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).