(Title of the Thesis)*
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ENLIGHTENED HOBBISM: ASPECTS OF THE EIGHTEENTH- CENTURY RECEPTION OF HOBBES IN BRITAIN by Stefan W. Brown A thesis submitted to the Department of History In conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Queen’s University Kingston, Ontario, Canada (April, 2020) Copyright ©Stefan Brown, 2020 Abstract Hobbes was Britain’s quintessential atheist at the dawn of the eighteenth century, and Hobbism (a widely recognized creed) was commonly used to identify and police theological and ecclesiological heterodoxy. A competing interpretation of Hobbism emerged over the first fifty years of the century. “Enlightened” Hobbism, like the traditional variant, took advantage of Hobbes’s notoriety, but now in a social and civil context. This dissertation explores an aspect of Hobbes’s reception from 1700 to 1760. The primary focus is on the works of Shaftesbury, Mandeville, Hutcheson, and Archibald Campbell. An analysis of these early British moralists reveals that they participated in a shared project of portraying Hobbes as a pessimistic egoist in moral terms. This was in sharp contrast with the majority of authors who highlighted Hobbes’s materialism, determinism, Erastianism, and moral conventionalism, as indicators of heresy and atheism. These two variants of Hobbism did not exist in isolation. “Enlightened” Hobbism was first articulated by Shaftesbury following accusations that he was an atheist in Hobbesian terms. Mandeville, Hutcheson, and Campbell subsequently had to navigate their own proximity to “Enlightened” Hobbism. Atheistic Hobbism was most suitable for a British context still obsessed with identifying theological truth. But as the priorities of civil society shifted and moralists challenged the theological basis of ethical discourse, British divines also had recourse to “Enlightened” Hobbism when justifying the necessity of the Church, God, and particular providence in the terms of civil prudence and utility. The primary goal of this dissertation is to explore the deployment of Hobbes and Hobbism in the moral discourse by these two groups: those who interpret morality through the lens of theology and the otherworldly, and those who view it as a fundamentally human endeavour. But this analysis also identifies a significant characteristic of the early British Enlightenment. As much as Enlightenment moralists forcefully ii distanced themselves from Hobbes, by rooting morality firmly in the human experience they contributed to the Hobbesian project of wresting authority from the Church and the otherworldly. iii Acknowledgements I wish to show my gratitude to Dr. Jeffrey Collins. It is hard to imagine this dissertation coming together without his capable supervision. Not only was his knowledge of Hobbes a vital resource, but his feedback throughout the writing process was invaluable. I would like to thank both Dr. Collins and Dr. Sandra den Otter for providing an opportunity to be an assistant editor at the Journal of British Studies. Not only did the opportunity provide welcome financial support, but the experience undoubtedly improved the dissertation. Lastly, I would like to acknowledge my family. Maya, my partner, provided unwavering support through the tumultuous experience of completing a project of this scope. I am proud to inform my parents, Dana and Marj, that yes, after their countless requests and questions, the dissertation is finally complete. iv Table of Contents Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................... ii Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................................... iv List of Figures .............................................................................................................................................. vi Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 1 Samuel Clarke: Atheistic Hobbism in the Boyle Lectures ......................................................... 51 Chapter 2 Redefining Hobbism: Shaftesbury's Defense of the Letter Concerning Enthusiasm ................. 99 Chapter 3 Mandeville and his Critics: Atheistic Hobbism and the Reception of the Fable of the Bees ... 152 Chapter 4 Hutcheson and Campbell: Navigating "Enlightened" Hobbism ............................................... 212 Chapter 5 Warburton and Hobbes: Hobbism and the Critique of Moral Philosophy ............................... 281 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................ 355 Bibliography ............................................................................................................................................. 363 Appendix ................................................................................................................................................... 391 v List of Figures Fig. 1 Hobbes References per Decade (Total) ............................................................................................ 15 Fig. 2 Categorized Hobbes References per Decade (Total) ........................................................................ 19 Fig. 3 Categorized Hobbes References per Decade (Percentage) ............................................................... 20 Fig. 4 Categorized Hobbes Refences Chart .............................................................................................. 391 vi Introduction In a 1709 sermon, The Communication of Sin, Henry Sacheverell railed against the persistence of heretical texts and ideas, “it is an epidemical Evil, a national Calamity, an everlasting plague, that has slain its Thousands, and its ten Thousands, that in the hands of that destroying Angel, the Devil, can taint whole Families and Kingdoms, and transmit its venom down to Posterity, and continue spiritual Death to the end of the World.” In this context, Thomas Hobbes, alongside Spinoza, Charles Blount, and Matthew Tindal, was referred to as an “atheistical monster” who continued to deny a role for God years after his death. “What a Magazine of Sin, what an inexhaustible Fund of Debauchery and Destruction, do’s any Author of Heresy, Schism, or Immorality set up!”1 Five years earlier, Edward Pelling suggested that the growth of atheism was the new threat of the age, Hobbes and his “most Atheistical Book” were the primary cause.2 To William Darrell, Hobbes was “the Spawn of our Age, and the Plague of our unhappy Nation” for questioning the existence of God and loosening the bonds of conscience.3 Hobbes was primarily known as England’s arch-atheist at the dawn of the eighteenth century. Jon Parkin argues that Hobbes’s reputation shifted during the seventeenth century from that of a “respected translator and pastoral poet”; to having attained by 1700 “a possibly unique position in the English imagination of the time. He had become a household name, but one associated with atheism, immorality, selfish behaviour, a poor view of human nature and unacceptable political views.”4 If by 1700 Hobbes’s reputation for atheism had 1 Henry Sacheverell, The Communication of Sin (1709), 17-18. 2 Edward Pelling, dedication to A Discourse (Philosophical and Practical) Concerning the Existence of God (1704). 3 [William Darrell], A Gentleman Instructed in the True Principles of Religion. The Second Part ([London], 1707), 21-22. 4 Jon Parkin, Taming the Leviathan: The Reception of the Political and Religious Ideas of Thomas Hobbes in England, 1640-1700 (Cambridge, 2007), 1, 410. Malcolm argues that a similar process occurred in the continental 1 attained something approaching unanimous support, it was not a preordained conclusion. Hobbes’s philosophical works found sympathetic readers during the politically and religiously uncertain Interregnum, but the restoration of the monarchy and Episcopacy entrenched Hobbes’s opponents in powerful positions of authority. Hobbes was effectively left without a voice as his most determined critics shaped his reputation as a dangerous atheist, materialist, and moral conventionalist.5 Hobbes’s reputation as an atheist was forged in the crucible of the Restoration. His arguments about the nature of politics and religion initially found receptive audiences among radical Independents and in a Commonwealth desiring to justify usurped authority.6 Despite open hostility during the Restoration, Hobbes’s ideas remained topical as the restored Church struggled to enforce religious hegemony in an irrevocably pluralist society. But Hobbes’s sustained influence on English political and religious thought was accompanied by a torrent of accusations of atheism and heterodoxy, which resulted in his name becoming synonymous with atheism.7 context, see Noel Malcolm, Aspects of Hobbes (Oxford, 2002), 535. Mintz earlier insisted that Hobbes was immediately condemned as an atheist, and that his influence was wholly negative, see Samuel Mintz, The Hunting of Leviathan: Seventeenth-century Reactions to the Materialism and Moral Philosophy of Thomas Hobbes (Cambridge, 1962), 147-56. 5 For the capability of Hobbes’s critics to shape his reception in a context in which he was largely denied participation, see Parkin, Taming the Leviathan, 238-311, at 238-41; Jeffrey R. Collins, The Allegiance of Thomas Hobbes (Oxford,