¹ Quentin Skinner, ‘The place of history in public life’, History & Policy policy papers, no. 35, Dec. 2005: www.historyandpolicy.org/papers/policy-paper-35.html.

² Ibid. For three contrasting accounts of the importance of stories of this kind, compare Oakeshott, Michael, ‘History is a fable’, in O'Sullivan, L., ed., What is history and other essays (Exeter, 2004), pp. 32–44Google Scholar; MacIntyre, Alasdair, ‘Epistemological crises, dramatic narrative and the philosophy of science’, The Monist, 60 (1977), pp. 453–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Williams, Bernard, ‘Life as narrative’, European Journal of Philosophy, 17 (2007), pp. 305–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³ See Bell, Duncan, ‘What is liberalism?’, Political Theory, 42 (2014), pp. 682–715CrossRefGoogle Scholar, repr. in Reordering the world: essays on liberalism and empire (Princeton, NJ, 2016)Google Scholar, ch. 3, and compare Samuel, Herbert, Liberalism: an attempt to state the principles and proposals of contemporary liberalism in England (London, 1902)Google Scholar; Hobhouse, L. T., Liberalism (London, 1911)Google Scholar; Ruggiero, Guido de, The history of European liberalism, trans. Collingwood, R. G. (Oxford, 1927)Google Scholar; Watkins, Frederick Mundell, The political tradition of the West: a study in the development of modern liberalism (Cambridge, MA, 1948)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Givertz, Harry K., From wealth to welfare: the evolution of liberalism (Stanford, CA, 1950)Google Scholar; Schapiro, J. Salwyn, Liberalism: its meaning and history (Princeton, NJ, 1958)Google Scholar; Wolin, Sheldon S., Politics and vision: continuity in Western political thought (Boston, MA, 1960), pp. 286–351Google Scholar; Vachet, André, L'idéologie liberale: l'individu et sa propriété (Paris, 1970)Google Scholar; Manning, D. J., Liberalism (London, 1976)Google Scholar; Mansfield, Harvey C. Jr, The spirit of liberalism (Cambridge, MA, 1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dunn, John, Western political theory in the face of the future (Cambridge, 1979)Google Scholar, ch. 2, passim; Arblaster, Anthony, The rise and decline of Western liberalism (Oxford, 1984)Google Scholar; Gray, John, Liberalism (Minneapolis, MN, 1995)Google Scholar; Leonhard, Jörn, Liberalismus: Zur historischen Semantik eines europäischen Deutungsmusters (Munich, 2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kelly, P. J., Liberalism (Cambridge, 2005)Google Scholar; Losurdo, Domenico, Controstoria del liberalismo (Rome, 2005)Google Scholar; Paul, Ellen Frankel, Miller, Fred D. Jr, and Paul, Jeffrey, eds., Liberalism: old and new (Cambridge, 2007)Google Scholar; Ryan, Alan, The making of modern liberalism (Princeton, NJ, 2012)Google Scholar; Alexander, James, ‘The major ideologies of liberalism, socialism, and conservatism’, Political Studies, 63 (2014), pp. 980–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fawcett, Edmund, Liberalism: the life of an idea (Princeton, NJ, 2014)Google Scholar; Freeden, Michael, Liberalism (Oxford, 2015)Google Scholar; Wall, Steven, ed., The Cambridge companion to liberalism (Cambridge, 2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Additional literature will be identified at appropriate points as the article advances.

