"By this we may understand there be two kinds of knowledge, whereof the one is nothing else but sense, or knowledge original, and remembrance of the same; the other is called science, or knowledge of the truth of propositions, and how things are called, and is derived from understanding. Both of these sorts are but experience; the former being the experience of the effects of things that work upon us from without; and the latter experience men have from the proper use of names in language: and all experience being, as I have said, but remembrance, all knowledge is remembrance."

The only ambiguity possible in the above passage is that which might arise from the use of the word understanding. This he elsewhere defines as follows:

"When a man, upon the hearing of any speech, hath those thoughts which the words of that speech in their connection were ordained and constituted to signify, then he is said to understand it; understanding being nothing else but conception formed by speech."

We must content ourselves with merely alluding to his admirable observations on language, and with quoting, for the hundredth time, his weighty aphorism, "Words are wise men's counters; they do but reckon by them; but they are the money of fools."

No attempt is here made to do full justice to Hobbes; no notice can be taken of the speculations which made him famous. Our object has been fulfilled if we have made clear to the reader the position Hobbes occupies in modern psychological speculation.

CHAPTER II.

LOCKE.

§ I. LIFE OF LOCKE.

JOHN LOCKE, one of the wisest of Englishmen, was born at Urington, in Somersetshire, on the 29th of August, 1632. Little is known of his family, except that his father had served in the Parliamentary wars; a fact not without significance in connection. with the steady love of liberty manifested by the son.

His education began at Westminster, where he stayed till he was nineteen or twenty. He was then sent to Oxford. That University was distinguished then, as it has ever been, by its attachment to whatever is old: the Past is its model; the Past has its affection. That there is much good in this veneration for the Past, a few will gainsay. Nevertheless, a University which piqued itself on being behind the age, was scarcely the fit place for an original thinker. Locke was ill at ease there. The philosophy upheld there was Scholasticism. On such food a mind like his could not nourish itself. Like his great predecessor Bacon, he imbibed a profound contempt for the University studies, and in after-life regretted that so much of his time should have been wasted on such profitless pursuits. So deeply convinced was he of the vicious method of college education, that he ran into the other extreme, and thought self-education the best. There is a mixture of truth and error in this notion. It is true that all great men have been mainly self-taught; all that is most valuable a man must learn for himself, must work out for himself. The error of Locke's position is the assumption that all men will educate themselves if left to themselves. The fact is, the majority have to be educated by force.

For those

who, if left to themselves, would never educate themselves, colleges and schools are indispensable.

Locke's notion of an educated man is very characteristic of him. Writing to Lord Peterborough, he says, "Your Lordship would have your son's tutor a thorough scholar, and I think it not much matter whether he be any scholar or no: if he but understand Latin well and have a general scheme of the sciences, I think that enough. But I would have him well-bred and well-tempered."

Disgusted with the disputes which usurped the title of Philosophy, Locke principally devoted himself to Medicine while at Oxford. His proficiency is attested by two very different persons, and in two very different ways. Dr. Sydenham, in the Dedication of his Observations on the History and Cure of Acute Diseases, boasts of the approbation bestowed on his Method by Mr. John Locke, "who examined it to the bottom; and who, if we consider his genius and penetrating and exact judgment, has scarce any superior, and few equals now living." The second testimony is that afforded by Lord Shaftesbury, when Locke first met him. The Earl was suffering from an abscess in the chest. No one could discover the nature of his disorder. Locke at once divined it. The Earl followed his advice, submitted to an operation, and was saved. A close intimacy sprang up between them. Locke accompanied him to London, and resided principally in his house.

His attention was thus turned to politics. His visits to Holland delighted him. "The blessings which the people there enjoyed under a government peculiarly favorable to civil and religious liberty, amply compensated, in his view, for what their uninviting territory wanted in scenery and climate."* He also visited France and Germany, making the acquaintance of several distinguished men.

In 1670 he planned his Essay concerning Human Understand

ing. This he did not complete till 1687. In 1675 the delicate state of his health obliged him to travel, and he repaired to the south of France, where he met Lord Pembroke. To him the Essay is dedicated. He returned in 1679, and resumed his studies at Oxford. But his friendship for Shaftesbury, and the liberal opinions he was known to hold, drew upon him the displeasure of the Court. He was deprived of his studentship by a very arbitrary act.* Nor did persecution stop there. He was soon forced to quit England, and find refuge at the Hague. There also the anger of the king pursued him, and he was obliged to retreat further into Holland. It was there he published his celebrated Letter on Toleration.

He did not return to England till after the Revolution. Then there was security and welcome. He was pressed to accept a high diplomatic office in Germany, but the state of his health prevented him. In 1690 the first edition of his Essay appeared. He had indeed already (1688) published an abridgment of it in Leclerc's Bibliothèque Universelle. The success of this Essay was immense; and Warburton's assertion to the contrary falls to the ground on the mere statement of the number of editions which the work rapidly went through. Six editions within fourteen years, and in times when books sold more slowly than they sell now, is evidence enough.

The publication of his Essay roused great opposition. He soon got involved in the discussions with Stillingfleet, Bishop of Worcester. He was soon after engaged in the political discussions of the day, and published his Treatise on Government. It was about this time that he became acquainted with Sir Isaac

* See Macaulay, History of England, i. 545–6.

The writer of the article Locke, in the Ency. Brit., says that the fourth edition appeared in 1700. Victor Cousin repeats the statement, and adds that a fifth edition was preparing when death overtook the author; this fifth edition appearing in 1705. We know not on what authority these writers speak; but that they are in error may be seen by turning to Locke's Epistle to the Reader, the last paragraph of which announces that the edition then issued by Locke himself is the sixth.

Newton; and a portion of their very interesting correspondence has been given by Lord King in his Life of Locke.

Locke's health, though always delicate, had not been disturbed by any imprudences, so that he reached the age of seventy-two -a good ripe age for one who had studied and thought. He expired in the arms of his friend, Lady Masham, on the 28th of October, 1704.

§ II. ON THE SPIRIT OF LOCKE'S WRITINGS.

It has for many years been the fashion to decry Locke. Indirect sneers at his "superficiality" abound in the writings of those who, because their thought is so muddy that they cannot [see its shallow bottom, fancy they are profound. Locke's "materialism" is also a favorite subject of condolence with these writers; and they assert that his principles "lead to atheism." Lead whom?

Another mode of undervaluing Locke is to assert that he only borrowed and popularized the ideas originated by Hobbes. The late Mr. Hazlitt-an acute thinker, and a metaphysician, but a wilful reckless writer-deliberately asserted that Locke owed every thing to Hobbes. Dr. Whewell repeats the charge, though in a more qualified manner. He says, "Hobbes had already promulgated the main doctrines, which Locke afterwards urged, on the subject of the origin and nature of our knowledge."

Again, "Locke owed his authority mainly to the intellectual circumstances of the time. Although a writer of great merit, he by no means possesses such metaphysical acuteness, or such philosophical largeness of view, or such a charm of writing, as to give him the high place he has held in the literature of Europe."

That Locke did not borrow his ideas from Hobbes will be very apparent in our exposition of Locke; but meanwhile we may quote the testimony of Sir James Mackintosh, one of the best read of our philosophers, and one intimately acquainted with both these thinkers: