drawn frontispiece. This drawn image would have been produced above all with the aim of assisting Charles towards a clearer understanding of the essential import of the text. The evidence leads one to assume that the drawing on vellum was itself made during November 1651, that is to say some time after work on the vellum manuscript was completed. At such a time the aforementioned omission of the biblical quotation along the upper edge would make perfect sense: implicitly hailing the supreme “power” of one who had recently suffered a series of grave setbacks might well have appeared insultingly close to satire. But ensuring a modicum of similarity between the face of the embodied state and that of Charles as recorded in the panegyric portrait of 1650 (Fig. 16) was a different matter. Hobbes must have calculated that Charles would not condemn an image in which he might detect his own reflection. Dedicating the vellum manuscript copy of Leviathan to Charles was in fact a tactical move, undertaken with a view to profiting from one or other of its possible outcomes. If the Prince signalled his approval for the work, Hobbes would almost certainly have been able to remain in Paris, notwithstanding Hyde’s disapproval for his text. But Hobbes must also have kept in mind that there was a chance that Hyde’s own condemnation would prevail. In that case, Hobbes would have to leave Paris; but the fact that his book might then be banned at the Stuart Court in Exile could well serve as a calling card in Cromwell’s England. Hobbes did in fact succeed in presenting the superb vellum manuscript to Charles shortly before Hyde returned to Paris. When this adversary did finally arrive, in mid-December 1651, and learnt that Charles had indeed received from Hobbes a copy of his Leviathan “engross’d in Vellum in a marvellous fair hand”,44 he immediately set about ensuring that the author be banned from the Court in Exile. In his later critique of Leviathan, apparently in order to avoid giving the impression that he had deployed not only his intellect but also his political influence to counter Hobbes, he emphasised that he had not himself acted to bring about the condemnation of the book and the exclusion of its author: “[…] and [I] likewise found my judgment so far confirmed, that [a] few daies before I came thither, he was compell’d secretly to fly out of Paris, the Justice having endeavour’d to apprehend him, and soon after escap’d into England” […].45 Hyde’s own account obscures, however, his own determining role in the affair. The precise date of

43 

Tuck 1991, p. xxxiv. “[…] and [I] found afterwards when I return’d to the King to Paris, that I very much censur’d his Book, which he had presented, engross’d in Vellum in a marvellous fair hand, to the King […]” (Hyde 1995, pp. 184–85). 45  Hyde 1995, p. 185. 44 

43

44

2. The authorship of the Leviathan frontispiece

Hobbes’s return to England is not known; yet it is clear that he did not in fact leave Paris until at least some point in January 1652. It was in a mid- / late January letter to Sir Edward Nicholas, Secretary of State to Charles at the Court in Exile, that Hyde finally conceded, that he himself “had indeede some hand in the discountenancing [of] my old friend Mr Hobbes”.46 As might have been expected, the resulting abrupt rejection of the manuscript copy of Leviathan that had been presented to Charles, and at first readily received, had the indirect effect of making Hobbes far more acceptable in England. According to a report in the London Mercurius Politicus for the week 8 / 18 to 15 / 25 January 1652, Hobbes had presented one of his books to the King of Scotland (that is to say, Prince Charles), but this had been condemned as atheistic by members of the Stuart Court in Exile, and so the author had himself been excluded from that Court.47 On 2 / 12 February of that year Lodewijck Huygens, brother of the mathematician Christiaan Huygens, and at that time resident in London, noted in his diary that he had gone, with several others, to visit “the renowned philosopher [den gerenommeraeden Philosof ] Hobbius who, upon having been exiled from France for the strange notions [wonderlijcke soustennuen] in the book which he entitled Leviathan, has come to live here again”.48 The presentation of the vellum manuscript of Leviathan to Prince Charles did, indeed, lead to Hobbes being constrained to leave Paris; but this in turn had the happier outcome that he did not then have to seek a new land of exile, but was able to return to England. And for Charles himself, becoming the recipient of Hobbes’s text in manuscript form and of the accompanying drawn frontispiece, proved not at all disadvantageous. The Prince continued to hold his former Tutor in high regard and, later, when he had been able to assert his claim to the English throne, he ensured that Hobbes was formally rehabilitated and, in as far as was possible, thereafter protected from the worst that his adversaries might have hoped to do.

46  Letter of 17 / 27 January 1652 from Edward Hyde to Sir Edward Nicholas; cited after Dzelzainis 1989, p. 305; cf. Metzger 1991, p. 94. 47  Mercurius Politicus, vol. 84, 8 / 18–15 / 25 January 1652; cited after Tuck 1991, p. xxxiii. 48  Huygens 1982, pp. 74–75 (English translation), 218 (original Dutch text); cf. Metzger 1991, p. 90. Huygens continued to use (continental European) New Style dating throughout the account of his stay in England.

3. The “Artificiall Man” The “Common-Wealth”, identified in the sub-title of Hobbes’s Leviathan as the book’s chief subject, was understood by him as the very opposite of a naturally occurring phenomenon. It was, and could only ever be, a product of human ingenuity and determination. As such, it can be usefully considered, in the first instance, from four, partially interlinked points of view. All of these relate, in essence, to the process of creation through which this artificial entity may be brought forth. Creation through an “imitation of nature” is a supposition that calls into question how “nature” itself might be understood, and what this understanding in turn means for the perception of entities devised in this way. A philosophical difference of views on what distinguished the organic from the automotive draws attention to Hobbes’s remarkable faith in the “rational” capacities of the latter. In the inspiration that the gigantic figure of the frontispiece appears to have found in the great intellectual and literary tradition of the Occult, Hobbes proves to be very much a man and a scholar of his time. And in the eloquence of his musings on the part played in the creative process by Memory and Imagination, he is to be discovered – in a rare departure from his habitual pessimism – acclaiming their role in drawing humanity forth from its barbarous origins and towards the amenities and felicities of civilisation.

a. Art(ifice) imitates nature The brief Introduction immediately preceding the sixteen chapters that make up the first Part of Hobbes’s Leviathan may, like the frontispiece to that volume, reasonably be said to stand slightly apart from the argument conducted there and in what follows.1 Serving to itemise the four Parts into which Hobbes’s exposition will fall,2 and to comment, in a somewhat discursive fashion, on the first, and briefly on the second, of these, its primary purpose is to draw the diverse notions 1  2 

See pp. 115, Excerpts from Leviathan (Introduction). See Chapter 1, note 9.

46

3. The “Artificiall Man”

that the author will address into a single, summary idea and, above all, its visualisation. It is, indeed, towards such an anticipatory encapsulation of his argument that Hobbes here ushers his readers, bidding them envisage the “Common-Wealth” as an “Artificiall Man”: a product of human ingenuity acting in imitation of the creative capacity of “Nature”. Within this formula, the concept of “imitation” would have been relatively easy for Hobbes’s first readers to accommodate.3 That of “Nature” required, in this context, further specification. The bracketed words that Hobbes immediately adds after opening with this ambiguous term – “NATURE (the Art whereby God hath made and governes the World)” – reveal that what he has in mind, as a model for man, is not natura naturata (an entity already fully shaped by God, and thus proof against further shaping) but, rather, natura naturans (an entity that God has shaped but also continues both to sustain and to control).4 The products of human ingenuity acting in imitation of “Nature” will, of necessity, themselves continue to be works in progress. In view of the unusually forthright character of the figure devised by Hobbes and his artist-collaborator for the Leviathan frontispiece, and indeed the determination with which Hobbes, in his Introduction, pursues a comparison between the embodied “Common-Wealth” and the body of a man, one is inclined to suppose that the informing spirit of intellectual tradition may well have been fruitfully supplemented here by an awareness of some of the more successful earlier attempts to achieve a visual encapsulation of comparably complex philosophical notions. It is possible that he may have found one such in the frontispiece to the first volume of the “metaphysical, physical and technical history” of the Macrocosm and the Microcosm published, from 1617, by the English physician, mathematician and cosmologist Robert Fludd.5 Not only was Hobbes well aware of this highly controversial publication; he had also listed it, in around 1630, among those volumes that he claimed would be found in his own “ideal library”.6 Hobbes had come to know

3  On this point, cf. the mimesis theory expounded in Kris & Kurz 1934, pp. 59–61. For a guide to further, related discussion, see: Jorgensen 1984, pp. 337–41. Cf. also Leinkauf 1993, pp. 46–55. 4  Hedwig 1984, pp. 504–09. 5  Fludd 1617, pp. 4–5. This publication, Utriusque Cosmi Maioris scilicet et Minoris, metaphysica, physica, atque technica Historia, published in Oppenhein and later in Frankfurt between 1617 and 1624, offers the most complete account of Fludd’s belief in the essential “sympathies” governing relations between the human, terrestrial and divine realms. 6  Fludd’s (never completed) publication was included in the section on philosophical and other writings; see: Pacchi 1968 “Biblioteca Ideale”, no. 844. Here, its projected neighbour, as no. 845, was to be the important 1619 volume on the “harmony of the worlds”, Harmonices Mundi Libri V, of Johannes Kepler, whose attack on Fludd issued in a widely publicised dispute between the two; see Yates 1964, pp. 403–05; Knobloch 1995, pp. 68–69.

a. Art(ifice) imitates Nature

31 _­ Matthäus Merian, Mirror of all of Nature and Image of Art, frontispiece (detail) to volume one of Robert Fludd, Utriusque Cosmi […] Historia, Oppenheim 1617. London, British Library (C.79.d.7)

Fludd personally through their mutual friendship with a further, far more pragmatically minded English physician, William Harvey.7 Regardless of the extent to which Hobbes was prepared, or reluctant, to follow Fludd in all the latter’s arguments, it would seem that Matthäus Merian’s frontispiece (Fig. 31), in the devising of which Fludd had surely had a hand, may well have impressed him for the concision, and indeed the wit, with which it evokes the relation between the creative capacity of man (in imitation of “Nature”) and “Na­­ ture” as itself a Divine Creation. In the upper half of the elaborate circular form here illustrated, captioned “Integra Naturae Speculum Artisque Imago” [Mirror of all of Nature and Image of Art], “Nature” is embodied in the gigantic figure of a naked woman. Connected to the hand of God by means of one chain, she leads, at the end of another, a monkey. In accordance with the popular belief that an ape will imitate a man, just as a man imitates Nature, the art(ifice) of which man is capable is here presented as itself “the ape [i.e. the imitator] of nature”: ars simia naturae.8 In extension of this analogy, the monkey – itself of gigantic proportions, as attested by the size of the centrally positioned globe upon which it sits – is shown easing another sphere into the surrounding circle of “the more liberal arts”, the

7  8 

Schuhmann 1990, pp. 339–40. Cf. Janson 1952, pp. 295–97; Bredekamp 1993, pp. 68–69; and Knobloch 1995, p. 69.

47

48

3. The “Artificiall Man”

artes liberaliores, while clasping, in its right hand, a pair of compasses: a motif derived from the traditional iconography of God the Creator.9 No less compelling than the assertive character of Hobbes’s “Artificiall Man”, both as depicted in his volume’s frontispiece and as evoked in its Introduction, is its implicit claim to a formal, and indeed moral, superiority to the sum of its merely natural components. The principle of the transformative power of the artist would have been familiar to Hobbes from that passage in Book I, chapter 11 of Niccolò Machiavelli’s Discorsi (a commentary on the first ten books of Livy’s account of the early history of Rome), published posthumously in 1531, in which that author compares the difficulties of conjuring a state out of “depraved” mankind with what is to be learnt from the improbable success of a certain sculptor (generally assumed to be Michelangelo) in carving so accomplished a figure from a block of marble that likewise seemed to promise very little, having already, decades earlier, been worked by another sculptor, and then discarded.10 Four years after the initial publication of Leviathan, Hobbes was himself to resort to a sculptural metaphor in the prefatory comments to his volume De Corpore. Here, he compares the task of the philosopher, which is to filter the structure of orderly thought from the chaos of the disorderly flow of ideas, with the action of a sculptor who derives the form he seeks by removing all that is “superfluous” from pre-existing materials.”11 Most crucially, however, Hobbes envisages the “Artificiall Man” described in his Introduction as additionally imbued with the capacity for autonomous movement. This idea is, indeed, already introduced in his second sentence: “For seeing life is but a motion of Limbs, the beginning 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 artificial life?” With this, moreover, a new contextual dimension for Hobbes’s thinking comes into view. This may be considered in both its broader (technological and socio-cultural) manifestation and in terms of a closely related, but far more specific, contest of ideas.

  9 

Zahlten 1979, p. 153; Thoenes 1983, pp. 372–73 (on the upward pointing pair of compasses). 10  Machiavelli, Niccolò, Discorsi, Book I, chapter 11, 1997, pp. 230 and 934, note 4. Cf. Verspohl 1981, p. 223. 11  “The Author’s Epistle to the Reader”, in Hobbes De Corpore, in: Hobbes 1839–45 HEW, vol. I: pp. xii–xiv, here xiii: “Do, therefore, as the statuaries do, who […] do not make but find the image”. Cf. Windisch 1994, p. 80. As indicated by its full title, the Elementorum philosophiae sectio prima De Corpore was intended as the first part (of three) of Hobbes’s all-encompassing treatise on the “elements of philosophy”. The third part (De Cive) had first appeared in 1642. The second part (De Homine) appeared in 1658. Work on De Corpore (published in 1655) had started much earlier, but the text had then been for some time put aside.

b. The automaton

b. The automaton It is above all as Hobbes begins to pursue in greater detail his own proposition that the “Common-Wealth”, envisaged as an “Artificiall Man”, be understood as a sort of automaton, its motion initiated and controlled by a sophisticated clockwork mechanism – “For what is the Heart, but a Spring, and the Nerves, but so many Strings; and the Joynts, but so many Wheeles?” – that one is forcefully reminded of how compelling to the mid-seventeenth-century imagination had become that “mechanisation of the world picture” that had taken the workings of a clock as a model for the cosmos, for the world, and for man.12 While the technological advances underpinning so profound a shift in perception had been underway for some time, the coincidence of new discoveries in several fields had in recent decades revealed how widely applicable was such a manner of thinking. Thanks to the invention of the spring and the miniaturisation that this in due course permitted, the clock as known to the Late Middle Ages – invariably large (and so visible at a distance), of necessity fixed (a prominent architectural feature and, as such, an urban point de repère) and, effectively, a communal resource – was to become increasingly familiar, albeit in continued co-existence with the traditional model, as a device that was small, portable and, above all, personal. Together, these new features ensured a far greater physical and sensual proximity between a timepiece and its owner, who might now carry it about, in a customised pouch, or wear it, secured to a strap around the waist or across the upper torso. And this in turn fostered a readiness to recognise the suggestive similarity between the ticking of a clockwork mechanism and the beating of the human heart. Commentary on the science of clock-making, from the most practical to the most speculative, had for some time indulged in comparisons between the structure and functioning of the human body and that of the clock.13 But such a way of thinking was to be significantly reinforced in the light of further scientific advances, in particular the discovery (published in Frankfurt in 1628 by Hobbes’s aforementioned friend William Harvey) that the regular beating of the heart was itself responsible for the circulation of the blood.14

12  Die Welt als Uhr 1980; Peil 1983, pp. 489–91; Mayr 1987. These and other such studies elaborate on the path-breaking and widely admired volume by Eduard Jan Dijksterhuis (Dijksterhuis 1961), first published, in Dutch, in 1950. 13  Berns 1988, pp. 144–45. 14  Berns 1988, pp. 121–22. Cf. Fuchs 1992, pp. 162–64. Harvey, who served as physician to both James I and Charles I, dedicated to the latter his short volume Exercitatio Anatomica de Motu Cordis et Sanguinis in Animalibus [An Anatomical Account of the Motion of the Heart and the Blood in Animals]. While challenging the currently accepted ideas, it was based on inference

49

50

3. The “Artificiall Man”

Meanwhile, at a far less rarefied intellectual level, a readiness to indulge in the illusion of an effective convergence of the mechanical and the organic was encouraged through the ever greater sophistication of automata, in animal or in human form. These, moreover, were no longer exclusively for the delectation of privileged individuals with ready access to courtly Kunstkammern or the wealthiest of bourgeois salons,15 but were just as likely to be encountered in often ambitious public displays. Examples known to posterity in some form – be it through the preservation of an original, the existence of a reliably faithful copy, or the availability of detailed written records of construction and / or performance – retain their ability to startle and entrance; and they leave little doubt as to their impact on the more easily impressed or more readily seduced spectators of Hobbes’s own period.16 Hobbes’s thinking on the matter of automata would, in all probability, have been stimulated, in the decades preceding the composition of his Leviathan, by their discussion in the writings of his younger French contemporary and (briefly) colleague René Descartes. In the latter’s Discours de la Méthode (a copy of which had been sent to Hobbes, through an amicable intermediary, upon its publication, in 1637), Descartes had summarised the interconnection, within an organic body, of the movement of the limbs, the system of the nerves and the structure of the brain (as these were then generally understood) so as to compare the functions of such a body with the capacities of the most sophisticated of automata. He concluded by observing that the very evident distinctions between organism and mechanism were such as might, through greater technical sophistication, be overcome: “[…] if there were such machines which had the organs and the shape of a monkey or of some other animal devoid of reason, we should have no means of recognising that they would not in all respects be of the same nature as such animals […]”.17 With specific regard to the human body, Descartes observed in a later text, the sixth and last of his Meditationes de prima philosophia, published in 1641, that, here too, there was ultimately no significant distinction between the organic and the mechanical: “[…] I might consider the body of a man as a kind of machine made up of bones, nerves, muscles, veins, blood and skin in such a way that, even if there were no [human] mind in it, it would still perform all the same movements as it

rather than observation. Soon widely read across Europe, its argument was generally accepted only several decades later. 15  Bredekamp 1993, pp. 48–51. 16  See, for example, Friess 1988 on the “monk” in Munich, capable of walking, and a compellingly life-like movement of the arms, hands, head and eyes; and Beyer 1983, p. 37 on the “harpsichordist” in Vienna, whose fingers convincingly tapped the keys of her instrument. 17  Descartes Discours (1637) 1994, V / 10, pp. 77–81, here 79, translation slightly adapted.

b. The automaton

now does [which is to say] movements […] not under the control of the will or, consequently, of the mind”.18 While the extensive congruity of the thinking of Descartes and of Hobbes on the matter of automata in human form would doubtless itself have been of some encouragement to the latter, it would seem that Hobbes may have been more decisively prompted towards envisaging his own “Artificiall Man” through those points on which the two philosophers disagreed. Even within his earlier text, Descartes had maintained that automata in human form (as opposed to those contrived to resemble animals) could never, by any mechanical ingenuity, be rendered sufficiently versatile as to attain a capacity for the genuine thinking that is presupposed by speech.19 In the light of Descartes’s insistence on this point, it appears especially significant that Hobbes, in his Introduction to Leviathan, sees the supreme distinction of the automaton he envisages as an embodiment of the “CommonWealth” to lie in its capacity not only for autonomous movement, but also for autonomous thought: his own “Artificiall Man” is, emphatically, a “Rationall […] Man”.20 It is of course of undeniable significance here that Descartes was in both cases writing, speculatively, of humanoid automata composed of mechanical parts, whereas Hobbes in his Introduction to Leviathan was writing, metaphorically, of an automaton envisaged as the embodiment of an entire society, the components of which were in themselves already rational (albeit also passionate) beings. But Hobbes’s metaphor would itself seem to presuppose a notion of the humanoid automaton that, even before the composition of Leviathan, had already moved significantly beyond that embraced by Descartes. While Descartes viewed thought and speech as capacities that a humanoid automaton could never acquire, Hobbes was prepared to entertain the notion of a humanoid automaton that was inherently rational, and indeed to view that quality as the prerequisite for all of its other capacities. For Hobbes it is this rational essence – the “Artificiall Soul” of his “Artificiall Man”, signifying the “Soveraignty” of his “Common-Wealth” – that “[gives] life and motion to the whole body”. This bold assertion then serves Hobbes as the starting point for the rousing catalogue that he compiles through extending his corporeal metaphor. And it is here especially revealing that this exercise goes beyond a listing of those features 18 

Descartes Meditationes (1641) 2013, pp. 100–24, here 117, translation slightly adapted. Descartes, Discours (1637) 1994, V / 10, pp. 77–81, here 79–81. Such machines, he maintains, would inevitably fail to convince a human observer because they “could never make use of words or of other signs by putting them together as we do in order to declare our thoughts to others”. It was, moreover, “impossible that there would be enough distinct organs in a machine to make it act in all the circumstances of life in the way that our reason makes us act”. 20  In the extensive research into the differences between Descartes and Hobbes, this – perhaps the most spectacular such difference – seems not yet to have been considered. On Hobbes and Descartes, cf. the comprehensive article by Tuck 1988. 19 

51

52

3. The “Artificiall Man”

that sustain the “Common-Wealth” to dwell also upon those that pose the greatest danger to its requisite cohesion. In Hobbes’s admirably vivid account, the “Joynts” of the “Artificiall Man” are equivalent to “Magistrates”; the “Nerves” may be understood as systems of “Reward and Punishment”; “Strength” corresponds to “Wealth and Riches”; “Memory” is akin to the crucial service afforded by “Counsellors”; “Reason and Will” align with “Equity and Lawes”; while “Health” signifies “Concord”. Far more ominously, “Sedition” in the “Common-Wealth” means “Sicknesse” in the “Artificiall Man”, and the advent of “Civill war” is nothing short of “Death”. The insistently mechanistic character of such an imaginative exercise all but gives the impression that Hobbes is here thinking and writing as if in anticipation of ideas put forward a full century later, for example in Julien Offray de La Metrie’s L’Homme Machine of 1748. All the more surprising, then, is the manner in which Hobbes brings the chief part of his Introduction to a close. For his final pairing of the qualities of the “Artificiall Man” and the “Common-Wealth” – which Hobbes here for the first time terms the “Body Politique” – proceeds, with a bewildering rapidity, from the sphere of the contractual to that of the theological: “Lastly, the Pacts and Covenants, by which the parts of the Body Politique were at first made, set together, and united resemble that Fiat, or that Let us make Man, pronounced by God in the Creation”. This far-reaching projection, while long regarded as an alien element within Hobbes’s thinking, was nonetheless assumed to have been altogether his own invention.21 But there are indications that Hobbes was here reflecting ideas derived neither from the legal sphere nor from that of biblical exegesis, but from an entirely different source, and one at which little scholarly attention has been directed for quite some time.

c. A “Mortall God” It is in Chapter XVII of the text of Leviathan (which, as the opening to its second Part, contains many structural echoes of the Introduction that precedes its first) that a new corporeal metaphor for the Hobbesian “Common-Wealth” is introduced.22 Having already established that this may usefully be envisaged as an “Artificiall Man”, Hobbes now affirms that it may also be acclaimed a “Mortall God”. While both of these entities are clearly intended to acknowledge the formidable power of the “Common-Wealth”, it is telling that while the “Artificiall Man” is further defined as “of greater stature and strength than [a] Naturall [Man]”, the “Mortall God” is characterised as distinctly subordinate to “the Immortall God”.

21  22 

Stollberg-Rillinger 1986, p. 49. See p. 119: Excerpts from Leviathan (Chapter XVII).

c. A “Mortall God”

Hobbes thereby establishes an implicitly more elevated tenor for the exposition that is to follow. Scholars have not failed to identify texts that Hobbes may well have known in which the term “Mortall God”, be it as such or as its equivalent in other languages, does indeed occur. But the overall thrust of the passages concerned is invariably too incompatible with Hobbes’s own purpose.23 At the same time, the textual source that appears to have most in common with Hobbes’s overall concept of the “Mortall God ” – “mortal” because called into being by human endeavour, “divine” because the supreme achievement of human aspiration – is one that might well be seen as unlikely to appeal, in view of its strong association with the Occult, to so committed a devotee of scientific, and in particular mathematical, rigour. This would, however, be to underestimate the extent to which the Occult – in this case above all the Corpus Hermeticum – continued, even well into Hobbes’s lifetime, not only to exert a strong fascination among scholars but also to retain a degree of genuine intellectual authority.24 The Corpus Hermeticum was a collection of texts, attributed to a certain Hermes Trismegistos and initially (and indeed for some time) believed to be an authentic testament to the philosophical thought of Ancient Egypt. Throughout Europe it long continued as one of the most widely read textual compilations, appearing in twenty-five editions between 1461 and 1641.25 While beginning to fall out of favour after 1614, when “unmasked” as a creation of Late Antiquity,26 it was by no means thereafter forgotten. Even as late as 1650, when Hobbes may still have been at work on the text of his Leviathan, it appeared in an English translation.27 Hobbes’s aforementioned account of the nine hundred or so books that would feature in his “ideal library” reveals that over half of his envisaged shelf space was to be reserved for literature that would now be associated, in some measure, with the Occult. While the Elements of Euclid is cited in no fewer than twelve editions, the Corpus

23  See, for example, Goldberg 1983, p. 42, regarding a brief, anonymous tract of 1622–24 (Harl. Ms. 2232, fol. 73, British Library, London), which includes the phrase “A Kinge is a mortall god on earth onto whom the living god hath lent his owne name for greater honour”. 24  For quite some time only a single scholarly contribution (Schuhmann 1985, pp. 203–27) has attended to Hobbes’s response to the Corpus Hermeticum, which has otherwise left barely a trace in the literature. A telling error was committed by Bernard Willms: in his otherwise meticulous account of the decade of research on Hobbes between 1979 and 1988 (Willms 1988, p. 572), he refers to Schuhmann’s article as an account not of “Hermetic”, but of “hermeneutic”, motifs in Hobbes. Even Carl Schmitt’s rather cryptic remarks on the occult character of Hobbes’s Leviathan (Schmitt 1982, p. 44; cf. p. 243) have not been taken up by others. 25  Yates 1964, p. 154. 26  The “unmasking” was due to Isaac Casaubon. Cf. Yates 1964, pp. 396–400. 27  Hermes Mercurius Trismegistos 1650.

53

54

3. The “Artificiall Man”

32 ­_ Anonymous plate prefacing volume one of German translation of Giambattista della Porta, Magiae Naturalis libris viginti (as Magia Naturalis, oder Haus- Kunst- und WunderBuch), Nuremberg 1680. Bayerische Staats­ bibliothek, Munich (Res/Phys.m.– 220–1)

Hermeticum was to be present in ten.28 Nor would this have been at all unusual for a scholar of Hobbes’s period.29 It would appear that Hobbes, like so many others, was as open to the “atmospheric” power as to the textual content of both segments of the Corpus Hermeticum: the “Poemander” and the “Asclepius”. The stirring account of humanity in the former – where it is distinguished by its desire for knowledge, its aspiration to ascend to the stars, and its ability to create a gigantic extension of itself, imbued with the gift of reason – may well have been a source of inspiration for the Leviathan frontispiece, as it surely was for a somewhat later image: the engraving published towards the opening of volume one of the 1680 German translation of Giambattista della Porta’s Magiae Naturalis libris viginti (Fig. 32), an encyclopaedic work first published in Naples in 1585. Possibly intended here as a super-human magus, the figure stands with one foot upon the Earth and the other lapped by the Water,

28 

Pacchi 1968 “Biblioteca Ideale”, with editions of the Corpus Hermeticum as nos. 445–50, 515, 706, 734, 772. 29  On Isaac Newton’s allusion to the Corpus Hermeticum in his Principia Mathematica of 1687, see Dobbs 1986, pp. 137–50, who also notes Newton’s further references to Hermes Trismegistos.

c. A “Mortall God”

and holds in one hand a torch (signifying Fire) and in the other a heart (signifying the pneuma, animated Air). Symbols of these Four Elements feature in the circular body, which illuminates, through its radiant beams, a segment of the Sphere of the Planets. This in turn divides the body from the head, which is flanked by wings as it protrudes into the Sphere of the Fixed Stars. Of more specific relevance as a possible source for Hobbes are a number of passages in the “Asclepius”. This text was in fact celebrated for granting to humanity the capacity to become a “generator” (effector) of gods: “And as there has now by us been uttered a statement on the relationship and connection of the gods with man, so now learn, Asclepius, to know the great power of humanity. Just as the Lord or Father, or (to give him the highest name) just as God, is the Generator of the heavenly gods, so is man a generator of those gods that are happy to dwell in the temples in the proximity of humanity; and man will thus not only be enlightened, he will also be an enlightener. And not only does he move towards the gods; he also envisages gods”.30 Hobbes must have been impressed by the fact that the gods made by man were here described as animated statues, able to predict the future, protect humanity from ill health, and distribute sadness and joy as these were deserved: “I speak of statues that are animated, full of spirit and pneuma; statues which bring forth great and powerful deeds; statues which know the future, and can forecast this through a drawing of lots, through the visions of seers, through dreams and through many other things; statues which incur states of weakness in man and which can also heal him”.31 In as far as these gods equip man with super-human reason, bind him to them through rewards and punishments, and ensure his protection, they may be seen to fulfil the essential preconditions of Hobbes’s own “Mortall God”. And, like Hobbes’s gigantic figure, the statues described in the “Asclepius” possess human characteristics: “In this imitation of the gods, humanity can never free itself from the memory of its own origins. And so, just as the Lord and Father created eternal gods that resembled Him, likewise have men created their gods in accordance with their own appearance”.32 In drawing no less on the hallowed Hermetic tradition than on the most advanced and ambitious mechanism of his own era, Hobbes contrived to merge the virtues imputed to the idols of Ancient Egypt with the capacities of the most up-to-date of automata. The character of both components again emphasises the fact that, for Hobbes, the state was not a natural product of Aristotle’s zoon politikon, but 30  Patrizi 1593, p. 68r. Here translated from the Latin. Cf. Hermès Trismégiste 1980, vol. II, “Asclepius”, VIII, 23, p. 325. 31  Patrizi 1593, p. 69r. Here translated from the Latin. Cf. Hermès Trismégiste 1980, Vol. II, “Asclepius”, VIII, 24, p. 326. 32  Patrizi 1593, p. 69r. Here translated from the Latin. Cf. Hermès Trismégiste 1980, Vol. II, “Asclepius”, VIII, 24, p. 326.

55

56

3. The “Artificiall Man”

an unnatural entity requiring deliberate and effortful creation. For Hobbes, it is only as an artificial form that the state is in a position to pacify the destructive nature of man; but it is also on account of this artificiality that the state can become the object of rational analysis. Man can only understand those entities that he has himself created. The state, accordingly, is comprehensible and governable only because it has not arisen naturally. The giant that dominates the Leviathan frontispiece embodies an entity that is as absolutely artificial as it is absolutely necessary.

d. Of Memory and Imagination However impressive the embodied “Common-Wealth” of the Leviathan title-page, this nonetheless remains only a symbol. It therefore partakes of the strength, but also of the weakness, of all forms of symbolic representation, suffering in particular through being only indirectly that which it betokens. Related to this disadvantage is the fact that it cannot be encountered in the real world in the form and with the completeness of its depiction. Visually and sensually perceptible are only its diverse components: administrators, lawyers, soldiers and other such groups, as listed by Hobbes in the text of his Introduction. All the more pressing, then, is the question as to why Hobbes nonetheless placed so high a value upon the medium of the image. No clue as to how Hobbes arrived at the idea of supplying his Leviathan with so visually imposing and intriguing a frontispiece is to be found either within the text of that volume or in his surviving correspondence from the period of its composition (of which there is, in any case, notably little). All the more significant, then, is an illuminating statement – on the role of images in the formation and functioning of memory – to be found in a (pre-1650) draft version of his aforementioned publication De Corpore. It would seem that Hobbes rated rather highly the ideas formulated here. For not only did he place them at the opening of the text in question; he also made further use of them in an essay completed in January 1650 and originating as a token of grateful acknowledgement to his friend the poet and dramatist Sir William Davenant, who had made Hobbes the dedicatee of a verse epic (then still in progress): Gondibert.33 Davenant, while still young, had enjoyed a flourishing literary career under Charles I (he had been appointed to the as yet informal post of Poet Laureate in 1638), and he remained an ardent Royalist. Increasingly endangered in the English political climate that was soon to issue in the Civil War, he fled in 1641 to Paris (where he first came to know Hobbes), settling there more permanently in 1645, and beginning work on his aforementioned poem. After a further episode of precarious political and military adventure towards the end of that decade, he was 33  On collaboration between Hobbes and Davenant: Skinner 1996, p. 332. For more on Hobbes and Davenant’s Gondibert, see pp. 76, 80.

d. Of Memory and Imagination

tried, in July 1650, before a newly established English court and, having barely escaped the serious likelihood of execution, was condemned to imprisonment in the Tower of London. Here, he spent much of the year 1651, but contrived to work further on his poem. When published in 1652, in its most complete form (comprising, however, less than half of its initially proposed length), Gondibert had already appeared in three shorter versions: two published over the course of 1651 and, preceding these, a small volume, published in Paris in 1650, comprising the author’s “Discourse” upon the poem – in effect, a dedicatory epistle addressed to Hobbes, as “his most honour’d friend” – and Hobbes’s own “Answer”.34 Taking issue with what he found to be regrettably lacking in English epic poetry – its authors’ invariable preoccupation with an entirely supernatural world in which men and women, unless aided by the timely acquisition of super-human powers, were rarely able to intervene to good purpose – Davenant hoped, in his own work, to repair this deficit. While his tale, set in Mediaeval times (Gondibert himself is a Lombard Duke), ostensibly turns on the ideal of chivalric love and its sublimation into duty, it seems to have been intended as an allegory on the recent and contemporary political situation in England. Hobbes’s published response to Davenant’s dedicatory epistle suggests that he was not only touched by this amicable gesture, but also that he did indeed recognise in the emerging poem (written, to some extent, under the influence of Hobbes’s own evolving ideas on the benefits and difficulties of a life in common) as a poetic counterpart to his own, philosophical endeavours in the text of Leviathan. Hobbes appears to have been especially struck by what he understood to be Davenant’s fundamental agreement with his own views on the stark choice that faced human society at any time – and that had most urgently confronted it of late in their native England – between an earnest striving for (a beneficial) cohesion and the self-indulgent pursuit of (a debilitating) factionalism: “But when I considered that also the actions of men, which singly are inconsiderable, after many conjunctures, grow at last either into one great protecting power, or into two destroying Factions; I could not but approve the structure of your Poem, which ought to be no other then [= than] such an imitation of humane [= human] life requireth”.35 In advancing towards this statement of approval, and perhaps not unmoved by his own recent and continuing experience in composing the text of Leviathan, Hobbes develops a response to Davenant’s dedication that takes the form of a more broadly ranging disquisition on the role in literature of Memory and Imagination (or “Fancy”). And this is also of considerable interest for the light it throws on the terms in which Hobbes may have been thinking about a possible frontispiece for his 34  This preliminary volume was published as A Discourse upon Gondibert. An Heroick Poem written by Sr William D’Avenant, with an Answer to it by Mr. Hobbs. 35  Hobbes in: Davenant Discourse / Answer 1650, pp. 133–34.

57

58

3. The “Artificiall Man”

own volume. He begins by introducing the interrelation between the chief categories that concern him: “Time and education beget experience; Experience begets Memory; Memory begets Judgement and Fancy; Judgement begets the strength and structure, and Fancy begets the ornaments of a Poem. The Antients therefore fabled not absurdly, in making memory the mother of the Muses”.36 He then proceeds to indicate how these forces interact: “[…] memory is the World (though not really, yet so as in a looking-glass) in which Judgement (the severer Sister) busieth her self in a grave and rigid examination of all the parts of Nature, and in registring by Letters, their order, causes, uses, differences and resemblances; Whereby the Fancy, when any work of Art is to be performed, findeth her materials at hand, and prepared for use […]”.37 Hobbes is moved to marvel at the almost instantaneous workings and the stupendous self-sufficiency of “Fancy”: “So that when she seemeth to fly from one Indies to the other [= from the Caribbean to South East Asia], and from Heaven to Earth, and to penetrate into the hardest matter, and obscurest places, into the future, and into her self, and all this in a point of time [= within a single instant]; the voyage is not very great, her self being all she seeks; and her wonderfull celerity, consisteth not so much in motion, as in copious imagery discreetly ordered, and perfectly registred [for her] in the memory”.38 It is, incidentally, of some significance for the matter of Hobbes’s reception of the Corpus Hermeticum that one particular aspect of this last passage – the phrase “from one Indies to the other” – appears to reveal with what particular edition of the Hermetic fragments he was in practice most familiar. For no such explicit geographical reference is to be found in the corresponding passage either in Marsilio Ficino’s Latin edition of 1576 (which marks the starting point of serious scholarly engagement with the “Poemander”), or in Tommaso Benci’s Italian translation of 1548. Both of these refer simply to the traversing of an “ocean”.39 It is only in the Hermetic fragments as they appear in the Appendix to a philosophical compilation published in Ferrara in 1591, Francesco Patrizi’s Nova de universis philosophica, which was in turn made available as a separate volume, Magia philosophica, in Hamburg, in 1593 (from which also come the three passages from the “Asclepius” cited earlier), that Hobbes can in this case have found his inspiration. For there, one reads: “Bid your mind [anima] travel to India and, faster than you can issue that order, it will be there. Bid it traverse the ocean and, yet again, it will have done so

36 

Hobbes in: Davenant Discourse / Answer 1650, p. 130. Hobbes in: Davenant Discourse / Answer 1650, pp. 130–31. 38  Hobbes in: Davenant Discourse / Answer 1650, p. 131. 39  Ficino 1962, vol. I, p. 851: “Iubeto in quam, ut transeat in Oceanum, illa prius, quam iusseris, ibi erit”; Mercurio Trismegisto 1548, p. 85: “Io dico, che le commandi, che ella passi nell’occeano quella prima che abbia commandato, sara quivi”. 37 

d. Of Memory and Imagination

just as if it had not travelled from one place to another, but had always been present at its destination”.40 This invocation of “India”, which Hobbes in 1650 would artfully elaborate in accordance with the more truly globe-spanning frame of reference of his own era, seems to prove that it was the fragment as rendered in Patrizi’s compilation that had particularly appealed to him. This probability is further strengthened through the fact that Hobbes, in the aforementioned listing of the volumes that would be found in his “ideal library”, includes the Magia philosophica published in Hamburg in 1593.41 And Hobbes’s own thinking did, indeed, have a good deal in common with that of Patrizi.42 In a manner no less indebted to the Corpus Hermeticum, Hobbes concludes the comments addressed to Davenant by observing that all the “very marvellous effects to the benefit of mankind” that “distinguisheth the civility of Europe” are to be understood as “the workmanship of Fancy […] guided by the precepts of Philosophy” (this in itself perhaps also an approving allusion to the fruitfulness of their friendship). And he goes on, with a most touching eloquence, to evoke these achievements: “All that is beautifull or defensible in building; or mervellous [= marvellous] in Engines or Instruments of motion; Whatsoever commodity men receive from the observation of the Heavens, from the description of the Earth, from the account of Time, from walking on the Seas […]”.43 Through the hopes for mankind expressed in such passages, Hobbes may be seen to keep company with other writers – from Tommaso Campanella, by way of Johann Valentin Andreae, to Francis Bacon – whose envisaged utopias were founded in a faith in culture and technology.44 Hobbes, however, remained acutely aware that, in order to activate its civilising capacities, memory required mental images that, before their absorption into its own “looking-glass”, had comprised entities in the real world.45 Addressing this issue in the aforementioned volume De Corpore, Hobbes gives the term “marks” to mental notes of “sensible things”, that is to say 40 

Patrizi 1593, p. 165v: “[…] praecipe tuae animae ut in Indiam vadat, & celerius tu iussione illic erit. Transire eam iube ad Oceanum, & ibi rursus cito erit, non ut quae locum mutaverit in locum, sed quasi ibi existat iube ipsam, […]”. Cf. Hermès Trismégiste 1980, Vol. I, “Poemander”, XI, 19, p. 154. 41  Pacchi 1968, no. 734. 42  On Patrizi, see Gerl 1968, pp. 342–44. On the connections between Patrizi and Hobbes – in the “geometrising” of philosophy, the critique of language, the concept of space, and the notion of an annihilated universe as a form of thought experiment – see Riedel 1975, pp. 183–84; Schuhmann 1986, passim; and Schuhmann 1990, pp. 347–48. 43  Hobbes in: Davenant Discourse / Answer 1650, p. 132. Cf. Schuhmann 1985, p. 224. On Hobbes’s concept of the historical development from barbarism to civilisation: Kraynak 1990, pp. 11–13. 44  Cf. Bredekamp 1993, pp. 56–62, 66–70. 45  Rehkämper 1991 surveys the more recent theories on this point.

59

60

3. The “Artificiall Man”

ideas sparked by sensually perceived external entities.46 He then goes on to draw an important distinction between such “marks” (which relate to what is, through this means, mentally retained by a single individual) and “signs” (a status acquired by “marks” upon their becoming sufficiently familiar to all). For it is only when “one man’s inventions be taught to others [that] sciences will […] be increased to the general good of mankind”.47 As “marks” advance to the status of “signs” they assume, that is to say, a potency that is conducive to action among those others who encounter them. It is, of course, deeply regrettable that, in the political context in which the first, 1651 edition of Hobbes’s Leviathan was made available to readers (or, at least, to those who were then in England), there was only a limited extent to which the embodied “Common-Wealth” they would encounter in its frontispiece could have attained the status of a “sign” (as defined above). Yet the most emphatic inclusivity of that figure might fairly be assumed to have itself dissuaded such readers – in their capacity as viewers – from the option of a merely passive response.

46  47 

Hobbes De Corpore II, I, in: Hobbes 1839–45 HEW, vol. I, p. 14. Hobbes De Corpore II, I, in: Hobbes 1839–45 HEW, vol. I, p. 14.

4. QUALITIES AND APPEAR ANCES The two most obtrusive visual characteristics of the figure of the embodied “Common-Wealth” that dominates the frontispiece to Hobbes’s Leviathan are its colossal stature (as measured against the land- and townscape over which it looms) and the fact that its arms and the visible upper half of its torso (although not its head) are composite entities, entirely made up of very much smaller figures. Inextricably linked with both features are issues of vision and illusion, both literal and metaphorical, to which Hobbes was alerted through his lively interest in optics and optical instruments. These aspects of the Leviathan frontispiece point to a particularly rich complex of cultural, socio-political, scientific and literary factors, all of which may have influenced Hobbes, be it consciously or all but subliminally, as he contemplated the question of an appropriate and effective title-page. On account of the extraordinarily wide range of contexts in which both colossal and composite figures had been, and continued to be, deployed at the point when Hobbes was at work on his Leviathan, his resort to these could rely upon a fair degree of familiarity, among those addressed, with how such a visual device might be “read”. From cosmic, by way of astronomical, to royal colossi (both male and female), and from ecclesiastical, by way of political, to mythological composites: Hobbes, together with his artist-collaborator, would have been able to draw on the associations accruing to an extensive visual and intellectual heritage. But the absorption and adaptation of such stimuli were, for Hobbes, also a starting point for an interrogation of how both gigantic scale and the phenomenon of the contained multitude might themselves be merely the outcome of visual contingencies and, in turn, possessed, above all, of a metaphorical value.

a. Colossal As regards colossal stature, one starting point was to be found in the figures in human form envisaged as standing upon a centrally positioned Earth with their arms fully extended towards the outer reaches of the system of concentric spheres that, in Mediaeval theological and iconographic tradition, constituted God’s

62

4. QUALITIES AND APPEAR ANCES

­ reation: seven each associated with a particular Planet, followed by an eighth, of C the Fixed Stars, then those of the Primum Mobile and of the Empyrean. This model of Creation was also depicted without the addition of such a human figure, as in the widely known example of Piero di Puccio’s late-fourteenth-century fresco on the northern wall of the Camposanto in Pisa.1 There, a series of concentric cosmic spheres is held firmly within the expansive grasp of a Creator directly visible only as a bearded and haloed head, the hem of a long garment, and to left and right the firm grip of two hands. When an implicitly gigantic human figure was overlaid upon such a scheme – as in the case of the “Universal Man” in the record of one of the ecstatic visions of the twelfth-century German abbess and mystic, Hildegard of Bingen –2 the resulting image demanded something new from those who contemplated it. Centrally positioned, such a figure was complementary in three respects to that of the Creator: it resided entirely within (rather than beyond) the cosmic model; it was fully exposed (rather than largely occluded); and its defining gesture took the form of an exploratory reaching (rather than an omniscient embrace). The appeal of such an arrangement – not least in what would generally come to be perceived as an affirmation of the crucial relationship between the Microcosm (of mankind) and the Macrocosm (of the universe) – ensured its increasing adoption, across much of Europe, especially when the rapid dissemination of printing first supplemented, then largely supplanted, manuscript. Of particular interest among early examples of its persistence is the extent to which a nominally “unchallenged” theological paradigm is seen to accommodate those models evolved in the pursuit of a number of ever less traditionally conducted scholarly disciplines. In the didactic and encyclopaedic volume Margarita Philosophica [The Pearl of Wisdom], first published in Freiburg in 1504 by a humanistically inclined German Carthusian, Gregor Reisch, its twelve Books presented as an accessible dialogue between a Magister and his Discipulus, a woodcut image that featured twice – in Book VII (The Principles of Astronomy) (Fig. 33),3 and again in Book IX (the second of two on Natural History) – retains the traditional model of the cosmos as a series of concentric spheres, here each clearly labelled. While, at this date, by no means entirely removed, in their connotations, from theological and cosmological tradition, the added indications of extreme North and South and of the Orient (left) and Occident (right) can also here be understood in specific relation to the Earth. The gigantic human figure with outstretched arms is now unambiguously

1 

See Clausberg 1980, pp. 75–77. See Clausberg 1980, pp. 77–79, col. figs. 8, 9, illustrating fols. 6r and 28v of the “Liber divinorum operum simplicis hominis”, in the Biblioteca Governativa, Lucca, Codex Latinus 1942 of c. 1230. 3  Reisch 1504, Book VII, fol. 128v. 2 

a. Colossal

33 _­ Figures of Atlas and Astronomy. Woodcut illustration in Gregor Reisch, Margarita Philosophica, Freiburg 1504. London, British Library (C.54.c.15)

identified as Atlas: a mythological figure (in the Index he is defined as “he who supports the Heavens”), but in this context clearly also intended as of relevance to the subjects addressed. And the “external”, presiding figure of God the Creator has here given way to an alluring female allegory, decoratively designated as “Astronomia”. (She is already present in the frontispiece to Book VII, where she features as a muse to Ptolemy, who is shown observing the night sky.) The frontispiece to one of the many “prognostications” issued by the celebrated German astrologer Johann Virdung (or Virdung von Hassfurth), in this case relating to an especially significant planetary conjunction due to occur during the course of 1524 (Fig. 34),4 is likewise dominated by an allegorical figure positioned in relation to an elaborate circular structure. In this case it has, however, assumed voluptuous female form, further enhanced through luxuriant, loosened hair; while the model of the cosmos itself has acquired a far more emphatic three-dimensionality, with Earth now sited at the centre of a simplified armillary sphere. Shown in simultaneously graceful and dynamic balance (feet resting upon one celestial ring, hands clasping another) is Astraea, the Greek goddess of Justice, daughter of the Titan Astraeus (Begetter of Stars), and herself at home in the Heavens, in the constellation Virgo. By the later decades of the sixteenth century this goddess was to assume a particular significance in pictorial allegory in Hobbes’s native England.

4 

Virdung von Hassfurth 1524, frontispiece.

63

64

4. QUALITIES AND APPEAR ANCES

34 _­ Astraea. Frontispiece to Johann Virdung von Hassfurth, Prognosticon, super novis stupendis […] Planetarum Coniunctionibus, Oppenheim 1524

In 1588 Astraea reappeared in the frontispiece to a long-influential work on the theory of the state: Sphaera Civitatis, by the Oxford scholar, and keen Aristotelian, John Case. Here, however, her identity was merged, both visually and textually, with that of the then reigning monarch, Elizabeth I (Fig. 35).5 This stiffly regal, late-sixteenth-century Astraea presides over an arrangement suggestive of the traditional cosmic model. But here, the centrally positioned Earth, governed by immutable justice (“IVSTITIA IMMOBILIS”), is encased in seven spheres, each identified not (at least not explicitly) with a particular Planet, but rather with a distinctive Royal Virtue, among them Clemency (“CLEMENTIA”) and Might (“FORTITVDO”), culminating in Majesty (“MAIESTAS”). Occupying the Sphere of the Fixed Stars is the privileged high court known (after the room in which it met)

5  Case 1588, frontispiece. Cf. Yates 1975, p. 64. On Case: Schmitt 1983, pp. 186–90; Weber 1992, pp. 24–25; Tuck 1993, pp. 147–49. Notwithstanding the overall Aristotelian tenor of this work, Hobbes would surely have approved of its assumption that the world was best ruled by a single monarch.

a. Colossal

35 _­ Queen Elizabeth I as Astraea. Frontispiece to John Case, Sphaera Civitatis, Oxford 1588. London, British Library (8006.b.8)

as the “Star Chamber” (here, “Camera Stellata”).6 Beyond this, Elizabeth herself is acclaimed as Queen of England, France and Ireland (“ANGLIAE FRANCIAE ET HIBERNIAE REGINA”) and Defender of the Faith. With this convergence of cosmos and civitas, the Queen is simultaneously present as goddess and monarch: the quintessence of the cosmos anthropos, and a divine embodiment of the state.7 A few years later, in the wake of the defeat of the Spanish Armada – in some respects a curious victory, but soon acclaimed as a “destined” outcome – even less diagrammatic depictions of Queen Elizabeth achieved remarkable feats of cosmic elevation. In the “Ditchley Portrait” of 1592 (Fig. 36), attributed to Marcus Gheeraerts the Younger, the monarch does indeed stand, as has been observed, with her feet upon a map of England.8 But, as revealed by the distinct curvature of the dark 6 

Howarth 1997, pp. 40–42. Belsey & Belsey 1995, p. 31. Cf. Windisch 1997, p. 134, who cites further colossal images (pp. 142–44). 8  Yates 1975, p. 106. The “Ditchley Portrait” was so called after the Oxfordshire estate of the long-serving courtier by whom it had been commissioned. 7 

65

66

4. QUALITIES AND APPEAR ANCES

36 ­_ Marcus Gheeraerts the Younger (attrib.), Queen Elizabeth I (“Ditchley Portrait”), 1592. Oil on canvas, 241.3 × 152.4 cm. London, National Portrait Gallery (NPG 2561)

horizon, she is also to be understood as both literally and symbolically presiding over a terrestrial globe. For neither of Elizabeth’s immediate successors (James I, from 1603; Charles I, from 1625) were comparably idiosyncratic pictorial formulae to be devised. And in continental Europe in these decades the pictorial elevation of monarchs and other high representatives of state invariably occurred as part of their explicit assimilation into a remote, divine realm. To Queen Elizabeth alone was vouchsafed a divinity no less autochtonous than it was celestial.

b. Composite The colossal character of the embodied “Common-Wealth” of the Leviathan frontispiece may well be its most immediately apparent quality; but, in the context of the argument of Hobbes’s text, it is subordinate to – because effectively required by – its character as a composite figure: a single, larger entity made up of numerous, very much smaller ones (Fig. 37). Sources relating to such an arrangement that may be seen as contributing to a nominal “context” for the Hobbesian image fall into four categories: a long-standing textual tradition of elaboration on the meta-

b. Composite

37 _­ Detail of Fig. 2

phor of the “body politic”; the ecclesiastical tradition of the Madonna (or Virgin) of Mercy and, by extension, the Christian monarch, as a source of protection for supplicants or subjects; the propagandistic resort to the composite-as-monstrosity as a means of castigating adversaries; and a more sophisticated intellectual fascination with the composite figure as an instance of the remarkable in illusion and in transformation. A particularly significant instance of the understanding of the state as a composite entity in human form is to be found in the Policraticus, one of several treatises produced in the 1150s by the English cleric John of Salisbury. Central to his concept of the “common-wealth” as an “animated body” was a principle of “co-ope­ rative harmony”, in which every part within such an organism – from the prince (the head), by way of his counsellors (the heart), his judges (the eyes and ears), and his soldiers and tax-collectors (the hands), to the lowliest artisans and peasants (the feet) – would voluntarily collaborate so as to ensure and maintain all the benefits that equated to bodily “health”.9 While by no means falling out of favour in subsequent   9 

Fitting 1965, p. 148; Barkan 1977, p. 72.

67

68

4. QUALITIES AND APPEAR ANCES

38 ­_ A prince offering the protection of his cloak. Illumination to an “Avis au roys”. Paris, c. 1350. New York, The Morgan Library and Museum (M. 456)

centuries, this scheme was later to be supplemented by diverse variants. By the reign of Queen Elizabeth I the “body politic” had come to be associated more specifically with the monarch herself, as an entity co-existing with her physical body. While this last was manifestly individual, vulnerable and mortal, its political counterpart was viewed as corporate, resilient and enduring. Within such a “body politic”, the Queen was “the head” and her subjects “the limbs”. She, accordingly, had “the sole rule over them”.10 Of considerable relevance to the image of the composite body subordinate to a single head are the traditions – both spiritual and secular – deriving from the doctrine of the protection offered by the cloak of the Madonna (or Virgin) of Mercy. Painted and sculpted renderings of this subject, known from the late thirteenth century, present the Madonna with her arms extended so as to shelter beneath her cloak numerous figures of the devout, shown standing or kneeling but always on a very much smaller scale. Often invoked in connection with this divinely bestowed assistance was a biblical passage, from the Second Epistle of Paul to the

10 

Plowden 1816, as discussed in Kantorowicz 1957, pp. 7–23, where a series of earlier examples is noted. Of particular interest is the decree issued in 1542 by Henry VIII, according to which he declared himself to be the head and his advisors to be the body of the Parliament “joined and knit together in one body politic” (cited after Barkan 1977, p, 76). Cf. in general Dohrn-van ­Rossum 1978 and Peil 1983, pp. 309–56.

b. Composite

39 ­_ Composite figure representing the author’s adversaries. Title-page to John Dee, Letter, Containing a most briefe Discourse Apologeticall, London 1599. London, British Library (G.2383)

Corinthians: “For we know that […] we have a building of God, an house not made with hands […] our house which is from heaven”.11 In line with a corresponding secular tradition, those of socially superior rank were legally permitted to grant appropriate forms of asylum (to minors, for example, or to those fleeing persecution). The model was also extended to the protection that one especially well-favoured and flourishing state might offer to another, as is claimed of the “kingdom of France” in the text and accompanying illumination in an “Avis aux roys” produced in Paris in around 1350 (Fig. 38).12 The composite figure in which the substitution of one part by many was a feature not of the body but of the head was, understandably, perceived as monstrous. It is not therefore at all surprising to find it employed, be it visually or textually, as a form of aggressive self-defence or for the purposes of propaganda. In 1599 the Anglo-Welsh mathematician, alchemist and occult philosopher John Dee published an open Letter, Containing a most briefe Discourse Apologeticall. Addressing the Archbishop of Canterbury, he sought to defend himself, as “a devout, zealous and faithful Christian philosopher”, against accusations that he was nothing but a 11  The Second Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians 5, 1–2, cited here from the King James Version of 1611. Cf. Kunst um 1400, pp. 5, 13–14, fig. 15; also further examples in Windisch 1997, p. 147. See also: Lentes 1993, pp. 135–37, with illustration. 12  “[…] quar […] le royaume de france dessus tout autres royaumes est plains […] de sapience et de science de noble chevalier de meurs vertues & plaisenz”, “Avis aux roys”, New York, The Morgan Library and Museum, M.456, fol. 6r. Cf. Camille 1993, p. 397 and fig. 8; Sherman 1995, p. 99.

69

70

4. QUALITIES AND APPEAR ANCES

“vile necromancer”, as had been claimed in the “many impudent attacks” upon him, which he now dismissed as nothing but “fables, untruths and utterly false reports and slanders”. This text was prefaced with a title-page illustrated with a composite figure that appears to represent the author’s enemies (Fig. 39). Its single pair of hips has grown dragons’ wings and, between these, there rears and jostles a no less alarming array of torsos, shoulders and hatted heads.13 Half a century later, Charles I, shortly before his execution, sought in the (possibly ghost-written) spiritual autobiography of his Eikon Basilike, to characterise his own chief opponents as comprising a single, multi-headed hydra. The implication here was that, although the Parliamentarians sought to make a virtue of the fact that, unlike a single monarch, they had the advantage of many pairs of eyes, through which “to foresee”, and thus prepare for, emerging difficulties, it was also, and far less auspiciously, true that they had many mouths, “which must be satisfied”.14 Reprinted over thirty times in the course of 1649 alone, the Eikon Basilike long continued to serve as exceptionally effective Royalist propaganda. Nor was its anti-Royalist counterpart without recourse to similarly monstrous composite figures. A broadsheet of 1643 seeking to convey the several dangers posed by a hereditary monarchy incorporated a woodcut (Fig. 40) that featured a centrally positioned single figure that is in itself, through both costume and accoutrements, split into two (albeit implicitly allied) components. From its trunk grow three necks, each issuing in around twenty-five heads, accusatorially labelled (on the left) “Papist Conspiritors Against Church [of England], and Parlement”, (in the centre) “Bloudy Irish”, and (on the right) “Mallignant Plotters against Kingdom [sic.] and Cittye”.15 The four hands at the ends of its two pairs of arms hold (on the left) a rosary and crucifix, a brandished sword, and a lit taper (with the help of a diminutive Devil this will light the trail of gunpowder that ends in the “Parlement”) and (on the right) an axe, a knife and a blazing torch (this last doubtless the cause of the conflagration here engulfing both houses and haystacks). The possible hint – in the “heavenly” hands parting the cloak within which the monster had been concealed – at an inversion of the aforementioned iconography of the Madonna of Mercy renders all the more shocking this gleeful indulgence in cruelty.

13 

Dee’s title-page is interpreted, by contrast, in Brown 1978, p. 32, as a source of encouragement to his supporters. Cf. also Yates 1979, pp. 89–90. 14  See Eikon Basilike (1649) 1966, p. 49: “[…] the many-headed Hydra of government; which as it makes a show […] to have more eyes to foresee, so [the people] will find it hath more mouths, too, which must be satisfied”. Although the monarch was, of necessity, served by many counsellors, the “supreme power can be but in one [man]”. 15  Catalogue 1870, p. 268, no. 375; cf. Brodsley 1972, p. 404 and Reitinger 1987 “Gemeinwesen”, p. 18, and Reitinger 1987 “Kunstgeschichte”, fig. 3.

b. Composite

40 ­_ “The Kingdomes Monster Uncloaked from Heaven”. Woodcut illustration in an English broadsheet, 1643. London, British Library (669.f.8/24)

While the composite figure of the Leviathan frontispiece emerged nearly sixty years after the death of the supreme exponent of this form – the Milanese artist Giuseppe Arcimboldo, whose mature career was largely spent at the imperial Habsburg courts of Vienna and later Prague – the arcimboldesque was for some time assured of a wide appeal, not least among those of scholarly and scientific leanings. It is hard to resist the conviction that such images would have held a deep interest for Hobbes, had he come to know of them. A work once thought to date to the mid-1560s (the early Viennese period of Arcimboldo’s career), but now ascribed to a follower working in the mid-seventeenth century (Fig. 41), offers a master class in the narrative and expressive potential of an image guaranteed to startle and intrigue, to horrify and amaze, as it pulls the viewer’s eye back and forth between the parts and the whole. Archetype of the “thin-skinned” vengeful despot, Herod has here become the very image of his own brutality. The opulence of his attire (jewel-encrusted crimson velvet cap; turban of silk with gilt fringing) heightens the pathos in the urgent animation of the pale infant victims of his “massacre”, from whose clambering, tumbling and squirming bodies his exposed neck and embittered face are formed. In the composite image widely regarded as Arcimboldo’s supreme achievement, a technical and intellectual tour de force that is also one of his last works (Fig. 42), both illusion and, above all, transformation are treated far more ambitiously. So that none of this be lost on the intended recipient, the Holy Roman Emperor Rudolf II, the work arrived in Prague accompanied by a long poetic exegesis, written by Gregorio Comanini, a scholarly Milanese associate of the artist,

71

72

4. QUALITIES AND APPEAR ANCES

41 ­_ Follower of Giuseppe Arcimboldo, Herod the Great, mid-1600s. Oil on board, 45.6 × 34 cm. Innsbruck, Tiroler Landesmuseum Ferdinandeum

which purported to speak in the voice of the spectacular subject.16 Identifying itself, in the opening lines, as Vertumnus (Roman god of the seasons and of growth and metamorphosis in the natural world), it asserts: “I am myself diverse. And yet, 16  Arcimboldo’s Vertumnus was sent from Milan to Prague along with a second composition, Flora, itself accompanied by a poetic explication. It is assumed that both poems were extracts from the text that Comanini published, in Mantua, in 1591, Il Figino: a witty and elegant conversation between the titular character (a mouthpiece for the author) and two friends as to whether the purpose of painting was to be informatively “useful” or to aim, instead, at pure “delight”, to adhere to realism or to range freely in the realm of fantasy. For the entirety of the text relating to Arcimboldo, see Effetto Arcimboldo 1987, pp. 181–89; for the section relating to the picture here under discussion, pp. 184–87. On Comanini in relation to other literary aspects of the intellectual context of Arcimboldo’s work, see: Geiger 1954, esp. chapter 5.

b. Composite

42 ­_ Giuseppe Arcimboldo, Rudolf II as Vertumnus, 1590/91. Oil on board, 68 × 56 cm. Håbo, Skoklosters slott

despite my varied aspect, I am one”.17 Speaking through Vertumnus, the poem goes on to flatter Rudolf as a second Jupiter, with whom this divinity shares a capacity to quell universal chaos and bring harmonious order. And, in the remarkable co-existence of the horticultural bounty of all four seasons, it finds evidence of the Golden Age restored under the rule of so illustrious a sovereign.18 Merging nature and artifice, portrayal and allegory, the painting is replete with visual puns, mild eroticism and much that is grotesque; yet its overall impact is of a fitting grandeur. Frontally posed and with an uncannily intense “gaze”, it nonetheless persists in offering neither a mask nor a face to the viewer, whom it both invites and playfully challenges: “Now tell me if you’d like to see what I conceal.” 19

17 

See Effetto Arcimboldo 1987, p. 186, lines 15–17: “Vario sono de me stesso, / e par sì vario un solo / sono […]” 18  On Rudolf as Jupiter, see Da Costa Kaufmann 1976. Cf. Brandt 1982, p. 204, note 5. 19  See Effetto Arcimboldo 1987, p. 187, lines 207–08 : “Dimmi hor tu se t’aggrada / di veder quent’io […] celo”.

73

74

4. QUALITIES AND APPEAR ANCES

c. Magnification, distortion, resolution During the decade or so immediately prior to Hobbes’s work on the text of his Leviathan and, in due course, the fuller emergence of his own ideas on its frontispiece, his thinking on both the colossal image and the composite image would have been much influenced by his deep interest in optics: the structure of the eye, the phenomenon of vision, the means through which it might be assisted, and those circumstances likely to incur its distortion. Resident throughout the 1640s in Paris, when that city was of exceptional importance in the study of optics, Hobbes was very well placed to acquire a wide range of instruments,20 to carry out numerous experiments, to record the findings of these, and to note the related further speculations and philosophical considerations to which some of them gave rise. In his “Minute or First Draught of the Optiques”, assumed to date from 1646, Hobbes speaks of vision as the “noblest of the senses”.21 And included in his text on the “Organ of Sight” is to be found a splendid pen-and-ink drawing, the upper half of which shows a cross-section through the eye, its anatomy barely out of step with the understanding of later centuries.22 The insights so obtained were to furnish Hobbes with varied and compelling elements for the metaphors he would go on to employ when addressing the vagaries of human conduct: a characteristic example of his persisting commitment to applying “scientific” principles to the understanding of human nature and human society and how these might best be improved. In 1635 the English poet Francis Quarles had published a collection of emblems, which rapidly became one of the most widely familiar books of this period.23 The visual component of one of these, devised by the engraver John Payne, shows two seated female figures (Fig. 43). One, who is naked and represents Flesh, is shown taking enormous pleasure in the play of light and colour engendered by a glass prism. Her modestly clothed counterpart, Spirit, is seen raising to her right eye a telescope, through which, it is evident, she beholds, at the far end of a tree-lined “path of life”, a vision of what is in store for all mankind: a skeletal figure of Death silhouetted against the flames of Hell and an enthroned Christ 20  Among these were a number of valuable microscopes and several telescopes, including two made by Evangelista Torricelli and four made by Eustachio Divini. See Malcolm 1988, pp. 47–48. 21  “[…] speculation of the noblest of [the] Senses, Vision”. See Thomas Hobbes, “A Minute or first Draught of the Optiques”, London, British Library, Harley Ms. 3360, fol. 2v (introduction). 22  It is probable that Hobbes had, before his years in Paris, studied Vesalius and carried out dissections in the company of his medical friend William Harvey. Thereafter, it is likely that in 1645–46, when the young, but already medically trained, William Petty (the future political economist) served as Hobbes’s secretary and assistant, further such anatomical study took place. On this matter see Malcolm 1988, p. 47. 23  Höltgen 1978, pp. 31–33.

c. Magnification, distortion, resolution

43 ­_ Flesh with a prism, Spirit with a telescope. Illustration by John Payne in Francis Quarles, Emblemes, London 1635. London, British Library (C.95.a.2(1.))

in Judgement.24 The image is captioned by a verse from the biblical Book of Deuteronomy expressing regret that so few pause, in the midst of life, to consider its “latter end”; and it is followed by a dialogue between the two female protagonists.25 Flesh, enquiring of Spirit why she is so devoted to her “Optick glasse”, receives the reply: “It helps the sight; makes things appeare / In perfect view; It draws the Object neare”. But, upon learning of what Spirit is so pleased to espy 24  Quarles 1635, Book 3, Emblem XIV, pp. 176–79, here p. 176. See also Konecný 1974, p. 379; and, on the entire sequence, Silverman 1993, pp. 87–99. 25  Quarles 1635, Book 3, Emblem XIV, p. 176, Book of Deuteronomy: 32, 29; dialogue pp. 177–79.

75

76

4. QUALITIES AND APPEAR ANCES

through her telescope, Flesh hastens to recount the far greater delight of what may be seen with the aid of her adored prism: “The world in colours […]”. Unimpressed by such merely illusory effects, Spirit ends by gently admonishing her companion as a “foole”: as one who dotes “on vaine, on present toyes” and, in so doing, ignores “those true, those future joyes”. Such religiously motivated praise for the telescope was to flourish in the decades that followed.26 But, over the same period, this instrument was to arouse the suspicions of those authors who were moved above all to find in it a metaphor for the susceptibility of human perceptions to the distortions incurred through the force of human passions. In the “Discourse” on Gondibert, the aforementioned verse epic dedicated to Hobbes by its author, his friend Sir William Davenant,27 human perception distorted by passions is noted and deplored, in this case with regard to failure in appraising the true merits and capacities of a state’s rulers and administrators. Of their deluded subjects Davenant claims: “Yet Sometimes with the Eye of Envy (which inlarges objects like a multiplying-glasse [a telescope]) they behold these States-men, and think them immense as Whales, the motion of whose vast bodys can in a peacefull calm trouble the Ocean till it boil”.28 That Hobbes was much taken by Davenant’s use of this optical metaphor to a political end is strongly suggested by the terms in which, in Chapter XVIII of his Leviathan, he deplores the self-interest that blinds the great mass of the people to the necessity of measures taken, in peacetime, so as to ensure that there will be sufficient resources in the event of war. Hobbes was here thinking of the widespread popular resistance of the later 1630s to the extension from coastal to inland communities of the obligation to pay “ship money”,29 a tax traditionally levied by the monarch so as to boost the funds available to the Navy. This was, in short, a case where more, rather than less, regard for those in charge was to be desired. Here, Hobbes observes: “For all men are by nature provided of [= with] notable multiplying glasses, (that is [to say] their Passions and Self-love,) through which, every little payment appeareth a great grievance”.30 To counter the pernicious influence of vision that has allowed itself to be distorted by the “telescoping” effect of the passions, Hobbes invokes the salutary metaphor of a more complex optical instrument: the “perspective glass”. Making proper use of this device equates, in his view, to arming oneself with all the wisdom

26 

On the lauding of the telescope: Mann 1992, pp. 138–40. On Davenant’s Gondibert, see also Chapter 3.d. 28  Davenant in: Davenant Discourse / Answer 1650, p. 91. On the multifarious iconography of the telescope: Mann 1992, pp. 138–40. 29  Skinner 1998, p. 69. 30  Hobbes Leviathan 1651a (Chapter XVIII), p. 94. 27 

c. Magnification, distortion, resolution

and insight afforded by “Morall and Civill Science”. So armed, men will be able correctly to appraise both their present and their probable future situation and so (as in the matter of the “ship money”) “to see a farre off the miseries that hang over them, and cannot without such payments be avoyded”.31 As of the mid- to late seventeenth century, the “perspective glass”, in the strict sense of that term,32 was a relative novelty. Particular importance had been granted to its use in La Perspective Curieuse, a treatise in four Books published in Paris in 1638 by Jean-François Niceron, a French cleric, mathematician and painter with an interest in optical distortions, or anamorphoses, and in all manner of instruments for use in viewing, and thereby “deciphering” and resolving, them. In the case of dioptric anamorphosis, an appropriately contrived painted image would be observed through a “perspective glass” in the form of a viewing tube fitted with a multi-faceted lens that ensured the refraction, then reconstitution, of that image – often to spectacular effect. The dioptric method (“le procédé dioptrique”) was covered in the fourth Book of Niceron’s volume.33 One of its plates (Fig. 44) shows, in its upper section, two faceted lenses (marked LXIV and LXV), and a viewing tube (marked LXVI) containing just such a lens (ABC) and with a peephole (D) to the left. Below: the viewing tube again (now RQ), resting upon its two-legged stand, and a large / panel (LXVII) bearing a dozen portrait busts resembling a series of aged, turbaned Ottoman sultans. The following plate (Fig. 45) shows the panel again (now marked LXIX) in more detail, but still as it would appear if viewed with the unaided eye. Purely as an explanatory device, segments of its portraits, shaped like the cut facets of the lens, are each labelled with a letter. Below, a diagrammatically rendered lens (LXX) is shown alongside the image (LXXI) of Louis XIII in his prime. This last – the startling outcome of the operation and an entirely illusory entity, visible only to someone looking through the viewing tube – is here divided, for the purposes of clearer exposition, into numbered segments corresponding to those above identified by letters (1 = A; 2 = B, 3 = C, and so on). As Niceron explains, when a viewer 31 

Hobbes Leviathan 1651a (Chapter XVIII), p. 94. The term “perspective glass” was also widely used at this time to indicate any sort of optical instrument that promised to alter the apparent size of the object observed, although in this looser sense it most commonly signified a telescope. One of the term’s most noted appearances with that signification was in John Bunyan’s Christian allegory The Pilgrim’s Progress, first published in London in 1678, where in Part I, section 8 (“The Delectable Mountains”), the four wise and kindly shepherds lend to the two pilgrims, Christian and Hopeful, their own “perspective glass”, through which to espy, in the distance, the “Celestial City” that is their desired destination. Perhaps significantly, this exercise is not altogether successful because the pilgrims’ hands are still shaking with the fear induced by the several grave dangers revealed to them earlier by the shepherds. But they do succeed in obtaining a vague impression of “the glory of the place”. 33  Niceron 1638, Livre IV, pp. 100–20, which opens with an enthused acclamation of “cette merveille de Dioptrique inventée en nos jours”. 32 

77

78

4. QUALITIES AND APPEAR ANCES

44 ­_ Two faceted lenses; viewing tube; panel depicting twelve portrait busts: components required for a demonstration of image refraction and reconstitution through “le procédé dioptrique”. Illustration in Jean-François Niceron, La Perspective Curieuse, Paris 1638. London, British Library (L.35/44)

c. Magnification, distortion, resolution

45 ­_ Panel depicting twelve portrait busts as viewed with the unaided eye; faceted lens; portrait of Louis XIII derived by image refraction and reconstitution through “le procédé dioptrique”. Illustration in Jean-François Niceron, La Perspective Curieuse, Paris 1638. London, British Library (L.35/44)

79

80

4. QUALITIES AND APPEAR ANCES

looks at the panel with the aid of the “perspective glass”, the dozen painted heads of the aged sultans will be found to have merged into the single head of the relatively youthful French monarch.34 The impression made upon Hobbes through his attendance, in Paris, at demonstrations of the workings of this sort of “perspective glass”35 is attested by his invocation of this instrument in his own praise for Davenant’s aforementioned poem: “I believe (Sir) you have seen a curious kind of Perspective, where, he that looks through a short hollow pipe, upon a picture conteining diverse figures, sees none of those that are there painted, but some one person made up of their parts, conveighed to the eye by the artificiall cutting of a glasse”.36 Hobbes, indeed, sees the principle of the “perspective glass” so compellingly realised in the poem that, in his concluding eulogy, he elevates the recollected image of his friend into the sort of portrait generated through such a device: “The virtues you distribute there [in your poem] amongst so many noble Persons represent (in the reading) the image but of one mans virtue to my fancy, which is your own […].”37

d. Extending the metaphor It is evident that, by the time Hobbes started work on the text of his Leviathan, he was already well-versed in the use of metaphors related to vision, distorted vision, the aggravating force of the human passions, and the salutary role of diverse optical instruments. It is, however, likely that it was his encounter with one further English text that may have proved especially important to him, above all for its (almost “incidental”) insight into how the metaphor of an image of many first refracted, then reconstituted, through the use of a “perspective glass”, into an image of one might be most fruitfully extended in its application. 34  Louis XIII, although aged 37 in 1638, nonetheless retained, for many in France, an association with “youth”, having succeeded his father, Henri IV, shortly before his ninth birthday. As the elder brother of Henrietta Maria, consort of Charles I (of England), and hence maternal uncle to Charles, Prince of Wales, he could count on the affection and esteem of those who were soon to become Royalist exiles in Paris, 35  Cf. Windisch 1997, pp. 129–31. Martin Windisch was the first to carry out a systematic examination of this aspect of Hobbes’s experience in Paris; and he thereby established an entirely new way of approaching the related writings. Noel Malcolm’s important article of 1998 on the “perspective glass” in relation to the Leviathan title-page corresponds – on occasion, point by point – with the outcome of the research I had first presented in London in summer 1997, on the metaphorical treatment of this and other such instruments. He, however, offers (pp. 133–35) a broader consideration than I was able to encompass of apposite seventeenth-century developments; but it appears that he had not been aware of the relevant publications of Windisch. See also Windisch 1994; Windisch 1998. 36  Hobbes in: Davenant Discourse / Answer 1650, p. 144. Cf. Hughes 1978, p. 293; Windisch 1994, p. 69; Windisch 1997, p. 129; Malcolm 1998, p. 125. 37  Hobbes in: Davenant Discourse / Answer 1650, pp. 144–45.

d. Extending the metaphor

The text in question was addressed to Prince Charles, Prince of Wales, by Richard Fanshawe, and served as the latter’s dedicatory epistle in his 1647 volume The Faithfull Shepheard: an English translation of Giovanni Battista Guarini’s latesixteenth-century five-Act tragi-comic pastoral Il Pastor Fido.38 Although Fanshawe was Hobbes’s junior by twenty years, it is possible that the two may have known each other personally through their mutual connection with the dedicatee of ­Fanshawe’s text. In 1644, two years before Hobbes had become Tutor in Mathematics to the Prince, Fanshawe had been appointed his Secretary of War; and he continued intermittently in his service, chiefly in a diplomatic role, during the later 1640s. In addressing the Prince, Fanshawe plays throughout on the notion of the most important observations – on moral virtues, philosophical principles, diplomatic acumen – being communicated to elevated personages (who believe themselves to be without the time or leisure to contemplate such matters) through being disguised in “masking clothes”, that is to say, in easily absorbed forms of entertainment. A perfect example of this, he claims, is Guarini’s drama, originally devised to accompany the nuptials, in 1585, of Carlo Emmanuele, Duke of Savoy, and the Infanta of Spain. For there, while “exposing to ordinary view an Ensemble of Shepherds, their loves, and other little concernments”, the author “pre­­sents through the perspective of the Chorus, another and more subtle object to his Royall Spectators”.39 Fanshawe goes to great lengths to spell out the tragic parallel, which he hopes the Prince will appreciate, between the general “Calamitie” deplored by Guarini’s Chorus and the present state of affairs in this young man’s “Royall Patrimony”; but he dares to hope that the sudden happy change of fortune in the drama will, in due course, also find its equivalent in a true “end of our woe” and, moreover, that the Prince will, in that transformation, serve as “a great Instrument […] uniting a miser­ a­ bly divided people in a publicke joy”.40 In order to secure the Prince’s interest, through citing an instance more immediately relevant to his present, Parisian life, Fanshawe prefaces his explanation regarding Guarini with a most up-to-date example that will surely have captured Hobbes’s own attention, touching as it does upon the workings of a particular, widely known “perspective glass”. Addressing the Prince, Fanshawe writes: “Your Highnesse may have seen at Paris a Picture (it is in the Cabinet of the great Chancellor there) so admirably design’d, that, presenting to the common beholders a multitude of little faces (the famous Ancestors of that Noble man); at the same time, to him that looks through a Perspective (kept there for that purpose) there appears onely a single portrait in great of the Chancellor himself; the Painter thereby 38 

Fanshawe / Guarini 1647, pp. [1]–[4]. Cf. Whitfield 1964, pp. 68–71; Fallon 1993. Fanshawe / Guarini 1647, pp. [2]–[3]. 40  Fanshawe / Guarini 1647, pp, [3]–[4]. 39 

81

82

4. QUALITIES AND APPEAR ANCES

intimating, that in him alone are contracted all the Vertues of all his Progenitors […]”.41 As Fanshawe assumes of the Prince, Hobbes too was likely to have been familiar with the example here invoked, and so to have brought his own understanding to what was said of it. But it may well have been Fanshawe’s following comments that were to prove of far more importance to this alert reader. For, having spelt out what “the Painter” was chiefly “intimating”, as regards the virtues of many ancestors being united in a single descendant, Fanshawe goes on to observe that he was “perchance by a more subtile Philosophy demonstrating, how the Body Politick is composed of many naturall ones […].42 While it would be reasonable to assume that Hobbes had himself for some time been edging towards this sort of broader, socio-political application of the “perspective glass” metaphor, it is equally significant that, having doubtless absorbed the lesson of Fanshawe’s proposition, his own chief concern would seem rapidly to have become no longer merely the phenomenon of the “body politic” being “composed” of its diverse individual constituents, but rather the quality of the relation between the latter and the former as, respectively, artificial and natural entities. For Hobbes, this relation is not merely additive, but truly transformative – and in this all the closer to the workings of the “perspective glass” as expounded by Niceron in his text and his illustrations. The embodied “Common-Wealth”, as this appears in the Leviathan frontispiece, both colossal and composite, is the image of a multitude. But its form is that of a man, whose ultimate purpose is not so much to corral and contain as to absorb and, in so doing, to amplify.

41  42 

Fanshawe / Guarini 1647, p. [2]. Cf. Malcolm 1998, pp. 137–38, 146–47, note 9. Fanshawe / Guarini 1647, p. [2].

5. “Mastering” time Central to the consideration of the “Common-Wealth” in the text of Hobbes’s Leviathan is its formation within a larger temporal continuum (that of the “naturall condition of mankind”) characterised by “Warre”, with only rare and very brief intervals of “Peace”. For an Englishman of Hobbes’s generation, the sense of a profound temporal caesura had occurred with the advent of the Civil War 1642 (when Hobbes was 54) and, even more so, with the execution of Charles I seven years later. In a text conceived and largely composed in response to that deeply troubling situation – albeit a situation that Hobbes was able to observe from a distance and in relative safety – he was thus perforce inclined to a preoccupation with the matter of time: its passage, its evaluation, its allure in fond recollection or in eager anticipation. And such concerns were more than likely to have impinged upon his thoughts concerning a title-page. Chapter Five will begin by considering the contexts in which a “mastery” of time had been attempted, and in some form achieved, during the decades of Hobbes’s own youth and maturity, in England and occasionally abroad, through diverse sorts of imagery: the presence attained by the cult of the monarch as martyr; dramatic elaborations on the pre-existing tradition of the “cadaver tomb”; the memorial and ceremonial role assumed by effigies of the dead. Thereafter, attention will be focused on the ambiguous intimations regarding time to be found within the original, 1651 Leviathan frontispiece (Fig. 2), and on how these in turn might induce an awareness, in the reader-as-viewer, of the “Common-Wealth” in its own temporal dimension: from the happy “anomaly” of its emergence to the formidable challenge of investing in its endurance. (This last point will be the chief concern of Chapter 6, albeit there approached from quite other directions.)

a. Temporal aberration: its denial and its reversal As revealed by written records of the visual transformations occurring when a specially contrived painted image was observed through the viewing tube of a “perspective glass” (see Chapter 4. c. and d.), the change might in itself be instantaneous,

84

5. “Mastering” time

but the invoked thematic (as opposed to technical) “explanation” could entail the passage of quite some time – in the case of the session evoked by Richard Fanshawe the passing of several generations. Neither Parisian instance, especially not that alluding to the Ottoman Empire, was entirely devoid of a mild political element.1 But it would seem that a resort to the “le procédé dioptrique” was generally undertaken in a spirit of entertainment as well as of instruction – Niceron readily admits as much – 2 and entailed none of the partisan passions that might well have been stirred had the setting for such demonstrations been not Paris but London. In the England of that period the portrait of a king that spoke so variously to different constituencies in itself epitomised the precarious extent to which the nation was divided. With the execution of Charles I in 1649, and the advent of rule by the socalled Rump Parliament and its Council of State and, from 1653, by Oliver Cromwell, as Lord Protector, England (and, with it, Scotland and Ireland) entered upon a period that was to be both experienced and interpreted from two diametrically opposed and all but irreconcilable points of view. In the eyes of those who were largely approving of so radical a departure from hallowed monarchical tradition, these years brought the sole possible solution to a situation that had become all but intolerable. As perceived by their opponents, the very same years were a period of shameful aberration. For such Royalists, a conviction that rule by Parliament or by the Lord Protector was far from a long-term solution was, from the start, signalled in a preference for the alternative designation “Interregnum”, the two reigns between which this was seen to intervene being that (ending in 1649) of the late king and that (as yet to begin) of his son and heir, albeit the latter period had, in their own view, truly commenced in the instant of the father’s death. In these circumstances, images of the deceased – and, in Royalist eyes, martyred – king soon assumed a peculiar potency. And devotion to these was further intensified through the intermittent issuing of prohibitions on the possession and veneration of such objects.3 Not least among the dangers they were seen to pose was the scope they offered for an effective manipulation of time.

1  The implicit subsuming of the portraits of twelve aged Ottoman sultans within that of the French king Louis XIII is unlikely (in view of the Franco-Turkish alliance in place since the early sixteenth century) to have carried anti-Ottoman sentiment of the intensity it would have had in much of the rest of Europe at this time. 2  In the introductory remarks to the fourth Book of his volume, Niceron insists on the great scientific interest of demonstrations of “le procédé dioptrique”, but also on their value as a form of “divertissement”. See Niceron 1638, pp. 100–01. 3  In 1651 Robert Vaughan was accused, in a “Bill of Indictment”, of issuing a portrait print of Charles I with an inscription that appeared intended to discredit Parliament (Corbett & Norton 1964, p. 48).

a. Temporal aberration: its denial and its reversal

46 ­_ William Marshall, Charles I as Martyr. Frontispiece to Eikon Basilike, London 1649

Even with the objectivity of distant historical retrospect, it is not difficult to see how an image as relatively conventional as that serving as the frontispiece to Charles I’s aforementioned spiritual autobiography, the Eikon Basilke (Fig. 46), might tug on Royalist emotions. Nor is it hard to grasp how effectively it might call upon a pre-established readiness to respond to the only recently departed monarch much as one might to a saint martyred in the very distant past: as an individual almost entirely removed from the temporal dimension occupied by the reader in his capacity as viewer. Motifs no less emotionally than symbolically freighted to be found throughout this visual counterpart to the icon (or “true image”) invoked in the text’s title – the ornate earthly crown (inscribed “Vanitas”) now cast aside in favour of the thorny martyr’s crown clasped in the king’s right hand; the anticipatory pathos of the bent knee, bared head and left hand held to the throat; the rock “unmoved” by the ferocity of wind or wave, the steady radiance of the vision of heavenly “glory” – would surely have proved hard to resist among so passionately predisposed a target audience.4 4 

Howarth 1997, pp. 148–50.

85

86

5. “Mastering” time

47 ­_ Anamorphic image of Charles I. After 1660. Mariefred, Gripsholms slott

Far more psychologically and emotionally powerful, however, because so much more directly suggestive to the imagination, were panels bearing painted anamorphic images of the head of the late king. While not entirely “illegible” when observed with the unaided eye, their subject was so far from obvious that they could safely be allowed to “hide in plain sight”. They were intended for viewing, when privacy could be guaranteed, as reflected in the mirrored convex outer surface of a metal cylinder (Fig. 47). The procedure entailed standing the upright cylinder so that its base covered the small skull depicted at the centre of what might, at first, be taken, with a shudder, for the king’s now blackened severed neck. Thus positioned, it enabled the improbably spotless, lace-trimmed white collar caressing the jaw of the painted face to reappear, in the reflected image, in reassuring sartorial conjunction with what now became the miraculously “resurrected” subject’s darkclad upright torso and alert and, in every sense, animated face.5 Enthusiasm for anamorphic images of the deceased king was such that versions were in due course also available that depicted his (still very much alive) successor; and both variants retained their popularity even after the Restoration, in 1660 (as 5 

Windisch 1997, pp. 125, 132.

b. Surviving death: the “cadaver tomb” and the funer al effigy

in the case of that shown here).6 For Royalists, it must have been no less incentivising than gratifying to behold, by this means, the return to life of a monarch so traumatically lost and so deeply mourned. Indulgence in this bitter-sweet pleasure was doubtless heightened by awareness that it ultimately constituted a further means of outmanoevring political opponents: firstly, in serving to adumbrate a final healing of the breech in the continuum of royal succession; and secondly, in making it far easier to envisage oneself transported forward into a time no longer mired in aberration – and even perhaps open to the boon of reconciliation.

b. Surviving death: the “cadaver tomb” and the funeral effigy The affirmation that death was, in the case of certain individuals, an experience that might be survived was invariably even far more compelling when rendered in three-dimensional form. This was especially so where the passage of time might be simultaneously acknowledged and denied through the startling juxtaposition of the sculpted figure of the deceased shown both as it had appeared in the prime of life and as it looked in its present, pitiful state as a decaying corpse. The structurally more elaborate form of “cadaver tomb”, which permitted the display of two such reclining figures of a single deceased individual, had evolved from the early fifteenth century in England, France and the Italian states.7 In that erected in 1435 in honour of John FitzAlan, 14th Earl of Arundel (whose body had been brought back from France, where he had died from injuries sustained in battle), bears on its upper bier a figure of the deceased, dressed in chain mail and light armour. In line with this acknowledgement of military prowess, the hands shown (as was the custom) joined in prayer evince an unusual tautness, with the digits slightly splayed, as if to attest a still undiminished vitality. Below, but in no way masked from view, is a sculpted rendering of the warrior’s naked corpse, manifestly succumbing to decay, above all in the face and the torso.8 Around eighty years later, a tomb on the same model, erected in the thirteenth-century church of St Elisabeth in Marburg (Fig. 48), again juxtaposed a sculpted corpse, here even more gruesomely decayed and clearly prey to hungry worms, with the serene nobility of Wilhelm II, Landgrave of Hesse, as he had been in life, who reclines above. It has been assumed that Hobbes, in what is perhaps his most pointed satire on the Roman Catholic Church to be found in the text of Leviathan – in the fortyseventh and final Chapter he mocks the Papacy as “no other, than the Ghost of the

6 

Baltrušaitis 1984, p. 191, Fig. 99. Panofsky 1965, p. 64–65, who favors the appellation “double-decker tomb”. 8  Panofsky 1965, p. 64, fig. 262. The tomb, in Arundel Cathedral, was long unidentified, prior to investigations conducted in the mid-nineteenth century. 7 

87

88

5. “Mastering” time

deceased Romane Empire, sitting crowned upon the grave thereof” –9 had had in mind a particularly striking example of the dramatisation of such “cadaver tombs” that was characteristic of his own era in much of what had remained Catholic Europe, an example that he may well have encountered, at least in its still incomplete form, when he had himself been, in the mid-1630s, in Rome. This was the grandiose funerary monument in the Basilica of St Peter that Pope Urban VIII (Maffei Barberini) had commissioned from Gian Lorenzo Bernini (Fig. 49). As installed in 1631, it had included a fine, seated figure of its tenant; but it had acquired its full complement of additional figures only over the course of the next

48 ­_ Tomb of Wilhelm II, Landgrave of Hesse (sculpted by Ludwig Juppe). 1509. Marburg, Elisabethkirche

fifteen years. (It is of course possible that Hobbes may, by the late 1640s, have come to know, by report, of its final appearance.)10 The enthroned figure of the deceased pontiff effortlessly dominates the upper section of the monument, his right arm and hand extended in an especially forceful rendering of the traditional apostolic blessing. But this last is all but upstaged by the activity of the bony limbs and digits of the winged and cursorily draped spectre of Death seated below, atop the ornate sarcophagus. These, one may note

  9 

Hobbes Leviathan 1651a (Chapter XLVII), p. 386. On Hobbes’s sources: Springborg 1995, p. 514; cf. Skinner 1996, pp. 399–400. 10  It is equally possible that Hobbes was thinking of other tombs he had seen during his visits to Rome in 1614 and 1636 (on the dates of these: Skinner 1996, pp. 218–19, 254). But, in any case, none of the other candidates on view at St Peter’s come as close to the arrangement evoked in Hobbes’s satirical remark as does Bernini’s tomb for Pope Urban VIII. The tombs of Popes Paul III and Alexander VII, by Guglielmo della Porta and Bernini, respectively, are not only too late, but also both show their respective papal figures bare-headed.

b. Surviving death: the “cadaver tomb” and the funer al effigy

49 ­_ Tomb of Pope Urban VIII (sculpted by Gian Lorenzo Bernini). 1627– 47. Rome, Basilica di San Pietro

with grim surprise, are inscribing the name and particulars of the deceased upon a freshly unfurled scroll. An even more persuasive form in which the death of an especially eminent individual might be marked so as to preserve an element of mediation between acknowledging demise and asserting survival was to be found in the practice, dating from the Mediaeval period, of displaying an effigy of the deceased, both as an integral part of a ceremonial funeral and, thereafter, as a monument, often in close proximity to the eventual site of the grave. Made of wood, often with the addition of plaster or wax, usually life-size, painted with a striking realism, and richly costumed, this form of substitute for the departed would almost certainly have first evolved in response to the purely logistical challenges posed by efforts to preserve a corpse as such funerals became ever more elaborate (thus requiring much time to plan and prepare), and burial itself might, consequently, be long delayed. But this practical concern may reasonably be assumed to have soon counted for less than did the impact of the display of such figures on the public encounter with death, even if only in exceptional circumstances. Its abrupt finality was now, in a sense, deferred;

89

90

5. “Mastering” time

its pitiless assault on physical beauty could almost be denied; and a disconcerting absence might be momentarily forgotten in the face of a most emphatic presence. Death as a sudden biographical event ceded, one might say, to death as an extended social procedure.11 In the case of a deceased sovereign, moreover, this generalised perceptual shift was accompanied by a more specific development in understanding. The representation of the state – formerly seen to be a role assumed by the entire royal apparatus – was now far more readily viewed as accomplished by the body of the former ruler (or, more strictly speaking, by its effigy). It was with the funeral obsequies, in 1509, of Henry VII of England that a consummate union of concept and image appears, for the first time, to have been accomplished.12 For this occasion, an effigy of unprecedented realism was devised: “Over the corps was an Image or Representacion of [the] late king layd on quissions [= cushions] of golde aparelled in his Riche robes of astate [with] crowne on his hed [and] ball & scepter in his hande […]”.13 Its surviving head, the work of Pietro Torrigiano (who, in his youth, had studied alongside Michelangelo in the Florentine school for sculptors founded by the Medici) very clearly attests to an effort to animate the individual features of the deceased monarch (Fig. 50),14 for all the representational grandeur that the figure as a whole would eventually be required to bear. As the inclusion of effigies in both the ceremonial funerals and the subsequent commemoration of deceased monarchs became well established in England, the 11  Dupont 1989, pp. 407, 410; cf. Bickerman 1929 and Ginzburg 1992, p. 10. The chief stages of research into this practice in the Mediaeval period and beyond are marked, in chronological order, by: Aby Warburg’s Bildniskunst und florentinisches Bürgertum of 1902 (in Warburg 1969, pp. 89–126); Schlosser’s work of 1910/11 on wax portraits (Schlosser 1993); Keller’s essay of 1939 on the portrait (extended edn. Keller 1977); Kantorowicz’s The King’s Two Bodies of 1957, pp. 419– 37, and its continuation in the work of Giesey (Giesey 1960; cf. the rather unconvincing critique of Kantorowicz and Giesey in the arguments of Boureau 1988); Brückner’s research into folkloric custom (Brückner 1966, pp. 68–70); Reinle’s survey of the substitutive portrait (Reinle 1984); and Freedberg on the power of images and of interaction with them (Freedberg 1989). A comprehensive survey of the means of ensuring the visual “presence” of the deceased is provided in Polleross 1995. 12  On earlier occasions it seems that this union had not quite occurred. When, in 1422, Henry V died in Vincennes and his body was transported back through France to London in a ceremonial funeral procession, an effigy made of carefully shaped and painted leather, dressed in a parliamentary robe and an ermine-trimmed cloak, and accompanied by symbols of the realm, lay atop the lead coffin (Brückner 1966, pp. 78–79); but it is apparent that this was understood in terms of both “resemblance” and “representation”, rather than as a merging of the two (Enguerrand de Monstrelet, Chroniques 1453, here cited after Hope 1907, p. 536; cf. Giesey 1960, pp. 85–87, and Brückner 1966, pp. 96, 98). 13  Ms. of c.1509 in the Herald’s College, here cited after: Hope 1907, p. 539. Cf. Schlosser 1993, p. 43 and Brückner 1966, p. 96; Tarnow 1998. 14  The face itself was, nonetheless, probably taken from a death mask (Galvin & Lindley 1988, pp. 892–902; cf. Harvey & Mortimer 1994, pp. 51–54).

b. Surviving death: the “cadaver tomb” and the funer al effigy

50 _­ Pietro Torrigiano, Head of funeral effigy of Henry VII. 1509. London, Westminster Abbey

accumulation of such figures in Westminster Abbey in due course encouraged a new means of visualising a larger notion: that of sovereignty, albeit enacted in a sequence of separate reigns, as itself a continuum, even a testament to immortality. Before the Civil War a total of ten male and female effigies, the earliest being that of Edward III (who had died in 1377), was reputedly displayed at the Abbey, each upright in a shallow wood-panelled cabinet (or “press”), and probably positioned in close proximity to the corresponding tomb. As this assembly embraced the representatives of several dynasties, its evidence of continuity must have been all the more compelling.15

15  The ten effigies in question were those of: Edward III and his consort, Queen Philippa; Henry V and his consort, Queen Katherine; Henry VII and his consort, Queen Elizabeth (of York); Queen Elizabeth I; Henry Frederick, Prince of Wales (eldest son of James I); King James I and his consort, Queen Anne (of Denmark). Robinson 1907, pp. 565–66, refers to indications that, by 1682, these effigies were all stored, at the Abbey, “in one Press”, the implication being that they were, by that point, “huddled away as no longer fit to be displayed”. He notes, however, that several sources from the early part of that century suggest possibly more individuated, and certainly less undignified, storage conditions. A record of a visit to the Abbey in 1606 by James I, in the company of his brother-in-law, King Christian of Denmark, speaks of wooden presses “in which the statues [= effigies] do stand”.

91

92

5. “Mastering” time

Notwithstanding their surely marked diversity in appearance and varying degrees of preservation, the effigies encountered as a series by those permitted to view them would have served to illustrate that which would otherwise have been apparent only to one gifted with an exceptionally vivid imagination and a readiness (most unusual at this period) to ponder the future, in its secular dimension, as well as the past. That Hobbes would, in any case, have been predisposed to recognise their significance in this respect is strongly suggested by the manifest importance for him (see Chapter 4.b. and c.) of the composite image – the assembled effigies themselves equating to a composite in temporal form. Given that no secure documentation of the emotional and aesthetic impact of the effigies as assembled at the Abbey survives from the period in question, there has been a tendency among historians to regard this with a degree of scepticism.16 Yet “evidence”, in as far as deemed admissible, in the poetic and dramatic literature of that time is rather persuasive. While the apparition of “eight Kings” in Act IV, scene 2 of Shakespeare’s Macbeth17 is generally understood to have served as both an acknowledgement of the ancestry and a flattering predictive vision of the descendants of James I, before whom this new play was performed in 1606, it seems likely that its resonance within the plot may have been partially inspired by the reputed other-worldly character of the assembly of royal effigies at the Abbey. It is with exclamations of horror that Macbeth responds to the sequence of monarchs called up, each in turn, by the Three Witches, recognising in them the lineage of Banquo (his comrade-in-arms, then perceived rival, then victim), whose ghost also appears in confirmation of that kinship, and in the eighth and last king a spectre who has much more to tell of the future than of the past: “And yet the eighth appeares, who beares a glasse, Which showes me many more: and some I see, That two-fold Balles and treble Scepters carry.”18 16 

See, for example, Loach 1994, pp. 56–62, who contrasts the situation in England with that in France. For an alternative view, see Llewellyn 1995, pp. 230–32. 17  Shakespeare, Macbeth, IV, 1,119–155 (entire “apparition” episode); more specifically IV, 1, 132–144, following the stage direction: “A shew of eight Kings”. 18  Shakespeare, Macbeth, IV, 1, 141–143, followed by the lines 144–148, in which Macbeth acknowledges the spectral lineage as Banquo’s. The “eight Kings” are thought to have been intended to signify the first eight male sovereigns of the Scottish House of Stewart, culminating in James VI (from 1603 also James I of England), who believed himself to be, in addition, a more distant descendant of the historical (as opposed to the Shakespearean) Banquo. The “many more [kings]” visible in the “glasse” were, in this context, an implicit promise to James of generations of royal descendants. The “two-fold Balles and treble Scepters” alluded to the royal insignia carried by the monarch at the coronation: two orbs because James had been crowned twice, three sceptres because he was the recognised sovereign of “Great Britain” (i.e. England and Scotland), France and Ireland.

c. “A breathing Statue”: from instant to continuum

In the text of his Leviathan Hobbes likewise appears to write as if calling vividly to mind the preserved sequence of royal effigies when, in Chapter XIX, he expounds the virtues of the “Right of Succession” as a fundamental guarantee of continuity, a device for ensuring that, upon the death of a sovereign or the dissolution of a governing assembly, the state over which he or they have ruled does not immediately “return into the condition of Warre”: “Of all these Formes of Government, the matter being mortall, so that not onely Monarchs, but also whole Assemblies dy [= die], it is necessary for the conservation of the peace of men, that as there was order taken for an Artificiall Man, so there be order also taken, for an Artificial Eternity of Life; without which, men that are governed by an Assembly, should return into the condition of Warre in every age; and they that are governed by One man, as soon as their Governour dyeth. This Artificiall Eternity, is that which men call the Right of Succession”.19

c. “A breathing Statue”: from precarious instant to perilous continuum Certain funeral effigies were, in addition, constructed so that their limbs might adopt a variety of positions, thereby inducing an even more persuasive illusion of restored life. A model appears to have been supplied by the Mediaeval figures of Christ that were traditionally laid within the coffin of the deceased but could subsequently be raised up and attached to a Cross.20 A detailed reference, from the winter of 1612, to the effigy of the deceased eldest son of James I – the much loved and bitterly mourned Henry Frederick, Prince of Wales, who had died suddenly at the age of 18 – reveals that this was equipped with movable limbs, and indeed points out the diverse postures that the arrangement enabled: “[…] the bodye of a figure for the representation of His Highnes with several joints both in the arms legges and bodie to be moved to sundrie accions first for the Carriage in the Chariot and then for the standinge and for settinge uppe the same in the Abbey”. From the same source we also learn of the “face and hands” of this effigy being “very curiously [= intricately] wrought”.21 The impact of such partially movable effigies, observed in “sundrie accions”, seems itself to have been a source of inspiration for Shakespeare – not least in Hamlet,

19 

Hobbes Leviathan 1651a (Chapter XIX), p. 99. Taubert 1969; more recently, and comprehensively, Tripps 1998. 21  Invoice (in the Lord Chamberlain’s Records, Series I, Vol. 555) submitted, on behalf of several craftsmen, in the winter of 1612, for making the effigy of Henry Frederick, Prince of Wales, here cited after: Hope 1907, p. 555. 20 

93

94

5. “Mastering” time

a play (first performed around 1600) positively riddled with the fascination and the threat of “mechanism” and “automatism”. When, in Act I, scene 2, Horatio first reports to Hamlet the recent sighting of the ghost of the latter’s father (murdered by his own brother, Claudius) pacing the castle battlements at night, his description evokes both the remarkably life-like character of the “apparition” and the terror it induces in those who behold it: “[…] A figure like your father, Armed at point exactly, cap-a-pe, Appears before them, and with solemn march Goes slow and stately by them; thrice he walk’d By their oppress’d and fear-inspired eyes, Within his truncheon’s length; whilst they, distill’d Almost to jelly with the act of fear, Stand dumb […]”22 In answer to Hamlet’s question as to what had occurred when Horatio took part in the next night watch and, in particular, if he had not himself sought to speak with the “apparition”, Horatio captures the pathos in the discrepancy between the spectre’s all too human yearning to speak (and so divulge the circumstances of its own horrid end) and the manifest limitations of its humanoid capacities: “My lord, I did [speak], But answer made it none; yet once methought It lifted up it[s] head and did address Itself to motion, like as it would speak […]”.23 Just as it is on account of his own lack of true regal dignity that Claudius will fail to prove a worthy substitute for the king he has murdered and whose throne he has usurped (quite apart from the abhorrent nature of this means of advancement), so it proves that his victim has lost nothing of that quality, even in death. And, throughout the play, Hamlet in his (feigned) madness will find ever new ways to allude to this distinction. When, in Act IV, scene 2, he is asked by his friends Rosencrantz and Guildenstern (here acting on Claudius’s orders) to reveal to them where the freshly slain corpse of Polonius lies, Hamlet seizes the opportunity to both

22 

Shakespeare, Hamlet, I, 2, 159–253 (entire encounter between Horatio and Hamlet); 199–206 (lines quoted here). 23  Shakespeare, Hamlet, I, 2, 214–217. As commentators have often observed, the alternating use by Horatio (and, indeed, by Hamlet) of “he” and “it”, when speaking of the ghost, is in itself unnerving.

c. “A breathing Statue”: from instant to continuum

amuse and taunt himself, while baffling them, with the quip: “The body is with the king, but the king is not with the body”.24 Notwithstanding the absence of any unambiguous related record, it is possible that Hobbes had himself been among those who, on 17th May 1625, watched the extremely elaborate funeral procession in which the corpse of James I, in its coffin, along with the late king’s life-size effigy, was transported to Westminster Abbey, accompanied by 9,000 black-clad mourners. That effigy, itself with limbs that could be made to adopt several different positions, had been devised by the court sculptor, Maximilian Colt, and his assistants25 (who in 1619 had performed the same service for the king’s deceased consort, Anne of Denmark). Even by the prevailing standards of extravagance, its cost had been remarkably high. Colt had, nonetheless, almost immediately been commissioned to supply a replica, for Denmark House.26 The role played by the effigy in the funeral procession of James I is of particular interest because of the comments upon this aspect made in the sermon given on this occasion by John Williams, in his capacity as chaplain to the deceased, Dean of Westminster and Bishop of Lincoln.27 In view of the strong probability that his talents and ambitions would no longer be so well accommodated under the late king’s successor, some of whose circle were, indeed, already ill-disposed towards him,28 Williams appears to have carefully worded his text so as to accommodate a range of views: ingratiating himself with the new king, even while lauding the latter’s father, not least in those remarks that touched on the subject of funeral effigies. The somewhat surprising element of scepticism in Williams’s observation that the “Artificiall Representation within the Hearse […] shews no more then [= than] his [= the late king’s] outward Body; or rather the Bodie of his Bodie, his cloathes and Ornaments”,29 was doubtless intended to attest to the absolutist views then prevalent in France, and hence assured of the new, francophile king’s favour. According to these, the immortal essence of kingship was transferred directly from a king to his heir upon the latter’s conception.30 Likewise, upon the death of a king,

24 

Shakespeare, Hamlet, IV, 2, 1–30 (scene in its entirety); 26–27 (lines quoted here). Hope 1907, pp. 557–58, cites (from the Lord Chamberlain’s Records, Series I, Vol. 557) a receipt of payment to Maximilian Colt “for making the body of the representacion [of Kling James] with several joynts in the armes leggs and body to be moved to several postures and for setting up the same in Westminster Abbey […]”. 26  Edmond 1978–80, p. 166; Harvey & Mortimer 1994, pp. 67–71. 27  Williams had been appointed to these posts in, respectively, 1617, 1620 and 1621. In 1621 he had also become (most unusually for a churchman) Lord Keeper of the Great Seal of England. 28  Fincham 1990, pp. 35, 44; Levy Peck 1990, pp. 82–83. 29  Williams 1625, p. 75. 30  Hanley 1983, p. 262; cf. Klier 1998, pp. 150–51. 25 

95

96

5. “Mastering” time

his office passed directly from his body to that of his successor, thereby depriving of significance any intervening “representation” of the deceased. Subsequently, however, in elaborating on the traditional praise of the late king’s great wisdom – James I as a “Brittish Salomon” – 31 Williams hails the funeral effigy not as an inert monument to his virtues, but as imbued with the capacity to transmit those qualities to his successor.32 Ultimately, he lauds the new king, as himself an effigy, a “Statue”, a “Repraesentation” of an altogether superior kind: “I meane that Statue which […] walk’t on foot this day after the Hearse, […] A breathing Statue […] For [God] hath made a lively Repraesentation of the Vertues of Salomon, in the Person of King Iames, So hath he done a like Repraesentation of the Vertues of King Iames, in the Person of King Charles our Gratious Soveraigne”.33 Close attention to such occasions for the display of a royal effigy enables one more clearly to see to what extent these entities served as a model for Hobbes’s “Artificiall Man” (and hence for the figure seem in the Leviathan frontispiece) and, no less significantly, how the latter differed, in one crucial respect, from the former. And here, too, the matter of time – more specifically of its perception and its categorisation – proves to be of some importance. The display of a royal effigy occurred at that precarious moment when, following the death of a monarch, the sumptuous fabric of legitimate rule implicitly suffered a tear. In this exceptional circumstance the purpose of the effigy was to mend that tear, lest emergent warring factions take advantage of it to fatally imperil the state.34 Just as the presence of a royal effigy compensated for the absence of a deceased monarch, so can Hobbes’s invention be viewed as the outcome of his own reflection upon that moment in which the state is in need of a convincingly “regal” artificial figure. The aforementioned crucial difference resides in the fact that time – here, specifically, the identification and evaluation of “wartime” and “peacetime” – as it appears in one case is effectively reversed in the other. Hobbes, as his text reveals, eschews the conventional concept of time, according to which peace was the “norm” and intervals of war were the “exception”. In one of the most frequently cited passages in Leviathan – in which Hobbes tells of the war waged by “every man, against every man” that is all but inevitable in the “naturall condition of mankind” – it is even more alarming to discover that this belligerence is not restricted to distinct 31 

On this tradition: Howarth 1997, p. 59. Cf. Goldberg 1983, p. 42. 33  Williams 1625, pp. 75–76. 34  Giesey 1960, pp. 183–85. 32 

d. Time in the Leviathan frontispiece

events, such as a particular battle or military campaign, but is to be understood as the defining essence of an entire “tract of tine”, an end to which is not in sight: “Hereby it is manifest, that during the time men live without a common Power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called Warre; and such a warre, as is of every man, against every man. For WARRE, consisteth not in Battell onely, or in the act of fighting; but in a tract of time, wherein the Will to contend by Battell is sufficiently known: and therefore the notion of Time, is to be considered in the nature of Warre; as it is in the nature of Weather. For as the nature of Foule weather, lyeyth not in a showre or two of rain; but in an inclination thereto of many dayes together: So the nature of War, consisteth not in actuall fighting; but in the known disposition thereto, during all the time there is no assurance to the contrary. All other time is PEACE”.35 Accordingly, while the royal funeral effigy could be understood as appearing as if in “reaction” to the precarious nature of a single moment, Hobbes’s “effigy of the state” becomes, for him, a bastion erected against a continuum that is never free from the threat of mortal danger. It holds sway not over a momentary, but over an enduring, indeed potentially endless, vacuum of power. The shift in temporal perspective is, then, central to Hobbes’s thinking on all aspects of this matter. While he sees the relatively short interval between the demise of one monarch and the accession of his successor – the moment of “the empty throne” – as fundamental to the definition of human existence, he perceives in the ceremonial enactment of the death of a king the very essence of the state. Most significantly, it is the transfer of his attention from the instant to the continuum that explains why Hobbes invests his “Artificiall Man” with the capacity to rule.

d. Time in the Leviathan frontispiece As manifest in the Leviathan frontispiece, the issues addressed in this Chapter admit of diverse approaches. While the chief focus here will be on the role played by the gigantic figure of the embodied “Common-Wealth”, this is by no means unrelated to temporal aspects of the overall setting. A number of these – the fact, for example, that the entire land- and townscape is encountered in the radiant light of morning and in what appears to be the summer – have already been noted (see Chapter 1. a.). But others, and particularly those with a primarily social or political frame of reference, demand attention here. For all the emphasis, in the text of Hobbes’s Leviathan, upon the “naturall condition of mankind” being that of “Warre”, the setting displayed in its frontispiece 35 

Hobbes Leviathan 1651a (Chapter XIII), p. 62.

