William Molyneux (1656-98)


Life
b. Dublin; son of a lawyer and landowner who was also an accomplished mathematician; br. of Sir Thomas; entered TCD 1671, studied maths and science and immersed himself in Descartes, Gassendi and Bacon and later Locke - of whom he wrote: Molyneux also states, in the same paragraph, that ‘no age has seen a more admirable piece” than Locke’s Essay’; grad. B.A., 1674; elected the first sec. of TCD Phil. Soc., which he founded with William King; Middle Temple, (London) 1675-78; translated Descartes’s Meditations (London 1680); returned to Dublin and was appt. Surveyor-General. of the King’s Buildings, 1684-88; quit Ireland for Chester during the Jacobite administration, 1689; appt. Commissioner of Army Accounts, 1690; elected MP for Dublin Univ. 1692 and 1695; fnd. member Dublin Philosophical Society with Sir William Petty and twelve others incl. Narcissus Marsh (among whom Mark Baggot was the sole Catholic), meeting first in a coffee house, 1683 [var. 1684]; developed the Dublin Hygroscope to measure moisture in the atmosphere; DPS reaches 34 members by 1685, with premisses in Crow St.;
 

Molyneux is famed in philosophy for posing the question to John Locke whether a man who had been blind and then gained his sight could tell a cube from a circle without touching them first. [See MQ - infra.]

 
commenced correspondence with Pierre Bayle, 1687; cessation of Society’s affairs when the ‘distracted state of the kingdom dispersed [the members] in 1688’ (TRIA, 1787), not to be renewed until 1707; exchanged letters with Locke, 1692-98 [publ. in ; influenced by Locke’s theory of government by contract in Two Treatises of Government (1690); Irish MP for Dublin City, 1692, and for Dublin University, 1695; strenuously opposed prohibitory rights of English parliament affecting Irish woollen exports; conveyed the copy of Richard Plunkett’s Gaelic-Latin dictionary to Edward Lhuyd, under heavy conditions, c.1695; his treatise on optics publ. as Diotrica Nova (1692), on refraction and lens-grinding written in collaboration with the Royal Astonomer Flamstead and with Halley, who added his method of establishing the “face” of optical lens;
 
Molyneux went on to publish The Case of Ireland’s being Bound by Acts of Parliament in England, Stated (1698), a pamphlet arising from the restrictive woollen laws of 1697 and treating of the deleterious effects of English legislation on Irish industry at larger - thus inaugurating the criticism of laws restricting Irish exports to English ships; the book was purportedly burned by the common hangman - the fate that actually met Christianity not Mysterious (1696) by John Toland [q.v.] whose destruction Molyneux himself reported in a letter to John Locke - a rumour about his own book (Case of Ireland &c.) now known to have been started by Charles Lucas [q.v.]; The Case was condemned by Westminster Parliament and Molyneux spent five weeks lodging with Locke during the ensuing fracas; later wavered on the question of the Union with Great Britain; exchange num. letters with Locke, collected as died in Dublin on his return, Oct. 1698; the definitive edition of Molyneux’s The Case of Ireland’s Being Bound [... &c] has been edited by Patrick Hyde Kelly (Dublin 2018). RR CAB ODNB JMC DIB FDA OCIL

[ top ]

Works
  • Dioptrica Nova (London: Benj. Tooke 1692), 4o [Wing M2405].
  • The Case of Ireland’s Being Bound by Acts of Parliament in England, Stated (Dublin: Joseph Ray 1698), 8o [Wing M2402; [details], and Do. [further edns.] (1706, 1719, 1720, 1725, 1749, 1770, 1773, 1776, and 1782).
See also
  • Some Familiar Letters between Mr Locke and Several of His Friends (London 1708) [of which the letters of Lock and Molyneux form the main part - including those treating of John Toland.]

Bibliographical details
The Case for Ireland’s being Bound by Acts of Parliament in England Stated / by William Molyneux, of Dublin, Esq.; Dublin, printed by Joseph Ray, and are to be sold at his Shop in Skinner Row (MDC XC VIII) [see details of NLI presentation copy in Notes, infra]; Do. [rep. of 1st edn.] as J. G. Simms, ed. & intro., The Case of Ireland Stated by William Molyneux, with an afterword by Denis Donoghue [Irish Writings from the Age of Swift, 5] (Dublin: Cadenus Press 1977), 148pp., ill [lim. edn. 350 copies]

[ top ]