⁴ For Hobbes as a liberal, see (in chronological sequence) Austin, John, The province of jurisprudence determined (London, 1832), pp. 276–80ffGoogle Scholar; Taylor, A. E., Hobbes (London, 1908), pp. 91–2Google Scholar, and compare Seth, Andrew, English philosophers and schools of philosophy (London, 1925), p. 73Google Scholar; Gauthier, David, The logic of Leviathan (Oxford, 1969)Google Scholar; Rawls, John, ‘The idea of an overlapping consensus’ (1987), in Freeman, Samuel, ed., Collected papers (Cambridge, MA, 1999), pp. 421–48Google Scholar, at p. 442n (distinguishing ‘the Hobbesian strand in liberalism’); Hobbes, Thomas, Leviathan, ed. Tuck, Richard (Cambridge, 1991), pp. xxxiv–xlvGoogle Scholar; Flathman, Richard, Thomas Hobbes: skepticism, individuality, and chastened politics (Newbury Park, CA, 1993)Google Scholar; Ryan, Alan, ‘Hobbes's political philosophy’, in Sorell, Tom, ed., The Cambridge companion to Hobbes (Cambridge, 1996), pp. 208–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at p. 237; Skinner, Quentin, Liberty before liberalism (Cambridge, 1998)Google Scholar, esp. ch. 2; Israel, Jonathan, Radical enlightenment: philosophy and the making of modernity (Oxford, 2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; van Mill, David, Liberty, rationality and agency in Hobbes's Leviathan (Albany, NY, 2001)Google Scholar; Martinich, A. P., ‘Hobbes's reply to republicanism’, in Foisneau, Luc and Wright, George, eds., Nuove prospecttive critiche sul Leviatano di Hobbes (Milan, 2004), pp. 227–39Google Scholar, at p. 228; Sullivan, Vickie B., Machiavelli, Hobbes, and the formation of a liberal republicanism in England (Cambridge, 2004), p. 105CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Owen, J. Judd, ‘The tolerant Leviathan: Hobbes and the paradox of liberalism’, Polity, 37 (2005), pp. 130–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Tuck, Richard, ‘Hobbes and democracy’, in Brett, A. S., Tully, James, with Hamilton-Bleakley, Holly, eds., Rethinking the foundations of modern political thought (Cambridge, 2006), pp. 171–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Jaume, L., ‘Hobbes and the philosophical sources of liberalism’, in Springborg, Patricia, ed., The Cambridge companion to Hobbes's Leviathan (Cambridge, 2007), pp. 199–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Skinner, Quentin, Hobbes and republican liberty (Cambridge, 2008)Google Scholar; Seagrave, S. Adam, The foundations of natural morality: on the compatibility of natural law and natural rights (Chicago, IL, 2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Malcolm, Noel, ‘Thomas Hobbes: liberal illiberal’, Journal of the British Academy, 4 (2016), pp. 113–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵ For Locke as a liberal, see Vialatoux, Joseph, ‘La philosophie libérale de Locke’, in Philosophie économique: études critique sur le naturalisme (Paris, 1932), pp. 117–56Google Scholar; Stocks, J. L., ‘Locke's contribution to political theory’, in John Locke: tercentenary addresses (Oxford, 1933), pp. 3–13Google Scholar, at p. 7: ‘Probably it is historically correct to describe Locke's Civil Government as the first adequate formulation of the principles of the Liberal State’; Orton, W. A., The liberal tradition: a study of the social and spiritual conditions of freedom (New Haven, CT, 1945), pp. 108–14Google Scholar; Kelsen, Hans, ‘Foundations of democracy’, Ethics, 66 (1955), pp. 1–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. pp. 86–90; Seliger, Martin, The liberal politics of John Locke (London, 1968)Google Scholar; Germino, Dante, Modern Western political thought: Machiavelli to Marx (Chicago, IL, 1972)Google Scholar, ch. 5 (‘Locke and the origins of modern liberalism’); Elshtain, Jean Bethke, Public man, private woman: women in social and political thought (Princeton, NJ, 1981), pp. 108–27Google Scholar; Eisenach, Eldon J., Two worlds of liberalism: religion and politics in Hobbes, Locke, and Mill (Chicago, IL, 1981)Google Scholar, part 2; Grant, Ruth W., John Locke's liberalism (Chicago, IL, 1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dworetz, Steven M., The unvarnished doctrine: Locke, liberalism, and the American revolution (Durham, NC, 1990)Google Scholar; Myers, Peter C., Our only star and compass: Locke and the struggle for political rationality (Lanham, MD, 1998)Google Scholar; Jaume, Lucien, La liberté et la loi: les origines philosophiques du libéralisme (Paris, 2000)Google Scholar; Rawls, John, Lectures on the history of political philosophy, ed. Freeman, Samuel (Cambridge, MA, 2007), pp. 103–73Google Scholar; Salzborn, Samuel, Der Staat des Liberalismus: die liberale Staatstheorie von John Locke (Baden-Baden, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Collins, Jeffrey, ‘The early modern foundations of classic liberalism’, in Klosko, George, ed., The Oxford handbook of the history of political philosophy (Oxford, 2011), pp. 258–81Google Scholar; Perry, John, The pretenses of loyalty: Locke, liberal theory, and American political theology (Oxford, 2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Arneson, Richard J., ‘Locke and the liberal tradition’, in Stuart, Matthew, ed., A companion to Locke (Oxford, 2015), pp. 528–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. pp. 542–5. That it is by now almost a cliché to refer to Locke in these terms is elegantly exposed by Goldie, Mark, ‘Mary Astell and John Locke’, in Kolbrener, W. and Michelson, M., eds., Mary Astell: reason, gender, faith (Aldershot, 2007), pp. 65–85Google Scholar, at p. 65, dramatizing a contrast between ‘Mary Astell, “the first English feminist”, and John Locke, “the father of liberalism.”’

⁶ The classic statements being Strauss, Leo, Natural right and history (Chicago, IL, 1953)Google Scholar; and Macpherson, C. B., The political theory of possessive individualism: Hobbes to Locke (Oxford, 1962)Google Scholar. For an early comment, see Berlin, Isaiah, ‘Hobbes, Locke, and Professor Macpherson’, Political Quarterly, 35 (1964), pp. 444–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 461n: ‘Hobbes is a ravening wolf who looks like one. Locke is a…wolf in medieval, natural law, sheep's clothes.’ As Berlin went on to observe, ‘This puts Mr. Macpherson into paradoxical proximity to…Strauss and his followers: if Hobbes and Locke turn out to be bedfellows, so are those who (from very opposite corners) so regard them.’

⁷ For an earlier and suggestive use of this phrase, see Mitchell, Joshua, ‘Religion and the fable of liberalism: the case of Hobbes’, Theoria, 115 (2008), pp. 1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁸ For one such, see Skinner, Hobbes and republican liberty, pp. 211–16, and, at length, Skinner, Quentin and Gelderen, Martin van, eds., Republicanism: a shared European heritage (2 vols., Cambridge, 2002)Google Scholar.

⁹ For the classical genres of fabulae, see Diomedes, Ars grammatica, 1.489.23–91.3 in Keil, Heinrich, ed., Grammatici latini, i (Leipzig, 1857)Google Scholar. See also Augustine, Soliloquia, bk 2, ch. 11, §19, in Migne, J. P., ed., Patrologia Latina, xxxii (Paris, 1875)Google Scholar, col. 894: ‘siquidem est fabula compositum ad utilitatem delectationemve mendacium’ (‘a fabula is a falsehood composed for benefit or delight’).

