As an exceptionally long-lived author (1588-1679) whose protracted development, late appearance in print, subsequent muzzling, and profound notoriety raise fascinating questions about how, when, and to what effect his thinking exerted an impact as he sought to transform an entire culture, Hobbes supplies the ideal focus for a study of cultural transmission in early modern England. Ranging from Jonson to Rochester and including several critically neglected figures, select poetic contemporaries variously illuminate the scope of Hobbes’s writing and the reach of (...) his influence, in turn shedding diverse lights on the nature of their own work. (shrink)

Hobbes could not have written Paradise Lost: the longest of his few references to the story of Adam and Eve drains their relationship of drama and complexity; most aspects of human sexuality he addresses only in classifying them as off limits because of their indecency, neglecting topics in some respects germane to the clarification of his philosophy; and his original English verse amounts to one line for each of that epic's twelve books. This short poem nonetheless represents an intriguing persuasion (...) to love written in his extreme old age. Moreover, his treatment of “LUST” in The Elements of Law takes a significantly non-judgmental form by the standards of his time, though not marking so substantial an innovation as Simon Blackburn takes it to be. Most importantly, the anti-puritanical thrust of Hobbes's attack on Presbyterian preachers in Behemoth again illustrates his capacity for entertaining—however briefly—an essentially uncensorious view of human sexuality, this time in conjunction with a critique of sexual repression, as imposed by those clergymen in their role as spiritual advisers, that sheds invaluable light on the self-consciously scandalous libertinism of younger contemporaries often identified in his own day and since as “Hobbists”. (shrink)

: A transitional text in other respects as well, De Cive differs from Hobbes's earlier Elements of Law and later Leviathan by claiming points of agreement between his own political philosophy and that embodied allegorically in the fables of classical antiquity (as explicated by himself). Though he did not begin with and subsequently abandoned this unconvincing approach, it reveals how late in his intellectual development he was still tempted to find some way of establishing classical precedents for his views, and (...) thereby calls into question his frequent assessment as an arch-modern. (shrink)