Criticism
  • Simon Clement, An Answer to Mr Molyneux his case of Ireland ... stated: and his dangerous notion of Ireland’s being under no subordination to the parliamentary authority of England refuted (London 1698).
  • Robert Burrowes, Preface to Transactions of the Royal Irish Academy, Vol. 1 (1787).
  • Sir Capel Molyneux, Anecdotes of the Life of ... William Molyneux (Dublin 1803).
  • Richard Ryan, Biographia Hibernica: Irish Worthies (1821), Vol. II, pp.433-37 [as attached].
  • J. G. Simms, ed, The Case &c., with an afterword by Denis Donoghue (Dublin: Cadenus 1977).
  • M. J. Morgan, Molyneux’s Questions (Cambridge UP 1977).
  • J. G. Simms, William Molyneux of Dublin, A Life of the Seventeenth-century Political Writer and Scientist (Dublin: IAP 1982).
  • C[aroline] Robbins, The Eighteenth-Century Commonwealth Man [sic, but vide Molesworth] (Harvard UP 1979), espec. Chap. V.
  • Patrick Kelly, ‘Molyneux and Locke: The Anatomy of a Friendship’, in Hermethena, CXXVI (Summer 1979), pp.38-53 [see extract].
  • [...]
  • Patrick Kelly, ‘Recasting a tradition: William Molyneux and the sources of The case of Ireland ... stated (1698)’, in Political Thought in Seventeenth-century Ireland: Kingdom or Colony?, ed. Jane H. Ohlmeyer (Cambridge UP 2000) [Chap. 3].
  • Patrick Kelly, ‘Conquest versus consent as the basis of the English title to Ireland in William Molyneux’s Case of Ireland ... stated (1698)’, in British Interventions in Early Modern Ireland, ed. Ciaran Brady & Jane Ohlmeyer (Cambridge UP 2005) [Chap. 15].
  • Bryan Fanning & Tom Garvin, ‘Chap. 3: William Molyneux, The Case of Ireland’s being bound by Acts of Parliament in England, Stated (1698)’, in Books That Define Ireland (Sallins: Merrion 2014), Chap. 3.
  • Gabriele Ferretti & Brian Glenney, eds., Molyneux's Question and the History of Philosophy (London: Rouledge 2021) - espec. Manuel Fasko & Peter West, ‘Molyneux’s Question The Irish Debates” [see extracts]
 

See also J. G. Simms, Colonial Nationalism, 1698-1776 (Cork: Mercier 1976); D. George Boyce, Nationalism in Ireland (London: Routledge 1982; 1991 Edn.), p.102; Jim Smyth, ‘Anglo-Irish Unionists Discourse, c.1656-1707: From Harrington to Fletcher’, in Bullán: An Irish Studies Journal, Vol. 2, No. 1 (Summer 1995), esp. p.24-26; Bryan Fanning, ‘William Molyneux and the case for Ireland’, in Histories of the Irish Future (London: Bloomsbury 2015), pp.27-40 [Chap. 3; partially available at Google Books - online].

Long read:

Gabriele Ferretti & Brian Glenney, eds., Molyneux's Question and the History of Philosophy (London: Rouledge 2021) [see extracts]

Manuel Fasko & Peter West, Molyneux’s Question The Irish debates”, in Molyneux's Question and the History of Philosophy , ed. Gabriele Ferretti & Brian Glenney (Rouledge 2021), Chap. 7 [see extract].

[ top ]

Commentary

Jonathan Swift, “Drapier’s Fourth Letter”: ‘’Tis true indeed, that within the memory of man, the Parliaments of England have sometimes assumed the power of binding this kingdom by laws enacted there, wherein they were at first openly opposed (as far as truth, reason and justice are capable of opposing) by the famous Mr. Molyneux, an English gentleman born here, as well as by several of the greatest patriots, and best Whigs in England; but the love and torrent of power prevailed. Indeed the arguments on both sides were invincible; for in reason, all government without the consent of the governed is the very definition of slavery; but in fact, eleven men well armed will certainly subdue one single man in his shirt. But I have done. For those who have used power to cramp liberty have gone so far as to resent even the liberty of complaning, although a man upon the rack was never known to be refused the liberty of roaring as loud as he thought fit.’ (Quoted in Irvin Ehrenpreis, Swift: The Man, His Works and the Age, vol. 2, Methuen 1983, p.255; citing Drapier, p.79.)
 
Cf. Molyneux: ‘We are in a miserable condition indeed, if we may not be allow’d to complain, when we think we are hurt.’ (Quoted in, Declan Kiberd, ‘Jonathan Swift: a Colonial Outsider?’, in Irish Classics, London: Granta 2000, p.84.)

Richard Ryan, Biographia Hibernica: Irish Worthies, Vol.II [of 2] (London & Dublin 1821), pp.433-37.

[...]
Soon after his return from abroad [in Holland, Germany and France] he printed at Dublin in 1686, his “Sciothericum Telescopium,” containing the description of the structure and use of a telescopic {435} dial invented by him; another edition of which was published at London in 1700, 4to. On the publication of Sir Isaac Newton’s “Principia,” the following year, 1687, our author was struck with the same astonishment as the rest of the world; but declared also, that he was not qualified to examine the particulars. The celebrated Halley, with whom he constantly corresponded, had sent him the several parts of this inestimable treasure as they came from the press, before the whole was finished, assuring him that he looked upon it as the utmost effort of human genius. In 1688, the Philosophical Society at Dublin was broken up and dispersed by the confusion of the times.
 Mr. Molyneux had distinguished himself as a member of it from the beginning, by several discourses upon various subjects; some of which were transmitted to the Royal Society at London, and afterwards printed in the “Philosophical Transactions.” In 1689, among great numbers of other protestants, he withdrew from the disturbances in Ireland, occasioned by the severities of Tyrconnel’s government; and, after a short stay in London, fixed himself with his family at Chester. In his his retirement he employed himself in putting together the materials he had some time before prepared, for his “Dioptrics,”[sic] in which he was much assisted by Flamstead; and, in August 1690, went to London to put it to press, the sheets being revised by Halley, who, at our author’s request, gave leave for printing in the appendix, his celebrated theorem for finding the face of optic glasses; accordingly the book made its appearance in 1692, in 4to, under the title of “Dioptrica Nova.”
[...]
  As soon as the public tranquillity was settled in his native country, he returned home; and upon the convening of a new parliament in 1692, was chosen one of the representatives for the city of Dublin. In the next parliament, in 1695, he was chosen to represent the Uni{436}versity there, and continued to do so to the end of his life; that learned body having, soon after his election, conferred on him the degree of Doctor of Laws. He was likewise nominated by the lord-lieutenant one of the commissioners for the forfeited estates, to which employment was annexed a salary of £500 ayear; but looking upon it as an invidious office, and not being a lover of money, he declined it. In 1698, he published, "The Case of Ireland stated, in Relation to its being bound by Acts of Parliament made in England," in which he is supposed to have delivered all or most that can be said upon the subject with great clearness and strength of reasoning. This piece (a second edition of which, with additions and emendations, was printed in 1780, 8vo.) was answered by John Cary, merchant of Bristol, in a book, called, "A Vindication of the Parliament of England, &c." dedicated to the Lord Chancellor Somers; and by Atwood, a lawyer. Of these, Nicolson remarks, that the merchant argues like a counsellor at law, and the barrister strings his small ware together like a shop-keeper.
  What occasioned Molyneux to write the above tract, was his conceiving the Irish woollen manufactory to be oppressed by the English government; on which account be could not forbear asserting his country’s independency. He had given Mr. Locke a hint of his thoughts on this subject before it was quite ready for the press, and desired his sentiments upon the fundamental principle on which his argument was grounded; in answer to which that gentleman, intimating that the business was of too large an extent to be the subject of a letter, proposed to talk the matter over with him in England. This, together with a purpose which Molyneux had long formed of paying that great man, whom he had never yet seen [...] (pp.436.)

