Samuel Pufendorf: 

The Grandfather of Modern Political Economy? 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fC-W7tPLp9c

Arild Sæther Agder, 

Academy of Sciences and Letters, Kristiansand, Norway

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/288306841.pdf

(Easier read in the original)

121 Chapter 13. John Locke - An Admirer of Pufendorf 

The First to Use Pufendorf’s Natural Law Works 

When Pufendorf published his first work on natural law, Elementorum Jurisprudentiae Universalis, in De Hague in 1660, it earned, as already established, the author an enviable reputation. Scholars belonging to what can be called the early Enlightenment, supported the opinions he expressed in its two books. They also saw the work as the first textbook in natural law. Others criticized the opinions expressed in it, and some Catholic fundamentalist wanted it banned. Consequently, its reputation increased, and the use of the book became more common. The first scholar of any importance, to actively use Pufendorf’s first natural law work, in the development of his own ideas, was probably John Locke. He was born in Somerset in Southern England in 1632, in the same year as Pufendorf. Locke’s family was Puritan belonging to the minor gentry. His father was a lawyer, who had fought with the parliamentary army during the Revolution 1642-49. Because of his service to Cromwell’s army, he could secure for his son a place at Westminster School, one of the most prestigious public schools in England at the time. William Letwin (1963:149) in his The Origins of Scientific Economics therefore claims that: “Locke’s education, like that of so many of his contemporaries, was deeply influenced by the accidents and dislocations of the Civil War.” Locke entered Westminster School in 1647, where he received a sound classical education that included Greek, Latin, and lectures in logic, metaphysics and moral philosophy. One of the real advantages of going to Westminster was that its graduates might try for a place at Christ Church College, Oxford or Trinity College, Cambridge. Locke tried successfully for the former. He did well enough to be elected a King’s scholar in 1650 and to win such a scholarship. He was also elected to a Junior Studentship at Christ Church College, and matriculated in the autumn of 1652. Here Locke made his home for more than thirty years, though he was occasionally absent from it for long periods. The university Locke found when he entered was in total disarray. During the Civil War, it had been a Royalist stronghold and when it was taken over by the parliamentary armies in 1648, there were no students. The university buildings were in a universal state of disrepair and many of its libraries had been looted. The Puritans purged the faculty of Royalist sympathizers and tried to institute some needed reforms. They emphasized reforms of conduct (instead of educational reforms), closed alehouses, increased church attendance and introduced order. However, not everything was bad, they also hired the most competent non-Royalist scholars they could find and therefore the situation gradually improved.

 At Oxford, as claimed by Peter Laslett (1964:18) in his Introduction to the Two Treatises,”Locke was urbane, idle, unhappy and unremarkable, all these things at the same time and only just successful enough.” He was not satisfied with the state of learning at the university where he had to study scholastic metaphysics and logic. He preferred the French philosophers Rene Descartes and Pierre Gassendi (1592-1655). But in spite of this fact he managed, according to Henry Richard Fox-Bourne (1876,Vol.1:40), to satisfy the authorities, did reasonably well in his studies, and was awarded his Bachelor of Arts degree in 1656, and his Master of Arts in 1659. He became Reader in Greek in 1660 and Reader in Rhetoric in 1662. In 1663, he was appointed Censor of Moral Philosophy. Part of his duties, in this capacity, was to deliver a series of lectures, and Locke chose the topic: “The Law of Nature”. At the time of his lectures on natural law, Locke decided to switch to the study of medicine, a decision based on an interest he had cultivated for several years. Although he was never awarded a degree in medicine from Oxford, he made a reputation for himself as a physician, and it was in this capacity in 1667 that he met and became the personal physician of and adviser to Antony Ashley Cooper, later the first earl of Shaftesbury (1621-83).

122 This association turned into friendship and it caused Locke to turn to politics and political economy. When Shaftesbury, his patient, patron and friend, became Lord Chancellor in 1672, Locke was given the opportunity to serve as a secretary on important government boards. This gave him first-hand knowledge of how a government worked. Following Shaftesbury's fall from favour in 1675, Locke spent some time travelling across France, as tutor and medical attendant to a young pupil. Locke returned to England in 1679 when Shaftesbury's political fortunes took a brief positive turn. Around this time, most likely at Shaftesbury's encouragement, he composed, Laslett (1988) asserts, the greater part of the Two Treatises of Government, and furthermore started his writings on several essays. 113 However, Shaftesbury became deeply involved in the abortive Monmouth Rebellion, 114 and subsequently in 1683, was forced into hiding in Holland. As a Shaftesbury sympathizer, Locke was in 1684 by a royal mandate, expelled, from his studentship at Oxford, as consequence, Locke found it wise to follow Shaftesbury, and went again into exile in Holland. A request to eradicate him was ignored by the Dutch government. During his six years in exile, he completed several essays, among them Essay Concerning Human Understanding, which James McCosh (1875:27) calls “Lock’s immortal essay”, and Thoughts Concerning Education. Returning to England in 1689 he quickly published the first of these and in addition Letter Concerning Toleration. In 1690, he published anonymously his Two Treatises of Government (TT), in which he discusses the state of nature, natural rights, natural law, and political economy including the social contract and problems concerned with property.115 After returning to England, the new government recognized his services to their cause. Consequently, he was offered important posts, as for example ambassador to Berlin and Vienna. These he politely refused because of his fragile health, but he did agree to serve in some relatively important offices at home. In 1668, he had become secretary to the Lords Proprietors of Carolina and a year later, he had helped to draft the Fundamental Constitution for the Government of Carolina. Later, when his fame had spread and the ‘Glorious Revolution’, with the fall of the Stuarts, had brought influence and power to his friends, his career reached a peak when he was appointed Commissioner of Appeals in 1689. He also served as Commissioner of Trade and Plantations from 1696 to 1700. Although these and other official duties demanded him to stay in London for periods, he was in 1691 able to make a permanent home at Oates in Essex, at the house of his friends Sir Francis and Lady Masham. He continued to live with them until his death in 1704. John Locke was an Oxford scholar, medical researcher and physician, political operative, political economist and ideologue for a revolutionary movement, as well as being one of the great philosophers of the late 17th and early 18th century

