[lit-ideas] Re: Hartiana
- From: "" <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> (Redacted sender "Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx" for DMARC)
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 07:25:52 -0400
McEvoy was answering for the rationale behind the oblige-obligate
distinction made by Hart. The issue is some import. McEvoy does not seem to
be
DENYING; i. Smith was obliged to do it. But he did not. Rather, he wants
to know
the rationale, and I can see why. He is against conceptual analysis and
thinks of 'analytic' as a term of abuse. Since Hart is engaged here in a
polemic with the long-dead (by then) John Austin, who couldn't engage
with Hart
in conceptual analysis, the issue of factivity may sound otiose to John
Austin (who was by then long-dead). But it's not, and it's one that Hart
learned from Grice. Grice's example is: ii. Smith thought that he
regretted that his father had
died. It afterwards turned out that he didn't".
Grice's gloss is typical of his genius: "As far as what I've just written
does MAKE sense," "it would, I think, still 'imply' the committal [on the
part of the utterer] to Smith's father's death". Grice adds, in a note
that
should be applauded more often: "I am NOT sure about the last
distinction,
and I think perhaps it does not matter very much." Hart suggests that "He
was obliged to do it" is more or less synonymous with "He was forced to
do
it". As in,
A (after having committed something wrong): I was forced to do it.
B: And you did.
A: No, I was forced to do it, but I did not do it.
For Hart that sounds harsh and suggests that "I was forced to do it"
standardly implies "I did it". In this sense, 'obligated', "I was
obligated to
do it" never carries that implication. This is a matter of some import
because it is at the core of Hart's rejection of John Austin's legal
philosophy
based on a mere idea, concept, or conception, of force, and I would think
that Walter O. may have a thing or two to say on this. So the issue is
not
JUST a matter of conceptual analysis (even if that's what philosophers
do).
In the case of legal philosophy, what legal philosophers do surely
influence what other legal theorists (surely less conceptual ones) do,
and which
are not likely to subject an issue to punctilious analysis as Hart does.
The
best way is to consider the 'factivity' spectrum in the citations from
Hart's favourite dictionary, the Oxford dictionary, and see how factive
the
uses of 'oblige' can get:
"And also wan any diez bithoute testament, and be obliged to any other
in
dette, and his godes comez into ordinaries hond or te ordeinen, the
ordinaries, from now forthward, sullen ansuuerie to the dettes the wile
that te
godes of the dede lastez."
This use is so complex that it is hard to see if the implication holds.
Next:
"Though add William our king to him vaste obliged the king of Scotland."
This seems to involve some element of factuality in that William became
the king of Scotland. Next:
"Joachim bihete god, ȝif tht he would any child him send, to God's
service
oblige he would that child."
Apparently Joachim's child complied, the implication seems to be. Next:
"They oblige no man to their manner of poverty"
This is negative, so it's normal that the implication gets cancelled.
Next:
"Our forsaid attorneys obliging us to fulfill all manner [of] accords."
This is an -ing form, and incomplete as a proposition. But if the
attorneys obliged them to fulfill the thing, the implication is that the
speaker
followed the obligation and did fulfill. Next:
"He obliged him to fight with him in the quarrel."
This is a good example: He forced him to fight with him in the quarrel.
Suppose he comes back to the wife:
A: Stephen forced me to fight with him in the quarrel. That's why I'm
late.
B: You mean you did fight with Stephen in the quarrel?
A: No, I was late because McEvoy obliged me to do something else.
Sthephen forced me to fight with him in the quarrel, but of course I
refuse the
'invitation'.
That would sound harsh to Hart. Next:
"All men were pardoned which would by other be obliged truly to serve and
obey him."
"oblige" is defeasible, so the pardon cancels the factivity in the use of
the verb. Next:
"Every subject is obliged in his conscience to obey the just laws of his
magistrate." Suppose a husband says that to his wife:
A: Every subject is obliged in his conscience to obey the just laws of
his
magistrate.
B: And your point being?
A: Well, you are such a subject, aren't you.
B: So?
A: In your conscience you are obliged the obey the just laws. And you do.
B: Yes, sir. -- Next:
"I enclosed the note in a letter to my brother, and obliged him to be
very
careful in sending it."
This case is dubious in that it also uses Hart's OTHER favourite concept,
'careful'. The brother may not be careful, and fail to send the letter.
But
we can imagine an epilogue:
BROTHER: I just come from the post office. Your letter was sent.
THE OTHER BROTHER: Good. I had obliged to do it.
BROTHER: Exactly. I was obliged to be very careful in sending the letter
and I was!
Next:
"It has been commonly supposed that a father could oblige his posterity
to
that government, of which he himself was a subject."
