Main Text



(a) The Early Writings on Interest

Locke's Early Writings on Interest date from 1668 and 1674; they consist of three parts: the original 1668 paper entitled 'Some of the Consequences that are like to follow upon Lessening of Interest to 4 per Cent:', the 'Supplement' written later that year, and additional material dating from 1674. No single manuscript of the complete Early Writings survives. The original paper is found in two versions: one in MS Locke e. 8 in the Bodleian Library, and the other among the papers of Sir William Coventry now in the British Library.1 The 1668 'Supplement' and the material from 1674 are distributed between an unfinished fair copy in Locke's papers (bound up together with the copy of the original paper) and sheets from Locke's 1668–74 autograph which were later embodied in the manuscript draft of Some Considerations.2

Collation of the Bodleian copy of the original 1668 paper with the Coventry manuscript establishes that both derive from a common source, presumably Locke's no longer extant autograph. Though the Bodleian version is the earlier of the two, it has in places been subsequently amended in the hand of the amanuensis of the second and third sections of MS Locke e. 8 to give readings that conform with those of the Coventry version. The hand of the Bodleian copy is found elsewhere in Locke's papers and also in the Shaftesbury archive in PRO; it is the same as that of the major part of the 1669 draft of the Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina (which Sainsbury mistakenly claimed to have been written in its entirety by Locke).3 As this Bodleian copy is an elaborately penned manuscript with wide margins and generous spacing between the lines, resembling the presentation copies of the 1667 Essay on Toleration and the paper entitled 'Intel- pg 123lectus' in the Shaftesbury collection, it is tempting to see it as the version prepared for Shaftesbury.1

The text of the copy which belonged to Sir William Coventry differs but slightly from the Bodleian version, though a number of the longer paragraphs have been divided in two.2 It bears signs of hasty transcription in the form of words and phrases repeated or omitted (features which occur more frequently towards the end), and is in general a more unreliable text, though in one or two places its reading is clearly to be preferred. The Coventry manuscript is in a hand identical with that of the copy of Coventry's own proposals on poor relief now bound up in the same volume.3 This suggests that Coventry, who was deeply interested in economic questions, may have taken advantage of the loan of Locke's paper to have a copy made for himself.

The chief interest of the Coventry copy lies in a note in Sir William's hand under the title of the piece, which reads 'By Mr. Locke directed by Lord Ashley' (the last four words being apparently added later). L. F. Brown, who in her life of Shaftesbury was the first to draw attention to this note, took it to mean that Locke had written the paper at Shaftesbury's instructions, but this interpretation is open to doubt.4 Although Coventry was Shaftesbury's brother-in-law by his first marriage, relations between the two were by no means cordial in the late 1660s, and Coventry would not necessarily have been very precisely informed about details of this sort.5 Given Locke's position in Shaftesbury's household and the fact of Shaftesbury's opposition to the reduction of interest by law, it would have been natural for Coventry to have assumed that Shaftesbury had set Locke to elaborate arguments for his case. Furthermore, this interpretation is difficult to reconcile with the wording of Locke's shorthand fragment relating to the dedication of the paper, p. 202 below.

The fair copy of the 1668 Supplement and the unfinished material from 1674 in MS Locke e. 8 are also in the hand of an amanuensis who worked for both Locke and Shaftesbury.6 These sections are paginated pg 124independently of the version of the original paper now bound up with them, and start at p. 13, but the catchword 'Supplement' at the foot of the last page of the original paper and the title 'Supplement' at the top of the first page of the second section, both in Locke's hand, establish beyond doubt that the two parts of the manuscript were joined by the author. A further link is provided by the amendments to the original paper in the hand of the second amanuensis (cf. p. 122 above). Conclusive evidence of dating is provided by a note at the end of the Supplement, f. 27v, in Locke's hand, which reads: 'Sic cogitavit 1668 JL '.

The version of the 1668 Supplement in MS Locke e. 8 is the only complete copy of this section of the Early Writings, though the later part of the Supplement is also found in the surviving sheets from Locke's 1668–74 autograph. One quire of the autograph (that which deals with the relationship between the rate of interest and the number of years' purchase given for land, superseded in the treatment of this issue in Some Considerations) is found amongst the miscellaneous economic papers in MS Locke b. 3, and the remaining quires now form part of the manuscript draft of Some Considerations.1

The 1674 material in the fair copy in MS Locke e. 8 is shown by the autograph sheets later embodied in the draft of Some Considerations to have been left unfinished. The break comes at the end of a paragraph, and, since it occurs in the middle of the manuscript page, cannot be accounted for by accidental loss. No satisfactory explanation is forthcoming as to why the fair copy breaks off like this; though it may be conjectured that if, as suggested on pp. 11–12 above, Locke was led to take up his writings on interest in 1674 as a result of the activities of the Council for Trade and Foreign Plantations, the Council's failure to pursue the matter may have led to the abandoning of the transcription. Collation of the fair copy with the autograph sheets establishes, however, that Locke continued to amend both versions of his text, even though the transcription of the fair copy had been discontinued.2

In the remainder of the 1674 material (the section not transcribed in the fair copy), there is a problem in distinguishing between changes dating from 1674 and later alterations made when the autograph sheets were embodied in the manuscript of Some Considerations. However, as explained in the notes to Early Writings, p. 196, internal evidence and comparison of the ink and handwriting make it possible to date the majority of the changes.

pg 125The text of the Early Writings on Interest. The text of the Early Writings presented here is that of the fair copy in MS Locke e. 8, as far as that goes, supplemented by the autograph sheets from 1674 now in MS Locke d. 2. The text is collated with the Coventry manuscript of the original paper, and, where available, with the sheets from the 1668–74 autograph. Variations in spelling, capitalization, and punctuation between the manuscript versions have not been noted, though the Coventry manuscript is comparatively heavily punctuated.

Changes in the original 1668 paper are in the hand of the amanuensis, unless noted otherwise; while those in the rest of the Early Writings are in Locke's hand, unless noted otherwise. Catchwords have not been noted; both the fair copy and the 1668–74 autograph generally employ them, but not the Coventry manuscript. Both amanuenses of the fair copy employ the long 'ſ ' as the initial letter of words in a form virtually indistinguishable from a capital 'S '. It has thus been decided to render all instances of 'ſ ' as lower case letters, except at the beginning of sentences. The dashes used by the first amanuensis in place of full stops at the end of paragraphs have been retained. The hand of the second amanuensis is sometimes difficult to read because the ink has faded. His tendency to run words together has been silently ignored.


Coventry MS

the Coventry manuscript of the original 1668 paper: BL, Add. MS 32094, ff. 289–93

1668 autograph

the 1668 autograph sheets in MSS Locke b. 3, ff. 2–3; d. 2, ff. 28–31

1674 autograph

the 1674 autograph sheets in MS Locke d. 2, ff. 32–7.

(b) Some Considerations of the Consequences of the Lowering of Interest, and Raising the Value of Money. In a Letter sent to a Member of Parliament, 1691.

Though the imprint on the title-page reads 1692, the first edition of Some Considerations appeared at the beginning of December 1691. Post-dating books which were listed in the Michaelmas Term Catalogue was a common fashion, but it has led to confusion as to the year in which the pamphlet was published.1 The 1692 edition bore no pg 126author's name, and it was not till Further Considerations appeared at the end of 1695 that Locke publicly acknowledged (p. 456) the authorship of his first pamphlet.1 A second, corrected edition of Some Considerations was brought out some five years after the first as part of Several Papers Relating to Money, Trade and Interest, &c. Writ upon several Occasions, and Published at different Times, the volume containing second editions of all three pamphlets which was published in July 1696. The third edition of Some Considerations found in the second volume of the three-volume folio Works of John Locke published by the Churchills in 1714 corrects some obvious printing errors in the 1696 edition, but does not amount to a 'text for posterity' such as Locke had prepared for publication after his death in the case of the Essay, Two Treatises, Education, and Reasonableness of Christianity.2

The origins of Some Considerations go back to the original paper on interest which Locke wrote in 1668, and it is possible to trace in considerable detail how the work evolved. The chief evidence for its history is to be found in the manuscript draft of the pamphlet still among Locke's papers in the Bodleian Library, though the substantial number of differences between this and the 1692 edition show that it was not the copy used by the printer. It is almost certainly the version from which the printer's copy was transcribed, and very probably the last version to have been written, in part at least, in Locke's own hand. As the only complete surviving manuscript of one of the works which Locke himself had published, the draft of Some Considerations is of considerable interest for the light which it throws on his methods of composition and of preparing work for the press. For this reason, as well as for the clarification which the changes in the manuscript provide of the evolution of Locke's ideas, a transcript of its text has been included as Appendix A.

The manuscript of Some Considerations is composed of heterogeneous material, some copied out by Locke's secretary, Sylvanus Brounower, from earlier drafts in 1690, and the rest written by Locke himself over a period of more than twenty years. It consists mainly of quired sheets (the format commonly used by Locke for works intended to be circulated in pg 127manuscript), which have been given alphabetical signatures as follows: A, B, C1, C2, C3, D, E, F, G1, G2, G3, G4, G5, G6, G7, G8, G9, H1, H2, I, K1, K2, K3, K4, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R1, S1 R2, S2, and T (the quires with adscititious numerical subscripts representing material interpolated at a later stage). In addition there is some unnumbered material in Locke's hand, consisting of the letter of dedication; an index to the quires (not intended for publication); a slip explaining why consumers need not be taken into account separately in estimating the money necessary for carrying on trade (i.e., p. 242, ll. 14–22), and a sheet with Locke's concluding remarks.

Work on the manuscript started with Brounower's transcription of reorganized material from 1668–74, which comprised quires A–H1, without the interpolated material in C2, C3, and G2–G9. Two further quires, H2 and I, partly in Locke's hand and partly in Brounower's, completed the work as Locke originally envisaged it in the autumn of 1690. This revision of the Early Writings began not later than Michaelmas (29 September) 1690, and Brounower's transcription was completed shortly after 10 October.1 The rest of the manuscript, which is all in Locke's hand, was added at various stages up to 7 November 1691, the date of the letter of dedication. As well as interpolations added on separate sheets, there is a large number of shorter interpolations in the body of the manuscript, many of which are written in the margins of the quires.2 All except one of these interpolations in the margins and most of the changes in the main body of the text are in Locke's hand.

The material transcribed by Brounower in the autumn of 1690 comprises pp. 211–27, 232–54, 269–72, and 279–94 of this edition; it embodies all the original 1668 paper on interest apart from the matter superseded in the Supplement, together with the first part of the latter, up to and including the account of the reasons for paying interest. The early material has, however, been entirely rearranged. Locke now started with the question whether the price which men pay for the hire of money can be changed by law, and used his 1668 discussion of the pg 128natural rate of interest and the activities of the London bankers to show this to be unlikely. Only then did he go on to consider the effects of a law which successfully reduced interest, his starting-point in 1668. Apart from the change in the order of presentation, the 1668 material was incorporated very much as it stood, with only the occasional new passage such as the account on pp. 236–8 of the difficulties experienced in the West of England over the payment of rents because of shortage of ready cash. The new material from p. 251 onwards which introduced Locke's most noteworthy departure from the Early Writings, that is the rejection of the direct mathematical relationship between land prices and the rate of interest, reveals that he was heavily influenced by two specific works in the autumn of 1690, namely Manley's Interest at Six per Cent. examined, 1669, and Child's Discourse about Trade, 1690.1

The first substantial interpolation to be added to what Brounower had transcribed was the discussion on foreign exchange and the balance of trade on pp. 227–32 (quires C2–C3 of the manuscript), which begins with an attack on an unnamed author, identifiable as Sir Thomas Culpeper the elder. The passages cited were not taken directly from Culpeper's Tract against Usurie, 1621, but from extracts from the work which appeared in R.C., A Letter to a Friend concerning Usury, which was dated 20 October 1690. Discrediting Culpeper was more than striking a blow at a work which had appeared nearly seventy years earlier, for his Tract was reprinted in Child's Discourse about Trade, 1690 (as it had been in his Brief Observations, 1668), with an admission that most of Child's arguments could be found in Culpeper's work.2 After incorporating this interpolation, Locke went through his manuscript adding descriptive headings in the margin. Though these would appear to have had no function other than to facilitate reference to the text, they have been included in the transcription of the manuscript, since they help bring out the structure of the work as originally planned. At a later stage, though before the manuscript was finally completed, Locke prepared a comprehensive index to the quires, which gives the relevant signature-number for the pg 129topics listed.1 Unlike the marginal headings, this index covers not only the section on interest, but also most of the material on coinage, and was probably finished by the end of 1690.2

Dating the section on coinage presents greater difficulties, particularly since in the manuscript there is no clear-cut division between the two sections such as is found in the printed text, the reply to the Letter concerning Usury which now separates them being a later interpolation. The brief reference in the material on interest copied out by Brounower to the proposal to prohibit the export of bullion introduced in the coinage bill of 12 October 1690 suggests that, even as late as this, Locke had not intended to write at length on the subject of coinage. It may therefore be conjectured that it was the rapid success of this bill that led him to extend the scope of his pamphlet to cover this second topic.3 It would thus seem that the opening part of the section on coinage was remarkably quickly written; for the claim on p. 311 that if the coin were raised 5% each week for ten weeks in succession, it would weigh but half the present standard by 'New-Years-Day next', dates the passage to roughly the third week in October.4 However, most of the remaining material on coinage up to the reply to Remarks on a later Paper given into the Lords &c. can scarcely be earlier than the second week in December, for it embodies information on pp. 320–1 about the premium paid for ducatoons in Holland that came from a letter from Benjamin Furly of 2/12 December 1690. Although there is no clear indication where Locke ended his first thoughts on coinage in October 1690, both the sense and a slight change in the handwriting after the second paragraph on p. 313 (Appendix A, 587, l. 31) suggest this as the likely place. Since all the material on coinage, apart from the reply to the Remarks, is included in the index to the quires, it was presumably written by the end of 1690.

Another important addition to figure in the index is the passage on pp. 274–9 dealing with the incidence of taxation. This material was written in 1690 and embodies information on the tax system in the United Provinces which Locke had recorded in his journals in 1677 and 1685. However, as he had first expounded the theory that all taxes pg 130'terminate at last on land' in a letter to his cousin, John Strachey, in 1672, it is possible that some earlier work on the subject may have been made use of in preparing what he wrote on taxation in 1690.1

The reply to Remarks on a late Paper given into the Lords &c. was among the last sections of the pamphlet to have been written. Both it and the Letter concerning Usury seem at first sight unlikely choices for Locke to have refuted in such detail, though his having done so suggests that they enjoyed considerable contemporary appeal. The Remarks was apparently a broadsheet, though no copy is reputed to survive, and thus its contents are only known from the extracts in Some Considerations.2 As suggested, p. 22 above, it was perhaps the fact that it was the work of Thomas Neale, Master of the Mint, rather than its intrinsic merit that led Locke to single it out. The Letter concerning Usury is in some ways an even more surprising target for Locke's pen, particularly since he devotes eight pages early on in Some Considerations to refuting extracts without citing the Letter by name, and then deals with further extracts under its title on pp. 301–3. The pamphlet purports to be an impartial examination of 'all the Arguments formerly written for and against the Abatement of Interest', and draws its material from the two Culpepers, Child's Brief Observations, and Manley's Usury at Six per Cent. examined. But the dismissal of this last as written 'so confusedly and to so little Purpose, that I cannot find anything considerable to take notice of …' shows where the author's sympathies lay, and it was perhaps this contemptuous treatment of a work to which Locke was so indebted that led him to attack the Letter.3

The only other addition to the manuscript which need detain us is the lengthy passage dealing with the so-called 'Laws of Value' and foreign exchange on pp. 254–70. This material comes from the Early Writings and was apparently incorporated only at a late stage, since the actual sheets from Locke's 1668–74 autograph have been interpolated in the manuscript draft at this point. This impression is corroborated by the fact that the material has been far from carefully embodied in the text, and it is indeed mainly responsible for the excessive repetition that critics have objected to in Some Considerations (despite the fact that these passages have been comparatively heavily pg 131amended in the 1696 edition).1 The discovery that this lengthy passage, which contains the explicit account of the value theory which serves as the tool for the analysis of interest and the exchange value of money, was only a last-moment addition to the pamphlet comes as a considerable surprise, the more so because it supplies the main conceptual link between the sections on interest and on coinage.2

On 21 October 1691, the day before Parliament assembled for the new session, Locke wrote to Edward Clarke that his papers contained 'all that I at present can thinke of on those subjects they only want transcribeing'. On 2 November he returned to London, where a letter from Benjamin Furly was waiting with more information on Dutch currency. Locke embodied the passage almost verbatim in the letter of dedication, dated 7 November 1691, which together with the closing words on p. 342 was, almost certainly, the last part of the work to be completed.3 Transcription of the printer's copy was presumably undertaken by Sylvanus Brounower;4 there are indications that it was prepared in great haste, and speed was certainly essential in view of the rapid progress of a new interest bill introduced by Thomas Freke on 14 November. This haste may account for some of the many changes between the manuscript draft and the text of the 1692 edition, by no means all of which are differences of meaning or emphasis. A large number of errors found their way into this first edition, either in the course of transcription or printing. Examples such as reading 'national' for 'natural' (two instances listed in the errata lists) and the serious mistake at p. 275, l. 20 below, which read 'dearer' where the sense required 'cheaper' (reference to the manuscript shows the original word to have been 'deader') suggests that either the printer's copy was rather illegible or the compositor worked under great pressure.5

Though the work was presumably already complete in print by pg 13227 November, the date when it was licensed, the first mention of its actually being so only occurs in a letter from Locke to Clarke, 4 December, enclosing a list of errata which Clarke was to 'mend' his own copy by, and pass on to the Churchills.1 On 11 December Locke forwarded a further list of errata for the publishers, and complained of 'the great faults that are to be amended, without which the sense cannot be understood'. He also instructed Clarke to obtain written confirmation of the promise made by Awnsham Churchill that after the printing of this edition, 'the Copy is mine and at my disposal'. After further prompting on 26 February 1691/2, an agreement was finally signed on 2 March:

Wee doe hereby declare that the sole right Of and in the Coppy or book called Some Considerations of the Consequences of the Lowering of Interest and Raiseing the value of money is and remayns in Mr. John Locke. Wittness our hands 2d March 1691/2 / A and J Churchill / Teste / Edw: Clarke

An agreement in this form is somewhat unusual at this date, and is clearly of a different nature from the contracts specifying payment for an edition of a book, such as survive for the Essay, Education, and Reasonableness of Christianity.2

The 'Second Edition Corrected' of 1696. Locke's concern to obtain written confirmation of his agreement with the Churchills suggests that from the first he hoped to bring out a more satisfactory text to replace the 1692 edition. The latter took a surprisingly long time to sell off; there were still sufficient copies in the publisher's hands to make it worth while to readvertise it in the list of books published by the Churchills that follows the Preface of Further Considerations which was brought out at the end of 1695.3 The form in which a corrected edition pg 133eventually appeared was as the first part of the collected volume, Several Papers, in July 1696. As the title-page of Several Papers was originally conjunct with that of the 1696 edition of Some Considerations, there would seem little likelihood that the latter was intended to be published separately, particularly as the licence for Some Considerations is printed on the verso of the Several Papers title-page.

The second edition of Some Considerations was probably put to the press in June 1696, though Locke's response to a compliment from Molyneux about the book, 'you may be sure I do not own it to be mine, till you shall see my name to it' suggests a definite intention to republish already in November 1695.1 In the event, Locke's scruples about setting his name to the unsatisfactory 1692 text were set aside in Further Considerations, p. 74 (456 below), where he acknowledged his earlier pamphlet.

The fact that on p. 171 (329 below) of the 1696 edition the printer made the mistake of incorporating Locke's instructions as well as the corrected reading, resulting in

For they being allow'd 3s. 6d. it should be Sixteen pence half-penny for the Coinage of every Pound Troy …,

would seem to establish beyond doubt that the second edition was set (as would have been the normal practice) from a corrected copy of the first, not from a fresh manuscript. Moreover, the corrections would seem to have been made without reference to the reading of the manuscript draft which Locke had, rather exceptionally, preserved from 1691.2 Though verbally more accurate than the first edition the 1696 version contains, as might be expected, fresh errors of its own. There are extensive changes in the use of capitals, and the punctuation has been rendered more consistent and up to date, thereby further obliterating what little remained of Locke's own, admittedly sparse, capitalization and punctuation in the autograph sections of the manuscript draft.3 Also noticeable is a consistent tendency to employ words for numbers, where the first edition had favoured numerals (a feature also pg 134apparent in the versions of Short Observations and Further Considerations produced for Several Papers).

The material changes in the second edition are extensive and go far beyond the correction of textual errors and the amending of verbal infelicities.1 Most important is the clarification of Locke's ideas on the origin and value of money on pp. 233–4, which is based on material developed at greater length in Further Considerations, pp. 411–12. Moreover, the major changes in the 1696 edition are almost all to be found in the section on interest, though by then public attention had largely moved on to the currency question. In the section on coinage little attempt has been made to adapt the material to the altered circumstances of 1696, by which time many of the evils which Locke had warned against in the 1692 edition had become all too familiar and unpleasant realities.2

The choice of copy-text. Despite the fact that recent bibliographical practice favours the choice of the first edition of a book as the copy-text in cases where subsequent editions have not been set from a fresh manuscript, or an author's revision of the accidentals of the first edition, it has been decided to adopt the second edition of 1696 as the copy-text of Some Considerations.3 Reasons for disregarding recent practice in this instance seem particularly strong, and the fact that Locke, who had highly exacting standards of book-production, was not willing to set his name to the unsatisfactory text of the 1692 edition is not lightly to be set aside. Considering the care which he took to ensure that the Churchills would not produce another edition from the 1692 text, it would be rash to present even a corrected version of this as the definitive text of the pamphlet.

The chief argument for using a first edition as copy-text is that it preserves the formal features of an author's manuscript (in the form of capitalization, spelling, and punctuation) more faithfully than one which has been through the hands of a further typesetter. Comparison of the sections of the manuscript draft in Brounower's hand with those in Locke's shows, however, that the latter's formal features would have been largely obliterated in the transcript hastily prepared for the printer. There would thus seem little point in choosing a corrupt text as the copy-text in order to recapture the features of a printer's copy pg 135which we know the author to have been dissatisfied with. Choice of the 1696 edition has, on the other hand, many positive advantages. It presents the corrected and greatly changed text which Locke gave to the public under his own name. In view of the fact that Locke particularly revised the section on interest which contains the basis of his monetary thinking, the 1696 edition of Some Considerations may be regarded as the final, corrected version of his ideas on the subject. By presenting the text of the manuscript draft as Appendix A in vol. ii (to facilitate comparison with the copy-text), the arguments in favour of using the 1692 edition as the copy-text are reduced to negligible proportions. The 1696 edition embodies not only a more readable and more carefully worded text but a typographically more consistent one. But none of this precludes the editor's right to amend incidental deteriorations in the copy-text by reference to earlier versions.

Note on the transcription of the manuscript draft and the presentation of the printed text. The marginal headings added by Locke in 1690 (cf. p. 128 above) have been incorporated in the text of the transcript and italicized. The changes in paragraphing which Locke made when preparing the manuscript for the transcription of the printer's copy (cf. p. 131 n. 4) are recorded in the subjacent apparatus. Although catchwords were generally used throughout, these have not been noted. In the case of the sheets from the 1668–74 autograph which have been embodied in the manuscript, there arises a problem in distinguishing between changes dating from 1668–74 and those made when this material was interpolated in Some Considerations. This has led to a slight modification in the recording of changes in the manuscript at this point, which is explained in the notes to p. 538 of the transcript.

All differences in wording (though not in paragraphing, capitalization, and punctuation) between the transcript and the copy-text of Some Considerations are noted in the subjacent apparatus of the critical text. Where lengthy passages differ, rather than give the transcript version in full, reference is made to page and line of Appendix A.

Attention is drawn in the notes to the text to the parts of Some Considerations based on the Early Writings, but, except in the case of changes in numerical values (e.g. differences in prices, rates of interest, etc.) differences between the reading of the Early Writings and the text based on them have not been recorded.1

pg 136



the reading of the manuscript draft (MS Locke d. 2)


the first edition of 1692


the second edition of 1696, the copy-text


the original 1668 paper on interest

1668 Supp

the Supplement added in 1668


the material dating from 1674; in the apparatus for ii. 538–51 of the transcript the siglum (1674) is used to denote agreement with the reading of the fair copy of the Early Writings, thus establishing that a particular change had been made by that date: see further, ii. 538 below.

(c) Short Observations on a Printed Paper, Intituled, For encouraging the Coining Silver Money in England, and after for Keeping it here.

Short Observations was published at the end of February 1694/5; like Some Considerations, it appeared in two editions in the author's lifetime. The earliest reference to its being in print occurs in Locke's journal for 22 February 1694/5. This first edition was anonymous and had only a drophead title followed by the publisher's imprint, though a colophon advertising the earlier work served to link it with Some Considerations. The two pamphlets were given a joint entry in the Term Catalogue for Hilary 1695, and it is by no means unusual to find copies of the two works bound up together with the errata list for Some Considerations following quire B4v of Short Observations.1 Locke indeed seems to have regarded Short Observations as a mere supplement to his first pamphlet, since in his library catalogue it is simply entered under Some Considerations as '& pp. 24' followed by a second shelfmark.2

The second edition of Short Observations formed part of Several Papers, and was thus published in July 1696. This version was, however, only a new edition in the technical sense of having been entirely reset, for even the gross errors, which Locke had complained of in the first edition, remained uncorrected.3 Though the more obvious of pg 137these were corrected in the third edition, which appeared in the second volume of Locke's Works, 1714, there would seem no reason to believe that the third edition was prepared from a corrected text left by the author.

Short Observations had been written shortly after the appearance of For Encouraging the Coining of Silver money in England, And after for Keeping it here, the work which it answers. The latter was a broadsheet, dated 6 January 1692/3. Since only one copy is known (now in the Library of Columbia University, New York), its text is printed, ii. 613–16 below. Although no manuscript survives, it seems tolerably certain from internal evidence that the major part of Short Observations, very probably the whole pamphlet, belongs to 1693. Two points in particular in the work would seem to have been no longer true by the beginning of 1695. The first is that clipped money was on average 20% below legal weight, a statement derived from For Encouraging the Coining &c. though in February 1695 the Master of the Mint, Thomas Neale (incidentally the probable author of the broadsheet), had estimated the deterioration to be over 30% in his evidence to the Commons. Secondly, it is claimed that clipped money would still exchange for full-weight coin without payment of a premium, a state of affairs that certainly no longer obtained by the beginning of 1695.1

The choice of copy-text. In the case of Short Observations the first edition has been preferred as copy-text. The errata to which Locke drew attention in his letter of 11 March 1694/5 have, however, been corrected. Only trivial corrections were made in the 1696 edition, which, as noted above, was not the systematic revision that was needed.



the first edition of 1695, the copy-text


the second edition of 1696

Locke cor.

corrected in Locke's letter of 11 March 1694/5.

(d) Four Papers Relating to the Currency Crisis, Written in the Summer and Autumn of 1695

These four papers were produced in connection with the official discussions on the currency crisis in the summer and autumn of 1695, pg 138cf. pp. 25–9 above. The first paper is entitled 'Guineas'; the others lack titles in the original, but have been supplied with them for reference purposes from their endorsements as follows: 'A paper given to Sir William Trumbull which was written at his request September 1695'; 'Propositions Sent to the Lords Justices', and 'Answer to my Lord Keepers Queries'. The first two were written in August and September in response to private appeals for information from Trumbull, and the second pair were the official proposals which Locke submitted to the government in October. All four played a part in the genesis of his third pamphlet, Further Considerations, and apart from the second paper (the recoinage proposals for Trumbull), they have been substantially embodied in the published work. However, an unfinished draft in MS Locke b. 3 suggests that Locke had originally envisaged basing the first part of Further Considerations on this paper written for Trumbull rather than on the 'Propositions Sent to the Lords Justices', as was finally the case.1

The four papers are printed from Brounower's final drafts, all of which have substantial amendments in Locke's hand and are without catchwords. In each case an earlier draft also survives, but these rough drafts have been so heavily rewritten that collating them with the final version would have resulted in a grossly over-inflated apparatus.2 The two official papers, 'Propositions Sent to the Lords Justices' and 'Answer to my Lord Keepers Queries', are also found in early eighteenth-century copies in MS 62 in the Goldsmiths' Library, University of London, though the actual versions submitted to the Lords Justices are apparently no longer extant.3 The readings of the Goldsmiths' manuscript have been collated with the Brounower drafts, and show that Locke continued to amend the latter after his proposals had been submitted to the government, presumably in connection with the writing of Further Considerations.4

pg 139The changes in the manuscripts listed in the apparatus are all in Locke's hand, unless noted otherwise. In cases of possible doubt, such as the insertion of words in line, attention is drawn to the fact of Locke's responsibility for the change.

The reading of the versions in Goldsmiths' MS 62 is identified by the siglum Goldsmiths' MS.

(e) Further Considerations concerning Raising the Value of Money. Wherein Mr. Lowndes's Arguments for it in his late Report concerning An Essay for the Amendment of the Silver Coins, are particularly Examined.

The last of Locke's pamphlets, Further Considerations concerning Raising the Value of Money, appeared at the end of December 1695, and with it he at length abandoned his anonymity.1 As stated in the Dedication, Further Considerations is largely based on the official proposals which Locke produced in the autumn of 1695, namely the 'Propositions Sent to the Lords Justices' and 'Answers to my Lord Keepers Queries'. Towards the end of the pamphlet he also incorporated most of the paper on Guineas which he had written for Secretary Trumbull in August.2 However, no manuscript of the work as a whole survives.

