Journal of the History of Philosophy

On the Proper Interpretation of Hobbes's Philosophy Edwin Curley's article, " 'I Durst Not Write So Boldly' "presents the strongest case for Hobbes's allegedly irreligious views. That is why I devoted an appendix to it in my book, The Two Gods of Leviathan. Judging from his article in this issue, I think that the distance between our views has narrowed considerably. Virtually everything he says in the first half of his artide is the same as or is compatible with what I maintained in my book. Also, I appreciate his remark that the "great virtue of Martinich's book is that he is very precise about what his thesis entails" (257-58). ` Nonetheless, he appears to be ironic or sarcastic in the way he expresses the agreement between us. For example, after saying that adherence to the early Christian creeds is an appropriate criterion of orthodoxy, he discusses Hobbes's positions on materialism, the immortality of the soul, the final disposition of human beings, and the nature of the gospel imperatives, and then points out that Hobbes's nonstandard positions on these issues are compatible with the creeds. Because Curley repeats some variation on the phrase, "the early creeds are silent on the questions," there is a hint that Curley thinks that the criterion of the Page references to Curley's article in this issue ofJHP will be given within the text. References to the English edition of Leviathanwill be given by chapter and paragraph number. References to the Latin version of Lev/athan will be given by page number from Edwin Curley's edition (Indianapolis : Hackett Publishing Co., x994) and the translations are his. ' One reviewer, Richard Greaves, was disgusted by my precision; and offended that I defined my terms. Greaves asked rhetorically: "Does a learned audience need a definition of 'worship '... ?" (ChurchHistory6~ [1993], 564). (I had used ten words to define 'worship'.) He did not know that the answer to his question is 'Yes'. Some Elizabethan and Stuart intellectuals thought that worship was essentially an interior reality. So reporting Hobbes's views was not trivial. Consider simply one example. Locke thought that worship was essentially interior: "More properly, the term 'religious worship' is used to refer to all those actions of the inner virtues of which God is the object, such as the love, reverence, fear, trust of God, etc. This is that inner worship of the heart that God demands, in which the life and breath of true religionconsists. Take away this, and all the other activities which form part of religious worship serve merely to provoke God" ("Second Tract on Government" in Political Writings ofJohn Locke, ed. David Wootton [New York: Mentor, 1993], x55). Also, Hobbes thought that defining one's terms was the single most important part of a scientific treatment of anything. At the end of a paean to definition, he wrote: "So that in the right Definition of Names, lyes the first use of Speech; which is the Acquisition of Science; And in wrong, or no Definitions, lyes the first abuse; which proceed all false and senslesse Tenets" (Lev/athan 4. x3). Given Hobbes's views about the importance of defining one's terms, it is ironic that a Hobbes scholar would be criticized for defining his terms. Whatever our differences may be, I think that Curley and I are quite close in knowingwhat is and what is not the right way to approach a philosophical text. [273] 274 JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY 34:2 APRIL 1996 creeds is too weak. There is other evidence of irony, as when, echoing the words of G. E. M. Anscombe, he says, "I will not suggest, as some might wish to do, that Professor Martinich has not done his homework here" (266).~ The suggestion comes through loud and clear. I feel like Hobbes probably did when John Wallis verbally spanked him for "not saying his lessons correctly." Curley is playing Wallis to my Hobbes. Notwithstanding the hints of irony, I think that we should take Curley at his word when he says that my definition of orthodoxy is "plausible" (261). After all, it was in fact the criterion used by the Elizabethan...