This is a special use of 'oblige'. Since it is prefaced by 'commonly
supposed', the implicature is re-inforced that the father did oblige his
posterity, as he could. Next:
"My father had obliged me to the improvement of my stock, not by a
promise
but by a penalty which I was at liberty to incur."
The implicature is that the utterer opted not to suffer the penalty and
ths that he did improve the stock, as his father had obliged him to do.
Next:
"Slaves cannot be obliged to any other person."
I suppose the implicature is "than their owners". It has to be expanded
"obliged to what?" "To do some errand", suppose. Since this is in the
negative, the implication does not hold -- it would be an otiose slave tht
is
obliged to someone other than his owner to do an errand or other. Next:
"In nomina, while one, by making an entry to the other's debit, lays him
under obligation, it is only the latter that is obliged."
This is very factive, in that it is the LATTER that makes an entry, the
implication being. Next:
Hii hom wolde oblige and sikernesse vinde gode To bere hom clene hor
truage." Implicational.
Next: "Israel, by vow hym self to the lord oblige, seiþ ȝif þou take þis
peple in myn honde, y shal doon awey his cytees." Implicational. Next:
"Swilk drede in hert had þai ilkane Þat þai oblige þam to hald þe
couenand made byforne."
Implicational. Next:
"T"hy hande-maiden for soth am I, and to thi seruice I oblige me."
Impicational. Next:
"Þane sais þe wich: ‘gyf I ne ma ourcum his craft I oblige me but
ransoninge to thole dede.’ Implicational. Next:
"We bind and oblige us and our successouris..that [etc.]." Implicational.
Next:
"Alexander Kayn wes accusit in judgment for his wife becaus he obliged
hym to answer for her deeds." Implicational. Next:
"We obleiss ws, and promeiss that..the said abstinence of weir..sall
continew." Implicational. Next:
"You: who hauing plighted your faith, and solemnly obliged your selfe
vnto an husband, are now become most faithlesse and perfidious."
Implicational. Next:
"The time for which he had obliged himself being expired."
Implicational. Next:
"We Desire John Croker to take his place and we doe obleadg our selves
to give him 40 shili." Implicational: Next:
"In gratitude for the bequest of Preston, the town council obliged
themselves to his son to build that aisle to his memory." Implicational:
Next:
"Off Iuda Þan þe barnage al Þam obliged erare hym to ta." Implicational.
Next:
"That these præsent obliges to reform themselves." Implicational. Next:
"I oblige be my hand, he sall observe in all pointis your behest."
Implicational: next.
"We undersubscryve, and oblige and promise to obey the whole contents
of
the said letter." Implicational. Next:
"Aw had obliged to come home to the wife again." Implicational. Next:
"The emperour of Rome to him Obligede bi his messagers alle þing þat
was
his." Implicational. Next.
"King John obliged his realm of England and his lordship of Ireland in a
thousand mark, to be paid year by year." Implicational. Next:
"Nyle thou be with hem that oblischen her hondis, and that proferen hem
silf borewis for dettis". Implicational. Next:
"Yf thou wilt oblige thy sowle to me ayenst my hors, I wolle..playe
wyth
them." Implicational. Next:
"This satisfaccioune mone be maid of a thing that is nocht sua oblist
to
God be ane vthire manere..of dete." Implicational. Next:
"The Gentlemen..were ordered to oblige each their Honour not to take
any
resentment." Implicational. Next:
"He forbid all the Prelates..to oblige their Lay-Fees to the See of
Rome." Implicational: Next.
"The ship is tacitly obliged for their wages." Implicational, when in
past tense. Next:
"The holy promise and the bandis gent of peace and concord obliged and
sworn." Implicational. Next:
"Þe zenuolle..is y-obliged to zuo ane greate gauelinge þet he ne heþ mi
ȝ
te to hit endi, þet is, to the pine of helle." Implicational (for those
who believe in hell). Next.
"To the fulfillyng of the qwhilk the Wardain of the Est Marche of
Scotland
is obliged, be his Letter to Sire Henri Percy and the said Sire Henry is
obliged, be his Letter to the said Earle." Implicational. Next:
"He schulde delyuere þem þe whiche were obliged to servage by all their
life." Implicational. Next:
"He wes obliste til his wyfe to speke with hir in-to his lyfe."
Implicational. Next:
"I promysed to the nought at al, in the presence of whom I am oblyged or
bound." Implicational. Next:
"To the keping of all thir conditionis bayth the sadis parteis ar obliged
and suorn ayn till other." Implicational: Next.
"We are obliged to love god."
This may APPEAR not to trigger the implication. But a different scenario
does:
SON: Hi, father. I'm back from church.
