This article was downloaded by: [Gebze Yuksek Teknoloji Enstitïsu ]On: 20 December 2014, At: 10:07Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

British Journal for the History ofPhilosophyPublication details, including instructions for authorsand subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rbjh20

LeviathanAP MartinichPublished online: 03 Feb 2007.

To cite this article: AP Martinich (2005) Leviathan, British Journal for the History ofPhilosophy, 13:2, 349-359, DOI: 10.1080/09608780500093277

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09608780500093277

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, orsuitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressedin this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not theviews of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content shouldnot be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions,claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly

forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geb

ze Y

ukse

k T

ekno

loji

Ens

titïs

u ]

at 1

0:07

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14

REVIEW ARTICLE

LEVIATHAN

A. P. Martinich

Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, 2 vols, G. A. J. Rogers and KarlSchuhmann (eds), Bristol: Thoemmes Continuum, 2003. vol. 1, pp.271; vol. 2, pp. ix + 567, £150, $225. ISBN 1843710269

This two-volume work is the latest and by far the most carefully preparededition of Leviathan ever to appear. Almost anything that anyone wants toknow about the text of Leviathan can be found in one of the two volumes,and any serious student of Leviathan will have to read it carefully.

Volume 1 of this set is Introduction to Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan. It isdivided into five parts: I. The Genesis of Leviathan; II. Hobbesian Sources ofLeviathan; III. The Different Versions of Leviathan; IV. The LatinLeviathan; and V. The Present Edition. I will discuss these seriatim. Volume2 consists of the critical edition, and will be discussed as part of section V.

I. THE GENESIS OF LEVIATHAN

The Editors (as I will refer to the creators of these two volumes) confess tobeing no better able to explain why Hobbes wrote Leviathan after havingpublished the 1647 edition of De Cive than previous scholars (1: 10). Afterfinishing De Cive, Hobbes began or resumed working on De Corpore anddevoted the next three years to it, before beginning Leviathan. His hope tohave De Corpore ready for print in the Spring of 1650 was disappointed.When his tutee, the Prince of Wales, left Paris in June 1648, Hobbes couldhave devoted full time to De Corpore, but it remained unfinished until 1655.1

Oddly, in his autobiography, Hobbes gave the impression that he worked onLeviathan for most of 1646–9. As for why Hobbes wrote it, I will conjecturethat because he was having trouble finishing De Corpore, he wanted to workon something that he had a reasonable hope of finishing quickly; further, he

1On the complicated composition of De Corpore, see Noel Malcolm, ‘The Printing and Editing

of Hobbes’s De Corpore: A Review of Karl Schuhmann’s Edition’, in Luc Foisneau and George

Wright (eds), New Critical Perspectives on Hobbes’s Leviathan (Milano: Franco Angeli, 2004),

pp. 329–57.

British Journal for the History of Philosophy 13(2) 2005: 349 – 359

British Journal for the History of PhilosophyISSN 0960-8788 print/ISSN 1469-3526 online # 2005 BSHP

http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals DOI: 10.1080/09608780500093277

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geb

ze Y

ukse

k T

ekno

loji

Ens

titïs

u ]

at 1

0:07

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14

was plausibly so disgusted by the execution of Charles I that he feltcompelled to write about political philosophy. There may have been sometruth in his comment that he had a mind to go home.

The Editors, like others, wonder why chapter 19, ‘Of the severall Kinds ofCommon-wealth by Institution . . .’ follows 18, instead of 20. I think theanswer is that 18, ‘Of the RIGHTS of Soveraignes by Institution’ presents thelogic of sovereignty or government, and Hobbes thought that it was logicalimmediately after to enumerate the kinds of government.

