Philosophy Reviews

• Reviews
• Editorial Board
• Reviewers Guidelines
• Subscribe

Search Author Title Reviewer Keyword for

2007.09.10

Noel Malcolm

Reason of State, Propaganda, and the Thirty Years' War: An Unknown Translation by Thomas Hobbes

Noel Malcolm, Reason of State, Propaganda, and the Thirty Years' War: An Unknown Translation by Thomas Hobbes, Oxford University Press, 2007, 227pp., $65.00 (hbk), ISBN 9780199215935.

Reviewed by A. P. Martinich, University of Texas at Austin

---

Noel Malcolm's book consists of six stage-setting chapters, Hobbes's English translation of a manuscript version of a pamphlet written in Latin during the Thirty Years' War, and the Latin text of the published version. Malcolm's chapters are a tour de force of scholarship. Malcolm discusses Hobbes's early life, minutiae of the War, Hobbes's style of handwriting, and what the watermarks on the manuscript of the translation indicate, among other things. The philosophical content, contained in a discussion of "reason of state," is light.

Hobbes translated the short work, Altera secretissima instructio Gallo-Britanno-Batava Friderico V data, ex belgica in latinam linguam versa, et optimo publico evulgata, published on the Continent in 1626, probably at the request of William Cavendish, the first Duke of Newcastle, who played a significant role both in Hobbes's intellectual life and in English politics. The anonymous work was purportedly written by an advisor to Frederick V, the Elector Palatine and son-in-law of King James I when Frederick accepted the kingship of Bavaria in 1619. The author recommends that Frederick overthrow James's successor, his son Charles I, who ascended the throne in 1625: "attempt England. in that kingdome all is swolne. you will driue out y^e young King at first dash, as one that is hated by nobility" (180, verbatim). In fact, the author was no doubt opposed to Frederick and was trying to demoralize him by pointing out the strength and wealth of the anti-Palatine forces, and the weakness and the unreliability of his supposed allies (48, 190), such as England, France, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Venice. Near the end of the pamphlet the author in effect summarizes Frederick's situation,

The body of your enemies . . . is too strong and too great. . . . The strong chains in which it binds us cannot be broken or moved by our own strength . . . War is long, life is short, the expense is certain, the outcome is doubtful, your enemy is persistent, your allies are inconstant, those hostile to you are unanimous, your confederates are quarrelsome, your exile is at hand, hope is far-off (190, 196).

Neither the pamphlet itself nor Hobbes's translation, A second most secret instruction Gallo-britanno-batauian, giuen to Fredericke the V [verbatim], was or could have been published in England since it advocated sedition against the King, Charles I, and described Charles's government as impoverished and overcommitted internationally (134-38). Possibly fewer than ten printed copies were surreptitiously brought into England (62), and Hobbes's translation, somewhat incomplete, came from a manuscript, the text of which is not identical to the printed text. Hobbes's translation, which is not mentioned in any surviving document, fell still-born from Hobbes's hand. This is not to say that the pamphlet was incompetently written. To the contrary, it contains information about the intrigues of the Thirty Years' War that indicates some insider knowledge, and no one responded to it in print probably because its case was fairly cogent: Frederick was in dire straits, and only two options remained, "Prayers, and Fraud" (172).

The pamphlet belongs to the 'reason of state' [ragion di stato] genre, which explains the actions of nations on the basis of what is in their self-interest. The mode of strategizing is Machiavellian -- "Successe makes any defence iust" (182); the narrative of events Tacitean (92). Every significant act was judged either honestum [virtuous] or utile [useful or profitable], with the useful being identified with the reasonable. Acting in accord with a reason of state was to act in one's own interest. It was both descriptive of how nations did act and how they ought to act. As Malcolm says, "Much of the art of ruling consists of making deceptions of various kinds: these, the 'arcana imperii', were easily identified with the stratagems of the Machiavellian prince" (96). Part of the author's advice to Frederick is "to use not only forces and stratagems, but also nothing less than criminal acts and things contrary to divine law" (188, 190).