FATHER: Good, son. Just as I obliged you.
SON: To love god.
FATHER: Indeed. So, did you love God.
SON: Father, your question seems stupid: if I am obliged to love god,
rest
assured I did.
The negation of the implication seems harsh and is best ascribed (Omar
was
wondering: Hart's doctrine is called ASCRIPTIVISM).
SINFUL SON: Hi father.
FATHER: Back from church?
SINFUL SON: Nay.
FATHER: But you know. I repeat this EVERY NIGHT over dinner: We are
obliged to love god.
SINFUL SON: But I didn't.
FATHER: You'll be cursed! -- Next:
"The wife is not obliged to accuse her husband." Present tense --
non-implicational.
"That duty and respect, wherein we stand obliged to others." Present
tense: non-implicational.
"Martyr excused his coming, partly because he was obliged to the city
and
church of Zurick." "obliged to BE in the city," strictly. Implication
holds. "Yet, Martyr was in New York as we spoke" sounds awfully wrong.
"The Princess Henrietta was obliged to lie abed, for want of a fire to
warm her." Adding "But the princess got off bed and died" sounds otiose.
Had
it happened, surely it would have been reported.
"Thus it should seem that Christians are clearly obliged to the
observance
of a Sabbath." Present tense, non-implicational.
"Foreign farmers are obliged to market their corn immense distances by
rail, canal, and sea." NOn-implicational: only "were obliged" is
implicational.
"By the treaty Germany was not allowed to have an air fleet; if,
therefore, she was building one, England would either be obliged to
declare the
Treaty was at an end or be prepared to go in and stop her." "Would"
usage:
not implicational.
"It should last until you find work, but if you spend it before, this
card
entitles you to present another claim, which we shall be obliged, in due
course, to honour." "Shall" usage: not implicational.
"He said that freres beþ nouȝt y-holde to keep that heeste that may
nought oblige without assent
of freres, and namelich, wiþ-oute assent of mynystres and it oblige his
successour in none manner wise, for of twey peres nother hath power and
heeste over other." EXCELLENT adage. Implicational.
"Four things are required to each vow that obliges." Present tense:
non-implicational.
"King Alexander Sen he had obliged king for king and only man for man."
The implication is oddly that a king is not a man (with the further
IMPLICATURE now that a king is more than a mere man).
"Yet these laws would no ways oblige them, unless they voluntarily
consented and submitted to them in Parliament." IMPLICATIONAL.
"You say they are no laws unless they oblige the conscience." Excellent.
Implicational of morality perhaps cancellable.
"Two inconsistent laws cannot both oblige." Excellent point alla John
Austin _and_ H.L.A. Hart. Implicational.
"Thus ‘I promise to..’ obliges me—puts on record my spiritual
assumption
of a spiritual shackle." (J. L. Austin -- a parody of H. L. A. Hart).
"Good deeds, in God's miracles, oblige men moore to serve God." PRESENT
tense: non-implicational.
"The statutes and ordinances do not oblige and binde them to that case,
but in certain points." Present-tense usage: non-implicational, but
delightful in that equates 'oblige' with its Anglo-Saxon countepart:
'bind'.
"The command obliges thee to obey." John Austin's use. Implication need
not hold in that it's present tense, and Hart holds only past tense
carries
implication.
"As the king's oath ties and obliges him to the people, certainly the
people's oath ties and obliges them to the king." IMPLICATION holds even
if
present tense. Vide below for allegedly morally illegitimate law.
"Christianity so much the more obliges us to invoke the assistance of the
true God." Present tense: no need for the implication to hold
"The names of those whom vicinity obliges to attendance are read over
morning and evening." IMPLICATION holds. The neighbours did attend. The
phrase is in the present tense, so no implication need hold IN THAT
TENSE.
"The letter censured the law of England, which obliges us to behave like
this." John Austin's usage. "But we don't" sounds un-English.
"Neither those regulations nor any general principle of community law
obliges companies to do any more than supply the commission with such
information or documentation as it has requested under Article 11 of
Regulation."
Since this is a negation ("neither") the implication does not hold.
"The zenuolle is obliged to zuo one great gauelinge." IMPLICATION holds.
"This cursed sin annoys her soul, for he obliges it to sin and to pain
of
death." A Very John-Austin use: the threat involves pain of death no
less.
"Alas, that sin obliged us all till wicked hell-fire." Yes, it was a
pity.
The implication holds (for those who believe in wicked hell fire,
surely).
"When Adam sinned he obliged himself and al his offspring to the eternal
death." This implies that Adam and his offspring all died eternally.
"It is to be inquired how these became laws; obliging us to sin, if we
transgress." The John Austin use. If we transgress the law we are forced
to
sin. Adding, "but we don't sin" sounds contradictory.
"Who bacbiteþ to anything, he obliged himself in to time to comen" [L.
ipse se in futurum obligat]. A special reflective use 'self-oblige'.
Implication holds.
"Most agree that, as theft depends upon intent, such a child can only
oblige himself in respect of it when he is close upon puberty."
An usage that interested Hart is utterances containing 'oblige' where
what
the utterer means is "to bind with physical ties and related senses".
Hart
prefers 'force' to oblige. Since he feels it a bit harsh that Tom obliged
Jerry to fall down the cliff. The gunman does not just TAKE the wallet,
he
obliges the victim to give the wallet to him ("or else I'll shoot you" --
Hart's example).
"They been obliged [L. obligati sunt] and fellen." IMPLICATION holds.
"They are obliged, and they fell." IMPLICATION holds.
"Touching is a spirit, extended from the hegemonic part to the
superficies, so that it perceives that which is obliged to it." A RATHER
Abstract use
of 'oblige' -- implication holds, if dubiously so.
"As soon as Maritornes had fastened him, she left him so strongly
obliged, that it was impossible he should disengage himself." The John
Austin
usage: to oblige: to force. IMPLICATION holds. He could not dissengage
himself.
"If a woman religion wil to hir craue, and hase non entisment þertil bot
oblis hir awn wil, fully resauyed sal scho not be." CONDITIONAL: the
implication need not hold.
"And oblige me unto thee by this boone." IMPERATIVE: the implication
need
not hold.
"If any man be obliged, he will command him to remember the favour."
CONDITIONAL: the implication need not hold
"Here take oh Zani this ring of gold and by giving it to the sea, oblige
it unto thee." IMPERATIVE: Implication need not hold
"Pliny pronounceth that the greatest divinity is to see a mortal man
oblige his like."
Figurative. Pliny's pun on divinity vs. mankind.
"The quhilk commission would be reformed, causing the banchors her oblige
them in everting expences."
The use of 'causing' seems to imply that the implication holds -- and that
there WERE everting expenses.
"That her Family had obliged Hungary with a queen, and France with a
Gaston de Foix."
"Her family had obliged Hungary with a queen" IMPLIES Hungary had, as a
result, a queen -- and France a Gaston de Foix.
"It having been likely to have continued much longer, had the company
thought fit to oblige the taste of the town in general."
CONDITIONAL: the implication need not hold. Only 'was obliged' carries the
implication.
"O pray, Faulkland, fight to oblige Sir Lucius." -- IMPERATIVE:
Implication need not hold.
"Oblige me with the milk."
IMPERATIVE: no implication. Only 'was obliged' in the past (not the
present, future, or imperative) carries the implication.
"The customer requested the appellant, to oblige her, to send the loaves
home with other goods she had purchased."
LEGAL. The appellant was obliged to send the loaves home --. The phrase
occurs within a clause: the customer REQUESTED. So the implication that
the
appellant complied with the request does not hold.
"You say you can do exactly as you like. Oblige me therefore by being so
good as to do it."
"I was obliged to learn that he did exactly as he liked." (IMPLICATION: he
did exactly as he liked). The original is in the imperative form, which
cancels the implication. The implication only holds for 'was obliged' in
the
past (not the future, the present, or the imperative).
"None of them seemed anxious to oblige the escape-artist by tying him
up."
This is the typical John Austin use. You can oblige the escape artist only
by tying him up.
"Lake Superior's Keweenaw Bay usually has sold ice in January, and coho
salmon, brown trout and whitefish oblige anglers with steady action."
Figurative. But: The angler was obliged to recognise the authorities what
a good thing it was to allow them to fish at Keweenaw Bay -- implies he
knows what's he's talking about and that he got salmon, trout and
whitefish.
"If this tenderness proceeded from a soft effeminate spirit, yet it
would
oblige me infinitely unto you."
CONDITIONAL ('if this tenderness..."). Indicative version: I was
infinitely
obliged to recognise your help, even if it proceeded from a spirit I
disagree with.
"The helping an eminent minister may oblige many Churches."
Figurative. But: The vicar was obliged to recognise that the eminent
minister was very helpful (IMPLICATION: which he was).
"Your early attention to this application will much oblige, Sir, your
very
faithful and obedient servant."
Sir was obliged to give early attention to his faithful and obedient
servant's application -- and it was a pleasure for him to do so anyway
even if a
prompt is always welcome to Sir, who can get absent-minded.
"So obliging that he ne'er oblig'd"
A delightful quote, making reference to Hart's metalinguistic secondary
rules. There's two obligings here. And the primary obliging is negated, so
its
implication does not hold.
