Hobbes’s hidden monster: A new interpretation of the frontispiece of Leviathan

Abstract

In recent years, much work has been done on the role of images in Hobbes. But there is an unsolved riddle with regard to the famous frontispiece of Leviathan (1651). Why is there nothing monstrous in the sovereign body depicted, despite the fact that it is named for a Biblical sea monster? In this article it is argued that there is a monster just barely hidden in the image and that the iconographical tradition helps us rediscover this creature. We argue that this monstrosity serves a theoretical and political purpose pertaining to fear and imagery within Hobbes’s overall project and in the political context of his time. Moreover, we argue that the discovery of the hitherto unknown monster should make political theory and intellectual history sensitive to the role played by physical images in Hobbes as well as in political thought at large.

Shape-Shifting Representation

“…The figure of the Sovereign in Hobbes's Leviathan (1969 [1651]) is a “representer” with few restrictions on what he may do for or to his subjects. He is unpredictable, a vengeful and potentially deadly figure—a “monster” indeed (Kristiansson and Tralau 2014)—who may adopt forms or shapes favoring the reinforcement of legitimate sovereign control. From Locke (1924 [1640], 163) onwards (“to think that men are so foolish that they take care to avoid what mischiefs can be done them by polecats and foxes, but are content, nay, think it safety, to be devoured by lions”), the critical unease with which the Hobbesian vision has been greeted reflects the disturbing array of roles or actions that the Sovereign may adopt or perform, and the consequent and ever-present danger he poses.…”

Masculine Power? A Gendered Look at the Frontispiece of Hobbes'sLeviathan

“…2A few important examples of the extensive literature on the iconography of the frontispiece include: Goldsmith 1981; Pye 1984; Malcolm 2002; Panagia 2003; Bredekamp 2007; Skinner 2008; Kristiansson and Tralau 2014; Reinhardt 2015. There is also broad and wide-ranging feminist engagement with the question of gender in Hobbes's political philosophy, some of which I discuss in this article.…”

Sight Unseen: Our Neoliberal Vision of Insecurity

“…50 Much ink has been expended on the interpretation of Hobbes' frontispiece image--its biblical framing, its portraiture likeness to King Charles II, its scenic structure conforming to a stage set that conceals as much as it reveals, and most recently its symbolic representation of monstrosity. 51 The frontispiece was supervised by Hobbes himself, and it conveys in remarkably vivid terms the central elements of his, then, revolutionary argument. An earlier preparatory sketch (here) of the frontispiece was produced by either of two of the leading artists working in England at the time, Abraham Bosse, or possibly by Wenceslaus Hollar, for presentation to King Charles II.…”