Chronology

 

The following chronology, based largely on De Beer’s edition of Locke’s correspondence, aims to give an overview of direct references to the texts included in this volume. Other topics, such as the appearance of new editions of the Essay and its Latin and French translations, have been included selectively (mostly the first time they are mentioned in De Beer). The information of the Chronology is presented in numbered elements. Each number is rendered in bold type between square brackets. This series of numbered elements is continued in chapter 3, ‘Manuscripts’, and in chapter 4, ‘Textual Remarks’.

       
[1] 6 December 1689 Locke receives a complete copy of the first edition of An Essay concerning Human Understanding: ‘Received of Mrs Holt by Sylvester remaining sheets to make 2 of my Essays compleat Sent by Graves for 13 of my books to Mrs Holt’ MS Locke f.10. Journal, 1689-1704, p. 29.
[2] 16/26 October 1690 Benjamin Furly (Rotterdam) to Locke. Furly informs Locke that he has received John Norris’s Cursory reflections (1690, 1692) and gives an depreciatory summary of the contents. Letter 1325, Corr. iv, 145-146.
[3] 22 October/1 November 1690 Jean le Clerc (Amsterdam) to Locke; Le Clerc has borrowed Norris’s Cursory Reflexions from B. Furly. ‘Quand il [Norris] n’auroit pas mis ce titre à son livre, il ne seroit pas difficile de voir qu’il l’a fait en courant. Au moins les trois ou quatre premiéres pages m’ont paru d’un homme qui n’entendoit rien en ce qu’il criticoit. J’en parlerai dans la Bibliotheque, et je ne manquerai pas d’insinuer ce qu’on en peut croire.’ Letter 1329, Corr. iv, 150.
[4] 14 April [1692] John Norris (Bemerton) to Locke. Norris has recieved the rectory of Bemerton from the Eight Earl of Pembroke and thanks Locke for having interceded on his behalf. Letter 1492 Corr. iv, 443-444.
[5] 6 June 1692 Locke (Oates) to John Norris. Locke acknowledges Norris’s thanks. Letter 1505 Corr. iv, 459-460.
[6] 5 July 1692 Jean le Clerc (Amsterdam) to Locke. Apparently Locke had informed Le Clerc about his plans for a second edition of the Essay. ‘Vous êtes, Monsieur, le premier Auteur, à qui j’ai ouï parler de publier une seconde Edition corrigée et abregée.’ Letter 1511 Corr. iv, 472.
[7] 16 July 1692 First letter from Locke (London) to W. Molyneux. Locke thanks Molyneux for praising him in the Epistle Dedicatory of the Dioptrica Nova (1692). Letter 1515, Corr. iv, 479.
[8] 27 August 1692 First letter from William Molyneux (Dublin) to Locke. ‘One Thing I must needs insist on to you, which is, that you would think of Obleidging the World, with a Treatise of Morals, drawn up according to the Hints you frequently give in Your Essay, Of their Being Demonstrable according to the Mathematical Method. This is Most Certainly True. But then the task must be undertaken only by so Clear and Distinct a Thinker as you are. This were an Attempt worthy you Consideration. And there is Nothing I should More ardently wish for, than to see it. And therefore, Good Sir, Let me Beg of you to turn your thoughts this way. and if so Young a Freinship as mine have any force; Let me prevail on you.’ Letter 1530, Corr. iv, 508.
[9] 20 September 1692 Locke (London) to William Molyneux about a second edition of the Essay. Locke desires ‘...your advice and assistance about a second edition of my Essay, the former being now dispersed. You have, I perceive, read it over so carefully, more than once, that I know no body I can more reasonably consult about the mistakes and defects of it. (...) I ask you whether it would not be better now to pare off, in a second edition, a great part of that which cannot but appear superfluous to an intelligent and attentive reader.’ Letter 1538, Corr. iv, 522, 523.
[10] 20 September 1692 Locke (London) to William Molyneux. ‘Though by the view I had of moral ideas, whilst I was considering that subject, I thought I saw that morality might be demonstratively made out, yet whether I am able so to make it out is another question. Every one could not have demonstrated what Mr. Newton’s book hath shewn to be demonstrable: but to shew my readiness to obey your commands, I shall not decline the first leisure I can get to employ some thoughts that way; unless I find what I have said in my Essay shall have stir’d up some abler man to prevent me, and effectually to that service to the world.’ Letter 1538, Corr. iv, 524.
[11] 15 October 1692 William Molyneux (Dublin) to Locke. ‘I am wonderfully pleased that you give Me Hopes of seing a Moral Essay from Your Hand’ Letter 1544, Corr. iv, 533.
[12] 22 October 1692 Robert Pawling (London) to Locke, in a letter enclosed in letter from Edward Clarke to Locke; Pawling accuses Norris of having opened and been peeping into a letter entrusted by Lady Masham to Norris for delivery to Locke at his lodgings in London. Letter 1548, Corr. iv, 548.
[13] 10 November [1692] John Norris (Bemerton) to Locke about the letter incident. ‘Tho I Court no body’s Favour, yet I would not willingly incur any Man’s Displeasure; and I am so little sensible of any thing I have don justly to deserve yours, that (to be free with you) I must think you lesse a philosopher, lesse a Gentleman, and lesse a Christian than I have hitherto taken you for, if upon this account you Continue to have any Resentment against your very real Friend and servant J. Norris.’ Letter 1564, Corr. iv, 578.
[14] 5 December 1692 Locke (Oates) to John Norris about the letter incident. Draft sent to Clarke (see letter 1576) to be forwarded to Norris; the leaf also contains a draft of letter 1595 (see below). ‘If you please to send me word that you went out of towne that Wednesday you speake of soe willing am I not to loose your good word or opinion you shall not finde any reason to thinke me lesse a philosopher lesse a gent or lesse a christian than you have hitherto taken me for if a due acknowledgment to you may preserve me that reputation with you.’ Letter 1575, Corr. iv, 595.
[15] 22 December 1692

William Molyneux (Dublin) to Locke on the Essay; Molyneux has discussed with two persons the need of abbreviations in this work.

‘And after a Diligent Perusal they agreed with Me in the same conclusion, viz, that the Work in all its Parts was so wonderfully Curious, and Instructive; that they would not venture to alter anything in it.’

Letter 1579, Corr. iv, 600.
[16] 22 December 1692 William Molyneux (Dublin) to Locke. Molyneux understands that in Essay IV.iii.6 Locke does not deny the possibility of ‘thinking matter’, while in Essay IV.x.10 he asserts that unthinking matter cannot be God. Although Molynuex appreciates the difference between these positions, he nevertheless thinks ‘fitt to give you this Hint, that in your next Edition you may Prevent any such doubt’. Letter 1579, Corr. iv, 600.
