The political needs of a toolmaking animal: Madison, Hamilton, Locke, and the question of property

Social Philosophy and Policy

Volumn 22, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 1-26

  Rahe, Paul A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TULSA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 12344277664     PISSN: 02650525     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0265052505041014     Document Type: Review

References (250)

1. See Karl Marx, Das Kapital: Kritik der politischen Ökonomie (Frankfurt: Ullstein, 1969-71), 1:289 n. 13. Unless otherwise indicated, all translations are my own.
2. Note Aristotle, Politica, ed. W. D. Ross (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1957), 1252b27-1253a39; see also Paul A. Rahe, "The Primacy of Politics in Classical Greece," The American Historical Review 89, no. 2 (1984): 265-93; and Paul A. Rahe, Republics Ancient and Modern: Classical Republicanism and the American Revolution (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1992), 28-229.
3. Note Aristotle, Politica, ed. W. D. Ross (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1957), 1252b27-1253a39; see also Paul A. Rahe, "The Primacy of Politics in Classical Greece," The American Historical Review 89, no. 2 (1984): 265-93; and Paul A. Rahe, Republics Ancient and Modern: Classical Republicanism and the American Revolution (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1992), 28-229.
4. Note Aristotle, Politica, ed. W. D. Ross (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1957), 1252b27-1253a39; see also Paul A. Rahe, "The Primacy of Politics in Classical Greece," The American Historical Review 89, no. 2 (1984): 265-93; and Paul A. Rahe, Republics Ancient and Modern: Classical Republicanism and the American Revolution (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1992), 28-229.
5. Edmund Burke, Speech on Moving Resolutions for Conciliation with the Colonies, March 22, 1775, in The Writings and Speeches of the Right Honourable Edmund Burke (Boston, MA: Little, Brown, and Co., 1901), 2:120.
6. Ibid., 120-21.
7. Parliament's attempt to tax the American colonists stirred up fierce opposition and effective resistance: see Edmund S. Morgan and Helen M. Morgan, The Stamp Act Crisis: Prologue to Revolution (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1953).
8. James Otis, The Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved (1764), in Bernard Bailyn, ed., Pamphlets of the American Revolution, 1750-1776 (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1965-), 1:425-26.
9. Samuel Adams, letter from the House of Representatives of Massachusetts to Henry Seymour Conway, February 13, 1768, in Harry Alonzo Gushing, ed., The Writings of Samuel Adams (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1904-8), 1:190-91.
10. Alexander Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted, &c., February 23, 1775, in Harold C. Syrett, ed., The Papers of Alexander Hamilton (New York: Columbia University Press, 1961-79), 1:88.
11. See Virginia (1776), in Francis Newton Thorpe, ed., The Federal and State Constitutions, Colonial Charters, and Other Organic Laws of the States, Territories, and Colonies Now or Heretofore Forming the United States of America (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1909), 7:3813. For the various draft versions of this part of the declaration, see the Virginia Declaration of Rights, May 20-June 12, 1776, in Robert A. Rutland, ed., The Papers of George Mason, 1725-1792 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1970), 1:274-91, esp. 277, 283, and 287.
12. See Virginia (1776), in Francis Newton Thorpe, ed., The Federal and State Constitutions, Colonial Charters, and Other Organic Laws of the States, Territories, and Colonies Now or Heretofore Forming the United States of America (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1909), 7:3813. For the various draft versions of this part of the declaration, see the Virginia Declaration of Rights, May 20-June 12, 1776, in Robert A. Rutland, ed., The Papers of George Mason, 1725-1792 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1970), 1:274-91, esp. 277, 283, and 287.
13. See Massachusetts (1780), in Thorpe, ed., The Federal and State Constitutions, 3:1889.
14. See Pennsylvania (1776, 1790), Vermont (1777, 1786, 1791), and New Hampshire (1784, 1792), in Thorpe, ed., The Federal and State Constitutions, 5:3082-83, 3099; 6:3739-41, 3751-53, 3762-63; 4:2453-54, 2457, 2471-72, 2474-75.
15. See Pennsylvania (1776, 1790), Vermont (1777, 1786, 1791), and New Hampshire (1784, 1792), in Thorpe, ed., The Federal and State Constitutions, 5:3082-83, 3099; 6:3739-41, 3751-53, 3762-63; 4:2453-54, 2457, 2471-72, 2474-75.
16. See Pennsylvania (1776, 1790), Vermont (1777, 1786, 1791), and New Hampshire (1784, 1792), in Thorpe, ed., The Federal and State Constitutions, 5:3082-83, 3099; 6:3739-41, 3751-53, 3762-63; 4:2453-54, 2457, 2471-72, 2474-75.
17. See Maryland (1776), North Carolina (1776), and South Carolina (1790), in Thorpe, ed., The Federal and State Constitutions, 3:1688, 5:2788, 6:3264.
18. See Maryland (1776), North Carolina (1776), and South Carolina (1790), in Thorpe, ed., The Federal and State Constitutions, 3:1688, 5:2788, 6:3264.
19. See Maryland (1776), North Carolina (1776), and South Carolina (1790), in Thorpe, ed., The Federal and State Constitutions, 3:1688, 5:2788, 6:3264.
20. Cf. proposed amendments to the Constitution, June 8, 1789, in William T. Hutchinson, William M. E. Rachal, et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison, vol. 12, ed. Robert A. Rutland et al. (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1962-77; Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1977-), 196-211, esp. 200 and 203-4; with ratification by Rhode Island, May 29, 1790; Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 27, 1788; and North Carolina Ratifying Convention, August 1, 1788; in Jonathan Elliot, ed., The Debates in the Several State Conventions, 2d ed. (Philadelphia, PA: J. B. Lippincott, 1896), 1:334, 3:657, 4:243. Note also James Madison, Notes for a Speech in Congress, June 8, 1789, in Rutland et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison, 12:194. The amendment proposed by the three states reads as follows: "There are certain natural rights of which men, when they form a social compact, cannot deprive or divest their posterity; among which are the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."
21. Cf. proposed amendments to the Constitution, June 8, 1789, in William T. Hutchinson, William M. E. Rachal, et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison, vol. 12, ed. Robert A. Rutland et al. (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1962-77; Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1977-), 196-211, esp. 200 and 203-4; with ratification by Rhode Island, May 29, 1790; Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 27, 1788; and North Carolina Ratifying Convention, August 1, 1788; in Jonathan Elliot, ed., The Debates in the Several State Conventions, 2d ed. (Philadelphia, PA: J. B. Lippincott, 1896), 1:334, 3:657, 4:243. Note also James Madison, Notes for a Speech in Congress, June 8, 1789, in Rutland et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison, 12:194. The amendment proposed by the three states reads as follows: "There are certain natural rights of which men, when they form a social compact, cannot deprive or divest their posterity; among which are the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."
22. Cf. proposed amendments to the Constitution, June 8, 1789, in William T. Hutchinson, William M. E. Rachal, et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison, vol. 12, ed. Robert A. Rutland et al. (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1962-77; Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1977-), 196-211, esp. 200 and 203-4; with ratification by Rhode Island, May 29, 1790; Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 27, 1788; and North Carolina Ratifying Convention, August 1, 1788; in Jonathan Elliot, ed., The Debates in the Several State Conventions, 2d ed. (Philadelphia, PA: J. B. Lippincott, 1896), 1:334, 3:657, 4:243. Note also James Madison, Notes for a Speech in Congress, June 8, 1789, in Rutland et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison, 12:194. The amendment proposed by the three states reads as follows: "There are certain natural rights of which men, when they form a social compact, cannot deprive or divest their posterity; among which are the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."
23. Edward Conrad Smith, ed., The Constitution of the United States, 11th ed. (New York: Barnes and Noble Books, 1979), 49.
24. Consider Max Farrand, ed., The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1911-37), 1:147, 302, 402-3, 421-23, 428, 440, 469-70, 533-34, 541-42; 2:201-8 (June 6, 18, 25-27, and 29; July 5-6; and August 7, 1787), in light of Bernard H. Siegan, "One People As to Commercial Objects," in Ellen Frankel Paul and Howard Dickman, eds., Liberty, Property, and the Foundations of the American Constitution (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1989), 101-19. See also Marc F. Plattner, "American Democracy and the Acquisitive Spirit," in Robert A. Goldwin and William A. Schambra, eds., How Capitalistic Is the Constitution? (Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute, 1982), 1-21.
25. Consider Max Farrand, ed., The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1911-37), 1:147, 302, 402-3, 421-23, 428, 440, 469-70, 533-34, 541-42; 2:201-8 (June 6, 18, 25-27, and 29; July 5-6; and August 7, 1787), in light of Bernard H. Siegan, "One People As to Commercial Objects," in Ellen Frankel Paul and Howard Dickman, eds., Liberty, Property, and the Foundations of the American Constitution (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1989), 101-19. See also Marc F. Plattner, "American Democracy and the Acquisitive Spirit," in Robert A. Goldwin and William A. Schambra, eds., How Capitalistic Is the Constitution? (Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute, 1982), 1-21.
26. Consider Max Farrand, ed., The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1911-37), 1:147, 302, 402-3, 421-23, 428, 440, 469-70, 533-34, 541-42; 2:201-8 (June 6, 18, 25-27, and 29; July 5-6; and August 7, 1787), in light of Bernard H. Siegan, "One People As to Commercial Objects," in Ellen Frankel Paul and Howard Dickman, eds., Liberty, Property, and the Foundations of the American Constitution (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1989), 101-19. See also Marc F. Plattner, "American Democracy and the Acquisitive Spirit," in Robert A. Goldwin and William A. Schambra, eds., How Capitalistic Is the Constitution? (Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute, 1982), 1-21.
27. Consider Max Farrand, ed., The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1911-37), 1:147, 302, 402-3, 421-23, 428, 440, 469-70, 533-34, 541-42; 2:201-8 (June 6, 18, 25-27, and 29; July 5-6; and August 7, 1787), in light of Bernard H. Siegan, "One People As to Commercial Objects," in Ellen Frankel Paul and Howard Dickman, eds., Liberty, Property, and the Foundations of the American Constitution (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1989), 101-19. See also Marc F. Plattner, "American Democracy and the Acquisitive Spirit," in Robert A. Goldwin and William A. Schambra, eds., How Capitalistic Is the Constitution? (Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute, 1982), 1-21.
28. See Edward J. Erler, "The Great Fence to Liberty: The Right to Property in the American Founding," in Paul and Dickman, eds., Liberty, Property, and the Foundations of the American Constitution, 43-63.
29. Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776, in Julian P. Boyd, ed., The Papers of Thomas Jefferson (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1950-), 1:429.
30. Cf. Richard K. Matthews, The Radical Politics of Thomas Jefferson: A Revisionist View (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1984), with Jean Yarbrough, "Jefferson and Property Rights," in Paul and Dickman, eds., Liberty, Property, and the Foundations of the American Constitution, 65-83.
31. Cf. Richard K. Matthews, The Radical Politics of Thomas Jefferson: A Revisionist View (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1984), with Jean Yarbrough, "Jefferson and Property Rights," in Paul and Dickman, eds., Liberty, Property, and the Foundations of the American Constitution, 65-83.
32. See The Revisal of the Laws, June 18, 1779, Bill no. 64, A Bill for Proportioning Crimes and Punishments in Cases Heretofore Capital, in Boyd, ed., The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, 2:492-507, quotation at 492.
33. See Jeffrey Barnouw, "The Pursuit of Happiness in Jefferson and Its Background in Bacon and Hobbes," Interpretation 11, no. 2 (1983): 225-48; Barnouw errs solely in drawing an untenable distinction between Bacon and Hobbes, on the one hand, and Locke, on the other.
34. Thomas Jefferson, Second Inaugural Address, March 4, 1805, in James D. Richardson, ed., A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789-1897 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1896-99), 1:378-82, quotation at 382.
35. Thomas Jefferson to Joseph Milligan, April 8, 1816, in Andrew A. Lipscomb and Albert Ellery Bergh, eds., The Writings of Thomas Jefferson (Washington, DC: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1903), 14:456-66, quotation at 466.
36. Thomas Jefferson to Pierre Samuel du Pont de Nemours, April 24, 1816, in Paul Leicester Ford, ed., The Works of Thomas Jefferson (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1904-5), 11:519-25, quotation at 522-23.
37. Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801, in Richardson, ed. A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1:323.
38. See Farrand, ed., The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, 1:605 (July 13, 1787).
39. See Federalist No. 10 (J. Madison), in Jacob E. Cooke, ed., The Federalist (Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 1961), 58.
40. Alexander Hamilton, Report on the Subject of Manufactures, December 5, 1791, in Syrett, ed., The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, 10:254. That Hamilton favored a measure of economic intervention did not distinguish him from his fellow founders. No one opposed the Constitution's patent clause at the federal convention; no one objected to it during the ratification debates. There were, of course, subsequent disputes concerning Hamilton's program as Secretary of the Treasury, but these turned on the propriety of the particular proposals he advanced and on their constitutionality. At the state level, government intervention was much less controversial, and Madison, as president, proposed a constitutional amendment sanctioning a program of internal improvements on the part of the federal government. See Rahe, Republics Ancient and Modern, 573-747.
41. Alexander Hamilton, Report on the Subject of Manufactures, December 5, 1791, in Syrett, ed., The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, 10:254. That Hamilton favored a measure of economic intervention did not distinguish him from his fellow founders. No one opposed the Constitution's patent clause at the federal convention; no one objected to it during the ratification debates. There were, of course, subsequent disputes concerning Hamilton's program as Secretary of the Treasury, but these turned on the propriety of the particular proposals he advanced and on their constitutionality. At the state level, government intervention was much less controversial, and Madison, as president, proposed a constitutional amendment sanctioning a program of internal improvements on the part of the federal government. See Rahe, Republics Ancient and Modern, 573-747.
42. Hamilton, Report on the Subject of Manufactures, in Syrett, ed., The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, 10:255.
43. Ibid., 256.
44. James Boswell, journal entry, April 7, 1778, in George Birkbeck Hill, ed., Boswell's Life of Johnson (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1887), 3:245.
45. See Marx, Das Kapital, 1:150, 289 n. 13.
46. For Locke's acknowledgment of his debt to Bacon, see John Locke, Of the Conduct of the Understanding, sec. 1, which I cite from The Works of John Locke (London: Thomas Tegg, 1823), 3:203-89. See also John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, ed. Peter H. Nidditch (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979), bk. 4, chap. 12, sec. 12.
47. For Locke's acknowledgment of his debt to Bacon, see John Locke, Of the Conduct of the Understanding, sec. 1, which I cite from The Works of John Locke (London: Thomas Tegg, 1823), 3:203-89. See also John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, ed. Peter H. Nidditch (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979), bk. 4, chap. 12, sec. 12.
48. Cf. Sir Francis Bacon, Of the Advancement of Learning, bk. 2, chap. 21, sec. 9, in James Spedding, Robert Leslie Ellis, and Douglas Denon Heath, eds., The Works of Francis Bacon (London: Longman, 1857-74), 3:430, and Bacon, De dignitate et augmentis scientiarum, bk. 7, chap. 2, ibid., 1:729 (translated at 5:17), with Niccolò Machiavelli, Il principe, chap. 15, in Machiavelli, Tutte le opere, ed. Mario Martelli (Florence: G. C. Sansoni, 1971), 280.
49. Cf. Sir Francis Bacon, Of the Advancement of Learning, bk. 2, chap. 21, sec. 9, in James Spedding, Robert Leslie Ellis, and Douglas Denon Heath, eds., The Works of Francis Bacon (London: Longman, 1857-74), 3:430, and Bacon, De dignitate et augmentis scientiarum, bk. 7, chap. 2, ibid., 1:729 (translated at 5:17), with Niccolò Machiavelli, Il principe, chap. 15, in Machiavelli, Tutte le opere, ed. Mario Martelli (Florence: G. C. Sansoni, 1971), 280.