97

98

5. “Mastering” time

is overwhelmingly suggestive not of wartime, but of one of the supposedly very rare intervals of “Peace”. There is no evidence, either within or beyond the city, of recent devastation wrought by marauding troops; nor is there any sign of armed forces massed at any point throughout the expanse of territory on view, or of enemy ships drawn up in battle formation off the coast. On the other hand, nor is there any evidence of the inhabitants of the city or of the surrounding countryside being themselves engaged in the regular tasks one would associate with peacetime. Indeed, although the view embraces both shipping out at sea and a scattering of river traffic, every other site in which urban or rural activities and transactions would usually be pursued – among the city’s streets and squares, in the farmsteads and villages, in the fields and across the hills – is uncannily deserted.36 The viewer’s first intimation that there is an element of unease about the scene comes with his noticing who has not yet abandoned the city, and what this may well mean. The continued presence both of the armed soldiers dotted about the garrison at the city’s western edge and of the two plague doctors standing at the front of the city church seems to point to a moment of anxious preparation in response to awareness of impending danger. It is, then, a logical inference that it is on account of a sudden recognition of their own vulnerability that those one must imagine as heretofore dwelling in self-centred insouciance have unanimously resolved to form themselves into the far more cohesive society affirmed through their compression into the torso and extended arms of the gigantic representation of the “Common-Wealth”. For the viewer, it is the strong sense that this remarkable entity has come about as the result of a rather sudden movement effected by its constituent parts, and that this movement has only just been completed, that imbues the Hobbesian giant with its emphatic temporal character; and it is this in turn that energises its status as a composite figure. Notwithstanding the similarity of the freely adopted poses and the single new focus of attention, the multitude appears to have relinquished little of its participants’ original psychic energy and emotional diversity.37 It is this aspect of the frontispiece that has always most accounted for its enormous fascination even for those coming to it entirely uninformed as to its context and purpose. While already of heightened temporal significance in the very manner of its formation, the gathering also variously evinces a conscious recognition of the significance of the moment in which it is encountered. The sheer force of visual reit36  The absence of people working or shown enjoying themselves contradicts the initially plausible theory (advanced in Brandt 1982, p. 204) distinguishing between their “private” and their “symbolic” presence. 37  Hobbes and his artist-collaborator have, admittedly, not strayed far beyond what the midseventeenth-century reader-as-viewer would expect to see as a summary depiction of “society”. And it would be fair to say that this composite body is predominantly made up of almost identically dressed adult males.

d. Time in the Leviathan frontispiece

eration (the serried backs just sufficiently varied to avoid monotony),38 the sartorial tone of bourgeois sobriety, the occasional hint of a figure kneeling or about to do so: all contribute to a sense of solemnity, which no attentive reader-as-viewer could fail to remark. And this in itself goes some way towards ensuring that the frontispiece will in due course be understood, by those who have engaged with Hobbes’s text, as a visual equivalent to those momentous instances evoked in his Introduction (the creation of an “Artificiall Man”) and in his Chapter XVII (the generation of a “Mortall God”), and that, as such, it will serve to make additionally clear both how earnest and how honourable is the contractual origin of the “Common-Wealth”. Its temporal character consists, however, not merely in its formation in a privileged instant, but also – indeed, far more significantly – in its nominal capacity for the extension, through repetition, of that instant. By contrast with the manipulation of time achieved through the anamorphic image of a martyred king, through a “cadaver tomb”, or through the display of a royal funeral effigy – all of which take their cue from a point in the past – the figure that dominates the Leviathan frontispiece “faces” (in every sense) forwards. Without retreating from his own bleak conviction regarding the all but inescapable “naturall condition of mankind”, Hobbes maintains that the “Common-Wealth”, as a bulwark against that fate, may nonetheless aspire to an approximation of continuity, if only through a continual reaffirmation of the spirit that has informed the instant of its founding. Albeit thereby seeming to demand a perpetual vigilance exceeding average human capacity, Hobbes is unflinching in his recognition that the only alternative to “mastering” time (or at least to a concerted effort in that direction) was to languish, then expire, in a wretched “servitude”.

38  It is possible (as argued in Windisch 1994, p. 81, note 53) that Hobbes was alluding to this aspect of the frontispiece, or to his plans for it, in the final paragraph of his Review and Conclusion (see Hobbes Leviathan 1651a, p. 396), where he observes that it is rare, “in the revolution of States”, for a philosopher such as he to find his words altogether well received, because the “dissolvers of an old Government” invariably have “an angry aspect”, while one sees only “the backs of them that erect a new”.

99

6. Endur ance: the “Common-Wealth” as bulwark, constr aint, aspir ation Whatever the insights inducing the multitude discovered in the Leviathan frontispiece to commit to so cohesive a “body” (Figs. 2, 3, 37) – for some, perhaps, simply a fleeting awareness of external danger, but for others a chastened recognition of the grave limitations of disorganised humanity – Hobbes appears to have been in no doubt that the endurance of such a “body” could by no means be taken for granted. This sixth and final chapter addresses aspects of his thinking over a period encompassing, but not limited to, that which he devoted to work on this volume which seem, both individually and cumulatively, to underpin the pessimism, or at best scepticism, that is never entirely absent from his considerations of the “Matter, Forme, and Power of a Common-Wealth” Hobbes’s notion of the “naturall condition of mankind” as an improbable starting point for the emergence of any sort of “civilised” society is clearly informed by his more abstract speculations in response to two instances turning on the incompatibility of “something” and “nothing”. He devised and conducted a thought experiment intended to show how the last surviving man might remain, for quite some time, oblivious to the annihilation of the universe. And he engaged, with diverse outcomes, in what was a keen topic of scholarly debate in his day: the existence, or otherwise, of a vacuum. Hobbes’s incessant awareness of the catastrophes incurred through the force of human passions and the inconstancy of human perceptions encouraged him to seek solutions inspired by his own devotion to mathematics and its practical applications. In his acute awareness of both the use and the abuse of speech (and, by extension, of language) Hobbes drew on his own experience, both as writer and as translator, and on the shifting points of view he adopted in response to what was afoot in the world-at-large. And, in answer to the crucial question of what might be the optimal form and function for a mechanism of constraint on human conduct – indispensable for a viable life in common – he demonstrated both the originality and the fundamental consistency of his thinking.

102

6. the “Common-Wealth” as bulwark, constr aint, aspir ation

a. Ex nihilo In as far as the Hobbesian “Common-Wealth” draws its legitimacy not through reference to an authority outside itself – be it theological convention or historical tradition – but through contracts freely entered into by each of its human constituents, this procedure and its outcome could be seen as, respectively, enacted and emerging in what might well be understood as a contextual “void”. The formation of this “Common-Wealth” is, in short, an instance of creation ex nihilo. It would, however, be fair to say that a recurrence to the point of absolute zero is a notion that pervades much of Hobbes’s work. His pondering upon nothingness assumed its most radical form in a thought experiment, recounted in his De Corpore,1 on the probable response, as regards thinking and speaking, of the only man to survive the annihilation of the universe. In Hobbes’s view, this individual would surely continue to draw on his own memory of all the visible phenomena and types of physical effect that he had known in the world that had now vanished, and would then proceed to speak of these as if they were still to be encountered around him. Such a person would not be able to grasp that the terms he employed no longer had any meaning because the objects to which they were intended to refer had now disappeared. It was Hobbes’s contention that the same might apply in the world as it still existed – or appeared to exist. For no-one could confirm, with absolute certainty, the genuine existence of an object that had called forth particular mental impressions. And, even if one were to be convinced of the external existence of such an object, it would be impossible to know for certain whether or not it truly corresponded to the image coalescing, in the human imagination, through the process of thinking about it.2 For Hobbes, the annihilation of the universe was not only a notion for use in such an intellectual exercise, but an outcome that he continued to see as a real possibility no less relevant to the political than to the physical sphere.3 For this reason, the mental construction of a “void” was also, in his view, a valid starting point for thinking about politics. In addressing what ought to characterise a viable life in common, it was necessary to begin by both assuming and envisaging the absence of such a life in the “naturall condition of mankind”. For that had surely been without any precondition for the emergence of even the faintest inkling of co-operative community or acknowledged dominion. In this relentless reductionism is to be found Hobbes’s sharpest, and most farreaching, break with the Aristotelian tradition. This had seen in the model Greek 1 

Hobbes De Corpore, II, vii, 1–2, in: Hobbes 1839–45 HEW, vol. I, pp. 91–94. Cf. the variant account in the manuscript version of De Corpore: Aberystwyth, Llyfrgell Genedlaethol Cymru (National Library of Wales), Ms . 5297, fols. 449–50. 3  Riedel 1975, pp. 183–84; Zarka 1996, pp. 66–68, and passim. 2 

a. Ex nihilo

city-state (the polis) – the indispensable foundation for human society – an entity thoroughly in accord with nature.4 Hobbes, by contrast, well before he embarked upon devising and composing his Leviathan, had reached the conclusion that everything that could correctly be understood as “political” must be recognised as entirely alien to, and absent from, the “naturall condition of mankind”. By the same token, every concept deployed in the discussion of political matters that failed to take into account the persisting danger of a reversion to that “naturall condition” must needs be dismissed as an irresponsible fantasy. Not unrelated to this recognition of dangers posed by the “void” in its diverse manifestations were Hobbes’s evolving responses to a question much discussed by scholars in the early and mid-seventeenth century: whether or not the conventional wisdom (a simplification of Aristotle’s view) – that “nature abhors a vacuum” – could be empirically put to the test and so definitively (dis)proven. In 1644 Evangelista Torricelli, through contriving an airless vacuum, 4 centimetres in height, within a column of mercury, had seemed to demonstrate that “nature” did, in certain circumstances, accommodate a vacuum. The larger implications of this finding were soon being widely debated, not least in view of what they appeared to add to an understanding of the cosmos derived from William Gilbert’s proposition, of 1600, that the Earth had the properties of a magnet and, as such, was able to “attract” air, while the space extending beyond it remained entirely airless. Torricelli himself asserted that mankind lived upon the surface of the Earth as if on the bed of an ocean of air. This, through its weight, exerted pressure in every direction at surface level; but, with increasing distance from the Earth, the pressure decreased, eventually dwindling to zero. Such speculations gave rise, in turn, to the question of what, in a cosmos comprised of entirely empty space, could be the role of God the Creator.5 When Hobbes had himself first addressed this issue, in the early 1640s, he had been prepared to believe in the existence of a vacuum.6 But, by the time he embarked on the composition of Leviathan (and, at the latest, by 1648), his views had changed. It was now his conviction that the universe was entirely corporeal. Accordingly, anything (such as a vacuum) that was not itself corporeal had no place within it.7 The principal reason for this radical change of view lay, however, not in a period of concentrated attention to the question of the vacuum itself, but in the increasingly 4  Riedel 1975, pp. 174–76. On Hobbes’s engagement with Aristotele’s concept of man as a zoon politikon, cf. the fundamental research of Wolfers 1991, pp. 54–56, pp. 138–40. 5  Koyré 1957, pp. 207–09 , 232–34. 6  As, for example, in the Latin manuscript of Hobbes’s observations on Thomas White’s De Mundo, which long remained unpublished; see Hobbes 1976, pp. 46–50. 7  Cf., with explicit reference to a vacuum: Hobbes, De Corpore, IV, xxvi, 2–4, in: Hobbes 1839–45 HEW, vol. I, pp. 414–26. On the achievements and inner contradictions of Hobbes’s concept of space, in which his notion of vacuum is embraced: Gosztonyi 1976, vol. I, pp. 292–98. On the change in his views by 1648: Blay 1997, p. 76.

103

104

6. the “Common-Wealth” as bulwark, constr aint, aspir ation

political focus of Hobbes’s thinking, which made it ever more difficult for him to discount the wider, social implications of such emerging scholarly ideas. To his mind, there was too great a danger that the now reinforced notion of a vacuum would readily be adopted as an instrument by those prone to enthuse on “abstract entities” dwelling in regions devoid of matter: highly irresponsible pronouncements that both thrilled and confused their listeners. And when the suggestive ambiguity of such talk seemed to hint at a political sub-text – those speculations, for example, as to whether, in a neutral, empty space, “Subjects” retained an obligation to obedience – Hobbes objected to what he saw as tantamount to an attempt to “lessen the dependance of Subjects on the Souveraign Power of their Countrey”.8 Soon all too aware of how an insufficiently cohesive society might succumb to a civil war, Hobbes was alert to every potential threat to that cohesion. Recognising such a threat in the evident allure – for the ambitious, the scheming, the vengeful, the renegade – of supposedly “unoccupied” spaces that they themselves might presume to “fill”, his alarm soon became abhorrence. And, in his abhorrence, he found reason enough to deny the existence of a vacuum.9 Two decades after the appearance of Leviathan Hobbes would have been able to find inadvertent substantiation for his view, and a confirmation of his worst fears, in Otto von Guericke’s Experimenta Nova, published in Amsterdam in 1672. For that author’s pansophical celebration of the “void” (which embraced the notion of a vacuum) offered pronouncements such as: “Ubi nihil est, ibi omnium Regem cessat juristicio” [Where there is but a void, there ends the jurisdiction of all kings].10

b. “Certain Rules” A crucial adjunct to the Hobbesian “Common-Weatlh” in its role as a bulwark – erected both against a “void” or vacuum and the related danger of reversion to the perils of the “naturall condition of mankind”, but also against humanity’s vulnerability to the force of its passions – was a foundation in the unshakeable and universal validity of mathematics. It was Hobbes’s firm conviction that the “skill of making, and maintaining Common-Wealths, consisteth in certain Rules, as doth [= do] Arithmetique and Geometry”.11 According to Hobbes, these alone are capable of guarding against the aforementioned human weakness because there is no risk that they will become the object of claims and desires provoked by, and limited to,

  8 

Hobbes Leviathan 1651a (Chapter XLVI), p. 373.  Shapin & Schaffer 1985, pp. 108–09; cf. Latour 1991, pp. 33–36. 10  Guericke 1672, VII, p. 63; cf. Kauffeldt 1968, pp. 56–57, 243, and Weigl 1990, pp. 64–66. 11  Hobbes Leviathan 1651a (Chapter XX), p. 107.   9 

b. “Certain Rules”

whatever circumstances happen to prevail at any given moment. In their absolute truth, they are valid in every place and at every time.12 Geometry, given its concern with entities that are sensually perceptible (lines, angles, and so on), was especially suited, as Hobbes was to contend in 1655, as a subject of study for those confronted with the solution of political issues: “Geometry […] is demonstrable, for the lines and figures from which we reason are drawn and described by ourselves; and civil philosophy is demonstrable, because we make the Common-Wealth ourselves”.13 Ironically enough, the intensity of Hobbes’s own feelings on this promise of deliverance from human limitations is detectable in the merging of a spirit of resignation, a mild sarcasm and even a hint of black humour in his analysis of what, in most human societies, does and does not tend to become a cause of controversy: “[While] the doctrine of Right and Wrong, is perpetually disputed, both by the Pen and the Sword: [in the case of] the doctrine of Lines, and Figures, [this] is not so; because men care not, in that subject [,] what be truth, as a thing that crosses no mans ambition, profit, or lust. For I doubt not, but if it had been a thing contrary to any mans right of dominion, or to the interest of men that hath dominion, That the [sum of the] three Angles of a Triangle, should be equall to [that of] two Angles of a Square; that doctrine should have been, if not disputed, yet by the burning of all books of Geometry, suppressed, as farre as he whom it concerned was able”.14 In addition to offering a solution to, or at least a curb upon, the destructive potential of human passions, the practical application of mathematics also promised to serve as a corrective to the inconstancy of human perceptions. On account of his intense interest in vision, both as a physical process and as an ostensible source of information about the observed world, Hobbes is particularly insistent on the salutary role of the science of optics, supplemented by geometry, in correcting the errors to which this form of human perception is ordinarily prone. While this invaluable assistance cannot enable mankind to approach any closer to the observed world on its own terms (for the human eye will continue to operate only through the mediation of the human mind), its corrective capacity can ensure access to that world as reconstituted according to geometrical rules and, as such, far more susceptible to ocular, and hence intellectual, comprehension.15 12 

Cf. Sacksteder 1980, pp. 145–46, and Giorello 1990, pp. 218–20. Hobbes, “Six Lessons to the Savilian Professors of the Mathematics”, in: Hobbes 1839–45 HEW, vol. VII, pp. 181–356, here 184. Baruzzi 1973, pp. 52–53. 14  Hobbes Leviathan 1651a (Chapter XI), p. 50. 15  Cf. the fundamental study by Pacchi 1965, pp. 53–55, and esp. 62–63; Rossini 1988, pp. 66–70; Zarka 1987, pp. 38–39. Also: Stroud 1990, pp. 273–76. 13 

105

106

6. the “Common-Wealth” as bulwark, constr aint, aspir ation

From this reasoned contention that it is only an artificial world, defined according to the principles of geometry, to which the human eye, and in turn the human mind, can usefully respond, Hobbes goes on to derive the larger principle that it is only for such a world that mankind can fully assume responsibility. It is above all in this strand of Hobbes’s exposition that one is irresistibly prompted to recall his Introduction to Leviathan, with its compelling catalogue of the diverse human occupations and responsibilities to which the several parts of the “Artificiall Man” equate.16

c. Speech and rhetoric Speech, for Hobbes, who made it the subject of Chapter IV of his Leviathan, was “the most noble and profitable [human] invention of all”.17 Deprived of this skill, man would achieve no clarity in the flow of his thoughts; he would thus forego all the advantages accruing thereby. In short, there would be no reasoning, and hence no learning. But Hobbes also recognised that, for all its advantages, speech could become a trap for the unwary. Because it articulated a response not to the world as it truly was, but only to the world as perceived through the senses, speech offered its users and those they addressed little in the way of certainty, even when all were acting in good faith. When employed, as it so often was, without sufficient vigilance, speech could easily misrepresent that on which its users proposed to comment. And when speakers’ motives were somewhat less than pure, their utterances could prove very far from harmless, even if only through the misunderstandings that would arise, which would in due course result in quarrels: “The same man, in divers times, differs from himselfe; and one time praiseth [,] that is, calleth Good, what another time he dispraiseth, and calleth Evil: From whence arise Disputes, Controversies, and at last War”.18 As for the artfully misleading use of words, phrases, comparisons and arguments to which rhetoricians were invariably prepared to resort: Hobbes was increasingly moved to attack this form of speech as inimical to the “Common-Wealth”.19 He took his inspiration here from Thucydides, and doubly so. In this Greek historian’s celebrated account of the first twenty-one years of the Peloponnesian War (of 431–404 BC), of which Hobbes had completed a translation – his first book – in 1629,20 one aim had been to lay bare the evil consequences of rhetoric as these were

16 

See Chapter 3.b. Hobbes Leviathan 1651a (Chapter IV), pp. 1–17, here 12. 18  Hobbes Leviathan 1651a (Chapter XI), pp. 79–80. 19  Rossini 1987, pp. 312–14. 20  For more on Hobbes’s translation of Thucydides, see pp. 123– 27: Images in other works by Thomas Hobbes. 17 

c. Speech and rhetoric

to be observed in some of the episodes recounted. But Thucydides, in Hobbes’s view, had also provided a superb example, through the clarity of his own historical narrative, of how a point might be made without resorting to the tricks of the rhetoricians: “[…] no word of his, but their [the Athenians’] own actions [,] do sometimes reproach them. In sum, if the truth of a history did ever appear by the manner of relating, it doth so in this history”.21 Hobbes’s translation of Thucydides had of course been produced long before the more immediate causes of the English Civil War had emerged. But what this exercise had taught him of the dangers of rhetoric was by no means forgotten. A decade or so later, as it had begun to seem ever less likely that such a conflict in England might be avoided or, once underway, brought to a swift and satisfactory conclusion, Hobbes’s writings took on an increasingly urgent tone. In his Elements of Law (completed in 1640, though published a decade later), and even more so in De Cive, of 1642, he was unrestrained in such efforts. In the latter text he maintained that a rhetorician was never concerned with the truth, but only with securing a victory over those he sought to win for his cause and that, to such an end, he would have few scruples about a resort to outright lying.22 Once battle had been engaged in earnest, and human passions were all the more easily roused, there was always a danger that the words of those speaking on its side-lines would be reduced to yet another instrument of turmoil: “[…] the tongue of man is a trumpet of warre, and sedition; and it is reported of Pericles, that he sometimes by his elegant speeches thundered, and lightened, and confounded whole [= all] Greece it selfe”.23 For Hobbes, the prolonged turbulence in England – whichever side in the conflict might happen to have the upper hand at any given moment – was, therefore, never less than an undisputed victory for rhetoric. Having “lit the taper” that led, irrevocably, to the Civil War, rhetoricians would be sure to pursue their work of destruction to its bitter end.24 As Hobbes was to explain in the verse autobiography he first published in Latin (1679) and then in English (1680), he had embarked on translating Thucydides in the hope that his English rendering of the Greek text, through drawing attention to the evils incurred through rhetoric in the author’s day, might serve as

21  Hobbes, “On the Life and History of Thucydides, in: Hobbes 1839–45 HEW, vol. VIII, pp. xiii–xxxii, here xxi. On Hobbes’s engagement with the ideas presented by Thucydides, cf. Johnson 1993, pp. 152–54. 22  Hobbes De Cive (English) 1983, X / xi, pp.137–38. See also Hobbes De Cive, in: Hobbes 1839–45 HEW, vol. II, p. 138. 23  Hobbes De Cive (English) 1983, V / v, p. 88. See also Hobbes De Cive, in: Hobbes 1839– 45 HEW, vol. II, p. 67. Cf. Skinner 1996, pp. 265–67. 24  Ptassek 1993, pp. 123–25; Skinner 1996, pp. 343, 435; on the widely voiced critique of the monstrosities of language: Stillman 1995 Philosophy, pp. 115–17, 134–35; cf. also Kodalle 1996, pp. 112–14.

107

108

6. the “Common-Wealth” as bulwark, constr aint, aspir ation

a sort of antidote to the actions of the rhetoricians of his, the translator’s, own era.25 Thucydides, according to Hobbes, had at length become an opponent of Athenian democracy because he had perceived how easily the citizens of Athens had permitted themselves to be moved by the words of the rhetoricians. This astute observer could thus vouch, with incontestable authority, for the fact that democracy had, in that case, made available a platform for dangerously persuasive virtuosi of the spoken word.26 By the time Hobbes began work on the text of his Leviathan, the evolving nature of the conflict of views, political allegiances and military forces in England and a gradual shift in his own thinking had led him some way towards engaging in what might almost be termed a “rehabilitation” of rhetoric. In view of the disappointing evidence of how little had been achieved, by himself or by others, in an effort to counter the excesses of the rhetoricians, Hobbes now recognised that resorting to rhetoric was perhaps unavoidable where one needed, above all, to persuade. But, beyond this grudging adaptation to circumstances, he was now prepared to admit that rhetoric, used appositely and responsibly – when those addressed, already apprised of all the relevant facts, might be urged towards one course of action or another, but not as a substitute for the initial provision of those facts – did have a valuable role to play.27 And he had, accordingly, resolved that it would, in that case, be a matter of seeking to beat the rhetoricians at their own game. Crucially, however, Hobbes was now far readier to compete in this way because he had become more fully aware that he had access also to weapons even more powerful than those employed by such adversaries.

d. A “visible Power to keep them in awe” Hobbes was enabled to overcome his distaste for rhetoric thanks to his recognition that a sheer mastery of words was ultimately likely to achieve less, in the context of the issues he would address in his Leviathan, than was a resort to a form of persuasion, even of constraint, that functioned through provoking a far more instinctive response, and hence a stronger related memory: the resort to an image, be it physically present or conveyed through an exceptionally vivid metaphor. Hobbes’s intense interest in optics during his time in Paris would in itself have encouraged this growing concern.28 And a later remark reveals to what extent he had become convinced of how essential was an appeal to the eye. After returning, in early 1652, 25  See Hobbes Life / Vita 1979, pp. [4]–[5]: “[No historian] pleas’d me like Thucydides. / He says Democracy’s a Foolish Thing, / Than a Republick Wiser is one King. / This Author I taught English, that even he / A Guide to Rhetoricians might be”. See Skinner 1996, p. 344, note 90. 26  Reik 1977, p. 203, note 32; cf. Münkler 1993, pp. 41, 88–89. 27  Ptassek 1993, pp. 128–29; Skinner 1996, pp. 343–45. 28  Windisch 1997.

d. A “visible Power to keep them in awe”

51 ­_ The legendary figure of Heracles-Ogmios, as depicted in Vincenzo Cartari, Imagini delli Dei de gl’Antichi, rev. edn., Venice 1674. London, British Library (4504.f.20)

from France to England, he recalled, he had been dismayed to find so little scope for the discussion of “sacred matters”, there being on view not a single “symbol of the faith” (“symbolum fidei”).29 A striking instance, noted by several commentators, is the use Hobbes made, in the text of Leviathan, of an especially vivid metaphor derived from Antiquity, which had later been widely disseminated, in image form, through iconographic compendia such as Andrea Alciati’s Emblemata or Vincenzo Cartari’s Imagini delli Dei de gl’Antichi. This had originated in the work of the Hellenistic satirist and essayist Lucian of Samosata. In a short text he recalled having discovered, during his travels in the Roman imperial province of Gaul, depictions of Heracles (Hercules) in his incarnation as Ogmios, and being told, by those locals he had questioned, that this legendary figure, while renowned for his vigour, was admired above all for his eloquence. For that reason, he was depicted with long, delicate chains of gold and amber extending from his pierced tongue and attached, at their far ends, to the ears of followers, whom he could, by this means, control (Fig. 51).30 29  Hobbes “The Prose Life”, in: Elements of Law 1994, pp. 245–53, here 249. See also in: Hobbes 1839–45 HOL, vol. I, pp. xiii–xxi, here xvii. 30  “Prolalia Heracles”, in: Lucian of Samosata 1913, vol. I, pp. 62 / 63–70 / 71, here 62 / 63–66 / 67: “The Celts call Heracles Ogmios. [He] drags after him a great crowd of men who are all tethered by the ears! His leashes are delicate chains fashioned of gold and amber […] We Celts [disagree] that Hermes is [= embodies] Eloquence: we identify Heracles with [this]. The real

109

110

6. the “Common-Wealth” as bulwark, constr aint, aspir ation

In his Leviathan, Hobbes observes: “But as men, for the atteyning of peace, and conservation of themselves thereby, have made an Artificiall Man, which we call a Common-Wealth; so also have they made Artificiall Chains, called Civill Lawes, which they themselves, by mutuall covenants, have fastned at one end, to the lips of that Man, or Assembly, to whom they have given the Soveraigne Power; and at the other end to their own Ears. These Bonds [,] in their own nature but weak, may neverthelesse be made to hold, by the danger, though not by the difficulty [,] of breaking them”.31 Of particular interest here is the three-fold extension of the metaphor that Hobbes has contrived. Firstly, Lucian’s figure of Heracles-Ogmios has become the “Artificiall Man” (the embodied Hobbesian “Common-Wealth”) of the Leviathan frontispiece and, in the course of this transformation, the gold and amber chains extending from a pierced tongue have become laws to be upheld. Secondly, the persuasive power of such laws lies no longer in the mere words that proclaim them, but in the fact that these words are capable of inducing those to whom they are addressed to visualise, and so all the more acutely to fear, the “danger” of contravention: the punishments that this will surely incur. Thirdly – and of crucial importance for the maintenance of cohesion in the “Common-Wealth” – the envisaged punishments, beyond their capacity to constrain, have also the capacity to unite, binding in a presumption of shared virtue the ostensibly law-abiding majority.32 In a pragmatic spirit, Hobbes of course recognised that even a system of laws that had emerged from the contractual agreements underpinning the “CommonWealth” might not suffice, on all occasions, to constrain those who were determined to contravene. And it was of manifest importance that such laws be reaffirmed, when all else had failed, through the imposition of potentially very violent forms of chastisement. “Covenants, without the Sword” ultimately counted for little,33 and every proof of their impotence was an incentive to further contraventions. But Hobbes, despite his scepticism regarding the human capacity for virtue, was nonetheless prepared to believe in the efficacy of constraint exercised through an image imbued with a significance and an authority acknowledged by all. His Heracles was a wise man who achieved everything by eloquence […].” For the image reproduced here, see: Vincenzo Cartari, Imagini delli Dei de gl’Antichi (1556), rev. edn., Venice 1674, p. 169, where it occurs in the chapter on Mercury (Hermes) and is captioned: “Imagine di Hercole appo Francesi da loro tenuto Dio dell’eloquenza […]”. French royalty was also eager to identify with this image. In June 1549, when Henri II made an “entrée royale” into Paris, the first of the arches erected along the festive route bore a figure of the “Gallic Hercules”, his face reportedly resembling that of the king. From his tongue chains extended to the ears of representatives of the Four Estates of the Realm. See Strong 1984, p. 24, fig. 10. 31  Hobbes Leviathan 1651a (Chapter XXI), pp. 108–09. 32  Cf. Stillman 1995 Philosophy, pp. 149–50, and Skinner 1996, pp. 389–90, with further metaphors of fear and chains. 33  Hobbes Leviathan 1651a (Chapter XVII), p. 85.

d. A “visible Power to keep them in awe”

own experience had, indeed, encouraged him to work on the assumption that the parties to any transaction were more than likely to seek to evade that to which they had agreed when there was no “visible Power to keep them in awe […]”.34 The trust Hobbes was prepared to place in such a “visible Power” was rooted in the corporeal character of his understanding of the visible, and indeed of the entire process of vision. As he was to explain, in a letter of 1657, to his great friend Samuel Sorbière: “Vision occurs due to the action of a luminous or illuminated object [by means of] the continuous pressure of that [emitted] illumination, through the [intervening] medium, on the eye […]”.35 For Hobbes, it was the corporeal dimension of vision that made it so central to his political thinking, not least as evinced in his account of the “Common-Wealth” described in his Leviathan and so memorably envisaged in its frontispiece. * At the beginning of modern state theory there stands a figure that, in its complexity, has remained both isolated and erratic. As an archetype of the state, it equates to a sort of common denominator of all forms of political iconography. Its chief conceptual components derive from the theory of artistic mimesis, the mechanistic philosophy of the automaton, Hermetic doctrines regarding the gods contrived by man, and an understanding of the imagination as a store of “marks” that, through their activation, in the form of “signs”, bring culture into being. The visual sources of this figure are to be found in representations of the cosmos anthropos, in composite images in the tradition of Arcimboldo, in the anamorphoses of “le procédé dioptrique”, in the “cadaver tomb”, and in royal effigies on display at ceremonial funerals. From these, Hobbes derived inspiration not only for an “Artificiall Man” equipped with superhuman powers of reasoning, but also for how one might envisage an “Artificiall Eternity”. These were the means by which he might strive to annul the “nothingness” he had espied in disembodied time and in a vacuum of power. The profundity of Hobbes’s concept lies in the fact that it is through an image that he proposes to seal this elimination of “nothingness”. The ultimate origin of this notion, in Richard Fanshawe’s description of “le procédé dioptrique” and its outcome, entails the perpetual task of distinguishing between what is “natural” and what is “artificial”. In much the same way, the colossal figure of the Leviathan frontispiece is both sacrosanct and yet open to interpretation.

34 

Hobbes Leviathan 1651a (Chapter XVII), p. 85. Letter of 29 December 1656 / 8 January 1657 from Thomas Hobbes to Samuel Sorbière, in: Hobbes Correspondence 1994, vol. I, no. 112, pp. 427–29, here (slightly adapted) 429. On ­Hobbes’s understanding of vision in relation to Epicurus, cf. Kimmich 1993, pp. 100–01. For more on the friendship with Sorbière, see pp. 194–98: Portraits of Thomas Hobbes. 35 

111

112

6. the “Common-Wealth” as bulwark, constr aint, aspir ation

Modern states, which believe they can make do without an image of themselves, have not thereby solved a problem that is, in fact, fundamental to them. They have merely, and temporarily, found a way to outmanoevre this obligation. Hobbes’s endeavour, despite its initial failure, has nonetheless ensured a lasting awareness of the axiom that everything that concerns a state can be considered in visual terms. Above all, however, in defining the interconnection between the momentary, the enduring and the image, it has made accessible a dimension that encompasses politics in deeds, in words and in ideas: a political iconography of time.

Appendix I

EXCERPTS from Leviathan

From the Introduction (Leviathan 1651a, p. 1) 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 Souveraignty 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 seate of the Souveraignty, 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.

116

Appendix I

From Chapter XIII

Of the NATUR ALL CONDITION of Mankind, as concerning their Felicity, and Misery (Leviathan 1651a, pp. 61–63) […] in the nature of man, we find three principall causes of quarrell. First, Competition; Secondly, Diffidence; Thirdly, Glory. / The first, maketh men invade for Gain; the second, for Safety; and the third, for Reputation. The first was Violence, to make themselves Masters of other mens persons, wives, children, and cattell; the second, to defend them; the third, for trifles, as a word, a smile, a different opinion, and any other signe of undervalue, either direct in their Persons, or by reflexion in their Kindred, their Friends, their Nation, their Profession, or their Name. Hereby it is manifest, that during the time men live without a common Power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called Warre; and such a warre, as is of every man, against every man. For WARRE, consisteth not in Battell onely, or the act of fighting; but in a tract of time, wherein the Will to contend by Battell is sufficiently known: and therefore the notion of Time, is to be considered in the nature of Warre; as it is in the nature of Weather. For as the nature of Foule weather, lyeth not in a showre or two of rain; but in an inclinaton thereto of many dayes together: So the nature of War, consisteth not in actuall fighting; but in the known disposition thereto, during all the time there is no assurance to the contrary. All other time is PEACE. Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of Warre, where every man is Enemy to every man; the same is consequent to the time, wherein men live without other security, than what their own strength, and their own invention shall furnish them withall. In such condition, there is no place for Industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no Culture of the Earth; no Navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving, and removing such things as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continuall feare, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short. […] / It may peradventure be thought, there was never such a time, nor condition of warre as this; and I believe it was never generally so, over all the world: but there are many places, where they live so now. For the savage people in many places of America, except the government of small Families, the concord whereof dependeth on naturall lust, have no government at all; and live at this day in that brutish manner, as I said before. Howsoever, it may be perceived what manner of life there

EXCERPTS from Leviathan

would be, where there were no common Power to feare; by the manner of life, which men that have formerly lived under a peacefull government, use to degenerate into, in a civill Warre. […] And thus much for the ill condition, which man by meer Nature is actually placed in; though with a possibility to come out of it, consisting partly in the Passions, partly in his Reason. The Passions that encline men to Peace, are Feare of Death; Desire of such things as are necessary to commodious living; and a Hope by their Industry to obtain them. And Reason suggesteth convenient Articles of Peace, upon which men may be drawn to agreement.

117

118

Appendix I

From Chapter XVI

OF PERSONS, AUTHORS, and things Personated (Leviathan 1651a, pp. 80–83 ) A PERSON, is he, whose words or actions are considered, either as his own, or as representing the words or actions of an other man […] When they are considered as his owne, then is he called a Naturall Person: And when they are considered as representing the words and actions of an other, then he is a Feigned or Artificiall person […] / / A Multitude of men, are made One Person, when they are by one man, or one Person, Represented; so that it be done with the consent of every one of that Multitude in particular. For it is the Unity of the Representer, not the Unity of the Represented, that maketh the Person One […] And Unity, cannot otherwise be understood in Multitude. And because the Multitude naturally is not One, but Many; they cannot be understood for one; but many Authors, of every thing their [Representer] saith, or doth in their name; Every man giving their common Representer, Authority from himselfe in particular; and owning all the actions the Representer doth […] And if the Representative [= persons represented] consist of many men, the voyce of the greater number, must be considered as the voyce of them all. For if the lesser number pronounce (for example) in the Affirmative, and the greater in the Negative, there will be Negatives more than enough / to destroy the Affirmatives; and thereby the excesse of Negatives, standing uncontradicted, are the onely voyce the Representative hath. […] by the diversity of Opinions, and Interests of men, it [= the Representer] becomes oftentimes, and in cases of the greatest consequence, a mute Person, and unapt, as for many things else, so for the government of a Multitude, especially in time of Warre.

EXCERPTS from Leviathan

From Chapter XVII

Of the Causes, Generation, and Definition of a COMMON-WEALTH (Leviathan 1651a, pp. 85–88) The finall Cause, End, or Designe of men, (who naturally love Liberty, and Dominion over others,) in the introduction of that restraint upon themselves, (in which wee see them live in Common-Wealths,) is the foresight of their own preservation, and of a more contented life thereby; that is to say, of getting themselves out from that miserable condition of Warre, which is necessarily consequent […] to the naturall Passions of men, when there is no visible Power to keep them in awe, and tye them by feare of punishment to the performance of their Covenants, and observation of [the ] Lawes of Nature […] / / The only way to erect such a Common Power, as may be able to defend them from the invasion of Forraigners, and the injuries of one another, and thereby to secure them in such sort, as that by their owne industrie, and by the fruites of the Earth, they may nourish themselves and live contentedly; is, to conferre all their power and strength upon one Man, or upon one Assembly of men, that may reduce all their Wills, by plurality of voices, unto one Will: which is as much to say, to appoint one Man, or Assembly of men, to beare their Person; […] This is more than Consent, or Concord; it is a reall Unitie of them all, in one and the same Person, made by Covenant of every man with every man […] This done, the Multitude so united in one Person, is called a COMMON-WEALTH, in latine CIVITAS. This is the Generation of that great LEVIATHAN, or rather (to speake more reverently) of that Mortall God, to which wee owe under the Immortall God, our peace and defence. For by this Authoritie, given him by every particular man in the CommonWealth, he hath the use of so much Power / and Strength conferred on him, that by terror thereof, he is inabled to conforme the wills of them all, to Peace at home, and mutuall ayd against their enemies abroad. And in him consisteth the Essence of the Common-Wealth; which (to define it,) is One Person, of whose Acts a great Multitude, by mutuall Covenants one with another, have made themselves every one the Author, to the end he may use the strength and means of them all, as he shall think expedient, for their Peace and Common Defence. And he that carryeth this Person is called SOVERAIGNE, and said to have Souveraigne Power; and every one besides, his SUBJECT.

119

Appendix II

Images and Portr aits

Images in other works by Thomas Hobbes a. Eight Bookes Of the Peloponnesian Warre The frontispiece to the first, 1651 edition of Hobbes’s Leviathan (Fig. 2) can be said to stand at the mid-point of his continuing endeavour not only to address his readers through the words of his texts, but also to activate their optical sensibilities and related mental capacities through the use of easily absorbed and retained images and, thereby, to penetrate into the chambers of their visual memory. Hobbes had in fact already tested such a procedure in two earlier publications: his English translation of Thucydides’ account of the first twenty-one years of the Peloponnesian War (of 431–403 BC) and his own account, in Latin, of the nature of citizenship, De Cive. While the former, first published in 1629, was on three further occasions to be reprinted in its initial form, including its frontispiece,1 De Cive was to reappear, from 1642, in ever new guises, these including a quite distinct version of its own title-page and numerous (slight but nonetheless significant) variants upon that. In the foreword to his translation of Thucydides, Hobbes had emphasised the value that he accorded to the accompanying plates, maps and other images, and to the interplay of text and image. For the map of Sicily, he continues, he had been able to refer to the precise model prepared by Philip Cluverius, “[…] but for Mappes of Greece, sufficient for this purpose, I could light on none. For neither are the Tables of Ptolomie and descriptions of those that follow him, accomodate to the time of Thucydides; and therefore few of the Places by him mentioned, therein described: nor are those that bee, agreeing alwayes with the Truth of History. Wherefore I was constrained to draw one (as well as I could) my selfe. Which to doe, I was to rely, for the maine Figure of the Countrey, on the moderne description now in reputation; and in that to set downe those Places especially (as many as the Volume was capable of) which occure in the reading of this Author, and to assigne them that situation, which, by travell in Strabo, Pausanias, Herodotus, and some other good Authors, I saw belonged unto them. And to shew you that I have not played 1 

Catalogue of Images W I; W II; W VIII; W XXIII; see also W XLIII; W XLIV.

124

Appendix II: Images and Portr aits

52 _ Thomas Cecill, after Thomas Hobbes, Map of Antient Greeece, 1629. Catalogue of Images W I, 2

the Mountibanke in it, putting downe exactly some few of the Principall, and the rest at adventure, without care, and without reason, I have ioyned with the Mappe an Index, that pointeth to the Authors which will iustifie me, where I differ from others. With these Mappes, and those few briefe notes in the Margin, upon such passages, as I thought most required them, I supposed the History might be read with very much benefit, by all men of good Iudgement and Education, (for whom as it was intended from the beginning by Thucydides) and have therefore at length made my Labour publicke, not without hope to have it accepted”.2 In his attempts to allow the reader to envisage as keenly as possible the events Thucydides had described, Hobbes set out to record in his map (Fig. 52) not only the larger geographical features, but also the borders of distinct regions. The scale of this fold-out map (337 × 428 mm), which far exceeds the already unusually large size of the book’s pages, made it easier to adhere to this scheme. The understatement of Hobbes’s bracketed phrase “as well as I could” attests to his pride in his work on the map, a sentiment also detectable in the inclusion of his name within the title it

2 

Hobbes Peloponnesian Warre 1629, pp. a1r–a2v.

Images in other works by Thomas Hobbes

53 _ Thomas Cecill, frontispiece to Thucydides, Eight Bookes Of the Peloponnesian Warre, 1629. Catalogue of Images W I, 1

bears: “The MAPPE of Antient GREECE Expressinge especially the Places mentioned in THUCYDIDES by THO: HOBBES”. The value of this historical map lies, of course, above all in Hobbes’s attempt to supply therein as authentic as possible a notion of Greece in both its geographical and its political aspects; but, in its constructive character, the map is subject to the same principle of organisation as is any work of art. If Hobbes is here all too

125

126

Appendix II: Images and Portr aits

evidently full of pride in his capacities as a draughtsman, he will have understood this skill as an instance of the principle of disegno, that art of drawing that encompassed architecture, perspective and cartography, and that had both its mathematical and its artistic foundations in geometry. Hobbes, moreover, did not limit himself to a map of Greece. Having already profited in his work on that cartographic exercise through the assistance of Thomas Cecill, he was again to avail himself of his services for the frontispiece (Fig. 53).3 Cecill, one of the most widely celebrated English engravers of his era, was parti­ cularly admired for his title-pages and for his portraits, among those he had depicted being Queen Elizabeth I and Francis Bacon. In its division into several distinct sections, Cecill’s engraving follows the practice of the time. This was an approach to be found, for example, in Jacob Christophe Le Blon’s engraved title-page of 1628 for Robert Burton’s Anatomy of Melancholy.4 In the three upper segments of Hobbes’s frontispiece, the map of the Aegean is flanked by views of Sparta (left) and Athens (right). At the centre of the sheet, the book’s title, positioned directly above a portrait of Thucydides, is itself flanked by figures of Archidamos, King of Sparta (left) and of Pericles, the Athenian statesman (right), who had delivered the immortal paean to Athenian democracy in his Funeral Oration.5 The effectively continuous lowest segment depicts territorial and maritime forces drawn up in battle order. Above this scene, flanking the half-figure of Thucydides, and positioned, respectively, below the figures of Archidamos and of Pericles, are representations of the corresponding forms of rule. To the left is a king seated in the company of a circle of aristocrats. The group is shown in the manner of a philosophical disputation, albeit there can be little doubt as to who will have “the last word”.6 To the right, by contrast, a demagogue holds forth to an assembled crowd from a canopied stand. Clearly distinct from those making up the crowd he addresses, he appears all but dictatorial. But, as Thucydides makes clear in his own assessment of Pericles, the speaker is, at the same time, a sort of prisoner of the crowd precisely because it is so eager to be both aroused and flattered by his words.7 Among the crowd are to be found both the lame and those dressed in rags: a motif that is, however, here to be understood not as a testament to the inclusivist solicitude of the speaker, but as a pointer to the fact that demagogues tend to rely upon the weakest in society, with whose support they seek to pursue their own ends. There is, however, a price to be paid for this interdependence: for, on account of the fickle nature of the crowd, such demagogues are able to accomplish only short-term goals. In his own commen-

3 

Cf. Hind 1905, pp. 8–12, here 10. Johnson 1934, p. 35, no. 1, plate: Le Blon I. 5  See Thucydides 1919, II, 35–46, pp. 318 / 319–340 / 341. 6  See Thucydides 1919, II, 11–12 , pp. 276 / 277–280 / 281. 7  See Thucydides 1919, II, 65, pp. 372 / 373–378 / 379. 4 

Images in other works by Thomas Hobbes

tary upon this phenomenon, Hobbes explains that demagogues, not least in their capacity as rhetoricians, are to be regarded as the chief causes of war and of civil war.8 Through such devices, the frontispiece to Hobbes’s translation of Thucydides offers a compelling example of the reciprocally supportive roles of text and image.

b. De Cive 1641/42 By contrast with the frontispiece to Hobbes’s translation of Thucydides, that to his volume De Cive offers the first instance of what – on the whole, contrary to his own initial intentions – was to emerge over time as a multi-faceted visual politics, in which the images concerned were used now to support and now to compensate (sometimes almost to contradict) the text they accompanied. Hobbes wrote his treatise “on citizens” during the first year of his Parisian exile. The frontispiece to the vellum manuscript version now at Chatsworth (Fig. 54), bears the date 1641, while the engraved version that accompanies the printed book (Fig. 55) is dated 1642.9 The inscription “Math[eus] f [ecit]” at the lower right affirms that this frontispiece was provided by the Parisian engraver Jean Matheus, which does not of course exclude the possibility that he might, in addition, have been responsible for the design. But it is also possible that Hobbes himself may in fact have devised this. It was, nonetheless, only the text to which Hobbes put his own initials: “TH”. By contrast, then, with his emphasis on his own authorship of the map of Greece accompanying the translation of Thucydides, that of the later frontispiece remains uncertain. The three segments of the frontispiece to De Cive relate to the three sections of the book: they show, respectively, Heaven and Hell (above) as the realm of Religio [Religion], Peace (to the left) as the domain of Imperium [Dominion], and War (to the right) as the state sooner or later incurred by Libertas [Liberty]. The upper register, which is identified through the inscription along its lower frame, features at the centre of its upper edge, and visible above the clouds, the Christ of the Last Judgement. In accordance with Hobbes’s conviction that not only the immortal soul, but also the body, was capable of resurrection,10 to the left (that is to say, at

  8 

Skinner 1996, p. 242; in general on Hobbes’s view of Thucydides: Johnson 1993, pp. 152–54. Cf. Schoneveld 1982, p. 126 and Goldsmith 1990, pp. 641–42. 10  Goldsmith 1981, p. 234.   9 

127

128

Appendix II: Images and Portr aits

54 _ Jean Matheus and (?) Thomas Hobbes, frontispiece to De Cive, 1641. Catalogue of Images W III

Christ’s right hand) one finds the Elect, awoken by angels and led towards Heaven, while, to the right, the Damned are ushered by devils into the fires of Hell. In the lower register the figure of Imperium seen to the left – a youthful yet imposing embodiment of the power of the state – holds sway over the peaceful rural life enacted in the contiguous section, which embraces also the city on a hill seen in its background. This figure is equipped with the symbols of sovereignty, justice, and power: respectively, a crown, a pair of scales, and a sword held aloft with its point uppermost. Her counterpart, Libertas, to the right, here takes the form of a somewhat sullen and aged male figure: an indigenous American, dressed in a skirt made of strips of bark and holding a long arrow with its point downwards. Beyond,

Images in other works by Thomas Hobbes

55 _ Jean Matheus, frontispiece to De Cive, 1642. Catalogue of Images W IV

and to the left of his legs, there unfolds a scene with two further such figures being hunted down by four warriors, three of them armed with bows and arrows and one with a club. In the middle distance, in the region visible just to the right and below the bark-strip skirt, two cannibals settle down to devour the dismembered remains of an earlier victim. Further back, and to the left, are to be found a number of huts within a palisade, beyond which a leaping beast of prey embodies the animal equivalent of the human savage. For Hobbes, the indigenous inhabitants of North America, who in this rendering seem as if they might have “sprung out of the earth”, are understood to embody “liberty” because they appear closest to that “naturall condition” of humanity that may be associated with a preference for the protection afforded by life in a

129

130

Appendix II: Images and Portr aits

small group, and the inevitability of an enduring war of all against all.11 Hobbes here employs the concept of “liberty” in the extreme sense of the absence of any form of restraint, as in his own, subsequent definition, in Leviathan: “[…] the condition of meer Nature, that is to say, of absolute Liberty, such as is theirs, that neither are Souveraigns, nor Subjects, is Anarchy, or the condition of Warre”.12 The state of absolute “liberty” is, accordingly, that state of unbounded violence, which must needs be overcome if a less precarious form of life in common is to be possible. While the upper and lower horizontal sections of the frontispiece are separated from each other, they nonetheless stand in a complex interrelation, which is mediated by the intervening blank strip. In the upper zone, depicting the Last Judgement, the figure of Christ, armed with his Cross, supervises the separation of the Elect and the Damned. The finality of His verdict finds its formal essence in the empty zone between the wings of the centrally positioned angels: posed back to back, these each gaze towards humanity’s divergent destinies: in Heaven or in Hell. Through the attributes of each of the chief figures in the frontispiece, an intimation of these two posthumous fates is transferred to the earthly realm depicted in the lower register. In a gesture of great eloquence, the female embodiment of Imperium, the power of the state, holds her sword with its point touching the lower edge of the strip running below the segment associated with Religio. Through this point of contact, Imperium reveals not only that she derives her own criteria from Heaven, but also that she holds out the reward of a terrestrial prefiguration of the life of the Elect who are destined for Heaven. She promises, in short, an Earthly Paradise. The figure of Libertas, by contrast, and as noted earlier, holds his arrow with its point downwards, as if to announce an anticipation of the torments awaiting the Damned. For Hobbes, Libertas embodies a Hell on Earth. The Earthly Paradise and the Hell on Earth nonetheless stand a good deal closer in relation to each other than do their respective counterparts in the life to come. For the empty zone that opens, within the Religio segment, between the aforementioned pairs of angels’ wings is implicitly expanded there into a plane so infinitely large as to preclude any possibility of a conciliatory convergence. The less absolute separation between the realms of Imperium and of Libertas is signalled through the presence, between them, of the curtain fastened to the lettered dividing strip, which bears the title of Hobbes’s work: Elementorum Philosphiae Sectio Tertia De Cive [Third Section of the Elements of Philosophy: On Citizens]. Concealed in the manner of a piece of arcane knowledge, it is the text of the book 11  Hobbes De Cive 1983 (English), I / xiii and VIII / 1, pp. (respectively) 49 and 117. See also pp. 116–17: Excerpts from Leviathan (Chapter XIII). Cf. Kraynak 1990, pp. 11–13 and Münkler 1993, pp. 45–47. 12  Hobbes Leviathan 1651a (Chapter XXXI), p. 186. On this particular concept of “liberty”, see the presentation and commentary in Pennock 1965, pp. 108–10; Wernham 1965, pp. 449, 452, 456–58.

