Benedict de Spinoza by F.

Pollock 1

IT is now two hundred years since there died, in an obscure lodging at the Hague,
Benedict de Spinoza, a philosopher appreciated in his own time only by a very few.
His name was indeed widely known, but it was for the most part known only to be
execrated. For some time after his death Spinozist was current among the
theologians of Holland as a term of opprobrium. Spinoza's thought, however, was of
that vital kind which sooner or later cannot fail to make for itself a way into its due
place. Some three-quarters of a century after his death came the great awakening of
letters and philosophy in Germany, and the leaders of that movement, among
whom the name of Lessing must be mentioned first, were not slow to perceive
Spinoza's importance. Ever since that time his influence has been a widening and
increasing one: not that I stop to maintain this in the strictest sense which can be
put upon the words, for I do not think a philosopher's influence is properly
measured by the number of persons who agree with his doctrines. Philosophical
doctrines have been, and will doubtless continue to be, matter of controversy, but it
is no matter of controversy that the life of a righteous man who gives up all else that
he may seek the truth for its own sake is a sure and priceless possession for all the
generations of men who come after him.
Baruch de Spinoza was born at Amsterdam on the 24th of November, 1632. His
parents were members of the Portuguese synagogue, a community established
towards the end of the sixteenth century by Jewish exiles from Spain and Portugal,
who had turned to the United Provinces as a safe asylum. For at this critical time
Holland, it should be remembered to her eternal honor, was the most tolerant
commonwealth in Europe. Spinoza was brought up in the course of Hebrew learning
then usual, and at the age of fifteen was already distinguished for his knowledge of
the Talmud. He was also familiar from his youth up, as his writings bear witness,
with the masterpieces of the golden age of modern Jewish literature. From the
tenth to the twelfth centuries there flourished at the Mohammedan courts of Spain
and Africa a series of Arab and Hebrew philosophers who held a position with
regard to the societies in which they lived much like that of the Catholic schoolmen
afterwards with regard to western Christendom. Like the schoolmen, they set
themselves to effect a fusion of the Aristotelian philosophy with the accepted
theology of their churches; and the schoolmen were in fact acquainted with their
work to a considerable extent, and referred to it quite openly, and in general with
respect. 2
1
In the course of this paper I shall have to refer several times to Dr. A. van der Linde's Benedictus Spinoza: Bibliografie
(The Hague, 1871), which gives a full account of the literature of the subject.
2
The names of Ibn-Roshd (Averroes) and Ibis-Sina (Avicenna) were familiar in Europe, and Dante groups them (Inf iv.
143) with the leaders of classical science and philosophy. Ibn-Gebirol (Avicebron), a Jewish member of the school,
broke with the Aristotelian tradition to take up Neo-Platonic ideas. His philosophical work was discredited and fell into
oblivion among his own people; but it became current in Europe in a Latin form, and was used by Giordano Bruno,
The Jewish schoolmen, if we may so call them, cannot be said to have founded any
distinct philosophical doctrine; in philosophy they were hardly distinguishable, if at
all, from their Mohammedan compeers. But they gave a distinct philosophical cast
to Jewish theology, and thereby to Jewish education. Two names stand out
foremost among them. Ibn-Ezra (1088—1166 A.D.) was a traveller, astronomer,
grammarian, and poet, in addition to the learning in theology and philosophy which
made his commentaries on the Scriptures classical. But the chief of all is Moses ben
Maimon (1135—1205 AD.) who became known in Europe as Maimonides, the father
of modern Jewish theology. He was regarded with such veneration as to be
compared to the great Lawgiver himself, so that it passed into a proverb, "From
Moses until Moses there arose none like unto Moses. 3 The Jewish peripatetic school
was also represented in Provence, where, in the fourteenth century, Levi ben
Gerson, the most daring of all the Jewish philosophers, and Moses of Narbonne
were its most conspicuous members. This philosophical treatment of theology was
on the whole generally accepted, but did not pass without controversy: in particular
R. Chasdai Creskas, of Barcelona (flor. 1410 A.D.), whom Spinoza cites by name, 4
combated the peripatetics with great zeal and ability from an independent point of
view. A mind like Spinoza's could not well have found anything more apt to stir it to
speculation and inquiry than the works of the men I have named. They handled their
subjects with extreme ingenuity, and with a freedom and boldness of thought which
were only verbally disguised by a sort of ostentatious reserve. Both Maimonides and
Ibn-Ezra delighted to throw out hints of meanings which could not or must not be
expressly revealed. Maimonides, in the introduction to his principal work, entreats
the reader who may perceive such meanings not to divulge them. Ibn-Ezra says in
his commentaries: "Herein is a mystery; and whoso understandeth it, let him hold
his peace."5 The mysteries were, however, not so carefully concealed but that an
open-eyed reader like Spinoza might easily find in them the principles of rational
criticism which he afterwards developed in the "Tractatus Theologico-Politicus."
At the same time Spinoza was far from neglecting secular learning and even
accomplishments. His master in Latin, after he had acquired the rudiments
elsewhere, was Francis van den Ende, a physician of Amsterdam who had a high
reputation as a teacher, and was also well versed in the natural sciences. It is highly
probable that he communicated this part of his knowledge also to Spinoza, who
certainly had very sound instruction of that kind at some time; for it is remarkable
(as Mr. G. H. Lewes has well pointed out) that Spinoza seldom or never makes
mistakes in physics. The references and allusions in Spinoza's writings show that he

through whom it may have thus come round to Spinoza.

3
In later times the proverb received an extended application in honor of Moses Mendelssohn, the grandfather of the
musician, himself a philosopher and the restorer of Jewish culture in Germany. Maimonides' reputation was not
established without conflict. About 1235 his opinions were formally condemned by the synagogue of Montpellier.
4
"Judæum quendam, Rab Ghasdai vocatum." — Ep. XXIX., ad fin.
5
Ap. Spinoza, Tract. Theol. Pol., c. 8, § 9. The mystery seems innocent enough to a modern reader.

Benedict de Spinoza by F. Pollock p. 2

had a fair knowledge of Latin literature; of Greek he knew something, but not
much.6 He wrote a Latin which, though not classical, was a very sufficient instrument
for his purposes, and which he handled with perfect freedom. He seems to have
been also familiar with Italian; and Spanish and Portuguese must have been almost
as native to him as Dutch. About this time the philosophy of Descartes was in the
first flush of its renown, and, like most new and brilliant things, was vehemently
suspected of heresy. Spinoza made himself thoroughly familiar with it, his
companions in this study being Henry Oldenburg and Dr. Lewis Meyer, the most
constant of his friends in after life. It is at least doubtful, however, whether he was
at any time a Cartesian. When he published a short exposition of the system in 1663
(the only work he ever set his name to), it was with an express warning that it did
not represent his own opinions. At the same time it is beyond question that
Descartes exercised a powerful influence upon the form and direction of Spinoza's
speculations. Until of late years his part in this matter has been unduly exalted, and
that of the Jewish philosophers underrated, or rather forgotten; but it would be very
possible to carry the reaction to excess. In Spinoza's own time it is pretty certain that
those who knew him only at second hand looked on him as a sort of erratic
Cartesian. We know what Locke thought of the Cartesians as a body, and thus
Locke's entire neglect of Spinoza may be explained. Those who followed Locke in
England seem to have taken for granted, after his example (though in Berkeley we
do find specific references to Spinoza), that Spinoza' s philosophy was not worth
serious attention.
To these graver studies Spinoza found time to add no small skill in drawing. He filled
a book with sketches of distinguished persons of his acquaintance, as we are told by
his biographer Colerus,7 who had the book in his possession. The same writer tells us
that Spinoza's master, Van den Ende, had a learned, witty, and accomplished
daughter, who took part in teaching his pupils, and Spinoza among them. From a
learner, the tale says, he became a lover, but was supplanted by a fellow-pupil
named Kerkering, who wooed and won the lady, not unassisted by the material
persuasion of a valuable pearl necklace. The story passed current until it was rudely
called in question by the facts which Dr. van Vloten discovered and published in
1862. True it is that Van den Ende had a daughter, but she was only eleven years old
at the latest time when Spinoza can have been her father's pupil. True it is that she
married Theodore Kerkering, but not till several years after, in 1671. He was, like her
father, a physician, and earned a considerable scientific reputation by his work in
medicine, chemistry, and anatomy. The match appears to have been a very natural
and proper one, and the rivalry with Spinoza and the pearl necklace must be
dismissed as inventions. It does not necessarily follow, however, that the tale of
Spinoza's love for Clara van den Ende is wholly without foundation. Van den Ende
probably continued to see something of his former pupil until, to his misfortune, he
6
He expressly disclaims anything like critical competence in it (Tract. Theol. Pol., cap. 10, ad fin.).
7
The name is a Latinized form of Köhler. He was the minister of the German Lutheran congregation at the Hague.

