Work #1385 · Late period

Behemoth

Hobbes's history of the English Civil War — written c.1668, published 1681 posthumous

Thomas Hobbes · c. 1668; 1681 (posthumous) · English · Historical-political dialogue

Tradition: Early-modern philosophy / Political history

Hobbes's history of the English Civil War

Behemoth, or The Long Parliament (composed c. 1668, suppressed by Charles II from publication during Hobbes's lifetime, published posthumously 1681 in unauthorised pirated editions and properly in 1682) is Thomas Hobbes's (1588-1679) historical-political dialogue on the English Civil War period — covering 1640 (the convening of the Long Parliament) through 1660 (the Restoration of Charles II). The text is structured as a four-part dialogue between an unnamed master and his student, with the master narrating-and-interpreting the political-religious history of the period from a position consistent with the materialist-political-realist framework of Hobbes's Leviathan (1651). The work develops Hobbes's distinctive interpretation of the wars' causation: (1) the seditious teaching of Presbyterian and Independent ministers, who taught the people they could obey their consciences and the gathered congregational vote against the established political-religious authority; (2) the Catholic-Papal-conspiracy element, with Jesuits and Catholic-leaning Anglicans similarly subverting sovereign authority; (3) the late-scholastic-Aristotelian university curriculum, which Hobbes regards as a major engine of seditious political thought through its mixed-government and natural-law doctrines; (4) the political-economic ambition of the merchant-and-gentry class, particularly in London; (5) the political incompetence of the Stuart monarchy itself, particularly Charles I's failure to consolidate sovereign authority decisively before the crisis broke. Hobbes's diagnosis is consistently sovereignty-monist: civil war can be prevented only by a unified, undivided sovereign authority (whether monarchical, aristocratic, or democratic in form), and the religious, intellectual, and economic forces that promote any rival authority within the commonwealth must be brought under control by the sovereign. Charles II's suppression of the work in 1668 reflects partly his recognition that the analysis was politically dangerous (because it would offend royalist as well as parliamentary sensibilities) and partly his sensitivity about Hobbes's continued ill-repute after Leviathan's controversial reception. Behemoth has been read since as one of the most important and most idiosyncratic primary-source seventeenth-century histories of the English Civil Wars.

Author

Editions cited

  • Behemoth, or The Long Parliament (London, 1681 unauthorised pirated; London, 1682 authorised posthumous; manuscript circulated 1668)
  • Tönnies edition: Behemoth, or The Long Parliament, ed. Ferdinand Tönnies (London, 1889; reissued M. M. Goldsmith Frank Cass 1969)
  • Critical edition: Behemoth, or The Long Parliament, ed. Paul Seaward, Clarendon Edition of the Works of Thomas Hobbes vol. 10 (Oxford, 2010)
  • Translations into German, French, Italian, Spanish

School Embodiments

Political Realism · 25%
Historicism · 20%
Liberalism · 10%
Critical Theory · 15%
Materialism (Philosophical) · 10%
Classical Liberalism · 5%
Mechanism · 6%
Social Contract Theory · 6%

Major political-realist historical work.

"Political-realist analysis of English Civil War." (Behemoth)

Major historical-political work.

"Historical-political analysis of mid-seventeenth-century England." (Behemoth)

Continued social-contract framework.

"Civil War analysis as failure of proper social-contract." (Behemoth)

Critical analysis of religion's political role.

"Critical engagement with Puritan religious-political causes." (Behemoth)

Continued materialist-philosophical framework.

"Materialist framework applied to political history." (Behemoth)

Limited classical-liberal commitments.

"Limited classical-liberal sympathies." (Behemoth)

Mechanist tradition.

Social-contract tradition.

Internal Tensions

Behemoth has been read since as a major idiosyncratic seventeenth-century historical-and-political source. Charles II's suppression of the work reflects its political dangerousness — its critique was aimed at both parliamentary-Presbyterian and royalist-establishment positions. Modern Hobbes scholarship (Quentin Skinner, Noel Malcolm, Paul Seaward) has restored Behemoth to centrality alongside Leviathan as essential to understanding Hobbes's mature political thought.