Images in other works by Thomas Hobbes

that here assumes the same role, in the separation of Good and Evil, as is played, in the upper register, by Christ. The fact that this is an equivalence that Hobbes fully intended his readers to grasp becomes clear in the presence of the line from the biblical Book of Proverbs (8,15) that appears, as if embroidered upon the fabric of the curtain, below the title, occupying in fact barely any less space than that. And while the title lies closer to the zone of Religio, the biblical quotation, on account of the airy swelling of the curtain fabric, effectively dips into the zones of Imperium and of Libertas, as if, like a watershed, it were intended to confront the reader with a choice: “Per me Reges regnant et legum conditores iusta decernunt” [By me kings reign, and princes decree justice].13 The fact that, in the curtain shown in the printed version (Fig. 55), this quotation swells out even more emphatically than is the case in the drawing further underlines the author’s intent. In his anxiety, Hobbes had his work printed anonymously, with only the place of publication (Paris) and the year (1642) inscribed within the cartouche at the base of the title-page. But these precautions were in fact to be compensated, in a positively bombastic fashion, through his decision to place the biblical quotation in that space usually reserved for the name of the author. The emerging implication is, then, that Hobbes’s text is itself an oracle that draws on divine wisdom in revealing, to those who enquire, how chaos may be transformed into order, how crime may succumb to rectitude, and how war may give way to peace.14 The choice, in each case, may be aided through consulting the concealed text (the book itself). For, albeit as yet invisible, this effectively intercedes between the stark alternatives featured in the lower register. When a reader ventures beyond the frontispiece, his encounter with Hobbes’s text will already have been conditioned by the considerable visual eloquence of this form of “introduction”, above all that of its two dominant figures: Imperium and Libertas.

1647 Hobbes’s book initially appeared in such a small edition that his friends, and above all Samuel Sorbière, urged the need for a new one. This was indeed arranged: a small- format edition was published in Amsterdam in 1647, its scale necessitating the provision of a smaller version of the original frontispiece. For dissemination on the English market, however, only a few copies of the 1647 edition included this frontispiece (Fig. 56). Its own figural embodiments of Religio, Imperium and Libertas provide a much simplified version of their equivalents in the frontispiece of 1642 (Fig. 55), while elements such as the radiant figure of Christ encircled by 13  14 

Book of Proverbs, 8, 15; cited here also in the English of the King James Version 1611. Schoneveld 1982, p. 126.

131

132

Appendix II: Images and Portr aits

56 _ Frontispiece to De Cive, 1647. Catalogue of Images W VI

clouds are nonetheless retained.15 But conceptual differences in relation to the original, 1642 version are also evident. At the centre of the realm of Religio, for example, is to be found the figure of a newly resurrected man who is shown raising both arms in praise, thereby affirming that, at the point of death, an individual’s fate (be it Salvation or Damnation) had not yet been irrevocably fixed. The corresponding area in the frontispiece of 1642 had been left empty, with the implication that each individual would, from the start, have been predestined either to Heaven or to Hell. While, in the frontispiece

15 

Schoneveld 1982, p. 130.

Images in other works by Thomas Hobbes

of 1642, it is clear that the Heavenly Judge’s verdict has already been pronounced, in that of 1647 it is shown as if still about to be uttered. A second conceptual difference lies in the fact that the figure of the indigenous American in the frontispiece of the 1647 edition no longer holds his arrow with its point downwards, but seems, rather, to imitate the presentation of the sword held by the figure of Imperium, with its point upwards. Here, then, both sword and arrow point towards the realm of Religio. As a result, the implication of the original arrangement – which predicated an absolute distinction between an Earthly Paradise and a Hell on Earth – is here reduced to action both demonstrative and didactic. In its thematic misunderstanding and in its meagre aesthetic quality, the 1647 frontispiece may be viewed as the product of a particular situation: the great haste in which an edition suitable for the English market had, on this occasion, to be prepared. This edition was, however, to have no further printings. The far more compositionally compelling edition prepared, also in 1647, for sale in the Netherlands was, however, to appear in subsequent versions. It was brought out by the Amsterdam publishing house of Elzevier (Fig. W 57). In the markedly distinct accompanying frontispiece the motif of a centrally positioned, text-bearing curtain has now become an un-inscribed, bi-partite feature draped to the upper left and upper right of an almost emphatically foregrounded grouping,16 while the title of the book now features as an inscription on a tall pedestal, upon which is seated one of three, now exclusively female figures. This seated figure, who appears almost as if enthroned upon an altar, embodies Religio. She is dressed, from neck to toe, in a loosely draped gown, and the veil (signifying hope)17 that covers the upper half of her face extends into a cloak draped over her shoulders and her back. With her left hand she steadies a tall Cross in an upright position, while in her right she holds the flaming heart of Compassion. Smoke, as it rises, merges with the clouds circling the halo that hovers above her head and that illuminates, with the radiance of its beams, the now all but featureless background. The new embodiment of Imperium (now standing on the right) is, in effect, a mirror-image of her predecessor. But, in place of a pair of scales, she holds the edge of her fur-trimmed cloak and, in place of a sword, a sceptre. The figure of Libertas has, however, entirely altered her appearance – and, with it, her implicit character. This formerly dangerous notion of “liberty” is no longer embodied by a half-naked indigenous American male, but by a modestly dressed female figure. Shown raising her eyes to the enthroned Religio, she holds, in her right hand, a sceptre, which she also rests against her shoulder, and, in her left, a hat here intended as an allusion to citizenship in the Netherlands: a modern counterpart to the pileum of Antiquity,

16  17 

Eberlein 1982, pp. 13–15, 93. Schoneveld 1982, p. 127.

133

134

Appendix II: Images and Portr aits

57 _ Frontispiece to De Cive, 1647. Catalogue of Images W V, 1

a hallowed symbol of freedom. Raised aloft, this too is lit by the radiance of the halo of Religio. Presented thus, and at this particular historical moment, a hat of this sort constituted an all but revered symbol of the eighty-year-long, and soon to be victorious, struggle for the liberation of the Netherlands from rule by Habsburg Spain.18 And, as the figure of Imperium now bears on her breastplate the Habsburg double18  Schama 1987, pp. 69–70, 97–99; figs. 23–25 (esp. 24), 44; Schoneveld 1982, p. 126; Goldsmith 1990, p. 643, note 2. In all probability this was also intended as an allusion to the hat of the “liberated republic” raised aloft on the end of the dagger of Brutus as found in Alciati’s Emblemata, 1550, p. 163.

Images in other works by Thomas Hobbes

headed eagle, it is clear that she is here characterised not as the conqueror of humanity’s barbaric “naturall condition”, such as was formerly embodied in Libertas, but as the opponent of an specifically Dutch form of liberty. Hobbes, in his text, associates both Imperium and Libertas with a particular historical episode, finding in the Dutch struggle an instance of civil war, and in the enduring Habsburg effort to suppress this uprising an instance of the imposition of the power legitimately, indeed necessarily, wielded by the established state. Yet, in the accompanying frontispiece, the ostensible embodiment of the Habsburg territories poses not as the implicit enemy of the Dutch, but as their positively amicable counterpart. It is, then, clear that the true context from which the new embodiment of Libertas may be seen to emerge is not the Paris of Hobbes’s exile, nor the war-torn England that was perforce much in his thoughts, but the place of publication of this particular edition: Amsterdam. It is to be assumed that the publisher in this case, Louis Elzevier (Lodewijk Elzevir) – who, as part of his sales strategy, had already insisted on an alteration in the book’s title – 19 wished to ensure that the notion of “liberty”, regarded as fundamental to Dutch culture, be here not associated (as in the initial frontispiece) with the “naturall condition” of humanity as enacted by savages. And, as the embodiment of a emphatically Dutch Libertas has here removed her hat and holds it up towards the figure of Religio, she also thereby pays tribute to the second “national characteristic” to which the Dutch laid claim: a deep piety. However, this open acknowledgement of a distinctly elevated position for Religio stands Hobbes’s own argument on its head. The essence of the frontispiece to the 1642 edition of De Cive (Fig. 55) lay in the fact that, while it does indeed acknowledge a connection between an afterlife (be it in Heaven or in Hell) and the worldly spheres of both Imperium and Libertas, it has no hesitation in characterising “before” and “after” as emphatically separate from each other. This left no doubt that the choice between the Hell incurred by Libertas and the Heaven promised by Imperium should be resolved during an individual’s lifetime, and implicitly in favour of the latter. By 1647, however (Fig. 57), the figure of Religio has been granted preeminence within a hierarchy that reaches seamlessly from the here and now into the hereafter. The import of Hobbes’s text could hardly be reversed in a more abrupt fashion. While the frontispiece to the first edition both interprets and reinforces his argument (albeit in a somewhat idiosyncratic manner), that to the second edition all but inverts it. One is inclined to assume that it was, in this case, not only the publisher who had an interest in such a thematic misrepresentation of Hobbes’s text. Samuel Sorbière, a keen admirer and supporter of Hobbes, was the driving force behind the new edition of the latter’s book. It was thanks to Sorbière that, for the first time, Hobbes was to be clearly identified as author on the volume’s title-page. Sorbière 19 

Goldsmith 1990, p. 642.

135

136

Appendix II: Images and Portr aits

also proposed that his friend be honoured through the inclusion of a portrait on one of the following pages – a proposal that Hobbes, in a state of virtual panic, at first turned down, appearing to regard it as the virtual equivalent of appearing on a “wanted” poster.20 Hobbes must surely also have protested to some degree at the character of the 1647 frontispiece itself. However, as no hint of criticism or retraction regarding the frontispiece is to be found in the extensive surviving correspondence between Sorbière and Hobbes, it would appear that Hobbes ultimately resolved, on tactical grounds, not to intervene. It was clearly important that those who might possibly invoke a censoring of the volume be mollified.21 The frontispiece of the 1647 edition of De Cive may, therefore, fairly be regarded not as the volume’s own identification, but rather as its talisman. And, in this function, it was to prove extremely successful, being retained by Elzevier, and then by his heirs, for a total of four editions between 1647 and 1696.22

1649 In all of the subsequent editions of Hobbes’s text, significant alterations to the titlepage were implemented. These, too, document with what precision the political “argument” of the frontispiece was conducted, For the French edition, published in Amsterdam in 1649, for which the duodecimo size of the original was enlarged to octavo, one may assume that Samuel Sorbière and the publisher, in this case Joan Blaeu, arranged for the provision of a new version of the frontispiece. Through the introduction of a few simple changes, this (Fig. 58) assumed an altogether different character. In order to avoid the effort of drawing the 1647 design (Fig. 57), in reverse, on to a new copper plate (so that a print taken from this plate would appear unreversed), the engraver transferred the existing print directly to a new plate, with the result that, in prints made from this plate, all the figures appeared in some respects reversed. It is for this reason that the enthroned figure of Religio is now shown holding the flaming heart of Compassion in her left hand, and the Cross in her right. More significant, however, is the fact that the figures of both Libertas (albeit still on the left) and of Imperium (still on the right) have remained correctly identified through some of their respective attributes (hat or crown), but have exchanged others, in addition to aspects of pose. Here, the sceptre, held originally in the right hand of Imperium, is now held in the left hand of Libertas. By the same token, the left hand of Libertas, which in 1647 20  Catalogue of Images W V, 2. For more on Hobbes’s reaction to Sorbière’s proposal, see pp. 194–98: Portraits of Thomas Hobbes. 21  Schoneveld 1982, p. 128. 22  Catalogue of Images W VII; W XVII; W XX; W XXXV.

Images in other works by Thomas Hobbes

58 _ Frontispiece to De Cive (French edition), 1649. Catalogue of Images W IX, 1

held aloft the seventeenth-century equivalent of the pileum, is now transformed into the right hand of Imperium, itself empty but raised as if in an oratorical gesture. The sceptre, in 1647 held in the left hand of Imperium, which in turn rests against the upper edge of the pedestal upon which Religio is enthroned, is now to be found in the left hand of Libertas. The positioning of the lower left arm of Imperium, which in 1647 clasped the fur-trimmed edge of her cloak, is now reiterated in that of the lower right arm and the hand of Libertas, the arm draped by her own cloak (itself a new addition) and the hand holding a lance, upon the upper end of which her hat is now balanced. Finally, the insidious Habsburg double-headed eagle formerly adorning the breastplate of Imperium, has now almost disappeared.

137

138

Appendix II: Images and Portr aits

59 _ Frontispiece to De Cive (French edition), 1649. Catalogue of Images W XV

Further evidence of compositional intervention is to be found in the treatment of relative scale. In copying the figures of Libertas and Imperium, the engraver evidently retained their size as found in the duodecimo volume of 1647, yet he adapted the figure of Religio, in addition to the pedestal upon which she sits (now incidentally also featuring an astrolabe, the publisher’s own distinguishing mark), to the larger scale of the octavo volume. Whereas the seated figure of Religio as shown in 1647 would, if she stood, be more or less equivalent in her full height to both Libertas and Imperium, in the 1649 frontispiece the seated figure of Religio would, if shown standing, tower over both of the others, who are already in effect diminished through the marked increase in the height of the pedestal itself. In the 1649

Images in other works by Thomas Hobbes

frontispiece both Libertas and Imperium appear, then, to assume the role of subordinate figures, while the aura of sanctity that attends Religio further removes her to a different sphere, in which they can play no part. Through such means the engraver has successfully adapted the frontispiece to the ecclesiastically dominated culture prevailing in France at this time.23 Yet again, it was only through the deliberate deception employed in adapting its frontispiece that the argument of Hobbes’s text was ostensibly “reconciled” with the cultural ethos of Roman Catholicism. A second, more elegant octavo edition of De Cive, with a slightly altered frontispiece, appeared within the same year.24 And its own frontispiece was again used in 1651 (albeit without any further alteration to the date displayed), in a reprint of that second 1649 edition (Fig. 59).25 Here, however, along with a few other changes,26 the astrolabe formerly featured as the publisher’s mark has been removed to the lower step at the foot of the pedestal so as to indicate the place of publication: “A Paris sur L[‘]imprimé”.

1651 In London, meanwhile, Robert Vaughan devised a variant of the De Cive frontispiece for an English translation of Hobbes’s Latin text, which included, in the lower half of the pedestal, a portrait of the author (Fig. 60). As indicated by the wording that appears directly above the portrait, this design served to preface a volume now entitled Philosophicall Elements of Goverment and Civill Society. It may reasonably be assumed that this printing was an ultra-Royalist “pirated” edition.27 Robert Vaughan had made a reversed copy of the frontispiece to the French edition, just as the engraver responsible for that earlier design had done with the second printing of the original Latin version. By this means, there resulted a printed image in which the essential forms of the depicted standing female figures (albeit not their respective identities) retained, through a process of double reversal, their appearance in the Amsterdam frontispiece of 1647 (Fig. 57). Because the mediating versions (Figs. 58, 59) had retained the original left / right positioning of Libertas and

23 

Schoneveld 1982, p. 139. Catalogue of Images W X. 25  Cf. Schoneveld 1982, p. 140. 26  In its size and in its foliate form, the point of the sceptre wielded by Libertas matches that held by Imperium; but, by way of the grip, the suggestion of a notched ball is added. 27  Catalogue of Images W XIII, 1; Hind 1905, pp. 106–14, here 111; Corbett & Norton 1964, p. 78, no. 90, first state. 24 

139

140

Appendix II: Images and Portr aits

60 _ Robert Vaughan, frontispiece to De Cive (English edition), 1651. Catalogue of Images W XIII, 1

Imperium, while constraining both to exchange certain symbolic attributes and certain gestures, and because Robert Vaughan’s version did not entail equivalent reversals, the figure of Libertas (now on the right) here appears in some of the clothing originally worn by Imperium, while Imperium (now on the left) here wears clothing that is a more ornate form of that originally worn by Libertas. In a second edition of this volume, which appeared in the same year (now with the “Elements” of the title replaced by “Rudiments”), Vaughan ensured that no ambiguity remain in the frontispiece by identifying each of these figures, their respective names now given in English: Dominion (formerly Imperium) on the left; Liberty (formerly Libertas) on the right; and Religion (formerly Religio) in the

Images in other works by Thomas Hobbes

61 _ Robert Vaughan, frontispiece to De Cive (English edition), 1651. Catalogue of Images W XIV, 1

centre. (Fig. 61).28 As a result of this rearrangement – and it is this that ensures its deeper significance – Liberty now unambiguously occupies that side of the composition that, in the frontispiece of 1642 (Fig. 55) and that of 1647 (Fig. 56), had been associated with Damnation. For those favourably disposed towards the Dutch at this date, the motif of the Netherlandish hat of freedom held aloft upon the lance of Liberty would have seemed in no way problematic, the more so as this figure was but one of three female allegories. For those who, by contrast, disapproved of the Dutch, it would seem no less appropriate that an allegory of specifically Dutch 28 

Schoneveld 1982, p. 140.

141

142

Appendix II: Images and Portr aits

62 _ Robert Vaughan, frontispiece to Blaise Pascal, Les Provinciales, 1657. Catalogue of Portraits P IX

freedom should now occupy that position within the frontispiece previously reserved for the figure of an indigenous American. It is in keeping with such an instance of neutralising indifference that this frontispiece was to be re-used, in 1657, for an edition of Blaise Pascal’s Les Provinciales, its publisher having had the words “Dominion” and “Liberty” rather crudely removed, yet allowing the portrait to remain. By this means, the likeness of Hobbes came to serve as an alter ego of Pascal (Fig. 62).29 29  Corbett & Norton 1964, p. 78, no. 90, third state, Finally, it was used for the 1672 sheet War and Peace Reconciled of Joest Lips (Lipsius), in all probability as an unauthorised borrowing,

Images in other works by Thomas Hobbes

63 _ Frontispiece to De Cive (Dutch edition), 1675. Catalogue of Images W XXII, 1

1675 During Hobbes’s lifetime no second edition of the English translation of De Cive was published. In 1675, however, a Dutch translation appeared, its own frontispiece returning, in some respects, to the character of the first Amsterdam version (Fig. 57), albeit placing additional emphasis on the superiority of the figure of Religio (Fig. 63).30 As if to counter-balance the gesture of Libertas, who lifts the hat given that the signature was removed; see Johnson 1934, p. X, 56, no. 14; and Corbett & Norton 1964, p. 78, no. 90, fourth state. 30  Schoneveld 1982, p. 141.

143

144

Appendix II: Images and Portr aits

of freedom up towards Religio, the figure of Imperium has now turned round so far towards the viewer that the sceptre held in her right hand is visually merged with the Cross. In addition, she conceals her left hand within the folds of her drapery, thereby affirming her own now subservient and inactive receptivity. Here, in short, the figural embodiment of Imperium is “amputated” into a symbol of the vita passiva. An explanation for this reversal of roles lies in the now heightened tensions in the political climate within the Netherlands. A year earlier, in 1674, Hobbes’s Leviathan had been banned there. If, as was thus now imperative, a Dutch translation of his De Cive was to strike Dutch readers in Holland as a rather less compromised work than the now unobtainable Leviathan, it was necessary to avoid giving the impression that the 1675 volume – which bore the title De Eerste Beginselen van een Burger-Staat – was itself a reprehensible work.31 Through its unthreatening orthodoxy, the frontispiece to the Dutch translation of 1675 served this purpose; but it did so at the cost of transforming the implicit content of Hobbes’s text far more extremely into its virtual opposite than had ever been the case before. In 1704, in Halle, Hobbes’s De Cive re-appeared in its original, Latin version, thanks to the initiative of the German publisher Johann Friedrich Zeidler, who had commissioned the engraver Johann Georg Beck to copy the 1647 version of its frontispiece (Fig. 57) in its original size (Fig. 64). By this date, however, and in a German (as opposed to a Dutch) context, the counterposing of the Dutch hat of freedom and the traditional symbol of Habsburg rule (here used in a fashion that was little more than ornamental) was viewed as all but unobjectionable. The provision of figural images in the frontispieces of editions of works by Hobbes published within his lifetime shows, without exception, that one cannot approach them as “illustrations” of his texts. One might, rather, say that each of the images discussed here constitutes, in the emblematic tradition, a quasi-autonomous entity, in that it serves either to reinforce or to contradict the text. The images featured here can, then, be investigated in terms of how “appropriate” they are to the related texts only on condition that they are recognised as essentially separate artefacts. Without betraying either themselves or their own medium, they are able to lead the reader towards a text, but also intentionally to deceive the reader as to the true significance of that text. It was, then, all the more ironic that it should be the frontispiece employed as an “antidote” in the 1647 Amsterdam edition of De Cive (Fig. 57) that, as has been shown, was subsequently to be re-issued in no fewer than nine variants. The fact that its success depended upon its demonstrable capacity not to reinforce the true content of the text it prefaced, but, on the contrary, to persuade prospective readers that this content was of an altogether different character, makes this one of the

31 

Schoneveld 1982, p. 142.

Images in other works by Thomas Hobbes

64 _ Johann Georg Beck, frontispiece to De Cive, 1704. Catalogue of Images W XXXVII

most curious cases in the history of publishing. This is an extreme example of that dissimulatio onesta [honest dissimulation] recommended by many authors, from Niccolò Machiavelli in Il Principe to Diego de Saavedra Fajardo in the Idea de un Príncipe Político Cristiano: the art of confronting human depravity not with the innocence of the dove, but with the shrewdness of the snake.32 These images stand in relation to the texts they precede as sources not of clarification, but of opposition.

32 

Meyer-Kalkus 1986, pp. 70, 136–46.

145

146

Appendix II: Images and Portr aits

65 _ Wenceslaus Hollar, Liberty, illustration to De Cive (English edition), 1651. Catalogue of Images W XIII, 2

c. Philosophicall Rudiments A particularly striking instance of this mechanism is concealed within Hobbes’s volume of 1651: Philosophicall Rudiments. This publication is an exceptional case in that, in addition to the embodiment of Libertas, Imperium and Religio in its frontispiece (Figs. 60, 61), separate engravings were also prepared to correspond to each of the three segments of the text for which these three terms served as titles. The first of Wenceslaus Hollar’s illustrations, which is dedicated to Liberty (Fig. 65),33 shows an indigenous American woman striding into the scene from the 33  This etching, as also the following sheets intended for the Philosophicall Rudiments, derive from Hollar’s series Emblemata Nova (Pennington 1982, pp. 66–67, nos. 446–56). On this point and what follows cf. Goldsmith 1981, pp. 235–37, and Goldsmith 1990, pp. 644–48.

Images in other works by Thomas Hobbes

left to mount a small hillock in order to offer a crown to Hercules, here identified through the inverted club on to which he holds. Hercules, however, signals with his right hand that he spurns this offering, while placing his left foot on the neck of a putto, who is in turn seen reaching out towards the sceptre and the crown that appear to have just slipped from his grasp. Directly behind the putto, a second infant appears to have just lost his own grip on a sack of coins, now scattered over the ground. Beyond these two diminutive figures sprawls Cupid, armed with bow and arrow. While Hercules thus disdains these incarnations of power, wealth and desire, and at the same time refuses the kingship associated with them, he receives a Crown of Wisdom, encircled by a nimbus, from Minerva, who stands behind him, identified as Queen of the World through the sphere she steadies with her left foot. The lines in Latin below the image develop these ideas: “A king is one rid of fear and the evil of an ugly heart; and that no wilful ambition or the ever shifting favour of the hasty mob can affect […] One set in a place of safety who sees all this beneath him”. These lines come from Seneca’s drama Thyestes; but they may also, like the illustration itself, have been derived from the widely disseminated emblem book of 1612 compiled by Otto van Veen.34 The reason for a resort to this source is not immediately clear, not least because the image in question is itself not compatible with Hobbes’s concept of Liberty. The woman who offers a crown to Hercules notionally recalls the similar figure representing the pre-civilised state of perpetual war in the frontispiece of 1642 (Fig. 55). For precisely this reason, the Hercules shown as having overcome a lust for power, wealth and sensual enjoyment is, in Hobbes’s own terminology, to be identified not as the embodiment of Liberty, but as that of Dominion. For Hobbes, on the other hand, the notion of Dominion was not one that eschewed the use of force. On the contrary, force might justifiably be employed to suppress all violent social unrest The message conveyed by the emblem is only to be reconciled with Hobbes’s text in as far as, in his view, those engaged in politics should not be in thrall to their passions; this message stands, however, just as opposed to Hobbes’s own understanding of Liberty as it does to his own understanding of the “power of the state”.

34  Veen 1612, p. 81 (181 × 146 mm); Seneca Tragedies: Oedipus […] Thyestes 2004, II, 348– 52, 365–66, pp. 260 / 261–262 / 263.

147

148

Appendix II: Images and Portr aits

66 _ Wenceslaus Hollar, Dominion, illustration to De Cive (English edition), 1651. Catalogue of Images W XIII, 3

The same is true of the illustration dedicated to Dominion (Fig. 66).35 This shows, seated at a table, Damocles, a courtier in the service of Dionysius the Elder. Envious of the latter’s good fortune, Damocles had at length succeeded in establishing his own tyrannical rule over Syracuse. In order here to illustrate the “joy” of dominion, Hollar has shown the tyrant Damocles positioned directly beneath a sword that is suspended above his head by a single thread of horsehair. Consumed perpetually by the fear of being pierced by this sword, should it fall, Damocles must help himself to the choice morsels offered to him, which, however – as revealed by the motif of the snake rearing up from a dish at the centre right of the image – may themselves conceal a source of mortal danger. This image, too, derives from Otto van Veen’s emblem book, as do also the accompanying lines from Seneca:

35 

Pennington 1982, pp. 66–67, no. 450; after Otto van Veen: Veen 1612, p. 75 (187 × 151 mm).

Images in other works by Thomas Hobbes

67 _ Wenceslaus Hollar, Religion, illustration to De Cive (English edition), 1651. Catalogue of Images W XIII, 4

“Does anyone find joy in kingship? So deceptive a good, hiding so many evils behind its seductive appearance!” “Fear always recoils upon those who inspire it”. “Poison is drunk in gold. I speak from experience”.36 Here, too, it is by no means the case that the concept in question – that of Dominion – accords directly with that evolved by Hobbes himself. For Hobbes, in whose

36 

Of these lines (all from works by Seneca), the first two are from his tragedy Oedipus; the third is from his essay De Ira; and the fourth is from his aforementioned tragedy Thyestes . See, respectively, Seneca Tragedies: Oedipus […] Thyestes 2004, I, 6–7, pp. 18 / 19; Seneca Moral Essays, vol. I: De Providentia, De Ira, II, 11, 3–49, pp. 190 / 191; and Seneca Tragedies: Oedipus […] Thyestes 2004, III, 453, pp. 268 / 269.

149

150

Appendix II: Images and Portr aits

68 _ Otto van Veen, Emblem of Fearlessness, 1612

view the sole purpose of Dominion was to put an end to that primitive state in which man was plagued by perpetual insecurity and fear of a violent death, the prime concern was not to point out the true misery of Dominion, but the absolute necessity of making it secure. The last of the three separate images, which precedes the section of text that addresses Religion (Fig. 67),37 barely appears to have any connection with the argument contained therein. It depicts a man striding purposefully forward, having evidently just cast into the shade of a large tree to the right a bundle of weapons. Accompanied by a lamb, he walks on, as untroubled by a snake writhing on the ground directly in his path as he is unmoved by the sight, to his right, of a leopard and a dragon or, in the middle distance, of a deer suddenly running off. The accompanying lines in this case come from the opening to Horace’s Ode I, 22, addressed to his friend Aristius Fuscus: “The man of unblemished life who is unstained by crime has no need of Moorish javelin or bow, or a quiver full of poisoned arrows, Fuscus, 37 

Pennington 1982, p. 67, no. 452.

Images in other works by Thomas Hobbes

69 _ Charles I and his sons, Engraving

whether he means to travel through the sweltering Syrtes or the hostile Caucasus or the regions washed by the legendary Hydaspes”.38 Like the figure of Hercules found in the image preceding Hobbes’s text on Liberty, who scorns the insignia of power, the man seen here has discarded his own weapons in order to confront his opponents alone and undaunted by a fear of death, for he puts his trust in his inner strength. Accompanied by a lamb, he even assumes the characteristics of Christ. By contrast with the model found in Otto van Veen’s emblem (Fig. 68),39 the uncommonly brave figure depicted by Wenceslaus Hollar has the facial features of 38  39 

Horace Odes 2004, I, 22, 1–8, pp. 66 / 67. Veen 1612, p. 73 (180 × 146 mm).

151

152

Appendix II: Images and Portr aits

the English king “martyred” in January 1649: Charles I. The overall shape of the face, markedly narrowing towards the chin; the wavy, shoulder-length hair with its centre parting; the arched eyebrows, the prominent nose, and the thick moustache and pointed beard are all recognisable at a glance (Fig. 69).40 As implicitly depicted by Hollar (Fig. 67), Charles I appears as the fearless, messianic victor capable of triumphing over his enemies even though himself unarmed. It is in this motif that the images prefacing the sections of Hobbes’s text devoted, respectively, to Liberty, Dominion and Religion may be seen to culminate. In the quotation from Seneca that accompanies the image with Hercules (Fig. 65), two lines have in fact been omitted. According to these, Liberty is embodied by him who “willingly goes to meet his fate, / with no protest at death”.41 It would appear that these two lines were here omitted in order to be used with the third image, where they would perhaps also follow logically on from the situation depicted in the second, which addresses the mortal danger implicit in Dominion. In the view of his Royalist followers, Charles I had followed the (harder) path taken by Hercules when himself confronted with a choice: he was a virtuous hero, who had overcome personal desires in order to expose himself to both the duress and the danger associated with Dominion and, unarmed and effectively impotent, yet infused with an inner dignity, to go, at last, to his death. In this case, too, Hobbes’s text contradicts the content of the image that precedes it, in that, in the segment of his English text entitled “Religion”, he bases his concept of “authority” on both the Old and New Testaments: it is a notion far removed from any aura of martyrdom and sacrifice. For Hobbes, the only true victims of sacrifice were those who, whether abandoned by the established authorities or having chosen to betray these, reverted to the sort of “Liberty” manifest in a civil war. It is, nonetheless, possible that Hobbes had, on tactical grounds, voiced his approval both for the frontispiece with its portrait (Figs. 60, 61) and for the images preceding each of the aforementioned text segments (Figs. 65, 66, 67). In the struggle for the legitimacy of the new regime in England – one of the founding acts of which had been the execution of Charles I – Hobbes’s allegiance had initially been claimed by the Parliamentarians. These had been much taken by his own argument in favour of the need (in an already precariously bellicose situation) for non-partisan civilians to support even a newly established administrative authority in order to

40  Corbett & Norton 1964, pp. 342–43, no. 11. Cf. Goldsmith 1990, pp. 647–48. The sheet for the Philosophicall Rudiments had in 1646 already been used as a vignette for an oblong-format broadsheet entitled The Watchmans warning-peece, or Parliament Souldiers prediction. See Pennington 1982, p. 67, no. 452. 41  Seneca Tragedies: Oedipus […] Thyestes 2004, II, 368–69, pp. 262 / 263. Cf. Goldsmith 1990, p. 646.

Images in other works by Thomas Hobbes

avoid the spilling of yet more blood.42 At the same time, however, Hobbes’s De Cive was finding approval among the more extreme Royalists, who were already beginning to venerate the late king as a saintly martyr. One may assume that such admirers saw this book as prophetic of kingship restored: a reading that ensured, in turn, the remarkable juxtaposition of their own political messianism and Hobbes’s logical musings on the mechanism of authority. How very close the connection of text and image was in this case seen to be is demonstrated by the fact that the images preceding the three sections of Hobbes’s account were not (as would then have been usual) affixed, where required, to the pages of the volume as already bound, but were impressed directly on to each set of pages as soon as it had been printed with text. They cannot, therefore, be said to serve as supplements to the text, but are an integral part of it.43 As in the case of the other works by Hobbes considered here, it is nonetheless only in an idiosyncratic fashion that frontispieces and images distributed throughout the volumes can be said to have contributed to an “understanding” of Hobbes’s work. Not even in his translation of Thucydides, and certainly not in his volume De Cive, do the accompanying images serve as illustrations to the text. On the contrary: one of the most surprising aspects of these images lies in their capacity both to reinforce a text in its entirety or to draw particular attention to elements within it, but equally to divert attention away from its true import or to lead readers in search of this along false trails. The history of these images reveals that their provision, as accompaniments to Hobbes’s texts, was an exercise itself imbued with the very conflicts against which he was protesting as he wrote. While the texts were to be stripped of their own historicity in ascending, over time, to the status of timeless classics of political theory, the accompanying images have nonetheless retained the tensions of the era of their creation. In the past they have, on the whole, been underestimated, as formally somewhat naive. But, if they are examined in the light of their thematic and contextual associations, it soon becomes clear that they attest to the very conflicts in which Hobbes found himself embroiled.

42  43 

Skinner 1972. Goldsmith 1990, p. 645.

153

Catalogue of Images featured in works by Thomas Hobbes revised by Kolja Thurner

Titles of works in italics indicate a published text. Cited dimensions of images give height before breadth and include all captions and other lettering.

WI Title   Eight Bookes Of the Peloponnesian Warre, London, Hen[ry] Seile, 1629

1 _ [The Peloponnesian Warre] T[homas] Cecill sculp[sit] Frontispiece; 274 × 185 mm

2 _ “Antient Greece” [Thomas Cecill] after Tho[mas] Hobbes Before page 1; 337 × 428 mm Slightly cropped at upper and lower edge

156

Appendix II: Images and Portr aits

3 _ “Platea” [Thomas Cecill] Before page 155; 155 × 190 mm Missing in copies in British Library (see below) Identical with W II, 3 (1634)

4 _ “The Campe of the Lacedaemo­nians” [Thomas Cecill] Before page 215; 242 × 165 mm

5 _ “Antient Sicele” [Thomas Cecill] after Philip Cluverius Before page 349; 266 × 347 mm

6 _ “Syracuse beseged” [Thomas Cecill] Before page 405; 268 × 363 mm Source   London, British Library: Eve.b.38 and 199.f.15

Catalogue of images

W II Title   Eight Bookes Of the Peloponnesian Warre,

London, Richard Mynne, 1634 1 _ [The Peloponnesian War] T[homas] Cecill sculp[sit] Frontispiece; 274 × 185 mm Identical with W I, 1, albeit with identi­f ication of new publisher, and with new date in Roman numerals

2 _ “Antient Greece” [Thomas Cecill] by Tho[mas] Hobbes Before page 9; 340 × 428 mm Identical with W I, 2

3 _ ”Platea” [Thomas Cecill] Before page 155; 155  × 190 mm Identical with W I, 3

157

158

Appendix II: Images and Portr aits

4 _ “The Campe of ther Lacedaemonians” [Thomas Cecill] Before page 215; 243 × 168 mm Identical with W I, 4

5 _ “Antient Sicele” [Thomas Cecill] after Philip Cluverius Before page 349; 271 × 355 mm Identical with W I, 5, albeit slightly larger

6 _ “Syracuse beseged” [Thomas Cecill] Before page 405; 271 × 371 mm Identical with W I, 6, albeit slightly larger Source   London, British Library: 9025.h.13

Catalogue of images

W III Title   Elementorum Philosophiae Sectio Tertia De Cive

Paris, Vellum manuscript, 1641 1 _ Religio, Imperium, Libertas [Jean Matheus and (?) Thomas Hobbes] Pen and ink; 198 × 154 mm Source   Chatsworth House, Derbyshire,

Library: MS Chatsworth, A.3

W IV 1642 Title   Elementorum Philosophiae Sectio Tertia De Cive Paris, Anonymous, 1642

1 _ Religio, Imperium, Libertas [Jean] Math[eus], f[ecit] Frontispiece; 197 × 157 mm Source   London, British Library: C.118.c.4

159

160

Appendix II: Images and Portr aits

WV Title   Elementa Philosophica de Cive

Amsterdam, Ludovicum Elzevirium, 1647 1 _ Religio, Libertas, Imperium Anonymous Frontispiece; 98 × 63 mm

2 _ Portrait of Thomas Hobbes Anonymous Page 2v; 98 × 62 mm (see Catalogue of Portraits P III) Sources   Los Angeles, University of California, William Andrews Clark Memorial Library: *B1241 1647a

Wölfenbüttel, Herzog August Bibliothek: 149.2.Pol

Catalogue of images

W VI Title   Elementa Philosophica de Cive

Amsterdam, L[udovicum] Elzevirium, 1647 1 _ Religio, Libertas, Imperium Anonymous Frontispiece; 95 × 63 mm Variant of W IV Source   Cambridge, King’s College Library, Keynes Collection: a.16.01 Reproduced by permission of the Provost and Scholars of King’s College, Cambridge

W VII Title   Elementa Philosophica de Cive Amsterdam, Ludovicum Elzevirium, 1647

1 _ Religio, Libertas, Imperium Anonymous Frontispiece; 98 × 63 mm Identical with W V, 1 Source   Wölfenbüttel, Herzog August

Bibliothek: Sf 99

161

162

Appendix II: Images and Portr aits

W VIII Title   Eight Bookes Of the Peloponnesian Warre

London, Laurence Sadler, 1648 1 _ The Peloponnesian War T[homas] Cecill sculp[sit] Frontispiece Identical with W I, 1, albeit with identifica- tion of new publisher, and with new date in Roman numerals

2 _ “Antient Greece” [Thomas Cecill] by Tho[mas] Hobbes Page 9 Identical with W I, 2

3 _ “Platea” [Thomas Cecill] Page 155 Identical with W I, 3

Catalogue of images

4 _ “The Campe of the Lacedaemonians” [Thomas Cecill] Page 215 Identical with W I, 4

5 _ “Antient Sicele” [Thomas Cecill] after Philip Cluverius Page 349 Identical with W I, 5

6 _ “Syracuse beseged” [Thomas Cecill] Page 404 Identical with W I. 6 Source   Cambridge, King’s College Library,

Keynes Collection: Q.2.18 Reproduced by permission of the Provost and Scholars of King’s College, Cambridge

163

164

Appendix II: Images and Portr aits

W IX Title   Elemens Philosophiques du Citoyen. Traicté Politiques

Amsterdam, Joan Blaeu, 1649 1 _ Religio, Libertas, Imperium Anonymous Frontispiece; 127 × 75 mm Variant of W V, 1

2 _ Portrait of Thomas Hobbes Anonymous Page 4*4v; 127 × 75 mm See Catalogue of Portraits P IV Source   Wölfenbüttel, Herzog August Bibliothek: 134.1.Pol.[4]

Catalogue of images

WX Title   Elemens Philosophiqves du Citoyen. Traicté Politiqve

Amsterdam, Joan Blaeu, 1649 1 _ Religio, Libertas, Imperium Anonymous Frontispiece; 127 × 75 mm Identical with W IX, 1 Source   London, British Library: 1568/8215 and 8005.de.5

W XI Title   Leviathan, Or the Matter, Forme, and Power Of A Common-Wealth Ecclesiasticall And Civil London, Andrew Crooke (“Head edition”), 1651

1 _ Leviathan [Abraham Bosse] Frontispiece; 241 × 157 mm

165

166

Appendix II: Images and Portr aits

2 _ Head (as publisher’s mark) Anonymous Title-page

3 _ Head and vegetal grotesque ornament Anonymous Page 1; 28 × 101 mm Sources   London, British Library: 522.k.6 and C.175.n.3

Göttingen, Niedersächsische Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek: J.Nat.4840 Hamburg, Warburg-Stiftung Los Angeles, University of California, William Andrews Clark Memorial Library: *fB 1222 1651 Wölfenbüttel, August Herzog Bibliothek: Sf 4o5 W XII Title   LEVIATHAN Or THE MATTER, FORME, and POWER of a COMMONWEALTH ECCLESIASTICALL and CIVIL. By Thomas Hobbes of MALMESBURY. Anno Christi 1651 Vellum manuscript, 1651 1 _ Leviathan [Abraham Bosse] Pen and ink with wash on vellum Frontispiece; 241 × 159 mm Variant of W XI, 1 Source   London, British Library: Ms Egerton 1910

Catalogue of images

W XIII Title   Philosophicall Elements of Goverrment [sic.] and Civil Society

London, J. G. for R[ichard] Royston, 1651 1 _ Religion, Dominion, Liberty and Portrait of Thomas Hobbes Ro[bert] Vaughan sculp[sit] Frontispiece; 127 × 72 mm Copy of WIX, 1 with reversed figures of Dominion and Liberty, an added portrait of Hobbes, and an inscription alerting readers to the fact that this is an English translation from the Latin

2 _ Liberty [Wenceslaus Hollar after Otto van Veen] Page CIv; 84 × 69 mm Copy of Veen 1612, p. 81



167

168

Appendix II: Images and Portr aits

3 _ Dominion [Wenceslaus Hollar after Otto van Veen] Page FIv; 86 × 68 mm Copy of Veen 1612, p. 75

4 _ Religion [Wenceslaus Hollar after Otto van Veen] Page M10v; 86 × 68 mm Copy of W V 1612, p. 773 Source   Los Angeles, University of California, William Andrews Clark Memorial Library: *B1241 A3E

Catalogue of images

W XIV Title   Philosophicall Rudiments concerning Goverments [sic.] and Civill Society

London, J. G. for R[ichard] Royston, 1651 1 _ Religion, Dominion, Liberty and portrait of Thomas Hobbes Ro[bert] Vaughan sculp[sit] Frontispiece; 129 × 75 mm Corrected version of WXIII, 1 with added 1 figure captions. Identification of each figure, and new inscription along lower margin

2 _ Liberty [Wenceslaus Hollar after Otto van Veen] Page CIv; 85 × 69 mm Identical with W XIII, 2

3 _ Dominion [Wenceslaus Hollar after Otto van Veen] Page FIv; 86 × 68 mm Identical with W XIII, 3

169

170

Appendix II: Images and Portr aits

4 _ Religion [Wenceslaus Hollar after Otto van Veen] Page M9v; 87 × 69 mm Identical with W XIII, 4 Sources   London, British Library: 1568/8215

Oxford, Bodleian Library: Vet.A3.f.1168 Göttingen, Niedersächsiche Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek: 8 Pol. 12520

W XV Title   Elemens Philosophiques du Bon Citoyen. Traicté Politiqve Paris, Theodore Pepingué & Est[ienne] Mavcroy, 1651

1 _ Religio, Libertas, Imperium Anonymous Frontispiece Copy of W X, with added inscription “A Paris sur L[’]imprimé” Source   Bibliothèque nationale de France, Réserve des livres rares: RES 8-Z DON-594 Note: The reproduction in Schoneveld 1982, p. 140 appears to be cropped along the upper margin

Catalogue of images

W XVI Title   Le Corps Politiqve ov les Elements de la Loy Morale et Civile

Anonymous, n.p., 1652 1 _ Anonymous Frontispiece; 107 × 64 mm Much altered variant of W XI, 1 Sources   Lyon, Bibliothèque Universitaire: 86579

(= facsimile, Saint-Etienne 1977) Oxford, Bodleian Library: Vet.E3 f.73 London, British Library: 8005.de.2 [lacks frontispiece] and 8005.a.20 [lacks frontispiece]

W XVII Title   Elementa Philosophica de Cive

Amsterdam, Ludovicum & Danielem Elzevirios, 1657 1 _ Religio, Libertas, Imperium Anonymous Frontispiece; 97 × 63 mm Identical with W V, 1, but with altered date

171

172

Appendix II: Images and Portr aits

2 _ Portrait of Thomas Hobbes (see Catalogue of Portraits P X) Anonymous Page *2v; 97 × 62 mm Identical with W V, 2 Sources   Hamburg, Staats- und UniversitätsBibliothek Carl von Ossietzky: A 101744

Los Angeles, University of California, William Andrews Clark Memorial Library: *B1241 1657 Wölfenbüttel, Herzog Augusrt Bibliothek: Sf 100 Dublin, Trinity College, Library: HH.pp.67 W XVIII Title   Leviathan: Of Van De Stoffe, Gedaente ende Magt van de Kerckelycke Ende

Wereltlycke Regeeringe Amsterdam, Jacobus Wagenaar, 1667 1 _ Leviathan Cr delineavit Frontispiece; 136 × 87 mm Inscription: “Op der Aerden is geen Macht by desen te vergelycker Job. 41.24” Variant of W XI, 1

Catalogue of images

2 _ Portrait of Thomas Hobbes (see Catalogue of Portraits P XVI) Cr delineavit Page *8v; 136 × 87 mm Reversed variant, in oval frame of W V, 2 Sources   London, British Library: 8006.aaa.8

Los Angeles, University of California, William Andrews Clark Memorial Library: *B1222 A3D 1667

W XIX Title   Opera Philosophica Quae Latine scripsit, Omnia Amsterdam, Apud Ioanneum Blaev, 1668

1 _ Portrait of Thomas Hobbes W[illiam] Faithorne sculp[sit] Page Aaa1r; 194 × 137 mm Engraving after Catalogue of Portraits P XI combined with oval frame after W XVIII, 2 but with altered Latin inscriptions Sources   Los Angeles, University of California, William Andrews MemoriaL Library: *B1203 1668

Wölfenbüttel, Herzog August Bibliothek: Va195

173

174

Appendix II: Images and Portr aits

W XX Title   Elementa Philosophica de Cive

Amsterdam, Danielem Elzevirium, 1669 1 _ Religio, Libertas, Imperium Anonymous Frontispiece; 97 × 63 mm Identical with W V, 1, albeit with altered subscription and date Sources   Los Angeles, University of California, William Andrews Memorial Library: *B1241 1669

Wölfenbüttel, Herzog August Bibliothek: Sf 101

W XXI Title   Leviathan: Of Van De Stoffe, Gedaente ende Magt van de Kerckelycke Ende Wereltlycke Regeeringe Amsterdam, Jacobus Wagenaar, 1672

1 _ Leviathan Cr delineavit Frontispiece; 137 × 87 mm Identical with W XVIII, 2, but with altered date

Catalogue of images

2 _ Portrait of Thomas Hobbes (see Catalogue of Portraits P XIX) Cr delineavit Page *8v; 137 × 87 mm Identical with W XVIII, 2, but with altered inscription in Dutch Source   Wölfenbüttel, Herzog August Bibliothek: Sf 102

W XXII Title   De Eerste Beginselen van een Burger-Staat, aangewesen door Thomas Hobbes van Malmesbury Amsterdam, Anonymous, 1675

1 _ Religio, Libertas, Imperium Anonymous Frontispiece; 98 × 63 mm Copy of W V, 1

2 _ Portrait of Thomas Hobbes (see Catalogue of Portraits P XX) Cr delineavit with W XXI, 2 Identical Source  Schoneveld 1982, p. 141, fig. 6

175

176

Appendix II: Images and Portr aits

W XXIII Title   Eight Bookes Of the Peloponnesian Warre

London, Andrew Clark for Charles Harper, 1676 1 _ [The Peloponnesian War] T[homas] Cecill sculp[sit] Frontispiece; 274 × 186 mm Identical with W I, 1, but with variant title: “Eight Bookes Of the Peloponnesian Warre Written by THUCYDIDES the sonne of OLORUS Interpreted with Faith and Diligence Immediately out of the Greeke By Thomas Hobbes The Author of the Booke DE CIVE Secretary to ye late Earle of Devonshire” London Printed for Charles Harper att ye Flower de Luce over agst St Dunstans Church in fleetstreet 1776 2 _ “Antient Greece” [Thomas Cecill] by Tho[mas] Hobbes Before page 1; 333 × 410 mm Identical with W I, 2

3 _ “Platea” [Thomas Cecill] Before page 105; 144 (174) × 192 Identical with W I, 3

Catalogue of images

4 _ “The Campe of the Lacedaemonians” [Thomas Cecill] Before page 143; 241 × 165 mm Identical with W I, 4

5 _ “Antient Sicele” [Thomas Cecill] after Philip Cluverius Before page 234; 265 × 346 mm Identical with W I, 5

6 _ “Syracuse beseged” [Thomas Cecill] Before page 273; 268 × 362 mm Identical with W I, 6 Source   London, British Library: 585.k.8

177

178

Appendix II: Images and Portr aits

W XXIV Title   The Iliads and Odysses of Homer

London, Will[iam] Crooke, 1677



1 _ Monument to Homer and Portrait of Thomas Hobbes Anonymous Frontispiece; 138 × 74 mm The portrait of Hobbes is an abbreviated copy of W XIX (= P XVII) framed in a manner akin to that of W XIII, 1 Sources   London, British Library: 832.c.41

Los Angeles, University of California, William Andrews Clark Memorial Library: *B1244 Z412 1677

W XXV Title   Leviathan, Or the Matter, Forme, & Power Of A Common-Wealth Ecclesiasticall And Civil London, Andrew Crooke (forged “Bear” edition and date of 1651), c. 1678

1 _ Leviathan [Abraham Bosse; print retouched by an unknown hand] Frontispiece; 240 × 155 mm Identical with W XI,1, but printed from a worn plate, then retouched

Catalogue of images

2 _ Bear as publisher’s mark Anonymous Title-page; 41 × 84 mm

3 _ Saint Christopher as vignette Anonymous Page A4r; 118 × 320 mm Sources   London, British Library: 1476.d.23

Los Angeles, University of California, William Andrews Memorial Library: *fB1222 1651 W XXVI Title   Thomae Hobbes Angli Malmesburiensis Philosophi Vita London, Eleutherium Anglicum for Guil[lelmum] Crooke, 1681

1 _ Portrait of Thomas Hobbes (see Catalogue of Portraits P XXIV) Anonymous Before page AIr; 149 × 94 mm Enlarged copy of W XIX, with publisher’s additional text, Persius misspelt “Pear[sius]” Source  Oxford, Bodleian Library: Crynes 694

179

180

Appendix II: Images and Portr aits

W XXVII Title   Thomae Hobbes Angli Malmesburiensis Philosophi Vita

London, Eleutherium Anglicum for Guil[lelmum] Crooke, 1681 1 _ Portrait of Thomas Hobbes (see Catalogue of Portraits P XXV) Anonymous, after William Faithorne Page A2v; 149 × 93 mm Identical with W XXVI, but with corrected spelling of the name Persius Source   London, British Library: 276.h.24 and

613.k.9

W XXVIII Title   The Art of Rhetoric, with a Discourse Of The Laws of England London, William Crooke, 1681

1 _ Portrait of Thomas Hobbes (see Catalogue of Portraits P XXVI) Anonymous, after William Faithorne Page AIv; 149 × 94 mm Identical with W XXVII Source   London, British Library: 884.k.5

Catalogue of images

W XXIX Title   Thomae Hobbes Angli Malmesburiensis Philosophi Vita

London, Eleutherium Anglicum, 1681 [publisher: Richard Blackburne?] 1 _ Portrait of Thomas Hobbes Anonymous, after William Faithorne Before title-page; 113 × 67 mm Apparently “pirated” copy of W XXVII, without publisher’s inscription Sources   London, British Library: 1418.l.12

Hamburg, Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Carl von Ossietzky: A 1951/3017

W XXX Title   Tracts of Thomas Hobb’s

London, William Crooke, 1681 1 _ Portrait of Thomas Hobbes (see Catalogue of Portraits P XXVII) Anonymous, after William Faithorne Page AIv; 147 × 93 mm Identical with W XXVII

181

182

Appendix II: Images and Portr aits

2 _ Reversed portrait of Thomas Hobbes (see Catalogue of Portraits P XXVIII) Anonymous, after William Faithorne Page A3r; 147 × 93 mm This is image no. 1 (as described above) visible through the page

3 _ Portrait of Thomas Hobbes (see Catalogue of Portraits P XXVI) Anonymous, after William Faithorne Page AIv (= title-page of Part III); 148 × 94 mm Identical with W XXIX (1681), but somewhat blurred Sources   London, British Library: 1490.cc.33 Los Angeles, University of California, William Andrews Clark Memorial Library: *B1205 1681

Catalogue of images

W XXXI Title   Tracts of MR.Thomas Hobbs of Malmsbury

London, W[illiam] Crooke, 1682 1 _ Portrait of Thomas Hobbes (see Catalogue of Portraits P XXX) Anonymous Page AIv: 148 × 94 mm Identical with W XXVII Sources   London, British Library: 714.b.21

Los Angeles, University of California, William Andrews Memorial Library: *B1205 1681 vol. 2

W XXXII Title   Thomae Hobbes Angli Malmesburiensis Philosophi Vita London, Eleutherium Anglicum, 1682 1 _ Portrait of Thomas Hobbes (see Catalogue of Portraits P XXXI) William Faithorne Before title page; 195 × 142 mm Copy of W XIX (1668), with age altered to “91” Sources   London, British Library: 613.k.

