{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.026299311208515967, 'fraction_numerical': 0.011271133375078271, 'mean_word_length': 5.2421875, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Revolutionary Politics and Locke's Two Treatises of Government.: Radicalism and Lockean Political Theory

ADITIONALLY, LOCKE‘S Two Treatises of Governmenr has been presented to us as a philosophical defense of common sense political beliefs, as an historical defense of the Glorious Revolution of 1689, and as a political defense of the principles of liberalism. In the interpretive literature on Locke, these propositions were often interrelated and were seen to be mutually reinforcing. Thus, as one who had poured the common ideas of his age into a “philosophical mold,” Locke could be viewed as the spokesman for his contemporaries’ support for the establishment of William and Mary on the throne, and this event, in turn, was the foundation stone for the ediface of eighteenthand nineteenth-century English liberalism.1 Twenty-five years ago, Peter Laslett delivered an apparently serious blow to the historical support for this enclosure of Locke’s political thought. The Two Treatises of Government, Laslett declared, had been written during the exclusion crisis (1679-1681) and not a decade later, after the Glorious Revolution, as had been previously supposed.* Although it should have made a significant impact on our interpretation of the Two Treatises to know that Locke wrote the work to promote a revolution not yet accomplished rather than to justify an already successful invasion by William, the fact is, as Laslett admits, this has not been the case.3 In works published since 1960, scholars have, of course, made the necessary historical “adjustments” in their discussion of the