The 'Propositions Sent to the Lords Justices' forms the basis of the first twenty-three pages of the pamphlet. It has been considerably altered both by rearranging and expanding the material, and by toning down the strongly worded arguments against compensating holders of clipped money, whom Locke wished to penalize in the belief that they were mainly speculators seeking to profit from devaluation.3 New material has also been introduced, pp. 422–3, on the question of setting an official mint price on gold. These changes were probably due to requests from Somers and the College, the intention of which was to render Locke's refutation of Lowndes's scheme more widely acceptable to financial interests, an understandable requirement in the light of the government's dependence on short-term borrowing to make good the huge deficit between revenue and expenditure. On 17 December 1695 Freke informed Locke that Somers had altered the Dedication to Further Considerations by removing 'a whole line in one place and two words in another to avoid ⟨giving⟩ offence'. Certainly what has been omitted from the 'Propositions Sent to the Lords pg 140Justices' would have been widely unacceptable to the 'moneyed interest' with whom the Junto Whigs were now closely linked. The argument in favour of setting a minimum price on gold would seem to be some similar form of concession, since what Locke proposes is largely self-defeating. A Mint price for gold set well below the market ratio between the precious metals could scarcely serve any useful purpose; for were the market ratio to fall in the long-run near, or below, the Mint rate, a new minimum rating would have to be established.1

The remainder of the pamphlet is devoted to a detailed refutation of extracts from Lowndes's Report. Pages 424–34 and 448–55 are based on the 'Answer to my Lord Keepers Queries', while the rest of the book, with the exception of the material on guineas and the rather complex scheme from providing small change on pp. 479–80 (taken from the Propositions), was newly written.2 The way in which Locke set about answering Lowndes by citing a passage from the Report, which he then criticized in detail in accordance with the principles laid down in the first twenty-three pages of the book, is typical of contemporary methods of polemics. These had their origin in the traditional techniques of scholastic disputation then still practised in the universities. Under such conventions it was not considered sufficient to show that the general direction of an opponent's argument conflicted with the facts of the case, or was internally inconsistent; instead refutation was undertaken locally and in detail. By modern standards the results are often tedious, particularly the excessive attention paid to minor errors and to scoring off an opponent by turning his arguments against him.3 In Further Considerations Locke showed himself a skilled exponent of this technique (as he had already proved in his handling of Filmer in the First Treatise); he was especially successful in appealing to the common sense of his readers in contrast to the complicated, and necessarily technical, nature of Lowndes's proposals.4 There is also a good deal of heavy-handed irony at Lowndes's expense, though examples of such irony can be found in the earlier pamphlets as well.5

pg 141In all Locke took some thirty or so passages from the Report, but only in six cases were these extracts cited precisely as Lowndes had written them.1 Although he never went directly against the sense of the original, Locke frequently omitted qualifications and explanations found in Lowndes's text. The three main issues on which he concentrates in Further Considerations—the case for altering the standard because silver had risen in price from 5s. 2d. per ounce to 6s. 5d.; the desirability of devaluing in order to attract silver to the Mint for coining, and the need to increase the species in tale so as to offset the greater scarcity of silver in England—were all taken from the 'Answer to my Lord Keepers Queries', and had therefore been originally written without a copy of the actual Report before him.2

The scattered marginal notes in the copy of the Report which Lowndes later presented to him show how Locke subsequently related the questions which Somers had based on an abstract of the Report to the relevant passages in the printed text. For example, no less than five of the six passages in the main part of Lowndes's proposals, as set forth in the Report, pp. 68–73, beside which Locke wrote comments, have been cited in Further Considerations.3

Further Considerations was advertised in the Post Man of 28–31 December 1695, and listed in the Term Catalogue for Hilary 1696. Unlike the two earlier pamphlets it has a complex printing history, which in parts is hard to unravel. In the seven months following its appearance on 27 December 1695, the work went through a number of different states and editions, as various changes were made in the text and different sheets reset.4 These changes present a number of interesting bibliographical problems, and presumably testify to a wide circulation for the book. Besides the original edition of the work, there is also what describes itself as 'The Second Edition Corrected', which is in fact found in two different editions.5 The later of these would seem pg 142to have been specially produced for the collected volume, Several Papers, and is itself found in two issues, the earlier of which bears the imprint 'MDCXCV' (1695), and the second '1696'.1 For convenience, and in the interests of bibliographical exactitude, the two editions of 'The Second Edition Corrected' are from now on called the second and third editions of Further Considerations.

In the first edition variants are found in sheets A and H. The earlier state of sheet A is distinguished by misprinting 'Country' as 'Cuontry' in l. 10 of A3r and the absence of the A4 signature and a misprint in l. 19 of A4r, which reads 'pulick' for 'publick'.2 In sheet H a cancel of H8 replaces the original errata list of 6 1 4 lines on H8v with one of 7 3 4 lines, the additional material being author's amendments, not just the correction of printer's errors.3

The notice of publication in the Post-Boy of 9–11 January 1695–6 shows that the second edition (i.e., the earliest version of the so-called 'Second Edition Corrected') of Further Considerations appeared very shortly after the first. In this second edition sheets B–E have been completely reset, while sheets A, F, G, and H have only minor changes. This suggests that the decision to bring out the second edition was taken while the type for the last four sheets to be set of the first was still standing, a conclusion which fits in well with the brief interval between the publication of the two editions, for it would have been most unusual to have kept type standing at this date for more than two to three weeks.4 Sheets B, C, D, and E have been reset in a different type from that employed in the first edition, there being in particular a marked discrepancy between the sizes of the black-letter and roman types. In sheets B and C the formal differences from the pg 143first edition are relatively few, while in D and E the punctuation and more especially the capitalization differ fairly extensively. In both cases the lineation of the first edition has been closely adhered to, and most of the errata in the 6 1 4 -line list have been corrected. It would seem likely therefore that these four reset sheets were set in a different printer's shop (indeed the quality of printing is noticeably cruder), perhaps because sufficient type was not available for the original printer to produce them in the time required. In sheets D and E (the pair which follows less closely the formal features of the first edition), certain pages favour the use of contractions such as 'wou'd' and 'cou'd' and past participles ending in '-'d' rather than '-ed'. These are particularly noticeable in leaf D6, which in most versions is a cancel with corrections to numerical errors on p. 44, which also occur in the first edition. Another cancel is sometimes found at E2, in which a new sentence referring back to the passage from Lowndes, 1695, 115, cited on p. 51, has been introduced, as well as other minor changes.1

In sheet F of the second edition the errata noted for the first edition have been corrected, and there are a few other minor variants (generally coming in the pages with corrected errata). However, the number of changes in this sheet are not sufficient to establish a complete resetting in the second edition. A few minor changes are also found in sheet G, notably on pp. 85 and 92 (463 and 467 below), which come in the same corner of the outer forme, and therefore suggest that type may have been disturbed in some way. Sheet H is the sheet H of the first edition, but in place of the errata list on H8v there is an Advertisement for the two earlier pamphlets. Two forms of errata list are found with the second edition, one of 14 1 2 lines and the other of 12 1 2 , both printed on a separate leaf. The earlier of these is the 14 1 2 -line version, which is broken up into subdivisions headed 'Dedication', 'Preface', and 'Book'. It was superseded by the 12 1 2 -line list on the introduction of a cancel of H5, which introduces the most important substantial change made in the course of printing Further Considerations.2As will be seen from the notes to p. 477, the new material in the H5 cancel added a rather half-hearted statement of the case for compensating innocent (i.e., non-speculator) holders of clipped money on its demonetization, pg 144probably introduced at the prompting of Somers and the College. In sheet A the title-page has been altered by the addition of the phrase 'The Second Edition Corrected' followed by an extra rule, and an erratum and a minor misprint have been corrected in A6r (which, like the title-page, comes in the outer forme).

In the first (i.e. 'MDCXCV') issue of the third edition, which forms part of Several Papers, and appeared in mid-July, sheets B, C, D, and E (those reset in the second edition) have again been reset, and sheet G has been reset for the first time. Sheets A, F, and H are those of the second edition.1 The collation establishes that the four sheets reset in different type for the second edition of the book have been reset for the third direct from a copy of the first edition, and not, as one might have expected, from the second. An exception, however, occurs in leaf D6, where the formal characteristics of the D6 cancel have been faithfully preserved.2 In sheet G the main change has been the amending of the table on p. 86 (464 below), in which errors in the sterling values of Lowndes's proposed new money (pointed out in Cary's letter of 11 January 1695/6) have been corrected, as have various errata in the sheet. This first issue of the third edition retains the 12 1 2 -line errata list of the second edition, despite the fact that the errata listed for the reset sheets of the third edition have all been corrected.

The 1696 issue of the third edition, the final version of the pamphlet to appear in Locke's lifetime, has sheets A, F, and H reset from the first issue of this edition, and the formal features of these sheets have been brought into conformity with those of the other five sheets that had already been reset for Several Papers.3

A number of fresh printer's errors are, however, found in this 1696 issue of the third edition, and, though no errata list was issued, most of them have been corrected in the version of Further Considerations that appeared in the second volume of the folio Works of 1714. Here again there would seem no reason to believe that the 1714 version was set from a corrected copy prepared by Locke. The 1714 edition of Further Considerations is followed by two tables, one showing variations in the pg 145fine silver content of the shilling from the reign of Edward I to that of William III, and the other the sterling value of various foreign coins, which constitute the only material added to the pamphlets after Locke's death. The first of these tables is based on Further Considerations, p. 459; the second, which lists the weight, fineness, standard weight (i.e. weight expressed in terms of sterling silver), and sterling value of twenty-four foreign coins, is almost identical with the table included in J.S., Select Observations of the Incomparable Sir Walter Raleigh …, 1696.1There would seem no particular reason to associate either of these tables with Locke, and they were probably added on the initiative of the Churchills.

That the Churchill's book catalogue, placed anomalously in spare space after the Preface (pp. 407–9 below), should have survived every resetting is some evidence that Locke came to countenance its inclusion. It is reproduced in this edition as much for its interest as for its novelty, but some minor errors in the copy-text have been silently corrected without fullscale textual annotation.

The choice of copy-text. In the case of Further Considerations reasons for preferring a particular version as the copy-text are by no means as immediately compelling as for the two earlier pamphlets. The first edition has a relatively unsatisfactory text which reflects the considerable haste with which the work was printed. The objections to this would seem to outweigh the normal preference for using the first edition, particularly since it is most unlikely that the printer's copy had been personally transcribed by Locke. The second edition is even more unsatisfactory, especially as regards the reset sheets B–E. It has thus been decided to adopt the third edition as the copy-text, this edition having some of the same advantages of the resetting given to the 1696 edition of Some Considerations. The version of the third edition used has been the 1696 issue, in which all the sheets have finally been reset from the second edition.

