1

Real glory, vainglory and modesty in Hobbes’ Leviathan

Jasper Geurink, S0766658

Course: Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan (Prof. dr. Lodi Nauta)

11 november 2017

4972 words
 2

Introduction

Many scholars (for instance Leo Strauss in the 1930s) have emphasised the relevance
of the passion of ‘glory’ in the Leviathan (1651). According to Hobbes there are three reasons
why conflicts arise in the state of nature: competition (the quest for possessions), diffidence
(the defence of a man’s estate) and glory (the quest for reputation); see L [Leviathan], XIII.6.
And although many have written about glory, only a few have attempted to analyse glory and
related concepts like power and honour in their entirety. Therefore the first question I shall
address in this essay is: what is the meaning and role of glory and related passions and/or
concepts in the Leviathan? In the first section we shall see Gabriella Slomp dissect the vari-
ous forms of glory (vainglory, false glory, etc.) and related terms (power, honour).
After having agreed on a covenant and the instalment of a sovereign to punish those who
break the law, the subjects of the commonwealth in the Leviathan have another problem: how
to deal with those people that are still longing for reputation and glory and that are not afraid
of punishment? Hobbes proposed a solution in ‘The laws of honour’ (L, XVIII.15), meant as
a way of bestowing titles to some subjects. Besides punishment, rewarding people seems a
way for Hobbes to maintain the stability of the commonwealth.
However, titles may even incite the (vain)glory of people. Therefore the second question I
want to address is this: is there besides punishment and reward a third way for Hobbes to se-
cure the survival of the commonwealth which seems continually threatened by people striv-
ing for honour? And what does this solution entail?
Two scholars have proposed the solution of religious education. According to Julie Cooper,
Hobbes promulgated the idea of modesty to steer a middle course between arrogance and ut-
ter humility before the omnipotent God. He used the Book of Job for religious education of
the subjects of the commonwealth.
Also, according to Tracy Strong, Hobbes wanted to stimulate the curiosity or reason in people
so they would encounter the glory of God and stood in awe (fear) before Him and the sover-
eign. This should stimulate people not to rebel against the sovereign. We will analyse both
papers in section II.
Meanwhile all these authors seem to have paid little or no attention to (real) glory, the proper
esteem of oneself based on achievements in the past. This seems to be a kind of aristocratic
honour-based passion which can be found throughout the Leviathan, most of the time in rela-
tion to concepts like generosity, magnanimity, etc. Moreover, given the fact that already in
his Dedicatory Letter Hobbes praised the ‘generous constitution’ of the royalist Sidney Go-
dolphin who died in battle for the king, we may ask ourselves how important this passion is
in the Leviathan. In sections I and II references to this passion may be found, woven into the
 3

narrative. In section III I will address the question: what is the meaning and role of (real)
glory and related passions and how important is it?
My conclusion will be that this neglected passion/concept is more important in the Leviathan
than current research might suggest and may be added as a fourth way how the stability of the
commonwealth can be maintained, apart from punishment, reward and (religious) education.

I. Gabriella Slomp and her analysis of glory and vain glory

Although many scholars have written about the concept of glory in the works of
Hobbes, the first (modern) scholar who has devoted a significant part of her professional ca-
reer analysing the different meanings of glory and related concepts in his philosophy is Ga-
briella Slomp.
I shall begin with a description of how, according to Slomp, the meaning and role of glory
are essentially the same in all the political writings of Hobbes1 After this a description will
follow of how glory changes from being the sole cause of conflict in Hobbes’ early political
philosophy to being the primary cause of conflict (the status of glory). Also, the role of re-
ward and education will be emphasised, which were central to Hobbes according to Slomp. I
shall make use of two articles by Slomp2 in which she tackles all these questions.

I.i The meaning of (real) glory and vain glory in the political philosophy of Hobbes

Let us first consider the meaning of glory and related passions in the writings of
Hobbes. Is there a change in the meaning of glory, or does its function change? Slomp shows
us that in The Elements of Law glory has a relative connotation; i.e. we consider only our
power (the content of glory) by comparing our abilities with the capacities of others. In the
Leviathan we read instead (L, VI.39) that “Joy arising from imagination of a man’s own
power and ability is that exultation [sic] of the mind which is called GLORYING […]”; and
that therefore in this work glory is an absolute passion, i.e. we marvel only at our own power
and do not compare us with others. Also, power itself is defined in the Leviathan as “The
power of a man (to take it universally) is his present means to obtain some future apparent
good” (L, X.1) and thus absolute. And finally honour (or rather, honouring) is “The manifes-
tation of the value we set on one another […]” (L, X.17) and “[…] the opinion of power”. But
Slomp quite convincingly argues that there are numerous passages in the Leviathan (for in-
stance chapter X, XVII, 8 and XLV, 12) where Hobbes uses a relational model of power and

