View text

17. Marginalia in John Sergeant’s Solid Philosophy (1697)

 

Contents of this text description

Chronology

Manuscripts

Date

Publications

 

Locke’s reactions to critical remarks about his way of ideas and his suggestion about the possibility of thinking matter. The editors have preceded Locke’s marginalia in Sergeant’s book with (a summary of) the passage to which Locke referred; reference to the Solid Philosophy is by page number. Sergeant’s marginal references are given in the outer margin.

Chronology

[1] See [60], [65], [66], [67], [68] and [72].

Manuscripts

[2] Locke’s copy of John Sergeant’s Solid Philosophy; see Locke’s copy of John Sergeant‘s, Solid Philosophy [1]-Locke’s copy of John Sergeant‘s, Solid Philosophy [2].

Date

[3] The impressum of Sergeant’s Solid Philosophy gives the year 1697. Indeed, on 11 September 1697 Locke and Molyneux both signalled the work in a letter to each other (see [65] and [66]); and since Locke was able to tell that it was a ‘thick octavo’ it is quite possible that he had actually held the work in his hands. However, the terminus a quo for Locke’s marginalia in this work may be slightly later; on p. xxxix and on p. 8 of the Solid Philosophy Locke entered a reference to Sergeant’s Ideae Cartesianae, and the impressum of this book gives the year 1698 (but books appearing in the last months of 1697 could receive the impressum ‘1698’).

Publications

[4] Locke’s copy of Sergeant’s Solid Philosophy was reprinted, including his marginalia by Garland Publishing in 1984.

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’.