II. HOBBESIAN SOURCES OF LEVIATHAN

The speed with which Leviathan was written is largely explained by the factthat Hobbes could draw upon material that had either been already draftedfor or previously published in other works. These include material aboutscience that appeared in The Elements of Law, Natural and Politic, a draft ofDe Corpore, possibly parts of De Motu (aka Anti-White), a draft of DeHomine and, most importantly, material about political theory thatappeared in De Cive. From The Elements of Law, Hobbes borrowed ideason human imagination and the passions. From De Corpore, he borrowedideas on sensation and the passions. He does not seem to have drawndirectly from The Elements of Law for his political theory. Instead, he wasguided to a large extent by the order and wording in De Cive: ‘It is fair toassume that Leviathan is linked to . . . [De Cive], and in fact may be saidactually to descend from it’ (1: 20; see also 1: 45). The chapters on politicaltheory often are in effect translations and expansions of De Cive (1: 30–40).The Editors go through each chapter of Leviathan and make some judgmentabout its plausible antecedents in other works.

Occasionally, the Editors argue for a dependency where it is just asplausible that there is none. It is not obvious to me that the subtitle ofLeviathan, ‘The Matter, Forme, & Power . . .’ needs to depend on part of thetitle of De Cive, ‘a civitatis materia incipiendum, deinde ad generationem &formam ejus . . . progrediendum esse existimavi’ (1: 21; cf. 1: 21 n. 34), since‘form’ and ‘matter’ were familiar terms to seventeenth-century authors.

The Editors argue that there are signs of translation in the syntax ofLeviathan. The most salient of these is the ‘then prevalent device of the‘‘double translation’’ of a singular Latin term’ (1: 19). Often a doublet in theEnglish text suggests a dependence on De Cive or some other Latin work.However, sometimes, the Editors concede, a doublet in a source (Latin) textis translated by a single word in English (1: 39 n. 117). And sometimes adoublet may indicate a dependence on still some other work, perhaps, aGreek text (1: 23 n. 39). As amazing as is the feat of keeping all of thesepossibilities in mind for each clause or phrase, more amazing are the fine-grained judgments the Editors provide for the possible dependencies:‘Whereas in this last case De Copore is probably the heir of Leviathan, in the

350 A. P. MARTINICH

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geb

ze Y

ukse

k T

ekno

loji

Ens

titïs

u ]

at 1

0:07

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14

earlier ones Leviathan seems to draw on the then-extant version of Hobbes’slogic, even if not directly and literally on Hobbes’s manuscripts: he ratherseems to rely on memory’ (1: 25).

III. THE DIFFERENT VERSIONS OF LEVIATHAN

The most dramatic claim made by the Editors is that the Bear edition wasprobably produced by correcting pages from quires intended for the Headedition, concurrently with the printing of the Head edition. Hobbes, theythink, would receive sheets from the early part of the print run, sometimesuncorrected, and make changes, but probably not changes in punctuationand other matters of style; these were the bailiwick of the printer’s corrector.The Editors reject Richard Tuck’s account, according to which the printerwaited for Hobbes’s corrections before completing the printing. Instead,they maintain that the corrected pages were prepared for the Bear edition,which they think was printed in 1651 or shortly thereafter. Large portions ofthe Bear edition, if not the whole of it, were printed in Amsterdam. Theyconjecture that a possible reason for splitting the printing between Englandand Holland was to protect Andrew Crooke from losing his entire stock ifLeviathan were to be confiscated in England.

Most of the Editors’ evidence for suggesting that the Bear edition is agenuine edition of 1651, emanating from Hobbes, is textual. They gothrough their usual, careful analysis of what kinds of change and how manyinstances of them are to be found in the Bear edition, and then argue thatthese are the kinds of change that indicate revisions made to unbound quiresof the Head edition. This evidence includes counting the number of lines oneach page of the Head and Bear edition, and explaining why, when there is adiscrepancy, it is best explained by understanding the typesetter of the Bearedition as trying to line up his quires with those in the Head edition (1: 131).Part of this evidence turns on not a jot, not a tittle, but a space. In the Bearedition (EW 3: 52, H 30)2 is the incorrect word ‘befor’ (2: 52, line 23; see 1:139). Copies of the Head edition, like the three owned by the University ofTexas, have ‘be or’. Also, in these copies, as represented by the line above,there is ‘an unusual blank space between the words ‘‘be’’ and ‘‘or’’’. Whydoes a later version of Leviathan have a mistake that the earlier version doesnot? And why the large space? The ingenious suggestion is that the earliestsheets, printed from the form for this quire were sent to Hobbes before theywere (completely) corrected. He used these earliest sheets to prepare the textthat would become the Bear edition. For the Head edition, the erroneous‘befor’ was corrected to ‘be or’ by Crooke’s corrector, and the excised ‘f’ lefta large space. (Curiously, in the same line the sequence ‘be,and’ is printed in

2Page references to Leviathan are give to the Molesworth edition in the form EW 3: xxx

followed by the corresponding page reference to the Head edition in the form H yyy.

LEVIATHAN 351

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geb

ze Y

ukse

k T

ekno

loji

Ens

titïs

u ]

at 1

0:07

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14

just this way, with no space between the comma and the ‘and’.) (Since, to myknowledge, no surviving copies of the Head edition have ‘befor’, it isplausible that the earliest printed sheets, used by Hobbes and the printer’scorrector, amounted to proof sheets.) A somewhat similar kind of argumentis used by the Editors to explain why copies of the Head edition have thephrase, ‘of all Moses’ instead of the correct ‘all of Moses’, while the Bearedition has ‘Moses of all’ (1: 139).3

Almost all of the evidence produced by the Editors is textual. Anexception is Clarendon’s remark that Hobbes was correcting ‘sheets’ ofLeviathan in the spring of 1651 (R&S 1: 145). If the Editors are right, thesesheets were prototypes for both the Head and Bear editions. In the end, theEditors leave open the possibility that the Bear edition was printed laterthan 1652 (1: 148).

One argument for dating the Bear edition to the 1670s is its modernizedspelling. The Editors rightly reply that this could simply be the work of adifferent 1651 typesetter, one who preferred modern spellings. It is certainlytrue that many books published in 1651 had largely modern spelling.

The Editors’ view is an alternative to that of Noel Malcolm, who thinksthat the Bear edition was probably printed between 1675 and 1678.Malcolm’s case is supported by the dated inscriptions on copies of the Head,Bear and Ornaments editions. All copies of the Ornaments edition are dated1678 or later4. The Editors give this evidence little weight since the copies ofthe Bear edition having the relevant inscriptions are too few to count as arepresentative sample (1: 176).

More evidence for Malcolm’s view is the report of a raid on JohnRedmayne’s printing shop and the confiscation of sheets of Leviathan thathe was printing in 1670.5 Redmayne says that the raiders took ‘two sheets’of Leviathan. The Editors say that they ‘could have been the first quire (A)of the work containing the title page’ (1: 165). They then say that the thirty-eight sheets later confiscated ‘might have been the quires Q–Ll’ (1: 165). TheEditors are discussing the pages of Leviathan printed in 1670, just asMalcolm is; but while Malcolm claims that these belong to the Bear edition,the Editors think they belong to the Ornaments edition. The Editors’scenario continues with the speculation that Redmayne ‘succeeded insmuggling out quires B–P, but no more than these’ with the rest of the bookprinted by someone else ‘at the instigation of Andrew Crooke (or, if it wasindeed printed later, of his successor William Crooke)’ (1: 165). The Editors

3Many other examples of the Editors’ ingenuity could be produced, such as this one. The

Egerton manuscript (MS) reads ‘For though the Effect of folly (for Example)’ while the Head

edition reads ‘(For example,) Though the effect of folly’. The Editors explain the parentheses as

likely being introduced by ‘a sign for inverting’ the phrase ‘for Example’ and mistakenly not

removed (1: 81).4Noel Malcolm, ‘The Printing of the ‘‘Bear’’: New Light on the Second Edition of Hobbes’s

Leviathan’, in Aspects of Hobbes (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2002), pp. 341–2.5Malcolm, ‘The Printing of the ‘‘Bear’’’, p. 338.