Benedict de Spinoza by F. Pollock p. 3

left Holland;8 and we know that Spinoza was from time to time at Amsterdam.
Besides this, nothing forbids us to suppose that even from an earlier date there may
have sprung up a half romantic, half childish affection between Spinoza and Klaartje.
Beatrice was only nine years old, and Dante himself only ten, when the "glorious
lady of his soul" first showed herself to his eyes, and the word came to him, "Ecce
dues fortior me, qui veniens dominabitur mihi." So that if any one is minded to cling
to this one piece of romance in Spinoza's life, I think he may do so by taking the
story with some such qualification as here suggested.9 I must confess, however, that
my own inclination is, on reflection, towards entire unbelief. The story as told by
Colerus is not credible, and any credible story we may devise in its stead must be so
different from that given by Colerus as to rest in truth on no evidence at all. Besides,
the testimony of Colerus is here at its weakest; he does not report this matter, as he
does many others, as being within the actual knowledge of himself or his
informants, but refers for confirmation to authorities which are all but worthless. 10
So much we know of Spinoza for the first twenty-three years of his life. We may well
believe that he had not long attained man's estate before the freedom of his
thought and discourse, and perhaps also laxity in ceremonial observances, began to
excite attention among the elders of his people; but, whatever suspicions may have
been conceived, and whatever informal warnings may have been given, no action
was taken till 1656. A community which owed its existence to flight from repeated
persecutions might be expected by a hasty observer of human nature to practise
toleration itself; but experience is far from warranting such an inference. Witness
the example of the settlers of New England, whose first use of their freedom from
the yoke of episcopacy was to set up a new ecclesiastical tyranny after their own
patterns of a kind not less oppressive and infinitely more vexatious. There is too
much reason to fear that the Jewish exiles from Spain and Portugal had learned
some of the evil lessons of the Inquisition.11 Apart from this, the synagogue of
Amsterdam had good reasons of secular policy for being scrupulous even to excess
in its appearance to the outer world. Holland was indeed the land of toleration; but
toleration was not such as we are nowadays accustomed to, and at this very time
8
Van den Ende migrated to France, where he involved himself in a political conspiracy, hoping that it might turn to the
profit of his own country, and was hanged at Paris in 1674.
9
Most recent writers, including Auerbach, to whom it must have given a pang to cast away the foundation of his
charming novel, treat the whole story as a fable. Dr. van Vloten himself (Benedictus de Spinoza, 2nd ed., 1871, p. 21),
and Dr. H. J. Betz, of the Hague (Levensschets van Baruch de Spinoza, 1876), take a line not unlike what I have given in
the text. Dr. Rothschild (Spinoza: zur Rechtfertigung seiner Philosophie u. Zeit, Leipzig, 1877) boldly maintains Colerus's
account as historical, and dismisses the objection as to dates with the remark: "Es giebt frühreife Naturen."
10
Kortholt.(De tribus Impostoribus Magnis, No. 82 in Van der Linde, cf. No. 287), and the article on Spinoza in Bayle's
Dictionary. Korsholt's "three impostors" are Hobbes, Lord Herbert of Cherbury, and Spinoza. The book has nothing to
do (beyond the studied similarity of title) with the famous, perhaps mythical, De tribus Impostoribus, which is a
standing riddle of bibliography. Of this, however, a spurious French version circulated in MS. in the eighteenth
century, under the name of L'Esprit — or, bound up with Lucas's biography, La Vie et l'Esprit — de M. Benoìt de
Spinoza. See Van der Linde, Nos. 99—102
11
Dr. Grätz (Gesch. der Juden, x. 14) says: "They had brought with them from Spain the fatal passion for maintaining
the purity of the faith and exterminating heresy. The rabbis of Amsterdam introduced the new practice of sitting in
judgment on religious opinions and beliefs, setting themselves up as a kind of Inquisition."

Benedict de Spinoza by F. Pollock p. 4

theological controversy ran high. - The battle of Remonstrants and Contra-
remonstrants was yet fresh in men's minds; and it behoved a society of men foreign
in religion, language, and manners, which had been at first received with suspicion,
and which existed only on sufferance, to let nothing pass among them which could
lay them open to a charge of promoting new heresies or being indifferent to the
general interests of religion. Hence we can understand the extreme anxiety to avoid
an open schism which marked the first proceedings in Spinoza's case. The elders
would have preferred to retain Spinoza in apparent conformity, and offered him as
the price of this a pension of one thousand florins. This being declined, it was
probably considered that the only safe course remaining, though not a desirable one
in itself, was for the congregation to renounce its freethinking member as
completely as possible. Meanwhile some obscure fanatic, thinking himself no doubt
a messenger of divine justice, outran the zeal of his masters. One evening an
unknown assailant set upon Spinoza with a dagger;12 but he was on his guard in
time, and the blow pierced only his coat, which he kept afterwards as a memorial.
This was a sufficient warning that Amsterdam was no safe place for him, and he left
the city without waiting for the final decision of the congregation upon the charge of
heresy against him. This was given on the 27th of July, 1656, to the following effect:
—
The chiefs of the council do you to wit, that having long known the evil
opinions and works of Baruch de Espinoza, they have endeavored by divers
ways and promises to withdraw him from his evil ways, and they are unable
to find a remedy, but on the contrary have had every day more knowledge of
the abominable heresies practised and taught by him, and of other
enormities13 committed by him, and have of this many trustworthy witnesses,
who have deposed and borne witness in the presence of the said Espinoza,
and by whom he stood convicted; all which having been examined in the
presence of the elders, it has been determined with their assent that the said
Espinoza should be excommunicated and cut off from the nation of Israel; and
now he is hereby excommunicated with the following anathema: —
With the judgment of the angels and of the saints we excommunicate, cut off,
curse, and anathematize Baruch de Espinoza, with the consent of the elders
and of all this holy congregation, in the presence of the holy books: by the six
hundred and thirteen precepts which are written therein, with the anathema
wherewith Joshua cursed Jericho, with the curse which Elisha laid upon the
children, and with all the curses which are written in the law. Cursed be he by
day and cursed be he by night. Cursed be he in sleeping and cursed be he in

12
The exact place and circumstances, which however are not material, are variously related.
13
"Ynormes obras que obrava." This I had supposed to be a piece of "common form" with no definite meaning; but I
learn from a friend possessing special knowledge that it probably refers to distinct breaches of the ceremonial law;
some such overt act, beyond mere speculative opinions, being required to justify the excommunication. (Cf. Grätz, op.
cit., 172, 175.)

Benedict de Spinoza by F. Pollock p. 5

 waking, cursed in going out and cursed in coming in. The Lord shall not
pardon him, the wrath and fury of the Lord shall henceforth be kindled
against this man, and shall lay upon him all the curses which are written in the
book of the law. The Lord shall destroy his name under the sun, and cut him
off for his undoing from all the tribes of Israel, with all the curses of the
firmament which are written in the book of the law. But ye that cleave unto
the Lord your God, live all of you this day.
And we warn you, that none may speak with him by word of mouth nor by
writing, nor show any favor to him, nor be under one roof with him, nor come
within four cubits of him, nor read any paper composed or written by him.
Thus was Baruch de Spinoza cut off from his own people and from his father's
house. Not only was he an outcast from Israel and deprived of all fellowship of his
nation and kindred — and the ties of kindred are with his people of exceeding
strength and sanctity — but he became as it were a masterless man, a member of
no recognized community, having none to stand by him or answer for him. Such a
position might well seem a grave one in itself, apart from the shock to his personal
feelings.14 Altogether the blow must have been such as it is at this time hard for us
to understand. Spinoza, however, received the news of the excommunication with
perfect equanimity. "This compels me," he said, "to nothing which I should not
otherwise have done." Henceforth he disused his Hebrew name Baruch, and
adopted the Latin form Benedict, which has the same meaning, and by which he is
generally known. He now had to depend on his own work for a livelihood. It was a
rabbinical precept that every one should learn a handicraft; and in compliance with
this Spinoza had learned the trade of making lenses for optical instruments, which
was no doubt chosen as congenial to his philosophical and scientific studies. He
became so skilful in this art that the lenses of his make were much sought after, and
some which were left undisposed of at his death fetched a high price. By this means
he earned an income sufficient for his limited wants, and also a reputation for a
thorough knowledge of optics which appears to have spread more quickly than his
fame as a philosopher. In this manner he was brought into correspondence with
Huygens and Leibnitz. We find Leibnitz, for instance, writing to him in 1671 to ask his
opinion on certain optical questions, and treating him as a person of recognized
authority. Leibnitz's behavior to Spinoza some years later can only be called shabby.
He professed great interest in Spinoza's philosophy, and endeavored to get a sight of
the unpublished MS. of the "Ethics," which Spinoza's prudence did not allow him. On
his return from a stay in Paris, Leibnitz visited Spinoza in person. In later years he
joined the vulgar cry against him, and borrowed a fundamental idea from his
philosophy — which he also marred in the borrowing — without the slightest
acknowledgment. The letter now in question begins thus: —
14
It is said that the Jewish elders represented to the civil authorities of Amsterdam that Spinoza was a dangerous
person, that the Reformed clergy, supported their request, and that Spinoza was actually banished from Amsterdam
for a time. But Colerus knows nothing of this, nor is it in itself probable.

Benedict de Spinoza by F. Pollock p. 6

 Among your other titles to fame [he says] I understand that you have excellent skill in
optics. To you therefore I have chosen to send this attempt of mine for what it may be
worth, as on this subject it would be difficult to find a better critic.
The friends who were best acquainted with his work believed that if he had lived
longer he would have made some important addition to the science.15 As it was,
Spinoza's "excellent skill in optics" was only indirectly useful for the advancement of
knowledge by affording him the means of cultivating philosophy. On the death of his
father, indeed, he became entitled to share with his two sisters an inheritance of
some value. The sisters, imagining, as it is conjectured, that the excommunication
had deprived him of civil rights, endeavored to exclude him from his share. Spinoza
was of opinion, as we know from his writings, that in a country where just laws
prevail it is every citizen's duty to resist injustice to himself for the sake of the
common weal, lest peradventure evil men find profit in their evil doing. He now
acted on this principle, and asserted his rights before the law with success. Having
done this, however, he declined to profit by them, and when the division came to be
effected he gave up everything to his sisters but one bed, which he kept as a visible
symbol of the established justice of his claim.
We know little of Spinoza's movements with certainty till the end of 1660 or
beginning of 1661, when we find him at Rhijnsburg, a village near the mouth of the
Rhine not far from Leyden. Thence he paid frequent visits to the Hague, where he
increased his acquaintance with men of learning and eminence. This society must
have had growing attractions for him as time went on, for in 1664 he moved to
Voorburg, which is almost a suburb of the Hague, and finally about 1670 to the
Hague itself. The greater part of what we know of his doings in after years is derived
from the selection of his letters which was made — with a far too sparing hand
unfortunately — by the editors of his posthumous works. The series of letters begins
in 1661: the most important of Spinoza's correspondents, and also the most
interesting to Englishmen, is Henry Oldenburg. Oldenburg spent the best part of his
time in this country, where he settled in 1653. He was acquainted with Milton, and
was the intimate friend of Robert Boyle; he shared Boyle's scientific tastes, - and
was the first secretary to the Royal Society (1662), and editor of its "Transactions."
His friendship with Spinoza was already of long standing at the time now in
question; he had lately visited Spinoza at Rhijnsburg, and the letters are a sort of
continuation of the philosophical conversation they had then held. The first of
Spinoza's answers to him contains a characteristic point: "It is not my way," he says,
"to expose the mistakes of others." A thoroughly constructive habit of mind, an
almost insuperable aversion to enter on criticism for criticism's sake, runs through
the whole of Spinoza's philosophical work.

15
The only scientific work left by him was a small treatise on the rainbow. It was supposed to have been lost, but it
was, in fact, published at the Hague in 1687 (Van der Linde, Bibliografie, No. 36), and has recently been discovered
and republished in Van Vloten's "Supplement."

Benedict de Spinoza by F. Pollock p. 7

In 1662 Oldenburg strongly advises Spinoza not to hesitate about publishing some
work relating partly to theology, partly to philosophy, which means presumably the
"Tractatus Theologico-Politicus."
I would by all means advise you not to begrudge to men of letters the ripe fruits of your
ingenuity and learning in philosophy and theology, but let them go forth into the world,
notwithstanding any possible grumbling from petty theologians. Your commonwealth is
most free [Oldenburg was writing from England]; and therein the philosopher should work
most freely. . . . Come then, my friend, cast out all fear of stirring up the feebler folk of our
time against you; we have sacrificed enough to their ignorance and trifling scruples; let us
spread our sails to the wind of true knowledge, and search out the secrets of nature more
thoroughly than has yet been done. In Holland I should think it will be quite safe to print
your treatise, and there is no reason to fear its giving the least offence, among men of
learning at any rate. If such are your promoters and patrons — and such, I answer for it,
you will find — why should you fear the detraction of the ignorant? 16
In the following year Oldenburg was again pressing Spinoza to finish and publish a
little book on "The Amendment of the Understanding," of which we now have only a
fragment, published among the "Opera Posthuma."
Surely, my excellent friend, I believe nothing can be published more pleasant or acceptable
to men of true learning and discernment than a treatise such as yours. This is what a man
of your wit and genius should regard, more than what pleases theologians, as their manner
now is; they care less for truth than for their own advantage.
And he conjures Spinoza by the bond of their friendship, by every duty of increasing
and spreading abroad the truth, not to withhold the publication, or, if he indeed has
grave reasons for withholding it, at least to write and explain them. 17 Oldenburg
was a sincere friend to Spinoza, and a person worthy of all respect; but one cannot
help observing that it is extremely easy for a man to be thus valiant in counsel when
he does not risk anything on his own part. When Oldenburg in later years became
better acquainted with Spinoza's results, he was himself not a little taken aback.
Now, in spite of answers which were not encouraging, Oldenburg returned again
and again to the charge he would never desist till his request was satisfied;
meanwhile it would be the greatest possible favor if Spinoza would give him some
summary of the contents of the treatise. All this while Spinoza and Boyle were
holding a scientific correspondence on chemistry and pneumatics in the form of long
messages contained in the letters between Spinoza and Oldenburg, though they
seem to have exchanged nothing directly. There is no doubt that Boyle knew a good
deal of Spinoza, and took much interest in his work. In 1665 Oldenburg writes: "Mr.
Boyle and I often talk of you and of your learning and philosophy." Boyle is also
mentioned as joining in Oldenburg's exhortations to Spinoza to persevere in
philosophical research. We find allusions in Oldenburg's letters of this time to the
16
Ep. VII.
17
Ep. VIII.

Benedict de Spinoza by F. Pollock p. 8

miseries of the plague and of the war between England and Holland. A certain book
about which Spinoza had asked has not yet reached England "because the plague
has almost put an end to all communication, besides which this fearful war brings a
very Iliad of mischiefs (nonnisi malorum Iliada) in its train, and is like to leave but
little civility in the world." He adds that though the meetings of the Royal Society are
suspended, Boyle and others go on working in private.
After 1665 there is an unexplained break of ten years in this correspondence, which
is but imperfectly supplied by letters between Spinoza and other persons.
The most interesting of Spinoza's other correspondents is Simon de Vries. He was a
man younger than Spinoza, his pupil in philosophy, and of much promise. He died in
his master's lifetime, having shown his gratitude by material benefactions so far as
he was allowed. Once he offered Spinoza a present of two thousand florins; this was
declined. He was unmarried, and it was his intention to make a will leaving the bulk
of his property to Spinoza. But Spinoza, knowing that Simon de Vries had a brother
living, pressed on him the duty of thinking first of his own kindred; so that De Vries
finally made the brother his heir, and charged his estate with an annuity of five
hundred florins to Spinoza. After his death Spinoza would not entirely accept even
this; when the annuity came to be paid in due course, he refused to take more than
three hundred florins, which he said was quite enough for him. The letters between
Spinoza and his young friend belong to the year 1663, and throw light both on
Spinoza' s manner of life and on the growth of his philosophical system. They show
that the leading definitions and propositions of the first part of the "Ethics" were
already sketched out in MS., and were in the hands of several of Spinoza's friends,
who had formed a kind of philosophical club at Amsterdam, and held regular
meetings for the study and discussion of the work. De Vries was commissioned, it
seems, to write to Spinoza for the explanation of such points as remained obscure to
the company. He says in the same letter:—
At times I complain of my fate in being so far from you. Happy, most happy is the
companion who dwells with you under the same roof, and who can at all times, dining,
supping, or walking, hold discourse with you of the most excellent matters . 18
Spinoza willingly gave the desired explanations, and replied thus to the complaint:
You need not envy my fellow-lodger. There is no one I like less, or with whom I have been
more cautious; so that I must warn you and all our friends not to communicate my
doctrines to him till he has come to riper years. He is still too childish and inconstant, and
cares more for novelty than truth. Still I hope he will amend these youthful failings some
years hence; indeed, so far as I can guess from his disposition, I am pretty sure of it; and so
his general character moves me to be friendly with him.19

18
Ep. XXVI. a. I use Auerbach's notation for references to the lately discovered letters and parts of letters.
19
Ep. XXVII. a. These two letters are for the first time given in full in Van Vloten's "Supplement."

Benedict de Spinoza by F. Pollock p. 9

It is worth observing that these and other letters of the same time, such as the very
important one to Dr. Meyer, in which the notions of space, time, and infinity are
discussed, show that as early as 1663 Spinoza's philosophy was fully formed as to its
main features. This at once fixes the permissible limits of any speculation upon the
growth of Spinoza's ideas which may be founded on a comparison of his earlier and
later works. For instance, the avoidance of purely metaphysical discussion in the
"Tractatus Theologico-Politicus," published in 1670, must be set down not to
uncertainty or immaturity of thought, but to deliberate reserve dictated by reasons
of policy.
At this time (1663) Spinoza published the "Principles of Cartesian Philosophy." It has
already been mentioned that in this book he was not speaking for himself, and he
attached no value to it (as he informed Oldenburg), save as a means of attracting
attention and, patronage in certain places (alluding probably to the De Witts), such
as might encourage him to publish something more substantial of his own. The book
seems to have done its work in assuring the author's reputation. In 1664 we find
William van Blyenbergh, a worthy merchant of Dort and a man of good family,
introducing himself to Spinoza by letter in these terms:—
Dear Sir and unknown Friend, — I have already several times carefully read over your
treatise lately published with its appendix. It will be more proper for me to speak to others
than to yourself of the instruction I found in it and the pleasure I derived from it. This much
I cannot forbear saying, that the oftener I go over it with attention, the more I am pleased
with it, and I constantly find something which I had not marked before.
He proceeds to ask several metaphysical questions.20 Spinoza received his unknown
correspondent with a warm welcome.
Unknown Friend — From your letter I understand your exceeding love of truth, and how
that only is the aim of all your desires; and since I direct my mind upon naught else, this
constrains me to determine, not only fully to grant your request, which is to answer to the
best of my skill the questions which you now send or shall send hereafter, but to perform
all else on my part which may avail for our better acquaintance and sincere friendship. For
myself, there is among things out of my own control none I prize more than entering into
the bond of friendship with men who are sincere lovers of truth. For I believe that nothing
in the world, not being under our control, can be so securely taken for the object of our
love as men of this temper; since ‘tis no more possible to dissolve that love they have for
one another (seeing it is founded on the love each of them hath for the knowledge of
truth) than not to embrace the truth itself when once perceived.
Blyenbergh sent to this a very long reply, from which Spinoza discovered that their
notions of philosophical inquiry did not agree so well as he had supposed. "So that,"
he says, "I fear we shall get little mutual instruction by our correspondence. For I
perceive that no proof, however firm it may be as a proof, may have weight with

20
Ep. XXXI.

Benedict de Spinoza by F. Pollock p. 10

you unless it agrees with the construction which you or certain other theologians
may put upon the Scriptures." For my part, he continues in effect, I confess I find the
Scriptures obscure, though I have studied them several years; and on the other
hand, when I obtain sufficient proof of anything, I know not how to refuse assent to
it. And he goes on to show that Blyenbergh has completely misunderstood his
position. This, however, did not put an end to the correspondence, and sundry other
letters passed. In one of these Van Blyenbergh throws in by way of postscript the
sage question "whether we cannot avoid by the exercise of prudence that which
otherwise would happen to us;" to which Spinoza could only say: "As to the question
added to the end of your letter, since we might put a hundred like it in an hour and
never settle one of them, and you hardly press for an answer yourself, I shall not
answer it." Soon after this they met, and had a friendly conversation. Blyenbergh
attempted to renew the correspondence, but this time Spinoza distinctly declined it.
We have also letters to various persons, chiefly on scientific topics, which
approximately cover the next few years. Mr. Lewes has called attention to the
interest shown by Spinoza in an experiment in alchemy to which he was at the time
disposed to give credit.21 And at the time there was nothing surprising or absurd in
this; we have evidence, however, that some years later Spinoza had become more
sceptical. For in 1675, when his friend Dr. Schaller had written to him from Paris,
describing some similar process, Spinoza replied almost bluntly that he had no mind
to repeat the experiment, and felt quite sure that no gold had been produced which
was not there before.22
In 1670 was published the "Tractatus Theologico-Politicus," of which I give the title
from an English translation (London, 1689):-
A Treatise partly theological and partly political, containing some few discourses to prove
that the Liberty of Philosophizing (that is, making use of Natural Reason) may be allowed
without any prejudice to Piety, or to the Peace of any Commonwealth; and that the Loss of
Public Peace and Religion itself must necessarily follow, when such a Liberty of Reasoning is
taken away.
The final thesis of the book is that "In a free commonwealth it should be lawful for
every man to think what he will and speak what he thinks." And little more than two
centuries ago, in the freest country in Europe, this opinion was put forth without the
name of the author, and with the name of an imaginary printer at Hamburg, and
had to be gradually led up to by an investigation of the principles of Scriptural
interpretation and the true provinces of theology and philosophy. To modern eyes
the introduction looks much bolder than the conclusion. I forbear to say more of the
contents and character of the work, as Mr. Matthew Arnold has already given an
admirable account of it in his essay on "Spinoza and the Bible."

21
Ep. XLV. Lewes, Hist. Phil., ii. 180 (3rd ed.).
22
Ep. LXV. b. (Van Vloten, Supp., p 355.)

Benedict de Spinoza by F. Pollock p. 11

The opposition which Spinoza doubtless expected was not long in showing itself.
Early in 1671 Spinoza writes to a friend not named:—
When Professor N. N.23 lately saw me, he told me, among other things, he had heard that
my "Theologico-Political Treatise" was translated into Dutch, and that a person whose
name he did not know was on the point of printing the translation. I therefore earnestly
entreat you to inquire diligently into this matter, and stop the printing if it can be done.
This request is not from me alone, but also from many of my friends and acquaintance,
who would be sorry to see the book prohibited, as it certainly will be if it appears in
Dutch.24
The book was, in fact, formally condemned some time after; it does not appear
exactly when, but it must have been before 1673, in which year no less than three
editions appeared at Amsterdam with entirely false titles, purporting to be works on
medicine or history. It is hardly needful to say that it was also put on the Roman
Index, and in that catalogue it may still be seen in a very mixed company.
In the same year a Doctor Lambert van Velthuysen sent to Spinoza through a
common friend a long letter, which repeated in violent language all the current
topics against the "Tractatus Theologico-Politicus," and finally charged the writer
with covertly teaching atheism. This fashion of controversy survives to our own day,
and has been improved upon. We have invented the term materialist, which makes
a fine gradation possible. When we want to say in a short and decided form that we
disagree with a man's philosophical opinions, we call him a materialist. If we wish to
add to this that the disagreement rests on theological grounds also, we call him an
atheist.
Spinoza, having a fancy for the exact use of words, did not like these controversial
amenities, and replied (though it was unwillingly that he replied at all) more sharply
than was usual with him; he obviously thought the criticism almost too perverse to
have been made in good faith. But here too we may note his even temper and
peaceable disposition. The letter ends thus: —
I do not think you will find anything in this which can be considered too harsh in manner
towards my critic. But if anything does so appear to you, pray strike it out, or alter it if you
think fit. Whoever he may be, I have no wish to exasperate him and make enemies by my
work; in fact, since this is a common result of discussions like the present, I could hardly
prevail on myself to write this answer; nor should I have prevailed on myself, unless I had
promised you.25
Nevertheless, Van Velthuysen and Spinoza were afterwards on friendly terms. One
of the latest of Spinoza's letters is addressed to Van Velthuysen, and relates to a
project of publishing some notes and explanations to the "Tractatus Theologico-
Politicus," including, it seems, this very correspondence, or something founded on it.
23
The name is deliberately suppressed by the editors of the "Opera Posthuma."
24
Ep. XLVII.
25
Epp. XLVIII., XLIX.

Benedict de Spinoza by F. Pollock p. 12

The letter is a model of literary courtesy and good feeling, and as such is worth
giving.
I am surprised at our friend Neustadt having told you that I thought of replying to the
various writings against my treatise which have been published, and intended to include
your MS. in the number. I am sure I never intended to refute any of my opponents, for
none of them have seemed to me worth answering. All I remember to have said to Mr.
Neustadt is that I purposed to publish some notes explaining the more difficult passages of
the treatise, and to add to these your MS. And my answer, if I had your leave for so doing.
This I desired him to ask of you, and added that in case you should be unwilling to grant it
on the score of certain expressions in the answer being rather severe, you should be at full
liberty to strike out or alter them. Meanwhile I have no cause of offence against Mr. N.; but
I thought it well to show you the real state of the case, so that, if I cannot obtain your
leave, I might at any rate make it clear that I had no intention of publishing your MS.
against your will. I believe, indeed, it may be done without any risk to your reputation, if
your name is not affixed to it; but I will do nothing unless you grant me leave and license to
publish it. But I am free to confess you would do me a far greater favor if you would set
down the arguments with which you think you can attack my treatise; and this I most
heartily beseech you to do. There is no one whose arguments I should be more glad to
consider; for I am aware that your only motive is affection for the truth, and I know the
candor of your mind; in the name of which I again entreat you not to decline giving
yourself this trouble.
Van Velthuysen afterwards expanded his letter into one of the many answers to
Spinoza's treatise that were published in the next few years. In 1674 Spinoza
mentions that he had seen an answer to the "Tractatus Theologico-Politicus,"
written by a professor at Utrecht, in a bookseller's window, but on looking into it
found it not worth reading, much less answering. "So there I left the book and its
author. I smiled inwardly as I considered how the most ignorant of men are
everywhere the boldest and the most ready to write books."
In 1672 occurred the one striking incident of Spinoza's life after his
excommunication. The public misfortunes of that year, the French invasion of the
Netherlands, the outbreak of popular discontent, and the massacre of the brothers
De Witt by the infuriated mob of the Hague, belong to general history. Spinoza was
a personal friend of John de Witt's, had accepted a small pension from him, and may
through his means have taken some part in politics. He was moved by this event, it
is said, so much beyond his wont, that he could hardly be restrained from expressing
his indignation in public at the risk of his life. Shortly afterwards the Prince of Condé,
being then in command of the French army, invited Spinoza to his headquarters at
Utrecht. His only motive appears to have been a genuine desire to make the
philosophers acquaintance. The invitation was accepted, and Spinoza betook himself
to Utrecht with a safe-conduct. Condé, however, had in the mean time been called
away, and Spinoza went home without seeing him, having turned a deaf ear to the

Benedict de Spinoza by F. Pollock p. 13

suggestion of the French officers who entertained him that he might probably insure
a pension from their king if he would dedicate some work to him. On Spinoza's
return to the Hague sinister rumors got abroad concerning his journey, and
Spinoza's landlord was for a time in fear that the mob would attack and storm the
house for the purpose of seizing him as a spy.
Spinoza, however, comforted his host with these words:—
Fear nothing on my account, I can easily justify myself; there are people enough, and of
chief men in the country too, who well know the motives of, my journey. But, whatever
come of it, so soon as the crowd make the least noise at your door, I will go out and make
straight for them, though they should serve me as they have done the unhappy De Witts. I
am a good republican, and have never had any aim but the honor and welfare of the State.
The danger passed off, but Spinoza's conduct under it is none the less worthy of
admiration; and the incident has its value in the light it throws on the general
esteem in which he then stood. For the consciousness, not merely of an innocent
purpose, but of a character above the possibility of rational suspicion, was necessary
to make Spinoza's visit to the French headquarters prudent or justifiable; and the
authorities of his own country would assuredly never have consented to it had they
not felt absolute confidence that the public good would in no way suffer by it.
In 1673 Spinoza received a courteous letter from Professor Fabritius, of Heidelberg,
who was commanded by Charles Lewis, the Elector Palatine, to offer him the chair of
philosophy at that university. This letter contained the following sentence: "You will
have the largest freedom of speech in philosophy, which the prince is confident you
will not misuse to disturb the established religion." It seems by no means unlikely
that this condition was inserted merely as a matter of form. The elector probably
knew the "Tractatus Theologico-Politicus;" and if he seriously meant to impose
restrictions, he would have laid down something much more definite. Spinoza,
however, answered thus:—
Had it ever been my desire to occupy a chair in any faculty, I could have wished for no
other than that which the Most Serene Elector Palatine offers me by your hands: and
especially on account of that freedom in philosophy which the prince is pleased to grant, to
say nothing of the desire I have long entertained to live under the rule of a prince whose
wisdom is the admiration of all men. But since I have never been minded to give public
lectures, I cannot persuade myself to accept even this splendid opportunity, though I have
given long consideration to it. For I reflect, in the first place, that I must give up
philosophical research if I am to find time for teaching a class. I reflect, moreover, that I
cannot tell within what bounds I ought to confine that philosophical freedom you mention,
in order to escape any charge of attempting to disturb the established religion. Religious
dissensions arise not so much from the ardor of men's zeal for religion itself, as from their
various dispositions and love of contradiction, which leads them into a habit of decrying
and condemning everything, however justly it be said. Of this I have already had

