John Locke: Correspondence: Volume IX, Supplement (Clarendon Edition of the Works of John Locke) [Supplement ed.] 9780198754299, 0198754299

Table of contents :
Cover
The Clarendon Edition of the Works of John Locke
Scheme of Volumes
Copyright
Acknowledgements
Contents
Abbreviations
Conventions
Introduction
Esmond de Beer’s Edition and Beyond
Newly recovered, augmented, and collected letters
(i) Newly found letters to and from Locke
(ii) Letters printed by de Beer and now augmented
(iii) Recovered manuscripts of Molyneux letters: the Karpeles Collection
(iv) Letters calendared but not printed by de Beer
(v) Epistles dedicatory
(vi) Letters of recommendation, dispensation, and petition
(vii) Translations of Dutch letters
(viii) Early colonial letters
(ix) Board of Trade letters
(x) Commissioner of Appeals in Excise letters
(xi) Secretary for Presentations letters
(xii) Letters of attorney
(xiii) Masham Trust letters
(xiv) Lord Ashley’s illness.
(xv) Thomas Aikenhead correspondence
(xvi) Addenda from vol. vii
(xvii) Newly collected third-party letters
(xviii) Letters relating to Locke’s death
Some exclusions
(i) Addresses to Locke by his Christ Church pupils
(ii) Cleves letters
(iii) Orders for payment
(iv) The Leibniz-Burnett correspondence
(v) The Esther Masham Letterbook
(vi) Further Shaftesbury letters in Locke’s hand
(vii) Ghosts
Lost letters
Letters reproduced in recent editions
The Republic of Letters
Epistolarity
Inventory
Letters
Appendices
A: Surveillance Letters
B: Articles of Agreement with Publishers
C: Spurious Letters
Calendars
Conspectus of the Correspondence
The size of the corpus
Distribution over time
Postal addresses
(i) Letters by Locke
(ii) Letters to Locke: Addresses of senders
(iii) Addresses of Locke in letters to Locke
Early publication of letters
Calendar of non-epistolary Documents and Enclosures
Calendar of documents in the lovelace correspondence ot printed
Calendar of locke's Correspondents
The correspondents
Most frequent correspondents
(i) Most frequent correspondents (twenty or more letters by or to Locke)
(ii) Most frequent recipients of letters from Locke (ten or more)
(iii) Most frequent senders of letters to Locke (twenty or more)
Status of correspondents
Early publication of letters
Calendar of Third-Party Correspondents
Calendar of Repositories
United Kingdom
Continental Europe and Ireland
North America
Letters known only from printed sources
Index of Names
Index of Locke's Works

Citation preview

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

the clarendon edition of the works of john locke General Editor: J. R. Milton Editorial Board: M. R. Ayers  John Dunn   Mark Goldie J. R. Milton  †G. A. J. Rogers  Jacqueline Rose James Tully

THE CORRESPONDENCE

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

scheme of volumes

1. Two Tracts on Government 2. Disputations on the Law of Nature 3. An Essay Concerning Toleration and Other Writings on Law and Politics, 1667–1683 4. The Nature of Churches 5–6. Drafts for the Essay Concerning Human Understanding 7. Abridgements of the Essay Concerning Human Understanding and Other Philosophical Writings, 1672–1689 8. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding 9–10. Replies to Edward Stillingfleet 11. The Conduct of the Understanding and Other Philosophical Writings, 1690–1704 12–13. Letters Concerning Toleration 14. Two Treatises of Government 15. Some Thoughts Concerning Education 16–17. On Money 18. The Reasonableness of Christianity 19. Vindications of the Reasonableness of Christianity 20–1. A Paraphrase and Notes on the Epistles of St Paul 22. A Discourse of Miracles and Other Writings on Religion, 1681–1702 23. Colonial Writings 24. Writings on Natural Philosophy and Medicine 25. Literary and Historical Writings 26. Translation of Pierre Nicole’s Essais de Morale 27–30. The Journals 31–40. The Correspondence

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

THE CORRESPONDENCE OF

John Locke Volume Nine supplement EDITED BY MARK GOLDIE

OXFORD ∙ CLARENDON PRESS

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP, United Kingdom Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries © Mark Goldie 2023 The moral rights of the author have been asserted All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Control Number: 2023933552 ISBN 978–0–19–875429–9 Printed and bound by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, cr0 4yy Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials contained in any third party website referenced in this work.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The recovery, transcription, translation, and annotation of many of the documents published here are owed to several scholars besides myself, who are acknowledged at the appropriate points in this volume. I wish, however, to gather them all here, because constructing this book has been, more than usually, a collective enterprise. The recoverers of hitherto unknown or uncollected letters are Peter Anstey, David Armitage, John Attig, Adriana Benzaquén, Philippus Breuker, Bridget Clarke, Lee Davison, Peter Foden, Elizabeth Grant, Michael Hunter, Lindsay Judson, Tim Keirn, Julia Kelsoe, Geoff Kemp, Mark Knights, Noah McCormack, Scott Mandelbrote, Beverley Marvin, J.  R.  Milton, C. D. van Strien, Felix Waldmann, and Craig Walmsley. In the task of collation, transcription, translation, annotation, and analysis I am most grateful for assistance from these and also from Marjolein Allen-­Witzes, Fiona Amery, Jonquil Bevan, James Buickerood, Cory Cotter, Esther Counsell, Alan Cromartie, Priscilla Flower-­Smith, Susannah Goldschmidt, Jessica Gordon-­Roth, Susan Halpert, Earle Havens, Paul Hopkins, Michael Hunter, Clare Jackson, Christine Jackson-­Holzberg, Una McCormack, Ciara McDonnell, Philip Milton, Derrick Mosley, Jonathan Nathan, Eleanor O’Keefe, Lisa Parlee, Naomi Pullin, Jacqueline Rose, Susan Sadler, Sami-­Juhani Savonius, Elizabeth Short, Delphine Soulard, Andrew Taylor, Emily Walhout, Matthew Ward, and Meike Wrigley. Except where otherwise stated, the recovery, transcription, and annotation of documents are my own. For assistance in tracking down the Molyneux correspondence I am grateful to Julia Boyd, Angela Hornyold-­Strickland, Henry Engleheart, Cliff Farrington of the Harry Ransom Research Center, Thomas Taylor, and David Karpeles and his staff. Special thanks go to John Attig, who for many years has maintained the invaluable ‘John Locke Resources’ website: https:// openpublishing.psu.edu/locke. I must single out J. R. Milton, who has been hugely generous with his time and expertise, and has saved me from many errors. I am also indebted for support to fellow members of the Board of the Clarendon Edition of  the Works of John Locke, and to encouragement from Oxford University’s Press’s inestimable philosophy editor, Peter Momtchiloff. In the production of this book I am grateful for the expertise of Henry Clarke, Monica Matthews, Emma Slaughter, and Donald Watt. v

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Acknowledgements New finds emerged from the following libraries and archives, to all of which institutions permission to print items in their possession is very gratefully acknowledged: American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Amsterdam University Library; Beinecke Library, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut; the duke of Rutland’s archive, Belvoir Castle, Leicestershire; Bodleian Library, Oxford; British Library, London; Cambridge University Library; Deutsches Literaturarchiv, Marbach, Germany; Hampshire Record Office, Winchester; Haverford College, Pennsylvania; Houghton Library, Harvard University; Karpeles Manuscript Library, Santa Barbara, California; Musée Royal de Mariemont, Morlanwelz, Hainaut, Belgium; National Archives, Kew, London; National Library of Australia, Canberra; National Maritime Museum, Greenwich; National University of Ireland, Dublin; Newberry Library, Chicago; The Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Pepys Library, Magdalene College, Cambridge; Royal Society of London; St Andrews University Library, Scotland; Somerset Heritage Centre (formerly Record Office), Taunton; Staatsbibliothek, Berlin; Thoemmes Antiquarian Books, Bristol; Virginia Historical Society, Richmond; and Washington University Library, St Louis, Missouri. Private owners, book dealers, and auction houses are often generous in allowing transcription of items for sale. When they are not, declaring, as one of them did, that ‘the commercial value of the manuscript would diminish if the text were published’, the scholarly editor feels keenly a tension that runs through contemporary controversy in the politics of knowledge: the right of private property versus the right of the scholarly commons. The characteristic sale price for a Locke letter in recent years has been £8,000–£10,000; in 2018 one reached £15,000. This occasion may be taken to record that the recovery of letters from the Scottish Record Office and from the Locke MSS in the Bodleian Library which were printed by Esmond de Beer at the end of volume viii was owed respectively to the late Paul Hopkins and to J. R. Milton.

vi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

CONTENTS abbreviations  viii conventions  x introduction xii inventory liii LETTERS 1 appendices

401

calendars

435

A. Surveillance letters B. Articles of agreement with publishers  C. Spurious letters 

Conspectus of the correspondence  The size of the corpus  Distribution over time  Postal addresses  Early publication of letters Calendar of non-­epistolary documents and enclosures Calendar of documents in the Lovelace correspondence    not printed Calendar of Locke’s correspondents  The correspondents Most frequent correspondents Status of correspondents Calendar of third-­party correspondents  Calendar of repositories

index of names index of locke’s works

403 419 428

437 437 437 439 447 451 463 467 469 493 495 500 512

521 536

vii

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

ABBREVIATIONS The abbreviations used in this volume are as follows. Some of the abbreviations which Esmond de Beer used in previous volumes differ from conventions in use today, and in these cases it would be misleading to persist with his: changes are indicated in square brackets. Where de Beer punctuated abbreviations, modern convention is not to do so. BL

British Library, London [in place of B.M. (British Museum)] Bodl. Bodleian Library, Oxford [in place of B.L.] Bourne H. R. Fox Bourne, The Life of John Locke, 2 vols., 1876 Cheves Langdon Cheves, ed., The Shaftesbury Papers and Other Records Relating to Carolina, South Carolina Historical Society, 1897; facsimile reprint, 2000 Corr. The Correspondence of John Locke, ed. E. S. de Beer, 8 vols., 1976–89 Cranston Maurice Cranston, John Locke, 1957 fo., fos. folio, folios HRO Hampshire Record Office, Winchester LL The Library of John Locke, eds. John Harrison and Peter Laslett, 2nd edn, 1971 MS Locke Locke’s papers in the Lovelace Collection, Bodleian Library ODNB Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, 2004 and online PRO Shaftesbury Papers in the National Archives [in place of S.P.] SHC Somerset Heritage Centre (formerly Record Office), Taunton TNA The National Archives, Kew, London [in place of P.R.O. (Public Record Office)] ‘Clarendon Edition’ refers to volumes in the Clarendon Edition of the Works of John Locke, published by Oxford University Press. Planned viii

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Abbreviations to contain approximately forty volumes, this project began publication in 1975 and twenty volumes had appeared by 2021, of which de Beer’s edition of the Correspondence comprised eight. ‘Clarke Papers’ refers to Edward and Mary Clarke’s in the Sanford Collection in SHC. ‘Karpeles Collection’ refers to the Locke-­Molyneux correspondence in the Karpeles Manuscript Library, Santa Barbara, California.

ix

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

CONVENTIONS In transcribing from manuscripts de Beer silently altered texts in minor ways: ampersands were expanded (&/and, &c/etc.); superscript letters were brought in line; contractions were expanded (e.g. wch/which, yr/your, Bp/Bishop, Ld/Lord, Sr/Sir, Matys/Majesties, Parlmt/Parliament, Hoble/ Honourable), except where modern usage still abbreviates (e.g. Mr, Dr); thorns were converted (ye/the; yt/that); and punctuation was occasionally added where there was a serious deficit. Contractions of names were retained and explained in footnotes (e.g. ‘the K’, ‘Sir W Y’). De Beer did not invariably record interlineation, minor amendments, or deletions. 〈Angle brackets〉 denote speculative readings or illegible or lost text, and [square brackets] denote other editorial inter­polations. These conventions have been followed here. Ampersands are retained in transcriptions from printed texts. I have retained de Beer’s practice of printing signatures at the end of letters in capitals, although this has no textual warrant. The layout of closing salutations has been standardized, by placement at the centre. In citing modern books in footnotes, de Beer provided just the year of publication, without place of publication or publisher; I have ­followed suit. I have retained de Beer’s system of numeration of letters, adding ‘A’ (or ‘B’ etc.) for newly recovered or newly collected letters, inserted in the chronological sequence at the appropriate point. De Beer himself occasionally used suffixes, when inserting a late find. Since most but not all suffixed items occur in the present volume, I have also calendared de Beer’s suffixed items in the Inventory of the present volume so that the reader may, without confusion, readily locate all suffixed items. I have added an asterisk (e.g. 230*) in cases where the letter is already present in de Beer’s volumes but new material or new information is now added in the present volume. Since scholars often cite from the Correspondence by letter number rather than by volume and page, I have assigned numbers also to items in the Appendices (A1–14, B1–7, C1–2). Monetary abbreviations: in the seventeenth century the pound sterling was divided into 20 shillings, and a shilling into 12 pence. These were abbreviated as l (or li), s, and d (librae, solidi, denarii). Modern equivalences for seventeenth-­century monetary values are notoriously x

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Conventions problematic, but the Bank of England’s online historical inflation index indicates that £1 in 1700 would be worth £166 in 2023. This volume ends with indexes of names of persons and of Locke’s works. A full index to all nine volumes of the Correspondence will appear as the tenth volume. Names of persons occurring in the present volume which lack a footnote to identify them are individuals who appear elsewhere in this volume and can be traced through the index, or whom I have not been able to identify. In headnotes, designations such as ‘Early colonial’ or ‘Masham Trust’ to categorize letters are explained in the Introduction. Dates follow the documents and are usually Old Style ( Julian Calendar) within England, and New Style (Gregorian Calendar) for Continental letters, with dual dates given where needed. The Continent was ten days ahead of England until 1700 and eleven days thereafter. The year is taken to begin on 1 January (in Locke’s time the convention was that the year began on Lady Day, 25 March). Note that the reproductions of Locke’s letters in the online resource ‘Electronic Enlightenment’ converts all letter dates to Gregorian dates. All website citations were extant on 30 May 2023.

xi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

INTRODUCTION esmond de beer’s edition and beyond The eight previous volumes of The Correspondence of John Locke were published between 1976 and 1989, the magnificent achievement of Esmond de Beer, who devoted three decades to this project, having been commissioned by Oxford University Press in 1956. De Beer was a virtuoso of a rare sort. He never held a university post, being the bene­ fi­ciary of a New Zealand chain-store fortune. Born in Dunedin in 1895, he took a degree at New College, Oxford, and settled in England after the First World War. Until after the Second World War the front door of his London home was opened by a uniformed parlourmaid. He never possessed a gramophone, radio, television, or motor car, but had eight thousand books, a Monet, and some Rembrandt drawings. Only sturdy walking holidays in Dr Johnson’s Hebrides, the acquisi­ tion of rare books, and the committees of several learned societies— the Antiquaries, the Hakluyt, the Historical Association—distracted him from scholarship. In the 1930s he began work on an edition of John Evelyn’s Diary. That took him until 1955, when it appeared in six volumes. Then he turned to Locke’s Correspondence. Oxford University Press commissioned the project before it had committed itself to a full edition of the works of Locke. With iron determination and infinite patience, he found, collated, collected, enumerated, and transcribed, in longhand, 3,600 letters, and supplied thousands of erudite footnotes. The scholarly quality of his work is extraordinarily high. He was ninetyfive when he died in 1990. Sadly, blindness intervened to prevent him completing the final, index volume, so that, ever since, access to his rich store has required tenacity on the part of his readers. De Beer left his rare book collection to the University of Otago library. Among the distinctions he accrued were honorary doctorates from the universities of Durham, Otago, and Oxford. Michael Strachan has published an affectionate account of him: Esmond de Beer (1895–1990): Scholar and Benefactor: A Personal Memoir, 1995. There is an entry in the ODNB.1 1  See also D. Kerr, ‘Esmond de Beer: Portrait of a Bibliophile’, The Book Collector, 56 (2007), 329–44. Letters by de Beer, giving insights into his work on the Locke correspondence, are in Bodl., MS Eng. c. 7102.

xii

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Introduction In the three decades since de Beer’s death a number of unknown Locke letters have come to light, as well as new material relating to known letters. These are presented here. The opportunity of this ninth volume has been taken also to provide the texts of a considerable num­ ber of further documents which fall under the rubric of cor­res­pond­ ence, including epistles dedicatory and significant third-party letters. The volume concludes with a series of calendars which aim to assist researchers in navigating one of the greatest surviving bodies of cor­res­ pond­ence in the early modern Republic of Letters. A tenth volume, the index, will follow. The contents of the previous eight volumes are available online, by subscription, at the Electronic Enlightenment;2 Oxford Scholarly Editions Online;3 and Intelex Past Masters.4 This volume will follow. Locke’s letters are calendared in Early Modern Letters Online (EMLO),5 and in John Attig’s ‘John Locke Resources’.6 Further unknown letters will no doubt emerge in due course. The likelihood is the greater with the steady increase in the appearance of online catalogues of manuscript collections worldwide. Some items likely to emerge in this way are ‘orphaned’ letters, which stand alone within miscellaneous collections: Locke’s fame prompted nineteenthcentury autograph hunters to buy a single item. There remain a handful of Locke letters inaccessible in private collections, which occasionally come up for auction.

Newly recovered, augmented, and collected letters The main body of this volume comprises 270 entries, being newly recovered, augmented, or newly collected letters. In addition, the three appendices contain a further twenty-three documents. These are all listed in the inventory below. Something should be said about the cri­ teria for inclusion. The most straightforward category is letters by or to  Locke, previously unknown, which have emerged from various archives. Augmented letters are those calendared by de Beer but for 2 http://www.e-enlightenment.com.   3 http://www.oxfordscholarlyeditions.com. 4 http://www.nlx.com/collections/79. 5  http://www.emlo.bodleian.ox.ac.uk. See also WEMLO, Women’s Early Modern Letter Online, via the same portal. 6 http://openpublishing.psu.edu/locke.

xiii

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Introduction which, for various reasons, it is now possible to expand, amend, or replace the texts supplied by him, or to include the texts of enclosures omitted by him. Augmented letters keep their de Beer enumeration but have an asterisk added. Newly collected letters are those which, while sometimes known to de Beer, he did not regard as properly belonging to his edition, but which I have judged should appear.7 There are various types of newly recovered, augmented, and collected letters, and the following paragraphs discuss them in greater detail. Some of these are overlapping categories. At various points the discus­ sion prompts questions about what properly belongs under the descrip­ tion of ‘correspondence’. The category ‘letter’ encompasses a diverse variety of rhetorical forms, from intimate ‘familiar’ letters to formal letters of petition, formulaic bureaucratic letters of instruction, or con­ tractual letters of agreement. Ambiguities are bound to exist, especially among the literary productions of a published author, where the boundary between public and private documents is porous, and where a memorandum or a meditation or a draft paragraph for a book may elide with a ‘letter’. Locke’s letters sometimes constitute, or derive from, philosophical memoranda which surface elsewhere. For ex­ample, let­ ters 684 and 687 to Damaris Masham coincide with meditations in Locke’s journals; likewise, letters 328, 374, and 426, to Denis Grenville, concerning ‘recreation’ and ‘scrupulosity’.8 Many letters to Edward Clarke from the 1680s were woven into Some Thoughts Concerning Education; while others, to William Molyneux in the 1690s, contain drafts of passages modified in the second and subsequent editions of the Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Similarly, Locke’s letter to Jean Le Clerc of 9 October 1694 (no. 1798), headed ‘Libertie’, appears to be a draft, not in fact used, for an addition to the Essay. Occasionally, opportunist publishers turned Locke’s letters into puta­ tive essays. Three letters to Richard King were first published as if they were ‘polite essays’, under the titles ‘Sentiments Concerning the Society for the Promoting Christian Knowledge’ and ‘Instructions for the Conduct of a Young Gentleman as to Religion and Government’. A letter to Humfry Smith appeared as ‘Some Memoirs of the Life and Character 7  His judgements occasionally seem eccentric. For example, he printed six of the third-party letters available in The Correspondence of John Locke and Edward Clarke, ed. B. Rand, 1927, but not the equally pertinent seventh. 8  R. I. Aaron and J. Gibb, eds., An Early Draft of Locke’s Essay, 1936, pp. 119–21, 123–5; MS Locke f. 3, pp. 69–79, 351–78.

xiv

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Introduction of Dr. Edward Pococke’.9 A salient case of ambiguity is the category of epistles dedicatory appearing at the front of published books, which take the form of letters, but belong to a public genre, and for which generally there is no surviving manuscript. Such porosity justifies a somewhat more expansive definition of ‘correspondence’ than de Beer envisaged—though his own volumes are in fact pocked with ­ambiguities.10 While de Beer’s boundaries have here been modestly extended, I have nonetheless kept in mind the overarching distinction that an edition of ‘correspondence’ is not the same as a ‘documentary life’. This criterion has been especially important in selecting thirdparty letters for ­inclusion. (i)  Newly found letters to and from Locke The most straightforward category is previously unknown letters by or to Locke that have come to light since de Beer finished his work. In most cases manuscripts have emerged from archives, found by a number of scholars; in a few instances the sources are auction catalogues or printed books. Strictly, a few of these were probably known to de Beer but he decided not to regard them as belonging to the corpus. A total of ninety items in this volume are by or to Locke. Many of these fall into a number of distinct groups, which are separately considered below. The archive most fruitful for new material is the Somerset Heritage Centre (formerly Record Office) at Taunton. Locke’s intimate friend and principal voice in the House of Commons, Edward Clarke, left behind an immense body of political, family, and estate papers, now part of the Sanford Collection. The material has been recatalogued in recent years with the aid of a Heritage Lottery Fund grant, and a listing is available online.11 The collection provides primary material for, inter alia, the study of local party politics, Somerset gentry society, estate stewardship, and child-rearing practices.12 Perhaps the most ser­en­dip­it­ous 9  Nos. 2846, 3321, 3328, 3339. All these appeared in The Remains of John Locke, 1714. 10  Among items which de Beer included which are dubiously ‘letters’ are: nos. 1 (an oration), 185 (a skit), 277 (notes on Lapland), 428 (notes on a proof copy of Toinard), 523 (accounts), 751–2 (poems), 772 (a cipher code), 1024A (observations on Locke’s Abrégé), 2452 (memoran­ dum on colonization), 2797 (memorandum concerning tenants). In the conspectus of the cor­res­ pond­ence below there is a list of all documents which are not purely epistolary. 11 http://www.somerset-cat.swheritage.org.uk/records/DD/SF. 12  The History of Parliament volumes made extensive use of the collection: https://www. historyofparliamentonline.org. For other aspects, see P.  Flower-Smith, ‘Landowners on the Devon and Somerset Border, 1660–1715’ (PhD thesis, Exeter University, 1996); B. Clarke, ‘John Spreat, Steward at Chipley, Somerset, 1689–1720s’, Somerset Archaeology and Natural History,

xv

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Introduction find printed here is a Locke letter which I found loose and folded sev­ eral times, still serving as a bookmark in a Clarke account book three centuries after it was placed there.13 Whereas de Beer printed just two letters from the Sanford papers,14 the present volume includes thirty further letters, of which nine are letters by or to Locke (or with his postscript),15 while the others are third-party letters having close bear­ ing on Locke.16 In a couple of cases they are ‘mirror images’ of previ­ ously known Locke letters, which is to say, Locke wrote two versions of the same letter, to different recipients.17 Besides letters, the Clarke papers have also recently yielded draft parliamentary legislation con­ cerning the regulation of elections, with annotations by Locke, and a draft of Locke’s memorandum of 1690 concerning allegiance.18 Second in number of finds after the Clarke papers are two collec­ tions in the Hampshire Record Office at Winchester, the Heathcote and Malmesbury papers, recovered by J. R. Milton and myself.19 The material includes the longest letter printed here, and possibly the long­ est in all of Locke’s Correspondence, a 7,300-word disquisition by Samuel Heathcote, early in 1696, providing Locke with a public policy agenda for his impending membership of the newly formed Board of Trade and Plantations.20 The Heathcote of Hursley papers are those of Samuel

148 (2005), 41–51; idem, ‘The Marriage of John Locke’s “Wife”, Elizabeth Clarke’, Locke Newsletter, 22 (1991), 93–114; idem, ‘Huguenot Tutors and the Family of Edward and Mary Clarke of Chipley, 1687–1710’, Proceedings of the Huguenot Society, 27 (2001), 527–42; S. H. Mendelson, ‘Child Rearing in Theory and Practice: The Letters of John Locke and Mary Clarke’, Women’s History Review, 19 (2010), 231–43; A. Benzaquen, ‘Locke’s Children’, Journal of the History of Childhood and Youth, 4 (2011), 382–402. Additional references to Locke are col­ lected in M. Goldie, ‘John Locke in the Clarke Papers’ (forthcoming). For Clarke letters online see below p. l, n. 175. 13  No. 1818A. Now conserved and filed separately.    14  Nos. 1490, 1879. 15  Nos. 803A, 852A, 1417A, 1481B, 1756A, 1818A, 1861A, 2028A, 2855A. In addition, 2151* has an enclosure recovered from SHC. Sadly, in a couple of cases the Heritage Centre has been over­ zealous in conservation of Locke’s letters using gauze, and their texts are now virtually irrecover­ able, so that my own transcriptions, made prior to conservation, must stand as the versions of record. 16  Nos. 763A, 930A, 1310A, 1324A, 1353B, 1470A, 1488A, 1683A, 1721A, 1735B, 1949A, 1956A, 1962A, 2017A, 2081A, 2102A, 2134A, 2137A, 2291A, 2733A, 3649. Philip Abrams’s Cambridge PhD thesis of 1961 (‘John Locke as a Conservative’) claimed that there were two unnoticed letters of Locke to Edward Clarke in the Wharton Collection in the SHC. A search by Priscilla Flower-Smith found none. 17  Nos. 1962A, 2017A. 18 M.  Knights, ‘John Locke and Post-Revolutionary Politics: Electoral Reform and the Franchise’, Past and Present, 213 (2011), 41–86; M.  Goldie, ‘John Locke on the Glorious Revolution: A New Document’, History of Political Thought, 42 (2021), 74–97. 19  Nos. 304A, 860A, 1171A, 1981A, 1984A, 1996A, 2289A, 2333A, 2333B; and a third-party letter, 848A. 20  No. 1996A.

xvi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Introduction Heathcote and his descendants. The Malmesbury papers are chiefly those of James Harris (1709–80), philosopher, man of letters, and musical patron (whose son became first earl of Malmesbury); he was a grandson of Anthony Ashley Cooper, second earl of Shaftesbury, and an intimate of the fourth earl. The newly found letters to and from Locke, including all categories, such as dedicatory epistles in published books and routine administra­ tive letters, yield several people not previously recorded as being among Locke’s correspondents: Élie Bouhéreau (523A), Edmund Calamy (3600A), Sir Robert Clayton (2138A), John Dunton (3503A), John Evelyn (279A), Richard Gardiner (161A), Francis Gwyn (279B), Griffith Jones (280C), Nathaniel Lye (272A), Stephen Nye (1960A), Edward Osborne (280D), Thomas Osborne, earl of Danby (280A), John Read (174A), William Samuell (297A), Hendrik Schelte (2650B), and, tech­ nically at least, King William III (1209A, 1251B). This list is in part artificial, given that, for example, a petition to the Crown was scarcely likely to have reached the king’s eyes, while Dunton’s epistle dedicatory to Locke in a printed book was merely a commercial marketing exer­ cise, though it is revealing of the polemical settings within which Locke’s reputation was deployed. (ii)  Letters printed by de Beer and now augmented These comprise three sorts: (a) letters for which the original (or an alternative) manuscript has now been found;21 (b) additional text omitted by de Beer;22 (c) enclosures to letters which de Beer elected not to print (or was unable to locate) and which it is now judged should be printed;23 (d) new biographical identifications or elucidations of the identity of correspondents.24

21  Nos. 245*, 353*, 399*, 405*, 415*, 1437*, 1604*, 1775*, 2473*, 2504*, 2523*, 2590*, 2724A*, 3088A*, 3234*, 3278*, 3565*, 3608*, 3619* (not including the Karpeles Collection). In a couple of cases the new source is from print rather than manuscript. 22  Nos. 230*, 231*, 250*, 291*. 23  Nos. 98*, 155*, 254*, 1115*, 1338*, 1543*, 2021*, 2026*, 2123*, 2151*, 2170*, 2207*, 2336*, 2655*, 2677*, 2784*. 24  Nos. 169* (Benjamin Woodroffe), 290A (Richard Lilburne), 307* (Thomas Stringer), 677* (Masham children), 682* (Clarke children), 904* (William Broadnax), 1906* (Stephen Nye), 1950* (Mary Burges), 1993* (Samuel Heathcote), 2026* (Peter Mauvillain), 2284* (René de La Treille), 2588* (Alexander Cunningham).

xvii

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Introduction Of the first sort, much the largest cache is the Karpeles Collection of Molyneux letters, discussed separately below. All other instances of newly recovered original manuscripts (where de Beer was forced to use a later or less reliable source) are recorded in this volume, but new tran­ scriptions are only provided where there is additional recoverable text or significant amendments to existing text. Regarding enclosures, two points are worth noting. The first is that de Beer had certain blind spots. He tended to regard Locke’s conduct of public, particularly political or administrative business as less per­ tin­ent, presumably on the basis of an assumption about the primacy of Locke’s personal and intellectual life. The second is that the organiza­ tion and cataloguing of Locke’s papers at the Bodleian Library in the 1950s was ruthlessly modernist, in a manner that present-day cataloguers would avoid. That is to say, taxonomic logic prevailed over respect for contiguity. This meant that correspondence often became separated from memoranda enclosed with it, as belonging to different categories of document. For example, there are items now bound in among the colonial and trade papers in MS Locke c. 30 which were received by Locke as enclosures with letters that occur in the correspondence vol­ umes (MS Locke c. 3–24), and which need restoring to their contexts.25 Letters for which the archival location is now different from that recorded by de Beer, but for which there is no other augmentation, are noted in the Calendar of Repositories.26 In a handful of cases, ‘augmentation’ means that images of letters are now available for viewing online. The fact is recorded in the main body of this book or in the Calendar of Repositories.27 (iii)  Recovered manuscripts of Molyneux letters: the Karpeles Collection Locke’s correspondence with William Molyneux is arguably the most important philosophical exchange in the whole of the correspondence. The letters were published soon after Locke’s death in Some Familiar Letters between Mr Locke and Several of His Friends (1708), an edition 25  One instance spotted by de Beer occurs at no. 2452: the enclosure at MS c. 30, fos. 127–8 belongs with the letter at MS c. 20, fos. 157–8. At no. 2533 the enclosure is at MS e. 11. Other documents are reunited in the present volume. 26  Letters, the archival locations of which are now different from those recorded by de Beer, are nos. 353, 399, 405, 428, 542, 590A, 628, 652, 1060A, 1267, 1749, 1754, 1775, 1898, 1953, 2093, 2456, 2473, 2539, 2590, 2717, 2724A, 3009, 3088A, 3234, 3278, 3465, 3498, 3565, 3608, 3619; together with the Pforzheimer Library and Karpeles collections. 27  Nos. 1209A, 2501*, 2548A, 2640, 3590A, 3608*; and a third-party letter: no. 2596A.

xviii

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Introduction brought to press by Locke’s publisher Awnsham Churchill.28 It was incorporated into Locke’s Works from the first edition of 1714. It included sixty-seven letters between Locke and Molyneux, plus twelve between Locke and Molyneux’s brother Thomas, and five between Locke and their friend Ezekiel Burridge. The originals of most of the Molyneuxs’ side of the correspondence were acquired by the Carl H. Pforzheimer Library of New York (and since 1987 have been in the Harry Ransom Humanities Research Center at the University of Austin, Texas), and these were transcribed by de Beer from that source. From these originals it was evident, as de Beer noted (Corr., iv, p. viii, and in individual headnotes), that the editor of Some Familiar Letters had adjusted the texts, for example by amending punctuation and orthography, and, more significantly, by omitting some passages. With the originals available, de Beer was able to restore the missing passages. The originals of Locke’s side of the correspondence were, however, thought to be lost, and for these de Beer had to rely on the 1708 printed edition. (There were a couple of exceptions to this, where transcrip­ tions from the originals had been made in the nineteenth century.) However, it has emerged that most of the originals have survived. Until 1985 they were in the possession of Henry Engleheart of Stoke-byNayland, Suffolk. They were then sold to a dealer, W. Thomas Taylor of Austin, Texas, who in turn sold them to the Karpeles Manuscript Library of Santa Barbara, California. The Karpeles Library, founded by David Karpeles in 1983, displays its holdings in several cities throughout the United States and is ‘dedicated to the preservation of the original writings of the great authors, scientists, philosophers, statesmen, sovereigns and leaders from all the periods of world history’. It declares itself to be ‘the world’s largest private holding of important original manuscripts and documents’. The library’s website captures an orthodox view of Locke in American public discourse: he was the ‘ini­ tiator of the age of enlightenment and reason and an inspirer of the Constitution’.29 The Karpeles Locke collection initially comprised thirty-three letters: twenty-eight of the twenty-nine written to William Molyneux,30 28  Correspondence concerning this publication is printed in K. T. Hoppen, ed., Papers of the Dublin Philosophical Society, 1683–1709, 2 vols., 2008, ii. 739–43, 846–50. 29 http://www.karpeles.com. The discovery of the originals was reported in M.  Goldie, ‘Locke, Charity, and the Rod’, Times Literary Supplement, no. 5127 (6 July 2001). 30  Nos. 1515, 1538, 1583, 1592, 1620, 1643, 1655, 1693, 1744, 1753, 1781, 1817, 1857, 1887, 1921, 1965, 1966, 2059, 2115, 2129, 2202, 2254, 2277, 2310, 2376, 2414, 2471, 2492. The missing item is no. 2243, for which there is no extant manuscript.

xix

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Introduction together with four out of five to Thomas Molyneux,31 and one to Ezekiel Burridge.32 While David Karpeles generously supplied me with photocopies of all these, the letters, with one exception, are not nor­ mally available to view, nor is there a published catalogue. The excep­ tion is no. 1887, which contains amendments for a new edition of the Essay, for which an image was hitherto available online.33 In 2018 the Karpeles Library sold one item in its collection,34 which may be indica­ tive of an intention to make further sales. The likely consequence would be the breaking up of the collection. Examination of the originals demonstrates two points: first, in reproducing the material which he did print, the editor of Some Familiar Letters was generally remarkably faithful to Locke’s text; but, second, he omitted a number of passages, as could be predicted from his treatment of the Molyneux side of the correspondence. The ac­cur­ acy of the printed text of 1708 is such that a full retranscription is not justified here, particularly as it would be some eighty pages in length. The only general editorial changes made in 1708 were the insertion of additional punctuation, occasional modernizing of spellings (for instance, ‘publique’ becomes ‘publick’, ‘schollers’ becomes ‘scholars’), a handful of corrections of obvious slips of the pen, the ignoring of deleted words (practically always so thoroughly scored through as to be irrecoverable), and the expansion of contractions (a practice fol­ lowed by de Beer in any case). However, it may be worth providing one illustration of the differences between the manuscript text and the ver­ sion in Some Familiar Letters. Here is the opening paragraph of no. 1643, followed by the transcription in Some Familiar Letters (as ren­ dered by de Beer). It is a useful reminder that editorial practice is not (usually) intended to provide quasi-facsimiles of original manuscripts. I had not been soe long before I had acknowledgd the favour of yr last had not I had a designe to give yu at large an account of some alterations I intended to make in the chapter of power wherein I should have been very glad yu had shewn me any mistake. I my self not being very well satisfied by the conclusion I was lead to, that my reasonings were perfectly right, reviewd that chapter agn with great care & by observing only the mistake of one word (viz having put things for actions wch was very easy to be done in the place where it is viz p. 123 as I remember for I have not my book by me here in town) I got into a new 31  Nos. 1556, 1593, 2500, 2539. The missing item is no. 800, which belongs to another private owner. 32 No. 2501.   33 http://www.karpeles.com/johnlocke.php. 34  No. 2501. Auctioned by Bonham’s, 12 June 2018, lot 25: price achieved £15,686.

xx

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Introduction view of things, wch if I mistake not will satisfie yu, & give a clearer account of humane freedom than hitherto I have done, as yu will perceive by these sum­ marys of the following §s of yt chapter I had not been so long before I had acknowledg’d the favour of your last, had not I a design to give you at large an account of some alterations I intended to make in the chapter of Power, wherein I should have been very glad you had shewn me any mistake. I myself, not being very well satisfied, by the conclu­ sion I was lead to, that my reasonings were perfectly right, review’d that chap­ ter again with great care, and by observing only the mistake of one word (viz. having put things for actions, which was very easy to be done in the place where it is, viz. p. 123. as I remember, for I have not my book by me here in town) I got into a new view of things, which, if I mistake not, will satisfie you, and give a clearer account of humane freedom than hitherto I have done, as you will perceive by these summaries of the following sections of that chapter:

The fidelity to the originals by the editor of Some Familiar Letters is worth underscoring in light of the discovery of the extent to which some con­ temporary editors, notably John Toland, played fast and loose with manu­ scripts, notably in his edition of Edmund Ludlow’s Memoirs (1698).35 The present volume contains entries for all thirty-three of the newly recovered letters. The purpose is to supply omissions in the 1708 and de Beer versions. These are of two sorts, paratextual and substantive. As to the first, postscripts were often omitted, as were all of the recipients’ endorsements (summarizing the letter’s content), and the addresses. In the entries below, not every paratextual item is reproduced. Addresses are not generally given (because almost always ‘For William Molyneux Esq. near Ormonds gate in Dublin’); nor is the standard opening phrase of Molyneux’s endorsements (‘Mr. Locke. Oates’, followed by the letter’s date): only unusual matter is recorded. I have recorded a handful of orthographic changes occurring in the body of the texts where they might be significant. The recording of the endorsements is useful because the epistolary practice of summarizing the content of an incoming letter indicates the receiver’s sense of the letter’s priorities. (Since the letters are available in the de Beer volumes, I have not ­provided footnotes to explicate topics in the endorsements.) The substantive omissions in the 1708 edition cover four topics: Locke’s pursuit of John Hawkshaw for a sum of money; his encouragement of a penfriendship between young Frank Masham and Molyneux’s young son Sam; the character of a prospective tutor called Tanneguy 35  Edmund Ludlow, A Voyce from the Watch Tower, ed. A. B. Worden, 1978, Introduction.

xxi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Introduction Le Fèvre; and details of arrangements to secure paintings of Molyneux and himself from Sir Godfrey Kneller. The first, third, and fourth sets of omissions evidently stemmed from avoidance of giving offence to living persons, while the second topic was doubtless con­sidered too trivial—or perhaps too immodest, since the same Samuel Molyneux was instrumental in bringing Some Familiar Letters to press. None of these missing passages is of paramount importance, though they do cast light on Locke’s (and Damaris Masham’s) attitude to child-rearing, his pursuit of small sums of money (and his sense of the relationship between charitable gift and debt), his frank way with character refer­ ences, and the working practices of Kneller. In the case of no. 2492, the missing passage on Kneller constitutes half the length of the letter. As well as omitting some material passages, the 1708 edition also made one other deviation from the manuscripts: the occasional omis­ sion of proper names in the midst of sentences. De Beer conjecturally supplied these gaps in his footnotes, accurately as it turns out. When Molyneux’s son Samuel received a sample proof sheet from Awnsham Churchill, he was dismayed to find too many names left in. ‘The famil­ iarity of a private letter often makes mention of persons names, which one would be loath should come abroad into public view.’ Churchill replied that Locke’s friends had looked over the letters before they went to press ‘and they assured me care should be taken not to mention any names that were not proper’.36 The friends of Locke here men­ tioned were probably Peter King and Anthony Collins. A few other features of the manuscript originals, not recorded in the entries below, are worth noting. The substantive omitted passages are marked up for omission. The letters are generally signed ‘J.  Locke’ rather than the ‘John Locke’ of the printed version. On several occa­ sions Locke’s protestations of his unalloyed pursuit of truth are perhaps accented by the fact that he writes the word ‘Truth’ with an initial capital, where the printed version uses lower case—for instance, ‘a lover of Truth’, twice in no. 1538. Locke writes ‘god’ in lower case, which becomes ‘God’ in the printed version. The printed version occasionally 36  Southampton City Archives: MS D/M 1/2: Samuel Molyneux Letterbook: 5 August 1708 and 19 August 1708. Published in Hoppen, ed., Dublin Philosophical Society, ii. 846–7, 850. Samuel Molyneux expressed regret that Some Familiar Letters was not printed in folio ‘with a new edition of all his works in 2 vols., as Mr Freak proposed’. Churchill replied that he printed them in octavo to match Locke’s existing published works, so that ‘gentlemen who had Mr Lock’s other pieces might make them complete’; but he still hoped to produce the Works in folio (pp. 847, 850). The Works appeared in 1714.

xxii

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Introduction italicizes words and phrases which are not underlined in the manu­ scripts, but there are no cases where these supply emphasis, for they are instances of chapter or book titles, or quotations, or Latin phrases. (iv)  Letters calendared but not printed by de Beer De Beer allotted numbered entries to twenty items the texts of which he was unable to print or chose not to print, variously, because they were unavailable; or are (or will be) included elsewhere in the Clarendon Edition; or he deemed the content too tangential; or they survive in too scrappy a state; or because they are probable ‘ghosts’. Of the first sort, one item is now available and another partially so and printed here;37 of the second sort, four are now printed here;38 and of the third sort, five items are printed here.39 The remaining ten letters (i.e. calendared by de Beer but printed nei­ ther by him nor in the present volume) are as follows. Nos. 280 and 288 are addressed to Locke purely in his role as secretary of the Council of Trade and Plantations. Nos. 786 and 846 derive from Benjamin Rand’s edition of the correspondence of Locke and Edward Clarke and were stated by Rand to be too damaged and illegible to reproduce: they are, therefore, lost letters. No. 2177 also records a lost letter. No. 590A is in the Lovelace Collection but too fragmentary to attempt to reproduce. No. 1346 was recorded by Thomas Forster also as a fragment. The remaining three items are definite or probable ‘ghosts’.40 (v)  Epistles dedicatory De Beer did not include as correspondence the dedicatory epistles which Locke prefaced to some of his published works (or works intended for publication) or those which were addressed to him in books written by his admirers. Whether these should have been included is debatable. Perhaps they are a genre distinct from truly per­ sonal letters. Yet recent editions of Erasmus’, Richard Baxter’s, and Robert Boyle’s correspondence do include such epistles.41 The case for doing so is that the boundary between private and public epistolary 37  No. 245*, 2504*.    38  No. 108*, 687*, 791*, 804*. 39  Nos. 165*, 169*, 281*, 2123*, 2183*. 40  Nos. 962, 2488, 3611. For ghosts, see below p. xxxviii. 41 For strictures against their inclusion, see The Correspondence of Thomas Hobbes, ed. N. Malcolm, 2 vols., 1994, Introduction, i. xlv.

xxiii

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Introduction writing was not precise. Equally, there was no exact boundary between print and manuscript ‘publication’, since until at least the end of the seventeenth century the practice of manuscript ‘publication’—the deliberate circulation of manuscript texts—remained commonplace.42 A printed letter might be interspersed with unprinted letters in an epistolary exchange. Some of the printed dedicatory epistles by Locke, and to him, sit coherently within the conversational sequence of his private correspondence; and in other cases they were the cause of Locke striking up a correspondence with a person hitherto unknown to him. Instances of the latter are William Molyneux and Catharine Trotter (later Cockburn).43 The present volume includes entries for all known dedicatory epistles. Although some of these texts are readily available elsewhere—most notably the dedication to the Essay Concerning Human Understanding—they are printed here in order to collect together all instances of this genre. This will enable them to be approached not only for their relevance to the books to which they pertain, but also as instances of an important early modern literary genre, revealing of the rhetoric and dynamics of authorship, print pub­ lication, literary patronage, and controversial polemic.44 Of the twenty-one dedications included here, thirteen are by Locke45 and eight to Locke.46 General prefatory addresses by Locke ‘To the Reader’, where no particular person is specified, are omitted (except for his dedication to the readers of Robert Boyle, 1692). Also omitted, of course, are treatises which take the generic form of a ‘Letter’, such as Locke’s Letters to the Bishop of Worcester.47 Also excluded are Locke’s 42 M. Ezell, Social Authorship and the Advent of Print, 1999; H. Love, Scribal Publication in Seventeenth-Century England, 1993. 43  Respectively, nos. 1284A, 3059A. To these may be added Samuel Bold: see 2207A. 44  One edition of a book by Locke, published during his lifetime, contains a further, thirdparty dedication, not included in the present volume: ‘A Mademoiselle Anne Wolfgang, Femme de Mr. Philippe de la Fontaine’, addressed to ‘Mademoiselle ma Cousine’, and signed ‘Antoine Schelte’, in De L’Education des Enfans (Amsterdam, 1695). The book was Pierre Coste’s transla­ tion of Some Thoughts Concerning Education; Schelte was the publisher. 45  Nos. 108* (for Gabriel Towerson?), 230A (Lord Ashley?), 239A (Ashley?), 523B (countess of Shaftesbury), 527A (Shaftesbury), 811A, 818A, and 853A (Nicolas Toinard), 1001A (earl of Pembroke), 1131B (Philipp van Limborch?), 1141A (Pembroke), 1428A ( John Somers?), 1503A (Readers of Robert Boyle), 1611A (Edward Clarke), 1975A (Somers). 46  Nos. 773A (by Robert Boyle), 1284A (William Molyneux), 1481A ( Jean Le Clerc), 1735A (Richard Burthogge), 1878A ( John Wynne), 1960A (Stephen Nye?), 3059A (Catharine Trotter), 3503A ( John Dunton). This is two more than itemized in J. S. Yolton, John Locke: A Descriptive Bibliography, 1998, pp. xiv–v. 47  There are several tracts in the literary form of letters to Locke, e.g. A Review of the Universal Remedy for all Diseases Incident to Coin . . . in a Letter to Mr. Locke (1696); and Richard Burthogge, Of the Soul of the World . . . In a Letter to Mr Locke (1699).

xxiv

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Introduction congratulatory poems, which are, in a formal sense, ‘dedicated’ to those whom they celebrate.48 (vi)  Letters of recommendation, dispensation, and petition Included here are four instances where Locke received, or was the bene­fi­ciary of, letters of recommendation: testimonials of character or licences for dispensation from university statutory requirements.49 In addition, Locke wrote four letters of petition to the Crown, or to Crown officials, seeking redress or reimbursement.50 There is one other letter of introduction for Locke.51 (vii)  Translations of Dutch letters Locke’s correspondence includes some 415 letters written wholly or partly in French and 240 in Latin; there are five in Dutch and one in Greek. De Beer provided translations of the Latin and Greek letters, and of one of the Dutch letters.52 Few readers of the Correspondence will be able to read Dutch, and accordingly translations of the remain­ ing Dutch letters are printed in the present volume.53 Many modern readers in the Anglophone world will not be able to read French either. However, translations of the French letters would be a major undertak­ ing and would fill several hundred pages, and are not feasible here. (viii)  Early colonial letters There are two bodies of letters relating to America and wider colonial and commercial matters, some of which are ambiguous in respect of Locke’s authorial role. The first belong to the early, ‘Carolina’ period, and the second to the Board of Trade period. During the years 1668–73, as the earl of Shaftesbury’s client, Locke was secretary to the Lords Proprietors of Carolina, and, in 1673–4, to 48  Oliver Cromwell, 1654; Charles II, 1660; Queen Catherine of Braganza, 1662; Thomas Sydenham, 1668; and perhaps John Greenhill, undated. See Locke, Political Essays, ed. M. Goldie, 1997, pp. 201–4, 209–11; Locke, Literary and Historical Writings, ed. J. R. Milton, 2019, pp. 189–99. 49  Nos. 161A, 211A, 211B, 249A. 50  Nos. 1209A, 1251B, 1688A, 1951A. Hobbes’s letter of petition to Charles II is included in Hobbes, Correspondence, no. 210. 51  No. 783A. 52  De Beer wrote: ‘I told my Latinist for Locke that I wanted the translations to be literal, accurate, and readable: the three requirements are incompatible, but the results are good.’ De Beer to Michael Strachan, 13 Dec. 1964: Bodl., MS Eng. c. 7102, fo. 71. 53  Nos. 1095*, 1160*, 1162*, 1261*. De Beer provided a translation of no. 1024.

xxv

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Introduction the king’s Council of Trade and Plantations. A number of letters exist in his handwriting, but for which his role was that of amanuensis for his masters. His active agency in the composition of some of them can­ not be ruled out, particularly given his involvement in the drafting of the Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina (1669).54 In her book on Locke and America, Barbara Arneil sometimes invokes such letters as indicative of Locke’s positions; for example, one to Richard Kingdon, 16 May 1672, which records decisions of the Lords Proprietors, and which de Beer did not include, although he knew of its existence.55 Most of these letters are available in print in a volume edited by Langdon Cheves,56 and several are summarized in the Calendar of State Papers, Colonial: America and West Indies. Of the papers in the Cheves volume, the following may be noted: four letters included by de Beer;57 five further letters that are in Locke’s hand, the two most significant of which are included in the present volume;58 and several sets of sum­ maries by Locke of incoming letters, of which the most interesting records truculent colonists appealing to parliamentary right against proprietary government.59 In addition to letters, the Cheves volume contains other types of documents concerning Locke.60 Among the augmented letters printed here is Locke’s important memorandum on ‘Writers of Carolina’, appended to a letter to Sir Peter Colleton. It is in fact a list of numerous writers on America gen­ erally, and of voyages to America.61 Also important is Locke’s letter to Lord Arlington, on behalf of the Council of Trade, calendared but not printed by de Beer, concerning Barbados.62 Significant too is a letter, dating from 1673, which has Locke’s signature in the margin, and which he probably drafted, containing the Council of Trade’s advice on the recapture of New York from the Dutch.63 Among Locke’s own papers there is a copy of a letter from Abraham Wood in Carolina to John Richards, treasurer and agent for the 54  See Locke, Colonial Writings, ed. D. Armitage (forthcoming). 55 B. Arneil, John Locke and America, 1996, pp. 129–30. 56  L. Cheves, ed., The Shaftesbury Papers and Other Records Relating to Carolina, 1897, repr. 2000. 57  Nos. 254, 262, 270, 272. 58  Nos. 253A, 296A. The others are in Cheves, pp. 317–18, 371–2, 375–6. No. 290A is also in Locke’s hand, but not printed in Cheves. 59  Cheves, pp. 290–8. 60  e.g. Temporary Laws of Carolina (p. 325; cf. p. 367); and documents concerning the award of a landgravate to Locke, James Carteret, and Sir John Yeomans (pp. 314, 323, 475). 61 No. 254*.   62  No. 281*. For a further augmented early colonial letter, see no. 291*. 63  No. 280B. It will be included in Locke, Colonial Writings. The remaining four early colo­ nial letters in the present volume are more routine: nos. 278A, 279A, 280A, 317A.

xxvi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Introduction Proprietors in London, 22 August 1674, concerning discoveries in Carolina. It is not printed here.64 Locke continued to take a close interest in Carolina in later years, revising the Constitutions, a document he never repudiated.65 Among Locke’s trade and economy papers are notes in his hand, endorsed ‘Carolina: Extract out of John Stewarts letters 90’. These notes con­ tinue the tradition of promotional laudation of Carolina’s fecund potentialities and attractiveness to settlers, in which Locke and others had engaged for some years. They extol the climate, soil, rivers, and commodities—especially silk, rice, and cotton. I cannot trace Locke’s source, but there are substantial similarities between these notes and letters written in 1690 by John Stewart, a Scot in Carolina who experi­ mented in agriculture and extolled the colony’s advantages.66 (ix)  Board of Trade letters Locke was a founder member, for four years, between May 1696 and June 1700, of King William III’s Commission for Trade and Plantations— usually known by the name it soon acquired, the Board of Trade. In this capacity, he co-signed around two hundred documents. Most of these were either Representations (policy recommendations addressed to the king or, in his absence, the Lords Justices); or formal letters of instructions or enquiry, directed to colonial or other officials, either on the Board’s own authority or in execution of Orders in Council. A few of the two hundred are more informal internal administrative letters. A quorum of five members was needed for signature of these documents. This is not the place to discuss evidence for Locke’s personal influence on this body or the (if we may so call it) ontological question of the nature of Locke’s ‘authorship’ of a co-signed document. Suffice to say, it would be both contentious and impractical, given their bulk, to include such documents here. A further impediment is the difficulty of identi­ fying them all. While those relating to America are summarized in the Calendar of State Papers, Colonial, the Board’s documentation relating to other areas of its remit (international and domestic trade in general, 64  MS Locke c. 30, fos. 12–17. It is summarized from another source (PRO 30/24/48/94) in Cheves, pp. 452–3. 65  D. Armitage, ‘John Locke, Carolina, and the Two Treatises of Government’, Political Theory, 32 (2004), 602–27. 66  MS Locke c. 30, fos. 31–2; ‘Letters from John Stewart to William Dunlop’, South Carolina Historical and Genealogical Magazine, 32 (1931), 1–33, 81–114.

xxvii

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Introduction the Irish economy, and reform of the Poor Law) has laboriously to be extracted, via its minute books, from the eighty volumes of papers for the period of Locke’s tenure held in the National Archives at Kew. Copies of American documents, particularly those sent as circulars to governors of the colonies, crop up quite frequently in American archives, and are sometimes reported as Locke letters.67 It is my inten­ tion, in a future project, to calendar all, and print some verbatim, of Locke’s Board of Trade letters, since they are fundamental to under­ standing his role in governing America and in guiding England’s inter­ national and domestic economic policy. However, some of the more personal Board of Trade material rightly surfaces in this Correspondence. De Beer included many letters which incidentally discuss Board business, particularly the Clarke/Freke and Molyneux series, but also some items that arose specifically from inves­ tigations which Locke made relating to Board business. Several more of this sort have come to light and are included here. They concern, for example, commercial arbitration and textile manufacture.68 The exist­ ence of such letters is occasionally signalled in the Minutes of the Board, such as that ‘Mr Locke delivered to the Board a letter from Sir R. Clayton to himself concerning lustrings’.69 A particularly im­port­ant body of new letters is those found among the papers of Samuel Heathcote in the Hampshire Record Office. These include the immensely long letter, mentioned above, providing Locke with an agenda for his impending membership of the Board.70 One item is a fragment of a letter to Locke.71 The several remaining Board of Trade letters printed here include thirdparty letters which bear closely on Locke.72 (x)  Commissioner of Appeals in Excise letters Locke held a minor public office as one of the five Commissioners of Appeals in Excise, from 1689 until his death. Like the Board of Trade letters, most of the letters in this capacity which bear his name are ­co-signed, and letters to him are addressed to the Commissioners as 67  For example, the Board’s instruction to William Penn of 12 Sept. 1699 is indexed as a ‘letter from’ Locke in The Papers of William Penn, iii, 1685–1700, ed. M. S. Wokeck et al., 1986. Another example is noted in F. Waldmann, ‘Additions to de Beer’s Correspondence of John Locke’, Locke Studies, 15 (2015), 31–52, at 51–2. 68  Nos. 2123*, 2138A, 2300A.    69  TNA, CO 391/9, p. 206 (4 Nov. 1696); no. 2138A. 70  Nos. 1981A, 1984A, 1996A, 2289A, 2333A, 2333B.    71  No. 2656A. 72  Nos. 2130A, 2152A, 2450A.

xxviii

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Introduction a  body. The surviving quantity is far smaller, indeed only a handful. De  Beer printed several;73 and three more are included here.74 The Calendar of Treasury Books record further, routine letters, summoning the Commissioners to meetings with their overlords, the Treasury Commission. (xi)  Secretary for Presentations letters Between November 1672 and November 1673 Locke held the post of Secretary for Presentations under Lord Chancellor Shaftesbury. This related to Crown appointments (‘presentations’) of clergy to parishes (‘livings’). Appointments to most Church of England parishes were under the patronage of the laity—typically local gentlemen—rather than the Church hierarchy or the congregations themselves. A signifi­ cant proportion lay in the hands of the Crown, in practice determined by the Lord Chancellor. De Beer printed one letter concerning this role;75 and four more are printed here.76 The Shaftesbury papers also include copies in Locke’s hand of a number of petitionary letters of clergymen, requesting presentation to livings, and addressed to Shaftesbury, not printed here.77 (xii)  Letters of attorney On a number of occasions Locke prepared letters of attorney em­power­ ing others to act on his behalf. These were of three sorts. First, longterm appointments of stewards of his estates in Somerset (Peter Locke, 1660–80; William Stratton, 1680–95; Cornelius Lyde, 1695–1704). Second, empowerments to act in all his affairs during his absences abroad (Thomas Stringer, 1675–9; Edward Clarke, 1683–89). Third, ad hoc empowerments for a particular financial purpose, such as to collect 73  See headnote to no. 2103A.    74  Nos. 2063A, 2103A, 2106A. 75 No. 266.   76  Nos. 272A, 279B, 280C, 280D. A fifth is pertinent: no. 297B. 77  PRO 30/24/42/59. MS Locke c. 44, fos. 1–23 contains petitions to Shaftesbury, from Devereux Bellinger, Robert Clipsham, William Constable, William Fenwicke, John Forbie, Richard Hatton, John Heighmor, William Holloway, Thomas Jones, James Kettilby, Gamaliel Pretty, Arthur Shipton, Joseph Smith, John Spencer, Stephen Trappet, Nehemiah White. All these petitions were granted, with dates from December 1672 to October 1673. See J. R. Milton, ‘Locke’s Manuscripts among the Shaftesbury Papers in the Public Record Office’, Locke Newsletter, 27 (1996), 109–30, at 116–17. For individual clergy, see the Clergy of the Church of England Database: http://www.theclergydatabase.org.uk. For clergy promoted by Locke, see J. Marshall, John Locke: Resistance, Religion, Responsibility, 1994, p. 81.

xxix

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Introduction his salary. Such letters were largely formulaic, following standard legal protocols, and hence are not printed here in full; they are all calen­ dared and significant phrases excerpted.78 There is a lost letter of attor­ ney for Peter Locke, 1665, in respect of Locke’s absence abroad at Cleves, and another for Edward Clarke, 1694, for collection of a salary.79 Locke records, in his journal, a temporary letter of attorney for Awnsham Churchill to collect his salary.80 (xiii)  Masham Trust letters When Damaris Cudworth, the widow of the philosopher Ralph Cudworth, died at Oates in November 1695, her financial inheritance was placed in trust for her daughter, Damaris, Lady Masham. The three trustees were Locke, Edward Clarke, and Edward Fowler, bishop of Gloucester. Locke devoted considerable care to his role as trustee and Lady Masham’s financial affairs constantly crop up in his cor­res­pond­ ence. Nineteen letters in the de Beer volumes are wholly, or almost wholly, devoted to Masham Trust matters;81 and as many again touch on Trust business.82 These letters are now dispersed throughout Locke’s surviving correspondence, even though some of them are endorsed ‘Trust’ by him, and were probably once filed together.83 There is, how­ ever, a considerable surviving body of Trust papers remaining together, in MS Locke c. 16, fos. 18–80, where accounts, receipts, and memo­ randa are mixed in with twenty-two letters.84 Of the letters, de Beer printed two, both by Leonard Addison to Locke.85 Sixteen are written by Lady Masham to the trustees collectively, seeking their authoriza­ tion for financial dispositions she intended to make.86 It is apparent from these that she was her own financial manager, trading in Bank of 78  Nos. 98A, 304A, 418A, 565A, 769A, 796B, 2008A. 79  Referred to in nos. 177 and 1776. 80  MS Locke f. 10 (6 Oct. and 2 Nov. 1697). And see temporary attorney to Thomas Stringer, 7/17 November 1678, recorded in no. 419. 81  Nos. 2112, 2139, 2145, 2148, 2151, 2182, 2184, 2193, 2294, 2298, 2349, 2353, 2484, 2769, 2798, 2804, 2815, 2927, 3472. 82  Nos. 2027, 2054, 2114, 2120, 2143, 2234, 2242, 2280, 2323, 2764, 2781, 2814, 2815, 2819, 2823, 3005, 3112, 3451, 3482. 83  Nos. 2294, 2298, 2349, 2353, 2484. 84  See de Beer’s note on this material at Corr., v. 466–7. 85  Nos. 2145, 2298. MS Locke c. 16, fos. 23, 35–6. 86  MS Locke c. 16, fos. 27, 30–1, 40–1, 43–4, 46–7, 51–2, 53–4, 55–6, 59–60, 61–2, 63–4, 69–70, 71–2, 73–4, 75–6, 77–8: 19 July and 26 July 1697; 12 Aug. and 21 Oct. 1698; 11 Apr., 22 July, 22 Aug., and 5 Nov. 1699; 23 Apr., 1 July, and 19 Oct. 1700; 12 Dec. 1701; 8 Feb., 4 Mar., 1 Apr., and 20 June 1704.

xxx

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Introduction England and East India stocks, and searching out suitable op­por­tun­ ities to lend money on mortgage. The trustees’ signatures, denoting permissions, appear on most of these letters, and their consents were merely a formality. I have printed here two of these letters as ex­amples.87 I have also printed a letter addressed by John Willis to the trustees which closely relates to letters printed by de Beer.88 I have not printed a letter from Richard Clarke to Lady Masham about a mortgage.89 There are two remaining letters in this group, from the trustees to Peter King, one printed here,90 both of which are closely related to a further Trust letter printed here, from Locke to John Churchill, which is pre­ served in a different manuscript volume.91 The letters illustrate, inter alia, the trustees’ practice, which Locke regularly used for himself, of investing by proxy, in the name of another person, usually Peter King. (xiv)  Lord Ashley’s illness. In 1668–9 Locke, together with several other prominent physicians, advised on the diagnosis and treatment of Lord Ashley’s (the future earl of Shaftesbury’s) illness, which led to a life-saving operation. The full texts of all the relevant letters and opinions have now been pub­ lished, Locke’s among them. A medical historian would wish to read Locke’s letters alongside the others.92 Some augmentations of items included by de Beer are provided in the present volume.93 (xv)  Thomas Aikenhead correspondence The Scottish university student Thomas Aikenhead was executed for blasphemy in Edinburgh in January 1697.94 Locke took a keen interest in the proceedings, retaining papers and letters concerning the case, several of which he marked or corrected, and a couple of which are unique surviving copies. They were printed, from these manuscripts, in 87  Nos. 2795A, 3052A. MS Locke c. 16, fos. 63, 69. 88  No. 2816A. MS Locke c. 16, fo. 65. 89  MS Locke c. 16, fo. 32. Mentioned by de Beer in no. 2534. 90  No. 2587A. MS Locke c. 16, fos. 49–50; (the other is fos. 57–8). 91  No. 2650A. MS Locke c. 24, fo. 31. Two further Masham Trust letters here are nos. 1417A, 2151*. 92  P. R. Anstey and L. M. Principe, ‘John Locke and the Case of Anthony Ashley Cooper’, Early Science and Medicine, 16 (2011), 379–503. The originals are in TNA, PRO 30/24/47/2. The other doctors consulted were Timothy Clarke, Sir George Ent, Francis Glisson, John Micklethwaite, and Thomas Sydenham. Two letters, by Thomas Strickland to Sir Gilbert Talbot, 26 Oct. 1668, and John Arnold to [Ashley?], n.d., are endorsed by Locke. 94  See no. 2207*. 93  Nos. 230*, 231*, 250*.   

xxxi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Introduction A Complete Collection of State Trials.95 Only the covering letter, prob­ ably by James Johnstoun, was printed by de Beer (which State Trials wrongly attributed to Locke).96 Today bound into a miscellaneous ­volume, Locke’s Aikenhead papers were described in the early nine­ teenth century as being ‘in a bundle of manuscripts on the subject of Toleration’.97 The material has been extensively used in modern schol­ arship on this important case, the last execution for blasphemy in Britain.98 There are three letters besides Johnstoun’s: (1) William, Lord Anstruther to Robert Cunningham, 26 January 1697 (fo. 98; the ori­ gin­al letter); (2) copies of Aikenhead’s letter to his friends, 8 January 1697, the day of his execution (fos. 99–102); (3) Robert Wylie to William Hamilton, 16 June 1697, concerning Aikenhead and the pros­ ecution of witches (fos. 107–8; endorsed by Locke, ‘Scotland Witches 97’). The first and third are printed here.99 (xvi)  Addenda from vol. viii Several items were discovered by de Beer at a late stage of his project and were included by him in an addendum in Volume Eight. At the suggestion of advisers to this volume, these have been reproduced here, without amendment to the body of their texts, in order to ensure that the present volume provides a single sequential resource for all new finds.100 I have, however, in several cases augmented the headnotes and footnotes. De Beer was rather sparse in these cases, omitting, for ex­ample, to explain that ‘Payn’ was Henry Nevil Payne, the last person in British history to be judicially tortured.101 (xvii)  Newly collected third-party letters Arguably, third-party letters do not properly belong within the ‘cor­res­ pond­ence of Locke’, and, as noted above, elasticity in this area is apt to cause slippage from an edition of correspondence towards a ‘documentary 95  Ed. W. Cobbett et al., xiii, 1812, cols. 917–40. 96  MS Locke b. 4, fos. 86–108: no. 2207*. 97 F. Horner, Memoirs and Correspondence, 2 vols., 1843, i. 487. 98 M.  Hunter, ‘Aikenhead the Atheist: The Context and Consequences of Articulate Irreligion in the Late Seventeenth Century’, in Atheism from the Reformation to the Enlightenment, eds. M.  Hunter and D.  Wootton, 1992; M.  Graham, The Blasphemies of Thomas Aikenhead: Boundaries of Belief on the Eve of the Enlightenment, 2008. 99  Nos. 2183A, 2277A. 100  Nos. 298A, 747A, 1624A, 1640A, 1854A, 2717*, 2839A, 2908*. 101  No. 1640A.

xxxii

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Introduction life’. While the present volume is more flexible than de Beer might have allowed, I have sought to avoid undue slippage by including only let­ ters that are substantially about Locke—there exist many more that mention him en passant. Following de Beer’s lead, there is a presump­ tion here in favour of inclusion of third-party letters if they came into Locke’s hands and are now found among the correspondence volumes in MS Locke c. 3–24. I have revisited these volumes, albeit that de Beer went meticulously through them, and selected some additional items for printing; any items that remain unprinted are listed in Calendars.102 The present volume contains seventy-nine third-party letters. They are here for several reasons—besides the presence of some of them among Locke’s papers—such as that they summarize lost letters of Locke; are devoted to discussing Locke’s publications; report informa­ tion which had been directly sought by Locke; or were enclosed with Locke’s letters. In fact, de Beer himself printed as many as eighty-eight third-party letters between Locke’s friends and associates. In most cases, he included them either because they were known to have been sent as enclosures in letters to or from Locke or because, while not (certainly) enclosures, they are found among Locke’s papers, so that they must have been sent or given to, or copied for, Locke. In a few cases, de Beer included them because they occur in Rand’s edition of the LockeClarke correspondence, in the Pforzheimer collection of Molyneux correspondence, or elsewhere.103 Of the total in de Beer’s volumes, thirty-one letters (indeed more, as some multiple items are grouped in a single entry) were enclosures appended to letters to or from Locke,104 and fifty-seven were free-standing items.105 It is possible that further letters printed by de Beer were in fact third-party letters, where it is uncertain that Locke was the recipient.106 102  W. von Leyden drew attention to the importance of several of these in his 1944 report on Locke’s correspondence, as well as to items calendared by de Beer but not judged by the latter to be worth printing, including nos. 1208A, 2130A, 2183*. Bodl., Library Records d. 948, pp. 43, 46, 48. 103  All third-party letters, printed by de Beer or here, are calendared below at pp. 500–11. 104  Nos. 363 (4 items), 562, 569, 664, 785, 1228, 1544, 1548, 1630, 1793, 1881, 1984, 1999, 2134 (2 items), 2192, 2204, 2238, 2243, 2260 (2 items), 2330, 2331, 2339 (2 items), 2877, 2952, 2956, 2961, 3115, 3182, 3440, 3467, 3485. Three are documents which are doubtfully letters: nos. 1630, 1999, 2243. 105  Nos. 7, 26, 28, 31, 46, 56, 98, 123, 137, 185, 231, 277, 403, 419A, 462, 463, 523, 664, 756, 793, 794, 891, 1019, 1024, 1024A, 1027, 1028, 1053, 1064, 1142, 1281, 1416, 1612, 1770, 1812A, 1906, 1909, 1942, 1943, 1998, 2042, 2063, 2233, 2248, 2257, 2278, 2281, 2323, 2347, 2359, 2488, 2568, 2632, 2710, 2784A, 2797, 3418A. (Five of these are not properly letters: nos. 185, 277, 523, 1024A, 2797.) 106  Nos. 33, 34, 35, 36, 42, 76, 90, 149, 190, 194, 268, 590A, 628, 1221, 1793, 2183, 2207, 2241, 2344, 2446, 2534, 2802. See 2183* and 2207* below. Additionally, no. 878 encloses a letter doubt­ fully to Locke.

xxxiii

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Introduction Third-party surveillance or ‘spy’ letters, reporting Locke’s allegedly seditious activities in the period from 1681 to 1685, including those connected with his expulsion from his Studentship at Christ Church, are presented in Appendix A. A number of modern editions of correspondences are considerably more generous than de Beer or this Supplement in including thirdparty letters. In Ralph Leigh’s monumental edition of Rousseau’s cor­ res­pond­ence, thirty per cent of the first volume comprises third-party letters, while the final 750 letters, filling the last five volumes, are entirely third-party letters, and go well beyond the grave, the last being written in 1801.107 (xviii)  Letters relating to Locke’s death Locke died on 28 October 1704. While it would not be appropriate to include here the early memoirs of Locke,108 several of which began in epistolary form, or later correspondence concerning reactions to Locke’s ideas, I have printed here six letters, dating from November and December 1704, which directly relate to Locke’s death: two by Peter King, and one each by Mary Clarke, Damaris Masham, Esther Masham, and the third earl of Shaftesbury.109 Omitted are two letters, from Philip van Limborch to Damaris Masham, 28 November 1704, and from her to him, 26 December 1704, which begin a series which properly belong to early attempts to recount Locke’s life.110 Included earlier in the present volume, dating from 1690 to 1695, are three letters which constitute the earliest attempt, by Anthony Wood to gather information about Locke’s life.111

Some exclusions The principal category of letters excluded from this volume is the two hundred co-signed Locke letters among the Board of Trade papers, 107  Correspondance complète de Jean Jacques Rousseau, ed. R.  A.  Leigh, 51 vols., 1965–91. See R. Wokler, ‘Preparing the Definitive Edition of the Correspondance de Rousseau’, in Rousseau and the Eighteenth Century, eds. M. Hobson et al., 1992. By contrast, for strictures against inclu­ sion of third-party letters, see Malcolm, Introduction, in Hobbes, Correspondence, i. xliv. 108  A separate volume is in preparation: The Early Lives of John Locke, eds. M. Goldie and D. Soulard. 109  Nos. 3649–54. 110  Amsterdam University Library, MS D.III.16, 53, MS M.31.b. They will appear in The Early Lives of Locke. 111  Nos. 1280A, 1285A, 1925A.

xxxiv

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Introduction 1696–1700, discussed above. Also noted above are Locke’s secretarial letters during his earlier colonial engagements, and some of the Masham Trust letters. Some further excluded categories are worth comment. (i)  Addresses to Locke by his Christ Church pupils It has been suggested that these documents appropriately belong among Locke’s correspondence.112 They comprise Latin, Greek, and Hebrew exercises by Locke’s pupils. They survive in MS Locke b. 7 and c. 41, Locke’s herbarium (Locke mounted plants on the backs of these exercises). The items include poems, epitaphs, and quasi-epistolary addresses. The last often use the dative, e.g. ‘Magistro Locke’ (‘to Mr Locke’). A total of about 130 of Locke’s pupils appear, who matricu­ lated between 1661 and 1664. Most are identifiable, though in some cases the signature has been cut off in binding.113 Among the more sig­ nificant of them are Henry Aldrich, William Coker, Morgan Godwyn, William Jane, Edward Pococke Jr, James Vernon, and George Wall(s).114 (ii)  Cleves letters In 1665–6 Locke accompanied Sir Walter Vane as his secretary on a diplomatic mission to the Elector of Brandenburg, at Cleves. Locke drafted Vane’s official letters to the government, and they are preserved in the National Archives.115 There are some drafts in MS Locke c. 22, fos. 181–9. Locke made copies of some of the correspondence: BL, Add. MS 16272. His copies of private letters are in MS Locke c. 24, fos. 246–58. The British Library volume contains thirty-nine letters in Locke’s hand: to and from Henry Bennet, earl of Arlington; Sir William Coventry; Lord Chancellor Edward Hyde, earl of Clarendon; and Secretary of State Sir William Morrice. With one exception, the letters in the official series were not printed by de Beer, nor are they included here. The exception is Locke to Joseph Williamson, Arlington’s deputy (SP 81/57, fo. 30).116 112  Waldmann, ‘Additions to de Beer’s Correspondence’, 32n. 113 A full index of names is printed in P.  Long, ‘The Mellon Donation of Additional Manuscripts of John Locke from the Lovelace Collection’, Bodleian Library Record, 7 (1964), 185–93, at 190–3. 114  See J. R. Milton, ‘Locke’s Pupils’, Locke Newsletter, 26 (1995), 95–118. 115  TNA, SP Foreign, German States, vols. 56–7 (SP 81/56–7). 116  No. 183.

xxxv

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Introduction Locke’s personal letters from Cleves are another matter and do belong in the Correspondence, and were printed by de Beer.117 His letter to Robert Boyle is known only from the printed version in the ­eighteenth-century edition of Boyle’s Works.118 (iii)  Orders for payment As was the practice of his time, Locke wrote many instructions for pay­ ments to be made from moneys held on his behalf by his associates, an early form of cheque. These take the form of brief letters, dated, and addressed. Three illustrative examples are included in the present ­volume.119 About forty-five more survive in MS Locke b. 1, dating from 1695 to 1704, nearly all addressed to Awnsham (or John) Churchill, and a few to Edward Clarke, for payments to: Pierre Coste, Richard Clarke, Charles Cradock, Alexander Cunningham, John Freke, Roger Hazard, Peter King, Francis Limborch, John Lukin, Damaris Masham, Sir Francis Masham, John Mayhew, Robert Pawling, William Popple, Frances St John, and Elizabeth Williamson. De Beer printed two from this series, and one other.120 (iv)  The Leibniz-Burnett correspondence The great German philosopher Leibniz, a close reader and critic of Locke’s works, does not appear among his correspondents. They never communicated directly. They used the intermediation of Sir Thomas Burnett of Kemnay, one of the gentlemen scholars who oiled the wheels of the Republic of Letters. On one occasion, Burnett forwarded to Locke a letter he had received from Leibniz, which discussed Locke’s controversy with Edward Stillingfleet, and mentions the Two Treatises of Government.121 Several of Burnett’s letters summarize or quote from letters he had received from Leibniz.122 The substantial series of Leibniz-Burnett letters contains a wealth of information about English 117 Nos. 175–84.   118  Ed. T. Birch, 1744, v. 565–7: no. 175. 119  Nos. 3573B, 3590A, 3643A. These are ones not included in MS Locke. 120  Nos. 2308, 3136A, 3521A. He refers to another, dated 2 August 1704, at Corr., viii. 366. 121  No. 2709. Leibniz to Burnett, 2/13 Feb. 1700. The Burnett-Leibniz correspondence is printed in Leibniz, Sämtliche Schriften und Briefe, 1970–; and previously ed. C. I. Gerhardt, 1875– 90. See W. von Leyden, ‘Notes Concerning John Locke in the Lovelace Collection’, Philosophical Quarterly, 6 (1952); P. Lodge, ed., Leibniz and his Correspondents, 2004. 122  Nos. 2228, 2243, 2565, 2709. See also nos. 2236, 2254, 2629. See W. von Leyden, ‘Notes Concerning Papers of John Locke in the Lovelace Collection’, Philosophical Quarterly, 6 (1952), 63–9, at 66–7; N.  Jolley, Leibniz and Locke, 1984. Leibniz to Burnett on Locke’s writings on money (20/30 January 1699) is quoted in Locke on Money, ed. P. H. Kelly, 2 vols., 1991, i. 305n.

xxxvi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Introduction and German scholarly life in the 1690s and has considerable bearing upon Locke.123 No letter, however, appears to be sufficiently taken up with Locke to qualify for inclusion here. (v)  The Esther Masham Letterbook After Locke’s death Esther Masham, the daughter of Sir Francis Masham, who lived at Oates and knew Locke intimately, transcribed a substan­ tial collection of her correspondence with him and with her brothers and other relations. She destroyed or lost the originals, but helpfully added some contextual notes to her transcripts. De Beer printed the Locke-Masham letters. One of the remaining letters, from Henry Masham to Esther, is printed in the present volume, for it contains an answer to an enquiry Locke had made.124 The others do not belong in Locke’s Correspondence but are an important source for his biography. Yet in one sense many do belong if one adopts a more communal sense of epistolary practices, for Esther certainly read them aloud to the Oates household. For example, letter no. 3396 shows that the house­ hold had heard Winwood Masham’s dramatic account, in a letter to his sister, dated 28 November 1703, of the great storm that had drowned 450 of his fellow sailors aboard the Sterling Castle in the English Channel. On another occasion, when she was away from Oates, Esther wrote out for Locke a long extract of a letter from her aunt in France.125 The volume is now in the Newberry Library, Chicago.126 (vi)  Further Shaftesbury letters in Locke’s hand The Malmesbury papers in the Hampshire Record Office include two letters in Locke’s hand, and perhaps drafted by him, acting as amanuen­ sis for the first earl of Shaftesbury, as follows. Shaftesbury to Thomas Stringer, 19 July [1674] Written from St Giles, Dorset, to Exeter House in the Strand. Concerning arrangements for the transport of Shaftesbury’s effects for his summer sojourn at St Giles, expected to be lengthy because the king, in May, had dismissed him from the Privy Council and ordered him to leave town. Bookshelves and books are to be sent by sea, ‘but let the great wainscoat presses that stand in the gallery remain at London’. Instructs £300 payment to the Hudson’s Bay 123  See S. Duncan, ‘Toland and Locke in the Leibniz-Burnett Correspondence’, Locke Studies, 17 (2017), 117–41. 124 No. 2607A.   125 No. 3003.   126  MS E5.M3827.

xxxvii

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Introduction Company for the purchase of shares. ‘I am concerned the tradesmen should not remain unpaid.’ Reference to financial dealings with ‘the Prince’ (Prince Rupert); Mr Bennet is to ‘let the Prince know I am most devotedly his servant’.127

Shaftesbury to Thomas Stringer, 1 Aug. [1674] Concerning the Hudson’s Bay Company money. Also, agrees to the loan of his portrait to Mr Clifford and Mr Bennet to have an engraving and prints made. Contemplates giving up the lease on Exeter House, and in future taking lodg­ ings. ‘I have no thoughts of bringing my family to towne for some years’. There is a postscript: ‘Neither I nor Mr Locke have received any bill for that £100 you mention you have returned to him.’128

The collection also includes a letter in the earl’s hand to Stringer, which asks Stringer to convey ‘My service to my dear Locke’.129 (vii) Ghosts ‘Ghosts’ are sometimes called ‘spurious’ letters, but there is a distinc­ tion to be drawn between letters mistakenly attributed to an author, or misdated, and those deliberately concocted for ideological or other purposes. The former are scholarly errors; the latter are forgeries. Two forgeries are discussed and printed in Appendix C. The following is a list of ghosts. William Coker to ‘Locke’, 14 December 1664 (no. 169): the recipient wrongly designated as Locke by de Beer; it is in fact Benjamin Woodroffe. See no. 169A. ‘Locke’ to -?-, 29 September 1675: wrongly attributed in an auction catalogue. See Corr., i. 429. 127  HRO, 9M73/G237/8. See K. H. D. Haley, The First Earl of Shaftesbury, 1968, pp. 364–5. Shaftesbury, Thomas Stringer, and Sir Thomas Chichely were involved with Prince Rupert’s ­patent for the production of cannon. 128  HRO, 9M73/G237/9. In a further letter, 7 Nov., he instructs that forty copies of the prints be sent down to Dorset, the plate to stay in London. These two letters have been tentatively assigned to 1675 as possible evidence that Locke was with Shaftesbury at St Giles in the summer of 1675 and might then have drafted at the earl’s behest the incendiary Country Party tract A Letter from a Person of Quality to his Friend in the Country: P. Milton, ‘Pierre Des Maizeaux, A Collection of Several Pieces of Mr John Locke, and the Formation of the Locke Canon’, EighteenthCentury Thought, 3 (2007), 255–91, at 270n. However, they certainly belong to 1674: Haley, Shaftesbury, 364–5. It may here be mentioned that editions of Locke’s Works included three let­ ters by Shaftesbury, c.1677, to the king, the duke of York, and an unnamed lord, that had first appeared in Posthumous Works (1706), because found alongside Locke’s memoir of Shaftesbury’s life. See Locke, Literary and Historical Writings, 179, 374–5. 129  HRO, 9M73/G237/3 (10 Nov. 1674).

xxxviii

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Introduction Locke to the Royal Society, 24 and 30 May 1678. Described as ‘a letter by Locke . . . present location . . . unknown’ in J. S. Yolton, John Locke: A Descriptive Bibliography, 1998, p. 316. In fact an entry in Locke’s journal, from which extracts were taken in two letters which Locke wrote to Robert Boyle (nos. 397, 478), and later printed in Philosophical Transactions, 19 (1697), 594–6. See no. 2219. ‘Locke’ to Thomas Stringer, 26 March 1681 (TNA, PRO 30/24/6/360): wrongly attributed in B. Martin and A. Kippis, The Life of the First Earl of Shaftesbury, 1836, ii. 269–75; and W. D. Christie, Shaftesbury, 1671, ii, appx, pp. cxii–cxv. Perhaps written by John Hoskins.130 See Corr., ii. 390. ‘Locke to Philip van Limborch’, 10/20 September 1687 (no. 962): attributed in an auction catalogue: either lost or a ghost. Locke to Robert Boyle, 30 September/1 October 1687. Thus dated in Boyle, Works, 1744, v. 570–1. Properly belongs to 1688: no. 1001. See Corr., iii. 277, 354. Locke to Philip van Limborch, 18/28 December 1687: thus in an auc­ tion catalogue: probably belongs to 1688 and is no. 1093. See Corr., iii. 318, 525. ‘Locke’ to ‘-?-’, undated (before 1689), concerning Bills of Mortality: wrongly attributed by K. Dewhurst. See no. 1604*. Isaac Newton to ‘Locke?’, two letters, c.November 1690: addressed ‘to a Friend’, speculatively said to be Locke in The Correspondence of Isaac Newton, iii, ed. H. W. Turnbull, 1961, pp. 129–46. The letters continue discussion of Newton’s ‘Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions in Scripture’, which he had sent to Locke (no. 1338). There is no evidence they were written to Locke, but it is not impossible. See Corr., iv. 165n. Jean Le Clerc to [‘Locke’], 18 February 1691. In fact to Robert Boyle. Royal Society, Boyle Letters, 3, fo. 123. Printed in The Correspondence of Robert Boyle, eds. M. Hunter, A. Clericuzio, and L. M. Principe, 2001, vi. 328–30; and Jean Le Clerc, Epistolario, eds. M. Grazia and M. Sina, 4 vols., 1987–97, iv. 426–8. There is a possibility that the letter was addressed to Locke, and his name is given as addressee in the Royal Society’s 1990 catalogue of Boyle’s papers. However, the 130  This letter sheds unique light on the Oxford Parliament’s investigation into how a vital Bill passed by the previous parliament, for removing from Dissenters liability for prosecution under the Elizabethan recusancy laws, had been ‘lost’ and not presented to the king for his assent. Cited as a letter of Locke’s in C. E. Fryer, ‘The Royal Veto under Charles II’, English Historical Review, 32 (1907), 103–11, at 107.

xxxix

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Introduction editors of both these published cor­res­pond­ences are almost cer­ tainly correct in identifying Boyle as the recipient. The letter is more formal than those of Le Clerc to Locke, and Le Clerc would scarcely need to remark to Locke on ‘the community of the Remonstrants, of which I am a member’. The letter also refers to volumes of the Bibliothèque universelle for transmission to Boyle, a transaction referred to in letters of Le Clerc to Locke: nos. 1388, 1410. Le Clerc did write other letters to Boyle, in 1682 and 1688, though their texts are lost, and there is one surviving letter of Boyle to Le Clerc, 1689 (Boyle, Correspondence, v. 244, vi. 245, 258.) The present letter is mainly devoted to describing Le Clerc’s project for a new Latin ver­ sion of the Bible. I am grateful to J. C. Walmsley for information. Charles Willoughby to ‘Locke’, 17 April 1691, concerning Dublin Bills of Mortality: wrongly attributed by K. Dewhurst. See no. 1604*. John Toland to [Locke?], 1694. It has been suggested that the first sur­ viving letter in Toland’s correspondence was ‘very possibly written to John Locke’: J.  Champion, Republican Learning: John Toland and the Crisis of Christian Culture, 1696–1722, 2003, p. 27. The text is in A Collection of Several Pieces of John Toland, 2 vols., 1726, ii. 292–4. Not implausible, especially in light of the next letter, 1843A, but speculative. Isaac Newton to ‘Locke’, 19 September 1698 (no. 2488): wrongly attrib­ uted (as personally to Locke) in The Correspondence of Isaac Newton, iv, ed. J. F. Scott, 1967, pp. 282–4; intended for the Board of Trade collectively.131 Patrick Dun to ‘Locke’, c.1698 and 2 March 1699, concerning Dublin Bills of Mortality: wrongly attributed by K. Dewhurst. See no. 1604*. Locke to Nicolas Toinard, 2 July 1699 (no. 2739): incorrect date in sale catalogue; in fact 2 July 1700. Locke to -?-, 14 August 1704 (no. 3611): attributed in an auction cata­ logue: either lost or in fact no. 3613. See Corr., viii. 377–8.

Lost letters It is, in principle, possible to construct tables of known lost letters, and some recent editors of correspondence have done so, such as those of 131  By contrast, a letter of 1692, said in the Newton Correspondence to be ‘perhaps’ intended for Locke, has now been shown to be definitely so. See no. 1509A.

xl

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Introduction the correspondences of Robert Boyle and Pierre Bayle.132 Such lists derive their information primarily from allusions in extant letters, and from historical inventories of letters which have since disappeared. The task of collation for Locke would be immense, and I have not made the attempt. From such a compilation we might learn the identity of ­persons otherwise not known to have been among Locke’s correspond­ ents, and we would have a more exact sense of the real scale of his cor­ respondence over time.133 A few examples of missing letters may be offered. There are four from Boyle to Locke, their existence deducible from extant letters. For example, Thomas Sydenham wrote to Boyle on 2 April 1668 reporting that Locke accompanied him in visiting his patients and that ‘Mr Locke hath troubled you with an account of my practice.’134 In 1701 Lord Haversham thanked Locke for a letter of recommendation, but it does not survive.135 Edward Clarke’s promise to Locke to shield his name from the House of Commons’ investigation of William Molyneux’s Case of Ireland is not extant, and was perhaps destroyed by Locke, but is signalled in a surviving letter.136 Locke and Robert Hooke evidently corresponded, but only one letter survives. The minutes of the Royal Society record that ‘Mr Hooke read a letter from Mr. John Locke, dated at Padua, giving an account of the late total eclipse of the moon observed there by an ingenious acquaintance of his.’ The two men were also in contact via John Mapletoft, for Hooke’s journal records, ‘At Dr.  Mapletofts. Locks letter about Length of Pendule [pendulum]’, while a note among Locke’s papers tells us that, in reply, ‘Mr Hooke sends me word by Dr. Mapletoft.’137 Occasionally a recipient’s sum­ mary of a letter by Locke survives on an outer sheet, the inner sheet being lost, such as this: ‘Mr Lock touching the Resolutions of the Committee about Clipping and coyning etc: Received the 20th March 1694[/5]. And touching the College of Physitians in the Printing-Act 132  The Correspondence of Robert Boyle, eds. M. Hunter et al., 6 vols., 2001; Correspondance de Pierre Bayle, eds. E. Labrousse et al., 13 vols., 1999–2016. 133  In the present volume nos. 848A and 930A provide summaries of lost Locke letters. De Beer calendared nos. 786 and 846, although they are lost, because recorded by Rand. 134  They date from before 4 Mar. 1667, before 12 Nov. 1667, before 2 Apr. 1668, and before 2 Apr. 1688. Correspondence of Boyle, iii. 274, iv. 1, 55. 135  No. 2978. 136  No. 2447. William Molyneux, The Case of Ireland, ed. P. H. Kelly, 2018, p. 19. 137  Thomas Birch, The History of the Royal Society, 4 vols., 1756–7, iii. 448 (12 Dec. 1678); The Diary of Robert Hooke, 1672–1680, eds. H. W. Robinson and W. Adams, 1968, p. 401; MS Locke c. 42A, p. 88; P. Anstey, ‘Locke on Measurement’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 60 (2016), 70–81, at 74–5. Birch’s ‘Padua’ is a slip for ‘Paris’.

xli

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Introduction etc.’ This must be Locke’s lost letter of 18 March, referred to in Freke and Clarke’s letter of 21 March.138 A lost letter by Locke to the Arabist Edward Pococke, probably of 15 May 1680, concerning an edition of Maimonides, is recorded in a biography of Pococke published in 1740.139 Occasionally, evidence of lost letters tells us that the duration of Locke’s correspondence with somebody was longer than we know from what survives. For example, there are no letters from the Amsterdam bookseller Hendrik Wetstein extant after 1696, but in 1698 Locke records that ‘Mr Wetstein tells me’ about Dutch currency.140 In some cases, we can be quite sure that there have been substantial losses. An extreme instance is the disastrous fire of 1752 which destroyed the bulk of Lord Somers’s archive. There will certainly have been many more letters between Locke and Somers than the few that survive. Other losses are letters by Locke to James Tyrrell and David Thomas, during the fraught years of the 1680s, which were probably destroyed. A further loss is correspondence with Samuel Pepys. There is only one surviving letter between the two men, dating from August 1678.141 But in October of that year Pepys asked Caleb Banks, in whose education both Locke and Pepys took an interest, to apologize to Locke on his behalf for ‘coming again into a fresh arrear to Mr. Lock’, by which he meant an arrear in writing to him. He asked Banks to ‘keep up my credit with [Locke] in that point’, and to assure Locke he would write soon. It is plain, therefore, that a series of Locke-Pepys letters has gone missing, despite the assidu­ ous curatorial instincts of both men.142 There are other cases where it is a surprise that there are no surviving letters. William Penn, for example, was an energetic networker who certainly knew Locke and whose list of correspondents significantly overlaps with Locke’s.143 Locke, like all scholars in the Republic of Letters, was the sender and recipient of complimentary copies of books. A number of letters in the extant correspondence are covering letters for donations of books. Other instances of book donations, if not made in person, in all likelihood were transmitted with covering letters, but the letters do not survive. A con­ siderable number of people appear in Locke’s distribution lists for copies 138  SHC, DD/SF 7/1/66; no. 1862. The surviving scrap includes the address: to Clarke at Richard’s Coffee House, Temple Bar. 139  Life of Pococke prefixed to his Theological Works, 2 vols., 1740, i. 69: the relevant passage is quoted in the headnote to No. 542. 140  MS Locke b. 3, fo. 130. 141  No. 405. 142  No. 410A. Cited in K. Loveman, Samuel Pepys and his Books, 2015, p. 200. 143 Including John Aubrey, Benjamin Furly, Francis Nicholson, William Popple, John Tillotson, Sir William Trumbull, and Lords Bellomont and Monmouth (Peterborough).

xlii

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Introduction of his own books who do not have extant letters in the Correspondence.144 The following are known to have given books to Locke but from (or to) whom there are no surviving letters: Isaac Barrow, François Bernier, Sir Josiah Child, Simon Clement, Daniel Coxe, Denis Dodart, John Harris, Richard Kidder, Bernard Lamy, Gilles de Launay, Daniel Le Clerc, William Lowndes, John Moore, William Penn, Nahum Tate, and Isaac Vossius. All these have their donations recorded in Harrison and Laslett’s catalogue of Locke’s library. There is independent evidence (i.e. not recorded in his library catalogue) for several other donors, for whom, again, there are no surviving letters: Maurice Ashley, Richard Bentley, Edmond Halley, Christiaan Huygens, Henry Martin, Martin Martin, and Sir William Petty.145 Evidence of lost letters is sometimes owed to Locke’s parsimonious reuse of paper. The draft of his Fourth Letter on Toleration is written on the wrappers of discarded letters. The datable letters are from Awnsham Churchill (1 July 1702, 22 July 1702, 30 September 1703), Dr William Cole (26 May 1703, ‘For the very much honoured John Lock Esq’), Anthony Collins (17 June 1703), and Peter King (14 July 1703, 8 Aug. 1704).146 While no systematic compilation has been done here, nonetheless a few further explorations in the field of lost letters may be offered. If we take a sample of 100 surviving letters received by Locke, beginning in January 1702 and running to February 1703, which he endorsed as hav­ ing been answered on particular dates—and hence we are certain that he replied, and when he did so—we find that only 18 per cent of his replies survive. Of these eighteen surviving letters, eleven are to Peter King, and three to Benjamin Furly. We have lost the replies to, for example, Jean Barbeyrac, Elizabeth Burnet, Awnsham Churchill, Alexander Geekie, Jean Le Clerc, Martha Lockhart, and James Tyrrell. Given that, in total, around a thousand letters by Locke survive, we might deduce, from this sample, that he wrote around five and a half thousand. We cannot, however, know whether this period is typical. Let us take one further sample of one hundred letters, similarly endorsed, from the period January 1695 to November 1696. Here the 144  The names can be gleaned from de Beer’s list of recipients in Corr., viii, Appendix 2. 145  Nos. 2895, 3005, 3018, 3021; Newton, Correspondence, iii. 67; London Mercury (May–Oct. 1923), viii. 308. 146  MS Locke d. 4. MS Locke c. 27, fos. 121–3, ‘Synopsis Epistolarum Pauli’, is written on the back of a letter from Awnsham Churchill of 4 Feb. 1703. MS Locke c. 27, fo. 207 uses the back of a letter from Edward Clarke of 1702.

xliii

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Introduction survival rate of Locke’s letters is 33 per cent, which might indicate a lifetime total of around three thousand. While this is a very different figure from 5,500, we still have a picture of high attrition. We have, in this period, lost replies to, among others, Benjamin Furly, Pieter Guenellon, Jean Le Clerc, Martha Lockhart, and James Tyrrell.147 Important sources of evidence for missing letters are Locke’s jour­ nals, which he kept from 1675 until his death. Around three hundred letters are recorded there; in fact more, for this is a figure for entries definitely involving written correspondence to or from a named person on a specified date. (In other words, it is not always clear, in other cases, whether Locke is summarizing information carried in epistolary form.) Of these three hundred, about half are lost letters. The apparently smaller attrition rate is chiefly explained by the fact that Locke mainly recorded incoming letters, which more commonly survive. But we need to be cautious about extrapolating, for Locke had particular prac­ tical reasons for registering a letter in his journal. His principal reasons for noting the content were to record financial and literary transac­ tions: rents, salaries, expenditure, investments, loans; and purchases, loans, donations, and transmission of books. In some nine-tenths of cases Locke recorded a letter because of its financial information. Some of these letters were probably very brief, probably simple orders to pay or letters of credit. It would be natural to presume that Locke would more readily dis­ card such routine letters in due course. However, sometimes his notes mislead us about the character of a letter. Where the letters that he summarized do survive, they often contain much more of substance, and Locke only noted in his journal the purely financial information. Consequently, we cannot presume that the missing letters, known only from their summaries, were necessarily brief financial instruments or receipts. It is also worth noting that around 85 per cent of the three hundred letters recorded in the journals occur in the final volume, cover­ing the post-Revolution period, 1689–1704 (MS Locke f. 10). This last journal was a more workaday notebook than the earlier vol­ umes, which had contained substantial philosophical meditations and records of his experiences in travelling in France and Holland. In the last phase of his life, Locke’s financial affairs were considerably more

147  It would have been useful to try the exercise for an earlier period, but Locke does not seem, before the later 1680s, regularly to have included in his endorsements the date of answering.

xliv

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Introduction complex than hitherto, chiefly because of his salaries from public office and his investments. A significant body of information yielded by the journals comprises the identities of the senders and receivers of lost letters. It is convenient to divide the period of the journals into two parts, 1675–88 and 1689– 1704. In the earlier period the losses are as follows, with the number of lost letters in brackets (counting incoming and outgoing letters with­ out differentiation—nearly all are incoming), and then the years in which they occur: John Brisbane (1), 1679; Edward Clarke (5), 1683–8; Thomas Dare (2), 1683[4?]; John Hoskins (3), 1677–80; Peter Locke (1), 1676; Peter Percival (5), 1681–4; John Richards (2), 1680–1; William Stratton (1), 1681; Thomas Stringer (6), 1676–82;148 James Tyrrell (2), 1681–3; George Walls (1), 1681. Of these, three correspondents do not have any extant letters elsewhere in the corpus of surviving ­letters, and so add to the list of Locke’s known correspondents. John Brisbane (d.1684) joined the Navy administration in the 1660s, was ‘agent marine’ to the embassy in Paris 1676–8, embassy secretary 1678–9, and Admiralty secretary 1680–4; he is mentioned in Pepys’s and Evelyn’s diaries.149 Thomas Dare of Taunton was a goldsmith-banker, jailed for sedition in 1680, who fled to Amsterdam, witnessed the earl of Shaftesbury’s will, and associated with Robert Ferguson ‘the Plotter’. The English envoy at The Hague demanded his expulsion; he sailed with the duke of Monmouth’s expedition in 1685 but was accidentally killed by Andrew Fletcher shortly after landing; there is one extant ­letter to Locke from his widow.150 Peter Percival was also a goldsmithbanker, who is first mentioned in the extant correspondence in 1679, married Thomas Stringer’s sister, and was apparently one of the earl of Shaftesbury’s bankers.151 To turn to to the period 1689–1704, the senders or recipients of lost letters are John Bonville (11), 1692–1703; Awnsham (and John) Churchill (58), 1691–1704; Edward Clarke (9), 1692–8; Sir Stephen Evance (1), 1692; Thomas Firmin (1), 1697; John Freke (4), 1695–7; Benjamin Furly (2), 1690–1; Benjohan Furly (1), 1704; Peter King (15), 1697–1704; Jean Le Clerc (1), 1694; Francis Limborch (1), 1704; 148  Other lost letters, from Locke to Stringer, with specific dates, can be gleaned for the period 1675–8, from nos. 307–9, 311–12, 315, 333, 354–5, 389, 430. 149  J. Lough, ed., Locke’s Travels in France, 1953, pp. 176, 194, 203–4. 150  See nos. 781, 826. Dare appears in several books on the Monmouth Rebellion. 151  See nos. 317, 529. Haley, Shaftesbury, pp. 207, 586, 656, 725.   

xlv

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Introduction Cornelius Lyde (1), 1704; Damaris Masham (1), 1693; Robert Pawling (4), 1693–1703; William Popple (5), 1698–9; Thomas Robinson (1), 1690; Rabsy Smithsby (2), 1701–3; Peter Stratton (1), 1697; David Thomas (1), 1694. None of these is a hitherto unknown correspondent of Locke’s. All this information will be available when Locke’s journals are ­published in the Clarendon Edition. Some summaries of letters were printed by John Lough in Locke’s Travels in France, which contain the  journals for 1675–9.152 In no case is Locke’s summary of a letter ­sufficiently substantial to justify inclusion in the main body of the ­present volume. However, the following are a few of Locke’s more ­significant entries. [George] Walls to Locke, received 10 February 1680 (MS Locke f. 4) Mr Wall writes me word that he had received Magnols botanicum Monspeliense of Jacob Bobert.153

John Richards to Locke, under entry for 30 August 1680 (MS Locke f. 4) Mr Richards writ me word about ten days since to Bexwells154 that he had received all my plate of Mr Percivall.

John Richards to Locke, 5 April 1681, under entry for 3 May (MS Locke f. 5) Mr Richards writes me word in his of 5th Apr that he had received of the East India company my 450 pounds and [£]5-4-6 for use

Locke to [Thomas] Stringer, under entry for 9 November 1682 (MS Locke f. 6) Writ to Mr Stringer to give directions to Mr Dando155 (by whom my Cosin Stratton writes me word 2 Nov. 82 that he had returned me 50 li to London) to pay the 50 li to Mr Percival, and upon receiveing Mr Percivals note, to give him the receit I sent inclosed in my letter to Mr Stringer

[ James] Tyrrell to Locke, 3 October 1683, under entry for 9 October (MS Locke f. 7) By what Mr Tyrrell writes me 3d instant I suppose my box of M.S which were at Mr Pawlings are removd to his house wherein was also Thevenots voiages in 152  e.g., pp. 113, 159, 188. 153  Pierre Magnol, Botanicum Monspeliense, Leiden, 1676. LL 1870. Jacob Bobart, botanist. Corr., i. 314. For Walls, see J. R. Milton, ‘John Locke, George Wall and George Walls: A Problem of Identity’, Locke Newsletter, 22 (1991), 81–91. 154  Bexwells, near Chelmsford, Essex, was the home of Thomas Stringer until 1682. Peter Percival, goldsmith-banker. 155  Simon Dando, Somerset friend of the Locke family. Corr., i. 274.

xlvi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Introduction fol.156 I conclude also my quilt and blankets and two turkey carpets are there. for he thanks me for the Turkie Carpet I sent his lady which was packed up with them. And writes me word all was done by D Tho[mas] and Mr Pawling as I directed those things to be soe done.

[Edward] C[larke] to Locke, 9 October 1683 (MS Locke f. 7) Mr Clarke by his of 5th instant tells me He hath sold my candlesticks and Standish157 weighing 55 5d wt at 5s 2d per [space] for [£]14-5-5

[Edward] Clarke to Locke, 5 December 1684 (MS Locke f. 8) My box of physical M.S. with Thevenots fol are in Mr C: hands. see his of 5 Dec.

[ James] Tyrrell to Locke, 7 April 1686 (MS Locke f. 9)158 Mr Tyrrell, in his dated palme sunday, tells me that his eldest son, daughter,159 and foot boy had all the small pox, that the daughter was let bloud after they appeard and the two other before they appeard. that they were all up and about the room in 10 or 11 days and without marks thanks (says he) to Dr Sydenhams cooling method160

Locke to Awnsham Churchill, 11 December 1691161 Writ to A Churchill to deliver Pocock on Joel in quires162 to Mr Wright directed thus.163 For Mr Le Clerc in Amsterdam. To be left with Mr Benjamin Furly in Rotterdam and with them two considerations of Lowering interest etc.164 one for Mr le Clerc and the other for B. Furly

Locke to Awnsham Churchill, 29 August 1692 Writ to Mr Churchill to send one of the answers to the 5 letters concerning inspiration165 to Mr Wright directed to Monsieur Le Clerc

Locke to Thomas Firmin, 12 April 1697 Writ to Mr Firmin to give to the pore out of the interest due to me [£]5-0-0 156  Melchisédec Thévenot, Relations de divers voyages curieux (Paris, 1663–72). LL 2889. Thévenot is cited in the Essay Concerning Human Understanding and in ‘Some Thought Concerning Reading and Study for a Gentleman’. 157  An inkstand. 158  The entry, however, occurs under Wednesday 18 September. Cf. MS Locke f. 24, fo. 175. 159  James, who became a soldier and MP; and Mary, later Aldworth. 160  Recommended in Sydenham’s Methodus Curandi Febres (1666). Tyrrell’s commendation is significant because his cooling regime was widely criticized, e.g. in Gideon Harvey, A New Discourse of the Smallpox and Malignant Fevers, 1685. Noted by Peter Anstey. 161  The following entries are in MS Locke f. 10. 162  Edward Pococke, A Commentary on the Prophecy of Joel, 1691. LL 2362. ‘in quires’ indicates unbound. 163  Probably William Wright (d. 1693), formerly alderman of Oxford. Corr., ii. 354. 164 Locke, Some Considerations of the Consequences of the Lowering of Interest, ‘1692’ [1691]. There is no surviving distribution list. 165  Jean Le Clerc, Five Letters Concerning the Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, 1690; transla­ tion from the French. LL 2599. William Lowth, A Vindication of the Divine Authority and Inspiration of the Writings of the Old and New Testament. In Answer to a Treatise Lately Translated out of French . . ., Oxford, 1692. LL 1817.

xlvii

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Introduction Locke to Awnsham Churchill, 20 December 1697 Writ to Mr Churchill to send Dampiers voyage166 to Mr Daranda167 for Dr Guenellon from me

Peter King to Locke, 29 January 1698 (entry for 1 February) My Cosin King in his of Jan. 29 writes me word That he paid for the 2d part of the Gentlemans Religion168—for Mr Coste [£]0-1-2. Mr Coste paid me.

Awnsham Churchill to Locke, 14 January 1699 (entry for 15 January) Mr Churchill writes me in his of the 14th that he had received of Dr Molyneux [£]5 for my account. This was his brothers Legacy to me.169

Locke to Benjohan Furly, 12 June 1704 I writ to Mr Benjohan Furly to lay it [£5] out in a peice of plate and present it his father from me.

Locke’s journals also provide general information about letter-writing, for example, frequently recording his expenses in posting letters, and their (post town) destinations, such as Bristol, Clapham, or Salisbury. Peter Anstey has recovered three lost letters for which a modicum of information survives: William Charleton to Locke, [25 April 1678?] In MS Locke d. 9, p. 39, there is an entry in French, under the heading ‘Ficus’ (Figs), dated 1679, ending ‘This account of figues about Montpeiller Mr  Charleton sent me from Dr Magnol.’170 Copies or similar texts in MS Locke c. 31, fos. 161–4, with a date, at fo. 161, of 25 April 1678.

William Charleton to Locke, [before 23 September 1678] In MS Locke d. 9, p. 118, under the heading ‘Brignol’ (a type of plumb), Locke writes: ‘Mr Charleton also writes me word that those with stones are far better then those without. 78 p. 297.’ In the Journal entry at f. 3, p. 297, there is a similar remark, with the date 23 September 1678.

Henri Justel to [Locke], [20 October 1679] BL, Add. MS 15642, p. 177, entry for 22 November 1679: ‘Mr Read is publish­ ing a booke of plantes of the Indies he was 22 years there Q whether it were not he that published the Hortus Malabaricus Mr Justel 20 October 1679.’171 166  William Dampier, A New Voyage around the World, 1697. LL 910. 167  Paul D’Aranda (1652–1712), merchant. Corr., iii. 567. 168  Edward Synge, A Gentleman’s Religion, Part II & III, 1697. LL 1241. 169  Upon the death of William Molyneux in 1698. His brother was Dr Thomas Molyneux. 170  Pierre Magnol (1638–1715), botanist, of Montpellier, who names magnolia. Corr., i. 685. 171  Hendrik van Rheede was the compiler of the Hortus Malabaricus (‘Garden of Malabar’), 12 vols., Amsterdam, 1678–93, a richly illustrated account of Indian flora.

xlviii

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Introduction Finally, we may note evidence of an important but lost letter appar­ ently written by Locke two days before his death to Pierre Coste. Locke was anxious to secure a new translation of the Two Treatises of Government, being unsatisfied with the handling of the Second Treatise in the translation made by David Mazel, published in 1691. He urged Coste, who lived with him in the Masham household at Oates, where he served as tutor to Francis Cudworth Masham and as translator of Locke’s writings, to undertake this project. Coste demurred. Locke tried again, this time deviously it seems. Just before his death he secured Coste’s promise to translate an unnamed book, with a promise of financial reward. When Coste opened a package left for him, he found inside an annotated copy of the Two Treatises, accompanied by a letter, which is summarized in Charles de La Motte’s ‘Vie de Coste’. Coste made a start on a translation, but when he learnt he was to be paid a pittance and that he received nothing in Locke’s will, he abandoned the project and destroyed what he had done.172

Letters reproduced in recent editions Esmond de Beer provided a history of the publication of Locke’s cor­ res­pond­ence prior to his edition.173 Locke’s letters have since con­tinued to be re-edited in other collections. The most significant are Jean Le Clerc, Epistolario, eds. M. Sina and M. G. Sina, 4 vols., 1987–97; The Correspondence of Robert Boyle, eds. M.  Hunter, A.  Clericuzio, and L.  Principe, 6 vols., 2001 (available online at Intelex Past Masters); The  Correspondence of Anthony Collins (1676–1729), Freethinker, ed. J. Dybikowski, 2011; Anthony Ashley Cooper, third earl of Shaftesbury, Sämtliche Werke / Complete Works, eds. C. Jackson-Holzberg, P. Müller, and F. A. Uehlein, Band/Series III, Briefe / Correspondence, 3 vols. so far, 2017– (where the density of explanatory footnotes is greater than de Beer provided). Two letters between Catharine Trotter Cockburn and Locke appear in J. Broad, ed., Women Philosophers of EighteenthCentury England: Selected Correspondence, 2020. The Locke-Sloane correspondence has been calendared, and the texts will in due course be available online.174 Transcripts, by Bridget Clarke, of many of the 172  Charles de La Motte, ‘La vie de Coste’, in Que la religion chrétienne est très-raisonnable [et autres textes], eds., H. Bouchilloux and M.-C. Pitassi, 1999; D. Soulard, ‘The Christ’s Copy of John Locke’s Two Treatises of Government’, Historical Journal, 58 (2015), 25–49. 173  Corr., i. xli–l. See also Yolton, Locke: A Descriptive Bibliography, pp. 385–97. For publication of Locke’s letters down to 1720, see below, pp. 447–50. 174 http://www.sloaneletters.com.

xlix

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Introduction Locke-Clarke letters are available online, interleaved with other letters from the Clarke family correspondence.175 Five letters were reprinted in John Locke, Political Writings, ed. D. Wootton, 1993;176 and three, from Anthony Collins to Locke, in Correspondance de Pierre Bayle, eds. E. Labrousse, et al., xiii, 2016.177 The present project was originally undertaken in the preparation of John Locke: Selected Correspondence, published in 2002 (paperback edition, 2007), which reprinted 244 ­letters to and from Locke, the Introduction of which provides an account of the character of the corpus of Locke’s correspondence.178 Several of the letters published in the present volume were earlier reported or published in journal articles by their finders.179

The Republic of Letters Besides the editions of correspondence listed above, a number of other editions of letters in the European Republic of Letters have been pub­ lished in the period since de Beer completed his edition. These are of writers who corresponded with people with whom Locke also cor­res­pond­ed, although they did not directly correspond with Locke himself. ‘Network analysis’ of the Republic of Letters is currently a growing field. Editions include the following: Aubrey: Two Antiquaries: A Selection from the Correspondence of John Aubrey and Anthony Wood, ed. M. Balme, 2001; Basnage: Jacques Basnage, Corrispondenza da Rotterdam, 1685–1709, ed. M. Silvera, 2000; Baxter: Calendar of the Correspondence of Richard Baxter, eds. N.  H.  Keeble and G.  F.  Nuttall, 2 vols., 1991;180 Bayle: 175  http://www.nyneheadarchive.co.uk/index.php/history. Also (by subscription) in ‘British and Irish Women’s Letters and Diaries’: http://www.alexanderstreet.com. The first does not provide SHC file references; the second does not identify SHC as the archival source. A further online resource, the Stanford University Mapping the Republic of Letters project, unfortunately cannot be ­recommended, as the Locke section is compromised by factual errors. To give a singular instance: John Churchill, the brother and partner of Locke’s bookseller-publisher Awnsham Churchill, is identified as John Churchill, later duke of Marlborough, who is thereby spuriously turned into a correspondent of Locke’s. 176  Nos. 75, 81, 175, 808, 1102.    177  Nos. 3495, 3503, 3626. 178  For a further account of the corpus as a whole, besides de Beer’s Introduction to Corr., vol. 1, see W. von Leyden’s substantial report for the Bodleian Library of 1944: Bodl.,Library Records d. 948. 179  J.  R.  Milton, ‘Locke Manuscripts among the Shaftesbury Papers in the Public Record Office’, Locke Newsletter, 27 (1996), 109–30; idem, ‘Some Recent Additions to Locke’s Correspondence’, Locke Studies, 1 (2001), 229–34; Waldmann, ‘Additions to de Beer’s Correspondence’. For individual letters: L. Davison and T. Keirn, ‘John Locke, Edward Clarke and the 1696 Guineas Legislation’, Parliamentary History, 7 (1988); J. C. Walmsley, ‘Locke’s Agent Cornelius Lyde: A New Letter in the Bodleian Library’, Locke Studies, 11 (2011), 107–22. 180  A project for the full publication of The Correspondence of Richard Baxter is in progress, gen. eds. J. Harris and A. Searle, 9 vols., Oxford.

l

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Introduction Correspondance de Pierre Bayle, eds. E.  Labrousse et al., 13 vols., 1999–2016; Conway and More: The Correspondence of Viscountess Conway, Henry More, and their Friends, 1642–1684, ed. M. H. Nicolson, revised S.  Hutton, 1992; La Motte: Lettres de La Motte à Pierre Des Maizeaux, eds. H. Bots, S. Drouin, J. Schillings, and A. Thomson, 2021; Evelyn: The Letterbooks of John Evelyn, eds. D.  C.  C.  Chambers and D.  Galbraith, 2 vols., 2014; Flamsteed: The Correspondence of John Flamsteed, ed. E. G. Forbes, 3 vols., 1995; Graevius: Publishing in the Republic of Letters: The Ménage-Graevius-Wetstein Correspondence, 1679–1692, ed. R. Maber, 2005; Hobbes: The Correspondence of Thomas Hobbes, ed. N. Malcolm, 2 vols., 1994; Leibniz: Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz, Sämtliche Schriften und Briefe, 56 vols. so far, 1926–; Leibniz’s ‘New System’ and Associated Contemporary Texts, eds. R. S. Woolhouse and R. Francks, 1997; Limborch and Le Clerc: Arminianesimo e tolleranza nel Seicento olandese: il carteggio Philipp van Limborch e Jean Le Clerc, ed. L. Simonutti, 1984; Molyneux: Roderick O’Flaherty, Letters to William Molyneux, Edward Lhwyd, and Samuel Molyneux, 1696–1709, ed. R. Sharpe, 2013; and see above, p. xix, n. 28; Pepys: Particular Friends: The Correspondence of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn, ed. G. de la Bédoyère, 1997; The Letters of Samuel Pepys, 1656–1703, ed. G. de la Bédoyère, 2006; Tonson: The Literary Correspondence of the Tonsons, ed. S. Bernard, 2015; Wallis: The Correspondence of John Wallis, eds. P. Beeley and C. J. Scriba, 4 vols. so far, 2003; Wanley: Letters of Humfrey Wanley: Palaeographer, Anglo-Saxonist, Librarian, 1672–1726, ed. P. L. Heyworth, 2014. See also the Matthew Prior Project: htttp://conan.lib.miamioh.edu/prior.

Epistolarity In the period since Esmond de Beer undertook his project, scholarship in the field of ‘epistolarity’ has flourished. Studies have encompassed the rhetoric and protocols of early modern letter-writing; cor­res­pond­ence as a form of life-writing; as evidence of networks of kinship, so­ci­abil­ity, patronage, and economic enterprise; and as instruments of scholarly communication in the Republic of Letters. Locke often crops up in these accounts. Instances are J. G. Altman, Epistolarity: Approaches to a Form, 1982; E.  T.  Bannet, Empire of Letters: Letter Manuals and Transatlantic Correspondence, 1680–1820, 2005; H. Bots and F. Waquet, eds., Commercium Litterarium, 1600–1750: Forms of Communication in the Republic of Letters, 1994; C. Brant, Eighteenth-Century Letters and li

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Introduction British Culture, 2006; R.  Chartier, A.  Boureau, and C.  Dauphin, Correspondence: Models of Letter Writing from the Middle Ages to the Nineteenth Century, 1997; J. Daybell, ed., Early Modern Women’s Letter Writing, 1450–1700, 2001; J.  Daybell, The Material Letter in Early Modern England: Manuscript Letters and the Culture and Practice of Letter Writing, 1512–1635, 2012; J. Daybell and A. Gordon, eds., Women and Epistolary Agency in Early Modern Culture, 1450–1690, 2016; G. Di Biase, John Locke e Nicolas Thoynard: Un’amicizia ciceroniana, 2018; K. Dierks, In My Power: Letter Writing and Communication in Early America, 2009; R.  Earle, ed., Epistolary Selves: Letters and Letter Writers, 1600–1945, 1999; A. Goldgar, Impolite Learning: Conduct and Community in the Republic of Letters, 1680–1750, 1995; L.  Hannan, Women of Letters: Gender, Writing, and the Life of the Mind in Early Modern England, 2016; J. How, Epistolary Spaces: English Letter Writing from the Foundation of the Post Office to Richardson’s ‘Clarissa’, 2003; P. Lodge, ed., Leibniz and his Correspondents, 2004; L. C. Mitchell and S. Green, eds., Studies in the Cultural History of Letter Writing, 2005; L.  C.  Mitchell and C.  Poster, eds., Letter Writing Manuals and Instruction from Antiquity to the Present, 2007; L. O’Neill, The Opened Letter: Networking in the Early Modern British World, 2015; C.  Pal, Republic of Women: Rethinking the Republic of Letters in the Seventeenth Century, 2012; B. Redford, The Converse of the Pen, 1986; G. Schneider, The Culture of Epistolarity: Vernacular Letters and Letter Writing in Early Modern England, 1500–1700, 2005; A. G. Shelford, Transforming the Republic of Letters: Pierre-Daniel Huet and European Intellectual Life, 1650–1720, 2007; P. Trolander, Literary Sociability in Early Modern England: The Epistolary Record, 2014; E. Vailati, Leibniz and Clarke: A Study of their Correspondence, 1997; T.  Van Houdt et al., eds., SelfPresentation and Social Identification: The Rhetoric and Pragmatics of Letter Writing in Early Modern Times, 2002; R. Whelan and R. Zuber, West Coast Connections: The Correspondence Network of Élie Bouhéreau of La Rochelle, 2017; S. Whyman, The Pen and the People: English Letter Writers, 1660–1800, 2009. There is a more extensive bibliography, including lists of editions of  early modern correspondences, at the ‘Cultures of Knowledge: Networking the Republic of Letters, 1550–1750’ website.181

181 http://www.culturesofknowledge.org.

lii

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

INVENTORY This inventory lists all the entries included in the present volume. Archival location is given (except for items where the only augmenta­ tion is fuller biographical identification than de Beer was able to pro­ vide). In many cases, a category of document is indicated. These are discussed in the Introduction above. A phrase of explanation for their inclusion is provided in cases of augmentations of existing de Beer entries (i.e. those whose numbers carry an asterisk)—except for items from the Karpeles Collection, which are all instances of ­additional text derived from the recovered original manuscripts which were unknown to de Beer. Entries in italics refer to texts which appear in the appendices (surveillance letters, A1–14; publishing agreements, B1–7; spurious letters, C1–2). Entries in square brackets are letters previously published by de Beer, in volumes i–­viii, which carry a suffix (and which are not augmented here); entries suffixed by de Beer which appear in the Addenda to vol. viii are reproduced in the present volume, and do not carry square brackets. The inclusion of all de Beer suffixed items ensures that this inventory serves as a finding aid for all suffixed items throughout the nine volumes of the Correspondence. 98*.

John Strachey to John Locke Sr, 24 May 1660.

98A.

Locke to Peter Locke, May and 29 October 1660.

108*.

Locke to [Gabriel Towerson?], 11 December 1660.

MS Locke c. 18, fos. 195–6. Locke’s notes on verso. MS Locke c. 26, fos. 11–12. Letter of attorney. MS Locke e. 7, fos. 35–6. Dedicatory epistle, First Tract on Government. Calendared by de Beer; now printed.

155*.

Henry Townshend to Locke, 4 February 1663. TNA, PRO 30/24/47/10, fo. 10. Enclosure.

161A.

Dr John Fell, Dr Edward Pococke, and Richard Gardiner to Locke, 4 October 1663. TNA, PRO 30/24/47/22, fo. 7. Letter of recommendation.

liii

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Inventory 165*.

William Coker to Locke, 31 January 1664. Bodl., MS Rawlinson D286, fo. 6. Calendared by de Beer; now printed.

169*.

William Coker to Benjamin Woodroffe, 14 December 1664. Bodl., MS Rawlinson D286, fo. 6. Calendared by de Beer; now printed. New identification of recipient.

174A.

John Read to Locke, enclosed with Read to Robert Boyle [autumn 1665?]. Royal Society, Boyle Letters 5, fo. 35.

[183A.

Locke to William (later Sir William) Godolphin, 19/29 January 1666. De Beer suffixed item: Corr., i. 257–8.]

211A.

Edward Hyde, first earl of Clarendon, to Dr John Fell, 3 November 1666. TNA PRO 30/24/47/8A; copies: MS Locke, c. 25, fo. 11; BL, Add. MS 14269, pp. 151–2 (fo. 76). Letter of dispensation.

211B.

King Charles II to Dr John Fell, 14 November 1666.

230*.

Locke to [Christophe?] de Briolay de Beaupreau, [late 1668/ early 1669].

TNA, PRO 30/24/47/22, fo. 9; copies: MS Locke c. 25 fo. 11; TNA, SP 44/14, fo. 103. Letter of dispensation.

TNA, PRO 30/24/47/2, fo. 18. Lord Ashley’s illness. Note on re-­editing.

230A.

Locke to [Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper, Baron Ashley, later first earl of Shaftesbury?] [1668]. MS Locke b. 3, fo. 1. Dedicatory epistle, Some Considerations . . . Lowering of Interest.

231*.

[Christophe?] de Briolay de Beaupreau to -?- Browne, April 1669. TNA, PRO 30/24/47/2, fos. 40–1. Lord Ashley’s illness. Text expanded.

239A.

Dr Thomas Sydenham [and Locke] to Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper, Baron Ashley, later first earl of Shaftesbury [c.1669]. TNA, PRO 30/24/47/2, fos. 60–3. Dedicatory epistle, Sydenham’s essay on smallpox.

245*.

Locke to Frances Manners, countess of Rutland, 23 August 1670. Private ownership: duke of Rutland, Belvoir Castle. Calendared by de Beer; now printed.

liv

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Inventory 249A.

Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper, Baron Ashley, later earl of Shaftesbury, to Dr John Fell, 8 December 1670. TNA, PRO 30/24/47/10, fos. 3–4. Letter of recommendation.

250*.

Locke and Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper, Baron Ashley, later earl of Shaftesbury, to [Christophe?] de Briolay de Beaupreau, 20 January 1671. TNA, PRO 30/24/47/2, fos. 58–9. Lord Ashley’s illness.

253A.

Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper, Baron Ashley, later earl of Shaftesbury, to William Sayle, 13 May 1671.

254*.

Sir Peter Colleton to Locke, [early summer 1671?].

TNA, PRO 30/24/48/55, p. 91. Early colonial. TNA, PRO 30/24/48/82. Early colonial. Locke’s memorandum on writers on America.

267A.

John Aubrey to Anthony Wood, 3 February 1673. Bodl., MS Wood F. 39, fo. 196.

272A.

Locke to Nathaniel Lye, 1 July 1673. TNA, PRO 30/24/42/59, fos. 26–7. Secretary for Presentations.

278A.

Sir John Nicholas to [Sir Robert Howard], October 1673. BL, Add. MS 28075, fo. 25 (p. 2). Early colonial.

279A.

Locke to John Evelyn, 17 October 1673. From auction catalogue. Summary only. Early colonial.

279B.

Francis Gwyn to Locke, October 1673. TNA, PRO 30/24/42/59, fo. 51. Secretary for Presentations.

280A.

Locke to Sir Thomas Osborne, Lord Osborne, later earl of Danby, marquis of Carmarthen, and duke of Leeds, 25 October 1673.

280B.

Council of Trade and Plantations to King Charles II, 15 November 1673.

From auction catalogue. Summary only. Early colonial.

TNA, CO 389/5, fos. 40–2. Early colonial.

280C.

Griffith Jones to Locke, 1673. TNA, PRO 30/24/42/59, fos. 56–7. Secretary for Presentations.

280D.

Edward Osborne to Locke, 1673. TNA, PRO 30/24/42/59, fo. 64–5. Secretary for Presentations.

lv

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Inventory 281*.

Locke to Sir Henry Bennet, first earl of Arlington, 6 January 1674. TNA, CO 1/31, fos. 4–5. Early colonial. Calendared by de Beer; now printed.

290A.

Richard Lilburne 9 August 1674.

to

the

Bahamas

Adventurers,

TNA, PRO 30/24/49/5, fos. 58–9. Early colonial. Includes biographical identification.

291*.

Isaac Rush to Locke, 10 August 1674. TNA, PRO 30/24/49/5, fos. 60–1. Early colonial. Text expanded.

296A.

William Craven, earl of Craven, Sir George Carteret, and John Berkeley, first Baron Berkeley, to Anthony Ashley Cooper, first earl of Shaftesbury, 20 November 1674. TNA, PRO 30/24/48/95. Early colonial.

297A.

William Samuell to Locke, 28 November 1674. MS Locke, b. 1, p. 20.

297B.

William Fuller, bishop of Lincoln, to Anthony Ashley Cooper, first earl of Shaftesbury, 27 January 1675.

298A.

Locke to Richard Lilburne, 12 May 1675.

MS Locke c. 8, fos. 243–4. Secretary for Presentations. MS Locke d. 9, pp. 87, 236. Addendum from vol. viii.

304A.

Locke to Thomas Stringer, 11 November 1675. HRO, Malmesbury Papers, 9M73/G242. Copy: MS Locke c. 39, fo. 19. Letter of attorney.

307*.

Thomas Stringer to Locke, 25 November 1675. Biographical identification.

317A.

Sir Thomas Osborne, earl of Danby, later marquis of Carmarthen and duke of Leeds, to Sir Robert Howard, 20 August 1676.

353*.

Locke to William Charleton, 31 August/10 September 1677.

MS Locke c. 39, fo. 16. Early colonial. Hanover: G.  W.  Leibniz Bibliothek, Niedersächsische Landesbibliothek, Noviss. 52. Recovered MS.

[390A. Locke to Nicolas Toinard, 11/21 July 1678. De Beer suffixed item: Corr., i. 586–8.]

lvi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Inventory 399*.

Locke to Nicolas Toinard, 10/20 August 1678. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: American Philosophical Society, Misc. MS 1169. Recovered MS.

405*.

Samuel Pepys to Locke, 29 August 1678. Greenwich: National Maritime Museum, LBK/8, p. 823. Recovered MS.

405A.

Samuel Pepys to Caleb Banks, 29 August 1678. Greenwich: National Maritime Museum, LBK/8, p. 821.

410A.

Samuel Pepys to Caleb Banks, 10 October 1678.

415*.

Locke to William Charleton, 26 October/5 November 1678.

Greenwich: National Maritime Museum, LBK/8, p. 827. From auction catalogue. Partially recovered text.

418A.

Locke to Thomas Stringer, 5/15 November 1678. MS Locke c. 18, fo. 74. Letter of attorney.

[419A. Jacques Horutener and Jacques Selapris to Moïse Charas, 7/17 November 1678. De Beer suffixed item: Corr., i. 630–1.]

437A.

[-?-] to C[aleb] B[anks], 1678.

491*.

Henri Justel to Locke, 2 October 1679.

MS Locke c. 23, fos. 198–9. MS Locke c. 12, fos. 75–6. New date.

523A.

Élie Bouhéreau to Locke, 1679. MS Locke b. 2, fo. 24.

523B.

527A.

565A.

Locke to Margaret Ashley Cooper, countess of Shaftesbury, [c.1679]. New York: Morgan Library and Museum, MS MA 232; copy in Bodl., MS Film 70. Dedicatory epistle to Locke’s translation of Pierre Nicole, Essais de Morale.

Locke to Anthony Ashley Cooper, first earl of Shaftesbury, 1 February 1680.

TNA, PRO 30/24/47/35. Dedicatory epistle, Observations upon . . . Vines and Olives.

Locke to William Stratton, 30 August 1680. MS Locke c. 26, fo. 68. Letter of attorney.

[590A. Anonymous to Locke (?), 9 November 1680 (fragment). De Beer suffixed item: Corr., ii. 290.]

lvii

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Inventory A1.

Humphrey Prideaux to John Ellis, 25 October 1681. BL, Add. MS 28929, fo. 77.

677*.

Damaris Cudworth, later Lady Masham, to Locke, 6 January [1682]. Biographical identification of the Masham children.

682*.

Edward Clarke to Locke, 14 February 1682. Biographical identification of the Clarke children.

687*.

Locke to Damaris Cudworth, later Lady Masham [c.12 February 1682].

A2.

Humphrey Prideaux to John Ellis, 14 March 1682.

MS Locke f. 6, pp. 33–8. Full text now supplied. BL, Add. MS 28929, fo. 95.

A3.

Humphrey Prideaux to John Ellis, 19 March 1682. BL, Add., MS 28929, fo. 96.

A4.

Humphrey Prideaux to John Ellis, 24 October 1682.

747A.

Henri Justel to Locke [late 1682 or early 1683].

BL, Add. MS 28929, fo. 100. MS Locke b. 2, fos. 37–8. Addendum from vol. viii.

763A.

Edward Clarke to William Clarke, 10 April 1683. SHC, DD/SF 7/1/21. Clarke Papers.

A5.

Sir Richard Holloway to Sir Leoline Jenkins, 13 July 1683.

769A.

Locke to William Stratton, 10 August 1683.

TNA, SP 29/428, fo. 272. MS Locke c. 19, fos. 22–3. Letter of attorney.

769B.

Locke to William 22 August 1683.

Stratton

and

Edward

Clarke,

MS Locke b. 8, no. 11. Letter of attorney.

773A.

Robert Boyle to [Locke], 22 December 1683. Boyle, Memoirs for the Natural History of Humane Blood, 1683/4. Dedicatory epistle. Text from printed book.

783A.

Nicolaus Blancardus to Philip Ernst Vegelin van Claerbergen, 10/20 August 1684. Amsterdam University Library, MS Ba. 10. Letter of introduction.

lviii

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Inventory A6.

Robert Spencer, second earl of Sunderland, to Dr John Fell, bishop of Oxford, 6 November 1684. TNA, SP 44/56, p. 141.

A7.

Dr John Fell, bishop of Oxford, to Robert Spencer, second earl of Sunderland, 8 November 1694. TNA, SP 29/438, fo. 160.

A8.

Robert Spencer, second earl of Sunderland, to Dr John Fell, bishop of Oxford, 11 November 1694. TNA, SP 44/56, p. 143.

A9.

Thomas Chudleigh, to Charles Middleton, second earl of Middleton, 11/21 November 1684.

A10.

Humphrey Prideaux to John Ellis, 12 November 1684.

BL, Add. MS 41810, fos. 187–8. BL, Add. MS 28929, fo. 110.

A11.

Dr John Fell, bishop of Oxford, to Robert Spencer, second earl of Sunderland, 16 November 1684. TNA, SP 29/438, fo. 169.

A12.

Robert Spencer, second earl of Sunderland, to Dr John Fell, bishop of Oxford, 20 November 1684.

A13.

Humphrey Prideaux to John Ellis, 22 November 1684.

TNA, SP 44/56, p. 145. BL, Add. MS 28929, fo. 112.

791*.

Locke to Edward Clarke, [late November 1684]. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Library, MS Eng. 860. Calendared by de Beer; now printed.

803A.

Locke to [Edward Clarke], 3/13 January [16]85. SHC, DD/SF 7/1/66. Clarke Papers.

804*.

Locke to Edward Clarke, [c.5/15 January 1685].

811A.

Locke to Nicolas Toinard, [February 1685].

BL, Add. MS 38771, fos. 51–2. Calendared by de Beer; now printed.

818A.

BL, Add. MS 28728, fos. 56–7. Dedicatory epistle. English version of Adversariorum Methodus.

Locke to Nicolas Toinard, [March 1685].

MS Locke, c. 31, fos. 69–70. Dedicatory epistle. Latin version of Adversariorum Methodus.

lix

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Inventory A14.

Sir Bevil Skelton to Charles, earl of Middleton, 2/12 November 1685. BL, Add. MS 41812, fo. 224.

848A.

Edward Clarke to Thomas Stringer, 20 April 1686. HRO, Malmesbury Papers, 9M73/G293/4.

852A.

Sir Walter Yonge to Edward Clarke, with postscript by Locke, 4/14 June 1686. SHC, DD/SF 7/9/2. Clarke Papers.

853A.

Locke to Nicolas Toinard, [ July] 1686. Bibliothèque universelle, ii ( July 1686), 318–19, ‘Methode Nouvelle de Dresser des Recueuils’. Dedicatory epistle. Text from printed journal.

860A.

Locke to Margaret Ashley Cooper, dowager countess of Shaftesbury, 14/24 August 1686. HRO, Malmesbury Papers, 9M73/G235.

904*.

Thomas Papillon to Locke, 2/12 February 1687, with a letter from [William] Broadnax. Biographical identification.

930A.

Mary Clarke to Edward Clarke, 30 April 1687. SHC, DD/SF 7/1/30. Clarke Papers.

936A.

James Tyrrell to Robert Boyle, 25 May 1687. Boyle, Works, ed. T. Birch, 1744, v. 620–1.

960A.

Locke to [H. D.?], 5 September 1687. MS Locke c. 9, fo. 15.

1001A. Locke to Thomas Herbert, eighth earl of Pembroke, [c.January] 1688. Abrégé d’un Ouvrage intitulé Essai Philosophique touchant L’Entendement, 1688. Dedicatory epistle. Text from printed tract.

[1024A. Christian Knorr von Rosenroth: Observations on the Abrégé of Locke’s Essay [1688]. De Beer suffixed item: Corr., iii. 399–405.]

[1060A. Hendrik Wetstein to Locke, 20/30 June 1688. De Beer suffixed item: Corr., iii. 478–9.]

1095*.

Mevr. Cornelia Maria Guenellon (born Veen) and Dr Pieter Guenellon to Locke, 22 December 1688/1 January 1689. MS Locke c. 10, fos. 192–3. Translation of Dutch letter.

lx

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Inventory 1115*.

Benjamin Furly to Locke, 19 February/1 March 1689. Enclosure from printed item (Algernon Sidney to Furly, 1666).

1131A.

John Clarke to [Edward Clarke?], 27 April 1689. MS Locke c. 26, fo. 70.

1131B.

Locke to [Philipp van Limborch?], [April] 1689. Epistola de Tolerantia. Dedicatory epistle. Text from printed book.

1141A. Locke to Thomas Herbert, eighth earl of Pembroke, 24 May 1689. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, 1689. Dedicatory epistle. Text from printed book.

B1.

Publishing agreement with Thomas Bassett, 24 May 1689.

1160*.

Mevr. Maria Veen (born Arminius) to Locke, 15/25 July 1689.

MS Locke b. 1, fo. 109.

MS Locke, c. 23, fos. 11–12. Translation of Dutch letter.

1162*.

Mevr. Cornelia Maria Guenellon (born Veen) to Locke, 16/26 July 1689.

1171A.

Locke to Jane Stringer (born Barbon), 3 and 6 August 1689.

MS Locke c. 10, fos. 194–5. Translation of Dutch letter. HRO, Malmesbury Papers, 9M73/672/22.

1206A. Whitelocke Bulstrode to Edward Clarke, 20 November 1689. The Correspondence of Locke and Clarke, ed. B. Rand, 1927, p. 27. Text from printed book.

1208A. Sir Peter Pett to Charles Mordaunt, earl of Monmouth, later third earl of Peterborough, 27 November 1689. MS Locke c. 17, fos. 72–5.

1209A. Locke to King William III, [c.November 1689]. Christ Church, Oxford, MS 375/3. Letter of petition.

1251A.

John Evelyn to Samuel Pepys, 26 February 1690. Cambridge: Pepys Library, Magdalene College, MS 2421.

1251B.

Locke to King William III, [c.February 1690]. MS Locke c. 25, fo. 47. Letter of petition.

1252A.

Isaac (later Sir Isaac) Newton to [Locke], February/March 1690. MS Locke c. 31, fos. 101–4.

lxi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Inventory 1261*.

Mevr. Cornelia Maria Guenellon (born Veen) to Locke, 11/21 March 1690. MS Locke c. 10, fos. 196–7. Translation of Dutch letter.

1276A. James Tyrrell to [Anthony Wood], [c.6 April 1690]. Bodl., MS Wood F. 45, fo. 65.

1280A. James Tyrrell to Anthony Wood, 10 April [1690]. Bodl., MS Wood F. 45, fo. 63.

1284A. William Molyneux to Locke, 17 April 1690. Molyneux, Dioptrica Nova, 1692. Dedicatory epistle. Text from printed book.

1285A.

John Aubrey to Anthony Wood, 24 April 1690. Bodl., MS Wood F39, fo. 403.

1310A.

Edward Clarke to [Martha Lockhart?], 25 August 1690. SHC, DD/SF 7/1/59. Clarke Papers.

1324A. Mary Clarke to Edward Clarke, 14 October 1690. SHC, DD/SF 7/1/31. Clarke Papers.

1338*.

Isaac (later Sir Isaac) Newton to Locke, 14 November 1690. MS Locke c. 16, fo. 138. Concerning Newton’s enclosure.

[1353A. Hendrik Wetstein to Locke, 23 January 1691. De Beer suffixed item: in fact letter no. 1237: Corr., ii. 788–9.]

1353B.

Mary Clarke to [Ursula Venner], 19 January 1691. SHC, DD/SF 7/1/15. Clarke Papers.

1416A. Lady Masham, formerly Damaris Cudworth, to Edward Clarke, 18 September 1691. Cambridge: King’s College, Keynes Collection, MS PP/87/41/1.

1417A. Locke to [Edward Clarke], [c.21 September 1691]. SHC, DD/SF 7/1/66. Clarke Papers. Masham Trust.

1428A. Locke to [Sir John Somers, later Baron Somers?], 7 November 1691. Some Considerations of the Consequences of the Lowering of Interest, 1692. Dedicatory epistle. Text from printed book.

1437*.

Isaac (later Sir Isaac) Newton to Locke, [c.13 December 1691]. Cambridge: King’s College, Keynes MS 108. Variant of MS Locke c. 16, fos. 144–5. Alternative MS.

1470A. Edward Clarke Jr to Edward Clarke, 25 February 1692. SHC, DD/SF 7/1/2. Clarke Papers.

lxii

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Inventory 1471A. Lady Masham, formerly Damaris Cudworth, to Edward Clarke, 28 February 1692. Cambridge: King’s College, Keynes Collection, MS PP/87/41/3–4.

B2.

Publishing agreement with Awnsham and John Churchill, 2 March 1692. MS Locke, b. 1, fo. 161.

1481A. Jean Le Clerc to Locke, 22 March/1 April 1692. Le Clerc, Ontologia, 1692. Dedicatory epistle. Text from printed book.

1481B. Edward Clarke Jr to Mary Clarke, with postscript by Locke, 25 March 1692. SHC, DD/SF 7/1/46. Clarke Papers.

1488A. Edward Clarke Jr to Mary Clarke, 4 April 1692. SHC, DD/SF 7/1/46. Clarke Papers.

1503A.

Locke to the readers of Robert Boyle, [c.May] 1692. Boyle, The General History of the Air, 1692. Dedicatory epistle. Text from printed book.

1509A.

Isaac (later Sir Isaac) Newton to [Locke], [summer 1692]. Cambridge University Library: Portsmouth Papers, Add. MS 3965, fo. 469.

1515*.

Locke to William Molyneux, 16 July 1692.

1515A.

John Warr Sr to John Warr Jr, 16 July 1692.

Karpeles Collection. BL, Add. MS 4213, fo. 90.

B3.

Publishing agreement with Awnsham and John Churchill, 25 July 1692. MS Locke, b. 1, fo. 164.

1538*.

Locke to William Molyneux, 20 September 1692.

1543*.

Captain Thomas Robinson to Locke, 15 October 1692.

Karpeles Collection. MS Locke c. 18, fos. 24–6. Enclosures.

1556*.

Locke to Dr Thomas Molyneux, 1 November 1692. Karpeles Collection.

1583*.

Locke to William Molyneux, 26 December 1692. Karpeles Collection.

lxiii

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Inventory 1592*.

Locke to William Molyneux, 20 January 1693. Karpeles Collection.

1593*.

Locke to Dr Thomas Molyneux, 20 January 1693. Karpeles Collection.

1604*.

[Dr Pieter Guenellon] to Locke, 13/23 February 1693. Bodl., MS Rawlinson C. 406, p. 83. Alternative MS.

1611A.

Locke to Edward Clarke, 7 March 1693. Some Thoughts Concerning Education, 1693. Dedicatory epistle. Text from printed book.

1620*.

Locke to William Molyneux, 28 March 1693. Karpeles Collection.

1624A. James Johnstoun to Locke, [2 May 1693]. Edinburgh: National Records of Scotland, Johnstoun’s letter ­book, SP 3/1, fos. 134–5. Addendum from vol. viii.

B4.

Publishing agreement with Thomas Bassett, 13 June 1693. MS Locke, b. 1, fo. 168.

1640A. James Johnstoun to Locke, [20 June 1693]. Edinburgh: National Records of Scotland, Johnstoun’s letter ­book, SP 3/1, 172–3. Addendum from vol. viii.

1643*.

Locke to William Molyneux, 15 July 1693. Karpeles Collection.

1655*.

Locke to William Molyneux, 23 August 1693. Karpeles Collection.

1656A. Thomas Herbert, eighth earl of Pembroke, to Jean Le Clerc, [c.23 August 1693]. Amsterdam University, Remonstrants Library (RK), J42.

1680A. William Stratton to Edward Clarke, 4 December 1693. MS Locke c. 19, fos. 85–6.

1683A. Dr George Musgrave to Edward Clarke, 19 December 1693. SHC, DD/SF 7/1/57. Clarke Papers.

1688A. Locke to the Treasury Commissioners, 1693. MS Locke c. 25, fo. 48. Letter of petition.

1693*.

Locke to William Molyneux, 19 January 1694. Karpeles Collection.

lxiv

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Inventory 1701A.

Locke to Nicolas Fatio de Duillier, 29 January 1694. Dublin: National Library of Ireland, MS 9591.

1721A.

Mary Clarke to Edward Clarke, [c.18 March 1694]. SHC, DD/SF 7/1/57. Clarke Papers.

1735A.

Richard Burthogge to Locke, [c.April] 1694. Burthogge, An Essay upon Reason, 1694. Dedicatory epistle. Text from printed book.

1735B.

Elizabeth Clarke to Mary Clarke, 2 May 1694. SHC, DD/SF 7/1/60. Clarke Papers.

[1737A. Dr Richard Burthogge to Locke, 15 May 1694. De Beer suffixed item: Corr., v. 50–1.]

1744*.

Locke to William Molyneux, 26 May 1694. Karpeles Collection.

B5.

Publishing agreement with Awnsham and John Churchill, 20 June 1694. MS Locke, b. 1, fo. 173.

[1752A. Dr Richard Burthogge to Locke, 26 June 1694. De Beer suffixed item: Corr., v. 78.]

1753*.

Locke to William Molyneux, 28 June 1694. Karpeles Collection.

1756A.

Locke to [Edward Clarke], [13 July 16]94. SHC, DD/SF 7/1/66. Clarke Papers.

1775*.

Dr (later Sir) Hans Sloane to Locke, 25 August 1694. Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin: Preussischer Kulturbesitz Handschriftenabteilung, Slg. Darmst. Amerika (4), fos. 10–11. Recovered MS.

1781*.

Locke to William Molyneux, 3 September 1694. Karpeles Collection.

[1812A. Ed: Warren to [-?-], 11 November 1694. De Beer suffixed item: Corr., v. 188–9.]

1817*.

Locke to William Molyneux, 23 November 1694. Karpeles Collection.

1818A.

Locke to Edward Clarke, 23 November 1694. SHC, DD/SF 9/1/5. Clarke Papers.

lxv

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Inventory 1843A. Thomas Hinton to Arthur Charlett, 31 January 1695. Bodl., MS Ballard 38, fo. 2.

1854A. Locke to Andrew Fletcher of Saltoun, 1 March 1695. Edinburgh, National Library of Scotland, MS 17851, fos. 22–3. Addendum from vol. viii.

1857*.

Locke to William Molyneux, 8 March 1695. Karpeles Collection.

1861A.

[Locke] to [Edward Clarke and John Freke], 19 March [1695]. SHC, DD/SF 7/9/1. Clarke Papers.

1878A. John Wynne to Locke, 17 April 1695. Wynne, An Abridgment of Mr. Locke’s Essay Concerning Humane Understanding, 1696. Dedicatory epistle. Text from printed book.

1887*.

Locke to William Molyneux, 26 April 1695.

1906*

William Popple to [Stephen Nye?], 22 May 1695.

Karpeles Collection. MS Locke c. 17, fos. 213–18. Identification of recipient.

B6.

Publishing agreement with Awnsham and John Churchill, 12 June 1695.

1921*.

Locke to William Molyneux, 2 July 1695.

MS Locke, b. 1, fo. 178. Karpeles Collection.

1925A.

Awnsham Churchill to John Aubrey, 15 July 1695. Bodl., MS Wood F. 39, fo. 451.

1949A. John Freke to Edward Clarke, 28 September 1695. SHC, DD/SF 7/1/37. Clarke Papers.

1950*.

Mary Burges to Locke, 30 September 1695. Biographical identification.

1951A.

Locke to the Treasury Commissioners, September 1695. MS Locke c. 25, fo. 49. Letter of petition.

1956A.

J[ohn] F[reke] to Edward Clarke, 8 October 1695. SHC, DD/SF 7/1/37. Clarke Papers. Variant of MS Locke c. 8, fos. 199–200.

1960A. [Stephen Nye?] to [Locke], [c.October] 1695. [Nye?], The Exceptions of Mr. Edwards, 1695. Dedicatory epistle. Text from printed book.

lxvi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Inventory 1962A. Edward Clarke to Mary Clarke, 9 November 1695. SHC, DD/SF 7/1/60. Clarke Papers.

1965*.

Locke to William Molyneux, 16 November 1695. Karpeles Collection.

1966*.

Locke to William Molyneux, 20 November 1695. Karpeles Collection.

1975A.

Locke to Sir John [early December 1695].

Somers,

later

Baron

Somers,

Further Considerations Concerning Raising the Value of Money, 1695. Dedicatory epistle. Text from printed book.

1981A.

Samuel Heathcote to Locke, 18 December 1695. HRO, Heathcote Papers, 63M84/235, fos. 7–8. Board of Trade.

1984A. Samuel Heathcote to Locke, 30 December 1695. HRO, Heathcote Papers, 63M84/235, fos. 4–5. Board of Trade.

1993*.

Locke to [Samuel Heathcote], 6 January 1696. BL, Add. MS 17017, fo. 85. Board of Trade. Recipient now identified.

1996A. Samuel Heathcote to Locke, [c.8 January 1696]. HRO, Heathcote Papers, 63M84/235, fos. 8–17. Board of Trade.

2008A. Locke to Cornelius Lyde, 3 February 1696. MS Locke c. 26, fos. 75–6. Letter of attorney.

2017A. Edward Clarke to Mary Clarke, 15 February 1696. SHC, DD/SF 7/1/53. Clarke Papers. Variant of MS Locke c. 6, fos. 103–4 (no. 2017).

2021*.

Locke to Thomas Tenison, archbishop of Canterbury, 27 February 1696. MS Locke b. 3, fos. 124–5. Enclosure by Thomas Whately.

2026*.

Peter Mauvillain to Locke, 4 March 1696. MS Locke b. 3, fo. 102; copy in Canberra, National Library of Australia, MS 329. Enclosure; and biographical identification.

2028A. Locke to [Edward Clarke and John Freke], 6 March 1696. SHC, DD/SF 13/2/31. Clarke Papers.

2059*.

Locke to William Molyneux, c.5 April 1696. Karpeles Collection.

lxvii

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Inventory 2063A. William Lowndes to the Commissioners of Appeals in Excise, 11 April 1696. Calendar of Treasury Books, xi. 88–9; 7 & 8 William III, c. 27. Association Oath.

2081A. Edward Clarke Jr to Mary Clarke, 5 May 1696. SHC, DD/SF 7/1/15. Clarke Papers.

C1.

Spurious letter: Locke to Thomas Herbert, eighth earl of Pembroke, 6 May 1696. 2102A. Edward Clarke to Mary Clarke, 13 June 1696. SHC, DD/SF 7/1/60. Clarke Papers.

2103A. Locke, Sir William Honywood, and Edmund Challoner to the Excise Commissioners, 18 June 1696. TNA, Treasury Papers, T1/38, fo. 217.

2106A. Excise Commissioners to the Treasury Commissioners, 23 June 1696. TNA, Treasury Papers, T 1/38, fo. 218.

2115*.

Locke to William Molyneux, 2 July and 4 August 1696. Karpeles Collection.

[2118A. Locke to Cornelius Lyde, 11 August 1696. De Beer suffixed item: Corr., v. 685.]

2123*.

Paul D’Aranda to Locke, [c.August–­September 1696]. MS Locke c. 30, fos. 45–6. Board of Trade. Enclosure.

2129*.

Locke to William Molyneux, 12 September 1696. Karpeles Collection.

2130A. Robert Livingston to Charles Mordaunt, earl of Monmouth, later third earl of Peterborough, 20 September 1696. MS Locke c. 14, fos. 159–60. Board of Trade.

2134A. Edward Clarke Jr to Mary Clarke, 16 October 1696. SHC, DD/SF 7/1/2. Clarke Papers.

2137A.

Edward Clarke to Mary Clarke, 30 October 1696. SHC, DD/SF 7/1/53. Clarke Papers.

2138A. Sir Robert Clayton to Locke, 3 November 1696. TNA, CO 388/5, fos. 74–5. Board of Trade.

lxviii

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Inventory 2138B.

John Cary to Edward Clarke, 16 November 1696. The Correspondence of Locke and Clarke, ed. B. Rand, 1927, pp. 492–3. Text from printed book.

C2. 2151*.

Spurious letter: Locke to Rebecca Collier, 21 November 1696 or 1699. Locke to Edward Clarke, with enclosure, Lady Masham, ­formerly Damaris Cudworth, to Clarke, 29 November 1696. Rand, Correspondence of Locke and Clarke, p. 495; enclosure now recovered: SHC, DD/SF 7/1/75. Clarke Papers. Masham Trust.

2152A.

Charles Mordaunt, earl of Monmouth, later third earl of Peterborough, to William Penn, [c.late November 1696]. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Historical Society of Pennsylvania: Penn-­Forbes Collection, 0845C. Board of Trade.

2170*.

William Molyneux to Locke, 5 January 1697. Carl Pforzheimer Library, Austin, Texas. Enclosure. Notice of publication in Papers of the Dublin Philosophical Society.

2183*.

[ John Freke] to [Locke], 26 January 1697. MS Locke c. 24, fos. 200–2. Calendared by de Beer; now printed.

2183A. Sir William Anstruther (Lord Anstruther) to Robert Cunningham, 26 January 1697. MS Locke b. 4, fo. 98. Concerning ‘Aikenhead the Atheist’.

2202*.

Locke to William Molyneux, 22 February 1697.

2207*.

[ James Johnstoun] to [Locke], 27 February 1697.

Karpeles Collection. MS Locke b. 4, fos. 86–7 and enclosures, fos. 88–108. Concerning ‘Aikenhead the Atheist’.

2207A. Locke to Samuel Bold, [February 1697?]. Locke, Second Vindication of the Reasonableness of Christianity, 1697, sigs. A4v–­a3r. Text from printed book.

2254*.

Locke to William Molyneux, 3 May 1697. Karpeles Collection.

2277*.

Locke to William Molyneux, 15 June 1697. Karpeles Collection.

2277A. Robert Wylie to William Hamilton, 16 June 1697. MS Locke b. 4, fos. 107–8. Concerning ‘Aikenhead the Atheist’.

lxix

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Inventory 2284*

René de La Treille to Locke, [c.8 July 1697]. Biographical identification.

2289A. Locke to [Samuel Heathcote], 30 July 1697. HRO, Heathcote Papers, 63M84/247. Board of Trade.

2291A. Edward Clarke to Mary Clarke, 3 August 1697. SHC, DD/SF 7/1/53. Clarke Papers.

2300A. Phillip Bayley to George Stead, 21 August 1697. MS Locke c. 30, fo. 69. Board of Trade.

2310*.

Locke to William Molyneux, 11 September 1697. Karpeles Collection.

2333A. Samuel Heathcote to Locke, 19 October 1697. HRO, Heathcote Papers, 63M84/248. Board of Trade.

2333B.

Locke to [Samuel Heathcote], 19 October [1697]. HRO, Heathcote Papers, 63M84/249. Board of Trade.

2333C. Richard Bentley to John Evelyn, 21 October 1697. Harvard: Houghton Library, MS Hyde 77 (9.276.4).

2336*. 2376*.

Dr Thomas Molyneux to Locke, 25 October 1697. Carl Pforzheimer Library, Austin, Texas. Enclosure. Notice of publication in Papers of the Dublin Philosophical Society.

Locke to William Molyneux, 10 January 1698. Karpeles Collection.

2379A. Sir John Somers, Baron Somers, to [Locke], 18 January 1698. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Ferdinand J. Dreer Autograph Collection, no. 175, series 143:2.

2414*. Locke to William Molyneux, 6 April 1698. Karpeles Collection.

2450A. James Blair to Francis Nicholson, 2 June 1698. Papers Relating . . . Blair . . . Nicholson, 1727, pp. 84–5. Board of Trade. Text from printed book.

[2458A. Locke to Edward Clarke, 20 [ June?] 1698. De Beer suffixed item: in fact letter no. 2537: Corr., vi. 549–50.]

2471*.

Locke to William Molyneux, 9 July 1698. Karpeles Collection.

lxx

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Inventory 2473*.

Locke to Nicolas Toinard, 14 July 1698. New York: Morgan Library and Museum, MS 4500. Recovered MS.

2479A. Locke to Cornelius Lyde, 28 July 1698. BL, RP 3448/1.

2479B. Martha Lockhart to [Locke], 30 July 1698. MS Locke c. 15, fo. 120.

2492*.

Locke to William Molyneux, 29 September 1698. Karpeles Collection.

2495A. Lady Masham, formerly Damaris Cudworth, to Peter King, later first Baron King, 14 October 1698. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Ferdinand J. Dreer Autograph Collection, 175/106/1, p. 17.

2500*.

Locke to Dr Thomas Molyneux, 27 October 1698. Karpeles Collection.

2501*.

Locke to Ezekiel Burridge, 27 October 1698. Formerly Karpeles Collection; now privately owned.

2504*.

Locke to Nicolas Toinard, 1 November 1698. From auction catalogue. Fuller summary.

2523*.

Edmund Elys to Locke, 16 December 1698. Elys, Observations on Several Books, 1700, sect. 1; variant of MS Locke c. 8, fos. 70–1. Text from printed book.

2527A. Hendrik Wetstein to Locke, [1698]. Bodl., shelf ­mark Locke 9.137. MS in printed book.

2539*.

Locke to Dr Thomas Molyneux, 25 January 1699. Karpeles Collection.

2548A. Locke to Cornelius Lyde, 16 February 1699. MS Locke d. 14, fos. 1–2.

2580A. Edward Clarke to Locke, [2 May 1699]. Bodl., shelf ­mark Locke 8.42a. MS in printed book.

2587A. Locke and Edward Clarke to Peter King, 13 May 1699. MS Locke c. 16, fos. 49–50. Masham Trust.

2588.*

Alexander Cunningham to Locke, 15 May 1699. Biographical identification.

lxxi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Inventory 2590*.

Locke to Samuel Bold, 16 May 1699. Richmond, Virginia: Virginia Historical Society, Dawson Turner Papers, MS 1 T8525, vol. 2, pp. 49–54. Recovered MS.

B7.

Publishing agreement with Samuel Manship and Awnsham Churchill, 8 and 14 June 1699. MS Locke, b. 1, fo. 218.

2596A. Dr John Wallis to Thomas Tenison, archbishop of Canterbury, 13 June 1699. London: Lambeth Palace Library, MS 942, fo. 151; Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 221 (1699), pp. 343–9; copy, London, Royal Society, MS W2 n. 76.

2607A. Henry Masham to Esther Masham, 20 August 1699. Chicago, Newberry Library, Esther Masham Letterbook, MS E5.M3827, pp. 82–3.

[2617A. Dr Richard Burthogge to Locke, 19 September 1699. De Beer suffixed item: Corr., vi. 684–6.]

C2.

Spurious letter: Locke to Rebecca Collier, 21 November 1696 or 1699. 2650A. Locke to John Churchill, 30 December 1699. MS Locke c. 24, fo. 31. Masham Trust.

2650B. Locke to Hendrik Schelte, [early 1700?]. Locke, Essai philosophique concernant l’entendement humain, 1700, sig. ***1r. Text from printed book.

2655*.

John Bonville to Locke, 11 January 1700. MS Locke, c. 4, fo. 90. Enclosure.

2656A. [William Popple] to [Locke], [c.16 January 1700]. MS Locke, c. 30, fo. 116. Board of Trade.

2666A. Alexander Shields to [William Dunlop?], [c.January 1700]. MS Locke c. 30, fos. 112–13.

2677*.

Ezekiel Burridge to Locke, 21 February 1700. J. T. Gilbert, A History of the City of Dublin, 1854–9, i. 283–4. Enclosure. Text from printed book.

2717*.

Locke to Nicolas Toinard, 23 April 1700. Princeton University Library, New Jersey: Robert  H.  Taylor Collection. Addendum from vol. viii.

lxxii

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Inventory 2724A*. Locke to Thomas Burnett of Kemnay, 2 May 1700. Marbach, Germany: Deutsches Literaturarchiv, Wiedemann Sammlung, 96.146.132. Recovered MS. (De Beer suffixed item: Corr., vii. 794.)

2733A. Mary Clarke to Edward Clarke, 12 June 1700. SHC, DD/SF 7/1/31. Clarke Papers.

2770A. François van der Plaats to [Pierre Coste?], 7 September 1700. MS Locke b. 2, fo. 178.

2784*.

Samuel Locke to Locke, 27 September 1700. MS Locke c. 14, fos. 210–11. Enclosure: MS Locke c. 30, fo. 131.

[2784A. Edward Clarke to Benjamin Furly, 27 September 1700. De Beer suffixed item: Corr., vii. 155–6.]

2786A. Benjamin Furly to Edward Clarke, 1/12 October 1700. Bodl., MS Eng. Lett. d. 2, fo. 316.

2795A. Lady Masham, formerly Damaris Cudworth, to Edward Fowler, Edward Clarke, and Locke, 19 October 1700. MS Locke c. 16, fo. 63. Masham Trust.

2816A. John Willis to Edward Fowler, 5 November 1700. MS Locke c. 16, fo. 65. Masham Trust.

2839A. Locke to Peter King, later first Baron King, 6 January 1701. MS privately owned. Addendum from vol. viii.

2855A.

Mary Clarke to [Locke], [early 1701?]. SHC, DD/SF 9/1/5. Clarke Papers.

2859A. [Henry Fletcher] to [Andrew Fletcher], 13 February 1701. MS Locke c. 8, fos. 123–4.

2866A. [Locke] to [Andrew Fletcher], 22 February 1701. MS Locke c. 29, fo. 100.

2870A. [Locke] to [Andrew Fletcher], 1 March 1701. MS Locke c. 29, fo. 101.

2908*.

Locke to Henry Fletcher, 23 April 1701. Edinburgh: National Library of Scotland, MS 17851, fos. 35–6. Recovered MS. Addendum from vol. viii.

2973A. John Bonville Jr to [Locke], 5 August 1701. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Houghton Library, Harvard University, Autograph File B.

lxxiii

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Inventory 3052A. Lady Masham, formerly Damaris Cudworth, to Edward Fowler, Edward Clarke, and Locke, 12 December 1701. MS Locke c. 16, fo. 69. Masham Trust.

3059A. Catharine Trotter, later Cockburn, to Locke, [c.December 1701]. Trotter, A Defence of the Essay of Human Understanding, 1702. Dedicatory epistle. Text from printed book.

3059B.

Locke to Awnsham Churchill, [c.1701]. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Houghton Library, Harvard University, MS Eng. 1090(4).

3086A. Thomas Burnett of Kemnay to Catharine Trotter, later Cockburn, [7/]18 February 1702. BL, Add. MS 4264, fo. 111.

3088A*. Locke to William Popple, 10 February 1702. BL, RP 477/1. Recovered MS. (De Beer suffixed item: Corr., vii. 560.)

3104A. [Peter King] to Locke, [c.28 February] 1702. MS Locke b. 3, fo. 136.

[3136A. Locke to Awnsham Churchill, 6 May 1702. De Beer suffixed item: Corr., vii. 615.]

3205A. Anthony Ashley Cooper, third earl of Shaftesbury, to Benjamin Furly, 4 November 1702. TNA, PRO 30/24/20/66, fos. 156–7.

[3214A. Dr Richard Burthogge to Locke, 20 November 1702. De Beer suffixed item: Corr., vii. 709–11.]

3234*.

Locke to Catharine Trotter, later Cockburn, 30 December 1702. BL, Add. MS 4265, fo. 16. Recovered MS.

3261A. Locke to Anthony Ashley Cooper, third earl of Shaftesbury, 12 March 1703. St Louis, Missouri: Washington University Library, William Bixby Papers, 15/104.

3261B.

Anthony Ashley Cooper, third earl of Shaftesbury, to Locke, 15 March 1703. St Louis, Missouri: Washington University Library, William Bixby Papers, 15/132.

lxxiv

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Inventory 3278*.

Locke to Anthony Collins, 4 May 1703. St Andrews University Library, MS 39022/2, fo. 5. Recovered MS.

[3278A. Dr Richard Burthogge to Locke, 4 May 1703. De Beer suffixed item: Corr., vii. 777–80.]

3368A. Lady Masham, formerly Damaris Cudworth, to Peter King, later first Baron King, 7 November 1703. Cambridge: King’s College, Keynes Collection, MS PP/87/42/3.

[3418A. Mary Clarke to Edward Clarke, 10 [ January] 1704. De Beer suffixed item: Corr., viii. 159–60.]

3503A.

John Dunton to Locke, [c.March] 1704. [Benjamin Bridgewater], The New Practice of Piety, 1704. Dedicatory ­epistle. Text from printed book.

[3521A. Locke to Awnsham Churchill, 1 May 1704. De Beer suffixed item: Corr., viii. 279.]

3565*.

Locke to Anthony Collins, 19 June 1704. St Andrews University Library, MS 39022/2, fo. 4. Recovered MS.

[3573A. Locke to Anthony Collins, 30 June 1704. De Beer suffixed item: Corr., viii. 337–8.]

3573B.

Locke to Awnsham Churchill, 30 June 1704. Beinecke Library, Yale University: Osborn Collection, MSS Files 9139. An order for payment.

3590A. Locke to Awnsham Churchill, 17 July 1704. Formerly online. An order for payment.

3600A. Locke to Edmund Calamy, [ July? 1704]. BL, Add. MS 50958; and Calamy, An Historical Account of My Own Life, 1829, ii. 30–1.

3608*.

Locke to Anthony Collins, 11 August 1704. Morlanwelz, Belgium, Musée Royal de Mariemont, Aut. 541/6. Recovered MS.

3619*.

Locke to Anthony Collins, 21 August 1704. Cambridge: King’s College, Keynes Collection, MS PP/87/39/1. Recovered MS.

3643A. Locke to Awnsham Churchill, 14 October 1704. Haverford College, Pennsylvania: Quaker and Special Collections, Charles Roberts Autograph Collection, no. 250. An order for payment.

lxxv

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Inventory 3649.

Mary Clarke to John Spreat, 2 November 1704. SHC, DD/SF 7/1/11. Clarke Papers. Locke’s death.

3650.

Peter King, later first Baron King, to Peter Stratton, 4 November 1704. New Haven, Connecticut: Beinecke Library, Yale University: James Marshall Osborne Collection, File 8387. Locke’s death.

3651.

Lady Masham, formerly Damaris Cudworth, to [Richard] Laughton, 8 November 1704. The General Biographical Dictionary, 1816–17, xx. 369. Text from printed book. Locke’s death.

3652.

Esther Masham to Mrs -?- Smith, 17 November 1704. BL, Add. MS 4311, fo. 143. Locke’s death.

3653.

Anthony Ashley Cooper, third earl of Shaftesbury, to a Friend, 2 December 1704. TNA, PRO 30/24/22/2, fos. 150–1; copies at 30/24/22/4, pp. 9–11; 30/24/47/25. Locke’s death.

3654.

Peter King, later first Baron King, to Anthony Ashley Cooper, third earl of Shaftesbury, 9 December 1704. TNA, PRO 30/24/47/24. Locke’s death.

lxxvi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

LETTERS

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

98*.  John Strachey to John Locke Sr, 24 May 1660 (55, 103) MS Locke c. 18, fos. 196–7. De Beer printed the letter, but not the notes which Locke wrote on the verso of fo. 196. He summarized the latter as ‘references to books and stat­ utes, notes on the Bible, some calculations’. Jacqueline Rose has established that some of these notes – they are mainly citations – are closely connected to Locke’s First Tract on Government. (The notes are unrelated to the letter itself.) For ex­ample, the statutes of 5 Elizabeth c. 4 and 39 Elizabeth c. 2, on artificers and apprentices, are cited in the Tract, as also the worship of the Samaritans at Mount Gerizim. See Rose, Introduction to the Clarendon Edition of Locke, Two Tracts on Government (forthcoming).

98A. Locke to Peter Locke, May and 29 October 1660 (206)

MS Locke c. 26, fos. 11–12. Letter of attorney. Two drafts, dated May and 29 ­October, for ‘my uncle Peter Locke of the parish of 〈illegible〉 Tanner’, to handle his affairs with ‘Robert Harroll and all other my tenants in Belluton and Pensford’ in Somerset. Peter Locke (1607–86) of Sutton in the parish of Chew Magna, three miles west of Pensford, was a younger brother of Locke’s father and does not other­ wise occur in the correspondence until 1666 (no. 206). This document, with no. 565A, confirms de Beer’s speculation that he was a tanner (Corr., i. 288 and ge­ nea­logic­al table). Peter Locke served as Locke’s steward until 1680 (see no. 565A), requesting to be relieved in November 1679 (no. 511). He was succeeded in this role by William Stratton. There appears to have been a further, missing letter of attorney for Peter Locke, dating from 1665, as Locke wrote from Cleves, where he had trav­ elled to in November, that ‘I sent him a letter of Atturny (before I left England) . . .  I hope he receivd it’ (no. 177). Locke’s letter of attorney to Thomas Stringer in 1675 (no. 304A) appears not to have overridden Peter Locke’s role in continuing to deal personally with Locke’s Somerset tenants. Among Locke’s papers is an inventory of Peter Locke’s possessions at his death, dated 21 December 1686, total value £593, including specification of the rooms of his house containing inventoried goods: parlour, hall, kitchen, buttery, shop, brewhouse: MS Locke c. 25, fo. 36. For Locke’s Somerset connections and property, see R. Woolhouse, ‘John Locke and Somerset’, and ‘John Locke’s Somerset Property’, Somerset Archaeology and Natural History, 152 (2009), 1–10; 153 (2010), 97–113.

108*.  Locke to [Gabriel Towerson?], 11 December 1660 (106, 115) MS Locke e. 7, fos. 35–6. Dedicatory epistle. Serving as a preface to, but in fact placed at the end of, the manuscript treatise now known as the First Tract on Government. Locke deleted it and replaced it by a Preface to the Reader. Calendared by de Beer in Corr. as no. 108 but not printed by him. Printed in Locke, Two Tracts on Government, ed. P. Abrams, 1967, pp. 174–5; see Abrams’s Introduction for the circumstances. It will

3

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

108.  [G. Towerson?], 11 December 1660 appear in Jacqueline Rose’s edition of the Tracts. Almost certainly intended for Tower­ son, for whom, see Corr. i. 155, and ODNB.

Sir

In obedience to your commands I heare send you my thoughts of that treatise which we not long since discoursd of,1 which if they con­ vince you of noething else, yet I am confident, will of this,a that I can refuse you noething that is within the reach of my power. I know not what entertainement they will deserve from you, yet I am sure, that you have this reason to use them favourablely, that they owe their Originall to you. Let not the errors [which] may appear to you in their perusall meet with too severe a censure, since I was neither led to them by the beaten track of writers, nor the temptation of interest, but they are, if any, the wandrings of one in persuit of Truth, whose footsteps are not always soe cleare, as to leave us a certaine Direction, or render our mistakes unpar­ donable, But very often soe obscure and intricate, that the quickest sighted cannot secure themselves from Deviations. This candor I may with Justice expect from you since I should never have gonne out of my way had not you ingagd me in the Journy. Whatsoever you shall finde in these papers was entertaind by me only under the appearance of Truth, and I was carefull to sequester my thoughts both from Books and the Times, that they might only attend those arguments, that were war­ ranted by reason, without takeing any upon trust from the Voge or Fashon. My greatest feare is for those places of Scripture, that fall in my way, whereof I am very cautious to be an over confident interpreter, as on the other side I thinke it too servile wholy to pin my faith upon the not seldom wrested expositions of Commentators, b–whom–b in the haste I make toc satisfye you I have not beene much incouragd to consult on this occasion being only content with that light which the Scripture affords it self, which is commonly the clearest discoverer of its owne meaneing. I2 have chose to draw a great part of my discourse from the supposition of the Magistrates power, derivd from, or conveyd to him by, the consent of the people, as a way best suited to those Patrons of Liberty, and most a  at least deleted   b–b  Interlined   c  serve you deleted 1  Locke’s tract is a refutation of Edward Bagshaw, The Great Question Concerning Things Indifferent in Religious Worship, 1660. See L104. 2  The passage from here until the final sentence was reproduced almost verbatim in the Preface to the Reader which Locke wrote to replace this epistle. Locke, Two Tracts, ed. Abrams, pp. 122–3.

4

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

108.  [G. Towerson?], 11 December 1660 likely to obviate their Objections.1 The foundation of their Plea being usu­ ally an opinion of their Naturall Freedome; which they are apt to thinke too much intrenchd upon by impositions in indifferent things.2 Not that I intend to meddle with that Question whether the Magistrats Crowne drops downe on his head immediately from Heaven or be placd there by the hands of his subjects, it being sufficient to my purpose that the supreame Magistrate of every Nation what way soever created, must necessarily have an Absolute and Arbitrary power over all the Indifferent actions of his ­people.3 And If his Authority must needs be of soe large an extent in the Lowest and Narrowest way of its Originall (that can be supposd) when derivd from the scanty Allowance of the people, who are never forward to part with more of their Liberty then needs must, I thinke it will clearly fol­ low, that if he receive his Commission immediately from God the people will have little reason thereupon to thinke it more confined then if he receivd it from them, untill they can produce the Charter of their owne Liberty, or the Limitation of the Legislators Authority, from the same God that gave it. Otherwise noe doubt, those Indifferent things that God doth not forbid or commandeda his Vicegerent4 may, having noe other rule to direct his commands, than every single person hath b–for–b his actions, viz the law of god: and it will be granted that the People have but a poore pre­ tence to Liberty in indifferent things in a condition wherein they have noe Liberty at all, but by the appointment of the Great soveraigne of heaven and earth are borne subjects to the will and pleasure of another. But I shall stop here haveing taken already too tedious a way to tell you that I am Sir your most obedient servant 〈John Locke〉 11 Dec. 1660 〈Pensford?〉c a command at first written, then -ed added   b–b  Interlined c  The signature and place are heavily crossed out. Previous editors believed that the place is ‘Christ Church’ or ‘Pensford’ or ‘Oxford’ 1  Locke is cautiously hypothetical, for, at the Restoration, there was visceral hatred of the doctrines of those ‘patrons of liberty’ who had incited the Civil Wars. 2  Locke’s argument in his Tracts hangs upon a familiar theological distinction between ‘things necessary’ and ‘things indifferent’ for salvation. Scripture prescribes the former, but human authority can set the terms of the latter. ‘Things indifferent’ were also known as adiaphora. 3  Arguably this is the early Locke at his most absolutist; yet the intended point need only be the juridically exact proposition that a necessary attribute of sovereignty in any state is the power to provide final arbitration. 4  Vicegerent: deputy, i.e. an earthly ruler under God.

5

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

155.  H. Townshend, 4 February 1663

155*.  Henry Townshend to Locke, 4 February 1663 (145) TNA, PRO 30/24/47/30, fo. 10. This is the ‘paper inclosd’ mentioned by Townshend in no. 155. Located and transcribed by J. R. Milton. Printed in Bourne, i. 87. Town­ shend was the father of one of Locke’s pupils, Roland Townshend (1645/6–85), and this is a note of expenses owed to Locke: see no. 138. See J. R. Milton, ‘Locke’s Pupils’, Locke Newsletter, 26 (1995), 95–118, at 109.

Townshend Disbursements By your first noat ——————– by your second noat —————– not set down for Tuteradg half yeare ————– In all Receits paid to yew by my son ————– paid by the carrier ——————– by Mr. Rob. Wyld ——————– 4o febr 62

Remaynes due to yew ————–– sent up with this noat ————–

ll 13 08 02 24 10 05 08 23 00 05

s 10 10 0 01 00 00 10 10 11 11

d 03 0 0 011 00 00 00 00 01 00

Endorsed by Locke: Account Townshend 62

161A.  Dr John Fell, Dr Edward Pococke, and Richard Gardiner to Locke, 4 October 1663 (303, 544; 542) TNA, PRO 30/24/47/22, fo. 7. Letter of recommendation. Located and transcribed by J. R. Milton. Printed in Bourne, i. 88. It is not known what the specific purpose of this testimonial was. For Fell, see Corr., i. 179; ODNB; for Pococke, Corr., i. 256; ODNB. Richard Gardiner (c.1590–1670), Church of England ­clergyman and Royalist preacher; educated at Christ Church; canon, 1629; chaplain to Charles I; forthright defender of the king in the Civil War; ejected 1647/8; restored 1660; died at Christ Church. ODNB. See J. R. Milton, ‘Locke at Oxford’, in Locke’s P ­ hilosophy: Content and Context, ed. G. A. J. Rogers, 1994, pp. 29–47. Fell would take a much more negative view of Locke twenty years later when he obeyed royal instructions to remove him from Christ Church.

Omnibus in Christo fidelibus ad quos praesens hoc scriptum pervenerit nos pro uniuscuiusque personae merito et dignitate debitam et omnimodam reverentiam

1  The total is inaccurate.

6

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

161A.  Dr J. Fell, Dr E. Pococke, and R. Gardiner, 4 October 1663 Cum Joannes Locke artium Magister et Alumnus Aedis Christi in Academia Oxoniensi certis de causis ipsum in hac parte moventibus Literas nostras Testimoniales de vitâ suâ Laudabili et morum integri­ tate sibi concedi petierit, nos quorum nomina subscribuntur, tam hon­ esta ejus petitione volentes (quantum in nobis est) obsecundare, Testamur per praesentes dictum Joannem Locke per annos illos quibus apud nos vixit sedulam honestis studiis dedisse operam, vitamque suam & mores piè sobrièque semper instituisse praeterea in illis rebus quae ad religionem spectant nihil unquam aut tenuisse aut credidisse quod sciamus nisi quod Ecclesia Anglicana approbat, et tuetur. in cujus rei testimonium nomina nostra subscripsimus Octob: 4. 1663. Joannes Fell, Ecclesiae Christi Decanus Edw. Pococke, ejusdem Ecclesiae Subdecanus Rich. Gardiner, ejusdem Ecclesiae Canonicus Endorsed by Locke on fo. 8: Testimoniall Translation by Jonathan Nathan and Andrew Taylor:

To all faithful Christians to whom this present testimonial shall come into possession, we for the merit and worth of each separate person, give due respect of every kind.1 Whereas John Locke, MA, a Student of Christ Church, Oxford, for certain reasons that move him in this behalf has requested us to grant him a letter attesting to his praiseworthy life and to the integrity of his morals; we the undersigned, wishing as far as is in our power to favour his honest request, attest through the statements that follow2 that for the years that he lived among us, that the said John Locke applied him­ self sedulously to his studies, that he always ordered his life and morals according to piety and moderation; and that, as far as religion is con­ cerned, he never held or believed anything (so far as we know) except what is approved and held by the Church of England. In witness whereof we have signed our names below. 4 October 1663. John Fell, Dean of Christ Church. Edward Pococke, Subdean of the same. Richard Gardiner, Canon of the same. 1  The Latin opening is formulaic. See, for example, a nearly identical instance: J. E. B. Mayor and R.  F.  Scott, eds., Admissions to the College of St John the Evangelist in the University of Cambridge, 1629–1714, 1893, p. 64. 2  per praesentes is legalese, literally ‘by these presents’.

7

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

165.  W. Coker, 31 January 1664

165*.  William Coker to Locke, 31 January 1664 ([169]) Bodl., MS Rawlinson D 286, fo. 6. Copy by Coker. Calendared but not printed by de Beer. For Coker see Corr., i. 217. This is a letter of compliment, written as a ­Latin ­exercise by an undergraduate, commending Locke on entering office as Censor of ­Moral Philosophy at Christ Church, and requesting to be admitted among the ­‘wranglers’ (velites) in disputations. Locke refers to the ‘wranglings’ (velitationes) of his students in his valedictory speech: Locke, Essays on the Law of Nature, ed. W. von Leyden, 1954, pp. 236–7 (and cf. p. 12).

Epistola congratulatoria et ut ingrederer in 2dam classem Magistro Lock Huius Aedis Censori. Jan 31 1664 idem Woodroof 1  Ευδαιμον a Faelicitatem nostram cum sub Tuo, Vir insignissime, imperio sim, satis mihi gratulari non possum, qui Collegium Tuis sacris moribus Aedem facturus es, et etiam imperandi suavitate augustam. Juvat usque albo disputantium consignari et inter classis secundae velites annumerari quod privilegium a Te unico ratum fore expecto. Enimvero sine benigno Tuo vultu nec faelicitatem sentire neque studia auspicari pos­ sum. Coràm habes qui gloriae sibi ducit Tibi morem gerere et liter­ arum vestigiis quae Tu premis avidè insistere. Quid enim laudabilius Te Censorem suspicere et imitari. Tui observantissim〈us〉 Gul: Coker Translation by Andrew Taylor:

To Master Locke, Censor of this House Greetings Since I am under your authority, I am incapable of giving solemn thanks sufficiently for our happiness, most distinguished man, who, by your dedicated conduct and indeed pleasantness of command, will make the College a majestic House. It is utterly delightful to be recorded on the list of those disputing and numbered among the wrang­lers of the second class, an ordinance I await, determined by you alone. For cer­ tainly without your benign countenance, I am unable to experience   remaining letters indecipherable

a

1  i.e. a copy sent to Benjamin Woodroffe, for whom, see no. 169*.

8

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

169.  W. Coker, 14 December 1664 either happiness or enter upon my studies. You have before you a person who would consider it an honour to comply with your wishes and to tread eagerly in the footprints of scholarship which you pursue. For what is more praiseworthy than to esteem and imitate you as Censor. Most respectfully yours, William Coker

169*.  William Coker to Benjamin Woodroffe, 14 December 1664 (165*) Bodl., MS Rawlinson D 286, fo. 6. Copy by Coker: see no. 165*. Calendared but not printed by de Beer. Biographical identification: de Beer stated that this letter was a val­ edic­tory letter to Locke at the end of his term as Censor; in fact, it is addressed to the Junior Censor, or Censor of Natural Philosophy, Benjamin Woodroffe, whose p­ eriod of office coincided with Locke’s, with a copy sent to Locke – as noted by W. von Leyden in Locke, Essays on the Law of Nature, 1954, pp. 12n, 235n. The letter involves an elaborate conceit which juxtaposes the notion that to be a ‘slave’ to (Woodroffe’s) virtue is in fact true liberty with the practice by which valuable books were chained in libraries. (This practice was on the wane at the turn of the eighteenth century.) Later, Locke’s ­critic John Edwards imagined Locke to believe that ‘the Students in the Universities, as well as the Books in the Great and Common Library of one of them, are all Chain’d’: A Brief Vindication, 1697, p. 7. Woodroffe (1638–1711) was educated at Westminster School and Christ Church; BA 1659, MA 1662; he was a tutor from 1662, and in 1663 studied chemistry with Locke under Peter Stahl; FRS 1668; later a Tory, but he conformed at the Revolution; Principal of Gloucester Hall, Oxford, 1692. ODNB. For Locke’s praise of him, see Locke, Essays on the Law of Nature, ed. von Leyden, p. 235.

idem Lock Decemb: 14: 1664 Magistro Woodroof huius Aedis nuperrime Censori dignissimo Adeo superiore anno (qui iam nimium citò elapsus est quia a Te rege­ batur) imperij suavitate me obstrictum tenuisti ut Tibi vel mortuo non morem gerere nefas mihi videatur. Quidni liber gravem patitur servi­ tutem Si talis existimetur qui virtutis tuae vinculis non constrictus est, cujus regimine nullas praeter istas librorum catenas noverim quibus Artes tenentur liberales quae animum excolunt et earum cultorem illustrem praebent Tibique simillimum. Tibi devotissimus Gul: Coker Translation by Jonathan Nathan:

9

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

174A.  J. Read, [autumn 1665?] To Master Woodroffe, most recently the very worthy Censor of this House Last year (which has already passed too quickly under your guidance) you held me bound by such gentleness of command that I should think it impious to disobey you – even in death!1 Why should a book not suffer harsh servitude if it is judged to be such a one as is not bound by the fetters of your virtue? For under your direction I should know no chains but the book-chains by which the liberal arts are bound; arts which cultivate the soul, making their cultivator noble and most simi­ lar to you. Yours very affectionately William Coker

174A.  John Read to Locke, enclosed with Read to Robert Boyle [autumn 1665?] Royal Society, Boyle Letters 5, fo. 35. Located and transcribed by Michael Hunter, who provided elucidation for this headnote. Printed in The Correspondence of Robert Boyle, eds. M. Hunter, A. Clericuzio, and L. M. Principe, 2001, iii. 11. John Read cannot be identified outside the papers among which this document occurs. The letter – it is no more than a covering note – is one among several enclosures in a letter sent by John Read to Robert Boyle, probably in the early months of 1666. The whole episode is puzzling and hard to interpret, for Read, alias Tithanah,2 a ‘poor pilgrim’, expressed himself in a bizarre and exotic spiritual language. He lived in Fleet Street. In the letter to Boyle, Read sought to become Boyle’s laboratory servant or ‘operator’, having apparently been rejected as ‘operator’ to the Society of Chymical Physicians. He describes himself as having a ‘pedigree from dirt’ and as having been brought low again. He puts this down to his dealings with the Chymical Physicians, which were ‘chiefly occasioned by Mr. Lock who in April last brought me to Doctor Williams’, a leading light of the Society. Read seems next to say that he had discovered ‘a water’ or ‘holy liquor’ and that this had incurred Locke’s displeasure: ‘By this holy liquor Mr. Lock though[t] all Nature might be discovered and because I did not tell him in what manner god did send it to men he in greate displeasure told me and Doctor Williams that we had both agreed to Exclude him from soe greate a benifitt wherefore he repented his bringing us together and now I live under his Censure.’ Read goes on to tell of his falling out also with Williams. With his letter to Boyle, Read enclosed two long letters he had written to Williams, together with petitions for the Society’s support, which he had sent to Williams and Marchamont Nedham, these latter with the covering note to Locke. It is plausible that the note to Locke is early in 1  i.e. the death (lapse) of Woodroffe’s office. 2  For the alias ‘Tithanah’ I rely on Hunter’s transcription. It seems likely, however, it is ‘Tirhanah’, who figures in 1 Chronicles 2:48.