352 A. P. MARTINICH

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geb

ze Y

ukse

k T

ekno

loji

Ens

titïs

u ]

at 1

0:07

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14

point out that Redmayne continued to produce books in 1670, 1671 and1672, so they doubt that his presses in fact were ‘taken downe anddemolished’ as ordered by the Stationers Company. Further, the records donot show that Redmayne or Crooke, who supposedly was behindRedmayne’s printing of Leviathan, were ever fined or otherwise punished.The Editors find this plausible since Crooke had been Master of theCompany in 1665 and 1666 (1: 166). They do not comment on the fact thatrecords indicate that five people were paid for taking down Redmayne’spresses.6 The Editors also claim that Williams was not fined, even thoughMalcolm says that he ‘was eventually forced to pay the Stationers’Company’ more than two pounds sterling for expenses incurred in raidingRedmayne’s premises.7

According to Malcolm’s scenario, the confiscation of Redmayne’s shoprequired a second printer to complete the job, likely the Dutch publisherChristoffel Cunradus, and may not have been available for sale until 1678.8

Malcolm thinks that slight differences in the typeface of different pages ofthe Bear edition are strong evidence that two printers were involved. TheEditors are not wholly convinced. Since the differences in typefacesometimes appear in one and the same quire, they are not evidence of twoprinters.9 (Hereafter, occasionally, the Head, Bear, and Ornaments editionswill be referred to as H, B and O, respectively.)

A point in favor of the Editors’ view is based on the fact that relativelyfew copies of the Bear edition exist: ‘Would it not be easier to understand Bnot so much as an edition of its own, but rather [as the Editors maintain] aspart of an edition?’ (1: 178). Another argument, briefly indicated by theEditors, is that since the Ornaments edition evidently was printed from acopy of B, revised by Hobbes, it is implausible that Hobbes would havedone this in 1675 or later (1: 181). About a supposed edition of 1680, theEditors conjecture that that date, as it appears in Wood’s AthenaeOxonienses may be a misprint for ‘1670’, and there is apparently no extantcopy of that supposed edition (1: 182). The Editors have other argumentsagainst Malcolm’s view but they are too complicated to be summarized here(1: 178–81). In short, Malcolm thinks that the 1670s edition of Leviathan isthe Bear (and available for purchase by 1678 and advertised in 1680) whilethe Editors think it is the Ornaments edition.

Many of the changes that the Editors note between the Bear and Headeditions are, of course, of doubtful significance. More nouns are italicized inB than in H. More nouns beginning with the letter B or P or I are notcapitalized in H (1: 150). This passage gives the flavor of the informationprovided:

6Malcolm, ‘The Printing of the ‘‘Bear’’’, pp. 345–67Malcolm, ‘The Printing of the ‘‘Bear’’’, pp. 348.8Malcolm, ‘The Printing of the ‘‘Bear’’’, pp. 341–2 and 358.9Cf. Malcolm, ‘The Printing of the ‘‘Bear’’’, pp. 358–60.

LEVIATHAN 353

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geb

ze Y

ukse

k T

ekno

loji

Ens

titïs

u ]

at 1

0:07

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14

However, it is in the area of punctuation that B most often diverges from H.More than 300 times B suppresses (or forgets to print?) punctuation present inH. Quires most conspicuous in this respect are once more Zz (53 cases) and Hh

(43 times); by contrast, quires K, M, P, S, U, Ll and Qq show practically nosuch changes – one more sign of an unequal treatment of quires.

(1: 151)

Concerning the Ornaments edition, the Editors think that Hobbes had ahand in its preparation, especially because

O derives directly from B; the B copy at the basis of O must have beencarefully, though not exhaustively, revised; this revision drew in some way notonly on H, but to a limited degree also on (a neat manuscript copy of)

Hobbes’s autograph . . . This renders absolutely inevitable the assumption thatHobbes must have had a hand, and a decisive one, in the preparation of thecopy of B that lies at the basis of O . . . O is not an inferior edition . . . Rather, it

constitutes Hobbes’s Ausgabe letzter Hand and is as such undoubtedlysuperior to both H and B.

