Article/Publication Details
Views: 1176

THOMAS HOBBES ON BETRAYAL OF THE FATHERLAND (IN WAR)

Abstract
My intention is to demonstrate how Hobbes’ attempts to adapt two ancient institutions from Roman Law to his own time and knowledge of theology and philosophy. Treason (and the figure of the traitor) could be quite significant within the context of Hobbes’ (but not only his) understanding of the figure of the sovereign and sovereignty. The central part of the text is an endeavor to ascertain the source and unconditional condition for treason as such, within the framework of Hobbes’ theory of representation (representatio) which he writes about in Chapter 16 of the Leviathan. The act or performance in which we could perhaps recognize a traitorous gesture (or the dynamic of treason) could be found in the so-called paradox of representation. The “traitor” breaks the chain of the transfer of power and empowerment, thus stops representation, and puts an end to speaking in the name of the other. If it is possible to discover whether this is possible and whether speaking and acting in one’s own name always carries elements of treason, then we can conclude that differing forms of “direct” speech and action (“in one’s own name”) are “acts of treason.” In that case, what interests me is whether “treason” is found within the heart of representative democracy, and thus if it is de facto an integral part of a democratic order and society.

Keywords
treason, betrayal, representation, sovereign, people, Th. Hobbes, homeland.

References

• Accarino, B. (1999). Rappresentanza. Bologna: Il Mulino.
• Anonym. (1930). The Distinction between Mala Prohibita and Mala in se in Criminal Law. Columbia Law Review, 30, 74-86.
• Bauman, R. A. (1967). The Crimen Maiestatis in the Roman Republic and Augustan Principate. Johannesburg: Witwatersrand University Press.
• Bourdieu, P. (1982). Langage et pouvoir symbolique. Paris: Fayard.
• Bredekamp, H. (2003). Thomas Hobbes Der Leviathan. Das Urbild des Modernen Staates und seine Gegenbilder – 1651-2001. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
• Cicero. (1942). De Oratore. London-Cambridge: Hinemann Ltd. – Harvard.
• Cuttler, S. H. (1981). The Law of Treason and Treason Trials in Later Medieval France. Cambridge: Cambridge
• Hobbes, T. (1840a). The English Works of Thomas Hobbes, vol. IV (W. Molesworth, Ed.). London: John Bohn.
• Hobbes, T. (1840b). The English Works of Thomas Hobbes, vol. VI (W. Molesworth, Ed.). London: John Bohn.
• Hobbes, T. (1841a). The English Works of Thomas Hobbes, vol. II (W. Molesworth, Ed.). London: John Bohn.
• Hobbes, T. (1841b). The Latin Works of Thomas Hobbes, vol. II. London: John Bohn.
• Hobbes, T. (1841c). The Latin Works of Thomas Hobbes, vol. III. London: John Bohn.
• Hobbes, T. (1843). The English Works of Thomas Hobbes, vol. IX (W. Molesworth, Ed.). London: John Bohn.
• Hobbes, T. (1983). De Cive, the Latin Version (1642) . Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Hobbes, T. (1996). Leviathan (R. Tuck, Ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Hofmann, H. (1974). Repräsentation. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot Verlag.
• Mommsen, T. (Ed.) (1985). The Digest of Justinian, vol. IV. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
• Kant, I. (1996). The Metaphysics of Morals. In M. Gregor (Trans.), Practical Philosophy (353-604). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Kant, I. (1912-1913). Die Metaphysik der Sitten. In Gesammelte Schriften Akademieausgabe, Bd. VI (203-494). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co.
• Klopp, O. (Ed.) (1990). Die Werke von Leibniz. Hildesheim: Georg Olms.
• Le Bras, G. (1922). L’évolution générale du procurateur en droit privé romain des origines au IIIe siècle. Paris: PUF.
• Lessay, F. (1992). Le Vocabulaire de la Personne. In Y. C. Zarka (Ed.), Hobbes et son vocabulaire (155-186). Paris: Vrin.
• Machiavelli, N. (1961). Lettere (F. Gaeta, Ed.). Milan: Feltrinelli.
• Nagel, T. (2005). The Problem of Global Justice. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 33, 133-147.
• Pitkin, H. F. (1968). Commentary: The Paradox of Representation. In J. R. Pennock & J. W. Chapman (Eds.), Nomos X: Representation, Yearbook of the American Society for Political and Legal Philosophy (38-42). New York: Atherton Press.
• Pitkin, H. F. (1967). The Concept of Representation. Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Plutarch. (1914). Lives, vol. IV (B. Perrin, Trans.). Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press and William Heinemann Ltd.
• Runciman, D. (1997). Pluralism and the Personality of the State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Schlossmann, S. (1906). Persona und Prosopon. Kiel-Leipzig: Lipsius & Tischer.
• Schmitt, C. (1991). Das international-rechtliche Verbrechen des Angriffskrieges. Berlin: Duncker und Humblot.
• Skinner, Q. (1999). Hobbes and the Purely Artificial Person of the State. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 7 (1), 1-29.
• Solazzi, S. (1972). Procuratori senza mandato (1923). In Scritti di Diritto Romano (569-578). Naples: Casa editrice E. Jovene.
• Stolleis, M. (2005). Im Namen des Gesetzes. In H. Dreier (Hg.), Rechts- und staatstheoretische Schlüsselbegriffe: Legitimität – Repräsentation – Freiheit (35-40). Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.
• Thorburn, W. M. (1917). What Is a Person? Mind, 103, 291-316.
• Thucydides. (1921). History of the Peloponnesian war, vol. III (C. F. Smith, Trans.). Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press and William Heinemann Ltd.