Pufendorf Locke’s Important Source 

 113 It has been claimed (Laslett 1964:67-78) that, although Locke does not make many citations, his First Treatise was written against the views of Sir Robert Filmer (1588-1653). Filmer’s views were expressed in Patriarcha, which had the subtitle The Natural Power of the Kings. It was probably written in defence of the authority of the state in 1638. It circulated from that year, but was not published before 1680. In it Filmer argued that political authority was derived from religious authority, also known as the Divine Right of Kings, which was a very dominant theory in seventeenth–century England. Pufendorf argued strongly against this doctrine. 114 It was called the Monmouth Rebellion after the Duke of Monmouth, who claimed the English throne, and led an unsuccessful rebellion against the Roman Catholic King James II in 1685. However, James II was forced to give up the English throne to William of Orange in 1689, and fled the country. 115 This main work of John Locke was written a couple of years before he returned to England. It has been published in numerous editions and reprinted repeatedly. And it has at least been translated into French, German, Hebrew, Hindi, Italian, Norwegian, Russian, Spanish and Swedish. 

123 Locke, like most of his contemporaries, listed very few of his sources. This was in accordance with Pufendorf’s view in his first book Elementorum Jurisprudentiae In the preface Pufendorf claims that he has drawn much on Grotius and Hobbes, whom he cites there “once for all”, but otherwise he has no citations.116However, Pufendorf’s lack of references in his first work is in sharp contrast to his main work De Jure Naturae et Gentium, where the readers are overwhelmed with citations. It is therefore very difficult to establish exactly whose ideas Locke used when he put his own thoughts into writing. Laslett (1964:130) claims that Locke had a deliberate policy of making as few references as he could. In his Two Treatises he mentions only six writers by their names and two others by the titles of their works. Locke is considered one of the most influential philosophers in the history of modern thought.117Therefore, a great number of academic scholars have discussed his contributions and commented on whom he built his theories on, and who in turn took over his theories and built on them. Unfortunately, only a few have carried out an investigation into his use of Pufendorf as one of his major sources. The reason being that very few writers on government or political economy have read Pufendorf’s natural law works and are aware of his contributions. This is particularly true of economists. Historians of economic thought have only occasionally found any connection between Pufendorf and Locke. There are, however, a few scholars, who have included Pufendorf’s natural law works when analysing Locke’s essays and treatises, and comparing them with the texts of the authors Locke had studied. Although Locke was born in the same year as Pufendorf, attended university at about the same time, and became a very productive writer during his life, it is a fact that the publishing of most of his writings took place later in his life. Laslett (1964:16) writes that he was “a reluctant author, a professed ‘enemy to the scribbling of his age’.” He was fifty-seven years old before a word of the works, which have given him renown was published in print. At this time, Pufendorf had written and published many essays, three great natural law works, and thirty books of history. However, Locke’s writings actually started as early as the beginning of the 1660’s. It was during the preparation of his lectures on natural law that he wrote down, in Latin, a manuscript containing these lectures. He even revised this manuscript a few times. Locke never published these lectures himself. They were not published before Wolfgang von Leyden translated, edited, and published them in 1954 as John Locke Essays on the Law of Nature. These essays are, according to James Gorden Clapp (1967,Vol.3:498) in his article on Locke in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, considered his earliest known political writings.

 When Locke prepared his lectures and wrote these essays both von Leyden (1954:39) and Woolhouse (2007:38) claimed that he had a copy of Pufendorf’s first book Elementorum Jurisprudentiae Universalis in his possession and that he had procured this book just after it was published in 1660. Michael Zuckert (1994:243), in his book Natural Rights and the new Republicanism, confirmed this and claimed that it was “a book Locke admired”. Later in 1681, Locke also bought a copy of the edition of 1672 of Elementorum Jurisprudentiae Universalis together with a copies of De Jure Naturae et Gentium and De Officio Hominis. 118 Consequently, 

 116 EJU (1931 [1660, 1672] Preface p. xxx. 117 Although Laslett (1964:x), claims that Locke did not write as a philosopher. 118 Von Leyden (1954:39) writes “Locke possessed two copies of the Elementa, the edition of 1672, which he had bought together with De Jure Naturae, in 1681 and the edition of 1660, which he may have acquired shortly after it was published. There can be little doubt that he consulted this book when he wrote his essays.” This is also confirmed by Woolhouse, (2007:38): He states that in October and November of 1660 Locke was in Pensford. From his correspondence, it is clear that Locke was occupied with “what was called the ‘law of nature’”. “Two important books on the subject had been published during the year. One of these, De Officiis secundum Naturae Jus, was by Robert Sharrock, and, … , it is very possible that Locke had read it; the other, which he evidently did read, was Samuel Pufendorf’s Elementa Jurisprudentia Universalis.”