(1: 174–5)

The Editors are challenging Malcolm’s position that the Bear ‘makes nonew material alterations’ and ‘all the evidence now suggests that theOrnaments edition was not produced until the early eighteenth century,more than twenty years after Hobbes’s death (in 1679)’ (1: 180).

Let us now consider later editions of the English Leviathan. The Editorsare to varying degrees favorably disposed to these: the anonymous 1750edition, probably by John Campbell, (‘of somewhat uneven quality’ (1:200)), the Molesworth edition (1839), the edition by A. R. Waller (1904)(‘generally correctly and impeccably produced . . . [and] most meritorious’(1: 99, 100)) and W. G. Pogson Smith (1909), (‘a most faithful reprint . . .produced with the utmost care’ (1: 103)). Although laudatory about certainmatters, the Editors have harsh words for the edition by Richard Tuck. Heoverestimates the importance of the Egerton manuscript (MS), mistakenlythinks that large paper copies were produced last and are superior to others,and that Hobbes corrected ‘proofs’ of H (1: 111–15).10 Tuck’s use of MS‘looks somewhat arbitrary’, but ‘the ‘great merit and progress of Tuck’sedition’ is that ‘he puts the MS to extensive use’ (1: 116, 113). But the worstfailing is typographical: ‘This edition is marred by a record number of nofewer than 250 errors of all sorts’ (1: 117–18). The criticisms are oftenexpressed in immoderate language (‘cavalier negligence’ (1: 117)). But everyalleged error is documented. (In at least one case, a supposed error, theplacement of a marginal note, is, I think, a sensible emendation (cf. 1: 119).)

10The Editors say that small paper copies are about 29.8 cm long. The three copies at the

University of Texas are about 27.1, 27.8, and 28.7 cm. The thickness of the paper also varies.

Were there, in effect, three or more ‘printings’ of the Head edition?

354 A. P. MARTINICH

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geb

ze Y

ukse

k T

ekno

loji

Ens

titïs

u ]

at 1

0:07

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14

A separate part of section III is called, ‘Twentieth-Century Pseudo-Editions’. This rubric is applied to those editions that ‘present themselves asgenuine editions, i.e. as deriving more or less directly from the only editionrecognized by Hobbes scholars after Molesworth’s time as having beenactively initiated by Hobbes himself: the ‘Head’ edition of 1651; but ‘invarying degrees they do not succeed in making good this claim’ (1: 213).Pace the Editors, this does not justify the pejorative term ‘pseudo-editions’.A ‘pseudo-x’ is not an x, but the books they attack are editions, genuineeditions, usually intended for use by students or philosophers, with a greateror lesser interest in historical considerations. Given that these works are notcritical editions, the proper word for them is ‘noncritical’. They are still, Ithink, creditable ones. The editions criticized include those by Oakeshott(Blackwell 1946), Curley (Hackett Publishing Company 1994), Gaskin(Oxford University Press 1996), and Flathman and Johnston (W W Norton& Company 1997).

The Editors are especially harsh in their criticism of Flathman andJohnston. Notwithstanding the title of the series in which it appears, ‘ANorton Critical Edition’, and a phrase on the title page ‘authoritative text’,their edition is obviously not a critical edition – it omits eleven chapters,namely, 22, 23, 34–6, 38–42, and 45, and clearly is intended for the use ofstudents.

The most serious charge leveled against Flathman and Johnston is thatthey make ‘suspect’ claims about their sources. The Editors say, ‘we canconfidently state that Flathman and Johnston never looked at Syn or anyother large-page copy’ (1: 227). The conclusion is that this ‘half-bakedproduct can be safely ignored’ (1: 228).

The editions by Curley and Gaskin can easily be defended. Curley’sedition does not claim to be a critical edition but ‘suited to meet theneeds of both student and scholar’. That it has achieved its purpose isevident from the large number of professors who use it, and thenumerous, approving references to it in the scholarly literature. Itcontains modernized spelling and capitalization, numbered paragraphs, aglossary, index, and other features. It is the edition prescribed tocontributors to the forthcoming Cambridge Companion to Leviathan. Asfor Gaskin’s edition, it appears in the series ‘World Classics’, does notclaim to be a critical edition, contains a forty-page introduction andtwenty-five pages of explanatory notes, numbered paragraphs withinchapters, modernized spelling but the original punctuation reading, andan index.