A crucial component of reason of state strategy was the use of religion as "an instrument of rule." There are basically two interpretations of this view. One is that all Machiavellians thought that religion was bunk; the other is that some of them thought that the one true religion, Christianity, or the right kind of Christianity, was the best instrument of rule (96-9). Hobbes suggests the latter view in Leviathan chapter 14, paragraph 22, although most scholars attribute the former view to him.

The content of the pamphlet is somewhat puzzling. It is to some extent "satirical or parodic" in that it takes reason-of-state tactics to an extreme, but it also gives advice that sounds more moderate and principled. About alliances with infidels, the author warns that "such vngodly aydes, will proue the ruine of them that seeke them" (107, verbatim); and it also expresses the sober view that underlies reason-of-state policy: "in the decisions made by princes interest will always override every other argument" (107). As Malcolm says, "The author . . . simultaneously seeks to build on its credibility and exploit its disreputability" (107-8).

Hobbes of course knew about reason-of-state strategy since the library at Hardwick Hall contained many such works (109), as well as a number of books by and about Tacitus (110). As for his view of the content of the pamphlet, Hobbes was commissioned to do the translation and may or may not have agreed with its polemic. Malcolm's sensible but highly speculative reasoning about the small circumstantial evidence that exists leans in the direction of thinking that Hobbes was sympathetic with it (82-91, 112).

How valuable is Malcolm's book for scholars of Hobbesiana? Little. It is a bit more important than the knowledge that Hobbes received an M.A. at Cambridge, and that he probably played a part in Ben Jonson's The King's Entertainment at Welbeck Abbey, where Charles I stopped during his coronation trip to Scotland. Neither fact is mentioned by Malcolm in his detailed description of Hobbes's education and life up to about 1630. As relating to Hobbes's intellectual development, Malcolm emphasizes that Hobbes was a highly skilled translator during the 1610s and 20s. He translated a series of letters, written in Italian by Fulgentio Micanzio, secretary to Paulo Sarpi, to his employer the earl of Devonshire, translated some of the essays of Francis Bacon, and, of course, translated Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War (1628). To these translations, we can now add the Altera secretissima instruction.

What philosophical value does this pamphlet have? Virtually none. What light does it throw on Hobbes's philosophical development? Very little. Near the end of his last chapter, Malcolm draws some parallels between "a number of themes and lines of argument" in Hobbes's works after 1639 "that seem to echo the teachings of 'ragion di stato' theory" (114). These parallels are of some interest to intellectual historians. Malcolm concludes, "In various ways, then, it seems reasonable to align Hobbes's political theory with that of ragion di stato" (118). However, Hobbes did not teach prudence about governing but developed a science of politics (119). Also, he thought that the best foundation for stable government was the people's "understanding of the nature and justification of authority." Following Jeremy Waldron, Malcolm calls this a version of John Rawls's 'principle of publicity' (122).

Although only the most historically oriented historians of philosophy will find this book interesting, Malcolm's careful, erudite edition of the translation and his discussion of the minutia of the Thirty Years' War must be lauded. To fully understand his scholarship, one would have to know Latin, German, Dutch, French, Italian, and Serbo-Croatian, and then devote about a decade to reading his sources.

Copyright © 2004 Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews
Site Last Modified: 8/26/2008
ISSN: 1538 - 1617

University of Notre Dame

************************************************

War and Game

June 21, 2008

BOOK REVIEW: Reason of State, Propaganda, and the Thirty Years’ War:

Filed under: History — critcalmass @ 2:56 am

Noel Malcolm. _Reason of State, Propaganda, and the Thirty Years’ War: An Unknown Translation by Thomas Hobbes_. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2007. x + 227 pp. Illustrations, notes, bibliography, index. $65.00 (cloth), ISBN 978-0-19-921593-5.

Reviewed for H-HRE by Paul Sonnino, Department of History, University of California, Santa Barbara

Thomas Hobbes was probably one of the most personally timid and intellectually intrepid individuals of his time, and any new insights that we can gather into his life and thought are priceless. Thus the identification by Noel Malcolm of a manuscript in the British Museum as being in Hobbes’s own hand, along with its analysis and publication by this same scholar, is a welcome addition to our knowledge of Hobbes and furnishes me with some extremely fattening food for thought, more fattening, perhaps, than the well-informed and intellectually prudent Dr. Malcolm may be willing to absorb.

