Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 88.99.165.207, on 16 Jun 2017 at 00:32:38, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S000305540028194X
1969
905
COMMUNICATIONS
1200 words of his review to proving one single
instance where I misread Locke, as distinct from
simply ruling, for instance, against the distinction between rebellion and revolution, noted also
by other scholars (cf. Lib. Pol. note 44, p. 316),
or against that between "absolute" and "arbitrary" power. His failure to express agreement
or prove a misreading accords with his failure to
approximate in his article a decent proportion between the mention of other scholars and the reproduction of their views. (Examples supplied to
the Editor.) Ashcraft does not give the slightest
indication of what his conclusion owes and adds
to existing interpretations. I t is no novelty to
evaluate Locke's state of nature as "an historical
and a moral description of human existence" (p.
898) and to identify the second description as "a
critique of existing society by indicating the legal
and moral boundaries of political relationships"
(p. 914). Yolton and Polin (who mention also
Lamprecht) speak of "a normative device" and
of "un etat normatif," Strauss and Laslett say
the same in other words. (References in Lib.
Pol., notes 36-37, p. 99 and note 2, p. 83).
Ashcraft's inability or unwillingness to give
other scholars' works their due explains the nature of his conclusion that, applied to my book,
my own criticism of an unhistorical attitude
should prove "suicidal." This wishful thinking
reflects itself in the method not to disprove but
to cut to measure quotations bearing on a fraction of the topics the book deals with, or rather,
like "conquerors' swords . . . cut up . . . by the
roots, and mangle . . . to pieces," to adapt
Locke's words (II, 211) to the case in hand.
M. SELIGER
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
To T H E EDITOR:
Every author is, in my opinion, entitled to
present an intelligent, clear, and persuasive
reply to a critical review of his work. I see no
reason why Professor Seliger's failure to avail
himself of that privilege necessitates my engaging in polemical argument with him. In addition
to the fair treatment of a work owed to the author, a reviewer has an obligation to the reader
to advise him on the merits of the book. Given
the number of books published annually, the
limitations of an individual's reading time, and
three careful readings of Professor Seliger's
book, I advised the reader that he could better
employ his time than by groping his way
through the fog-bound thinking of the author.
Aside from the specific textual criticisms
mentioned in my review, I pointed out that Seliger had chosen to disregard (a) more than
thirty volumes of Locke's correspondence, journals, and manuscripts, (b) the majority of
Locke's published writings, (c) numerous works
by seventeenth-century writers important to
Locke's political thought, and (d) the historical
context of events which shaped Lockean ideas.
The result is that Seliger set out to write a book
on Locke with a seriously inadequate knowledge
of his subject and virtually no knowledge of the
seventeenth century in which Locke lived. Instead, Seliger throws a few scattered pieces of
Locke's thought into a cauldron, and I suggested
that from such intellectual alchemy few golden
truths were likely to emerge. If the reader is
persuaded by Seliger's reply that these defects
are irrelevant, he is free to disregard my advice
and read the book.
However, in response to Professor Seliger's
rather strange notion of scholarship, viz., that
original sources may be disregarded with impunity, but secondary sources should be meticulously cited (point 7), I will glady recommend
an excellent secondary source on Locke to the
reader; namely, Mr. John Dunn's The Political
Thought of John Locke (Cambridge Press,
1969). As to Seliger's compaints about the brevity of my quotations from his work, I would
willingly have provided further illustrations of
his confusion, but my space was limited. Professor Seliger had 372 pages to state his case; I
was allowed 1000 words. That is a little like
trying to cure a diseased elephant with a sugar
cube.
RICHARD ASHCRAFT
University of California, Los Angeles