Hobbes: Sovereignty

UNIT 10 HOBBES: SOVEREIGNTY

(PRESENTATION THEMES: STATE OF
NATURE, LEVIATHAN, ATOMISTIC
⁎
INDIVIDALS)

Structure
10.0 Objectives
10.1 Introduction
10.2 Hobbesian Sovereignty
10.2.1 Need for a Sovereign
10.2.2 Nature of Sovereignty
10.2.3 Types of Sovereign Power
10.3 Powers and Privileges of the Sovereign
10.3.1 Liberty of the Subjects
10.3.2 Right to Self-Preservation
10.3.3 Religion and the Sovereign
10.4 Legacy of Hobbes’ Ideas on Sovereignty
10.5 Let Us Sum Up
10.6 References
10.7 Answers to Check Your Progress Exercises

10.0 OBJECTIVES
The aim of this unit is to familiarise you with English political philosopher,
Thomas Hobbes’s conceptualization of sovereignty which is a central idea in his
social contract theory. After studying this unit, you should be able to:
 Describe Hobbes’ views on sovereignty
 Explain Hobbes’ arguments in favour of an absolutist sovereign
 Examine Hobbes’ views on relationship between religion and state; and
 Evaluate the legacy of Hobbesian conception of sovereignty

⁎
Dr. Abhiruchi Ojha, Assistant Professor, Department of Politics & Governance, Central
University of Kashmir

131
BLOCK –V 10.1 INTRODUCTION
HOBBES
Sovereignty is quintessentially a modern concept whose origins can be traced
back to the writings of Niccolò Machiavelli (1469 CE – 1527 CE), Jean Bodin
(1530 CE – 1596 CE) and most importantly, Thomas Hobbes. A basic definition
of sovereignty would be, supreme power or authority within a particular territory
or state. In most modern states, there tends to be only one sovereign or supreme
power. This sovereign can be the people in a democratic country like India or the
king in a monarchy like Saudi Arabia. However, such a conception of
sovereignty was unheard of in feudal Europe. During the feudal period, multiple
power structures co-existed within a given territory. This included the king, the
church and many other feudal lords. Thus, it is only in the modern era, the idea of
a supreme sovereign power within a territorial space took shape. One can trace
the emergence of the modern sovereign state system to the Peace of Westphalia
of 1648 CE.
In this context, Hobbes contributed significantly to the development of a modern
theory of sovereignty. It is worth noting that Machiavelli and Bodin had also
offered crucial insights about sovereignty. Machiavelli, in his most famous work,
The Prince(1532 CE), had argued that the Prince should exercise absolute powers
and should not tolerate any kind of factions within his state, be it religious or
aristocratic. However, Machiavelli’s arguments were practical rather than
theoretical. He was a diplomat rather than a philosopher and therefore, he did not
provide a philosophical justification for sovereignty, but rather offered only a
practical justification. For Machiavelli, the prince has to have absolute powers to
maintain a stable and powerful state that can withstand the vagaries of fortune.
In contrast, Bodin’s ideas on sovereignty as spelt out in his most famous work
The Six Books of the Republic (1576 CE) are more systematic despite being
somewhat similar to that of Machiavelli. Bodin defined sovereign power as
‘perpetual’ and ‘absolute’. Perpetuity of sovereign power means that anyone who
is given sovereign power temporarily or for a limited period of time, cannot be
called as a true sovereign. Only those who have sovereign power for perpetuity
without any time limit or threat of removal can be called as sovereigns. The
absolute nature of sovereign power means that the sovereign makes and changes
laws without the need for the consent of anyone. Moreover, sovereign power is
also indivisible and cannot be shared. Hence, it must be with a single person or a
single group of persons. While these views on sovereignty are mostly consistent
with that of Hobbes, Bodin also argued somewhat ambiguously that the
sovereign is bound by the laws of God and nature. It was Hobbes who gave a
more robust treatment of the concept of sovereignty in his most famous work,
Leviathan. Hobbes not only defined sovereignty clearly, but also spelt out the
reasons that necessitate a sovereign.

10.2 HOBESSIAN SOVEREIGNTY

Having carefully constructed his social contract from the beginnings of an
132 anarchic, violent state of nature, Hobbes goes on to propose the need for a
sovereign or supreme power to enforce the social contract. Here again, Hobbes’ Hobbes: Sovereignty
ideas are greatly influenced by his psychoanalytical framework which was
discussed in detail in the previous unit.

10.2.1 Need for a Sovereign

Hobbes anticipates the question that if people voluntarily create a social contract,
then why is there a need for a sovereign power to enforce it. He argues, relying
on his views of human nature that despite the voluntary creation of the social
contract, the power hungry nature of some human beings continues to be a threat
to the social contract. As a matter of fact, the contract itself is sometimes
described by Hobbes as a covenant which is a particular kind of contract where
the people making the covenant promise adherence to it in future. Such an
adherence, however, is not a guarantee that can be merely trusted for that would
lead to instability and unpredictability. Hence, there is a need for the
establishment of a common power or a supreme power to strictly enforce the
contract. This is the sovereign. It is people who establish the sovereign as a
guardian of the social contract. It is worth noting that fear again plays a key
constructive role in the Hobbesian framework. The fear of the violent reality of
state of nature led people to create the social contract in the first place. After that,
the sovereign has to be bestowed with awesome powers such that the fear of the
sovereign ensures that people keep the promise they made to keep the covenant.
There is also a need for a supreme sovereign power to defend the commonwealth
or state from external threats posed by rival states. Hence, Hobbes argues that a
sovereign power is indeed necessary to ensure the stable functioning of the
commonwealth.