Benedict de Spinoza by F. Pollock p. 14

 experience in my private and solitary life; much more then should I have to fear it after
mounting to this honorable condition. You see, therefore, that I am not holding back in the
hope of some better post, but for mere love of quietness, which I think I can in some
measure secure if I abstain from lecturing in public. Wherefore I heartily beseech you to
desire the Most Serene Elector that I may be allowed to consider further of this matter. 26
In 1674 Spinoza had an amusing discussion with a person whose name is withheld
on the existence of ghosts. In his first answer Spinoza gives an exquisite turn of
politeness to his incredulity. He was delighted, he says, to get his friend's letter and
have news of him.
Some people might think it a bad omen that ghosts should be the occasion of your writing
to me; but I find something much better in it when I consider that not only real things, but
even trifles of the imagination, may thus do me good service.
The correspondence continues, on Spinoza' s part, in a tone of courteous banter. At
last his friend attempts to overpower him with the authority of ancient
philosophers. The reply to this last argument has a distinct importance, as showing
what were Spinoza's notions about the philosophical systems of Greece.
The authority of Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates has not much weight with me. I should have
been surprised, indeed, if you had brought forward Epicurus, Democritus, Lucretius, or any
of the supporters of the doctrine of atoms. It is no wonder that those who devised occult
qualities, intentional species, substantial forms, and a thousand other fond things, should
have imagined ghosts and apparitions, and given ear to old wives to diminish the authority
of Democritus, whose fame they so envied that they burnt all his books. If you choose to
believe these, how can you deny the miracles of the Virgin and all the saints, recorded by
so many renowned philosophers, historians, and theologians, of whom one hundred can
be produced for one that has recorded a ghost?27
It is obvious that Spinoza's knowledge of Greek philosophy was slight and at second
hand; but it is significant that his sympathy, so far as his knowledge went, was all
with Democritus and the atomic school. The sort of metaphysic which in our own
time is always clamoring against supposed encroachments by physical science would
have found no favor in his eyes.
In 1674 he wrote an important letter explaining the difference between his view and
Descartes' on free will.
I call a thing free if it exists and acts merely from the necessary laws of its own nature, but
constrained if it is determined by something else to exist and act in a certain determinate
way. Thus God exists necessarily, and yet freely, because he exists by the necessity of his
own nature alone. So God freely understands himself and everything else, because it
follows solely from the necessity of his own nature that he must understand everything.

26
Ep. LIV.
27
Ep. LX.

Benedict de Spinoza by F. Pollock p. 15

 You see then that I make freedom consist not in a free decision of the will, but in free
necessity. . . .
Imagine, if you can, that a stone, while its motion continues, is conscious, and knows that
so far as it can it endeavors to persist in its motion. This stone, since it is conscious only of
its own endeavor and deeply interested therein (minime indifferens), will believe that it is
perfectly free and continues in motion for no other reason than that it so wills. Now such is
this freedom of man's will which every one boasts of possessing, and which consists only in
this, that men are aware of their own desires and ignorant of the causes by which those
desires are determined. So an infant thinks his appetite for milk is free; so a child in anger
thinks his will is for revenge, in fear that it is for flight. Again, a drunkard thinks he speaks
of his free will things which, when sober, he would fain not have spoken.28
In 1675 the correspondence with Oldenburg is resumed.29 By this time the "Ethics"
were completely written, and Oldenburg exhorts him to publish the book, though
not with such pressing earnestness as he used in former years. He wishes to have
some copies sent over to England, and will undertake to dispose of them; yet he
wishes their consignment to him not to be talked of. His temper had probably
become less valiant since he read the "Tractatus Theologico-Politicus."
Spinoza writes, in answer to Oldenburg,30 that he did go to Amsterdam to see about
printing the "Ethics." But the rumor had gone before him that he had in the press an
utterly atheistic book; and certain theologians had actually commenced proceedings
against him. The Cartesians, who had by this time a respectable reputation to
preserve, were only too glad to find a convenient and edifying occasion for
disclaiming Spinoza, and joined eagerly in the cry against him. He determined
accordingly to put off the publication; and the result was that the "Ethics" did not
appear in his lifetime. The work had a certain private circulation, however, among
Spinoza's friends. In the same year, 1675, we have a series of letters raising sundry
questions on the most abstruse points in the system. The objections here stated are
by far the most acute of those which Spinoza had to encounter from his various
correspondents, and it gave him no small trouble to answer them. He does not,
indeed, give a complete answer, and all but admits that he cannot. The chief part in
these letters is now assigned to Ehrenfried Walter von Tschirnhausen, a young
German nobleman, who was intimate with both Leibnitz and Spinoza, and
afterwards became a member of the French Academy of Sciences, and was
distinguished in mathematics and physics, and most chiefly by advances in optics. In
the construction of lenses, in particular, he arrived at brilliant results; and one may

28
Ep. LXII., §§ 2-4. The latest editor of the letters objects to Bruder's division into paragraphs as pedantic: a principle
which, if consistently carried out, would make it impossible to give a reference to any passage in most of the classics,
to say nothing of the chapters and verses in the Bible.
29
Ep. XVII., et seq.
30
Ep. XIX.

Benedict de Spinoza by F. Pollock p. 16

guess that this special study was the common ground on which his acquaintance
with Spinoza was first formed.31
In 1676 Spinoza received an extraordinary letter dated from Florence, and written
by one Albert Burgh, identified by Van Vloten's plausible conjecture with the fellow-
lodger whose facilities of intercourse with Spinoza Simon de Vries had envied, and
of whose temper and capacities Spinoza had expressed the doubtful opinion already
quoted. He now informed Spinoza that he had been received into the Church of
Rome, and proceeded, to denounce with all the zeal of a proselyte the profane
philosophy he had abandoned. He tells Spinoza that all his learning is merely
chimerical, and laments that he should suffer himself to be so deceived by the devil.
He asks, with delightful simplicity:—
How do you know that your philosophy is the best of all that are, or have been, or will be
taught in the world? Have you examined all the ancient and modern systems of philosophy
which are taught here, in India, and all over the face of the earth? And even if you have,
how do you know you have chosen the right one?
Spinoza framed the obvious retort in the easiest and most effective manner by
repeating the convert's own words:—
How do you know that your teachers are the best of all those who teach, or have taught, or
will teach other systems of religion? Have you examined all the ancient and modern
systems of religion which are taught here, in India, and all over the face of the earth? And
even if you have, how do you know you have chosen the right one?
Burgh's letter runs to a great length, and is a curious specimen of unrefined
theological amenity. I can give only a condensed extract as a specimen:—
Do not flatter yourself [he cries] with the reflection that the Calvinists, or so-called
Reformers, the Lutherans, the Mennonites, the Socinians, etc., cannot refute your
doctrine. All those poor creatures, as I have already said, are in as wretched a state as you,
and are sitting along with you in the shadow of death.
Worm and ashes and food for worms that you are, how dare you set up for knowing better
than all the Church? What foundation have you for this rash, insane, deplorable, accursed
arrogance? What business have you to judge of mysteries which Catholics themselves
declare to be incomprehensible?
One of his arguments is that it is presumptuous to disbelieve in alchemy and ghosts
because Julius Cæsar would probably not have believed a prophecy of gunpowder.
Finally, he threatens Spinoza with eternal damnation if he is not convinced. The
immortal discourse delivered by Brother Peter in the "Tale of a Tub," which ends
31
Tschirnhausen has received, I think, hard measure from Van Vloten and others for the unacknowledged use of
Spinoza's work in his "Medicina Mentis." Not only was it the habit of the time to be careless in this duty, but
Tschirnhausen may not unreasonably have been of opinion that his only way to secure a fair hearing for Spinoza's
ideas was to conceal their true authorship. It is certain, however, that he gave offence to both Huygens and Leibnitz by
appropriating, without acknowledgment, unpublished ideas which they had communicated to him (Van Vloten,
Benedictus de Spinoza, App. III.).