Attention is drawn in the notes to the text to the various sections of Further Considerations based on the earlier papers 'Propositions Sent to the Lords Justices', 'Answer to my Lord Keepers Queries', and 'Guineas', but differences between these papers and the relevant parts of the pamphlet have not been noted.

pg 146Sigla


the first edition of 1695


the second edition of 1695


the 1696 issue of the third edition, the copy-text


'Propositions Sent to the Lords Justices'


'Answer to my Lord Keepers Queries'


the paper entitled 'Guineas'.

(f) Several Papers relating to Money, Interest and Trade, &c. Writ upon several Occasions, and Published at different Times.

Although references have been made to Several Papers in tracing the history of the individual pamphlets, it seems desirable to present this scattered information in more coherent form. An advertisement in the London Gazette of 16–20 July 1696 establishes the approximate date of the publication of Several Papers.1Nothing is known about the decision to bring out the volume, but that Locke and his associates should have considered it necessary to produce second editions of the pamphlets at this late stage indicates the extent to which the credit crisis of the summer of 1696 had served to reopen the devaluation question.2 Locke's papers contain no reference to Several Papers other than an entry in his library catalogue and two lists of recipients of presentation copies.3On 12 April 1696, when thanking Cary for pointing out errors in Further Considerations, 464, Locke had expressed regret that Cary's letter had reached him too late to amend the second edition, but had given no indication that there would be an opportunity to correct the errors in some forthcoming version. The entry for Several Papers in the Trinity Term Catalogue for 1696 suggests that the decision to produce the volume was taken by June 1696, and as it embodies twenty-one freshly set sheets (plus three old ones from the second edition of Further Considerations, cf. p. 144 above) which would make for a printing time of some two to three weeks, the book was probably put to the press in late June.4

pg 147Essentially, Several Papers is nothing more than a title-page (which, however, bears Locke's name) to a volume containing the 1696 edition of Some Considerations (the leaf being conjunct with sheet A of this item and carrying the licence for Some Considerations on the verso), the 1696 edition of Short Observations, and the third edition of Further Considerations. Even the idea of issuing all three pamphlets in a single volume did not originate with Several Papers: volumes containing the first editions of Some Considerations and Short Observations bound up together with the first or second editions of Further Considerations are often met with, and there is one in Locke's library that is actually entered as Several Papers in the catalogue.1 Two issues of Several Papers are found; the earlier has the 'MDCXCV' issue of the third edition of Further Considerations, and the second the '1696' issue: the latter is the more common version. In both earlier and later versions it is more usual to find a cancellans title-page in which the author's style has been altered from 'John Locke, Esq;' to plain 'Mr. John Locke,' an interesting change in the light of the concern which Locke elsewhere displayed over the correct styling of his name.2 Although Several Papers was advertised as such in the list of works currently published by the Churchills which was appended to Some Familiar Letters between Mr. Locke, and Several of his Friends, 1708, the Several Papers title-page was not included into the editions of the pamphlets in Locke's Works, 1714, nor in any of the subsequent editions of the Works.3Thus the pamphlets on money never became generally known by this title.

(g) Four Unpublished papers: Notes on Trade, 1674; 'For a Generall Naturalization'; 'Labor', and 'Venditio'

These papers have been appended for the light which they throw on various aspects of the pamphlets. The first, the Notes on Trade, 1674, belongs to the period of the Early Writings on Interest, while the pg 148others date from the time of the published pamphlets, 'For a Generall Naturalization' and 'Labor' being written in 1693, and 'Venditio' in 1695. All four are printed from versions in Locke's own hand.

The Notes on Trade consist of a single quired sheet (MS Locke c. 30, ff. 18–19); the main paper is written on the recto and verso of the first leaf, and the second leaf is blank except for three items noted from Carew Reynell, The True English Interest, 1674, on the verso. The Notes have aroused interest, but there is disagreement as to the purpose of the paper; it has been printed in its entirety, in modernized form, in Thirsk and Cooper, 1972. Although Letwin has suggested that it consists largely of reading notes on Reynell's book,1 there would seem to be considerably more to the paper than this. A debt to Reynell is certainly apparent, notably in the lists of 'Promoters of Traders' and 'Hindrances of Trade', but there are also items not to be found in The True English Interest; more significantly the general emphasis on the primacy of foreign trade contrasts with Reynell's preoccupation with domestic trade.2 Affinities can also be seen with the parts of the Early Writings on Interest that date from 1668, as for example the division of people into productive and non-productive, and the call for a law for assigning bills, which seemingly derive from Child's Brief Observations, 1668. The Notes on Trade therefore represent Locke's own ideas on the subject in 1674, though presumably his reflections were stimulated by reading Reynell's work. The folds in the paper and the endorsement with the letters 'TAEI' suggest a link with his activities as Secretary to the Council for Trade and Foreign Plantations; a number of papers relating to the Council in the Shaftesbury papers have been similarly folded and endorsed in this fashion.3 It is thus possible that the Notes on Trade were intended as the basis for a speech, or perhaps even a pamphlet on trade, which Locke sketched out when Secretary to the Council. Some of the ideas in the paper were taken up again in Locke's later writings, as for example the twofold division of trade into carriage and manufacture, which reappears in the paper on Naturalization.4

'For a Generall Naturalization' is a five-page manuscript, now in pg 149the Houghton Library, Harvard University; its title is supplied by an endorsement in another hand at the foot of the final page.1The text is written only on the left-hand half of the recto (with catchwords), leaving a wide margin. This indicates that the manuscript was a working draft, which in the normal course Locke would have amended and elaborated, though only one such marginal interpolation has been added.2 The term 'General Naturalization' refers to provision for the naturalization of members of specific groups rather than individuals (who were naturalized by private Act of Parliament). Since the Restoration a number of General Naturalization bills intended to attract foreign Protestants to settle in England had been introduced, but were defeated by a combination of the suspicions of the Established Church and of vested interests who feared their competition in trade, etc.3 Two further bills were introduced shortly after the 1688 Revolution, and yet another was brought in in December 1693.4This bill which, as a result of merchant petitioning, failed to be revived in Committee, may well have been the occasion for Locke's writing on the subject. The paper is also of interest in foreshadowing the ideas on the ill effects of the current poor law which Locke was to propound in his paper for the Board of Trade in 1697.5

The other two papers both come from Locke's 1661 Commonplace Book, formerly in the possession of Arthur A. Houghton, Jr., by whose kind permission they are printed. 'Labor' is on pp. 370–1, and 'Venditio' on pp. 268–9: both have catchwords; and 'Venditio' has been printed in modernized form in Dunn, 1968. Although the stimulus for writing 'Labor' probably derived from Locke's concern with his health, which he believed had been damaged through excessive study in his youth,6 its interest lies in the broad social vision, which it expounds, of a better world created through a more rational division pg 150between manual labour and study, a vision that indirectly owes much to the reformist philosophy of Bacon. As argued on p. 100, above, such an aspiration lies at the basis of all Locke's thinking on economic, social, and political problems, and can perhaps best be understood as an elaboration in concrete form of what the Second Treatise of Government, §135, calls 'the fundamental Law of Nature', which requires the 'preservation' of all mankind.

In 'Venditio' Locke deals with an aspect of the traditional problem of the Just Price, a subject that had concerned jurists, philosophers, and theologians since before the Christian era.1Although the paper begins with a discussion of the ethical implications of a sharp variation in the price of corn from one season to the next, the main issue is the question of involuntary sale, that is what should determine the price at which a man parts with an object that he does not offer for sale but is led to sell through the importunity, or sheer necessity, of the buyer. What Locke seeks to do is to apply the principles governing the Just Price for selling in a market to the illumination of a situation in which a market (as the scholastics would have recognized it) does not exist. The paper is thus best understood as an exercise in the tradition of 'cases of conscience', in which established moral principles were applied by experts (usually theologians) to the elucidation of practical questions that confronted the perplexed. Although the genre is generally associated with Catholic scholastics, 'cases of conscience' were also dealt with by a number of Anglican divines in the later sixteenth and early seventeenth century, some of whose works figured amongst Locke's reading at Oxford.2 The impression that 'Venditio' belongs to this genre is heightened by the recurring emphasis which the paper lays on charity, as well as justice, in providing guidelines for proper conduct.

Although the conclusion that Locke reaches, namely that such a seller may part with the object at whatever price he thinks fit, so long as he makes no distinction between persons (i.e. sells to B at the same price that he would have sold to A at the same time and place), may seem bland and unenlightening, the paper is of considerable interest for the familiarity which it displays with a variety of scholastic teach-pg 151ing on the Just Price. Among the ideas which Locke introduces are common scholastic notions such as the determination of the Just Price by the workings of a market free from force and fraud, the concepts of pretium affectionis and damnum emergens, and the rather more recondite opinion that the Just Price permits a mark-up of a fixed percentage of original costs.1 In his conclusion, however, Locke evinces a striking discontinuity with his scholastic sources, for he claims that an individual seller's estimate of the value of an object constitutes a valid market price, when accepted by the buyer. It would seem that the search after consistency, which is the basis of Locke's approach to Justice,.2has led him to equate what other principles have established as a price consonant with Justice in the instance of the isolated, involuntary sale with a true market price—as it were, an inversion of the doctrine that the price established by common estimation in a market free from monopoly and fraud is the Just Price. In scholastic teaching, the price determined according to the principles which Locke applies could well be termed a price consonant with Justice in that particular instance, but in no way could it be equated with the market price, the communis aestimatio fori, the valuation of the informed body of buyers and sellers which possesses an ethical status denied to the estimate of a single individual. In reaching such a conclusion Locke reveals the essentially Aristotelian nature of his approach to the problem of sale despite his use of scholastic concepts. He thinks basically in terms of the actions of isolated individuals, and ignores the context of the market, consideration of which was among the greatest of scholastic contributions to the development of economic theory.3


(a) The Transcription of Manuscripts

The transcribed text is intended as a faithful reproduction of the features of the final, i.e. corrected, reading of the manuscripts, apart from certain modifications which are described below. Changes in the pg 152manuscripts in the form of deletions and additions (other than nonsubstantive alterations1 by the writer) are recorded in subjacent notes with the aid of conventions and sigla, using the appropriate line number of the text as a reference. On the whole Locke's writing is reasonably legible, though certain letters, notably 'o' and 'e' and the endings of past participles in '-d' or '-ed', are not always clearly formed, thus making it necessary to exercise editorial discretion.2

The main modification in transcribing manuscript material has been the silent expansion of standard abbreviations such as '&', 'ye', 'yt', 'wch', 'wt', 'yr', 'agn', 'C' (for '100'), 'EngTEXTUAL INTRODUCTION', 'pt(e)' (for 'part(e)'), 'pd', 'sd', 'Gent', etc., and of contractions within words such as 'TEXTUAL INTRODUCTION' (for 'pTEXTUAL INTRODUCTION'), and 'cTEXTUAL INTRODUCTION' (for '-tion').3 Abbreviations above the line such as 'yr', and 'papr' have similarly been expanded (on the line) without note, as have 'K' and 'Q' for 'King' and 'Queen' (especially before sovereigns' names).

