Pierre Bayle dialogues of Maximus and Themistius / / translated, edited, and introduced by Michael W. Hickson.

• Superior document: Brill's Studies in Intellectual History, Volume 256
• VerfasserIn: Bayle, Pierre, 1647-1706,
• TeilnehmendeR: Hickson, Michael W.,
• Place / Publishing House: Leiden, Netherlands ;, Boston, [Massachusetts] : : Brill,, 2016.; ©2016
• Year of Publication: 2016
• Language: English
• Series: Brill's studies in intellectual history ; Volume 256.; Brill's studies in intellectual history. Brill's texts and sources in intellectual history ; Volume 18.
• Physical Description: 1 online resource (446 pages).
• Notes: Bibliographic Level Mode of Issuance: Monograph

Dialogues of Maximus and Themistius is the first English translation of Pierre Bayle’s last book, Entretiens de Maxime et de Thémiste , published posthumously in 1707. The two parts of the Dialogues offer Bayle’s final responses to Jean Le Clerc and Isaac Jaquelot, who had accused Bayle of supporting atheism through his writings on the problem of evil. The Dialogues defends Bayle’s thesis that the problem of evil cannot be solved by reason alone, but serves only to demonstrate the necessity of faith. In his Introduction to the Dialogues , Michael W. Hickson provides detailed historical and philosophical background to the problem of evil in early modern philosophy, as well as summary and analysis of Bayle’s debates with Le Clerc and Jaquelot.

Table of Contents

Front Matter / Michael W. Hickson -- Introduction / Michael W. Hickson -- Afterword / Michael W. Hickson -- Notes on the Text / Michael W. Hickson -- Bibliography / Michael W. Hickson -- Foreword / Michael W. Hickson -- Introduction / Michael W. Hickson -- An Examination of Le Clerc’s Case against Bayle / Michael W. Hickson -- Four Serious Problems with Le Clerc’s Objection That was Based on Several Inferences He Drew from Bayle’s Opinion / Michael W. Hickson -- Whether Le Clerc’s Zeal was Delayed / Michael W. Hickson -- Le Clerc’s Response to the Accusation of Socinianism / Michael W. Hickson -- Whether It is Possible to Reject an Evident Proposition / Michael W. Hickson -- What Le Clerc Said Concerning the Trinity and the Pyrrhonian Abbé / Michael W. Hickson -- Discussion of Le Clerc’s Remarks on the Three Propositions to Which Bayle Reduced His Own Position / Michael W. Hickson -- Retortion of Le Clerc’s Accusations / Michael W. Hickson -- That Le Clerc Delivers Religion, as Well as Himself, Hands and Feet Bound, over to the Atheists / Michael W. Hickson -- Whether Le Clerc Had Recourse to the Same Refuge as Bayle; An Addition to What He Said Concerning the Trinity / Michael W. Hickson -- Plastic Natures / Michael W. Hickson -- Several Remarks on Origenism / Michael W. Hickson -- What is the Nature of Tolerance According to Le Clerc? / Michael W. Hickson -- General Reflections on the Proceedings of Le Clerc against Bayle / Michael W. Hickson -- Introduction / Michael W. Hickson -- Whether Jaquelot is an Arminian Neophyte / Michael W. Hickson -- First of Jaquelot’s Faults: He Attacked Bayle’s Doctrine without Admitting That He Knew That It was the Same as That of the Reformed, and He Pretended to Believe That It was Very Different / Michael W. Hickson -- Second of Jaquelot’s Faults: He Believes That the Same Doctrine is Innocent or Blameworthy Depending on the Intentions of Those Who Teach It / Michael W. Hickson -- Third of Jaquelot’s Faults: He Claims That Bayle Removes Every Sort of Freedom from Man / Michael W. Hickson -- Whether There is Something That Could Have Misled Jaquelot. Two Characteristics of Bayle’s Dictionary / Michael W. Hickson -- Fourth of Jaquelot’s Faults: He Attacks Bayle on the Agreement of Faith and Reason, yet in the End He Says the Same Thing as Bayle / Michael W. Hickson -- Examination of the Three Differences That Jaquelot Found between His and Bayle’s Doctrines / Michael W. Hickson -- Reflection on the Phrases ‘Abandoning Reason’ and ‘being Contrary to Reason’ / Michael W. Hickson -- That It Appears by the State of the Question Given by Bayle That There is No Real Dispute between Him and Jaquelot / Michael W. Hickson -- Fifth of Jaquelot’s Faults: He Sought a Compromise That Nobook-body Needed / Michael W. Hickson -- Examination of Jaquelot’s Reply to the Difficulties Concerning the Origin of Evil. He Abandons Common Notions / Michael W. Hickson -- Whether Jaquelot Should Have Focused on the Question of Whether Bayle Believes That God is the Author of Sin / Michael W. Hickson -- Examination of the Five Principles That Jaquelot Substituted for the Common Notions That He Rejected / Michael W. Hickson.