What do you think?
Rate this book
The First Treatise of Government
This book contains Locke's First Treatise, which argues against the idea of divine right and the absolute monarchy praised by his contemporary Robert Filmer.
At the time his treatises were written, English politics had undergone decades of upheaval in the wake of the English Civil War. When Dutch monarch William of Orange ascended to the English throne in the Glorious Revolution of 1688, burning questions over the best form of governance for England were prominent in the intelligentsia of the era. It was a time when England grappled with its incremental transition from monarchy to early forms of democracy and right to vote, where dynastic monarchy and religious theory still held considerable power over the formation of the state.
In the first treatise Locke proceeds to attack and dissect his prominent contemporary Robert Filmer, who was broadly in favour of absolute monarchy under the principle of divine right. The allusions to the Biblical Adam, wherein the monarch can be intimated as a continuation of the first man ever created, are debunked by Locke who asserts that God never asserted that one man had province to rule over all other human beings. Supporting his argument with known history, Locke concludes that no king over the centuries had asserted to be the heir of Adam and thereby the rightful ruler of a country.
Lauded as a classic of political philosophy, the treatises by Locke are a common requirement in various educational courses concerning political science and philosophy to this day. While steeped in the historical realities of the late 17th century, the arguments Locke composes for governance favourable to the people and their country's development were immensely influential on political theory during and after the Enlightenment era.
At the time his treatises were written, English politics had undergone decades of upheaval in the wake of the English Civil War. When Dutch monarch William of Orange ascended to the English throne in the Glorious Revolution of 1688, burning questions over the best form of governance for England were prominent in the intelligentsia of the era. It was a time when England grappled with its incremental transition from monarchy to early forms of democracy and right to vote, where dynastic monarchy and religious theory still held considerable power over the formation of the state.
In the first treatise Locke proceeds to attack and dissect his prominent contemporary Robert Filmer, who was broadly in favour of absolute monarchy under the principle of divine right. The allusions to the Biblical Adam, wherein the monarch can be intimated as a continuation of the first man ever created, are debunked by Locke who asserts that God never asserted that one man had province to rule over all other human beings. Supporting his argument with known history, Locke concludes that no king over the centuries had asserted to be the heir of Adam and thereby the rightful ruler of a country.
Lauded as a classic of political philosophy, the treatises by Locke are a common requirement in various educational courses concerning political science and philosophy to this day. While steeped in the historical realities of the late 17th century, the arguments Locke composes for governance favourable to the people and their country's development were immensely influential on political theory during and after the Enlightenment era.
100 pages, Paperback
First published December 1, 1689
13 people are currently reading
93 people want to read
About the author
John Locke
1,948 books1,452 followersLibrarian Note: There is more than one author in the GoodReads database with this name.
John Locke was an English philosopher. He is considered the first of the British Empiricists, but is equally important to social contract theory. His ideas had enormous influence on the development of epistemology and political philosophy, and he is widely regarded as one of the most influential Enlightenment thinkers and contributors to liberal theory. His writings influenced Voltaire and Rousseau, many Scottish Enlightenment thinkers, as well as the American revolutionaries. This influence is reflected in the American Declaration of Independence.
Locke's theory of mind is often cited as the origin for modern conceptions of identity and "the self", figuring prominently in the later works of philosophers such as David Hume, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Immanuel Kant. Locke was the first Western philosopher to define the self through a continuity of "consciousness." He also postulated that the mind was a "blank slate" or "tabula rasa"; that is, contrary to Cartesian or Christian philosophy, Locke maintained that people are born without innate ideas.
John Locke was an English philosopher. He is considered the first of the British Empiricists, but is equally important to social contract theory. His ideas had enormous influence on the development of epistemology and political philosophy, and he is widely regarded as one of the most influential Enlightenment thinkers and contributors to liberal theory. His writings influenced Voltaire and Rousseau, many Scottish Enlightenment thinkers, as well as the American revolutionaries. This influence is reflected in the American Declaration of Independence.
Locke's theory of mind is often cited as the origin for modern conceptions of identity and "the self", figuring prominently in the later works of philosophers such as David Hume, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Immanuel Kant. Locke was the first Western philosopher to define the self through a continuity of "consciousness." He also postulated that the mind was a "blank slate" or "tabula rasa"; that is, contrary to Cartesian or Christian philosophy, Locke maintained that people are born without innate ideas.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews
December 23, 2024
Only read chapters 1, 2, 9 (up to §93) as the assigned reading for this course: Moral Foundations of Politics.
