View text

29. ‘By this learned art’ (c. 1694-c. 1695)

 

Contents of this text description

Manuscripts

Date

Publications

 

MS Locke c.28, fols 117r-118r. Critical discussion of scholastic logic and disputations. Fragment projected as an addition to chapter III.x ‘Of the Abuse of Words’ of the Essay, but never included.

Manuscripts

[1] MS Locke c.28, fols 117r-118r; see MS Locke c.28, fols 117-118 [1]-MS Locke c.28, fols 117-118 [9].

Date

[2] ‘By this learned art’ and ‘We cannot but thinke that angels’ have been dated c. 1694 by Long, p. 29 and by Attig. Attig, and probably Long as well, base this date on the assumption that the manuscript of ‘By this learned art’ and ‘We cannot but thinke that angels’, i.e. MS Locke c.28, fols 117-118, belongs to MS Locke c.28, fols 115-116; and the entry ‘Liberty’ on MS Locke c.28, fol. 115v contains the date 9 October 1694 (see 26. Libertie (1694) [3]). However, there is no proof for the assumption that MS Locke c.28, fols 117-118 is a continuation of MS Locke c.28, fols 115-116; hence this assumption cannot be used for the date 1694. The only clue for a relation between MS Locke c.28, fols 115-116 and MS Locke c.28, fols 117-118, can be extracted from the facts that MS Locke c.28, fols 115-116 ends with (a) a projected addition (‘Perhaps it will be said’) to Essay, II.xxi; that MS Locke c.28, fols 117-118 starts with (b) a projected additon to be inserted after Essay, III.x.1l; and that the same manuscript ends with (c) a projected addition to be inserted after Essay, III.x.13. These facts might be taken as an (extremely weak) indication for (b) and (c) being the continuation of a series that follows the order of the Essay and that starts with (a), i.e. a fragment dated post-9 October 1694. The best guess for the dates of ‘By this learned art’ and ‘We cannot but thinke that angels’ would then be c.1694-1695. An additional method of dating would to look for letters to Locke by Robert Pawling (who wrote the address on fol. 117) or Edward Clarke (who wrote the address on fol. 118) that lack an address, and then try to connect these letters to fols 117/118, but the editors have not been able to find a match.

Publications

[3] Printed in King, vol. II, pp. 222-225.

Yolton, John Locke a Descriptive Bibliography, nr. 249, p. 299.
MS Locke c.24, fol. 285r, letter 3188, Corr. viii, pp. 676-677.
Cf. Greetham, Textual Scholarship, p. 172 and pp. 211-213.
Cf. Locke’s farewell letter to P. King, 4 and 25 October 1704, letter 3647, Corr. viii, p. 416: ‘If my Paraphrase and notes on the Ephesians are not wholy transcribed before I dye (as I fear they will not. For however earnestly I have pressed it again and again I have not been able to prevaile with Will to dispatch the two first Chapters in three months) you must get it to be transcribed out of my filed papers after I am dead, that so it may be in a condition to be in a condition to be printed. Will after all I think be the fitest to transcribe them because he can read my hand and knows my way of writeing with the use of the references.’
Corr. viii, p. 424.
MS Locke c.35, fol. 6v.
Letter 3647, Corr. viii, p. 417, n. 1.
MS Locke f.10, p. 495.
MS Locke c.1, p. 342.
MS Locke f.10, p. 492.
Op. cit. no page number.
This fact confirms the assertion of the editors that MS Locke c.28 did not function as printer’s copy for PW.
For what probably amounts to an internal reference to the Essay that was left unchanged, see par. 64: ‘this essay’.
That pp. 52-56 give a part of the ‘Conduct’ seems to have escaped Long, A Summary Catalogue, although he remarks, p. 30: ‘The draft [containing both the Essay-part and the ‘Conduct’-part] is longer than the printed version [containing only the Essay-part].’
‘Introduction’ to Locke, Conduct, ed. Yolton, p. vii.
For the relation between the paragraph numbers of the ‘Conduct’ in the present edition and the source manuscripts, the Essay and PW see Table 3).
See Milton, ‘Pierre Des Maizeaux’, pp. 274-278.
Alternative dates: see Sargentich, ‘Locke and Ethical Theory’, p. 24: ‘Although the first manuscript piece, “Morality”, is undated, since it is highly hedonistic, it was probably written relatively late in Locke’s life.’ But ‘pleasure’ is a pervasive element in practically all of Locke’s ethical fragments, so its appearance does not contribute much towards dating the fragment. Goldie, p. 267 suggests as dates c. 1677-1678, but does not give a reason for his choice.
The last part of ‘Ethica C’, captioned under ‘Law’, is dated c. 1693 by Goldie, p. 328, but Goldie does not give a reason for his choice.
Cf. Essay, notes on p. 640 and p. 454 respectively.
See Works, 4, p. 184.
‘Liberty’ is included as letter 1798 in Corr. v, 159-160.
http://www.libraries.psu.edu/tas/locke/mss/c1694.html#m0203
Cf. ‘Enthusiasm’, Essay, IV.xix.15, p. 705: ‘These and several the like Instances to be found among the Prophets of old, are enough to shew, that they thought not an inward seeing or perswasion of their own Minds without any other Proof a sufficient Evidence, that it was from GOD, though the Scripture does not every where mention their demanding or having such Proofs.’
See Milton, ‘Manservant as Amanuensis: Sylvester Brounower’, p. 79, note 4.
See Essay,IV.iii.6; see also ‘Ballance’.