50. Cf. Sir Francis Bacon, Of the Advancement of Learning, bk. 2, chap. 21, sec. 9, in James Spedding, Robert Leslie Ellis, and Douglas Denon Heath, eds., The Works of Francis Bacon (London: Longman, 1857-74), 3:430, and Bacon, De dignitate et augmentis scientiarum, bk. 7, chap. 2, ibid., 1:729 (translated at 5:17), with Niccolò Machiavelli, Il principe, chap. 15, in Machiavelli, Tutte le opere, ed. Mario Martelli (Florence: G. C. Sansoni, 1971), 280.
51. Machiavelli, Discorsi sopra la prima deca di Tito Livio, bk. 1, chap. 10, in Martelli, ed., Tutte le opere, 91-93. Cf. Aristotle, Politica, 1253a29-39.
52. Machiavelli, Discorsi sopra la prima deca di Tito Livio, bk. 1, chap. 10, in Martelli, ed., Tutte le opere, 91-93. Cf. Aristotle, Politica, 1253a29-39.
53. See Bacon, Novum Organum, bk. 1, aphorism 129, in Spedding, Ellis, and Heath, eds., The Works of Francis Bacon, 1:221-23 (translated at 4:113-15). See also Bacon, Of the Advancement of Learning, bk. 1, chap. 7, sec. 1, and Bacon, De interpretation naturae, proemium, ibid., 3:301-2, and 518.
54. See Bacon, Novum Organum, bk. 1, aphorism 129, in Spedding, Ellis, and Heath, eds., The Works of Francis Bacon, 1:221-23 (translated at 4:113-15). See also Bacon, Of the Advancement of Learning, bk. 1, chap. 7, sec. 1, and Bacon, De interpretation naturae, proemium, ibid., 3:301-2, and 518.
55. See Bacon, Novum Organum, bk. 1, aphorism 129, in Spedding, Ellis, and Heath, eds., The Works of Francis Bacon, 1:221-23 (translated at 4:113-15). See also Bacon, Of the Advancement of Learning, bk. 1, chap. 7, sec. 1, and Bacon, De interpretation naturae, proemium, ibid., 3:301-2, and 518.
56. Oliver Lawson Dick, ed., Aubrey's Brief Lives (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1982), 27-28.
57. Ibid., 28.
58. Cf. Bacon, De dignitate et augmentis scientiarum, bk. 4, chap. 3, and Bacon Of the Advancement of Learning, bk. 2, chap. 11, sec. 3, in Spedding, Ellis, and Heath, eds., The Works of Francis Bacon, 1:608-9 (translated at 4:400-401), 3:381, with Gen. 1:28-30, 3:17-19, 9:1-3, and Ps. 115:16. See also Bacon, Novum Organum, bk. 2, aphorism 52, and "Valerius Terminus," chap. 1, in The Works of Francis Bacon, 1:365 (translated at 4:247-48) and 3:222-23, respectively; then, cf. Of the Advancement of Learning, bk. 1, chap. 6, sec. 8 (ibid., 3:297) with Gen. 4:17-24 and 11:6; and see Bacon, De dignitate et augmentis scientiarum, bk. 6, chap. 1, in The Works of Francis Bacon, 1:653 (translated at 4:440-41).
59. Cf. Bacon, De dignitate et augmentis scientiarum, bk. 4, chap. 3, and Bacon Of the Advancement of Learning, bk. 2, chap. 11, sec. 3, in Spedding, Ellis, and Heath, eds., The Works of Francis Bacon, 1:608-9 (translated at 4:400-401), 3:381, with Gen. 1:28-30, 3:17-19, 9:1-3, and Ps. 115:16. See also Bacon, Novum Organum, bk. 2, aphorism 52, and "Valerius Terminus," chap. 1, in The Works of Francis Bacon, 1:365 (translated at 4:247-48) and 3:222-23, respectively; then, cf. Of the Advancement of Learning, bk. 1, chap. 6, sec. 8 (ibid., 3:297) with Gen. 4:17-24 and 11:6; and see Bacon, De dignitate et augmentis scientiarum, bk. 6, chap. 1, in The Works of Francis Bacon, 1:653 (translated at 4:440-41).
60. Cf. Bacon, De dignitate et augmentis scientiarum, bk. 4, chap. 3, and Bacon Of the Advancement of Learning, bk. 2, chap. 11, sec. 3, in Spedding, Ellis, and Heath, eds., The Works of Francis Bacon, 1:608-9 (translated at 4:400-401), 3:381, with Gen. 1:28-30, 3:17-19, 9:1-3, and Ps. 115:16. See also Bacon, Novum Organum, bk. 2, aphorism 52, and "Valerius Terminus," chap. 1, in The Works of Francis Bacon, 1:365 (translated at 4:247-48) and 3:222-23, respectively; then, cf. Of the Advancement of Learning, bk. 1, chap. 6, sec. 8 (ibid., 3:297) with Gen. 4:17-24 and 11:6; and see Bacon, De dignitate et augmentis scientiarum, bk. 6, chap. 1, in The Works of Francis Bacon, 1:653 (translated at 4:440-41).
61. Cf. Bacon, De dignitate et augmentis scientiarum, bk. 4, chap. 3, and Bacon Of the Advancement of Learning, bk. 2, chap. 11, sec. 3, in Spedding, Ellis, and Heath, eds., The Works of Francis Bacon, 1:608-9 (translated at 4:400-401), 3:381, with Gen. 1:28-30, 3:17-19, 9:1-3, and Ps. 115:16. See also Bacon, Novum Organum, bk. 2, aphorism 52, and "Valerius Terminus," chap. 1, in The Works of Francis Bacon, 1:365 (translated at 4:247-48) and 3:222-23, respectively; then, cf. Of the Advancement of Learning, bk. 1, chap. 6, sec. 8 (ibid., 3:297) with Gen. 4:17-24 and 11:6; and see Bacon, De dignitate et augmentis scientiarum, bk. 6, chap. 1, in The Works of Francis Bacon, 1:653 (translated at 4:440-41).
62. Cf. Bacon, De dignitate et augmentis scientiarum, bk. 4, chap. 3, and Bacon Of the Advancement of Learning, bk. 2, chap. 11, sec. 3, in Spedding, Ellis, and Heath, eds., The Works of Francis Bacon, 1:608-9 (translated at 4:400-401), 3:381, with Gen. 1:28-30, 3:17-19, 9:1-3, and Ps. 115:16. See also Bacon, Novum Organum, bk. 2, aphorism 52, and "Valerius Terminus," chap. 1, in The Works of Francis Bacon, 1:365 (translated at 4:247-48) and 3:222-23, respectively; then, cf. Of the Advancement of Learning, bk. 1, chap. 6, sec. 8 (ibid., 3:297) with Gen. 4:17-24 and 11:6; and see Bacon, De dignitate et augmentis scientiarum, bk. 6, chap. 1, in The Works of Francis Bacon, 1:653 (translated at 4:440-41).
63. Cf. Bacon, De dignitate et augmentis scientiarum, bk. 4, chap. 3, and Bacon Of the Advancement of Learning, bk. 2, chap. 11, sec. 3, in Spedding, Ellis, and Heath, eds., The Works of Francis Bacon, 1:608-9 (translated at 4:400-401), 3:381, with Gen. 1:28-30, 3:17-19, 9:1-3, and Ps. 115:16. See also Bacon, Novum Organum, bk. 2, aphorism 52, and "Valerius Terminus," chap. 1, in The Works of Francis Bacon, 1:365 (translated at 4:247-48) and 3:222-23, respectively; then, cf. Of the Advancement of Learning, bk. 1, chap. 6, sec. 8 (ibid., 3:297) with Gen. 4:17-24 and 11:6; and see Bacon, De dignitate et augmentis scientiarum, bk. 6, chap. 1, in The Works of Francis Bacon, 1:653 (translated at 4:440-41).
64. Cf. Bacon, De dignitate et augmentis scientiarum, bk. 4, chap. 3, and Bacon Of the Advancement of Learning, bk. 2, chap. 11, sec. 3, in Spedding, Ellis, and Heath, eds., The Works of Francis Bacon, 1:608-9 (translated at 4:400-401), 3:381, with Gen. 1:28-30, 3:17-19, 9:1-3, and Ps. 115:16. See also Bacon, Novum Organum, bk. 2, aphorism 52, and "Valerius Terminus," chap. 1, in The Works of Francis Bacon, 1:365 (translated at 4:247-48) and 3:222-23, respectively; then, cf. Of the Advancement of Learning, bk. 1, chap. 6, sec. 8 (ibid., 3:297) with Gen. 4:17-24 and 11:6; and see Bacon, De dignitate et augmentis scientiarum, bk. 6, chap. 1, in The Works of Francis Bacon, 1:653 (translated at 4:440-41).
65. Cf. Bacon, De dignitate et augmentis scientiarum, bk. 4, chap. 3, and Bacon Of the Advancement of Learning, bk. 2, chap. 11, sec. 3, in Spedding, Ellis, and Heath, eds., The Works of Francis Bacon, 1:608-9 (translated at 4:400-401), 3:381, with Gen. 1:28-30, 3:17-19, 9:1-3, and Ps. 115:16. See also Bacon, Novum Organum, bk. 2, aphorism 52, and "Valerius Terminus," chap. 1, in The Works of Francis Bacon, 1:365 (translated at 4:247-48) and 3:222-23, respectively; then, cf. Of the Advancement of Learning, bk. 1, chap. 6, sec. 8 (ibid., 3:297) with Gen. 4:17-24 and 11:6; and see Bacon, De dignitate et augmentis scientiarum, bk. 6, chap. 1, in The Works of Francis Bacon, 1:653 (translated at 4:440-41).
66. Cf. Bacon, De dignitate et augmentis scientiarum, bk. 4, chap. 3, and Bacon Of the Advancement of Learning, bk. 2, chap. 11, sec. 3, in Spedding, Ellis, and Heath, eds., The Works of Francis Bacon, 1:608-9 (translated at 4:400-401), 3:381, with Gen. 1:28-30, 3:17-19, 9:1-3, and Ps. 115:16. See also Bacon, Novum Organum, bk. 2, aphorism 52, and "Valerius Terminus," chap. 1, in The Works of Francis Bacon, 1:365 (translated at 4:247-48) and 3:222-23, respectively; then, cf. Of the Advancement of Learning, bk. 1, chap. 6, sec. 8 (ibid., 3:297) with Gen. 4:17-24 and 11:6; and see Bacon, De dignitate et augmentis scientiarum, bk. 6, chap. 1, in The Works of Francis Bacon, 1:653 (translated at 4:440-41).
67. For the earlier interpretations of the critical passage, see Jeremy Cohen, "Be Fertile and Increase, Fill the Earth and Master It": The Ancient and Medieval Career of a Biblical Text (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1989).
68. See Bacon, Of the Advancement of Learning, bk. 1, chap. 5, sec. 11, in Spedding, Ellis, and Heath, eds., The Works of Francis Bacon, 3:294-95. See also Of the Advancement of Learning, bk. 2, chap. 20, sec. 1 through bk. 2, chap. 21, sec. 11 (ibid., 3:417-32).
69. See Bacon, Of the Advancement of Learning, bk. 1, chap. 5, sec. 11, in Spedding, Ellis, and Heath, eds., The Works of Francis Bacon, 3:294-95. See also Of the Advancement of Learning, bk. 2, chap. 20, sec. 1 through bk. 2, chap. 21, sec. 11 (ibid., 3:417-32).
70. See Bacon, Of the Advancement of Learning, bk. 1, chap. 5, sec. 11, in Spedding, Ellis, and Heath, eds., The Works of Francis Bacon, 3:294-95. See also Of the Advancement of Learning, bk. 2, chap. 20, sec. 1 through bk. 2, chap. 21, sec. 11 (ibid., 3:417-32).
71. For the close connection between Baconian science and the mechanical arts, see Bacon, Novum Organum, bk. 1, aphorisms 98-99, 110, 117, 129, and Bacon, Cogitata et visa de interpretation naturae, ibid., 1:202-3, 208-9, 212-13, 221-23 (translated at 4:94-95, 100-101, 104-5, 113-15), and 3:612-17.
72. For the close connection between Baconian science and the mechanical arts, see Bacon, Novum Organum, bk. 1, aphorisms 98-99, 110, 117, 129, and Bacon, Cogitata et visa de interpretation naturae, ibid., 1:202-3, 208-9, 212-13, 221-23 (translated at 4:94-95, 100-101, 104-5, 113-15), and 3:612-17.
73. For the close connection between Baconian science and the mechanical arts, see Bacon, Novum Organum, bk. 1, aphorisms 98-99, 110, 117, 129, and Bacon, Cogitata et visa de interpretation naturae, ibid., 1:202-3, 208-9, 212-13, 221-23 (translated at 4:94-95, 100-101, 104-5, 113-15), and 3:612-17.
74. Thomas Sprat, The History of the Royal Society of London, For the Improving of Natural Knowledge (London: J. Martyn, 1667), 397.
75. Thomas Babington Macaulay, "Lord Bacon," in Macaulay, Critical, Historical, and Miscellaneous Essays (New York: Sheldon and Co., 1860), 3:336-495, esp. 458-59, 463-64, and 480.
76. See Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Trumbull, February 15, 1788, in Boyd, ed., Papers of Thomas Jefferson, 14:561. See also Thomas Jefferson, letter to Benjamin Rush, January 16, 1811, in Paul Leicester Ford, ed., The Writings of Thomas Jefferson (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1892-99), 9:294-99. In the letter to Rush, Jefferson recalls a conversation with Alexander Hamilton and John Adams in which he referred to "Bacon, Newton, and Locke" as "my trinity of the three greatest men the world had ever produced." In this connection, see Silvio A. Bedini, Thomas Jefferson: Statesman of Science (New York: Macmillan, 1990). Cf. the praise bestowed on Bacon by "Poor Richard" in 1749, in Leonard W. Labaree et al., eds., The Papers of Benjamin Franklin (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1959-), 3:339, with that sub-sequently accorded him by John Adams in a letter to Jonathan Sewall in February 1760, in Robert J. Taylor, ed., Papers of John Adams (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1977-), 1:41-45, at 42-43. When Hamilton, after his retirement from office, expressed an interest in conducting "a full investigation of the history and science of civil government, and the practical results of the various modifications of it upon the freedom and happiness of mankind," he stipulated that he wanted "to have the subject treated in reference to past experience, and upon the principles of Lord Bacon's inductive philosophy." See James Kent, letter to Mrs. Elizabeth Hamilton, December 10, 1832, in William Kent, ed., Memoirs and Letters of James Kent (Boston, MA: Little, Brown, and Co., 1898), 281-331, quotation at 327-28.
77. See Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Trumbull, February 15, 1788, in Boyd, ed., Papers of Thomas Jefferson, 14:561. See also Thomas Jefferson, letter to Benjamin Rush, January 16, 1811, in Paul Leicester Ford, ed., The Writings of Thomas Jefferson (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1892-99), 9:294-99. In the letter to Rush, Jefferson recalls a conversation with Alexander Hamilton and John Adams in which he referred to "Bacon, Newton, and Locke" as "my trinity of the three greatest men the world had ever produced." In this connection, see Silvio A. Bedini, Thomas Jefferson: Statesman of Science (New York: Macmillan, 1990). Cf. the praise bestowed on Bacon by "Poor Richard" in 1749, in Leonard W. Labaree et al., eds., The Papers of Benjamin Franklin (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1959-), 3:339, with that sub-sequently accorded him by John Adams in a letter to Jonathan Sewall in February 1760, in Robert J. Taylor, ed., Papers of John Adams (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1977-), 1:41-45, at 42-43. When Hamilton, after his retirement from office, expressed an interest in conducting "a full investigation of the history and science of civil government, and the practical results of the various modifications of it upon the freedom and happiness of mankind," he stipulated that he wanted "to have the subject treated in reference to past experience, and upon the principles of Lord Bacon's inductive philosophy." See James Kent, letter to Mrs. Elizabeth Hamilton, December 10, 1832, in William Kent, ed., Memoirs and Letters of James Kent (Boston, MA: Little, Brown, and Co., 1898), 281-331, quotation at 327-28.
