John C. Higgins-Biddle (ed.), The Clarendon Edition of the Works of John Locke: The Reasonableness of Christianity: As delivered in the Scriptures
pg cxviEDITORIAL PREFACE
The text presented here is the first critical edition of Locke's Reasonableness of Christianity. No other version provides a complete and accurate text, without modernization, based on the earliest, authoritative printings. Furthermore, this edition makes available for the first time the corrections and additions that Locke himself made to the text in one of his personal copies, now in Harvard College Library. Thus, the present text is new and unique, yet through the critical apparatus the reader is readily able to discern both the readings of the earliest printed editions and Locke's autograph amendments.
For reasons explained below, the Harvard copy serves as the copy-text of this edition. It consists of a first edition extensively amended in Locke's own hand. The ensuing critical text has been annotated in two ways. The critical apparatus beneath the text indicates Locke's autograph amendments to the first edition, records the source of all adopted readings that vary from the copy-text, and lists both substantive or material variants (omissions, additions, and changes of wording) and semantically significant accidental or formal variants (spelling, punctuation, etc.) among the earliest editions. Secondly, editorial footnotes on the pages of the text provide cross-references, references to other of Locke's books and manuscripts, definitions of terms, and other information relevant to a scholarly interpretation of the book and Locke's thought. In addition this volume includes an appendix containing the edited texts of several manuscripts by Locke which relate to his writing and/or subsequent consideration of the Reasonableness. An edition of Locke's Vindication and Second Vindication of the Reasonableness is being prepared by Victor Nuovo.
A. EARLY VERSIONS OF THE REASONABLENESS OF CHRISTIANITY
(1) The First Edition (1695)
As described above, Locke wrote the Reasonableness during the winter and spring of 1604–5 and obtained a contract for its publication from Awnsham and John Churchill on 12 June 1695.1 No complete manu-pg cxviiscript of the text survives, but what might be fragments of a draft or of draft revisions and several working papers are printed in Appendix I below. If is not known when the process of printing the text was begun, but Locke was in London between 8 July and 20 August 1695, perhaps in part to read and correct proofs of his book. Copies were presumably on sale by the second week of August, when the book was advertised in the London Gazette. 1 The title-page of this first edition, reads, within a double rule:
THE | REASONABLENESS | OF | Christianity, | As delivered in the | SCRIPTURES. | [double rule 67 mm] | LONDON: | Printed for Awnsham and John Churchil, | at the Black Swan in Pater-Noster- | Row. 1695.2
The work was an octavo printed on demy-size laid paper (185 × 114 mm untrimmed) with the collation: A2 B–V8. Its contents consist in a title-page (verso blank), a preface (2 unnumbered pages), an errata list of varying length (at the foot of the preface), and the text of 304 pages. The text area is typically 136 × 68 mm and accommodates 29 lines of text. The final text page is of 20 lines in type 20 per cent smaller to allow space for a 22-line advertisement of seven books sold by the Churchills.
Pages of the first edition contain about 6 words per line. Each page bears a catchword in the direction-line and, after p. 1, a running title in the headline (normally 'The Reasonableness' on the verso and 'of Christianity, &c.' on the recto).3 Except for the preliminaries, which occupy only a quarter-sheet, the first four recto pages of each sheet are identified by a signature in the direction-line. Sig. U/V is printed 'U' on the first leaf, 'V' on the second, third, and fourth.
The Reasonableness was first listed in the Term Catalogue for Hilary Term (January) 1696. In Trinity Term (June) 1696 it is listed as having been 'reprinted' with A Vindication. A specifically designated second edition, again with A Vindication, is reported for Hilary Term (February) 1697.4 There is no other evidence for a second printing of the first pg cxviiiedition of the Reasonableness and it is inherently unlikely that the printer kept the type. While surviving copies of the original impression could have been reissued as part of a coupling with A Vindication, none has survived with the dual title recorded in the Term Catalogue, or with any other distinct signs of a reissue. If, on the other hand, the true second edition, with its characteristic dual title-page, was already published by June 1696, the later 'second edition' listing may be by way of a correction of the previous misdescription. As previously noted, the Churchills undertook to print up to 1,500 copies of a first 'impression', i.e. edition.
Several states of the first edition can be distinguished.1 There are no cancelled leaves, but press variants have been detected which show the occurrence of 'stop-press' corrections in the course of printing the main text. There are, furthermore, three states, successively augmented, of the errata list at A2v. The first, of 11¼ lines, takes the corrections up to T8r (the original p. 287); a second, containing 11⅔ lines, extends this to V4r (p. 295); the final state, running to 13 lines, adds errata for V8r–v (pp. 303–4).
The errata were prepared last, that is, at a later stage than (and normally excluding) stop-press corrections in the corresponding portions of the text; in any particular copy they may bear no relation to the combination of corrected and uncorrected sheets in the same copy.2 By looking at the stop-press corrections and the errata independently, however, we can see something of the sequence of production. On sheet S, for example, in both the inner and outer formes (S5v, S6r, S8r–v: original pp. 266–7, 270–1), the Harvard copy differs in some small details of punctuation or spelling from other copies examined. It is difficult to decide objectively which constitutes the uncorrected and which the corrected state, but in the Harvard copy Locke has in any case overridden half the variations with further changes by hand. In neither printed state could the compositor at. S8r (p. 271) set 'apophthegms' correctly ('apohtegms' in most copies, 'apophtegms' in the Harvard copy, which even Locke miscorrected by mislocating the caret sign). This was then picked up again and definitively corrected in the errata.3
pg cxixThe facts relating to sheet V are more subtle, and show the work of multiple hands in a hurry. Here six states of the same sheet can be detected, with press variants at V4r, V4v (three), V5r, and V8v (two) (original pp. 295–7, 304). None of these sheets was ever totally 'correct'. Typographical errors in the first five states had mostly been eliminated from the pages of the outer forme before the final state, but only after this flurry of revision was the inner forme revised and the misspelling of 'Apo-|stles' as 'A-|ples' at V4r (p. 295) corrected.1 When this was found, the errata were revised (sheet A, state 2), and the correction was incorporated in the last copies of sheet V (state 6), one of which survives as a part of the Harvard copy and another in a copy at Trinity College, Cambridge. An accident while correcting the booksellers' notices at V8V (state 5) meanwhile led to an error elsewhere on the last page, which was not detected before the last copies were printed: a loss of the 'et' ligature in 'ab-|stract' and its accidental replacement by '&'. This and some further points of punctuation on the last two pages were then corrected (not without a wrong reference) in the third and final state of the errata.