See full copy in RICORSO Library > Criticism> History > Legacy - via index or as attached.

Russell Alspach, Irish Poetry from the English Invasion to 1798 (Phil: Pennsylvania UP 1959), pp.75ff; incls. bibl.: Robert Burrowes, ‘Preface’ to Transactions of the Royal Irish Academy, Vol. 1 (1787), p.xiii; also Samuel Ayscough, ‘Minutes and Register of the Philosophical Society of Dublin, from 1683 to 1687, with copies of the papers read before them’, itemising Molyneux’s contributions as ‘Concerning Lough-Neagh, and its petrifying quality’; ‘A way of viewing pictures in miniature’; and ‘Queries relating to Lough Neagh’ (Transactions, 1787, pp.473-74). Note that Alspach holds that The Case of Ireland was ordered to be burnt in the palace yard in Dublin, ‘for it was to be many years before Englishmen stopped looking askance at Irshmen who had the temerity to stand up for their country. But Molyneux’s pamphlet circulated widely; it pointed the way to eventual independence.’ (Alspach, p.76).

Patrick Kelly, ‘Lock and Molyneux, the anatomy of a friendship’, in Hermethena, 126 (Summer 1979), pp. 38-54: ‘The friendship between the philosopher Locke and the Dublin scientist and writer on politics, William Molyneux, is known to the world through their correspondence, published in 1708 as the majpr part of the Familiar Letters between Mr Lock and several of his friends and rerpinted in each of the fourteen eidtions of Locke’s Works that appewared between 1714 and 1826.’ Kelly goes on to speaks about the attractive aspect of the correspondence, its warmth, good sense and urbanity, but remarks on hidden tensions which culminated in the publication of Molyneux’s famous pamphlet, The case of Ireland’s being bound by Act of Parliament in English’, ‘a work generally regarded as the pioneer statement of what later became known as “colonial nationalism”.’ (p.38. available at JSTOR - online; accessed 29.01.2024.)

W. B. Stanford, Ireland and the Classical Tradition (IAP 1976; 1984), William Molyneux founded Dublin Philosophical Society in 1683, lasted only six years [see also seq., under Thomas Molyneux and James Caulfeild, Earl of Charlemont] [70]. Further: William Molyneux, scientist, Dioptrica Nova, &c (London 1692), in the introduction condemns ‘the commentators on Aristotle’ for rendering ‘Physics an heap of froathy Disputes’ though Aristotle was ‘certainly himself a most diligent and profound investigator of Nature’. He also explains that he has written in English because he is ‘sure that there are many ingenious Heads, great Geomaters and masters in Mathematics, who are not so well skill’d in Latin.’ [190]

A. N. Jeffares, W. B. Yeats, A New Biography (1988), notes that Yeats links Swift with Molyneux. in his Introduction to Words Upon the Window-Pane (1934; Jeffares p.300).

D. George Boyce, Nationalism in Ireland (London: Routledge 1982), quoting his Case to the effect that the ‘original compact’ between Henry II and the people of Ireland was ‘that they should enjoy the like liberties and immunities, and be governed by the same ... laws, both civil and ecclesiastical, as the people of England.’; further insisting on the connection to the imperial crown to which ‘we must ever owe our happiness’, while Ireland had always enacted statutes relating to this succession ‘by which it appears that Ireland, to annexed to the Crown of England has always been looked upon to be a Kingdom complete in itself, and to have all jurisdiction to an absolute kingdom belonging and subordinate to no legislative authority on earth’. (p.102; remarking furrther that Swift took up this theme.)

Joseph Th. Leerssen, Mere Irish & Fior-Ghael: Studies in the Idea of Irish Nationality, Its Development and Literary Expression Prior To The Nineteenth Century (Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Pub. Co. 1986), remarks on William Molyneux, The case of Ireland’s being bound by acts of parliament in England (1698), arising from the trade restrictions and especially the wool bill being discussed in the House of Commons. Molyneux was also translated Descartes’ Meditations into English and was a correspondent of John Locke. His argument regard the rights of the Irish parliament turns on the difference between planters and Gaels, ‘supposing Henry II had Right to invade this Island, and that he had been oppos’d therein by the Inhabitants, it was only the Ancient Race of the Irish, that could suffer by their Subjugation; the English and Britains, that came over and Conquer’d with him, retain’d all the Freedoms and Immunities of Free-born Subjects. (p.19-20). The dedication asserts, ‘Your Majesty has not in all Your Dominions a People more United and Steady in your Interest than the Protestants of Ireland.’ But those Old English who had established parliamentary practice had generally remained Catholic and Stuart supporters [342]. The Case of Ireland elicited criticism in English responses such as Case of Ireland, An Answer to Mr Molyneux (London 1698), where the inference was ironically made that if Molyneux was right the Irish parliament should be filled with Old English. Molyneux’s book can be counted as one of the first instances of the effect of Enlightenment thought on British politics, since it addresses questions of the reciprocal rights and duties of citizen and government. The celebrated core of Molyneux’s declamatory view is this, ‘that Ireland should be bound by Acts of Parliament made in England, is against Reason, and the Common Rights of all Mankind. All men are by Nature in a State of Equality, in Respect of Jurisdiction or Dominion, this I take to be a Principle in it self so evident, that it stands in need of little Proof. ... [a maxim] so inherent to all Mankind, and founded on such Immutable laws of Nature and Reason, that ‘tis not be be Alien’d or Given Up, by any Body of Men whatsoever.’ The source is his friend Locke’s [anonymous] Treatise on Government, and a number of Molyneux’s arguments echo that text almost verbatim. (Leerssen, op. cit., pp.343-45]

Davis Coakley, Irish Masters of Medicine (Town House ?1993), William Molyneux, Robert Boyle, and Allen Mullen founded the Dublin Philosophical Society along Baconian lines - Molyneux’s rules are like a extract from Novum Organum and his economic plan for Ireland was as a range for sheep and beef supplying England. [Mullen, q.v.]

Jim Smyth, ‘Anglo-Irish Unionists Discourse, c.1656-1707: From Harrinton to Fletcher’, in Bullán: An Irish Studies Journal, Vol. 2, No. 1 (Summer 1995), esp. p.24-26: [...] Moylneux’s reputation rests on the influence which the Case exercised amongst eighteent-century Irish na American patriots and on its contribution to the [24] history of political thought. But, as a cononical, free-standnig text, the Case presents certain puzzles, notably the stray single-sentence endorsement of union and the rehetorical near-elimination of the Catholic population. ... it is celar that union as a means to an end did not necessarily conflict with the defence of the Irish parliament, viewed as a means to the same end. It is equally clear that the minimising of Catholic numbers was not quite a “bare-faced” “evasion”, or at least not an original or even an unusual one. [Discusses contempoary criticisms brought to bear on the Case by William Atwood and Simon Clement.] ‘Atwood and Clement ... were no more troubled by the inconsistency of excludnig the colonists (or natives) from the liberaties which they claimed for themselves, than was Molyneux by the inconsistency of excluding Catholics from the liberties which he claimed for all mankind. Colonies were perceived as a potential threat [...]’ (pp.24-25.)

[ top ]

Two witnesses ..

Andrew Carpenter - details of the presentation copy of Case of Ireland to the National Library of Ireland in commemoration of Sybil le Brocquy, supplied in ‘A Personal Appreciation’ of Sybil le Brocquy (Cadenus Press 1976): King, the dedicatee, was in dispute with the London companies during his incumbency in Derry, bringing a case to the House of Lords are regards their land and fishing rights, which was then overturned in London, finding that the Irish judgement was coram no iudice, i.e., that the Irish house had no appellate jurisdiction and, in effect, that the Irish parliament could always be overruled and had no effective power. The main argument is the government can only be carried on with the consent of the governed: ‘I have no other notion of slavery but being bound by a law to which I do not consent’; ‘To tax without consent is little better than downright robbing me. I am sure the great patriots of liberty and property, the free people of England, cannot think of such a thing but with abhorrence.’ The book was found to be ‘of dangerous consequence to the crown and people of England by denying the authority of the king and parliament of England to bind the kingdom of Ireland and people of Ireland [...]’.

Mary Manning, ‘A Personal Appreciation’ of Sybil le Brocquy, 1976 gives an account of the copy of The Case for Ireland’s being Bound by Acts of Parliament in England Stated by Molyneux,: presented to the National Library of Ireland in honour of Sybil le Brocquy originally belonged to William King and later passed to William Shaw Mason who had it bound, prob. by George Mullen, and presented it to Earl of Charlemont when Lord Lieutenant. Dark Green Morocco. King, the dedicatee, was in dispute with the London companies during his incumbency in Derry, bringing a case to the House of Lords are regards their land and fishing rights, which was then overturned in London, finding that the Irish judgement was coram no iudice, i.e., that the Irish house had no appellate jurisdiction and, in effect, that the Irish parliament could always be overruled and had no effective power. The main argument is the government can only be carried on with the consent of the governed: ‘I have no other notion of slavery but being bound by a law to which I do not consent’; ‘To tax without consent is little better than downright robbing me. I am sure the great patriots of liberty and property, the free people of Englan, cannot think of such a thing but with abhorrence.’ The book was found to be ‘of dangerous consequence to the crown and people of England by denying the authority of the king and parliament of England to bind the kingdom of Ireland and people of Ireland …’. Grattan 1782, called out: ‘Spirit of Swift! Spirit of Molyneux! Your genius has prevailed. Ireland is now a nation. In that new characters I hail her, and bowing to her august presence, I say, Esto perpetua!’ (See bibliographical notice by Andrew Carpenter.)