[17] 22 December 1692 William Molyneux (Dublin) to Locke on Essay II.xxi ‘Of Power’. ‘The next place I take notice off as requiring some Farther Explication is Your Discourse about Mans Liberty and Necessity. this Thread seems so wonderfully fine spun in your Book, that at last the Great Question of Liberty and Necessity seems to Vanish. and herin you seem to make all Sins to proceed from our Understandings, or to be against Conscience; and not at all from the Depravity of our Wills. Now it seems harsh to say, that a Man shall be Damn’d, because he understands no better than he does.’ Letter 1579, Corr. iv, 600-601.
[18] 22 December 1692 William Molyneux (Dublin) to Locke about Norris’s Cursory reflections and about the Essay as a work on logic. ‘Mr Norris’s Unfortunate attempts on Your Book sufficiently testify its Validity; and truly I think he trifles so egregiously, that he should forewarn all men how far they venture to Criticise on your Work. But this far after all I’ll venture to intimate to you, that if you are for an other Work of this Kind, I should advise you to let this stand as it does; and your next should be of a Model wholy New, and that is by Way of Logick, something accommodated to the Usual Forms, together with the Consideration of Extension, Solidity, Mobility, Thinking, Existence, Duration, Number, etc. and of the Mind of Man, and its Powers, as may make up a Compleat Body of what the Schooles call Logicks and Metaphysicks. This I am the More Inclinable to Advise on two Accounts; First because I have Lately seen Johannis Clerici Logica, Ontologia and Pneumatologia, in all which He has little Extraordinary but what he Borrows from you; and in the Alteration he gives them he robbs them of their Native Beautys; which can only be preserved to them by the same Incomparable Art that first framed them. Secondly, I was the First that recommended and lent to the Reverend Provost of Our University Dr Ashe, a most Learned and Ingenious Man, Your Essay, with which he was so wonderfully pleased and satisfyd, that he has Orderd it to be read by the Batchelors in the Colledge, and strictly examines them in their Progres therein. Now a Large Discourse in the way of a Logick would be much more taking in the Universities, wherein Youths do not satisfy themselves to have the Breeding or Busines of the Place, unles they are ingaged in something that bears the name and Form of Logick.’ Letter 1579, Corr. iv, 601-602.
[19] 22 December 1692 William Molyneux (Dublin) to Locke. ‘There Remains only that I again put you in mind of the Second Member of your Division of Sciences, the Ars Practica or Ethicks; you cannot Imagine what an earnest desire and Expectation I have raised in those that are acquainted with your Writings by the Hopes I have given them from your Promise of Indeavouring something on that subject.’ Letter 1579, Corr. iv, 602.
[20] 20 January 1693 Locke (Oates) to William Molyneux; he agrees with Molyneux’s verdict (see above, letter 1579) on Essay II.xxi ‘Of Power’. ‘I do not wonder to find you think my discourse about liberty a little too fine spun, I had so much that thought of it my self, that I said the same thing of it to some of my friends before it was printed, and told them that upon that account I judg’d it best to leave it out, but they persuaded me to the contrary. (...) I have long since given off the consideration of that question, resolving all into this short conclusion, That if it be possible for God to make a free agent, then man is free, though I see not the way of it.’ Letter 1592, Corr. iv, 625-626.
[21] 20 January 1693 Locke (Oates) to W. Molyneux with a possible reference to the project of a demonstrated ethics (‘other work’). ‘That which you propose of turning my Essay into a body of logick and metaphysicks, accomodated to the usual forms, though I thank you very kindly for it, and plainly see in it the care you have of the education of young scholars, which is a thing of no small moment, yet I fear I shall scarce find time to do it; you have cut out other work for me, more to my likeing and I think of more use (...) I shall speedily set my self to obey your commands in the last part of your letter.’ Letter 1592, Corr. iv, 626-627, 628.
[22] 23 January 1693 Locke (Oates) to John Norris about the letter incident. Draft, on the same page as letter 1575, also a draft (see above). ‘You say you are sorry to see soe much infirmity in humane nature and you have reason’ Letter 1595, Corr. iv, 631.
[23] 27 February [1693] John Norris (Bemerton) to Locke about the letter incident. ‘what you mean by saying that I have reason to be sorry to see So much infirmity in human nature, I am not guilty enough to understand. You must explain this Retorsion, or it will be lost.’ Letter 1606, Corr. iv, 645.
[24] 28 February 1693 Thomas Bassett (London) to Locke about the need of a second edition of the Essay. ‘that the Impression of your Books are so neare sold that I am ready to Reprint it but thought it necessary to acquaint you with it because you shewed me some alterations and Additions that you had made, and if you have finished what you intended, I desire you would be pleased to send it by the first opportunity’ Letter 1607, Corr. iv, 645-646.
[25] 2 March 1693 William Molyneux (Dublin) to Locke. ‘I am fully convinced by the Arguments you give me for not turning your Book into the Scholastick form of a Logick and Metaphysicks; and I had no other reason to advice the other, but meerly to get it promoted the easier in our Universitys; One of the Business of which Places is to Learn according to the Old Forms. and this Minds me to Let you know the Great joy and Satisfaction of Mind I conceived On your Promise of the Method of Learning; there could nothing be More acceptable to me than the Hopes thereof (...) And On this Consideration of Usefulnes to Mankind I wil presume again to remind you of your Discourse of Morality; And I shall think my self very Happy, if by putting you on the Thought, I should be the least Occasion to so Great Good to the World.’ Letter 1609, Corr. iv, 649.
[26] 28 March 1693 Locke (London) to W. Molyneux. Locke probably makes an illusion to the subject of a demonstrated ethics. ‘That request of yours you press so earnestly upon me makes me bemoan the distance you are from me, which deprives me of the assistance I might have from your opinion and judgment, before I ventur’d any thing into the public.’ Letter 1620, Corr. iv, 664.
[27] 28 March 1693 Locke (London) to W. Molyneux about additions to the second edition of the Essay. ‘Malebranche’s hypothesis of seeing all things in God being that from whence I find some men would derive our ideas, I have some thoughts of adding a new chapter, wherein I will examine it, having, as I think, something for to say against it, that will shew the weakness of it very clearly. But I have so little love to controversy, that I am not fully resolv’d. Some other additions I have made, I hope will not displease you, but I wish I could shew them you before they are in print; for I would not make my book bigger, unless it were to make it better.’ Letter 1620, Corr. iv, 665-666.
[28] 18 April 1693 William Molyneux (Dublin) to Locke. ‘I should very much approve of your Adding a Chapter in your Essay, concerning Malbranches Hypothesis. As there are Enthusiasmes in Divinity, so there are in Philosophy; and as one proceeds from not Consulting, or misapprehending the Book of God; so the other from not reading and Considering the Book of Nature.’ Letter 1622, Corr. iv, 668.