10.2.2 Nature of Sovereignty

If the state in totality is an artificial person, the Leviathan, Hobbes says that
sovereignty is the soul of this person with the sovereign being the head. All the
citizens who are party to the social contract make up the body of the Leviathan
with the sovereign being the head who rules over them and sovereignty being the
life giving soul of this artificial person. In other words, without a well-established
notion of sovereignty, a commonwealth will be dead, just like a person who loses
his or her soul. The sovereign, even though created by the social contract, is not
party to the same. Instead, the people making the contract decide to set up the
sovereign to whom they consent to surrender all their rights except the right to
self-preservation. The sovereign, who can be a single person or a group of
persons, is given all the powers needed to enforce the contract by force. Since
people have surrendered their rights voluntarily to the sovereign, all the actions
of the sovereign are in effect authorized by the people themselves.
“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…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 133
 Assembly of men, to bear their Person; and every one to own, and
BLOCK –V
HOBBES acknowledge himself to be Author of whatsoever he that so bear 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 Judgements, to his Judgment” (Leviathan, Chapter
XVII)
For Hobbes, sovereign power is perpetual, inalienable, undivided and absolute.
Since the sovereign stands outside the contract, he is not in any way bound by the
contract. Hobbes argues that if the sovereign is bound by anything, then by
definition, he cannot be the sovereign. A sovereign has to have, thus, unlimited
powers. Once established, the citizens have a binding political obligation to obey
the sovereign in all that he commands. Hobbesian sovereign holds his absolute
powers perpetually, i.e. sovereignty cannot be taken away by anyone from the
sovereign. Sovereign power also cannot be shared. The sovereign can appoint
people to help him in governance for convenience, but it can never be shared.
There cannot be more than one sovereign for a commonwealth as that will lead to
anarchy because of competition between them. Hobbes wants to establish the
sovereign as the supreme power within the commonwealth which is able to quash
any other power structures within the state. Hobbes also gives unlimited powers
to the sovereign, because there is no way to know in advance how much power
will be required to achieve total domination of the commonwealth. Any
restriction on sovereign power, thus, is a threat to the stability of the state which
might allow rival power structures to emerge in the state which is a recipe for
anarchy and a return to the violent state of nature. Hence, the Hobbesian
sovereign is neither constrained by the contract nor by any other external force.
Even though, in a general sense the sovereign is obligated to follow natural law
but for Hobbes, it is the sovereign who decides what natural law entails. He is,
thus, the ultimate interpreter of natural law. His word is justice and any
disobedience on the part of citizens is unjust. He enacts the law, but is above law.
He can punish any of his subjects at will. The sovereign in essence retains all the
rights entailed in the state of nature to preserve himself because preserving
himself would mean the preservation of the commonwealth which is of
paramount importance to Hobbes. This is so because, for Hobbes, any state, even
one considered as held together by force or cruelty, is preferable to the violent
anarchy of state of nature.
It is also worth noting that Hobbes talks about two ways in which a sovereign
power might be established. The first is through a contract where people come
together to make a covenant which establishes the sovereign. Consent is the basis
of this sovereignty which Hobbes calls as sovereignty by institution. However,
Hobbes also notes that many a times, a sovereign might forcefully conquer a
people and establish his sovereignty over them. This he deems as sovereignty by
acquisition or force. What is revealing is that Hobbes argues that even such
forceful establishment of sovereignty is legitimate. This is so because the
subjects, driven by the fear of the sovereign, enter into an implicit contract with
134 him whereby they promise obedience in exchange for security. Fear forms the
basis of this sovereignty and for Hobbes, it is equally valid as consent. Hobbes Hobbes: Sovereignty
points out that even the consent of sovereignty by institution is driven by fear
faced by the subjects of each other in the state of nature.
“And this kind of Dominion, or Sovereignty, differs from Sovereignty by
Institution, only in this, That men who choose their Sovereign, do it for
fear of one another, and not of him whom they Institute: But in this case,
they subject themselves, to him they are afraid of. In both cases they do it
for fear” (Leviathan, Chapter XX).
This reveals the core idea of Hobbesian conception of sovereignty with much
clarity. For Hobbes, more than consent, it is the awesome power exercised by the
sovereign which grants it legitimacy. If a person is able to subordinate all other
competing powers within a commonwealth through force, then he in effect is the
legitimate sovereign. This is so because for Hobbes even sovereignty by
institution is made possible firstly by fear of the state of nature and is later made
workable only because of the fear of the power held by the sovereign. Fear is,
thus, a legitimate force in sovereignty by institution and hence, its legitimacy
cannot be logically denied in sovereignty by acquisition. Moreover, fear is
necessary for any commonwealth and thus he writes, “And Covenants, without
the Sword, are but Words, and of no strength to secure a man at all” (Leviathan,
Chapter XVII). A sovereign established by institution is useless, if he does not
have the power to instil fear and thereby, obedience in his subjects. Ultimately, it
is the fear of the power of the sovereign that holds the commonwealth together.

10.2.3 Types of Sovereign Power

Hobbes also talks about three types of sovereign authority that can be instituted
through a contract. Firstly, the sovereign can be a monarch, wherein sovereign
power is given to a single person. The sovereign authority can also be an
aristocracy, wherein sovereign power is given to a small group of people. Lastly,
there is democracy, wherein sovereign power rests with the people. Hobbes
argues that among these three, monarchy is the best possible form of sovereign
power. Hobbes gives many reasons for this contention. He argues that a monarch
will receive better counsel because he can obtain it in private where people speak
without apprehensions unlike in an aristocratic or democratic assembly.
Similarly, a monarchical sovereign will be more consistent because it is just one
person taking decisions unlike an aristocracy or democracy where multiple
people are involved. Hobbes is also fearful that in an aristocracy or democracy,
there can be factionalism leading to power struggles between different groups
which can result in civil wars. The important question of succession is also
complex and can become contested in aristocracy and democracy. On the other
hand, in a monarchy, the king will simply choose the method of succession or
who his successor would be. Thus, for such reasons, Hobbes argues that
monarchy is the best type of sovereign power. However, it has to be noted that
while Hobbes indicates a strong preference for a sovereign monarch in his
writings, his theory of sovereignty can be applied for an aristocratic or
135
democratic sovereign as well without much complications. The absolutist powers
 spelt out by Hobbes for the sovereign can also be granted to an aristocratic
BLOCK –V
HOBBES assembly or a democratic assembly. Hobbes just thinks monarchy is the best
among the three options.

Check Your Progress Exercise 1

Note: i) Use the space given below for your answer.
ii) Check your progress with the model answer given at the end of
the unit.
1. According to Hobbes, why is there a need to erect a sovereign in a
commonwealth?
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……

2. In Hobbes’ view, what are the chief characteristics of sovereignty?

Explain them in brief.
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……

10.3 POWERS AND PRIVILEGES OF THE

SOVEREIGN
The Hobbesian Sovereign, as noted earlier, enjoys unlimited powers and
privileges. All his subjects owe him unquestioning loyalty and obedience under
the threat of punishment. This political obligation cannot be legitimately removed
from them and any one transgressing the same will be doing something morally
unjust. On the other hand, the sovereign owes nothing to the subjects and cannot
be unjust in any of his ways. He cannot be punished or removed. The sovereign is
the supreme law maker and has the sole authority to interpret natural law. Hence,
the civil law declared by the sovereign cannot be questioned on the basis of any
claim to natural law or justice. The sovereign himself is not subject to any law
because he is the author of laws. The sovereign is also the ultimate judicial
authority in the commonwealth and has ultimate authority to adjudicate any kind
136 of conflict in the commonwealth.
As a matter of fact, the sovereign is the ultimate adjudicator in even scientific and Hobbes: Sovereignty
philosophical debates as he, either directly or through a committee of experts
chosen by him, determines which philosophical and scientific principles are right
and acceptable. Thus, the sovereign is the source of all valid and legitimate
knowledge. This flows from the argument discussed in the last unit regarding
Hobbes’ contention that for knowledge to be possible, a central authority is
needed to authoritatively determine the firm meaning of words, language and
first principles of knowledge. The sovereign power is that authority and
therefore, stable and universally accepted knowledge is not possible without such
a sovereign adjudicator. The sovereign can restrict any behaviour of his subjects
and can also censor any doctrine. He can reward those he wishes and punish
others. He can appoint whomever he wishes to any position in the government
and military. The sovereign is supreme not only in internal affairs, but also in
external affairs. He has the sole authority to declare war with other states or to
make peace with them. It is, thus, clear that the powers and privileges of the
sovereign are absolute in almost every sphere of society. Hobbes does not want
any check on the powers of the sovereign.

10.3.1 Liberty of the Subjects

Hobbes anticipates that his critics might pose questions about the lack of liberty
of the subjects of his absolutist sovereign. He proceeds to discuss the same in
some detail. Hobbes defines liberty as the ability to act in accordance with one’s
will without being hindered physically. Hobbes describes physical hindrance in a
very materialist manner, like literal chains or being behind literal bars in the case
of imprisonment. Since the sovereign does not physically hinder his subjects,
Hobbes argues that subjects enjoy absolute liberty. Hobbes does concede that the
social contract and all the laws imposed by the sovereign are ‘artificial chains’
which restrict the actions of subjects. However, since the subjects either
explicitly or implicitly consented to a sovereign power, Hobbes argues that they
themselves agreed to those chains and hence, therefore, cannot claim that they
infringe on their freedom. Citizens might have consented to the social contract
due to necessity arising out of fear of the state of nature in the case of sovereignty
by institution, or fear of the sovereign himself in the case of sovereignty by
acquisition. Fear and necessity are not constraints on the liberty of individuals for
Hobbes as they are not physical hindrances.
“Fear and Liberty are consistent; as when a man throwshis goods into
the Sea for Fear the ship should sink, he does it nevertheless very
willingly, and may refuse to do it if he will: It is therefore the action, of
one that was Free; so a man sometimes pays his debt, only for Fear of
Imprisonment, which because nobody hindered him from detaining, was
the action of a man at Liberty” (Leviathan, Chapter XXI)
Moreover, Hobbes makes a comparative analysis of the freedom enjoyed by
people under a sovereign and in the state of nature to show that fear does play a
critical role even in the state of nature. Fear of violent death and of more
137
powerful others restricted actions in the state of nature when human beings were
 at complete liberty to do anything they wished. People had neither consented to
BLOCK –V
HOBBES nor had any control over the fear they felt in the state of nature. In contrast, the
fear of the sovereign is based on consent and hence, Hobbes argues that true
freedom only exists in a civil society with a sovereign. Under such a system, the
subjects are at least completely free to pursue things which the sovereign has
permitted or has not disallowed. Wherever there is silence of law or sovereign
command, there is more practical freedom for the subjects. Hobbes
acknowledges that this free space might vary from commonwealth to
commonwealth. Yet, the liberty enjoyed is still better from the fear and utter
unproductivity of the state of nature. Hence, in a comparative sense, the subjects
of an absolutist sovereign enjoy more freedom than people in the state of nature.

