Theological Origins of Modernity

hobbes’ fearful wisdom 217
sued both simultaneously. Returning to England, he became tutor to Cavendish’s
thirteen-year-old son. Th ey translated and summarized Aristotle’s
Rhetoric, certainly an archetypal activity by humanist standards. 26 Hobbes
also expanded his scientifi c studies and had greater contact with the Walbeck
Cavendishes (including the earl of Newcastle, his brother Sir Charles
Cavendish, and their chaplain Robert Payne), who were deeply interested
in Galileo and the new science. 27 He was part of their circle in 1630, when
the Short Tract was written. Th is work, which uses the geometric method
to sketch the idea of a philosophic system, has oft en been attributed to
Hobbes, but we now know it was written by Payne. 28 Nonetheless, we know
that Hobbes was on intimate terms with Payne and that this manuscript
refl ects the developing scientifi c views of both men.
Th rough his connection with Newcastle he also became acquainted
with members of the Great Tew Circle of Viscount Falkland, including
Chillingsworth, Sheldon, Hyde, and others. While these men had some
interest in science, their real concern was religion and politics. Most were
Arminians, and their moral and political ideas were derived from Erasmus,
Hooker, and Grotius. 29 Th ey were sympathetic to Scripture but were
convinced, as Chillingsworth put it, that nothing in Scripture contradicted
right reason and sense, a position to which Hobbes also subscribed. 30
Hobbes returned to the continent in 1634 and came in contact with
Mydorge, Mersenne, and Gassendi. Tuck has argued that his interactions
with the Mersenne Circle (and through them Descartes) were essential
for the development of his science. As we saw in chapter 3, late sixteenthcentury
humanism particularly as exemplifi ed by Montaigne and Charron
called into question the veracity of sensation. Galileo was the fi rst to
explain why this was the case, pointing out that heat was not something
in nature but only a perception caused by something we do not experience
directly. 31 Gassendi, Descartes, and Hobbes independently came to the
conclusion that we only have veridical knowledge of our sense-perception
and “know” the external world only because of the impact of objects on
our sense organs that transmit signals to the brain that we interpret as
external objects. Th is notion played a crucial role in the development of
Hobbes’ science.
Th e fi nal element necessary to Hobbes’ science was the insight that everything
is a form of local motion. Th e source of this idea is disputed,
but we know that he fi rst articulated it to Newcastle during the month he
visited Galileo. Donald Hanson and others have claimed that the impact
of Galileo and Paduan science on Hobbes has been overrated, but the outlooks
of both men are clearly similar. 32 We do know that this visit had a