[29] 15 July 1693 Locke (London) to William Molyneux about changes in Essay II.xxi ‘Of Power’. ‘I had not been so long before I had acknowledg’d the favour of your last, had not I a design to give you at large an account of some alterations I intended to make in the chapter of Power, wherein I should have been very glad you had shewn me any mistake. (...) I wish you were so near that I could communicate it to you at large, before it goes to the press. But it is so much too long for a letter, and the press will be so ready to stay for it before it is finished, that I fear I shall not be able to have the advantage of your thoughts upon the whole thread of my deduction.’ Letter 1643, Corr. iv, 700, 701.
[30] 23 August 1693 Locke (Oates) to William Molyneux, outline of the principal arguments for the chapter ‘Of Power’, Essay, II.xxi.28-48 in the second edition. ‘My Essay is now very near ready for another edition, and upon review of my alterations, concerning what determines the will, in my cool thoughts I am apt to think them to be right, as far as my thoughts can reach in so nice a point, and in short it is this. Liberty is a power to act or not to act, accordingly as the mind directs. A power to direct the operative faculties to motion or rest in particular instances, is that which we call the will. That which in the train of our voluntary actions determines the will to any change of operation, is some present uneasiness, which is, or at least is always accompanyed with that of desire. Desire is always moved by evil to fly it; because a total freedom from pain always makes a necessary part of our happyness. But every good, nay every greater good, does not constantly move desire, because it may not make, or may not be taken to make any necessary part of our happiness; for all that we desire is only to be happy. But though this general desire of happiness operates constantly and invariably in us, yet the satisfaction of any desire can be suspended from determining the will to any subservient action, till we have maturely examin’d whether the particular apparent good we then desire make a part of our real happiness, or be consistent or inconsistent with it. The result of our judgment, upon examination, is what ultimately determines the man, who could not be free, if his will were determin’d by any thing but his own desire, guided by his own judgment.’ Letter 1655, Corr. iv, 722.
[31] 16 September 1693 William Molyneux (Dublin) to Locke. ‘I can say no more to the scheme you lay down of Mans Liberty; but that I beleive it very just and wil answer in all things. I long to see the second Edition of your Essay; and then, if any thing offer, I’ll give you my thoughts more fully. I am very sensible how closely you are ingaged till you have discharged this Work off your Hands; and therefore I will not venture, till it be over, to pres you again to what you have promised in the Business of Mans Life, Morality. But you must Expect that I shall never be forgetful of that from which I propose so great Good to the world.’ Letter 1661, Corr. iv, 729.
[32] 3 December [1693] Locke to Anonymous. Note by De Beer: ‘There was “originally enclosed” in this draft MS. Locke c.28, f. 159, comments by Locke on Malebranche’s De la recherche de la vérité (...) The association between the two pieces appears to be fortuitous.’ Letter 1678, Corr. iv, 756.
[33] 23 December 1693 William Molyneux (Dublin) to Locke. ‘You will very much obleidge me by a line or two to Let me know how forward your Work is; and what other things you have on the Anvil before you; Amongst which I hope you will not forget your Thoughts on Morality. For I am obleidged to prosecute this request to you, being the first I presume that Moved you in it.’ Letter 1685, Corr. iv, 767-768.
[34] 19 January 1694 Locke (Oates) to William Molyneux on a demonstrated ethics. ‘You write to me, as if ink had the same spell upon me, that mortar, as the Italians say, has upon others, that when I had once got my fingers into it, I could never afterwards keep them out. I grant that methinks I see subjects enough which way ever I cast my eyes, that deserve to be otherwise handled, than I imagine they have been; but they require abler heads, and stronger bodies than I have, to manage them. (...) Under this obligation of doing something, I cannot have a stronger to determine me what I shall do, than what your desires shall engage me in. I know not whether the attempt will exceed my strength. But there being several who joyn with you to press me to it; (I received a letter with the same instance, from two of my friends at London, the last post) I think, the first leisure I can get to my self, I shall apply my thoughts to it; and however I may miss my aim, will justifie my self in my obedience to you, and some others of my ingenious friends.’ Letter 1693, Corr. iv, 786-787.
[35] 26 May 1694 Locke (London) to William Molyneux on second edition of the Essay: ‘My book, which I desire you to accept from me, is put into Mr. Churchill the bookseller’s hand, who has told me he will send it in a bale of books, the next week, to Mr. Dobson a bookseller in Castle-street, Dublin; and I have order’d him to send with it a copy of the additions and alterations which are printed by themselves, and will help to make your former book useful to any young man, as you will see (is design’d) by the conclusion of the epistle to the reader.’ Letter 1744, Corr. v, 59.
[36] 2 June 1694 William Molyneux (Dublin) to Locke. ‘And now that you have cleard your Hands of Your second Edition, I hope you may have Leasure to turn your Thoughts to the Subject I have so often proposed to you; But this you will say is a Cruelty in me, that no sooner you are ridd of One Trouble, but I sett you on an other. Truly Sir were I sensible it could be a Trouble to you, I should hardly presume so far on your Goodnes; but I know those Things are so easy and Natural to your Mind, That they give you no Pain in the Production. And I know also, such is your Universal Love of Mankind, that you count nothing troublesom that tends to their Good in a Matter of so great Concernment as Morality.’ Letter 1748, Corr. v, 70.
[37] 16 June [1694] W. Grigg to Locke. ‘The Translating humour is very much in Vogue and Malebranche’s search of Truth is follow’d by Mr Taylor here with great application whilst a Rival-Translation sweats under the Press at London.’ Letter 1752, Corr. v, 77.
[38] 28 June 1694 Locke (London) to William Molyneux. ‘There appears to me so little material, in the objections that I have seen in print against me, that I have passed them all by, but one Gentleman’s, whose book not coming to my hand till those parts of mine were printed that he questions, I was fain to put my answer in the latter end of the epistle.’ Letter 1753, Corr. v, 79.
[39] 9 October 1694 Locke to Jean le Clerc on liberty = fragment MS Locke c.28, f. 115v ‘Libertie’, included as text No 24 ‘Liberty’ in the present edition; the fragment ends with: ‘This writ to Mr Le Clerc. 9º Oct. 94 in answer to his of 12º Aug.’ Letter 1798, Corr. v, 159-160.
[40] 15 January 1695 William Molyneux (Dublin) to Locke. ‘The above Errata are those few that I have observed in the second Edition of your Book. they are very Inconsiderable and hardly worth Notice.’ Letter 1838, Corr. v, 254.