10.3.2 Right to Self-Preservation

Hobbes gives unlimited powers to the sovereign and does not grant a right to
dissent or rebel to citizens. However, he is mindful of the fact that people agree
to institute a sovereign, either explicitly or implicitly, only to preserve their life.
As noted earlier, the one right which is not surrendered to the sovereign is the
right to self-preservation. Hence, a person is not under any obligation to obey a
sovereign if the latter asks him to kill or injure himself. So, even if a sovereign
deems an individual as a threat to the peace of the commonwealth and wants him
or her to be killed, that person has the right to defend himself or herself. He or
she is under no obligation to obey the sovereign against his or her right to self-
preservation. The sovereign thus, has, to use force to get it done for the benefit of
the commonwealth. Similarly, if a sovereign is not adequately competent to
protect the right to life of his subjects, then also they are under no obligation to
him. For example, if the sovereign is unable to put down a violent rebellion
which endangers the lives of citizens, then he is no longer the sovereign or
supreme power within the commonwealth, which is indicative of the collapse of
the commonwealth. The situation then is akin to the state of nature and each
person is at liberty to protect themselves through whatever means necessary.

10.3.3 Religion and the Sovereign

Hobbes discusses the relationship between religious authority and sovereign
power in detail in Leviathan as it was one of the pressing questions of his time.
He argues that those beliefs which are in the realm of the private conscience of
the individual cannot be anyway compelled by the sovereign. People are free to
have them. However, he insists that those aspects of religion which are publicly
exercised should be under the control of the sovereign. He is critical of any
religion that seeks to compete with the sovereign in exercising control over the
public lives of citizens. This criticism was especially directed against the Roman
Catholic Church of his time which claimed dominion over its followers
irrespective of the state they lived in. This was unacceptable and destabilizing in
the view of Hobbes because a leviathan cannot have two heads. In short, citizens
are bound to follow the lead of the sovereign in religious affairs as well,
especially in public exercise of faith even though Hobbes permits people to hold
138
on to their individual beliefs in private. The sovereign is to be the undisputed
head of religious affairs as well in the commonwealth. Hobbes also tries to apply Hobbes: Sovereignty
his materialist principles and reason to show that many of the commonly held
religious beliefs of his time, like faith in miracles and ghosts, were erroneous. In
his view, true religion will be compatible with reason and philosophy as God is
the author of reason. Therefore, by extension, true religion will also be
subservient to the absolutist sovereign because he is necessitated by reason and
philosophy.