78. See Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Trumbull, February 15, 1788, in Boyd, ed., Papers of Thomas Jefferson, 14:561. See also Thomas Jefferson, letter to Benjamin Rush, January 16, 1811, in Paul Leicester Ford, ed., The Writings of Thomas Jefferson (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1892-99), 9:294-99. In the letter to Rush, Jefferson recalls a conversation with Alexander Hamilton and John Adams in which he referred to "Bacon, Newton, and Locke" as "my trinity of the three greatest men the world had ever produced." In this connection, see Silvio A. Bedini, Thomas Jefferson: Statesman of Science (New York: Macmillan, 1990). Cf. the praise bestowed on Bacon by "Poor Richard" in 1749, in Leonard W. Labaree et al., eds., The Papers of Benjamin Franklin (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1959-), 3:339, with that sub-sequently accorded him by John Adams in a letter to Jonathan Sewall in February 1760, in Robert J. Taylor, ed., Papers of John Adams (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1977-), 1:41-45, at 42-43. When Hamilton, after his retirement from office, expressed an interest in conducting "a full investigation of the history and science of civil government, and the practical results of the various modifications of it upon the freedom and happiness of mankind," he stipulated that he wanted "to have the subject treated in reference to past experience, and upon the principles of Lord Bacon's inductive philosophy." See James Kent, letter to Mrs. Elizabeth Hamilton, December 10, 1832, in William Kent, ed., Memoirs and Letters of James Kent (Boston, MA: Little, Brown, and Co., 1898), 281-331, quotation at 327-28.
79. See Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Trumbull, February 15, 1788, in Boyd, ed., Papers of Thomas Jefferson, 14:561. See also Thomas Jefferson, letter to Benjamin Rush, January 16, 1811, in Paul Leicester Ford, ed., The Writings of Thomas Jefferson (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1892-99), 9:294-99. In the letter to Rush, Jefferson recalls a conversation with Alexander Hamilton and John Adams in which he referred to "Bacon, Newton, and Locke" as "my trinity of the three greatest men the world had ever produced." In this connection, see Silvio A. Bedini, Thomas Jefferson: Statesman of Science (New York: Macmillan, 1990). Cf. the praise bestowed on Bacon by "Poor Richard" in 1749, in Leonard W. Labaree et al., eds., The Papers of Benjamin Franklin (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1959-), 3:339, with that sub-sequently accorded him by John Adams in a letter to Jonathan Sewall in February 1760, in Robert J. Taylor, ed., Papers of John Adams (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1977-), 1:41-45, at 42-43. When Hamilton, after his retirement from office, expressed an interest in conducting "a full investigation of the history and science of civil government, and the practical results of the various modifications of it upon the freedom and happiness of mankind," he stipulated that he wanted "to have the subject treated in reference to past experience, and upon the principles of Lord Bacon's inductive philosophy." See James Kent, letter to Mrs. Elizabeth Hamilton, December 10, 1832, in William Kent, ed., Memoirs and Letters of James Kent (Boston, MA: Little, Brown, and Co., 1898), 281-331, quotation at 327-28.
80. See Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Trumbull, February 15, 1788, in Boyd, ed., Papers of Thomas Jefferson, 14:561. See also Thomas Jefferson, letter to Benjamin Rush, January 16, 1811, in Paul Leicester Ford, ed., The Writings of Thomas Jefferson (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1892-99), 9:294-99. In the letter to Rush, Jefferson recalls a conversation with Alexander Hamilton and John Adams in which he referred to "Bacon, Newton, and Locke" as "my trinity of the three greatest men the world had ever produced." In this connection, see Silvio A. Bedini, Thomas Jefferson: Statesman of Science (New York: Macmillan, 1990). Cf. the praise bestowed on Bacon by "Poor Richard" in 1749, in Leonard W. Labaree et al., eds., The Papers of Benjamin Franklin (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1959-), 3:339, with that sub-sequently accorded him by John Adams in a letter to Jonathan Sewall in February 1760, in Robert J. Taylor, ed., Papers of John Adams (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1977-), 1:41-45, at 42-43. When Hamilton, after his retirement from office, expressed an interest in conducting "a full investigation of the history and science of civil government, and the practical results of the various modifications of it upon the freedom and happiness of mankind," he stipulated that he wanted "to have the subject treated in reference to past experience, and upon the principles of Lord Bacon's inductive philosophy." See James Kent, letter to Mrs. Elizabeth Hamilton, December 10, 1832, in William Kent, ed., Memoirs and Letters of James Kent (Boston, MA: Little, Brown, and Co., 1898), 281-331, quotation at 327-28.
81. See Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Trumbull, February 15, 1788, in Boyd, ed., Papers of Thomas Jefferson, 14:561. See also Thomas Jefferson, letter to Benjamin Rush, January 16, 1811, in Paul Leicester Ford, ed., The Writings of Thomas Jefferson (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1892-99), 9:294-99. In the letter to Rush, Jefferson recalls a conversation with Alexander Hamilton and John Adams in which he referred to "Bacon, Newton, and Locke" as "my trinity of the three greatest men the world had ever produced." In this connection, see Silvio A. Bedini, Thomas Jefferson: Statesman of Science (New York: Macmillan, 1990). Cf. the praise bestowed on Bacon by "Poor Richard" in 1749, in Leonard W. Labaree et al., eds., The Papers of Benjamin Franklin (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1959-), 3:339, with that sub-sequently accorded him by John Adams in a letter to Jonathan Sewall in February 1760, in Robert J. Taylor, ed., Papers of John Adams (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1977-), 1:41-45, at 42-43. When Hamilton, after his retirement from office, expressed an interest in conducting "a full investigation of the history and science of civil government, and the practical results of the various modifications of it upon the freedom and happiness of mankind," he stipulated that he wanted "to have the subject treated in reference to past experience, and upon the principles of Lord Bacon's inductive philosophy." See James Kent, letter to Mrs. Elizabeth Hamilton, December 10, 1832, in William Kent, ed., Memoirs and Letters of James Kent (Boston, MA: Little, Brown, and Co., 1898), 281-331, quotation at 327-28.
82. See James Madison, "Spirit of Governments," for The National Gazette, February 18, 1792, in Rutland, et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison, 14:233-34.
83. Cf. John Dunn, "The Politics of Locke in England and America in the Eighteenth Century," in John W. Yolton, ed., John Locke: Problems and Perspectives: A Collection of New Essays (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969), 45-80, who makes the point but overstates the case, with Steven M. Dworetz, The Unvarnished Doctrine: Locke, Liberalism, and the American Revolution (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1990), who gives a more balanced account.
84. Cf. John Dunn, "The Politics of Locke in England and America in the Eighteenth Century," in John W. Yolton, ed., John Locke: Problems and Perspectives: A Collection of New Essays (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969), 45-80, who makes the point but overstates the case, with Steven M. Dworetz, The Unvarnished Doctrine: Locke, Liberalism, and the American Revolution (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1990), who gives a more balanced account.
85. John Locke to Richard King, August 25, 1703, in Esmond S. de Beer, ed., The Correspondence of John Locke (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976-89), 8:56-59, esp. 58.
86. See John Locke, Two Treatises of Government: A Critical Edition with an Introduction and Apparatus Criticus, 2d ed., ed. Peter Laslett (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970), Second Treatise, chaps. 4-5, which constitute the fifteenth and sixteenth chapters of the thirty contained in the work as a whole. Chapter 5, "Of Property," in the Second Treatise thus stands as the centerpiece of the work. In citing the Two Treatises of Government, I have used this Laslett edition, adopting the corrections suggested by Nathan Tarcov, Locke's Education for Liberty (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1984), 229-30 n. 324, and 253-54 n. 187.
87. See John Locke, Two Treatises of Government: A Critical Edition with an Introduction and Apparatus Criticus, 2d ed., ed. Peter Laslett (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970), Second Treatise, chaps. 4-5, which constitute the fifteenth and sixteenth chapters of the thirty contained in the work as a whole. Chapter 5, "Of Property," in the Second Treatise thus stands as the centerpiece of the work. In citing the Two Treatises of Government, I have used this Laslett edition, adopting the corrections suggested by Nathan Tarcov, Locke's Education for Liberty (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1984), 229-30 n. 324, and 253-54 n. 187.
88. See John Locke, Two Treatises of Government: A Critical Edition with an Introduction and Apparatus Criticus, 2d ed., ed. Peter Laslett (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970), Second Treatise, chaps. 4-5, which constitute the fifteenth and sixteenth chapters of the thirty contained in the work as a whole. Chapter 5, "Of Property," in the Second Treatise thus stands as the centerpiece of the work. In citing the Two Treatises of Government, I have used this Laslett edition, adopting the corrections suggested by Nathan Tarcov, Locke's Education for Liberty (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1984), 229-30 n. 324, and 253-54 n. 187.
89. For a defense of this approach, see Paul A. Rahe, "John Locke's Philosophical Partisanship," The Political Science Reviewer 20 (1991): 1-43. For a more elaborate discussion, see Michael P. Zuckert, Launching Liberalism: On Lockean Political Philosophy (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2002), 25-126.
90. For a defense of this approach, see Paul A. Rahe, "John Locke's Philosophical Partisanship," The Political Science Reviewer 20 (1991): 1-43. For a more elaborate discussion, see Michael P. Zuckert, Launching Liberalism: On Lockean Political Philosophy (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2002), 25-126.
91. See Locke, Two Treatises of Government, Second Treatise, chap. 9, sec. 127.
92. Ibid., chap. 5, sec. 28.
93. Ibid., sec. 29.
94. I b i d.
95. Ibid., sec. 25.
96. Ibid., sec. 26.
97. I b i d.
98. Ibid., sec. 31.
99. Cf. ibid, with 1 Tim. 6:1-18.
100. Consider Two Treatises of Government, First Treatise, chap. 4, sec. 41, in light of a later passage in chap. 5, secs. 45-46. It may not be fortuitous that Locke begins the First Treatise with the word "Slavery" and ends it with "Adam" and that the central chapters of his tract as a whole deal with slavery and property: see First Treatise, chap. 1, sec. 1; chap. 11, sec. 169; and Second Treatise, chaps. 4-5. The First Treatise deserves more attention than it has been accorded: see, for a start, Zuckert, Launching Liberalism, 129-46; and Thomas L. Pangle, The Spirit of Modern Republicanism: The Moral Vision of the American Founders and the Philosophy of Locke (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1988), 131-275.
101. Consider Two Treatises of Government, First Treatise, chap. 4, sec. 41, in light of a later passage in chap. 5, secs. 45-46. It may not be fortuitous that Locke begins the First Treatise with the word "Slavery" and ends it with "Adam" and that the central chapters of his tract as a whole deal with slavery and property: see First Treatise, chap. 1, sec. 1; chap. 11, sec. 169; and Second Treatise, chaps. 4-5. The First Treatise deserves more attention than it has been accorded: see, for a start, Zuckert, Launching Liberalism, 129-46; and Thomas L. Pangle, The Spirit of Modern Republicanism: The Moral Vision of the American Founders and the Philosophy of Locke (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1988), 131-275.
102. Consider Two Treatises of Government, First Treatise, chap. 4, sec. 41, in light of a later passage in chap. 5, secs. 45-46. It may not be fortuitous that Locke begins the First Treatise with the word "Slavery" and ends it with "Adam" and that the central chapters of his tract as a whole deal with slavery and property: see First Treatise, chap. 1, sec. 1; chap. 11, sec. 169; and Second Treatise, chaps. 4-5. The First Treatise deserves more attention than it has been accorded: see, for a start, Zuckert, Launching Liberalism, 129-46; and Thomas L. Pangle, The Spirit of Modern Republicanism: The Moral Vision of the American Founders and the Philosophy of Locke (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1988), 131-275.
103. Cf. 1 Tim. 6:1-18 and Luke 12:15-34 with Locke, Two Treatises of Government, Second Treatise, chap. 5, secs. 32 and 35.
104. Locke, Two Treatises of Government, Second Treatise, chap. 5, secs. 36-37 and 40-45.
105. Cf. Marcus Tullius Cicero, De finibus bonorum et malorum libri quinque, ed. L. D. Reynolds (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), 3.20.67; Lucius Annaeus Seneca, De beneficiis (Pisa: Giardini, 1982), 7.12.3-6; Hugo Grotius, De iure belli ac pacis libri tres, ed. P. C. Molhuysen (Lugduni Batavorum: A. W. Sijthoff, 1919), II.ii.2; and John Locke, Questions Concerning the Law of Nature, ed. and trans. Robert Horwitz, Jenny Strauss Clay, and Diskin Clay (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1990), question XI, folio 112, In. 7, through folio 113, In. 11; and consider Lev. 3:16-17 and 17:10-14 in light of Lev. 25:23 and Num. 11.
106. Cf. Marcus Tullius Cicero, De finibus bonorum et malorum libri quinque, ed. L. D. Reynolds (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), 3.20.67; Lucius Annaeus Seneca, De beneficiis (Pisa: Giardini, 1982), 7.12.3-6; Hugo Grotius, De iure belli ac pacis libri tres, ed. P. C. Molhuysen (Lugduni Batavorum: A. W. Sijthoff, 1919), II.ii.2; and John Locke, Questions Concerning the Law of Nature, ed. and trans. Robert Horwitz, Jenny Strauss Clay, and Diskin Clay (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1990), question XI, folio 112, In. 7, through folio 113, In. 11; and consider Lev. 3:16-17 and 17:10-14 in light of Lev. 25:23 and Num. 11.
107. Cf. Marcus Tullius Cicero, De finibus bonorum et malorum libri quinque, ed. L. D. Reynolds (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), 3.20.67; Lucius Annaeus Seneca, De beneficiis (Pisa: Giardini, 1982), 7.12.3-6; Hugo Grotius, De iure belli ac pacis libri tres, ed. P. C. Molhuysen (Lugduni Batavorum: A. W. Sijthoff, 1919), II.ii.2; and John Locke, Questions Concerning the Law of Nature, ed. and trans. Robert Horwitz, Jenny Strauss Clay, and Diskin Clay (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1990), question XI, folio 112, In. 7, through folio 113, In. 11; and consider Lev. 3:16-17 and 17:10-14 in light of Lev. 25:23 and Num. 11.
108. Cf. Marcus Tullius Cicero, De finibus bonorum et malorum libri quinque, ed. L. D. Reynolds (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), 3.20.67; Lucius Annaeus Seneca, De beneficiis (Pisa: Giardini, 1982), 7.12.3-6; Hugo Grotius, De iure belli ac pacis libri tres, ed. P. C. Molhuysen (Lugduni Batavorum: A. W. Sijthoff, 1919), II.ii.2; and John Locke, Questions Concerning the Law of Nature, ed. and trans. Robert Horwitz, Jenny Strauss Clay, and Diskin Clay (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1990), question XI, folio 112, In. 7, through folio 113, In. 11; and consider Lev. 3:16-17 and 17:10-14 in light of Lev. 25:23 and Num. 11.
109. The precise date of composition remains and is likely to remain in dispute. The arguments for dating Locke's completion of the original draft to the period immediately follow ing the first publication of Robert Filmer's Patriarcha in 1680 were advanced by Peter Laslett in "The English Revolution and Locke's Two Treatises of Government," Cambridge Historical Journal 12, no. 1 (1956): 40-55, and then further developed in Laslett's introduction to Locke, Two Treatises of Government, 45-66. The arguments were further refined and given a new twist by Richard Ashcraft, in Ashcraft, "Revolutionary Politics and Locke's Two Treatises of Government: Radicalism and Lockean Political Theory," Political Theory 8, no. 4 (1980): 429-86, and Richard Ashcraft, Locke's Two Treatises of Government (London: Allen and Unwin, 1987), 286-97. Laslett was not persuaded by all of Ashcraft's refinements: see Peter Laslett, addendum to introduction, 1987, in John Locke, Two Treatises of Government, student edition, ed. Peter Laslett (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 123-26. Since that time, other authors have entered the fray: see Mark Goldie, introduction to John Locke, Two Treatises of Government, ed. Mark Goldie (London: J. M. Dent, 1993), xix-xxi; David Wootton, introduction to John Locke, Political Writings of John Locke, ed. David Wootton (New York: Mentor, 1993), 7-122, esp. 49-64; and John Marshall, John Locke: Resistance, Religion, and Responsibility (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 205-91, esp. 222-65. In no way does this ongoing dispute affect my argument.
