Cover not available
Part of
Historical Pragmatics of Controversies: Case studies from 1600 to 1800
Gerd Fritz, Thomas Gloning and Juliane Glüer
[Controversies 14] 2018
► pp. 95–130

Chapter 3
The pragmatic organization of the Hobbes vs. Bramhall controversy (1645–1658)

Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.A brief summary of the background and development of the controversy
  • 3.Levels and aspects of the controversy – reasons for its complexity
  • 4.Typical moves, sequences of moves, and strategies
    • 4.1Addressing the audience
    • 4.2Posing a dilemma as an opening move
    • 4.3Stating the question
    • 4.4Reducing an argument into form
    • 4.5Examples, analogies, and comparisons
    • 4.6Showing “inconveniences”
    • 4.7 Complaining of jargon, absurdity, and nonsense
    • 4.8Semantic analysis and definition
      • 4.8.1The definition of liberty
      • 4.8.2the will and appetite
      • 4.8.3deliberating and imagining
    • 4.9Interpreting a biblical text
    • 4.10Concessions, retractions, reformulations
  • 5.Points of order and communicative principles
    • 5.1Criticizing logical or dialectical defects
      • 5.1.1Diagnosing general lack of competence
      • 5.1.2Criticizing individual moves
      • 5.1.3On misrepresenting the opponent’s position
    • 5.2Distribution of the burden of proof
    • 5.3The principle of relevance
    • 5.4The principle of perspicuity
    • 5.5The principle of completeness
    • 5.6The principle of non-repetition
    • 5.7Principles of politeness
  • 6.Creating structure in the controversy
  • 7.Rhetoric and dialectics
  • 8.The outcome of the controversy
  • Notes
  • Sources
  • References
Published online: 2 November 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cvs.14.03fri
References (27)
Sources
Bramhall, J. 1655. “A defence of true liberty from antecedent and extrinsecal necessity; being an answer to a late book of Mr. Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury, entitled a treatise of liberty and necessity”. London. In The works of The Most Reverend Father in God, John Bramhall, D.D. Sometime Lord Archbishop of Armagh, Primate and Metropolitan of all Ireland. Vol. IV. Oxford: Parker 1844, 3–196.Google Scholar
1658. “Castigations of Mr. Hobbes his last animadversions in the case concerning liberty and universal necessity; wherein all his exceptions about the controversy are fully satisfied”. By John Bramhall D. D. and Bishop of Derry. London. In The works of The Most Reverend Father in God, John Bramhall, D.D. Sometime Lord Archbishop of Armagh, Primate and Metropolitan of all Ireland. Vol. IV. Oxford: Parker 1844, 197–505.Google Scholar
1658. “The catching of Leviathan or the Great Whale: Demonstrating out of Mr. Hobbes his own works, that no man, who is thoroughly a Hobbist, can be a good Christian or a good commonwealth’s man, or reconcile himself to himself; Because his principles are not only destructive to all religion, but to all societies; extinguishing the relation between prince and subject, parent and child, master and servant, husband and wife; and abound with palpable contradictions”. By John Bramhall D. D. and Bishop of Derry. London. In The works of The Most Revered Father in God, John Bramhall, D.D. Sometime Lord Archbishop of Armagh, Primate and Metropolitan of all Ireland. Vol. IV. Oxford: Parker 1844, 507–597.Google Scholar
Hobbes, T. 1654. “Of liberty and necessity: A treatise wherein all controversy concerning predestination, election, free-will, grace, merits, reprobation, etc. is fully decided and cleared. In answer to a treatise written by the Bishop of Londonderry, on the same subject”. London. In The English works of Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury; now first collected and edited by Sir William Molesworth, Bart. Vol. IV. London 1841, 229–278. ReprintAalen: Scientia 1962.Google Scholar
1656. “The questions concerning liberty, necessity, and chance, clearly stated and debated between Dr. Bramhall, Bishop of Derry, and Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury. London”. In The English works of Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury; now first collected and edited bySir William Molesworth, Bart. Vol. V. London 1841, 1–455. ReprintAalen: Scientia 1962.Google Scholar