10

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

174A.  J. Read, [autumn 1665?] the sequence, perhaps the autumn of 1665. In the note, Read asks Locke to intercede with Williams, for apparently Read’s petitions to the Society of ‘August the 2d last’ had gone un­answered. Read at this point seems to think Locke will be sympathetic to him, so the note would be prior to their falling out. (Locke left for Cleves in November 1665.) Locke’s encounter with Read will not have improved his already low opinion of ‘enthusiasts’. The brief career of the Society of Chymical Physicians was prompted by a quarrel among physicians between Galenism and Helmontianism, the former doctrine being entrenched within the Royal College of Physicians and the latter being promoted by the ‘chymical physicians’, who followed the novel methods of the Flemish chemist and physician Jan Baptist van Helmont. The Helmontians found themselves enjoying Court patronage after the Restoration, and they applied to Charles II around April 1665 for a patent for a new society. However, they were met by objections from the College of Physicians and failed in their attempt. During that summer they tried to take advantage of the Plague to create a following in London, but their moment had passed. They were prey to internal quarrels and were damaged by the College’s charge that their leading figures included quacks and re­pub­licans. Although Read’s name does not appear in ac­ counts of the Society, he probably seemed to be both a quack and politically radical. See Correspondence of Boyle, iii. 2–14; G.  Clark, A History of the Royal College of ­Physicians of London, 3 vols., 1964, iii. 322–6; H.  Thomas, ‘The Society of Chy­ mical Physicians: An Echo of the Great Plague of London, 1665’, in Science, Medi­ cine and History, ed. E. A. Underwood, 2 vols., 1953, ii. 56–71; P. M. Rattansi, ‘The ­Helmontian-Galenist Controversy in Restoration England’, Ambix, 12 (1964), 1–23; C. Webster, ‘English Medical Reforms of the Puritan Revolution: A Background to the Society of Chymical Physicians’, Ambix, 14 (1967), 16–41; H. J. Cook, ‘The Society of Chemical Physicians, the New Philosophy, and the Restoration Court’, Bulletin of the History of Medicine, 41 (1987), 61–77.

Mr. Lock I beseech you acquaint Dr. Williams1 with what unhappines my society brings you for on August the 2d last I by the hand of Doctor Nedham2 petitioned him and the rest of that honourable society in these words: To the Most Noble Sosiety of Chymicall a–Physitians–a the English pilgram John Tithanah wisheth helth a–a  Interlined 1  Thomas Williams was admitted to the College of Physicians in 1660; signatory to the pro­ motional Advertisement from the Society of Chymical Physitians in June 1665; appointed Chymical Physician to the king in 1670 and made a baronet in 1674. There are references to him in MS Locke f. 25, pp. 39, 60, 316, 361. 2  Marchamont Nedham (1620–78), also a signatory to the Advertisement, and apparently sec­ retary to the Society. He had been a Civil War journalist and republican author of The Excellency of a Free State, 1656. He is much discussed in recent scholarship on English republicanism. The ‘petition’ is another enclosure with the letter to Boyle.

11

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

211A.  Earl of Clarendon, 3 November 1666 Sirs The eyes of all the 74 Universityes1 are open towards you to whom I  come In humble manner desireing that I may of you Enjoy Foode Rayment Lodgin and all Necessaryes for Life that soe I may here in the land of my Nativity retiredly live and spend the remainder of my dayes in the service of the Lord God Jehovah unto whom I am dedicated Jo Tithanah To Doctor Nedham these Doctor The English Pilgram John Read Tithanah willeth that if it please you and that the thing seeme good unto you to deliver the enclosed to the Society of Chymicall physitians and to return him theire pleasure Concerning him it being no wayes pleasing to pilgrams to impose ought on mens a–beleife–a as to what they were or are if it suffice that he is a man of an obscure forme a poore pilgrim, and stran­ ger. Jo Tithanah2

211A.  Edward Hyde, first earl of Clarendon, to Dr John Fell, 3 November 1666 TNA, PRO 30/24/47/8A. Copies, with minor variants, in MS Locke c. 25, fo. 11, and  BL, Add. MS 14269, pp. 151–2 (fo. 76) (Clarendon’s letterbook). Letter of dispensation. Transcribed by J. R. Milton. Printed in Bourne, i. 130; Cranston, p. 96; K. Dewhurst, John Locke, Physician and Philosopher, 1963, p. 26; R. Woolhouse, John Locke: A ­Biography, 2007, p. 72. Locke appears to have petitioned Edward Hyde, the earl of Clarendon, chancellor of Oxford University (and also Lord Chancellor of England), in 1666, seeking permission to proceed to the degree of Doctor of Medicine without attending all the usual lectures required. No text of such a petition is extant, and it may have been a verbal request via Lord Ashley. The reason for supposing there was such a petition is the survival of the present document, Clarendon’s letter to the vice chancellor, Dr John Fell, giving consent to a dispensation. The university, however, ignored the request. Locke had a particular motive for seeking a medical degree, namely to qualify himself in due course for one of the two Faculty Studentships in medicine at Christ Church, which did not carry the obligation incumbent on most Students to seek holy orders. In 1665 Locke had reached the time at which he would be expected to seek ordination. In 1675 Locke secured one of these medical Studentships, which he held a–a  Altered from believe 1  It is unclear to what this refers. 2  There follow the lengthy petitions to Nedham and the Society. One item refers to the Society’s catalogue of medicines, which may be a reference to the Advertisement, which was pub­ lished in June 1665. It seems it was this broadsheet which drew Read’s attention to the Society.

12

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

211B.  King Charles II, 14 November 1666 until his expulsion in 1684. Hyde (1609–74) is one of the best-known figures of the seventeenth century: a lawyer, politician, and historian, who initially opposed Charles I, but then sided with him at the outbreak of the Civil War, served him in exile, and, as Lord Chancellor, dominated the Restoration government until his fall in 1667, when he was made scapegoat for the disasters of the Second Dutch War. ODNB.

Mr. Vice Chancellor and Gentlemen I am very well assured that Mr. John Lock a Master of Arts and Student of Christ Church, has imployed his tyme in the study of Phisick to so good purpose that he is in all respects qualified for the Degree of Doctor in that Faculty, for which he has also full tyme; But having not taken the Degree of Batcheler in Phisick, he has desired that hee may be dispens’t with to accumulate that Degree, which appeares to mee a very modest reasonable request Hee professing him­ self ready to perform the exercise for both degrees. I therefore very willingly give my consent that a dispensation to that Purposea be ­propounded for him. I am, Mr. Vice Chancellor and Gentlemen your very affectionate servant Clarendon C Berkshire House1 3o November 1666 Address: For the reverend Dr. John Fell Deane of Christ Church and Vice Chancellor of the University of Oxford, to be communicated to the Heads of Houses Endorsed: Clarendon 3 Nov. 66 Degree

211B. King Charles ii to Dr John Fell, 14 November 1666 TNA, PRO 30/24/47/22, fo. 9. Copy. Other copies in MS Locke c. 25, fo. 11; and TNA, SP 44/14, fo. 103. Letter of dispensation. Transcribed by J. R. Milton. Printed in Bourne, i. 131; Cranston, p. 97; Woolhouse, Locke, p. 73. One of Locke’s motives for the previous petition (211A) was to retain his Studentship at Christ Church while remain­ ing a layman. Accordingly, he appears next to have petitioned the king that he might be granted a dispensation to continue as a Student without taking holy orders. Again, no text of such a petition is extant. The petition was granted in the present letter, signed by Secretary of State Sir William Morrice. Lord Ashley’s influence is probable. Mor­ rice (1602–76), a Presbyterian royalist, was in office from 1660 to 1668. ODNB. For a Degree in Clarendon letterbook 1  Clarendon’s London house near St James’s Palace.

13

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

230.  [C.?] de Briolay de Beaupreau, [late 1668/early 1669] Locke’s proposal, 1690, to exempt Fellows from the obligation to take holy orders (MS Locke c. 25, fo. 45), see Locke, Literary and Historical Writings, ed. J. R. Milton, 2019, p. 309.

Charles R Trusty and Welbeloved, wee greet you well. Whereas wee are inform’d that John Locke Master of Arts and Student of Christ Church in that our University of Oxford is of such standinge as by the custom of that Colledge hee is oblig’d to enter into holy orders, or otherwise to leave his students place there; At his humble request that hee may still have further time to prosecute his studies without that obligation, wee are graciously pleas’d to grant him our royall dispensation, and doe accordingly hereby require you to suffer him the said John Locke to hold and enjoy his saide students place in Christ Church, together with all the rights, profits, and emoluments thereunto belongeinge, without takeinge holy orders uppon him accordinge to the custome of the Colledge, or any rule of the Statutes in that Case, with which wee are graciously pleas’d to dispense in that behalfe. And for soe doeinge this shall bee your Warrante. Given at our Courte at Whitehall the 14th day of November, 1666. in the eighteenth yeere of our reigne.1 By his Majesties commande Will: Morrice Address: To our trusty, etc., the dean and chapter of Christ Church, in our University of Oxford In the margin: Dispensation for Mr. Lock.

230*.  Locke to [Christophe?] de Briolay Beaupreau, [late 1668/early 1669] (231)

de

TNA, PRO 30/24/47/2, fo. 18 (formerly fo. 48). Lord Ashley’s illness. In June 1668 Ashley was operated upon for a liver cyst; a silver pipe was inserted to continue to drain it. See K. H. D. Haley, The First Earl of Shaftesbury, 1968, 202­–5. The present letter, together with other documents concerning Locke’s role in treating Lord Ashley’s illness, has now been re-edited in P. R. Anstey and L. M. Principe, ‘John Locke and the Case of Anthony Ashley Cooper’, Early Science and Medicine, 16 (2011), 379–503. The documents include three letters which de Beer included: nos. 230, 231, and 250. In each case, Anstey and Principe have provided new transcriptions and new translations of the Latin. (Their divergent handling of the Latin is instructive, but I have not reprod­ 1  Charles II dated his reign from his father’s execution in 1649 and not from his restoration to the throne in 1660.

14

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

230A.  Lord Ashley, [1668] uced their new versions here.) In the case of no. 231* (see below) they have included two paragraphs omitted by de Beer. Since de Beer’s time, the volume in the Shaftesbury Papers in which these documents appear has been recatalogued and the foliations are now different; new fo­li­ations are recorded here. Anstey and Principe date no. 230 more precisely than de Beer: to late 1668/early 1669 (transcription at pp. 456–9). Their art­ icle also includes transcriptions of a series of documents, all in the same MS volume, concerning Ashley’s treatment: Locke’s case notes and queries (fos. 14–15, 16, 19–30; pp. 404–49, 459–71, 472–3); an anonymous set of case notes (fos. 1–2; pp. 450–4); memoranda of advice for treatment by Locke, Timothy Clarke, Sir George Ent, Francis Glisson, Sir John Micklethwaite, and Thomas Sydenham (fos. 3, 8–9, 10–11, 12–13, 17, 81–2; pp. 474–88); and two letters concerning the treatment of other similar patients (fos. 4–5, 6; pp. 489–91). Of the last, one (Thomas Strickland to Sir Gilbert Talbot, 26 October 1668) is endorsed by Locke. The present letter, no. 230, was accompanied by the case notes at fo. 14. For Briolay de Beaupreau, see Corr., i. 316. Anstey and Principe were unable further to identify the recipient except to note that in a memoran­ dum book, under 1 March 1669, Locke refers to ‘Monsieur l’Abbe de Beaupreau Angers’ (BL, Add. MS 46470). De Beer states that the only abbot at Angers at this time was ‘René’ de Briolay; but another source gives ‘Christophe’ (d. 1674).1 See Anstey’s and Principe’s Clarendon Edition of Locke, Writings on Natural Philosophy and ­Medicine (forthcoming).

230A.  Locke to [Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper, Baron Ashley, later first earl of Shaftesbury?], [1668], (234) MS Locke b. 3, fo. 1. Dedicatory epistle, or portion thereof. Written mostly in short­ hand: transcribed by Patrick Kelly. Apparently intended for Locke’s essay on interest, ‘Some of the Consequences that are like to Follow from Lessening of Interest to 4 per cent’, written in 1668, a tract later reworked and published as Some Considerations of the Consequences of the Lowering of Interest, 1691. The dedicatee is not named but is probably Ashley. Printed in Locke on Money, ed. P. H. Kelly, 2 vols., 1991, i. 202. See also no. 1428A. For Shaftesbury, see Corr., i. 284; K.  H.  D.  Haley, The First Earl of Shaftesbury, 1968.

It is not [the] vanity of prefixing [a] great name to my trifles and send­ ing them abroad into [the] world under that protection secure from [the] [attacks] of [the] wits and critics of [the] age Yet [the] dedication of this book to you is not unlike their design who when they are not able to pay their debts hope to satisfie them by talking of money Endorsed in longhand: Usury / 4 per Cent / [16]68

1  https://www.collecta.fr/image.php?id=13968, tombe-dans-l-eglise-de-l-abbaye-de-st-serge-dangers-elle-est-de-christophe-de-briolay-prieur-dudit-monastere-mort-le-5-juillet-1674. Found by J. R. Milton.

15

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

231.  [C.?] de Briolay de Beaupreau, April 1669

231*. [Christophe?] de Briolay de Beaupreau to -?Browne, April 1669 (230, 250) TNA, PRO 30/24/47/2, fos. 40–1 (formerly fos. 20–1). Lord Ashley’s illness. De Beer omitted the greater part of this letter despite it being a reply to a letter of Locke’s to Briolay de Beaupreau (no. 230), albeit addressed to one Browne (unidentified). The omitted section concerns the medical treatment of Lord Ashley. The whole letter has now been printed by Anstey and Principe, pp. 494–5, with a new transcription and translation (see no. 230*), upon which I chiefly rely.

Sir

[First paragraph as in Corr. i. 318.]

Now as for my Lords disease, I shall content my selfe only to make this remarke, that his body must needs have been extreamly foule; when his distemper came to its full maturity which having been a long while a growing (with submission to better judgments) I conceive might have been prevented with seasonable purgative medicines. His often vomiting and soe many hundred bagges full of corrupt matter, which were taken out of his side were sufficient proofs of this truth. But in this question nothing is more materiall anona 1 at present to be considered, as whether or noe my Lords side is allwayes to be kept open as it is at present. Concerning which I shall deliver my opinion thus. that the second breaking out of the ulcer and the being forced to open anonb my Lords side, to take out more bagges, which were growne since it had been shut, is a great evidence to me; that the ordinary remedies, which have been made use of, are inefficatious to prevent the groath of this disease. Soe that unlesse there can be found out others more powerfull to prod­ uce that effect (which I believe must be Chymicall) it were a madnes to shut up the ulcer. If I were to undertake this cure, I should hope to have a successfull event in it, by meanes of the efficacy of some purgatiffs which I have, as allsoe by the aplication of a topical remedy:2 which I have often made use of and allwayes with successe in such like cases. I have not as yet found any imposthume3 soe hard to be dissolved, but that it has made it run in three dayes with very little payne and trouble to the patient, and in a short time cured it. This should be my first aplication a  as now in Anstey and Principe   b  a new in Anstey and Principe 1  Anon: immediately. 2  Topical remedy: one that is applied to a particular part of the body. 3  Imposthume: a purulent swelling or abscess.

16

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi



239A.  Dr T. Sydenham, [c.1669]

after which I would purge his Lordship and this I would reiterate from moneth to moneth, untill I found there were noe matter leaft to run by the silver pipe: and then I would lett it cloase etc: Your most humble servant de Briolay de Beaupreaux

239A. Dr Thomas Sydenham [and Locke] to Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper, Baron Ashley, later first earl of Shaftesbury [c.1669] (236, 247) TNA, PRO 30/24/47/2, fos. 60–3. Dedicatory epistle. Prefaced to Thomas Sydenham’s essay on smallpox, 1669. The manuscript is among the Shaftesbury papers; it is in Locke’s hand and headed ‘Ep[istle]’. Though it is written in the first person as Sydenham’s dedication, the case for Locke as principal author is persuasively argued in J. Burrows and P. Anstey, ‘John Locke, Thomas Sydenham, and the “Smallpox Manuscripts” ’, English Manuscript Studies, 18 (2013), 180–214. The essay on smallpox appeared in Sydenham’s Observationes Medicae, 1676, without the dedication. The book instead carried a dedica­ tion to John Mapletoft, within which Locke is praised for his acute and dis­cip­lined in­ tellect and judgement: ‘utrique nostrum Conjunctissimum Dominum Johannem Lock; quo quidem Viro, sive ingenio judicioque acri & subacto, sive etiam antiquis, hoc est, optimis moribus, vix superiorem quenquam inter eos, qui nunc sunt homines, repertum iri consido; paucissimos certè pares.’ The book also reprinted Locke’s poem addressed to Sydenham which had appeared in Sydenham’s Methodus curandi febres, 2nd edn, 1668. The present, discarded dedication is printed in K.  Dewhurst, ‘Sydenham’s Original Treatise on Smallpox with a Preface and Dedication to the Earl of Shaftesbury by John Locke’, Medical History, 3 (1959), 278–302; idem, Dr Thomas Sydenham, 1966, pp. 101–2, and discussed at p. 76; see also Bourne, i, 231–2; Cranston, pp. 92–3. The text is plainly a draft; I have not recorded the numerous deletions, insertions, and false starts. It will appear, with a full collation, in Anstey’s and Principe’s Clarendon Edition of Locke, Writings on Natural Philosophy and Medicine. With thanks to Peter Anstey for guid­ ance. For Sydenham, see also Corr., i. 325; ODNB; K. Dewhurst, Dr Thomas Sydenham (1624–1689): His Life and O ­ riginal Writings, 1966.

I know he takes but an ill way of paying his respects or gratitude and makes but ill use of the favour of a great man who ventures to prefix his name to a lie and desires the patronage of an noble person to gain credit to a falshood and make it passe the more unquestionable in the world. This consideration alone had I noe regard to truth conscience and the lives of men would make me very wary how I aske the many favours I have need from your Lordship and the trust you have reposed in me, I returnd you such an affront to your Lordship and made you an accom­ plis in a cheat of noe lesse a concernment than the lives of men, by pub­ lishing to the world under your protection the cure of a disease dangerous and fatall to those who shall by my professions be tempted to 17

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

239A.  Dr T. Sydenham, [c.1669] make use of it. The world knows you are too wise a man easily to be imposed on and I’m sure you are to[o] great a man safely to be provoked by such an imposture and were I not by long and reiterated ex­peri­ence confirmed in the certainty of what I here publish it would not become me to engage your Lordships name in a controversy (for soe it is now become) which if I had beene as forward by noise and clamour to main­ tain, as others by reproaches false reports secret and open defamation have beene hot to persecute and decry had by this time growne into a faction.1 It fares not always soe well with Truth and Right as not to need a patronage, new truths espetially such as stand in the way of received maxims and general practice and like trees sprouting up in the midst of a beatn road, which however usefull or pleasant if not fenced whilst they are young and defended till they are growne to[o] sturdy for com­ mon injury are sure to be trampled on in the bud and to be trod into dust and forgetfulnesse. The doctrine and method I here set forth is something of that nature. all that in the following this disease goe the usuall rode are apt to spurne it. it will need you[r] Lordships protection soe long till the world see what fruit it bears and if upon triall they finde it not safe and sallutary I shall willingly counsel you[r] Lord[ship] with­ draw your protection from it and leave it and the author to that scorne and contempt which he shall deserve who trifles with the lives of men, or outg of a perverse and disingenuous and obstinate persisting in an old error or a new mistake for both are equally dangerous. shall with great assurance persuade them to their distruction and under the pretence of cureing them put them upon the most hazardous and deadly practise and by this means murder men at a distance. In the meane time It will not I hope appeare a very unreasonable request if I desire to shelter my self a little while till triall can be made under your Lord[ship’s] name from the obliquie has attended me for endeavouring to doe my country and age service, where in I presume I have not been unsuccessful at least I must be allowd to deale soe candidly and fairly in this matter; that I put it to an easy triall and doe not by any hidden arcanums or conceald medicins, pretend to doe wonders and thereby gain admiration and cus­ tome, a way which however suspitious in its self yet I have observed many others to practice, not only without clamor and disturbance but even with applause and approbation, though many times those cried up preparations have produced fatal effects and most commonly very uncertain ones in the credulous ­takers. I say not this to undervalue the 1  Sydenham’s ‘cooling’ method for the treatment of fevers was much criticized.

18

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

245.  Countess of Rutland, 23 August 1670 medicins of other men but only to let your Lordship see how differently it has fared with me, who have under gon soe many rebukes and reproaches in the prosecution of a plain and open method, which I never indeavoured nor indeed could conceale from any one who had but the curiosity to observe it, and which I thinke had noe fault unlesse some men will thinke it once to be plaine and easy and such as poore people may to the saveing their lives make use of without the help of a physitian. But my Lord I ought not to hold your Lordship to[o] long with this story I confesse I have many great obligations to your Lordship and am not soe misled by common custome to imagin I pay any part of them by this dedication. unlesse it be some kinde of acknowledgment. to witnesse to the world that I believe your Lordship soe great a patriot that in the high station you are in you will not think it unworthy your care to look after the lives of your country men and to preserve them as well from home bred diseases and forain invasions, his Majesty and your countery suffering equally in both by the losse of mens lives. At least my Lord I thought it reasonable to let your Lordship see that I have prac­ tised noething in your family1 but what I durst owne and publish to the world, and let my country men see that I tell them noe thing here but what I have already tried with noe ill successe on severall in the family of one of the greatest and most eminent personages amongst them.

245*.  Locke to Frances Manners (née Montagu), countess of Rutland, 23 August 1670 (242, 246) Private ownership: duke of Rutland, Belvoir Castle, Leicestershire: ‘MSS Letters &c, XVIII, 1642–1679’, fo. 170. Located and photographed by Peter Foden; reproduced by permission of David Manners, eleventh duke of Rutland. Answered by no. 246. The verso is unmarked except for ‘John Locke’ in a later hand. De Beer recorded the existence of this letter, from Historical Manuscripts Commission, Rutland MSS, ii. 20, but had no access. Frances Montagu (1613–71), daughter of Edward Montagu, first Baron Montagu, was the wife of John Manners, eighth earl of Rutland (1604–79). In August 1669 Locke visited Belvoir Castle to negotiate the marriage of their daughter Lady Dorothy Manners (after 1632–98) to Anthony Ashley Cooper, future second earl of Shaftesbury. There are four surviving letters by the countess to Locke (nos. 242, 246, 251, 252); the present letter is the only one surviving by Locke. The series concerns the health of Dorothy and Locke’s care of her during her pregnancies. When this was written, she was about three months pregnant, as, on 26 February 1671, she gave birth to the future third earl of Shaftesbury. The present letter records the near miscarriage of 1  Family: household. The remark implies that Sydenham had served as physician to members of the Shaftesbury household, for which there is surer independent evidence for 1673.

19

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

245.  Countess of Rutland, 23 August 1670 the future philosopher. For Dorothy and the birth see R.  Voitle, The Third Earl of Shaftesbury, 1671–1713, 1984, 3–4. And see J. Gordon-Roth, ‘Locke on Widwifery and Childbirth’, in The Lockean Mind, eds. J. Gordon-Roth and S. Weinberg, 2022.

Exeter house 23o Aug 70 Madam I am once more commanded by my Lady Dorothy to supply her place and by her order to take the freedome to write to your honour, wherein I much more willingly obey her then I did the last time when her indisposition hinderd her from writeing and gave me the unwell­ come imployment to informe your Ladyship of her miscariage.1 For though the same appearance of danger stopd her hands just whilst she was writing to your Ladyship yet, god be thanked, it hath had a much happier event,2 and her Ladyship is now in as good a state of health and as secure from miscariage as she her self can wish, if the assurance of Dr. Ridsly3 and other experienced Doctors and what is more her present freedome from any indisposition can have any credit with her. Tis true on Saturday last4 in the evening we were all afrighted with a suddain flouding that ceised5 her without any fore­ going occasion or symptom. This, after she was got to bed (which immediately she did) quickly stopt of its self before Dr. Ridsly who was sent for came, upon his comeing he thought it convenient6 to let her bloud which was donne, and some time after that there came from her that which appeard to the Doctor to be an Abortion7 which made him forbeare the useing of any other remedys which he had designed for prevention of it. Dureing all this my Lady had noe pain at all either in her back or belly, noe sicknesse of stomach or any other indisposition, but from that time hath continued perfectly well, her breasts and belly not sinking at all but continueing as big as they were before or rather regularly8 increaseing. Soe that the physitians posi­ tively conclude she is still with child, and she is now under noe other restraint but that a little caution hath hitherto kept her in bed, which by the advice of her physitians she will suddainly9 leave and returne 1  In January 1670: see no. 242.    2  Event: outcome. 3  Nobody of this or cognate names appears in William Munk’s Roll of the Royal College of Physicians. 4 21 August.   5 Ceised: seized.   6  Convenient: suitable, appropriate. 7  Abortion: miscarriage. 8  Regularly: steadily, correctly. 9  Suddainly: forthwith, without delay.

20

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

249A.  Lord Ashley, 8 December 1670 to her former diet and way of liveing, there remaining now not the least appearance of danger, that may give her or those that are con­ cernd for her any apprehension. I could have beene glad (Madam) that noe thing had happend to discompose my Lady Dorothy at all, or hinder your Ladyship from receiving the letter she was writeing to you with her owne hand and had come to you by Saturdays post had shee not been surprised by this unexpected accident. But since tis fit your Ladyship should have a particular account of what hath befallen this excellent Lady, I send it you with some kinde of satisfaction that I doe not always write perfectly ill news and am forward to hope your Ladyships pardon for the trouble of a relation wherein though some parts look terrible and unpleasant enough yet the end makes a rep­ar­ ation, leaveing noething but what is cleare from danger and agreeable to your Ladyships owne wishes. I am Madam your honours most humble and most obedient servant John Locke My Lady Dorothy desires to have her duty presented to my Lord Rutland And if it be not too great a presumption present my service.

249A.  Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper, Baron Ashley, later first earl of Shaftesbury, to Dr John Fell, 8 December 1670 (247, 250*; 211B, 303) TNA, PRO 30/24/47/10, fos. 3–4. Draft, in Locke’s hand. Letter of recommenda­ tion. Transcribed by J. R. Milton. Printed in Locke, Works, 8th edn, 4 vols., 1777, iv. 649, and subsequent editions of the Works; W. D. Christie, A Life of Anthony Ashley Cooper, First Earl of Shaftesbury, 2 vols., 1871, ii. 48–9; Bourne, i. 210–11; Cranston, p. 138; K. Dewhurst, John Locke, Physician and Philosopher, 1963, p. 46. In Novem­ ber 1670 Ashley importuned for the conferral of a medical degree on Locke, among ­degrees to be awarded by the university’s chancellor on the occasion of the visit of ­William, Prince of Orange. But Dean John Fell and Canon Richard Allestree, of Locke’s college, Christ Church, objected. Locke requested Ashley to withdraw the proposal, which he did in this tetchy letter to Fell. Locke was anxious to obtain a medical degree partly to affirm his medical avocation but also to qualify himself for a faculty Studentship at Christ Church, for which Ashley soon after petitioned Dean Fell. See nos. 211A and 211B.

21

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

250.  [C.?] de Briolay de Beaupreau, 20 January 1671 Sir, You are well acquainted with the kindnesse I have great reason to have to Mr. Locke on whose behalf I had prevailed with the Duke of Ormond1 for his assistance towards the atteining his Doctors degree at the reception of the Prince of Aurange2 and I am apt to thinke the instance of your Chancellor, and the relation he has to me would not have been denied by the university But Mr. Locke understanding the Provost of Eaton3 declared himself and you dissatisfied with it has importund me to give him leave to decline it which upon conference with my worthy freind the Bishop of Rochester,4 I have donne and returned his Graces letter though my Lord Bishop of Rochester can tell you I could not but complain to him, that your chapter5 had not beene soe kinde to me in Mr. Lockes affairs as I thought I might justly expect considering him a member of their house haveing donne both my life6 and family that service I owne from him, and I being of that quality I am under his majestie7 under which title only I pretend to any favour from them. All that I request now of you and them is that since he will not allow me to doe him this kindnesse you will give me leave to bespeake your favour for the next faculty place and that a more power­ full hand may not take it from him I rely very much on my Lord Rochesters mediation and your own kindnesse to me that may induce you to beleive that an obligation will not be absolutely cast away on Sir your affectionate freind and servant Endorsed by Locke: L Ashley to Dr. Fell 80 Dec 70

250*.  Locke and Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper, Baron Ashley, later first earl of Shaftesbury, to [Christophe?] de Briolay de Beaupreau, 20 January 1671 (231*) TNA, PRO 30/24/47/2, fos. 58–9 (formerly fos. 1–2). Lord Ashley’s illness. Now ­reprinted in Anstey and Principe, pp. 494–5 (see no. 230*). De Beer placed Locke’s 1  James Butler (1610–88), first duke, who succeeded Clarendon as chancellor of the university in 1669. 2  The future King William III. He visited Oxford on 20 December, and the degree of doctor of civil laws was conferred on him. 3  Dr Richard Allestree (1621/2–81), canon of Christ Church as well as provost of Eton. 4  John Dolben (1625–86), later archbishop of York. 5  The chapter of canons, the governing body of Christ Church. 6  Ashley refers to the life-saving operation in which Locke took a prominent part. 7  Ashley was Chancellor of the Exchequer.

22

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

253A.  Lord Ashley, 13 May 1671 part of the letter ahead of Ashley’s, and said that the latter ‘appears to be for a covering letter from Ashley to Briolay’; Anstey and Principe reverse the order and firmly iden­ tify the covering letter as Ashley’s. They provide a new transcription and translation, which I do not reproduce here.

253A. Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper, Baron Ashley, later first earl of Shaftesbury, to William Sayle, 13 May 1671 (250*, 296A) TNA, PRO 30/24/48/55, p. 91. Early colonial. In Locke’s hand. Printed in Cheves, pp. 327–8. The Cheves volume contains a number of letters in Locke’s hand (pp. 317, 327–8, 371, 375, 454), others endorsed by him, and yet others summarized by him, in his capacity as secretary to the Proprietors of Carolina. Of incoming letters endorsed by Locke, the most interesting concerns truculent settlers asserting their right of repre­ sentation against the proprietary government (1671; Cheves, pp. 290–8). Of outgoing letters in his hand, the present item is the most significant. It summarizes a principle of colonization that restricts it to territory that can be cultivated, in contradistinction to arbitrary land seizure or plunder: success and wealth will be best achieved by ‘planting and trade’. It was at this time that Locke was appointed a landgrave of Carolina (the draft patent is dated 4 April). The recipient, William Sayle (1585/90?–1671), had been active in Bermuda and was several times governor there; he was appointed governor of South Carolina in 1670; in religion he was an Independent. He was in fact dead (4 March 1671) when Ashley wrote this letter to him. ODNB. The letter is quoted at length in B. Arneil, John Locke and America, 1996, pp. 130–1. For context, see also T.  Leng, ‘Shaftesbury’s Aristocratic Empire’, in Anthony Ashley Cooper, First Earl of Shaftesbury, 1621–1683, ed. J. Spurr, 2011. Sayle’s commission and instructions as gov­ ern­or are dated 26 July 1669 and printed in Cheves, pp. 117–123.

Exeter House, 13o May. 71 Sir, Just as our ship is ready to saile1 I receive an information from Barbadoes2 that Mr. Woodward when he was up in the Emperor of

1 The Blessing, which sailed c.14 May under Capt. Mathias Halsted, stopped at Barbados and Bermuda, and landed in Carolina, 14 August, with ninety-six people. It carried a series of letters and documents, dated 10 April to 13 May, of which the present is the last. These included ‘Instructions’ and ‘Temporary Laws’, supplemental to the Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina. A letter of instructions to Halsted from the Proprietors (on whose behalf Locke signed) stressed that the chief purpose of the voyage was the further peopling of Carolina, but directed also to trade in timber, sugar, rum, tobacco, cattle, and salt; and furthermore urged acquiring informa­ tion in Virginia about such industries as the husbandry of mulberry trees and silkworms. Cheves, pp. 310–29. For the Blessing and Halsted, see also nos. 272, 279, 296A, 297. 2  In a letter from Sir John Yeamans, 15 November 1670. Ashley wrote separately to Yeamans, 10 April 1671, appointing him a landgrave of Carolina and enclosing a patent, for services

23

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

253A.  Lord Ashley, 13 May 1671 Tatikequias country1 had then discovered that it bordered upon the Spaniards and that probably there were mines there. I apprehend this may be apt to tempt some of our people covitous of present booty to some attempt that way which you are to take notice we doe absolutely prohibit you and you are to take care not only that you suffer not the people out of greedinesse to molest either the Spaniards on that side or any of our neighbour Indians in their quiet possessions, but we also require that you avoid all searches too far that way least the Spaniards by that means discovering how neare you border on them should joyne all their forces there and elsewhere to cutt you off and therefore that the people may goe noe farther up into the country then what shall be necessary to their planting.2 This you are to looke well after as you will answer it to his Majestie whose pleasure it is that we should keepe our selves within the rules of the peace. Neither doe we thinke it advanta­ geous for our people to live by rapin and plunder which we doe not nor will not allow. Planting and trade is both our designe and your interest and if you will but therein follow our directions we shall lay a way open to you to gett all the Spaniards riches in that Country with their con­ sent, and without any hazard to yourselves, and therefore I must presse it upon you that you bind the peoples mindes wholly to planting and trade, wherein if they will with industry and honesty imploy them selves they will not only answer his Majesties and our ends of sending them thither but finde them selves with great safety and ease become masters of all that is desirable in those parts. If you finde that any such report is got amongst the people that farther up in the country there

r­ endered. The draft patent is in Locke’s hand and is one of three, the others being for Locke him­ self and for James Carteret. The ‘Carolina Instructions’ directed the governor and council, inter alia, to ‘take notice that we have made Mr. James Carteret, Sir John Yeamans and Mr. John Locke, Landgraves, and you are accordingly to set them out theire Barronys according to our Fundamentall Constitutions’. Cheves, pp. 314, 323. The patent for Locke’s landgraveship will be printed in David Armitage’s Clarendon Edition of Locke, Colonial Writings. 1  Henry Woodward (d.c.1686), who explored the back country of Carolina and elsewhere, and negotiated with the Native Americans. ‘Tatikequias’: variously ‘Cafitaciqui’, ‘Cusitawaichee’. Cheves, pp. 186–8. 2  The ‘Temporary Laws’ included a warning against ‘takeing up great Tracts of land sooner than they can be planted; [so that] great gaps may not be made in the Plantation to the prejudice of the commerce’. Cheves, p. 325. The Carolina Proprietors, at a meeting on 18 June 1675, ordered that planters must settle in towns, each ‘colony’ to have a town of at least thirty houses. MS Locke c. 30, fo. 8. Likewise, Sayle’s Instructions specified, ‘You are to order the people to plant in Townes’: Cheves, p. 121.

24

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

254.  Sir P. Colleton, [early summer 1671?] are mines of gold and silver I desire you would endeavour to suppresse it and put it out of their heads by all means you can.1 I am your very affectionate friend Ashley Exeter house 13o May 71 Endorsed: Wm Saile 13o May 71

254*. Sir Peter Colleton to Locke, [early summer 1671?] (270) TNA, PRO 30/24/48/82. Early colonial. De Beer published the letter, but not Locke’s accompanying memorandum, which is reprod­uced here, and which Locke endorsed ‘Writers of Carolina’. It is printed (inaccurately) in Cheves, pp. 264–5. There is a photo­graph­ic image, with a contextual explanation, in J. Edwards, ‘A Compass to Steer by: John Locke, Carolina, and the Politics of Restoration Geography’, in Early Ameri­ can Cartographies, ed. M.  Bruckner, 2011, at p. 104. The material has acquired new significance owing to James Farr’s argument that Locke composed the entry on Caro­ lina in John Ogilby’s America (1671): ‘Locke, “Some Americans”, and the Discourse on “Carolina” ’, Locke Studies, 9 (2009), 19–96, an argument which draws on the evidence of this letter from Colleton and its attached memorandum. The final passage in the memorandum appears to be a summary of topics that would encompass the essay on Carolina in Ogilby’s book. Colleton’s letter asks Locke to supply a map of Carolina for Ogilby, and also ‘to draw a discourse to be added to this map in the nature of a description such as might invite people’. The heading of the memorandum, ‘Writers of Carolina’, is misleading. It has three parts: a list of writers on America generally, a list of English explorers and adventurers, and a sketch of the entry on Carolina that would appear in America (see Farr, pp. 66–7). The apparent tendency of Locke’s list of writers and his comment on Sebastian Cabot is to assert England’s right to North America, from Florida to Newfoundland, by virtue of first discovery. Cheves and de Beer dated the Colleton letter to 1671, but Ogilby was soliciting information for his project from at least May 1670 (Farr, p. 66n). In the case of Locke’s list of explorers, which follows his list of authors, I supply identification in notes below for those who have entries in the ODNB. They are given the summary appellation provided there, though prac­tic­ al­ly all were essentially Elizabethan privateers and adventurers, and nearly everyone on the list appears in K. R. Andrews, Elizabethan Privateering, 1964. Locke’s source was almost certainly Richard Hakluyt’s Principal Navigations, Voyages, Traffiques, and Discoveries, 3 vols., 1599–1600, and its continuation, Samuel Purchas’s Pilgrimes, 1625 (LL 1374, 2409). Not all of Locke’s dates for expeditions appear to be accurate. Though the memorandum is connected with the Carolina settlement, Locke’s lengthy list of 1  In a separate letter to Woodward, 10 April, Ashley adjured him to keep silent about his d­ iscovery of mines. The Proprietors wanted settled cultivation not a rush of opportunist gold diggers. Cheves, p. 316.

25

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

254.  Sir P. Colleton, [early summer 1671?] pri­vat­eers suggests the importance for him of militant resistance against the Spanish (and later French) Catholic powers. A final importance of this document is that Locke appears to have been the first to name parts of the Carolina coast. In this transcription I have followed Locke’s lineation, except that in the final two paragraphs I have insert­ ed solidi to mark line breaks. The essay on Carolina appeared in Ogilby’s America at pp. 205–12 and is reproduced in Farr, pp. 81–96; it will be printed in David Armitage’s Clarendon Edition of Locke, Colonial Writings. As a promotional brochure it stands alongside Robert Horne, A Brief Description of the Province of Carolina (1666); Thomas Ashe, Carolina, or a Description of the Present State of that Country, 1682; Samuel Wilson (Locke’s successor as secretary to the Lords Proprietors), An Account of the Province of Carolina (1682); and R.  F.  (Robert Ferguson?), The Present State of Carolina with Advice for Settlers (1682). For Colleton, see Corr., i. 355; ODNB. For travel writings in Locke’s library, see A. Talbot, ‘Locke’s Travel Books’, Locke Studies, 7 (2007), 113–35, and idem, ‘The Great Ocean of Knowledge’: The Influence of Travel Literature on the Work of John Locke, 2010. For Colleton, see Corr., i. 355; History of Parliament Online.

Authors

Writers

Herera1 Oviedo2 Acosta3 Thuanus4 Laudoneer5 Jo: de Laet.6

Spaniards French Dutch

Peter Martyr7 Fabian8 Clement Adams9

1 Antonio de Herrera y Tordesillas, Novus orbis, sive, descriptio Indiae Occidentalis, Amsterdam, 1622. LL 1437. First published 1601. 2  Gonzalo Fernández de Oviedo y Valdés, La historia general y natural de las Indias, 1535. 3  José de Acosta, De natura novi orbis, Cologne, 1596; The Naturall and Morall History of the East and West Indies, 1604. LL 858–9. Cited in Second Treatise of Government, § 102. 4  Jacques Auguste de Thou (1553–1617). Relevant work not identified. 5  René Goulaine de Laudonnière, A Notable Historie Containing Foure Voyages made by Certayne French Captaynes unto Florida, 1587. LL 1681 (part also in 510). First published in French, 1586. There are modern editions. 6  Johannes de Laet, Novus orbis, seu descriptionis Indiae Occidentalis, Leiden, 1633; L’Histoire du nouveau monde, Leiden, 1640. LL 1655–6. First edition, in Dutch, 1625. 7  Pietro Martire d’Anghiera, De orbe novo decades, 1511 and later; or De insulis nuper inventis Ferdinandi Cortesii, in Novus orbis regionum ac insularum veteribus incognitarum, ed. Simon Grynaeus, Basel, 1532. The former is cited in Locke’s Essay, I. iii. 9 (‘P. Mart. Dec. I’), but the latter is in Locke’s library (LL 1930, 2101). Martyr is the only one of the sixteen travel writers named in the Essay to appear in the present list. 8  Possibly Robert Fabyan, The New Chronycles of England and Fraunce, 1516. 9  Clement Adams, Anglorum navigatio ad Muscovitas, which provides an account of Adams’s involvement with Sebastian Cabot, maps of whose voyage he engraved; 1554, but not available until translated in Hakluyt.

26

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

254.  Sir P. Colleton, [early summer 1671?] Baptista Ramusius1 Franciscus Lopes de Gamara2 Galeacius Butrigarius the Popes nuncio in Spain3 All these prove or allow the English right from 25 deg: N. L.4 to the Northward of Newfound Land.5 Travellers

Sebastian Cabot employd by Hen: 7th 1496. 4 years after Columbus and 1 year before Americas discovered from 25d N. Lat: the North pts.6 Queen Elizabeth Robt Thomson and Hugh Eliot Roger Bodenham John Chilton Sir John Hawkins7 Nicholas Philips Hen. Hawks Sir Francis Drake8 Jo: Oxenham9 Capt Andrew Barker10

1565 1569 1570 1570

1572

1  Giovanni Battista Ramusio, Primo[–Terzo] volume delle navigationi et viaggi, Venice, 1559– 65. LL 2438. First published 1556–9. This collection of explorers’ accounts served as a model for Hakluyt. Recommended by Locke in his 1703 ‘Thoughts Concerning Reading and Study for a Gentleman’. 2  Francisco López de Gómara, The History of the Conquest of West India, 1578; and Histoire générale des Indes Occidentales, Paris, 1605 and 1606; first edition, in Spanish, 1553; there are mod­ ern editions. LL 853, 1284, 1284a. 3  Probably Galeazzo Bottrigari (d.1518). 4  i.e. ‘degrees North latitude’. 5  On the strength of a report in Hakluyt of Sebastian Cabot’s testimony to Bottrigari, papal legate in Spain, there was much debate, from the seventeenth to the nineteenth centuries, con­ cerning the latitudes reached by Cabot and hence of English claims in America. 6  Sebastian Cabot (c.1474–c.1517), Italian explorer, sailed to either Newfoundland or Nova Scotia in 1496–7, at the behest of Henry VII of England. The 25th parallel transects southern Florida and northern Mexico. Presumably ‘Americas discovered’ refers to the voyage of Amerigo Vespucci in 1499–1502. 7  Sir John Hawkins (1532–95), merchant and naval commander. Apparently no voyage in 1570. ODNB. 8  Sir Francis Drake (1540–96), pirate, sea captain, and explorer. Circumnavigation in the Golden Hind, 1577–80. ODNB. Locke owned Le voyage de Messire F. Drake, Leiden, 1588; his The World Encompassed, 1635; and P. Nichols, Sir Francis Drake Revived, 1628. LL 993, 994, 994a. 9  John Oxenham (c.1536–80), sea captain. Panama, 1576–7. ODNB. 10  A Bristol adventurer in the West Indies (d.1577). ODNB.

27

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

254.  Sir P. Colleton, [early summer 1671?] Sir Francis Drakes circum navigation 1577 Sir Thomas Cavendish1 1586 Sir Walter Raughly2 Virginia 1584 Sir Ralph Lane3 1585 Jo: White4 Sir Jo: Chidly Sir Ric Greenvile5 1587 Tho. Heriot6 1591 Wm Michelson Christ: Newport7 Hen: May 1593 Sir Rob Dudley Sir Georg Summer Sir Jo: Hawkins 1595 Sir Fra: Drake   Sir Jo: Baskervil Sir Nic: Clifford Sir Anthony Shirly8 1596 G. Lord Clifford Earle of 1586, 89, 92,  Cumberland9 94, 97, 98. Sir Sam Argal expeld the French out of Canada anno 1611.10

1  Thomas Cavendish (1560–92), explorer. Circumnavigated, 1586–8. ODNB. 2 Sir Walter Ralegh (1554–1618), courtier, explorer, author. Projector of the Roanoke (Virginia) expeditions, 1584–5. ODNB. 3  Sir Ralph Lane (d.1603), soldier and colonist. Roanoke expedition, 1585. ODNB. 4  John White (  fl.1577–93), colonist and painter. Roanoke expedition, 1585. ODNB. 5  Sir Richard Grenville (1542–91), naval commander. Roanoke expedition, 1585; apparently no voyage in 1587. ODNB. 6  Thomas Harriot (c.1560–1621), mathematician and natural philosopher. Roanoke ex­ped­ ition, 1585; apparently no voyage in 1591. ODNB. Locke owned his A Brief and True Report of the New Found Land of Virginia, 1588. LL 509, 1384. 7  Christopher Newport (1561–1617), privateer and colonist. Caribbean, 1591. ODNB. 8  Sir Anthony Shirley (1565–1636?), adventurer and diplomat. Attacked Portuguese Cape Verde Islands, 1596. ODNB. 9  George Clifford, third earl of Cumberland (1558–1605), courtier and privateer. Raided and plundered Spanish possessions throughout the Atlantic, West Indies, and North Sea, 1586–98. ODNB. 10  Sir Samuel Argall (1580–1626), colonial governor and merchant. The raids on the French occurred in 1613. This and his other expeditions were written up in Purchas his Pilgrimes. Argall was the abductor of Pocahontas.

28

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

267A.  J. Aubrey, 3 February 1673 Sir David Sir Lewis

Kirke expeld the French out of Quebec[.] Todosac[.]1 Mons Royall on the River Canada.2

Sir Walter Raughly’s hist: of Virginia3 Collection of the Commoditys of Virginia4 Albemarle from 35½ to 36½ / Ashley Ashley River / Berkeley / Cartarat Cape Roman. / Clarendon Cape Feare. / Colleton. / Craven north side of port Royal. / Edisto 32d and 30m5 S C. / Port peril 32d. 25m. / Kiwaha 32d. 40m.6 Situation / Discovery / Soyle and shore / Subterranea Fossilia / Aire and Temperature / Water Rivers Lakes / Fish / Plants and Fruits / Insects / Birds / Beasts / Inhabitants number / Bodys / Abilitys of minde / Temper and inclinations / Morality and customs / Religion / Oeconomy.7

267A.  J ohn Aubrey to Anthony Wood, 3 February 1673 (268; 1276A) Bodl., MS Wood F. 39, fo. 196. Printed in M. Balme, ed., Two Antiquaries: A Selection from the Correspondence of John Aubrey and Anthony Wood, 2001, p. 44; J. Williams, ed., 1  Sir David Kirke (c.1597–1654), adventurer and colonist. Captured Quebec and the earliest French trading post of Todoussac in 1629. See Dictionary of Canadian Biography. 2  Sir Lewis Kirke, (c.1599–ante 1683), adventurer and colonist, brother of Sir David. Mons Royall is Montreal. River Canada is the St Lawrence River. 3  Ralegh did not publish a book of this title; perhaps John Brereton, A Briefe and True Relation of the Discoverie of the North Part of Virginia . . . by the Permission of . . . Sir Walter Ralegh, 1602. 4  Perhaps Thomas Hariot, A Briefe and True Report of the New Found Land of Virginia; of the Commodities there found . . ., 1588. LL 1385. 5  i.e. degrees and minutes. 6  ‘Albermarle . . . Kiwaha’: place names in Carolina, some possibly of Locke’s own devising, but most first so named by Robert Sandford, who explored the coast in 1666. Some of these names appear in the map Locke drew up for Colleton and Ogilby (TNA, M.P. 1/11; formerly PRO 30/24/9/48/80); a revised version appeared in Ogilby’s America as ‘A New Map of Carolina, by Order of the Lords Proprietors’; Locke appears thereby to be the first to have named parts of Carolina which still today retain these names. For geographical details of Locke’s list, see W. P. Cumming, ‘Naming Carolina’, North Carolina Historical Review, 22 (1945), 34–42, at 40; and idem, The Southeast in Early Maps, 3rd edn, 1998, pp. 159–60. Locke’s and Ogilby’s maps are reproduced in the latter, Plates 35, 37. For Sandford’s relation of his voyage, see Cheves, pp. 57–81. 7  Most of these topics are taken up in [Locke?], ‘Carolina’, in John Ogilby, America, 1671, 205–12; in Farr, pp. 81–96.

29

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

267A.  J. Aubrey, 3 February 1673 ‘An Edition of the Correspondence of John Aubrey with Anthony Wood and Ed­ ward Lhuyd, 1667–1696’ (PhD thesis, London University, 1969), pp. 126–7. The letter is closely related to no. 268, which is important for our scant knowledge of personal connection between Locke and Hobbes. No. 268 is also by Aubrey and is presumed to be addressed to Locke. The present letter is addressed to Wood. It illuminates no. 268 because, first, it helps make sense of the Hobbes connection; secondly, because some passages are almost identical to what Aubrey writes in no. 268 (and hence it is practically a draft or copy of no. 268); and thirdly, because it names Locke in a way that throws light on the assumption that no. 268 was indeed addressed to Locke. On the last point, a puzzle persists, because the chronology of Wood’s actions seems unclear. In the present letter to Wood, Aubrey says he has asked Locke to get a transcript of Hobbes’s manuscript tract on the laws in order that Lord Chancellor Shaftesbury should have it printed. This seems to confirm that the recipient of no. 268 is indeed Locke, because Aubrey there also recommends the manuscript to the recipient, who is plainly a member of Shaftesbury’s household. However, this letter to Wood is dated 3 February, and he says he has ‘lately desired’ Locke to get the manuscript, whereas no. 268 is dated ‘Shrovetuesday’ (11 February), a week later, and here Aubrey says he has twice visited the recipient at his lodging, but, not finding him, now wrote down his recommendation. This might seem to count against no. 268 being intended for Locke and suggests that Aubrey, having al­ ready pressed Locke, was now approaching another associate of Shaftesbury. On the other hand (as Alan Cromartie has pointed out), Aubrey was not always accurate or precisely truthful, and he was capable of saying that something had occurred which he hoped or intended to occur, so that his having ‘desired’ Mr Locke to get a copy of the Hobbes manuscript may well have been an anticipation. Two extracts from the letter to Wood are printed below, the first of which tells us something of Aubrey’s relationship with Locke, and the second of which concerns the Hobbes manuscript – which is the Dialogue Between a Philosopher and a Student of the Common Laws of England. See Thomas Hobbes, Writings on Common Law and Hereditary Right, eds. A. Cromartie and Q. Skinner, 2005, pp. xvi–xviii; Thomas Hobbes, Behemoth or the Long Parliament, ed. P. Seaward, 2010, pp. 10–11. For Aubrey (1626–97), anti­ quary, author of Brief Lives, see ODNB; M. Hunter, John Aubrey and the Realm of Learning, 1975, pp.  76–7, 147. Wood (1632–95): antiquary, author of a History of ­Oxford University, 1674, and of a bio-biblio­graphy of Oxonians, Athenae Oxonienses, 1691–2. ODNB. For the circulation of Hobbes’s works in manuscript, see W. Bulman, ‘Hobbes’s Publisher and the Political Business of Enlightenment’, Historical Journal, 59 (2016), 339–64.

my Templa Druidum and Chorographia Antiquaria (or Miscellanea Antiqu:)1 is with Dr. Lock at my Lord Chancellor who is much

1  These are two principal elements which were later part of Aubrey’s never published arch­aeo­ logic­al work, Monumenta Britannica. The manuscript was still with the earl of Shaftesbury in November, when Aubrey told Wood that he was ‘very intimate’ with Locke (Bodl., MS Wood F. 39, fo. 147). In the 1690s Locke was still interested in Aubrey’s archaeological investiga­ tions (L1714, 1739) and in the publication of the Monumenta (L1925A).

30

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

267A.  J. Aubrey, 3 February 1673 i­mportunate with me to print it: and he will be at the chardge him­ selfe1 but I shall respit it, till the later end of March by which time I shall know what Mr. Ogilby2 and I shall doe: I find him a–Mr Ogilby–a very inconstant: but printed it will be one way or the other by midsom­ mer next. . . . . . . The old gent.3 is strangely vigorous for his understanding still and every morning walkes abroad to meditate. He haz writt a treatise concerning Lawe4 which 8 or 9 yeares since I much importund him to doe and in order to it gave him the L: Ch: Bacons Maximes of the Lawe:5 now every one will doe him that Right to acknowledge he is rare for definitions and the Lawyers building on old fashiond maximes (some right some wrong) must needs fall into severall paralogismes;6 upon this consideration I was earnest with him to consider these things; to which he was unwilling, telling me he doubted he should not have dayes enough left to doe it. He drives on in this the K[ing]’s Prerogative high. Judge Hales7 (who is no great courtier) haz read it and much mislikes it, and is his Enemy.8 Judge Vaughan9 haz read it and much commends it; I have lately desired Dr. Lock to get a tran­ script of it, and I doubt not but this present Ld Chancellor (being

a–a  Interlined 1  A great deal of early modern publishing was done not at the bookseller/publisher’s charge but at the author’s or patron’s. ‘Himselfe’: it is surely Shaftesbury not Locke who is the intended patron, though some scholars have read this passage the other way about. 2  John Ogilby (1600–76), author, printer, and geographer. Aubrey was in discussion with him over the possible inclusion of his Templa in Ogilby’s Britannia, which appeared in 1675. See  K.  J.  Williams, The Antiquary: John Aubrey’s Historical Scholarship, 2016, pp. 46–7 and ­passim. For Locke and Ogilby’s America, 1671, see no. 254*. 3 Hobbes. 4 The Dialogue of the Common Laws: see headnote. 5  Lord Chancellor Francis Bacon, Maxims of the Law, written 1597, publ. 1630. 6  Paralogismes: false reasonings. 7  Sir Matthew Hale (1609–76), chief justice of King’s Bench, formerly a Cromwellian judge. ODNB. 8  Hale’s ‘Reflections’ on Hobbes’s Dialogue remained unpublished until the twentieth cen­ tury: the text is in W. S. Holdsworth, History of English Law, 1903–38, v. 499–513, and Matthew Hale, On the Law of Nature, Reason, and Common Law: Selected Jurisprudential Writings, ed. G.  J.  Postema, 2017, pp. 185–204. Aubrey’s remark helps date Hale’s ‘Reflections’, as well as Hobbes’s Dialogue, which was not published until 1681. See  D.  E.  C.  Yale, ‘Hobbes and Hale on Law, Legislation, and Sovereignty’, Cambridge Law Journal, 31 (1972), 121–56; A. Cromartie, Sir Matthew Hale, 1609–1676, 1995, ch. 7. 9  Sir John Vaughan (1603–74), chief justice of Common Pleas. ODNB. For his support of sovereign authority and affinity with Hobbes’s views, see R. Tuck, Natural Rights Theories, 1979, pp. 113–15, 132–5.

31

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

272A.  N. Lye 1 July 1673 much for the Ks Prerogative)1 will have it printed, and have also ordered to have some copies of his History of the late timesa from 1640 to 1660,2 which the Bishops will not licence,b 3 soe fires happen, and ’tis fit there should be more copies then one . . . .

272A.  Locke to Nathaniel Lye, 1 July 1673 TNA, PRO 30/24/42/59, fos. 26–7. This letter is the first of four printed here which relate to Locke’s work as Secretary for Presentations to church benefices.4 De Beer printed one such: no. 266. Apparently written for dispatch, but not sent. Located and transcribed by J. R. Milton. Nathaniel Lye (c.1648–1737) matriculated from Brasenose College 1665; BA 1668; ordained 1670; MA 1671; prebendary of Bristol 1691; arch­ deacon of Gloucester 1714. In March 1673 he was presented by Shaftesbury to the liv­ ing of Cowley, Gloucestershire; Locke’s record of the fiat ordering his institution is in MS Locke c. 44, p. 8. See the online Clergy of the Church of England Database.

Exeterhouse 1o Jul. 73 Mr. Lye I have received your letter, and thank you for the account you have here in sent me. And if any thing hereafter come in your way which may rectifye your list5 or better informe me, you will doe me a kinde­ ness to give me notice of it, whom you shall finde ready on any occasion to returne my acknowledgement. I am Sir your very humble servant John Locke

a  Edge frayed, perhaps one word lost    b  Edge frayed, perhaps one word lost 1  A striking remark about the political stance of Locke’s master. At this time, Shaftesbury sup­ ported the king’s issuance of the prerogative Declaration of Indulgence (1672) which suspended statutes against religious nonconformity; and, on his own authority, issued writs to fill vacancies in the House of Commons, which was normally done by the Speaker. The Declaration is defended in the Shaftesburian manifesto, in which Locke probably had a hand, A Letter from a Person of Quality, 1675: Locke, An Essay Concerning Toleration and Other Writings on Law and Politics, 1667–1683, eds. J. R. Milton and P. Milton, 2006, pp. 340–3. 2 Hobbes’s Behemoth, publ. 1679. 3  Pre publication censorship was reimposed by the Printing (or Licensing) Act (1662), under which ecclesiastical as well as civil authorities were empowered to license books. 4 For John Aubrey’s (apparently unsuccessful) importunity of Locke for preferment for Richard Browne, of Minety, Wiltshire, between November 1672 and April 1673 see Bodl., MS Wood F. 39, fos. 147, 195, 196, 238, 203, and MS Ballard 14, fo. 94. 5  i.e. of the values of church benefices, as in the note below.

32

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

278A.  Sir J. Nicholas, October 1673 Rect1 Beatae Mariae in Austral eccles. Christi2–––––14–––7–––10/06li 3 Rect St Jo: Baptist4———–14—10—0—ob—/03li Minsterworth:5 vic————10—13—4—/10 Address: To Mr. Nathaniell Lye Endorsed by Locke: Presentations A letter to Mr. Lye 1 Jul. 73

278A.  Sir John Nicholas to [Sir Robert Howard], October 1673 BL, Add. MS 28075, fo. 25 (p. 2). Early colonial. Copy of a warrant authorizing Locke’s salary as the newly appointed secretary to the Council of Trade and Foreign Planta­ tions; he was appointed on 15 October and served until 21 December 1674. He dis­ placed Benjamin Worsley, who resigned, unwilling to take the sacramental oath under the Test Act (1673). Locke was never paid his salary and petitioned for it after the Rev­ olution. Sir John Nicholas (1624–1705) was clerk of the Signet and clerk of the Privy Council; Sir Robert Howard (1626–98) was Auditor of the Exchequer. ODNB. There are related documents, not printed here. BL, Add. MS 28076, fo. 91r (p. 211): Lord Treasurer Sir Thomas Osborne, Viscount Latimer (later earl of Danby) to Sir Robert Howard, 13 February 1673/4, authorizing payment of the Council’s £1,000 p.a. allow­ ance for expenses, to Locke, as treasurer (as well as secretary); also fo. 174v (p. 377).

October 1673 A Warrant to the Exchequer to pay unto John Lock Esq Secretary to the Councell of foreigne plantations in the Roome of Benjamine Worsley6 Esq the yearly sallary of 500l without account to commence from midsummer last, and to be payd quarterly to him during his Continuation in that Employment With Directions that no payment be made to the said Mr. Worsley for his like sallary for any tyme after Midsummer last. Subscribed by Sir John Nicholas by Warrant and his Majestys signe manuall. J. Mathew Countersigned: Latimer 8 November 73

1  Rect.: rectory of. 2  Identifiable as St Mary de Crypt, also known as St Mary in the South, Gloucester: Victoria County History, Gloucester, iv. 300–2. 3  li: librae = pounds. 4 Identifiable as St John the Baptist, Gloucester: Victoria County History, Gloucester, iv. 297–300. 5  Four miles WSW of Gloucester. 6  1617/18–77, physician, projector, reformer. He had been assistant secretary and then secre­ tary of the Council since 1670. He resigned in September 1673. See ODNB; T. Leng, Benjamin Worsley (1618–1677): Trade, Interest, and the Spirit in Revolutionary England, 2008.

33

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

279A.  J. Evelyn, 17 October 1673

279A.  Locke to John Evelyn, 17 October 1673 (1251A ) Catalogue of Several Important Collections of Autograph Letters (26 November 1891) in Sotheby’s Catalogues (Ann Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms, 1973–6), part II, reel 119: lot 215. Present location of the manuscript unknown. (The item is not in D. D. C. Chambers and D. Galbraith, eds., The Letterbooks of John Evelyn, 2 vols., 2014.) Early colonial. The catalogue indicates that this is a note of four lines ‘telling him that a meeting is to be held of the Committee of Tangier Affairs’. This is the only known correspondence between Locke and Evelyn, though they certainly knew each other. Locke is mentioned in Evelyn’s Diary, 24 October 1672 and 15 October 1673; and see nos. 1251A and 2333C. The note arises from Locke’s appointment on 15 October as secretary of the Council of Trade and Foreign Plantations; the Tangier Committee was closely connected. The note probably read much like one to Evelyn written by the previous secretary Benjamin Worsley: ‘Tuesday night 6th May 1673. Sir, It is the desire of My Lord Chancellor that the Councill for Trade and Plantations will please to meet tomorrow in the afternoone at Six of the Clock. Ben: Worsley Secretary’: BL, Add. MS 78393, fo. 55. The existence of this letter was noted by F. Waldmann: ‘Additions to De Beer’s Correspondence of John Locke’, Locke Studies, 15 (2015), 31–52, at 50–1. Evelyn (1620–1706), virtuoso, diarist, antiquary; FRS; member of the Council for Plantations 1671; writer on gardening and architecture. ODNB, and many published studies.

279B. Francis Gwyn to Locke, October 1673 TNA, PRO 30/24/42/59, fo. 51. Located and transcribed by J. R. Milton. The letter relates to Locke’s work as Secretary for Presentations to church benefices. Date from endorsement. Francis Gwyn (c.1648–1734), son of Edward Gwyn of Llansannor, Gla­ mor­gan, and Eleanor, sister of Locke’s early patron, Alexander Popham; ma­tricu­lated from Christ Church 1666; admitted barrister at the Middle Temple 1667; Member of Parliament for Chippenham since February 1673. Although initially associated with Shaftesbury, he later sided with the Tories, and as one of the clerks to the Privy Council undertook the seizure of Shaftesbury’s papers in July 1681: K. H. D. Haley, The First Earl of Shaftesbury, 1968, p. 654. He subsequently held a succession of offices, culminating in the post of Secretary for War in 1713–14. ODNB; History of Parliament Online.

Sir I was to wayt on you last night and this morning but could not find you within[.] I have left the paper anda the value of the three neighbour Countys to me that is Glamorgan, Brecknock and Camarthen with that part of Monmoth that is in Landafos.1 I will wayt on you another time and give you a farther account[,] in the mean time I am a  MS. and and 1  TNA, PRO 30/24/42/59, fos. 54–5, 58–9 are lists, not in Gwyn’s hand, of livings in the dioceses of Llandaff and St David’s; both were endorsed by Locke as having been supplied by Gwyn.

34

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

280A.  Lord Osborne, 25 October 1673 Your Faithfull servent Francis Gwyn Address: For Mr. Locke Endorsed by Locke: Presentations Mr. Gwyns letter Oct. 73

280A.  Locke to Sir Thomas Osborne, Lord Osborne, later earl of Danby, marquess of Carmarthen, and duke of Leeds, 25 October 1673 Catalogue of an Important Collection of Autograph Letters and Historical Papers (5 April 1869) in Sotheby’s Catalogues (Ann Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms, 1973–6), part II, reel 47: lot 610. Early colonial. Present location of the manuscript unknown. The catalogue indicates that this is a note to the Lord Treasurer, signed by Locke, ­‘giving notice of a meeting of the Council for Trade and Plantations’. The note is in­di­ ca­tive of Locke’s new duties as secretary to the Council, from 15 October, and records his contact with the pol­it­ician who would dominate Tory Anglican politics for much of the remainder of the century and whom he and the Whigs would later attack and revile; this is their only known correspondence. For a similar note, see no. 279A. Re­ covered by F. Waldmann: ‘Additions to de Beer’s Correspondence of John Locke’, Locke Studies, 15 (2015), 31–52, at 51. Osborne (1632–1712) entered Court politics early in the Restoration; benefited from Lord Chancellor Clarendon’s fall; peerage 1673; ef­fect­ ive­ly ‘prime minister’ 1674–8; the butt of the Shaftesburian manifesto A Letter from a Person of Quality (1675); in the Tower 1679–84; dominated Tory politics, with the marquis of Halifax and earl of Nottingham, in the early years of William III’s reign. ODNB; A. Browning, Thomas Osborne, Earl of Danby, 3 vols., 1951.

280B.  Council of Trade and Plantations to King Charles II, 15 November 1673 TNA, CO 389/5, fos. 40–2. Calendared in CSPC, America, 1669–1674, no. 1165. Early colonial. Printed in E. B. O’Callaghan, ed., Documents Relative to the Colonial History of the State of New York, 10 vols., 1853–8, iii. 211–13. The letter comprises advice to the Crown on means to recapture New York from the Dutch. It is among the most sig­ nificant of the documents relating to Locke’s secretaryship of the Council which he probably had a hand in preparing. The letter is not in Locke’s hand but his signature is in the margin; the compiler of the Calendar remarks: ‘from which it may be inferred that he drew this up’. This is likely, as the document draws together materials contained in recent memorials to the Council reporting the Dutch capture of New York and pro­ posing means for its recapture (printed in Documents . . . New York, iii. 199–210). The English had captured New Amsterdam in 1664, whereupon it had been renamed New York, but the Dutch had briefly recaptured it in 1672 during the Third Anglo-Dutch War; it was returned to the English Crown in 1674 under the Treaty of Westminster. The scheme proposed here was not put into effect: the Dutch sued for peace in January

35

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

280B.  Council of Trade and Plantations, 15 November 1673 1674. The transcription here relies on O’Callaghan. The text will be printed in David Armitage’s Clarendon edition of Locke, Colonial Writings.

To the King’s Most Excellent Majesty The Opinion and Humble Advice of your Majesties Councell for Trade and Forreigne Plantations May it please your Majesty The Earle of Shaftesbury President of this your Majesties Councell having some time since acquainted us with the loss of New Yorke, with an intimation how well it would become our duties to inform ourselves more particularly of the state and strength of that place, and what might be fit for us humbly to offer to your Majesty for the reducing under your Majesties Obedience a Plantation of so high concernment to the rest of your Dominions in America; The Earle of Arlington (one of your Majesties Principall Secretaries of State)1 having also commu­ nicated to us severall letters concerning the taking of New York by the Dutch, in the later end of July last, and incouraged us, to enquire far­ ther into the Posture of your Majesties affaires in those parts relating thereunto, Wee upon the best information wee can gett, and upon con­ sideration of the whole matter, crave leave humbly to represent unto your Majesty 1st That New York being a very good and the only fortified Harbor in all the Northern Plantations of America, and bordering upon Virginia and Mary:Land will not only bee a safe retreate for the Dutch in those parts, but give them an oppurtunity to have with great ease, Men of Warr, and Capers2 cruising constantly before the Capes of Virginia, and intercept all English Vesells trading thither, By which meanes your Majesties Customes (which now by the trade of those places amount yearly to six or seaven score thousand pounds) will not be only lost, But the plantations themselves being hindred from venting3 their Tobacco, and receiving supplies of cloathing, tooles and servants wilbe in great danger utterly to be ruined, To which the oppur­ tunity the Dutch will have of giving them constant alarmes, and mak­ ing frequent inroads upon them, will not a little contribute, The Inhabitants there by their scatter’d way of living and want of fortresses in a Country that hath so many great and open rivers, being rendred

1  Henry Bennet, first earl of Arlington (1618–85). ODNB. 2 Caper: privateer, corsair.    3  Venting: selling.

36

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

280B.  Council of Trade and Plantations, 15 November 1673 utterly incapable of making resistance, against sudden incursions, where they will be lyable to be harrassed out, or made a prey to the neighbouring Enemy. 2ly Though New England bordering on the other hand of New York by their number of people and planting in townes and situation of the country, be more capable of making resistance, and therefore not so likely to be ruined by the Dutch, yett there is noe less danger to your Majesties affaires on that side, if the Dutch shall continue to be their Neighbours, Since the Inhabitants of New England, being more intent, upon the advancement of their owne private trade, then the publique Interest of your Majesties crowne and Government may if the Dutch continue a quiett possession there, enter into commerce with them, whereby it is to be feared, they will at present divert a great part of the Trade of England into those Countries, and lay a foundation for such an Union hereafter between them and Holland as will be very prejudi­ ciall to all your Majesties Plantations, if not terrible to England ­ittselfe.1 3ly It is very probable that the English Inhabitants which ­possess the Eastern part of Long Island, and are farr the greater number have not yett submitted to the Dutch, nor will the Enemy be in a con­ dition to reduce them, till they have received new recruites from Europe, And therefore, if force be speedily sent from hence, before they have yeilded themselves, they will bee ready, and in a good posture to assist in the retaking New York. 4ly That Barbados and the rest of your Majesties Plantations in the Carribee Islands depending upon these Northern Plantations for the greatest part of their provisions, whereof noe small quantities came from New York itselfe, must, if the Dutch keep Masters of those seas either be reduced to extremity; or else all that Trade come into New Englandmen’s hands by the connivance and confederacy of the Dutch, which would be of as ill consequence. Wherefore wee your Majesties Councell for Trade and Forraign Plantations are humbly of an opinion, That the speedy reducing of New York is of great importance to your Majesties Affaires, To which purpose One 3d rate, One 4th rate, two 5th rates, with 3 hired Merchant

1  The distrust of the loyalty of New England and its presumed preference for its own economic advantage are striking. A common complaint of English officials, from this period onwards, was the colonists’ evasion of the requirements of the Navigation Act and unwillingness to contribute to common defence. This paragraph raises the spectre of a Dutch empire in New England.

37

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

280B.  Council of Trade and Plantations, 15 November 1673 shipps each whereof should carry upwards of 40 Gunns, 3 fireshipps, and 600 Foote Souldiers are absolutely necessary. That the 3 hired Merchant shipps should have their complement made up in good part of Land men, that so as few Seamen as possible may be taken from your Majesties service in other places. That the 600 foote whould be distributed into such Merchant Shipps as are going to Virginia, to some of which itt may bee conveni­ ent that your Majesty should lend some great gunns, by which meanes the Fleet will not be onely strengthened, but your Majesties Forces more comodiously transported, and the Merchante ships the better secured. That in order hereunto an Imbargo be presently laid upon all ships prepareing for Virginia, Mary Land, and the rest of the Northern Plantations, That none be suffered to goe before this convoy, and none then but strong and serviceable vessells, and that all such Merchant shipps as goe with this convoy be oblidged to follow your Majesties ships and to receive orders from them, as if they were actually in your Majesties pay till this service bee over. And that the Commanders and Officers of your Majesties shipps and Forces traine and exercise by the way (such servants and passengers as are going to Virginia in the Merchant shipps which usually are a considerable number and may by  this meanes prove a good addition of strength to your Majesties forces).1 That the men of Warr carry with them such Stores of powder and other ammunition and provisions as out of them the Forts in New York and Albany when taken may be supply’d with all necessaries for their defence. That for the better concealing of this design (the secresy whereof wee humbly conceive to bee of great moment to the success) noe more of the shipps sent by your Majesty upon this Expedition saile with the Virginia Fleete out of the Thames then would serve for an ordinary convoy, but that the rest of the men of Warr, and the 600 foote Souldiers be in a readiness at Plymouth or some other convenient Port in the West to joyne with the Virginia Fleete, where the Comander in cheife is to open his Commision and Instructions for this service and not before. 1  This is an early example of a common theme in ‘navalist’ policymaking: the argument that enhancing the merchant navy and the Royal Navy’s protection role would provide a resource of trained manpower, by implication obviating the need for a ‘standing army’, this being much reviled.

38

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

280C.  G. Jones, 1673 That all preparations for this Expedition be forth with taken in hand, that the Fleete may be going as soone as possible, that they saile directly to New York, and when they come within a conveni­ ent distance of that coast, they dispatch one of their smallest vessels to Road Island, and another to the Eastern part of Long Island with such orders as your Majesty shall think fit to send for the rais­ ing of Forces in New England and Long Island to assist in this designe. That your Majesty would be pleased to send order, That if it shall please God to bless your Majesties Armes with success, (which from such a force wee have no reason but to expect), and that New-York be reduced under your Majesties Obedience, the Dutch which shall remain in that Colony be removed farther up into the Country from the Sea side, at least as farr as Albany, their inhabiting the towne of New-Yorke being a great cause of the loss of both Towne and Castle now, and as long as they shall stay there, there will be the like danger upon any occasion for the future. All which wee in all humility submitt to your Majesties great Wisdome. Arlington Shaftesbury President T Culpeper vice president   G. Carterett Ed: Waller H. Slingsby1

Rich Gorges William Hickman

Delivered by the Secretary To the Right honorable the Earle of Arlington the 15th November 1673

280C.  Griffith Jones to Locke, 1673 TNA, PRO 30/24/42/59, fos. 56–7. Located and transcribed by J. R. Milton. Date from endorsement. The letter relates to Locke’s work as Secretary for Presentations to church benefices. The writer is identifiable as Griffith or Griffin Jones, born c.1648, matriculated at Christ Church, 1664, BA 1668. He was probably admitted as a servi­ tor, since there is no record of any caution money being paid to Christ Church; and on the evidence of this letter it seems likely that he worked in this capacity for Locke.

1  Anthony Ashley Cooper, first earl of Shaftesbury; Richard Gorges, second Baron Gorges (c.1619–1712); Thomas Culpeper, second Baron Culpeper (1635–89), ODNB; Sir George Carteret (1610?–80), ODNB; Sir William Hickman (1629–82); Edmund Waller (1606–87), ODNB; Henry Slingsby (1619/20–90), ODNB.

39

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

280C.  G. Jones, 1673 Likewise, payment of £1 to ‘my servitor Jones’ recorded in Locke’s 1669 memorandum book: BL, Add. MS 46470, fo. 30. In this letter, Jones supplies information concerning the values of benefices and seeks Locke’s patronage. There is, however, no record of his receiving any ecclesiastical position through Locke’s agency, and no details of his subsequent career are known: he does not appear in the Clergy of the Church of Eng­ land Database. The worth of benefices, many of them underendowed, can be assessed by reference to the threshold of £50 p.a. set early in the following century by Queen Anne’s Bounty, a project to augment poor livings. Defenders of the clergy resorted to anticlerical protests against pluralism by arguing that the practice was often necessary in order to scrape together a livelihood.

Honourable Sir These are all, that I could hitherto present to you with their annuall value; so far as is supposed and that usually.County ofa Gloucester. Stow. Dec. 1.1 Hastleton cum Cap. Emworth also Yanworth R Wicke Risington Rect Barington parva vic. Windrich2 vic. Barington magna Rect. Risington parva Rect. Aston also Cold Aston vic. Notgrove Rect.

£ 100 80 35 40 60 100 30 100

Cambden. Dec. 14. 100 50 120 30 40

Mickleton vic. Strarrney3 -- vic. Marston Sicca also long Marston. Eborton4. Vic Pebworth vic

The rest in this and in the other Counties I shall enquire after with what speed and truth I can. a MS. Com. 1  The parishes in this and the following list are in the rural deaneries of Stow-on-the-Wold and Chipping Camden respectively. 2 Windrush.   3 Probably Stanway.   4 Ebrington.

40

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

280D.  E. Osborne, 6 January 1673 Sir pray remember your unworthy servitor if any of these shall be represented to you as vacant: the most likely (that I know) to be soon­ est deprived of the present Incumbent, is Mickelton1 in Cambden Deanary, Gloucester shire, etc. nothwithstanding you may be pleased to take of other places as they fall.-Sir I beseech you to pardon the boldnesse of my superscription; I would have had it corrected but t’was too late. Endorsed by Locke: Presentations Grif: Jones’s account of the value of severall ­liveings 73

280D. Edward Osborne to Locke, 1673 TNA, PRO 30/24/42/59, fos. 64–5. The letter relates to Locke’s work as Secretary for Presentations. Year from endorsement. Edward Osborne is unidentified. Although the letter gives him as rector of Chettle, the Clergy of the Church of England Data­ base gives Richard Rock as rector of Chettle 1640–78, and gives no clergyman named Edward Osborne of plausible date, unless it is one ordained deacon in the diocese of Durham in 1662.

Honoured Sir [The body of the text consists of a list of some 110 livings and their values, which range from £2 to £50 p.a.]

Be pleased to accept these endeavours of your most humble servant Edward Osborne Rector of Chettle moore neere Blandford in Dorsett Address: These to the hands of Doctor Lock at Exeter house in the Strand or elsewhere be presented with my service Endorsed by Locke: Presentations. Mr. Osborns list of livings in the King’s gift in the County of Devon. 73.

281*.  Locke to Sir Henry Bennet, first earl of Arlington, 6 January 1674 TNA, CO 1/31, fos. 4–5. Early colonial. There is a rough copy at fos. 2–3. Calendared but not printed by de Beer. Calendared in Calendar of State Papers, Colonial: America 1  Jones’s expectations were disappointed, since Henry Hurst, who had been the vicar since 1628, did not die until 1685: R.  Atkins, The Ancient and Present State of Gloucestershire, 1768, p. 291. Shaftesbury, as Lord Chancellor, was patron of the living.

41

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

281.  Earl of Arlington, 6 January 1674 and West Indies, 1669–1674, pp. 545–6. Fo. 3 is endorsed ‘A copy of my reasons given to my Lord Arlington, 7 Jan. 73’ [O.S.]; and ‘Mem. That I g〈ave a copy to?〉 Sir G. Carter­ et’. Arlington was Secretary of State. Sir George Carteret (c.1610–80) was an Admiralty Commissioner and member of the Council of Trade and Plantations. This is the most substantial of the Council of Trade letters omitted by de Beer. While Locke here acts as rapporteur to Arlington in his role as secretary to the Coun­ cil, the letter is his own composition, and it is significant both for the substance of policy with which Locke was dealing and for his tone of address. It is also a docu­ ment which shows Locke’s awareness of the trade in African slaves. The letter (really a minute or memorandum) concerns the recent drafting of the commission and instruc­ tions to the new governor of Barbados, Sir Jonathan Atkins. Atkins was appointed in December 1673, along with an island Council of twelve, which included Locke’s friend Sir P ­ eter Colleton. The instructions included provision for religious toleration in appointments to office, so ‘that persons of different opinions in religion may not receive any discouragement’, except that judges, justices, and Council members were obliged to take the customary Church of England oaths. The governor was to make an annual report, to include the ‘number of planters, servants, and slaves in each island’. The newly chartered Royal African Company was to be encouraged, ‘his majesty being willing to recommend that these islands have a constant supply of merchantable Ne­ groes at moderate rates’. All local laws were to lapse automatically after two years unless reconfirmed by the Crown. Atkins had raised strong objections to the instructions. He complained that he would have no power to appoint Council members, where hitherto the governor had such power. He said that his lack of power of appointment could leave him at loggerheads with a hostile Council; and that it could take months to receive instructions from England for filling vacancies; that London would be swayed by the agents of planter factions, rather than hear his own advice. He felt slighted and undermined. He further commented that the appointment of himself as governor, instead of a local planter, was made, he had heard, because the planter community was ‘too much inclined to popular government already’. (1 December 1673: TNA, CO 1/30, no. 84; Calendar of State Papers, Colonial: America and West Indies, 1669–1674, p. 536.) Locke summarizes the Council of Trade’s responses to Atkins’s objections. On the final point, concerning ‘popular government’, his memorandum seems anti-populist and centralizing: the Crown will appoint the Council so that ‘the government would thereby more immediately depend upon his majesty’. Yet Locke’s and the Council of Trade’s views can also be read differently. It arguably points rather towards creating a ‘mixed and balanced’ Barbadian polity, with the island’s Council independent of the governor’s will and not a creature of the governor, who was typically able to suborn planters through entanglements of credit and debt. Locke’s memorandum makes no mention of slavery. Atkins’s objections were dismissed and the Instructions to him of 28 February 1674 registered a series of restraints on gubernatorial power. The governor must avoid mar­ tial law; must not summarily remove judges and justices; must not leave offices empty in order to collect fees; must not approve laws without royal approbation; and must not nominate Council members, which was reserved to the Crown. The matter is discussed and the present letter assumed to be of Locke’s devising in A. P. Thornton, West-India Policy under the Restoration, 1956, pp. 154–6; T. Leng,

42

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

281.  Earl of Arlington, 6 January 1674 ‘Shaftesbury’s Aristocratic Empire’, in Anthony Ashley Cooper, First Earl of Shaftesbury, 1621–1683, ed. J. Spurr, 2011, pp. 118–19; A. L. Swingen, Competing Visions of Empire: Labor, Slavery, and the Origins of the British Atlantic Empire (New Haven, Connecti­ cut, 2015), pp. 88–9. See also V. Harlow, Barbados, 1926, pp. 217–18. For background documents, see Calendar of State Papers, Colonial: America and West Indies, 1669– 1674, pp. 525–6, 539–46.

My Lord In Obedience to your Lordship’s Commands, I presume to send you this following Accompt, wherein I cannot but feare, there may be many Mistakes and omissions, besides other Faults, having little to assist me in recollecting these particulars. But my owne bad memory, which I should not thus farr have trusted in matters of such Importance, But by your Lordship’s absolute order who were pleased to command the heads of Reasons that prevailed in the debates as farr as I could remem­ ber them, some whereof being a good while since and others depend­ ing upon the various informacions of severall persons summoned before the Councill to give them light therein, I feare I shall give your Lordshipp but a very imperfect Accompt and therefore must humbly begg that where any of the said reasons come short or seem insufficient it may not be interpreted a mistake of the Councill but may be lookt on as the fault of my Memory in not retaining, or of my skill in not de­liver­ ing their Arguments with due Advantage. In the Commission there is as I suppose noe very materiall Alteration. But The Nominacion of the Council reserved in his Majesty here For these Reasons 1. Because the Government would thereby more imediately depend upon his Majesty and so the Island be better secured under his Obedience. 2. It would prevent the great inconveniences, that would follow upon the Councills being too much at the Governor’s devotion,1 which they are like to be, when depending upon his pleasure, whereby making up but one Obedient vote they serve onely to confirme and justify any Errors and miscarriages he may fall into but are not likely to restraine or amend them, which is their proper business. 3. It prevents the mischiefe which certainly follows from having men in debt of the Councill who for the security they injoy by sitting at that

1  Devotion: command, disposal.

43

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

281.  Earl of Arlington, 6 January 1674 Board will undoubtedly vote anything the Government will direct. The Inconveniences whereof were very much felt in Barbados and complained of by the Inhabitants in the time of former Governors and therefore twas thought necessary to have a care of it now for the future, besides that men in debt being of the Councill lessens the reputation and authority thereof.1 4. The Government of the Plantations would be hereby suited to that which hath been allwais observed in Ireland and long ex­peri­ence has approved of there, where the nominacion of the Councill was not thought fitt to be trusted to his Majestie’s Lord Lieutenant, though a person allways of eminent dignity, wisdome, loyalty, and estate, and though Ireland be neere at hand, and so all miscarriages capable of a more timely remedy. 5. That the Governor might be hereby preserved from those animos­ ities which often arise upon the placeing and displaceing of men in the Councill whereby the Governor is often unavoidably imbroyled and his Majestie’s Affaires prejudiced. These as I remember were some of the reasons that lead the Councill to this Alteration without the least reflection on Sir Jonathan Atkins.2 But meerly out of their care of his Majestie’s service, and the generall consideration of human frailty and therefore if I mistake not they intend to give his Majesty the same advice in all his Plantacions so often as they shall have occasion to consider the Commission of any Governor his Majesty shall please to send to any of them. The Power of nominating Councillors when they are less than nine upon the place is given to the governor in his Commission for reasons herein3 mentioned. In the Instructions the Additions were for these following Reasons. 5. Some having formerly justified themselves in their disobedience to some of his Majestie’s Governors by alledging that they knew not they were Governors. 15. Judges and Justices are required to take the Oathes of Supremacy and Allegiance to keep those out of places of publique Trust who are

1  This concern had a parallel in England, where many Members of Parliament in the Cavalier Parliament were held to be sitting merely to avoid their creditors, and, worse, were apt, for further self-protection, to become Court stooges. 2  Sir Jonathan Atkins (c.1610–1703), governor of Guernsey 1665–70, governor of Barbados 1674–80. 3  Herein: perhaps an error for ‘therein’.

44

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

281.  Earl of Arlington, 6 January 1674 not of the Religion of the Church of England, and to prevent the Countenanceing and growth of dissenters. 30. 31. 32. 33. Were occasion’d by complaints from Barbados and the Inconveniences which were represented to arise from poore jurors, in the trialls of suites, inhumane treatment sometimes of Christian ser­ vants, Increase of Poore without Maintenance, and want of faires for publique commerce. Allso it was thought for his Majestie’s Service to provide for 34. That his Majesty might be at as little charge in furnishing the Island with armes, ammunicion (which they wanted) as possible. 35. That his Majestie’s Dominions there by mutuall Assistance might be preserved. 36. Upon complaint that the prison was so out of repaire as not to secure Prisoners which neither will debts be paid,1 nor the Government well preserved. 37. That way now is, That the Estate seized is valued by those of the neighbours unsworne, who being almost all in debt and kind to one another in their turnes very much overvalue the land whereby the cred­ itor though he gett land, yet allwaies misses the satisfacion of his Debt, the selling it by outcry,2 is to expose it to saile to him that bids most and paying the price to the creditor, which prevents the loss of his debt and charges of suite. 38. To keepe his Majestie’s Subjects from scattering whereby they themselves and the Plantacions allready settled would be weakened and exposed which was to be avoided especially in this time of warr,3 And the Plantations allready settled furnishing as much of their com­ modities as we can well vent.4 These my Lord I humbly conceive are all the materiall alterations and additions in the commission and Instructions and these are some of the Reasons which to the best of my remembrance were used when these particulars were under consideration. Whether they were the most weighty and prevalent I have not confidence enough in my owne memory to affirme. But this I must crave leave to assure your Lordship there was noe one point resolved on by the Councill with­ out full enquiry into the state of things in those islands, relating thereunto and mature consideration of the whole matter, soe that

1  i.e. the chief inmates of the jail were debtors.    2  Outcry: auction. 3  The Third Dutch War (1672–4).    4  Vent: sell.

45

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

290A.  R. Lilburne, 9 August 1674 wherein this short Accompt of many daies debates is deficient I must humbly begg your Lordship’s and the Councill’s pardon which I promise my selfe since my mistakes and oversights are not willfull, And I run the danger of making them onely in obedience to your Lordship’s commands, I am My Lord Your Honourable most humble and most Obedient servant John Locke January the 6th 1673

290A. R ichard Lilburne to the Bahamas Adventurers, 9 August 1674 (290, 298A) TNA, PRO 30/24/49, fos. 58–9. Early colonial. Copy in Locke’s hand. Extract print­ ed in Bourne, i. 327–8. Letter no. 290 (Lilburne to Locke) was received by the same ship. Locke was among the founding Bahamas Adventurers at this time, an offshoot enterprise of the Carolina Proprietors. The Adventurers were founded in 1672. Locke invested £100 that year, and sold this stock in April 1675 for £127 10s. Among other adventurers were Henry Aldrich, John Darrell, Peter Jones, William Kiffin, Richard Kingdon, John Mapletoft, Thomas Stringer, and Edward Thornburgh. MS Locke c.1, pp. 80–1; BL, Add. MS 15640. In May 1673 Sir Peter Colleton advised against the ven­ ture (no. 270). See Bourne, i. 289–93. For Locke’s interest in the Bahamas in 1673–4, see also nos. 274, 291, 301. De Beer was unable to identify Richard Lilburne, given his assumption that he was a different person from the ‘Robert’ Lilburne who was governor of the Bahamas from 1682 to 1687 and that there seems to be no other information about a ‘Richard’ Lil­ burne. It is true that most sources give the governor’s name as ‘Robert’ (including the Calendar of State Papers, Colonial: America and West Indies, 1681–1685); some sources, however, name the governor as ‘Richard’. Thus, the sender of this letter may have been the man who was later governor.

Mr. Rich: Lilburne to the Adventurers. Bahama. Aug. 9. 1674 Commonly after a storme the coasters for Ambergris1 goe to Bahama, Abico, Eleutheria, etc., where most hath been found. They travell some 1  Ambergris: ‘a wax-like substance of marbled ashy colour, found floating in tropical seas, and as a morbid secretion in the intestines of the sperm-whale. It is odoriferous and used in per­fumery; formerly in cookery’: Oxford English Dictionary. A report was published by Robert Boyle in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 8 (August–October 1673), 6113–15.

46

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

291.  I. Rush, 10 August 1674 100 miles upon the bays sometimes before they find any. It seems by the figure to have taken root upon some rocks of the sea, and the violence of the weather makes a separation which you will perceive by the great peice I have sent. Most that they vend here is natural;a but the Floridans use great deceit and are extream dexterous in its sophistication, yet one may discover it by the want of the grain which is found in right Ambergris. That is counted best which is grey or of a nutmeg colour with a good full grain and will stick to ones teeth like wax. The scent may be easily fictitious. The tast may make a good triall by them who have been long acquainted with it. The blackness on the outside is noe prejudice: the best is soe sometimes. Endorsed by Locke: Ambra Grisia

291*.  Isaac Rush to Locke, 10 August 1674 (274, 301) TNA, PRO 30/24/49/5, fos. 60–1. Early colonial. De Beer omitted the whole of Rush’s very long and obscure self-vindication of his conduct in the Bahamas. I here extract two mentions of Locke in person, which indicate Rush’s friendship with Locke and Locke’s influence in Bahamas affairs. To de Beer’s biographical note (Corr., i. 385) we can add that Rush apparently lived from 1635 to 1704; and that he evidently regained favour, for he was appointed Secretary to the Bahamas in 1683.

And should I (after an Act of indemnity from the Lords relating to our trading with the Dutch) comply therein, how little I deserved to know or enjoy the privilege of an Englishman I leave with my friend Doctor Locke to judg . . . . . . . But to be briefe this is the account I shall give which I hope may be justifiable in the sight of God and man: viz. that if the Earle of Shaftesbury Doctor Locke or any other person concerned, out of the confidence or good opinion they have of my honesty, have promised Banker1 any thing . . . I [will] comply with their promise. . . .

a nääl in MS; Bourne’s transcript has real 1  Meaning obscure.

47

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

296A.  Earl of Craven, Sir G. Carteret, and Berkeley, 20 November 1674

296A.  W  illiam Craven, earl of Craven, Sir George Carteret, and John Berkeley, first Baron Berkeley, to Anthony Ashley Cooper, first earl of Shaftesbury, 20 November 1674 (253A, 297) TNA, PRO 30/24/48/95. Early colonial. Printed in Cheves, pp. 454–5; also in Cal­ endar of State Papers, Colonial: America and West Indies, 1668–74, no. 1388. This is one of six third-party letters among the Carolina papers written in Locke’s hand; one other is printed here: no. 253A. See Introduction above, pp. xxv–xxvii, for discussion of early colonial correspondence which passed through Locke’s hands or which he was probably involved in drafting. The present letter, by three of the Lords Proprietors of Carolina to another, provides a survey of the depressed condition of the Carolina plan­ tation; several letters in Locke’s personal correspondence refer to aspects of its content. For background to its concerns, see nos. 279, 287, 289. Shaftesbury’s lost reply, ‘not seald that you may read it’, was sent with a letter to Locke on 23 November: no. 297. For Craven (1608–97), Carteret (1610?–80), and Berkeley (1602–78), all Royalists and courtiers, see ODNB.

Whitehall 20 Nov 74 My Lord We have here inclosed sent your Lordship an extract of the letters we lately received from Carolina wherein your Lordship will finde the pre­ sent state of the plantation.1 The progresse whereof since its first settle­ ment with all the errors and miscarriages in the management of it all along being as we believe well settled in your thoughts, we thinke our selves obleiged as well in acknowledgment of your Lordships particular care and pains in it hitherto, as also in pursuance of your designe of carrying on this plantation to acquaint you with the present condition of it, and desire your advice what course is now to be taken to avoid those inconveniencys we have formerly ran into, to set as narrow bounds as may be to our future expenses, and yet order it soe that all our former charges may not be lost by a totall desertion and ruin of the settlement at Ashley river. We have reason to think they will noe longer need nor expect any supplys of provisions from abroad but we see not well how they can subsist unless we furnish them with clothes and tools and armes till the products of their labour draw trade to them, only we would consider how it may be best managed soe as to be bought here and sent thither at the cheapest rates, and how be disposed of there soe as we may be the soonest reimbursed. We think they may 1  Extracts of eighteen letters are given in Cheves, pp. 256–64.

48

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

297A.  W. Samuell, 28 November 1674 be able now they are got before hand in provisions to make us consider­ able returnes in Tobaco, which they speak of as equall to your Spanish, and in a little time there may be considerable quantitys of Indigo and cotton produced, the growth of both which they very much commend. They desire the Custom on their Tobaco may for some time be taken off by his Majesty. But we thinke this for many reasons soe difficult to obteyn that we have noe thoughts to move in it. We are very much importuned by that idle fellow Halsted1 who used us soe ill, to make an end with him, we desire your Lordships advice what we shall doe in that particular and in the whole management of our joynt concernes in Carolina we rest My Lord Your Lordship’s humble servants C.2 Craven G. Carteret Jo Berkeley Address: For the Right honourable the Earle of Shaftesbury at St Giles. Endorsed, in Shaftesbury’s hand: Carolina the Lords Proprietors to me November 20th 1674.

297A.  William Samuell to Locke, 28 November 1674 MS Locke b. 1, p. 20. Text recovered by Lindsay Judson and transcribed by Judson and J.  R.  Milton. The writer is William Samuell, who was apparently a London joiner or furniture-maker called in to give his opinion on the bill submitted by Edward Vernon, who had made several items of furniture for Locke, including the ‘scrutor’ (escritoire) in which his papers were kept: see MS Locke b. 1, fos. 13, 15, 17. After 1689 Locke refers to his ‘scriptor’, but this may be a subsidiary item, kept in London: MS Locke f. 10: 25 July 1689, 26 Apr. 1694; he also refers to a ‘travelling scriptor’, 15 July 1691. Locke’s desk survives today and is at Christ Church, Oxford. At MS b. 1, pp. 13–14, is a bill for carpentry ‘at my Lord Chancellors’, ‘for my Lord Chancellors and Mr. Lockes presses’, 16 October 1673.

28: No: 1674 Sir The three things amounting to five pounds nine shilling by the Estimate I made;3 the bearer hereof Edward Vernon says, he shall loose 1  Capt. Mathias Halsted, captain of the Blessing, for whom, see no. 253A; also nos. 272, 279, 297; and Cheves, passim. In response Shaftesbury wrote to Locke expressing his own irritation: no. 297. 2 C: comes, i.e. earl. 3  An earlier note by Samuell dated 20 May 1674 stated that ‘The two large presses are worth three pounds ten shillings and the small presse one and twenty shillings, the pigeon holes worth

49

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

297B.  W. Fuller, 27 January 1675 twenty shillings by that rate; so I submitt it to your opinion, having given my judgement already upon the whole matter, whether you had not best, for to be rid of clamour, pay twenty shillings more, which will satisfie him; I am Your friende and servant Will Samuel For Dr. Locke Endorsed: Bill Vernon 74

297B.  William Fuller, bishop of Lincoln, to Anthony Ashley Cooper, first earl of Shaftesbury, 27 January 1675 (297, 322) MS Locke c. 8, fos. 243–4. Printed with errors in Lord King, The Life of John Locke, 2 vols., 1830, i. 360; and W. D. Christie, Life of . . . Shaftesbury, 1871, ii. 193–4. This letter is included because it occurs among Locke’s papers and in order to obviate a mistake made about its significance. In the manuscript the bishop accedes to Shaftesbury’s re­ quest for an ecclesiastical promotion for ‘Dr. John Stillingfleet’. But the books in which the letter is printed omitted ‘John’, which led to the false assumption that the prefer­ ment was for Edward Stillingfleet, which, had it been so, would be a striking fact, given Locke’s later well-known controversy with him over the Essay Concerning Human Un­ derstanding. John Stillingfleet, MA, DD (d.1687), held a rectory in Lincolnshire from 1662 and was appointed prebend of North Kelsey on 21 January 1675. See Clergy of the Church of England Database. It is not clear why Shaftesbury wished to recommend John Stillingfleet, who apparently published nothing. Kinship with Edward Stilling­ fleet is possible, but unknown. (De Beer says they were brothers: no. 266). William Fuller (1608/9–75) was bishop of Limerick, 1664–7, and of Lincoln, 1667–75; Pepys records several times dining with him. ODNB. The year on the letter is Old Style.

Hatton Garden January 27 74 My very Good Lord That your Lordship may perceive I have not been unmindfull of the Promise I made; I have confered on Dr. John Stillingflete the Prebend of North Kelsey, which is the more acceptable to him, because it lyes very conveniently, and is that which he desired. eighteene shillings, the screwtore worth six pounds ten shillings – the whole of these foure thinges comes to eleaven pounds nineteene shillings in the judgement of Will: Samuell’. MS Locke b. 1, fo. 17. The combined value of the first three items came to £5 9s, and they are, therefore, ­certainly the items mentioned here.

50

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

298A.  R. Lilburne, 12 May 1675 I wish your Lordship all happinesse from my heart. The times are bad: But I comfort my selfe with the close of Bishop Duppa’s Epistle before Arch Bishop Spottswood History of Scotland: ‘Non, si male nunc, et olim sic erit’.1 Beseeching God to Guide and Protect you, I rest, Your Lordship’s most humble and affectionate servant, G. Lincoln Address: For the Right Honourable the Earle of Shaftesbury at Wimborne St Giles, Dorsetshire Endorsed: Bp Lincolne 74

298A.  Locke to Richard Lilburne, 12 May 1675 (290A*, 300) MS Locke d. 9, pp. 87, 236. Addendum from vol. viii. Concerning poisonous fish in the Bahamas. In Locke’s hand as far as the first two words of query 2, thereafter by an amanuensis. Entered under marginal keyword ‘Pisces’, and headed ‘Some Quaer­ es concerning the poysonous fish about New Providence sent to Mr. Lilburne. 12 May. 75’. Continued after query 8 on p. 236 under keywords ‘Pisces virulenti’. Locke sent an extract of an earlier letter, received from Lilburne (no. 290), to Henry Olden­ burg, who read it at a meeting of the Royal Society on 27 May and published it in the Philosophical Transactions, 114 (May 1675), 312. In the present letter he sought add­ ition­al information, an enquiry he mentioned to Oldenburg (no. 299) and possibly to Boyle (no. 397). Lilburne’s replies to Locke’s queries are given in no. 300. For Richard ­Lilburne, see 290A.

Pisces 1 Whether all sorts or species of fish about that Island have that quality to cause pains in the joints of some of those that eat them? 2 If not all sorts what and how many sorts there are that have that poysonous quality 3 Whether the same sorts be found in other parts and whether in other parts of the world they have the same poysonous quality?

1  In ‘The Publisher to the Reader’, in John Spottiswood, The History of the Church of Scotland, 1655. Since this epistle is anonymous, this may be a useful attribution, as Duppa’s con­ tribution to this edition is doubted: ODNB, s.v. ‘Duppa, Brian’. The Latin maxim is from Horace, Odes 2.10, and is susceptible of several translations, e.g. ‘if things go badly now, they will one day be better’.

51

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

304A.  T. Stringer, 11 November 1675 4 Whether upon nice Enquiry and observation there be noe dif­ ference to be found between the wholsome and poysonous fish of the same sort or species? 5 Whether this quallity be most in the Male or female fishes? 6 Whether they be more poysonous at ane time of the yeare or moone or season of the weather than at another? 7 Whether this poyson works alike upon all ages constitutions and sexes, or whether some be more liable to it than others? 8 Whether there be noe other symptoms which are the effects of this poyson but pains in the joynts Pisces virulenti 9 Whether that pain never lasts above 2 or 3 days and what kind of pain it is, and whether in all persons? 10 Whether those who have been once infected finde the returne of those pains upon the eateing of any sort of fish or of that ­species only which at first hurt them, and whether the paines soe returneing upon eateing of fish are as violent and lasting as at first? 11 Whether there be noe antidote yet knowne against this poyson? 12 After what manner cats and doges die, when this poyson kills them? 13 How long after eating doe men begin to finde the effects of this poyson and in what maner does it first seise them?

304A. Locke to Thomas Stringer, 11 November 1675 (307*) HRO, Malmesbury Papers, 9M73/G242. Copy in MS Locke c. 39, fo. 19. Letter of at­ torney. Written just prior to Locke’s departure for France. ‘John Lock Student of Christ church in Oxford . . . being minded upon severall Occasions to travel beyond the seas, and haveing occasion for some person in my absence to setle, order and manage my affaires and concernes here in England, and reposing espetiall trust and confidence in my beloved friend Thomas Stringer of St Clement Danes in the County of Middlesex Gent.’, authorizes him to manage all his ‘Messuages, Lands, Tenements and Heredi­ taments’, rents, arrears, etc., and ‘fees, annuityes or other profits whatsoever’. Signed: ‘John Locke’, with his paraph and seal. Witnesses: John Hoskins and Ben[jamin] Wyche. For Stringer, see Corr., i. 434; B. Clarke, ‘Thomas Stringer, Locke, Shaftesbury, and Edward Clarke’, Locke Studies, 8 (2008), 171–99; and next item, no. 307*. Hoskins, of the Inner Temple, was the earl of Shaftesbury’s solicitor. See K. H. D. Haley, The First Earl of Shaftesbury, 1968, pp. 430, 656, 727. Wyche was born in 1650, apparently a na­ tive of Whiteparish, between Salisbury and Romsey, and in later life lived in Salisbury. Apparently a lawyer by training, Wyche was clerk to Sir Samuel Eyre, who served the first earl of Shaftesbury, and thereby himself moved into Shaftesbury’s service, acting as

52

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

307.  T. Stringer, 25 November 1675 his trusted amanuensis from 1669/70 until the earl’s death. He took notes at meetings of Whig statesmen, and Eyre hence remarked that he had ‘written more treason than any man in England’. He was ‘chief steward’ to the fourth earl in the 1720s and died in 1734. See J. R. Milton, ‘Benjamin Martyn, the Shaftesbury Family, and the Reputation of the First Earl of Shaftesbury’, Historical Journal, 51 (2008), 315–35, at 323–4. There remained in force an existing authorization for Peter Locke, in respect of Locke’s Som­ erset tenants (see nos. 98A, 565A): Stringer was to act in respect of Locke’s other affairs.

307*. Thomas Stringer to Locke, 25 November 1675 (304A, 308) Biographical identification. De Beer wrote: ‘Nothing is known of the writer’s origin or when he entered Shaftesbury’s service. He became his steward, but was not so con­ cerned in his political activities as to be victimized by the government after Shaftes­ bury’s death.’ This can be amended. Stringer was born c.1638/40, was in Shaftesbury’s service by 1669, and was already known to the family, as his father and/or grandfather had been steward for the Ashley Cooper estates. He was, with Locke, one of the found­ ing Bahamas Adventurers and held land in Carolina in trust for the second earl. In the 1670s he was involved in Prince Rupert’s project to produce improved cannons. In 1677–8 he was among persons permitted to visit Shaftesbury in the Tower. In February 1677 he complained to the Stationers Company, on behalf of the earl and other (unnamed) peers, that the hostile tract (by Marchamont Nedhma), A Pacquet of Advices and Animadversions, Sent from London to the Men of Shaftsbury (1676), had not been seized as unlicensed; and was informed that Roger L’Estrange had ordered that the tract be unmolested. He was a member of the Whig Green Ribbon Club and a signatory of London’s ‘Monster Petition’ of January 1680 demanding the meeting of Parliament. In 1680 he was a trustee, with Edward Clarke, John Hoskins, and Sir William Cooper, of Shaftesbury’s estates. He was apparently directly involved in Whig politics, for he is said to have drafted the Exclusion Bill, no less. While there is but a single source for this claim, it is circumstantially plausible, because of the particular account given as to why Stringer avoided punishment for it, as follows: among the lawyers consulted was Sir Robert Sawyer, who latterly became a ferociously committed Tory. When Stringer’s papers were examined by the government, Sawyer, fearing what they might contain about himself, offered to take charge of them. In order to cover his tracks, he reported that there was nothing incriminating. In December 1682 Stringer (‘secretary to Shaftesbury’, according to Anthony Wood) was arrested taking to press a ‘Vindication of the Association’, which he confessed was written by Robert Ferguson, for which both were indicted by a grand jury. Stringer advised Lady Rachel Russell at the time of her husband’s trial and execution and was angry at John Tillotson’s letter to Russell imploring him to renounce the right of resistance; Stringer’s wife Jane stayed with Lady Russell to support her during the trial. Stringer’s political convictions are also apparent from his authorship of an elaborate and radically Whig account of gov­ ernment delivered in speeches to the Wiltshire quarter sessions in the 1690s. The third earl of Shaftesbury, with characteristic melodrama, asserted that Stringer had been a great instrument in ‘saving not only your country but the world’. De Beer records that the Stringers moved from Bexwells, near Chelmsford, Essex, to Ivychurch, near

53

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

317A.  Earl of Danby, 20 August 1676 Salisbury, ‘between 1682 and 1688’: it was in 1682. Stringer was a regular correspondent of the third earl; for example, in 1700 Shaftesbury, upon the publication of James Har­ rington’s Oceana, tells him, ‘you and I [are] in favour of him and his principles’. String­ er died in 1702. Much new information derives from letters in the Malmesbury Papers in the Hampshire Record Office and in the Sanford Papers in the Somerset Heritage Centre; for which, see B. Clarke, ‘Thomas Stringer, Locke, Shaftesbury, and Edward Clarke: New Archival Discoveries’, Locke Studies, 8 (2008), 171–99. For Stringer’s fragmentary memoir of the first earl, see J. R. Milton, ‘Benjamin Martin, the Shaftes­ bury Family, and the Reputation of the First Earl of Shaftesbury’, Historical Journal, 51 (2008), 315–35; and his Introduction in Locke, Literary and Historical Writings, 2019, pp. 128, 133–6. As de Beer points out, an important source is Jane Stringer’s (Mrs Hill’s) letter to the first earl’s granddaughter, Lady Elizabeth Harris, c.1734, concerning her first husband, printed in W. D. Christie, A Life of Anthony Ashley Coooper, First Earl of Shaftesbury, 2 vols., 1871, ii. cxxiii–cxxix (where Thomas Stringer’s memoir of the first earl is also printed). Attending Shaftesbury in the Tower: Calendar of State Papers, Domestic (1677–8), nos. 1225, 1678, 1741. Stationers Company: Court Book D, fo. 273. Drafting the Exclusion Bill: HRO, 9M73/G243/3. Arrest in 1682: The Life and Times of Anthony Wood, ed. A. Clark, 5 vols., 1891–1900, iii. 33; Calendar of State Papers, Do­ mestic (1682), no. 1824. The speeches to the quarter sessions are in HRO, 9M73/G27: the identification of their author is owed to Noah McCormack. The third earl’s paean is in HRO, 9M73/G238/19. For slaves at Shaftesbury’s Carolina estate: D. W. Fagg, ‘St Giles Seigniory: The Earl of Shaftesbury’s Carolina Plantation’, South Carolina His­ torical Magazine, 71 (1970), 117–23, at 123; A. Agha, ‘Trade for Peace: The First Earl of Shaftesbury’s I­nterest in Carolina’s Indian Trade’, in Shaping Enlightenment Poli­ tics, ed. P. Müller, 2018, p. 48. For Stringer’s signature on the Whig ‘Monster Petition’: M.  Knights, ­‘Petitioning and the Political Theorists; John Locke, Algernon Sidney, and London’s Monster Petition of 1680’, Past and Present, 138 (1993), 94–111, at 104. For correspondence with the third earl: Anthony Ashley Cooper, third earl of Shaftesbury, Complete Works, Series III, Correspondence, eds. C. Jackson-Holzberg, P. Müller, and F. A. Uehlein, 3 vols. so far, 2018–.

317A. Sir Thomas Osborne, earl of Danby, later marquis of Carmarthen and duke of Leeds, to Sir Robert Howard, 20 August 1676 MS Locke c. 39, fo. 16. Early colonial. The letter authorizes arrears of payments for the salaries of staff of Charles II’s Council of Trade and Foreign Plantations, for which Locke had been treasurer and secretary, but declines to authorize payment to Locke himself, who is now ‘beyond the seas’. The Council had been dissolved in December 1674. The letter may be read as evidence of governmental animus against Locke, as the acolyte of the earl of Shaftesbury, who was now in opposition to the Crown and to Lord Treasurer Danby, especially as Locke had gone abroad suspiciously soon after the publication of the earl’s stinging attack on Danby and the Court, A Letter from a Person of Quality (1675). After the Revolution, Locke would seek payment of his own unpaid salary: see no. 1251. Sir Robert Howard (1626–98) was auditor and receiver of the exchequer; a playwright, wealthy officeholder, and, from 1679, a leading Whig

54

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

317A.  Earl of Danby, 20 August 1676 Member of Parliament. ODNB. For related documents see Calendar of Treasury Books, 1672–5, pp. 377, 419, 476, 602, 615; and 1676–9, pp. 290, 308, 344, 385; and no. 278A.

After my hearty Commendation, Whereas his Majesty by his Letters Patent bearing date the twenty seaventh day of September 1672 consti­ tuting a Councill for Trade and Forreigne Plantations, directed the sume of One thousand Pounds to be paid yearly for defraying the Incident charges of the said Councill to such person or persons as the said Councill should appoint, By virtue of which Letters Patent, and pursuant to my warrant bearing date the thirteenth day of February 1673,1 an Order was drawn in his Majesties Exchequer dated the twenty sixth day of the same February for payment of six hundred and fifty pounds to John Lock Esqr Treasurer of the said Councill, which (with one hundred Pound before advanced) was to compleat three Quarters of the said Allowance for incident charges; And whereas Gawyn Wilson and John Richards Clerks, John Sampson Messinger, and Thomas Roe Dorekeeper to the said late Councill having by their humble Petition besought his Majesty to direct the payment of their respective sallarys claymed to be due to them in their said respective Capacitys, his Majesty was graciously pleased by his Order in Councill of the 10th of February 1674 to refer the said Petition unto me to exam­ ine the Petitioners demands and to doe thereupon for their Releife and Satisfaction what to me should seem meet and reasonable. And whereas upon reading as well severall Certificates under the hand of the said John Lock2 as also a Letter from Sir Robert Southwell3 (whom I desired to compare the said Certificates with the Books of the said late Councill in his charge) I find that there remaynes due for sallary unto the said Gawin Wilson for one yeare one hundred pounds, to the said John Richards for three quarters seventy five pounds, to the said John Sampson for one yeare thirty Pounds, and to the said Thomas Roe for the remainder of one yeare twenty five Pounds ten shillings, making in the whole two hundred and thirty pounds ten shillings, which will compleat their said sallarys to the dissolution of the said Councill. And whereas by reason of the absence of the said John Lock, who I am informed is beyond the seas, no Issues can presently be made upon the aforesaid Order which may be applicable to the reliefe and satisfaction

1  1674 NS: BL, Add. MS 28076, fo. 91 (p. 211).    2  Not extant. 3  Clerk to the Privy Council. ODNB.

55

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

353.  W. Charleton, 31 August/10 September 1677 of the necessitous petitioners, to whom I am satisfied the said sallarys are justly due and ought to be payd, These are therefore to pray and require you to draw an Order by virtue of his Majesties Generall Letters Patents dormant bearing date the twenty eighth day of September 1660 for payment of the said respective sumes to the said Gawyn Wilson John Richards John Sampson and Thomas Rowe or their respective Assignes in reward and satisfaction for their aforesaid ser­ vice, without Accompt, out of any money now or hereafter in the Receipt of the Exchequer. And you are to take care that no Payment be further made upon the said Order or the Entry thereof to the said John Lock or his Assignes by Warrant or direction from myselfe or the Lord high Treasurer of England for the time being expressing the particular uses 〈. . .〉a the money so to be paid is to be applied, that so 〈none shall?〉 be made thereupon for the double payment of the 〈. . .〉 sallarys for which an Order is hereby directed, And this shall be your Warrant Wallingford house the one twentyeth day of August 1676 Dan〈by〉 To my very loving freind Sir Robert Howard kt Auditor of the Receipts of his Majesties Exchequer

353*.  Locke to William Charleton, 31 August/10 September 1677 (350, 369) Hanover: Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Bibliothek: Niedersächsische Landesbibliothek, Noviss. 52. De Beer transcribed most of this letter from excerpts and images in auction catalogues. The manuscript has now been located. The newly recovered passages are printed here. Text in square brackets is extant in de Beer’s version, and will be found at Corr., i, 515, lines 1–3 and 4–5. Recovery of the manuscript, transcription, and an­ notation are owed to Felix Waldmann: ‘Additions to De Beer’s Correspondence of John Locke’, Locke Studies, 15 (2015), 31–52, at 44–5. For Charleton or Courten (1642–1702), naturalist and collector, see Corr., i. 508; ODNB.

[. . . let him1 know that if, where ever I am, he doth not use me with the same freedome in all occasions that may be serviceable] to him he has not those thoughts either of you or me as he thought. [I know not yet how my motions will be orderd this winter it depending wholly on my self.] But when I goe from hence to any place where I can imagin I may be serviceable to him I shall take care to give him notice of it to a  edge of page torn here and below 1  Jacques Selapris: no. 332.

56

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

399.  N. Toinard, 10/20 August 1678 be capeable of his commands. Your letter to Mr. Diggs1 I shall take care to convey to him by a way that is like to come to his hands. For the superscription of your letter though it be the same that in his last letter to me2 he directs me to make use of, yet I doe not see how by the or­din­ ary way of the post it can ever conduct a letter to him there being noe addresse to any person in London. And Chilham castle being noe post stage. I hope you are off your journey into Spaine. I have many reasons to wish it For I am very affectionately [Sir, Your most humble and obedient servant, J Locke]3 Address: Monsieur / Monsieur Charleton gentilhomme / Anglois / á Montpellier Endorsed (in Charleton’s hand): Paris – 1677 / Mr: Locke – 7ber the 10th / Answrd the 5th 8ber4

399*.  Locke to Nicolas Toinard, 10/20 August 1678 (394, 402) Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: American Philosophical Society, Misc. MS 1169. De Beer printed this letter from a copy: BL, Add. MS 28836, fos. 1–2. Location of the original is owed to Felix Waldmann. A new transcription is unnecessary. For Toinard (1628?– 1706), scholar, chronologist, see Corr., i. 579–82; and G. Di Biase, ‘Natural Philosophy, Inventions, and Religion in the Correspondence between John Locke and Nicolas Toinard’, ­Philosophy Study, 3 (2013), 569–95, 724–38; idem, John Locke e Nicolas Thoy­ nard: Un’amicizia ciceroniana, 2018.

405*. Samuel Pepys to Locke, 29 August 1678 (405A) Greenwich: National Maritime Museum, MS LBK/8, Pepys Letterbook, p. 823. ­Printed by de Beer from J.  R.  Tanner, ed., Further Correspondence of Samuel Pepys, 1662–1679, 1929, p. 320. Tanner’s transcription is accurate but modernizes orthography. A new transcription is unnecessary, but the missing valediction is now supplied: text in square brackets appears in de Beer, Corr. i. 610. (Also missing in de Beer is the salu­ tation, ‘Sir’.) This letter was sent with the next, no. 405A, and with one from Sir John Banks to Locke, no. 404. Pepys (1633–1703) is, of course, the diarist: first mentioned at Corr., i. 465. 1  Probably Col. Edward Digges of Chilham Castle near Canterbury: no. 350. 2  Letter not extant. 3  This is the correct placement of the valediction. De Beer erroneously placed the valediction after, instead of before, the long postscript which is printed at Corr. i. 515, line 6 onwards, ­beginning ‘I was very much concerned’. 4  Letter not extant.

57

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

405A.  S. Pepys, 29 August 1678 [For what respects yourself, I have upon ample grounds been long your honourer, making you (with my beloved Mr. Bankes)1 a great piece of my care] and shall always begg you to esteeme me Your most Faithful and humble Servant S Pepys To Mr. Lock, 29th August 78

405A.  Samuel Pepys to Caleb Banks, 29 August 1678 (405*, 410A) Greenwich, National Maritime Museum, MS LBK/8, Pepys Letterbook, p. 821. Printed in J. R. Tanner, ed., Further Correspondence of Samuel Pepys, 1662–1679, 1929, pp. 318–19. This letter was sent with one from Pepys to Locke and from Sir John Banks to Locke (nos. 404–5). This letter and no. 410A are included here because they sub­ stantially concern Locke, accompany Locke letters, interleave with correspondence ­between Locke and Sir John Banks, and relate to a matter to which Locke devoted considerable attention over many months, his tutorial care of, and travels in France with, Banks’s son, Caleb (1659–96). Caleb had originally been allowed to go to France for a few months, but stayed two years, having petitioned his parents to travel south beyond Paris, and then again to go onwards to Italy. The tour to Orleans, Blois, Angers, Saumur, La Rochelle, Bordeaux, Toulouse, Montpellier, and Lyons occurred; that to Italy was prevented by a snowbound Alpine pass (no. 415). The care of C ­ aleb was first commended to Locke in February 1677, by Thomas Coxe and the earl of Shaftesbury (nos. 321–2), and Locke took charge of Caleb in Paris in June; they did not return to England until May 1679. During this period there are forty surviving letters from Sir John to Locke, and one from Locke to Sir John. Some of these ex­hibit strain ­between two peremptory individuals. Sir John and especially his wife were hostile to Caleb leaving Paris and nagged Locke about Caleb’s programme of activities and about money. Pepys acted as intermediary in the tricky matter of Caleb’s being allowed a full­ er tour of France, and nos. 405A and 410A shed light on parental concern, on Locke as a ‘director’ of youth, and on the conduct of mediation between father, mother, son, and tutor. See Cranston, pp. 168–80; R. Woolhouse, John Locke: A Biography, 2007, pp. 135–8, 142–8; J. Lough, ed., Locke’s Travels in France, 1953, passim; D. C. Coleman, Sir John Banks, 1963, pp. 126–31, 139–40; and, for Caleb as Member of Parliament, 1685–96, History of Parliament Online. Locke’s name first occurs in Pepys’s correspondence in a letter preceding the present one, by Pepys to Banks’s wife Elizabeth, 13 September 1677, and is indicative of strains in relations with Banks. In August Sir John had pronounced that everything Caleb needed from France was in Paris; but Locke had replied recommending travel (nos. 349, 352). Pepys writes, at this stage inclining to the parental position: ‘Next, I would observe to him [Sir John] (but pray don’t you put any value upon it) that the more

1  Caleb Banks: see next.

58

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

405A.  S. Pepys, 29 August 1678 I think on’t the more I concur with your Ladyship’s and his present thoughts of send­ ing for Mr. Bankes over for a little time, for I am in noe wise satisfied that matters either are or are now likely to come into that posture which I could wish they were in between him and Mr. Lock; and I know no so decent and inoffensive a way of parting them as this of calling Mr. [Caleb] Bankes into England. But pray take it with you that I say this upon a firm dependance upon your letting him returne within a little time againe to finish those travels, which by our misfortune rather than fault, have met with so many disappointments and unsuccessfulnesses in their beginning.’ (MS LBK/8, p. 786; Further Correspondence, p. 306.) Pepys evidently changed his mind and then proceeded to persuade Caleb’s parents to allow him to travel south. In July 1678 Caleb and Locke left Paris. In the present letter, some months later, Pepys is negotiating Caleb’s further wish to go onwards to Italy.

Dear Son,1 A silence, like this 〈of  〉 mine would call for much more matter to render it excuseable any where but between us, who (I hope) are gott above the possibillity of having the perseverance of our friendships sus­ pected; and that care being over, I’le rather submitt to what ever else you’l impute it to, then offer at the troubling you with saying any thing more in its defence, then what indeed has most of truth in it, Namely, That while you are abroad, I would have you be as much so as I could, by keeping out of your way what ever might begett any Restraints upon you, such as Letters from grave home-friends can hardly keep them­ selves cleare of, though directed to one (like you) soe earlyly fortified with Virtue as to seeme better fitted for the spareing us councell, then that you should need our supplying you with any hence. I would add too that observing sometimes my Lady your mother labouring under a Dearth of Letters from you, I thought it less rea­son­ able for me to make you more worke. But I will not stay from telling you That in answer to yours of the 7th Instant from Blois,2 I have all along made it my work to shew my most worthy friends your Father and mother not only the importance of your travell, and of the Enlargement of theyr first Limitts to it, but the Encouragement they have every way mett with from you to indulge you all reasonable scope in it, under soe great a Security as they have, for it’s being well used; I meane your owne 〈Private〉a Virtue and the Conduct of soe Excellent a  MS has Privte 1  It was common practice for intimate friends to use familial terms. See, for example, no. 1818A. 2  For the route, see the map in J. Lough, ed., Locke’s Travels in France, 1953, p. lxvii; Locke and Caleb arrived in Blois on 31 July: p. 210.

59

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

410A.  S. Pepys, 10 October 1678 a Friend and Director as Mr. Locke. In consequence whereof I have it in Commission noe less from my Lady then from your Father (as you will finde by the enclosed) to signify unto you theyr consent to what you propose for your going as farr as Tholouse. But further then that (it being a Stint you have your self soe willingly sett to) I have nor (I think) shall adventure to offer at asking any Liberty for you. Not but that I doe inwardly wish it were as fitt to be asked as I think it might be desireable for you to have it. But truly (Child) when I consider how much use one of your application will make of what you have seen, and the anxietyes under which I finde your poor Mother dayly to live on your behalf, there is a Justice due to her which I think the keeping your back longer upon home, would be the offering great violence to; and therefore Pray sett up your staff 1 at Tholouse, and soe it be but homewards, make your succeeding Journeys as sattisfactory to you as you Please. What I have to add should be my thankes for your many kind Letters and Presents, But since I cannot do you Right therein, without aggra­ vateing my owne reproach, I’le trust your good Nature for that too, and with ten thousand wishes of good to you: remaine, Your most affectionate, faithfull, and humble Servant S. Pepys August 29th 1678 To Mr. Bankes

410A.  S amuel Pepys to Caleb Banks, 10 October 1678 (405A, 1251A) Greenwich: National Maritime Museum, MS LBK/8, Pepys Letterbook, p. 827. Printed in J. R. Tanner, ed., Further Correspondence of Samuel Pepys, 1662–1679, 1929, pp. 324–5. For background, see headnote to no. 405A; and no. 410. Between nos. 405A and 410A there are two further letters by Pepys to Caleb which mention Locke, both written from Derby House, the Admiralty office in Westminster. On 26 September Pepys reports he has made some progress in persuading Lady Banks to permit Caleb to continue his travels to Italy, and has hopes of reporting favourably soon; he assures ­Caleb he shares his desire. The letter opens: ‘I have both your most welcome letters of the 19th and 21 instant, with the like doubled favour from my honoured friend Mr. Lock, to which nevertheless, as having not yett matter for more I begg your being at present contented with the single Answer between you, namely, that your Letters have mett with the small Misfortune of comeing to me in the absence of your Father from Towne,

1  Set up your staff: proverb: to settle down in a place.

60

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

410A.  S. Pepys, 10 October 1678 without expectation of his returne hither till to morrow, soe as I cannot give you any account of any advancement yett made with him in the task you have sett me.’ On 30 September Pepys reports that he has ‘by the strength of the reasoning you helped me to . . . obtained what I hardly thought my humanity would ever have suffered me to have asked’, from Lady Banks, namely ‘your great and Last Desire of visiting Italy’. Her ‘tenderness’ has given way to ‘reason well applyed’, although ‘I cannot say she has yielded to our Desire with much pleasure’. She has set some manageable conditions. For now, ‘I . . . leave you in Possession of your wish granted, as you will finde in a letter I inclose from your father to yourself, with another to Mr. Lock, giving you Credit for money without Limitation both at Genova and Livorne. More I dare not add, saving your delivery of my Services and Excuse to Mr. Lock for my Silence to him by this Post, which shall be made up to both of you by the next.’ (LBK/8, pp. 824–5; Further Correspondence., pp. 321, 323–4; the letters to Locke are not extant.) The pre­sent letter sets out the Banks’s conditions for Caleb’s travel to Italy. (Elizabeth, Lady Banks, was the daughter of Sir John Dethick.)

Dear Son I have this day received yours of the 5th instant from Tholouse,1 and should be in very much paine, did I not Believe that you either have or will about the same time receive the welcomest answer you desire to it by mine of the 30th of September (sent by both the wayes of addresse you last directed me to) intimateing the success of my just Sollicitations for your Journey into Italy, granted with an unwilling ­satisfaction, but yett with a Sattisfaction of the best Breed (for such I take to be what arises from Conviction of Judgment against the Bent of affection) both from your Father and my Lady the best of Mothers. But some conditions I was forced to enter into for you, and such as indeed you ought to see me make good, and I doubt not but you will, they being neither many nor uneasy, but yett of great Importance to us here, for soe I know you will reckon what ever is necessary to enable my Lady to live under the Self-denyal shee has submitted to in referrence to this Journey of yours. One is, that if it were possible to thinke you could be less carefull of it for your owne sake, you would nevertheless for hers carry about you most strict and steady Regard to your health.2 Next that you omitt not (wher ever you are) to find means of giving her at least once a week advice of the success of that care of yours, by telling her that you are well, or the Contrary in case (which God avert) of your being otherwise. 1  Locke and Caleb arrived in Toulouse on 1 October: Lough, ed., Locke’s Travels in France, p. 241. 2  Caleb did not have a strong constitution and in June had come down with dysentery.

61

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

410A.  S. Pepys, 10 October 1678 The third is, that you give not way to any Disposition of your Journeys, or proportioning of your Stayes in any of the places you shall visit, that will not consist with your Justifying one peremptory under­ takeing of mine, grounded upon Promises noe less Sollemn on your part, and Resolutions as deliberately declared on the part of my hon­ oured Friend Mr. Lock, I meane your letting us see you here in the Spring. Which by the Account agreed on among us, is not to be strained beyond the latter end of April, or begining of May. Lastly That you will continue to doe, what I perswade myself is not more your present Practice than your Pleasure, and what your Friends here place noe less of theyr Content and Security in, namely your rely­ ing in all things upon the advice and Guidance of Mr. Lock, without whome (in exclusion to all the world besides) I perswade myself it had been impossible to have wrought either upon your Father or Mother to the point they have been prevailed upon in, nor could I have ever sol­ licited for it, with half the satisfaction wherewith I have now done it; soe much of our rest concerning you, is placed upon our just esteeme of his Conduct and your regard thereto. Which having sayd, I being this very night (late as it is) bound for Newmarkett, where the Court now is,1 I’le give you no more now, but committing you to God Almighty’s Protection, bid you adiew till the next; remaining Your most humble and ever most affectionate Servant, S. P. To Mr. Bankes at Lyons 10 October 1678 11 at night another to Montpellier I am comeing againe into a fresh arrear to Mr. Lock, but I promise you it shall be but a short one, therefore pray keep up my Creditt with him in that point, and give him my most humble Services.2

1  The Popish Plot crisis had recently exploded, which would soon sunder, until after the Revolution, the relations between Pepys, soon labelled a Tory and even a crypto-papist, and those, like Locke, who became Whigs. 2  The ‘arrear’ is of correspondence. See  K.  Loveman, Samuel Pepys and his Books, 2015, p. 200.

62

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

415.  W. Charleton, 26 October/5 November 1678

415*.  Locke to William Charleton, 26 October/5 November 1678 (407, 445) Sale catalogue: Christie’s (London), Sale 7725, 3 June 2009, lot no. 32 (price realized £7,500). Now in private ownership. De Beer was able only partially to transcribe this letter, from earlier sale catalogues (Corr., i. 623–4, 703). An online image ac­com­pany­ ing the 2009 sale allowed for a transcription of the opening of the letter, as follows (image no longer available). The image also reveals a line missing from de Beer’s tran­ scription. The find is recorded in F. Waldmann, ‘Additions to De Beer’s Correspondence of John Locke’, Locke Studies, 15 (2015), 31–52, at 45–6.

Lyon 5 Nov. 78 Deare Sir Were it not that I know it is your peculiar way to doe favours and to aske pardon for not haveing donne more, I should very much wonder at the Apologie in the begining of your letter of the 1st instant which I received this afternoon here.1 But Sir you doe soe much for your friends that you have the priviledg to say what you please to them without the suspition of complement it being hard to finde words that equall the kindenesse you actually doe and really meane those who have the happynesse to know you. And yet I cannot but desire you to moderate a little these expressions when you doe me the favour to write to me, and I make you this request for a contrary reason then I should make it to almost any body else, for one usually would have such kinde of expressions spared in let­ ters because there is little pleasure in reading what one cannot beleive but knowing you as I doe, and that all that you professe to your freinds is truth, I beg you that I may not heare from you things that ought not to be said to me, nor accustome my self by this meanes to beleive things which would not be true from any bodys mouth but yours, and twould be great vanitya in me to give eareb to comeing from any body but you. We got hither according to our desire and I have by it only the regret of leaveing you soe soon. [Continues as at Corr., i. 623: My comeing away from Montpellier. . . .]

a  Waldmann transcribes as vacuity   b  Waldmann transcribes as care 1  Letter not extant.

63

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

418A.  T. Stringer, 5/15 November 1678 [At Corr., i. 624, line 18, between tops of the hills and as I came along, insert a line missed by de Beer:] in Vivaray1 with snow, which was a sight that gave me noe satisfaction

418A.  Locke to Thomas Stringer, 5/15 November 1678 (389, 430) MS Locke c. 18, fo. 74. Enclosed with no. 419. Locke’s corrected copy; original not extant. Letter of attorney empowering Stringer to demand and receive money from Jean Le Gendre, merchant, of London, or to take action against him on behalf of ‘Sieur Jacques Christophe Selapris [and] Sieur Jacques Horutener et compagnie marchands bourgeois a Lyon’. Endorsed: ‘Mr. Selapris procuration 15 Nov 78’. The original was sent to Stringer on 23 November/3 December. Stringer (8 December) promised to pur­ sue the matter: no. 430.

437A. [-?-] to C[Aleb] B[Anks], 1678 MS Locke c. 23, fos. 198–9. Printed in J.  Lough, ed., Locke’s Travels in France, 1953, pp. xvi–xvii; Cranston, p. 175. For Caleb Banks, see 405A. In spite of Locke’s tu­tor­ ial care of his ward, Caleb evidently proved wayward, including deeply offending a ­woman, as the present letter discloses. Locke preserved it among his papers and en­ dorsed it. The author is barely literate.

Sir I did not think you had ben so ill bred as to denid a lady so small a faver sa that was I desier of you bout sin you a so uncind I am resalf to wat of you as soun as my clos is mad wich will not be long forst I am suer you ar the worst naterd man in the world suer your corig is not so litell as to be dantd by a woman I hop the sit of me would not a fritid you mouch bout rather then a disableg you I would a pot on a mask I had my self when I think that ever I should have the lest of pasion for won that hats me now far well the worst of men Address: Thes For Mr. Banks Ches Preset Endorsed by Locke: To C. Banks 78

491*.  Henri Justel to Locke, 2 October 1679 (490, 504) MS Locke c. 12, fos. 75–6. De Beer speculatively dated the letter to ‘[c.9/19 August 1679?]’. However, as de Beer noted, the letter is endorsed ‘Justell 2 Oct. 79’. The latter

1  Vivarais, on the River Rhone, north of Avignon.

64

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

523A.  É. Bouhéreau, 1679 date is reinforced by the presence of an extract from this letter in an entry under the heading ‘Igni resitens’ in MS Locke d. 9, p. 98, ending ‘Justel 2 Oct. 79’. This informa­ tion also affects the likely dating of no. 490. Recovered by Peter Anstey. For Justel, see Corr., ii. 23; ODNB.

523A.  Élie Bouhéreau to Locke, 1679 MS Locke b. 2, fo. 24. The manuscript, in Bouhéreau’s hand, contains a book list sent to Locke. Locke’s journal records medical advice from Bouhéreau (‘Dr. Bouchereau’) at La Rochelle on 6 September 1678. They evidently discussed books, Bouhéreau being locally known for his library, and the list must have been a follow-up. Date from en­ dorsement. The list is absent from Lough’s account of Locke’s reading in France. About half the items appear in Locke’s library. Élie Bouhéreau was a Huguenot physician, son of a pastor, educated at Saumur Academy, who fled to England in 1686, where he became tutor to the children of the executed duke of Monmouth. After the Revolution he served as secretary to the English envoy to the Swiss cantons, Thomas Coxe (whom Locke had met in France); then to the earl of Galway on the Continent and in Ireland. He settled in Dublin and was appointed first librarian of Marsh’s Library. His name occurs once elsewhere in Locke’s correspondence: in 1692 Pieter Guenellon reported that his letter would reach Locke through ‘le bon Monsieur bouhereau de la Rochelle’: (Bouhéreau was passing through Amsterdam, in Coxe’s entourage): L1521. Locke l­ ater acquired Bouhéreau’s translation of Origen, Traité contre Celse, Amsterdam, 1700: LL 2140. See R. Whelan and R. Zuber, West Coast Connections: The Correspondence Net­ work of Élie Bouhéreau of La Rochelle, 2017; M. Léoutre, J. McKee, J.-P. Pittion, and A.  Prendergast, The Diary (1689–1719) and Accounts (1704–1717) of Élie Bouhéreau, 2019; G.  Kemp, ‘John Locke and Élie Bouhéreau: An Encounter’ (forthcoming); J.  Lough, ‘Locke’s Reading during his Stay in France (1675–1679)’, The Library, 8 (1953), 229–58. Recovery, transcription, and annotation are owed to Geoff Kemp.

Les Oeuvres de Balzac,1 de Sarrazin,2 et de Voiture.3 Les Entretiens de  Voiture et de Costar.4 Toute la dispute de Costar et de Girac.5

1  Jean-Louis Guez de Balzac, Les Œuvres diverses du Sieur de Balzac, Paris, 1646. Locke owned Balzac, Œuvres diverses. Augmentées en cette edition de plusieurs pieces nouvelles, Amsterdam, 1664 (LL 186d). In 1659 Locke remarked on the ‘Genius’ of Balzac (no. 66), and he eventually came to have nine of the French author’s works in his library (LL 182–186d). 2  Jean François Sarrazin, Les Œuvres de Monsieur Sarasin, Paris, 1656; Nouvelles Œuvres de Monsieur Sarazin, 2 vols., Paris, 1674. 3  Vincent Voiture, Les Œuvres de Monsieur de Voiture, Paris, 1650; Nouvelles Œuvres de Monsieur de Voiture, Rouen/Paris 1658. Locke owned later editions: Œuvres, Paris, 1672 (LL 3102) and Nouvelles Œuvres, Paris, 1672 (LL 3100). 4  Pierre Costar and Vincent Voiture, Les Entretiens de Monsieur de Voiture et de Monsieur Costar, Paris, 1654. In 1704 Le Clerc informed Locke of his fruitless efforts to acquire the book at auction: nos. 3468, 3559. 5  A celebrated literary dispute of the 1650s between Paul Thomas de Girac and Pierre Costar, begun after Balzac sought Girac’s view of Voiture’s Œuvres. Pierre Bayle charted the

65

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

523A.  É. Bouhéreau, 1679 Toutes les Traductions de Mr. d’Ablancourt Son Minutius Felix, Son César, Son Tacite, Son Lucien, Son Thucydide, Son Marmal, &c.1 Le Quinte-Curce de Vaugelas.2 Les Ouvrages De Mr. de la Chambre, ou,  du-moins, les principaux; Sur-tout, les Caractéres des Passions:3 L’histoire de l’Académie Françoise, par Mr. Pellisson.4 La Vie de Socrate, par Mr. Charpentier; et tout ce qu’il a traduit de Xénophon.5 Quelques ouvrages de Mrs. de Port-Royal; comme les Lettres Provinciales, contre Les Jésuites; Les Essays de Morale; &c.6 Quelques Relations choisies; comme celles que Mr. Thévenot a fait imprimer.7

d­ ispute at length: Dictionary, 2nd edn, vol. v, 1738, pp. 341–6. The printed texts involved do not feature in Locke’s library. Locke recommended Voiture’s letters in Some Thoughts Concerning Education, § 189. 1  Of the translations by Nicolas Perrot d’Ablancourt (1606–64), Locke owned: Lucien, de la traduction de N. Perrot, Sr d’Ablancourt, 3 vols., Paris, 1678 (LL 1822; translation first published 1654); Thucydides, L’Histoire de la Guerre du Peloponese, continuee par Xenophon. De la traduction de N. Perrot Sr d’Ablancourt, 3 vols., Paris, 1678 (LL 2896, 3193; translation first published 1662); Luis del Carvajal, L’Afrique de Marmol, 3 vols., Paris, 1667 (LL 1912). The other translations men­ tioned here are: L’Octavius de Minucius Felix, Paris, 1637; Les commentaires de Cesar, Paris, 1652; Les œuvres de Tacite, Paris, 1658. 2  Quintus Curtius, De la vie et des actions d’Alexander le Grand, de la traduction de Monsieur de Vaugelas (Paris, 1653). 3  Marin Cureau de La Chambre, Les Caractères des Passions, 5 vols., Paris, 1640–62. English trans. of vol. i: The Characters of the Passions, 1650. De La Chambre (1596–1669) was a physician to Louis XIV and author of several medical works. 4  Paul Pellison, Relation contenant l’histoire de l’Academie Françoise, Paris, 1653. English trans., The History of the French Academy, 1650. 5  Locke owned two works by François Charpentier (1620–1702): Les Choses Memorables de  Socrate, ouvrage de Xenophon Traduit de Grec en François, Paris, 1657 (LL 670); La Vie de Socrate par Mr. Charpentier, Paris, 1657 (LL 671). The two had been published together in the 1650 first edition. 6  Blaise Pascal, Les Provinciales ou Les Lettres écrites par Louis de Montalte à un provincial de ses amis & aux RR. PP. Jésuites, Cologne, 1657 (English trans., Les Provinciales: or, The Mysterie of Jesuitisme, 1657); Pierre Nicole, Essais de Morale, Paris, 1671. Locke’s library included two editions of Pascal’s Pensées (LL 2222, 2222a) but not the Lettres Provinciales, although he had numerous other works by the Port-Royal writers, and Nicole’s Essais de Morale in three Paris editions: 1671, 1673, and 1679 (LL 2040, 2040a, 2040b). In 1676 Locke had embarked on a translation of three of Nicole’s Essais, which were printed after his death: see no. 523B. 7  Melchisédech Thévenot (1620–92) and his nephew Jean Thévenot (1633–67) both published travel writings as ‘relations’. Bouhéreau was probably referring to the more eminent Melchisidech, later royal librarian. Locke was acquainted with Melchisédech Thévenot from at least November 1678 (no. 420); Thévenot featured regularly in letters between Toinard and Locke and added his own message to Locke at one point (no. 562). His relevant works are: Relations de divers voyages curieux, 4 vols., Paris, 1663–72; and Recueil de voyages, 7 vols., Paris, 1681. Locke’s library cata­ logue lists Relations, vol. i, Paris, 1663 (LL 2889); Relations, 4 vols., Paris, 1672 (LL 2889a); and Recueil de voyages, Paris, 1681 (LL 2890). Locke also owned Jean Thévenot, Relation d’un voyage fait au Levant, Rouen, 1665. Locke had Melchisidech’s Relations purchased for him at auction in 1688, possibly LL 2889a (letter no. 1036). He cited Thévenot in the Essay Concerning Human Understanding, I.iii.9, and recommended him in ‘Some Thoughts Concerning Reading and Study for a Gentleman’, 1703: Locke, Political Essays, ed. M. Goldie, 1997, pp. 353, 379.

66

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

523B.  Countess of Shaftesbury [c.1679] Bouhéreau, Docteur en Médecine, Rue des Augustins. A La Rochelle Endorsed by Locke: Libri / 79 / Bouhéreau

523B.  Locke to Margaret Ashley Cooper, countess of Shaftesbury [c.1679] (257, 747) New York: Morgan Library and Museum, MS MA 232; copy in Bodl., MS Film 70. Dedicatory epistle. Prefaced to Locke’s translation of Pierre Nicole’s Essais de Morale. The Essais appeared in 1671, and Locke made a translation of three of the essays, probably in 1676. He presented a fair copy to the wife of his patron, the earl of Shaftesbury, in 1679 or later. The date is deduced from the opening lines, which imply that Locke had returned from France. Margaret Spencer married Ashley in 1655. See Corr., i. 292; Locke, Essays on the Law of Nature, ed. W. von Leyden, 1954, pp. 252–4. Locke’s translation of the Discourses was first published in 1712, without the dedication. The dedication was first printed by Thomas Hancock in Discourses: Translated from Nicole’s Essays, by John Locke, 1828, pp. xxiii–xxvii. There is a recent edition: John Locke as Translator: Three of the Essais of Pierre Nicole in French and English, ed. J. S. Yolton, Studies on Voltaire and the Eighteenth Century, 2000. Locke perhaps intended to publish his translation but then decided to present it privately to the countess. Evidently the manuscript circulated in the Shaftesbury circle: Jane Stringer knew of it in 1689 (Corr., no. 1192). The dedication will appear in Del­ phine Soulard’s Clarendon Edition of Locke, Translations of Pierre Nicole’s Essais de Morale. Part of a draft preface to Locke’s translation, justifying his method of render­ ing the sense more than the literal words of Nicole, is in MS Locke c. 28, fo. 42, and is printed by von Leyden.

To the Right Honourable Margaret Countesse of Shaftesbury

Madam It was a bold thing, for one that had but begun to learne French, to attempt a translation out of it. And it is yet bolder, to designe it as a present to you. Fashion, which takes the liberty to authorise what ever it pleases, must be my excuse. And since one is allowed by cus­ tome to bring vanity with one out of France, and with confidence to present as marks of respect at home, any sort of toys, one hath pickd up abroad; I crave leave to make use of my priviledg of a traveller; and to offer to your Ladyship a new French production in a dresse of my own makeing. This is I thinke to be sufficiently vain. But soe must he necessarily be, whoever haveing obligations like mine, beyond all acknowledgment, hopes to make any return. And since all I can aime at, will in this respect, amount to but a trifle, there remains noe more but that I endeavour to make choise of such a trifle, to expresse my 67

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

523B.  Countess of Shaftesbury [c.1679] gratitude, as may have some thing in it peculiar, and proper to recom­ mend it. When I was at a losse what to pitch on for this purpose, this booke came happily into my hands. Wherein I found soe many characters of your Ladyship that methought at first view it bore your mark, and did of right belong to you. And when I observed in it, soe many lively ­representations of that vertue, which is soe eminently seen in your Ladyship, I thought I could not meet in all France, any thing fiter to be put into your hands, then what would make you see, soe rare, and extraordinary a sight, as a draught1 of some of your own virtues. For if to be constantly humble in an high station: If to appeare little to your self in the midst of Greatnesse, be a marke of the sense of one’s own weaknesse. If to be beloved of all that come neare you, be a demonstra­ tion that you know how to live at peace with others. If to be constant and frequent in acts of devotion, be the best way of acknowledging a Deity; ’tis certain your Ladyship is in reality, what the author has here given us the Idea of. And though his conceptions are naturall and clear; And he presses the observation of his rules, with great strength of argu­ ment and reason: yet he wants one thing to render his maxims beyond exception, and that is the knowledg of your Ladyship, to recommend them to the world as practicable. This advantage that I have over him, made me forget my want of skill in English, and French, and other abilityes necessary to a Translator. And I resolved at all adventures, to put these Essays into a language, understood by a person, who knew well how to animate and establish them by her practise, and who in the ordinary course of her life, with­ out constraint, and with a facility, as it were naturall, shewd to the world the reall existence of those vertues, which our author tooke pains to represent to himself in his own imagination. There was also another consideration, that made me thinke this the properest present I could make. For since it was not for me to offer at any thing of a value fit for persons of your Quality, The best way to hide that shame, was to finde out some ordinary matter, that might lessen the esteeme of those things that pretend to great­ nesse and preference, and make them appear as inconsiderable as its self.

1  Draught: outline or epitome.

68

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

527A.  Earl of Shaftesbury, 1 February 1680 The perusall of these discourses will perhaps doe that in a good measure. And I shall be the more excusable in your Ladyship’s thoughts, for presenting you with a litle blot[t]ed paper, when you, reflecting upon what our Author says, shall perhaps thinke that all the gaudy things of his country are not much better, and scarce worth the bring­ ing over. This at least your Ladyship’s goodnesse incourages me to hope, that your Ladyship will permit me to make use of this occasion to professe that profound respect, esteem, and duty where with I am Madam Your Ladyship’s most humble most obleiged and most obedient servant John Locke

527A.  Locke to Anthony Ashley Cooper, first earl of Shaftesbury, 1 February 1680 (322, 532) Dedicatory epistle. Prefaced to Observations upon the Growth and Culture of Vines and Olives: the Production of Silk: the Preservation of Fruits, published in 1766. The title page continues: ‘Written at the request of the earl of Shaftesbury: to whom it is inscribed: by Mr. John Locke. Now first printed from the original manuscript in the possession of the present earl of Shaftesbury.’ Manuscript: TNA, PRO 30/24/47/35; the present transcription follows the 1766 edition. Included in Locke’s Works from the seventh edition, 1768, onwards. The tract was probably written as a piece of industrial espionage and for the further development of agriculture in Carolina, while Locke was in France, 1675–9. The essay is referred to in a letter of John Hoskins, 5 February 1680, who reports presenting it to the earl on Locke’s behalf: Corr., ii. 154 (no. 528). There is an early reference to the earl’s interest in French vines and to what may be Locke’s first draft of an account of them in February 1676, when Thomas Stringer tells Locke that ‘My Lord . . . was very well pleased with the news of those vines, and seeds you have promised him, and hath pocket up your letter for the improvement of his under­ standing in those matters’ (no. 309; cf. no. 311, which Locke marked ‘Dedicatory 76’). The text will be included in David Armitage’s Clarendon Edition of Locke, Colonial Writings.

To the Right Honorable Anthony Earl of Shaftesbury. My Lord, The country where these observations were made hath vanity enough to over-value every thing it produces: and it is hard to live in a place and not take some tincture from the manners of the people. Yet I think I should scarce have ventured to trouble your Lordship with these French trifles, had not your Lordship yourself encouraged me to believe, that it would not be unacceptable to you, if I took this 69

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

565A.  W. Stratton, 30 August 1680 way (for I ought all manner of ways) to express that duty and obser­ vance wherewith I am, My Lord, Your Lordship’s most humble, and most obedient servant, John Locke Ch. Ch. 1 Feb. 1679.1

565A.  Locke to William Stratton, 30 August 1680 (550, 568) MS Locke c. 26, fo. 68. Letter of attorney. ‘John Locke, Student of Christ Church in Oxford’ to ‘my truly beloved kinsman William Stratton of Bishopps Sutton in the County of Somerset, Tanner’, giving authority to manage ‘all my land and estate in the sayd county of Somerset’ and ‘to doe all such acts and things as shall be needfull and necessary for the advantage, benefitt and well management of the sayd estate’. Stratton (d.1695) was married to Locke’s cousin Mary Locke, and was son-in-law of Locke’s previous steward of his Somerset estate, Peter Locke (no. 98A; and Corr., ii. 186). Peter Locke asked to be relieved in November 1679 (no. 511), and Stratton appears to have been conducting some of the business already in May 1680 (no. 543).

677*. Damaris Cudworth, later Lady Masham, to Locke, 6 January [1682] (684) Biographical identification of the Masham children. De Beer provided genealogical tables for Locke’s kin in Corr., vol. i. But there are two other families whose kin are so numerous and so constantly alluded to in the Correspondence as to present confusion. These are the Mashams and the Clarkes. Accordingly, here and at no. 682*, tables are provided of the Masham and Clarke children. Damaris Cudworth had one son by her marriage to Sir Francis Masham, Francis (Frank) Cudworth Masham (1686–1731). But she became mistress of the household at Oates which at various points contained some of Sir Francis’s children by his first marriage, to Mary Scott, who had died in 1681; before the Revolution some of these children also lived with their mother’s fam­ ily at Rouen. At Corr., ii. 470 de Beer records that there were eight sons and one daughter by that marriage, though he gives seven sons and one daughter in the ge­nea­ logic­al table in vol. iv. The parish register for High Laver in the Essex Record Office, Chelmsford, indicates a second daughter. Thus, there appear to have been ten children. Birth date below are those recorded in the parish register, where present; birth ­order is uncertain because of missing birth dates. In January 1704 only three sons survived: Winwood, Charles, and Samuel. There is no mention in the Correspondence

1  Christ Church, Oxford; the year is Old Style.

70

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

677.  D. Cudworth, 6 January [1682] of Elizabeth, John, Francis, or Richard. See also M. Noble, Memoirs of the Protectoral House of Cromwell (1787), ii. 72–3. Additional biographical information derives from Esther Masham’s Letterbook (Newberry Library, Chicago, MS E5.M3827). The de­ gree of the family’s involvement in the armies of William III in the war against France is striking. 1. William (d.1701). A soldier; cornet in the earl of Oxford’s regiment of horse, 1689, 1694; a captain at his death (no. 2941). 2. John (d. 1689). A soldier; officer in the Guards; died of fever in Flanders. 3. Henry (Harry) (1670–1702). Apparently at Oates 1686: no. 837. A soldier, in service in Holland in 1688: nos. 1003, 1040. Frenchified by his education: no. 1040. Took part in William of Orange’s intervention, 1688. Apparently a captain in 1692 (no. 1534); and major in 1694 (no. 1825). Served under Lord Cutts and Col. Tollemache. At Rouen in 1698: nos. 2426, 2458, 2465. Died while on a military posting in Ireland.1 4. Elizabeth (1674–76). 5. Francis. Married Isabella Burnet, a niece of Bishop Gilbert Burnet. Their son was Sir Francis, officer in the dragoons; fourth baronet.2 6. Esther (or Hester) (b. 1675? – not in the parish register; d.1722 or later). Came to England 1685, from her mother’s family in Rouen. Corresponded with Locke and very much a favourite of his. See no. 837. Known in her family as Tetty or Teté, and to Locke, in correspondence, as Landabridis, Dab, or Dib. 7. Winwood (1676–1709). A soldier (no. 2161); volunteered at 14; captain in the ­Marines, 1702 (no. 3097); escaped the wreck of the Stirling Castle, 1703 (no. 3396); served in Lord Cutts’s regiment; involved in the taking of Gibraltar, 1704. 8. Richard (b. 1678). Dead by 1698 of ‘plague’ in the West Indies, serving under Sir Francis Wheeler. 9. Charles (1679–1706). Admitted, Queens’ College, Cambridge, 1696; BA 1701; MA 1704; Fellow, 1704; deacon, 1702; priest, 1703; East India Company chaplain at St Helena, 1705; died there of drink. See  E.  Carpenter, Thomas Tenison, Archbishop of Canterbury, 1948, pp. 355–6. One letter to Locke: no. 3158. 10. Samuel (1680–1758). Page in Princess Anne’s household 1692 or earlier, and later equerry to Prince George; officer, Coldstream Guards, 1704; involved in the taking of Gibraltar, 1704; 5th baronet; created Baron Masham, 1711; husband of Queen Anne’s favourite, Abigail Hill, for whom, see ODNB. His improvidence caused the decline and loss of the Oates estate. By his second marriage, to Damaris Cudworth, Sir Francis had one further child: 1. Francis Cudworth Masham (1686–1731). Admitted Middle Temple, 1701; called to the Bar, 1710; accountant general to the Court of Chancery; Master in Chancery, 1726. Major beneficiary of Locke’s will.

1  It is almost certainly Henry who is mentioned in no. 837 (Corr., ii. 758 n). 2  The English Baronets, 1728, iii. 358, gives him as fourth baronet; but the modern standard source, Burke’s, omits him and gives his brother Samuel, later Baron Masham, as fourth.

71

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

682.  E. Clarke, 14 February 1682

682*. Edward Clarke to Locke, 14 February 1682 (683) Biographical identification of the Clarke children. The Clarke children constantly ­recur in the Correspondence. Edward Clarke married Mary Jepp, probably kin of Locke, in 1675. The family home was at Chipley, near Taunton, Somerset. The following list of their children relies on information from Bridget Clarke and SHC, DD/SF 8/1/17, 8/1/20, 8/3/2 (formerly 851, 2004, 4057). For the children’s tutors, see no. 930A. In ­early 1701 Mary Clarke said she had two boys abroad, two at school in Chelsea, and four at home (no. 2855A); two boys soon went to school in Taunton, which left two girls at home. The second, third, and ninth children are not mentioned in the Correspondence. Five of the children predeceased their parents. For aspects of this family, see A. S. Ben­ zaquén, ‘Locke’s Children’, Journal of the History of Childhood and Youth, 4 (2011), 382–402; idem, ‘The Friendship of John Locke and Edward Clarke’, in A. M. Gill and S. R. Prodon, eds., Friendship and Sociability in Premodern Europe, 2014; idem, ‘Ed­ ucational Designs: The Education and Training of Younger Sons at the Turn of the Eighteenth Century’, Journal of Family History, 40 (2015), 462–84; idem, ‘Children’s Letters and Children in Letters at the Turn of the Eighteenth Century’, in Literary Cultures and Eighteenth-Century Childhoods, ed. A. O’Malley, 2018; B. Clarke, ‘The Marriage of Locke’s “Wife”, Elizabeth Clarke’, Locke Newsletter, 22 (1991), 93–114; M. Goldie, ‘The Earliest Notice of Purcell’s Dido and Aeneas’, Early Music, 20 (1992), 392–400; S.  H.  Mendelson, ‘Child Rearing in Theory and Practice: The Letters of John Locke and Mary Clarke’, Women’s History Review, 19 (2010), 231–43. 1. Edward (1676–76). Born 6 May at Hatton Garden and died on 27 June. See nos. 312, 315. 2. Elizabeth (1678–c.1681). Born 13 July at Hatton Garden, baptized 20 July at St Andrew’s, Holborn, and died before 1682. 3. Anne (1679–80). Born 12 November at Hatton Garden, baptized 13 November at St Andrew’s, Holborn, and died before the end of 1680. 4. Edward (‘Ward’) (1681–1705). For whom Locke wrote Some Thoughts Concerning Education. Born 19 January 1681 at Lady King’s house in Salisbury Court, Fleet Street. He and all subsequent children spent their first months with a wet nurse and then with Nurse Trent at Ditton for a year or so. Suffered a violent fever, 1686; his memory dam­ aged. Educated by Huguenot tutors, Deully and Passebon, then at Mr Meure’s school in London. Stayed for long periods with Locke at Oates. In lodgings in London, 1696. Entered the Middle Temple, 1697. Suffered from depression, and apparently attempted suicide, 1699. In care of a Mr Moll (probably the cartographer Herman Moll), visited Benjamin Furly in Holland, 1699; then to France; then again to Holland; returned to Chipley, 1701. Living in London, 1702. Thereafter often ill with depression. On 23 April 1705 he drowned himself in the Thames. 5. Elizabeth (‘Betty’) (1682–1712). Born at Lady King’s on 25 October. Locke’s ‘wife’: such terms of endearment between an adult and child were common. Visited Locke in Holland with her parents, 1688. Benefited from her brothers’ Huguenot tutors and Locke’s gifts of books. Proficient in French. At Desgaloniere’s school in London with her sister Anne for a while. Visited Locke at Oates, 1692. Living with the Stringers at Ivychurch, near Salisbury, 1695–6. Negotiations for marriage to Peter King, 1700, failed; married John Jones, 1704. Lived at Langford Court near Bath. Two sons died in babyhood; three surviving children, Mary, Elizabeth, and Edward. Edward married

72

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

687.  D. Cudworth, [c. 21 February 1682] his cousin, Mary’s daughter Mary Musgrave. Elizabeth died in September 1712 and was buried at Barrington. 6. Anne (‘Nanny’) (1683–1744). Born at Lady King’s on 14 November. To Desgalo­ niere’s school with her sister; then to Mrs Beckford’s in Hackney, 1695, for two or three years. Then lived at Chipley. After her mother’s death kept house for her younger sib­ lings. Married William Sanford (c.1685–1718) of Nynehead before 1715. Two surviving sons, William and John. By her marriage, and that of her sister Jane, the union with the Sanfords was forged; hence the Clarke archive today resides among the Sanford Papers in the SHC. 7. John (‘Jack’) (1685–1705). Born on 28 December at Chipley, and baptized on 28  December. Taught at home by the Huguenot tutor de Grassemare. Was intend­ ed to become a page to Queen Mary; prevented by her death. Attended Lefevre’s (‘Leafavours’) school in Chelsea, 1696. Residing with a Mr Malpus. To Holland, 1700, where he attended school at Noordvijk, and was then, 1704, apprenticed to Matthew Chitty, a wealthy English merchant in Amsterdam. Died of fever there in June 1705. 8. Mary (‘Molly’) (1688–1733). Born on 23 March in London. Attended Josias Priest’s school in Chelsea, from 1698 for four or five years (the school at which Purcell’s Dido and Aeneas had first been performed). Lived with her parents, at Chipley and London. Married George Musgrave (d.c.1722), physician of Nettlecombe, Somerset, nephew of Dr William Musgrave, physician and antiquary, of Exeter; who was an admirer of Locke’s writings: see no. 1683A. They left two children, one of whom, Mary, married, 1739, her cousin, Elizabeth’s son Edward. Died in May 1733. 9. Jepp (1691–1741). Born on 6 October at Mrs Henman’s, Lower Turnstile, Holborn, and was baptized at St Andrew’s Church, Holborn. He and Sammy were taught at home at Chipley by a Huguenot tutor, John de La Roque; when La Roque married, 1701, they boarded with him in Taunton. At school in Chelsea at the time of his moth­ er’s death, 1705. Returned to Chipley with Sammy, to be taught by Pierre Coste, who had lived at Oates until Locke’s death, acting as his translator. Suffered from asthma. He inherited Chipley on his father’s death. Served as sheriff of Somerset, 1721. Married Elizabeth Hawker, 1716. Left one son, Edward, born 1717. 10. Samuel (‘Sammy’) (1692–May 1732). Born 23 November 1692 at Mrs Henman’s, and baptized at St Andrew’s, Holborn. For his schooling, see above under Jepp. Mem­ ber of the Middle Temple. Married Sarah Guest; they had one daughter, Sally, who predeceased her father. 11. Jane (‘Jenny’ or ‘Jinney’) (1694–1732). Born 9 February at Mrs Henman’s. Stayed several years with Nurse Trent. Suffered from rickets and had special shoes made for her. At Priest’s school in Chelsea, 1701. Married Henry Sanford of Nynehead, 1719, young brother of William; (see Anne above). Died on 28 June 1732.

687*.  Locke to Damaris Cudworth, later Lady Masham, [c. 21 February 1682] (684, 688) MS Locke f. 6, pp. 33–8. An entry in Locke’s Journal, 21 February 1682. Incomplete draft or copy of a letter evidently sent to Masham, since it answers no. 684 (16 February) and is answered by no. 688 (27 February). It is the first extant letter from Locke to Masham, though it appears he had opened the correspondence between them, for her

73

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

687.  D. Cudworth, [c. 21 February 1682] first (no. 677) is a reply to a lost letter. De Beer printed only excerpts, because it is printed in full in R. I. Aaron and J. Gibb, An Early Draft of Locke’s Essay, 1936, pp. 123–5. Mash­ am had invited Locke’s opinion on John Smith, Select Discourses, 1660; he bought the second edition of 1673 (LL 2701). The Journal (19–21 February) has commentaries on enthusiasm (covered in no. 696), immortality, and knowledge (the present letter). No. 696 is also known only from the Journal.

But since you would not explain the third section1 as I desired, I have read it again with care, but cannot I confesse reconcile the four heads very well with my expectation which the begining gave me of a fourfold kinde of Knowledg a2 whereas those four differences he afterwards enu­ merates and describes seeme not to me to be soe much four sorts of knowledg but severall degrees of the love of god and practise of vertue. For though I grant it is easily to be imagind that a love and practise of vertue may and naturally doth by imploying his thoughts more on heavenly objects give a man a greater knowledg of god and his duty, and that reciprocally produce a greater love of them yet I cannot allow that it is a different sort of knowledg or any knowledg at all above his reason, for what ever opinions or perswasions are in the minde without any foundation of reason, may indeed by the temper and disposition of some mindes whether naturall or acquired seeme as cleare and operate as strongly as true knowledg, but indeed are not knowledg but if they concerne god and religion deserve the name of Enthusiasme3 which however you seeme to plead for and thinke St Paul4 to a degree allows yet I must still say is noe part of knowledg and the new creature in a  Vid Smiths ­discourses in the margin    1  John Smith, Select Discourses, 1660, First Discourse, ‘Of the true Way or Method of attain­ ing to Divine Knowledge’, Section iii: ‘Men may be consider’d in a Fourfold capacity in order to the perception of Divine things. That the Best and most excellent Knowledge of Divine things belongs onely to the true and sober Christian; and That it is but in its infancy while he is in this Earthly Body’ (pp. 17– 21). 2  Smith equates ‘four ranks’ of men with a ‘fourfold kind of knowledge’; these turn out to be on a rising scale of human types from the basely sensual Epicurean to the ‘true metaphysical and contemplative man’. Characteristic of the Platonists (whom he amply cites), Smith elides ‘life and knowledge’, ‘purity and knowledge’. Masham refers to the ‘metaphysical and contemplative men’ in L688 and L690. 3  The term was pejorative, meaning false or pretended divine inspiration, mystical delusion. Locke uses the word three times in this letter. Masham took umbrage, taking it to be an attack on the Cambridge Platonists, ‘seeing I have spent most of my life amongst philosophers of that sect’ (no. 690); ‘have a care that you provoke me not so much’ (no. 688). She said she was ‘as much an enemy as you’ of ‘enthusiasm’ but denies that Smith was guilty of it (no. 699). Locke provides a fuller analysis of the psychopathology of enthusiasm in the Journal, 19 February, part of which he sent to Masham in no. 696; Aaron and Gibb, Early Draft, 119–20. 4  Masham referred to ‘several places in St Paul’, unspecified, whom surely, she insists, Locke would not hold guilty of ‘enthusiasm’ (L684).

74

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

687.  D. Cudworth, [c. 21 February 1682] my  sense does not consist soe much in notions nor indeed in any ­irrationall notions at all, but in a new principle of life and action i.e. the love of god and a desire of being in holynesse like unto him. What unassisted reason can or cannot doe I cannot determin since I thinke the faculty its self in its severall degrees of perfection all the helps and improvements of it by education discourse contemplation or otherwise are all assistances from god and to be acknowledge to the goodnesse of his providence, but I thinke of reason as I doe of the sight an ordinary eye by constant imployment about any object may grow very accute in it the assistance of glasses may make it see things both better and at a greater distance but yet whatever is discerned by the eye however assisted is perceived by and comes under the naturall faculty of seeing, and soe what ever is known however sublime or spirituall is known only by the naturall faculty of the understanding reason, however assisted. Though there may be this difference that one perhaps has got an help to see and discerne heavenly objects which an other never soe much as looked after and therefor I cannot quit my former division of men1 (awho either thinke as if they were only body and minde not soule or spirit at all, or those who in some cases at least thinke of them selves as all soule separate from the commerce of the body and in those instances have only visions or more properly imaginations, and a third sort who considering them selves as made up of body and soule here and in a state of mediocrity make use and follow their reason)2 untill you tell me what sort of persons those are who are not included in any part of it. I hope they will not be his fourth which to deale truly with you seeme to me very much to savour of Enthusiasme and soe will be very litle different from my Visionarys I meane in respect of their opin­ ions and knowledg, for it you take in their Seraphyke love and Heroick vertue3 those I confesse may give them great degrees of Excellency and perfection but we have noe thing to doe with those in our present discourse as not lyeing in the speculative but practicall and operative part of the soule whereas we are now enquireing only after the destinc­ tion of men in respect of knowledg which I cannot but thinke is all except that of sense comprehended under reason and whatever strong a  Square brackets in the MS 1  In L684 Masham alludes to an earlier iteration of this. 2  These three sorts are materialists; certain kinds of ultra-Platonist spiritualists; and those who believe that in this world the soul is embodied. ‘Mediocrity’ means a middle condition. 3  Seraphic love: Platonic love. Heroic virtue: superhuman virtue.

75

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

747A.  H. Justel, [late 1682 or early 1683] perswasions we have in matters divine not riseing from nor vouchd by reason I cannot looke on otherwise then perfect Enthusiasme. But I will not now enter into a discourse of that haveing more then enough tired you already which will be to use you worse then your fall1 did if I breake your brains with my Jargon. The next discourse of Superstition2 is  one of the best I ever read, but as to his third3 I shall talke more ­particularly with you when we are got over this first.

747A. Henri Justel to Locke, [late 1682 or early 1683] (651) MS Locke b. 2, fos. 37–8. Addendum from vol. viii. Handwriting uncharacteristically fine but recognizable. Seal as no. 588. Possibly the cover of a letter. Date from contents and Locke’s endorsement.

On a imprimé a Paris plusieurs livres depuis six ou sept mois entre autres le Pentateuche en francois de port Royal4 le Voyage de Moscovie a la Chine par terre, la description de la Riviere de Misisipi et celle de la Nouvelle Hollande aux Indes par M. Thevenot5 description de la Riviere des Amazones traduit de l espagnol6 Une lettre d une dame qui a des doutes qui est de la maniere des let­ tres ­provinciales la Response de Mr. Arnaud a Mr. Malet sur la traduction du nouveau Testament de Mons7 Une Response au livre de Mr. Huet supprimee8 la Vie du roy Charles 9 par Varillas9 la Calvinisme du Pere Mimbourg10 Un Traitté de l optique par le P. Ango Jesuite11 la reimpression de Vitruve12 le Sermon de Monsieur de Condom ou de Meaux a l assemblée du clerge13 1 No. 684.   2 Smith, Select Discourses, Second Discourse, ‘Of Superstition’. 3  Third Discourse, ‘Of Atheism’. 4  Presumably the translation of the Old Testament by Louis-Isaac Le Maitre de Sacy, pub­ lished piecemeal: Exodus and Leviticus, 1682; Genesis, 1683. 5  Melchisédech Thévenot, Recueil de divers Voyages, 1682. 6  Relation de la rivière des Amazones, 3 vols., 1682. See Corr., ii. 541, n. 3. 7  Antoine Arnauld, Nouvelle défense de la traduction du Nouveau Testament, Cologne 1680, 1682. Reply to Charles Mallet, Examen . . . de la traduction . . . du Nouveau Testament, 1676, 1677, 1682. 8  Presumably against Pierre Daniel Huet’s Demonstratio Evangelica, 1679. 9  Antoine Varillas, Histoire de Charles IX, 1683. 10  Louis Maimbourg, Histoire du Calvinisme, 1682. 11  Pierre Ango, L’Optique, 1682. 12 M.  Vitruvius Pollio, De Architectura. The BL catalogue lists several undated reprints of the period. 13  Jacques-Benigne Bossuet, Sermon presché à l’Assembleé du Clergé, 1682.

76

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

747A.  H. Justel, [late 1682 or early 1683] la lettre du clergé au Pape.1 Un nouveau traitté d architecture par M. blondel2 le livre du Sr. Degodets qui contient les Antiquitez de Rome avec toutes les mesures exactes bien gravées3 Le Code Marin4 les arrests de Metz et de Brissac qui adjugent au Roy une bonne partie de la lorraine, au moins les hommages et de l’alsace5 L anacreon de Madle. Lefebvre6 l’Horace en francois de Mr. Dacier7 le Festus de luy mesme8 Un Cordelier faict des globes au Roy qui sont d une prodigieuse grandeur Considerations sur les affaires qui se traittent dans l assemblée du Clergé Ms est une bonne piece. Memoires de la borde touchant l intrigue de Mr. de Pamiers Ms bons le Systeme de la Nature et de la grace par le Pere Malbranche auquel Mr. arnaud respond9 Examen de la conscience par Mr. Claude10 Nuncius Sidereus de galilee traduit par Castelet avec ce qui a este observé avec les lunettes11 Une dissection d un Crocodile dont la machoire de dessous remue et non celle de dessus Une grammaire en francois par Mr. Halet12 quelques Sermons de St. Chrysostomes traduits en francois et fort bien13 le dictionnaire geographique de baudran 2 vol in fol.14

1 Two letters were addressed to Innocent XI by the Assembly dated 3 February and 6 May 1682. 2  François Blondel, Cours d’architecture, 1675–83. 3  Antoine Desgodets, Livre d’Architecture des Edifices antiques de Rome, 1682. 4  Ordonnance . . . touchant la Marine, 1682. 5  Arrets de la Chambre de Réunion, Metz and Breisach, 1680–3. 6  Les Poesies d’Anacreon et de Sapho, translated by Anne Le Fèvre (later Dacier), 1681, 1682. 7  André Dacier, Remarques critiques sur les Œuvres d’Horace, with translation, 1681–9. For Locke’s remarks on this edition see MS Locke c. 33, fo. 25. 8  Sex. Pompei Festi et Mar. Verrii Flacci de Verborum Significatione, 1681. 9 Nicolas Malebranche, Traité de la nature et de la grâce, Amsterdam, 1680. Antoine Arnauld’s Des Vrayes et des fausses Idées, Cologne, 1683, was regarded by its author and others as a response to the Traité as well as to La Recherche de la Verité. The reference cannot be to Reflexions . . . sur le . . . Système de la nature et de la grâce, published in July 1685. 10  Jean Claude, L’Examen de soy-mesme, 1682. 11  Alexandre Tinelis, abbé de Castelet, Le messager céleste, 1681. 12 D. V. d’Allais, Grammaire methodique, 1682. 13  Homilies de Saint Jean Chrysostome, translated by J. Cusson, 1682. 14  Michel Baudrand, Dictionnaire geographique et historique, 1682.

77

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

747A.  H. Justel, [late 1682 or early 1683] dissertationes biblicae par le pere Frassena Cordelier1 essays de physique de Mr. Mariotte2 Memoires de Mr. de Treslon3 Doutes de Mr. brunier sur quelques chapitres et articles de la philoso­ phie de gassendi4 Traitté de l oreille par Mr. du Vernai5 De re diplomatica par le Pere Mabillon6 Traitté de la circulation des esprits animaux par un benedictin7 I’Histoire de la guerre des Uscoques traduit en francois8 Par dissertationum in Matthaeum quibus duae illustres de Christo prophe­ tiae nova diligentia declarantur a Petro Possino Soc. Jesu Tolosae 16829 On a imprimé en Italie un libro di leonardo da Capua sopra la debolezza et l insufficienza della medecina10 il Signor del’ papa sta stampando un trattato sopra l’humido el’ secco11 un Traitte du Pere Norris intitule Cenotaphia pisana12 On a trouvé en Italie une table de cuivre du temps d alexandre Severe a Canosa qui est Canusium ou sont les noms de tous les officiers de la Ville En. Holl. le medecin de Soy mesme, Musaeum Zeilanicum de Mr. Herman13 Traitté de bartoli intorno alagianamento et coagulatione, nelquale impugna Galileo, Cartesio, gassendi, digby Mr. boyle et borelli14 bellini a faict imprimer un tratté de Medecine il se sert des principes de Mechanique et de la Methode geometrique pour l expliquer15 en Holl. le Catalogue des plantes des Indes avec des figures Address: for Mr. Loock at Mylord Shaftesbury house in Aldergest Street Thanet House London Postmark: W Penny Post Paid. Endorsed by Locke: Libri 82. a  Interlined 1  Claude Frassen, Disquisitiones Biblicae, 1682. 2  Edme Mariotte, Essays de Physique, 1681. 3  Memoires du Chevalier de Treslon, 1681. 4  François Bernier, Doutes sur . . . son Abregé de la philosophie de Gassendi, 1682. 5  Joseph-Guichard Duverney, Traité de l’organe de l’ouie, 1683. See Corr., ii. 412, n. 1. 6  Jean Mabillon, De re diplomatica, 1681. 7  N.-P. Jamet. See Corr., ii. 542, n. 1. 8  Histoire des Uscoques, a translation of Minuccio Minucci’s Historia degli Usochi, 1603, by Amelot de la Houssaye, 1682. The Uskoks (refugees from the Turks) were settled by the Austrians and became pirates, fighting both Turks and Venetians. 9  Pierre Poussines, title, etc., as given.    10 See Corr., ii. 542, n. 2. 11  Giuseppe del Papa, Della natura dell’umido, e del secco, Florence, 1681. 12  P. de Noris, Cenotaphia Pisana, Venice and Paris, 1682. 13  Paul Hermann, Musaeum Zeylanicum sive Catalogus Plantarum. 14  Daniello Bartoli, Del ghiaccio e della coagulazione, 1681. 15  Lorenzo Bellini, De Urinis et pulsibus, Bologna, 1683. An important work in iatromechanism.

78

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

763A.  E. Clarke, 10 April 1683

763A.  E  dward Clarke to William Clarke, 10 April 1683 (762, 769B) SHC, DD/SF 7/1/21 (formerly 3872). Clarke Papers. Draft or copy. William Clarke (c.1642–88) was a cousin of Edward’s. He graduated from Wadham College, Oxford, and entered the Middle Temple. A fellow Somerset Whig, he supplied Edward with political news. He has three fleeting historical presences: as steward for the West Coun­ try estate of the poet and rake John Wilmot, earl of Rochester; as unsuccessful Whig parliamentary candidate for Bridgewater in 1679; and as the author of a poign­ant ac­ count of the Battle of Sedgemoor, 1685. In February 1683 Locke, using Edward Clarke as his intermediary, lent William Clarke £800 on mortgage, due to be determined on 20 May. This letter, with other evidence, suggests William was not always a competent manager of money; it provides context for Locke’s dealings with him. See Corr., nos. 757, 759, 759, and below 1131A; for his death, nos. 1055, 1077; also M. Goldie, ‘At the Margins of the Gentry: The Library of William Clarke, 1688’ The Library (forthcoming).

London April the 10th, 1683 Deare Cozen, I gave you An Account the last weeke of my haveing settled your affayres with Mr. Fowles1 and taken his Receit under hand and seal on the deed for 1000l which I received. I received your Letter of the 31st of March, and was much concerned at that part thereof relateing to your intentions of paying in Mr. Locke money, But in regard you therein assured mee that if you did Bargaine with Harry Hawley I should heare from your againe within a Weeke. I suspended the Answering it untill now. And cannot but signifie my [dis]satisfaction that I have heared nothing from you since touching that particular, and must bee soe ingeniouse as to tell you, that I should have been extreamely much troubled to have found your Resolutions confirmed in that particular of paying in Mr. Locks money soe soon, in regard when I first spoke to Him for the money, I used this as an Argument to him to call in this money and to supply you therewith which to my own knowledge was then out upon other security. That besides the intire satisfaction Hee should have in what ever security you should propose to him that the money should certainly remaine out upon such security, for a verie considerable time, without any trouble to Him, and that of the debt you should contract for this Purchase, His money should bee any of last 〈word illegible〉 that should be paid off; These inducements with that of haveing to do with soe worthy and soe Honest a Gentleman as your self prevayled with Him, to call in his money and fix it in your 1  Mentioned at Corr. ii. 582 (no. 758).

79

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

769A.  W. Stratton, 10 August 1683 hands. And the security being now settled which you gave Him for the same, I earnestly desire that you would not thinke of changeing or altering thereof, For I confesse it will bee a great obligation upon mee to been inabled by you to make good that part of my former discourse with Mr. Lock touching the continuance of the money upon the security as well as you have done in that particular of the security it selfe; And I have greate reason to believe that should you doe otherwise, it would bee a greate surprise as noe small in­con­veni­ence to Mr. Lock whose mind is now at rest in this particular, Pray consider these things, and if you should happen to Bargaine with Harry Hawley for his 400l Lett my earnest desire prevaile with you not to pay Mr. Lock but some other with that money, And in soe doing you will verie much add to your Former Favors you have bestowed upon yours

769A.  Locke to William Stratton, 10 August 1683 (767, 769B) MS Locke c. 19, fos. 22–3. Letter of attorney. ‘John Locke of Beluton in the County of Somerset Gentleman’ for his ‘well beloved friend William Stratton of Sutton in the Parish of Chew in the County of Somerset, Tanner’. Written just before Locke’s de­ parture for Holland; one of a pair: see next. Witnesses Charles Cheswell and Michael Hook. Chew is Chew Magna.

769B. Locke to William Stratton and Edward Clarke, 22 August 1683 (769A, 848; 762, 763A, 770) MS Locke b. 8, no. 11. Letter of attorney. Damaged. See preceding item. Appoints Clarke and Stratton to act on behalf of Locke, ‘of Beluton in the Parish of Stanton Drew’, concerning lands in the parishes of Stanton Drew, Pensford, and Publow. These parishes were all adjacent.

773A. Robert Boyle to [Locke], 22 December 1683 (478, 936A, 1001) Dedicatory epistles in Boyle’s Memoirs for the Natural History of Humane Blood, 1683/4, sig. A2–8, and pp. 94–6. The book contains two dedications, the second styled an ‘epistolatory discourse’. The first begins the book and the second heads the fourth part. There is a manuscript draft of the first in the Royal Society, Boyle Papers, 28, pp. 109–11, virtually identical to the printed version, except lacking the heading. It is the printed versions of both that are reproduced here. These prefaces, addressed to

80

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

773A.  R. Boyle, 22 December 1683 ‘Doctor  J.  L.’, have always been assumed to refer to Locke, notwithstanding that he was in Holland at the time and that no copy of the book is recorded in his library catalogue. Boyle’s most recent editor, Michael Hunter, does not doubt the attribution. Support for the identification occurs in MS Locke f. 19, pp. 272–3 (mid-1660s), a list of ‘titles’ (i.e. topics) for the history of the blood, which closely relates to Boyle’s list in the present book. While at Oxford in the early 1660s Locke had met Boyle, read his works, and attended medical lectures. The date ascribed to these texts is derived from that given at the end of Boyle’s book. Printed in M. Hunter and E. B. Davis, eds., The Works of Robert Boyle, 12 vols., 1999–2000, x. 5–7, 39–40. See K. Dewhurst, John Locke, Physician and Philosopher, 1963; M. A. Stewart, ‘Locke’s Professional Contacts with Robert Boyle’, Locke Newsletter, 12 (1981), 19–44; P. R. Anstey, ‘Locke, Bacon, and Natural History’, Early Science and Medicine, 7 (2002), 65–92, at 79–82; H. Knight and M. Hunter, ‘Robert Boyle’s Memorandum for the Natural History of the Human Blood and the Impact of Baconianism on Seventeenth-Century Medical Science’, Medical History, 51 (2007), 145–64; M. Hunter, Boyle: Between God and Science, 2009, pp. 154, 210–11, 286. Boyle (1627–91), the natural philosopher, first appears in the Corr., at i. 146.

The Preface Introductory Address’d To the very Ingenious and Learned Doctor J. L. I Willingly acknowledge, that divers Physicians have Amply and Learnedly, and some of them very Eloquently, set forth the praises of the Blood, and manifested how noble and excellent a Liquor1 it is. But I must beg their pardon if I doubt whether their Writings have not better celebrated its Praises, then discover’d to us its Nature. For, tho the laudable curiosity of the Moderns has acquainted us with several things not deliver’d to us by the Ancients, yet, if I mistake not, what is generally known of Humane Blood, is as yet imperfect enough, and consists much more of Observations than Experiments; being sug­ gested far more by the Phaenomena that Nature her self has afforded Physicians, than by Tryals industriously made, to find what she will not, unsolicited by Art, discover.2 I will not be so rash as to say, that to mind (as too many Anatomists have done) the Solid parts of the Body, and overlook Enquiries into the Fluids, and especially the Blood, were little less improper in a Physician, than it would be in a Vintner to

1 Liquor: fluid.   2  Discover: reveal.

81

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

773A.  R. Boyle, 22 December 1683 be very solicitous about the Structure of his Cask, and neglect the con­ sideration of the Wine contain’d in it. But though I will not make so bold a Comparison, yet when I consider how important a part of the Humane Body, the Blood is; and that as when it is well constituted, and does orderly move, it conveys nourishment and vigour, and motion, and in a word health to the rest of the living Engine: So the Mass of Blood being either vitiated, or (which is very often the effect of that Depravation) disorderly mov’d, is the Seat of divers, and the Cause of most Diseases, whose cure consequently depends mainly upon the rectifying of the Blood when (I say,) I consider these things, I cannot but think it an Omission, that so important a Subject has not been more skilfully and industriously enquir’d into. But I hope you were not in earnest, when you solicited me to repair that Omission. For you know, I have not the Vanity to pretend to be a Physician. And being none, I must want1 both the Skill and many Opportunities, wherewith a Man that were professedly so, would be advantag’d. And though I deny not that many years ago2 I propounded to some Ingenious Physicians a History of the Fluid parts of the Body, such as the Humours and other Juices, and also the Spirits of it; and did particu­ larly draw up a set of Enquiries, and make divers Experiments in refer­ ence to the Blood, yet those Papers being since lost, and a long Tract of Time, and Studies of a quite other nature, having made me lose the Memory of most of the Particulars; I find my self unable to contribute any thing considerable to your laudable design. And as all the search your Commands oblig’d me to make after my Papers, has hitherto prov’d fruitless, so they having been written when I had far more Health, Vigour, and Leisure than I now have, and when my Thoughts were much more conversant with Medicinal Subjects; any thing that I shall now present you about the Blood, will not only be extremely short of what ought to be said, but will also be short even of what, if I mistake not, I did say of it. But yet all this is said, not to excuse me from obeying you at all, but to excuse me for obeying you so unskilfully. For, since you will have me set down what I can retrieve about Humane Blood, you shall receive it in the following Paper; which consists of Four Parts. The First whereof contains a set of Titles (which I call Of the First Order, for Reasons to be given you in the Advertisements about 1  Want: lack. 2  In the 1660s. The opening of Boyle’s book echoes remarks he had made in a letter to Henry Oldenburg, dated 13 June 1666. M. Hunter, Boyle: Between God and Science, 2009, p. 154.

82

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

773A.  R. Boyle, 22 December 1683 them) towards the Natural and Medical History of Humane Blood, which may direct those that want better Guides, what Enquiries to make, and to what Heads to refer, what they have found by Observation or Tryal. But because this Part contains but bare Titles (whose Systeme yet perhaps I look upon as likely to make the usefullest part of the ensu­ ing Papers) and because I have neither leisure nor Materials to answer all or most of the Titles, I thought fit in a couple of Subjects, namely the Serum of Humane Blood, which is a Natural, and the Spirit, which is a Factitious part of it, to give some instances of what I had thoughts to do on others; and propose some Example to those that may be more unpractis’d in drawing up Natural Histories, than the general design and course of my Studies of Natural Things permitted me to be. And what is said on these two Subjects, makes the Third and Fourth Part of these Papers. As for the other Titles (of the History of the Blood) I contented my self, in compliance with my haste, to set down what occur’d to me in the Casual Order wherein they offer’d themselves; without scrupling to mingle here and there among the Historical Notes, some Experiments that I formerly but design’d, as Tryals that might prove Luciferous,1 whatever the event should be. This Rapsody of my own Observations makes one of the Four Parts, and the Second in Order, of what your Commands embolden me to offer you at this time. And I shall be very glad to be so happy as to find, that by doing a thing, that I am wont to do so delightfully as to obey you, I have by breaking the Ice contributed something to so noble and useful a work as the History of Humane Blood. About which, that I may not make the Porch much too great for the Building, I shall add to this Preamble nothing but these two Advertisements; of which the First shall be, That it is not my design in these Papers, to treat of my Subject, as it may be consider’d (to borrow a School Phrase) in fieri,2 which would have oblig’d me to trace the Progress from the reception of Aliments at the Mouth, to the full Elaboration, which were to write the History of Sanguification as well as that of Blood; but to treat of this Liquor as ’tis compleatly elaborated, and that too, not as ’tis form’d in the Vessels of a living Body, but as it is Extravasated,3 and let out by the Lancet; such Blood alone being that on which I had some opportunity to make Tryals, and to this first Advertisement, I shall subjoyn as the Second,

1  Prove luciferous: shed light.    2  In fieri: in process of coming into existence. 3  Extravasated: emitted, extruded.