Ian Leask, ‘“A Matter of Dangerous Consequence”: Molyneux and Locke on Toland’, in Between Secularization and Reform Religion in the Enlightenment, ed. Anna Tomaszewska [Brill's Studies in Intellectual History, 340 (Brill Print Publication 2022): "William Molyneux’s attitude to John Locke, as demonstrated by their cor- respondence, might appear to be that of a fawning acolyte: on the face of it, Molyneux’s reverence at times leaves him almost prostrate. Certainly, Locke makes important changes to the Essay Concerning Human Understanding as a direct result of Molyneux’s queries. Nonetheless, reading Molyneux’s own account, there is no mistaking the seniority of Locke: in 1694, for example, Molyneux declares that “a man of greater candour and humanity [than Locke] there moves not on the face of the earth.” Three years later, Molyneux tells Locke (on 17th Sept. 1697) about the portrait of him (Locke) that hangs in his dining room in Dublin - and also that Robert Molesworth is wont to call by in order to “pay his Devotion”! (Even allowing for the exaggerated conventions of epistolary discourse, this depiction of philosophical worship remains strikingly strange.) Despite the genuine reverence evidenced here, closer analysis of the Locke-Molyneux correspondence regarding the very particular case of John Toland, and the events and misadventures that characterized Toland’s sojourn in Dublin in 1697, reveal a different aspect to Molyneux’s attitude. As I want to show in this chapter, it seems that Molyneux refused to accept the “abandonment” of Toland that Locke more or less commands; moreover, he sought to defend Toland, in part, upon the basis of Locke’s own philosophical-political principles - thereby showing himself to be (on this occasion, at least) more Lockean than Locke himself. To make this case, I begin by providing some wider biographical and contex- tual information about both Molyneux and Toland. I then outline, first, the way in which Toland’s most famous (or infamous) text, Christianity Not Mysterious, [219] draws on important Lockean conceptions to construct its case against conven- tional religious views and, secondly, the kind of backlash that this “borrow- ing” produced, against Locke himself, as well as Toland. With this established, I offer a narrative account of the relevant sections of the Molyneux-Locke corre- spondence, showing Locke’s increasing irritation with the trouble that Toland (and their perceived association) had generated.

Of the mid-1690s: This was a particularly turbulent period, in terms of the wider theological-political conjunction: the attempt to restore a Catholic monarchy in Britain and Ireland had been defeated; the Anglican Church was determined to cement its hegemony; Irish Protestants also wanted to ensure that their parliament in Dublin enjoyed “equal rights” alongside Westminster. It was within this context that Molyneux produced his The Case of Ireland’s Being Bound by Acts of Parliament in England, Stated, in 1698. The book, which made solid use of Molyneux’s legal training (and, to some extent, his appreciation of Locke’s political philosophy), set out the case for legislative independence for Dublin, and was duly condemned by the London parliament [...]" . [Available online; accessed 29.01.2024.]

(Ftns. incl. Capel Molyneux, An Account of the Family and Descendents of Sir Thomas Molyneux (Evesham: 1820); Correspondence of John Locke, 8 vols. (Oxford 1976-1989); Patrick Hyde Kelly’s definitive edition of the text: William Molyneux’s The Case of Ireland’s Being Bound by Acts of Parliament in England, Stated (Dublin: 2018).

Molyneux’s Question
Gabriele Ferretti & Brian Glenney, eds., Molyneux's Question and the History of Philosophy (London: Rouledge 2021), 370pp.
INTRODUCTION: The editors of the collection begin by speaking about ‘the question posed by William Molyneux [..] to John Locke, in a private letter of 1693.’: ‘This “jocose problem” - as Molyneux himself considered it - was published by Lock in the second edition of his Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1694). His formulation (hereater MQ) is very well known [quoting Locke]: [“]‘Suppose a man born blind, and now adult, and taught by his touch to distinguish a cube and a sphere of the same metal, and nighly of the same bigness, so as to tell, when he felt one and the other, which is the cube, which the sphere. Suppose then the cube and sphere placed on a table, and the blind man made to see: quaere, whether by his sight, before he touched them, he could now distinguish and tell which is the globe, which the cube?’ To which the acute and judicious proposer answers: ‘Not. For, though he has obtained experiewnce of how a globe, how a cube affect his touch, yet he had not yet obtained the experience, that what affects his touch so or so, must affect his sight so or so; that a protruberant angle in the cube, that pressed his hand unequally, shall appear to his eye as it does in the cube.’ I agree with this thinking gentleman, whom I am proud to call my friend, in his answer to this problem; and am of opinion that the blind man, at first signt, would not be able with certainty to say which was the globe, which the cube, whilst he only saw them; though he could unerringly name them by his touch, and certainly distinguish them by the difference of their figures felt.”’ (Locke's Corr., II, IX, 8.)
Manuel Fasko & Peter West, Molyneux’s Question The Irish debates”, in Molyneux's Question and the History of Philosophy , ed. Ferretti & Glenney (Rouledge 2021), Chap. 7:

In 1688, when Molyneux wrote the letter to Locke in which he posed the now famous question about a man born blind made to see, he was an active member of the DPS and was on familiar terms with several other key figures in Irish philosophy at the time. For these reasons, the intellectual environment in Dublin and Ireland is where the effects of Molyneux’s famous question would have been most immediately and directly felt. It would be amiss, then, for a survey of the impact and influence of Molyneux’s question to omit an examination of its reception in Early Modern Ireland. Accordingly, our aim in this paper is to chart the reception, and subsequent employment, of Molyneux’s question in one of the most contentious issues taken up by Early Modern Irish thinkers, namely, debates concerning human knowledge of the divine attributes. These debates, about whether and how we can gain knowledge of God’s nature and attributes, concerned some, if not all, of the most influential figures in Irish thought during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, including William King (the archbishop of Dublin from 1702 to 1729), Peter Browne (provost of Trinity College from 1699 to 1710), and George Berkeley (fellow of Trinity College and, later, bishop of Cloyne from 1734 to 1753).