(edges slightly trimmed) Hamburg, Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Carl von Ossietzky: Porträtsammlung, Mappe XV (dimensions cited above as per this copy)

183

184

Appendix II: Images and Portr aits

W XXXIII Title   The Iliads and Odysses of Homer

London, Will[iam] Crooke, 1684



1 _ Monument to Homer and Portrait of Thomas Hobbes (see Catalogue of Portraits P XXXIII) Anonymous Frontispiece; 138 × 75 mm Identical with W XXIV Source   London, British Library: 11315.b.15

W XXXIV Title   The Iliads and Odysses of Homer London, Will[iam] Crooke, 1686



1 _ Monument to Homer and Portrait of Thomas Hobbes (see Catalogue of Portraits P XXXIV) Anonymous Frontispiece; 138 × 75 mm Identical with W XXXIII Source   London, British Library: 832.c.40

Catalogue of images

W XXXV Title   Elementa Philosophica de Cive

Amsterdam, Henr[ik] et Viduam Th. Boom, 1696 1 _ Religio, Libertas, Imperium Anonymous Frontispiece; 97 × 63 mm Identical with W V, 1, albeit with altered identification of publisher and new date in lower margin Source   London, British Library: 1568.8861

W XXXVI Title   Leviathan, Or the Matter, Forme, and Power Of A Common-Wealth Ecclesiasticall And Civil London, Andrew Crooke (forged “Ornament” edition and date of 1651), c. 1702

1 _ Leviathan (illustrated as Fig. 11 on p. 17) [Abraham Bosse; print retouched by an unknown hand] Frontispiece; 241 × 155 mm Identical with W XI,1, but printed from a worn plate, then retouched

185

186

Appendix II: Images and Portr aits

2 _ Ornament as publisher’s mark (illustrated as Fig. 10 on p. 16) Anonymous Title-page; 47 × 44 mm Sources   Göttingen, Niedersächsische Staats-

und Universitätsbibliothek: ­Kuessner Bibl. 293 London, British Library: G.2455 Los Angeles, University of California, William Andrews Clark Memorial Library: f*1222 1651b W XXXVII Title   Elementa Philosophica de Cive [Halle], Joh[ann] Frid[rich] Zeidlerum, 1704

1 _ Religio, Libertas, Imperium (illustrated as Fig. 64, p. 145) [Johann Georg] Beck sc[ulpsit] Frontispiece; 97 × 63 mm Copy of W V, 1 Source   Wolfenbüttel, Herzog August

Bibliothek: Sf 98

Catalogue of images

W XXXVIII Title   The History of the Grecian War: in eight books

London, B[enjamin] Motte for D[aniel] Brown, 1723 1 _ “Antient Greece” [John Clark (?)] after [Thomas Cecill] after Tho[mas] Hobbes Before page 1; 168 × 200 mm Reduced copy of W I, 2

2 _ “Plataea” [John Clark (?)] after [Thomas Cecill] Before page 217; 91 (100) × 140 mm Reduced copy of W I, 3

3 _ “The Campe of the Lacedaemonians” [John Clark (?)] after [Thomas Cecill] Before page 301; 164 × 97 mm Reduced copy of W I, 4

187

188

Appendix II: Images and Portr aits

4 _ “Antient Sicele” [John Clark (?)] after [Thomas Cecill] after Philip Cluverius Before p. 489; 171 × 204 mm Reduced copy of W I, 5

5 _ “Syracuse beseged” [John Clark (?)] after [Thomas Cecill] Before page 567; 138 × 181 mm Reduced copy of W I, 6 Source   London, British Library: 1508/1443

W XXXIX Title   The Moral and Political Works [of Thomas Hobbes] London, Anonymous, 1750

1 _ Portrait of Thomas Hobbes (see Catalogue of Portraits P XXXV) Anonymous Page Iv: 257 × 170 mm Copy of W XXVII, with altered pedestal

Catalogue of images

2 _ Leviathan (illustrated as Fig. 12 on p. 19) Anonymous Frontispiece; 251 × 159 mm Copy of W XI, 1 Sources   London, British Library: 31.k.14

Los Angeles, University of California, Wlliam Andrews Memorial Library: *fB 1203 1750

W XL Title   Leviathan, oder der kirchliche und bürgerliche Staat, vol. 1 Halle, 1794

1 _ Portrait of Thomas Hobbes (see Catalogue of Portraits P XXXII) Anonymous Title-page; 70 × 46 mm The portrait is probably a copy of P XLVIII Source   Wölfenbüttel, Herzog Augsut Biblio-

thek: A.9743

189

190

Appendix II: Images and Portr aits

W XLI Title   The English Works of Thomas Hobbes, vol. 1

London, John Bohn, 1839 1 _ Portrait of Thomas Hobbes (see Catalogue of Portraits P XXXIX) W. Humphrys sc[ulpsit] Frontispiece; 118 × 96 mm Copy of W XIX Source   London, British Library 722.k.6.–16.

W XLII Title   The English Works of Thomas Hobbes, vol. 3 London, John Bohn, 1839

1 _ Leviathan (illustrated as Fig. 13 on p. 20) Anonymous Frontispiece; 164 × 103 mm Copy of W XI, 1 Source   London, British Library 722.k.6.–16.

Catalogue of images

W XLIII Title   The English Works of Thomas Hobbes, vol. 8 London, John Bohn, 1843

1 _ [The Peloponnesian War] Anonymous Frontispiece Copy of W VIII, 1, with altered inscriptions and date Source   London, British Library, 722.k.6-16.

W XLIV Title   The English Works of Thomas Hobbes, vol. 9

London, John Bohn, 1843 1 _ [The Peloponnesian War] Anonymous Frontispiece Copy of W VIII, 1, with altered inscriptions and date Source   London, British Library, 722.k.6-16.

191

192

Appendix II: Images and Portr aits

W XLV Title   Opera Philosophica Quae Latine Scripsit, vol. 1

London, John Bohn, 1839 1 _ Portrait of Thomas Hobbes (see Catalogue of Portraits P XL) W. Humphrys sc[ulpsit] Frontispiece; 118 × 96 mm Identical with W XLI Source   London, British Library 722.k.1.–5.

Portr aits of Thomas Hobbes In the biographical essay that John Aubrey devoted to his life-long friend Thomas Hobbes, considerable importance is, understandably, accorded to the description of the subject’s appearance. Here, albeit in a cautious fashion, Aubrey seeks to build a bridge between the amicable and the reserved sides of Hobbes, in both his outer aspect and his inner character.1 Nowadays, with the earlier understanding of the significance of physiognomy long discredited, such associations are permitted only in the work of poets. It is a very long time since any researcher into the life and work of Hobbes has sought to establish a more comprehensive understanding of the portraits of him that survive in some form, even though these are possessed of an “objective” character in as far as they were intended, when produced, to serve as a direct record of his appearance. No retrospective enquiry has ever attempted to assess them in their entirety, nor to establish their correct chronological sequence. This is all the more surprising in that, to no less a degree than is the case with the images prefacing, or incorporated into, Hobbes’s published writings (discussed above, in pp. 123–53), the portraits may themselves be seen to have reacted to those socio-political conflicts and cultural-political tensions that Hobbes had sought to address. Any historical or art-historical approach to the portraits of Hobbes must of necessity consider the markedly diverse appraisals that they attracted, both during and shortly after his lifetime. Such appraisals were a direct expression of the then prevailing theory of images and mediums and of the irreconcilable conflict between a concept that derived from the teachings of Epicurus (in which a portrait was rather more than the mere rendering of the subject’s appearance) and one informed by an essentially neo-Platonist theory of ideas (which regarded any image, including any portrait, as merely a means of guiding the reader to, and through, an accompanying text).

1 

Aubrey 1975, pp. 162–64.

194

Appendix II: Images and Portr aits

a. The portrait commissioned by Samuel Sorbière For Samuel Sorbière, one of Hobbes’s most faithful friends, the possession of the latter’s portrait counted as a form of participation in his essential being. In a letter of July 1645, Sorbière informed Hobbes that he had recently written to Thomas de Martel to ask if copies might be made for him of a portrait of Hobbes, as also of portraits of the French scholars Pierre Gassendi and Marin Mersenne, from originals then in the possession of this French addressee.2 Although his principal and earlier request had been sent to Thomas de Martel, Sorbière writes to Hobbes as if, in his view, the permission in this case should really also come from the person portrayed – almost as if Hobbes were an archetype, of which copies might be allowed only in exceptional circumstances, and as an expression of particularly high regard: “I ask for this [in the case of your portrait] most earnestly, in the belief that you will approve and look favourably on the boldness of my request”.3 Sorbière’s over-cautious approach was by no means an affectation, but the product of his own convictions in the matter of what would now be understood as image theory. When, in his introductory remarks, he compares Hobbes to that victor over religious superstition, the Roman poet and philosopher Lucretius (as represented in the opening section of his De rerum natura) traversing “the immeasurable universe in thought and imagination”,4 and, a few sentences later, explains the power of Hobbes’s portrait by reference to atomism, it becomes clear that, for Sorbière, portraits were not only representations of a sitter’s outer appearance, but astonishingly wilful sources of power, which were able actively to convey something of the sitter’s essence. For Sorbière, owning a portrait was akin to securing part of the inner life of that person. And this explains why he rated his own request to Hobbes an act of “boldness”. “For”, he continued, “I am moved and impelled to be virtuous not only by writings but also by the faces of great men; I feel, as it were, an emanation, a natural force which radiates from these to me”.5 Thirteen years later Sorbière was still to be found telling Hobbes that it would be his own greatest

2  Letter of 1 / 11 July 1645 from Samuel Sorbière to Thomas Hobbes, in: Hobbes Correspondence 1994, vol. I, no. 38, pp. 121–23, here 123. 3  Letter of 1 / 11 July 1645 from Samuel Sorbière to Thomas Hobbes, in: Hobbes Correspondence 1994, vol. I, no. 38, pp. 121–23, here 123. 4  Lucretius De rerum natura 1926, I, 72–74, pp. 6 / 7: “[…] the lively power of his mind prevailed, and forth he marched far beyond the flaming walls of the heavens, as he traversed the immeasurable universe in thought and imagination”. 5  Letter of 1 / 11 July 1645 from Samuel Sorbière to Thomas Hobbes, in: Hobbes Correspondence 1994, vol. I, no. 38, pp. 121–23, here 123.

Portr aits of Thomas Hobbes

pleasure to discuss the philosopher’s work with friends and to look “upon your portrait in my collection, contemplating your mind and your writings”.6 Sorbière’s atomistic notion that a portrait might be understood to emit rays capable of inwardly moving those whom they encounter provides a key to the value that Hobbes himself accorded to images. At New Year 1656/57, in writing to Sorbière, Hobbes described the phenomenon of vision as a function of the pressure of the light emitted by observed objects: “Vision occurs due to the action of a luminous or illuminated object [by means of] the continuous pressure of that [emitted] illumination, through the [intervening] medium, on the eye”.7 The essence of vision, in this view, lies in its capacity to supply a response to that pressure set off by the luminous or illuminated object in the form of pulsating movements transmitted through the ether. Vision, that is to say, is a constrained action. This notion constitutes the culmination not only of Hobbes’s theory of space (which, as the bearer of light, intervenes between object and viewer, so enabling the mechanism of actio and reactio), but also of the way he regarded action in the political sphere, which could not, he believed, be realised other than through the exertion of pressure in space. And herein lay both the mystery and the particular significance that Hobbes attributed to images. Sorbière’s request of July 1645 must have been swiftly satisfied; for, the very next year, he had the neo-Latin poet Henry Bruno compose an epigram, addressed “To the portrait of the highly celebrated nobleman Thomas Hobbes of Great Britain”. While related, in the first instance, to the painted image itself, this was also proposed as an accompaniment to the engraving (made after the painting) that was to serve as a frontispiece to the Amsterdam edition of Hobbes’s De Cive.8 Bruno addressed a second poem expressly to the engraved portrait that was to adorn the book.9 In both of these poems, Bruno (who was also something of a philologist) accorded to artists an ambiguous form of praise: for, while they may, in any given case, have truly conveyed the appearance of a subject’s face, it was still to that subject’s writings that one had to turn in seeking out his soul, which was hidden therein. For even the skill of an Apelles would not suffice to provide a portrait of Hobbes truly equal to the one that this author had himself provided in the text of his volume De Cive.10

  6 

Letter of 22 July / 1 August 1658 from Samuel Sorbière to Thomas Hobbes, in: Hobbes Correspondence 1994, vol. I, no. 135, pp. 499–501, here 500.   7  Letter of 29 December 1656 / 8 January 1657 from Thomas Hobbes to Samuel Sorbière, in: Hobbes Correspondence 1994, vol. I, no. 112, pp. 427–29, here (slightly adapted) 429.   8  Letter of 22 August / 1 September 1646 from Samuel Sorbière to Thomas Hobbes, in: Hobbes Correspondence 1994, vol. 1, no. 43, pp. 134–35, and note 2.   9  Catalogue of Portraits P III. For this and all such references, see pp. 215–37. 10  “Hobbius in chartis doctorqi volumine vultum / Majori retulit dexteritate suum”).

195

196

Appendix II: Images and Portr aits

Although no commentary on the portrait has survived, it is certain that this implicit demotion of image in relation to text (drawn from the arsenal of the paragone between poets and painters, and neo-Platonist in character) contradicted everything that Sorbière himself associated with the portrait. On the other hand, Sorbière would doubtless have welcomed Bruno’s desire to lead readers from the image to the text, in view of the intended use of the poem to introduce a re-publication of De Cive. It is possible that this dichotomy itself contributed to the complications that were to accompany this publishing venture. To begin with, Sorbière informed Hobbes that he feared he would have to abandon the idea of publishing the engraved portrait and the poems in the Amsterdam edition of De Cive, because the publisher had decided to print in a duodecimo format, which would leave insufficient space for a portrait. The engraving of Hobbes was therefore to be reserved for use in a later edition.11 By return of post, Hobbes acknowledged and seconded Sorbière’s misgivings: “I am grateful to you for what you say about the engraved portrait, and I really shall not mind if it is not put at the beginning of the book”.12 Hobbes must, then, have been all the more surprised when, in early 1647, he received a package containing the first printed pages of the Amsterdam edition of De Cive. For these did indeed include the portrait engraving, both of Bruno’s poems, and even a third poem by the same author, devoted exclusively to Hobbes’s text. The portrait showed Hobbes as he appeared at the time, aged 58, and yet still full of vigour (Fig. 70).13 The palpable tension between the unswerving directness of his glance and the slight air of reserve evoked through the pursed lips gave the portrait a distinctive allure, ensuring that the head was thrown into relief against the rather summary treatment of the clothing and the only sketchily rendered background. The scrutinising gaze gave the face considerable presence, so that it almost appeared to loom far larger than the tiny scale of the engraving (98 by 62 mm) would permit. Full of pride that Hobbes had been appointed Tutor in Mathematics to Prince Charles (who had himself only recently removed to Paris), Sorbière had the following text set below the image: “THOM HOBBES Nobilis Anglus / Ser. Principi Walliae a studiis praep[ositus]” [The noble Englishman Thomas Hobbes, Tutor to His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales].

11  Letter of 21 / 31 October 1646 from Samuel Sorbière to Thomas Hobbes, in: Hobbes Correspondence 1994, vol. I, no. 47, pp. 144–46, here 145. 12  Letter of 1 / 11 November 1646 from Thomas Hobbes to Samuel Sorbiere, in: Hobbes Correspondence 1994, vol. I, no. 48, pp. 146–47, here 147; and cf. note 4. 13  Catalogue of Portraits P III. Cf. the news sent to Hobbes regarding the portrait: letter of 22 February / 4 March 1647 from Samuel Sorbière to Thomas Hobbes, in: Hobbes Correspondence 1994, vol. I, no. 51, pp. 154–55. Cf. Schoneveld 1982, pp. 128–29.

Portr aits of Thomas Hobbes

70 _ Portrait of Thomas Hobbes, 1647. Catalogue of Portraits P III

In including the engraved portrait in the Elzevier edition of De Cive, Sorbière had admittedly gone beyond his earlier agreement with Hobbes; but he can hardly have anticipated that Hobbes would react with sheer panic upon discovering what had happened. In his letter to Sorbière of 12th / 22nd March 1647, Hobbes began by thanking him for sending the first printed pages, which included the engraved portrait,14 only then to launch into an expression of his anger that this portrait had been published: he would, he claimed, have been happy to pay a great deal for it not to have been included, or at least for the inscription to have been “removed, erased, or cut out.”15 In Hobbes’s view, the naming of the heir to the throne in the inscription added below the engraved portrait played into the hands of the Prince’s enemies; for, as a result of this explicit connection between the Prince and the author of De Cive – a connection suggestive, in the view of anti-Royalists, of how depraved a notion of authority Prince Charles was prepared to embrace – might well be seen as a moral victory for the Parliamentarians. Lastly, this connection might well be used against Hobbes himself. As he had not been a long-established instructor of 14  Letter of 12 / 22 March 1647 from Thomas Hobbes to Samuel Sorbière, in: Hobbes Correspondence 1994, vol. I, no. 52, pp. 155–59. 15  Letter of 12 / 22 March 1647 from Thomas Hobbes to Samuel Sorbière, in: Hobbes Correspondence 1994, vol. I, no. 52, pp. 155–59, here 157.

197

198

Appendix II: Images and Portr aits

the Prince, with wide-ranging responsibilities, both academic and moral, but merely, as he had already made clear in an earlier letter,16 his Tutor in Mathematics, employed and remunerated on a monthly basis, there was a danger that his opponents might accuse him of imposture. It was, therefore, essential – either through presenting a formal request to the publisher, or, if there were no other possibility, through paying the requisite sum – to ensure that not a single copy of the book reached England; and, in the case of those title-pages already printed, that the portrait or at least the inscription, but ideally both, be excised.17 Sorbière, in addition, must advise both the Leiden and the Amsterdam publishing houses that the portrait must not appear in the volume. Hobbes also, for good measure, tells Sorbière that “Mersenne and all our friends [in Paris] say that it is of the utmost importance both to me and to the Prince of Wales that the inscription, or rather, the whole portrait […] be removed”.18 Sorbière sought to do everything in his power to mollify Hobbes. Elzevier’s Amsterdam publishing house not only removed the “incriminating” portrait, but also both of Bruno’s poems, replacing these with words of praise for De Cive from the pens of Pierre Gassendi and Marin Mersenne.19 With a single exception, which unaccountably appeared on the market in 1657,20 the portrait in its 1647 version was never used again. An alternative version was to preface the French edition of De Cive, translated by Sorbière and published in 1649 (Fig. 71).21 While clearly related to the portrait of 1647, it offered, in accordance with the larger size of this particular book, more space for both the upper torso and the face, which could thus itself be treated in a freer manner while also appearing as if positioned at a greater distance from the viewer. The former inscription had now not simply been omitted by Sorbière, but had been replaced by a cartouche with inward curling ends, which appeared as if stuck to the paper surface, and upon which was inscribed a quotation, in the original Greek, from Euripides’ tragedy Hippolytus: “second thoughts are wiser”.22 With a refined sense of irony, Sorbière had, in selecting these words, both acknowledged and annulled the earlier error in his conduct towards Hobbes.

16 

Letter of 24 September / 4 October 1646 from Thomas Hobbes to Samuel Sorbière, in: Hobbes Correspondence 1994, vol. I, no. 45, pp. 138–40, here 139–40. 17  Letter of 12 / 22 March 1647 from Thomas Hobbes to Samuel Sorbière, in: Hobbes Correspondence 1994, vol. I, no. 52, pp. 155–59. 18  Letter of 12 / 22 March 1647 from Thomas Hobbes to Samuel Sorbière, in: Hobbes Correspondence 1994, vol. I, no. 52, pp. 155–59, here 159. 19  Catalogue of Images W VII; the texts by Gassendi and Mersenne on pp. 10–11. 20  Catalogue of Portraits P X. 21  Catalogue of Portraits P IV. 22  Euripides Hippolytus in: Euripides: Children of Heracles, Hippolytus et al. 1995, 436, pp. 166/167: “and among mortals second thoughts are, perhaps, wiser”.

Portr aits of Thomas Hobbes

71 _ Portrait of Thomas Hobbes, 1649. Catalogue of Portraits P IV

72 _ Robert Vaughan, Religion, Dominion, Liberty, and a portrait of Thomas Hobbes, 1651. Catalogue of Portraits P VII

For the English translation that was to appear two years later, Robert Vaughan, one of the most celebrated English engravers of his time, placed a portrait of Hobbes within an oval garlanded in palm leaves.23 In the course of the same year, this portrait had appeared in a second version (Fig. 72).24 The publication itself, as also the manner in which Hobbes was honoured through the setting of his image, were the outcome of a battle of opinions between Royalists and Parliamentarians. In the search for every emerging opportunity to secure recognition for the new regime, Cromwell’s partisans had appreciated Hobbes’s own conviction that what mattered above all was the establishment of a unified form of government not divided by competing party interests and capable of securing general acknowledgement. This they viewed as an argument in their favour.25 With the publication, Catalogue of Portraits P VI. Catalogue of Portraits P VII. 25  Goldsmith 1990, pp. 640–42. 23  24 

199

200

Appendix II: Images and Portr aits

in 1651, of the Philosophicall Rudiments, by contrast, the ultra-Royalist publisher Richard Royston sought to lay claim to Hobbes for that cause.26 Like Royston, the engraver Vaughan was, in this matter, parti pris, being himself one of the militant Royalists. His presentation of Hobbes’s portrait, as if mounted upon a shield, employed the status of the “picture within a picture”, traditionally reserved for the image of a saint”;27 while his decision to adopt the line of Greek text for use below the portrait itself gave Sorbière’s reconciliatory self-accusation an obscurely oracular air. Those who regarded the Royalist cause as lost after the beheading of Charles I, in January 1649, might themselves have “second thoughts”. In March 1651 this was indeed one way of reading the inscription. It is possible that Hobbes’s return to England, in early 1652, offered the occasion for a new portrait sitting.28 A few years later, Henry Stubbe, one of Hobbes’s younger followers, thought of making a new portrait engraving, but was unable to realise this plan despite numerous approaches to Hobbes himself.29 During the 26 

In 1649 Royston had published the Eikon Basilike (ostensibly a spiritual autobiography of Charles I), which was to usher in the cult of martyrdom that soon flourished around the venerated memory of the deceased king. See Eikon Basilike 1966. 27  Warnke 1968. 28  The painting (Catalogue of Portraits P VIII), which shows Hobbes from the same point of view and identically dressed as in the engraving of 1647 (Fig. 70), albeit without any headgear, and is still in the collection of the Royal Society in London, may have been produced at this time. Its attribution to William Dobson (Robinson 1980, pp. 168–69) has not been upheld; and it was not included in the Dobson exhibition staged at the National Portrait Gallery in London in 1983 (William Dobson 1983). In contrast to this painted portrait with its solemn and distanced character, it is again clear what a strong impact the portrait engraving must have had. 29  In a communication of October 1656, Stubbe informed Hobbes of lines in Greek of his own composition, enclosing these with the explanation: “I have sent you here a copy of Greeke verses to put to your effigies [= portrait], for I hope you will permit a cut [= an engraving] to bee made” (letter of 7 / 17 October 1656 from Henry Stubbe to Thomas Hobbes, in: Hobbes Correspondence 1994, vol. I, no. 91, pp. 311–13, here 312; re. Stubbe, see vol. II, pp. 899–902). It is possible that Stubbe hoped that his “Letter concerning the Grammatical Part of the Controversy between Mr Hobbes and Dr Wallis”, which he sent to Hobbes in late 1656 (letter of 26 November / 6 December 1656 from Henry Stubbe to Thomas Hobbes, in: Hobbes Correspondence 1994, vol. I, no. 101, pp. 378–39, and note 1) – which was in fact to be incorporated into Hobbes’s own Markes (Hobbes Markes 1657, pp. 20–30) – might be published alongside his poems and the portrait. The poem that Stubbe wished to see placed beneath the portrait esteemed Hobbes as “an English Odysseus”, superior to the first. For “that one [in the Odyssey] escaped the Sirens by fleeing, but this one [Hobbes] lured them to their doom”. The other poem celebrated the engraving (letter of 23 October / 4 November 1656 from Henry Stubbe to Thomas Hobbes, in: Hobbes Correspondence 1994, vol. I, no. 96, p. 335–36, here 336, note 5). In the correspondence that followed, Stubbe nonetheless made every effort, as had Henry Bruno himself, to rate the value of the texts higher than that of the image (letter of 9/19 November 1656 from Henry Stubbe to Thomas Hobbes, in: Hobbes Correspondence 1994, vol. I, no. 98, pp. 338–41). It may have been on account of these fluctuating assessments that, in the further correspondence between Stubbe and Hobbes, there is no mention of the portrait, almost as if there had never been a plan to have it produced.

Portr aits of Thomas Hobbes

73 _ Unidentified copyist, Portrait of Thomas Hobbes, 1667. Catalogue of Portraits P XVI

1660s, however, there emerged the series of portraits that took its starting point in that featured in the 1647 Amsterdam Elzevier edition of De Cive (Fig. 70), which had proved so problematic. For the 1667 Dutch translation of Leviathan, an unidentified copyist produced a record of Hobbes (Fig. 73),30 which was a reversed octavo enlargement of the originally duodecimo portrait of 1647. In doing so, he gave the lively restlessness of the original face a clearer, yet also somewhat more remote, visual aspect through exchanging the original combination of cross-hatching and curved lines for the use of more emphatic parallels. In addition, the hair is longer and fuller, and the initial, rectangular format has become an oval. A broad frame is placed around the image, rendered as if held in place at each of the four corners of the rectangular sheet by a three-dimensionally treated triangle. Below the image both the curving edge of the frame and the two lower triangles are shown as if set into a wooden base, thereby giving the portrait the character of a devotional image, not intended for hanging on a wall, but to be placed, more or less upright, upon a table. The first line of the inscription originally below the portrait – “Thomas Hobbes Nobiliis Anglus” – is now found curving around the upper part of the frame, while the formerly second line is now replaced by a poem in Dutch (inscribed on the base), which condenses the thematic content of Leviathan into just two lines: “This 30 

Catalogue of Portraits P XVI.

201

202

Appendix II: Images and Portr aits

74 _ Unidentified copyist, Portrait of Thomas Hobbes, 1672. Catalogue of Portraits P XIX

is HOBBES, who, in accordance with the law of God, Nature and Reason, claimed the highest Power as ONE. / Who, in the darkness of Hell, recognised the devil’s work of witchery, / The arrogance of the Popes, and the presumption of the priests”. This double-edged declaration, in the name of Hobbes, for absolute rule and against the uncontrolled power of the Church, was to have no future. When, in 1672, this Dutch translation of Leviathan was reprinted, again including the portrait (Fig. 74),31 the accompanying four-line poem was significantly altered. It now read: “This is the quick-witted Hobbes, who, with analytical reasoning, / developed a theory of the foundations of the state / and set them out with great clarity for a prince and a ruler, / so as to protect both him and his subjects from violence”. While the inscription to be found in the edition of 1667 had spoken of the highest authority of the state in general as the “ONE”, the third line of the poem now sets its heart on “a prince and a ruler”, who is here not identified by name but whose identity would nonetheless have been recognised by all: the Dutch Prince Willem III van Oranje (William III of Orange). Appointed stadtholder (stadhouder) by the States of Holland in 1672, at the time of a threatened French invasion, Willem had introduced there a politics of restoration, in the atmosphere of which a language inimical to the Church (as is to be found in the last two lines of the poem of 1667)

31 

Schoneveld 1982, pp. 141–42.

Portr aits of Thomas Hobbes

appeared simply too tactless. For this reason, the initial, anti-clerical line of reasoning was now neutralised through the theme of security guaranteed by authority.32 While of assistance to the portrait, this development did little to help Hobbes’s Leviathan. In 1674 it was banned in Holland; but in 1675 there appeared a Dutch translation of De Cive (a volume apparently viewed as less dangerous); 33 and in this the portrait and poems of 1672 were again employed.

b. Samuel Cooper’s painting A second, and even more successful, series of portraits was made possible by Hobbes’s reconciliation with the restored Stuart Court in England. John Aubrey was able to contrive a meeting between Hobbes and his former pupil Prince Charles, now King Charles II, after the latter’s return to London at the end of May 1660. Aubrey knew that the king, as a lover of painting, would soon call on Samuel ­Cooper, because this gifted portraitist had earlier attested to his strong Royalist sympathies. Hobbes happened himself to call on Cooper at his studio when Charles II was sitting for his portrait there, and he thus had the opportunity to engage in so lively an exchange of views with the new king that Charles agreed to grant Hobbes a pension and the privilege, in Aubrey’s words, of “free access to his Majesty”.34 In respect of their long friendship or in gratitude for this mediation, Hobbes later himself sat to Cooper for many hours, for a portrait commissioned by Aubrey. In a letter to Hobbes of August / September 1661, Aubrey conveyed his thanks in a particularly amicable tone, for both Sorbière and Stubbe had each also proposed that they be permitted to commission a portrait of Hobbes. Aubrey apologised to Hobbes “for the trouble I gave you to sitt for your Picture, which is an honor I am not worthy of, & I beg your pardon for my great boldness, I assure you no man living more prizes it, nor hath greater Devotion for You then [= than] my selfe”.35 The value of the painting, which Aubrey proudly described as “one of the best” that Cooper had ever made,36 was underlined by the fact that Charles II in due course acquired it for his own collection, and loved to show it off to visitors.37 As observed by François du Verdus, a French follower of Hobbes, the portrait was seen

32 

Schoneveld 1982, p. 142. Catalogue of Portraits P XX; Schoneveld 1982, p. 141. 34  “Here his majesty’s favours were redintegrated [= restored] to him, and order was given that he should have free access to his Majesty”: Aubrey 1975, p. 161. 35  Letter of 28 August / 9 September 1661 from John Aubrey to Thomas Hobbes, in: Hobbes Correspondence 1994, vol. II, no. 143, pp. 520–21, here 520. 36  “[…] one of the best pieces that he ever did”: Aubrey 1975, p. 160. 37  Sorbière saw it in 1666: Sorbière 1980 [1666], p. 75. 33 

203

204

Appendix II: Images and Portr aits

as a testament to the high regard in which Hobbes was held by the king.38 It is thus all the more regrettable that Cooper’s painting is now untraced, and for reasons that are not altogether clear. However, an unfinished ink-and-wash drawing of Hobbes, now in the Cleveland Museum of Art, which would appear to have served as Cooper’s working sketch (Fig. 75),39 allows one to gain an approximate impression of the painting’s probable effect. When, after numerous difficulties, Hobbes’s Opera Philosophica appeared in Latin in 1668, it was prefaced by an engraved portrait derived from Cooper’s painting (Fig. 76). In a letter of 11th / 21st September 1663, Sorbière had informed Hobbes that he had given copies of his works in Latin to the prominent Dutch publisher Joan Blaeu for a proposed edition in quarto format. It was hoped that a portrait of the appropriate size would serve to preface this work: “It would be a good thing if you would ask Mr Faithorne, who has the drawing of you, to make an engraving of your portrait in quarto to place at the front of your works. You should not raise any objections to this extra expense, which will do you honour and give pleasure to your friends and readers”.40 Like Robert Vaughan, William Faithorne was among those who belonged to the militant Royalist camp; and, in all probability, he would have come to know Hobbes during the latter’s years in Paris.41 In November / December 1663 Hobbes confirmed that he would be able to send to Blaeu, by Christmas, an additional short text together with his engraved portrait.42 In response, Sorbière asked yet again that Hobbes send his painted portrait immediately to Blaeu,

38  Letter of 25 September / 5 October 1665 from François du Verdus to Thomas Hobbes, in: Hobbes Correspondence 1994, vol. II, no. 174, pp. 676–85. 39  Foskett 1974, no. 83, p. 38, believes this drawing to be identical with the portrait initially produced for Aubrey, and then acquired by Charles II. As rightly observed, however, in: Hobbes Correspondence 1994, vol. II, no. 143, p. 521, note 3, the unfinished state of this work does not itself support such a view. The drawing on vellum conveys rather more the spontaneity of a sketch executed during the portrait sitting. According to the inventory of Samuel Cooper’s estate, he had supplied a portrait of Hobbes “of small scale” (Crinò 1962, p. 328: “ritratti […] di minore grandezza [among these of ] il Sig.r Hobbes”), which may be assumed to be identical with that now at the Museum in Cleveland. 40  Letter of 11 / 21 September 1663 from Samuel Sorbière to Thomas Hobbes, in: Hobbes Correspondence 1994, vol. II, no. 154, pp. 556–58, here 557. 41  In 1645 he had enlisted in the King’s Army, which, as he was proudly to remark in 1662, had “[…] chang’d the Steel of my Tools into Weapons, and the exercise of my arts into Arms […]” (Faithorne 1662, n.p., dedication to Sir Robert Peake). Subsequently taken prisoner, he was permitted, towards the end of 1649, to leave England for France, and he then moved to Paris. 42  Letter of 30 November / 10 December 1663 from Thomas Hobbes to Samuel Sorbière, in: Hobbes Correspondence 1994, vol. II, no. 160, pp. 576–78, here 577.

Portr aits of Thomas Hobbes

75 _ Samuel Cooper, Portrait of Thomas Hobbes, 1661. Catalogue of Portraits P XII

76 _ William Faithorne, Portrait of Thomas Hobbes, 1668. Catalogue of Portraits P XVII

as Blaeu wished at once to start work on his engraving.43 However, this printed version (Fig. 76) eventually took more than three years.44 Surrounded by the inscription “HABITAT PHILOSOPHIA EN QVAM, MODICE”, Hobbes appears as he was at that date, a man of 80. Be it in format, illumination, or the details of the facial expression, the portrait resembles the inkand-wash drawing by Cooper that is now in Cleveland (Fig. 75). It is possible that Faithorne had made a second drawing, either for himself or for Aubrey, before Cooper’s painting entered the king’s own collection. Enhanced through the prestige of this association, the image of Hobbes as shown in Faithorne’s engraving thenceforth became a “standard” visual record of the philosopher. The painting of Hobbes by John Michael Wright (Fig. 77),45 probably produced not long after the publication of Faithorne’s print, thus adopts the same pose, and even the same intent, scrutinising gaze. It would be fair to assume

43  Letter of 22–24 December 1663 / 1–3 January 1664 from Samuel Sorbière to Thomas Hobbes, in: Hobbes Correspondence 1994, vol. II, no. 162, pp. 585–87, here 586. 44  Sorbière’s desire (mentioned in the letter cited above in note 43) – that Hobbes might give some thought to whether he would not like to have Leviathan translated into Latin – would doubtless have been the reason why the engraved portrait was even further delayed. 45  Yung 1981, p. 278.

205

206

Appendix II: Images and Portr aits

77 _ John Michael Wright, Portrait of Thomas Hobbes, 1669–70. Catalogue of Portraits P XVIII

that Wright had taken Faithorne’s engraving as a model for his own painting precisely because this print resembled the painting by Cooper that was by that point in the king’s collection. In 1677 a reduced version of Faithorne’s portrait adorned the frontispiece of Hobbes’s translation of Homer, which he had undertaken as a form of companion piece to the work that had been his first publication (of 1629) – the translation of Thucydides’ account of the Peloponnesian War – in order, once again, to be able to press into service in the battle against his enemies (now in particular the clerics) the work of an author of Antiquity (Fig. 78).46 A bust of Homer rests upon the massive pedestal that occupies the centre of the sheet, and is flanked by two soldiers, each armed with a lance and a sword. Hobbes himself, albeit here merely the translator, is depicted on a scale that is barely any smaller than that of the author. His portrait, showing him at the age of nearly 90, has an oval frame within an elaborate cartouche and is positioned as if resting on the first steps of a Gallery of Honour devoted to celebrated authors. This portrait is effectively a copy, albeit reduced in height, of that in the Opera Philosophica of 1668 (Fig. 76). Hobbes’s translation of Homer was to be reprinted twice after his death.47 The reception of Cooper’s painting, as achieved through Faithorne’s engraving, underwent an unprecedented boom after Hobbes’s death, in December 1679, through inclusion in diverse subsequent editions of his autobiography. A first edition of Hobbes’s Vita, published in London in 1681 by William Crooke in collaboration with Eleutherium Anglicum, included a relatively close copy of Faithorne’s engraving (Fig. 79). Accompanying the portrait were the last three lines of the 46  47 

Catalogue of Portraits P XXII; Davis 1997. Catalogue of Portraits P XXXIII; P XXXIV.

Portr aits of Thomas Hobbes

78 _ Monument to Homer and Portrait of Thomas Hobbes, 1677. Catalogue of Portraits P XXII

79 _ Portrait of Thomas Hobbes, 1681. Catalogue of Portraits P XXIII

second Satire by the Roman poet Persius, in which the author asks if endeavours to ensure the grace of the gods through sacrifices (which are, after all, both pointless and showy) are not in fact likely to be less effective than inner virtue and merely modest gifts such as spelt (an inexpensive cereal): “justice and right blended in the spirit, the mind pure in its inner depths and a breast imbued with noble honour. Let me bring these to the temples, and with a handful of grains I shall make sacrifice”.48 These lines, which are here intended to allude to the personal modesty of Hobbes, thereby also taking up the theme of the text in the frame of Faithorne’s engraving (Fig. 76), were henceforth to be the chief accompaniment of his portrait. Beneath the added lines from Persius, however, the poet’s name was misspelt “Pear. [sius]”. This error must have been spotted, for it was corrected in an edition of 48  Persius Satires, in: Persius and Juvenal. Satires 2004, II, 73–75, p. 62 / 63–72 / 73, here (slightly adapted) 70 / 71.

207

208

Appendix II: Images and Portr aits

Hobbes’s Vita that appeared within the year. The “shadow” cast by the oval frame, which Faithorne had evoked through the use of diagonal cross-hatching, was now more illusorily rendered through a denser massing of parallel horizontal lines. Differences are also to be found in the treatment of the eyes, where shading is supplied with lines placed closely around the rather drooping eyelids, resulting in a somewhat owl-like appearance. And, as if it were a sort of distinguishing mark of this second variant of Faithorne’s portrait, the bodice now features eight, rather than the original twelve, buttons. This version of Hobbes’s portrait was, in 1681–82 alone, to be used five times, for diverse further editions of his Rhetoric and for collected editions of his Tracts.49 One of the latter is distinguished by a title-page that was printed on the verso of the frontispiece bearing the portrait (Fig. 81), with the result that a reversed and somewhat ghostly image of Hobbes haunts the quotation from Poliziano on this verso. And, as the large and dark black lettering of the word “VITA” hovers over Hobbes’s forehead, the reversed portrait undergoes a surreptitious re-animation. During the course of 1681 it seems there also appeared a curious “pirated” version of Crooke’s edition of Hobbes’s Vita, published anonymously and with an inferior copy of its frontispiece.50 An exceptionally successful combination of a copy of the Faithorne portrait with the quotation from Persius used in 1681 was finally achieved in 1750, when – in the cultural context of the Enlightenment – Hobbes’s Moral and Philosphical Works, in an unprecedentedly sumptuous edition, was published as a veritable classic, and with the text now shown as if inscribed on the front of a substantial pedestal (Fig. 82).51 In line with the diverse uses to which Hobbes’s portrait of 1668 had been put, William Faithorne will have been required to provide a new version, updated through the addition of the phrase “Aet[atis] suae 91” (Fig. 83), for a deluxe, 1682 edition of the Vita. This, in turn, led to the provision of a sheet that showed Hobbes’s portrait in reverse, now within a circular frame (Fig. 84). When this was copied for the German edition of Leviathan published in 1794, it was nonetheless printed in the original oval frame (Fig. 85). The portrait of Hobbes prepared by the important German engraver and painter Johann Heinrich Lips, for the 1798 edition of Paul Johann Anselm Feuerbach’s volume Anti-Hobbes, derives, however, directly from Faithorne’s original version. In the 1798 portrait Hobbes‘s features stand out Catalogue of Portraits P XXV (Rhetoric); P XXVI (Tracts); P XXVII (Tracts); P XXVIII (Rhetoric); P XXX (Tracts). 50 The forehead is more strongly shaded, the collar (its larger tips extending further down in the Faithorne image) is insistently closed, and the bodice has fourteen, rather than twelve, buttons. 51  As is especially evident in the case of the forehead, the technique of the anonymous engraver is characterised by the peculiarity of evoking shadow through parallel lines drawn, in varying degrees of density, between the rows of dots. 49 

Portr aits of Thomas Hobbes

80 _ Portrait of Thomas Hobbes, 1681. Catalogue of Portraits P XXIII

81 _ Verso of portrait of Thomas Hobbes, 1681. Catalogue of Portraits P XXVII (Fig. 80, in reverse, visible through the page)

82 _ Portrait of Thomas Hobbes, 1750. Catalogue of Portraits P XXXV

83 _ William Faithorne, Portrait of Thomas Hobbes, 1682. Catalogue of Portraits P XXXI

209

210

Appendix II: Images and Portr aits

84 _ Portrait of Thomas Hobbes, c. 1682. Catalogue of Portraits P XXXII

85 _ Portrait of Thomas Hobbes, 1794. Catalogue of Portraits P XXXVII

86 _ Johann Heinrich Lips, Portrait of Thomas Hobbes, 1798. Catalogue of Portraits P XXXVIII

87 _ William Humphrys, Portrait of Thomas Hobbes, 1839. Catalogue of Portraits P XXXIX and P XL

Portr aits of Thomas Hobbes

within the elongated oval that is framed in undulating lines (Fig. 86). When, finally, in 1839, two identical versions of the portrait were used to preface both the English and the Latin editions of Hobbes’s complete works, this image, copied here by the English engraver William Humphrys, ensured that Faithorne’s engraved record of Hobbes effectively became the canonical image of the philosopher (Fig. 87).52 The 1839 frontispiece of what was long to be regarded as the “standard” edition of Hobbes’s works raises the number of the drawn, painted and engraved portraits of the philosopher ultimately deriving from Samuel Cooper’s painting of 1661 to a total of twenty-one.

c. The portrait by Jan Baptist Jaspers A third, less extensive, yet barely less striking, series of Hobbes portraits was initiated in 1663; and this, too, had its starting point in a move by John Aubrey. In that year he was able to persuade Hobbes to agree to another portrait sitting, in this case in the studio of the painter Jan Baptist Jaspers. According to Aubrey: “He [Hobbes] did […] doe me the honour to sitt for his picture to Jo. Baptist Caspars [sic.], an excellent painter, and ’tis a good piece”.53 The painting (Fig. 88) does its subject the “honour” (as Hobbes would surely have seen it) of rendering him in an unflattering fashion, be it on account of its depiction of thin, shoulder-length hair, seemingly bloated diaphanous skin, or the wide right eye with its eager glance slightly to the side. When, in 1665, the publisher Peter Stent requested from Wenceslaus Hollar a portrait of Hobbes, Aubrey made available to him the painting by Jaspers (Fig. 88). Hollar, who included at the lower left of his etching (Fig. 89)54 the acknowledgement “J.Bapt.Caspar pinxit”, nonetheless evidently somewhat altered the character of the Jaspers painting; and it is possible that, for this reason, he so emphatically defined his own work as “The image correct and true-to-life, of THOMAS HOBBES of Malmesbury”. Although well established as a gifted portraitist, Hollar was here evidently not working to the best of his abilities. He plumped up the subject’s hair into wavy curls and rendered the eyes as if emitting an inner daemonic power that seems almost to anticipate the character of Beethoven in portraits of the nineteenth century. Hollar’s letter of complaint to Aubrey would suggest that Stent had greatly criticised the result: “[…] my labour seemeth to bee lost, for it [the copper plate] lyeth dead by me. However [,] I returne you many thank[s] for lending me the Principall [= the original], and I have halve a dozen Copies for you Catalogue of Portraits P XXXIX; P XL. Aubrey, in: Bodleian Ms. Aubrey 9, fol. 54v, cited here after; Hobbes Correspondence 1994, vol. II, no. 143, p. 521, note 3. 54  Catalogue of Portraits P XV; Pennington 1982, p. 244, no. 1417 (as “Casper”). 52 

53 

211

212

Appendix II: Images and Portr aits

88 _ Jan Baptist Jaspers, Portrait of Thomas Hobbes, 1663. Catalogue of Portraits P XIV

89 _ Wenceslaus Hollar, Portrait of Thomas Hobbes, 1665. Catalogue of Portraits P XV

[…]”.55 Only in the splendid gallery of modern philosophers compiled by Alexandre Savérien was Hollar’s etching to achieve a belated fame. For this deluxe publication, which appeared between 1761 and 1769, Jean-Baptiste Pierre (who in 1770 was to be appointed Director of the Paris Académie Royale) prepared a drawing after Hollar’s print. A crayon-manner etched version of the drawing was then made by Jean-Charles François (Fig. 90). In 1670 Aubrey gave the painting by Jaspers (the starting point for over a hundred years in the evolving reception of Hobbes’s image) to the Royal Society in London, apparently in order to accompany an expression of his desire that Hobbes be admitted to this learned assembly, and in effect to ensure that, in this form, he would have already become a “member” even before his formal election.56 But Hobbes was in fact not elected to membership, so that the painting alone was able to serve the function (to employ the term Hobbes had himself used of “vision”’) of exerting a “continuous pressure”. Further portraits of Hobbes, which were to be found in the collections of eminent individuals in the circle of the court of Charles II, testify to the high regard in 55  Letter of August 1665 from Wenceslaus Hollar to John Aubrey: Bodleian Ms. Aubrey 12, fol. 174, cited here after: Pennington 1982, p. xxxviii and p. 244, no. 1417. 56  On the painting: Schapin and Schaffer 1985, p. 132; Malcolm 1988, pp. 44–45; and Hobbes Correspondence 1994, vol. II, no. 143, p. 521, note 3; cf. also Skinner 1969, pp. 218–20.

Portr aits of Thomas Hobbes

90 _ Jean Charles François after Jean-Baptiste Pierre, Portrait of Thomas Hobbes, 1760. Catalogue of Portraits P XXXVI

which the philosopher was held – despite the unrelenting attacks on both his person and his work, above all in free-thinking and Royalist circles.57 The portrait that is assumed to be the last to record Hobbes during his lifetime, which is now at Hardwick Hall, Derbyshire (where Hobbes died), was painted in 1676 and shows the subject at the age of 88 (Fig. 1).58 Discussed, with regard to its more striking details, at the opening of the present volume, this work can now be further appreciated as the conclusion to a long visual history that interweaves such records of the philosopher himself with the intriguing, and diversely eloquent, images that preface or supplement his texts – not least the remarkable frontispiece to the first, 1651 edition of Leviathan.

Aubrey writes of a further portrait (Catalogue of Portraits P XLI) in the possession of the mathematician, and physician to the king, Charles Scarburgh of Scarborough. A painting of Hobbes is also mentioned in the inventory of the estate of James Butler, Duke of Ormond (Catalogue of Portraits P XLII), who, during Hobbes’s exclusion from the Stuart Court in Exile, had only tentatively expressed his approval for the philosopher’s work, but who, after the Restoration, treated him sympathetically. A portrait now in the collection of Hertford College, Oxford, (Catalogue of Portraits P XLIII), in addition to a variant sold in late 1995 at Sotheby’s London (Catalogue of Portraits P XLIV), constitute a further and distinct type of image verging on caricature. These may be excluded here because they cannot be defined and assessed in relation either to artistic context or to the supposed date of production. 58  Catalogue of Portraits P XXI; see p. 224. 57 

213

CATALOGUE OF PORTRAITS paintings, prints, frontispieces revised by Kolja Thurner

Cited dimensions of images give height before breadth and include all captions and other lettering.

PI Item   Untraced painting Anonymous Date before July 1645 Reference   Letter of 1 / 11 July 1645 from Samuel Sorbière to Thomas Hobbes, in: Hobbes Correspondence 1994, vol. 1, no. 38, pp. 121– 23, here 123 Source   Formerly in the collection of Thomas de

Martel P II Item   Untraced painting Anonymous Date before September 1645

Copy of I Reference  Letter of 22 August / 1 September 1646 from Samuel Sorbière to Thomas Hobbes, in: Hobbes Correspondence 1994, vol. I, no. 43, pp. 134–35, and note 2. Source   Formerly in the possession of Samuel Sorbière

216

Appendix II: Images and Portr aits

P III Item  Engraving; 98 × 62 mm Anonymous Date 1647 Inscription  THOM[AS] HOBBES Nobilis Anglus Ser. Principi Walliae a studiis praep[ositus] Publication   Elementa Philosophica de Cive Amsterdam, Ludovicum Elzevirium, page 2v (see Catalogue of Images W V, 2) Inscription  Two acompanying poems by Henry Bruno In Effigiem VIRI CLARISSIMI THOMAE HOBBII BRITANNI: Ad Spectatorem

Effigies Hobbi, totum mittenda per orbem, Hac orbi tabula suspicienda patet. Quae lateant, meliora puta, neque crede colores, Ut faciem referunt, interiora dare. Crede Thomae faciem, potuit quam pingere pictor: Pingere quod nequiit, crede fuisse Thomam. Aliud in eandem Effigiem, & Liberum de Cive: Talis adest Hobbi civem scribentis imago, Cui faciem virtus induit alta suam. Pectore grande Sophos habitat, doctrina modesta: Hic liber effigies hujus & hujus habet, Tolle manum tabula, posses licet arte magistra, Pictor, Apellaeas aequi parare manus. Hobbius in chartis doctorqi volumine vultum Majori retulit dexteritate suum.

Catalogue of Portr aits

P IV Item  Engraving; 127 × 75 mm Anonymous Date 1649

Reversed copy of P III, with variant Inscription Inscription  THOMAS HOBBES, Nobilis Anglus. / [in Greek] “To reconsider is wiser” Publication   Elemens Philosophiques du Citoyen. Traicté Politiqve Amsterdam, Joan Blaeu, page 4*4v (see Catalogue of Images W IX, 2)

P V (reputed to be Hobbes) Item   Painting Oil on canvas; 565 × 472 mm David Beck (attrib.) Date 1650 Source  Edinburgh, Scottish National Portrait Gallery, inv. no. 188

P VI Item  Engraving; 127 × 72 mm, including portrait in oval frame: 33 × 29 mm Ro[bert] Vaughan sculp[sit] Copy of P IV in a medallion Date 1651 Inscription [in Greek]: “second thoughts are wiser” Publication   Philosophicall Elements of Goverment [sic.] and Civill Society London, J. G. for R[ichard] Royston, page AIr (see Catalogue of Images W XIII, 1)

217

218

Appendix II: Images and Portr aits

P VII Item  Engraving; 129 × 75 mm; including portrait in oval frame: 33 × 29 mm Ro[bert] Vaughan sculp[sit] Identical with P VI Date 1651 Inscription   [in Greek]:

“second thoughts are wiser” Publication   Philosophicall Rudiments concerning Goverment [sic.] and Civill Society London, J. G. for R[ichard]n Royston, page AIr (see Catalogue of Images W XIV, 1)

P VIII Item   Painting

Oil on canvas; 724 × 584 mm Anonymous Date after 1651 Inscription 

THOMAS HOBBES MALMESBURIENSIS Source   London, Royal Society, archive ref. no. P/67

Catalogue of Portr aits

P IX Item  Engraving; 129 × 75 mm; including portrait in oval frame: 33 × 29 mm Ro[bert] Vaughan sculp[sit] Copy of P VII Date 1657 Inscription   [in Greek] “To reconsider is wiser” Publication   Louis de Montalte [=Blaise Pascal],

Les Provinciales: or the Mysterie of Jesuitisme, discover’ d in certain letters London Frontispiece Source   London, British Library: E.1623

PX Item  Engraving; 97 × 62 mm Anonymous Identical with P III Date 1657 Inscription  THOM[AS] HOBBES Nobilis Anglus Ser. Principi Walliae a studiis praep[ositus] Publication   Elementa Philosophica de Cive Amsterdam, Ludovicum & Danielem Elzevirios, page *2v (see Catalogue of Images W XVII, 2)

P XI Item   Untraced painting Samuel Cooper Date 1661 Source   Formerly in the collection of Charles II

219

220

Appendix II: Images and Portr aits

P XII Item   Drawing Ink and wash on vellum: 67 × 57 mm Samuel Cooper Date 1661 Source   Cleveland, Ohio, The Cleveland Museum of Art. The Edward B. Greene Collection: 1949.584

P XIII Item   Untraced drawing

William Faithorne Date before September 1663 Reference   Letter of 11 / 21 September 1663 from Samuel Sorbiere to Thomas Hobbes, in: Hobbes Correspondence 1994, vol. II, no. 154, pp. 556–58, here 557 Source   Formerly in the collection of William Faithorne

P XIV Item   Painting Oil on canvas; 749 × 635 mm [Jan Baptist Jaspers] Date 1663 Inscription  THOMAS HOBBES MALMESBURIENSIS (heavily painted over) Source   London, Royal Society (gift in 1670 from

John Aubrey)

Catalogue of Portr aits

P XV Item  Etching; 234 × 168 mm [Wenceslaus Hollar] Copy of P XIV Date 1665 Inscription  Vera et Viva Effigies THOMAE HOBBES Malmesburiensis Source   London, National Portrait Gallery, inv. no. NPG D353889

P XVI Item  Engraving; 136 × 87 mm Cr delineavit Reversed copy of P III in oval frame Date 1667 Inscription  On the frame:

THOMAS HOBBES NOBILIS ANGLUS Below the image: Dit’s HOBBES, die door Godts, Natuurs, en Redens Wet, De Hooge Oppermagt aen EEN haeft vast geset. Die door de donck’re Hell, sag Nickers Spoockery, Der Pausen overlast, en ‘Preeckers Hovaerdy. I.V.S. Publication   Leviathan: Of Van De Stoffe, Gedaente, ende Magt van De Kerkelycke Ende Wereltlycke Regeeringe Amsterdam, Jacobus Wagenaar, page *8v (see Catalogue of Images W XVIII, 2)

221

222

Appendix II: Images and Portr aits

P XVII Item  Engraving; 194 × 137 mm

W[illiam] Faithorne sculp[sit] Copy of P XIII Date 1668 Inscription  On the frame:

EN QVAM MODICE HABITAT PHILOSOPHIA Below the image: THOMAS HOBBES Malmesburiensis / Aet[atis] suae 76. Publication   Opera Philosophica Quae Latine scripsit, Omnia Amsterdam, Apud Ioannem Blaev, page AaaIr (see Catalogue of Images W XIX)

P XVIII Item   Painting Oil on canvas; 660 × 564 mm John Michael Wright Copy of P XI Date 1669–70 Source   London, National Portrait Gallery,

inv. no. 225

Catalogue of Portr aits

P XIX Item  Engraving; 137 × 87 mm Cr delineavit Copy of P XVI, with addition of variant text Date 1672 Inscription  On frame:

THOMAS HOBBES NOBILIS ANGLUS Below the image: Dit’s HOBBES vlugge Geest, die met Gesonde Reede De Gronden van een Staat, heeft bondigh voorgestelt En voor een Vorst en Heer, heel net en klaar’t ontleede Om Hem en d’Onderdaan, te vreyen voor gewelt.