I suspect that the Herculean work of the Editors, much of which isanalogous to cleaning the Augean stables, incited them to criticize editorswhose work did not require them to soil their hands. The Editors themselveslive up to the high standards they impose on their colleagues. Their editioncontains errors of this magnitude: On page 74 of volume 1, they omit theperiod from the phrase, ‘OF THE KINGDOME OF DARKENESSE’ and

LEVIATHAN 355

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geb

ze Y

ukse

k T

ekno

loji

Ens

titïs

u ]

at 1

0:07

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14

from ‘A REVIEW, and CONCLUSION.’ The word ‘genitive’ is misspelledin volume 1 on page 151.

Of the making of many editions of Leviathan, there is no end. The Editorsdo not mention the edition edited by Rafaella Santi (Bompian1: Il PensieroOccidentale, 2001), which includes her Italian translation, and the LatinLeviathan in footnotes, a great convenience. My edition for students(Broadview Press 2002), is mentioned but, happy to say, not discussed.Barnes & Noble published an edition, based upon Pogson Smith’s, in 2004;and Kessinger Publishing Co published one the same year.

IV. THE LATIN LEVIATHANS

The Editors demolish the idea that the Latin Leviathan predated the Englishversion, although they hypothesize that large parts of chapters 42 and 44and parts of other chapters depend on a Latin manuscript, written between1646 and 1649, attacking Robert Bellarmine (I. 238–40). They also arguethat the text underlying the Latin Leviathan is neither the Head, Bear norOrnaments edition but a manuscript quite close to that used for the Headedition and the MS. This makes the Latin Leviathan ‘an important sourcefor the text of the English Leviathan’ (1: 244–9). The 1670 Latin edition didnot involve Hobbes. Its Latin was improved by someone with a humanisttraining, although some of the improvements to the Latin changed the senseof the English version. The 1676 and 1678 editions, published in England,are presumably composed from the sheets left over from the 1670 one.

V. THE PRESENT EDITION

The Editors were right not to take MS as their copy text since Leviathan wasalways meant to be a public work (1: 259), and right not to take any of theeditions to which Hobbes did not contribute. They chose the Head editionfor ‘pragmatic’ reasons, the most important of these, as I understand it, isthat if they had chosen the Ornaments edition, then the corrections takenfrom MS would have resulted in inconsistencies of spelling many words (1:260–1). So they opt for a text that is based upon Hobbes’s own ‘rather old-fashioned spelling of words’ (1: 261).

Two main reasons may be given for thinking the choice was unfortunate.First, the Editors themselves think that the Bear edition was printed in 1651or shortly thereafter, corrects mistakes in the Head edition and waspublished with Hobbes’s participation. Second, to my knowledge, theClarendon edition will take the Head edition as its copy text since NoelMalcolm presumably still thinks that the Bear edition dates from the late1660s. Better to have two critical editions based upon different copy textsthan two based on the same one. As for the spelling inconsistencies between

356 A. P. MARTINICH

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geb

ze Y

ukse

k T

ekno

loji

Ens

titïs

u ]

at 1

0:07

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14

editions, better to have an edition with mostly modern spelling than onewith mostly non-modern spelling.