For the most part, Irish thinkers in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries answered “no” to Molyneux’s question of whether a blind man made to see could distinguish, by sight alone, between a cube and a sphere (1975:2 II.ix.viii).3 This is most likely due to the influence of Locke’s Essay (1975: II.ix.viii), which was part of the curriculum at TCD from an early stage after being recommended to the provost by Molyneux himself (Berman 2005: 80). In what follows, we focus on several of those Irish thinkers who took this negative answer to Molyneux’s question to have significant ramifications for what a blind man not yet made to see could conceive of. We argue that Molyneux’s original question about whether a newly sighted individual could differentiate between a cube and sphere by sight, in the hands of Irish thinkers, [123] became a question about that individual’s representational capacities. This modified version of the question concerned whether a blind man not yet made to see could represent to himself ideas of light and colours. [...]

The structure of this paper is as follows. In section one, we begin by looking at the debate between John Toland and Peter Browne over the status of Christian mysteries. Toland, infamously, argues that Christian doctrines concerning issues such as the Trinity or transubstantiation, if they are to be believed and affirmed, cannot be mysterious. In his response, Browne introduces the example of the blind man in order to challenge Toland’s claim that we cannot reasonably believe in those things of which we have no ideas. In doing so, Browne sets off a chain reaction that would continue into subsequent Irish debates. In section two, we focus on the debate between William King and Anthony Collins over the consistency of human freedom with divine foreknowledge. King argues that the inconsistency is only apparent and arises as a result of the mistake of taking God’s attributes to be similar to our own. As King sees it, our knowledge of the divine attributes is as ill-informed as a blind man’s knowledge of the objects of sight. Collins criticises this claim and points out that if our knowledge of the divine is comparable with a blind man’s knowledge of light and colours, then we cannot postulate anything about God – not even that he exists. Finally, in section three, we consider Berkeley’s response to Molyneux’s original question in his New Theory of Vision and how this response relates to his account of knowledge of the divine attributes in Alciphron, before finally looking at Browne’s criticism of that account.

Unlike the Duke of Gloucester in King Lear, a blind man led by the mad, over the course of this paper we follow the blind man through these important Irish debates. Ultimately, we argue that this example, derived from Molyneux’s original question, is the thread that ties these Irish debates together and conclude that Berman is right to call the man born blind the “root metaphor” of Early Modern Irish philosophy.6 Toland and Browne: Christian mysteries and revealed religion In this section, we outline the debate between John Toland and Peter Browne concerning the status of Christian mysteries and how, in the context of this debate, Browne first introduces the example of a man born blind into Irish discussions about the divine attributes. In 1696, Toland published his infamous Christianity not Mysterious (CNM). Although Toland set his book up as a defence of divine revelation and revealed religion more generally (CNM: 5–13), it was instantly met with heavy criticism.7 His anti-clerical arguments and criticisms of  [123] the established Church (CNM: 92–100) not only lead to political prosecution – his book was burnt by the Dublin hangman and subsequently banned from Ireland (Berman 2005: 84) – but also gave rise to a series of philosophical responses. In 1697, shortly after the publication of Christianity not Mysterious, the then current Archbishop of Dublin (1694–1703), Narcissus Marsh, sent a copy of the book to Peter Browne who was at the time a senior fellow at TCD.

Marsh requested that Browne write an answer to Toland, the result of which was his Letter in Answer to a Book entitled Christianity not mysterious (1697). Browne starts the Letter by claiming that even the title of Toland’s book is “nothing but equivocation and sophism” (Letter: 10). Browne denies Toland’s claim that Christianity cannot consistently contain mysteries. What’s more, Browne maintains, these mysteries are neither contradictory nor above reason (Letter: 7–9). Browne accurately summarises Toland’s position in two postulates: (1) [W]e have as clear and distinct Idea’s of all things reveal’d to us in the Gospel as we have of the ordinary Phaenomena of Nature. (2) [W]e are oblig’d to give our assent no farther than we have clear and distinct Idea’s of them. Letter: 36–7 In contrast to this, Browne argues that not only do we not have clear and distinct ideas of “those things of another world”, i.e., divine things – we have no immediate and proper idea of them at all. Yet, he argues, this does not mean that we cannot give our assent to them (Letter: 37). It is in regard to Browne’s first point that the example of a man born blind becomes important. Browne maintains we have mediate and improper ideas of God, by which he means notions which are formed by analogy (Letter: 38). While Browne never explains what he means by “analogy” in the Letter, he characterises analogical speech in later works as a “middle way” between literal and metaphorical speech, whereby terms are taken neither “in their First and Strict, and literal Propriety; nor in a mere and empty Figure” (Procedure, 1728: 27). Analogical speech, as Browne sees it, lies somewhere between literal speech and merely figurative speech.8 In the Letter he uses the “metaphor” of a man born blind to illustrate what he means by “mediate and improper ideas” (Letter: 50).