(2) The Harvard Copy
The Harvard copy of the Reasonableness is one of Locke's personal copies of the first edition, which he had interleaved and bound; he amended it heavily. It was, with all of Locke's manuscripts and interleaved books, bequeathed to his cousin, Peter King, and handed down to King's descendants, who assumed the Earldom of Lovelace in 1838.2 In 1951 the remains of the King moiety of Locke's library were found by Peter Laslett in the gunroom of the Lovelace estate, Ben Damph Forest. Shortly thereafter a few volumes were sold separately before Mr Paul Mellon purchased the collection, which he donated to the Bodleian Library, Oxford. Among those volumes separately sold was Locke's amended copy of the Reasonableness, which was purchased by Christian A. Zabriskie and donated to Harvard College library in memory of Edward Powis Jones (still retaining its 'Ben Damph Library' ticket; Harvard shelfmark *EC65.L7934.695ra).
The Harvard copy is unique among books from Locke's library. While pg cxxseveral annotated copies of his own publications have survived, including the famous Christ's College copy of Two Treatises, there is no evidence that Locke had any other of his own works interleaved and hound in the manner of the Harvard copy. That he did so with the Reasonableness perhaps indicates his special concern to amend and amplify the text. The fruits of that intention appear in several hundred amendments on both the printed and interleaved pages of the Harvard copy. These include chapter-divisions, marginal subject-headings, an index, alterations in wording, changes in formal features, and significant additions to the text.
By means of roman numerals written in the margin of the printed pages of the first edition, Locke divided his book into fifteen sections or chapters. In so doing he was obviously adopting the suggestion of Pierre Coste, who in 1696 divided his French translation of the Reasonableness into fifteen chapters, With only one exception, Locke followed precisely the divisions Coste had made; where he deviated it was only to begin Chapter IX one paragraph later than Coste had done. Unlike his French translator, however, Locke did not provide in the Harvard copy titles for his chapters.1
Presumably as Locke worked through the Harvard copy he also entered in the margins of the printed text words and phrases that indicated aspects of the book's content. For example, on p. 3 of the first edition in the Harvard copy Locke wrote 'Adams fall' opposite the beginning of the book's second paragraph, and several lines below he wrote 'Penalty' in the margin opposite the use of that word in the text.2 These marginal entries were not intended to be corrections or additions to the text. Locke may have envisaged them as marginal subject-headings in a future printed version, but their highly abbreviated form and somewhat random nature makes that an unlikely hypothesis. It seems more probable that they served either to call Locke's attention to passages as he turned the pages of the volume or perhaps as guides in the composition of an index. On three interleaved pages at the end of the volume appears an index, largely in the hand of an amanuensis.3 Fewer than half of the index entries, however, could have been obtained by an amanuensis from Locke's marginal subject-headings. It is therefore unlikely that Locke entrusted the composition of the index solely to his amanuensis. More probable is the conclusion that he dictated the pg cxxiindex as he leafed through the book, some of the entries being called to his attention by the marginal headings while others occurred to him without such prompting. He later made a few entries in the index himself, including three references to the first Vindication, which is not bound with the Harvard copy.
As was his custom in preparing new editions of his other works, Locke also corrected the wording and formal features of the first edition. Many of these amendments and emendations are insignificant or minor in terms of the meaning of the book, but they demonstrate Locke's fastidious concern to perfect his text for posterity.1 He not only entered into the Harvard copy the errata printed after the Preface, but also made corrections in wording, sentence structure, paragraph-divisions, references to biblical passages, spelling, punctuation, capitalization, and typefaces. But Locke was by no means an infallible editor of his own work, and the Harvard copy does not contain all the corrections one might expect. For example, he inserted marks on a page of the first edition to indicate the beginning of a new paragraph, but failed to correct in the same line the misprint 'acknowlede'.2 Many other misprints and errors escaped his scrutiny.
Most significantly, the Harvard copy contains several additions to the text of the Reasonableness which have not hitherto appeared in any printed edition. Many of these, such as the ones that appear on pp. 25, 40, 43, and 96 below, seem to have been carefully worded and written so that they might have been incorporated into the text by a compositor working from the Harvard copy. Other apparent additions, however, both deviate from Locke's style of writing in this and other books and are not amenable to easy incorporation into the text, For example, although in the printed editions he nowhere referred to or quoted any contemporary author or book, several manuscript additions in the Harvard copy contain such material. At least two of these, containing quotations from John Smith and Simon Patrick, could well have been incorporated into the text by a compositor, although the titles of the books quoted would not have been clearly discernible.3 But on the interleaved sheets before and after p. 15 of the Harvard copy Locke made several manuscript entries, the form and content of which make it difficult to conclude pg cxxiithat he intended them to be printed in the body of the text. They contain forms of reference to books which are typical of Locke's regular references in journals and commonplace books but which would not have informed readers of his sources.1 Furthermore, the lengthy additions are assigned to the middle of sentences in the printed text; they could not have been incorporated where Locke designated without radically interrupting the sense. Finally, these additions express theological views concerning the nature of the soul and its existence (or lack of it) after bodily death which Locke must have known would arouse considerable suspicion and opposition in many readers. If he was truly attempting to win a hearing for his major thesis by avoiding controversial points of theology, he may not have intended to print all these additions in a future edition of the book.
Dating Locke's amendments to the Harvard copy is a complex process. Although it is not known when he obtained this interleaved copy of the first edition, it may have been one of the twenty-five copies that the Churchills agreed to present upon its publication. If so, Locke may have had the Harvard copy in his possession as early as late July 1695, While there is no means of determining a terminus ante quem (other than his death in 1704) for any of the manuscript entries, there is some possibility of setting a terminus a quo for several amendments. His reference to Simon Patrick's Jesus and the Resurrection would not have predated his acquisition of that book in November 1695.2 His addition concerning the translation of passages in 1 John must have been made after July 1696, for that change was then suggested to him by Limborch.3 Similarly, if Locke's reference, to Firmicus Maternus was suggested by The Agreement of the Unitarians, it must have been made during or after 1697.4 Finally, the earliest possible date for Locke's chapter-divisions and for two additions to the text can be established. After more than two and a half centuries, two fragments of a letter to Locke from his cousin John Bonville, dated 5 August 1701, still remain tucked within the pages of the Harvard copy. On those papers appears the note in Locke's hand 'v. John VII. 41'. That text or reference does not appear in any printed editions of the Reasonableness, but it is cited in pg cxxiiia manuscript addition on an interleaved page of the Harvard copy.1 The same sheet of paper bears the offset traces of a deletion of several lines of printed text, which can be identified as that made on p. 256 of the Harvard copy.2 A blotting of the roman numeral XII on the other fragment of Bonville's letter, matching Locke's entry of that numeral to designate, a chapter-division, establishes August 1701 as a terminus a quo for Locke's chapter-divisions as well as the above-mentioned amendments. Thus, it appears that at least portions of Locke's corrections and additions in the Harvard copy were entered during the final three years of his life, while he was also preparing his other works for posthumous publication.