The manuscript is a translation from the original Latin, most likely undertaken by Hobbes himself, of a mischievous pamphlet titled “Altera serenissima instructio,” published in 1626 in the midst of what would become known as the Thirty Years’ War. Under the guise of giving friendly advice to the Calvinist Elector Palatine Frederick V, whose ill-fated attempt to replace the Catholic Ferdinand of Hapsburg (later Ferdinand II, Holy Roman Emperor) on the throne of Bohemia resulted in his own quick expulsion from both Bohemia and the Palatinate, the pamphleteer bitterly tells Frederick that by seeking what belonged to another he had lost his own, ruined his friends, and isolated himself in a Europe full of princes who were not about to abandon their own “reasons of state” in order to bail him out. The pamphleteer, who showed a remarkable knowledge of the current discontent in England with the government of Frederick’s brother-in-law, Charles I, then derides Frederick with some outrageous advice, such as becoming a champion of the English Presbyterians and replacing his brother-in-law on the throne. Brilliantly, Dr. Malcolm traces the origins of this pamphlet to the privy council of the imperial court in Vienna, which is a major scholarly achievement in itself, although he might have investigated further just how the pamphleteer obtained his familiarity with English affairs.

Dr. Malcolm’s principal purpose, however, is to understand why Hobbes would have translated the pamphlet, and what this enterprise tells us about a little-known period of his intellectual development. Malcolm points out that Hobbes’s first patron, William Cavendish, later Earl of Devonshire, “had more than adequate grasp of the Latin language” (p.11). This patron, moreover, was a member of the parliamentary opposition to Charles I and most likely sympathetic to Frederick V. As for Hobbes’s second patron, William Cavendish, Viscount Mansfield, he was less likely to have been intrigued by the polemics of a distant conflict. Since Malcolm dates the translation tentatively to 1627, he envisages the possibility that one or the other of the Cavendishes requested it, but he most prudently leaves this question open.

Hobbes’s patrons aside, Dr. Malcolm concludes that Hobbes was demonstrating an early involvement with, if not interest in, sixteenth-century reason of state theories, which Malcolm, adhering to traditional wisdom, traces back to the ideas of Machiavelli.[1] Indeed, Malcolm makes a considerable effort, as the title of his book suggests, to align Hobbes’s political theory with that of reason of state, an effort which does not entirely come off, and Malcolm himself is not entirely persuaded by his own argument. He cannot help but admit that “the overall flavour of [Hobbes's] work is very different. Just as his writing lacks detailed instructions on the art of government, so too it virtually ignores all the case histories of political and military actions” (p. 118 ). It is surprising to me that Malcolm, who is coming so tantalizingly close, does not break through to the conclusion of his own syllogism, which I hereby dare to furnish, namely that _Hobbes has very little to do either with reason of state or with Machiavelli_! The reason of state theorists, along with Machiavelli, presumed to be giving instruction to _princes_ on how to rule. Hobbes was personally too timid to do such a thing. On the contrary, in each and every one of his major works, he attempted to give advice to _people_ not to revolt. That is why his writing lacks instructions on the art of government. That is why one of his books is titled _De Cive_ or _On the Citizen_ (1642). That is why the only hint of instruction on the art of government that he gives to sovereigns in the _Leviathan_ (1651) is that they should read his book and protect “the public teaching of it.”[2]

If one revisits the “Altera serenissima instructio” from this perspective, its charm for Hobbes himself, irrespective of the curiosity of his patrons, becomes immediately apparent. What Hobbes liked about it was that it reproached Frederick with having abandoned his status as part of the Leviathan and placed himself in the situation of a rebel.

The inevitable that followed, the loss of his own possessions, the ruin of his friends, and the indifference of his peers, was what happened to anyone who abandoned what Hobbes would later define as the “social contract” and reentered into what Hobbes would later define as “the state of nature.” Here was a piece worthy of translating and presenting to his own countrymen, who, from Hobbes’s point of view, were blindly plunging into the same abyss.