According to Browne, our notions of God, things divine, or the mysteries of revealed religion are comparable to a blind man’s conception of light (Letter: 53). Browne asks his readers to imagine a man born blind, i.e., someone who has never perceived any of the objects of vision. He argues that this individual, who cannot perceive light and has neither a conception nor even a name for it, could still form a mediate and improper idea of light. Browne claims that it could be explained to him by using “Words and Notions which are already in him” (Letter: 51). Given his inability to see, Browne explains that the blind man would form an idea of light from his tactile capacities: “he wou’d think it very like feeling, and perhaps call it by that name” (Letter: 52).9 According to Browne, it is equally impossible for us to conceive of the real nature of things divine and revealed. In fact, our “blindness” is even more fundamental because a proper understanding of God’s nature or of the Christian mysteries would require “the alteration of our whole Nature, and the enlargement of all our Faculties” (Letter: 53). However, as it is, we form improper and mediate ideas of the divine thanks to God’s revelations which take the form of analogies with things in the world – things of which we do have proper and immediate ideas (Letter: 55). While the foregoing discussion of Browne’s solution leaves many questions unanswered, the important point for our purposes is that Browne’s Letter marks the second step of the man born blind’s journey in Irish thought (the first being its introduction by Molyneux). 125]

 Admittedly, it is not obvious that Browne is drawing on Molyneux’s question, that is, whether he applies and transforms the Molyneux man to fit this theological issue, or if he introduces a new man born blind. However, while Molyneux’s question about the cube and the sphere is irrelevant for Browne’s considerations, it must be noted that Browne does apply the tactile faculty to something which can only properly be perceived by sight. Moreover, Browne’s man born blind is made to see, although God is required to open his eyes, so to speak. Finally, we should consider that the Molyneux question was widely known and discussed at the time, thanks to its publication in the Essay, and that Browne and Molyneux were personally acquainted.10 In short, although it cannot be proven beyond any doubt that Browne’s man born blind was inspired by the Molyneux question, we contend that Browne’s Letter constitutes a pivotal step in the blind man’s journey. More specifically, it is the first time the example is applied to theological issues and knowledge of the divine. As will become clear in the next section, [...].

Book details available at publisher - online; also as full text at ProQuest.

[ top ]

Quotations
The Case of Ireland’s Being Bound
by Acts of Parliament in England, Stated
(1698): ‘The subject therefore of our present disquisition shall be How far the Parliament of England may think it reasonable to intermeddle wiwth the affairs of Ireland and bind us up by Laws in their House’ (1725 Edn.,p.36.) ‘It seems not to have the least Foundation or Colour from Reason or Record: Does it not manifestly appear by the Constitution of Ireland, that ’tis a compleat Kingdom within it self? Do not the Kings of England bear the Stile of Ireland among the rest of their Kingdoms? Is this agreeable to the Nature of a Colony? Do they use the title of Kings of Virginia, New England, or Mary-Land? Was not Ireland given by Henry the Second in a Parliament at Oxford to his Son John, and made thereby an absolute Kingdom, separate and wholly independent of England, ’till they both came United again in time, after the Death of his brother Richard without Issue? have not Mulititudes of Acts of parliament both in England and in Ireland declared Ireland a compleat Kingdom? Is not Ireland stiled in them all, the Kingdom or Realm of Ireland? Do these Names agree to a Colony? Have we not a Parliament, and Courts of Judicature? Do these things agree with a Colony? (p.100.) ‘We are supremely bound to obey the Supream Authority over us; and yet we are not permitted to know Who or What the same is; whether the Parliament of England, or that of Ireland, or Both; and in what Cases the One, and in what the Other: Which Uncertainty is or may be made a Pretence at any time for Disobedience. It is not impossible but the different Legislations we are subject to, may enact different, or contrary Sanctions: Which of these must we obey?’ (p.116.) [All quoted in A. N. Jeffares, ‘Swift and the Ireland of His Day’, in Images of Invention, Gerard Cross: Colin Smythe 1996, p.4ff.)

The Case of Ireland’s Being Bound by Acts of Parliament in England, Stated (1698), written from the standpoint of the ‘Publick Principle’, insists that ‘All men are by nature in a state of equality’ and therefore ought be ‘free from all subjection to positive laws till by their own consent they give up their freedom by entering into civil societies’; and further that ‘we [in Ireland] have had Parliaments in Ireland since very soon after the invasion of Henry II’ and should continue to do so. [&c.] Further: ‘[T]hat Ireland should be bound by Acts of Parliament made in England, is against Reason, and the Common Rights of all Mankind. All men are by Nature in a State of Equality, in Respect of Jurisdiction or Dominion, this I take to be a Principle in it self so evident, that it stands in need of little Proof. ... [a maxim] so inherent to all Mankind, and founded on such Immutable laws of Nature and Reason, that ‘tis not be be Alien’d or Given Up, by any Body of Men whatsoever.’ (Quoted in Joep Leerssen, Mere Irish & Fior-Ghael, 1986 [see infra].)

The English in Ireland: ‘If the English in Ireland be treated as Englishmen, they will be Englishmen still in their hearts and inclinations, but if they be oppressed, they will turn Irish, for fellowship in suffering begets love and unities interests.’ (Marsh’s Library Mss. Z.3.25, 312, No.79; quoted Caroline Robbins, The Eighteenth-Century Commonwealthman, 1961, Harvard UP, p.146; cited in Denis Donoghue, We Irish: Essays in Irish Literature and Society, Cal. UP, 1986, p.17 [note O’Donoghue’s previous writings on Molyneux, supra.]).