The capitalization and punctuation of the manuscripts (both of which are by modern standards extremely sparse) have been retained. In places the punctuation is hard to decipher; Locke sometimes uses a mark mid-way in size between a comma and a full point, making it unclear which of the two is intended. In the draft of Some Considerations there are also occasional small marks below the line, which seem to indicate breaks in copying rather than punctuation (these are not noted in the transcript). In some instances adherence to the punctuation of the manuscripts has resulted in the use of a full point where modern usage would require a comma, a practice that may occasionally be a little startling unless the reader is aware of it. Where punctuation would seem necessary to facilitate understanding, the midline point ('·') has been employed, chiefly (though not invariably) as the equivalent of a full stop. Locke's habit of punctuating 'i.e.' as '.i.e' has been normalized to modern usage.

The spelling of the manuscripts has generally been retained, but pg 153consonantal 'u' and 'i' have been rendered as 'v' and 'j', and the long 'ſ' as 's'. 'ff' has been rendered as 'F', but where 'f' has been capitalized by the addition of another 'f', ''f'f' is employed in the textual notes. Where the manuscript spelling is so idiosyncratic as to present difficulties in comprehension, clarification is provided in the notes. End-of-line hyphens have generally been treated as false, and are not noted. Breaks in words and the running together of separate words have been silently ignored.1

The original lineation of the manuscripts has not been noted except in the case of titles and endorsements, where the solidus (/) has been used to denote line-endings. The foliation of the manuscripts is shown within square brackets, e.g. '[f. 4r]'.2 Catchwords have not been noted in the transcriptions, although attention is drawn in the description of manuscripts to whether they have been employed.

Where letters or short words (such as the occasional negative) have been accidentally omitted from the manuscript, these have been supplied editorially and the fact recorded in the text by means of angular brackets, e.g. 'g⟨r⟩eat' and '⟨not⟩'. Where the added letter(s) or word(s) are the result of an editorial decision that there has been an accidental omission of the material in question, the angle brackets in the text are considered sufficient without an accompanying textual note; but where additional material is necessary because of damage to the manuscript, such as a tear or an inkblot, an explanatory note is provided, as also in cases where the material within the angle brackets replaces something which has been deleted by the editor.

Where uncompleted words or phrases have been deleted in the manuscripts, and it is clear from the context what had been originally intended, the missing letters or words have been supplied editorially within angular brackets in the listing of the deletion in the subjacent notes. Where an editorial conjecture as to the missing material is provided, the deletion is shown followed by the phrase 'perhaps intended for' and the suggested reading.

pg 154



interlinear or marginal location of the signs (letters, numerals, etc.) 'abc'


cancellation of the signs 'abc' by crossing out


cancellation of the signs 'abc' by superimposed correction


the reading is conjectural through the sign's being unclear or incomplete; the second sign is indecipherable


the signs 'abc' are editorially supplied


the signs 'abc' are editorially deleted


denotes manuscript line ending (used only in the case of titles and endorsements, see previous page)

manu J.L.

the word(s) noted in a passage written by an amanuensis are in Locke's hand

manu S.B.

the word(s) noted in a passage written by Locke are in the hand of his long-time amanuensis, Sylvanus Brounower

Editorial comments are italicized and enclosed within parentheses.

The use of the above sigla is illustrated by the following examples: '[raiseing the value of mony] 'coinage'' means that the words 'raiseing … mony' were first written and then deleted, and 'coinage' inserted interlinearly to replace them, '[soe many] ['twelve'] 'soe many'' means that the words 'soe many' were first deleted, and that 'twelve', which had been inserted interlinearly to replace them, was in turn deleted, and 'soe many' then inserted interlinearly to give the final reading. 'and {and}' means that the word 'and' has been accidentally repeated in the manuscript, and the second 'and' editorially deleted. '〚5̣〛66' means that the numeral '5', which is hard to decipher, has been deleted by the superimposition of '6' to read '66'. ''that [does w⟨ell⟩]'' means that the words 'that does w' have been inserted interlinearly, and 'does w' then deleted, the context suggesting that 'does w' had originally been intended as 'does well'.

Shorthand. Passages in shorthand have been transcribed in conformity with the general principles for presenting manuscript material.1 The shorthand system which Locke used was based on that of Jeremiah Rich; it is described in von Leyden, 1954, 246–51.

The occasional words in longhand have not been specially distinguished in the transcribed text; to have done so would be to exaggerate pg 155the significance of what for Locke was merely a convenience. All instances of longhand words have, however, been noted in the subjacent apparatus.

Where it has been necessary to supply link words editorially (particularly definite and indefinite articles) these are enclosed in angular brackets, e.g. '⟨the⟩'.

(b) The Presentation of Printed Texts

The texts of the pamphlets presented here are in general those of the editions chosen as copy-texts. Where readings other than those of the copy-text have been preferred for editorial reasons, the fact is noted in the subjacent apparatus. In a very few instances words essential to the sense have been supplied in the texts, and are distinguished by being printed in angular brackets. The obsolete and confusing use of 'one' as a variant spelling of 'own' (cf. OED, s.v. one), occasionally favoured in the copy-texts of Some Considerations and Further Considerations, has been emended to 'own' throughout, though in each instance the change is recorded in the apparatus. The long 'ſ' has been rendered as 's', and differences in the use of 'ſ' and 's' between various editions have not been noted. Ligatures have been disregarded. The pagination of the copy-texts is shown in square brackets in the margins with a vertical stroke ('|') following the last word or syllable of the preceding page at the appropriate place in the line of text.

The collation of variant readings. The variant readings collated with the printed texts fall into two categories, namely material variants and formal variants.1 The material variants comprise differences in wording, paragraphing, and semantically significant punctuation (including all departures from the copy-text). Formal variants comprise differences in capitalization, semantically non-significant punctuation, the use of roman, italic, and black-letter types, minor printer's errors, the use of parentheses, the employment of words or numerals for numbers, etc., and differences in the use of accents and apostrophes.

The material variants (which in the case of Some Considerations also include differences in wording between the printed text and the final reading of the manuscript draft, cf. p. 135 above) are noted in the pg 156subjacent apparatus immediately beneath the page of text. While a register of formal variants was prepared as a basis for editorial decisions, it has been decided not to include it in this edition. Such a list of trivial typographical differences would be of little use to the vast majority of readers, and printing it would add greatly to the costs of the edition without corresponding benefit.

The reading of the printed text is cited by giving the appropriate line number of the text together with a guide word,1 or guide words, to the left of the right-hand square bracket which serves to mark it off from the collated variant. Where the reading of the printed text is not that of the copy-text, the siglum denoting the source of the preferred reading is given immediately after the right-hand square bracket, and the copy-text reading shown as a variant in the normal fashion. In general, the earliest noted variant follows first, followed by later variants in chronological order, the different variants being marked off from each other by a vertical stroke ('|'). In the case of Some Considerations, where the sigla denoting the readings of the 1692 edition and the manuscript draft are found together, the siglum for the 1692 edition comes first; this indicates that the capitalization, punctuation, and other formal features of the variant as shown are those of the 1692 edition, with which the wording of the manuscript draft agrees. Where the same variant is found in successive editions, the sigla for the first and last sources in the sequence are shown linked by an en-rule in bold type, e.g. 'I–III'; this denotes that the intervening edition also contains the listed variant. It is to be understood that versions which are not noted as containing one of the listed variants agree with the printed text.

In collating variants in punctuation, end-of-line hyphens have been treated as false; other differences in the use of hyphens are treated as formal variants.

The treatment of items recorded in errata lists presents difficulties in that while some are mere corrections of misprints or accidental omissions, others are clearly amendments to the text by the author.2 Variants which have been corrected in errata lists are noted in the subjacent apparatus. The corrected reading is assigned to the errata list of the stated edition by the use of the siglum to denote that edition, followed by the bold-face letters 'er'. The uncorrected reading is pg 157assigned to the source edition in the normal way. For example, 'Natural] Ier | National I' (which shows that the incorrect reading 'National' of the first edition has been corrected to 'Natural' in the errata list of the same edition).

Sigla and abbreviations


marks off successive variants collated for a given reading of the printed text (cf. previous page)




editor; used to identify an editorial emendation of the text


errata list; used in combination with siglum to denote appropriate edition


omitted; used to denote absence from a later version of material found in an earlier one

not in

used to denote absence from an earlier version of material found in a later one

The sigla denoting sources are found following the reasons for the choice of copy-text in the descriptions of the individual pamphlets; those for Some Considerations on p. 136, for Short Observations on p. 137 and for Further Considerations on p. 146. Editorial comments are italicized and enclosed in parentheses.

