Of the Conduct of the Understanding/Critical Opinions
CRITICAL OPINIONS
No quality more remarkably distinguishes Locke than his love of truth. He is of no sect or party, has no oblique design, such as we so frequently perceive, of sustaining some tenet which he suppresses, no submissiveness to the opinions of others, nor—what very few lay aside—to his own.
Henry Hallam
The plain directness of his manner, his earnestness without fanaticism, his hearty, honest love of truth, and the depth and pertinence of his thoughts, are qualities which, though they do not dazzle the reader, yet win his love and respect.
George Henry Lewes
Locke's authority as a philosopher was unrivaled during the first half of the eighteenth century, and retained great weight until the spread of Kantian doctrines. His masculine common-sense, his modesty and love of truth have been universally acknowledged; and even his want of thoroughness and of logical consistency enabled him to reflect more fully the spirit of a period of compromise.
Leslie Stephen
With respect to the style of the Essay, it has been observed by a most competent judge that it resembles that of a well-educated man of the world, rather than of a recluse student, who had made an object of the art of composition. It everywhere abounds with colloquial expressions, which he had probably caught by the ear from those whom he considered as models of good conversation; and hence, though it now seems somewhat antiquated and not altogether suited to the dignity of the subject, it may be presumed to have contributed its share towards the great object of turning the thoughts of his contemporaries to logical and metaphysical inquiries.
Lord King
Although John Locke is so very imposing a figure in the history of intelligence, he holds but little place in that of pure literature. He has been called “perhaps the greatest, but certainly the most characteristic of English philosophers”; it might be added, the most. innocent of style. . . His style is prolix, dull, and without elevation; he expresses himself with perfect clearness indeed, but without variety or charm of any kind. He seems to have a contempt for all the arts of literature, and passes on from sentence to sentence, like a man talking aloud in his study, and intent only on making the matter in hand perfectly clear to himself. It is only proper to say that this is not the universal view, and that it is usual to speak of the homespun style of Locke as “forcible,” “incisive,” and even “ingenious.”
Henry Morley