Damaris Masham
Loving the people and things around us is the path to loving God, religion must be guided by reason, and women need real education.
Placement
English philosopher: against Malebranche and Norris she defended the love of creatures as the path to God, argued for women’s education and reason in religion, and corresponded with Locke and Leibniz.
Key ideas
- Love of God through love of creatures
- Reason in religion
- Education of women
Influence
Influenced by 1
John Locke
influenced by
Masham’s Occasional Thoughts (1705), written in Locke’s circle at Oates, argues in a Lockean spirit that women must understand the reasons for their religious and moral beliefs. D. Masham, Occasional Thoughts in Reference to a Vertuous or Christian Life (1705); SEP “Lady Damaris Masham”
Evidence: AI draft
John Locke › 1632–1704
Criticism
Mutual critique 1
Mary Astell ⇄ mutual
criticised
Masham’s Discourse concerning the Love of God (1696) answered Astell and Norris’s Letters (1695): loving God alone would undermine the love of fellow creatures that society needs. D. Masham, A Discourse concerning the Love of God (1696); M. Astell & J. Norris, Letters concerning the Love of God (1695); SEP “Damaris Cudworth Masham”
Evidence: AI draft
criticised by
In The Christian Religion (1705) Astell defended the love of God as sole good against the anonymous Discourse (1696), which she ascribed to Locke; Masham wrote it. M. Astell, The Christian Religion (1705); D. Masham, A Discourse concerning the Love of God (1696); SEP “Mary Astell”
Evidence: AI draft
Mary Astell › 1666–1731
Criticizes 2
Nicolas Malebranche
criticised
Masham rejected the view of Malebranche, taken up by Norris, that God alone causes our pleasures and so alone deserves love (Discourse concerning the Love of God, 1696). D. Masham, A Discourse concerning the Love of God (1696); SEP “Damaris Cudworth Masham”
Evidence: AI draft
Nicolas Malebranche › 1638–1715
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz
criticised
In letters to Leibniz (1703–1705) Masham questioned his pre-established harmony and defended her father Cudworth’s plastic natures, having known his system from the Journal des savants (1695). Leibniz–Masham correspondence (1703–1705), in Die philosophischen Schriften, ed. C. I. Gerhardt, III; SEP “Lady Damaris Masham”
Evidence: AI draft
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz › 1646–1716
Works
Against Malebranche and Norris: loving creatures does not compete with loving God – it is how we come to love him.
Why women must be educated to reason about religion and morals – and why ignorance is no protection of virtue.
Position
Her “Discourse Concerning the Love of God” attacks the view of Malebranche and his English follower John Norris that God is the only proper object of love and that creatures may be used but not loved. Masham argues that we come to love God through loving his creatures and that a religion requiring us to withdraw from human affection is impossible and harmful. “Occasional Thoughts” argues that women must be educated to understand the reasons for their religious and moral beliefs; a virtue based on ignorance is no virtue. She disagreed with Mary Astell, who had taken Norris’s side. Her work is Lockean in spirit, but the arguments are her own.
Life & context
Damaris Masham (1659–1708), daughter of the Cambridge Platonist Ralph Cudworth, met John Locke in 1682; after her marriage to Sir Francis Masham, Locke lived at the family house at Oates in Essex from 1691 until his death in 1704, and she nursed him in his last years. She published two books anonymously, corresponded with Leibniz about his metaphysics in 1703–1705 and wrote a biographical sketch of Locke.
As of November 2026 · Sources · Improve this page · How Agora is made