124 there can be little doubt that Locke consulted Pufendorf when he wrote his essays and treatises, and that he used Pufendorf’s works, together with the works of others, such as Grotius and Hobbes, as a point of departure in his analysis. In De Jure Naturae Locke also found all the references to the Greeks, the Romans and the modern writers that he used in his later works. This reliance on Pufendorf is also confirmed by von Leyden (1954:39), who contends that there can be little doubt that Locke consulted Pufendorf’s Elementorum, “for a number for points raised in it are discussed by him”. Moreover, he points to a few cases where Locke and Pufendorf disagree and to others where they agree. Von Leyden (1954:82) also asserts that Locke’s first essays became a foundation that he built his later works on, and that these essays over the rest of his life provided him “with topics and inspiration which he turned to account in the building of his own philosophy“. Nevertheless, he surprisingly and wrongly claims that Pufendorf was mainly concerned with an examination of specifically legal points, and that these attracted little of Locke’s attention. His conclusion is strange: “Thus, since the fields of their special inquiries did not coincide, a further comparison of their doctrines could hardly be fruitful.” According to him it was one of the Cambridge Platonists, Nathanael Culwerwell (1619–1651), who provided Locke with an important stimulus and who had a direct influence on the formation of Locke’s mature doctrines.119 In his introduction to Locke’s Two Treatises of Government Laslett (1964:74) finds it idle to look for the source to Locke’s political thinking. “But of the writers he consulted when engaged on his book Samuel Pufendorf was perhaps of the greatest use to him, in spite of the fact that their views of constitutional matters were in such contrast. He took advantage of Pufendorf’s arguments, he reproduced his positions, and he described his major work as ‘the best book of that kind’, better than the great Grotius on War and Peace.” In several footnotes, Laslett show us how Locke used and built on Pufendorf. From his discussion it is clear that Pufendorf was his primary source.

How John Locke rose to dominance, within the context of 17th century Anglo-American thought, is discussed by Zuckert (1994:187-188). He claims that Locke when he held his Oxford lectures not only presented Locke’s views as of 1664, but also his considered judgements on the many important natural law theorists, both the ones that preceded him, like Richard Hooker (1554-1600) and Grotius and the more recent such as, Hobbes and Pufendorf. Locke had, when he was writing his Essays, access to the works of all the mentioned authors and he used their works extensively, without citing them, in his own writings. Zuckert (1994:188), points out, for example, that: “It might seem quixotic to treat the Essays as a critique of Grotius, for Grotius never once appears by name in Locke’s book. Nonetheless Grotius has an unmistakeable presence there.” According to Zuckert, Locke also quotes and refers to the more recent ones including Pufendorf, without mentioning their names or citing their books. Many examples are given by Zuckert of how Locke makes use of Pufendorf, in what manner he was influenced by him, and by what means he breaks with him. When Locke, for example, attempts “to justify his definition [of law] in terms of criteria essential to all law”, the criteria is clearly adapted from Pufendorf’s discussion of law. “Locke identifies three or perhaps four such characteristics of law … , all taken from Pufendorf.” Ibid:192. John Locke and his debt to Pufendorf is also discussed by Michael Crowe (1977), James Tully (1980) and Helge Hesse (2009:436). It is therefore reasonable to claim that Locke was probably the first important scholar who actively used Pufendorf when he did his own writings. This also strongly indicates that Locke early in his life acquired a good theoretical knowledge of natural law, which included a 

 119 The Cambridge Platonists believed strongly that reason is the proper judge of disagreements, and they advocated dialogue.

125 state of the art exposition of ethics, jurisprudence, government and political economy, from Pufendorf. Locke’s Writings On Political Economy Letwin in his The Origins of Scientific Economics from 1963 analyzes the development of English economic thought in the period 1660-1776. He outlines the contributions of Josiah Child (1630-99), Nicolas Barbon (1640-98), John Collins (1625-83), William Petty (1623-87), John Locke and Dudley North (1641-91). Neither Grotius nor Pufendorf is mentioned as a predecessor or contemporary of Locke or the others. This is particularly surprising since Letwin (1965:176) recognizes that the doctrine of natural law, “with its fusion of scientific principle and moral standard”, was the foundation that Locke built his works on and that this also carried over into economics. Locke’s writings on applied economics have also been investigated by Karen Vaughn (1980) in her John Locke Economist and Social Scientist. Locke was, in Vaughn’s opinion, a far more sophisticated economist than most historians of thought have given him credit for and that he was an early social scientist with a consistent view of social action in both his economic and political writings. Her declared objectives in her study (1980:x) were therefore first to provide “a comprehensive treatment of John Locke’s position in the development of economic thought”, second “to establish the influences on his thought and his relationship to his contemporaries”, and last to make “the connection between his economic theory and his theory of political society”. In her study, the second objective is only superficially treated. Although she claims (1980:18) that the real influence on Lock’s economic thought comes primarily from “a combination of his reading of Aristotle, the Scholastics, and his contemporaries Grotius and Pufendorf on the one hand, and his own personal observation of economic problems on the other”, there are no discussions or examples of how Locke built on any of these authors.120 In her book (1980:24) she has, in one footnote, a reference to Pufendorf’s De Jure Naturae. Locke claims, like Pufendorf, that fashion is for the most part, ”nothing but the ostentation of riches”, and therefore a high price increases the demand. With this exception, there are no references to Pufendorf and no indication that she has studied his natural law works or his price theory in any detail. Nevertheless, she (1980:18) sees it as a problem that Locke “gives no indication of which of his ideas are new and which are borrowed.” Furthermore, she (1980:141) asserts that: “This is true not only of Locke, but of most seventeenth-century writers. Footnoting is a mania of our age of widespread literacy.” Unfortunately, Vaughn leaves it at that and makes no investigation of Locke’s use of Pufendorf in his writings on political economy.121

