The Hunting of Leviathan: Seventeenth-Century Reaction to the Materialism and Moral Philosophy of Thomas Hobbes (review)

BOOK REVIEWS t05 (p. 254), des insuflisances au sujet du p~ht~ originel (p. 253), l'aflirmation erron~e du caract~re spontan~ de la confession au P. Beurrier (p. 207 n.) et surtout le lapsus Pinthard pour Pinthereau (pp. 363, $78). A c6t~ du petit Pascal de Jean Mesnard, cla~ique dans les universitY, le present ouvrage n'en contribuera pas moins ~ r~pondre dans un tr~s large cercle une connaissance de l'auteur des Pens~es enrichie par la sympathie. JZAN OxcmAt, Paris, France The Hunting ol Leviathan: Seventeenth-Century Reaction to the Materialism and Mora~ Philosophy of Thomas Hobbes. By S. L. Mintz. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1962.) The Hunting of Leviathan is an interesting and lively account of the reception of Hobbes's philosophy by his contemporaries. The major purpose of Professor Mintz is an oft-stated and significant one. If one is to understand and analyze the ideas of an influential philosopher (or anyone contributing to the intellectual heritage of a civilization ), then one had better know something about the age in which he lived, the problems to which he addressed himself, and the reception that his work had, if any, among his contemporaries. Replies to critics, of course, offer us additional insights into a man's thought and are often as valuable as the works which brought forth the criticisms. Hobbes, fortunately, debated his adversaries in print as well as by the spoken word; Mintz in several of his chapters gives stimulating accounts of the exchanges between Hobbes and Bramhall, Hobbes and Cudworth, and others such as Glanvill, Baxter and More, to name a few. At times the exchanges were direct; very often Hobbes was the villain to whom these men alluded. One wishes that Hobbes's influence upon Locke, and Locke's possible desire to avoid the charge of "Hobbist" had been examined; but, unfortunately, their relationship is not touched upon. Professor Mintz discusses, in his account of the times of Hobbes, his reputation as a defender of atheism, an advocate of materialism, and to a lesser extent, as a proponent of ethical relativism. Although Hobbes's political philosophy is subject to some discussion, its reception is not a major concern in this work. The book opens with a brief but interesting account of Hobbes's life. Not only is there some attention given to his early studies and training, but also to his controversies and disagreements which set nicely the stage for Mintz's discussion of his reception among his contemporaries. In the next chapter, which in some ways is the least satisfying, Professor Mintz gives a cursory account of Hobbes's philosophical views. I shall touch upon this later. The remainder of the study is concerned with various reports, work, debates, discussions, and dialogues put forth in answer to the "Monster of Malmesbury." Mintz presents these rejoinders in a scholarly, yet lively, way which speaks well for his study. It should be made clear that by and large this book is a presentation of anti-Hobbes literature with very little reference to or examination of favorable comment. As a result, the distinct impression is left that the latter was far in the minority and, in Hobbes's lifetime, of little influence or consequence. Professor Mintz mentions what I take to be an exception to this, but I may have misinterpreted it. In discussing some attempts at suppressing the Leviathan, he notes two editions which probably were printed in Amsterdam , although they bore the imprint of the London edition. (He presents evidence to 106 HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY show that they most likely were not printed there.) He asks for an explanation for their false imprints and suggests, "It must surely be that the Leviathan was twice reissued surreptitiously in order to evade a ban and at the same time to satisfy a growing public demand" (p. 61). If Professor Mintz thinks that there was a growing public demand for the Leviathan, surely it must have been by a public which was not in agreement with those who wished it banned, and presumably, not with those who found it a work worthy of the devil. Was there then a public demand...