To what extent does Peter Laslett’s interpretation challenge the traditional view that Hobbes was the principal antagonist in Locke’s Two Treatises of Government, and how does positioning Sir Robert Filmer as Locke’s primary target reshape our understanding of Locke’s political project, especially regarding the critique of patriarchal absolutism and the foundations of liberal constitutionalism?

Peter Laslett’s seminal editorial introduction to Two Treatises of Government (1960) profoundly reshaped scholarly interpretations of John Locke’s political philosophy. Contrary to the traditional reading which casts Thomas Hobbes as the central interlocutor and antagonist in Locke’s argument for limited government, Laslett convincingly argues that Sir Robert Filmer—author of Patriarcha—was Locke’s principal target. This repositioning shifts the interpretive lens away from a broad abstract engagement with absolutism in general, particularly the Hobbesian rationalization of sovereignty, and toward a more historically grounded critique of patriarchal divine-right monarchy as espoused by Filmer. The implications of this shift are significant: it reframes Locke’s Two Treatises not only as a theoretical foundation for liberal constitutionalism, but also as a direct intervention in the ideological battles of Restoration and post-Restoration England, particularly against the revival of royalist, patriarchal doctrines in the context of the Exclusion Crisis and the Glorious Revolution.

---

I. Traditional Interpretation: Locke vs. Hobbes

In the canonical liberal tradition, Locke is often presented as the Enlightenment heir to a rationalist rejection of Hobbesian absolutism. Under this reading:

• Hobbes is understood to defend absolute sovereignty as necessary for peace and civil order, grounding authority in a social contract that sacrifices liberty for security.
• Locke counters with a liberal theory of government rooted in natural rights, limited sovereignty, and the right of resistance.

This traditional narrative casts Leviathan and Two Treatises as dialectical opposites: Hobbes justifies autocracy from rationalist premises; Locke reclaims liberty through the social contract and the rule of law.

However, Laslett’s interpretation complicates this binary by emphasizing the contextual, polemical purpose of Locke’s work.

---

II. Laslett’s Argument: Locke vs. Filmer

Laslett’s research revealed that the Two Treatises were written around 1680—during the Exclusion Crisis—and not in 1689 as previously assumed. This discovery makes clear that Locke was writing in opposition to Filmerian absolutism, not as a delayed philosophical counter to Hobbes.

Sir Robert Filmer’s Patriarcha argued that:

• All political authority descends from the Biblical Adam, establishing a patriarchal and divinely sanctioned monarchy.
• Subjects have no right to rebel against the king, who holds paternal authority analogous to a father’s rule over his household.

Filmer’s political theology thus sought to naturalize monarchical absolutism through scriptural and patriarchal reasoning. Locke’s First Treatise is a point-by-point refutation of Filmer’s arguments, demonstrating their historical, logical, and moral incoherence.

Laslett emphasizes that:

• Locke devoted the entire First Treatise to demolishing Filmer’s theological-patriarchal conception of government.
• This indicates that Filmer—not Hobbes—was the immediate polemical target.
• Hobbes is rarely mentioned by name, and where referenced, his ideas are treated more peripherally.

---

III. Political Context: Restoration Absolutism and Patriarchy

The resurgence of Filmer’s ideas in the late 17th century coincided with the Restoration of the monarchy (1660), the increasing centralization of royal authority, and efforts to defend the Stuart divine right to rule, particularly under James II.

Filmer’s Patriarcha became a foundational text for Tory royalists who sought to justify monarchical power not on Hobbesian contractual grounds, but on theological and paternalist ones. This made Filmer’s ideas especially dangerous in Locke’s eyes, as they:

• Sanctified political inequality, subjugation, and tyranny in the name of divine order.
• Legitimized both political absolutism and patriarchal dominance, linking the subordination of citizens with the subordination of women and children.

Locke’s rebuttal is thus aimed at dismantling not just authoritarian politics but the ideological fusion of religion, patriarchy, and monarchy.

---

IV. Implications for Understanding Locke’s Political Project

A. Recasting Locke’s Liberalism

When seen through the lens of Laslett’s interpretation, Locke’s liberalism emerges less as an abstract theory of rights and more as a militant constitutionalist ideology committed to:

• The delegation of power through consent,
• The protection of individual rights against hereditary privilege,
• The secularization of political authority, and
• The rejection of patriarchy as a political model.

His Second Treatise does not merely defend liberty in the abstract but proposes an alternative to Filmer’s patriarchal absolutism, grounded in:

• Natural equality of individuals,
• The idea that political authority is artificial, not natural or divinely ordained,
• And that power must be limited, conditional, and accountable.

B. Gendered and Anti-Patriarchal Dimensions

Filmer’s theory analogized the king to the father, and the state to the family. Locke decouples the household from the state:

• He distinguishes paternal power (which he limits to guardianship and education) from political power (which requires consent).
• He thereby challenges the ideological use of the family as a justification for political hierarchy.
• This distinction has important implications for later feminist critiques and for the conceptual separation of the private and public spheres in liberal theory.

C. Rethinking Hobbes’ Role

While Hobbes does present a model of absolute authority, he does so on contractual and secular grounds. Locke may disagree with Hobbes’ conclusions, but he shares with him:

• The belief that political authority must be justified,
• A rejection of divine-right monarchy,
• And the use of reason rather than scripture as a basis for political philosophy.

In this light, Hobbes may be seen as a philosophical adversary, but not the ideological enemy that Filmer was.

---

V. Conclusion: Theoretical and Political Reorientation

Laslett’s reinterpretation of Locke’s Two Treatises as primarily an anti-Filmerian, rather than anti-Hobbesian, tract compels a critical re-evaluation of Locke’s place in the history of liberal thought. Rather than merely countering authoritarian rationalism à la Hobbes, Locke was engaged in a direct assault on the theological-patriarchal foundations of Restoration absolutism. This reorientation:

• Restores the First Treatise to its proper importance,
• Underscores Locke’s commitment to constitutionalism, secularism, and individual rights,
• And reveals the Two Treatises as a political manifesto designed to legitimate the Glorious Revolution and the norms of parliamentary sovereignty.

Ultimately, Laslett’s scholarship deepens our appreciation of Locke as a revolutionary thinker—not merely defending abstract liberty, but actively dismantling the ideological architecture of patriarchal monarchy, thereby laying the philosophical groundwork for modern liberal democracy.