Considering the enormous influence of the works of Machiavelli and Hobbes on the development of political philosophy, it is possible to discover certain parallels between the works of these two famous activists. Just like the famous Italian enlightener was interested in the history of Ancient Rome with a view to analyzing those military and political deeds of great people who deserve imitating, and which was depicted by Niccolò in the Prince and the Discourses on Livy, Hobbes also seemed to be interested in ancient history (Machiavelli, 1988). The philosophies of Machiavelli and Hobbes are also united by the common view on the nature of a person, since he appears an evil creature par excellence, with no ability to exist peacefully with others.
As well as Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes advocated the concept of the asociality of a person, according to which, a human-being is not a social creature by nature, since, as stated by Hobbes, civil communities are not simple assemblies, but unions which creation requires special treaties and loyalty to them. At the same time, Hobbes does not deny that nature encourages individuals to strive to mutual convergence, his thesis is rather directed against the justification of a civil society, basing on the natural sociality of a human-being. Therefore, in order to establish a civil society, this natural sociality appears to be insufficient.
Furthermore, Hobbes also opposed the axiom on the basis which was built theories about governments and rights. The axiom stated that the successful peace-keeping and management of the entire humanity required nothing but people's agreement to accept the established treaties and terms. That is, peace-keeping required an artificial human - the government, as well as artificial chains - civil laws that would be based not only on people's consent, but also on their loyalty to them, and this also required the power of a sword, since agreements without a sword were merely words that could not provide a person with security.
The title page of many editions of Leviathan depicted a giant man whose body was assembled with myriads of tiny humans. In his hands this giant held a sword and a scepter - the symbols of the authorities and secular and ecclesiastical power, with his head covered with a crown. This figurative metaphor symbolizes that only by being absorbed with the artificial person can people peacefully coexist, and this government appears all-powerful in these terms. Thus, Hobbes' conclusion stating that the normal existence of a person in society requires the governmental institutions and rights is made on the basis that the pre-political form of coexistence appears insufficient in his opinions, nor does it contain any conditions of survival. Such deduction is based on the model of the naturalness of a person, the model which is strictly opposed by Hobbes to the model of a person who is inclined towards society from birth.
According to Hobbes' philosophy, nature created people equal in terms of physical and mental abilities, but not in the sense that all people have equal physical and mental abilities, but in the meaning that everyone is equal in the use of these powers, whereupon this equality of abilities entails the equality of hopes for the achievement of our goals. According the Leviathan's author, the natural equality of humans provides everyone with the right to everything (Schmitt, 1996). This meant that in the purely natural state, or before the moment when humans bound themselves with mutual agreements and obligations, everyone was allowed to do everything he wished to and against anyone, possess and use everything he wanted and could acquire, as well as derive benefit from it.
As can be seen, the basis of the leviathan-state is the absolute power of the sovereign over citizens, the ability to concentrate the executive, legislative and judicial power in his hands, as well as the power to control all spheres of life of society on a legal basis, that is, on a basis concluded between all members of society (Schmitt, 1996). Despite the conceptual difference of Machiavelli's Prince, the sovereign of Hobbes is a person who possesses an indisputable authority because of his ability to control the whole society via various instruments and, what is of the most importance, to guarantee its safety.
According to Machiavelli, the prince becomes the ruler of the state because of his personal qualities of a leader, warrior and diplomat, whereas the sovereign of Hobbes is chosen by society as the incarnation of the state, which can also be interpreted as people's approval of his organizational skills. Moreover, Machiavelli's prince strengthens his authority through the models of the lion and the fox, destroying ones, deceiving or promoting others. Similarly, through rewards Hobbes' sovereign encourages those who served the state well and teaches subjects to have respect towards the existing form of government with the help of universities (Machiavelli, 1988). On the other hand, however, Hobbes' sovereign mercilessly struggles with those opposing his rule and judges them basing on his own law.
Indeed, both Machiavelli and Hobbes contributed heavily to the development of political philosophy, With that, while Machiavelli estimates the state not from the point of view of institutes, but rather from the point of view of a charismatic leader heading this establishment, Hobbes' philosophy inclines to the centralized absolutist state which is based on the mechanism of governmental coercion and the absolute power of executive organs. Still, it cannot be stated that Hobbes formulated his concepts in isolation from the earlier political principle of Machiavelli. On the contrary, old theories were replaced by new one due to the fact that classical ideas demonstrated their true destructive essence in terms of a constantly changing political structure, and sometimes even led to bloody revolutions and military conflicts.
Works Cited
Machiavelli, Niccolò, Quentin Skinner, and Russell Price. Machiavelli: The Prince. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1988. Print.
Schmitt, Carl. The Leviathan in the State Theory of Thomas Hobbes: Meaning and Failure of a Political Symbol. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1996. Print.
