Two Treatises of Government (full title: Two Treatises of Government: In the Former, The False Principles, and Foundation of Sir Robert Filmer, and His Followers, Are Detected and Overthrown. The Latter Is an Essay Concerning The True Original, Extent, and End of Civil Government) is English philosopher John Locke's principal work of political philosophy. It was published anonymously in 1689, after the Glorious Revolution, but likely drafted 1680-81 during the Exclusion Crisis (1679–81). The First Treatise attacks patriarchalism in the form of sentence-by-sentence refutation of the late Robert Filmer's (c. 1588–1653) Patriarcha, which argues for a divinely ordained, hereditary, absolute monarchy, ideas which remained current with living defenders. The Second Treatise outlines Locke's ideas for a more civilized society based on natural rights and contract theory, with government requiring the consent of the governed, and, under limited circumstances, the right to overthrow the ruler. "There can be no doubt that the Second Treatise was, in its time and place, a revolutionary work."Pyle, A.J. Locke. Cambridge: Polity Press 2013 p.148 The book is a key foundational text in the theory of liberalism.
This publication contrasts with earlier political works by Locke himself. In Two Tracts on Government, written in 1660, Locke defends a conservative position; however, Locke never published this earlier work.
Historical context Historian Peter Laslett has shown that the bulk of the writing was completed between 1679 and 1680 during the Exclusion Crisis, and subsequently revised after Locke was driven into Dutch exile in 1683.Laslett, "Introduction", 59–61. The arguments in First Treatise make sense as a refutation of the divine right of kings. During the Exclusion Crisis, which attempted to prevent James, the Catholic-convert brother of Charles II from ever taking the throne, Lord Shaftesbury, Locke's mentor, patron, and the leader of the Whigs, introduced the Exclusion bill, which was not passed. However, it precipitated Charles II removing Shaftesbury as Lord Chancellor. Richard Ashcraft, following in Laslett's suggestion that the Two Treatises were written before the 1688 Revolution that ousted James II, objected that Shaftesbury's party did not advocate revolution during the Exclusion Crisis. He suggests that they are instead better associated with the revolutionary conspiracies that swirled around what would come to be known as the Rye House Plot.Ashcraft, Revolutionary Politics. Shaftesbury and Locke and many others were forced into exile in the Netherlands; some, such as Algernon Sidney, were executed for treason in 1683. Locke and Sidney argued along similar lines. James II of England was overthrown in 1688 by a union of Parliamentarians and the Protestant stadtholder of the Dutch Republic William III of Oranje-Nassau (William of Orange). He ascended the English throne as William III of England, ruling jointly with Mary II, as Protestants. Mary was the daughter of James II, and had a strong claim to the English Throne, now known as the Glorious Revolution. Locke claims in the "Preface" to the Two Treatises that its purpose is to justify William III's ascension to the throne, but it is more likely the 1688 Glorious Revolution presented an opportunity to publish the existing manuscript, although anonymously. Locke knew his work was dangerous and did not acknowledge his authorship until the end of his life.
Publication history
Two Treatises was first published, anonymously, in December 1689 (following printing conventions of the time, its title page was marked 1690). Locke was dissatisfied with the numerous errors and complained to the publisher. For the rest of his life, he was intent on republishing the Two Treatises in a form that better reflected its intended meaning, but he did not formally acknowledge it as his work until just before his death. Historian Peter Laslett, one of the foremost Locke scholars, has suggested that Locke held the printers to a higher "standard of perfection" than the technology of the time would permit.Laslett, Peter. "Introduction." Two Treatises of Government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (1988), 9. In any case, the first edition was replete with errors. The second edition was even worse, in addition to being printed on cheap paper. The third edition was much improved, but still deemed unsatisfactory by Locke.See via Google Books He corrected the third edition by hand and entrusted the publication of the fourth to his friends, as he died before it could be brought out.Laslett, "Introduction," 8–9.
Two Treatises is prefaced with Locke announcing what he aims to achieve, also mentioning that more than half of his original draft, occupying a space between the First and Second Treatises, has been irretrievably lost.Locke, John. Two Treatises of Government. Ed. Peter Laslett. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (1988), 137. Laslett maintains that, while Locke may have added or altered some portions in 1689, he did not make any revisions to accommodate for the missing section. The end of the First Treatise breaks off in mid-sentence.Laslett, "English Revolution," 42.
In 1691 Two Treatises was translated into French by David Mazzel, a French Huguenot living in the Netherlands, following the revocation of the Edict of Nantes. This translation left out Locke's "Preface," all of the First Treatise, and the first chapter of the Second Treatise (which summarised Locke's conclusions in the First Treatise). It was in this form that Locke's work was reprinted during the 18th century in France and in this form that Montesquieu, Voltaire and Rousseau read it.Laslett, "Introduction," 12–13. The only American edition from the 18th century was printed in 1773 in Boston; it, too, left out all of these sections. There were no other American editions until the 20th century.Laslett, "Introduction," 14–15.
Main ideas Two Treatises is divided into the First Treatise and the Second Treatise, typically shortened to "Book I" and "Book II" respectively. Before publication, Locke gave it greater prominence by (hastily) inserting a separate title page: "An Essay Concerning the True Original, Extent and End of Civil Government".Laslett, 266. The First Treatise is focused on the refutation of Sir Robert Filmer, in particular his Patriarcha, which argued that civil society was founded on divinely sanctioned patriarchalism. Locke proceeds through Filmer's arguments, contesting his proofs from Scripture and ridiculing them as senseless, until concluding that no government can be justified by an appeal to the divine right of kings.
The Second Treatise outlines a theory of civil society. Locke begins by describing the state of nature, and appeals to God's creative intent in his case for human equality in this primordial context. From this, he goes on to explain the hypothetical rise of property and civilization, in the process explaining that the only legitimate governments are those that have the consent of the people. Therefore, any government that rules without the consent of the people can, in theory, be overthrown, i.e., revolutions can be just.
First Treatise
The First Treatise is an extended attack on Sir Robert Filmer's Patriarcha. Locke's argument proceeds along two lines: first, he undercuts the Scriptural support that Filmer had offered for his thesis, and second he argues that the acceptance of Filmer's thesis can lead only to slavery (and absurdity). Locke chose Filmer as his target, he says, because of his reputation and because he "carried this Argument [jure divino] farthest, and is supposed to have brought it to perfection" (1st Tr., § 5).
Filmer's text presented an argument for a divinely ordained, hereditary, absolute monarchy. According to Filmer, the Biblical Adam in his role as father possessed unlimited power over his children and this authority passed down through the generations. Locke attacks this on several grounds. Accepting that fatherhood grants authority, he argues, it would do so only by the act of begetting, and so cannot be transmitted to one's children because only God can create life. Nor is the power of a father over his children absolute, as Filmer would have it; Locke points to the joint power parents share over their children referred to in the Bible. In the Second Treatise Locke returns to a discussion of parental power. (Both of these discussions have drawn the interest of modern feminists such as Carole Pateman.)
Filmer also suggested that Adam's absolute authority came from his ownership over all the world. To this, Locke responds that the world was originally held in common (a theme that will return in the Second Treatise). But, even if it were not, he argues, God's grant to Adam covered only the land and brute animals, not human beings. Nor could Adam, or his heir, leverage this grant to enslave mankind, for the law of nature forbids reducing one's fellows to a state of desperation, if one possesses a sufficient surplus to maintain oneself securely. And even if this charity were not commanded by reason, Locke continues, such a strategy for gaining dominion would prove only that the foundation of government lies in consent.
Locke intimates in the First Treatise that the doctrine of divine right of kings (jure divino) will eventually be the downfall of all governments. In his final chapter he asks, "Who heir?" If Filmer is correct, there should be only one rightful king in all the world, the heir of Adam. But since it is impossible to discover the true heir of Adam, no government, under Filmer's principles, can require that its members obey its rulers. Filmer must therefore say that men are duty-bound to obey their present rulers. Locke writes:
I think he is the first Politician, who, pretending to settle Government upon its true Basis, and to establish the Thrones of lawful Princes, ever told the World, That he was properly a King, whose Manner of Government was by Supreme Power, by what Means soever he obtained it; which in plain English is to say, that Regal and Supreme Power is properly and truly his, who can by any Means seize upon it; and if this be, to be properly a King, I wonder how he came to think of, or where he will find, an Usurper. (1st Tr., § 79)
Locke ends the First Treatise by examining the history told in the Bible and the history of the world since then; he concludes that there is no evidence to support Filmer's hypothesis. According to Locke, no king has ever claimed that his authority rested upon his being the heir of Adam. It is Filmer, Locke contends, who is the innovator in politics, not those who assert the natural equality and freedom of man.
Second Treatise In the Second Treatise, Locke develops a number of notable themes. It begins with a depiction of the state of nature, wherein individuals are under no obligation to obey one another but are each themselves judge of what the law of nature requires. It also covers conquest and slavery, property, representative government, and the right of revolution.
State of Nature Locke defines the state of nature thus: To properly understand political power and trace its origins, we must consider the state that all people are in naturally.