[ top ]

References
D. J. O’Donoghue, Poets of Ireland (Dublin: Hodges Figgis 1912), asserts that Canon O’Hanlon edited The Case of Ireland [n.d.], not so listed under O’Hanlon in BML.

Dictionary of National Biography, Molyneux family members Edmund, Richard, and Richard Viscount Maryborough. Extract from The Case in Justin McCarthy, ed., Irish Literature (1904). NOTE also, The Case is summarised enthusiastically in Thomas Campbell, Philosophical Survey of the South of Ireland (1778).

Roy Foster, Modern Ireland (London: Allen Lane 1988), p.118, b. Dublin, ed. TCD; first sec. of TCD Phil. Soc. [fnd. by William King]; surveyor general, 1684; retired to Chester, 1689; Army Accounts Commissioner, 1690; Dublin Univ. MP, 1692-95; Case of Ireland Stated (1698) on effects of English legislation on Irish industry, purportedly burned by the common hangman [a rumour started by Charles Lucas, acc. to Sean Connolly]. See Samuel Molyneux, supra, and also Patrick D’Arcy, whose Argument (1643) anticipates the Case.

Seamus Deane, gen. ed., The Field Day Anthology of Irish Writing (Derry: Field Day Co. 1991), Vol. 1, selects Two Letters to John Locke [768-70]; The Case of Ireland’s Being Bound ... Stated [871-73]. Remarks: Francis Hutcheson discusses the Molyneux problem [regarding a blind man and colours], 786; [eds. Carpenter et al., Molyneux remote from racialist nationalism, 856, 858]; Domville compared to, 862; note to The Case, Introduction & Conclusion [870]; Lucas espouses principals of [903]; Henry Grattan, ‘The excellent tract of Molyneux was burned - it was not answered; and its flame illumined posterity’ (Speech of 16 April, 1782) [921]; [biogs, 956]; Dublin Philosophical Society fnd. Molyneux and Petty, 1683, 967. WORKS & CRIT [as supra]. FDA3 incls. remarks of Seán O’Faolain: ‘you will not find as much as the word “Gael” in Swift, Molyneux, &c. [570]. Also Marianne Elliott: ‘Molyneux’s Case &c portrayed the bitter disappointment at the outcome of the Glorious Revolution for Ireland and became one of the key documents in the protestant ‘patriot’ campaign culminating in ... legislative independance in 1782-83’[.] Molyneux had argued that the orginal compact had been made between the Irish peole and the English king at the time of Henry II’s conquest of Ireland ... consequently they owed no allegiance to any intermediary bodies and that the English parliament had no right ... Molyneux applied the concept of no taxation without representation similiar to the American situatation ... in that golden age of confident protestant liberalism, the 1770s and 1780s’ [Marianne Elliott, ‘Watchmen in Zion: The Protestant Idea of Liberty’ (Field Day Pamphlet, 1985); FDA3, p.606]. Further, the resurgence of the Irish nation primarily a Protestant affair, owing its origins to the writing of William Molyneux (et al.) [Luke Gibbon, ed., FDA3, p.954.]

Library Catalogues

Marsh’s Library holds Case of Ireland’s being Bound ∓c (1698; rep. London 1720; rep. Dublin: Cadenus 1977); copy of 1698 octavo edn. presented by the author to Dr. Bouhéreau.
Belfast Linenhall Library holds The Case against Ireland’s being bound by Acts of Parliament in England, Stated (1698, also 1725, 1749, 1782).
Belfast Central Public Library holds Case of Ireland (1725); de Burca Cat, Case, printed Ray, Dublin 1698, £275.00.

[ top ]

Notes
Spirit of Molyneux!
: Grattan called out in the triumphal peroration of his speech on legislative independence in 1782: ‘Spirit of Swift! Spirit of Molyneux! Your genius has prevailed. Ireland is now a nation. In that new characters I hail her, and bowing to her august presence, I say, Esto perpetua!’

Sybil le Brocquy Commemorative Committee: a presentation copy of was acquired by the Sybil le Brocquy Commemorative Committee and presented to the National Gallery of Ireland in 1974. Bibl., The Case for Ireland’s being Bound by Acts of Parliament in England Stated / by William Molyneux, of Dublin, Esq.; Dublin, printed by Joseph Ray, and are to be sold at his Shop in Skinner Row (MDC XC VIII). The copy belonged to William King and later passed to William Shaw Mason who had it bound in dark green Morocco (prob. by George Mullen), before presenting it to Earl of Charlemont when Lord Lieutenant[ top ]

Jonathan Swift described Molyneux as ‘an English gentleman born in Ireland’ who ‘never grew tired of proclaiming the fact’ (quoted in Joep Leerssen, Mere Irish and Fíor Ghael, Amsterdam, 1986, p.350.

Dublin Philosophical Soc.: founded by Molyneux et al., given in Muriel McCarthy, Hibernia Resurgens: Catalogue of Marsh’s Library (Dublin 1994), p.10: In 1667 they began a correspondence with Pierre bayle, but this lapsed when “the jealousy, suspition & prospect of troubles in this kingdome have such unhappy influence on our philosophical endeavours,that little of worth has of late been done among us.’ (St. George Ashe to Wm. Musgrave, sec. of the Oxford Soc., 15th July 1687).

Patrick D’Arcy’s Argument (1643) anticipates the substance of Molyneux’s Case (1698).

[ top ]