[41] 15 January 1695 William Molyneux (Dublin) to Locke. ‘I have ever thought that an Elegant Translation of your Essay into Latin would be highly acceptable to Forreiners; and of Great Use in those Countrys whose minds lye yet captivated in Verbose, Disputative Philosophy and False Reasoning. I therefore presume to Mention it to you; that tho your Own Leasure may not permit you to perform it Your self, you may think of putting Some One on it, that under your Eye may do it Correctly. and were I not perswaded that your Own Eye and Correction were absolutely requisite herein; I would venture to make a bold Proposal to have it done by some One in this Place, whom I should reward for his Labour herein. and this I do, not that I think you may not with a great deal of Ease Imploy One your self in this matter; but meerly that therein I may have an Oppertunity of doing so much good in the World.’ Letter 1838, Corr. v, 254-255.
[42] 15 January 1695 William Molyneux (Dublin) to Locke. ‘And now that your thoughts are at Liberty from Your Essay, You will give me leave with all Submission to Mind you of what you once told me you would think off, viz, Of Demonstrating Morals. I am sure, as no hand could perform it better, so no Age ever required it more than Ours.’ Letter 1838, Corr. v, 255.
[43] 31 January 1695 John Wynne (Oxford) to Locke on the Essay: ‘That It would be very useful to publish an abridgment of the Book. (...) If upon this Intimation, you shall think what is here offer’d worthy of your regard, I would willingly contribute any assistance that I may be capable of, to ease you of the Trouble.’ Letter 1843, Corr. v, 261, 262.
[44] 8 March 1695 Locke (Oates) to William Molyneux on the third edition of the Essay: ‘I return you my thanks for the corrections you have sent me, which I will take all the care of I can in the next edition, which, my bookseller tells me, he thinks will be this summer.’ Letter 1857, Corr. v, 286.
[45] 8 March 1695 Locke (Oates) to William Molyneux; he informs Molyneux about the earlier and rejected attempt at a Latin translation by Gisbertus Verrijn, welcomes Molyneux’s initiative for a new attempt and mentions new additions that could be included in this Latin translation. ‘The chapter of Identity and Diversity, which owes its birth wholly to your putting me upon it, will be an encouragement to you to lay any the like commands upon me. I have had some thoughts my self, that it would not be possibly amiss to add, in lib. iv. ch. 18, something about Enthusiasm, or to make a chapter of it by it self. If you are of the same mind, and that it will not be foreign to the business of my Essay, I promise you, before the translator you shall employ, shall be got so far, I will send you my thoughts on that subject, so that it may be put into the latin edition. I have also examined P. Malbranche’s opinion concerning seeing all things in God, and to my own satisfaction laid open the vanity, and inconsistency, and unintelligibleness of that way of explaining humane understanding. I have gone almost, but not quite, through it, and know not whether I now ever shall finish it, being fully satisfyed my self about it.’ Letter 1857, Corr. v, 287.
[46] 8 March 1695 Locke (Oates) to William Molyneux, possibly making an allusion to Molyneux’s repeated demands about a demonstrated morality: ‘I am not forgetful of what you so kindly put me upon. I think no body ought to live only to eat and drink, and count the days he spends idly. The small remainder of a crazy life, I shall, as much as my health will permit, apply to the search of truth, and shall not neglect to propose to my self those that may be most useful.’ Letter 1857, Corr. v, 288.
[47] 26 March 1695 William Molyneux (Dublin) to Locke. ‘I must freely Confes that if my Notion of Enthusiasme agrees with yours, there is no necessity of adding any thing concerning it more than by the by and in a single section in Chap. XVIII. L. IV. I conceive it to be no other than a Religious sort of Madnes and Comprises not in it any Mode of Thinking or Operation of the Mind, Differt from what you have treated off in your Essay. Tis true indeed, the Absurditys Men imbrace on account of Religion are most Astonishing, and if in a Chapter of Enthusiasme you indeavour to give an Account of them, ’twould be very acceptable. so that (on second thoughts) I do very well approve of what you propose therein, being very desirous of having your sentiments on any subjects. Pere Malbranche’s Chapter of Seing all things in God was ever to me absolutely unintelligible; and unles you think a Polemick Discourse in your Essay (which you have hitherto avoided therein) may not be of a Peice with the Rest, I am sure it highly deserves to be exposed, and is very agreable to the Business of your Work.’ Letter 1867, Corr. v, 317.
[48] 26 April 1695 Locke (Oates) to William Molyneux, announces the third editon of the Essay and John Wynne’s abridgement. ‘The third edition of my Essay is already, or will be speedily in the press. But what perhaps will seem stranger, and possibly please you better, an abridgment is now making (if it be not already done) by one of the university of Oxford, for the use of young scholars, in the place of an ordinary system of logick.’ Letter 1887, Corr. v, 351.
[49] 26 April 1695 Locke (Oates) to William Molyneux. ‘What I shall add concerning Enthusiasm, I guess, will very much agree with your thoughts, since yours jump so right with mine, about the place where it is to come in, I having designed it for chap. 18. lib. iv. as a false principle of reasoning often made use of. But, to give an historical account of the various ravings men have embraced for religion, would I fear, be besides my purpose, and be enough to make an huge volume. My opinion of P. Malbranche agrees perfectly with yours, What I have writ concerning seeing all things in God, would make a little treatise of it self. But I have not quite gone through it, for fear I should by somebody or other be tempted to print it. For I love not controversies, and have a personal kindness for the author. When I have the happiness to see you, we will consider it together, and you shall dispose of it. I think I shall make some other additions to be put into your latin translation, and particularly concerning the Connexion of Ideas, which has not, that I know, been hitherto consider’d and has, I guess, a greater influence upon our minds, than is usually taken notice of.’ Letter 1887, Corr. v, 352-353.
[50] 7 May 1695 William Molyneux (Dublin) to Locke about the Latin translation of the Essay: ‘If you Incourage the Translator to go forward, you may be pleased to transmit to me the Additions you designe; as that of Enthusiasme, Connexion of Ideas, and what else you have.’ Letter 1896, Corr. v, 363.
[51] 3/13 September 1695 Pierre Coste (Amsterdam) to Locke. ‘Je finirai donc ici après vous avoir prié de m’apprendre si la troisiéme Edition de vôtre Essay sur l’Entendement paroîtra bientôt. Le Libraire qui a imprimé la Traduction de vôtre Livre de l’Education m’a prié de vous le demander. Il souhaiteroit de faire imprimer cet Ouvrage en François. Il voudroit même me charger de la traduction.’ Letter 1940, Corr. v, 435.
[52] 19 September 1695 William Molyneux (Dublin) to Locke, announces that he has found a translator for the Latin version of the Essay: ‘His name is Ezekiel Burridge, a Master of Arts of Long Standing in the Colledge here, and Chancellor of the Dioces of Down and Connor.’ Letter 1945, Corr. v, 440.
[53] c. December 1695 Publication of the third edition of Locke’s Essay. Nidditch, ‘Introduction’, p. xxvi.
[54] 5-9 March 1696 In The London Gazette, no. 3164, John Wynne’s abridgment of Locke’s Essay is advertised. Yolton, Locke. Bibliography, p. 156.
[55] 14 March 1696 William Molyneux (Dublin) to Locke, forwards a question from Ezekiel Burridge: ‘One thing he Intimates to me, which I must needs mention to you, as being so agreable to the Apprehensions I have always had of the Excellent Author of the Essay, to whom I have sometimes presumed to propose it. Viz, that He should write a Book of Offices or Moral Philosophy. I give you Mr Burridges own Words, who goes on, The Fine Strokes which he has frequently in his Essay make me think He would perform it admirably. I wish you’d try his Inclinations; You may Assure him, I wil Cheerfully undertake the Translation of it afterwards. Thus you see, Sir, you are attacqued on all sides; I doubt not but you have as frequent solicitations from your Friends in England.’ Letter 2038 Corr. v, 570.
[56] 5 April 1696 Locke (Oates) to William Molyneux. ‘As to a treatise of morals, I must own to you, that you are not the only persons (you and Mr. Burridge I mean) who have been for putting me upon it; neither have I wholly laid by the thoughts of it. Nay, I so far incline to comply with your desires, that I ever now and then lay by some materials for it, as they occasionally occur in the rovings of my mind. But when I consider, that a book of Officies, as you call it, ought not to be slightly done, especially by me, after what I have said of that science in my Essay; and that Nonumque prematur in annum is a rule more necessary to be observ’d in a subject of that consequence, than in any thing Horace speaks of; I am in doubt whether it would be prudent, in one of my age and health, not to mention other disabilities in me, to set about it. Did the world want a rule, I confess there could be no work so necessary, nor so commendable. But the Gospel contains so perfect a Body of Ethicks, that reason may be excused from that enquiry, since she may find man’s duty clearer and easier in revelation than in herself. Think not this the excuse of a lazy man, though it be, perhaps, of one, who having a sufficient rule for his actions, is content therewith, and thinks he may, perhaps, with more profit to himself, employ the little time and strength he has in other re-searches, wherein he finds himself more in the dark.’ Letter 2059, Corr. v, 595.
[57] 10 May 1696 [John Sergeant] to Locke; probably the letter accompanying a copy of Sergeant’s Method to Science (1696). ‘After I had written and almost printed this Book I here send you, (I mean all of it but the Preface and Appendix) I was favour’d by a Friend, with a sight of your Essay concerning Human Understanding; to which, till then, my circumstances had made mee a Stranger. (...) The most substantiall Difference between us (as far as I yet observe) is about the Necessity and Usefulnes of Identicall Propositions, on which I mainly build; and to which (in my judgment) all Truths must either be reduc’d, or they will, if scann’d by Speculative and Acute Logicians, be left destitute of their Deepest and Firmest Ground.’ Letter 2085, Corr. v, 635-636.
[58] 20 June 1696 John Jackman (Stoneleigh) to Locke. ‘That which moves me to give you this trouble is a difficulty arising to my understanding from the account you give of what determines the will, in the second Edition of your Essay concerning the Hum. Underst. B.2.6.21. There you deliver it as your opinion that it is Uneasiness alone that determines the Will, and yet 4.47. that the most presseing Uneasiness does not always determine it to the next action, but that the mind has a power to suspend the satisfaction of the desire accompanying the most pressing Uneasiness.’ Letter 2105, Corr. v, 658.
[59] 3 February 1697 William Molyneux alerts Locke about the appearance of Stillingfleet’s Discourse in Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity, which contains the first of three printed attacks on the Essay. ‘I have lately mett with a Book of the Bishop of Worcesters concerning the Trinity. He takes Occasion therein to reflect on some things in your Essay. But truly I think with no great Strength of Reason. However he being a Man of Great Name, I humbly propose it to you, whether you may not judge it worth your While to take notice of what he says, and give some Answer to it, which will not be a difficult task.’ Letter 2189, Corr. v, 766-767.
[60] 22 February 1697 Locke (Oates) to William Molyneux. ‘My book [the Essay] crept into the world about six or seven years ago, without any opposition, and has since passed amongst some for useful, and, the least favourable, for innocent. But, as it seems to me, it is agreed by some men that it should no longer do so. Something, I know not what, is at last spyed out in it, that is like to be troublesome, and therefore it must be an ill book, and be treated accordingly.’ Letter 2202, Corr. vi, 6.
[61] 10 April 1697 Locke (Oates) to William Molyneux. ‘I have got a little leisure to think of some additions to my book, against the next edition, and within these few days have fallen upon a subject that I know not how far it will lead me. I have written several pages on it, but the matter, the farther I go, opens the more upon me, and I cannot yet get sight of any end of it. The title of the chapter will be Of the Conduct of the Understanding, which, if I shall pursue, as far as I imagine it will reach, and as it deserves, will, I conclude, make the largest chapter of my Essay. ’Tis well for you you are not near me, I should be always pestering you with my notions, and papers, and reveries. It would be a great happiness to have a man of thought to lay them before, and a friend that would deal candidly and freely.’ Letter 2243, Corr. vi, 87.
[62] 3 May 1697 Locke (Oates) to William Molyneux about the appearance of Stillingfleet’s First Reply, i.e. the second of Stillingfleet’s three attacks on Locke’s Essay. ‘You are willing, I see, to make my little presents to you more and greater than they are. Amongst the books that Mr. Churchill sent you, you are beholden to me (since you will call it so) but for one; and to that the Bp. of Worcester, I hear, has an answer in the press, which will be out this week.’ Letter 2254, Corr. vi, 107.
[63] 15 May 1697 William Molyneux (Dublin) to Locke. ‘You never write to me, that you do not raise new expectations in my longing Mind of partaking your Thoughts on those Noble Subjects you are upon. Your Chapter concerning the Conduct of the Understanding must needs be very Sublime and Spacious.’ Letter 2262, Corr. v, 123.
[64] 11 September 1697 Locke (London) to William Molyneux about his reply to Stillingfleet’s First Answer (1697). ‘I am not delighted at all in controversie, and think I could spend my time to greater advantage to my self, But, being attack’d, as I am, and in a way that sufficiently justifies your remarks on it, I think every body will judge I had reason to defend my self (...) Pray give my humble service to your brother, and let me know whether he hath any children, for then I shall think my self obliged to send him one of the next edition of my book of Education, which, my bookseller tells me, is out of print; and I had much rather be at leisure to make some additions to that, and my Essay of Humane Understanding, than be employed to defend my self against the groundless, and, as others think, trifling quarrel of the Bishop [Stillingfleet].’ Letter 2310, Corr. vi, 189, 190.