83

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

773A.  R. Boyle, 22 December 1683 That in the following Papers I have, as the Title intimates, treated but of such Humane Blood, as was taken from sound Persons; both because being no profess’d Physician, I had not the Opportunities of Examining that of Sick Persons molested with particular Diseases, (which yet would much conduce to a compleat History of the Blood;) and because the Knowledge of the Nature of the Blood, when ’tis rightly condi­ tioned, is necessary to those that would discern, in what particulars, and how far it deviates in the Sick, according to that generally received Axiome, Rectum est Index sui & Obliqui:1 On which account the Scheme of Titles drawn up for the History of Healthy Blood, may serve for a direction to any that would write the History of Morbid or Depraved Blood in any particular Disease, as a Pleurisie, a Quartan Ague,2 the Dropsy,3 the Scurvy, &c. For having compared the Qualities and Accidents of this vitiated Blood, with those of the Blood of Sound Men deliver’d in the forementioned Systeme of Titles, ’twill not be dif­ ficult for a Physician to find, to what heads he is to refer those things that considerably recede from such as belong to Healthy Blood. And these Recessions or Depravations, with perhaps a few Additions of some Peculiarities, if any occur, will make up the History of the Blood as ’tis wont to be vitiated in that Particular Disease, one General Admonition sufficing (if that it self be not unnecessary) to make the Reader take notice, that in all other Points the Blood of Persons sick of that Disease is not unlike that of those that are Healthy. [. . .] The Fourth Part, Containing the History of the Spirit of Humane Blood Begun; In an Epistolary Discourse to the very Learned Dr. J. L. Sir, Having by want of leisure and opportunity, been reduced to treat of the History of Humane Blood in so imperfect and desultory a way, that several of the Titles have been left wholly untouch’d, and others have been but transiently and jejunely treated of; I thought fit to handle more fully, some one of the Primary Titles, and branch it into its 1  ‘The line which is straight also shows that which is crooked.’—i.e. to know the nature of healthy blood is also to learn about unhealthy. 2  Ague: an acute recurring fever such as malaria. 3  Dropsy: accumulations of liquid in body cavities, as in gout.

84

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

773A.  R. Boyle, 22 December 1683 s­ everal subordinate or secondary Titles. And for this purpose I pitch’d upon the Spirit of Humane Blood, being willing on so noble a Subject to give a Specimen of what might have been done to Illustrate the other Primary Titles, if some requisites had not been wanting. And since the Spirit of Humane Blood is at least one of the noblest of Urinous or Volatile Alcalies; so that most of the things that shall be taught con­ cerning that, may with some little variation by apply’d to Spirit of Urine, Hartshorn, Sal Armoniac, Soot, &c. I thought fit to lay down a Scheme of subordinate Titles, whose Heads (which amount to above half the number of Primary ones, that belong to the whole History of Blood) should be so numerous and comprehensive, that this Paper may pass not only for an Example, but for a kind of summary of the History of Volatile Salts in general, and so supply the loss of a Paper that I once begun on that Subject. And now I should without further Preamble proceed to that intended History, but that I think it requisite to premise three or four short Advertisements. Whereof the First shall be, That the Spirit I employ’d in making the following Tryals and Observations, was drawn from Humane Blood without any Sand, Clay, or other Additament, (save perhaps that by a mistake that could do no mischief, a small parcel had some Vinous Spirit put to it to preserve it a while) and that the first distillations (which I so call to distinguish them from Rectifications1) were perform’d in Retorts plac’d in Sand, (and not with a naked Fire) care being taken that the Vessels were not too much fill’d because Blood, N.B. if it be not well dry’d, is apt to swell much, and pass into the neck of the Retort, if not into the Receiver. Secondly, I desire to give notice, that the Blood we made use of, was drawn from Persons that parted with it out of custom, or for preven­ tion, which was the main reason why I was so scantly furnished with Blood, that of sound persons being in the place I resided in, very diffi­ cult to be procur’d in quantity, and that of sick persons being unfit for my purpose. Thirdly, It may not be amiss for obviating of some Scruples, to adver­ tise that, there being so great a Cognation2 between the Spirit and Volatile Salt of Humane Blood, that, as we shall see anon, ’tis probable that the latter is little other than the Spirit in dry form, and the former

1  Rectification: the result of repeated distillations. 2  Cognation: connection, relation, likeness.

85

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

783A.  N. Blancardus, 10/20 August 1684 than the Salt united with Phlegm enough to give it a Liquid form; ’tis presum’d that it may be allowable to consider the Volatile Salt of Blood as its dry Spirit. Lastly, To the three foregoing, ’twill be fit to add this Fourth Advertisement, That tho, in comparison of the Particulars thrown in to the Second and Third Part of those Memoirs, the ensuing Fourth part is methodically written, yet you are not to expect to find in the Method any thing of Accurateness; since the Experiments and Observations whereof this Fourth Part consists, were written in loose Papers, at dis­ tant times and on differing occasions, and because of this and of my haste, will be found, without any regular dependence or connexion, referr’d to the Titles under which they are ranged, in that order, or rather disorder, wherein they chanc’d to come to hand.

783A.  N  icolaus Blancardus to Philip Ernst Vegelin van Claerbergen, 10/20 August 1684 Amsterdam University Library, MS Ba. 10. A letter of introduction. Recovered by Philippus Breuker; printed in C. D. van Strien, British Travellers in Holland during the Stuart Period, 1993, pp. 305–6. I rely on van Strien’s transcription and translation. Locke was in Franeker, 19–21 August, and Leeuwarden, 23–24 and 26–31 August (NS). On 29 August he described the processional entry into the town by Hendric Casimir, Prince of Nassau, governor and captain general of the provinces of Friesland and Groningen. MS Locke f. 8, pp. 111–26. Blancardus (Blanckaert) (1625–1703) was professor of Greek and history at Franeker and had been tutor to Hendric Casi­ mir. Philip Ernst Vegelin van Claerbergen (1613–93) was master of the household at the court, with interests in optics and astronomy; he was a correspondent of Chris­ tiaan and Constantiijn Huygens, Mersenne, Anna Maria van Schurman, and Gaspar Schott.

Viro nobilissimo Ernesto Vegelin van Claerbergen, Equiti ec. et illus­ trissimo Nassaviae Aulae Praefecto. Edele Heer Vegelin, Den toonder deser, d’Heer Loock, een waard Edelman uijt Engeland, alhier gecomen om dese Provincie te besien; sal sijn Ed. begroeten; ver­ soeckende U. E. gedienstelick, om ’t geen op ’t Hof en in Stadt waar­ digh is, vrundelick gelieve aan te wijsen en vordere addres to verlenen, soo veel doenlick is. Edele Heer, verblijve U. Ed. genegen vrundt en dienaar N. Blancardus Franeker 1684, 20 Aug. 86

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

791.  E. Clarke, [late November 1684] [translation:]

To the most noble gentleman Ernst Vegelin van Claebergen, Knight etc. and most illustrious master of the court of Nassau. Honoured Mijnheer Vegelin, The bearer of this letter, Mr. Locke, an excellent gentleman from England, who has come here to visit this province, will come and greet your honour; asking your honour to oblige him by graciously showing him what is worth seeing at Court and in the town, and being of ­further assistance as much as possible. Honoured Sir, remaining your honour’s affectionate friend and servant, N. Blancardus Franeker 1684, 20 August.

791*.  Locke to Edward Clarke, [late November 1684] (786, 799) Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Library, MS Eng. 860. This letter of transmittal occurs at the end of the first of two versions of the ‘Directions’ concerning education, which is an early draft of Some Thoughts Concerning Education. This first redaction is called the Nynehead version. Date from Locke’s remarks in no. 801. It apparently went astray (again, no. 801), and Locke sent another, which is the British Library version, on about 5 January 1685 (no. 804*). Not printed by de Beer; printed in The Cor­res­pond­ence of John Locke and Edward Clarke, ed. B. Rand, 1927, pp. 25–6; The Educational Writings of John Locke, ed. J. L. Axtell, 1968, p. 6; and Locke, Some Thoughts Concerning Education, eds. J. W. and J. S. Yolton, 1989, p. 317. I have relied on the Yoltons’ ­transcription.

Thus you have my first Chapter on this subiect calculated to the age your son is now of.1 Upon reading it over all togeather I find some arepetitions which might have been spared which might well happen to one who (having soe bad a memory as I) writ it bat soe many days and miles distance as I did. I have not troubled my self to mend this fault, whereby you will perceive what things were setled on my minde. And since I write not as an Author to the publique but as to a freind in

a things deleted   b and deleted 1  Edward Jr (‘Ward’) was born in 1681.

87

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

803A.  [E. Clarke], 3/13 January [16]85 private I hope you will pardon me if I have been lesse carefull of giving it the forme of a treatise, then the usefulnesse which I designe it for. And therefor have been content to give you my thoughts in as plain words as I could 〈illegible〉 as they offerd themselves without aorna­ ment or order. I cannot be confident but that 〈illegible〉 many things may be omitted in it which deserve consideration. I can only say I have set downe all I thought on as necessary and when any thing else comes into my minde I shall take the liberty to mention it to you. And now though I tell you that I send it to a freind yet doe not you looke on it as comeing from one. Let it be to you as a discourse that fell into your hands by chance. Consider not the author nor his affection to you but the reason and truth of what you finde in it. Soe far as they appeare and convince you soe far follow them and where any thing sticks with you pray let me know. For though bI could for­ wardly venture to write on a subiect a litle out of my way where I thought it might be any way serviceable to you yet I am not soe vain as to thinke my self infallible in what I have written. I aime at noething but the advantage of your son and family[.] what you finde may conduce to that end receive for its owne sake not mine[.] what you doubt or condemne pray tell me freely, and when we have setled this first chapter, we will if you thinke it worth while proceed on to the next step and looke two or three years forward[.] If I thought you not sufficiently assurd of the sincerity where with I write I should beg your pardon for the confidence and liberty I have usd in it but know I am Sir Yours J Locke

803A.  Locke to [Edward Clarke], 3/13 January [16]85 (803, 804) SHC, DD/SF 7/1/66 (formerly 2647). Clarke Papers. Recovered by Elizabeth Grant and transcribed with her assistance. Very faded and severely damaged, and previously in a file of miscellaneous scraps; parts of the text are irrecoverable, and some readings (besides those in angle brackets) may be doubtful. The letter concerns Locke’s ‘Direc­ tions’ for the education of Clarke’s son, his expulsion from Christ Church, and the book De Morbo Gallico.

   Utrecht: 13c Jan. 85 a any deleted   b the deleted   c 12 overwritten

88

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

803A.  [E. Clarke], 3/13 January [16]85

Sir Concludeing the directions 〈. . .〉 I had formerly sent to 〈be lost?〉1 I have caused a new copy to be writ2 wherein you m〈ay put dow〉n the ill writeing both to the hard season which freezes even inke by the fires side and also to the hast 〈where〉with I made my boy despatch it. I put 〈it〉 into this volume with a designe to have it bound up but consider­ ing that I may probably adde to it I thought it better to leave it 〈. . .〉 for you to have it bound up with more paper of the same size then to write in ita what pe〈rhaps . . .〉 thought fit hereafter to adde or alter if upon readeing of this you doe not thinke 〈me〉 too extra〈vagant? . . . in〉 any farther on this subject.3 If this be approved I intend to trouble Madam4 shortly 〈concerning〉b her daughters5 and therefor pray take order with Mr. P〈erce〉6 that 〈. . . what comes to his hand〉c for you be sent to Salisbury Court7 by 〈a trusty〉 messenger 〈on〉 purpose, for such bulkie scriblings as these, are not worth sending by the post and yet when I have taken the pains to write them I would not willingly have them lost and now that you have all my directions concerning your son with respect to his present age,8 all togeather and I hope all

a  Interlined b  Probably concerning (as in Corr., ii. 682 and no. 804); alternatively, in reference to (ii. 675) c  Conjectural reading derived from similar remarks in no. 801 (Corr., ii. 675) 1  The sense of the opening phrase is: ‘Having concluded that the copy of the Directions which I formerly wrote has gone astray.’ The ‘Directions’ are Locke’s instructions to Edward and Mary Clarke concerning the education of their son, Edward Jr. See headnote to no. 791*. 2  There are two versions of the ‘Directions’, both in the hand of Sylvester Brounower. Each carried a concluding covering letter, nos. 791 (undated, c.late November 1684 Old Style) and 804 (undated, dated by de Beer to c.5/15 January 1685). These were not printed by de Beer but appear here and in Locke, Some Thoughts Concerning Education, eds. J.  W.  and J.  S.  Yolton, 1989, pp. 317–18. For Locke’s belief that the first copy of the ‘Directions’ had gone astray, see no. 801. It is evident from the present letter that Locke posted the new version by or immediately after 3/13 January, and hence that no. 804 must date from somewhat before the date conjectured by de Beer, 5/15 January (see his remarks, Corr., ii. 677, 681, and Yolton and Yolton, p. 45). By 16/26 January the first version had turned up, for Mary Clarke reports receiving it (no. 806). In February Locke wrote that he was glad to hear of this, but reiterated that he had now sent a new and improved version (no. 807). 3  The second version of the ‘Directions’ is now in the British Library: Add. MS 38771. For a physical description, see Yolton and Yolton, pp. 45–6. 4  Mary Clarke. 5  It is striking that Locke here seems to promise as full an account of his views on the educa­ tion of girls. Nos. 801, 804, and 807 promise such an account, partially fulfilled in no. 809. 6  ‘Perce’ in no. 801 and ‘Pierce’ in nos. 782 and 799. Probably Peter Percival, goldsmith and banker. See Corr., i. 456; K. H. D. Haley, The First Earl of Shaftesbury, 1968, passim. 7  Salisbury Court in Fleet Street, where the Clarkes lodged. 8  Edward Jr (‘Ward’) was born in 1681.

89

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

803A.  [E. Clarke], 3/13 January [16]85

of a peice pray be sure to burne mine of the 8th and 22 Dec1 which as loose peices writ upon 〈some〉 present thoughts not well agreeing with the designe of the whole will a–now I have considerd them well I feare–a serve only to distract you and disgrace me b–with you–b and therefor pray doe not keepe them. For though I pretend not to be well skild in this subject of Education yet I would not willingly have it appeare that I writ inconsistencys about it[.] I writ to you yesterday and there in told you of the rec〈eip〉t of yours of 26 Dec.c2 and all you mention before it. In Mr. Oakleys3 which came with it I finde his advice d–for the recovery of my place at Ch: Ch:4 which I have soe undeservedly lost–d more kinde than usefull. I earnestly beg that noething be donne of any kinde in that businesse till I have th〈o〉roughly considerd the steps wherein you must proceed and sent you at large my thoughts about it. In the meane time pray let noebody stir in it, e–Tis not yet reasonable–e. Suspitions in their first heat, espetially when f–one is–f perfectly inno­ cent and one knows not the true ground of them will notg heare what may be said in ones justification and I have seen soe many easy busi­ nesses miscarry by over hast for one that received prejudice by rea­son­ ableh delay, that I cannot but earnestly desire time to consider before I begin to move in it, for one wrong step in the begining may put me quite out of the way and then farewell my Students place for ever, and of what consequence that is to mee in my small fortune you know well enough. The bearer hereof i–if it goe by the person I am told is the son of an acquaintance of yours as I think and–i Intends I suppose to returne hither again in some time pray aske him about what time and desire 〈him to? . . .〉 call on you first for I may possibly desire you to send me some 〈. . .〉 of the 〈. . .〉j[.] if you desire to know how my spleen a–a  Interlined   b–b  Interlined   c All deleted   d–d  Interlined e–e  Interlined   f–f  Interlined; being deleted   g  admit of deleted h  Interlined   i–i  Interlined   j  Words deleted 1  Neither is extant, but the letter of 8 December is referred to in no. 801. 2  Neither of the letters mentioned in this sentence is extant. 3  Code name for James Tyrrell, who lived at Oakley, Buckinghamshire. Letter not extant. Locke now turns to the topic of his expulsion from Christ Church. See nos. 795, 797, 801. See no. 801 for similar sentiments to those expressed in what follows. He sought restitution but was deeply anxious about making a false step in seeking it. See P. Milton, ‘John Locke, William Penn, and the Question of Locke’s Pardon’, Locke Studies, 8 (2008), 125–69; idem, ‘John Locke’s Expulsion from Christ Church in 1684’, Eighteenth-Century Thought, 4 (2009), 29–65. 4  Christ Church.

90

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

803A.  [E. Clarke], 3/13 January [16]85

〈. . .〉 let Susan1 shew you the letter that soe much enraged her and mya Cam〈bridge Mis2 . . . nt〉b another to her since, at least let them shew you their dates and tell you what h〈eat? . . .〉 they thinke I was in when I writ to them for I assure you I was never in any 〈. . . w〉hen I writ to you though perhaps my stile was different and I writ as business req〈uired . . . m〉y most humble servicec to your Lady and the rest of your good company and my freinds in your wa〈y . . . I am〉 Deare Sir your most humble and obleiged servant JL You must remember that a good part of these papers were writ in the begining of the summer,d 3and therefor such of th〈em as refer to〉 the leaveing off any of his clothes as particularly the leaveing off 〈. . .〉ing4 his feet every night in cold water if they be not begun already must be now deferd till the warme weather of the next spring be pritty well advanced5 I mentiond to you about an yeare since ae treatise whichf you told me you had forgot,g though you and I once spent a morning togeather in my chamber to read it. It was in Octavo and the leaves as you may remember all torne. It is de Morbo Gallico6 buth the authors name is a  Word deleted   b  Conjectural reading derived from Corr., ii. 707, 717, 718 c  Interlined   d  as particularly deleted   e  Interlined, and a word deleted f  Interlined, followed by de Morbo Gallico overwritten probably with which you formerly said you forgot g  Words deleted   h  Word deleted 1  Mrs Stringer, although in fact her name was Jane: Corr., ii. 616, 685. This passage probably concerns the ‘wrath’ of Locke’s women friends at his not writing often enough: see Corr., ii. 685. 2  ‘Cambridge Mis[tress]’ is Damaris Cudworth, later Lady Masham. 3  See no. 804. 4  Probably ‘his stockings, and washing’. See Some Thoughts Concerning Education, p. 86. 5  See no. 809. 6 For De Morbo Gallico see Corr., ii. 535, 537, 606; iii. 131–2. Peter Laslett speculated that Locke used this title as a coded reference to the manuscript of the Two Treatises of Government. (In his Cambridge edition, 1960, pp. 62–4.) De Beer and others have doubted this. Locke’s remarks here do not resolve the matter conclusively but enhance the position of the doubters. Although it is not impossible that Locke read to Clarke from his Treatises, since Clarke was one of the few people to whom (at least after the Revolution) he revealed his authorship (see no. 1719), nonetheless Locke’s remark does not seem to suggest he was reading from a work of his own, and it is unlikely that Clarke would have ‘forgotten’ such a work as the Two Treatises. The description of the book as being in ‘octavo’ suggests a printed book. Further, the reference to Platerus points to a medical work. On the other hand, it remains conceivable that this train of remarks was concocted to mislead the wrong sort of reader. See  J.  R.  Milton, ‘Dating Locke’s Second Treatise’, History of Political Thought, 16 (1995), 356–90.

91

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

804.  E. Clarke, [c.5/15 January 1685] not to it[.] this perhaps and Platerus1 with some other physique books I shall have occasion to send for which if I doe I suppose this bearer will bring them but of this more hereafter[.] I shall have time enough to consider before his returne what books I shall most need for it was but just now I heard of his goeing Address: For Edward Clarke at the Lady Kings 〈in Salisbury〉 Court in Fle〈et St〉reet London Endorsed on verso: J: L: His Letter of a 〈. . .〉 de Morbo Gallico and Platerus. Recd by a private hand on 12th Febr 1684

804*.  Locke to Edward Clarke [c.5/15 January 1685] (803A, 807) BL, Add. MS 38771, fos. 51–2. This letter of transmittal is appended to the ‘Some Di­ rections concerning the Education of his son sent to his worthy Friend Mr. Edward Clarke of Chipley 1684’, which is an early draft of Some Thoughts Concerning Edu­ cation, a version of which (the ‘Nynehead’ version) was sent to Clarke in November 1684 (no. 791*), and a new version about January (nos. 806–7 indicate it was before 16 January). Printed in The Correspondence of John Locke and Edward Clarke, ed. B. Rand, 1927, p. 25; Locke, Directions Concerning Education, ed. F. G. Kenyon, 1933, pp. 83–4 (excerpt); The Educational Writings of John Locke, ed. J. L. Axtell, 1968, p. 9; Locke, Some Thoughts Concerning Education, eds. J. W. and J. S. Yolton, 1989, p. 318; calen­ dared but not printed by de Beer.

Sir You will perceive by the carelesse stile of these papers that I have minded usefulnesse more then ornament and by those2 repet〈it〉ions and disjoynted parts observable in them it will easily appeare they were not writ all at a time. I began them before my ramble this sommer about these provinces,3 and thinking it convenient you should have them as soon as might be[,] I writ severall parts of them as astay gave me leasure and oportunity any where in my journey[,] soe that great ­distance of place and time interveneing between the severall parts often broke the thread of my thoughts and discourse[,] and therefor a I deleted 1  Felix Platter (1536–1614), Swiss physician and anatomist; a native of Basel, where he became chief physician. His principal works were De corporis humani structura, Basel, 1583, Praxeos seu de cognoscendis (Basel, 1603), Praxis medica (Basel, 1603), and Observationum in hominis affectibus (Basel, 1614). Locke owned editions of the second and fourth items. LL 2331, 2331a. 2  The Yoltons’ edition has ‘these’. 3  Locke toured the Netherlands in August and September 1684.

92

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

811A.  N. Toinard, [February 1685] you must not wonder if athey be not well put togeather and this must be my excuse for the faults in the method order and connection. But that which I cheifly beg of you concerneing them is that though they were writ with the best intention and sincerest affection in the world yet that you would not looke on them under that character. Let not kindenesse interest it self at all in the judgment you shall make of them. For it being in soe great a concernment as your son let noe thing but evident reason guide you[.] I had much rather byou should finde I mis­ take in my advice to you, then that you should mistake in your applica­ tion to him[.] Be therefor both you and your Lady as severe as may be in examining these rules[;] doubt as much as you can of every one of them and when upon a scrupulous review we have setled this part and supplyd what possibly you may finde wanting I shall be ready to talke my minde as freely to Madame concerning her daughters1 if she con­ tinue to be of the minde that it may be worth her patience to heare me[.] I am Deare Sir your most humble and most obleiged servant John Locke

811A.  Locke to Nicolas Toinard, [February 1685] (811, 812) BL, Add. MS 28728, fos. 56–7. Dedicatory epistle. Printed in Locke, Literary and His­ torical Writings, ed. J. R. Milton, 2019, pp. 218–21: see the Introduction for context. Also printed in G.  G.  Meynell, ‘John Locke’s Method of Common-Placing, as seen in his Drafts and his Medical Notebooks, Bodleian MS Locke d. 9, f. 21 and f. 23’, The Seventeenth Century, 8 (1993), 245–67, appx I. This is the first of three versions of the dedication to Locke’s Adversariorum Methodus / New Method of Common-Place-Book. This English draft was followed by a Latin draft (no. 818A) and then by the version published in French in 1686 (no. 853A). The last was published in English translation in the Posthumous Works (1706) (no. 853A). As early as 1679 Toinard had urged Locke to make public his method of commonplacing; Locke had demurred, thinking it a mere trifle. The matter is mentioned in nos. 495, 510, 552, 594, 789, 790, and 796. Finally, on 14/24 February 1685 (no. 811), Locke sent Toinard a draft in English.

Epistola Sir I am ashamd you should have the trouble of askeing me twice for any thing in my power espetially such a trifle as is that you mention in a  MS has it between if and they   b f deleted, presumably commencing finde 1  See p. 89, n. 5 above.

93

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

811A.  N. Toinard, [February 1685] your last. I know you will not impute my soe slow compliance with your commands of makeing it publique, to any narrownesse of minde, that might be suspected to have made me willing to reteine it as a secret from the knowledg of others. For though I have unasked shewd it to many whom I thought likely to make use of it,1 yet the meane opin­ ion I have had of it seemed reason enough to make me keepe it within the bounds of a private communication. But since some years ex­peri­ ence of your owne and the approbation of severall of your freinds to whom you have communicated it2 makes you persist in your desires to have it published I have taken the pains to write and doe here send you the descripsion of my way of makeing collections for the help of my bad memory. Which though I have now used above these twenty years, without haveing found any inconvenience in it or temptation to alter it: And though amongst those many I have shewd it to I have met with very few who have not quitted their former methods to make use of this, yet I could never yet by your repeated instances3 bring my self to set such a value on it as to thinke it fit to appeare in print in an age abounding with soe many excellent discoverys of greater importance. However since you continue to thinke its publication may be of some use I at last resigne and put it into your hands to doe with it what you please, and be you answerable for it. You will herewith receive the desc­ ripsion in as few and plain words as I could make it, without troubleing you with the repetition of any of those advantages which made me pre­ fer it to other ways of makeing Adversaria and which I discoursed to you at large when about 6 or 7 years since I tooke the liberty to propose it to you at Paris,4 onely pleaseing my self with this one new advantage, that it gives me the occasion to shew with what deference I am Sir Your most humble and most obedient servant J Locke

1  There is no record to show to whom Locke showed his Method. When it was printed in 1686, he arranged for the production of a set of offprints. We know that one was sent on his behalf by John Freke to Benjamin Furly, and another to Toinard himself (nos. 866, 874). 2  Again, we have no record of who these were. But they are likely to have been Raymond Formentin and François Gendron (referred to, with Toinard, as the ‘Triumvirs’), and Henri Justel. See Corr. i. 579, 585–6. 3  Instances: entreaties. 4  Locke first met Toinard, in Paris, between June 1677 and April 1678. Toinard’s name first occurs in Locke’s Journal on 11/21 April 1678 (MS Locke f. 3, p. 108), and the first extant letter is dated 29 June/9 July [1678] (no. 388). See Corr., i. 579, 582.

94

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

818A.  N. Toinard, [March 1685]

818A.  Locke to Nicolas Toinard, [March 1685] (818, 850) MS Locke c. 31, fos. 69–70. Dedicatory epistle. Printed in Locke, Literary and Histor­ ical Writings, ed. J. R. Milton, 2019, pp. 234–5. The Bodleian version is Locke’s copy; the version sent to Toinard is in BL, Add. MS 28728, fos. 46–53. This is the Latin draft of the dedication to the Adversariorum Methodus / New Method (see no. 811A). Having received the English draft, Toinard, who had little or no grasp of English, asked for a Latin version. Locke reported on 16/26 March that he was preparing it (no. 814), and the completed draft was sent on 30 March/9 April (no. 818). The Latin draft dedication differs significantly from the English and is not simply a translation. Variants between the two copies of this text are recorded in Milton’s edition and not given here.

Epistola Dedicatoria. Ornatissimo Doctissimoque viro Domino N Toinard Amico suo Plurimum Colendo An tibi (Vir Optime) tandem satisfecerim nescio mihimet sanè parum adhuc satisfeci. Pudet enim harum nugarum editionem tibi toties ­efflagitanti me tam serò annuisse. Sed quid agerem? rei ipsius tenuitas satis justa visa est obsequii mora. Quantumvis enim hanc meam Adversariorum methodum praedicasti: Quantumvis utilem et gratam iis spondes qui mei similes pugilaribus opus habent in subsidium memoriae; nequaquam tamen mihi res digna visa est quae typis impressa prodiret; hoc praesertim saeculo, in quo praestantiorum inventorum copiae edendae fervente opere praelum vix sufficit. Non quod ego utile siquid habet id ullatenus aliis inviderem. Tu mihi testis, cui pene obtrusi, aut saltem (uti aliis quam plurimis quibus acceptam fore credidi) sponte obtuli. Verùm etiamsi tanquam arcanum quid inter privata scrinia tectam non occului, suasit tamen publici reveren­ tia ut inter privatae communicationis cancellos hactenus detinerem et semper si per me licuerat detinuissem. Verum nec tua in me beneficia singularia nec nostra communis patitur amicitia, ut tibi (cui nihil nega­ tum vellem) tantillam rem toties roganti usque negando obsisterem. Obstinatum me flexit novissima tua epistola, reluctantem impulit authoritas, nec mihi amplius haesitandi locus, cum jam fretus (uti dicis) non solum tuâ ipsius per aliquot annos experientiâ sed et suffragiis amicorum (qui à te edocti quantulamcunque artem accomodarunt ­usibus) tanti eam aestimes ut persuasum tibi sit. illum haud levem apud viros literatos initurum gratiam qui publici juris fecerit. En igitur eam tibi in manus trado, fac ut lubet, verum quales et quantas reportaturus sis gratias ipse videris. Literis mandatam tibi mitto, sed nudam tantum, et quam fieri potuit brevissimam descripsionem. Commoda quae methodus haec prae aliis mihi primùm de eâ cogitanti spe promisit, 95

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

818A.  N. Toinard, [March 1685] dein re praestitit, et longo viginti et amplius annorum usu confirmavit tacitus praetereo. Ea omnia tibi jam olim fusius coram explicui, cum ante 6. vel 7. annos Lutetiae agens ex jucundissimâ tuâ et eruditissimâ consuetudine reportavi quotidie χρυσεια χαλκειων.1 Si quid in eo genere dictum velis id a te potius quam a me proficisse mallem. Nec laudem enim in hac re nec sectatores quaero. Tibi paruisse sat est. Is fructus quem unicum quaero, mihi longe est uberrimus, quod sc: inde mihi nata sit occasio palam testandi, quantum tua apud me valet authoritas et quo animo in te affectus sum Tui observantissimus JL Translation by Jonathan Nathan:

Epistle Dedicatory To the Most Learned Master N. Toinard, His Very Dear Friend Excellent Sir, I do not know if I have finally satisfied you, but I have surely satisfied myself but little so far. I am ashamed to have agreed so late to this edition of trivialities, even though you demanded it so many times. But what could I have done? The very meagreness of the subject seemed like a good reason for dawdling in my obedience to you. For however much you praised my method of making commonplacebooks, however much you assured me that it would be useful and pleasant to such men as, like me, require notebooks to support their memories; still it did not seem worthy for the press at all, and all the less so in this age, when the feverishly working press is barely able to put out so many worthy inventions. Not that I would be displeased if it were useful to others to any extent. You are my witness: I as much as forced it on you; or at least I offered it to you of my own accord, just as I did to others to whom I thought it might be welcome. Nevertheless, though I did not hide it like a secret thing in a private chest, still my reverence for the public persuaded me to keep it up till now within the confines of my private communication, where I would have kept it for­ ever if I had been allowed. But neither your acts of goodwill to me nor our mutual friendship would suffer me to withstand your frequent demands to the point of refusing such a trifle to you – whom I should 1  Gold for bronze (or brass). Originally from the Iliad (vi. 236: χρύσεα χαλκείων) but proverbial. It occurs in several letters: nos. 66, 473, 1257, 2698.

96

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

848A.  E. Clarke, 20 April 1686 not like to refuse anything. Your last letter has bent my obstinacy, and your opinion has conquered my reluctance. There is no room for hesi­ tating any more, since, as you say, you are relying not only on your own few years’ experience but also on the testimony of your friends (who, having learned it from you, applied this little technique to their own purposes) when you esteem it enough to be persuaded that the one who puts it in the public domain will earn no little favour among learned men. Here, then: I put it in your hands. Do as you please, but see for yourself what kind of thanks you get for it. I have put it to paper and now send it to you, but in a bare form, and described as briefly as possible. I silently pass over the advantages which this method, more than any other, promised me when I first conceived it; which it in fact provided me; and which the long use of over twenty years has con­ firmed. I have already explained these to you at greater length, when in Paris six or seven years ago I daily changed my bronze for your gold in your most delightful and learned company. If you would like anything to be said on the subject, I would rather it came from you than from me. For I am not looking for praise or for adherents. It is enough for me to have furnished it to you. The only benefit that I am seeking is by far the most fruitful of all: that I might have an occasion for openly declar­ ing how much sway your word has with me, and how strongly I am touched to be Yours faithfully John Locke

848A.  E  dward Clarke to Thomas Stringer, 20 April 1686 (846, 849; 754, 1028) HRO, Malmesbury Papers, 9M73/G239/4. Extract. This letter includes the following summary of a letter of Locke’s that is not extant, though it may be no. 846, recorded by de Beer, but the text of which is missing. The letter is addressed from London. It opens with thanks for the Stringers’ hospitality at Ivychurch (on Clarke’s journey from Taunton to London) and, after the passage transcribed here, turns to report the king’s alterations to the judiciary, and attacks by the mob on popish Mass houses.

And I must allsoe acquaint you that yesterday I received a Letter from our Friend Mr. L. wherein hee earnestly desires mee to get in all the money that possibly I can for Him,1 and to Return it over to Him 1  The reason for Locke’s urgent need for money is not clear, though doubtless connected with his currently being in hiding from the English authorities, in Amsterdam.

97

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

852A.  Sir W. Yonge, 4/14 June 1686 with all the speed that may bee, in pursuance of which, I must begg you to give mee an Order to Mr. Percivall1 for the payment of soe much of his Annuity as is now in Arreare from my Lady2 to Him, and I will give you my Receipt for it in my Return to Chipley, my Account Booke not being in Town I cannot certainly say to what time it was last paid, But to the best of my Remembrance there was one yeare due to Him at Christmas last, which your Booke and my last Receipt will ascertaine, concerning which pray give me a Lyne with the first opportunity.

852A. Sir Walter Yonge to Edward Clarke, with postscript by Locke, 4/14 June 1686 (849, 863) SHC, DD/SF 7/9/2 (formerly 2821). Clarke Papers. No place of writing is given: it must be Utrecht, where Locke was currently living (see no. 857). Yonge’s letter is not reproduced here, only Locke’s postscript. Yonge records his affection for Clarke and gratitude for their friendship. He reports that his sister, Mrs Isabella Duke, land­ ed at Brill on Sunday (30 May) and had just arrived, and that the party was prepar­ ing to continue to Spa to take the waters. Her party included her husband Richard Duke and Yonge’s daughter Elizabeth: nos. 857, 859, etc. Yonge authorizes Clarke to make decisions regarding the building of his new house at Escot in Devon. For Yonge (1653–1731), Whig gentleman and MP, see Corr., iii. 5; ODNB; History of Parliament online.

Sir Had I not soe much to say to the company you may guesse I am now in, that I have litle leisure for writeing I should write to you a longer letter for the favour of your two last of the 11th and 18th May.3 But when you consider that I came to our good Tunbridg company4 but this evening and that at least at 〈first〉 it admits of noe serious businesse you will excuse me for not sending you a particular answer till the next time being assurd that I am Sir your most humble servant JL My service to your Lady and the young ones 1  Peter Percival, banker, who regularly appears as an agent for Locke’s financial affairs. 2  The dowager countess of Shaftesbury; the annuity granted by the earl in 1674 was frequently in arrears. 3  Not extant. 4  Sir Walter Yonge, Richard Duke, and John Freke were at Tunbridge Wells in the autumn of 1685. But Locke may be recalling when he himself and these friends were at Tunbridge Wells in August 1682. Corr., ii. 536n, 851n, 874n.

98

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

853A.  N. Toinard, [July] 1686

853A.  Locke to Nicolas Toinard, [ July] 1686 (853, 862) Bibliothèque universelle, ii ( July 1686), 318–19. Dedicatory epistle. Printed in Locke, Literary and Historical Writings, ed. J. R. Milton, 2019, pp. 256–7. This is the third in the series of dedications to Locke’s successive accounts of the Adversariorum Metho­ dus / New Method, the first two being to the English and the Latin (see nos. 811A, 818A). This is the published French version. This version was in all likelihood prepared, from Locke’s English, by the editor of the journal in which it appeared, Jean Le Clerc. Volume ii includes the August 1686 issue and probably did not appear until Septem­ ber. In October Locke requested from Le Clerc additional copies of the ‘Methode’, which Le Clerc supplied as offprints: no. 866; cf. no. 884. A translation of the French version back into English was published in Locke, Posthumous Works, 1706, 314–15, under the title ‘A New Method of a Common-Place-Book’. This version is also given below. ­Milton records two variants in the second printing of the French dedication not ­noted here.

Lettre de Monsieur  J.  L.  de la Societé Roiale d’Angleterre, à Monsieur N. T. contenant une Methode nouvelle, & facile de dresser des Recueuils, dont on peut faire un Indice exact en deux pages. Je vous obeïs enfin, Monsieur, en rendant publique ma Méthode de dresser des Recueuils. J’ai honte d’avoir tant tardé à vous satisfaire, mais ce que vous me demandiez me paroissoit si peu de chose, que je croiois qu’il ne méritoit pas d’être publié, sur tout dans un siécle aussi fertile en belles inventions, que le nôtre. Vous savez que je vous ai communiqué cette Methode, de mon propre mouvement, comme je l’ai fait à plus­ ieurs autres personnes, à qui j’ai crû quelle ne déplairoit pas. Ce n’a done pas éré, pour m’en servir tout seul, que j’ai refusé jusqu’à présent de la publier. Il me sembloit que le respect que l’on doit avoir pour le public, ne me permettoit pas de luy offrir une invention de si peu d’importance. Mais les obligations que je vous ai, & nôtre commune amitié me permettent encore moins de refuser de suivre vos conseils. Vôtre derniere lettre, Monsieur, m’a tout à fair déterminé, & j’ai crû ne devoir plus hésiter de publier ma Méthode, après ce que vous me dites, que l’experience de quelques années, vous en a fait éprouver l’utilité, aussi-bien qu’à ceux de vos amis à qui vous l’avez communiquée. Il n’est pas besoin que je parle ici de celle que j’en ai tirée moi-même, par un usage de plus de vint ans. Je vous en ai assez entretenu, lors que l’étois à Paris, il y a présentement sept ou huit ans, & que je pouvois profiter de vos savantes & agréables conversations. Tout l’avantage que je prétends tirer de cet écrit, c’est de témoigner publiquement l’estime, & le respect que j’ai pour vous, & de faire voir combien je suis, Monsieur, Vôtre, &c. 99

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

860A.  Countess of Shaftesbury, 14/24 August 1686 Translation from Locke, Posthumous Works, 1706, pp. 314–15:1

A Letter from Mr. Locke to Mr. Toignard, containing a New and Easie Method of a Common-Place-Book, to which an Index of two Pages is sufficient. At length, Sir, in obedience to you, I publish my Method of a CommonPlace-Book. I am asham’d that I deferr’d so long complying with your Request, but I esteem’d it so mean a thing as not to deserve publishing in an Age so full of useful Inventions as ours is. You may remember that I freely communicated it to you,2 and several others,3 to whom I imagin’d it would not be unacceptable. So that it was not to reserve the sole use of it to my self, that I declin’d publishing it. But the regard I had to the Publick, discourag’d me from presenting it with such a Trifle. Yet my Obligations to you, and the Friendship between us, com­ pel me now to follow your Advice. Your last Letter4 has perfectly determin’d me to it, and I am convinc’d that I ought not to delay pub­ lishing it, when you tell me that an Experience of several Years has shew’d its Usefulness to you and several of your Friends to whom you have communicated it. There is no need I should tell you how useful it has been to me after five and twenty Years Experience, as I told you eight Years since, when I had the honour to wait on you at Paris,5 and when I might have been instructed by your learned and agreeable Discourse. What I aim at now by this Letter, is to testifie publickly the Esteem and Respect I have for you, and to convince you how much I am, Sir, your, &c.

860A.  Locke to Margaret Ashley Cooper, dowager countess of Shaftesbury, 14/24 August 1686 (747) HRO, Malmesbury Papers, 9M73/G235. Located and transcribed by J.  R.  Milton. The only known letter of Locke to the countess (for whom, see Corr., i. 292), besides the dedicatory epistle, no. 523B; there are two letters from her to him, dating from 1671 and 1682 (nos. 257, 747). Enclosed with the letter is a flat and highly polished

1  The translation was made from the second edition of the Bibliothèque universelle (1687), which omitted mention of the Royal Society in the opening. 2  On 5 July 1686 (NS) Locke reminded Toinard that he had sent the Latin version ‘a year ago’: no. 853. Locke had contemplated publishing an account of the New Method in the Journal des Sçavans: nos. 811, 814. 3  See above, p. 94, n. 2. 4  Not extant. Presumably in response to no. 853 (25 June/5 July).   5   See above, p. 97, n. 4.

100

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

860A.  Countess of Shaftesbury, 14/24 August 1686 g­ reenish-grey stone of rectangular shape, with chamfered corners, about 45 mm by 25 mm, drilled with four holes, in each corner, for a cord to be threaded through. The letter is referred to in J. R. Milton, ‘The Unscholastic Statesman: Locke and the Earl of Shaftesbury’, in Anthony Ashley Cooper, First Earl of Shaftesbury, 1621–1683, ed. J. Spurr, 2011, at p. 163.

   Amsterdam 24o Aug. 86 Madam I cannot satisfie my self with haveing my thoughts always full of that veneration, and acknowledgment which is soe due from me, to your Ladyship; and never saying any thing of it. Your Ladyship will therefor pardon me, the liberty, I take, to write to you, from a place, where I have soe litle hopes of any occasion, to render you any ser­ vice; and where the utmost I can doe, is to testifie to your Honour, how glad I should be to meet with any. Tis true the Nephriticall1 stone, I herewith take the boldnesse to send your Ladyship, has such a reputation, sometimes to produce extraordinary effects, that it affords me some pretence, and excuse for this confidence. The use of it is, in pain and fits of the gravell,2 to binde it on some part of the naked skin of the arme, whereby it often helps the expulsion of the stone, or other matter out of the Kidneys; and gives suddain ease. Though I wish it to have as much vertue,3 as any of its kinde (some whereof people of credit speake wonders of ); yet I hope it will never be brough〈t〉 to the proof; and that your Ladyship have­ ing noe other use of it, it will serve only to take up some empty roome in one of your cabinets. This convenience at least it has, that it may be tryd with litle or noe trouble; and that if it does noe good, it can at worst doe noe harme. I beseech your Ladyship therefor to receive it as a thing, whereof I cannot but have some esteeme, since it gives me the oportunity to present my service to your Honour, And to assure you that I am with the highest sense of my many obli­ gations to be soe Madam your Honours most humble and most obedient servant John Locke 1  Nephritical: pertaining to diseases of the kidneys. 2  Gravell: solid matter in the kidneys or bladder. 3  Vertue: power or operative influence.

101

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

904.  T. Papillon, 2/12 February 1687 Address: These present To the right Honourable Margaret Countess of Shaftesbury at her house in St Johns Court London1 Endorsed in a seventeenth- or early eighteenth-century hand: 1686 Letter from Mr. Locke to Lady Margaret Shaftesbury with a Nephritical Stone as a present enclosed, good for stone and gravel

904*.  T  homas Papillon to Locke, 2/12 February 1687, with a letter from [William] Broadnax Biographical identification. De Beer was unable to identify ‘Broadnax’ beyond his sur­ name and his being Mrs Jane Papillon’s nephew. This person is William Broadnax of Godmersham, Kent (1671–1726). He was a son of Jane’s brother Sir William Broadnax (kt, 1664; d.1673) and Mary Digges. Sir William had been a major in Cromwell’s army and was reported in 1669 to be an abettor of conventicles. The younger William, of this letter, became a Justice of the Peace and deputy lieutenant of militia in Kent. The family network is revealing of Restoration linkages between old Cromwellians, Dis­ senters, and Whigs. Another of Jane’s brothers was Robert Broadnax (1632–1727), who served as lieutenant colonel under Lord Delamere during the Revolution and then with Marshal Schomberg in Ireland in 1690. In 1673 he helped Peter Du Moulin smug­ gle into England the hugely successful Orangist tract England’s Appeal from the Private Cabal at Whitehall to the Great Council of the Nation. It was reported that, as a reward, ‘Mr. Mouijn will get an office under the Prince and Capt. Broadnecks stands fair for command.’ Papillon was close to both men, and the same informant reported that copies of the book could be had from him. Jane’s, Sir William’s, and Robert’s ­father was Major Thomas Broadnax (1599–1667), of Canterbury, also a Cromwellian officer, who was listed as a member of a ‘schismatic’ congregation in Canterbury in 1663–4. He was patron of the Independent minister and future firebrand Whig (and Whig Jacobite) pamphleteer and conspirator, Robert Ferguson, ejected from his living at Godmersham in 1662. Ferguson dedicated his The Interest of Reason in Religion (1675) to Papillon. The Broadnax family acquired sequestrated diocesan lands. Jane married Papillon in Canterbury Cathedral in 1651. In the Broadnax dynasty, Puritan Dissent and Cromwellian military prowess intertwine, and it is an instance of how, des­pite the hostility of Anglicans and Royalists, military and administrative competence and the acquisition of church lands could propel a family into county society after the Restoration. There are letters of a ‘John Brodnax’ and Richard Baxter in 1660. There is another probable connection with Locke: a Capt. Thomas Broadnax (probably the major, above) and Capt. Thomas Westrowe, probably the father of Locke’s friend Tom Westrowe (Corr., i. 122), were colleagues as parliamentary tax commissioners for Kent in 1647. Sources: M.  S.  Ezell, Broadnax, privately published, 1995; K.  H.  D.  Haley, William of Orange and the English Opposition, 1672–1674, 1953, 100, 110; G. L. Turner, Original Records of Early Nonconformity, 1914, iii. 465–6, 776–7; N. H. Keeble and

1  In Clerkenwell (Corr., iii. 166, 407).

102

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

930A.  M. Clarke, 30 April 1687 G. F. Nuttall, Calendar of the Correspondence of Richard Baxter, 2 vols., 1991, i. 427–8; J. Gregory, Restoration, Reformation, and Reform, 1660–1828: Archbishops of Canterbury and their Diocese, 2000, p. 192. For Papillon, merchant and politician, see Corr. iii. 125; ODNB; History of Parliament online.

930A.  M  ary Clarke to Edward Clarke, 30 April 1687 (908, 1013; 929, 935) SHC, DD/SF 7/1/30 (formerly 3833). Clarke Papers. Recovered by Bridget Clarke. Answered by no. 935. This letter provides a detailed summary of a lost letter which Locke wrote to Edward Clarke on 15/25 April, and which arrived at Chipley while ­Edward was in London. Edward subsequently asked Mary to send the letter to ­London, which she did on 6 May. Mary Clarke’s letter is poorly punctuated; I have not sought to supplement the little punctuation she gives. The content of the letter is ­summarized in Locke’s endorsement of no. 924, which is reproduced below. It includes an important reference to The Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina. For Mary Clarke, see Corr., i. 168; ODNB.

    April the 30th 1687 My Deare, I receved your Letter by Thomass Welshman1 and thiss day that from London and am hearttily Glad to heare you Gott well there and found all our frends well and was able to Give soe Good an acount of our sone John, as soone as I had your Letter I sent for Mr. Hagley and Gave him the writt and your Letter and he has promissed to take Care of the Buisness and to Give you an acount. Since you went away I received a letter for you from Mr. Bulstrode2 the Contents of which I supose you know by this time by word of mouth, and heare came another for you from Mr. Locke a Long letter and I beleve a pretty deale of it to Little purpose besides Mr. Strattens Buisness3 and that I beleve you have had Great part of in former Letters, he sess he has rece­ ved Dr. Sidnams Booke4 and he wonders he heares noe more from Adryan who in his Last of an Ancient date talkes of an other viage,5 he  hopes he has Given you the Carolina Constitutions with the

1  A servant at Chipley. 2 Whitelocke Bulstrode (1652–1724), lawyer, moral reformer, author, administrator, for whom, see also no. 1206A. ODNB. 3  Corr., iii. 161, 163–5, 170, 203. Stratten: William Stratton. See Corr., ii. 186. 4  Probably Sydenham’s Schedula Monitoria (1686): Corr., iii. 92. 5  David Thomas (‘Adrian’) suggested a voyage to Holland in no. 888. See Corr., i. 283.

103

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

930A.  M. Clarke, 30 April 1687 ­addisions1 to them which he desires you to Lay up safe for him and prays you not to forgett to putt the minnitts of oconomy and hus­ bandry2 into the square box and he beggs the favor of you whilst in towne to pay Mr. Churchill3 what he has Laid out for a hatt4 he sent him; and he wonders he never receved a word of answare to the Letter he sent by him to Mrs. Perce and the lady in whose house she is,5 he ses they nither of them voutsafed him a word he would pray you If you can to Larne the resen of it for I find theareby he hopes to know the resen why the young Gentleman6 to home7 you delivered a Letter did not keepe his word with you and said noe more after he had seemed soe Earnest in the poynt and had sent to him himselfe to desire it, he desires you to informe your selfe of him and them as well as you can and Lett him know what the matter is; he desires you alsoe to consider If you thinke it convenient to have any of the breede of the Freese-land sheepe8 and whether it be best to have a ewe and a ram or 2 ewes after they have taken ram and are with young that order may be taken acord­ ingly, he alsoe sess a Great deale of trees9 and some furder orders he Gives about the tree he ordered to be cutt but I thinke it is needless to troble you about it wheare you are and besides I know not wheare10 you may not be att home agen by that time, he alsoe sess a Great deale about our sone much to the same purpose as formerly, but now I resoule never to wonder that he has Lived so Long a battcheller he being soe hard to resoule of any thing he sess he cant tell which to doe whether to be Glad or sorry that we have Gott a tutor for him or noe, for it is soe hard to Gett a Good one that it is allmost Impossoble, and if we have Gott a Good one we ought to vallew him as a Great Jewell, but he sess in truth it is soe hard to Gett such a one that If it wase to doe  agen he would put mee in such a way that I should teach him 1  Corr., iii. 74, 75, 90. These are additions to the 1682 version of the Constitutions. This remark is a significant addition to the corpus of mentions of the Constitutions in Locke’s cor­res­ pond­ence. See  D.  Armitage, ‘John Locke, Carolina, and the Two Treatises of Government’, Political Theory, 32 (2004), 602–27. 2  Corr., iii. 75. Oeconomy: management of the household. 3  Awnsham Churchill later became Locke’s bookseller-publisher; like other booksellers, he also acted as a general factotum. See Corr., iii. 475–6; ODNB. 4  MS has ‘hatt’; hence, the reading ‘let’ at Corr., iii. 166 is probably mistaken. 5  Mary Percival at the dowager countess of Shaftesbury’s house: Corr., ii. 604, 622; iii. 202. 6  Lord Ashley, grandson of the first earl, future third earl: Corr., iii. 86–7, 95, 133, 166, 202. 7  i.e. whom. 8  Corr., iii. 165. 9  Such references by Locke to stocking Clarke’s estate at Chipley have been interpreted by Richard Ashcraft as coded references to money and arms designed for political conspiracy; this is fanciful. See M. Goldie, ‘John Locke’s Circle and James II’, Historical Journal, 35 (1992), 557–86. 10  i.e. whether.

104

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

930A.  M. Clarke, 30 April 1687 Latten1 as well as any tuter of them all, I confess I cannot conceve how the Greatest philosopher of them all should make me know how to teach that I dont know my selfe, but I am very Glad hee had not thiss maggatt2 before, for of all his advice I thinke thiss of haveing a tuture wase the best and I hope will be for his advantage, for the waye he wase in would have ruenned him for in your absence he valewed not what I sed neither wase it possoble I should ever have taught him Eingliss much more Latten, and I hope Mr. Duilly3 will prove If it be possoble such a man as Mr. Lock may Like I doe not see any thing yett but that he is very soberly Inclined and is very desirouse to forward master as much as he can and in what way you will procribe soe I think now I have given you an acount of what is most materiall in the Letter but If you have a mind to see it I will inclose it and send it you, if you give me your order, at the bottom of it I find that he desires of you whilst in towne to call att the pewterers for the 4th booke de intellecta4 which he ordered to be left with him for you and with it Mr. Harolds Leace Executed5 the Booke wase to be kept till you caled for it but the Leace was desired to be sent to Mr. Straten by the first sure convayance he could meett with but If It be not yett sent he begg the favor of you to convaye it, and if one Mr. Mol6 be still in towne by home7 he sent these to8 things he beggs the Favor of you to send him a peruke by him of a midle coler betwixt blacke and flaxen you will heare of Mr. Mol at Mr. John Wards a marchant on Laurence pountney hill; I have nothing of our one9 afaires att present to aquaint you with and thearefore will con­ clude as I really am, your Most affecttionate and Faithfull wife M Clarke 1  Locke’s closest female friend, Damaris Cudworth, Lady Masham, would, at his instance, learn Latin in order to teach her son the language. See Some Thoughts Concerning Education, § 177, and nos. 1965* and 1966*. 2  Maggot: a whimsical notion. 3  A Huguenot called Fouquet (Foukett) was due to travel down to Chipley as tutor to Edward Jr (Corr., iii. 132, 165), but was too ill to go. Instead M. Duelly was appointed. It is worth recording here the series of tutors at Chipley: Duilly (Duelly) (1687–?); Passebon (1689–92), Grassemare (1693–6), John de La Rocque (1698–1702); Dubois (1702–5), Pierre Coste (1705– c.1710). See B. Clarke, ‘Huguenot Tutors and the Family of Edward and Mary Clarke of Chipley, 1687–1710’, Proceedings of the Huguenot Society, 27 (2001), 527–42; S. J. Savonius, ‘The Role of Huguenot Tutors in John Locke’s Programme of Social Reform’, in The Religious Culture of the Huguenots, 1660–1750, ed. A. Dunan-Page, 2006. 4 The Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Corr., iii. 166 n5. The pewterer is Locke’s cousin John Bonville. Corr., ii. 496. 5  Corr., iii. 166. Harold is David Haroll. 6  Probably the cartographer Herman Moll (1654?–1732). ODNB. He appears elsewhere, Corr., ii. 533, 541; iii. 166, 203, 267; iv. 317–8, unidentified by de Beer. 7 i.e. whom.   8 i.e. two.   9  i.e. own.

105

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

936A.  J. Tyrrell, 25 May 1687 my service to all our Frends Mr. Duilly and the Children desired mee to present you with theyr humble dutty Endorsement to no. 924:1   W: S: to take the whole Estate at the former rent   A power reservd to make leases on all out on lease   Q. Whether Sir W: or his sister not angry   Q Whether he hath the Carolina Constitutions with additions   W S to take the whole estate upon the termes I proposed to him   Pay A: Churchill for my hat   Q Concerning St Johns Court and Antony   Q at J. Bonvilles 4o booke de intellectu   To send a short peruke by mr Mol

936A. James Tyrrell to Robert Boyle, 25 May 1687 (932, 957; 773A, 1001) Robert Boyle, Works, ed. T.  Birch, 1744, v. 620–1. No extant manuscript. Printed in M. Hunter, A. Clericuzo, and L. M. Principe, eds., The Correspondence of Robert Boyle, 2001, vi. 214–15. The present letter is Tyrrell’s covering letter for an extract from a letter of Locke to Boyle containing an opinion on Thomas Burnet’s New The­ ory of the Earth (no. 911). There is no independent source for Locke’s letter. De Beer published the surviving part of Locke’s letter, but not Tyrrell’s covering letter. Tyrrell had sought Locke’s opinion of Burnet’s book on 26 December 1686 (no. 889). For other letters of Tyrrell to Boyle, see Boyle, Correspondence, vi. 100, 122–3. Tyr­ rell  was a contributor to Boyle’s General History of the Air, edited for posthumous publication by Locke. Tyrrell (1642–1719), political theorist and historian, was close to Locke over many years; see Corr., i. 495; ODNB; J.  Rudolph, Revolution by De­ grees: James Tyrrell and Whig Political Thought, 2002; F.  Waldmann, ‘John Locke as a Reader of Thomas Hobbes’s Leviathan: A New Manuscript’, Journal of Modern History, 93 (2021), 245–82.

Okely, May 25, 1687 Sir, In obedience to your commands,2 I have here sent you that part of Mr. Locke’s letter, which relates to his opinion concerning Mr. Burnet’s new Theory of the Earth,3 which I hope will answer your ­expectation:

1  i.e. not an endorsement on this letter, but Locke’s memorandum to himself, listing the t­ opics he intended to include in the missing letter which is summarized in the letter above. It is printed at Corr., iii. 166, where de Beer’s notes need modifying in the light of the present letter. 2  Not extant. 3  Locke responds to the English edition of 1684; it was first published in Latin in 1680.

106

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

936A.  J. Tyrrell, 25 May 1687 and since you have been pleased to give me encouragement to hold correspondence with you concerning natural things, and particularly of the air,1 I shall make bold to remark (if you have not already observed it) that the great wind on the late stormy Friday did not only break down the arms of divers great trees, but also blighted and burnt up the leaves of the trees, the blades of corn in divers places; from whence I observed, that those pestiferous particles, which we call blights, are not only brought upon us by gentle east, or south-east winds, but also sometimes with a western wind, and stormy weather, as this then was.2 Nor have I any thing else to add concerning this subject, only that this day is also very stormy weather, often intermixed with ­showers of rain, so that my barometer stands now at near about two degrees above much rain, which I beseech God to grant us, for we have great need of it in the country. I have procured some rotten wood, as you desired, but have deferred to send it, because I cannot find that any of it does does shine in the dark, which I know is the only thing you desire it for. I cannot tell where the fault lies, whether in the sort of wood (they being only crab-tree and fallaw3) or else in the dri­ ness of the season; but if you please to command it as it is, and will let me know your pleasure in a line or two directed to me at Okely, near Brill in Bucks, to be left with Robert Clarke, underbutler of Queen’sCollege, Oxon, your commands in that, as in all other things, shall be exactly obeyed by, SIR, Your most faithful, and humble servant, Ja. Tyrrell My mother4 is well, and is much my lady Ranelagh’s5 and your humble servant. Mr. Locke’s is as follows.6

1  See no. 1503A. 2  John Evelyn, Diary, 12 May 1687: ‘This day was such a storme of wind as had seldome ­happened in an age for the extreame violence of it, being as was judged a kind of Hurocan.’ 3  Fallaw: fallow? 4  Elizabeth (1619–93), Lady Tyrrell, daughter of Archbishop James Ussher. 5  Boyle’s sister Katherine Jones, Viscountess Ranelagh (1615–91). ODNB. 6  The text as in no. 911.

107

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

960A.  [H. D.?], 5 September 1687

960A.  Locke to [H. D.?], 5 September 1687 MS Locke, c. 9, fo. 15. Copy or draft in Locke’s hand, written in the right-hand column of a want list of some 55 items selected from an auction catalogue and headed ‘Ribbii 5 Sept 87’. The letter is apparently addressed to his purchasing agent, who is identified only as ‘H. D.’, who was also acting on behalf of Benjamin Furly. (The tone of the letter suggests it is H. D. rather than Furly who is addressed, though the letter was prob­ ably sent via Furly.) ‘Ribbii’ almost certainly refers to the Utrecht printer/publisher and dealer Johannes Ribbius (fl.1666–1714), and his auction, and not to a scholar also called Ribbius (1616–56), and his library, as suggested in Cranston, p. 288. Fos. 15–21 all refer to the Ribbius sale. These include two letters, 13 and 20 September, apparently from H. D. to Furly (Cranston suggests they are Furly to Locke) concerning the auc­ tion, one of which refers to items in Locke’s list. Fo. 20 is headed ‘A Catalogue of Books bought at Ribbius Auction at Utrecht Sept 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 19, by H. D. for B. Furly of Rotterdam’. Fo. 21 is another book list headed ‘B. F.’ and ‘J. L.’. These papers would repay closer analysis by those interested in Locke’s library acquisitions. The auc­ tion is not mentioned in T. A. Birrell, ‘John Locke at Three English Book Auctions’, in Aspects of Book Culture in Early Modern England, 2013. This headnote is indebted to Felix Waldmann.

Pray be pleased to buy as many of these books above written as are well bound and fair books and will come under or at the rates here set downe. Only if there be other books joyned with them, as commonly it happens in small books, then you may adde to the price here set down 2 styvers for each book in 12o,1 3 styvers for each book in 8o, and 4 styvers for each book in 4o that happens in sale to be joynd with it. Where the same booke is named twice it is only to give notice that there are two of them soe that if you buy not the first you may the sec­ ond, but I would have but one of them, except Noldi Concordantia2 both which I would have. Journal de Scavans3 from 65 to 86 complete, for these I would give toa 15 styvers a volume one with an other soe that if theyre be 20 books of them I would bid to f15 – or f15–104 for them and soe proportionably as they are more or fewer.

a  Thus in the MS. 1  Duodecimo. Books were routinely categorized by their formats: folio, quarto, octavo, duo­ decimo, etc. 2  Christianus Noldius, Concordantiae particularum Ebraeo-Chaldaicarum (1679). LL 2091. 3  LL 1589–90. 4  1 guilder (‘f ’: florin) = 20 stuivers.

108

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1001A.  Earl of Pembroke, [c.January] 1688

1001A.  Locke to Thomas Herbert, eighth earl of Pembroke, [c.January] 1688 (982, 1141A) Dedicatory epistle prefaced to the Abrégé d’un Ouvrage intitulé Essai Philosophique touchant L’Entendement, Amsterdam, 1688. No extant manuscript. The January issue (probably not available till April) of Jean Le Clerc’s Bibliothèque universelle carried the ‘Extrait’, Locke’s summary of the forthcoming Essay Concerning Humane Under­ standing. Additional copies, in pamphlet form (perhaps sixty in number), called the Abrégé, were printed, also in January (nos. 993, 995), for distribution to Locke’s friends, and these carried this dedication, which is absent in the ‘Extrait’. Locke would write another dedication to Pembroke for appending to the full Essay published in 1689 (no. 1141A). Pembroke agreed to be the dedicatee of the Abregé and of the full Essay in November 1687: no. 982. In this transcription roman and italic fonts are reversed. The text will appear in J. R. Milton’s Clarendon Edition of Locke, Abridgements of the Essay Concerning Human Understanding and Other Philosophical Writings, 1672–1689. For Pembroke (1656/7–1733), statesman and patron of intellectuals, see Corr., i. 668; ODNB. Locke first met him in France in 1676; the earliest correspondence dates from 1679.

A Monseigneur Le Comte De Pembroke Et Montgomery &c. Monseigneur, Le favorable accueuil que Vous avez bien voulu faire à l’Extrait de la premiere partie des pensées, que j’ai euës touchant l’Entendement humain, me donne la hardiesse de vous présenter un Abregé de tout l’Ouvrage, dans un caractere plus aisé à lire que mon écriture. Plusieurs de mes amis, à la sollicitation de qui j’ai enterpris de traiter de ce sujet, & quelques autres, qui en ont vû des endroits détachez, m’ont flatté que ce que j’en avois écrit pourroit être de quelque usage au public, & n’ont pû souffrir qu’il demeurât, ou imparfait, ou sans voir le jour. J’espere que l’idée des mes principes & de mon dessein, que je donne ici en Abregé, suffira pour empêcher qu’ils ne me pressent de les publier au long, au moins jusqu’ à ce qu’ils aient vû, par la maniere dont on recevra ce que j’en fais imprimer présentement, si le public sera du même goût qu’eux, & s’il jugera tout l’ouvrage digne d’être lu. Je me suis plaint si souvent de la multitude des volumes inutiles, dont nôtre siecle est ­accablé, que je n’ai nullement envie d’en augmenter le nombre. Pour ce qui est de cet Abregé de mon Essai, que je vous présente, après, Monseigneur, que vous en aurez jugé, il m’importe peu quelque sort qu’il ait dans l’Esprit des autres. Il n’y a personne, qui soit plus capable de juger de l’Entendement que Vous, qui sentez tous les jours en vousmême tant de pénetration & tant l’étendue d’Esprit; & cet Abregé m’aura servi au plus grand usage que j’en puisse tirer, en me donnant 109

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1001A.  Earl of Pembroke, [c.January] 1688 occasion de vous marquer publiquement la reconnoissance que j’ai, pour la suite longue & constante des bienfaits, dont vous m’avez hon­ oré. C’est dans cette vuë que j’ai surmonté l’aversion naturelle que j’ai à voir imprimé ce que je puis produire. Rien ne me paroissoit si raison­ nable, ni si juste, que de chercher les moiens les plus solennels que je pourrois de Vous témoigner ma reconoissance. Permettez moi donc d’avouër ici, devant tout le monde, les obligations infinies que je Vous ai, & dire avec un très-profond respect que je suis Monseigneur Vôtre très-humble, très-obeissans & très-obligé Serviteur J. Locke. Translation by Delphine Soulard, revised by J. R. Milton:

To My Lord the Earl of Pembroke, Montgomery, &c. My Lord, The warm reception with which Your Lordship greeted the Extract from the first part of my thoughts on the subject of human under­ standing emboldens me to present you with an Abridgement of the complete work, in a form that is easier to read than my own handwrit­ ing.1 Several of my friends, who pressed me to write on the subject, and a few others who have seen isolated passages, have persuaded me that what I have written might be of some use to the public and will not tolerate that it should remain either unfinished or unpublished. I hope that the sketch of my principles and of my intentions, which I give here in the form of an Abridgement, will suffice to prevent these men from exerting pressure on me to publish the complete work, at least until they have seen, from the reception of what I am currently publishing, if the public will share their view and judge the complete work worthy of reading. I have so often complained of the multitude of useless volumes which overwhelm our age that I have no wish to increase their number. As far as the Abridgement of my Essay, which I here present to you, is concerned, I shall little care about how it fares in the judgment of others if you, My Lord, value it. There is no one who is more capable of judging the understanding than Your Lordship, who daily feels so keen a perception and so strong a sense of the extent 1  The French sentence is perhaps ambiguous. Locke is very likely referring to the fact that Pembroke had already seen a handwritten version of part of the English original of the Abrégé.

110

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1095.  C. Guenellon, 22 December 1688/1 January 1689 of the intellect, and this Abridgement will have done me the greatest possible service by granting me the chance to signal publicly to you the gratefulness that I have for the long and unfailing train of favours with which you have honoured me. It was with this in mind that I was able to overcome my natural aversion to seeing my own writings published. Nothing seems to me more reasonable, nor fairer, than to seek the most solemn means of showing you my gratitude. Please, allow me to testify here, before the whole world, to my infinite obligation to you and to say, with utmost respect, that I am, My Lord, Your Lordship’s most humble, most obedient and most obliged servant, J. Locke

1095*. Mevr. Cornelia Maria Guenellon (born Veen) and Dr Pieter Guenellon to Locke, 22 December 1688/1 January 1689 (1162*; 1037, 1123) MS Locke c. 10, fos. 192–3. Translation of the Dutch portion of this letter, which was written by Mrs Guenellon; Pieter’s portion is in French. For Cornelia and ­Pieter Guenellon, see Corr., ii. 738–9. Translated by Marjolein Allen-Witzes, with advice from Meike Wrigley.

Sir I could not let this day come to an end without wishing you a happy and blessed New Year – we hope to be able to say this to you in person if we are so fortunate as to have your company in Amsterdam and, in particular, here at the corner of the Herengracht. I can assure you, Mr.  Locke, that all fiery air, both from the walls1 and from Pietie’s2 smallpox is extinguished and that it is now safe to come here. My hus­ band has written to you this week to congratulate you on the affairs in England3 and I add mine with my whole heart, but if I reflect on the loss of your company, Sir, which may obviously be for some time, and the inconveniences of travel between England and Amsterdam, I hope that you will postpone your travelling to the summer in order to allow

1  Perhaps New Year’s fireworks on the city walls.    2  Pieter (Pierot) Guenellon, her son. 3  The Revolution. Since William of Orange did not enter London until the 18th and James II did not leave England until the 23rd, it is striking that this letter already, from Amsterdam, ­presumes William’s triumph.

111

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1115.  B. Furly, 19 February/1 March 1689 us some time in your company and possibly the pleasure of ac­com­pany­ ing you some of the way. Pietie hopes to go and meet his little mistress de Clarck1 again in England and offer his services; he is growing well and is fit and healthy once again and was not ill with smallpox for more than one day before they disappeared. Sir, I shall no longer trouble your head with this letter, so poor in style and also in Dutch, that funny language. Sir, Your servant C. M. Guennellon Amsterdam, 1 January 1689 Address (written by Mrs Guenellon): To Mr. Benjamin Furly, merchant in Sheepmae­ ckerschaeve, to deliver to Mr. John Lock, in Rotterdam port.

1115.*  B enjamin Furly to Locke, 19 February/1 March 1689 (1114, 1140) From the printed text, title as below. This is an enclosure with no. 1115, comprising a text originally sent by the republican Algernon Sidney to Benjamin Furly in 1666. The manuscript (Bodl., MS English Letters, c. 200, fo. 24), on parchment, is too worn to re­ produce. De Beer printed the letter but not this enclosure, despite the fact that Furly com­ ments upon it at length in the body of his letter. It is revealing of one strand, doubt­ less not Locke’s, in contemporary thinking about the Revolution, the apocalyptic; it is striking that Furly should have thought to send it to Locke. The prophecy predicts that France (the Lily) will invade the Netherlands (the Lion). But then the Son of Man (Eng­land) will, with the aid of the Eagle (the Holy Roman Empire), enter into a great and bloody conflagration against the Lily and will destroy the Lily and emerge triumphant. Latin versions of the prophecy are extant from the early fifteenth century and are associated with Thomas Becket; it was ‘rediscovered’ in the seventeenth cen­ tury by the astrologer and almanac writer William Lilly. A version appeared in 1666: The Prophecie of Thomas Becket . . . Concerning the Wars Betwixt England, France, and Holland; and versions continued to be published into the eighteenth century. The manuscript, with errors and omissions, is printed in T. Forster, ed., Original Letters of John Locke, 1847, pp. 14–15; Forster was unable to trace the printed version and wrong­ ly dates the piece to 1686. Furly arranged for the piece to be printed simultaneously in English and Dutch; the English version was reprinted in London by Richard Janeway, as below. Only a handful of copies of these single sheet publications survive. The Dutch title is: Copie van een oude Prophetie van Montpeliers uyt Vranckrijck in den Jare 1666. in

1  Elizabeth (Betty) Clarke, aged six, who visited Amsterdam with her parents Edward and Mary during the summer of 1688.

112

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1115.  B. Furly, 19 February/1 March 1689 d’Engelsche tale door den Edelen Alguernon Sidney (laast in den jare 1683. in Engeland onthooft) gesonden aan Mr. Benjamin Furly, en van hem na 23 jaren bygeval onder oude Papieren den 28 February 1689. gevonden, en na de eyge hand van den Hr. Sidney getrans­ lateerten gedruckt (Rotterdam, ‘Isaac Naeranus, en Paulus Boekenes, Boekverkoopers 1689’) (copy in BL, 1103.f.27(16)). ‘Onthooft’ means executed. See J. Scott, Algernon Sidney and the English Republic, 1623–1677, 1988, p. 231; W.  Johnston, Revelation Restored: The Apocalypse in Later Seventeenth-Century England, 2011, p. 239; G. Mahl­ berg, English Republican Exiles in Europe during the Restoration, 2020, p. 222. For ­Furly see Corr., iii. 320; ODNB; S. Hutton, ed., Benjamin Furly(1646–1714), a Quaker ­Merchant and his Milieu, 2007.

A Copy Of A Prophecy, Sent by the late Honourable Algernoon Sydney Esq; in the Year 1666. from Montpelliers, to B. Furly of Rotterdam, and by him accidentally found among old Papers, Febr. 18/28 1689. The Lilly (1)1 shall remain in the best part, and enter into the Land of the Lion (2) wanting all Help, because now the Beasts of his own Kingdom shall with their Teeth tear his Skin, and shall stand among the Thrones of his Kingdom. From Above the (3) Son of Man, shall Come with a great Army pass­ ing the waters, Carrying in his Arms Beasts, whose Kingdom is in the Land of Wooll, to be feared through the World. The Eagle (4) shall Come from the East parts, with his Wings spread above the Sun, with a great multitude of people to help the Son of Man. That year Castles shall be left desolate, and great Fear shall be in the World: and in Certain parts of the Lyon there shall be Warr between many Kings, and there will be a Deluge of Blood. The Lilly shall lose his Crown, with which the Son of Man shall be Crowned. And for four Years following there will be in the World many Battails amongst the Followers of Faith. The greatest part of the World shall be destroyed: The Head of the World shall fall to the ground. The Son of Man and the Eagle shall prevail, and then there shall be Peace over all the World: and the Son of Man shall take the Wonderful Sign, and pass to the Land of Promise. 1  The four numbered notes are in the margin of the text, as follows: (1) King of France. (2) Holland. (3) King of England. (4) Emperour.

113

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1131A.  J. Clarke, 27 April 1689 To Mr. N. C. Sir, This Prophecy I drew my self out of the Original hand of the Honourable A.  Sydney, which B.  Furly found Yesterday among his Letters1 which he had from him: It is notable, considering the Antiquity: The Interpretation on the side were written by Coll. Sydney’s own hand. Yours, D. V.2 Rotterdam, March 1. 1689. N. S. London, Printed and are to be Sold by Richard Janeway, in Queenshead-Alley in Pater-noster-Row, 1689.

1131A.  John Clarke to [Edward Clarke?], 27 April 1689 (1130; 1167) MS Locke c. 26, fo. 70. The letter presumably came into Locke’s possession because his medical advice was sought. It is striking that the author, the Revolution notwithstand­ ing, takes for granted the institution of royal healing of the disease known as the ‘king’s evil’: scrofula. William III abandoned the practice, although Queen Anne revived it, the last English monarch to do so. The ‘king’s evil’ is also referred to in no. 1334. The signatory, John Clarke, was the eldest son of William Clarke of Sandford near Bridge­ water in Somerset, for whom Edward Clarke, his cousin, was guardian after the father’s sudden death. For the father, see no. 763A above. Edward Clarke is the probable re­cipi­ ent of this letter, which addresses him as kinsman.

London Apr the 27th 1689 Honoured Sir This is to give you an account that the Kings Evill is broke out again in the Top of my Fore finger in my left hand, and there is no touching talkd of, nor like to be,[.] yesterday I received a letter from my Uncle Dean who gives me an account that my Grandfather designs to be in London at Whitsuntide, and to carry my Brother into the Country with him, who is very well as Mr. Dingley told me this morning,[.] God be praised my hand is well, if it does not breake out fresh,[.] Sir  I  doe want new Clothes very much, therefore I desire that you would send me an answer, and a Letter within mine to my Cos. Baber3 1  This repeats Furly’s own phrase in his covering letter to Locke: ‘which I found accidentally yesterday looking among old papers’. 2  Denis Verburgh, friend of Furly and later of the third earl of Shaftesbury: see no. 2572. Furly explains to Locke that Verburgh arranged for the printing, in Dutch and English. 3  Perhaps related to Edward Baber, third husband of John Strachey’s mother, whose first hus­ band had been a Jepp, as was Mary, wife of Edward Clarke. Corr. i. 160.

114

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1131B.  [P. Van Limborch?], 24 April 1689 by next post that he may order some to be made,[.] This is all at present with my Love and service to all my Friends and pray Receive the same your selfe from him Who is Sir your Affectionate Kinsman and Servant John Clarke

1131B.  Locke to [Philipp Van Limborch?], [April] 1689 (1131, 1134) Title page of the Epistola de Tolerantia, published anonymously at Gouda in April 1689 and very likely addressed to Limborch, who was responsible for seeing the work through the press. This is a dedicatory title page rather than epistle, hence not a ‘letter’, except by virtue of the genre of the pamphlet as a whole; but it is included here so that the inventory of works dedicated by Locke to particular persons is complete. The title page says, ‘Epistola de Tolerantia ad Clarissimum Virum T.A.R.P.T.O.L.A. Scripta à P.A.P.O.I.L.A.’ Jean Le Clerc, in his Eloge, 1705, said that the first set of initials stood for ‘Theologiae apud Remonstrantes Professorem, Tyrannidis Osorem, Limburgium Amstelodamensem’ (‘To the Professor of Theology among the Remonstrants, Hater of Tyranny, Limborch of Amsterdam’). However, Limborch himself, writing to Damaris Masham in 1705, said that ‘L. A.’ stood for ‘Libertatis Amantem’ (‘Lover of Liberty’): Amsterdam University Library, Remonstrants Library, MS III D. 16–24. Limborch was, however, probably being modest. The second set of initials stands for ‘Pacis Ami­ co, Persecutionis Osore, Joanne Lockio Anglo’ (according to Le Clerc): ‘From a Friend of Peace, Hater of Persecution, John Locke, Englishman’. Limborch has ‘Pacis Amante’ [‘Lover of Peace’] instead of ‘Pacis Amico’. For discussion, see A Letter Concerning Tol­ eration, ed. M. Montuori, 1963, pp. xxi–xxv; Epistola de Tolerantia / A Letter Concern­ ing Toleration, eds. R. Klibansky and J. W. Gough, 1968, pp. xviii–xix. For Limborch, see Corr., ii. 648.

1141A.  Locke to Thomas Herbert, eighth earl of Pembroke, 24 May 1689 (1001A, 1170) From printed edition. No extant manuscript. Dedicatory epistle prefaced to An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, 1690. The book was available for sale in December 1689. Printed in Peter Nidditch’s Clarendon Edition, 1975 and many other editions. The transcription used here follows the first edition, whereas Nidditch followed the fourth. The typographic features of the heading are not reproduced; the textual notes do not record minor changes in accidentals. From the fourth edition (1700) onwards, the dedication closed with an address and date, ‘Dorset Court, 24 May 1689’. Dorset Court was in Westminster, Locke’s lodging at this time.

To the Right Honourable Thomas Earl of Pembroke   and Montgomery, Baron Herbert of Cardiff, &c. 115

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1141A.  Earl of Pembroke, 24 May 1689 Lord-Lieutenant of the County of Wilts, and One of   Their Majesties most Honourable Privy Council.a My Lord, This Treatise, which is grown up under your Lordship’s Eye,1 and has ventured into the World by your Order, does now, by a natural kind of Right, come to your Lordship for that Protection, which you several years since promised it.2 ’Tis not that I think any Name, how great soever, set at the beginning of a Book, will be able to cover the Faults are to be found in it. Things in print must stand and fall by their own Worth, or the Reader’s Fancy. But there being nothing more to be desired for Truth, than a fair unprejudiced Hearing, no body is more likely to procure me that, than your Lordship, who are allowed to have got so intimate an Acquaintance with her, in her more retired recesses. Your Lordship is known to have so far advanced your Speculations in the most abstract and general Knowledge of Things, beyond the or­din­ ary reach or common Methods, that your Allowance and Approbation of the Design of this Treatise, will at least preserve it from being con­ demned without reading; and will prevail to have those Parts a little weighed, which might otherwise, perhaps, be thought to deserve no Consideration, for being somewhat out of the common road. The Imputation of Novelty, is a terrible charge amongst those who judge of Men’s Heads, as they do of their Perukes,3 by the Fashion; and can allow none to be right, but the received Doctrines. Truth scarce ever yet carried it by Vote any where, at its first appearance: New Opinions are always suspected, and usually opposed, without any other Reason, but because they are not already common. But Truth, like Gold, is not the less so, for being newly brought out of the Mine. ’Tis Trial and Examination must give it price, and not any antick4 Fashion: And though it be not yet current by the publick stamp; yet it may, for all that, be as old as Nature, and is certainly not the less genuine. Your Lordship can give great and convincing Instances of this, whenever you a  Pembroke’s titles and offices were progressively amended in subsequent editions. 1  Locke began to draft what would become the Essay in 1671. He met Pembroke at Montpellier in 1676. Pembroke agreed to be the dedicatee of the Abregé and of the full Essay in November 1687: no. 982. 2  This apparently defensive suggestion that the book needed protection may stem merely from deference to a patron or from genuine apprehension as to the book’s reception. The Essay is the only one of Locke’s books, prior to the lapse of the Licensing Act in 1695, which appears not to have been licensed. 3  Perukes: wigs. 4  Antick: strange, bizarre.

116

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1141A.  Earl of Pembroke, 24 May 1689 please to oblige the Publick with some of those large and comprehen­ sive Discoveries, you have made, of Truths hitherto unknown, unless to some few, to whom your Lordship has been pleased not wholly to con­ ceal them.1 This alone were a sufficient Reason, were there no other, why I should Dedicate this piecea to your Lordship; and its having some little Correspondence with some parts of that nobler and vast System of the Sciences, your Lordship has made so new, exact, and instructive a Draught2 of, I think it Glory enough, if your Lordship permit me to boast, that here and there I have fallen into some Thoughts not wholly different from yours. If your Lordship think fit, that by your encouragement this should appear in the World, I hope it may be a Reason, some time or other, to lead your Lordship farther; and you will allow me to say, That you here give the World an earnest of some­ thing, that, if they can bear with this, will be truly worth their ex­pect­ ation. This, my Lord, shews what a Present I here make to your Lordship; just such as the poor Man does to his rich and great Neighbour, by whom the Basket of Flowers, or Fruit, is not ill taken, though he has more plenty of his own growth, and in much greater perfection. Worthless Things receive a Value, when they are made the Offerings of Respect, Esteem, and Gratitude: These you will have given me so mighty and peculiar Reasons to have in the highest degree for your Lordship, that if they can add a price to what they go along with, proportionable to their Greatness, I can with Confidence brag, I here make your Lordship the richest Present you ever received. This I am sure, I am under the greatest Obligation to seek all occasions to acknowledge a long Train of Favours I have received from your Lordship;3 Favours, though great and important in themselves, yet made much more so by the Forwardness, Concern, and Kindness, and other obliging Circumstances, that never failed to accompany them. To all this you are pleased to add that which gives yet more weight and relish to all the rest: You vouch­ safe to continue me in some degrees of your Esteem, and allow me a place in your good Thoughts, I had almost said Friendship. This, my Lord, your Words and Actions so constantly shew on all occasions,

a  Amended to ‘Essay’ in subsequent editions. 1  Pembroke published nothing. He was elected FRS in 1685 and was its absentee president in 1689–90. 2  Draught: outline or epitome. 3  Pembroke had been Locke’s protector at the English court during the dark days of his exile. See nos. 795, 797, 828.

117

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1160.  M. Veen, 15/25 July 1689 even to others when I am absent, that it is not Vanity in me to mention, what every body knows: But it would be want of Manners not to acknowledge what so many are Witnesses of, and every day tell me, I am indebted to your Lordship for. I wish they could as easily assist my  Gratitude, as they convince me of the great and growing Engagements it has to your Lordship. This I am sure, I should write of the Understanding without having any, if I were not extreamlya sensible of them, and did not lay hold on this Opportunity to testifie to the World, how much I am obliged to be, and how much I am, My Lord, Your Lordships Most Humble, and Most Obedient Servant, John Locke.1

1160*.  Mevr. Maria Veen (born Arminius) to Locke, 15/25 July 1689 MS Locke c.23, fos. 11–12. Translation of a letter in Dutch. Translated by Marjolein Allen-Witzes, with advice from Meike Wrigley. Veen (1638–90) was a grand daughter of the leading Dutch theologian Jacob Arminius, wife of Egbert Veen, and mother of Cornelia Guenellon.

Mr. Lock My husband had raised our hopes that we would see you soon when the Ambassador2 arrives and this gave us great happiness and led us to discuss where you would stay: here with us or with our daughter.3 Later I heard that we looked forward to you in vain, and that is why I take the liberty of complaining to you about that, with the request that you will not let other opportunities pass by so easily. I also write to thank you for your present, which shows that you live in a country where the mutton and beef joints are larger than in ours. I am sending you some dolls for the little mistress de Clerck.4 Our Pitie,5 who is a sweet child, talks about her all the time. I would have liked to send more of the same, but our Ceeste6 has not left me any

a  Altered from ‘certainly’ in ink by the printer in some copies and corrected thus in subse­ quent editions. 1  The first edition has Locke’s name here, but not on the title page, where it did not appear until the second edition (1690). 2  The earl of Pembroke, ambassador to the Dutch States General. It is striking that the Veens should think that Locke would be travelling in Pembroke’s entourage. 3  Cornelia Guenellon. 4  Betty Clarke. 5  Pieter (Pierot, Pietie) Guenellon, her son. 6  Identity unknown.

118

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1162.  C. Guenellon, 16/26 July 1689 space. There was a tiny gap left for a small box with a medal. I hope that you will not be displeased with such a humble present, it comes from your affectionate friend Maria Arminius Please present my humble greetings to Mr. and Mrs. de Clerck and the other good friends I have had the fortune to see here. Amsterdam, 25 July 1689

1162*.  M  evr. Cornelia Maria Guenellon (born Veen) to Locke, 16/26 July 1689 (1095*, 1261*) MS Locke c. 10, fos. 194–5. Translation of a letter in Dutch. Translated by Marjolein Allen-Witzes, with advice from Meike Wrigley.

Sir, I must write a letter to thank you for the many presents you sent me. I confess that I waited too long before expressing my gratitude in a letter to you, to whom I am so much in debt, that I would wish with my whole heart to send you something from here to please you. I therefore take the liberty to send you a small piece of our Dutch linen, not because I deem it worthy of a present to you, but as a token of acknowledgement of all your politeness. Pietie also thanks uncle Lock for the toy you sent him. He is getting as big and as wild as a farmer, remaining fit and healthy, thank God, and misses his little English mistress,1 whom he would be honoured to see again. He imagines he would be better able to look after her now than last year, when we had the pleasure of seeing her. I am also sending an example of typical Amsterdam cake for Mrs. Smitsby,2 but I am not sure whether that is  acceptable and leave it to you to decide. I thank her also for her present to me and will try to return her kindness at another op­por­tun­ ity. Sir, will you please let me know what I owe you for the flannel shirts, for which you must have taken so much trouble on my behalf ? I would be pleased to receive a note at the earliest occasion, or from the man himself who needs to be paid. Sir, I will no longer occupy your time with my trivial letter and poor style, badly chosen language, 1  Betty Clarke. 2  Rabsy Smithsby, Locke’s landlady. See B. Clarke, ‘The Wider World of Locke’s Landlady Rasby [sic] Smithsby’, Locke Studies, 16 (2016), 195–213.

119

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1171A.  J. Stringer, 3 and 6 August 1689 but finish by offering my humble services to Mr. and Mrs. de Clarck and Mrs. Smitsby, Sir Your humble servant Cornelia Maria Veen Amsterdam, 26 July 1689

1171A.  Locke to Jane Stringer (born Barbon), 3 and 6 August 1689 (1171, 1173) HRO, Malmesbury Papers, 9M73/672/22. Answers nos. 1166 and 1171; answered by no. 1173. Located and transcribed by J.  R.  Milton. Stringer, who had known Locke since his youth, had invited him to come and stay at her home at Ivychurch near Salis­ bury. The letter belongs to the lengthy saga of Locke’s attempt to persuade Thomas Stringer to return a painting of him so that he could have it engraved for the fron­ tispiece of his Essay Concerning Human Understanding. De Beer’s account of Jane Stringer (Corr., i. 434) can be amended. She lived from 1651 to 1740, was married to Shaftesbury’s steward Thomas Stringer from 1675 until his death in 1702, and latterly married Jonathan Hill of Cholderton, Wiltshire (who died in 1727). Her maiden name was Barbon, so perhaps she was kin of the London property developer and political economist, Nicholas Barbon (d.1698/9). ODNB. She was a member of the Shaftesbury household in 1675. Her short memoir of the first earl of Shaftesbury is of some im­port­ ance: TNA, PRO 30/24/6B/417; printed in W. D. Christie, A Life of Anthony Ashley Cooper, First Earl of Shaftesbury, 1871, II, appx 8. See J. R. Milton, ‘Benjamin Martyn, the Shaftesbury Family, and the Reputation of the First Earl of Shaftesbury’, Historical Journal, 51 (2008), 315–35, at 327–8; R. Voitle, The Third Earl of Shaftesbury, 1671–1713, 1984, pp. 99, 203–4.

    London. 3. Aug. 89 Madam Time, I see, whatever else it works upon, changes noe thing of ­peoples characters, those that are once civill and good naturd one is sure to finde soe again after a longe interruption of conversation; and freind­ ship with the effects of it seldom quite drops out of a heart that has been once truly possessed with it. The kinde invitations you send me to come to Ivy church, adde, you may be sure, to the inclination I had to that place before. ’Twold make some amends to me after the wasting of soe much of my life at a distance to have the oportunity of recollecting old storys, and goeing over again with you the pleasantest part of my life with whom it was spent. This would be some thing like growing yonge again. Twill be a sort of renewall at least of things past which will adde to the enjoyment of the present, and make a conversation by soe 120

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1171A.  J. Stringer, 3 and 6 August 1689 much the more pleasant by how much the lesse it was sometime since expected. You see how much the thoughts of your company and in soe fine a country transports me, methinks I feele the advantages of the air already, and I am beholding not a litle to you that you by your kind­ nesse thus bring Ivy church to me, for when I shall be able to leave this smoaky rascally town I know not. I’m sure I should fare much better amongst your milke boules,1 and I know you out doe the best things their feasts are famous for here, their custards: but when shall I get to them thinke you? However if I am not soe happy as to get into good air and good company, to live at my ease and grow fat, (for I know not what you may be able to worke upon me), I am to blame my cros stars for it, the kindenesse of your invitation I must acknowledg and returne my thanks for as for all the other kindenesses of your letter. There is indeed one part of the entertainment you promise me there which does a litle surprise me not soe much with the thing it self as the length of it. I cannot but be sensible that something very odde has happend and I am soe desirous to set all things right with my friends that I should be very glad to receive the account you promise me for I must confesse I am a litle amazed about the matter. But pray in the meane time deale franckly with me did not the sollicitation of Mr. Clarke or his lady or some consideration of them prevaile with you for my ­picture?2 Tell me truly, doe you put it into my hands upon my owne desire and for my owne sake? Wonder not that I am soe particular in the case. I shall be very glad to be assured how my interest recovers it self again with my old friends who are of much more value to me then pictures can be. I remember it was once denyd me upon my owne account, and I should have but very small satisfaction in a copy of it, if it must always put me in mind that I had it now upon an others account. Tis a painfull thing to have lost any part of the interest one once had with persons on whose freindship one presumd and with whom one had a longe time lived with great confidence and familiarity and when one has once receivd rebukes of that nature, you cannot wonder if the suspition be not perfectly cured by the first application. Another would perhaps be content in haveing the thing desired. But doe not blame me if I am more concerned for the kindenesse and good will wherewith it was don. Tis by that I measure the obligations I receive and should not 1  Boules: bowls. 2  The portrait painted by John Greenhill in c.1672, and the subject of a long-running dispute between Locke and the Stringers (1045, 1046, 1165, 1166, 1171, 1173). See Corr., viii. 444–6.

121

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1171A.  J. Stringer, 3 and 6 August 1689 have any scruple in this case, had there not been an irresistible way taken to put it into me. Give me an oportunity to forget that, by an assurance of the quite contrary now. I shall be glad to finde that I am soe considerable and soe much in credit again that I could prevaile for my self. But doe not flatter me in the point, your account then, should you make it longer then a month, would not produce the effect you promise. But you will not I imagin (though you are so positive it can not be done in lesse) need soe much time nor pains with me. I doe not suspect your self-love nor that your heart is deceitfull, though you tell me I may. I am on the contrary very much disposed to beleive what you say and to thinke as you would have me, because tis with sincerity that I am Madam your most affectionate humble servant J Locke Pray returne my humble service to Mr. Stringer with my thanks Madam The above written letter was finishd folded and superscribd on Saturday last,1 when an occasion cald me abroad. I intended when I went out to returne time enough again to write some other letters and send this with them to the post, but I lay out of towne that night con­ trary to my intention.2 I was vexed that haveing taken such care to write my letter to you early, that it might not misse that post, it should yet be stayd only for want of sealeing and so I lye under a suspition of being slow in returning my thanks for your kinde one. Besides I was desirous to have the suspition removed you will see I lye under that Mr. Clarkes or Mrs. Clarkes interest had prevaild with you about the picture more than mine. What you say concerning her and you in the later end of your last letter3 without date whether it ought to increase or allay that doubt I will not determin till I hear from you. I am forward to beleive we are growing towards our old familiarity and friendship again and you may be sure I shall very much value any kindenesse you doe me for my owne sake. This makes me not sorry that my letter went not away before I received your second for which I returne you my 1  3 August. 2  Locke’s Journal provides no information about his movements at this time, but it is quite likely he was at Putney at the home of the earl of Monmouth (Lord Mordaunt). 3  See no. 1171.

122

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1206A.  W. Bulstrode, 20 November 1689 hearty acknowledgements, and wish you would give me any oportu­ nity to doe you any service in town, you will finde me as ready as any body here because there is noe body more than I am Madam your most humble servant JL 6 Aug: Address: For Mrs. Jane Stringer at Ivy church near Salisbury Postmark: AV 6

1206A.  W  hitelocke Bulstrode to Edward Clarke, 20 November 1689 B.  Rand, ed., The Correspondence of John Locke and Edward Clarke, 1927, p. 27. No manuscript source given and none found. (The Bulstrode letterbook in the Beinecke Library covers 1715–21.) Evidently an extract from a longer letter. It concerns Locke’s Some Thoughts Concerning Education, drafted mainly in 1684–5, which, though not published until 1693, was evidently already available privately to a selected few. It is clear that Clarke lent Whitelocke a manuscript, with strict instructions to keep it pri­ vate. In the dedication of the published edition, Locke referred to the ‘importunity of friends’ desiring him to publish what had ‘lain dormant still in that privacy they were designed for’ (no. 1611A). Bulstrode (1652–1724), lawyer, moral reformer, author, and administrator, was a close friend of the Clarkes; he was a cousin of the better-known Bulstrode Whitelocke, Cromwellian diplomat and judge. ODNB. He is not among those listed by Locke to receive complimentary copies of the published edition. The present letter is referred to in J. L. Axtell’s Educational Writings of John Locke, 1968, p. 12, but not in the Yoltons’ edition of Some Thoughts Concerning Education, 1989. His name appears in no. 930A.

I hope this will find you, your lady, and little ones in good health, and in that perfection which your most ingenious friend makes mention of in his canon of wisdom. We generally say that bachelors’ wives and maids’ children are ill-taught and governed, but the gentleman has writ so very curiously and with so great observation, that one would think the good education of children, and consequently the good of man­ kind, had been the sole application of his mind. Truly ’tis a great pity that a piece so universally useful should be kept in private hands, and not communicated for the good of the public. But I shall keep your commands sacred in this and all things.

123

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1208A.  Sir P. Pett, 27 November 1689

1208A. Sir Peter Pett to Charles Mordaunt, earl of Monmouth, later third earl of Peterborough, 27 November 1689 MS Locke c. 17, fos. 72–5. This important letter is not only among Locke’s papers but carries two endorsements in his hand. Its author is the political arithmetician Sir Peter Pett, and it concerns his endeavour to secure publication of his mentor Sir William ­Petty’s ‘masterpiece’, Political Arithmetick, as well as two other works by him. Petty had died in 1687, leaving his most important works unprinted, although they had circulated in manuscript. Although Petty and Pett had been ardent supporters of Charles II and James II, they did not share the political theology of most Tories and high churchmen, and would pragmatically have served other monarchs, as they had served Cromwell, in pursuit of a strong and rationally ordered executive power grounded upon the col­ lection of social, economic, and fiscal data. The tools of ‘political arithmetic’ could thus be put to use by the post-Revolution regime, and Pett here transfers his allegiance thereto. It is striking that he judged Monmouth, Locke’s patron, to be the appropriate audience for his appeal to get Petty’s manuscripts into print. Evidently Monmouth handed the letter to Locke, which raises the tantalizing possibility that Locke was in­ volved in their publication, but for which, however, there is no other evidence. Political Arithmetick was published in 1690 by Robert Clavel and Henry Mortlock; it carried a licence by Secretary of State the earl of Nottingham, dated 7 November 1690, and a dedication to the king by Petty’s son, Lord Shelburne. The Political Anatomy of Ireland appeared in 1691, licensed on 11 May, by D. Brown and W. Rogers, with a dedication to the duke of Ormond by Nahum Tate; appended to it was Verbum Sapienti, which concerned English taxation. On Petty, see ODNB; and T. McCormick, William Petty and the Ambitions of Political Arithmetic, 2009. On Pett, see ODNB; and M. Goldie, ‘Sir Peter Pett, Sceptical Toryism, and the Science of Toleration in the 1680s’, Studies in Church History, 21 (1984), 347–73. This letter seems not to have been noticed by scholars of Petty. Charles Mordaunt (c.1658–1738), successively Lord Mordaunt, earl of Monmouth, and earl of Peterborough; politician, courtier, diplomat, general; several times referred to below. ODNB; Corr., iii. 573. Locke had had some personal contact with Pett in 1681: Journal, 14 October 1681. Locke had earlier shown an interest in Petty’s work. In his notebook, ‘Adversaria 1661’ (Bodl., MS Film 77) (pp. 220–31), there is a memorandum headed ‘The state of  Ireland in reference to trade’, which dates from 1673 and is a summary of ­Petty’s Political Anatomy of Ireland (c.1671, publ. 1691). Locke’s copy is unattributed, and he may not have known its source; it has been misattributed to Benjamin Worsley: T. Leng, Benjamin Worsley, 1618–1677, 2008, p. 169. Pepys’s version of the memoran­ dum is printed in The Economic Writings of Sir William Petty, ed. C. H. Hull, 2 vols., 1899, i. 211–23 (wrongly dated to 1676). This information is owed to Matthew Ward. Information from Petty’s as yet unpublished Verbum Sapienti is recorded in Locke’s Journal, 17 and 24 June 1679.

My most Honoured Lord I doe not here trouble your Lordship with any private affaires, but haveing that in my hands which may be very beneficiall to the Publick (and the concernes whereof I beleive doe take up your Lordships whole 124

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1208A.  Sir P. Pett, 27 November 1689 time) namely some manuscript treatises of Sir William Petty, I have desired Mr. Steele1 to attend your Lordship with a paper, of the Heads of those Books of Sir William Petty, whereby your Lordship may see of what great use they will be, if now publish’t. He was a man of the most profound knowledge in things of that nature, and for any one of the most strong naturall parts to equall him in the knowledge thereof would require the expence of many yeares hard labour. If your Lordship shall think fitt to send any person to me either to look on those ­manuscripts, or to take care of the publishing them, I shall be most freely communicative thereof. Mr. Steele who was Secretary to the Commissioners of the Revenue of Ireland for many yeares and has been Recommended to your Lordships favour by my Lord Sydney2 will shortly be able to entertain your Lordship with some criticall accounts and estimates of that Revenue.3 I crave your Lordships ­pardon for this trouble and remaine My Lord Your Lordshipps most obedient servant P Pett 27 Novem: 1689. Address: For the Right Honourable the Earle of Monmouth one of the Lords of his Majesties Privy Councill etc. Humbly these. Endorsed by Locke: Sir P. Pett 27 Nov 89 | Sir P Pet at a goldsmiths at the signe of the Black lion in the Strand 5 or 6 doores beyond the New Exchange Enclosure:

Sir P: P: hath by him these following Manuscripts of Sir William Petty never yet printed, namely His Master peice of politicall Arithmetick, in which he has Tenn Chapters upon these Tenn following Conclusions (vizt) [There follows the text of the chapter titles as they appear in the printed book.]

This printed will make about 12: sheets.4

1  Perhaps Laurence Steele (b. c.1616), Clerk to the Irish House of Commons, 1662–97; brother of William Steele (1610–8), lord chancellor of Ireland; great-uncle of the writer Richard Steele (1672–1729). 2  Henry Sidney, Viscount Sidney (1641–1704), privy councillor; brother of Algernon. 3  Monmouth was a Treasury minister. Ireland was at this time under the control of James II. Sidney was, in 1690, awarded large tracts of forfeited Irish lands. 4  The printed book fills 144 pages in octavo.

125

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1209A.  King William III, [c.November 1689] His Politicall Anatomy of Ireland, of which the Contents are in the Twelve Chapters following (vizt) [There follows the text of the chapter titles as they appear in the printed book.]

This printed will make about 12: sheets.1 His Manuscript called Verbum Sapienti having in it Ten Chapters vizt. [There follows the text of the chapter titles as they appear in the printed book.]

This printed will make about 6 sheets – It was written in the time of the first Dutch Warr in Charles the 2ds time.2 There is before it this short Preface following vizt. [There follows the text of the Introduction as it appears in the printed book.] Endorsed by Pett: Some Manuscripts of Sir William Petty 89. If any of the Kings Ministers thinke it tanti3 to have these Manuscripts of Sir William Pettys printed, Sir P. P. will be ready to produce them.

1209A.  Locke to King William III, [c.November 1689] (1251B) Christ Church, Oxford, MS 375/3. In Locke’s hand, undated. Facsimile online: https://digital.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/objects/d52b316c-98fb-456a-aee8-9be41cf460d5/ surfaces/36bbe6fc-a866-4b0a-9431-ffc58d83388c/#. Another copy: MS Locke c. 25, fo. 42, not in Locke’s hand; draft in Locke’s hand at fo. 41. Printed in Lord King, The Life of John Locke, 1830, i. 325–6; Cranston, p. 313 (with errors). Letter of petition. Locke calls for the restoration of his Studentship at Christ Church, from which he had been expelled in 1684. In the event, Locke decided not to pur­ sue the attempt. The suggested date of this petition is supported by a remark of Anthony Wood’s dated 6 December 1689: ‘the news here is that Lock of Ch. Ch. hath a mandat for to be put into his student’s place when[ce] he was ejected in 1683’: Life and Times, ed. A. Clark, 5 vols., 1891–1900, iii. 316. Wood was in error about restitution. See P. Milton, ‘Locke’s Expulsion from Christ Church in 1684’, Eighteenth-Century Thought, 4 (2009), 29–65. For the letters Locke cites here, see appx A below.

To the Kings most Excellent Majestie The humble petition of John Locke.

1  The printed book, with Verbum Sapienti, fills 248 pages in octavo. 2  Petty dated the work to 1665.    3  Tanti: worthwhile.

126

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1209A.  King William III, [c.November 1689] Sheweth That your Petitioner being Student of Christchurch Colledg in Oxford was in the year 1684 by a letter sent by the Earle of Sunderland1 then principal Secretary of State to the Dean and Chapter of the said Colledg orderd to be turnd out. Dr. Fell, then Bishop of Oxford and Dean of the said Colledga findeing it against the rules of Common just­ ice as well as the ordinary methods of the Colledg, to turn out any one without [a] hearing,2 or soe much as being accused of any fact which might forfeit his place, espetially one who had lived inoffensively in the Colledg soe many years, did by a Moneo3 affixed to the screen in the colledg hall b–according to the ordinary way of proceeding in the said Colledg–b summon your Petitioner who was then in Holland to appear at Christmas following which was about two months after to answer anything [that] should be alledgd against him. But this regular pro­ ceeding c–not suiting the designes upon the universities–c 4 an other let­ ter was sent the week following with positive orders to turne your petitioner out immediately which was accordingly don Your Petitioner therefor humbly prays that your Majestie being Visitor5 of the said Colledg and haveing power by your immediate command to rectifie what you finde amisse there would out of your great Justice and goodnesse be graciously pleased d–to direct–d to the

a  At this point the draft continues: thought it unreasonable to turne out any one without hearing or soe much as being accused of any fact which might forfeit his place’. fact is in place of crime deleted b–b  Interlined c–c  Interlined. Locke first wrote: not suiting the designe of an Ecclesiasticall commission which was afterwards set on foot and deleted it; then wrote: not suiting the designes of the Court upon the universities; and then deleted of the Court d–d  Interlined and replacing by your Mandamus 1 Robert Spencer, second earl of Sunderland (1641–1702), leading politician during the 1680s, disgraced and fled at the Revolution, but returned to become a backstairs adviser to William III. See J. P. Kenyon, Robert Spencer, Earl of Sunderland, 1958. 2  It is striking that Locke exonerates the high Tory John Fell and places blame upon the Court. This accords with Damaris Masham’s memoir of Locke. 3 Moneo: ‘I warn’. An Oxford usage, meaning a formal instruction to follow proper ­procedures. 4  The passage which Locke here deleted refers to the Ecclesiastical Commission established by James II in 1686, which set about disciplining the Church and universities, notoriously in the purge of Magdalen College, Oxford. Among the many malfeasances alleged against James II, his assaults on the Church of England tended to be emphasized by Tories rather than Whigs. Locke presumably amended the text because, in 1684, the Commission had not yet been established. 5  The Visitor is an external officer of an institution with a right of inspection and redress of grievances.

127

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1251A.  J. Evelyn, 26 February 1690 Dean and Chapter of the said Colledg to restore your Petitionera 1 to his students place togeather with all things belonging unto it which he formerly enjoyd in the said Colledg And your petitioner shall ever pray etc.

1251A.  John Evelyn to Samuel Pepys, 26 February 1690 Cambridge, Pepys Library, Magdalene College, MS 2421. The manuscript is bound into Pepys’s copy of Locke’s Essay Concerning Humane Understanding, 2nd edn, 1694. Transcription by Esther Counsell. Everything underlined by Evelyn appears here in italics. Printed in Particular Friends: The Correspondence of Samuel Pepys and John Eve­ lyn, ed. G. de la Bédoyère, 1997, pp. 213–15. Evelyn kept a copy in his letterbook (dated 7 April 1690): BL, Add. MS 78299, p. 625; printed in D. D. C. Chambers and D. Gal­ braith, eds., The Letterbooks of John Evelyn, 2 vols., 2014, ii. 926–8. I have recorded in notes the most significant variations. Almost all the letter comprises Evelyn’s response to the Essay, very shortly after its publication. Pepys appears on Locke’s distribution list for the second (1694) edition but not the first; Evelyn appears on no list. There are three subsequent mentions of Locke in the Pepys-Evelyn cor­res­pond­ ence, the first two relating to the additions to the second edition, the third to Bishop Stillingfleet. ‘Our friend Dr. Lock has made additions to his excellent Essay, which may be had without a necessitie of purchasing the whole booke’ (Evelyn to Pepys, 7 July 1694); ‘Dr. Lock has sett a usefull Sample for future Reprinters; I hope it will bee follow’d, in books at least of value’ (Pepys to Evelyn, 14 August 1694): ‘Amongst our owne small books but no small authors, I am well pleas’d with Nicolson’s English Historical Library;2 and exceedingly glad to find our learned Bishop of Worcester putt­ ing his hand so strenuously to the vindication of what has been the faith of as wise and reasonable men as any of our bold and late blasphemous pretenders, reproching the lazinesse of the many concerned who, whilst they should defend the antient doc­ trine, worry and tare in pieces one another. By the way, you’ll find some passages of Dr. Locke civily discuss’d, and with his deserved eulogie’ (Evelyn to Pepys, 3 December 1696). In the last, the letterbook version starts: ‘Amongst our owne little Books, but greately learned, . . .’; and, later, ‘whilst they should defend the Flock’. There is a fur­ ther mention of Locke in Evelyn to Archbishop Thomas Tenison, 10 April 1697: ‘Here is come down to us Dr. Locks Reflections upon my Lord of Worcesters late Book: I wish the Bishop well deliver’d of him; he has a very civill way of expressing his Re­ sentments, but in my poore opinion, a shrewd advantage upon some Mistakes, which I hope his Lordship will reconcile.’ Particular Friends, ed. Bédoyère, pp. 246, 249, 260

a  At this point the draft continues: to his former place of student in the Colledg and to his chamber and the other rights he had there with a liberty to be absent he having an employment in his majesties service 1  The passage in the draft (‘with a liberty to be absent he having an employment in his ­ ajesties service’) refers to his appointment as Commissioner of Appeals in Excise and indicates m that he had no intention of residing again in Oxford. 2  William Nicolson, The English Historical Library, 1696.

128

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1251A.  J. Evelyn, 26 February 1690 (also Private ­Correspondence and Miscellaneous Papers of Samuel Pepys, 1679–1703, ed. J. R. Tanner, 2 vols., 1926, pp. 95, 99, 134; Letters and the Second Diary of Samuel Pepys, ed. R. G. Howarth, 1933, pp. 242, 265); Chambers and Galbraith, eds., Letterbook, ii. 1028, 1111, 1124. Evelyn’s copy of Locke’s Letter to Edward Lord Bishop of Worcester is now in the possession of J. C. Walmsley.

So-hoo Square. 26: Feb: 89/90 Sir, I have many Ingredients towards a Lawfull Excuse, and to Justify my not waiting upon you all this while: But that I had indeede no sooner return’d you the Doctor’s1 Booke, let the Author be accountable, who had Baited,2 and Entertain’d me with so rare and excellenta a piece, that ’twas not possible for me to dismisse him at onceb Reading: And if I be not thoroughly convinc’d, that there has nothing appear’d (to me at least) written with so much force, upon the Subject which he handles, I am content you deliver me up to a forlorn condition as to Sense and Reason: I must yet ingenuously confesse, my apprehensions, least some Advantage might be taken by the Admirers of our manc of Malmesbery,3 and some pervertersd of Descartes, to the prejudice of Religion, (not­ withstanding all that Gussendus4 has produc’d). But I soon, and with no small Satisfaction, found my selfe convinc’d to the Contrary; nor know I of any, (even amongst our most learnd Theologues), who has Vindicated, and Asserted the Existence of God Almighty in all his Attributes, with more solid, and incontestable Argument. In the meane time, I was not much in paine; That Supposing, nay Assenting (with that no lesse pious, than Learned Praelate whom I mention’d to you)5 that the Knowledge of a Deity was not Connatural to our Soules (praex­ istence not admitted)e through any In-bred-notion ab initio;6 but that she came into the world Rasa Tabula,7 without the least print or

a  Letterbook has extraordinary b  Presumably an error for one, though letterbook has once c  Letterbook has men, which is more plausible   d  Letterbook has pretenders e  Text in parentheses missing in letterbook 1 Locke’s. 2 Baited: either allured, enticed or nourished. 3 Hobbes. 4  Pierre Gassendi. 5  Perhaps William Lloyd, bishop of St Asaph, with whom Evelyn dined on 19 February (Diary). 6  Ab initio: from the beginning. 7  Rasa tabula: the ‘blank slate’ image is not in fact used in the Essay, but Locke had used it in the Epitome of the Essay, and ‘tabula rasa’ in the Abrégé. It also occurs in his early Essays on the Law of Nature, ed. W. von Leyden, 1954, p. 136, and in Draft B of the Essay, eds. P. H. Nidditch and G. A. J. Rogers, 1990, p. 128.

129

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1251A.  J. Evelyn, 26 February 1690 Character on her;a for which Reason (whatsoever Crimes contracted, God might please to connive for a time, ’til the use of Reason, Complex Ideasb and Deduction, should render men without Excuse) we no where find Men charg’d with their Ignorance of God on that account; Se〈e〉 ing theyc cannot rationaly ground their Knowledge of his Existence upon Selfe Evidence: For who shall convince a person that either Denys or doubts it, by telling him he must Believe it, because it is Selfe-Evident, when he himselfe knows, that he onely (and eo nomine)1 Doubts, or dos not believe it, because ’tis not Selfe-Evident? I say, supposing so, (and as firmely I believe) Yet, that God is, will aboundantly appeare by connex­ ion, and the Apostles every-days-phaenomena;2 Their dependence on Inferior Beings, leading us irresistibly, to the Supreme Independent Being, or Nature of Infinite Perfection, the powerfull Cause of all other Beings whatsoever: And to this Sense of our Doctor, the Doctor Angelical—Deus (says Aquinas) est suum Esse, sed quia nos non scimus de Deo, quid est, non est nobis per se nota; sed indiget demonstrari per ea quae Sunt magis nota, quöad nos, et minus nota, quöad naturam, scilicet per Effectus—3 There are other Incomparable Notions sprinkl’d throughout this learnd Treatise,d Concerning the nature of the Soule, Thought, Spirits; Chaine of Creatures, (happly induc’de with qualities, senses and glorious Receptacles,f totaly unknowne to us) Of Time, Duration and Eternity; Of Space, Extension, Matter, Bodys, Substance, and Substantial formes: The Use of Words in relation to Ideas; of Rhetoric, and Scholastic Science, which he worthily explod’s, as of no manner Advantage to use-full Learning; yet so fruitlessly retain’d in Universities: Celebrates the stu­ pendious operations of Algebra, Mechanical Arts, and Experimental philosophy; and that all we know, or are capable of knowing is the pure result of the Species and Objects which we receive and take into us by the ministrie of our Senses; Simple Ideas so derived from Sensation, a  Letterbook inserts (unless we has Assurance of her Proexistence) b  Here and below the letterbook has Idïas c  Letterbook has being men rather than seeing they d  this learnd Treatise: letterbook has the Doctors Book e  Letterbook has Indued, which is more plausible f glorious Recepticles: letterbook has [italic] Abodes 1  Eo nomine: in that [his own] name; explicitly. 2  See Romans 1:19–20. 3  Summa theologica, I, qu. 2, a. 1. ‘God is his own essence. But because we do not know what God is, he is not known to us in himself but needs to be demonstrated through the things which are known with respect to ourselves, and to a lesser degree in nature, that is to say, through his works.’

130

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1251B.  King William III, [c.February 1690] Reflexion, though the Boundaries of all we know; yet such, as is able to produce infinite variety of Complex ones; and all this, without the least prejudice to what we ought to Conceive of God, and other Immaterial Beings: He treates of Virtue and Vice; the Summum Bonum,1 Of Truth and moral Demonstration: Describes the measures of probability; Of the Bodys Resurrection, Divine Revelation, and where Faith, takes place of Reason: Of Indulging, amplifying and Inlarging the Empire of Conscience and Christian Communion; freeing it from the narrow, and slavish Circumstances under which it universaly suffers: In a word, The Work speakes the Author to be of a Cleare, and Subacted2 Judgement; free, and manly thoughts, conducted with greate modesty: The style is  natural, and as perspicuous as toa Sublime, and noble a Subject is capable of: Explaines Metaphysical Notions, strip’t of the Jargon and Gibbrish of the Cloisters: In short, I looke upon it, as what may Serve for Institution, as well as Instruction, in the most necessarie, and least understood part of Real Philosophy (the Knowledge of our Selves) as far as our Attainements can pretend in this umbratile3 State. And now (deare Sir) though I should not have presum’d to say halfe of this to Mr. Pepys, had he not oblig’d me to Returne his Book with my Thoughts upon it: I am perswaded the Work will live, and Obtaine, and deserve so to do; and that when you shall have perus’d it, you will ­concurre in your Suffrage4 with Sir, Your most humble faithfull servant J Evelyn Address: To Samuell Pepys Esqr at his house in Yorke-Buildings with a Book.

1251B.  Locke to King William III, [c.February 1690] (1209A) MS Locke c. 25, fo. 47. Letter of petition. Locke calls for payment of the salary owing him from his service as secretary to the Council of Trade and Plantations, 1673–4. The verso has a certificate signed by the Secretary of State, the earl of Shrewsbury, dated 10 February 1689/90, declaring that the king refers this petition to the Lords Commission­ ers of the Treasury to consider what they ‘think is fitting to be done for the Petition­ er’s gratification’. The certificate is also recorded in Calendar of State Papers, Domestic,

a  Apparently to; letterbook has so, which is more plausible 1  Summum bonum: the highest good. 3  Umbratile: shadowy, obscure.

2  Subacted: controlled, disciplined. 4  Suffrage: approval.

131

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1252A.  I. Newton, February/March 1690 1689–1690, p. 455. Non-payment and late payment of official salaries and expenses were commonplace. See nos. 317A, 1688A, 1951A.

To the Kings most excellent Majestie The humble petition of John Locke

Sheweth That King Charles the Second having been gratiously pleased to confer on your petitioner the imployment of Secretary to the then Councill of Trade and Plantations1 and by privy seale to setle on him the yearly Salary of five hundred pounds for that service as had been don on the Secretarys his predecessors And that your Petitioner have­ ing attended the said Councill as their secretary till the dissolution thereof at Christmas 1674 hath never received any the least part of the said Salary your petitioner therefor doth humbly pray that your Majestie would be gratiously pleased to order the payment of the said Salary which is due to your petitioner and still in areare from Midsomer 1673 to the dissolution of the said Councill. And your petitioner shall ever pray etc Endorsed: Petition of John Lock 90

1252A.  I saac (later Sir Isaac) Newton to [Locke], February/ March 1690 (1332) MS Locke c. 31, fos. 101–4. In the hand of Sylvester Brounover. The text is not printed here. The document is not, in fact, a letter, although it is printed as no. 353 in The ­Correspondence of Isaac Newton, iii, ed. H. W. Turnbull, 1961, pp. 71–7, and its send­ ing evidently marked the beginning of the correspondence between Locke and New­ ton, for there is no known earlier contact. The document is headed ‘A Demonstration that the Planets by their Gravity towards the Sun may move in Ellipses’, and closes ‘Mr. Newton. Mar. 89/90’. The ‘Demonstration’ is a simplified version of that given in the Principia. Printed in Lord King, The Life of John Locke, 2 vols., 1830, i. 389–400. Another version, in the Portsmouth Collection of Newton Papers: Cambridge Uni­ versity Library, Add. MS 3965.1, is printed in A. R. Hall and M. B. Hall, Unpublished Scientific Papers of Isaac Newton, 1962, pp. 293–301. Locke first mentions Newton in no. 1252; the first extant letter proper is no. 1332.

1  Locke succeeded Benjamin Worsley, a Dissenter who had declined to qualify himself for continuing in office by taking the Anglican sacrament as required by the 1673 Test Act.

132

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1261.  C. Guenellon, 11/21 March 1690

1261*. Mevr. Cornelia Maria Guenellon (born Veen) to Locke, 11/21 March 1690 (1162*, 1303) MS Locke c. 10, fos. 196–7. Translation of a letter in Dutch. Translated by Marjolein Allen-Witzes, with advice from Meike Wrigley.

Sir I readily confess that you have grounds to be displeased with my impoliteness and ingratitude. I confess that I am guilty, but I can assure you that it is not the result of confusion how to acknowledge the politeness and presents that I receive from you daily. I admit, though, that it is impossible to be equal to your politeness. I can only thank you with all my heart in a simple letter to you, adding my son’s deep grati­ tude, who, like me, will be always obliged to you and to young mistress de Clarck1 and her entire family. We look forward to the time when we hear from you or yours and if you were comfortable in our city and in our house, we hope to see you here again, in order to show you in deed how much the whole family and I are obliged to you, Sir, his humble servant Cornelia Maria Veen Amsterdam, 21 March 1690

1276A.  James Tyrrell to [Anthony Wood], [c.6 April 1690] (1280A) Bodl., MS Wood F. 45, fo. 65. Evidently sent from Oxford; date apparent from no. 1277, which reports the sending of this note. Wood had sought from Locke, and through him from Limborch, information concerning the family of the recently de­ ceased scholar Matthew Slade (1628–89), for inclusion in the entry on Slade’s grand­ father in the Athenae Oxonienses: see nos. 1242, 1256, 1262, 1266, 1273, 1281. Locke’s brief account of Slade is in no. 1273. A pedigree was found among young Slade’s papers at his death and is duly referred to in the entry on Slade in the Athenae. See also no. 1280A. For Matthew Slade, senior and junior, see ODNB. Slade had been a member of the medical club which Locke joined in 1684, its other members including Philipp van Limborch, Egbert Veen, and Pieter Guenellon. Journal, 22 May 1684.

Sir I received your note and not long after I also received Dr. Slade’s pedigree, and allso this inclosed account from my freind concerning his Grandfather Dr. Slade which you may make use of as you please: as 1  Betty Clarke.

133

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1280A.  J. Tyrrell, 10 April [1690] for the pedigree it shall be delivered to you whenever you please to call for it: or els send for it by a safe hand; which when you doe pray be pleased to signe me the note on the backside of this paper for fear of 〈mortality〉 and pray returne it me againe as soon as you have done with it: and I will then give up your note. I shall stay here till towards Easter and then am for London, and in the meantime remaine Your servant J Tyrrell

1280A.  James Tyrrell to Anthony Wood, 10 April [1690] (1276A) Bodl, MS Wood F. 45, fo. 63. Year apparent from content and from no. 1281, which an­ swers it and which Tyrrell forwarded to Locke. See no. 1276A. The topic again is Mat­ thew Slade, but also Wood’s enquiries concerning Locke’s and Tyrrell’s publications, for their entries in the Athenae Oxonienses. See also nos. 1285A, 1925A. Tyrrell’s cir­ cumspection concerning Locke’s publications is striking, given that three weeks earlier he reported to Locke rumours in Oxford that he was the author of the Two Treatises of Government and Letter Concerning Toleration: no. 1266.

Sir I am sorry that the pedigree and note from Mr. Lock1 can give you no more satisfaction in your queryes: if I can contribute any thing fur­ ther to your satisfaction you may freely command me when I goe to London which will be between this and Easter. As for your query what bookes Mr. Lock hath published, I know of but one in folio, which came out a little before Christmasse, entitled an essay concerning humane understanding,2 as for my self, I never publishd but one small treatise,3 to which my name is not, it is called Patriarcha non Monarcha, or the Patriarch unmonarcht printed 1681 being an answere to Sir Robert Filmers Patriarcha,4 and other treatises that goe under his name. But this is so trivial a worke, that it is not worth mentioning 1  No. 1273. 2  This statement apparently prompted in Wood a suspicion that Locke had published other things, for in no. 1281 he asked Tyrrell to ‘desire him [Locke] to let me have a Catalogue of all such things whether little or great, that he had published’. 3  ‘Small’ may betoken modesty, for the book is substantial, but may refer to the format, octavo, as opposed to formal works published in folio. 4 Tyrrell’s Patriarcha non Monarcha was one of the three contemporary works which cri­ tiqued Sir Robert Filmer’s Patriarcha, or the Natural Power of Kings (1680), the others being Locke’s Two Treatises of Government (publ. 1689) and Algernon Sidney’s Discourses Concerning Government (publ. 1698).

134

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1284A.  W. Molyneux, 17 April 1690 among so many great Authours, as your booke is like to containe and therefore I shall not take it ill if I am omitted, not intending to set up for an Authour, nor had I told you thus much, had you not desired it from your humble servant J Tyrrell Endorsed: Jam. Tyrrell. Math. Sladus.

1284A.  William Molyneux to Locke, 17 April 1690 (1515*) Part of the dedicatory epistle prefaced to Molyneux’s Dioptrica Nova: A Treatise of Dioptricks, 1692. No extant manuscript. The dedication is, in fact, to the Royal Society, but it contained a eulogy to Locke and brought about the two men’s long and intensive correspondence; hence the relevant section is included here. It occurs at sig. A4r–v. The dedication and address to the reader are dated 17 April 1690, and the Society’s licence to print 4 June, but the book was not published until 1692, when Edmond Hal­ ley assisted it through the press. Molyneux sent a copy to Locke, and what Locke called this ‘extraordinary compliment’ caused him to open a correspondence on 16 July 1692: no. 1515. The publication in 1708 of the Locke-Molyneux correspondence, in which the Dioptricks was mentioned, occasioned a new demand for Molyneux’s book, and the publisher Benjamin Tooke was able to clear some old stock: he put on a new title page and called it a second edition (Southampton City Archives: D/M 1/2: Samuel Molyneux Letterbook: Tooke to Molyneux, 8 February 1709; printed in K. T. Hop­ pen, ­Papers of the Dublin Philosophical Society, 1683–1709, 2008, pp. 866–7). The dedication sets out to promote ‘physico-mathematical knowledge’ and celebrates the promotion of ‘experimental philosophy’ by the Royal Society. There follows a lengthy excoriation of Aristotelian scholasticism, its jargon and vacuity, now gradually being displaced by the intellectual revolution of ‘this last age’. Molyneux contends, however, that the universities are still backward. The remarks on Locke follow the critique of the universities, after which the closing pages turn to strictures on the necessity of hypotheses in experimental science, rather than presumptions about causation. In this transcription roman and italic type are reversed. For Molyneux, see Corr. iii. 482; iv. 478; ODNB; K. T. Hoppen, The Common Scientist in the Seventeenth Century: A Study of the Dublin Philosophical Society, 1683–1708, 1970; J. G. Simms, William Molyneux of Dublin, 1982. For Molyneux’s presentation copies of the Dioptrica, see J. R. Wood, ‘William Moly­ neux and the Politics of Friendship’, Eighteenth-Century Ireland, 30 (2015), 11–35. The BL copy of the Dioptrica has Molyneux’s list of recipients: shelfmark 537.k.17.

Yet this verbose Philosophy is that, which for many Generations prevail’d in the World: This it is, which is injoyn’d to be read and stud­ ied in our Colleges and Academies, by the Statutes and Charters thereof; which in this Particular, to the apparent Hindrance of the Advancement of real and useful Knowledge,1 do yet remain unaltered 1  The phrase is apparently quoted by John Wynne in 1695: no. 1878A.

135

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1285A.  J. Aubrey, 24 April 1690 in our Universities: wherein the first years of young Students may be imploy’d with much more Advantage by prosecuting other Methods. And, Me thinks, it were now full time (after so happy a Reformation of our Errors in Religion, and purging our Seminaries of Learning from the Fopperies and Superstition of false Worship) to being a Reformation of our Human Literature, by establishing more useful Methods of Education, especially for the Employment of our more tender years. But tho this weighty Undertaking1 has hitherto been deferr’d in them (the Reason whereof I leave to the Consideration of the learned and reverend Heads of our Universities) yet the strong Wits of many in this last Age have broken all these Fetters; And have happily advanced the true Method of prosecuting Knowledge upon solid Foundations. This is manifest in every Branch of Learning. Logick has put on a Countenance clearly differerent from what it appeared in formerly: How unlike is its shape in the Ars Cogitandi, Recherches de la Verite, &c.2 from what it appears in Smigletius,3 and the Commentators on Aristotle? But to none do we owe for a greater Advancement in this Part of Philosophy, than to the incomparable Mr. Locke, Who, in his Essay concerning Humane Understanding, has rectified more received Mistakes, and delivered more profound Truths, established on Experience and Observation, for the Direction of Man’s mind in the Prosecution of knowledge, (which I think may be properly term’d Logick) than are to be met with in all the Volumes of the Antients. He has clearly overthrown all those Metaphysical Whymsies, which infected mens Brains with a Spice of Madness, whereby they feign’d a Knowledge where they had none, by making a noise with Sounds, without clear and distinct Significations.4

1285A.  John Aubrey to Anthony Wood, 24 April 1690 Bodl., MS Wood F. 39, fo. 403. Printed in J. Williams, ed., ‘An Edition of the Cor­ res­pond­ence of John Aubrey with Anthony Wood and Edward Lhuyd, 1667–1696’ 1  i.e. the reform of curricula in the universities. 2  Antoine Arnauld and Pierre Nicole, La logique ou l’art de penser, 1662 (Logic or the Art of Thinking; the so-called Port Royal Logic); later Latin edition, Logica, sive ars cogitandi; LL 1803, 1803a. Nicolas Malebranche, De la recherche de la vérité (The Search after Truth), 1674–5. 3  Martin Smiglecius (1564–1618), Polish Jesuit author of the scholastic Logica, 1618. 4  Quoting Locke, Essay, I. xiii. 8. In the next paragraph (sig. B1r), Molyneux echoes another passage from the Essay, remarking that (Native) Americans are only ‘savage’ because of the hap­ penstance of not discovering the use of iron, for their ‘Natural Endowments . . . equal those of the most flourishing and polite Nations’: Essay, IV. xii. 11.

136

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1310A.  E. Clarke, 25 August 1690 (PhD thesis, London University, 1969), p. 470. Extract from a long letter of biograph­ ical notes on many Oxonians. This is the first recorded biographical notice of Locke (and the only one during his lifetime). It was sent to Wood for his Athenae Oxonienses. See nos. 1280A and 1925A. Parts of the text were copied by Wood and appeared in the posthumous second edition of the Athenae, 1721, ii. 1046–7. There was no entry on Locke in the first edition of 1695.

 Dr. Lock was borne at Pensford in Somersetshire a small market towne near where my grandmother Whitson liv’d;1 his father was towards the Lawe, and was a steward or Court keeper2 to Col. Alex: Popham3 who lived nearby at Hounstreet.4 ahe was a Westm. scholar and of Chr: Ch. Ox.5 Was secretary to Anthony E. of Shaftsbury Ld Chanc. who hap­ pened to contract an acquaintance with him at Astrop-wells6 aboutb He gott a good estate by his Lordship. I thinke he had something to doe at the Prize-office.7 I could easily know. he keeps his coach.8 Address: For Mr. Anthony Wood over against Merton College in Oxford

1310A.  Edward Clarke to [Martha Lockhart?], 25 August 1690 SHC, DD/SF 7/1/59 (formerly 3902) (file now recorded as ‘missing’). Clarke Papers. Partially reproduced in History of Parliament online, s.v. ‘Edward Clarke’. This letter provides further evidence of Locke’s closeness to the earl of Monmouth (it is implied that he is the earl’s political adjutant) and is perhaps the best evidence extant of Locke’s personal access to Queen Mary. It furthermore shows that Clarke could take for grant­ ed that Locke shared his party political anxieties at a time when Whig fortunes were increasingly precarious in government. Clarke feels the heat of the Tory and Church party at his back; shifting politics at court had ramifications in local office-holding. He also exhibits his fear that the Tories will return the nation to pre-Revolution ways, particularly now the marquis of Carmarthen (formerly earl of Danby) was so influential. Clarke indicates that the substance of his letter, which he had also set out in a lost letter to Monmouth, should be shown to Locke. The present letter is evidently a draft: I have

a  you know deleted   b  Followed by blank in MS for insertion of a date 1  Rachel Danvers, who married, first, John Aubrey of Burleton, Herefordshire, and, second, John Whitson, alderman of Bristol, who was godfather to the author of this letter; she lived at Burnet, 3 miles east of Pensford. 2  A steward of estates, specifically of a manorial court. 3  Alexander Popham (c.1605–69), Parliamentarian officer and MP. Corr., i. 10; ODNB. 4  Houndstreet, now Hunstrete, 8 miles south of Bristol. 5  Westminster School and Christ Church, Oxford. 6  Near Banbury, Oxfordshire. 7  An error. The Prize Office processed gains to the Crown and to individuals of captured foreign merchandise and shipping. 8  The account ends abruptly thus.

137

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1310A.  E. Clarke, 25 August 1690 not recorded all Clarke’s scorings out and interlineations, and have added some punc­ tuation, including a parenthesis. The recipient is almost certainly Martha ­Lockhart, lady of the bedchamber to the queen and close to Locke and to Lord and Lady Monmouth. For her, see Corr. iv. 122. Her first extant correspondence with Locke ­occurs on 1 September (no. 1314).

Madam By reason of my Absence from home for some dayes past, your obleigeing Letter came but lately to my handes, soe that I have not had any opportunity to thanke you for it untill now. I have reasons to lay hold of your kind Offer therein, and give you the further trouble of acquainting you that before the extremity of our danger of the French was over,1 the High-Tory Party began to shew theire resentments, that soe many honest gentlemen were made Deputy Lieutenants of this County, and others of a different character left out etc,2 and immedi­ ately made theire applications to the Bishopps, who (as if the Church were as much concern’d in the Establishment of our Militia Officers, as in settling of tender consciences), takeing Sir Edward Phillipps,3 ­notwithstanding all his Notorious Characters more black than the Inke I write with, to bee a Pillar of the Church, they presently espoused his cause, and the leaving thema out of the Lieutenancy, and making Sir John Sydenham4 Collonel of that Regiment of Foote which Phillipps formerly commanded, represented as matters of the greatest im­port­ ance, and of as ill consequence to the Church as even the Landing of the French would have been could they have made good their descent upon us, which induced my Lord Carmarthen5 immediately to send down Deputations to Sir Edward and his Party, who will never bee satisfied untill they have the scourge againe in theire handes with Arbitrary power to use it on whoever shall oppose theire a  and some others of his Party deleted 1  The French navy inflicted defeat on an Anglo-Dutch force at the Battle of Beachy Head on 10 July and had temporary control of the Channel, but Admiral Tourville did not follow through, and the Channel was again secure by late August. Meanwhile James II had been defeated in Ireland at the Battle of the Boyne. 2  After the general election of February 1690 there was outrage among Somerset Tories at changes made to the lieutenancy. 3  Sir Edward Phelips (1638–99), Tory MP for Somerset 1690–95, hailed as the ‘pillar of the western Church’. See History of Parliament online. 4  Sir John Sydenham (1643–96), Whig MP for Somerset in the first parliament of 1679; deputy lieutenant 1662 until purged 1680; reappointed 1689, until his death. 5  Sir Thomas Osborne, earl of Danby, marquis of Carmarthen, Secretary of State. He ordered Phelips’s reinstatement to the lieutenancy, but it did not occur until May 1691.

138

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1324A.  M. Clarke, 14 October 1690 designes,1 as you will more easily find if you please to give yourselfe the trouble at your Leasure of reading the inclosed, which is a Coppy of a Letter I have by this post written to my Lord Monmouth, hopeing by his Lordshipps Interest to prevent any mischeife or inconvenience that soe malitious a Party may indeavour to doe mee with the Queen; and least my Lord should by the multitude of his Affayres neglect or forgett my request in that particular, I begg you, as you can gett a fitt opportunity, to offer the substance of that Letter in discourse to the Queena whereby to prevent any misrepresentation that may be made to Her Majestie touching what I did with relation to the militia of our county, and if Mr. Lock bee return’d to London2 pray show the inclosed to Him, who I am sure will readily contribute his Assistance to continue her Majesties good opinion of mee, which I value more than any other Favour Her Majestie can bestow upon your most obleiged humble servant E: C Chipley the 25th August 1690

1324A. M ary Clarke to Edward Clarke, 14 October 1690 (930A, 1721A) SHC, DD/SF 7/1/31 (formerly 4515). Clarke Papers. As the endorsement shows, the letter mostly concerns the manipulative attempt made by the Clarkes’ daughter Betty to use Locke to persuade either her father to buy her a watch or Locke himself to buy her one. It nicely underscores Locke’s influence with the family; his attachment to his ‘wife’ Betty; and Edward’s inability to read French, unlike his daughter and Locke. Betty was seven. Quoted in L. Hannan, Women of Letters: Gender, Writing, and the Life of the Mind in Early Modern England, 2016, p. 98; A. Benzaquén, ‘Children’s Letters and Children in Letters at the Turn of the Eighteenth Century’, in Literary Cultures and Eighteenth-Century Childhoods, ed. A. O’Malley, 2018, p. 81.

Chipley October the 14th 1690

a  or reade the letter it selfe to her as you shall thinke most proper, and acquaint Her Majestie that deleted 1  Phelips had been savage in the persecution of Dissenters during the 1680s. 2  Locke did not return to London until 17 September. Locke had, through Richard Coote, earl of Bellomont, secured for Clarke his appointment as auditor to the queen in 1689: no. 1128.

139

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1338.  I. Newton, 14 November 1690 My Deare I did not write soe soone to you as I should for want of an opertu­ nity of sending and besides I had a mind to heare from you before I writ which wase the true resin that you had noe Letter before I had yours of the 11th instant but now I hope by thiss time my Letters are come safe to your hands and alsoe that I inclosed to Mrs. Smithsby and Mr. Trent,1 I am very Glad to heare you are well I thanke God we are all soe which is all I have to aquaint you with more then that your sone being att the drawer wheare your watch was one day when I pulled it out wase very disirouse that he might be soe much a man as to have the keeping of it till you come home and upon Condition that he would be good in all things else and take care of it I did Grant his request, which has made Betty soe impatient for a watch two that nothing would serve her but she would write to her Father by the very next post to desire him to by her one alsoe but we all perswaded her it would be to noe purpose for that he had soe many uses for his money that he would not doe it soe then she considered she would write to you in French and then she sed you must shew it to Mr. Locke to interpret it by which meanes he would know she had a mind to such a thing and if you did not bye it she beleived he would, she pleased her selfe much with this peice of craft but I tell her it will never take. She with all the rest present you with their duty and their service to Mr. Locke and mounsieur2 and my sister3 the same, noe more att present but that I am Your affectionate and Faithfull wife M Clarke Endorsed: Mrs. Clarke’s Letter of Betty’s Contrivance to get a Watch of Mr. Locke. Recd the 17th October 1690.

1338*.  I saac (later Sir Isaac) Newton to Locke, 14 November 1690 (1332, 1357) BL, MS Locke c. 16, fo. 138. The letter printed by de Beer is Newton’s covering letter for an important enclosure, his treatise An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions in Scripture. While de Beer was right not to print this lengthy enclosure, not least be­ cause it is a free-standing treatise, he failed even to give it its title, so the reader of the Correspondence may miss its significance. In the treatise Newton takes up a textual issue that had vexed biblical scholars since the time of Erasmus: the absence in surviving Greek manuscripts for the ‘Johannine Comma’, a phrase in 1 John 5:7 which comes 1  George Trent, of Ditton, Surrey, whose wife, ‘Nurse’ Trent, looked after the Clarke children. 2  M. Passebon, the Huguenot tutor.    3  Probably her sister-in-law Ursula Venner.

140

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1353B.  M. Clarke, 19 January 1691 closest in the Bible to attesting a doctrine of the Trinity. Newton concluded that the Comma was a false interpolation, a view that consorted with his Socinian (or, rather, Arian) beliefs. Although Newton intended publication and Locke forwarded it to Jean Le Clerc for this purpose, it did not appear in print until 1754 (partially) and 1785 ­(fully). Some interpreters have assumed that the treatise was directly addressed to Locke, rather than to a generalized fictive reader, one scholar indeed calling the whole treatise Newton’s ‘letter to Locke’. The treatise opens as follows: ‘Sir, since the dis­courses of some late writers have raised in you a curiosity of knowing the truth of that text of Scripture concerning the testimony of the three in heaven, 1 John v.7, I have here sent you an account of what the reading has been in all ages, and by what steps it has been changed, so far as I can determine by records. And I have done it the more freely, be­ cause to you, who understand the many abuses which they of the Roman church have put upon the world, it will scarce be ungrateful to be convinced of one more than is commonly believed. For although the more learned and quick-sighted men, as Luther, Erasmus, Bullinger, Grotius, and some others, would not dissemble their knowledge, yet the generality are fond of the place [i.e. the clause] for its making against heresy.’ The 1754 editor assumed the addressee was Le Clerc, for the printed version was given the title Two Letters of Sir Isaac Newton to Mr. Le Clerc. For discussion, see G. McDon­ ald, Biblical Criticism in Early Modern Europe: Erasmus, the Johannine Comma, and Trinitarian Debate, 2016, pp. 159–81; R. Iliffe, Priest of Nature: The Religious Worlds of Isaac Newton, 2017, ch. 11 (quotation at pp. 374, 380). The text of the Historical ­Account is given in The Correspondence of Isaac Newton, iii, ed. H. W. Turnbull, 1961, pp. 83–129 (no. 358). It is conceivable that a further document (Newton, Cor­res­pond­ ence, iii. 129–44; no. 359) was intended for Locke. Newton’s cover­ing letter, no. 1338 in de Beer, is no. 357 in the Newton Correspondence.

1353B.  M ary Clarke to [Ursula Venner], 19 January 1691 SHC, DD/SF 7/1/15 (formerly 3110). Clarke Papers. Concerns Locke’s advice about children abed together. The children referred to are John ( Jack) (b. 1685) and Mary (Moll, Molly) (b. 1688). Ursula Venner was Edward Clarke’s sister, married to ­Gustavus Venner.

January the 19th 1691 Dear Sister I receved yours and am very glad to heare that the pleasure of Christmas has wrought such a cure upon you, and what I have now to begg of you is that as soone as conveniently you can after this comes to your hands, that you would be pleased to order Mr. Edwards little beadsteede and all that belongs to it to be brought downe into the nursery, and the head of it placed against the dore that goes into the little roome that Cattren1 and Moll used to lye, that I thinke being 1  Presumably a servant.

141

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1353B.  M. Clarke, 19 January 1691 the warmest and most convenient place for it to stand in, in the roome, theare being noe occasion now to goe in and out at that dore for the wood what they want may be brought the other way. Mr. Locke did formerly advise me never to lett my boyes lye with the femall sex after they weare become old enough not to be taken care of in the nights, and has now repeated it agen, what his resen is for it I know nott, but in persuance of his desires, I did leave orders in my paper of directions that John Spreat1 should be Jackes constant bead fellow in my absence, but those nights he did chance to lye from home upon buisness which I thought then would have happened very seldome, but when it did, hee was to lye with Dorcass2 because I thought Molly and Jacke would disturbe one the other, but now the scene is changed and his beadfellow has otherways disposed of himselfe, and I am apt to beleive I have noe more reson to depend on him then I thought I should, for I feare he is faine to doble his diligence a nights for the time he spends there a days, for I sopose the widdow cannot bee satisffied till she lookes as bigg as you say the rest of her knaybourghs does, and it is best resen she should have a penyworth for her peny, and thearefore I desire that Jack may lye constantly by himselfe in that bead till I come home oth­ erways to dispose of him, for John Spreat writt me word that Dorcass had bin extream ill but is pretty well agen, but however I would nott have Jacke lye with her agen for she may be weake and apt to swett and other incovenienceyes may happen, soe that I would have him lye with noebody, nor noe otherways then I have hearein directed, by which meanes he nor I neither need nott be beholding to any body, nor he neede be subiectt to soe much change of bead fellowes, which may be to his prejudice; I sopose I am not taken for a fond mother by any body, but I thinke it my duty besides my inclination induces me to have all the tenderness and care of my children as is possible, and I should not forgive my selfe if I should permitt any thinge that was to theyr prejud­ ish for the sake of any person whatsoever, espeshally since I find by every days experiance that the generallity of people are most concerned for them selves. My 2 girles have bin placed out att a French scoole about a weeke3 and doe thinke Mr. Clarke is now come to a resolution of placeing out his sone heare alsoe, it being to noe purpose to lett him 1 The Clarkes’ steward (1664–1733). See  B.  Clarke, ‘John Spreat, Steward at Chipley, Somerset, from 1689–1720s’, Somerset Archaeology and Natural History, 146 (2004), 41–51. 2  Presumably Spreat’s wife. 3  Betty and Anne were at M. Desgaloniere’s school in London.

142

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1416A.  Lady Masham, 18 September 1691 drone away his prime time in a place wheare thear is noe conversation for his advantage. I could if I might wish the others wass heare too but wishing will not bring any thing to pass. I pray God to Bless and directt them and us for the best and preserve you and yours, which with my humble service is the conclusion of this long scrole from Dear sister Your most affectionate sister and servant M Clarke My service to all my friends January the 19th 1691 I am heartily glad to heare that Mrs. Betty Dike1 is married agen to the man she has soe long loved and waited for, and to have him att last sure is the greatest happiness this world can aford, and a dispoyntment of that kind the greatest affliction; I wish her more Joy then she has if pos­ sible; etc.

1416A.  L ady Masham, formerly Damaris Cudworth, to Edward Clarke, 18 September 1691 (1416) Cambridge, King’s College, Keynes Collection, MS PP/87/41/1. Not in Masham’s hand, but with autograph corrections, and signed by her; the variants are not record­ ed here. Transcribed by Esther Counsell. Answers no. 1416. It chiefly concerns the planned visit of Clarke’s son Edward to Oates so that Locke could observe him.

Oates Sir I am so little capable of expressing to my Friends my Esteem and Acknowledgements by payeing them any real service, that I could not imagine how I could be so happy as to have it in my power to be of any use to you; till your Letter explain’d your request to me, and let me see you only ask’d Leave to doe me a favour: Without any Complement: I Look upon it as a new Obligation that I have to you that you will trust Master with me;2 whose stay with me, the Longer it is, I shall be the

1  Not identified. 2  Clarke’s request was that his eldest son, ten-year-old Edward Jr (Ward), together with his tutor Passebon, should spend ‘a few days’ at Oates, so that Locke could observe what progress he had made and ‘the tutors conduct in the management and education of him’. Locke brought them to Oates on 21 November, where they remained until 7 December. Locke was disturbed by Ward’s lack of progress, early inklings of the boy’s unsteady mental health. Nos. 1416, 1431, 1433, 1435, 1436.

143

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1416A.  Lady Masham, 18 September 1691 more Oblig’d; and I promise you that I shall not take less care of him then of my own: He was almost the only Child I ever Lov’d before I  had any,1 and I was not pleas’d to find when I saw him last that absence had made him so much forgett me; for we use to be very good Friends; But I hope we shall now renew our kindness; I am sure I had always a very great Inclination to Love him on his own account, as well as his Father and Mothers; to whom all the service I could pay (if that were a great deale more in my power then it is likely) would be too little to express the sense that I have of those many favours and Obligations that I have receiv’d; which if the manner they are done in, did not as much Oblidge as their otherwise real value, I should be the most out of countenance in the world to be so much indebted, who have nothing to return for the continued troubles I have given you,2 but insignifi­ cant Thanks, and assurances that no one whatsoever would be more pleas’d with the occasion and opportunitie of serveing another then I should be if I should ever be capable of being any way usefull to you, or any of yours. I am very sory to understand that Mrs. Clark is so much indispos’d, but I hope however she may not have the worse Lyeing Inn, I heartilie wish her a good one and hope when shee is up again not only for the happyness of seeing you here, but alsoe that she will doe us that favour, which we have Long had her promise for.3 Before this comes to your hands I doubt not but you will see Mr. Locke, who can the best assure you: how little he thinks it a trouble to doe anything which you desire of him; But if there needed a greater Interest then your own to induce him, I should Dispaire to make trial of mine. When he returns I shall hope to see your Son and his Tutor with him; for whose Company as well as to you I shall think my self Oblidg’d to Mrs. Clarke, to whom pray doe us the favour to present my Mothers4 and my hum­ ble Service. My Mother with Hers to your Self desires me also to return you her humble thanks. I am Sir Your Very Affectionate Oblidged Humble Servant Da Masham

1  Her own child, Francis Cudworth Masham, was born in 1686. 2  Clarke managed some of Lady Masham’s financial affairs. 3  Mary Clarke gave birth to her ninth child, Jepp, on 6 October. Locke sent his wishes to mother and son on 9 October: no. 1418. 4 Also named Damaris, widow of the philosopher and Master of Christ’s College, Cambridge, Ralph Cudworth. She lived near Oates until her death in 1695.

144

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1417A.  [E. Clarke], [c.21 September 1691] September the 18th / 91 Pray give my Service if you please to Mr. Locke. Address: For Edward Clarke Esquire: Member of Parliament: at Mrs. Henmans over against little turn stile in Holborn. Free London. Postmark: SE 21 Endorsed by Clarke: The Lady Marsham’s Lett Read vii October 1691

1417A.  Locke to [Edward Clarke], [c.21 September 1691] (1415, 1418) SHC, DD/SF 7/1/66 (formerly 2647). Clarke Papers. Masham Trust. The surviving parts of the letter are severely damaged. Too little coherent text can be salvaged to make it worth attempting to provide a transcription here, especially given the tech­ nical arcana of the subject matter. The letter concerns the financial affairs and draft will of Mrs Damaris Cudworth (née Cradock), who lived close to Oates at Matching, having removed there on the death of her husband, the philosopher Ralph Cudworth, to be near her daughter Damaris Masham. The document evidently is a letter (e.g. ‘pray do me the favour to send me an answer to these . . . I have also sent herewith’); the handwriting is unmistakeably Locke’s; the recipient is certainly Clarke – given its presence among Clarke’s papers and his involvement in Mrs Cudworth’s affairs. The date is deducible from a remark that Margaret Masham, Damaris’s sister-in-law, ‘is now or will be some time this week married’: on 21 September 1691 she married the cler­ gyman Anthony Walker (see ODNB). The letter has two aspects. The first concerns Mrs Cudworth’s lands: her tenants (and the rebuilding of a house, burnt down by the carelessness of a tenant); encumbrances upon a property; and a £600 mortgage involv­ ing Sir Francis and his sister Margaret, apparently occasioned by her marriage. There are references to Mrs Cudworth’s trustees, one of whom is named, Richard Andrewes, her son by her first marriage; another was Sir Paul Whichcote (see Corr., no. 1467). The second aspect is the proposed terms of Mrs Cudworth’s will, whose chief bene­ ficiaries were apparently to be Richard Andrewes and his half-sister Damaris. It was her ‘earnest desire’ that her real estate be not sold by them ‘unless absolute necessity shall require them to doe it’. It is clear from Locke’s Journal and the wider cor­res­pond­ ence that he had regular financial dealings with Mrs Cudworth from the time that he settled at Oates; he, Clarke, and Bishop Edward Fowler were designated trustees (presumably under the will now being drafted) for Damaris Masham’s inheritance; the present letter declares, of Clarke’s advice, ‘your counsil and management she depends on’. Mrs Cudworth died on 15 November 1695; she bequeathed to Locke a candlestick and snuffers. There is another letter corresponding to the present one: no. 1467 (Locke to Clarke, 20 February 1692), which refers to the same £600 mortgage involving Sir Francis and Margaret Masham. Fowler (1632–1714) was bishop of Gloucester from 1691: Corr., i. 83; ODNB.

145

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1428A.  [Sir J. Somers?], 7 November 1691

1428A.  Locke to [Sir John Somers, later Baron Somers?], 7 November 1691 (1255, 1946) Dedicatory epistle prefaced to Some Considerations of the Consequences of the Lowering of Interest, and Raising the Value of Money, 1692. Printed in Locke on Money, ed. P. H. Kelly, 2 vols., 1991, i. 209–10, where fuller annotation may be found. I have followed the first edition, whereas Kelly follows the second of 1696; with one exception, the changes are only of accidentals. There is a manuscript draft in MS Locke d. 2, printed by Kelly, pp. 503–4. Though the imprint is ‘1692’, the tract was available by early December 1691; Locke told Edward Clarke on 21 October that the tract was almost complete: no. 1423. No dedicatee is named. The letter, as well as the dedication, begins ‘Sir’, and the title page declares the tract to be ‘A letter sent to a Member of Parliament’. That the dedicatee was Somers is a long-established tradition. Among Locke’s papers is a Somers memorandum on coinage, dating from late 1690. Locke’s supplementary tract, Further Considerations, 1696, is explicitly dedicated to Somers and contains verbal parallels with this: no. 1975A. The Italian translation of 1751 declares the tract to be ‘al Signore Giovanni Sommer’. Yet Kelly concludes that ‘it is unlikely that the dedicatee . . . is to be identified as a specific person’ (pp. 18–19, 209n); he also regards Locke’s dedication as ‘unreliable’ as an account of the circumstances leading to publication. The tract had its origin in a paper on interest Locke wrote in 1668, to which the dedication alludes. For the 1668 tract there exists a shorthand fragment which appears to be part of a dedication, probably to the earl of Shaftesbury: no. 230A. For Somers, see Corr., i. 113n; ODNB; W. L. Sachse, Lord Somers: A Political Portrait, 1975. He was at this time solicitor general. In this transcription roman and italic fonts are reversed.

Sir, These Notions, concerning Coinage, having for the main, as you know, been put into Writing above Twelve Months since;1 as those other concerning Interest, a great deal above so many years: I put them now again into your hands, with a Liberty (since you will have it so) to communicate them farther, as you please. If, upon a Review, you ­continue your favourable Opinion of them, and nothing less than Publishing will satisfie you,2 I must desire you to remember, That you must be answerable to the World for the Stile; which is such as a Man writes carelessly to a Friend, when he seeks Truth, not Ornament; and studies only to be in the right, and to be understood. I have, since you saw them last year, met with some new Objections in Print which I  have endeavoured to remove; and particularly, I have taken into 1 Locke revised and extended his 1668 tract to address debates in Parliament in 1690 c­ oncerning a proposal to reduce interest rates from 6 to 4 per cent and another to devalue silver money. Sir Josiah Child’s Brief Observations Concerning Trade, 1668, had prompted Locke’s initial essay; in 1690 Child was again in print. For the circumstances, see Locke on Money, i. 16–20. 2  This apparent reluctance to publish is surely formulaic: Locke’s correspondence with Clarke shows no such reticence.

146

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1428A.  [Sir J. Somers?], 7 November 1691 Consideration a Printed Sheet, entituled, Remarks upon a Paper given in to the Lords, &c.1 Because one may naturally suppose, That he that was so much a Patron of that Cause, would omit nothing that could be said in favour of it.2 To this I must here add, That I am just now told from Holland. That the States, finding themselves abused by coining a vast quantity of their base [Schillings]3 Money, made of their own Ducatoons, and other finer Silver, melted down; have put a stop to the Minting of any fine Silver Coin, till they should settle their Mint upon a new Foot.4 I know the sincere Love and Concern you have for your Country, puts you constantly upon casting about on all hands for any means to serve it; and will not suffer you to overlook any thing you conceive may be of any the least use, a–though from–a the meanest Capacities: You could not else have put me upon looking out my old Papers concerning the reducing of Interest to 4 per Cent, which have so long lain by forgotten. Upon this new Survey of them, I find not my Thoughts now to differ from those I had near Twenty Years since: They have to me still the Appearance of Truth; nor should I otherwise venture them so much as to your sight. If my Notions are wrong, my Intention, I am sure, is right: And whatever I have failed in, I shall at least let you see with what Obedience I am, Sir, Your most humble Servant.5 Nov. 7. 1691 At the close, the tract resumes epistolary form:6

Sir, Coin and Interest are Two Things of so great moment to the Publick, and of so great concernment in Trade, that they ought, very accurately to be examin’d into, and very nicely weigh’d, upon any Proposal of an alteration to be made in them. I pretend not to have Treated of them here as they deserve. That must be the work of an abler Hand. I have a–a  Second edition has though offer’d you from 1  No copy extant; Locke answered it in the body of his text. He probably also had in mind a tract by ‘R. C.’, A Letter to a Friend Concerning Usury, 1690, which he also critiqued. 2  The likely author of Remarks is Thomas Neale (1641–99), master worker at the Mint. ODNB; Locke on Money, i. 22, 130. 3  Square brackets are in the printed text. 4  An almost verbatim quotation from a letter from Benjamin Furly in Rotterdam, 15/25 October, seen by Locke on 2 November: no. 1421. 5  The dedication is unsigned. 6  The transcription relies on Kelly, i. 342.

147

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1437.  I. Newton, [c.13 December 1691] said something on these Subjects, because you requir’d it. And, I hope, the readiness of my Obedience will excuse, to You, the Faults I have committed, and assure You that I am, Sir, Your must humble Servant.1

1437*. Isaac (later Sir Isaac) Newton to [Locke], [c.13 December 1691] (1405, 1457) King’s College, Cambridge, Keynes MS 108. Printed in The Correspondence of Isaac Newton, iii, ed. H. W. Turnbull, 1961, pp. 184–5. This document is probably a draft of the letter sent by Newton to Locke, dated 13 December, which de Beer prints as no. 1437, and Turnbull at pp. 185–6, from MS Locke c. 16, fos. 144–5. The texts and subject matter overlap, but there is sufficient difference of content to justify its printing here. Turnbull was right to print both; conceivably they were separate letters. I have relied on Turnbull’s transcription. R. S. Westfall assumes this is the letter as sent: Never at Rest: A Biography of Isaac Newton, 1980, pp. 497–8. The letter concerns Newton’s search for preferment; Locke had mooted the possibility of his succeeding Thomas Burnet as master of the Charterhouse.

Sir On thursday last I wrote to you2 and a few hours after Mr. Laughton3 upon his return from his journey coming to see me told me that you made a kind mention of me and spake to the Archbishop4 as my friend and that Dr. Burnet5 would probably be soon preferred. I have all the reason imaginable to take very kindly then your remembrances of me in my absence, but whilst you seem still to think on Charterhouse I beleive your notions and mine are very different about that matter. For by the information I have had of it, its but 200l per an besides a Coach (which I reccon not) and lodgings: the competition is hazzardous

1  Unsigned in the 1692 edition but ‘John Lock’ added in the 1696 edition, collected in Several Papers Relating to Money, Interest, and Trade. Clarke reported public curiosity about the identity of the author, and Locke demurred, 15 and 18 December 1691: nos. 1439, 1440. 2  Not extant. 3  Probably Richard Laughton (1670–1723), for whom, see no. 3650 below. If so, this demonstrates a personal connection with Locke, which would explain his ability to provide a posthumous character sketch of Locke. It is possible, however, that another Cambridge scholar called John Laughton is meant: again, see no. 3650 below. Westfall assumes it is John Laughton: Never at Rest, p. 497. The same ambiguity arises in no. 3484. 4  Of Canterbury: John Tillotson. 5  Thomas Burnet (1635?–1715), natural philosopher, master of the Charterhouse from 1685; rumoured to be in line for promotion, perhaps to the episcopate. In November of this year he became chaplain and Clerk of the Closet to the king.

148

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1470A.  E. Clarke Jr, 25 February 1692 and I am loath to sing a new song to the tune of King’s College:1 and the confinement to the London air and a formal way of life is what I am not fond of. Yet you may have reasons which I know not of, and therefore I continue in suspence till I have your answer to my last.

1470A.  Edward Clarke Jr to Edward Clarke, 25 February 1692 SHC, DD/SF 7/1/2 (formerly 3901). Clarke Papers. Although the address is given as London, this is certainly a mistake; ‘Ward’, as Edward Jr was known, was at Oates, as the content makes clear. The following day Locke wrote at length to Edward Sr about Ward’s condition and education (no. 1471).

London February 25th 1692 Honored Father, I thanke you for your kinde Letter, my Lady and Mr. Locke are so willing to have me stay here that I hope you will not take it amise that my mother hath given me Leave to stay2 and I will to the utmost of my power indeveour to please Mr. Locke and pay my respects to my Lady who presents their services to you this is all at present from, Your obedient son, Edw: Clarke Pray present my service to my sisters.

1471A.  L ady Masham, formerly Damaris Cudworth, to Edward Clarke, 28 February 1692 Cambridge, King’s College, Keynes Collection, MS PP/87/41/3–4. Chiefly concerns the well-being of Clarke’s son ‘Ward’, who was staying at Oates. See nos. 1416A and 1470A. Transcribed by Esther Counsell.

Oates Sir As I was extreamly oblidged by the favour of Mrs. Clarks Company,3 so I think my self Likewise indebted for your Son’s; which is so far from 1  In 1689 Newton and his patrons had sought his appointment as provost of King’s College, Cambridge. 2  Ward echoes Locke’s vocabulary, for Locke, in his letter the following day, writes: ‘I thinke Madam has not don amisse to leave him here’ – so perhaps Locke dictated this letter. 3  Mary Clarke arrived, with Ward, at Oates on 9 February; she was gone by 28 February, leaving Ward behind: nos. 1462, 1467, 1472. Locke sent a long account of Ward’s difficulties: no. 1471. Ward continued at Oates in March and April: nos. 1475, 1476, 1478, 1483, 1490.

149

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1481A.  J. Le Clerc, 22 March/1 April 1692 being any trouble, that it is a reale pleasure to me and will be so for as long time as you please: But whenever we must part with him, I hope you will come for him your self, which I pleas’d myself you would have done for your Lady, and almost promis’d my self that she would Lose the hire of her places which I could not prevaile with her not to take.1 I leave it to Mr. Lock to give you an account of your Son’s Health, and shall trouble you no farther then to return you my hearty thanks for your many and great favours to me, and to assure you that I am with the gratefullest resentments2 of them Your Affectionate Friend And Oblidged humble servant Da Masham Feb: the 28. 92 Sir Francis my Mother3 and Everybody here present their humble ­services to[o] The Writeings that were sent up, all Concerning my Joynter4 I thought it Proper they should be lodg’d in Sir P: W:’s5 hand being a Trustee to my Marriage Settlement, and Haveing that alreadie in His keeping; But if you think any of them should rather be put into any Other Hands I desire you to reserve them if this comes to you before they are deliverd to him; and for takeing a note from Sir P: W: of what Writeings6 He has of mine, I desire you so do as you think fitt; to whom I shall be much oblig’d for this great Favour.

Endorsed by Clarke:a 〈Lad〉y Masham for 〈my?〉 . . . s〈o〉ns continuance at Oates, And touching Her Writeings in Sir Paul Whitchcott hands. Read the 2nd March 1691. ­Answered fully the 5th March.

1481A.  Jean Le Clerc to Locke, 22 March/1 April 1692 (1446, 1486) Dedicatory epistle prefaced to Ontologia et Pneumatologia, 1692, sigs. *2r–*3r. Signed from Amsterdam, April 1692. These two works (more fully Ontologia; sive a  Letter torn 1  Presumably seats on the London coach. 2  Resentments: feelings, awareness. 3  Damaris Cudworth. 4  Joynter: jointure. 5  Sir Paul Whichcote (1643–1721), baronet, FRS, nephew of the famous preacher whom Locke admired, Benjamin Whichcote; a trustee for Damaris Cudworth (Lady Masham’s mother). Locke evidently knew him from at least 1676: no. 319. Mentioned also in no. 1467. 6  Writings: legal instruments, bonds, etc. They are listed in no. 1467.

150

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1481A.  J. Le Clerc, 22 March/1 April 1692 de Ente, in Genere, and Pneumatologia seu de Spiritibus) are the second and third parts of Le Clerc’s lectures on philosophy. The first part, Logica, 1692, was dedi­ cated to Robert Boyle. In the collected edition of 1697 Le Clerc suppressed the dedication to Boyle, moved his dedication to Locke to the front of the whole work (Logica, Ontologia, et Pneumatologia), made minor amendments to the dedication throughout, and rewrote the first two sentences to remove mention of Boyle. Le Clerc probably originally intended the dedication to Boyle to serve for all three parts of his book, but, after news of Boyle’s death on 31 December 1691, he decided to insert the Locke dedication into the second and third parts, and then, later, made Locke the dedicatee of the whole. The decision in 1697 to suppress the Boyle dedication may have been intended to please Locke, and perhaps to further his hopes of preferment in England (see Corr., nos. 1446, 1579, 2300). Molyneux thought that the whole book, in all its parts, was heavily derivative of Locke’s Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Alternatively, Le Clerc might just have thought the dedication to Boyle superfluous now he was dead. For this note I am indebted to Sami-Juhani Savonius. The text below is the 1692 version; the minor amendments made in 1697 are not recorded, except those made at the beginning and end. For Le Clerc, see Corr., iii. 36; ODNB.

Doctissimo et Acutissimo Viro Joanni Lockio S.P.D.1 Joannes Clericus. a–Postquam Logicam nostram laudatissimo Viro Roberto Boyleo τῷ μακαρίτῃ Philosophiae cultori & fautori eximio, dicaram; cujus nomini libentiùs subjuncta Opuscula inscriberem quàm Tuo, Acutissime Locki, occurrebat nemo. Amicitia & communia studia, summa ab utroque cum laude culta, quae vos conjunxerant, si nihil aliud esset, hoc suadebant.–a Sed praeterea cùm maximo usui Tua mihi Scripta fuerint haec meditanti, & facem in obscurissimis quaestionibus saepe praetulerint; fateri iterum, in limine hujus Opellae, per quem profecissem ingenui, ut ille ait, pudoris esse duxi. Ut à furtis omnibus alienissimus: ita etiam ad reddendum hujusmodi mutuum, cùm praesertim sors fiat ex usura, paratissimus semper fui.2 Cùm partes aliquot & compendium Operis Tui de Intellectu, cedro digni, antequàm praelo committeretur, legerem; multa de quibus diu a–a First two sentences replaced in 1697 by: Cum Opuscula haec nostra Philosophica recuderentur, & mutanda esset primi voluminis Dedicatio; non deliberavi, Acutissime Locki, an eam nomini Tuo inscripturus essem, cùm jam antea eorum partem Tibi consecrassem. Quae sola ratio ejus apud me ponderis esse debuit, ut omnem dubitationem, si quae fuisset, animo meo excuteret 1  Salutem plurimam dicit: sends many greetings. 2  This and the italicized phrase in the previous sentence are derived from the preface to Pliny, Natural History.

151

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1481A.  J. Le Clerc, 22 March/1 April 1692 varias animo versaram cogitationes, clariùs & fusiùs exposita, multa mihi prorsus nova, cum summa voluptate, lustrabam. Jam dudum arctiores, quàm vulgò creditur, cognitionibus nostris terminos à ­ Creatore positos animadverteram; at eos limites, humanae nunquam transiliendos naturae, perspicuè signare Tuum erat. Qua in re non minùs utilem erudito orbi operam praestitisti, quàm qui inventis suis aeternam sibi peperere laudem; neque enim in hac mortalitate eruditione nova, magis quàm certa ignorantiae nostrae cognitione, indigemus. Plura certè, dum nos ea scire putamus quae latent, quàm scientiae inopiâ, quotidie peccamus. Eodem in libro, notionum, quas animo efformare licet, originem & natales; sermonis, quo eas exprimimus, usum ac significationem; quae nos ad dubia, verisimilia, vera, & falsa judicia ferenda adducant, ostendere felicissimè aggressus es. Judiciorum autem nostrorum fontes, verborum quibus utimur sensum, notionumque nostrarum aut occasiones, aut archetypa noscere, quanti sit in investigatione veri; ii demum ig­nor­ ant qui in se nunquam descenderunt, & Philosophiam, ne à limine quidem, salutarunt. Si ab ultimo de re qualibet à nobis lato judicio, ad prima usque ratiociniorum nostrorum initia, vestigia nostra relegendo, quod nos docuisti, retrogredi sciremus; falsa à veris faciliùs, quàm ullâ alia methodo, & certiùs secerneremus. Haec cùm omnibus veri amantibus maximae esse viderem utilitatis, potissimùm iis qui studiorum ineunt curriculum auro contra cara non esse debere censui. Molienti ergo mihi Opuscula, quibus studiosae juventuti ad Philosophiae cognitionem via sterneretur, nihil commodius ac felicius accidere potuit aurei Tui Operis lectione; unde innumeras in rem meam eximias observationes derivare poteram. Multa itaque hîc videbis, quae Tibi deberi senties, & nos ultro profitemur. At brevitas, in hujusmodi libris necessaria, & Scholarum mores, qui sine studiosorum detrimento violari nequeunt, ne ingenii nostri tenuïtatem memoremus, nos in arctiorem gyrum coëgerunt. Quibuscunque haec accuratiùs nosse cordi erit, ii Operis Tui, Vir Doctissime, copiosissimis laticibus se proluant oportet. Nos interea hujus Opellae non poenitebit, modò ne iis quae à Te habemus vim & pondus detraxerimus, aut nostrarum, alienarúmque observationum mixturâ nativum cogitationum Tuarum splendorem obnubilaverimus. An quod volui assecutus sim, Tu omnium certissimè judicabis; & qui majorem judicii tui rationem, quàm ego, habeat frustra quaesiveris. Vale, Vir Praestantissime, & nos ama. 152

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1481A.  J. Le Clerc, 22 March/1 April 1692 Dabam Amstelodami, Calendis a–Aprilibus, Mdcxcii.–a Translation by Elizabeth Short:

To the most Learned and Discerning of Men, John Locke, from Jean le Clerc, Salutations Since my Logica was dedicated to the most excellent Robert Boyle, recently departed, a distinguished friend and patron of philosophy, no other name would give me such pleasure to inscribe in this work as yours, most discerning Locke. The friendship and common interests, taken to the highest level by you both, which united you, if nothing else, would require it.1 Furthermore, in preparing this little work, your writings have been of the greatest use to me, throwing light on the most obscure questions, so it is only right to start by modestly confessing my debt to you. And, as all deceit is alien to me, I am always most ready for a reciprocal return of this kind, especially as much good may come of such borrowing. I had read the compendium and some parts of your work Concerning the Understanding, a work deserving of immortality, before it was committed to press.2 Many ideas, which I had long turned over in my mind, were clearly and fully expounded; many, entirely new to me, I examined with great delight. For long now I have perceived the limits of our knowledge, as set by the Creator, to be narrower than is generally believed, but those limits, never to be overstepped by the human race, it was for you to mark clearly. In this respect you have produced a work no less useful to the learned world than those discoveries that have brought their makers lasting fame; for in this world we stand less in need of new learning than of a recognition of our own ignorance. Certainly we daily sin more through overconfidence in our knowledge than through lack of knowledge. In the same book you have most happily addressed the question of the origin and history of the notions which the mind can form, the a–a 1698 edition reads: Calendis Decembribus, MDCXCVII, i.e. 1 December 1  Translation of the first two sentences in the 1697 version: ‘Since these trifling philosophical works of mine have had to be refashioned and the dedication of the first volume must be changed, I have sought no advice, most discerning Locke, on whether your name should be inscribed there, as I had already dedicated the second part to you. This reason alone had such weight with me that it drove all doubts, if indeed there were any, from my mind.’ 2  Le Clerc had published an epitome (‘Extrait’) in the Bibliothèque universelle in 1688, which Locke circulated to friends in a separate form as the Abrégé.

153

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1481B.  E. Clarke Jr, 25 March 1692 words in which they are expressed, their use and meaning, what leads us to judge them as doubtful, probable, true or false; and, furthermore, to recognise the sources of our judgements, the significance of the words we use, both the occasions of our ideas and their fundamental meaning, as also their importance in the investigation of the truth; not knowing, till then, those who have never explored their own depths or saluted philosophy, even from the threshold. If, from the last judgement on any matter, viewed from whatever angle you please, we were to go back to the very beginnings of our reasoning, retracing our footsteps, recognising what we had been taught, we could more easily distinguish the false from the true, and more certainly than by any other method. Since I saw this to be of the greatest use to all who love the truth, I thought it should not be as costly as gold to those entering upon a course of study. Therefore, for me, author of little works which lay down the path to a knowledge of philosophy for young students, nothing could have been more convenient or happier than the reading of your excellent work, from which, to my advantage, I was able to draw remarkable observations. So you will see here how much I have profited from your work and how greatly I am indebted to you. But the brevity necessary in books of this kind and the rule of scholarship, not to be violated without detriment to learning, that we should be mindful of the slenderness of our talents, have brought me into a narrower sphere. Whosoever has a more accurate knowledge at heart, it behoves them to immerse themselves thoroughly in your works, most learned of men. Meanwhile I do not regret this little work, except where I may have lessened the force and weight of what I have taken from you, or at least obscured the native brilliance of your thought by the admixture of my own and others’ observations. Whether I have achieved what I wished, you alone can most surely judge, for you will seek in vain for one who has a higher opinion of your judgement than I. Farewell, most excellent of men, and love me. Given at Amsterdam, on the 1st of April 1692.

1481B. Edward Clarke Jr to Mary Clarke, with postscript by Locke, 25 March 1692 (1488A; 1271, 1483) SHC, DD/SF 7/1/46 (formerly 3928). Clarke Papers. Recovered by Adriana Benzaquén. The letter is badly damaged by staining and parts are irrecoverable. Words in angle brackets are speculative readings.

154

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1488A.  E. Clarke Jr, 4 April 1692 Oates the 25th of March 91/2 Honoured mother I write these three or four Lines to assure 〈you〉 of my humble respects, I should take it 〈as a〉 favour if you would give your self the 〈trouble to〉 Lett me heare of you sometimes. I heare 〈that my father ?〉 is gone into the country which I hope 〈will be a〉 Long time for now, I suppose, you are all alone and 〈you would〉 be very glad to see him[.] pray present my 〈duty if〉 you write to him and to all my good friends[.] 〈This is〉 all att present from Your obediente Edw. Clarke Pray present my service to 〈my〉 sisters and tell my sister Betty 〈that〉 Mr. Locke presents his service to her in particular[.] my Lady[,] Mr.  Locke and Mrs. Masham1 all present there services to you. my cough is gone.2 [Postscript in Locke’s hand:]

Madam I beg leave here to present my service to you and to tell you that the next post I will intend to trouble you with a letter 〈which I . . .〉 shall be directed to 〈 . . . 〉 and not send it 〈away to him . . .〉 is returned 〈 . . . 〉

1488A.  Edward Clarke Jr to Mary Clarke, 4 April 1692 (1481A, 2081A) SHC, DD/SF 7/1/46 (formerly 3928). Clarke Papers. Written from Oates and concerns Locke. The letter raises the remarkable and puzzling possibility that he was connected with Charles II’s dowager consort, Queen Catherine of Braganza, and with her chief courtier, the semi-Jacobite earl of Feversham. Possibly Locke encountered the queen at Oxford in 1665–6; or in Lord Ashley’s circle, c.1669; or through Martha Lockhart: see Corr. i. 160, 322; vii. 114. Another possible connection is through Carey Mordaunt, countess of Monmouth, who had been appointed maid of honour to Queen Catherine in 1674. The first possibility is strengthened by a remark in a biographical note on Locke, dating from c.1719, probably by James Tyrrell, concerning the great admiration which Locke and his friend David Thomas had for Thomas Sydenham: ‘they wished that he had been made the physician to the Queen, claiming that he would enable her to have children’. BL, Add. MS 4422, fo. 246. (Original in French.

1  Esther Masham. ‘Mrs’ (‘Mistress’) was an honorific not confined to married women. 2  Nos. 1478, 1483, and 1490 refer to Ward’s cough.

155

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1503A.  Readers of R. Boyle, [c.May] 1692 See  F.  Waldmann, ‘John Locke as a Reader of Thomas Hobbes’s Leviathan: A New Manuscript’, Journal of Modern History, 193 (2021), 245–82.)

Oates the 4th of April 92 Honoured mother I thanke you for your Letter which I received just now, I received Likewise the wascots, and Gazettes1 which I have read and shall read as often as you send them, I am very glad to here that my brothers and sisters are all well, I have told Mr. Lock the Ill news of the queene dowegers being gone2 which I am very sory for his sake and that you have just sent for Mr. Feversun3 to sattisfie you if he can why her Departure must be soe sudden, we are all in good health here, which is all at present from Your obediente soon, Edw: Clarke my Lady Mr. Lock Mis Masham present their services to you pray pre­ sent my service to my sisters and give the inclosed to my sister Betty. Address: These present For Mrs. Mary Clarke at Mrs. Henmans over against little Turne stile in Holborne London.

1503A.  Locke to the readers of Robert Boyle, [c.May] 1692 Dedicatory epistle – or, rather, an ‘advertisement’ to the reader – prefaced to The ­General History of the Air, Designed and Begun by the Hon[oura]ble Robert Boyle Esq., 1692. Later reprinted in editions of Boyle’s Works. Locke prepared this work for the press; the materials are among his papers: MS Locke c. 37. ‘The Advertisement of the Publisher to the Reader’ was composed by him, the term ‘publisher’ being here used of Locke himself in the sense of his making it public. The book carries the licence of Robert Southwell, President of the Royal Society, dated 29 June 1692; Boyle had died on 30 December 1691; most of the Advertisement was written before Boyle’s death. The book includes Locke’s register of the weather in London and Oxford, recorded intermittently from 1666 to 1683 (pp. 104–32), and Locke’s letter to Boyle of 5 May 1666 (no. 197). (In Locke’s time, ‘air’ denoted ‘climate’.) Boyle’s own preface, which follows Locke’s Advertisement, explains that he had long ago persuaded ‘some Virtuosi’ to agree to gather data, but that they had forgotten their promises and so the project had been put 1  The London Gazette. 2  The Portuguese Catholic queen dowager Catherine of Braganza (1638–1705), Charles II’s consort, lived quietly, but prominently, at Somerset House, after the king’s death, until 30 March 1692, when she left England and settled in Portugal. 3  Presumably Louis Duras, earl of Feversham (1641–1709). Feversham acted as the queen dowager’s chief protector and courtier between the Revolution and her departure, and then took charge of her interests.

156

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1503A.  Readers of R. Boyle, [c.May] 1692 aside. Then, ‘at length’, he pursued it once more, because of ‘the Curiosity and Desires of some Virtuosi, that knew I had gathered some Remarks . . . [they] offering themselves to promote the Design that others had abandoned’. Locke was evidently already preparing this volume for press before Boyle died (no. 1422), so that this project was under way before Locke learnt that he had been asked to act as one of Boyle’s three literary executors (no. 1515A). For the publishing circumstances and manuscript ­sources of the General History, see M. Hunter and E. B. Davis, eds., The Works of Robert Boyle, 12 vols., 1999–2000, xii. xi–xxii; text at pp. 5–6; also M. A. Stewart, ‘Locke’s Professional Contacts with Boyle’, Locke Newsletter, 12 (1981), 19–44, at 36–8. In this transcription roman and italic fonts are reversed.

Advertisement of the Publisher1 to the Reader. The Design of the following Papers the Author’s own Preface will acquaint thee with. And though, as thou wilt there see, his Expectation of Assistance (in a Work too great for one single Man’s Undertaking) from others fail’d him, yet I doubt not but his own Experiments and Collections would have made this Treatise much larger before it had been published, had his Health allowed him Opportunity: But that permitting him not so much as to review these Papers, or range them into that order, which would be most advantageous, thou art not to wonder, if thou findest some Defects, some Dislocations, and other Faults in this Publication, which the Author’s last Hand would have prevented. The Negligence of Transcribers has let slip the Characters of Relators, and Names and Places of Author’s from whom several of the Particulars in the following Papers were taken: Nor could it be hoped that the Authors own Memory (were he in a State of Health fit to be troubled with it) should after so long a time as this Collection has been making, and in that Variety of Men and Books he has had to do with, be able to retrieve them. But this will be no great Loss to all the learned World, which is sufficiently acquainted with his great Caution, and will make no Difficulty confidently to rely upon his unaffected Candor and Sincerity. I know not how much some other Parts of his noble, and always busy Designs for the Advancement of Knowledg, and the Benefit of Mankind, may suffer by that Tenderness of his Constitution, which the Importunity of his Friends can hardly prevail upon him to withdraw from Philosophical Cares. But this he has ordered so, that imperfect as it is, one cannot call it deficient; since the Foundation being here laid, and the Draught2 made, every one may, if 1  As remarked in the headnote, the ‘publisher’ here is Locke. The book’s publisher, in the modern sense, was the partnership of Awnsham and John Churchill. 2  Draught: outline or epitome.

157

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1503A.  Readers of R. Boyle, [c.May] 1692 he please, add towards the compleating of the building, I will not say with Materials equal to what his Sagacity and Laboratory used to afford: For we must not expect to find in every Age a Man able and ready to lay out so much Cost, Pains and Skill, frankly, for the Improvement of Natural Philosophy, and the Information of the World, as he has done. The Scheme of Titles under which these Materials for a History of the Air are ranged, is somewhat different from that printed by him several Years since, and distributed amongst his Friends.1 But this is without any Prejudice to the main Design, since whatsoever any one hath collected under those Heads, will be easily reducible to these, which in a more natural Order are more comprehensive. In that first Draught he followed my Lord Bacon’s Advice,2 not to be over-curious or nice in making the first Set of Heads, but to take them as they occur. But now that thus much comes to be published, which perhaps may serve to some Men as a common Place for the History of the Air, the Titles have been a little more increased or methodized, to which any one may add as he finds Occasion: Only in these the Reader is desired to observe, I. That under the Title of Mineral Substances, are comprehended Earth, and all other Fossiles3 to avoid multiplying of Articles. II. That when any mixed Body is ranked under Animal, Vegetable, or Mineral Substances, it is put under that of the three which either it partakes most of, or to which most is owing in the present Experiment, or which in its own Nature it most resembles. III. That it is not by an Over-sight that Lightning is put under two different Titles; for in one it is considered only in reference to the Sight; in the other it is considered as the Product of sulphureous or inflamable Effluviums taking fire, with the strange Effects it produces; which may be an Example of puting the same thing with different Views, under different Heads. What is abovesaid was written whilst the Author was living, to which it is necessary now to add, That the Titles, as here printed, and the Order of the Papers, as now ranged under them, were shewn to the Author, and approved by him as fitter for the General History of the Air, than those he had formerly printed. So that, Reader, thou hast 1  There is no known copy of a printed version. 2  Francis Bacon, Lord Verulam (1561–1626), Lord Chancellor and natural philosopher. It is not clear to what passage Locke refers. 3  Fossils: rocks or minerals dug from the earth.

158

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1509A.  I. Newton, [summer 1692] these Papers as they were prepared and ordered to be published in his Life-time; and they had then gone to Press to be printed, just as thou now receivest them, had not the Publisher the last Winter been hastily called out of Town.1

1509A. Isaac (later Sir Isaac) Newton to [Locke], [summer 1692] (1499, 1513) Cambridge University Library, Portsmouth Collection, Add. MS 3965, fo. 469. Draft. Printed in The Correspondence of Isaac Newton, vii, eds. A. R. Hall and L. Tilling, 1977, pp. 393–4, where the letter is stated to be ‘perhaps intended for John Locke, who in 1691–2 was engaged in preparing for the press Boyle’s General History of the Air and Medicinal Experiments, both of which books were printed after Boyle’s death. . . . The draft does not correspond to any of Newton’s known letters to Locke, however, nor have we encountered these additional experiments.’ The editors further note that the letter is evidently a draft, written on a sheet bearing drafts for the Principia and a note of naval vessels launched or rebuilt in 1692. Peter Anstey has now demonstrated that the letter was certainly addressed to Locke. It is newly transcribed and interpreted here by Anstey; (the transcription slightly adjusted by Esther Counsell). The letter may not have been sent. It is also incomplete, since a second experiment mentioned is not described. The following evidence suggests the letter probably dates from May to July: there is significant overlap in content with no. 1519 (2 August), which appears to be a letter later than this one; Newton appears not yet to know that Locke had been appointed one of Boyle’s literary executors, of which Locke informed him in no. 1517 (26 July); in his Journal for 11 May (MS Locke f. 10, p. 138) Locke records one of the experiments Newton sent him on 2 August; Newton perhaps then forgot he had already given Locke the recipe. See M. A. Stewart, ‘Locke’s Professional Contacts with Robert Boyle’, Locke Newsletter, 12 (1981), 19–44, at 38–43. For Newton, see Corr., iv. 155; ODNB; R. S. Westfall, Never at Rest: A Biography of Isaac Newton, 1981. See also no. 1515A.

Sir There being left with me by Mr. Boyle two experiments to be published after his death: I beg the favour that you would do this Honourable person that right as to print them and add them to the end of one of his books. I make this request to you because divers of his books have been printed for you.2 The Experiments are as follows. Exper 1. Exper. 2.3 1  For Locke’s hasty departure from London, for the sake of his health, see no. 1431, to Edward Clarke, 23 November 1691: he arrived at Oates on 21 November. 2  Only Boyle’s Memoirs for the Natural History of Humane Blood, 1683/4, is dedicated to Locke. The remark may suggest that Newton was unaware that Locke had been appointed one of Boyle’s literary executors, about which Locke informed him in no. 1517 (26 July). 3  Not extant in this letter.

159

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1515.  W. Molyneux, 16 July 1692 I have tried neither of these experiments and so cannot affirm the success of them on my own knowledge but must leave the trial to the Reader. Exper. 1. Take butter of Antimony.1 Let it run per deliquium2 in a cellar, Pour of[f ] the clear liquor. You may distill the feculent residue and let the butter which destills, run again per deliquium. When you have as much butter run per deliquium in a clear liquor as you desire; digest it in a convenient heat in a glass well stopt and it will putrefy and grow black and afterwards become clear again and then be a menstruum for resolving bodies like the Alkahest,3 but not so potent. The putrefaction is caused by the moisture which the butter in running per deliquium imbibes out of the air. The just degree of heat for the digestion I do not know but conceive it must equal that of blood or of a balneum4 not hotter then the hand can endure. The menstruum prepared by the first of these two experiments was proposed by Mr. Boyle as a thing which might be of good use in medicine for analysing and subtiliating5 bodies. I have tried neither of these experiments my self and so cannot affirm the success of them on my own knowledge, but must leave the trial to the Reader. For I cannot tell whether Mr. Boyle had tried the first or had it only by communication, though I beleive he had tried the second himself. a–If you please to do Mr. Boyle that right as to print this paper I shall take occasion hereafter to acknowledge the obliga–a,6

1515*.  Locke to William Molyneux, 16 July 1692 (1284A, 1530) Karpeles Collection. This is the first of thirty-three entries derived from the recovered original manuscripts of Locke’s letters to the Molyneux brothers, for which see Introduction above, pp. xviii–xxiii. As explained there, new transcriptions are not given in the present volume; rather, additional text, and a few significant variants, missing from the printed edition of 1708, are provided. Often, as in the present case, the additional portion of text comprises only the endorsement. Such information can be valuable because of the epistolary practice of summarising the content of an incoming letter and hence indicates what the receiver took to be significant. a–a  deleted 1  Antimony trichloride. 2  To ‘run per deliquium’ is to deliquesce, i.e. to become liquid by absorbing moisture. 3  Alkahest: a hypothetical universal solvent sought by alchemists. 4  Balneum: a bath. 5  Subtiliating: to make thin or tenuous, to refine, purify. 6  In no. 1519 Newton states a wish that his being the source of these papers be not publicized.

160

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1515A.  J. Warr, 16 July 1692 Endorsed: Thanks for my Book. Recommendation of Dr. Sibelius.1 Rec’d. Aug. 26. 1692.

1515A. John Warr Sr to John Warr Jr, 16 July 1692 BL, Add. MS 4314, fo. 90. This is an extract from the lost original, made by Henry Miles, now among the papers of Thomas Birch. Printed in R. E. W. Maddison, The Life of the Hon. Robert Boyle, 1969, p. 203. Transcription checked by Michael Hunter. The letter concerns Locke’s conjoint role as Robert Boyle’s literary executor. In his will, Boyle left charge of his manuscripts and ‘collections of receipts’ (medicinal recipes) to his sister Katharine, Lady Ranelagh. She, however, predeceased him. There seems no evidence that substitute literary executors were chosen by Boyle himself; more probably by John Warr Jr, custodian of the papers. Locke was involved in the publication of two of Boyle’s ­posthumous works. The first case, The General History of the Air, was not covered by the present arrangement, since Locke was already editing the text while Boyle was still alive (see 1503A). The second, however, was Medicinal Experiments, vol. ii, which appeared late in 1693 (see 1509A). This latter volume announces on its title page: ‘Containing about three hundred receipts, published from the author’s original manuscripts, and by him recommended to the care of his executors, and to be perused by some of his learned friends.’ This second volume bears Locke’s methodical approach, since the recipes are arranged alphabetically by ailment, whereas in the first volume (by Boyle) and the third (probably edited by Edmund Dickinson) they are not so ordered. Medicinal Experiments, ii, is printed in The Works of Robert Boyle, eds. M. Hunter and E. B. Davis, 1999, xii. See M. A. Stewart, ‘Locke’s Professional Contacts with Robert Boyle’, Locke Newsletter, 12 (1981), 19–44, at 38–40; M. Hunter, Boyle: Between God and Science, 2009, ch. 15. John Warr Jr was Boyle’s amanuensis from the 1670s and his executor; his father acquired connection with Boyle presumably through his son. The maker of the copy of this letter, Henry Miles (1698–1763), was a Dissenting minister and science writer; such Boyle papers as he was able to amass were given to the Royal Society by his widow in 1769. ODNB. The executors of Boyle’s estate were Richard, earl of Burlington, John Warr Jr, and Sir Henry Ashurst (the last substituting for Lady Ranelagh), with the Hon. Henry Boyle and Sir Robert Southwell also involved in the settlement of lands; the trustees of the Boyle Lectures were Ashurst, John Evelyn, Sir John Rotherham, and Bishop (later Archbishop) Thomas Tenison. The three literary executors were Locke, Dr Edmund Dickinson, and Dr Daniel Coxe. For Dickinson, see Corr., i. 534; Daniel Coxe (1640–1730), FRS, physician, natural philosopher, colonial adventurer. ODNB. There are references to Warr and Dickinson in nos. 1582 and 1588; and Dickinson-Locke letters at nos. 1632 and 1634. On 26 July Locke told Newton, ‘My Boyle has left to Dr. Dickison, Dr. Cox and me the inspection of his papers,’ and goes on to say that he had located for Newton a Boyle paper (chemical rather than medicinal) on the multiplication of gold (no. 1517; see also nos. 1513, 1519). Warr was instrumental in ensuring that a part of Boyle’s estate was gifted to the College of William and Mary, for the evan­gel­ iz­ing of Native Americans. W. S. Perry, ed., Historical Collections Relating to the American Colonial Church, vol. 1, 1870, p. 37. 1  Caspar Sibelius (later Sibley) (1646–96), MD: see Corr., ii. 633.

161

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1538.  W. Molyneux, 20 September 1692 The Doctors1 met according to appointment and at first they desired to see Mr. Boyle’s note,2 impowering and directing them what to do, I told them it was not in my custody: but at last they took out one Box of Chemical processes, and spent some hours in writing, but went not through above half of it, but appointed to meet again Tuesday next. Mr. Sinclair3 and myself did attenda them all the while. They desired me to send to you for two things, one was the note of Directions mentioning their three names and the 2d was for the key or keys of the Chemical terms, without which they could order nothing.

1538*.  Locke to William Molyneux, 20 September 1692 (1530*, 1544*) Karpeles Collection. Corr., iv. 522, line 3: of not in MS Corr., iv. 524, line 14: for Cologn read Colen Corr., iv. 524, line 20: deducting deleted and replaced by addeing Endorsed: 2d edition of his Book. Earthquake.

1543*. Captain Thomas Robinson to Locke, 15 October 1692 MS Locke c. 18, fos. 24–6. De Beer printed the letter (fos. 21–2) but not the two en­ clos­ures. Their content is useful, because of what they reveal about the conduct of the war at sea, and because they indicate Locke’s patronage of a naval officer who had served his patron, the earl of Monmouth. It is plain that Locke knew Robinson well. De Beer did not sufficiently identify him. A career naval officer, Robinson commanded Monmouth’s yacht, which plied the North Sea. In this role, in 1690–1, Locke and Benjamin Furly were permitted routinely to use him to carry their own correspondence, books, and other goods (Corr., iv. 144, 147, 161, 173, 177, 184, 190, 197, 202, 255, 257, 260, 281, 292, 294). Later, in 1701, Robinson, through Robert Pawling, asked Locke to seek his promotion to a larger ship; Locke was favourably enough disposed to write on his behalf both to the earl of Pembroke and to Lord Haversham (Corr., vii. 293–4, 309–10, 389–90, 401). He was promoted from the fourth-rate Dunkirk to the third-rate Monmouth. He was tipped to sail with Admiral Benbow as part of the squadron to guard the West Indies, but, being a widower with a family, petitioned not to go. At the time a  myself did attend altered from I attended 1  Presumably all three literary executors. Locke was in London at this time. 2  Not extant. In John Warr Jr’s reply he remarks: ‘The note that the Doctors desire to see, cannot, I doubt, be produc’d, till I come up, but they may rest assur’d of the matter of fact.’ 3  Robert St Clair, one of Boyle’s servants.

162

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1543.  T. Robinson, 15 October 1692 of the present memoranda, the second of which is dated 3 August 1692, he commanded the fifth-rate Garland, 255 tons, 130 men, 30 guns; launched in 1654 and sold in 1698. These documents set out his service by way of an appeal for promotion. The second appears also to be rebutting an accusation (actual or potential) that he had taken bribes from merchant ships in his role as a convoy commander. At this time, government employees were under scrutiny for financial misconduct: part of the growing ‘Country’ suspicion of Court ‘corruption’. In the aftermath of the defeat of the French navy at the Battle of La Hogue in May–June 1692, the French turned to a successful campaign of piratical harassment of merchantmen, and the matter of adequate naval convoying became critical for England’s overseas merchants. The topic arises later in Samuel Heathcote’s correspondence with Locke, below. Besides convoying, Robinson’s duties included policing England’s trade blockade of France. His lack of promotion at this time may be owing to his Whig associations: the Admiralty was currently in Tory hands. [First document:]

Captain Thomas Robinson hath been in his Majesties ship the Garland these two years and a half, without being any further advanc’d though he has on all occasions behav’d himself with great fidelity diligence and courage, and is known to be a very good seaman. Some instances whereof are that none of the ships under his convoy wherein he hath been imploid have ever been miscarried.1 March 90. Stopt a great Flyboat2 in the River Humber laden with lead on suspition of being bound to France which afterward proved so. August 90. Seized a Ketch3 in Humber being come back from France having unlivered4 her loading of lead there and by his diligent search on board the said Ketch found hid (in a hollow peice of wood nailed to the deck) severall papers of correspondence discovering5 the whole intreague concerning the said Ketch and flyboat being both freighted by Mr. John Yates of Hull. In May ditto. Took a Pinck6 laden with French salt and brought in severall ships belonging to Lubeck with Navall stores designed for France under protection of passes from the King of Denmark. In January 1690/1. Took a Frypoon7 of[f ] Dunkirk which is now fitted out for a Privateer of 24 Guns who fought me 4 houres. May 91. In a Voiage from Long Sound in Norway retook an English Ketch (laden with cloth and lead) from the Enemy whose ship was of equal force with the Garland who lay lurking in the Harbours in 1  3  5  7 

Miscarried: not reached the desired destination. 2  Fly-boat: a fast sailing vessel. Ketch: a strongly built two-masted vessel. 4  Unliver: unload (a ship). Discovering: revealing. 6  Pink: a small vessel, usually with a narrow stern. Frypoon: unidentified, but the manuscript is clear.

163

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1556.  Dr T. Molyneux, 1 November 1692 Norway and refused to come out to fight though challenged fairly by the said Captain Thomas Robinson. [Second document:]

We whose Names are hereunto subscribed doe hereby certify all whome it doth or may concerne that Capt Thomas Robinson, Commander of their Majesties ship the Garland, did never demand of any of us the said subscribers directly or indirectly any convoy money or any other gratuity, or consideration instead thereof. And that the said Capt Robinson used very great care and diligence in his conduct, and proceedings, according to the best of our knowledg and judgments soe as to answere all reasonable expectation in the like case. And that we are ready to attest the truth of the premises upon oath if thereto required. Witness our hands the 3d day of August Anno Domini 1692 and in the fourth year of the reign of King William and Queen Mary over England etc. Richard Hutton, John Stroud, Anthony Dansie, Robert Scroutten, George Martenis, Jonathan Smith, Lambert Ingram, John Buckler, Jonah Clifton, Robert Hickelton, Edward Waugh, Marmaduke Woodhouse, Jervis Martin1

1556*. Locke to Dr Thomas Molyneux, 1 November 1692 (1531, 1578) Karpeles Collection. For Thomas Molyneux, see Corr., ii. 669; ODNB. Address: For Dr. Thomas Molineux to be left at Mr. William Molineux’s near Ormond gate Dublin Postmark: NO 3 Endorsed: answered Decemb. 20. 92.

1583*. Locke to William Molyneux, 26 December 1692 (1579, 1592*) Karpeles Collection. Postscript:

1  Listed in a column in the manuscript. Evidently masters of merchant ships. Marmaduke Woodhouse, for instance, was master of the Eleanor, 80 tons, which sank in the North Sea in the Great Storm of 1703 (God’s Wonders in the Great Deep, 1710, p. 81).

164

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1592.  W. Molyneux, 20 January 1693 Pray present my most humble service to your Brother. I wish you both a happy new year.1

1592*. Locke to William Molyneux, 20 January 1693 (1583*, 1609) Karpeles Collection. Corr., iv. 624, line 11: for suppose read supposed Corr., iv. 624, line 24: for sense, perception, and thought read sense perception and thought. The phrase is, however, punctuated in the second edition of the Essay. Corr., iv. 624, lines 31–2: for sense, perception, and knowledge read sense perception and knowledge. Punctuated in the second edition. Corr., iv. 625, line 23: for ingenious read ingenuous Corr., iv. 626, line 6: difficulty deleted and replaced by objection

1593*.  Locke to Dr Thomas Molyneux, 20 January 1693 (1578, 1670) Karpeles Collection. Endorsed: answered Nov. the 4th 93.

1604*. [Dr Pieter Guenellon] to Locke, 13/23 February 1693 (1521, 1636) Bodl., MS Rawlinson C 406, p. 83. This document is an extract from a letter by an unnamed person to Locke. It is headed, ‘Part of a Coppy of a Letter sent to Mr. Lock from Amsterdam February 1692/3’. It was identified by Kenneth Dewhurst in ‘The Genesis of State Medicine in Ireland’, Irish Journal of Medical Science, 368 (1956), 365– 84, who believed he had discovered an unknown item. In fact, it is a translation from the French of a passage in an already known letter by Pieter Guenellon to Locke, printed by de Beer as no. 1604 (from MS Locke c. 11, fos. 51–2). The text is, however, included 1  In the body of the letter Locke refers to comments by ‘a very ingenious and professed Arminian’ on Locke’s treatment of liberty in the Essay. This is, as de Beer noted, Le Clerc. It is worth quoting Le Clerc’s response: ‘Mr. Locke m’avoit communiqué ce chapitre, que je lus à la hâte dans sa chambre, lors qu’il étoit logé chez Mr. Guenelon; & il m’en demanda mon sentiment. Je ne me souviens pas précisément de ce que je lui dis, mais je sai bien que je ne lui répondis rien, que de géneral; parce que je n’étois pas de son sentiment, & que je ne voulois pas le desobliger, en lui disant qu’il me sembloit, qu’il ignoroit ce que c’est que Liberté.’ Translation (by J. R. Milton): ‘Mr. Locke let me see this chapter, which I hurriedly read in his chamber when he was lodging with Mr. Guenellon; and he asked me what I thought about it. I cannot now recall exactly what I said to him, but I do know that I replied only in general terms, since I was not of his opinion, and did not wish to offend him by telling him that it seemed to me that he did not know what Liberty is.’ Bibliothèque choisie, 17 (1709), 235–6.

165

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1604.  [Dr P. Guenellon], 13/23 February 1693 here, because it allows the addition of new information about Locke’s connection with Dr Charles Goodall (to whom he passed on the extract), and to clear up further confusions of Dewhurst’s. In his article, Dewhurst mistakenly claimed that four other documents in this Rawlinson volume, which he printed in full, were letters by or to Locke: (i) ‘Enquiries to be made about Bills of Mortality, aire, diseases, etc.’ (and about physicians’ opinions concerning quinine, and the reputation of Thomas Sydenham, who died in 1689), undated; (ii) Charles Willoughby’s lengthy response concerning the case of the Dublin Bills of Mortality, 17 April 1691; (iii and iv) two further responses from Patrick Dun, also from Dublin, one undated (c.1698), the other dated 2 March 1699, concerning the Dublin Bills of Mortality for 1695–8 and the politics of the medical profession. That Locke might make enquiries of these people concerning Dublin’s mortality is not implausible, but Dewhurst cites no evidence for his assumption that these are from Locke’s papers. None of these four documents carries Locke’s name, which only occurs in the one document printed here. The Rawlinson volume is not Locke’s: it is a miscellaneous medical notebook, possibly prepared or inherited by Thomas Wagstaffe. In fact, the real identity of the enquirer can readily be established. Internal evidence in Dun’s letters tells against Locke as recipient: ‘directed to you at the Charter-House’ is an improbable address for Locke, and Dun is addressing somebody who is active in the politics of the Royal College of Physicians, ‘your College’. In fact, the enquirer and recipient was Dr Charles Goodall, physician of the Charterhouse (where he resided), champion of the College of Physicians, friend of Sydenham, and prospective editor of Sydenham’s works. The volume includes a medical paper on quinine by Goodall and another letter definitely by Goodall. Goodall was a friend and correspondent of Locke’s; it is not surprising to find in his papers a copy of a letter to Locke concerning their mutual medical interests. This evidence in turn confirms de Beer’s surmise, at Corr., iv. 492, and 642, that ‘the friend’ for whom Locke sought data from Guenellon was indeed Goodall. The body of material in the Rawlinson notebook indicates the importance in Locke’s circle of making exact surveys to establish demographic data.

The yeare 1691, when they1 had a great Epidemick in the Autumn, the number of the dead that yeare was 9202. In the year 1692. 6977. neare the usuall proportion of other yeares. This is remarkeable that though this Town be of a low situation and in a marsh, yett the people live more healthy there then in higher situations in higher places of these provinces. And it hath been observed more than once, that when the Plague or any other Epidemick hath reigned in this Countrey as in that of the yeare 1691. this Town has suffered least. They died then at Harlem 4 to one in proportion to this Town, and double everywhere else.

1  In Amsterdam.

166

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1611A.  E. Clarke, 7 March 1693

1611A.  Locke to Edward Clarke, 7 March 1693 (1611, 1613) Dedicatory epistle prefaced to Some Thoughts Concerning Education, 1693. Printed in Locke, Some Thoughts Concerning Education, eds. J. W. and J. S. Yolton, 1989, pp. 79–81; also in J. L. Axtell, ed., The Educational Writings of John Locke, 1968, pp. 111–13, and several other editions. See the Yoltons’ Introduction for context. Thoughts Concerning Education provides a classic instance of the interplay between printed treatises and private epistolary exchange, because its text was based on a series of letters Locke had written to Clarke, from 1684 onwards, concerning the nurturing of his children and particularly his eldest son Edward. The transcription here is taken from one version of the 1693 text, what is, in fact, a second edition, speedily reprinted, with corrections, from the first, but indistinguishable from the title page. Only two substantive changes were made in later lifetime editions, and these are noted below. In this transcription roman and italic fonts are reversed. For Locke’s letters of transmittal of early drafts of the Thoughts, see nos. 791* and 804*.

To Edward Clarke of  Chipley, Esq; Sir; These Thoughts concerning Education, which now come abroad into the World, do of right belong to You, being written several Years since for your sake, and are no other than what you have already by you in my Letters.1 I have so little varied any thing, but only the Order of what was sent you at different Times, and on several Occasions, that the Reader will easily find, in the Familiarity and Fashion of the Style, that they were rather the private Conversation of two Friends, than a Discourse designed for publick view. The Importunity of Friends is the common Apology for Publications Men are afraid to own themselves forward to. But you know I can truly say, That if some, who having heard of these Papers of mine, had not pressed to see them, and afterwards to have them printed, they had lain dormant still in that privacy they were designed for.2 But those whose Judgment I defer much to, telling me, That they were persuaded, that this rough Draught of mine might be of some use, if made more publick, touch’d upon what will always be very prevalent with me: For I think it every Man’s indispensible Duty, to do all the Service he can to his Country: And I see not what difference he puts between himself and his Cattel, who lives without that Thought. This Subject is of so great Concernment, and a right way of Education is of so general Advantage, 1  The letters to Clarke date from 1684 to 1691: listed in Yolton and Yolton, p. 71. 2 These apparently included Benjamin Furly (no. 1638), William Molyneux (no. 1609), William Popple (no. 1608), and very probably also Damaris Masham (no. 1630), and perhaps Whitelocke Bulstrode (no. 1206A). Bulstrode is mentioned in 930A. See also Locke’s distribution list for complimentary copies: Yolton and Yolton, pp. 48–9, and Corr., viii. 454–8.

167

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1611A.  E. Clarke, 7 March 1693 that did I find my Abilities answer my Wishes, I should not have needed Exhortations or Importunities from others. However, the Meanness of these Papers, and my just Distrust of them, shall not keep me, by the shame of doing so little, from contributing my Mite, when there is no more required of me, than my throwing it into the publick Receptacle. And if there be any more of their Size and Notions, who liked them so well, that they thought them worth printing, I may flatter my self they will not be lost Labour to every body. I my self have been consulted of late by so many, who profess themselves at a loss how to breed their Children;1 and the early corruption of Youth, is now become so general a Complaint, that he cannot be thought wholly impertinent, who brings the Consideration of this Matter on the stage, and offers something, if it be but to excite others, or afford matter of correction. For Errours in Education should be less indulged than any: These, like Faults in the first Concoction, that are never mended in the second or third, carry their afterwards-incorrigible Taint with them, through all the parts and stations of Life. I am so far from being conceited of any thing I have here offered, that I should not be sorry, even for your sake, if some one abler and fitter for such a Task, would in a just Treatise of Education, suited to our English Gentry, rectifie the Mistakes I have made in this; it being much more desirable to me, that young Gentlemen should be put into (that which every one ought to be sollicitous about) the best way of being formed and instructed, than that my Opinion should be received concerning it. You will however, in the mean time bear me Witness that the Method here propos’d has had no ordinary Effects upon a Gentleman’s Son, it was not designed for.2 I will not say the good Temper of the Child did not very much contribute to it, but this I think, you and the Parents are satisfied of, that a contrary usage according to the ordinary disciplining of Children, would not have mended that Temper, nor have brought him to be in love with his Book, to have a pleasure in Learning, and to desire as he does to be taught more than those about him think fit always to teach him. But my Business is not to recommend this Treatise to you, whose Opinion of it I know already; nor it to the World, either by your Opinion or Patronage. The well Educating of their Children is so much 1 Again these include Molyneux and Furly, and probably Carey Mordaunt, countess of Monmouth. 2  Probably Francis Cudworth Masham, Lady Masham’s son. Corr., iii. 49.

168

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1620.  W. Molyneux, 28 March 1693 the Duty and Concern of Parents, and the Welfare and Prosperity of the Nation so much depends on it, that I would have every one lay it seriously to Heart, and after having well examined and distinguished what Fancy, Custom or Reason advises in the Case, a–help to promote that way in the several degrees of Men,–a which is the easiest, shortest and likeliest to produce vertuous, useful and able Men in their distinct Callings: Though that most to be taken Care of, is the Gentleman’s Calling, for if those of that Rank are by their Education once set right, they will quickly bring all the rest into Order. I know not whether I have done more than shewn my good Wishes towards it in this short Discourse; such as it is the World now has it, and if there be any thing in it worth their acceptance, they owe their thanks to you for it. My Affection to you gave the first rise to it, and I am pleased that I can leave to Posterity this Mark of the Friendship has been between us. For I know no greater Pleasure in this Life, nor a better remembrance to be left behind one than a long continued Friendship, with an honest, useful and worthy Man, and lover of his Country. I am, Sir, Your most humble and most faithful Servant.1

1620*. Locke to William Molyneux, 28 March 1693 (1609, 1622) Karpeles Collection. Postmark: AP 4 Endorsed: Answer’d Apr. 18. 93.

1624A.  James Johnstoun to Locke, [2 May 1693] (1616, 1640A) Edinburgh, National Records of Scotland, Johnstoun’s letterbook, SP 3/I, fos. 134–5. Addendum from vol. viii. Year from letterbook; day and month from Johnstoun’s ­marginal note: Ed〈inbu〉r〈gh〉 2 May To Mr. Lock. Transcribed from photocopy. For Johnstoun, see Corr., ii. 526; ODNB. a–a  Later editions have set his helping hand to promote every where that Way of training up Youth, with regard to their several Conditions 1  In the first and second editions (1693) the epistle dedicatory was undated and unsigned. The third (1695) and fourth (1699) were dated ‘7 March, 1692’, correctly but in Old Style; the fifth (1705) and later editions were wrongly dated ‘7 March, 1690’. From the third edition onwards the valediction is signed ‘John Locke’.

169

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1624A.  J. Johnstoun, [2 May 1693] Sir I know to you a litle is enough. The parliament has made a hearty answer to the Kings Letter.1 They have continued all the present burdens and troops to mertimess2 94 against which time they hope the war will be at an end if not that they shall meet before that time. They have voted fonds for two new regiments of dragoons and four of foot to pay them to the said terme. They have done this the more frankly that they hope honest officers will be named such as major generall Livingston the Comander in cheif here.3 They have resolved too to give a fond for repairing the Castles and providing the Magazines with armes and amunition and (which possibly is more necessary then all the rest) for paying the Army their arrears and paying the Country what the army owes them. All this will amount to much more than this Nation ever gave. The truth is, honest men here (who are by far the majority in a–this–a parliament) would give more than they are well able to give provided they may be Secure, but it is impossible to give them a good opinion of a great many in the Government.4 we shun Church matters and such like subjects till the State concernes of greater moment be over, but I despair not of doing a great dale in those matters too.5 much art has been used to perswade the Nation that they were in no danger, which put me upon the necessity of doing what the minuts will Shew you I have done. I was not prepared for it, but a good cause goes far. I drunk two botles of bath waters this morning and have Spoke since in parliament I beleive three hours till I carryed my point. I was dispensed with for the rules of the house since I was only ripe on the a–a  Interline 1  The Scottish Parliament convened in April. The king’s Letter to Parliament is dated 23 March. ‘Johnstoun was the chief manager of the 1693 Parliament’: P. W. J. Riley, King William and the Scottish Politicians, 1979, p. 86. For proceedings, see the online resource Records of the Parliament of Scotland. 2  Martinmas (11 November), one of the Term Days in Scotland. 3  Sir Thomas Livingston, Viscount Teviot. 4  Both Presbyterian and Episcopalian wings of Scottish society were suspicious of William’s government, and both periodically tempted to ‘play the Jacobite card’. Johnstoun was sent to Scotland by William to garner support for the regime and attempt to reconcile factions. The optimistic note of this letter is gone by the time of the following letter, no. 1640A. 5  The Revolution in Scotland had seen the re-establishment of a Presbyterian national church. Unlike in England, there was no toleration act, and Episcopalians were systematically purged and suppressed. The king’s Letter to Parliament said: ‘since church matters are in a great measure the subject of contention, we doubt not of your care to find out proper and healing remedies for the disorders that have sprung from them’. Johnstoun, a Presbyterian of impeccable Revolution credentials, was, by English ministers, including Archbishop Tillotson, thought the man to effect some form of comprehension in order to ease the Episcopalians. He failed.

170

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1640A.  J. Johnstoun, [20 June 1693] subject and consequently only fit to mannage it. The whole of the report of the SubCommitty was approved in parliament unanimously, but that which concerned the Town of Ed〈inbu〉r〈gh〉 was disputed. You know the Kings Councell etc. carryed it on. I at last explained the words King James Interest at bottom, that K: James interests were carryed on in a hidden manner etc. and so carryed the approve by three to one. had I had leave to go as far as the evidence I have would have carryed me I would have made another work on it. What was brought into parliament will be printed. my humble Service to the Keeper1 and to my Lady St Johns.2 farewell.

1640A.  James Johnstoun to Locke, [20 June 1693] (1624A, 2099) Edinburgh, National Records of Scotland, Johnstoun’s letterbook, SP 3/I, fos. 172–3. Addendum from vol. viii. Year from letterbook, day and month from Johnstoun’s marginal note: 20th June To Mr. Lock. Transcribed from photocopy. I have added ­explanatory notes.

You’le allow me to dictat for I have toilled so all day that I cannot writ. I had yours of the 30th and the other but cannot trust true answers to writing, and if you have been in town and seen my brother3 you are answered already. I hope the King is Satisfyed since representations have been delayed. The Satisfaction would be more universall if ther were nothing to be represented. You may I own it think strange that after such fair beginings nothing more has been done, but if you knew the truth, you would think strange that any thing is done, not but that the parliament is honest and zealous, for it is the Convention parliament,4 but we the mannagers faill.5 The number and quality of persons concerned in Payn6 were such, that we could not resist their applications. 1  Lord Keeper Sir John Somers. 2  Lady Johanna St John. Corr., iv. 670. 3  Henry Fletcher. See no. 2859A. 4  i.e. the same Parliament that had effected the Revolution in 1689; not dissolved until 1702. 5  Compare the optimism of the previous letter, no. 1624A. 6  Henry Neville Payne (d.1705?), dramatist and Jacobite, a chief mover in the Skelmorlie Plot of 1690; the last person to be judicially tortured in Britain, in December 1690, with thumbscrew and the boot; thereafter he remained in custody without trial, until c.1700. Sir James Montgomerie of Skelmorlie was a Presbyterian Whig so enraged by William’s regime that he turned Jacobite. As the letter indicates, so many magnates were implicated in the plot that it proved impossible to put him (or anybody else) on trial. Ahead of the 1693 parliament, Johnstoun intercepted a new letter by Payne to the exiled Jacobite court, which he published (Nevil Payn’s Letter) and used

171

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1643.  W. Molyneux, 15 July 1693 In a word he owes his Safety to the dimensions of his crime. If we had tryed him we should have had a more particular discovery, But never was ther a plainer discovery made than by not trying him. I askt in open parliament how those very men, who to my knowledge had given it out that all was sham and forgery could be so destitute of Shame as to oppose the triall. I added that the reason was plain, that many were concerned, and guilt was stronger than Shame. To this no man replyed a word, Tho’ I spoke visibly to members of his Majesty’s aCouncell and men of the best quality, who upon other occasions would bear such Language of no man, But they care not what was said provided they carryed their point, as they did, by the assistance and authority of his Majesty’s Commissioner.1 Thus was lost the true opportunity of putting an end to plotts in this Kingdom. As to all other matters ther are Laws made which if duely executted will prove of great advantage both to the King and Country. But without a new Spirit in the administration, as the parliament says in their Letter to the King, all will certainly prove ineffectuall; For this Nation is a two edged tool which may happen to Cutt deep one time or other either for the present Setlement or against it.2 I hope to see you in a litle time. farewell.

1643*.  Locke to William Molyneux, 15 July 1693 (1622, 1652) Karpeles Collection. Contains intended alterations by Locke to the Essay. An image of this letter was hitherto available online: http://www.rain.org/~karpeles/locfrm.php. Corr., iv. 701, line 16: for Mr. 〈blank〉 read Mr. Churchill

a privie first written, then deleted to browbeat those who were implicated, who were thereby stampeded into proving their loyalty by voting generous taxes for the military, about which Johnstoun crowed to Locke in the preceding letter. On 15 June, the magnates, including even the king’s commissioner Hamilton, alarmed that Payne might publicly implicate them, voted against Johnstoun’s planned trial of Payne for high treason. Hence, Johnstoun’s next remark: ‘In a word he owes his Safety to the dimensions of his crime.’ See ODNB; W.  Thorp, ‘Henry Nevill Payne, Dramatist and Jacobite Conspirator’, in Essays in Dramatic Literature, ed. R. Craig, 1935, pp. 347–81. 1  William, third duke of Hamilton. Commissioner: in effect, regent for the king during the sitting of parliament. 2  ‘this nation’ means Scotland. An arresting image, because it captured the truth that Scotland was volatile and could react more sharply than England, either more radically for or more rad­ic­ al­ly against the Revolution settlement.

172

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1655.  W. Molyneux, 23 August 1693 Postscript:

Pray present my humble service to your brother. The booke Mr. Churchill has sent you by my order Is sent amongst other books to Mr. John North a Bookseller in Dublin to be deliver’d to you.1 Postmark: IY 15

1655*. Locke to William Molyneux, 23 August 1693 (1652, 1661) Karpeles Collection. Corr., iv. 722, line 32: for a new chapter Of Identity and Diversity, which read a new chapter which Postscript:

Pray with my services returne my thanks to your brother for the favour of his remembrance. I find my Bookseller has mistaken you two ­brothers for one alone and soe has sent never an one of my books to your brother.2 Pray excuse it to him. I have renew’d my order to Mr. Churchill, answerable to which I hope he will receive one by the first opportunity as a marke of my respect to him rather than as fit for his reading till he has children or at least putsa Postmark: AV 26 Endorsed: In answer to mine concerning his Thoughts of Education, and about Liberty.

1656A. Thomas Herbert, eighth earl of Pembroke, to Jean Le Clerc, [c.23 August 1693] Amsterdam University Library, Remonstrants Library (RK), J42. Printed in Jean Le Clerc, Epistolario, eds. M. G. Sina and M. Sina, 4 vols., 1987–97, ii. 105–6; A. Barnes, Jean Le Clerc, 1938, p. 163. Enclosed with no. 1656: Pembroke to Locke, 23 August [1693]. De Beer printed the letter to Locke but not the letter that is almost certainly the enclosure, which Pembroke asked Locke to read and forward. The letter thanks Le Clerc for dedicating his book Genesis to Pembroke, a dedication which, as Pembroke knew, was partly designed to advance his aspiration to be appointed to a position in a  Edge crumbled: remaining text irrecoverable 1  John North, bookseller in Dublin from at least 1659 until his death in 1697; first warden of the Dublin guild of stationers, 1671; master, 1675, 1692. His name does not occur elsewhere in the Correspondence. M. Pollard, A Dictionary of Members of the Dublin Book Trade, 1550–1800, 2000, pp. 435–6. The book sent by Churchill was Some Thoughts Concerning Education. 2  Thomas Molyneux was among those Locke listed for receiving a complimentary copy of Some Thoughts Concerning Education: Corr., viii. 456. Thomas mentions this matter in no. 1670.

173

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1680A.  W. Stratton, 4 December 1693 England. The presentation copy of Genesis for Pembroke was sent from Holland to Locke, for him to forward to the dedicatee; the transmitters from Holland were Benjamin Furly and John Toland. I rely on the transcription in Le Clerc, Epistolario.

Sir, I need not answer your Letter in French since you can with less ­trouble reade most Languages; I am obligd to you for your Book on Genesis1 and tho I am sensible that you might have made a better choise in your dedication yet I am satisfyed since the Authors name alone is sufficient to answer the ends commonly aimd att in dedications[.] as to myself the Character you give obliges me to observe that I am sorry you are not so well acquainted with me as you are with the subject you write on: Your Learning will oblige every one to desier you amongst them. I need not therefore tell you that I shall take all oppertunety of incouraging you to live here, where with many others you will find me Your Friend and Servant Pembroke A Monsieur Monsieur Le Clerc

1680A.  William Stratton to Edward Clarke, 4 December 1693 MS Locke c. 19, fos. 85–6. Stratton wrote to Locke on the same day in similar terms: no. 1680. For the matters discussed, see nos. 1669, 1701, 1705.

Bristoll the 4th Des 1693 Honoured Sir I this day Rec[eived] a letter from Mr. Locke dated the 2th of this Instant2 and therein orders me to pay what mony I have in my hands of his to Mr. Cothrington3 and to receive a noate from him that the mony is paid and that should be satisfacktion for you to pay Mr. Locke the mony,[.] I was this morning with Mr. Cothringtons sonn he saith his Father is in London and he will writ to him that the mony is received but I have not paid him it being too late but have promised to pay him uppon demand with which he is satisfied[.] the sume is 46l: 8s: 6½d which will Ballance the Account that is hearein [en]closed as you will 1  Jean Le Clerc, Genesis sive Mosis Prophetae Liber Primus (Amsterdam, 1693). 2  Not extant. 3  Richard Codrington, merchant, of High Street, Bristol. First mentioned in no. 276.

174

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1683A.  Dr G. Musgrave, 19 December 1693 find by the Account for Mr. Locke ordered me to send the Account to you[.] I met with a disapoyntment another way or the mony had been paid som time since, I humbly crave your direcktions about a tenant of Mr. Locks1 that hath a hous or two of Mr. Locks and the 〈chefe ?〉 rent is 5s per year and he is backward to pay and oweth 3 years Rent and have made me soe many promises that I am weary to goe after him and have paid sum of the rent out of my own pocket because I would make up my Accounts with Mr. Locke[.] I am not without sum hopes that he hath sold the houses to another man2 but there is littell hold to be taken of a knaves words for truth, soe I beg direcktions what to doe if the bargaine shold not goe on it being soe small 〈also ?〉 I dout the troble will be more then it is worth and therfore desire direcktions how I may get it with littell charge for he is Beggarly and I think knavish,[.] had I known you had been at Sutton Court3 I should have mad[e] bould to wait uppon you thear but did not untill you was gon for London[.] my humble service to your Good Lady I take leave your Obliged Humble servant Wm Stratton4

1683A.  Dr George Musgrave to Edward Clarke, 19 December 1693 SHC, DD/SF 7/1/57 (formerly 3864). Clarke Papers. George Musgrave was a phys­ ician in Somerset, from whom Mary Clarke regularly took medical advice, alongside Locke’s; he was a family friend, and dined at Chipley. The letter provides a rare glimpse of early reaction to Locke’s Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Evidently an enthusiast for the Essay, Musgrave reports the negative response of a local clergyman, who appears to have written out objections. Although the letter then veers off to complain against hunting by the clergy, the letter is unified by Musgrave’s anticlerical sentiments. Musgrave (d. before 1725) of Nettlecombe (and latterly of Huish), Somerset, was the son of George Musgrave (d.1674) and Juliana Bere; he married Edward Clarke’s daughter Mary. Gentleman’s Magazine, September 1824, p. 194; May 1825, p. 389. He is not to be confused with his uncle, William Musgrave (1655–1721), FRS, physician and antiquary, born at Nettlecombe, who is probably the Dr Musgrave mentioned in no. 1248: ODNB. A poem by Mary Chudleigh, ‘To the Learned and Ingenious Dr. Musgrave 1  ‘Your bad tenant Richard Kent’: no. 1669.    2  Cornelius Abraham: nos. 1669, 1680. 3  Home of John Strachey, 3 miles SW of Pensford. 4  There is a hitherto unprinted mention of Locke in Peter King to Stratton, 23 February 1694: ‘Sir Francis Massam with whome Mr. Lock now is, told me that he [Locke] was in London a little before Christmas, but the Air forc’d him back again into the Country, where he is now in good health’ (New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University, Beinecke Library: James Marshall Osborn Collection, File 8386).

175

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1683A.  Dr G. Musgrave, 19 December 1693 of Exeter’, in Poems on Several Occasions, 1703, and reprinted in M. J. M. Ezell, ed., Poems and Prose of Mary, Lady Chudleigh, 1993, must be addressed to the uncle, for he practised in Exeter.

Nettlecombe, December the 19: 93 Dear Sir Your sudden departure from Chipley was a very great Disappointment to my wife and self; for wee designed to wait on you the week following and to that end sent a servant purposely thither to enquire of the wellfare of your family and inform himself what day our company would be least troublesome to you: You may perceive by the inclosed1 that my neighbour can not assent and consent to all Mr. Locks assertions in his Treatise of Human Understanding; I do not doubt but Mr. Lock can justify his opinions and consequences although my neighbour hath termed the one heterodox and the other illogicall: but its probable Mr. Lock may conceive (as many others do) that he hath bestowed pains enough allready to illuminate a blind and ungratefull generation. If our Divine hath been too much a sceptick I hope his offence may have some mitigation in regard his speculations are of a subject of which hee is allowed to have the care upon his institution.2 But we have other Gentlemen of his function in this District who preferring action before speculation have contrary to the sacred canons of the Church as well as the civil sanctions of this realm invaded 〈several?〉 Gentlemens royaltys and freeholds and destroyed their game; Of which there being great and repeated complaints made to the magistracy of this division, they did in the first place inspect those laws which they were not only impowered but bound by oath to execute and among them found 22 and 23 Car. 2 cap. 25 sect. 3:3 That every person not having lands etc. in his own or his wives right of the clear yearly value of 100l was disabled to have or keep any greyhounds etc. And in the next place they examined Littleton the great oracle of our municipall Laws4 and the Lord Chief Justice Coke his Commentator, and in Co. Lit.5 300 A and B and 341 and 342 found that a Parson is said to be 1  Not extant. 2  Presumably this (ironic) remark means that the divine may be excused because he is dutybound to defend the Church. 3  The Game Act (1670). 4  Sir Thomas Littleton (c.1407–81), whose Tenures (1481/2) sought to systematize land law. 5  ‘Coke upon Littleton’ was a standard resource: Sir Edward Coke’s first part of the Institutes (1628).

176

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1688A.  Treasury Commissioners, 1693 seised Injuria Ecclesiae, and not on his own right: upon consideration whereof and the text of the Canon Law in thiese words (viz.) Venationes item et Aucupia a Clericis Omnibus Aliena esse debent.1 The magistracy did indeed batter those gentlemen with their own artillery (the Penall Laws and Canons) and adjudged them lyable to the Penaltys of your new Act for the Punishment of such as destroy the game,2 and the rather for that they did not pretend to have any lay qualification. I suppose you are by this time tired with this sort of Entertainment and therefor I shall add no more but my service to your lady and Mr. Edward and that I am Your most faithfull and obliged friend and servant G. M. Endorsed: Mr. Musgrave of the Parsons being Lyable to the Penall-Laws for distroying the Game etc: Recd the 22nd December 1693

1688A.  Locke to the Treasury Commissioners, 1693 (1951A) MS Locke c. 25, fo. 48. Letter of petition. A draft. Locke again calls for payment of his salary owing since 1673–4. See no. 1951A.

To the Right Honourable the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury The humble Petition of John Locke Sheweth That your Petitioner in obedience to your Lordships Commands signified to him by Mr. Guy3 in July last having a–past his–a account of the Money impressed to him for the Council of Trade and Plantationsb there remains due to your Petitioner the Summ of Sixty fower pounds and six pence. a–a  Interlined, replacing deliverd in and prosecuted with the Auditors of their Majesties Imprests an b  upon which account deleted 1  The clergy are forbidden from engaging in hunting and wildfowling. 2  The Game Act: 4 W & M, c. 23. 3  Henry Guy (1631–1711), secretary to the Treasury. ODNB. Instruction of Henry Guy to the Auditor of the Receipt, 20 July 1692, to make payment to Locke: Calendar of Treasury Books, 1689–1692, no. 1731. Payment by Henry Guy from secret service funds, 28 June 1694, of £64 to Locke for ‘so much by him disbursed for fees and charges in passing an account, according to the Exchequer form, of several sums by him formerly received to defray the incident charges of the Council of Trade and Foreign Plantations in the time of the late King Charles II’: Calendar of Treasury Books, 1702, no. 735.

177

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1693.  W. Molyneux, 19 January 1694 Your Petitioner therefor humbly prays that your Lordships will be pleased to order him the said summ of sixty fower pounds and six pence a–without which–a great charges in passing his account b–will be added to –b the c–loss of the–c greatest part of his salaryd And your Petitioner shall every pray etc Endorsed: JL Petition to the Treasury 93

1693*.  Locke to William Molyneux, 19 January 1694 (1685, 1712) Karpeles Collection. Postmark: IA 28

1701A.  Locke to Nicolas Fatio De Duillier, 29 January 1694 (1697, 1888) Dublin, National Library of Ireland, MS 9591, formerly in the collection of B. R. T. Balfour of Townley Hall, Drogheda; calendared in Historical Manuscripts Commission, 10th Report, appx vi, pp. 256–7. Recovered by Scott Mandelbrote; transcribed from photograph. Answers no. 1697. The letter is reproduced by kind permission of the Trustees of the National Library of Ireland, in whose ownership it lies. Thanks are due to Ciara McDonnell for information. Fatio was in search of an appointment to a tutorship with Lady Rachel Russell’s son Wriothesley, the future duke of Bedford and currently styled Lord Russell and Lord Tavistock, 1680–1711: see no. 1691. Fatio was duly appointed: see nos. 1883 and 1888. Thomas Hearne alleges that Fatio in due course defrauded Bedford of large sums of money (Remarks and Collections, 1885–1921, ii. 244). The letter shows Locke joining with Lord Ashley to petition Lady Russell on Fatio’s behalf. Lady Russell was the widow of the ‘Whig martyr’ William, Lord Russell, executed in 1683 for his part in the Rye House Plot. For Fatio, see Corr., iv. 378; ODNB.

Oates 29o Jan 93/4 Sir Having never had the honour to write to my Lady Russell1 in all my life I thought it not very gracefull to begin now that her Ladyship can a–a  Interlined, replacing to support the charge of passeing the said account without which he shall instead of receiving the reward be out of pocket for his service for his service [sic] but be at b–b  Interlined, replacing may not fall upon him while c–c  Interlined d  remains unpaid to him deleted 1  Lady Rachel Russell (born Wriothesley, 1637–1723). ODNB; L. G. Schwoerer, Lady Rachel Russell, 1988.

178

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1721A.  M. Clarke, [c.18 March 1694] noe longer read.1 This however I was resolved should not hinder me from shewing my desire and readynesse to serve you as far as I am able: And I think I have found a way to doe it more effectualy than if I had immediately applyd my self to her Ladyship haveing joyned my Lord Ashleys2 powerfull interest, to mine that I cannot promise a–you–a much from. What ever mine is my Lord Ashley is able to make the most of it. He and I were to have gon togeather to wait upon my Lady. And he knows b–that–b I was c–more than once–c in vain at Southampton d–house–d3 upon an Intimation I received a litle before I came out of town4 that my Lady would be glad to speake with me. What use my Lord Ashley may make of this on your occasion the inclosed will informe you. If there be any farther service I can doe you in this or any other concernment of yours you may command me I am Sir your most humble and most faithfull servant J: Locke Address: For Mr. Fatio at his lodging near Soho Square

1721A.  M ary Clarke to Edward Clarke, [c.18 March 1694] (1324A, 1881) SHC, DD/SF 7/1/57 (formerly 3864). Clarke Papers. Date torn in manuscript; estimated from endorsement. The letter is evidence of an early reader of Locke’s Thoughts Concerning Education.

My Deare I received yours, and am sorry to heare that they that have it in theyre power to Gett soe much honestly should be induced to doe such Ill things, as the Speaker has done,5 Mr. Sandford6 was speaking of it a–a you interlined above deleted c–c  interlined

b–b that interlined above how often deleted d–d  interlined

1  She suffered from cataracts, but her correspondence continued. See Letters of Lady Rachel Russell, 1773. 2  Anthony Ashley Cooper, future third earl of Shaftesbury. 3  Lady Russell’s home (later called Bedford House) in Bloomsbury Square. 4  Locke left for Oates on 19 December. 5  Evidently early rumours of the bribes received by Sir John Trevor which led to his sacking as Speaker in 1695. 6  Probably William Sanford of Nynehead (d.1719), who later married the Clarkes’ daughter Anne. He was son of John Sanford (1640–1711), MP for Minehead, Somerset, whom Edward Clarke had displaced as MP for Taunton. They were political enemies, Sanford being a Tory, and Mary often vituperates against him, so the son is more likely.

179

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1721A.  M. Clarke, [c.18 March 1694] Fryday last; by whome I have sent Jennys1 Cote, which theare is noe hast of sending till you have a safe hand, for its thinner then that the child have allredy, and thearefore twill be better that the wether should be warmer before she have it; what I mentioned to you concerning Jack wase for noe other resen then that you might informe your selfe, on that subiect, before you come home, in case Mounsieur2 and you should have any discorse about it, or as you find Jack Improved, thiss I must say for Mounsieur thinke he is much the best of the 3 we have had,3 and has much more resen, and a more stedy way of teaching and Governing; he studyes Mr. Lockes Booke of Education4 much and is of late often asking wheare5 Mr. Locke have Given any new rules Concerning Jack, how redy he shall be to follow them, and saying how Jepp is altered and hee beleves If he was to begin with him soe younge6 he should be able to mannage him very well, to all which I say very little; but these are the resons that makes me beleve he would be willing to stay heare this summer att least,7 but whether I am in the right or noe I know not, or what is most fit to be thought, or to be done, till you come home, to be consulted in thiss, and many other things I know not; but thiss I know that I am: your affectionate and Faithfull wife M Clarke my service to Mr. Freake8 and your selfe and all Frends Endorsed: Received March the 22nd 1694

1  For the Clarke children, see no. 682*. 2  De Grassemare: see nos. 1674 and 1818A, and B. Clarke, ‘Huguenot Tutors and the Family of Edward and Mary Clarke of Chipley, 1687–1710’, Proceedings of the Huguenot Society, 27 (2001), 527–42. 3  Previously, Monsieurs Duelly and Passebon. See no. 930A. 4  It had been published in July of the previous year. In a letter of September 1694 Mary Clarke reported to Edward that the tutor wished to translate the book into French: SHC, DD/SF 7/1/31. Pierre Coste’s French edition appeared in 1695. See S.-J. Savonius, ‘The Role of Huguenot Tutors in John Locke’s Programme of Social Reform’, in The Religious Culture of the Huguenots, 1660–1750, ed. A. Dunan-Page, 2006. 5  i.e. whether. 6  Jepp was born in 1691. 7  Grassemare was fed up by the end of the year, but struggled on until 1696. For educated refugee Huguenots, tutoring was a necessity rather than an ambition. 8  The first of many occurrences in the present volume of John Freke (1652–1717), lawyer and Whig activist, who, from this year, became Clarke’s and Locke’s closest political confrère, forming ‘the College’.

180

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1735A.  R. Burthogge, [c.April] 1694

1735A. R ichard Burthogge to Locke, [c.April] 1694 (1737A) Dedicatory epistle prefaced to An Essay upon Reason, and the Nature of Spirits, 1694. No extant manuscript. The book was published on 31 April (advert: Athenian Gazette, 1 May 1694). The dedication caused Locke to open a correspondence with Burthogge, in a letter of 8 May 1694 (not extant, see no. 1737A), after Burthogge had presumably sent Locke a copy of his book. (There is no reference in Locke’s Journal to his doing so, and LL 538 is not marked as a gift; but he did send Locke a copy of his Causa Dei, 1675: MS Locke f. 10, 25 February 1695.) Burthogge’s grateful reply is no. 1737A (15 May). Another work by Burthogge, Of the Soul of the World, and of Particular Souls, in a Letter to Mr. Lock, 1699, is also addressed to Locke, and dated 13 June 1698, but does not open with a dedicatory epistle. The dedication to the Essay upon Reason is not included among the extracts from that treatise in M. Landes, ed., The Philosophical Writings of Richard Burthogge, 1921. In this transcription roman and italic fonts are reversed. For Burthogge, see Corr., v. 51; ODNB.

To the Learned Mr. John Locke, Author of the Essay Upon Humane Understanding. Sir, I Take the Liberty of making a Present of the following Essay unto you, as to a Person who being acknowledged by all the Learned World for one of the Greatest Masters of Reason, are therewithal allowed a most Proper and Competent Judge of any Discourse concerning it. Whatever my Performance is, the Design I have is no small one; since it is to show the true way of Humane Knowledge, and by shewing that it is Real Notional, to unite and reconcile the Experimental, or Mechanical, with the Scholastical Method. This Thought, Sir, affords me abundant matter of enlarging in many others; but I ought to remember, that I am a stranger to you, and this my First Visit, and therefore I must make it short, which I will do, by hastning to own my self among the Croud of those who do admire you, and to assure you, that I am with great Respect, Sir, Your very Humble Servant, Rich. Burthogge

1735B. Elizabeth Clarke to Mary Clarke, 2 May 1694 SHC, DD/SF 7/1/60 (formerly 3069). Clarke Papers. This letter is the sole evidence for the possibility of a marriage between Locke and Martha Lockhart, who was one of Queen Mary’s bedchamber women. She was a daughter of Sir William Lockhart, soldier and diplomat, a grand-niece of Oliver Cromwell, and a third cousin of Sir Francis

181

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1735B.  E. Clarke, 2 May 1694 Masham. See no. 1314, and nos. 1310A, 1756A, 1818A, and 2479B. Elizabeth (Betty) Clarke, now twelve, was the daughter of Edward and Mary Clarke. There are three possible interpretations of this letter. The first is that Betty was speaking meta­phor­ic­ al­ly, since it was she whom Locke nicknamed ‘my wife’ (see e.g. 1818A), and hence she was jealously fearful that she would be displaced in his affections. (Lockhart in turn called Damaris Masham’s little son Francis her ‘husband’: no. 1314). But this is doubtful, because the epithet ‘wife’ was reserved for affections between adults and children and is unlikely to have been used metaphorically of the adult Lockhart. Second, that Betty had received false gossip. And third, that the report is plausible, possibly even true. Locke was certainly very close to Lockhart, and intimate with her circle – Lady Masham, the Clarkes, the earl and countess of Monmouth. Lockhart’s combination of intelligence, assertiveness, and playfulness was attractive to Locke, and these were the characteristics that had also attracted him to Damaris Masham. Consonant is L1758 (23 July 1694), in which Locke reassures Esther he is not about to forsake her for another. It may be relevant that Esther annotated her copy of a letter to Locke, in respect of Locke’s visiting Isabella Bennet, duchess of Grafton: ‘I pretended to be jealous upon his visiting the duchess of Grafton’ (L2327; 13 October 1697). Cited in A. Benzaquén, ‘Locke’s Children’, Journal of the History of Childhood and Youth, 4 (2011), 382–402, at 400.

Chipley the 2d of may. 1694 Honoured Mother I am very glad to understand by my Fathers letter to Mr. Spreat1 that you both have some thoughts of Coming to Chipley, which news would have much more transported me had I not had a great affliction upon me; Being informed (by a very good hand) that Mr. Lock is to be married with Mrs. Lockard;2 which sad tidings puzzles my thoughts mightily, and is the more likely, to be feared by me to be true because I know what she deserves. Mr. Lock also loveing and being tooke with women of great witt understandings and parts, (as she is) in the mean while I can assure you that no sorrow shall ever hinder my dutys towards you and my father nor my respects to Mr. Lock which is all at present from Honoured Mother Your most humble and Dutyfull Daughter Eliza: Clarke Address: These For her Honoured Mother Mrs. Mary Clarke at London Endorsed: Betty’s letter

1  John Spreat, the Clarke’s steward. 2  Lockhart was unmarried: ‘Mrs’ (for ‘Mistress’) was an honorific for adult women.

182

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1744.  W. Molyneux, 26 May 1694

1744*.  Locke to William Molyneux, 26 May 1694 (1712, 1748) Karpeles Collection. A restored passage concerning the Hawkshaw loan. Several such passages were omitted from subsequent letters in the 1708 edition and are restored here. Locke is anxious for repayment of a loan he had made to John Hawkshaw during his distress, in flight from Ireland in 1689; or, rather, he is concerned about Hawkshaw’s dishonesty in not repaying, and proposes, inter alia, that the loan be repaid in the form of charitable giving. Corr., v. 59, line 8: between reader. and I am insert two omitted paragraphs:

Tis possible you may know one Mr. Hawkshaw of Dublin. I mean the Elder Brother who is unknown to me.1 When his Mother was in distress in England2 I supply’d her with a little money which I neither gave nor lent her. If her son be in a condition and disposition to return it I would not have it lost in a rich mans pocket since ita was the affect of Charity only in me and soe I conceive belongs to those who want it.3 Not that I desire ever to have it again in my hands but if you think it reasonable to move it and can get it I leave it to you to be laid out in my books and given by you, but not in my name, to any poor scholers you shall think fit. It is but five pounds,4 which I doe by noe means claim from him as a debt. But if he be able and an ingenuous man he will not rob the pore of what being meant as a charity can belong only to them and therefore I shall not limit it to books but to any other charitable use he and you shall agree in. If you buy books pray let his younger brother, whom I know, have one and that from me. Pray give my most humble service to Capt. Monk5 and to your brother. Postmark: MA 26 Endorsed: 2d Edition of his Essay now publish’d. Mony lent to Mrs. Hogshaw. a what deleted and replaced by since it 1  De Beer (Corr., v. 69) identifies this man as either Benjamin or John Hawkshaw. It is clear from this passage that it is John, the elder brother, to whom Locke is referring; with the younger brother he corresponded in 1689–90. See Corr., iii. 627, 640. 2  Elinor Hawkshaw (born Parry), for whom, see Corr. i. 68n, was the widow of Richard Hawkshaw; during the Jacobite takeover of Ireland in 1689 she was forced to flee to England; she had written to Locke, to whom she had been close at Oxford in the 1650s, seeking charity. 3  Want: need. Here and below Locke implies that charity taken by a person not in need of it amounts to theft from the poor. 4  £5 would buy seven copies of Locke’s Essay, at a price (unbound) of 14s each. 5  Almost all references to Captain Henry Monk were suppressed from Some Familiar Letters; hence he often occurs in the restored passages below. Surveyor general of the Customs of Ireland; Corr., iv. 768.

183

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1753.  W. Molyneux, 28 June 1694

1753*.  Locke to William Molyneux, 28 June 1694 (1748, 1763) Karpeles Collection. The Hawkshaw loan again. Corr., v. 79, lines 11–12: insert omitted paragraph:

I have not yet heard of the Gent to whom you spoke concerning the money.1 I say not this to desire any farther trouble from you or to have him pressed any farther in the case. The same ingenuity which made him take it on himself as a debt which I designed not to force him to will noe doubt when it suits his occasions move him 〈. . . 〉a it also. I am not in hast with a man who appears willing to doe what becomes him. Postscript:

Pray present my most humble service to your Brother and let him know I wish him great happiness in the change of his state.2 Second postscript:

I shall goe out of town the later end of this or the beginning of the next week so that what you have to say to Mr. Gibb3 will be best addressed immediately to him. Postmark: IU 28 Endorsed: About a Tutor for my son.

1756A.  Locke to [Edward Clarke], [13 July 16]94 (1755, 1762) SHC, DD/SF 7/1/66 (formerly 2647). Clarke Papers. Answered by no. 1762. Recovered by Elizabeth Grant. Very faded and severely damaged, and previously in a file of miscellaneous scraps; parts of the text are irrecoverable, and some readings may be doubtful. The letter concerns the founding of the Bank of England and Locke’s gladness that Clarke has been chosen one of the directors. It can be securely dated from internal evidence.

a  Word indecipherable 1 See Corr., v. 69–70. John Hawkshaw again. 2  His marriage on 13 May to Catherine Howard. 3  The prospective tutor referred to in nos. 1756 and 1763. Locke left London on 14 July.

184

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1756A.  [E. Clarke], [13 July 16]94

   Whitehall1 〈1〉3 〈July〉 94 Dear Sir You will find by the names of the Directors2 underwritten that in the letter I writ to you last night3 it was not ill guessed that you were like to be one of them. Since the writing of that I have seen your son4 who is very well. And I was glad by your letter to him which he shewd me to finde that you and all your company got well to Chipley.5 I am for Oates to morrow morning and leave this to be sent by to morrows post. There are two Ladys6 by whilst 〈I write〉 who are too good company to suffer me to enlarge to a country squire any farther than to present their and my service to you and your 〈…〉 Dear Sir Your most affectionate and most humble servant J Locke Governor7 Directors Huband Theo. Jansen Ob. Sedg

John Hu Ab Hublon Jo. Lordel Nat. Te

Godfrey Bridges Hublon Sam. Leth Jo. War

man Sir Wm Hedges Sir Wm Scaw Wm Paterson

Gore Heathcot Sir H. Fur

1  Note that Locke writes from the seat of government. Earlier in the month Locke had been at Whitehall Palace in discussion with Lord Keeper Somers (no. 1755). 2  Of the Bank. Twenty-four directors, Clarke among them, were chosen by ballot on 11 July. Clarke declined to act, and a substitute was chosen on 3 August. In his reply of 28 July, he told Locke that he had made his excuses to the Bank and would explain his reasons when they next met; he hoped Locke would ‘forgive my refusal’. Locke’s next letter expressed his annoyance at Clarke’s refusal (no. 1768, 6 August). 3  On his return to London after a week visiting several country houses, Locke had written Clarke a long account of his ‘ramble’ (not extant, but see nos. 1762, 1768; Corr., v. 91, 106). Locke had evidently mentioned in that letter the news that Clarke was likely to be among the directors; in the present letter he now has confirmation of the directors’ names. 4  Edward Clarke Jr, of whose health and education Locke took particular care. 5  The Clarke family had recently left London for Somerset. They reached Ivychurch, near Salisbury, on 26 June (no. 1755), and Chipley shortly after. 6  Probably Martha Lockhart (see no. 1735B) and Joanna Cutts (sister of Lord Cutts), members of Queen Mary’s household (no. 1762), for whom, see Corr., iv. 122, 136. 7  The rest of the page is in especially poor condition, and the text is only partially recoverable. The names of twenty members of the founding Court are at least partly visible. Locke evidently wrote out all the names. I have not attempted to reproduce the layout of the visible fragments. The Court comprised the governor, Sir John Houblon, and deputy governor, Michael Godfrey, and twenty-four directors. The directors were as follows: Sir Thomas Abney, James Bateman, George Boddington, Brooke Bridges, James Denew, Sir Henry Furnese, Thomas Goddard, Sir  William Gore, Gilbert Heathcote, Sir William Hedges, Abraham Houblon, Sir James Houblon, Sir John Huband, Theodore Janssen, John Knight, Samuel Lethieullier, John Lordell, William Paterson, Robert Raworth, Sir William Scawen, Obadiah Sedgwick, John Smith,

185

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1775.  Dr. H. Sloane, 25 August 1694

1775*. Dr (later Sir) Hans Sloane to Locke, 25 August 1694 (1785) Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin: Preussischer Kulturbesitz Handschriftenabteilung, Slg. Darmst. Amerika (4), fos. 10–11. Recoverd by Scott Mandelbrote and transcribed from a photocopy. De Beer was able to provide only an extract from a sale catalogue of 1859. His footnotes are repeated below and augmented. Answered by no. 1785. For Sloane, see Corr., ii. 642; ODNB.

   London Aug. 25. 1694. Sir I wish I had any thing worth your while to divert you in the Countrey but all philosophic1 occurrences are so well known to you that I am sure you might inform mee better then I you but however I will venture to tell you ane odd case it was a woman extreamely troubld with a swelling in her belly, of which she died after severall courses of physick gone through without successe, most of those who attended her thought she had a large apostem2 somewhere in her abdomen and expected great quantities of pus there, but when wee came to it every thing was sound but the spleen which was every way in its due substance, colour, etc. onely immensely large and the blood vessells swelld to a prodigious diameter and were filled with very large polypi so that in some of the large vessells those concretions3 were as large as ones finger and almost cartilagineous, it was very odd that every thing appeared sound but that and that those concretions none being near the heart should cause her death, and so great a tumour, what symptoms she had I know not but I think it very strange. There has been in Northamptonshire a very great whirlewind which lasted halfe ane hour and carried with it into the air much corn scattering it 5 miles from the place where it lay as good credible wittnesses relate.4 They are now printing ane account of all the manuscripts in England both publick and private, at Oxford and one volume is allready printed Nathaniel Tench, John Ward. Of these, John Knight was the twenty-fourth chosen, and hence presumably replaced Clarke and does not appear on Locke’s list. See R. Roberts and D. Kynaston, eds., The Bank of England, 1995, pp. 251–2. 1  Philosophic: pertaining to natural philosophy, i.e. science. 2  Apostem: a large deep-seated abscess. 3  Concretions: things growing together in a mass. 4 A tornado at Warrington, Northamptonshire, on 1 August: Philosophical Transactions (1694), p. 192.

186

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1775.  Dr. H. Sloane, 25 August 1694 off which will be of considerable use and credit to the Kingdom,1 They are likewise there finishing Dr. Morisons history of plants,2 and Dr. Plott is here about publishing the naturall history of Midlesex and London as well as Kent3 and Mr. Newton of Cambridge is about another edition of his book which ’tis said he will make much more easy to be understood:4 Dr. Wallis is also about printing all his tracts in 2 volums in folio in Latin one of which is allready finished.5 There is a book of Moulinets come from Paris – it is ane account of the Cabinet de St. Genevieve and seems chiefly to relate to antiquities and as to the naturall history looks to be but very ordinary ’bating the figures.6 Wee expect a book of plants and druggs from thence likewise but they are very slow in coming. There is a very ingenious Gent. Mr. Doody7 who will very soon give us a very good account of severall of those plants which are reckoned by many imperfect,8 such as submarine plants, fungi and mosses, which hitherto have most of them been counteda not to propagate themselves as other plants by seed. He has found for instance that some of the fuci9 under the sea water have a bseed as bigg as a small pins head lodged in a small mucilaginous10 matter which when ’tis ripe is carried out of its putrefied bed and transportedc with the waves to the neighbouring stones where it is fastened by that gummy matter ’till it sprouts and produces its like. And he has found a reckoned deleted   b  Word deleted   c carried deleted 1  Edward Bernard, Catalogi librorum manuscriptorum Angliae et Hiberniae, 1697. The ­project was advertised in 1695 and James Tyrrell had already reported it was ‘in the press’ in October 1693: no. 1665. 2  Robert Morison (1620–83). ODNB. Plantarum historiae universalis, 1680. A specimen had been published in 1672 and a final part appeared posthumously in 1699. See no. 524. 3  Robert Plot (1640–96), DCL 1671. ODNB. For these projected natural histories, see his letters, quoted by Bliss in Anthony Wood, Athenae Oxonienses, ed. P. Bliss, 4 vols., 1813–20, iv. 778. 4  Newton’s proposed alterations to the Principia are set out in a memorandum written by David Gregory the astronomer probably about July: The Correspondence of Isaac Newton, iii, ed. H. W. Turnbull, 1961, pp. 384–9. The second edition did not appear until 1713. 5  John Wallis, De algebra tractatus, Oxford, 1693, which was reissued in 1699 as vol. ii of Opera mathematica; and Opera mathematica, i, Oxford, 1695. For Wallis, see below, no. 2596A. 6  Claude Du Moulinet, Le cabinet de la bibliothèque de Sainte Geneviève, Paris, 1692. 7  Samuel Doody (1656–1706), botanist, elected FRS 1695. ODNB. The book mentioned here was not published; a draft is in the British Library (MS Sloane 2315). Hence, de Beer, who did not have access to this part of the text, was in error, in his note to Locke’s reply, Corr., v. 127 n. 2, in suggesting that the book in question was vol. iii of John Ray’s Historia Plantarum, 1694, although it is true that the second volume of the Historia, 1688, acknowledged Doody’s help, and the appendix to the second edition of Ray’s Synopsis, 1696, contains a list of plant records supplied by Doody. I am indebted to Scott Mandelbrote for this explanation. 8  An imperfect plant is one in which a vital part is lacking. 9  Fuci: a general term for seaweeds. 10  Mucilaginous: soft, moist, and viscous.

187

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1781.  W. Molyneux, 3 September 1694 most mosses reckoned barren to have flours and seed so that the matter of equivocall generation1 will receive by this work a very great blow which I believe you will not be displeased at. I begg your pardon for this trouble and remain Your most obedient and most humble servant Hans Sloane Address: To Mr. Locke at Sir Francis Massams at Oates to be left with Mr. Josselyn a shopkeeper in Bishop Stafford. Postmark: AV 25 Endorsed by Locke: H. Sloane 25 Aug. 94. [Answered] 14 Sept. Endorsed in a later hand: From the papers of Lord King, whose Great Grandfather Lord Chancellor King was Mr. Locke’s near relation and Executor, from Mr. Whishaw, July 1813.

1781*.  Locke to William Molyneux, 3 September 1694 (1763, 1797) Karpeles Collection. Concerning the Hawkshaw loan. Corr., v. 120, line 35: between you. and I am, insert omitted paragraph:

Whether Mr. Hogshaw writ to me or noe he best knows. This I can tell that if he did his letter had very ill luck to be the only one sent me out of Ireland that came not to my hand. It being soe I leave it to your prudence to manage him as you think best only with this caution not to presse it as a direct debt that I claim. Postscript:

Pray give my humble service to your Brother and Capt. Monk. Second postscript:

Be pleased to direct your letters to me for the future at Mr. Robert Pawlings over against the plough Inne in little Lincolns Inne feilds, London. Postmark: SE 22 Endorsed: Complements. Address.

1 Equivocal generation was a common term for spontaneous generation: the supposed (re)production of plants and animals without parents.

188

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1817.  W. Molyneux, 23 November 1694

1817*.  Locke to William Molyneux, 23 November 1694 (1797, 1829) Karpeles Collection. Concerning the Hawkshaw loan. Corr., v. 194, lines 14–15: insert omitted paragraph:

Manage the business with Mr. Hogshaw as you shall think most effectuall for the Pore. For theirs I look upon it to be and to them I designe it if ever it can be recovered.1 Postscript:

My most humble service to your Brother. Endorsed: Desire of seeing me in England. 6 of his books sent.

1818A.  Locke to Edward Clarke, 23 November 1694 (1813, 1819) SHC, DD/SF 9/1/5 (formerly 3304). Clarke Papers. A stray sheet that I found loose and folded in the Clarkes’ Chipley household account book for 1685–1702, having served as a bookmark for three centuries. Locke’s enclosure for Elizabeth Clarke not found. Answered by no. 1819. The letter underscores some of Locke’s known ideas on education. Quoted in A. Benzaquén, ‘Locke’s Children’, Journal of the History of Childhood and Youth, 4 (2011), 382–402, at 400; S. J. Savonius, ‘The Role of Huguenot Tutors in John Locke’s Programme of Social Reform’, in The Religious Culture of the Huguenots, 1660–1750, ed. A. Dunan–Page, 2006, p. 159.

    Oates 23 Nov 94 Dear Sir I trespasse, aske pardon, and trespasse again. Thus the world goes round. But I wish you have noe greater trouble nowa than my letters to be sent. binclosed you will finde one to my wife,2 wherein I have a litle corrected Monsr Grasemar3 upon her back. They make children writec high unnatural complements for good breeding as if it could bed civility in any one to say what could not be beleived.4 To teach them to write as they should, one ought to make them write their own thoughts a now inserted superscript b  In the struck through c un struck through before high d in (?) struck through before civility 1 See Corr., v. 158–9. 2  Locke’s nickname for twelve-year-old Betty Clark. 3  Grassemare was one of a series of Huguenot tutors employed by the Clarkes; see nos. 1674 and 2855A. Locke marks a poem ‘Grassemare [16]95’ at MS Locke c. 32, fo. 38. 4  Compare remarks in Some Thoughts Concerning Education, § 189.

189

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1843A.  T. Hinton, 31 January 1695 as they can and then to correct that a litle and by this means teach them to creepa and not to vault, before they can goe. My service to Mr. Freke I am Dear Sir your most affectionate humble servant J Locke Endorsed by Clarke: Mr. Locke touching Miss Betty’s Writeing etc Recd the 26 ­November 1694

1843A. Thomas Hinton to Arthur Charlett, 31 January 1695 Bodl., MS Ballard 38, fo. 2. This important letter concerns a sermon delivered in the University Church in Oxford against Locke’s Two Treatises of Government. Thomas Hinton is obscure: he matriculated at New Inn Hall, Oxford, in 1675. Arthur Charlett (1655–1722), graduated MA, 1676; fellow of Trinity College, 1680; Master of University College from 1692; rector of Hambledon, Buckinghamshire, 1707–22; royal chaplain, 1697–1717. A High Church Tory active in university affairs, he was at the centre of a network of like-minded correspondents. ODNB. See  M.  Goldie, ‘The Earliest Attack on Locke’s Two Treatises of Government’, Locke Newsletter, 30 (1999), 73–84.

    New-Inn Hall Jan. 31st 94/5 Master I should be very glad to hear how you got to London; for Tuesday was such a terrible day, that I tremble at the very thought of the danger, and cold you were to pass thorow.1 Mr. Creech2 gave us a most excellent sermon yesterday on the old principles of government,3 in op­pos­ ition to Mr. Hobbes and Mr. Locke,4 and truly he treated the living a bef (?) struck through before and not 1  There was a hard frost and Oxford was under heavy snow. 2  Thomas Creech (1659–1700), classical scholar, Fellow of All Souls College. ODNB. 3  30 January was the annual day for solemn commemoration of ‘Charles King and Martyr’ and standardly the occasion for high Tory sermons. We do not know the content of Creech’s sermon but its gist can be deduced from his translation of Lucretius’ De rerum natura (1682, reprinted 1699), in which his exegesis of Book 5 defends divine right monarchy against ‘republican’ theories. 4  It is striking that Creech apparently publicly named Locke, or, at least, that his audience knew perfectly well the identity of the author of the Two Treatises, as is evident from the ensuing remarks about Tyrrell’s Bibliotheca Politica. It is also evident from a letter written the day before by an undergraduate of St Edmund Hall: ‘Here is a book writ by Mr. Lock which makes a great noise, the title is, Two Treatises of Government, in the former the false princip. and foundations of Sir Rob. Filmer, and his followers, are detected and overthrown, the latter is an essay concerning the true original, extent, and end of civil government. Price 3s 6d. This Lock was expelled from Ch[rist] Ch[urch] Coll. for his Praesb[yterian] Principals; and was chaplain to the E.  of

190

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1843A.  T. Hinton, 31 January 1695 Author with as much freedome and smartnesse, as some men are wont to treat dead ones, who (as the proverbe says) don’t bite.1 Mr. Tyrrell2 and Mr. Toland3 were both at Church and very attentive, and it’s probable one or both of them may have given Mr. Locke some account hereof this post.4 The eyes of the congregation were as much fixed upon Mr. Tyrrell this year as they were upon the Scotchmen the last;5 and if he had not finished his Bibliotheca politica I am apt to think this sermon would have cost him another Dialogue.6 But now I believe he must be forc’d to insert it in his intended History;7 in which (as he tells us in his proposall)8 he designes to give us an exact account of the liberty of the subject and the prerogatives of the prince, with the nature and origine of our English government; to which originall contract (as we may call it)9 if he would but adde an exact list of the priviledges of parliament, they would possibly be a couple of the most curious treatises (having been so much talked of, and so little knowne) of any that have been printed since Guttemberg’s days. But to wave this digression, the church was very full, our friend Dr. Sykes10 was there, who I don’t Shaftesbury.’ George Fleming to his father, Sir Daniel: Cumbria Record Office, WD/Ry/HMC, no. 4769; see Historical Manuscripts Commission, 12th Report, Fleming MSS, p. 335; and J. R. Magrath, The Flemings in Oxford, iii, 1924, pp. 193–4. 1  ‘Dead men don’t bite’: from Plutarch’s Life of Pompey. 2  James Tyrrell (1642–1719), Whig author and friend of Locke. Corr., i. 495; ODNB; above, no. 963A. 3  John Toland (1670–1722), soon to be notorious for the heretical Christianity not Mysterious (1696). At this stage he was a protégé of Locke, who later disowned him. ODNB; there are several modern scholarly studies. 4  No such letter survives. 5  On 30 January 1694 William Wyatt, principal of St Mary Hall, preached a ‘high flown sermon’ made ‘’tis said, for King James II’s reign, and not for this’. He attacked the perfidious Calvinistical Scots for being authors of the revolutions of the 1640s. Present in the audience was a young Scottish aristocrat, Archibald Campbell, grandson of the marquis of Argyll who had led the Scottish rebellion, who, though himself a ‘high flown loyalist’, was ‘enraged’ at the sermon and abused Wyatt in the church. The Life and Times of Anthony Wood, ed. A. Clark, 5 vols., 1891–1900, iii. 442. Wood recorded the preachers’ names for the 30 January sermons from 1689 to 1695, commenting only on Wyatt’s and not on Creech’s (pp. 297, 324, 382, 415, 478). 6  Bibliotheca Politica: or an Enquiry into the Ancient Constitution of the English Government, 1692–4, an elephantine work, hence Hinton’s jibe. The first three of thirteen dialogues cited Locke’s Two Treatises. Tyrrell sent copies to Locke. LL 3001. 7  The General History of England, 3 vols., 1696–1704. Tyrrell originally intended to bring the history up to the present but he only reached the deposition of Richard II in 1399. The ensuing remarks show that this projected history was long in the making and much anticipated. Tyrrell referred to the Two Treatises in the preface to the first volume. Locke had a copy: LL 3002. 8 Tyrrell, Proposals for Printing a General History of England [1694]. 9  A witticism: Tyrrell’s prospectus is the ‘original contract’ of his History, and the History will vindicate the theory of an original contract. 10  Thomas Sykes, president of Trinity College, 1704–5 (d.1705). Thomas Hearne confirms his leanings to Jacobitism.

191

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1854A.  A. Fletcher, 1 March 1695 doubt was pleased with the discourse; but there was another Dr. there of the same college1 who look’d a little sower, and though I believe he did not understand much of the matter, yet I fancy he thought it was not altogether right as he would have it. All friends here as far as I  know are well; pray be pleased to excuse this trouble from your obliged servant Thomas Hinton Address: These for the Reverend Dr. Charlett at Mr. Sare’s at Gray’s Inn gate next Holbourne London2 Endorsed: Mr. Hinton 1694/5. About Mr. Creech’s excellent sermon on the old principles of Government against Hobbs Lock etc.

1854A.  Locke to Andrew Fletcher of Saltoun, 1 March 1695 (1851, 2381) Edinburgh, National Library of Scotland, MS 17851, fos. 22–3. Transcribed from photo­ copy. Addendum from vol. viii. The end of the postscript is apparently lost. Answers no. 1851. MS 17851, fos. 24–5, 132–3 and 154, contain Locke’s advice concerning Margaret Fletcher’s case, and date from June to September of this year; fos. 132–3 are especially valuable for Locke’s views on childbirth: ‘Mr. Lock’s advice to M. C. during the time she is with child and after she is brought to bed’. They will appear in Peter Anstey’s and Lawrence Principe’s Clarendon Edition of Locke, Writings on Natural Philosophy and Medicine. See also nos. 2859A, 2866A, 2870A, 2908A. For Fletcher, see Corr., v. 82; ODNB. Margaret, daughter of David Carnegie of Pittarrow, married Fletcher’s b­ rother Henry in 1688; they lived in Andrew’s household at Saltoun. See  J.  Gordon-Roth, ‘Locke on Midwifery and Childbirth’, in The Lockean Mind, eds. J. Gordon-Roth and S. Weinberg, 2022.

   Oates 10 Mar 94/5 Sir you could not be more glad of your sister in laws perfect recovery than I should be in doeing you any acceptable service in reference to it. But whatever occasion the title of my booke may have given you to complement me to her,3 you have either said or shee beleived too much, and

1  An investigation of the Fellows of Trinity at this time might reveal the identity of this dissident. On the same day as Hinton wrote this letter, John Wynne of Jesus College wrote to Locke an admiring letter proposing what would become his Abridgement of Locke’s Essay: no. 1843. 2  Richard Sare (d.1728), a leading bookseller, trading 1684–1728, a favourite publisher among (though not exclusive to) Tories. 3  Fletcher had ‘told her that humaine understanding was the best ingredient of a phisitian, of which you [Locke] must have a large share’: no. 1851.

192

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1854A.  A. Fletcher, 1 March 1695 you will be both mistaken if you take me for a prophet. That which makes me suspect this is That you say not a word but leave me to divine what she hath done and with what successe since you formerly sent me her case, which concludeing from what you write that I guessed pretty right at, that which must lead me to doe any thing farther is to know all the circumstances of her present state, what has been done and what alterations she has found since I writ to you concerning her. Her stomach, her sleep, her recovery of strength or flesh, and any other observable good or bad it would be requisite to know. neither is it enough to a–be told–a that she is now much better as to her obstructions, tis ne­ces­ sary to be informed whether nature be come yet to its former course as she enjoyd that benefit before her ilnesse, or at least approaches pretty near it. For upon that depends much of what is at present to be done, besides her diet and exercise is to be regulated but that depends on her b–strength stomach and sleep –b. I guesse she is but weak yet. But tis not to proceed upon guesses in things that may be known. When the patient has told all she can even to the least circumstance there is too much, after all thec best information, left to guesseing. Her sweating I allow ought to be taken care of, but I know noe receit against sweating though when I know the present state she is in I may be able to guesse at some way to abate and remove it for that depends upon something else that is amisse to which the cure must be directed. I guesse the Bath waters would now be good for her, and that even her journy thither would doe her good but I know not whether she be able to bear it and I have not light enough to be determind. I am thinking also of an Electuary1 that I could prescribe her that might be usefull but I have one rule which I always observe in physick, that it is better to doe noe thing than to doe amisse and he practises madly who prescribes at hap hazard, which has made me always very backward to prescribe at a distance. Your Authority prevaild with me before to tell my opinion. But I must not venture in the dark to doe harme because I have a great compliance with your commands or because you think well of me. When I am better inlightend and instructed in the Ladys present condition you shall readily have my opinion. In the mean time I think neither she nor you ought to dispond of her recovery. I looke on the great difficulty of her cure as over and advise her keep on the same course which has advanced a–a  Interlined   b–b  strength and stomach first written; and deleted and and sleep added c  Interlined 1  Electuary: a medical paste, a powder mixed with honey or a conserve.

193

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1854A.  A. Fletcher, 1 March 1695 her soe far till she be advised to alter or adde any thing to it. I hope all her pains are gon and she hears noe more of her vapors but tis hard to conclude any thing positively from your silence. The Lady whom you think soe happy invites you to come and share it with her for you cannot she says have soe much of that happynesse which you count ignorance of what passes upon the stage makes, any where as here. And she perswades herself one more curious of news than she might passe many days in learning from you the wisdom and virtue of the ancients without careing what this foolish world is doeing. I made her a promise in your name that she should see you here before this and she often reproaches me for your not keeping your word. Be content to live a few days out of the Chocolate house if it be but to returne from us poore honest country folke, with the better stomach, to the Witts and the Braveries. I am very glad you are traceing what you tell me and that you can discover soe much of it soe far back as the time of the Aegyptians.1 I did not at all doubt but ina that politik and religious country there had been much of it but I feard time had rubd out the footsteps of it. but their feet what ever they trample on make pretty deep impressions. you cannot doe better, pray therefor goe on. My humble service to Mr. Secretary.2 We hoped to have seen him here before this time. I am Sir your most humble servant J Lock There was a Pamphlet printed in 83b intituled c–Reasons humbly offered for a Liberty of unlicensed printing–c.3 I had a sight of it two or three days since. The printers or booksellers name is not to it nor is there any thing very extraordinary in it. But yet if you could light of it a  Interlined   b  Underlined by Locke    c– c  Underlined by Locke 1  Fletcher had written: ‘I am tracing pristcraft from its first original in Aegypt. Wheir I find lickways many other monsters but none so abominable.’: no. 1851. 2  James Johnstoun, Secretary of State for Scotland. 3  De Beer did not note that ‘83’ is an error for ‘93’. The tract appeared in January 1693: Reasons Humbly Offered for the Liberty of Unlicensed Printing, to which is Subjoin’d the First and True Character of Edmund Bohun. It is often attributed to Charles Blount, but may not be by him. Locke also recommended an unnamed tract to Edward Clarke and John Freke in a missing letter of 4 March (see no. 1856), and, given the near coincidence of the dates of these letters, it is very likely this tract. If so, de Beer’s surmise (no. 1856) that the tract in question was the new edition of Blount’s A Just Vindication of Learning (originally published, 1679), which probably did not appear until later in 1695, is mistaken.

194

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1857.  W. Molyneux, 8 March 1695 and would give it to my Lord Monmouth, either from your self or me it matters not, before the bill for printing comes up to the Lords house you would obleige me1 Pray present my most humble service in Arlington street when you goe there.2 After I had writ and was ready to seale my letter I received a litle booke thus int〈it〉uled A looking glasse for the Black band of Doctors wherein may be seen the ignorance and malice of those physitians who have Clubd under the name of Doctor Black for suppressing by their Scriblings and other Calumnies soe great a benefit to the world as the new cure of fevers. printed at Edingburgh. 1692.3 With this booke came a Endorsed by Fletcher: Mr. Locks letter.

1857*. Locke to William Molyneux, 8 March 1695 (1838, 1867) Karpeles Collection. Corr., v. 288, line 9: between give off. and I am insert omitted sentence:

As to Mr. Hawkshaw: let that business give you noe farther trouble than what you will think fit to doe to recover some thing for the pore for to charitable uses it shall be apply’d.4 Postscript:

Pray present my most humble services to Dr. Molineux and Capt. Monk. Endorsed: Complement. Coz Smyths visit.5 3d edition of his Book promised. Translation of his Essay. Chapter of Enthusiasme. Malbranche’s seeing all in God. Considers what books he has written.

1  Locke’s papers concerning the end of censorship have been edited by Geoff Kemp in Locke, Literary and Historical Writings, ed. J. R. Milton, 2019, pp. 319–29. 2  James Johnstoun’s London home. 3  Andrew Brown, In speculo teipsum contemplare Dr. Black. A Looking-glass for the Black Band of Doctors. Wherein may be seen the Ignorance and Malice of these Physicians, who have Clubbed under the Name of Dr. Black, for Suppressing by their Scriblings, and Other Calumnies, so Great a Benefite to the World, to the new Cure of Fevers, Edinburgh, 1692. This is a sequel to Brown’s A Vindicatory Schedule Concerning the New Cure of Fevers . . . First Invented and Delivered by the Sagacious Dr. Tho. Sydenham, Edinburgh, 1691. Locke had both: LL 496–7. See P. Anstey, ‘The Creation of the English Hippocrates’, Medical History, 55 (2011), 457–78. 4 See Corr., v. 255. 5  Edward Smyth (or Smith) (1665–1720), later bishop of Down and Connor.

195

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1861A.  [E. Clarke and J. Freke], 19 March [1695]

1861A. [Locke] to [Edward Clarke and John Freke], 19 March [1695] (1860, 1862) SHC, DD/SF 7/9/1 (formerly 2742). Clarke Papers. Recovered by Mark Knights. Answers no. 1860. Answered by no. 1862, which refers also to a lost letter of 18 March, and to ‘both your letters’, i.e. of 18 and 19 March. Written from Oates. It lacks opening and closing salutations, so perhaps is a draft or copy; yet it came into Clarke’s hands. Concerns the recoinage and press licensing. Most of the first paragraph is underlined, presumably by Clarke or Freke. For Freke, see Corr., iii. 58; ODNB.

   19o Mar. I writ to you by Major Massam1 who went to town yesterday, but in the hast I writ that letter I forgot to aske you whether by present coin in resolve the 7th be meant such as is clipd to any degree i.e. if an half crown be soe clipd that it have but 6d silver in it? If it be soe there was never soe great incouragement given for cliping in the world and no doubt the sheers will all goe on fresh to worke when by act of parliament they are told that for one peny worth of silver left in a clipd six pence they shall have 6d allowed them. This great mischeif is come by not takeing the proper remedie in time which was by proclamation to have forbid the paying or takeing of clipd mony. But as it now is must not there be a stint2 put to the clipd peices that shall be received at the mint? viz that none shall be received there with allowance for the want of weight that wants above ¾ or ½ or ¼ of the silver which by law should be in it. if you doe not stint it to some certain proportion I aske again must the mint receive a shilling that is soe clipd as not to weigh above two pence or threepence, and must the nation pay the remaining ten pence or ninepence as a reward for cliping. If noe measure be set I know not how low your mony will be clipd over again and if you doe set any measure as suppose ¼ or 3d in a shilling which one would think were enough. you may count upon it that it will all be clipd to that degree anda none of the old unmild money will be brought to the mint heavier than ¾ of what it ought to be soe that you may be sure it will want ¼ or 3d in a shilling, or what ever part the Act shall please to allow and I think this is the first time that in any country cliping was allowd a  not many deleted 1  Sir Francis Masham’s son, Henry (thus identified in no. 1825). See no. 677*. ‘Massam’ is a phonetic spelling, denoting the probable pronunciation of ‘Masham’ as ‘Mass’m’, which is the pronunciation for the eponymous town in Yorkshire; but perhaps the pronunciation was ‘Marss’m’, given the late seventeenth-century tendency for a drawl. 2  Stint: check, stop, or restriction.

196

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1878A.  J. Wynne, 17 April 1695 by a law but this is for the reason above mentiond because the proper remedy was not taken. And twould be noe hard matter to explain that to you if you needed it. As to the colledg of physitians if they shall please put in for a power of licenseing under pretence of preventing heresy in physick1 I suppose their mouths may be stopd by sending about a whisper that the parliament will take care to limit their fees which a–as they now are–a (as the priviledg they claime of suffering none to practise physick in or about London but such as are of or licensed by the colledg) robb not only the poorer but even the ordinary sort of people of the means of health. whilst the physitians fees are raised to that height that the greater number of people are not able to goe to the charge of one of the colledg and if any other comes to assist them he is liable to a penaltyb which they claim by their charter and many have been sued c–for and made pay–c Soe that it is necessary that either their fees should be regulated and made lesse or their charter alterd that others may be permitted to practise, for if physick be of use tis fit the poore too should be lookd after. Indeed this part needs the parliaments care and if there be occasiond I think I could tell an other remedye, but this is enough for the present purpose Adiew

1878A.  John Wynne to Locke, 17 April 1695 (1869, 1884) Dedicatory epistle prefaced to An Abridgment of Mr. Locke’s Essay Concerning Humane Understanding, 1696. No extant manuscript. LL 1791. In January 1695 Wynne sought Locke’s permission to publish an abridgement (no. 1843). He sent Locke the draft of his dedication on 20 April (no. 1884), and subsequently amended it: ‘I have struck out that part of my Epistle, which left the disposal of it to you’ (no. 1915): it is not clear what is meant here. He also reported that their mutual publisher Awnsham Churchill proposed to delay publication of the Abridgment until after the issuance of a new edition of the Essay, so as not to hinder sale of that (no. 1915). This third edition of the Essay was in press on 15 July 1695 (Churchill to John Aubrey, MS Wood F. 39, fo. 451: no. 1925A) and was probably published in the autumn. Wynne’s printed epistle carries a date prior to his discussion of the draft with Locke; presumably he simply retained the date of first drafting. In no. 1884 Wynne describes the tone and approach he had a–a  Interlined   b forfeiture deleted   c–c  Interlined   d need deleted 1  In debates on the renewal of the Licensing Act, the Royal College of Physicians lobbied to be given the right to license medical works. ‘Preventing heresy’ alludes to the parallel and more vexatious power of the church hierarchy to license theological works. In the preceding letter (no. 1860), Freke had snidely remarked that the College wished to control publication ‘lest some new Sidenham should rise up and shew they kill by the rules of Art’. The paragraph is characteristic of Locke’s caustic view of the self-interest of closed corporations.

197

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1878A.  J. Wynne, 17 April 1695 adopted in composing this dedication: ‘I have endeavor’d to express my self with that decent reserve, as became me in an address to you; and with that caution, as might give no offence to some others whom I had in my Eye. If I had given my self the liberty to have declared my judgment freely, which I had in my thoughts to do in A Prefatory Discourse, I found It would have lead me to make some invidious Reflections, and to utter Some Truths that would be thought unseasonable, and were, as the case now stands, more advantageously suppressed.’ In the transcription here roman and italic fonts are reversed. For Wynne, later a bishop, see Corr., v. 260; ODNB.

To the much Esteemed Mr. John Locke.

Honoured Sir, I Send you this imperfect Draught1 of your Excellent Essay concerning Humane Understanding, which I must confess, falls as much short of the Perfection, as it does of the Length of the Original. Nevertheless, as I lately intimated to you (and you were pleased to think, that what I propos’d in reference to this Design, would not be wholly lost Labour)2 I am not without hopes, that it may in this contracted Form, prove in some measure serviceable to that Noble End, which you have so successfully aimed at in it, viz. The Advancement of Real and Useful Knowledge.3 The Inducement which moved me to think of abridging it, was a Consideration purely extrinsical to the work it self; and in Effect no other than this; That it would be better suited, to the Ease and Convenience of some sort of Readers, when reduced into this narrow Compass. In order to this, I thought the First Book, which is employ’d in refuting the common Opinion of Innate Notions and Ideas, might be best spared in this Abridgment; especially, since the Reader may be convinced by what he shall find here, that such a supposition is at least needless, in regard he may attain to all the Knowledge he has, or finds himself capable of, without the help of any such Innate Ideas. Besides this, I have retrench’d most of the larger Explications; and some useful Hints, and instructive Theories I have wholly omitted, not because they are less considerable in themselves; but because they seemed not so ne­ces­sary to be insisted on in this Abridgment, considered as a previous Instrument, and preparatory Help, to Guide and Conduct the Mind in its Search after Truth and Knowledge.4 I did ­particularly pass by that 1  Draught: outline or epitome. 2  Quoting Locke’s letter to Wynne, 8 February 1695: no. 1846. 3  Not apparently a quotation from Locke’s Essay but rather from William Molyneux’s Dioptrica Nova: see no. 1284A. 4  Again, not apparently a quotation from the Essay. Locke used the phrase later, in his first reply to Edward Stillingfleet: The Works of John Locke, 10th edn, 10 vols., 1801, iv. 71.

198

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1887.  W. Molyneux, 26 April 1695 accurate Discourse, concerning the Freedom and Determination of the Will contained in Cap. 21. l. 2. because I found it too long to be inserted here at large, and too weighty and momentous to be but slightly and imperfectly represented. This I hope will prove no prejudice to the Essay it self; since none I presume will think it reasonable to form a Judgment of the whole Work, from this Abridgment of it: And I perswade my self, that few Readers will be content with this Epitome, who can conveniently furnish themselves with the Essay at large. However, I am apt to think, that this alone will serve to make the way to Knowledge somewhat more plain and easie; and afford such Helps for the improvement of Reason, as are perhaps in vain sought after in those Books, which profess to Teach the Art of Reasoning.1 But nevertheless, whether you shall think fit to let it come abroad, under the disadvantages that attend it in this Form, I must leave you to judge. I shall only add, that I think my own pains abundantly recompenc’d by the Agreeable, as well as Instructive Entertainment, which this nearer View, and closer Inspection into your Essay, afforded me: And I am not a little pleased, that it has given me this opportunity of expressing the just Value and Esteem I have for it, as well as the Honour and Respect I have for its Author. I am Honoured Sir, Your very Humble and Oblig’d Servant, John Wynne. Oxon. Ap. 17. 1695.

1887*.  Locke to William Molyneux, 26 April 1695 (1867, 1896) Karpeles Collection. Concerns errors noticed in the second edition of the Essay. All but one of the errors noted occur in four chapters, in Book II. Most of the amendments duly appeared in the third edition; but some not until the fourth; and a couple not at all. Corr., v. 353. After the valediction, the following passage:

Besides the Errata taken notice of in your former letter2 give me leave to adde these following.

1  Probably a reference to the Port Royal Logic: see no. 1284A. 2  On 15 January Molyneux had sent Locke a list of errata he had noticed: no. 1838.

199

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1906.  W. Popple, 22 May 1695 pag – line 90 – 20 intelligo (which1 24 these may 27 these Ideas 96 – 43 use these2 49 apparently 101 – 19 and to3 102 – 50 something4 127 – 37 or the5 131 – 43 will will6 136 – 18 it; pain7 139 – 6 pursues; and8 180 – 44 habitations with organs9 186 – 33 suppose I10 188 – 43 every 276 – 36 carefully11 Postmark: AP 30 Endorsed: 3d Edition of his Essay in the Press. An Abridgement thereof undertaken. 20l promised for a translation. To make what Alterations I please. Chapter of Enthusiasme. Pere Malbranches seeing all things in God. Additions concerning Connexion of Ideas. Farther Errata noted. Desires of seeing and conversing with me. Answer’d May. 7.

1906*.  William Popple to [Stephen Nye?], 22 May 1695 MS Locke c. 17, fos. 213–18. De Beer printed Popple’s letter to an unnamed recipient; it is not in Popple’s hand; he thought it unlikely to have been addressed to Locke. Fos. 213–18 also contain a set of anonymous comments on Stephen Nye, A Discourse Concerning Natural and Revealed Religion, 1696. Nye’s book was also commented upon by Locke himself (MS Locke c. 27, fos. 92–3). It has been suggested that Popple’s letter was addressed in fact to Nye, and that Popple had a copy made for Locke, striking out the addressee. See L. Simonutti, ‘Circles of Virtuosi and “Charity under Different Opinions” ’, in Studies on Locke: Sources, Contemporaries, and Legacy, 2008, eds. S. Hutton 1  These and the following two amendments occur in II.xiv.2; amended in third edition. 2  This and the next: II.ix.23; amended in third edition. 3  II.xv.4; amended in fourth edition. 4  I have failed to find this citation. 5  II.xxi.11; amended in fourth edition. 6  II.xxi.24; amended in third edition, and revised again in fourth. 7  II.xxi.36; amendment never made. 8  II.xxi.43; amendment not made. 9  II.xxvii.6; amendment badly made in third edition, corrected in fourth. 10  This and the next, II.xxvii.20 and 25; amendments occur in errata to second, and incorporated in third edition. 11  III.ix.21; amended in fourth edition.

200

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1921.  W. Molyneux, 2 July 1695 and P.  Schuurman, pp. 165–7. For Popple (1638–1708), who was the translator into English of Locke’s Epistola de Tolerantia, see Corr., iii. 623; ODNB.

1921*.  Locke to William Molyneux, 2 July 1695 (1896, 1936) Karpeles Collection. Corr., v. 407, line 6: after Education insert omitted sentence:

I beg to have my humble service given him1 and Mr. Monk. Postmark: IY9 Endorsed: Advise Mr. Mullart2 about the Transl. Abridgment of the Essay. 3d Edition of his Thoughts of Education. My sons Progress. Treatise of Interest and Coin. Concerned that he miss’d Dr. Ashe.3 Desires to see me.

1925A. Awnsham Churchill to John Aubrey, 15 July 1695 Bodl., MS Wood F. 39, fo. 451. Forwarded by Aubrey to Wood. Wood, who died on 28 November this year, was preparing a supplement to his Athenae Oxonienses, 1691–2, and constantly sought biographical and bibliographical information about Oxonians; his short memoir on Locke was eventually published in the second edition in 1721. See nos. 1280A and 1285A. In sending bibliographical data, Churchill, who was Locke’s publisher, was silent about Locke’s works which remained anonymous, and he omitted mention of the shorter, economic writings. Wood probably suspected Locke had written other things besides, for on 2 September 1695 Aubrey reported to Wood that ‘Mr. Jo: Lock will own nothing, but what hath his name to it, and takes it unkindly of me, or any one els to aske such an uncivil question’ (MS Wood F. 51, fo. 11). For Churchill, see Corr., iii. 475–6; ODNB.

15 July 1695 London Sir Mr. Locke Essay concerning Humane Understanding folioa was printed here by mr Tho. Bassett in the year 1690 was reprinted againe

a folio inserted in the margin 1  Dr Thomas Molyneux. 2  William Mullart, BA, from Trinity College, Dublin, 1693; Fellow, 1696; later dean of Cashel: Corr., v. 362n. 3  St George Ashe (1657–1718), mathematician; successively bishop of Cloyne, Clogher, and Derry. Corr., iv. 601n.

201

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1949A.  J. Freke, 28 September 1695 with Additions by Mr. Samuel manship and me in the year 16941 and is now in the press for a third Edition.2 Which will be finished in a month or two. Mr. Lock thoughts of Education 8o was printed by me in the yeare 1693, reprinted againe th: same year and has bin this yeare printed a third tyme with Larg Additions.3 If youl doe me the favour to call on me when you come into Pater Noster Row I shall discourse you about your Monumenta Britan.4 Sir your most humble servant A. Churchil Addresses: (a) To Mr. Aubrey at Mr. Nottinghams, a Corn Chandler in Bloomesbury Market neer Hyde Street End (b) For Mr. Anthony Wood over against Merton College Oxford. Endorsed: John Lock

1949A. John Freke to Edward Clarke, 28 September 1695 (1956A) SHC, DD/SF 7/1/37 (formerly 3902). Clarke Papers. The letter was written at a crucial moment in the debate over proposals for the recoinage. On 24 September Lord Somers told Locke he had acquired a summary of William Lowndes’s Report Containing an Essay for the Amendment of the Silver Coin, and he summoned Locke to see it and discuss it with him the following day (no. 1949). Thus, Locke had sight of it before the Lords Justices, to whom it was presented on the 26th. (The Lords Justices were the regency council which governed in the king’s absences abroad.) On the 27th the Lords Justices resolved to consult Locke and seven others. Locke prepared responses against Lowndes; they are printed in Locke on Money, ed. P. H. Kelly, 2 vols., 1991, ii. 343–97. But Freke also formulated his own position, which sided with Locke against de­valu­ ation. Freke sent his views to Locke: ‘Some Thoughts Concerning Money, Exchange, Trade and Mending the Coin’ (MS Locke b. 3, fos. 76–80). At some point, Clarke, no 1  The first edition was printed ‘for’ and not ‘by’ Bassett; it was printed by Elizabeth Holt. The second edition appeared in two issues, one ‘for Thomas Dring and Samuel Manship’, the other ‘for A. and J. Churchill and Samuel Manship’. 2  This fixes the date for production of the third edition of the Essay. 3  It had just been printed; advertised in the London Gazette, 18–22 July. 4  John Aubrey, Monumenta Britannica, never published. Aubrey failed to raise subscriptions to publish on his own account. The manuscript was left in Churchill’s hands at his death in 1697. The present letter implies Churchill already had the manuscript and was considering publishing it. Edmund Gibson advised Churchill that Aubrey’s text was too vast and chaotic to be pub­lish­ able. On 12 November 1696 Aubrey told Edward Lhuyd ‘Mr Churchill keeps my Monumenta Britannica, most shamefully long. Mr Lock told me he will spurre him on to print it: I will also speak to Mr Gibson to speak to him’ (Bodl., MS Ashmole 1829, fo. 78). See K. J. Williams, The Antiquary: John Aubrey’s Historical Scholarship, 2016; and above, no. 267A.

202

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1949A.  J. Freke, 28 September 1695 doubt in preparation for speaking in the Commons, wrote a lengthy paper which drew on both Locke’s and Freke’s writings (SHC, DD/SF 13/2/31; formerly 4512). The pre­ sent letter confirms that Locke had early sight of Lowndes’s report and contains Freke’s preliminary sketch of his response to Lowndes. Freke may have formulated his own response as a result of discussion with Locke the previous day (the 27th). This letter may be said to slip between three modes: the personal; a newsletter concerning public affairs; and an outline for a pamphlet. It opens, on the matter of Mary Clarke’s ailments, with the substance of what Locke would have written to Clarke on that matter had he not hurriedly taken the coach out of town to Oates.

Sept the 28th 1695 Dear Sir Mr. Locke is this day gone into Essex. He received yours by yesterdays post and because he could not with his own hand has commanded me to give you his thanks and tell you that considering your Lady[’s] weakness he does not prescribe any thing to her at this distance but must leave you to the direction of the phisitians that attend her and when he hears she has recoverd strength he will then send her advice with respect to her particular complaint. But though he will not advise at present I shall adventure to propose her taking once twice or thrice a day some water gruell chicken broath or some other thin broath in which a pretty good quantity of the roots of Burdock has been boild which if her stomach will bear the taking I am inclined to think will be of service to her. We have noe News but that this day Sir John Houblon1 was chosen Lord Mayor the Common Hall agreeing in the presenting him and Sir Edward Clarke2 to the Court of Aldermen. Tis said the Turkey Fleet is come into the River and one of the Captains that is come up says that Russell3 is adored by the seamen whose hearts he has entirely won to him. All the Discourse of the Town is about Elections4 and about Mr. Lownds5 Report about the Coin which was presented to the Lords Justices Thursday last. Mr. L[ocke] has seen it but I cannot get a sight of it but hear that the Historicall part of it and the calculations are 1  1632–1712; a wealthy Whig overseas merchant with Huguenot roots. ODNB. 2  Identity surprisingly obscure, despite rising to lord mayor the following year, 1696–7; also a Whig. 3  Edward Russell (1653–1727), Junto Whig, first lord of the Admiralty; earl of Orford from 1697; hero of the Battle of La Hogue. ODNB. 4  The dissolution was not announced until 12 October but there were rumours of a general election as early as August. 5  William Lowndes (1652–1724), secretary to the Treasury. ODNB.

203

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1949A.  J. Freke, 28 September 1695 c­ urious and worth reading but the Remedy proposed as bad as has been offerd nay worse for it has all the faults of every other project I have heard of.1 The mony must be new coind and a 5th part of the deficiency fall on the possessors of it, Halfe of the residue of the deficiency be made good by a Tax the other half by alloy and debasing your Coin soe much. I shall say nothing to any part of this project but that of debasing your coin and to that give me leave to say what at present occurs to my thoughts etc. First, should it be done it would be as impossible to prevent forreigners from sending over great quantitys of such base mony as it now is their sending clipt and adulterate coin Secondly, All the Coin of England must be soe alloyd and there would be soe much lost of all the good mony remaining amongst us as that Alloy amounts to and soe the good mony impaird as the bad not amended: For what is bad money but such as has not its full weight and fineness of silver or gold in it? Thirdly, It would loose the King soe much in his excise and Customs etc: as the Alloy of the mony received in the Revenue amounts to for those Dutys [that] were given must be paid by the name of pounds shillings and pence and if the pounds shillings and pence have less silver in them the Kings Treasure will be so much less as there is wanting of their due weight and fineness of silver. Fourthly, all Taxes given to support the war must be nominally soe much more as the weight of the Alloy in the Coin amounts to Fifthly, all persons that have mony due to them for Rent or private contracts would loose soe much of their due as the Alloy amounts to Sixthly, all parliamentary Credit would be destroyd thereby for noe man would Trust the publick when they found they should receive less for the mony they advanced on its Credit than what the publick faith engaged they should before they advanced their mony. But seaventhly to make this matter more evident let us2 turn the Tables and suppose that an Act of Parliament were made that a pound sterling which now consist of 4 ounces should consist of five ounces 1  Locke was among those requested by the Lords Justices to respond to Lowndes’s Report. He  was dilatory in responding. On 8 October Freke told Edward Clarke that only Gilbert Heathcote had so far responded and ‘by command I this night writt to Mr. Lock to hasten his’: no. 1956A. 2  The remainder of the letter is crammed into the margin.

204

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1950.  M. Burges, 30 September 1695 and a Crown of an ounce and [a] quarter and a shilling weigh fifteen pence and the mony continues of the same fineness it now has: would not all Tennants and Debtors say they were unjustly dealt with to be compelld to pay their Rents and Debts by that weight? And if this would be unreasonable with respect to Tennants and Debtors the other must be as unjust and unreasonable with respect to the Landlords and Creditors. Give my service to Mrs. Clarke and be assured I am your affectionate friend and humble servant JF Endorsed: Mr. Freke of Mr. Lownds his Project touching the Coyne etc: Received the 30th September 1695. Answered the 2d of October.

1950*.  Mary Burges to Locke, 30 September 1695 Biographical identification. De Beer was unable to identify the author of this letter, which conveyed the news of Mary Clarke’s miscarriage. She is Mrs Burgess, who had been housekeeper to Elizabeth Bluett (née Buckland), Mary Clarke’s cousin, at Holcombe Rogus, Devon. Locke evidently knew her well, for he sends his regards to her in nos. 1962, 2046, 2130, and 2305. When Mrs Bluett died in 1692, Mary Burgess went to the Clarkes’s home at Chipley. She was there by September 1694 and still there in May 1697, but by April 1698 was gone. In no. 1962A below she is described as Mary Clarke’s ‘secretary’. She was briefly with a Mrs Allen at ‘Mussell Hill’ (presumably Muswell Hill, near London). By December 1698 she was serving ‘Mrs. Tomson that married my Lady Haversham’s son – with her Ladyship in Golden Square’. She still visited the Clarkes, in 1701 and 1704. Lady Haversham was Frances Annesley, daughter of Arthur Annesley, first earl of Anglesey; she was married to John Thompson, ennobled as Baron Haversham in 1696. Thompson had been a radical Whig, in exile under James II, at Utrecht and Cleves, where he is named in spy reports, as was Locke. Later, via Country Whiggery, he became a Tory. The son cannot have been Maurice Thompson, MP, for he did not marry until 1703. Golden Square was newly built (1692). Mary Burgess evidently wrote Locke at least one other, lost letter, for on 16 November 1695 she tells Edward Clarke that she had written to Locke about Mary’s health: ‘her legs are still swollen but having given Mr. Lock a particular account in the inclosed I need not repeat it again’ (SHC, DD/SF 7/1/22; formerly 3874).

1951A.  Locke to the Treasury September 1695 (1688A)

Commissioners,

MS Locke c. 25, fo. 49. Letter of petition. Locke again calls for payment of his salary as secretary to the Council of Trade and Plantations, due since 1673–4. Accompanies a certificate by Sir Robert Howard, 21 August 1695. See nos. 1251B and 1688A.

205

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1956A.  J. F[reke], 8 October 1695 To the Right Honourable the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury The humble Petition of John Locke Sheweth That your Petitioner having served his late Majesty Charles the Second as Secretary to the Council of his Majesties Forraigne Plantations from Midsummer 1673 to Christmas 1674 for which service haveing never received any thing there is 〈owing〉a to him the summ of seven hundred and fifty pounds as by the Certifi〈cate〉 hereunto annexd does appear.1 Your Petitioner 〈there〉for humbly pray that your Lordships would be pleased to 〈 . . . 〉 the payment of the said seven hundred and fifty pounds to him And your Petitioner shall ever pray etc Endorsed: JL Petition to the Lords of the Treasury Sept 95

1956A. J[ohn] F[reke] to Edward Clarke, 8 October 1695 (1949A) SHC, DD/SF 7/1/37 (formerly 3903). This letter closely shadows that which was sent by Freke to Locke on this day: no. 1956: MS Locke c. 8, fos. 199–200. It concerns the coinage crisis and the report which Locke was preparing for the Lords Justices. The differences between the two versions of the letter provide insight into Freke’s practices as a news reporter to his two colleagues.

    Oct the 8th 1695 Dear Sir Thursday last the Salesmen2 (i.e. Brokers of Cattle) at Smithfield market resolved the next day in the market to take noe Guineas but some of them broke their Agreement which necessitated the rest to take them alsoe but not without great Grumbling and I know not what may be done Fryday next. Tis now the common course in all Bargains to declare whether they will or will not take the mony in Guineas and for the most part men

a  Here and below there is a tear in the paper 1  The certificate, signed by Sir Robert Howard, Chancellor of the Exchequer, and dated 21 August 1695, declares that by a letter of 29 October 1673 Charles II gave Locke a yearly allowance of £500, and that ‘I find no payment made.’  2  Middlemen between graziers and butchers.

206

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1960A.  [S. Nye?], [c.October] 1695 refuse to sell any thing considerable but they agree to be paid in Goldsmiths or Bank Notes. None that the Lord Justices1 sent to for their opinions concerning the Coin2 have as yet sent their thoughts besides Heathcott3 and by command4 I this night writt to Mr. Lock to hasten his. Mr. Lownds’s Report I hear is to be printed not for sale but to be given to those that shall be thought worthy of it. The House of Commons in Ireland have voted an Impeachment of Sir Charles Porter5 and the Articles are prepared and reported to the House but not agreed to. His party here says he has friends enough there to preserve him but I doe not find the Lord Deputy6 concerns himself for him The wind has been fair these 24 hours and more soe that we expect the King tomorrow and if he come soe soon I suppose that parliament will be dissolved by the end of this week though it was this day prorogued to the last day of this month.7 I hope Mrs. Clarke recovers health and strength and that you will make all the haste you can to Sir, your obliged friend and humble servant JF Endorsed by Clarke: Mr. Freke touching Ginneas, and the Contracts for Payment etc. And the Impeachment of Sir Charles Porter etc. Recd the 10th of October 1695. ­Answered the 12th.

1960A.  [Stephen Nye?] to [Locke], [c.October] 1695 Dedicatory epistle prefaced to The Exceptions of Mr. Edwards, in his Causes of Atheism, Against the Reasonableness of Christianity, as deliver’d in the Scriptures, Examin’d; and found Unreasonable, Unscriptural, and Injurious, 1695. No extant manuscript. The title page continues: ‘Also it’s clearly proved by many Testimonies of Holy Scripture, that the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, is the only God and Father of Christians.’ Also issued in A Third Collection of Tracts, Proving the God and Father of Our Lord ­Jesus Christ, the Only True God . . ., 1695. The anonymous author is probably Stephen Nye (c.1648–1719), rector of Little Hormead, Hertfordshire, a prolific anonymous pamphleteer on behalf of Socinianism, under the patronage of his friend Thomas 1  The regents who ruled in King William’s absence abroad on campaign. 2  See headnote to no. 1949A. 3  Sir Gilbert Heathcote (1651–1733), Whig plutocrat, a director of the Bank of England; brother of Locke’s correspondent Samuel Heathcote. 4  Of Lord Keeper Somers. 5  Lord Chancellor of Ireland, 1690–6. ODNB. 6  Henry, Baron Capel, Lord Deputy of Ireland, 1695–6. ODNB. 7  William arrived at Kensington on 11 October and dissolved Parliament.

207

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1960A.  [S. Nye?], [c.October] 1695 Firmin. He is purportedly the coiner of the word ‘unitarian’. ODNB. Locke is not named, but is addressed as author of The Reasonableness. The target of the tract is Some Thoughts Concerning the Several Causes and Occasions of Atheism, Especially in the Pre­ sent Age: with Some Brief Reflections on Socinianism: and on a Late Book Entituled The Reasonableness of Christianity, by John Edwards (1637–1716). Edwards’s book was advertised on 16–19 September 1695, so Nye’s tract must postdate that; it probably dates from October, since on 5 October Firmin told Locke that ‘there is an Answer coming out against Edwards’ (no. 1954). Locke did not welcome Nye’s intervention. In his Second Vindication of the Reasonableness he says that the Reasonableness cannot be convicted of Socinianism merely because ‘a professed Unitarian has defended it’; that it is false to claim that the author of the Exceptions was commissioned to vindicate the Reasonableness; that had he chosen a vindicator, he would have selected someone who ‘understood it better’; and that Edwards and Nye are equally so ‘full of themselves, and their own systems’ that they deserve each other (Locke, Vindications, ed. V. Nuovo, 2012, pp. xxv–xxvi, li, 129, 211). Edwards later sarcastically observed that this was fine gratitude to an ‘antient grave citizen’ who had been so obsequious to Locke (A Brief Vindication of the Fundamental Articles of the Christian Faith, 1697, p. 89). In this transcription roman and italic fonts are reversed.

To the Author of the Reasonableness of Christianity as delivered in the Scriptures.

Sir, In reading your Book of that Title, I readily perceived your Design, intimated in your Preface, to be therein most industriously and piously pursued: So that you have, with full Evidence of Scripture and Reason, shewed, against the manifold obscure and tedious Systems, that the Fundamentals of Christian Faith, necessary to constitute a Man a true Member of Christ’s Church, are all comprehended or implied in this plain Proposition, That Jesus is the Messiah: Whereby you have happily provided for the Quiet and Satisfaction of the Minds of the honest Multitude or Bulk of Mankind, floating in Doubts and Fears, because either they cannot understand, or can find no clear Evidence in Holy Scripture, of those intricate Points requir’d to be explicitly believ’d upon pain of eternal Damnation. You have also argued clearly the Reasonableness and Usefulness of the Christian Revelation against Atheists and Deists. These things consider’d, ’twas no marvel, that the Systematical Men, who gain both their Honour and Profit by the Obscurity and Multitude of their Fundamental Articles, should raise an Outcry against you, like that of the Ephesians magnifying their Diana. They have more cause for it than Demetrius had.1 But that 1  A reference to Acts 19:24–8. Demetrius, a silversmith, made his living by making statues of the goddess Diana. In protest against St Paul’s preaching of the Christian God, by which ‘our craft

208

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1962A.  E. Clarke, 9 November 1695 they should traduce your Work as tending to Atheism or Deism, is as strange from Reason, as many of their Articles are from Scripture. And that Mr. Edwards has done it, and forc’d it in among his Tendencies to Atheism, is, I think, to be imputed to the Co-incidence of your Book’s being publish’d, and striking strongly upon his inventive Faculty, just when it was in hot pursuit of the Causes of Atheism, rather than to any the least Colour or Inclination that way, which Mr. Edwards can spy in it in his cool Thoughts: For I am much perswaded on the contrary, that there is no Atheist or Deist in England, but, if he were ask’d the Question, would tell Mr. Edwards, that their obscure and contradictious Fundamentals were one Cause or Inducement to his casting off and disbelief of Christianity. In this Mind I have undertaken to vindicate your Doctrine from the Exceptions of Mr. Edwards against it. But whether I have done it as it ought to be done, I cannot be a competent Judg. If I have mistaken your Sense, or us’d weak Reasonings in your Defence, I crave your Pardon: But my Design in this Writing was not to please you, (whom I  know not) nor any Man whatsoever, but only to honour the One God, and vindicate his most useful Truths. I am, Sir, Your very humble Servant.

1962A.  Edward Clarke to Mary Clarke, 9 November 1695 (1881, 2017A) SHC, DD/SF 7/1/60 (formerly 3069). Clarke Papers. The bulk of this letter reports Locke’s advice to Mary concerning her health. It is, so to speak, a mirror ­image of no. 1962, which is Locke’s own letter to Mary sent on the same day, and so offers an opportunity to compare Locke’s words with Clarke’s report of Locke’s words. The letter opens with Clarke’s account of his journey to London, with daughter Anne (‘Nanny’), via the Stringers at Ivychurch, near Salisbury, where another daughter, Betty, was currently living. For discussion of Clarke letters concerning Mary’s health, see A. Stobart, Household Medicine in Seventeenth-Century England, 2016, passim.

    London November the 9th 1695

is in danger to be set at nought’, he got the mob to cry out, ‘Great is Diana of the Ephesians.’ The citation was commonplace among anticlerical authors. Locke invokes it in his Letter Concerning Toleration: see Second Treatise of Government and A Letter Concerning Toleration, ed. M. Goldie, 2016, p. 132.

209

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1962A.  E. Clarke, 9 November 1695 My Deare, If I were only to seeke my own Pleasure and happynesse in this Life, and were only to pursue my own Inclynations and Desires, I should thinke of nothing but how to spend the Remaining part of my Dayes with you, in whose Company and society is the only true Comfort and enjoyment of my Life, And therefore you may easily imagine, That it was not without greate Reluctancy and uneasinesse of mind, that I was at this time forced from you, But I hope God of his Infinite Mercy to us Both, as well as all our Children, will preserve you, and Restore you againe to your former health and strength, which shall bee my Constant and earnest Prayers for you; I Blesse God, Nanny and I, with Mr. Dyke1 and the rest of our Fellow-Travellers arrived safe and well here last night in the evening[.] wee found Mr. Stringer, and our daughter Betty verie well in Salisbury, The two sisters were much surprised to meete each other, and Nanny offered to Exchange with Betty, and to stay at Ivy church with Mr. Stringer, soe as Miss Betty would take her Place to London, theire Dialogue upon that subject was pleasant enough as was most of theire other Conversation, Miss Betty was verie thankefull for  your kind Token you bidd mee Deliver to Her, and desired mee to  Return you her Duty and humble Thankes; Mrs. Stringer was Indisposed by a Cold, soe that I could not see Her, but Mr. Stringer is as well as ever I saw Him (his Lameness excepted) in all my Life, Hee and his Lady (by Him, and by Betty) send you theire hearty services, and verie Frankly, and kindly, Promise the continueance of their Care and Kindnesse to Miss Betty, who held up her Head verie well all the while shee was with us, which was well neare nine at Night, and then they went home by the cleare moon-shine. And the next day by three in the morning wee proceeded in our journey and gott safe and well  hither about five in the evening yesterday; I went directly to Mrs. Smithsby’s Lodgeings with Nanny, where wee were verie kindly received by her, with all the kind inquieryes after your wellfare, and the rest of my Children imaginable and after haveing spent an houre there, I went to Mr. Lock, and luckily enough found Him at home,2 where all our time there together was spent in His Inquieryes into All the Circumstances of your Case, and your present state of Health, and he

1  Mentioned at Corr., v. 454, as a candidate for sheriff of Somerset, 1695. 2  He had previously lodged with Rabsy Smithsby, but now with Robert Pawling, at Little Lincoln’s Inn Fields.

210

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1962A.  E. Clarke, 9 November 1695 Desires (by Mrs. Burges)1 to have a Constant Account from you, Hee speakes with greate assureance, That the swellings in your Leggs, and other Parts, are only occasion’d by the weaknesse of your Blood, which Hee says must bee strengthened by all the Nourishing things in your Dyett you can thinke of, and your stomack will take; And sayes further there is an absolute Necessity that you should every day Drink two or three Glasses of Good strong Port-wyne or sack or any other the best stomack-wyne you can gett, as your stomack will beare it, but Hee sayes if your stomack bee offended therewith you must begin with smaller Quantityes and increase the use of Wyne by Degrees for Hee sayes tis absolutely Necessary to invigorate and strengthen your Bloud, And Hee approves verie much of the Advice Doctor Musgrave2 hath given in useing some Dropps of the Elixor in your Wine, but Hee sayes you must begin with small Quantityes of that Likewise, and by Degrees Hee believes you will bee able to take it, and is verie Confident it will doe you a greate deale of Good; Hee allsoe Advises your Drinkeing the strongest sort of Malt-Drinke your stomack will beare with Nutmegg in it, and some sugar if your stomack likes it, and now and then, as often as you can, to Drinke Centry3 or Wormwood in your Beare, but Centry is the Best, for Hee sayes All Bitter and Hott things are now most proper for you, And Advises your having a good Quantity of Nutmegg, or other spice that you like in all the Water-Gruell you eate or Drinke; These things as to your Dyett and Drinke, Hee is direct and positive in as proper and Necessary for you; But when I acquainted Him how often you had been Purged, and in what manner and acquainted Him with all the Particular circumstances of its operation, Hee seem’d to bee of the Opinion, That you had been Purg’d enough, saying, That continueing to Purge often would keepe you weake, and hinder the strengthening of your Bloud, and therefore thought it proper to Purge but seldome for the future, unlesse Doctor Musgrave Require it, as Absolutely Necessary, But to procure a stoole once in two or three dayes at most, by suppositer Glister, or some such other gentler way, And Hee doubts not but strength will increase, and that you will be Restored to your former health, which is the Hearty Prayer of 1  See no. 1950*. 2  See no. 1683A. The naming of Musgrave here confirms de Beer’s surmise that the ‘physician’ in no. 1962 is Dr Musgrave, but he mistakenly identifies him as Musgrave of Exeter (his uncle), rather than of Nettlecombe. 3  Centry: Common Centaury (Centaurium erythraea), widely used as a medicinal herb.

211

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1965.  W. Molyneux, 16 November 1695 your truly and tenderly Affectionate and Faithfull husband Edw: Clarke My true Love to you and my Children, and my service to all the rest of my Friends etc. I was verie Kindly Received by Mr. Freke who Presents his hearty service to you, And sayes Hee can best expresse his Respects to you, by takeing care of mee, which Hee does with all the kindnesse imaginable: The King is not yett Return’d to Town, so that there is no News at present here, But Hee is expected Tuesday next etc. Pray seale and send the inclosed to my Cosen Bluett by the verie first opportunity etc. I shall as constantly as possible write to you, but would not have you undergoe the Fatigue of Answering any otherwise then by your secretary’s, Mrs. Burges, or John Spreate,1 unlesse there bee need of communicateing any thing to mee, which you thinke improper for either of them to know etc.

1965*.  Locke to William Molyneux, 16 November 1695 (1945, 1966*) Karpeles Collection. Corr., v. 462, line 3: for expression read prepossession Corr., v. 463, line 17: between an express. and I am insert omitted passage:

to my Lady Masham whose mother is unexpectedly dead.2 You will finde here inclosed a letter from her son to yours,3 a child whom she has bred at home and taught Latin her self.4 The correspondence will doe them both good. I have given this letter to Mr. Burridge5 to ­convey 1  The Clarke family’s steward. 2  Mrs Cudworth (Damaris Andrewes), widow of the philosopher Ralph Cudworth, died on 15 November. Locke returned to Oates on the 18th. 3  Francis Cudworth Masham, aged about nine, and Samuel Molyneux, aged six. For the latter (1689–1728), see Corr., v. 428–9; ODNB. 4  The remark is repeated in no. 1966*. See Some Thoughts Concerning Education, § 177: ‘whatever stir there is made about getting of Latin, as the great and difficult business; his mother may teach it him herself, if she will but spend two or three hours in a day with him, and make him read the evangelists in Latin to her [and then] read Aesop’s Fables, and so proceed on to Eutropius, Justin, and other such books. I do not mention this as an imagination of what I fancy may do, but as of a thing I have known done.’ 5  Ezekiel Burridge (c.1661–1707), Irish lawyer, who translated Locke’s Essay into Latin (1701). Corr., v. 440.

212

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1966.  W. Molyneux, 20 November 1695 to you. This suddain journey into the Country sooner than I expected will hinder me from doing him all the service I hoped. Postmark: NO 19 Endorsed: Complement with one inclosed from Sir Fr. Mashams son to my Little Boy.

1966*.  Locke to William Molyneux, 20 November 1695 (1965*, 1984) Karpeles Collection. Concerning Molyneux’s son, Samuel, and Damaris Masham’s son, Francis. Corr., v. 464, lines 33–4: insert omitted paragraph:

I was very glad to finde in that letter the account you therein give of your son. I read that part of your letter before a yonge lad in the house where I live who is bred at home and taught Latin by his mother.1 The character you gave your son did as I expected touch him with Love and Emulation, for it is a very good natur’d child and his mother has taken care to set his minde right. I never saw any child that had his minde more soe. He is very seldom chid, and has never been beaten2 since I have been in the house, which I think is now five year.3 He hearing your sons Character presently spoke of him with esteem and affection and thence I tooke occasion to put it in his head to write to your son, which he readily agreed to. I sent his letter inclosed in mine from London and think the correspondence may be usefull to them both. Postmark: NO23 Endorsed: Book of Interest sent. His Paper off Mony presented to the Lords Justices of Engl. Mr. Burridge to Translate his Essay. The Abridgement almost printed, and written against. Concerning my son and Sir Fr. Masham’s son.

1975A. Locke to Sir John Somers, later Baron Somers, [early December 1695] (1964, 1979) Dedicatory epistle prefaced to Further Considerations Concerning Raising the Value of  Money, 1695. No extant manuscript. The version printed here is the ‘corrected’ ­second edition of 1696, but the changes are only a handful of accidentals. Locke ­requested permission to dedicate the work to Somers on 2 December 1695: no. 1972.

1  See no. 1965*. 2 See Some Thoughts Concerning Education, §§ 47–50. 3  Locke settled at Oates in mid-December 1690.

213

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1975A.  Sir J. Somers, [early December 1695] On 17 ­December John Freke and Edward Clarke told Locke that Somers had deleted ‘a whole line in one place and two words in another to avoid offence’: no. 1981. The tract was published about 27 December. Printed in Locke on Money, ed. P. H. Kelly, 2 vols., 1991, ii. 402–4, where fuller annotation and context may be found (pp. 137–41). Compare this dedication with that to the earlier Considerations: no. 1428A. The ­present tract was published at the height of government and public debate over the recoinage crisis. It extended and made public arguments in memoranda which Locke had submitted to Somers and the Lords Justices. It critiques William Lowndes’s rival recoinage scheme which would have reduced the silver content of money.

To The Right Honorable Sr John Sommers, Kt. Lord Keeper of the Great Seal of England, and one of His Majesties most Honourable Privy Council. My Lord, The Papers I here present your Lordship, are in Substance the same with one which I delivered to you,1 in Obedience to the Commands I received by your Lordship, from their Excellencies, the Lords Justices; and with another,2 which I writ in Answer to some Questions your Lordship was pleased to propose to me concerning our Coin. The Approbation your Lordship was pleased to give them then, has been an Encouragement to me, to revise them now, and put them in an Order; fitter to comply with their Desires, who will needs have me print something at this time, on this Subject: And could any thing of this Nature be received with Indifferency in this Age; the Allowance they have had from your Lordship, whose great and clear Judgment is, with general Consent and Applause, acknowledged to be the just Measure of Right and Wrong amongst us, might make me hope that they might pass in the World without any great Dislike. However, since your Lordship thought they might be of use to clear some Difficulties, and rectifie some wrong Notions that are taken up about Money, I have ventured them into the World, desiring no Mercy to any erroneous Positions or wrong Reasonings, which shall be found in them. I shall never knowingly be of any, but Truths and my Country’s side; the former I shall always gladly imbrace and own, whoever shews it me: And in these Papers, I am sure, I have no other Aim, but to do what little I can, for the Service of my Country. Your Lordship’s so evidently preferring that to all other Considerations, does in the Eyes of 1  ‘Propositions Sent to the Lords Justices’, submitted in October 1695. 2  ‘Answer to my Lords Keepers Queries’, also submitted in October.

214

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1975A.  Sir J. Somers, [early December 1695] all Men, sit so well upon you, that my Ambition will not be blamed; if I in this, propose to my self so great an Example; and in my little sphere am moved by the same Principle. I have a long time foreseen the Mischief and Ruine coming upon us by clipp’d Money, if it were not timely stopp’d: And had Concern enough for the Publick, to make me print some Thoughts touching our Coin some Years since.1 The Principles I there went on, I see no reason to alter: They have, if I mistake not, their Foundation in Nature, and will stand: They have their Foundation in Nature, and are clear; and will be so, in all the Train of their Consequences throughout this whole (as it is thought) mysterious Business of Money, to all those, who will but be at the easie Trouble of stripping this Subject of hard, obscure and doubtful Words, wherewith Men are often mislead and mislead others. And now the Disorder is come to Extremity, and can no longer be plaid with, I wish it may find a suddain and effectual Cure; not a Remedy in Sound and Appearance,2 which may flatter us on to Ruine in the Continuation of a growing Mischief, that calls for present Help. I wish too, that the Remedy may be as easie as possible; and that the  Cure of this Evil be not ordered so as to lay a great Part of the Burden unequally on those, who have had no particular Hand in it.3 Westminster-Hall 4 is so great a Witness of your Lordship’s unbiassed Justice, and steady Care to preserve to every one their Right; that the World will not wonder you should not be for such a lessening our Coin, as will, without any Reason, deprive great Numbers of blameless Men of a Fifth Part of their Estates,5 beyond the Relief of Chancery.6 I hope this Age will scape so great a Blemish. I doubt not but there are many, who, for the Service of their Countrey, and for the Support of the Government, would gladly part with, not only one Fifth, but a

1  Some Considerations of the Consequences of the Lowering of Interest, and Raising the Value of Money, 1692 (in fact, late 1691). This had appeared anonymously; hence Locke here admits authorship. In her memoir, Damaris Masham singled out, as evidence of his service to the public, Locke’s early recognition of the problem of the coinage: ‘from the first yeare of his return into England (when no body else appear’d Sensible of this matter) he was very much troubled concerning it’. 2  i.e. the scheme, which Locke rejected, for merely changing the denomination of the ­coinage. 3  Locke means that there should be no compensation for holders of clipped money at the expense of others. 4  The principal courts of law sat in Westminster Hall. 5  Lowndes’s devaluation scheme would, in Locke’s view, arbitrarily reduce the value of rents and debts. 6  The court of law which dealt with equity cases.

215

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1981A.  S. Heathcote, 18 December 1695 much larger Portion of their Estates.1 But when it shall be taken from them, only to be bestowed on Men in their, and the common Opinion, no better deserving of their Countrey than themselves, unless growing exceedingly rich by the publick Necessities,2 whilst every body else finds his Fortune streightned by them, be a publick Merit, that deserves a publick and signal Reward, this Loss, of one Fifth of their Debts and Income, will sit heavy on them, who shall feel it without the Alleviation of any Profit or Credit, that will thereby accrue to the Nation, by such a lessening of our Coin. It any one ask, how I, a retired private Man, come at this time to meddle with Money and Trade:3 For they are inseparable; I reply, that your Lordship, and the other great Men that put me upon it, are answerable for it: Whether what I say be to the purpose or no, that I my self am answerable for. This I can answer to all the World, that I have not said any thing here, without a full Perswasion of its Truth; nor with any other Motive or Purpose than the clearing of this artificially perplexed, rather than it self mysterious Subject, as far as my poor Talent reaches. That which perhaps I shall not be so well able to answer, to your Lordship and my self, is the Liberty I have taken, in such an Address as this, to profess that I am, My Lord, Your Lordships most humble and most Obedient Servant John Locke

1981A.  Samuel Heathcote to Locke, 18 December 1695 (1743, 1984A) HRO, Heathcote Papers, 63M84/235, fos. 7–8, at the back of the notebook. Board of Trade letter. Not as sent, but a copy (or draft). To judge from Locke’s comment in no. 1993, the letter never reached him. Located and transcribed by J. R. Milton. Concerns the recoinage. This and the series of five letters following (1984A, 1993*, 2289A, 2333A, 2333B), 1  Albeit a rhetorical flourish, it is striking that Locke envisages high levels of public taxation, if grounded in consent and justice. 2  Another reference to currency speculators, who bought up clipped money in the hope of profit. 3  In this same month, December 1695, Locke was nominated to the proposed new Council of Trade and Plantations, though the creation of the Council was delayed until the following summer. The present tract, and its preceding memoranda, were, inter alia, his accreditation for such an appointment. Freke and Clarke informed Locke of his nomination to the Council on 17  December, in the same letter that they reported Somers’s amendments to the Dedication. Arguably, therefore, Locke’s retention of the present remark approaches the disingenuous. Corr., no. 1981.

216

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1981A.  S. Heathcote, 18 December 1695 recovered from Heathcote’s papers, show a firmer political connection between the two men than hitherto suspected. For Heathcote, a leading overseas merchant, see Corr., v. 55; E. D. Heathcote, An Account of Some of the Families Bearing the Name of Heathcote, 1899. I have designated this a ‘Board of Trade’ letter (the first in this v­ olume) because, although the Board did not assemble until the summer of 1696, Locke was reported to be a prospective member early in December 1695, and because all Heathcote’s letters printed here belong together as a series of memoranda to Locke concerning economic matters. Locke continued to act as the Heathcote brothers’ conduit to the Board once it was in session. On 21 September 1696, for example, the Board’s minutes record that ‘Mr. Locke delivered to the Board a short Memorial which he received from the J­amaica Merchants’ – who were Sir Gilbert Heathcote and his colleagues (TNA, CO 391/9, p. 120).

   St Swithings Lane1 18 Xber 1695 Mr. John Lock There is dayly imported great quantitys of Gold from Holland, Hamburg, Bremen and other Neighbouring Countreys, and Coined into Guynys at the Tower at the Publick Charge. The Importers buy as much of that gold in those Parts for 4 ounces of silver of our Standard or 21 of our milld shillings which weighs 4 ounces as will make a guynea. And when it is Coined into Guyneas they exchange them amongst us for 30s a piece against our goods or 29s against our clipt money. Now suppose they should yet import as much gold as would make 300000 guyneas, and sell them at 29s per piece. And take our present Currant silver money in payment, and an act should pass this Sessions of Parliament for New Coineing our clipt money And makeing it of the same weight and fineness with our old milld money then it will follow that those importers of Gold (supposeing them to be forreigners) would rob or gaine from the Nation by the 300000 guineas 120000l sterling for by each Guynea which cost them no more then 21 of our milld shillings they will gaine 8s which makes the foresaid summ of 120000l because they will, or may let the old money they now receive for their Guyneas, lye in the Bank, the Goldsmith’s hands, or their owne till the act be passed or pay it into the Exchequer upon the generall Credit; And then in a short time they may receive new milld money for it, which they will send over sea (in returnes for their gold) either in Specie if our money shall be permitted to be Carryed out (as it is most reasonable it should) or they will melt downe the new money and export it in Bullion, in case the exportation of our coine should be prohibited; however either way will equally advantage the Importers of 1  St Swithin’s Lane, in the City of London.

217

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1984A.  S. Heathcote, 30 December 1695 gold and prejudice or impoverish the Nation. There fore to prevent any further loss upon us by the importation of gold. I am humbly of Opinion, that there should be an imediate stop put to the Coinage of any more Guyneas for a Certaine time, except onely of gold imported by our English merchants in English shipping directly from the Coast of Guinea,1 or our Islands and Colonies in America.

1984A.  Samuel Heathcote to Locke, 30 December 1695 (1981A, 1993*) HRO, Heathcote Papers, 63M84/235, fos. 4–5. Board of Trade letter. In Heathcote’s hand; copy kept by him in his own notebook. Located and transcribed by J. R. Milton. Answered by no. 1993. Concerns privateering and is indicative of Locke’s presumed influence upon government policy. Heathcote’s assumption arises from the report that Locke would be appointed to the newly created Council of Trade and Plantations (no. 1981).

    Hackney 30th Xber 1695 Mr. John Locke Sir, About fourteen dayes agoe I wrote2 you my thoughts about putting an immediate stop to the Coinage of Guyneas, except onely of Gold imported by our English Merchants directly from the Coasts of Guynea or our Islands and Colonys in America. Guyneas are now sold for 29s: 2d against Clipt money and 30s against Goods. I will not trouble you with the reasons I apprehend hath occasioned their riseing againe from 28s: 6d to 29s: 2d but it seems cleare to me that if there be not a stop put to the Coinage of them, great quantity of Gold will still be imported, and our New milld money will be carryed out in returnes for the Gold at 35 per cent loss to the Nation. And I am well assured from the rise of exchange great sums have been remitted to Holland etc. to buy up Gold to import. I perceive by the Printed Votes of the house of Commons, leave is given to bring in a bill for the encouragement of Privateers.3 I have not heard what is the designe of it but I am sure hitherto little encouragement hath been given either to them, or our Cruisers. I will venture to 1  From where slaves were shipped to America, by the Heathcotes and a good many others of Locke’s acquaintance. 2  No. 1981A. 3  Votes of the House of the Commons, 19 December 1695; Journals of the House of Commons, xi. 366. Heathcote was anxious that merchant ships should be authorized and encouraged to maraud French shipping.

218

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1984A.  S. Heathcote, 30 December 1695 offer you my thoughts what Method might be taken the better to destroy our enemys Cruisers and Privateers and thereby secure our owne trade.1 I am informed our prize Office2 hath brought very little or nothing into the Exchequer, but that the King is rather a loser by those few prizes that have been taken since the Warr.3 The Owners of our Privateers have in generall got nothing so they have almost wholly laid downe the trade. the Commanders, officers and seamen in our Cruisers, have got little by the prizes they have taken, that it has been affirmed by a Captain of one of our Men of Warr that had the good fortune to take the Richest prize that hath been taken from the French this Warr, that he did not get above 500l for his share.4 The prize office and Doctor Commons5 eat up all. I would there fore humbly propose that if any of the Kings ships take a french ship, whether Man of Warr Privateer or Merchant Man, the Commander of the ship, his officers and seamen should have her wholly for themselves to be divided amongst them in such proportions as is usuall. And that there should be nominated and appointed in every port in England, and Ireland where there is any likely hood of bringing any prizes in, one or 2 of the Eminentest Merchants for Estates and reputed honesty in those severall ports, to be Factors for the Commanders Officers and Seamen that shall bring any prize thither, that the said Factors shall have power to get the prizes Condemned6 in the Courts of Admiralty with all speed, and then shall  imediately dispose of them the best they can by publick sale whereof they shall give notice in the Gazett7 10 days or more before the day of  sale. And make an equall division of the nett proceed to the Captain,  officers, and seamen, according to their respective proportions practised in such cases, or if they returne not into that port, pre­ sently after he hath received money for the prize, he shall pay the money 1  After her navy’s defeat at the Battle of La Hogue in 1692, France altered her naval strategy and turned instead to harassing English merchant ships. English losses were immense. Many merchants felt that King William’s preoccupation with a land war strategy in Flanders left the merchant marine gravely unprotected. See no. 1996A. 2  The office which dealt with the distribution of spoils captured from enemy ships. P. Q. Wright, Prize Money, 1649–1815, 1913. 3  i.e. the start of the Nine Years War against France, 1689. 4  Under the Privateers Act, 4 W & M c. 25: Statutes of the Realm, vi. 419–23. 5  Doctors’ Commons, the college of civil lawyers near St Paul’s Cathedral which housed the High Court of Admiralty. 6  Condemn: to adjudge or pronounce forfeited. 7  The official government newspaper, The London Gazette.

219

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1984A.  S. Heathcote, 30 December 1695 to their severall orders. The Factors if it be thought needfull may give in their accounts to the Commanders etc. upon Oath, Also may be sworne to dispose of the prizes to the best advantage they are Capable. And for their payment or commission they shall be allowed 3 4 or 5 per cent as it may be Judged Convenient. I conceive there will many advantages arise to us by this Method, viz., the officers and seamen will be sure to have their full share and cannot be Defrauded by their Commander, And they will all be assured that they shall have a just account and the most made of their prize thats possible. it will also gaine much time that our Cruisers now lose when they bring in any prize, for then they will have nothing to do but deliver their prize into their factors hands, And go out imediately again to seeke for more, And they will be satisfied they shall have more money made of it, then they could make of it themselves. Whereas now when a Captain gets a prize he’l never leave it till he have pillaged all he can, knowing well that after he has deliverd it into the prize Masters hands; he shall get little more from it, and the seamen perhaps nothing at all. It seems plaine by our present Method, that both Commanders, officers and seamen are discouraged, the King gets nothing. And onely a number of unprofittable persons that are employed about the prizes are enriched by it. And besides that the Commanders officers and seamen should have all the ships and goods they take from our Enemys, I do further propose, that if they take a french Man of Warr, they shall have 12l for every Gun she carrys mounted, and the Captain that takes her shall have a Gold Chaine and Medall, of greater, or less value according to the bigness of the ships he takes and the danger of the enterprise that if he take a Privateer they shall have over and above the ships Guns and Materialls etc. 10l for every Gun she carrys mounted. That Incase the Captain, any Officer or Seaman be killed in the Engagement their Wifes, Children, or next relations shall have the same share of what they take as they should have had if they had lived. I cannot apprehend what damage can accrue to the Nation by this Method for as things are now Managed the King gets as little as he will do then, the Commanders, officers and seamen will get a great deale more then than they do now, and will consequently be more dilligent and dareing. No body will lose but such as do not deserve to get. And tho: it should cost his Majestie some money for every Man of War and Privateer we take, also for Chaines and Meddals, yet what he gives is to 220

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1993.  [S. Heathcote], 6 January 1696 his owne subjects and in his owne Kingdome, so doth not impoverish the Nation one farthing, but will be I hope an effectuall meanes to weaken our Enemys and strengthen our selves. I should also think it Convenient to make the Condemnation of the prizes we take more Speedy and less Chargeable then it is now. I think privateers should have the same encouridgement with our Men of Warr. And that every Merchant ship English built, that carrys 20 or more Guns and 40 or more men should have a letter of Mart1 without any Charge if it be desired by the Owners. The Charge of a letter of Mart doth now cost 9l besides what is given to Sollicitors and Door Keepers. The French grant letters of Mart to all their Merchants ships of force, I was concerned in 2 very rich ships that were taken this Warr by 2 of their letter of Mart ships. And ’tis but lately that our Commissioners of the Admiralty would grant letters of Mart for any ship. They refus’d one for a ship of 36 Guns and 85 men that I was an owner of.

1993*.  Locke to [Samuel Heathcote], 6 January 1696 (1984A, 1996A) BL, Add. MS 17017, fo. 85. Board of Trade letter. Identification of recipient. This letter was printed by de Beer, but he was unable to identify the recipient. Its content, alongside that of no. 1984A, to which it is an answer, shows beyond doubt that it was addressed to Heathcote.

1996A.  Samuel Heathcote to Locke, [c.8 January 1696] (1993*) HRO, Heathcote Papers, 63M84/235, fos. 8–17. This letter, probably the longest in Locke’s Correspondence (about 7,300 words), immediately follows no. 1981A in Heathcote’s notebook, and the same volume also contains no. 1984A. It is the third in Heathcote’s series of memoranda advising Locke on desiderata concerning coinage and trade, in light of the inclusion of Locke’s name among prospective members of a Commission for Trade and Plantations. It hence presumes that Locke will soon be in a position to promote legislation. The letter appears to be a draft rather than a copy. Heathcote was quite capable of sending Locke lengthy missives: in no. 2333A (October 1997) he ­reminds Locke of the ‘35th paragraph’ of a previous letter. The letter is undated. It is clearly subsequent to 1981A (18 December) and 1984A (30 December). On 6 January (no. 1993) Locke wrote to say that he had received 1 Mart: marque. Letters of marque were issued by the Admiralty to captains of armed ­merchant vessels to give them leave to capture enemy vessels in wartime.

221

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1996A.  S. Heathcote, [c.8 January 1696] Heathcote’s letter of 30 December concerning shipping, but not his letter of 18 ­December concerning the coining of guineas. The present letter opens by referring to the letter about guineas but fails to note Locke’s not having received it and makes no attempt to repeat what had previously been said. This suggests a date of composition no later than about 8 January, by which time Heathcote would have learnt that no. 1981A had not been received. I have speculatively assigned it to that date. However, Heathcote’s opening phrase about his guineas letter having been written ‘some time since’ might suggest a longer lapse of time than three weeks; if so, this indicates a later date of composition. The letter cannot be later than August, since Heathcote presumes England’s alliance with Savoy, which collapsed in that month. The letter ignores the fact that Locke’s prospective membership of the Board of Trade was in jeopardy because of the attempt of the Country Party in the Commons to prevent the king appointing its members. The Board’s inauguration was accordingly delayed until the summer. But Heathcote probably hoped that Locke would become a member in any case. Locke’s ally, the earl of Monmouth, insisted that he would try to ensure that ‘Mr. Locke may be the choice of the House as well as the king’s’ (no. 1977). The letter chiefly concerns the problems of overseas trade, especially during the current war. Heathcote divides his proposals into five sections, but his digressions sometimes cloud clear demarcations of subject matter. Although he engages in parti pris lobbying for the Whig overseas merchant community, he does also provide broader exercises in national wealth and manpower accounting characteristic of the emerging discipline of ‘political economy’. He vigorously promotes free trade, in the sense of attacking closed monopoly trading companies, and in his preoccupation with the damage done to England’s international trade by customs impositions. He argues that, by reducing or abolishing customs duties, the nation, and hence in the long run the government, will be better off because of economic growth thereby generated. His hostility to the customs regime extends beyond financial costs to the vexatious bureaucracy imposed by officialdom. He likewise finds the Admiralty obstructive. This sentiment extends to scepticism about the efficiency and honesty of naval dockyards, and he implies that shipbuilding would be more effective if partly outsourced. He regards some of the manpower requirements of the Navigation Acts, which were designed to guarantee that English trade was carried on English ships, as unduly rigid and counter-­ productive. Heathcote speaks for the ‘navalist’ or ‘blue water’ lobby, holding that a strong merchant marine, as a resource of ships and sailors, is essential to England’s grand strategy. He explicitly criticizes King William’s emphasis on committing large armies to a land war in Flanders. (Here he could find common cause with Tory critics of the conduct of the war. Arguably, the Board of Trade during Locke’s tenure, while strongly Whig in tenor, would constitute a navalist lobby within government.) Heathcote has much to say about the precarious provision of strategic naval supplies, for which England was highly dependent on the Baltic trade. In the case of such strategic industries, his free trade convictions give way to advocacy of government protection. Likewise, free trade doctrine does not preclude a conventional disapproval of the economic costs of luxury consumption. Among Heathcote’s varied themes are the Dutch model of economic success, an economy built almost wholly on international trade; and not least the Dutch ability to build and man ships more cheaply. He evinces indifference to the concerns of England’s landed, agrarian lobby. He discusses trade in coal, textiles, dyestuffs, and sailcloth; shipbuilding; wartime convoying of merchant ships

222

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1996A.  S. Heathcote, [c.8 January 1696] and depredations by French privateers; Scottish economic c­ ompetition; and the folly of the patenting regime. He mentions the importance of access to the trade in ‘Negroes’ to the Spanish Empire – apparently the only explicit reference to the Atlantic slave trade in Locke’s extant correspondence, although the topic is present in other Locke-related papers, especially those of the Board of Trade. The measured tone of Heathcote’s letter turns, towards the end, to exasperation at the nation’s apparent slide towards war-­induced bankruptcy, and he closes with a brisk list of further reforms, such as to the Poor Law. As throughout this volume, in the following transcription, superscripts have been lowered and contractions expanded. Some of Heathcote’s contractions reflect a merchant’s shorthand: ‘como’ [commodity], ‘frtt’ [fraight, i.e. freight]), ‘mo’ [money], p [per], pfitt [profit], pse [piece (of cloth)]). The manuscript has numerous deletions and insertions; except in a couple of significant cases, these have not been recorded. Some sentence breaks have been silently supplied. Not all flourishes at the start of words have been deemed capitals. Line breaks have been inserted to mark Heathcote’s sections. Shillings and pence have been standardized in italics as s, d; and pounds weight as lb.

Mr. John Lock Sir Some time since I wrote you1 my thoughts about putting an imediate stop to the coinage of guyneas, except onely of gold imported into England directly from our Plantations in America or the coast of Guynea by our English merchants. I will now offer you my thoughts about some other matters, which would in my opinion greatly increase the trade and wealth of this kingdome. And first I propose that all sorts of goods manufactured in England either of our owne, or forreigne materialls shall be exported free from all custome or duties whatsoever, that the exporters shall not be obliged to enter them, nor pay any manner of fees for cocquets,2 sufferance3 or any thing els, but may carry them out as free as the ballasts in our ships. That coles, lead and tin be excepted,4 because they are commoditys allmost peculiar to this kingdome especially lead. And no countrey can sufficiently supply the forreign marketts with them, besides ourselves. Indeed if the duty of coles was lessend two thirdsa or more we should be thereby better enabled to

a  one half deleted 1  No. 1981A. 2  Cocket: a document sealed by customs officers and delivered to merchants as a certificate that merchandise has been duly entered and duty paid. 3  [Bill of ] sufferance: a licence to ship or discharge a cargo without paying customs duty. 4  Although the manuscript has ‘excepted’, the meaning must be ‘exempted’, for the ensuing discussion concerns the case for reducing or abolishing duties on coal, as well as on manufactures.

223

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1996A.  S. Heathcote, [c.8 January 1696] undersell the Scotts,1 who are the onely competitors with us in that trade. And I am of opinion that the lessening the duty would make a great vent2 for them abroad, for if we can afford them cheaper the Scotts cannot trade with us, and if they send less abroad we shall send the more. And tis probable the king would receive more custome for coles then, than he doth now by the greatness of the quantity that would be exported beyond what is at present. However if more coles were exported the nation would gain considerably, at least 40 or 45s for every chalder,3 for though they may not cost at Newcastle above 10s per chalder, yet the exporter receives for them at the forreigne markett a40, 45 or more shillings in times of peace and double those sums in times of war, according to the distance of the place they are carryed to. Which 40 or 45s per chalder is cleare gaine to the nation, though the exporter may not gaine 1s per chalder, the rest being paid by him for custome, keel hire, fraight, ensureance and other charges, which still remaines among our selves,4 for the forreigner payes to the exporter 40, 45 or more shillings which he either brings into England in silver, or layes it out for goods the nation wants and for which we must have sent out our owne money if we had not sent coles to pay for them. By this it seemes cleare to me that it is very much the interest of England to lower the duty of coles so much, that we may be able to undersell the Scotts and beat them wholly out of that trade. For suppose we now export yearly 5000 chalders of coles which payes the king £2000 att 8s per chalder (reckoning all this while in Newcastle measure) yet if we should take off that duty wholly, and by that meanes export 5000 chalder more then that we do at present, that would be £8000 profit yearely to the nation more then if we onely exported 5000 chalder, supposing each chalder to yield us abroad 40s which it will do at least, for by the exportation of 5000 chalder more the nation would gain £10000 more and but lose £2000 which the king now receives for his customes of

a 35 deleted 1  Scotland was an independent kingdom until 1707 and, during the 1690s, was engaged in fierce economic rivalry with England, which culminated in the crisis over the Darien project. 2  Vent: sale, market. 3  Chalder (or chaldron): a dry measure of volume. For coal it varied; but the Newcastle chaldron (‘Newcastle measure’ is mentioned below) was fixed in 1694 at 53 long hundredweight (2,690 kg). 4  In a later letter Heathcote repeated the theme of the value to the English economy of freight and ancillary charges: no. 2333A.

224

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1996A.  S. Heathcote, [c.8 January 1696] the 5000 chalders that I supposed is now yearly exported. But besides this advantage allready spoken of, the exportation of more coles would greatly increase the shipping and seamen of this kingdom which are allow’d by all to be its greatest security, for the carrying out of 5000 chalders of coales would employ 50 good shipps and 6 or 700 seamen. But all coles that should be exported in forreigners ships, or by or for forreigners accounts should pay 10s per chalder custome to the king, because if forreigners ships carry out our coles, the nation loseth all the fraight, which is 20s per chalder and onely gets the first cost for the coles, vizt 10s per chalder. And if forreigners export them in forreigne shipping, the nation loseth all the fraight, ensurance, and profit, which may be 30s per chalder. The coles that are exported, and carryed to our owne forreigne Plantations, may pay the present duty, because the Scots cannot interfere with us in that trade,1 it will be onely a tax upon ourselves and not occasion less coles to be transported to those places. Lead being onely to be had from England, I see no reason to take off any of the custome it now pays. The Dutch bring considerable quantityes of gin2 from China, and furnisheth some countreys with it, but it being inferiour to ours in fineness, I do not find that we want a vent for all the gin we can make, so there is no occasion to lessen the duty of it, except it can be thought that shipping it out custome free would make it so cheap abroad, that we should discourage the Dutch from bringing any more from China; which I cannot imagine would have that effect considering how cheap they buy it in China that it serves to ballast their ships homewards, and  is not liable to be damnified3 by wett as most other Indian4 goods are. It is reasonable to beleeve that if all our English manufactures might be exported free of custome and officers fees, we should greatly increase their consumption in forreigne countreys, that would doubly compensate for the loss of the customes, for the cheaper we can afford our goods, the more vent they will find, and other nations gradually lose their trade. 1  The Navigation Acts required that all trade between England and her colonies must be carried in English vessels. 2  Gin: not found in this form in Oxford English Dictionary, but presumably meaning raw cotton, still with its seeds, prior to being ‘ginned’. 3  Damnified: damaged, spoiled. 4  Indian: here meaning ‘of the East Indies’, i.e. encompassing Asia.

225

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1996A.  S. Heathcote, [c.8 January 1696] The custome yearely of all the manufactures of England, amount to no great summ, and I am pretty confident that the charges of cocketts, searchers fees etc. doth amount to one fourth part of all the custome, which is a burden upon our trade and enhances the prices of our goods, and that only to maintaine a great number of men, that might otherwise be employed for the profitt of the common wealth. Besides there is a vast expence of time, and abundance of trouble to enter any small trifle outwards, which to avoid, there are oft times many things not exported that would be otherwise, for if a merchant have occasion to send out a course hatt or felt that pays the king 1s custome, it is a whole forenoon’s worke for himselfe or his servant to enter it: there must be 6 or 7 entrys made for it, and all the severall officers must examine and pass them, as if it were some mighty matter. A man cannot ship out a sute of clothes, without a bill of store1 that will cost in officers fees above staires2 [blank]3 besides searchers fees at shipping it off or else he must enter them ad valorem4 and pay 5 per cent custome besides fees. And if one would ship out 10 or 12lb of tobacco, which should draw back5 4½ 〈pence〉 from the king, and would be 〈in­de­ cipher­able〉6 were it not for the chargeableness of a debenter7 which is more than the draw back, he must not do it without a bill of store which will cost [blank]. Thus trade is made difficult and uneasy and therefore discouraged for if any one to avoid the trouble of entring a hatt should decline sending it out, the nation would lose thereby as much as it would have yeilded at the forreigne markett, which may be 150 times as much as the custome is, for an ordinary hatt that pays 1d custome may and doth ordinarily yield in other countreys 150 pence sterling or more, and the hatt (supposeing it made of our owne materialls) doth not cost the nation one farthing. The same may be said of periwigs, watches, all sorts of toyes8 made of iron and steel, all sorts of woollen manufactures etc. for in all or most sorts of those things other nations are competitors with us, that it must needs be the interest of

1  Bill of store: a Customs House licence to carry goods duty-free. 2  ‘Above stairs’: the rooms of senior persons in a household or office. 3  Here and below spaces are left for the insertion of a monetary amount. 4 An ad valorem tax is one levied on the value of goods. 5  Drawback: an amount paid back by government to a merchant when goods on which import duty has been paid are re-exported. 6  Perhaps ‘a gain’. 7  Debenter (variant of debenture): a certificate given to an exporter of imported goods on which a drawback is allowed, or of home goods on which a bounty is granted. 8  Toys: small metal articles such as tools and nails.

226

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1996A.  S. Heathcote, [c.8 January 1696] England to sell them as cheap abroad as we possibly can, to gaine the trade wholly to ourselves. And therefore there should be no discouragement, burden, or difficulty upon the exporters, but we should rather give them money to carry out our manufactures, then make them pay for their liberty to do it. By a late Act of Parliament butter and cheese are permitted to be exported free of custom which they did for the encouragement of our lands.1 Yet notwithstanding that Act, the custome house officers make it allmost as chargeable and altogether as troublesome as it was before the passing of that Act, for now if a person would ship out 20 firkins2 of butter and 20lb weight of cheese, he must first get a free cocquet, which costs him 3s 6d, then he must pay the searcher for his fee a halfe penny per firkin for the butter and three pence a cask for the cheese, that will be five shillings fees for the tun of cheese because there is seldome above one hundred weight of cheese packed in one cask. And besides this butter and cheese must be shipped off at a lawfull key,3 where the wharfage and portridge4 is more then double what it is at the common staires. I do not see the least reason why the exportation of butter and cheese should be encouraged more than all our other manufactures, because there are fewer competitours with us in those 2 commoditys then there are in most of our other manufactures, in which for the most part there is a greater improvement by workemanship then in our butter and cheese. If all custome and fees were wholly taken off all our manufactures exported, it would certainly increase our exportations by occasioning a far greater consumption of them in forreigne parts, that would bring us home more bullion, or hinder the carrying out of our owne, it will give employment to more of our poor at land, increase our shipping and seamen. And enable the people of England to give the king d­ ouble as much money another way, as he will lose by all the custome outwards. It is not onely custome the merchants pay for the goods they export, but the vast expense of time, charge, trouble and vexation with officers, I am confident doth greatly lessen our exportations.

1  An Act for the Encouragement of the Breeding and Feeding of Cattle (2 W & M, c. 4, 1691). 2  Firkin: a small cask for liquids, fish, butter, etc. 3  Key: quay. 4  Portridge (porterage): a charge for transportation.

227

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1996A.  S. Heathcote, [c.8 January 1696] The second thing that I would propose is to permit the importation of logwood, fustick,1 indigo, cocheneale, or any other dyeing stuff custom free from any of our Islands, Plantations, or Colonies in America, or that is imported directly from the Bay of Campeche2 in English built ships, by the subjects of England. And to pay a certaine duty at their exportation; by this meanes our dyeing would be cheaper, and we should be able to afford our dyed goods cheaper abroad. Whereas now all our dyeing wares are made very deare to us by an extravagant high custome, which doth consequently inhance the prices of all our dyed commoditys. And when these dyeing wares are exported, the exporter drawes back allmost all the duty, whereby he can sell them much cheaper to the Dutch, Hamburgers and other people after he hath paid fraight, ensureance and other charges from hence thither, then our owne dyer[s] can buy them here. And thereby forreigners are enabled to dye their owne or our white goods, cheaper then we can do ourselves, although they buy their dyeing stuff from us, and pay a great charge in getting them home. This seems to me a great error, and deserves consideration, for I do not understand by what reason cotton and Spanish wooll should be imported custome free. And at the same time lay a heavy duty upon those wares that must dye that wooll, either before or after it is made into cloth and other stuffs, there is an equall reason to burden the forreigne wooll whereof our manufactures are made, as well as the forreigne materialls with which those manufactures are to be dyed, before they can be made fit for use. And therefore (besides the dying wares that comes from our owne plantations and colonies) I would propose to have the duty lessened or all together taken off of all the dyeing stuff that shall be imported from any other countrey. It will perhaps be objected, that the greater part of the dyeing stuff that is imported is used in dyeing of cloth, stuffs, etc. which are consumed at home, and so the duty paid at the importation is but a tax upon ourselves for so much as is used in dyeing those things that we consume amongst us. This is true, but the same objection may with as much reason be made against the importation of wooll custome free. And we had better pay a tax for the clothes we weare then by a duty 1  Fustick (fustic): a name for two kinds of wood, both used for dyeing yellow, one of which is native to America and the West Indies. 2  From the 1660s onwards English adventurers cut logwood at the Bay of Campeche in the Gulf of Mexico, in violation of Spain’s ill-policed imperial sovereignty. Heathcote seems here to regard it as a legitimate settlement.

228

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1996A.  S. Heathcote, [c.8 January 1696] enhance the prices of the goods we export: for the taxes we pay (when the money is not sent abroad) is but commutations amongst ourselves but doth not in the least imperish1 or diminish the riches, or stock of the kingdome, but if by any duty upon our exported commoditys we lessen their exportation, or consumption abroad so much as is thereby hindered doth necessarily prevent2 us of so much money as those commoditys would have yielded us in forreigne parts. But although it may be adviseable to lay a duty upon all dyers wares at their exportation, and take no custome for them at their im­port­ ation; it will be most for the advancement of trade to draw back all the dutys at the exportation of all other forreigne commoditys that have paid any custome at their importation, thereby this kingdom will soone be a magazine for most commoditys of the world. And so our riches, shipping and seamen will wonderfully increase. The Hollanders are a remarkeable instance of the advantage of this method, who have no commoditys of their owne, yet by fetching goods from one countrey and carrying them to another, by bringing in foreign materialls and manufacturing them at home, and then sending them manufactured to other countreys oft times to those very places from whence they fetched the materialls. These courses together with their fisherys, largeness and cheapness of their ships and easiness of the charge in sailing them,3 have got them their great riches, and made their countrey (that has scarce one native commodity) a store house of all things in the world. There should be care taken that the exporters of forreign goods that have debenters to draw back the custome paid inwards should have the money repaid them speedily without delay, which by the tedious method now practised they must wait 3, 4, or 5 months before they can receive. This ought to be remedyed and not onely made more speedy, but also more easy and less chargeable, for the charges of a single debenter is neare 18s, and halfe as much more if there be any goods that payd an additionall impost, so that the charge eats up all the draw back and therefore except the sum to be drawne back be considerable the exporter chuses to lose it rather then be at the trouble to get it; and though he lose the draw back because the charge and trouble will be neare as much as it amounts to, yet he cannot ship out his certificate 1  Imperish: impair, worsen. 2  Prevent: forestall, preclude, hinder. 3  It was a constant concern, and something of an economic mystery, that the Dutch were able to construct and man ships more cheaply than the English. See R. Davis, The Rise of the English Shipping Industry in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, 1962.

229

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1996A.  S. Heathcote, [c.8 January 1696] goods without a free certificate, cocquet or a bill of store, which will cost him [blank] besides searchers and deputys fees. Thus trade is ­burdend, the merchant vext and discouraged, and yet the king or government gets nothing. Onely a great number of useless unprofittable officers are enriched and live at ease, to the great detriment and discourageing of commerce. The third thing that I would offer to consideration, is to continue the present duty upon all our long cloths, sayes, perpetuanoes1 etc. that are exported white, or if it be deemd reasonable to lay a higher duty on them then they now pay. The shipping out of these goods white is I conceive a considerable loss to the nation, and doth not occasion the exportation of one piece more, then if they were to be dyed here. By carrying out these goods white these severall trades lose their employment, vizt. the dyers, setters2, callenders,3 drawers, packers, tillett4 painters, all which trades together do receive a great deale of money for every piece that is dyed in England, which they and consequently the nation loseth, when they are exported white and dyed beyond sea. The Dutch are so sensible how great a profitt the dyeing of these goods are to the common wealth where they are dyed, that they have prohibited the importation of all our dyed goods, except such as are dyed in the wooll, by which they have a vast advantage, and we as great a loss, that now all the white goods that are bought up for Holland, are sent over white, so they gain and we lose all the rest of the manufacturing of them. Great quantities are also sent to Hamburg and other places white, and though they have not prohibited the importation of our dyed goods as the Dutch have, yet by reason that their dyed wares are cheaper there (upon account of the great draw back repaid here) then our dyers can buy them when the great custome is paid. They can dye them cheaper than we can, and therefore are incouraged to bring them white from England. Besides the advantage and employment that dyeing them there gives to so many severall artificers and tradesmen. It seems strange to me that since France hath prohibited most of our woollen manufactures, Denmarke and Sweden hath laid such heavy dutys upon them that almost amounts to a prohibition, the better to 1  Says and perpetuanas were woven woollen fabrics. 2  Setter: one who stretches cloth. 3  Calender: one who presses cloth.

230

4  Tillet: a type of coarse cloth.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1996A.  S. Heathcote, [c.8 January 1696] encourage and improve their owne manufactures, and Holland hath prohibited all our dyed goods, that we should take no care therein, although it be of so great concerne to us, being the spring from whence we derive the greatest part of our wealth.1 The fourth thing that I propose is the encouragement of makeing all our sail cloth, or duck2 in England, that we may not any longer be forced to send out our money as we did before the war to buy it in France and Holland, and now onely in Holland to the great shame and loss of the kingdome. We use more of that commodity then any nation in the world except the Dutch. We can get materialls for the makeing of it allmost as cheap as France or Holland. We have hands enough to make it. And we have men that have skill to performe it. And they have lately begun the experiment,3 and have and do weekely make 30 or more bolts4 or pieces, which have been used and found to be as usefull and serviceable as either the French or Hollands canvas; they onely want the art of giveing it the colour of the Hollands duck, which is onely for the eye, but adds nothing to its usefullness, and may be also attain’d to in a short time, if the worke be incouraged and continued. It is computed that there is yearely imported into England as much duck or sail cloth and canvas of all sorts to the value of £320000a sterling, which if it were made in England would save the nation at least £240000 sterling yearely as I shall endeavour to demonstrate this. A bolt of good Hollands duck doth cost in Holland the value of £3 5sb sterling, and we can make as good a bolt of duck in England with 50lb weight of Narva’s5 or kirtle flax.6 Which 50lb of flax doth not cost us at Narva (where we buy it, and ship it) above 10s sterling, so that by this computation there will be saved to the nation 55s in every piece of

a  Amended from £300000; and or £350000 deleted   b  Amended from £3 1  Protection of the vital English woollen textile trade greatly exercised policymakers. 2  Duck: a strong untwilled linen (or cotton) fabric, lighter and finer than canvas, used for small sails and men’s, especially sailors’, outer clothing. 3  By a Mr Eversden, mentioned below. 4  Bolt: a roll of woven fabric, variously of 28 ells, 30 yards, or 40 feet. 5  Narva: a Swedish Baltic port, captured by Russia in 1704 (today in Estonia). In December 1700 Peter King reported the Battle of Narva to Locke: no. 2823. MS Locke c. 30, fos. 70–5, is a set of notes by Locke called ‘Linnin 97’; this includes ‘Narva flax the best . . . Mr. Heathcote’ (fo. 73). 6  Kirtle flax: apparently here a type of flax, but the Oxford English Dictionary gives the meaning as a quantity of flax (‘kirtle’ presumed a variant of ‘kintle’ or ‘quintal’, typically 100lb).

231

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1996A.  S. Heathcote, [c.8 January 1696] Holland duck1 that shall be used, which is 11/13 parts. And so 2/13 parts of £320000 being deducted there will remaine £270770 that would then be saved to the nation more then is at present. If Mr. Eversden2 (who is the manager of this new manufacture of makeing duck) do informe me right, that 50 pounds weight of kirtle flax will make a bolt of good duck, I cannot err in my computation, because I have experience my selfe that 10s sterling will buy 50lb of kirtle flax at Narva and pay all charges of it on board the ship. And also that a bolt of good Hollands duck will cost now in Holland with all charges at shipping there more then £3 5s sterling, so that the difference between 10s that 50lb of flax doth cost at Narva and £3 5s that a bolt of good Hollands duck doth cost in Holland, must needs be gained, (or saved which is all one) to the nation by every piece we use. But I have something further to offer to prove that our makeing of sail cloth in England will be of greater advantage to us with respect onely to the saveing the stock of the nation then I have allready proposed. And especially at this time that we are over ballanced in our trade and so are forced to send out our silver to pay the Ballance in Holland. It is this, that though I said 50lb of flax would cost at Narva 10s sterling I did not meane that we paid the value of 10s for it in any kind of silver coine, but the value of 10s in silver and English goods together, for it is our common method in that trade when we buy any flax or hemp to pay them for it one third part in money, and two third parts in goods we send from England, so that in effect the nation doth not part with above 3s 4d for as much flax as will make a bolt of good duck here that would cost us in Holland £3 5s – which sum of £3 5s we do and must send over to the Dutch for every piece we have from them. Moreover by importing flax to make our sail cloth of, we shall employ more shipping and seamen, then we can do in fetching over duck from Holland, the voyage being longer and 50lb of flax will take up twice the roome of a bolt of duck, besides the Dutch do generally bring us all the duck we use in their owne ships. And for their owne account whereby the[y] do not onely get from us the first cost and charges in Holland but also the fraight, ensurance and profitt, that we have nothing of the price they sell it for here but onely the custome and petty charges, whereas the flax imported from Narva, is generally in our English ships and for English men’s accounts so that all the

1  In April 1701 the Dutch merchant Francis Limborch told Locke of his hope to supply Holland duck to the Admiralty and East India Company: no. 2910. 2  Not traced.

232

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1996A.  S. Heathcote, [c.8 January 1696] fraight, ensurance and profitt of it redounds to our nation, and the Rus and Swede gets nothing but the first cost and charges of their flax. And further it may be worth considering, the danger we may be exposed to, in case of a warr with the Dutch1 or French, by suffering them to be the sole masters of so considerable a part of our navall stores without which we cannot fit a ship to sea. Upon which score also, I judge it very needfull that we should make our owne sail cloth at home, and not be necessitated in times of war with those nations to purchase duck by the hands of newtrall people, at most extravagant rates. This manufacture of sail cloth (supposeing we should make all that shall be used in the kingdome) would give a full employment to 12000 people at least, to dress the flax, spin, and whiten the yarne and weave it. Wherefore for the reasons allready mentioned and many others that might be added, it seems very reasonable that the makeing of sail cloth should be encouraged and promoted with all possible care. And because the first undertakers of any new art cannot make any commodity so cheap as they may do after some considerable experience; and so by the smallness of the gaine may be discouraged, and forced to desist, it may be necessary that the makers of English sail cloth should have particular encouragements at the publick charge. And though I am incapable of giveing directions in this affaire, yet I will adventure to tell you my thoughts, by what means they might be encouraged. And first if the Commissioners of the Navy should have orders to buy all the sail cloth, they want for the king’s service, that shall be found fit for it, and give the makers 1d, 2d, or 3d per yard more for it then they could buy Holland duck for of the same goodness. Secondly, if there be any considerable undertakers, they should be accomodated with worke houses proper for their business at the king’s charge. Thirdly if they can give good security they should have as much of the publick money lent them gratis, as shall be judged needfull to carry on their worke. Fourthly let all forreign duck or sail cloth pay 10 or more pence custome for 3 yeares. Fifthly that all makers of sail cloth shall at every quarter, halfe yeare or yeares end (as shall be thought convenient) receive out of the Exchequer, so much money as the custome of the flax they have wrought in that time doth amount to they makeing sufficient affidavids, of the quantity of flax they have used in makeing of sail cloth. And 1  Despite the Revolution, the Stadholder-King, and the joint war against France, the English remained acutely aware of Dutch economic rivalry, and Heathcote does not rule out a future war against the Republic, against which England had fought three wars since the 1650s.

233

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1996A.  S. Heathcote, [c.8 January 1696] lastly that all English made sail cloth that shall be exported should be free from custome and fees. Some such encouragements as these would probably set many people at worke, and bring the designe to perfection, for though we are not the best at invention, yet none makes a greater improvement of any art then the English. And in a few years practice we may hope to find out ways of makeing sail cloth as cheap as our neighbours. What I propose as advantages to the makers of sail cloth, as giveing them a greater price for what is bought for the king’s service, accomodateing them with worke houses, and lending them money at the publick charge, and drawing back the custome of all the flax they use in makeing sail cloth, will not lessen the nations stock one farthing: it will indeed make the taxes a small matter more or greater but so little as cannot be felt by any particular person, but we part with no part of it, out of the kingdome[,] it remains still, and circulates amongst ourselves, it changes hands indeed, but the loss is not discernable to any particular man, and the stock of the kingdome will be greatly increased yearly. I think it is against the nations interest, and will hinder the designe from succeeding, to grant patents or charters to any man, or number of men for the sole makeing of sail cloth. Every one should have liberty and equall encouragements to make it. And no mans ingenuity and industry rendred useless by pattents or charters granted to others; which now adayes tend to no publick good, but are onely used by crafty designeing men to over reach1 and impoverish ­others, and inrich themselves, by buying and selling stock as they call it, the managers takeing no care to improve the art or manufacture, for the nations advantage, or their owne in a fair honest way.2 This makeing of our owne sail cloth, I have a long time wished for, and I shall be heartily rejoyced, if the present begining may be con­ tinued and brought to perfection. And I think you cannot do your countrey a greater piece of service in any thing of this nature then by useing your interest with the Lords and Commons of your acquaintance to encourage the designe by an Act of Parliament.3 1  Overreach: to gain an advantage by deception. 2  Critiques of patenting became acute in the 1690s, when there was a surge in patents registered by unscrupulous ‘projectors’ and would-be monopolists, typically in search of government contracts for war supplies. See  C.  Macleod, ‘The 1690s Patent Boom: Invention or StockJobbing?’, Economic History Review, 39 (1986), 549–71. 3  In the wake of Locke’s advice on the recoinage, Heathcote presumes that he had substantial parliamentary influence. The remark may presume that the proposed Board of Trade and Plantations would be a Parliamentary rather than Royal Commission, a matter of intense political controversy in the early weeks of 1696.

234

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1996A.  S. Heathcote, [c.8 January 1696] The fifth thing I would offer to your consideration, is the takeing off the custome of hemp, pitch, tarr, plank, masts, and deales1 of 28 foot long or more and 2 or more inches thick, which are generally used for the decks and upper worke of ships, except some few that are some times used to lay floors in large roomes. Our shipping is already very chargeable, in building and fitting to sea, almost double to what the Dutch, Swedes, Danes, Dantzigers and Lubeckers build theirs for; thereby they are enabled to serve for less fraight then we can, and so must consequently get a great part of our trade from us. This war hath given them great advantages upon us. And as our shipping is declined, the Swedes, Danes, Dantzigers, Hamburger, Portuguese and others have encreased theirs, the Dantzigers and Konigsbergers particularly to my knowledge have ten times the number of ships they had before the war. That now they bring us allmost all their commoditys and carry out ours, so they do not onely get the first cost and charges of their owne commerce but the fraight also, and likewise the fraight of what goods they buy of us, or we send to them. Besides the employing of their shipping hath caused another ill effect, brought abundance of their people into trade, that knew nothing of it before this war, whereby they send us their commoditys and fetch away ours for their owne account, by which meanes all the profit of both their and our commoditys redounds to them, which but a few yeares since, was gaind wholly to the English traders; they haveing then very few merchants amongst them. And as they have augmented their shipping, and seamen, so their merchants are growne more numerous and wealthy, and do dayly gaine more experience in all the forreigne trades of Europe; they are improved greatly in the art of navigation and the building of ships. And when the war is ended it will be difficult if not impossible to beat them out of trade againe. They having so great an advantage upon us in the cheapness of the shipping and victualls, smallness of their men’s wages, and the great burdens2 of their ships, which requires but few hands to navigate them, proportionable to ours. This matter seems to me of very great moment, and deserves a speedy care to put us as much as possible upon equall advantages with our Northerne neighbours with respect to our shipping and trade. And I know no better way then to make all our navall stores cheap to us, by wholly takeing off all custome and fees at their importation, whereas on the contrary by 1  Deal: a large plank.    2  Burden: carrying capacity.

235

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1996A.  S. Heathcote, [c.8 January 1696] a  strange policy we have lately made the custome on some of them ­double and on others treble to what they paid before this war. This seemes to me such an amazeing piece of folly as no nation (except the English) could be guilty of. Another meanes to make our shipping cheaper would be to place our ship carpenters in private yards and docks, which might be done if some better method was taken in the king’s yards,1 by paying better and makeing them worke harder, and then one third part of those now imployed there might be spared to build and repaire merchants ships and other vessels. And thereby carpenters wages would be much cheaper; whereas now they have commonly 4s and oft 4s 6d per day, which together with the extravagant dearness of plank, timber, masts, iron worke, pitch, tarr, rosin,2 hemp etc. makes the building, or repaireing of a ship, or vessell allmost d­ ouble to what it was before the war, and neare treble to what the Northern people build or repaire theirs for. Another thing which adds something to the dearness of our shipping at present (though enriches some of the subjects) is the summs given by our master builders, or shipwrights to get protections,3 and men out of the king’s yards. This costs the shipwrights a deale of money which he will not lose, but will have it againe of those he builds, or repairs for, and so enhances the rate of our shipping. To this I may add the charges in getting protections for the seamen, the extravagant wages they have, the money that is given to a sort of brokers to procure seamen for our merchant ships, the villany of our seamen in takeing God’s penny4 and wages before hand and then leaveing the ship, the excessive rates of all manner of ships stores and provisions, occasioned chiefly by the badness of our coine; the presents given to the captains of our convoys,5 the intollerable delays in waiting for convoys, the pressing of men out of homeward bound ships before they are arrived at their port, and many other grievances, doth render our shipping all together unprofittable, and is therefore discouraged and declines. About 3a years ago as I remember there was a bill passed the house of

a 4 deleted 1  The principal naval dockyards were at Chatham, Deptford, Portsmouth, and Woolwich. 2  Rosin: resin. 3  Meaning unclear: perhaps in the sense of legal immunities, e.g. from impressment or the use of foreigners. 4  God’s penny: a down payment made at the hiring of a servant. 5  For Captain Thomas Robinson’s denial that he had taken gratuities for convoying merchant ships, see no. 1543*.

236

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1996A.  S. Heathcote, [c.8 January 1696] Commons for encourageing foreigners to sail in our ships by freeing them from being pressed into the kings service, and suspending that part of the Act of Navigation (dureing the war) that obliges us to sail with the master and 3/4 English.1 The Lords disagreed with the Commons about a frivolous matter in that bill, and before they could agree, his Majestie prorogued the Parliament. I thought that was a good bill and did then and have ever since wished it had passed. I do yet think such a bill would be of great use to us to supply us with hands to sail our ships in the cole and Northerne trades. For we had better have forreigners to navigate our ships, then their owne. If forreigners ships be employed, they get the fraight, if ours be imployed, we get it, or save it at home, and shall onely pay out of it a small part to forreigne seamen for their wages, whereof the greatest part would be spent amongst us, and the greatest number of them would in a little time marry here, settle amongst us and become as one people with us.2 The Swedes, Danes, Dantzigers and Elbingers,3 though they are newters, yet if they be bound from, or to England with English effects, the French privateers4 carry them into France, there condemnes the goods and discharge the ships, as we have had sundry examples lately. Wherefore when we lade5 any goods on board their ships either beyond sea, or in England, we oblige them to sail with English, or Dutch convoy, so that as to our goods their ships are no securer than ours, but because they have men to man their ships, and can sail when any convoy offers. And we cannot have protections for men to man our ships we are forced (if we will trade) to let our owne ships lye rotting by the walls, and to load our goods in forreigne ships, who sails under English convoy, so that we are at the charge of convoys to protect forreigne ships, while our owne lye decaying and useless only for keeping at home of a few seamen. This brings to my mind a passage that hapned about 2 yeares agoe. When there were 2 frigats ordered for the Sound of Denmarke to take under their convoy 2 old fly botes6 that were to fetch planke and other navall stores from some parts of the Baltick sea 1  A Bill for allowing foreign seamen to serve during wartime was under discussion in February 1692. See Journal of the House of Commons, x. 653, 657, 671; Journal of the House of Lords, xv. 79, 82. 2  Heathcote here reflects characteristic Whig support for encouraging immigration and for liberal laws for the naturalization of foreigners. Locke had written a paper ‘For a General Naturalization’ in 1693: Locke on Money, ed. P. H. Kelly, 2 vols., 1991, ii. 487–92. 3  Elbing: a Polish-Lithuanian Baltic port, formerly Hanseatic. 4  See no. 1984A. 5  Lade: load. 6  Fly-boat: a fast-sailing vessel typically used for coastal trade.

237

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1996A.  S. Heathcote, [c.8 January 1696] for the kings stores. It was at that season of the yeare when the Eastland merchants send out their goods for the Dantzig spring market so they desired the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty to grant them protection for about 18 seamen to man 3 ships to carry goods for the ports in the Baltick in regard a convoy was then designed for the Sound1 with whom they could sail, but their Lordships denyd them, saying they could not spare men. Then they desired onely a protection for 4 English seamen which with the master, boyes, forreigners and cripples not fit for his Majestie’s service, could man one ship to load goods for Danzig, and they told their Lordships if they could not then send their goods they should lose the spring markett, that they had English ­manu­fac­tures to send in her to a very considerable value, that the ship would make severall hundred pounds fraight in her outward way, which ­otherwise would be given to forreigners, that they desired no particular convoy, onely to go with that, that must go whether their ship went or not. Yet notwithstanding all these reasons their Lordships would not grant them a protection for one man, thinking it more for the nations service to keep 4 sailers at home, then by letting them go, gaine the kingdome severall thousand pounds by the ships fraight and the sale of our manufacturers. I am pretty confident that if 300 seamen might be granted to man the ships that is necessary be employed in our trade to the Baltick Sea, and that protections might be given, when the merchants shall think it the most proper season for sending out ships and goods thither, and that convoy may be also appointed to attend to them without any loss of time, I say if these things might be obtained that with that number of seamen, allmost all our trade into the Baltick Sea might be managed with our owne ships. And thereby save the nation above £40000 sterling yearely which we do now pay to forreigners for fraight, besides many other inconveniences that do attend our employing their ships, which I have mentioned before, and surely that profit to the nation and remedying those other mischiefs that are consequents of our employing forreigners ships, is worth the allotting of 300 seamen yearely for that trade. The same convoys that hath been formerly allowed will be sufficient, provided they be ordered as the merchants shall desire, who may be presumed best judges therein.

1  The Sound: the Øresund, the strait that separates Denmark from Sweden and forms the entrance to the Baltic Sea.

238

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1996A.  S. Heathcote, [c.8 January 1696] It is certaine the stock of the nation is very low perhaps some millions less then it was the beginning of this warr, that if things continue in this course we must still lessen the nation’s stock a great many hundred thousand pounds every yeare, by paying the over ballance of our trade so that 2 or 3 yeares more will go neare to bankrupt the kingdome. This being truly our case it doth highly concerne us to betake our selves to some better methods without delay if we will escape our totall ruine. We must encourage not onely the makeing of those manufactures we have long practised but also any others we are capable of, that will either save our money at home, or fetch in any from abroad. We must encourage the exportation of them, by takeing off all customes, fees and unnecessary charges, and thereby enabling our merchants to afford them cheaper beyond seas, and undersell other nations, beat them out of their trade, by selling our goods cheaper then they can afford theirs, whereby we shall increase the vent and consumption of our owne. We must secure the goods we export and import, by good convoys and cruisers;1 we must retrench our consumption of forreigne commoditys, as the weareing of silver and gold, lace, fringe, galloone,2 loops, buttons etc., also velvetts, hoods, scarfes, wastcotes etc. We must give all possible encouragement to our sea commanders, officers and seamen to take or destroy our enemy’s ships and trade.3 We must endeavour to prevent the exportation of our wooll by giveing great rewards to the informers, discoverers, or seisers, of it. And makeing all those that shall have any hand in the exporting of it, pay the rewards to the discoverers etc.4 We must immediately stop the coinage of guineas, and by a law or Proclamation reduce them to a proportionable price with our milled money. We must employ and encourage our owne shipping, make all materialls for the building and fitting them to sea as cheap as we can, give our merchant ships protections for their men in all their outward bound voyages and that without charge, and we must encourage forreigners to sail in our ships, to supply our want of English ­seamen. We must prevent the great embezelments made of the king’s 1  The merchant shipping lobby wanted not only convoys but permanently stationed naval squadrons to protect the sea lanes. The later 1690s saw a crucial development in England’s empire with the establishment of regular cruising squadrons in the West Indies and Mediterranean. 2  Galloon: ribbon or braid used for trimming articles of apparel. 3  Heathcote elaborates on the need to encourage privateering in no. 1984A. 4  Heathcote here means the enforcement of existing laws against the exportation of raw wool, which were designed to protect domestic textile manufacture. Smuggling was a constant concern. See no. 2333B and his memorandum for Locke: MS Locke c. 30, fos. 78–81.

239

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

1996A.  S. Heathcote, [c.8 January 1696] stores, the frauds and abuses in all the king’s yards, the exorbitant fees, gifts, and presents to clerks, door keepers etc. in allmost every office in the kingdome. We must lessen the number of our custome house holydays. We must destroy all monopolies, and companys with joint stocks,1 and make such trades as are necessary to be carryd on by companys, to be free in regulated companys as the Turkey, Hamburg etc., but more extensive, that is that every English man or denizen2 shall be admitted for 20s into any company of merchants in England. We must give particular encouragements to our Newfoundland fishery and our  trade in generall to America, and to supply the Spaniards with Negroes,3 which is as good to us as mines of gold and silver. We must encourage our dyeing and other trades that depend on it by takinga wholly off or lessening the duty paid at the importation of all our dyers wares, and laying a duty on them at their exportation; also by continuing, or increasing the duty on all goods exported white. We must increase the number of our men of warr4 and make those we have more  serviceable. And if it can be we should lessen the number of troops we maintaine in Flanders and Piemont,5 (which is the greatest draine we have) or make their maintenance less chargeable to us, by supplying them from hence with all things they want, and we are cap­ able of supplying.6 And lastly we must find out wayes to employ all our

a  MS has taken; a slip 1 As the ensuing phrase makes clear, Heathcote overstates his objection to joint stock c­ ompanies – he was himself an active member of such companies. What he objects to is closed memberships and the exclusion of ‘interlopers’ (new entrants). A major Whig political battle of the 1690s concerned breaking the stranglehold of the old East India Company. See no. 2333A. 2  Denizen: an alien with rights of residence and to own freehold land. 3  The phrase ‘and to supply the Spaniards with Negroes’ is inserted above the line. Heathcote is referring to the ‘Asiento’, the contract to supply Spanish America with African slaves, which became firmly established in British hands after the Treaty of Utrecht (1713). This appears to be the only mention of the slave trade in Locke’s surviving correspondence. There appears to be one other mention of ‘Negroes’: Sir Peter Colleton to Locke, 12 August 1673 (no. 275). 4  ‘Men of war’: naval ships. 5  Heathcote’s overt criticism of William III’s strategic prioritization of a Continental land war is striking. It was felt that the king grossly neglected the naval war, which led to massive merchant losses to French privateering. By troops ‘we maintain’ Heathcote means not only the English in Flanders but those foreign troops maintained elsewhere by English subsidies. The duke of Savoy was heavily subsidized from 1690, and his military effort against France was invaluable. However, he struck a separate peace with Louis XIV in August 1696, an outcome known to William III in April. The present letter cannot, therefore, be later than August. 6  For political pressure during 1695 to supply the army from England, see D. W. Jones, War and Economy in the Age of William III and Marlborough, 1988, p. 244. In the case of Savoy, the Lustring Company was instructed to export cloth to Savoy to help pay the subsidy.

240

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2008A.  C. Lyde, 3 February 1696 poor that are able to do any kind of worke, and thereby render them usefull and profittable to the common wealth, whereas now they are as moths and cankers to it.1 And we should erect publick hospitalls2 and allow a sufficient maintenance for all such poor people as are by age, blindness, lameness, or any other infirmities unable to do any manner of worke.3 We should not suffer any beggars in the streets, lanes or at our doors, but bestow our charity on these publick places for their reliefe, and also to relieve such poor labouring people whose labours cannot maintaine them and their familys. All these things I humbly conceive are practicable even in our present circumstances, and if they were made so by good laws and orders amongst us, might produce wonderfull effects, make us upon an even ballance of our whole trade dureing the war, and when that is ended, soone bring us to an over ballance of trade, and thereby restore us to our former wealth and riches, and a more flourishing forreigne trade then ever we yet injoyed. The contrary may probably disenable us to carry on the war, expose us a prey to our enemies, and sink us into a meane irremediable condition.

2008A.  Locke to Cornelius Lyde, 3 February 1696 (2008, 2015) MS Locke c. 26, fo. 76; draft at fo. 75. Letter of attorney. Enclosed with no. 2015 (14 February). ‘John Locke of High Laver in the County of Essex Gentleman’ to ‘my Trusty and well beloved freind Cornelius Lyde of Stanton Weeke in the parish of Stanton-Drew in the County of Somerset, Esq.’, authorizing him to ‘ask, demand, and require, distrain, sue for recovery and receive’ all ‘debts, dutys, sum and sums of money, rents and arrearages of rents and all other demands whatsoever’. Witnessed by Sylvester Brounower and Edm[und] 〈Ho〉lme. An earlier date of 29 November [1695?] is de­ leted. The draft has an additional authorization that Lyde may lease ‘all or any of my messuages, lands, tenements, or hereditaments for any term or number of years as he shall think fit’. Lyde (c.1640–1717; Corr., iv. 653) was the third of Locke’s stewards of estate (nos. 98A, 565A) and followed after the death of William Stratton in September 1695, whose final letter to Locke was written in April that year (no. 1890). Lyde reports Stratton’s death and in effect supplicates to replace him: no. 1944; Locke sent information about his tenants in October, no. 1960. The present letter is referred to in nos. 2020 and 3367 (in the latter it is dated Old Style, ‘1695’). A further copy, in the Morgan Library, New York (MA 231.4) was witnessed, according to the catalogue, by Sir Francis 1  The Board of Trade would take up the subject of reform of Poor Law administration, which yielded Locke’s own memorandum on the subject (1697). 2  Hospital: a home or asylum for the needy. 3  Heathcote and Locke were largely conventional in distinguishing the deserving from the idle poor.

241

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2017A.  E. Clarke, 15 February 1696 Masham and William Masham. Lyde’s monument is extant at Stanton Drew church: ‘He was a gentleman of great piety and integrity, and served his country honourably in the commission of the peace during the whole reign of King William.’ Estate stewards, at the margins of gentry status, might rise from being ‘parish’ to ‘county’ gentry and be appointed Justices of the Peace, especially if politically favoured. Other examples in Locke’s circle are William Clarke and Thomas Stringer, for whom, see nos. 763A and 307*.

2017A. Edward Clarke to Mary Clarke, 15 February 1696 (1962A, 2102A) SHC, DD/SF 7/1/53 (formerly 284). Clarke Papers. De Beer printed the letter which Clarke wrote to Locke on this day (no. 2017; MS Locke c. 6, fos. 103–4). He was unaware of another version, the present letter, which Clarke wrote to his wife. It is a striking fact that large parts of both letters coincide almost verbatim; in this sense, one is a draft or copy of the other, and Clarke was regarding Locke and his wife as audiences for virtually the same text. Even the apparently personal opening is identical: ‘If I had not been quite worn out . . .’ The letters concern the momentous debate concerning ­g uineas, and Clarke’s sense of the economic consequences of the Commons’ resolution. It is likely that, although the letter to Mary goes on to include family and estate matters, the political burden of it was intended for forward transmission to Clarke’s Taunton constituents, whom Mary nurtured for him. The main body of what Clarke wrote to Locke, therefore, takes the form of a semi-public newsletter. This likelihood is underscored by the fact that, to Locke, he writes, ‘it will certainly ease us of the small Remainder of our Wooll, and Wollen, as well as other, Manufactures’, whereas to his West Country audience he writes, ‘it will certainly ease you of the Poore Remainder of your Wooll, and Woollen-Manufactures’ (my emphases). There are occasional other divergences, noted below. The most significant differences come at the ends of the letters. To Locke, Clarke turns, after the phrase ‘Reall value’, to a confidential remark about the role of the ‘Monkey’ (whose identity remains uncertain: it is probably the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Charles Montague): ‘Reduce them to theire Reall value, All this is cheifely oweing to the Monkey.’ The remark about the ‘Monkey’ is for Locke’s private consumption. In the version to Mary, he continues in public vein, before turning to family and estate matters, closing with news about Locke. The material in these ­letters may also contain the substance of a speech Clarke gave in the House.

    London February the 15th 1695 My Deare, If I had not been quite worn out with an Attendance of 13 howers togather without ever stirring out of the House on Thursday last,1 I had then acquainted you with the Result of the Longest Debate I ever yett saw in Parliament. The subject matter whereof was the then Currant Price of Ginneas, wherein Gentlemens Reasonings were verie 1  13 February.

242

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2017A.  E. Clarke, 15 February 1696 Different, as you may well imagine by the Length of the Debate, which lasted from about 12 at noon, ’till 10 at night, In which Debate ’twas generally Agreed,a That unlesse Gold and Silver bee brought and kept neare to a proportion in valueb to each other, That which Exceeds will eate out and carry away the other, And that unlesse Gold bee Reduced speedily to its Reall-Intrinsick-value, as well as Silver, As it has already Devoured a greate part of the Riches of the Nation, soe it will certainly ease you of the Poore Remainder of your Wooll, and WoollenManufactures, and of your silver likewise, and in a little time effectually carry away more of the Treasure and Wealth of the Kingdome, than All the Expence both of your Fleete and Army togather doth amount unto; And yett notwithstanding, The Reduceing that exorbitant im­agin­ary value, which hath been, for too long time pass’d,c Permitted to bee sett on Gold, All at once by a vote of Parliament, was thought to bee of such consequence, as to prevayle soe farr against the Arguments on the other side, That by a small Majority, there was a Vote obtained in the Committee, and this day Agreed to by the House, viz: That noe Ginneas bee Allowed to Passe in any Payment above the Rate of 28s,1 Which ’tis hopedd will prevent theire Riseing higher, And I hope the true Interest of the Nation will soon Reduce them to theire Reale Intrinsick-value,e For without that, Wee must in a little time bee all undone, and the Nation Ruined, therefore I desire that noe body Concern’d for mee may Receive any Ginneas at more than 21s 6d or 22s a peice, at most. As for the silver coyn, I must Referr you to my former Letters, not being able to write more fully nor playnly than I have ­allready done on that subject etc [. . .]2 I hope Jack is plac’d at a good schoole,3 That which Hee is cheifely to Learn there at present is, Latin, Writeing, Arithmatick, and Danceing, and I hope if God gives Him Life and health Hee will make a good Improvement there. a  Instead of twas generally agreed, Letter 2017 reads, a few Gentlemen forc’d the Adverse party Generally to Agree b  Instead of neare to a proportion in value, Letter 2017 reads, at a Parr c  for too long time pass’d is absent in Letter 2017 d  Instead of  hoped, Letter 2017 reads, expected e  Instead of Reale-Intrinsick-value, Letter 2017 reads, Reall value. Hereafter the two letters diverge. See headnote 1  The motion in the House on 15 February was carried by 164 votes to 129. 2  There follows a paragraph concerning the letting of a farm. 3  He had been placed at Mr Lefevre’s school in Chelsea.

243

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2021.  T. Tenison, 27 February 1696 Mr. Lock is not yett come to Town,1 but Hee and Ward are Well,2 and soe is Nanny, who John Spreat visitted this day; I am quite tyred, and must subscribe, as I am Your truly Affectionate and Faithful Husband Edw. Clarke My true Love to you, my Children, and all my Friends etc. Endorsed: Mr. Clarkes letter about Ginnys

2021*.  Locke to Thomas Tenison, archbishop of Canterbury, 27 February 1696 (2011, 2023) MS Locke b 3, fos. 124–5. Enclosure. De Beer reproduced Locke’s letter (Lambeth Palace Library, MS 930, no. 23) but not the enclosure, which was a fiscal proposal by Thomas Whately, delivered in person to Locke and then forwarded by him to Tenison. In the letter, Locke writes that Whately ‘made me yesterday a visit and brought with him some papers of his designed to extricate the nation out of the difficulties we are present lie under. He seems very well affectioned to the Government and his country. As far as appears to me upon soe little time as I have had to looke into it his project seems usefull and practicable and if soe is very seasonable.’ Whately’s elaborate scheme is for a general excise tax, organized so as to obviate an army of resented excise officers, by getting traders to act as collectors. It is testament to the many ‘projects’ for the public good floated during the 1690s; to the expanding reach of the emerging ‘fiscal state’; and to a perception that Locke was now (after his advice on the recoinage, but prior to the start of his service on the Board of Trade) influential with government in economic matters. For Tenison, see Corr., v. 246; ODNB; E. Carpenter, Thomas Tenison, Archbishop of Canterbury, 1948. He was one of the Lords Justices appointed to act as regents during the king’s absence abroad. Whately’s identity is elusive. He published no fewer than five financial tracts (or, at least, titles) in 1695/6: The Interest of the Land-Bank; An Advantageous Method of Extricating the Nation; A Double ­Proposal Concerning Guineas; The Loan-Office; Now is the Time: or, The Proposal of the Loan-Bank.

A Method of Laying a Tax upon such Commodities as the Parliament shall think fit to be payd by the Consumer and to be Collected Monthly. The following Proposalls resolve the Difficulties. Prop. I. That in every City and Market-town (to be named) there be erected one Office to keep Accounts between the King and the subject and which may be called the Trade-Office of that place. 1  He had gone to Oates on 31 December and did not return to London until 29 May. 2  Edward Clarke Jr was with Locke at Oates.

244

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2021.  T. Tenison, 27 February 1696 II. That every person (whether manufacturer or seller) trading in the Taxed Commodities do enter himself as such in some Trade-Office, and receive from thence a Certificate thereof (which may be called his Trade-Certificate) Paying for Himself – Wife – and Children. By vertue of which Certificate he may Buy the taxed commodities without paying the Tax, and consume what his occasions require. III. That any Trader being once entered into some Trade-Office, may afterwards enter himself into any other either as a Stated or Temporary Trader freely. IV. That no Trader sell the Taxed commodity to any person not having a Trade-certificate, without receiving the Tax, and that he enter the same into a Book procured for that purpose, keeping every month’s Account distinct, and Deliver to the Buyer a Certificate thereof (in a form to be prescribed) numbered according to the order settled in the Trade-Office. This may be called the Tax-certificate. NB. The trader will have reason to be reconciled to all that is required of him in this Proposall 1. By the Reward propounded Prop. VIII And 2ly by the increas of his Trade which this method will certainly procure. V. That the Buyer within [blank] Days do cause such Tax-certificates to be delivered into their proper Trade-Office or to some place appointed by the Trade-Office to receiv them. And if the Tax-certificate be accidentally lost or destroyed, that then the Buyer do within the limited time inform the Tax-Office thereof (in manner and form to be prescribed). NB This may be made easy to the Buyer 1. By a due ordering the places appointed to receive Tax-certificates, as suppose for London the very Places and persons (who are already the King’s servants) appointed to receive Penny-Post letters. But 2ly especially by the certain consequences of the following Proposall. VI. That for every intire douzen or score of Tax-certificates delivered together into the Trade-Office, the person that brings the[m] be allowed [blank]. This method of rewarding the persons appointed to receive Taxcertificates will likewise obviate all that can with any color of reason be objected against what is imposed on the Buyer by the foregoing Proposall: For by this means without any particular provision for it, every Public-house of entertainment (whether Tavern, Inne, Coffeehous etc) in every City and market town will become a Receptory of  Tax-certificates. And he that leave a Tax-certificate there may as 245

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2021.  T. Tenison, 27 February 1696 c­ onfidently presume it will be safely delivered into the Trade-Office, as if he sent a messenger on purpose on that errand. Both which consequences are easily cleared, with some others very favorable to the design. By means whereof no person that hath a Tax-certificate to be delivered can ordinarily want a messenger to do it gratis for him. VII. That the Trade-Office enter such Tax-certificates to the re­spect­ ive Account of the Traders, and likewise file the Tax-certificates of every Trader by themselvs: with distinction of months. VIII. That every Trader do within [blank] days after [blank] Return all the Tax-mony he hath received the foregoing Month to his TradeOffice. And that he be there allowed [blank] per pound. IX. That the Book-keepers etc of the Trade-Office be sworn not to suffer any person to see any Account but his own, nor any other ways to discover any persons manner of Trade etc. And that the offender herein loose his Office etc. X. That for the neglect or omission of what is required of the seller in Prop. IV and of the Buyer in Prop. V. The offender forfeit the value of the Goods sold or bought. XI. That if any person or persons attempt any fraudulent device or practice tending either to the Loss or diminution of the Tax, every offender herein forfeit the full reall value of the Goods the Tax wherof by such means might be either lost or diminished. And that he be moreover punishable as [blank]. XII. That the discoverer of any fraud have an incouraging Reward. And if any person agreeing or seeming to agree in such fraudulent Compact or Confederacy be the first discoverer of it, that he be indemnified, and moreover receive a Reward the full reall value of the Goods, the Tax whereof might have been either lost or lessened by such a fraudulent Compact or Confederacy. By this Method it will be ordinarily impossible to cheat the King without confederacy, of which all crafty cheats are very shy and they must be Fools or Madmen as well as Knaves that will venture upon it here, for besides the common inconveniences, such as are the dividing the profits, the danger of discovery and confederacy in this case is desperately hazardous. Because I. The Cheat must confederate with many persons or twill turn but to small account. Were the manufacturer to receive the Tax of his Chapman and it may be reasonably supposed that he might get more by confederating with one of his Chapmen, than the Trader who by the proposed Method is to receive the Tax can ordinarily gain by 246

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2026.  P. Mauvillain, 4 March 1696 confederating with 20 of his Customers. But suppose some speciall case should make the temptation inviting. Yet II. The Cheat by the very act of confederating puts it into the power of the other Confederate to gain above 20 times more by the discovery than he can by concealing of it (Prop. XII). For example, My Lord [blank] is a good Customer to A. the trader and is like eminently to be so at this time, the family being to put in mourning. This tempts A. to confederate with B. my Lord’s Steward to divide between them part of the Tax and to return defective Tax-certificates. B. complies but at a convenient time informs [blank] desiring privacy till he hath playd his game, and then the designed cheat is openly discovered. By this means B. gets clear to himself all that it costs his Lord to put the family into mourning, and is secure of it too, although the sum should amount to more than A. is worth, for the cheat is discovered before the mony is paid, and so B.  hath the mony in possession (which was not of his game). And A. the Cheater is undone, and exposed moreover to the punishment of [blank] Pr[op]. XI III. The continuall fears and jealousies that the Confederates must have of one another under such tempting circumstances, joined with the naturall Byas of self-preservation will be alwais strongly inclining the Confederates to a discovery, considering that if the one should be before hand with the other (Prop. XII) the consequences would be fatall to the concealer (Prop XI). If therefore, A. that is to receive the Tax cannot cheat the King without confederating with B. his customer (Prop. IV). And if by the very Act of confederating A. puts it into the power of B. to draw upon him a train of unseparable but tempting mischiefs (Prop. XI and XII) viz: 1. For B. to have his goods for nothing. 2ly To be exposed to the penalty of [blank] (Prop. XI) with the fatall consequences that attend it. Then suppose A. never so great a Knave, yet he must be an errant fool or mad man if he venture to confederate with B. for he that with a design to cheat the King makes the first motion toward a confederacy may reasonably expect a ready complyance, but can have no reason to expect to get any thing by it but mischief to himself, it being more than 20 to one odds that it will be discovered.

2026*.  Peter Mauvillain to Locke, 4 March 1696 MS Locke b. 3, fo. 102. Copy in Canberra, National Library of Australia, MS 329. De Beer printed the letter (from MS Locke b. 3, fo. 81) but not the memorandum which

247

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2026.  P. Mauvillain, 4 March 1696 Mauvillain enclosed, which is reproduced here. It concerns the grievous state of the coinage and proposes a remedy for the problem of pre-recoinage debt. Locke mentions Mauvillain in no. 2028A as someone whom he has met and who proffers ‘a pro­ject concerning our money’. Later in March Locke made a copy of the memorandum for transmission to the College, referring to it as ‘Mauvillain’s paper about money’ (no. 2043). The copy is in the hand of his servant Sylvester Brounower, and it is this which is now in Australia. It was probably acquired from Edward Clarke’s descendant, Col. E. C. A. Sanford: Sotheby’s Catalogue, 28 July 1913, lot 200 (Ann Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms, 1973–6, part III, reel 40). The recovery of the Canberra text, the annotation below this note, are owed to Felix Waldmann, ‘Additions to de Beer’s Correspondence of John Locke’, Locke Studies, 15 (2015), 31–52. I have used the Bodleian version as copy-text, whereas Waldmann used the Canberra version. Biographical identification. De Beer was unable to identify Mauvillain or provide his forename. Peter Mauvillain (c.1668–1740) was a Huguenot refugee, naturalized in January 1690. He had become a calico printer by 1696; in April of that year he put his name to a petition against the prohibition of English calicos (W. A. Shaw, ed., Letters of Denization and Acts of Naturalization in England and Ireland, 1603–1700, 1911, pp.  207, 218; Historical Manuscripts Commission, House of Lords, 1903, ii. 243–4.) Possibly he was a relation of Jean-Armand de Mauvillain (1618–85), physician to Molière, mentioned in no. 501.

a Pound Sterling is the English Measure It is by Law four ounces of silver of such a fineness all Lands and commodities whatsoever have been mesured accordingly But Gold being tollerated to pass as money and that variable hath made our measure of no use but in name onely. So that for these nine months Last past we have traded after the rate of three ounces to the pound sterling which hath been the measure of all our Commerce since that time. Therefore as we have continued our former standard the nation which hath traded since the time above said will sustain almost an Insupportable loss by paying the forreigner four ounces of silver for which it hath received from him but three ounces, besides all which this other advantage will accrue to him, as he before drained us of our commoditys by sending us Gold at the rate it was then vallued amongst us so he’ll drain us of our money by sending us goods which we shall take of him at first att the present advance which disproportion twice in one year will Impoverish us allmost beyond recovery. for remedy ’Tis humbly offered that all contracts for these 9 months last past be pay’d with three ounces of silver which provision alone will prevent that ruine which threatens without it for then the foreigner will be pay’d his full and no more and so of consequence all commoditys will fall to their former rates for if the trader can pay his debts with three ounces of silver he hath Encouragement and will certainly sell 248

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2028A.  [E. Clarke and J. Freke], 6 March 1696 those commoditys for three ounces and his Creditor be no looser since  with that three ounces he can pay such debts or buy the same quantity of goods he sold for the same money. This att first may seem Impracticable but if duely weighd and considered may be rendered practicable and easy for it does every man Justice and pay him in his own coin and bring every thing to a right circulation again. Endorsed by Locke: Money / Mauvillain 95/6

2028A.  Locke to [Edward Clarke and John Freke], 6 March 1696 (2027, 2033) SHC, DD/SF 13/2/31 (formerly 4512). Clarke Papers. Answered by no. 2033. Printed and discussed by L. Davison and T. Keirn, ‘John Locke, Edward Clarke and the 1696 Guineas Legislation’, Parliamentary History, 7 (1988), 228–40, from which the footnotes below are derived. Reproduced by kind permission of Davison and Keirn and the Parliamentary History Yearbook Trust. The transcription has been revised by Priscilla Flower-Smith. The letter concerns the recoinage. In February–March 1696 the House of Commons lowered the inflated price of the guinea (a gold coin). Locke believed prices should be set by the market, but, pragmatically, was not hostile to government regulation in the present circumstances. The letter shows that he was worried about the activities of gold speculators, and about the manipulation of gold prices by pro-de­valu­ ationists in order to achieve the aim of devaluing the silver coinage by stealth. For further discussion, see R. A. Kleer, ‘ “The Ruine of their Diana”: Lowndes, Locke, and the Bankers’, History of Political Economy, 36 (2004), 533–56. File 13/2/31 also contains a long memorandum on coin, by Clarke, which incorporates ideas from Locke and Freke. Freke’s views are in ‘Some Thoughts Concerning Money, Exchange, Trade and Mending the Coin’ (MS Locke b. 3, fos. 76–80).

   Mar 6 1695/6 Dear Col1 Haveing writ two or three letters lately to the Squire2 in hast (one whereof concerning the designe still of raiseing the Denomination3 I hope came safe to his hands) that has hinderd me from returning my answer to the Batchelors4 obleiging letter of the 27 passato5 soe soon as I intended If the author of the paper meant as you say which I question not he  was right in his meaning but should have spoke a little plainer. The want of that in the present case of the money contributes much to 1  ‘Col’ presumably stands for the ‘College’, and hence the letter is to Clarke and Freke. 2 Clarke.   3  Devaluing the silver coin.    4 Freke. 5  No. 2022, 27 February.

249

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2028A.  [E. Clarke and J. Freke], 6 March 1696 the disorder But I have noe quarrell to your author I think he writ with a good intention and with a better sense of the matter then many ­others and quite with an other designe than the author of the first paper1 you sent me, which I suspected from the first reading to be writ by a man within dores2 to draw that matter into debate for an other job It could be noe thing I thought but that or Banter But leting alone others opinions about Guineas I will if you please trouble you with mine. In oura present circumstances the Votes of the house 1st that they should not passe for above 28s and afterwards another reduceing them to 26s3 have done us a temporary good by stoping their currency at the former high rate of 30s and it would be well if by several votes they could gradualy be reduced or all at onceb to £1-1-6 which I grant to be at present near the natural value of gold to silver in this part of the world. But this should neither be the standing perpetual law at which Guineas should be current but 20s for the ­reasons formerly mentioned.4 Neither if it was made soe is it the proper nor will it prove the effectuall cure. That is only to be done by reduceing all your silver coin to the standard in mild unclipd money.5 But till that be done weighty money (what ever you ordain about Guineas) will never come abroad, nor Guineas be kept long to a price set them by a law, contrive it as you will For till you can make a law that can hinder me from giveing away what is mine or buying anything for what number of Guineas I please I shall always be at liberty to receive 20 Guineas rather then £30 in white money which has not £21-10-0 sterling in it. By this I deny not that the votes doe some good in giveing some check to the importation of gold, though they at 26s will not stop it 4s-6d in the pound being gain enough to temptc its importation. One would wonder why those who found it necessary to reduce them haveing taken off 4s of their extravagant and hurtfull value should yet leave them 4s-6d of it and not when they were about it reduce them to £1-1-6.

a the deleted   b  or all at once inserted   c their deleted    1  Neither of the papers mentioned has been identified. There were at least twenty pamphlets published on the guineas issue in the early months of 1696. 2  A man within doors: a Member of Parliament. 3  Voted by the Commons on 15 and 28 February 1696. 4  Locke believed that guineas had been overvalued well before the present crisis. When first coined in 1663, they had a value of 20s, but by 1690 had reached 21s 6d. 5  Milled coins, which retained their original silver content.

250

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2028A.  [E. Clarke and J. Freke], 6 March 1696 The cause seems to me very plain. Besides the designe of subscribeing1 them at 30s there was yet another of raiseing our silver coin 1/52 aTheir value could be kept up noe higher than both these partys desiredb The subscribers were for haveing it as high as they could the Raisers3 of the coin noe higher than would best serve their turne, which is 4s in the pound which 26s the Guinea is nearest in whole numbers, and exact in takeing a Guinea to be worth 22s as some times they have gon.4 I am by this as several other things dayly confirmed in my opinion that the raiseing the denomination of our Silver coin lies strongly rooted at the bottom, and all preparitory steps to inforce it are laid and carried on as much as may be.c I have fresh reasons to think soe since my last on that subject to the Squire. Pray if it comes in your way to enquire send me the Character of one Movillian he writes his name Pr Mauvillain5 a little yong French merchant he lives by Bow I think the place is called Bromley. His place’s to be found in town besides the Exchange is Jonathans Coffee house and the Rainbow Coffee house over against the exchange.6 He has been with me here with a project concerning our money7 which has a specious pretence, which though it mention noe thing of raiseing our money, yet there I think it will bottom. I would gladly know him soe well as to be able to judg what person or party tis probable he may be moved by. I am glad the Rheumatick Gent8 goes abroad again and that for more reasons than one

a  The keeping up deleted   b agreed deleted   c  to enforce it deleted 1  Locke may have been referring specifically to those involved in the Land Bank (see Corr., v. 581). However, he may mean any interests which lent money to the government and stood to gain by lending guineas at inflated rates. 2  The devaluation of silver coin by 20 per cent recommended by William Lowndes. 3  i.e. those supporting devaluation. 4 4s in the pound corresponds to the 20 per cent, but Locke is incorrect in stating that ­setting the rate at 26s from a 22s base would equate to exactly such an increase. 5  For Peter Mauvillain, see no. 2026*. 6  Jonathan’s in Change (Exchange) Alley was the chief locale for commercial and financial trading, and is held to be the origin of the Stock Exchange; the Rainbow in Fleet Street was the Huguenots’ coffee house. 7  MS Locke b. 3, fo. 102. Printed above, no. 2026*. He sent a copy to Locke on 4 March 1696 prior to his visit noted here. Locke later sent a copy to Clarke and Freke (enclosed with no. 2043). 8  Lord Somers (Corr., v. 549, n. 3).

251

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2059.  W. Molyneux, c.5 April 1696 I thank you for the news you sent me and should be glad of a little more espetialy good as it comes in your way. The Lady and all here give their due respects I am Yours JL Address: For Edward Clarke Esq member of Parliament at Richards Coffee house near Temple Bar London Endorsed by Clarke: Mr. Lock touching the Reduceing the Price of Guineas etc Recvd 8th March 1695 Answerd the 10th

2059*.  Locke to William Molyneux, c.5 April 1696 (2050, 2100) Karpeles Collection. Postscript:

I here inclosed trouble you with Mr. Mashams answer to your son.1 If it were well begun, I think it reasonable to continue the correspondence at fit intervals to excite emulation but not tire them. Second postscript:

I receiv’d the favour of yours of Mar. 28 last as I was going to seale this. I have not time to looke in Mr. Burridge’s papers2 before the post goes, but I am the less troubled at it because I presume I shall have little to say but thanks for his doing it soe well. My humble service to him. Postmark: AP 9 Endorsed: Excuses his long silence. Mony business. Desires to see me. Mr. Burridge’s Translation. Book of Ethicks. Paper given to Lord Deputy Capel.3 Reasons of his Writings pleasing. Necessity of clear Ideas from Mr. Sings Paper.4 Advice about my son. Sir Fr. Masham’s sons letter to my son.

1  Francis (Frank) Masham and Samuel Molyneux. 2  A sample of his Latin translation of the Essay: see no. 2050. 3  Henry, Baron Capel, Lord Deputy of Ireland; he died on 14 May this year. 4  Edward Synge (1659–1741), bishop of Raphoe 1714; archbishop of Tuam 1716. Corr. v. 493; ODNB.

252

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2063A.  W. Lowndes, 11 April 1696

2063A. William Lowndes to the Commissioners of Appeals in Excise, 11 April 1696 Calendar of Treasury Books, xi. 88–9. Lowndes writes on behalf of the Treasury Commissioners, to whom he was secretary, commanding the Commissioners to take the new Association Oath. The oath was required of all office holders and there was widespread signing by entire communities. It was prompted by the Assassination Plot, a Jacobite conspiracy to kill King William III, and was forced through by the Whigs. It commits the swearer to accept that William was the ‘rightful and lawful’ monarch. The oath was refused by many crypto-Jacobite Tories, which was an intended outcome that enabled the Whigs to purge them from office as seditious. Locke probably swore the oath more than once, for he also signed the Association at Oates, where the whole adult male community of the parish of High Laver took part, the illiterate signing with their marks (Essex Record Office: Q/RRO/2/1). Of all early modern political oaths, this probably achieved the highest level of mass participation in oath-taking. In a subsequent letter, of 2 May, Lowndes commands that the Commissioners report the names of ‘such officers of the revenue as have not signed’ (Calendar of Treasury Books, xi. 131–2). For the oath, see S. Pincus, 1688: The First Modern Revolution, 2009, ch. 14. There is no need to reproduce Lowndes’s formulaic letter. The text of the oath is as follows (from the statute, 7 & 8 William III, c. 27):

Whereas there has been a horrid and detestable conspiracy formed and carried on by Papists and other wicked and traiterous persons for assassinating His Majesty’s royal person in order to encourage an invasion from France to subvert our religion, laws, and liberty, we whose names are hereunto subscribed do heartily sincerely and solemnly profess, test­ ify, and declare, that his present Majesty King William is rightful and lawful king of these realme. And we do mutually promise and engage to stand by and assist each other to the utmost of our power in the support and defence of his Majesty’s most sacred person and government against the late King James and all his adherents. And in case His Majesty come to any violent or untimely death (which God forbid) we do hereby further freely and unanimously oblige ourselves to unite and stand by each other in revenging the same upon his enemies and their adherents and in supporting and defending the succession of the crown according to an Act made in the first year of the reign of King William and Queen Mary entituled An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown.

253

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2081A.  E. Clarke Jr, 5 May 1696

2081A.  Edward Clarke Jr to Mary Clarke, 5 May 1696 (1488A, 2134A) SHC, DD/SF 7/1/15 (formerly 3110). Clarke Papers. Written upon Ward’s return from staying with Locke at Oates.

    London May the 5th 1696 Honoured Mother, This being the first Post since my arrival here, I thought fit to acquaint you that I came safe to town last night,1 and left Mr. Lock behind me in the Country altogether uncertain of the time of his return to town,2 But he desires to be kindly remember’d to you, and is in perfect health as well as all the rest of that family.3 I alwayes wish that you were so also, however my Father tells me that you grow better and better every day, as fast as the heat comes on, which puts me in great hopes that Mr. Lock and you will meet together here this summer; I long’d to make an enquiry after your welfare, which was the chiefest reason of my writing by this Post it being a thing which I am so neerly concern’d for; Last night I hear’d the surprising news of my Brother Jack’s being come up to Town, and put out to school, whom I have not yet seen, but doe intend it as soon as possible I can, which is all at present from, Your ever dutiful son Edw: Clarke Pray present my service to my Aunt and cozen Venner and his wife4 and my Love to my Brothers and Sister.

2102A. Edward Clarke to Mary Clarke, 13 June 1696 (2017A, 2137A) SHC, DD/SF 7/1/60 (formerly 3069). Clarke Papers. Locke was solicitous concerning the health of the Clarke children. Jane (‘Jinney’), suffered from rickets, a familiar scourge of the age.

London June the 13th 1696 at 9 a clock My deare, I heartily thanke you for your verie kind and obleigeing letter to mee by the last post and am mightily rejoyced at the good account you 1  Locke writes: ‘I hope your son came safe and well on Monday last’ (To John Freke and Edward Clarke, 6 May: no. 2082). 2  He went to London on 29 May. 3  i.e. the household at Oates. Note the practice of using the term ‘family’ for ‘household’. 4  ‘Aunt’ is Ursula Venner; the names of her children are unknown.

254

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2102A.  E. Clarke, 13 June 1696 therein give mee of the late improvement in your health, I heartily pray God for the perfect establishment of it, that I may never againe know the want of that which I esteem the greatest blessing and happynesses that can happen to mee in this world. This day Mr. Lock, my son Ward1 and I, spent at Ditton,2 and are but just now return’d thence. Wee found poore little Jinney verie lively and briske delighting to bee much upon her feete, but indeed has verie little strength to use them. The dissease has visibly effected her leggs, and made them crooked as is usuall in all cases of the ricketts. Mr. Lock and I saw her undress’d and carefuly examined and viewed all parts of her body, the knobbs on her ribbs are more on one syde, than on the other, and indeed the dissease seemes to effect one side more then the other of the child from head to foote. But Mr. Lock verily believes and gives mee greate hopes that shee will dayly recover strength and outgrow it all in time, but is much against tampering3 or perplexing the child about it. I have done all I can to putt matters in such a posture there as that all things may comply with your earnest desires of haveing the child brought down with mee at my return; and you may bee assured that I shall bee allwayes most ready and willing to comply with or doe any thing that may be thought to tend to the childs good or to your satisfaction; As to the time when I shall gett leave from my pre­ sent masters the Lords Justices4 to come home to Chipley, I cannot yet bee certain but doe verie much feare it will not bee till the begining of the next month, which I look upon to bee a greate misfortune, as I am sure it is the greatest trouble and dissatisfaction to mee im­agin­able, but ’tis what in the present juncture of affayres cannot bee avoyded by any meanes possible, and therefore desire your patience and pardon. In answer to that part of your last letter which relates to Coffee, it is commonly sold here at 12s a pound, but it may bee had from the marchant in great quantitys at 10 or 11 shillings a pound, but not under at present. I have this day sent hence by the Taunton-waggon a hamper directed to you at Chipley, which will bee in Taunton Saturday next. It may verie well bee carryed home from thence on a pack-saddle with pannyers; in it there is 11 bottles of such annyseed-water as I used to buy 1  Edward Clarke Jr. 2  In Surrey, twelve miles from London. 3  Tampering: interfering or meddling with medically. 4  The Lords Justices were the regency council during King William’s absences abroad.

255

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2103A.  Sir W. Honywood and E. Challoner, 18 June 1696 f­ ormerly; and one bottle of double-annyseed-water which has a parchment ticket tyed on to it; one bottle of aqua-mirabilis1 with a parchment ticket, 2 bottle of right spirit of wyne writt on the corks; 2 bottles of the best brandy I could buy any where in town, the corkes notch’d; and there are 4 bottles of admirable good and right French-brandy, with Mr. Freke’s seale upon it, which hee sends to you as a present from himselfe; hee is wonderfull kind and obleigeing to mee upon all accountts, and gives you his hearty service, as does Mr. Lock, who I presume will write to you some time the next weeke. There is likewise in the hamper in a gally-pot,2 six pounds of verie good anchovis, and in a parcell six pound of the best capers I ever saw; there is allsoe 3 balls of Tuexberry3 mustard, a little of it scraped on a plate, and vinager put to it makes verie good mustard for present use, when ever you have occasion; there is allsoe a paper book of the topp of the hamper, which I desire John Spreate to take into his possession, to enter all his receipts and disbursements in, that hee receives or payes for my use, when his other booke of accounts is writt out which I suppose it is verie neare by this time. The bell rings for the letters,4 and I am Your truly affectionate and faithfull husband Edw: Clarke Endorsed: Mr. Clarkes letter with an acount what he sent downe in the hamper

2103A.  Locke, Sir William Honywood, and Edmund Challoner (Commissioners of Appeals in Excise) to the Excise Commissioners, 18 June 1696 TNA, Treasury Papers, T1/38, fo. 217. Office copy. The letter belongs in a series concerning the question whether the Commissioners for Excise Appeals should re-examine the evidence in a case previously heard by the Commissioners for Excise or should confine themselves to judging whether the latter had followed due process. The series comprises nos. 2092, 2094, 2095, 2103A, 2014, and 2016A. The letter summons the registrar of the Excise Commissioners for a hearing of the appeal of Daniel Woodcock, distiller. The text of this letter was tampered with by the insertion of the phrase ‘and the

1  Aqua-mirabilis: the Oxford English Dictionary follows Dr Johnson: ‘The wonderful water, prepared of cloves, galangals, cubebs, mace, cardomums, nutmegs, ginger, and spirit of wine, digested twenty-four hours, then distilled’. 2  Gallipot: a small earthen glazed pot used by apothecaries. 3  Presumably Tewkesbury. 4  This implies that Clarke was writing in Richard’s Coffee House, which would have p­ rovided the service of taking letters to the Post Office.

256

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2106A.  Excise Commissioners, 23 June 1696 witnesses’ after it had been signed by Locke and his colleagues. In no. 2104, addressed to the Excise Commissioners, Locke vehemently protested at this malpractice. The law officers had given their opinion that the Appeals Commission should re-examine witnesses from the original hearing by the Excise Commission; the unauthorized interlineation gave effect to that opinion. Locke objected to the opinion as well as to the secretarial tampering. In his view the Appeals Commission’s task was to adjudge whether due process had occurred and not to reopen the substance of the case. See no. 2106A. There were five members of the Commission; the absent two were Richard Beke (or Beak) and George Dodington.

Gentlemen We have issued our orders to appointing a day for hearing of the matter depending before us on the appeal of Daniel Woodcock1 which we presume you have notice of. Wee therefore desire you will give order to your Reg[istrar] a–and the witnesses–a to attend us at the time of hearing with the Originall Depositions and Entries of the ­proceedings touching the case of the said Daniell Woodcock for our further information. Wee remaine Gentlemen your very affectionate friends and servants W[illia]m Honywood, John Locke, Edm[un]d Challoner 18 June 1696

2106A.  Excise Commissioners to Commissioners, 23 June 1696

the

Treasury

TNA, T 1/38, fo. 218. Office copy. This letter was sent with no. 2103A and concerns the illicit insertion of a phrase in that letter. The Excise Commissioners accepted Locke’s protest and reiterated it to the Treasury Commissioners. On 26 June the Treasury Commissioners interviewed the Appeals Commissioners in person. Honywood reported that Mr Baker, the registrar of the Excise Commission, had ordered the interlineation, ‘and that the words were not in [the text] when Mr. Lock’s hand was set to it’; the Treasury Lords ruled ‘the interlineation irregular’ (TNA, Treasury Papers, T 1/38, fos. 213–7). For the case, see Calendar of Treasury Books, ix. 32; x. 1424, 1426; xi. 30, 32, 324. The Treasury Commissioners were Sidney, Lord Godolphin, Charles Montague, Sir Stephen Fox, John Smith, and Sir Thomas Littleton; all except Smith were present on the 26th. Phrases in italics are underlined in the original.

a–a  The interlinear insertion made after the commissioners had signed the letter 1  Woodcock continued to protest that he had been wrongfully subjected to seizure of goods by excise officers. He appears to have turned gamekeeper, for in 1703 he is recorded as General Supervisor of the Distillery, reporting discoveries of frauds by distillers. Calendar of Treasure Books, xvii. 398; xviii. 319.

257

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2106A.  Excise Commissioners, 23 June 1696 To the Right Honourable the Lords Commissioners of his Majesties Treasury The Commissioners of his Majesties Revenue of Excise humbly represent unto your Lordships That an Appeale haveing been brought by one Daniell Woodcock a Distiller from a Judgment given against him by us in September last, and the Commissioners of Appeales haveing received the appeale, and giving us notice that they would hear the same on Munday the 22nd of this instant June, On Fryday the 19th instant a letter was brought to our Board by Mr. Barrett Messenger to the Commissioners of Appeales signed by Sir William Honywood, John Lock, and Edmond Challoner Esquires, three of the said Commissioners, a true coppy whereof is hereunto annext,1 and the originall ready to be produced to your Lordships: That wee observing the words (and the witnesses) were interlined in the said letter, made some doubt whether it was really the directions of the Commissioners of Appeales, that we should produce the witnesses examined on the originall hearing before us to be again examined before the Commissioners of Appeales viva voce. The said Mr. Lock was acquainted therewith, and thereupon he requested from us a sight of the said letter, which we granted, and on Munday 21st of this instant Mr. Lock was pleased to certifie us by his letter,2 that the said words (and the witnesses) were not inserted in the said letter from the Commissioners of Appeales att the time he sett his hand thereto, a true coppy whereof is also annext: Wee humbly conceiving that such interlineation inserted without the consent and direction of severall of the Commissioners that signed the said letter may be of evill consequence to his Majesties service in his Revenues, hold it our duties to lay the same before your Lordships and do most humbly pray this matter may be inquired into by your Lordships to the end that such evill practices and the inconveniencyes which may happen thereby may be prevented for the future. John Foche, Francis Parry, William Strong3 Excise Office London June 23rd 1696 1  No. 2103A. 2  No. 2104. 3  The Excise Commissioners were Edward Clarke, John Danvers, Sir Samuel Dashwood, Sir  Stephen Evance, Sir John Foche, Thomas Hall, Sir Philip Meadows, Foot Onslow, Francis Parry, and William Strong.

258

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2115.  W. Molyneux, 2 July and 4 August 1696

2115*.  Locke to William Molyneux, 2 July and 4 August 1696 (2100, 2129*) Karpeles Collection. Postmark: AU 4 Endorsed: Complement. Desires to see me. Mr. Burridges Translation of the Essay. Drinking the Bath Waters for my Cholick. On my Congratulating his new Imployment. His Essay approved off in Camb. Reasonableness of Christianity of what repute here. About Mr. Howard of his Picture. Answ. Sept. 26. 1696.

2123*. Paul D’Aranda to Locke, [c.August–September 1696] (1969, 2192) MS Locke c. 30, fos. 45–6. Transcription by Julia Kelsoe. Board of Trade letter. In pursuit of a suitable model for a procedure for the arbitration of commercial disputes, to be embodied in an Act of Parliament at the recommendation of the Board, Locke enquired about Dutch practice. Furly’s response is contained in no. 2122. De Beer calendared but did not print D’Aranda’s response. D’Aranda sent the text of part of a sample arbitration, in Dutch and English (fo. 45), followed by an additional commentary of his own (fo. 46). The Dutch text is omitted here. D’Aranda (1652–1712), of Huguenot parentage, was a merchant with regular trade across the North Sea, and was later a Justice of the Peace in Kent; see Corr., iii. 567. Locke became a founder member of the Board of Trade and Plantations in May 1696. This is the first letter relating to the Board now that Locke was a sitting member. Letters since the previous December show Locke already concerned with the Board’s future business. The matter of arbitration is important because Locke was working towards a parliamentary bill to enhance procedures for summary adjudication of commercial disputes. On the strength of Furly’s and D’Aranda’s report, Locke advised the Board that Dutch procedure was too cumbersome. Locke’s Bill, drafted with the aid of (unnamed) lawyers, is in MS Locke c. 30, fos. 104–5. Slightly amended, the Arbitration Act was passed in 1698. While Locke was involved on several occasions with the preparation of legislation, this is probably the instance in which his role was most direct. See J. E. Kelsoe, ‘Arbitration in English Law and Society before the Act of 1698’ (PhD thesis, Cambridge, 2020); also H. Horwitz and J. Oldham, ‘John Locke, Lord Mansfield, and Arbitration during the Eighteenth Century’, Historical Journal, 36 (1993), 137–59. English translation of the Dutch sample, made for D’Aranda:

Close of an Instrument of Reference made in Holland whereby the partys submit to the Condemnation1 of the High Court of Holland the arbitrement that shall be made.

1  Condemnation: in civil law, a sentence of judgment which condemns someone to do, to give, or to pay something.

259

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2123.  P. D’Aranda, [c.August–September 1696] The said Parties Promising respectively to hold for good, firm and valid, all that by the said arbitrators and umpire shall be therein done and awarded without Contesting or opposing the same in any Manner, under penalty[.] That such of the Parties as shall act to the Contrary shall not onely be obliged to perform the award But also forfeit and pay as a penalty [blank] to the use of etc — and that thereupon their Sute shall Cease, each party bearing his owne Charges, The said appearers renouncing all appeals, amendments, alterations, or other Exceptions and priviledges knowne in Law, and that under obligation of their persons and Goods submitting the same to the Constraint and Execution of all Lords, Judges and Justices and Especially to the Court of Holland, The said appearers Consenting to suffer them selves voluntarily to be Condemned to performe the Contents of the award to be herein made before the Court or high Councill in Holland, Constituting and impowering to that End irrevocably N. N. and M. M. both proctors before the said respective Courts, one of them to demand or pray for Judgment and the other to Consent thereunto promising to hold for Good firm and Valid all and whatsoever shall be by them done in the premises. Award or Arbitrement In Pursuance of the Writing of arbitration and reference abovewritten, We the underwritten having taken upon us the said arbitration, have declared for our award as We doe by these presents That etc. [blank] and that thereupon their Sutes shall Cease be ended and annulled each party paying his owne Costs, and if any Thing therein shall be obscure or any further Difference shall arise about the premises We reserve power to our selves to Explaine the same by a further Declaration or award, as wee shall find it reasonable. The High Court of Hollands sentence of Condemnation on the Arbitrement Before the High Councill of Holland appeared N. N. as procurator of O. P. and M. M. as procurator of Q. R. and presented to the Court a Certain Compromis or Writing of arbitration or reference entred into by the said partys as also the award made in pursuance thereof by the arbitrators chosen between them, and both prayed that sentence or Condemnation may be passed or entred upon the same according to their Speciall Procurations to them given in and by the said Writing of 260

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2123.  P. D’Aranda, [c.August–September 1696] arbitration Which requests being heard and having seen the said Writing of arbitration and award, both hereafter inserted — Here followeth the Writing of Reference — and afterwards the award — The Court hath Condemned and doth Condemn by these presents the said partys respectively in the Contents and to the performance of the said Writing of Reference and award. Done in the High Councill of Holland etc. In the presence of me [D’Aranda’s commentary:]

The foregoing I caused to be translated by another whom I thought better acquainted with the proper stile for things of that kind but it’s lamely done yet so as to be understood. All needfull to be added further is. That it’s so necessary to name the Attorneys (the one to pray and the other to consent to the Condemnation of the Court of Holland on the sentence of the Arbitrators) in the instrument of Reference, that without it the said High Counsell of Holland refuseth Condemnation. My Book of the Dutch Laws says that the sentence of the arbitrators is to be by them sent closed for condemnation and it seems necessary to prevent knowledge of it’s contents coming to either of the partys concern’d, for either of them knowing and disliking it can by his attorney interdict proceeding to Condemnation in the Court of Holland hazarding forfeiture of the penalty in the bond of reference by so doing. But my friend advises me that the arbitrement is sent open to the atorney who is to demand condemnation, and that it is open to the Court apears by its being incerted at Large in the body of the condemnation itself But as much as may be to prevent the partys knowing it, ’tis, if the arbitrators are both just, by them kept secret till they have received back the condemnation — farther 〈word illegible〉 friends words are. No award for a summe under £600:- can be confirm’d by that Court but must be done by Scheepens.1 Where no penalty is mentioned either party may come off on trivial pretences made by their procureur, and otherwise on forfeiture of the penalty, except that penalty exceed the summe condemn’d in, in which case all is void. The award is generally 1  Schepens: magistrates.

261

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2129.  W. Molyneux, 12 September 1696 sent open by the plaintiff (or by the arbitrators) to his Procureur. The Condemnation is wrote on a parchment apart mentioning the whole contents of the compromis and award. I do not see but it might prove practicable for the arbitrators to deliver their Sentence to the Court or Atorney, and for the Court to give Condemnation on it seal’d in such manner as shall be hinted to you when I next have the happynesse of seeing you. I am Sir Your most obedient Servant P. D’aranda

Address: To John Locke Esq. Endorsed: Trade Arbitration 96 Mr. Daranda

2129*.  Locke to William Molyneux, 12 September 1696 (2115*, 2131) Karpeles Collection. Postmark: SE 12 Endorsed: Complement to me about his Picture. Linnen-Manufacture and Hemptrade of Ireland. Answ. Sept. 26. 1696.

2130A. Robert Livingston to Charles Mordaunt, earl of Monmouth, later third earl of Peterborough, 20 September 1696 MS Locke, c. 14, fos. 159–60. Board of Trade letter. The letter is a howl of protest, written from New York, against the abuses of power by Governor Benjamin Fletcher, and his personal vendetta against Livingston, addressed to Livingston’s political patron in London, towards whom he is egregiously fawning. Its presence among Locke’s papers is indicative of his continuing political relationship with Monmouth and of his involvement in the campaign to sack Fletcher and replace him as governor with his own associate the earl of Bellomont, which was achieved in the following year. The Whigs were amassing evidence against Fletcher’s misrule: the present letter accuses Fletcher almost of rebellion in his alleged violation of the king’s authority. On 10 September Fletcher and the council of New York sacked Livingston from his office as secretary for Indian Affairs and continued to ignore debts owed to him, arising from his services in financing New York’s militia, despite a previous act of the Assembly for the repayment of the province’s debts, and London’s support. Livingston wrote letters of similar content to William Blathwayt, 19 September, and the earl of Shrewsbury, 20 September: the former letter is more cautious, Blathwayt being a Tory, the latter more vituperative: Documents Relative to the Colonial History of the State of New York, ed. E. B. O’Callaghan, 10 vols., 1853–8, iv. 205–6; Calendar of State Papers, Colonial: America

262

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2130A.  R. Livingston, 20 September 1696 and West Indies, 1696, no. 235; Historical Manuscripts Commission, Buccleuch, ii. 405–6. For Livingston (1654–1728), colonial official, fur trader, and businessman, see L. H. Leder, Robert Livingston and the Politics of Colonial New York, 1961, esp. chs. 5–7; C. A. Kierney, Traders and Gentlefolk: The Livingstons of New York, 1675–1790, 1992. For Fletcher, see the American National Biography online.

    New Yorke, the 20 Sept 1696 May it please your Lordship I with great thankfullnesse presume to give your Lordship my humble duty haveing at the same time a deep sence of the unexpressible favours your Lordship was pleasd so frankly to bestow upon me when in England;1 they Incouraged me to the boldnesse of this address, of laying at your Lordships feet the difficulty I have met with, since my arrival here, occasiond only through the means of my application at the Councill board, for my Redresse, against the arbitrary act of the governour of this province in superseding an act of assembly, made for paying of debts of the government.2 It seems the matter is so resented by him, and made in this province so great an offence, that all my former services to the Crowne are thereby made obsolete, and they stop not at punishing me for that crime, but thinks he can justify himself in the controlling3 of his majesties Commission, granted upon the Report and advice of the Right Honourable the Lords of the Committee of Trade4 and Treasury; but it seems that was not sufficient to satisfy the government and councill of New Yorke who hath taken upon them, to suspend his Majesties Commission, though granted by him upon so solemn a recommendation, putting them into so high a station as to controle the act of Whitehall. After this the subjects must be for ever barred from application to his majesty who is the only fountain of just­ ice and mercy, since they must therefore be thus punished. My Lord I am sure your Lordship will pardon this boldnesse, and especially when my sufferings are for so good a cause, as if standing up against the arbitrary proceedings of the suspending of the laws so dear to the English nation, and the defence thereof his Majesty has so often exposed his

1  Livingston was in England from 1694 to May 1696, seeking redress for his New York losses. 2  The Act of the New York Assembly was passed in 1692. 3  Controlling: overruling. 4  By the time this letter was written the Lords of Trade (a committee of the Privy Council) had been superseded by the new Board of Trade and Plantations, with Locke as a member.

263

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2134A.  E. Clarke Jr, 16 October 1696 sacred person. My Lord, he1 expresst himself with great indignation against my proceedings in England, and has threatened my absolute ruine. I hope it will not be in his power, especially since he has given so great advantage against himself, by contemning his majestys commission, and has not quarrelled with me but with his majestys authority, for if a governor can controle by his will his majestys commission, government will soon be brought into confusion. However I hope your Lordship that have been so instrumentall in obtaining for me so great a favour from his majesty2 will not suffer his majesty’s authority so to be lessened, by the arbitrary act of a governor acting by the like commission who is full of anger and mallice threatning to crush me and my family to pieces. My Lord I am not able by any means to obtain a sight of what is represented to the right honourable the Lords of the Committee against me, so am thereby disabled to make my reply thereunto for my justification otherwise than what I have inclosed to Mr. Penn3 who will shew it your Lordship, so that I must have recourse to your Lordships favour, most humbly to begg your Lordships Patronadge against this violent and angry enemy. I dayly supplicate the Almighty for your Lordships Preservation and happiness and shall always esteem my self fortunate if I can be thought by your Lordship to be worthy to be the meanest of your Lordships servants, in confidence whereof I take the freedom to acknowledge my self. May it please your Lordship, Your Lordships most obliged servant Robert Livingston Endorsed by Locke: Trade. Levingston. 20 Sept 96.

2134A. Edward Clarke Jr to Mary Clarke, 16 October 1696 (2081A) SHC, DD/SF 7/1/2 (formerly 3901). Clarke Papers. The letter is included here because of the light it throws on Ward’s studies, given that it was for his education that Locke composed the letters that were the basis for his Some Thoughts Concerning Education and given Ward’s tendency to parrot what Locke urged upon him during his visits to Oates. 1 Fletcher. 2 Monmouth was instrumental in securing an Order in Council instructing Governor Fletcher to repay debts owed to Livingston. Leder, Livingston, pp. 108, 113. 3  Not extant: absent from The Papers of William Penn, iii, 1685–1700, eds. M. S. Wokeck et al., 1986. But see Monmouth’s letters to Penn: iii. 418, 469–70 (the latter mentioning Locke: no. 2152A).

264

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2134A.  E. Clarke Jr, 16 October 1696 Honoured Mother Having spent some part of the Long-Dayes this Last summer in improveing and establishing my hand; and knowing how great a Regard you have for the memory of that Vertuous and Wise Princesse Queen Elizabeth, I did During my Fathers last absence, (among other things) copy out her last speech to her Parliament;1 Which I think not much inferior to many others spoken in her perfect health, and the vigor of her Age: And tho’ it be no fit present for any other but you, who admire and practise her vertues, and thereby deserve infinitely more than I can offer; Yet I hope you will accept of it from mee, tho’ it be much less then you deserve. And pardon such imperfections as by my writeing may be found in it; The Speech was made by one of your own sex, which (in my opinion) adds no small Lustre to it.2 I have often been inform’d by my Father, that you have made some remarks in your own short Travels into Holland and Flanders,3 if I might be so bold I wou’d pray you, among the rest of your Unexpressible favors to send them me by the first convenient opportunity, being fully perswaded there are things both pleasant and profitable contain’d in them. For amongst all the subjects I meet with in my reading there are scarce any (the Sacred Pages excepted) more advantageous than a true and impartial account of observations made by Persons in their Travels, because their I find the customs of Foreign places touching their Gouvernment in Church and State, their habit, their virtue, their vice, and what else is remarkable pathetically set down, whereby such as never have been abroad, have reapt the Labours of those Ingenious Persons as have made such remarks: And making no doubt but that the contents of your observations are judiciously committed to paper, you will by sending them to me singularly oblige your ever dutiful son Edw: Clarke London Oct: the 16th 1696

1  The ‘golden’ speech of 30 November 1601. 2 Camden’s Elizabeth, 3rd edn, 1675, gives a version of this speech at pp. 635–6, which is the same text as that which occurs among the Shaftesbury Papers, TNA, PRO 30/24/47/6, a commentary upon which is sometimes mistakenly attributed to Locke. See J. R. Milton, ‘Lockean Political Apocrypha’, British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 4 (1996), 247–66, at 263–5. 3  No such text is extant; a considerable loss.

265

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2137A.  E. Clarke, 30 October 1696

2137A. Edward Clarke to Mary Clarke, 30 October 1696 (2102A, 2291A) SHC, DD/SF 7/1/53 (formerly 284). Clarke Papers. Concerns Locke’s medical advice for Mary.

    London October the 30th 1696. My Deare I fully intended by the last Post to have sent you my thoughts upon the present state of your Case in Relation to your health etc: Had I not been prevented by the Commands of the Lords of the Treasury,1 who kept mee in Attendance upon them untill it was pass’d time to write to you by that Post etc: I have Read and Considered your Letter to Doctor Musgrave,2 And His Answere to you of the 16th, And allsoe yours of the 26th, which inclosed them both to mee, And upon the whole matter, am Perfectly of Opinion with you, That since you have taken soe many Bottles of the Bitter Infusion, and Drunke soe many Barrells of the Dyet-Drinke, ’tis Best to Respite the Doeing any thing more, for some time at least, to see what effects, That which you have already done, and with soe much constancy and exactnesse taken, will have upon you; And the rather because I believe, the entring now in the Dead of Winter on a Purgeing Course, (which I have always observed does verie much weaken, and disorder you) And then to goe on with the Bitter Infusion, and the Dyet-Drinke all over again, in the manner as you have allready taken it, must necessarily tyre you out, and instead of strengthening quite destroy your stomach, which will bee verie Injuriouse to you, And I am the more confirmed in this opinion, By reason I have soe often heard Mr. Lock say, That a multitude of Physick is in verie few Cases absolutely Necessary, and that turning your stomack into a constant Apothecary’s shop is hardly in any Case Proper, upon these and other such-like maxims as these, which I have upon many occasions heard Mr. Lock Declare, I am the more confirmed, That your Resolutions of being quiet and Resting a Little from the taking more Physick, and observeing what effects That which you have allready done will have, is the Best Course you can take: Thus farr of my Letter I writ before I was call’d out of Mr. Freke’s House in the morning, And meeting fortunately with Mr. Lock this 1  Clarke was one of the Commissioners for the Excise, under the jurisdiction of the Treasury. 2  See no. 1683A.

266

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2137A.  E. Clarke, 30 October 1696 Afternoon, I Discoursed Him on your Case, And on the substance of what I had written to you about your Thoughts of Respiteing for the Present your takeing any more Physick, and to waite a little how Nature will worke towards your Releife All which Hee seem’d to Approve of, But told mee I should doe well to Advise you to Drinke every day 2 or 3 or more glasses of the Strongest Wine you can gett, And to put some Dropps of the Infusion of Centry1 in it as you find your stomach will beare, which Hee says will verie much strengthen your stomack, invigorate your Bloud, And create an Appetite, all which are verie much to bee desired in your Case, And in Order to it I desire you forthwithe to send to Exeter or Taunton for the Best Old-Hock you can get and if there bee none Good to bee had there, I will send you some from hence, But first pray search carefully in your own Wyne-seller at home if there bee any old-Hock to bee found there, And then to use that, it being I believe as good as any that can bee Gott, and if there bee noe OldHock, then to use instead thereof some of the Rinkoe2 (if there been any left) which I believe to bee the best of that sort of wyne that is in the kingdome; Hee says you must make the Infusion of the Centry in the same manner as you have been formerly Directed to make an Infusion of Wormwood, And putt in some Dropps of it as your stomack will best Beare into what Wine you drinke, you may use it likewise in Sack3 or in any other Wyne that you Drinke. And Hee says that Hee thinkes you cannot Drinke a Better sort of Wyne then what I sent you which was part of a Present from Admirall Russell to mee, Hee Advises allsoe your Drinking the strongest Drinke you can get, and frequently Mumm,4 etc: As I can Learn any thing further from Him Relating to your health I will certainly communicate it to you, But I thinke you cannot doe any Better then to come to Town to Him, and bee Guided by His Directions Here upon the Place, And therefore cannot but verie much approve of your Intention in that Particular, and shall most readily and willingly contribute all that is any wayes in my Power to have you brought safe to mee, there being noe comfort or satisfaction to mee in this world, like

1  See no. 1962A. 2  Rinco wine is mentioned in ‘An Extract of a Letter from Mr. Anthony Leewenhoeck’, Philosophical Transactions, 15 (1686), 963–79. 3  Sack: a type of white wine imported from Spain or the Canaries. 4  Mumm (mum): a kind of beer brewed from wheat malt.

267

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2138A.  Sir R. Clayton, 3 November 1696 to that of enjoying your society, and therefore nothing can bee soe welcome as your company to Your truly Affectionate And Faithfull Husband Edw: Clarke The Bookes and News-Prints are Inclosed to our Daughter Betty etc:1 Mr. Lock and Mr. Freke are intirely your servants and Particularly kind to mee etc. Endorsed: Mr. Clarke that I was best to rest from phisick etc:

2138A. Sir Robert Clayton to Locke, 3 November 1696 TNA, CO 388/5, fos. 74–5. Board of Trade letter. Located and transcribed by David Armitage. The letter is among the Board’s files and is summarized in the Board’s minutes: ‘Mr. Locke delivered to the Board a Letter from Sir Robert Clayton to himself, and Mr. Reneu sent in also another Paper, both of them giving an account of a view of Allamodes made by the Lustring Company and others made in France wherein those of the Company were Judged by Mr. Richard Freston and Mr. Richard Fountain (Mercers) to be the better than the other[;] some 12 pence some 6 pence per Ell’ (CO 391/9, p. 206). Alamodes were silk textiles. An ell was a measure of length; an English ell was forty-five inches. The Royal Lustring Company had been chartered in 1692, with the earl of Pembroke as its governor, with the purpose of encouraging domestic silk manufacture and thereby countering its importation. Among the merchants’ and government’s concerns was the smuggling of silk by French privateers. After the peace, in 1698, silk imports from France were banned. This letter is the only known cor­res­pond­ ence between Locke and Clayton, though it is unsurprising that the two were acquainted. Clayton (1629–1707), was a wealthy banker and staunch Whig, sitting in the Commons, 1679–80, 1681, and 1689 until his death. This letter is in his capacity as a customs commissioner, 1689–97. See ODNB; F. T. Melton, Sir Robert Clayton and the Origins of English Deposit Banking, 1986; History of Parliament Online. Hilary Reneu was a Huguenot, naturalized in 1698, at the behest of the Whigs Sir Rowland Gwynne and Edward Clarke, for services to the lustring industry and in uncovering textile smuggling; later governor of the Lustring Company. He reported to the Board on il­ licit Spanish wool trading, and was tasked by it to help draft legislation on behalf of the Lustring Company: CO 389/14, pp. 48, 75. There is one letter by him to Locke: no. 2385. For wool smuggling, see no. 2333B below.

1  Note Betty’s absorbing of newspapers. These were something of a novelty at this moment, several starting up after the lapse of press censorship in 1695.

268

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2138A.  Sir R. Clayton, 3 November 1696    3o Novemb 1696 Sir When I saw you yesterday in Westminster Hall1 the Interruption wee mett with there, hindered mee from giveing you the Account I proposed touching the Alamodes, which as far as I was concerned is as follows, About a Fortnight since there was brought to my house 24 Peeces of Broad Alamodes 12 of which were part of the great parcell of  French Alamodes sold at the Customshouse some tyme before which were sealed with the seale appointed for that purpose at the Customshouse, And 12 other Peeces sealed with the seale of the Lutestring Company, Their seales were all cast of[f ], And the Peeces made up all alike in one Figure and Forme, haveing only various Numbers upon the Papers they were made up in, This was done in the Presence of my selfe and Mr. Chadwick,2 And then I did lock them up, And on Satterday last I sent for two of my Neighboures3 skild in that Comodity, And desired them to Pick mee out 12 of the best of those Peeces, which being opened they viewed and Examined, and divided them into two parcells, 12 Peeces in a parcell, And much praised them, and told mee which were the best, Those I desired them to give mee the Numbers of the 12 they had layd by for mee, which I marked in a Paper I had of the Numbers of the whole, I asked them of the differences of the vallues, They informed mee there was 12d an Ell difference in the goodnes betweene the highest or best of those layd by for mee, and the  lowest or worst of tho’ther peeces, And 6d an Ell difference betweene the ordinary and Midle sort. When they were gone I compared the Numbers they had layd aside for mee, and found they had Pickt out all the 12 Peeces made by the Lutestring Company for the best, And I am since inform’d the Company would have sold the best of their silke cheaper then the worst of the French were sold at the Customshouse. I shall not say any thing of the Consequences of this Practise to you 1  This confirms that a politically engaged Locke frequented Westminster Hall, the hub of public and parliamentary business, rumour, and lobbying. Parliament met on 20 October, and the ‘Whig Club’ at the Rose Tavern carried all before it in supporting the Junto administration, not least because of the continuing effect of the Assassination Plot revelations. There was a special hubbub at this time because, on 2 November, the traitor Sir John Fenwick was interrogated by the king and Cabinet; a few days later a Bill of Attainder was laid against him. See  H.  Horwitz, Parliament, Policy, and Politics in the Reign of William III, 1977, pp. 182–5. For Locke’s concern over the Fenwick case, see no. 2183*. 2  James Chadwick (c.1660–97), fellow commissioner of customs; Whig MP, 1689–97; sonin-law of Archbishop Tillotson. See History of Parliament Online. 3  Evidently the mercers named in the Board’s minute.

269

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2138B.  J. Cary, 16 November 1696 (who are soe good a Judge) least I should exceede the Bounds of a Letter but subscribe Sir Your most humble servant Robt Clayton Address: These For John Locke Esq Endorsed: Trade Domestick / Letter from Sir Robert Clayton of the 3d of November about a proof made of the Goodness of English and French Alamodes

2138B. John Cary to Edward Clarke, 16 November 1696 The Correspondence of John Locke and Edward Clarke, ed. B. Rand, 1927, pp. 492–3. Original lost. De Beer printed six of the seven third-party letters which appear in Rand. This is the seventh, which Rand rightly described as ‘intimately connected with the monetary correspondence’ (p. v.). On 24 October Cary sent Locke a copy of his Essay on the Coyn and Credit: no. 2136. For Cary, see Corr., v. 515; ODNB. Locke’s own correspondence with him runs from January 1696 to January 1697. Cary’s anxieties concerning the state of the coinage are echoed at this time in numerous petitions recorded in the Journals of the House of Commons.

    Bristol, 16th November, 1696 Honoured Sir, I humbly make bold to write you this on occasion of your late vote of taking in hammered money at 5s 8d per oz. in the future taxes, but no mention made how it shall be received in the revenue of customs, excise, etc.1 This will be a very great injury to the traders of England, especially in great cities, many of them having received large sums in that sort of coin on encouragement of your former vote, and wrote to their chapmen to send them their vessels at that price, which hath been a great means to keep things so quiet in the country as they have been, so that the loss will light on the well-meaning men who have endeavoured to serve the government, and will very much disoblige the ­corporations. All trade on this last vote will be at a full stop, nothing but milled money will pass, unless the revenue is ordered to be received in hammered money: if this were done but till the 25th March it would make 1  Journals of the House of Commons, xi. 572 (28 October): resolved ‘that all the hammered silver money of this kingdom do go in payments by weight only, at a rate of 5s 2d per ounce’, but that until 1 January ‘all the said hammered silver money be received at the several mints at the rate of 5s 8d per ounce’ and likewise by receivers of taxes.

270

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2151.  E. Clarke, 29 November 1696 all current again;1 if the House thinks fit to explain the word hammered money it twould not be amiss; it makes a puzzle in the country.2 I desire you will pardon this liberty I take to be so free with you in this affair. I have no particular interest, the quiet of the nation is the thing I aim at, and that those who desired to disaffect the people against the government may have no just occasion of doing it. I wish you may settle the credit of the nation for us to ensure the ends intended. I am afraid the banks will not be a foundation solid enough to build a national credit on, nor anything else that is private, and thereby liable to be swayed by interest; I love the kingdom of England though I am not in any station to serve it, and this makes me take a greater freedom with you who are. That little acquaintance I have had with you hath given me full satisfaction that you are an honest English gentleman. With due regards, I am, Sir, your most humble servant, John Cary

2151.*  Locke to Edward Clarke, with enclosure, Lady Masham, formerly Damaris Cudworth, to Clarke, 29 November 1696 (2148, 2154; 1471A) Locke’s letter, printed by de Beer, is known only from Rand, Correspondence of Locke and Clarke, p. 495. The opening sentence reads: ‘In the enclosed from my Lady Masham you will [find] the two notes you sent for.’ The enclosure has now been located: SHC, 7/1/75 (formerly 3017): Masham to Clarke, of this date. Masham Trust. Both letters and no. 2148 (Locke to Clarke, 27 November) concern the use to be made of two sums of £84 due from Damaris’s brother, as part of her inheritance from her mother.

Sir According to your order in yours of the 28th3 I have herewith sent you the two notes of my Br[other] Andrews’s4 to my mother for £84 each: It will be a sattisfaction to me to know in a line or two from you 1  On 12 November London merchants lodged a petition with the House, calling for an extension of the 31 December deadline until April or later (Journals, xi. 583). 2  On 24 November an amendment was proposed in the Commons to insert ‘clipped’ before ‘hammered’; upon a vote, this was defeated, 155:152, the tellers for the Noes included Sir Walter Yonge and [Robert] Molesworth. A petition from Derby called for retention of the currency of unclipped hammered money. (Journals, xi. 587, 593). 3  Not extant. 4  This (half-)brother has not been identified. Damaris’s mother’s first husband was Thomas Andrewes. For the sons, see Corr., ii. 546.

271

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2152A.  Earl of Monmouth, [c.late November 1696] that you have received them. I am sorry that my Business should give you so much trouble at a time when you have so much besides: I told Mr. Lock why you did not write to him: What you complain’d of I hope was onely wearyiness and no indisposition in your Health. I am extreamly oblig’d by what you writ in reference to my personal affaire, which gives me a great deal of uneasiness, but would do much more if it were not in your Hands. I Humbly thank you for this very great kindness and favour from whence I have all the sattisfaction that is possible in a matter that has fallen out so unluckilie for me. I hope to heare in your next that you and your Son will be pleas’d to grant me that favour that I desir’d of you in the letter you mention.1 Pray be pleas’d to give my Humble service to him and Mr. Freke. Mr. Lock sends you his. I am Sir your Affectionate Humble Servant Da Masham

2152A. Charles Mordaunt, earl of Monmouth, later third earl of Peterborough, to William Penn, [c.late November 1696] Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Historical Society of Pennsylvania: Penn-Forbes Papers: 0485C. Board of Trade letter. Reproduced from the transcription in The Papers of William Penn, iii, 1685–1700, eds. M. S. Wokeck et al., 1986, p. 470. Date from content: see notes below. Penn (1644–1718), the Quaker leader, was founder and proprietor of Pennsylvania.The letter concerns Penn’s request to Monmouth to lobby the Board against the proposed establishment of Admiralty courts in North America in order to enforce the Navigation Acts. It indicates Locke’s influence as a Board member, for it is to Locke that Monmouth turned in order to lobby on Penn’s behalf. Locke, however, was at one with the Board in supporting the introduction of new legal mechanisms for enforcing the Acts.

Sir You cannot oblidge me more then by 〈wri〉ting me with freedome, it is what I will ever practise my self, and ever desire to meet with itt in others, I can with as much Truth assure you That I pretend to preserve my own property no other way, then by endeavouring to secure itt to every man in every place, much more to public societies,2 I thought

1  i.e. to visit Oates. 2  Many colonists regarded the authority of Admiralty courts, the customs commissioners, and the intrusions of the Board of Trade generally, as hostile to their property rights.

272

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2170.  W. Molyneux, 5 January 1697 your businesse in a fair way when it was referr’d back from the Councell to the Committee of trade,1 I spoke with Mr. Lock about it, who is gone sick out of Town2 I received your letter late to night,3 but some Time to morrow will call upon you, and what ever is in my power shall not be wanting to procure you the just satisfaction you desire. your faithfull servant Monmouth

Address: For Mr. Penn

Endorsed: Ld Monmouth

2170*.  William Molyneux to Locke, 5 January 1697 (2131, 2189) Carl Pforzheimer Library, Austin, Texas. The letter printed by de Beer contained an enclosure, which he did not print and is not printed here. The text is now available in Papers of the Dublin Philosophical Society, 1683–1709, ed. K. T. Hoppen, 2 vols., 2008, i.  260–6. It is said by Molyneux to be ‘of Natural History . . . an Account of a Non-­ descript Animal’ (Corr., v. 747). Its published title was: ‘An Account of a not yet ­Described Scolopendra marina’. It was read at the Royal Society on 24 February and appeared in the Philosophical Transactions, 19 (February 1697), 405–12. The matter of publication in the Transactions is mentioned also in nos. 2202, 2224, and 2227.

2183*. [John Freke] to [Locke], 26 January 1697 (2182, 2184) MS Locke c. 24, fos. 200–2. Calendared but not printed by de Beer. Text unsigned, but de Beer is virtually certainly correct that it is from John Freke, or rather from an amanu­ en­sis copying Freke’s account, and that it is addressed to Locke. It contains occasional emendations apparently in Locke’s hand. Errors in the text suggest the writer was copying from a master copy. Evidence in related letters in the Freke-Locke sequence points strongly to Locke’s interest in the fate of the earl of Monmouth (formerly Lord Mordaunt, future earl of Peterborough), a friend and patron since the late 1680s, and also points to Freke as the source of this account. The content of the present letter evidently continues Freke’s earlier news and his promises of a fuller report. On 21 January (no. 2179) Freke wrote to Locke that ‘[I] promise you my Lord Monmouths story’ in the ‘next Post’ and that ‘I shall be forced to be pretty long in telling you.’ Parts of the story are already told in Freke’s letters of 24 December (no. 2164) and 16 January (no. 1  On 5 November the Lords Justices directed the Board of Trade to consider a petition by agents of the colonies against the proposal to create Admiralty courts. On 4 December Attorney General Sir John Trevor ruled that the Crown could lawfully create such courts in the proprietary colonies. 2  Locke left London for Oates on 14 November. 3  Not found.

273

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2183.  [ J. Freke], 26 January 1697 2178). Moreover, in the present letter there are verbal parallels with no. 2164, and Freke ­explicitly refers to what he had already told Locke in no. 2178. The letter, or its original, may have been finished, if not begun, at Richard’s Coffee House. Why, and on what basis, Locke made emendations is unclear. In the transcription here, some punctuation has been supplied. This is the longest and most important letter calendared by de Beer but left unprinted by him. He omitted it on the grounds that its content does not relate directly to Locke and that the information is available elsewhere. Neither claim is quite true. The letter concerns the extraordinarily foolish and disreputable gambit by, and subsequent disgrace of, the earl of Monmouth in the matter of the Jacobite traitor Sir John ­Fenwick. Fenwick, a principal actor in the Assassination Plot against King William, uncovered in February 1696, had implicated leading government ministers (Shrewsbury, Russell, Godolphin, and Marlborough) in treasonable conversation with James II’s agent, Charles, second earl of Middleton. Monmouth secretly tried to persuade Fenwick to substantiate his allegations before Parliament. His motives are hard to establish: perhaps he feared that he too would be implicated, or perhaps he wished to bring down rival ministers. The nineteenth-century editors of James Vernon’s and the duke of Shrewsbury’s correspondence assumed the latter motive; Monmouth was keen to be put in charge of the Navy. In the present letter Freke presumes the former motive. Monmouth sent messages to Fenwick, via his cousin the duchess of Norfolk, and in turn via Lady Fenwick, in which he told Fenwick that substantiating his revelations could save his life. His messages also criticized King William for feigning disbelief in the allegations. But Fenwick refused the bait. Consequently, a furious Monmouth turned against him and proceeded to argue passionately in the Lords for passing the attainder against him that would lead to his execution. Lady Fenwick, aghast at this betrayal, showed Monmouth’s messages to her nephew the earl of Carlisle, who revealed them to the House of Lords. Thereupon, both Whigs and Tories turned on Monmouth, who was found guilty of ‘high crime’, stripped of his offices, and sent to the Tower. Locke’s allegiances lay chiefly with the Junto lords, and his close ally Edward Clarke was involved in discussions about rescuing those lords (particularly Shrewsbury and Russell) from Fenwick’s accusations. But Locke was also a protégé of Monmouth. He had been extremely close to him in the early 1690s and was devoted to his wife, Carey Mordaunt. He was horrified that Monmouth might have engaged in Jacobite intrigue and at his crazy attempt to manipulate Fenwick: as Freke remarks at the opening of the letter, it put Locke’s head into a spin. Freke does his best to excuse Monmouth and to cast doubt on the evidence for his attempt to suborn Fenwick. Monmouth was plainly behaving wildly at this time. Lord Somers thought he ‘talked like a disturbed and distempered man and was ‘transported . . . to great extravagancies’. Monmouth, once in the Tower, tried to secure an early release by arguing that a gang that had mugged him in Chelsea in the summer of 1696 had intended to abduct him to France to hold him hostage to exchange for a Jacobite prisoner, Thomas Bruce, second earl of Ailesbury. This was typical of Monmouth’s capacity for imaginative self-dramatization. Monmouth’s later reinvention of himself as a victorious general (now entitled the earl of Peterborough) during the War of the Spanish Succession is remarkable. The fullest of contemporary sources for the Fenwick episode are Letters Illustrative of the Reign of William III [the Vernon correspondence], ed. G. P. R. James, 3 vols., 1841, i, passim: the letters which parallel Freke’s narrative are at pp. 96–8, 162–6, 173–5; and Private and

274

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2183.  [ J. Freke], 26 January 1697 Original Correspondence of Charles Talbot, Earl of Shrewsbury, ed. W.  Coxe, 1821, pp. 402–76, especially pp. 443–8, 449, 457–60, 462–3. The episode is briefly narrated in H. Horwitz, Parliament, Policy and Politics in the Reign of William III, 1977, p. 186; J. P. Kenyon, Robert Spencer, Earl of Sunderland, 1641–1702, 1958, pp. 286–7; and Lord Macaulay, History of England, 1848, ch. 22. But none of these sources uses this document, which includes unique details. This transcription and notes have been prepared with advice from the late Paul Hopkins and M. A. Stewart. There is a pertinent additional document, described in some older auction catalogues as ‘in the handwriting of Locke’, which is a copy of a House of Lords division list in the Fenwick case. However, the document, now in the National Library of Ireland, does not appear to be in Locke’s hand. Catalogue of the Curious and Valuable Library of the Late John Dillon (7–9 June 1869) in Sotheby’s Catalogues, part II, reel 48: lot 346; and several Maggs Brothers sales, 1912–31; now in National Library of Ireland, Dublin, MS 10976. I owe this to Felix Waldmann. At least half-a-dozen versions of the division list survive. See Horwitz, Parliament, Policy, pp. 335–7; D.  Hayton and C.  Jones, A Register of Parliamentary Lists, 1660–1761, 1979, p. 40.

   Jan. 26 1696/7

Sir I am so much in the darke as to the affair of my Lord M.1 that I cant pretend to give any satisfactory account of it. However that I may not be wanting in my endeavours to fix your head2 and give you some thing that may (if not cure it from turning round) enable you to make a more distinct and further view into this business than all that has been administerd hitherto could Effect, I will relate to you the imperfect account I have learnt in which tis possible I may misreport many Circumstances but I think the substance of the tale will be pretty right and near the truth. Tis undoubtedly true that the Lord M: has been conversant the last summer with one Smith3 nephew of Sir William Perkins whom the D. of Sh. and the Lord Por----d4 had formerly employ’d as a spy and gratify’d as they, but not as he, thought he deserved and that his demands being great and his performances litle in their opinion he was 1  Charles Mordaunt, earl of Monmouth. Referred to below as ‘E of M’. 2  Locke was, like others, utterly flabbergasted by Monmouth’s astonishing behaviour. 3  Matthew Smith, a former soldier, who joined the Jacobites but then turned informer. He wanted money for his disclosures about the Assassination Plot and felt badly treated by Shrewsbury and Secretary Vernon. So, from revenge, he abetted Fenwick’s accusations against Shrewsbury, perhaps prompted by Monmouth. See R. Weil, A Plague of Informers: Conspiracy and Political Trust in William III’s England, 2013, ch. 3. 4  Charles Talbot, duke of Shrewsbury (1660–1718), a leading figure in William III’s government; Hans Willem Bentinck, earl of Portland (1649–1709), William’s leading courtier. In the latter case, Locke has filled in ‘Por—d’. ODNB; D. Onnekink, The Anglo-Dutch Favourite: The Career of Hans Willem Bentinck, First Earl of Portland, 2007.

275

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2183.  [ J. Freke], 26 January 1697 cast off by them which made him become their Enemy and particularly so to the Duke. This Smith had (it seems) the monday before the discovery of the designd assassination informed the D. of Sh. that there was a design on foot against the Kings person but refused to tell by whom or in what manner or by what means to be executed but demanded to be furnishd with a good horse and Arms and a good sum of mony and then he would Join with the conspirators and give intelligence whereby they might be all taken together. This Information of his being soe generall and accompanyd with such a demand for himself he was litle heeded and dismissd with a slight and told when he brought something more particular he might be consider’d; hereupon he writ severall letters to the Duke of Sha Coppys of which he kept and I know not by whose advice (for he is soe notoriously known to be silly1 that he  could have noe such contriveance); he seald them up in a paper, directed the pacquet to himself, and deliverd it to Secretary Trumbold2 to be kept safe till he, viz. Smith, calld for them. Tis a wonder the Secretary should take charge of the pacquett without knowing its ­contents but it seems Smith telling him twas of moment and for the Kings service that he should doe soe, Prudent Sir William undertook the Trust. This much of Smith was necessary to be premised before I come to the case as it came to the House of Lords in order to make the exam­in­ ations of their Lordships the better understood. And if I should add before I come to those examinations a guess of mine it might give ­further light to the matter for ought I know. The thing I guess is that when the Lord Sh: quitted the Seals3 he thought his master in such hands as would betray and deliver his ­master and his country into the hands of K. J.4 without Terms,5 and governd by the violent and revengfull Counsells of the Lord Melford a  The remainder of the name ‘Shrewsbury’ obliterated 1  Silly: mad, deranged. 2  Sir William Trumbull (1639–1716), Secretary of State. Corr., v. 80n; ODNB. 3  Shrewsbury was out of office from 1690 to 1694. The events referred to in this paragraph date from around 1692. 4  King James II. Shrewsbury’s ‘master’ is, of course, King William; Whigs despaired at the king’s naive dependence, before the rise of the Junto, on Tory ministers, notably the earl of Nottingham and marquis of Carmarthen (formerly earl of Danby), whom they suspected of crypto-Jacobitism. 5  Without terms: without conditions, i.e. an unconditional restoration. See next note.

276

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2183.  [ J. Freke], 26 January 1697 therefore he and some others of the same opinion with him applyd to the Lord Midleton1 in order to save themselves and doe what they could towards the obtaining better Terms and security for their country by the interposition of his Lordships more moderate Counsells, and on this affair with this charge the Lord Midleton went beyond sea and was well received which put the Court at St Jermeines2 into such a Division and soe divided the Jacobites here that our preservation has been very much owing to the opposition between the Melfordians and Midletonians who hate one another worse than they doe Wiliamites and for this reason often have discoverd3 one the others designs. I believe the E of M was not without some share in this transaction with the Lord Midleton, but I doubt whether the others concearnd in this transaction know any thing of his being engaged in it or whether he know any thing of what they did but as the Jacobite he corresponded 〈with〉a told him by hearsay or what he accidentally himself overheard. I believe the Lord M did personally know that the King was long since made acquainted with all this transaction even soon after the Seals were restored to the Lord Sh. These things being premised I come now to the Examination of the House of Lords which begun thus. The day the Bill for Attainting4 Sir John Fenwick was to be read the third time5 Sir John petitiond to be brough〈t〉 before the House which was granted him and great expectations were raised in the House that he would confess and make some considerable Discovery but when he was at the Bar he onely prayd that his Lady and the late Bishop of Norwich6 might be admitted to have access to him and being asked a  Original has which 1  The Jacobite court was torn between the counsels of John Drummond, earl of Melfort (1649–1714), a hardliner and Catholic convert, and Charles Middleton, earl of Middleton (1640?–1719), who advised a policy of ‘compounding’, that is, accommodation with James’s en­emies and promising to uphold the constitution and the Church of England. This paragraph is particularly important as a speculation on the motives of those Revolution politicians who, frightened that William’s regime would not survive, made overtures to James II. 2  James II’s court at St Germain, near Paris. 3  Discovered: revealed, disclosed. 4  Attainders were a means of dispatching traitors by the fiat of parliamentary statute w ­ ithout the formalities of a trial. 5  22 December 1696. This was the moment when the shocking revelations about Monmouth became public. 6  William Lloyd (1637–1710), Nonjuror, ejected as bishop of Norwich in 1691 for refusing the oaths of allegiance to William and Mary. ODNB.

277

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2183.  [ J. Freke], 26 January 1697 whether he had nothing else to say and he offering nothing more he was orderd to withdraw, but then the Lord Carlisle (his nephew)1 desired he might be asked whether he had not some papers of Instructions to behave himself 2 at his Tryall (as twas calld)3 sent him by a member of one of the Houses of parliament since the Bill against him depended in Parliament and he answard he had not, then he was asked whether he had seen any such papers, to which he answerd that he had not seen papers written for his Instruction, then he was asked who had shewn them to him, he answer’d his wife and being further examined said his wife had them from the Dutchess of Norfolk4 and one Mrs. Lawson and they from the Earl of M〈onmou〉th;a here upon the Lady Mary Fenwick,5 the Dutchess and Mrs. Lawson were sent for, the Lady Mary Fenwick came immediately (the Dutchess and Mrs. Lawson could not be found that night) and was examined at the Bar; she acknowleged that she had shewn Sir John such papers and imediately produced three and deliverd them into the House, one of which was entitled Instructions for Sir John Fenwick at his Tryall, in which he is directed to Insist on his former Information and what answers to make to Questions to be proposed to him. Another was further Instructions to the same purpose (which it seems was given after the Bill came up to the Lords) In which ’tis observed that tho the Bill past the commons6 where many had dependance on the accused Lords7 for the imployments they had and expected, yet now in the House of Lords All the Jacobites would be for saving Sir John, all the Torys would by principle be against a Bill of Attainder, and that if he insisted on his accusation the Whiggs would be divided, for some of them would be glad to remove the accused Lords out of their places in order to succeed them, a onmou obliterated 1  Charles Howard, third earl of Carlisle (1669–1738). ODNB. 2  i.e. instructions how to behave himself. 3  Fenwick was not tried in a court of law. Instead, Parliament proceeded by a Bill of Attainder, hence depriving Fenwick of the opportunity of defending himself. He was executed on 28 January 1697. 4  Lady Mary Mordaunt, daughter of Henry, second earl of Peterborough, cousin of the earl of Monmouth, estranged wife of Henry Howard, seventh duke of Norfolk. A divorce was achieved in 1700 after lengthy resistance by Monmouth. The duke of Norfolk took satisfaction that his wife’s confession of guilt in Monmouth’s intrigue with Fenwick, recorded below, helped to bring Monmouth down. 5  Daughter of Charles Howard, first earl of Carlisle; she married Sir John in 1663. 6  On 25 November. 7  i.e. clients of those accused of secret negotiations with the Jacobite court.

278

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2183.  [ J. Freke], 26 January 1697 and Sir John is directed to ask when the D of Shrewsbury first heard of the design to Assassinate the King and whether he acquainted the King with it as soon as he was informd of it or how long after, and he is directed to desire that one Smith may be sent for and examined and required to produce the originall Letters he has in his custody. Sir John is likewise to ask the Lord Portland some Questions too about this matter, but I cant tell what those questions were. And in this paper there are certain propositions or arguments to shew the probability of Sir John accusation of the Lord Sh Adm R etc.1 The third paper was a coppy of what was written from Mrs. Lawsons mouth of what she remembred of the discourse she overheard between the Lord Monmouth and the Dutchess. In this paper, as I take it, are the undutiful words 〈written〉 of the King, viz the Lord M. is charged to have said That twas basely and dishonourably done of the King to bring this matter into parliament when he knew Sir John’s papers to be true and had been long since informd of the matter containd in them. The Lady M: Fenwick being sworn was examined from whom she had those papers but she refused to tell, onely said those papers were coppys of some that ware brought to her and transcribed by one Mrs. Simson (I take it the name is) and the originalls were immediately deliverd back to the person that brought them and she knew not who writ the originalls but being prest hard and required absolutely to tell who brought them to her she said it was a Lady of Quality that had been named by Sir John and that when she brought them she stay’d till Mrs. Simson had transcribed them, and then took away the originalls, here upon Mrs. Simson was orderd to attend the House and the next day the Dutchess, Mrs. Lawson and Mrs. Simson were examined. The Dutchess a long time made great difficultys of answering any thing but seemd to Evade the Questions proposed to her, but at length confesst that the Lord M. had deliverd her the two papers which she had carryd to the Lady M: F: and she had caused to be transcribed as above said and that she had returnd back the originalls to his Lordship. Mrs. Simson being examined acknowledged she transcribed them, that one she writt from the originall, the other she could not swear was the true coppy of any other paper, for the Lady M: F: read or pretended to read what she writt in this out of another paper which she did not see, her head hanging down to see her own writing. 1  Shrewsbury, Admiral Russell, Godolphin, Marlborough.

279

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2183.  [ J. Freke], 26 January 1697 Mrs. Lawson deposed That being sent by the Lady M: F: to the Dutchess to know what further instructions she had received from Lord M: the Dutchess told her she was in Expectation of his coming to her and whilst they were thus talking notice was brought that his Lordship was come, whereupon she, not thinking it proper that she should be seen by him, went into the next room and stood by the door where she overheard the discourse which, when he was gone, she came to the Dutchess and repeated and the next morning went and repeated to the Lord Carlisle and he writt it from her mouth, and that the third paper before their Lordships was a coppy of what his Lordship writt, the originall being burnt as soon as transcribed. I must here note that in the examination of these Ladys there appeard inconsistencys with themselves and with one another in their answers, and Mrs. Lawson, that could overhear and remember the whole discourse between the Earl and Dutchess, could not remember diverse circumstances she was examined to, nor could the Dutchess remember that the Discourse (or particularly the undutifull words of the King) was the same that Mrs. Lawson had recollected, tho she heard it repeated over to her (as is pretended) by Mrs. Lawson as soon as the Earl was gone. After these Examinations the House came to the Resolution That the papers were scandalous and malicious and the contrivors of them Criminall. At another time that the House took this matter into consideration,1 Smith was examind, who deposed that he had given Information of the conspiracy against the Kings person some days before any body else and that he had not been rewarded for it by the Lord Shrewsbury, but on the contrary slighted and neglected, and that he had sent severall Letters to the Duke on this occasion, the originalls where of (as he calld them) he could produce. He was then examind whence he had his intelligence and he said from one Hewet2 who, being sent for and examind, said that he served at that time one Holms, one of those mentioned in the Proclamation, and that Smith and he, vizt Hewet, used to drink Ale together and that Smith often importuned him for News and he always told him some idle story or another, some times taken out of the Post Boy3 and some times of his 〈own〉a invention4 and at a  MS has one

1  9 January 1697. 2  John or Jack Hewett. 3  A newspaper, which ran from 1695 to 1735, begun by Abel Roper. 4  Smith’s reputation was blasted by this discovery that his supposed secret revelations were gleaned from rumours in newspapers or other gossip.

280

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2183.  [ J. Freke], 26 January 1697 this time that Smith now speaks of he might tell him there was like to be some business or some Action or some change in a little time which tho he knew nothing of his Masters designs yet he had reason to foretell from his observation of his Masters providing himself with a horse and fitting up his Arms. Smith was further examined and orderd to produce his originall Letters as he call’d them (which were thereupon fetcht from Sir W. Trumbold) and he was asked when he first spoke to the E of Monmouth of this matter, to which he answerd that he never knew the Lord M till the month of 〈blank〉 last (which was after Sir John Fenwick had sent his paper, accusing the Lords to the King), and that some time after his acquaintance with his Lordship he had communicated this matter to him as to a person zelous for his countrys Interest and the service of the Government and that it was after Sir John Fenwick was said to have made a confession and that the Report of the Town was that he had accused the Lord Monmouth, and several witnesses were produced to prove that twas the Town talk that my Lord Monmouth was accused, and that his Lordship enquired into the Report and after the Reporters and traced it to those that quoted the Lady M Fenwick for it, which shewd he had noe correspondence with Sir John till that time and soe could not be in the contrivance of his Information, nay he was provoked by the Information as it was reported untill the Lady Mary sent him word by the Dutchess that the report was not true, that Sir John had not accused his Lordship. The Lord Monmouth also produced Captain Porter1 who prod­uced 〈Affidavits〉a that the Dutchess had indeavourd to subborn one Mrs. Norton to accuse him of the murder of her husband who was kill’d some time since by somebody that is not known and Mrs. Norton and others were sent for and examined and proved the endeavours of the Dutchess. These were all the examinations I have heard of, after which the Lord Monmouth made his defence with great ingenuity.2 He shew’d a  MS has Aftedavits 1  A principal witness concerning the Assassination Plot. Probably George Porter, grandson of Sir Endymion Porter, made captain in October 1688, and a ‘monster of a man’ in his accusations, according to the earl of Ailesbury: Memoirs of Thomas, Earl of Ailesbury, ed. W. E. Buckley, 2 vols., 1890, i. 354, 356. 2  On 9 January 1697 Monmouth spoke for two hours in his own defence, denying the ­allegations against him.

281

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2183.  [ J. Freke], 26 January 1697 the inconsistence of the witnesses with them selves and one another, the improbability that he should be guilty of what was laid to his charge from his charracter and constant conduct, and observed that Sir  John’s Accusation of the Lords preceeded his acquaintance with Smith. That the Witnesses against him were papists and in another interest and thought it noe crime to falsly accuse a protestant to serve their own Interest,1 and that one of them, viz. the Dutchess, had soe 〈far〉a concern’d herself in the Jacobite cause as to indeavour to subborn witnesses falsly to accuse Captain Porter of murder to take of his Evidence against those that had conspired against his majesty’s life and, to be short, he for near 3 hours talkt very pertinently and shrewdly in his own defence; however the Lords voted, as I have formerly told you,2 that he had so great a share in the contrivance of the Papers3 〈etc〉b for which they committed him and made an Address to the King to shew the reasons of it, but neither the words of the vote or Address can I by any means get to send you, tho’ I have been often promised them and also coppys of the papers. After the Lord Monmouth was sent to the Tower, Smith’s Letters were examind by the Lords and a Letter from the Duke of Shrewsbury, giving an account of that affair, and thereby and by other Examinations it appeard that the Duke had acquainted the King with Smiths information, such as it was, soon after he gave it his Grace but that neither the King nor he heeded it till there were other discoverys, and that then Smith was again sent for and required to tell from whom he had his Information and what he knew in particular or else he should be comitted as a conspirator, where upon he Quoted Hewet, who was then sent for and examined, who said as now before the Lords that he and Smith used to drink Ale together and Smith importuning him for news he some times told him what he had read in the comen news a  MS has for   b  MS appears to read 15 1  The old canard that papists believed themselves not obliged to ‘keep faith with heretics’. 2  No. 2178. 3  The resolution condemning Monmouth was passed on 15 January. In no. 2178 Freke noted that only six lords voted in Monmouth’s favour. James Vernon says eight or ten were favourable to Monmouth: Letters Illustrative, i. 174. Somers says six or seven, and that he could not remember an occasion when there were so few negatives on a vote in the Lords: Shrewsbury, Correspondence, pp. 462–3. The dissentients included the radical Whigs Charles Paulet, first duke of Bolton, the earl of Stamford and Warrington, and Lord Delamere, several of whom had met at Bolton’s house. Locke was periodically associated with these men.

282

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2183A.  Sir W. Anstruther, 26 January 1697 papers and some times invented storys for him, and this examination of Hewet was face to face with Smith and that Hewet soe exposed Smith that he had nothing to say for himself. The matter appearing thus the Lords voted that upon perusall of Smiths papers and examining the matter, they found noe cause for Smiths complaint against the Duke of Shrewsbury and that Smith deserved noe further reward than what he had already received from his Grace.1 You see by the Date that this letter was begun last post and by its length you will see that tis noe wonder twas not then finished. I assure you I am now forced to beg of some friend〈s〉 that are with me to let me write on whilst they drink on or else you could not have it this night therefore you must pardon that I peruse it not when written and guesse at what I would have said where I wright not intelligibly. I will not answer for the truth of what I have written either as to the substance or circumstances, for my best Intelligence is the Coffee House,2 however as far as I could learn it from the Town talk, I hope I have not varied from the truth of the matter, this I may have varyd in the circumstances which if I have done it has not been willingly. Endorsed: E of Monmouth in the house of Lords Jan 96/7

2183A. Sir William Anstruther (Lord Anstruther) to Robert Cunningham, 26 January 1697 MS Locke b. 4, fo. 98. Printed in State Trials, 1812, xiii. 929–30. I have retained add­ ition­al punctuation supplied in State Trials. Mainly concerns the case of Thomas Aikenhead, executed, aged twenty, at Edinburgh on 8 January 1697 for ‘blasphemy’, the last such execution in Scotland or England. The letter was acquired by Locke, perhaps supplied to him by James Johnstoun, who sent him other papers relating to the case. See no. 2207*. Locke’s biographer, Lord King, supplied the papers to the editor of State Trials. While some of the papers survive in other archives, this letter appears to be found only among Locke’s papers. Locke was keenly conscious, especially in the wake of the furore over John Toland’s Christianity not Mysterious (1696), that attacks by the orthodox upon minor ‘atheists’ were a proxy for, and intended to provoke, criti­cism of established authors like himself deemed to be heretical. The principal witness against Aikenhead, a fellow student Mungo Craig, did, in fact, archly and opaquely ­refer to Locke in print before the trial, in the same breath as naming such ‘cursed 1  This occurred on 20 January. 2  Probably Richard’s Coffee House at Temple Bar; Locke addressed letters to Edward Clarke and Freke at Richard’s.

283

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2183A.  Sir W. Anstruther, 26 January 1697 a­ uthors’ as Hobbes, Spinoza, and Charles Blount: the ‘atheistical deist’ will believe many nonsenses ‘for which cause he has a very ill gust of Mr. Lock’s Moral way of Demonstration, however well he may please other parts of his works’ (A Satyr against Atheistical Deism . . . To Which is Prefixt an Account of Mr. Aikenhead’s Notions, who is Now in Prison for the Same Damnable Apostacy, 1696, p. 14). Anstruther (d.1711) was a Presbyterian Whig member of the Scottish Convention, 1689–90; a Lord of Session (judge), from 1689; and a member of the Scottish Privy Council from 1692. ODNB. As the letter explains, he attempted to secure a reprieve for Aikenhead, whom he thought no worse than a tragically misguided youth. I have failed to identify Cunningham. See M. F. Graham, The Blasphemies of Thomas Aikenhead: Boundaries of Belief on the Eve of the Enlightenment, 2008, pp. 114–15 and passim; M. Hunter, ‘ “Aikenhead the Atheist”: The Context and Consequences of Articulate Irreligion in the Late Seventeenth Century’, in Atheism from the Reformation to the Enlightenment, eds. M. Hunter and D. Wootton, 1992, pp. 221–54.

    Edin[burgh], Jan. 26, 97 Sir I hope you will pardon me that I hav not writ to you these several posts, for I hav been keept more busie than ordinar, by the frequent meeting of exchequer, upon the falling short of the fonds.1 I thank you heartely for the trouble you hav put your self to, in giving me account of what can not be known by publick neues. I am afraid it will look like too much imposing upon your good nature to desire a continuance of it, especially when I can propon no compensation, this being a place scarsly known abroad, and in publick transactions folowing always the fate of Ingland, but for my part, I would contribute to be at the expense with all my heart for a plenipotentiary at the treaty of peace for this natione;2 indeed the fittest person I know, would be your friend Mr. Johnstoun,3 I wish it had been moved last parliament. To divert you with some remarkable things fallen out of late, it is confidently asserted here, that the river of Clyd went dray for 14 miles, so that children went over it, which ran with a most impetuous current immediatly before; I doe think this must hav fallen out by some chasm in the earth, into which the river hath run into some s­ubterranious vacuity, till which time that was filled up it could not return to its former course, I am told it was once so befor. I doubt not you hav heard of a gentleman’s daughter in the west, who I think is ­possessed with a devil, and continues so still, 1  Anstruther had been a commissioner of the Exchequer since 1687. 2  The Peace of Ryswick was achieved in September–October 1697. 3  James Johnstoun, formerly Scottish Secretary of State. Corr., ii. 526; ODNB.

284

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2183A.  Sir W. Anstruther, 26 January 1697 she is 12 years of age, her body is put into strange shapes, and instantly perfectly well: she vomits hot coals, stons, iron, hair, bones, etc.1 Somtime ago, I sent up an exact account of this, attested by ministers to my Lord Tullibarden,2 which you may call for if you please: we3 had latly an anomaly, and monster of nature I may call him, who was execut for cursing and reviling the persons of the trinity, he was 18 years of age, not vicious, and extreamly studious. Fountionehall4 and I went to him in prison,5 and I found a work on his spirit,6 and wept that ever he should maintained such tenets, and desired a short repriev, for his ­eternall state depended upon it; I plead for him in counsel, and brought it to the chan[cellor’s] vote,7 it was told it could not be granted unless the ministers would interced[e],8 I am not for consulting the church in state affairs, I doe think he would have proven an eminent christian had he lived, but the ministers out of a pious tho I think ignorant zeal spok[e] and preached for cutting him off. I find capital punishments inflicted most against crimes that disturb the society and government, and not against the heinusness of the sin against god, for lawyers in that case say satis est deum habere ultorem;9 and so stealing a sheep when one is hungry, or speaking against the K[ing] are punish’d by death, wheras cursing, lying, slandering, drunkeness, etc. are scarcely taken notice of by our law, but our ministers generaly are of a narrow sett of thoughts and confined principles and not able to bear things 1  The Aikenhead case was accompanied by a renewed pursuit of witches. Christian (or Kristen) Shaw was the daughter of a Renfrewshire laird. Four women and three men were executed in spring 1697, having been found guilty of bewitching her. Contemporaries linked the two cases as evidence of a tide of unbelief. See C. Larner, Enemies of God: The Witch-Hunt in Scotland, 1981; M.  Wasser, ‘The Western Witch-Hunt of 1697–1700: The Last Major Witch-Hunt in Scotland’, in The Scottish Witch-Hunt in Context, ed. J. Goodare, 2002, pp. 146–65. 2  John Murray, earl of Tullibardine, later marquis of Athol (1631–1703). 3  The account of Aikenhead begins here. 4  Sir John Lauder of Fountainhall (1646–1722), a Lord of Session, one of the judges in Aikenhead’s case and apparently the only one who favoured mercy. ODNB. 5  Probably on 3 January. The trial occurred on 23 December. 6  So the text appears to read. 7  7 January. The council was divided on a reprieve, and Aikenhead’s fate was sealed by a majority of one. The most hardline was Lord Chancellor Sir Patrick Hume of Polwarth, earl of Marchmont (1641–1724), a dogmatic Presbyterian. ODNB. 8  i.e. ministers of religion. Hume appealed to the Presbyterian clergy, knowing they would be  for execution. In December the General Assembly of the Kirk had denounced atheism and blasphemy. 9  ‘It is enough to have God as the avenger.’—i.e. God will sufficiently punish crimes that are an immediate affront to him. Derived from Justinian’s Code, 4.1.2. See John Disney, A View of Ancient Laws against Immorality and Profaneness, Cambridge, 1729, p. 215.

285

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2202.  W. Molyneux, 22 February 1697 of this nature.1 I hav sent you inclosed his speech.2 I am on all occasions, Sir, your most humble servant Address: For Mr Robert Cuningham to be left with Mr. Alexander Jonstoun Endorsed by Locke: Aikenhead L: Anstruthers letter concerning him 26 Jan 96/97

2202*.  Locke to William Molyneux, 22 February 1697 (2189, 2221) Karpeles Collection. The names ‘Sherlock’ and ‘Leibniz’ are omitted in Some Familiar Letters, but present in the manuscript and correctly surmised by de Beer. Accordingly, Montuori is mistaken in arguing that ‘S’ is ‘Stillingfleet’: M. Montuori, John Locke on Toleration and the Unity of God, 1983, p. 177, n. 227. Corr., vi. 9, line 16: insert omitted sentence:

I here inclosed send your son an answer from his correspondent here. Corr., vi. 9, line 16: for my lady Masham read his mother Postscript:

Pray give my humble service to your brother. The yonge gent whose letter I have inclosed to your son though my Ladys only child yet being the youngest of several brothers, which his father had by a former wife, his mother desires that your son would omit the addition of Esq in the direction of his letters to him. Endorsed: Recd. Mar. 10. Excuse for his Long silence. His Notions preach’d from the Pulpit. Dr. Sherlocks3 Censure of his Opinions. Concerning Whistons Theory. Our Linen Manufacture. My Brothers non-Descript Animal. Dr. Sloan Secr. to the R. S.4 desires my Correspondence. Recommends me to Lord Ch. Methuen.5 Good Intentions 〈…〉a Monsr. Le Clerk.6 Bp of Worcester’s censure of his Notions answer’d. Mr. Burridges Book well received. Monsr Leibnitz’s Paper concerning his Book of H. Understanding. Lady Masham not blind as Mr. Norris gives out. Young Mr. Mashams Title. a  Word indecipherable 1  This passage appears ambiguous. It might be read as a complaint that the law is negligent in punishing irreligion, as compared with secular crimes; yet the final phrase and the drift of the letter deprecate the severity of churchmen. 2  Aikenhead appears to have read two statements at the scaffold, the first a vindication and the second a contrition. 3  William Sherlock (1639/40–1707), dean of St Paul’s, inveterate controversialist. Corr., iv. 145n; ODNB. 4  Royal Society. 5  Lord Chancellor of Ireland John Methuen (1606–1707), politician and diplomat. Corr., v. 766n; ODNB. 6  De Beer surmised that Locke referred to Freke (Corr., vi. 8), which seems to fit the evidence he cites for this (vi. 79–80). However, Molyneux thought Locke was referring to Le Clerc.

286

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2207.  [J. Johnstoun], 27 February 1697

2207*. [ James Johnstoun] to [Locke], 27 February 1697 (2101, 2225) MS Locke b. 4, fos. 86–7. This is a sequel to no. 2183A. As de Beer noted, fos. 88–108 comprise eight further papers relating to the case of Thomas Aikenhead, lent by Lord King for publishing in State Trials, xiii, 1812. The following list expands information given by de Beer. Most of these items were corrected and endorsed by Locke. (1) Indictment of Aikenhead: fos. 88–91; National Records of Scotland (NRS), MS JC26/78/1/11 and JC 2/9; other copies extant, e.g. collected by Robert Harley: BL, Harleian MS 6846, fos. 396–9; Edinburgh University Library, MS Laing II.89, fos. 222–3; printed in State Trials, xiii. 917–20. (2) Aikenhead’s (probably pretrial) petition to the Lord Justice General: fos. 92–3; NRS, MSS JC26/78/1/12–13; State Trials, xiii. 921–3. The NRS copy includes the name of Mungo Craig, chief witness, absent in Locke’s copy. (3) Depositions of witnesses: fos. 94–6; NRS, MS26/78/1. (4) Aikenhead’s (post-trial) petition to Lord Chancellor Hume: fo. 97; no other source; State Trials, xiii. 928. (5) Letter, Anstruther to Cunningham: fo. 98; no other source; now no. 2183A above; State Trials, xiii. 929–30. (6 and 7) Aikenhead’s two declarations at the scaffold; one an intellectual vindication, the other a conventional repentence; two copies: fos. 99–102, 103–6; State Trials, xiii. 930–4; evidently in circulation, because a copy was acquired by Harley (BL, Harleian MS 6846, fos. 400–1) and by Thomas Halyburton, who commented on them in his Natural Religion Insufficient (1714), pp. 119–23. (8) ‘Anonymous letter from Edinburgh to a Mr. W’, endorsed ‘Scotland Witches 97’, defending both the Aikenhead and witchcraft prosecutions against London criticism of Scottish bigotry; now identifiable as Robert Wylie to William Hamilton, laird of Wishaw, 16 June 1697: fos. 107–8; NRS, MS GD103/2/3/17/1; now no. 2277A below. In his letter to Locke (no. 2207), Johnstoun argues that mercy should have been shown to Aikenhead. Other letters by him, to Lord Chancellor Hume, who had voted for execution, are, in effect, a commentary on what he there said to Locke. Hume feared (rightly) that his reputation was being blackened in England as a bigot and that Johnstoun was complicit. Johnstoun pleaded to Hume that ‘My conversation is among the English, where I doe you what service I can when there is occasion for it, as there was lately about the business of Aikenhead, which I coloured to the English as much as I could, tho I own to our Scotch I frankly disapproved of it.’ ‘To the English I made the best defence I could. In short, that man’s life might be taken by all laws, both of God and man; but every thing that is lawfull is not expedient, and as the presbiterians are stated here [in London] they could not have given themselves a greater blow. I say not in the opinion of libertins but of the body of this nation . . . They are accused by their enemies of a bitter persecuting spirit.’ Letters, 17 March and 1 April: Historical ­Manuscripts Commission, Roxburghe, pp. 131–2; quoted from Graham, Aikenhead, pp. 137–8. It may be added that in 1802 this set of papers (temporarily in London, presumably in preparation for the State Trials volumes) was described as being ‘In a bundle of MSS on the subject of Toleration’: Francis Horner to Malcolm Laing, Edinburgh, 15 May 1802: Francis Horner, Memoirs and Correspondence, ed. L. Horner, 2 vols., 1843, i. 487. Horner goes on: ‘Besides full copies of the indictment, evidence, etc., there are several letters and notes which Locke seems to have collected with much care. . . . All that we

287

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2207A.  S. Bold, [February 1697?] know of Aikenhead’s case, from the reports hitherto printed, is the melancholy fact of his judicial murder, and the violent construction of the statutes upon which he was prosecuted.’ He singles out the Anstruther letter which ‘shows a mind moderate by disposition, but grovelling in the lowest prejudices’. He told the publisher John Murray that the case demonstrated that ‘priests are ever the same’ (i. 288).

2207A.  Locke to Samuel Bold, [February 1697?] (2232) Printed in the ‘Preface to the Reader’ in the Second Vindication of the Reasonableness of Christianity, 1697, sigs. A4v–a3r. Included in A Collection of Tracts, Publish’d in Vindication of Mr. Lock’s Reasonableness of Christianity, as Deliver’d in the Scriptures; And of his Essay Concerning Human Understanding, 1706. Printed in Locke, Vindications of the Reasonableness of Christianity, ed. V. Nuovo, 2012, pp. 33–7. No extant manuscript. This letter initiated the correspondence and friendship between Locke and Samuel Bold. No. 2232 (26 March) is Bold’s reply. Because the letter was apparently a literary artifice, known only from Locke’s printed tract, de Beer did not include it. But Locke deliberately inserted a letter into his preface, addressed ‘To Mr. Bold’ and signed ‘Sir, your most humble servant’, asked that his ‘readers will pardon me, that, in my preface to them, I make this particular address to Mr. Bold’, and a private exchange followed. The letter thanks Bold for writing in Locke’s defence in A Short Discourse of the True Knowledge of Jesus Christ, 1697, and gives an account of his purposes in writing the Reasonableness. Both the Reasonableness and its Vindications were published anonymously, so Locke did not declare authorship of this letter, but the literati knew well enough the identity of the author. Bold’s private reply was addressed to the author of the Reasonableness and sent via Locke’s publisher Awnsham Churchill. Locke and Bold had both been attacked by the Cambridge clergyman John Edwards. The Edwards−Bold quarrel began with Edwards’s assault on an unpublished sermon, which prompted Bold to print the sermon with some animadversions. The sequence is: (a) Edwards, Socinianism Unmasked [against] The Reasonableness of Christianity . . . With a Brief Reply to Another (Professed) Socinian Writer, 1696; (b) Bold, A Short Discourse of the True Knowledge of Jesus Christ. To which are added, some passages in the Reasonableness of Christianity, etc. and its Vindication. With some Animadversions on Mr. Edwards’s Reflections on the Reasonableness of Christianity, and on his Book, Entituled, Socinianism Unmasked, 1697; (c) Edwards, A Brief Vindication of the Fundamental Articles of the Christian Faith . . . with Some Animadversions on . . . Mr. Bold, 1697; (d) Bold, A Reply to Mr. Edwards’s Brief Reflections on A Short Discourse, 1697. For Bold, Church of England clergyman, see Corr., vi. 65; ODNB.

Sir, Though I do not think I ought to return Thanks to any one for being of my Opinion, any more than to fall out with him for differing from me; Yet I cannot but own to all the World the Esteem that I think is due to you, for that Proof you have given of a Mind and Temper becoming of a true Minister of the Gospel, in appearing as you have done, in the Defence of a point, a great point of Christianity, which it is evident you could have no other temptation to declare for, but the love of 288

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2207A.  S. Bold, [February 1697?] Truth. It has fared with you herein no better than with me. For Mr. Edwards, not being able to Answer your Arguments, has found out already that you are a Mercenary, defending a Cause against your Perswasion for hire; and that you are sailing to Racovia1 by a side Wind:2 Such Inconsistencies can one (whose Business it is to Rail for a Cause he cannot defend) put together to make a noise with: And he tells you plainly what you must expect, if you write any more on this Argument, viz. to be pronounced a downright Apostate and Renegado.3 As soon as I saw your Sermon and Animadversions, I wonder’d what Scare-Crow Mr. Edwards would set up, wherewith he might hope to deterr Men of more Caution than Sense from reading of them: Since Socinianism, from which you were known to be as remote as he, I concluded would not do. The unknown Author of the Reasonableness of Christianity, he might make a Socinian, Mahometan, Atheist, or what sort of Raw-head and Bloody-bones4 he pleased. But I imagined he had  had more sence than to venture any such Aspersions on a Man whom, though I have not yet the Happiness personally to know; yet I  know hath justly a great and settled Reputation amongst worthy Men: And I thought that that Coat which you had worn with so much Reputation,5 might have preserved you from the bespatterings of Mr. Edward’s Dunghil. But what is to be expected from a Warrier that hath no Ammunition, and yet ascribes to himself Victory from hence, and  with this Artillery imagines he carries all before him? And so Skimmington6 Rides in Triumph, driving all before him by the Ordures that he bestows on those that come in his way. And were not Christianity concerned in the case, a Man could scarce excuse to himself the Ridiculousness of entering into the List with such a Combatant. I do not therefore wonder that this mighty Boaster, having no other way to Answer the Books of his Opponents, but by popular Calumnies, is fain to have recourse to his only Refuge, and lay out his natural Talent in Vilifying and Slandering the Authors. But I see, by what you have

1  Rakow had been the home of the anti-Trinitarian Polish Brethren. The Racovian Catechism (1605) was translated into English and condemned by Parliament in 1652. 2  A side wind: an oblique route. 3  A convert to Islam. These remarks appear not to be direct quotations from Edwards. 4  Bloody-bones: bugbears, objects of childish terror. 5 Locke alludes to Bold’s brave defence of religious toleration in his Sermon Against Persecution, 1682, which had resulted in his imprisonment for sedition. 6  Skimmington: a ludicrous person, an object of ridicule, in traditional English mocking parades.

289

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2207A.  S. Bold, [February 1697?] already writ, how much you are above that; and as you take not up your Opinions from Fashion or Interest, so you quit them not to avoid the malicious Reports of those that do: Out of which number, they can hardly be left, who (unprovoked) mix with the management of their Cause, Injuries and ill Language to those they differ from. This, at least I am sure, Zeal or Love for Truth, can never permit Falshood to be used in the Defence of it. Your Mind I see prepar’d for Truth, by resignation of it self not to the Traditions of Men, but the Doctrine of the Gospel, has made you more readily entertain, and more easily enter into the meaning of my Book, than most I have heard speak of it. And since you seem to me to comprehend, what I have laid together, with the same Disposition of Mind, and in the same Sence that I received it, from the Holy Scriptures, I shall as a mark of my respect to you, give you a particular Account of the Occasion of it. The Beginning of the Year in which it was Published, the Controversie that made so much noise and heat amongst some of the Dissenters,1 coming one Day accidentally into my Mind, drew me by degrees into a  stricter and more through2 Enquiry into the Question about Justification. The Scripture was direct and plain, that ’twas Faith that justified, The next Question then, was what Faith that was that justified; What it was which, if a Man believed, it should be imputed to him for Righteousness.3 To find out this, I thought the right way was to Search the Scriptures; and thereupon betook my self seriously to the Reading of the New Testament, only to that Purpose. What that prod­ uced, you and the World have seen. The first View I had of it seem’d mightly to satisfie my mind, in the Reasonableness and Plainnness of this Doctrine; But yet the general Silence I had in my little Reading met with, concerning any such thing, awed me with the Apprehension of Singularity; Till going on in the Gospel History, the whole tenour of it made it so clear and visible, that

1  This passage refers to a theological controversy concerning justification by faith among the Presbyterians, sparked by the publication in 1690 of the Calvinist Tobias Crisp’s sermons, which many thought antinomian. Critics of Crisp like Daniel Williams (Gospel Truth, 1692) were in turn charged with Socinianism. In 1694 Williams was sacked from the Dissenters’ Pinners Hall lecture, and he and his allies established the rival Salters Hall lecture. Locke’s publicly remarking on this quarrel added to the Presbyterians’ embarrassment. See P. Toon, The Emergence of HyperCalvinism in English Nonconformity, 1689–1765, 1967, ch. 3. 2  Through: thorough. 3  Imputed righteousness: fallen man, not being capable of righteousness sufficient to merit salvation, may yet be justified in the sight of God by faith.

290

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2207A.  S. Bold, [February 1697?] I more wonder’d that every body did not see and imbrace it; than that I should assent to what was so plainly laid down, and so frequently inculcated in Holy Writ, though Systems of Divinity said nothing of it. That which added to my Satisfaction, was, that it led me into a Discovery of the marvellous and divine Wisdom of our Saviour’s Conduct, in all the Circumstances of his promulgating this Doctrine; as well as of the necessity that such a Law-giver should be sent from God for the reforming the Morality of the World; Two Points that I must confess, I had not found so fully and advantageously explain’d in the Books of Divinity I had met with, as the History of the Gospel seem’d to me, upon an attentive Perusal, to give Occasion and Matter for. But the Necessity and Wisdom of our Saviour’s opening the Doctrine (which he came to publish) as he did in Parables and figurative ways of speaking, carries such a Thread of Evidence through the whole History of the Evangelists, as I think is impossible to be resisted; and makes it a Demonstration, that the Sacred Historians did not write by concert as  Advocates, for a bad Cause, or to give Colour and Credit to an Imposture they would Usher into the World; Since they, every one of them, in some place or other, omit some Passages of our Saviour’s Life, or Circumstances of his Actions; which shew the Wisdom and Wariness of his Conduct; and which even those of the Evangelists, who have recorded, do barely and transiently mention, without laying any Stress on them, or making the least remark of what Consequence they are to give us our Saviour’s true Character, and to prove the Truth of their History. These are Evidences of Truth and Sincerity, which result alone from the Nature of things, and cannot be produced by any Art or Contrivance. How much I was pleased with the growing Discovery, every Day, whilst I was employed in this search, I need not say. The wonderful Harmony, that the farther I went, disclosed it self, tending to the same Points, in all the parts of the sacred History of the Gospel, was of no small Weight with me and another Person,1 who every Day, from the beginning of my search, saw the Progress of it, and knew at my first setting out, that I was ignorant whither it would lead me; and therefore, every Day, asked me what more the Scripture had taught me. So far was I from the thoughts of Socinianism, or an Intention to write for that or 1 Damaris Masham. A significant recognition of her assistance to Locke during the ­composition of the Reasonableness.

291

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2254.  W. Molyneux, 3 May 1697 any other Party, or to publish any thing at all. But when I had gone through the whole, and saw what a plain, simple, reasonable thing Christianity was, suited to all Conditions and Capacities; and in the Morality of it now, with divine Authority, established into a legible Law, so far surpassing all that Philosophy and humane Reason had attain’d to, or could possibly make effectual to all degrees of Mankind; I was flatter’d to think it might be of some use in the World; especially to those who thought either that there was no need of Revelation at all, or that the Revelation of our Saviour required the Belief of such Articles for Salvation, which the settled Notions and their way of reason­ing in some, and want of Understanding in others, made impossible to them. Upon these two Topicks the Objections seemed to turn, which were with most Assurance, made by Deists against Christianity; But against Christianity misunderstood. It seem’d to me, that there needed no more to shew them the Weakness of their Exceptions, but to lay plainly before them the Doctrine of our Saviour and his Apostles, as delivered in the Scriptures, and not as taught by the several Sects of Christians. This tempted me to publish it, not thinking it deserved an Opposition from any Minister of the Gospel; and least of all, from any one in the Communion of the Church of England. But so it is, that Mr. Edwards’s Zeal for he knows not what (for he does not yet known his own Creed, nor what is required to make him a Christian) could not brook so plain, simple, and intelligible a Religion: But yet not knowing what to say against it, and the Evidence it has from the Word of God, he thought fit to let the Book alone, and fall upon the Author. What great Matter he has done in it I need not tell you, who have seen and shew’d the Weakness of his Wranglings. You have here, Sir, the true History of the Birth of my Reasonableness of Christianity, as delivered in the Scriptures, and my Design in publishing it, &c. What it contains, and how much it tends to Peace and Union amongst Christians, if they would receive Christianity as it is, you have discovered. I am, Sir, Your most humble Servant A. B.

2254*.  Locke to William Molyneux, 3 May 1697 (2243, 2262) Karpeles Collection. The names ‘Coste’ and ‘Leibniz’ were omitted in Some Familiar Letters, but are present in the manuscript and were correctly surmised by de Beer.

292

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2277.  W. Molyneux, 15 June 1697 Corr., vi. 106, line 32: for The Lady’s Religion read the Gentleman’s Religion1 Postmark: MA 11 Endorsed: Concerning Mr. Toland. Tutor recommended by Monsr Le Clerk. Controversy between him and Bp of Worcester. Concerning Monsr Leibnitz. Monsr Coste has translated his Thoughts of Education, Reasonableness of Christianity, Essay and  Gentlemans Religion into French. Sir  R.  Blackmores  K.  Arthur.2 Answer’d May. 27. 97.

2277*.  Locke to William Molyneux, 15 June 1697 (2269, 2288) Karpeles Collection. Endorsed: Observation on what I writ relating to his Letter to the Bp of Worcester. Desires to Converse with me. Concerning Mr. T’s3 Conduct. Concerning Dr. Blackmore and Hypotheses in Physick and Medicine. Answr. July 20. 97.

2277A. Robert Wylie to William Hamilton, 16 June 1697 MS Locke b. 4, fos. 107–8. The original is in the National Records of Scotland, MS GD103/2/3/17/1, but (part of ) Locke’s copy is transcribed here. The letter concerns the Aikenhead case, for which, see nos. 2183A and 2207* above, and the case of the Paisley witches. Wylie (d.1715) was an influential Presbyterian minister, of Hamilton, Renfrewshire, near Glasgow. He had been active in pre-Revolution Covenanter risings. He advised the duke of Hamilton on religious matters. William Hamilton was the laird of Wishaw. The letter defends the trials of Aikenhead and the witches. It is, in effect, a riposte to the moderate stance taken in Johnstoun’s letter to Locke (no. 2207) and Anstruther’s (no. 2183A); indeed, the references to ‘London wits’ and ‘witty criticks’ may have intentionally meant Johnstoun and such men as Locke. Wylie’s ­critique of metropolitan wits, implying that wit is a mask for scepticism and a contemptible failure to take grave matters seriously, has similarities with Mary Astell’s later critique, in Bart’lemy Fair (1709), of the third earl of Shaftesbury’s defence of wit and ridicule in matters religious. Wylie’s argument concerning Aikenhead largely hangs on the manner of his behaviour, both its insulting scornfulness and his alleged lack of adequate recantation and contrition. Discussed in Hunter, ‘Aikenhead the Atheist’, pp. 237–9, 241–3; and Graham, Aikenhead, p. 139. The letter is extremely long on the subject of the evidence against the witches, and ellipses below indicate omissions. 1  The latter by Edward Synge (1693), but it was not this which Coste translated, and the editor of Some Familiar Letters silently corrected the title; the author of A Lady’s Religion, 1697, is a ‘Mr. Stephens’, probably William Stephens. The endorsement seems to imply that Molyneux read Locke’s remark as indicating that he, Locke, was the author of A Gentleman’s Religion. 2  Sir Richard Blackmore (c.1654–1729), physician and poet. Corr., v. 412n; ODNB. 3  John Toland.

293

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2277A.  R. Wylie, 16 June 1697 The hanging and burning of six witches at Paisley on 10 June 1697 was the last mass execution for witchcraft in Scotland. See J. Goodare, ed., The Scottish Witch-Hunt in Context (2002).

Sir I return you my hearty thanks for yours to me of May 18th and for your kind remembrance of me and mine in your Letters to your Lady which I have sometimes the favour of seeing, and wherein you mention a third to me which I have not received. I have heard much of the Censures past upon the Government here by some pious and char­it­ able witts at London and elsewhere upon occasion of the sentence given against Aikenhead the Atheist, but when these gentlemen understood, if they are capable of thinking or understanding any thing but a bold sparkish jest, That the ground of that wretches sentence was not, as I  know some of them misrepresented it, a retracted errour of the Judgment, but a perverse malicious railing against the adorable object of Christian worship, which simply inferrs death without the quality or aggravation (obstinat continuance) tho’ that also was in Aikenhead’s case, till after sentence, and this most expressly by the first clause of Act 21 par. i Ch. 2.1 And when these witty Criticks consider that Reason, common sense and good manners (their own Trinity) do require that no man should in the face of a people spitefully revile and insult the object of their adoration, and that a Christian could not be innocent who should rail at or curse Mahomet at Constantinople, and consequently that their pleadings against Aikenheads condemnation were most unjust and founded upon mistake of the case and matter of fact. One would think that after all this they should be more sparing and cautious at such a distance and under such uncertainty of report in passing their little rash judgements upon the late proceedings of this Government with reference to the witches in Renfrew. In spite of all the Atheism and Sadducism2 in the world, it is manifest beyond contra­ dic­tion to the conviction of many hundreds of witnesses and some of those not less inquisitive nor more credulous than these Esprits forts,3 the sagacious and nice censurers themselves, That ther hath bin and is in those parts a most horrid combination of Devilry and Witchcraft, or which is the same thing, a continued tract of the ­operations of invisible

1  Blasphemy Act, 1661. 2  Materialism, denial of spirits, specifically denial of the resurrection. 3  Freethinkers; persons professing superiority to current prejudices.

294

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2277A.  R. Wylie, 16 June 1697 malicious spirits in formal and explicite compact with miserable deluded mortals. Now unles a man hath so far renounced humanity as well as Religion as to deny invisible spirits and the being of witches, and the Scripture Law, Thou shalt not suffer a Witch to Live,1 I see not  with what modesty or good manners the proceedings of the Government in another nation can be judged and censured, unless the whole grounds of these proceedings and matters of fact in all their circumstances were fully laid before the censurers. There is a well attested narrative of these troubles of [space] child2 and of other diabolical molestations and malefices,3 and of the processes of these who have bin condemned preparing for the press.4 And tho I am as much for waryness and caution as any in such dark and abstruse matters where the vulgar is easily imprest by supersititious fears, and the Devil mingles fable to conceal or discredit truth, and sometimes industriously labours to impose tricks for the destruction of the innocent; yet I doubt not but these accounts when sent abroad into the world, will sufficiently convince such as have not resolved to harden themselves against all conviction. . . . [T]hese witches were tried and put to death at Paisley on Thursday last . . . And after all the famous professing, or, as they call her the presbiterian witch Margaret Lang5 (one whom I discoursed with in prison and found her knowledge beyond the common rate of country women) did the day before execution confess she had been in league with the Devil from eleven years of age, and had often renewed it, and she repeated her confession at the fire (tho’ with little signe of true repentance) . . . If your sparks at London blame this Government of severity, there are some here no less apt to complain of their remissness; and it is certain some have bin over shy, and tho’ their station obliged them to concern themselves, yet have appeared too unwilling to medle at all in this matter. 

1  Exodus 22:18. 2  The accusations of bewitchment were first made by an eleven-year-old girl, Christian (or Kristen) Shaw. 3  Wicked enchantments, sorceries. 4  A Relation of the Diabolical Practices of Above Twenty Wizards and Witches of the Sheriffdom of Renfrew in the Kingdom of Scotland, contain’d, in their Tryalls, Examinations, and Confessions; And for which Several of them have been Executed this Present Year, 1697. Also Francis Grant (Lord Cullen), Sadducismus debellatus: or, A True Narrative of the Sorceries and Witchcrafts Exercis’d by the Devil and his Instruments upon Mrs. Christian Shaw, 1698. 5  See Scottish Witchcraft Database: witches.shca.ed.ac.uk.

295

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2284.  R. de La Treille, [c.8 July 1697]

2284*.  René de La Treille to Locke, [c.8 July 1697] (2286) Biographical identification. There are two letters by La Treille to Locke (the other is no. 2286). Beyond noting that he entered Lord Bellomont’s service as a tutor, de Beer was unable to identify him or provide a forename. He was a Huguenot born in Preuilly-sur-Claise (in the Touraine), where his father was a pastor. He left France in or shortly after 1685 and served as tutor in a series of Whig households: the wealthy merchant Sir John Houblon, Christopher Vane, and Bellomont. His name first occurs in the correspondence in February 1692, when Ashley tells Locke that La Treille is ‘equally known and equally esteemed by Mr. Freke and Mr. Popple’ (no. 1470). Locke recommended him to Edward Clarke (no. 1476). His character is warmly praised by Lord Ashley (no. 1512), and by William Popple to Sir James Rushout (no. 1514), to whom Clarke also recommends him (no. 1577). He resurfaces in 1697, when he agreed to be tutor to Damaris Masham’s son, but then reneged, instead taking a position with Bellomont, travelling to Holland with the earl’s two sons (nos. 2280, 2282, 2284, 2286). In 1703 he travelled to Holland with William Strickland. Naturalized in 1707, he took a government clerkship in 1716. He was living in London at his death in 1731 and left his books to Popple’s grandson. René’s brother Jacques had fled to the Netherlands, where he served as chaplain in a Huguenot regiment during the Nine Years War; he was pastor of the French church in Threadneedle Street, London, 1700–2, after which he settled in Delft and then Rotterdam. This identification is owed to Christine ­Jackson-Holzberg: in Anthony Ashley Cooper, third earl of Shaftesbury, Complete Works, Series III, Correspondence, eds. C. Jackson-Holzberg, P. Müller, and F. Uehlein, 3 vols. so far, 2018–, i. 179–80. For Jacques, see R.  Gwynn, The Huguenots in Later ­Stuart Britain, 3 vols., 2015–23, i. 335–6.

2289A. Locke to [Samuel Heathcote], 30 July 1697 (1996A, 2333A) HRO, Heathcote Papers, 63M84/247. Located and transcribed by J. R. Milton. Board of Trade letter.

    Little Lincoln Inne feilds    30 Jul 97 Sir I beg the favour of you to doe me the kindenesse to call upon me here the first morning, that will suit your occasions; or else to let me know where I may meet with you any afternoon I am seldom abroad in the morning till half an hour before ten[.] I desire we may meet as soon as conveniently may be[.] I am Sir your most humble servant John Locke 296

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2291A.  E. Clarke, 3 August 1697

2291A. Edward Clarke to Mary Clarke, 3 August 1697 (2137A, 2733A) SHC, DD/SF 7/1/53 (formerly 284). Clarke Papers. This is the covering letter for no. 2291, Locke to Mary Clarke, of the same date, which contains detailed instructions for the use of a ‘stomachical cordiall’.

    London August the 3d 1697 My Deare, I Received John Spreate’s Letter by the last post, And in the Hurry of Packing up, have only time to acquaint you, that I shall, God willing, begin my Journey towards you to morrow morning, And hope to bee happy in your Company by the End of the next weeke at farthest;1 The Inclosed is from Mr. Lock to Direct you how to take a Certaine Drinke which Hee has Prepared on purpose for you to bee taken instead of the Garlick, and Hee proposes greate Advantages to you by the takeing of it; It is put up carefully in a little white Baskett in two QuartBottles, and sent hence yesterday by William Millett the Taunton Coach-man, who will bee there Thursday next, Pray send for it with the verie first opportunity, sett it in the coolest place in the seller, and take it as Directed; I am perswaded you will find greate Benifitt by it, The Coach-man is Paid two shillings for the Carryage of it by your truly Affectionate and Faithfull Husband Edw: Clarke

2300A. Phillip Bayley to George Stead, 21 August 1697 MS Locke c. 30, fo. 69. Board of Trade letter. In pursuit of information concerning linen manufacture, pursuant to the Board’s plans to promote that industry in Ireland and suppress woollen manufacture, Locke consulted several people, especially his friend Thomas Firmin. The present letter is included because it bears closely on Locke’s enquiries and is preserved among his papers. At fos. 70–5, which are notes by Locke marked ‘Linnin 97’, he mentions three names: Firmin, [Samuel?] Heathcote, and Bayley. He also includes a note on information he had received: ‘A day labourers wages about Drogedah is 3d per diem. Mr. P. Bayly’ (fo. 74). Locke’s activity here was a prel­ ude to a full report to the Board of Trade on 23 August 1697, when Bayley was interviewed (TNA, CO 291/10, p. 211). By way of reply to the present letter Stead sent a report from Lisburn on textile manufacture in Ulster, dated 24 August and read at the Board on the 27th: TNA, CO 388/85; CO 289/10, p. 71. This contains a mass of

1  Clarke wrote on a Saturday, hence expected to take most of the ensuing week to reach Chipley. He generally stayed on the way with the Stringers at Ivychurch near Salisbury.

297

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2310.  W. Molyneux, 11 September 1697 technical information on spinning and looms and urges the promotion of the Irish linen industry. I have not discovered more to identify Bayley or Stead. Locke’s own scheme for promoting the Irish linen industry did not make progress, and the campaign to promote Irish linen soon afterwards focused on the Huguenot projector Louis Crommelin. W.  H.  Crawford, The Impact of the Domestic Linen Industry in Ulster, 2005, p. 25; C.  Gill, The Rise of the Irish Linen Industry, 1925; R.  Hylton, Ireland’s ­Huguenots and the Refuge, 1662–1745, 2005.

Mr. George Stead

    London 21st August 1697 This day our good friend Mr. Thomas Firmin introduced me to John Lock Esq. one of the Lords Commissioners for the Councill of Trade etc who’s very desirous to inform himself what may conduce to the improvement of the Linnen Manufacture in his Majesties Dominions. I acquainted him with the great experience you had of it, therefore. I now have only to signify his present commands of knowing how long your spindles are, and what yards it contains, and the charge of Flax, and spinning it, what numbers of Looms may be now going, and whether the trade is in an improvement or not, and what may contribute to it, which of the Coll〈o〉 〈Hamiltons?〉1 either is, or lately was, (or who els) is carying it on, pray fail not by first, to send me an ample answer, with what further thoughts you have improved for the good of that which you and I both thought, would with prudent management have rendered considerable advantage, to those of his Majesties subjects whose pious intentions should promote it, with respect I am Your loving friend and servant Phill. Bayley Endorsed: Trade. Linin. P. Bayly to G. Stead 21 Aug. 97

2310*.  Locke to William Molyneux, 11 September 1697 (2288, 2311) Karpeles Collection. Endorsed: His Reply to the Bp of Worcester. Book sent to my Brother. Concerning Sir R. Blackmore. Concerning Monsr Le Clerk. Linnen Manufacture. Great Number of Opponents. Answer’d Oct. 4. 97.

1  Col. James Hamilton of Tullymore, Member of the Irish Parliament, 1692–3, 1695–9, 1703–5, who presented a linen bill to the Irish House of Commons on 26 August. Stead’s reply extols Hamilton’s personal efforts in establishing linen manufacture on his own estate. Nos. 2324, 2331, 2407.

298

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2333A.  S. Heathcote, 19 October 1697

2333A. Samuel Heathcote to Locke, 19 October 1697 (2289A, 2333B) HRO, Heathcote Papers, 63M84/248. Copy by two amanuenses. Located and transcribed by J. R. Milton; with additional notes of my own. Board of Trade letter. The letter revisits themes taken up in no. 1996A. It is also closely related to a memorandum by Heathcote on merchant companies, sent to Locke in 1698: MS Locke c. 30, fos. 109–10. The memorandum shows Heathcote’s hostility in general to joint stock companies, as monopolistic. They obstruct free trade; prevent new traders from entering into the business; and, through their ability to command high prices, line their pockets with high dividends and generous company perks and entertainments. Joint stock ‘doth cramp and hinder trade, is a tax upon the people, and an enemy to industry, for certainly trade always makes the greatest improvement, where every man can reap the reward of his own pains and ingenuity’. Monopolies enrich the companies ‘at the expense of the nation’. Where companies exist, they should be required to allow entry to any new trader for a small fee and must avoid ‘debarring any English subject from trade’. Company surpluses might be statutorily taxed, perhaps for the benefit of the new Greenwich Hospital project. However, Heathcote countervails all this by recognising possible exceptions in the case of nationally necessary and risky and expensive ventures (which, in any case, was arguably a chief reason for forming joint stock enterprises). They may be needed (a) to incentivize new trades; (b) where expensive fortifications, garrisons, and diplomats are needed; and (c) where we are in vital competition with other nations, whose merchants have privileges conferred by their own governments, or are simply more cost-efficient. In case (a) monopoly privileges should be time-limited. In case (b) the infrastructural burdens could be borne directly through tax­ation rather than through the companies. In case (c) (where he mentions the Baltic and Hamburg) he stresses the need to require that all trade be carried in English-owned or managed ships. There should be a law ‘to forbid the English merchants the use of foreign ships’. Under the Navigation Acts English and English colonial merchandise had to be carried in English ships. The present letter appears to arise from an earlier scheme by Heathcote in respect of (c); it also voices his objections to companies feather-­bedding their members at the public’s expense.

Mr. Locke1 Sir I have Consider’d those Objections you thought would be made against Establishing by Act of Parliment such Companys of Merchants as I propos’d2 and have sett them down here belowe in their full strength as Near as I could Remember with my Answers to each. 1 Obj: How can the Parliment be assured such Companys will use their Powers to Encourage English and Discourage Forreign shiping 1 Added in Heathcote’s hand, as are the marginal indications ‘Answ’ before each of Heathcote’s replies below. 2  Both these proposals and Locke’s reply seem to be lost, but presumably Heathcote’s gist is in the memorandum, MS Locke c. 30, fos. 109–10.

299

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2333A.  S. Heathcote, 19 October 1697 Answ This objection is in some measure answered in the 35th Para: of my Letter but to Reply more perticularly, It must be Confessed the Parliment can have no Possitive and Certaine assurance of the thing save only from the Reason or Probabillity of it. The Company will ­consider the End for which they are Entrusted with their power and  Necessarily believe they shall be Divested of it In Case they ­missimploy it. And the better to remind them of their Duty and the Parliments design in giveing them that power the reasons may be Inserted in the preamble of their Charters and those Charters Injoyned to be read once or twice yearly in a Generall Court1 yett I will agree that men will be apt to sleight and Dispise all these Considerations when they find it for their Interists to do otherwise for tis that only now adays that Byases mens Actions as we see practised in all our Companys with Joint Stocks but to Restrain the members of the Companys to the use of English shipping cannot prejudice the Interist of any Member at most of very few because every man may freight what English ship he thinks will serve him best and Cheapest and none haveing Liberty to hire Forreign ships they can have no advantage one above another in the Freight nor consequently undersell one another upon the account of Freight and though they should give five shillings per Tonn more Freight in English then they could hire Forreign ships for yett that will be only a Burden upon the Consumer of the Commodityes and not any upon the Merchants Because he will sell his goods so much the Dearer as he pays in Freight and if all men had Liberty to hire what Forreign ships they pleased the Merchants might perhaps gett Cheaper Freight but then he would sell his goods proportionably Cheaper and so the Cheapness of the Freight would be no real advantage to them, for every one would hire Forreign ships one as Cheap as another and the Chief Care of a Merchant is not so much to gett Cheap Freight as not to pay dearer then his Neighbours so that he can come to Markett on Equall Tearms with them. Thus it being not against the Interist of the Members of Companys to be limitted to the use of English shiping there is no Reason to fear they will miss-employ their Power in that behalfe. But it is Evidently the Interist of the Nation that Merchants should employ English rather then forreign ships altho: they should pay 5 sh or 1 Companies were governed by courts made up of governors and assistants. There is a ­reference to ‘courts of assistance’ below.

300

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2333A.  S. Heathcote, 19 October 1697 more per Ton Fraight in the one then in the other for tho the Consumers pay something more for goods imported in English ships yett the Nation saves so much as the forreigner would Receive for Freight which may be Tenn times as much as the Difference is between the Freight of one ship and the other. This advantage besides the Increaseing and imployment of our seamen and shiping and all other Persons that have their Dependance on shiping may Deserve our Consideration. 2 Obj: If such Companys should Restraine their Members to employ English shiping only then forreigners that can Export and Import Goods in their own ships Cheaper then we can in ours will undersell us and bear us out of Trade. Answ This objection shews the usefullness and Necessity of Companys or an Act of Parliment to do that Directly and openly which I propose to be done more secretly easily and undiscoverably by Companys for it is Certaine that whoever Trades upon greater advantages then others will in time beat those others out of Trade and Engross it wholly to themselves. And seeing forreigners have in Divers Respects an Advantage above us in Trade but more Especially in Shipping It is Necessary for us to use all possible Meanes to putt us as Near as may be on a Levill with them which is chiefly to be effected by Laying greater Dutys upon goods Exported and Imported in their Ships than in ours and upon Goods for forreigners accounts than for English Mens accounts. It is plain that if the English Merchants be Left at Liberty to employ what shiping they please they will hire those that will serve them Cheapest which will be Forreign and by that meanes forreign will be Encouraged and ours Neglected and if they be prohibited the use of forreign ships and no Extraordanary Duty laid upon forreign ships or Goods then Indeed the forreigners will have the advantage mentioned in this Second Objection and beat us out of our Trade and Shipping which I hope such Companys as I have proposed would Effectually prevent. 3 Obj: If such Companys should be found Inconvenient useless or abuse their Power It will be Difficult to gett them Disolved when once Established by an Act of Parliament. Answ To Prevent the Difficulty of Disolveing them they may be Established for 5 or 7 yeares only and to Terminate or be Dissolved the End of the first Sesion of Parliament after that term of years or the Act of their Establishment renewed as they shall be found usefull or not. 301

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2333A.  S. Heathcote, 19 October 1697 4 Obj: That all these Mischiefs I propose to Remedy by Companys can be surer easyer and better done by an Act of Parliament. Answ This Objection I thinck is sufficiently answered in the 32d para of my Letter wherein I urge the Conveniency of Cloging and Cramping the Trade and Shipping of Forreigners as much as we can by such Insensible Ways and Methods as they have been accustomed to rather then more directly and openly by such as are New and unusuall. 5 Obj: That Companys with such powers may lay Extravagant Impositions raise a great Stock divide the money among themselves or amongst those that Govern and so the money they raise be made no ways usefull to the publick but Spent to Feast and Enrich private Persons. Answ You will find this Objection in part Obviated in the 35 and 36 para: of my Letter wherein I propose that no Impositions should be laid Encreas’d or Lessn’d without the Consent of the Major part of all the Tradeing Members present in a Generall Court so that freemen of the Company (which will be all English Subjects and Traders) will only have power to Lay impositions and be sure they will not unnecessarily Burthen themselves so that the greatest impositions will be Laid on Forreigners out of which Cheifly their Stocks must be raised. I proposed that the Companys Stock should be Limitted to a Certaine reasonable Summe and what ever is found above that at the End of every year when their Treasurers accounts are audited it shall be paid to such persons and for such uses as the parliament shall by their Act Direct their Expences for eating and Drinking may be limitted to a Certaine Summe if it be thought Needfull they may Likewise be Restrained by their Charters from Divideing any money amongst them selves furthere then may be needfull to Reward the paines and attendance of those Members who are of their Courts of Assistance Committees etc. Also the severall Salarys Grattuitys etc may be limitted to Certaine Summs and when the Members of the Companys can Expect no Advantages to themselves from a great Stock or the Impositions Certainly they will Lay no more then they find Necessary for the support of the Company and the reasonable discouragement of Strangers.1 Sir.2 If I have omitted any Objection you made or not put them so strong as you made them, or not answered any of them to your satisfaction, I beg you would set me right that I may Endeavour to Cleare them to you or acknowledge my Errour. 1  Strangers: aliens, foreigners.    2  The final section of the letter is in another hand.

302

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2333B.  [S. Heathcote], 19 October [1697] Please to note that when I speake of Forreign Ships I mean onely such Ships as belong onely to Forreigners, and not Forreign Ships that belong to the English, of which we have a great number in this Kingdome. I will shortly give you the Exact differance, between the present duty on all our Navall Stores, and what they paid before this last War, which ought to be remedyed, because we are supplyed with most part of our Navall Stores, from those very people that are our Rivalls in shipping,1 whereby may be guess’d the vast differance in the chargeableness of their shipping and ours 19. 8ber 972

2333B.  Locke to [Samuel Heathcote], 19 October [1697] (2333A) HRO, Heathcote Papers, 63M84/249. Year from contents. Located and transcribed by J.  R.  Milton; additional notes by myself. Board of Trade letter. Concerns the wool trade and smuggling. On 14 October Heathcote sent Locke ‘Proposalls to prevent the Exportation of our English Wooll’: MS Locke c. 30, fos. 78–81.

   19 Oct Sir I here with send you back Mr. Tighs3 letter with my thanks to you for it. Here inclosed you also will finde a letter to him which I put into your hands as the surest way I know of conveying it to him it is upon the same subject of Wool, which I know you are a freind to4 and therefor will help all you can. I have read over your paper about the Rumny marsh wool trade5 and shall seeke the first oportunity to discourse you

1  Most naval supplies, especially of timber, came from the Baltic. The government was a­ nxious to lessen strategic dependence on foreign supplies. 2  Date in Heathcote’s hand. 3  Probably Robert Tigh, a merchant in Denmark and English consul at Elsinore. The topic may have been the illegal export of English wool to the Baltic via Scotland, which the Board of Trade investigated. A bill on the subject was offered to Parliament in January 1698. There were further bills on wool exports, in May and December. J. Hoppit, ed., Failed Legislation, 1660–1800, 1997, pp. 218, 224. 4  Locke was much involved with measures to protect the English wool textile manufacturing trade. 5  Romney Marsh, in Kent. Export of raw wool was illegal; Romney Marsh was the chief locale for smuggling, known as ‘owling’, a practice as threatening politically as economically, for it was associated with Jacobite conspiracy. Locke’s colleague Sir Walter Yonge introduced a bill into the Commons in May 1698 for preventing smuggling. Hoppit, Failed Legislation, p. 222; P.  Monod, ‘Dangerous Merchandise: Smuggling, Jacobitism, and Commercial Culture in Southeast England, 1690–1760’, Journal of British Studies, 30 (1991), 150–82.

303

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2333C.  R. Bentley, 21 October 1697 upon it. I thank you for the paper you now send me, and shall be glad to finde you have removed all obstructions for I wish the cure. Tis too long to detein your servant whilst I read and send you my sense on it. I reserve it for our next meeting. I thanke you for your enquiry after my health I thank god I am much better. I am Sir your most humble servant J Locke

2333C. R ichard Bentley to John Evelyn, 21 October 1697 Harvard University, Houghton Library: MS Hyde 77: 9.276.4. Printed in C. Words­ worth, ed., The Correspondence of Richard Bentley, 2 vols., 1842, i. 152. The letter is the sole evidence of Locke’s membership of an apparently regular conversation circle. Richard Bentley (1662–1742), one of the greatest classical scholars and textual critics of the age; BA, Cambridge, 1680; chaplain to Bishop Edward Stillingfleet, 1690; first Boyle Lecturer, 1692; royal librarian, 1694; FRS, 1695; Master of Trinity College, Cambridge, 1700–42. ODNB; K. L. Haugen, Richard Bentley: Poetry and Enlightenment, 2011. This letter is not in The Letterbooks of John Evelyn, eds. D. D. C. Chambers and D. Galbraith, 2 vols., 2014.

   October 21st 1697 My Honoured Friend, I was unwilling to send an empty answer to a letter every way so full of kindness and business of moment. I stayed therefore every day expecting to hear from Mr Took or Mr Place;1 but I am disappointed; and at last obliged to trouble my friend with a few lines about nothing, fearing he should suspect this long delay should procede from other causes. I suppose Mr Took will put off the edition till the sitting of Parliament, and therefore he is in no hast.2 I thank God I had a pleasant time of it in the Country, and left the Bishop of Worcester3 in pretty good health. He is yet uncertain whether he shall come to town this winter. I think I have at last obtained of the Treasury, to repair and augment the King’s Library here.4 Sir Christopher Wren, Mr. Lock, Mr. Newton, etc. (and I hope when in Town Mr Evelyn) are to meet

1  2  3  4 

Benjamin Tooke, bookseller, Fleet Street (mentioned in no. 1515). Place: not traced. Tooke published Evelyn’s Numismata in this year. Parliament sat on 3 December. Edward Stillingfleet, to whom Bentley was chaplain and, earlier, tutor to his son. Bentley was appointed Keeper of the Royal Library in 1693, in succession to Henri Justel.

304

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2336.  Dr T. Molyneux, 25 October 1697 here once or twice a week in the Evening.1 This news I dare say will not be displeasing to you, from your obliged and affectionate Humble Servant R. Bentley Endorsed: Dr. Bently, Library / St James 21 8ber

2336*.  D  r Thomas Molyneux to Locke, 25 October 1697 (1670, 2500*) Carl Pforzheimer Library, Austin, Texas. The letter printed by de Beer contained an enclosure, not printed by him or here. It was a paper, ‘A Letter to the Right Reverend St George [Ashe] Lord bishop of Clogher, Concerning Swarms of Insects that have much Infested some Parts of the Province of Connaught in Ireland’, dated London, 5 October 1697 (but sent to Locke from Dublin). It was read at the Royal Society, 17 November, and published in the Philosophical Transactions, 19 (1697), 741–56. The text is now available in Papers of the Dublin Philosophical Society, 1683–1709, ed. K. T. Hoppen, 2 vols., 2008, i. 283–93.

2376*. Locke to William Molyneux, 10 January 1698 (2360, 2407) Karpeles Collection. Corr., vi. 295, line 27: maintain deleted and replaced by nourish Postscript:

Yonge Mr. Masham returns his service to your son and his thanks for the favour of his remembrance. Postmark: IA 18 Endorsed: His Great Indisposition of late. B[ishop] of Worc. Answer to his 2d Letter. Monsr Coste Tutor to young Mr. Masham. Concerning Hodges2 Book of Coyn and Serjeants Book against the Essay of H. Underst. My Answer to the B of Derry3 approved. Concerning our Linnen Manufac. and Mr. Hamilton.4 No Answer from Monsr Le Clerk. Complement to Mr. Molesworth.5 My Brother’s Discourse concerning Chaffers.6 Young Mr. Mashams compliment to my son.

1  Locke remained in London until some time between 29 November and 4 December. 2  James Hodges, pamphleteer on money, Darien, and the Anglo-Scottish Union. See no. 2194. 3  William King (1650–1729), bishop of Derry, later archbishop of Dublin. Corr., iv. 508n; ODNB. 4  James Hamilton: see no. 2300A. 5 Robert Molesworth (1656–1725), later Viscount Molesworth, Whig politician and ­theorist. Corr., vi. 193n; ODNB. 6  Chaffers: a type of beetle. See Corr., vi. 234–5.

305

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2379A.  Lord Somers, 18 January 1698

2379A.  S ir John Somers, Baron Somers, to [Locke], 18 January 1698 (2338, 2384) Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Historical Society of Pennsylvania: Ferdinand J. Dreer Autograph Collection, no. 175, series 143:2, English Lawyers, pp. 113–14. Miscatalogued as a letter from Somers to Edward Clarke (A Catalogue of the Collection of Autographs Formed by Ferdinand Julius Dreer, 2 vols., 1890–3, ii. 122). Answered by no. 2384. Recovered by Noah McCormack. For Locke’s meeting with the king, see no. 2384. Sadly this letter throws no light on the king’s purposes in wishing to speak with Locke.

   18 Jan Sir The king directed mee to let you know he is desirous to speak with you about a particular business, and desires it may be without losse of time, if your health will permitt: I am with very sincere respect Sir Your most faithfull humble servant Somers Address (mostly lost): Bishops Stortford Essex. Frank: Edw: Clarke Endorsed: L. Chancellor 18 Jan. 97/8

2414*.  Locke to William Molyneux, 6 April 1698 (2407, 2422) Karpeles Collection. Concerns a Huguenot refugee and Molyneux’s and the Mashams’ son. Corr., vi. 367, line 1: for and lived read and I lived Corr., vi. 368, lines 27–8: insert omitted passage:

Monsr Le Fevre the son of the learned Tanaquil le Fevre1 is not long since come into England recommended to me by Mr. le Clerc2 and other friends in Holland. I have not yet seen him. But the Character I  have of him is this. That he is an excellent Scholler, a very good

1  Tanneguy Le Fèvre (Tanaquil Faber), father and son. The father (1615–72) was a professor at the Huguenot academy at Saumur who published numerous editions of classical texts. The son (1658–1717) arrived in England from the Netherlands in November 1697 and corresponded with Locke (nos. 2909 and 3215); he returned to France in 1713 and converted to Catholicism. There are frequent mentions of both elsewhere in the Correspondence. Anne Le Fèvre, later Dacier (1647–1720), the scholar and translator, was the daughter of Tanneguy Sr. See R. Gwynn, The Huguenots in Later Stuart Britain, 3 vols., 2015–23, i. 340–1. 2  No. 2348.

306

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2450A.  J. Blair, 2 June 1698 ­ athematician, very honest and a might well conditiona and large m mind’d man. Soe that of all on this side there is noe manner of question. But withal he is married, is very ill bred and is a sloven. If such an one is for your turn send me word. I should as you know be very glad to serve you. And I shall be very glad to help him.1 Corr., vi. 368, line 32: between thanks for it. and I am insert two omitted paragraphs:

Your sons letter I delivered to his yonge friend here2 who receiv’d it with acknowledgment and desires by me to returne his thanks till he have an opportunity to write an answer himself. But his father mother and sister being now at London this yonge scribe is engaged in more writing than ordinary which must excuse his silence at present. Pray give my humble service to Mr. Burridge. I have let Mr. Churchill know as you desired how the translation goes3 and think he may expect a part of it in a little time. Endorsed: Concern’d at his Disappointment at [not] seeing me. Answer ready for the Press. Relating to the Parliament of England binding Ireland. Concerning Monsr Le Fevre. Service to my Brother. Sons letter delivered to Mr. Masham. Service to Mr. Burridge. Answer’d Apr. 19. 98. Resolved to see him as soon as the Parlt of England rises. Intimation of my Booke. Shall see Monsr Le Fevre when I come to London. My ­brothers service. His discourse on the Giants causeway. Mr. Burridges Progress.

2450A. James Blair to Francis Nicholson, 2 June 1698 Papers Relating to an Affidavit Made by his Reverence James Blair, Clerk, Pretended President of William and Mary College, and Supposed Commissary to the Bishop of ­London in Virginia, against Francis Nicholson, Esq., Governour of the said Province [London?], 1727, pp. 84–5. Printed in P. Rouse, James Blair of Virginia, 1971, p. 113. Manuscript not traced. Board of Trade letter. The letter congratulates Nicholson on his appointment as governor of Maryland and rejoices in the overthrow of Governor Edmund Andros. As Blair reports, Locke was one of the principal instruments in achieving this outcome. The letter relates to Locke’s work with Blair in producing their joint memorandum ‘The Grievances of Virginia’, which in turn shaped the government’s Instructions to the new governor. It also augments the evidence of Blair’s and Nicholson’s letters to Locke: nos. 2237, 2380, 2446, 2543, 2545, 2622, 2626. It is prob­ ably to this letter that Nicholson refers in no. 2543. For Blair and Nicholson, see Corr., vi. 74, 302; Rouse, James Blair. Blair later fell out with Nicholson and engineered his dismissal from the governorship; the tract of 1727 is an indictment of Blair’s perfidy

a  Thus in the MS 1  Molyneux’s response is in no. 2422. 3  Ezekiel Burridge’s Latin translation of Locke’s Essay.

307

2  Frank Masham.

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2450A.  J. Blair, 2 June 1698 and betrayal of Nicholson. For Blair (1655/6–1743), clergyman, founder of William and Mary College, see, besides Rouse, ODNB. Nicholson (1655–1728) was lieutenant ­governor of New England, 1688, of Virginia, 1690; lieutenant governor, 1692–4, and governor of Maryland, 1694–8; of Virginia, 1698–1705; see Corr., vi. 74; ODNB.

   London, June 2, 1698 May it please Your Excellency, After many Letters that I have sent Your Excellency, giving You an Account only of tedious Attendance and Dependance, this comes at last, with the good News that Sir Edmond Andros1 is called home, and his Majesty on Sunday last named Your self Governour of Virginia,2 of which all your Friends here wish You great Joy, and I am sure none more than my self: I am further to acquaint You, that you have not only gotten the Government, but have obtained it in the most honourable manner that ever Government was obtained, that is, that directly not indirectly it does not cost you one Farthing to any Favourite; that You have been recommended to it by Persons of the greatest Worth and Reputation, such as are far above the Suspicion of dealing in any dishonourable Way, and that it is purely the Strength of Your own good Character, that hath prevailed over the Suggestions of all Your Enemies. To give you the perfect History of it, would require a Volume; but in short, the Persons You have been most obliged to, and to whom I hope You will return Your Thanks with the first Opportunity, are my Lord Arch-Bishop of Canterbury, my Lord Chancellor, my Lord Bishop of London, my Lord Bishop of Salisbury, the Earl of Bridgwater,3 and Doctor Lock. Sir, Your Excellency’s most Humble and Obliged Servant, James Blair

1  Edmund Andros (1637–1714); governor of New York, 1674–83; of the Dominion of New England, 1686–89; of Virginia, 1692–8. ODNB. 2  The Board of Trade was informed of the appointment on 1 June; the Board (Locke cosigning) formally informed Nicholson on 23 August: Calendar of State Papers, Colonial: America and West Indies, 1697–1698, nos. 527, 766. 3  Respectively, Thomas Tenison, John Somers, Henry Compton, Gilbert Burnet, John Egerton.

308

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2471.  W. Molyneux, 9 July 1698

2471*.  Locke to William Molyneux, 9 July 1698 (2422, 2490) Karpeles Collection. Postmark: JY 9 Endorsed: Hopes to see me in London.

2473*. Locke to Nicolas Toinard, 14 July 1698 (2470, 2476) Morgan Library and Museum, New York, MS 4500. Facsimile copy in the Library of Congress, MMC, mm 79002851. De Beer’s transcription was derived from a copy made c.1871; the Morgan Library acquired the original in 1987. The de Beer version differs in very minor details, so a new transcription is unnecesary. The recovery of the original and facsimile is owed to Felix Waldmann.

2479A. Locke to Cornelius Lyde, 28 July 1698 (2463, 2548A). BL, RP 3448/1. Text available as a photocopy among the British Library’s ‘Copies of Exported Manuscripts Deposited under Government Export Regulations’. Present owner unknown.

    London 28 July 98 Sir Though the letter you did me the favour to send me back was out of its way when it came to week:1 yet the place it was dated from I hoped might give you notice that I was in town, which was all the business the letter I designed for you that post had to trouble you with. Pray give my service to your son the Doctor2 and let him know I shall stay in town as long as my health will permit me. And I shall be very glad of doing him any service I can here or any where else. I am Sir your very humble servant John Locke Address: For Cornelius Lyde Esq at Stanton Week. To be left at Mr. Codringtons in High Street Bristoll.

1  Week: Stanton Wick, Somerset.    2  Dr Samuel Lyde. See no. 2463.

309

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2479B.  M. Lockhart, 30 July 1698

2479B. M artha Lockhart to [Locke], 30 July 1698 (2365, 2517) MS Locke c. 15, fo. 120. This is a formal receipt by Lockhart recording the return to her by Locke of diamonds she pawned to him in 1692. A number of letters in their cor­res­ pond­ence, both in 1692 and 1698, relate to this transaction: nos. 1520, 1546–8, 2253, 2362, 2365. See especially de Beer’s note at iv. 491. In the near absence, at that period, of retail banking facilities, complex networks of credit existed among the moneyed. Locke’s loan in respect of these diamonds was of £200. As early as May 1697 Lockhart was speaking of recovering her diamonds (no. 2253). She recompensed Locke with excise tallies. For Lockhart, who had been one of Queen Mary’s bedchamber women, see Corr., iv. 122. For a rumour that she might marry Locke, see no. 1735B.

Know all men by these Presents, that I Martha Lockhart of the Parish of Saint James’s Westminster in the County of Middlesex Spinster have had and Received the day of the date hereof of John Locke of Highlaver in the County of Essex Esqr one Table Diamond weight six caracks1 unset, and one long Diamond set in a silver collet,2 which by Indentum3 bearing date the eighth day of October Anno Domini 1692 were by me the said Martha Lockhart Morgaged to the said John Locke, of all which said Diamonds, and of every action and demand touching the same I the said Martha Lockhart do by these pre­ sents acquit, Release, and Discharge the said John Locke, his Executors and Administrators, And Be it farther Known by these presents, That I the said Martha Lockhart for me, My Heirs, Executors, and Administrators, and every and each of them, do remise,4 release, and quitclaime unto the said John Locke his heirs, Executors, and Administrators, and every and each of them, all actions, dues and demands whatsoever from the beginning of the World to the Day of the Date hereof; In witness whereof I have hereunto put my hand and seale this Thirtieth Day of July Anno Domini 1698 Anno regni Domini Gulielmi Tertii regis etc. Decimo Signed, Sealed, and Delivered in the presence of J. Cutts5 Tho: Reyner6 Martha Lockhart Endorsed: M. Lockhart. Release. 30 Jul. 98

1 Carracks: carats.   2 Collet: collar.   3  Indentum: indenture. 4  Remise: surrender (of property). 5  Her cousin Colonel John Cutts (1661–1707); created Baron Cutts, 1690; soldier. Corr., iv. 136; ODNB. 6  Not identified.

310

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2492.  W. Molyneux, 29 September 1698

2492*.  Locke to William Molyneux, 29 September 1698 (2490) Karpeles Collection. Concerning Sir Godfrey Kneller’s portraits. Molyneux died on 11 October. Corr., vi. 484, line 1: insert omitted paragraph:1

That I may not be thought negligent in the small emmissions2 you left with me I must tell that your Moreries3 were presently sent to Mr. Churchills. But for your picture I have not yet seen it nor Sir Godfry since you went. The next day after your departure4 being appointed for my next sitting he sent me word in the morning that he was taken up that day but would send to me when he was next at ­leisure. This hinder’d me from going to him for your picture for some days for fear I should seem to offer my self to him to sit again. After about ten days stay or more he sent me one morning my picture of you and with it word that yours was not yet quite finished and that he was going out of town that very afternoon to the Dutchess of Graftons.5 Soe that matter stands. As soon as I can learn that he is returned I shall goe to him for your picture.6

1  This passage is alluded to in no. 2495.    2  Emissions: sendings forth, errands. 3  Louis Moréri, Grand dictionnaire historique (1674). LL 2051; a book recommended by Locke in his ‘Thoughts Concerning Reading and Study for a Gentleman’ (1703). 4  His departure date is not known; he reached Dublin on 15 September. 5  Isabella Bennet, daughter of the first earl of Arlington, widow of Henry Fitzroy, first duke of Grafton. Locke visited her in 1697. See L2327. 6  It can be deduced from this passage and the one below in no. 2501* that there were three portraits involved. There was to be one each of Locke and Molyneux, so that each might have the likeness of the other. In addition, Molyneux ordered a second picture of himself. But none of these was ready by the time Molyneux left London. It appears that Kneller delivered to Locke the first portrait of Molyneux (below, no. 2501*) but that neither the second nor the portrait of Locke himself was ever delivered. As regards the last, this letter adds to our scant information on the Kneller portraits of Locke (discussed by de Beer at Corr., viii. 447–8). It was known that Locke was painted by Kneller for Anthony Collins in 1704 and that there was a previous sitting for Kneller (viii. 389). This earlier portrait must be the one which Kneller sold to Alexander Geekie in 1703 (vii. 754) and which is now in the Hermitage in St Petersburg. It is inscribed on the back ‘1697’, the date attributed to it by the engraver George Vertue. However, Locke’s remarks in this letter show that 1697 is wrong by one year: Locke sat for Kneller while Molyneux was in England between July and early September 1698. An alternative explanation, that there was a third Kneller of Locke, seems improbable, for Locke is unlikely to have sat twice in so short a time, and in 1704 he mentions only one previous sitting. The reference here to the duchess of Grafton is puzzling, since Kneller’s several pictures of her apparently date from c.1685–92; again, the record from other sources may be inaccurate. See J. D. Stewart, Sir Godfrey Kneller and the English Baroque Portrait, 1983.

311

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2495A.  Lady Masham, 14 October 1698

2495A.  L ady Masham, formerly Damaris Cudworth, to Peter King, later first Baron King, 14 October 1698 (3368A) Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Historical Society of Pennsylvania: Ferdinand J. Dreer Autograph Collection, 175/106/1, p. 17. Transcribed from photograph. Identified by Noah McCormack. Peter King (c.1669–1734), Locke’s cousin, was a lawyer, Member of Parliament, and later Lord Chancellor; see Corr., i. 414; ODNB; History of Parliament online.

    Oates October 14th 1698 I am much obliged to you for the favour you have done me in reference to the action1 bought in the Bank2 for my Mother’s Trustees:3 Mr. Locke sends me word that you will have received 7l for me for a Dividend upon that account: and that you desire to know what I would have done with the money. I pray you therefore to pay it to Mr. Awnsham Churchill who receives all my money for me. Frank4 tells me that you was extreamly kind to him when he was in Town. I have great reason to be satisfied, from the many favours I receive from you, that you doe not forget me, but I hope I shall have yet further assurances of it as to see you here, as soon as ever your affairs will permitt of it. I depend upon you for hastening Mr. Locke out of Town,5 I really think it absolutely necessary to his health, if not the safety of his Life that he should come away this year before he begins to be sensibly worse; for he does not of late recover as he uses to doe formerly. Mr.  Coste tells me that after he was used to him,6 he thought him pretty well in Town; but that the first night he saw him (when it was that he could judge best) he thought he looked much worse then he uses to doe at Oates. Sir Francis and all here send you their humble services. I am Sir, Your much obliged and faithfull servant Da Masham    October 14 1698 Sir I understand by Mr. Locke that you will doe me the favour to receive the money that is coming to me on account of the Actions I have in the 1  3  4  5 

Action: a share in a joint stock company.    2  Of England. Locke, Clarke, and Bishop Edward Fowler. Her son, Francis Cudworth Masham. Locke left London for Oates on 25 October.    6  Thus in the MS.

312

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2500.  Dr T. Molyneux, 27 October 1698 Bank. I Desire you will be pleased to pay it to Mr. Awnsham Churchill. I am, Sir Your obliged humble servant D Masham Address: For Mr. Peter King

2500*.  Locke to Dr Thomas Molyneux, 27 October 1698 (2336*, 2514) Karpeles Collection. Endorsed: answered the 26th of Novemb. 1698.

2501*. Locke to Ezekiel Burridge, 27 October 1698 (2495, 2677) Formerly in the Karpeles Collection; sold at auction at Bonham’s, London, 12 June 2018, Lot 25, for £15,471. Image available online at: https://www.bonhams.com/­ auctions/24895/lot/25. Present ownership unknown. Concerns Kneller’s portraits. For Burridge, colleague of William Molyneux in Dublin, see Corr., v. 440. Corr., v. 499, lines 26–7: insert omitted paragraph:

As to the picture which it seems you there know noe thing of but by my letter.1 After he had done me the favour to sit to Sir Godfry Kneller for his picture for me which I have He sat for another for himself. The  face being done before he went to Ireland,2 he paid Sir Godfry for the picture3 and his man4 for a frame for it and for a box to pack it in. Soe that there was noe thing more to be done than for Sir Godfry to finish it and then for me to take it ready packed in to my custody and  send it to Mr. Churchill to be conveyd to him at Dublin. Mr. Molyneux and I thought all this would have been done in a few days but soe it is fallen out that the picture is not yet finished. I spoke to Sir Godfry of it my self before I came out of town5 who told me it would be done in two or three days. I have left it in the care of one in

1  This refers to a portrait by Kneller of Molyneux. See no. 2495. 2  Kneller’s assistants generally painted the background and drapery. 3  Kneller typically charged 15 guineas for a head. 4  Probably John Pieters, assistant and factotum to Kneller from 1685 to 1712. Lord Killanin, Sir Godfrey Kneller and his Times, 1640–1723, 1948, p. 51. 5  Locke left London on 25 October.

313

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2504.  N. Toinard, 1 November 1698 town1 to looke after it who as soon as it is finished and packd up will put it into Mr. Churchills hands. There you will find when you come to town that parta of your Translation that you sent over.2 Winter and my ill lungs drove me hither two days since. I received the unwelcome news in your letter the night before I came out of town. Postscript:

Pray doe me the favour to deliver the inclosed.3 Address: For Mr. Ezekiel Burridge at my Lord Chancellors house in Dublin4 Postmark: NO1

2504*.  Locke to Nicolas Toinard, 1 November 1698 (2497, 2550) Sale catalogue: Christie’s: Albin Schram Collection of Autograph Letters, 3 July 2007 (sale no. 7411, lot no. 524). De Beer relied on summaries in two older catalogues, dating from 1965–6. A fuller summary, as well as a (poor) photographic reproduction of the recto of the letter, became available from the 2007 sale. The recoverable text is given below. Material from the first and third pages (for which the texts are complete) is transcribed from the photograph; from the second page, from the catalogue summary (comprising extracts). The catalogue summaries indicate that the topics of the letter include Locke’s concern at Toinard’s silence; Toinard’s scheme for dulcifying seawater; Locke has given the French ambassador a map of Pennsylvania; he is working on the fourth edition of the Essay; in London he was printing his latest answer to Stillingfleet; the choir of St Paul’s Cathedral has been completed; the French translation of Some Thoughts Concerning Education has been well received. The new source was identified by Felix Waldmann, who supplied the transcription and annotation: ‘Additions to de Beer’s Correspondence of John Locke’, Locke Studies, 15 (2015), 31–52, at 46–9. [first page:]

    Oates 1 Nov 1698 Le surcharge des affairs et le peu de santé que j’avais pendant j’etois à Londres m’empechait de vous ecrire de cette ville. A cette heur que ma retraite m’a donne du temps mon premier employ à la campagne est de vous remercier de la pein que vous avez prise de me procurer les a  that part interlined and such deleted. 1 Sylvester Brounower. On 15 November Brounower reported that ‘your picture and Mr Molyneux’s are neither of them yet finish’d at Sir Godfrey’s, but are promis’d to be speedily’: no. 2508. 2  The Latin translation of Locke’s Essay. 3  No. 2500, to Dr Thomas Molyneux. 4  The Irish Lord Chancellor was John Methuen.

314

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2504.  N. Toinard, 1 November 1698 Remarques de Monsieur Daucour,1 et des honetetes que vous fite à Monsieur le Major Masham2 et en meme temps de me plaindre de votre silence.3 Monsieur l’Abè du Bos par une lettre qu’il me fit lhoneur de m’ecrire de Bruxelles4 me fit comprendre que vous aviez recue la mine ecrite de Londres en Aout.5 Depuis ce temps la Je n’ay point recu de vos nouvelles dont je suis fort en pein. Votre mort me seroit un terrible pert, et si vous ne vous souvenez plus de moy ce n’est guere moins. Je vive en esperance de meilleurs nouvelles de jour à autre. En attendant permettez moy de vous dire que je n’ai pas negligè vos commandements pendant que j’etois en ville j’ay taché de m’informer de dulcorata aquâ salsâ6 et j’ay trouvè qu’on l’a negligè comme une chose tout à fait inutile, quia aqua eo modo dulcorata non erat operae pretium;7 et que c’est aussi facile de porter en mer une suffisant quantité d’eau que de porter une suffisant quantité de bois ou des charbons necessaire pour distiller l’eau. La machine de à tirer les naviers dans la Tamise est negligèe par la même raison parcequ’elle est inutile dans des  occasions ou on en a besoin. On a trouvé par experience si le vent soufle un peu fort cette machine ne serve de rien si bien qu’on ne s’en serve, même on n’en parle plus. Avant que de partir de Londres je mis entre le mains de Monsieur Verniete secretair del’Ambassadeur de France8 une Charte de pensylvania, qu’il m’a promis de vous fair tenir 〈indecipherable〉a par la premiere occasion. Quousque tandem silebit harmonia9 le monde l’attend avec impatience. Entre autres de mes occupations a Londres l’une etoit de fair imprimer une reponse à un de nos Eveques10 sur une chicanerie qu’il

a  Two words here are difficult to read: à Paris or à prises are possibilities 1 Probably Jean Barbier d’Aucour, Remarques sur deux discours prononcés à l’Académie Françoise sur le rétablissement de la santé du Roy, le 27 janvier 1687, Paris, 1688. LL 919. 2  Major Henry Masham: see no. 677*. Also nos. 1003, 2458, 2465. 3  Toinard’s letter to Locke is not extant.    4 No. 2489.   5  No. 2483. 6  Toinard discusses dulcifying seawater in nos. 2373, 2393 (‘ce seroit une des plus importantes decouvertes de nos jours’), and 2454. 7  ‘Since water dulcified in that way was not worth the effort.’ 8  Jean-Baptiste Rousseau (1671–1741), playwright and poet, was, under the name Verniette, secretary to Camille d’Hostun, comte de Tallard, who served as French ambassador to London, 1698–1701 (Corr., vi. 487–9). 9  ‘For how much longer will the harmonia remain unheard of ?’—i.e. Toinard’s posthumously published Evangeliorum harmonia Graeco-Latina, Paris, 1707. LL 2934. 10 Locke, Mr Locke’s Reply to the Right Reverend the Lord Bishop of Worcester’s Answer to his Second Letter, 1699.

315

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2523.  E. Elys, 16 December 1698 m’a fit sur quelques passages dans mon Essay touchant l’entendement humain [second page:]

Je suis à cette heur empêché dans la revision de mon Essay pour la quatrieme edition qu’on en fera ausitot que je l’aurai achevée mais ma santé fort abatue ne me permette pas travailler à quoi que ce soit que fort lentement. Quant cette besogne sera hors de mes mains je pretend de lire les traités que vous m’avez envoiez sur le paque . . .1 J’avois oublié de vous marquer . . . que l’Eglise de St Pol etoit vitrée, (c’est à dire le Choeur qui est tout qui en est encore achevé et qui sera achevé de plusieur annees) avant que j’arivois à Londres et je ne vois pas qu’on s’en serve de vitraux colorés . . . Je vous ai beaucoup d’obligation du soin que vous avez pris de remarquer quelques defauts dans la version de mon traité de l’Education des Enfans,2 on y prendra garde dans une autre edition . . . Vous avez fait parler en votre journal de s­ cavants3 si avantagieusement de ce petit ouvrage . . . [third page:]

Je prie Monsieur de Bos de me fair la grace de m’envoyer les peices du  Theatre que son ami Monsieur Verniete à publies.4 Il n’a que les  addresser à Monsieur Pigault marchand à Calais pour fair tenir à  Sir  Thomas Franklin5 master of the post office in London / For Mr. Locke Address: A Monsieur / Monsieur Toinard chez Monsieur des Noyers devant l’Espèe royale dans la rüe Mazarin à Paris

2523*.  Edmund Elys to Locke, 16 December 1698 De Beer printed this letter from the original manuscript: MS Locke c. 8, fos. 70–1, and speculated that Elys also published the letter. He did. It appeared as the first item in Observations on Several Books. I. A Letter to Mr. Lock, never Answer’d, by Edmund Elys, sometime Fellow of Baliol Colledge in Oxford. II. A Refutation of some of the false Conceits in Mr. Lock’s Essay concerning Humane Understanding. III. A Brief Answer to the Argumentation of Gerardus de Vries against the Innate Idea of God. IV. An Answer to Six Arguments produced by Du-Pin, to prove that Passage in Josephus’s (in which there is such honourable mention of Jesus Christ) to be spurious; together with some Reflections

1  i.e. ‘paquebot’. ‘les traités’ unidentified. 2  No. 2470. 3  Journal des Sçavans, 1698, pp. 177–80. Cf. no. 2480. 4  Cf. LL 2504a, 3072–3. 5 Sir Thomas Frankland or Franklin (1665–1726), joint postmaster general, 1691–1715; Member of Parliament, 1685–1711. Corr., iv. 213; History of Parliament Online.

316

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2527A.  H. Wetstein, [1698] on a Passage in Cornelius Tacitus; and another in one of Pliny’s Epistles concerning the Christian Religion, 1700. There are only two known surviving copies, at the Beinecke Library, Yale, and at Abbotsford, Scotland. Aside from variations in punctuation and orthography, the printed version is the same as that used by de Beer, except that (a) it begins ‘Sir’ rather than ‘Mr. Lock’; (b) it erroneously omits ‘Souls’ before ‘Immateriality’; (c) its valediction closes ‘Love of the Truth’, which is surely correct, instead of de Beer’s and the manuscript’s ‘Love of the Love’; (d) Elys’s Totnes address is omitted; (d) it is dated ‘1699’, whereas the manuscript clearly has ‘98’. I am grateful to the Abbotsford Trust and the Advocates Library, Edinburgh. For Elys, Nonjuring clergyman, see Corr., vi. 527; ODNB.

2527A. Hendrik Wetstein to Locke, [1698] (2103) Bodl., shelfmark Locke 9.137: bound in with a copy of an Amsterdam edition of ­Aesop’s Fables, 1698 (LL 2293). In the hand of the Amsterdam bookseller Wetstein: compare no. 1831. The invoice covers purchases (in Dutch guilders; f = florin) from July 1696 to August 1698 and comprises several issues of the scholarly journal Acta Eruditorum, together with the Aesop and one other book. It is apparent from this invoice that Locke continued to acquire volumes of the Acta after 1694, notwithstanding what is recorded in Locke’s library catalogue. For Wetstein’s transmission of the first seven entries, see no. 2330; receipt of the four 1697 entries was recorded by Locke in his journal: MS Locke f. 10, p. 365. The recovery of this item, transcription, and notes are owed to Felix Waldmann: ‘Additions to de Beer’s Correspondence of John Locke’, Locke Studies, 15 (2015), 31–52, at 42–3. For Wetstein, see Corr., ii. 618, and R. Maber, ed., Publishing in the Republic of Letters: The Ménage-Graevius-Wetstein Correspondence, 1679– 1692, 2005.

1696 / 7. Juillet par le Mre d’un navire Ary 〈Huyberttz〉a a l’adresse de Messieurs Churchill.

Envoyé a Monsieur Lock par Henry Wetstein d’Amsterdam. 1. acta Lips 1694 Julius usque december 1. ditto 1695. Compl. 1. Supplement Vm usque Xm 1697 / 10. Juillet par Mons. Mortier1 1. acta Lipsiens 1696. Compl. 1. ditto 1697. Jan usque april 1. II Supplem. Sect XI. and XII. 1. ditto III Supplem. Sect. I

f 1:10 f 3: f 1:10 f 6: f 3: f 1: f 0:10 f 0:05 f 4:15 -

a  Spelling conjectural 1  David Mortier (1673–c.1722), Amsterdam bookseller operating in London, c.1696–c.1711. Corr., vi. 228.

317

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2539.  Dr T. Molyneux, 25 January 1699 1698 / augusti par mon frere1 1. ditto 1697 May usque Xbr 1. ditto III Supplem. Sect II and III

f 2: f 0:10 f 2:10 13:05 f 2:15 f 1:10 f 17:10 -

1. Phaedrus Gudij et variorum2 1. Fournier Geographia 8o.3 Endorsed: Wetsteins bill 98

2539*.  Locke to Dr Thomas Molyneux, 25 January 1699 (2514, 2589) Karpeles Collection. The original is damaged. Locke’s retained copy of this letter, probably in the hand of James Dorington, was sold at Sotheby’s, New York, on 3–4 December 2015, Collection of Robert S. Pirie, Lot 525, and acquired by the Bodleian Library: MS Eng. C. 8376. It reveals no amendments to de Beer’s version, other than in accidentals. Image of the copy online: https://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/­ ecatalogue/2015/property-collection-robert-s-pirie-books-manuscripts-n09391/ lot.525.html Corr., vi. 553, lines 7–25: these two paragraphs were omitted in Some Familiar Letters, but were supplied by de Beer from a nineteenth-century transcription. Postmark: IA 31

2548A.  Locke to Cornelius Lyde, 16 February 1699 (2479A, 2560) MS Locke d. 14, fos. 1–2. Offered for sale, 1993, by Thoemmes Antiquarian Books of Bristol; again in 2004, by Roy Davids, Great Haseley, Oxfordshire; and once more on 29 March 2011, by Bonham’s of London (lot 369; price achieved, £8,400), from which sale it was acquired by the Bodleian Library. Answered by no. 2560. Printed and discussed in J. C. Walmsley, ‘Locke’s Agent Cornelius Lyde: A New Letter in the Bodleian Library’, Locke Studies, 11 (2011), 107–22. The letter, which is nagging in tone, is to the steward of Locke’s small estate in Somerset and mainly concerns an offer to help find a placement for Lyde’s son Samuel, who was considering a medical career: see no. 2463.

1  Johan Lucas Wetstein (1663–1711). Corr., iii. 784; vi. 227. 2  This is the book mentioned in the headnote: Phaedri . . . Fabularum Aesopiarum. LL 2293. 3  Georges Fournier, Geographica, Paris, 1667. LL 1160.

318

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2548A.  C. Lyde, 16 February 1699 Text courtesy of Thoemmes Books, though it is now available in the Bodleian. An image of the verso may be seen online: http://www.bonhams.com/eur/auction/ 19386/lot/369/.

    Oates 16 Feb 98/9 Sir Though constant fulnesse of businesse left me little spare time for my private affairs whilst I was in town and want of health since hath made me have little inclination to any businesse yet I had certainly writ to you before this time had I not all along flatterd my self that possibly the next weeke still might bring me a letter from you. Besides my own affairs which I was loath to importune you with questions about, since I concluded you would write when you thought it fit for me to be informed how they stood, there was an other reason that made me wish to hear from you. Before I came out of town I spoke to a physitian or two of my friends eminent practitioners in the town who had promised me one of them to shew your sona his practise and medicines whenever he would come to him, and the other after some time when he had more conveniently setled a business he had then upon his hands. Had your son come to me before I came out of town I had immediately introducd him to one of them. But not seeing him of some time before I came away, and your note he left of his lodging being mislaid soe that I could not send to him, that failed for that time, but my friends will I doubt not be ready still to assist him. I beg the favour of you to give my Cosin Mary Doleman1 twenty shillings from me and you will adde to the kindnesse of it if in your next you will inform me not only of her husband in what condition he is but also concerning her sons2 what ways of living they are in and after what rate they live. I hope all my michaelmas rents are paid before this time. I am Sir your very affectionate humble servant J Locke a him deleted and your son inserted 1  Née Bonville; several times recipient of gifts from Locke. 2  De Beer’s genealogical table of Locke’s relations (Corr., i. endpaper) indicates one son; it is clear from this letter and from no. 2560 that Mary Dolman had at least two.

319

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2580A.  E. Clarke, [2 May 1699] My humble service to Mrs. Strachy to her son and daughter1 and to my Cosin Lyde2 and the rest of my friends and relations in your neighbourhood. Address: For Cornelius Lyde Esq at Stanton Weeke To be left at Mr. Codringtons in High Street Bristoll. Postmark: FE 〈number torn〉 Endorsed: A letter of Mr. Lock’s dated 16 Feb 1698/9

2580A.  Edward Clarke to Locke, [2 May 1699] (2575, 2585) Bodl.: fragment (mainly left-hand edge) of a letter found loose at pp. 34–5 of Locke’s copy of John Woodward, An Essay toward a Natural History of the Earth, 1695 (LL 3179; shelfmark Locke 8.42a). Undated, but it must be the letter of 2 May 1699 mentioned in the endorsement of no. 2575 (Corr., vi. 609) and answered by Locke on 5 May, no. 2585. The fragment concerns Edward Clarke Jr’s depressive illness; he had probably attempted suicide; he died by his own hand in 1705. The fragment suggests he was beginning to recover. The doctor referred to is probably Robert Pitt (1653–1713), whom Locke had advised should be consulted (Corr., vi. 608; for Pitt, see Corr., vii. 424; ODNB). Edward Jr was now aged eighteen. Located and transcribed by Peter Anstey.

Dear Sir, My last of the 26th of A melancholly Relation of my eldest son, I thinke -ally knowing your Concer and mine to acquaint y Almighty God on the Doct is a greate alteration f that Letter, And Doctor the child is now pass and care will Restore His and understanding, which Wife and my other Childr    will not bee long    er from Her    ompany, had    day Greate Si    to pay m 1  Jane Strachey and her children John and Elizabeth; she was the widow of Locke’s friend John Strachey. Corr., i. 54. 2  The Lydes’ relationship to Locke is unknown.

320

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2587A.  E. Clarke, 13 May 1699

2587A.  Locke and Edward Clarke to Peter King, 13 May 1699 (2584, 2620) MS Locke c. 16, fos. 49–50. In Locke’s hand. Masham Trust. The trustees were required to authorize financial transactions, though in practice she acted independently. By a letter of 11 April (fo. 46) Masham had asked the trustees’ permission to put money into the Bank of England. See Introduction, pp. xxx–xxxi above, for the Masham Trust letters. By a letter of 14 November King was instructed to transfer this stock to John Churchill (MS Locke c. 16, fos. 57–8); see also no. 2650A. Note the practice by which King acted as a proxy for others’ investments.

   13 May 1699 Sir We desire you to pay to the Lady Masham or her order all sums of money that you have or shall receive as the Dividend produce or Interest of the two hundred and ten pounds stock of ours in your name in the Bank of England we rest Sir your very humble servants Edw: Clarke John Locke Address: For Peter King of the Middle Temple Esqr. To be left at Mr. Potmans in the Middle Temple London Postmark: MA 17 Endorsed by King: May 13. 1699. Mr. Lockes and Mr. Clarks order to pay to the order of my Lady Masham

2588.*  Alexander Cunningham to Locke, 15 May 1699 Biographical identification. The name Alexander Cunningham frequently appears in the Correspondence, between 1691 and 1700. There is one extant letter, from Cunningham to Locke, 15 May 1699 (no. 2588). De Beer assumed that all references elsewhere were to the same Cunningham, but in fact there were two. The confusion is unsurprising. The two men were often confused by their contemporaries. They were related, had similar backgrounds, lived parallel lives, and knew many of the same people. In 1697 both Cunninghams carried books from England for Leibniz, and Leibniz plaintively asked Thomas Burnett, ‘Give me a method, Sir, of distinguishing between these two Messieurs Synonymes’ (18 May 1697: Opera Omnia, vi. 249–55). Both are in the ODNB, where confusion persists. Both were sons of Scottish clergymen, both were educated at Edinburgh and in Holland, both served as tutors abroad to the sons of aristocrats. (It was said in Germany that ‘Cunningham’ was the English word for a travelling tutor.) An Alexander Cunningham appears in the Correspondence in 1691, when Locke recommended him to Edward Clarke as a tutor. Instead, he became tutor in 1692 to

321

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2588.  A. Cunningham, 15 May 1699 James Carmichael, son of the first earl of Hyndford, and later second earl; and in 1696 was apparently with Lord Paulet. He was known to Locke through Martha Lockhart. This and references down to 1696 (Corr., iv. 328, 339, 356, 738, 778, 792, 796–7) are probably to this same man, where the context is generally placements in households and a connection with Lockhart. This man is probably the historian and diplomat who lived from 1654 to 1737. He was British envoy to Venice, 1715–19 and author of a Latin History of Great Britain from the Revolution of 1688 to the Accession of George the First, published posthumously in English translation in 1787. The references in 1692 cannot have been to the other Alexander Cunningham, for he was in Italy that year, as tutor to Lord George Douglas, son of the duke of Queensberry. The second Alexander Cunningham is the more significant of the two, including for Locke, who entertained him at Oates in 1699. He was a civil lawyer, critic, and bibliophile, who lived from c.1655 to 1730. He was professor of civil law at Edinburgh, 1698–1710, planned to prod­uce a critical edition of the Digest, and published an edition of Horace in 1721. He was also an expert chess player and gives his name to ‘Cunningham’s Defence’. Early in the new century he was resident in The Hague, while retaining his Edinburgh chair; he may have been involved in intelligence work. His conversations with Locke were mainly theological. He is the author of letter no. 2588. All the references to Cunningham in the Correspondence from 1697 to 1700 are almost certainly to this man (vol. vi, pp. 86, 399, 590, 591, 624, 638, 647, 661, 663; vol. vii, pp. 88–9, 100, 123). It is not clear how Locke came to know him: perhaps at Utrecht in 1686; they had a mutual friend in J. G. Graevius. Locke probably knew him by February 1697, when Cunningham joined Thomas Burnett of Kemnay as a conduit of Leibniz’s ideas to Locke (Opera Omnia, vi. 243; Locke, Corr., no. 2243). The letters show Cunningham travelling to Holland in 1699, where he met Jean-Baptiste Du Bos and Limborch in Amsterdam. There is a lost letter by Locke to him, written on 9 May 1698 (Corr., vi. 399). Cunningham served also as a book agent, acquiring books and manuscripts on the Continent for collectors in England. He served Bishop John Moore of Norwich in this role (probably during the 1699 journey), selling him the bishop’s most spectacular possession, an eighth-century manuscript of Bede’s Historia ecclesiastica. Another client was Charles Spencer, third earl of Sunderland, in the ­period 1703–13; yet another was his friend Andrew Fletcher of Saltoun. Cunningham served Locke in this way too. In his Journal, Locke records paying Cunningham £15 10s for ‘books which he bought for me in Holland’ (MS Locke f. 10: 21 and 23 August, 15 and 20 September 1699). After his death, Cunningham’s library was auctioned at Leiden. This attempt at disambiguation is chiefly owed to J. Cairns: ‘Alexander Cunningham’s Proposed Edition of the Digest: An Episode in the History of the Dutch Elegant School of Roman Law’, Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis, 69 (2001), 81–117, 307–60. See also E. Labrousse et al., eds., Correspondence de Pierre Bayle, 1999–2016, xi. 282–5; D. McKitterick, Cambridge University Library: A History: The Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries, 1986, pp. 72, 80, 121, 136–7; K. Swift, ‘Bibliotheca Sunderlandiana: The Making of an Eighteenth-Century Library’, in Bibliophily, eds. R.  Myers and M. Harris, 1986, pp. 72–5.

322

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2590.  S. Bold, 16 May 1699

2590*.  Locke to Samuel Bold, 16 May 1699 (2567, 2602) Richmond, Virginia, Virginia Historical Society, Dawson Turner Papers, MS 1 T8525 a, vol. ii, pp. 49–54. De Beer printed the letter from a version in The Museum, ii (1746), 205–9, and noted a variant version which appeared in the seventh edition of Locke’s Works, 1768, and later editions. A new manuscript copy has now been located at Richmond. It is headed ‘An exact Copy taken from an Original Letter of Mr. John Locke to Mr. Samuel Bold at Steeple, and is in an eighteenth-century hand. It varies in orthography, punctuation, and sometimes, in minor ways, in wording from both the Museum and Works versions, though it is closer in wording to the latter. The new copy has no special authority, and variants are too minor to affect meaning. I note two variants of wording. Corr., vi. 627, line 7 has ‘expect a careful Examination and impartial Judgment of them’; the new manuscript has ‘expect, that they should carefully examine and impartially judg of them’. Corr., vi. 627, line 29 has ‘All others have a Right to be followed as far as I, i.e. as far as the’; the new manuscript has ‘All others have a right to be followed as far as I, and no farther, i.e. as far as the’. The new manuscript was recovered by J. C. Walmsley.

2596A. Dr John Wallis to Thomas Tenison, archbishop of Canterbury, 13 June 1699 Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 21 (1699), 343–9. The original manuscript is in Lambeth Palace Library: MS 942, fo. 151; copy in Royal Society Library, MS W 2 n. 76; another in Cambridge University Library, MS Add. 3977.19 (images and transcription: http://www.newtonproject.ox.ac.uk/catalogue/record/NATP00195). The present transcription follows the Philosophical Transactions version, since it includes a number of explanatory expansions of the manuscript and was the version publicly available. The text was also printed in James Hodgson, Introduction to Chronology, 1747, pp. 64–72. The postscript to this letter is a critique of Locke’s scheme for calendrical reform. The text of Locke’s scheme does not survive, and our only evidence for it is the postscript of the present letter, together with comments made by Locke in a later letter to Hans Sloane, who had evidently also heard of Locke’s scheme (no. 2640, 2 December 1699), and remarks by Jacques Bernard in the Nouvelles de la république des lettres (May 1699), 594. Archbishop Tenison, evidently prompted by the king, sought expert opinion concerning the advisability of England converting from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar, and turned particularly to John Wallis. Among others who commented or who heard of the discussion were Judge Sir John Blencowe, Lord Chief Justice John Holt, the commercial journalist John Houghton, Leibniz, Bishop William Lloyd, Newton, Pepys, Hans Sloane, Lord Somers, and a High Church clergyman, John Willes. Somers chaired a discussion at the Royal Society. The issue arose at this time because of the impending change, in 1700, from a ten-day to an eleven-day gap between the two calendars. Discussion predated Tenison’s initiative; Holt’s enquiry appears to date from May 1698, and Locke told Sloane, in December 1699 (no. 2640), that his own pro­posal was prepared ‘above a twelvemonth since’. Catholic Europe had switched to the ­Gregorian Calendar by a decree of Pope Gregory XIII in 1582.

323

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2596A.  Dr J. Wallis, 13 June 1699 Wallis’s postscript rejects Locke’s scheme on purely practical grounds, but the main body of his letter is valuable for the wider context, for it reveals that Wallis had three fundamental objections to switching to the Gregorian system: that a change would imply submission to papal supremacy, that Scotland and other Protestant nations might not follow suit, and that the Julian calendar is not, in fact, entirely inferior. (Willes, The Julian and Gregorian Year, 1700, argued that Catholics should return to the Julian calendar.) None of these objections apparently surfaced in Locke’s scheme, where the desirability of a shift to the Gregorian calendar is taken for granted. England converted to the Gregorian calendar in 1752, when eleven days were skipped. Locke wanted a gradual change, incrementally until the 1740s, and Wallis was surely right to regard that as breeding confusion, although others before Locke had proposed it (George Greaves, Robert Vilvain, and George Wharton, in the 1640s–50s). Wallis reiterated his views in another letter, to William Lloyd, bishop of Worcester, 30 June 1699, printed in the Philosophical Transactions (pp. 350–4), not reproduced here, but mentioned in the notes. See J. R. Milton, ‘Locke and the Reform of the Calendar’, Locke Studies, 6 (2006), 173–7; R. Poole, Time’s Alteration: Calendar Reform in Early Modern England, 1998, chs. 6–8, esp. pp. 86–91. Wallis’s letters to Bishop Lloyd, 30 June 1699, and Sir John Blencowe (his son-in-law), 14 May 1698, are printed in Hodgson, Chronology, pp. 73–85; Leibniz’s letter to the Royal Society, 30 January/9 February 1700, is printed in The Correspondence of John Flamsteed, eds. E. G. Forbes, L. Murdin, and F. Willmoth, 3 vols., 1995–2002, ii. 805–10; Newton’s to Leibniz, 25 April 1700, in The Correspondence of Isaac Newton, iv, ed. J. F. Scott, 1967, pp. 328–30. For the king’s ambition to reform the calendar, see S. B. Baxter, William III, 1966, pp. 374–5. John Wallis (1616–1703), mathematician and cryptographer; MA, Cambridge, 1640; served the Parliamentarian cause; Savilian professor of geometry, Oxford, 1649–1703; DD, 1654; FRS, 1663; wrote on mathematics and theology; decrypted dispatches for Parliament in the 1640s and subsequent regimes. ODNB. There are no surviving letters between Locke and Wallis. They interacted when the two men arranged lodgings for the earl of Shaftesbury during the Oxford Parliament of 1681. Connection continued. In January 1692 Robert Pawling mentions that Locke might call on Wallis (no. 1450), and in July he said to Wallis that ‘Mr Locke presents his service to you’ (BL, Add. MS 32499, fo. 314).

    Oxford June 13. 1699. May it please your Grace, As to what your Grace mentions (in the close of your Letter which I had the honour to receive)1 about altering the Annual Stile. I am at a loss what to say. That there is, in our Ecclesiastical Computation of the Paschal Tables,2 somewhat of Disorder, is not to be deny’d. But I am very doubtful, that, if we go to alter that, it will be attended with greater Mischief, than the present Inconvenience. It is dangerous removing the

1  Tenison’s letter is apparently not extant. In his letter to William Lloyd, 30 June, Wallis says that it was ‘a late [i.e. recent] Letter’ (Philosophical Transactions, p. 350). 2  Tables for determining the date of Easter.

324

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2596A.  Dr J. Wallis, 13 June 1699 Old Land-marks Κακὸν  εὖ κείμενον oὐ κινητέον.1 A thing (of moment) when once settled (though with some Inconvenience), should not be rashly alter’d. Such changes may have a further prospect that Men at first sight are aware of, and may be attended with those Evils which are not presently apprehended. In the business of Geography, upon removing the First-Meridian (upon some plausible pretence) from where Ptolemy had plac’d it (though a thing at first purely arbitrary) it is now come to pass, that we have (in a manner) no First-Meridian, at all; that is, none Fixed; but every New Map-maker placeth his First-Meridian where he pleaseth; which hath brought a great Confusion in Geography.2 And, as to the point in question, the Disorder in the Paschal Tables was a thing noted, and complained of for three or four hundred years, before Pope Gregory did (unhappily) attempt the Correction of the Calendar.3 But it was, all that time, thought adviseable, rather to suffer the Inconvenience, than, by correcting it, to run the hazard of a greater Mischief. And it had been much better, if it had so continued to this Day, rather than Pope Gregory (upon his own single Authority) should take upon him to impose a Law on all the Churches, Kingdoms and States of Christendom, to alter both their Ecclesiastical and Civil year, for a worse form, than what before we had. Or if merely upon account of the Paschal Tables (for he made no other pretence) it were thought necessary to make a Change; he might have corrected the Paschal Tables (or given us New Paschal Tables instead of those of Dionysius,) without altering the Civil year, Which hath introduced the confusion (which we now complain of ) of the Old and New Style. And which now can never be remedied; unless all Nations should, at once, agree upon one; which is not to be supposed. I say, at once; for if some sooner and some later alter their Stile, the Confusion (in History) will yet be greater than now it is. ’Tis true, that upon pretence of the Popes (usurped) Supremacy in Spirituals (and in Temporals also in order to Spirituals) most Popish 1  ‘An evil that is settled should not be disturbed’: adapted from Plato, Philebus, 15c. 2  The first chart to use Greenwich as its prime meridian was published in 1738; the Greenwich meridian was not formally adopted internationally until 1884. Ptolemy placed the prime meridian at the Fortunate Isles (probably the Canaries), as the westernmost part of the known world. 3  In 1582.

325

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2596A.  Dr J. Wallis, 13 June 1699 Countries (but I think, not all) have submitted their Civil year (as well as their Ecclesiastical) to the single Authority of the Pope’s Bull. But your Grace knows very well, that the Church of England had  (long before this pretended Correction) Renounced the Pope’s Supremacy; and (that being supposed) there is no pretence for the Pope of Rome’s imposing a Law on the Church and Kingdom of England, to change our Ecclesiastical and Civil year; more than, in Us, for that in Rome. And, upon this account, the Church and Kingdom of England, did at first not admit of that change, and have hitherto retained our Old Constitution of the Julian year; notwithstanding the Pope’s (pretended) Supremacy, and I see not why we should now admit it, after having so long renounced it.1 And really, though it may not yet appear and be owned above board; and, those who now press for an alteration, be not aware of it, and be far from any Popish design, I cannot but think there is, at bottom, a latest Popish interest, which (under other specious pretences) sets it on foot; in order to obtain (in practise) a kind of tacit submission to the Pope’s Supremacy, or owning his Authority. And though they be so wise as to say nothing of it at present (for the Bait is designed to Hide the hook till the Fish be caught,) they will please themselves to have gain’d de facto, what in words we disclaim. For there is nothing but the Pope’s Bull, which should induce the Change of the (Civil) Julian year (which is much better) for the New Gregorian. For the Equinox going backward, (for 10 or 11 Minutes each year,) is very inconsiderable, and which in Celestial Computations, is easily rectified; as are many other inequalities of much greater concernment. And I think it was never pretended that the Civil year must needs agree (exactly to a minute) with the Celestial. And, if never so much affected, is impossible to be had: For the Solar year, and the Sidereal year, differ more from each other, than the Julian from either, which is a middle betwixt them.2 1  In his letter to Lloyd, Wallis adds that a change would involve alteration of the Act of Uniformity and Prayer Book, which, as recently as the 1689 Comprehension debate, had met with strong resistance. He further adds that everyone accepts the existence of another calendrical error, namely that at Christ’s birth the vernal equinox probably occurred on 25 not 21 March (Philosophical Transactions, pp. 352–3). 2  The length of the tropical year (the interval between successive vernal equinoxes, called by Wallis the solar year) is approximately 365.242 days, while the length of the sidereal year is ap­proxi­mate­ly 365.256 days. The mean length of the civil year in the Julian calendar is exactly 365.25 days. (The mean length in the Gregorian calendar is 365.2425 days.)

326

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2596A.  Dr J. Wallis, 13 June 1699 And the Seat of Easter (which only concerns the Ecclesiastical not the Civil year) may easily be rectified, if need be, without affecting the Civil year at all. Or, if not rectified; the Celebration of Easter a Week or Month sooner or later, doth not influence at all our solemn Commemoration of Christ’s Resurrection. And ’tis agreed by most (if not all) Chronologers, that as to the Year of our Lord, the Annus Vulgaris is not the Annus verus (though it be not agreed how much it differs:) But it would be a horrible Confusion in History, if we should not go about to alter the Vulgar Account. All the pretence that I can understand for altering our Stile, is only, that in so doing we should agree with some of our Neighbours with whom we now differ: But it will then be as true, that we shall differ from others with whom we do now agree. We should agree with France, but differ from Scotland (which, as to us, is more considerable) and with all others who yet follow the old Stile.1 If it be said, that they, in time, may come so to do by our Example. This would but make the Confusion yet the greater. For then we must be obliged, not only to know what places do use the new Stile, but, from what time they began so to do, if we would understand their Dates. And, if we should, by a new Law alter our Stile in England; this would not comprise Scotland: And we cannot promise our selves that they would presently comply also. For (according to the present Constitution of the Church) they are not so pliable to comply with the Modes of Rome as some in England are. And the business of Easter (which has the sole pretence of the first alteration) would, to them, signifie nothing: Who (according to their Constitution) observe no Easter at all, but do rather declare against it. And when all is done, there will still be a necessity of keeping up the distinction of old Stile and new Stile (which Pope Gregory’s pretended Correction hath made necessary;) and with that distinction things may be now as well adjusted, as if we should now change our Stile.

1  There is likely to be a political concern here, since there was growing apprehension that Scotland might not follow the English royal succession. Wallis also, below, points out that Presbyterian Scotland would be even more hostile to a popish calendar. The two points combine in his letter to Lloyd, where he remarked that it was ‘happy that they did comply with us in the late Revolution . . . We cannot presume they will be so fond of Compliance in all the Modes of Rome’ (Philosophical Transactions, p. 351).

327

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2596A.  Dr J. Wallis, 13 June 1699 I forbear to discourse at large (that I be not too tedious) how much a better Constitution the Julian Year is, and more advisable, than the new Gregorian, Which is a thing so notorious, that no Astronomer, (who understands the Methods of Astronomical calculations) though a Papist, can be ignorant of; however they may please to dissemble it. Insomuch that (in their Astronomical Calculations) they are fain first to adjust their Calculation to the Julian Year, and thence transfer them to their new Gregorian. And consequently how unreasonable it is for us to exchange our better Julian Year for one that is so much worse. It would be much more reasonable (save that they will never be induced to part with ought, which may favour their Usurpation, how absurd soever,) that the Papists should quit their new Gregorian, and return to their old Julian Year. But I forbear to enlarge on this, (and many other things which might be alledg’d;) and humbly beg your Graces Pardon for having already given you the trouble of too long a Letter. And am, My Lord, Your Graces very humble and obedient Servant John Wallis Post script, Aug. 31. 1699 Of what Mr. Lock hath done in this matter, I know nothing but from your Graces Letter of Aug. 27. 1699. It seems he advises, that, for Eleven Leap-years, we should omit the Intercalation of Febr. 29. and thenceforth go on with the Gregorian Account: The last of which 11 Leap years should be 1744. But, if we begin in the Change (as it is suggested) at the Year 1700 the last of those Eleven Leap-years must be 1740 not 1744. This Expedient is the same that was (during our Civil-wars) suggested by those then at Oxford in the Year 1645. viz. That, from thence forward, we should omit ten such intercalations.1 Against which there seems to me this great Objection. In the time of Julius and Augustus Caesar, there was a Year which was called Annus confusionis:2 Upon the settling, unsettling, and resettling the Julian Year. (Of which Kepler gives an Account, with the Mischiefs of it, in his Tabulae Rudolphinae, with the Title Typus Anni 1  In his letter to Lloyd, Wallis adds that the proposal failed because it came from the king’s party and only exacerbated fears of popish influence (Philosophical Transactions, p. 354). 2  This was 46 bc, the last year of the pre-Julian calendar, which had 445 days.

328

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2607A.  H. Masham, 20 August 1699 confusionis).1 And the like in the Year 1582 when Pope Gregory did at once strike out Ten Days of that Year. But, if this Advice should take place; we should now, instead of one Annus confusionis, have a Confusion for Four and Forty Years together, wherein we should agree neither with the Old nor with the New Account. But be sometimes 10 Days, sometimes 9 Days, sometimes 8 Days, (and so forth) later than the One, and sooner than the other account. And a Forreigner would not be able to judge of an English Date, without knowing in which of these Years, we vary 10, 9, or 8 Days (and so forth) from either of these Accounts. And this, for 44 Years together. Which seems to me a much greater Confusion, then if (as in 1582) we should (once for all) cast out 11 Days. But I cannot think it advisable to do either.

2607A.  Henry Masham to Esther Masham, 20 August 1699 Chicago: Newberry Library, MS E5.M3827, Esther Masham Letterbook, no. 37, pp. 82–3 (a copy of a lost original). The letter is in answer to an enquiry from Locke. In his interleaved edition of Robert Boyle’s General History of the Air (1692), (Bodleian Library, Locke 9.18), facing page 235, there are notes by Locke concerning an equine sickness. He writes: ‘In the Spring this year viz 1699 there was such a general cough seized the horses in town and country through England that very few escaped it[.] In essence where I then was it was Epidemical in all the neighbourhood and the same account I had from London and other parts of England. A commander of a troop of horse gave this account of it from his quarters. “I had last weeke all the whole troop taken with this distemper in one night. It is I find general though all the Kingdome. Hard working kils most of them. Gentle exercise and warme meat and water is all we doe to them here For it is a kind of oppression upon the Lungs.” Stratford upon Avon 22 April 1699.’ This is a paraphrase of a letter from William Masham to his sister Esther (Letterbook, no. 34, p. 79). Locke goes on to refer to soliciting another letter from Ireland: ‘I had the curiosity to enquire whether the distemper in the air which caused this cough (for I could impute it to noe thing but some secret constitution of the air) was spread as far as Ireland. Having desired a yonge Lady of my acquaintance to write to a brother she had then in Ireland concerning it, she received this answer.’ The answer can be identified as the present letter, surviving in Esther Masham’s Letterbook. Locke and Esther lived in the same household at Oates. Esther’s brother, Henry Masham (1670–1702), a soldier, was stationed in Dublin (for him, see no. 677*); Locke had earlier, in 1698, asked Henry to search for a book for him in Paris (Letterbook, no. 25, p. 67). Locke’s note gives Henry’s letter as 2 August; Esther’s transcription, made in 1722, gives 20 August. The location and transcription of Locke’s notes are owed to Peter Anstey; I have identified the link to the present letter. Locke’s full note will appear in Peter 1  Johannes Kepler, Tabulae Rudolphinae, Ulm, 1627, p. 40.

329

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2650A.  J. Churchill, 30 December 1699 Anstey’s and Lawrence Principe’s Clarendon Edition of Locke, Writings on Natural Philosophy and Medicine.

    Dublin August 20th 1699 Dear Teté A petit papier petite nouvelle. You can’t expect much from this Country. I am in pretty good health, and that is one piece of news, for I don’t use to be so. We are come to do Duty in this Town where we are like to stay one twelve month. To morrow my Lord Berkely1 one of our Lord Justices makes his publick Entry, and all the Garison consisting of three Regiments of foot and two troops of horse are to be in Arms. I thank you for your last Letter, and for the good news from Brampton. My Duty to my Father and Mother.2 My humble service to Mr. Locke. I forgot to let you know as he desired about the Distemper of the horses. I dont believe one horse escapd it in the Kingdom, The very same Distemper as you mention they had in England, but few Dyed. Wee had also a Distemper amongst the black Cattle, of them many died,3 And now the distemper is got amongst the people, for a world of people Dye here, the spotted feavour4 is very plenty. Adieu, don’t forget me who am Deare Teté Your most humble and ever Loveing Brother Henry Masham

2650A.  Locke to John Churchill, 30 December 1699 (2765) MS Locke c. 24, fo. 31. Masham Trust. In Locke’s hand; draft or copy. Date deleted in the letter, but stands in the endorsement. See no. 2587A. John Churchill was Awnsham’s brother and business partner, and they were jointly booksellers and publishers.

Mr. John Churchill Whereas you have two hundred and ten pounds in the stock of the Governor and Company of the Bank of England and two hundred

1  Charles Berkeley (1649–1719), second earl of Berkeley. 2  Sir Francis Masham and (stepmother) Damaris, Lady Masham. 3  The preceding passage was transcribed by Locke in his note in his copy of Boyle’s History of the Air, as follows: ‘I forgot to let you know what Mr. Locke desired about the horses. I doe not believe that one scaped it in this Kingdome The distemper was the very same that you mentioned they had in England, but few died. We had also a distemper amongst the Black-Cattle, of them many died Dublin Aug. 2 1699.’ 4  Spotted fever: a tick-borne disease, similar to typhus.

330

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2650B.  H. Schelte, [early 1700?] pounds in the principall stock and fifty pounds in the additional stock of the English company tradeing to the East Indies purchased by us in your name as appears by your declaration of Trust bareing date with these presents. We doe desire and direct you to pay all the growing profits and income ariseing out of any of the said sums in the said stocks which you have or shall receive, unto the Lady Masham for which her receit shall be your discharge.a We rest Your affectionate friend and servant John Locke Endorsed: Trust. Letter of [sic] Mr. John Churchill 30th Dec 99

2650B.  Locke to Hendrik Schelte, [early 1700?] Printed in Pierre Coste’s French translation of the Essay: Essai philosophique concernant l’entendement humain, Amsterdam, 1700, sig. ***1r. No extant manuscript. Printed in translation in A. Goldgar, Impolite Learning: Conduct and Community in the Republic of Letters, 1680–1750, 1995, pp. 120–1. The text is evidently the whole or part of a letter to Hendrik Schelte, the publisher, in answer to an enquiry about the quality of Coste’s translation. The date of the letter is unclear: Coste began translating the Essay in 1697, but Schelte did not begin to be a publisher until 1699. There are no Schelte letters otherwise in Locke’s correspondence. Schelte lived from 1681 to 1714; he was the publisher of Le Clerc’s Bibliothèque Choisie, 1703–13. See I. H. Van Eeghen, De Amsterdamse Boekhandel, 1680–1725, 1960, iv. 93–5. In this transcription roman and italic fonts are reversed.

Monsieur Locke au Libraire. La netteté d’Esprit & la connoissance de la Langue Françoise, dont Mr. Coste a déja donné au Public des preuves si visibles, pouvoient vous être un assez bon garant de l’excellence de son travail sur mon Essai, sans qu’il fut nécessaire que vous m’en demandassiez mon sentiment. Si j’étois capable de juger de ce qui est écrit proprement & élegamment en François, je me croirois obligé de vous envoyer un grand éloge de cette Traduction dont j’ai oui dire que quelques personnes, plus habiles que moy dans la Langue Françoise, ont assûré qu’elle pouvoit passer pour un Original. Mais ce que je puis dire à l’égard du point sur lequel vous souhaitez de savoir mon sentiment, c’est que Mr. Coste m’a lû cette Version d’un bout à l’autre avant que de vous l’envoyer, & que tous les endroits que j’ai remarqué s’éloigner de mes pensées, ont été ramenez

a  Given under our hands this thirtieth of December 1699 deleted

331

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2650B.  H. Schelte, [early 1700?] au sens de l’Original, ce qui n’étoit pas facile dans des Notions aussi abstraites que le sont quelques-unes de mon Essai, les deux Langues n’ayant pas toûjours des mots & des expressions qui se répondent si juste l’une à l’autre qu’elles remplissent toute l’exactitude Philosophique; mais la justesse d’esprit de Mr. Coste & la souplesse de sa Plume luy ont fait trouver les moyens de corriger toutes ces fautes que j’ay découvert à mesure qu’il me lisoit ce qu’il avoit traduit. De sorte que je puis dire au Lecteur que je présume qu’il trouvera dans cet Ouvrage toutes les qualitez qu’on peut desirer dans une bonne Traduction. Translation by Delphine Soulard:

Mr Locke to the Publisher The clarity of mind and knowledge of the French language, of which Mr. Coste has already given the public such visible proofs,1 could have been a good enough testimony of the excellence of his work on my Essay, without it being necessary for you to ask me my opinion of it. If I were capable of judging what is written properly and elegantly in French, I would feel myself obliged to send you a great eulogy of this translation, about which several people, mastering the French language more than I do, have assured me that it could pass for an original. But what I can say concerning the matter on which you solicited my opinion, is that Mr. Coste read me this version from beginning to end before sending it to you, and that all those passages which I found to differ from [the intended sense of ] my thoughts were brought back into line with the meaning of the original, which was no easy task with notions as abstract as are some of those in my Essay since the two languages do not always have words and expressions which match perfectly to produce a translation fulfilling philosophical exactitude; but the precision of mind and suppleness of pen of Mr. Coste allowed him to find ways of correcting all those errors which I noticed as he was reading me what he had translated.2 Thus I can say to the Reader that I 1  Before turning to the translation of Locke’s works, Coste had authored and translated several works, one of which Locke owned: Histoire de la vie de Louis de Bourbon Prince du Condé, Cologne, 1693; 2nd edn, 1695. LL 1704. Coste then translated Locke’s Education: De l’education des enfans, Amsterdam, 1695, published by Antoine Schelte, ‘Marchand libraire près de la Bourse’; and the Reasonableness of Christianity: Que la religion chretienne est tres-raisonnable, Amsterdam, 1696, published by Hendrik Wetstein. 2  This letter provides a valuable insight into Locke’s and Coste’s mutual clarifications of text­ ual meanings through translation; it confirms Coste’s own claim, in the ‘Avertissement du traducteur’, that he read out to Locke his draft translation of the Essay. He also claimed that his

332

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2655.  J. Bonville, 11 January 1700 presume he will find in this work all the qualities one might wish for in a good translation.

2655.* John Bonville to Locke, 11 January 1700 (2648, 2657) MS Locke c. 4, fo. 90. De Beer printed Bonville’s letter but omitted his list of the sixty members of the Grand Committee of the Commissioners of Greenwich Hospital supplied to Bonville by Robert Pawling. Since Locke was a member of this Committee, the identity of the cohort is of some significance and is provided here. The people named were City dignataries, Naval officers, government officials, and virtuosi; this is the public world within which Locke moved at this time. The accuracy of the list is confirmed by the Hospital minutebook: TNA, ADM 67/1 (16 December 1695), and by the printed version: The Grand Committee for Greenwich Hospital: Settled at a Meeting of the Lords and other the Commissioners, at Guildhall, December 16 1695. But Bonville additionally identifies membership of the three subcommittees into which it was divided, marked C, F, and R, for ‘Constitution’, ‘Fabric’, and ‘Revenue’. It appears that while the Fabric and Revenue Committees met, the Constitution Committee never did. I know of no printed source that specifies membership of all three subcommittees; again, Bonville’s accuracy is confirmed by the Hospital minutebook (23 December 1695). Locke had been appointed to the main body of 182 Commissioners on 12 March 1695: Commission for Greenwich Hospital, 1695, p. 6. De Beer mistakenly refers to Bonville’s list as being (all) the Commissioners rather than a subset of it, the Grand Committee. Bonville spells ‘Locke’; the TNA version has ‘Lock’. For Bonville, pewterer, Locke’s cousin, see Corr. ii. 496. I have not supplied biographical identifications for the people in this list.

C C F R C R R R F

Sir Matthew Andrews, Kt Sir William Ashurst, Kt Capt. Jonathan Andrews Capt. John Benbow Capt. Hopefor Bendall James Bodington, Esq. Capt. John Bonnell George Boun, Esq. Anthony Bowyer, Esq.

queries prompted Locke to adjust his English text in the fourth edition, published in 1700. See  D.  Soulard, ‘The Christ’s Copy of John Locke’s Two Treatises of Government’, Historical Journal, 58 (2015), 25–49, at 45–6. Concerning the Latin (Ezekiel Burridge’s) and French translations of the Essay, Locke told Limborch, ‘wherever you find them disagreeing with one another about my meaning, you should decide from the French. For the author [Coste] read through the whole of it to me, and corrected it where I discovered that it strayed from my ­meaning.’ L2979 (12 August 1701) (original in French).

333

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2655.  J. Bonville, 11 January 1700 F F R F F C F F F R C R R R F F F F F F C F C C R R C F R R C C C R R F C R C

William Bridgeman, Esq. Capt. John Brumwell Sir Francis Child, Kt Sir Robert Clayton, Kt Dr. Salisbury Cade George Dodington, Esq. Capt. Robert Dorrell William Draper, Esq. Edmund Dummer, Esq. Sir Stephen Evance, Kt John Evelyn Senior, Esq. Francis Eyles, Esq. Sir John Fleet, Kt William Falconer, Esq. Thomas Firmin, Esq. Sir William Gore, Kt Sir Thomas Grantham, Kt William Glanville Senior, Esq. Capt. William Gutteridge Sir Richard Haddock, Kt Sir Charles Hedges, Kt Sir Joseph Herne, Kt Sir John Houblon, Kt Sir James Houblon, Kt Capt. William Heath Gilbert Heathcott, Esq. Capt. John Hill Sir Henry Johnson, Kt John Johnson, Esq. Sir Thomas Lane, Kt Sir Thomas Littleton, Bart Sir John Lowther of Whitehaven John Locke, Esq. William Lowndes, Esq. Sir John Morden, Bart Dr. [ John] Mapletoft The Right Honourable Ch[arles] Montague, Esq. John Morrice, Esq. Sir Richard Onslow, Bart 334

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2656A.  [W. Popple], [c.16 January 1700] R C C C C C R F R R C F

Sir William Pritchard, Kt Samuel Pepys, Esq. Henry Priestman, Esq. Sir Robert Rich, Kt and Bart The Right Honourable Edward Russell, Esq. Sir Robert Southwell, Kt Sir Thomas Stamp, Kt Capt. Ralph Sanderson Arthur Shallet[t], Esq. Dalby Thomas, Esq. Samuel Travers, Esq. Sir Christopher Wren, Kt

2656A. [William Popple] to [Locke], [c.16 January 1700] (2651, 2708) MS Locke c. 30, fo. 116. Fragment of a Board of Trade letter. It is quoted in I. K. Steele, Politics of Colonial Policy, 1968, p. 57. The fragment survives on the verso of a copy of minutes of the Board of Trade and Plantations dated 16 January 1700. The sender was the Board’s secretary, Popple, who regularly sent Locke copies of the minutes when he was away at Oates. The fragment concerns the Board’s deliberations about piracy. Captain William Kidd had recently been captured and was shortly to arrive in England for trial. Popple reminds Locke of his earlier opposition to the ‘sending for pirates’ to Eng­ land. Locke had advocated their trial where they were captured, in America. In a memo­ran­dum of 1697 he had recommended that Parliament should ‘move for en­lar­ ging the Act for tryall of pyrates in the plantations’. He had also composed a memo­ran­ dum proposing that ‘all the Christian princes and states’ assembled at The Hague to negotiate the Peace of Ryswick in 1697 should offer a general amnesty to pirates, subject to conditions (MS Locke c. 30, fos. 62–3). (These documents will be printed in David Armitage’s Clarendon Edition of Locke, Colonial Writings.) The Board had pressed the plantations to adopt a Jamaican law of 1681 for their own legislation for dealing with pirates. But since most of the colonies failed to act, its next move was to promote a bill in the English Parliament to create special courts in the colonies, with powers of capital punishment. In December 1699, just prior to the present fragment, Sir Charles Hedges was given leave to bring in such a bill, and in April 1700 the Act for the More Effectual Suppression of Piracy was passed (11 W III c. 7; Journals of the House of Lords, xvi. 578). As an interim measure, however, the Board, on 11 January, in Locke’s absence and against his advice, recommended to the Crown that Kidd and ­other pirates be brought to England for trial; the Order in Council is dated the same day. Thirty-two pirates were landed in April; some were executed in July; Kidd, who now became a party political pawn, was not executed until May 1701. Locke’s advice against bringing pirates to England was perhaps a matter of shrewd political judgement: he recognized that the presence of Kidd in England would prove inflammatory, since Kidd had, before turning pirate, been commissioned by his own colleagues, Lord

335

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2666A.  A. Shields, [c. January 1700] ­ ellomont and a high-ranking group of Junto Whigs. Alternatively, or as well, he B thought that executions in America would provide salutary deterrence where it was most needed.

You have here inclosed our two days Minutes, which need very little comment. I know not what the Board will order about Draughts of letters for sending for Pirates:1 You see it is in the End come upon you; tho you can not but remember how much you endeavoured to avoyd it. But there is another thing on foot, which may

2666A. Alexander Shields to [William Dunlop?], [c. January 1700] MS Locke c. 30, fos. 112–13 (a copy). This document in Locke’s papers (which is not printed here, only introduced) appears to be a redaction of two or more of a series of letters written by Shields from the Scottish colony at Darien. The letters were probably available in several circulating copies. They are widely cited in the scholarly and popu­lar literature on the Darien expedition, the attempt by (the then independent) Scotland to establish a colony on the Isthmus of Panama. The project was an abject failure, both in the loss of life and the severe economic impact on the many Scots who invested in it. (Compensation was a vital element in the agreement for the Anglo-Scottish Union of 1707.) Scottish patriots blamed the English government, and the Board of Trade, on which Locke sat, for obstructing the scheme, especially the peremptory proclamations recommended by Locke and the Board authorizing English naval interventions in the Atlantic against the Scots. England was anxious not to antagonize its vital Spanish ally in the war against France: Panama belonged to the Spanish domain. The presence of the letter among Locke’s papers can probably be explained as serving to exculpate himself and the English government, for Shields reveals, contrary to the Scottish patriots’ furious claims about English guilt, an anguished indictment of Scottish incompetence. Two of Shields’s letters are printed in J. H. Burton, ed., The Darien Papers, 1849, 247–52; and several in R. H. Story, ‘Letters from Darien’, Transactions of the Glasgow Archaeological Society, 4 (1902), 207–25. There are manuscript versions in National Library of Scotland, Edinburgh, MS Wodrow Qto XXX; Glasgow University Library, GB247, MS Gen 1685. Shields (or Sheilds) (1659/60–1700) was a Covenanting minister whose earlier treatise A Hind Let Loose (1687) was an extreme statement of resistance theory, bearing comparison with Locke’s Two Treatises. Shields was tortured in Edinburgh in 1685, risked execution as a field preacher in 1688, and, after the Revolution, served as an army chaplain in King William’s Scottish regiments in Flanders. He died in Jamaica.

1  The draft instructions to the colonial governors are dated 1 February and were signed on 10 February. The governors are to send pirates currently in custody to England, while any seized in the future were also to be sent over unless they might be ‘more speedily and effectually brought to punishment’ locally. Calendar of State Papers, Colonial: America and West Indies, 1700, nos. 73–82.

336

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2677.  E. Burridge, 21 February 1700 See H. Macpherson, The Cameronian Philosopher, Alexander Shields, 1932. The recipient of the letters seems to have been William Dunlop (1653/4–1700), Principal of Glasgow University, who heavily invested in the Darien Company (and who had served as a minister in Carolina in the 1680s). The recipient is, however, sometimes given as Robert Wylie (if so, see no. 2277A). Shields wrote from on board the Rising Sun, moored off Darien, and sets out a depressing tally of mortality at sea, brought on by contaminated water, rotten beef, and ­overcrowding; of insalubrious juxtapositions once they had arrived in Central America, of crew committing murder over a ‘whore’; of solemn resolutions for ‘erecting of our presbytery’; of fasting and thanksgiving; of hangings for insurrection; of capture by Spaniards; of feckless sons of lairds ‘who think it below them to work’; of ‘fantastic hopes’ of picking up gold from the ground; and of ‘affectionate, innocent, placable’ Indians ‘abused and scandalised by our countrymen’. The adventurers were, Shields wrote, an ill-assorted band of the godly, the naive, and the desperate, all suffering alongside ‘knaves and fools’ averse to ‘working and sweating’ and to ‘digging in the bowels of the earth’. In sum, a case of ‘foolish mismanagement’, notwithstanding ‘how averse the E ­ nglish are to us’. Locke could take grim satisfaction in this revelation of the one-­sidedness of Scottish patriot diatribes: the Scots were victims of their own folly, not of war declared upon them by England.

2677*. Ezekiel Burridge to Locke, 21 February 1700 (2501*) J. T. Gilbert, History of the City of Dublin, 1854–9, i. 283–4. No. 2677 contained an enclosure not printed by de Beer, although the letter is a commentary on it. The ori­gin­ al of the enclosure is lost, and the text is known from Gilbert’s book. The text is a Latin transcription for a monument for William Molyneux, who had died suddenly in 1698. This had apparently been composed by William’s brother Thomas, who forwarded it to Burridge, urging him in turn ‘to submit it to [Locke’s] censure’. In his covering letter, Burridge told Locke that his own view was that the inscription was ‘too long, and the Elogies more fulsom than usual’. He particularly objected to one passage, but does not say which: it is tempting to speculate that it was the sentence in praise of the book The Case of Ireland, a treatise which, in its use of Lockean politics to assert Ireland’s independence, alarmed Locke’s English Whig colleagues. The monument was erected in St Audoen’s Church, but the inscription was later removed. Its shorter replacement declares that Molyneux was ‘one whom Locke was proud to call his friend’.

M.  S.  Gulielmi Molyneux, Arm: I.  U.  D.1 In summa Cancellariae Hiberniae Curiâ Assessoris; Societatis Regiae Londoniensis et Philosophicae Dubliniensis, Sodalis: In Comitiis Parliamentariis nomine Academiae Patriae iterata vice Delegati. Qui antiqua Molyneuxorum stirpe ortus, stemmata sua egregiis meritorum titulis ornavit; familiae

1  I.U.D.: juris utriusque doctor: doctor of both laws, civil and canon.

337

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2677.  E. Burridge, 21 February 1700 eruditiae famam per universam Rempublicam literariam latiùs sparsit. Abditis Matheseos penetratis, Geometriam, Astronomiam, Dioptricam, Algebramque, multis auxit inventis. Philosophiae verae ac utilis incrementa studiis et impensis strenùe promovit. Patriae jura, quae putavit, noto tibi, Viator, libello propugnavit. Nec moribus minùs, quam scientiâ insignis, tam supra Plebem vixit, quam sapuit. Justitiam coluit et pietatem, optimorum amicitiam fide singulari, omnium desiderium morum suavitate ad se attraxit. Uti Pater, qui eum genuit, Samuel Molyneux, Armiger, vir, si quis alius, moribus sanctissimis, cujus etiam cinis hic requiescit, postquam annos 77 compleverat. At filius, proh dolor! ex calculorum in renibus dolore concitato nimis vomitu, venâ disrupta, ingenti sanguinis profluvio, ipso aetatis flore, anno nempe 42, animam effudit, Octobris 11. 1698. Translation by Jonathan Nathan:

Sacred to the memory of William Molyneux, Gent., Doctor of Both Laws; Assessor in the High Court of Chancery of Ireland; Member of the Royal Society of London and the Philosophical Society of Dublin; many times a representative for his country’s university in Parliament. Born from the old line of Molyneux, he adorned his branch with the extraordinary titles of his merits. He sowed his learned family’s fame throughout the entire Republic of Letters. He penetrated the secrets of mathematics, and enlarged geometry, astronomy, optics, and algebra with many discoveries. He promoted the growth of true and useful philosophy with his studies and largesse. He defended his country’s laws, which he set in order, in a little book that you, Traveller, surely know.1 No less glorious in his morals than his knowledge, he lived above the throng in proportion to his wisdom. He followed justice and piety. He attracted the friendship of the best men by his singular faithfulness, and the devotion of all by the agreeableness of his habits. He was like the father who bore him: Samuel Molyneux, Gent., a man of holy morals if there was any other, whose ashes also came to rest here after he had lived seventy-seven years. But the son – alas! Wracked by the pain of kidney-stones, his excessive vomiting, a split vein, and an enormous outflow of blood caused him to expire in the flower of his age at forty-two, on 11 October 1698. 1  The Case of Ireland’s Being Bound by Acts of Parliament in England (1698). The oblique reference assumes the fame of this book. A critical edition of Molyneux’s book is now available, ed. P. H. Kelly, 2018.

338

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2717.  N. Toinard, 23 April 1700

2717*.  Locke to Nicolas Toinard, 23 April 1700 (2707, 2725) Princeton University Library, New Jersey: Robert H. Taylor Collection. Addendum from vol. viii. At Corr., vii. 68, de Beer had incompletely printed this letter from an auction catalogue entry. He now, in vol. viii, had access to the original manuscript. Answers no. 2699; answered by no. 2725.

    Oates 23 Apr 1700 Depuis ma derniere du 8eme de ce mois d’Avril j’ay examinè ce que j’ay de letres dont il est question avec la liste que vous avez eu la bontè de m’envoier et ie trouve qu’il me manque six lettres de ceux que vous avez dans votre recueil.a de ces grands hommes avec celle de Mr. Dodwel1 qui est le 7eme qui me manque. mais au lieu de ces sept qui manquent j’ay dans mon MS trois autres sans nomme et sans date, qui sont courtes et n’entrent pas en matiere. dont voici les commencementsb Primae postremae tuae transmissae erant R. P. Ant. Pagi.2 Hìc parisiis agit ——— Non ingratum facturus —– De reliquiis bibliothecae Corvinianae3 —– Si harum apographa velis curabo ut transcribantur et ad te mittantur. verum tibi forsan jam notae sunt hae epistolae. Quandoquidem hanc Epistolarum syllogen aliquando typis mandandam mones, defectum in meâ collectione patientius feram. Soufrez s’il vous plait que je repete icy le nombres que je vous ­marquais dans ma derniere N0 32506 Abel Antoniaster N0 32505 François Calorie N0 32415 Nicholas Nerblanen4 cCeux ci sont comme je vous a deja dit de la petite loterie que l’on fera tirer le 30eme de ce Mois d’Avril. On doute si on trouvera assez d’aventuriers pour la grande. Si elle se soutienne j’y prandrai garde selon vos ordres. Si elle tombe j’espere que lad gros lot de la petite vous en soulagera il n’y a rien que je souhaite davantage et pour l’amour de vous a  Substituted for recuile   b  MS reads commencents c  This paragraph belongs against the preceding brackets   d  MS reads lad 1  Henry Dodwell, scholar and Nonjuror. 2  Antoine Pagi (1624–99), Franciscan scholar. For Dodwell and Pagi, see no. 910. 3  The library of Matthias Corvinus, king of Hungary. 4  Friends of Toinard who, through Locke, invested in Greenwich Lottery tickets. See no. 2693.

339

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2717.  N. Toinard, 23 April 1700 pour vous delivrer de ce fascheuse chicane dont vous etez menacè,1 et pour l’amour de moi pour me donner le plus grand bonheur qui me peut ariver en cette vie en vous embrassant encore une fois Je ne puis rien dire en quelle etat est a present le grand ouvrage de  l’eveque de Worcester. Je m’en informerai ausitot que j ariveray a Londres, ou j’espere de me trouver en peu de temps Si j’aurois une fois le bonheur de vous voir ici je profiterai de vos lumieres sur bien d autres choses ausia bien que sur l immolation des agneaux pascals Je vous remercie tres humblement de votre present de la laineb des Beufs de l Amarique2 elle me semble fort fine. dites moi s’il vous plait comment cela reussit dans d’etoffes où toute seule ou avec une melange de la laine de mouton. La version Francoise de mon essay touchant l’entendement est à ce que je crois imprimèe.3 On a donnè ordre au libraire d Amsterdam de vous envoier deux exemplaires dont je vous prie d’accepter l’unc et de donner l’autre a Monsieur Deshaies Gendron si vous le croiez à son goût, ou autrement à tel de vous amis que vous trouverez à propos. Dans la même bale il y aura un troisieme exemplaird pour Monsieur du Bos dont je baise tres humblement les mains4 J’esperois la reforme de notre calandrier et j’en ay parlè a quelques uns de mes amis et ecrit à des autres même je proposois une methode fort facile et aise de reduire notre an au Gregoriene mais ie n’ay n’en avance laffair. les erreurs se confirment par l’age. Je suis Monsieur Votre tres humble et tres obeissant serviteur J Locke You tell me that you have seen the Bishop of Worcester’s Chronologicale account of the life of pythagoras5 This confirms me in the beleif of what Monsieur du Bos writ me, that you had learnt English This makes me enquire of you in that language your opinion of P: Lamys Introduction a  Substituted for que sur    b la interlined after laine   c  Substituted for une d  MS reads emplair   e  Substituted for treatis 1 No. 2693.   2  No. 2470, etc. 3  Published this year by Hendrik Schelte at Amsterdam, translated by Pierre Coste. 4  Claude Deshais Gendron (c.1663–1750) and Jean-Baptiste Du Bos (1670–1742), for whom, see Corr., iii. 136, vi. 407. 5  William Lloyd, published 1699. LL 1776. See no. 2644. Lloyd had become bishop of Worcester after Stillingfleet’s death.

340

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2724A.  T. Burnett, 2 May 1700 à l’Ecriture Sainte,1 and if it be worth the haveing which is best that in French or that in Latin? Touchant l’homme don vous me demandez des nouveles Je n’ay rien à dire. Avant le receit de votre billet je ne savois pas qu’il a etè obligè de sortir d’Holande, quand ie serai de retour a Londres Je m’en informerai. en attendant je serai bien aise d’aprender a–de–a vous un peu de son histoire Address: Monsieur Monsieur Toinard chez Monsieur des Noyers devant l’espèe royale dans la rüe Mazarin à Paris Endorsed by Toinard: 23. Avril 700. The first (pages?) of your last had been sent on to the Revd. Father Antoine Pagi. He is here in Paris About to do a not unwelcome thing About the remnants of Corvinus’ library If you wish copies of these I shall take care that they be transcribed and sent to you. But perhaps you already know of these letters. Seeing that you inform me that this collection of letters will one day be printed, I shall suffer the gap in my collection more tolerably.

2724A*.  Locke to Thomas Burnett of Kemnay, 2 May 1700 (2709) Marbach, Germany: Deutsches Literaturarchiv: Wiedemann Sammlung, 96.146.132. De Beer transcribed most of this letter from an excerpt in an auction catalogue. The original manuscript has now been located. The letter is short enough, and the new and corrected material substantial enough, to justify a retranscription. The recovery of the manuscript and the transcription are owed to Felix Waldmann: ‘Additions to de Beer’s Correspondence of John Locke’, Locke Studies, 15 (2015), 31–52, at 49–50. Burnett (1656– 1729) was the literary go-between for Locke and Leibniz. There is no entry for him in the ODNB, but see A.  Pyle, ed., Dictionary of Seventeenth-Century British Philosophers, 2 vols., 2000, i. 145–6; N. Jolley, Leibniz and Locke, 1984, passim; and Corr., vi. 60. See no. 3086A below.

I here with returne you Mr. Leibniz’s papers which you did me the favour to send me and which by your letter of 13th of April,2 which accompanied them I finde I shall have a more convenient opertunity to discourse with you about when I have the honour to see you in town.3 a–a  Substituted for de scavoir de 1  Published 1699; not in LL.    2  No. 2709. 3  Locke evaded discussing Leibniz’s remarks with Burnett: Burnett to Leibniz, 23 October 1700, in Leibniz, Philosophischen Schriften, ed. K. I. Gerhardt, iii, 1887, p. 272.

341

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2733A.  M. Clarke, 12 June 1700 If, in the meantime, you have an opertunity of writing to that very learned and civil gentleman, I desire you to give him my most humble service and let him know how much I value the honour he does me in bestowing any part of his time and thoughts upon what I have writ[ten and] think the pains I have mislaid on my scribblings not wholly lost if [they] might serve to excite him to write a just treatise on a subject which he has so maturely considered and which I have made so imperfect an essay upon. As to the business you mention1 to me in yours of the 14th of April2 I received not your letter (which I perceived should have come by thea Lady3 you mention in it) till above a weeke after her returne to town. Soe that the answer you had by her, before yours came to my hand, makes you, I suppose, expect noething farther in answer to that commission from you then to me, which was over before I received it. The gentleman from whom you will receive this brought me yours.4 He will assure you how ready I shall be to serve you on all occasions and how much I am Sir Your most obedient humble servant J Locke Address: For his much honourd friend Mr. Burnet / in London Endorsed by Burnett: 2 May 1700

2733A. M ary Clarke to Edward Clarke, 12 June 1700 (2291A) SHC, DD/SF 7/1/31 (formerly 4515). Clarke Papers. The letter concerns Locke’s proposal that his cousin Peter King should marry the Clarkes’ daughter Elizabeth, the child to whom Locke was particularly close and whom he himself nicknamed his ‘wife’. Born on 25 October 1682, Betty was seventeen when the letter was written. Early in the year Mary Clarke became agitated by the topic of marrying Betty, and the subject fills her letters to Edward. Betty was sent to London to meet possible suitors. The first was a Mr Tidcombe, but this came to nought in May. (Mary’s letters insist that suitors must converse with Betty and not simply espy her in church, for she admired her daughter’s powers of mind and conversation more than her bodily demeanour. She suggested a a  Waldmann transcribes as your 1  This paragraph concerns Burnett’s hope of marrying Sir Francis Masham’s daughter, Esther: nos. 2709, 2710, 2715. 2 No. 2709.   3 Martha Lockhart.   4  Apparently James Lockhart: no. 2715.

342

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2733A.  M. Clarke, 12 June 1700 conversable meeting ‘at the college’, which implies that Locke’s ‘College’ was equated with Richard’s Coffee House, and that women were welcome there: Mary Clarke to Edward Clarke, 18 May 1700: SHC, DD/SF 7/1/31, formerly 4515). At this point Locke suggested King as a suitor. This match also fell through, by July, for reasons that are not wholly clear, but apparently involved Clarke’s doubts about King’s father’s financial worth and King being too ‘cold’ a lover for Betty. In 1702 John Jones came on the scene; but in 1703 there were renewed hopes of the King match, pressed on Locke by Mary (no. 3291; cf. 3294, 3298, 3300). In September 1704 Elizabeth married Jones; in the same month King married Anne Seys. De Beer remarked that allusions in the letters of 1703 to the King match ‘show that there had been an earlier negotiation; it is not traceable elsewhere in the extant correspondence’ (Corr., viii. 5): it is very much traceable in the Clarke papers at Taunton. See B. Clarke, ‘The Marriage of John Locke’s Wife’, Locke Newsletter, 22 (1991), 93–114.

    June the 12th 1700 My Deare I writt you as longe a letter Satterday as I had from you Munday which I hope went as safe to your hands. I had1 written to you Munday morning; but that my leggs would not lett me Gett up soune enough which I hope you will Excuse; we are extreemly oblidged to Mr. Lock for his Great kindness to us and ours particularly that to Betty in proposeing his kinsman2 for a match for her, and what is proposed by him and approved of by Mr. Freake. If the younge people can Like each other and you his circomstances and carrector I beleve it may doe very well;3 I knew all Mr. Kings mothers relations4 and they was allways esteemed very Honnest people, his Father5 I have seene hearetofore but soe longe since that I have forgott him, he keepes a shopp in Exeter and is a decenter,6 pray in your next lett me

1  i.e. would have. 2  For Peter King (c.1669–1734), see Corr., i. 414; ODNB; History of Parliament Online. 3  Mary Clarke put high hopes both on Betty’s affection for Locke and on Locke bequeathing his estate to the couple: ‘if Betty did ever like Mr. Locke I think she must like Mr. King for methinks they very much resemble one another, and if they can agree together to wed[,] Mr. Locke [may] make them his heirs’: Mary to Edward, 22 June: SHC, DD/SF 7/1/31 (formerly 4515). She also hoped King was a man of sense, for Betty would not wish to have a husband who was an embarrassment whenever he opened his mouth: to Edward, 13 June. She further hoped he was ‘a sober sensible industrious man . . . mixed with good humour’: 18 June. Quoted in Clarke, ‘Marriage of Locke’s Wife’, pp. 97–8. 4  The mother was Anne, daughter of Peter Locke of Sutton Wick, Somerset. 5  Jerome (or Jeremy) King, prosperous grocer and salter of Exeter. Locke evidently knew him from a young age: he sends greetings or mentions him in, e.g., nos. 186, 294, 733. About the time of the present letter he was still sending greetings: nos. 2678, 2711. Peter King often returned to his father’s home and his Exeter friends, e.g., nos. 2620, 3337. 6  i.e. a (Presbyterian) Dissenter. King was educated at the Dissenting Academy at Exeter before going to Leiden to study law.

343

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2770A.  F. van der Plaats, 7 September 1700 know what his trade is and wheare his sone goes to the meettings1 or to the Church. I supose Mr. Kings Father has some reall Estate as well as what is in his shopp or else he could not propose parting with the Greatest part to his sone presently; I remember I have formerly heard you wish that Mr. Lock would make thiss proposall because you believed Mr. Kinge would be a riseing man; and It please God to Give him Life to make some provision for his Children which in all Likelyhood they will have; I doe assure you I shall forgive him If he never be Lord Chancler2 since after soe much care and faithfullness they are to be soe treated;3 I am sorry to heare the kinge has bin soe often indisposed,4 I hope his Raine doss not begin to be Like the latter part of King Charles’s in every thinge;5 I pray God to Give him a long and happy Raine and that he may allways chuse to put himselfe into the hands of his Frends before his Ennimyes etc: pray Give my service and thankes to Mr. Lock and Mr. Frea〈ke〉a for all theyr Favors and accept the same y〈our〉selfe from Your affection〈ate〉 and Faithfull wife M Clarke Endorsed: Mrs. Clarke’s Letter of Approbation of Mr. King for a Match for Betty etc. Received the 14th June 1700. Answered the 15th fully etc.

2770A. François van der Plaats to [Pierre Coste?], 7 September 1700 MS Locke, b. 2, fo. 178. Concerns the acquisition of books for Locke. Plaats (c.1670–1715) was an Amsterdam bookseller whose imprints date from 1700 to 1714. There are no entries for Plaats in Locke’s Journal and he does not appear elsewhere in the Correspondence. Locke’s usual Amsterdam bookseller was Hendrik a  Page torn, here and below 1  i.e. worship in a Dissenting chapel.    2  King did become Lord Chancellor, in 1725. 3  An allusion to the recent dismissal of Lord Chancellor Somers on 27 April, a politically catastrophic event for the Junto Whigs. Locke’s own resignation from the Board of Trade and Plantations followed on 28 June. Mary thought that once her husband and Locke had resigned, Edward would have ‘more time . . . to make love for him [Peter King]’ (i.e. to promote the match), and Locke to ‘resign his title to her [Betty]’: Mary to Edward, 3 July: SHC, DD/SF 7/1/31 (formerly 4515). 4  Given Mary’s own illnesses, she could sympathize with William’s ailment of swelling legs, diagnosed as dropsical. S. B. Baxter, William III, 1966, pp. 377–8. 5  A striking remark, since the final years of Charles II’s reign, the early 1680s, amounted to nothing short of tyranny in Whig eyes. Mary means that William was falling into the hands of the Tories, who might prove vengeful against the Whigs. She was right: in 1701 Somers and his colleagues were impeached.

344

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2770A.  F. van der Plaats, 7 September 1700 Wetstein, from whom there were several purchases during the 1690s. Possible addressees of the letter are Locke’s regular bookseller Awnsham Churchill, or Samuel Smith, London’s principal dealer in foreign learned books, from whom Locke several times bought books during the 1690s. However, a plausible candidate is Pierre Coste, for there is evidence that Locke asked him to obtain the books mentioned in the letter. See J. Dybikowski, ‘Pierre Coste’s Critique of Locke’s Moral Theory’, Enlightenment and Dissent, 23 (2004–7), 1–23. The transcription, identification of book titles, and suggested attribution to Coste, are by Felix Waldmann. Conjectural readings are supplied where the letter is damaged; the author’s eccentric punctuation is preserved.

   Londres ce 7e Septembre 1700 Monsieur Jay bien reçu l honneur de votre agreable lettre qui me fut envoye à Oxford, dont je ne suis de retour que depuis deux jours, autrement je naurois pas manquer de vous en avoir ecrit plutôt et voicy des livres que vous me demande seulement deux

Lettres Critique de Simon ― 〈f  〉 ― · :18 ― Turselinus de Particulis ― ― · :16 ― d Holland 2:14 ― pour les autres livres je n’en ay pas un exemplaire dans cette pais tout cela est en Hollande, voicy les prix au juste en blanc Biblia Sacra de Schmidt 4o Berigardi Circuls Pisanus 4o Horatius cum notis rapolti 8o Novissima Sinica à Leibnizio 8o Acastro de Morbis Mulierum 4o

— 〈f  〉 ― — — —

6:10 — 3:15 — 2:15 — 1:10 — 3:10 —

voila les prix au plus juste de tout ce que vous mavies demande, je vous les pouraî envoyé d Amsterdam, aussi tot que jen serais de retour, car il faut que jenvoye quelque chose dans cette ville d abord que jen serais de retour, ainsi Monr vous naves qu à ecrire à Monr de la Motte, si vous souhaite que je vous envoyé quelques uns , je ne 〈puis〉 guerre rester icy d avantage que encore 8 jours, car je pretends de menbarquer Samedi prochain pour retourner à Amsterdam, pour les deux livres que je vous envoye icy, vous me les pouries faire payer par Mr. de la Motte, je vous suis bien oblige de la 〈re〉comandation que vous aves fait 〈à〉 mon egard, aupres de Mr. Locke[,] je ne merite pas cela, mais je v〈ous〉 assure que se me seray un tres se〈n〉sible plaisir de servir M. Locke, il n’y à point des nouveaux voyages imprimé dans peu dans la hollande, qui vous ne sont pas con̄u. 345

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2770A.  F. van der Plaats, 7 September 1700 Voicy ce que Joubliois de vous envoyer avec la derñ. paquet 2 fe〈uilles〉 de la republique, et un d’un Nouveau Test que Mr. de la Motte ma envoyé , je nay pas les 6 errata, mais je sais bien que nous avons parle de cela a Amst: je me souviens qu il ont ete dans le livre que je vous ay envoyé relié en veau. Jay eté ches Mr. Amyraud il vous fait ses complimens. il pretend dans 3 Semaines d aller en hollande, et pour cela, il ne pourai pas achete 〈le〉 livre de Mr. Locke, je serais bien aise de vous voir icy, mais puis que mon temps sera bien tôt expiré, jen do.〈u〉te fort si jaurois cette honneur, si je suis capable de vous servir soit icy ou apres dans la Hollande, ayes la bonté de men donner l honneur de vos ordres, je suis et serais en tout temps, Monsieur Vostre tres humble et tres obeissant Serviteur François van der Plaats Endorsed: Libri / 1700 Translation by Delphine Soulard :

    London 7 September 1700

Monsieur, I was honoured to receive your kind letter, which was sent to me at Oxford, from where I returned only two days ago. Otherwise, I would not have failed to have written to you earlier. Here are the books you have requested from me. Only two of them:

Lettres Critique de Simon1 — 〈f  〉2 — · :18 — Turselinus de Particulis3 — — :16 — Dutch 2:14 — As for the other books, I do not have copies in this country. They are all in Holland. Here are their best unofficial prices Biblia Sacra de Schmidt4 4o Berigardi Circulus Pisanus5 4o

— 〈f  〉 6:10 — — 3:15 —

1  Probably Richard Simon, Lettres Critiques sur plusieurs ouvrages nouveaux, Basle, 1699. LL 2682. 2  Plaats’s currency marking is ‘f’ = florin (guilders). Hendrik Wetstein uses it: no. 2330. 3  Orazio Torsellino, De particulis Latinae orationis, Rome, 1598, and later editions; not in Locke’s library, though he owned another work by Torsellino. LL 2962a. 4  Sebastian Schmidt’s edition of the Bible, Strasbourg, 1696. LL 330c. 5  Claude Guillermet de Beauregard (or Bérigard), Circulus Pisanus, seu de veteri et peripatetica philosophia in Aristotelis libris de ortu et interitu, Udine, 1643, and later editions; not in LL.

346

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2770A.  F. van der Plaats, 7 September 1700 Horatius cum notis rapolti1 8o — Novissima Sinica à Leibnizio2 8o — Acastro de Morbis Mulierum3 4o —

2:15 — 1:10 — 3:10 —

Here are the fairest prices of all the books you have requested from me. I will be able to send them to you from Amsterdam as soon as I return there, since I need to send something to that town upon my return. Thus, Monsieur, you have only to write to Monsieur de la Motte,4 if you want me to send you some of them. I can stay here no more than eight more days, since I intend to embark next Saturday5 to return to Amsterdam. As for the books I am sending you [along with this letter], you could pay me for them through Monsieur de la Motte. I am most grateful to you for recommending me to Mr. Locke. I am not worthy of it, but I can assure you that it would be a great pleasure for me to serve Mr. Locke. There are no new voyages printed lately in Holland, which are not known to you. Here is what I forgot to send you with the last package: 2 sheets of the République,6 and one of a New Testament that Monsieur de la Motte sent me. I do not have the six errata, but I do know that we spoke about them in Amsterdam. I remember that they were inside the book bound in vellum that I sent you. I have paid Mr. Amyraud7 a visit. He sends you his best regards. He intends, in three weeks, to go to Holland, and that is the reason why he will not be able to buy Mr. Locke’s book.8 I would be delighted to visit you, but since my time here is drawing to an end, I very much doubt that I will have that honour. If I can serve you either here or later in Holland, I will be pleased and honoured to receive your orders. I am and will, for ever, remain, 1 Friedrich Rappolt, editor, Quintus Horatius Flaccus: cum notis marginalibus Johannis Minellii et D. Friderici Rappolti, Leipzig, 1675, and later editions; not in LL. 2  Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz, Novissima Sinica, 1697; Locke had the duodecimo edition, [Hanover?], 1699. LL 1710. There are modern editions of Leibniz’s Preface. 3  Rodericus a Castro, De universa mulierum medicina, Venice, 1644. LL 628. 4  Charles de La Motte (d.1751), Huguenot literary agent and press corrector, of Amsterdam; author, later, of a vindicatory memoir of Pierre Coste. His name occurs three times in Locke’s Journal (MS Locke f. 10): books received from him via Benjamin Furly (3 Nov. 1701); payment to Coste for books he bought for Locke from La Motte (2 June 1702); books received from La Motte via [Francis] Limborch (26 May 1703). A. Goldgar, Impolite Learning: Conduct and Community in the Republic of Letters, 1680–1750, 1995, passim. 5  14 September. 6  Nouvelles de la République des Lettres. Edited by Jacques Bernard, formerly by Pierre Bayle. 7  Probably Moïse Amyrault Jr (b.1631) who fled to Holland upon the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes. He was the son of the theologian Moïse Amyrault (1596–1664). 8  Presumably the French edition of the Essay : Essai philosophique concernant l'entendement humain, published this year at Amsterdam.

347

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2784.  S. Locke, 27 September 1700 your most humble and most obedient servant François van der Plaats

2784*. Samuel Locke to Locke, 27 September 1700 (2704, 2842) MS Locke c. 30, fo. 131. De Beer printed the letter (MS Locke c. 14, fos. 210–11) but did not notice that there is an enclosure extant among Locke’s colonial and trade papers. In the letter, Samuel Locke reported that ‘our Company now hath a Rich ship the De Grave aryved from the Bay of Bengall, vallewd at neer £200 000 sterling’ and that its cargo will be sold on 14 October. The enclosure is a narrow printed slip inventorying the cargo; the text is in a single column. It is, inter alia, an example of the rapid growth of commercial printed ephemera, or ‘jobbing printing’, not captured in library catalogues or digital archives of printed books, and hence whose history is only beginning to be written. (See J. Raven, Publishing Business in Eighteenth-Century England, 2014.) The text is printed here also as evidence of the material culture, and burgeoning variety of commodities, yielded by English international trade. In the 1690s the rapid growth in importations of Indian textiles both fuelled consumer interest and angered domestic textile workers. A series of unsuccessful bills was put to Parliament for banning the wearing of East India cloth. Locke evidently took a keen interest in the De Grave shipment. On 30 August John Churchill reported to him the arrival of the De Grave, and on 4 September Thomas Freke likewise reported it—‘Just arrived from the Indies very richly Laden’—followed by the current New and Old East India and Bank stock prices (nos. 2765, 2770). See J. Bruce, Annals of the Honourable East India Company, 3 vols., 1810, iii. 285, 417. Samuel Locke was probably a cousin of Locke; he was a director of the New East India Company; Locke also corresponded with his son John, receiving a letter from him from Surat (no. 2716). Locke took a similar keen interest in the cargo of the Norris, which arrived in January 1701; it affected the price of East India Company stock, and Locke received from the cargo a jar of cloves and medicinal ‘goa stones’ (nos. 2840–2, 2844, 2872–3). Most of the items in the De Grave’s inventory are mysterious today, only ‘chintz’, ‘gingham’, ‘seersucker’, and ‘taffeta’ being familiar. However, nine items have entries in the Oxford English Dictionary, and these are footnoted below, with the date of first instance as given there. Most of the others, not footnoted here, are identified in K. N. Chaudhuri, The Trading World of Asia and the East India Company, 1660–1760, 2006, appx 4; and see also p. 476. The spellings given by Chaudhuri are: allejaes, bettelles, callowaypoos, carridarries, cossais, dimitties, doreas, gurrahs, hummums, izarees, jamdannees, lacowries, moorrees, mulmuls, pallampores, percalles, romalls, sacerguntees, sallampores.

Cargoe of the De Grave, Arrived in the Downes the 30th August, 1700, from the Coast and Bay, for Account of the New-East India Company Pieces Allejahs 400 Betellees 1598 348

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2784.  S. Locke, 27 September 1700 Ditto Strip’d Ditto Checquer’d Ditto Golcondah Ditto Brown Ditto Oringal Brampore-Chintz1 Cossaes Carradaries Chints Fine Cloth Flower’d Callowaypoose Chints Superfine Dorea’s2 Dimmathies Gurrah’s3 Fine Gingham-Sheets4 Goacons Humhums5 Fine Metchlapatam6 Handkerchiefs Jamdannies Izzarees Luckhowries Long Cloth Mulmuls7 Metchlapatam-Romals Morees8 Neckcloths Pattana-Chints Percallaes9 Ditto Book Pallampores10 Quiltings

600 300 2250 400 420 8600 8440 682 14950 471 360 2200 6010 350 1572 1200 400 2523 85 515 1900 1674 1170 7338 1660 880 2400 1903 2000 3300 400 80

1  Chintz: a painted or stained calico (1614). ‘Brampore’ is the city of Burnhanpur. 2  Doria: a type of striped muslin (1696). 3  Gurrah: a type of plain coarse muslin (1727). 4  Gingham: a cotton or linen cloth, often with stripes or checks (1615). 5  Humhum: a coarse cloth (1620).    6  A Company factory in Madras. 7  Mulmul: a type of thin muslin (1619).    8  Moree: a fine cotton cloth (1625). 9  Percaulah: a fine cotton cloth (1614). 10  Palampore: a richly patterned cotton cloth (1676).

349

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2786A.  B. Furly, 1/12 October 1700 Romals of Bengal Ditto Strip’d Sallampores1 Soosees Seersuckers2 Sacerguntees Tanjeebs3 Taffaties

400 160 3800 2660 281 300 6697 1349

69 Bales Raw Silk 502500 lb Saltpetre 75000 lb Pepper

2786A.  Benjamin Furly to Edward Clarke, 1/12 October 1700 (2784A) Bodl., MS Eng. Lett. d. 2, fo. 316. Answers no. 2784A (Clarke to Furly, 27 September) and refers to no. 2779 (Locke to Furly, 22 or 23 September). Furly had sent his youngest son Arent to England to be educated under Locke’s care (see nos. 2754, 2761); now the favour was to be returned, Furly promising to care for Edward Clarke’s son John, who was sent over to Holland to learn ‘merchants’ accounts’ and the Dutch language. Clarke had asked Locke personally to urge Furly to undertake this favour and had enclosed Locke’s ­entreaty with his own letter. I am indebted to Christine Jackson-Holzberg for advice.

    Rotterdam 12 Octob 1700 Deare Sir Your acceptable Letter of the 27 past I have, with the inclosed from Mr Locke with or neare whom, is my youngest son, of whom he assures me he will take as much care as he recommends me to take of yours: your own Letter Sir without that of Mr Locke should have been sufficient to have obliged me to perform that friendly part for a person for whom I have so much esteem, & for whom I am so deeply indebted for the assistance afforded my son in law,4 in your August Senate.5 1  Salempore: a blue cotton cloth (1598). 2  Seersucker: a thin linen or cotton fabric with a crimped surface (1722). 3  Tanzib: a muslin (1728). 4  In fact, stepson: François van der Tijt (born probably in the second half of the 1670s), son of the first marriage of Furly’s third wife, Susanna van der Tijt (née Huijs). François (with Furly’s eldest son Benjohan) was in England from December 1699 until April 1700, during which time Clarke and the third earl of Shaftesbury facilitated his naturalization, Clarke drafting the Bill in January 1700, which was enacted in April. See no. 2639; and Furly to Shaftesbury, 16 February 1700 OS: Anthony Ashley Cooper, third earl of Shaftesbury, Complete Works, Series III, Correspondence, eds. C. Jackson-Holzberg, P. Müller, and F. Uehlein, 3 vols. so far, 2018–, no. 100. 5 Parliament.

350

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2795A.  Lady Masham, 19 October 1700 If you should not meet with a fit person to send your son by, if you recommend him to the care of Captain Simpson, captain of the Mansbridge sloop,1 or Captain Deplake, captain of the King William sloop, that continually ply from Debtford hither either of them will see your son safe in my house, where he shall be welcomed, but more to see your self with him,2 which with tender of my service to yourself, Lady & daughter3 is all at present from Sir, your humble servant & affectionate friend Benjamin Furly The inclosed for Mr Locke, pray send forward.4

2795A. L ady Masham, formerly Damaris Cudworth, to Edward Fowler, Edward Clarke, and Locke, 19 October 1700 (2280, 3052A) MS Locke c. 16, fo. 63. Masham Trust. Concerning a disagreement between the Trustees and the Willises, for which, see nos. 2798, 2804, 2812, 3006. This letter was enclosed with no. 2798. The letter refers to three generations of Willis (or Willys): Sir Thomas (1612–1701), Sir John (1636–1704), and Sir Thomas Jr (1674–1705), baronets of Fen Ditton, Cambridgeshire.

    Oates 19 Oct: 1700 My Lord, Having beene advised by my Councel that by reason of Sir Thomas Willis’s great Age, and Mr. Willis’s very ill Health, which makes neither of their lives to be long reckoned upon, and may occasion theire deaths within a short time one of another, that it is therefore not reasonable to rely upon their bonds onely, for such a sum as is in theire hands of my mother’s trustees money: this is to desire your Lordship Mr. Clarke and Mr. Locke, that you will propose to them that young Mr. Willis the Grandson, who I am told is of Age, be also bound with his Grandfather and Father, for the same money: or that they will give some other further 1  In 1703, during the War of the Spanish Succession, Richard Simpson, commanding the Mansbridge Sloop, seized a French vessel bound for Newfoundland: Calendar of State Papers Colonial, America and West Indies, 1702–3, nos. 791, 1041, 1276. 2  Clarke wrote again, on 15 October, a letter carried to Holland by John Clarke, explaining that John was to learn ‘Arithmatick, & merchants Accounts . . . in order to be placed with some merchant there when qualifyd for it’; that Clarke was ‘hinderd by my want of health to accompany & see him placed’, but that in any case he would rely entirely on Furly’s ‘advice and direction’. He says that he has ‘presumed on your goodness, & the recommendation of Mr Locke sent you about 10 days since’; and that John’s expenses would be remitted by Awnsham and John Churchill. Bodl., MS Eng. Lett. d. 2, fo. 318. 3 Elizabeth (Betty).   4  No. 2786.

351

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2816A.  J. Willis, 5 November 1700 securities; which if they are not willing to do, I then desire that you will be pleased to call in the money; since the Hazard that I have mentioned makes me not willing to rely any longer upon that securitie which I should otherwise be satisfied in. I am your most Humble Servant Da Masham When you shall write to Sir Thomas Willis be pleased to direct it to him at Ditton neare Cambridge. To be left with Mr. John Smith at his home in Kings Colledge Lane1 near St Marys Church in Cambridge. Address: For the Right Reverend the Lord Bishop of Gloucester, Edward Clarke Esq, and John Locke Esq

2816A.  John Willis to Edward Fowler, 5 November 1700 MS Locke c. 16, fo. 65. Masham Trust. See 2795A.

   Ditton2 Novemb. 5. 1700 My Lord, Your Lordship, Mr. Clarke, and Mr. Locke, having by a Letter to my Father of the 25th past, received but last Saturday,3 proposed that, in consideration of his great age, my infirmities, and in discharge of a Trust (which, as is well observed, requires more of caution in acting than in one’s own proper concerns) my son, or another third person, should be joynd as further security for the £300: els, to have the money paid in: I am order’d by my Father (together with his most humble service to your Lordship) to acquaint you that the Bonds (God willing) shall be discharged without fail at Candlemass day next,4 a shorter Time than which he supposes will not be insisted on. But withall, if it be with the Trustees convenience to arrive5 the money sooner, either in part, or the whole, It may very likely be paid in before that Time, of which your Lordship may be pleased at your leisure to advise, My Lord, Yours Lordship’s most humble and most faithfull servant John Willys Address: For the Right Reverend Edward Lord Bishop of Gloucester, London. Endorsed: Trust J. Willis 5 Nov 1700. 1  King’s Lane, the northward continuation of Queens’ Lane. 2  Fen Ditton, Cambridgeshire.    3 9 November.   4  2 February. 5  Convenience to arrive: i.e. opportune to convey.

352

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2839A.  P. King, 6 January 1701

2839A.  Locke to Peter King, later first Baron King, 6 January 1701 (2831, 2840) Privately owned: Mr Ralph Baxter, Brasted, Kent. (Ownership as recorded by de Beer.) Answered by no. 2852. Addendum from vol. viii. Transcribed from photocopy.

    Oates 6 Jan 00/01 Dear Cosin You will probably wonder to have this lettre follow you soe quick on the heels. you went from hence but at ten and we are not yet at dinner yet as it usualy happens before this short time after your departure I have light on what I should have shewn you whilst you were here had it come to hand, I mean Carpenters lease The 6th of July 1650 Alexander Popham Granted to my father amongst a–other things the tenement–a of Buckhill for 99 years if my mother my brother and I should soe long live. The 23 of March 1696 I grant to Francis Carpenter1 all b–that part of the tenement called Buckhill Now in the tenure or occupat of Joseph Barnes and Joseph Hanny and part of the Estate which the said John Locke holds by lease from Alexander Popham Esqr deceased. from the 25 of March nowc next ensueing the day of the date hereof for the terme of 59 years fully to be complete and ended if he the said John Locke shall soe long live.–b These are the words of my grant to Carpenter. where by it is plain I have not granted him all my terme. For my Grant to him if I should out live the terme, would end 25 Mar 1749. But Al. Pophamsd grant to my father will not end till 6 Jul 1749 whereby I think I have still the power of distreining for my rent. But this I only say only to answer your question about that matter. But my question e–in reference to Carpenter whose lettre I here with send you–e arises from Hence. That because my father dureing his life time rented about 1/8 of an acre of Land which one Pope had lyeing mixed with his f–in that which–f is called the common mead, and I also when the estate came to my hand did the same thing for the convenience of my tenants as my father did, therefor Carpenter would have me still hire that slip of meadow which is Popes and pay the rent of it for him. which haveing a–a  the tenement first written the deleted and amongst other things the underlined b–b  Underlined by Locke   c  Interlined   d  Coll. P first written and then deleted e–e  Interlined to replace about this matter first written and then deleted f–f  Preceded by which deleted 1  Butcher, of Woollard, half a mile east of Publow; frequently appears in the Corr.: no. 2155, etc.

353

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2839A.  P. King, 6 January 1701 never granted him as I think, though Barnes enjoyd it when I made the lease, I conclude he must rent it of Pope if he will have it, or let Pope enjoy it him self and sel out that part of the common meadow to him every year at a–mowing time as was donne when my father did not rent it–a according to the mear stones1 whereby it is distinguishd, and b–which as I take it he Popec has a title to by lease from the same Land Lord. But–b with it I think my self nowd to have noe thing to doe haveing long since sent Pope word that I would noe longer rent his slip of meadow. When you goe next to Sutton I would desire you to give Carpenter an answer according to what he has a right to claime from me for that I shall always doe. But I have noe reason to rent ground of an other for his use, who bought this estate over my head without my consent or ever soe much ase acquainting me with his designe to doe it, for had he been soe just to me as to have thought fit to consult me in it tis like f–(If I had consented to have resigned to him my tenant right)–f It might have fallen in my way in discourse to have remembred and soe have explaind this particular to him. But now he must enjoy the bargain he has made with the Lord of the mannor and not expect from me, more then I granted, to make up what perhaps he may find proves a worse purchase then he expected. The other particulars he complains of are noe thing but what was agreed on when I granted him his lease, wherein they are covenanted, and are noe additions since, and soe afford noe reall pretence of complaint I have here inclosed also the table or index I promised your Cosin King.2 pray give it him with my service and thanks for the favour of his company. I hope you got all well to town, and shall be glad to be assured of it. I thank you for your company and am Dear Cosin your most affectionate Cosin and humble servant J Locke Addressed: For Peter King Esqr.

a–a  Interlined   b–b  Preceded by But deleted   c  Interlined d  Interlined   e  Interlined   f–f  Added 1  Mearstones (merestones): boundary stones. 2  Richard King: Corr., vii. 222. The work referred to is probably one of the offprints of Locke’s ‘Methode nouvelle de dresser des Recueuils’. King thanked him for it: no. 2843. He visited Oates at Christmas: no. 2823, 2846.

354

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2855A.  M. Clarke, [early 1701?]

2855A. M ary Clarke to [Locke], [early 1701?] (2611) SHC, DD/SF 9/1/5 (formerly 3304). Clarke Papers. Draft (or copy) written on a loose sheet in the Chipley account book for 1685–1702. There is a list of Chipley wage payments on the verso. Recovered by Beverley Marvin. Printed in A. Stobart, Household Medicine in Seventeenth-Century England, 2016, p. 164. The previous extant letter of Clarke to Locke is no. 2133 (? October 1696) and of Locke to Clarke no. 2611 (19 August 1699). The dating of the letter is uncertain. Clarke remarks that two of her children were overseas: Edward (‘Ward’) was abroad from September 1999 and John from October 1700 (and Mary was in London with her husband until mid-December 1700); Edward returned in October 1701. She remarks on Locke’s possible visit to London and on his ‘confinement’ preventing him. This suggests springtime: Locke would not venture from Oates during winter. (In 1700 he spent sixty-five days in London, but in 1701 only eight, and he did not journey there until the end of June.) However, Mary might be complaining retrospectively of Locke’s failure to have got down to London in the autumn or early winter of 1700 in order to see her before she went back to Chipley for Christmas (he had returned to Oates in July and did not go to London again that year). The evidence for this is in Martha Lockhart’s letter of mid-December, noted here. All this suggests Mary is writing early in 1701. Mary’s swelling legs do not help with the dating, as she had suffered for several years. For this note I am indebted to Bridget Clarke. See also A. Benzaquén, ‘The Friendship of John Locke and Edward Clarke’, in A. M. Gill and S. R. Prodon, eds., Friendship and Sociability in Premodern Europe, 2014.

Deare Sir your last very kind Letter I receved and am sorry If you understood mine to be full of reproach,1 and noe pitty, for your Confinement, and thearefore doe take thiss first oppertunity to assure you that If my pitty Could have Given any reliefe to infirmityes you would have bin souner innabled to Come to London nay further to Chipley a placea which is very unhappy as well as the owner in being soe farr from otes, and my Frends theare:b but wheare I am willing still to flatter my selfec I have soe many,d that If the above said remidy would have Cured I should not have now neede to Complaine of swelled leggs or any other Greevance; which you are soe kind to tell me Cheerefullness is the best remidy I  confess the advice is very agreeable to my naturall temper, and If I should tell you which wayes and meanes I use to put it in practtiss perhaps you would hardly Creditt me and thearefore I will spare you a  Word deleted, perhaps equal   b but deleted   c that deleted d Friends deleted 1  In December 1700 Martha Lockhart reported to Locke that ‘Mrs. Clarke made many kind reproaches to you for not seeing her before she left the town. I did the best I could to persuade her it was not in your present circumstances to be expected of you’: no. 2828.

355

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2859A.  [H. Fletcher], 13 February 1701 and my selfe to att thiss time ona that account and only wonder that you that have knowne me and all my Circomstances from my Cradle1 perhaps better then any frend now in being should not be more surprised that my leggs have borne me up till thiss time; but I hope God that Governs all things for the best will Continue mee some time longer for the sake of my childrenb 2 of which are now beyond the seases and 2 att scoole att Chelsey, and the other 4 heare with me,2 I thanke God all in perfectt health and in strife3 which shall be more your Frend and servant thanc then I that am by all obligations oblidged never to be other whilst I am able to subscribe my selfe: M Clarke

2859A. [Henry Fletcher] to [Andrew Fletcher], 13 February 1701 MS Locke c. 8, fos. 123–4. A third-party letter included here because intended for transmission to Locke and because Locke answered it twice, in nos. 2866A and 2870A. De Beer incorrectly states that this letter was enclosed with no. 2901. This and the ensuing letters belong to a series of documents in MS Locke c. 8 and c. 29 concerning the health of Margaret and Henry Fletcher. It is not clear which items should be regarded as letters. I have printed those items which are pretty clearly letters or drafts of letters and omitted documents which are more in the style of statements of symptoms by the Fletchers or memoranda of advice by Locke that were probably sent as enclosures with letters. Omitted, therefore, are ‘Mrs. Fletcher Directions for her 9 Jul. 95’ (c. 29, fos. 93–4); untitled, also on Mrs. Fletcher (c. 29, fos. 95–8); ‘Mr. Fletchers case 95’ (c. 8, fos. 121–2); ‘Mrs. Fletchers Case 10 Apr. 01’ (c. 8, fos. 127–8). All these documents will appear in Peter Anstey’s and Lawrence Principe’s Clarendon Edition of Locke, Writings on Natural Philosophy and Medicine; the second has been printed as ‘Locke’s Midwifery Notes’ by K. Dewhurst in The Lancet (4 September 1954), pp. 490–1; the penultimate is summarized below, in a note to no. 2870A. I am grateful to Peter Anstey for advice. See also no. 1854A. For Henry Fletcher, see Corr., vii. 299. Locke had advised the Fletchers on medical matters some years earlier, in 1695: no. 1851.

My wife having got more good by Mr. Locks advice than by all the physitians she has consulted,4 desires you would adventure once more on his good nature. She has been very sick and weak ever since she fell with a on written over word deleted, perhaps of   b 4 deleted c  MS has thorn and superscript: yn 1  Plainly Locke had known Mary Clarke since her childhood. He had corresponded with her mother in 1661: nos. 116, 125. 2  For the Clarke children, see 682*. Overseas: Edward, John; at Josias Priest’s school: Jane, Mary; at home: Anne, Elizabeth, Jepp, Sammy. 3  In strife: striving, effortful. 4  She ‘blessed the Dr. a thousand times’, writes Henry Fletcher elsewhere: MS Locke c. 8, fo. 121.

356

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2866A.  [A. Fletcher], 22 February 1701 child, which is about three months ago: that which troubles her most at present is a shortness of breath, which she was taken a–with–a four months befor she fell with child, and was occasiond (as she thinks) by the sudden sickness of her eldest son at ane unlucky time of the month for her, which caused her to be more than ordinarly obstructed, upon which the shortness of breath immediatly followed, which at first troubled her only when she walked abroad, but now it troubles her frequently not only when she walks but likewise when she sits and lyes. She has found much good of Ens Veneris1 which Mr. Lock recommended to her, the use of it for a fortnight or twenty days together has several times strengthened her body when she was weak and given her a good appetit when other remedys have failed, but now that she is with child she knows not if she may use it safely, and therfor desires his advice in this, and concerning the shortness of her breath. She doubts not but Mr. Lock is in Town at this juncture, and expects your answer as soon as possible. I forget to tell, that she has no cough nor thirst. Salton2 13 Febr. 1700/1701. Endorsed by Locke: Fletcher 13 Feb. 0/1.

2866A. [Locke] to [Andrew Fletcher], 22 February 1701 (2389, 2870A) MS Locke c. 29, fo. 100. Draft. See headnote to no. 2859A. The emendations show that Locke was unsure whether to address himself to Henry Fletcher directly; he resolved to address Andrew, for transmission to Henry, and speaks in the third person. Answers no. 2859A.

The Ladys shortness of breath which is the symptom she now most complains of Mr. Locke thinks is wholy to be imputed to the obstructions that followed upon the fright mentioned in the paper. Ens veneris b–he–b doubts not might doe her good but c–he–c dares not advise the use of it now she is with child. Bleeding he thinks might relieve her and that consists well enough with her breeding3 provided she be strong enough to bear bleeding. But he doubts of it because there is soe plain a–a  Interlined    b–b  Interlined, replacing I deleted c–c  Interlined, replacing I deleted 1  It was produced by calcining a mixture of copper sulphate and ammonium chloride; created by Robert Boyle around 1650. 2  In East Lothian, twenty miles east of Edinburgh. 3  Breeding: pregnancy.

357

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2870A.  [A. Fletcher], 1 March 1701 a declaration of her present weakness. And therefor whether a–it–a be or be not fit to bleed her can be judgd only by the physitians upon the place. He bhas some hopes that the smelling to the spirit c–or volatil salt–c of Sal Armoniac,d or to Assa faetida e–or the like–e may give her relief in her fits of short breathing. If upon triall Mr. L: could be assured that she receivd benefit from any such smels he then thinks other remedies might be proposed which might give her farther relief and f–en­ able–f her the better to goe out her time. g–Moreover it–g would hhelp him better to judg of her case if he iwere informd what is observed to bring on her fits of short breathing j–for he kunderstands it lis not constant–j and particularly whether m–any sudden–m surprise nor passion or pensiveness be not apt to doe it. And it would not be besides the matter to know what appetite she has what she eats and drinks and how she digests and sleeps. o–These particulars and any other of her present condition he enquires into –o because he would be very glad to doe her any service but in soe nice a case and constitution he cannot be too wary and therefore would p–willingly–p have all the light he could. Endorsed by Locke: Fletcher 22 Feb. 0/1.

2870A. Locke to [Andrew Fletcher], 1 March 1701 (2866A, 3018) MS Locke c. 29, fo. 101. Draft. See headnote to no. 2859A. As in no. 2866A, Locke hesitated about whether to address himself to Henry or to Andrew Fletcher; again written in the third person.

q–The paper concerning the Ladys indisposition comeing to mr. Locke in company with several lettres which he was obleiged to answer that very evening he would not omit, notwithstanding the hast he was in, to offer what then occurrd to him concerning her case that she might receive it as soon as might be.–q But that r–he–r might doe her the a–a  Interlined   b  does not think her lungs at all impaired and therefor deleted c–c  Interlined   d  or its volatil salt deleted   e–e  Interlined f–f  Interlined, replacing help deleted   g–g  Interlined, replacing Besides he deleted h  be glad to know deleted   i can deleted   j–j  Interlined   k  does not deleted l to be deleted   m–m Interlined   n in any thing deleted o–o These enquiries he makes and into any other particulars of her present condition deleted p–p Interlined q–q The opening sentence is much amended, and it is impractical to record every variant. The original reads: The paper concerning the Ladys indisposition comeing to me with several lettres which I was obleiged to answer that very evening I would not yet forbear to offer what then occurd to me concerning her case that she might receive it by the first opportunity. r–r Interlined, replacing I deleted

358

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2908.  H. Fletcher, 23 April 1701 utmost service a–he is capable of–a b–he–b havec since at more leisure read over the account d–sent him–d of her present condition and considerd it more than once and thereupon would be glad to be informed whether she e–ever–e miscaried, and how many children she has had f–whether–f her presentg shortness of breath h–in the violence and frequency of the fits–h gradualy increasd upon her from the first obstruction til she became with child four months after, or whether the great change in it to the worse was upon her being with child; And next whether the fits of short breathing seize her when siting or lyeing when she is still and has not stird at all to put her a little out of breath. i–An other thing to be known and considerd is j–in what state that–j obstruction continued dureing the four months before her being with child.–i It would be also worth the knowing whether she sometimes makes great quantitys of very pale clear water and how she finds her self at those times. k–Mr. L knows not what fuel is used in the place where she is but this he knows that the steams of all sorts of coale are naught for her breathing and that wood is the fitest fireing in her case and that she should keep her feet and legs warm which he suspects are apt to be cold.–k Oates 1 Mar. 1700/11 Endorsed by Locke: Fletcher 1 Mar. 0/1.

2908*. Locke to Henry Fletcher, 23 April 1701 (2901) Edinburgh: National Library of Scotland, MS 17851, fos. 35–6. Addendum from vol. viii. The version printed as no. 2908 at Corr. vii. 305–7 is from a draft: MS Locke c. 24, fos. 42–3. Answers no. 2901. Transcribed from photocopy. See headnote to no. 1854A.

a–a in my small power deleted   b–b Interlined, replacing I deleted c Locke omitted to correct this to has   d–d Interlined, replacing sent me deleted e–e Interlined   f–f Interlined, replacing and as to deleted g present deleted and then reinstated   h–h Interlined, replacing whether it deleted i–i Sentence added in the margin   j–j Interlined, replacing how that deleted k–k The final sentence has been added as an afterthought. Oates Mar 1 is deleted in the midst of it 1  Henry Fletcher replied to this in another, longer letter, dated 10 April 1701 (MS Locke c. 8, fo. 127, partly torn), enclosed with no. 2901, and to which Locke replied in no. 2908. He explains that ‘Her greatest defect when she is not with child seems to be the obstruction of her menses, which tho never total, yet is not such as nature requires.’ She was more than ordinarily obstructed three or four months before she fell with child, accompanied by shortness of breath. Since this followed ‘her eldest sons sudden and dangerous sickness, it seems reasonable to impute them to the fright and toyl at that time’. Nine ounces of blood were let, but this made her worse. Her appetite is low, though ens veneris helps. She has borne seven children, the youngest is now three, and has miscarried twice in the past two years. Smelling salt and asafoetida help. Coal is burnt in the house.

359

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2908.  H. Fletcher, 23 April 1701     Oates 23 Apr 1701 Sir I have received yours of the 10th instant and with it the account you have sent me of your Ladys case: Any one who reads it will easily see that her distemper has mightily broken her constitution, and disorderd the whole Oeconomie1 of her body; which will require more to be donne to set it right again than the present circumstances of her breeding will admit. All that I think can rationaly be proposed or aimed at now is to support her till she is brought to bed and help her to goe out her time. That which seems most to threaten her with danger before that time is want of breath and want of Strength. The first of these however painfull and terrible it be yet I imagin will not put an end to her life within that time because I am of opinion that symptom is not from any decay in her lungs but is produced by the disorder in the humors and animal spirits. But yet noe thing is to be neglected which may give her ease and breath in her asthmatick fits As to her weakness which threatens most it is in my opinion impossible to stop the increase of it and hinder her from sinking unless her stomach be taken care of, that her appetite may be recoverd and digestion ­performed, and this the rather because what increase of strength can be got this way will also help to lessen her short breathing To this purpose I propose a diet of such wholesome nourishments as she finds most agreeable and acceptable to her stomach and she can most easily digest. To know what her stomach will most easily close and deale with, her stomach must be consulted, for noe body else can tell. Only I think her diet should havea as little mixture of medicinal drugs with it as may be for fear of offending a weak and consequently a nice stomach which must be humord as much as possible with what best pleases her palate and appetite In the next place seeingb she has tried Ens veneris since her being with child, and has always found benefit in takeing of it, and seems now to long after it, I am of opinion she may now take it again, ­proceeding to larger doses as she grows nearer her time, espetialy after soe many drops as she has taken of Elixir proprietatis

a be first written and deleted; have interlined b since first written and deleted; seeing interlined 1  Oeconomie: order or system.

360

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2908.  H. Fletcher, 23 April 1701 And for the better strengthening of her stomach I propose that a large plaister of Caranna with a little mixture of balsam of Peru should be applied regioni a–ventriculi–a: to which perhaps her physitian may think fit to adde a little Galbanum as she approaches nearer to her time. I mention her physitian for I would have all this course (if you think fit to follow it) under the direction of a physitian upon the place who upon emergencies not to be foreseen may accomodate it to the present circumstances as occasion may require. For it is impossible before hand and at a distance to tell what symptoms will or what will not need to be applied to under this view of barely supporting her till she be brought to bed, leaveing the thoughts and endeavours after a radical cure till after that time. And therefor I think several of the symptoms she now complains of may at present be neglected and none of them any farther applied to than as they directly thwart the main designe of supporting and recovering her strength and threaten her with imminent danger. For she is in my opinion too weak to bear many medicines, which if multiplied, her stomach will not have time to demand and digest food sufficient for her support till child birth If the faintings you mention returne I think that hot cordials whose basis is the spirits of distild vinous liquors are by noe means proper. Instead of those a pretty large dose of Orange flower water a little sweetend with syrop of clove July flowers is what I would propose or if that be not found effectuall enough some good old Venice Treacle may be dissolved in the Orange flower water instead of the Syrop of clove July flowers If sweet smels as you say comfort and releive her let her by all means use them, and those which she finds most agree with her, for noe thing but triall in her present case can discover which is best Though a tincture of Ambergris seems to me to be as likely to be good as any By all means let her burn wood in her chamber, and though she is not able to walke abroad, yet if she could be carried out of her chamber in a chair into the open air when the weather is favourable I guess it would much releive her I hope by such a method as this under the direction of a skilfull physitian on the place she may be supported till her lyeing in, which is

a–a  Underlined by Locke

361

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

2973A.  J. Bonville Jr, 5 August 1701 all that I think can be proposed at present. I wish good successe to this or what ever else may be used for her releif and recovery. I am Sir Your most humble servant John Locke Endorsed by Fletcher: Mr. Locks letter 23 April 1701.

2973A.  John Bonville Jr to [Locke], 5 August 1701 (1771) Cambridge, Massachusetts: Houghton Library, Harvard University, Autograph File B. Two fragments of a letter found in a copy of Locke’s Reasonableness of Christianity (1695): call number *EC65.L7934.695ra. The book belonged to Locke’s library and contains autograph amendments to the text. The letter fragments were recorded by J.  C.  Higgins-Biddle in his Clarendon Edition of the Reasonableness, 1999, p. cxxii, where he notes that on the verso of one fragment Locke has written a biblical citation, ‘v. John VII. 41’, which matches one of his textual amendments, while the verso of the other has a blotting of ‘XII’, which corresponds to the marking up of the text with chapter divisions. Accordingly, Locke was at work revising the Reasonableness at least as late as the date of this letter. The letter itself is by the son of Locke’s cousin, John Bonville, the pewterer. There is one other surviving letter or, rather, postscript by the son: no. 1771 (9 August 1694). The present letter is evidently a request to Locke for his support in securing a permanent post in the Excise Office. From 1698 to 1701 Bonville’s father several times reported to Locke his efforts to secure a post there for his son, on one ­occasion writing to Edward Clarke, in his role as an excise commissioner, and requesting that Locke write also. In March 1701 Bonville Jr was taken on in a temporary capacity, but was discharged in October. In November he was taken on again, and perhaps this time permanently: by 1707, if not earlier, he was assistant to the accomptant general, on a salary of £80 p.a. (nos. 1771, 2391, 2464, 2753, 2891, 3013, 3022, 3032). Both fragments of the present letter are of the right-hand side and almost certainly belong to a single sheet. Insertions in parenthesis are probable readings of missing or partially missing text. Thanks are due to Emily Walhout and Susan Halpert of the Houghton Library.

〈Excise〉Office London August 5th 1701

. . . 〈libe〉rty to Informe you that in all . . . be a vacancy in the Salt Accomptants1 . . . time for Mr. Ryley the Commissioner2 1  In 1693 a salt tax was instituted, levied at the point of manufacture (rather than consumption). Tax was levied on imports as well as home-produced salt, and at first administered sep­ar­ ate­ly by the customs and the excise offices; a separate salt office was created in 1702 and five commissioners appointed. 2  Philip Ryley was one of the excise commissioners. Another was Locke’s former colleague on the Board of Trade, Sir Philip Meadows. Locke himself was a commissioner for excise appeals. The chief accomptant was Dean Montague. Edward Chamberlayne, Angliae Notitia, 1702, p. 608.

362

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

3052A.  Lady Masham, 12 December 1701 . . . place at Court will (as he himself . . . 〈i〉n 3 Weeks or a Month at the far〈thest〉 . . . is 〈an Assi〉stant Accompt〈ant〉

. . . this Affair and that with 〈speed〉 . . . not vacant every day, there . . . make friends for the Place . . . 〈Accomp?〉tants have desir’d me to make all . . . 〈be〉cause they had rather have me . . . doth put in for the Busines. . . . 〈hu〉mbly conceive that a Letter of . . . from you or any other such . . . would be of great service to . . . Kinsman . . . Servant John Bonville Junior

3052A. L ady Masham, formerly Damaris Cudworth, to Edward Fowler, Edward Clarke, and Locke, 12 December 1701 (2795A) MS Locke c. 16, fo. 69. Masham Trust. A further example of the letters Lady Masham wrote requesting confirmation of her financial arrangements.

    Oates the 12 December 1701 My Lord, This is to acquaint your Lordship Mr. Clarke and Mr. Locke that I have beene offered a mortgage for £400. The Estate proposed to be mortgaged is Mr. Wests lying neare Thurland Castle in Lancashire. He proposes to mortgage £300 a yeare for £3000, whereof Mr. Bonett1 the City solicitor lends £2000. Mr. Marton2 of the Middle Temple is to find the other £1000, and offers me to let £400 of it be our money. He is satisfyed by Mr. Conyers,3 as Mr. Bonet was before by other Councel,

1  Or Bennet, who is mentioned in nos. 2815 and 2819. 2  Oliver Marton, often connected in Conyers’s financial dealings and Lady Masham’s; see, e.g., nos. 3442, 3451, 3533. 3  John Conyers, MP, regularly mentioned in the correspondence in relation to financial ­matters. See 2210.

363

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

3059A.  C. Trotter, [c.December 1701] that the Title to this Estate is good. I desire your consent therefore that I may lend foure Hundred pounds upon this securitie. I am Your very Humble Servant Da Masham 15 December 1701 We whose names are here underwritten doe consent that four hundred pounds be lent upon the mortgage above mentioned.1 Edward Gloucester2 John Locke Address: For the Right Reverend the Lord Bishop of Gloucester, Edward Clarke Esq, and John Locke Esq. Endorsed: Trust L: Masham. Desire that £400 may be sent upon lands in Lancasshire 12 Dec 1701. | 15 Decbr 1700 The trustees consent to lend £400 on Mr. Wests mortgage.

3059A. Catharine Trotter, later Cockburn, to Locke, [c.December 1701] (3234) Dedicatory epistle prefaced to A Defence of the Essay of Human Understanding, written by Mr. Lock. Wherein its Principles with Reference to Morality, Reveal’d Religion, and the Immortality of the Soul, are Consider’d and Justify’d, 1702. LL 1801. No extant manu­ script. Reprinted in her Works, ed. T. Birch, 1751, i. 45–7. Trotter’s book was finished in December 1701 and published in May 1702. It was a reply to three sets of Remarks on Locke’s Essay, 1697–8, traditionally attributed to Thomas Burnet of the Charterhouse, but now thought to be by Richard Willis.3 She sent copies of her book to Elizabeth Burnet (wife of Bishop Gilbert Burnet) and to John Norris, and upon learning of their approval of it, she revealed her authorship. In gratitude, Locke asked Peter King to visit her with a gift. His letter of compliment to her for her book and for its dedication is no. 3234; there is a copy among her papers: BL, Add. MS 4265, fo. 16. Trotter recounts these events in a letter to Thomas Burnett of Kemnay of 2 February 1704: ‘Designing, as you know, to conceal my name, I trusted none with it, till the Bishop of Salisbury’s lady having heard I was writing, and that it was not poetry, was very desirous to know the subject; which I would not deny to a person of her merit, whom I knew I might safely confide in; and accordingly I found her as concerned as myself, that the author should not be known. But when she heard the Bishop, and several others of great judgment in such matters, were pleased to say they were very well satisfied with it, and that Mr. Locke had given it his approbation, she thought it would be no injury to me to confess the author. After which Mr. Locke, not being in town 1  Postscript in another hand.    2  Bishops surnamed themselves by their dioceses. 3  J. C. Walmsley, H. Craig, and J. Burrows, ‘The Authorship of the Remarks upon an Essay Concerning Humane Understanding’, Eighteenth-Century Thought, 6 (2016), 205–43.

364

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

3059A.  C. Trotter, [c.December 1701] himself, desired a relation of his to make me a visit, and a present of books from him; and when I had owned myself, he honoured me with a very obliging letter.’ She further adds, ‘I do not wonder Mr. Locke is unwilling to engage in controversy with the gentlemen you mention; for, I am informed, his infirmities have obliged him, for some time past, to desist from his serious studies, and only employ himself in lighter things, which serve to amuse and unbend the mind’ (Works, ii. 166–8). Trotter wrote a further defence of Locke, A Vindication of Mr. Locke’s Christian Principles, not published until it appeared in her Works, i. 155–379, this time without a dedication. She married Patrick Cockburn in 1708, and her Works appeared under her married name. See ‘Life’ in Works; and A. Kelley, Catharine Trotter: An Early Modern Writer in the Vanguard of Feminism, 2002. See also no. 3086A. The Trotter manuscripts are among the Birch Papers: BL Add. MSS 4264–7. This dedication and Locke’s reply are printed in J. Broad, ed., Women Philosophers of Eighteenth-Century England: Selected Correspondence, 2020, pp. 121–4.

To the Excellent Mr. Lock. Sir, I do not presume to address these Papers to you as a Champion in your Cause, but as an Offender, to make the best Apology I can for a Bold unlicens’d Undertaking; that Excellence of the Essay of Human Understanding, which gave me Courage in encountring a Caviller against it, strikes me with Shame and Awe, when I think of coming before you; like a Rash Lover, that fights in Defence of a Lady’s Honour, the juster his Cause is, the more Reason he has to fear her Resentment, for not leaving it to assert it self by its own Evidence, and the more it secures him of Success against his Adversary, the less Pretence he has to her Forgiveness:1 But, Sir, The Essay of Human Understanding is a Publick Concern, which every one has a Right and Interest to defend; It came too late into the World to be receiv’d without Opposition, as it might have been in the first Ages of Philosophy, before Mens Heads were prepossest with imaginary Science; at least, no doubt, if so Perfect a Work cou’d have been produc’d so Early, it wou’d have prevented a great deal of that unintelligible Jargon, and vain Pretence to Knowledge of things out of the reach of Human Understanding, which make a great part of the School-Learning, and disuse the Mind to Plain and solid Truth. But the Great Mr. Lock was reserv’d for a Curious and Learned Age, to break in upon this Sanctuary of Vanity and Ignorance,2 and by ­setting

1  This complex trope may entail the registering of a feminist complaint that male gallants are apt to make a song and dance about defending a lady who is quite capable of looking after herself. 2 Locke, Essay, ed. P. Nidditch, 1975, Epistle to the Reader, p. 10.

365

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

3059A.  C. Trotter, [c.December 1701] Men on considering first the Bounds of Human Understanding,1 to help them in a close Pursuit of True and Useful Knowledge: And is it possible for a Lover of Truth to be unmov’d, or silently suffer any injurious Insinuations of so Excellent a Design. Your Time, Sir, is too precious to be employ’d in taking notice of them, you still go on in farther designs for our Advantage and Improvement; and whilst you labour in that Great End to which you were Destin’d, The good of Mankind,2 ’tis every one’s Duty to be watchful for you, and zealous to secure the Benefits you have already done us. ’Tis confess’d, the vast disproportion between one of so mean Abilities as the Author of this Defence; and the Incomparable Mr. Lock, might with Reason have deter’d from the Attempt.3 But I did not presume to consider my self in any kind of Comparison with him, I  only observ’d the Adversaries Strength and Thought (with Reason and Justice on my side) I need not be discourag’d to enter the Lists with him; And I am perswaded, what I have done will leave him no cause of Triumph, how much soever it is unworthy of you: I wish, Sir, you may only find it enough worth your notice, to incite you to shew the World, how far it falls short of doing Justice to your Principles, which you may do without interrupting the Great Business of your Life, by a Work that will be an Universal Benefit, and which you have giv’n the World some Right to exact of you; Who is there so capable of pursuing to a Demonstration those Reflections on the Grounds of Morality which you have already made?4 Which on the Hints you may have giv’n, is impatiently expected from you by many who lament the Great Need there is of it in this Age; That Consideration, no doubt, will animate one who has ever shewn a careful Zeal for the Advancement of Practical Religion; and I cannot but think a Man so greatly qualify’d for such an Undertaking, was giv’n in Mercy to an Age in which it is more than ever wanting, for never any Age abounded like this with open Advocates of Irreligion, upon pretended Rational Grounds. To silence these unhappy Reasoners, by a Demonstration of the Obligations their 1 Locke, Essay, I. i. 3. 2  The phrase, italicized as if a quotation, appears in § 229 of Locke’s Second Treatise of Government, which may suggest that Trotter is alluding to Locke’s anonymous political treatise. On the other hand, it is a common enough phrase. 3  A similar sentiment occurs in her letter to Thomas Burnet of 9 December 1701: ‘I am conscious, so noble a cause deserves a better advocate. . . . I am more afraid of appearing before him I defend, than of the public censure’: Works, ii, 155. 4  An allusion to Locke’s conspicuous claim that ‘morality is capable of demonstration’: Essay, IV. Iii. 18; IV. xii. 8.

366

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

3059B.  A. Churchill, [c.1701] Nature lays upon them, is a Work worthy of the Excellent Mr. Lock; And perhaps the weakness of this Defence may shew you, that those who mean well to Religion, have no little need of your Instruction; in hopes of which, I have ventur’d to Publish these Papers, not without much Apprehension and Awe of your Displeasure; But Sir, in my Offence you must perceive my Zeal, and tho’ I have not the Happiness to be known to you, believe me with the Profoundest Respect, Sir, Your most Humble, And most Obedient Servant.1

3059B.  Locke to Awnsham Churchill [c.1701] (3052, 3063) Cambridge, Massachusetts: Houghton Library, Harvard University: MS Eng 1090(4). A manuscript sheet in Locke’s hand addressed to Churchill and presumably belonging to a missing, fuller letter. It contains simply a list of corrections, evidently to a published book. The book in question has been identified as William Baxter’s edition of Horace, published by Churchill about mid-1701. In November Locke gave a copy, via Arent Furly, to Jean Le Clerc, who did not think much of the quality of its scholarship (nos. 3030, 3080). More than has hitherto been recognized, Locke assisted Churchill as a kind of publisher’s adviser: he was currently doing so in respect of Churchill’s great compilation, A Collection of Voyages and Travels (1704). The document, transcription, and explanation are owed to Felix Waldmann: ‘Locke, Horace, and a syllabus errorum’, Locke Studies, 15 (2015), 3–29.

Pag 3 11 21 24 25

Vers 36n 10 53n 5 23

122 152 204

11 6 98

Lege2 verticem musa exercitum ducis urgent. This word being printed in several other places as well as here with an u after the g the author ought to be consulted3 expertae moriar hinc et hinc

Address: For Mr. Awnsham Churchill a bookseller at the Black Swan in Pater noster row London 1  The dedication and book are anonymous. Trotter wrote to Burnet, ‘A woman’s name would give a prejudice against a work of this nature; and truth and reason have less force, when the person, who defends them, is prejudiced against’ (Works, ii. 155).    2  Page / Line / Read. 3  A swirl of controversy among classicists surrounded this orthographic point, to which Locke, at least here, appears oblivious. See Waldmann’s article for discussion.

367

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

3086A.  T. Burnett, 18 February 1702

3086A.  Thomas Burnett of Kemnay to Catharine Trotter, later Cockburn, [7/]18 February 1702 BL, Add. MS 4264, fo. 111. Printed in The Works of Mrs. Catharine Cockburn, ed. T. Birch, 2 vols., 1751, ii. 160–3. In 1702 Catharine Trotter (better known by her later married name of Cockburn) published A Defence of the Essay of Human Understanding, a critique of the anonymous Remarks on the Essay, 1697–9. See 3059A. Trotter’s draft Defence was completed by the close of 1701. She had apparently been encouraged to take up this project by Thomas Burnett of Kemnay, who was, inter alia, Locke’s go-between with Leibniz. This letter contains Burnett’s advice on the draft and is revealing of circumstances surrounding polemics against Locke and Locke’s response. Locke’s name occurs regularly in the Trotter-Burnett correspondence in her Works. In the following transcription ‘L---k’ is rendered ‘Locke’.

    Paris, 18 Feb. 1702 Madam, I received yours from Salisbury 9th of December last, than which nothing could be more acceptable to me but your own presence. I rejoyce with you in your good fortune of health and entertainments since you left me. I am glad the bishop’s lady1 hath approved herself to your judgment. The bishop’s volatile activity will find a just temperament in her phlegm.2 I am exceedingly glad you have made so good use of your retirement for a contemplative study, and should be yet gladder to hear you had found opportunity for quitting fictitious and poetical study,3 for the more serious and solid; especially knowing perfectly the strength of your genius that way; and that particular inclination and fame both together seem to invite you to raise your reputation, by this new and untrodden path. I understand you have writ an apology for Mr. Locke, against one of his Animadverters. I read these letters, I think, once or twice, but found no great matter in them, but that they were addressed to Mr. Locke with modesty and respect enough, at least in the first, and were offered rather as doubts than objections, to which some instructive answers were expected. As to your publishing any thing upon such a nice and important subject, especially from one of your sex, and years,4 and in defence of such an aged philosopher, and whose notions have not been thought by many to have done the best service to religion, I know not what to say, that may be cautiously enough contrived for taking off all suspicion of vanity, novelty, or too 1  Elizabeth Burnet, wife of Gilbert, bishop of Salisbury. ODNB; M. S. Zook, Protestantism, Politics, and Women in Britain, 1660–1714, 2013, ch. 5. 2  i.e. phlegmatic personality. 3  Trotter’s literary career began with stage plays and verse. 4  She was probably born in 1674.

368

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

3086A.  T. Burnett, 18 February 1702 great curiosity of examining sacred things rather by the principles of philosophy than by the ballance of the sanctuary; for I know not how you have framed that work. Only I think, if you had wrote your own thoughts upon those subjects of common and innate notions, of materiall and immaterial matter, and spirit, body and soul, thinking and reasoning, and any other subjects you pleased to mix with these as congenious; and at the same time, incidently only, had taken notice of that reflector, and vindicate Mr. Locke, it might have had lesse design appearing in it; and Mr. Locke would have had the same obligation to your service: whereas now I thinke you doe that author too much ­honour in writing professedly against him: besides I know not, if you may not now make a dispute and an adversary both to your self. In all events I would have you insert something of a strain of orthodox sentiments in theology: otherwise your single silence (upon occasions of mentioning any thing relative to the immateriality and immortality of the soul) may be construed as incredulity. This may be done in a large preface, if there be little divinity sprinkled up and down the work itself: but I am persuaded you would not employ your talent but to the best purposes and uses, and to make true and sound philosophy serve but as a pedestal to exalt the esteem of theology more visibly. You may have a fair opportunity to vindicate Mr. Locke’s intentions in this, where he hath not been so explicit, as some short sighted but well meaning ­people thinke; notwithstanding that I ever thought him as good a man, as knowing a philosopher, and have it confirmed by all that know him much better. Mr. Cunningham1 of your town, can direct you in all this, and is himself of as piercing judgment upon a subject of such kind, as any I ever knew. I am altogether for your encouragement in such a work: only I would have the best method also taken, wherein others will not be wanting with more proper advyce. I have shewn you my opinion. I am afraid you will find Dr. Allix2 his writing and style too obscure especially in reflections that are not vulgarly known. It is not every ones talent to write. Hammond3 was a very learned, judicious, and pious divine as England hath had and yet he labours with obscurity. Dr. Patrick4 I believe is clearer than any of them, and both judicious 1  Possibly Alexander Cunningham (c.1650/60–1730), jurist and scholar (Cockburn, Works, ii. 187, 193), though he was apparently on the Continent at this time. See no. 2588*. 2  Pierre Allix (1641–1717), Church of England author. ODNB. The writers here named published commentaries on Scripture. 3  Henry Hammond (1605–60), Church of England theologian. ODNB. 4  Simon Patrick (1626–1707,) bishop of Ely. ODNB.

369

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

3086A.  T. Burnett, 18 February 1702 and learned, if you can dispense with him for not being a metaphysitian. I know no better notes upon Scripture in English, and I hope you may learn a great deal from them all. Dr. Whitby’s Commentary, prebend of Sarum,1 I brought with me, and it is highly commended by one here that is the best judge. I have been charmed mightily with what I read in Mr. Norris Theory of the intellectual world,2 especially that chapter concerning the comparative certainty betwixt faith and reason. I look upon him to be one of the most pregnant genius’s England hath, both for delightfull and philosophicall notions; and pity it were he were not more known, and his study more relished. I gave what account I could of him to father Malebranche,3 who regrets his being a stranger to our language. The French poet that understood English is gone to Rome, and there is but few that understand our prose and none almost our dramatique. However, I shall have the judgment of one that is exceeding ingenious ere long concerning your Fatall Friendship.4 There hath been acted at court Electre a tragedy by Sophocles and Euripedes and other antients which hath been applauded as much as any composition here this many years.5 It is the most moving piece [that] can be seen, and yet love entereth not therein, but only compassion, which moveth so much all spectators. I shall not trouble you at this tyme with the good entertainment I have met with here; much less with any new wrytings here, whereof this place abounds, though never any thing almost, that deserves to be read: only I must not omitt, that the famous Madame Dacier6 is putting out a work that will eternise her memory, and inrich the stock of learning also exceedingly. It is a new edition of Homer in Greek and French, I think with many learned and criticall remarques which will make the book of two volumes in folio.7 I had the account from her self, and have been oblidged to her own and 1 Daniel Whitby (1637/8–1726), prebend in the Salisbury diocese, godfather to Bishop Burnet’s son; Paraphrase and Commentary on the New Testament, 1700–3; Whig in politics (his nickname ‘Whigby’), Arminian in theology. Corr., vi. 545; ODNB. 2  John Norris (1657–1712), Church of England clergyman and philosopher; critic of Locke’s Essay; An Essay Towards the Theory of the Ideal or Intelligible World, 1701–4. Corr., iv. 443; ODNB; W. J. Mander, The Philosophy of John Norris, 2008. 3  Nicolas Malebranche (1638–1715), French Cartesian philosopher. 4  Fatal Friendship: a Tragedy was staged in London and published in 1698. 5  A translation was made by André Dacier in 1692, which was then adapted for performance at Versailles by the playwright Hilaire-Bernard de Longepierre (1659–1731). P. J. Finglass, ‘Electra’, in Brill’s Companion to the Reception of Sophocles, eds., R. Lauriola and K. N. Demetriou 2017. 6  Anne Dacier (née Le Fevre) (1645–1720), French scholar and translator of the classics; wife of André. Locke received two letters from her brother, Tanneguy Le Fevre Jr: nos. 2909, 3215. 7  The chronology is puzzling. Dacier’s Iliad had appeared in 1699, so presumably this refers to her Odyssey, which did not appear until 1708.

370

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

3088A.  W. Popple, 10 February 1702 her husband’s1 acquaintance for one of the best conversations I have had at Paris. It is but the least and shortest thing can be said of her, that she never had, nor has her match for a woman in trew and usefull learning, and that to the highest degree, and is a good reasoner to the boot. I am not able to add much more at present, but intreat to hear from you all your matters, and any thing else, that is entertaining of the alterations and occurrences of the city, any new bookes, especially Stillingfleets (if it be come out)2 for such will be acceptable here; but above all to hear of your own health continuing will exceedingly rejoice, Madam your real and zealous friend and most obsequious servant, T.3 Burnett Wryt as often as you have leisure, addressing your letters for me, a la maison de Mons. Patrix, Peruquier, vis-à-vis l’hôtel du jardin royal, rue de la Boucherie, à Paris. My lady Salisbury4 has been here this month, and thinks of going for Brussels. My service to the Throgmortons5 and all acquaintances. Address: For Mrs. Catharine Trotter Att London

3088A.*  Locke to William Popple, 10 February 1702 (3085, 3173) BL, RP 477/1. De Beer printed extracts taken from a Sotheby’s sale catalogue of 22 June 1970. A photocopy of the full text is now available among the British Library’s ‘Copies of Exported Manuscripts Deposited under Government Export Regulations’. Transcribed from the photocopy. Present ownership unknown. The letter concerns the Exchequer’s belated payment of a quarter-year’s salary to Locke as formerly a member of the Board of Trade and Plantations: see no. 3085.

Sir I remember a lady of France receiving from her gallant a note for a considerable sum said it was the best pen’d billet doux that ever she had 1  André Dacier (1651–1722). A book of his is mentioned in no. 747A. 2 Bishop Edward Stillingfleet had died in 1699. This perhaps refers to a new edition, Cambridge, 1702, of his Origines sacrae, 1662, which contained an additional treatise on the same theme, written in 1697. 3  Birch’s edition of Cockburn’s Works erroneously has ‘G.’ 4  Probably Frances (née Bennett) (1670–1713), widow of James Cecil, fourth earl of Salisbury. 5  Trotter was friendly with the Catholic family of Throckmorton, for whom, see Catholic Gentry in English Society: The Throckmortons of Coughton from Reformation to Emancipation, eds. P. Marshall and G. Scott, 2005.

371

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

3104A.  [P. King], [c.28 February] 1702 received. I did you an ordinary piece of justice and you cannot content yourself with less than the hopes of £250 to send me in return. He must be very stiff who would not take this for very hearty thanks and be very well satisfied considering the goodwill it comes with from you. You are in the place of changes1 not wrought on by them which makes me have the confidence to count upon your friendship and assure you of mine. When necessarys are provided for, afriendship is the best, most usefull, and most delightful treasure that I know. Therefor doe not think that the money is the most valuable thing in your letter. When it comes pray pay it to Mr. Churchil. I have here joynd sent you a bill on him for the sum you mentioned, and a blank receit for £250- in the Exchequer forme. Receive my thanks for the notice you sent me, and be assured I am Sir Your most humble and most obedient servant J Locke My Lady2 and all our fires side (amongst which count me one) give our services to you and yours. Oates 10 Feb 0½ Endorsed: 26 March 〈recd〉 14〈th〉

3104A. [Peter King] to Locke, [c.28 February] 1702 (3104, 3105) MS Locke b. 3, fo. 136. The text below is not King’s letter, which is lost, but a set of notes, in Locke’s hand, written on the back of a spare sheet from the letter. It belongs to the sequence of letters that comprises nos. 3091, 3094, 3101, and 3103. The missing letter may be that described by de Beer (Corr., vii. 573, 574n), or an addendum to it: King did write to Locke on 19 February (Corr., vii. 574). However, Locke’s puzzlement about one matter, explained in note 3 below, suggests that this document dates to around 28 February, and it may correspond to Locke’s request to King, on 26 February: ‘pray give me a little light in this matter in your next’ (no. 3103). The notes correspond to resolutions passed by the Commons, upon reports from the Committee of Ways and Means, on 12 and 14 February: Journals of the House of Commons, xiii. 741, 743; (further recommendations followed on 24 February: p. 759). The House was engaged in preparing a comprehensive bill for raising new taxes. I cannot find a statute that corresponds to the proposals, and the bill presumably lapsed with the king’s death on 8 March, albeit a that deleted. 1  A general election had been called in November 1701 and a new parliament sat at the close of December. Preparations for a new war against France were under way. 2  Damaris Masham.

372

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

3104A.  [P. King], [c.28 February] 1702 that, under the terms of an Act of 1696, Parliament continued to sit in order to ensure an orderly succession (7 & 8 W III c. 15); it was replaced by a new tax bill under Queen Anne. It is not clear whether Locke’s interest in these taxation measures was primarily political or personal: he simultaneously discussed with King a substantial investment in Salt tallies (see esp. no. 3091).

Aid Tax 17021 1412 142 143 145 162 187 189 198 200

201 202

All debts upon interest 1¼ p[er] cent3 Annuitys - 4 sh p[er] £ Salarys - 1 sh p[er] £ Pol.4 - 4 sh Proprietors of Lands charged to deduct for annuitys when they pay them. Officers to pay for their office in the place where it is exercised5 Tax fraudulently evaded if proved within 20 days after the tax made to be paid double Creditors to give to the assessors a signed note of the grosse sum of their debts taxable And a specification of those debts to 2 of the Commissioners before they deliver their Estreats6 to the collectors, signed mentioning the principal summs the persons liable to pay them with the respective dates of the security and names of the witnesses The Commissioners to deliver back copies of the said specification under their hands and seals Omission of any debt in the said specification to pay double of the tax over and above the tax and the said debt not recoverable nor specially pleadable befor 25 Mar 94 unless the penalty be first paid

1  Oddly, the list leaves out the first and most important proposal, that the Land Tax be set at 4 shillings in the pound (Journals of the House of Commons, xiii. 741), as reported by King to Locke on 12 February (no. 3091). 2  I do not know to what the marginal numeration refers. 3  The Commons committee proposed a ‘duty of 25 sh. per centum’: Journal, xiii. 741. On 12 February King wrote, ‘There is to be a tax of 25s per Cent. on all mony 〈a〉t 〈In〉terest’ (no. 3091). On 16 February Locke replied, ‘A tax of 25 per cent on all mony at interest is what I doe not understand, i e 〈quarta〉 pars. I guess you mean 25s for every £100 which is properly speaking 1¼ per cent. pleas explain’ (no. 3094). On 23 February (replying to a missing letter of the 19th), Locke writes, ‘With submission 25 shillings per cent does not explain the matter as you mean it unless you adde pounds. but I understand you and that is enough’ (no. 3101). Given that the present document makes clear that the meaning is 1¼ per cent, and should hence have cleared up Locke’s puzzlement, it seems likely that it was sent to Locke after 23 February. 4  The Poll Tax, to be set at 4 shillings in the pound, was levied on everyone, except those in receipt of alms or not paying the poor rate; children under 16 of the same, and of day labourers and servants in husbandry, and of those who had four or more children and were worth less than £10 per annum. 5  The salaries tax included a levy on officeholders; this clause stipulates it would be collected at the place where the office was executed. Journal, xiii. 743. 6  Estreats: ‘the true extract, copy, or note of some original writing or record, esp. of fines, amercements, etc.’ Oxford English Dictionary.

373

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

3205A.  Earl of Shaftesbury, 4 November 1702 Address: For John Locke Esq. at Oates to be left at Mr. Harrisons at the Crown in Harlow / Frank1 / P. King. Endorsed by Locke: Tax 1702.

3205A. Anthony Ashley Cooper, third earl of  Shaftesbury, to Benjamin Furly, 4 November 1702 TNA, PRO 30/24/20/66, fos. 156–7. Later copy: Gloucestershire Record Office, D6/ F158, pp. 33–7. Printed in Original Letters of John Locke, Algernon Sidney, and Lord Shaftesbury, ed. T. Forster, 1830, pp. 183–6; 2nd edn, 1848, pp. 138–41; and The Life, Unpublished Letters, and Philosophical Regimen of Anthony, Earl of Shaftesbury, ed. B. Rand, 1900, pp. 312–13. To be printed in Shaftesbury, Complete Works, Series III, Correspondence, eds. C. Jackson-Holzberg, P. Müller, and F. A. Uehlein, 2018–. Date of letter derived from Gloucestershire copy and Forster. Italicized words are underlined in the MS. The transcription and some annotation are owed to Christine Jackson-­ Holzberg. This letter is significant as a testament to the close paternal interest Locke took in the career of Arent Furly (his ‘foster-child’) (1685–1712); and as an integral part of a series of letters already published in the Correspondence concerning Locke’s recommendation of Arent to the earl of Peterborough (formerly earl of Monmouth) to accompany his expedition to the West Indies to take up his appointment as governor of Jamaica. In the event, the appointment was aborted, but Arent served Peterborough as his secretary in Spain, where the earl was militarily triumphant in the War of the Spanish Succession. (See especially no. 3210; also 3224, 3226, 3227, 3244.) The letter also comments on Peterborough’s maverick political trajectory, significant because of Locke’s constant closeness to him.

   St Giles, Nov. 〈4〉 1702 Mr. Furley, I hope that before this reaches you, Your Son Mr. Benjohan2 will be safely arrivd: who brings some Letters from me to you and other Friends.3 My letter to your Self was but short; since your Son (who came so lately from me, and was so kind as to stay some time with me, longer than he first designd) was able to tell you all my Thoughts of our Publick affaires: from which I am now much withdrawn4 and must be more so, not only because of this season in which it is not so proper for such as I am to act; but in truth because My Efforts in time of Extreamity, for this last year or two, have been so much beyond my 1  This refers to the privilege of Members of Parliament to send mail without charge. 2  Benjohan, eldest son (1681–1738), who served his father’s business. He was summoned speedily to Holland, so told Locke of his regret at not being able to see him again before he left: no. 3202. 3  Benjohan carried nos. 3198 and 3199 and evidently others. 4  Shaftesbury left London in April. See his remarks to Locke: no. 3139.

374

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

3205A.  Earl of Shaftesbury, 4 November 1702 Strength in every respect, that not only for my Mind’s sake (which is not a little, to one that loves Retirement as I do) but for my Health’s sake, and on the Account of my private Circumstances I am oblig’d to give my self a Recess: which will have this agreeable in it, besides the Retirement which I love, that I shall promise my Self the Happiness of seeing you in Holland;1 since you have been so long a Coming to us, but are still so far from it; by what I can guess.2 I have received yours of the 7th (your Style) enclosd in your Son’s, who writ me he was then about his Journey to Harwich for the next Pacquet.3 I was mightyly pleasd to read in yours of the generouse offer of a Certain great Lord4 to you for the preferring of some young Man of your Recommendation his Service, in his great Employment:5 nor was I less pleasd to see how the young Lads receivd it, when you read it to them, and meethoughts I saw, as if I were present, their honest Ambition and freindly Emulation: But it is Harry’s6 Duty to wave his Part: and I really think (by what I can judg by this first View) that in Prudence, and according to best advice for their common Interest, and the Interest of each in particular; it is better that this Favour should be for Mr. Arent; since being your Own Son (a kind of foster-Child too, to Mr. Lock7 my Lord’s great Friend)8 He can enjoy the Fruits of your Recommendation and carry the Force of your own and Friends Interest with my Lord much better than a Stranger can do, or one whome I am (as perhaps may seem) but remotely concernd for. Besides; that as for any Interest that I have my self with my Lord, it is what I cannot much count upon, since this last year or two that he threw himself so eagerly into the Tory-Interest, and prosecuted both the Impeachments9 and all those other fatall obstructive and unjust Measures, with so much Violence. He has now smarted for it: having been barbarously treated by that Party he went over to; who sacrifiz’d him last year in the House

1  Shaftesbury travelled to Holland in August 1703. 2  Furly often talked of visiting England again; he appears last to have done so in 1689. 3  Packet-boat (a regular ferry). Letter lost, but similar news to Locke in no. 3202. 4 Peterborough. 5  For this offer, see Arent’s letter to Locke: no. 3210. 6  Henry Wilkinson, Shaftesbury’s protégé, raised by him from servanthood, via (currently) apprenticeship with Furly, to having his own business. 7  Locke had long been close to ‘Toety’: nos. 986, 988, etc. 8  For Peterborough’s and the countess’s leave-taking of Locke prior to the West Indies ex­ped­ ition, see nos. 3213, 3216. For the earl’s account to Locke of the aborting of the expedition, see no. 3244. 9  The impeachments of the Junto Whig lords, including Locke’s patron Lord Somers.

375

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

3234.  C. Trotter, 30 December 1702 of Commons: where his Son1 (tho my good Friend and Pupill)2 never gave us a Vote till about that time. My Lord is now come back to his Original Friends and Principle:3 and those Sores are all heald up: but how it may stand between my Self and him I know not as to his part, for great Men are not so forgiving as we that are of a lower Genius, and meeker Spirits. and indeed as much as I honour him now and congratulate his Advancement (which I do more heartily perhaps than any Friend he has in the world) yet at that time I opposd him earnestly: and told him the Treatment He would infallibly meet with, at last, from his New Friends; whome he then joyn’d with. I was going to have writ more: but I just receive Notice that My Lord Portland4 being going throw our Country,5 is just coming hither to stay with me this Night. so I shall not have time to add further. It being King William’s Birth-day and Landing,6 and we have just receivd the great and gloriouse News of Burning the French Fleet and Gallons;7 we shall pass the Evening cheerfully. and I can with the more satisfaction, honour and make much of my Guest for having never had Commerce with him till the days of his Adversity;8 in which for the sake of the Common Cause and Love of Holland, I serv’d and respected him to the Utmost. Dues to all yours and to my worthy Friends of your Town etc: I remain yours Faithfully Address: Mr. Benjamin Furly Marchant in Rotterdam

3234.*  Locke to Catharine Trotter, later Cockburn, 30 December 1702 (3059A) BL, Add. MS 4265, fo. 16. De Beer transcribed the letter from Cockburn’s Works, ed. T. Birch, 1751. The original manuscript is among the Birch papers. The letter is Locke’s thanks to Trotter for her Defence of the Essay. See above, no. 3086A. The transmitter,

1  John, Lord Mordaunt (c.1680–1710), MP for Chippenham, 1701–8, elected against Junto candidates. 2  Likewise Locke’s, in so far as his parents sought and received his advice about his education: esp. nos. 2320, 2344. 3 Peterborough, and his son in the Commons, now joined the Whigs in opposing the Occasional Conformity bill. 4  Hans Willem Bentinck, first earl of Portland.    5  Country: county or district. 6  At the Revolution in 1688. 7  The Battle of Vigo Bay, off the Spanish coast, 23 October. 8  Portland had withdrawn from politics in 1699, pounded by opposition attacks on the king’s courtiers, especially over forfeited Irish estates granted to him.

376

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

3261A.  Earl of Shaftesbury, 12 March 1703 referred to in the letter as ‘the bearer hereof ’, was Peter King. The Birch version is sufficiently accurate not to justify a new transcription, except to note that, aside from a handful of modernizations of spelling, his chief intervention was to supply some two dozen commas absent in the original.

3261A. Locke to Anthony Ashley Cooper, third earl of Shaftesbury, 12 March 1703 (3139, 3261B) St Louis, Missouri: Washington University Library: William Bixby Papers, 15/104. Recovered by J.  R.  Milton; transcribed from a photocopy, and checked against the manu­script by James Buickerood and Derrick Mosley. Answered by no. 3261B. Evidently a draft, as it is much, and fretfully, corrected by Locke; the endorsement is also in Locke’s hand. Chiefly concerning the annuity owed to Locke which he had dif­fi­ culty extracting from Shaftesbury. Neither this nor the next item is present in previous editions of Shaftesbury’s correspondence. Printed in Shaftesbury, Complete Works, ­Series III, Correspondence, eds. C. Jackson-Holzberg, P. Müller, and F. A. Uehlein, 3 vols. so far, 2018–, iii. 261–2. For Shaftesbury, see Corr., i. 351; ODNB.

    Oates 12 Mar. 1702/3 My Lord Sir Francis Masham does not well remember whither he did not promise your Lordship a yonge mastife of that large breed which he has. The bitch is now with puppy and he desires me to present his service to your Lordship and to know of you whither it be your Lordships desire to have one of the puppys and of which sex. Several of his neighbours like the a–kind–a so well, that they have been begging of him. But he is resolvd to dispose of none till he knows your Lordships pleasure, that if it be a thing worth your acceptance you may have your choice.1 My Lord Now b–that paper is open before me–b I beg leave to adde one word for my self:c with what unwillingness it isd I trouble you on that occasion e–your Lordship will see–e if you please to remember that writeing to you the last spring2 to acquaint your Lordship that there was a years annuity due to me the Christmas before, I have f–forborne ever since and–f

a–a  Replaces breed deleted   b–b  Altered from I am writeing c  And your Lordship will perceive deleted   d that deleted   e–e  interlined f–f  Altered from rested quiet and have 1  Ashley refers to a puppy in a letter to Locke in 1692: no. 1474. 2  Not extant, but the answer is no. 3139.

377

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

3261B.  Earl of Shaftesbury, 15 March 1703 not said one word to mind you of it a–though there hath been now a second year due–a ever since Christmas last. Your Lordships very favourable answer1 to that letter of mine that I should not need for the future to solicit you in the case but might depend upon you for it, which I have b–rested on–b and possibly I should have c–continued longer silent–c had not Sir Francis Masham d–put me upon writing–d. And e–when I was writeing–e I thought I could not in good manners f–wholy pass by–f my own affair. Your Lordship g–could not but–g expect I should say some thing of it either to thank you for remembring me if I had received it, or at least to mention it to you that you might know how it stood. For I am not to expect that amidst your greater cares (which I am sure you have not h–of late–h been without) you should carry my little concernes in your head: And perhaps you have given order in it which hath not been yet executed. I beg your Lordships pardon for this trouble and am My Lord your Lordships most humble and most obedient servant John Locke Endorsed: J L to E: Shaftesbury 12 Mar 02/3

3261B. Anthony Ashley Cooper, third earl of Shaftesbury, to Locke, 15 March 1703 (3261A, 3623) St Louis, Missouri: Washington University Library: William Bixby Papers, 15/132. ­Recovered by J.  R.  Milton; transcribed from a photocopy, and corrected from the ­manuscript by James Buickerood; footnoting assisted by Christine Jackson-Holzberg. ­Answers the preceding, no. 3261A. Similar in content to no. 3139. Printed in Shaftesbury, Complete Works, Series III, Correspondence, eds. C. Jackson-Holzberg, P. Müller, and F. A. Uehlein, 3 vols. so far, 2018–, iii. 262–4.

a–a  Altered from again till now an other year is become due and has been so b–b  Altered from done ever since with a full acquiescence of mind, though it hath deprived me of the honour of your conversation which I count noe small loss c–c  Altered from donne so on, which is corrected interlinearly to continued longer silent upon this occasion; which correction then has its final phrase, upon this occasion, deleted d–d  Altered from desired me to write    e–e  Altered from then f–f  Altered from be wholy silent in    g–g  Altered from might justly h–h  Altered from lately 1  No. 3139.

378

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

3278.  A. Collins, 4 May 1703     Chelsey March 15th 1702/3 Mr. Lock You have been far from being out of my mind. The least concern of yours can never be so; much less you your self. I have had more trouble on some disappointments of late than I have ever had of any in the kind; because of their having been my hindrance in paying you your due. I begg you to have patience with me this once tho it be a second season in my life that I have asked it:1 But indeed I never foresaw what streights some publick services were like to bring me in:2 which having seen; I know my duty hereafter. I am sure you have not suffered thus through any previouse expenses of my own which have made me so ill a Pay-master this last year to you and others: But before one month be out, I shall, if I live, set my self right with every one, and with you first, you may be assurd.3 My Lady Masham has done me the honour to invite me to Oates with her usuall goodness; which I shall profit of, the soonest I possibly can:4 it being no small addition to the satisfaction I shall meet with there, that I shall have the happiness of seeing you and repeating the assurances which I shall never cease while I live, of being with sincere respect your faithful humble servant Shaftesbury I am extreamly obliged to Sir Francis for his kind offer of some of his Breed of Mastiffs. But I have now lately stockd my self so that I shall not have occasion to rob him. Address: For Mr. Lock at Sir Francis Mashams at Oates in Essex near Bishops-stafford Postmark: MR 16 Endorsed: E: Shaftesbury, 15 Mar 02/3

3278*.  Locke to Anthony Collins, 4 May 1703 (3293) St Andrews University Library, MS 39022/2, fo. 5 (Marseille Middleton Holloway Collection). Newly recovered manuscript. De Beer relied on a later copy made for 1  Presumably a reference to no. 3139. 2 According to the ODNB, Shaftesbury’s political activities—the election campaigns of 1701–2—and duties as vice admiral of Dorset ‘injured both his health, and his fortune. He retired to Holland for a year during 1703–4. He lived on £200 a year, being alarmed, needlessly as it seems from his steward’s reports, at the state of his income.’ 3  However, Shaftesbury told John Wheelock on 16/27 November that ‘two half years are now due at Christmas’ to Locke. See nos. 3282, 3305. 4  There is no record of his visiting Oates before leaving for the Netherlands in August.

379

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

3368A.  Lady Masham, 7 November 1703 Pierre Des Maizeaux, A Collection of Several Pieces, 1720. This is the first surviving letter in the Locke-Collins series. New transcription unnecessary, but Des Maizeaux omitted the postscript, supplied here. Note, however, that Des Maizeaux made frequent amendments to punctuation, orthography, and capitalization. Some other textual variants are worth recording. Corr. vii. 776, line 18: for ‘conclude I’, manuscript reads ‘conclude that I’. Line 24: for ‘may’, manuscript reads ‘must’. Line 29: for ‘nothing calls’, read ‘nothing that calls’. The autograph album of letters in which this and no. 3565, are preserved chiefly contains literary letters (Addison, Swift, Pope, Dr Johnson, Hazlitt, Coleridge, etc.) and is indicative of one way, the bellettristic, in which Locke was perceived by later collectors. For Collins, philosopher and freethinker, see Corr., vii. 776; ODNB; J. O’Higgins, Anthony Collins, 1970. Postscript:

All this family are sorry for your loss1 Particularly my Lady,2 who upon the receipt of yours to day intended to write to you by the next oportunity, but haveing now hopes of seeing you the next week, she begs leave to respect her weak eys, in expectation of the oportunity to express her acknowledgments and sorrow more at large face to face. Address: For Anthony Collins Esq at his house in Holborn row in Lincolns Inn fields London Postmark: MA5

3368A. L ady Masham, formerly Damaris Cudworth, to Peter King, later first Baron King, 7 November 1703 (2495A) King’s College, Cambridge: Keynes Collection, MS PP/87/42/3. Transcribed by Esther Counsell. Concerning Locke’s health.

    Oates, 7 November 1703 Sir It is with great Greife I tell you that since you was Here3 our Deare Friend has manifestly declined in his Health. He says it; and it is visible to everie one. I am more Afflicted than I can tell you in the apprehension that it is impossible for him to get through this Winter. I am and shall always be your Affectionate Humble Servant Da Masham Address: For Peter King Esquire Endorsed by King: My Lady Marsham Novemb. 7. 1703 1  The death of his wife, Martha Child.    2 Masham. 3  King left Oates for London on about 19 October. Corr., viii. 90.

380

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

3503A.  J. Dunton, [c.March] 1704

3503A.  John Dunton to Locke, [c.March] 1704 Dedicatory epistle prefaced to The New Practice of Piety; writ in Imitation of Dr. Browne’s Religio Medici: or The Christian Virtuoso: Discovering the Right Way to Heaven Between all Extreams. To which is added, A Satyr on the House of Lords, for their Throwing out the Bill against Occasional Conformity, 1704. The book is an enlarged edition of Religio bibliopolae, 1691, which was mostly written by Benjamin Bridgewater. Dunton’s epistle dedicatory is extremely long, some four thousand words, and its address to Locke is a gratuitous piece of self-promotion by a publisher who was at this time in financial difficulties. After egregious praise of Locke, its gist is the importance of piety and of a scheme of Comprehension for reuniting An­ glicans and Dissenters. Dunton calls for an end to religious quarrels, for we are better occupied in seeking to live well than in engaging in controversies; Churchmen should be less severe and Dissenters less scrupulous. This even-handedness falls away when Dunton turns to attack the High-Flying Tories who had tried to outlaw ­Occasional Conformity in Parliament, ‘a sort of soaring politicians . . . credulous ­bigots . . . half Papists and half Protestants’, who, had they lived in the age of the persecutions in the early Church, would have annihilated the Dissenters. In speaking of the new ‘a-la-mode’ stoking of fires against Dissent, Dunton must have had particularly in mind the sermon of Henry Sacheverell, The Political Union, 1702. In recommending the book to which this dedication is attached, Dunton returns to even-handedness in his praise of earlier models of directories for holy living, Thomas Browne’s Religio Medici and Jeremy Taylor’s Holy Living and Golden Grove. (The book’s title is an echo of the popular Puritan classic, Lewis Bayly’s The Practice of Piety, 1612). Dunton rounds off with another salute to Locke. At the end of the treatise, Dunton adds an afterword in praise of the House of Lords for rejecting the Occasional Conformity Bill, a bill which ‘does manifestly make an inroad upon the Act of Toleration’ (p. 65). The occasion was the rejection of the second Occasional Conformity Bill in mid-­December 1703, so Dunton’s publication belongs to early 1704, which is confirmed by the appearance of the book in the Term Catalogue for Easter 1704 (iii. 397). Two extracts from the dedication are reproduced here, those which refer directly to Locke: the opening paragraph and the following paragraphs, after which Dunton ignores Locke until the closing salute. Egregious though their tone is, Dunton’s remarks are usefully indicative of a construction of Locke as a lay pastor, a model of a ‘Christian virtuoso’—the term used by Robert Boyle in his tract of that title, 1690. In this transcription roman and italic fonts are reversed. Dunton (1659–1733), bookseller; became prominent with his journal the Athenian Gazette, 1690–6. His autobiographical Life and Errors, 1705, is a major source for contemporary publishing history. See A. C. Howell, ‘John Dunton and an Imitation of the Religio Medici’, Studies in Philology, 29 (1932), 442–62; G. D. McEwen, The Oracle of the Coffee House: John Dunton’s ‘Athenian Mercury’, 1972; S. Parks, John Dunton and the English Book Trade, 1975; H. Berry, Gender, Society, and Print Culture in Late-Stuart England: The Cultural World of the Athenian Mercury, 2003.

To the Learned Mr. John Lock, Author of the Essay Upon Humane Understanding. 381

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

3503A.  J. Dunton, [c.March] 1704 Sir, My Ambition to have your Worthy Name standing in the Front of my Book, was to induce the World to be at least Civil to it. I cou’d indeed have Dedicated these Sheets to some Men of a High Title, but they make but small Reckoning of such Presents as these; in regard they are often either above their Understanding, or disagreeing from their Genius; but for my part, I prefer Piety before Birth, and Learning before Dignity; and consequently chose rather to Address this New Practice of Piety to Mr. Lock, than to any other Person whatsoever. Sir, The New Athenian Society1 (of which I own my self an unworthy Member) have ever had an Extraordinary Value for your Person and Writings;2 and I had sooner paid my Respects to you in this Publick manner, had I thought any thing less than a New Practice of Piety cou’d deserve so Great a Name as yours to be prefixt to it, a Name that is equally Rever’d and Lov’d by all Pious and Learned Men. Sir, Great is the Contention about the Right Way to Heaven; but of the many Religions Profess’d in this Land, our Spiritual Guides have sufficiently prov’d, that there is only One True Religion, and that the Protestant is it; and therefore I have endeavour’d in this Book to draw Right Christianity into a narrow Room, as a vast World into a small Map; to the end, that with a little Travel much may be Discover’d. I hope, Sir, ’twill no ways offend you (tho’ you have been setled in the Right way to Heaven for 60 Years) that a Review of matters belonging to Religion shoul’d be thought needful; for since the Scripture doth premonish us, that Heresies must of necessity be, and False Teachers wou’d come to disturb the Peace and Unity of the Church: It is doubtless ne­ces­ sary to try which of all these Spirits are of God, and which is that Right Christianity so plainly shewn in the Holy Scriptures. In which important Search, the Reading of this Book, will (by Gods Grace) discover such Light to discern Truth from Falshood, and such Directions to find out the Strait Gate, which only leadeth to Eternal Life,3 as may satisfie the most Scrupulous, especially if they Read with 1  A notional (or ‘virtual’) society of writers for, and readers of, the Athenian Gazette (later Athenian Mercury), launched by Dunton in 1690. Charles Gildon published The History of the Athenian Society, 1691. 2  Dunton had published a translation of Locke’s Abrégé of the Essay Concerning Human Understanding, 1688, in his Young Student’s Library, 1692, pp. 162–79. 3  Matthew 7:13–14.

382

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

3503A.  J. Dunton, [c.March] 1704 that Impartial Eye, and Humility of Spirit, as they ought to do, who desire to see the Truth between all Extreams. Having therefore (amongst the Great Variety of Religions) discover’d the Right Way to Heaven, I shou’d be wanting to my self in so Nice an Undertaking, if I did make choice of any other Patronage than yours, whose Refin’d Conversation has rankt you in the Number of Primitive1 Christians: Others owe their Honour to Great Titles, you to Piety and Learning; their Conquest is of others only, yours of others and your self too: In a word, all the Addition that can be made to your Pious Character, is a continuing to Live as you now do: Dr. Burthog observing this, obtain’d your Patronage to his Ingenious Essay upon Reason:2 But tho I can’t merit your Favour as he did, yet from your Condescending Goodness, I raise to my self a Hope, that you will dart a Ray to Quicken and Cherish a Search after Right Christianity; and I’m the more encourag’d to hope this, as it owes its very Essence to your self, being compos’d of your Heroick Vertues; your Large Soul so Brim-full of Knowledge and Piety, that he that Converseth with Mr. Lock, need not peruse this Book, for you two differ in nothing, save in the Lively Grace which all Originals have above their Copies: Or if my Christian Virtuoso has mistook his way (of which you are a proper Judge) look into your self, and form him a New out of your own Bosom, where Perfections dwell to which I can never Penetrate. Worthy Sir, I intend not by this Address merely to satisfie an Old Formal Custom of Dedications, but to tell you and others, what Esteem I have for a Pious, Sober and Peaceable Genius, such as you seem to be Inspired with; especially in this Contentious Age, when Charity seems to be swallow’d up by a bitter Zeal, and Right Christianity pin’d and shrivel’d into a bare Skelleton, thro’ the Idleness, or Security, or Impertinence of its Professors: I am mightly pleas’d with that Impartial Censure, which a Reverend Bishop of our Church hath given upon his Polemical Studies [. . .]3 So that ’tis clear from Bishop Taylor’s words, Matter of Difference in Opinion, is often an abatement of Devotion; but words appertaining to Piety, are sweeter than the Honey or the HoneyComb:4 Sure I am, the time will come, when a Life well Liv’d, and Transacted in a quiet Pursuit of our Proper Duties, will be a better 1  ‘Primitive’ was a positive term at this time: the ‘primitive Christians’ were those of the pure, early era of the Church in the first three centuries after Christ. 2  See no. 1735A. 3  The bishop is Jeremy Taylor; a lengthy quotation is omitted here. 4  An echo of Psalm 19:10.

383

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

3565.  A. Collins, 19 June 1704 Cordial than all the Wrangling Disputes, of either Churchmen or Dissenters. Then it were to be wish’d, we had less contending in Matters of Controversie, which avail little to Godliness, and more sincere Practice of Christian Piety; that we had less Questioning in general, and in particular, less Curious Prying into Sacred Mysteries, and more Religious Preparation for Heaven; that there were more Moderation amongst Protestants, that (as my Lord Russel expresses it) Dissenters were less Scrupulous, and Churchmen less Severe:1 For we may ­consider, that after all the stir about Occasional Conformity, Re-Ordination,2 &c. the Devotion of most is but SO, SO; for the Heaps of Volumes that treat upon this Subject, how do they all in a manner tend only to matter of Contradiction? [. . .]3 Sir, I know not what Judgment you will pass upon me (or upon my Athenian Brethren) for desiring your Patronage to this New Scheme of Religion: But I hope ’tis the more Excusable, as I don’t presume to discover any thing you don’t know: You have advanc’d so far in all Art and Science, as that the utmost of my Studies, can’t contribute one Thought to further your Progress, neither is it possible for me to flatter you in this Assertion; for whoever reads your Essay upon Humane Understanding, must own Mr. Lock, the Greatest Master of Reason this Age has produc’d. I wou’d inlarge, but am barr’d further Protestation, by the Haste I take to subscribe my self, Worthy Sir! Your Constant Admirer and Very Humble Servant, H. N.4

3565*.  Locke to Anthony Collins, 19 June 1704 (3558, 3566) St Andrews University Library, MS 39022/2, fo. 4 (Marseille Middleton Holloway Collection: see no. 3278*). Newly recovered manuscript. De Beer relied on later copies 1  The phrase, used by William, Lord Russell in his scaffold speech in 1683 (of which there were many editions), was already proverbial, having been reproduced, for instance, in State Tracts, 1692, and David Jones’s Compleat History of Europe, 1699. The appeal to the Whig martyr was, of course, a thoroughly partisan move. 2  Occasional conformity was the practice by which Dissenters periodically attended Church of England services, either as a gesture of reconciliation or simply (by taking the sacrament of the eucharist) to qualify themselves for public office under the Test Acts. Reordination was the demand made by Anglicans upon Dissenting ministers as a condition of reunion of the churches: Dissenters refused to disown the validity of their own ordinations. 3  The following several pages are summarized in the headnote above. 4  Initials often used by Dunton in his publications.

384

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

3573B.  A. Churchill, 30 June 1704 made for Des Maizeaux, A Collection of Several Pieces, 1720. New transcription un­ neces­sary, but Des Maizeaux omitted a paragraph and postscript, given here. Note also Des Maizeaux’s modernization of Locke’s orthography (e.g. minde/mind, onely/only, soe/so). De Beer’s angle brackets can be dispensed with. Note that, where de Beer indicated variance between his two later copies, the manuscript reads as follows: (p. 329, a) ‘give’; (p. 330, note a) ‘is to’ (in place of ‘〈will〉’); (p. 330, b) ‘does’. Further, note the following: p. 330, line 2: at ‘pleasure’ manuscript has ‘satisfaction’ deleted; lines 13–14: there is no paragraph break; lines 28, 31–2: the first two instances of ‘mind’ are underlined in the manuscript, but ‘eternal mind’ is not, and ‘mind’ is not capitalized. Corr., viii. 330, lines 19–20, insert paragraph:

I return you my thanks for the care you take about my books, they will come time enough along with you. I have orderd also a parcel of Chocolate, and some shirts and the like to be sent to you for me. I desire you would afford them room till my Calesh1 or my Ladys chariot afford them a conveyance hither. Postscript:

Sir Francis and my Lady and the rest here give you their humble service Address: For Anthony Collins Esq at his Chamber in Serle court in Lincolns Inne London Postmark: AU21

3573B. Locke to Awnsham Churchill, 30 June 1704 (3573, 3590A) Beinecke Library, Yale University: Osborn Collection, MS Files 9139. Printed in The Correspondence of Anthony Collins, ed. J. Dybikowski, 2011, pp. 160–1. Referred to in no. 3577. This is an order for payment (an early form of cheque). The item is included as an example of a body of surviving orders for payment by Locke, which are sometimes advertised for sale as letters by Locke, which, in a manner, they are. A considerable number of such orders survive in MS Locke b. 1. Two further examples are given b­ elow: 3590A and 3643A.

    Oates 30 Jun: 1704 On sight pray pay to Anthony Collins Esquire the sum of twenty pounds and put it to the account of Sir Your very humble servant John Locke 1  Calesh: a light carriage with a folding top. Collins was arranging for the construction of one for Locke.

385

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

3590A.  A. Churchill, 17 July 1704 To Mr. Awnsham Churchill Bookseller at the Black-Swan in pater noster row London £20 ---Endorsed: July 5 / 1704 / [Received] of Mr. Churchil Twelve pound ten shillings being money laid out with the Coachmaker for Sir Francis Mashams Chariot by me A. Collins

3590A. Locke to Awnsham Churchill, 17 July 1704 Formerly online: famous-celebrity-autographs.com/john-locke.html. No provenance given. In Locke’s hand. The signature is followed by Locke’s paraph. The second ex­ ample of Locke’s orders for payment (see previous item and no. 3643A). It is referred to in MS Locke f. 10, p. 593: ‘Given my Cosin King a bill on Mr. Churchill for any sum not exceeding £1100’. Recovered by Felix Waldmann.

    Oates 14 July 1704 Upon demand pray pay to Peter King of the Inner Temple Esq any sums or Sums of money not exceeding in the whole the sum of Eleven hundred pounds and put it to the account of Sir Your very humble servant J Locke To Mr. Awnsham Churchill Bookseller in London £1100 -----

3600A.  Locke to Edmund Calamy, [ July? 1704] Not extant, but summarized in Edmund Calamy, An Historical Account of My Own Life, ed. J. T. Rutt, 2 vols., 1829, ii. 30–1, and in the manuscript thereof: BL, Add. MS 50958. Calamy records that Locke contacted him to say that he approved of the second part of Calamy’s Defence of Moderate Nonconformity, 1704. Since that book was advertised as ‘in the press, and almost finished’ and ‘will be speedily published’ in the Term Catalogue for Trinity Term ( June) 1704, Locke’s letter probably dates from July, or perhaps early August. ( James Tyrrell, the third volume of whose History of England was advertised alongside, was in London on 22 June preparing the index, which he finished by 4 July; on 10 August Tyrrell thanked Locke for writing to him to commend the volume: Corr., viii. 333, 339, 373. Locke was at work on his fourth and final Letter on Toleration on 8 August: viii. 343.) Locke’s library catalogue records the first part of Calamy’s book, published in 1703 (LL 567), but not the second; the first volume is  probably that which Awnsham Churchill told Locke had been bound for him (no. 3463, 19 February 1704).

386

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

3600A.  E. Calamy, [July? 1704] Calamy (1671–1732), the third Edmund Calamy in a dynasty of influential Puritan ministers, is best known as the biographer of the lives and travails of the two thousand Nonconformist ministers who suffered deprivation and persecution after the res­tor­ ation of the Church of England in 1660–2, originally appended to his Abridgement of Richard Baxter’s autobiography, 1702. He may have met Locke when he was a student at Utrecht (1688–91); they had a common acquaintance in J. G. Graevius, professor at Utrecht. For context, see M. Goldie, Roger Morrice and the Puritan Whigs, 2007; 2nd edn, 2016. In 1703–5 Calamy published in three parts his 1,200-page Defence of Moderate Nonconformity, in Answer to the Reflections of Mr. Olyffe and Mr. Hoadly, on the Tenth Chapter of the Abridgement of the Life of the Revd. Mr. Rich. Baxter. In the Introduction to the second part (1704) he put aside the role of historian and set down some general principles of religious toleration. This essay had a considerable impact in weaning Dissenters from the vestiges of their attachment to the ideal of a magisterially imposed uniform national church reformed along Genevan lines and reconciling them to denominationalism outside the national church. ‘I never published any thing so maturely weighed’, Calamy recalled. ‘That I might know the utmost that could be said against the latitude into which I had run’, he sent a copy to Daniel Williams, who stood for the ‘divine right of Presbytery’; but he felt assured that the principles he had advanced ‘were spreading so wide, and prevailing so generally among us’ that Williams would be hard put to ‘make way for other notions’ (My Own Life, ii. 29–30). In one passage of the Introduction to the second part Calamy made explicit use of Lockean doctrine, and doubtless it was this which pleased Locke and caused him to contact Calamy. Calamy wrote that it cannot be shown that: it is an Essential Part of the Original Compact upon which Civil Government as such is founded, that the Magistrate shall have such an Authority in sacred Matters [as to be able to impose terms of church communion]. For when the several Fathers of Families at first resign’d their Natural Liberty, and join’d together in forming Civil Societies for the Common Benefit, that they should subject their Strength and Possessions to the Authority of those whom they fixt on for Rulers, was ne­ces­ sary for the Common Security: But it was not so necessary they should submit their Wills to their Sovereigns with respect to Religion. This is evident to any Man that considers the End of Civil Government; which is no other than the Procuring, Preserving and Advancing the Civil Interests of Mankind. Where these are Violated, the Magistrate is Arm’d with the Force and Strength of all his Subjects, in order to the inflicting due Punishment for the Common Security. But in Religion every Man is under a Superior Order, and Acting according to his Conscience has none to controul him, as long as the Civil Interests of Mankind (which lie in their Life, Liberty, Health and Property)[*] remain Untouch’d. As for things that are in their own Nature indifferent, the Civil Interests of Mankind cannot require that the Magistrate should trouble the Church about them one way or another. It concerns not the Common-wealth (as such) what Ceremonies be us’d or omitted in Publick Worshipping Assemblies. No Advantage nor Prejudice can arise either way to the Lives, Liberties, or Estates of the Subjects, which it is the great Design of Civil Government to preserve and secure. The Magistrate therefore can have no Power to impose in such things convey’d by the Original Compact. Nay, I’le add, Every one by being a Member of a Civil Society has as clear a Right to be Protected in that

387

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

3600A.  E. Calamy, [July? 1704] Mode of Religious Worship, which he apprehends to be most agreeable to the Will of God (as long as the Civil Peace is not endanger’d) as in any Matter whatsoever. (Defence, Part 2, pp. 28–9.) In the margin, at the passage marked [*], Calamy writes, ‘See The First Letter concerning Toleration, p. 8, &c.’ Several phrases are taken directly from Locke’s Letter (‘procuring, preserving, and advancing the civil interests’; ‘life, liberty, health’; ‘magistrate is armed with the force and strength’; ‘in their own nature indifferent’; ‘life, liberty, or estates’). Whether Calamy had also read the Two Treatises of Government is unclear, though the application of the terminology of ‘original compact’ to religious toleration is striking. When, much later, Andrew Kippis reviewed the history of Dissenting opinion, he conceded that the seventeenth-century Puritans ‘never entertained any just sentiments on the subject’ of toleration, and it was Locke’s Letter concerning Toleration which marked ‘the progress of truth and reason’ on that topic and which, through Calamy, caused the ‘alteration in . . . the Dissenters’ sentiments’ (A Vindication of the Protestant Dissenting Ministers, 1773, pp. 23, 26, 41–3). It is perhaps ironic that Calamy’s books (the Abridgement of Baxter and the D ­ efence) should have been attacked by the Anglican clergyman Benjamin Hoadly, whose name, later in the century, was to be linked constantly with Locke’s in the litany of Lockean Whiggery. Locke thus became the rival possession of both Dissenters and Anglicans. Hoadly’s critiques were: The Reasonableness of Conformity to the Church of England (1703); A Serious Admonition to Mr. Calamy (1703); and A Defence of the Reasonableness of Conformity (1705). Locke is not mentioned in these. Calamy, continuing his recollection of the publication of the second part of the Defence, remarked on its reception and upon Locke’s having written to him, which is the extract which follows. Although Calamy’s autobiography did not appear until 1829, this passage became publicly available in 1732, because it was quoted by Daniel Mayo in the brief life of Calamy appended to his funeral sermon: A Funeral Sermon Occasioned by the Much Lamented Death of the Late Reverend and Learned Edmund Calamy, p. 26. Mayo adjusted the opening phrase to read: ‘The great Mr. Locke sent him a Message to let him know, that he had read it.’ The transcription here follows the printed edition, because that has been the publicly received version; deviations from Calamy’s MS are noted.

I had the full approbation of a great number of my brethren1 and as a testimony of it, they invited me to a handsome entertainment in Ironmonger-lane, where they gave me their common thanks for the service I had done their cause,a by fixing it on so firm a foot. I had also a message b–from–b the ingenious Mr. Locke, letting me know that he had read this Introduction, andc thought it such a defence of Nonconformity a  MS has cause and interest    b–b  MS has sent me a little after, by c  MS inserts that he 1  It is not clear who these colleagues were, but they probably included Benjamin Robinson (1666–1724), pastor at Bishopsgate in the City of London, who, with Calamy, represented the  Dissenters’ opposition to the Occasional Conformity Bill to Bishop Burnet in 1702. For Dissenting clergy, see the Surman Index Online: http://www.qmul.ac.uk/sed/religionandliterature/ research/surman-index/.

388

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

3608.  A. Collins, 11 August 1704 as could not be answered; and that standing to the principles there laid down, I had no occasion to be afraid of any antagonist.1

3608*. Locke to Anthony Collins, 11 August 1704 (3603, 3613) Morlanwelz, Belgium: Musée Royal de Mariemont, Aut. 541/6. De Beer’s transcription was taken from a facsimile in a sale catalogue. The manuscript has now been now ­located, and an online image is available: http://www.webopac.cfwb.be/mariemont/ details/expert-archive/110005355. The facsmile omitted the address. Recovered by ­Felix Waldmann. For Collins, see Corr., vii. 776; ODNB. Address: For Anthony Collins Esq / at his Chamber in Serle Court / Lincolns Inn / London.

3619*. Locke to Anthony Collins, 21 August 1704 (3617, 3624) King’s College, Cambridge: Keynes Collection, MS PP/87/39/1. De Beer was only able to print an extract, taken from a sale catalogue. Manuscript now located. Answers no. 3617. Recovered by J. R. Milton; transcribed by Esther Counsell.

   Oates 21 Aug 04 Dear Sir In answer to Mr. Tyrells Enquiry by you tis fit I return you an answer which suitable to so pithya a question is Yes.2 This affair being happily dispatched I come to something of a little more difficulty and that is whether you or I am to return thanks for what passed lately at Oates.3 Not that I think there is any difficulty in the case of it self, that plainly a weighty deleted 1  A few pages later Calamy records Locke’s death, in a manner that may imply acquaintance, although he attributed to him publications which modern scholars do not accept as Locke’s: ‘Oct. 28, this year (1704) died John Lock, Esq. who knew how to write controversy, and differ in conversation, with equal strength and manners. This gentleman was the author of several of the pamph­lets that are collected together in the “State Tracts” of K. Charles’s reign; particularly with respect to the Dissenters’ (p. 34). State Tracts was published in 1689 (further compilations followed). Calamy may have had in mind the Letter from a Person of Quality, 1675, which he cites in the second part of the Defence (p. 36); what others is unclear. State Tracts includes several of the leading Whig tracts of the Exclusion Crisis, though none that is centrally about the Dissenters. He was probably echoing what he had read in Des Maizeaux’s introduction to A Collection of Several Pieces of Mr. John Locke, 1720. 2  In no. 3617 Collins reported that James Tyrrell wished to know whether Locke had received his recent letter. That letter is no. 3607. 3  Collins brought Sir Godfrey Kneller to Oates on 17 August, where he was to draw Locke and Lady Masham: no. 3613.

389

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

3643A.  A. Churchill, 14 October 1704 makes the obligation to be received by me. But you are a person not otherwise to be dealt with, you must be permitted to doe the Kindness, and give the thanks to If the shadow you have got could convey the substance to you[,]1 you should never want near you one that highly esteems you, perfectly loves you and heartily wishes you well. For I am without a complement Dear Sir Your most humble and most obedient servant J Locke This whole family are your servants and return you their thanks for your last favour. Nothing can be welcomer here than your visits. Address: For Anthony Collins Esquire at his Chamber in Serle Court in Lincolns Inne London Postmark: AV 23

3643A. Locke to Awnsham Churchill, 14 October 1704 (3637, 3644) Haverford College, Pennsylvania: Quaker and Special Collections: Charles Roberts Autograph Collection, no. 250. Recovered by Noah McCormack. Transcribed from a scanned image. The signature is followed by Locke’s paraph. An order for payment: it was transmitted by Anthony Collins. The payment is recorded in Locke’s journal: MS Locke f. 10, p. 598.

    Oates 14 Oct 1704 Upon sight pray pay to Anthony Collins Esq the summ of twenty nine pounds five shillings and four pence being the Balance of an account due from me to him and put it to the account of your very humble servant John Locke To Mr. Awnsham Churchill a Bookseller at the Black swan in Pater noster row London £29-05-4 Verso: Anthony Collins.

1  This refers to Kneller’s drawing of Locke, done at Oates on 17 or 18 August (see nos. 3613, 3617, 3624). It is apparently this which is reproduced as a frontispiece in LL, from the drawing then in the possession of Paul Mellon and now in the Mellon Collection at the Yale Center for British Art, where, however, it is described as ‘after Kneller’.

390

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

3649.  M. Clarke, 2 November 1704

3649.  M ary Clarke to John Spreat, 2 November 1704 SRO, DD/SF 7/1/11 (formerly 4515). This and the remaining letters are third-party letters relating to Locke’s death, which occurred on 28 October. Written from London. For Locke’s will, see Corr., viii. 419–27. Spreat was the Clarkes’ steward. See B. Clarke, ‘John Spreat, Steward at Chipley, Somerset, from 1689–1720s’, Somerset Archaeology and Natural History, 146 (2004), 41–51.

    November the 2d 1704:

JS

I writt to you the night I came to town and have nothinge more to acquaint you with then that poore Ward is much as he was on the rode which was much more troblesome then when he was att Chipley; he is by the advice of Sir Walter Younge and Mr. Freeke put into such lodgings and have such advice as is thought most proper for his cure which I must with greefe own I allmost dispare of. I pray God to santifye this great afflicktion to us;1 I am glad to heare my Cozen Venner is better and was able to comfort Molly who I thought had had strenth of resen not to have wanted it when she saw it was impossoble for her to come with us, and indeede she must have much a pleasenter time there then we can have heare where she have a coach and horses to carry her to church and a whole house and servants to atend her; without the dif­fi­cultyes that I am sure I meet with etc.; I am sorry Margrett is soe weeke and Ill but I hope Dr. Dening2 will sett her right agen. I thanke God all the Family heare are just as they was when we came from home; in Bettys letter by the last post to her Aunt3 you will find that Mr. Locke has left us, and has given Mr. Clarke 2 hundred p[oun] d and his eldest daughter 2 hundred pound soe that he and I am forst to goe into morning4 and Betty is to goe into morning for him and Mr. Jones grandmother and Mrs. Ann5 is desirouse to goe in because it is the Faishion, soe the weding cloths is all to be laid bye and we desire you will send up in a small deale box by the carrier Mrs. Anns black cloth mantua and pettycote and my old black cloth mantua 1  Ward’s fragile mental health led to his suicide the following April. 2  Margrett and Dening unidentified. 3  Ursula Venner. Letter not extant. 4  Mary is distinctly ungracious about Locke’s passing. The immediate occasion of her grudgingness was the disruption to the continuing celebration of her daughter Betty’s wedding to John Jones on 24 September; but, in recent years, Mary had cooled towards Locke, mainly because of the debacle of the proposed match between Betty and Locke’s cousin Peter King, and perhaps also because Locke’s solicitude concerning her illnesses was never sufficient for her. See Clarke, ‘Marriage of Locke’s “Wife” ’. 5  Mary’s daughter Anne, now about twenty-one, hence with the adult honorific ‘Mistress’.

391

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

3650.  P. King, 4 November 1704 which Eling will take care to putt altogether; pray give my blessing to Molly and to Jenney, and my kind love to all my Friends and neighbours which concludes this from Your reall Friend M Clarke Jepp is very well and now heare. I sent for him Tuesday and he is to returne agen Satterday he growes tall and is very lusty and in every respectt just as he was when he was att Chipley but what he is for a scoller I am not able to judg etc: Mr. Clarke have sent the parliament prints1 to my sister and hopes she will excuse his not writing, I have sent you the Post Boy that you may see the little incomiom on Mr. Locke which is all truth pray lay it up safe: for I have not time to say any more on that subiectt.2

3650. Peter King, later first Baron King, to Peter Stratton, 4 November 1704 New Haven, Connecticut: Beinecke Library, Yale University: James Marshall Osborn Collection, File 8387. Printed imperfectly in Lord Campbell, Lives of the Lord Chancellors, 4th edn, 1857, vi. 72n. Peter Stratton was King’s first cousin and both were grandchildren of Locke’s uncle, Peter Locke. Stratton was the son of Locke’s former steward, William Stratton. Corr., iii. 107.

    London, Novemb. 4, 1704 Cosin This is principally to acquaint you that Mr. Locke died Last Saturday, he made a will, and made me Executor, and by his will gave Several legacys, to the value of above four thousand five hundred pounds, amongst other legacys he hath given you fifty pounds, and to your ­sister Hassell3 five pounds, both which legacys I am willing and ready

1  Presumably the Votes of the House of Commons, the daily record of proceedings. 2  I have not been able to trace the obituary in the Post Boy: no copy appears to have survived. It must have appeared in the editions of either Thursday 30 October or Saturday 1 November. Since the text is described as an ‘encomium’, it is likely to have been the ‘Character of Mr. Locke’ written almost certainly by Richard Laughton of Clare College, Cambridge. This was copied into the diary of another of Locke’s acquaintances, Lady Sarah Cowper (née Holled), on 14 November, when she recorded his death (Hertfordshire Archives, Panshanger Papers, DE/P/F30, pp. 310–11). It was printed a few months later in ‘Addenda’ to the ‘Continuation’ of Jeremy Collier’s A Supplement to the Great Historical, Geographical, Genealogical and Poetical Dictionary (1705), sig. K2r. 3  Ann Hazel, of Chew Magna in Somerset.

392

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

3651.  Lady Masham, 8 November 1704 to pay. He hath not made any disposition of his lands by his will, but hath suffered them to descend according to the course of the law to his heirs, who are you and me,1 So that one half of his lands do now belong to me and the other half to you, He frequently told me in his life time that he would let his lands go in this manner, and believing that mony would be more for your purpose than land, desired me to purchase of you your half and give you mony for it, I have no occasion for it, but seeing he Intimated such a thing to me, I will, if you please, purchase your half, and give you the utmost and full value for it.2 My Humble Service to my Cosin your Good wife, to my Aunt,3 to our friends at Sutton, and all our Relations. I am, Sir, Your most affectionate Cosin and humble Servant, P. King Address: For Mr. Peter Stratton In Bristol / Frank P. King Postmark: NO 4

3651. L ady Masham, formerly Damaris Cudworth, to [Richard] Laughton, 8 November 1704 Printed in The General Biographical Dictionary, revised and enlarged by Andrew Chalmers, 32 vols., 1812–17, xx. 369; excerpted in Bourne, ii. 556. It is described as ‘an extract from an unpublished letter of lady Masham’s to Mr. Laughton, obligingly communicated by Mr. Ellis of the British Museum’. However, no manuscript has been traced. The addressee is Richard Laughton (1670–1723), MA, Cambridge, 1691; Fellow of Clare Hall, 1686; a keen Whig, and advocate of Newtonian philosophy in the university; chaplain to Bishop John Moore of Norwich by 1693, for whom he acted as librarian; prebendary of Worcester, 1717. In 1697 some Fellows attempted to exclude Laughton from a foundation fellowship at his college, but were overcome by Laughton’s backers, William Whiston, Bishop Simon Patrick of Ely, and Bishop Moore. It was almost certainly he who provided the character sketch of Locke, probably drawing on Lady Masham, for the obituary which appeared in the ‘Addenda’ to the ‘Continuation’ of Jeremy Collier’s A Supplement to the Great Historical, Geographical, Genealogical and Poetical Dictionary, 1705, sig. K2r. Masham’s letter was probably reshaped by her for inclusion in her own memoir of Locke, the ending of which does not survive.

1  Although Stratton is described as heir here, his father William, who died in 1695, thanked Locke in 1687 ‘for your making a grant to my children of your estate at Belton after your decease’: L952. 2  Peter King later made a note: ‘All these lands were sold by me and Cosin Peter Stratton to Mr. Benjamin Branch and his heirs for 600l and 15 broad pieces.’ MS Locke c. 26, fo. 95. In 1665 Locke had reckoned his freehold lands to be worth £872: R.  Woolhouse, ‘John Locke and Somerset’, Somerset Archaeology and Natural History, 152 (2009), 1–10, at 3. 3  Elizabeth Grigg, widow of Peter’s father, William Stratton. Corr., ii. 206n.

393

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

3652.  E. Masham, 17 November 1704 For discussion, see J. R. Milton, ‘Locke’s Last Days’, Locke Studies, 11 (2011), 123–38. For Laughton, see ODNB; J.  Gascoigne, ‘Politics, Patronage, and Newtonianism: The Cambridge Example’, Historical Journal, 27 (1984), 1–24; idem, Cambridge in the Age of the Enlightement, 1989, passim; D. F. Mackenzie, The Cambridge University Press, 1696–1712, 2 vols., 1996, passim; J. R. Wardale, Clare College, 1899. Richard Laughton is easily confused with John Laughton (1650–1712). Both men were Cambridge dons, Whigs, bibliophiles, promoters of Locke, and delegates of the University Press.

You will not perhaps dislike to know that the last scene of Mr. Locke’s life was no less admirable than any thing else in him. All the faculties of his mind were perfect to the last; but his weakness, of which only he died, made such gradual and visible advances, that few people, I think, do so sensibly see death approach them as he did. During all which time, no one could observe the least alteration in his humour: always chearful, civil, conversible, to the last day; thoughtful of all the concerns of his friends, and omitting no fit occasion of giving Christian advice to all about him. In short, his death was like his life, truly pious, yet natural, easy, and unaffected; nor can time, I think, ever produce a more eminent example of reason and religion than he was, living and dying. — Oates, Nov. 8. 1704.1

3652. Esther Masham to Mrs -?- Smith, 17 November 1704 BL, Add. MS 4311, fo. 143. The original is lost, but the text survives in this copy among the papers of Thomas Birch, sent to him in 1752 by John Jones, rector of Bolthurst, Bedfordshire, who remarks that it was ‘communicated to me lately by a Friend who took it from the original Letter’ (fo. 142). The transcript is headed ‘Copy of a letter concerning Mr. Locke’s death, written by Mrs. E.  Masham (Sister to the first Lord Masham) to a Person who had been a Servant in the Family’. For discussion, see Milton (as above, no. 3651). Printed (inaccurately and euphemistically) in A. C. Fraser, Locke, 1890, pp. 270–1. Nothing further is known of Mrs Smith.

1  A not dissimilar early account of Locke’s death, probably originating also from Damaris Masham, is given by Catharine Cockburn (née Trotter) in a letter to Thomas Burnett of Kemnay, 19 February 1705: ‘I was very sensibly touched with the news of Mr. Locke’s death: all the particulars I hear of it are, that he retained his perfect senses to the last, spoke with the same composedness and indifference on affairs, as usual. His discourse was much on the different views a dying man has of worldly things; and that nothing gives him any satisfaction, but the reflexion of what good he has done in his life. Lady Masham went to his chamber to speak to him on some business, which when he had answered in the same manner he was accustomed to speak, he desired her to  leave the room, and immediately after she was gone, turned about, and died.’ The Works of Mrs. Catharine Cockburn, ed. T. Birch, 2 vols., 1751, i. 189.

394

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

3652.  E. Masham, 17 November 1704     Oates, November 17. 1704 I am afraid, dear Mrs. Smith, you should think I have forgot you; but I assure you, you are very much in my thoughts. You have heard no doubt of the Death of good Mr. Locke. Ever since his Death we have been in continual hurry; for my Mother,1 not being able to settle her thoughts to any thing, bustles about as much as she can, and I generally come in for one. Tho’ we could not expect his Life a great while, it did nevertheless surprize us. His legs were very much swollen, and the day before he died finding it very troublesome to rise, because of his great weakness, that he was able to do hardly any thing for himself, he resolved to lie a-bed; which made the swelling of his legs get up into his body, [and]2 immediately took away his stomach and his sleep, for he slept not a wink all that night. The next morning he resolved to rise, and was carried into his Study, and in his chair got a little sleep, was very sensible,3 and between twelve and one he called for the closestool,4 and was no sooner set upon it but he died, closeing his eyes himself.5 He is extremely regretted by every body. He left Mr. King his Executor, and has left Frank6 Three Thousand Pounds,7 and half his Books.8 He left me Ten Pounds,9 and the like to my Father and Mother; several other legacies. He has given to every Servant in the House Twenty Shillings,10 to Mrs. Lane11 forty; for which she thought she must have gone into mourning. He has left a great deal for charitable uses.12 He ordered in his Will to be buried in the Churchyard,13 in a 1  Her stepmother, Damaris, Lady Masham. 2  Brackets in the manuscript. 3  Sensible: retained his senses. 4  Close-stool: a covered chamber pot enclosed in a wooden stool. 5  This account of the hour and circumstance of Locke’s death is not consistent with the versions given by Pierre Coste and Jean Le Clerc (nor in Catharine Cockburn’s letter quoted in the previous item). Victorian prudery overcame Fraser, who doctored this line to read: ‘was very ­sensible, but soon called to be moved, and was no sooner set elsewhere than he died, closing his eyes with his own hands’. 6  Francis Cudworth Masham, Lady Masham’s son. 7  Locke specified £4,500 in legacies, including this £3,000; the residue of the estate was assigned to Peter King. 8  The other half went to King and now mostly resides in the Bodleian Library, whereas the Masham ‘moiety’ was tragically dispersed. 9  ‘Coll. Rivet had a letter from his spouse last post, which gave him an account of Mr. Locke’s death, which I am very sorry for; I was in hopes you had been more in his books, for I was surpriz’d when I heard he had left you only ten pound to buy you mourning.’ Samuel Masham to Esther Masham, 25 November 1704 (Newberry Library, Chicago, Esther Masham Letterbook, p. 217). 10  Eight ‘menial servants’ benefited: MS Locke c. 35, fos. 4–5. 11  Hannah Lane, Sir Francis Masham’s principal maid. The summary given here of parts of Locke’s will is accurate. The will is printed in Corr., viii. 419–27. 12  And so he did: £400 (equivalent to around £66,000 today). 13  At High Laver parish church.

395

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

3653.  Earl of Shaftesbury, 2 December 1704 plain woodden-coffin without cloth or velvet; which cost, he said, would be better laid out in cloathing the poor, and therefore ordered four poor men to have Coats breeches shoes stockings and hats.1 I  heard him say the night before he died, That he heartily thanked GOD for all his goodness and mercies to him, but above all for his redemption of him by Jesus Christ. I am, etc,

3653. Anthony Ashley Cooper, third earl of Shaftesbury, to a Friend, 2 December 1704 TNA, PRO 30/24/22/2, fos. 150–1. Other copies: PRO 30/24/22/4, pp. 9–11; PRO 30/24/47/25. The first two versions appear in Shaftesbury letterbooks; the last is a later copy. There are variants in all three; principal variants are recorded in notes. Printed in The Life, Unpublished Letters, and Philosophical Regimen of Anthony, Earl of Shaftesbury, ed. B. Rand, 1900, pp. 344–7; extract in R. Voitle, The Third Earl of Shaftesbury, 1671–1713, 1984, p. 229. To be printed in Shaftesbury, Complete Works, Series III, Correspondence, eds. C. Jackson-Holzberg, P. Müller, and F. A. Uehlein, 2018–. Interpretation of this letter assisted by Christine Jackson-Holzberg. The letter, acerbic in tone and premonitory of Shaftesbury’s hostility towards Locke expressed more publicly later, notoriously in his letter to Michael Ainsworth of 3 June 1709, but not expressed in Locke’s lifetime,2 was written perhaps to an imaginary friend and perhaps not sent. The letter comments on a passage in Locke’s posthumously delivered letter to Anthony Collins (no. 3648). Shaftesbury objects to Locke’s appeal to divine reward as a motive for virtue in this life and to Locke’s ascetic pessimism about the ‘vanity’ of this world. The letter is itself valedictory in tone, for Shaftesbury had been seriously ill during 1704. Some of the sentiments in this letter had already been expressed in Shaftesbury’s preface to his edition of Benjamin Whichcote’s Select Sermons, 1698, and in The Sociable Enthusiast, 1704. For another letter (undated and without addressee) which appears to be an early exemplum of Shaftesbury’s critique of Locke, see Anthony Ashley Cooper, Earl of Shaftesbury (1671–1713) and ‘Le Refuge Français’: Correspondence, ed. R. A. Barrell, 1989, pp. 239–45. If the present letter had a real recipient the most likely candidate, according to Jackson-Holzberg, is James Stanhope; Barrell suggests Pierre Coste; possibly it was Collins himself. It would need to be somebody whom Shaftesbury would trust with an invective, albeit that Locke was now dead. Locke’s letter to Collins, to which Shaftesbury reacts, was also much cited by others in the eighteenth century, e.g. William Whiston, Reflexions on an Anonymous Pamphlet, Entituled, A Discourse of Free-thinking, 1713, p. 55; William Warburton, The Divine Legation of ­Moses, 1738, i. xxv–xxviii. In this transcription, underlined words are rendered in italics. 1  Robert Clarke, thatcher; John Douset, day labourer; William Pily, day labourer; Edward Saltmarsh, carpenter: MS Locke c. 25, fos. 71, 77. 2  Though perhaps voiced in a letter to Henry Wilkinson, 10 March 1701, urging him ‘to lead a vertuous and sober life’ for its own sake, ‘besides what reward he [God] has promised’. Correspondence, ed. Jackson–Holzberg et al., ii. 186.

396

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

3653.  Earl of Shaftesbury, 2 December 1704 Extract from Locke to Collins:1

‘May you live long and happy in the enjoyment of health, freedom, content, and all those blessing which Providence has bestowed on you and your virtue entitles you to. I know you loved me living, and will preserve my memory now I am dead. All the use to be made of it is that this life is a scene of vanity, that soon passes away, and affords no solid satisfaction but in the consciousness of doing well, and in hopes of another life. This is what I can say upon experience, and what you will find when you come to make up the account. Adieu. I leave my best wishes with you.’ To a Friend, about Mr. L--- s dying Letter to Mr. C --- s     St. Giles, 2nd Decem[ber, 1704] a–The piece of a Letter you sent me Savours of the good Christian.–a It putts me in mind of one of those dying Speeches2 which come outb under the Title of a Christian warning-piece.3 I shou’d never have guess’d it to have been of a dying Philosopher. Consciousness indeed is a high term:4 but those who can be consciouse of doing no Good but what they are Frighted or Brib’d into can make but a sorry Account of it as I imagine. Now it being my turn to say something in a dying way (for so indeed I am thought of ) I take upon me to send you, as my Disciple, this Counter-Charge. As for good wishes you have abundance, tho’ without Complyments. For Loving Me, or my Memory be that hereafter as it may prove best for you or as you can bear it. The use I wou’d have you make of it, is, that our Life (thank Heaven) has been a Scene of Friendship of long duration, with a–a  In PRO 30/24/22/4 the first sentence reads The piece of a letter which you sent me a Coppy of, savours, I must needs say of the Good Christian. b  PRO 30/24/22/4 inserts often, after Assize-time 1  Shaftesbury’s letter is a commentary on this quotation from the final lines of Locke to Collins, 23 August 1704, no. 3648, the letter ‘to be delivered to him after my decease’. However, the quotation is not present in the first two versions cited in the headnote and only in the third. Locke’s letter, or at least this fragment of it, was also available to others early on, for it was quoted in Lady Sarah Cowper’s diary on 26 April 1705 (Hertfordshire Record Office, DE/P/F31, p. 63) and was printed in Edmund Curll’s augmentation of Le Clerc’s Life (An Account of the Life and Writings of John Locke Esq., 3rd edn, 1714, p. 28). It was not printed in full until the nineteenth century. Both Cowper and Curll’s editor used the extract to vindicate Locke against charges of freethinking and deism. In both Cowper’s and Curll’s versions the first two sentences of the extract are inverted. 2  i.e. of those condemned to death. 3  Although the phrase ‘Christian Warning-Piece’ occurs in a number of tracts, I have not found any dying speeches using it. 4  Alluding not only to the letter but to the Essay, bk 2, ch. 27.

397

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

3653.  Earl of Shaftesbury, 2 December 1704 much and solid Satisfaction, founded in the Consciousness of doing Good for Goods sake, without any farther Regards. Nothing being truly pleasing or sattisfactory but what is thus acted, Disinteressedly, Generously and Freely. This I can say upon experience and this you will find sufficient at the last to make all Reckonings clear: leaving no terrible account to be made up nor terrible Idea of those who are to account with. Thus runs my charge to you: something different (as you see) from the admir’d one; given by our deceas’d Acquaintance. Now a word or two by way of Remark. Life is vain (’tis true) to those that make it so: and lett those cry Vanity, for they have Reason. For my own part, who never cou’d be in Love with Riches or the World nor ever made any great matter of Life, so as to love it for its own sake. I have therefore no falling out with it now at last when I can no longer keep it. So without calling names or giving hard Words, I can part freely with it and give it a good Testimony. No harm in it all that I know; no vanity: but (if one will one’s self ) a fair, honest, sensible thing it is, and not so uncomfortable as it is made. No: nor so over-comfortable as to make one melancholly at the thoughts of parting with it, or make one think the time exceeding short and passing. For why so short if not found sweet? Why complain both ways? Is vanity, meer vanity, a happiness? Or can misery pass away too soon? But the sweet is Living (it seems), meer Living and doing just the ordinary animall Offices of Life, which good manners will not allow one to call by plain names. As for other Offices more immediately Human and of the rationall kind such as Friendship, Justice, Generosity, Acts of Love, and the like,a these are no happinesses (tis suppos’d) no Satisfactions, without a reward. Hard, Hard Dutys, if nothing be to follow! Sad conditions at the best! but such as must be comply’d with for fear of what may be worse. - O, Philosophy! Philosophy! - I have heard indeed of other Philosophy heretofore, but the Philosophers of our Days are hugely given to Wealth and Buggbears, and Philosophy seems at present to be the study of making virtue burdensome and Death uneasy. Much Good may do those Improvers of misery and Diminishers of all that is Good in Life. I am contented they should cry, Vanity! For our parts let us on the contrary make the most of Life and least of Death. The certain way for this being (as I conceive) to do the most Good and that the most freely and generously; throwing aside selfishness, a  PRO 30/24/47/25 inserts the exposing of life, health, or fortune, spending of it, throwing it away, laying it readily down for others - for friends, country, fellow-creatures -

398

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

3654.  P. King, 9 December 1704 mercenaryness and such servile Thoughts as unfitt us even for this World and much more for a better. This is my best advice and what I leave with you, as that which I have liv’d and shall dye by. Lett every one answer for their own experience and speak of Happyness and Good as they find it. aThank Heaven I can do good and find Heaven in it. I know nothing else that is Heavenly. And if this Disposition fitts me not forb Heaven I desire never to be fitted for it nor come into the place. I ask no Reward from Heaven for that which is Reward it self. Let my Being be continued or dis­con­ tinued as in the main is best. The Author of it best knows and I trust him with it. To me ’tis indifferent and allways shall be so. I have never yet serv’d God or Man but as I lov’d and lik’d: having been true to my own and Family Motto which is Love, Serve.

3654.  Peter King, later first Baron King, to Anthony Ashley Cooper, third earl of Shaftesbury, 9 December 1704 TNA, PRO/30/24/47/24. Printed in Locke, Works, 8th edn, 1777, iv. 650-1, and later editions of the Works; also in Locke, Literary and Historical Writings, ed. J. R. Milton, 2019, p. 168. To be printed in Shaftesbury, Complete Works, Series III, Correspondence, eds. C. Jackson-Holzberg, P. Müller, and F. Uehlein, 2018–.

My Lord I Doubt not but your Lordship hath before this time heard of the death of Mr. Locke, who was in the full possession of his reason and understanding to the last minute of his life, He hath made me his ex­ecu­tor, by means whereof his writings are come to my hands, amongst which I find three or four sheets of Memoires of your Grandfathers life, with an Epitaph on your Grandfather,1 Mr. Locke designed, If he had lived longer, to have gon on farther with these Memoires, I beg your Lordships pardon that I have not acquainted your Lordship herewith sooner, but Mr. Locke hapning to dy in the term,2 I had not leisure a  PRO 30/24/47/4 inserts I

b  PRO 30/24/47/4 has Disposition cannot fit me for

1  ‘Memoirs Relating to the Life of Anthony First Earl of Shaftesbury’ and epitaph. PRO 30/24/42/62, fos. 9–16; copy in MS Locke b. 4, fos. 109–14. First published in a French translation by Pierre Coste in Bibliothèque choisie, 7 (1705), pp. 146–91; in English in Posthumous Works of Mr. John Locke, 1706, pp. 281–306. Printed in Locke, Literary and Historical Writings, ed. J.  R.  Milton, 2019, pp. 337–59. Locke left the manuscript with King by his letter of 4 and 25 October: no. 3647. 2  i.e. the Michaelmas law term.

399

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

3654.  P. King, 9 December 1704 to look into his concerns, beyond what was absolutely necessary, till within these few days. These papers properly belong to your Lordship, and I thought it my duty to acquaint your Lordship therewith, and shall dispose of them as your Lordship shall direct.1 I am, with all ­sincerity, My Lord, Your Lordships most dutyfull, and affectionate servant, Peter King Inner Temple, Dec. 9, 1704 Endorsed in a later hand: Lord King to Lord Shaftesbury 1704

1  Shaftesbury replied in January 1705, expressing his ‘great impatience’ to see the memoir and asking for a copy to be sent to him. TNA, PRO 30/24/22/2, fo. 35; also PRO 30/24/22/5, fo. 370. In the event, King arranged for the conveyance of the original to Shaftesbury in March.

400

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

APPENDICES

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

APPENDIX A

SURVEILLANCE LETTERS During the period of the Tory Reaction in the 1680s, Locke, as a close associate of the Whig leader, the first earl of Shaftesbury, was subject to surveillance. The nature and extent of Locke’s involvement in Whig conspiracies for insurrection against Charles II and his brother James in 1682–3 remains indeterminate.1 The several surviving intelligence reports shed light on his activities and reputation, though they include  hostile and unsubstantiated rumour and insinuation. The series includes exchanges in November 1684 between Secretary of State Robert Spencer, second earl of Sunderland, and Dr John Fell, dean of Christ Church and bishop of Oxford, which led to Locke’s expulsion from his Studentship at Christ Church.2 The reports printed here (in several cases excerpted from longer letters) are given in chronological order and are by Thomas Chudleigh, John Fell, Sir Richard Holloway, Humphrey Prideaux, and Bevil Skelton, together with royal instructions embodied in Sunderland’s letters. The letters in State Papers are now available online.3 Particular thanks to Philip Milton for advice and information. Six items are extracts from letters by Humphrey Prideaux to John Ellis (nos. A1–4, 10, 13). These are all from BL, Add. MS 28929, the Ellis papers, and were printed in Letters of Humphrey Prideaux . . . to John Ellis, ed. E.  M.  Thompson, 1875. Prideaux (1648–1724) was a Student of Christ Church from 1668 to 1685 and later dean of Norwich. He wrote regularly with Oxford news to Ellis (1642/6– 1738), a government official who, during the 1670s, was secretary to Under-­secretary of State Sir Joseph Williamson and to ambassador Sir Leoline Jenkins, and, during the 1680s, was employed in Ireland under 1 See, inter alia, R.  Ashcraft, Revolutionary Politics and John Locke’s Two Treatises of Government, 1986; J.  Marshall, John Locke: Resistance, Religion, and Responsibility, 1994; P. Milton, ‘John Locke and the Rye House Plot’, Historical Journal, 43 (2000), 647–68. For guidance in discussing these letters I am indebted to Philip Milton. 2  Locke’s ‘Studentship’ at Christ Church approximated to a Fellowship at other colleges. The Dean was head of the College. For Oxford during the Reaction, see R. A. Beddard, ‘Tory Oxford’, in The History of the University of Oxford, iv: Seventeenth-Century Oxford, ed. N. Tyacke, 1997. 3 www.gale.com/intl/primary-sources/state-papers-online.

403

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Appendix A: Surveillance letters the aegis of the Lord Lieutenant, the duke of Ormond. Given the recipient’s position, Prideaux will have known that his information would be available to the government. Prideaux first mentions Locke in February 1675, and already the tone is hostile: ‘Lock hath wrigled in to Ireland’s faculty place and intendeth this act to proceed Doctor in Physick.’ This refers to Locke’s transfer to the Faculty Studentship in medicine which exempted him from taking holy orders.1 Besides a ­couple of other passing mentions, the notices of Locke belong to the  period 1681–4, as below. The letters were written from Christ Church and addressed to Ellis at ‘the Duke of Ormond’s Lodgings in Whitehall’. Prideaux’s incoming letters are preserved in the Letterbook of Humphrey Prideaux, c.1677–90, but this only yields one relevant reply from Ellis.2 The Sunderland−Fell letters (nos. A6–8, 11–12) have been published several times since the mid-­eighteenth century. The new transcriptions here are from documents in The National Archives. Ellipses indicate omission of passages concerning an unconnected Christ Church matter to do with another Student. Sunderland’s letters are office copies, preserved in the Secretary of State’s letterbook. There are manuscript copies in BL, Add. MS 4290, fos. 15–16; TNA, PRO 30/24/47/22, fos. 1–5. The letters are summarized in Calendar of State Papers Domestic, 1683– 1684, pp. 198, 203, 206, 211, 213.3 Locke’s expulsion loomed large in eighteenth-­century biographies of Locke, the incident being taken to be emblematic of his relationship to the Stuart monarchy and to the High Church Tory University and its scholastic philosophical commitments.4 The remaining three items (nos. A5, 9, 14) are introduced in the headnotes. For Locke’s anxious response to the allegations made against him and his profound dismay at his removal from Christ Church and wish for restitution, see especially nos. 797, 801, 803A, and 1209A. 1  BL, Add. MS 28929, fo. 13. The reference to Thomas Ireland’s place is erroneous, for he held the humanities Studentship. Locke replaced Samuel Johnson in the medical Studentship. Since 1666, Locke had avoided holy orders by means of a royal dispensation. The ‘act’ was the ceremony for the award of degrees. Locke graduated MB not MD. E. G. W. Bill, Education at Christ Church, Oxford, 1660–1800, 1988, pp. 350–1; J. R. Milton, ‘Locke at Oxford’, in G. A. J. Rogers, ed., Locke’s Philosophy: Content and Context, 1994. 2  Cornwall Record Office, Truro, PB/8/1. Below, p. 415, n. 2. 3  See P. Milton, ‘John Locke’s Expulsion from Christ Church in 1684’, Eighteenth-Century Thought, 4 (2009), 29–65. 4  See  M.  Goldie, ‘The Early Lives of John Locke’, Eighteenth-Century Thought, 3 (2007), 57–87.

404

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Appendix A: Surveillance letters

A1. Humphrey Prideaux to John Ellis, 25 October 1681 BL, Add. MS 28929, fo. 77. Extract.

The story of the Earl of Shaftesbury’s goeing to Carolina is soe ob­stin­ ate­ly beleived here that no one will be perswaded but that his Lordship petitioned the King to this effect and all our News letters have had it.1 The Pamphlet intitled noe Protestant plot is with us and John Lock is sayd to be the Author of it.2

A2. Humphrey Prideaux to John Ellis, 14 March 1682 BL, Add. MS 28929, fo. 95. Extract.

John Lock lives a very cunning unintelligible life here beeing 2 days in Town and 3 out and noe one knows where he goes or when he goes or when he returns[;] certainly there is some whig intreague amanageing, but here not a word of politics comes from him[,] nothing of news or any thing else concerneing our present affairs[,] as if he were not at all concernd in them, if any one asks him what news when he returns from a progresse3 his answer is we know nothing.

A3. Humphrey Prideaux to John Ellis, 19 March 1682 BL, Add. MS 28929, fo. 96. Extract. The letter also speaks of ‘Robin Pawlin the canting preaching attorney of our town’, a ‘man as notorious a knave as any in the county’. In an earlier letter the same man is called a ‘rank phanatique’ (fo. 50). This is Robert Pawling, Whig merchant, who was mayor of Oxford in

1 On 28 September Shaftesbury, fearing execution for treason, offered, via the earl of Arlington, to go into exile in Carolina. Roger Morrice wrote that the letter to Arlington was conveyed by the earl’s ‘servants Shepherd and Lock’. Anthony Shepherd was the earl’s gentleman of the horse. J. Spurr, ed., The Entring Book of Roger Morrice, ii, 2007, p. 296. This is the only ­mention of Locke in Morrice’s compendious political diary. Shaftesbury’s proposal came in the wake of a promotional campaign, run from the Carolina Coffee House, to encourage emigration, suspected to be a device for a general flight of seditious Whigs. 2  [Robert Ferguson], No Protestant Plot: Or the Present Pretended Conspiracy of Protestants Against the King and Government Discovered to be a Conspiracy of the Papists Against the King and his Protestant Subjects, 1681. Second and third parts followed in 1682. 3 Journey.

405

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Appendix A: Surveillance letters  1679–80. During the Tory purge his business was boycotted and he was reduced to near bankruptcy. He was arrested during the Monmouth Rebellion in 1685. After the Revolution he settled in London, where he was close to Locke and provided him with lodgings. He was Comptroller of the Stamp Office, 1694– 1707. See Corr., iv. 208–10.

Where J. L. goes I cannot a〈by any means〉 learn[,] all his voyages beeing so cunningly contrived; sometimes he will goe to some acquaintances of his near the Town and then he will let anybody know where he is but other times when I am assured he goes elsewhere noe one knows where he goes and therefore the other is made use of only for a blind[.]1 he hath in his last sally been absent at least 10 days where I  cannot learn[;] last night he returnd and sometimes he himselfe goes out and leaves his man2 behind who shall then be often seen in the quadrangle to make people beleive his Master is at home for he will let noe one come to his chamber and therefore it is not certain when he is there or when he is absent[;] I fancy there are projects afoot.

A4. Humphrey Prideaux to John Ellis, 24 October 1682 BL, Add. MS 28929, fo. 100. Extract.

John Lock lives very quietly with us and not a word ever drops from his mouth that discovers3 any thing of his heart within[;] now his Master is fled4 I suppose we shall have him all togeather, he seems to be a man of very good converse and that we have of him with content[;]5 as for what else he is, he keeps it to himselfe and therefore troubles not us with it nor we him.

a  Page torn. 1  Locke’s journal for February and March show him making visits only to James Tyrrell at Oakley, Buckinghamshire, ten miles from Oxford. 2  Locke’s manservant and amanuensis, 1678–96, was Sylvester Brounower. 3 Reveals. 4  Shaftesbury went into hiding about late September or early October and fled to Holland in November. 5  i.e. we find no objection to such conversation as he makes.

406

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Appendix A: Surveillance letters 

A5. Sir Richard Holloway to Sir Leoline Jenkins, 13 July 1683 TNA, SP 29/428, fo. 272. Summarized in Calendar of State Papers, Domestic, July– September 1683, pp. 109–10. Sir Richard Holloway (1627–99) was a lawyer and, shortly ­after writing the present letter, was appointed a judge. He was among the counsel for the prosecution of Stephen College for treason in 1681 and among the judges presiding at Algernon Sidney’s trial in 1683. The recipient of this letter was the Secretary of State, Sir Leoline Jenkins. It was written on the same day that Arthur Capel, earl of Essex committed suicide in the Tower and Lord Russell was condemned to death for treason, and eight days before Oxford University published its Judgment and Decree anathematizing Whig doctrines.

Oxon July the 13th 1683 Right Honourable It is taken notice of in Oxford that from Mr Lockes chamber in Christ Church that was a great confident if not Secretary to the late Earle of Shaftesbury,1 there are in a clandestine way severall Hand Basketts of papers carryed thence to Mr James Tyrrells house at Oakely in the County of Bucks or to Mr Pawling the Mercers house in Oxford.2 Though Mr Tyrrell is the son of a very good man, Sir Timothy Tyrrell,3 yet Mr Tyrrell and Mr Pawling are persons that are reputed to be disaffected. It is thought convenient to make a search by a Deputy Lieutenant at Oakely in the County of Bucks which is near Brill, about seaven mile from Oxford. But who is Lieutenant or Deputy of that county I cannot at present say4 and if you please at the same time to direct a search to be made by our Lord Lieutenant5 or one of his Deputies at Mr Pawlings house in Oxford and that the Lord Bishop of Oxford6 and Mr Vice Chancellor7 doe then search Mr Locks chamber. It is ­apprehended it 1  Shaftesbury died in Holland on 21 January 1683 (OS). 2  For Pawling, see headnote to A3. There is a note in Locke’s Journal for 15/25 October: ‘By what Mr Tyrrell writes me 3d instant I suppose my box of MS which were at Mr Pawlings are removed to his house.’ Bodl., MS f. 7, p. 129. 3  Of Oakley and Shotover, 1617–1701; son-in-law of Archbishop James Ussher; a ‘good man’ because a Civil War Royalist. His son, Locke’s friend, began his career with the impeccably loyal act of publishing Ussher’s The Power Communicated by God to the Prince, 1661. But he had turned Whig and published Patriarcha non Monarcha, 1681. 4  Buckinghamshire, where the lord lieutenant was John Egerton, third earl of Bridgewater. The lord lieutenant, usually a peer, commanded the county militia, with senior Justices of the Peace serving as deputy lieutenants. 5  Of Oxfordshire: James Bertie, first earl of Abingdon. 6  John Fell. 7  John Lloyd, Principal of Jesus College.

407

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Appendix A: Surveillance letters may conduce to his Majesties service.1 I am going to attend the Norfolk Circuit2 on Tuesday next and if your honour have any commands afterwards I know you will please to direct them to the Bishop or Mr Vice Chancellor. I remaine Right Honourable Your most obedient servant Richd Holloway

A6. Robert Spencer, second earl of Sunderland, to Dr John Fell, bishop of Oxford, 6 November 1684 TNA, SP 44/56, fo. 141. Other copies of this and the following two items: TNA, PRO 30/24/47/22, fos. 1–6; BL, Add. MS 4290, fos. 15–16; MS Locke c. 39, fos. 1–2. Printed in Lord King, Life of Locke, 1830, i. 278. Answered by A7.

Lord Bishop of Oxon

Whitehall Novem. 6th 84 My Lord The King being given to understand that one Mr Lock, who belonged to the late Earle of Shaftesbury and has upon severall ­occasions behaved himselfe very factiously and undutifully to the Government is a Student of Christchurch, his Majestie commands me to signify to your Lordship that he would have him removed from being a Student, and that in order thereunto your Lordship should let me know the method of doing it. I am My Lord etc. Sunderland

A7. Dr John Fell, bishop of Oxford, to Robert Spencer, second earl of Sunderland, 8 November 1684 TNA, SP 29/438, fo. 160. In this letter, Fell prevaricates over Sunderland’s instruction. Damaris Masham quoted from it in her memoir of Locke. From the mid-­eighteenth to the mid-­nineteenth centuries much ingenuity was expended in finely balancing the degree of Fell’s culpability in this affair. This mattered less for the sake of Fell’s own

1  Anthony Wood complained that Locke’s chamber was not searched: Athenae Oxonienses, 2nd edn, 2 vols. (1721), ii. 1046–7. 2  A judge’s assize court circuit.

408

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Appendix A: Surveillance letters  reputation than for what he stood for: the Church and the university. For Locke’s judgement, see no. 1209A above. Printed in King, Life of Locke, i. 279. Answers A6; answered by A8.

Right Honourable I have receiv’d the honor of your Lordships letter, wherein you are pleased to enquire concerning Mr Locks being continued a student of this house, of which I have this account to render: that he being, as your Lordship is truly informd, a Person who was much trusted by the late Earle of Shaftsbury, and who is suspected to be ill affected to the Government, I have for diverse years had an eie upon him; but so close has his guard bin on himself, that after several strict enquiries, I may confidently affirm, there is not any one in the college, however familiar with him, who has heard him speak a word, either against, or so much as concerning the government; and altho very frequently both in public and private, discourses have bin purposely introduc’d to the disparagement of his Master the Earle of Shaftsbury, his party and designs, he could never be provok’d to take any notice, or discover1 in word or look, the least concern: so that I believe there is not in the world, such a master of taciturnity and passion. He has here a Physicians place, which frees him from the exercise of the College, and the obligations which others have to residence in it:2 and he is now abroad,3 upon pretence of want of health.4 But notwithstanding that, I have summoned him to return home; which is don with this prospect, that if he comes not back, he will be liable to expulsion for contumacy; and if he do not, he will be answerable to the law,5 for what he shall be found to have don amiss; it being probable that tho he may have bin thus cautious here, where he knew himself to be suspected, he has laid himself more open at London, where a general liberty of speaking was us’d, and where the execrable designs against his Majestie and his government were managed and pursued.6 If he do not return by the first day of January next, which is the time limited to him, I shall be enabled of course7 to proceed against him 1 Reveal. 2  Locke had a Faculty Studentship in medicine which exempted him from fulfilling the ­ordinary duties of a Studentship. 3  Locke left for Holland about the beginning of September 1683. 4  Previous transcriptions have ‘upon want of health’, omitting ‘pretence of ’. The difference is significant, given the argument over Fell’s culpability. 5  Some printed versions erroneously have ‘to your lordship’ instead of ‘to the law’. 6  Principally the Rye House Plot of 1683. The king publicized and condemned the Plot in His Majesties Declaration to all his Loving Subjects Concerning the Treasonable Conspiracy against his Sacred Person and Government lately Discovered. Appointed to be Read in all Churches and Chappels within this Kingdom, 1683. 7  Of course: as a matter of course, by due process.

409

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Appendix A: Surveillance letters to expulsion. But if this method seem not effectual or speedy enough, and his Majestie our founder and vis­it­or1 shall please to command his immediate remove, upon the receit thereof directed to the dean and chapter,2 it shall accordingly be executed by my Lord,3 Your Lordships Most humble and obedient servant, Jo. Oxon4 Nov. 8

A8.  Robert Spencer, second earl of Sunderland, to Dr John Fell, bishop of Oxford, 11 November 1684 TNA, SP 44/56, fo. 143. Extract. Enclosure: SP 44/57, fo. 101. One consequence of Locke’s expulsion was that his rooms at the college were broken into. Tyrrell later rec­ ords things ‘stollen out of the chamber when they had broke open the door, both of that and the bedchamber’: no. 1378 (19 March 16[91]). Answers A7; answered by A11.

Bishop Oxon

Whitehall 11th November 1684 My Lord Having communicated your Lordship’s of the 8th to his Majestie, Hee has thought fitt to direct me to send you the enclosed, concerning his Commands for the immediate expulsion of Mr Lock. [. . .]5 My Lord, Your Lordship’s most humble Servant Sunderland Enclosure:

Right Reverend Father in God and Trusty and Wellbeloved We greet you well. Whereas We have received information of the factious and disloyall behaviour of [blank] Lock one of the Students of that our Colledge, We have thought fit hereby to signify Our Will and Pleasure to you, that you forthwith remove him from his said Students Place and deprive him of all the Rights and Advantages thereunto belonging.

1  The Crown, rather than Charles II personally, founded Christ Church. The Visitor was a formal office for external oversight and adjudication. 2  Christ Church, being a cathedral institution and unlike other colleges, was governed by a Dean and Chapter; the Students were not members of this governing body. 3  The final sentence may imply that Fell, having served his conscience, was content to be overruled by the Crown. 4  Johannes Oxoniensis. By custom bishops sign themselves by their dioceses. 5  The remainder of the letter concerns a separate matter.

410

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Appendix A: Surveillance letters  For which this shall be your Warrant. And so We bid you heartily farewell. Given etc Whitehall the 11th day of November 1684 etc By his Majestie’s command Sunderland To the Right Reverend Father in God John Lord Bishop of Oxon Deane of Christchurch and to Our Tr. and Welb.1 the Chapter there. In the margin: Mr Lock to be removed from Christchurch Colledge

A9. Thomas Chudleigh to Charles Middleton, second earl of Middleton, 11/21 November 1684 BL, Add. MS 41810, fos. 187–8. Printed in C. Price, ‘Thomas Chudleigh on John Locke, 1684’, Notes and Queries, 194 (1949), 519. Chudleigh (1649/50–c.1702) was Eng­lish ­envoy to the Netherlands, 1682–5, where he was constantly frustrated by the unwillingness of the Dutch States General and William of Orange to act against Whig ‘traitors’. His principal success was in kidnapping Sir Thomas Armstrong in Leiden in June 1684, who was sent home for execution. The letter is dated from The Hague. The recipient was the Secretary of State (serving alongside Sunderland), a protégé of James, duke of York, and a future Jacobite exile. This letter does not appear in the selection published in The Dispatches of Thomas Plott (1681–1682) and Thomas Chudleigh (1682–1685), ­English Envoys at The Hague, ed. F. Middlebush, 1926.

Herewith I send your Lordship the most impudent and horrid Libell that the malice of Hell it self could possibly invent. It has for Title An Impartiall Enquiry into the Administration of Affaires in England with some reflexions on the King’s Declaration of July 27th 1683.2 It has been with great difficulty that I have procurd it from Amsterdam where I doubt not but it was printed, and by the style and language of it I durst swear it to be the Twin brother of that other Libell which I sent you lately that undertakes to prove the Earl of Essex’s being murderd,3 but who their common father should be I may possibly give a guesse, but it will be impossible to prove it. I should be loath to wrong any man, but 1  Trusty and Well-beloved. 2  Underlined in the manuscript; the title is accurate; the author is unknown, but probably Robert Ferguson. Chudleigh later reported that the Dutch authorities issued a proclamation against it (fo. 260). The king’s declaration concerned the unmasking of the Rye House Plot. 3  For the probable identity of this tract, by Ferguson, see below, p. 416, nn. 1–2. Chudleigh later reported that the ‘faction’ spread it about ‘to raise up sedition and rebellion’ (fos. 236, 260). His correspondence through the winter is preoccupied with persuading feet-dragging Dutch au­thor­ities to prosecute the printer and sellers. At first he was disinclined to act, pointing out that such suppression ‘served onely to raise people’s curiosity and the price of the book, and made it sell the better’ (fo. 194). He fell into line when the Secretary of State insisted on action (fos. 204,

411

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Appendix A: Surveillance letters since the Lord Shaftesbury is gone, I can think none more likely for such a work then one with whom he may have left his spirit and his malice behind, and that is his secretary Lock, who has been some time in this country, dividing himself between Leyden and Amsterdam, whither he pretends to be come for the benefitt of the Aire, alleadging even that of Oxford to be too thinn for his constitution. He retaines att this time a Faculty place in Christ Church Colledge in Oxford which was never intended for the maintenance and support of such as seek to overthrow the government, and to bring the King’s Sacred Person into contempt and even into horrour with all men, as if he were the worst of Tyrants and the worst of men, for so His Majesty is most barbarously painted out in this Libell, and whether he be the author of it or not, I doe not see for what reason Mr Lock should be so much indulgd as to keep his place in Christ Church whilst he lives amongst the worst of our Traytors here. It is but necessary that the Colledge should be told of it and directed to summon him home, and in case of his refusall to bestow his place on some other that better deserves it.1 he speakes now of going to reside att Utrecht,2 where is the greatest nest att pre­ sent of the King’s ill subjects, who I heare have so farr poysond that place that it is hardly safe for a stranger to speak there with reverence and respect for His Majesty. It is sayd that Ferguson and the Goodenoughs3 are gone to keep company with Sir William Waller4

235–6, 243, 250, 260). Middleton had first alerted Chudleigh to the ‘two infamous Libells’ on 11 November, the same day that Chudleigh independently reported them to Middleton (BL, Add. MS 41823, fo. 2). Chudleigh’s successor, Bevil Skelton, heard from an informant on 17/27 May 1685 that Ferguson was the author: ‘it is he [Ferguson] who wrote the Book on the Death of the Earl of Essex, and not Doctor John Lack [sic]’ (‘c’est Luy qui a composé le Livre de la mort du Comte d’Essex, et non pas Doctor Jean Lack’) (BL, Add. MS 41812, fo. 85). The tract was also attributed to Ferguson in Thomas Sprat’s official True Account and Declaration of the Horrid Conspiracy Against the Late King, 1685, p. 146. 1  Chudleigh’s dispatch came too late to affect the Christ Church issue, since the order to expel Locke is dated the same day, 11 November. Locke’s Faculty place was bestowed on William Breach. 2  Locke was at Utrecht in late September and early October; he returned in December, travelling to Amsterdam and Leiden in the interval. 3 Richard Goodenough (fl.1671–87), Whig lawyer and conspirator. As undersheriff of London, 1680–1, he secured the appointment of Whig juries; a leading conspirator in the Rye House Plot, fled to Holland under a charge of treason, 1683; took part in Monmouth’s Rebellion, captured, turned king’s evidence, 1685; released from jail, 1687; his brother Francis, also a lawyer, acted with him. 4  c.1639–99, Whig politician and London magistrate zealous against papists; MP for Westminster, 1679, 1681; fled to Holland, 1682; returned to England, 1689.

412

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Appendix A: Surveillance letters  att Lunenbourg,1 but I heare with more certainty that Nelthrop,2 who has passd for some time att Amsterdam by the name of Gardner, is now either gone or just upon going thither in company with Waller’s Wife3 and his own, whereof I have acquainted Mr Skelton4 that he may try to seize him if it be possible;5 this Nelthrop was one of Lock’s Companyons, and another of them is sayd to be newly dead and buryed att Leyden, which is the Lord Louden Campbell.6 The other Libell that seekes to fasten the Earl of Essex’s death upon the Duke,7 my Lord Sunderland and others, was very common amongst the Duke of Monmouth’s servants, who every where asserted the truth of it . . .

A10.  Humphrey Prideaux to John Ellis, 12 November 1684 BL, Add. MS 28929, fo. 110. Extract.

Whiggism goes down a pace and the punishments of sedition and treason fall very heavy upon those that have soe boldly been guilty of it in the late licentious times.8 You have an instance of it lately in Papillion who is gon to his Brethren into the Marshalsea for £10,000.9 Our Friend John Lock is likewise become a brother sufferer with

1  Waller had a regiment in the army of the duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg. Lüneburg is 30 miles SE of Hamburg. 2  Richard Nelthorpe (d.1685), barrister, Whig conspirator, active during the Exclusion Crisis; associate of Algernon Sidney; involved in the Rye House Plot, charged with treason, fled to Holland, 1683; involved in Monmouth’s Rebellion, captured, executed. 3  Catherine Mansel, daughter of Bussy Mansel, Whig MP, who was briefly arrested during Monmouth’s Rebellion. 4  Sir Bevil Skelton: see next letter. 5  English government agents were not above street kidnapping. In June 1684 Sir Thomas Armstrong was abducted at Leiden by Chudleigh’s men and taken back to England for execution, where he had earlier been found guilty of treason in absentia. 6  James Campbell, second earl of Loudoun (d.1684); convicted of treason in Scotland in absentia, November 1684, by which time he had died at Leiden. 7  James, duke of York. 8  In July 1683 five Whigs were executed for treason; Algernon Sidney followed in December; in 1684 there were two executions and five imprisonments of prominent Whigs; others suffered in Scotland. 9  Thomas Papillon (1623–1702), leading Whig; MP for Dover; among the grand jury which threw out the charge of treason against Shaftesbury, 1681. In 1684 the Tory mayor whose arrest he had secured won crippling damages from him of £10,000; in January 1685 he fled to Holland. The Marshalsea was a debtors’ prison.

413

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Appendix A: Surveillance letters them. As soon as the plot1 was discovered he cunningly stole away from us and in an halfe years time noe one knew where he was[;] at last he began to appear in Holland and the last account we had of him from thence was that he had consorted himselfe with Dare of Taunton2 and they two had been lodgeing togeather3 in Amsterdam, we have been told orders have been given at Court to inquire after him[,] however the Bishop4 is resolved to know where he is or put him out from beeing student of Christ Church a citation being fix’d up in the Hall to warn him to appear and give an account of his absence on the 1st day of January next[;] but it is supposed he will rather chuse [to] forfeit his place by still absenteing then venture his neck by comeing any more within reach of the Kings justice. it seems he transacted all affairs with West5 and therefore as soon as he was secured he thought it time to shift for himselfe, for fear West should tell all he knew.6 When West was first taken he was very solicitous to know of us at the table7 who this West was[,] at which one made an unlucky reply that it was the very same person whom he treated at his chamber and caressed at soe great a rate when College was tryed here at Oxford[,]8 which

1  The Rye House Plot, revealed to the government on 12 June 1683, which led to extensive arrests in late June and July. 2  Thomas Dare (d.1685), goldsmith and Whig activist; after being tried for sedition, the Whig House of Commons defended him by voting to impeach his judge, 1680; fled to Holland, c.1681; present at Shaftesbury’s deathbed; joined Monmouth’s Rebellion as paymaster; accidentally killed by Andrew Fletcher shortly after the landing. 3  There is no independent evidence that Locke lodged with Dare, but Dare did look after money, mail, and other items for Locke and is frequently mentioned in Locke’s Journal, which provides evidence of correspondence that has not survived. (Above, p. xlv; and Corr., nos. 781, 783, 796, 812, 826). 4  John Fell. 5  Robert West (1649–c.1684), lawyer and Whig conspirator; counsel for Stephen College (see n. 8 below), 1681; implicated in the Rye House Plot, arrested, turned King’s evidence, and his evidence presented at Sidney’s trial, 1683; pardoned, 1684. 6  West gave himself up on 22 June 1683 and was interrogated on 23 and 27 June. 7  Dinner table at Christ Church. 8  Stephen College (c.1635–81), carpenter and Whig poet, known as ‘the Protestant Joiner’; a street activist, he distributed ‘No Popery, No Slavery’ ribbons at the Oxford Parliament. His political satires culminated in The Ra-Ree Show, 1681, for which he was tried for treason at Oxford, 17 August, and executed, 31 August; Shaftesbury and the duke of Buckingham provided lawyers, West, Aaron Smith, and Edward Whitaker—who met at the home of the mathematician John Wallis. See Locke, An Essay Concerning Toleration and Other Writings on Law and Politics, 1667–1683, eds. J. R. Milton and P. Milton, 2006, 123–6.

414

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Appendix A: Surveillance letters  put the Gentleman into a p­ rofound silence and the next thing we heard of him was that he was fled1 for the same.2

A11.  Dr John Fell, bishop of Oxford, to Robert Spencer, second earl of Sunderland, 16 November 1684 TNA, SP 29/438, fo. 169. Extract. Answers A8; answered by A12.

Right Honourable I hold my self bound in duty to signify to your Lordship that his Majestie’s command for the expulsion of Mr Lock from this Colledge, is fully executed. [. . .] Your Lordships Most humble and obedient servant Jo. Oxon Nov. 163

A12. Robert Spencer, second earl of Sunderland, to Dr John Fell, bishop of Oxford, 20 November 1684 TNA, SP 44/56, p. 145. Extract. Answers A11.

1  West revealed nothing about Locke, and while West’s arrest apparently caused Locke to secrete his papers, it does not appear to have prompted him precipitately to flee. He had returned to Oxford on 15 June; on 27 June he took papers to Tyrrell at Oakley and left others in Oxford with Robert Pawling; (see Holloway’s report above, A5). In late July and August he was in the West Country. His signing of powers of attorney on 10 and 22 August (above, nos. 769A, 769B) is probably a signal of an intention to flee. On 26 August he gave Edward Clarke instructions, said he was writing a will, and (about then) arranged a cipher encrypting names of colleagues (Corr., nos. 771–2). The date of his sailing is uncertain; he landed at Rotterdam on 7 September. 2  Ellis replied from Dublin on 20 November. Extract: ‘I thought J. Lock had been more cautious than to have don any thing that might have brought his life in question, but treason is as infectious as the plague and there is, I see, no keeping company with persons disaffected to the Government without being tainted as well with their practices as principles. I suppose he will hardly returne upon the summons.’ Cornwall Record Office, Truro: PB 8/1/256. 3  The high Tory George Hickes wrote, ‘I was very glad to hear that Locke is turned out of Christ Church, but methinks it had become the Bishop to have done it of his own accord long before, and not to have let the king’s bread go to nourish and comfort His Majesty’s enemies and the retainers of such great and apparent villains as the late Earl of Shaftesbury was.’ Bodl., MS Ballard 12, fo. 2: Hickes to Arthur Charlett, 26 November 1684.

415

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Appendix A: Surveillance letters Bishop Oxon

    Whitehall, November 20th 1684 My Lord I have your Lordship’s of the 16th and have acquainted His Majestie therewith, who is well satisfyd with the Colledge’s ready obedi­ence to His Commands by the expulsion of Mr Lock. [. . .] I am, My Lord, Your Lordship’s most humble servant Sunderland

A13.  Humphrey Prideaux to John Ellis, 22 November 1684 BL, Add. MS 28929, fo. 112. Extract. This letter was written from London.

Lock is expeld by the Kings speciall command[;] it seems there is a most bitter libel publishd in Holland in English Dutch and French, called a Hue and Cry after the Earle of Essex’s murther1 which is layd at his doore.2

A14. Sir Bevil Skelton to Charles Middleton, second earl of Middleton, 2/12 November 1685 BL, Add. MS 41812, fo. 224. Extract. Sir Bevil Skelton (c.1641–96), was a soldier and diplomat; envoy to various countries, 1674–85; to the United Provinces, 1685–6, and France, 1686–8. After the Revolution he was an exiled Jacobite and convert to Catholicism. While stationed in the Dutch Republic, he kept constant watch on the English and Scottish exiles. The letter from which this extract is taken is dated from Utrecht and addressed to Secretary of State Middleton. It transmits information from an informant of Skelton’s based at The Hague. Locke’s name appears in Skelton’s reports on a number of further occasions. On 24 April/4 May he writes, ‘I was informed at Utrecht that Sir Patience Ward,3­

1  An Enquirie into, and Detection of the Barbarous Murther of the Late Earl of Essex. In late December Narcissus Luttrell recorded in his diary that ‘There has been for some daies past a scandalous libellous book entituled An Enquiry about the barbarous Murther of the Earl of Essex . . . thrown about the street . . . there is a reward of 100l published in the Gazet.’ Brief Historical Relation of State Affairs, 6 vols., 1857, i. 324. 2  It is likely that the allegation that Locke authored this extremely offensive tract—for it did no less than accuse James, duke of York, of being an accessory to murder—as well as another tract (above, A9), was a cause of his expulsion from Christ Church. In the following months, however, authorship was (probably correctly) laid at Robert Ferguson’s door. 3  1629–96, London merchant and Whig politician; wealthy cloth exporter; knighted, 1675; MP, London, 1679–81; lord mayor, 1680; associate of Shaftesbury; tried for perjury, fled to Holland, 1683; returned at the Revolution; again active in London politics.

416

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Appendix A: Surveillance letters  Papillon,1 Starkey2 and Lock3 doe constantly reside there, and that Ferguson is often with them, but that he keeps more at Amsterdam’ (fo. 34). On 17/27 May an informant at Utrecht tells Skelton, ‘[C]’est Luy [Ferguson] qui a composé le livre de la mort du Comte d’Essex, et non pas Doctor Jean Lack’ (fo. 85). In May to July, Locke, described as formerly ‘secretary’ to Shaftesbury, is mentioned in relation to the list of ‘His Majesty’s enemies’ presented to the States General for ‘seizing and banishing’ (fos. 58, 70, 100, 138); Locke, with Papillon and Starkey, are ‘personnes très dangereuses’ (12/22 May, fo. 77).4 The pre­ sent letter (fo. 224) also reports on Slingsby Bethel,5 currently travelling from Utrecht to Amsterdam; the Dissenting minister Matthew Meade;6 Starkey; and the former Whig MP, Sir John Thompson:7 ‘Sir John Thompson hath given welcome reception to Mr John Starkey at his house.’8

Now may it please your Excellency to observe that the 6/16 of October past Sir John Thompson and his Lady9 with their Chaplain Walter Cross,10 and with them Sir Patience Ward and his Lady11 and the two servants went hence in a wagon for Cleve,12 where coming Mr Cross was dispatchd presently to Emrick13 two houres thence to the Lord

1  Above, p. 413, n. 9. 2  John Starkey (c.1630–90), London Whig and Dissenting printer, in business from 1657; published radical political authors, including James Harrington, John Milton, and Henry Neville; arrested in 1677 for reprinting Nathaniel Bacon’s Continuation of an Historical Discourse of the Government of England (first published 1651); fled to Holland, 1683; returned at the Revolution; his name appears in conjunction with Locke’s also at fo. 138. 3  While this is almost certainly John Locke, it should be noted that a tobacco merchant called Nicholas Lock appears in several contemporary documents as a supporter of Monmouth’s Rebellion. Skelton generally refers to John Locke as Shaftesbury’s secretary. 4  Locke is also mentioned at Add. MS 41812, fos. 45, 218, and Add. MS 41817, fos. 5, 218. 5  Slingsby Bethel (1617–97), Civil War parliamentarian, Whig activist, reputed republican; fled to Hamburg, 1682, where he mainly remained until 1689. 6  Matthew Meade (1628/9–99), Presbyterian, ejected at the Restoration; fled to Holland, October 1684; but sought a pardon and returned to England, 1687. 7  John Thompson (1648–1710), Whig politician and Dissenter; baronet, 1673; MP, 1685; left for Holland, 1685, settling at Utrecht; MP, 1689–96, then raised to the peerage as Baron Haversham; turned Tory in Anne’s reign. 8  For Whig radicals and exiles in this period, see R. L. Greaves, Secrets of the Kingdom: British Radicals from the Popish Plot to the Revolution of 1688–1689, 1992; M. Zook, Radical Whigs and Conspiratorial Politics in Late Stuart England, 1999; G. Gardner, The Scottish Exile Community in the Netherlands, 1660–1690, 2004. 9  Frances Annesley, daughter of Arthur Annesley, first earl of Anglesey, who, though in government until 1682, was sympathetic to Dissent. 10  Scottish Dissenting minister; arrested in 1683 after the Rye House Plot. Locke resided with him in November 1686 (Corr., iii. 61). 11 Elizabeth, daughter of a Puritan parliamentarian London haberdasher, William Hobson. 12  Cleves (Kleve), Germany, close to the Dutch border, a territory of the Elector of Brandenburg. 13 Emmerich.

417

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Appendix A: Surveillance letters Wharton1 who is there with Mr How2 the nonconformist minister that preached at Shoemakers Hall[.]3 what was done there I cannot yet learne but hope suddenly4 to know. They sent for Doctor John Lock who belonged to the late Earle of Shaftesbury in your List,5 and now lodgeth at one Mr Meeres6 house at Cleve son in law to the hostess of the Hoff van Holland a great Inn in Cleve, who was with them every day in the Hoff van Holland, and also at a private house which stands in the Park where Prince Maurice7 was intombed.

1  Philip, fourth Baron Wharton (1613–96), leading Puritan and Whig; Civil War parliamentarian, but opposed the regicide; patron of Dissenters; Country Party and Whig activist; travelled to Holland, August 1685; privy councillor after the Revolution. 2  John Howe (1630–1705), leading Dissenting minister; ejected from the Church, 1662; Presbyterian pastor in London; prosecuted for conventicling, 1682–3; in Holland with Wharton, 1685–6; settled at Utrecht; returned to England, 1687. 3  In fact, Haberdashers Hall. City merchant companies sympathetic to Dissent allowed the use of their halls as places of Nonconformist worship. 4 Speedily. 5  Skelton’s list of traitors, whom he called upon the Dutch authorities to extradite, submitted in May: ‘The names of such as were required to be delivered up and banished out of the States Generals dominions by Mr Skelton anno 1685’: BL, MS Sloane 1983B, fo. 38. The list includes, besides ‘John Lock formerly Secretary of Lord Shaftesbury’, John Ayloffe, Sir James Dalrymple, Robert Ferguson, Andrew Fletcher, Francis and Richard Goodenough, Ford Lord Grey, Stephen Lobb, Richard Nelthorpe, Richard and William Rumbold, and James Stewart. The list, with a total of eighty-four names, was printed: Memoire presenté par Monsieur Schelton (n.p., n.d. [2 July]), where the last name is ‘Jean Lock, autrefois Secretaire de Mylord Schafsbury’: sig. A2r. See Lord King, Life of Locke, 2 vols (1830), i. 286–8. 6  ‘Monsieur Mayer’, secretary to the Elector of Brandenburg. Locke arrived at Cleves on 15 September (Corr., no. 831). On 29 October/8 November Skelton reported that ‘Dr. John Lock’ was now in Cleves in ‘the same Lodgings where Messrs Goodenough were formerly being Mr Meeres house’ (fo. 218). 7  Maurice of Nassau, Prince of Orange (1567–1625).

418

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

APPENDIX B

ARTICLES OF AGREEMENT WITH PUBLISHERS The survival of letters of agreement between authors and publishers is rare before the eighteenth century. MS Locke b. 1 contains seven agreements, dated 1689–99. Only one (B4) is in Locke’s hand. The information they contain is of increasing interest as the history of the book grows as a field of enquiry. These documents belong to a period of changing practice in relations between authors and publishers prior to the Copyright Act of 1710. Normal practice in the seventeenth century was for the publisher to make an outright purchase from an author of a manuscript for a fixed sum, the author thereby losing control over copy­right as well as any further financial interest. Locke took care not only to secure payment but also to retain rights in his ‘copy’ subsequent to publication; this was a novel development. Scholars have tended to be preoccupied with payment made (or lack thereof ) to seventeenth-­ century authors; arguably Locke was more concerned with intellectual property. The agreements also give some indication of edition sizes. In writing endorsements on these documents, Locke called them either a ‘declaration’ (fos. 161, 164, 168) or an ‘agreement’ (fos. 178, 218). To describe these agreements as being made with ‘publishers’ requires comment. The word ‘publisher’ had not yet acquired its modern meaning, and there was not yet a profession of publishing independent of bookselling and printing. When Locke’s contemporaries referred to their ‘bookseller’ or ‘stationer’, they generally meant the person who was their publisher, as well as bookseller, in the sense of someone who was the ‘undertaker’ of the work (to use another contemporary term). On one occasion Locke described himself as a ‘publisher’, in the sense of making a text public (see above, no. 1503A). All the publishers with whom Locke engaged in the documents here also occur in the main sequence of correspondence. For their identities, see Corr., ii. 126 (Thomas Bassett), iii. 475 (Awnsham and John Churchill), iv. 567 (Samuel Manship). Awnsham Churchill is in the ODNB. See also H. R. Plomer, Dictionary of Printers and Booksellers, 1668–1725, 1922; and the online British Book Trade Index: http://bbti.bodleian.ox.ac. uk. There may be lost agreements, as Locke records in an account book 419

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Appendix B: Articles of agreement with publishers what appears to be payments received for the replies to Edward Stillingfleet (1698: £14 10s; 1699: £14) and for the fourth edition of Education (1698: £5): Lord King, Life of Locke, 1830, ii. 51. For discussion of Locke’s publishing agreements, see P. Lindenbaum, ‘Authors and Publishers in the Late Seventeenth Century’, The Library, 17 (1995), 262. For the text of other contemporary contracts, see D. Masson, The Life of John Milton, 1880, vi. 509–11 (for Paradise Lost, 1667); The Correspondence of Isaac Newton, iv, ed. J.  F.  Scott, 1967, pp.  452–9 (Churchill for John Flamsteed’s Historia Coelestis, 1712); BL, Add. MS 4295, fo. 10 ( John Darby for John Toland’s edition of James Harrington’s Oceana, 1700); H. T. Swedenberg et al., eds., The Works of John Dryden, 20 vols., 1956–, vi. 1179–83 ( Jacob Tonson for Dryden’s edition of Virgil, 1694). For discussion, see P. Lindenbaum, ‘Milton’s Contract’, Cardozo Arts and Entertainment Law Journal, 10 (1992), 439–54 (repr. in Construction of Authorship, ed. M. Woodmansee and P.  Jaszi, 1994); idem, ‘Authors and Publishers’. See also ‘Primary Sources on Copyright History’, online: http://www.copyrighthistory. org/cam/index.php. The lack of availability of the Locke documents printed here has led scholars, in a lopsided way, to cite passages from Locke’s Two Treatises of Government for his putative views on literary property, rather than to examine his own practice. See, for example, M. Rose, Authors and Owners: The Invention of Copyright, 1993. For bibliographic information on Locke’s publications, see J.  S.  Yolton, John Locke: A Descriptive Bibliography, 1998. For information and for sharing copies of her own transcriptions, I am grateful to Jonquil Bevan. An edition of the papers of Awnsham and John Churchill is being ­prepared by Stephen Bernard.

B1.  Thomas Bassett to Locke, 24 May 1689 MS Locke b. 1, fo. 109. Extracts in Cranston, pp. 318–19. Contract for the first edition of An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (‘1690’ [i.e. 1689]). This is the most detailed of the contracts. Inter alia, it indicates the workflow of proof-reading that Locke expected to undertake during the summer of 1689, which gives weight to ­Peter Laslett’s demonstration that the Two Treatises could not have been written during these months. According to a note attached to this document, Locke received £29 plus twenty-­five copies. Printing of the Essay began in June; the book was ready for publication by the beginning of December; Locke received unbound copies on 3 December (Corr., nos. 1154, 1165, 1172, 1213; MS Locke f. 10, p. 23; f. 29, p. 36). The book appeared in two issues, in folio, one ‘printed by Eliz[abeth] Holt for Thomas Basset, at the George in Fleetstreet, near St. ­Dunstan’s’, the other ‘printed for Tho[mas] Basset,

420

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Appendix B: Articles of agreement with publishers and sold by Edw[ard] Mory at the Sign of the Three Bibles in St. Paul’s Churchyard’. Bassett was active in bookselling and publishing from 1658 to c.1693. He is mentioned in Corr., nos. 513, 1284, 1435, 1718. There is one extant letter: no. 1607. There were three further lifetime editions, 1694, 1695, and 1700. See B4 and B7.

Articles of Agreement made this twenty fourth 〈day〉a of May in the Yeare of our Lord 1689 Between 〈John〉 Locke Gent. of the Parish of St Margarets 〈Westminster〉1 and Thomas Bassett Citizen and Stationer of 〈London〉.

Whereas the said John Locke hath composed and written a Booke or  Treatise in English entituled an Essay concerning Humane Understanding the said John Locke doth grant and agree to and with the said Thomas Bassett that he the said Thomas Bassett shall have the same to Print and Publish in the Termes and in the manner and forme following. That is to say the same shall be Printed on as good Paper and in a volume of the size and character of the History of the Councell of Trent Printed in English in the yeare 1676:2 and the Printing thereof shall be begun immediately and continued after [at] the rate of at least fower sheets a weeke untill the whole booke be Printed.3 And the said Thomas Bassett doth promise and agree to and with the said John Locke to Print or cause b–the same–b to be Printed in the time and in the forme and manner abovesaid and in consideration of the said booke being granted by the said John Locke to the said Thomas Bassett to be Printed as above said the said Thomas Bassett doth promise to pay to the said John Locke his Executors Administrators or Assignes the sum of ten shillings a sheet for every sheet the said booke shall contain counting for a sheet so much as is contained in a sheet of Miltons History of England in octavo4 within seven dayes after the a  Paper torn here and below    b–­b  Interlined 1  Upon his return to London in February 1689, Locke lodged first with Dr Charles Goodall at Warwick Lane in the City of London and then, on 18 March, moved to Mrs Rabsy Smithsby’s at Dorset Court, Channel Row, Westminster. 2  Paolo Sarpi, The History of the Council of Trent, 1676, in folio. Printed ‘by J. Macock, for Samuel Mearne, John Martyn, and Henry Herringman’. Both this book and Locke’s Essay are folios and have fifty-four lines per page. ‘Character’ refers to the type font. 3 The Essay is a folio gathered in fours, each gathering hence required two sheets. Two gatherings (out of forty-eight plus the preliminaries) would (roughly) have been printed each week. The total is ninety-nine sheets; printing at four sheets a week would take just under 25 weeks, which indicates a start date around 11 June. Printing had certainly begun some while before Le Clerc told Locke on 25 June/6 July how pleased he was that printing had started: L1154. 4  John Milton, The History of Britain, 1670, in quarto; second edition, octavo, 1677. It is not clear why the octavo Milton was needed as a further measure. Neither the Sarpi nor the Milton was in Locke’s library, so presumably Bassett suggested them.

421

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Appendix B: Articles of agreement with publishers Printing thereof shall be finished, and shall also within seven dayes after the said booke shall be Printed deliver to the said John Locke or his Assignes twenty five of the said bookes in sheets1 And shall also let the said John Locke have as many more of the said Bookes at the rate of one half penny a sheet as he the said John Locke shall desire within twelve months after the Publishing of the same not exceeding the number of five and twenty more, all which money paid on any of the said five and twenty Books the said Thomas Bassett shall repay to the said John Locke when ever he shall Reprint the said Treatise.2 And the said John Locke doth promise to the said Thomas Bassett to deliver to him on demand from time to time so much of the said Booke or Treatise as shall make two sheets to be Printed as above said, upon the said Thomas Bassetts delivery of a Copy in Print to the said John Locke of what he then last received from him;3 And in case any Controversy shall arise concerning any matter contained in or relateing to these Articles the said John Locke and Thomas Bassett have hereby constituted John Freke of the Middle Temple Esqr.4 umpire or any one whom he shall in his absence under his hand nominate to be umpire by whose judgment and Award in the case they will be concluded. In witness whereof the said John Locke and Thomas Bassett have hereunto set their hands. Tho. Bassett5 witness John Freke Edw. Clarke The Body of the booke not reckoning the Epist. Dedicatory Preface or Contents contains 55 sheets and a halfe according to Milton in 8o Tho. Bassett I agree this computation and leave the parts unreckond to be accounted with the Author John Freke 1  i.e. unbound. The norm was for purchasers to commission their own bindings. 2  There are forty-eight names on Locke’s distribution list, so he would have needed all fifty copies specified here. 3  i.e. manuscript fair copy to be sent to Bassett, who, in exchange, would send proofs of the previous batch for correction. 4  This is John Freke of Locke’s later ‘College’: Corr., iii. 58 (no. 874). 5  Locke’s signature is absent from this document.

422

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Appendix B: Articles of agreement with publishers I do farther Agree that the whole contains 58 sheets1 Tho. Bassett Endorsed by Locke: Bassets Articles 24 May 89

B2.  Awnsham and John Churchill to Locke, 2 March 1692 MS Locke b. 1, fo. 161. Partly printed in Locke on Money, ed. P. H. Kelly, 2 vols., 1991, i. 132. Contract for Some Considerations of the Consequences of the Lowering of Interest (‘1692’ [i.e. 1691]). The tract, ready for transcribing for the press on 21 October 1691, was hurriedly printed, in octavo, and contains a prefatory letter dated 7 November; it was licensed on 27 November and was available by 7 December (Corr., nos. 1423, 1435). The dedication is printed above, no. 1428A. Locke so­li­cit­ed the undertaking from Churchill in a letter to Clarke, 11 December, seeking written confirmation of a verbal agreement with Churchill ‘that after this edition the Copy is mine and at my disposal’: Corr., no. 1436. A second edition appeared in 1696.

Wee doe hereby declare that the sole right of and in the Coppy or booke called a–Some–a Considerations of the Consequences of the Lowering of Interest and Raising the value of money is and remayns in Mr. John Locke. Wittness our hands 2d March 1691/2. A and Jn Churchill Teste2 Edw. Clarke Endorsed by Locke: Churchills Declaration concerning the book of Interest 2 Mar. 91/2

B3. Awnsham and John Churchill to Locke, 25 July 1692 MS Locke b. 1, fo. 164. Contract for Robert Boyle’s General History of the Air (1692), which Locke prepared for the press and included part of his weather r­eports. The book, which appeared in quarto about December, was licensed by the President of

a–a  Interlined 1  Hence Locke was entitled to £29.

2 Witness.

423

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Appendix B: Articles of agreement with publishers the Royal Society, Sir Robert Southwell, on 29 June 1692. The dedication is printed above, no. 1503A. In 1703–4 Churchill planned (abortively) a second edition to contain Locke’s further weather reports: nos. 3259, 3412, 3466, 3473, 3489.

Wee doe hereby declare that the sole Right of and in the Coppy or book called a General History of the Ayre begun by the Honourable Robert Boyl Esq. is and remayns in Mr. John Locke after the Impression wee are now printing. Witness our hands 25 July 1692. A and Jn Churchill Endorsed by Locke: A. Churchil’s Declaration concerning the General history of the air 25 Jul. 92

B4.  Thomas Bassett to Locke, 13 June 1693 MS Locke b. 1, fo. 168. Contract for the second edition of An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1694). In February 1693 Bassett wrote to Locke about ‘reprinting your book’, since the first edition was nearly sold out: Corr., no. 1607. In fact, the second edition of the Essay was not published by Bassett but by Thomas Dring and Samuel Manship, with another issue printed for Awnsh­ am and John Churchill and Samuel Manship. On 10 March 1694 Manship told Locke that ‘Mr Basset has disposed of the Copy to me and one more [Dring]’ and reports that Bassett’s shop had been shut up and he had gone to the debt­ ors’ sanctuary: he was bankrupt: no. 1718. Dring’s half share of the book, ‘now a reprinting’, is also recorded, on 5 March, in E. Arber, ed., A Transcript of the Registers of the Stationers Company, 1640–1708, 2 vols., 1913, ii. 462. The edition appeared about 26 May (Corr., no. 1744).

   London 13o Jun 1693 Agreed then with Mr. John Locke that upon a second edition of his booke Entituled an Essay concerning humane understanding which I now intend, I will give him ten shillings for each sheet of the bigness of the sheets of the former edition, that shall be added1 to this second edition whether in the text or Table and also deliver to him the said John Locke twenty compleat copys a–in sheets–a of the said second edition of the said book and moreover present him with Spencers book de

a–­a  Added in margin 1  The additions included an expansion of I.4; most of II.21 (on power); a new II.27 (‘Of Identity and Diversity’); and an expansion of II.9.8; and an index. Locke also had the additions and corrections (31 leaves) printed separately for friends to insert in existing copies.

424

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Appendix B: Articles of agreement with publishers Legibus Ritualibus1 etc fairly bound. In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand Tho. Bassett Memorand That if the said John Locke shall have need of any more copys I will let him have them cheaper than I will allow them to booksellers Tho. Bassett Endorsed by Locke: Mr Bassets agreement 13o Jun. 93

B5. Awnsham and John Churchill to Locke, 20 June 1694 MS Locke b. 1, fo. 173. Contract for the third edition of Some Thoughts Concerning Education (1695). Printed in the Clarendon Edition edited by Yolton and Yolton, 1989, p. 59. Published, in octavo, about late June 1695 (Corr., no. 1916). The dedication is printed above, no. 1611A. The first and second editions appeared in 1693; the last lifetime English edition in ‘1699’ (i.e. 1698); French editions in 1695 and 1699; and Dutch in 1698. There are no available book prices for this edition, but the first edition had wholesale prices of 1s 1d and 1s 5d, and a trade price of 1s 9d; and the fourth edition, wholesale 1s 8d, trade 2s 6d, and retail 3s 6d (The Notebook of Thomas Bennet and Henry Clements, eds. N. Hodgson and C. Blagden, 1956, pp. 158–9; E. Wolf, ‘A Parcel of Books for the Province in 1700’, Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, 89 (1965), 428–46).

Wee Awnsham Churchil and John Churchil of London Booksellers doe hereby oblidge ourselves to pay unto Mr. John Locke Gent during his Life five pounds Sterl upon every Impression wee shall print or cause to be printed of his Booke2 called Some thoughts concerning Education, and Ten shillings per sheet printed for all additions that he shall make to the same,3 the Impression not to exceed fiveteen hundred Bookes,4 and to deliver him Twenty five bookes bound in Calves skin Lettr’d on every Impression. Wee doe allso hereby oblidg and bind our a–selves–a heyrs, Executors, Administrators to the said John Locke a–­a  Interlined 1  John Spencer, De legibus Hebraeorum ritualibus, 1685. It was not published by Bassett but by Richard Chiswell. LL 2740. 2  The fourth (1699) and posthumous fifth (1705) editions include further modifications by him. 3  The third edition comprised 192 leaves; the first and second 136. 4  The great majority of early modern books were printed in edition sizes of five hundred to two thousand copies. Until 1637 there had been a nominal maximum of 1,500 copies per edition of any book to protect the interests of compositors. It is not clear what the motive is here.

425

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Appendix B: Articles of agreement with publishers d­ uring his Life that neither wee nor they will or shall dispose of the right or Title to the Coppy of said Booke to any person whatever without the Consent of the said John Locke. Witness our hands in London this Twenty day of June 1694. A. Churchill John Churchill Endorsed by Locke: Churchills Declaration concerning the book of Education 20 Jun. 94

B6. Awnsham and John Churchill to Locke, 12 June 1695 MS Locke b. 1, fo. 178. Contract for The Reasonableness of Christianity (1695). Printed in J. C. Higgins-­Biddle’s Clarendon Edition, 1999, p. xli. The book, published in oc­ tavo, was advertised in the London Gazette on 8–12 August 1695. There was one further lifetime edition, 1696, and a French edition, 1696. Although the book was published anonymously, Locke here makes no effort to hide his authorship, and it was soon generally known or suspected (Corr., nos. 1939, 1961, 3174). An early owner recorded a purchase price of 3s in 1695, but the Churchills charged 7s for a copy sent to America in 1700 (St John’s College Library, Cambridge, shelf-mark N.10.40; Wolf, ‘Parcel of Books’).

London. 12 June 1695. Wee agree and Covenant with Mr. John Locke, his Executors, Administrators and assignes that wee will pay him the  said John Locke his Executors, Administrators, or Assignes Ten shillings per sheet1 for as many sheets as a booke intituled The Reasonableness of Christianity as delivered in the holy Scriptures shall amount unto to be printed of the same page and letter2 as his booke of Education for every Impression wee shall print of the said booke dureing his Life this first Impression not to exceed fiveteen hundred, and no impression afterwards to be above one thousand books, and no edition to be made dureing his Life without his knowledge and consent, and if it shall happen that he the said John Locke shall dy before the second Impression of the said booke, then wee promise and Covenant to pay to his Executors Administrators or Assignes, ten shillings more per sheet in full Consideration for the said Coppy Awnsham and Jn Churchill 1  The book contained nineteen and a quarter sheets; hence Locke would be owed just under £10 for the first impression. 2  i.e. the same format and type font.

426

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Appendix B: Articles of agreement with publishers We allso promise to deliver Mr Lock Twenty five books bound of every impression of the above mentioned booke A and Jn Churchill Endorsed by Locke: A: J: Churchills agreement 12 Jun. 95

B7. Samuel Manship and Awnsham Churchill to Locke, 8 and 14 June 1699 MS Locke b. 1, fo. 218. Contract for a further edition, presumably the fourth (1700 [i.e. 1699]), of An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Locke reported in January 1699 that the Essay was out of print (Corr., no. 2539); in April Manship and Churchill were ready to act (no. 2566). The book, in folio, was ‘in the press’ in October (History of the Works of the Learned, i, no. 10) and advertised in the London Gazette on 7–11 December 1699. Manship was active in bookselling and publishing from 1686 to 1715 and was publisher to the popular religious writer and critic of Locke John Norris. There is one extant letter: no. 1718; mentioned: nos. 1559, 1723, 2566, 2764, 2853, 3041. Copies of this edition were sold to the London booksellers’ ‘conger’ at wholesale prices of 7s 6d and 7s 9d; trade price 12s; retail price 14s (Notebook of Bennet and Clements, eds. Hodgson and Blagden, pp. 158–9; Wolf, ‘Parcel of Books’).

    London June the 8th 1699 I promise to deliver to Mr John Locke or to whom he shall appoint six books of his essay of human understanding well bound in calves skin and guilt of the back as soon as the next edition of the Essay shall be reprinted and six other such books for every impression that shall hereafter be made of the said Essay during the life of the said Mr John Lock for my half share in the copy of the said Essay. Item. I promise to pay to the said Mr John Locke for my half part in the said Copy ten shillings a sheet for all the additions that shall be made to it.1 Witness my hand Samuell Manship I promise the same for my halfe share London June 14. 1699. A. Churchill Endorsed by Locke: Mr Manships and Mr Churchills agreement 8 Jun. 99

1 Two new chapters were added, II.33 (‘Of the Association of Ideas’), and IV.19 (‘Of Enthusiasm’); as with the second edition, these and other additions were also separately printed for insertion in existing copies. Manship paid his share to Locke in January 1701: £3 15s for seven and a half sheets: Corr., no. 2853 (cf. no. 2764).

427

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

APPENDIX C

SPURIOUS LETTERS Spurious letters in collections of correspondence generally arise from mistaken attributions by scholars, and these are called ‘ghosts’.1 There are, however, two spurious Locke letters of a different character and which are of some significance. They were deliberately concocted in the eighteenth century and given wide circulation and credence. De Beer noted their existence (Corr., v. 631, 718), but did not print them. They are printed here. The reason for doing so is not to purport that they are genuine, for they are certainly forgeries, but, first, to alert the unwary, since they have so often been cited as genuine; and, secondly, because they once had such currency as to form part of the ‘received Locke’, a historical phenomenon in its own right. Both letters were designed to recruit Locke to causes, respectively Freemasonry and (feminist) Quakerism. The former is a more artful and plausible forgery than the latter, though the latter has a more plausible connection to Locke’s recorded thoughts and is still cited as genuine by unwary scholars.

C1.  Locke to Thomas Herbert, eighth earl of Pembroke, 6 May 1696 This letter, putatively demonstrating Locke’s interest in Freemasonry, was printed, apparently for the first time, in the Gentleman’s Magazine, 23 (September 1753), 417–20, from which it is reprinted below. There it is said to have been reproduced from a twelve-­ page octavo pamphlet published in Frankfurt in 1748, Ein Brief vondem beruehmten Herrn Johann Locke, betreffend die Frey-­Maureren . . . (A Letter of the Famous Mr John Locke, relating to Freemasonry, found in the desk or escritoir of a deceased brother), but no such publication has been traced, nor a manuscript original. The letter purports to be a covering note addressed to the earl of Pembroke—the dedicatee of the Essay Concerning Human Understanding—forwarding a medieval Masonic document, entitled Certayne Questyons, wyth Awnsweres to the same, Concernynge the Mystery of Maconrye; wryttenne by the Hande of Kynge Henrye the Sixthe of the Name, and faythfullye copyed by me Johan Leylande Antiquarius, by the Commaunde of His Highnesse. This docu­ ment had supposedly been given to Locke by his young protégé, the future deist Anthony Collins. To this document ‘Locke’ has added extensive and erudite e­ xplanatory 1  These are listed above, pp. 38–40.

428

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Appendix C: Spurious letters notes, and the Gentleman’s Magazine has further added a glossary of arcane words. ‘Locke’ pronounces himself to be intrigued by Masonry and to be resolved to join the Masonic order. The whole production was an immediate and lasting success. In November 1753 a correspondent of the Gentleman’s Magazine at Norwich wrote that ‘The brother­ hood were so well pleased with it that there was not a Magazine to be got in this city, and orders were given for a fresh supply. You must have found this by the de­ mand. Mr Locke’s notes and ex­plana­tory remarks do the paper great honour, and his declaration and the lady’s [Damaris Masham’s] have contributed to increase the number of Masons in several lodges’ (p. 518). There is something of a publi­ cist’s overkill in the whole confection: the medieval document was supposedly a copy made by the saintly King Henry VI, it cites Pythagoras and Copernicus, and it refers to Greece, the East, and to numerology and astronomy. Thereby the auras of ancient and Eastern esoteric wisdom, pious royal patronage, and Locke’s intellectual authority are all made to attach to Freemasonry. It was all nicely calculated to serve the flourishing of Freemasonry during the High Enlightenment. (See S. C. Bullock, Revolutionary Brotherhood: Freemasonry and the Transformation of the American Social Order, 1730–1840, 1996, p. 49; and M. C. Jacob, Living the Enlightenment: Freemasonry and Politics in Eighteenth-­Century Europe, 1991, pp. 63–4.) Few forgeries have had such a successful literary afterlife, for the ‘Locke’ letter and accompanying ‘ancient’ document were reprinted countless times in Britain, Amer­ ica, and Germany. An early instance is Jonathan Scott’s The Pocket Companion and History of Free-­Masons, 2nd edn, 1759, pp. 250–9. In William Hutchinson’s The Spirit of Masonry in Moral and Elucidatory Lectures, 1775, the letter and document appear as an appendix, Locke’s notes now emphasized as ‘Notes and Observations on the Foregoing Questions, by Mr Locke’. In William Preston’s Illustrations of Masonry, new edn, 1788, it is elevated further: now it is headed ‘The Principles of Masonry Explained’ and is padded out to comprise the third of four ‘books’ in this work: the letter, document, annotations, and glossary are now followed by add­ition­al elucida­ tions (pp. 138–69). Preston concludes by remarking that ‘the favourable opinion this philosopher conceived of the society of Masons before his admission, was sufficiently confirmed after his initiation’ (p. 169). Locke had hence by now been made into a fully fledged Mason. Preston’s Illustrations reached its 17th edition in 1861. The confection was, however, rejected as a forgery from at least 1840: J.  O.  Halliwell-­Phillipps, The Early History of Freemasonry in England, 1840, pp. 39–40; G. Soane, New Curiosities of Literature, 1847, pp. 79–88; S. Gibson, ‘The Philologist and the Forger’, Bodleian Quarterly Record, 3 (1920–2), 27; J. R. Clarke, ‘John Locke and Freemasonry’, Ars quatuor coronatorum, 78 (1965), 168–71. (These sources are listed by J. C. Attig, The Works of John Locke, 1985, pp. 164–5.) Locke’s Masonic letter was, however, reprinted in Bourne, ii. 308, where it is taken to be genuinely Locke’s but ‘of course . . . satirical’, and the accompanying Masonic document obviously ‘frivolous’. Despite this, as late as 1966 the letter and docu­ ment were fully reproduced, with only a flicker of scepticism (‘there is . . . no in­ controvertible proof that this material is genuine’) by C. E. Jones, ‘John Locke and Masonry’, in Neuphilologische Mitteilungen, 67 (1966), 72–81. The spurious Locke letter is printed here, but not the appended Masonic ­document.

429

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Appendix C: Spurious letters A Letter from the learned Mr. John Locke to the Rt Hon * * * Earl of * * * *,1 with an old Manuscript on the Subject of Free-­Masonry.    May 6, 1696 My Lord, I Have at length by the help of Mr. C---ns2 procured a Copy of that M.S. in the Bodleian Library, which you were so curious to see: and in obedience to your Lordship’s command, I herewith send it to you. Most of the Notes annex’d to it, are what I made Yesterday for the Reading of my Lady Masham, who is become so fond of masonry, as to say, that she now more than ever wishes herself a Man, that she might be capable of Admission into the Fraternity. The M.S. of which this is a Copy, appears to be about 160 Years old; Yet (as Your Lordship will observe by the Title) it is itself a Copy of one yet more Ancient by about 100 Years: For the Original is said to have been the Hand-­writing of K.  H.3 VI. Where that Prince had it is at present an Uncertainty: But it seems to me to be an Examination (taken perhaps before the King) of some one of the Brotherhood of Masons; among whom he entred himself, as ’tis said, when he came out of his Minority, and thenceforth put a Stop to a Persecution that had been raised against them: But I must not detain Your Lordship longer by my Prefaces from the thing itself. [. . .]4 I know not what effect the sight of this old paper may have upon your Lordship; but for my own part I cannot deny, that it has so much raised my curiosity; as to induce me to enter myself into the fraternity; which I am determined to do (if I may be admitted) the next time I go to London, (and that will be shortly). I am, my Lord, Your Lordship’s most obedient, and most humble Servant, John Locke

1  ‘Earl of Pembroke’ in later printings. 2  ‘Anthony Collins’ in later printings. There is no evidence of a connection between Locke and Collins before 1703. 3  ‘Henry’ in later printings. 4  At this point the Masonic document is inserted; in later printings it appears at the end of the letter.

430

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Appendix C: Spurious letters

C2.  Locke to Rebecca Collier, 21 November 1696 or 1699 This letter, designed to exhibit Locke’s approval of female ministry among the Q ­ uakers, was apparently printed for the first time in The Annual Monitor and Memorandum Book, no. 16 (1828), 132–3, and it is reproduced below from this source. The Monitor was a Quaker pocketbook, chiefly containing blank pages for notes, accounts, and obituaries. The headnote to the letter reads: ‘Letter from the Justly Celebrated John Locke. This letter was sent to Rebecca Collier, a minister of the Society of Friends, after a meeting held in London, which Locke and King William III attended, the latter incognito. It was accompanied by two papers of sweetmeats, one for Rebecca, and one for her companion, Rachel Bracken (to which the letter alluded). This meeting was so agreeable to Locke, that it removed his objections to a female ministry.’ The letter was reprinted, with an identical headnote, in Mrs  F.  Thistlethwayte’s Memoirs and Cor­ res­pond­ence of Dr. Henry Bathurst, 1853, pp. 537–8, where it is said to have been transcribed from a copy lent by Joseph John Gurney, Norwich, 4 September 1831. Another printing occurs in ‘The Ministry of Women’, The Friend, 4 (1831), 397–8. It is, however, clear that the letter circulated in manuscript before the nineteenth century, for there is a copy in a commonplace book assembled by Joseph Birkbeck, c.1780 (Yale University, Beinecke Library, Osborn MS c. 365, p. 144: information from Earle Havens). There are several other surviving manuscript copies, not readily datable, four of which are at Friends House, London: Robson Temp MSS 745, vol. 37, box 1, p. 2; John Thompson MSS, vol. 3 (MS vol. 347), 316B; MS vol. S 487 (eighteenth-­century commonplace book); Temp MSS 57/15 Notebooks and Papers. There is another at the Friends ­Historical Library, Swarthmore, Pennsylvania: Misc. MSS, SFHL MSS 004. All the extant versions give the date ‘21 November’, but some give ‘1696’ and some ‘1699’. Intriguingly, a person of the name Rebecca Collier does appear in the Quaker rec­ ords. She was a respected member of the Monthly Meeting in Yorkshire, born in 1668. In July 1699 the Monthly Meeting at Selby granted ‘Rebeckah Collier’ a certificate to travel to Quaker Meetings in the south. She was given another such certificate in 1702; but there is none recorded prior to 1699. ‘Rachell Breckon’ (d. 1705) also appears in the records, given leave by her Monthly Meeting at Selby to travel south in July 1699.1 Evidently, whoever later devised the ‘Locke’ letter was careful to provide circumstantial plausibility. The notion, however, of Locke attending a Quaker meeting in company with King William III incognito is fantastical. The language of the letter belongs more to c.1800 than c.1700, and its piety of the ‘inner light’ suggests a type of religious ‘enthusiasm’

1  For this and information on surviving manuscripts I am indebted to Naomi Pullin. See her Female Friends and the Making of Transatlantic Quakerism, 1650–1750, 2019, pp. 241–3. Also her ‘The Quaker Reception of John Locke and the Debate over Women’s Preaching’, English Historical Review, (forthcoming).

431

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Appendix C: Spurious letters which Locke avoided and specifically deprecated, for example in his correspondence with Damaris Masham concerning the Cambridge Platonists. Nonetheless, the letter was reprinted in Quaker circles as genuine. It appeared again in Augustus Hare’s The Gurneys of Earlham, 2 vols., 1895, i. 237–8 (where the addressee is called Collins rather than Collier, who is said to have spoken at a meeting ‘with such power, that it removed his [Locke’s] objections to a female ministry’). The letter was there used to lend respectability to Priscilla Gurney’s ministry and preaching. At the Norwich monthly meeting the men’s meeting came into the women’s in order to hear Priscilla preach. The letter was reprinted and taken to be genuine in Bourne, ii. 453, where Rebecca Collier is described as ‘a preacher of some fame in her day’. It was again reproduced as genuine in C.  R.  Simpson, ‘Benjamin Furly, Quaker Merchant, and his Statesmen Friends’, Journal of the Friends Historical Society, 11 (1914), 67–8; Anon., ‘Three Old Letters’, Bulletin of the Friends Historical Society of ­Philadelphia, 10 (1920), 15–16; and in H.  McLachlan, The Religious Opinions of Milton, Locke, and Newton, 1941, repr.1977, pp. 112–13. It is also taken as genuine in C. Bastide, John Locke: Ses théories politiques et leur influence en Angleterre, 1907, p.  107; D.  G.  James, The Life of Reason: Hobbes, Locke, Bolingbroke, 1949, pp.  74–5; M. Butler, ‘Early Liberal Roots of Feminism: John Locke and the Attack on ­Patriarchy’, American Political Science Review, 72 (1978), 150; M. Severance, ‘Sex and the Social Contract’, English Literary History, 67 (2000), 511n; and R. Grant, ‘Locke on Women and the Family’, in John Locke: Two Treatises of Government, ed. I. Shapiro, 2003, p. 304. Butler’s article has been twice reprinted and also gives rise to a partial reprint of the ‘Locke’ letter in H.  Barnett, ed., Sourcebook on Feminist Jurisprudence, 1997, pp. 317–22. Such is the staying power of a forgery. See also J. Waldron, God, Locke, and Equality, 2002, pp. 41–2. The plausibility of the letter lies not in its artless text but in Locke’s favourable remarks on female ministry in his Paraphrase and Notes on the Epistles of St. Paul (posthumously published, 1705–7). Here Locke evaded the full force of Paul’s in­sist­ ence on the veiled silence of women and pronounced that ‘women also, sometimes, prayed and prophesied too in the assemblies’, for ‘that the spirit of God and the gift of prophecy should be poured out upon women as well as men, in the time of the gospel, is plain’. (1 Corinthians 11; Paraphrase, ed. A.  Wainwright, 2 vols., 1987, i. 220–2.)1 These remarks proved significant for the Quakers, who were engaged in internal disputes over the propriety of female preaching. They were taken up by West Country Quakers in 1715, o­ ccasioning a dispute over Locke’s interpretation of St Paul. Margery Peters, an Exeter Quaker, defended her practice of preaching in her own meeting and of ‘travelling abroad’ to spread the Gospel. Benjamin Coole published a tract objecting to such female ministry and gave his own reading of Locke on Paul. He complained that his fellow Quakers said that he ‘had perverted John Locke’s words, and left the women less liberty than he [Locke] had done’: ‘the greatest resentment they have against me, is for perverting John Locke, and that the women had rather be determined by the judgement of John Locke than 1  A note with one of the exemplars of the Collier letter (Robson Temp MS) claims that Locke altered the draft of his paraphrase as a result of his encounter with her preaching. Pullin, Female Friends, pp. 242–3.

432

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Appendix C: Spurious letters by my judgement’. Coole said he had no objection to ‘grave, modest women’, but rather to those who were opposing him, who were ‘the violent, the clamorous, the gossips and the busy-­bodies, they that grasp after power, that seek pre-­eminence, and to usurp authority over the men’ (Coole, Reflections on a Letter, 1717, pp. 6, 19, 63–4). Josiah Martin wrote against Coole in the women’s defence, and it is in the concluding paragraph of one of his tracts that we find the likely source of the later fabrication of Locke’s letter to Rebecca Collier: ‘I will now wind up this long letter, much longer than I first intended it, and tell thee something that I had from a person of known probity, some years ago, and which perhaps thou never heard’st: which is, that John Locke being at a meeting, where a certain north-­country woman was, who had been travelling on truth’s account, was so affected with her testimony, as to say afterwards in words to this effect, that something divine and extraordinary attended the preaching of that woman. Now considering his sentiments, and the phrases and terms contained in his Paraphrase and Notes on Paul’s Epistles, so different from his former writings, especially that chapter of Enthusiasm, in his Treatise of Human Understanding: I say, considering all this, one may conclude, that ’tis probable, that this woman occasioned much of the very notes thou hast published of his.’ (Martin, A Letter, 1716, p. 32.) The tracts in this debate are: Benjamin Coole, Some Brief Observations on the Paraphrase and Notes of the Judicious John Lock: Relating to the Women’s Exercising their Spiritual Gifts in the Church, 1715; Josiah Martin, A Letter to the Author of Some Brief Observations on the Paraphrase and Notes of the Judicious John Locke, Relating to Women’s Exercising their Spiritual Gifts in Church, 1716; Coole, Reflections on a Letter, 1717; Coole, Reflections on A Letter to the Author of Some Brief Observations, 1717; Martin, A Vindication of Women’s Preaching, as well from Holy Scripture and Antient Writings, as from the Paraphrase and Notes of the Judicious John Locke, on 1 Cor. xi, 1717. The title page of the last carried a gloss on Psalm 68:11: ‘Great is the army of the women publishers.’ The issue resurfaced later. In 1801 William Rawes’s The Gospel Ministry of Women, under the Christian Dispensation, Defended from Scripture, and from the Writings of John Locke, Josiah Martin, &c. rehearsed Martin’s position once more. There is a further source for Locke’s apparent sympathy for female preaching. In 1697 there appeared The Lady’s Religion (later editions, 1704, 1748, 1753, 1793, 1796, 1802). Sometimes attributed to Locke himself, it was probably by William Stephens. Locke owned three copies (LL 1652–4), and it is mentioned several times in his cor­res­ pond­ence (nos. 2254, 3155, 3468). It was condemned alongside Locke’s Reasonableness of Christianity and John Toland’s Christianity not Mysterious by the Middlesex Grand Jury in 1697. It was translated by Locke’s own translator, Pierre Coste, in 1698, and the translation was included in a French edition of Locke’s Reasonableness (1715). A preface to the tract, probably by John Toland, asked ‘why women likewise may not enjoy the privilege of instructing others in the[ir] religious duties’ (sig. A10v). This notion was attacked by Peter Browne and Richard Willis in their replies to the tract: respectively, The Occasional Paper (1697–8) and A Letter in Answer to a Book Entitled, Christianity not Mysterious (1697). Women’s claims to religious ministry were a matter of heightened attention in the 1690s, in light of the prominence of such mystics as the French Antoinette Bourignon (1616–80) and Jeanne Guyon (1648–1717) and the English Philadelphian, Jane Lead (1623–1704). All in all, while the forged letter

433

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Appendix C: Spurious letters is not p­ lausible in its style and content, its message does have some grounding in one ­tradition of interpretation of Locke. Besides Pullin, see also P. A. Huff, ‘John Locke and the Prophecy of Quaker Women’, Quaker History, 86 (1997), 26–40; M. Goldie, ed., The Reception of Locke’s Politics, 6 vols., 1999, v. 129–55; idem, ‘Mary Astell and John Locke’, in Mary Astell: Reason, Gender, Faith, ed. W. Kolbrener and M. Michalson, 2007; J. R. Milton, ‘Locke and the Pitfalls of Anecdotal History’, Eighteenth-­Century Thought, 5 (2014), 147–77.

    Gray’s Inn, Nov. 21, 1696.1 My sweet friends, A paper of sweetmeats by the bearer to attend you on your journey, comes to testify the sweetness I found in your society. I admire no converse like that of Christian freedom, and fear no bondage like that of pride and prejudice.2 I now see that an acquaintance by sight cannot reach the height of enjoyment which acquaintance by knowledge arrives unto. Outward hearing may misguide; but internal knowledge cannot err. We have something here of what we shall have hereafter— ‘to know as we are known’.3 This, we, with other friends, were even at the first view partakers of; and the more there is of this in the life, the less we need enquire of what nation, country, party, or persuasion our friends are, for our own knowledge is more sure than another’s—Thus we know when we have believed. Now, the God of all grace, grant you may hold fast that rare grace of charity, and choose that unbiassed and unbounded love, which, if it decay not, will spring up mightily, as the waters of the sanctuary, higher and higher, until you, with the universal Church, swim together in the ocean of Divine love. Women, indeed, had the honour first to publish the resurrection of the Lord of love4—why not again the resurrection of the Spirit of love? and let all the disciples of Christ rejoice therein, as does your partner, John Locke

1  No Locke letter is addressed from Gray’s Inn; he was not in London on 21 November 1696, but he was on 21 November 1699. 2  Jane Austen’s novel of that title was published in 1813; the phrase occurs in Fanny Burney, Cecilia, 1782, bk 10, ch. 10; however, it is older still, being used, for example, by John Tillotson and Lord Chesterfield. 3  Adapted from 1 Corinthians 13:12. 4  Mary Magdalene and others: Matthew 25:9–10, Mark 16:9, John 20:1–18. Compare Locke’s commentary on 1 Corinthians 11 in the Paraphrase and Notes on the Epistles of St Paul.

434

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

CALENDARS

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

CONSPECTUS OF THE CORRESPONDENCE The size of the corpus The number of letters to and from Locke (i.e. excluding third–party letters) included in vols. i–viii of the Correspondence (the de Beer volumes) is 3,617.1 The additional number in the present volume is 90, yielding a total of 3,707.2 Of this total, 1,0973 are by Locke (30 per cent), and the remainder are to Locke.4

Distribution over time The surviving correspondence is unevenly distributed over time. Fully 70 per cent of the total and 69 per cent of Locke’s own letters date from Locke’s final sixteen years, after the Revolution of 1688. The chronological distribution is as follows. The first figure is the number written by Locke; the second is the number to Locke; and the third is the total for the year.5

1  The final entry number in de Beer’s sequence is 3,648, but this figure is adjusted by removing third-party letters and adding suffixed letters. 2  Letters where Locke is uncertain as the recipient or sender are included in the count. 3  The online resource Electronic Enlightenment registers 1,257 items by Locke, but translations of letters, and some enclosures, are treated as separate items. 4  Data here and below differ from that indicated by Early Modern Letters Online, where the records include such quirks as double-counting letters that have both Julian and Gregorian dates. 5  Third-party letters are excluded. Where dates are tentative, they are assumed definite; where more than one date is possible, the earliest is assumed. Old Style dates are used (the Julian not the Gregorian calendar), but the year is taken to begin on 1 January.

437

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Calendars: Distribution over time 1650 1651 1652 1653 1654 1655 1656 1657 1658 1659 1650s   1660 1661 1662 1663 1664 1665 1666 1667 1668 1669 1660s   1670 1671 1672 1673 1674 1675 1676 1677 1678 1679 1670s  

3 0 5 3 6 5 2 0 4 28 56

0 0 0 0 0 2 2 5 5 15 29

3 0 5 3 6 7 4 5 9 43 85

8 5 0 1 0 7 14 4 2 2 43

11 11 24 12 5 6 26 4 0 7 106

19 16 24 13 5 13 40 8 2 9 149

3 3 4 5 5 3 1 12 21 12 69  

7 8 3 13 13 9 12 34 51 74 224  

10 11 7 18 18 12 13 46 72 86 293  

1680 1681 1682 1683 1684 1685 1686 1687 1688 1689 1680s   1690 1691 1692 1693 1694 1695 1696 1697 1698 1699 1690s   1700 1701 1702 1703 1704 1700s

438

19 8 5 15 14 23 21 30 30 25 190

68 60 67 13 14 17 34 69 71 111 524

87 68 72 28 28 40 55 99 101 136 714

13 21 42 24 46 38 75 54 57 44 414

108 121 76 97 103 145 82 106 101 147 120 158 110 185 146 200 105 162 80 124 1031 1445

65 72 52 53 83 325

122 159 130 126 159 696

187 231 182 179 242 1021

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Calendars: Postal addresses The figures may also be expressed in terms of phases of Locke’s life: Oxford 1650–67 London 1667–756 France 1675–797 London and Oxford 1679–83 Holland 1683–898 London and Essex 1689–1704 Total

219 (of which 93 are by Locke) 91 (of which 27 are by Locke) 135 (of which 38 are by Locke) 336 (of which 56 are by Locke) 341 (of which 125 are by Locke) 2,585 (of which 758 are by Locke) 3,707 (of which 1,097 are by Locke)

Postal addresses Tables (i) and (ii) list the places named by authors of letters as the place of writing. (Many letters give no place of writing and are excluded.) The lists provide only the years of writing, not individual letter numbers (except that they are provided for those sent from outside Europe). (i)  Letters by Locke England Aylesford, [Kent]: 1680 Bexwells, [near Chelmsford, Essex]: 1679 Bishop’s Stortford, [Essex]: 1692 Clapham, [Surrey]: 1683 London: 1666, 1679–83, 1689–1700 Dorset Court [Westminster]: 1689, 1694 Exeter House [the Strand]: 1667, 1670, 1672–5 Lincoln’s Inn Fields: 1697, 1701–2 Salisbury Court [near Fleet Street]: 1683 Westminster: 1656, 1692 Whitehall: 1689, 1694 Matching Tye [near Oates]: 1700 Oates, [near Harlow, Essex]: 1690–1704 Olantigh, [near Wye, Kent]: 1679 Oxford: Christ Church: 1654–5, 1658–60, 1663, 1666–7, 1680–2 Pensford, [near Bristol, Somerset]: 1659, 1661 Purton, [near Swindon, Wiltshire]: 1683 St Giles [Wimborne St Giles, Dorset]: 1683 Salisbury, [Wiltshire]: 1671, 1683 Sutton [Court, near Bishop Sutton, Somerset]: 1671 6  Locke moved to Ashley’s household in London in May 1667. 7  Locke left for France on 12 November 1675 and returned to England on 30 April 1679. 8  Locke left for Holland about the beginning of September 1683 and returned to England on 12 February 1689.

439

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Calendars: Postal addresses France Angers: 1678 Blois: 1678 Bordeaux: 1678 Calais: 1679

Lyons: 1678 Montpellier: 1676, 1678 Orléans: 1678 Paris: 1677–9

Germany Cleves: 1665–6, 1685 The Netherlands Amsterdam: 1684, 1686–8 The Hague: 1689

Rotterdam: 1687–9 Utrecht: 1684–6

(ii)  Letters to Locke: Addresses of senders England and Wales Astrop Wells [Northamptonshire]: 1679 Bath: 1692, 1695, 1697, 1699 Beaumaris [Anglesey, Wales]: 1689–90 Beeby [near Leicester]: 1704 Bemerton [near Salisbury, Wiltshire]: 1692–3 Bexwells [Kent]: 1676 Bishop’s Waltham [Hampshire]: 1659 Bloxworth [Dorset]: 1694 Brampton [near Huntingdon]: 1694 Bridgenorth [Shropshire]: 1662–3 Brislington [near Bristol]: 1660 Bristol: 1662?, 1663–64, 1681, 1689–99, 1701 Cam[berwell] [Surrey]: 1686 Cambridge: 1679–82, 1686, 1689–92, 1697–8, 1700, 1702–4 Christ’s College: 1679–81, 1686, 1697–8, 1700 Jesus College: 1690, 1704 St John’s College: 1690 Canterbury: 1696 Caversham [near Reading, Berkshire]: 1697, 1699, 1704 Cerne Abbas [Dorset]: 1682 Chard [Somerset]: 1682 Charlecomb, near Bath: 1697 Charlton Marshall, near Blandford, Dorset: 1697 Chew Magna [Somerset]: 1661 Chipley [near Taunton, Somerset]: 1686–95, 1697, 1701, 1703–4 Chopwell [Co. Durham]: 1689 Compton Martin [Somerset]: 1657, 1661

440

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Calendars: Postal addresses Dartmouth [Devon]: 1703–4 Dene [Wingham, Kent]: 1701 Dover: 1677 Downs, The [anchorage between Deal and the Goodwin Sands]: 1681, 1699 Durdens [near Epsom, Surrey]: 1662 Durham: 1679 Enfield [Middlesex]: 1658? Escott [Devon]: 1686–91, 1704 Escrick [near York, Yorkshire]: 1690 Exeter: 1700–4 Gloucester: 1689 Greenwich: 1694 Haddon [Derbyshire]: 1674 Harlow [Essex]: 1698 Hinton [Northamptonshire]: 1662 Hungerford, Berkshire: 1698 Ivy Church [near Salisbury]: 1688–89, 1697 Keynsham [Somerset]: 1680 Lee [Grange, Quainton, Buckinghamshire]: 1699 Lees [Leigh’s Priory / Leez, Essex]: 1666 London: 1655, 1657?, 1659, 1661, 1662?, 1666, 1669, 1675–82, 1684–1704 Admiralty: 1701 Bloomsbury Square: 1692 Bread Street: 1666 Bull, The, Shoreditch: 1693 Chelsea: 1703–4 Clifford’s Inn: 1696 Covent Garden: 1657? Cross Keys Inn, near Cheapside: 1690 Dorset Court, Westminster: 1695 Excise Office: 1701 Exeter House: 1666? Fetter Lane: 1662? George, The, Fleet Street: 1693 Golden Square: 1698 Gray’s Inn: 1694–5, 1698 Great Queen Street: 1691, 1704 Great Russell Street: 1701 Gresham College: 1676–8 Hackney: 1695 Houndsditch: 1693, 1696 Inner Temple: 1655, 1701, 1703–4 Kensington [Palace]: 1691, 1693–4

441

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Calendars: Postal addresses Laurence Pountney Hill: 1701 Lincoln’s Inn: 1702–4 Lincoln’s Inn Fields: 1677–80, 1698–1703 Lombard Street: 1694 Lustring House [Austin Friars]: 1698 Mark Lane: 1693 Middle Temple: 1688 Old Bailey: 1700 Pall Mall / Pell Mell Street: 1678–9, 1699 Red Lion Square: 1702 Richard’s Coffee House, Temple Bar: 1699 Rood Lane: 1699 Ropemaker’s Alley, Moorfields: 1697 Russell Street, Covent Garden: 1700 St Giles: 1691, 1694, 1702 St James’s Palace: 1701–2 St Jones’s [St John’s, Clerkenwell]: 1692 St Swithen’s, Lombard St: 1694 St Swithen’s Lane: 1695 Serjeants Inn: 1696 Somerset House: 1682 Stamp Office: 1698 Strand: 1666, 1702 Suffolk Street: 1702 Temple: 1687 Thanet House [Aldersgate]: 1677, 1681 Surgeon’s Arms, St Martin’s Street: 1698 Westminster: 1697 Westminster Abbey: 1699 Whitehall: 1661, 1666, 1675, 1695–1701, 1704 Will’s Coffee House, Covent Garden: 1700 Longbredy [Dorset]: 1695 Matching Barns [near Oates, Essex]: 1697 Mortlake [Surrey]: 1689 New Hall [High Roding, Essex]: 1696 New House [Wiltshire]: 1676 Newbury [Berkshire]: 1693 Newcastle: 1689 Newcastle [Staffordshire]: 1695 Nore, The [anchorage in the Thames Estuary]: 1692 Norwich: 1695–6 Oakley [Buckinghamshire]: 1690–1, 1693, 1701 Oates [Essex]: 1692, 1700

442

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Calendars: Postal addresses Orielton, Pembrokeshire: 1695 Otterton [Devon]: 1686–91 Oxford: 1655, 1659–61, 1663, 1666, 1678–83, 1689–92, 1694–8, 1700–1, 1703–4 All Souls: 1660–1, 1701 Blackhall: 1659 Bodleian Library: 1703–4 Christ Church: 1659, 1663, 1666, 1678–83, 1691, 1697–8 Corpus Christi College: 1692 Jesus College: 1695–6 New College: 1666 Pensford [Somerset]: 1655, 1657 Petworth [Sussex]: 1670–1 Pontesbury [Shropshire]: 1663 Plymouth: 1681 Portsmouth Dockyard: 1699 Preston [? perhaps Priston, Somerset]: 1694 Publoe [Somerset]: 1696–7 Purton [near Swindon, Wiltshire]: 1690–1 [Rawdon, near Leeds: 1702]9 Richmond [Surrey]: 1692 Rolleston [near Burton-­on-­Trent, Staffordshire]: 1690 Rothings [Rodings, Essex]: 1700 St Giles [Wimborne St Giles, Dorset]: 1679, 1674, 1682 Salisbury / Sarum: 1667, 1669, 1673, 1677, 1679–83, 1688–95, 1701–2 Savernake [Wiltshire]: 1693 Sawbridgeworth [Hertfordshire]: 1700 Sellake, near Ross, Herefordshire: 1698 Sherborne [Dorset]: 1697 Shoreham [Kent]: 1699, 1701 Shotover [Oxfordshire]: 1702–4 Shrewsbury: 1700, 1703 Stanton Drew [Somerset]: 1701 Stanton Wick [Somerset]: 1694–7, 1703–4 Steeple [Dorset]: 1697–1700, 1703–4 Steventon [Berkshire]: 1690 Stockwood [Keynsham, Somerset]: 1665 Stoneleigh House, Warwickshire: 1696 Sussex: 1681 Sutton [Court, near Bishop Sutton, Somerset]: 1666, 1675, 1679–83, 1686–7, 1689–90 Sutton on the Hill, Derbyshire: 1696, 1698 9  Endorsed thus by Locke.

443

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Calendars: Postal addresses Taunton [Somerset]: 1689, 1693 Thelwall [Cheshire?]: 1662 Totnes [Devon]: 1694, 1698–9, 1703 Tunbridge Wells [Kent]: 1687, 1690 Twittenham [Twickenham, Surrey]: 1700, 1703 Wells [Somerset]: 1697 Wiccham [? High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire]: 1657 Wilton [Wiltshire]: 1693 Windsor: 1689 Worcester: 1662–3, 1689–90, 1697–8 Wrington [Somerset]: 1702 Yarmouth [Isle of Wight]: 1690 Ireland Dublin: 1660, 1662, 1666, 1692–1701 Scotland Edinburgh: 1695–6, 1703 Saltoun [East Lothian]: 1701 France Aix: 1672, 1677–9, 1686 Beauvais: 1699 Blois: 1678 Bordeaux: 1682 Fontainebleau: 1679 La Tour d’Aigues: 1678–9 Germany Aix-­la-­Chapelle [Aachen]: 1686 Berlin: 1703–4 Cleves: 1666

Lyons: 1664, 1677–79 Montpellier: 1678–81 Orléans: 1681–2 Paris: 1678–82, 1687–8, 1698, 1700–3 Rouen: 1698 Saumur: 1680–1 Frankfurt: 1688 Hamburg: 1682, 1689

Italy Rome: 1701 The Netherlands Amsterdam: 1685–1704 Deventer: 1684, 1686 The Hague: 1685, 1689, 1697–8 [Het] Loo [Apeldoorn]: 1688 Spanish Netherlands Antwerp: 1688 Brussels: 1698

Rotterdam: 1686–97, 1699–1704 Schoonhoven [near Gouda]: 1702 Utrecht: 1687–9, 1692–4 Zwolle: 1688 Spa: 1686

444

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Calendars: Postal addresses Sweden Stockholm: 1672–5 Switzerland Schaffhausen: 1684 America10 Bahamas: 1673–5 Barbados: 1673–4 Boston: 1699 Carolina: 1673, 1675–6, 1682 Jamaica: 1682–3 James City, Virginia: 1699

Maryland: 1697–8 New York: 1699 St Christopher [St Kitts]: 1693 Virginia: 1699

India11 Barampore: 1700 Surat: 1700, 1702–3 China12 Amoy: 1701 Ottoman Empire13 Aleppo: 1671, 1678 (iii) Addresses of Locke in letters to Locke The following table lists places to which Locke’s correspondents addressed their letters, often care of another. The dates given are not those that Locke was definitely at the address, but the dates of the letters. The senders believed him to be at that address, had been directed to send their letters there, or had failed to keep up with Locke’s instructions as to his whereabouts. In many cases, the addresses are definitely not where Locke resided; for example, he never resided with his publisher Awnsham Churchill, but he did use Churchill as a factotum to look after his affairs (and strangers knew they could contact Locke via his publisher). The style of addresses varied and they are not given verbatim here; for example, a letter in 1679 might be addressed to ‘Thanet House’ or ‘Lord Shaftesbury’s house’. Only the years are given in which the specified addresses occur. Frequency of usage of an address varies greatly, from a single instance to several hundred. Many letters to Locke exhibit no surviving address; there are none for 1668.

10  Nos. 270, 272, 274, 275, 279, 287, 289, 290, 291, 300, 301, 305, 317, 318, 719, 729, 764, 2237, 2446, 2543, 2545, 2587, 2614, 2636. 11  Nos. 2716, 2802, 3136, 3240.    12 No. 3046.   13  Nos. 253, 382.

445

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Calendars: Postal addresses England Astrop, Northamptonshire: David Thomas: 1666 Bath: earl of Monmouth: 1691 Belvoir Castle, Leicestershire: earl of Rutland: 1669 London: 1666–7, 1669–76, 1678–83, 1689–1704 Austin Friars: [William] Kiffin, merchant: 1678 Bridges Street, Covent Garden: John Hicks, taylor: 1679–83 Dorset Court, Channel Row, Westminster: Rabsy Smithsby: 1689–92 Dorset Court, Channel Row, Westminster: Robert Pawling: 1690–4 Exeter House, Strand: Lord Ashley (earl of Shaftesbury): 1666–7, 1669–7614 Lincoln’s Inn Fields: Sir John Banks: 1678–9 Little Lincoln’s Inn Fields: Robert Pawling: 1694–1704 Lombard Street: Peter Percival, banker: 1680–1 London Stone, Cannon Street: Joseph Wright, merchant: 1691, 1693–4 [Lothbury]: John Bonville, pewterer: 1683 Paternoster Row: Awnsham Churchill, bookseller: 1689–90, 1694–8, 1702–4 Richard’s Coffee House, Temple Bar: Edward Clarke: 1695–7 Richard’s Coffee House, Temple Bar: John Freke: 1696 [St James’s Street]: Martha Lockhart: 169615 Scotland Yard, Westminster: Edward Castle, bookseller: 1697 Thanet House, Aldersgate: earl of Shaftesbury: 1679–8316 Warwick Lane, College of Physicians: Charles Goodall, 1683, 168917 Whitehall, Commission of Trade and Plantations Office, 1696–1700 Oakley, Buckinghamshire: James Tyrrell: 1681 Oates, High Laver, Essex: Sir Francis Masham: 1690–170418 Oxford: 1656, 1658–66, 1680–3 Christ Church: 1656–7, 1659–66, 1680–2 Christ Church, care of Robert Pawling, High Street: 1683 Parson’s Green, Fulham, Middlesex: earl of Monmouth: 1690 Pensford, Somerset: his father’s house: 1655–6, 1659–61, 1666 Salisbury: David Thomas: 1680

14  In one instance, 13 Nov. 1675: if absent from Exeter House, care of Thomas Stringer, London. Shaftesbury disposed of Exeter House about April 1676. 15  Her address in 1696 is uncertain; she was at St James’s Street, by St James’s Park, in 1700. 16  Shaftesbury took up residence at Thanet House in about October 1676 and fled to the Netherlands in November 1682. 17  Locke returned to England from the Netherlands on 12 February 1689 and first lodged with Goodall, removing to Dorset Court, which was his London lodging until September 1694 when he moved with Pawling to Little Lincoln’s Inn Fields. He began to reside at Oates in 1690. 18  Usually directed via the shopkeeper Samuel Jocelin ( Joslyn) at Bishop’s Stortford, but sometimes via the innkeeper Harrison at Harlow.

446

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Calendars: Early publication of letters Sutton Court, Somerset: John Strachey: 1680 Wimborne St Giles, Dorset: earl of Shaftesbury: 1675, 1683 France19 Angers: Monsieur de la Rivière Huet, banker: 1678 Blois: Madame Fesneau: 1678 La Rochelle: Jean Raullé: 1678 Lyons: 1678 Jacques Selapris, banker: 1678 Montpellier: 1676–8 Oliver Cheney, tutor: 1678 Jacques Puech, apothecary: 1676–7 Paris: 1677–9 English Ambassador’s residence: Margaret Blomer: 1677–820 Möise Charas, apothecary: 1677–9 Madame Herinx and son, bankers: 1678–9 Orléans: 1678 Toulouse: 1677 The Netherlands Amsterdam: 1684–8 Thomas Dare, banker: 1684–5 Pieter Guenellon, physician: 1688 John Lynne:21 1684, 1686–7 Pieter de la Nove:22 1687 Jacob van de Velde, bookseller: 1686–7 Deventer: 1686 Rotterdam: Benjamin Furly: 1687–9 Utrecht: 1686 Walter Cross, Nonconformist minister: 1686 Willem van Welcheren, bookseller: 1686

Early publication of letters The following is a list of Locke’s correspondence published down to 1720, in order of publication. The total is about 240 letters. The principal early collections are: Some Familiar Letters between Mr Locke and Several of his Friends, 19  Locke left England on 14 Nov. 1675 OS and arrived at Montpellier, 4 Jan. 1676 NS, where he was mainly based until 25 Mar. 1677, when he travelled west and north, arriving in Paris on 2 June. He left Paris on 9 July 1678, making another extensive tour south, including Montpellier again (13–20 Oct.) and returning to Paris on 28 Nov., where he remained until 2 May 1679. He returned to England on 8 May. 20  The ambassador was Ralph, third Baron Montagu; the residence was the Hotel de Turenne. 21  Apparently an alias for Locke.    22  Apparently an alias for Locke.

447

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Calendars: Early publication of letters 1708 (incorporated into Locke’s Works, 1714); The Remains of John Locke, 1714 (reprinted in A Collection, 1720); and A Collection of Several Pieces of Mr  John Locke, 1720 (incorporated into Locke’s Works, 1743). Dedicatory epistles in published books are not included. On early publication of Locke’s letters, see further Corr, i. xli–l; and J.  S.  Yolton, John Locke: A Descriptive Bibliography, 1998, 385–97. 1675 No. 299: Locke to Henry Oldenburg, 20 May 1675, which includes an extract from no. 290 (Richard Lilburne to Locke, [6 August] 1674) ‘about Poisonous Fish in . . . the Bahama Islands’: published in Philosophical Transactions, 10 (May 1675), 312; republished, with letter of transmittal, in A Collection, 1720. 1692 No. 197: Locke to Robert Boyle, 5 May 1666: published in Boyle, The General History of the Air, 1692, pp. 137–41, with Locke’s weather register. 1693 A series of letters on education from Locke to Edward Clarke, 1684–91, were reworked in Locke’s Some Thoughts Concerning Education, 1693: nos. 782, 799, 803, 807, 822, 829, 844, 845, 929, 999, 1098, 1370. (Also in the education series, but not incorporated: 804, 809 (on girls), 943, and 1376.) Two later letters paraphrase passages from Some Thoughts: 1848, 1863. See Locke, Some Thoughts, eds. J. W. Yolton and J. S. Yolton, 1989, pp. 44–8, 71. 1694 No. 1609: William Molyneux to Locke, 2 March 1693 (see also no. 1064): the ‘Molyneux Problem’: part published by Locke in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, 2nd edn, 1694, II.ix.8. In revisions to later editions, while Locke did not reproduce letters, he adjusted his text in light of correspondence with Philip van Limborch. See Corr., vii. 268–70, 413, and Essay, 5th edn, II.xxi.71. 1694 No. 1765: William Clarke to Locke, 1 August [1694]: enclosure: Clarke, ‘Some queries proposed, by an Inquiring man after truth (that if hapily may finde it)’, published in [ John Hall], An Answer to some Queries propos’d by W. C., or, A Refutation of Helmont’s Pernicious Error, 1694. (No. 1765 refers to the imminent publication of a reply to An  Answer, which de Beer was unable to identify: it appears to be The Harmless Opinion of the Revolution of Humane Souls . . . Modestly Defended in a Reply to a Late Treatise, 1694.) 1695 No. 1739: Locke to John Aubrey, 18 May 1694: account of a Bronze Age megalith at Stanton Drew, Somerset, incorporated into Aubrey’s ‘Monumenta Britannica’, which he failed to publish, but which is ­summarized in Edmund Gibson’s 1695 edition of Camden’s Brittania, p. 79. 1697 No. 2207A: [Locke] to Samuel Bold, [February 1697?]: published in  the ‘Preface to the Reader’ in Locke’s Second Vindication of the Reasonableness of Christianity, 1697, sigs. A4v–a3r.

448

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Calendars: Early publication of letters 1697 No. 478: Locke to Boyle, 16 June 1679: a version published in Philosophical Transactions, 19 ( July 1697), 594–6: ‘An Account of one who had Horny Excrescences or Extraordinary Large Nails on his Fingers and Toes’; transmitted with no. 2219. Taken from Locke’s Journal, 24 May 1678. Earlier reported in no. 397, Locke to Boyle, 27 July/6 August 1678. 1697 No. 2170: William Molyneux to Locke, 5 January 1697: the en­clos­ure, ‘Account of a not yet Described Scolopendra Marina’ by Thomas Molyneux, published in Philosophical Transactions, 19 (February 1697), 405–12. 1700 No. 2523: Edmund Elys to Locke, 16 December 1698: published in Elys, Observations on Several Books. I.  A Letter to Mr Lock, never Answered, 1700. 1700 No. 2650A: Locke to Hendrik Schelte, [early 1700?]: published in Pierre Coste’s French translation of the Essay: Essai philosophique ­concernant l’entendement humain, Amsterdam, 1700, sig. ***1r. 1701 No. 2956: Benjamin Furly to Arent Furly (in Locke to Hans Sloane), 14/25 March, 1701: ‘Account of a Person who can Neither Read nor Write’, published in Philosophical Transactions, 22 ( July 1701), 893–4. 1704 No. 1835: Locke to Jean Le Clerc, [10 January 1695]: text known only from its publication by Le Clerc in Bibliothèque choisie, 4 (1704), 388–9. 1705 No. 3489: Locke to Hans Sloane, 15 March 1704: transmitting ‘A Register of the Weather for the Year 1692, kept at Oates in Essex’, published in Philosophical Transactions, 24 (April 1705), 1917–37. 1706 No. 3647: Locke to Peter King, 4 and 25 October 1704: extracts published in ‘Advertisement to the Reader’, in Posthumous Works, 1706; and in Jean Le Clerc, An Account of the Life and Writings of John Locke, 3rd edn, 1714, p. 28. 1708 Almost all the correspondence between Locke and William Molyneux, 1692–8 (63 out of 67 letters) appeared in Some Familiar Letters (the exceptions are nos. 1797, 1945, 2050, 2331). Also 9 of 12 letters between Locke and Thomas Molyneux, 1692–99 (the exceptions are nos. 800, 2589, 2666); one between Locke and Ezekiel Burridge, 1698 (no. 2501); and 70 out of 165 between Locke and Philipp van Limborch, 1685–1704.23

23  Nos. 831, 833, 834, 868, 913, 931, 959, 964, 969, 979, 1058, 1070, 1090, 1107, 1120, 1147, 1398, 1429, 1473, 1509, 1572, 1601, 1671, 1692, 1804, 1823, 1826, 1878, 1901, 2110, 2126, 2209, 2222, 2318, 2340, 2352, 2395, 2400, 2410, 2413, 2432, 2443, 2460, 2485, 2498, 2516, 2596, 2605, 2615, 2618, 2621, 2631, 2653, 2724, 2742, 2795, 2857, 2866, 2881, 2925, 2935, 2953, 2979, 3010, 3043, 3055, 3192, 3200, 3557, 3602.

449

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Calendars: Early publication of letters 1713

No. 3648: Locke to Anthony Collins, 23 August 1704: extract published in William Whiston, Reflexions on an Anonymous Pamphlet, entituled, A Discourse of Freethinking, 1713, p. 55; Le Clerc, An Account, 3rd edn, 1714, p. 28; and Collection, 1720, pp. 328–9. The extracted passage was available in manuscript immediately after Locke’s death: it is quoted by the third earl of Shaftesbury in December 1704 (see no. 3653), and in 1705 in the diary of Sarah Cowper: Hertford Archives and Library Service, MS DE/P F31, p. 63. The letter was much discussed in the eighteenth century for evidence of Locke’s religious and ethical doctrines. 1714 The Remains confected five letters into apparent essays. No. 2846: Locke to [Richard King], 20 January [1701], as ‘Sentiments concerning the Society for the Promoting Christian Knowledg’. No. 3321: Locke to [Humfry Smith], 23 July 1703, as ‘Some Memoirs of the Life and Character of Dr Edward Pococke’; (extracts also prefixed to Pococke, Theological Works, 1740, i. 83–4). Nos. 3322 and 3328: Locke to [Richard King], 23 July 1703 and 25 August 1703, as ‘Instructions for the Conduct of a young Gentleman, as to Religion and Government’. No. 3339: Locke to [Richard King], 27 September 1703, as ‘The best Method of Studying, and Interpreting the Scriptures’. 1720 A Collection included 32 out of 37 letters from Locke to Anthony Collins, 1703–4 (the exceptions are nos. 3387, 3530, 3573A, 3619, and 3640). Also no. 1133: Locke to [Lady (Mary) Calverley], [early May 1689?]. It reprinted letters already published in 1675 and 1714.

450

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

CALENDAR OF NON-­E PISTOLARY DOCUMENTS AND ENCLOSURES As noted in the Introduction, all correspondences are apt to contain ‘slippages of genre’, by which letters borrow from, transmute into, or include other kinds of document. Below is a checklist of letters which had some other ­textual life, such as philosophical or financial or administrative memoranda, often present as enclosures. Not included in this list are letters published in or shortly after Locke’s lifetime, which became communications to journals or were confected into ‘essays’ (for which, see the list above). Enclosures which are third-­party letters are separately listed below. The list mainly pertains to the de Beer volumes. I do not include the various categories set out in the Introduction to the present volume, such as letters of petition, letters of attorney, and dedicatory epistles, since these are explained and enumerated in the Introduction above. Except in rare cases, I have not included all the many cases where tabulated or displayed data occur in the cor­res­pond­ence, typically concerning Locke’s financial affairs or book acquisitions. Nor have I listed the letters (mainly in correspondence with Barbeyrac, Limborch, Molyneux, and Tyrrell) in which Locke thought through and drafted revisions and additions to the text of his Essay Concerning Human Understanding, so that such letters are in effect drafts for passages in his later editions. Also excluded are the letters which became drafts for Some Thoughts Concerning Education. (A checklist of these is printed in Locke, Some Thoughts, eds. J. W. and J. S. Yolton, 1989, p. 71). I have, however, included all instances of letters which have overlap with Locke’s Journals. Entries in bold are printed in the present volume. 1 Locke: Latin oration, [c.1650–2]. 5 Locke: Latin exercise, [May 1652?]. 6 Locke to [Alexander Popham?], [May 1652?]: commendatory verses. 98* John Strachey to Locke Sr, 24 May 1660: Locke’s notes for Tracts on Toleration. 99 Thomas Westrowe to Locke, 30 [ June?] 1660: verses, probably by Locke. 185 [Elinor Parry?]: skit on The Oxford Gazette, 13 February 1666. 155* Henry Townshend to Locke, 4 February 1663: enclosure: note of a pupil’s expenses. 174A John Read to Locke, [autumn 1665?]: enclosed with several items ­concerning the Society of Chymical Physicians. 254* Sir Peter Colleton to Locke, [early summer 1671?]: catalogue of ­writers on, and adventurers to, America.

451

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Calendars: Non-epistolary documents 275

Peter Colleton to Locke, 12 August 1673: extracts from this letter are in MS Locke b. 9, pp. 41, 76, 228, under headings ‘Alexipharmacum’, ‘Sciatica’. 277 William Allestree, notes on a picture showing Lapp life, 16 September 1673. 280C Griffith Jones to Locke, 1673: list of church livings. 298A Locke to Richard Lilburne, 12 May 1675: ‘Some Quaeres concerning the poisonous fish about New Providence sent to Mr Lilburne’. 300 Richard Lilburne to Locke, 12 August 1675: ‘Answer to the Queries . . .’. See no. 298A. 310 Locke to -?-, 1 March 1676: journal of French travels, printed in J. Lough, ed., Locke’s Travels in France, 1675–1679, 1953, appx A. 314 John Mapletoft to Locke, 28 June 1676: note sent to Locke by Claude Brouchier: MS Locke c. 4, fos. 163–4. 328 Locke to Denis Grenville, c.9/19–11/21 March 1677: corresponds to an essay concerning recreation in Journal: MS Locke f. 3, pp. 351–7. 363 John Mapletoft to Locke, 3 December 1677: medical reports on the condition of the countess of Northumberland, by John Micklethwaite, Sir Charles Scarburgh, Edmund Dickinson, and Thomas Sydenham: MS Locke c. 15, fos. 213–20; c. 19, fo. 164. 372 Denis Grenville to Locke, 2/12 March 1678: enclosures: ‘About temporall buisnesse’, ‘Concerning study’, ‘Concerning conversation’. 374 Locke to Denis Grenville, 13/23 March 1678: corresponds to an essay concerning scrupulosity in Journal: MS Locke f. 3, pp. 69–79. 395 Mrs A[nne?] Beavis to Locke, 22 July/1 August 1678: related document: statement of account: MS Locke c. 4, fo. 13. 397 Locke to Robert Boyle, 27 July/6 August 1678: based on Locke’s Journal, 24 and 30 May 1678 (MS Locke f. 3): see no. 478. 419 Jacques Selapris to Locke, 7/17 November 1678: enclosure: power of attorney to Thomas Stringer to secure money from Jean Le Gendre (not printed). 421 Denis Grenville to Locke, 11/21 November 1678: enclosure: ‘Concerning exercise of devotion’. 426 Locke to Denis Grenville, 26 November/6 December 1678: corresponds to an essay concerning scrupulosity in Journal: MS Locke f. 3, pp. 358–78. 428 Locke, eulogy for Toinard, on sheets of Toinard’s Evangeliorum Harmonia, 3/13 December 1678. 445 William Charleton to Locke, 4/14 February 1679: enclosures: weather report, list of seeds, inventory of goods; list of some MPs elected March 1679. 449 William Charleton to Locke, 18/28 February 1679: enclosures: botanical notes and a catalogue of grapes from Pierre Magnol. Extracts or related material in MS Locke c. 24A, pp. 14, 176; MS Locke d. 9, p. 84.

452

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Calendars: Non-epistolary documents 466 478 479 483 491 497 504 507 523 523A 524 525 531 559 577 605 617 620 622 624 629

Nicolas Toinard to Locke, 25 April/5 May 1679: technical illustration. About twenty more of Toinard’s letters, 1679–81, contain illustrations or technical enclosures, not separately listed here. Locke to Robert Boyle, 16 June 1679: based on Locke’s Journal, 24 and 30 May 1678 (MS Locke f. 3): see no. 397. Henri Justel to Locke [c.28 June/8 July 1679]: enclosure: epigram from Lucian. Olaus Rømer to Locke, 9/19 July 1679: illustration of a scientific instrument. Henri Justel to Locke, [c.9/19 August 1679?]: part of the text is in MS Locke d. 9, p. 98. Nicolas Toinard to Locke, 30August/9 September 1679: extract in Adversaria 1661 (Bodl., Film 77), p. 2. Henri Justel to Locke, 17/27 September 1679: enclosure: ‘Commodites de Paris’. Jacques Horutener and Jacques Selapris to Locke, [c.30 September/10 October] 1679: enclosure: money order. Samuel Thomas: financial accounts with Christ Church, 1675–9. Élie Bouhéreau to Locke, 1679: book list. Henri Justel to Locke, [ January 1680?]: enclosure: concerning a Tudor personage, ‘Blowin’ (Boleyn?). Nicolas Toinard to Locke, 17/27 [ January 1680]: overlaps with Journal entries. William Charleton to Locke, 2/12 March 1680: enclosure copied into Journal. William Charleton to Locke, 3/13 August 1680: enclosure: ‘an exact account of the liquid measures’ at Montpellier (MS Locke c. 31, fo. 187); and in Journal. Nicolas Toinard to Locke, 29 September/9 October 1680: part copied into Journal. Nicolas Toinard to Locke, 18/28 December 1680 and 22 December 1680/1 January 1681: part copied into Journal. Dr David Thomas to Locke, 2 February 1681: prescription copied into Journal. Locke to the first earl of Shaftesbury, 6 February 1681: enclosure: description and plan of lodgings for the earl attending Parliament in Oxford. Dr David Thomas to Locke, 8 February 1681: part copied into Journal. Thomas Stringer to Locke, 15 February 1681: list of books bought for Dr Thomas. Nicolas Toinard to Locke, 23 February/5 March 1681: part copied into Journal.

453

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Calendars: Non-epistolary documents 684

Damaris Cudworth to Locke, 16 February [1682]: relates to Locke’s notes in his Journal, on John Smith, Select Discourses: see next item. 687 Locke to Damaris Cudworth, [c.21 February 1682]: corresponds to notes in Locke’s Journal, 21 February 1682 (MS Locke f. 6, pp. 33–8), on Smith. 696 Locke to Damaris Cudworth, [6 April 1682?]: as previous, Journal, 19 February 1682 (MS Locke f. 6, pp. 20–2). 747A Henri Justel to Locke [late 1682 or early 1683]: catalogue of French books. 751 Damaris Cudworth to Locke, [ January 1683?]: poem. 752 Locke to Damaris Cudworth, [ January 1683?}: poem. 762 Locke to Edward Clarke, 27 March 1683: enclosure: prescription for Mrs Clarke. 772 Locke, [autumn 1683?]: cypher for correspondence with Edward Clarke. 774 Locke to Mary Clarke, [early February 1684?]: enclosure: printed slip, souvenir of the Frost Fair on the River Thames, printed on the river. 776 Locke to Edward Clarke, 7/17 March [1684]: plan of avenues at Chipley. 796 Nicholas Toinard to Locke, 27 November/7 December 1684: specimen of an index for commonplacing. See Locke, Historical and Literary Writings, ed. J. R. Milton, 2019, p. 36n. 811 Locke to Nicolas Toinard, 14/24 February 1685: enclosure: draft of the New Method of Commonplacing. 816 William Charleton to Locke, 24 March 1685: enclosure: catalogue of plants. 818 Locke to Nicolas Toinard, 30 March/9 April 1685: enclosure: draft of the New Method of Commonplacing. 847 Damaris Masham to Locke, 13 March [1686]: enclosure: poem. 860A Locke to Margaret Ashley Cooper, countess of Shaftesbury, 14/24 August 1686: enclosure: a nephritical stone. 876 Richard Duke and Sir Walter Yonge to Locke, 10 November 1686: list of books for purchase at auction. 877 Locke to Philipp van Limborch, 14/24 November [1686]: Limborch’s poem. 911 Locke to James Tyrrell, [14/24 February 1687?], forwarded to Robert Boyle: commentary on Thomas Burnet, The Theory of the Earth (1684). 936 Locke to Edward Clarke, 23 May/2 June 1687: notes on Locke’s tenants; Locke’s ‘rules’ to be observed in respect of tenants. 948 Charles Goodall to Locke, [c.25] July 1687: Queries to be proposed concerning the Kinkina tree; and . . . Kinkina bark.

454

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Calendars: Non-epistolary documents 951

Locke to William Charleton, 2/12 August 1687: Locke sends Charleton a set of drawings ‘of the inhabitants of several remote parts of the world’, apparently those in BL, Add. MS 5253, fos. 27–8, 31–56. 998 Locke to Benjamin Furly, 25 January/2 February 1688: Locke’s ­alphabet. 1022 William Charleton to Locke, 2 March 1688: enclosure: lists of medicines and plants. 1024 Fredericus van Leenhof to [Pieter Guenellon?], 4/14 March 1688: Observations on Locke’s Abrégé. 1024A Christian Knorr von Rosenroth: Observations on Locke’s Abrégé. 1053 Joseph Bowles to Benjamin Furly [May 1688]: Observations on Locke’s Abrégé. 1064 William Molyneux, ‘A Problem Proposed to the Author of the Essai Philosophique concernant l’Entendement’, addressed to the Bibliothèque universelle (the ‘Molyneux Problem’). 1115* Benjamin Furly to Locke, 19 February/1 March 1689: enclosure: printed sheet by Algernon Sidney. 1207 Matthew Slade to Locke, 24 [November?] 1689: Joseph Mackerness’s invoice for lodging and laundry. 1228 Edward Bernard to Locke, 24 December 1689: inventory of Matthew Slade’s clothes and funeral costs. 1239 James Tyrrell to Locke, 27 January [1690]: enclosures: account of money disbursed for Slade’s funeral; and anonymous report concerning the reception of the Essay. 1240 J. G. Graevius to Locke, 27 January/6 February 1690: includes notice of gift of George Mackenzie’s Antiquity of the Royal Line of Scotland. 1242 Locke to Philipp van Limborch, 2 February 1690: includes an extract from a lost letter of James Tyrrell to Locke, c.January 1690. 1281 Anthony Wood to James Tyrrell, 11 April [1690]: enclosure: queries concerning Slade’s biography. 1299 William Cole to Locke, 11 June 1690: includes covering note for gift of his Apoplexie. 1338 Isaac Newton to Locke, 14 November 1690: enclosure: ‘Historical Account of two Notable Corruptions in Scripture’, intended for publication, but not published until 1754. Printed in The Correspondence of Isaac Newton, iii, ed. H.  W.  Turnbull, 1961, pp. 83–129. See no. 1338*. 1345 Benjamin Furly to Locke, 2/12 December 1690: information on Dutch interest rates transcribed by Locke in MS Locke b. 3, f. 28. Similarly, no. 1348. 1403 James Tyrrell to Locke, 29 June [1691]: enclosure–Locke’s goods at Oakley.

455

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Calendars: Non-epistolary documents 1420 1464 1476

1525 1542 1543 1544 1630 1642 1643 1656 1673 1676 1682 1690 1730 1741 1765 1798 1838

James Tyrrell to Locke, 15 October [1691]: list of ‘Books borrowed of Mr: Lock October 1. 1691’. James Tyrrell to Locke, 13 February [1692]: enclosure: cost of transporting Locke’s goods from Oakley. Locke to Edward Clarke, 7 March 1692: copy of enclosure, concerning diet, ‘Directions that Mr locke gave for Humphry’: MS Locke b. 8, no. 43. Humphrey was the son of the Clarkes’ steward John Spreat. Jean Le Clerc to Locke, 16/26 August 1692: account of Chaldean ­philosophy: MS Locke c. 42B, p. 218. Locke to Thomas Stringer, 15 October 1692: enclosure: receipt, 1676, concerning fees for Council of Trade and Plantations: MS Locke c. 19, fos. 127–8. Thomas Robinson to Locke, 15 October 1692: enclosures: an account of Capt. Robinson’s service in the Garland: see no. 1543*. William Molyneux to Locke, 15 October 1692: enclosure: William King: remarks on Locke’s Essay. William Popple to Locke, 18 May 1693: enclosure: account of Mary Popple’s dream. John Wheelock to Locke, 4 July 1693: enclosure: bill of account of a Somerset tenant. Locke to William Molyneux, 15 July 1693: checklist of topics in ­proposed chapter on Power added to the Essay. Thomas Herbert, earl of Pembroke, to Locke, 23 August [1693]: enclosed with it is no. 1656A. David Thomas to Locke, 20 November 1693: enclosure: financial statement. John Bonville to Locke, 29 November 1693: enclosure: account of expenditure on Locke’s behalf. See also no. 1687. J. G. Graevius to Locke, 15/25 December 1693: cover for gifts of books by Rubenius, Huet, and Toinard. Locke to Edward Clarke, [12?] January 1694: enclosures: errata for the Two Treatises, and queries for its publisher, Awnsham Churchill. Locke to Edward Clarke, [2 April 1694?]: enclosure: errata for the Two Treatises. Benjamin Furly to Locke, 19/29 May 1694: enclosure: ‘historical maps’ (chronological tables) by Christian Knorr von Rosenroth. William Clarke to Locke, 1 August [1694]: enclosure: ‘Some queries proposed, by an Inquiring man after truth.’ Locke to Jean Le Clerc, 9 October 1694: memorandum on ‘Libertie’ for the fourth edition of the Essay. William Molyneux to Locke, 15 January 1695: errata for the Essay.

456

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Calendars: Non-epistolary documents 1852

Benjamin Furly to Locke, 22 February/4 March 1695: transcript of testimonial by Carolus Bontius concerning the manuscript ‘Liber Sententiarum’ (of the Toulouse Inquisition); original in BL, Add. MS 4697, fos. 8–9. 1860 John Freke and Edward Clarke to Locke, 14 March [1695]: enclosure: copy of the 1695 Licensing Bill (MS Locke b. 4, fo 77; printed at Corr., v. 791–5). 1865 Alexander Beresford to Locke, 24 March 1695: enclosures: memorandum on the doctrine of the Trinity; and gift of two books, by John Williams [?] and John Woodward. 1870 Andrew Broune to Locke, [c.1 April 1695]: enclosure: gift of his Cure of Fevers. 1878 Philipp van Limborch to Locke, 16/26 April 1695: additional text for van Limborch’s Historiae Inquisitionis. 1882 John Bonville to Locke, 20 April 1695: enclosures: order for purchases and receipt by Damaris Cudworth and John Jocelyn. 1887* Locke to William Molyneux, 26 April 1695: errata for the Essay. 1894 John Bonville to Locke, 5 May 1695: enclosure: cash account of transactions for Locke. 1903 Locke to Edward Clarke, 17 May 1695: probable enclosure: prescription for Jane Clarke: text in BL, Add. MS 4290, fo 76. 1906 William Popple to [-?-], 22 May 1695: enclosure: observations by Popple and Locke on a manuscript draft of Stephen Nye, A Discourse Concerning Natural and Revealed Religion: MS Locke c. 27, fos. 92–3 (not printed in Corr.; to be printed in Locke, A Discourse of Miracles and Other Writings on Religion, eds. V. Nuovo and P. Connolly). 1909 Andrew Broune to John Hutton, 25 May 1695: enclosure: biograph­ ical account of Dr Andrew Brown (Broune). 1914 Henry Hatrell to Locke, 3 June 1695: ‘An Enquiry touching originall Sin’. 1927 Sir William Trumbull to Locke, 19 July 1695: uncertain enclosure: De  Beer suggests it was Sir Philip Meadows, ‘Reflections upon the Coyn or Money of England’: copy at MS Locke b. 4, fos. 84–97; but Kelly suggests it was the ‘Representation of the Right Honourable the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury to their Excellencies the Lords Justices of England concerning the price of Guineas’: copies at MS Locke b. 3, fos. 39–46, 47–9: Locke on Money, ed. P. H. Kelly, 2 vols., 1991, i. 26. See no. 1929. 1929 Sir William Trumbull to Locke, 5 August 1695: uncertain en­clos­ure: De Beer suggests the ‘Representation’ (see previous entry). 1953 Locke to Sir William Trumbull, 4 October 1695: enclosure: probably Locke’s answer to the ‘Representation . . . concerning . . . guineas’.

457

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Calendars: Non-epistolary documents 1963 1994 1999 2000 2007

2011 2015 2021* 2026* 2048 2070 2084 2123* 2134 2136 2173 2194 2026* 2149 2151*

Elizabeth Stratton to Locke, 11 November 1695: enclosures: leases and other documents relating to Locke’s Somerset tenants (MS Locke c. 18, fos. 220–1: not printed). John Woodward to Locke, 6 January 1696: enclosure: gift of his Brief Instructions . . . for Collecting . . . Natural Things [?]. Jean Le Clerc to Locke, 10/20 January 1696: enclosure: memorandum on the health of Hendrik Wetstein. John Cary to Locke, 11 January 1696: enclosure: gift of his Essay on . . . Trade. Robert Pawling to Locke, 1 February 1696: promise of a document to be forwarded: ‘Salmon’ or ‘Sunman’ [Mattheus or Peter Sonnemans], ‘A Modest enquiry into the true causes of the falling of the Course of the Exchange betwixt England and the Dutch’: MS Locke b. 3, fo. 103. Thomas Tenison to Locke, 10 February 1696: enclosure: (lost) paper by Sir John Lowther (Lord Lonsdale) concerning coinage: see nos. 2023, 2048, 3560. Locke to Cornelius Lyde, 14 February 1696: enclosed with it is no. 2008A. Locke to Thomas Tenison, 27 February 1696: enclosure: Thomas Whately’s memorandum on a general excise. Peter Mauvillain to Locke, 4 March 1696: enclosure: a paper concerning coinage: MS Locke b. 3, fo. 102. Locke to John Freke and Edward Clarke, 26 March [1696]: enclosure: perhaps Mauvillain’s paper on coinage. Benjamin Furly to Locke, 21 April/1 May 1696: data on Dutch currency transcribed by Locke in MS Locke b. 3, fos. 104–5. John Cary to Locke, 9 May 1696: enclosure: gift of his tract of proposals for employing the poor of Bristol. Paul D’Aranda to Locke, [August/September 1696?]: information and sample concerning commercial arbitration in the Netherlands. Robert Liddell to Locke, 12 October 1696: testimonial for Timothy Kiplin. John Cary to Locke, 24 October 1696: enclosure: gift of his Essay on . . . Coyn and Credit. Matthew Tindal to Locke, 10 January 1697: enclosure: gift of his Essay Concerning the Power of the Magistrate . . . in Matters of Religion. James Hodges to Locke, 8 Febuary 1697: enclosure: gift of his Present State of . . . Coin. Peter Mauvillain to Locke, 4 March 1696: memorandum on coinage. Peter King to Locke, 28 November 1696: books purchased at auction for Locke by James Fraser. Locke to Edward Clarke, 29 November 1696: enclosure: Damaris Masham to Clarke.

458

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Calendars: Non-epistolary documents 2170 2177 2207

2214 2226 2228 2236 2237 2243 2254 2308 2315 2320 2324

2336 2356 2390 2422

William Molyneux to Locke, 5 January 1697: enclosure: paper on natural history sent for publication in the Philosophical Transactions. See 2170*. Locke to [Mrs Elizabeth Stratton], 15 January 1697: Locke’s account with her (not printed). [ James Johnstoun?] to [Locke?], 27 February 1697: a cover letter for a series of enclosures concerning the execution in Scotland of Thomas Aikenhead for blasphemy. Two items now printed: nos. 2183A and 2277A. Locke to Mrs Mary Clarke, 8 March 1697: medical recipe. Cornelius Lyde to Locke, [c.20 March 1697]: draft indenture: lease of a tenement. Thomas Burnett to Locke, 24 March 1697: enclosure: G.  W.  von Leibniz, Reflections on the Essay, printed at Corr., vi. 777–82; and summary of Leibniz to Burnett, 1/11 February 1697. Jean Le Clerc to Locke, 30 March/9 April 1697: enclosure: Leibniz, as no. 2228. Francis Nicholson to Locke, 30 March 1697: not enclosed but in the same postbag: letters and papers for the Board of Trade concerning Maryland. Locke to William Molyneux, 10 April 1697: enclosure: Leibniz, as no. 2228; and extract from Leibniz to Burnett, 1/11 February 1697. Locke to William Molyneux, 3 May 1697: extracts from Le Clerc on Coste and Leibniz, from no. 2236. Edward Clarke to Locke, 6 September 1697: enclosure: money order. Elizabeth Berkeley (later Burnet) to Locke, 22 September 1697: enclosure: her commentary on Locke’s Reply to Edward Stillingfleet. To Cary Mordaunt, countess of Peterborough, [September/October 1697?]: endorsed by Locke ‘Education 97’. William Molyneux to Locke, 4 October 1697: enclosures: MS Locke c. 30, fos. 67–8, and perhaps fo. 69. The former: ‘An Abstract of the Heads of the Bill for Encouraging of Linen in Ireland, 1697’; the latter, a letter: 2300A. Dr Thomas Molyneux to Locke, 25 October 1697: enclosure: paper in natural history sent for publication in the Philosophical Transactions. See no. 2336*. Locke to Edward Clarke, 6 December 1697: enclosure: account with Sir Stephen Evance. Locke to Cornelius Lyde, 5 February 1698: account with Somerset tenants. William Molyneux to Locke, 19 April 1698: reports gift of his Case of Ireland.

459

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Calendars: Non-epistolary documents 2446 Francis Nicholson to Locke, 26 May 1698: in the same postbag, an account of Maryland for the Board of Trade. 2452 William Thomas to Locke, 4 June 1698: ‘A Memorial Concerning the Setling a Colony on the Isthmus of Darien in America’. 2474 John Covel to Locke, 25 July 1698: extract from an Italian book concerning a monstrous birth. 2479B Martha Lockhart to Locke, 30 July 1698: receipt for mortgaged diamonds. 2485 Philipp van Limborch to Locke, 2/12 September 1698: postscript: additional text for insertion in the Historia Inquisitionis. 2503 William Popple to Locke, 31 October 1698: notes by Locke concerning his salary. 2512 Locke to Peter King, 25 November 1698: postscript: account with Thomas Firmin. 2513 Mrs Mary Popple to Locke, 25 November 1698: bill for her shopping for Locke. 2527 Jean-­Baptiste Du Bos to Locke, 31 December [1698]/10 January [1699]: bibliography of travel books. 2532 Mrs Mary Huntington to Locke, 5 January [1699]: postscript: m ­ edical recipe. 2533 Daniel Whitby to Locke, 11 January 1699: enclosure: draft preface to Paraphrase and Commentary upon all the Epistles (1700): MS Locke e. 11. 2554 Francis Gastrell to Locke, 25 February [1699]: cover note for gift of his Certainty of the Christian Revelation. 2565 Thomas Burnett to Locke, 17 March 1699: enclosure: letter, Leibniz to Burnett, 20/30 January 1699: MS Locke c. 13, fos. 169–70; extract printed in Corr., vi. 721n (no. 2629). 2619 Pieter Guenellon to Locke, 22 September/2 October 1699: poem. 2621 Locke to Philipp van Limborch, 7 October 1699: transcription of accounts of the burnings of English heretics under Elizabeth and James I. 2629 Benjamin Furly to Locke, 20/30 October 1699: Leibniz’s epitaph on Franciscus Mercurius van Helmont. 2651 William Popple to Locke, [5 January 1700]: account concerning ­salary. 2655* John Bonville to Locke, 11 January 1700: list of the Grand Committee of Greenwich Hospital. 2677* Ezekiel Burridge to Locke, 21 February 1700: enclosure: epitaph for William Molyneux. 2709 Thomas Burnett to Locke, 13 and 14 April 1700: enclosure: letter, Leibniz to Burnett, 2/13 February 1700 (not printed). 2716 John Lock to Locke, 20 April 1700: enclosure: purwanah, or licence, granted to Sir Nicholas Waite from the Mogul (not printed).

460

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Calendars: Non-epistolary documents 2727

Nicolas Toinard to Locke, 25 May/5 June 1700: enclosure: a sample of cibola cloth. 2736 Nicolas Toinard to Locke, 19/30 June 1700: engraving of two coins with Hebrew inscriptions. 2737 Nicolas Toinard to Locke, 22 [ June]/3 [ July 1700]: enclosure: lottery numbers. 2784* Samuel Locke to Locke, 27 September 1700: enclosure: inventory of the cargo of the De Grave from India. 2797 Peter King to [Locke], 21 October 1700: memorandum concerning Locke’s tenants. 2798 Locke to Edward Clarke, 25 October 1700: enclosure: letter 2795A. 2809 Edward Jocelyn to Locke, 3 November 1700: weather data. 2843 Richard King to Locke, 13 January [1701]: enclosure: Josiah Woodward, Account of . . . Societies . . . for the Reformation of Manners [?]. 2846 Locke to [Richard King], 20 January [1701]: called ‘Sentiments Concerning the Society for the Promoting of Christian Knowledge’, in Remains of Locke, 1714. 2866A [Locke] to [Andrew Fletcher], 22 February 1701: medical diagnosis: see also nos. 2859A, 2870A. 2885 Peter King to Locke, 20 March 1701: speech of Sir Edward Seymour in the House of Commons. 2895 Awnsham Churchill to Locke, 5 April 1701: enclosure: gift from Henry Martin of his Considerations upon the East-­India Trade. 2945 John Shute to Locke, 27 June 1701: cover for gift of Gerardus de Vries, Exercitationes Rationales de Deo. 2961 Samuel Locke to Locke, 18 July 1701: memorandum on the salep plant. 2983 Nicolas Toinard to Locke, [c.18/29 August 1701]: enclosure: table of magnetic variations. 3009 Locke to Nicolas Toinard, 30 September 1701: enclosure: ditto. 3013 John Bonville to Locke, 4 October 1701: transcript from Excise Commission minutes. 3030 Arent Furly to Locke, 7/18 November 1701: transcripts of European news reports. 3089 Martha Lockhart to Locke, 10 February [1702]: enclosure: draft petition to King William III to receive money for service to Queen Mary. 3104A [Peter King] to Locke, [28 February 1702]: Locke’s notes on a draft of a parliamentary taxation bill. 3141 Jean Barbeyrac to Locke, [May/June 1702]: in response to a remark here concerning Locke’s account of simple ideas in the Essay, Locke dictated to Coste an answer, reproduced in the fifth edition of the Essay, at II.xv.9.

461

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Calendars: Non-epistolary documents 3160 3321 3328 3339 3374 3390 3489 3526 3545 3553 3584 3627

Christopher Tilson to Locke, 4 July 1702: fees for re­appointment of Locke as a Commissioner of Appeals in Excise. Locke to [Humfry Smith], 23 July 1703: called ‘Some Memoirs of the Life and Character of Dr Edward Pocock’, in Remains of Locke, 1714. Locke to [Richard King], 25 August 1703: called ‘Instructions for the Conduct of a Young Gentleman as to Religion and Government’, in Remains of Locke, 1714. Locke to [Richard King], 27 September 1703: as no. 3328. John Shute to Locke, 11 November 1703: cover for gift of Interest of England . . . in Respect to Protestants Dissenting [?]. Awnsham Churchill to Locke, 25 November 1703: covering note for gift of A Collection of Voyages. Locke to Hans Sloane, 15 March 1704: enclosure: Oates weather ­register, 1691–2, for publication in the Philosophical Transactions. Locke to Edward Clarke, 8 May 1704: enclosure: statement of account between them, with Locke’s paraph. Peter King to Locke, 27 May 1704: statement of account between them. John Shute to Locke, 2 June 1704: cover for gift of his Rights of Protestant Dissenters. Nicolas Toinard to Locke, 9/20 July 1704: enclosure: concerning Toinard’s reputation. Locke to Peter King, 16 September 1704: menu for King’s wedding feast.

De Beer printed, as appendices, several documents which are not letters: Documents relating to the Printing Acts (MS Locke b. 4, fos. 75–6): Corr., v. 785–96 (re-­edited in Locke, Literary and Historical Writings, ed. J. R. Milton, 2019, pp. 319–29). Leibniz, Quelques Remarques on Locke’s Essay (MS Locke c. 13, fos. 162–5): Corr., vi. 777–82. Locke’s will (MS Locke b. 5, no. 14): Corr., viii. 419–27. Distribution lists for copies of Locke’s books (MS Locke c. 25, fos. 50–5): Corr., viii. 449–58.

462

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

CALENDAR OF DOCUMENTS IN THE LOVELACE CORRESPONDENCE NOT PRINTED The main body of Locke’s surviving correspondence is in the Lovelace Collection in the Bodleian Library and is collected in twenty-­three volumes: MS Locke c. 3–24 and c. 40. De Beer printed the vast bulk of the documents in these volumes, and the present Supplement prints some more. A few items, however, are either too fragmentary or too incidental to merit printing, and these are listed here. The list is fuller than that provided by de Beer at Corr. viii. 459–60. In one case the item is important and is printed elsewhere (c. 7, fo. 80). c. 3, fo. 139: John Barber, ‘Directions for the Rayseing of Ewe &c for Mr Locke’ (1693). Barber was the Clarkes’ gardener at Chipley. c. 3, fos. 167–8: medical report on Mrs Anne Grenville by Jacques Bellay of Blois, 1673, in Latin. c. 4, fos. 52–3: mortgage of land for £300, Martha Lockhart of St Martin in the Fields and John Bonville of St Botolph, pewterer, the money being Locke’s, the land to be held by Bonville in trust for Locke, 21 September 1692; witnesses Edward Clarke and [ John] Spreat. Also, declaration by Bonville that the asset is now Peter King’s, as Locke’s heir, 30 November 1704. c. 4, fo. 152: cover for some of Boyle’s medical ‘recipes’ sent to Locke, November 1692. See nos. 1509A and 1515A. c. 4, fos. 163–4: prescription by Claude Brouchier, in Latin, 1676; the accompanying text printed at Corr., i. 451n. See also J. Lough, Locke’s Travels in France, 1953, p. 82. c. 5, fo. 31: ‘A catalogue of seeds’, 14 February 1679, enclosed with no. 445: about 85 items listed. c. 7, fo. 80: ‘My Lord Ashley’s books left in a leather portmantle with Mr Lock at Rotterdam, November 5, 1687’. Printed in the third earl of Shaftesbury, Complete Works, Correspondence, and Posthumous Writings, Band/Series III, Correspondence, eds. C. Jackson-­Holzberg, P. Müller, and F. A. Uehlein, 3 vols. so far, 2018–, i. 448–50. c. 7, fos. 132–3: abstracts of two letters by Richard Coote, Lord Bellomont, to the Board of Trade, 14 and 21 September 1698. Endorsed ‘Trade. New York. 98’. The first discusses Native American affairs; he protests at New York land grants which encroach on the Native American beaver trade. The second records Bellomont’s preoccupations: Native American affairs, piracy, the French threat, the party of the former governor, Jacobites. Printed in E. B. O’Callaghan, ed., Documents Relative to the Colonial History of the State of New York, 10 vols., 1853–8, iv. 362–6, 377–82.

463

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Calendars: Lovelace MSS not printed c. 7, fo. 147: Pierre Coste’s account for clothing, etc. for Francis Cudworth Masham, November 1698. c. 7, fo. 151: letter, -?- to Pierre Coste, c.1698, in French: surviving scrap. Locke knows a lawyer who could advise on a marriage contract; a package, to be  delivered by Mme Le Cène, to be sent to Coste with five copies of La religion des dames. c. 7, fos. 207–8: R.  Dimsdale to William Crouch, Bishop’s Stortford, 3 September 1692. c. 7, fo. 227: Jean-­Baptiste Du Bos: scrap. c. 8, fos. 114–15: letter, John Firth to Henry Lukin, of Matching Hall, near Oates, Essex, 11 April 1692: concerns the Quakers; virtually illegible. c. 8, fo. 116: John Firth to Henry Lukin: account of a woman’s symptoms (giddiness, vapours, melancholy, stomach pains, colic; and ‘I lost most of my teeth before I was 34 years’), presumably seeking Locke’s advice. c. 8, fos. 119–20, 122, 127, 133–4: notes on the health of Margaret Carnegie (Mrs Henry Fletcher): the travails of childbirth, child death, menstruation, 1691–3. See nos. 2859A, 2866A, and 2870A. See Locke, Writings on Natural Philosophy and Medicine, eds. P. Anstey and L. Principe (forthcoming). c. 9, fos. 9–10: Benjamin Furly, indenture, 25 March 1701. c. 9, fos. 11–12: Letter, Benjamin Furly to Lord Bellomont, 10 October 1690/1. Has acquired maps for Bellomont; will ship them to England on the earl of Monmouth’s yacht, via Captain [Thomas] Robinson; thanks Bellomont ‘for your kind invitation to England’; he wishes England to ‘be purged of all those Frenchified spirits’; on the conduct of the war; the necessity of Anglo-­Dutch amity, for their own good and ‘yea of all Europe’; mob ­violence in Holland. c. 9, fos. 15–21: papers relating to a book auction, 1687. See no. 960A. c. 9, fo. 25: Benjamin Furly to Pieter Guenellon, Rotterdam, 24 February 1688: instruction for a payment concerning Locke. See no. 1009. c. 10, fo. 14: copy of a letter, Sidney Godolphin to Lucius Cary, Lord Falkland, n.d. c. 10, fos. 56–61: medical notes concerning Dr Dennis and Mrs Anne Grenville, in Latin, by Claude Brouchier, Richard Lydall, Edmund Dickinson, Stephen Taylor, and Robert Wittie, 1670, 1679. See also c. 3, fos. 167–8; c. 11, fos. 238–9; and Corr., ii, 59n. c. 11, fo. 186: ‘Electio’, 1652?, by J[ohn] Henshawe, in Latin. c. 11, fos. 238–9: medical notes on Mrs Anne Grenville by Pierre Hunauld of Angers, 1673, in Latin. c. 12, fos. 9–10: letter, Daniel Ernst Jablonski to Thomas Burnett of Kemnay, 22 February 1698, in Latin. To be left with Dr Bentley at St James’s Palace. c. 12, fos. 47–56: an account of places to visit in Paris, and a bibliography, by  Henri Justel, 1678, in French. The surviving Justel correspondence starts in May 1679 (no. 472); he is first mentioned in Locke’s Journal on 7 October 1677.

464

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Calendars: Lovelace MSS not printed c. 12, fo. 103: Peter King: cover of a letter, 6 or 16 December 1699. c. 12, fos. 130–1: mortgage, 3 April 1701: Peter King lends £1,000, of which £500 is Locke’s, to William Lewen of London, merchant, in respect of the manor of Little Hinton, alias Stanbridge, Dorset; witnesses Sir Francis Masham and John Rogers. c. 13, fos. 156–70: Leibniz’s papers and letters relating to Locke’s Essay. See Corr. vi. 60n, 586n, 721n. Fos. 162–5 are printed in Corr., vi, appx 1. c. 14, fo. 172: Purwanah, or licence, by the Mogul to Sir Nicholas Waite, 1700. Enclosed with no. 2716. c. 14, fo. 174: John Locke to -?-, 16 August 1700 (summary): concerns dispute between Old and New East India Companies over free movement at Surat, and payments to the governor. See J. Bruce, Annals of the Honourable East India Company, 1810, iii. 338. c. 15, fo. 119: Martha Lockhart: receipt, excise tally, £100, 2 July 1698. c. 15, fos. 122–3: Martha Lockhart: receipt, 26 November 1697, for £1, being 18s. owed to Lady Masham, and 2s. for a fan, transferred by Locke. c. 15, fos. 224–5: C. Margas, Huguenot banker at Paris, to Simon Peloutier (Pelletier?), merchant at Lyons, 2/12 December 1675, requesting him to furnish Locke with money in return for bills of exchange on London; in French. See Corr. i. 436 (no. 308). c. 16, fos. 18–77: Masham Trust papers. See above, pp. xxx–xxxi. c. 16, fos. 79–80: draft instrument concerning lands in the manors of Oates and Matching Hall between Edward Haberfield, gentleman, and Sir Francis and Lady Masham. c. 16, fo. 139: Isaac Newton: fragment, ten lines, listing coincident passages in the Old Testament, endorsed ‘Bible 90. Mr Newton’s Observations about Ezra and Nehemiah’. See Corr., iv. 165 (no. 1338). c. 16, fo. 230, 232: Concerning lottery tickets for Lady Masham, Francis Cudworth Masham, and James Dorington, c.June 1700. c. 17, fo. 69: Peter Percival to Pieter Guenellon, money order, 31 November 1686. c. 17, fos. 213–16: William Popple, observations on Stephen Nye, A Discourse Concerning Natural and Revealed Religion, May 1695. See Corr. v. 377 (no. 1906). c. 17, fos. 227–8: William Popple: memorandum, 5 August 1697, concerning lottery tickets received in payment of Board of Trade salaries. c. 18, fos. 18–19: Abra Bueno Henriquez: two money drafts, 3 February 1689; and a printed receipt for £250 investment in the East India Company, 9 November 1681, witnesses Peter Percival and William Hayter; party with John Richards. See nos. 675 and 756. c. 18, fo. 74: power of attorney, authorizing Thomas Stringer to demand or receive money from Jean Le Gendre, merchant of London, on behalf of Jacques Selapris and Jacques Horutener, merchants of Lyons, 5/15 November 1678. See Corr., nos. 419, 430.

465

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Calendars: Lovelace MSS not printed c. 18, fos. 136–7: Rabsy Smithsby, account, 28 December 1693. c. 18, fos. 220–1: documents concerning Locke’s Somerset tenants, 1695, enclosed with no. 1963: see Corr., v. 461. c. 19, fos. 21–89: financial papers concerning Somerset properties interspersed with William and Peter Stratton correspondence. Stratton accounts, 1679– 95, at fos. 1–3, 26–34, 52–64, 70–1, 82–3, 89–90. ‘Observations’ by Locke on account dated 22 March 1686/7, at fo. 33, incorporated in no. 936. See Corr., iii. 161 (no. 922), note. Fo. 35: apparently a scrap of a letter of Stratton to Locke, 17 Feb. 1696/7. Stratton to Edward Clarke, 4 December 1693, is printed as no. 1680A. c. 19, fos. 114–15: receipt, signed Thomas Stringer for the earl of Shaftesbury, 25 December 1674, for £600 plus a £100 bond from Locke, for his annuity upon Kingston Farm. See Corr., i. 420–1 (no. 297). c. 19, fos. 127–8: receipt, signed Thomas Stringer, 7 December 1676, concerning old Council of Trade and Plantations fees, enclosed with no. 1542. See Corr., iv. 531n. c. 19, fos. 170–6: medical paper by Thomas Sydenham, ‘Of the Four Constitutions’; in Sydendam’s hand; endorsed ‘Medica Sydenham 75’; printed in K. Dewhurst, Dr Thomas Sydenham (1624–1689), 1966, pp. 140–4. c. 20, fo. 16: David Thomas: medical formulae, February 1679/80. c. 20, fos. 54–6: declaration of trust, 29 September 1683: David Thomas to receive Locke’s Kingston Farm annuity on his behalf pro tem; witnesses Edward Clarke and two others. c. 20, fo. 72: fragment: receipt, David Thomas, 20 July 1689. c. 21, fos. 67–70: fragments: Nicolas Toinard, in French, 1680. c. 22, fos. 16–17: note, George Trent to Edward Clarke, Ditton, 19 August 1695, endorsed by Locke; ‘Mrs Jenny [Clarke] continues very well . . .’ c. 22, fos. 181–9: draft letters from Sir Walter Vane to the Privy Council concerning his embassy to the Elector of Brandenburg at Cleve, 1665–6. c. 24, fo. 183: fragment concerning education, in Locke’s hand. This is the parenthesis in para. 167, present in the first edition but then deleted: Locke, Some Thoughts Concerning Education, eds. J. W. and J. S. Yolton, 1989, 220. c. 24, fo. 261: draft of letter no. 1038, Locke to Thomas Stringer, 6/16 April 1688.

466

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

CALENDAR OF LOCKE’S CORRESPONDENTS This calendar consolidates the separate indexes of correspondents which de Beer provided at the end of volumes i–viii and adds information from the present volume. The opportunity has been taken to correct a few errors. John Attig’s online ‘John Locke Resources’ has been invaluable; his listing also provides archival repositories for each letter.24 Following de Beer’s practice, the numbering of letters by Locke is in roman and the numbering of letters to Locke is in italic. A bracketed number indicates a third-­party letter. Where a letter number appears twice, e.g. ‘2023, (2023)’, it means that the item contains not only a letter by or to Locke but also a third-­party letter. Numbers in bold refer to entries in the present volume: these are either new letters, bearing the suffix ‘A’ (or ‘B’), or letters printed or calendared by de Beer but augmented here and suffixed by an asterisk (*). Brief biographical identifications are provided in many cases (e.g. ‘astronomer’; ‘earl of Berkeley’); the status given does not necessarily pertain to the period of the correspondence with Locke. Life dates are given, where known; where people have entries in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, the life dates given there are used, which sometimes differ from de Beer’s. A volume and page citation is provided to the location of the biographical note on the correspondent within this Correspondence (or of the first letter, where no identification has been possible). If the person has an entry in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, this is indicated by ‘ODNB’. The bracketed dates at the end of each entry indicate the period during which the ­correspondence occurred (ignoring third-­party letters). Peers are listed under their family names, and cross-­referenced. Women having married names are cross-­referenced. An analysis of the social composition of correspondents is given below. Third-­party correspondents are separately calendared below, pp. 500–11. Where identifications of anonymous correspondents of Locke seem probable or reasonably assured, they are included in the calendar, but queries are added to the letter numbers in doubtful cases. These include the following plausible identifications of initials: EA (Anne Evelegh–84), ED (Elizabeth Duke–2034), GOW and GW (William Godolphin–9, 66), GR (Thomas Grenfeild–18), JB ( John Batteley–2066), JH ( John Hoskins–77), JM ( John Maggs–41), PA (Alexander Popham–8, 96), PE (Elinor Parry–48, 69, 70, 72, 24  Regrettably, the online database of Locke’s correspondents prepared for the Stanford Mapping the Republic of Letters project (2010–16) is badly flawed. A considerable number of names are missing; people of the same name are conflated; and there are misidentifications.

467

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Calendars: Locke’s correspondents 74, 79, 80, 87, 89, 112, 119, 120, 122), SH (Henry Stubbe–75), ST  (Thomas Symes–67), TGV (Thomas Grenfeild–20), Tom (Thomas Westrowe–100), UW (William Uvedale–52), WJ (Isaiah Ward–68). In the following cases, Locke is the author, but the identity of the recipient is uncertain: 6, 22, 41, 63, 65, 81, 82, 108, 189, 220, 239, 753, 766, 2733, 2738, 3218. In further cases, the author is known, but it is uncertain that Locke was the intended recipient: 33, 34, 35, 36, 42, 76, 149, 190, 194, 268, 628, 878, 1221, 1793, 2344, 2446, 2534, 2802. In some cases, Locke is the recipient of letters whose authorship is uncertain but probable (121, 185, 193, 214, 222, 225, 232–all Elinor Parry). In the case of three letters, while it is uncertain both who was author and who the recipient, nonetheless the identities of the authors are probable and Locke is the probable recipient (2183, 2207, 2241). In all these cases, the numbers in the calendar carry question marks. The authors of the following letters to Locke are anonymous and have not been identified: 90, 590A, 1713, 1732, 1736, 1939, 2206, 2263, 3271, 3323. Locke is the author of the following, but the recipients have not been identified: 1, 2, 5, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 45, 53, 58, 62, 78, 88, 101, 221, 310, 1678, 1960A, 1993, 2528, 3611. In the cases of nos. 90 and 590A the sender is unidentified and Locke as recipient is uncertain. These do not appear in the calendar. In the case of no. 169, de Beer identified Locke as the recipient; in fact, it is  Benjamin Woodroffe. In the case of no. 1993, de Beer was un­able to say to  whom Locke was writing; the recipient has been identified as Samuel Heathcote. In the case of no. 904, the forename of ‘Broadnax’ has now been identified as William; and in no. 2026 that of ‘Mauvillain’ as Peter. There is one letter by Locke to the Commissioners of Excise collectively (2104), and two to the Commissioners of the Treasury collectively (1688A, 1951A), whose memberships have not been individually calendared; they are listed in footnotes. Correspondence with the Commissioners for Appeals in Excise is grouped under Sir William Honywood. The following people, whose names do not occur in the calendar, are known to have corresponded with Locke, from evidence in his Journals: John Brisbane, Thomas Dare, and Peter Percival.25 The following persons are ‘new’ correspondents, i.e. they occur only in the present volume: Élie Bouhéreau, Edmund Calamy, Sir Robert Clayton, John Dunton, John Evelyn, Richard Gardiner, Francis Gwyn, Griffith Jones, William Lowndes, Nathaniel Lye, Stephen Nye, Edward Osborne, Thomas Osborne (earl of Danby), John Read, William Samuell, Hendrik Schelte, and, nominally at least, King William III. At Corr. i. lxxx–xcv, de Beer provided finding aids for biographical information on various categories of correspondent, especially Dalton (military), Foss

25  See above, p. xlv.

468

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Calendars: Locke’s correspondents (judges), Foster (Oxford alumni), GEC (peerage), Haag (Huguenots), Matthews (Nonconformist ministers), Munk (physicians), Plomer (booksellers), Venn (Cambridge alumni), Wood (Oxford authors); and also national biographical dictionaries: ADB (Germany), DBF (France), DAB (America), NNBW (Netherlands). In the period since de Beer completed his work, the following resources have become available (or were not cited by him): Clergy of the Church of England Database: www.theclergydatabase.org.uk. E.  Craig, ed., Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, in print 1998, and online. Dictionary of Irish Biography, in print 1998, and online. R.  Gwynn, The Huguenots in Later Stuart Britain, 3 vols., 2015–23 ­(biographical dictionary of Huguenot ministers). History of Parliament (biographies of MPs and peers), in print and online: B. D. Henning, ed., The House of Commons, 1660–1690, 1983.26 D. W. Hayton et al., eds., The House of Commons, 1690–1715, 2002. R. Paley, ed., The House of Lords, 1660–1715, 2016. Online: www.historyofparliamentonline.org. M. Hunter, The Royal Society and its Fellows, 1660–1700, 1982. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography: in print 2004, and online. A.  Pyle, ed., The Dictionary of Seventeenth-­Century British Philosophers, 2000. D. Rutherford, ed., The Biographical Dictionary of British Economists, 2004. J.  W.  Yolton et al., eds., The Dictionary of Eighteenth-­Century British Philosophers, 1999.

The correspondents Letters by Locke and to Locke are enumerated in roman and in italics respectively. Abercorn, earl of: see Hamilton Addison, Leonard (v. 719): 2145, 2298 (24 November 1696–14 August 1697) Aglionby, Dr William, physician and diplomat (1641–1705; iii. 703; ODNB): 1190 (1/11 October 1689) Aleaume (Alleaume), -?- (ii. 177; vi. 497): 2499 (21/31 October 1698), in French Alford, Anne, Lady (née Corbet) (c.1619–93; i. 220): 170, 171, 172, 173, 192, 196, 202 (31 January 1665–3 July 1666) Alford, John, MP (c.1647–91; i. 220): 200, 668 (12 June 1666–5 November 1681)

26  Despite its publication date, not present in de Beer’s Finding List.

469

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Calendars: Locke’s correspondents Allestree, William, diplomat (1643–90?; i. 365): 263, 271, 273, 277, 282, 285, 292, 298 (16 August 1672–14 April 1675) Alured, Mary: see Popple Anderson, George (vii. 1): 2665, 2926 (27 January 1700–24 May 1701) Arlington, earl of: see Bennet Arminius, Maria: see Veen Ashley: see Cooper Atkins, Francis (i. 38): 27, 32 (Summer 1656?–15 April [1657?]) Aubert, -?- (vii. 313): 2915, 3215 (3 May 1701–21 November [1702]), in French Aubrey, John, antiquary and biographer (1626–97; i. 375; ODNB): (267A), 268?, (1285A), 1714, 1739 (11 February 1673–18 May 1694) B., J.: see Batteley Banks, Sir John, merchant, financier, MP (1627–99; i. 463; ODNB): 323, 324, 325, 330, 331, 334, 336, 338, 340, 341, 342, 346, 349, 352, 365, 367, 370, 373, 376, 381, 384, 387, 391, 396, 404, 406, 408, 410, 414, 425, 431, 433, 434, 437, 442, 444, 455, 456, 460, 461, 464, 582 (26 February 1677–8 October 1680) Barbeyrac, Jean, jurist and political theorist (1674–1744; vii. 619): 3141, 3232, 3590 (May/June 1702–15/26 July 1704) Barbon, Jane: see Stringer Barker, W[illiam], civil servant (iii. 704): 1191, 2275, 2304, 2392 (2/12 October 1689–10 February 1698) Barnard, Henry (i. 201): 146, 162 (29 September 1662–20 October 1663) Barnes, Joseph, tenant (v. 714): 2140, 2168, 2188 (18 November 1696–2 February 1697) Baron, John (vi. 471): 2487 (12 September 1698) Barrington, John Shute: see Shute Bassett, Thomas, bookseller (ii. 126): 1607 (28 February 1693); see also appx B1, B4 Batteley, Dr John (‘JB’), CoE clergyman and antiquary (1646–1708; v. 604; ODNB): 2066? (12 April 1696) Beale, Elizabeth: see Yonge Beavis, Mrs A[nne?] (i. 597): 395 (22 July/1 August 1678) Beavis, Margaret (Mrs Blomer) (i. 326): 239?, 240, 241, 248, 249, 256, 267, 359 ([December 1669?]–[22 November/2 December 1677]) Bedel, E. (Mrs Bedles?) (i. 292): 209, 218 (10 September 1666–5 December [1666?]) Beke, Richard: included under Honywood, Sir William Bellomont, earl of: see Coote Bennet, Sir Henry, first earl of Arlington, politician (1618–85; i. 396; ODNB): 281* (6 January 1674) Benson, Samuel, CoE clergyman and Nonjuror (b.c.1647; ii. 391): 632, 2418 (28 March 1681–11 April 1698)

470

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Calendars: Locke’s correspondents Beresford, Alexander, lawyer (v. 298): 1865, 2195, 2216 (24 March 1695–10/11 March 1697) Berkeley, Sir Charles, second earl of Berkeley (1649–1710; i. 189): (137), 140, 147, 150, 153, 156, 160, 161, 168 ([c.17 August 1662?]–24 May 1664) Berkeley, Mrs Elizabeth, later Mrs Burnet (née Blake), religious writer (1661–1709; v. 663; ODNB): 2109, 2198, 2273, 2315, 2321, 2328, 2491, 2511, 2556, 2599, 2604, 2627, 2702, 2705, 2879, 2950, 2980, 3153, 3164, 3207 (13 July 1696–10 November 1702) Berkeley, George, first earl of Berkeley, politician (1626/7–98; i. 189; ODNB): 136, (137) (27 July 1662) Bernard, Dr Edward, mathematician, astronomer, Arabist (1638–97; i. 661; ODNB): 435, 453, 1228, (1228), 1241 (24 December 1678–28 January 1690) Blair, Commissary James, CoE clergyman and colonial administrator (1655/6–1743; vi. 302; ODNB): 2380, (2450A), 2545, 2626 (20 January 1698–16 October 1699) Blake, Elizabeth: see Berkeley Blomer, Margaret: see Beavis Blomer, Thomas, CoE clergyman (d.1723; i. 332): 244 ([August 1670]) Bold, Samuel, CoE clergyman and author (1648/52–1737; vi. 65; ODNB): 2207A, 2232, (2233), (2257), (2278), 2312, (2359), 2486, 2493, 2509, 2567, (2568), 2590*, 2602, 2628, 2687, 2771, (3182), 3243, 3273, 3326, 3520 ([February 1697?]–27 April 1704) Bonville, John, pewterer (ii. 496): 692, 694, 698, 1377, 1618, 1676, 1687, 1696, 1703, 1709, 1771, 1774, 1877, 1882, 1894, (1942), 2089, 2102, 2144, 2220, 2235, 2368, 2374, 2391, 2417, 2423, 2428, 2464, 2635, 2648, 2655*, 2657, 2664, 2685, 2694, 2749, 2753, 2762, 2766, 2820, 2827, 2839, 2869, 2872, 2891, 2918, 2964, 2972, 2977, 3001, 3004, 3013, 3022, 3032, 3044, 3067, 3092, 3175, 3177, 3184, 3208, 3238, 3250, 3254, 3262, 3265, 3297, 3302, 3334, 3343, 3386, 3404, 3443, 3480, 3510, 3516, 3552, 3572, 3589, 3609, 3625, 3628 (18 March 1682–16 September 1704) Bonville, John, Jr, civil servant (v. 110): 1771, 2973A (9 August 1694–5 August 1701) Bouhéreau, Élie, physician (1643–1719; ix. 65): 523A (1679) Boulton, Richard, medical writer (1674–c.1724; vi. 375; ODNB): 2421, 2430 (19 April [1698]–3 May [1698]) Boyle, Hon. Robert, natural philosopher (1627–91; i. 146; ODNB): 175, 197, 199, 223, 224, 228, 335, 397, 478, 773A, (936A), 1001, 1422, 1503A (12/22 December 1665–[c.May 1692])27

27 These have been re-edited in The Correspondence of Robert Boyle, eds. M.  Hunter, A. Clericuzio, and L. Principe, 6 vols., 2001.

471

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Calendars: Locke’s correspondents Bray, Leonard, warehouseman (ii. 450): 664 (21 October 1681) Bridges, Brook, merchant, officeholder (1644–1717; iv. 603): 2641, 3426 ([2] December 1699–18 January 1704) Bridges, Sir Thomas (c.1617–1707; i. 672): 574 (25 September 1680) Briolay de Beaupreau, [Abbé Christophe?] de ([fl.1629–71]; i. 316): 230*, (231*), 250* ([1668]–20 January 1671) Broadnax, [William] (iii. 125; ix. 102): 904* (2/12 February 1687) Brockman, William, MP (v. 111): 1841, 1854 (19 January 1695–28 February 1695) Brouchier, Dr Claude, physician and chemist (i. 451): 314, 375 (1676–23 March/2 April 1678), in French Broune, Dr Andrew, physician (v. 319): 1870, (1909) (c.1 April 1695) Brounower, Mrs M[artha?] (vi. 762): 2652, 2663 (5 January 1700–25 January 1700) Brounower, Sylvester, amanuensis and servant (‘Syl’) (i. 628): (891), 1041, (1998), 2141, 2147, 2244, 2250, 2434, 2439, 2505, 2508 (18/28 April 1688–15 November 1698) Brunyer, Mme M. L., glovemaker (i. 605): 401 (12/22 August 1678), in French Buckland, Elizabeth: see Jepp Burges, Mary, housekeeper (v. 443): 1950* (30 September 1695) Burnet, Elizabeth: see Berkeley Burnett, Thomas, of Kemnay, philosopher (1656–1729; vi. 60): 2228, 2565, 2709, (2710), 2724A*, (3086A) (24 March 1697–2 May 1700) Burridge, Ezekiel, lawyer and scholar (c.1661–1707; v. 440): 1952, 2475, 2495, 2501*, 2677* (3 October 1695–21 February 1700) Burthogge, Dr Richard, physician and philosopher (1638–1705; v. 51; ODNB): 1735A, 1737A, 1752A, 2617A, 3214A, 3278A ([c.April] 1694–4 May 1703) Bury, Dr Arthur, CoE clergyman and theologian (1623/4–1713; ii. 353; ODNB): 615 (2 February 1681) Calamy, Edmund, Presbyterian minister and historian (1671–1732; ix. 386; ODNB): 3600A ([ July? 1704]) Calverley, Lady Mary (née Thompson) (d.c.1716; ii. 623): 1133, 1164, 1305, 1438, 1441, 1749, 3222 ([early May 1689?]–28 November [1702]) Carr, William, barrister and judge (d.1689; i. 46): 33?, 37, 39, 92, 93, 94, 166 (3 July [1657?]–27 February/2 March [1664]) Cary, John, merchant and author (1649–1719/22; v. 515; ODNB): 2000, 2064, 2068, 2079, 2084, 2136, 2150, 2169 (11 January 1696–5 January 1697) Chaloner, Edmund: included under Honywood, Sir William Chardin, Jean (Sir John), traveller and merchant (1643–1712; ii. 218; ODNB): 652 (15 August 1681) Charleton (Courten), William, naturalist and collector (1642–1702; i. 508; ODNB): 350, 353*, 369, 379, 380, 385, 407, 415*, 445, 449, 465, 526, 531, 559, 636, 658, 663, (664), 670, 691, 722, 728, 736, 788, 816, 821, 843, 856, 864, 928,

472

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Calendars: Locke’s correspondents 949, 951, 955, 956, 970, 972, 992, 996, 1022, 1066 (16/26 August 1677–12 July 1688) Cheney, Oliver (i. 612): 2416, 3191 (9 April 1698–25 September 1702) Cheswell, Charles (ii. 577): 1308, 1327, 1384, 1417 (31 July 1690–19 September 1691) Chetwood, Dr Knightly, CoE clergyman (1650–1720; vii. 751; ODNB): 3255 (20 February 1703) Churchill, Awnsham, bookseller and MP (1658–1728; iii. 475; ODNB): 1059, (1793), (1925A), (2233), (2257), (2278), (2308), (2359), 2566, (2568?), 2706, 2718, 2733?, 2738?, 2752, 2758, 2764, 2778, 2781, 2793, 2794, 2801, 2805, 2816, 2822, 2834, 2850, 2853, 2864, 2871, 2895, 2907, 2927, 2947, 2952, (2952), 2962, 2965, 2973, 2981, 2990, 3015, 3021, 3026, 3041, 3047, 3048, 3052, 3059B, 3063, 3082, 3097, 3100, 3102, 3112, 3120, 3129, 3136A, 3137, 3174, 3176, 3178, 3182, (3182), 3211, 3218?, 3249, 3259, 3268, 3295, 3315, 3366, 3383, 3390, 3412, 3432, 3463, 3487, 3505, 3518, 3521A, 3523, 3573, 3573B, 3590A, 3595, 3615, 3637, 3643A, 3644 ([c.7/18 June 1688]–17 October 1704); see also appx B2–3, B5–7 Churchill, John, bookseller (c.1663–c.1714; iii. 475; ODNB): (2233), (2257), (2281), (2359), 2650A, 2765, 2995, 3005, 3012, 3185, 3187, 3335, 3345, 3366, 3390, 3535, 3568 (30 August 1700–22 June 1704); see also appx B2–3, B5–7 Clarke, Edward, MP, politician (‘the Grave’, ‘Grave Squire’) (1649/51–1710; ii. 479; ODNB): 682*, 683, 685, 739, (756), 757, 758, 759, 761, 762, (763A), 769B, 770, 771, 772, 773, 776, 780, 782, 786, 791*, 799, 801, 803, 803A, 804*, 807, 808, 813, 817, 819, 822, 829, 844, 845, 846, (848A), 849, 852A, 863, 869, 871, 872, 875, 878, 880, 881, 885, 886, 890, (891), 894, 897, 900, 901, 906, 907, 924, 927, 929, (930A), 935, 936, 943, 954, 966, 976, 981, 989, 994, 999, 1000, 1016, 1020, 1021, 1026, (1028), 1030, 1047, 1050, 1055, 1057, 1060, 1077, 1080, 1083, 1086, 1098, 1102, 1128, 1130, (1131A), 1167, 1174, (1206A), (1310A), 1313, (1324A), 1326, 1347, 1369, 1370, 1376, 1406, 1415, (1416), 1417A, 1418, 1423, 1431, 1433, 1434, 1435, 1436, 1439, 1440, 1442, 1445, 1452, 1455, 1458, 1460, 1462, 1467, (1470A), (1471A), 1471, 1472, 1475, 1476, 1478, 1481, 1501, 1502, 1526, 1532, 1546, 1548, (1548), 1550, 1552, 1555, 1557, 1565, 1566, 1571, 1576, 1577, 1580, 1586, 1596, 1598, 1605, 1611, 1611A, (1612), 1613, 1625, 1628, 1644, 1647, 1660, 1666, 1667, (1680A), (1683A), 1686, 1689, 1690, 1706, 1716, 1717, 1719, (1721A), 1722, 1723, 1724, 1726, 1727, 1728, 1730, (1735B), 1755, 1756A, 1762, 1768, (1770), 1776, 1778, 1780, 1799, 1807, 1813, 1818A, 1819; the sequence from this point includes all letters to or from Clarke alone, Clarke and John Freke together, and Freke alone; that is, both the College and personal letters: 1821, 1833, 1836, 1837, 1839, 1844, 1845, 1847, 1849, 1853, 1856, 1858, 1860, 1861A, 1862, 1868, 1872, 1874, 1879, 1881, (1881), 1886, 1891, 1892, 1893, 1899, 1900, 1902, 1903, 1907, 1908, 1911, 1934, (1942), (1943), (1949A), 1951, 1955, 1956, (1956A), (1962A), 1971, 1972, 1974, 1976, 1978, 1981, 1985, 1988, 1992, 1997, 2001, (2001A), 2004,

473

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Calendars: Locke’s correspondents 2006, 2009, 2016, 2017, (2017A), 2018, 2022, 2024, 2027, 2028A, 2033, 2040, 2043, 2047, 2048, 2049, 2052, 2054, 2057, 2058, 2060, 2061, 2065, 2067, 2069, 2071, 2073, 2074, 2075, 2076, 2077, 2078, 2080, 2082, 2083, 2086, 2087, 2088, 2090, 2096, (2102A), 2113, 2114, 2120, (2137A), 2139, 2143, 2148, 2151*, 2154, 2156, 2163, 2164, 2175, 2178, 2179, 2182, 2183*, 2184, 2185, 2193, 2211, 2213, 2215, 2231, 2234, 2239, 2242, 2249, 2251, 2259, 2261, 2264, 2266, 2267, 2274, (2291A), 2299, 2305, 2308, 2309, 2351, 2356, 2361, 2367, 2369, 2371, 2379, 2398, 2399, 2408, 2420, 2425, 2429, 2433, 2435, 2438, 2441, 2445, 2447, 2458A(=2537), 2469, (2484), 2525, 2540, 2553, 2575, 2580A, 2585, 2586, (2587A), 2617, 2646, 2658, 2661; the sequence henceforward, apart from no. 2686, relates to Clarke alone: 2667, 2668, 2680, 2683, 2686 (with Freke), 2695, 2697, 2703, 2713, 2719, (2733A), 2747, 2759, 2763, 2768, 2772, 2774, 2780, (2784A), 2787, 2791, 2796, 2798, 2804, 2811, 2812, 2817, 2824, 2826, 2859, 2861, 2867, 2988, 3025, 3058, 3078, 3088, 3093, 3113, 3138, 3152, 3223, 3257, 3298, 3396, 3402, 3406, (3418A), 3421, 3436, 3472, 3482, 3521, 3526 (14 February 1682–8 May 1704) Clarke, Elizabeth (‘Betty’) (1682–1712; ii. 480): (1735B), 2317, 2949, 2996, 3258, 3317, 3347, 3400, 3430, 3507, 3612 (26 September 1697–14 August 1704) Clarke, Mrs Mary (née Jepp) (d.1705; i. 168; ODNB): 705, 709, 724, 774, 777, 806, 809, 908, (930A), 1013, 1020, 1220, 1253, 1271, (1324A), (1353B), 1481B, 1483, (1488A), 1490, 1554, 1584, (1721A), (1735B), 1810, 1848, 1863, (1881), 1962, (1962A), 1968, 1991, (2001A), (2017A), 2046, (2081A), (2102A), 2119, 2130, 2133, (2134A), (2137A), 2135, 2214, 2258, 2291, (2291A), 2569, 2576, 2611, (2733A), 2855A, (3418A), (3649) (7 May 1682–[early 1701?]) Clarke, Richard (vi. 546): 2534? (12 January 1699) Clarke, Samuel, tailor (viii. 4): 3290, 3309, 3547 (27 May 1703–27 May 1704) Clarke, William (v. 97): 1765 (1 August [1694]) Clayton, Sir Robert, banker and MP (1629–1707; ix. 268; ODNB): 2138A (3 November 1696). Cockburn, Catharine: see Trotter Cocks (or Cox), Captain Richard (iii. 679–80): 1194 (5 October 1689) Cockshutt, John, lawyer ([c.1641–70?], i. 320): 233 ([about 1669?]) Coker, William, physician (b.c.1645; i. 217): 165*, (169*) (31 January 1664–14 December 1664) Cole, Dr William, physician (1635–1716; iv. 65; ODNB): 1287, 1290, 1299, 1321, 1414, 3299, 3580 (30 April 1690–6 July 1704) Colleton, Sir Peter, colonial proprietor and MP (1635–94; i. 355): 254*, 270, 275, 279, 287, 289 ([early summer 1671?]–22 July 1674) [Collier, Rebecca. For a spurious letter, see appx C2] Collins, Anthony, philosopher and freethinker (1676–1729; vii. 776; ODNB): 3278*, 3293, 3301, 3306, 3311, 3318, 3332, 3342, 3351, 3361, 3372, 3381, 3384,

474

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Calendars: Locke’s correspondents 3385, 3387, 3389, 3391, 3422, 3435, 3438, 3449, 3456, 3461, 3465, 3467, (3467), 3470, 3474, 3479, 3483, 3485, (3485), 3488, 3490, 3493, 3495, 3498, 3500, 3504, 3506, 3530, 3537, 3539, 3542, 3544, 3546, 3548, 3549, 3555, 3556, 3558, 3565*, 3566, 3567, 3570, 3573A, 3577, 3600, 3601, 3603, 3608*, 3613, 3617, 3619*, 3624, 3632, 3636, 3640, 3648 (4 May 1703–23 August 1704)28 Commissioners of Appeals in Excise:29 see Honywood Commissioners of the Excise:30 2103A, 2104 (20 June 1696) Commissioners of the Treasury: 1688A,31 1951A32 (1693–September 1695) Compton, Frances: see St John Conyers, John, MP (c.1650–1725; vi. 24): 2210, 2581, 2662, 2792 (4 March 1697–18 October 1700) Cooke, John (i. 404): 288 (16 June 1674) Cooper, Sir Anthony Ashley, Lord Ashley, first earl of Shaftesbury, politician (1621–83; i. 284; ODNB): 230A, 234, 235, 236, 239A, 247, (249A), 250*, (253A), (296A), 297, (297B), 322, 527A, 532, 561, 620, 621, 625, 627 ([1668]–22 February 1681) Cooper, Anthony Ashley, second earl of Shaftesbury (i. 293): 766? ([late April 1683?]) Cooper, Anthony Ashley, Lord Ashley, third earl of Shaftesbury, philosopher (1671–1713; i. 351; ODNB): 980, 984, 1169, 1195, 1203, 1412, 1443, 1451, 1470, 1474, 1479, 1482, 1512, 1560, 1597, 1626, 1746, 1783, 1794, 1816, 1922, 2252, 2415, 2427, 2608, 2610, 3139, (3205A), 3261A, 3261B, 3623, (3653), (3654) (21 November/1 December [1687]–7 September 1704)33 Cooper, Lady Dorothy Ashley, Lady Ashley, countess of Shaftesbury (née Manners) (c.1632–98; i. 321): 255, 258 (1 [ July 1671]–15 [ July 1671]) Cooper, Margaret Ashley, Lady Ashley, countess of Shaftesbury (née Spencer) (1627–93; i. 292): 257, 523B, 747, 860A (14 July [1671]–14/24 August 1686) Coote, Richard, first earl of Bellomont, politician and colonial governor (1636–1701; iii. 603; ODNB): 2268, 2270, 2587, 2614, 2636 ([25?] May 1697–29 November 1699) 28 This series has been re-edited in The Correspondence of Anthony Collins (1676–1729), Freethinker, ed. J. Dybikowski, 2011. 29  Sir William Honywood, Richard Beke (or Beak), Edmund Chaloner, George Dodington (and Locke). 30  Edward Clarke, John Danvers, Sir Samuel Dashwood, Sir Stephen Evance, Sir John Foche, Thomas Hall, Sir Philip Meadows, Foot Onslow, Francis Parry, William Strong. 31  Lord (Sydney) Godolphin, Sir Stephen Fox, Richard Hampden, Charles Montagu, Sir Edward Seymour. 32  Lord (Sydney) Godolphin, Sir Stephen Fox, Charles Montagu, John Smith, Sir William Trumbull. 33  This series is currently being re-edited by the Shaftesbury Project, Stuttgart: Shaftesbury, Complete Works, Series III, Correspondence, eds. C. Jackson-Holzberg, P. Müller, and F. Uehlein, 3 vols. so far, 2018–. See also Anthony Ashley Cooper, Earl of Shaftesbury (1671–1713) and ‘Le Refuge Français’: Correspondence, ed. R. A. Barrell, 1989.

