Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-hvd4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-11T05:36:34.882Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

HOBBES, PAYNE, AND A SHORT TRACT ON FIRST PRINCIPLES

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 June 2001

TIMOTHY RAYLOR
TIMOTHY RAYLOR
Affiliation:
Carleton College, Minnesota
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

An argument has erupted in recent years over the authorship of A short tract on first principles, a manuscript treatise traditionally regarded as the first philosophical work of Hobbes. Some have denied that it was Hobbes 's work, while others have insisted that it is. Among rival candidates, the prime suspect is Robert Payne, chaplain to the Cavendish family of Welbeck Abbey. This article offers a fresh assessment of the evidence for authorship by examining the manuscript and its contents in the light of the Cavendish family manuscripts, and of the various roles played at Welbeck by Payne. It argues that the tract was written by Payne for his patrons as an attempt to apply the method of contemporary mechanics to problems of human psychology, and that it was based in part – though only in part – upon ideas about the nature of light and motion expounded by Hobbes at Welbeck during the early 1630s.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 44 , Issue 1 , March 2001 , pp. 29 - 58
Copyright
© 2001 Cambridge University Press

Footnotes

I am grateful to Carleton College for the sabbatical support that allowed me to write this article and to the British Library for permission to reproduce transcripts and images of documents in their possession. For permission to consult Hobbes materials at Chatsworth House I thank His Grace the Duke of Devonshire and the Trustees of the Chatsworth Settlement. For assistance of various kinds I am indebted to Mr Peter Day of Chatsworth, Mr Hilton Kelliher of the British Library, and Dr Stephen Clucas of Birkbeck College. Thanks are due also to those who commented so helpfully on earlier drafts: Dr Peter Beal, Dr Mark Goldie, Ms Vanessa Laird, Dr Noel Malcolm, and an anonymous reader.