In the last decade of the seventeenth century, English culture held a frustrated fascination for the continental Republic of Letters. Frustrated, because few Europeans could approach English ideas in the English language. Gabriel Bonno¹ has shown how Locke’s continental readers were dependent initially upon reviews in French-language journals – Basnage de Beauval’s Histoire des ouvrages des savans, Bernard’s Nouvelles de la république des lettres, and (particularly) Le Clerc’s Bibliothèque universelle and its successors. Interested parties such as Limborch and Leibniz did not really come to grips with the Essay until it had been translated into French. This was accomplished in 1700 by Pierre Coste.

_________________________

Locke had desired from the outset to have his Essay translated into Latin, still the language of learned communication. Both Le Clerc and later Molyneux had tried unsuccessfully to find a translator. Finally, in 1695, Molyneux invited an Irish acquaintance, Ezekiel Burridge, to undertake the task. Burridge labored for several years and, in 1701, the Latin translation was finally published by the Churchills. This version was twice reprinted on the continent, and in 1741 there came out another translation, “in purer Latin style,” by G.H. Thiele.

“Mr. Locke’s new Book admits no indifferent Censure, for tis either extreamly commended, or much decry’d, but has ten Enemies for one friend.” [Locke #847, v. 3:793] For some years after its publication, Locke’s Essay elicited few reactions – but those were indeed mixed. The book was praised by Le Clerc (in his review), by William Molyneux (in letters to Locke) and by William Wotton. It was used as a text in the universities (see above), although Locke’s friends at Oxford reported that it aroused considerable opposition there. The only published criticisms before 1696 were those of John Norris, an English follower of Malebranche, and James Lowde. Both men concentrated on Locke's theory of perception and his attack on innate ideas. Lowde, in particular, felt that a denial of innate moral principles was dangerous to the Christian religion. This attitude was to set the tone for subsequent criticism, which began at the end of 1696. As Locke remarked the following year, “My book crept into the world about six or seven years ago, without any opposition, and has since passed amongst some for useful, and, the least favourable, for innocent. But, as it seems to me, it is agreed by some men that it should no longer do so. Something, I know not what, is at last spyed out in it, that is like to be troublesome, and therefore it must be an ill book, and be treated accordingly.” [Locke #847, v. 6:6] This change of attitude was probably due to the publication in 1695 of Locke’s Reasonableness of Christianity (see below) and in 1696 of John Toland’s Christianity not mysterious (Locke #674). These books directed the attention of conservative Churchmen to the implications of Locke’s philosophy for religion. His denial of innate ideas seemed to threaten morality and religious doctrine. His denial that there can be certain knowledge of substance seemed to threaten belief in the Trinity. His suggestion that God might endow matter with the ability to think seemed to threaten belief in an immortal, immaterial soul. The use of his epistemological scepticism by free thinkers such as Toland only confirmed the dangers of his thought. This was the tone of the attack leveled by Edward Stillingfleet, Bishop of Worcester, in his Discourse in vindication of the doctrine of the Trinity (1696). Locke felt obliged to respond, defending his religious orthodoxy, and a long and inconclusive controversy ensued, ended only by the death of Stillingfleet in 1699.

Stillingfleet’s attack seemed to open the gates to a flood of adverse and often abusive criticism. Locke’s foes included Thomas Burnet, (author of three successive Remarks on the Essay), John Sergeant, John Edwards (who alwo wrote diatribes against the Reasonableness of Christianity), Henry Lee, William Carroll and William Sherlock. From the continent came critical notices from Pierre Bayle, from Leibniz and from the author of Fides et ratio and a commendation from Jean Barbeyrac. In general Locke found the attacks contentious and ill-founded. Except for a brief “Answer …” to Burnet’s first Remarks, Locke did not answer any of them in print. However, he did not lack defenders. Lady Masham replied to Norris, Catherine Cockburn defended him against Burnet, LeClerc countered Bayle, and Samuel Bold took on the abusive Edwards. Locke’s death did not halt the debate, but it eventually died down, as threatened Churchmen found more current targets and as authors began to absorb Locke’s ideas and use them for their own purposes.