¹⁰ Compare Hegel, G. W. F., Elements of the philosophy of right, ed. Wood, A. W. and H. B., trans. Nisbet (Cambridge, 1991)Google Scholar, §§121–3, 144–9, 185R, 187, 206R, and 268; and idem, Lectures on the philosophy of world history: introduction: reason in history, trans. ed., and Nisbet, H. B. (Cambridge, 1975), pp. 34–43Google Scholar; Marx, Karl, Early political writings, trans. ed., and O'Malley, J., with R. A. Davis (Cambridge, 1994), pp. 4–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 18–47, 73–80, 95–6; and Leopold, David, The young Karl Marx: German philosophy, modern politics, and human flourishing (Cambridge, 2007), pp. 133–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For broader discussion, see Renaut, Alain, The era of the individual: a contribution to a history of subjectivity, trans. DeBevoise, M. B. and Philip, F. (Princeton, NJ, 1997)Google Scholar.

¹¹ See e.g. David Hume, ‘Of civil liberty’ and ‘Of the rise and progress of the arts and sciences’, in Haakonssen, K., ed., Political essays (Cambridge, 1994), pp. 51–77Google Scholar; Smith, Adam, An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations, ed. Campbell, R. H. and Skinner, A. S., with Todd, W. B. (2 vols., Oxford, 1976)Google Scholar, i, pp. 28–9; and idem, The theory of moral sentiments, ed. Raphael, D. D. and Macfie, A. L. (Oxford, 1976), pp. 9–66Google Scholar; Benjamin Constant, ‘The spirit of conquest and usurpation’ and ‘The liberty of the ancients compared with that of the moderns’, in Fontana, B., ed., Political writings (Cambridge, 1988)Google Scholar, esp. pp. 53, 307–28; Tocqueville, Alexis de, Democracy in America, ed. Nolla, E., trans. Schliefer, J. T. (4 vols., Indianapolis, IN, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, iv, pp. 987–94. See Mitchell, ‘Religion and the fable’, pp. 2–5.

¹² Collingwood, R. G., Speculum mentis, or, the map of knowledge (Oxford, 1924)Google Scholar, [p. 23]. See also Powicke, F. M., The Christian life in the middle ages, and other essays (Oxford, 1935), pp. 1–30Google Scholar, 74–91; idem, Ways of medieval life and thought (London, 1949), pp. 130–48Google Scholar, esp. p. 134; Ullmann, Walter, The individual and society in the middle ages (London, 1967)Google Scholar, esp. pp. x–xi and lectures 1 and 2; idem, Principles of government and politics in the middle ages (London, 1961), pp. 215–34Google Scholar; Kempshall, M., The common good in late medieval political thought (Oxford, 1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹³ Minogue, Kenneth, ‘Locke, Kant, and the foundations of liberalism’, in Thompson, Martyn P., ed., John Locke und Immanuel Kant: Historische Rezeption und gegenwärtige Relevanz (Berlin, 1991), pp. 269–83Google Scholar, at p. 274. For an original and instructive account of continuity and change across these two epochs, see Brett, A. S., Changes of state: nature and the limits of the city in early modern natural law (Princeton, NJ, 2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁴ Sir Filmer, Robert, Patriarcha and other writings, ed. Sommerville, J. P. (Cambridge, 1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, p. 2: ‘the common people everywhere embrace [freedom] as being most plausible to flesh and blood, for that it prodigally distributes a portion of liberty to the meanest of the multitude, who magnify liberty as if the height of human felicity were only to be found in it – never remembering that the desire for liberty was the cause of the fall of Adam’.

¹⁵ Paradigmatically, Aquinas, Thomas, Summa theologiae, ed. Gilby, T. (60 vols., Cambridge, 1963–80)Google Scholar, xxviii, ia iiae, q. 93. See more generally Lottin, Odon, Le droit naturel chez S. Thomas d'Aquin et ses prédecesseurs (Bruges, 1931)Google Scholar, and more narrowly Zuckert, M. P., Natural rights and the new republicanism (Princeton, NJ, 1994)Google Scholar, p. xv: ‘In the beginning, all the English were Christian Aristotelians.’

¹⁶ See A historical and critical account of the science of morality, section xxix, prefixed to Barbeyrac's translation (into French) of Pufendorf's, Samuel De jure naturae et gentium, English edn, The law of nature and nations (London, 1729)Google Scholar. Compare Sidgwick, Henry, Outlines of the history of ethics (London, 1896), pp. 160–3Google Scholar; Rommen, Heinrich, Die ewige wiederkehr des Naturrechts (Leipzig, 1936), ch. 3Google Scholar; and Tuck, Richard, ‘The “modern” theory of natural law’, in Pagden, Anthony, ed., The languages of political theory in early-modern Europe (Cambridge, 1987), pp. 99–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁷ Tierney, Brian, The idea of natural rights (Grand Rapids, MI, 1997), p. 50Google Scholar; Oakley, Francis, Natural law, laws of nature, natural rights (New York, NY, 2005), p. 69Google Scholar. For Suárez on natural law, see Gordley, James, ‘Suárez and natural law’, in Hill, B. and Lagerlund, H., eds., The philosophy of Francisco Suárez (Oxford, 2011), pp. 209–29Google Scholar.

¹⁸ Grotius, Hugo, De jure belli ac pacis as The rights of war and peace, ed. Tuck, R. (3 vols., Indianapolis, IN, 2005)Google Scholar, i, Preliminary discourse, xi, pp. 89–90. On which, see Crowe, M. B., ‘The “impious hypothesis”: a paradox in Hugo Grotius’, Tijdschrift voor Filosofie, 38 (1976), pp. 379–410Google Scholar.

¹⁹ Grotius, The rights of war and peace, i, Preliminary discourse, vii–viii, pp. 82–6.