[65] 11 September 1697 Locke (London) to William Molyneux in a postscript to his letter. ‘What I told you formerly of a storm coming against by book, proves no fiction. Besides what you will see I have taken notice of in my reply, Mr Serjeant, a popish priest, whom you must needs have heard of, has bestow’d a thick octavo upon my Essay, and Mr. Norris, as I hear, is writing hard against it. Shall I not be quite slain, think you, amonst so many notable combatants, and the Lord knows how many more to come?’ Letter 2310, Corr. vi, 191.
[66] 11 September 1697 William Molyneux (Dublin) to Locke about John Sergeant. ‘I have seen also a Philosophical Writer against you of an other strain, one J.S. that writes against all Ideists; this Gentleman, tho Civil, yet to me is absolutely unintelligible, so unfortunate I am. Who he is I know not, but should be glad to learn from you; and what you think in general of his Book.’ Letter 2311, Corr. vi, 192.
[67] 4 October 1697 William Molyneux (Dublin) to Locke. ‘You have already Answerd some of my impertinent inquirys in that Letter [see above, letter 2310]. you tell me therein, who J.S. is that writes against You. I do not now wonder at the Confusedness of his Notions, or that they should be unintelligible to me. I should have much more admired had they been otherwise. I expect nothing from Mr Serjeant but what is abstruse in the highest degree. I look for nothing else from Mr Norris; I thought that Gentleman had enough ont, in his first Attempt on your Essay. but he’s so overun with Father Malbranch and Plato, that tis in vain to indeavour to sett him right. and I give him up as an inconvincible Enemy.’ Letter 2324, Corr. vi, 219-220.
[68] 28 October 1697 William Molyneux (Dublin) to Locke about James Hodges and John Sergeant. ‘Amongst the other Small Craft, that appears against you I meet with One J.H.’s State of England in relation to Coyn and trade. I hear the Authors name is Hodges. He is much of a Class in this particular as Mr Serjeant in relation to your Essay, that is, both to me Unintelligible.’ Letter 2339, Corr. vi, 238.
[69] 29 October 1697 Locke (London) to Philippus van Limborch, possibly referring to the ‘Conduct’. ‘J’avois resolu de faire quelques additions, dont j’ai déja composé quelques unes qui sont assez amples, et qui auroient pû en leur place dans la quatriéme Edition que le Libraire se dispose à faire.’ Letter 2340, Corr. vi, 243.
[70] 15 December 1697 Samuel Bold (Steeple) to Awnsham [and John?] Churchill about the appearance of Stillingfleet’s Second Answer, i.e the last of his three attacks against Locke’s Essay. ‘I have run over the Bishop of Worcesters late Answer as it is called to mr Lock’s second letter. Letter 2359, Corr. vi, 270.
[71] 15 December 1697 Samuel Bold (Steeple) to Awnsham [and John?] Churchill. ‘I am apt to think the Author of the Remarks on mr Locks Essay etc is He who writes the occasional letter, but who He is I do not know.’ Letter 2359, Corr. vi, 271.
[72] 10 January 1698 Locke (Oates) to William Molyneux about James Hodges and John Sergeant. ‘When I see a man, disinteressed as you are, a lover of truth as I know you to be, and one that has clearness and coherence enough of thought to make long mathematical, i.e. sure deductions, pronounce of J.H. and J.S.’s books that they are uninteligible to you; I do not presently condemn my self of pride, prejudice, or a perfect want of understanding, for laying aside those Authors, because I can find neither sense or coherence in them.’ Letter 2376, Corr. vi, 294.
[73] 6 April 1698 Locke (Oates) to William Molyneux, possibly referring to the ‘Conduct’. ‘I wish for some time with you for the exposing, sifting, and rectifying of my thoughts. If they have gone any thing farther in the discovery of truth than what I have already published, it must be by your encouragement that I must go on to finish some things that I have already begun, and with you I hop’d to discourse my other yet crude and imperfect thoughts, in which if there were anything useful to mankind, if they were open’d and desposited with you, I know them safe lodg’d for the advatage of truth some time or other. For I am in doubt whether it be fit for me to trouble the press with any new matter.’ Letter 2414, Corr. vi, p, 367.
[74] 10 September 1698 Samuel Bold (Steeple) to Locke about Bold’s notes that would be published as Some considerations (1699): ‘I began to read Mr Jenkins’s Reasonableness and certainty of the Christian Religion. In reading over his preface, which is not very short, I found a quotation out of your Essay etc which He pretended (as some others have done) to finde fault with, and to write two pages almost, as a confutation of what you had said. (...) I took pen and paper in hand, resolving to try if I could this way fix my Attention more closely, and see thorough what He had offered upon the point, for peoples conviction, and satisfaction. (...) In the end I resolved to transcribe the greatest part of what I had thus accidently writ; but would alter the method, and transcribe that first, which I writ last. And that you may see, I do not forget you, whilst at this distance from you, I have sent two sheets (which is all I can transcribe timely enough to send by my neighbour, by whom I send this) to mr Churchil, with my desire to Him, to deliver them to you; And which I requeast you to look over; if you can obtain so much leisure from weightier affaires.’ Letter 2486, Corr. vi, 470, 471.
[75] 29 September 1698 Locke (London) to William Molyneux about their first (and last) meeting, in London and at Oates. ‘I lived with you and treated you as my friend, and therefore us’d no ceremony, nor can receive any thanks but what I owe you doubly both for your company, and the pains you were at to bestow that happiness on me.’ Letter 2492, Corr. vi, 483-484.
[76] 30 September 1698 Samuel Bold (Steeple) to Locke; Bold seems to have enclosed the draft of the remainder of ‘Some Considerations’. ‘I am very glad the papers you have received from me, are found by you to have some Reason in them, considered with relation to the Objections they are concerned about. (...) I here send you the other papers your letter encouraged me to send up.’ Letter 2493, Corr. vi, 484, 485.
[77] 13 October 1698 Ezekiel Burridge (Dublin) to Locke. ‘Last night your good friend Mr Molyneux was buried.’ Letter 2495, Corr. vi, 488.
[78] 17 November 1698 Samuel Bold (Steeple) to Locke. ‘The last week a great quantity of Snow fell in these parts, which confining me to my study, I look’d over what I had writ in the last sheet I sent you, so far as related to mr Jenkin. And I soon perceived many great Faults, which I wonder how I overlooked before. This made me consider afresh what that Author had said. pardon I beseech you my troubling you with the former sheet, and excuse my presuming to lay before you this Account of my latter thoughts. When your leisure wil permit I shall be glad to hear whether these papers be anything more to the purpose that the last paper was. What faults may be in the other part of that sheet I cannot tell, For being writ, (as we sometimes say in these parts) off hand, I kept not a copy of It. It was but an Accidental Addition, occasioned by my having Just read a Rude Nonsensical Pamphlet (writ as I guess by mr Edwards) entitled, A Free but Modest Censure on the late controversial writings and Debates of the Lord Bishop of Worcester and Mr Locke, Mr Edwards and Mr Locke etc. By F.B. M.A. of Cambridg. Letter 2509, Corr. vi, 506-507.
