Leviathan, or the matter, forme, and power of a common-weath ecclesiastical and civill.

London, Printed for Andrew Crooke, 1651.

Folio, pp. [vi], 1–248, 247–256, 261–396, with an engraved pictorial additional title (laid down) and a folding letterpress table; fore-edge of the printed title reinforced, paper flaw to p. 175-6 resulting in the loss of a couple of letters, some light waterstaining to the upper outer corner of the initial quires, some scattered foxing; withal a good copy in contemporary calf, rebacked with some repairs to the sides, endpapers renewed; ownership inscription of John Horseman (Oxford scholar, correspondent of William Godwin) dated 1797 to the title-page.


US $15135€12995

Add to basket Make an enquiry

Added to your basket:
Leviathan, or the matter, forme, and power of a common-weath ecclesiastical and civill.

Checkout now

Hobbes was very interested in the settlement of North America, and was even technically once a landowner there (as an aide to the earl of Devonshire, a prominent member of the Virginia Company in the 1620s). In Leviathan Hobbes refers to the government of Virginia, and, most importantly, he cites ‘the savage people in many places of America’ as a concrete example of one of his key concepts, the state of nature, ‘where every man is enemy to every man’, a condition of ‘continuall feare, and danger of violent death; and the life of man solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short’.

Yet Hobbes’s references to America are sporadic: ‘The problem of the American Indian in Hobbes’s works . . . is akin to the problem of the dog that did not bark in the night: why did Hobbes make so little use of his special knowledge? The answer must lie mainly in his distaste for anything that might tie his argument to empirical questions of fact. But it may also be suspected that the data raised more difficulties for Hobbes than they solved. Although he could write that “the savage people in many places of America, except the government of small families, the concord wherof dependeth on natural lust, have no government at all . . . ”, he must have been aware, if he had read accounts such as that of Purchas, that some Indian tribes did conform to his model of a commonwealth. This must have been embarrassing for his subsidiary theory that all the benefits of civilization sprang directly from the leisure provided by secure government; if Indians could have a sovereign and remain savages, then the political explanation of civilization supplied at best a necessary, not a sufficient, cause’ (Malcolm, ‘Hobbes, Sandys and the Virginia Company’, in Aspects of Hobbes pp. 75–6).

‘Hobbes was not an enthusiastic proto-imperialist. Having direct experience of colonial policy (he was an active participant in the Virginia Company), he had good reason to consider the question of how colonization could be justified. The most convenient justification available was the neo-Aristotelian argument, which portrayed the native
people of the Americas as “natural slaves”; but Hobbes responded to Aristotle’s original version of this argument with withering scorn. In his view, colonization was a permissible way of employing people who could not otherwise be supported by the economy of the mother-country; however, the colonists were under a moral duty to treat the native people humanely, and to encourage them to use greater productivity to compensate for the loss of territory. As he explains in Leviathan, the colonists “are to be transported into countries not sufficiently inhabited: where neverthelesse, they are not to exterminate those they find there; but constrain them to inhabit closer together, and not range a great deal of ground, to snatch what they find; but to court each little plot with art and labour” ’ (Malcolm, ‘Hobbes’s theory of international relations’, in Aspects of Hobbes pp. 441–2).
Alden 651/85; Corbett & Lightbown 20; Macdonald & Hargreaves 42; Pforzheimer 491; PMM 138; Wing H2246. For the engraved title (‘perhaps the most famous visual image in the history of modern political philosophy’) and for the two editions falsely dated ‘1651’ but printed some time later, see also Malcolm, Aspects of Hobbes pp. 200–33, 336–82.

You may also be interested in...


Twentieth Century Cook Book … published by the Ladies Mite Society, St. Pauls Church, Lincoln.

First and only edition of a very scarce Nebraska recipe book, printed for the Ladies Mite Society in Lincoln, Nebraska, with additional recipes added in manuscript by a local resident. The broad range of recipes is gathered from many contributors who, other than Mrs J.E. Baum of Omaha and Mrs W.A. Metcalf of St Louis, are surely local women and members of the Ladies Mite Society. Though unidentified, it is possible that the ‘M.A.H.S.’ (one of few contributors to withhold her name), who suggests recipes for ‘Boston Brown Bread’ and ‘Pork Cake’, is in fact the Mary Swoboda who here annotates the texts and adds additional recipes.

Read more

ALBUCASIS (M. S. SPINK and G. L. Lewis, translators).

On surgery and instruments. A definitive edition of the Arabic text with English translation and commentary.

First edition in English. ‘The book on Surgery and Instruments written by the Arab surgeon Albucasis (d. A.D. 1013) is the first rational, complete and illustrated treatment of its subject. He described many operative procedures and instruments which do not appear in extant classical writings and which may therefore be regarded as his own, or at least as being part of distinctively Arab practice . . . . The present volume contains the definitive edition of the Arabic text, prepared from seven of the best of the surviving manuscripts by Dr. G. L. Lewis, with a critical apparatus. Dr. M. S. Spink copied the drawings of the instruments from the two Bodleian manuscripts and wrote the Commentary. Both collaborated in this first English translation and the footnotes to it and in the Introduction’ (dust-jacket).

Read more