²⁰ Compare Montesquieu, The spirit of the laws, ed. Kohler, A. M., Miller, B. C., and Stone, H. S. (Cambridge, 1989)Google Scholar, i.3–4, pp. 22–5; Tocqueville, Alexis de, On the state of society in France before the Revolution of 1789, trans. Reeve, H. (London, 1873), pp. 136–7Google Scholar; Nietzsche, Friedrich, Ecce homo, trans. Kaufmann, W. (New York, NY, 1969)Google Scholar, i, §2.

²¹ Tocqueville, On the state of society, pp. 147–8. See Mitchell, ‘Religion and the fable’, pp. 2–3.

²² Tocqueville, On the state of society, p. 170. Cf. Manent, Pierre, Tocqueville et la nature de la démocratie (2nd edn, Paris, 1993), pp. 13–29Google Scholar; and Rosanvallon, Pierre, ‘L'histoire du mot démocratie à l’époque moderne’, in Gauchet, M., Manent, P., and Rosanvallon, P., eds., La penseé politique, i: Situations de la démocratie (Paris, 1993), pp. 23–6Google Scholar.

²³ See e.g. Aron, Raymond, Progress and disillusion: the dialectics of modern society (Harmondsworth, 1972), [pp. 25–6]Google Scholar. While distinguishing the story of the democratic intellect from the individualism story, I would wish to underline the inter-relations between them at this point especially. It may be that the two lines of development identified here are better seen as flowing out of the individualism story through the ‘modern’ theory of natural law, perhaps (as Barbeyrac speculated) from Francis Bacon into Grotius. I am obliged to Alan Kahan for correspondence which highlighted a need for clarification of this matter.

²⁴ Smith, Adam, Lectures on jurisprudence, ed. Meek, R. L., Raphael, D. D., and Stein, P. G. (Oxford, 1978), p. 540Google Scholar. Compare Montesquieu, The spirit of the laws, iv.20, p. 338.

²⁵ As recounted in Hirschman, Albert O., The passions and the interests (Princeton, NJ, 1977)Google Scholar.

²⁶ See e.g. Baldwin, Summerfield, The organization of medieval Christianity (New York, NY, 1929), pp. 43–4Google Scholar; Weber, Max, The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism, trans. Parsons, T. (London, 1930), pp. 116–17Google Scholar.

²⁷ Arendt, Hannah, ‘Augustine and Protestantism’ (1930), in Essays in understanding, 1930–1954, ed. Kohn, J. (New York, NY, 1994), pp. 24–7Google Scholar, esp. p. 27: ‘With increasing secularization, religious self-reflection before God lost its meaning. There was no longer an authority to confess to, and religious self-reflection therefore became simply reflection on one's own life.’

²⁸ See Andrew, Edward G., Conscience and its critics: Protestant conscience, Enlightenment reason, and modern subjectivity (Toronto, ON, 2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²⁹ For which, see at length Gauchet, Marcel, Le désenchantement du monde (Paris, 1985)Google Scholar; and, at even greater length, Taylor, Charles, A secular age (Cambridge, MA, 2007)Google Scholar.

³⁰ As memorably brought to life in Parsons's translation of Weber, The Protestant ethic, pp. 160–83.

³¹ Some of these currents flowed into intellectual streams from other sources of scholarship and were carried forward in the tidal surge of ‘modernization theory’ that came to dominate the social sciences after the Second World War. Modernization theory consolidated the two stories I have been discussing into a two-stage history of humanity, in which human beings liberate themselves from the shackles of an inherited order. Its watery outlines, drawn from Karl Mannheim, are discernible in Laslett's early work on Filmer and more thickly present in e.g. Hartz, Louis, The liberal tradition in America (New York, NY, 1955)Google Scholar. For an overview, see Tipps, Dean C., ‘Modernization theory and the comparative study of societies: a critical perspective’, Comparative Studies in Society and History, 15 (1973), pp. 199–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar. I am grateful to the anonymous reviewer for encouraging me to make this connection explicit.

³² Thus, we find V. I. Lenin complaining, as early as 1905, that the ‘name “socialist”…has…been appropriated by supporters of English bourgeois liberalism (“We are all socialists now”, said [Sir William] Harcourt)’. See Two tactics of social-democracy in the democratic revolution (Moscow, 1977), p. 127Google Scholar.

³³ Oakeshott, Michael, The social and political doctrines of contemporary Europe (Cambridge, 1939)Google Scholar, p. xxii.

³⁴ E.g. Friedrich, Carl Joachim, whose Constitutional government and politics (New York, NY, 1937)Google Scholar was intended as ‘a wheelbarrow of stuff’ (p. xvi) toward the defence and abutment of the constitutional order. For émigré anxieties about liberalism at this time, see Gunnell, John G., Imagining the American polity: political science and the discourse of democracy (University Park, PA, 2004), pp. 200–17Google Scholar.

³⁵ Curti, Merle, ‘The great Mr. Locke: America's philosopher, 1783–1861’, Huntington Library Bulletin, 11 (1937), pp. 107–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³⁶ Laski, Harold J., The rise of European liberalism: an essay in interpretation (London, 1936)Google Scholar, repr. as The rise of liberalism: the philosophy of a business civilization (New York, NY, 1936)Google Scholar. For discussion, see Kramnick, Isaac, ‘Liberalism, Marxism, and the Enlightenment: the case of Harold Laski’, in Yack, Bernard, ed., Liberalism without illusions: essays on the liberal theory and political vision of Judith N. Shklar (Chicago, IL, 1996), pp. 138–48Google Scholar.

³⁷ Laski, European liberalism, pp. 9, 98.