[79] 25 January 1699 Locke (Oates) to Thomas Molyneux about the fourth edition of the Essay: ‘As for my Essay concerning Human Understanding, it is now out of print, and if it were not, I think I should make you but an ill complement in sending it you less perfect than I design it should be in the next edition, in which I shall make many additions to it’ Letter 2539, Corr. vi, 552-553.
[80] 8 April 1699 Awnsham Churchill to Locke on the fourth editon of the Essay. ‘Mr Manship and self are very willing to comply with your desire. and shall take care to get a good Corector. and wee pray you to send up the booke.’ Letter 2566, Corr. vi, 591.
[81] 11 April 1699 Samuel Bold (Steeple) to Locke. ‘And now (tho so late) I returne you thousands of thanks for your last Answer to the Bishop of Worcester (which I think came to your hand the week after I sent my last letter to you) and for you most kinde Instructions how to rectify certain mistakes in the papers I had entreated you to give yourself the trouble, to peruse. I sent the papers, with Amendments, to mr A. Churchill, in a little time after I received them, and did then purpose to write speedily to you, but have contrary to my Inclination, bin hindered, as I have before hinted.’ (Bold then continues with an explanation of his remarks on the immateriality of the soul and the Lockean concept of power in his Some Considerations (1699), pp. 18-28.) Letter 2567, Corr. vi, 592.
[82] 16 May 1699 Locke (Oates) to Samuel Bold. ‘Yours of the eleventh of April, I received not till last Week. I suppose Mr. Churchil said it till that Discourse, wherein you have been pleased to defend my Essay, was printed, that they might come together; tho’ neither of them needs a Companion to recommend it to me.’ Letter 2590, Corr. vi, 626.
[83] 16 May 1699 Locke (Oates) to Samuel Bold about the fourth edition of the Essay: ‘The Essay is going to be printed again: I wish you were near that I might shew you the several Alterations and Additions I have made, before they go to the Press.’ Letter 2590, vi, 630.
[84] 29 June 1699 Samuel Bold (Steeple) to Locke about additions to the fourth edition of the Essay: ‘I heartily rejoyce both to hear you are able to come to London, and that you have perfected what you designed to add to your Essay.’ Letter 2602, Corr. vi, 657.
[85] 11/21 October 1699 Jean le Clerc (Amsterdam) to Locke, referring to the ‘Conduct’. ‘On m’a dit que vous aviez encore composé un autre Ouvrage de Philosophie de la maniere de conduire son esprit dans la Recherche de la Verité. Si cela est, vous courez risque d’être un peu importuné de le publier, et de me voir dans le nombre de ces importuns. Il n’y a point de livres, dont le Public ait tant besoin que ceux-là.’ Letter 2624, Corr. vi, 704.
[86] 2 December 1699 Locke (Oates) to Hans Sloane about the fourth edition of the Essay: ‘I took the liberty to send you just before I left the town the last edition of my Essay. I doe not intend you shall have it gratis. There are two new Chapters in it of the association of Ideas and an other of Enthusiasme these two I expect you should read and give me your opinion frankly upon. Though I have made other large additions yet it would be to make you pay too dear to expect you should be at the taske to finde them out and read them.’ Letter 2640, Corr. vi, 746. See also Nidditch, ‘Introduction’, xxix n. 54.
[87] 6 December 1699 Robert South to Locke, probably on the latter’s refutation of Malebranche’s hypothesis concerning the Vision in God. ‘I have carefully perused your Clear and Excellent Confutation of a very Senselesse Hypothesis; indeed so intolerably senselesse and absurd, that I look upon it, as extremely below, not onely the Opposition, but even the very Notice of so Eminent a Writer. The Schools indeed have a great deal of Giberish amongst them; but it is Cheifely a Giberisch of words or Termes; but this is a Giberish of Things: and, for my oun part, I think the Divinity of Jacob Behmen. and the Philosophy of malbranch may very well sort together: there being in my poor judgment not the least foundation for it so much as in Common Sense, and as little in the Abstracted Speculations of Reason.’ Letter 2645, Corr. vi, 753.
[88] 11 December 1699 Locke (Oates) to Peter King, possibly referring to the ‘Conduct’. ‘I received yours of the 6th and return you my thanks for it. I am sorry that Ideas are such perverse things and soe troublesome to conducters. My Lady desires (because it will require some time to correct this matter) that you will make hast down hither as long before Christmas as you can that your stay here may be lengthend as much on that said as may be, for on the other side of Christmas she says the term will keep its course and she must expect on that side noe allowance. Pray come as soon as you can, that we may have time to consider this greivance of Conducters or some things else.’ Letter 2649, Corr. vi, 758-759.
[89] c. 3 March 1700 Martha Lockhart to Locke. ‘whether or no You could think fit to ask my lord Chancelor’s favour in a living to Mr Anderson who is now laid aside by our good Doctor who now I find made use of him only to serve a turne. one thing I undertake for him that whoever recomends him will have no reason to be asham’d or repent oft and that he’el not prove a Mr Norris.’ Letter 2682, Corr. vii, 22.
[90] 5 May 1700 Privilege given to Pierre Coste’s French translation of Locke’s Essay. Nidditch, ‘Introduction’, p. xxxiv.
[91] 9/20 July 1700 Pierre Guennellon (Amsterdam) to Locke, referring to the ‘Conduct’. ‘Monsieur le Clerc m’a dit que vous travaillez a un nouvel ouvrage, pour decouvrir les maladies de l’esprit, c’est une nouvelle obligation que le public vous aura, quel bien ne sera ce pas, si vous pouvez guerir les hommes de leur fausses idees, et les mettre par methode dans le chemin de la verité!’ Letter 2743, Corr. vii, 105
[92] 19/30 October 1700 Philippus van Limborch (Amsterdam) to Locke. Van Limborch, reading the French translation by Coste of the Essay, hits on a theme that will figure prominently in subsequent correspondence. ‘Quando ad finem pervenero, Lib.II. Caput.XXI. De la puissance, ubi prolixè de voluntate, ac hominis in volendo libertate disseris, relegam: Quaedam enim ibi habes nova, quae attentum requirunt lectorem. Ego totum ubi perlegero candidè meum tibi judicium scribam.’ Letter 2795, Corr. vii, 168-169.
[93] 31 December 1700/11 January 1701 Pierre Guenellon (Amsterdam) to Locke, referring to the ‘Conduct’. ‘mes amis qui ont lu vótre traitté de l’entendement me demandent souvent, sur ce qu’on leur a fait esperer, si vos reflexions sur les erreurs de lentendement verront bien tost le jour.’ Letter 2835, Corr. vii, 212-213.