1680. “An answer to a book published by Dr. Bramhall, late Bishop of Derry; called ‘The catching of the Leviathan’”. London. In The English works of Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury; now first collected and edited by Sir William Molesworth, Bart. Vol. IV. London 1841, 279–384. Reprint Aalen: Scientia 1962.Google Scholar
Leibniz, G. W. 1710. “Betrachtungen über das von Herrn Hobbes veröffentlichte englische Werk über Freiheit, Notwendigkeit und Zufall”. In G. W. Leibniz: Die Theodizee. Übersetzt von Artur Buchenau. Hamburg: Meiner o.J., 426–440.Google Scholar
2006. The Art of Controversies. Translated and edited, with an introductory essay and notes by Marcelo Dascal with Quintin Racionero and Adelino Cardoso. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Lessing, T. 1669. Disputationem Politicam de Religionum Tolerantia [… ]. Lipsiae: Literis Johannis Erici Hahnii.Google Scholar
Thomasius, J. 1670. Erotemata Logica pro incipientibus. Acceßit pro adultis Processus disputandi. Lipsiae: Frommanni.Google Scholar
References
Biagioli, M. 1993. Galileo Courtier. The Practice of Science in the Culture of Absolutism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chappell, V. (ed). 1999. Hobbes and Bramhall on liberty and necessity. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
Damrosch, L. 1979. “Hobbes as Reformation theologian. Implications of the free-will controversy”. Journal of the History of Ideas XL, 339–352.Google Scholar
Dascal, M. 1989. “Controversies as quasi-dialogues”. In E. Weigand and F. Hundsnurscher (eds), Dialoganalyse II. Referate der 2. Arbeitstagung Bochum 1988. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 147–160.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1998. “Types of polemics and types of polemical moves”. In S. Čmejrková et al. (eds), Dialoganalyse VI. Teil 1. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 15–33.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foisneau, L. 1999. “Introduction”. In Thomas Hobbes: Les questions concernant la liberté, la nécessity et le hasard. (Controverse avec Bramhall II). Introduction, notes, glossaires et index par Luc Foisneau. Paris: Librairie Philosophique J. Vrin, 1–39.
Fritz, G. 1995. “Topics in the history of dialogue forms”. In A. H. Jucker (ed), Historical pragmatics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 469–498.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003. “Dialogical structures in 17th century controversies”. In M. Bondi and S. Stati (eds), Dialogue Analysis 2000. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 199–208.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005. “First person singular in 17th century controversies”. In P. Barrotta and M. Dascal (eds), Controversies and subjectivity. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 235–250.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010. “Controversies”. In A. H. Jucker and I. Taavitsainen (eds), Historical Pragmatics. Handbooks of Pragmatics, Vol. 8. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 451–481.Google Scholar
Gloning, T. 1999. “The pragmatic form of religious controversies around 1600: A case study in the Osiander vs. Scherer & Rosenbusch controversy”. In A. H. Jucker, G. Fritz and F. Lebsanft (eds), Historical dialogue analysis. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 81–110.Google Scholar
Hamblin, C. L. 1970. Fallacies. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Jackson, N. D. 2007. Hobbes, Bramhall and the politics of Liberty and Necessity: A quarrel of the Civil Wars and Interregnum. Cambridge Studies in Early Modem British History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lærke, M. 2010. “The golden rule: Leibniz’s method for religious controversy”. In M. Dascal (ed), The practice of reason. Leibniz and his controversies. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 297–319.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mintz, S. I. 1969. The hunting of Leviathan. Seventeen-century reactions to the materialism and moral philosophy of Thomas Hobbes. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
Skinner, Q. 1996. Reason and rhetoric in the philosophy of Hobbes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Springborg, P. 1996. “Hobbes on religion”. In T. Sorell (ed), The Cambridge Companion to Hobbes. Cambridge: University Press, 346–380.DOI logoGoogle Scholar