110. The precise date of composition remains and is likely to remain in dispute. The arguments for dating Locke's completion of the original draft to the period immediately follow ing the first publication of Robert Filmer's Patriarcha in 1680 were advanced by Peter Laslett in "The English Revolution and Locke's Two Treatises of Government," Cambridge Historical Journal 12, no. 1 (1956): 40-55, and then further developed in Laslett's introduction to Locke, Two Treatises of Government, 45-66. The arguments were further refined and given a new twist by Richard Ashcraft, in Ashcraft, "Revolutionary Politics and Locke's Two Treatises of Government: Radicalism and Lockean Political Theory," Political Theory 8, no. 4 (1980): 429-86, and Richard Ashcraft, Locke's Two Treatises of Government (London: Allen and Unwin, 1987), 286-97. Laslett was not persuaded by all of Ashcraft's refinements: see Peter Laslett, addendum to introduction, 1987, in John Locke, Two Treatises of Government, student edition, ed. Peter Laslett (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 123-26. Since that time, other authors have entered the fray: see Mark Goldie, introduction to John Locke, Two Treatises of Government, ed. Mark Goldie (London: J. M. Dent, 1993), xix-xxi; David Wootton, introduction to John Locke, Political Writings of John Locke, ed. David Wootton (New York: Mentor, 1993), 7-122, esp. 49-64; and John Marshall, John Locke: Resistance, Religion, and Responsibility (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 205-91, esp. 222-65. In no way does this ongoing dispute affect my argument.
111. The precise date of composition remains and is likely to remain in dispute. The arguments for dating Locke's completion of the original draft to the period immediately follow ing the first publication of Robert Filmer's Patriarcha in 1680 were advanced by Peter Laslett in "The English Revolution and Locke's Two Treatises of Government," Cambridge Historical Journal 12, no. 1 (1956): 40-55, and then further developed in Laslett's introduction to Locke, Two Treatises of Government, 45-66. The arguments were further refined and given a new twist by Richard Ashcraft, in Ashcraft, "Revolutionary Politics and Locke's Two Treatises of Government: Radicalism and Lockean Political Theory," Political Theory 8, no. 4 (1980): 429-86, and Richard Ashcraft, Locke's Two Treatises of Government (London: Allen and Unwin, 1987), 286-97. Laslett was not persuaded by all of Ashcraft's refinements: see Peter Laslett, addendum to introduction, 1987, in John Locke, Two Treatises of Government, student edition, ed. Peter Laslett (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 123-26. Since that time, other authors have entered the fray: see Mark Goldie, introduction to John Locke, Two Treatises of Government, ed. Mark Goldie (London: J. M. Dent, 1993), xix-xxi; David Wootton, introduction to John Locke, Political Writings of John Locke, ed. David Wootton (New York: Mentor, 1993), 7-122, esp. 49-64; and John Marshall, John Locke: Resistance, Religion, and Responsibility (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 205-91, esp. 222-65. In no way does this ongoing dispute affect my argument.
112. The precise date of composition remains and is likely to remain in dispute. The arguments for dating Locke's completion of the original draft to the period immediately follow ing the first publication of Robert Filmer's Patriarcha in 1680 were advanced by Peter Laslett in "The English Revolution and Locke's Two Treatises of Government," Cambridge Historical Journal 12, no. 1 (1956): 40-55, and then further developed in Laslett's introduction to Locke, Two Treatises of Government, 45-66. The arguments were
113. The precise date of composition remains and is likely to remain in dispute. The arguments for dating Locke's completion of the original draft to the period immediately follow ing the first publication of Robert Filmer's Patriarcha in 1680 were advanced by Peter Laslett in "The English Revolution and Locke's Two Treatises of Government," Cambridge Historical Journal 12, no. 1 (1956): 40-55, and then further developed in Laslett's introduction to Locke, Two Treatises of Government, 45-66. The arguments were further refined and given a new twist by Richard Ashcraft, in Ashcraft, "Revolutionary Politics and Locke's Two Treatises of Government: Radicalism and Lockean Political Theory," Political Theory 8, no. 4 (1980): 429-86, and Richard Ashcraft, Locke's Two Treatises of Government (London: Allen and Unwin, 1987), 286-97. Laslett was not persuaded by all of Ashcraft's refinements: see Peter Laslett, addendum to introduction, 1987, in John Locke, Two Treatises of Government, student edition, ed. Peter Laslett (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 123-26. Since that time, other authors have entered the fray: see Mark Goldie, introduction to John Locke, Two Treatises of Government, ed. Mark Goldie (London: J. M. Dent, 1993), xix-xxi; David Wootton, introduction to John Locke, Political Writings of John Locke, ed. David Wootton (New York: Mentor, 1993), 7-122, esp. 49-64; and John Marshall, John Locke: Resistance, Religion, and Responsibility (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 205-91, esp. 222-65. In no way does this ongoing dispute affect my argument.
114. The precise date of composition remains and is likely to remain in dispute. The arguments for dating Locke's completion of the original draft to the period immediately follow ing the first publication of Robert Filmer's Patriarcha in 1680 were advanced by Peter Laslett in "The English Revolution and Locke's Two Treatises of Government," Cambridge Historical Journal 12, no. 1 (1956): 40-55, and then further developed in Laslett's introduction to Locke, Two Treatises of Government, 45-66. The arguments were further refined and given a new twist by Richard Ashcraft, in Ashcraft, "Revolutionary Politics and Locke's Two Treatises of Government: Radicalism and Lockean Political Theory," Political Theory 8, no. 4 (1980): 429-86, and Richard Ashcraft, Locke's Two Treatises of Government (London: Allen and Unwin, 1987), 286-97. Laslett was not persuaded by all of Ashcraft's refinements: see Peter Laslett, addendum to introduction, 1987, in John Locke, Two Treatises of Government, student edition, ed. Peter Laslett (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 123-26. Since that time, other authors have entered the fray: see Mark Goldie, introduction to John Locke, Two Treatises of Government, ed. Mark Goldie (London: J. M. Dent, 1993), xix-xxi; David Wootton, introduction to John Locke, Political Writings of John Locke, ed. David Wootton (New York: Mentor, 1993), 7-122, esp. 49-64; and John Marshall, John Locke: Resistance, Religion, and Responsibility (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 205-91, esp. 222-65. In no way does this ongoing dispute affect my argument.
115. The precise date of composition remains and is likely to remain in dispute. The arguments for dating Locke's completion of the original draft to the period immediately follow ing the first publication of Robert Filmer's Patriarcha in 1680 were advanced by Peter Laslett in "The English Revolution and Locke's Two Treatises of Government," Cambridge Historical Journal 12, no. 1 (1956): 40-55, and then further developed in Laslett's introduction to Locke, Two Treatises of Government, 45-66. The arguments were further refined and given a new twist by Richard Ashcraft, in Ashcraft, "Revolutionary Politics and Locke's Two Treatises of Government: Radicalism and Lockean Political Theory," Political Theory 8, no. 4 (1980): 429-86, and Richard Ashcraft, Locke's Two Treatises of Government (London: Allen and Unwin, 1987), 286-97. Laslett was not persuaded by all of Ashcraft's refinements: see Peter Laslett, addendum to introduction, 1987, in John Locke, Two Treatises of Government, student edition, ed. Peter Laslett (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 123-26. Since that time, other authors have entered the fray: see Mark Goldie, introduction to John Locke, Two Treatises of Government, ed. Mark Goldie (London: J. M. Dent, 1993), xix-xxi; David Wootton, introduction to John Locke, Political Writings of John Locke, ed. David Wootton (New York: Mentor, 1993), 7-122, esp. 49-64; and John Marshall, John Locke: Resistance, Religion, and Responsibility (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 205-91, esp. 222-65. In no way does this ongoing dispute affect my argument.
116. The precise date of composition remains and is likely to remain in dispute. The arguments for dating Locke's completion of the original draft to the period immediately follow ing the first publication of Robert Filmer's Patriarcha in 1680 were advanced by Peter Laslett in "The English Revolution and Locke's Two Treatises of Government," Cambridge Historical Journal 12, no. 1 (1956): 40-55, and then further developed in Laslett's introduction to Locke, Two Treatises of Government, 45-66. The arguments were further refined and given a new twist by Richard Ashcraft, in Ashcraft, "Revolutionary Politics and Locke's Two Treatises of Government: Radicalism and Lockean Political Theory," Political Theory 8, no. 4 (1980): 429-86, and Richard Ashcraft, Locke's Two Treatises of Government (London: Allen and Unwin, 1987), 286-97. Laslett was not persuaded by all of Ashcraft's refinements: see Peter Laslett, addendum to introduction, 1987, in John Locke, Two Treatises of Government, student edition, ed. Peter Laslett (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 123-26. Since that time, other authors have entered the fray: see Mark Goldie, introduction to John Locke, Two Treatises of Government, ed. Mark Goldie (London: J. M. Dent, 1993), xix-xxi; David Wootton, introduction to John Locke, Political Writings of John Locke, ed. David Wootton (New York: Mentor, 1993), 7-122, esp. 49-64; and John Marshall, John Locke: Resistance, Religion, and Responsibility (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 205-91, esp. 222-65. In no way does this ongoing dispute affect my argument.
117. See Locke's journal, February 8, 1677, "Understanding," in R. I. Aaron and Jocelyn Gibb, eds., An Early Draft of Locke's Essay Together with Excerpts from His Journals (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1936), 84-86.
118. Cf. Locke, Two Treatises of Government, Second Treatise, chap. 5, secs. 32 and 42-45, with 1 Tim. 6:1-18 and Luke 12:15-34.
119. Locke, Two Treatises of Government, Second Treatise, chap. 5, sec. 27.
120. Ibid., secs. 26-28, 32, 35-37, 41-42, and 44-45. See Harvey C. Mansfield, Jr., "On the Political Character of Property in Locke," in Alkis Kontos, ed., Powers, Possessions, and Freedom: Essays in Honour of C. B. Macpherson (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1979), 23-38. In his notebooks, Locke wrote, "We ought to look on it as a mark of goodness in god that he has put us in this life under a necessity of labor." See Locke, Commonplace Book, 1661 (p. 310, manuscript in the collection of Arthur J. Houghton, Jr.), quoted in John Dunn, The Political Thought of John Locke: An Historical Account of the Argument of the 'Two Treatises of Government' (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969), 232 n. 3.
121. Ibid., secs. 26-28, 32, 35-37, 41-42, and 44-45. See Harvey C. Mansfield, Jr., "On the Political Character of Property in Locke," in Alkis Kontos, ed., Powers, Possessions, and Freedom: Essays in Honour of C. B. Macpherson (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1979), 23-38. In his notebooks, Locke wrote, "We ought to look on it as a mark of goodness in god that he has put us in this life under a necessity of labor." See Locke, Commonplace Book, 1661 (p. 310, manuscript in the collection of Arthur J. Houghton, Jr.), quoted in John Dunn, The Political Thought of John Locke: An Historical Account of the Argument of the 'Two Treatises of Government' (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969), 232 n. 3.
122. Ibid., secs. 26-28, 32, 35-37, 41-42, and 44-45. See Harvey C. Mansfield, Jr., "On the Political Character of Property in Locke," in Alkis Kontos, ed., Powers, Possessions, and Freedom: Essays in Honour of C. B. Macpherson (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1979), 23-38. In his notebooks, Locke wrote, "We ought to look on it as a mark of goodness in god that he has put us in this life under a necessity of labor." See Locke, Commonplace Book, 1661 (p. 310, manuscript in the collection of Arthur J. Houghton, Jr.), quoted in John Dunn, The Political Thought of John Locke: An Historical Account of the Argument of the 'Two Treatises of Government' (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969), 232 n. 3.
123. Ibid., secs. 26-28, 32, 35-37, 41-42, and 44-45. See Harvey C. Mansfield, Jr., "On the Political Character of Property in Locke," in Alkis Kontos, ed., Powers, Possessions, and Freedom: Essays in Honour of C. B. Macpherson (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1979), 23-38. In his notebooks, Locke wrote, "We ought to look on it as a mark of goodness in god that he has put us in this life under a necessity of labor." See Locke, Commonplace Book, 1661 (p. 310, manuscript in the collection of Arthur J. Houghton, Jr.), quoted in John Dunn, The Political Thought of John Locke: An Historical Account of the Argument of the 'Two Treatises of Government' (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969), 232 n. 3.
124. Locke, Two Treatises of Government, Second Treatise, chap. 5, secs. 33, 36-37, and 46.
125. Ibid., secs. 36-37 and 46-50.
126. For the relationship between Locke's thinking and that of the agricultural improvers inspired by Bacon, see Neal Wood, John Locke and Agrarian Capitalism (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984), 15-114. It would be a mistake, however, to suppose that Locke's program of improvement was strictly agricultural: see J. E. Parsons, Jr., "Locke's Doctrine of Property," in Parsons, Essays in Political Philosophy (Washington, DC: University Press of America, 1982), 127-54. See also Patrick Kelly, "All Things Richly to Enjoy": Economics and Politics in Locke's Two Treatises of Government," Political Studies 36, no. 2 (1988): 273-93.
127. For the relationship between Locke's thinking and that of the agricultural improvers inspired by Bacon, see Neal Wood, John Locke and Agrarian Capitalism (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984), 15-114. It would be a mistake, however, to suppose that Locke's program of improvement was strictly agricultural: see J. E. Parsons, Jr., "Locke's Doctrine of Property," in Parsons, Essays in Political Philosophy (Washington, DC: University Press of America, 1982), 127-54. See also Patrick Kelly, "All Things Richly to Enjoy": Economics and Politics in Locke's Two Treatises of Government," Political Studies 36, no. 2 (1988): 273-93.
128. For the relationship between Locke's thinking and that of the agricultural improvers inspired by Bacon, see Neal Wood, John Locke and Agrarian Capitalism (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984), 15-114. It would be a mistake, however, to suppose that Locke's program of improvement was strictly agricultural: see J. E. Parsons, Jr., "Locke's Doctrine of Property," in Parsons, Essays in Political Philosophy (Washington, DC: University Press of America, 1982), 127-54. See also Patrick Kelly, "All Things Richly to Enjoy": Economics and Politics in Locke's Two Treatises of Government," Political Studies 36, no. 2 (1988): 273-93.
129. Locke, Two Treatises of Government, Second Treatise, chap. 5, sec. 37.
130. Ibid., sec. 41. Consider ibid., secs. 33, 36-37, 40-43, and 46-50, in light of John Locke, Some Considerations of the Consequences of Lowering the Interest and Raising the Value of Money, in The Works of John Locke, 5:40; note Bacon, Novum Organum, bk. 1, aphorism 129, in Spedding, Ellis, and Heath, eds., The Works of Francis Bacon, 1:221-22 (translated at 4:114); and see Leo Strauss, Natural Right and History (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1974), 234-51. C. B. Macpherson's otherwise admirable exposition of the fifth chapter of the Second Treatise is marred by his inability to distinguish labor at subsistence wages from slavery: cf. C. B. Macpherson, The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism: Hobbes to Locke (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962), 203-14, with Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, bk. 2, chap. 21, secs. 45-50; and see Locke, Two Treatises of Government, First Treatise, chap. 5, secs. 42-43.
131. Ibid., sec. 41. Consider ibid., secs. 33, 36-37, 40-43, and 46-50, in light of John Locke, Some Considerations of the Consequences of Lowering the Interest and Raising the Value of Money, in The Works of John Locke, 5:40; note Bacon, Novum Organum, bk. 1, aphorism 129, in Spedding, Ellis, and Heath, eds., The Works of Francis Bacon, 1:221-22 (translated at 4:114); and see Leo Strauss, Natural Right and History (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1974), 234-51. C. B. Macpherson's otherwise admirable exposition of the fifth chapter of the Second Treatise is marred by his inability to distinguish labor at subsistence wages from slavery: cf. C. B. Macpherson, The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism: Hobbes to Locke (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962), 203-14, with Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, bk. 2, chap. 21, secs. 45-50; and see Locke, Two Treatises of Government, First Treatise, chap. 5, secs. 42-43.
132. Ibid., sec. 41. Consider ibid., secs. 33, 36-37, 40-43, and 46-50, in light of John Locke, Some Considerations of the Consequences of Lowering the Interest and Raising the Value of Money, in The Works of John Locke, 5:40; note Bacon, Novum Organum, bk. 1, aphorism 129, in Spedding, Ellis, and Heath, eds., The Works of Francis Bacon, 1:221-22 (translated at 4:114); and see Leo Strauss, Natural Right and History (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1974), 234-51. C. B. Macpherson's otherwise admirable exposition of the fifth chapter of the Second Treatise is marred by his inability to distinguish labor at subsistence wages from slavery: cf. C. B. Macpherson, The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism: Hobbes to Locke (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962), 203-14, with Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, bk. 2, chap. 21, secs. 45-50; and see Locke, Two Treatises of Government, First Treatise, chap. 5, secs. 42-43.
133. Ibid., sec. 41. Consider ibid., secs. 33, 36-37, 40-43, and 46-50, in light of John Locke, Some Considerations of the Consequences of Lowering the Interest and Raising the Value of Money, in The Works of John Locke, 5:40; note Bacon, Novum Organum, bk. 1, aphorism 129, in Spedding, Ellis, and Heath, eds., The Works of Francis Bacon, 1:221-22 (translated at 4:114); and see Leo Strauss, Natural Right and History (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1974), 234-51. C. B. Macpherson's otherwise admirable exposition of the fifth chapter of the Second Treatise is marred by his inability to distinguish labor at subsistence wages from slavery: cf. C. B. Macpherson, The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism: Hobbes to Locke (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962), 203-14, with Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, bk. 2, chap. 21, secs. 45-50; and see Locke, Two Treatises of Government, First Treatise, chap. 5, secs. 42-43.
134. Ibid., sec. 41. Consider ibid., secs. 33, 36-37, 40-43, and 46-50, in light of John Locke, Some Considerations of the Consequences of Lowering the Interest and Raising the Value of Money, in The Works of John Locke, 5:40; note Bacon, Novum Organum, bk. 1, aphorism 129, in Spedding, Ellis, and Heath, eds., The Works of Francis Bacon, 1:221-22 (translated at 4:114); and see Leo Strauss, Natural Right and History (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1974), 234-51. C. B. Macpherson's otherwise admirable exposition of the fifth chapter of the Second Treatise is marred by his inability to distinguish labor at subsistence wages from slavery: cf. C. B. Macpherson, The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism: Hobbes to Locke (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962), 203-14, with Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, bk. 2, chap. 21, secs. 45-50; and see Locke, Two Treatises of Government, First Treatise, chap. 5, secs. 42-43.
135. Ibid., sec. 41. Consider ibid., secs. 33, 36-37, 40-43, and 46-50, in light of John Locke, Some Considerations of the Consequences of Lowering the Interest and Raising the Value of Money, in The Works of John Locke, 5:40; note Bacon, Novum Organum, bk. 1, aphorism 129, in Spedding, Ellis, and Heath, eds., The Works of Francis Bacon, 1:221-22 (translated at 4:114); and see Leo Strauss, Natural Right and History (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1974), 234-51. C. B. Macpherson's otherwise admirable exposition of the fifth chapter of the Second Treatise is marred by his inability to distinguish labor at subsistence wages from slavery: cf. C. B. Macpherson, The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism: Hobbes to Locke (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962), 203-14, with Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, bk. 2, chap. 21, secs. 45-50; and see Locke, Two Treatises of Government, First Treatise, chap. 5, secs. 42-43.
136. Ibid., sec. 41. Consider ibid., secs. 33, 36-37, 40-43, and 46-50, in light of John Locke, Some Considerations of the Consequences of Lowering the Interest and Raising the Value of Money, in The Works of John Locke, 5:40; note Bacon, Novum Organum, bk. 1, aphorism 129, in Spedding, Ellis, and Heath, eds., The Works of Francis Bacon, 1:221-22 (translated at 4:114); and see Leo Strauss, Natural Right and History (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1974), 234-51. C. B. Macpherson's otherwise admirable exposition of the fifth chapter of the Second Treatise is marred by his inability to distinguish labor at subsistence wages from slavery: cf. C. B. Macpherson, The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism: Hobbes to Locke (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962), 203-14, with Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, bk. 2, chap. 21, secs. 45-50; and see Locke, Two Treatises of Government, First Treatise, chap. 5, secs. 42-43.
137. Ibid., sec. 41. Consider ibid., secs. 33, 36-37, 40-43, and 46-50, in light of John Locke, Some Considerations of the Consequences of Lowering the Interest and Raising the Value of Money, in The Works of John Locke, 5:40; note Bacon, Novum Organum, bk. 1, aphorism 129, in Spedding, Ellis, and Heath, eds., The Works of Francis Bacon, 1:221-22 (translated at 4:114); and see Leo Strauss, Natural Right and History (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1974), 234-51. C. B. Macpherson's otherwise admirable exposition of the fifth chapter of the Second Treatise is marred by his inability to distinguish labor at subsistence wages from slavery: cf. C. B. Macpherson, The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism: Hobbes to Locke (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962), 203-14, with Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, bk. 2, chap. 21, secs. 45-50; and see Locke, Two Treatises of Government, First Treatise, chap. 5, secs. 42-43.
138. Locke, Two Treatises of Government, Second Treatise, chap. 5, secs. 40-44. Cf. Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, bk. 1, chap. 1, sec. 11, in The Glasgow Edition of the Works and Correspondence of Adam Smith (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976).
139. Locke, Two Treatises of Government, Second Treatise, chap. 5, secs. 40-44. Cf. Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, bk. 1, chap. 1, sec. 11, in The Glasgow Edition of the Works and Correspondence of Adam Smith (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976).
140. Locke, Two Treatises of Government, Second Treatise, chap. 5, sec. 34.
141. Ibid., First Treatise, chap. 4, sec. 30, and chap. 6, sec. 53. Cf. ibid., Second Treatise, chap. 5, secs. 34, 37, 40, and 42-43, with First Treatise, chap. 6, sec. 53, and Second Treatise, chap. 2, sec. 6, and chap. 6, sec. 56. See also Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, bk. 1, chap. 1, sec. 1, and bk. 4, chap. 17, sec. 1.
142. Ibid., First Treatise, chap. 4, sec. 30, and chap. 6, sec. 53. Cf. ibid., Second Treatise, chap. 5, secs. 34, 37, 40, and 42-43, with First Treatise, chap. 6, sec. 53, and Second Treatise, chap. 2, sec. 6, and chap. 6, sec. 56. See also Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, bk. 1, chap. 1, sec. 1, and bk. 4, chap. 17, sec. 1.
143. Ibid., First Treatise, chap. 4, sec. 30, and chap. 6, sec. 53. Cf. ibid., Second Treatise, chap. 5, secs. 34, 37, 40, and 42-43, with First Treatise, chap. 6, sec. 53, and Second Treatise, chap. 2, sec. 6, and chap. 6, sec. 56. See also Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, bk. 1, chap. 1, sec. 1, and bk. 4, chap. 17, sec. 1.
144. Ibid., First Treatise, chap. 4, sec. 30, and chap. 6, sec. 53. Cf. ibid., Second Treatise, chap. 5, secs. 34, 37, 40, and 42-43, with First Treatise, chap. 6, sec. 53, and Second Treatise, chap. 2, sec. 6, and chap. 6, sec. 56. See also Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, bk. 1, chap. 1, sec. 1, and bk. 4, chap. 17, sec. 1.
145. Ibid., First Treatise, chap. 4, sec. 30, and chap. 6, sec. 53. Cf. ibid., Second Treatise, chap. 5, secs. 34, 37, 40, and 42-43, with First Treatise, chap. 6, sec. 53, and Second Treatise, chap. 2, sec. 6, and chap. 6, sec. 56. See also Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, bk. 1, chap. 1, sec. 1, and bk. 4, chap. 17, sec. 1.
146. Locke, Two Treatises of Government, Second Treatise, chap. 5, sec. 49.
147. Ibid. Consider sec. 49 in light of secs. 36, 41, 43, 46, and 48 in the same chapter, as well as chap. 6, sec. 65, and chap. 8, secs. 106-8. For the travel literature in Locke's library dealing with the New World, see William G. Batz, "The Historical Anthropology of John Locke," Journal of the History of Ideas 35, no. 4 (1974): 663-70.
148. Ibid. Consider sec. 49 in light of secs. 36, 41, 43, 46, and 48 in the same chapter, as well as chap. 6, sec. 65, and chap. 8, secs. 106-8. For the travel literature in Locke's library dealing with the New World, see William G. Batz, "The Historical Anthropology of John Locke," Journal of the History of Ideas 35, no. 4 (1974): 663-70.
149. Locke, Two Treatises of Government, First Treatise, chap. 6, sec. 58.
150. Cf. ibid., Second Treatise, chap. 8, sec. 111, with Publius Ovidius Naso, Metamorphoses, ed. William S. Anderson (Leipzig: Teubner, 1982), 1.131.
151. Cf. ibid., Second Treatise, chap. 8, sec. 111, with Publius Ovidius Naso, Metamorphoses, ed. William S. Anderson (Leipzig: Teubner, 1982), 1.131.
152. Locke, Two Treatises of Government, Second Treatise, chap. 8, sec. 110.
153. Ibid., chap. 5, secs. 31 and 36.
154. Ibid., chap. 6, sec. 75.
155. Ibid., chap. 8, sec. 107.
156. Ibid., chap. 5, sec. 37, where I see no reason to accept Laslett's emendation.
157. Ibid., chap. 8, sec. 111.
158. John Locke, Some Thoughts Concerning Education, ed. John W. and Jean S. Yolton (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989), sec. 110.
159. Locke, Two Treatises of Government, First Treatise, chap. 6, sec. 58.
160. Locke, Some Thoughts Concerning Education, sec. 110.
161. Locke, Two Treatises of Government, First Treatise, chap. 6, sec. 58.
162. Consider Locke, Two Treatises of Government, Second Treatise, chap. 5, sec. 37, and Locke, Some Thoughts Concerning Education, sec. 105, in conjunction with ibid., secs. 103-4 and 110.
163. Consider Locke, Two Treatises of Government, Second Treatise, chap. 5, sec. 37, and Locke, Some Thoughts Concerning Education, sec. 105, in conjunction with ibid., secs. 103-4 and 110.
164. Consider Locke, Two Treatises of Government, Second Treatise, chap. 5, sec. 37, and Locke, Some Thoughts Concerning Education, sec. 105, in conjunction with ibid., secs. 103-4 and 110.
165. Note Locke, Two Treatises of Government, Second Treatise, chap. 7, secs. 79-80, and cf. ibid., First Treatise, chap. 6, sec. 58, with ibid., Second Treatise, chap. 3, sec. 26; then see Locke, Some Thoughts Concerning Education, secs. 103-5 and 110. Note the central example in Two Treatises of Government, Second Treatise, chap. 7, sec. 79.
166. Note Locke, Two Treatises of Government, Second Treatise, chap. 7, secs. 79-80, and cf. ibid., First Treatise, chap. 6, sec. 58, with ibid., Second Treatise, chap. 3, sec. 26; then see Locke, Some Thoughts Concerning Education, secs. 103-5 and 110. Note the central example in Two Treatises of Government, Second Treatise, chap. 7, sec. 79.
167. Note Locke, Two Treatises of Government, Second Treatise, chap. 7, secs. 79-80, and cf. ibid., First Treatise, chap. 6, sec. 58, with ibid., Second Treatise, chap. 3, sec. 26; then see Locke, Some Thoughts Concerning Education, secs. 103-5 and 110. Note the central example in Two Treatises of Government, Second Treatise, chap. 7, sec. 79.
168. Note Locke, Two Treatises of Government, Second Treatise, chap. 7, secs. 79-80, and cf. ibid., First Treatise, chap. 6, sec. 58, with ibid., Second Treatise, chap. 3, sec. 26; then see Locke, Some Thoughts Concerning Education, secs. 103-5 and 110. Note the central example in Two Treatises of Government, Second Treatise, chap. 7, sec. 79.
169. Note Locke, Two Treatises of Government, Second Treatise, chap. 7, secs. 79-80, and cf. ibid., First Treatise, chap. 6, sec. 58, with ibid., Second Treatise, chap. 3, sec. 26; then see Locke, Some Thoughts Concerning Education, secs. 103-5 and 110. Note the central example in Two Treatises of Government, Second Treatise, chap. 7, sec. 79.
170. Locke, Some Thoughts Concerning Education, secs. 129, 152, and 207.
171. Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, bk. 1, chap. 4, sec. 15.
172. Locke, Some Thoughts Concerning Education, secs. 72, 74, 167, and 207.
173. Ibid., secs, 72-76, 128-29, 148-55, 167, and 206-9.
174. Locke, Of the Conduct of the Understanding, sec. 16.
175. Locke, Some Thoughts Concerning Education, sec. 126. See ibid., secs. 46 and 51.
176. Locke, Some Thoughts Concerning Education, sec. 126. See ibid., secs. 46 and 51.
177. Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, bk. 2, chap. 20, sec. 6.
178. Consider Locke, Some Thoughts Concerning Education, sec. 122, in conjunction with Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, bk. 2, chap. 21, sec. 51; Locke, Of the Conduct of the Understanding, sec. 6; and John Locke, "An Essay Concerning Toleration," in Scritti editi e inediti sulla toleranza, ed. Carlo Augusto Viano (Turin: Taylor, 1961), 98. See also Locke, Two Treatises of Government, Second Treatise, chap. 5, secs. 48-49.
179. Consider Locke, Some Thoughts Concerning Education, sec. 122, in conjunction with Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, bk. 2, chap. 21, sec. 51; Locke, Of the Conduct of the Understanding, sec. 6; and John Locke, "An Essay Concerning Toleration," in Scritti editi e inediti sulla toleranza, ed. Carlo Augusto Viano (Turin: Taylor, 1961), 98. See also Locke, Two Treatises of Government, Second Treatise, chap. 5, secs. 48-49.
180. Consider Locke, Some Thoughts Concerning Education, sec. 122, in conjunction with Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, bk. 2, chap. 21, sec. 51; Locke, Of the Conduct of the Understanding, sec. 6; and John Locke, "An Essay Concerning Toleration," in Scritti editi e inediti sulla toleranza, ed. Carlo Augusto Viano (Turin: Taylor, 1961), 98. See also Locke, Two Treatises of Government, Second Treatise, chap. 5, secs. 48-49.
181. Consider Locke, Some Thoughts Concerning Education, sec. 122, in conjunction with Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, bk. 2, chap. 21, sec. 51; Locke, Of the Conduct of the Understanding, sec. 6; and John Locke, "An Essay Concerning Toleration," in Scritti editi e inediti sulla toleranza, ed. Carlo Augusto Viano (Turin: Taylor, 1961), 98. See also Locke, Two Treatises of Government, Second Treatise, chap. 5, secs. 48-49.
182. Consider Locke, Some Thoughts Concerning Education, sec. 122, in conjunction with Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, bk. 2, chap. 21, sec. 51; Locke, Of the Conduct of the Understanding, sec. 6; and John Locke, "An Essay Concerning Toleration," in Scritti editi e inediti sulla toleranza, ed. Carlo Augusto Viano (Turin: Taylor, 1961), 98. See also Locke, Two Treatises of Government, Second Treatise, chap. 5, secs. 48-49.
183. Cf. Locke, Some Thoughts Concerning Education, sec. 1, with Locke, Two Treatises of Government, Second Treatise, chap. 5, secs. 37, 40, 42-43, and 45. See also Locke, Of the Conduct of the Understanding, sec. 38.
184. Cf. Locke, Some Thoughts Concerning Education, sec. 1, with Locke, Two Treatises of Government, Second Treatise, chap. 5, secs. 37, 40, 42-43, and 45. See also Locke, Of the Conduct of the Understanding, sec. 38.
185. Cf. Locke, Some Thoughts Concerning Education, sec. 1, with Locke, Two Treatises of Government, Second Treatise, chap. 5, secs. 37, 40, 42-43, and 45. See also Locke, Of the Conduct of the Understanding, sec. 38.
186. Locke, Of the Conduct of the Understanding, sec. 6. See also ibid., secs. 2-3.
187. Locke, Of the Conduct of the Understanding, sec. 6. See also ibid., secs. 2-3.
188. Ibid., sec. 6.
189. Locke, Two Treatises of Government, Second Treatise, chap. 8, sec. 101. Consider Locke, Essay Concerning Human Understanding, bk. 2, chap. 16, secs, 6-8; and bk. 4, chap. 12, sec. 11; and Locke, Two Treatises of Government, Second Treatise, chap. 5, secs. 37 and 41; in light of secs. 43, 46, and 48-49 (in the same chapter); chap. 6, sec. 65; chap. 7, sec. 92; and chap. 8, secs. 102,105, and 108. The fact that thinking is a species of making or construction and that it is therefore painful and laborious is yet another indication of nature's niggardliness: see Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, bk. 1, chap. 1, sec. 1; chap. 2, secs. 8-10; chap. 4, secs. 15-16 and 22; bk. 2, chap. 13, sec. 27; bk. 3, chap. 6, sec. 30; and bk. 4, chap. 2, sec. 4; chap. 3, sec. 6; chap. 12, secs. 7-9; and chap. 20, sec. 6; and Locke, Of the Conduct of the Understanding, secs. 4, 7, 16-17, 20, 23-25, 28, 30, 37-39, and 45. Cf. Locke, Two Treatises of Government, Second Treatise, chap. 6, sec. 56, with Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, bk. 3, chap. 1, sec. 1, through chap. 2, sec. 8, esp. chap. 1, sec. 5.
190. Locke, Two Treatises of Government, Second Treatise, chap. 8, sec. 101. Consider Locke, Essay Concerning Human Understanding, bk. 2, chap. 16, secs, 6-8; and bk. 4, chap. 12, sec. 11; and Locke, Two Treatises of Government, Second Treatise, chap. 5, secs. 37 and 41; in light of secs. 43, 46, and 48-49 (in the same chapter); chap. 6, sec. 65; chap. 7, sec. 92; and chap. 8, secs. 102,105, and 108. The fact that thinking is a species of making or construction and that it is therefore painful and laborious is yet another indication of nature's niggardliness: see Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, bk. 1, chap. 1, sec. 1; chap. 2, secs. 8-10; chap. 4, secs. 15-16 and 22; bk. 2, chap. 13, sec. 27; bk. 3, chap. 6, sec. 30; and bk. 4, chap. 2, sec. 4; chap. 3, sec. 6; chap. 12, secs. 7-9; and chap. 20, sec. 6; and Locke, Of the Conduct of the Understanding, secs. 4, 7, 16-17, 20, 23-25, 28, 30, 37-39, and 45. Cf. Locke, Two Treatises of Government, Second Treatise, chap. 6, sec. 56, with Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, bk. 3, chap. 1, sec. 1, through chap. 2, sec. 8, esp. chap. 1, sec. 5.
191. Locke, Two Treatises of Government, Second Treatise, chap. 8, sec. 101. Consider Locke, Essay Concerning Human Understanding, bk. 2, chap. 16, secs, 6-8; and bk. 4, chap. 12, sec. 11; and Locke, Two Treatises of Government, Second Treatise, chap. 5, secs. 37 and 41; in light of secs. 43, 46, and 48-49 (in the same chapter); chap. 6, sec. 65; chap. 7, sec. 92; and chap. 8, secs. 102,105, and 108. The fact that thinking is a species of making or construction and that it is therefore painful and laborious is yet another indication of nature's niggardliness: see Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, bk. 1, chap. 1, sec. 1; chap. 2, secs. 8-10; chap. 4, secs. 15-16 and 22; bk. 2, chap. 13, sec. 27; bk. 3, chap. 6, sec. 30; and bk. 4, chap. 2, sec. 4; chap. 3, sec. 6; chap. 12, secs. 7-9; and chap. 20, sec. 6; and Locke, Of the Conduct of the Understanding, secs. 4, 7, 16-17, 20, 23-25, 28, 30, 37-39, and 45. Cf. Locke, Two Treatises of Government, Second Treatise, chap. 6, sec. 56, with Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, bk. 3, chap. 1, sec. 1, through chap. 2, sec. 8, esp. chap. 1, sec. 5.
192. Locke, Two Treatises of Government, Second Treatise, chap. 8, sec. 101. Consider Locke, Essay Concerning Human Understanding, bk. 2, chap. 16, secs, 6-8; and bk. 4, chap. 12, sec. 11; and Locke, Two Treatises of Government, Second Treatise, chap. 5, secs. 37 and 41; in light of secs. 43, 46, and 48-49 (in the same chapter); chap. 6, sec. 65; chap. 7, sec. 92; and chap. 8, secs. 102,105, and 108. The fact that thinking is a species of making or construction and that it is therefore painful and laborious is yet another indication of nature's niggardliness: see Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, bk. 1, chap. 1, sec. 1; chap. 2, secs. 8-10; chap. 4, secs. 15-16 and 22; bk. 2, chap. 13, sec. 27; bk. 3, chap. 6, sec. 30; and bk. 4, chap. 2, sec. 4; chap. 3, sec. 6; chap. 12, secs. 7-9; and chap. 20, sec. 6; and Locke, Of the Conduct of the Understanding, secs. 4, 7, 16-17, 20, 23-25, 28, 30, 37-39, and 45. Cf. Locke, Two Treatises of Government, Second Treatise, chap. 6, sec. 56, with Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, bk. 3, chap. 1, sec. 1, through chap. 2, sec. 8, esp. chap. 1, sec. 5.
193. Locke, Two Treatises of Government, Second Treatise, chap. 8, sec. 101. Consider Locke, Essay Concerning Human Understanding, bk. 2, chap. 16, secs, 6-8; and bk. 4, chap. 12, sec. 11; and Locke, Two Treatises of Government, Second Treatise, chap. 5, secs. 37 and 41; in light of secs. 43, 46, and 48-49 (in the same chapter); chap. 6, sec. 65; chap. 7, sec. 92; and chap. 8, secs. 102,105, and 108. The fact that thinking is a species of making or construction and that it is therefore painful and laborious is yet another indication of nature's niggardliness: see Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, bk. 1, chap. 1, sec. 1; chap. 2, secs. 8-10; chap. 4, secs. 15-16 and 22; bk. 2, chap. 13, sec. 27; bk. 3, chap. 6, sec. 30; and bk. 4, chap. 2, sec. 4; chap. 3, sec. 6; chap. 12, secs. 7-9; and chap. 20, sec. 6; and Locke, Of the Conduct of the Understanding, secs. 4, 7, 16-17, 20, 23-25, 28, 30, 37-39, and 45. Cf. Locke, Two Treatises of Government, Second Treatise, chap. 6, sec. 56, with Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, bk. 3, chap. 1, sec. 1, through chap. 2, sec. 8, esp. chap. 1, sec. 5.
194. Locke, Two Treatises of Government, Second Treatise, chap. 8, sec. 101. Consider Locke, Essay Concerning Human Understanding, bk. 2, chap. 16, secs, 6-8; and bk. 4, chap. 12, sec. 11; and Locke, Two Treatises of Government, Second Treatise, chap. 5, secs. 37 and 41; in light of secs. 43, 46, and 48-49 (in the same chapter); chap. 6, sec. 65; chap. 7, sec. 92; and chap. 8, secs. 102,105, and 108. The fact that thinking is a species of making or construction and that it is therefore painful and laborious is yet another indication of nature's niggardliness: see Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, bk. 1, chap. 1, sec. 1; chap. 2, secs. 8-10; chap. 4, secs. 15-16 and 22; bk. 2, chap. 13, sec. 27; bk. 3, chap. 6, sec. 30; and bk. 4, chap. 2, sec. 4; chap. 3, sec. 6; chap. 12, secs. 7-9; and chap. 20, sec. 6; and Locke, Of the Conduct of the Understanding, secs. 4, 7, 16-17, 20, 23-25, 28, 30, 37-39, and 45. Cf. Locke, Two Treatises of Government, Second Treatise, chap. 6, sec. 56, with Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, bk. 3, chap. 1, sec. 1, through chap. 2, sec. 8, esp. chap. 1, sec. 5.
195. Locke, Two Treatises of Government, Second Treatise, chap. 8, sec. 101. Consider Locke, Essay Concerning Human Understanding, bk. 2, chap. 16, secs, 6-8; and bk. 4, chap. 12, sec. 11; and Locke, Two Treatises of Government, Second Treatise, chap. 5, secs. 37 and 41; in light of secs. 43, 46, and 48-49 (in the same chapter); chap. 6, sec. 65; chap. 7, sec. 92; and chap. 8, secs. 102,105, and 108. The fact that thinking is a species of making or construction and that it is therefore painful and laborious is yet another indication of nature's niggardliness: see Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, bk. 1, chap. 1, sec. 1; chap. 2, secs. 8-10; chap. 4, secs. 15-16 and 22; bk. 2, chap. 13, sec. 27; bk. 3, chap. 6, sec. 30; and bk. 4, chap. 2, sec. 4; chap. 3, sec. 6; chap. 12, secs. 7-9; and chap. 20, sec. 6; and Locke, Of the Conduct of the Understanding, secs. 4, 7, 16-17, 20, 23-25, 28, 30, 37-39, and 45. Cf. Locke, Two Treatises of Government, Second Treatise, chap. 6, sec. 56, with Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, bk. 3, chap. 1, sec. 1, through chap. 2, sec. 8, esp. chap. 1, sec. 5.
196. See Locke, Two Treatises of Government, Second Treatise, chap. 6, sec. 61, which should be read in light of secs. 55 and 59.
197. Ibid., secs. 59-60 and 63.
198. Ibid., secs. 74-76. See ibid., chap. 8, secs. 105-11, esp. 107.
199. Ibid., secs. 74-76. See ibid., chap. 8, secs. 105-11, esp. 107.
200. Ibid., chap. 8, secs. 105-11, esp. 107.
201. Consider ibid., chap. 5, sec. 51 in light of ibid., chap. 6, sec. 55; then see Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, bk. 1, chap. 2, secs. 5-27.
202. Consider ibid., chap. 5, sec. 51 in light of ibid., chap. 6, sec. 55; then see Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, bk. 1, chap. 2, secs. 5-27.
203. Consider ibid., chap. 5, sec. 51 in light of ibid., chap. 6, sec. 55; then see Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, bk. 1, chap. 2, secs. 5-27.
204. Consider Locke, Two Treatises of Government, Second Treatise, chap. 7, secs. 87-94; chap. 8, secs. 105-12; chap. 11, secs. 134-39; chap. 14, sec. 162; and chap. 18, sec. 199; in light of chap. 5, sec. 45. Note that, in reaching judgments and in enforcing them, patriarchs exercise "the executive power of the Law of Nature" and that alone: ibid., chap. 6, sec. 74. There is no sign that they are authorized and have the "Authority" to do so on behalf of anyone but themselves: ibid., chap. 7, sec. 89. In this connection, see Richard Ashcraft, "Locke's State of Nature: Historical Fact or Moral Fiction?" American Political Science Review 62, no. 3 (1968): 898-915, esp. 908-14, and Ashcraft, Locke's Two Treatises of Government, 152-66.
205. Consider Locke, Two Treatises of Government, Second Treatise, chap. 7, secs. 87-94; chap. 8, secs. 105-12; chap. 11, secs. 134-39; chap. 14, sec. 162; and chap. 18, sec. 199; in light of chap. 5, sec. 45. Note that, in reaching judgments and in enforcing them, patriarchs exercise "the executive power of the Law of Nature" and that alone: ibid., chap. 6, sec. 74. There is no sign that they are authorized and have the "Authority" to do so on behalf of anyone but themselves: ibid., chap. 7, sec. 89. In this connection, see Richard Ashcraft, "Locke's State of Nature: Historical Fact or Moral Fiction?" American Political Science Review 62, no. 3 (1968): 898-915, esp. 908-14, and Ashcraft, Locke's Two Treatises of Government, 152-66.
206. Consider Locke, Two Treatises of Government, Second Treatise, chap. 7, secs. 87-94; chap. 8, secs. 105-12; chap. 11, secs. 134-39; chap. 14, sec. 162; and chap. 18, sec. 199; in light of chap. 5, sec. 45. Note that, in reaching judgments and in enforcing them, patriarchs exercise "the executive power of the Law of Nature" and that alone: ibid., chap. 6, sec. 74. There is no sign that they are authorized and have the "Authority" to do so on behalf of anyone but themselves: ibid., chap. 7, sec. 89. In this connection, see Richard Ashcraft, "Locke's State of Nature: Historical Fact or Moral Fiction?" American Political Science Review 62, no. 3 (1968): 898-915, esp. 908-14, and Ashcraft, Locke's Two Treatises of Government, 152-66.
207. Consider Locke, Two Treatises of Government, Second Treatise, chap. 7, secs. 87-94; chap. 8, secs. 105-12; chap. 11, secs. 134-39; chap. 14, sec. 162; and chap. 18, sec. 199; in light of chap. 5, sec. 45. Note that, in reaching judgments and in enforcing them, patriarchs exercise "the executive power of the Law of Nature" and that alone: ibid., chap. 6, sec. 74. There is no sign that they are authorized and have the "Authority" to do so on behalf of anyone but themselves: ibid., chap. 7, sec. 89. In this connection, see Richard Ashcraft, "Locke's State of Nature: Historical Fact or Moral Fiction?" American Political Science Review 62, no. 3 (1968): 898-915, esp. 908-14, and Ashcraft, Locke's Two Treatises of Government, 152-66.
208. Consider Locke, Two Treatises of Government, Second Treatise, chap. 7, secs. 87-94; chap. 8, secs. 105-12; chap. 11, secs. 134-39; chap. 14, sec. 162; and chap. 18, sec. 199; in light of chap. 5, sec. 45. Note that, in reaching judgments and in enforcing them, patriarchs exercise "the executive power of the Law of Nature" and that alone: ibid., chap. 6, sec. 74. There is no sign that they are authorized and have the "Authority" to do so on behalf of anyone but themselves: ibid., chap. 7, sec. 89. In this connection, see Richard Ashcraft, "Locke's State of Nature: Historical Fact or Moral Fiction?" American Political Science Review 62, no. 3 (1968): 898-915, esp. 908-14, and Ashcraft, Locke's Two Treatises of Government, 152-66.
209. Locke, Two Treatises of Government, Second Treatise, chap. 5, sec. 34.
210. Consider ibid., secs. 26-28 and 44, in light of sec. 34.
211. Consider Locke, Two Treatises of Government, Second Treatise, chap. 7, secs. 87 and 93, through chap. 8, sec. 112 (esp. chap. 7, sec. 94, and chap. 8, sec. 111); chap. 9, secs. 123-31; chap. 11, sec. 134, through chap. 12, sec. 148; chap. 14, sec. 162; chap. 15, secs. 171 and 173; in light of Locke, Of the Conduct of the Understanding, sec. 6.
212. Consider Locke, Two Treatises of Government, Second Treatise, chap. 7, secs. 87 and 93, through chap. 8, sec. 112 (esp. chap. 7, sec. 94, and chap. 8, sec. 111); chap. 9, secs. 123-31; chap. 11, sec. 134, through chap. 12, sec. 148; chap. 14, sec. 162; chap. 15, secs. 171 and 173; in light of Locke, Of the Conduct of the Understanding, sec. 6.
213. Consider Locke, Two Treatises of Government, Second Treatise, chap. 13, sec. 149; chap. 14, sec. 168; chap. 16, secs. 176, 192, and 196; chap. 18, secs. 204, 208-10; and chap. 19, secs. 220-43; in light of chap. 3, secs. 20-21. In making Jephtha's appeal to heaven his model (ibid., chap. 3, sec. 21; chap. 14, sec. 168; chap. 16, sec. 176; and chap. 19, sec. 241), Locke ignores the more pertinent example of self-restraint under tyrannical provocation evident in David's similarly worded appeal and lights upon what he knows (ibid., chap. 8, sec. 109) to have been an ordinary case of war: cf. Judg. 11:1-40 (esp. 27, 30-40) with 1 Sam. 24:6,12,15, 26:9-11,23. Note John Locke, A Letter Concerning Toleration, ed. Mario Montuori (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1963), 86-89. As Tarcov, Locke's Education for Liberty, 66, points out, Locke nowhere suggests that God will intervene to see that justice is done. See Two Treatises of Government, Second Treatise, chap. 16, sec. 176.
214. Consider Locke, Two Treatises of Government, Second Treatise, chap. 13, sec. 149; chap. 14, sec. 168; chap. 16, secs. 176, 192, and 196; chap. 18, secs. 204, 208-10; and chap. 19, secs. 220-43; in light of chap. 3, secs. 20-21. In making Jephtha's appeal to heaven his model (ibid., chap. 3, sec. 21; chap. 14, sec. 168; chap. 16, sec. 176; and chap. 19, sec. 241), Locke ignores the more pertinent example of self-restraint under tyrannical provocation evident in David's similarly worded appeal and lights upon what he knows (ibid., chap. 8, sec. 109) to have been an ordinary case of war: cf. Judg. 11:1-40 (esp. 27, 30-40) with 1 Sam. 24:6,12,15, 26:9-11,23. Note John Locke, A Letter Concerning Toleration, ed. Mario Montuori (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1963), 86-89. As Tarcov, Locke's Education for Liberty, 66, points out, Locke nowhere suggests that God will intervene to see that justice is done. See Two Treatises of Government, Second Treatise, chap. 16, sec. 176.
215. Consider Locke, Two Treatises of Government, Second Treatise, chap. 13, sec. 149; chap. 14, sec. 168; chap. 16, secs. 176, 192, and 196; chap. 18, secs. 204, 208-10; and chap. 19, secs. 220-43; in light of chap. 3, secs. 20-21. In making Jephtha's appeal to heaven his model (ibid., chap. 3, sec. 21; chap. 14, sec. 168; chap. 16, sec. 176; and chap. 19, sec. 241), Locke ignores the more pertinent example of self-restraint under tyrannical provocation evident in David's similarly worded appeal and lights upon what he knows (ibid., chap. 8, sec. 109) to have been an ordinary case of war: cf. Judg. 11:1-40 (esp. 27, 30-40) with 1 Sam. 24:6,12,15, 26:9-11,23. Note John Locke, A Letter Concerning Toleration, ed. Mario Montuori (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1963), 86-89. As Tarcov, Locke's Education for Liberty, 66, points out, Locke nowhere suggests that God will intervene to see that justice is done. See Two Treatises of Government, Second Treatise, chap. 16, sec. 176.
216. Consider Locke, Two Treatises of Government, Second Treatise, chap. 13, sec. 149; chap. 14, sec. 168; chap. 16, secs. 176, 192, and 196; chap. 18, secs. 204, 208-10; and chap. 19, secs. 220-43; in light of chap. 3, secs. 20-21. In making Jephtha's appeal to heaven his model (ibid., chap. 3, sec. 21; chap. 14, sec. 168; chap. 16, sec. 176; and chap. 19, sec. 241), Locke ignores the more pertinent example of self-restraint under tyrannical provocation evident in David's similarly worded appeal and lights upon what he knows (ibid., chap. 8, sec. 109) to have been an ordinary case of war: cf. Judg. 11:1-40 (esp. 27, 30-40) with 1 Sam. 24:6,12,15, 26:9-11,23. Note John Locke, A Letter Concerning Toleration, ed. Mario Montuori (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1963), 86-89. As Tarcov, Locke's Education for Liberty, 66, points out, Locke nowhere suggests that God will intervene to see that justice is done. See Two Treatises of Government, Second Treatise, chap. 16, sec. 176.
217. Consider Locke, Two Treatises of Government, Second Treatise, chap. 13, sec. 149; chap. 14, sec. 168; chap. 16, secs. 176, 192, and 196; chap. 18, secs. 204, 208-10; and chap. 19, secs. 220-43; in light of chap. 3, secs. 20-21. In making Jephtha's appeal to heaven his model (ibid., chap. 3, sec. 21; chap. 14, sec. 168; chap. 16, sec. 176; and chap. 19, sec. 241), Locke ignores the more pertinent example of self-restraint under tyrannical provocation evident in David's similarly worded appeal and lights upon what he knows (ibid., chap. 8, sec. 109) to have been an ordinary case of war: cf. Judg. 11:1-40 (esp. 27, 30-40) with 1 Sam. 24:6,12,15, 26:9-11,23. Note John Locke, A Letter Concerning Toleration, ed. Mario Montuori (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1963), 86-89. As Tarcov, Locke's Education for Liberty, 66, points out, Locke nowhere suggests that God will intervene to see that justice is done. See Two Treatises of Government, Second Treatise, chap. 16, sec. 176.
218. Consider Locke, Two Treatises of Government, Second Treatise, chap. 13, sec. 149; chap. 14, sec. 168; chap. 16, secs. 176, 192, and 196; chap. 18, secs. 204, 208-10; and chap. 19, secs. 220-43; in light of chap. 3, secs. 20-21. In making Jephtha's appeal to heaven his model (ibid., chap. 3, sec. 21; chap. 14, sec. 168; chap. 16, sec. 176; and chap. 19, sec. 241), Locke ignores the more pertinent example of self-restraint under tyrannical provocation evident in David's similarly worded appeal and lights upon what he knows (ibid., chap. 8, sec. 109) to have been an ordinary case of war: cf. Judg. 11:1-40 (esp. 27, 30-40) with 1 Sam. 24:6,12,15, 26:9-11,23. Note John Locke, A Letter Concerning Toleration, ed. Mario Montuori (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1963), 86-89. As Tarcov, Locke's Education for Liberty, 66, points out, Locke nowhere suggests that God will intervene to see that justice is done. See Two Treatises of Government, Second Treatise, chap. 16, sec. 176.
219. Consider Locke, Two Treatises of Government, Second Treatise, chap. 13, sec. 149; chap. 14, sec. 168; chap. 16, secs. 176, 192, and 196; chap. 18, secs. 204, 208-10; and chap. 19, secs. 220-43; in light of chap. 3, secs. 20-21. In making Jephtha's appeal to heaven his model (ibid., chap. 3, sec. 21; chap. 14, sec. 168; chap. 16, sec. 176; and chap. 19, sec. 241), Locke ignores the more pertinent example of self-restraint under tyrannical provocation evident in David's similarly worded appeal and lights upon what he knows (ibid., chap. 8, sec. 109) to have been an ordinary case of war: cf. Judg. 11:1-40 (esp. 27, 30-40) with 1 Sam. 24:6,12,15, 26:9-11,23. Note John Locke, A Letter Concerning Toleration, ed. Mario Montuori (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1963), 86-89. As Tarcov, Locke's Education for Liberty, 66, points out, Locke nowhere suggests that God will intervene to see that justice is done. See Two Treatises of Government, Second Treatise, chap. 16, sec. 176.
220. In keeping with this fact, except where politically salutary (Two Treatises of Government, Second Treatise, chap. 4, sec. 23; chap. 11, sec. 135; chap. 13, sec. 149; chap. 14, sec. 168; and chap. 15, sec. 172), Locke silently abandons his initial claim (ibid., chap. 2, sec. 6) that man is God's "Property" and asserts, instead, that he is "absolute Lord of his own Person" (ibid., chap. 5, secs. 27 and 44; and chap. 9, sec. 123). His inconsistent treatment of the question of suicide is explicable in similar terms: cf. ibid., chap. 2, sec. 6 with chap. 4, sec. 23; note Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, bk. 2, chap. 21, secs. 53 and 57; and see George Windstrup, "Locke on Suicide," Political Theory 8, no. 2 (1980): 169-82.
221. In keeping with this fact, except where politically salutary (Two Treatises of Government, Second Treatise, chap. 4, sec. 23; chap. 11, sec. 135; chap. 13, sec. 149; chap. 14, sec. 168; and chap. 15, sec. 172), Locke silently abandons his initial claim (ibid., chap. 2, sec. 6) that man is God's "Property" and asserts, instead, that he is "absolute Lord of his own Person" (ibid., chap. 5, secs. 27 and 44; and chap. 9, sec. 123). His inconsistent treatment of the question of suicide is explicable in similar terms: cf. ibid., chap. 2, sec. 6 with chap. 4, sec. 23; note Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, bk. 2, chap. 21, secs. 53 and 57; and see George Windstrup, "Locke on Suicide," Political Theory 8, no. 2 (1980): 169-82.
222. In keeping with this fact, except where politically salutary (Two Treatises of Government, Second Treatise, chap. 4, sec. 23; chap. 11, sec. 135; chap. 13, sec. 149; chap. 14, sec. 168; and chap. 15, sec. 172), Locke silently abandons his initial claim (ibid., chap. 2, sec. 6) that man is God's "Property" and asserts, instead, that he is "absolute Lord of his own Person" (ibid., chap. 5, secs. 27 and 44; and chap. 9, sec. 123). His inconsistent treatment of the question of suicide is explicable in similar terms: cf. ibid., chap. 2, sec. 6 with chap. 4, sec. 23; note Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, bk. 2, chap. 21, secs. 53 and 57; and see George Windstrup, "Locke on Suicide," Political Theory 8, no. 2 (1980): 169-82.
223. In keeping with this fact, except where politically salutary (Two Treatises of Government, Second Treatise, chap. 4, sec. 23; chap. 11, sec. 135; chap. 13, sec. 149; chap. 14, sec. 168; and chap. 15, sec. 172), Locke silently abandons his initial claim (ibid., chap. 2, sec. 6) that man is God's "Property" and asserts, instead, that he is "absolute Lord of his own Person" (ibid., chap. 5, secs. 27 and 44; and chap. 9, sec. 123). His inconsistent treatment of the question of suicide is explicable in similar terms: cf. ibid., chap. 2, sec. 6 with chap. 4, sec. 23; note Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, bk. 2, chap. 21, secs. 53 and 57; and see George Windstrup, "Locke on Suicide," Political Theory 8, no. 2 (1980): 169-82.
224. In keeping with this fact, except where politically salutary (Two Treatises of Government, Second Treatise, chap. 4, sec. 23; chap. 11, sec. 135; chap. 13, sec. 149; chap. 14, sec. 168; and chap. 15, sec. 172), Locke silently abandons his initial claim (ibid., chap. 2, sec. 6) that man is God's "Property" and asserts, instead, that he is "absolute Lord of his own Person" (ibid., chap. 5, secs. 27 and 44; and chap. 9, sec. 123). His inconsistent treatment of the question of suicide is explicable in similar terms: cf. ibid., chap. 2, sec. 6 with chap. 4, sec. 23; note Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, bk. 2, chap. 21, secs. 53 and 57; and see George Windstrup, "Locke on Suicide," Political Theory 8, no. 2 (1980): 169-82.
225. In keeping with this fact, except where politically salutary (Two Treatises of Government, Second Treatise, chap. 4, sec. 23; chap. 11, sec. 135; chap. 13, sec. 149; chap. 14, sec. 168; and chap. 15, sec. 172), Locke silently abandons his initial claim (ibid., chap. 2, sec. 6) that man is God's "Property" and asserts, instead, that he is "absolute Lord of his own Person" (ibid., chap. 5, secs. 27 and 44; and chap. 9, sec. 123). His inconsistent treatment of the question of suicide is explicable in similar terms: cf. ibid., chap. 2, sec. 6 with chap. 4, sec. 23; note Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, bk. 2, chap. 21, secs. 53 and 57; and see George Windstrup, "Locke on Suicide," Political Theory 8, no. 2 (1980): 169-82.
226. It is possible, of course, that Locke badly missed his aim - but then one must question his sanity, for the contradictions in his argument are too glaring; the inconsistencies, too obvious. They cannot have escaped the notice of a man with his wits about him. It can hardly be an accident that the figure that emerges from the most exacting attempt ever mounted to make sense of Locke as a pious Christian in the Puritan mold is a "profoundly and exotically incoherent" thinker guilty of nearly every intellectual failing that one finds excoriated in his epistemological writings. Locke was "brought up in a Calvinist family"; and though the logic of his new way of ideas clearly pointed away from the doctrines he had imbibed in the nursery, we are told that he never managed to fully liberate himself from a posture of blind credulity. On this reading, his oft-revised Two Treatises of Government turns out to be an "incoherent and carelessly written work"; and, as a consequence of the tension between his faith and the dictates of his reason, both it and his Essay Concerning Human Understanding are "in so many ways patently inconsistent and absurd" that one can render the arguments there presented explicable only by supposing their author a victim of "intellectual akrasia"-profoundly insecure, ridden by anguish, and "very neurotic." See Dunn, The Political Thought of John Locke, passim, esp. 13, 29, 80-82, 92-93,164,187-99, and 256-60. For further elaboration of the view that Locke was a victim of "intellectual akrasia," see John Dunn, "Individuality and Clientage in the Formation of Locke's Social Imagination," " 'Trust' in the Politics of John Locke," and "From Applied Theology to Social Analysis: The Break between Locke and the Scottish Enlightenment," in John Dunn, Rethinking Modern Political Theory: Essays, 1979-83 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 13-67. Note also Dunn, "Consent in the Political Theory of John Locke," in John Dunn, Political Obligation in Its Historical Context: Essays in Political Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980), 29-52.
227. It is possible, of course, that Locke badly missed his aim - but then one must question his sanity, for the contradictions in his argument are too glaring; the inconsistencies, too obvious. They cannot have escaped the notice of a man with his wits about him. It can hardly be an accident that the figure that emerges from the most exacting attempt ever mounted to make sense of Locke as a pious Christian in the Puritan mold is a "profoundly and exotically incoherent" thinker guilty of nearly every intellectual failing that one finds excoriated in his epistemological writings. Locke was "brought up in a Calvinist family"; and though the logic of his new way of ideas clearly pointed away from the doctrines he had imbibed in the nursery, we are told that he never managed to fully liberate himself from a posture of blind credulity. On this reading, his oft-revised Two Treatises of Government turns out to be an "incoherent and carelessly written work"; and, as a consequence of the tension between his faith and the dictates of his reason, both it and his Essay Concerning Human Understanding are "in so many ways patently inconsistent and absurd" that one can render the arguments there presented explicable only by supposing their author a victim of "intellectual akrasia"-profoundly insecure, ridden by anguish, and "very neurotic." See Dunn, The Political Thought of John Locke, passim, esp. 13, 29, 80-82, 92-93,164,187-99, and 256-60. For further elaboration of the view that Locke was a victim of "intellectual akrasia," see John Dunn, "Individuality and Clientage in the Formation of Locke's Social Imagination," " 'Trust' in the Politics of John Locke," and "From Applied Theology to Social Analysis: The Break between Locke and the Scottish Enlightenment," in John Dunn, Rethinking Modern Political Theory: Essays, 1979-83 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 13-67. Note also Dunn, "Consent in the Political Theory of John Locke," in John Dunn, Political Obligation in Its Historical Context: Essays in Political Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980), 29-52.
228. It is possible, of course, that Locke badly missed his aim - but then one must question his sanity, for the contradictions in his argument are too glaring; the inconsistencies, too obvious. They cannot have escaped the notice of a man with his wits about him. It can hardly be an accident that the figure that emerges from the most exacting attempt ever mounted to make sense of Locke as a pious Christian in the Puritan mold is a "profoundly and exotically incoherent" thinker guilty of nearly every intellectual failing that one finds excoriated in his epistemological writings. Locke was "brought up in a Calvinist family"; and though the logic of his new way of ideas clearly pointed away from the doctrines he had imbibed in the nursery, we are told that he never managed to fully liberate himself from a posture of blind credulity. On this reading, his oft-revised Two Treatises of Government turns out to be an "incoherent and carelessly written work"; and, as a consequence of the tension between his faith and the dictates of his reason, both it and his Essay Concerning Human Understanding are "in so many ways patently inconsistent and absurd" that one can render the arguments there presented explicable only by supposing their author a victim of "intellectual akrasia"-profoundly insecure, ridden by anguish, and "very neurotic." See Dunn, The Political Thought of John Locke, passim, esp. 13, 29, 80-82, 92-93,164,187-99, and 256-60. For further elaboration of the view that Locke was a victim of "intellectual akrasia," see John Dunn, "Individuality and Clientage in the Formation of Locke's Social Imagination," " 'Trust' in the Politics of John Locke," and "From Applied Theology to Social Analysis: The Break between Locke and the Scottish Enlightenment," in John Dunn, Rethinking Modern Political Theory: Essays, 1979-83 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 13-67. Note also Dunn, "Consent in the Political Theory of John Locke," in John Dunn, Political Obligation in Its Historical Context: Essays in Political Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980), 29-52.
229. One cannot paper over the difficulties: Locke was either sane and devious, as his contemporaries tended to suppose-see Maurice Cranston, John Locke: A Biography (New York: Macmillan, 1957); Richard Ashcraft, Revolutionary Politics and Locke's Two Treatises of Government (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1986); and Rahe, "John Locke's Philosophical Partisanship," 1-43-or he was deeply troubled and intellectually at odds with himself, as Dunn, The Political Thought of John Locke, contends. There really is no alternative. Cf., however, A. John Simmons, The Lockean Theory of Rights (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992).
230. One cannot paper over the difficulties: Locke was either sane and devious, as his contemporaries tended to suppose-see Maurice Cranston, John Locke: A Biography (New York: Macmillan, 1957); Richard Ashcraft, Revolutionary Politics and Locke's Two Treatises of Government (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1986); and Rahe, "John Locke's Philosophical Partisanship," 1-43-or he was deeply troubled and intellectually at odds with himself, as Dunn, The Political Thought of John Locke, contends. There really is no alternative. Cf., however, A. John Simmons, The Lockean Theory of Rights (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992).
231. One cannot paper over the difficulties: Locke was either sane and devious, as his contemporaries tended to suppose-see Maurice Cranston, John Locke: A Biography (New York: Macmillan, 1957); Richard Ashcraft, Revolutionary Politics and Locke's Two Treatises of Government (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1986); and Rahe, "John Locke's Philosophical Partisanship," 1-43-or he was deeply troubled and intellectually at odds with himself, as Dunn, The Political Thought of John Locke, contends. There really is no alternative. Cf., however, A. John Simmons, The Lockean Theory of Rights (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992).
232. One cannot paper over the difficulties: Locke was either sane and devious, as his contemporaries tended to suppose-see Maurice Cranston, John Locke: A Biography (New York: Macmillan, 1957); Richard Ashcraft, Revolutionary Politics and Locke's Two Treatises of Government (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1986); and Rahe, "John Locke's Philosophical Partisanship," 1-43-or he was deeply troubled and intellectually at odds with himself, as Dunn, The Political Thought of John Locke, contends. There really is no alternative. Cf., however, A. John Simmons, The Lockean Theory of Rights (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992).
233. One cannot paper over the difficulties: Locke was either sane and devious, as his contemporaries tended to suppose-see Maurice Cranston, John Locke: A Biography (New York: Macmillan, 1957); Richard Ashcraft, Revolutionary Politics and Locke's Two Treatises of Government (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1986); and Rahe, "John Locke's Philosophical Partisanship," 1-43-or he was deeply troubled and intellectually at odds with himself, as Dunn, The Political Thought of John Locke, contends. There really is no alternative. Cf., however, A. John Simmons, The Lockean Theory of Rights (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992).
234. Whether any argument for natural rights and the natural equality of man can ultimately be sustained in the absence of the Christian God is, of course, another matter entirely: see Jeremy Waldron, God, Locke, and Equality: Christian Foundations in Locke's Political Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002). For Locke, the natural-rights argument-which is difficult, if not impossible, to square with the account of nature that he provides in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding-may be entirely rhetorical, a public teaching crafted to suit his immediate ends. The same concerns may explain Locke's undoubted interest in Socinian argumentation: see Marshall, John Locke, passim, esp. 327-451.
235. Whether any argument for natural rights and the natural equality of man can ultimately be sustained in the absence of the Christian God is, of course, another matter entirely: see Jeremy Waldron, God, Locke, and Equality: Christian Foundations in Locke's Political Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002). For Locke, the natural-rights argument-which is difficult, if not impossible, to square with the account of nature that he provides in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding-may be entirely rhetorical, a public teaching crafted to suit his immediate ends. The same concerns may explain Locke's undoubted interest in Socinian argumentation: see Marshall, John Locke, passim, esp. 327-451.
236. See Farrand, ed., Records of the Federal Convention, 2:324-26, 505-6 (August 18 and September 5,1787). Originally, Madison argued that the government should have the power "to encourage by premiums [and] provisions, the advancement of useful knowledge and discoveries"; Pinckney explicitly called for the government to have the power "to grant patents for useful inventions." See George W. Evans, "The Birth and Growth of the Patent Office," Records of the Columbia Historical Society 22 (1919): 105-24. Madison revealed an interest in patent law well before the convention. See Bill for Granting James Rumsey a Patent for Ship Construction, November 11, 1784, in Hutchinson, Rachal, et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison, 8:131-33. See also Irving Brant, James Madison (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1941-61), 2:370. Because the patent clause was uncontroversial, the Constitution's most eloquent defenders and exponents deemed it unnecessary to speak of it at length, but they did manage to hint at its importance by giving its discussion central place: see Federalist No, 43 (J. Madison), in Cooke, ed., The Federalist, 288.
237. See Farrand, ed., Records of the Federal Convention, 2:324-26, 505-6 (August 18 and September 5,1787). Originally, Madison argued that the government should have the power "to encourage by premiums [and] provisions, the advancement of useful knowledge and discoveries"; Pinckney explicitly called for the government to have the power "to grant patents for useful inventions." See George W. Evans, "The Birth and Growth of the Patent Office," Records of the Columbia Historical Society 22 (1919): 105-24. Madison revealed an interest in patent law well before the convention. See Bill for Granting James Rumsey a Patent for Ship Construction, November 11, 1784, in Hutchinson, Rachal, et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison, 8:131-33. See also Irving Brant, James Madison (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1941-61), 2:370. Because the patent clause was uncontroversial, the Constitution's most eloquent defenders and exponents deemed it unnecessary to speak of it at length, but they did manage to hint at its importance by giving its discussion central place: see Federalist No, 43 (J. Madison), in Cooke, ed., The Federalist, 288.
238. See Farrand, ed., Records of the Federal Convention, 2:324-26, 505-6 (August 18 and September 5,1787). Originally, Madison argued that the government should have the power "to encourage by premiums [and] provisions, the advancement of useful knowledge and discoveries"; Pinckney explicitly called for the government to have the power "to grant patents for useful inventions." See George W. Evans, "The Birth and Growth of the Patent Office," Records of the Columbia Historical Society 22 (1919): 105-24. Madison revealed an interest in patent law well before the convention. See Bill for Granting James Rumsey a Patent for Ship Construction, November 11, 1784, in Hutchinson, Rachal, et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison, 8:131-33. See also Irving Brant, James Madison (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1941-61), 2:370. Because the patent clause was uncontroversial, the Constitution's most eloquent defenders and exponents deemed it unnecessary to speak of it at length, but they did manage to hint at its importance by giving its discussion central place: see Federalist No, 43 (J. Madison), in Cooke, ed., The Federalist, 288.
239. See Farrand, ed., Records of the Federal Convention, 2:324-26, 505-6 (August 18 and September 5,1787). Originally, Madison argued that the government should have the power "to encourage by premiums [and] provisions, the advancement of useful knowledge and discoveries"; Pinckney explicitly called for the government to have the power "to grant patents for useful inventions." See George W. Evans, "The Birth and Growth of the Patent Office," Records of the Columbia Historical Society 22 (1919): 105-24. Madison revealed an interest in patent law well before the convention. See Bill for Granting James Rumsey a Patent for Ship Construction, November 11, 1784, in Hutchinson, Rachal, et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison, 8:131-33. See also Irving Brant, James Madison (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1941-61), 2:370. Because the patent clause was uncontroversial, the Constitution's most eloquent defenders and exponents deemed it unnecessary to speak of it at length, but they did manage to hint at its importance by giving its discussion central place: see Federalist No, 43 (J. Madison), in Cooke, ed., The Federalist, 288.
240. See Farrand, ed., Records of the Federal Convention, 2:324-26, 505-6 (August 18 and September 5,1787). Originally, Madison argued that the government should have the power "to encourage by premiums [and] provisions, the advancement of useful knowledge and discoveries"; Pinckney explicitly called for the government to have the power "to grant patents for useful inventions." See George W. Evans, "The Birth and Growth of the Patent Office," Records of the Columbia Historical Society 22 (1919): 105-24. Madison revealed an interest in patent law well before the convention. See Bill for Granting James Rumsey a Patent for Ship Construction, November 11, 1784, in Hutchinson, Rachal, et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison, 8:131-33. See also Irving Brant, James Madison (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1941-61), 2:370. Because the patent clause was uncontroversial, the Constitution's most eloquent defenders and exponents deemed it unnecessary to speak of it at length, but they did manage to hint at its importance by giving its discussion central place: see Federalist No, 43 (J. Madison), in Cooke, ed., The Federalist, 288.
241. For a comprehensive discussion of the origins of the patent, see Harold G. Fox, Monopolies and Patents: A Study of the History and Future of the Patent Monopoly (Toronto: University of Toronto, 1947), 3-189. See also William Hyde Price, The English Patents of Monopoly (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1913), 3-46; and Arthur Allan Gomme, Patents of Invention: Origin and Growth of the Patent System in Britain (London: Longmans Green and Co., 1946), 5-12. See also E. Wyndham Hulme, "The History of the Patent System under the Prerogative and at Common Law," Law Quarterly Review, vol. 12, no. 46 (1896): 141-54, and vol. 16, no. 61 (1900): 44-56.
242. For a comprehensive discussion of the origins of the patent, see Harold G. Fox, Monopolies and Patents: A Study of the History and Future of the Patent Monopoly (Toronto: University of Toronto, 1947), 3-189. See also William Hyde Price, The English Patents of Monopoly (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1913), 3-46; and Arthur Allan Gomme, Patents of Invention: Origin and Growth of the Patent System in Britain (London: Longmans Green and Co., 1946), 5-12. See also E. Wyndham Hulme, "The History of the Patent System under the Prerogative and at Common Law," Law Quarterly Review, vol. 12, no. 46 (1896): 141-54, and vol. 16, no. 61 (1900): 44-56.
243. For a comprehensive discussion of the origins of the patent, see Harold G. Fox, Monopolies and Patents: A Study of the History and Future of the Patent Monopoly (Toronto: University of Toronto, 1947), 3-189. See also William Hyde Price, The English Patents of Monopoly (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1913), 3-46; and Arthur Allan Gomme, Patents of Invention: Origin and Growth of the Patent System in Britain (London: Longmans Green and Co., 1946), 5-12. See also E. Wyndham Hulme, "The History of the Patent System under the Prerogative and at Common Law," Law Quarterly Review, vol. 12, no. 46 (1896): 141-54, and vol. 16, no. 61 (1900): 44-56.
244. For a comprehensive discussion of the origins of the patent, see Harold G. Fox, Monopolies and Patents: A Study of the History and Future of the Patent Monopoly (Toronto: University of Toronto, 1947), 3-189. See also William Hyde Price, The English Patents of Monopoly (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1913), 3-46; and Arthur Allan Gomme, Patents of Invention: Origin and Growth of the Patent System in Britain (London: Longmans Green and Co., 1946), 5-12. See also E. Wyndham Hulme, "The History of the Patent System under the Prerogative and at Common Law," Law Quarterly Review, vol. 12, no. 46 (1896): 141-54, and vol. 16, no. 61 (1900): 44-56.
245. For a comprehensive discussion of the origins of the patent, see Harold G. Fox, Monopolies and Patents: A Study of the History and Future of the Patent Monopoly (Toronto: University of Toronto, 1947), 3-189. See also William Hyde Price, The English Patents of Monopoly (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1913), 3-46; and Arthur Allan Gomme, Patents of Invention: Origin and Growth of the Patent System in Britain (London: Longmans Green and Co., 1946), 5-12. See also E. Wyndham Hulme, "The History of the Patent System under the Prerogative and at Common Law," Law Quarterly Review, vol. 12, no. 46 (1896): 141-54, and vol. 16, no. 61 (1900): 44-56.
246. See Elizabeth S. Kite, L'Enfant and Washington (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press, 1929), 61-66, where the plan and L'Enfant's observations are reprinted. See also Report of June 22,1791, in ibid., 54-55. L'Enfant's purpose in developing his plan was to reinforce or at least imitate the separation of powers by setting the White House, the Congress, and the Supreme Court at a sufficient distance from each other that three separate communities would grow up within the District of Columbia. The nondenominational church was to be the central point at which the three converged. See James Sterling Young, The Washington Community, 1800-1828 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1966), 1-10.
247. See Elizabeth S. Kite, L'Enfant and Washington (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press, 1929), 61-66, where the plan and L'Enfant's observations are reprinted. See also Report of June 22,1791, in ibid., 54-55. L'Enfant's purpose in developing his plan was to reinforce or at least imitate the separation of powers by setting the White House, the Congress, and the Supreme Court at a sufficient distance from each other that three separate communities would grow up within the District of Columbia. The nondenominational church was to be the central point at which the three converged. See James Sterling Young, The Washington Community, 1800-1828 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1966), 1-10.
248. See Elizabeth S. Kite, L'Enfant and Washington (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press, 1929), 61-66, where the plan and L'Enfant's observations are reprinted. See also Report of June 22,1791, in ibid., 54-55. L'Enfant's purpose in developing his plan was to reinforce or at least imitate the separation of powers by setting the White House, the Congress, and the Supreme Court at a sufficient distance from each other that three separate communities would grow up within the District of Columbia. The nondenominational church was to be the central point at which the three converged. See James Sterling Young, The Washington Community, 1800-1828 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1966), 1-10.
249. See Louise Hall, "New Threat to Washington Landmark: The Design of the Old Patent Office," Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 15, no. 1 (1956): 27-30; and Jane B. Davies, "A. J. Davis' Projects for a Patent Office Building, 1832-1834," Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 24, no. 3 (1965): 229-51. The phrase used to describe the structure was coined by Elliot's older brother Jonathan.
250. See Louise Hall, "New Threat to Washington Landmark: The Design of the Old Patent Office," Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 15, no. 1 (1956): 27-30; and Jane B. Davies, "A. J. Davis' Projects for a Patent Office Building, 1832-1834," Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 24, no. 3 (1965): 229-51. The phrase used to describe the structure was coined by Elliot's older brother Jonathan.