EN:

This article uses the methods that Locke advocated in his Essay Concerning Human Understanding to evaluate manuscript evidence from five different schemes and two drafts of the Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina, to thereby determine what role, if any, John Locke had in writing it, and in advocating for slavery and absolutism. It focuses on the influential claims put forward by David Armitage 20 years ago, that Locke was responsible for actively promoting slavery in Carolina’s Fundamental Constitutions. It enables the reader to view, and judge, the relevant evidence. The author concludes, and invites the reader to conclude, that Armitage’s main claims lack foundation in the manuscript evidence. That evidence instead points towards the legal power of those who owned Carolina, the Lords Proprietors, and to the crown, which granted Carolina’s charter, and to the logic of a different theory of government, patriarchalism, for the rationale behind both slavery and absolutism. The central ideas behind slavery and colonization were epitomized, as Locke understood, by Sir Robert Filmer, who wrote the book to which Locke responded in his Two Treatises of Government. Filmer’s ally, Sir Henry Spelman, like Filmer a deeply committed royalist who believed in the king’s unlimited prerogatives, composed the original 1629 Carolina charter that shaped the Fundamental Constitutions. Misattributing the authorship of particular clauses to Locke is a symptom of a larger failure to distinguish the impact of momentous debates over authority and race in the seventeenth century. Locke’s theories did, in practice as well as principle, reject the theory of domination put forward by Filmer, and argued instead for human rights and democracy that were inclusive and capacious. The manuscript evidence has the potential to reshape how modern democratic theory is understood in the present.

EN:

Locke’s short essay, “Venditio,” offers a series of thought-provoking examples of prices that might or might not be viewed as just. Locke writes as though these examples and his comments about them point to a coherent doctrine about which agreed-to prices are morally acceptable and which are morally unacceptable. However, despite the acuity of some of Locke’s observations, no such coherent doctrine emerges from Locke’s discussions of these examples. Indeed, many of the conclusions Locke reaches as he moves from example to example are implausible in themselves or inconsistent with one another. Nevertheless, not all is lost. Locke’s observations can be viewed as thought experiments on his part which, in conjunction with insights from Locke’s other economic writings, indicate what features a doctrine of acceptable and unacceptable prices needs to possess. I show how a line of argument which appears almost as a sidebar within “Venditio” offers a doctrine that provides those needed features. That doctrine affirms both “the common law of traffic” and “the common law of charity” and a view about when the latter takes priority over the former.

EN:

Liberal political thought affirms the moral equality of all persons. The Lockean tradition within liberalism captures this equality by endowing people with equal natural rights. However, a powerful line of criticism holds that the theory fails to live up to its egalitarian billing by treating men and women differently. This article offers a rational reconstruction of the Lockean position on gender equality, and the rights of women in particular. We propose a novel interpretative method which puts Locke into conversation with a contemporary female author, Rachel Speght. In Speght, we find an interesting argument supporting an egalitarian Lockean view, grounded in familiar Lockean assumptions, using familiar Lockean arguments. Voices like Speght have long been unjustly neglected in the liberal tradition. By constructing this imagined conversation, we offer a stronger foundation for Lockean liberalism, and begin to incorporate excluded voices in the formulation of that tradition.

EN:

This article presents a new account of the reception of John Locke’s Paraphrase and Notes on the Epistles of St. Paul (1705–7) in the eighteenth-century Church of England. Although the Paraphrase is rarely discussed in studies of the influence of Locke’s writings, this work was widely used by later scholars and clergymen. The fierce early response to the Paraphrase’s apparently heterodox interpretations of St. Paul’s accounts of the Resurrection and the Trinity soon gave way to a more positive appreciation of the work’s merits. Even in these early years, some putatively orthodox divines had found much that was useful in the Paraphrase. After 1730, such positive readings of the Paraphrase became more prevalent. The growing status of Locke’s philosophy facilitated a re-reading of his religious writings. The Paraphrase was lauded in Biblical commentaries, educational writings, sermons, and systematic treatises. Scholars and clergymen frequently imbibed Locke’s hermeneutic principles; his judicious comments on St. Paul’s style and argumentative strategy; his anti-Calvinist exegesis; and, the contextual knowledge he provided for understanding the epistles. The enduring influence of the Paraphrase also ensured that it was deployed in several significant theological debates around Deism and obligatory subscription to articles of faith.

EN:

This paper argues that what interests Locke most is not whether we are free to suspend desire but the nature of the liberty that suspension grants us, and that Lockean liberty is essentially about deliberation that takes place in what has nowadays come to be called the space of reasons. This allows me to offer a novel and balanced account that carefully designates both causal and rational elements of Locke’s theory of moral agency: after having reached a judgment concerning the best course of action, we are to take measures, if need be, so that this cognitive achievement raises the corresponding conative element, namely an uneasiness that determines our will. Locke’s ambitious theory aims to incorporate two strong philosophical intuitions widely held incompatible: that our will is free and that impulses affect our choices. The present interpretation thus throws new light on the development of Western moral thought.

EN:

A review of John Colman’s recent book Everyone Orthodox to Themselves: John Locke and His American Students on Religion and Liberal Society (Lawrence: University of Kansas Press, 2023)

EN:

Review of Claire Rydell Arcenas’s America’s Philosopher: John Locke in American Intellectual Life (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 2023)