AP European History

Hobbes and Locke

Objectives: Compare and contrast the theories of Hobbes and Locke, and explain how they are each a product of their particular moment in 17th c. English history.

SOURCE 1: Thomas Hobbes, Excerpt from Leviathan, 16511

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) was an English political philosopher who formulated one of the most important statements of political theory in history. Hobbes supported the royalist cause during the civil war and served as tutor to the future Charles II. Applying some of the new philosophical and scientific concepts being developed during the seventeenth century, he presented a theory for the origins and proper functioning of the state and political authority.

1 Source excerpt comes from Dennis Sherman, Western Civilization: Sources, Images and Interpretations, 4th edition / From the Renaissance to the Present, 2004, pp. 51-53.

AP European History

This image is the title page of Leviathan. Look closely at the image and consider:

1. What does the image in the top panel suggest about the kind of leader Hobbes presents?

2. What do the images on the lower left hand panels suggest, and how might they relate to the leader?

3. What do the images on the lower right hand panels suggest, and how might they relate to the leader?

Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of war, where every man is enemy to every man; the

same is consequent to the time, wherein men live without other security, than what their own

strength, and their own invention shall furnish them withal. In such condition, there is no place for

industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no

navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no

instruments of moving, and removing, such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of

the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear,

and danger of violent death; and the life of man solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short….2

2 The bolded text is probably the most famous phrase from Leviathan.

AP European History

The final cause, end, or design of men who naturally love liberty, and dominion over others, in the

introduction of that restraint upon themselves, in which we see them live in commonwealths, is the

foresight of their own preservation, and of a more contented life thereby; that is to say, of getting

themselves out from that miserable condition of war, which is necessarily consequent, as hath been

shown in Chapter XIII, to the natural passions of men, when there is no visible power to keep them in

awe, and tie them by fear of punishment to the performance of their covenants, and observation of

those laws of nature set down….

For the laws of nature, as justice, equity, modesty, mercy, and, in sum, doing to others, as we would

be done to, of themselves, without the terror of some power. To cause them to be observed, are

contrary to our natural passions, that carry us to partiality, pride, revenge, and the like. And

covenants, without the sword, are but words, and of no strength to secure a man at all….

The only way to erect such a common power, as may be able to defend them from the invasion of

foreigners, and the injuries of one another, and thereby to secure them in such sort, as that by their

own industry, and by the fruits of the earth, they may nourish themselves and live contentedly; is, to

confer all their power and strength upon one man, or upon one assembly of men, that may reduce all

their wills, by plurality of voices, unto one will: which is as much as to say, to appoint one man, or

assembly of men, to bear their person; and every one to own, and acknowledge himself to be author of

whatsoever he that so beareth their person, shall act, or cause to be acted, in those things which

concern the common peace and safety; and therein to submit their wills, every one to his will, and

their judgments, to his judgment. This is more than consent, or concord; it is a real unity of them all, in

one and the same person, made by covenant of every man with every man, in such manner, as if every

man should say to every man, I authorise and give up my right of governing myself, to this man, or to

do this assembly of men, on this condition, that thou give up thy right to him, and authorise all his

actions in like manner. This done, the multitude so united in one person, is called a COMMONWEALTH,

… This is the generation of that great LEVIATHAN, or rather, to speak more reverently, of that mortal

god, to which we owe under the immortal God, our peace and defence. For by this authority, given

him by every particular man in the commonwealth, he hath the use of so much power and strength

conferred on him, that by terror thereof, he is enabled to perform the wills of them all, to peace at

home, and mutual aid against their enemies abroad. And in him consisteth the essence of the

commonwealth; which to define it, is one person, of whose acts a great multitude, by mutual covenants

one with another, have made themselves every one the author, to the end he may use the strength and

means of them all, as he shall think expedient, for their peace and common defence.

And he that carrieth this person, is called SOVEREIGN, and said to have sovereign power; and every

one besides, his subject.

AP European History

Questions:1. Political theory terms to define: law of nature (aka natural law), commonwealth, leviathan2. Why do men form a commonwealth and give so much power to the sovereign?3. What kind of government does Hobbes advocate?4. When do people have a right to change government?5. Hobbes lived from 1588 to 1679, and he published Leviathan in 1651. Consider the English history

that Hobbes saw … what events might have prompted him to propose the type of government he did?