For their copy text or texts, they used two copies of H, based upon ‘theireasy accessibility’. One was the facsimile edition of a copy at the BritishLibrary produced by Scolar Press, and the other a copy in the Bavarian StateLibrary in Munich. Either one, they think, would have sufficed. But they alsochecked their texts against the editions of Waller, Pogson Smith, Lindsay,Macpherson, Tuck, Oakeshott, Curley, and Gaskin, not to mentionTricaud’s French translation. When the 1750 or Molesworth editions werethe first to correct or emend a passage, it is noted. The Editors used microfilmcopies of B, O, andMS, as well as a copy of O, provided by Quentin Skinner.‘H’ then ‘is taken as a collective term, indicating consensus among the Hprints and reprints involved’ (1: 265). (To check the Editors’ text, I have usedprimarily four copies of Leviathan: the copy of the Head edition in the BritishLibrary, mentioned above (shelf mark 522.k.6), a copy of the Bear edition inthe British Library, two copies of the Head edition located in the HumanitiesResearch Center at the University of Texas at Austin (one inscribed ‘TWillughby,11 the other a gift of the earl of Devonshire to Pierre deCardonnel), and a copy of the Ornaments edition, also in the HumanitiesResearch Center. (The Humanities Research Center also possesses a thirdcopy of the Head edition, which I consulted occasionally.)

The Editors’ edition includes all the corrections contained in MS, B and O(1: 262). Printer’s errors and wrong accents in Greek are corrected silently.Spacing in biblical references is made consistent, ‘VV’ is printed as ‘W’ andsimilar trifling changes are made. They do not note variant spellings orpunctuation ‘except in cases where an intentional Hobbesian interventionseems to be behind such changes’ (1: 266). Other minutiae are described (1:264–5).

The pagination of the Head, Bear, and Ornaments editions, and alsoMolesworth’s is given in the margins. Their claim that ‘for the purpose ofquotation Molesworth page numbers are not only the more important, butin fact the only relevant ones, for it is in terms of these that any scholarlytext on Leviathan can properly be expected to quote the work’ is too strong,as is the claim that Molesworth’s edition has the same status as Bekkernumbers have for Aristotle and Stephanus numbers have for Plato. Ifscholars discovered a paginated work by Plato or Aristotle, publishedduring their lifetime, I suspect those numbers would soon supercede Bekkeror Stephanus numbers.

Scholars currently use several systems of reference to Leviathan. Somegive page references to Tuck’s edition, and some to another. Some refer bychapter and paragraph number, a practice the Editors denigrate: ‘It [the

11The table of the sciences is printed on an oddly shaped piece of broadside paper. It attaches to

the binding by a ‘neck’ of paper and the bottom contains the instruction, ‘Place this Table

between folio 40. and 41.’ (Cf. 1: 72.)

LEVIATHAN 357

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geb

ze Y

ukse

k T

ekno

loji

Ens

titïs

u ]

at 1

0:07

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14

problem of how to refer to Leviathan] turns out to be only a pseudo-problemcreated by editors that refuse to acknowledge the historical dependence ofall their work on Molesworth’ (1: 263). Given that there are many populareditions of Leviathan, some of which do not include Molesworth’s pagenumbers, and that most readers will often not have the clunky Molesworthvolume with them, referring by chapter and paragraph number makes senseto me. One of the most distinguished Hobbes scholars thinks that thechapter and paragraph system is the most sensible and has his studentsnumber each paragraph in the Tuck edition before the discussion ofHobbes’s views begins, even though in his scholarly works, he refers to thepage numbers in Tuck’s edition. The advantage of referring by chapter andparagraph number is that one can usually find a reference,whatever editionone is using, with little difficulty. (Curley sometimes breaks long paragraphsinto shorter ones, and he also gives the Molesworth pages for each of histwo pages.) But Hobbes scholars could begin to give page references to theHead edition since these are included in the editions of Macpherson, Tuck,Curley, Gaskin, Flathman and Johnston, the Editors, and me.

Much of the work in deciding on the text of Leviathan is a matter ofjudgment, about which hard and fast rules will not always work. TheEditors’ judgments are always defensible, and my disagreements with themare few. They change the word ‘perform’ in the Head (roughly), Bear andOrnaments editions to ‘conform’ at EW 3: 158, H 88. They say that theinstruction in the errata to change ‘conform’ to ‘form’ is incorrect; but Ithink that change does the job (‘form’: ‘to mould by discipline or education’:OED). Adding ‘the’ before ‘fancy it selfe’ seems unnecessary, especially sincenone of the 1651 editions has ‘the’ (EW 3: 5, H 5). Following the Headedition and MS, I prefer ‘Conscience’ over ‘Conscious’ in the marginal note(EW 3: 53, H 31). Finally, I think ‘Sentences’ (opinions) is better than‘Science’ (EW 3: 666, H 368).