Sir, would you obleege with the snuffers?
"I was obliged to provide the snuffers -- and I did, of course."
"To-night, Mr. Grossmith and all the talents will oblige."
GROSSMITH: I was obliged to entertain everybody, and I did it with
pleasure, as always.
"He obliged at the pianoforte."
"I was obliged to play the pianoforte."
Cfr. You can lead a horse to water but you cannot oblige to drink. But
surely a horse cannot play the piano, either. We are speaking 'rational
agents', here. This is a pre-condition for Hart, if not for John Austin
(law as
coercive order).
"A chairman was elected, obliged with a song, and then called upon a
member of the company."
SINGER: I was obliged to sing for the chairman.
WIFE: Delightful. What song did you choose?
SINGER: No. I was obliged, but I never incurred in singing.
WIFE: What hapened?
Hart may be thinking 'conversational implicature' here since a scenario
can
be made for the obliging not having been realised or effected. But "What
song did you choose" is proof enough that the implication holds ceteris
paribus.
"When gents were shy, or dry, or both, professional talent obliged."
The talented professional obliged to perform for the shy and dry
gentlemen.
-- "but the talented professional didn't" sounds odd as an expansion. What
may be permissible is that the gents were still unsatisfied (they were,
after all shy and dry).
"Gentleman all, Miss Florence Simcox the champion clog-dancer of the
Midlands, will now oblige."
Miss Simcox was obliged to perform -- and she did brilliantly. I have
turned the phrase to the past. In the present or future "will now oblige"
surely
the implication need not hold:
MASTER OF CEREMONIES: Florence Simcox will now oblige.
PROMPTER: She's not here!
MASTER OF CEREMONIES (correcting himself): I meant to say that she WOULD
oblige IF SHE were here, as I'm sure you'll understand. But we have
Charlie
Chaplin as a replacement.
"There it is, mum. I'm sorry not to oblige."
Again, negative: the implication does not hold.
MOM: Have you cleaned up your room.
SON: I'm sorry not to oblige. (IMPLICATION/ENTAILMENT: I did not).
"I was not obliged by my mother to clean up the room" is ambiguous.
This is permissible in a John-Austin/Hart approach of 'oblige' qua
'force'.
If the son perceived the threat is not strong enough, he can surely
challenge the 'obliging' which is thus rendered inoperative. Only
obligings
perceived as such count as 'real' obliging rather than pseudo-ones.
"Once or twice he beat with frantic fists in the panel of the door,
requiring answers, exits, explanations, which Marcus did not oblige
with."
This is negative, and surely the implication does not hold.
Marcus was not obliged to deal with those tantrums. Implication: he did
not
DEAL with them.
"The mother took in washing and went out to oblige and earned roughly
22s.
a week and some of her food."
This is VERY factive. What she did followed (was entailed or implied) from
her being obliged.
"She occasionally did odd work to oblige Mrs. Theobald, the vicar's
wife."
She was obliged to help the vicar's wife with the odd job or two. "But
never turned up" sounds contradictory.
"I'm not in service. I oblige by the hour."
"Diary of a Mayfair lady":
"I was obliged to clean the house by the hour" "which I did" sounds
otiose.
"Twice a week a lady came to oblige in the house."
LADY: I was obliged to clean the house twice a week. But did it thrice out
of supererogatory virtue.
"A bachelor who paid well and wasn't too fussy was a far better
proposition than some others she had obliged."
MAID: I was obliged to clean the house of this bachelor.
The fact that she engaged in cost-benefit analysis proves she did clean the
house (The gentleman wasn't fussy). The implication actually applies to
these OTHERS she was obliged to clean IN THE PAST, till she found this
'not
too fussy' bachelor.
"On Saturdays she could not come in the morning at all but obliged for an
hour in the evening."
MAID: I was obliged to clean the house on Saturdays -- but never did
sounds awfully wrong! (It was only one hour in the evening! and she gave
her word for it -- plus she was remunerated).
"If it chance me by your aid to recover I shall so much obliged and
bound
unto you."
This is one of my favourite quotes, since before the Anglo-Saxons borrowed
(never to return) the Roman idea of 'obligatio', from which 'oblige'
derives, all they had was bounds!
This is conditional ("if it chance...") but can be put in the canonical
John-Austin-Hart propositional format:
I was obliged (and bound) to recognise that you were CAUSATIVE in my
recover. The idea of causative is crucial in Hart's analysis of John
Austin's
'oblige', since Hart takes 'oblige' to be both 'factive' and 'causative'
-- as
in "I was forced to do it, mom -- that's why I did it". The threat forced
the son to do it. Law as coercive order.
"For the foresaid resolution in your Matie implying the good of so many
of your friends, they held themselves eternally obliged."
I was eternally obliged to recognise that the resolution implied the good
of so many friends. -- Two implications here: that the resolution took
place
and that the many friends did exist. Note that for some eternal obliging,
like infinite obliging is never enough.
"To those hills we are obliged for all our metals."
This is figurative since the hills cannot "interpret" the utterance of
'obliging'. We are obliged to recognise that we are very fortunate those
hills
gave us all those precious metals -- that's a different thing. We are
forced to do it, and the implication is that the metals from the hills
are a
_fact_ and not the utterer's imagination.
"I told them I was very much obliged to them for their good-will."
I was obliged to recognise that they displayed good-will. Implication:
they
did display goodwill.
"The republick of letters is infinitely obliged to M. Coste for the pains
he has taken."
This is figurative. Supposing the utterer is a member of the republic of
letters: "I was INFINITELY obliged to recognise Coste's pains.
Implication:
Coste took a lot of pains and infinite obligation is perhaps never enough.
"There is an oversight in the article on Bacon, which I shall be much
obliged to you to correct."
SECRETARY: Yes, sir. You called sir?
SIR: Yes. There is an oversight in the article on Bacon. I oblige you to
correct it.
NINE HOURS LATER
Secretary (to wife): Sorry I'm late.
WIFE: What the hell happened?
Secretary: Sir obliged me to correct an oversight in the article on
Bacon.
It turned out to be what I would have described in larger terms, but you
know Sir's innuendos.
"I am much obliged for the present of your exquisitely pretty book."
This IMPLICATES or implies that the utterer did receive an exquisitely
pretty book. The utterer was obliged to acknowledge such a present, and he
couldn't have done that unless he did get it. ("And I'm so sorry it got
lost in
the post" sounds odd as an expansion).
"I am exceedingly obliged to you for your co-operation."
The reference is here to Grice's cooperative principle of conversation.
He was exceedingly obliged to recognise that his addressee had cooperated.
The implication is that the addresee has cooperated or WILL cooperate. The
use of "am" (present) tense and the fact that the implication involves
"will" (and that the future is unpredictable) explains why Hart preferred
to
stick with implications of propositions in the past tense "I was
exceedingly
obliged for your cooperation" (+> You cooperated, or so I thought).
"We are vastly obliged to you for booking us into the Royal Oak tonight."
This seems John-Austin-Hart usage.
A: We were vastly obliged to be booked at the Royal Oak.
B: But I didn't.
A: In which case, we are not vastly obliged, you know.
Surely the implication holds.
‘Well, they can just think again,’ replied Rachel hotly, ‘and if anyone
says anything to you on those lines I would be obliged if you would put
them straight.’
This is a bad use, admittedly. It's like, "I am sorry if I offended you".
It's "be obliged TO" not "BE OBLIGED _IF_." This sloppy use possibly
disimplicates and can be straightened along Hart's analysis. Rachel was
obliged
to recognise that her addressee would see the need to "put them straight"
"Well, I'll speak to him." -- "Much obliged—here he is!"
Here it means "thank you". Literally: B is obliged to recognise that A's
speaking to him is a good thing. Otherwise, why thank him?
‘I have very few friends, Mr. Pedgift,’ returned Allan simply. ‘And I
am
sure you are one of the few.’ ‘Much obliged, Mr. Armadale.’
This means 'Thank you'. The impliation is that Pedgift is obliged to be
Armadale's friend, which implies that he IS Armadale's friend. Otherwise,
why
thank him?
‘I'll give you a ride, this time,’ the driver said. ‘Much obliged,’
Horace said.
This means 'thank you'. In the sense that Horace is obliged by the driver
to ACCEPT the invitation for a ride, which he did. If that would NOT be
the
case, the usual colloquial form is "Thanks but no thanks" (which is a
contradiction, but only at the superficial level -- and hence its jocular
implicature).
‘W'eer the 'ell ye gan to ga in India—unless yer Jock theer, an' look
like a bloody wog.’
‘Much obliged.’
‘No offence, lad.’
This use is colloquial. In need of an expansion "to do A", with "A" as the
relevant verb. In most cases, 'much obliged' can be expanded as "much
obliged to have done what I did" which then carries the implication we
are
considering, that he did what he did.
"His Majesty's gracious letter was not only most welcome but very
obliging."
-- he fails to expand that the letter obliged its recipient to attend the
garden party, surely -- which he did attend -- otherwise the use of 'most
welcome' would be otiose.
"Without which it is impossible to oblige in conversation."
Without reading Grice's "Logic and Conversation", that is -- and the list
of conversational maxims. Note the use of 'impossible', which turns the
Griceian maxims into definitional conditions, and useful too!