³⁸ Ibid., pp. 107–15; for Hobbes, see pp. 86–7 and compare idem, The foundations of sovereignty, and other essays (New York, NY, 1921), pp. 17–24Google Scholar.

³⁹ Strauss, Natural right and history, pp. 181–2.

⁴⁰ Strauss, Leo, The political philosophy of Hobbes: its basis and genesis, trans. Sinclair, Elsa M. (Oxford, 1936), pp. 50–1Google Scholar, 120–3.

⁴¹ Ibid., pp. 118–19. Compare Eric Voegelin, The new science of politics (Chicago, IL, 1952), pp. 180–2.

⁴² Strauss, The political philosophy of Hobbes, pp. 156–7.

⁴³ Sabine, George H., A history of political theory (New York, NY, 1937), pp. 528–9Google Scholar.

⁴⁴ Ibid., p. 529.

⁴⁵ Strauss, Natural right and history, pp. 202–51. This argument was made before the publication of Locke's Essays on the law of nature, ed. von Leyden, W. (Oxford, 1954)Google Scholar, the contents of which present significant obstacles to it; but its proponent was undeterred. See, subsequently, ‘Locke's doctrine of natural law’, in his What is political philosophy? And other studies (Glencoe, IL, 1959), pp. 197–220Google Scholar.

⁴⁶ Zuckert, Michael P., Launching liberalism: on Lockean political philosophy (Lawrence, KA, 2002)Google Scholar.

⁴⁷ Manent, Pierre, Histoire intellectuelle du libéralisme: dix leçons (Paris, 1987)Google Scholar, trans. as, Rebecca Balinski An intellectual history of liberalism (Princeton, NJ, 1994)Google Scholar.

⁴⁸ For the relationship between the two, see Peter Lamb and Morrice, David, ‘Ideological reconciliation in the thought of Harold Laski and C. B. Macpherson’, Canadian Journal of Political Science, 35 (2002), pp. 795–810Google Scholar.

⁴⁹ Macpherson, The political theory of possessive individualism, pp. 220–38.

⁵⁰ Walzer, Michael, ‘Liberalism and the art of separation’, Political Theory, 12 (1984), pp. 315–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at p. 324.

⁵¹ Gutmann, Amy, ‘Communitarian critics of liberalism’, Philosophy & Public Affairs, 14 (1985), pp. 308–22Google Scholar, at p. 320. A survey of similar positions is supplied in Beiner, Ronald, What's the matter with liberalism? (Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA, 1992)Google Scholar, ch. 2.

⁵² Waldron, Jeremy, ‘Theoretical foundations of liberalism’, Philosophical Quarterly, 37 (1987), pp. 127–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at pp. 128 and 149 respectively. Emphasis added.

⁵³ Rawls, Lectures, pp. 13, 107.

⁵⁴ Locke, John, Two treatises of government, ed. Laslett, P. (Cambridge, 1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Epistola de tolerantia/A letter on toleration, trans. Gough, J. W., and ed. Klibansky, R. (Oxford, 1968)Google Scholar.

⁵⁵ See Rawls, Lectures, pp. 124–5. Compare e.g. Simmons, A. John, On the edge of anarchy: Locke, consent and the limits of society (Princeton, NJ, 1993), pp. 206–7Google Scholar; Ashcraft, Richard, Locke's Two treatises of government (London, 1987), pp. 8–9Google Scholar: Locke posited ‘the natural right of every man to give his personal consent to the government as a condition of his definition of political society’.

⁵⁶ ‘General introduction’ (by the editors) to Locke, John, An essay concerning toleration and other writings on law and politics, 1667–1683, ed. Milton, J. R. and Milton, Philip (Oxford, 2006), p. 32Google Scholar. Compare e.g. Marshall, John, Locke, toleration and early Enlightenment culture (Cambridge, 2006), p. 538Google Scholar (religion is ‘a private affair of the individual’); Mortimer, Sarah, ‘Religion and Enlightenment’, in Whatmore, Richard and Young, Brian, eds., A companion to intellectual history (Oxford, 2016), pp. 345–57Google Scholar, at p. 350 (Locke makes Christianity ‘a private matter’).

⁵⁷ ‘Introduction’ (by the editor) to Locke, John, A letter concerning toleration and other writings, ed. Goldie, Mark (Indianapolis, IN, 2010)Google Scholar, p. xiii. Compare Ward, Lee, John Locke and modern life (Cambridge, 2010), p. 234CrossRefGoogle Scholar, for ‘rational consent underlying [Locke's] accounts of political obligation and religious communion’.

⁵⁸ Ward, John Locke and modern life, p. 234.

⁵⁹ Locke, An essay concerning toleration, ‘General introduction’, p. 32.

⁶⁰ Ward, John Locke and modern life, p. 235.

⁶¹ Simmons, A. John, Justification and legitimacy: essays on rights and obligations (Cambridge, 2001), pp. 102–21Google Scholar. To be clear, Simmons's view is that this removes any strong moral presumption in favour of obedience to, or compliance with, existing states, not that it entails a strong moral imperative to oppose or eliminate them.

⁶² Charles Leslie, The Rehearsal, 58 (Sat. 1 Sept. to Sat. 8 Sept. 1705), in A view of the times, their principles and practices (5 vols., London, 1750)Google Scholar, i, p. 355.

⁶³ See e.g. ibid., i, p. 232 (Locke confutes himself, his account of popular government ‘nonsense and an impossibility’), i, p. 234 (Locke's ‘stupid notions still prevail, still bewitch this wretched nation’), i, p. 235 (his ‘senseless stuff’ and ‘silly sayings’ about government); The Rehearsal, 49, i, p. 302 (demonstrably ‘impossible’); The Rehearsal, 55, i, p. 333 (Locke's arguments would not ‘pass from a school-boy…Besides the utter contempt of, and burlesquing the holy scriptures’); The Rehearsal, 59, i, pp. 359–60 (Locke accused of ‘deceit’), i, p. 364 (and of ‘romance, contradiction, and impossibility’); The Rehearsal, 109, ii, p. 214 (‘weakness and contradiction…prov'd upon him’). On Locke and Leslie, see Dunn, John, ‘The politics of Locke in England and America in the eighteenth century’, in Yolton, John W., ed., John Locke: problems and perspectives (Cambridge, 1969), pp. 45–80Google Scholar, esp. pp. 63–5.

⁶⁴ For Hoadly, see Gibson, William, Enlightenment prelate: Benjamin Hoadly, 1676–1761 (Cambridge, 2004)Google Scholar, esp. ch. 5, and, for details of the controversy, Starkie, Andrew, The Church of England and the Bangorian controversy, 1716–1721 (Woodbridge, 2007)Google Scholar.

⁶⁵ Leslie, Charles, The finishing stroke: being a vindication of the patriarchal scheme of government (London, 1711), p. 87Google Scholar.

⁶⁶ Leslie, The Rehearsal, 14, i, p. 86.

⁶⁷ Ward, Wilfrid, ed., Newman's Apologia pro vita sua, the two versions of 1864 & 1865: preceded by Newman's and Kingsley's pamphlets (Oxford, 1913), p. 493Google Scholar. See, in this connection, Langford, J. A., The old liberals and the new: a tract for the times (Birmingham, 1886)Google Scholar, and Essays for the people: two prize essays by W. T. H. and W. V. K. Young, respectively on liberalism in England, and its demoralising effects on our national religion and liberties (London, 1881)Google Scholar.

⁶⁸ Leslie, The Rehearsal, 14, i, p. 86.

⁶⁹ Mill, John Stuart, On liberty, ch. 1, in his Collected works, ed. Robson, John M. et al. (33 vols., London, 1963–95)Google Scholar, xviii, p. 224.

⁷⁰ See Rawls, Lectures, p. 107: ‘In Locke…legitimate government can be founded only on the consent of free and equal…persons, …all being…equally sovereign over themselves.’ Compare e.g. Ryan, Alan, ‘Self-ownership, autonomy, and property rights’, Social Philosophy & Policy, 11 (1994), pp. 241–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Seagrave, The foundations of natural morality, ch. 2 (‘Self-consciousness, self-ownership, and natural rights’); Waldron, Jeremy, The right to private property (Oxford, 1988), pp. 398–412Google Scholar; Zuckert, Launching liberalism, p. 194: ‘The foundation or ground of rights, is, according to Locke, self-ownership’; and, among libertarians, Nozick, Robert, Anarchy, state and utopia (New York, NY, 1974), p. 172Google Scholar; Otsuka, Michael, ‘Self-ownership and equality: a Lockean reconciliation’, Philosophy & Public Affairs, 27 (1998), pp. 65–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Paul, Jeffrey and Paul, Ellen Frankel, ‘Locke's usufructuary theory of self-ownership’, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 61 (1980), pp. 384–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁷¹ See Perry, The pretenses of loyalty, pp. 5–9, 204–16.

⁷² Dryden, John, ‘Almanzor and Almahide, or, The conquest of Granada, The first part’, act i, scene i, lines 207–15, in The works of John Dryden (20 vols., Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA, 1978)Google Scholar, xi, p. 30.

⁷³ On Dryden and Hobbes, see Parkin, Jon, Taming the leviathan: the reception of the political and religious ideas of Thomas Hobbes in England, 1640–1700 (Cambridge, 2007), pp. 302–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁷⁴ [Cooper, Anthony Ashley, third earl of Shaftesbury], Several letters written by a noble Lord to a young man at the university (London, 1716), p. 39Google Scholar.

⁷⁵ Cooper, Anthony Ashley, third earl of Shaftesbury, Characteristicks of men, manners, opinions, times (3 vols., Indianapolis, IN, 2001)Google Scholar, i, pp. 68–9: ‘’TIS ridiculous to say, there is any Obligation on Man to act sociably, or honestly, in a form'd Government; and not in that which is commonly call'd the State of Nature’; see p. 72 for ‘that social Love, and common Affection, which is natural to Mankind’. For Locke and Shaftesbury, see Stuart-Buttle, Tim, ‘Shaftesbury reconsidered: Stoic ethics and the unreasonableness of Christianity’, Locke Studies, 15 (2015), pp. 163–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁷⁶ Hume, David, An enquiry concerning the principles of morals, ed. Beauchamp, T. L. (Oxford, 1998), p. 165Google Scholar.

⁷⁷ Hume, David, A treatise of human nature, ed. Norton, D. F. and Norton, M. (Oxford, 2000)Google Scholar, 3.2.8, p. 347.

⁷⁸ Ibid., 3.2.9, pp. 353–4; idem, ‘Of the original contract’, in Haakonssen, ed., Political essays, pp. 186–201, esp. p. 189: ‘Were you to preach, in most parts of the world, that political connexions are founded altogether on voluntary consent…the magistrate would soon imprison you, as seditious, for loosening the ties; if your friends did not before shut you up as delirious, for advancing such absurdities.’

⁷⁹ Hume, ‘Of the original contract’, pp. 189–90.