Sometimes the Editors think that it is difficult to settle on a reading, and Ido not. One of the two ‘most intractable problems in Hobbes’s text’ is theconstrual of ‘there be many rare works produced by the Art of man: yetwhen we know they are [so] done; because thereby wee know also the meanshow they are done, we count them not for Miracles’ (1: 270). A satisfactorysolution, present in MS, is to insert ‘so’ between the words, ‘are done’, asabove. Hobbes’s point is this: As soon as works of art are known to be theworks of men – this is the force of ‘so done’ – then we don’t count them asmiracles. Perhaps Hobbes wanted to write ‘when we know how they aredone’, but suppressed it because ‘how’ was to come again later in thesentence, in the phrase ‘how they are done’ (EW 3: 429, H 233–4).

Some of the more important readings and emendations are listed below.The page number from Moleworth’s edition of Leviathan is followed by thepage number of the Head edition. Italics and capitalization are ignoredexcept for words beginning a sentence; and the spelling of the words fromLeviathan follows the version from which it comes:

358 A. P. MARTINICH

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geb

ze Y

ukse

k T

ekno

loji

Ens

titïs

u ]

at 1

0:07

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14

EW 3: 43, H 25: ‘alternation’ for ‘alteration’.EW 3: 91, H 50: ‘grown old’ for ‘grown strong’.EW 3: 93, H 51: ‘unexpected good successe’ for ‘an expected good successe’.EW 3: 99, H 55: ‘were deified’ for ‘deified’.EW 3: 158, H 88: ‘conforme the wills’ for ‘performe the wills’.EW 3: 159, H 88: ‘to [re]present the person of them all’ for ‘to present theperson of them all’.3: 171, H 95: ‘call it Oligarchy’ for ‘called it Oligarchy’.3: 204, H 112: ‘these words’ for ‘the words’.3: 264, H 144: ‘one tittle’ for ‘one title’.3: 319, H 173: ‘As first’ for ‘At first’.3: 375, H 203: ‘no higher time’ for ‘no other time’.3: 487, H 268: ‘they bear witnesse’ for ‘they bare witnesse’.3: 538, H 295: ‘conservation of peace’ for ‘conversation of peace’.3: 548, H 301: ‘by command’ for ‘to govern men by commandement’3: 570, H 312: ‘one town’ for ‘our town’.3: 671, H370: ‘had’ for ‘hath’.

VI. MISCELLANEOUS COMMENTS

I will end with three miscellaneous comments. First, one of the most unusualsuggestions made in the Head edition is expressed in this passage:

For the wicked being left in the estate they were in after Adams sin, may at theResurrection live as they did, marry, and give in marriage, and have grosse andcorruptible bodies, as all mankind now have; and consequently may engender

perpetually, after the Resurrection, as they did before: For there is no place ofScripture to the contrary.

(EW 3: 626, H 345–6)

The passage is omitted from the Bear and Ornaments editions (see 1: 140–1). Given that the Bear edition was printed in 1651 or shortly thereafter,Hobbes did not entertain for very long the possibility that an endlesssuccession of damned progeny would fuel the fires of hell.

Second, the Editors’ sensibly conjecture that Hobbes wrote about RobertBellarmine in Latin between 1646 and 1649, and incorporated this materialprimarily into chapters 42 and 44 (1: 21, 249). Third, neither volume has anindex, and the first one especially needs one.

My criticisms of the Editors’ work are minor, and this edition is aremarkable achievement.12

12Part of the research for this review was supported by a travel grant by the Religious Studies

Program, University of Texas at Austin.

LEVIATHAN 359

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geb

ze Y

ukse

k T

ekno

loji

Ens

titïs

u ]

at 1

0:07

20

Dec

embe

r 20

14