475

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Calendars: Locke’s correspondents Corbet, Anne: see Alford Coste, Pierre, translator and author (1668–1747; v. 395; ODNB): 1917, 1940, 2107, 2285, 2480, 2601, 2609, 2746 (28 June/8 July 1695–12 July 1700), in French Courten, William: see Charleton Covel, Dr John, CoE clergyman (1638–1722; ii. 22; ODNB): 471, 548, 613, 635, 676, 2319, 2322, (2323), (2347), 2459, 2467, 2474, 2477, 2479, 2481, 2549, 2562, 2799, 2803, 2808 (17 May 1679–3 November 1700) Cox, Richard: see Cocks Coxe, Thomas (i. 451): 321 (22 February 1677) Coxe, Dr Thomas, physician (c.1615–85; i. 451; ODNB): 383, 386 (2 June 1678– 13/23 June 1678) Cramphorne, Joseph (vi. 256): 2349, 2353, 2769 (8 November 1697–3 September 1700) Crooke, Andrew, bookseller (c.1605–74; i. 199; ODNB): 143 (28 August 1662) Cross, Walter, Independent clergyman (vi. 136): 2271 (1 June [1697]) Crosse, Robert, CoE clergyman and philosopher (1604/5–83; i. 166; ODNB): 114 (19 February 1661) Cudworth, Charles, East India Company agent (d.1684; ii. 539): 765 (27 April 1683) Cudworth, Damaris, Lady Masham, philosopher (‘Philoclea’) (1658–1708; ii. 470; ODNB): 677*, 684, 687*, 688, 690, 693, 695, 696, 699, 704, 710, 714, 720, 726, 730, 731, 734, 740, 744, 751, 752, 760, 763, 779, 784, 787, 805, 815, 823, 827, 830, 837, 839, 847, 870, 882, 896, 930, 942, 950, 967, 975, 1003, 1040, 1322, (1416), (1416A), (1471A), (2042), (2063), 2280, (2323), (2347), (2495A), 2795A, 3052A, (3368A), (3651) (6 January [1682]–12 December 1701) Cudworth Masham, Francis: see Masham Cunningham, Alexander, jurist and scholar (1650/60–1730; iv. 339; ODNB):34 2588* (15 May 1699) Cutts, Joanna (iv. 136): 1359, 1366 (10 February [1691]–26 February 1691) D., H.: 960A (5 September 1687) Danby, earl of: see Osborne D’Aranda, Benjamin, CoE clergyman (1667–1740; iii. 566): 1111 (8 February 1689), in Latin D’Aranda, Paul, merchant (1652–1712; iii. 567): 1112, 1306, 1918, 1925, 1935, 1969, 2123*, 2192, (2192), 2197, 2204, (2204), 2238, (2238), 2260, (2260), 2342, 2623, 2899, 3017 ([c.9/19 February 1689]–14 October 1701) Dare, Mrs Ellen (ii. 726): 826 (14/24 July [1685]) Davys, Thomas, physician (iii. 497): 1074, 1078, 1091, 1201 (28 August/7 September 1688–5/15 November 1689) 34  For de Beer’s confusion of two Alexander Cunninghams, see no. 2588*.

476

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Calendars: Locke’s correspondents Day, Thomas, Sr (iii. 752): 1221? (14 December 1689) Day, Thomas, Jr (iv. 249): 1382, 2887 (2 April 1691–22 March 1701) Derbie, John (v. 782): 2196, 2245 (15 February 1697–10 April 1697) Deshais Gendron, Dr Claude: see Gendron Dickinson, Dr Edmund, physician and alchemist (1624–1707; i. 534; ODNB): (363), 1632, 1634 (31 May 1693–2 June 1693) Dod, John, CoE clergyman (d.1692?; i. 203): 148 (7 October 1662) Dodington, George: included under Honywood, Sir William Dolben, Dr John, archbishop of York (1625–86; i. 179; ODNB): 124 (17 May [1661?]) Douglas, Robina, countess of Forfar (née Lockhart) (c.1661–1741; iv. 333): 1432 (29 November 1691) Du Bos, Abbé Jean-­Baptiste, scholar and historian (1670–1742; vi. 407): 2478, 2489, 2510, 2527, 2570, 2591, 2600, 2612, 2673, 2748, 2837, 2900, 2982, 3083, 3133, 3237 (27 July/6 August [1698]–4/15 January [1703]), in French Duke, Elizabeth (‘ED’) (v. 563): 2034? (10 March 1696) Duke, Mrs Isabella (née Yonge) (1650–1705; iii. 13): 854, 855, 857, 860, 867, 873, 883, 898, 903, 918, 933, 940, 953, 968, 987, 997, 1018, 1052, 1061, 1085, 1118, 1125, 1149, 1157, 1168, 1230, 1263, 1311, 1341, 1387, 1399, 1413, 1602 (9/19 July 1686–10 February [1693]) Duke, Richard, MP (1652–1733; iii. 7): 855, 859, 861, 876, 903 (19/29 July 1686–29 January 1687) Dummer, Captain Thomas (vii. 505): 3044 (21 November 1701) Dunton, John (1659–1733; ix. 381; ODNB): 3503A ([c.March] 1704) Edwards, Mrs Sarah (i. 91): 64 (21 July 1659) Elphinstone, Isabella, Lady Elphinstone (née Maitland) (c.1644–1704; iv. 250): 1383 (14 April 1691) Elys, Edmund, CoE clergyman, author, Nonjuror (1633/5–1708; vi. 527; ODNB): 2523* (16 December 1698) Evance, Sir Stephen, goldsmith-­banker, merchant, and MP (1654/5–1712; iii. 702; ODNB): 1189, 2335, 2341, 2346 (1 October 1689–6 November 1697) Evelegh, Anne (‘EA’) (i. 74, 90): 63?, 65?, 71, 83, 84?, 86 ([mid-­July 1659?]–22 November 1659) Evelyn, John, virtuoso, diarist, writer (1620–1706; ix. 34; ODNB): 279A, (1251A), (2333C) (17 October 1673) Eyre, Martha, Lady (née Lucy) (d.1728; vi. 570): 2552, 2564, 3081 (21 February [1699]–31 January [1702]) Eyre, Sir Robert, barrister, judge, MP (1666–1735; viii. 148; ODNB): 3410, 3411 (21 December 1703–23 December 1703) Eyre, Sir Samuel, barrister and judge (1638–98; i. 454; ODNB): 316 (11 July 1676)

477

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Calendars: Locke’s correspondents Faccio de Duillier, Nicolas: see Fatio Fanshawe, W[illiam?] ([c.1640/3–1708]; i. 427): 302 (14 September 1675) Fatio (Faccio) de Duillier, Nicolas, mathematician and natural philosopher (1664–1753; iv. 378; ODNB): 1459, 1468, 1697, 1701A, 1888 (27 January 1692– 27 April 1695) Fell, Dr John, dean of Christ Church, bishop of Oxford (1625–86; i. 179; ODNB): 161A, (211A), (211B), (249A), 303, 544, 643, 727 (8 November 1675–15 August [1682?]); see also appx A7, A11 Firmin, Thomas, merchant and philanthropist (1632–97; i. 362; ODNB): 1759, 1926, 1954, 2241?, 2329 (25 July 1694–15 October 1697) Fletcher, Andrew, of Saltoun, Scottish patriot and political theorist (1653?–1716; v. 82; ODNB): 1756, 1851, 1854A, 2381, 2389, (2859A), 2866A, 2870A, 3018 ([early?] July [1694]–14 October 1701) Fletcher, Henry, of Saltoun (d.1733; v. 274; vii. 299): (2859A), 2901, 2908* (10 April 1701–23 April 1701) Flower, Henry (i. 224): 174 (3 August 1665) Forfar, Lady: see Douglas Formentin, Canon Raymond, Catholic priest (i. 586): 778 (14/24 May 1684) Fowler, Dr Edward, bishop of Gloucester (1631/2–1714; i. 83; ODNB): 2112, 2294, (2633A), 2814, (2816A), 3501, (3587A), 3633, 3635, 3642 (22 July 1696– 12 October 1704) [Fraser, James, book dealer and press licenser (1645–1731; v. 724; ODNB)].35 Frazier, Carey: see Mordaunt Freke, John, lawyer and political activist (the ‘Bachelor’) (1652–1717; iii. 58; ODNB): 874, 887, 899, 909, 915, 920, 934, 937, 941, 960, 990, 1032, (letters by him or jointly by him and Edward Clarke from no. 1821 to no. 2661 are listed under Clarke, but 2183*? and 2525 were probably from Freke alone, and 2646 perhaps so), 2686 (with Clarke), 3620 (3/13 November [1686]–24 August 1704) Freke, John, stockjobber and financial journalist (the ‘Stockjobber’) (vi. 397): 2789, 3508, 3512 (12 October 1700–20 April 1704) Freke, Thomas, Presbyterian clergyman? (vi. 397): 2770 (4 September 1700) Furly, Arent, secretary (1685–1712; iii. 231): 2689, (2956), 3030, 3210, 3245, 3338, 3424, 3503, 3626 (16/27 March 1700–15/26 September 1704) Furly, Benjamin, merchant and religious writer (1636–1714; iii. 39; ODNB): 947, 986, 988, 991, 993, 995, 998, 1004, 1005, 1007, 1008, 1009, 1010, 1012, 1017, (1053), 1114, 1115*, 1140, 1141, 1151, 1243, 1254, 1268, 1269, 1270, 1325, 1328, 1331, 1336, 1344, 1345, 1346, 1348, 1350, 1351, 1354, 1355, 1356, 1360, 1363, 1364, 1367, 1371, 1379, 1386, 1389, 1392, 1396, 1400, 1402, 1407, 1408, 1421, 1469, 1480, 1506, 1533, 1534, 1562, 1585, 1599, 1614, 1638, 1650, 1672, 1684, 35  No. 2528 is possibly to James Fraser but the speculation is too weak for his definite ­inclusion.

478

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Calendars: Locke’s correspondents 1702, 1741, 1745, 1764, 1789, 1827, 1830, 1852, 1961, 1982, 2070, 2122, 2127, (2192), 2200, (2204), (2238), (2248), (2260), 2287, 2424, 2572, 2629, 2639, 2690, 2700, 2754, 2761, 2767, 2779, (2784A), 2786, 2832, 2889, 2919, 2932, 2946, (2956), 2960, 3030, 3065, 3146, 3171, 3198, (3205A), 3224, 3226, 3286, 3424, 3450, 3478, 3503, 3597 (20/30 July 1687–24 July/4 August 1704) Furly, Benjohan, merchant (d.1738; iii. 320): 2691, 3199, 3202, 3338 (19 March 1700–24 September/5 October 1703) Gardiner, Richard, CoE clergyman (c.1590–1670; ix. 6; ODNB): 161A (4 October 1663) Gastrell, Francis, bishop of Chester (1662–1725; vi. 146; ODNB): 2279, 2515, 2554 (1 July [1697]–25 February [1699]) Geekie, Dr Alexander, surgeon (d.1727; vii. 527): 3063, 3073, 3079, 3106, 3114, 3117, 3119, 3123, 3125, 3165, 3168, 3193, 3197, 3206, 3229, 3260 (8 January 1702–26 February 1703) Gendron, Dr Claude Deshais, physician (c.1663–1750; iii. 136): 1079, 2902 (29 September/9 October 1688–11/22 April 1701), in French Gendron, Abbé François, surgeon (1618–88; i. 585): (562), 666, 718 (15/25 October 1681–21 June/1 July 1682), in French George, Richard, sadler (ii. 512): 706 (c.8 May 1682) Gerrart (Gerrard), Johannes (i. 266): 190?, 195 (15/25 March 1666–23 April/3 May 1666) Glanville, William, barrister? ([c.1618–1702], i. 293): 210, (1770) (22 September 1666) Godolphin, Sir William (‘GOW’, ‘GW’), diplomat and MP (1635–96; i. 34; ODNB): 9?, 25, 60, 66?, 176, 178, 179, 181, 183A ([early 1653?]–19/29 January 1666) Goodall, Dr Charles, physician (c.1642–1712; ii. 483; ODNB): 948, 1002, 1096, 1137, 1292, 2055 ([c.25] July 1687–April 1696) Graevius (Grave), Joannes Georgius, scholar (ii. 653): (793), (794), 914, 974, 978, 1105, 1110, 1200, 1240, 1286, 1682, 1751, 1786, 1802, 1809, 1897, 1920, 2436, 2555 (28 February/10 March 1687–27 February/9 March 1699), in Latin Granville, Dr Dennis: see Grenville Grassemare, -?- de, tutor (iv. 748): 1674 (21 November [1693]), in French Grave, A. de: see Greve Grave, J. G.: see Graevius Gray, John, civil servant (viii. 382, 393–4): 3618 (19 August 1704) Greenhill, Henry, merchant, naval officeholder, MP (1646–1708; vi. 605; ODNB): 2573 (22 April 1699) Greenhill, Honor: see Thomas Grenfeild, Thomas (‘GR’, ‘TGV’), CoE clergyman (c.1618–71?; i. 24): 18?, 19, 20?, 40 ([ July 1655?]–18 March 1658)

479

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Calendars: Locke’s correspondents Grenville (Granville), Dr Denis, CoE clergyman and Nonjuror (1637–1703; i. 468; ODNB): 326, 327, 328, 329, 357, 366, 372, 374, 377, 411, 412, 416, 421, 426, 447, 458, 468, 482, 486, 487, 494, 498, 503, 512, 513, 521 ([c.3/13–5/15 March 1677]–23 December 1679) Greve, Albert de, jurist (iii. 45): 1493, 1787 (15/25 April 1692–[14/24?] September 1694), in Latin Griffith, Robert (v. 430): 1938 (27 August 1695) Grigg, Mrs Anne (Anna) (i. 334): 313, 319, 320, 533, 535, 539, 555, 558, 564, 586, 598, 606, 647, 689, 703, 707, 732, 820, 892, 1006, 1048, 1065, 1121, 1524, 1536, 1591, 2692, 2712, 3068, 3231 (28 June 1676–26 December [1702]) Grigg, Elizabeth: see Stratton Grigg, William, CoE clergyman (d.1726; i. 334): 701, 1752, 1784, 1814, 1876, 1883, 3069, 3145, 3214, 3484, 3605 (25 April [1682]–8 August [1704]) Guenellon, Mevr. Cornelia Maria (née Veen) (b.c.1662; ii. 739): 1095*, 1162*, 1261*, 1303, 1373, 1725, 1967, 2519, 3325 (22 December 1688/1 January 1689–27 July/7 August 1703), in Dutch and French Guenellon, Dr Pieter, physician (1650–1722; ii. 738): 921, 983, (1024), 1029, 1037, 1095*, 1123, 1135, 1139, 1161, 1179, 1212, 1244, 1245, 1247, 1251, 1260, 1276, 1279, 1298, 1302, 1318, 1340, 1374, 1390, 1425, 1453, 1494, 1521, 1604*, 1636, 1645, 1648, 1725, 1779, 1824, 1905, 1923, 1931, 1973, 2028, 2116, 2191, 2255, 2292, 2326, 2345, 2401, 2520, 2594, 2619, 2633, 2659, 2743, 2835, 2882, 2959, 3054, 3155, 3204, 3274, 3288, 3313, 3325, 3341, 3371, 3431, 3554, 3622 (22 March/1 April 1687–29 August/9 September 1704), in French Guide, Dr Philippe, physician (d.1718; vi. 297): 2377, 3075 (11 January 1698–22 January 1702), in French Guise, Elizabeth, Lady (née How) (iii. 430): 1039, 1044, 1056 (7/17 April 1688– 11/21 June 1688) Gwyn, Francis, MP, barrister (ix. 34): 279B ([October 1673]) Hackett, Laurence, CoE clergyman (vii. 175): 2802? (28 October 1700) Hamilton, James, [sixth earl of Abercorn, soldier and politician?] ([c.1661–1734]; v. 9; ODNB): 1707, 1711 (8 February 1694–15 February 1694) Hammond, Robert (i. 287): 205 ([early August 1666?]) Harborne, Thomas (i. 207): 154 (20 January 1663) Harcourt, P, [Sir Philip?], [MP] ([d.1688], i. 206): 152 ([c.1662/1663?]) Hardy, John, Presbyterian clergyman (vii. 142): 2775 (17 September 1700) Harley, Sir Edward, Parliamentarian army officer and politician (1624–1700; v. 148; ODNB): 1792 (25 September 1694) Harley, Sir Robert, earl of Oxford, politician (1661–1724; v. 50; ODNB): 1737 (9 May 1694) Hatrell, Henry, lawyer (v. 315): 1866, 1914 (25 March 1695–3 June 1695) Haversham, Baron: see Thompson

480

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Calendars: Locke’s correspondents Hawkshaw, Benjamin, Church of Ireland clergyman (1671/2–1738; iii. 627; ODNB): (1142), 1202, 1214, 1238, 1310 (12 November 1689–21 August [1690]) Hawkshaw, Elinor: see Parry Hazard, Roger (viii. 202): 3462 (19 February 1704) Heathcote, Samuel, merchant (1656–1708; v. 55): 1742, 1743, 1981A, 1984A, 1993*, 1996A, 2289A, 2333A, 2333B (25 May 1694–19 October 1697). Helmont, Baron Francis Mercury (Franciscus Mercurius) van, physician and cabbalist (1614–98; ii. 619; ODNB): 1662 (2 October 1693) Herbert, Thomas, eighth earl of Pembroke, politician and virtuoso (1656/7– 1733; i. 668; ODNB): 441, 452, 795, 797, 828, 982, 1001A, 1141A, 1170, 1404, 1497, 1656, (1656A), (3115) (18 January [1679]–23 August [1693]); see also appx C1 Hildesley, John, lawyer (vii. 591): 3118 (21 March 1702) Hill, Abraham, virtuoso and administrator (1635–1722; vi. 617; ODNB): 2583 (4 May 1699) Hochreutiner, Jakob: see Horutener Hodges, James, political author (v. 776): 2194 (8 February 1697) Hodges, Nathaniel, CoE clergyman (c.1634–1700; i. 260): 459, 527, 737, 1932, 2364 (22 March [1679]–21 December 1697) Hodges, William (iii. 692): 1183, 1193 (18 September 1689– 5 October 1689) Honywood, Sir William, MP and civil servant (and other Commissioners for Appeals in Excise) (c.1654–1748; v. 18): 1710, 1989, (2063A), 2092, 2094, 2095, 2217, 2218 (13 February 1694–15 March 1697) Hooke, Robert, natural philosopher (1635–1703; i. 621; ODNB): 413 (19/29 October 1678) Horutener (Hochreutiner), Jacques, banker (i. 480; all letters jointly with J. Selapris): (419A), 438, 446, 507 (4/14 January 1679–[c.30 September/10 October] 1679) Hoskins, John (‘JH’) (i. 112): 76?, 77?, 528, 753? (13 September 1659–26 January 1683) How, Elizabeth: see Guise Howe, Lady Anne (née Manners) (b.c.1655; i. 397): 283 (15 January [1674?]) Hudson, Dr John, librarian and classical scholar (1662–1719; vii. 743; ODNB): 3248, 3261, 3270, 3569 (6 February 1703–22 June 1704) Huntington, Mrs Mary (née Powell) (vi. 544): 2532, 2969, 3033 (5 January [1699]–8 November [1701]) Huntington, Robert, bishop of Raphoe, orientalist (1637–1701; i. 352; ODNB): 253, 382 (1 April 1671–22 May 1678) Hutton, Dr John, physician (d.1712; iii. 405; ODNB): 1025, 1035, 1889, (1909) (6/16 March 1688–27 April 1695) Ivye, Dr Ayliffe, physician (i. 35): (26), 97, 113 (20 May 1660–8 January [1661?])

481

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Calendars: Locke’s correspondents Jackman, John, CoE clergyman (b.c.1672; v. 658): 2105 (20 June 1696) Jacob, Dr William, MP (c.1623–92; ii. 80): 576 ([c.27 September 1680]) Jepp, Mrs Elizabeth (née Buckland) (i. 168): 116, 125 (2 April 1661–31 October 1661) Jocelin, Samuel, shopkeeper (iv. 443): 1491, 1631, 1633, 1639 (13 April 1692–15 June 1693) Jocelyn, Edward, CoE clergyman (v. 737): 2161, 2809 (12 December 1696–3 November 1700) Johnstoun ( Johnston), James, Scottish politician (1655–1737; ii. 526; ODNB): 1616, 1624A, 1640A, 2099, 2101, 2207*?, 2225, 2387, 2431, 2745, 2776, 2884, 3379, 3497 (14 March [1693]–23 March 1704) Jones, Griffith (ix. 39): 280C ([1673]). Juigné-­Losé, [ Jacques Le Clerc?] de (i. 603): 400 (12/22 August 1678) Justel, Henri, scholar and librarian (1620–93; ii. 23; ODNB): (462), 472, 476, 479, 488, 490, 491*, 504, 506, 515, 518, 524, 534, 537, 553, 578, 588, 639, 644, 651, 747A (7/17 May 1679–[late 1682 or early 1683]), in French King, Peter, first Baron King, MP, lawyer, and lord chancellor (1669–1734; i. 414; ODNB): 2149, 2404, 2405, 2437, 2448, 2455, 2462, 2466, 2468, (2495A), 2506, 2507, 2512, 2518, 2522, 2535, 2538, 2546, 2548, 2558, 2559, 2574, 2577, 2578, 2579, 2584, 2587A, 2620, 2634, 2643, 2649, 2650, 2656, 2660, 2669, 2670, 2674, 2676, 2678, 2711, 2722, 2723, 2756, 2773, 2777, 2783, 2788, 2790, 2797, 2800, 2806, 2810, 2815, 2818, 2819, 2823, 2825, 2831, 2839A, 2840, 2841, 2844, 2845, 2847, 2848, 2849, 2851, 2852, 2855, 2856, 2858, 2860, 2862, 2863, 2865, 2870, 2874, 2876, 2878, 2883, 2885, 2886, 2888, 2890, 2892, 2893, 2894, 2897, 2898, 2904, 2906, 2912, 2913, 2914, 2916, 2920, 2922, 2927, 2928, 2929, 2930, 2931, 2934, 2936, 2937, 2938, 2939, 2940, 2942, 2943, 2944, 2948, 2951, 2955, 2963, 2966, 2968, 2993, 2998, 3020, 3023, 3031, 3035, 3036, 3038, 3040, 3042, 3049, 3050, 3051, 3059, 3060, 3061, 3062, 3066, 3070, 3072, 3084, 3086, 3087, 3091, 3094, 3095, 3099, 3101, 3103, 3104, 3104A, 3105, 3107, 3108, 3109, 3111, 3116, 3126, 3127, 3131, 3134, 3135, 3142, 3147, 3149, 3151, 3156, 3157, 3159, 3161, 3163, 3180, 3183, 3186, 3201, 3205, 3209, 3212, 3213, 3216, 3217, 3219, 3221, 3225, 3228, 3235, 3239, 3241, 3242, 3246, 3252, 3256, 3267, 3269, 3272, 3275, 3276, 3282, 3284, 3285, 3289, 3291, 3292, 3294, 3296, 3300, 3305, 3307, 3308, 3312, 3314, 3329, 3337, 3340, 3348, 3349, 3353, 3355, 3357, 3360, 3364, 3365, 3367, (3368A), 3369, 3370, 3373, 3375, 3376, 3380, 3382, 3388, 3393, 3395, 3397, 3398, 3401, 3405, 3407, 3409, 3414, 3415, 3416, 3418, 3419, 3423, 3425, 3427, 3428, 3429, 3434, 3437, 3439, 3441, 3442, 3445, 3448, 3451, 3454, 3455, 3457, 3459, 3460, 3464, 3469, 3471, 3513, 3514, 3515, 3522, 3524, 3525, 3527, 3528, 3531, 3532, 3533, 3534, 3536, 3538, 3540, 3541, 3543, 3545, 3551, 3560, 3562, 3563, 3564, 3571, 3574, 3576, 3578, 3579, 3581, 3583, 3585, 3587, 3592, 3594, 3596, 3614, 3627, 3631, 3638, 3639, 3641, 3645, 3646, 3647, (3650), (3654) (28 November 1696–4 & 25 October 1704)

482

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Calendars: Locke’s correspondents King, Richard, CoE clergyman (vii. 222): 2843, 2846, 3322, 3328, 3333, 3339, 3346 (13 January [1701]–9 October [1703]) Kingdon, Captain Richard (i. 365): 262 (29 April 1672) Kiplin, Timothy, Sr (v. 707): (2134), 2171 (6 January 1697) Lane, Arthur, schoolmaster (vi. 756): 2647 (7 December 1699) Lane, Joseph, City of London officeholder (vi. 765): 2654 (9 January 1700) La Treille, R. de, tutor (iv. 395): 2284*, 2286 ([c.8? July 1697]–[c.18 July 1697]), in French Layton, Henry, theologian (1622–1705; vii. 634; ODNB): 3148 (8 June 1702) Le Clerc, Jean, theologian, philosopher, journalist (1657–1736; iii. 36; ODNB): 866, 1011, (1064), 1067, 1069, 1082, 1089, 1103, 1104, 1126, 1154, 1216, 1234, 1257, 1284, 1329, 1381, 1388, 1410, 1446, 1481A, 1486, 1511, 1525, 1541, 1570, 1600, 1621, 1623, 1637, 1641, 1653, (1656A), 1657, 1734, 1747, 1767, 1798, 1805, 1820, 1832, 1835, 1855, 1880, 1912, 1916, 1933, 1958, 1999, 2014, 2106, 2121, 2174, 2236, 2285, 2289, 2300, 2348, 2403, 2453, 2531, 2544, 2595, 2624, 2698, 2785, 2854, 2924, 3080, 3124, 3279, 3319, 3468, 3559 (22 September/2 October 1686–13/24 June 1704), in French36 Le Fèvre, Dr [Taneguy?], tutor (vii. 307): 2909, 3215 (27 April 1701–21 November [1702]), in French Liddell, Robert (v. 185): 1811, 2134 (10 November 1694–12 October 1696) Lilburne, Richard, colonial administrator (i. 406): 290, (290A), 298A, 300 ([6 August] 1674–12 August 1675) Limborch, Frans van (Francis), merchant (1676–1738; vi. 54): 2223, 2419, 2606, 2905, 2910, 2923, 3098, 3121, 3122, 3172, 3181, 3220, 3227, 3233, 3264, 3266, 3280, 3304, 3316, 3327, 3331, 3362, 3377, 3447, 3452, 3453, 3486, 3496, 3509, 3519, 3529, 3561, 3598, 3604, 3643 (16/26 March 1697–12 October 1704) Limborch, Philipp van, theologian (1633–1712; ii. 648): 792, (793), 798, 810, 824, 825, 831, 832, 833, 834, 835, 836, 838, 840, 841, 865, 868, 877, 879, 905, 912, 913, 926, 931, 938, 958, 959, 962, 963, 964, 965, 969, 979, 1023, 1033, 1034, 1051, 1054, 1058, 1070, 1090, 1092, 1093, 1100, 1101, 1106, 1107, 1120, 1122, 1127, 1131, 1131B, 1134, 1146, 1147, 1148, 1158, 1163, 1172, 1178, 1182, 1184, 1187, 1213, 1215, 1223, 1229, 1233, 1242, 1262, 1283, 1285, 1288, 1317, 1330, 1335, 1368, 1375, 1393, 1398, 1409, 1429, 1447, 1456, 1473, 1485, 1493, 1504, 1507, 1509, 1516, 1518, 1523, 1527, 1539, 1553, 1572, 1581, 1601, 1635, 1640, 1646, 1668, 1671, 1675, 1692, 1708, 1791, 1801, 1804, 1823, 1826, 1878, 1901, 1919, 2110, 2126, 2209, 2222, 2256, 2318, 2340*, 2352, 2395*, 2400, 2406, 2410, 2413, 2432, 2443*, 2460, 2482, 2485, 2494, 2498, 2516, 2557, 2596, 2605, 2615, 2618, 2621, 2631, 2653, 2724, 2742, 2795, 2857, 2866, 2881, 2921, 2925, 2935, 2953, 2979, 36  This series has been re-edited in Jean Le Clerc, Epistolario, eds. M. Grazia and M. Sina, 4 vols., 1987–97.

483

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Calendars: Locke’s correspondents 3010, 3043, 3055, 3128, 3130, 3170, 3192, 3200, 3352, 3557, 3602 (20/30 November [1684]–4 August 1704), in Latin Lloyd, Evan (vii. 589): 3115 (11 March 1702) Locke, George (v. 387): 1913 (1 June 1695) Locke, John, Sr, attorney (1606–61; i. 6): 3, 4, (7), (28), 29, 30, 43, 54, 59, 91, 95, (98), 110 (4 May 1652–20 December [1660?]) Lock(e), Sir John, merchant (d.1746; vi. 499): 2502, 2716, 3046, 3136, 3240 (27 October 1698–11 January1703) Locke, Peter, tanner and steward (1607–86; i. 288): 98A, 206, 211, 213, 293, 294, 296, 306, (403), 443, 511, 712, 733, 767 (16 August 1666–4 May 1683) Lock(e), Samuel, merchant (vi. 645): 2598, 2616, 2637, 2642, 2684, 2704, 2784*, 2842, 2873, 2917, 2961, (2961), 3194, 3281, 3403, 3476, 3629 (20 June 1699–16 September 1704) Locke, William (c.1605; ii. 520): 713, 735 (7 June 1682–2 October 1682) Lockhart, James (d.1718; vii. 6): 2672 (13 February 1700) Lockhart, Martha, courtier (iv. 122): (1310A), 1314, 1315, 1320, 1353, 1359, 1366, 1520, 1547, 1549, 1594, 1683, 1691, 1700, 1757, 1766, 1834, 1840, 1990, 2012, 2030, (2042), 2044, 2111, 2146, 2159, 2201, 2246, 2253, 2362, 2365, 2479B, 2517, 2541, 2671, 2682, 2696, (2710), 2715, 2721, 2744, 2751, 2782, 2828, 2941, 3000, 3053, 3056, 3089, 3096, 3189, 3190, 3550 ([1 September 1690]–30 May 1704) Lockhart, Robina: see Douglas Lowndes, William, civil servant (1652–1724; ix. 253; ODNB): 2063A (11 April 1696) Lukin, John, merchant (vii. 444): 3007, 3446 (27 September 1701–2 February 1704) Lyde, Cornelius, steward (c.1640–1717; iv. 653): (1612), 1738, 1944, 1947, 1948, 1959, 1960, 2008, 2008A, 2015, 2025, 2032, 2039, 2051, 2056, 2062, 2072, 2108, 2118A, 2125, 2142, 2153, 2155, 2157, 2162, 2167, 2176, 2205, 2208, 2226, 2230, 2290, 2293, 2295, 2302, 2307, 2313, 2332, 2372, 2382, 2390, 2449, 2456, 2463, 2479A, 2548A,37 2560, 2582, 2679, 2735, 2755, 3034, 3310, 3330, 3444, 3481, 3502 (16 May 1694–30 March 1704) Lye, Nathaniel, CoE clergyman (ix. 32): 272A (1 July 1673) Lynch, Sir Thomas, colonial governor (d.1684; ii. 397; ODNB): 634, 649, 671, 673, 719, 764 (25 April 1681–14 April 1683)   Maer, J., chemist (vii. 636): 3150, 3154 ([mid–June 1702?]–22 June [1702]) Maggs, John, tenant (i. 58): 41?, 42? ([late March 1658?]–[c.1 April 1658?]) Magnol, Pierre, botanist (1638–1715; i. 685): 449 ([c.28 February 1679]) Maitland, Isabella: see Elphinstone Mandey, Robert, steward (i. 189): 133, 142, 143 (30 June 1662–22 August 1662)

37  Image of verso available at www.bonhams.com/eur/auction/19386/lot/369/.

484

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Calendars: Locke’s correspondents Manners, Ann: see Howe Manners, Dorothy: see Cooper Manners, Frances, countess of Rutland (née Montagu) (1613–71; i. 321): 242, 245*, 246, 251, 252 (31 January 1670–10 March 1671) Manship, Samuel, bookseller (iv. 567): 1718 (10 March 1694); see also appx B7 Mapletoft, Dr John, physician and CoE clergyman (1631–1721; i. 338; ODNB): 243, 259, 260, 265, 269, 314, 339, 347, 348, 356, 358, 360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 368, 371, 417, 450 (10 July 1670–[c.1/11 March 1679]) Martine, Cousin [Gabriel?] (i. 27): 21 (11 August 1655) Marx, Frideric, tutor (vi. 248): 2344? (4/14 November 1697) Masham, Charles, CoE clergyman (d.1706; vii. 644): 3158 ([summer? 1702]) Masham, Damaris: see Cudworth Masham, Esther (‘Dab’, ‘Dib’, ‘Landabris’) (1675?–1722?; ii. 758): 1758, 1769, 1773, 1795, 1825, 1983, 2124, 2301, 2327, 2426, 2603, 2607, (2607A), 3003, 3028, (3652) (23 July 1694–[7 November 1701?]) Masham, Sir Francis, MP (c.1646–1723; v. 743): 2165 (24 December 1696) Masham, Francis Cudworth (‘Frank’, ‘Tetty’, ‘Totty’), lawyer (1686–1731; iii. 49): 1510, 1740, 1750, 2282, 2613 (1 July 1692–21 August 1699) Mauvillain, P[eter], calico printer (c.1668–1740; v. 554): 2026* (4 March 1696) Meara (O’Meara), Dr Edmund, physician (c.1614–81; i. 163; ODNB): 111 (2 January 1661) Molyneux, Sir Thomas, physician and natural philosopher (1661–1733; ii. 669; ODNB): 800, 1531, 1556*, 1578, 1593*, 1670, 2336*, 2500*, 2514, 2539*, 2589, 2666 ([22 December 1684/1 January 1685?]–29 January 1700) Molyneux, William, natural philosopher and political writer (1656–98; iii. 482, iv. 478; ODNB): (1064), 1284A, 1515*, 1530, 1538*, 1544, (1544), 1579, 1583*, 1592*, 1609, 1620*, 1622, 1643*, 1652, 1655*, 1661, 1685, 1693*, 1712, 1744*, 1748, 1753*, 1763, 1781*, 1797, 1817*, 1829, 1838, 1857*, 1867, 1887*, 1896, 1921*, 1936, 1945, 1965*, 1966*, 1984, 2038, 2050, 2059*, 2100, 2115*, 2129*, 2131, 2170*, 2189, 2202*, 2221, 2240, 2243, 2254*, 2262, 2269, 2277*, 2288, 2310*, 2311, 2324, 2331, (2331), 2339, (2339), 2360, 2376*, 2407, 2414*, 2422, 2471*, 2490, 2492* (17 April 1690–29 September 1698) Monmouth, earl and countess of: see Mordaunt Montagu, Frances: see Manners Mordaunt, Carey, Viscountess Mordaunt, countess of Monmouth, countess of Peterborough (née Frazier) (c.1658–1709; iii. 527): 1094, 1099, 1397, 1488, 2320, 3475 (22 December [1688]/1 January [1689]–28 February 1704) Mordaunt, Charles, second Viscount Mordaunt, earl of Monmouth, third earl of Peterborough, politician and army officer (1658?–1735; iii. 573; ODNB): 1116, 1150, (1208A), 1252, 1411, 1535, 1540, 1568, 1619, 1788, 1977, (2130A), (2152A), 2297, 2306, 3230, 3244 (21 February 1689–27 January 1703)

485

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Calendars: Locke’s correspondents Neile, Sir Paul, astronomer and courtier (1613–1686; i. 300; ODNB): 216, 628? (1 December 1666–22 February 1681) Nelson, John, colonial merchant and politician (1653?–1734; vi. 263; ODNB): 2396 (23 February 1698) Nelson, Robert, philanthropist, religious writer, Nonjuror (1656–1715; ii. 324; ODNB): 602 (18/28 December 1680) Newton, Sir Isaac, mathematician and natural philosopher (1642–1727; iv. 155; ODNB): 1252A, 1332, 1338*, 1357, 1405, 1437*, 1457, 1465, 1499, 1509A, 1513, 1517, 1519, 1659, 1663, 1664, (2488), 3287 (February/March 1690–15 May 1703) Nicholson, Francis, army officer and colonial governor (1655–1728; vi. 74; ODNB): 2237, 2446?, (2450A), 2543, 2622 (30 March 1697–10 October 1699) Norris, John, CoE clergyman and philosopher (1657–1712; iv. 443; ODNB): 1492, 1505, 1564, 1575, 1595, 1606 (14 April [1692]–27 February [1693]) Nye, Stephen, CoE clergyman and theologian (1647/8–1719; ix. 207; ODNB): (1906*), 1960A? ([c.October] 1695) Offley, Joseph (vi. 439): 2465 (28 June 1698) Old, Richard, CoE clergyman (d.1692; ii. 314): 599, 746, 749, 1352, 1361 (12 December 1680–14 February 1691) Oldenburg, Henry, scientific correspondent (c.1619–77; i. 423; ODNB): 299 (20 May 1675) O’Meara: see Meara Osborne, Edward (ix. 41): 280D (1673) Osborne, Sir Thomas, Lord Osborne, earl of Danby, marquis of Carmarthen, duke of Leeds, politician (1632–1712; ix. 35; ODNB): 280A, (317A) (25 October 1673) Owen, Sir Hugh, MP (c.1645–99; v. 416): 1930 (13 August 1695) Owen, William, CoE clergyman (c.1618–72; i. 216): 164 (26 December 1663) Oxenden, Sir James, MP (c.1641–1708; vii. 266): 2880 (19 March 1701)   Papillon, Thomas, MP, merchant, and politician (1623–1702; iii. 125; ODNB): 904* (2/12 February 1687) Parry, Elinor, later Mrs Hawkshaw (‘PE’, ‘Berelisa’, ‘Scribelia’) (d.1690; i. 68): 48?, 69?, 70?, 72?, 74?, 79?, 80?, 87?, 89?, 112?, 119?, 120?, 121?, 122?, 185?, 193?, 214?, 220?, 222?, 225?, 232?, 1152, 1156, 1176, 1177, 1185, 1199, 1205, 1209, 1211, 1250, 1264, 1304 ([c.16 February 1659?]–10 July 1690) Parry, John, bishop of Ossory (d.1677; i. 69; ODNB): 217, 219 (2 December 1666–[c.15 December 1666]) Paschal, John, civil servant (v. 26; vii. 583): 3110 (5 March 1702) Passebon, -?-, tutor (iii. 711): 1196, 1232, 1265, 1496 (22 October 1689–21 April 1692), in French

486

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Calendars: Locke’s correspondents Patrick, John, barometer maker (fl.1686–1720; vii. 430): 2992, 3002, 3037 ([c.1 September 1701–13 November 1701]) Paul, [Dr Louis?], physician (iv. 362): 1449, 2991 (15 January 1692–30 August 1701) Pawling, Robert, merchant and civil servant (iv. 208): 1365, 1372, 1385, 1395, 1444, 1450, 1466, 1487, 1528, 1529, (1548), 1559, 1573, 1574, 1582, 1588, 1610, 1615, 1617, 1649, 1651, 1654, 1658, 1694, 1699, 1715, 1720, 1729, 1760, 1772, 1904, 1987, 1995, 1996, 2003, 2007, 2013, 2019, 2037, 2521, 2688, 2701, 2760, 2807, 2813, 2896, 2911, 2954, 2957, 2958, 2970, 2976, 2989, 2994, 2997, 3014, 3027, 3039, 3166, 3236, 3247, 3332, 3336, 3588, 3593 (25 February 1691–20 July 1704) Pembroke, earl of: see Herbert Pepys, Samuel, naval official, virtuoso, diarist (1633–1703; i. 465; ODNB): 405*, (405A), (410A), (1251A) (29 August 1678) Percivall, Andrew, colonial administrator (d.c.1695; i. 456): 317, 729 (10 August 1676–22 August 1682) Percivall, George (i. 152): 102, 109, 126, 134, 135, 201 (29 August 1660–27 June 1666) Perrott, Charles (1627?–77; i. 289): 207 (21 August 1666) Peterborough, earl and countess of: see Mordaunt Pickering, John, barrister (1645–1703; i. 200): 700 (23 April 1682) Pickering, Robert, barrister (b.1619; i. 200): 144 (19 September 1662) Pilliod, -?-, tutor (vii. 394): 2974 (5 August 1701), in French Pitt, Dr Robert, physician (1653–1713; vii. 424; ODNB): 2987, 3006, 3016, 3024, 3045, 3057, 3064, 3077, 3350, 3359, 3363, 3378, 3399, 3408, 3433, 3582, 3586, 3606 (23 August 1701–9 August 1704) Pococke, Dr Edward, Sr, CoE clergyman and orientalist (1604–91; i. 256; ODNB): 161A, 542 (4 October 1663–29 May 1680) Pococke, Edward, Jr, CoE clergyman and orientalist (1648–1726; ii. 185): 1267 (18 March 1690) Popham, Alexander (‘PA’), MP, Parliamentarian army officer, and politician (1604/5–69; i. 10; ODNB): 6?, 8?, 96? ([May 1652?]–[c.April 1660?]) Popple, Mrs Mary (née Alured) (iii. 623): 1630, 1698, 2513, 2526 (18 May 1693– [c.28 December 1698]) Popple, William, Sr, author and civil servant (1638–1708; iii. 623; ODNB): 1567, 1590, 1608, 1630, 1698, 1704, (1906*), 1986, 2002, 2036, 2041, (2488), 2503, 2592, 2593, 2651, 2656A, 2708, 2714, 2740, 2821, 2868, 2877, 2967, 2971, 2985, 2999, 3011, 3085, 3088A*, 3173, 3179 (12 November 1692–15 August 1702) Popple, William, Jr, civil servant (1665/6–1722; vii. 656): 3169, 3621 (24 July 1702–29 August 1704) Pound, Dr James, CoE clergyman and astronomer (1669–1724; vi. 738; ODNB): 2638 (1 December [1699])

487

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Calendars: Locke’s correspondents Powell, Charles (i. 219): 167 (29 April 1664) Powell, Mary: see Huntington [Powell, -?- (v. 437): 1943 (10 September 1695)]38 Powys, Sir Littleton, barrister and judge (1647–1732; v. 523; ODNB): 2005 (21 January 1696) Prettyman, William (d.1688; i. 372): 266 (11 December 1672) Price, (Mrs) Ellice (i. 203): 149? (21 October 1662) Prideaux, Dr Humphrey, CoE clergyman and orientalist (1648–1724; ii. 554; ODNB): 2117 (5 August 1696); see also appx A1–A4, A10, A13 Proast, Jonas, CoE clergyman and theologian (c.1642–1710; iv. 145; ODNB): 3599 (28 July 1704) Raulin, Fr Francis, Jesuit priest (i. 270): 194? (17/27 April 1666), in Latin Read, John (ix. 10): 174A ([Autumn 1665?]) Renaudot, Abbé Eusèbe, Jesuit priest, orientalist, and journalist (1646–1720; ii. 43): 480, 493 (29 June/9 July [1679]–17/27 August [1679]), in French Reneu (Ranue), Hilary, merchant (vi. 309): 2385 (28 January 1698) Richards, John (i. 396): 280, (664), 675 (23 October 1673–22 December 1681) Robinson, Captain Thomas, seaman (iv. 531): 1543* (15 October 1692) Roderick, Richard, CoE clergyman (c.1648–1730; ii. 438): 657 (5 September [1681]) Rømer, Ole (Olaus Roemer), astronomer (1644–1710; ii. 3): (463), 483, 499, (569) (9/19 July 1679–5/15 September 1679), in Latin Ross, Dr Thomas, physician (v. 149): 1793? (25 September 1694) Rousseau, Jean–Baptiste (M. de Vernietes), poet (1671–1741; vi. 556): 2542 (31 January [1699]), in French Rumney, Edmund (v. 698): 2128, 2875, 3090, 3196 (7 September 1696–8 October [1702]) Rush, Isaac, colonial administrator (i. 385): 274, 291*, 301 (15 July 1673–19 August 1675) Rushout, Sir James (c.1644–98; i. 652): 1514 (9 July 1692) Rutland, Countess of: see Manners St John, Mrs Frances (née Compton) (iv. 661): 1806, 2370, 2524, 2551, 2675, 3140 (28 October [1694]–29 May [1702]) St John, Lady Johanna (née St John) (d.1704; iv. 670): 1624, 1627 (28 April [1693]–9 May [1693]) Samuell, William, joiner (ix. 49): 297A (28 November 1674) Schard ([Scardius]), J., physician? (i. 277): 198 (10/20 May 1666), in Latin Schelte, Hendrik, bookseller (ix. 331): 2650B ([early 1700?]) Schlappritzi, Jakob: see Selapris 38  No. 1943 is from Edward Clarke to Powell, but composed by Locke.

488

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Calendars: Locke’s correspondents Seamer (Seymour), James, goldsmith-­banker (c.1657–1739; v. 468): 3344, 3354, 3368 (7 October 1703–4 November 1703) Selapris (Schlappritzi), Jacques, goldsmith-­banker (d.1681; i. 480): 332, 419, (419A), 423, 427, 436, 438, 440, 446, 451, 457, 507, 519, 522 (nos. (419A), 438, 446, 507 are signed also by J.  Horutener) (4/14 April 1677–27 December 1679/6 January 1680), in French Sergeant, Fr John, Catholic priest and philosopher (1623–1707; v. 635; ODNB): 2085 (10 May 1696) Seymour, James: see Seamer Shaftesbury, earl and countesses of: see Cooper Shower, John, Presbyterian clergyman (1657–1715; iii. 497; ODNB): 1073 ([17/27? August 1688]) Shute (Barrington), John, first Viscount Barrington, MP, politician, and ­religious writer (1678–1734; vii. 352; ODNB): 2945, 3074, 3374, 3394, 3553 (27 June 1701–2 June 1704) Sibelius (Sibley), Dr Caspar, physician (1646–96; ii. 633): 785, (785), 852, 858, 961, 1489 (4/14 October 1684–5 April 1692), in Latin and French Slade (Sladus), Dr Matthew (Mattheus), physician (1628–89; ii. 655; ODNB): (794), 1207, 1210, 1217, 1218 (24 [November?] 1689–8 December 1689), in Latin Sloane, Sir Hans, physician, collector, scientific correspondent (1660–1753; ii. 642; ODNB): 1775*, 1785, 2160, 2219, 2224, 2227, 2296, 2496, 2640, 2833, 2838, 2956, 2984, 2986, 3458, 3466, 3473, 3489 (25 August 1694–15 March 1704) Smith, Humfry, CoE clergyman (viii. 17): 3303, 3321, 3494 ([19 June 1703?]–17 March 1704) Smith, Samuel, bookseller (1658–1707; iii. 236; ODNB): 1632 (31 May 1693) Smithsby, Rabsy, housekeeper (ii. 601): 3277, 3320, 3517, 3610, 3616, 3630, 3634 (3 May 1703–26 September 1704) Somers, (Sir) John, Baron Somers, MP, lawyer, politician, lord chancellor (1651–1716; iii. 113; ODNB): 1186, 1255, 1428A, 1946, 1949, 1964, 1975A, 1979, 2172, 2181, 2186, 2338, 2379A, 2384 (25 September [1689]–28 January 1698) South, Dr Robert, CoE clergyman and theologian (1634–1716; i. 153; ODNB): 2229, 2314, 2597, 2645, 3591 (25 March 1697–18 July 1704) Sowter, John, merchant (viii. 256): 3499 (25 March 1704) Spencer, Margaret: see Cooper Spens, George (ii. 28): 474 (28 May/7 June 1679) Spranger, Edward, attorney (vii. 745): 3251, 3356, 3417, 3420, 3440, (3440) (11 February 1703–29 January 1704) Spreat, John, steward (iv. 43; ix. 391): 1271, (3649) (23 March 1690) Stanley, John [Sir John?], civil servant ([c.1633–1744], iii. 426): 1036 (29 March/8 April 1688)

489

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Calendars: Locke’s correspondents Strachey, John (1634–75; i. 54): 38, 47, 49, 50, 55, (98*), 103, 107, 117, 125, 128, 130, 131, 132, 151, 163, 177, 180, 182, 184, 186, 187, 188, 189?, 191, 208, 215, 226, 261, 264, 276, 284, 286 (23 January 1658–10 February 1674) Stratton, Mrs Elizabeth (née Grigg) (ii. 206) (several with William Stratton): 550, 568, 614, 630, 681, 1957, 1963, 2010, 2020, 2081, 2097, 2137, 2152, 2177, 2203, 2247, 2265, 2283, 2316, 2625 (28 June 1680–14 October 1699) Stratton, Peter, mercer (iii. 107): 1941, 2132, 2138, 2158, 2187, 2343, 2354, 2530, (3650) (7 September 1695–2 January 1699) Stratton, William, tanner, steward (d. 1695; ii. 186) (several with Elizabeth Stratton): 543, 550, 565A, 568, 583, 614, 630, 641, 654, 681, 741, 755, 767, 769A, 769B, 848, 895, 922, 952, 1129, 1204, 1208, 1246, 1258, 1275, 1282, 1296, 1297, 1343, 1419, 1426, 1427, 1448, 1484, 1537, 1558, 1561, 1603, 1669, 1680, (1680A), 1701, 1705, 1812, 1822, 1864, 1871, 1890 (30 May 1680–29 April 1695) Stringer, Mrs Jane (née Barbon) (c.1654–1740; i. 434): 618, 697, 748, 1165, 1166, 1171, 1171A, 1173, 1192, 2829 (5 February 1681–18 December [1700]) Stringer, Thomas, steward (i. 434): 304A, 307*, 308, 309, 311, 312, 315, 333, 344, 351, 354, 355, 378, 389, (403), 418A, 430, 529, 618, 624, 631, 653, 753?, 754, (848A), (1028), 1038, 1045, 1046, 1542, 1545, 1551, 1563 (11 November 1675–9 November 1692) Stubbe (Stubbes), Henry (‘SH’), author and physician (1632–76; i. 109; ODNB): 75 ([mid-­Sept? 1659]) Sydenham, Dr Thomas, physician (1624–89; i. 325; ODNB): 295, 337, (363), 398, 496, 500 ([about November 1674?]–6 September 1679) Symes, Thomas, barrister (i. 48): 34?, 67? ([c.July 1657?]–[August 1659?]) Tatam, John, CoE clergyman (d.1733; vi. 414): 2451 (3 June 1698) Tenison, Dr Thomas, archbishop of Canterbury (1636–1715; v. 246; ODNB): 2011, 2021*, 2023, 2029, 2031, 2363, 2378, (2596A) (10 February 1696–15 January 1698) Thanet, earl of: see Tufton Thévenot, Melchisédech, librarian and scholar (c.1620–92; i. 631): 562 (14/24 August [1680]) Thiery, Louis (i. 15): 11 ([autumn 1653?]), in Greek Thomas, Dr David, physician (c.1634–94; i. 283): 203, 204, 212, 227, 229, 237, 238, 278, 345, 514, 516, 567, 572, 575, 584, 601, 604, 607, 612, 617, 622, 646, 650, 678, 680, 702, 711, 723, 725, 769, 878?, 888, 946, 982, (1019), (1027), 1042, 1049, 1063, 1068, 1075, 1084, 1138, 1145, 1153, 1155, 1188, 1198, 1206, 1219, 1222, 1249, 1259, 1272, 1274, 1278, 1280, 1291, 1300, 1316, 1323, 1324, 1333, 1342, 1380, 1428, 1463, 1498, 1569, 1587, 1673, 1679, 1681 (9 July 1666–11 December 1693) Thomas, Mrs Honor (née Greenhill) (‘Parthenice’) (i. 324): 1790, 1815, 1861 (22 September 1694–12 March 1695) Thomas, Jeremy (vi. 256): 2350 (11 November 1697)

490

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Calendars: Locke’s correspondents Thomas, Samuel, CoE clergyman and Nonjuror (1626/7–93; i. 430; ODNB): 304, 439, 523, 708 (11 November 1675–10 May 1682) Thomas, William, physician (i. 500): 1495, 1629, 1677, 1688, 1695, 1731, 1733, 1735, 1861, 1873, 1910, 1924, 1928, 1937, 2452, 2457, 2547, 2561, 2563 (16 April 1692–16 March 1699) Thompson, Sir John, first Baron Haversham, MP, politician (1648–1710; vii. 401; ODNB): 2978, 3029 ([9? August 1701]–7 November 1701) Thompson, Mary: see Calverley Thornehill, F. (ii. 560): 743 (11 November 1682) Thornhill, Henry (d.1689?; i. 478): 509 (26 October 1679) Thoynard, Nicolas: see Toinard Tilly, Samuel, CoE clergyman (i. 28): 22?, 23, 24, 35?, 36?, (123), 127, 129 ([early September 1655?]–7 March [1662?]) Tilson, Christopher, MP and civil servant (d.1742; v. 468): 1970, 1975, 2045, 2199, 2212, 2272, 2325, 2333, 2334, 2357, 2720, 3143, 3144, 3160, 3162 (29 November 1695–7 July 1702) Tindal, Dr Matthew, lawyer and political and religious writer (1657–1733; v. 749; ODNB): 2173, 3008 (10 January 1697–28 September 1701) Toinard (Thoynard), Nicolas, biblical scholar and virtuoso (1628?–1706; i. 579): 388, 390, 390A, 392, 393, 394, 399*, 402, 418, 420, 424, 428, 432, 466, 467, 469, 470, 473, 475, 477, 481, 484, 485, 489, 492, 495, 497, 501, 502, 505, 508, 510, 517, 520, 525, 536, 538, 541, 545, 546, 547, 549, 551, 552, 556, 557, 560, 562, (562), 563, 565, 566, 569, (569), 570, 571, 573, 577, 579, 580, 581, 585, 587, 589, 592, 593, 594, 595, 596, 597, 600, 605, 608, 609, 610, 611, 619, 623, 626, 629, 633, 637, 638, 640, 642, 648, 655, 656, 659, 660, 661, 662, 665, 666, 669, 672, 674, 679, 686, 716, 717, 721, 778, 781, 783, 789, 790, 796, 802, 811, 811A, 812, 814, 818, 818A, 850, 853, 853A, 862, 884, 910, 916, 919, 923, 945, 971, 1031, 1043, 1062, 1071, 1072, 1076, 1081, 1087, 1088, 1097, 1109, 1113, 1119, 1136, 1180, 1181, 1224, 1231, 1235, 1293, 1294, 1295, 1777, 1782, 1796, 1808, 1818, 1828, 2337, 2355, 2373, 2375, 2393, 2411, 2412, 2442, 2444, 2450, 2454, 2458, 2470, 2473*, 2476, 2483, 2497, 2504*, 2550, 2571, 2580, 2644, 2673, 2693, 2699, 2707, 2717*, 2725, 2726, 2727, 2728, 2729, 2730, 2731, 2732, 2734, 2736, 2737, 2739, 2741, 2750, 2757, 2830, 2836, 2903, 2983, 3009, 3019, 3132, 3584 (29 June/9 July [1678]–9/20 July 1704), in French Towerson, Gabriel, CoE clergyman (1635–97; i. 155; ODNB): 104, 106, 108*?, 115, 118 (23 October 1660–9 April 1661) Townshend, Henry (i. 195): 138, 141, 145, 155* (29 July 1662–4 February 1663) Treby, Sir George, MP, judge, politician (1643–1700; vi. 400; ODNB): 2440 (17 May 1698) Trotter, Catharine (Mrs Cockburn), playwright and philosopher (1674?– 1749; vii. 638; ODNB): 3059A, (3086A), 3234* ([c.December 1701–30 December 1702)

491

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Calendars: Locke’s correspondents Trumbull, Sir William, MP, lawyer, diplomat, politician (1639–1716; v. 80; ODNB): 1754, 1898, 1927, 1929, 1953, 1980, 2091, 2093 (30 June 1694–22 May 1696) Tufton, Thomas, sixth earl of Thanet, MP (1644–1729; i. 652): 429, 448, 454, 530, 591 (7/17 December 1678–9/19 November 1680) Tyrrell, James, political theorist and historian (‘Musidore’) (1642–1719; i. 495; ODNB): 343, 554, 590, 645, 715, 750, 768, 775, 842, 889, 911, 932, (936A), 957, 973, 985, 1015, (1019), (1027), 1225, 1226, 1227, (1228), 1236, 1239, 1248, 1256, 1266, 1273, (1276A), 1277, (1280A), (1281), 1301, 1307, 1309, 1312, 1378, 1394, 1403, 1420, 1424, 1430, 1461, 1464, 1477, 1522, 1589, 1665, 1721, 1800, 1803, 1842, 1859, 1885, 1895, 2053, 2098, 2933, 2975, 3071, 3076, 3167, 3195, 3253, 3263, 3283, 3324, 3358, 3392, 3477, 3511, 3575, 3607 ([c.3 July 1677]–10 August [1704]) Uvedale, William (i. 74): 51, 52?, 57, 61, 73, 85, 105, 158 ([mid-­March 1659?]–29 April 1663) Veen, Cornelia: see Guenellon Veen, Dr Egbertus, physician (1630–1709?; ii. 739): 1117, 1124, 1159, 1358, 1454, 2402 (8 March 1689–5/15 March 1698), in Latin Veen, Mevr. Maria (née Arminius) (1638–90; ii. 739): 1160* (15/25 July 1689), in Dutch Verduin, Pieter, surgeon (c.1625–c.1700; iii. 498): 2118 (6/16 August 1696), in Latin Vernietes, M. de: see Rousseau Verrijn, Gisbert, translator (iii. 686): 1319, 1339, 1391, 1508, 1875 (13/23 September [1690]–9/19 April 1695), in Latin Verrijn, Jo(h)annes, Remonstrant clergyman (d.1698; iii. 45): 1108 (6/16 February 1689), in Latin Vincent, -?-, tutor (iii. 627): 1143, 1144 ([late May 1689?]–[c.29 May 1689]), in French Vincent, R. (iv. 70): 1289 (10 May 1690) Walls, George, CoE clergyman (c.1645–1727; i. 613): 409, 422, 459, 540, 603, 616, 667, 738, 742, 745, 1132, 1175, 1197, 1761, 2397 (21 September 1678–24 February 1698)39 Walter, Charles (vi. 539): 2529 ([ January 1699]) Ward, Isaiah, physician (c.1629–74?; i. 63): 44, 68 (14 September [1658?]– [August 1659?]) Warren, William (vi. 141): 2276 (12 June 1697) 39  For de Beer’s confusion of George Wall and George Walls, see J. R. Milton, ‘John Locke, George Wall and George Walls: A Problem of Identity’, Locke Newsletter, 22 (1991), 81–91.

492

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Calendars: Locke’s correspondents Watkins, Thomas, administrator (vi. 436): 2461 (23 June 1698) Weaver, Thomas, colonial administrator (vi. 725): 2630 (25 October 1699) West, Joseph, army officer and colonial governor (d.1691; i. 382; ODNB): 272, 318 (28 June 1673–4 September 1676) Westrowe, Thomas (‘Tom’) (i. 122): 81?, 82?, 99, 100?, 139 (20 October 1659– 30 July [1662?]) Wetstein, ( Johan) Hendrik, bookseller (1649–1726; ii. 618): 917, 1060A, 1237 (=1353A), 1831, (1999), 2035, 2103, (2330), 2527A ([c.10/20 March 1687?]– [1698]), in French Wheelock, John, servant and steward (iv. 451): 1500, 1503, 1642, (1998), 3491 (10 May 1692–15 March 1704) Whitby, Dr Daniel, CoE clergyman and theologian (1637/8–1726; vi. 545; ODNB): 2533, 2536, 3188, 3203 (11 January 1699–28 October 1702) William III, King (1650–1702; ODNB): 1209A, 1251B ([c.November 1689]– [c.February 1690]) Williamson, George, CoE clergyman (c.1599–1685; i. 209): 157 (17 April 1663) Williamson, Sir Joseph, MP, politician (1633–1701; i. 256; ODNB): 183 (16/26 January 1666) Williamson, Richard (i. 212): 159 (29 April 1663) Willis, Sir Thomas (c.1614–1701; vi. 463): 2484, (2816A) (2 September 1698) Woodward, Dr Henry, surgeon and explorer (i. 431): 305 (12 November 1675) Woodward, Dr John, physician and natural philosopher (1665/8–1728; v. 506; ODNB): 1994, 2394 (6 January 1696–14 February 1698) Wynne, John, bishop of St Asaph, and of Bath and Wells (1665/6–1743; v. 260; ODNB): 1843, 1846, 1850, 1869, 1878A, 1884, 1915, 2166, 2180, 2190, 2303, 2330, (2330), 2366, 2386, 2472 (31 January [1695]–[ July 1698]) Yonge, Elizabeth (Mrs Beale) (b.1663; iii. 16): 857, 1334, 1337, 1349, 1362 (31 July/10 August 1686–14 February [1691]) Yonge, Isabella: see Duke Yonge, Sir Walter, MP, politician (1653–1731; iii. 5; ODNB): 851, (852A), 854, 857, 876, 893, 902, 915, 925, 933, 939, 944, 960, 977, 990, 1014, 1052, 1401, 2358, 2383, 2388, 2409, 2681, 3413, 3492 (29 May/8 June 1686–15 March 1704)

Most frequent correspondents A total of 389 identifiable people are known to have surviving cor­res­pond­ence with Locke.40 The size of the exchanges range from a single letter to 384 letters 40  The data relates to all those listed in the calendar of correspondents above and excludes third-party correspondents. The total also excludes two sets of government commissioners.

493

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Calendars: Locke’s correspondents in the case of Edward Clarke (though many in the Clarke series are ‘College’ letters, written jointly to or by Clarke and John Freke). Five people account for one-­third of the total surviving correspondence, fifteen people for one-­ half, and thirty-­three for two-­thirds. In the case of Locke’s side of the correspondence, the concentration is even greater: there are fourteen recipients who account for three-­quarters of Locke’s surviving letters. (i)  Most frequent correspondents (twenty or more letters by or to Locke) Clarke/Freke Peter King Nicolas Toinard Philipp van Limborch Benjamin Furly John Bonville Awnsham Churchill Jean Le Clerc David Thomas Peter Guenellon William Molyneux Anthony Collins James Tyrrell Robert Pawling Cornelius Lyde Martha Lockhart Damaris Cudworth William Stratton

384 305 203 165 111 81 80 72 71 68 68 67 66 64 56 50 48 47

Sir John Banks William Charleton Mary Clarke Francis Limborch Isabella Duke Elinor Parry John Strachey Third earl of Shaftesbury Anne Grigg William Popple Thomas Stringer Denis Grenville Walter Yonge Elizabeth Berkeley Henri Justel John Mapletoft Elizabeth Stratton

42 39 36 35 33 33 32 30 30 30 30 26 24 20 20 20 20

(ii)  Most frequent recipients of letters from Locke (ten or more) Clarke/Freke Peter King Philipp van Limborch Nicolas Toinard Anthony Collins William Molyneux Mary Clarke Cornelius Lyde

252 216 83 74 37 29 28 27

Benjamin Furly Elinor Parry John Strachey John Mapletoft Esther Masham Robert Boyle Hans Sloane

494

17 14 14 13 12 11 11

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Calendars: Locke’s correspondents (iii)  Most frequent senders of letters to Locke (twenty or more) Clarke/Freke Nicolas Toinard Benjamin Furly Peter King John Bonville Philipp van Limborch David Thomas Awnsham Churchill Peter Guenellon Jean Le Clerc James Tyrrell Robert Pawling Martha Lockhart Damaris Cudworth William Stratton

132 129 94 89 82 82 71 71 68 67 64 64 50 46 42

William Molyneux Sir John Banks Francis Limborch Isabella Duke William Charleton Anthony Collins William Popple Anne Grigg Cornelius Lyde Thomas Stringer Third earl of Shaftesbury Walter Yonge Denis Grenville Henri Justel

39 38 35 33 31 30 29 29 29 25 25 24 21 20

Status of correspondents The lists below indicate the profession or status of Locke’s correspondents. Several caveats apply. Ascription of status is necessarily inexact; categories are sometimes ill-­defined and potentially anachronistic. Not every identification of status is certain. Some people appear in more than one category. Women are listed only under their gender; they could be categorized in other ways. A person’s given status (e.g. as a peer, MP, or clergyman) does not necessarily apply to the period of their life when they engaged in correspondence with Locke. Forenames are given where disambiguation is needed. Of Locke’s 389 known correspondents, 127 have entries in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Several did not appear in its Victorian forebear but are included in the new ODNB, published in 2004: William Aglionby, Elizabeth Berkeley, Edward Clarke, Mary Clarke, Andrew Crooke, Sir Stephen Evance, John Freke, Mercurius van Helmont, Jean Le Clerc, Carey Mordaunt, Sir Paul Neile, Jonas Proast, Samuel Smith, and Walter Yonge. Of the 127, five are women: Elizabeth Berkeley, Mary Clarke, Damaris Masham, Carey Mordaunt, and Catharine Trotter. Women Alford, A[nne?] Beavis, Margaret Beavis, Berkeley, Blomer, Brounower, Brunyer, Burges, Calverley, Elizabeth Clarke, Mary Clarke, Dorothy Ashley Cooper, Margaret Ashley Cooper, Cudworth, Cutts, Dare, Douglas, Elizabeth

495

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Calendars: Locke’s correspondents Duke, Isabella Duke, Edwards, Elphinstone, Evelegh, Eyre, Grigg, Guenellon, Guise, Howe, Huntington, Jepp, Lockhart, Manners, Masham, Mordaunt, Parry, Popple, Price, Frances St John, Johanna St John, Smithsby, Stratton, Stringer, Thomas, Trotter, Veen, Yonge. Peers (those asterisked had also been Members of the Commons and are listed again below) Bennet (Arlington), Berkeley (1st earl), Berkeley (2nd earl)*, Cooper (first earl of Shaftesbury)*, Cooper (second earl of Shaftesbury), Cooper (third earl of Shaftesbury)*, Coote (Bellomont)*, Hamilton (Abercorn), Harley (Oxford)*, Herbert (Pembroke)*, King*, Mordaunt (Monmouth, later Peterborough), Thomas Osborne (earl of Danby), Shute (Barrington)*, Somers*, Thompson (Haversham)*, Tufton (Thanet). Members of Parliament Alford, Banks, Bennet, Charles Berkeley, Brockman, Awnsham Churchill, Edward Clarke, Clayton, Colleton, Conyers, Cooper (later first earl of Shaftesbury), Cooper (later second earl of Shaftesbury), Cooper (later third earl of Shaftesbury), Duke, Evance, Robert Eyre, Andrew Fletcher (Scottish parliament), Godolphin, Greenhill, Gwyn, Edward Harley, Robert Harley, Herbert, Honywood, Jacob, Johnstoun (Scottish parliament), King, Lowndes, Francis Masham, William Molyneux (Irish parliament), Newton, Thomas Osborne, Hugh Owen, Papillon, Pepys, Popham, Shute, Somers, Thompson, Tilson, Treby, Trumbull, Joseph Williamson, Yonge. Fellows of the Royal Society Aglionby, Aubrey, Banks, George Berkeley, Bernard, Boyle, Chardin, Colleton, Cooper (first earl of Shaftesbury), Coste, Coxe Sr, Dickinson, Fatio de Duillier, Evelyn, Firmin, Geekie, Godolphin, Edward Harley, Robert Harley, Herbert, Hill, Hooke, Justel, Mapletoft, Thomas Molyneux, William Molyneux, Neile, Robert Nelson, Newton, Oldenburg, Paul, Pepys, Pitt, Pound, Sloane, Somers, Trumbull, Joseph Williamson. Physicians Aglionby, Bouhéreau, Boulton, Briolay de Beaupreau, Brouchier, Broune, Burthogge, Coker, Cole, Coxe Sr, Dickinson, Geekie, Claude Gendron, Goodall, Guenellon, Guide, Hutton, Ivye, Jacob, Le Fèvre, Magnol, Mapletoft, Meara, Thomas Molyneux, Paul, Pitt, Read, Ross, Schard, Sibelius, Sladus, Sloane, Stubbe, Sydenham, David Thomas, William Thomas, Veen, Verduin, Gisbert Verrijn, Ward, Henry Woodward, John Woodward.

496

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Calendars: Locke’s correspondents Lawyers (asterisks indicate those known to have been called to the bar) Beresford, Burridge, Carr (judge), Edward Clarke*, Cockshutt, Conyers*, Cunningham, Robert Eyre (judge), Samuel Eyre (judge), John Freke*, Glanville*, Greve, Gwyn*, Hatrell, Hildesley, Hoskins, Peter King* (lord chancellor), John Locke Sr, Francis Masham*, Francis Cudworth Masham*, George Percivall, John Pickering*, Robert Pickering*, Powys (judge), Somers* (Lord Chancellor), Spranger, Strachey*, Symes*, Tindal, Treby (judge), Trumbull, Westrowe. Merchants, financiers Banks, Cary, Charles Cudworth, Paul D’Aranda, Evance, Firmin, John Freke the stockjobber, Benjamin Furly, Benjohan Furly, Heathcote, James Hodges, Horutener, Joseph Lane, Liddell, Francis Limborch, John Lock, Samuel Locke, Papillon, Paschal, Pawling, Popple Sr, Reneu, Seamer, Selapris, Sowter. Public officials Allestree, William Barker, Bonville Jr, Brooke Bridges, Cooper (first earl of Shaftesbury), Coote, Gray, Hill, Kingdon, Paschal, Pawling, George Percivall, Perrott, Popple Sr, Popple Jr, Prettyman, Richards, Stanley, Watkins. Among MPs: Clarke, Godolphin, Greenhill, Gwyn, Honywood, Lowndes, Newton, Pepys, Tilson, Trumbull, Joseph Williamson, Yonge. Colonial governors, administrators, proprietors Blair, Colleton, Cooper (first earl of Shaftesbury), Coote, Lilburne, Lynch, Nelson, Nicholson, Andrew Percivall, Rush, Weaver, West. Tutors, secretaries, stewards of estates Barker (secretary), Brounower (secretary), Cheney (tutor), Cheswell (steward), Coste (secretary, tutor), Arent Furly (secretary), Grassemare (tutor), Hazard (steward?), Kiplin (steward), Arthur Lane (schoolteacher), La Treille (tutor), Peter Locke (Locke’s steward), Lyde (Locke’s steward), Mandey ­(secretary), Marx (tutor), Rousseau (secretary), Spreat (steward), Stratton (Locke’s steward), Stringer (steward), Jeremy Thomas (secretary or servant), Wheelock (steward). Farmers, tradesmen, artisans, servants, seamen Barnes (farmer), Bonville (tradesman), Bray (warehouseman), Burges (housekeeper), Samuel Clarke (tailor), Cocks (seaman), Thomas Davys (servant), Derbie (farmer or trader?), Dummer (seaman), Hazard (farmer?), Samuel

497

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Calendars: Locke’s correspondents Jocelin (shopkeeper), Kingdon (seaman), Peter Locke (tanner?), Lukin (textile trader), Lyde (farmer), John Maggs (farmer), Patrick (barometer maker), Price (housekeeper), Robinson (seaman), Samuell (joiner), William Stratton (tanner), Warren (?). Booksellers, publishers Bassett, Awnsham Churchill, John Churchill, Crooke, Dunton, Manship, Schelte, Samuel Smith, Wetstein. Academics, librarians41 Barbeyrac, Brouchier, Bury, Fell, Gardiner, Graevius, Greve, Hudson, Justel, Le Clerc, Limborch, Newton, Magnol, Pococke Sr, Thévenot, Tindal. Independent gentlemen (excluding peers and MPs) Aubrey, Boyle, Thomas Bridges, Burnett, Chardin, Charleton, William Clarke, Collins, Duke, Fanshawe, Henry Fletcher, Henry Flower, Harcourt, Helmont, Hooke, Layton, Lockhart, Neile, Robert Nelson, Oldenburg, Oxenden, Rømer, Rushout, Henry Thornhill, Toinard, Townshend, Tyrrell, Willis. Clergy: Church of England or of Ireland (an asterisk indicates those who were or became bishops) Batteley, Benson, Bernard, Blair, Blomer, Bold, Bury, Chetwood, Covel, Crosse, Benjamin D’Aranda, Dod, Dolben*, Elys, Fell*, Fowler*, Gardiner, Gastrell*, Grenfeild, Grenville, Grigg, Hackett, Hardy, Hawkshaw, Nathaniel Hodges, Hudson, Huntington*, Jackman, Edward Jocelyn, Richard King, Lye, Mapletoft, Charles Masham, Norris, Nye, Old, William Owen, Parry*, Pococke Sr, Pococke Jr, Pound, Prideaux, Proast, Roderick, Humfrey Smith, South, Tatam, Tenison*, Samuel Thomas, Tilly, Towerson, Uvedale, Walls, Whitby, George Williamson, Wynne*. Clergy: Protestant Nonconformist Calamy, Walter Cross, Thomas Freke, Hardy, Shower. (Lay Presbyterian: Burthogge, Shute. Quakers: William Clark, the Furlys, Rush.) Clergy: Roman Catholic Briolay de Beaupreau, Du Bos, Formentin, François Gendron, Raulin, Renaudot, Sergeant.

41  Others held College Fellowships but did not remain in the universities.

498

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Calendars: Locke’s correspondents Clergy: Remonstrant Le Clerc, Philipp van Limborch, Johannes Verrijn. Certain or possible Huguenots Aleaume, Aubert, Bouhéreau, Coste, D’Aranda, Grassemare, Greve, Guide, Justel, La Treille, Le Fèvre, Marx, Mauvillain, Papillon, Passebon, Paul, Pilliod, Rousseau, Thiery, -?- Vincent, R. Vincent. Locke’s kin Bonville Sr, Bonville Jr, Anne Grigg, William Grigg, Peter King, John Locke Sr, Peter Locke, Samuel Locke, Elizabeth Stratton, Peter Stratton, William Stratton, Warren. Possible or probable kin, connection unproven: Mary Clarke, Derbie, Jepp, William Locke, Rumney, Strachey. Locke’s former pupils at Christ Church Alford, Benson, Charles Berkeley, Hugh Owen, John Pickering, Pococke Jr, Walls. Not otherwise listed Addison, Anderson, Atkins, Barnard, Baron, Bedel, Broadnax, Richard Clarke, Cooke, Coxe Jr, Cramphorne, Day Sr, Day Jr, George, Gerart, Griffith, Hammond, Harborne, James Hodges, William Hodges, Jones, Juigné-­Losé, Evan Lloyd, George Lloyd, George Locke, Maer, John Maggs, ‘Cousin Martine’, Offley, Edward Osborne, Powell, Read, Spens, F. Thornhill, Walter, Richard Williamson. (George and Harborne were fathers and Barnard an uncle of Locke’s pupils at Christ Church; Bedel and Hammond were members of the Shaftesbury household.)

499

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

CALENDAR OF THIRD-­PART Y CORRESPONDENTS This list provides an index of all third-­party letters included in the Correspondence, whether printed by de Beer or in the present volume. Also included are notices of all third-­party letters found in MSS Locke in the Lovelace Collection, even where not printed in the Correspondence, since their presence in Locke’s archive may be significant. Not included are a number of letters which are assumed to have been written by or to Locke, but for which this fact is uncertain and hence they may possibly also be third-­party letters. These have been included in the calendar of correspondents above. Letter numbers in bold are items printed or augmented in the present ­volume. Cross ­references are provided for recipients of letters. Citations to manuscripts in the Lovelace Collection take the form ‘c. 12’, dispensing with ‘MS Locke’. Most of these letters are found in the correspondence series, c. 3–23, with a few stray items elsewhere in MSS Locke. For items ‘not printed’, see above, pp. 463–6. Ablancourt, Jean-­Jacobé de Frémont d’, to Henri Justel, [c.April 1679]: c. 12, fos. 57–9: no. 462. Allestry, James, to Samuel Tilly, 14 May 1661: c. 3, fo. 21: no. 123. Anon. to C[aleb] B[anks], 1678: c. 23, fos. 198–9: no. 437A. Anon. to John Churchill, July 1697: c. 23, fo. 200: no. 2281. Anon. to Pierre Coste, [c.1698]: c. 7, fo. 151: not printed. Anon. to Sir Robert Howard, 20 August 1676: c. 39, fo. 16: no. 317A. Anon. to [Samuel Locke?], [c.July 1701]: c. 13, fo. 207: no. 2961. Anon. to Damaris Masham, [c.9 April] 1696: c. 23, fo. 202: no. 2063. Anon. to James Tyrrell [c.January 1690]: c. 23, fo. 80: included in no. 1239. Anon. to Anon., 24 January 1659: c. 14, fo. 166: no. 46. Anon. to Anon., [late May 1659?]: c. 14, fo. 165: no. 56. Anstruther, Sir William, to Robert Cunningham, 26 January 1697: b. 4, fo. 98: no. 2183A. Atterbury, Francis, to Col. Christopher Codrington, [November 1669]: c. 3, fos. 56–7: no. 2632. Aubrey, John, to Anthony Wood, 3 February 1673: Bodl., MS Wood  F.  39, fo. 196: no. 267A. Aubrey, John, to Anthony Wood, 24 April 1690: Bodl., MS Wood  F.  39, fo. 403: no. 1285A. Aubrey, John: see also Churchill. Bahamas Adventurers: see Lilburne. Banks, Caleb: see Anon.; Pepys. Barnard, Edward: see Tyrrell.

500

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Calendars: Third-party correspondents Bayley, Phillip, to George Steed, 21 August 1697: c. 30, fo. 69: no. 2300A. Bentley, Richard, to John Evelyn, 21 October 1697: Harvard, Houghton Library, MS Hyde 77 (9.276.4): no. 2333C. Berkeley, Sir Charles: see Berkeley, George. Berkeley, George, ninth Baron Berkeley, first earl of Berkeley, to Sir Charles Berkeley, 27 July 1662: c. 3, fos. 183–4: no. 137. Berkeley, John, first Baron Berkeley: see Craven. Bernard, Edward: see Tyrrell. Bibliothèque universelle: see Molyneux. Blair, James, to Francis Nicholson, 2 June 1698: from printed book: no. 2450A. Blancardus (Blanckaert), Nicolaus, to Philip Ernst Vegelin van Claerbergen, 10/20 August 1684: Amsterdam University Library, MS Ba. 10: no. 783A. Board of Trade: see Coote; Newton. Bold, Samuel, to Awnsham Churchill, 26 March 1697: c. 4, fo. 14: no. 2233. Bold, Samuel, to Awnsham Churchill, 5 May 1697: c. 4, fo. 15: no. 2257. Bold, Samuel, to Awnsham Churchill, 24 June 1697: c. 4, fo. 16: no. 2278. Bold, Samuel, to Awnsham Churchill, 15 December 1697: c. 4, fo. 17: no. 2359. Bold, Samuel, to Awnsham Churchill, 12 April 1699: c. 4, fo. 27: no. 2568. Bold, Samuel, to Awnsham Churchill, 15 August 1702: c. 4, fo. 18: no. 3182. Bonville, John, to Edward Clarke, 8 September 1695 (composed by Locke?): from printed book: no. 1942. See also Jocelyn; Pawling. Bowles, Joseph, to Benjamin Furly, [May 1688]: c. 4, fo. 148: no. 1053. Boyle, Robert: see Tyrrell. Brioley de Beaupreaux, [Rene?] de, to -?- Browne, April 1669: TNA, PRO 30/24/47/2, fos. 20–1: no. 231*. See also Cooper (later first earl of Shaftesbury). Broune, Andrew, to John Hutton, 25 May 1695: c. 4, fo. 169: no. 1909. Brounover, Sylvester: see Clarke, Edward; Wheelock. Browne, -?-: see Brioley. Bulstrode, Whitelocke, to Edward Clarke, 20 November 1689: from printed book: no. 1206A. Burchett, Josiah, to William Popple, 11 March 1701: c. 17, fos. 249–50: no. 2877. Burnett, Thomas, of Kemnay, to Martha Lockhart, 15 April 1700: c. 4, fo. 204: no. 2710. Burnett, Thomas, of Kemnay, to Catharine Trotter, later Cockburn, [7/]18 February 1702: BL, Add. MS 4264, fo. 111: no. 3086A. Burnett, Thomas, of Kemnay: see also Jablonski; Leibniz; Trotter. C., W.  [William Carr?] to ‘My Lord P: Secretary’ [Lord Protector’s Secretary?], [1656/1657?]: c. 24, fo. 26: no. 31. Carteret, Sir George: see Craven. Cary, John, to Edward Clarke, 16 November 1696: from printed book: no. 2138B.

501

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Calendars: Third-party correspondents Cary, Lucius, second Viscount Falkland: see Godolphin. Charas, Möise: see Horutner. Charles II, King, to Dr John Fell, 14 November 1666: TNA, PRO 30/24/47/22, fo. 9: no. 211B. See also Council of Trade and Plantations. Charleton (Courten), William, to John Richards, 4/14 October 1681: c. 5, fos. 46–7: no. 664. Charlett, Arthur: see Hinton. Chudleigh, Thomas: for surveillance letter to Charles, earl of Middleton, 1684, see appx A. Churchill, Awnsham, to John Aubrey, 15 July 1695: Bodl., MS Wood  F.  39, fo. 451: no. 1925A. See also Bold; Gore; Hatton. Churchill, Awnsham and John: see also Clarke, Edward. Churchill, John: see also Anon. Claerbergen, Philip Ernest Vegelin van: see Blancardus. Clarke, Edward, to William Clarke, 10 April 1683: SHC, DD/SF/ 7/1/21: no. 763A. Clarke, Edward, to Thomas Stringer, 20 April 1686: HRO, 9M73/G293/4: no. 848A. Clarke, Edward, to [Sylvester Brounower?], 31 December 1686: c. 6, fo. 25: no. 891. Clarke, Edward, to Mary Clarke, 30 April 1687: SHC, DD/SF 7/1/30: no. 930A. Clarke, Edward, to [Martha Lockhart?], 25 August 1690: SHC, DD/SF 7/1/59: no. 1310A. Clarke, Edward, to Damaris Masham, 15 September 1691: Houghton Library, Harvard: no. 1416. Clarke, Edward, to -?- Powell, 10 September 1695: b. 8, no. 88: no. 1943. Clarke, Edward, to Mary Clarke, 9 November 1695: SHC, DD/SF 7/1/60: no. 1962A. Clarke, Edward, to Mary Clarke, 15 February 1696: SHC, DD/SF 7/1/53: no. 2017A. Clarke, Edward, to Mary Clarke, 13 June 1696: SHC, DD/SF 7/1/60: no. 2102A. Clarke, Edward, to Mary Clarke, 3 August 1696: SHC, DD/SF 7/1/53: no. 2291A. Clarke, Edward, to Mary Clarke, 30 October 1696: SHC, DD/SF 7/1/53: no. 2137A. Clarke, Edward, to Awnsham and John Churchill, 6 September 1697: c. 6, fo. 129: no. 2308. Clarke, Edward (with Locke), to Peter King, 13 May 1699: b. 4, fos. 49–50: no. 2587A. Clarke, Edward (with Locke), to Peter King, 14 November 1699: b. 4, fos. 57–8: no. 2633A.

502

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Calendars: Third-party correspondents Clarke, Edward, to Benjamin Furly, 27 September 1700: from printed book: no. 2784A. Clarke, Edward: see also Bonville; Bulstrode; Cary; Clarke, Mary; Freke; Furly, Glanville; Lyde; Masham, Damaris; Musgrave; Stratton; Trent; Yonge. Clarke, Edward, Jr, to Edward Clarke, 25 February 1692: SHC, DD/SF 7/1/2: no. 1470A. Clarke, Edward, Jr, to Mary Clarke, 25 March 1692: SHC, DD/SF 7/1/46: no. 1481B. Clarke, Edward, Jr, to Mary Clarke, 4 April 1692: SHC, DD/SF 7/1/46: no. 1488A. Clarke, Edward, Jr, to Mary Clarke, 5 May 1696: SHC, DD/SF 7/1/15: 2081A. Clarke, Edward, Jr, to Mary Clarke, 16 October 1696: SHC, DD/SF 7/1/2: no. 2134A. Clarke, Elizabeth, to Mary Clarke, 2 May 1694: SHC, DD/SF 7/1/60: no. 1735B. Clarke, John, to [Edward Clarke], 27 April 1689: c. 26, fo. 70: no. 1131A. Clarke, Mary, to Edward Clarke, 30 April 1687: SHC, DD/SF 7/1/30: no. 930A. Clarke, Mary, to Edward Clarke, 14 October 1690: SHC, DD/SF 7/1/31: no. 1324A. Clarke, Mary, to [Ursula Venner], 19 January 1691: SHC, DD/SF 7/1/15: no. 1353B. Clarke, Mary, to Edward Clarke, [c.18 March 1694]: SHC, DD/SF/ 7/1/57: no. 1721A. Clarke, Mary, to Edward Clarke, 15 April 1695: c. 6, fos. 175–6: no. 1881. Clarke, Mary, to Edward Clarke, 12 June 1700: SHC, DD/SF 7/1/31: no. 2733A. Clarke, Mary, to Edward Clarke, 10 [ January] 1704: b. 8, no. 159: no. 3418A. Clarke, Mary, to John Spreat, 2 November 1704: SHC, DD/SF 7/1/11: no. 3649. Clarke, Mary: see also Clarke, Edward; Clarke, Edward, Jr; Clarke, Elizabeth. Codrington, Col. Christopher: see Atterbury. Coker, William, to Benjamin Woodroffe, 14 December 1664: Bodl., MS Rawlinson D286, fo. 6: no. 169*. Collins, Anthony: see Cooper, Anthony Ashley, third earl of Shaftesbury; Wright. Cooper, Anthony Ashley, Lord Ashley, later first earl of Shaftesbury, to Dr John Fell, 8 December 1670: TNA, PRO 30/24/47/10, fos. 3–4: no. 249A. Cooper, Anthony Ashley, Lord Ashley, later first earl of Shaftesbury, to [Christophe?] de Briolay de Beaupreau, 20 January 1671: TNA, PRO/30/ 24/47/2, fos. 58–9: no. 250*. Cooper, Anthony Ashley, Lord Ashley, later first earl of Shaftesbury, to William Sayle, 13 May 1671: TNA, PRO 30/24/48/55, p. 91: no. 253A.

503

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Calendars: Third-party correspondents Cooper, Anthony Ashley, first earl of Shaftesbury: see also Craven; Fell; Fuller. Cooper, Anthony Ashley, third earl of Shaftesbury, to Benjamin Furly, 4 November 1702: TNA, PRO 30/24/20/66, fos. 156–7: no. 3205A. Cooper, Anthony Ashley, third earl of Shaftesbury, to a friend (perhaps Anthony Collins), 2 December 1704: TNA, PRO 30/24/22/2, fos. 150–1: no. 3653. Cooper, Anthony Ashley, third earl of Shaftesbury: see also King, Peter. Coote, Richard, first earl of Bellomont, to the Board of Trade, 14 and 21 September 1698: not printed. See also Furly, Benjamin. Coste, Pierre: see Anon.; Plaats. Council of Trade and Plantations to King Charles II, 15 November 1673: TNA, Col. 30, no. 81: no. 280B. Covel, John, to Damaris Masham, 4 October 1697: c. 7, fo. 176: no. 2323. Covel, John, to Damaris Masham, 6 November 1697: c. 7, fos. 177–8: no. 2347. Craven, William, first earl of Craven, Sir George Carteret, and John Berkeley, first Baron Berkeley, to Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper, first earl of Shaftesbury, 20 November 1674: TNA, PRO 30/24/48/95: no. 296A. Crouch, William: see Dimsdale. Cudworth, Damaris: see Masham. Cunningham, Robert: see Anstruther. D’Aranda, Paul: see Furly, Benjamin; Spademan. Dickinson, Edmund, to John Mapletoft, 3 December 1677: c. 15, fos. 213–20: no. 363. Dimsdale, Robert, to William Crouch, 1692: c. 7, fos. 207–8: not printed. Dodart, Denis, to Olaus Rømer, 3/13 April 1679: c. 7, fos. 211–12: no. 463. Drumare, Aunt: see Poyer. Dunlop, William: see Shields. Ellis, John: for surveillance letters from Humphrey Prideaux, 1681–4, see appx A. Evelyn, John, to Samuel Pepys, 26 February 1690: Cambridge, Pepys Library, Magdalene College, MS 2421: no. 1251A. See also Bentley. Excise Commissioners to the Treasury Commissioners, 23 June 1696: TNA, Treasury Papers, T 1/38, fo. 218: no. 2106A. Fell, Dr John: see Charles II; Cooper; Hyde. For correspondence with the earl of  Sunderland concerning Locke’s expulsion from Christ Church, 1684, see appx A. Firth, John, to Henry Lukin, 1692: c. 8, fos. 114–15: not printed. Firth, John, to Henry Lukin, 11 April 1692: c. 8, fo. 116: not printed. [Fletcher, Andrew]: see Fletcher, Henry. [Fletcher, Henry], to [Andrew Fletcher], 13 February 1701: c. 8, fo. 123: no. 2859A. Flood, [-?-]: see Hawkshaw. Fowler, Edward, bishop of Gloucester (with Clarke and Locke), to Peter King, 14 November 1699: b. 4, fos. 57–8: see no. 2587A. See also Willis.

504

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Calendars: Third-party correspondents Freke, John, to Edward Clarke, 25 September 1695: SHC, DD/SF 7/1/37: no. 1949A. Freke, John, to Edward Clarke, 8 October 1695: SHC, DD/SF 7/1/37: no. 1956A. Fuller, William, bishop of Lincoln, to Anthony Ashley Cooper, first earl of Shaftesbury, 27 June 1674: c. 8, fos. 243–4: no. 297B. Furly, Arent: see Furly, Benjamin. Furly, Benjamin, to Pieter Guenellon, 1688: c. 9, fo. 25: not printed. Furly, Benjamin, to Richard Coote, first earl of Bellomont, 10 October 1691: c. 9, fos. 11–12: not printed. Furly, Benjamin, to [Paul d’Aranda?], 22 January/1 February 1697: c. 3, fo. 38: no. 2192. Furly, Benjamin, to Paul d’Aranda, [9/19 February 1697]: c. 3, fos. 42–3: no. 2204. Furly, Benjamin, to Paul d’Aranda, 2/12 March 1697: c. 3, fos. 44–5: no. 2238. Furly, Benjamin, to [Paul d’Aranda?], 2/12 April 1697: c. 9, fo. 142: no. 2260. Furly, Benjamin, to -?-, 20/30 April 1697: c. 9, fo. 144: no. 2248. Furly, Benjamin, to Edward Clarke, 1/12 October 1700: Bodl., MS Eng. Lett. d. 2, fo. 316: no. 2786A. Furly, Benjamin, to Arent Furly, 14/25 March 1701: c. 9, fos. 13–14: no. 2956. Furly, Benjamin: see also Bowles; Clarke; Cooper. [Furly, Benjohan?] to Francis Limborch, 15 and 19 November 1702: c. 13, fos. 203–4: extracts in no. 3227. Gendron, François, to Nicolas Toinard, 14/24 August 1680: c. 10, fo. 2: no. 562. Glanville, [William], to Edward Clarke, 7 August 1694: from printed book: no. 1770. Godolphin, Sidney, to Lucius Cary, later second Viscount Falkland, n.d.: c. 10, fo. 14: not printed. Gore, Thomas, to Awnsham Churchill, [c.25 September 1694]: c. 18, fos. 36–7: no. 1793. Graevius, Joannes Georgius, to Nicolas Toinard, 4 October 1694: extract in no. 1796 (original in Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris). See also Limborch; Slade. Guenellon, Pieter: see Furly, Benjamin; Leenhof; Percival. Hamilton, James, to William Molyneux, 13 October 1697: Austin, Texas, Pforzheimer Library: no. 2331. Hamilton, James: see Wylie. Hatton, Charles, to Awnsham Churchill, 7 July 1701: c. 11, fos. 150–1: no. 2952. Hawkshaw, Benjamin, to [-?- Flood?], 27 May [1689], in Latin: c. 11, fo. 152: no. 1142. Heane, Col. James, to John Locke Sr, 14 September 1652: c. 11, fos. 180–1: no. 7. Herbert, Thomas, eighth earl of Pembroke, to Jean Le Clerc, [c.23 August 1693]: Amsterdam University, Remonstrants’ Library, J42: no. 1656A. See also Vernon.

505

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Calendars: Third-party correspondents Hinton, Thomas, to Arthur Charlett, 31 January 1695: Bodl., MS Ballard 38, fo. 2: no. 1843A. Holloway, Sir Richard: for surveillance letter to Sir Leoline Jenkins, 1683, see appx A. Horutener, Jacques, and Jacques Selapris to Möise Charas, 7/17 November 1678, in French: c. 18, fo. 68: no. 419A. Howard, Sir Robert: see Anon.; Nicholas; Osborne. Hutton, John: see Broune. Hyde, Edward, first earl of Clarendon, to Dr John Fell, 3 November 1666: BL, Add. MS 14269, fo. 76: no. 211A. Ivye, Ayliffe, to a German doctor, [summer 1656?]: c. 12, fo. 8 (and fos. 3–7): no. 26. Jablonski, Daniel, to Thomas Burnett of Kemnay, 22 February 1698: c. 12, fos. 9–10: not printed. Jenkins, Sir Leoline: for surveillance letter from Sir Richard Holloway, 1683, see appx A. Justel, Henri: see Ablancourt. King, Peter, later first Baron King, to Peter Stratton, 4 November 1704: New Haven, Connecticut, Beinecke Library, Osborne Collection, File 8387: no. 3650. King, Peter, later first Baron King, to Anthony Ashley Cooper, third earl of Shaftesbury, 9 December 1704: TNA, PRO 30/24/47/24: no. 3654. King, Peter: see also Clarke, Edward; Fowler; Masham, Damaris. King, William, to [William Molyneux?], [early 1692?]: c. 13, fos. 6–7: no. 1544. King, William, to William Molyneux, 26 October 1697: Austin, Texas, Pforzheimer Library: no. 2339. Kingwell, Margaret, to -?-, n.d. (c.1662): c. 13, fo. 8: no. 149 n.3. Kiplin, Timothy, Sr, to John Plumpton, 10 October 1696: c. 13, fos. 10–11: no. 2134. Kiplin, Timothy, Jr, to John Plumpton, 10 October 1696: c. 13, fos. 10–11: no. 2134. Laughton, [Richard]: see Masham, Damaris. Le Clerc, Jean: see Herbert. Lee, Nicholas: see Ward. Leenhof, Fredericus van, to [Dr Pieter Guenellon?], 4/14 March 1688: c. 13, fos. 152–3: no. 1024. Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm von, c.1695, mailed 1697: c. 13, fos. 158–65: for these remarks on Locke’s Essay see nos. 2236, 2243, and Corr., vi. 777–81. Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm von, to Thomas Burnett of Kemnay, 1/11 February 1696/7: summary in no. 2228; extract in no. 2243. Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm von, to Thomas Burnett of Kemnay, 20/30 January 1699: c. 13, fos. 169–70: Leibniz, Die Philosophischen Schriften, ed. C. I. Gerhardt (1975–90), iii. 243–53: see no. 2565.

506

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Calendars: Third-party correspondents Lilburne, Richard, to the Bahamas Adventurers, 9 August 1674: TNA, PRO 30/24/49/5, fos. 58–9: no. 290A. Limborch, Francis: see Furly, Benjohan. Limborch, Philipp van, to Joannes Georgius Graevius, 21 November/1 December 1684: Royal Library, Copenhagen, MS Thott 1263–4°: no. 793. Livingston, Robert, to Charles Mordaunt, first earl of Monmouth, 1696: c. 14, fos. 159–60: no. 2130A. Lock, John, to -?-, 16 August 1700 (summary): c. 14, fo. 174: not printed. Locke, John, Sr, to -?-, [summer 1656?]: c. 14, fo. 169: no. 28. See also Heane. Locke, Peter, to Thomas Stringer, 21 August 1678: c. 14, fos. 188–9: no. 403. [Locke, Samuel, Sr?]: see Anon. [Locke, Samuel, Jr (?)] to Directors of the New East India Company, 16 August 1700: summarized in no. 2917. Lockhart, Martha, to Damaris Masham, 21 March 1696: c. 15, fos. 53–4: no. 2042. Lockhart, Martha, to King William III, [c.February 1702]: draft, in no. 3089. Lockhart, Martha: see also Burnett; Clarke, Edward. Lukin, Henry: see Firth. Lyde, Cornelius, to Edward Clarke, 8 March 1693: c. 13, fo. 127: no. 1612. Magnol, Pierre, to [William Charleton], [20 October 1678?]: c. 31, fo. 166: enclosed with no. 449. Undated by de Beer, but similar texts in c. 42 (pt 1), pp. 14, 176, and fo. 3, p. 311, are dated 20 October 1678. The catalogue of grapes mentioned in no. 449 is at c. 31, fo. 26 and d. 9, p. 84. Mapletoft, John: see Dickinson; Micklethwaite; Scarburgh; Sydenham. Margas, C., to Simon Peloutier (Pelletier?), 12 December 1675: c. 15, fos. 224–5: not printed. Masham, Damaris, to Edward Clarke, 18 September 1691: King’s College, Cambridge, Keynes Collection, PP/87/41/1: no. 1416A. Masham, Damaris, to Edward Clarke, 28 February 1692: King’s College, Cambridge, Keynes Collection, PP/87/41/3–4: no. 1471A. Masham, Damaris, to Edward Clarke, 29 November 1696: SHC, DD/SF 7/1/75: no. 2151*. Masham, Damaris, to Peter King, later first Baron King, 14 October 1698: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Dreer Collection, 175/106/1, p. 17: no. 2495A. Masham, Damaris, to Edward Fowler, Edward Clarke, (and Locke), 19 October 1700: c. 16, fo. 63: no. 2795A. Masham, Damaris, to Edward Fowler, Edward Clarke, (and Locke), 12 December 1701: c. 16, fo. 69: no. 3052A. Masham, Damaris, to Peter King, later first Baron King, 7 November 1703: Cambridge, King’s College, Keynes Collection, MS PP/87/42: no. 3368A. Masham, Damaris, to [Richard] Laughton, 8 November 1704: from printed book: no. 3651.

507

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Calendars: Third-party correspondents Masham, Damaris: see also Anon.; Clarke, Edward; Covel; Lockhart; Masham, Henry. Masham, Esther, to Mrs -?- Smith, 17 November 1704: BL, Add. MS 4311, fo. 143: no. 3652. Masham, Esther: see also Poyer. Masham, Henry, to Damaris Masham, 2 or 20 August 1699: Chicago, Newberry Library, Esther Masham Letterbook, MS E5.M3827, pp. 82–3: no. 2607A. Micklethwait, John, to John Mapletoft, 30 November 1677: c. 15, fos. 213–20: no. 363. Middleton, Charles, earl of: for surveillance letters from Thomas Chudleigh and Bevil Skelton, 1684–5, see appx A. Molyneux, William, to the editors of the Bibliothèque universelle, 7 July 1688: c. 16, fos. 92–3: no. 1064. Molyneux, William, to William King, 27 October 1697: Austin, Texas, Pforzheimer Library: no. 2339. Molyneux, William: see also Hamilton; King, William. Mordaunt, Charles, first earl of Monmouth, later third earl of Peterborough, to William Penn, [c.late November 1696]: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Penn-­Forbes Collection, 0845C: no. 2152A. See also Livingston; Pett. Musgrave, Dr George, to Edward Clarke, 19 December 1693: SHC, DD/SF 3/1/57: no. 1683A. Newton, Isaac, to [William Popple], 19 September 1698: b. 3, fo. 127: no. 2488. Nicholas, Sir John, to [Sir Robert Howard], October 1673: BL, Add. MS 28075, fo. 25: no. 278A. Nicholson, Francis: see Blair. Osborne, Sir Thomas, earl of Danby, to Sir Robert Howard, 20 August 1676: c. 39, fo. 16: no. 317A. P.: My Lord P[rotector’s?] Secretary: see C., W. Pawling, Robert, to Edward Clarke, [21?] October 1692: c. 16, fo. 210: no. 1548. Pawling, Robert, to John Bonville, 10 January 1700: c. 4, fo. 89: included in no. 2655. Peloutier (?Pelletier), Simon: see Margas. Penn, William: see Mordaunt. Pepys, Samuel, to Caleb Banks, 29 August 1678: Greenwich, National Maritime Museum, LBK/8, p. 821: no. 405A. Pepys, Samuel, to Caleb Banks, 10 October 1678: Greenwich, National Maritime Museum, LBK/8, p. 827: no. 410A. Pepys, Samuel: see also Evelyn. Percivall, Peter, to Pieter Guenellon, 31 November 1686: c. 17, fo. 69: not printed.

508

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Calendars: Third-party correspondents Pett, Sir Peter, to Charles Mordaunt, first earl of Monmouth, 27 November 1689: c. 17, fo. 72, fos. 72–5: no. 1208A. Picard, Abbé Jean, to Nicolas Toinard, 12/22 May [1680]: c. 31, fo. 32: no. 536. Plaats, François van der, to [Pierre Coste?], 7 September 1700: b. 2, fo. 178: no. 2770A. Plumpton, John: see Kiplin. Popple, William to [Stephen Nye?], 22 May 1695: c. 17, fos. 213–18: no. 1906*. See also Burchett; Newton. Powell, -?-: see Clarke, Edward. Poyer, Catherine [‘Aunt Drumare’, Lady Drumare, née Scott de la Mézangère], to Esther Masham, 20 Aug./6 Sept. 1701: Chicago, Esther Masham Letterbook, pp. 139–42, substantially transcribed in no. 3003. Prideaux, Humphrey: for surveillance letters to John Ellis, 1681–4, see appx A. Quayle, Francis: see Synge. Richards, Mrs Deborah, to [Edward Clarke?], 19 February 1683: c. 18, fo. 17: no. 756. Richards, John: see Charleton. Rømer, Olaus, to [Nicolas Toinard?], 6/16 September 1680: c. 18, fo. 35: no. 569. See also Dodart. Rosenroth, Christian Knorr von, to [Franciscus Mercurius van Helmont?], [1688]: c. 13, fo. 14: no. 1024A. Sayle, William: see Cooper. Scarburgh, Sir Charles, to John Mapletoft, 30 November 1677: c. 15, fos. 213–20: no. 363. Scott de la Mézangère: see Poyer. Selapris, Jacques: see Horutener. Shields, Alexander, to [William Dunlop?], 25 December 1699: c. 30, fos. 112–13: no. 2650A. Sibelius, Caspar: see Wepfer. Skelton, Sir Bevil: for surveillance letter to the earl of Middleton, 1685, see appx A. Slade (Sladus), Matthew, to Joannes Georgius Graevius, 22 November/2 December 1684: Royal Library, Copenhagen, MS. Thott 1266–4°: no. 794. Smith, Mrs -?-: see Masham, Esther. Spademan, John, to [Paul D’Aranda?], 21 April / 1 May 1697: c. 9, fos. 142–3: no. 2260. Spencer, Robert, earl of Sunderland: for correspondence with Dr John Fell ­concerning Locke’s expulsion from Christ Church, 1684, see appx A. Spreat, John: see Clarke, Mary. Steed, George: see Bayley. Strachey, John, to John Locke Sr, 24 May 1660: c. 18, fos. 195–6: no. 98. Stratton, William, to Edward Clarke, 4 November 1693: c. 19, fos. 85–6: no. 1680A. See also King, Peter.

509

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Calendars: Third-party correspondents Stringer, Thomas, to Edward Clarke, 12 March 1688: c. 19, fos. 110–11: no. 1028. See also Clarke, Edward; Locke, Peter. Sydenham, Thomas, to Anthony Ashley Cooper, Baron Ashley, later first earl of Shaftesbury, [c.1669]: PRO 30/24/47/2, fos. 60–3: no. 239A. Sydenham, Thomas, to John Mapletoft, 1 December 1677: MS Locke c. 19, fo. 164: no. 363. Synge, Edward, to Francis Quayle, 6 September 1695: Austin, Texas, Pforzheimer Library: no. 1984. Tenison, Thomas: see Wallis. Thompson, Mrs Ka[tharine?], to Edward Spranger, 24 January 1704: c. 40, fos. 346–7: no. 3440. Tilly, Samuel: see Allestry. Toinard, Nicolas: see Gendron; Graevius; Picard; Rømer. Trent, Geo[rge], to Edward Clarke, 19 August 1695: c. 22, fos. 16–17: printed with no. 1934. Trotter, Catharine, later Cockburn, to Thomas Burnett of Kemnay, [7/]18 February 1702: from printed book: no. 3086A. Tyrrell, James, to Robert Boyle, 22 May 1687: from printed book: no. 936A; see also no. 911. Tyrrell, James, to David Thomas, 26 February [1688]: c. 22, fo. 69: no. 1019. Tyrrell, James, to David Thomas, 9 March [1688]: c. 22, fo. 70: no. 1027. Tyrrell, James, to Edward Barnard, [c.23 December 1689]: c. 4, fos. 4–6: no. 1228. Tyrrell, James, to [Anthony Wood], [c.6 April 1690]: Bodl., MS Wood F. 45, fo. 65: no. 1276A. Tyrrell, James, to Anthony Wood, 10 April [1690]: Bodl., MS Wood  F.  45, fo. 63: no. 1280A. Tyrrell, James: see also Anon.; Wood. Vane, Sir Walter, to the Privy Council, 1665–6: c. 22, fos. 181–9: not printed. Vegelin, Philip Ernst: see Blancardus. Venner, Ursula: see Clarke, Mary. Vernon, James, to Thomas Herbert, eighth earl of Pembroke, 9 March 1702: c. 14, fo. 162: no. 3115. Wallis, Dr John, to Thomas Tenison, archbishop of Canterbury, 13 June 1699: London, Lambeth Palace Library, MS 942, fo. 151: no. 2596A. Ward, Sir Patience, to Nicholas Lee, 2 March 1676: c. 23, fo. 61: Corr. i. 438n, appended to no. 309. Warr, John Sr, to John Warr Jr, 16 July 1692: BL, Add MS 4213, fo. 90: no. 1515A. Warren, Ed[ward?], to -?-, 11 November 1694: c. 23, fo. 62: no. 1812A. Wepfer, Dr Johann Jacob, to Caspar Sibelius, 20 August 1684: c. 18, fo. 105: no. 785. Wetstein, Hendrik, to John Wynne, 14/24 October 1697, in French: c. 23, fo. 83: no. 2330.

510

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Calendars: Third-party correspondents Wheelock, John, to Sylvester Brounover, 9 January 1698: c. 23, fo. 93: no. 1998. William III: see Lockhart. Willis, John, to Edward Fowler, 5 November 1700: c. 16, fo. 65: no. 2816A. Wood, Anthony, to James Tyrrell, 11 April [1690]: c. 23, fos. 100–1: no. 1281. See also Aubrey; Churchill, Awnsham; Tyrrell. Woodroffe, Benjamin: see Coker. Wright, William, Jr, to [Anthony Collins?], 19 February 1703: c. 23, fo. 109: no. 3467. Wright, William, Jr, to [Anthony Collins?], 3 March 1704: c. 23, fo. 110: no. 3485. Wylie, Robert, to William Hamilton, 16 June 1697: b. 4, fos. 107–8: no. 2277A. Wynne, John: see Wetstein. Yonge, Sir Walter, to Edward Clarke, 4/14 June 1686: SHC, DD/SF 7/9/2: no. 852A.

511

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

CALENDAR OF REPOSITORIES About three thousand letters to and from Locke are located in the cor­res­ pond­ence volumes of the Lovelace Collection in the Bodleian Library: MS Locke c. 3–24, and c. 40. About seven hundred letters are elsewhere. The list below gives the archival locations of all letters. Many collections, and especially the Lovelace, also include drafts or copies of letters for which the original, as sent, is available; these are not recorded here, but may be found in headnotes to individual letters.42 Changes in location since de Beer’s time are recorded in footnotes, where known. Items printed in the present volume are indicated in bold. Square brackets indicate locations recorded by de Beer for items which have since relocated. The list does not include third-­party letters, separately catalogued above. Details of manuscript locations, including ­itemization for letters in the Lovelace Collection, are given in John Attig’s online ‘John Locke Resources’ website: http://openpublishing.psu.edu/locke. As indicated, four-­fifths of Locke’s surviving correspondence is located in the Lovelace Collection. One would have expected most of the letters written by Locke chiefly to be located elsewhere, in the papers of recipients. However, as many as half of the surviving letters written by Locke are also among the Locke papers. This is chiefly because two families faithfully preserved the letters they received from Locke and their papers are now part of, or were added to, the Lovelace Collection: the papers of Edward Clarke in MS Locke b. 8 and of Peter King in MS Locke c. 40. This leaves approaching two hundred further letters by Locke in the Lovelace Collection which are there because he made drafts, kept copies, decided against dispatch, or, occasionally, because his letters were returned to him. He generally made drafts or kept copies when writing to major public figures, to patrons, and to women; also when recording financial transactions, when offering philosophical reflections, when providing medical or educational advice, or when engaging in personal quarrels. Often it is only Locke’s draft or copy that survives. Only during his visit to Cleves in 1665–6 did he keep a letterbook. Finally, there is a handful of letters by Locke found in Locke’s books, previously owned by Paul Mellon, and now with the Lovelace Collection. Locke retained a great body of the letters that were sent to him, and these are in the Lovelace Collection. It is worth asking why over a hundred letters written to him survive outside his own papers. Of these, around fifty belong to his period of service with the earl of Shaftesbury and came to the Public Record Office (now National Archives) with the Shaftesbury family papers in the nineteenth century; forty are letters to the Molyneux brothers which must 42  Except that I have included all sources which de Beer used as his copy text, and where the originals have since come to light.

512

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Calendars: Repositories have been extracted from Locke’s papers by Peter King and sent to the publisher of Some Familiar Letters in 1708; and five were lent by the earl of Lovelace to Charles Babbage in 1836 and not returned.

United Kingdom Oxford: Bodleian Library (MSS Locke) MS b. 1: 297A, 3136A, 3521A. MS b. 2: 523A, 747A. MS b. 3: 230A, 2021*, 2026*, 3104A. MS b. 4: 2207*. MS b. 8: letters mainly to Edward Clarke.43 MS c. 3–24: the main alphabetical sequence of correspondence.44 MS c. 25: 1209A, 1251B, 1688A, 1951A. MS c. 26: 98A, 565A, 2008A. MS c. 27: 75. MS c. 29: 2866A, 2870A. MS c. 30: 2123*, 2656A. MS c. 31: 818A, 1252A. MS c. 39: 178, 181, 304A, 390A, 3139. MS c. 40: letters to Peter King. MS c. 45: 473.45 MS d. 9: 298A. MS d. 13: 1060A.46 MS d. 14: 2548A.47 MS e. 7: 108*. MS f. 6: 687*, 696. Locke’s books: 428,48 542,49 1267,50 2149,51 2527A,52 2580A.53 Currently uncatalogued: 628.54

43  Not part of the original Lovelace Papers; purchased 1963. Originally from the Sanford c­ ollection, Somerset; in the 1950s in the possession of John Howard Whitehouse of Bembridge, Isle of Wight. 44  A detailed listing is given in John Locke Resources and P. Long, A Summary Catalogue of the Lovelace Collection of the Papers of John Locke in the Bodleian Library, 1959. 45  Not part of the original Lovelace Papers; purchased 1961. 46  Recorded by de Beer as owned by Paul Mellon. 47  Image of verso available online at www.bonhams.com/eur/auction/19386/lot/369. 48  Locke 18.1. Nicolas Toinard, Evangeliorum Harmonia, proof sheets: LL 2934. 49  Locke 14.46. Edward Pococke, Commentary on Hosea, 1685: LL 2361. 50 As preceding.    51  Locke 14.23a. Samuel Purchas, Pilgrimes, 1625: LL 2409. 52  Locke 9.137. Fabularum Aesopiarum, ed. P. Burmanno, 1698: LL 2293. 53  Locke 8.42a. John Woodward, An Essay toward a Natural History of the Earth: LL 3179. 54  Recorded by de Beer as owned by Paul Mellon. Purchased at auction, 2006.

513

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Calendars: Repositories Oxford: Bodleian Library (not included in MSS Locke) MS Aubrey: 1739. MS English Letters:55 986, 988, 991, 1004, 2424, 2932, 3198, 3199. MS Rawlinson: 165*, 169*, 328, 374, 426, 1604*. MS Wood: 1273. Oxford: Christ Church MS 375/2–3: 797, 1209A.56 London: British Library Egerton MS 22: 418. Sloane MS 3962:57 949, 951, 955, 956. Sloane MS 4036: 1785, 2219, 2227. Sloane MS 4037: 2640.58 Sloane MS 4038: 2833, 2956, 2984. Sloane MS 4039: 3466, 3489. Sloane MS 4059: 2296, 2496. Stowe MS 748: 3573. Add. MS 4265: 3234*.59 Add. MS 4290:60 1133, 1501, 1552, 1555, 1557, 1565, 1571, 1577, 1580, 1596, 1611, 1755, 1799, 1807, 1836, 1893, 1903, 1908, 1934, 2047, 2067, 2073, 2090, 2096, 2211, 2309, 2433, 2553, 2759, 2763, 2768, 2772, 2774, 2787, 2791, 2796, 2798, 2811, 2812, 2817, 2859, 2861, 3223, [3278*],61 3384, 3449, [3565*].62 Add. MS 5540: 2000, 2064, 2068, 2079, 2084. Add. MS 6194: 417. Add. MS 17017:63 1743, 1993*. Add. MS 22910:64 2319, 2467, 2477, 2562, 2799, 2808. Add. MS 28728:65 390, 485, 546, 552, 565, 571, 580, 587, 592, 640, 811A, 814, 818, 850, 1808, 2442, 2550, 2580, 2644, 2726, 2728, 2757. Add. MS 28753: 492, 508, 551, 556, 560, 566, 581, 600, 623, 626, 633, 656, 790, 811, 862, 1088, 2412, 2458, 2707, 2732, 2734, 2836.

55  All to Benjamin Furly. 56  Image available online at https://digital.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/objects/d52b316c-98fb-456aaee8-9be41cf460d5/surfaces/36bbe6fc-a866-4b0a-9431-ffc58d83388c/# 57  Most of the Sloane MSS items are letters to Sir Hans Sloane. 58 Image available online at www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/letter-from-johnlocke-to-hans-sloane-2nd-december-1699-news-photo/463983245#letter-from-john-locke-tohans-sloane-2nd-december-1699-letter-from-picture-id463983245. 59  Printed by de Beer from a later source. 60  Birch Papers: correspondence with Edward Clarke, Anthony Collins, John Freke. 61  The original now in St Andrews University Library: MS 39022/2, fo. 4. 62  The original now in St Andrews University Library: MS 39022/2, fo. 5. 63  Samuel Heathcote Papers.    64  All these are to John Covel. 65  All these, as well as items in the following three volumes, are to Nicolas Toinard.

514

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Calendars: Repositories Add. MS 28835: 538, 596, 638, 665, 853, 2741. Add. MS 28836: [399],66 400, 467, 510, 1071, 3009.67 Add. MS 32094: 241. Add. MS 32096: 2661. Add. MS 38771: 804*. Add. MS 50958: 3600A. Add. MS 70949: 424.68 Add. MS 72531–3 & 72535: 1754, 1898, 1953, 2093.69 RP:70 2479A, 3088A*. London: the National Archives (formerly Public Record Office), Kew Shaftesbury Papers:71 155*, 161A, 211A, 211B, 230*, 231*, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 239A, 240, 242, 244, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250*, 251, 252, 254*, 255, 256, 257, 258, 261, 262, 263, 267, 268, 270, 271, 272, 272A, 273, 274, 275,72 278, 279B, 280C, 280D, 282, 283, 285, 286, 290, 291*, 292, 295, 298, 302, 295, 527A. State Papers (Colonial, Foreign, Treasury): 183, 280, 281*, 288, 2103A, 2104, 2138A. County record offices [Beverley, Yorkshire, East Riding Record Office: 1749].73 Lewes, East Sussex Record Office: 200.74 Maidstone, Kent History and Library Centre: 800.75 Matlock, Derbyshire Record Office: 2440.76 [Reading, Berkshire Record Office: 1754, 1898, 1953, 2093.]77

66  Printed by de Beer from this copy; the original is now in the American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 67  Printed by de Beer from this copy; the original was sold by auctioneers J.  A.  Stargardt (Berlin) on 25 November 1997; present location unknown. A (virtually illegible) image of the original is reproduced in Liebster Freund!: Autographensammlung Walter Stein, 2004. 68  Recorded by de Beer as in MS Loan 60; since accessioned. 69  These items (marquess of Downshire MSS) were recorded by de Beer as deposited in the Berkshire Record Office, Reading; since acquired by the BL. 70 These are photocopies of exported manuscripts whose present whereabouts are unknown. 71  In class PRO 30/24. See J. R. Milton, ‘Locke Manuscripts among the Shaftesbury Papers in the Public Record Office’, Locke Studies, 27 (1996), 109–30. 72  Two extracts from this letter (unrecorded by de Beer), in Locke’s hand, are in MS Locke d. 9, pp. 41, 76, 228, under headings ‘Alexipharmacum’, ‘Sciatica’. 73  This letter is now in Hull History Centre. 74  Shelfmark not recorded by de Beer: it is Shiffner MS 1561. Another, later, copy in the Norfolk Record Office, NNAS S2/4/4. 75  Shelfmark not recorded by de Beer: it is U1050/C/205. 76  Shelfmark not recorded by de Beer: it is D239/M/O/1256. 77  Four letters recorded by de Beer as in the Berkshire Record Office are now in the BL: Add. MSS 72531–3, 72535.

515

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Calendars: Repositories Taunton, Somerset Heritage Centre: 763A, 803A, 852A, 863A, 1417A, 1481B, 1490,78 1756A, 1818A, 1861A, 1879,79 2028A, 2151*, 2855A. Winchester, Hampshire Record Office:80 304A, 860A, 1171A, 1981A, 1984A, 1996A, 2289A, 2333A, 2333B. Other British libraries and archives Cambridge University, King’s College: 1437*, 1517,81 3619*.82 Cambridge University Library: 1509A. Edinburgh, National Library of Scotland: 1854A, 2908*. Edinburgh, National Records of Scotland:83 1624A, 1640A. Hull History Centre (Hull University Archives): 1749.84 London, Bank of England: 2016.85 London, Lambeth Palace: 2021, 2023. London, National Maritime Museum, Greenwich: 405*.86 London, Royal Society: 174A, 299, 413. London, Victoria and Albert Museum:87 620, 753, 766, 1038, 2608, 2610. Oxford University, Museum of the History of Science:88 1737A, 1752A, 2617A, 3214A, 3278A. St Andrews University Library:89 3278*, 3565*. Private collections Belvoir Castle, Leicestershire: Duke of Rutland: 245*.90 Brasted, Kent: Mr Ralph Baxter: 2839A.91 Longleat, Wiltshire: Marquis of Bath: 1121, 1792. [Torridon House, Ross-­shire: Earl of Lovelace: 652.]92

78  Shelfmark not recorded by de Beer: it is DD/SF/7/1/64 (formerly 853). 79  Shelfmark not recorded by de Beer: it is DD/SF/7/1/71 (formerly 3079). 80  Heathcote of Hursley and Malmesbury Papers. These were not known to de Beer. 81  Shelfmark not recorded by de Beer: it is Keynes MS 98. 82  Fragment printed by de Beer from an auction catalogue; the original is in Keynes Papers, MS PP/87/39. 83  Formerly Scottish Record Office. 84  Recorded by de Beer as in private ownership and on deposit at the East Riding Record Office, Beverley; shelfmark now is MS U DDFA/39/32. 85  Shelfmark not recorded by de Beer: it is MS 13A84/7/47. 86  Unrecorded by de Beer, whose transcription is taken from a modern printed copy. 87  Forster Collection, MS 364: Shaftesbury and Shaftesbury-related letters. 88  All from Richard Burthogge. 89  Holloway Collection, Album 2, fos. 4–5; unknown to de Beer, whose transcriptions are from copies in the BL. 90  Recorded by de Beer from a Historical Manuscripts Commission summary. 91  Unlikely still to be the location. 92  Sold at auction in 2015; present ownership unknown.

516

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Calendars: Repositories

Continental Europe and Ireland Amsterdam University Library (Remonstrants’ Library):93 792, 798, 810, 824, 825, 831, 833, 834, 838, 840, 841, 865, 866, 868, 877, 879, 905, 913, 926, 931, 959, 964, 965, 969, 979, 1023, 1051, 1054, 1058, 1069, 1070, 1090, 1092, 1100, 1107, 1120, 1127, 1147, 1148, 1172, 1182, 1213, 1229, 1242, 1335, 1375, 1398, 1429, 1473, 1504, 1509, 1518, 1527, 1572, 1601, 1635, 1671, 1692, 1804, 1826, 1901, 2126, 2209, 2340, 2395, 2413, 2443, 2498, 2557, 2615, 2621, 2653, 2866, 2921, 2925, 2935, 2979, 3043, 3130, 3192, 3602. Other European libraries: Basel University Library: 276. Berlin, Staatsbibliothek Preussischer Kulturbesitz: 475, 938, 1775*,94 2290. Copenhagen, Royal Library:95 914, 978, 1105, 1200, 1286, 1751, 1809, 1920. Dublin, National Library of Ireland: 1701A. Hanover, G. W. Leibniz Bibliothek: 353*. Leiden University Library: 1117. Marbach, Deutsches Literaturarchiv: 2724A*. Morlanwelz, Belgium, Musée royal de Mariemont: 3608*.96 Moscow, State Historical Museum: 3475. Uppsala University Library:97 1093, 3483. Venice, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana: 3025.

North America Austin, Texas, Harry Ransom Humanities Research Center, University of Texas (Carl H. Pforzheimer Library):98 183A, 1530, 1531, 1544, 1578, 1579, 1609, 1622, 1652, 1661, 1670, 1685, 1712, 1748, 1763, 1829, 1838, 1867, 1896, 1936, 1984, 2038, 2100, 2131, 2170*, 2189, 2221, 2240, 2262, 2269, 2288, 2311, 2324, 2331, 2336*, 2339, 2360, 2407, 2422, 2490, 2514, 3293, 3301, 3306, 3318, 3332, 3342, 3361, 3381, 3435, 3470, 3504, 3537, 3542, 3544, 3548, 3556, 3570, 3601, 3636, 3648.

93  Nearly all are by Locke to Philipp van Limborch. Additionally, MS RK III D16 contains copies of many of Limborch’s letters to Locke, the originals of which are in MS Locke c. 14. 94  Known to de Beer only from a sale catalogue. 95  All are by Locke to Joannes Georgius Graevius. 96  Printed by de Beer from an auction catalogue. Image available online: www.webopac.cfwb. be/mariemont/details/expert-archive/110005355. 97  Shelfmark not recorded by de Beer: it is MS Waller gb-01109. 98  All letters recorded by de Beer as being in the Pforzheimer Library in New York are, since 1987, in Texas. They are MSS 42–61. They comprise letters to Locke by William (and Thomas) Molyneux and by Locke to Anthony Collins. Locke’s side of the Molyneux correspondence is now in Santa Barbara.

517

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Calendars: Repositories New York, Morgan Library and Museum:99 394, 523B, 593, 1944, 1948, 1960, 2015, 2025, 2039, 2051, 2056, 2072, 2140, 2153, 2162, 2176, 2208, 2230, 2293, 2302, 2332, 2372, 2390, 2425, 2473*,100 2679, 2755, 3310. Santa Barbara, California, Karpeles Manuscript Library:101 1515*, 1538*, 1556*, 1583*, 1592*, 1593*, 1620*, 1643*,102 1655*, 1693*, 1744*, 1753*, 1781*, 1817*, 1857*, 1887*, 1921*, 1965*, 1966*, 2059*, 2115*, 2129*, 2202*, 2254*, 2277*, 2310*, 2376*, 2414*, 2471*, 2492*, 2500*, [2501*],103 2539*.104 Other North American libraries: Boston Public Library: 388.105 Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University, Houghton Library: 350,106 407,107 791*, 1415,108 2973A, 3059B, 3387,109 3498,110 3530, 3640. Chicago, Newberry Library:111 1758, 1773, 1795, 1825, 1983, 2124, 2301, 2327, 2426, 2603, 2607, 3028. Haverford College, Pennsylvania: 3643A. Los Angeles, University of California, William Andrews Clark Library: 1957.112 New Haven, Connecticut, Yale University, Beinecke Library:113 465, 1705, 2020, 2048, 2097, 3573A, 3573B. New York Public Library: 284, 2114. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, American Philosophical Society: 399*.114 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Historical Society of Pennsylvania: 2337, 2379A 2483, 2495A, 3624.115 Princeton University Library, Princeton, New Jersey:116 2456, 2717*, 3465.

99  Formerly (until 2006) called the Pierpont Morgan Library. Shelfmarks not recorded by de Beer; all except one are MS Locke 1 (MA 231.1–26). All but one are by Locke, to Cornelius Lyde, Nicholas Toinard, and Edward Clarke; one by John Barnes to Locke. 100  Recorded by de Beer as ‘present ownership unknown’; classmark now Misc Ray (MA 4500). 101  Recorded by de Beer as known only from printed versions in Some Familiar Letters between Mr Locke and Several of his Friends, 1708. All but one of these letters are by Locke to William (or Thomas) Molyneux. 102  Image available online: www.karpeles-com/johnLocke.php. 103  Sold at auction by Bonham’s, London, 12 June 2018, Lot 25; present ownership unknown. Image available online: www.bonhams.com/auctions/24895/lot/25. 104  Locke’s retained copy of no. 2539 was purchased by the Bodleian Library in 2015: MS Eng. c. 8376. 105  Shelfmark not recorded by de Beer: it is Ch. G. 2. 22. 106  Shelfmark not recorded by de Beer: it is MS Eng 870 (21). 107  Shelfmark not recorded by de Beer: it is Autograph File L. 108  Shelfmark not recorded by de Beer: it is Autograph File C. 109  Shelfmarks of nos. 3387, 3530, and 3640 not recorded by de Beer: they are MS Eng 1090 (1–3). 110  Recorded by de Beer as being in a private collection; now MS Hyde 10 (424). 111  The Esther Masham Letterbook: MS E5. M3827. 112  Shelfmark not recorded by de Beer: it is in Misc Mss. 113  Shelfmarks not recorded by de Beer: they are MSS files 9142. 114  Misc. MS 1169; de Beer used a copy in the BL. 115  Shelfmark not recorded by de Beer: it is Dreer Autograph Collection, 105:2, vol. 3, 132. 116  These three items were recorded by de Beer as in a private collection; they were acquired by Princeton University Library in 1985; shelfmark: Robert H. Taylor Collection, Box 11, Folder 23.

518

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Calendars: Repositories Richmond, Virginia Historical Society: 2590*.117 San Marino, California, Huntington Library: 432, 2658, 3488.118 Stanford University Library, Stanford, California: 3613.119 St Louis, Missouri, Washington University Library: 3261A, 3261B. Williamsburg, Virginia, Colonial Williamsburg Inc.: 2622, 2626. Private collections: [428, 542, 590A, 628, 1060A, 1267, 2456, 2717, 3465, 3498].120

Letters known only from printed sources The Correspondence of John Locke and Edward Clarke, ed. B.  Rand, 1927:121 264, 771, 773, 776, 780, 782, 786, 791, 799, 807, 809, 829, 844, 846, 849, 881, 886, 890, 897, 906, 981, 999, 1020, 1026, 1047, 1057, 1128, 1442, 1467, 1483, 1554, 1584, 1598, 1625, 1690, 1723, 1849, 1872, 1968, 1991, 2078, 2082, 2087, 2119, 2130, 2133, 2139, 2151*, 2163, 2242, 2258, 2351, 2398, 2447, 2617, 2683, 2780, 3138, 3482. Other printed sources Dedications of books by Locke: 853A, 1001A, 1131B, 1141A, 1428A, 1503A, 1611A, 1975A. Dedications of books to Locke: 773A, 1284A, 1481A, 1735A, 1878A, 1960A, 3059A, 3503A. Robert Boyle, The General History of the Air, 1692: 197. John Locke, A Second Vindication of the Reasonableness, 1697: 2207A. John Locke, Essai (French translation of the Essay, 1700): 2650B. Edmund Elys, Observations on Several Books, 1700: 2523*. Bibliothèque choisie, 1704: 1835. Some Familiar Letters between Mr Locke and Several of his Friends, 1708:122 2243.

117  Printed by de Beer from a later printed copy. 118  Shelfmark not recorded by de Beer: it is MS HM 8412. 119  Shelfmark not recorded by de Beer: it is MS Misc. 162. 120  Recorded by de Beer as belonging to Paul Mellon. Six were located in books once owned by Locke and are now in the Bodleian: 428, 542, 590A, 628, 1060A, 1267. No. 1060A is now in MS Locke d. 13. No. 628 came into the possession of Peter Laslett and appeared in the sale catalogue of his library (Bernard Quaritch, June 2006); it was presented to the Bodleian Library by a benefactor; currently accessioned as CMD ID 6115. Nos. 2456, 2717, and 3465 (Robert H. Taylor Collection) are now in Princeton University Library. No. 3498 is now in the Houghton Library, Harvard University. 121  Nearly all of these are by Locke to Edward Clarke, Mary Clarke, and John Freke. The surviving items are now in MS Locke b. 8; for those that did not survive, we rely on Rand. 122  De Beer printed a considerable number of further letters from this book. All but one of the originals are now in the Karpeles Library, Santa Barbara.

519

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Calendars: Repositories The Remains of John Locke, 1714: 2846, 3321, 3322, 3328, 3339. Robert Boyle, Works, 1744: 175, 223, 224, 228, 335, 397, 478, 911, 1001, 1422. [The Museum, 1746: 2590*.]123 [Catharine Cockburn, Works, 1751: 3234.]124 European Magazine, 1788:125 243, 259, 260, 265, 269, 339, 348, 360, 361, 362, 364, 417, 450. Peter King, Life of John Locke, 1829: 1252. T. Forster, ed., Original Letters of Locke, 1830: 947, 993, 995, 998, 1017, 1346, 1356, 1386. J. T. Gilbert, A History of the City of Dublin, 1854–9: 2677*. H. R. Fox Bourne, The Life of John Locke, 1876: 561. [ J. R. Tanner, ed., Further Correspondence of Samuel Pepys, 1929: 405*.]126 Historical Manuscripts Commission Reports: [245*],127 1776. Known only from sale catalogues:128 279A, 280A, 352, [353],129 415*, 962, 972, 996, [1775],130 2118A, 2504*, [2717*],131 [2724A],132 2739, [3088A],133 3474,134 [3608],135 3611,136 [3619].137 Known only from internet image: 3590A.138

123  Now in Richmond, Virginia: Virginia Historical Society. 124  Printed by de Beer from this source, but the original is available: BL, Add. MS 4265, f. 16. 125  All by Locke to John Mapletoft. 126  Original now in the National Maritime Museum, Greenwich. 127  Text from Belvoir Castle now available. 128  These texts are generally available only in summary or not at all. Items in square brackets were known to de Beer only from sale catalogues, but the originals have now been traced. 129  Original now in Hanover, G. W. Leibniz Bibliothek. 130  Original now in Berlin, Staatsbibliothek Preussischer Kulturbesitz. 131  At first recorded by de Beer as known only from a sale catalogue (Corr., vii. 68); amended by him as being part of a private collection (Corr., viii. 437); now in Princeton University Library. 132  Original now in Marbach, Deutsches Literaturarchiv: Wiedemann Sammlung, 96.146.132. 133  A photocopy of the manuscript is now in the BL: RP 477/1. 134  One paragraph is known only from a sale catalogue; the remainder is in a copy in the BL. 135  Original now in the Musée royal de Mariemont, Belgium: Aut. 541/6. 136  De Beer conjectured this may be the same as 3613; if so, it is a ‘ghost’. 137  Original now in King’s College Cambridge: Keynes Papers, PP/87/39. 138  But no longer available online.

520

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

INDEX OF NAMES This index covers the Introduction, the main body of Letters, and the Appendices, but not the Calendars. The names of modern scholars are not indexed. Abingdon, earl of, see Bertie Ablancourt, Nicolas Perrot d’  66 Abney, Sir Thomas  185 Abraham, Cornelius  175 Acosta, José de  26 Adams, Clement  26 Addison, Leonard  xxx Aikenhead, Thomas  xxxi–xxxii, 283–8, 293–5 Ailesbury, earl of, see Bruce Aldrich, Henry  xxxv, 46 Allais, D. V. d’  77 Allestree, Richard  21, 22 Allix, Pierre  369 Andrewes, Damaris (later Cudworth)  xxx, 212, 271 Andrewes, Richard  145 Andrewes, Thomas  271 Andrews, Capt. Jonathan  333 Andrews, Sir Matthew  333 Andros, Edmund  307–8 Anghiera, Pietro d’  26 Anglesey, earl of, see Annesley Ango, Pierre  76 Anne, Queen  40, 71, 114, 373 Annesley, Arthur, first earl of Anglesey  205, 417 Annesley, Frances (later Lady Haversham)  205, 417 Anstruther, Sir William  xxxii, 283–6, 287–8, 293 Antoniaster, Abel  339 Aquinas, Thomas  130 Argall, Sir Samuel  28 Arlington, earl of, see Bennet Arminius, Jacob  118 Arminius, Maria (later Veen)  118–19 Armstrong, Sir Thomas  411, 413n Arnauld, Antoine  76, 77, 136n Ashe, Bishop St George  201

Ashe, Thomas  26 Ashley, Maurice  xliii Ashurst, Sir Henry  161 Ashurst, Sir William  333 Astell, Mary  293 Atkins, Sir Jonathan  42, 44 Aubrey, John  xliin, l, 29–32, 136–7, 197, 201–2 Aubrey, John, of Burleton  137n Austen, Jane  434n Ayloffe, John  418n Baber, Edward  114 Bacon, Sir Francis, Lord Verulam  31, 158 Bacon, Nathaniel  417 Bagshaw, Edward  4 Baker, Mr  257 Balzac, Jean-Louis Guez de  65 Banks, Caleb  xliii, 58–62, 64 Banks, Lady Elizabeth, see Dethick Banks, Sir John  57, 58 Barbeyrac, Jean  xliii Barbon, Jane (later Stringer)  120 Barbon, Nicholas  120 Barker, Andrew  27 Barnes, Joseph  353–4 Barrell, Mr  258 Barrow, Isaac  xlii Bartoli, Daniello  78 Baskervil, Sir Jo  28 Basnage, Jacques  l Bassett, Thomas  201, 202n, 419, 420–5 Bateman, James  185n Baudrand, Michel  77 Baxter, Richard  xxiii, l, 102, 387–8 Baxter, William  367 Bayle, Pierre  xli, l, li, 65n, 347n Bayley, Phillip  297–8 Bayly, Lewis  381

521

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Index of names Becket, Thomas  112 Beckford, Mrs  73 Beke (Beak), Richard  257 Bellini, Lorenzo  78 Bellomont, earl of, see Coote Benbow, Capt. John  162, 333 Bendall, Capt. Hopefor  333 Bennet, Mr  363 Bennet, Henry, first earl of Arlington  xxvi, xxxv, 36, 39, 41–6, 311n, 405n Bennet, Isabella (later duchess of Grafton) 311 Bennett, Frances (later countess of Salisbury) 371 Bennett, Joyce, Lady King  72–3, 92 Bentinck, Hans Willem, earl of Portland  275, 279, 376 Bentley, Richard  xliii, 304–5 Bere, Juliana  175 Berkeley, Charles, second earl of Berkeley 330 Berkeley, Elizabeth, see Blake Berkeley, John, first Baron Berkeley  48–9 Bernard, Edward  187 Bernard, Jacques  323, 347 Bernier, Françoise  xliii, 78 Bertie, James, first earl of Abingdon 407n Bethel, Slingsby  417 Birch, Thomas  161, 365, 371n, 376–7, 394 Blackmore, Sir Richard  293, 298 Blair, James  307–8 Blake, Elizabeth (later Berkeley and Burnet)  xliii, 364, 368 Blancardus, Nicolaus  86–7 Blathwayt, William  262 Blencowe, Sir John  323–4 Blondel, François  77 Blount, Charles  194n, 284 Bluett, Elizabeth, see Buckland Bobert, Jacob  xlvi Boddington, George  185n Bodenham, Roger  27 Bodington, James  333 Bold, Samuel  xxivn, 288–9, 323

Bolton, duke of, see Paulet Bonet(t), Mr, see Bennet Bonnell, Capt. John  333 Bonville, John, Sr  xlv, 106, 333 Bonville, John, Jr  362–3 Booth, Henry, second Baron Delamare, earl of  Warrington  102, 282n Bossuet, Jacques-Benigne  76n Bottrigari, Galeazzo  27 Bouhéreau, Élie  xvii, lii, 65–7 Boun, George  333 Bourignon, Antoinette  434 Bowyer, Anthony  333 Boyle, Robert  xxiii, xxiv, xxxvi, xxxix–xl, xli, xlix, 10–11, 46n, 51, 78, 80–6, 106–7, 151, 153, 156–62, 304, 329, 330n, 357n, 381, 423–4 Bracken, Rachel  431 Branch, Benjamin  393n Brereton, John  29n Bridgeman, William  334 Bridges, Brooke  185n Bridgewater, Benjamin  381 Brisbane, John  xlv Broadnax, Capt. Thomas  102 Broadnax, Sir William  102 Broadnax, William  102 Brounower, Sylvester  132 Brown, Andrew  195n Browne 16 Browne, Peter  433 Browne, Richard  32n Browne, Thomas  381 Bruce, Thomas, second earl of Ailesbury  274, 281n Brumwell, Capt. John  334 Buckingham, duke of, see Villiers Buckland, Elizabeth (later Bluett)  205, 212 Buckler, John  164 Bullinger, Heinrich  141 Bulstrode, Whitelocke  103, 123, 167n Burgess, Mary  205 Burlington, Richard, earl of  161 Burnet, Elizabeth, see Blake Burnet, Bishop Gilbert  71, 308n, 370n, 388n Burnet, Isabella  71

522

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Index of names Burnet, Thomas, of the Charterhouse  106, 148, 364 Burnett, Thomas, of Kemnay  xxxvi–xxxvii, 321–2, 341–2, 336n, 364, 367n, 368–71, 394n Burney, Fanny  434n Burridge, Ezekiel  xix, xx, 212, 213, 252, 259, 286, 307, 313–14, 337–8 Burthogge, Richard  xxivn, 181 Butler, James, first duke of Ormond  22 Cabot, Sebastian  25–7 Cade, Salisbury  334 Calamy, Edmund  xvii, 386–9 Calorie, François  339 Campbell, Archibald  191n Campbell, James, second earl of Loudoun 413 Capel, Arthur, first earl of Essex  407, 411–13, 416–17 Capel, Henry, first Baron  207, 252 Carmarthen, marquis of, see Osborne Carmichael, James  322 Carnegie, David  192 Carnegie, Margaret (later Fletcher)  192, 356–62 Carpenter, Francis  353–4 Carteret, Sir George  39, 42, 48–9 Carteret, James  23n Cary, John  270–1 Catherine of Braganza, Queen  xxvn, 155–6 Cavendish, Thomas  28 Cecil, Frances, countess of Salisbury, see Bennett Cecil, James, fourth earl of Salisbury 371n Chadwick, James  269 Challoner, Edmund  356–7 Chamberlayne, Edward  362n Chambre, Marin Cureau de la  66 Charles II, King  xxvn, 11, 13–14, 35–9, 54, 124, 132, 155, 156n, 177n, 206n, 344, 403, 410n Charleton (Courten), William  xlviii, 56–7, 63–4 Charlett, Arthur  190–2, 415n Charpentier, François  66

Chesterfield, Lord, see Stanhope Cheswell, Charles  80 Chichely, Sir Thomas  xxxviiin Chidly, Sir Jo  28 Child, Sir Francis  334 Child, Sir Josiah  xlii, 146n Child, Martha (later Collins)  380 Chilton, John  27 Chiswell, Richard  425n Chitty, Matthew  73 Chudleigh, Mary  175 Chudleigh, Thomas  403, 411–13 Churchill, Awnsham  xix, xxix, xxx, xxxvi, xliii, xlv, xlvii, xlviii, 104, 106, 157n, 172–3, 197, 201–2, 288, 307, 311–14, 317, 345, 351n, 367, 385–6, 390, 420–1, 423–7 Churchill, John, bookseller  xxxi, xxxvi, xlv, xlix, 157n, 317, 321, 330–1, 348, 351n, 420, 423–7 Churchill, John, first duke of Marlborough  274, 279n Clarke, Anne (first of that name)  72 Clarke, Anne (second of that name)  73, 179n, 209, 356n Clarke, Edward  xiv, xv–xvi, xxiii, xxivn, xxviii, xxix–xxx, xxxiii, xxxvi, xli, xlii, xliiin, xlv, xlvi, xlvii, xlix, 53, 72–3, 79–80, 87–93, 97–8, 103–5, 114–15, 121–3, 137–46, 148n, 149–50, 154–6, 159n, 167–9, 174–7, 179–80, 182, 184–5, 189–90, 194n, 196–7, 202–5, 206–7, 209–12, 214, 216n, 242–4, 248–52, 254–6, 258n, 266–8, 270–2, 274, 283n, 296–7, 312n, 320–1, 342–4, 350–2, 362–4, 391–2, 415n, 422–3 Clarke, Edward, Jr (‘Ward’)  72, 88, 143, 149–50, 185n, 244n, 255, 264–8, 296–7, 306, 356n Clarke, Sir Edward  203 Clarke, Elizabeth  72 Clarke, Elizabeth (‘Betty’) (later Jones)  72, 112n, 118n, 119n, 133n, 139–40, 155–6, 181–2, 189–90, 209–10, 268, 342–4, 356n, 391 Clarke, Jane (‘Jinney’)  73, 254–5, 356n

523

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Index of names Clarke, Jepp  73, 144n, 180, 356n, 392 Clarke, John (‘Jack’)  73, 141–2, 180, 243, 254, 350–1, 356n Clarke, John  114 Clarke, Mary  xxxiv, 72–3, 89n, 103–6, 114n, 121–3, 139–44, 154–6, 175, 179–82, 203, 207, 209–12, 242–4, 254–6, 264–8, 297, 342–4, 355–6, 391–2 Clarke, Mary (‘Molly’) (later Musgrave)  73, 141–2, 175, 356n, 391–2 Clarke, Richard  xxxi, xxxvi Clarke, Robert  107 Clarke, Robert, thatcher  396n Clarke, Samuel (‘Sammy’)  73, 356n Clarke, Timothy  xxxin, 15 Clarke, William  79–80, 114, 242 Claude, Jean  77 Clavel, Robert  124 Clayton, Sir Robert  xvii, xxviii, 268–70, 334 Clement, Simon  xliii Clifford, George, third earl of Cumberland 28 Clifford, Sir Nicholas  28 Clifton, Jonah  164 Cockburn, Catherine, see Trotter Cockburn, Patrick  365 Codrington, Richard  174, 309, 320 Coke, Sir Edward  176 Coker, William  xxxv, xxxviii, 8–10 Cole, William  xliii College, Stephen  407, 414n, 415n Colleton, Sir Peter  xxvi, 25–9, 42, 46, 240n Collier, Jeremy  392n Collier, Rebecca  431–4 Collins, Anthony  xxii, xliii, xlix, l, 311n, 379–80, 384–6, 389–90, 396–7, 428, 430 Collins, Martha, see Child Compton, Bishop Henry  308n Conyers, John  363 Coole, Benjamin  432–3 Cooper, Anthony Ashley, first earl of Shaftesbury  xxivn, xxv, xxix, xxxi,

xxxvii–xxxviii, xlv, 15, 17–19, 21–5, 30–1, 32, 34, 36–9, 41n, 47, 48–9, 50–1, 52–4, 58, 69–70, 78, 120, 146, 190n, 324, 403, 405, 406n, 407, 408, 412–18 Cooper, Anthony Ashley, second earl of Shaftesbury  xvii, 19, 53 Cooper, Anthony Ashley, third earl of Shaftesbury  xxxiv, xlix, 19, 53–4, 104, 114n, 179n, 293, 296, 350n, 374–9, 396–400 Cooper, Margaret Ashley, countess of Shaftesbury, see Spencer Cooper, Sir William  53 Coote, Richard, earl of Bellomont  xliin, 139n, 262, 296, 335–6 Corvinus, Matthias  339, 341 Costar, Pierre  65 Coste, Pierre  xxivn, xxxvi, xlvii, xlix, 73, 105n, 180n, 292–3, 305, 312, 331–2, 340n, 344–5, 347n, 395n, 396, 399n, 433 Courten, William, see Charleton Coventry, Sir William  xxxv Cowper, Lady Sarah, see Holled Coxe, Daniel  xliii, 161 Coxe, Thomas  58, 65 Cradock, Charles  xxxvi Cradock, Damaris (later Cudworth)  145, 212 Craig, Mungo  283, 287 Craven, William, earl of Craven  29, 48–9 Creech, Thomas  190–2 Crisp, Tobias  290n Crommelin, Louis  298 Cromwell, Oliver  xxvn, 31n, 102, 123, 124, 181 Cudworth, Damaris, Lady Masham  xiv, xxii, xxx–xxxi, xxxiv, xxxv, xxxvi, xlvi, 70–1, 73–6, 91, 105n, 143–4, 145, 149–50, 271–2, 312–13, 351–2, 363–4, 380, 393–4, 395n Cudworth, Damaris, Sr, see Andrewes Cudworth, Ralph  xxx, 144–5, 212n Culpeper, Thomas, second baron  35–9

524

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Index of names Cunningham, Alexander (not to be confused with the next)  xxxvi, 321–2, 369 Cunningham, Alexander (not to be confused with the preceding)  xxxvi, 321–2, 369 Cunningham, Robert  xxxii, 283–6, 287 Curll, Edmund  397n Cusson, J.  77n Cutts, Joanna  185n Cutts, John, first baron  71, 185n, 310 Dacier, André  77, 370–1 Dacier, Anne, see Le Fevre Dalrymple, Sir James  418 Dampier, William  xlvii Danby, earl of, see Osborne Dando, Simon  xlvi Dansie, Anthony  164 Danvers, John  258n Danvers, Rachel  137n D’Aranda, Paul  xlviii, 259–62 Dare, Thomas  xlv, 414 Darrell, John  46 Dashwood, Sir Samuel  258 De Briolay de Beaupreau, [Christophe?]  14–15, 16–17, 22–3 De Herrera y Tordesillas, Antonio  26 Delamare, Baron, see Booth De Oviedo y Valdés, Gonzalo  26 Demetrius 208 Denew, James  185 Descartes, René  129 Desgaloniere, Monsieur  72–3, 142n Desgodets, Antoine  77 Des Maizeaux, Pierre  l, 380, 385, 389n Dethick, Elizabeth (later Banks)  58–9, 60–2 Dethick, Sir John  61 Dickinson, Edmund  161–2 Dike, Betty  143 Duelly, Monsieur  105n, 180n Digges, Edward  57n Digges, Mary  102 Dingley, Mr  114 Dodart, Denis  xliii Dodington, George  257, 334

Dodwell, Henry  339 Dolben, Archbishop John  22 Doleman, Mary  319 Doody, Samuel  187 Dorington, James  318 Dorrell, Capt. Robert  334 Douglas, Lord George  322 Douset, John  396n Drake, Sir Francis  27–8 Draper, William  334 Dring, Thomas  202n, 424 Drummond, John, first earl of Melfort 277n Dubois, Monsieur  105n Du Bos, Jean-Baptiste  315, 322, 340 Dudley, Sir Robert  28 Duelly, Monsieur  105n, 180n Duke, Isabella  98 Duke, Richard  98 Dummer, Edmund  334 Dun, Patrick  xl, 166 Dunlop, William  336–7 Dunton, John  xvii, xxivn, 381–4 Duppa, Bishop Brian  51 Duras, Louis, earl of Feversham  156n Duverney, Joseph-Guichard  78 Edwards, John  9, 208, 288 Egerton, John, third earl of Bridgewater  308, 407 Eliot, Hugh  27 Elizabeth I, Queen  27, 265 Ellis, John  403–6, 413–16 Elys, Edmund  316–17 Ent, Sir George  xxxin, 15 Erasmus  xxiii, 140–1 Essex, earl of, see Capel Evance, Sir Stephen  xlv, 258n, 334 Evelyn, John  xii, xvii, xlv, li, 34, 107n, 128–31, 161, 304–5, 334 Eversden, Mr  231n, 232 Eyles, Francis  334 Eyre, Sir Samuel  52–3 Fabyan, Robert  26n Falconer, William  334 Fatio de Duillier, Nicolas  178–9

525

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Index of names Fell, Bishop John  6–7, 12–14, 21–2, 127, 403, 407–11, 414–16 Fenwick, Sir John  269n, 273–83 Fenwick, Lady Mary  273–83 Ferguson, Robert  xlv, 26, 53, 102, 405n, 411n, 412, 416–18 Feversham, earl of, see Sondes Filmer, Sir Robert  134, 190n Finch, Daniel, second earl of Nottingham  35, 124, 202, 276n Firmin, Thomas  xlv, 207–8, 297–8, 334 Fitzroy, Isabella, duchess of Grafton, see Bennet Flamsteed, John  li Fleet, Sir John  334 Fleming, Sir Daniel  190 Fleming, George  190 Fletcher, Andrew  xlv, 192–5, 322, 356–62, 414n, 418n Fletcher, Benjamin  262–4 Fletcher, Henry  171n, 192, 356–62 Fletcher, Margaret, see Carnegie Foche, Sir John  258 Formentin, Raymond  94n Fountain, Richard  268 Fouquet, Monsieur  105n Fowler, Bishop Edward  xxx, 145, 312n, 351–2, 363–4 Fowles, Mr  79 Frankland or Franklin, Sir Thomas  316 Frassen, Claude  77 Frazier, Carey (later Mordaunt, countess of Monmouth and Peterborough)  155, 168n, 182, 274 Freke, John  xxiin, xxviii, xxxvi, xlii, 94n, 98n, 180, 190, 194n, 196–7, 202–5, 206–7, 212, 214, 216n, 249–52, 254n, 256, 266, 268, 272, 273–83, 286n, 296, 347n, 422 Freke, Thomas  348 Freston, Richard  268 Fuller, Bishop William  50–1 Furly, Arent  350, 367, 374–6 Furly, Benjamin  xliin, xliii, xliv, xlv, xlviii, xlviii, 72n, 94n, 108, 112–14, 147n, 162, 167n, 168n, 174, 259, 350–1, 374–6

Furly, Benjohan  xlv, 350n, 374 Furnese, Sir Henry  185n Gardiner, Richard  xvi, 6–7 Gassendi, Pierre  78, 129 Geekie, Alexander  xliii, 311n Gendron, Claude Deshais  340 Gendron, François  94n George, Prince of Denmark  71 Gibb, Mr  184 Gildon, Charles  382n Girac, Paul Thomas de  65 Glanville, William  334 Glisson, Francis  xxxin, 15 Goddard, Thomas  185n Godfrey, Michael  185 Godolphin, Sidney, Lord  257, 274, 279n Godwyn, Morgan  xxxv Gómara, Francisco de  27 Goodall, Charles  166, 421n Goodenough, Francis  412, 418n Goodenough, Richard  412, 418n Gore, Sir William  185n, 334 Gorges, Richard, second baron  35–9 Graevius, J. G.  li, 322, 387 Grafton, Isabella, duchess of, see Bennet Grant, Francis, Lord Cullen  295n Grantham, Sir Thomas  334 Grassemare, Monsieur  73, 105n, 180n, 189n Greaves, George  324 Greenhill, John  xxvn, 121n Gregory XIII, Pope  323n Gregory, David  187n Grenville, Denis  xiv Grenville, Sir Richard  28 Grey, Ford, Lord  418n Grey, Thomas, second earl of Stamford 282n Grigg, Elizabeth (later Stratton)  393n Grotius, Hugo  141 Guenellon, Cornelia Maria, see Veen Guenellon, Pieter, Sr  xliv, xlviii, 65, 111–12, 133, 165–6 Guenellon, Pieter, Jr  111n, 118n Guest, Sarah  73 Gurney, Joseph  431

526

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Index of names Gurney, Priscilla  432 Gutteridge, Capt. William  334 Guy, Henry  177 Guyon, Jeanne  434 Gwyn, Edward  34 Gwyn, Eleanor, see Popham Gwyn, Francis  xvii, 34–5 Gwynne, Sir Rowland  268 Haddock, Sir Richard  334 Hagley, Mr  103 Hakluyt, Richard  25, 26n, 28n Hale, Sir Matthew  31 Halifax, marquis of, see Savile Hall, Thomas  258n Halley, Edmond  xliii, 135 Halsted, Capt. Mathias  23n, 49 Halyburton, Thomas  287 Hamilton, James  298, 305n Hamilton, William  xxxii, 287, 293–5 Hamilton, William, third duke of  171, 172n, 293 Hammond, Henry  369 Hanny, Joseph  353 Hare, Augustus  432 Harley, Robert  287 Harrington, James  54, 417n, 420 Harriot, Thomas  28 Harris, Lady Elizabeth  54 Harris, James  xvii Harris, John  xliii Harrison, Mr  374 Harroll (Harol), David  105 Harroll (Harol), Robert  3 Harvey, Gideon  xlviin Haversham, Baron, see Thompson Haversham, Frances, Lady, see Annesley Hawker, Elizabeth  73 Hawkins, Sir John  27–8 Hawks, Henry  27 Hawkshaw, Benjamin  183n Hawkshaw, Elinor, see Parry Hawkshaw, John  xxi, 183, 184, 188, 189, 195 Hawkshaw, Richard  183n Hawley, Harry  79–80 Hazard, Roger  xxxvi

Hazel (Hassell), Ann  xxix, 392 Hearne, Thomas  178, 191n Heath, Capt. William  334 Heathcote, Gilbert  185n, 204n, 207n, 217, 334 Heathcote, Samuel  xvi–xvii, xxviii, 163, 207n, 216–41, 296, 297, 299–304 Hedges, Sir Charles  335 Hedges, Sir William  185 Helmont, Jan Baptist van  11 Hendric Casimer, Prince of Nassau  86 Henman, Mrs  73, 145, 156 Henry VI, King  429 Henry VII, King  27n Herbert, Thomas, eighth earl of Pembroke  xxivn, 109–11, 115–18, 162, 173–4, 268, 428–30 Hermann, Paul  78 Herne, Sir Joseph  334 Herrera y Tordesillas, Antonio de  26 Herringman, Henry  421n Hewett, John or Jack  280n Hickes, George  415n Hickman, Sir William  35–9 Hill, Abigail, Lady Masham  71 Hill, Capt. John  334 Hill, Jonathan  120 Hinton, Thomas  190–2 Hoadly, Benjamin  387–8 Hobbes, Thomas  l–li, xxv, 30–2, 129, 190, 284 Hobson, Elizabeth (later Ward)  417 Hobson, William  417 Hodges, James  305 Hogshaw, see Hawkshaw Holled, Sarah (later Cowper)  392n Holloway, Sir Richard  403, 407–8, 415n Holt, Elizabeth  202n, 420 Holt, John  323 Honywood, Sir William  256–8 Hook, Michael  80 Hooke, Robert  xli Horace  51n, 77, 322, 367 Horne, Robert  26 Horner, Francis  287 Horutener, Jacques  64

527

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Index of names Hoskins, John  xxxix, xlv, 52, 53, 69 Hostun, d’, Camille, comte de Tallard 317n Houblon, Abraham  185 Houblon, Sir James  185, 334 Houblon, Sir John  185, 203, 296, 334 Houghton, John  323 Houssaye, Amelot de la  78n Howard, Catherine (later Molyneux)  184n Howard, Charles, first earl of Carlisle 278n Howard, Charles, third earl of Carlisle 278 Howard, Henry, seventh duke of Norfolk 278n Howard, Sir Robert  33, 54–6, 205, 206n Howard, Mr  259 Howe, John  418 Huband, Sir John  185 Huet, Pierre Daniel  76 Hume, Sir Patrick, earl of Marchmont  285n, 287 Hurst, Henry  41n Hutton, Richard  164 Huygens, Christiaan  xliii, 86 Huygens, Constantiijn  86 Hyde, Edward, first earl of Clarendon  xxxv, 12–13 Ingram, Lambert  164 Innocent XI, Pope  77n Ireland, Thomas  404 James II, King  111n, 124, 125n, 127n, 138n, 191n, 205, 274, 276n, 277n, 413, 416n Jamet, N.-P.  78n Jane, William  xxxv Janeway, Richard  112, 114 Janssen, Theodore  185 Jenkins, Sir Leoline  403, 407–8 Jocelin ( Joslyn, Josselyn), Samuel  188 Johnson, Sir Henry  334 Johnson, John  334 Johnson, Samuel  404n Johnson, Dr Samuel  256n, 380

Johnstoun, James  xxxii, 169–72, 194n, 195n, 283–4, 287–8, 293 Jones, Elizabeth, see Clarke Jones, Griffith (Griffin)  xvii, 39–41 Jones, John, clergyman  394 Jones, John, suitor  72, 343, 391n Jones, Katherine, Viscountess Ranelagh  107, 161 Jones, Peter  46 Josselyn, see Jocelin Justel, Henri  xlviii, 64–5, 76–8, 94n, 304n Kent, Richard  175n Kidd, William  335 Kidder, Richard  xliii Kiffin, William  46 King, Lady, see Bennett King, Peter, Baron  xxii, xxxi, xxxiv, xxxvi, xliii, xlv, xlviii, 72, 175n, 231n, 312–13, 321, 342–4, 353–4, 364, 372–4, 377, 380, 386, 391n, 392–3, 395n, 399–400 King, Richard  xiv, 354 King, Archbishop William  305n Kingdon, Richard  xxvi, 46 Kippis, Andrew  388 Kirk, Sir David  29 Kirke, Sir Lewis  29 Kneller, Sir Godfrey  xxii, 311, 313–14, 389n, 390n Knight, John  185n Laet, Johannes de  26 Lamy, Bernard  xliii, 340 Lane, Hannah  395 Lane, Sir Ralph  28 Lane, Sir Thomas  334 Lang, Margaret  295 Lauder, Sir John  285 Laudonnière, René de  26 Laughton, John  148, 394 Laughton, Richard  148, 392n, 393–4 Launay, Gilles de  xliii Lawson, Mrs  278–80 Lead, Jane  434 Le Clerc, Daniel  xliii

528

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Index of names Le Clerc, Jean  xiv, xxxix–xl, xliii, xlv, xlvii, xlix, li, 65n, 99, 109, 115, 141, 150–4, 165n, 173–4, 286n, 306, 331, 367, 395n, 397n, 421n Leewenhoeck, Anthony  267n Lefevre, Monsieur  73, 243n Le Fevre, Anne (later Dacier)  77n, 306n, 370 Le Fevre, Tanneguy, Sr  306–7 Le Fevre, Tanneguy, Jr  xxi–xxii, 306–7, 370n Le Gendre, Jean  64 Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm  xxxvi–xxxvii, li, 286, 292, 321–2, 323–4, 341, 345, 347, 368 Le Maitre de Sacy, Louis-Isaac  76n L’Estrange, Roger  53 Lethieullier, Samuel  186 Lilburne, Richard  46–7, 51–2 Lilburne, Robert  46 Lilly, William  112 Limborch, Francis  xxxvi, xlv, 232n, 347n Limborch, Philippus van  xxivn, xxxiv, xxxix, li, 115, 133, 322, 332n Littleton, Sir Thomas (15th cent.)  176 Littleton, Sir Thomas (17th cent.)  257, 334 Livingston, Robert  262–4 Livingston, Sir Thomas, Viscount Teviot 170 Lloyd, John  407n Lloyd, William, bishop of St Asaph and Worcester  129n, 277n, 323–4, 326–8, 340n Lloyd, William, bishop of Norwich 277n, Lobb, Stephen  418n Lock, Nicholas  417n Locke, Mary (later Stratton)  70 Locke, Peter  xxix–xxx, xlv, 3, 53, 70, 343n, 392 Locke, Samuel  348–50 Lockhart, James  342n Lockhart, Martha  xliv, 137–9, 155, 181–2, 185n, 310, 322, 342n, 355 Lockhart, Sir William  181

Longepierre, Hilaire-Bernard  370n Lordell, John  186n Lowndes, William  xliii, 202–3, 204n, 214, 215n, 249, 253, 334, 351n Lowth, William  xlviin Lowther, Sir John  334 Lucretius 190n Ludlow, Edmund  xxi, Lukin, John  xxxvi Luther, Martin  141 Luttrell, Narcissus  416n Lyde, Cornelius  xxix, xlvi, 241–2, 309, 318–20 Lyde, Samuel  309n, 318 Lye, Nathaniel  xvii, 32–3 Mabillon, Jean  78 Macock, J.  421n Magnol, Pierre  xlv, xlviii Maimbourg, Louis  76 Maimonides xlii Malebranche, Nicolas  136n, 192, 370 Mallet, Charles  76n Malpus, Mr  73 Manners, Dorothy  19–21 Manners, Frances (later Manners, countess of Rutland)  19–21 Manners, John, eighth earl of Rutland  19 Mansel, Bussy  413n Mansel, Catherine (later Waller)  413n Manship, Samuel  202, 419, 424, 427 Mapletoft, John  xli, 17, 46, 334 Mariotte, Edme  78 Marlborough, duke of, see Churchill Martenis, George  164 Martin, Henry  xliii Martin, Martin  xliii Martin, Jervis  164 Martin, Josiah  433 Marton, Oliver  363 Martyn, John  421n Martyr, Peter  26 Mary II, Queen  73, 137, 164, 181, 185n, 253, 310 Masham, Charles  71 Masham, Damaris, see Cudworth Masham, Elizabeth  71

529

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Index of names Masham, Esther  xxxiv, xxxvii, 71, 155, 156, 329–30, 342, 394–6, 395n Masham, Sir Francis  xxxvi, xxxvii, 70, 145, 241–2, 330n, 377–8, 379, 386, 395n Masham, Francis Cudworth  xxi, xlix, 70–1, 144n, 168n, 182, 212–13, 252, 286, 296, 305, 306–7, 312n, 395n Masham, Henry  xxxvi, 71, 196n, 315, 329–30 Masham, John  71 Masham, Margaret  145 Masham, Richard  71 Masham, Samuel  71, 395n Masham, William  71, 242 Masham, Winwood  xxxvi, 71 Mathew, J.  33 Maurice of Nassau, Prince  418 Mauvillain, Jean-Armand de  248 Mauvillain, Peter  247–9, 251 Mayer, Monsieur  418 Mayhew, John  xxxvi Mayo, Daniel  388 Mazel, David  xlix Meade, Matthew  417 Meadows, Sir Philip  258n, 362n Mearne, Samuel  421n Mersenne, Marin  86 Methuen, John  286, 314n Meure, Mr  72 Michelson, William  28 Micklethwaite, John  xxxin, 15 Middleton, Charles, second earl of Middleton  274, 277n, 411–13, 416–18 Miles, Henry  161 Millett, William  297 Milton, John  417n, 421 Minucci, Minuccio  78n Molesworth, Robert  271n, 305 Molière 248 Moll, Herman  72, 105 Molyneux, Catherine, see Howard Molyneux, Samuel Sr  338 Molyneux, Samuel Jr  xxi–xxii, xlvii, 212, 213, 252, 306–7 Molyneux, Sir Thomas  xix, xx, 160, 164–5, 173, 195, 201n, 314n, 318

Molyneux, William  xiv, xviii–xxiii, xxiv, xxviii, xxxiii, xli, xlviii, li, 135–6, 151, 160–1, 162, 164–5, 167n, 168n, 169, 172–3, 178, 183–4, 188–9, 195, 198n, 199–200, 201, 212–13, 252, 259, 262, 273, 286, 292–3, 298, 305, 306–7, 309, 311, 313–14, 337–8 Monk, Capt. Henry  183, 188, 195, 201 Monmouth, duke of, see Scott Monmouth, earl of, see Mordaunt Montagu, Edward, first Baron  19 Montagu, Frances, see Manners Montague, Charles  242, 257, 334 Montague, Dean  362n Montgomerie, Sir James  171n Moore, Bishop John  xliii, 322, 393 Mordaunt, Carey, countess of Monmouth and Peterborough, see Frazier Mordaunt, Charles, earl of Monmouth and Peterborough  xliin, 122n, 124–6, 262–4, 272–3, 273–83 Mordaunt, Henry, second earl of Peterborough 278n Mordaunt, John, Lord  376n Mordaunt, Mary, Lady  278n Morden, Sir John  334 More, Henry  li Moréri, Louis  311 Morison, Robert  187 Morrice, John  334 Morrice, Roger  405n Morrice, Sir William  xxxv, 13–14 Mortier, David  317 Mortlock, Henry  124 Motte, Charles de la  xlix, li, 345–7 Moulin, Peter du  102 Moulinet, Claude de  187 Mullart, William  201 Murray, John, earl of Tullibardine  285 Musgrave, George, Sr  175 Musgrave, George, Jr  73, 175–7, 211, 266 Musgrave, Mary, see Clarke Musgrave, William  73, 175, 211n Neale, Thomas  147n Nedham, Marchamont  10–12, 53

530

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Index of names Nelthorpe, Richard  413 Nerblanen, Nicholas  339 Neville, Henry  417n Newport, Christopher  28 Newton, Sir Isaac  xxxix, xl, 132, 140–1, 148–9, 159–60, 161, 187, 304, 323–4, 393 Nicholas, Sir John  33 Nicholson, Francis  xliin, 307–8 Nicole, Pierre  66n, 67–9, 136n Nicolson, Bishop William  128 Noldius, Christianus  108 Noris, P. de  78n Norris, John  286, 364, 370, 427 North, John  173 Nottingham, earl of, see Finch Noyers, Monsieur de  316, 341 Nye, Stephen  xvii, xxiv, 200–1, 207–9 Ogilby, John  25–6, 29n, 31 Oldenburg, Henry  51, 82n Onslow, Foot  258n Onslow, Sir Richard  334 Orford, earl of, see Russell Ormond, duke of, see Butler Osborne, Edward  xvii, 41 Osborne, Sir Thomas, earl of Danby, marquis of Carmarthen  xvii, 33, 35, 54–6, 137–8, 276n Oviedo y Valdés, Gonzalo Fernàndez de 26 Oxenham, John  27 Pagi, Antoine  339 Papa, Giuseppe del  78n Papillon, Jane  102 Papillon, Thomas  102–3, 413, 417 Parry, Elinor (later Hawkshaw)  183 Parry, Francis  257–8 Pascal, Blaise  66n Passebon, Monsieur  72, 105n, 140n, 143n, 180n Paterson, William  185 Patrick, Bishop Simon  369, 393 Paul, St  74n, 208n, 432 Paulet, Charles, first duke of Bolton  282n Paulet, Lord  322 Pawling, Robert  xxxvi, xlvi, 162, 188, 210n, 324, 333, 405, 407, 415n

Payne, Henry Neville  xxxii, 171 Pellison, Paul  66 Pembroke, earl of, see Herbert Penn, William  xxviiin, xlii, 264, 272–3 Pepys, Samuel  xlii, xlv, li, 50, 57–62, 124, 128–31, 323, 335 Percival, Mary  104n Percival, Peter  xlv, xlvi, 98 Peters, Margery  432 Pett, Sir Peter  124–6 Petty, Charles, Baron Shelburne  124 Petty, Sir William  xliii, 124–6 Phelips (Phillipps), Sir Edward  138–9 Philips, Nicholas  27 Pily, William  397n Platter, Felix  92 Pliny  151n, 317 Plot, Robert  187 Plutarch 191 Pococke, Edward, Sr  xv, xlii, 6–7 Pococke, Edward, Jr  xxxv, xlvii Pocohontas 28n Popham, Sir Alexander  34, 137, 353 Popham, Eleanor (later Gwyn)  34 Popple, William  xxxvi, xliin, xlvi, 167n, 200–1, 296, 335–6, 371–2 Porter, Sir Charles  207 Porter, Sir Endymion  281n Porter, George  281–2 Portland, earl of, see Bentinck Potman, Mr  321 Poussines, Pierre  78n Prideaux, Humphrey  403–6, 413–15, 416 Priest, Josias  73, 356n Priestman, Henry  335 Pritchard, Sir William  335 Ptolemy 325 Purcell, Henry  73 Purchas, Samuel  25, 28n Ralegh, Sir Walter  28–9 Ramusio, Giovanni  27 Ranelagh, Katharine, see Jones Rawe, William  433 Raworth, Robert  185n Ray, John  187n Read, John  xvii, 10–12

531

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Index of names Reneu, Hilary  268 Reyner, Thomas  310 Rheede, Hendrik van  xlviiin Rich, Sir Robert  335 Richards, John  xxxvi, xlv, xlvi, 55–6 Ridsly, Dr  20 Rivet, Colonel  395n Robinson, Benjamin  388n Robinson, Capt. Thomas  xlvi, 162–4, 236n Roe, Thomas  55 Rogers, W.  124 Roper, Abel  280n Roque, John de la  73 Rousseau, Jean-Baptiste  315n Rumbold, Richard  418n Rumbold, William  418n Rupert, Prince  xxxviiin Rush, Isaac  47 Rushout, Sir James  296 Russell, Edward  335 Russell, Edward, first earl of Orford  203, 267, 274, 279n Russell, Lady Rachel, see Wriothesley Russell, William, Lord  53, 178, 384n, 407 Russell, Wriothesley, second duke of Bedford 178 Sacheverell, Henry  381 Sacy, Louis-Isaac le Maitre de  76n Saltmarsh, Edward  396n Sampson, John  55–6 Samuell, William  xvii, 49–50, 179 Sanderson, Capt. Ralph  335 Sandford, Robert  29n Sanford, Henry  73 Sanford, John  179 Sanford, William  73 Sare, Richard  192 Sarpi, Paulo  421n Sarrazin, Jean François  65 Savile, George, first marquis of Halifax 35 Sawyer, Sir Robert  53 Sayle, William  23–5 Scawen, Sir William  185n

Schelte, Antoine  xxivn, 332n Schelte, Hendrik  xvii, 331–3, 340n Schomberg, Charles, duke of  102 Schott, Gaspar  86 Schurman, Anna Maria van  86 Scott, James, duke of Monmouth  65, 406, 412n, 413, 414n, 417n Scott, Mary  70 Scroutten, Robert  164 Sedgwick, Obadiah  185 Selapris, Jacques  56n, 64 Seys, Anne  343 Shallet(t), Arthur  335 Shaw, Kristen  285n, 295n Shelburne, Baron, see Petty Shepherd, Anthony  405n Sherlock, William  286 Shields, Alexander  336–7 Shirley, Sir Anthony  28 Shrewsbury, earl and duke of, see Talbot Sibelius (Sibley), Caspar  161 Sidney, Algernon  112–13, 125n, 134n, 407, 413n Sidney, Henry  125 Simson, Mrs  279 Skelton, Bevil  403, 411n, 413, 416–18 Slade, Matthew, Sr  133–4 Slade, Mathew, Jr  133–4 Slingsby, Henry  35–9 Sloane, Sir Hans  186–8, 323 Smiglecius, Martin  136 Smith, Aaron  415n Smith, Humfry  xiv Smith, John, financier  185, 257 Smith, John, of Cambridge  74–6 Smith, Jonathan  164 Smith, Matthew  275–6, 279–83 Smith, Mrs  394–6 Smith, Samuel  345 Smithsby, Rabsy  xlvi, 119n, 140, 210 Smyth, Bishop Edward  195n Somers, Sir John, Baron Somers  xxivn, xlii, 146–8, 171n, 185n, 202, 207n, 213–16, 251n, 274, 282n, 306, 308n, 323, 344n, 375n Sondes, Sir George, earl of Feversham 155–6

532

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Index of names Southwell, Sir Robert  55, 156, 161, 335 Spencer, Charles, third earl of Sunderland 322 Spencer, John  425n Spencer, Margaret (later Ashley Cooper, countess of Shaftesbury)  xxivn, 67–9, 98n, 100–2, 104n Spencer, Robert, second earl of Sunderland  127, 403–4, 408–11, 413, 415–16 Spinoza, Baruch  284 Spottiswood, Archbishop John  51n Sprat, Thomas  412n Spreat, Dorcas  142n Spreat, John  142, 182, 212, 244, 256, 297, 391–2 St John, Frances  xxxvi St John, Lady Johanna  171 Stahl, Peter  9 Stamford, second earl of, see Grey Stamp, Sir Thomas  335 Stanhope, Philip, Lord Chesterfield  396 Starkey, John  417 Stead, George  297–8 Steele, [Laurence?]  125 Steele, Richard  125n Steele, William  125n Stephens, William  293n, 433 Stewart, James  418n Stewart, John  xxvii Stillingfleet, Bishop Edward  xxxvi, 50, 128, 198n, 286, 304, 314, 371, 420 Stillingfleet, John  50 Strachey, Jane  320n Strachey, John  3, 114n, 175n, 320n Stratton, Mary, see Locke Stratton, Peter  xxix, xlv, 392–3 Stratton, Elizabeth, see Grigg Stratton, William  xxix, xlv, xlvii, 3, 70, 80, 103n, 174–5, 241, 392–3 Strickland, Thomas  xxxin, 15 Strickland, William  296 Stringer, Jane, see Barbon Stringer, Thomas  xviin, xxix, xxxn, xxxvii–xxxviii, xxxix, xlv, xlvi, 3, 46, 52–4, 64, 69, 72, 97–8, 120–2, 209–10, 242, 297n

Strong, William  257–8 Stroud, John  164 Summer, Sir George  28 Sunderland, earl of, see Spencer Sydenham, Sir John  138 Sydenham, Thomas  xli, xlvii, xxv, xxxi, xlvi, 15, 17–19, 103, 155, 166 Sykes, Thomas  191 Synge, Archbishop Edward  xlviiin, 251, 293n Talbot, Charles, earl and duke of Shrewsbury 275 Talbot, Sir Gilbert  xxxin, 15 Tallard, comte d’, see Hostun Tate, Nahum  xliii, 124 Taylor, Bishop Jeremy  281, 383n Tench, Nathaniel  185n Tenison, Archbishop Thomas  128, 161, 244–7, 308n, 323–9 Teviot, Viscount, see Livingston Thévenot, Melchisédec  xlvi, xlvii, 66n, 76 Thistlethwaite, Mrs F.  431 Thomas, Dalby  335 Thomas, David  xlii, xlvi, 103n, 155 Thompson, Frances, see Annesley Thompson, John, first Baron Haversham  xli, 205, 417 Thompson, Maurice  205 Thomson, Robert  27 Thornburgh, Edward  46 Thou, Auguste de  26 Throckmorton, family of  371n Tigh, Robert  303 Tillotson, Archbishop John  xliin, 53, 148n, 170n, 269n, 434n Tinelis, Alexandre, abbé de Castelet  77 Toinard, Nicolas  xv, xxivn, xl, 57, 66n, 93–7, 99–100, 309, 314–16, 339–41 Toland, John  xxi, xl, 174, 191, 283, 293, 420, 433 Tonson, Jacob  li Tooke, Benjamin  135, 304n Tourville, Anne Hilarion de Cotentin, comte de  138n Towerson, Gabriel  xxivn, 3–4

533

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Index of names Townshend, Henry  6 Townshend, Roland  6 Travers, Samuel  335 Treille, Jacques de la  296 Treille, René de la  296 Trent, George  140 Trent, Nurse  72, 73, 140n Trevor, Sir John  179n, 273n Trotter, Catharine (later Cockburn)  xxiv, xlix, 364–71, 376–7, 389n, 394n, 395n Trumbull, Sir William  xliin, 276 Tyrrell, Elizabeth, see Ussher Tyrrell, James  xlii, xliii, xlv, xlvi, xlviin, 90n, 106–7, 133–5, 155, 187n, 190–1, 386, 406n, 407, 410, 415n Tyrrell, James, Jr  xlviin Tyrrell, Mary  xlviin Tyrrell, Sir Timothy  407 Ussher, Elizabeth (later Tyrrell)  107n Ussher, Archbishop James  107n, 407n Van Claerbergen, Philip Ernest Vegelin 86 Van Der Plaats, François  344–8 Vane, Christopher  296 Vane, Sir Walter  xxxv Varillas, Antoine  76 Vaughan, Sir John  31 Veen, Cornelia Maria  111–12, 118, 119–20, 133 Veen, Egbert  118, 133 Veen, Maria, see Arminius Venner, Gustavus  141, 254, 391 Venner, Ursula  140n, 141–3, 254, 391 Verburgh, Denis  114n Vernon, Edward  49–50 Vernon, James  xxxv, 274, 275n, 282n Villiers, George, second duke of Buckingham 415n Vilvain, Robert  324 Vitruvius 76 Voiture, Vincent  65 Vossius, Isaac  xliii Vries, Gerardus de  316

Wagstaffe, Thomas  166 Walker, Anthony  145 Wall(s), George  xxxv, xlv Waller, Catherine, see Mansel Waller, Edmund  35–9 Waller, Sir William  412–13 Wallis, John  li, 187, 323–9, 415n Ward, Elizabeth, see Hobson Ward, John  105, 185n Ward, Sir Patience  416–17 Warr, John, Sr  161–2 Warr, John, Jr  161–2 Warrington, earl of, see Booth Waugh, Edward  164 Welshman, Thomas  103 West, Robert  414, 415n Westrowe, Capt. Thomas  102 Westrowe, Thomas  102 Wetstein, Hendrik  xili, l, li, 317–18, 332n, 344–5, 346n Wetstein, Johan Lucas  318n Wharton, George  324 Wharton, Philip, fourth Baron Wharton 418 Whately, Thomas  244–7 Wheeler, Sir Francis  71 Wheelock, John  379 Whichcote, Benjamin  150n, 396 Whichcote, Sir Paul  146, 150n Whiston, William  286, 393, 396 Whitaker, Edward  415n Whitby, Daniel  370 White, John  28 Whitelocke, Bulstrode  123 Wilkinson, Henry  375n, 396n Willes, John  323n William III, King (Prince of Orange)  xvii, xxvii, 21, 22n, 71, 112n, 114, 126–8, 131–2, 240n, 253, 275n, 411, 431 Williams, Daniel  290n, 387 Williams, Thomas  11n Williamson, Elizabeth  xxxvi Williamson, Sir Joseph  xxxv, 403 Willis, Sir John  351–2 Willis, Richard  364, 433 Willis, Sir Thomas, Sr  351–2 Willis, Sir Thomas, Jr  351–2

534

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

Index of names Willoughby, Charles  xxxix, 166 Wilson, Gawyn  55–6 Wilson, Samuel  26 Wolfgang, Anne  xxivn Wood, Abraham  xxvi Wood, Anthony  xxxiv, l, 29–32, 53, 126, 133–5, 136–7, 202, 408n Woodcock, Daniel  256–8 Woodhouse, Marmaduke  164 Woodroffe, Benjamin  xviin, xxxviii, 8n, 9–10 Woodward, Henry  23–4, 25n Woodward, John  320 Worsley, Benjamin  33–4, 124, 133n

Wren, Sir Christopher  304, 335 Wright, William  xlvii Wriothesley, Lady Rachel (later Russell)  53, 178–9 Wyatt, William  191n Wyche, Benjamin  52 Wylie, Robert  xxxii, 287, 293–5, 337 Wynne, Bishop John  xxivn, 135n, 192n, 197–9 Yates, John  163 Yeamans, Sir John  23n Yonge, Elizabeth  98 Yonge, Sir Walter  98, 271n, 303n

535

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/08/23, SPi

INDEX OF LOCKE’S WORKS This index includes works certainly or possibly authored or co-authored or edited by Locke. The Calendars are not indexed. For Whig tracts attributed to Locke by hostile contemporaries see Appendix A1, A9, and A13. (Ed.), Aesop’s Fables  212n, 317, 318n Carolina, discourse on, in John Ogilby, America 25–6 A Collection of Several Pieces of Mr John Locke  380, 385, 389n Epistola de tolerantia, see A Letter Concerning Toleration (Trans.) Essais de Morale, by Pierre Nicole  66n, 67 An Essay Concerning Human Understanding  50, 109–11, 115–18, 120, 128, 134, 136, 151, 153, 175–6, 181, 197–9, 201–2, 286, 316–17, 364–7, 381, 384, 420–1, 424–5, 427, 428, 433 Essays on the Law of Nature  8, 9, 67, 129n The Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina  23n, 103–4, 106 Further Considerations Concerning Raising the Value of Money  146, 213–16 (Ed.) The General History of the Air, by Robert Boyle  106, 156–8, 159, 161, 329, 330n, 423–4 A Letter Concerning Toleration  115, 134, 201, 208n, 388 A Letter from a Person of Quality  32n, 35, 54, 389n A Letter to [the Right Reverend] Edward L[or]d Bishop of Worcester [the first reply to Stillingfleet], see Stillingfleet (Ed.) Medicinal Experiments, vol. 2, by Robert Boyle  159, 161–2 Memoirs Relating to the Life of Anthony First Earl of Shaftesbury  399n Mr Locke’s Reply to the Right Reverend the Lord Bishop of Worcester’s Answer to his Second Letter [the third reply to Stillingfleet], see Stillingfleet New Method of a Commonplace Book  93–4, 95–7, 99–100 A Paraphrase and Notes on the Epistles of St Paul  432–4 Posthumous Works of Mr John Locke  93, 99–100, 399n The Reasonableness of Christianity  207–9, 259, 288–92, 293, 332n, 362, 388, 426–7, 433 Several Papers Relating to Money  148n Some Considerations of the Consequences of the Lowering of Interest  15, 146–8, 215n, 423 Some Thoughts Concerning Education  72, 87–8, 92–3, 123, 167–9, 264, 314, 425–6 Some Thoughts Concerning Reading and Study for a Gentleman  27n, 66n, 311n Stillingfleet (Bishop of Worcester), Replies to  50, 128–9, 198n, 286, 293, 298, 314, 315n, 420 Two Tracts on Government  3–5 Two Treatises of Government  91n, 134, 190–2, 336, 388, 420