Publication   Leviathan: Of Van De Stoffe, Gedaente, ende Magt van de Kerckelycke Ende Wereltlycke Regeeringe Amsterdam, Jacobus Wagenaar, page *8v (see Catalogue of Images W XXI, 2)

P XX Item  Engraving; 137 × 87 mm Cr delineavit Identical with P XIX Date 1675 Inscription  On frame:

THOMAS HOBBES NOBILIS ANGLUS Below the image: Dit’s HOBBES vlugge Geest, die met Gesonde Reede De Gronden van en Staat, heeft bondigh voorgestelt En voor een Vorst en Heer, heel net en klaar’t ontleede Om Hem en d’Onderdaan, te vreyen voor gewelt. Publication   De Eerste Beginselen van een Burger-staat, aangewesen door Thomas Hobbes van Malmresbury Amsterdam, page AIv (see Catalogue of Images W XXII, 2)

223

224

Appendix II: Images and Portr aits

P XXI Item   Painting Oil on canvas; 838 × 1118 mm Anonymous Date 1676 Source   Hardwick Hall, Derbyshire. The Devonshire Collection. (National Trust: NT 1129173)

P XXII Item  Engraving; 138 × 74 mm, including portrait in oval frame: 32 × 24 mm Anonymous Portrait is an abbreviated copy of P XVII Date 1677 Publication   The Iliads and Odysses of Homer London, Will[iam] Crooke, page AIv (see Catalogue of Images W XXIV)

Catalogue of Portr aits

P XXIII Item  Engraving: 149 × 94 mm Anonymous Copy of P XVII, with addition of lines from Persius, misspelt “Pear[sius].” Date 1681 Inscription  On the frame:

THOMAS HOBBES MALMESBURIENSIS Below the image: Compositum jus. fasque animi, sanctosque recessus Mentis. & incoctum generoso pectus honesto: Haec cedo, ut admoveam templis. & farre litabo. Pear[sius]. Sat [urae] 2. Publication   Thomae Hobbes Angli Malmesburiensis

Philosophi Vita London, Eleutherium Anglicum for Guil[lelmum] Crooke, Before page AIr (see Catalogue of Images W XXVI) P XXIV Item  Engraving; 149 × 93 mm Anonymous Copy of P XXIII, with spelling of “Persius” corrected Date 1681 Inscription  On frame:

THOMAS HOBBES MALMESBURIENSIS Below the image: Compositum jus. fasque animi, sanctosque recessus Mentis. & incoctum generoso pectus honesto: Haec cedo, ut admoveam templis. & farre litabo. Pers[ius]. Sat[urae] 2 Publication   Thomae Hobbes Angli Malmesburiensis

Philosophi Vita London, Eleutherium Anglicum for Guil[lelmum] Crooke, Before page A2v (see Catalogue of Images W XXVII)

225

226

Appendix II: Images and Portr aits

P XXV Item  Engraving; 149 × 94 mm Anonymous Identical with P XXIV Date   1681 Inscription  On frame:

THOMAS HOBBES MALMESBURIENSIS Below the image: Compositum jus. fasque animi, sanctosque recessus Mentis. & incoctum generoso pectus honesto: Haec cedo, ut admoveam templis. & farre litabo. Pers[ius]. Sat[urae] 2 Publication   The Art Of Rhetoric, with A Discourse Of the Laws of England London, William Crooke, page AIv (see Catalogue of Images W XXVIII)

P XXVI Item  Engraving; 149 × 94 mm Anonymous Identical with P XXIV Date   1681 Inscription  On frame;

THOMAS HOBBES MALMESBURIENSIS Below the image: Compositum jus. fasque animi sanctosque recessus Mentis. & inoctum generoso pectus honesto: Haec cedo, ut admoveam templis. & farre litabo. Pers[ius]. Sat[urae] 2 Publication   Tracts of Thomas Hobb’s London, William Crooke, page AIv (see Catalogue of Images W XXIX)

Catalogue of Portr aits

P XXVII Item  Engraving: 149 × 94 mm (= reverse of P XXVI, visible through page) Anonymous Date   1681 Publication   Tracts of Thomas Hobb’s London, William Crooke, page A3r (see Catalogue of Images W XXX)

P XXVIII Item  Engraving: 149 × 94 mm Anonymous Identical with P XXIV Date   1681 Inscription  On frame:

THOMAS HOBBES MALMESBURIENSIS Below the image: Compositum jus. fasque animi, sanctosque recessus Mentis. & incoctum generoso pectus honesto: Haec cedo, ut admoveam templis. & farre litabo. Pers[ius]. Sat[urae] 2 Publication   The Art of Rhetoric, with A Discourse Of The Laws of England, part III London, William Crooke, page A1v (see Catalogue of Images W XXIX, 3)

227

228

Appendix II: Images and Portr aits

P XXIX Item  Engraving; 113 × 67 mm Anonymous Lower quality copy of P XXIV Date 1681 Inscription  On frame:

THOMAS HOBBES MALMESBURIENSIS Below the image: Compositum jus. fasque animi, sanctosque recessus Mentis. & incoctum generoso pectus honesto: Haec cedo, ut admoveam templis. & farre litabo. Pers[ius]. Sat[urae] 2 Publication   Thomas Hobbes, Angli Malmesburiensis Philosophi Vita London, Eleutherium Anglicum, before title page (see Catalogue of Images W XXIX)

P XXX Item  Engraving; 149 × 94 mm Anonymous Identical with P XXIV Date   1682 Publication   Tracts of MR.Thomas Hobbs of

Malmesbury London, W[illiam] Crooke, page AIv (see Catalogue of Images W XXXI)

Catalogue of Portr aits

P XXXI Item  Engraving; 195 × 142 mm W[illiam] Faithorme sculps[it] Identical with P XVII, but with age altered to “91” Date   1682 Inscription  On frame:

EN QVAM MODICE HABITAT PHILOSOPHIA Below the image: THOMAS HOBBES Malmes­buriensis Aet[atis] suae 91 Publication   Thomae Hobbes Angli Malmesburiensis Philosophi Vita London, Eleutherium Anglicum, before title-page (see Catalogue of Images W XXXII)

P XXXII Item  Engraving; 176 × 132 mm, including portrait in circular frame: 139 × 131 mm Anonymous Reversed, and cropped engraving after P XVIII or after a drawing based on P XVIII, in circular frame Date   c. 1682 Inscription  THOMAS HOBBES, Natus Malmesburiae d. 5 April. Anno 1588. Obiit d. 4. Dec. Anno 1679. aetatis Suae 91 A. Source   Hamburg, Staats- und Universitäts­ bibliothek Carl von Ossietzky, Portraitsammlung: Mappe XII and Mappe XIV

229

230

Appendix II: Images and Portr aits

P XXXIII Item  Engraving; 138 × 75 mm, including oval-framed portrait: 32 × 24 mm Anonymous Identical with P XXII Date   1684 Publication   The Iliads and Odysses of Homer

London, Will[ilam] Crooke, page AIv (see Catalogue of Images W XXXIII)

P XXXIV Item  Engraving; 138 × 75 mm, including o­ va-framed portrait: 32 × 24 mm Identical with P XXXIII Date   1686 Publication   The Iliads and Odysses of Homer London, Will[iam] Crooke, page AIv (see Catalogue of Images W XXXIV)

Catalogue of Portr aits

P XXXV Item  Engraving; 257 × 170 mm Anonymous Copy of P XXV Date   1750 Inscription  On frame;

THOMAS HOBBES MALMESBURIENSIS Below the image: Compositum jus. fasque animi, sanctosque recessus Mentis. & incoctum generoso pectus honesto: Haec cedo, ut admoveam templis. & farre litabo. Pers[ius]. Sat[urae] 2 Publication   The Moral and Political Works [of Thomas Hobbes] London, Anonymous, page Iv (see Catalogue of Images W XXXIX, 1)

P XXXVI Item  Etching in the crayon manner; 270 × 228 mm

[Jean-Baptiste] Pierre del[ineavit] / [Jean Charles] François Sc[ulpsit] Et Ex. C. P. R. Copy of P XV Date   1760 Inscription

THOMAS HOBBES, né en 1588 mort en 1679 Publication  Alexandre Savérien, Histoire des

Philosophes Modernes, vol. I. Paris Source   Hamburg, Staats- und Univesitäts­ bibliothek Carl von Ossietzky, Portraitsammlung: Mappe XII

231

232

Appendix II: Images and Portr aits

P XXXVII Item  Etching; 70 × 46 mm Anonymous Likely based on P XLVIII Date   1794 Publication   Leviathan, oder der kirchliche und bürgerliche Staat vol. I Halle, before title-page (see Catalogue of Images W XL) Source   Wölfenbüttel, Herzog August Bibliothek:

A9743 P XXXVIII Item  Engraving; 70 × 46 mm

[Johann] H[einrich] Lips Copy of P XXV Date   1798 Inscription

THOMAS HOBBES Malmesburiensis Publication   Johann Anselm Feuerbach, Anti-Hobbes oder über die Grenzen der höchsten Gewalt und des Zwangsrecht der Bürger gegen den Oberherrn, vol. 1 Erfurt Source   Wölfenbüttel, Herzog August Bibliothek:

A 9742

Catalogue of Portr aits

P XXXIX Item  Engraving; 118 × 96 mm W. Humphrys sc[ulpsit] after William Faithorne Copy of P XVII Date   1839 Publication   The English Works of Thomas Hobbes,

vol. I London, John Bohn, frontispiece (see Catalogue of Images W XLI)

P XL Item  Engraving: 118 × 96 mm W. Humphrys sc[ulpsit], after William Faithorne Identical with P XXXIX Date   1839 Publication   Opera Philosophica Quae Latine Scripsit, vol. I London, John Bohn, frontispiece (see Catalogue of Images W XLIII)

233

234

Appendix II: Images and Portr aits

P XLI unknown Item   Untraced (probable) painting Anonymous Reference Letter of 4 July 1675 from John Aubrey to Thomas Hobbes, in: Hobbes Correspondence 1994, vol., II. no. 199, p. 756, note 14 Source   Formerly in the collection of Charles Scar-

burgh of Scarborough (as indicated in Aubrey 1898, vol. I, p. 369)

P XLII unknown Item   Untraced (probable) painting Anonymous Source   Formerly in the possession of James Butler,

Duke of Ormond

P XLIII unknown Item   Untraced painting

Anonymous Source  Oxford, Hertford College

P XLIV unknown Item   Untraced painting Oil on canvas, 749 × 584 mm Anonymous Source  Auction at Sotheby’s (London)

18 December 1995

Catalogue of Portr aits

P XLV Item   Painting; 760 × 602 mm Anonymous (Netherlandish or German) Date   1675 / 1750 Painted after P III Source   Herzog August Bibliothek, Wolfenbüttel, inv. no. B 64

P XLVI Item   Painting; 590 ×480 mm Anonymous Painted after P XV Date   probably 17th century Inscription  Thomas Hobbes. ANNO DOMMINI 1654 Source St John’s College, University of Cambridge,

acc.no. 278

P XLVII [reputed to be Hobbes] Item   Painting John Hoskins (1589/90–1664) (attrib.) Date   probably before 1664

Combining P III and P XI/XII (?) Source   Chatsworth House, Derbyshire

235

236

Appendix II: Images and Portr aits

P XLVIII Item  Engraving Anonymous Date   before 1794 Copy of P XXIX, model for P XXXVII Source Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Porträtsammlung: inv. no. PORT_00135153_01

P XLIX Item  Engraving; 168 × 102 mm Thomas Clark (?) Copy of P XVII Date   Unknown Inscription  T. Clark sculp. Thomas Hobbes, MALMESBURIENSIS. AEtatis Suae.76. Source  Scottish National Portrait Gallery (Print Room): acc. no. EP II 390.2

Catalogue of Portr aits

P XLX Item  Etching; 112 × 81 mm Anonymus Copy of P IV Date   Unknown Inscription  Thomas Hobbesius, Malmesburiensis Anglus. Source   Herzog Anton Ulrich-Museum, Braunschweig: inv. no. P-Slg AB 3.1754

237

Appendix III

Bibliogr aphy This listing combines an extended version of the bibliography accompanying the revised German text, of 2006, with a new bibliography (covering 2007–19) compiled as an adjunct to the adapted, English edition. It is, in principle, restricted to the original-language version of each item cited, and has not, on the whole, been further extended through the addition of existing English translations of non-anglophone texts. Where several works by the same author are cited, these appear in chronological order of their first publication. Works by Hobbes are listed in a separate bibliography: see pp. 263–66.

Aaron, Olivier, Jean-Baptiste Marie Pierre 1714–1789, Paris 1992 Abraham Bosse, savant graveur. Tours, vers 1604–1676, Paris, exh. cat., Sophie Join-Lambert and Maxime Préaud, eds.; Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France and Tours, Musée des BeauxArts 2004; Paris 2004 Alciati, Andrea, Emblemata, Cologne 1550 Angoulvent, Anne-Laure, Hobbes ou la crise de l’État baroque, Paris 1992 Anonymous. “Estampes Curieuses. Le Léviathan”, Le Magasin Pittoresque, XX (1852), pp. 153–55 Arend, Stefanie, “Zur Kritik an der Eudaimonie in Thomas Hobbes” Leviathan”, Scientia poetica, XIX (2015), pp. 29–62 Arendt, Hannah, The Origins of Totalitarianism, New York 1951 Astorga, Omar, La fortuna del pensiamento de Hobbes: reexamen del Leviathan, Caracas 1993 Aubrey, John, “Brief Lives”, Chiefly of Contemporaries, Set down by John Aubrey, between the Years 1669 & 1696, 2 vols., Andrew Clark, ed., Oxford 1898 Aubrey, John, Brief Lives. A Selection, Richard Barber, ed., London 1975 Aylmer, G.E., ed., The Interregnum: The Quest for Settlement, London 1972 Bacon, Francis, The New Organon, eds. Lisa Jardine and Michael Silverthorne, eds., Cambridge 2000 Bahr, Andrew, “Die Furcht vor dem Leviathan. Furcht und Liebe in der politischen Theorie des Thomas Hobbes”, Saeculum, LXI / 1 (September 2011), pp. 73–98 Ball, Terence, “Hobbes’ Linguistic Turn”, Polity, XVII (1985), pp. 739–60 Baltrušaitis, Jurgis, Anamorphoses ou Thaumaturgus opticus – Les perspectives dépravées, Paris 1984 Barilan, Y.M., “Terror and the Leviathan: recognition, ordeal and discourse in dispute resolution”, Pragmatics and Cognition, XXIII / 1 (2016), pp. 461–71 Barkan, Leonard, Nature’s Work of Art. The Human Body as Image of the World, London 1977 Barkan, Leonard, “The Beholder’s Tale: Ancient Sculpture, Renaissance Narrative”, Representations, XLIV (1993), pp. 133–66

242

Appendix III

Baruzzi, Arno, Mensch und Maschine. Das Denken sub specie machinae, Munich 1973 Baumann, Frank, “Der Staat als Kunstwerk. Zur Interpretation des Leviathan von Thomas Hobbes”. MA dissertation, Kunstgeschichtliches Institut der Universität Hamburg 1991 Belsey, Andrew and Catherine Belsey. “Icons of Divinity: Portraits of Elizabeth I”, in: Renaissance Bodies. The Human Figure in English Culture c. 1540–1660, Lucy Gent and Nigel Llewellyn, eds., London 1995, pp. 11–35 Bermbach, Udo and Klaus-Michael Kodalle, eds., Furcht und Freiheit: “Leviathan”: Diskussion 300 Jahre nach Thomas Hobbes, Opladen 1982 Bernhardt, Jean, “L’Oeuvre de Hobbes en optique et en théorie de la vision”, in: Hobbes oggi: atti del convegno internazionale di studi […] Milano – Locarno, ed. Andrea Napoli, ed., Milan 1990, pp. 245–68 Bernini, Lorenzo, Mauro Farnesi Camellone and Niccolò Marcucci, La Sovranità scomposta: sull’attualità del Leviatano, Milan 2010 Berns, Jörg Jochen, “’Vergleichung eines Uhrwercks, und eines frommen andächtigen Menschens’. Zum Verhältnis von Mystik und Mechanik bei Spee”, in: Italo Michele Battafarano, ed., Friedrich von Spee. Dichter, Theologe und Bekämpfer der Hexenprozesse, Gardolo di Trento 1988, pp. 101–94 Bertozzi, Marco, Thomas Hobbes. L’enigma del Leviathano. Un analisi della storia delle imagini del Leviathan, Bologna 1983, Bertram, Martin A., Hobbes. The Natural and the Artifacted God, Bern, Frankfurt am Main and Las Vegas 1981 Beyer, Anette, Faszinierende Welt der Automaten. Uhren, Puppen, Spielereien, Munich 1983 The Holy Bible (King James Version, 1611), London and New York 1922 Bickermann, Elias, “Die römische Kaiserapotheose”, Archiv für Religionswissenschaft, XXVII (1929), pp. 1–34 Bingen, Hildegard von, Welt und Mensch. Das Buch “De Operatione Dei”. Aus dem Genter Kodex übersetzt und erläutert von Heinrich Schipperges”, Salzburg 1965 Binski, Paul, Medieval Death. Ritual and Representation, London 1996 Blay, Michel, “Le De Corpore de Hobbes ou le ‘poids de l’air’ éliminé”, in: Die Schwere der Luft in der Diskussion des 17. Jahrhunderts, Will Klever, ed., Wiesbaden 1997, pp. 73–87 Bloch, Marc, Les rois thaumaturges, étude sur le caractère surnaturel attributé à la puissance royale particulièrement en France et en Angleterre, Strasbourg and Paris 1924 Blum, André, L’Oeuvre gravé d’Abraham Bosse, Paris 1924 Bobbio, Norberto, Thomas Hobbes, Turin 1989 Böckenförde, Ernst-Wolfgang, “Organ, Organismus, Organisation, politischer Körper VII–IX”, in: Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe, vol. IV, Otto Brunner, Werner Conze and Reinhart Koselleck, eds., Stuttgart 1978, pp. 561–622 Bohlender, Matthias, Die Rhetorik des Politischen: zur Kritik der politischen Theorie, Berlin 1995 Boonin-Vail, David, Thomas Hobbes and the science of moral virtue, Cambridge 1994 Borovsky, F. A., Wenzel Hollar. Ergänzungen zu G. Parthey’s “Beschreibendem Verzeichnis seiner Kupferstiche”, Prague 1898 Borrelli, Gianfranco, Il lato oscuro del Leviathan: Hobbes contro Machiavelli, Naples 2009 Boss, Gilbert, “Le songe d’une poétique philosophique (Les rêves de Descartes)”, Dialectica, XLVII / 2–3 (1993), pp. 201–16 Bosse, Abraham, Traité des diverses manières de graver en taille-douce, Paris 1645 Bosse, Abraham, Manière universelle de M. Desargues pour pratiquer la perspective par petit pied, comme le géometral, Paris 1648 Bosse, Abraham, Sentimens sur la Distinction des diverses Manieres de Peintures, Dessein & Graveure, & des Originaux d’avec leurs Copies, Paris 1649 Bosse, Abraham, Kunstbüchlein handelt Von der Radier- und Etzkunst, Nuremberg 1652

Bibliogr aphy

Bosse, Abraham, Die Kunst in Kupfer zu stechen, Dresden 1765 Bosseboef, Louis A., Michel de Marolles Abbé de Villelon. Sa vie et son oeuvre, Tours 1912 Bourdieu, Pierre, Langage et pouvoir symbolique, Paris 1991 Boureau, Alain, Le simple corps du roi. L’Impossible sacralité des souverains français XVe–XVIIIe siècle, Paris 1988 Brandon, Eric, The coherence of Hobbes’s Leviathan: Civil and religious authority combined, London 2007 Brandt, Frithiof, Thomas Hobbes’ mechanical conception of Nature, Copenhagen 1927 Brandt, Reinhardt, “Das Titelblatt des Leviathan und Goyas El Gigante”, In: Udo Bermbach and Klaus Kodalle, eds., Furcht und Freiheit. Leviathan-Diskussion 300 Jahre nach Thomas Hobbes, Opladen 1982, pp. 201–31 Brandt, Reinhardt, “Das Titelblatt des Leviathan”, Leviathan. Zeitschrift für Sozialwissenschaft, I (1987), pp. 164–86 Brandt, Reinhardt, “Das Titleblatt des Leviathan”, in: Wolfgang Kersting, ed., Leviathan oder Stoff, Form und Gewalt eines bürgerlichen und kirchlichen Staates, Berlin 1996, pp. 29–53 Branstetter, John, “The Leviathan’s Conscience: Hobbesian Human Nature and Moral Judgement”, Political Research Quarterly, LXX / 4 (2017), pp. 778–89 Braungart, Georg, “Die Ethik und ihre aussermoralische Rechtfertigung bei Hobbes”, Ratio, XXIII / 1 (1981), pp. 50–63 Bredekamp, Horst, “Die Erde als Lebewesen”, Kritische Berichte, IX / 4/5 (1981), pp. 5–37 Bredekamp, Horst, Antikensehnsucht und Maschinenglauben. Die Geschichte der Kunstkammer und die Zukunft der Kunstgeschichte, Berlin 1993 Bredekamp, Horst, “Zur Vorgeschichte von Thomas Hobbes’ Bild des Staates”, in: Räume des Wissens. Repräsentation, Codierung, Spur, Hans-Jörg Rheinberger, Michael Hagner and ­Bettina Wahrig-Schmidt, eds., Berlin 1997, pp., 23–37 Bredekamp Horst, “Die Brüder und Nachkommen des Leviathan”, Leviathan. Zeitschrift für Sozial­ wissenschaft, XXVI / 2–5 (1998), pp. 159–83 Bredekamp, Horst, “Die zwei Körper von Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan”, in: Geschichtskörper. Zur Aktualität von Ernst H. Kantorowicz, Wolfgang Ernst and Cornelia Vismann, eds., Munich 1998, pp. 105–18 Bredekamp, Horst, “Von Walter Benjamin zu Carl Schmitt, via Thomas Hobbes”, Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie, XLVI / 6 (1998), pp. 901–16 Bredekamp, Horst, Thomas Hobbes Visuelle Strategien. Der Leviathan: Urbild des modernen Staates, Berlin 1999 (rev. edns. 2003, 2006, 2012 and 2020) Bredekamp, Horst, “Ikonographie des Staates: der Leviathan und die Folgen”, Kritische Justiz, XXXIII / 3 (2000), pp. 395–411 Bredekamp, Horst, “Schmitt blickt auf Disraeli, Disraeli auf Hobbes”, in: Geisteswissenschaftliche Dimensionen der Politik. Festschrift für Alois Riklin zum 65. Geburtstag, Roland Kley and ­Silvano Möckli, eds., Bern, Stuttgart and Vienna 2000, pp. 483–89 Bredekamp, Horst, “’Damit der Schrecken schrecke’. Bilder der Grausamkeit und des Terrors in einer romanischen Kirche, in Thomas Hobbes’ ‘Leviathan’ – und in Manhattan”, Literaturen, XII (2001), pp. 24–26 Bredekamp, Horst, “Ikonographie des Staates: der Leviathan und die neuesten Folgen”, Leviathan. Zeitschrift für Sozialwissenschaft, XXIX / 1 (2001), pp. 18–35 Bredekamp, Horst, “Thomas Hobbes’s Visual Strategies”, in: The Cambridge Companion to Hobbes’s Leviathan, Patricia Springborg, ed., Cambridge 2007 Bredekamp, Horst, “Behemoth als Partner und Feind des Leviathan. Zur politischen Ikonologie eines Monstrums”, Leviathan. Zeitschrift für Sozialwissenschaft, XXXVII (2009), pp. 429–75 Bredekamp, Horst, Der Behemoth. Metamorphosen des Anti-Leviathan (Carl-Schmitt-Vorlesungen, vol. I), Berlin 2016

243

244

Appendix III

Brodsley, Laurel, “Butler’s Character of Hudibras and Contemporary Graphic Satire”, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, XXXV (1972), pp. 401–04 Brown, K.C., ed. Hobbes studies, Oxford 1965 Brown, Keith, “The Artist of the Leviathan Title-Page”, The British Library Journal, IV (1978), pp. 24–36 Brückner, Wolfgang, Bildnis und Brauch. Studien zur Bildfunktion der Effigies, West Berlin 1966 Bunyan, John, The Pilgrim’s Progress from This World to That which is to come: Delivered under the Similitude of a Dream […], London 1678 Burchell, D., “The Disciplined Citizen: Thomas Hobbes, Neostoicism and the Critique of Classical Citizenship”, The Australian Journal of Politics and History, XLV / 4 (1999), pp. 506–25 Burgess, Glenn, “Contexts for the Writing and Publication of Hobbes’s Leviathan”, History of Political Thought, XI / 4 (1990), pp. 675–701 Burns, J.H. and Mark Goldie, eds., The Cambridge History of Political Thought, Cambridge et al. 1991 Byron, Michael, Submission and subjection in “Leviathan”: good subjects in the Hobbesian Commonwealth, Basingstoke 2015 Camille, Michael, “The King’s New Bodies: An Illustrated Mirror for Princes in the Morgan Library”, in: Künstlerischer Austausch. Artistic Exchange. Akten des XXVIII. Internationalen Kongresses für Kunstgeschichte Berlin, 15–20. Juli 1992, vol. II, Thomas W. Ghaetgens, ed., Berlin 1993, pp. 393–405 Canetti, Elias, Die Provinz des Menschen. Aufzeichnungen 1942–1972, Frankfurt am Main 1976 Cantalupo, Charles, “How to be a Literary Reader of Hobbes’s Most Famous Chapter”, Prose Studies, vol. IX / 2 (1986), pp. 67–79 Cantalupo, Charles, “Hobbes’s Use of Metaphor”, Restoration: Studies in English Literary Culture, vol. XII / 1 (1988), pp. 20–31 Cantalupo, Charles, A literary Leviathan. Thomas Hobbes’s Masterpiece of Language, Lewisburg, Pa., Toronto and London 1991 The Carl H. Pforzeimer Library (English Literature 1475–1700), Emma Unger, ed., 3 vols., New York 1940 Cartari, Vicenzo, Imagini delli Dei de gl’Antichi (1556), rev. edn. Venice 1674 Case, John, Sphaera Civitatis […], Oxford 1588 Catalogue of Prints and Drawings in the British Museum. Division I. Political and Personal Satires, vol. I (1320 to April 1689), Frederic George Stephens, ed., London 1870 Caton, Hiram, “Is Leviathan a Unicorn?”, The Review of Politics, LVI / 1 (1994), pp. 101–25 Cillessen, Wolfgang, “Vorboten des Krieges. Politische Graphik und Bildsatire im späten 17. Jahr­ hundert”, in: Krieg der Bilder. Druckgraphik als Medium politischer Auseinandersetzung im Europa des Absolutismus, exh. cat., Wolfgang Cillessen, ed., Deutsches Historisches Museum, Berlin 1997–98; Berlin 1997, pp. 11–35 Clausberg, Karl, Kosmische Visionen. Mystische Weltbilder von Hildegard von Bingen bis heute, Cologne 1980 Coady, C. A., “Hobbes and the ‘Beautiful Axiom’’”, Philosophy, LXV / 251 (1990), pp. 5–17 Collingwood, R.G., The new Leviathan or: man, society, civilization and barbarism, Oxford 1942 Collins, Jeffrey R., The Allegiance of Thomas Hobbes, Oxford 2005 Collins, Jeffrey, “Malcolm’s Leviathan: Hobbes’s ‘Thing’”, Modern Intellectual History, XII / 1 (April 2015), pp. 95–120 Comanini, Gregorio, Il Figino, overo del fine della pittura. Dialogo […] quistionandosi se’ l fine della pittura sia l’utile overo il diletto […], Mantua 1591 Condren, Conal, “On the Rhetorical Foundation of Leviathan”, History of Political Thought, XI / 4 (1990), pp. 703–20

Bibliogr aphy

Cook, Elizabeth, “Thomas Hobbes and the ‘Far-fetched’”, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, XXXIV (1981), pp. 222–32 Cooke, Paul D., Hobbes and Christianity: Reassessing the Bible in Leviathan, Lanham, Md., and London 1996 Cooper, Kody W., Thomas Hobbes and the natural law, Notre Dame, Ind., 2018 Corbett, Margery and Michael Norton, Engraving in England in the Sixteenth & Seventeenth Centuries. Part III: The Reign of Charles I, Cambridge 1964 Corbett, Margery and Ronald Lightbown, “Thomas Hobbes Leviathan 1651”, in: The Comely Frontispiece: The Emblematic Title-Page in England 1550–1660, London 1979, pp. 219–30 Craig, Leon Harold, The Platonian Leviathan, Toronto 2010 Crinò, Anna Maria, “Fatti e figure del Seicento anglo-toscano”, Biblioteca dell’Archivium romanicum, series I, vol. XLVIII, Florence 1962 Cross, Claire, “The Church in England 1646–1660”, in: The Interregnum: The Quest for Settlement, 1646–1660, G.E. Aylmer, ed., London 1972, pp. 99–120 Curley, Edwin, “The Covenant with God in Hobbes’s Leviathan”, in: Leviathan after 350 Years, Tom Sorell and Luc Foisneau, eds., Oxford 2004 Da Costa Kaufmann, Thomas, “Arcimboldo’s Imperial Allegories”, Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte, XXXIX (1976), pp. 275–96 Da Costa Kaufmann, Thomas, The Mastery of Nature. Aspects of Art, Science, and Humanism in the Renaissance, Princeton, N.J., 1993 Da Costa Kaufmann, Arcimboldo: Visual Jokes, Natural History, and Still-Life Painting, Chicago and London 2009 Davenant, Sir William, A Discourse upon Gondibert. An Heroick Poem Written by Sir William D’Avenant, with an Answer to it by Mr. Hobbs, Paris 1650 Davenant, Sir William, Gondibert. An Heroick Poem, London 1651 Davies, David W., The World of the Elseviers 1580–1712, Westport, Conn., 1971 Davis, Paul, “Thomas Hobbes’ Translation of Homer: Epic and Anticlericalism in Late Seventeenth-Century England”, The Seventeenth Century, XII / 2 (1997), pp. 231–55 Dee, John, A Letter, Containing a most briefe Discourse Apologeticall […], London 1599 Demandt, Alexander, Metaphern für Geschichte. Sprachbilder und Gleichnisse im historisch-politischen Denken, Munich 1978 Denkstein, Vladimir, Wenceslaus Hollar. Zeichnungen, Hanau 1979 Descartes, René, Discours de la Méthode, pour bien conduire sa raison et chercher la verité dans les sciences (1637). French and English text, George W. Heffermann, ed. & trans., Notre Dame, Ind., and London 1994 Descartes, René, Mediatationes de prima philosophia, Paris 1641 Descartes, René, Meditations on First Philosophy. Latin and English text, John Cottingham, ed. & trans., Cambridge 2013 Dijksterhuis, Eduard Jan, The Mechanization of the World Picture, Carry Dikshoorn, trans. (from De Mechanisering van het wereldbeeld, 1950), Oxford 1961 Dobbs, Betty J.T., “Alchemische Kosmogenie und arianische Theologie bei Isaac Newton”, in: Die Alchemie in der europäischen Kultur- und Wissenschaftsgeschichte, Christoph Meinel, ed., Wiesbaden 1986, pp. 137–50 Dohrn-van Rossum, Gerhard, “Organ, Organismus, Organisation, politischer Körper, I–VI”, in: Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe, vol. IV, Otto Brunner, Werner Conze and Reinhart Koselleck, eds., Stuttgart 1978, pp. 519–60 Douglass, Robin, “Leviathans Old and New: What Collingwood Saw in Hobbes”, History of European Ideas, XLI / 4 (2015), pp. 527–43

245

246

Appendix III

Drewer, Lois, “Leviathan, Behemoth und Ziz: A Christian Adaptation”, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, XLIV (1981), pp. 148–56 Dunlop, Katharina, “Hobbes’s Mathematical Thought”, in: The Oxford Handbook of Hobbes, Aloysius P. Martinich and Kinch Hoekstra, eds., New York 2006 Duplessis, Georges, Catalogue de l’Oeuvre de Abraham Bosse, Paris 1859 Dupont, Florence, “The Emperor God’s Other Body”, in: Fragments of the History of the Human Body, Michel Feher et al., eds., New York 1989 Duro, Paul, The Academy and the Limits of Painting in Seventeenth-Century France, Cambridge 1997 Dzelzainis, Martin, “Edward Hyde and Thomas Hobbes’ Elements of Law, Natural and Politic”, The Historical Journal, XXXII / 2 (1989), pp. 303–17 Eberlein, Johann Konrad, Apparatio regis – revelatio veritatis. Studien zur Darstellung des Vorhanges in der bildenden Kunst von der Spätantike bis zum Ende des Mittelalters, Wiesbaden 1982 Edmond, Mary, “Limners and Picturemakers. New Light on the lives of miniaturists and largescale portrait-painters working in London in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries”, Walpole Society, XLVII (1978–80), pp. 60–242 Effetto Arcimboldo: Trasformazione del volto nel sedicesimo e nel ventesimo secolo, exh. cat. Mario Andreose, Simonetta Rasponi and Carla Tanzi, eds.; Palazzo Grazzi, Venice 1987; Milan 1987 Eggers, David, Die Naturzustandstheorie des Thomas Hobbes: eine vergleichende Analyse von “The Elements of Law”, “De Cive” and den englischen und lateinischen Fassungen des “Leviathan”, Berlin and New York 2008 Eikon Basilike. The Pourtraiture of His Sacred Maiestie in His Solitudes And Sufferings […] Published to undeceive the World […], London 1649 Eikon Basilike. The Portraiture of His Sacred Majesty in His Solitudes And Sufferings (1649), Philip A. Knachel, ed., Ithaca, N.Y., 1966 Euchner, Walter, “Hobbes und kein Ende? Probleme der Neueren Hobbes-Forschung”, Archives Européennes de Sociologie, XII / 1 (1971), pp. 89–110 Euripides, Hippolytus, in: Euripides. Children of Heracles, Hippolytus, et al. Greek and English text, David Kovacs, ed. & trans., Cambridge, Mass,, and London (Loeb Classical Library) 1995, pp. 115–263 Evrigenis, Ioannis D., Images of Anarchy: The Rhetoric and Science in Hobbes’s State of Nature, New York 2014 Faithorne, William, The Art of Graveing and Etching […], London 1662 Fallon, Robert Thomas, “Sir Richard Fanshawe”, in: M. Thomas Hester, ed., Seventeenth-Century British Non-dramatic Poets, 2nd series (= Dictionary of Literary Biography, vol. CXXVI), M. Thomas Hester, ed., Detroit and London 1993, pp. 109–15 Fanshawe, Richard, Il Pastor Fido, The faithfull Shepheard. A Pastorall, written in Italian by Baptista Guarini, a Knight of Italie. And now Newly Translated out of the Originall, London 1647 Feldman, Karen S., Binding words: conscience and rhetoric in Hobbes, Hegel, and Heidegger, Evanston, Ill., 2006 Fernández Ramos, José Carlos, Leviathan y la Cueva de la Nada: Hobbes y Gracián a la luz de sus metáforas, Barcelona 2017 Ficino, Marsilio, Opera Omnia (1576), 2 vols., Turin 1962 Feuerbach, Paul Johann Anselm, Anti-Hobbes oder über die Grenzen der höchsten Gewalt und das Zwangsrecht der Bürger gegen den Oberherrn, Erfurt 1798 Field J.V., The Invention of Infinity. Mathematics and Art in the Renaissance, Oxford et al. 1997 Field, J.V. and J.J. Gray, The Geometrical Work of Girard Desargues, New York et al. 1984, Fincham, Kenneth, Prelate as Pastor. The Episcopate of James I, Oxford 1990 Fisher, Philip, “The Aesthetics of Fear”, Raritan, XVIII / 1 (1998), pp. 40–72

Bibliogr aphy

Fitting, Hermann, Juristische Schriften des Früheren Mittelalters (1876), Halle 1965 Fludd, Robert, Utriusque Cosmi Maioris scilicet et Minoris Metaphysica, Physica Atque Technica Historia […] Tomus Primus De Macrocosmi Historia, Oppenheim 1617 Fludd, Robert, De Naturae Simia Seu Technica macrocosmi historia […], Oppenheim 1618 Foisneau, Luc and Tom Sorell, eds., Leviathan after 350 Years, Oxford 2004 Foisneau, Luc, Jean-Christophe Merle and Tom Sorell, eds., Leviathan between the wars: Hobbes’s impact on early twentieth-century political philosophy, Frankfurt am Main and Oxford 2005 Forset, Edward, A comparative Discourse of the Bodies natural and politque, London 1606 Foskett, Daphne, Samuel Cooper and his contemporaries, London 1974 Freedberg, David, The Power of Images. Studies in the History and Theory of Response, Chicago and London 1989 Freund, Julien, “Le Dieu Mortal”, in: Hobbes-Forschung, Reinhart Koselleck and Roman Schnur, eds., West Berlin 1969, pp. 33–52 Friess, Peter, “Rettung einer Automatenfigur”, Uhren. Alte und moderne Zeitmessung, IV (1988), pp. 40–50 Frost, Samantha, Lessons from a Materialist Thinker: Hobbesian Reflections on Ethics and Politics, Stanford, Ca., 2008 Fuchs, Thomas, Die Mechanisierung des Herzens, Frankfurt am Main 1992 Fukuda, Arihiro, Sovereignty and the sword. Harrington, Hobbes, and mixed government in the English Civil Wars, Oxford 1997 Funkenstein, Amos, “The Body of God in 17th Century Theology and Science”, in: Millenarianism and Messianism in English Literature and Thought, Richard H. Popkin, ed., Leiden et al. 1988, pp. 149–75 Galvin, Carol and Phillip Lindley, “Pietro Torrigiano’s portrait bust of King Henry VII”, The Burlington Magzine, CXXX / 1029 (1988), pp. 892–902 Gauger, Jörg-Dieter and Justin Stagl, eds., Staatsrepräsentation, Berlin 1993 Gehring, Verna, “The Embodied Politics of Thomas Hobbes”, in: Analecta husserliana. A Yearbook of phenomenonological research, LX / 3 (1999), pp. 355–77 Geiger, Benno, I dipinti ghiribizzosi di Giusepe Arcimboldo (1527–1593): pittore illusionista del Cinquecento, Florence 1954 Geiger, Paul, “Le roi est mort – vive le roi! Das Bild des Königs bei den französischen Königsbegräbnissen”, Schweizerisches Archiv für Volkskunde, XXXII (1932), pp. 1–20 Geissmar, Christoph, Das Auge Gottes. Bilder zu Jakob Böhme, Wiesbaden 1993 Gent, Lucy and Nigel Llewellyn, eds., Renaissance Bodies. The Human Figure in English Culture c. 1540 –1600, London 1990 Gerhardt, Volker, “Der gross geschiebene Mensch. Zur Konzeption der Politik in Platons Politeia”, Internationale Zeitschrift für Philosophie, I (1997), pp. 40–56 Gerl, Hanna-Barbara, “‘Rhetorica perfetta’. Francesco Patrizis Ideal einer geometrischen Rhetorik: ein Blick auf die Methodologie des 16. Jahrhunderts”, Rhetorica, VI / 4 (1988), pp. 335–54 Germer, Stefan, Kunst – Macht – Diskurs. Die intellektuelle Karriere des André Félibien im Frankreich von Louis XIV, Munich 1997 Gerschlager, Caroline, Konturen der Entgrenzung: die Ökonomie des Neuen im Denken von Thomas Hobbes, Francis Bacon und Joseph Alois Schumpeter, Marburg 1996 Giesey, Raplh E., The Royal Funeral Ceremony in Renaissance France, Geneva 1960 Giesey, Ralph E., “Was für zwei Körper?”, Tumult. Schriften zur Verkehrswissenschaft, XVI (n.d.), pp. 79–93 Ginzburg, Carlo, “Repräsentation – das Wort, die Vorstellung, der Gegenstand”, Freibeuter: Vierteljahreszeitschrift für Kultur und Politik, LIII /1 (1992), pp. 2–23

247

248

Appendix III

Giorello, Giulio, “Pratica geometrica e immagine della matematica in Thomas Hobbes”, in: Hobbes oggi: atti del convegno internazionale […] Milano – Locarno 1988, Andrea Napoli, ed., Milan 1990, pp. 215–44 Godfrey, Richard T., Wenceslaus Hollar. A Bohemian Artist in England, New Haven and London 1994 Goldberg, Jonathan, James I and the Politics of Literature. Jonson, Shakespeare, Donne, and Their Contemporaries, Baltimore and London 1983 Goldsmith, M. M., “Picturing Hobbes’s Politics? The Illustrations to Philosophicall Rudiments”, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, XLIV (1981), pp. 232–37 Goldsmith, M.M., Hobbes’s Ambiguous Politics”, History of Political Thought, XI / 4 (1990), pp. 639–73 Goldstein, Carl, Abraham Bosse: Painting and Theory in the French Academy of Painting and Sculpture, 1648–1683, Ann Arbor, Mich., 1993 Gosztonyi, Alexander, Der Raum. Geschichte seiner Probleme in Philosophie und Wissenschaften, 2 vols., Freiburg and Munich 1976 Goyard-Fabre, Simone, Le droit et la loi dans la philosophie de Thomas Hobbes, Paris 1975 Goyard-Fabre, Simone, “Les effets juridiques de la politique mécaniste de Hobbes”, Revue philo­ sophique de la France et de l’Étranger, II (1981), pp. 189–211 Green, Karen, “Christine de Pisan and Thomas Hobbes”, The Philosophical Quarterly, XLIV / 177 (1994), pp. 456–75 Greenslade, B. D., “The Publication Date of Hobbes’s ‘Leviathan’”, Notes and Queries, CXX (1975), p. 310 Grimm, Dieter, Die Verfassung und die Politik. Einsprüche in Störfällen, Munich 2001 Groh, Ruth and Dieter Groh, Die Aussenwelt der Innenwelt. Zur Kulturgeschichte der Natur, vol. II, Frankfurt am Main 1996 Guarini, Giovanni Baptista (= Guarini, Giovanni Battista): see Fanshawe, Richard Guattari, Félix, “Machinic Heterogenesis”, in: Verena Andermatt Conley, ed., Rethinking Technologies, Minneapolis and London 1993, pp. 13–27 Guericke, Otto von, Experimenta Nova (ut vocantur) Magdeburgica de Vacua Spatio, Amsterdam 1672 Hale, David George, The Body Politic. A Political Metaphor in Renaissance English Literature, The Hague and Paris 1971 Hallowell, Robert E., “L’Hercule Gallique: Expression et image politique”, in: Lumières de la Pléiade, Pierre Mesnard, ed., Paris 1966, pp. 245–53 Hamilton, James Jay, “Hobbes’s Study and the Hardwick Library”, Journal of the History of Philosophy, XVI / 4 (1978), pp. 445–53 Hampton, Jean, Hobbes and the Social Contract Tradition, Cambridge et al., 1986 Hanley, Sarah, The Lit de Justice of the Kings of France. Constitutional Ideology in Legend, Ritual, and Discourse, Princeton 1983 Harbage, Alfred, “Sir Richard Fanshawe and Hobbes’s ‘Leviathan’”, Times Literary Supplement, 30 June 1932, p. 480 Harms, Wolfgang, “Wörter, Sachen und emblematische ‘Res’ im ‘Orbis Sensualium Pictus’ des Comenius”, in: Gedenkschrift für William Foerste, Dietrich Hofmann, ed., Cologne and Vienna 1970, pp. 531–42 Harrison, Charles Trawick, “The Ancient Atomists and English Literature in the Seventeenth Century”, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, XLV (1934), pp. 1–80 Harvey, Anthony and Richard Mortimer, The Funeral Effigies of Westminster Abbey, Woodbridge 1994

Bibliogr aphy

Hedwig, K., “Natura naturans / naturata”, Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie, VI (1984), pp. 504–09 Heinich, Nathalie, “La perspective académique. Peinture et tradition lettrée: la référence aux mathématiques dans les théories de l’art au 17e siècle”, in: Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales, XLIX (1983), pp. 47–70 Herbert, Gary B., Thomas Hobbes. The Unity of Scientific & Moral Wisdom, Vancouver 1989 Herla, Anne, Hobbes, ou, le déclin du royaume des ténèbres: politique et théologie dans le Léviathan, Paris 2006 Hermes MercuriusTrismegistos, The Divine Pymander, Doctor Everard, trans., London 1650 Hermès Trismégiste, Corpus Hermeticum, A.D. Nock, ed.; A.-J. Festugière, trans., 4 vols. (1946–54), Paris 1980 Hermetica. The Greek Corpus Hermeticum and the Latin Asclepius, ed. Brian P. Copenhaver, ed., Cambridge 1992 Hespe, F. and D. Huning, “Die Erschaffung des Leviathan. Die Funktion des Gesellschaftsvertrags bei Thomas Hobbes”, Schriften zur Rechtstheorie: 350 Jahre Leviathan, Wolfenbüttel 2001, pp. 201–34 Hibbert, Christopher, The Virgin Queen. The Personal History of Elizabeth I, London 1992 Hind, Arthur Mayger, List of the native and foreign Line-Engravers in England from Henry VIII to the Commonwealth, London 1905 Hind, Arthur Mayger, Engraving in England in the Sixteenth & Seventeenth Centuries. Part II: The Reign of James I, Cambridge 1955 Hinnant, Charles H., ed., Thomas Hobbes, a reference guide, Boston, Mass. 1980 Hipp, Hermann, “Aristotelische Politik und frühneuzeitliche Bauaufgaben”, in: Architektur als politische Kultur. Philosophia Practica, Hermann Hipp and Ernst Deidl, eds., Berlin 1996, pp. 93–114 Hirsch, Gertrud, “Zu Wenzel Hollars ‘Karl II von England nach Abraham van Diepenbeck’”, Die Graphische Künste, I (1928), pp. 9–11 Hobbes studies, K.C. Brown, ed., Oxford 1965 Thomas Hobbes, a reference guide, Charles H.Hinnant, ed., Boston, Mass., 1980 Thomas Hobbes. His View of Man. Proceedings of the Hobbes Symposium at the International School of Philosophy in the Netherlands, 1979, J.G. van der Band, ed., Amsterdam 1982 Perspectives on Thomas Hobbes, G.A.J. Rogers and Alan Ryan, eds., Oxford 1988 Hobbes oggi: atti del convegno internazionale […] Milano – Locarno, Andrea Napoli, ed., Milan 1990 A Hobbes Dictionary, Aloysius P. Martinich, ed., Cambridge, Mass., 1995 The Cambridge Companion to Hobbes, Tom Sorell, ed., Cambridge 1996 The Oxford Handbook of Hobbes, Aloysius P. Martinich and Kinch Hoekstra, eds., New York 2006 Hobbes’s Leviathan: reader’s guide, Laurie M. Johnson Bagby, London 2007 The Cambridge Companion to Hobbes’s Leviathan, Patricia Springborg, ed., Cambridge 2007 The Routledge Guidebook to Hobbes’s Leviathan, Glen Newey, ed., London and New York 2014 Historical Dictionary of Hobbes’s Philosophy, Juhanna Lemetti, ed., Lanham, Md., Toronto and Plymouth 2012 Hoekstra, S.J., The savages, the citizen, and the foole: the compulsion for civil society in the philosophy of Thomas Hobbes, Oxford 1998 Hofmann, Hasso, Repräsentation. Studien zur Wort- und Begriffsgeschichte, West Berlin 1974 Hofmann, Hasso, “Bemerkungen zur Hobbes-Interpretation”, in: Hasso Hofmann, Recht – Politik – Verfassung, Frankfurt am Main 1986, pp. 58–73 Hofmann, Hasso, Gebot, Vertrag, Sitte. Die Urformen der Begründung von Rechtsverbindlichkeit, Baden-Baden 1993 Hofmann, Hasso, Bilder des Friedens oder Die vergessene Gerechtigkeit, Munich 1997

249

250

Appendix III

Holmes, Stephen, “Introduction”, in: Thomas Hobbes, Behemoth or the Long Parliament (1889), Ferdinand Tönnies, ed., Chicago and London 1990, pp. vii–xl Holmes, Stephen, The Anatomy of Anti-liberalism, Cambridge, Mass., and London 1993 Höltgen, Karl Josef, Francis Quarles 1592–1644: Meditativer Dichter, Emblematiker, Royalist: eine biographische und kritische Studie, Tübingen 1978 Hood, F. C., The Divine Politics of Thomas Hobbes. An Interpretation of “Leviathan”, Oxford 1964 Hope, William H. St. John, On the Funeral Effigies of the Kings and Queens of England, with special reference to those in the Abbey Church of Westminster, London 1907 Horace, Odes, in: Horace: Odes and Epodes. Greek and English text, Niall Rudd, ed. & trans., Cambridge, Mass. and London (Loeb Classical Library) 2004 Howarth, David, Images of Rule. Art and Politics in the English Renaissance, 1485–1649, Berkeley and Los Angeles 1997 Hughes, James Montgomery, “Form and Imagination in Political Theory: Shakespeare’s Tempest, More’s Utopia, and Hobbes’ Leviathan”. Doctoral dissertation, University of California at Berkeley 1978 Huygens, Lodewijck, The English Journal 1651–1652, A.G.H. Bachrach and R.G. Collmer, eds. and trans., Leiden 1982 Hyde, Edward, “A Survey of Mr Hobbes His Leviathan” (1676), in: Leviathan. Contemporary Responses to the Political Theory of Thomas Hobbes, G.A.J. Rogers, ed., Bristol 1995, pp. 180– 300 Iannello, Nicola, L’ordine degli uomini: antropologia e politica nel pensiero di Thomas Hobbes e di Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Pisa 1998 Ilting,K.-H., “Naturrecht”, Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe, vol. IV, Stuttgart 1978, pp. 243–313 Isermann, Michael, Die Sprachtheorie im Werk von Thomas Hobbes, Münster 1991 Jacobson, Norman, “The Strange Case of the Hobbesian Man”, Representations, LXIII (1998), pp. 1–11 Jacoby, E.G., “Thomas Hobbes in Europe”, Journal of European Studies, IV (1974), pp. 57–65 Janson, Horst W., Apes and Ape Lore, London 1952 Janssonius, Joannes, Illustrorum Regni Galliae Civitatum Tabulae, Ut & Helvetiae Confoederatae Civitates Celebriores, Amsterdam 1650 Jdanoff, Denis, Gehorsam und Widerstand in Hobbes’ “Leviathan” und Rousseaus “Gesellschaftsvertrag”: ein Vergleich, Berlin 2006 Jenkins, Marianna, Il Ritratto di Stato, Rome 1977 John Michael Wright, exh. cat., Sara Stevenson and Duncan Thomson, eds.; Scottish National Portrait Gallery, Edinburgh 1982; Edinburgh 1982 Johnson, Alfred Forbes, A Catalogue of Engraved and Etched English Title-Pages, Oxford 1934 Johnson, Laurie N., Thucydides, Hobbes, and the Interpretation of Realism, Dekalb, Ill., 1993 Johnson Bagby, Laurie M., Hobbes’s Leviathan: reader’s guide, London 2007 Johnston, David, The Rhetoric of “Leviathan”. Thomas Hobbes and the Politics of Cultural Transformation, Princeton, N.J. 1986 Johnston, David, “Hobbes’s Mortalism”, History of Political Thought, X / 4 (1989), pp. 647–63 Jorgensen, S.-A., “Nachahmung der Natur”, in: Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie, VI (1984), pp. 337–41 Judovitz, Dalia, “Vision, Representation, and Technology in Descartes”, in: Modernity and the Hegemony of Vision, David Michael Levin, ed., London 1993, pp. 63–86