از رسالهی دوم لاک در باب حکومت که بسیار معروفتر است، چندین ترجمه داریم به فارسی: صناعی، ارشدنژاد، عضدانلو.
اما تنها ترجمه از رسالهی اول لاک --تا جایی که اطلاع دارم-- توسط فرشاد شریعت در کتاب «دو رساله حکومت» چاپ شده است.
از رسالهی دوم لاک در باب حکومت که بسیار معروفتر است، چندین ترجمه داریم به فارسی: صناعی، ارشدنژاد، عضدانلو.
اما تنها ترجمه از رسالهی اول لاک --تا جایی که اطلاع دارم-- توسط فرشاد شریعت در کتاب «دو رساله حکومت» چاپ شده است.
April 15, 2020
Really good. I honestly don’t understand how anyone could have thought the divine right of kings made any sense whatsoever, either biblically or logically. Seems like John Locke has a pretty easy time of ripping Sir Robert Filmer’s arguments to shreds. If I wasn’t convinced already, I definitely would be now.
February 3, 2022
Haha. This book is so snarky!
It isn’t really talking about stuff that we argue about today (probably largely due to this book’s devastating arguments). But I loved Locke’s wit and style as he tears down the idea that Kings have their unquestionable powers as an extension of patriarchal fatherhood passed down from Adam.
Locke not only tackles the divine right of kings, but he also asserts the rights of women, the equality of people, the evil of slavery, and other issues that could be described as “before his time.”
It isn’t really talking about stuff that we argue about today (probably largely due to this book’s devastating arguments). But I loved Locke’s wit and style as he tears down the idea that Kings have their unquestionable powers as an extension of patriarchal fatherhood passed down from Adam.
Locke not only tackles the divine right of kings, but he also asserts the rights of women, the equality of people, the evil of slavery, and other issues that could be described as “before his time.”
November 5, 2017
"The great Question which in all Ages has disturbed Mankind, and brought on them the greatest part of those Mischiefs which have ruin'd Cities, depopulated Countries, and disordered the Peace of the World, has been, Not whether there be Power in the World, nor whence it came, but who should have it."
February 9, 2017
"book version of a Youtube response to Robert Filmer" - Sargon of Akkad :D
A very careful and well-considering extensive demolition of Patriarcha's justifications
A very careful and well-considering extensive demolition of Patriarcha's justifications
February 16, 2022
It is late 17th Century England, many things are unclear, the divinity in the divine right of kings/monarchs is shaky, people seem to be valuing concepts like liberty, the monarch still has power, but some people say they have unalienable rights among which the right to turn on an oppressive ruler. You do not like that, and thus you write and publish Patriarcha, a declaration of the divine and absolute power of the king, the monarch, and the patriarch, everyone else are mere slave and they should accept that. You are Robert Filmer.
John Locke very much disapproves and replies with this book, The Treatise of Government. The first paragraph alone is enough to get a feel for what is going to happen:
Slavery is so vile and miserable an estate of man, and so directly opposite to the generous temper and courage of our nation; that it is hardly to be conceived, that an Englishman, much less a gentleman, should plead for it. And truly I should have taken Sir Robert Filmer’s Patriarcha, as any other treatise, which would persuade all men, that they are slaves, and ought to be so, for such another exercise of wit, as was his who writ the encomium of Nero; rather than for a serious discourse meant in earnest, had not the gravity of the title and epistle, the picture in the front of the book, and the applause that followed it, required me to believe, that the author and publisher were both in earnest. I therefore took it into my hands with all the expectation, and read it through with all the attention due to a treatise that made such a noise at its coming abroad, and cannot but confess my self mightily surprised, that in a book, which was to provide chains for all mankind, I should find nothing but a rope of sand, useful perhaps to such, whose skill and business it is to raise a dust, and would blind the people, the better to mislead them; but in truth not of any force to draw those into bondage, who have their eyes open, and so much sense about them, as to consider, that chains are but an ill wearing, how much care soever hath been taken to file and polish them.
That awed me to say the least. Quite fitting for that to be the first thing I directly read of Locke. In this book Locke annihilates the thesis set by Filmer completely, and I do not exaggerate. This is one of the best constructed criticisms I have ever encountered. During our day and age, you will be pressed to find someone who would take Filmer's side and would need arguments for not being a slave, arguments against the divine right of kings. Which very much explains why this is by far the less popular treatise of government by Locke. There is still a lot of value in reading this though. If anything it demonstrates Locke's ability to tear apart flawed logic, to catch inconsistencies and bring them to light. It also showcases the seeds of the new ideology coming forth in the next century, the ideology of which Locke is considered a forefather, liberalism.