Check Your Progress Exercise 2

Note: i) Use the space given below for your answer.
ii) Check your progress with the model answer given at the end of
the unit.
1. According to Hobbes, how do the subjects of an absolutist sovereign still
have liberty?
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……

2. According to Hobbes, what should be the relationship between religious

authorities and the sovereign in his commonwealth?.
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……

10.4 LEGACY OF HOBBES’ IDEAS ON

SOVEREIGNTY
Hobbes’ ideas on sovereignty continue to greatly influence debates on
sovereignty. Some critics like Macpherson (1962) have argued that the perpetual
nature of Hobbesian sovereign means that the contract cannot be revised or
reformed. As a result, the society cannot exercise any control over the sovereign
once he is instituted which for them is problematic. Moreover, the rationale for
political obligation created by such a sovereign is predominantly based onself-
interest and fear of punishment according to scholars like Strauss (1936).
However, others like Warrender (1957) have argued that the civil law 139
propounded by the sovereign in the Hobbesian framework is equivalent to natural
 law because the sovereign is supposed to interpret natural law to forge civil
BLOCK –V
HOBBES law.Hence, Warrender argues that the political obligation propounded by Hobbes
is predominantly based on morality. It is worth noting that Hobbes does expect
his sovereign to rule in the interests of the subjects. He wants the sovereign to not
interfere in private affairs, be it economic or otherwise and allow citizens to
operate independently as much as possible. Hobbes is not propagating a wilfully
cruel sovereign but still, he does consider even a cruel sovereign better than the
anarchy of the state of nature. Oakeshott (1975) tries to stake out a middle path
by arguing that the political obligation generated by the Hobbesian sovereign is a
combination of physical, rational and moral obligations. Physical obligation
arises out of the element of force involved, whereas the rational aspect is
emphasised by self-interest and the desire to seek peace.Moreover, for Oakeshott,
moral obligation is also part of it because the sovereign is established by consent.
Even though Hobbes proposes an absolutist sovereign power with a stated
preference for monarchy, he did differ from the other royalists of his time. Most
of them were arguing in favour of the king using chiefly the medieval divine
right theory, whereas Hobbes’ theory of sovereignty is based on a covenant of
consent. Hence, Hobbes was one of the earliest thinkers to delink sovereignty
from its mystical origins by giving it a firm rational foundation. Thus, scholars
like Sabine (1973) have noted that despite his proposal of an absolutist sovereign,
Hobbes is also a great individualist which makes him a distinctively modern
thinker.Each individual gives consent to the social contract based on his or her
self-interest and is under no obligation to kill or injure himself or herself even if
commanded by the sovereign because of his or her inalienable right to self-
preservation. Hobbesian citizens are holders of rights in their self. They are also
rational, equal and self-interested. This atomistic conception of individuals, first
propounded by Hobbes, would later come to dominate liberal political theory. It
is worth nothing thatsuch a construction of individuals has been criticized by
many as being asocial and mechanistic.

10.5 LET US SUM UP

Hobbes, true to his pessimistic view of human nature, argues that reason
demands that an independent sovereign power be established to enforce the social
contract. This is necessary to subdue both internal and external threats to the
commonwealth. Internally, the sovereign will use rewards and punishments to
make sure that citizens follow the contract. Externally, the sovereign will defend
the commonwealth from rival states. The sovereign is established by the contract,
but is not part of the contract and hence, he is not bound by it. Sovereign power
for Hobbes is perpetual, indivisible, inalienable and absolute. The sovereign is
the sole author of laws and also functions as the highest judicial authority in the
commonwealth. He also determines what constitutes as legitimate knowledge and
thereby, is the source of scientific and philosophical progress. He defines justice
for the commonwealth and decides which opinions are to be permitted and which
ones are to be banned. Religious authorities also ought to be subservient to the
140 sovereign as the Leviathan cannot have competing heads. Hobbes notes that three
types of sovereign power can be instituted. They being monarchy, aristocracy and Hobbes: Sovereignty
democracy. Among them, Hobbes argues that monarchy offers the most coherent
and efficient exercise of sovereign power. Hobbes contends that the citizens of
his commonwealth are at liberty because they are not physically hindered by the
sovereign. They have given their voluntary consent for his rule and therefore,
have chosen it out of liberty, even if their choice was necessitated by fear or
necessity. In his view, fear and necessity are not hindrances to liberty. This
argument is further underlined by the fact that Hobbes does allow the citizens to
disobey the sovereign if their right to self-preservation is threatened as that is one
right they have not surrendered to him.
Hobbes put the individual at the centre of his theorizing of the social contract and
bestowsthe individual with an inalienable right to self-preservation against the
society and even the sovereign.This paved the way for later liberal theorists like
John Locke to expand the list of inalienable rights held by individuals against the
society and the sovereign while preserving the same atomistic individualist
framework of Hobbes. His theory of sovereignty greatly inspired subsequent
highly influential theories of sovereignty proposed by scholars like John Austin
and Jeremy Bentham.