Bibliogr aphy

Kantorowicz, Ernst, The King’s Two Bodies: A Study in Mediaeval Political Theology, Princeton 1957 Kauffeldt, Alfons, Otto von Guericke. Philosophisches über den leeren Raum, East Berlin 1968 Keller, Harald, Das Nachleben des antiken Bildnisses, Freiburg, Basel and Vienna 1977 Kemp, Martin, “Geometrical Perspective from Brunelleschi to Desargues: A Pictorial Means or an Intellectual End?”, in: Proceedings of the British Academy, LXX (1984), pp. 89–132 Kemp, Wolfgang, “Disegno – Beiträge zur Geschichte des Begriffs zwischen 1547 und 1607”, in: Marburger Jahrbuch für Kunstwissenschaft, XIX (1974), pp. 219–40 Kersting, Thomas, Thomas Hobbes zur Einführung, Hamburg 1992 Kimmich, Dorothee, Epikureische Aufklärungen, Darmstadt 1993 King, John N., Royal Tudor Iconography. Literature and Art in an Age of Religious Crisis, Princeton, N.J., 1989 King, Preston, The ideology of order: a comparative analysis of Jean Bodin and Thomas Hobbes, London 1999 Klenner, Hermann, Des Thomas Hobbes bellum omnia contra omnes, West Berlin 1989 Klier, Andrea, “Fixierte Natur. Herrschaft nd Begehren in Effigies und Naturabguss des16. Jahrhunderts. Doctoral dissertation, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin 1998 Klier, Andrea, Fixierte Natur: Naturabguss und Effigies im 16. Jahrhundert, Berlin 2004 Klotz, Sebastian, “Konturen des Mimesis-Begriffs an der Schwelle zur Neuzeit. Francesco Patrizi’s Della Poetica (1586)”, Weimarer Beiträge, XLI / 1 (1995), pp. 48–65 Knobloch, Eberhard, “Harmony and Cosmos: Mathematics serving a Teleological Understanding of the World”, Physis. Rivista Internazionale di Storia della Scienza, new series, XXXII / 1 (1995), pp. 55–89 Knobloch, Eberhard, “Materie des Himmels”, in: Acta historica Leopoldina, XXXI (2000), pp. 89–107 Kodalle, Klaus-Michael, “Carl Schmitt und die Neueste Hobbes-Literatur”, Philosophische Rundschau, XVIII (1971), pp. 116–30 Kodalle, Klaus-Michael, Thomas Hobbes – Logik der Herrschaft und Vernunft des Friedens, Tilman Borsche, ed., Munich 1972 Kodalle, Klaus-Michael, “Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679)”, in: Tilman Borsche, ed., Klassiker der Sprachphilosophie, Munich 1996, pp. 111–31 Konecný, Lubomír, “Young Milton and the Telescope”, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, XXXVII (1974), pp. 368–73 Koselleck, Reinhart, Kritik und Krise. Eine Studie zur Pathogenese der bürgerlichen Welt, Frankfurt am Main 1992 Koyré, Alexandre, From the Closed World to the Infinite Universe, Baltimore and Oxford 1957 Kraynak, Robert P., History and Modernity in the Thought of Thomas Hobbes, New York 1990 Krieg der Bilder: Druckgraphik als politischer Aneinandersetzung im Europe des Absolutismus, exh. cat., Wolfgang Cillessen, ed.; Deutsches Historisches Museum, Berlin 1997–98; Berlin 1997 Kris, Ernst and Otto Kurz, Die Legende vom Künstler. Ein geschichtlicher Versuch, Vienna 1934 Kristiansson, Magnus and Johan Tralau, “Hobbes’s hidden monster: A new interpretation of the frontispiece of Leviathan”, European Journal of Political Thinking, XIII / 3 (2014), pp. 299–320 Kunst um 1400 am Mittelrhein – ein Teil der Wirklichkeit, exh. cat., Herbert Beck, Wolfgang Beeh and Horst Bredekamp, eds.; Liebighaus Museum alter Plastik, Frankfurt am Main 1975–76; Frankfurt am Main 1975 Land, Stephen K., The Philosophy of Language in Britain. Major Themes from Hobbes to Thomas Reid, New York 1986 Latour, Bruno, Nous n’avons jamais été modernes. Essai d’anthropologie symétrique, Paris 1991 Leinkauf, Thomas, Mundus combinatus. Studien zur Struktur des barocken Universalwissenschaft am Beispiel Athanasius Kirchers SJ (1602–80), Berlin 19930

251

252

Appendix III

Lemetti, Juhanna, ed., Historical Dictionary of Hobbes’s Philosophy, Lanham, Md., Toronto and Plymouth 2012 Lenoble, R., Esquisse d’une histoire de l’ idée de nature, Paris 1969 Lentes, Thomas, “Die Gewänder der Heiligen – Ein Diskussionsbeitrag zum Verhältnis von Gebet, Bild und Imagination”, in: Hagiographie und Kunst. Der Heiligenkult in Schrift, Bild und Architektur, Gottfried Kerscher, ed., Berlin 1993, pp. 120–51 Lessay, Franck, “Naissance de la République Hobbesienne: Les Lieux de l’Artifice”, Cahiers Élisabéthains, XXX (1986), pp. 49–58 Leviathan after 300 Years, Luc Foisneau and Tom Sorell, eds., Oxford 2004 Levy Peck, Linda, Court Patronage and Corruption in Early Stuart England, Cambridge, Mass., and London 1990 Levy Peck, Linda, “Hobbes on the Grand Tour: Paris, Venice, or London?”, Journal of the History of Ideas, LVII / 1 (1996), pp. 177–83 Lilla, Mark, The Stillborn God: Religion, Politics, and the Modern World, New York 2007 Llewelyn, Nigel, The Art of Death. Visual Culture in the English Death Ritual c. 1500 –c. 1800, London 1991 Llewellyn, Nigel, “The Royal Body: Monuments to the Dead, For the Living”, in: Renaissance ­Bodies. The Human Figure in English Culture c. 1540–1660, Lucy Gent and Nigel Llewellyn, eds., London 1995, pp. 218–40 Lloyd, S.A., Ideas as Interests in Hobbes’s “Leviathan”: The Power of Mind over Matter, Cambridge 1994 Loach, Jennifer, “The Function of Ceremonial in the Reign of Henry VIII”, Past and Present, CXLII (1994), pp. 43–68 Lothe, José, L’Oeuvre gravé d’Abraham Bosse: Graveur parisien du XVIIe siècle, Paris 2008 Lucian of Samosata, “Prolalia Heracles (Heracles: An Introduction)”, in: The Works of Lucian of Samosata, in Eight Volumes, vol. I. Greek and English text, A.M. Hamon, trans., London and New York (Loeb Classical Library) 1913 Lucretius, De rerum natura. Latin and English text, W.H.D. Rouse, trans., London and New York (Loeb Classical Library), 1926 Ludwig, Bernd, Die Wiederentdeckung des epikureischen Naturrechts: zu Thomas Hobbes’ philoso­ phischer Entwicklung von “De Cive” zum “Leviathan” im Pariser Exil, 1640–1651, Frankfurt am Main 1998 Lund, Roger D., “‘Kickshews of Similitude’. Hobbes and the Subterfuge of Style”, in: 1650–1850. Ideas, Aesthetics, and Inquiries in the Early Modern Era, vol. I, Kevin L. Cope, ed., New York 1994, pp. 197–226 Macdonald, Hugh and Mary Hargreaves, Thomas Hobbes. A Bibliography, London 1952 Machiavelli, Niccolò, Discorsi sopra la Prima Deca di Tito Livio (1531), in: Niccolò Machiavelli: Opere, 3 vols., Corrado Vivanti, ed., Turin 1997–2005, vol. I, pp. 193–525 Macpherson, C. B., The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism (Hobbes to Locke), Oxford 1962 Madan, Francis F., “A New Bibliography of the Eikon Basilike of King Charles the First”, Oxford Bibliographical Society Publications, new series, III (1949), 1950 Madonas, Y. “Essai sur le Leviathan de Thomas Hobbes: Le crocodile et le dragon”, Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale, LXXXI / 4 (1976), pp. 478–512 Malcolm, Noel, “Hobbes and the Royal Society”, in: Perspectives on Thomas Hobbes, G.A.J. Rogers and Alan Ryan, eds., Oxford 1988, pp. 43–66 Malcolm, Noel, “A summary biography of Hobbes”, in: The Cambridge Companion to Hobbes, Tom Sorell, ed., Cambridge 1996, pp. 13–44 Malcolm, Noel. “The Title-page of Leviathan, Seen in a Curious Perspective”, The Seventeenth Century, XIII / 2 (1998), pp. 124–55

Bibliogr aphy

Malcolm, Noel, Aspects of Hobbes, Oxford 2002 Malcolm, Noel, “The name and nature of Leviathan: political symbolism in Biblical exegesis”, Intellectual History Review, XVII (2007), pp. 21–39 Malcolm, Noel, “Editorial Introduction”, in: Thomas Hobbes: Leviathan, Noel Malcolm, ed., Oxford (Clarendon Edition) 2012, Vol. I Mancosu, Paolo and Ezio Vailati, “Torricelli’s Infinitely Long Solid and Its Philosophical Reception in the Seventeenth Century”, Iris, LXXXII (1991), pp. 50–70 Mann, Heinz Herbert, Augenglas und Perspektive. Studien zur Ikonographie zweier Bildmotive, Berlin 1992 Manow, Philip, “Sexualität und Souveranität – Neue Nachrichten vom Vor- und Nachleben des Leviathan-Frontispizes”, Leviathan. Zeitschrift für Sozialwissenschaft, XXXV (2007), pp. 470–94 Manow, Philip, Politische Ursprungsphantasien: der Leviathan und sein Erbe, Konstanz 2011 Manow, Philip, D. Simon and F. Rüb, eds., Die Bilder des Leviathan. Eine Deutungsgeschichte, Baden-Baden 2012 Marolles, Michel de, Catalogue Des Livres d’Estampes et des Figures En Taille Douce, Paris 1666 Martel, James R., “The spectacle of the Leviathan: Thomas Hobbes, Guy Debord and Walter Benjamin on Representation and Its Misuses”, Law, culture and the humanities, II / 1 (2006), pp. 67–90 Martel, James R., Subverting the Leviathan: reading Thomas Hobbes as a radical democrat, New York 2007 Martin, R.M., “On the Semantics of Hobbes”, Philosophy and phenomenological research, XIV (1953/54), pp. 205–11 Martinich, Aloysius P., The Two Gods of Leviathan. Thomas Hobbes on Religion and Politics, Cambridge 1992 Martinich, Aloysius P., ed., A Hobbes Dictionary, Cambridge, Mass., 1995 Martinich, Aloysius P., Hobbes: a biography, Cambridge 1999 Martinich, Aloysius P. and Kinch Hoekstra, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Hobbes, New York 2006 May, Larry, Limiting Leviathan: Hobbes on law and international affairs, Oxford 2013 Mayr, Otto, Uhrwerk und Waage. Autorität, Freiheit und technische Systeme in der frühen Neuzeit, Munich 1987 McClure, Christopher Scott, “Hell and Anxiety in Hobbes’s Leviathan”, Review of Politics, LXXIII (2011), pp. 1–27 McClure, Christopher Scott, Hobbes and the Artifice of Eternity, New York 2016 McNeilly, E. S., The Anatomy of Leviathan, New York 1968 McNiven Hine, Ellen, “What’s in a Name? Hobbes, Berkeley, Hartley, Condillac and the ‘Doctrine of Signs’”, Revue de Littérature Comparée, LIII / 1 (1989), pp. 5–16 McTighe, Sheila, “Abraham Bosse and the Language of Artisans: Genre and Perspective in the Académie royale de peinture et de sculpture, 1648–1670”, Oxford Art Journal, XXI / 1 (1998), pp. 3–26 Mercurio Trismegisto. Il Pimandro, Tommaso Benci., trans., Florence 1548 Metzger, Hans-Dieter, Thomas Hobbes und die Englische Revolution 1640–60, Stuttgart 1991 Metzger, Hans-Dieter, “Die Bedeutung des Leviathan. Politischer Mythos oder politischer Begriff?”, Hobbes Studies, V (1992), pp. 23–52 Meyer-Kalkus, Reinhart, Wollust und Grausamkeit. Affektenlehre und Affektdarstellung in Lohensteins Dramatik am Beispiel von “Agrppina”, Göttingen 1986 Miller, Ted H., Mortal gods: science, politics, and the humanist ambitions of Thomas Hobbes, University Park, Pa., 2011 Mintz, Samuel I., The Hunting of Leviathan. Seventeenth-Century Reactions to the Materialism and Moral Philosophy of Thomas Hobbes, Cambridge 1962

253

254

Appendix III

Mintz, Samuel I, “Leviathan as Metaphor”, Hobbes Studies, II (1989), pp. 3–9 Moore, Andrew, Shakespeare between Machiavelli and Hobbes: Dead Body Politics, Latham, Md., 2016 Morize, André, “Samuel Sorbière (1610–1670)”, Zeitschrift für französische Sprache und Literatur, XXXIII (1908), pp. 214–65 Münkler, Herfried, “Alle Macht dem Staate?”, Frankfurter Allgemeine Magazin, CCC (29 November 1985), pp. 44–46 Münkler, Herfried, Thomas Hobbes, Frankfurt am Main 1993 Münkler, Herfried, Politische Bilder, Politik der Metaphern, Frankfurt am Main 1994 Münkler, Herfried, “Die Visibilität der Macht und die Strategien der Machtvisualisierung”, in: Macht der Öffentlichkeit – Öffenlichkeit der Macht, Gerhard Göhler, ed., Baden-Baden 1995, pp. 213–30 Murphy, Kathryn, “Thomas Traherne, Thomas Hobbes, and the Rhetoric of Reason”, The Seventeenth Century, XXVIII / 4 (2013), pp. 419–39 Nachlass Carl Schmitt, in: Verzeichnis des Bestandes im Nordrhein-Westfälischen Hauptstaatsarchiv, Dirk van Laan and Ingeborg Villinger, eds., Siegburg 1993 Napoli, Andrea, ed., Hobbes oggi: atti del convegno internazionale […] Milano – Locarno, Milan 1990 Nassehi, Armin, Die Zeit der Gesellschaft. Auf dem Weg zu einer soziologischen Theorie der Zeit, Opladen 1993 Newey, Glen, Hobbes and Leviathan, London 2003 Newey, Glen, ed., The Routledge Guidebook to Hobbes’s Leviathan, London and New York 2014 Oakeshott, Michael, Hobbes on Civil Association, Oxford 1975 Odzuck, Eva Helene, Thomas Hobbes’ körperbasierter Liberalismus: eine kritische Analyse des Leviathan, Berlin 2016 Osmond, Richard and Malcolm Rogers, eds., Dictionary of British Portraiture, vol. I, London 1980 Ottmann, Henning, “Thomas Hobbes – Widersprüche einer extremen Philosophie der Macht”, in: Der Mensch – ein politisches Tier?, Otfried Höffe, ed., Stuttgart 1992, pp. 68–91 Owen, J. Judd, “The Tolerant Leviathan: Hobbes and the Paradox of Liberalism”, Polity, XXXVII (2005), pp. 130–48 Oxman, Evan, “Hobbes on the Artificiality of Authority”, Hobbes Studies, XXXI / 2 (2018), pp. 188–211 Pacchi, Arrigo, Convenzione e ipotesi nella formazione della filosofia naturale di Thomas Hobbes, Florence 1965 Pacchi, Arrigo, “Cinquant’anni di studi hobbesiani”, Rivista di filosofia, LVII / 3 (1966), pp. 306–35 Pacchi, Arrigo, “Una ‘Biblioteca Ideale’ di Thomas Hobbes: il MS E2 dell’Archivo di Chatsworth”, Acme, XXI / 1 (1968), pp. 5–42 Pacchi, Arrigo, “Studi Hobbesiani negli ultimi venticinque anni in Italia”, Cultura e Scuola, XXVIII (1968), pp. 118–26 Pacchi, Arrigo, “Hobbes e l’epicureismo”, Rivista critica di Storia della Filosofia, XXXIII / 1 (1978), pp. 54–71 Pacchi, Arrigo, “Hobbes and the Problem of God”, in: Perspectives on Thomas Hobbes, G.A.J. Rogers and Alan Ryan, eds., Oxford 1988, pp. 171–87 Pacchi, Arrigo, “Hobbes e la teologia”, in: Hobbes oggi: atti del convegno internazionale […] Milano – Locarno, Andrea Napoli, ed., Milan 1990, pp. 101–22 Panofsky, Erwin, Tomb sculpture: its changing aspects from Ancient Egypt to Bernini, London 1965 Parkin, John, Taming the Leviathan: The Reception of the Political and Religious Ideas of Thomas Hobbes in England, 1640–1700, Cambridge 2007

Bibliogr aphy

Parry, Graham, “A troubled Arcadia”, in: Literature and the English Civil War, Thomas Healy and Joanathan Sawday, eds., Cambridge et al. 1990, pp. 38–55 Parthey, Gustav, Wenzel Hollar. Beschreibendes Verzeichnis seiner Kupferstiche, Berlin 1853 Patrizi, Francesco, Nova de universis philosophica, Ferrara 1591 Patrizi, Francesco, Magia Philosophica, Hamburg 1593 Patterson-Tutschka, Monicka, “Hobbes smashes Cromwell and the Rump: An Interpretation of Leviathan”, Political Theory, XLIII / 5 (2015), pp. 631–56 Peil, Dietmar, Untersuchungen zur Staats- und Herrschaftsmetaphorik in literarischen Zeugnissen von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart, Munich 1983 Pennington, Richard, A descriptive catalogue of the etched work of Wenceslaus Hollar 1607–1677, Cambridge 1982 Pennock, J. Roland, “Hobbes’s confusing ‘Clarity’ – The Case of ‘Liberty’”, in: Hobbes Studies, K.C. Brown, ed., Oxford 1965, pp. 101–16 Persius, Satires, in: Persius and Juvenal. Satires. Latin and English text, Susanna Morton Braund, ed. & trans., Cambridge, Mass., and London (Loeb Classical Library), 2004 Perspectives on Thomas Hobbes, G.A.J. Rogers and Alan Ryan, eds., Oxford 1988 Pillorget, René, “L’image du prince dans la France du XVIIième Siècle”, in: Konrad Repgen, ed., Das Herrscherbild im 17. Jahrhundert, Konrad Repgen, ed., Münster 1991, pp. 43–57 Pitkin, Hanna, “Hobbes’s Concept of Representation”, The American Political Science Review, LVIII / 2 (1964), pp. 328–40 and VIII / 4 (1964), pp. 902–18 Plowden, Edmund, The Commentaries or reports […] containing divers cases upon matters of law, argued and adjudged […], London 1816 Pocock, J. G. A., “Time, History and Eschatology in the Thought of Thomas Hobbes”, in: J. G.A. Pocock, Politics, Language and Time: Essays on Political Thought and History, London 1971, pp. 148–201 Pocock, J. G.A. and Gordon J. Schochet, “Interregnum and Restoration”, in: The Varieties of British Political Thought 1500–1800, J.G.A. Pocock, ed., Cambridge 1993, pp. 146–79 Poleross, Friedrich, “Des abwesenden Prinzen Portrait. Zeremonielldarstellung im Bildnis und Bildnisgebrauch im Zeremoniell”, in: Zeremoniell als höfische Ästhetik in Spätmittelalter und Früher Neuzeit, Jörg Jochen Berns and Thomas Rahn, eds., Tübingen 1995, pp. 382–409 Porta, Giambattista della, Magiae Naturalis libris viginti, Naples 1589 Porta, Giambattista della (as Johann Baptista), Magia Naturalis, oder Haus- Kunst- und WunderBuch, Nuremberg 1680 Pratt, William Henry, “Beautiful Ms. Of Hobbes’s ‘Leviathan’ (Letter to the Editor, 30 June 1812), The Gentleman’s Magazine and Historical Chronicle, LXXXIII / 1 (January–June 1813), pp. 30–31 Preuss, Ulrich K., Krieg, Verbrechen, Blasphemie. Zum Wandel bewaffneter Gewalt, Berlin 2002 Prins, Jan, “Hobbes on light and vison”, in: The Cambridge Companion to Hobbes, Tom Sorell, ed., Cambridge 1996, pp. 129–56 Probst, Siegmund, “Infinity and creation: the origin of the controversy between Thomas Hobbes and the Savillian Professors Seth Ward and John Wallis”, The British Journal for the History of Science, XXVI (1993), pp. 271–79 Prokhovnik, Raia, Rhetoric and Philosophy in Hobbes’s Leviathan, New York and London 1991 Prozorov, Sergei, “Like a thief in the night: Agamben, Hobbes and the messianic transvaluation of security”, Security Dialogue, XLVIII / 6 (2017), pp. 473–87 Prufer, Thomas, Recapitulations. Essays in Philosophy. Washington, D.C., 1993 Ptassek, Peter, Rhetorische Rationalität. Stationen einer Verdrängungsgeschichte von der Antike bis zur Neuzeit, Munich 1993 Pye, Christopher, “The Sovereign, the Theater, and the Kingdome of Darknesse: Hobbes and the Spectacle of Power”, Representations, VIII (1984), pp. 85–106

255

256

Appendix III

Pye, Christopher, The Regal Phantasm. Shakespeare and the Politics of Spectacle, London and New York 1990 Quarles, Francis, Emblemes, London 1635 Rahir, Édouard, Catalogue d’une collection unique de volumes imprimés par les Elzevier et divers typographes hollandais du XVIIe siècle, Paris 1896 Rauch, Leo, “Secular Fall and Redemption in Hobbes’s Leviathan”, in: Praise Disjoined. Changing Patterns of Salvation in 17th-Cenury English Literature, William P. Shaw, ed., New York et al. 1991, pp. 89–102 Reagan, L.S., “Mimesis in Thomas Hobbes’s Leviathan (1651)”, History of the Human Sciences, XXIV / 4 (2012), pp. 25–42 Rehkämper, Klaus, Sind mentale “Bilder” bildhaft? Eine Frage zwischen Philosophie und Wissenschaft, Hamburg 1991 Reichert, Klaus, “The Two Faces of Scientific Progress; or, Institution as Utopia”, in: Utopian Vision, Technological Innovation, and Poetic Imagination, Klaus L. Berghahn and Reinhold Grimm, eds., Heidelberg 1990, pp. 11–18 Reik, Miriam M., The Golden Lands of Thomas Hobbes, Detroit 1977 Reinhard, Wolfgang, Geschichte der Staatsgewalt. Eine vergleichende Verfassungsgeschichte Europas von den Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart, Munich 1999 Reinle, Adolf, Das stellvertretende Bildnis, Zürich and Munich 1984 Reisch, Gregor, Margarita Philosophica. Freiburg 1504 Reitinger, Franz, “Gemeinwesen”, Vive le Discours des Pictures, IV (1987), West Berlin 1987, pp. 15–22 Reitinger, Franz, “Gemeinwesen. Kunstgeschichte eines Untieres”, in: Animal Art, exh. cat. (Steirischer Herbst), Graz 1987, unpaginated Repgen, Konrad, ed., Das Herrscherbild im 17. Jahrhundert, Münster 1991 Reudenbach, Bruno, “Die Gemeinschaft als Körper und Gebäude. Francesco di Giorgios Stadttheorie und die Visualisierung von Sozialmetaphern im Mittelalter”, in: Gepeinigt, Begehrt und Vergessen. Symbolik und Sozialbezug des Körpers im späten Mittelalter und in der frühen Neuzeit, Klaus Schreiner and Norbert Schnitzler, eds., Munich 1992, pp. 171–98 Ribeiro, Renato Janine, A marca do Leviatã: linguagem e poder em Hobbes, São Paolo 2003 Riedel, Manfred, Metaphysik und Metapolitik, Frankfurt am Main 1975 Robinson, Joseph Armitage, “A Note on the Westminster Tradition of Identification”, in: Hope, Sir William H. St. John, On the Funeral Effigies of the Kings and Queens of England, with special reference to those in the Abbey Church of Westminster, London 1907, pp. 565–70 Robinson, Norman H., The Royal Society. Catalogue of Portraits, London 1980 Rogers, G.A.J., ed., Leviathan. Contemporary responses to the political theory of Thomas Hobbes, Bristol 1995 Rogers, G.A.J. and Alan Ryan, eds. Perspectives on Hobbes, Oxford 1988 Rossini, Gigliola, “The criticism of rhetorical historiography and the ideal of scientific method: history, nature and science in the political language of Thomas Hobbes”, in: The Languages of Political Theory in Early-Modern Europe, Anthony Pagden, ed., Cambridge 1987, pp. 303–24 Rossini, Gigliola, Natura e artificio nel pensiero di Hobbes, Bologna 1988 Roux, Louis, “Les Images et l’Imagination chez Hobbes”, in: La Raison et L’Imaginaire. Actes du Congrès de Rennes 1970, Jean-C. Noel, ed., Paris 1970, pp. 73–97 Roux, Louis, “Préface”, in: Thomas Hobbes, Le Corps Politique Ou Les Elements De La Loy Morale Et Civile (1652), Saint-Etienne 1977, pp. 7–31 Roux, Louis and Hervé Gilbert, Le vocabulaire, le phrase et le paragraphe du “Leviathan” de Thomas Hobbes, Saint-Etienne 1980

Bibliogr aphy

Rüfner, Vinzenz, “Homo secundus Deus. Eine geistesgeschichtliche Studie zum menschlichen Schöpfertum”, in: Philosophisches Jahrbuch der Görres-Gesellschaft, LXIII (1955), pp. 248–91 Runciman, David, Pluralism and the Personality of the State, Cambridge 1997 Ryan, Alan, On Hobbes: escaping the war of all against all, New York 2016 Ryan, Alan, “Escaping the War of All against All”, Social Research, LXXXV / 3 (February 2018), pp. 639–50 Saavedra Fajardo, Diego de, Idea de un Príncipe Político Christiano, rapresentada en cien empresas, Milan 1642 Sacksteder, William, “Hobbes: The Art of the Geometricians”, Journal of the History of Philosophy, XVIII / 2 (1980), pp. 131–46 Savérien, Alexandre, Histoire des Philosophes Modernes, vol. I, Paris 1760 Schaefer, Alfred, Die Idee in Person: Hobbes’ Leviathan in seiner und unserer Zeit, Cuxhaven and Dartford 1997 Schama, Simon, The Embarassment of Riches: An Interpretation of Dutch Culture in the Golden Age, London 1987 Schelsky, Helmut, “Die Totalität des Staates bei Hobbes”, Archiv für Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie, XXXI (1937/38), pp. 176–93 Schelsky, Helmut, Thomas Hobbes. Eine politische Lehre. West Berlin 1981 Schipperges, Heinrich, Kosmos Anthropos. Entwürfe zu einer Philosophie des Leibes, Stuttgart 1981 Schlosser, Julius von, Tote Blicke. Geschichte der Portraitbildnerei in Wachs, ein Versuch (1910/11), Thomas Medicus, ed., Berlin 1993 Schmitt, Carl, Der Leviathan in der Staatslehre des Thomas Hobbes. Sinn und Fehlschlag eines politischen Symbols, Hamburg 1938 Schmitt, Carl, Der Leviathan in der Staatsrecht des Thomas Hobbes. Sinn und Fehlschlag eines politischen Symbols (1938), Günter Maschke, ed., Cologne 1982 Schmitt, Carl, Glossarium. Aufzeichnungen der Jahre 1947–1951, Eberhard Freiherr von Medem, ed., Berlin 1991 Schmitt, Charles B., John Case and Aristotelism in Elizabethan England, Kingston, Ontario, and Montreal 1983 Schneider, Thomas, Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan: zur Logik des politischen Körpers, Springe 2003 Schnur, Roman, Individualismus und Absolutismus – Zur politischen Theorie vor Hobbes (1600– 1640), West Berlin 1963 Schochet, Gordon J. “Hobbes and the Voluntary Basis of Society”, in: Thomas Hobbes & Political Theory, Mary G. Dietz, ed., Lawrence, Kans., 1990, pp. 55–73 Schoneveld, Cornelis W., “Some Features of the Sevententh-Century Editions of Hobbes’s De Cive Printed in Holland and Elsewhere”, in: Thomas Hobbes. His View of Man. Proceedings of the Hobbes Symposium at the International School of Philosopnhy in the Netherlands, 1979, J.G. van der B, ed., Amsterdam, 1982, pp. 125–42 Schotte, Dietrich, Die Entmachtung Gottes durch den Leviathan. Thomas Hobbes über Religion, Stuttgart 2013 Schuhmann, Karl, “Rapidità del pensiero e ascensione al Cielo: alcuni Motivi Ermetici in Hobbes”, Rivista di storia della filosofia, XL / 2 (1985), pp. 203–27 Schuhmann, Karl, “Thomas Hobbes und Francesco Patrizi”, Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie, LXVIII (1986), pp. 253–79 Schuhmann, Karl, “Hobbes and Renaissance Philosophy”, in: Hobbes oggi: atti del convegno internazionale […] Milano – Locarno, Andrea Napoli, ed., Milan 1990, pp. 331–49 Seelye, John D., “Hobbes’ Leviathan and the Giantism Complex in the First Book of Gulliver’s Travels”, Journal of English and Germanic Philology, LX (1961), pp. 228–39

257

258

Appendix III

Selden, Raman, “Hobbes and Late Metaphysical Poetry”, Journal of the History of Ideas, XXXV / 2 (1974), pp. 197–210 Seneca (Lucius Annaeus Seneca the Younger), De Ira, in: Seneca: Moral Essays in three volumes, Vol. I: De Providentia, De Constantia, De Ira, et al. Latin and English text, John W. Basore, trans., London and Cambridge, Mass. (Loeb Classical Library), 2nd rev. edn. 1963 Seneca (Lucius Annaeus Seneca the Younger ), Oedipus, in: Seneca: Tragedies: Oedipus, Agamemnon, Thyestes, et al. Latin and English text, John G. Fitch, trans., Cambridge, Mass., and London (Loeb Classical Library) 2004 Seneca (Lucius Annaeus Seneca the Younger), Thyestes, in: Seneca: Tragedies: Oedipus, Agamemnon, Thyestes, et al. Latin and English text, John G. Fitch, trans., Cambridge, Mass. and London (Loeb Classical Library) 2004 Shakespeare, William, The Tragedie of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark (c. 1599). The New Variorum Edition (1877), Horace Howard Furness, ed., London 1918 Shakespeare, William, The Tragedie of Macbeth. The New Variorum Edition (1606), Horace Howard Furness, ed., (1873), London 1915 Shapin, Steven and Simon Schaffer, Leviathan and the Air-Pump: Hobbes, Boyle and the Experimental Life, Princeton, N.J., 1985 Shapiro, Alan K., “Kinematic Optics: A Study of the Wave Theory of Light in the Seventeenth Century”, Archive for History of Exact Sciences, XI (1973), pp. 134–266 Sherman, Claire Richter, Imaging Aristotle. Verbal and Visual Representation in Fourteenth-Century France, Berkeley, Ca., et al. 1995 Sherwood, Roy, The Court of Oliver Cromwell, London 1977 Schickman, Allan, “‘Turning Pictures’ in Shakespeare’s England”, The Art Bulletin, LIX / 1 (1977), pp. 67–70 Schickmann, Allan, “Reply”, The Art Bulletin, LIX / 4 (1977), pp. 659–60 Silver, Victoria, “The Fiction of Self-Evidence in Hobbes’s’ Leviathan”, English Literary History (ELH), LV / 6 (1988), pp. 351–79 Skinner, Quentin, “The ideological context of Hobbes’s Political Thought”, The Historical Journal, IX / 3 (1966), pp. 286–317 Skinner, Quentin, “Thomas Hobbes and the Nature of the Early Royal Society”, The Historical Journal, XII / 2 (1969), pp. 217–39 Skinner, Quentin, “Conquest and Consent: Thomas Hobbes and the Engagement Controversy”, in: The Interregnum: The Quest for Settlement, 1646 –1660, G.F. Aylmer, ed., London 1972, pp. 79–98 Skinner, Quentin, “Warrender and Skinner on Hobbes. A Reply”, Political Studies, XXXVI (1988), pp. 692–95 Skinner, Quentin, Reason and Rhetoric in the Philosophy of Hobbes, Cambridge 1996 Skinner, Quentin, Liberty before Liberalism, Cambridge 1998 Skinner, Quentin, Hobbes and Republican Liberty, Cambridge 2008 Sofsky, Wolfgang, Traktat über die Gewalt, Frankfurt am Main 1996 Sommerville, Johann P., Thomas Hobbes: Political Ideas in Historical Context, New York 1992 Sorbière, Samuel, Relation d’un Voyage en Angleterre (1666), Louis Roux, ed., Paris 1980 Sorell, Tom, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Thomas Hobbes, Cambridge 1996 Sorgi, Giuseppe, “Hobbes: difficoltà di una interpretazione (I)”, Note storiche e rassegne, XI / 2 (1981), pp. 91–118 Springborg, Patricia, “Hobbes’s Biblical Beasts. Leviathan and Behemoth”, Political Theory, XXIII / 2 (1995), pp. 353–75 Springborg, Patricia, “Thomas Hobbes and Cardinal Bellarmine: Leviathan and the ‘Ghost of the Roman Empire’”, History of Political Thought, XVI / 4 (1995), pp. 503–13

Bibliogr aphy

Springborg, Patricia, “Leviathan, mythic history, and national historiography”, in: The Historical Imagination in Early Modern Britain. History, Rhetoric, and Fiction, 1500–1800, Donald R. Kelley and David Harris Sacks, eds., Cambridge 1997, pp. 267–97 Springborg, Patricia, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Hobbes’s Leviathan, Cambridge 2007 Sprinzels, Franz, Hollar Handzeichnungen, Vienna, Leipzig and Prague 1938 Sreedhar, Susanne, Hobbes on resistance: defying the Leviathan, Cambridge 2010 Stauffer, Denis, Hobbes’s Kingdom of Light: A Study of the Foundations of Modern Political Philosophy, Chicago and London 2018 Steadman, David W., Abraham van Diepenbeeck. Seventeenth-Century Flemish Painter, Ann Arbor, Mich., 1982 Steadman, John M., “Leviathan and Renaissance Etymology”, Journal of the History of Ideas, XXVIII (1967), pp. 575–76 Stillman, Robert, “Hobbes’s Leviathan: Monsters, Metaphors, and Magic”, English Literary History (ELH, LXII / 4 (1995), pp. 791–819 Stillman, Robert, The New Philosophy and Universal Languages in Seventeenth-Century England, Cranbury, N.J., et al. 1995 Stollberg-Rilinger, Barbara, Der Staat als Maschine. Zur politischen Metaphorik des absoluten Fürstenstaats, West Berlin 1986 Strauss, Leo, Hobbes’ politische Wissenschaft, West Berlin 1965 Strauss, Leo, Naturrecht und Geschichte, Frankfurt am Main 1977 Strong, Roy, Art and Power: Renaissance Festivals 1450–1650, Woodbridge 1984 Strong, Tracy B., “Words, Authority, and Politics in Thomas Hobbes”, Critical Enquiry, XX (1993), pp. 129–59 Stroud, Elaine C., “Light and Vision: two complementary Aspects of Optics in Hobbes’ unpublished manuscript, ‘A Minute or First Draught of the Optiques’”, in: Hobbes oggi: atti del convegno internazionale […] Milano – Locarno, Andrea Napoli, ed., Milan 1990, pp. 269–77 Strutz, Jürgen, “Leviathan oder der sterbliche Gott. Zur mythologischen Dimension in Hobbes’ Konstruktion des Staates”, in: Foedera Naturai: Klaus Heinrich zum 60. Geburtstag, Hartmut Zinser, ed., Würzburg 1990, pp. 349–70 Struve, Tilman, “‘Vita civilis naturam imitetur […]’. Der Gedanke der Nachahmung der Natur als Grundlage der organologischen Staatskonzeption des Johannes von Salisbury”, Historisches Jahrbuch, CI / CII (1981), pp. 341–61 Tarnow, Ulrike, “‘The Kinge Pycture’. Sudien zu englischen Herrschereffigies”. MA dissertation, Technische-Universität zu Berlin 1998 Taubert, J. “Mittelalterliche Kruzifixe mit schwenkbaren Armen. Ein Beitrag zur Verwendung von Bildwerken in der Liturgie”, Zeitschrift des Deutschen Verein für Kunstwissenschaft, XXIII (1969), pp. 79–121 Taubes, Jacob, “Statt einer Einleitung: Leviathan als sterblicher Gott. Zur Aktualität von Thomas Hobbes”, in: Der Fürst dieser Welt. Carl Schmitt und die Folgen, Jacob Taubes, ed., Munich 1985, pp. 9–15 Thoenes, Christof, “Vignolas ‘Regola delle cinque ordini’”, Römisches Jahrbuch für Kunstgeschichte, XX (1983), pp. 345–76 Thornton, Helen, State of nature or Eden? Thomas Hobbes and his contemporaries on the natural condition of human beings, Rochester, N.Y., 2005 Thorpe, Clarence DeWitt, The aesthetic theory of Thomas Hobbes, Ann Arbor, Mich., 1940 Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War , in: Thucydides in Four Volumes, Vol. I: History of the Peloponnesian War, Books I and II. Greek and English text, C. Foster Smith, trans., London and New York (Loeb Classical Library) 1919 Todd, G. F., “On Visual Representation”, The British Journal of Aesthetics, XV / 4 (1975), pp. 347–57

259

260

Appendix III

Tönnies, Ferdinand, Thomas Hobbes. Der Mann und der Denker, 2nd edn., Stuttgart 1912 Tönnies, Sibylle, “Der Staat: Tag- oder Nachtseite der Moderne? Merkur: Deutsche Zeitschrift für europäisches Denken, no. 599 (February 1999), pp. 95–107 Tootalian, Jacob, “Leviathan and the bagpipe: Hobbes and the poetics of figuration in the English revolution”, The Seventeenth Century, XXXI / 1 (2018), pp. 63–85 Trainor, Brian T., “Warrender and Skinner on Hobbes”, Political Studies, XXXVI (1988), pp. 680–91 Tralau, Johan, “Leviathan, the beast of myth. Medusa, Dionysios, and the riddle of Hobbes’s sovereign monster”, in The Cambridge Companion to Hobbes’s Leviathan, Patricia Springborg, ed., Cambridge 2007, pp. 61–81 Tricaud, François, “Quelques questions soulevées par la comparaison du ‘Leviathan’ Latin avec le ‘Leviathan’ Anglais”, in: Hobbes-Forschungen, Reinhardt Koselleck and Roman Schnur, eds., West Berlin 1969, pp. 237–44 Tricaud, François, “Doxographie”, in: Geschichte der Philosophie, vol. III: England, Jean-Pierre Schobinger, ed., Basel 1988, pp. 134–60 Tripps, Johannes, Das handelnde Bildwerk in der Gotik, West Berlin 1988 Trotha, Trutz von, “Die Zukunft liegt in Afrika. Vom Zerfall des Staates, von der Vorherrschaft der konzentrierten Ordnung und vom Aufstieg der Parastaatlichkeit”, Leviathan. Zeitschrift für Sozialwissenschaft, II / 2 (2000), pp. 253–79 Tuck, Richard, “Hobbes and Descartes”, in: Perspectives on Hobbes, G.A.J.Rogers and Alan Ryan, eds., Oxford 1988, pp. 11–41 Tuck, Richard, Hobbes, Oxford and New York 1989 Tuck, Richard, “A Note on the text”, in: Thomas Hobbes: Leviathan, Richard Tuck, ed., Cambridge 1991, pp. xxvii–xxxvii Tuck, Richard, “Optics and sceptics: the philosophical foundation of Hobbes’s political thought”, in: Thomas Hobbes, Vere Chappell, ed., New York and London 1992, pp. 299–327 Tuck, Richard, Philosophy and Government 1572–1651, Cambridge 1993 Turner, James, “Letter to the Editor”, The Art Bulletin, LIX / 4 (1977), p. 659 Turner, James, The Politics of Landscape. Rural Scenery and Society in English Poetry 1630–1660, Oxford 1979 Urzidil, Johannes, with Franz Sprinzels, Wenceslaus Hollar. Der Kupferstecher des Barock, Vienna and Leipzig 1936 Valentine, J., “Hobbes’s political geometry”, History of the Human Sciences, X / 2 (1997), pp. 23–40 Van der Bend, J.G, ed., Thomas Hobbes. His View of Man. Proceedings of the Hobbes Symposium at the International School pf Philosophy in the Netherlands, 1979, Amsterdam 1982 Van Eerde, Katherine S., Wenceslaus Hollar. Delineator of his Time, Charlottesville, Va., 1970 Van Mill, David, “Hobbes’s Theories of Freedom”, The Journal of Politics, LVII / 2 (1995), pp. 443–59 Van Mill, David, Liberty, rationality, and agency in Hobbes’s Leviathan, Albany, N.Y., 2001 Veen, Otto van, Quinti Flacci Emblemata, Antwerp 1612 Verspohl, Franz-Joachim, “Der David auf der Piazza della Signoria in Florenz”, in: Städel-Jahrbuch, new series, VIII (1981), pp. 204–46 Vertue, George, A description of the Works of the Ingenious Delineator and Engraver Wenceslaus Hollar disposed into Classes of Different Sorts; with some Account of His Life, 2nd edn., London 1759 Vialatoux, Joseph, La cité de Hobbes – Théorie de l’ état totalitaire, Paris and Lyon 1935 Villa, Nicole, Le XVIIe Siècle vu par Abraham Bosse Graveur du Roy., Paris 1967 Vinnicombe, T., “Thomas Hobbes and the displacement of political philosophy”, International Journal of Social Economics, XXXII / 8 (2005), pp. 667–81 Viola, Francesco, Behemoth o Leviathan? Diritto e obbligo nel pensiero di Hobbes, Milan 1979

Bibliogr aphy

Virdung von Hassfurth, Johann, Prognosticon super novis stupendis et prius non visis Planetarum Coniunctionibus magnis A.D. 1524 futuris, Oppenheim 1524 Voigt, Rudiger, ed., Der Hobbes-Kristall: Carl Schmitts Hobbes-Interpretation in der Diskussion, Stuttgart 2009 Vollrath, Ernst, “Politik und Metaphysik. Zum politischen Denken Hannah Arendts”, Zeitschrift für Politik, new series, XVIII / 3 (1971), pp. 205–32 Vowe, Gerhard, “Medienpolitik zwischen Freiheit, Gleichheit und Sicherheit”, Publizistik. Vierteljahreshefte für Kommunikationsforschung, XLIV / 4 (1999), pp. 395–415 Waldmann, Susann, Die lebensgrosse Wachsfigur. Eine Studie zu Funktion und Bedeutung der keroplastischen Portraitfigur vom Spätmittelalter bis am 18. Jahrhundert, Munich 1990 Warburg, Aby, Gesammelte Schriften, Gertrud Bing and Fritz Rougemont, eds., Nendeln 1969 Warnke, Martin, “Italienische Bildtabernakel bis zum Frühbarock”, in: Münchner Jahrbuch der bildenden Kunst, XIX (1968), pp. 61–102 Warrender, Howard, The Political Philosophy of Hobbes. His Theory of Obligation, Oxford 1957 Weber, Dominique, Hobbes et l’ histoire du salut: ce que le Christ fait à Léviathan, Paris 2008 Weber, Wolfgang, Prudentia gubernatoria. Studien zur Herrschaftslehre in der deutschen politischen Wissenschaft des 17. Jahrhunderts, Tübingen 1992 Weigert, Roger-Armand, Inventaire du fonds français: graveurs du XVIIe siècle, vol. I, Paris 1939 Weigl, Engelhard, Instrumente der Neuzeit. Die Entdeckung der modernen Wirklichkeit, Stuttgart 1990 Weiss, Ulrich, “System und Maschine. Zur Kohärenz des Hobbeschen Denkens”. Doctoral dissertation, Universität Augsburg 1974 Weiss, Ulrich, “Hobbes’ Rationalismus: Aspekte der neueren deutschen Hobbes-Rezeption”, in: Philosophisches Jahrbuch der Görres-Gesellschaft, LXXXV (1978), pp. 166–96 Die Welt als Uhr. Deutsche Uhren und Automaten 1550–1650, exh. cat., Otto Mayr, ed.; Bayerisches Nationalmuseum, Munich 1980; Munich and West Berlin, 1980 Wende, Peter, “Das Herrscherbild des 17. Jahrhunderts in England”, in: Das Herrscherbild im 17. Jahrhundert, Konrad Repgen, ed., Münster 1991, pp. 58–78 Wenzel Hollar 1607–77, Reisebilder vom Rhein, exh. cat., Mainz 1986 Wenzel Hollar. Radierungen aus dem Kupferstichkabinett der Staatlichen Kunsthalle, exh. cat., Karlsruhe 1990 Wernham, A. G., “Liberty and Obligation in Hobbes”, in: Hobbes Studies, K.C. Brown, ed., Oxford 1965, pp. 117–39 Whewell, William, Lectures on the History of Moral Philosophy in England, London 1852 Whitfield, J. H., “Sir Richard Fanshawe and the Faithfull Shepherd”, Italian Studies, XIX / 1 (1964), pp. 64–82 Willems, Gottfried, Anschaulichkeit. Zu Theorie und Geschichte der Wort-Bild-Beziehungen und des literarischen Darstellungsstils, Tübingen 1989 William Dobson, 1611–46. The Royalists at War, exh. cat., Malcolm Rogers, ed.; National Portrait Gallery, London 1983; London 1983 Williams, John, Great Britains Salomon. A Sermon preached at the Magnificent Funeral, of the most high and mighty King, IAMES, the late King of Great Britaine, France, and Ireland, defender of the Faith, &c., London 1625 Willms, Bernard, “Von der Vermessung des Leviathan”, Der Staat, VI / I (1967), pp. 75–100; VI / 2 (1967), pp. 220–36 Willms, Bernard, Die Antwort des Leviathan. Thomas Hobbes’ politische Theorie, Neuwied and West Berlin 1970 Willms, Bernard, Der Weg des Leviathan. Die Hobbes-Forschung von 1968–1978, West Berlin 1979

261

262

Appendix III

Willms, Bernard, “Tendenzen der gegenwärtigen Hobbes-Forschung”, Zeitschrift für Philosophische Forschung, XXXIV (1980), pp. 442–53 Willms, Bernard. Thomas Hobbes. Das Reich des Leviathan, Munich and Zürich 1987 Willms, Bernard, “Der Leviathan und die delischen Taucher. Zur Entwicklung der Hobbes-Forschung seit 1979”, Der Staat, XXVII / 4 (1988), pp. 569–88 Willms, Bernard, “Leviathan and the Post-Modern”, History of European Ideas, X / 5 (1989), pp. 569–76 Windisch, Martin, “Denkbilder der Selbstbehauptung in der Frühen Neuzeit”, in: Mitteilungen des Zentrums zur Erforschung der frühen Neuzeit (Renaissance-Institut der Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main) II (1994), pp. 55–92 Windisch, Martin, “’when there is no visible Power to keep them in awe’: Staatstheorie und Bildform bei Thomas Hobbes”, in: Zeitsprünge. Forschungen zur Frühen Neuzeit, I / 1 (1997), Klaus Reichert, ed., pp. 117–65 Windisch, Martin, “Metapher, Allegorie und Materialität des Körpers als Medien des nationalen Gedächtnisses in der Frühen Neuzeit”, Deutsche Vierteljahresschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Geistesgeschichte, LXXII, Sonderheft: Medien des Gedächtnisses, Aleida Assmann, ­Manfred Weinberg and Martin Windisch, eds., Stuttgart and Weimar 1998, pp. 90–115 Wolf, Gerhard, “Gestörte Kreise. Zum Wahrheitsanspruch des Bildes im Zeitalter des Disegno”, in: Räume des Wissens. Repräsentation, Codierung, Spur, Hans-Jörg Rheinberger, Michael Hagner and Bettina Wahrig-Schmidt, eds., Berlin 1998, pp. 39–62 Wolfers, Benedikt, “Geschwätzige Philosophie”. Thomas Hobbes, Kritik an Aristoteles, Würzburg 1991 Wolin, Sheldon A., Hobbes and the Epic Tradition of Political Theory, Los Angeles 1970 Woodfield, Richard, “Thomas Hobbes and the Formation of Aesthetics”, British Journal of Aesthe­ tics, XX (1980), pp. 146–52 Yates, Frances A., Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition, London 1964 Yates, Frances A., The Art of Memory, London 1966 Yates, Frances A., Astraea. The Imperial Theme in the Sixteenth Century, Harmondsworth et al. 1975 Yates, Frances A., The Occult Philosophy in the Elizabethan Age, London and Boston, Mass., 1979 Young, Alan R., “Wenceslaus Hollar, the London Book Trade, and Two Unidentified English Emblem Books”, in: The English Emblem and the Continental Tradition, Peter M. Daly, ed., New York 1988, pp. 151–203 Yung, K. K., National Portrait Gallery. Complete illustrated Catalogue, London 1981 Zagorin, Perez, A History of Political Thought in the Engish Revolution, London 1954 Zagorin, Perez, “Clarendon and Hobbes”, The Journal of Modern History, LVII / 4 (1985), pp. 593–616 Zagorin, Perez, “Cudworth and Hobbes on Is and Ought”, in: Philosophy, Science, and Religion in England 1640–1700, Richard Kroll, Richard Ashcraft and Perez Zagorin, eds., Cambridge et al. 1992, pp. 128–48 Zahlten, Johannes, Creatio mundi. Darstellungen der sechs Schöpfungstage und naturwissenschaft­ liches Weltbild im Mittelalter, Suttgart 1979 Zarka, Yves Charles, La décision métaphysique de Hobbes, Paris 1987 Zarka, Yves Charles, “First Philosophy and the foundations of knowledge”, in: The Cambridge Companion to Hobbes , Tom Sorell, ed., Cambridge 1996, pp. 62–85

Bibliogr aphy

Bibliography: Hobbes Listed here are: – early editions of works by Hobbes discussed in this volume, cited in the chronological order of their first publication; – reputable modern editions (where available) of some of the same works; – more recent essay compilations on / guides to Hobbes and to Leviathan

Early editions Peloponnesian War, 1629 Eight Bookes Of the Peloponnesian Warre, London 1629 (Hen. Seile) Eight Bookes Of the Peoloponnesian Warre, London 1634 (Richard Mynne) Eight Bookes Of the Peloponnesian Warre, London 1648 (Laurence Sadler) Eight Bookes Of the Peloponnesian Warre, London 1676 (Andrew Clark for Charles Harper) Eight Bookes Of the Peloponnesian Warre, London 1723 (B. Motte for D. Brown) De Cive (1642) Elementorum Philosophiae Sectio Tertia De Cive, Paris 1642 Elementa Philosophica de Cive, Amsterdam 1647 (L. Elzevier). Elementa Philosophica de Cive, Amsterdam 1647 (L.Elzevier) Elementa Philosophica de Cive, Amsterdam 1647 (L. Elzevier) Elemens Philosophiques du Citoyen. Traicté Politique, Paris 1649 Elemens Philosophiques du Bon Citoyen. Traicté Politique, Amsterdam 1649 (Joan Blaeu) Elemens Philosophiques du Bon Citoyen. Traicté Politique, Paris 1652 (Theodore Pepingué and Est. Maucroy) Elementa Philosophica de Cive, Amsterdam 1657 (L.and D. Elzevier) Elementa Philosophica de Cive, Amsterdam 1669 (D. Elzevier) De Eerste Beginselen van een Burger-staat, aangewesen door Thomas Hobbes van Malmesbury, Amsterdam 1675 Elementa Philosophica de Cive, n.p. 1696 or later (F. Zeidler) Elementa Philosophica de Cive, Amsterdam 1696 (H. and V. Th. Boom) “Answer” to Discourse on Davenant’s Gondibert (1650) “Answer” in: Sir William Davenant, A Discourse upon Gondibert. An Heroic Poem Written by Sir William D’Avenant, with an Answer to it by Mr. Hobbs, Paris 1650 Elements of Law (1650) De Corpore Politico: or, The Elements of Law, Moral and Politick, London 1650 Le Corps Politique ou Les Elements de la Loy Morale et Civile, [n.p. = Paris] 1652 Philosophicall Rudiments (1651) Philosophicall Rudiments of Governent and Civil Society, London 1651 (J.G. for R. Royston) [as Philosophicall Elements […] in first edn. of same year] Leviathan (1651) Leviathan Or the Matter, Forme, and Power of a Common-Wealth Ecclesiasticall and Civil, London 1651 (“Head” edition, 1651a) (Andrew Crooke) Leviathan Or The Matter, Forme, and Power of a Common-Wealth Ecclesiasticall and Civil. Vellum. Ms. Egerton 1910, London, British Library