[94] 1 June 1701 Locke (Oates) to Philippus van Limborch about Ezekiel Burridge’s translation: ‘Versio Latina tractatus mei de Intellectu humano jam typis impressa est. Bibliopolae scripsi ut exemplar filio tuo tradat tibi transmittendum ut siquid in Gallica translatione haerat versio Latina lucem faeneretur.’ Letter 2935, Corr. vii, 344.
[95] 21 January 1704 Peter King (London) to Locke. ‘I have opened your Standish, and found therein only One Key, which was the Key of your square deal box, in which I found the thick quarto of Pamphlets bound together in Parchment, Indors’d on the back, Unitarians, and also a manuscript concerning the Conduct of the Understanding.’ Letter 3429, Corr. viii, 171-172.
[96] 15 March 1704 Anthony Collins (London) to Locke; Collins gives an ‘account of Mr Norris’s ‘New Book Intituled the 2d part of the Theory of the Ideal world, so far as he concerns you in it.’ Letter 3490, Corr. viii, 241.
[97] 21 March 1704 Locke (Oates) to Anthony Collins on John Norris. ‘Men of Mr Ns way seem to me to decree rather than to argue. (...) I know not whether I ever shewd you an occasional scatch of mine about Seeing all things in god if I did not, If it please god I live to see you here again I will shew it you and some other things.’ Letter 3498, Corr. viii, 254, 256.
[98] 4 and 25 October 1704

Locke (Oates) to Peter King. ‘You will find amongst my papers several subjects proposed to my thoughts, which are very little more than extemporary views, layd down in suddain and imperfect draughts, which though intended to be revised and farther looked into afterwards, yet by the intervention of business, or preferable enquiries happend to be thrust aside and so lay neglected and sometimes quite forgotten. Some of them indeed light upon me at such a time of leisure and in such a temper of mind that I laid them not wholy by upon the first interruption, but took them in hand again as occasion served, and went on in pursuance of my first designe till I had satisfied my self in the enquiry I at first proposed. of this kind is’

‘1° My discourse of Seeing all things in god which though upon examination it appears to me and I think I have shewn to be a very groundless opinion, and thereupon have been pressed by some freinds (who have seen and thought what I have writ upon it to be a sufficient confutation of it) to make it publique. yet I could never consent to print it Both because I am noe freind to controversy and also because it is an opinion that spreads not and is like to die of it self or at least to doe noe great harm. I therefore think it best that it should not be published. But yet I doe not absolutely forbid it. If you and others of my judicious freind should find occasion for it hereafter’

(...)

‘3° The Conduct of the understanding I have allways thought ever since it first came into my mind to be a subject very well worth consideration, though I know not how, it seems to me for any thing that I have met with to have been almost wholy neglected: what I have done in it is very far from a just treatise. All that I have done has been, as any miscarriage in that point has accidentaly come into my minde, to set it downe, with those remedies for it that I could think of. This method though it makes not that hast to the end which one could wish, is yet perhaps the onely one can be followed in the case, it being here as in physick impossible for a physitian to describe a disease or seek remedies for it till he comes to meet with it. But those particulars that have occurd to me and I have set down being as I guess sufficient to make men see some faults in the conduct of their understandings, and suspect there may be others you may also doe with as you think fit. For they may perhaps serve to excite others to enquire farther into it, and treat of it more fully than I have done. But the heads and chapters must be reduced into order.’

Letter 3647, Corr. viii, 412-414.
See Bibliotheque Universelle, xx, pp. 65-72.
Note by De Beer: ‘The addition and alterations were printed on folio leaves; on both sides for the longer passages (e.g. the new II.xxvii); on one side only for the shorter; the sheets containing the latter were to be cut into slips to be inserted at the places indicated.’
Note by De Beer: ‘The principal printed criticism of the Essay until now, apart from that by Norris (no. 1325), was that by James Lowde in his A Discourse concerning the Nature of Man, 1694. Locke received a copy on 23 January: Journal; L.L., no. 1813. It is the criticism he answered. The passage is omitted in the fifth and later editions of the Essay.’
Note by De Beer: ‘Let it be kept quiet till the ninth year’: Horace, Ars Poetica, 388
See LL 2626.
Note by De Beer: ‘The citations should be II.xxi.31 and 47
The work has ‘1697’ on the title page, but it was advertised in November 1696, see, Corr. v, p. 766, n. 2.
The First Reply was advertised in Flying Post, 11 May, and in the London Gazette, 13 May.
Note by De Beer: ‘Father John Sergeant (no. 2085), Solid Philosophy Asserted, 1697. L.L., no. 2626.’
Note by De Beer: ‘This probably refers to An Essay towards the Theory of the Ideal or Intelligible World, which was published in 1701-1704.’
Stillingfleet dated the Second Reply 22 September 1697
Note by De Beer: ‘The author of the Remarks is Thomas Burnet of the Charterhouse: p. 189, n.1. He continued with Second Remarks, 1697, and Third Remarks, 1699. L.L., nos. 1795, 1799. The other piece may be An Occasional Letter concerning Some Thoughts about a National Reformation, 1698, of unknown authorship; alternatively Bold may mean The Occasional Paper, which is attributed to Richard Willis (D.N.B.); ten instalments were published in 1697-8. L.L., no. 2118 (nos. 1-6).’
Note by De Beer: ‘Bold’s Some Considerations contains sixty pages; pp. 28-59 answer Jenkin.’
Note by De Beer: ‘The fourth edition: it is advertised in London Gazette, 11 December 1699. Sloane is named in the distribution list for it. The new chapters are II.xxiii and IV.xix.’
Translation by De Beer: ‘When I reach the end I will reread bk. II, ch. xxi, “De la puissance”, where you discourse at length about the will and the freedom of a man in willing; for you have there some new points that call for an attentive reader.’ See also De Beer’s remark Corr. vii, 268-270, the first paragraph of which runs: ‘Van Limborch received a copy of Coste’s translation of Locke’s Essay when about May 1700, it was published and intended to read it about August (pp. 101-102). Late in October he wrote that when he had finished reading it he would return to II.xxi, Of Power, in which Locke treats the Will and the Liberty of a Man in respect of Willing, and would send Locke his opinion on the subject (pp. 168-9, 240). The subject was important for him as it was a principal issue in dispute between Remonstrants and Calvinists. He set out his opinion in March 1701 in the course of no. 2881. This led to a discussion running through parts of nos. 2925, 2953, 2979, 3010, 3043, 3055, 3192, and 3200. As a result of the discussion Locke added a passage to section 71 and made further additions to, and alterations in, the chapter.’
Translation by De Beer: ‘The Latin version of my treatise on the Human Understanding has now been printed. I have written to the bookseller to deliver a copy to your son for transmission to you, so that if anything sticks in the French translation the Latin version may lend(?) some light.’