Hobbes's Proto Liberalism vis-à-vis the Republican Tradition via the Monarchomachs

In the history of political thought, it is more and more a common place to characterized Hobbes as the first liberal political theorist. Additionally, Quentin Skinner´s theory support the idea that the author of the Leviathan creates and innovation ideological tool under the concept of ‘freedom as non-interference´. But Hobbes’s radical criticism to the metaphysics and religion were very relevant in the Dutch early articulation of a republican and democratic project. As has been widely researched, that “Dutch version of Hobbes” spread among circles whose members adhered to Cartesian radicalism and committed to the republican cause in the Netherlands. Lambert van Velthuysen, brothers de la Court and Marcus Zuerius Boxhorn were among the most prominent. This interpretation of Hobbes was also crucial in Spinoza’s reception of the Englishman’s work. For all these groups of Dutch republicans, Hobbes was a valid source both for asserting religious criticism as well as seeking a complement to Calvinism and a new political science, and a new understanding of the citizen. In such interpretations, the democratic regime -not the monarchy- would safeguard stability and offer greater possibilities of attaining self-preservation seen as a society of citizens who are able to enjoy equal freedom, control of their passions and prosperity. Also, Hobbes and Dutch republican authors such as the brothers de la Court and Spinoza possess similar influences of realist critical authors such as Tacitus, Machiavelli and Guicciardini. If so, what explains the difference between them (Hobbes and Dutch republicans)? My hypothesis is that it rests in a diverse reception from the idea of “sovereignty and right of resistance” of the Monarchomachs. Our hypothesis seeks to challenge this simple division analyzing the possible difference between early modern republicanism and liberalism from another angle such as the Monarchomachs tradition of sovereignty and the right of resistance which can serve as a basis for a delineation of the unique contributions to the modern rule of law republican and liberal traditions bring, and to better articulate points of debate between these two dominant schools of thought concerning the legitimate relationship between civil society and state power.