Benedict de Spinoza by F. Pollock p. 17

with invoking similar consequences on those who offer to believe otherwise, is
hardly a caricature of this effusion.
Spinoza's answer,32 which I have anticipated in part, was much the sharpest he ever
wrote. As far as argument went he had no serious task; the letter contains, however,
some striking passages. "As for your argument about the common consent of
multitudes, the unbroken succession of the Church, etc., that is just the story I know
of old from the Pharisees: for they produce their multitudes of witnesses with no
less confidence than the adherents of Rome." They are the most ancient, the most
persistent, the most obstinate of all the Churches; and if martyrs are evidence, they
have more to show than any other. Even in ecclesiastical discipline, he says, Rome is
surpassed by the Mohammedans, for they have had no schisms. This seems a rash
statement for a writer versed in Jewish philosophy, which abounds in allusions to
the different Mohammedan sects. It is, however, true in the sense that there has
been in Islam no great visible rupture like the Reformation in Europe.
Of Spinoza's habits in daily life we know just so much as to make us regret that we
do not know more. In outward appearance he was unpretending, but not careless.
His way of living was exceedingly modest and retired; often he did not leave his
room for many days together. He was likewise almost incredibly frugal his expenses
sometimes amounted only to a few pence a day. But it must not be supposed that
he shared the opinion of those who profess to despise man and the world. There
was nothing ascetic in his frugality, nothing misanthropic in his solitude. He kept
down his expenses simply in order to keep them within his means and his means
remained slender because he did not choose to live at other people's charges. He
used to say of himself that he was like a snake with its tail in its mouth, just making
both ends meet. Doubtless he was indifferent as to money and the world's goods,
but with the genuine indifference which is utterly removed from the affected
indifference of the cynic. A man to whom he had lent two hundred florins — which
must have been a considerable sum in proportion to Spinoza's income — became
bankrupt. Spinoza' s remark on hearing of it was this "Then I must lessen my
expenses to make up the loss; that is the price I pay for equanimity." In like manner
he kept himself retired not because he was unsociable, but because he found
retirement necessary for his work. There is ample evidence that he was none of
those who hate or disdain the intercourse of mankind. He kept up, as we have seen,
an extensive correspondence, of which we must regret that so little has been
preserved. He was free and pleasant in familiar conversation with the people of his
house. On Sundays he would talk with them of the sermon they had heard, and
would praise the sound learning and morality of their worthy Lutheran pastor, a
certain Dr. Cordes who was succeeded in his office by Spinoza's biographer Colerus.
Thus he won the esteem and affection not only of his philosophic friends, but of the

32
Ep. LXXIV.

Benedict de Spinoza by F. Pollock p. 18

simple folk among whom he lived; and such affection, as M. Renan has well said, is
in truth the most precious of all.
Thus he showed in action the ideal of life set forth in those writings which he could
not venture to publish in his lifetime, and which were supposed to strike at the
foundations of religion and morality. And what is the rule proposed for the guidance
of conduct by this man whose opinions have been called abominable, execrable, and
atheistic? In one word, it is this: to use the world with cheerfulness and content, not
abusing it, and remembering that the good of mankind consists in doing good to one
another. Here are some of his precepts: —
Nothing is more useful to man than man; men can desire nothing more excellent for their
welfare than that all should so agree in all things that the minds and bodies of all should
make up as it were one mind and one body, and all together strive to maintain their
welfare to the best of their power, and all together seek the common good of all.
Therefore reasonable men desire no good for themselves which they do not also desire for
other men, and so they are righteous, faithful, and honorable.33
Again he says that discontent and melancholy are good for no man: that it is the
part of a wise man to use the world and take all reasonable pleasure in it. It is good
to refresh oneself not only with moderate food and drink, but with pleasant
prospects, music, the theatre, and other things which every man may enjoy without
harm to his neighbor.34 In the same way, though his own life was most quiet and
sedentary, he strongly points out the advantage of being many-sided (as we should
now say) in both mind and body, and thereby being apt to receive new impressions
and put forth new activities.35 This is one of the points, in which he curiously
anticipates modern ideas about development and adaptation to one's environment.
He insists in the strongest terms on the importance of society to man's well-being.
Society is imperfect [he says], but even as it is men get far more good than harm by it.
Therefore let satirists laugh at men's affairs as much as they please, let theologians decry
them, let misanthropes do their utmost to extol a rude and brutish life; but men will still
find that their needs are best satisfied by each other's help, and that the dangers which
surround them can be avoided only by joining their strength .36
Again he says:—
He who chooses to avenge wrong by returning hatred for it is assuredly miserable. But if a
man strives to cast out hatred by love, he fights his fight in all joy and confidence, being
able to withstand many foes as easily as one, and having no need to call on fortune for aid.
As for those he conquers, they yield to him joyfully, and that not from failing strength, but
because they are made stronger.37
33
Eth. iv. 18, schol.
34
Ib. 45, schol. 2.
35
Ib. 38.
36
Ib. 35, schol.
37
Eth. iv. 46, schol.

Benedict de Spinoza by F. Pollock p. 19

Again:—
The spirit of men is overcome, not by force of arms, but by love and high-mindedness .38
The following maxim contains a lofty refinement of morality, if one may so speak, to
which it would be difficult to find a parallel even in Marcus Aurelius:-
If a man wishes to help others by word or deed to the common enjoyment of the highest
good, he shall first of all endeavor himself to win their love to him; but not to draw them
into admiration of him, that a doctrine may be called after his name, nor in any manner to
give cause for offence. Also in common talk he will avoid telling of men's faults, and will
speak but sparingly of human weakness. But he will speak largely of mans excellence and
power, and the means whereby it may be perfected; so that men may strive to live after
the commandment of reason, so far as in them lies, being moved thereto not by fear or
disgust, but in pure joyfulness.39
The mention of M. Aurelius suggests a parallel which I must note in passing, though I
have not room to work it out. There is a singular coincidence between the ethical
theory of Spinoza and that of the Stoics: I say coincidence, for Spinoza's slender
acquaintance with Greek philosophy precludes the supposition of borrowing. The
effort or impulse of self-preservation, which in his system is the mainspring of
action, is really involved in the Stoic conception of "following nature." He holds that
right action for man lies in the preservation — taken in the largest sense — of
mankind not of the individual merely, because, as a matter of fact shown by
experience, man is a social animal, and the welfare of the individual can be found
only in society. He likewise constantly speaks of a moral life as equivalent to a life
which is reasonable or according to reason. Both these positions are thoroughly
Stoic. Nor are these the only resemblances.
Spinoza's health had been failing for some years before his death, and he was
attacked by consumption, which possibly was aggravated by his work of glass-
polishing. The last illness was short and almost sudden. It came on the 21st of
February, I677. The day was a Sunday, and in the morning Spinoza had been talking
to his hosts, Van der Spyck and his wife, as was his custom. His friend and physician,
Lewis Meyer, came from Amsterdam at his request, and was alone with him at the
last. When the people of the house came home in the afternoon, they found
Spinoza dead.
Some time before this Spinoza had committed to Van der Spyck the trust of sending
his unpublished papers to a bookseller at Amsterdam. This was duly fulfilled, and in
the course of the same year the philosopher's posthumous works, including the
"Ethics," appeared. They were received with even more violent opposition than the
"Theologico-Political Treatise," and were forbidden by the States-General of
Holland.40
38
Ib. Appendix, cap. 11.
39
Ib. Appendix, cap. 25.
40
June 20, 1678. The full text of the ordinance is given in Van der Linde's Bibliografie, No. 24.

