Thomas Hobbes: Leviathan ed. by Noel Malcolm (review)

Noel Malcolm's long-awaited edition of Thomas Hobbes's Leviathan is a massive achievement, and one that will take the scholarly world several years to digest. Here in three volumes we have a definitive text of both the English and Latin versions of Leviathan, with translations from the Latin where required. The first volume, given over entirely to Malcolm's introductory materials, offers a general and a textual introduction, incorporating the findings of Malcolm's many classic articles on this work, notably his discussions of the quirky title of the work, and of its famous engraved title-page.

Hobbes's Leviathan was first published in English in 1651, but Hobbes then revised and republished the text in Latin in 1668, and the most obvious advantage of this edition is that it places Hobbes's English and Latin texts on facing pages, for the first time allowing readers to experience the differences between the two texts in one edition. What is most striking about a summary comparison between the two texts is that Hobbes can be observed making emendations, additions, and excisions to both his political philosophy and his theology. The alterations to his political philosophy can be interpreted as Hobbes adapting to changed political circumstances and indeed an enhanced, continental readership. For instance, for a book now published in Amsterdam and not London, Hobbes tactically toned down his criticism of the Presbyterian Church. More importantly, Hobbes reacted to those among his English critics who had accused him of being a supporter of rebellion. He cut entirely the English 'Review, and Conclusion', and was careful to rephrase passages that had been cited as urging the English to submit in good faith to the (now deposed) Parliamentary regime. The political philosophy of Hobbes in Latin in 1668 is therefore not quite that of Hobbes in English in 1651, but the shift does seem to have been motivated by expediency. The most surprising aspect of the parallel comparison is that Hobbes also extensively revised his theological views, even furnishing his Latin Leviathan with an 'Appendix' in three chapters in dialogue form between 'A' and 'B', a format he was employing in several of his other works at that time. As Malcolm demonstrates, these changes cannot be interpreted as bringing the work into any conformity with orthodox Anglican doctrine. Hobbes failed to assert any recognizable Trinitarianism; he reaffirmed his unusual theory that the elect after resurrection would return to live on the earth; he insisted with a louder voice that God is a corporeal being, and the human soul mortal. As Malcolm concludes, these theological revisions are certainly not 'damage limitation' or 'a merely defensive response to the threat of prosecution for heresy', but a concerted attempt 'to develop a new theology', one in which Hobbes actually believed.

Bibliographers will be especially attracted to Malcolm's superlative textual introduction, which offers descriptions of the royal presentation manuscript of Leviathan; the 'Head', 'Bear', and 'Ornaments' printed editions; the various editions of the Latin Leviathan; and finally a rationale of Malcolm's own methods. Much of this labour is of rare detail, for instance Malcolm's handling of surviving ownership inscriptions and indications of price, and what these can and cannot quite tell us. Malcolm's account of the 'Bear' edition in particular is an exemplary essay in bibliographical inquiry: both the 'Bear' and 'Ornaments' editions, although repeating the 1651 dating of the genuine 'Head' edition, are clearly late and surreptitious, answer ing strong market demand for a controversial and notorious book. Malcolm notes that the surviving datable prices on 'Head' editions show that the price of a secondhand copy rose from 10s in 1663 to 24s in 1668. The surreptitious 'Bear' edition was there fore produced, with some textual alterations traceable to the influence of Hobbes himself, who must have clandestinely aided this edition. The London stationer John Redmayne was responsible for commencing the printing, but...