263

264

Appendix III

Leviathan Or the Matter, Forme, and Power of a Common-Wealth Ecclesiasticall And Civil, Amsterdam 1678 (“Bear” edition, 1651b; date and pub. loc. “London” forged) Leviathan Or the Matter, Forme, and Power of a Common-Wealth Ecclesiasticall And Civil, Amsterdam 1702 (“Ornament” edition, 1651c; date and pub. loc. “London” forged) Leviathan, Of Van De Stoffe, Gedaente, ende Magt van de Kerkelycke Ende Wereltlycke Regeeringe, Amsterdam 1667 (Jacobus Wagenaar) Leviathan, Of Van de Stoffe, Gedaente, ende Magt van de Kerklycke Ende Wereltlycke Regeeringe, Amsterdam 1672 (Jacobus Wagenaar) Leviathan: or the Matter, Form, and Power of a Common-Wealth Ecclesiastical and Civil, in: The Moral and Political Works of Thomas Hobbes, London 1750 Leviathan, oder der kirchliche und bürgerliche Staat, 2 vols, Halle 1794 Leviathan: or the Matter, Form, and Power of a Common-Wealth Ecclesiastical and Civil, Vol. III in: HEW: The English Works of Thomas Hobbes, ed. Sir William Molesworth, 11 vols., London 1839–45 HOL: Thomas Hobbes Malmesburiensis Opera Philosophica quae Latine scripsit Omnia, ed. Sir William Molesworth, 5 vols., London 1839–45 Markes (1657) Markes, London 1657 (Andrew Crooke) Works in Latin (1668) Opera Philosophica Quae Latine scripsit Omnia, Amsterdam 1668 (Johannes Blaeu) Translations of Homer (1677) The Iliads and Odysses of Homer, London 1677 (W. Crooke) The Iliads and Odysses of Homer, London 1696 (W. Crooke) Art of Rhetoric (1681) The Art of Rhetoric, with a Discourse of the Laws of England, London 1681 (W. Crooke) Verse autobiography (1681) Thomae Hobbes Angli Malmesburiensis Philosophi Vita, London 1681 (W. Crooke) Thomae Hobbes Angli Malmesburiensis Philosophi Vita, London 1681 (Eleutherium Anglicum) Thomae Hobbes Angli Malmesburiensis Philosophi Vita, London 1683 (Eleutherium Anglicum) Tracts (1682) Tracts of Mr. Thomas Hobbs of Malmesbury, London 1682 (W. Crooke) Moral and political works (1750) The Moral and Political Works, London 1750

Bibliogr aphy

Modern editions (of importance in the context of the present volume) Leviathan Thomas Hobbes: Leviathan, ed. Noel Malcoln, 3 vols. (I: Editorial Introduction; II and III English text of 1651 and Latin text of 1668) Oxford (Clarendon Edtion) 2012 Thomas Hobbes: Leviathan, ed. Richard Tuck, Cambridge 1991 Thomas Hobbes: Leviathan, ed. Christopher Brooke, London (Penguin Modern Classics) 2016 Elements of Law Thomas Hobbes: Elements of Law, Natural and Political, ed. Ferdinand Tönnies (1889), London 1968 Three-text edition of Thomas Hobbes’s political theory: “The Elements of Law”, “De Cive” and “Leviathan”, Cambridge 2017 De Cive Thomas Hobbes: De Cive. The Latin Version entitled in the first edition Elementorum Philosophiae Sectio Tertia De Cive and in later editions Elementa Philosophica de Cive, ed. Howard Warrender, Oxford 1983 Thomas Hobbes: De Cive. The English Version entitled in the first edition Philosophicall Rudiments Concerning Government and Society, ed. Howard Warrender, Oxford 1983 De Corpore: see HEW, vol. I; and HOL, vol. 1 De Homine (as “Human Nature”) Thomas Hobbes: The Elements of Law Natural and Politic. Part I: Human Nature; Part II: De Corpore Politico; with Three Lives, ed. J.C.A. Gaskin, Oxford and New York 1994 Verse autobiography The Life of Mr. Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury. Written by himself In a LATINE POEM. And now Translated into ENGLISH. (1680) / Thomae Hobbesii Malmesburiensis VITA. Authore Seipso (1679), Exeter 1979 (facsimile) Hobbes on Thomas White’s “De mundo” Thomas Hobbes, Thomas White’s “De mundo” examined, Harold Whitmore Jones, trans. (from text first published as Critique du “De mundo” de Thomas White, Paris 1973), London 1976 HEW: Complete works (English) of 1839–45 The English Works of Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury, Sir William Molesworth, ed., 11 vols. Of particular relevance (by volume): I: De Corpore; II: Philosophicall Rudiments; III: Leviathan; IV: De Homine; De Corpore Politico; “Answer” to Davenant; VI :The Art of Rhetoric; VIII: Six Lessons to the Savillian Professors; VIII & IX: Peloponnesian War; X: Translations from Homer HOL: Complete works (Latin) of 1839–45 Thomas Hobbes Malmesburiensis Opera Philosophica quae Latine scripsit Omnia, Sir William Molesworth, ed., 5 vols., London 1839–45 Of particular relevance (by volume): I: Prose autobiography; Verse autobiography; Elements of Philosophy; De Corpore; II: De Homine; De Cive; III: Leviathan; V: Tractatus Opticus Correspondence Thomas Hobbes: The Correspondence, ed. Noel Malcolm, 2 vols. (I:1622–59; lI:1660–79), Oxford 1994

265

266

Appendix III

Compilations of essays on / guides to Hobbes and Leviathan Hobbes studies, K.C.Brown, ed., Oxford 1965 Thomas Hobbes, a reference guide, Charles H. Hinnant, ed., Boston, Mass., 1980 Thomas Hobbes. His View of Man. Proceedings of the Hobbes Symposium at the International School of Philosophy in the Netherlands, 1979, J.G. van der Bend, ed., Amsterdam 1982 Perspectives on Thomas Hobbes, G. A. J. Rogers and Alan Ryan, eds., Oxford 1988 Hobbes oggi: atti del convegno internazionale […] Milano – Locarno , Andrea Napoli, ed. Milan 1990 A Hobbes Dictionary, Aloysius P. Martinich, ed., Cambridge, Mass., 1995 The Cambridge Companion to Hobbes, Tom Sorell, ed., Cambridge 1996 Noel Malcolm, Aspects of Hobbes, Oxford 2002 Leviathan after 350 Years, Luc Foisneau and Tom Sorell, eds., Oxford 2004 The Oxford Handbook of Hobbes, Aloysius P. Martinich and Kinch Hoekstra, eds., New York 2006 The Cambridge Companion to Hobbes’s Leviathan, Patricia Springborg, ed., Cambridge 2007 Hobbes’s Leviathan: reader’s guide, Laurie M. Johnson Bagby, London 2007 Historical Dictionary of Hobbes’s Philosophy, Juhanna Lemetti, ed., Lanham, Md., Toronto and Plymouth 2012 The Routledge Guidebook to Hobbes’s Leviathan, Glen Newey, ed., London and New York 2014

Index Footnotes are listed only when the page on which they occur contains no reference to the item concerned in its main text (which will itself refer to relevant footnotes). Alciati, Andrea (1492–1550), compiler of Emblemata (1531) 109 America, North, and “naturall condition of mankind” in De Cive 129–30 Andreae, Johann Valentine (1586–1654), and utopias founded on faith in culture and technology 59 annihilation of the universe (Hobbes’s thought experiment) 102–03 anti-Royalist broadsheet (1643) with allpurpose composite of enemies 70, Fig. 40 Archidamos, king of Sparta, shown in frontispiece to Hobbes’s translation of Thucydides on the Peloponnesian War 126, Fig. 53 Arcimboldo, Giuseppe (1526–93) – as supreme exponent of fantastical composite figures; appeal of these to those of scholarly and scientific leanings 70–71 – Herod the Great (by a mid-17th-century follower) 71, Fig. 41 – Rudolf II as Vertumnus, 1590/91: illusion and transformation; nature and artifice; portrait and allegory; concealed identity 71–73, Fig. 42 Aristotle (384–322 BC) – view of city-state as natural product of man as zoon politikon 55–56 – and John Case 64 n5 – Hobbes opposes notion of polis (Greek city-state) as “natural” entity 102–103 ars simia naturae, in frontispiece to Fludd’s volume of 1617 (Fig. 31) 47–48

artifice – of state; necessarily imposed upon humanity in opposition to human nature 10–11 – world redefined in terms of geometrical rules as accessible to human perceptions and subject to human responsibility 105– 106 “Artificiall Man” – in Leviathan Introduction as metaphor for embodied “Common-Wealth” 45–46, 49 – its “Artificiall Soul” equates to “Sove­ raignty” of “Common-Wealth” 51 Astraea (Queen Elizabeth I) 63, 64–65, Fig. 35 Aubrey, John (1626–97) – on Hobbes in terms of both appearance and character 193 – in 1661 and 1663 commissions portraits of Hobbes; the first later enters the collection Charles II, the second (Fig. 88) is, in 1670, donated by Aubrey to the Royal Society in London 203–04, 211–12 automaton / automata – and “Artificiall Man” of Leviathan Introduction 45–49 – widely familiar in 17th-century Europe 50 – Hobbes’s faith in notion of automata with capacity for reasoning 51 Bacon, Francis (1561–1626), and utopias founded on faith in culture and technology 59, 126 Beck, Johann Georg (1676–1722), German engraver 144, Fig. 64

268

Appendix III

Bernini, Gian Lorenzo (1598–1680), his tomb for Pope Urban VIII, possibly seen by Hobbes when in Rome, and later inspiration for his mockery of Roman Catholic Church 88–89, Fig. 49 Bible – Book of Job: 41, 24, quoted in 1651 Leviathan frontispiece 4, Figs. 2, 3; three references to it in entirety of text of Leviathan 8 n10; ambiguous positioning of quotation in 1750 Leviathan frontispiece 19–21, Fig. 12 – Book of Job: 41, 18–19, on size and intrepidity of biblical sea monster Leviathan 8 n12 – Second Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians: 5, 1, and sheltering cloak of Madonna (Virgin) of Mercy 68–69 – Book of Deuteronomy: 32, 29, and Quarles’s Emblemes 75, Fig. 43 – Book of Proverbs: 8, 15, quoted in frontispiece to 1642 edition of De Cive 130–31, Figs. 54, 55 Blaeu, Joan (1596–1673), Dutch publisher and cartographer 136; 203–04 Böckler, Georg Andrea (c 1617–87), praises Bosse in preface to 1652 German translation of latter’s 1645 treatise on etching 32–33 n24 “body politic” – as envisaged in 1651 Leviathan frontispiece 2, 4–5, 7, Figs. 2, 3 – and John of Salisbury 67 – and Queen Elizabeth I 68 – and Henry VIII 68 n10 “Body Politique”, as term used by Hobbes in Leviathan Introduction 52 Bosse, Abraham (1604–76) – etchings collected by Abbé Michel de Marolles; work acquired by Colbert for Louis XIV; catalogue raisonné of work compiled in c 1770 by Mariette; 1651; scholars have long attributed Leviathan frontispiece either to Bosse or to Hollar 28 – Melancholy etching of c 1634 (Fig. 18) compared to drawn version of Leviathan frontispiece (Fig. 17) 29, 31–32 – apprenticed, in Paris in 1621, to Flemish engraver Melchior Tavernier; briefly

e­ mulates etching style of Jacques Callot, then resolves on own preference for etching with clarity and precision of engraving 32 – befriends mathematician and engineer Girard Desargues; from 1640s eagerly promotes latter’s ideas on perspective; publishes own manual on etching (1645) and a more general treatise (1649, Figs. 26, 28); in 1648 joins new French Académie to teach perspective, but is found to be too “mathematical” in approach; in 1661 leaves Académie 32–33 – passion for mathematics shared with Hobbes as possible basis of intellectual sympathy between them; motivic, stylistic and technical aspects of his work suggest Bosse (with input from Hobbes) devised and produced 1651 Leviathan frontispiece as compelling visualisation of abstract ideas 33, Fig. 2 – Standard Bearer, 1632 33–35, Fig. 19 – The Armies of France, c 1630 33–34, Fig. 20 – Louis XIII as Hercules Gallicus 35, Fig. 21 – Burial of the Dead, from Oeuvres de Miséricorde c 1635 35, Fig. 22 – Seige of La Motte c 1635 35–37, Figs. 23, 24 – images in 1649 treatise 38–39, Figs. 26, 28 – The Valet, c 1633 39, Fig. 29 – identified also as artist of drawn version of Leviathan frontispiece on vellum (Fig. 17), accompanying manuscript presented to Charles, Prince of Wales 29–30, 41 Bruno, Henry (neo-Latin poet) 195–96, 198 Bunyan, John (1628–88), telescope in The Pilgrim’s Progress (1678) 77 n32 Burton, Robert (1577–1640) 126 “cadaver tomb” – passage of time simultaneously acknowledged and denied; elaboration on model in Baroque 83, 87–89, Fig. 49 Callot, Jacques (1592–1635), as fleeting influence on Abraham Bosse 32 Campanella, Tommaso (1568–1639), and utopias founded on faith in culture and technology 59

Index

Canetti, Elias (1905–94), on Hobbes’s understanding of fear 9 n15 Cartari, Vincenzo (1531–69), Imagini delli Dei de gl’Antichi (1556); image of HeraclesOgmios in 1674 edition 109, Fig. 51 Casaubon, Isaac (1559–1614), as “unmasker” of Hermes Trismegistos 53 n26 Case, John (1539/46–1600), colossal figure in frontispiece to Sphaera Civitatis (1588) 64–65, Fig. 35 Cavendish, William (1617–84; from 1638 3rd Earl of Devonshire), becomes Hobbes’s pupil in 1631; dedicatee in 1641 of manuscript of De Cive 41 Cecill, Thomas (fl 1626–40), assisted Hobbes with map for his translation of Thucydides on Peloponnesian War, and supplied its frontispiece 126, Figs. 52, 53 Charles I (1600–49; r 1625–49) – is executed in London on 30 January 1649 (OS) 83 – execution induces profound sense of temporal caesura in England 83 – text of Eikon Basilike (1649) characterising Parliamentarians as insatiable multi-headed hydra 70 – cult of monarch as martyr encouraged by Eikon Basilike and by posthumous anamorphic images 85–87, Figs. 46, 47 – apparently depicted in one of Hollar’s allegorical images in English edition of De Cive (1651) 151–52, Fig. 67 Charles, Prince of Wales, later Charles II (1630–85; r 1660–85) – is possibly taught drawing in c 1637/42 by Hollar; leaves England for France in 1646, settling in Paris; Hobbes is appointed that year as his Tutor in Mathematics; efforts to reclaim the English throne for Stuarts by force are defeated in September 1651 24–25 – in late 1651 Hobbes presents him with vellum manuscript of Leviathan, prompting the author’s adversaries to have him banned from the Parisian Court in Exile 42–44 – is dedicatee (1647) of Fanshawe’s trans­ lation of Guarini’s Il Pastor Fido 81

– acquires 1661 portrait of Hobbes by Samuel Cooper, initially commissioned by Aubrey 203–04 “Civill Lawes” – as “Artificiall Chains” of “CommonWealth”; induce visualisation, and thus more acute fear, of punishments for their contravention; foster social cohesion among law-abiding majority 110 Civil War (of 1642–49 in England, Scotland and Ireland) – as strong influence on Hobbes’s thinking about the state 10 – for Hobbes, Civil War in the “CommonWealth” equates to “Death” in the “Artificiall Man” 52 – in England induces powerful sense of temporal caesura and, among Royalists, distress in an era of temporal aberration 84 clock-making and clockwork mechanism 49 Colbert, Jean-Baptiste (1619–83), acquires works by Bosse for Louis XIV 28 colossal figures (cosmic, astronomical, royal), as context for that in Leviathan frontispiece 63–66, Figs. 33, 34, 35, 36 Comanini, Gregorio (1550–1608), poem (1591) to accompany two Arcimboldo paintings sent to Prague for Holy Roman Emperor Rudolf II 71–73, Fig. 42 “Common-Wealth” – as declared subject of Leviathan; understood as voluntary pooling of resources under acknowledged representative and sovereign authority, be that a monarch or a governing assembly 6 – its endurance as bulwark, constraint, aspiration 101 “Common-Wealth” (“Civil”), as subject of Part II of Leviathan 6, 7 n9 “Common-Wealth” (“Ecclesiasticall”), as subject of Parts II and IV of Leviathan 6, 7 n9 composite figure – as context and source for that in the Leviathan frontispiece 61 – as more significant attribute than is colossal scale as it necessitates the latter; and textual tradition (as metaphor for “body politic”); and ecclesiastical tradition (and Madonna of Mercy); as tool of propaganda

269

270

Appendix III

(composite-as-monstrosity); and intellectual fascination (of composite as marvel of illusion / transformation) 61, 66–73, Figs. 38, 39, 40, 41, 42 constraint, mechanism of, in “CommonWealth” 101, 108, 110–11 contractual basis of “Common-Wealth” 102 Cooper, Samuel (1609–72), 1661 portrait of Hobbes, commissioned by Aubrey, later acquired by Charles II; now untraced (drawing survives, Fig. 75), but a strong influence on later depictions 203–204, 211 corporeality – in Hobbes’s view, a defining characteristic of everything in universe; also crucial to the functioning of vision 103–04, 111 Corpus Hermeticum – highly regarded by scholars across Europe in 15th to 17th centuries; influence on Hobbes’s view of “Common-Wealth” as a “Mortall God ” and of humanity as “generator of gods” 53–56 cosmography (Mediaeval) 61– 62 Cotes, Richard (fl 1535–52), London printer 23 n1 covenants / contracts – as basis for Hobbesian “Common-Wealth” 6 – serving to set the “Body Politique” into life and motion 52 creation (divine / human) 45–48 Cromwell, Oliver (1599–1658) – dominant figure of Parliamentarian faction both during and after Civil War; as Protector of Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland (1653–58) 84 – Hobbes is disconcerted to learn that sections of his Leviathan have convinced many that he has defected to Cromwell’s cause 41–42 n40 Crooke, Andrew (c 1605–74), London bookseller and publisher; published 1651 edition of Leviathan 16, 23 n1, 41 cult of monarch as martyr (Charles I) 85 Damocles, as allegorical figure in image in English edition of De Cive (1651) 148, Fig. 66

Davenant (D’Avenant), Sir William (1606–68), English poet and dramatist – early career in England; moves to Paris in 1641, settling there in 1645; befriends Hobbes and dedicates to him his verse epic Gondibert (1651); publishes advance dedicatory “Discourse” on the poem, accompanied by Hobbes’s “Answer” (1650) 56–57 – in complimenting Davenant’s achievements, Hobbes employs “perspective glass” metaphor 80 death – “danger of violent death” ever present in “naturall condition of mankind” 9 – Hollar’s depiction of execution of Earl of Strafford in 1641 26, Fig. 15 – admonitory skeletal figures espied by Faith in Quarles’s Emblemes of 1635 74–76, Fig. 43 – tradition of the “cadaver tomb”, simultaneously acknowledging and defying death 87–89, Fig. 48 – sculpted figure of Death by Bernini for his tomb for Pope Urban VIII 88–89, Fig. 49 – resonance in England, and among Royalist exiles abroad, of execution of Charles I (1649) 83–87 – temporary defiance of death through use of funeral effigies, some with movable limbs 89–91, 93, Fig. 50 – royal funeral effigies preserved at Westminster Abbey; apparitions of deceased kings in Macbeth possibly reflecting this tradition 90–92 – possible influence of movable effigies on apparition of murdered king in Hamlet 93–95 – “Right of Succession” as guarantee of continuity in face of death 93 – elaborate effigies at funerals of Henry Frederick, Prince of Wales (1612) and of his father, James I (1625) 93, 95–96 – Hobbes envisages annihilation of universe in thought experiment 102 Dee, John (1527–1608), and composite as monstrosity 69–70, Fig. 39 democracy, viewed sceptically by Hobbes, influenced by Thucydides’ claim that people were too easily swayed by rhetoricians 108

Index

Desargues, Girard (1591–1661), French mathematician and engineer; as a friend of Bosse, encourages his interest in per­ spective 32 Descartes, René (1596–1650) – Discours de la Méthode (1637) on automata in animal / human form 50–51 – sixth of Meditationes de prima philosophia (1641) on human body as a “kind of machine” 50–51 Dijksterhuis, Eduard Jan, on “mechanisation of world picture” 49 n12 dissimulatio onesta, in discrepancy between frontispiece and text in many editions of De Cive 145 distortion, visual (anamorphosis) and Niceron 77 “Ditchley Portrait” (of Queen Elizabeth I), 1592 65–66, Fig. 36 Divini, Eustachio (1610–85), supplies Hobbes with telescopes 74 n20 effigies, funeral (ceremonial and monumental) – and “mastery” of time 83 – their structure and decoration; impact on character of public encounter with death; preserved at Westminster Abbey 91 – as recorded at Abbey in 1606, 1682 91 n15 – with movable limbs 93–95 Elizabeth I (1533–1603; r 1558–1603) – in frontispiece to John Case’s Sphaera Civitatis, 1588; in “Ditchley Portrait”, 1592 64–66, Figs. 35, 36 Elzevier (Elzevir), Amsterdam publishing house, founded in late 16th century, flourished in 17th and 18th centuries 133, 136, 197, 198, 201 Elzevier, Louis (Lodewijk Elzevir) (1604–70) 135 endurance, of “Common-Wealth” 101 England of 1640s and 1650s: partisan passions and a debilitating factionalism 84–85 Euripides (c 480–c 406 BC), quotation from Hippolytus used with portrait of Hobbes in frontispiece to 1649 edition of De Cive, on initiative of Sorbière 198, Fig. 71 eye, structure and function, Hobbes’s sophisticated understanding of 74

Faithorne, William (1616–91), painter and engraver, his engraved portrait of Hobbes in 1668 (Fig. 76) has enduring influence on later depictions 204–05 Fanshawe, Richard (1608–66) – in dedicatory preface to translation (1647) of Guarini’s drama Il Pastor Fido expounds to Charles, Prince of Wales, the principle of conveying aspects of plot to separate members of audience; by way of comparison invokes example of “perspective glass”, as demonstrated in Paris; may thereby have suggested to Hobbes a wider, socio-political extension of the “perspective glass” metaphor 81–84 fear, significance of Hobbes’s allusion to biblical sea monster Leviathan in this creature’s capacity to induce irresistible fear; in Hobbes’s view, the “Common-Wealth” must retain capacity to rule through inducing fear of punishment 8–9, 108–09, 110–11 Feuerbach, Paul Joseph Anselm (1775–1833), published Anti-Hobbes in 1798, featuring portrait of Hobbes in frontispiece 208, Fig. 86 FitzAlan, John, 14th Earl of Arundel (1408–35), and “cadaver tomb” 87 Fludd, Robert (1574–1637), frontispiece to volume of 1617 46–48, Fig. 31 François, Jean-Charles (1717–69), crayonmanner portrait etching of Hobbes after drawing by J.-B. Pierre 212, Fig. 90 Gassendi, Pierre (1592–1655) 194, 198 Gheeraerts, Marcus, the Younger (1561–1636) 65–66 Gilbert, William (1544–1603), De Magnete (1600) 103 God the Creator, images of 47– 48; 61–62 Gondibert (1651/52), Davenant’s verse epic, dedicated to Hobbes 56 Guarini, Giovanni Battista (1538–1612) 81 Guericke, Otto von (1602–86), on question of void / vacuum 104 Harvey William (1578–1657) – mutual friend of Hobbes and Fludd; published (1628) insights into circulation of the blood 49

271

272

Appendix III

– probably carried out dissections with Hobbes prior to latter’s years in Paris 74 n22 Henry V (1386–1422; r 1393–1422), funeral procession 90 n12 Henry VII (1457–1509; r 1485–1509), funeral and funeral effigy 90, Fig. 50 Henry VIII (1491–1547; r 1509–47), and “body politic” 68 n10 Henry Frederick, Prince of Wales (1594– 1612), elaborate funeral procession with funeral effigy (1612) 93 Heracles-Ogmios, as embodiment of vigour and eloquence, described by Lucian of Samosata 109–10, Fig. 51 Hercules, as allegorical figure in image in English edition of De Cive (1651) 146–47, Fig. 65 Hermes Trismegistos, supposed source / author of arcane knowledge gathered in Corpus Hermeticum 53 Hildegard of Bingen (1098–1179) 62 Hobbes, Thomas (1588–1679), 1. life and character – as portrayed, in old age, in 1676 1–2, Fig. 1, 213 – his claim to have been always consumed by fear 8–9 – profoundly influenced by widespread evidence of disorder and aggression during 17th century 10 – his view of the state diversely appraised but highly original 10 – publishes his first book in 1629: a translation of Thucydides on the Peloponnesian War, taking great care in devising his own map and frontispiece, in collaboration with Thomas Cecill 123–27, Figs. 52, 53 – resident in Paris from late 1640 to early 1652 23 – appointed, in 1646, Tutor in Mathematics to Charles, Prince of Wales 24 – in late 1651 presents vellum manuscript of Leviathan to Charles; Hobbes’s adversaries ensure he is banned from the Parisian Court in Exile; returns to England; after Restoration (1660) is reunited and reconciled with Charles (now Charles II) 42–44

– account, c 1630, of what would feature in his “ideal library” 46, 53–54 – in Paris in 1640s is able to indulge to the full his great interest in optics; is impressed by “perspective glass” demonstrations of “le procédé dioptrique” 74, 82, Figs. 44, 45 – possible influence on Hobbes of Fanshawe’s socio-political extension of “perspective glass” metaphor 80–82 – views on existence of vacuum shift during 1640s from acceptance to rejection on account of dangerous socio-political resonance of such notions 103–04 – passion for mathematics / geometry prompts him to view these as a corrective for human passions and an aid to human capacities 104–05 – initial distaste for rhetoric is tempered by circumstances and by recognition that persuasive power of image is greater than that of words 108–11 – in England both Parliamentarians and Royalists believe Hobbes, on the evidence of his work, essentially favours their own cause 152–53 Hobbes, Thomas (1588–1679), 2. portraits – reacts in panic to Sorbière’s proposed inclusion of his portrait within frontispiece to 1647 edition of De Cive 196–98, Fig. 70 – is more at ease with its appearance in frontispiece to Sorbière’s 1649 French translation 198, Fig. 71 – portrait subsequently features within titlepage to 1651 English version, Philosophicall Rudiments, then in both 1667 and 1672 editions of Dutch translation of Leviathan 200–03, Figs, 72–74 – in 1661 Hobbes sits to Samuel Cooper for a portrait commissioned by Aubrey, but later acquired by Charles II 203–04 – the Cooper portrait (now untraced) gives rise to 21 engraved copies / adaptations over next 180 years, among them a Faithorne engraving of 1668 (Fig. 76), a J. M. Wright painting of 1669–70 (Fig. 77), and the portraits adorning the 1750 ­Moral and Philosophical Works (Fig. 82), the 1794 German translation of Leviathan (Fig. 85), and the 1839–45 Eng-

Index

lish and Latin editions of the complete works (Fig. 87) 204–11 – in 1663 Hobbes sits to Jan Baptist Jaspers for a further portrait commissioned by Aubrey (Fig. 88); this in turn gives rise, in 1665, to an etched copy by Hollar (Fig. 89), a drawing by J.B. Pierre, and a crayonmanner etching after that by J. C. François (90) 211–12 – last portrait of Hobbes (1676) shows him in old age, at Hardwick Hall, Derbyshire, where he died 1–2, Fig. 1, 213 Hobbes, Thomas (1588–1679), 3. works (published and unpublished within his lifetime, in alphabetical order) – “Answer” to “Discourse” on Davenant’s Gondibert (1650) – is pleased to find that Davenant shares his dismay at the debilitating factio­ nalism in England 57 – on role of Memory and Imagination (“Fancy”) in literature 45, 57– 59 – marvels at achievements of Imagination (“Fancy”) when guided by Philosophy 59 – invokes metaphor of “perspective glass” as form of compliment to Davenant 80 – De Cive (1642) – first published in Paris, with further editions published in Amsterdam and elsewhere 23–24, 127–53 – frontispiece and text complementing / contradicting, each other 127–46, Figs. 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 63, 64 – English translation, as Philosophicall Rudiments (1651), with further images by Hollar 146–53, Figs. 65, 66, 67 – De Corpore (1655) – metaphor of philosopher as a sculptor 48 – distinction between personally meaningful “marks” and generally recognised “signs” 59–60 – thought experiment on annihilation of universe 102 – “Draught of the Optiques” (1646) – evidence of sophisticated understanding of structure and functioning of eye 74

– Eight Bookes of the Peloponnesian Warre (trans. of Thucydides;1629) – Thucydides as influence on Hobbes’s view of political developments in mid17th century and of negative impact of rhetoricians 106–07 – Hobbes on map of Greece of own devising 123–26, Fig. 52 – frontispiece by Thomas Cecill 126, Fig. 53 – Elements of Law (1650), French trans. as Le Corps Politique (1652) – its frontispiece adapted from upper section of that of 1651 edition of Leviathan 11–13, Fig. 5 – Leviathan (first and other early editions) – first edition published in London, April 1651 2, Fig. 2 – Dutch translation published in Amsterdam in 1667, reissued in 1672 13–14, Fig. 6 – first forged “1651” edition published in c 1678, re-using worn plates for frontispiece 14–17, Fig. 7 – second forged “1651” edition published in c 1702, re-using worn plates for frontispiece 17–18, Fig. 11 – published, with new frontispiece, as segment of Hobbes’s Moral and Political Works, 1750 18–21, Fig. 12 – published, with new frontispiece, as volume III of English Works of Thomas Hobbes, 1839–45 21, Fig. 13 – Leviathan, 1651 frontispiece (Fig. 2) – much less widely studied than is the text 2 n4 – gigantic figure of upper section as embodied Hobbesian “CommonWealth” 2, 4–5, Fig. 3 – frontispiece in subsequent editions 13–18, Figs. 6, 7, 11, 18–21, Figs. 12,13 – authorship of 1651 frontispiece long disputed 23–24 – attributions to, and case for, Wenceslaus Hollar 24 – attributions to, and case for, Abraham Bosse 41 – drawn version of frontispiece (Fig. 17) 29–32

273

274

Appendix III

–

–

–

–

– and Fludd / Merian frontispiece (1617) 46–48, Fig. 31 – Hobbesian “Artificiall Man” and automata 49 – and influence on Hobbes of Corpus Hermeticum 53–56, 58–59 – and Hobbes’s understanding of function of Memory and Imagination (“Fancy”) 57–58 – and colossal images 61, 62–66, Figs. 33, 34, 35, 36 – and composite images 61, 66–73, Figs. 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42 – and vision distorted through “telescoping” effect of human passions 76 – and demonstrations of “le procédé dioptrique” through use of a “perspective glass” 80, Figs. 44, 45 – and Fanshawe’s socio-political extension of “perspective glass” metaphor 82 – temporal aspect of frontispiece 83, 97–99 – gigantic figure as transformation of Heracles-Ogimos 110, Fig. 51 Leviathan, Introduction – on “nature” as understood as natura naturans; on divine and human creation 45–46 – on “Artificiall Man”; its rationality is equivalent to the “Souveraignty” of the Hobbesian “Common-Wealth” 51 Leviathan, Chapter IV – on speech as both “noble” and “profitable” 108 – Leviathan, Chapter XI – on indisputable truths of geometry 104 – on confusion resulting from careless use of speech 106 Leviathan, Chapter XIII – on “naturall condition of mankind” in which life is “nasty, brutish, and short” 9 – on war as norm and peace as exception in the “naturall condition of mankind” 96–97 Leviathan, Chapter XVII – Hobbesian “Common-Wealth” as a “Mortall God ” 52–53

– on necessity of reaffirming “Civill Lawes” through punishment; on importance of the constraining and binding role of an image that all recognise and respect 112 – Leviathan, Chapter XVIII – on “telescoping” effect of human passions on human visual perception 76–77 – Leviathan, Chapter XIX – on “Right of Succession” as guarantee of continuity in face of death of monarch or dissolution of governing assembly 93 – Leviathan, Chapter XX – on “Rules” of “Arithmetique and Geometry” 104 – Leviathan, Chapter XXI – functioning of “Civill Lawes” in the “Common-Wealth” 110 – Leviathan, Chapter XLVII – Hobbes’s mocking of Papacy 87–88 – Leviathan, Review and Conclusion – on point at which it is wise to submit to a “Conquerour” 41–42 n40 – possible allusion to (plans for) frontispiece in comment on seeing only “the backs” of those forming a new government 99 n38 – “Six Lessons to the Savilian Professors of the Mathematics” (1655) – parallel between geometry and “civil philosophy” 105 – Vita (verse autobiography; 1679 / 1680) – on own motivation for translating Thucydides 107–08 – Vita (prose life; 1681) – on dismay, in 1652, at finding, in England, not a single openly displayed “symbol of the faith” 108–09 Holland (United [Dutch] Provinces) – relations with England reflected in aspects of frontispiece of Dutch translation of Leviathan (1667; 1672) 13–14, Fig. 6 – Dutch view of Liberty and Piety as national virtues reflected in aspects of frontispiece to several editions of De Cive 133– 36, 141–42, 143–44, Figs. 57, 58, 59, 63

Index

Hollar, Wenceslaus (1607–77) – long identified as artist of Leviathan frontispiece (Fig. 2): training in Frankfurt; early career in Strasbourg, Mainz, Koblenz, and Cologne, soon renowned as topographical draughtsman and etcher; is “discovered” in 1636 by Earl of Arundel, with whom travels to England; possibly serves as Tutor in Drawing to Charles, Prince of Wales in 1637/42; also establishes career in London as print-maker and illustrator; leaves England in 1644; then chiefly resident in Antwerp until return to England in 1652 24–25 – Monastery at Einsiedeln, 1628 25–26, Fig. 14 – Execution of Earl of Strafford, 1641 26, Fig. 15 – Portrait of Charles, Prince of Wales, 1650 26–27, Fig 16 – Portrait of Frans van den Wyngaerde, 1651 39–41, Fig. 30 – etching technique compared with that of Bosse 39–41, Figs. 29, 30 – images for English edition of De Cive (1651) 146–52, Figs. 65, 66, 67 – portrait etching of Hobbes (1665) after painting by Jaspers 211–12, Fig. 89 Homer, Illiad and Odyssey translated by Hobbes (1677) 206, Fig. 78 Horace (Quintus Horatius Flaccus) (65–8 BC), quotation from Odes I, 22 accompanying image in English edition of De Cive 150–51, Fig. 67 Humphrys, William (1794–1865), portrait engraving of Hobbes for 1839–45 editions of complete works in English and in Latin 208, Fig. 87 Huygens, Lodewijck (1631–99), records visit to Hobbes in London in February 1652 44 Hyde, Edward (1609–74; after 1660 created Earl of Clarendon), chief counsellor to Charles, Prince of Wales, in Paris; deplores Hobbes’s Leviathan and contrives to have Hobbes banned from the Court in Exile; much later confesses to his role in this affair 41–44

image – as a tool of persuasion, a key asset for the state 10–11 – Hobbes recognises persuasive power of images is far greater than that of words 108, 110–11 – modern states also require an image of themselves 112 – image and text both complement and (for reasons outside Hobbes’s control) effectively contradict each other in the case of the frontispiece to the diverse editions of De Cive 127–53 Imagination (“Fancy”), on role, in association with Memory as described in Hobbes’s “Answer” to Davenant’s “Discourse” on Gondibert 57–58 imitation, of God’s Creation in human creation 45–46 Imperium / Dominion, allegorical figure in frontispiece to diverse editions De Cive 127–45, Figs. 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 63, 64 “Interregnum” (1649–1660, in England), Royalists’ preference for this term 84 Jacobson, Norman, psychiatric interpretation of Hobbes 9 n15 James I (1566–1625; r 1567–1625), elaborate funeral (1625) and funeral effigy 95–96 Janssonius, Jan (1588–1664), publisher and cartographer 36–37, Fig. 25 Jaspers, Jan Baptist (c 1620–91), portrait of Hobbes (1663) 211, Fig. 88 John of Salisbury (1120–80), and notion of “body politic” 67 Juppe, Ludwig (1480–1538) 90, Fig. 48 Kepler, Johannes (1571–1630), and Hobbes’s “ideal library” 46 n6 La Metrie, Julien Offray de (1709–51), L’Homme Machine (1748) 52 La Motte (La Mothe), hill-top fortress in Lorraine 35–36, Figs. 23, 24 language, of Hobbes’s Leviathan as source of delight, bewilderment and provocation 2 Le Blon, Jacob Christophe (Jakob Christoffel) (1687–1741), painter and engraver 120

275

276

Appendix III

Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm (1646–1716), German polymath, admires Leviathan, but expresses doubts on Hobbes’s view of state’s need to have monopoly on use of violence 9 Leviathan: see Hobbes, Thomas, 3. works Libertas / Liberty, allegorical figure in frontispiece to diverse editions of De Cive 127– 45, Figs. 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 63, 64 Lips, Johann Heinrich (1758–1817), portrait of Hobbes for frontispiece to Feuerbach’s 1798 volume Anti-Hobbes 208, Fig. 86 London – Royal Society, is given 1663 portrait of Hobbes in 1670 212 – Westminster Abbey, and preservation of royal funeral effigies 90–92 Louis XIII (1601–43; r 1610/17–43) – brother-in-law to Charles I (of England) and maternal uncle of Charles, Prince of Wales – depicted, with younger brother, Gaston d’Orléans, in etching of c 1630 by Bosse; depicted by Bosse as “Hercules Gallicus” in 1635 34–35, Figs. 20, 21 – sumptuary edicts of 1620–33 reflected in Bosse’s series of etchings, among them The Valet, c 1633 39 n36, Fig. 36 – his portrait features, as resolved, illusory image, in “perspective glass” demonstration recounted by Niceron (1638) 77–80, Fig. 45 Lucian of Samosata (AD 120–192), and Heracles-Ogmios 109, Fig. 51 Lucretius (94–55 BC), compared by Sorbière to Hobbes on account of the intellectual intrepidity they share 194 Machiavelli, Niccolò (1469–1527), metaphor of statesman as sculptor in Discorsi (1531) 48 Madonna (Virgin) of Mercy, and motif of cloak sheltering the devout 68–69 magnification / distortion: as experienced; as a metaphor 76–77 Mariette, Pierre-Jean (1694–1774), catalogue raisonné of work of Bosse 28 “marks” (and “signs”), Hobbes’s distinction between these in his view of perception,

and the retention and later communication of ideas 59–60 Marolles, Abbé Michel de (1600–81), works by Bosse in his collection 28 Marshall, William (fl 1617–49), frontispiece to Eikon Basilike(1649) 8, Fig. 46 Martel, Thomas de (c 1618–85), owns portraits of Hobbes, Mersenne, Gassendi; in c 1645 permits engraved copies of these to be made for Sorbière 194 mathematics / geometry – Hobbes’s passion for 101 – on their application to socio-political problems 104–06 Matheus, Jean (1590–1672), French engraver; frontispiece for first edition of De Cive (1642) 23; 127, Figs. 54, 55 mechanisation, and Hobbes’s interest in automata 52 Memory and Imagination (in Hobbes’s view, as of 1650) 57–58 Merian, Matthäus (1593–1650), frontispiece to Fludd’s volume of 1617 47–48, Fig. 31 Mersenne, Marin (1588–1648) 198 metaphors – relating to composite forms 61, 76–77 – relating to vision / optical distortion / resolution 76–77 – of “perspective glass”, esp. as extended by Fanshawe 82 Michelangelo Buonarroti (1475–1654) 48, 90 Minerva, as allegorical figure in image in English edition of De Cive (1651) 147, Fig. 65 “Mortall God ”, as characterisation of “Common-Wealth” 52–53 “nasty, brutish, and short”, universally familiar phrase from Hobbes’s Leviathan (Chapter XIII); part of longer description of life in the “naturall condition of mankind” 2 n2, 9 “naturall condition of mankind” – possibly implicit in bleak landscape seen in background of 1676 portrait of Hobbes 1–2, Fig. 1 – Hobbes’s pessimistic view of “primitive” stage in evolution of human communities 8–9

Index

– need for politicians to envisage, and thus better guard against, danger of reversion to an equivalent of that “primitive” stage 102–03 “nature” – as natura naturans 46 – man’s imitation of 47 – as a divine creation in frontispiece to Fludd’s volume of 1617 (Fig. 31) 47–48 Netherlands: see Holland (United [Dutch] Provinces) Newton, Isaac (1643–1727), and Corpus Hermeticum 54 n29 Niceron, Jean-François (1613–46), La Perspective Curieuse (1638): optical distortions (anamorphoses) and methods / instruments enabling them to be “deciphered” and so viewed; “le procédé dioptrique” making use of a “perspective glass” 77–82, Figs. 44, 45 Norton, Roger (fl 1638–55; d 1660), printer in London 23 n1 Occult, prominence of related literature in Hobbes’s “ideal library”; its continuing influence on scholars across Europe well into Hobbes’s own era 45, 53–54 optics / optical instruments, Hobbes’s deep interest in these is very well served in Paris in 1640s; his share in general fascination with the “perspective glass” 74, 76–77, 81–82 Orléans, Gaston D’ (1608–60), younger brother of Louis XIII 34, Fig. 20 Ottoman Empire / Turks 84 Ottoman sultans, in Niceron’s account of “le procédé dioptrique” using a “perspective glass”; portrait of twelve turbaned Ottoman sultans serves as initial image, subsequently refracted then reconstituted as portrait of Louis XIII 77–80, Figs. 44, 45 papal tombs in St Peter’s Basilica, Rome, and Hobbes’s visits to Rome 88 n10 Paris, as key centre for study of optics in mid-17th century 74 Pascal, Blaise (1623–62), Hobbes’s portrait features in frontispiece to 1657 edition of Les Provinciales 142, Fig. 62

Patrizi, Francesco (1529–97), Hermetic fragments in 1593 Hamburg edition of Appendix to his Nova de universis philosophica (1591) as a source for Hobbes in 1650 58–59 Payne, John (1607–47), English engraver, image for Quarles’s Emblemes (1635) 74–76, Fig. 43 Pericles, of Athens (494–429 BC) – as described and assessed by Thucydides 107 – depicted in frontispiece to Hobbes’s translation of Thucydides on Peloponnesian War 126–27, Fig. 53 Persius (Aulus Persius Flaccus) (AD 34–62), lines from one of his Satires accompany portrait of Hobbes in frontispiece to Vita (1681) 206–08, Fig. 79 “perspective glass” – an object of great fascination in 17th-century Paris; its workings described by J.-F. Niceron in Book 4 of La Perspective Curieuse (1638) 77–80, Figs. 44, 45 – Fanshawe (in 1647) intimates a wider, socio-political scope for the “perspective glass” metaphor, which is a probable influence on Hobbes 82 pessimism, Hobbes’s persistent tendency towards 8–9, 101 Petty, William (1623–87) 74 n22 Piero di Puccio (c 1345–c 1402), colossal figure of God the Creator in Camposanto in Pisa 62 Pierre, Jean-Baptiste (1717–89), drawing of Hobbes 212, Fig. 90 “political” thinking: its crucial obligation, according to Hobbes 102–03 Porta, Giambattista Della (1535–1615), gigantic figure of super-human magus in German edition (1680) of Magiae Naturalis libris viginti (1585) 54–55, Fig. 32 portraits: see Hobbes, Thomas, 2. portraits printer’s marks, in early editions of Leviathan – “Head” edition (of 1651) 14–16, Fig. 8 – “Bear” edition (first forged “1651” edition) 14–16, Fig. 9 – “Ornament” edition (second forged “1651” edition) 17–18, Fig. 10

277

278

Appendix III

“le procédé dioptrique”, as demonstrated by J.-F. Niceron (1638) 77–80, Figs. 44, 45 publishers, Hobbes’s early connections with – in London, from 1629 23 – in Paris, from 1642 23 – in Amsterdam, from 1647 23–24 Quarles, Francis (1592–1644), telescope used metaphorically in image in Emblemes (1635) 74–76, Fig. 43 rationality, and automata, in views of Hobbes and of Descartes 50–52 reader-as-viewer, Leviathan frontispiece (Fig. 2) as stimulus to 2, 7 refraction and reconstitution, as stages of “ le procédé dioptrique” 79–82 Reisch, Gregor (1467–1525), Margarita Philosophica (1504) 62–63, Fig. 33 Religio / Religion, allegorical figure in frontispiece to diverse editions of De Cive 127–45, Figs. 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 63, 64 rhetoric – viewed negatively by Hobbes, under influence of opinion of Thucydides 107–08 – recognises need to engage, to a degree, in (responsible) rhetoric 108 Royal Society, London, receives gift from Aubrey, in 1670, of portrait of Hobbes 212, Fig. 88 Royston, Richard (1601–86), London bookseller and publisher 200 Rudolf II, Holy Roman Emperor (1552–1612; r 1576–1612), as recipient, and semi-concealed subject, of painting by Arcimboldo 71–73, Fig. 42 Rump Parliament (of 1649–53) 84 Saavedra Fajardo, Diego de (1584–1648) 145 Savérien, Alexandre (1720–1805) 212 Schmitt, Carl, on curtain in Leviathan frontispiece 6 n6 sculptor: statesman as sculptor, metaphor in Machiavelli, Discorsi (1531); philosopher as sculptor, metaphor in Hobbes, De Corpore (1655) 48 Seneca (Lucius Anneus Seneca the Younger) (4 BC–AD 66), quotations from tragedies Thyestes and Oedipus and from essay De Ira

accompanying images in English edition of De Cive (1651) 147–49, 152, Figs. 65, 66 Shakespeare, William (1564–1616) – apparition of “eight Kings” in Macbeth, IV, 1 92 – significance of “eight Kings” apparition in context of 1606 performance of Macbeth for James I 92 n18 – apparition of ghost of Hamlet’s murdered father in Hamlet, I, 2; Hamlet’s subsequent allusions to the usurper in Hamlet, IV, 2 93–95 “signs” (and “marks”), Hobbes’s distinction between these in his view of perception, and the retention and later communication of ideas 59–60 Sorbière, Samuel (1617–70), physician, scholar, translator; one of Hobbes’s firmest friends; was assiduous in encouraging him to have his work published and translated – congratulates Hobbes, in letter of c late September 1646, on appointment as Tutor in Mathematics to Charles, Prince of Wales 25 n8 – informs Hobbes in July 1645 he has requested permission to have an engraved copy made of the Hobbes portrait owned by Thomas de Martel, and goes on to emphasise how much the possession of such a record of his friend would mean to him 194–95 – arranges for the engraved portrait to be included in the 1647 edition of De Cive, inducing panic in Hobbes 131, 135–36, Fig. 56, 196–98, Fig. 70 – prepares French translation of De Cive; which is published in 1649 with a portrait of Hobbes and a quotation from Euripides 195, Fig. 71 – letter received from Hobbes in 1656/57 includes definition of “vision” in terms of corporeal action and reaction 111, 195 – portraits of Hobbes appearing in 1667 and 1672 editions of Dutch translation of Leviathan are adapted from the engraving of 1647 201, 202–03, Figs. 73, 74 speech, as the subject of Chapter IV of Leviathan, is lauded as “noble” and “profitable”; but in Chapter XI Hobbes warns of the dangers of careless speaking 106

Index

Stent, Peter (1613–65) 211 Stubbe, Henry (1632–76) 200 Tavernier, Melchior (1594–1665), Flemish engraver 32 telescope, viewed both positively and negatively during 17th century, giving rise to corresponding metaphors 74–76, 77 n32 Thucydides (c 460–c 400 BC) – translating Thucydides on Peloponnesian War ensures deep influence of his views on Hobbes’s own thinking 107–08 – map and frontispiece for Thucydides translation evince concern for accuracy and clarity of exposition 123–26, Figs. 52, 53 time, in the Leviathan frontispiece (Figs. 2, 3) – apparently neither wartime nor peacetime, but an instance of sudden awareness of impending danger 99–100 – recognised by participants as a privileged moment 100–01 – implicit possibility of extension through repetition 101 – embodied “Common-Wealth” faces forwards also in a temporal sense 101 Torricelli, Evangelista (1608–47) – supplies Hobbes with several telescopes 74 n20 – experiment (1644) to prove / disprove existence of a vacuum 103 Torrigiano, Pietro (1472–1528), funeral effigy for Henry VII (1509) 90, Fig. 50 totalitarianism / liberalism, retrospective association of Hobbes with both of these 10 Urban VIII (Maffei Barberini) (1568–1644; p 1623–44), funerary monument by Bernini 88–89, Fig. 49 vacuum / void – keen questioning, during 17th century, of traditional view that “nature abhors a vacuum”; Torricelli’s experiment (1644) proves that nature, in certain circumstances, does accommodate a vacuum 103 – Hobbes initially accepts, then is gradually moved to deny, the existence of a vacuum, rejecting the notion on account of its dangerous socio-political resonances 103–04

Van Diepenbeeck, Abraham (1596–1675) 26–27 Van den Wyngaerde, Frans (1614–79), portrayed by his friend Hollar in 1651 39–41, Fig. 30 Vaughan, Robert (c 1600–60), painter and engraver – indicted in 1651 regarding inscribed portrait print of Charles I 84 n3 – frontispiece for English edition of De Cive (1651) 139–42, Figs. 60, 61, 199, Fig. 71 Veen, Otto van (1556–1629), as model for Hollar in 1651 151–52, Fig. 68 Verdus, François du (1621–c 66), comments on 1661 portrait of Hobbes when it had entered Charles II’s collection 203–04 Vertumnus (and Arcimboldo) 71–73, Fig. 42 Vesalius, Andrea (1514–64) 74 n22 violence – Hobbes claims state should have a monopoly on violence 9–10 “Common-Wealth” may, where necessary, reaffirm its “Civill Lawes” through potentially very violent forms of punishment 110 Virdung von Hassfurth, Johann (1463–1538) 63–64, Fig. 34 vision – Hobbes is depicted in final portrait (1676) holding spectacles 1, Fig. 1 – bird’s eye view across land- and townscape in upper section of Leviathan frontispiece 2, 4, Fig. 3 – gaze of human constituents of embodied “Common-Wealth” fixed on face of gigantic figure, who in turn engages eye of reader-as-viewer 7 – Hobbes both intrigued by phenomenon of vision and convinced of the potency of the visual 23 – Hobbes (in 1646) calls vision the “noblest of the senses” 74 – with unaided eye / with aid of instruments; telescope and “perspective glass” 77 – imperfections of vision are corrected through science of optics, supplemented by geometry 105 – Hobbes defines “vision” in 1656/57 letter to Sorbière in terms of corporeal action

279

and reaction 111, 195 void: see vacuum / void Wilhelm II, Landgrave of Hesse (1469–1509), “cadaver tomb” 87, Fig. 48 Willem III van Oranje (William III of Orange) 202–03 Williams, John (1582–1650), on effigies in funeral procession of James I (1625) 95–96

Wright, John Michael (1617–94) – portrait of Hobbes (1669 –70) 205–06, Fig. 77 – final portrait of Hobbes (1676) thought to be in Wright’s “manner” 1 n1; 213 Zeidler, Johann Friedrich (fl 1704) 144

Picture Credits

Fig. 1 Hardwick Hall, Derbyshire: The Devonshire Collection. (National Trust: NT 1129173). Figs. 2, 3, 4, 37 London, British Library (522.k.6). Fig. 5 Oxford University, Bodleian Library (Ver. E3f. 73). Fig. 6 London, British Library (8006.aaa.8). Fig. 7 London, British Library (1476.d.23) Fig. 8 Dresden, Sächsische Landesbibliothek: Kupferstichkabinett (Deutsche Fotothek R. Richter). Fig. 9 London, British Library (1476.d.23). Fig. 10 Göttingen, Niedersächsiche Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek. Fig. 11 Dresden, Sächsische Landesbibliothek: Kupferstich­ kabinett (Deutsche Fotothek R. Richter: 276 7739). Fig. 12 London, British Library (31.k.14). Fig. 13 Los Angeles, University of California, William Andrews Clark Memorial Library. Fig. 14 Hamburg, Kunsthalle: Kupferstichkabinett (23408). Fig. 15 London, British Museum: Prints & Drawings (1850.0223.236). Fig. 16 London, Royal Collection (RCIN 8054377). Fig. 17 London, British Library (Ms. Egerton 1910). Fig. 18 London, British Museum: Prints & Drawings (1868.0808.3280). Fig. 19 London, British Museum: Prints & Drawings (1866.0512.3005). Fig. 20 Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France (Estampes: Ed 30 rés. t.9). Fig. 21 London, British Museum: Prints & Drawings (1927.1008.135). Fig. 22 London, British Museum: Prints & Drawings (1868.0612.75). Figs. 23, 24 Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France (Estampes: Ed 30 rés. t.9). Fig. 25 London, British Library: Maps (13.e.12). Figs. 26, 27 London, British Library (1043.a.6). Fig. 28 London, British Library (1043.a.6). Fig. 29 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France (Estampes: Ed 30 rés. t.10). Fig. 30 London, National Portrait Gallery (NPG D9994). Fig. 31 F London. British Library (C.79.d.7). Fig. 32 Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek (Res/ Phys. m.– 220–1). Fig. 33 London, British Library (C.54.c.15). Fig. 34 Author’s archive. Fig. 35 London, British Library (8006.b.8). Fig. 36 London, National Portrait Gallery (NPG 2561). Fig. 38 New York. The Morgan Library and Museum (M456). Fig. 39 London, British Library (G.2383). Fig. 40 London, British Library (669.f.8/24). Fig. 41 Innsbruck, Tiroler Landesmuseum Ferdinandeum. Fig. 42 Håbo, Skoklosters slott. Fig. 43 London, British Library (C.95.a.2(1.)). Figs. 44, 45 London, British Library (L.35/44). Fig. 46 Author’s archive. Fig. 47 Mariefried, Gripsholms slott. Fig. 48 Marburg, Elisabethkirche. Fig. 49 Rome, Basilica di San Pietro. Fig. 50 London, Westminster Abbey. Fig. 51 London, British Library (4504.f.20).