Neither does Vaughn in her study make any attempt to assess the influence Locke had on later economic thought. She only mentions in passing that Richard Cantillon (1680-1734) had read his essays before he wrote Essai sur la nature du commerce en general between 1730- 34, and that Ferdinando Galiani (1728-87) is reputed to have introduced himself to economics by translating Locke’s first essay before he in 1741, wrote his own essay On Money and that Adam Smith made reference to Locke’s essay in The Wealth of Nations. 

 120 In a chapter John Locke, Social Scientist Vaugn (1980:108-109) mention that Schumpeter noted Locke’s contributions to the seventeenth-century theory of natural law, «and ranked Locke along with Hobbes, Grotius and Pufendorf, among others, as philosophers who despite their Protestantism, were in the Scholastic tradition.” 121 Karen Vaughn (1980:141) claims that her first professor Joseph Soudek, in a personal correspondence, contended that: “In earlier times, it was taken for granted that the reading public, which was small, was well enough educated to be able to supply the source of non-original ideas. Only the really obscure writers tended to be credited for their ideas.”

126 Writings on political economy can be found in most of Locke’s works. It certainly goes back to his The Law of Nature based on his Oxford lectures in the early 1660’s. His work on what can be called purer political economy goes back to 1668, when he wrote a paper, or manuscript, on the consequences of Lessening of Interest. 122 From 1668-1674 Locke corrected and added to this manuscript, but he did not publish it. However, Letwin (1963:273-300) published it as an appendix called Locke’s Early Manuscript on Interest. When Locke wrote this manuscript, Letwin (1963:156) contends that he had not read any of the economic tracts that were published at the time. However, he later became an avid collector and reader of such tracts. Furthermore, in spite of the fact that Letwin points to Locke’s “disposition to consider moral and political problems from the standpoint of ‘natural law’” he is not aware of the fact that Locke was well acquainted with Pufendorf’s Elementorum, when he first wrote this manuscript, and later became familiar with De Jure Naturae et Gentium. Pufendorf is not mentioned at all in Letwin’s book. Henry William Spiegel (1983:155) in his book The Growth of Economic Thought has a different opinion. He claims that it was Josiah Child with his pamphlet Brief Observations Concerning Trade, Interest and Money published in 1668 that was responsible for bringing Locke “into the discussion of economic matters”. Furthermore, he claims that Locke had “carefully perused“, a tract by Thomas Manley (1628-76) from 1669, in which Manley argued that a low rate of interest would cause an increase in drunkenness, and that Locke employed some of his arguments.123 Surprisingly, Spiegel (1983:232) writes that Locke “may have found more food for thought in Pufendorf”, but leaves it at that, and does not discuss it further. When Locke came to compose and publish Some Considerations of the Consequences of the Lowering of Interest, and Raising the Value of Money in 1691, he incorporated pages of his original manuscript in it. Locke’s essay was an attempt to convince the British Parliament to defeat a proposed bill designed to lower the real rate of interest from 6 to 4 per cent. However, his influence was insufficient to sway Parliament to his side. In 1695, he published Further Considerations concerning Raising the Value of Money, which again argued for recoinage at full value. These two essays along with a short pamphlet Some Observations on a Printed Paper Intituled, For Encouraging the Coining of Silver Money in England and After for keeping it here, and a few scattered paper comprise Locke’s total published output on issues of what can be termed pure economics. However, his writings on political economy, such as human behavior, private property, theory of value and money, foundation of states, and division of state power and taxation can also, as already mentioned, be found in Essay Concerning Human Understanding, and in his most important and influential work, the Two Treaties of Government

Theory of Human Behaviour In his Essay Concerning Human Understanding Locke outlines his theory of knowledge and his philosophy of science. In addition, he discusses other issues such as ethics and philosophy of mind. Although Locke was a devoted Christian, he followed Pufendorf in criticizing and rejecting the widely held view about the origin of our knowledge. According to this view, which was strongly advocated by all the different Christian dominations our fundamental theoretical and practical principles and ideas are innate. They are there from birth. Locke saw this doctrine as a threat to freedom of thought and inquiry. He, like Pufendorf, held the view that knowledge must be acquired. Our mental faculties and our ability to use them may be said to be innate, but it is only by using these faculties that we can acquire knowledge. He said that at birth our mind 

 122 The full title was ‘Some of the consequences that are like to follow upon lessening of interest to 4 per cent’. 

123 Tim Keiren and Frank Melton (1990) surveyed this debate. 

127 has no innate ideas, it has not yet been affected by experiences and impressions, it is blank, a tabula rasa. As our mind gains simple ideas from sensation, it forms complex ideas from these simple ideas by processes of combination, division, generalization and abstraction. In his Two Treatises, Locke starts out The Second Treatise by discussing the State of Nature. Like Pufendorf, he considers what state all men are natural in. TT.II.ii.4:287. His answer is that men are in a state of perfect freedom to decide their actions “as they think fit, within the bounds of the Law of Nature”, without having to depend on other people.124He continues by claiming that the state of nature has a law of nature to govern it. This obligates everyone to reason, which in turn means for all mankind “that being equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his Life, Health, Liberty or Possessions”. TT.II.ii.6:289. Since all men are the workmanship of one wise creator, and are in this world to do his business, each one has to take care of his own self-interest. “Every one as he is bound to preserve himself”. Ibid. When his own self-interest is not threatened, he ought, “as much as he can to preserve the rest of Mankind”. Ibid. The allusion to Pufendorf’s self-interest and sociability is clear. Theory of Property Locke uses his theory of human behaviour to develop his theory of property. This theory is also outlined in the Second Treatise, in the chapter Of Property. His endeavour is to show how men come to have property “in several parts of that which God gave mankind in common, and that without any express compact of all the commoners.” TT.II.ii.25:304. The starting point is the same for Locke as for Pufendorf: “God, who hath given the World to Men in common, hath also given the reason to make use of it to the best advantage of Life, and convenience. The Earth, and all that is therein, is given to Men for the Support and Comfort of their being. And though all the Fruits it naturally produces, and Beasts it feeds, belong to Mankind in common, as they are produced by the spontaneous hand of Nature; and no body has originally a private Dominion, exclusive of the rest of Mankind, in any of them, as they are thus in their natural state.” TT.II.ii.26:304. However, the fruits of the earth did not fall into each mouth by themselves. Therefore, even if they were given for the use of man, “there must of necessity be a means to appropriate them some way or other before they can be of any use, or at all beneficial to any particular Man.” TT.II.ii.26:304-305. Pufendorf argued, as explained in an earlier chapter, that people in a state of nature must obtain the consent of their fellow men before the fruits of the earth can be privately appropriated. At first, this consent could be tacit but later it must give way to express agreements.

A Labour Theory of Property Locke departed from Pufendorf and outlined his labour theory of property. He was a persistent champion of natural rights—the idea that “every man has a Property in his own Person”. TT.II.ii.27:305. Nobody has any right to this person but himself. A person owns himself and should have certain liberties that cannot be expropriated by the state or anyone else. Locke claims that most things need cultivation before they can be used. This required the use of labour. When someone labours for a productive end, the results become that person’s property. It would be improper that some, who had contributed no labour, should have the same rights equal with someone that used his labour and skills in the production. Ownership is therefore created by the application of labour. Here it should be emphasised that Locke could also have got this idea from Pufendorf who claimed that “it was improper that a man who had contributed no labour 

 124 There has been much discussion as to whether or not Locke did believe in natural law. Vaughn (1980:154- 155) summarizes this discussion, up to the date of her book. See also James Tully (1991:625-629).

128 should have right to things equal to his whose industry a thing had been raised and rendered fit for service”.IV.iv.6:540. The question is asked when particular things became a man’s property. In answering, Locke uses an example from Pufendorf.125 “He that is nourished by the Acorns he pickt up under an Oak. Or the Apples he gathered from the Trees in the Wood, has certainly appropriated them to himself. No Body can deny but the nourishment is his.” TT.II.v.28:306. Did the fruits became private property when they were digested, or when he ate them, when he boiled them, when he brought them home or when he picked them up? Locke’s answer was that it was man’s labour that removed the fruits out of the common state and made them his property. Locke claimed that property preceded government. Government can therefore not arbitrarily dispose of the estates of its subjects. How much could each person appropriate of land or other things? “As much as any one can make use of to any advantage of life before it spoils, so much he may by his labour fix a Property in”. TT.II.v.31:308. A person can also appropriate what his employee has produced. It is possible that Locke got this appropriation idea from Pufendorf, who in his discussion of the causes of private property, emphasizes that most things require cultivation and to cultivate you need the use of labour Nicolas Jolley (1999:205), in his book Locke: His Philosophical Thought, contends that Locke (1964[1690]:306-307) rejects Pufendorf’s theory of property as a clumsy solution, which would effectively condemn the human race to starvation. Furthermoe, it is clear that Locke like Pufendorf believed that the introduction of property would contribute to the creation of peace among men. “For when Men by entering into Society and Civil Government, have excluded force and introduced Laws for the preservation of Property, Peace, and Unity amongst themselves; those who set up force again in opposition to the Laws, do Rebellare, that is, bring back again the State of War, and are properly Rebels: Which they who are in Power (by the pretence they have to Authority, the temptation of force they have in their hands, and the Flattery of those about them) being likeliest to do; the properest way to prevent the evil, is to shew them the danger and injustice of it, who are under the greatest temptation to run into it.” TT.II.xix.226:433-434.

