Part I. The Two treatises in their historical context

1. Richard Ashcraft (1980), “Revolutionary politics and Locke’s Two treatises of government,” Political theory, 8:42-486 (p. 3-60)
2. Mark Goldie (1983), “John Locke and Anglican royalism,” Political studies, 31:61-85 (p. 61-85)
3. David McNally (1989), ”Locke, Levellers and liberty : property and democracy in the thought of the first Whigs,” History of political thought, 10:17-40 (p. 87-110)
4. J.R. Milton (1995), “Dating Locke’s Second treatise,” History of political thought 16:356-390 (p. 111-145)
5. Martyn P. Thompson (1987), “Significant silences in Locke’s Two treatises of government : constitutional history, contract and law,” Historical journal, 31:27-294 (p. 147-166)

Part II. The state of nature and the law of nature

6. Richard Ashcraft (1968), “Locke’s state of nature : historical fact of moral fiction?,” American political science review, 62:898-915 (p. 169-186)
7. Robert A. Goldwin (1976), “Locke’s state of nature in political society,” Western political quarterly, 29 (1976):126-135 (p. 187-196)
8. Jeffrie G. Murphy (1969), “A paradox in Locke’s theory of natural rights,” Dialogue, 8:256-271 (p. 19-212)
9. Francis Oakley (1997), “Locke, natural law and God – again,” History of political thought, 18 (1997):624-651 (p. 213-240)

Part III, Property

10. Patrick Kelly (1988), “ ‘All things richly to enjoy’ : economics and politics in Locke’s Two treatises of government,” Political studies, 36:273-293 (p. 243-263)
11. Karl Olivecrona (1974), “Locke’s theory of appropriation,” Philosophical quarterly, 24:220-234 (p. 265-279)
12. Alan Ryan (1994), “Self-ownership, autonomy, and property rights,” Social philosophy and policy, 11:241-258 (p.281-298)
13. J.J. Waldron (1981), “Locke’s account of inheritance and bequest,” Journal of the history of philosophy, 19:39-51 (p. 299-311)

Part IV. Civil society

14. J.M. Dunn (1989), “ ‘Bright enough for all our purposes’ : John Locke’s conception of a civilized society,” Notes and records of the Royal Society, 43:133-153 (p. 315-335)
15. Govert den Hartogh (1989-90), “Made by contrivance and the consent of men : abstract principle and historical fact in Locke’s poliical philosophy,” Interpretation 17:193-221 (p. 337-365)
16. John Kilcullen (1983), “Locke on political obligation,” Review of politics, 45:323-344 (p. 367-388)
17. Nathan Tarcov (1981), “Locke’s Second treatise and ‘the best fence against rebellion’,” Review of politics, 43:198-217 (p. 389-408)
18. Jeremy Waldron (1989), “John Locke : social contract versus political anthropology,” Review of politics, 51:3-28 (p.409-434)

Part V. Consent

19. Julian H. Franklin (1996), “Allegiance and jurisdiction in Locke’s doctrine of tacit consent,” Political theory, 24:407-422 (p. 437-452)
20. G.A. den Hartogh (1990), “Express consent and full membership in Locke,” Political studies, 38:105-115 (p. 453-463)
21. Paul Russell (1986), “Locke on express and tacit consent : misinterpretations and inconsistencies,” Political theory, 14:291-306 (p. 465-480)

Part VI. Slavery and America

22. James Farr (1986), “ ‘So vile and miserable an estate’ : the problem of slavery in Locke’s political thought,” Political theory, 14:263-289 (p. 483-509)
23. Wayne Glausser (1990), “Three approaches to Locke and the slave trade,” Journal of the history of ideas, 51:199-216 (p. 511-528)