The use of the above sigla is illustrated by the following examples from Some Considerations. 'Landlord] farmer MS' means that where the printed text reads 'Landlord', the manuscript draft reads 'farmer'. 'Market-price. What] Market-price; which what I & MS' means that where the printed text reads 'Market-price. What', the 1692 edition reads 'Market-price; which what', which is also the wording of the manuscript draft. 'Species … Money] not in I & MS | Coin Ier' means that the words 'Species of your Money' in the printed text are found neither in the 1692 edition nor in the manuscript draft, but that the errata list for the 1692 edition inserts 'Coin' into that position in the text occupied by the words 'Species of your Money' in the copy-text, 'fitted] MS | fixed I–II' means that the reading 'fitted' in the manuscript draft has been preferred for editorial reasons to 'fixed', which is found in both the 1692 edition and the copy-text.

pg 158(c) The Explanatory Notes to the Texts

The explanatory notes to the text (both manuscript transcripts and printed texts) are printed immediately below the subjacent textual apparatus, using the appropriate line number as a reference. The notes are intended to provide essential background information, to point out cross-references between Locke's writings on money (and where applicable his other works), and to suggest possible sources.1 They are not intended as a commentary on the texts.

In the case of Some Considerations and Further Considerations the notes also draw attention to the parts of these works which are directly based on earlier related manuscripts, and also refer to significant omissions or departures from these earlier papers. In the notes to Further Considerations, differences are also pointed out between the wording of the passages cited from William Lowndes's Report containing An Essay for the Amendment of the Silver Coins and the actual text of the Report, in order to show the extent to which Locke omitted qualifications, etc. that Lowndes made (cf. p. 141 above).

Obscure words and phrases are explained, though in principle words which are defined in the particular sense employed in the sixth edition of the Concise Oxford Dictionary are not included. Link-words which help to convey Locke's meaning to the modern reader are given in the notes by citing the obscure phrase with the link-words in angular brackets, e.g. 'amount to ⟨enough to⟩ pay'; in a few instances where it would seem that even by seventeenth-century standards the wording is exceptionally elliptic, the link-word has been inserted in the text itself (cf. p. 155 above).

The abbreviations Some Considerations, Short Observations, and Further Considerations have been shortened to initials for cross-referencing in the notes; other works continue to be cited as before.


1 MS Locke e. 8, ff. 3–17v BL, Add. MS 32094, ff. 289–93 (f. 293 blank). For the circumstances leading to their production, see pp. 7–12 above.

2 MSS Locke e. 8, ff. 18–31v; d. 2, ff. 28–37 (see further pp. 124, 130–1 below). MS Locke e. 8 has been printed in modernized form in Letwin, 1963, 273–300.

3 PRO 30/24/47/3; Sainsbury,,1872, 211.

1 PRO 30/24/47/1 and 7.

2 The differences are noted in the collation.

3 BL, Add. MS 32094, ff. 237–40; Coventry was also the author of a well-known paper on the decay of rents and trade (printed in Thirsk and Cooper, 1972, 79–84), and there is a large collection of economic writings among the Coventry Papers at Longleat.

4 Brown, 1933, 144; as the Coventry copy is undated, she conjectured that Locke had written his paper on the occasion of the Lords Committee on the Decay of Rents and Trade, Nov. 1669.

5 PRO 30/24/30/98, item 2; Lee, 1965, 209; Haley, 1968, 182, 192.

6 Both hands of MS Locke e. 8 occur in a Carolina letterbook: PRO 30/24/48/55.

1 MSS Locke b. 3, ff. 2–3; d. 2, ff. 28–37.

2 Examples in Early Writings, cf. pp. 186–90 below.

1 Michaelmas Term Catalogue, 1691: Arber, 1903, ii. 385.

1 As late as 2 July 1695 Locke wrote of Some Considerations to William Molyneux, as 'one of the fatherless children, which the world lay at my door '.

2 The publisher's preface claims that most of the texts were 'printed from Copies corrected and enlarg'd under Mr. Locke's own Hand'; this was so for the Essay, Education, Two Treatises, and Reasonableness of Christianity .The failure to prepare 'texts for posterity' for the pamphlets suggests Locke regarded them as in a different category from his other major works.

1 The date, 10 Oct. 1690, is found at the beginning of the text proper, in a passage not included in the printed version; from the context the reference, p. 237, to 'Michaelmas last' must be to 1689, not 1690.

2 The interpolations in the margins of the quires follow a consistent pattern. Those starting on the outer leaf (whether front or back) continue on the other outer leaf before proceeding to the double margin at the centre of the inner leaf, while those starting on the inner leaf continue (with one exception) on the back leaf, if necessary then proceeding to the front.

1 SC 251–4, 279–94. As Letwin, 1963, 212, has apparently been misled by the paper into thinking that Locke's notes on Manley (MS Locke b. 3, f. 6) date from 1674, it is worth pointing out that the watermarks establish that Locke interpolated some blank sheets left over from his Early Writings in the 1690–1 manuscript draft, namely ff. 10– 13, 46–8, 68.

2 Child, 1690, 53: 'There is nothing I have said, or that I think any other can say upon this occasion, but was said in substance before by Old Sir Thomas Culpeper'; Culpeper, 1621, had also been reprinted in 1623, 1641, and with Culpeper, Jr. 1668.

1 ii. 505–6 below; Locke subsequently began work on an index to the 1696 edition, laid out according to his method for commonplacing (Works, iii. 305–24): MS Locke b. 3, f. 122.

2 The index contains no reference to the reply to A Letter to a Friend concerning Usury, which is described in SC 301 as 'Printed this present year 1690'.

3 SC 291; see further p. 17 above.

4 New Year's Day, then as now, meant 1 January; cf. Locke to Clarke, 16 Jan. 1697/8.

1 SC 278 nn.; unfortunately only Strachey's reply of 19 Jan. 1671/2 (endorsed by Locke 'Taxes on Land') survives.

2 No copy is listed in Wing, 1945–51 or Horsefield, 1960, bibliog. Its obscurity even in Locke's lifetime is shown by Abraham Hill's request for a loan of Locke's copy, 4 May 1699; Hill was the author of A Letter about Raising the Coin, 1690.

3 Letter, 24; the author, R.C., has not been identified.

1 As for instance, Massie, 1760, 9; Leigh, 1974, 201.

2 This shows that Locke did not originally consider this material essential to his argument, and provides further corroboration of what is said, p. 96 above, on its being a distortion of Locke's position to see him as systematically developing his ideas from his theory of value.

3 SC 210 n.

4 Locke prepared the draft for transcription by indicating additional paragraph divisions, and inserting numbers to show where material interpolated on extra sheets was to come in the main text; there would seem to be no discernible principle (chronological or otherwise) in the numbers allocated.

5 The second mistake is referred to in Locke to Clarke, 7 Dec. 1691; both are included in the second errata list of 19 1 2 lines. The earlier 11 3 4 -line list corrects errata only from the original p. 123 onwards. Further evidence of hasty printing comes in a run of italic Ms on pp. 152–3, which suggests the printer was running short of roman capitals.

1 The fact that Locke brought a copy with him on returning to Oates, 2 Dec. 1691, seems conclusive evidence that the work was already in print when licensed; there would scarcely have been time to print its fourteen and a half sheets in the intervening five days: Locke to Clarke, 4 Dec. 1691; Locke's journal, Nov.-Dec. 1691.

2 MS Locke b. 1, ff. 109, 161, 168, 173, 178; an agreement similar to the above exists, f. 164, for Boyle's General History of the Air, 1692, which Locke was responsible for seeing through the press; here too the intention seems to have been to retain control over future editions.

3 The 1692 edition had previously been readvertised in the Term Catalogues for Trinity 1692, and Hilary 1695 on the publication of Short Observations: Arber, 1903, ii. 471, 540. It was also entered in the Stationers' Register on 22 Apr. 1695, together with three other Churchill imprints: Eyre, 1914, iii. 457. This and the date suggest the entry was intended as a protection of copyright, since the Lords had agreed on 18 Apr. to dropping the renewal of the Licensing Act: Astbury, 1978, 314–15.

1 Locke to Molyneux, 20 Nov. 1695; on 24 Dec. 1695, Molyneux reported that the Irish viceroy, Lord Capel, had received a copy from the publisher as Locke's work.

2 The Collation has revealed only four instances in which there has been a return to the precise reading of the manuscript, such a minute proportion of the total changed readings as to be merely fortuitous.

3 Many of the longer sentences have been divided in two, a full stop and a capital letter replacing the semicolon and lower case of the first edition. There are fewer formal changes in sheets F, I, L, and M, which suggests the work was set by more than one compositor.

1 Pace Christophersen, 1930, 23.

2 Esp. SC 319–28.

3 For recent practice, see Greg, 1950; Bowers, 1978, esp. 127–49; however, McKerrow, 1929, 5, and Bald, 1950, 14, stress the desirability of treating each case on its merits.

1 This applies only to the opening part of SC, up to p. 251; for pp. 255–69 the actual sheets from the autograph Early Writings have been embodied in the manuscript, and all changes are listed in the apparatus.

1 Arber, 1903, ii. 540. Only three out of the eighteen copies of the first edition examined were separate items, though a further three had subsequently been disbound. The Goldsmiths' Library has a disbound copy which still retains the 19 1 4 -line errata list for SC facing B4v.

2 MS Locke f. 16, f. 156v; in the original Locke employs a line over '24' in place of 'pp.'.

3 Locke to the College, 11 Mar. 1694/5. Though he intended these errors to be corrected by hand in the remaining unsold copies, no such copies have come to light.

1 SO 349–50, 356; see further p. 59 above.

1 MS Locke b. 3, ff. 50–61. ff. 50–4v contain a draft of the Trumbull recoinage paper in Locke's hand (apart from the last half page, which is written by Brounower), and are paginated 1–9; the second part, ff. 55–61, is a draft of part of the 'Answer to my Lord Keepers Queries', written entirely in Locke's hand. ff. 55–60 are paginated 10–14, and go up to p. 386, 28 of the printed transcript of the 'Answer' (corresponding roughly with the first section of FC based on the 'Answer', i.e. pp. 424–34, cf. p. 140 below); f. 61, which is paginated 23, is the passage deleted at p. 392, 14–19) of the transcript.

2 MS Locke b. 3, f. 47, autograph draft of 'Guineas'; f. 48, Brounower version. Autograph draft of Trumbull recoinage paper, ff. 50–4 (cf. previous n.); Brounower drafts, ff, 62–3, 64–5. Two drafts of 'Propositions', both in Brounower's hand, ff. 66–7, 68–9. Incomplete autograph draft of 'Answer', ff. 55–61 (cf. previous n.); final draft, ff. 70–4 (f. 70 in Locke's hand, rest in Brounower's).

