Suchergebnisse

Malcolms fast missionarischer, polemischer Duktus macht aus dem gewichtigen, wohl nun dem Standard- und Lehrbuch über Bosnien von dessen Frühzeit bis 1995 eine fast spannende Geschichtslektion. Aufgeräumt wird mit "Fehlinformationen" und "Mythen", nach denen die Ursachen des jüngsten Krieges in den Jahrhunderten zuvor, in einer "tiefsitzenden Psychose" wurzeln sollen. Eine bislang kaum publizierte Faktenfülle, übersichtlich geordnet, verständlich beschrieben, in klarer, schöner Sprache, erschlossen mit einem "Register der Orte, Personen und Bevölkerungsgruppen". Vor allem: Malcolms Resümee mittendrin "Plötzlich paßt vieles, was verwirrend war, zusammen" gilt für fast jedes Buchkapitel. Eigentlich unverzichtbar. (2) (Gert Kreusel)

This article investigates the history and significance of the Latin translation of Hobbes's Behemoth which was prepared in 1708 by Adam Ebert (b. 1653-7; d. 1735) and deposited by him in the King of Prussia's library. Ebert's special interest in Hobbes was based partly on having met him in London in 1678; but it also grew out of his wider interest in 'reason of state' and a Tacitist theory of political action. Such wider interests led also to a fascination with Cromwell, and Ebert even tried to present Behemoth as a celebration of Cromwell's political skills. This article considers Ebert as a late representative of the Tacitist tradition, and argues that although Ebert's reading of Hobbes was responding to some elements genuinely present in Hobbes's political thought, Hobbes nevertheless went beyond Tacitism to reach a very different view of politics and government. ; Članek preučuje zgodovino in pomen latinskega prevoda Hobbesovega Behemotha, ki gaje leta 1708 pripravil Adam Ebert (1653-1735) in shranil v knjižnici pruskega kralja. Ebertaje Hobbes posebno zanimal deloma zato, ker gaje leta 1678 srečal v Londonu, vendar tudi zato, ker je veliko razmišljal o "raggione di stato" in tacitovski teoriji političnega delovanja. Ti njegovi širši interesi so spodbudili tudi občudovanje Cromwella, tako daje Ebert celo hotel prikazati Behemoth kot slavljenje Cromwellovih političnih veščin. Avtor obravnava Eberta kot poznega predstavnika tacitistične tradicije in argumentira, daje Hobbes - četudi je Ebertovo branje Hobbesa bilo v sozvočju z nekaterimi elementi, ki so v Hobbesovi politični misli resnično prisotni - presegel tacitizem in formuliral zelo drugačen pogled na politiko in oblast.

Hobbes has long been associated with the sexual 'libertinism' of the Restoration period. The connections that are commonly made are crude, misrepresenting his philosophy; moreover, the attitude to sexual matters expressed in many of his published works was quite puritanical. Yet there are elements of his thought that could be taken to support a libertine agenda: hostility to Augustinian teaching on lust and chastity; the idea that marriage laws are merely human; a recognition of self-regarding elements in sexual psychology; and the idea that desires in themselves are not sins. On this last point, however, Hobbes's distinction between desires and intentions to act, combined with his account of the role of imagination in desire, does make it possible to attribute to him a distinctly non-libertine theory of how sexual behaviour is modified in civil society.

AbstractHobbes's manuscript refutation of Thomas White bears no title. Some modern scholars have proposed, on the basis of references to it by Mersenne, that the work was entitled 'De motu, loco et tempore', and the abbreviated version of this, 'De motu', has become current in modern scholarship. This research note analyses Mersenne's references, and concludes that this apparent title was a descriptive phrase introduced by Mersenne himself. The full description included the term 'philosophia' (thus: Hobbes's 'philosophy concerning motion, place and time'); this suggests a double focus, not only on the manuscript text, but also on Hobbes's 'body' of natural philosophy more generally.

AbstractIn a previous study the author proposed that the third edition of Leviathan (the 'Ornaments') was produced not long before 1702 (the date given in the earliest dated copy). An alternative view, dating the edition to 1670 and suggesting that it incorporated corrections by Hobbes, was put forward by the late Karl Schuhmann; it was based on both typographical and textual evidence. This article considers Schuhmann's arguments and finds them unconvincing. It also adduces some new evidence (concerning the prices at which copies of Leviathan sold, and the ornaments and type of the third edition), on the basis of which it proposes that this edition was produced in the period 1695-1702, probably by the printer John Darby.