Abstract
It is now more than twenty years since Peter Laslett argued that the Exclusion controversy and not the Revolution of 1688 was the occasion of the composition of Locke's Two treatises. Nevertheless, scholarly interpretations still resist treating Two treatises as mainly an activist tract and persist in characterizing it always as something loftier, viz. ‘political philosophy’, ‘systematic moral apologia’, and the like. Resistance to the implications of a rigorous historical mode of interpretation is surely part of the problem. The perennial or transcendent purposes with which the classics are haloed often get diminished in too specific an historical location of the motives and situation of the author. Oddly, however, even critics friendly to a strictly historical approach have hesitated before the implications of Laslett's dicta that Locke wrote as a whig pamphleteer and for Shaftesbury's purposes. This, in turn, parallels the widespread contempt felt by many contemporary English historians (Locke's interpreters among them) for the early whigs. Righteous indignation against the whigs is even detectable in those modern writings from which we take our view of the whig Exclusion pamphleteers.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Cited by
27 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
1. Returning to Rawls: Social Contracting, Social Justice, and Transcending the Limitations of Locke;Journal of Business Ethics;2007-02-03
2. Hobbes’s and Locke’s Contract Theories: Political not Metaphysical;Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy;2005-09
3. The Anti-Catholic Roots of Liberal and Republican Conceptions of Freedom in English Political Thought;Journal of the History of Ideas;2005
4. Bibliography;The Politics of Liberty in England and Revolutionary America;2004-07-26
5. Conclusion;The Politics of Liberty in England and Revolutionary America;2004-07-26