3 Goldsmiths' MS 62, ff. 11–13, 14–19, both have catchwords.

4 For example, 'Propositions', p. 375, 6–7, 10; 'Answer', pp. 383, 13, 25; 394, 20.

1 Although Locke's name does not appear on the title-page, the Dedication is signed, John Locke; the other pamphlets are acknowledged, pp. 456, 465, respectively.

3 See FC 417 26n., for omissions.

1 See further pp. 31–2 above.

2 pp. 439–43 are perhaps indirectly based on the passage deleted in 'Answer', p. 392, 14–19).

3 For the relevance of scholastic methods for 17th-c. polemics, see Costello, 1958, 14–31, and further, Barbon, 1696, preface.

4 Esp. in the striking (but scarcely valid) comparison between devaluing to increase the money in tale and a boy's cutting his piece of leather into five quarters to cover a ball, when he had discovered four were not sufficient: FC 450; for examples of turning Lowndes's arguments against him: ibid. 444–5, 462, 467.

5 e.g. SC 232, 333; SO 349.

1 Correct citations on pp. 448, 461, 462 (twice), 466 (twice); differences in the other citations are shown in the textual notes.

2 FC 424–34, 448–55; and further pp. 30–1 above.

3 The marginalia are in general very brief, and deal mainly with points of fact; they bear out the remark in FC 406, as to the 'great many Particulars … drawn out of Ancient Records, not commonly known … which very pleasingly entertained me'. Marginalia connected with extracts cited in FC are given in the notes to the text.

4 Arber, 1903, ii. 571; p. 32 n. 4, above.

5 The two versions of 'The Second Edition Corrected' with the imprint MDCXCV must be considered distinct editions, since more than half the sheets have been reset in the second version; cf. p. 144 below. On the distinction between editions, issues, and states, see Gaskell, 1974, 314–16.

1 Although this second edition of 'The Second Edition Corrected' was apparently produced specially for Several Papers, copies are occasionally found as separate items. At first sight they are difficult to tell from the first edition (which is never found as part of Several Papers), but they can be distinguished by different versions of the head-title 'Further Considerations Concerning Raising the Value of Money' at the beginning of the text proper (sig. B1r); that in the earlier edition has a black-letter C in 'Considerations' with a cross-piece like an E and a swash U in 'Value'.

2 The second edition includes A4 signature and reads 'publick'. Other errors in some copies of the first edition are 'ratinos' for 'ratios' (A3r, line 12); 'Lorship' (A4v, line 7), and 'dtsposition' (A6r, line 3).

3 FC 445–6 nn.; the errata lists cover only sheets B–F (which were the first to have been printed).

4 McKenzie, 1966, i. 120. There is an interesting 'hybrid' copy in Goldsmiths' Library, which has sheets A–F of the first edition (sheet A first state) bound up with sheets G and H of the second edition, together with the 14 1 2 -line errata list for the second edition (printed twice on a separate leaf facing H8v).

1 Pp. 437–8, 442 below. In some versions the additional E2 material is found without a cancellans page; this shows the change to have been made in the course of printing.

2 This 14 1 2 -line errata list covers only sheets A, C (just p. 17), and H; its errata were not corrected in the third, or any subsequent edition, till the present one. The majority of changes in the 12 1 2 -line list are author's amendments rather than corrections of misprints.

1 The occasional version found without the H5 cancel would seem to be an accidental omission.

2 These formal characteristics are also preserved in the edition in the Works, 1714; this corroborates the view (cf. p. 126 n. 2 above) that no 'text for posterity' was prepared for the pamphlets. Lack of distinctive contractions in the E2 cancel make it impossible to say whether leaf E2 too was reset from the second edition or the first.

3 Cf. pp. 133–4 above. The resetting of the H5 cancel has resulted in 112 pp. in place of 111; the advertisement formerly on H8v is not included.

1 This table differs from the well-known table of foreign coins produced at Newton's direction in 1702: Shaw, 1896, 141, 158–61. There is also a reference to 8 Aug. 1699.

1 Taken in conjunction with the entry for Several Papers in the Term Catalogue, Trinity 1696 (Arber, 1903, ii. 596), it seems improbable that the advertisement in the Gazette refers to anything other than the actual publication of the volume (i.e. it was not a re-advertisement). The earliest reference to Several Papers in an advertisement in another Churchill imprint is in A Review of the Universal Remedy, dated 31 Aug. 1696.

2 pp. 37–8, 64 above.

3 MSS Locke f. 16, f. 263; c. 25, f. 53; c. 29, p. 160; the recipients on the first list were Lady Masham, 'Mr. Chadwick' (of the Customs Commission), and 'Mr. Leibnitz', and on the second, Chief Justice Holt and 'Mr. Newton'.

4 The eight sheets of FC had taken somewhat over a week, cf. p. 32 above.

1 Harrison and Laslett, 1971, item 1787; Bodl. shelfmark, Locke 7. 208/1. The 'ex dono authoris' copy in Newton's collection (now in Trinity College Library, Cambridge, shelfmark, NQ. 16. 159) is also made up in this fashion. The reference in Locke's jour-hal, 18 Feb. 1695/6, to the receipt of '2 Treatises of money compleat. bound' is probably to such a volume; in Kelly, 1969, 69, I mistakenly took this entry to refer to the appearance of Several Papers proper.

2 Locke's preoccupation with styles of address was unfavourably commented on by Bayle to Pierre Coste, 15 May 1702: Bayle 1731, iv. 820 (a reference for which I am indebted to Professor H. M. Bracken). He also objected to being called 'Dr Locke': Culpeper, 1708, postscript.

3 The title of Pagnini's Italian translation of 1751 is clearly based on the title of Several Papers, cf. checklist of printings, p. 161 below.

1 Cox, 1960, 175–6; Polin, 1960, 290; Thirsk and Cooper, 1972, 96; Letwin, 1963, 212–13.

2 Thirsk and Cooper, 1972, 96, exaggerates the directness of the debt: for example, Reynell does not specifically list hindrances to trade. Page-number references for items traceable to his book are given in the notes to the text. Reynell, 1674, 7–8, states 'Foreign Trade is a secondary help, home Trade is our primary advantage'. The work was licensed on 5 Sept. 1673, and reviewed in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, ix. 40 (27 Apr. 1674); it does not figure in Locke's book lists.

3PRO 30/24/44/75; 30/24/40/43.

4 ii. 488 below.

1 This paper is printed by permission of the Houghton Library, Harvard University. An Italian translation, together with a valuable introduction, is found in Fagiani, 1979.

2 ii. 490, 2–4 below.

3 The Restoration bills are discussed in Robbins, 1962, 173–5.

4 The immediate post-Revolution bills were introduced on 13 Apr. 1689 and 10 Apr. 1690; a 'Bill for the Naturalizing of all such Protestants as shall take the Oath to their Majesties, and the Test against Popery' received its first reading on 12 Dec. 1693, but failed at the Committee stage, 15 Mar. 1693/4: Commons Jns. x. 86, 373; xi. 28, 128–9. On the occasion of a further bill, ordered for 18 Feb. 1696/7, an anonymous correspondent urged Locke to publish on the subject; ibid. xi. 724; anon. to Locke, Feb.[?], 1697.

5 ii. 489–90 below.

6 Dunn, 1969, 231; similar reflections on health and study occur in the first three paragraphs of the Education, which also first appeared in 1693: Axtell, 1968, 114–15, 408–14.

1 There is an extensive modern literature on the subject, to which references will be found in Gordon, 1975; Dempsey, 1948; Noonan, 1957.

2 Von Leyden, 1954, 27 n. 3; of the works cited only Hall, 1649, deals at any length with questions relating to usury, the sale of goods, etc. In 'Venditio', as in the account of reasons for paying interest in SC 249–51, there is a general indirect debt to Duns Scotus, a writer described in MS Locke d. 10, p. 5, in Hooker's words as 'the wittyest of the schoole divines'; see further Duns Scotus, 1597, iv, dist. 15, q. 2, f. 94c.

1 See further ii. 496–500 nn. below.

2 Dunn, 1968, 72 n. 2.

3 On the scholastic contribution, see Gordon, 1975, 130, 174; the focus on the market rather than on individual transactions derived from an approach to economic problems as questions of social utility: Dempsey, 1948, 131–6.

1 Such as (i) where a word has been accidentally repeated and one of the two deleted, (ii) the correction of spelling errors, (iii) the deletion of single letters, when the word immediately following, or the next word but one, starts with that letter, (iv) where a word has been superimposed on a single illegible letter.

2 In some cases the manuscripts have been so extensively amended as to make it difficult to determine precisely the sequence of the various changes; in others poor quality paper hampers legibility.

3 This has led to occasional problems in showing changes in the manuscripts, particularly in the case of the cancellation of an abbreviation by the superimposition of another abbreviation. In such instances the abbreviations have not been expanded in the textual notes.

1 It is often difficult to determine whether 'another', 'nobody', 'someone', etc. are written as one or two words; editorial judgement in particular instances has been determined by the spacing of neighbouring words.

2 In the case of the manuscript draft of SC, where the main text resumes after an interpolation on extra sheets, the fact is noted as, e.g. '(returns to f. 21r)', and similarly where interpolations written in the margin continue on another page (cf. p. 127 n. 2 above) as, e.g. '(cont.. margin f. 4r)'.

1 With the exception of the three lines of the dedication to the original 1668 paper on interest (p. 202 below), the passages transcribed from Locke's shorthand are brief phrases.

1 For the usage of material and formal to distinguish variants, in place of the more usual distinction between substantial and accidental, see Nidditch, 1975, p. xli n. 74.

1 Where the guide word is a word that occurs more than once in the line, reference to instances after the first is denoted by a superscript numeral, e.g. 'Money3'.

2 It is not always possible to distinguish with certainty author's amendments from the correction of misprints, etc., particularly where the error is so gross as to make it doubtful what was originally intended. Such 'creative' corrections have been treated as material variants; a striking example occurs in SC 275, 20.

1 In the case of the Early Writings on Interest annotation has been kept to a minimum as the bulk of the material was later embodied in SC.

logo-footer Copyright © 2018. All rights reserved.
Access is brought to you by Log out