1
I.e. The Elements of Law (hereafter EL), 1640; De Cive (On the citizen, hereafter DCi), 1642; and of course the
Leviathan (hereafter L), 1651 – Latin edition 1668. For the Leviathan I use is the edition of Edwin Curley, Levia-
than, with selected variants from the Latin edition of 1668 (Indianapolis and Cambridge 1994).
2
Gabriella Slomp, ‘From genus to species: the unravelling of Hobbesian glory’, in: History of Political Thought
Vol. XIX, No. 4 (Winter 1998) 552-569; Gabriella Slomp, ‘Hobbes on glory and civil strife’, in: Patricia Springborg
ed., The Cambridge companion to Hobbes’s Leviathan (Cambridge etc. 2007) 181-198.
 4

honour and therefore of glory. Since glory is “the good opinion that has of one’s own past”3
and the reason why one honours another person is the good opinion of another’s capacities
(L, X.17) plus the fact that good opinion others have of you generates power (L, X.5), which
is the ingredient of glory, glory and its offspring still seem to be relative4.
This analysis may be disputed in two ways. First, as Tracy Strong points out5, the glory of
God and the glory of the sovereign (which equals our vigour, as united subjects of the com-
monwealth; L, XVIII.20) is absolute and beyond comparison. But even more important, and
generally overlooked, is a passage in L., VI.42, where Hobbes speaks of laughter: ”For of
great minds one of the proper works is to help and free others from scorn, and compare them-
selves only with the most able [italics mine]”. Of course, here he is speaking about nobility of
character (real glory) and this also seems to be relative. But whereas other people compare
themselves with everyone, glorious people refuse to compare themselves with those who are
worse of (the great majority). Laughing at someone who has less possessions or abilities than
you is a sign of pusillanimity (smallness of mind) and of ‘sudden glory’. And therefore we
have a certain kind of value criterium that does not oscillate when we meet other people who
are more or less able but is quite stable and ‘objective’ because there is little difference be-
tween the most able persons.
But besides glory Hobbes also uses the words ‘vainglory’ and ‘false glory’. What is the dif-
ference between these terms? What is their meaning and development in the philosophy of
Hobbes? If we turn to Slomp again she provides us with an answer. In the Elements of Law
Hobbes distinguishes between glorious passions that are grounded in real or imaginary ac-
tions (EL, p.37). Real glory is based on what a person has accomplished in the past, whereas
vainglory is completely based on personal fancies. False glory is based on the (false) opinions
of others. Furthermore, real glory inspires people to act, so as to experience new glory (which
is well-founded). Vainglory is ‘vain’ in that people fantasise about being heroes in tales, but
it does not inspire people even to attempt to act and is therefore relatively innocent. False
glory on the contrary, based on the flattery of others, begets disasters since the person imagi-
nes she has abilities which aren’t there. In De Cive this picture largely remains the same. Fi-
nally, in the Leviathan vainglory and false glory merge into ‘vainglory’, although its meaning
is most of the time that of ‘false glory’6. To make things even more complicated, Hobbes
seems to equate ‘glory’ and ‘vainglory’ (but with the meaning of ‘false glory’) most of the
time! Especially when he talks about the causes of the dissolution of the commonwealth he
uses the word glory but means false glory.

I.ii The role and status of the glorious passions in Hobbes

3
Slomp, ‘Hobbes on glory and civil strife’, 183.
4
Ibidem, 182-183.
5
Tracy B. Strong, ‘Glory and the law in Hobbes’, European Journal of Political Theory Vol 16 (I) (2017) 61-76,
there 71.
6
Slomp, ‘The unravelling of Hobbesian glory’, 554-555.
 5

Now for the role and status of these passions. As we saw in the introduction, glory
(vain glory) is one of the three causes of conflict in the state of nature, the other being compe-
tition (invading for material gain) and diffidence (distrust of the vainglorious and the compet-
itive); L XIII.6-7. The diffident people are normally modest and content but since they are
under threat of invasion by other people they also invade other people’s estates out of self-
defence. And therefore, to keep everyone in awe (fear) the sovereign, be it a parliament (de-
mocracy), aristocracy or one ruler, must have undivided sovereignty, so as to be able to col-
lect taxes and maintain a standing army. Now, some scholars (for instance David Gauthier)
have interpreted the mentioning first of competition in the causes of conflict as evidence that
it is the primary cause of conflict according to Hobbes. There seems to be a problem with this
interpretation, however. In the Leviathan there is another passage which is important for the
problem of the emergence of conflict.
In chapter XVII, paragraph 7-12 of the Leviathan we find the very important but often over-
looked discussion on bees and ants (‘apes et formicae’). These animals know only concord
and harmony, because they are not continually “[…] in competition for honour and dignity
[…]” (7), they don’t know the difference between private and public, whereas man is con-
stantly comparing himself with others (8). Furthermore, they know no reason and therefore
are not liable to change the (apparent malfunctioning) political system because they are “ […]
abler to govern the public […]”(9), they use no rhetoric to represent what is good as some-
thing evil, and something evil as what is good (thus creating a ‘semantic anarchy’7) (10), they
cannot distinguish between injury (injustice) and damage, and are therefore not liable to be
offended; but ”[…] man is then most troublesome, when he is most at ease […]”(11), a very
important point since even in the commonwealth people who prosper may rebel against the
sovereign. Therefore fear is not enough to keep them in awe, and education, be it normal
(Slomp) or religious (Cooper, Strong) is necessary as a supplement to encourage civic virtue.
Finally, in 12 Hobbes describes the agreement of these animals as ‘natural’; whereas people
have an artificial covenant bees and ants agree in nature. Now, observing all these paragraphs
they seem to have something is common; paragraph after paragraph, striving for (vain) glory
is the only cause of conflict in human society (maybe 12 is an exception). Is glory the only
cause of conflict according to Hobbes? Slomp offers a cunning solution to this problem
(glory as one of the causes of quarrel in XIII and the only cause in XVII). She contends that
for Hobbes (vain) glory is the primary cause of conflict. The two fragments complement one
another; the bees-and-ants fragment emphasises the primacy of glory as a source of conflict
and rebellion, whereas fear (diffidence) is derivative.
To contextualize this picture of the role of (vain)glory in the Leviathan it is also important to
realize that the status of glory changed for Hobbes. Whereas in The Elements of Law and De
Cive glory was the only and ultimate motivation for people to be generous, ambitious, mag-
nanimous and the like, there is no such ‘binding’ motivation in the Leviathan. Even power
cannot explain all the passions people have. All that is needed for the state of nature to trans-
form in a war of all against all and for the collapse of the commonwealth into a civil war is a
handful of ambitious people (ambition being the striving for political glory; see L, VI.24)8

7
Julie E. Cooper, ´Vainglory, modesty and political agency in the political theory of Thomas Hobbes´, The Re-
view of Politics 72 (2010) 241-269, there 249.
8
Slomp, ‘Hobbes on glory and civil strife’, 186.
 6

I.iii Reward and education as a means of stabilising the commonwealth

In the commonwealth there is place for channelling the glorious inclinations of mankind.
Since the state of nature is the famous ‘semantic anarchy’ (see note 7) where all desires and
therefore all valuations are relative to the person who desires, only in the commonwealth the
(vain)glorious dispositions can be channelled by the ‘laws of honour’ (L, XVIII.15), that is,
the rewarding of people for their performance(s) with titles. So apart from punishment, which
appeals to the fears of people (death and injury), reward is another way for the sovereign to
tame the glorious-minded in the commonwealth. Finally, education is also a way to cultivate
civic virtues9.
The ‘law of honour’ however is according to Hobbes not only a way for the sovereign to re-
ward people it accidentally values best. The sovereign should reward “[…] such men as have
deserved (or are able to deserve) well of the commonwealth [italics mine; …]”; L XVIII.15.
So, the titles should be awarded to people who stabilise the commonwealth; the subjects who
fear the sovereign and therefore are obedient and/or the persons who experience glory (or
pride) in not breaking their promise or the covenant (L, XIV,31). Hobbes does point out that
the last group is too small (“a generosity too rarely found”; L, ibidem) to ensure the stabilis-
ing of the commonwealth; the fear of the sovereign is what counts (but see section III).
Now for the relevance of education in the Hobbesian system. Slomp points out that in De
Homine (On man; 1658) he says that human inclinations and passions arise from “10[…] a
sixfold source: namely constitution of the body, experience, habit, fortune, opinion one has of
oneself and authorities […] When these things change dispositions change also”. She also
contends that in the state of nature many of these sources of inclinations are latent. There are
no authorities, there is no family, no shared values; man is the product of nature, as in The El-
ements of Law. After the institution of the commonwealth these latent sources become active
and by “good teachers and good books”11 (and good universities) the people may be taught
good inclinations12.
Although her picture of the state of nature is bit of a caricature (people do form coalitions to
ensure their survival in the state of nature) she certainly has a point that education is very
central to Hobbes. We will now take a look at two other papers that emphasise the im-
portance of (religious) education for him.

