Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T19:10:19.202Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mary Astell (1666–1731), Critic of Locke

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Patricia Springborg
Patricia Springborg
Affiliation:
University of Sydney
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the now considerable literature reevaluating the reception of Locke's Two Treatises, no mention has been made of perhaps his first systematic critic, the commissioned Tory political pamphleteer, Mary Astell. Contemporaneous with Charles Leslie, who is usually credited with the honor, Astell had diagnosed Locke's political argument by 1705 and perhaps as early as 1700. Why has her contribution remained unacknowledged for so long? It is argued here that for too long commentators have been looking for the wrong person in the wrong place. Astell correctly saw that Locke's political philosophy was inextricable from his psychological and theological systems, addressing all three in works that were political, theological and homiletic. But why Locke, and why in 1700–1705? Did Astell already know the authorship of the Two Treatises, only officially established in 1704 with the publication of the codicil to Locke's will?

Type
Articles
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 89 , Issue 3 , September 1995 , pp. 621 - 633
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Astell, Mary. 1695. Letters Concerning the Love of God, between the Author of the Proposal to the Ladies and Mr. John Norris. Bemerton nr. Sarum: J. Norris.Google Scholar
Astell, Mary. 1694–1697. A Serious Proposal to the Ladies for the Advancement of Their True and Greatest Interest. 2 parts. London: R. Wilkin.Google Scholar
Astell, Mary. 1700–1706. Reflections upon Marriage. London: R. Wilkin.Google Scholar
Astell, Mary. 1704a. A Fair Way with the Dissenters and Their Patrons. London: R. Wilkin.Google Scholar
Astell, Mary. 1704b. An Impartial Enquiry into the Causes of Rebellion and Civil War in this Kingdom. London: R. Wilkin.Google Scholar
Astell, Mary. 1704c. Moderation Truly Stated; or, A Review of a Late Pamphlet. Entitul'd Moderation a Virtue. London: Richard Wilkin.Google Scholar
Astell, Mary. 1705. The Christian Religion as Profess'd by a Daughter of the Church of England. London: R. Wilkin.Google Scholar
Ballard, George. 1985. Memoirs of Several Ladies of Great Britain Who Have been Celebrated for Their Writings or Skill in the Learned Languages, Arts, and Sciences. Ed. Perry, Ruth. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.Google Scholar
Burnet, Gilbert. 1689. An Enquiry into the Measure of Submission to the Supream Authority. London: n.p.Google Scholar
Defoe, Daniel. 1702. The Shortest Way with the Dissenters; or, Proposals for the Establishment of the Church. London: n.p.Google Scholar
Drake, Judith. 1696. An Essay In Defence of the Female Sex. London: A. Roper, E. Wilkinson, and R. Clavel.Google Scholar
Leslie, Charles. 1703. The New Association. Part 2, With farther Improvements…. An Answer to Some Objections in the Pretended D. Foe's Explication in “The Reflections upon the Shortest Way.” London and Westminister: n.p.Google Scholar
Locke, John. 1823a. Essay Concerning Human Understanding. In The Works of John Locke. 4 vols. London: Thomas Tegg, W. Sharpe and son, et al.Google Scholar
Locke, John. 1823b. “Remarks upon Some of Mr. Norris's Books, Wherein He Asserts P. Malebranche's Opinion of Seeing All Things in God.” In The Works of John Locke, vol. 10. London: Thomas Tregg, W. Sharpe and son, et al.Google Scholar
Locke, John. 1823c. “The Reasonableness of Christianity, as Delivered in the Scriptures.” In The Works of John Locke, vol. 7. London: Thomas Tegg, W. Sharpe and son, et al.Google Scholar
Locke, John. 1988. John Locke's Two Treatises of Government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masham, Damaris. 1696. Discourse Concerning the Love of God. London: Awnsham and John Churchill.Google Scholar
Milton, John. 1649. Ikonoklastes in Answer to a Book Initl'd “Eikon Basilike, The Portrature of his Sacred Majesty in his Solitudes and Sufferings.” London: Matthew Simmons.Google Scholar
Molyneux, William. 1698. The Case of Ireland's Being Bound by Acts of Parliament in England, Stated. Dublin: Joseph Ray.Google Scholar
Norris, John. 1690. Cursory Reflections upon a Book Called, “An Essay Concerning Humane Understanding” … appended to “Christian Blessedness; or, Discourses upon the Beatitudes of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.” London: S. Manship.Google Scholar
Norris, John. 1730. Letters Concerning the Love of God between the Author of the “Proposal to the Ladies” and Mr. John Norris. 4th ed.London: Samuel Manship.Google Scholar
Owen, James. 1703. Moderation a Virtue. London: A. Baldwin.Google Scholar
Sherlock, William. 1691. The Case of Allegiance Due to Sovereign Powers. London: W. Rogers.Google Scholar
Ashcraft, Richard. 1986. Revolutionary Politics and Locke's Two Treatises of Government. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashcraft, Richard. 1992. “Simple Objections and Complex Reality: Theorizing Political Radicalism in Seventeenth-century England.” Political Studies 40:99–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Champion, J. A. I. 1992. The Pillars of Priestcraft Shaken: The Church of England and Its Enemies, 1660–1730. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cranston, Maurice. 1957. John Locke, A Biography. London.Google Scholar
Cressy, David. 1977. “Literacy in Seventeenth Century England: More Evidence.” Journal of Interdisciplinary History 8:141–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cressy, David. 1980. Literacy and Social Order: Reading the Writing in Tudor and Stuart England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farr, James, and Roberts, Clayton. 1985. “John Locke on the Glorious Revolution: A Rediscovered Document.” Historical Journal 28:385–98.Google Scholar
