Skip to main content

Richard Tuck, HOBBES (1989)

 


Tuck's book on Hobbes is part of the Past Masters series. 

Tuck was certainly qualified to write it. He was professor of government at Harvard. He was the author of Natural Rights Theories (1979) and Philosophy and Government 1572-1651 (1993). 

Now, wait a second. The book was published in 1989, how can its About the Author page cite a 1993 book? I gather I'm looking at a reprint. 

Anyway, the title of the 1993 book intrigues me. It gives the terminal dates of its coverage as 1572 to 1651. What events do the terminal dates reference? 

In 1572, fifteen hundred English volunteers under Humphrey Gilbert (an adventurer, shown above, not acting officially on behalf of the Queen) fought the Spanish/Hapsburg forces in the Netherlands, on behalf of the Dutch resistance, known at this time as the Sea Beggars. That seems to be an important date in Tuck's understanding of British intellectual history, because it helped set England on the road to more direct confrontation with the Spanish. This led to the Armada War and many other developments I'll skip by. 

Tuck's point, in starting the 1993 book with Gilbert's adventure, was that England would stay on the Dutch side until the late 1630s. Charles I would work to shift England's position more toward the Spanish side, because the Dutch were getting dangerously strong, That helped set up the Civil War.   

The other terminal year? That was he end of the third stage of that long civil war. Charles I had been dead for two years. Charles II lost the battle of Worcester in September '51 and managed his getaway to France by mid October. 

All of this has a lot to do with Tuck's reading of Hobbes. But I will come back to that another time. 


Comments

  1. The books in the Past Masters series have been reissued in the "A Very Short Introduction" series; the quoted phrase is the subtitle of each book. Thus, Tuck's became "Hobbes: A Very Short Introduction" (2002).

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak...

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a maj...

The Growing Block Theory of Time

My own disposition, in regard to the philosophy of time, is toward the "growing block" theory. This is the view that past events remain realities, that present-moment events are also realities, but that future events are not yet real. The image is of the universe as a block with an edge on (say) the right-hand side. The block is expanding because that edge is moving ever further right, and that edge is what we call the present, or, simply, "now." Everything to the left of that edge is both static (the past is complete) and, still and forever, real. Think of the phrase "the moving finger writes." The chief alternatives to the growing-block theory are "presentism" (only the now-edge itself is real) and "eternalism" (past, present, and future are all real." I believe that time is a growing block because (1) that's what it feels like, (2) we should stick with the introspective phenomenon unless we have good reason to abandon ...