II Religious education as a way of cultivating modesty in subjects of the commonwealth

9
Slomp, ‘Hobbes on glory and civil strife’, 192-195 and 191.
10
Slomp, ‘Hobbes on glory and civil strife’, 193; She cites De Homine, in Man and citizen, ed. Bernard Gert
(New York 1972), 63.
11
Slomp, ‘Hobbes on glory and civil strife’, 196.
12
Slomp, ‘Hobbes on glory and civil strife’, 194-196.
 7

We have seen that glory (vainglory or rather false glory) is the primary source of con-
flict in the state of nature and the commonwealth. We also noticed that to tame vainglorious
people punishment was not enough; reward and education should be added to the list. And
because rewards (the ‘laws of honour’) might incite people to act vaingloriously, education
seems especially important for Hobbes.
In two recent articles13 the role of religious education has been emphasised. But while Julie
Cooper addresses the problem of how certain books of the Bible might contribute to political
modesty, Tracy Strong acknowledges the importance of the glory of God (and the sovereign)
for contributing to a stable commonwealth.
Let us start with the article of Cooper, which stresses the relevance of the Book of Job in the
Leviathan for the cultivation of modesty. Humility and modesty are in the Leviathan the op-
posite passions of pride and arrogance. As we have seen, one of the important aspects of
(vain)glory is that it gives rise to an improper self-esteem (pride or arrogance), resulting in
the denial of the fundamental equality of men. That is not to say that there are no differences
between people; people who have more abilities than others may admire their achievements,
but they should not cross the border of what is decent. They should have proper self-esteem,
that is, knowledge of themselves and their limitations. Cooper also makes this point when she
emphasises the fact that real glory is linked to ‘confidence’ (L VI.39), that is, experience of
one’s former actions. Therefore the person who has a glorious (not vainglorious) disposition
has knowledge of herself and a ‘right self-esteem’.14 But since these persons are rare (as we
have already seen), the stability of the commonwealth is not to be built on them.
This raises some questions. Since the vainglorious are not the majority in the Leviathan (a
few can disrupt the commonwealth), can the commonwealth not be saved by a few magnani-
mous persons? Further, since Cooper herself acknowledges that “the naturally [italics mine]
modest are rare”15 and being modest is against our natural passions according to Hobbes
(which is not to say our passions cannot be educated), it seems natural to identify the people
who have real glory and proper self-esteem with the naturally modest people. We shall tackle
this problem (of the relation between ‘real glory’ and ‘equity’ or modesty) in section III.
But how to cultivate modesty in the subjects of the commonwealth? According to Cooper,
Hobbes does not only emphasise punishment and reward of titles, but also a religious educa-
tion in the Christian virtues of humility and modesty. Unlike Slomp, Cooper seems to be fully
aware of the dangers of bestowing honours (titles) on ambitious subjects; as we saw, it en-
courages vainglory and rebellion against the sovereign. She has a sensitivity for the dangers
of stimulating vainglory by giving titles to the ambitious (though Hobbes clearly states that
these titles are for whoever best served the commonwealth).
However, when emphasising Christian virtues like humility there is also the danger of the
Augustinian and Puritan doctrine of the total depravity and corruptness of human nature after
the disobedience of Adam and Eve. People are for their salvation completely dependent on
the omnipotent God and not capable of any agency at all. To counter the natural pride of men
they should acknowledge their worthlessness - that is, utter humility. But ironically these