The Theory of Value, Money and Trade An inquiry into Pufendorf’s treatment of the theory of value and money in his natural law works, and a comparison with Locke’s theory shows clearly the influence of Pufendorf on Locke. Locke does not plagiarize Pufendorf, but he builds directly on him. The difference is found in Locke’s emphasis on English conditions and a substantially more advanced quantity theory of money. In Some considerations from 1691, he opposed, as mentioned above, a bill before Parliament to lower the maximum legal interest rate from 6 percent to 4 percent. Because interest is a price, and because the laws of nature determine all prices, he reasoned, ceilings on interest rates would be counterproductive. People would evade the ceiling, and the costs of evasion would drive interest rates even higher than they would have been without the ceiling. Locke believed that governments should not regulate interest rates. Locke’s reasoning on the subject, sophisticated for his era, has withstood the test of time: some economists make today the same objection to controls on interest rates. Theory of Value 

 125 DJNG IV.iv.13:554. “An oak-tree belonged to no man, but the acorns that fell to the ground were his who have gathered them.” See also the comment in a footnote of Peter Laslett (1964:306)

129 On the subject of value and price, Locke takes over and uses Pufendorf’s theory of value. A comparison of Locke’s writings on theory of value in his Some Considerations, with Pufendorf’s writings on the theory of value or price in De Jure Naturae substantiates that he must have had this work close at hand. This is also recognized by Hutchison (1988:68). Locke’s account in Some Considerations is a rudimentary demand and supply theory. He starts out using Pufendorf’s treatment of the distinction between the intrinsic value and the market value of a good. Locke claims that the intrinsic worth of a thing consists in its fitness to supply the necessities or serve the conveniences of human life. The more necessary it is to our being or the more it contributes to our well-being, the greater is its worth. Locke (1691:16) used the terms ‘quantity’ and ‘vent’. The vent of any good “depends on its necessity or usefulness”. An estimation of the value of a good can be done by comparing its quantity to its vent. Quantity and vent are approximately equivalent to supply and demand, which also depend on the number of buyers and sellers. “The price of any Commodity rises or falls by the proportion of the number of Buyer and Sellers.” (1691:15). Fewer buyers will lower the price; fewer sellers will increase the price. The allusions to Pufendorf are remarkable. As with Pufendorf, Locke (1691:21) is also aware of the fact that the most useful things, such as water and air, have no price or a small price. ”Hence it is, that the best, and most useful things are commonly the cheapest; because, though their Consumption be great, yet the Bounty of Providence has made, their production large, and suitable to it.”. From this Letwin (1965:224) suggests that the paradox of value (the diamond-water paradox) although known “since the time immemorial probably entered the stream of economic theory through Locke’s Considerations”. However, Letwin had not studied Pufendorf’s writings on value and price and his understanding of this paradox. In his Two treatises Locke (TT.II.v.40:314) changed his view on the theory of value and combined a labour theory of property with a labour theory of value. Of all the provisions of life, the ones that nature furnishes us with and the others, which our industry and pains prepare for us, a computation will make it clear “how much labour makes the far greatest part of the value of things, we enjoy in this World”. TT.II.v.42:314. Labour is not only the origin of property, but also the determinant of its value and thereby the differences in value on everything. The contradiction between Locke’s demand and supply theory and his labour theory of value is discussed by Spiegel (1983:164-69). However, Hutchison (1988:70) contends that Locke did not propose a labour theory of value that determined relative prices, and therefore there are “no outright contradiction” between the two theories

Karen Vaughn (1980:17) starts her exposition of Locke’s contribution to economics with his theory of value. She claims that his value theory forms the basis of his economic analysis and economic policy. “It was his one tool, his one model for dealing with all economic problems” He applied this model consistently to economic problems and his analysis mostly yielded satisfactory explanations. Vaughn (1980:19) claims that Locke’s account of the determination of prices often has been described as an early version of supply and demand analysis, where quantity was his term for supply and vent his term for demand. However, she adds that it was a supply-and-demand analysis of a most primitive kind. Furthermore, Vaughn (1980:21) claims that Locke’s analysis can best be described as an analysis of shifts in demand and supply. His treatment of what determines the demand of goods, vent, is rich but his treatment of supply and quantity is scanty. It can be argued that her statement also applies to Pufendorf’s theory of value. Money and Trade From his general theory of value, Locke goes on to develop his theory of money. As with Pufendorf, his theory can be divided into the origin of money, the requirements and functions of money and what determines its value. Locke distinguishes two functions of money, as a