(3) The Second Edition (1696)
The Reasonableness was received with what Locke called a 'buz, and flutter, and noise', most of which seems to have been critical of the religious opinions expressed in the book. The attacks of John Edwards and Locke's own Vindication must have contributed to the book's notoriety. Although Locke feared that Edwards's charges would put people off reading his work, the lively controversy that arose may well have stimulated sales of the first edition. To meet the demand a second edition was required in 1696.
As previously noted, the precise publication date of the second edition is uncertain. It had certainly appeared by December 1696, for one of Locke's critics made use of it then, and it was explicitly listed in the Term Catalogue of Hilary Term (February), 1697.3 The listing of the Reasonableness in the Term Catalogue for Trinity Term 1695 as having been 'reprinted', however, raises the possibility that publication occurred within a few months prior to or during June 1696. The failure to find evidence for a new impression of the first edition lends support to this possibility. Furthermore, while the Trinity Term listing does not specify the second edition, it does record the title as it appears in the second edition, citing the words 'To which is added, A Vindication of the same, pg cxxivfrom Mr. Edwards's Exceptions'. It is conceivable that the Trinity Term listing was simply false (that no new impression appeared in the spring of 1696) or that it designated a reissue of the first edition, distinguishable copies of which have not been found. More likely, however, is the supposition that the second edition was published between February and June 1696.
Whenever the second edition appeared, the text was not substantially different from that of the first. Locke could have altered his work in response to Edwards's criticism by clarifying the book's major themes, but he chose not to do so. Like most authors, he rarely accepted the objections of hostile critics. Although his Preface solicited correction from those who gave his work 'a fair and unprejudiced Examination', he clearly considered Edwards's criticisms to be founded upon an unfair and prejudiced reading of both his book and the Scriptures. The most significant revision of the text, therefore, was the addition of three passages which expanded on the reconstruction of Jesus' ministry and teachings—points Edwards had not mentioned. These additions are noted in the critical apparatus to the text below, and Locke's manuscript copy of them is printed in Appendix I.1
The second edition also contained many other alterations to the text. In several cases a word or phrase was added to or substituted for the reading of the first edition, Most of these revisions were probably made on Locke's instructions; certainly those also recorded in the Harvard copy met with his approval. As with his other books, moreover, Locke sought to perfect the formal aspects of his text. Changes were made in spelling, italicization, punctuation, and the use of capital and lowercase letters. Some such alterations were made in manuscript corrections to the Harvard copy, indicating Locke's personal initiation or approval of these formal features. But the authority behind most of the accidental variants cannot be established; many of them were probably originally the work of the compositor. While many of the errors of the first edition were corrected, others remained and some new ones occurred. The absence of an errata list suggests the possibility that Locke did not (contrary to his normal practice) examine proofs of this edition.
The second edition was sold with copies of the Vindication, which had been published in November 1695. The title-page, set within a double rule, reads:
THE | REASONABLENESS | OF | Christianity, | As delivered in the | SCRIPTURES. | [rule 67mm] | The Second Edition. | [rule 67 mm] | To which is added, | A Vindication of the fame, from | Mr. Edwards's Exceptions. | [rule 67 mm] | LONDON: | Printed for Awnsham and John Churchil, | at the Black Swan in Pater-Noſter- | Row. 1696.
The work was again an octavo printed on demy laid paper (170 × 110 mm trimmed) with the collation; A2 B–U8 X2, with 29 lines on the text pages, and containing" the following: title-leaf (verso blank), preface (2 unnumbered pages), the text (307 numbered pages), and an advertisement of other books sold by the Churchills (1 unnumbered page). Locke's contract with the booksellers provided for the printing of up to 1,000 copies of this edition, but the actual print-run may have been determined by the extent of the remaining stock of A Vindication. Surviving copies of the second edition are relatively rare.
(4) The Reasonableness in the Collected Works (1714)
After the second edition, the Reasonableness was not printed, in English. until 1714, when 3 collection, of Locke's works was published in three folio volumes, the title-page of the first volume, set within a double rule, reading:
THE | WORKS | OF | JOHN LOCKE Eſq; | (rule 137 mm] | In Three Volumes. | [rule 137 mm] | The CONTENTS of which follow in the next Leaf, | [rule 137 mm] | With ALPHABETICAL TABLES. | (rule 137 mm] | VOL. I. | [floral orn. with doves, 47 × 52 mm] | [rule 137 mm] | LONDON, | Printed for JOHN CHURCHILL at the Black Swan, in | Pater-noſter-Row, and SAM. MANSHIP at the Ship in | Cornhil, M.DCC.XIV.1
The Reasonableness appeared in the second volume, along with the Vindication, Second Vindication, and several other of Locke's previously published works. The text runs from a separate subtitle on p. 471 (unnumbered) through to p, 341 and was indexed along with the other works in that volume.
Little is known about this printing of Locke's collected works. Whoever presented copies of Locke's books to John Churchill for publication probably had some personal relation to Locke. A preface addressed "To the Reader" at the beginning of the first volume bears a pg cxxviquotation from Locke's will which reveals his authorship of books he had published anonymously. It also states that 'most of them [Locke's works] are printed from Copies corrected and enlarg'd under Mr. LOCKE's own Hand'.1 Peter King, who inherited all of Locke's manuscripts and interleaved books, is likely to have had some hand in providing such information and corrected copies of Locke's books for the printer. Since the text of the Works edition of the Reasonableness diverges in many substantive respects from the first and second editions, it is probable that the Reasonableness was one of the works printed from such a corrected copy. But what copy was it?