13
Julie E. Cooper, ´Vainglory’ (see note 7) and Tracy B. Strong, ‘Glory´ (see note 5)
14
Julie E. Cooper, ‘Vainglory’, 246.
15
Cooper, ‘Vainglory’, 256.
 8

claims of lack of agency and worthlessness gave (according to Cooper) rise to the seditious
doctrine of obeying God and not the sovereign; one of the causes of the Civil War in England
in the 1640s and 50s16. Hobbes therefore tried to steer a middle course between pride (arro-
gance) and the total humility of the Puritans. Modesty or proper self-esteem and esteem of
others was the way to do this.
And a helpful tool was the book of Job. The story is well known: Job, who is a very prosper-
ous and yet pious and a god-fearing person, is plagued by disasters. Finally he learns that God
struck him with disasters not because he wanted to punish him but simply because he did it,
since His power is unfathomable, certainly for people. And this could be a very good lesson
for the vainglorious, who forget that humans are human (vulnerable) and equal (in their vul-
nerability). And of course, the image of Leviathan himself, who keeps all the pride people in
awe as ‘King of the Pride’, can be found in Job (41). Therefore we have a certain kind of po-
litical agency between arrogance and docile humility by which humans can establish and
maintain a commonwealth17.
Now, this image of the glory of God raises another question. Can people be kept in awe in a
commonwealth by emphasising the glory of God or the sovereign? And how is this to be
done? According to Tracy Strong this can be done with the passion of curiosity. Curiosity is a
desire for knowledge of ‘why and how’ and separates man from the beasts (L, VI.35). And
curiosity leads man to wonder what is the cause of all things; it thus leads him to the glory of
God, who is unfathomable and to be feared. And a part of His glory trickles down on the sov-
ereign, or rather on us as we marvel and stand in awe (fear) at the power of our unity. There-
fore education or stimulation of curiosity can stimulate the stability of the commonwealth18.
This is another interesting contribution to the way Hobbes uses glory in the Leviathan. But
there is a problem with this interpretation. It does not address the problem Cooper pointed
out; that an utter humility or fear of God does not really contribute to the stability of the com-
monwealth, which is the most important thing for Hobbes. An important chapter in the Levia-
than (number XXVII) shows this. In this chapter, which is about crimes, Hobbes deals with
the passions that spur people to break the law. Of course, (vain)glory is one of the most im-
portant causes of crime (XXVII, 13-18). But most importantly, also too much fear can spur
people to commit crimes. Hobbes only acknowledges justified direct bodily fear (direct fear
of injury and death) as an excuse to wound or kill someone. Nevertheless, some people fear
disgrace and little injuries (i.e. they are pusillanimous) and therefore kill others. Or they fear
spirits, or God himself (L, edition Curley, note 8, 197) and therefore commit crimes. Once
again, only ‘a gallant man’, someone that is ‘assured of his own courage’ and ‘cannot take
notice of’ these small inconveniences will not be tempted by too much fear to commit crimes
(L, XXVII, 20). That is, he is magnanimous. But maybe a religious education in the spirit of
the book of Job will also do.

III. The passion of real glory and related passions

16
Cooper, ‘Vainglory’, 256.
17
Cooper, ‘Vainglory’, 269.
18
Strong, ‘Glory and the law’, 71.
 9

We have already encountered numerous examples of real glory in the narrative so far.
People who have real glory have (according to Hobbes) a right self-esteem, only compare
themselves with the most able, do not laugh at miserable people, keep their word (covenant)
out of pride and therefore stabilise the commonwealth, should therefore be rewarded by the
sovereign with titles and finally do not commit crimes because they are afraid of little things
(they are magnanimous). And although these kinds of people are rare, these examples alone
should make us wary to attach little importance to this passion. In this final section I shall fin-
ish my analysis of real glory in the Leviathan.
Related terms to glory are magnanimity, generosity and honour. An individual who has hon-
our is generous and not easily insulted, because she has confidence and a high (though
proper) self-esteem. She herself seems to be the source of all of her value-judgements, not
other people. An example of this kind of honour may be found in L X,46: “Actions proceed-
ing from equity, joined with loss [italics mine], are honourable, as signs of magnanimity; for
magnanimity is a sign of power […]”. Here we find the mingling of generosity (loss), magna-
nimity, power, honour and equity (modesty). And since equity is the acknowledgment of the
equality of all people and the most important19 ‘law of nature’ (it keeps people from breaking
the covenant) we may ask ourselves this final question: what is the relation between equity
and glory?
In L, VIII.12 we may find an answer. Here Hobbes defines ‘craft’ as ‘prudence’ plus “unjust
or dishonest means” (it is a sign of pusillanimous behaviour), whereas magnanimity is “con-
tempt of unjust or dishonest helps”. A person with real glory wants to be honest and just.
Also, in the very important chapter XV of the Leviathan we find in paragraph 10 that justice
is not only instituted by the sovereign (who is the source of the juridical terminology) and
that ‘just’ and ‘unjust’ can only have meaning after the institution of the commonwealth and
not in the state of nature. No, Hobbes specifically states that righteous (that is, moral) people
are just and unrighteous people not. It doesn’t matter if they sometimes by accident break the
law (covenant):
“That which gives to human actions the relish of justice is a certain nobleness or gal-
lantness of courage (rarely found) [italics mine] by which a man scorns to be beholden for
the contentment of his life to fraud or breach of promise. This justice of the manners is meant
where justice is called a virtue, and injustice a vice [italics again mine]”; L, XV.10.
So real glory, despite rarely found (or because of it), serves as a moral example to educate
people in nobility of manners. We may also recall (see the Introduction) the praise Hobbes
lavishes on the royalist Sidney Godolphin (1610-1643) who died courageously in battle for
the king and was so generous as to leave Hobbes a bequest of 200 pounds:
“For there is not any virtue that disposeth a man […] that did not manifestly appear in
his conversation, not as acquired upon occasion, but inherent, and shining in a generous con-
stitution of his nature”; L, Dedicatory Letter.
So glorious people (because they are rare) like Sidney Godolphin are examples of moral ex-
cellence and virtue intended by Hobbes to educate the people in nobility of mind. Of course,

