Hobbes's Translations of Homer and Anticlericalism

Abstract

(ProQuest: ... denotes non-US-ASCII text omitted.)In a recent article, Paul Davis has claimed that Hobbes's primary reason for translating Homer's Iliad and Odyssey was to continue his anticlerical agenda.1 My purpose in this response is to argue that the case he presents is not cogent.By 1673, when the first part of his translation of Homer's Odyssey appeared, Hobbes was eighty-five years old and had been arguing, often acrimoniously, with English scientists, mathematicians, and theologians on a fairly regular basis for more than twenty years. So the reason he took up translating Homer's epics should be obvious. He was tired, had left disputation behind, and wanted to enjoy the little time he expected was left to him. He had written a half-dozen substantial treatises, not to mention others in the range of fifty to one hundred pages. Moreover, many of these works were extended replies to earlier objections to his views. So it is plausible that he realized that he had had his say on all the issues, that he had not yet convinced his opponents and that it was unlikely that he would. There is evidence that he had lost his zest for debating. It was said that 'if any one objected against his dictates, he would leave the company in a passion, saying, his business was to teach, not dispute'.2Finally, if we look at the most particular and relevant fact about Hobbes's reason for translating and then publishing Homer's poems, namely, the reason he gives, we find a mundane explanation, consistent with what has already been said:Why then did I write it? Because I had nothing else to do. Why publish it? Because I thought it might take off my adversaries from showing their folly upon my more serious writings, and set them upon my verses to show their wisdom.This is a witty and sarcastic remark, not at all mysterious, and containing nothing to move us to look for an X-file to supply a motivation. The one he gives is explicit and plausible. In particular, there is no good reason to accept Davis's inflated description of the brief passage above:Hobbes mixes lofty contempt for his 'adversaries' with vindictive stabs at them, the cool elegance of chiasmus ('folly'/'serious writings'; 'verses'/'wisdom') with uncharacteristically raw sarcasm.3Either all contempt is lofty or there is nothing lofty in the contempt shown in this passage. Juxtaposing 'folly' and 'serious writings' does not count as cool elegance of any kind; the phrase 'serious writings' is leaden and banal. The terms 'verses' and 'wisdom' are neither contraries nor contradictories; 'verses' is a nonevaluative term, and 'wisdom' is an evaluative one, being used sarcastically. There is no high wit or cleverness. Finally, Hobbes's two line dismissal of his opponents hardly counts as uncharacteristically raw sarcasm in the light of other remarks by Hobbes. The harshest of these is probably: 'In sum, it [Wallis's work] is all error and railing, that is, stinking wind; such as a jade lets fly, when he is too hard girt upon a full belly'.4 But many of his jibes at Bramhall cut much deeper, such as his comment that the bishop had 'drawn up [the issue to be debated] to his advantage, with as much caution as he would do a lease' and that the bishop 'hath spent no little part in seeking preferment and increasing of riches'.5 In comparison, Hobbes's quip about publishing his translation is tame.My description of the reasoning relevant to understanding Hobbes's motivation is designed to instantiate what I believe are good principles: the use of general propositions about human nature, broad facts about a particular person in his situation, and finally specific facts about what he says and does. Such a strategy forestalls the use of unnecessary, extravagant explanations, explanations that appeal to recondite or overly subtle considerations.This notwithstanding, interpretation is akin to inductive logic in this way: what counts as a good inference given certain evidence, may not be a good inference given additional evidence. …