Upon close examination, the Works edition is seen to contain thousands of formal variations from the first and second editions. It capitalizes over a thousand words which the earlier editions begin with lower-case letters, and it reduces to lower-case a somewhat larger number of words capitalized in the previous printings. The Works text also italicizes over 170 words and puts into roman type over 25 words which the first and second editions have in roman and italic type respectively. It uses weaker punctuation on over 225 occasions and stronger punctuation over 30 times, adds punctuation about 165 times and drops punctuation in about 115 instances. Finally, it alters spelling over 130 times.2 These data seem to indicate that, whatever copy-text the compositor had before him, he took considerable liberty in standardizing across the three volumes of the Works. As a result, the identity of the 1714 copy-text of the Reasonableness cannot be established solely from the accidental features of the Works text.
A comparison of substantive variants in the relevant texts indicates, however, that the Works edition was probably prepared from a copy-text consisting essentially of a first edition. Perhaps most significantly, the three additions Locke made to the second edition are missing from the Works text. Also, in several places where the second edition altered a word in the first edition in a manner that would not be noticed as an error or correction without comparison with the first edition, the Works edition follows the first edition.3 Some, but not all, accidental features confirm the hypothesis that the Works text is based upon the first edition. pg cxxviiIn several points of spelling where the second edition varies from the first, and in one instance where the second creates a new paragraph-division, the Works follows the first edition.1 While not conclusive, the weight of evidence supports the supposition that the first edition was the base of the copy-text for the Works edition.
Given that hypothesis, however, cases in which the Works edition follows the second edition alone must be explained. In several instances the Works text accords with the second edition in points of capitalization and punctuation where the second varies from the first.2 Many, perhaps most, such instances could be a matter of chance, given the large number of accidental variants found in the Works text when compared with the earlier printings. However, in a few cases the Works edition follows the second in matters of wording which could not be derived from the first edition.3 Two explanations of such examples seem plausible. First, an editor of the Works edition may have amended the first edition copy-text by reference to the second edition. If an editor prepared a copy already amended by Locke, why would he have adopted those few material variants from the second edition and have ignored others such as the three additions to the second edition? A second, and more likely, explanation seems to be that the copy-text of the Works edition was a first edition amended by Locke, which bore corrections that had also been incorporated into the second edition. Then the question arises: Was that copy-text the Harvard copy?
The Harvard copy does contain over twenty-five corrections by Locke of the first edition which were adopted by both the second edition and the Works edition, sometimes with accidental variants.4 Furthermore, the Works text also adopts accidental features and readings unique to the Harvard copy. In at least fifteen instances where Locke altered spelling, punctuation, and italic, the Works edition follows his corrections.5 More significantly, in an equal number of cases where Locke changed the wording of the first edition in a manner not adopted in the second, the Works text accords with Locke's corrections.6 However, three factors militate against the conclusion that the Harvard copy was the copy-text of the Works edition.
pg cxxviiiFirst, as noted above, the Works text follows readings of the second edition which were not recorded in the Harvard copy.1 Second, there are several points at which the Works edition makes alterations in the text that are similar to those by Locke in the Harvard copy, but are probably not derived from it. Examples of this sort merit special attention. At one point Locke noticed that he had used the word 'toyl' twice within three lines, and in the Harvard copy he changed its second occurrence to 'drudgery'. The Works edition, however, changes the first use of 'toyl' to 'drudgery'.2 In a similar case the Works text varies from the Harvard copy in both the position and wording of an addition to the text.3 More significant differences in wording exist in two other additions that are similar in content.4 In two other cases Locke corrected 'any' to 'room for' and 'reflect on' to 'consider', where the Works text reads 'room to' and 'call to mind' respectively.5 Where Locke corrected 'bulk … have not leisure nor … can carry' to 'greatest part … want leisure or … can they carry', the Works text adopts 'greatest part' and 'want leisure or' but does not add 'they'.6 The Works follows an addition to the second edition where Locke made a different addition to the Harvard copy.7 Likewise, the Works seems to have followed an addition similar to, but with several verbal changes from, the second edition, whereas Locke in the Harvard copy added a significantly different passage.8 In another case Locke and the Works agree in an addition to the text except that Locke wrote 'into Jerusalem' while the Works reads 'into the City'.9
Third, moreover, the Harvard copy shows no physical evidence of being marked up for the printer; it contains many corrections and additions that were not incorporated into the Works edition. Locke's chapter-divisions and nine designations for new paragraphs do not appear in the Works text. Even if an editor in 1714 chose to neglect the long additions of the Harvard copy which cite contemporary authors and contain Greek words and sentences, there still remain at least fifteen significant corrections that Locke clearly intended to be incorporated into the text which are not to be found in the Works edition.10 Since there are no marks in the Harvard copy instructing a compositor to add to, change, or ignore some but not all of Locke's changes, it seems unlikely that the Harvard copy served as the copy-text of the Works edition.
pg cxxixIf this analysis is correct, the only hypothesis that will account for all of the data cited above is that the Works edition was printed from a copy-text consisting of a first edition amended by Locke, but one which was significantly different from the Harvard copy. That such a copy could have existed is confirmed by the fact that, in addition to the Harvard copy, two other copies of the first edition were bequeathed by Locke to Peter King.1 One of those copies, now in the Mellon collection of Locke's books in the Bodleian Library, is not annotated, but the other copy (now lost) may have been corrected by Locke and have served as the copy-text in 1714. Furthermore, since Locke may have prepared more than one amended copy of another work, the Two Treatises, the existence of two corrected copies of the Reasonableness would not be unique.2
(5) Coste's French Translations
Within three months of the publication of the Reasonableness, a French translation was under preparation in Amsterdam.3 The translator, Pierre Coste (1668–1747), had published a translation of Some Thoughts concerning Education earlier in 1695, much to Locke's satisfaction. If Coste suspected that Locke was the author of the Reasonableness, however, he was careful to conceal his conjecture. When he sent Locke a copy of his translation in 1696, he innocently suggested, 'Si vous ne l'avez pas lû en Anglois, je croy que vous prendrez du plaisir à le voir en François.'4
pg cxxxIn his 'Advertissement du Traducteur' Coste noted his two principal liberties with the English text—his difficulty in translating the title and his division of the book into chapters, which required some transitional sentences. With these exceptions Coste attempted 'to render faithfully the sense of the original', and he did so by a rather literal, yet readable, translation. For the most part he followed the paragraphing and sentence structure of the English text. Where necessary, however, he did not hesitate to alter the sentence structure and order to convey the English sense in a clear and reliable fashion. Moreover, he sought to perfect the text, especially in its references to biblical sources. He added biblical references not present in the English and corrected several mistakes in the citation of chapters and verses. He did regularly translate Locke's references to 'Christ', 'our Saviour', and 'Jesus' as 'divin Sauveur' or 'divin Seigneur'. In other respects, however, he made no attempt to alter the theological position that Locke espoused. The title-page of Coste's work, printed in red and black, reads as follows:
QUE | LA RELIGION | CHRETIENNE | EST | TRES-RAISONNABLE, | Telle qu'elle nous eft reprefentée dans | L'ECRITURE SAINTE. | Traduit de l'Anglois, imprimé à Londres, | chez A. & J. Churchill. | [orn., vase of flowers 36 x 43 mm] | A AMSTERDAM, | Chez Henri Wetstein. 1696.
(Red-ink printing indicated by dot underlining)
When Coste had completed his translation of the Reasonableness he began work on Locke's Essay.1 In August 1697 he joined Locke at the manor-house of Oates as a tutor to the Mashams' son. There he remained until after Locke's death. Upon publishing his French translation of the Essay in 1700, Coste turned his translating talents to Locke's two defences of the Reasonableness. In 1703 his translation of selections from the two Vindications was printed in Amsterdam by Henry Schelte as the 'Seconde Partie' of Que la religion chrêtienne est très-raisonnable, telle qu'elle nous est representée dans l'Ecriture Sainte.
Locke's death in the following year by no means put an end to Coste's efforts in transmitting his religious thought to the French-reading audience. In 1715 he published a second edition of his translation of both the Reasonableness and the Vindications in two volumes. The title of the first volume, in which the Reasonableness appeared, again printed in red and black, reads:
LE | CHRISTIANISME | RAISONNABLE, | Tel qu'il nous eft reprefenté dans | L'ECRITURE SAINTE. | Traduit de l'Anglois | De Mr. LOCKE. | Seconde Edition, revûë, corrigée; & augmentée d'une | Dissertation où l'on établit le vrai & l'unique | Moyen de réunir tous les Chrétiens malgré la diffe- | rence de leurs fentimens. On a joint à cette Edi- | tion la Religion des Dames. | TOME PREMIER. | [oval framed woodcut orn., seated Athenian reading, with cherubs, 42 × 50mm] | A AMSTERDAM. | Chez l.'Honore' et Chatelain. | [rule 39 mm] | M DCCXV.1
In the foreword to this edition Coste rehearsed his previous difficulties in translating the title of Locke's took and explained his adoption of Jean Le Clerc's title.2 He repeated his rationale for dividing the book into chapters and noted again his addition of necessary transitions, which, he claimed, the author did not disapprove of ('& que l'Auteur n'a pas desapprouvées'). 'Comme cette Edition a été revûë sur la dernière qui a paru en Anglois, on y trouvera quelques additions,' Coste added, 'mais en petit nombre & de peu d'importance.' The English text to which Coste there referred seems to have been the second edition. He apparently did not correct his text by reference to the Works edition, nor is there any clear evidence of his using the Harvard copy. Coste declared that he did not personally espouse all of Locke's arguments. He appended to the text a few notes expressing his disagreement and stated in his preface that the number of such disagreements could easily have been increased if he had wished to criticize the first two or three chapters of the Reasonableness and Locke's exposition of certain biblical passages.3 Nevertheless, Coste was obviously sympathetic to Locke's overall interpretation of Christianity and his hope of settling the differences among Christians.4 The third and fourth editions of Coste's translation were published in Amsterdam in 1731 and 1740.5
pg cxxxiiB. METHODS OF THIS EDITION
Choice and Treatment of the Copy-Text
During the last years of his life Locke devoted much of his energy to correcting the texts of his major works for subsequent publication. He apparently prepared two corrected copies of Two Treatises, revised Some Thoughts concerning Education, and made some alterations in the text of the fourth edition of the Essay.1 As discussed above, he also worked on the Harvard copy of the Reasonableness and possibly corrected another copy of the first edition. Despite these elaborate efforts to perfect versions of his works (and in some cases because of them), attempts to reconstruct Locke's 'texts for posterity' have been faced with knotty problems. Such is the case of the Reasonableness.
There are four possible candidates for the copy-text of a critical edition of the Reasonableness—an unrevised first edition, the second edition, the Works edition of 1714, and the Harvard copy of the first edition. Since no manuscript of the text is known to have survived, the first edition has the probable historical advantage of being closest to what Locke wrote in 1695. It was also this edition that Locke chose to correct and annotate in the Harvard copy.
There is little to recommend the second edition as a copy-text. Although it includes numerous corrections of the first edition and three substantive additions to the text, it also contains many errors and alterations of printing style, and the three additions do not appear in either the Harvard copy or the Works edition. Locke's choice of the first edition in which to make the corrections found in the Harvard copy and possibly for another corrected text used in the Works edition may indicate his dissatisfaction with the second edition. Thus, although the second edition must be considered in the preparation of a critical edition, it ought not to serve as the copy-text.
Prima facie, the Works edition may seem to offer the strongest case. As has been noted, it was asserted in the Works that 'most' of the books were printed therein from 'Copies corrected and enlarg'd under Mr. LOCKE's own Hand'. The evidence supporting the hypothesis that the Works edition of the Reasonableness was printed from an amended copy has been set forth above. It has also been argued that the copy-text of the Works edition was not the Harvard copy but another corrected and enlarged copy of the pg cxxxiiifirst edition, the now missing copy bequeathed to Peter King. Since Coste knew which corrected copy of Two Treatises Locke wanted to be printed after his death,1 it could follow that he, Churchill, and/or King knew which copy of the Reasonableness Locke preferred. If King had such orders, it is likely that in 1714 he provided Churchill with the appropriate text for publication. And assuming that the editor(s) (if any) and compositor(s) printed that copy-text faithfully, the Works edition should be Locke's 'text for posterity'.
While all of these assumptions are reasonable, several factors operate against their acceptance and the conclusion to which they lead. They are all inferences for which conclusive evidence is unavailable. Although the textual evidence seems to support the hypothesis of a second corrected copy, the Works edition could have been prepared from the Harvard copy by an editor who took considerable liberties with that text. On the other hand, if there were another corrected copy, it may have been, like the Christ's copy of Two Treatises, largely Coste's copy of another master copy, presumably the Harvard copy. It might similarly not have been the copy from which Locke hoped that his book would be printed after his death. As long as it remains lost, Locke's authority for those readings in the Works edition that are unsupported by the Harvard copy cannot be established. Locke's instructions, if he left any, could have been unavailable, forgotten, or misinterpreted a decade after his death. But even if the Works edition were based on Locke's preferred text, the loss of that copy-text leaves no way of determining how faithfully its compositor(s) printed it.
A final factor makes the Works edition unacceptable as the copy-text for this edition. Locke is known to have paid considerable attention to the formal details of his works. The Harvard copy bears some evidence of such concern, though far less than the Christ's copy of Two Treatises. Yet the Works edition contains roughly 3,000 deviations in accidentals from the first edition. It seems highly unlikely that even so meticulous an editor as Locke would have made so many changes, approximately ten per page of the first edition. While a detailed statistical analysis of the various editions of Locke's books and his manuscripts might yield grounds of probability for determining the authority behind such changes, without such evidence it seems likely that most of these variants resulted from the compositor's style and mistakes. Given the uncertainties about the authority of the Works edition and the probability that it does not represent Locke's wishes in regard to accidental (formal) pg cxxxivaspects, it has not been chosen to serve as the copy-text for this edition. Moreover, being posthumous, it contains no evidence of the author's intent in these respects.
The Harvard copy has, therefore, been chosen as the copy-text of this edition. The corrections and additions found therein are all in Locke's own hand and carry his undeniable authority. Those revisions are more extensive than the corrections Locke might be judged to have made in either the second or Works editions. Since Locke was at work upon the Harvard copy during the last three years of his life, that version represents a late (if not necessarily final) revision of the text. Moreover, it allows both the preservation of the first edition's accidental features and the easy recovery of its wording through the critical apparatus. These features of the Harvard copy do not, however, prove that Locke intended it to be his 'text for posterity', and that claim is not made. As noted above, it bears some characteristics of a private, working copy; but, historically important as such features may be, Locke might have intended that another amended copy be adopted for any further edition after his death.
Given the difficulties of determining Locke's final intentions and the imperfections of the Harvard copy, the text of the Reasonableness presented here is not a slavish reproduction of that copy. Rather, the editor has accepted the responsibility of attempting to perfect the copy-text as he has judged Locke might have done. For example, Locke's manuscript additions have been occasionally altered in their accidental features to conform to the style of the first edition. Where citations of biblical references are substantially wrong, they have been corrected.1 All such changes are recorded in the critical apparatus. Readings of the second edition have been adopted where the editor has judged them to be intended by Locke. Since the Works edition seems not to have been based on the second edition, where they agree in opposition to the wording and significant accidental features of the first edition their reading has sometimes been preferred on the ground that it may have been contained in the hypothetical second corrected copy. In some cases a reading of the Works edition alone has been adopted, and on a few occasions the editor has corrected faults as he supposed Locke would have done had he noticed them. There is, of course, no way to guarantee that Locke would have intended or approved of these changes, or those mentioned below. As with the historical judgements made in the Introduction above, the pg cxxxvtextual alterations have been based on varying degrees of probability. Even absolute consistency has not been achieved. These judgements are open to scholarly criticism, and it is hoped that the critical apparatus, where such changes are noted, will allow and encourage criticism.
The necessities of printing and the convenience of modern readers have also required certain minor changes in the copy-text. Apart from the types of alteration just noted, the Harvard copy is reproduced exactly except for the following changes. (1) The amount of matter on a page bears no relation to that of the copy-text, and catchwords are eliminated unless noted in the critical apparatus as relating to a variant reading. However, the original pagination is recorded in the margins, and vertical lines in the text mark the points of the page-breaks. This is to facilitate the use of Locke's manuscript indexes, here appended to the printed text. (2) All manuscript corrections and most additions in the Harvard copy have been incorporated into the text as Locke apparently intended, sometimes with changes in formal features. A few additions, however, have been judged to be more appropriately presented as Locke's footnotes and have been printed immediately below the text, prefixed by a sign that also marks the place in the text for which Locke designated them. (3) Whereas Locke divided the book into chapters by roman numerals in the margin (omitting I), the word 'Chapter' is prefixed to Locke's roman numeral in the heading, and the heading 'Chapter I' has been added. (4) Locke's marginal subject-headings, probably written in preparing his index, are printed immediately below the text and are cued by superior italic letters (a b etc.) to indicate their approximate position. (5) Arabic numerals, referring the reader to editorial footnotes, have been added to the text. (6) The long 's' and several consonantal ligatures have been replaced. (7) In contexts where 'V.' (for 'Verse') could be misread as a chapter-number, the word is printed in full. Otherwise, Locke's abbreviations for biblical references have been retained. (8) Italic and roman punctuation has been adjusted to the requirements of the context in line with modern practice. (9) Trivial misprints resulting from worn or uninked type, turned letters, and italicized letters in words otherwise printed in roman type (and vice versa) have been silently corrected. (10) Occasional alterations have been made to words judged to have been misspelt, usually on the authority of the second or Works edition. Such changes have been recorded in the critical apparatus. (11) Some changes have been made in the punctuation of the first edition, usually on the authority of another edition, where clarity seemed to require them. These are recorded in the critical apparatus. However, punctuation pg cxxxvibetween biblical verse-numbers in series has been standardized by the use of a comma, and full stops have been supplied following other chapter- and verse-numbers from both printed and manuscript sources without annotation. (12) Dashes of varying lengths are printed as standard dashes. (13) Greek words have been printed in modern type, and accents and iota subscripts have been added; formal variants of Greek letters and ligatures are not recorded. (14) In incorporating manuscript additions to the text, capital letters, punctuation, and italic have been added, and spelling has been normalized, in line with the general style of the first edition, Contracted forms, e.g. 'agn' for 'again', have been silently expanded where it would have been normal practice to do so, or in any other circumstances where the contraction is now obsolete.
The critical apparatus printed below the text contains entries of four general, types. First, it records all textual readings in respect of which the critical text (the text of this edition) deviates from the copy-text (the text of the Harvard copy), except where silent changes have been signalled above. The changes recorded are predominantly substantive changes (omissions, additions, and changes of wording), but they also include a certain number of more purely typographical corrections (to spelling, font, or punctuation). Second, it indicates where the readings of the copy-text are to be traced to Locke's manuscript revisions of the particular copy. Third, it contains a record of variant substantive readings found in the other early English versions for which it is possible to trace some authorial responsibility. These are; the uncorrected first edition (designated 1, which also represents the reading of the Harvard copy where no amended reading (L) is identified); the first edition errata (1er) in its fullest extent; the second edition (2); and the first collected Works (W). Variations in accidentals among these other editions are not recorded unless, exceptionally, they are judged semantically significant. Fourth, without prejudice to the question of whether they are authoritative in the same sense, a selective record of the more interesting features of Coste's translation (Coste) is also included.
Coste's translation presents special problems in regard to registering substantive variants. Obviously it would be difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether Coste's words and phrases were exactly equivalent in seventeenth-century usage to Locke's English terminology. Further-pg cxxxviimore, differences both of individual style and between normal English and French expression occasionally led Coste to restructure sentences and even paragraphs. Therefore, a detailed comparison of Coste's work with the English versions has not been attempted. His translation is cited in the critical apparatus, however, in two categories of variants. First, significant departures from the sense and organization of the text are annotated. For example, translations that seem to alter Locke's meaning, the omission of significant words and phrases, the creation (or elimination) of paragraph-divisions, corrections of the text (such as biblical chapter- and verse-numbers), and Coste's chapter-titles and transitional sentences required by his division of chapters are all noted. Second, Coste's version is frequently cited in relation to differences between English versions: '(likewise Coste)' is appended to the citation of an English reading if Coste's translation seems markedly closer to it than to the alternative reading(s), and occasionally Coste's wording is provided. Some minor variants in Coste's version, such as his addition of biblical citations, have been incorporated into the editorial footnotes. In general, only Coste's first edition is cited; the second edition may be assumed to be identical unless it is cited. Variations between the two editions that do not reflect variants among English versions are not recorded.
No symbols are inserted in the text to mark material annotated in the apparatus. Entries are normally made in the following manner:
first, the line-number(s), followed by the quotation from the text of the word(s) affected, then a square bracket (]);
next, the symbol(s) of the authority or authorities for the adopted reading, followed by a vertical line ( | );
finally, the variant reading(s), each followed by the symbol(s) of its source, and each successive variant reading separated by a vertical line.
Other conventions that are occasionally needed may be found under the heading 'Abbreviations and References' at the front of the book (p. xiii above). But certain features of this system of annotation require detailed explanation, and some exceptions must be noted. If a word quoted in an entry appears more than once in a line, it is followed by 1 or 2. Where several words are annotated, only the first and last words are quoted and they are separated by '…' to indicate the ellipsis. Any punctuation following the last word quoted from the text is normally omitted, unless it is different in or absent from another English version. That is, if no punctuation follows the final quoted word, the punctuation pg cxxxviiiof the text is common to all English versions; but if such punctuation is quoted, the alternative punctuation or its absence is noted in the variant reading(s).
Variants of accidental features among versions bearing the same wording play havoc with the attempt to present clear and accurate annotation. Where reference is made to only one printed edition as the authority of a quoted reading, the quotation is exact in respect, to that version in both wording and accidental features. If more than one edition is given as the source of a reading, then all the cited editions agree in the quoted wording. In accidentals the reading conforms to the first edition cited unless otherwise stated. However, since Locke's manuscript additions in the Harvard copy have been altered in accidental features to make them conform to the normal printing style of the first edition, where 'L' is cited as the source of a quoted reading the quotation is exact only in wording. The main changes in accidentals are recorded in the critical apparatus.
In some cases, to avoid, over-elaborate entries, minor variants (especially within other variants) may be enclosed in parentheses after the source reference. All editorial wording is printed in italic, type.
In entries citing Coste's translation alone, the authority for the word(s) quoted from the text is omitted and the translation is printed within quotation marks after 'Coste'.
The following examples illustrate the principal forms of annotation in the critical apparatus:
p. 65; '14 him. This] L, W | htm; Which 1 | him. This which 2'
In this entry, taken from page 65, the reader is referred to line 14 and the words 'him. This'. The symbols L and W following the square bracket indicate that the words cited are the reading of Locke's correction in the Harvard copy and the Works edition. Following the vertical line 'him; Which' is recorded as the reading of the first edition prior to correction (1), and following the next vertical line 'him. This which' is cited as the reading of the second edition (2).
p. 28: '4 on] 1er, L, 2, W (likewise Coste) | at 1'
This means that on page 28 the word 'on' in line 4 is common to the Errata of the first edition (1er), Locke in the Harvard copy, the second edition, and the Works edition; Coste's translation of 1696 was equivalent (likewise Coste) and it may be assumed that his second edition was the same. The English first edition (1), however, reads 'at'.
p. 75: '21 elsewhere;] L, 2 (likewise Coste2) | elsewhere; (the Kingdom of God's being come, and requiring Repentance.) 1 (likewise Coste) | elsewhere. W'
This entry on page 75 indicates that in line 21 the reading 'elsewhere;' is that of Locke in the Harvard copy and of the second edition, and that Coste's second edition is substantially the same. The first edition, however, reads 'elsewhere; (the Kingdom of God's being come, and requiring Repentance.)', and Coste's first edition followed this reading. The Works edition was verbally identical to the adopted reading (L and 2), but it follows 'elsewhere' with a full stop ('elsewhere.').
p. 83: '1 to1 … death] add. L'
On page 83 this entry indicates that in line 1 the words from the first occurrence of the word 'to' through to 'death' (i.e. 'to put him to death') were inserted by Locke in the Harvard copy and do not appear in any other early edition.
The editorial footnotes at the foot of the pages of text are intended to assist the reader in a variety of ways. Some ambiguous and archaic terms and expressions are defined by reference to the OED. Cross-references within the text are supplied. References to similar expressions and the treatment of the same and related subjects in other of Locke's published works and manuscripts are given. Attention is drawn to major issues raised in the controversy over the book during Locke's lifetime, Sources of Locke's references and quotations are provided where necessary.1 References are made to books by contemporary authors which Locke is known to have read. Problems or significant matters of editorial and bibliographical concern are noted. In general, the footnotes are limited to material that may assist readers in understanding what Locke intended; references to the history of the book's interpretation are usually supplied by cross-reference to the Introduction in this volume. The annotation of a text is, of necessity, an interpretative process, beginning with the choice of what requires explanation. Nevertheless, it is hoped that the editorial footnotes will serve to stimulate and assist readers in the continuing task of interpreting Locke's thought anew—even in directions unforeseen by the editor.pg cxl
1 London Cazette, 3104 (8–12 Aug, 1695).
2 A segment of the inner vertical rule that forms part of the lower left border of the title-page shows a recurring tendency to slip, creating a variable gap of up to 2 mm in the vertical line. Although it should converge at right angles with the horizontal base-line, the vertical may terminate anywhere between 1 mm above and 1 mm below this line. The title-page is part of a gathering that includes the errata list, which is found in three separate states, but there is no consistent correlation between this random dislocation and the different states of the errata.
3 In all copies examined, p. 12 has the running title 'The Reasonableness, &c.'
4 Term Catalogues, 1688–1709, ed. Edward Arber (3 vols.; London, 1903–6), ii, 568, 596, iii. 1.
1 Copies in the following libraries have been examined in regard to the different states discussed: Houghton Collection, Harvard College Library (Locke's amended copy); Harvard Divinity School; British Library; Dr Williams's Library, London (2 copies); Wellcome Library, Royal College of Physicians, London; King's College, Cambridge (2 copies); Trinity College, Cambridge; St John's College, Cambridge; Trinity College, Dublin (3 copies); Marsh's Library, Dublin.
2 An explanation of just such a process and the terms used to describe it is given in Nidditch (ed.), Essay, pp. 816–17, under 'Proofs'.
2 Laslett, in LL, pp. 8, 54–7, MS Locke c. 35, fo. 46v, lists 'Reasonableness of Christianity Interleav'd' as going to Peter King. See also Peter Laslett, 'The Recovery of Locke's Library', in G. A. J. Rogers and Sylvana Tomaselli (eds.), The Philosophical Canon in the 17th and 18th Centuries (Rochester, NY, 1996), 67–82.
1 Coste's titles are printed in the critical apparatus to the test below.
2 These marginal headings are printed in this edition just beneath the text. For the examples cited see p. 6.
3 This index is printed at the conclusion of the test in the present edition.
1 Laslett (ed.), Two Treatises, 9–10, first called attention to Locke's meticulous concern to perfect his works for posthumous publication. Further discussion and evidence are provided in Nidditch (ed.), Essay, pp. xxiii, xxvi, xlviii–lii, and the critical apparatus and register of formal variants.
2 See Reasonablenss, pp. 16, 113. For Locke's reference to Patrick's book in the first Vindication and the date of his acquiring the volumes, see above, p. 1, n, 4.
3 Term Catalogues, iii. 1. The second edition was quoted by Richard Willis in the Occasional Paper, no. 1, which was advertised in the London. Gazette, 3246 (17–21 Dec. 1696), It is probable, however, that if publication of the second edition occurred in December (or even late November), it would have borne the date 1697. E. S. de Beer (in Corr., vol. v, p, vii) estimates that the Vindication was published c.Oct. 1695; thus the second edition of the Reasonableness could have been published shortly after.
1 Manship's name and location did not appear on the title-pages of the second and third volumes. He resurfaces for the last known time, with Awnsham Churchill, in the imprint for the first volume of the second edition of Locke's Works, published in 1722.
1 Works, vol. i, sig. [a]v. Part of Locke's letter to Peter King dated 4 Oct. 1704, Corr. 3647, viii. 412–17, forms the preface to the Posthumous Works (1706), an indication that King served as the editor of that collection.
2 Cf. Nidditch, Essay, pp. xxxiv and 780, on accidental variants in the Works edition of the Essay. The statistics cited here are compiled from an exhaustive comparison of the texts; as explained below, these variants are not all recorded in the critical apparatus.
2 Cases may be readily found in the critical apparatus of the first two chapters.
1 MS Locke c. 35, fo. 39r, lists two copies of (presumably) the first edition as going to Peter King, in addition to the interleaved copy listed on fo. 46v. One copy of the second edition is also listed as going to King.
2 Laslett (ed.), Two Treatises, 148–50. Laslett's case for a 'second master-copy' is, by his own admission, not conclusive. But if he is correct that neither the fourth edition of Two Treatises (1713) nor the Works edition (1714) is based upon the Christ's copy, there may have been three amended copies of Two Treatises; for the author of 'To the Reader' in the Works edition specifically states that 'the Two Treatises of Government were never till now, publish'd from a Copy corrected by himself [Locke]'. This seems to imply that the Works edition was printed from a corrected copy that had not been utilized before 1714. In addition, Martin Youghin of Pythagoras (Booksellers), Amsterdam, has in his possession (1998) a copy of the fifth edition of Locke's Essay with revisions by Anthony Collins some of which restore fourth edition readings found also in the Works edition of the Essay, while one strikingly anticipates a correction to the 'Epistle to the Reader' first printed in the Works. Dr Youghin conjectures that Collins rather than King was editor of the Works; but his evidence can also further support the case that that editor had access to an additional text tradition.
3 Jean Le Clere to Locke, 15 Oct. 1695, Corr. 1958, v. 452.
4 Coste to Locke, c. 23 June 1696, Corr. 2107, v. 660.
1 Kidditch (ed.), Essay, pp. xxxiv–xxxvi.
1 Copies of this edition are rare. A volume in the Bodleian Library bears the title-page of this edition as a cancel, appended to sheets of the first edition. The 'Religion des dames' is a translation of A Ladies' Religion (1697; Wing 2nd edn., L-159), which can be attributed to William Stephens. Cf. Notes and Queries, 236/2 (June 1991), 177.
2 He cited Le Clerc's translation of the title in 'Bibliotheque Choisie, Tom. vi, p. 348'.
3 See 'Advertissement du Traducteur', pp. iii–iv: 'Pour moi je prendrai la liberté de déclarer ici, que je n'adopte pas tous les raisonnemens de Mr. Locke, quoi que je me sois donné la peine de mettre son Livre en François. On en verra des preuves en un ou deux endroits de cette nouvelle Edition. Il m'auroit été facile d'en grossir le nombre, si j'eusse voulu critiquer les deux ou trois prémiers Chapitres du Prémier Volume, où sur des explications de quelques Passages de l'Ecriture, assez incertaines, Mr. Locke s'est engagé dans des raisonnemens qui ne paroissent pas fort solides …'
4 See his 'Dissertation' included in this and subsequent editions.
5 These two editions were published by Zacharie Chatelain. Their title-pages are similar to that of the second edition, except that Coste's name appeared in the fourth.
1 See Laslett (ed.), Two Treatises, 10, 146, 148–50; James L. Axtell (ed.), The Educational Writings of John Locke (Cambridge, 1968), 17; Nidditch (ed.), Essay, pp. xxxi–xxxiii.
1 Laslett (ed.), Two Treatises, 11.
1 However, where Locke cited, for example, one verse and quoted all or a portion of an adjacent verse, no alteration in the text has been made.
1 Occasionally biblical references derived from Coste's translations are cited in footnotes. Where thus cited they are not recorded in the critical apparatus.