馴服利維坦？霍布斯與絕對主義

Abstract

It is commonly argued that Hobbes advocates absolutism. In what sense Hobbes`s sovereignty theory is absolutist, however, remains a moot question. The dispute lies in Hobbes`s claims of the contractarian basis of sovereign power and also his insistence of subjects`s resistance right. Therefore C.D. Tarlton argues that the history of Hobbes studies is basically the history of taming or liberalizing Hobbes`s Leviathan. By so arguing, Tarlton intends to see Hobbes`s Leviathan as a defense of despotical and absolute political powers by using a Lockean point of view. In this article, I intend to argue against this interpretation by investigating the criticism of his royalist contemporaries (such as Bramhall and Edward Hyde, later the 1st Earl of Clarendon).

霍布斯經常被認為是支持絕對主義（absolutism）之思想家，但是在甚麼意義下霍布斯支持「絕對主義」本身仍然是霍布斯研究中的爭論焦點，近年來研究霍布斯的學者似乎漸漸讀出了一個較具自由主義精神的霍布斯，而這個被重新詮釋的霍布斯與傳統詮釋相較，威權（authoritarian）之氣大減，自由主義氣質大增，因此塔頓（Charles D. Tarlton）在一系列的文章中對這種「馴服／解放霍布斯」（taming/liberalizing Hobbes）的詮釋傾向提出嚴厲批評，認為這樣的詮釋誤解了霍布斯的絕對主義。在這篇文章中，筆者藉由探討霍布斯當代保王派人士如Bramhall 與Earl of Clarendon 對霍布斯的批評，對塔頓的詮釋提出挑戰，也期望對霍布斯主權理論的爭議提出新線索。