⁸⁰ See R. G. Collingwood, ‘The nature and aims of a philosophy of history’, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, n.s., 25 (1924–5), pp. 151–74, at pp. 171–2: ‘The world of every historian is limited by the limits of his knowledge…Any two historians will find that they share a large number of interests, of problems, of beliefs, but that each has a number of problems, urgent for himself, which for the other are wholly non-existent…Each historian sees history from his own centre, at an angle of his own: and therefore he sees some problems which no other sees, and sees every problem from a point of view, and therefore under an aspect, peculiar to himself.’ My interest in Locke was ignited and cultivated by the teaching of Ian Harris, who (typically) directed me to Dunn's, John seminal work, The political thought of John Locke (Cambridge, 1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar rather than to his own monograph, The mind of John Locke (Cambridge, 1994)Google Scholar. In giving central place to Locke's (natural) theology, readers will recognize this article's debt to both works, even as it implicitly dissents from some of the conclusions drawn there, as e.g. the conclusion that ‘the key to Locke's moral vision lies…in the traditional conception of the calling’ (Dunn, The political thought of John Locke, p. 245).

⁸¹ That is to say, it sets out what Locke actually presupposed in the course of his thinking as opposed to what he did not. I do not claim that it exhausts what is true. See Collingwood, ‘The nature and aims’, p. 172, continuing directly from the passage cited above: ‘No one historian, therefore, can see more than one aspect of the truth; and even an infinity of historians must always leave an infinity of aspects unseen.’ For presuppositions, see idem, An essay on metaphysics (Oxford, 1940), pp. 21–57Google Scholar. A fuller discussion of the methodological commitments which underpin this peremptory assertion is offered in Stanton, Timothy, ‘Logic, language and legitimation in the history of ideas: a brief view and survey of Bevir and Skinner’, Intellectual History Review, 21 (2011), pp. 71–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁸² Locke, Two treatises, ii.vi.58, p. 306.

⁸³ Ibid., ii.vi.63, p. 309.

⁸⁴ Ibid., ii.vi.61, p. 309; compare ii.vi.57, p. 305.

⁸⁵ Locke, John, An essay concerning human understanding, ed. Nidditch, P. H. (Oxford, 1975)Google Scholar, iii.xi.16, p. 517: ‘For were there a Monkey, or any other Creature to be found, that had the use of Reason, to such a degree, as to be able to understand general Signs, and to deduce Consequences about general Ideas, he would no doubt be subject to Law, and, in that sense, be a Man, how much soever he differ'd in Shape from others of that Name.’

⁸⁶ Locke, Two treatises, ii.ii.6, p. 271.

⁸⁷ Locke, Essays on the law of nature, no. 7, p. 194.

⁸⁸ Locke, Two treatises, ii.ii.5, p. 270. On which, see Ian Harris, ‘Locke on justice’, in M. A. Stewart, ed., English philosophy in the age of Locke (Oxford, 2000), pp. 46–85, esp. pp. 64–9.

⁸⁹ Locke, Two treatises, i.iv.42, p. 170.

⁹⁰ Ibid., ii.viii.101, p. 334.

⁹¹ John Locke, ‘Defence of nonconformity’ (1681–2), Bodleian MS Locke c. 34, pp. 19, 23, 76–7. For this document, see Stanton, Timothy, ‘The name and nature of Locke's “Defence of nonconformity”’, Locke Studies, 6 (2006), pp. 143–72Google Scholar.

⁹² Locke, ‘Defence of nonconformity’, pp. 76–7.

⁹³ Ibid., p. 23, for the ‘great ends of religion to be attaind onely in societyes’ – the edification of their members, the public worship of God, and the propagation of truth – ‘one of these [the second] containing my duty to God the other [the third] to my neighbour, & the other [the first] to my self’; see p. 108, for Christians uniting ‘into one body & Society by the Common tyes of charity brotherly love & kindnesse’ as ‘their duty’; p. 148, for ‘Love to one another’ as the bond of, and the bond between, these ‘separate communions’. See also ‘Pacifick Christians’ (1688), Bodleian MS Locke c. 27, fo. 80, and compare Dunn, John, ‘From applied theology to social analysis: the break between John Locke and the Scottish Enlightenment’, in Rethinking modern political theory: essays, 1979–1983 (Cambridge, 1985), pp. 55–67Google Scholar, at p. 61, for the Lockean church as ‘a tissue of…friendship’.

⁹⁴ Harris, Ian, ‘John Locke and natural law: free worship and toleration’, in Parkin, Jon and Stanton, Timothy, eds., Natural law and toleration in the early Enlightenment, Proceedings of the British Academy, 186 (Oxford, 2013), pp. 59–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at pp. 82–7.

⁹⁵ John Locke, ‘Pleasure and pain: the passions’ (1676), Bodleian MS Locke f. 1, pp. 325–47, printed (from Locke's shorthand) in Essays on the law of nature, pp. 265–72, at pp. 266–7. For an interesting discussion of the implications of this position, see Sheridan, Patricia, ‘Locke's latitudinarian sympathies: an exploration of sentiment in Locke's moral theory’, Locke Studies, 15 (2015), pp. 131–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁹⁶ John Locke, ‘Amor’ (1679), Bodleian MS Locke d. 1, p. 57.

⁹⁷ Matt. 7:12. See Locke, John, The reasonableness of Christianity as delivered in the Scriptures, ed. Higgins-Biddle, J. C. (Oxford, 1999), pp. 123–4Google Scholar, and compare Two treatises, ii.ii.5, p. 270, and ii.vii.93, p. 328, there expressed as ‘Love of Mankind and Society, and such a Charity as we all owe one to another.’

