Divine Right and Rational Fear: Filmer, Hobbes, and the Politics of Civil War
Question :
How did the experiences of the authors’ of your chosen texts affect their perspective? How did these authors’
responses to their experiences differ from one another? Consider not just the personal history of the authors, but
the time and place in which they lived
The English Civil War and the Broader Religious-Political Con icts of 17th-Century Europ
The English Civil War and the broader religious-political conflicts of 17th-century Europe raised fundamental
inquiries regarding authority, obedience, and the essence of power. In this tumultuous context, two English
philosophers—Sir Robert Filmer and Thomas Hobbes—developed divergent yet significant theories of
absolutism in Patriarcha and Leviathan. Although both support a powerful sovereign power, their reasons for
doing so differ. These differences reveal not only philosophical divergences but also their experiences and
responses to the complexities of their time. Filmer's paternalistic justification for monarchy is based on
traditionalism and nostalgia, whereas Hobbes's rational absolutism is driven by a fear of disorder and a
dedication to achieving peace through reason.
Filmer (1588-1653), a Royalist and fervent Anglican, perceived the Civil War as both a personal and political
disaster. His estate was assaulted, he was incarcerated, and he witnessed the conventional order disrupted by
revolution (Laslett, in Filmer, 2017, pp. 3-5). These events profoundly impacted Patriarcha, which he authored
in the 1640s but chose not to publish during his lifetime. Filmer asserted that all legitimate authority originates
from paternal power, associating kingship with Adam. Sovereigns, similar to fathers, rule by divine right, and
resistance to them is considered unnatural and sinful (Filmer, 2017, p. 6). He condemned both Catholic and
Puritan threats to royal authority, claiming that they undermined divine order. He contended that insurrection
invariably leads to disorder and strife, as demonstrated by the civil unrest in England. Filmer's theory, referred
to as patriarchalism, embodied theological and political conservatism. He claimed that political power
represented divine and familial authority: the king was not a participant in a social contract but the hereditary
patriarch of the nation. Cuttica (2022) observes that Filmer "endeavored to bolster a providential and
hierarchical comprehension of order during a period of political authority's disintegration." Filmer argued that
individuals were duty-bound to comply, irrespective of a monarch's removal or substitution, as Providence had
endorsed the establishment of the new authority (Filmer, 2017, p. 13). The trauma of civil war reinforced his
conviction that only steadfast allegiance to the monarchy could maintain social cohesion.
Conversely, Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) examined the identical historical crisis through a secular and rational
lens. He noted the disintegration of the English monarchy and the comparative stability of French absolutism.
e
fl
.
Hobbes contended that the atrocities of the Civil War stemmed not from a deficiency in traditional values but
Divine Right and Rational Fear: Filmer, Hobbes, and the Politics of Civil War
from an inadequacy in establishing a sovereign authority robust enough to avert division and strife (Hobbes,
1997, p. 103).In Leviathan (1651), he distinctly described the "state of nature" as a condition of warfare "of
every man against every man," wherein life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" (Hobbes, 1997, p. 76).
Hobbes proposed the social contract: individuals, motivated by fear and rationality, relinquish their natural
rights to a sovereign who guarantees peace and security. Unlike Filmer, Hobbes did not defend monarchy on
religious or ancestral grounds. Instead, he justified absolutism as a rational necessity. According to Finn (n.d.),
Hobbes "sought to reframe sovereignty in terms of collective agreement rather than divine inheritance," thus
breaking from the traditionalist frame. Sovereignty, in Hobbes's view, could be vested in a monarch or an
assembly—it mattered only that it be undivided and effective (Hobbes, 1997, p. 114). Hobbes's apprehension
regarding disorder influenced his philosophy more significantly than allegiance to any particular regime. He
even rationalized compliance with de facto regimes such as Cromwell's, contending that self-preservation
constituted the paramount political virtue. In contrast to Filmer, Hobbes perceived political legitimacy as rooted
in efficacy rather than divine endorsement. A government that fails to maintain peace relinquishes its
legitimacy.
The two philosophers exhibited significant divergence regarding religion. Filmer asserted that monarchy and
religion were inherently interconnected and mutually reinforcing. The king acted as God's emissary on Earth,
while the church's role was to maintain civil compliance. Hobbes regarded religion as a perilous influence if
unregulated. In Leviathan, he contends that religious doctrine should be regulated by the sovereign to avert
sectarian strife (Hobbes, 1997, pp. 305-310). The English Civil War, which pitted Anglicans against Puritans
and fostered the rise of radical sects, prompted Hobbes to assert that freedom of conscience could threaten
political unity. Filmer exalted the sanctity of religious monarchy, whereas Hobbes subordinated religion to civil
tranquility. According to Finn (n.d.), Hobbes "endeavored to diminish the political influence of religious
authority" to prevent the theological conflicts that had resulted in violence. His sovereign, even if a monarch,
was not divinely ordained but rather a pragmatic necessity. These disparities exemplify diverse responses to a
shared historical trauma. Filmer, writing in an era of royalist defeat, invoked the Bible and patriarchal tradition
to champion monarchy as a sacred institution. He viewed the war as a result of dangerous ideas concerning
popular sovereignty and individual freedom. Hobbes, influenced by the war, renounced divine-right theories
and constructed a rational, secular framework that emphasized order as paramount. For Hobbes, the adversary
was not heresy but disorder.
In practice, both thinkers could support absolute rule, but for very different reasons. Filmer would designate
Charles I as the legitimate successor of Adam, asserting that insurrection against him constitutes a
transgression. Hobbes, although supportive of the monarchy, contended that any authority capable of averting
Divine Right and Rational Fear: Filmer, Hobbes, and the Politics of Civil War
civil war was legitimate, regardless of its revolutionary origins. This differentiation positions Hobbes as more
pragmatic and contemporary, whereas Filmer is rooted in theological absolutism. Their varied responses
highlight the influence of individual experience and historical context on political ideology. Filmer's loss and
anguish during the war fortified his determination to uphold the monarchy as divinely ordained. Hobbes,
observing the same conflict from exile and through a philosophical perspective, recognized the necessity to
reconstruct political order on rational principles. Both dreaded anarchy; however, Filmer advocated for
obedience to divinely ordained monarchs, whereas Hobbes proposed the establishment of a sovereign Leviathan
through human consent.
In conclusion, Patriarcha and Leviathan are not merely theoretical texts—they are deeply personal and political
reactions to the chaos of the 17th century. Filmer's patriarchalism is rooted in loyalty, scripture, and tradition.
Hobbes's contractarianism is grounded in fear, logic, and innovation. Each philosopher addressed the crisis
uniquely, and collectively, their writings provide insight into the evolution of political theory under duress.
Their divergent perspectives on authority and legitimacy illustrate enduring discussions regarding governance,
order, and the equilibrium between tradition and rationality. Even in contemporary political discourse, their
concepts persist in influencing debates regarding the nature of power and the legitimacy of governance in
society.
Bibliography
Primary Sources
Filmer, Robert. *Patriarcha and Other Political Works*. Edited by Peter Laslett, Routledge, 2017.
Hobbes, Thomas. *Leviathan*. Touchstone, 1997.
Secondary Sources
Cuttica, Cesare. "Filmer, Sir Robert." In *Encyclopedia of Renaissance Philosophy*, edited by Marco Sgarbi,
Springer, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02848-4_331-1
Finn, Stephen. "Thomas Hobbes: Moral and Political Philosophy." *Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy*.
https://iep.utm.edu/thomas-hobbes/