"Perceiving many things in it which did oblige my fancy."
This is figurative. It's people who can be obliged. Not people's fancy.
But
the implication seems to be that he did perceive many things.
"It was reasonable to suppose you would be very much obliged with
anything
that was new."
This needs to be expanded into "was obliged to do A" -- which is not
impossible. Example: to SHOW his acknowledgment with anything that was
new.
Transitively, it just means to constrain, to compel -- the John Austin
use: To constrain, influence; to force, compel a person, frequently in
the
passive with to or infinitive.
"I will obey you, my Lord, for all things oblige me so to do."
This possibly illustrates Hart's use of a meta-language:
"I am obliged to oblige God."
The first use is, oddly, what Hart calls, given its syntactic position, a
secondary rule; the second 'oblige' is a primary rule.
"That the oath which he had invented obliged the parliament to one
accurate trial of all plotters."
This is almost legal. Not the type of canonical proposition ripe for
John-Austin-Hart analysis: but so expandable:
The oath obliges. The Parliament was obliged to an accurate trial for ALL
plotters. An oath is like a promise, and J. L. Austin, parodying Hart,
sees
"I promise" as an operative or performative with the illocutionary force,
"I oblige". For Austin, operatives were neither true nor false, but
Warnock
refuted this "Performatives" in "Language and Morality". Hence there is
an
implication that the Parliament did provide an accurate trial to all
plotters, as it should! The fact that the oath was merely invented is
just an
irrelevant here, since he managed to deceive the whole Parliament about
that.
It often happens! -- in some countries!
"See here the reasons which obliged this illustrious prince to his
resolution, and the true motives of so glorious an action."
This is very John Austin-Hart. The subject is 'the reasons'. Seen from the
perspective of the prince it's best to hear from the princess:
PRINCESS: I'm so proud of you, William. Such a glorious action.
PRINCE: I was obliged to decide like I did.
PRINCESS: I know, by glory itself!
It would be very odd under the circumstances that the glorious resolution
never took place.
"To oblige all unfreemen to liver and loaden all vessels at Port Glasgow."
Not a proposition ripe for analysis. But expandable:
The captain obliged all unfreemen to load all vessels. This was when
slavery was operative at Port Glasgow.
UNFREEMAN I: What are you doing?
UNFREEMAN II: I am loading the vessel. I was obliged to do it by the
captain.
UNFREEMAN I: Do you think this applies to me too?
UNFREEMAN II: Not perhaps for John Austin, but surely for Hart and the
captain -- "ALL UNFREEMEN", he said, and that should include _you_. So I
don't
think why you are not obliged to help me load this next vessel.
"From this time I resolve to oblige all my family to serve God."
Here we have a John Austin-Hart case:
SON: I was obliged to serve God.
FATHER: Good. Son. That's what I resolved, and I'm glad it worked alla
John
Austin with you. God will never fail you!
"Self-preservation obliged the people to those severities."
Here we need to turn 'severities' into a verb, such as 'to starve'.
"The people was obliged to starve."
"But they didn't" sounds cruel, even from a Darwinian point of view,
seeing
that it's self-preservation which is at stake here.
"He is so weak that he has been obliged to be held up by people when he
came out of the house."
WIFE: What are you doing in the garden, Henry?
HENRY: What do you mean.
WIFE: You know you have been obliged to be held up by people should you
desire to come out of the house.
The above sounds odd. It seems that if he was so obliged then under no
circumstance would the wife see him in the garden and NOT being held up by
people.
"I will give you a certificate from under my hand of my having obliged
you
to march."
Here we have what Austin would have as 'playing the sovereign'. Let's see
this from the view point of the soldier:
SOLDIER: You obliged me to march.
GENERAL: And you did brillantly! As a token of affection, I will give you
a
certificate from under my hand of my having obliged you to march.
SOLDIER: Which I will frame and show to ALL of my friends who DIDN'T!
GENERAL: That's the spirit!
"It is flattering to a man to be indispensable to a woman so long as he
is
not obliged to it." A typical John Austin-Hart case.
HUSBAND: It's flattering to be indispensable to you, my old Dutch.
WIFE: Much obliged!
HUSBAND: Wait. I haven't finished. It's flattering to be indispensable to
you, as long as I'm not obliged to BE INDISPENSABLE!
WIFE: But you _are_, darling!
HUSBAND: You've been reading Hart, right?
"The royal officials committed so many misdeeds that the king on his
return was obliged to make a stern example."
DUCHESS OF DEVONSHIRE: Did you hear the news?
MARCHIONESS OF CORNWALL: No.