10.6 REFERENCES
Baumgold, D. (2009). Hobbes in Boucher, D. & Kelly, P. ed. Political Thinkers:
From Socrates to the Present. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Duncan, S. (2019). Thomas Hobbes. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. URL:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hobbes/
Hampsher-Monk, I. (2001). A History of Modern Political Thought: Major
Political Thinkers from Hobbes to Marx. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Hobbes, T. (1651). Leviathan. Available Online at Project Gutenberg. URL:
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3207/3207-h/3207-h.htm
Lloyd, S. & Sreedhar, S. (2019). Hobbes’s Moral and Political Philosophy.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. URL:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hobbes-moral/
Macpherson, C. (1962). The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism:
Hobbes to Locke. Ontario: Oxford University Press.
Martinich, A.P. (2005). Hobbes. New York: Routledge.
Oakeshott, M. (1975). Hobbes on Civil Association. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Pettit, P. (2008). Made with Words: Hobbes on Language, Mind, and Politics.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Sabine, G. (1973). A History of Political Theory. San Diego: Dryden Press.

141
 Smith, A. (1759). The Theory of Moral Sentiments. Available Online at Project
BLOCK –V
HOBBES Gutenberg. URL: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/58559/58559-h/58559-h.htm
Sommerville, J. (1992). Thomas Hobbes: Political Ideas in Historical Context.
London: Macmillan.
Sorrell, T. (1986). Hobbes. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul
Sorrell, T. ed. (1996). The Cambridge Companion to Hobbes. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Strauss, L. (1936). The Political Philosophy of Hobbes: its Basis and Genesis.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Skinner, Q. (1996). Reason and Rhetoric in the Philosophy of Hobbes.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Warrender, H. (1957). The Political Philosophy of Hobbes: His Theory of
Obligation. Oxford: Clarendon.
Williams, G. (2020). Thomas Hobbes: Moral and Political Philosophy. Internet
Encyclopedia of Philosophy. URL: https://www.iep.utm.edu/hobmoral/#H7

10.7 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

EXERCISES
Check Your Progress Exercise 1
1. Your answer should highlight the following points:

Internal threats exist because of human nature to seek power and
therefore many might not adhere to the contract
 External threats also exist in the form of rival states
 Sovereign is needed to ensure internal adherence to the contract by
citizens and to defend the commonwealth against external threats
2. Your answer should highlight the following points:
 Sovereign power is perpetual, i.e. once given, it cannot be taken back
 Sovereign power is indivisible and inalienable, i.e. cannot be shared
or divided
 Sovereign power is absolute i.e. there can be no limits on the power of
the sovereign.

Check Your Progress Exercise 2

1. Your answer should highlight the following points:
 Liberty for Hobbes is absence of physical constraints
 Fear, necessity and even laws do not count as physical constraints and
hence are consistent with liberty
 Citizens enjoy relatively more liberty under a sovereign than in the
142 state of nature
2. Your answer should highlight the following points: Hobbes: Sovereignty

 Religious authorities are to be subservient to the sovereign because

there can only be one head to the leviathan
 The sovereign is the head of any public exercise of religion while
individuals can have private beliefs of their own

143
BLOCK –V
HOBBES

144