Why, then, did the translation remain unpublished? Let me hazard a guess, once again based on Hobbes’s personal timidity. Hobbes may have translated the work with alacrity, but as he looked over his translation, he must have thought twice about insulting Frederick, who was extremely popular in England, and thrice about what the pamphleteer was recommending that Frederick do _vis-a-vis_ his own brother-in-law.

Even in jest, this was a suggestion with which no person of Hobbes’s disposition would have wanted to be associated. Not to speak of the fact that, as Dr. Malcolm points out, the government itself was pursuing distributors of the Latin version of the pamphlet. And so Hobbes put the work away for Dr. Malcolm to find it.

Hobbes, however, did not abandon his _idée fixe_. If a discussion of the troubled state of England was just a little bit too touchy, he had a book at his disposal which did the job better and much more discretely, namely Thucydides’ _Histories_. Here was a book that conveniently began by describing the primitive state of Greece in a manner that prefigured what Hobbes would later define as the “state of nature.” Here was a book in which the Athenians prided themselves on having stepped forward to establish an empire, over which they ruled by a combination of power and enlightened self-interest. Here was a book in which the Athenians departed from the advice of their wise governors and placed themselves in the hands of demagogues. Here was a book that demonstrated the fragility of what Hobbes would later define as the “social contract,” and how easily a civilized society could degenerate into barbarism. And here was a book on which Hobbes could comfortably affix his name to the title page without obtrusively entering the political fray.

The jury is still out on the exact dating of Hobbes’s translation of Thucydides. The most likely scenario, however, is that Hobbes had been working on it for years, and as he himself wrote in the preface, “it lay long by mee, and other reasons taking place, my desire to communicate it ceased.”[3] The “other reasons” may have been that his first patron was part of the parliamentary opposition, and Hobbes may have been hesitant to displease him in any way. This makes it all the more striking that Hobbes would have summoned up the courage to register his translation with the Company of Stationers on March 18, 1628, three months or so before his patron died. If this chronology is correct, therefore, the combination of the two translations confirms the consistency of Hobbes’s private thought, and reveals to us a fascinating psychological moment in his life, where we see him reaching a _modus vivendi_ between his timidity and his convictions.

It may also be hoped that Malcolm’s discovery will help to revise the received opinion of Hobbes as the poster boy for the rise of the state. If Hobbes was aware of anything, he was aware of the weakness of any state, even a so-called absolute monarchy. If Hobbes would have given rulers any specific advice, it would have been not to rock the boat, either internationally or domestically. This was certainly the moral of the “Altera serenissima instructio,” whose foolish villain, Frederick V, had been both a bad ruler and a bad subject. In this respect the “Altera serenissima instructio” supplements the moral that Hobbes derives from Thucydides, and thereby adds another dimension to our understanding of Hobbes. Dr. Malcolm, in any event, deserves the highest praise for his admirable blend of erudition and stimulation.

Notes

[1]. Please see my own critique of the traditional wisdom in the introduction to my edition of Frederick of Prussia’s _Anti-Machiavel_ (Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press, 1981), where I point out that Machiavelli never used the expression “reason of state” and might well have deprecated it; and in the introduction to my edition of Machiavelli’s _Prince_ (Atlantic Highlands, New Jersey and London: Humanities Press, 1995), where I attempt a more detailed reinterpretation of Machiavelli’s ideas.

[2]. Hobbes, Thomas, _Leviathan, or, The matter, forme, & power of a common-wealth ecclesiastical and civill_ (London, Printed for Andrew Crooke, 1651), Ch. 31, p. 193.

[3]. Thucydides, _Eight Bookes of the Peloponnesian Warre_, tr. Thomas Hobbes (London, Imprinted for Hen: Seile, and are to be sold at the Tigres Head in Paules Churchyard, 1629), “To the Readers.”

H-NET BOOK REVIEW

Published by H-HRE@h-net.msu.edu (January, 2008)