Friedman, Jeffrey. 1988. “Locke as Politician.” Critical Review 2:64–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Filmer, Robert. 1990. “Patriarcha” and Other Writings. Ed. Johann Sommerville. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Goldie, Mark. 1978. “Tory Political Thought 1689–1714.” Ph.D. diss., University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Goldie, Mark. 1980a. “The Roots of True Whiggism, 1688–1694.” History of Political Thought 1:195–236.Google Scholar
Goldie, Mark. 1980b. “The Revolution of 1689 and the Structure of Political Argument.” Bulletin of Research in the Humanities 83:473–564.Google Scholar
Goldie, Mark. 1991. “The Theory of Religious Intolerance in Restoration England.” In From Persecution to Toleration, ed. Grell, O. P., Israel, J. I., and Tyacke, N.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldie, Mark. 1992. “John Locke's Circle and James II.” Historical Journal 35(3): 557–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, John, and Laslett, Peter. 1971. The Library of John Locke. 2d ed.Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Hill, Bridget. 1986. The First English Feminist: “Reflections upon Marriage” and Other Writings by Mary Astell. Aldershot, Hants: Gower.Google Scholar
Hinton, R. W. K. 1967/1968. “Husbands, Fathers, and Conquerors.” 2 parts. Political Studies 15(3): 291–300 and 16(1): 55–67.Google Scholar
Jolley, Nicholas. 1975. “Leibniz on Hobbes, Locke's Two Treatises, and Sherlock's Case of Allegiance.” Historical Journal 18:21–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, J. R. 1987. Charles II: Royal Politician. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Laslett, Peter. 1988. Introduction to John Locke's Two Treatises of Government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McNally, David. 1989. “Locke, Levellers, and Liberty: Property and Democracy in the Thought of the First Whigs.” History of Political Thought 10:17–40.Google Scholar
Mendle, Michael. 1985. Dangerous Positions: Mixed Government, the Estates of the Realm, and the Answer to the XIX Propositions. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Nelson, Jeffrey M. 1978. “Unlocking Locke's Legacy: A Comment.” Political Studies 26(1): 101–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norton, J. E. 1961. “Some Uncollected Authors XXVII; Mary Astell, 1666–1731.” Book Collector 10(1): 58–60.Google Scholar
Pateman, Carole. 1988. The Sexual Contract. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Pateman, Carole. 1989. “God Hath Ordained to Man a Helper: Hobbes, Patriarchy, and Conjugal Right.” British Journal of Political Science 19:445–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, Ruth. 1986. The Celebrated Mary Astell: An Early English Feminist. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Philipson, Nicholas. 1993. “Politeness and Politics in the Reigns of Anne and the Early Hanoverians.” In The Varieties of British Political Thought, 1500–1800, ed. Pocock, J. G. A., Schochet, Gordon J., and Schwoerer, Lois G.. Washington: Folger Institute.Google Scholar
Pocock, J. G. A. 1957. The Ancient Constitution and the Feudal Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Scaltsas, Patricia Ward. 1990. “Women as Ends—Women as Means in the Enlightenment.” In Women's Rights and the Rights of Man, ed. Arnaud, A. J. and Kingdom, E.. Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press.Google Scholar
Schochet, G. J. 1975. Patriarchalism and Political Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Schwoerer, Lois G. 1977. “Propaganda in the Revolution of 1688–89.” American Historical Review 82:843–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwoerer, Lois. 1990. “Locke, Lockean Ideas, and the Glorious Revolution.” Journal of the History of Ideas 51(4): 531–48.Google Scholar
Scott, Jonathan. 1988. “Radicalism and Restoration: The Shape of the Stuart Experience.” Historical Journal 31(2): 453–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shanley, Mary Lyndon. 1979. “Marriage Contract and Social Contract in Seventeenth Century English Political Thought.” Western Political Quarterly 32:79–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skinner, Quentin. 1972. “Conquest and Consent: Thomas Hobbes and the Engagement Controversy.” In The Interregnum: the Quest for Settlement 1646–1660, éd. Aylmer, G. E..Google Scholar
Smith, Florence M. 1916. Mary Astell. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Sommerville, Johann P., ed. 1991. Introduction to SirFilmer's, Robert“Patriarcha,” and Other Writings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Springborg, Patricia, ed. N.d. Mary Astell (1666–1731), Political Writings. Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Thomas, Keith. 1958. “Women and the Civil War Sects.” Past and Present 13:42–62.Google Scholar
Thompson, Martyn P. 1976. “The Reception of Locke's Two Treatises of Government, 1690–1705.” Political Studies 24:184–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Martyn P. 1977. “The Idea of Conquest in Controversies over the 1688 Revolution.” Journal of the History of Ideas 38:33–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Martyn P. 1980. “Revolution and Influence: A Reply to Nelson on Locke's Two Treatises of Government.” Political Studies 28:100–108.Google Scholar
Thompson, Martyn P. 1988. “Significant Silences in Locke's Two Treatises of Government: Constitutional History, Contract, and Law.” Historical Journal 31:275–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuck, Richard. 1987. Review of Michael Mendle's Dangerous Positions: Mixed Government, the Estates of the Realm, and the Answer to the XIX Propositions, Journal of Modern History 59(3): 570–72.Google Scholar
Wootton, David. 1992. “John Locke and Richard Ashcraft's Revolutionary Politics.” Political Studies 40:79–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yolton, Jean S., and Yolton, John W.. 1985. John Locke: A Reference Guide. Boston: Hall.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.