Autor: Manent, Pierre

Buch: An Intellectual History of Liberalism

Titel: An Intellectual History of Liberalism

Stichwort: Hobbes 1; engl. Bürgerkrieg (Karl I., House of Commons, Universitäten, Puritaner); Hobbes: Einheit weder durch Natur noch Gnade (bloße "Meinung"); wenn keine Einheit mehr durch das Gute, dann durch Angst vor Übel

Kurzinhalt: [Hence] ... neither nature nor grace can unite men... until this point the basis of political action had been the idea of the good, whether natural or supernatural. This way of conceiving of action in the city-state failed tragically, because men ...

Textausschnitt: CHAPTER III
Hobbes and the New Political Art

20a It is not possible to deduce from Machiavelli the legitimacy, suitability, or even the need for particular institutions. It can be asked if, in his world of actions that judiciously cause fear, there is even a place for institutions. Every institution implies a positive goodness of the body politic, which seems alien to Machiavelli's vision. There is, however, one element of his city-state that has something of this "goodness": the people, who do not want to be oppressed. In themselves they do not have the means of founding a new political order; but if one wants to construct a positive institution, while remaining faithful to Machiavelli's principles, it is on this side that one has to look. With Hobbes, in fact, it is the people themselves—not as part of the body politic distinct from the elite, but as all those wishing to live free from fear—who are going to take the political initiative. The basic needs of all individuals—security, peace—are going to be the foundations of the legitimate political institution. The men whom Borgia's exploits leave satisfatti e stupidi are going to want to be satisfied, and they are going to know how this satisfaction can be obtained. To be satisfied, they are going to become intelligent. (Fs) (notabene)

20b It is impossible to go further without giving at least a summary idea of the context and circumstances of Hobbes's work. It was born in an emergency: Hobbes saw the preparation for and outbreak of the English Civil War, which culminated in the execution of King Charles I in 1649. This war, inseparably political and religious, was the most dramatic expression of the theologico-political problem in its postmedieval form. It raged for several years and raised related questions: What is the king's function, what is the meaning of the monarchical institution, and what is religion's place in the body politic? (Fs) (notabene)
20c Henry VIII had severed the English monarchy from Rome at the time of the Lutheran Reformation. But Henry VIII was not Protestant: he persecuted impartially both Protestants and Catholics. It was a purely political secession: the English body politic through its monarch declared itself independent from Rome. Being independent from Roman religion did not mean being emancipated from religion, only that the king or queen became the head of the kingdom's religion. But the head of what religion? The monarch who escaped the tutelage of Roman priests and theologians had to make himself a theologian, if not a priest. It was under Elizabeth, after the Catholic reaction of Mary Tudor, that the Protestant character of the English monarchy was fixed and England's religious destiny was sealed. (Fs)

21a The right to determine his subjects' religion that the king assumed placed him in a singularly exposed situation. By choosing Protestantism, or a version of it, as the state religion, he consecrated the authority of this interpretation of Christianity. He thus gave weapons to the followers of its most vigorous or radical version, the Puritans, who contested the state religion and the state itself. At the same time, whatever his desire might possibly have been, the monarch could not go back to Catholicism, thereafter considered as a foreign and hostile religion. Thus, the fruitless efforts of Elizabeth's successors to impose a Christianity of royal definition which could satisfy neither all the Protestants nor, of course, those who had remained Catholic. The king became, as far as religion was concerned, a foreigner to his people. (Fs)

21b During his perilous effort to remove his people from Roman tutelage, the king was forced to rely on their "representatives." Whether this support was given voluntarily or had to be extorted, the result was the same: the House of Commons, whose original role was that of representing the English before the king, saw its own legitimacy consolidated, its "national" legitimacy crystallized. The religious discord provided the representatives with the occasion, the temptation, and the means of defining the body politic independently of the king. Simultaneously, the definition of the body politic having come to depend on a religious opinion which, it had been learned, was not fixed, the emancipation from royal authority naturally led to the decomposition of this body into groups corresponding to diverse religious opinions. These groups readily became enemies. That being the case, Hobbes saw clearly that the only way of saving royal authority, and thus civil peace, was to detach completely the king's power from religion by making the king fully sovereign over it. (Fs) (notabene)

21c What, according to Hobbes, are the causes of the English Civil War? He distinguishes two, one secular, the other religious. The secular cause is found in the influence of the universities, which educate the elite; the religious cause is found in the influence of the Presbyterians, or Puritans, who are by and large made up of the people. The universities' influence stems from classical studies, from Greek and Roman models glorifying "freedom." The Puritan influence stems from a religious conception attributing to everyone who shares it the right and duty to obey individual "inspiration," and the right and duty to "dogmatize." These two influences conspire to foment the spirit of disobedience. (Fs)

21d Thus at the origin of Hobbes's construction lay the two great doctrines of protest against the Church's political power: classical republicanism (Aristotle and Cicero) and Protestantism. These led to a political and social catastrophe. Now, notice that these two great movements consisted of appealing to a prestigious past (antiquity) or a pure one (primitive Christianity) against a corrupted present. Or, put differently, the Catholic confusion between nature and grace, expressed in Aristotelian scholasticism, naturally led to appeals to pure nature (antiquity) or to grace alone (Protestantism). Why did these two appeals lead to an unprecedented disorder? (Fs; tblStw: Politik) (notabene)

22a The problem was that, whatever the intrinsic merits of classical antiquity and primitive Christianity, these two great doctrines existed in England only as opinions. They were available to all, providing a ready-made argument or pretext whenever anyone's vanity inclined him to disobedience. What had in ancient times been experience, now became an opinion that proved to be ruinous for civic life. Consequently—and this is the polemical heart of the Hobbesian vision—the deplorable political effects of these opinions refuted their claim to reflect an experience authoritatively. (Fs) (notabene)

22b Take classical republicanism. Its fundamental thesis was that the city-state was natural, and urged men to rule themselves in freedom. But the effect of this idea's prestige on the actual conduct of men in Hobbes's time was only to set them against each other in the name of freedom. The destructive effect of this opinion was stronger than the supposed political nature of men. Thus, "nature" had to be dismissed as model or reference for political organization. The same was true of Protestantism. Its fundamental thesis was that God bestows his grace on anyone who approaches him with a pure and humble heart, and that such a man, with divine help, will want and do only the good. The experience of the Civil War showed that the claim of "having grace," of being "holy," led to insufferable political arrogance, to disdain for and humiliation of one's neighbor. Hence the conclusion Hobbes drew from the crucial experience of the English Civil War was the following: neither nature nor grace can unite men. Then what can? The only possible response was obvious: art. (Fs) (notabene)

22c Traditionally, art was defined as the imitation of nature. If nature was no longer to be the reference, what was to be the model for this new art that Hobbes had to elaborate? Every "model" being an "opinion" on "nature," and every opinion being a principle of disorder, it was necessary to develop an art that needed no model. Political art needs a foundation stronger than any opinion. In other words, until this point the basis of political action had been the idea of the good, whether natural or supernatural. This way of conceiving of action in the city-state failed tragically, because men inevitably have incompatible notions of what is good, an incompatibility that is an unending source of conflicts and wars. But if people are unsure about what is good, they are not unsure about what is evil, or at least about certain evils. There is one evil in particular that is considered by every human being, or at least by most, as the greatest evil; and they recognize it not through reasoning, always contestable, but through the grip of a passion that nothing can quell. That evil is death. The foundation, stronger than all opinion, of the new political art will be this passion: the fear of death. (Fs) (notabene)