DUCHESS: It's in THE TIMES: "The royal officials committed so many misdeed
that the king on his return from Timbuctoo was obliged to make a stern
example.
MARCHIONESS: But he didn't! Or if he did, it never showed!
DUCHESS: You know that, and _I_ know that, but the 'vulgus' does not need
to KNOW that, does it, dear?
"I'm obliged to work for my living."
This is the case Hart and John Austin had in mind. It's curious that Hart,
for safety, preferred the use of 'was obliged', rather than 'am obliged'
--
but then also Grice provides an analysis for "Utterer MEANT that p",
rather than 'means'. -- It seems speaking about the past is easy.
But here we have the present tense:
WIFE: Where are you going?
HUSBAND: To work.
WIFE: Why?
HUSBAND: I am obliged to work for my living -- and yours, as it happens.
(This does not apply to Hart, whose wife, was a worker -- once outed as
"Russian spy" -- "I was a Russian spy" -- which affected Hart so that he
had
to go onto electromagnetic shock treatment).
"I dug the garden and became so painfully stiff that I was obliged to
stop."
This is the John Austin usage that Hart took as paradigm of John Austin's
concept of legality.
HUSBAND: I did as you told me. Dug the garden alright.
WIFE: But it's only 10 o'clock. You said you would be digging till noon.
HUSBAND: Thing is. I became so painfully stiff that I was obliged to stop.
WIFE: I expect you did not.
HUSBAND: Your English is getting worse and worse. You should read some
Hart, or something.
"I was obliged by every sense of honour to help you."
Here we seem to have a John-Austin-Hart case: 'obliged' in the passive
voice, followed by "to A", with "A" a verb.
The implication holds. Consider the oddity of:
A: I was obliged by every sense of honour to help you.
B: But you didn't?
A: I did NOT? Are you criticising my help? Was that NOT ENOUGH for you!?
Also John Austin's use, to oblige means to make imperative; to
necessitate.
"In some sort to oblige their dependance upon his acts and fortunes."
This is not exactly a Hartian proposition, whose canonical form is in the
passive form and followed by 'to A", where "A" is a verb. (John Austin's
canonical form too, with the sovereign as subject, always). The 'some
sort'
will be read by Hart as a 'defeater'. There is some sort, but there is
some
other sort where this does not apply. Something plural is obliged to
depend,
and the source seems to be, logically enough, his acts and fortunes. The
implication seems to be that their dependance took place (This is an old
quote, hence our safeety in using the past).
"Policy obliged from the dear gentleman this frankness and
acknowlegement."
In the analysis of 'oblige', we have to consider the subject and the
object. When used in the passive voice (John Austin's and Hart's favourite
voice), it's not clear who or what obliges. Here we have policy. Policy
did not
oblige the dear gentleman. He obliged FROM the dear gentleman, which adds
a
trick. In any case, I think it is implied that the dear gentleman, as it
should, WAS frank and that he acknowledged -- the point emphasised by the
use
of 'this'.
"The custom of the Elizabethan theatre obliged this double authorship."
This is tricky. Oblige to what? The custom of Elizabethan theatre obliged
to have a double authorship. There may be defeaters: some plays by
Shakespeare were JUST written by HIM. Conversational implicature.
"Argyle being to oblige from the Rebellion then on Foot, created a
Marquis."
This is tricky. But it seems to imply that Foot rebelled, and this forced
him to create a marquis. Note that it's not Hart's or John Austin's use,
'oblige to' -- rather 'oblige from'.
"That the seaman and all others be obliged from any trade in all kind of
furs."
This seems legal enough, but Austin, recall, found 'oblige' to be the 'key
to the science of jurisprudence'. It's only its conceptual analysis in
terms of 'force' that Hart rejected, as in:
SON: I did it.
MOTHER: So I heard.
SON: But I was forced to do it.
MOTHER: I know, son.
Surely, the implication in the above holds, and for Austin, to oblige is
to
force (law as coercive order). Not for Hart.
The seaman meets his wife:
SEAMAN: I was obliged from any trade in all kinds of furs.
WIFE: Speak English!
SEAMAN: I was obliged to refrain from trading in our 'bread and butter'.
WIFE: And what are we going to do now? (She takes the above as implicating
or implying or entailing that he did refrain).
"To oblige the delinquent from the exercise of his function."
Again, this, as such, does not serve, since Hart is into the 'ascription'
for which we need a 'proposition'. Suppose the DELINQUENT meets his wife:
DELINQUENT: I was obliged from the exercise of this function.
WIFE: Speak English!
DELINQUENT: I was obliged to refrain from doing.
WIFE: And you did!
DELINQUENT: Now it seems it's YOU who's having a problem with English!
Cheers,
Speranza
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
