Leviathan is a representation of an ideal political world, and Behemoth has been considered to be a contrasting treatise on what happens when the very worst abuses of government come to pass.
[1] Hobbes applied his understanding of the science of human nature to explain why the English Civil War came to pass.
[3] Charles withheld his permission to publish, in the hope that Hobbes would avoid further scandal, and perhaps see his reputation as a thinker restored.
The manuscript for Behemoth was pirated and printed in unauthorised editions in Europe during the 1670s and in a letter to his friend John Aubrey, Hobbes stated his disappointment with this turn of events.
According to Aloysius Martinich, "after its initial success the book was relatively unread and unstudied until there was a resurgence of interest in it in the last quarter of the twentieth century".
[5] Behemoth is not entirely factual, accurate or literal in retelling of the events of the English Civil War but still has value for students of the history of thought or revolution.
As Royce MacGillivray puts it: "It is noteworthy, however, for the brilliance of the interpretation, the excellence of the prose, the revelation of what it was possible for a profoundly rationalist thinker to conclude about the religious issues of the war, and the interest of seeing this daring and powerful thinker, more fully than he had done elsewhere, apply his philosophy to the state of the catastrophe of the war.
No effort is made to correct any inconsistencies introduced into the discussion between the master and the student so that the information may be presented as it was written by Thomas Hobbes.
The master relates that a growing opposition to the crown was promoted by seven factions, each of them for their own ends and not in concert, who stoked the fires of rebellion.
These factions were: Papists, Presbyterians, Independents including other sects of religious faith, those who were corrupted by their reading of the Latin and Greek classics, centres of commerce and trade such as London, those with no means of support who saw the war as a way to profit, and the lack of understanding as to the important role played by the monarchy in society.
This section has been considered anti-clerical in its leanings as none of the actions of the religious groups involved are shown in any sort of positive light.
The Independents and the other sects of the Protestant reformation were advocates of liberty and freedom in certain instances especially in the matter of religious choice.
When this source ran out Charles turned to Parliament to raise the Ship Money, a percentage of customs revenue given to the King for the upkeep of the navy, so that he could use these funds to continue the war against the Scots.
When this directive for disobedience was coupled with the teachings of ancient rebellions as a way to remove so called despotic domains it left a fertile ground for revolution in England.
The second section picks up the conversation on the following day and discusses how those who sought rebellion now began to make preparations for it to come to pass.
Next Parliament arrested and executed the Archbishop of Canterbury for his preaching of the introduction of arbitrary government ruled in consultation of the bishops.
Parliament next took control of the militia from the crown and insisted that no adherents of the Roman church be allowed to command the army being sent to Ireland.
Relations between the two sides once again broke down and the king issued a declaration that Parliament needed to be obedient to the established laws of the kingdom.
This was despite the king's ancient right to call for arms in times of conflict from all land owners and high born people.
This marks the rise of Oliver Cromwell in the Parliamentary army and he would use these successes to eventually take over the control of the commonwealth as Lord Protector.
1647 and 1648 saw the contention for control over the realm between Oliver Cromwell, with his New Model Army, and the Parliament as the king was held prisoner and not permitted to govern.
Cromwell removed opposition in the house, leaving what became known as the Rump Parliament, and began a charge against the king for his part in bringing about the war.
Immanuel Kant, one of the leading intellects of the Age of Enlightenment, had a different view on the nature of rebellions from Hobbes.
Howard Williams, of the University of Wales, in 2003 wrote a study comparing the views of the two great thinkers on the subject of revolution amongst other things.
[9] In this book Williams describes Hobbes writing of Behemoth as an attempt to "capture the spirit of those awful times and to suggest emphatically that they should not be repeated".
Kant, according to Williams, shares the same basic attitude to the resistance of sovereign power but does not think that all outcomes of Rebellion are necessarily negative.
Written more than 100 years after Hobbes wrote Behemoth, it has as its focus the idea that rebellions arouse sympathy in other countries for the people caught up in them.
Hobbes does not think that there is any sort of innate morality in society and that rebellion is either "an unwise or failed experiment as a complete blunder arising from ignorance".
Instead "only an absolute sovereign power could teach 'the science of just and unjust', fixing meanings in a stable way and thus inducing social cohesion".
Another consideration was that in the course of a century much more had been written on the subject of the rights of the people and of liberty and this too must have been an influence on Kant's point of view.