130 "counter" to measure value, and as a "pledge" to lay claim to goods. He believes silver and gold, as opposed to paper money, are the appropriate currency for international transactions. Silver and gold, he says, are treated to have equal value by all of humanity and can thus be treated as a pledge by anyone, while the value of paper money is only valid under the government, which issues it. The quantity theory of money forms a special case of this general theory. His idea is based on “money answers all things” or “rent of money is always sufficient, or more than enough,” and “varies very little…” Regardless of whether the demand for money is unlimited or constant, Locke concludes that as far as money is concerned, the demand is exclusively regulated by its quantity. He also investigates the determinants of demand and supply. For supply, goods in general are considered valuable because they are scarce, and can be exchanged or consumed. For demand, goods are in demand because they yield a flow of income. Locke develops an early theory of capitalization, such as land, which has value because “by its constant production of saleable commodities it brings in a certain yearly income.” Demand for money is almost the same as demand for goods or land; it depends on whether money is wanted as medium of exchange or as loanable funds. As medium of exchange, “money is capable by exchange to procure us the necessaries or conveniences of life.” For loanable funds, “it comes to be of the same nature with land by yielding a certain yearly income … or interest.” As with Pufendorf, Locke (1691:12) understood that changes in money supply had a direct influence on prices. However, he goes further and is not far from stating the quantity theory of money as it is formulated today: “This shows the necessity of some proportion of money to trade, but what proportion that is hard to determine, because it depends not barely on the quantity of money, but the quickness of its circulation.“ A comparison of Locke’s writing on the theory of value and money, in his Some Considerations of the Consequences of Lowering Interest and Raising the Value of Money, with Pufendorf’s writings on this issue proves that he must have used his works, Locke does not plagiarize Pufendorf, but he builts directly on him. The notion that a change in money supply will lead to changes in prices he probably borrowed from Pufendorf. Another example is the idea that abundant money will lead to a fall in interest. In his essay on money, Locke also brings up for discussion another problem; the deteriorating state of the British coin. He participated actively in calling in all debased coinage. Locke’s claim that the authorities should not debase money because it is against the law of nature comes clearly from Pufendorf. The only difference between the two is that Locke dwells on English conditions. He believed that debased coinage should be recoined at full value i.e according to standard weight, and that the cost should fall upon the Exchequer. The recall and reissue finally took place in 1696. This recall was in accordance with Pufendorf’s strong view that debased coinage would be detrimental to domestic commerce.

Foundation of States Locke’s view on the foundation of states is found in chapter vii and viii of the Second Treatise on Government. Both chapters are written in the spirit of Pufendorf. “God having made Man such a Creature, that, in his own Judgment, it was not good for him to be alone, put him under strong Obligations of Necessity, Convenience, and Inclination to drive him into Society, as well as fitted him with Understanding and Language to continue and enjoy it.” TT.II.vii.77:336, Locke first discusses what he calls prime societies that is marriages and extended families, and then asks what a political society is: “Man being born, as has been proved, with a Title to perfect Freedom, and an uncontrouled enjoyment of allt the Rights and Priviledges of the Law of Nature, equally 

131 with any other Man in the World, hath by Nature a Power, not only to preserve his Property, that is this Life, Liberty and Estate, against the Injuries and Attempts of other Men; but to judge of and punish the breaches of that Law in others, as he is persuaded the Offence deserves, even with Death itself, in Crimes where the heinousness of the Fact, in his Opinion requires it.”TT.II.vii.87:341-342. Men therefore have to come together in a community or commonwealth. This commonwealth is a Political or Civil Society and it will then have the legislative and executive power to make decisions on behalf of all its members. Locke emphasised that the only way men, who from nature are all free, equal and independent, are willing to put on the bonds of Civil Society, is by agreeing with others to unite for their own safety and peaceful living among others. Then, when any number have consented to make a Government, “they are thereby presently incorporated, and make one Body Politik, wherein the Majority have a Right to act and conclude the rest.” An extensive discussion of the beginning of political societies follows. Locke concludes: “And thus much may suffice to shew, that as far as we have any light from History, we have reason to conclude, that all peaceful beginnings of Government have been laid in the Consent of the People”. TT.II.viii.95:348 and TT.II.viii.112:361. The theory that the state exists only to guaranty security and legal protection was advocated by Pufendorf, and thereafter taken over by Locke. This view that Locke’s position on the theory of contracts was similar to Pufendorf’s is also held by Mark Waddicor (1970:87- 88) in his book Montesquieu and the Philosophy of Natural Law. When man left the state of nature, he agreed with others to give up some of his natural rights “into the hands of the community”, which he then authorized “to make laws for him as the public good of the society shall require. The community or a majority of its members then decide on what form the government should take.” TT.II.vii.87-89 and TT.II.xv.171. Division of State Powers, Corruption and Taxation For Pufendorf and Locke, one form of government is more natural than any other form, and this form is decided on by the majority. However, they each had their preferences. Pufendorf, as Grotius before him, thought that absolute monarchy is usually the least unsatisfactory, but they were aware that each form, including monarchy, had certain disadvantages. VII.v.9 and 22.

Like Pufendorf, Locke discusses in a chapter, Of the Forms of a Common-wealth, three forms of governments. When the majority have the whole power of the community, when they employ that power in making laws for the community, and when they execute these laws with officers that they have appointed, then this form of government is called perfect democracy. When the power of making laws is placed in the hands of a few selected men, and their heirs and successors, this form is called oligarchy. If this power is in the hands of one man it is called different forms of monarchy. It can be absolute or constitutional; it can be hereditary or elective. TT.II.x. However, from his discussion, it is clear that Locke finds that absolute monarchy is inconsistent with civil society and that he himself preferred moderate monarchies where legislative and executive functions are in different hands. TT.II.x.132:372-373 and TT.II.xiv.159:392- 93. The legislature is the key: ”This Legislative is not only the suprema power of the Commonwealth, but sacred and unalterable in the hands where the Community have once placed it; nor can any Edict of any Body else, in what Form soever conceived, or by what Power soever backed, have the force and obligation of Law, which has not its Sanction from the Legislative, which the public has chosen and appointed.” TT.II.xi.134:374. However, there are restrictions on the Legislature. First, it cannot act arbitrary over the lives and fortune of the people. Second, it cannot assume to itself a power to rule by extemporary arbitrary decrees. Third, it cannot take from any man any part of his property without his own consent. Fourth, it cannot transfer the power of making laws to any other hands. On Corruption