It is quite strange that someone would need to write a 100 pages reply to a 20 pages essay in order to establish the importance and value of freedom and autonomy of all things. However, if anyone is perfect for such a job, it must be John Locke.
John Locke very much disapproves and replies with this book, The Treatise of Government. The first paragraph alone is enough to get a feel for what is going to happen:
Slavery is so vile and miserable an estate of man, and so directly opposite to the generous temper and courage of our nation; that it is hardly to be conceived, that an Englishman, much less a gentleman, should plead for it. And truly I should have taken Sir Robert Filmer’s Patriarcha, as any other treatise, which would persuade all men, that they are slaves, and ought to be so, for such another exercise of wit, as was his who writ the encomium of Nero; rather than for a serious discourse meant in earnest, had not the gravity of the title and epistle, the picture in the front of the book, and the applause that followed it, required me to believe, that the author and publisher were both in earnest. I therefore took it into my hands with all the expectation, and read it through with all the attention due to a treatise that made such a noise at its coming abroad, and cannot but confess my self mightily surprised, that in a book, which was to provide chains for all mankind, I should find nothing but a rope of sand, useful perhaps to such, whose skill and business it is to raise a dust, and would blind the people, the better to mislead them; but in truth not of any force to draw those into bondage, who have their eyes open, and so much sense about them, as to consider, that chains are but an ill wearing, how much care soever hath been taken to file and polish them.
That awed me to say the least. Quite fitting for that to be the first thing I directly read of Locke. In this book Locke annihilates the thesis set by Filmer completely, and I do not exaggerate. This is one of the best constructed criticisms I have ever encountered. During our day and age, you will be pressed to find someone who would take Filmer's side and would need arguments for not being a slave, arguments against the divine right of kings. Which very much explains why this is by far the less popular treatise of government by Locke. There is still a lot of value in reading this though. If anything it demonstrates Locke's ability to tear apart flawed logic, to catch inconsistencies and bring them to light. It also showcases the seeds of the new ideology coming forth in the next century, the ideology of which Locke is considered a forefather, liberalism.
It is quite strange that someone would need to write a 100 pages reply to a 20 pages essay in order to establish the importance and value of freedom and autonomy of all things. However, if anyone is perfect for such a job, it must be John Locke.
August 22, 2021
This is Locke's definitive beat-down of Filmer's Patriarchia.
It has, as Tom Pangle remarks, something of the feeling of seeing a grizzly bear demolish a stuffed animal. Locke wants to show off that he has a better background in Hebrew, that he has thought carefully about the doctrines here, and that Filmer's approach makes no sense.
Certainly this is a pretty thorough demolition of the first part of Filmer. Locke points out that if we are strictly hereditarian here, there should be one true heir to all humanity. But it would be impossible to identify such a person and nothing in the bible suggests that any such office should exist. Moreover, biblical parental authority looks nothing like the absolute despotism Filmer references; as Locke gleefully points out, the bible demands obedience to "mothers and fathers" -- together. Hardly a dictatorship of fathers.
But having read Filmer right before this I am not so totally persuaded. Filmer has three sections, the first is the biblical-classical arguments for hereditary monarchy. But the second is that classical republics go badly, and the third that English parliaments were historically subordinate to kings. Locke doesn't engage with any of that, even though it's the more immediate and less silly part of Filmer.
It has, as Tom Pangle remarks, something of the feeling of seeing a grizzly bear demolish a stuffed animal. Locke wants to show off that he has a better background in Hebrew, that he has thought carefully about the doctrines here, and that Filmer's approach makes no sense.
Certainly this is a pretty thorough demolition of the first part of Filmer. Locke points out that if we are strictly hereditarian here, there should be one true heir to all humanity. But it would be impossible to identify such a person and nothing in the bible suggests that any such office should exist. Moreover, biblical parental authority looks nothing like the absolute despotism Filmer references; as Locke gleefully points out, the bible demands obedience to "mothers and fathers" -- together. Hardly a dictatorship of fathers.
But having read Filmer right before this I am not so totally persuaded. Filmer has three sections, the first is the biblical-classical arguments for hereditary monarchy. But the second is that classical republics go badly, and the third that English parliaments were historically subordinate to kings. Locke doesn't engage with any of that, even though it's the more immediate and less silly part of Filmer.