I. Time

Composed c. 1668; suppressed during Hobbes's lifetime (he died 1679); published posthumously 1681-82; covers events 1640-1660.

Attributes
Extent: Infinite Ontological Status: Substantival Grain: Continuous Freedom: Non-Deterministic Traversability: Linear Direction: Uni-directional Dimensionality: One

II. Space

London composition; subsequent transnational seventeenth-century-history and political-theory readership.

Attributes
Extent: Finite Ontological Status: Substantival Curvature: Flat Dimensionality: Three Locality: Local

III. Matter

The English Civil War period — its religious, intellectual, political-economic, and dynastic-incompetence causes; the role of Presbyterian and Independent ministers, of universities, of the merchant-and-gentry class, of the Stuart monarchy's own failures.

Attributes
Extent: Infinite Ontological Status: Substantival Conservation: Conserved Dimensionality: Three Locality: Local

IV. Observer

Late Hobbes (in his late seventies-and-early-eighties) writing a historical-political analysis of the events he had lived through and analysed throughout his theoretical-political work.

Attributes
Time Instance: Single Space Instance: Single Knowledge Extent: Partial Knowledge Retainment: Total Physicality: Embodied Agency: Active Number: Plural Metaphysical Agency: None

V. Energy

Polemical-historical, sovereignty-monist-systematic, didactic-pedagogical (dialogue-form) energies.

Attributes
Extent: Infinite Ontological Status: Substantival Conservation: Conserved Dispersibility: Irreversible

VI. Information

Four-part dialogue between master and student; combines historical-narrative, political-theoretical-analysis, and pedagogical-instructional forms; aimed at educated political-readership.

Attributes
Ontological Status: Substantival Cosmic Conservation: Conserved Personal Conservation: Conserved Granularity: Discrete

Personas with the nearest attribute fingerprint

Historical figures whose own classification on the same six-dimensional grid lands closest to this work's. Computed by attribute-agreement on coordinates both address.

Computed school proximity

The work's attribute fingerprint scored against all schools using the same quiz scorer. Useful as a sanity check on the hand-curated embodiments above.

How Behemoth resolves each dilemma

48 resolved positions across 4 dimensions, including 6 distinctive where the majority of schools go the other way · 9 unaligned.

Each dimension is sorted so minority positions come first. Mainstream positions are folded into an expandable list.

Time · 9 dilemmas · 3 distinctive

Persistence, the future, and the direction of becoming.

Distinctive · only 15% of schools agree (31/202)
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
The heat death of the universe — entropy maxed out, no further work possible — is among the more sobering implications of mainstream physics. Whether it is structurally inescapable depends on what kind of finitude the cosmos has.
Both time and matter are unbounded; 'running out' is misframed.
On this view, the cosmos has neither a temporal horizon nor a material exhaustion point. The framing of running out presupposes bounds that the cosmos doesn't have. Energy gradients perpetuate; new configurations emerge; the categories that make heat-death scary don't apply at the cosmic scale.
Roads not taken Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing. (47%) · Time both has and lacks bounds depending on the level you ask at; finitude is conventional. (26%) · The cosmos has bounds; heat death is a real horizon. (12%)
Distinctive · only 15% of schools agree (31/202)
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Whether we can grow our way out of resource constraints — or whether the cosmos sets limits the economy ultimately must obey — depends on what kind of finitude matter has.
Resources are practically inexhaustible on cosmic scales; terrestrial limits are engineering.
On this view, matter and time are both unbounded at the largest scales. Terrestrial resource limits are real engineering and political constraints but not metaphysical ones; the cosmos can in principle support whatever expansion intelligence is capable of.
Roads not taken Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time. (47%) · The finitude question is level-dependent; resource ethics happens at the level that constrains us. (26%) · Resources are finite in the strict sense; living well requires accepting the limit. (12%)
Distinctive · only 15% of schools agree (31/202)
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
If we owe future people a habitable planet and the material means to flourish, and the cosmos is bounded in ways that make those obligations impossible at some scale, the obligation and the possibility come apart. Where they come apart turns on what kind of finitude we live in.
Both time and matter are unbounded; we cannot in principle owe more than is possible.
On this view, the cosmos has the resources to support whatever flourishing future generations are capable of, given sufficient time and intelligence. The impossibility concern is misplaced; the real questions are about trajectories and choices, not about resource ceilings.
Roads not taken Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide. (47%) · The owing-and-possibility question is level-dependent; we owe what is appropriate at the level we act on. (26%) · The cosmos is bounded; our obligations to future generations are bounded with it. (12%)
6 mainstream positions
Matter · 7 dilemmas, all mainstream