19
Cooper, ‘Vainglory’, 251, note 28.
 10

this does not mean that equity becomes redundant; modesty (the book of Job) and moral ex-
cellence seem to supplement one another; the first as a way to tame vainglorious behaviour
by religious education, the second as a way to educate people in cultivating a noble disposi-
tion by way of rare examples of moral excellence.

Conclusion

We have seen that ‘glory’ in all its forms occupies a central position in the Leviathan.
Gabriella Slomp was probably the first to analyse this passion in its entirety. According to
Slomp, there is a very important difference between (real) glory (reasonable confidence in
one’s abilities) and vainglory (fantasising about glorious deeds, but ‘in vain’) and finally false
glory (the false impression one has of oneself; it begets nothing but havoc) in the early politi-
cal works of Hobbes. In the Leviathan false glory and vain glory merge into ‘vain glory’,
whereas glory remains the same. But since true glory is very rare it doesn’t really deserve at-
tention. Related terms are power (glory is the experience of power) and honour (honour is as-
cribing power to a person).
Further, (vain) glory is also the primary (not the only) cause of conflict in the state of nature
and in the commonwealth according to Slomp. Fear is derivative. The solutions to the prob-
lem of conflict is punishment, reward (bestowing titles upon people) and education.
Julie Cooper points out an interesting additional solution by Hobbes for the problem of vain-
glory: religious education, especially the book of Job. This book can help people steer a mid-
dle course between arrogance and utter humility. Modesty or proper self-esteem is a disposi-
tion that should be cultivated in the subjects of the commonwealth according to Hobbes.
The solution to vainglory Hobbes developed according to Tracy Strong (keeping people in
awe for God and the sovereign by stimulating their reason/curiosity) is interesting but it
doesn’t work because of the problem of utter humility in the light of God (it promulgates se-
ditious doctrines as obeying God instead of the sovereign) and therefore incites people to
break the law/covenant).
As an addendum to punishment, reward and equity (modesty), real glory might serve as an-
other way of educating (vainglorious) people by showing them examples of rare moral excel-
lence (magnanimity, honour, contempt of dishonourable behaviour) and thus serve the stabil-
ity of the commonwealth.

Literature

-Cooper, Julie E., ‘Vainglory, modesty and political agency in the political theory of Thomas
Hobbes´, The Review of Politics 72 (2010) 241-269.
- Hobbes, Thomas, Leviathan, with selected variants from the Latin edition of 1668 (Indian-
apolis and Cambridge 1994).
 11

-Slomp, Gabriella, ‘From genus to species: the unravelling of Hobbesian glory’, in: History of
Political Thought Vol. XIX, No. 4 (Winter 1998) 552-569.
-Slomp, Gabriella, ‘Hobbes on glory and civil strife’, in: Patricia Springborg ed., The Cam-
bridge companion to Hobbes’s Leviathan (Cambridge etc. 2007) 181-198.

-Strong, Tracey B., Glory and the law in Hobbes’, European Journal of Political Theory Vol
16 (I) (2017) 61-76.