In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Why is it that Hobbes’s first two presentations of his political philosophy, Elements of Law and De Cive, are relatively devoid of rhetoric and Leviathan, his masterwork, shows such great and deliberate eloquence? We know that Hobbes said that rhetoric should be no part of philosophy.1 Perhaps the most elegant solution to this problem would be to declare that Elements of Law and De Cive are works of philosophy and Leviathan is not. One could also argue that Hobbes wrote Leviathan as a gift to a sovereign, not as a philosophical work for the consumption of either students or fellow philosophers. Although Hobbes did in fact write Leviathan as a gift to a sovereign (his critics raised the question of which sovereign),2 and although Hobbes himself distinguishes between “his doctrine” and his Leviathan, the notion that Leviathan is not philosophy is unsustainable. There is too much in Leviathan that counts as contestable doctrine for Hobbes to maintain the distinction (and he surely would have if he had wished to). There are also differences between Leviathan and the earlier texts—such as the doctrine of authorization—that cannot be ignored.3 At the very least, Leviathan is philosophy in spite of its eloquence, and for some interpreters (particularly those who link philosophy with grand conceptions ) it is a philosophical masterpiece.4 Indeed, for some others it is taken as Hobbes’s most “mature” statement of his political philosophy.5 The simple solution, therefore, will not do. Hobbes’s interpreters have offered a variety of alternatives. Some have suggested, not inaccurately, that the premise is false. There are rhetorical characteristics to be found in the earlier works, especially De Cive, in spite of what Hobbes claims (or seems to claim). Indeed, if Richard Tuck is correct, then De Cive was never meant to be widely circulated without the passages identified as most rhetorical.6 Others have suggested that Hobbes is in essence a deceitful philosopher who uses rhetoric to mask assertions that only appear to be rationally compelling.7 As noted, Hobbes is a prime target for a hermeneutic sneak attack, a bounty for those fighting on the side of rhetoric in the age-old battle with philosophy. 6 eloquence and the audience thesis 116 p mortal gods The most developed explanations, however, have come from interpreters such as David Johnston and more recently Quentin Skinner, who emphasize the differences between what they see as phases in Hobbes’s thinking. These, not unlike some of the sneak-attack interpreters, begin with a conventional story. They remind us that Hobbes, although famous now for his philosophical approach to politics, began his life as a humanist. Then, as we have seen, they follow Hobbes’s gossipy friend John Aubrey, who tells us that Hobbes had an epiphany when he discovered geometry at age forty (approximately 1628).8 According to these readings, the discovery of and devotion to geometry meant the abandonment of humanism (something Aubrey does not assert). On this reading, Hobbes became confident that his particular form of new science would produce works so compelling that no one would be able to disagree with their conclusions. Why, then, does Hobbes turn back to rhetoric (the humanist instrument for success in persuasion) when he writes Leviathan? Skinner and Johnston both think that Hobbes changed his mind. He came to the conclusion that reason alone, that is, reason unaided by the craft of rhetoric, was insufficient to accomplish his goals. The two authors differ over the motive for this change of heart—Johnston finds Hobbes’s most urgent need for rhetoric in matters of religion, while Skinner finds it as a result of a diminished optimism concerning the power of reason to persuade interested men—but I will not dwell here on these differences. I would like to put forward a third explanation. It is rooted in a theory Skinner rejects and that Johnston himself uses, but to different effect than I will. The differences in rhetoric (for there is a difference, even if we allow De Cive’s rhetorical characteristics to emerge) between De Cive and other early works, on one hand, and Leviathan, on the other, can be accounted for in terms of their distinct audiences. I will call this the “audience thesis.” According to Johnston, Hobbes decides that the elite audiences he addressed in his earlier works were insufficient to his goals.9 He sees in Hobbes’s return to rhetoric an important lesson for those interested in the...

Share