⁹⁸ John Locke, ‘Law’ (1693?), Bodleian MS Locke c. 28, fo. 141.

⁹⁹ Locke, An essay concerning human understanding, ii.xxi.55, pp. 269–70.

¹⁰⁰ The ‘image of God’ has at least two aspects in Locke. In the first place, it refers to an assumed similarity between man and God in the make of their intellects. In the second place, it refers to a destiny which extends beyond the present life into immortality. See respectively Locke, Two treatises, i.iv.31, p. 162: ‘God makes [man] in his own Image after his own Likeness, makes him an intellectual Creature…For wherein soever else the Image of God consisted, the intellectual Nature was certainly a part of it, and belong'd to the whole species’, and The reasonableness of Christianity, pp. 113–15, esp. p. 115: ‘we shall, at the Resurrection…after [Christ's] Image, which is the Image of the Father, become Immortal’. On the first, going beyond Locke, see Craig, Edward, The mind of God and the works of man (Oxford, 1987)Google Scholar, and Waldron, Jeremy, ‘The image of God: rights, reason, and order’, in Witte, J. Jr and Alexander, F. S., eds., Christianity and human rights (Cambridge, 2010), pp. 216–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁰¹ See Locke, Two treatises, ii.ii.6, p. 270.

¹⁰² Ibid., ii.xviii.199–200, pp. 399–400, ii.xix.228, pp. 416–17.

¹⁰³ John Locke, A second vindication of the reasonableness of Christianity, in Vindications of the reasonableness of Christianity, ed. Nuovo, V. (Oxford, 2012), p. 71Google Scholar. This tripartite division of freedom echoes Dunn, James D. G., Christian liberty: a New Testament perspective (Carlisle, 1993), pp. 69–71Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁴ Locke, A letter, p. 64. See Essays on the law of nature, no. 4, pp. 156–8, and ‘Defence of nonconformity’, p. 23, respectively for duties to God, one's neighbour, and oneself, at once cognoscible by sense experience and reason and ‘plainly set downe in Scripture’.

¹⁰⁵ Dunn, John, ‘Consent in the political theory of John Locke’, Historical Journal, 10 (1967), pp. 153–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁰⁶ Harris, ‘John Locke and natural law’, passim.

¹⁰⁷ The central point in Locke's political theory is that man owes everything to God. The liberal assumes, by contrast, that ‘the fundamental debt is the one owed to the self’. See Alexander, ‘The major ideologies’, p. 986.

¹⁰⁸ Mark Goldie, ‘Introduction’ to Locke, A letter, p. xiii.

¹⁰⁹ Waldron, Jeremy, God, Locke, and equality: Christian foundations in Locke's political thought (Cambridge, 2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Readers must judge whether any were located.

¹¹⁰ Matt. 26:11. The same point might be made by observing just how idiosyncratic and difficult to assimilate to existing regimes of thought appear those accounts of modern European intellectual history in which liberalism is disregarded as a distraction or discounted as an irrelevance. Compare Pocock, J. G. A., Barbarism and religion (6 vols., Cambridge, 1999–2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Oakeshott, Michael, On human conduct (Oxford, 1975)Google Scholar, esp. ‘On the character of a modern European state’, in conjunction with his Lectures in the history of political thought, ed. Nardin, T. and O'Sullivan, L. (Exeter, 2006)Google Scholar. Pocock expressed himself about Locke and liberalism in characteristically stimulating terms in ‘The myth of John Locke and the obsession with liberalism’, in Pocock, J. G. A. and Ashcraft, R., eds., John Locke (Clark Library Lectures, 1980), pp. 1–24Google Scholar.

¹¹¹ Waldron, God, Locke, and equality, p. 20.

¹¹² Ibid., pp. 206, 215. Waldron seeks to explain away that absence as indicative of a strategy ‘on Locke's part to avoid unnecessary controversy’ (p. 216), a strategy which, if it existed, was conspicuously unsuccessful. Compare Goldie, Mark, ed., The reception of Locke's politics (6 vols., London, 1999)Google Scholar, esp. ‘Introduction’, i, pp. xxx–xlix, and i and ii generally; and, for an alternative explanation, Stanton, Timothy, ‘Christian foundations; or some loose stones? Toleration and the philosophy of Locke's politics’, Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 14 (2011), pp. 323–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹¹³ The germ of the mature position is evident in John Locke, ‘Lex na[tur]a’ (1678), Bodleian MS Locke f. 3, pp. 201–2: ‘God having given man above other creatures of this habitable part of the univers a knowledg of himselfe w^ch the beasts have not, he is thereby under obligations wch the beasts are not, for knowing god to be a wise agent he cannot but conclude y^t he has that knowledge & those facultys w^ch he findes in himself above the other creatures given him for some use & end. If therefor he comprehend the relation between father and son & finde it reasonable that his son whom he hath begot (only in pursuance of his pleasure without thinkeing of his son) & nourishd should obey love & reverence him & be gratefull to him, he cannot but finde it much more reasonable y^t he & every other man should obey & rever love & thank the author of their being to whom they owe all that they are. If…he findes it reasonable that his children should assist & help one another & expects it from them as their duty will he not also by y^e same reason conclude that god expects y^e same of all men one to another. If he findes that god has made him & all other men in a state wherein they cannot subsist without society & has given them judgm^t to discerne what is capeable of preserveing y^t society can he but conclude that he is obleiged & y^t god requires him to follow those rules w^ch conduce to y^e preserveing of society.’

¹¹⁴ See Skinner, Quentin, ‘Introduction: seeing things their way’, in Visions of politics, i: Regarding method (Cambridge, 2002), pp. 1–7Google Scholar.