October 2, 2019
Locke's First Treatise of Government is his prefatory work to the better-known Second Treatise of Government. In the first, he lays the foundation for denouncing the notion of divine right of kings. It is a refutation of Robert Filmer's Patriarcha, a 1680 book that provides a theory of absolute monarchy and the divine right of kings. Historically, a group of Parliamentarians, led by William III of Oranje-Nassau (William of Orange), had just overthrown King James II. Locke claims in the Preface that the purpose of the Two Treatises was to justify William III's ascension to the throne.
Lots of biblical analysis to refute Filmer's own biblical analysis regarding Adam, Noah, and an heir's right to sovereignty. One of the best quotes is found in the last chapter: "The great question which in all ages has disturbed mankind, and brought on them the greatest part of those mischiefs which have ruined cities, depopulated countries, and disordered the peace of the world, has been not whether there be power in the world, nor whence it came, but who should have it." Chapter 10, "Who is Heir?"
Lots of biblical analysis to refute Filmer's own biblical analysis regarding Adam, Noah, and an heir's right to sovereignty. One of the best quotes is found in the last chapter: "The great question which in all ages has disturbed mankind, and brought on them the greatest part of those mischiefs which have ruined cities, depopulated countries, and disordered the peace of the world, has been not whether there be power in the world, nor whence it came, but who should have it." Chapter 10, "Who is Heir?"
January 9, 2018
Read Chapters 1, 2, 9 for the course Moral Foundations of Politics.
The text is a rebuttal of Robert Filmers’ ‘Patriarcha’. Locke pulls apart his arguments (or lack of) systematically, replacing his model of absolute monarchical government with the beginnings of his social contract model. This involves a limited government, created to protect life, liberty and property. Rule is not inherited, unlike property, which children have a ‘natural right’ to.
To be honest, when I read Locke, I always get the impression he is making up any narrative that seems legitimate enough for him to retain whatever power he has in society - similar to many ‘economists’ today. I’m always shocked by grand statements about him being the ‘father of liberalism’. I suppose there’s a disconnect between his assumption of divine reason and my agnostic, borderline atheist, views. Also, my lack of belief in free will tends to derail most liberal arguments.
The text is a rebuttal of Robert Filmers’ ‘Patriarcha’. Locke pulls apart his arguments (or lack of) systematically, replacing his model of absolute monarchical government with the beginnings of his social contract model. This involves a limited government, created to protect life, liberty and property. Rule is not inherited, unlike property, which children have a ‘natural right’ to.
To be honest, when I read Locke, I always get the impression he is making up any narrative that seems legitimate enough for him to retain whatever power he has in society - similar to many ‘economists’ today. I’m always shocked by grand statements about him being the ‘father of liberalism’. I suppose there’s a disconnect between his assumption of divine reason and my agnostic, borderline atheist, views. Also, my lack of belief in free will tends to derail most liberal arguments.
April 17, 2022
İngiliz filozof Locke, gücünü kutsal kitaplardan alan, bizlere de ders kitaplarında anlatılan ve Hz.Adem’den beri dile getirilen “Kral (hükümdar), Tanrı’nın yeryüzündeki gölgesidir.” tezini bir dil bilimci ve teolog hassasiyetiyle inceliyor ve tezin o dönemki savunularından Robert Filmer’ın eserini cümle cümle irdeleyerek tarihin tozlu sayfalarına gömüyor. Modern yönetim ve hükümet kavramının esaslarını neredeyse 500 yıl önce yazmış.
August 1, 2022
I honestly have no idea why the concept of divine successive monarchy is honestly logical or has been logical to anyone... but John Locke refutes the argument well. Of course, he is John Locke, and he is famous for a reason. Anyway, his refutation is a little complicated, but at the same time it is deep and thorough so it's not a bad thing... Interesting debate for sure
November 28, 2023
Dismantles an argument for the divine right of kings. Unfortunately, from a modern perspective that isn't a big fucking deal, so overall it's boring quotations from the old testament. Not worth reading I would say
September 2, 2019
Chap. 1-3,9
July 30, 2019
Yönetim Üzerine İkinci İnceleme'den önce mutlaka okunması gerektiğini düşünüyorum. Bu sayede İkinci İnceleme'deki birçok kısım daha iyi anlaşılacaktır.
May 25, 2018
Chapters 1-3 and 7 for Moral Foundation of Politics (Ian Shapiro class). Surprisingly easy to read.
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews