| It is uncontroversial that the main goal of Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan is to show the inhabitants of a commonwealth, notably England, how they can obtain lasting internal peace. Given his absolutism, Hobbes must provide an argument for absolutism and criteria for the identification of the absolute sovereign in order to achieve this goal. However, there is an important related question: are both halves of Leviathan, with Parts 1 and 2 making up the first half and Parts 3 and 4 the second, necessary in order to satisfy these two conditions?; In this dissertation, I give an affirmative answer to this question by offering an interpretation of Leviathan that explains how the four parts fit together to form a coherent whole. I argue that Leviathan, much like Hobbes' Christian commonwealth, should be viewed as a unified work that has two aspects, secular and religious. The Christian commonwealth has its civil and ecclesiastical sides that are united in the person of the sovereign. Likewise, Leviathan is clearly divided in half, with the first half based upon reason and the second half arguing from reason and revelation. Yet, these two halves, the secular and the religious, are united by parallel arguments for absolutism and the identification of the sovereign that, ultimately, are founded upon materialism. Hobbes' materialism provides the foundation for his conception of human nature and his deduction of the laws of nature in Part 1 and for his theory of sovereignty in Part 2. This same materialism, along with the other principles of biblical exegesis used by Hobbes, forms the foundation for the interpretations of Scripture that are used to argue in Part 3 that the nominal civil authority is the absolute sovereign in Christian commonwealths. Part 4 relies on materialism in order to undermine the dualistic metaphysics, and certain religious doctrines that it supports, that Hobbes feels threatens the positive arguments that he has presented in Part 3. In this way, materialism unites the work in terms of substance and the parallel argumentative strategy unites the work in terms of logical structure. |
