ABSTRACT
Summary – The chapter deals with a problem deeply linked to the key question of the sovereign-subject dichotomy. It focuses on the issue of overlapping sovereignties that comes from an original text where there is a massive presence of a plurality of kings (principally called wánax or basiléus) over the same groups. The political structures of the Achaean army, the group of the Olympian Gods, the communities of Troy, Ithaca and Scheria are not as compliant with Hobbes’s political theories as had been suggested in his political works. In the translations, the philosopher tries to present Agamemnon, Zeus and Priam in the Iliad, and Odysseus and Alcinous in the Odyssey as kings more absolute than they really are in the original poems. With textual examples and a continuous comparison between the Greek and English lines, this Hobbesian intent clearly shines through. The chapter also explores the problematic disappearance of the pastoral image of the king: while the Homeric poems are imbued with the expression poimèn laôn (shepherd of the people) used to define holders of monocratic power, this metaphor is almost completely removed in the translations. Moving on from textual examples, some possible explanations are suggested. One section analyses the lexicon of kingship – less frequent but worth mentioning – that is not related to wánax, basiléus and poimén: uses and Hobbesian translations of kosmétor, eghemón, kóiranos, órchamos are shown. The last paragraph is devoted to those situations where Hobbes in his translations chooses to add elements that strengthen the idea of absolute power.