132 Locke as well as Pufendorf consider corruption an evil we have an obligation to resist. In chapter xix Of the dissolution of Government he argue that corruption is a violation of trust. Men enter into society for the preservation of their property. That is why they authorize a legislative to make laws and rules, set as guards and fences to the properties of all members of society. These laws and rules should also limit the power and moderate the dominion of every part and member of the society. If the legislators endeavour to take away the property of the people or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people. If the legislators transgress this fundamental rule of society; “and either by Ambition, Fear, Folly or Corruption,” it is a breach of trust and they forfeit the power the people has put in their hands. TT.II.xi.222:430. What is said here concerning the legislative in general holds also true for the supreme Executor, who have a double trust put in him, both to have part in the legislative, and the supreme execution of the law. He acts against both when he sets up his own arbitrary will as the law of the society. He also acts contrary to the trust when he either “imploys the Force, Treasure, and Offices of the Society, to corrupt the Representatives, and gain them to his purposes: or openly pre ingages the Electors, and prescribes to their choice, such, whom he has by Sollicitations, Threats, Promises, or otherwise won to his designs; and imploys them to bring in such, who have promised before-hand, what to Vote, and what to Enact.” Ibid:431. On Taxation Locke does not have a detail theory of taxation as Pufendorf did. However, he claims that governments cannot be supported without great charge. Everyone that enjoys his share of the protection should pay out of his wealth his proportion of the maintenance of this protection. This tax must be with each person’s consent, that is the consent of the majority of all or by majority of the representatives, they have chosen.126 Should any claim the power to “lay and levy” taxes on the people, by his own authority and without the consent of the people, he thereby “invades the Fundamental Law of Property, and subverts the end of Government.” TT.II.xi.140:380. It is also clear that the Government cannot raise taxes on the property of the people without the consent of the people, given by themselves or their deputies. His overriding interest in taxation was, like Pufendorf, to clamp down on arbitrary taxation and its iniquities. Locke and the Diffusion of Pufendorf’s Natural Law Two scholars are central to the spread of natural law or moral philosophy as it was later called, the previously mentioned French philosopher and translator, Jean Beyberac, and John Locke. For some years, these two corresponded. They also had a tremendous respect for Pufendorf and considered him one of the greatest scholars of their times. 

 It is clear from the earlier treatment that Locke used Pufendorf’s natural law work extensively in the development of his own theories of government and political economy. He had, towards the end of his life, become a highly venerated scholar, known across the British Isles, Continental Europe and North America. Locke became, according to Udo Thiel (1999:323) in his article on Locke in the Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy, one of the first and leading figures of the Enlightenment. His ideas had a substantial effect on both the development of the science of philosophy, psychology and educational theory, government and political economy. In addition, his work had an effect on the development of freedom, tolerance, democracy and governments accountable to their constituency. John Locke was an admirer of Pufendorf. He spoke highly of him, recommended his works to others, and used his natural law works in developing his own theories. Indirectly the spread of Locke’s thoughts therefore had tremendous effects on the diffusion of Pufendorf’s ideas.

126 The majority of the elected representatives meant the majority of those elected by the property owners

133 Education on all levels and in most European countries in the 16th and 17th century was in glaring need of reform. During his exile in the Netherland 1683-89, Locke wrote, as mentioned, a number of letters to a friend giving him practical advice on the education of his son. These letters he adapted as Thought Concerning Education, an essay that could have been inspired by Pufendorf’s emphasis on education in his De Jure Naturae. It was published four years after his return to England in 1693 as An Essay Concerning Education. Further enlarged editions were published later in his lifetime as an Essay on Education. It had a remarkable influence on education in many European countries, and in particular on university education in Scotland.127 It became a very popular reading among educators and politician concerned with the improvement of education. Clapp (1967:500) wrote that his educational proposals were pragmatic, and based on considerable psychological insight into the motives needs and passions of parents and children. He claims that Locke’s letters were written in response to “so many, who profess themselves at loss how to breed their children”, and that they furthermore displayed “clearly the liberal bent of his mind as well as his love of freedom, tolerance, and truth”. He could also have added concepts that he could have found in Pufendorf’s lengthy discussion of education and learning. Pufendorf strongly emphasized the duties that lie in the cultivation of the mind, and the duties of those who have laid upon them the education of others. II.iv:231. Furthermore, Pufendorf discusses in some length useful learning and “the evils of pedantic learning”. Addled pedagogues are not to be laid at the door of letters. Ibid. 251. However, with his writings in general and his essay on education in particular Locke had a tremendous influence on educational thought and practise in many European countries. His writings often led to reforms in education on all levels from elementary schools to universities. Locke also developed, as mentioned in the previous chapter proposals for what authors, and which books should be recommended reading for the education of a gentleman. Here he points directly to Pufendorf, as an author whom he found to be extremely important and his natural law books De Officio and De Jure Naturae. There can be no doubt that Locke’s recommendation of Pufendorf’s natural law works contributed to the use and diffusion of both De Officio and De Jure Naturae across Europe and North America. In recommending Pufendorf, Vere Chappel (1994:229) in an article in The Cambrdge Companion to Locke, claimed that Locke was linking himself to a type of natural law thought that only had begun to develop in England, as a consequence of the influence of the works of Grotius.

127 All Locke’s writings on education have been collected and edited by James Axtell (1968).