AP European History

SOURCE 2: John Locke, Excerpt from Two Treatises of Civil Government, 1690John Locke (1632-1704) was an English political philosopher whose political ideas became influential during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. His Two Treatises of Civil Government may even be regarded as the start of the Enlightenment. To understand political power aright, we must consider what condition all men are naturally in, and

that is, a state of perfect freedom to do as they wish and dispose of their possessions and persons as

they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave or depending upon the will

of any other man.

A state also of equality in which no one has more power or authority than another, there being

nothing more evident than that the creatures of the same species and rank born to all the same

advantages of nature and the use of the same faculties, should also be equal to each other without

subordination or subjection. . . .

The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, and reason, which is that law, teaches all

mankind who will but consult it that, being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another

in his life, health, liberty, or possessions; for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent and

infinitely wise Maker; all the servants of one sovereign Master, sent into the world by His order and

about His business; they are His property, whose workmanship they are, made to last during His, not

one another’s pleasure. All men are naturally in that state, and remain so till, by their own consents,

they make themselves members of some political society. . . .

If man in the state of nature is as free as has been said, if he is absolute lord of his own person and

possessions, equal to the greatest and subject to nobody, why will he part with his freedom? Why will

he give up this empire, and subject himself to the dominion and control of any other power? To which

it is obvious to answer, that though in the state of nature he has such a right, yet the enjoyment of it is

very uncertain, and constantly exposed to the invasion of others; for all being kings as much as he,

every man his equal, and most of them no strict observers of equity and justice, the enjoyment of the

property he has in this state is very unsafe, very insecure; and it is not without reason that he seeks out

and is willing to join in society with others who are already united, or have a mind to unite for the

mutual preservation of their lives, liberties and estates, which I call by the general name – property.

The great and chief end, therefore, of men uniting into commonwealths is the preservation of their

property. . . .

AP European History

. . . since it can never be supposed to be the will of the society that the legislature should be able to

destroy that which everyone hopes to secure by entering into society, and for which the people

submitted themselves to legislators of their own making; whenever the legislators try to take away and

destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put

themselves into a state of war with the people who are thereupon freed from any further obedience,

and are left to the common refuge which God hath provided for all men against force and violence.

Whensoever, therefore, the legislature shall break this fundamental rule of society, and either by

ambition, fear, folly, or corruption, try to grasp themselves, or put into the hands of any other, an

absolute power over the lives, liberties, and estates of the people, by this breach of trust they forfeit

the power the people had put into their hands for quite contrary ends, and it is the privilege of people,

who have a right to resume their original liberty, to establish a new legislature and provide for their

own safety and security. What I have said here concerning the legislature in general holds true also for

the executive, who having a double trust put in him, both to have a part in the legislature and to carry

out the law, acts against both, when he goes about to set up his own arbitrary will as the law of the

society. . . .

To this perhaps it will be said, that the people being ignorant, and always discontented, to lay the

foundation of government in the unsteady opinion and uncertain humour of the people, is to expose it

to certain ruin: and no government will be able long to subsist, if the people may set up a new

legislature whenever they take offense at the old one. To this I answer, quite the contrary. People are

not so easily got out of their old forms, as some are apt to suggest…. The slowness of the people to

quit their old constitutions has, in the many revolutions which have been seen in this kingdom, in this

and former ages, still kept us to, after some interval of fruitless attempts, still brought us back again to

our old legislature of king, lords, and commons.

But it will be said, this hypothesis may lead to frequent rebellion. To which I answer. . . . such

revolutions happen not upon every little mismanagement in public affairs. . . . But if a long train of

abuses, prevarications and artifices, all tending the same way, make the design visible to the people,

they cannot but feel what they lie under, and see whither they are going; it is not to be wondered at

that they should then rouse themselves, and endeavor to put the rule into such hands which may

secure to them the end for which government was first erected.

Questions:1. Political theory terms to define: state of nature, law of nature (aka natural law), commonwealth2. Why do men form a commonwealth and give up the freedom they had in the state of nature?

AP European History

3. What kind of government does Locke advocate?4. When do people have a right to change government?5. Locke lived from 1632 to 1704, and he published Two Treatises of Civil Government in 1690.

Consider the English history that Locke saw … what events might have prompted him to propose the type of government he did?