17 From Homer to Hobbes and Beyond – Aspects of ‘Security’
in the European Tradition
J. Frederik M. Arends
‘prosthe leôn, opithen de drakôn,
messê de chimaira1
deinon apopneiousa puros menos
aithomenoio’ (Homer)
17.1 Introduction2
To study the history of concepts seems the innocent
pastime of philological hobbyists. At least in the case
of the concept of ‘security’ that judgment might prove
to be a misunderstanding. The history of ‘security’ has
two phases: the first, in which the word coined by the
Romans as ‘securitas’ and accompanied from the
beginning by ambivalence and religious connotations
at the end of the Middle Ages had conceded most of
its territory to ‘certitudo’; the second, starting in the
times of Thomas Hobbes in which the word became
one of the paradigmatic ‘great words’ of the modern
state. In this second phase, ‘security’ became associ-
ated with the genesis of the authoritarian ‘super state’
– Hobbes’ ‘Leviathan’ – committed to the prevention
of civil war. Surprisingly, in this phase an ancient
Greek concept was revived, functioning during Athe-
nian imperialism of the fifth century B.C.; especially
Thucydides, Hobbes’ favourite classical historian,
influenced its modern, ‘Hobbesian’ meaning. The
contemporary concept of ‘security’ therefore proves
to be a ‘chimeric’ combination of a) the ancient Athe-
1 Homer (1924–1925), Iliad VI, 181–182; “in the fore part a
lion, in the hinder a serpent, and in the midst a goat, /
breathing forth in terrible wise the might of blazing fire”
(translation S. Butler); English ‘chimera’ is derived from
these lines in Homer, where the chimaira - initially sim-
ply meaning ‘goat’ – appears as a composite monster.
2 In the following the author uses ‘securitas’ and ‘security’
where the word itself is meant, as ‘signifiant’, i.e. as
combination of sounds/letters; we will however write
securitas and security where the ‘signifié’ is meant, the
‘object’ intended and denoted by the word.
nians’ intention to prevent the destruction of their
empire, b) the religious connotations of Roman ‘secu-
ritas’, and c) the Hobbesian intention to prevent civil
war.
When writing about ‘security’ in the European tra-
dition, one is confronted with the long history of this
concept and with the relevance of its contribution to
European and even contemporary global political phi-
losophy.3 This chapter accentuates the connection be-
tween Thomas Hobbes and the ancient Greek histo-
rian Thucydides (fifth century B.C.) making necessary
an excursus beyond Latin ‘securitas’ to the Greek pre-
cursor of ‘security’: ‘asphaleia’.
17.2 ‘Securitas’: Evolution of the Term
and the Concept
17.2.1 Latin Roots
‘Security’ is derived from Latin ‘securitas’, a word it-
self composed from the elements ‘se-’ (‘without’) and
‘cura’ (‘care, carefulness, concern’).4 Translated care-
3 For this study we make frequent use of the works by
Kaufmann (1973) and Schrimm-Heins (1991, 1992). As
both wrote in German, quotations will be given in Eng-
lish. Hobbes will be quoted according to the Moles-
worth Edition (1839–1845); where clarifying, Thucydides
will be quoted in Hobbes’ translation (Molesworth Edi-
tion, English Works, vol. 8 and 9).
4 See Lewis/Short (1958). Latin has more comparable
words: secessio, secretio, secubatio, seditio, seductio,
etc.
264
fully, ‘securitas’ means ‘freedom from care, uncon-
cern, composure’. ‘Freedom from care’ may or may
not have a basis in ‘objective reality’; where that basis
is given, ‘securitas’ already for the ancient Romans
means ‘freedom from danger, safety, security’; where
that basis fails, ‘securitas’ means ‘carelessness, heed-
lessness, negligence’. These possibilities make that
from the beginning ‘securitas’ has in the European tra-
dition been appreciated both positively and nega-
tively.
With ‘cura’ or ‘care’ and ‘securitas’ or ‘freedom
from care’ not just an arbitrary aspect of human life is
mentioned; ‘securitas’ refers to a group of emotions –
and corresponding words – to which also belong
‘fear’, ‘fear of death’, and their complement: ‘trust’,
‘confidence’ etc. Religion also is involved in these
kinds of emotions. That explains why already in the
earliest phase of the history of ‘securitas’ an intense –
if negative – connection of the adjective ‘securus’ with
religion may be observed: in the philosophical poem
De Rerum Natura by Lucretius (c. 94 – 55 B.C.; Ham-
mond/ Scullard 1970: 622). The connection with reli-
gion and the semantic influence of religion on the
concept of ‘securitas’ is found also in later periods of
European history, long after the Roman Empire. Be-
cause of this longstanding connection, the history of
‘security’ cannot be written without considering its
meaning in the context of ancient Roman religion,
and Christian religion and theology.
It is usual to connect ‘securitas’ with the name of
the Roman statesman and philosopher Cicero (106-43
B.C.), the first author in whose work the word occurs;
it is further usual to connect ‘securitas’ with Greek
‘ataraksia’ (Makropoulos 1995: 745 ff.). Ataraksia had
an important place in the ethics of the hellenistic phi-
losopher Epicurus (341–270 B.C.; Hammond/Scull-
ard 1970: 390 – 392), who considered ataraksia (‘im-
passiveness, calmness’)5 as the necessary condition for
attaining ‘the ultimate good’ of eudaimonia (true, full
happiness); in scholarschip it is generally supposed
that centuries after Epicurus the Romans starting
from ‘ataraksia’ coined ‘securitas’, as analogy of
‘ataraksia’.6
5 See Liddell/Scott (1961), s.v. ataraksia; cf. ataraktos:
‘not disturbed, without confusion, steady’.
6 ‘Ataraksia’ and ‘securitas’ are both composites begin-
ning with a negation: the Greek word with an ‘alpha
privans’, the Latin with ‘se’ (‘without’); ‘-taraksia’ is
derived from Greek ‘tarassein’ (Little/Scott 1843, 1961):
“to stir, trouble the mind, agitate, disturb”.
J. Frederik M. Arends
So we have to go back to the pre-Roman roots of
‘securitas’. The following might help us to recognize
the importance of this: Epicurus’ most important Ro-
man ‘disciple’ was Lucretius, who based on Epicurus’
materialist theory of atoms argues in his De Rerum
Natura that it is irrational to be afraid of death. Epi-
curus’ and Lucretius’ atomism, all too easily inter-
preted as atheism, was not appreciated in the Chris-
tian Europe following Roman Antiquity. However, in
the 17th century a renaissance of the study of Lucretius
took place; central in that renaissance was Gassendi
(1592 – 1655 A.D.) who during the eleven years of Hob-
bes’ exile in Paris was his intellectual intimus. With
Hobbes starts the second phase in the history of ‘se-
curitas’, its ‘renaissance’, during which ‘securitas’ – de-
veloping into English ‘security’ – became the central
goal and standard of the modern state. Considering
the intense intellectual contacts of Gassendi, as the in-
itiator of the revival of Greek atomism, with Hobbes
searching a scientific foundation for his anthropology
and political theory, a foundation independent of
party strife, it seems inevitable to go back beyond Cic-
ero to the ancient Greek atomistic tradition as re-
ceived by Hobbes.
17.2.2 Greek Roots
There however is still a better reason to go back to the
Greeks. In the time before his Parisian exile, Hobbes
as a man of 40 years published his translation of the
Greek historian Thucydides (c.460 – c.400 B.C.). For
Hobbes’ intellectual genesis no classical author was of
greater importance than Thucydides, the historian of
Athenian imperialism of the 5th century B.C.7 Athens’
empire in Thucydides’ opinion perished from inner
causes, as Athens was afflicted by civil war. Thucy-
dides characterizes the imperialist Athenians as men
who – when confronted with the threat of rebellion
and revenge coming from their subjects – do every-
thing required to avert that Athens will be over-
thrown. In the final phase of Athenian imperialism,
not glory but security is the central goal of Athenian
politics.8 The Greek word used to denote ‘security’ is
‘asphaleia’: “security against stumbling or falling”
7 On Thucydides and Athenian imperialism, see the clas-
sical monograph by de Romilly (1947); on Hobbes and
Thucydides, see Tönnies (1925: 6 ff.); Strauss (2001: 51
ff.); Martinich (1995: 224-228). For a recent discussion,
see Podunavac (2000–2001).
8 Thucydides (I, 75–76) mentions three motives for Athe-
nian imperialism: honour, fear, and advantage.