Observer · 37 dilemmas · 3 distinctive

Mind, agency, and the knower's relation to the known.

Distinctive · only 13% of schools agree (27/202)
Is reality fundamentally digital?
Pancomputationalism, Planck-scale quanta, simulation theory and Kabbalistic letter-mysticism all say yes — but for very different reasons. The rest of the atlas says no.
Yes — bits, quanta, computational substrate.
On this view, the world is at bottom discrete and law-governed, with no metaphysical agency above or behind the substrate. Reality reduces to bits or their physical analogues; the continuous appearance of fields and flows is coarse-graining over discrete underlying structure.
Roads not taken No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure. (44%) · No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure. (37%) · Yes — but divinely-discrete: divine letters, momentary cognitions, atomistic theism. (6%)
Distinctive · only 13% of schools agree (27/202)
Are there indivisible units of experience?
Whiteheadian actual occasions, Buddhist moments of mind, Kabbalistic letter-cognitions, IIT phi-units — or the unbroken Jamesian stream? The atomism of experience cuts across naturalism and theism alike.
Yes — naturalist quanta of experience.
On this view, experience comes in discrete units defined by the substrate: information-theoretic phi-units, computational frames, discrete neural events. There is no further metaphysical agency that knits them; the appearance of a stream is the way many discrete events present to introspection.
Roads not taken No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness. (44%) · No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time. (37%) · Yes, theistic atomism — actual occasions, divine letters, momentary cognitions. (6%)
Distinctive · only 13% of schools agree (27/202)
Is memory stored or reconstructed?
Engrams and traces — or continuous re-narration each time you remember? The cognitive-science debate has a theological cousin: divine memory holding each hair, or the ancestors' continuous remembering.
Stored — discrete engrams, traces, weights.
On this view, memory is the readout of discrete information stored in the substrate: engrams, synaptic weights, file-like records. Reconstruction at retrieval is real but secondary; without the stored bits there would be nothing to reconstruct from.
Roads not taken Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed. (44%) · Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams. (37%) · Stored — in divine memory's discrete particulars, or in karmic-record units. (6%)
25 mainstream positions
Could causation work backwards? Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural. 68% Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us? The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction. 68% Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it? The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description. 68% Is environmental damage ever truly permanent? Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation. 66% Can a civilization recover from collapse? Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial. 66% Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally? Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current. 66% When does a person begin? A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence. 54% What is marriage? Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make. 54% Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally? Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally. 50% Can prayer for someone far away affect them? Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for. 49% Are coincidences ever more than coincidence? Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer. 49% What is our place in nature? Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform. 48% Should we colonize space? Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship. 48% Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination? Genetic modification is cultivation by other means. 48% Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom? The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems. 46% Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless? Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical. 46% Does prayer change God's mind? If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next. 46% Are the dead morally present to the living? Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present. 44% Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans? Animal minds are real because biology is the substrate of mind. 32% Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious? Brain tissue can in principle do what brains do; the question is integration. 32% Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it? Trust expertise whose conclusions a competent mind can in principle reproduce. 32% Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge? Revelation is evaluable by reason — and not above it. 32% Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces? An LLM can produce correct outputs but not reason to them; useful, not knowing. 32% What happens to "you" when you die? Death is genuinely the end. 30% Could an AI have a mind that matters? No — mind is what a biological brain does, and an LLM has no brain. 30%
9 unaligned
Information · 4 dilemmas, all mainstream
← #1384 De Homine All Works #1386 The Hidden God (De Deo Abscondito) →