Benedict de Spinoza by F. Pollock p. 20

Spinoza's first biographer, Colerus,41 whose frank and honest admiration of Spinoza's
personal character went along with a no less frank detestation of his philosophy,
calls the "Opera Posthuma" abominable productions, and states that divers
champions were providentially raised up to confute them, who had all the success
they could desire. At this day there is probably no man living who has read these
refutations, while the fame of Spinoza stands higher than ever.
He was an outcast from the synagogue, a stranger to the Church, a solitary thinker
who cast his thought in difficult and startling forms. Notwithstanding all this, men of
divers nations and of widely different opinions have joined together to do honor to
the memory of Benedict de Spinoza, the philosopher whose genius has made him in
some sort the founder of modern speculation, and the man who in modern times
has given us the highest example of a true and perfect philosophic life.

It is impossible to attempt in this place any account of Spinoza's philosophy; and I

may add that he is eminently one of those writers whose thought cannot be learned
at second hand. It may be worth while, however, to give a very brief sketch of the
manner in which his influence has risen and spread in modern times.
Spinoza very soon had eccentric followers as well as bitter enemies in his own
country;42 but in the European world of letters he was entirely misunderstood and
neglected for the best part of a century. Leibnitz, the man most capable of doing
him justice, preferred to take the opposite course, and he was ill-treated even by
the people who might have been expected to take him up if only for the reason that
he was hateful to theologians. He fared little better at the hands of Bayle and
Voltaire than at the hands of orthodox apologists. To Lessing, the founder in some
sort of German literature and criticism, belongs the credit of having seen and
announced Spinoza's real worth. In a certain memorable conversation with Jacobi
he said, in so many words, "There is no philosophy but the philosophy of Spinoza."
This and much more came out after Lessing's death in a long correspondence
between Jacobi and Moses Mendelssohn, which finally degenerated into a
controversy. After the report of that one conversation, the record of all this is now
of little interest; from these, however, and from other letters preserved among
Lessing's works, the fact comes out that Lessing thoroughly understood Spinoza, and
had grasped the leading points more firmly than many of Spinoza ‘s later critics.
Meanwhile Goethe too had found out Spinoza for himself, and he has recorded how
the study of the "Ethics" had a critical effect on the development of his character. 43
41
The Dutch original of his book (No. 88 in Bibilografie) is extremely scarce. There is one copy in the Royal Library at
the Hague: the only other known one is, according to Dr. van der Linde, at Halle. The French version by which it is
commonly known, and which is often taken for the original, is also scarce, but has been several times reprinted. The
last reprint is in Dr. Ginsberg's edition of Spinoza's correspondence (Leipzig, 1876).
42
See Van der Linde's Spinoza, seine Lehre und dessen erste Nachwirkungen in Holland (Göttingen, 1862), and M. Paul
Janet's article in the Revue des Deux Mondes for July 15, 1876.
43
Aus meinem Leben, Book 14.

Benedict de Spinoza by F. Pollock p. 21

And his statement is fully borne out by the witness of his mature work. Goethe's
poems are full of the spirit of Spinoza; not that you can often lay your finger on this
or that idea and give a reference to this or that proposition in the "Ethics," but there
is a Spinozistic atmosphere about all his deeper thoughts. There is a set of
speculative poems, "Gott und Welt," which gives the most striking instances; but the
same ideas are woven into all parts of Goethe's work, and may be found alike in
romance, tragedy, lyrics, and epigrams.
The influence thus started in philosophy and literature spread rapidly. Kant's great
work in philosophy was independent of it; but a strong current of Spinozism set in
immediately after Kant, and acted powerfully on his successors. Fichte, though his
system widely departs from Spinoza's, had obviously mastered his philosophy and
felt the intellectual fascination of it; and many of his metaphysical ideas are simply
taken from Spinoza. Hegel said, "You are much of a Spinozist or no philosopher at
all." In like manner Schelling said that no one could arrive at philosophical truth who
had not once at least plunged into the depths of Spinozism. Novalis, Schleiermacher,
Heine, and many others have spoken of Spinoza in words of enthusiastic praise.
There is in Germany a whole recent literature of exposition and discussion about
him, which is fast increasing, and to give an account of which would itself need a
monograph.
In France the prevailing tone of philosophy has not been one that accords well with
Spinoza; but he has met there with keen and intelligent criticism, which is the next
best thing to intelligent admiration; and the beautiful address lately delivered by M.
Renan at the Hague (besides the serious attention given to the subject by M. Paul
Janet and others) is a sufficient proof that Spinoza has now at least found a response
in the highest thought of France.
In England Coleridge, in this as in other things the advanced guard of the peaceful
invasion of German culture and philosophy, spread the name of Spinoza, and much
of his ideas, among the friends whom he delighted by his conversation. He used to
say that the three great works since the introduction of Christianity were Bacon's
"Novum Organum," Spinoza's "Ethics," and Kant's "Kritik" Coleridge's own position
as to Spinoza was something like Jacobi's; he admired and honored him without
accepting his teaching. It may well be that some part of the nature-worship of
Wordsworth's poetry, which has been a most important element in our later English
literature, was derived through Coleridge from Spinoza. But we must come down
many years later before we find any certain manifestation of this part of Coleridge's
influence. Those who have spoken of Spinoza to English readers as he deserves to be
spoken of are still among us and working for us. We have Mr. G. H. Lewes's various
articles and writings on Spinoza, to which he has given a finished form in his "History
of Philosophy."' We have Mr. Froude's essay on Spinoza, perhaps the best general
account of his doctrine which has been given in our language for those who do not
make philosophy their special study. There is Mr. Matthew Arnold's admirable

Benedict de Spinoza by F. Pollock p. 22

monograph on the "Tractatus Theologico-Politicus," whose only fault is that he has
not completed it by a companion piece on the "Ethics." There are Mr. Huxley's
contributions to pure philosophy, which do not treat of Spinoza directly, but have
done much to put Spinoza's fundamental ideas into shapes adapted to the present
state of our knowledge. The same may be said of Mr. G. H. Lewes's most recent
work in "Problems of Life and Mind." Nor are other signs wanting of an active and
increasing interest in Spinoza both at home and abroad.
It has been said of Spinoza by an able and not unfair critic (M. Saisset), that his
theory was after all but a system, which has passed away like all other systems,
never to come back. It is true that Spinoza did not found a school, and had few or no
disciples in the proper sense. It would be difficult to name any one who ever
formally accepted his system as a whole. But the worth of a philosopher to the
world is measured not by the number of people who accept his system, or by the
failure of criticism to detect logical flaws in it, but by the life and strength of the
ideas he sets stirring in men's minds. Systems are the perishable body of philosophy,
ideas are the living soul. Judged by this test, Spinoza stands on a height of eminence
such as very few other thinkers have attained.

Colofon
Benedict de Spinoza by F. Pollock
In: Littell's Living Age Volume 136, Issue 1763, March 30, 1878
[Littell's Living Age was a magazine comprising selections from various British and American magazines and
newspapers. Generally, this magazine was published on a weekly basis, and was in print from 1844–1941.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Littell's_Living_Age/Volume_136/Issue_1763/Benedict_de_Spinoza
De eindnoten omgezet in voetnoten en op 14 januari 2011 als PDF geplaatst op:
www.benedictusdespinoza.nl/lit/Benedict_de_Spinoza_by F._Pollock.pdf

Benedict de Spinoza by F. Pollock p. 23