Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-gtxcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T07:09:26.973Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE NORMATIVITY OF NATURE IN PUFENDORF AND LOCKE

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 October 2019

HANNAH DAWSON
HANNAH DAWSON*
Affiliation:
King's College London
*
Department of History, King's College London, Room 8.05 Strand Building, Strand, wc2r 2lshannah.dawson@kcl.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

At the beginning of De jure naturae et gentium (1672), Samuel von Pufendorf proposed a radical dichotomy between nature and morality. He was followed down this arid path by his great admirer John Locke. This article begins by exploring their descriptions of this dichotomy, examining the ways in which human animals were supposed to haul themselves out of the push and pull of the mechanistic world in order to become free moral agents. The article then argues that bubbling up from within this principal account of morality is an alternative account according to which virtue seems to infuse nature, thereby blurring the lines between obligation and motivation, and refiguring the character of moral and political agency. In uncovering this refiguration, I highlight the importance of Aristotelianism and Stoicism for Pufendorf and Locke, suggest continuities rather than breaks between the natural lawyers of the seventeenth century and the theorists of moral sentiment of the next, and gesture towards a hitherto underappreciated discourse in early modern thought: the normativity of nature.

Type
Article
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 63 , Issue 3 , June 2020 , pp. 528 - 558
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

This article began life as the inaugural Balzan–Skinner Lecture that I delivered at the University of Cambridge. I am deeply indebted to Quentin Skinner, who endowed the Balzan–Skinner Prize in an act characteristic of his unfailing generosity to the historical profession, and who has offered me sustaining encouragement and comments on the paper. I am also hugely grateful to Richard Bourke, Annabel Brett, Chris Brooke, Mark Goldie, Lena Halldenius, James Harris, Clare Jackson, Susan James, Sachiko Kusukawa, Linda Randall, John Robertson, Richard Serjeantson, and the anonymous reviewers of this article for their helpful feedback. Finally, heartfelt thanks to the International Balzan Prize Foundation for their indispensable support, and to the Centre for Research in the Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities at the University of Cambridge for hosting me as the Balzan–Skinner Fellow for a very happy term.

References

1 von Pufendorf, Samuel, Of the law of nature and nations, trans. Kennett, Basil (Oxford, 1703), pp. 1–3Google Scholar. I use the first edition of Kennett's translation to get closest to an early modern English reading of Pufendorf's text. I have compared it to the Latin, which Locke owned, in part to indicate relevant departures from the original, but also because sometimes the Latin speaks especially powerfully to my argument, as well as pointing to Locke's immersion in the Latin text. More generally, I have flagged up the (sometimes Latin) intertextuality between sources, suggesting that the two accounts of morality I delineate in this article are langues as much as paroles.

2 Locke, John, An essay concerning human understanding, ed. Nidditch, Peter H. (Oxford, 1975), p. 429Google Scholar.

3 E.g. Haakonssen, Knud, Natural law and moral philosophy: from Grotius to the Scottish Enlightenment (Cambridge, 1996), p. 6CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Korsgaard, Christine M., The sources of normativity (Cambridge, 1996), pp. 4–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Schneewind, J. B., The invention of autonomy: a history of modern moral philosophy (Cambridge, 1998), p. 4Google Scholar. On Pufendorf, see, e.g., Westerman, Pauline C., The disintegration of natural law theory: Aquinas to Finnis (Leiden, 1998), p. 288Google Scholar. On the centrality of reason and freedom in Locke, see, e.g., Harris, Ian, The mind of John Locke: a study of political theory in its intellectual setting (Cambridge, 1998), pp. 252–79Google Scholar; Yaffe, Gideon, Liberty worth the name: Locke on free agency (Princeton, NJ, 2000)Google Scholar; Tuckness, Alex, Locke and the legislative point of view: toleration, contested principles, and the law (Princeton, NJ, 2002)Google Scholar; Waldron, Jeremy, God, Locke, and equality: Christian foundations of John Locke's political thought (Cambridge, 2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Cf. Kraye, Jill, ‘Conceptions of moral philosophy’, in Garber, Daniel and Ayers, Michael, eds., The Cambridge history of seventeenth-century philosophy (2 vols., Cambridge, 1998), ii, pp. 1279–316, at p. 1307Google Scholar. Some commentators, e.g., Forde, Steven, Locke, science and politics (Cambridge, 2013), p. 12CrossRefGoogle Scholar, still hive Locke off from theology; for a rebuttal, see Tim Stanton's own Balzan–Skinner lecture, ‘John Locke and the fable of liberalism’, Historical Journal, 61 (2018), pp. 597–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 Lloyd, Genevieve, ‘The man of reason’, Metaphilosophy, 10 (1979), pp. 18–37, at p. 32CrossRefGoogle Scholar (talking here about Leibniz). Cf. eadem, The man of reason: ‘male’ & ‘female’ in western philosophy (York, 1984)Google Scholar; James, Susan, Passion and action: the emotions in seventeenth-century philosophy (Oxford, 1997)Google Scholar; Kahn, Victoria, Saccamano, Neil, and Coli, Daniela, eds., Politics and the passions, 1500–1850 (Princeton, NJ, 2006)Google Scholar. See also Hirschman, Albert O., The passions and the interests (Princeton, NJ, 1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On the tenacity of the reason/passion divide, see, e.g., Cuneo, Terence, ‘Reason and the passions’, in Harris, James A., ed., The Oxford handbook of British philosophy in the eighteenth century (Oxford, 2013), pp. 226–47Google Scholar.

5 See Haakonssen, Natural law, p. 6; Korkman, Petter, ‘Voluntarism and moral obligation: Barbeyrac's defence of Pufendorf revisited’, in Hochstrasser, Tim and Schröder, Peter, eds., Early modern natural law theories (Dordrecht, 2003), pp. 195–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 See Harrison, Peter, ‘Voluntarism and early modern science’, History of Science, 40 (2002), pp. 63–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem, The territories of science and religion (Chicago, IL, 2015)Google Scholar; Henry, John, ‘Voluntarist theology at the origins of modern science: a response to Peter Harrison’, History of Science, 47 (2009), pp. 79–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 On the long-standing endeavour to pin down Locke's position, see Singh, Raghuveer, ‘John Locke and the theory of natural law’, Political Studies, 9 (1961), pp. 105–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Colman, John, John Locke's moral philosophy (Edinburgh, 1983)Google Scholar; Soles, David E., ‘Intellectualism and natural law in Locke's Second treatise’, History of Political Thought, 8 (1987), pp. 63–81Google Scholar; Ward, W. Randall, ‘Divine will, natural law and the voluntarism/intellectualism debate in Locke’, History of Political Thought, 16 (1995), pp. 208–18Google Scholar; Oakley, Francis, ‘Locke, natural law and God – again’, History of Political Thought, 18 (1997), pp. 624–51Google Scholar; Tuckness, Alex, ‘The coherence of a mind: John Locke and the law of nature’, Journal of the History of Philosophy, 37 (1999), pp. 73–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Colman, John, ‘Locke's empiricist theory of the law of nature’, in Anstey, Peter R., ed., The philosophy of John Locke: new perspectives (London, 2003), pp. 106–26Google Scholar. For a dazzling challenge to the voluntarist/realist taxonomy, as well as insights into nature and liberty, see Brett, Annabel S., Liberty, right and nature: individual rights in later scholastic thought (Cambridge, 1997)Google Scholar.

8 Tully, James, An approach to political philosophy: Locke in contexts (Cambridge, 1993), p. 281CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Cf. Pufendorf, On the duty of man and citizen according to natural law, ed. Tully, James, trans. Silverthorne, Michael (Cambridge, 1991), p. 36Google Scholar; Locke, Essays on the law of nature, ed. von Leyden, W. (Oxford, 1954), p. 199Google Scholar.

9 Tuck, Richard, Philosophy and government, 1572–1651 (Cambridge, 1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; cf. Haakonssen, Natural law, pp. 24–6. See also Charles Larmore, ‘Scepticism’, in Garber and Ayers, eds., Cambridge history, ii, pp. 1145–92; Israel, Jonathan, Radical enlightenment (Oxford, 2002)Google Scholar; Popkin, Richard, The history of scepticism: from Savonarola to Bayle (Oxford, 2003)Google Scholar. For complicating accounts, pointing instead and overlappingly to Aristotelian scholasticism (and, in Brett's case, Stoicism), see Sommerville, Johann P., ‘Selden, Grotius, and the seventeenth-century intellectual revolution in moral and political theory’, in Kahn, Victoria and Hutson, Lorna, eds., Rhetoric & law in early modern Europe (New Haven, CT, 2001), pp. 319–44Google Scholar; Brett, Annabel, ‘Natural right and civil community: the civil philosophy of Hugo Grotius’, Historical Journal, 45 (2002), pp. 31–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar; eadem, ‘“The matter, forme, and power of a common-wealth”: Thomas Hobbes and late Renaissance commentary on Aristotle's Politics’, Hobbes Studies, 23 (2010), pp. 72–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Leijenhorst, Cees, The mechanization of Aristotelianism: the late Aristotelian setting of Thomas Hobbes’ natural philosophy (Leiden, 2001)Google Scholar.

10 In his Introduction (pp. 1–92) to Locke's Essays, von Leyden ignores Stoicism as a source, and (p. 35) dismisses Cicero as insignificant. See also Carey, Daniel, Locke, Shaftesbury, and Hutcheson: contesting diversity in the Enlightenment and beyond (Cambridge, 2006), pp. 34–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Commentators are, however, gathering to highlight the importance of Stoicism for early modern thought, including, now, for Locke; see, e.g., Stewart, M. A., ‘The Stoic legacy in the early Scottish Enlightenment’, in Osler, Margaret J., ed., Atoms, pneuma, and tranquility: Epicurean and Stoic themes in European thought (Cambridge, 1991), pp. 2743–96Google Scholar; Parkin, Jon, Science, religion and politics in Restoration England: Richard Cumberland's De legibus naturae (Woodbridge, 1999)Google Scholar; Long, A. A., ‘Stoicism in the philosophical tradition: Spinoza, Lipsius, Butler’, in Millar, Jon and Inwood, Brad, eds., Hellenistic and early-modern philosophy (Cambridge, 2003), pp. 7–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Blom, H. W. and Winkel, Laurens C., eds., Grotius and the stoa (Assen, 2004)Google Scholar; Nuovo, Victor, ‘Aspects of Stoicism in Locke's philosophy’, in Christianity, antiquity, and enlightenment (Dordrecht, 2011), pp. 181–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Brooke, Christopher, Philosophic pride: Stoicism and political thought from Lipsius to Rousseau (Princeton, NJ, 2012)Google Scholar. On Pufendorf's Stoicism, see Seidler, M. J., ‘Introductory essay’, in idem, ed., Samuel Pufendorf's ‘On the natural state of men’ (Lewiston, 1990), pp. 1–69, at p. 49Google Scholar; Saastamoinem, Kari, ‘Pufendorf and the Stoic model of natural law’, Grotiana, 22 (2001), pp. 257–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Palladini, Fiammetta, ‘Pufendorf and Stoicism’, Grotiana, 22 (2001), pp. 245–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Jon Parkin, ‘Taming the Leviathan: reading Hobbes in seventeenth-century Europe’, in Hochstrasser and Schröder, eds., Early modern natural law, pp. 31–52, at p. 45. There are further overlapping intellectual contexts, some of which I touch on in the article, such as Epicureanism and Augustinianism, on the conjunction of which see Robertson, John, The case for the Enlightenment: Scotland and Naples, 1680–1760 (Cambridge, 2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also Leddy, Neven and Lifschitz, Avi, eds., Epicurus in the Enlightenment (Oxford, 2009)Google Scholar. For a ground-breaking account of English attitudes to ancient philosophy, see Levitin, Dmitri, Ancient wisdom in the age of the new science: histories of philosophy in England, c. 1640–1700 (Cambridge, 2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 Long, A. A. and Sedley, D. N., eds., The Hellenistic philosophers (2 vols., Cambridge, 1987), i, p. 395Google Scholar; Harrison, John and Laslett, Peter, The library of John Locke (Oxford, 1965), p. 124Google Scholar. See Striker, Gisela, Essays on Hellenistic epistemology and ethics (Cambridge, 1996), pp. 209–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 See Scholfield, Malcolm and Striker, Gisela, eds., The norms of nature: studies in Hellenistic ethics (Cambridge, 1986)Google Scholar. On Stoic epistemology and morality, see Sharples, R. W., Stoics, Epicureans and sceptics: an introduction to Hellenistic philosophy (London, 1996), pp. 20–3, 123–5Google Scholar.

13 See Schmitter, Amy M., ‘Passions and affections’, in Anstey, Peter, ed., The Oxford handbook of British philosophy in the seventeenth century (Oxford, 2013), pp. 442–71Google Scholar; Harris, James A., Hume: an intellectual biography (Cambridge, 2015), pp. 126–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Reventlow, Henning Graf, ‘Morality, reason and history as factors in biblical interpretation’, in Cameron, Euan, ed., The new Cambridge history of the Bible from 1450–1750 (Cambridge, 2016), pp. 641–56, at p. 653Google Scholar. On the history of natural jurisprudence, see Forbes, Duncan, ‘Natural law and the Scottish Enlightenment’, in Campbell, R. H. and Skinner, A. S., eds., The origins and nature of the Scottish Enlightenment (Edinburgh, 1982), pp. 186–204Google Scholar; Dunn, John, ‘From applied theology to social analysis: the break between John Locke and the Scottish Enlightenment’, in Hont, Istvan and Ignatieff, Michael, eds., Wealth & virtue: the shaping of political economy in the Scottish Enlightenment (Cambridge, 1983), pp. 119–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Istvan Hont and Michael Ignatieff, ‘Needs and justice in the ‘Wealth of Nations’, in Hont and Ignatieff, ed., Wealth & virtue, pp. 1–44; Haakonssen, Natural law; Tuck, Richard, ‘The “modern” theory of natural law’, in Pagden, Anthony, ed., The languages of political theory in early-modern Europe (Cambridge, 1987), pp. 99–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Istvan Hont, ‘The language of sociability and commerce: Samuel Pufendorf and the theoretical foundations of the “four-stages” theory’, in Pagden, ed., Languages of political theory, pp. 253–76; Seidler, ‘Introductory essay’; Buckle, Stephen, Natural law and the theory of property: Grotius to Hume (Oxford, 1991)Google Scholar; Darwall, Stephen, The British moralists and the internal ought: 1640–1740 (Cambridge, 1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem, ‘Norm and normativity’, in Haakonssen, Knud, ed., The Cambridge history of eighteenth-century philosophy (Cambridge, 2006), pp. 987–1025CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Schneewind, The invention of autonomy; Hochstrasser, T. J., Natural law theories in the early Enlightenment (Cambridge, 2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Brett, Annabel S., ‘The development of the idea of citizens’ rights’, in Skinner, Quentin and Stråth, Bo, eds., States and citizens: history, theory, prospects (Cambridge, 2003), pp. 97–112Google Scholar; Brett, Annabel S., Changes of state: nature and the limits of the city in early modern natural law (Princeton, NJ, 2011)Google Scholar; Hochstrasser and Schröder, eds., Early modern natural law; Hunter, Ian, Rival enlightenments: civil and metaphysical philosophy in early modern Germany (Cambridge, 2009)Google Scholar; Hutton, Sarah, ‘From Cudworth to Hume: Cambridge Platonism and the Scottish Enlightenment’, Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 42 (2012), 8–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Parkin, Jon and Stanton, Tim, eds., Natural law and toleration in the early Enlightenment (Oxford, 2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Robertson, John, ‘Sacred history and political thought: Neapolitan responses to the problem of sociability after Hobbes’, Historical Journal, 56 (2013), pp. 1–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 Florio, John, Queen Anna's new world of words, or dictionarie of the Italian and English tongues (London, 1611), p. 329Google Scholar; Phillips, Edward, The new world of words (London, 1696), sig. Bbbb3vGoogle Scholar.

15 Locke, Essay, p. 148.

16 Ibid., pp. 150, 199.

17 On Locke's engagement with Pufendorf, see Harrison and Laslett, The library, p. 215; Locke, British Library, MS 4290, fos. 11–14, at fo. 12v. Cf. von Leyden, ed., Essays, pp. 38–9; Hont and Ignatieff, ‘Needs and justice’, pp. 36–42; Marshall, John, John Locke: resistance, religion, and responsibility (Cambridge, 1994), pp. 201–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Michael J. Seidler, ‘The politics of self-preservation: toleration and identity in Pufendorf and Locke’, in Hochstrasser and Schröder, eds., Early modern natural law, pp. 227–55. On Locke's republic of letters, see Marshall, John, John Locke, toleration and early Enlightenment culture (Cambridge, 2006), pp. 469–535Google Scholar.

18 Pufendorf, Law of nature, p. 2; Pufendorf, De jure naturae et gentium (Lund, 1672), pp. 2–4Google Scholar (I will refer to this edition unless otherwise specified).

19 Pufendorf, Law of nature, p. 13.

20 Ibid., p. 14.

21 Ibid., p. 15.

22 Ibid., p. 6.

23 Ibid., p. 7.

24 Locke, Essay, p. 165; Locke lists a third category of complex ideas – relations between ideas – but tends to subsume them under mixed modes, e.g., p. 437.

25 Ibid., p. 429.

26 Ibid., p. 453.

27 Ibid., p. 359.

28 Ibid., p. 119.

29 Burnet, Thomas, Second remarks upon an essay concerning humane understanding (London, 1697), p. 22Google Scholar.

30 Ibid., p. 11.

31 Hobbes, Thomas, Man and citizen, ed. Gert, Bernard (Indianapolis, IN, 1991), p. 41Google Scholar.

32 Ibid., pp. 42–3.

33 Locke, Essay, p. 516; cf. p. 560.

34 Pufendorf, Law of nature, p. 13.

35 Pufendorf, Elementorum jurisprudentiae universalis, trans. Oldfather, William Abbott (2 vols., Oxford, 1931), ii, p. 7, i (Latin), p. 6Google Scholar.

36 Locke, Essays, p. 199.

37 Ibid., pp. 71, 352.

38 Locke, ‘Of ethic in general’, in Bodleian Library, Oxford, MS Locke c. 28, fos. 146r–152r, 151r.

39 Suárez, Francisco, A treatise on laws and God the lawgiver, in Selections from three works, trans. Williams, Gwladys L., Brown, Ammi, Waldron, John, and Davis, Henry (2 vols., Oxford, 1944), ii, p. 233Google Scholar.

40 Pufendorf, Duty, p. 28.

41 Pufendorf, Law of nature, p. 20; Locke, Essay, p. 517.

42 See, e.g., Pufendorf, Law of nature, p. 113; Locke, The reasonableness of Christianity, in Nuovo, Victor, ed., John Locke: writings on religion (Oxford, 2002), pp. 85–210, at p. 195Google Scholar. See Peter Harrison, ‘The Bible and the emerging “scientific” world-view’, in Cameron, ed., The new Cambridge history, pp. 620–40; on the ‘Enlightenment's’ scepticism about reason and reliance on revelation, see Ahnert, Thomas, The moral culture of the Scottish Enlightenment, 1690–1805 (New Haven, CT, 2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

43 Locke, Reasonableness, pp. 92, 190; cf. Locke, Essays, p. 183; Locke, Two treatises of government, ed. Laslett, Peter (Cambridge, 1988), p. 305Google Scholar. See Wootton, David, ‘John Locke: Socinian or natural law theorist?’, in Crimmins, James E., ed., Religion, secularization and political thought: Thomas Hobbes to J. S. Mill (London, 1990), pp. 39–67Google Scholar; Marshall, John, ‘Locke, Socininanism, “Socinianism”, and Unitarianism’, in Stewart, M. A., ed., English philosophy in the age of Locke (Oxford, 2000), pp. 111–82Google Scholar; Savonius-Wroth, S. J., ‘“Lovers of truth” in Pierre Bayle's and John Locke's thought’, in Mortimer, Sarah and Robertson, John, eds., The intellectual consequences of religious heterodoxy, 1600–1750 (Leiden, 2012), pp. 155–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mortimer, Sarah, Reason and religion in the English Revolution: the challenge of Socinianism (Cambridge, 2014)Google Scholar; Jolley, Nicholas, Locke's touchy subjects: materialism and immortality (Oxford, 2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

44 Pufendorf, Law of nature, p. 19.

45 Aristotle, The Nicomachean ethics, trans. Ross, David (Oxford, 1980), p. 36Google Scholar.

46 Hobbes, Leviathan, ed. Tuck, Richard (Cambridge, 1996), pp. 34, 146, 45, 145Google Scholar. Cf. Skinner, Quentin, ‘Thomas Hobbes on the proper signification of liberty’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 40 (1990), pp. 121–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

47 Pufendorf, Law of nature, pp. 27–8; Pufendorf, De jure, p. 51.

48 Pufendorf, Elementorum, ii, p. 5.

49 Pufendorf, Law of nature, pp. 27, 2.

50 Locke, Essay, pp. 240, 264, 265. See Chappell, Vere, ‘Locke on the freedom of the will’, in idem, ed., Locke (Oxford, 1998), pp. 86–105Google Scholar; Harris, James, Of liberty and necessity: the free will debate in eighteenth-century British philosophy (Oxford, 2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ott, Walter, Causation and laws of nature in early modern philosophy (Oxford, 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

51 Locke, Essay, pp. 266, 267, 263, 270.

52 Pufendorf, Law of nature, p. 20; Pufendorf, De jure, p. 36; Locke, Essay, pp. 263, 267.

53 Locke, Essay, p. 271.

54 Pufendorf, Elementorum, ii, p. 3. Cf. Locke, Essay, p. 277.

55 Pufendorf, Law of nature, p. 27.

56 Pufendorf, Elementorum, ii, p. 5.

57 Ibid., ii, p. 4.

58 Ibid., ii, p. 9, i, p. 8.

59 Suárez, Treatise on law, ii, p. 237, i (Latin), p. 141.

60 Ibid., ii, pp. 239–40.

61 Pufendorf, Law of nature, p. 60.

62 Locke, Essay, p. 478.

63 Ibid., p. 109.

64 Pufendorf, Law of nature, p. 2.

65 Locke, Essay, p. 266.

66 Locke, Two treatises, pp. 270, 305. See Tierney, Brian, Liberty and law: the idea of permissive natural law, 1100–1800 (Washington, DC, 2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kelly, Duncan, The liberty of propriety: persons, passions and judgement in modern political thought (Princeton, NJ, 2011), pp. 20–58Google Scholar.

67 Pufendorf, Law of nature, p. 31; Pufendorf, De jure (Amsterdam, 1688), p. 42Google Scholar.

68 Pufendorf, Duty, p. 33.

69 Ibid., p. 35; Pufendorf, De officio hominis et civis (Oxford, 1927), p. 21Google Scholar. On Pufendorfian sociality, see James Tully, ‘Introduction’, in Pufendorf, Duty, pp. xiv–xxxvii; Hont, Istvan, ‘Introduction’, in Jealousy of trade (Cambridge, MA, 2005), pp. 37–51Google Scholar; Palladini, Fiammetta, ‘Pufendorf disciple of Hobbes: the nature of man and the state of nature: the doctrine of socialitas’, History of European Ideas, 34 (2008), pp. 26–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Saastamoinen, Kari, ‘Pufendorf on natural equality, human dignity, and self-esteem’, Journal of the History of Ideas, 71 (2010), pp. 39–62CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

70 Locke, Two treatises, p. 270.

71 Locke, Essays, p. 215. Cf. Cicero, On duties, trans. Miller, Walter (Cambridge, MA, 1913), p. 280Google Scholar.

72 Locke, Essay, p. 356.

73 Plato, The republic, ed. Ferrari, G. R. F., trans. Griffith, Tom (Cambridge, 2000), p. 22Google Scholar.

74 Pufendorf, Law of nature, p. 116; Pufendorf, De jure (Amsterdam), p. 153Google Scholar.

75 Pufendorf, Law of nature, p. 116.

76 Hobbes, Leviathan, pp. 253–4.

77 Locke, ‘Of ethic’, fos. 149v–150r.

78 Locke, Essay, p. 67. See Tully, James, ‘Governing conduct: Locke on the reform of thought and behaviour’, in An approach to political philosophy: Locke in contexts (Cambridge, 1993), pp. 179–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

79 Locke, Essay, p. 229.

80 Pufendorf, De jure, p. 55.

81 Pufendorf, Law of nature, p. 29.

82 Locke, Essay, p. 229.

83 Locke, ‘Of ethic’, fo. 149v.

84 Locke, Essay, pp. 272–7.

85 Ibid., p. 351.

86 Suárez, Treatise of law, ii, p. 234, i, p. 140. See Finnis, John, Natural law and natural rights (Oxford, 1980), p. 348Google Scholar, passim; Pink, Thomas, ‘Reason and obligation in Suárez’, in Hill, Benjamin and Lagerlund, Henrik, eds., The philosophy of Francisco Suárez (Oxford, 2012), pp. 175–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Irwin, Terence H., ‘Obligation, rightness, and natural law: Suárez and some critics’, in Schwartz, Daniel, ed., Interpreting Suárez: critical essays (Cambridge, 2012), pp. 142–62Google Scholar.

87 Locke, Essay, p. 352; cf. Pufendorf, Duty, p. 36.

88 Pufendorf, Law of nature, p. 49; Locke, Essays, pp. 183–5.

89 Locke, ‘Of ethic’, fo. 152r.

90 Pufendorf, Law of nature, p. 47; Pufendorf, De jure, p. 82.

91 Pufendorf, Law of nature, p. 49.

92 Ibid., p. 32.

93 Ibid., p. 50; Pufendorf, De jure, p. 88.

94 Dyche, Thomas and Pardon, William, A new general English dictionary (London, 1737), sig. Zzz3vGoogle Scholar; A. Fisher, An accurate new spelling dictionary and expositor of the English language (1777), sig. S2v.

95 Cf. Hobbes, Leviathan, p. 110.

96 Locke, Essays, p. 185.

97 Pufendorf, Law of nature, p. 52; Pufendorf, De jure, p. 93.

98 Pufendorf, Duty, p. 27; Pufendorf, De officio, p. 13.

99 Pufendorf, Law of nature, p. 47.

100 Ibid., p. 49.

101 Pufendorf, Duty, p. 29; Pufendorf, De officio, p. 15.

102 Pufendorf, Law of nature, p. 52; Pufendorf, De officio, p. 70.

103 Locke, ‘Of ethic’, fo. 150v.

104 Hobbes, Leviathan, p. 147.

105 Ibid., p. 146.

106 Aristotle, Nicomachean ethics, p. 48.

107 Hobbes, Leviathan, p. 146.

108 Ibid., p. 97.

109 Locke, Two treatises, p. 392.

110 Ibid., p. 393.

111 Pufendorf, Law of nature, p. 33; Pufendorf, De jure, pp. 56–7.

112 Pufendorf, Law of nature, p. 33.

113 Locke, Essay, p. 239.

114 Ibid., p. 267.

115 Ibid., p. 268.

116 Pufendorf, Law of nature, p. 31; Pufendorf, De jure (Amsterdam), p. 42. Cf. Plato, Phaedrus 426a–b.

117 Pufendorf, Law of nature, p. 53; Pufendorf, De jure, p. 94.

118 Long and Sedley, eds., Hellenistic philosophers, i, p. 394.

119 Cicero, On ends, trans. H. Rackham (Cambridge, MA, 1931), pp. 233–5.

120 Pufendorf, Duty, p. 46.

121 Locke, Essays, pp. 157–9.

122 The digest of Justinian, ed. Watson, Alan (2 vols., Philadelphia, 1998), i, i.1Google Scholar.

123 Cicero, On ends, p. 283.

124 Augustine, City of God, trans. Bettenson, Henry (Harmondsworth, 1984), p. 868Google Scholar.

125 Locke, Essays, pp. 108–9; Locke, Some thoughts concerning education, ed. John W. and Yolton, Jean S. (Oxford, 1989), p. 239Google Scholar. See Rogers, G. A. J., ‘Locke, law, and the laws of nature’, in Brandt, Reinhardt, ed., John Locke: Symposium Wolfenbuttel 1979 (Berlin, 1981), pp. 146–62Google Scholar.

126 Grotius, The rights of war and peace, ed. Tuck, Richard (Indianapolis, IN, 2005), pp. 82–3Google Scholar.

127 Locke, Two treatises, p. 179.

128 Ibid., p. 309.

129 Ibid., p. 181.

130 Locke, Essays, p. 209.

131 Ibid., p. 207.

132 Pufendorf, Law of nature, p. 109. For an elaboration of attitudes to language at the time, see Dawson, Hannah, Locke, language and early-modern philosophy (Cambridge, 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and on Locke's anxieties about language for sociability, see eadem, ‘Locke on language in (civil) society’, History of Political Thought, 26 (2005), pp. 397–425Google Scholar.

133 Locke, Essay, p. 402.

134 Bodleian Library, Oxford, MS Locke f. 3, pp. 381–2, at p. 381. See Stuart-Buttle, Tim, ‘“A burthen too heavy for human sufferance”: Locke on reputation’, History of Political Thought, 38 (2017), pp. 644–88Google Scholar; Hannah Dawson, ‘Shame in early modern thought: from sin to sociality’, History of European Ideas (2018).

135 Locke, Essay, p. 353.

136 Ibid., p. 357.

137 Pufendorf, Law of nature, p. 16; Pufendorf, De jure, p. 27.

138 Grotius, Rights of war and peace, pp. 84, 79–81. See Brooke, Christopher, ‘Grotius, Stoicism and ‘Oikeiosis’, Grotiana, 29 (2008), pp. 25–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

139 Cicero, On ends, p. 283.

140 Cicero, On duties, p. 163.

141 Ibid., p. 161.

142 Pufendorf, Law of nature, p. 108.

143 Ibid., pp. 109–10.

144 Pufendorf, Duty, p. 119; Pufendorf, De officio, p. 103.

145 Pufendorf, Duty, p. 11.

146 Pufendorf, Law of nature, p. 21; Pufendorf, De jure, p. 38.

147 Locke, Essays, pp. 132–3.

148 Ibid., pp. 157–9.

149 Ibid., p. 111, cf. p. 109.

150 Locke, Two treatises, pp. 318–19.

151 Locke, Essays, p. 123.

152 See Dunn, John, The political thought of John Locke (Cambridge, 1689)Google Scholar; Bourke, Richard and Geuss, Raymond, eds., Political judgement: essays for John Dunn (Cambridge, 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

153 Locke, Two treatises, p. 380 (my italics).

154 Ibid., p. 415.

155 Dunn, John, ‘What is living and what is dead in the political theory of John Locke?’, and ‘Trust and political agency’, in Interpreting Political Responsibility (Princeton, NJ, 1990), pp. 9–25 and pp. 26–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar.